FastCargo

If you want easy help, we need more information. And screenshots would be nice. FC

Dude, it's a C-17. FC

I don't know, not hatin on Apple, just hear me out a minute. My wife has a Dell Mini 9 netbook, basically the same size form factor. Now, my wife's computer is a very useful device. It has a real usable keyboard, good for touch typing, yet fits into a standard size mom purse (not a 'night on the town' purse). You can do everything on it that 95% of people need, other than CPU heavy stuff (video editing, gaming, etc)...basically everything the iPad does now. I'm not questioning the interface of such a device. It's well known that if anyone can make a device very user friendly, it's Apple. What I am questioning is the overall use. The problem I see is that in a lot of ways, this device isn't that useful. It's too big for being a cell phone like device, but too small (and no keyboard) to use as a real laptop. The closet analog is the Kindle, which is useful, but as a reader only. I know it will come with a plug in keyboard. My question is why they didn't do something similar to a TabletPC setup, but using a smaller version of a MacAir chassis. Now, not only can you do everything the iPad does, but have a real keyboard when you need it with the same small form factor. Another way to think of it is for road warriors specifically. Assume the iPhone has you covered, but now you need devices to work, web surf, watch movies, email, etc. You can either have two devices (an iPad and a laptop), or one device (a TabletPC in the same form factor as an iPad). I just think people tend to reach a limit of what they'll carry with them on a regular basis. Before anyone says that Apple can't stumble....anyone remember Apple TV? Yea, that didn't exactly work out as expected. I'll be curious to see how well this works. FC

Works in Win7 x64 just fine. I suspect your disk has a problem or the driver for your CD-ROM drive is old. FC

Yep, I can second that...you don't want the older models. The newer models (with cockpits no less) are MUCH better overall. FC

2 ways to fix this: 1. Move the cockpit using the cockpit.ini file. or 2. Put the SystemName line that contains the canards on a Component where the ShowFromCockpit= parameter is FALSE. FC

You have to use 3ds MAX to bring models into SF2. FC

Easy as pie. Goto your gallery and click on the picture you want to put in the forum. In the lower right of the page, you'll see an area called Share. Under that, you'll see a line called Image Link, with a URL in the box. Copy that URL. Then, in the thread you want the shot, goto the Quick Post section, you'll see a button that looks like a picture, and it says Insert Image. Click on that button, and a small window will pop up asking you to put in the URL you just copied. Paste the URL, then click the Insert Image button and it will write a line in your post that looks like your URL with |img| and |/img| after it. That's it! You should end up with something like this: FC

Well, your pics seem to show up just fine in your album (though your album is marked Private, not sure why). Anyway, once they are in your album, it's easy to get them into a thread. FC

That and the engine doesn't support 'docking' aircraft per se. You can start that way, but you can't 'finish' that way. FC

Yes and no. You can get it for SF1...but the SF2 version hasn't come out yet. It'll mostly be 'under the hood' refinements. FC

If you think that's good, just wait til you see what Fubar can do with the flight model...:). FC

There is a much faster, shorter way to hide parts. Go into the data.ini and go to the [Component] section, add lines like this: Component[010]=HidePart1 etc, etc Then, farther down the data.ini, insert something like this for each part you want to hide: [HidePart1] ParentComponentName=FakeFuselage <---- This can be named anything as long as it's not part of the model ModelNodeName=RightWingPylon <---- Part you want to hide DestroyedNodeName=RightWingPylon <---- Part you want to hide (Same as previous line) DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE HasAeroCoefficients=FALSE That's it...now you're not taking up WeaponGroup slots and they always stay deleted. FC

Well, it would depend on what the engine problem was really. A small sensor glitch probably isn't a big deal (ie the N1 sensor shows zero, but the engine is running just fine). However, I know that in the C-130 (a 4 engine turboprop), an engine problem is a BIG deal...the main concern is that if the engine locks up while the blades are flat against the wind, you now have a big drag device as well as a loss of thrust on the same side of the aircraft. Obviously, a C-130 guy (Dels?) could fill us in on the details of such a thing, but I know oil malfunctions for engines in the C-130 are 'shut it down right the hell now' events. I have no idea if a similiar issue would exist for the A400M, in that technology has significantly advanced since then. Realistically, it really would depend on the specific problem that they encountered. It honestly could have been very minor, especially with all the extra test equipment I assume would have been on the aircraft. FC

