JSF_Aggie

Thanks man.

That's right. There's also a RandomFACType (check spelling) in the .dll's, but it didn't appear to work in the 08-30-06 patch. haven't tried with the latest.

Wrench, he's talking about loading a mission from a .msn file, and he's right. Static aircraft show up in campaigns, and random Single Missions, but not when you play a .msn file.

Thanks FC.

Updated for the Sept 08 patch.

Ok, I'm uploading these now.

No, it won't work out of the box with the current patch. However, the first thing I'm going to do after Desert Storm is get it updated. http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5390 *************************************************************** Guys, I'll spread out the taxi positions a little, so if you want to use other aircraft, they won't be on top of eachother waiting to takeoff. All you'll need to do is change MinBaseSize=MEDIUM to MinBaseSize=SMALL in the aircraft's _data.ini. If it's set to SMALL, the engine will put you on one about 80% of the time, for Single Missions. For campaigns, it's just changing the BaseArea in the campaign's _data.ini. Give me an hour or less and I'll have it up. Thanks

Very cool.

Yeah I agree, I'm going to go back to the camo netting/sandbags I used in my harrier campaign. Just trying to think out of the box for a minute.

Guys, I'll upload this tonight for those interested. It's updated for the current patch, including static aircraft. You shouldn't see anything parked there but one of the Harrier variants. Also, with the patch you won't get placed at these airfields during single missions, unless you have MinBaseSize=SMALL for that aircraft. IE, no more F-15's taking off from the road. I've moved things around so they'll fit nicely with Brain32's & CA_Stary's hi-res tiles & tree's.

TakeOffHead and TakeOffTail do not have to have symetric values. None of my harrier runways are, but the runway does have to run along the line made by those three winsocks, which it does. I had a problem with AP landing once, they were turning direction at the last minute, and it was because I had placed a ground object to close to the runway. Once I moved it, they landed fine. Try once with the camo net, and any other objects, removed. Are FOB and FOB_extension both defined as <SIZE>_RUNWAY in the _types.ini file? They need to be.

Place three windsocks for me, and post a screen shot. Put them at (0,0) (0,100) and (0,-100).

Yep

The STOVL and CV versions will have a gun pod designed for the centerline station. The Air Force's CTOL is the only with an internal gun.

TK added entries to the EnviornmentSystem.ini. If you copy over the old mod, you'll wipe them out. http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=32514

All, For most I think this is preaching to the choir but, I think some of you are having problems with the new patch because you are copying .ini files from pre-patch mods, into your patched install. TK changes and adds to many of the .ini files with each patch. When you install pre-patch mods, you're potentially writing over things he's added or improved. There are many free tools to diff text files. I use ExamDiff, but I'm sure there are some better. It's worthwhile to compare old vs. new before you install a mod. If you have the disk space, it's also worth keeping a clean 08-30-06 install around, that way you can tell what TK has added/changed vs. what the author of the mod added/changed. It's also helps when debugging, or figuring out how a new feature is implemented.

Probably. I think the '91 campaign I'm making for DBS is more fun. It has accurate carrier air wings, where as DBS '72 did not.

For anyone interested, this is the plan/order for the campaigns I've worked on to date, and some new stuff. - Desert Storm - Update Harrier Campaign - Update OTC Cuba - '91 Campaign for DBS (new) - Late 50's - early 60's Campaign for Madagascar (new) DS is first. The updates will be quick, patch fixes, putting static aircraft on custom runways, adding things like CA_Stary's great tree mods, etc. The two new campaigns are both more than halfway done, just haven't touched them since I was asked to help with DS. Thanks

Extract the _airfields.ini's, from the terrain's .cat, and remove the [PARKING] entries.

Maybe you should add that to KB when you get a chance, as it is difficult to kill a tank driving under ground. If you put it in the KB it'll never come up again, because everyone reads the KB right?

Wrench, I think you're just seeing the same problem I had on the DS terrain. Check the tile specific section in the terrain's _data.ini file. If there is a HeightMap _hm.bmp called out for a particular tile, and that _hm.bmp is missing, you'll see what you have in your screenshot. Things will be sunk into the ground certain amounts. Before the patches, the engine was happy if this _hm.bmp was missing, now it's not. The desert*_hm.bmp's are only in the desert.cat. If you're pointing to one of the others, they'll be missing.

There's also, RulesOfEngagement=TRUE, prevents AI from using BVR. It's in the WOV campaigns.

Run the weapondata.ini through the new (WOI) weapon editor.

Agreed, if everything involved was acurate, and of the highest fidelity. Usually in a simulation of that scale, be it manned, or un-manned, the players are usually comming from different programs. For example, you may have one entity generator running that is creating the RED aircraft, and another for the BLUE. You may have different weapon servers running that do the weapon flyouts, and send missile launch envelope information back to the shooter. Same thing for the ground entities, command & control, etc..... All of these may be of different fidelities. You can't assume they're all equal or the highest fidelity, it depends on what the point of the simulation was. In our manned tactical sims, we have entity generators for ground threats, but if RED air is ever envolved, they are always manned sims, not computer controled. My next question would be what security level was this sim running at? I find it hard to believe if he needed to be briefed on it (ie classified), he could just run out and tell the media the results of the sim, at least not without some repercussions.

In charge of defense acquisition right?