JSF_Aggie

You need to look at the some of the stock air-to-air missions that came with the game. You will never get any AI to engage with the .msn file you posted. You're missing the "ObjectiveID" line from every air group. Add "ObjectiveID=2" to the F-4 group, and "ObjectiveID=1" to the MiG-21 group and see what happens. Slow down a little before you make a blanket statement such as, "the wingman won't engage". The AI will engage enemy airtargets in Single Missions, campaigns, and even user-written missions, provided you have everything required in the .msn file.

If you try to make a ground object out of an aircraft .lod, as you describe, you will always have that problem. The reason is because the center of the model is in the middle of the aircraft. The center is what will rest on the ground. Also, if you could see it, you'ld notice that the gears are not down either. You need a .lod that was made to be used as a ground object. capun has made some, and there are some included in YAP. The other alternative is to wait until SF, WOV, and WOE are patched. This will get you the static aircraft as you've seen in the WOI screen shots. Their positions are defined in the airfield .ini's in the terrain's .cat. For single missions, the aircraft placed there is random, as long as they fit into the time frame of the mission you're flying. During campaigns, only aircraft that are stationed there via the campaign's _data.ini will be parked there.

It's real. We had a story on our homepage the other day about the airmen who painted it, but I can't find it now. I believe that aircraft will be the last one retired.

One will be a historical '91 version, at least as close as we can get with the game engine. The second will be a '91 what if version: full Iraqi resistance, Coalition drives all the way to Baghdad. Once the games are patched, there will not be any avionics in WOI that are not in the other games.

Here's a shot of the planning map, at the start of one of the two campaigns I've written.

Spectre, You should only get a victory condition when your ground forces capture then ENEMY Strategic Node that is defined as their HQ. This is in the campaign's _data.ini: [Force002] Alignment=ENEMY Nation=IRAQ BaseArea=Baghdad <<<----------------------- You can move the HQ to a Strategic Node that's further north, but you must map out all the Strategic Nodes that are defined, and make sure your ground forces have a "roadmap" to get there. See my article in the KB on StrategicNode's, for more info. Also, watch what your front line is doing. If there's not enough points defined, sometimes the front line makes a big jump following just one ground victory, and effectively swallows up many enemy StrategicNodes at a time. You may have to add more front line points if this is happening. Also, you could always tweak initial supply settings, and supply rates to make the ground advance take longer. One thing to note, TK's README says he has changed some of this in WOI, and the upcoming patches for the rest of the series. I know the above is all acurate prior to WOI (and patches), but I haven't played with campaigns enough in WOI to know what all has changed in the engine.

Yes, but you do have to move it into the campaign folder. If that's not your problem, I can look at your files tonight if you like.

I don't see how TK is re-inventing the wheel. I doubt you'll find many others that believe so either. He is either adding new features to the game engine, or improving features that already existed. I think it's great that TK's engine is as moddable as it is, but I don't believe it's his responsibility to make sure everyone's work behaves exactly the same following changes he deemed necessary to make. Anyone else think so? Of course we know that his changes will more than likely effect previous work in several areas. Most of us except this as the price for getting improvements into a sim that is so moddable. That's also why most of us will update our work as required, just as we have done in the past, not because of a challenge from you.

Why is it you assume there won't be patches for the previous games?

The AT-AT was the one toy I remember really wanting, but never got. They had them re-released last year and I bought one......for my daughter of course.

The GI Joe Skystriker (F-14). I had my dad take a tape recorder on a B-52 flight to record the engine sound from takeoff on. I use to walk around the block with the plane in one hand and the tape recorder in the other. I also remember when my brother and I got them for Christmas. My dad wouldn't let us touch them until he put all the decals on both. I sware it took him at least 3-4 hours. An eternity for a kid on Christmas morning.

You should only loose a campaign if you die, or if the enemy ground forces capture your HQ. If you're flying the WOV stock campaigns, there are no ground battles. Are you saying you get a campaign loss everytime you fail a mission? I've never seen that before.

