GwynO

Well I don't think it need be individual systems for each aircraft, rather like we have pretty generic radar modes between platforms is the way I see fire control. I don't think it would be much more difficult to add than guided weapons for example, but you seem like you know more than I about the complexities of coding. Myself I am little more than a curious mind, while I created a russian roulette program for a graphical calculator once (including blood effect) that was 10 years ago and since then I have no idea how to code anything! I know that perhaps I sound like I am beating a dead donkey over this issue, just it wont ever go away from the moment I start the bomb run in a Phantom, my heckles raise to the point where I am eschewing the Phantom altogether. I like the games still, for what they are warts and all and will no doubt continue to buy the products (I have every single Thirdwire title, SFP1 twice) but I don't want to do the math, based on the current rate of development it seems by the time such functions ever see the light of day, I would have spent way in excess of what I initially thought was reasonable for a crack at a bit of Phantom mud moving 7 years ago! I just think it is sad if this series were never to include basic CCRP type calculations because everything else about it imho is great, especially the way that we get patch support, mod tools and so on direct from the source. Not many developers will do that, so I will continue to chip in for a Thirdwire title every now and then in the hope that one day it will. In the meantime, with all due respect, I would continue to point it out in the hope that more people realise the existence of such systems as the norm, not as the exception. I am a bit of a stickler for correct form in all things, comes with marking grammar

Below is a copy paste of a post I submitted to the Thirdwire boards a few minutes ago, I am sure it makes sense to some of you too. This is not in any way meant to stir up animosity, I think you all know by now that I mean well for the developer, the game and the community. However I am not one to withhold what I feel is of benefit ultimately to all involved just because the flow of the crowd is against it. Having been playing the Thirdwire games for the best part of 7 years, I obviously like them. However it is no surprise to anyone who know me from CA that I am also flumaxed at the lack of fire control. To better explain what I mean, here is an example of my feelings. I am putting this up here as food for thought to the community and hopefully that by bringing it to the Thirdwire forums, TK might respond with his opinion on the matter. With all my best intentions, Gwyn. Indeed by the Gulf War, the emphasis was very much on precision weapons as opposed to precision aircraft. That is why the Tornado was largely obsolete for the beginning of the conflict. The Tornado as with the F-111 had been designed from the onset as a precision platform with computers to do almost everything apart from emergency procedures. Having said that the Tornos can and will drop CM's automatically or steer the aircraft automatically to avoid CFIG. The crew would load a tape cassette into the avionics computer with all the waypoints, target location and so on so that all they had to do was sit there in case the auto nav failed etc. At the IP the pilot would follow instructions on the HUD to reach the point that the computer determined was right for the ordnance selected. The computer would then release the bombs automatically so long as the pilot had given the computer permission to do so. Likewise the F-111 had automated bomb release as standard and a basic HUD/ optical system to show flight cues to the pilot to get him to steer to the correct point. Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing in any of these games to simulate this, perhaps the nearest is the waypoint needles in some cockpits. I have long thought these might serve a base for an ILS workaround but either way, there is provision for guided munitions in the games. All third party packs at CA include them as does SFP2 out of the box. For me though this is really a very hard thing to live with because the sim has sidestepped the 1950's and 1960's simulation in favour of the 1990's doctrine of cheaper, dumber planes, smart bombs. I just can't get the feeling of it "simulating" anything from flying a Phantom into the target area in direct mode (dive bomb or dead reckoning level bombing) it doesn't even have enough fun factor to make it rewarding as a game for me either now. I started playing these games in 2002 and stuck with the company, pouring money into the one man band that is Thirdwire in the hope that one day, I might at least be able to use the pipper as it was used in real life by Phantom pilots in Vietnam. The preferred method for bombing in the Phantom by far was dive toss, that is the pilot comes in low towards the target area, pulls up a good few miles out so there is some stand off distance between him and AAA etc. pitches down and adjusts to get the target just under the pipper, now for the good part... in the games we would have to drop the bombs now but of course they wont travel that far, but in real life when the pilot pressed the button it told the computer to work out where the point he was looking at was in relation to the aircraft very accurately indeed through the onboard systems, radar altitude, ranging and speed etc. all calculated to plot the perfect release point, the pilot then continued his dive to pick up a bit of speed and initiated a shallow or steep pull up depending on the parameters, the computer would then release the bombs at the correct point automatically. The accuracy was phenomenal, much better than the first CCIP HUD's, the dive toss method in a F4 Phantom was accurate enough to get a 500lb bomb within 50ft of the target from 5 miles away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (source from ex WSO group, perhaps someone may have an alternative source http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/jargon.htm) If only we had even some hint of that kind of automatic fire control in these games, it would really increase the fun factor as much as the immersion factor. I understand that TK wants to promote fun over realism but as I see it he can have both while not only satisfying both crowds (light gamers and simmers) but simultaneously removing the bug bears of both groups. Now not to single anyone out but a members response on CA to my observation is typical of the type of poo pooing that this subject always gets, the goal posts are moved by people who know da@@ well just how crucial radar bombing was to the success of the Phantom in Vietnam. One of the key reasons they were there at all is that they had the much vaunted ability to drop bombs very accurately from stand off distances using for example medium altitude release via offset radar bombing. It really is not very complicated to model into the game, fly your aircraft over the area from up high, follow the line on the radar, then the bombs are released at the right time by the computer. With some built in error into the calculation we even simulate real life problems such as windage or radar glitches. But some insist to only discuss the issue in terms of LORAN A the very first radio beacon navigation and bombing system used by B-29's in Korea, this was replete with problems as it was actually a WW2 development, but it was how fire control worked in the 1950's and it was rapidly and completely revolutionised by the time the F4 Phantoms were doing their thing over SEA. The Problem of this community to engage with the issue of what we do with aircraft in game as opposed to how they look, very much relies on the knowledgeable ones that know about the reality of 1960's - 1970's technology not to muddy the waters with descriptions of the very very early problems of fire control and accept that the game is lacking something far more integral to the F-4 generation than a carrier or a tail hook, of far far more importance than the placement of a few rivets. Anyway, I encourage you continue to enjoy the games and take from them what you will but personally I am holding my breath for the day when such features are included, that would tip this game for me closer towards "sim lite" than what it currently is rather than the opposite.

