FastCargo

By the way, I'd imagine the Lightning cockpits that look correct in DX9 probably have the necessary texture. I'd say extract both cockpit directories (the bad ones and the good ones), find which texture the good one has that the bad one doesn't, make a copy of the texture needed and place it in the bad cockpit directory, then place the updated cockpit directory in the relevant Lightning directories and see if that fixes the issue. I have not investigated this part yet to see if it fixes it. FC

I'll tell you the specific issue. I don't think it's a 'no material' assigned issue...otherwise, those parts would actually glow white and be visible through the other parts of the cockpit LOD. What you are seeing is a missing texture. What happens is that any LODs using the newest exporter for 3ds MAX if missing a texture will be white under DX9, but be black under DX10. Here's an example (work in progress): What it should look like (Win7, DX10) What it looks like if the texture is missing (Win7, DX10) What it looks like if the texture is missing (Win7, DX9) Exact same LOD, all I did is temporarily rename the texture bitmap. So the Lightning cockpit is missing a texture...just in DX10, the 'naked' mesh happens to be the color that is desired. Good news is all you have to do is find the texture and it's fixed, no MAX/LOD change needed. FC

I'm sort of with ya on that...it lacks a sort of grace...looks like it goes fast by just plain bullying the air aside. Don't get me wrong, I'm in awe of its performance....but I'll never be a fan of its looks. FC

Trust me, it is WAY easier to do than it sounds. FC

Please, like the USA is a great hosting place for soccer...are you kidding? The audience for it just isn't there in terms of percentages. Frankly, I've never 'gotten' the fascination with professional sports. Folks who can recite the most trivial sport statistics I've ever heard of, yet don't know why paying the 'minimum balance due' on a credit card is a BAD idea (quiet Lexx_Luthor...no comments from you ) just baffle me. It's kind of like the entertainment industry in general...why do we really give a much of a rat ass as we do? You want a change for stuff like this? Simple...walk away. Don't watch it, read about it, or discuss it with friends. Let players go on strike, let entertainers burn themselves out in creative ways...just don't care. Spend time watching local teams, intramural, or coach. Listen to your local bands, watch a local play. It's amazing what else out there is interesting when you don't care about big entertainment. FC

Eric, That's a great pic...love how the background is just slightly fuzzy. FC

That'll leave a mark... FC

Lord Vader, your bomber is ready... FC

WOOT! FC

First, if the skins already have a Textureset.ini, you do not need to add the entry into the F-8.ini file. Also, are you trying to run an SF2 aircraft in a first generation sim? If so, you may run into problems because the ini's are not in ANSI. FC

Wow...awesome photos!!! I've seen stuff like that before in the plains states...that's why all the smart folks have storm shelters... FC

I have no problem with it as long as it's voluntary and the person in question is fully briefed on the consequences. Besides, it sounds like it's a LONG way off, and the testing methodology seemed to me to be VERY preliminary. FC

I won't be bashful...EricJ's version is superior in every way except for frame rates. I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone who will disagree. FC

My opinion is that you only really have 4 axis at most. Pitch, yaw, and maybe roll for rotations. Zoom for translation. All you have to do is look at that entry you see there, specifically: Note I don't see anything referencing vertical or horizontal translation. If such parameters were asked for in the ini, I think you could get somewhere. However, I could be wrong, I really haven't played with this sort of thing for very long. FC

Easy to say, much harder to do. FC

Monty, One more idea... You can set the 'real' speedbrakes to 'blow back' at 735 kph. That way, no matter what, your speedbrakes will never exceed 50 degrees, but you can still get either light at the appropriate time. FC

Well, you could install the light in the same location, but set it to speed...that way it always comes on when you exceed that speed, just like your 'speedbrake' would come out...for all intents and purposes, it looks the same.... FC

Well, if you add an invisible link between the fuselage and the brake and assign it to your surface you want to deflect automatically. But instead of assigning it as a speedbrake, make it a HIGHLIFT_DEVICE, like a flap. Then make an entry similiar to this one, setting it to AUTOMATIC_SPEED: Note the value in bold...that's the drag coefficent due to surface deflection. Simply ramp that up to a high value, and at the desired speed, the speedbrake will deploy and should slow you down. FC Also, the same mesh cannot be assigned to 2 surface controls except in the case of elevator/aileron...you will need another node inbetween the fuselage and the speedbrake mesh.

