FastCargo

I have both the X-15 and XB-70 books by Specialty Press and I'd agree, fantastic books. Also, hypersonic is easy (which is why we don't do it anymore)...with rockets and high altitudes. It is MUCH harder at low altitudes with air breathers...that's why success has been more limited. Not due to efforts in efficiency...which are important. FC

Damn straight! :) FC

Easy there trigger...it has only been a week. FC

Modifying a 767 to be a 737 would take a LOT of work. It's better to start fresh for the following reasons: 1. Large engined versions of the 737 (-300 and later) have distorted engine intakes. They are flat bottomed for ground clearance unlike the round intakes of the 767. 2. The cockpit area is more pointed for a given length. The cockpit windows themselves would have to be resized to be proportional. 3. The body tube on a 737 has a 'crease' on the side just above the wing line. The 767 has no such crease. 4. The wheels on the landing gear actually remain exposed when the aircraft is 'clean'. The 767 has a more conventional arrangement. This of course doesn't address things like the wing and tail being completely different between the aircraft, including the 'cuts' of the flaps, slats, ailerons, etc. I'd just start from scratch verses trying to twist, cut and bend. FC

The Strike Fighters 1 series (Strike Fighters/Wings Over Vietnam/Wings Over Europe/Wings Over Israel) are the programs that support multiplayer. FC

The A-6 model is a SF2 compliant model, but the data.ini is probably for a SF1 model. The SF2 models have built in fuel tanks. FC

You can have other flights start somewhere other than the runway...but Gepard is correct. Your own flight will be different. FC

Yes, if there is an ini you don't want overwritten, just enable it as 'Read Only' in the Properties. FC

No talking LSO and as far as I know, no mods to make the IFLOLS functional. FC

No, not necessarily. The Super Hornet (because the basic model was so poly intensive) I did low poly models of. The big thing is that the meshes you delete (if you delete any) have to be in order like I showed up top, and I THINK any deleted meshes can't be referenced in the data.ini file (ie you can't reference a pylon that doesn't exist in your lower poly versions of the model). Here's what I did for the Super Hornet: http://combatace.com/topic/35624-my-projects-ericj/?p=247486 FC

Yes. Usually it's because you are not 'pruning' the model in order. In other words, if this is your high poly model: - Fuselage -- Wing --- Engine You cannot do this: - Fuselage -- Engine You have to do this: - Fuselage -- Wing FC

Until it's out....it's vaporware. FC

Ed is correct. Bump and specular mapping is treated like any other texture by the game engine. However, the model needs to have it built in MAX initially and exported. A good example is to look at the OUT file of one of my models...you can see all the additional entries for a model with bump mapping: Note the different entries under each material line: Self-illumination enabled - For slimers Transparency enabled - For your lenses, cockpit windows, etc zzz.jpg - Basic texture zzzyyy.jpg (bump map) - Bump maps zzzxxx.jpg (specular map) - Specular maps If you don't see these kind of entries under the material section in the OUT file, the model won't have that feature enabled. FC

And here I was thinking this was going to be a new First Eagles campaign... FC

I know a few folks in the field that have been working on this kind of stuff for decades. Only relatively recently has the technology gotten cheap enough and small enough to catch up to the concept. FC

I've had Bluestacks for a while...problem is that it is kind of dodgy for controller support (ie using a joystick in place of the accelerometer)... FC

You've got me curious...how is that working out for you guys? I'd be curious as to the costs (size of staff, pay scale, expenses) verses revenue. How much of that can you talk about? I think that's what also killed the C-130 for a while... I also think it's absolute horseshit that an aircraft paid for with tax dollars cannot be considered public domain for a virtual representation of it. Hey, you want a developer to acknowledge the source, sure (ie a simple 'Created by Lockheed' or some such), but license fees should be verboten on a publicly funded aircraft. That goes for things like the military services too. If I want to create a military looking model rocket with 'US AIR FORCE' on the side as a kit, that should be okay...if you want to have a kit builder put something like 'Not An Official Representation of a US AIR FORCE Weapon System' on it...sure. We pay for this stuff once...we shouldn't have to keep paying for it. FC