You raise some very good point here Typhoid, I do not dispute the fact that computer aids are not one hundred percent accurate, merely that they are and have been for quite some considerable time, the norm. I intend to continue this in another thread so as not to hijack this one further. I will say though that I disagree with your view that the reality of military aviation is to fly a depressed reticle over a target with absolutely no fire control whatsoever other than "one potato two potato" that strikes me as pure fantasy to be honest, that such dead reckoning bombing has been used since the 2nd World War is no doubt true, but it is by and far the exception to the rule. As for the fact that you correctly state, that fire control is prone to error, my attitude is to model it into the code. I believe there is or was an entry for CEP in the old weapon editor, perhaps TK has already been thinking along those lines, certainly I am not proposing he add something to the game that makes bombs magically fall off the aircraft and always hit the target, that would be just as bad as not having any fire control at all imho. With respect sir, Gwyn.

I knew that you knew about those, some people do, but too many don't. The OP brought up one of the most important issues of playability in the Thirdwire gamesm chiefly that what we do in game with "multi million dollar" jets is little more than what was expected in a Stukka divebomber or other such craft with a dumb gunsight reticle (i.e. no fire control). Yes LORAN A had its problems by all accounts, yes fire control was shoddy even into the 1960's but the important thing is it was the backbone of how it was done. I put my two pence in because I feel too many people on CA would be shocked to realise that in a real life shiny 1960's jet fighter like an F-4 well before CCIP or even a proper HUD to show it on ever saw the light of day, the norm for bombing was for the pilot to give permission to a computer to drop the bombs at the right time. Accurate or not, that is what the OP was enquiring about but when it crops up it seems to end up boiling down to the same argument of.. it didn't have a CCIP/HUD so it had nothing, which is wrong, it means rather that we have nothing in game as is to even begin to hint at the vaguest, slightest accuracy of what 1950's onwards bomer/attack fighters did because what they certainly did not do was rely on doing the all math themselves with only a depressable gunsight to help!! The game is fantastic at making things look good though, and there are ways to suspend the disbelief factor. I like to imagine for example that every time I fly a phantom on a strike mission in the Thirdwire games, that it took a hit in the avionics or they caught fire or something, or maybe the groundcrew tied one one the night before and installed it upside down. Other than that I turn on CCIP as a next best thing, I would suggest the OP to check out the knowledge base on adding it to aircraft if that might help to resolve the issue for now. Glorified stop watch! I don't know about that, from what I read it was quite a complicated glorification to say the least! Besides, the nuclear application of over the shoulder lob bombing grew from the low altitude level bombing for iron bombs that required a much smaller CEP. Dive toss as another preferred method had accuracy at least as good as the early CCIP enabled HUD's and all.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by these fires. Saw the news reports yeaterday, looks nasty.

