FastCargo

Gepard, Thanks for the clarification...just needed to be sure. FC

Not sure why it does that in the first gens and not SF2.... Oh well, we can issue a hotfix for those who need it. FC

There is not one...but the current SF2 release can be adapted. FC

Look in the download section... http://combatace.com/files/file/9775-viper-pack-from-avsim/ You'll probably have to do a lot of messaging to get it to work right. FC

I'll tell ya, Pixar makes some good flicks. I think one of the reasons is that they really put their skull sweat into it. You watch some of the extras on the original Cars, Finding Nemo, Toy Story, etc, you can see just how much research and front end work they do. It's almost like a craft vs a production. Dreamworks makes some fun animated flicks, but Pixar really does go just that extra mile. FC

That is not a picture of an F-20 cockpit...in fact it looks a LOT like the stock ThirdWire F-15A cockpit. FC

Can you provide a screenshot and tell us which model does this? I don't remember seeing this issue anywhere... FC

It shouldn't be a problem...I haven't encountered anything yet that won't work in SF2 with just some ini adjusting. FC

Yes and no. The Hornet, like some other modern FBW aircraft has what are called 'soft limits'. The computers will help you stay within those limits either by an outright stop or by taking out your inputs as you approach the limit. In the Hornet (I think), there is a switch or toggle that allows the pilot to go right past the limiter if he needs it. In the B-1B (which is partial FBW), if you pull fast enough, you can go past all 3 limiters. In either case, the idea is that if you REALLY need it, the ability is there for you to use. Other aircraft that are FBW though can have 'hard limits' that will not let you exceed them no matter what the case (F-16, most Airbus airliners, etc)... FC

It won't work until you patch it to the latest level (October 2008 patch). FC

It's very simple. Look for the MaxG parameter...that will tell the sim the Max G the AI will pull...but it also forms the base for the StructuralFactor multiplier in the Component sections. This is a simple multipler that tells the sim at what multiple of MaxG to start applying damage, to the point of destruction if you apply either too much past the multiplier or hold past for too long. This mimics real life 'soft limit' aircraft like the Hornet. FC

Lexx is absolutely correct. There aren't folks in towers all along the coast watching the skies...that went out a long time ago. Plus, no one is going to say "Yep, it was a commerical flight" right away because there may be something they don't know...good luck pinning down someone to an explanation that happens right this second. Far easier to say "Nope, it wasn't this, this or this" first, then come up with the actual explanation after EVERYTHING else is weeded out. FC

Easy enough to do with 2 networked computers. FC

Dude, where ya been? Lots o' stuff been going on here... Anyway, I'd love to work on it, but I'm up to my eyeballs in stuff. Anyone else? FC

Not necessarily. Older jets designed during the Cold War were hardened against EMP. They even do validation testing on a giant (as in it can hold a B-52) wooden stage at Kirtland AFB and bombared the aircraft with EMP to make sure the shielding works. This, of course, is to defend against EMP generated by your own weapon delivery. It does not necessarily defend against so-called 'Enhanced EMP' weapons. FC

Well, our resident F-5 driver Jug said that the F-5E/F model did not have reduced rudder authority, but had the full 30 degrees available, so I'd imagine the NF-5 had it too. FC

How about losing the attitude and just tell us what you are trying to achieve and we'll tell you how it can be done. FC

A blast from the past...employment techniques for those not doing the PGM thing: http://combatace.com/topic/18379-how-not-to-get-boned-flying-the-bone/ FC

Have you not been paying attention? http://combatace.com/files/file/11482-b-1b-redux/ FC

Or you could do it the right way in a B-1B. I've set it up to drop gravity nukes at .9 mach and 1300 AGL....it would be lower except the aim doesn't simulate timed weapons. FC

This is exactly correct. Landings are done in cross control at touchdown...most heavy aircraft cannot handle large sideways loads unless they have steerable landing gear. It is easier to simply do a wing low landing and let one main gear touch first. Aircraft may fly on final in a crab (ie sideways, wings level) to maintain ground track, but then transition to the wing low method in the flare, or accept a small sideways load for light crosswinds. Now, lets talk about the 'knife edge pass'. What makes you assume that a stock aircraft, even a fighter type aircraft can maintain altitude on a knife edge pass? You'll note in some aircraft, that pass is actually started in a climb, then rolls to 90 degrees bank, and even with full rudder deflection, the nose slowly tracks downward. What the crowd sees is an illusion caused by looking slightly upward as the aircraft traverses the showline. For, other aircraft, they are slightly modified to exceed their normal rudder authority at high speed. High yaw angles, especially in aircraft with long, snaking intakes, are not something jet engines enjoy, and so at higher speeds rudder authority is actually reduced. This even occurs in jetliners for the same reason (and to avoid high sideloads). For instance, in the T-38A, which when it used to be in the Thunderbirds, would do knife edge passes. However, the stock T-38A could not hold altitude long enough to complete such a pass at the rudder authority of 6 degrees. The rudder actually had the ability to go a full 30 degrees, but that was only with the landing gear down. However, for the Thunderbirds, that limiter was removed in order to be able to do things such as a knife edge pass...while still being able to say the T-birds used a 'stock' aircraft. There isn't anything that says they haven't done the same thing for other aircraft. Now, finally, lets talk about rudders in high speed, swept wing aircraft. When any aircraft goes into a standard turn, more lift is created on the upper wing than the lower wing. This in turn creates more induced drag, which pulls the upper wing away from the turn (called adverse yaw). This can be countered by pro turn rudder, either manually, or automatically using flight control augmentation. Another way (which a lot of aircraft have done since the 1930s) is by deflecting the ailerons asymmetrically (sometimes called frise ailerons), increasing the deflection of the downward wing's aileron to increase the drag to match the upward wing's induced drag to coordinate the turn. Next, when swept wing aircraft are put into a yaw, the forward moving wing presents more leading edge toward the relative wind, increasing lift, which increases induced drag, and increases frontal drag, both of which contribute to the lateral stability of the aircraft by tending to take out the yaw. So, after that explanation, lets talk about the situation where you use full rudder to try to turn a swept wing fighter, while using cross aileron to keep the wings level. First, rudder authority may have already been limited by the hardware or software at higher speeds. Secondly, the inherent drag properties of the forward wing in a yaw situation contribute to additional drag that wing is exerting against the turning force of the rudder. Third, the differential aileron you are using to keep the forward wing from rising is also adding more drag on that wing then the rearward wing. Fourth, the form drag of the air over the fuselage sideways will try to force the nose against the direction of yaw. All of these forces could easily add up and counter the rudder deflection and reduce the ground track change to trival levels, if any. So, the answer is that there may not be enough rudder authority to change the ground track in the situation you stated in real life. It depends on the aircraft and specific situation. FC

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/11/video-kcbs-chopper-tapes-mystery-missile-launch-off-california-coast/1?csp=34news The most likely explanation. FC

The easiest way to install everything is simply to copy all the directories (Effects, Sounds, Objects) straight into whatever mod you want to fly the Bone in and allow overwrites. FC

Well, it may not, but SF2 does give you extra credit for additional targets you destroy, so you can certainly make your own secondary target. In addition, I've noticed in campaign missions, even when I was doing my primary mission, radio calls were going out for things like CAS. Seems like a mix-and-match load would be perfect for a campaign...the problem is having a good campaign to use...the NatoFighters 4 campaigns only go up to 1986 (which is fine if you resolve yourself to only using nukes...). Now, if someone made a NF4 campaign that spanned 1992 to 1998, you could have a challenge in that you could do secondary CAS if you encounter it, but you only have unguided bombs. FC