Controllers, sure...panels, probably not. FC

Well, some modders here initially said that converting a model to work in DCS from TW wouldn't be that difficult (assuming you had the MAX file of course). However, as far as I know there has not been ONE model that this has happened with. From what I understand, the amount of effort to program in LUA (the language used for things like avionics) was seriously underestimated. Also, I have to chuckle a bit. One of the reasons folks would bitch about the TW sims was the constant patching. That doesn't seem like it's going to happen anymore. Any mods you create for SF2 will probably work forever. Yet no one seems to bring that up as a positive... DCS seems to run pretty well for me, but I have a fairly modern gaming laptop. FC

Though parts of the engine were the same, SF2:NA did have some significant code changes from the base SF2 engine. And as we all know, coding core is different from coding add-ons. My guess is that most of the time and money was in making those changes (rendering engine, naval battles, etc). I disagree with the old 'pull a model off the net' way of quickly populating a DLC or EXP. Having done this a few times, I can tell you it is rare that a model not built from the ground up to be used in SF will work without a serious amount of time and effort to get right. In a LOT of cases, it's better to build the model yourself rather than trying to adapt from another source. Do335, your math got me curious...I did a bit of research and found this: http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1279/game_developer_salary_survey_.php?page=1 It's an article that came out in January of 2014, which shows average game developer salaries for 2013. Interesting is that except for QA, in the Southern US, average salaries start at just over $60k and top out just under $80k. Again, these are AVERAGE salaries. So, assuming a two man shop, and each of them earning $70k, you're talking $140k per year just for the salaries. Which would take about 4700 sales of $30 games to recoup. Of course, this doesn't include ANY other costs, like standard utilities, server costs, and anything else that an e-business/game developer requires. What I thought was interesting was reading the comments about the expansion/explosion of mobile gaming and how there is a lot of consternation that all other types of gaming (console, PC, etc) may be in serious trouble. Fundamentally, I think the hardcore, post Korea, military combat flight simmer is a niche of a niche market. And I don't know if it's going to get much better. FC

Good luck and do well! FC

I hate to say this, but none of this surprises me. One only has to look at the lack of titles that cover the same material (post Korean Air War) to come up with a conclusion. This shit is hard and expensive to do at any level much above pure arcade. Even DCS has been focusing on WWII, with the newest (beta) release an F-86F...no EW environment at all. FC

I remember reading an article in Wired magazine about the salvage operation of the MV Cougar Ace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Cougar_Ace Got a whole new appreciation for how dangerous large boat salvage ops can be. Glad to hear no one was killed during this salvage op. Damn shame it had to be done at all. FC

Minor point here...to save money, you fly higher, not lower. The routing is more critical to fuel savings than altitude. If they were barely above the no fly zone, it was probably because of a combination of weight and direction of travel. I still disagree about modern airliners operating in war zones. The majority of threats are from MANPADS, which modern airliners are resistant to. The risk is significantly less, especially at altitude and cruise speed from a MANPAD for a modern airliner. If you look at airliner downings over history, almost all of the have been slower, lower, smaller props/turboprops...much more vulnerable to any gomer with a shoulder fired MANPAD. The big airliner downings have been due to either large SAMs (MH, Iran Air) or fighters (KAL). The one exception was DHL, and even then, that aircraft was recovered and repaired. It's simple...you should not operate airliners in an active combat area where combatants have medium to high altitude capable SAMs. What costs more...increased fuel usage or a downed aircraft? FC

Yes, all US airlines are affected if they had operations in that area. That includes cargo, charter and CRAF. Make no mistake, this was different from your standard MANPAD threat. Active combatants, both (or three...depending on how you view the conflict) all have medium range SAMs in that area. Nobody is going to fess up to this one anytime soon...unfortunately. FC