gbnavy61

Any good restaurants nearby? Always a good excuse to take a trip somewhere.

Bueller?

I got a ride in one of those, once. Fun times. North Island to San Clemente and back.

Sounds correct to me.

In what way?

Thanks, all, for the replies. Keep it coming if you've got more.

Arnie won't cycle radar range settings for me. Using WOI patched up. Any suggestions? I take that back - range will cycle, but it won't loop back around to the other end - i.e. I can go 10, 25, 50nm scale, but not 25, 50, back to 10. Is there a way to fix that? My default setup is to have one button on the throttle to decrease range only - as a contact moves closer, I can scale down. But, until this jet, it has always looped back around to max range.

Disagree with Viper in two respects: 1) "Fleet Defender" is a clever phrase but it doesn't really describe what the Tomcat was built to do. "Air supremacy fighter" as RADM Gillcrist put it, is a much better description. Yes, long-range cruise missiles and the big ol' Russkie bombers that dragged them were part of the equation. But, the Tomcat took lessons from the dogfights of Vietnam into account, too. The Tomcat had the qualities of a high-speed, long-range interceptor, but also the close-in maneuverability of a dogfighter - at least for its day. The Tomcat, in the legacy of good Navy fighters could defend the fleet as well as take the fight over enemy soil and dominate the airspace, allowing the rest of the air wing's assets to be brought to bear on the enemy. 2) As Dave already mentioned, there's still plenty of threat to our carriers and battlegroups from enemy aircraft/missiles. It was minimal, not too long ago, but it's now in a resurgence. Think about it this way - there's probably a lot more unfriendly nations out there who could afford to buy multiple aircraft and missiles to threaten US warships than could afford a surface or submarine fleet to do the same job. I think there is definite cause for concern that the Super Hornet has taken on the role left by the Tomcat. I think the shoes are a little too big to fill. Unfortunately, Dave is correct. The Navy has dropped the ball. The Air Force has been clear-headed enough to see the necessity for something like the F-22 and provide the ability to design and procure it. Naval Aviation has been pissing R&D money away for the last few decades. The A-12 comes to mind. Lots of projects that were never even half-done were scrapped and the money sunk into them, gone for good. As a result, the Super Hornet got to step into the spotlight because it offered adequate performance and lower cost. The whole "off the deck" comment that sakai made doesn't only apply to missiles. The common theme downplaying the Super Hornet's relatively moderate top-end was this: "Most dogfights don't take place above Mach 1 anyway." That's all well and good, but doesn't consider the whole story. The Super Hornet's top speed is around 1.8M - and that's with very little hanging off the jet. The Tomcat could bust 2.0 with a full air-to-air load. If you were a battlegroup commander, wouldn't you rather have the ability to launch your fighters off the deck and intercept the bad guys farther away? If you were a pilot, wouldn't you rather have to ability to get out of trouble as fast as you got into it?

So, bottom line - there's no way of doing a model without at some point running it through 3ds max to convert it properly?

Indeed. There's too few players, and as a result, too few new ideas coming down the pipe. Not enough competition anymore.

Well, C5, if you look at the history of US Naval Aviation, you can see in WWII we got away from the concept of a pure fighter. Deck space is limited, so F4Fs were replaced by better fighters - F6Fs and F4Us. But, those new fighters could also perform the strike mission. Early in the war, a carrier had about 25% fighters, and the other 75% was dive bombers and torpedo bombers. By war's end it was 75% fighters and 25% others. Fighters started to do more of the heavy lifting while increasing the capabilities of the airwing to first, get air superiority and then, support the Marines hitting the beaches. So, I don't think you can have a Navy fighter nowadays that is just a pure fighter. It doesn't make sense. However, I do believe you can have a great fighter that is a decent strike platform, in favor of having a bunch of great strike aircraft who double as adequate fighters. Hornets are superb strike aircraft, but I'd still rather see a better fighter hit the fleet.

What the Navy really needs in a new Grumman fighter (hurts to say this part...) or strike-fighter (...oww). Not enough Grumman stuff on the flight deck anymore. Yeah, I also have a beef with the whole Jack of all trades concept: what if you have some critical failure of components? Your entire fleet is grounded until it's fixed. Sounds like a dumb security arrangement to me. Sure, the odds of such a calamity are low, but it is possible. It's all about the bucks nowadays. Nobody wants to spend a million bucks on a missile anymore - or $40 million on a kick-ass plane to carry them everywhere. Sad really.

It's not 4, but steeper than 3 - due to the ship moving the effective GS is about 3. You guys bring up a good point, since the CVs are only edited missions or campaigns. But, I think as Typhoid mentioned, the tolerances are not so exact in the sim, so we can probably get away with a one-size-fits-all meatball.

WTF?

H-60s.

I'm slightly familiar w/ GMax - I think a copy came w/ FS2004. But, you make it seem like more hassle than it's worth. Will Milkshape 3d do anything for me, or is that another hassle? At this point, I'm less interested in making an entire aircraft, as examining an existing aircraft and playing around with it to see how everything works. I can work up to making one, someday, but I need to start small.

Ok. Is there anything of good quality that isn't prohibitively expensive? What sorts of programs are all you modders using? (It's like pulling teeth.)

Is that what TMF uses? What does it cost?

I'm thinking about playing around with some modeling. What are some good 3d programs to make aircraft? For example, what program do you Mirage Factory boys use to make your great birds?

I'll agree w/ 3 out of the 4 you got. I thought most of the Bud commercials were lame, though.

Orly?

Is there some kind of NVGs simulated for night missions? I don't know if NVGs were much in use for Gulf War I, off the top of my head. I ask because it would be a neat feature, especially if it could be duplicated without the whole DS mod. Also, I don't own WOE so I can't check for myself - pretty sure this is a WOE-only mod.

Eric and Team, Although it is still a lousy bug and will never, I say again, NEVER be cooler than a Tomcat - you guys are doing an excellent job. I look forward to flying this puppy when it's completed. Hard to tell from the images here, but on the original 18F model, the ass end looked a little too small proportionally to the rest of the jet. Has this been adjusted? Also, I was wondering about the speed brakes - you guys have probably done more research than I - but, are those two little spoilers that pop up on the upper part of the fuselage the only speed brakes? I was under the impression that the tail surfaces all moved in conjunction to produce more drag (i.e. both rudders turn inward, and both stabs droop). Mind you, that is based on something I experienced in another game which may not be accurate. In any case, keep up the good work fellas.

Ball.

I was pulling for the Cards, but they didn't earn it. Too many penalties and they got a break on one call - can't remember which, but they scored off of it. Steelers were the better team, but I was less than impressed when they started taking some cheap shots towards the end. I thought they could have won with a little more class - not the whole team, but a couple individuals. Anyway, it's over. Congrats Steelers and Steeler fans. (For next season) GO BEARS!