Sorry to but in on this but Fubar you really do know what the OP is referring to is fire control, I suspect that you are well aware of the fact that radar bombing, loran, labs and ins based bombing modes where the norm for most bombing profiles since the 1950's. CCIP and hudology is something related but not the same thing at all. Plenty of aircraft had bombing computers to do the math without a hud, B-29 over Korea for example. As for the AIM-7 not giving you a clue when to fire, that guide is excellent, but in an F-4 you also have the in range light in the cockpit.

Horrible feeling to be drawn out to sea in a rip, luckily though, you can get out two ways. If you are feeling energetic, swim as hard as you can 90 degrees against the current, a rip is usually narrow enough that you can swim out to the side of it and then turn in to shore. Failing that if you are too tired, weak or lazy but casual about survival, float with it and hope it dissipates out until you can then start swimming at an angle away from it toward shore. The second way will require a lot more swimming in total but less frantic swimming to start with. In different circumstances, had you had the luxury of knowing that your dad and other people could summon help in the shape of a boat and the kids were slipping under with you, I would have probably suggested to you to get them to lay back and float with it. I think you should get some recognition for this mate! Takes a real hero to jump in like that when you know it can go pear shape. Well done!

AFAIK the settings in the missioncontrol ini effect all the aircraft, normal will be the level that they appear during most parts of the flight through their waypoints, low level effects how low they will go during ACM I think, as does high altitude, I may be wrong though. Also I thought perhaps the low level effects the altitude that the AI drop weapons from but doesn't seem to be the case as my big bombers drop from 30,000 as soon as I tell them to. The only irritant is that when you fly as a stirke fighter, you don't always want to alt N to the IP as you will have a very steep decent into the target area before you can attack, my solution is to keep two seperate instances of the file and swap out the appropriate one as needed. Also a word on setting the low altitude, if you fly on enemy skill level hard, this reduces the skill of your wingmen while increasing the AI so setting this value too low will result in more deaths by ACM to your AI flights, setting the enemy skill level to normal and reducing to 40 gives a better balance IMHO.

I think you edit the values for that in the MISSIONCONTROL.INI file, extract it from one of the cat files in the flight folder if it is not already in there. My section looks like this: [Altitude] Normal=9000 Low=1500 VeryLow=100 High=9500 VeryHigh=13000 When I alt N I find all aircraft are usually at 30,000ft. I think this alteration was reconmended with one of the Buff releases a while ago.

No worries, glad to be of some small use!

Sometime around 02/03 I was getting into Flanker 2.0, wondered if it was possible to mod the game and came upon Biohaz which brought LOMAC to my attention. I wish it hadn't because I have never ever managed to get it to work on any system I have owned (been able to afford owning!) since. I bookmarked the site and never bothered to make a membership until some time after getting into SFP1, in 2004 I became j0072132, downloaded a few files, don't think I ever posted anything on the forum back then though. I drifted away from PC games in general due to real life priorities (drinking/sleeping around) at uni. Drifted back into PC games sometime in 06 (glad I did) but couldn't logon anymore, hence new membership as MG subsequently KNX Edit: sight for site! Duh and supposed to be an English teacher (slaps head)

Thanks for the link! TK seems to remember that the Cobra they did was not for the USAF sim after all, maybe from the Jane's Longbow game? Didn't he work on that?

Neither: Star Wars is a glorified Western in space, Star Trek has silly weapons but the ideas of a laser beam that can be be stopped at a metre and half or so by soem unknown "force" is too unreal for me. Perhaps the least amount of suspension of belief is required by something like the Alien or Predator mythology than either of these clunky special effects and waffle fests. Oh and another thing that really, really gets on my wick about Star Wars is the incessant muzac that plays whenever anything at all happens, even more noticeable and annoying in the last round of films than the originals.

And many more!

in the nose section, purely nominal, you could as easily put it in the tail, but as the "nose section" better corresponds with where it was in reality, best stick it there :yes: It works as Tannethal says. Better than nothing, I may have missed something, I am determined tomorrow morning to look why I can't seem to get it to work with the nicer F-14 specific tga's, it is in my older install. As of now, off to dream circa 1991. Once again, thanks to all involved for a free addon equal to if not greater than a whole new release. :