"You know what makes me sad...YOU DO!!!!" FC

Thanks for the laughs Leslie! Also, for those who don't know, he was a serious actor when he was younger, playing the young intrepid captain in 'Forbidden Planet'... FC

Other than making him a weapon...or dummy gunner, no. FC

Yea, pretty much...way too many variants and WAY too many numbers (573???)... I would disagree slightly with the assessment of the B-70 as a viable weps platform there Spinners. I think it could have been fiscally more optimized assuming that A) the B-52 was retired completely and B) the B-1 would have never been developed. The weaknesses of course would be that each B-70 could not have carried as many ALCMs as a B-52 could (the internal bay is smaller), and of course the aircraft would only have been medium to high bombers. The only way you could have compensated for this was to retain the FB-111s and/or even the B-58 as your low level penetrators. Also, the B-70 couldn't have done anything in the Vietnam War until the very end when the first PGMs arrived. Ultimately, assuming a war was never fought, the B-70A would definitely have been only good for SIOP from inception until about the mid-90s. The RS-70B of course would have been better, but it's survival over a dedicated IADS would be questionable (there is some debate as to how effective SAMs would have been against a Mach 3+ target at 80000+ feet). However, once, the use of JDAMs became wide spread, along with the migration back to med/high altitude bombing (everyone can afford AAA, but not everyone can afford big-ass SAMs), the B-70/RS-70 would have come back into it's own element as a standoff PGM platform. It's all debatable because none of it happened...it's too bad though. FC

If you really want to get 'what-if', check out this website: http://tbo.wikidot.com/front-door I first encountered it when I was doing research on the Valkyrie and came across this website that had this huge list of variants that would have been created: http://tbo.wikidot.com/north-american-b-70-valkyrie I then worked back upward from there...some interesting, if not VERY improbable stuff (President Patton then President LeMay?)... FC

Believe me, I've been asking myself that same question...basically, I've been trying to figure out how the aircraft would have evolved operationally had she gone into service. The one thing I can almost guarantee is that she would not have transitioned to the low altitude environment. From what I have read, a couple of trials at low level resulted in very rough rides, which I can believe. The stresses put on the 'neck' of the aircraft probably would have greatly increased the rate of metal fatigue, as well as wearing out the pilots, which is important for long duration flights. So, assuming the aircraft stayed in it's natural enviroment (high altitude, medium to high speed), the paint scheme would have stayed either the white, the IR silver, OR evolved to an an 'all black' approach like the SR-71. What we can also assume is that a conventional 'carpet bomber' the B-70 would not have been. Radar bombing from BUFFs at similiar altitudes was shown to be pretty inaccurate (CEP measured in the 1/2 mile range or more)...now imagine the same thing 30000 feet higher and 3 times faster. Your 'stick' of bombs would be spread out across half the state of Alaska. However, as a PGM carrier, she would have been much better suited...her altitude and velocity greatly increasing the range of any weapons she drops to almost standoff numbers. Enter the RS-70B...with a recon/laser 'pod' where the front weapons bay would be (first generation device). Instead of a flight of F-4s taking down the Thanh Hoa Bridge on 13 May 1972 with PGMs, a prototype RS-70B does it instead with the built in laser pod in the front bay. The wing pylons are retrofitted with the ability to carry LGBs instead of SRAM/gravity nukes/Skybolt. You now have almost the carrying capability of the B-52 (with externals) with much higher altitude and speed capability (though the speed capability is reduced significantly with large amounts of external weapons). And of course, you'd probably end up with a C model at the advent of JDAMs in large numbers... FC

I don't remember ANY of the SF series installing DirectX...anyone else? FC