I'm getting a few PMs about not being able to use the aircraft in the Gen 1 series of sims (SFP1/WOV/WOE/WOI). For the heck of it, I tested the F-15SE in WOE last night using my guide in the Knowledge Base (located here : http://forum.combatace.com/topic/43234-how-to-make-a-sf2-aircraftweapon-useable-in-gen-1-thirdwire-sims/ ) It showed up and worked immediately folks. The only thing I had to do was resave the F-15SE.ini file in ANSI format (it was in Unicode). Please make sure you fully follow that thread, and you should be okay...there may be minor things that need tweaking, but otherwise... FC

Okay. From what I understand, you are on WOE old version. Did you patch to the Oct 08 standard? Eariler versions handled weapons differently. Please provide the links to the chaff and flares you downloaded - I suspect it is an older version. FC

This is the double edged sword of making yourself available for comments and critiques. On the one hand, it's a good thing...you can get good ideas for fixes or additions, or get an idea in general of where the next project should go. On the other hand, it also means you set yourself for people who basically try to tell you how to do things without having any real knowledge of how it works...all they see is the end result, not the behind the scenes calculations. You can easily say that he should have a thick skin...but even the thickest skin can get worn away by constant poking and rubbing of the same area. Frankly, I think TK does a pretty good job of not telling people to go pound sand. Heck, I've even gotten pissed reading the boards and I don't even make the sim! Some folks show an extraordinary amount of arrogance in assuming that because something sounds easy to implement that it is easy to implement, or that if only this feature was added, the sim would take off, or have way more numbers of buyers than it does. Here's the thing...TK makes his living off the sim. Period. Far as I know, this is the only thing he does to make any money. Go read about the origin of SFP1 sometime. For a while, he had no car, was riding the bus to work, had blown most of his savings to start up the TW series, was eating Ramen noodles for dinner. Yea, not exactly poverty, but nothing like the budgets other sims had. Also, remember he had been part of big budget sims (Longbow 2, EAW, etc) and so has seen the sim dynamic from that end as well. Do you see what I'm saying? He thinks about this kind of stuff EVERY DAY...he HAS to. He's had to calculate what works, what doesn't, what's the best return on investment...because otherwise, he may not eat. So, the next time you decide that if TK would only do THIS, that he would make tons of money, unlimited customers, and the perfect sim, maybe you want to keep that to yourself instead...because I'm pretty sure he's already heard about it. Finally, I leave you with a comment from a professional maker of sims (I mean the multi million dollar sims the airline and military use): "If we were to implement everything that a pilot would want into the sim, the sim would end up costing more than the actual aircraft it's based on." FC

Sounds like exactly what would happen flying an ultralight into a building storm. The violent up and downdrafts would probably rip such an aircraft to shreds. FC

Dude, Okay, take a breath. If you can post on a forum, you can change or look up your keys. Goto Options, Control, Customize. There's a list of commands...click on the command with your mouse (the left mouse button), then press the key you want to use. Or if you don't want to change the keys, just scroll through until you find the command you are looking for. So easy, a Mac user can do it. FC

Out-frakkin-standing!! FC

Heh, the guy in front has got to be a fighter pilot: "Hey, I look good don't I?" FC

Besides, the F-16, A-7, F-8, etc use similar intakes and FOD isn't any more of an issue if one is prudent. FC

Super F-15 Pack updated with cockpit changes to delete triangles (thanks Mago!) and ini changes to delete small white square in right MFD. FC

The F-14A SF2 update uploaded here is not up to SF2 Dec 2009 standards. File has temporarily been made unavailable. FC

The parameter affects gravity like you think it would. It does not do global effects (ie in real life, the air would be much less dense) but other than that, you could set up a dogfight on Mars. Again though, the AI couldn't handle it. FC