To delete the pilots: Open the B-52D_DATA.INI, ctrl F "pilot" to take you to this part that says: SystemName[001]=Pilot SystemName[002]=CoPilot , I think the game likes everything to be sequential 1,2,3,4, etc. so delete both these and then change the next entry (SystemName[003]=NoseGearL) to SystemName[001]=NoseGearL and so on so it looks like 1,2,3,4,5 etc again with no missing 1 and 2. You only have to finish it for that paragraph. Ctrl F again to find next entry with "pilot" in section: // Crew --------------------------------------------------------- [Pilot] SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT SeatID=1 SetCockpitPosition=FALSE Position=-0.74,18.78,1.64 MinExtentPosition=-1.35,18.18, 0.08 MaxExtentPosition=-0.14,19.38, 2.10 CanopyNodeName= HasArmor=TRUE ArmorMaterial=STEEL Armor[FRONT].Thickness=6 Armor[RIGHT].Thickness=6 Armor[LEFT].Thickness=6 Armor[REAR].Thickness=6 Armor[TOP].Thickness=6 Armor[BOTTOM].Thickness=6 Delete the pilot paragraph and the co pilot paragraph, leave the tail gunner alone. If it doesn't work, I don't know what else to suggest. The deleted parts that read: Position=-0.74,18.78,1.64 MinExtentPosition=-1.35,18.18, 0.08 MaxExtentPosition=-0.14,19.38, 2.10 .. those are the numbers to change where the pilot sit, but it will take a lot of trial and error to figure them out. Hope it works for you.

I noticed that although the Tiseo tga files are present in the flight folder, the F-14A makes no use of them, stick this in the data ini to fix SystemName[009]=TISEO and [TISEO] SystemType=EO_CAMERA ModelNodeName=TV CameraFOV=15.00000 SightTexture=F-14_tiseo.tga SeekerRange=30.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=40.000000 SearchFOV=5.000000 SearchTexture=F-14_tiseo2 then this into the avionics ini [TVDisplayData] UseRadarTexture=TRUE ApplyFilter=TRUE FilterMaterial=DTVFilterMaterial OverlayTexture=cockpit\F-14A_DTV.tga [DTVFilterMaterial] IRImage=TRUE DepthBufferCheck=FALSE DepthBufferWrite=FALSE RenderedInOrder=FALSE AlphaTestEnabled=FALSE CullMode=NO_CULL LightEnabled=TRUE SpecularEnabled=FALSE EmissiveEnabled=FALSE FogEnabled=FALSE AmbientColor=1.000000,1.000000,1.000000,1.000000 DiffuseColor=1.000000,1.000000,1.000000,1.000000 ZBufferOffset=0.000000 PriorityLevel=2 BlendOp=MODULATE NumTextureStages=1 TextureStage[01].TextureName=cockpit\GreenTVFilter.bmp TextureStage[01].MipMap=TRUE TextureStage[01].FilterEnabled=FALSE TextureStage[01].StageColorOp=TEXTURE TextureStage[01].StageAlphaOp=DIFFUSE And the avionics are miles better looking from the previous version, well done to whoever did them! Edit: Ok the above noted method requires some additonal tga's from Typhoid's excellent D model, if you haven't got them try this instead: SystemName[009]=TCS [TCS] SystemType=EO_CAMERA ModelNodeName=TV CameraFOV=15.00000 SightTexture=TISEO_search.tga SeekerRange=30.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=40.000000 SearchFOV=5.000000 SearchTexture= It's late, i'm confusing myself.

Couldn't you just delete the pilot entries from the data ini for the new Buff and fly it without those sticky out pilots? Or better still reposition them to fit (would take quite a bit longer)

At least in a game we don't have to put up with that kind of frustration, see mig, shoot, kill, go home and fly another day..

YAP yes The USAF recruitment game by TK, unfortunatley not available as far as I know. But if enough people ask TK for it, who knows?

The Cobra depicted on the Thirdwire page is from a recruiting sim TK created for the US military according to Streakeagle.

Awsome mod! Big thank you to all involved! Was having a blast going through single missions in all the aircraft, but when it came to the SU22 stand in, noticed a problem, the swing wings deploy the wrong way around making it next to impossible to fly. AI can't fly it well like that either, saw my wingies crash into the ground like flies trying to land. Here is the section of the data ini needing change: [swingWings] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE CLiftdc=0.1081 CDdc=0.0264 DeltaStallAlpha=6.00 AreaRatio=1.00 DeploymentMethod=AUTOMATIC_MACH Setting[1].Angle=28.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=0.60 <---- I believe maybe swapping these lines does things right Setting[1].RetractValue=0.70 <---- Setting[2].Angle=45.0 Setting[2].DeployValue=0.70 Setting[2].RetractValue=0.85 Setting[3].Angle=63.0 Setting[3].DeployValue=0.85 Setting[3].RetractValue=0.80 MaxDeflection=63.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=1.0 AnimationID=2 No biggie just thought I would point that out, have already changed mine for this one http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5712 There may be one in Lindr's pack also http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=8096 haven't checked it out yet.

You watch how different it will be when (if?) we get the F-35B and a new carrier! All the best to you mate!

$$ Kerching!