Or our pilots for that matter.

Don't know about the Eagle, but there was article on our webpage today congratulating an ANG unit that has the first F-16C to break 7,000 hours. The unit's average life was over 5,500. The article said the original airframe life was suppose to be just 4,000 hours.

For aircraft you want to test that don't have the TAS or Mach in the HUD, you can turn on the debug info. Here's the F-16 topping out at Mach 1.22 at 700ft. Your spec was Mach 1.2 at sea level.

Happy Birthday man!!!

StartGroundOffensive is the number of days after the campaign start date that the force will begin ground offensives. This is of course also dependant on the their being enough supplies to start an offensive. Note that this is calendar days, not number of missions flown. StartInterdiction is the same as above, but for Armed Recon missions. I have never had one in a campaign. TK posted awhile back that we should get them, but it depends on how close Truck routes are defined to the current front line. I was about to start experimenting while I'm working on the Desert Storm campaigns. I don't understand your frustration with the guided weapon issue. TK replied to your post on his forums, and told you why it hasn't been fixed yet. Let it go.

It's not really a touch screen. "Touches" are registered by crossing a beam just in front of the glass, and are only registered when you remove your finger. You can drag it all over the screen and that doesn't count as a touch. The smallest hotspot there is to touch is 1 inch by 1 inch, much larger than an OSB on any current MFD. Finally, you won't be touching it while in combat anyways, everything is on the HOTAS.

Just some info that was left out of the article... Not that we haven't had setbacks of our own doing, but one large reason that 2/3's of the JSF Devl budget has been spent, is because the government is continually decreasing that budget, but not removing requirements. We lost over 200 million from fiscal '08, and over 100 million from fiscal '09. This has caused us to decrease the number of aircraft we're building for flight test, and now flight test will take longer. Longer means more cost. Last I heard we were waiting on gov approval to move more of flight test to the simulators and the avionics test bed aircraft, instead of the aircraft, to make up for some of this. To add to that, more requirements are being added to the aircraft, but no more money is added for these new features. Finally, several things that were designed by us, then evaluated and approved by the government, are having to be revisted because they have changed their mind. Again, for no additional money. The management reserve that the article speaks of, part of it's purpose is to cover such changes in requirements, but it's been all but spent. Also know that a good chunk of the devlopment cost is split out over each airframe. So when the eventual reduction in aircraft purchases come, prices will go up, ala F-22. Before you say ______ could build the same airplane for cheaper, maybe you should get yourself in a situation to know everything that is going on a mission capable F-35, and see if you make the same comment.

Thanks Brain, really nice terrain.

The DBS '72 campaign does not work with the current patch. The DBS terrain that I updated for SP4, and was at MajorLee's site, had a seperate environment_system.ini, so you shouldn't get the snow on any other maps.

This will be made as accurate as possible with regards to aircraft: types, quantities, squadrons, etc. There will be two versions of the campaign included. One will be as historical as possible, based on the limits of the game engine. The second, is a what-if version, were Iraq resists as much as possible. It will be for WOE only, since we're using several things that only come stock with this game. It will not be released until after the patch. It will be released in two phases. The first will be with a map the same size as the existing DS map. This requires me to place most squadrons at somewhere other than their actual base. This first version will more than likely be missing a few aircraft types. The second will have a map that is double the size of the current map. This will allow me to station every squadron at it's actual base, less the bombers that were located way out of theater. Hopefully by this point, all the aircraft needed will have been released for WOE. The current plan is to only make the Allied side flyable.

For whatever it's worth, you can add the crap I've made to the list. I do have to make once acception for the Harrier Campaign, since it has several things created by the Mirage Factory and the A-Team included within.

Yeah, it'll be updated to use all the new stuff, especially to have the parked aircraft at the custom bases. My main focus now is the campaign for the Desert Storm addon, but updating this will be a close 2nd place.

Your first post was an insult. Again, over something that happened 30-50 years ago.