serverandenforcer

I don't think it was a contest on who is right or wrong. I think it was a sharing of info to further help understand one's side of the debate. In a sense I understand where column5 is getting at, but on another sense, as a military cop, I understand and agree on what Typhoid is talking about. If those guys did not falsify their report, this situation would not have been as bad as it turned out. This is why it is so important to be as honest as possible when filing reports. Their is no excuse for covering up evidence, especially if it's the cop's spent ammunition to cover up a shoot-out. Why the hell would a cop do that? If the shooting was right, there shouldn't be a problem. If the shooting was wrong, you're only going to make things worse. Besides, in a situation involving a drug runner, armed, crossing over our borders illegally, that can be sorted out without being dishonest about the facts. When an officer lies about a report, in the company of other officers, that dishonest cop is placing those other officers in a prickly situation. The other cops are now face with a matter of integrity. Should they back up and support their friend, in which if the truth of the matter is found out, they can be punished as accomplices too?... or should they "rat" on the guy, screwing his career and life over? I agree that punishing them (and the way they were punished) solely on the shooting, and not on the covering-up of evidence was wrong. But these guys are not saints in any shape, way, or form. What they got from all of this is enough. They definately do not deseve a full pardon. As a cop, I would feel very uncomfortable if that had happened, becaus essentially, that says these guys are not guility and is now possible for them to retain the jobs that they lost. If I was the cop that reported on them, I would be very concerned for my own well being. It also discourages other cops from reporting on other bad cops, thus fueling corruption within the law-enforcement community. Cops are held to a higher standards, and to stronger concesquences due to the job that they perform. It has to be like that to encourage and grow integrity within the law-enforcement community. Does it suck... yeah, kind of, but such is life.

That won't work. That is basically a very complicated form of thrust vectoring which has already been discussed way too many times. I'm pretty sure of my idea. It's basically true to how the harrier operates. The only issue that I see is getting the direction of thrust that I proposed. The idea is also coupled with having a very low stall value, if almost none, but implementing that is secondary to get the direction of thrust to work. I have some other "Plan-B" ideas incase that one doesn't work.

oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.... let me run in here and say.... STIGLR IS AN ASSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok, carry on. For some odd reason, that made me feel better.

Perhaps it was doing a cobra maneuver?

I changed the original setup for the landing gears to this..... // Landing Gears --------------------------------------------------------- [NoseGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=6 RetractTime=6 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.15 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=NoseStrut ShockAnimationID=2 ShockTravelAxis=X-AXIS ShockStroke=0.15 SpringFactor=3.0 DampingFactor=2.5 WheelNodeName=NoseWheel RotationAxis=X-Axis RollingRadius=0.25 CastoringWheel=TRUE CastoringNodeName=NoseWheelSteeringNode Steerable=TRUE MaxSteeringSpeed=45 Locking=FALSE MaxSteeringAngle=80.0 InputName=YAW_CONTROL ControlRate=1.0 HasBrakes=TRUE BrakingCoefficient=0.85 RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=250 MaxLoadFactor=8.0 CompressGearOnRetraction=FALSE [LeftMainGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=7 RetractTime=7 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.10 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=LMainStrut ShockAnimationID=3 ShockTravelAxis=Y-AXIS ShockStroke=0.30 SpringFactor=3.0 DampingFactor=2.0 WheelNodeName=LMainWheel RotationAxis=X-Axis RollingRadius=0.340 CastoringWheel=FALSE HasBrakes=TRUE BrakingCoefficient=0.9 RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=250 CompressGearOnRetraction=FALSE MaxLoadFactor=8.0 [RightMainGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=7 RetractTime=7 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.10 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=RMainStrut ShockAnimationID=3 ShockTravelAxis=Y-AXIS ShockStroke=0.30 SpringFactor=3.0 DampingFactor=2.0 WheelNodeName=RMainWheel RotationAxis=X-Axis ReverseWheelRotation=TRUE RollingRadius=0.340 CastoringWheel=FALSE HasBrakes=TRUE BrakingCoefficient=0.9 RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=250 CompressGearOnRetraction=FALSE MaxLoadFactor=8.0

Oh, ok... Odd, it seemed to solve the problem for me. Well, if you got it working, cool. I appologize for posting in this topic then.

WIP. Need a good FM for it (thinking of using something similar for the Harrier). Currently unwrapping it for texturing. Need to also work on the transparency of the cannopy and the lens cap for the main wings's nav lights. 2 weeks though.

Just napalm the Santa Monica Mountains and the Malibu hills. But don't hit the nothern part of the San Fernando Valley...

The entry for the landing gears did not specify what axis they were operating on. So I think the AI got "confused" on how to operate the aircraft on the ground. Or was your question pertaining to something else?

Hey Klavs81, I fixed the data.ini file on this so that the AI aircraft doesn't do donuts on the taxi-way and can taxi up to the runway to take-off. Am I cleared to upload the fix?

The correct quote was "almost ready to go".

Glad to hear that you found the source of your problem. Sorry to hear that your processor overheated.

Was wondering lately what the difference is in the different burner color on afteburners. Is it the type of fuel that's being burned or is it a dye that's in the fuel? When I was at the Miramar airshow, I saw the F-16's burners an orange color, but when I was working at my base, and our alert fighter launched (F-16s), the afterburners burned a blueish/purple color. I've also noticed Hornets launching off with a pinkish burner color, but also sometimes with the orange and bluish burner color as on the F-16. I'm just trying to figure what determines the differnce, what afterburner color would be seen most often on fighters, and what are the circumstances that would have a fighter operate with a different burner color. I couldn't find any info on the web regarding this, or atleast nothing that really answered my questions in a clear way.

Went up against 2 Flankers with me and my wingie in super scooters. Flying on the SoCal map, I was able to pick them up at about 80 NM out. I.D. them and found out what they were. Thought I was screwed, but remembered that I out did a flight of 4 Fulcrums a while back in the super scooter so I was feeling kind of lucky. They're out over the Pacific, just going feet dry and we're flying behind the San Gabriels over San Bernardino. We fly low, using the mountains to cover and conceal us as we fly south to get into a closer range. I then have us pop over the mountains at a point that I thought was prety close enough. My wingie instantly calls out missile launches from the Flankers. Don't know if they're for me or for him, but I start jinking all over the place. He then calls out that he got hit so now I'm on my own against 2 Flankers. I roll out, heading west, and just barely see a missile being popped of at me. The super echo doesn't have any counter-measures so I have to maneuver my way to avoid getting hit. I bank hard right and then pull left and up, doing this "corkscrew" maneuver and right when I roll out from it, the missile whizes right by me on a head on pass, barely missing my right wing. The Flanker fires off another missile, but this one doesn't track. I point my nose directly at the Flanker as we go head to head with each other. I pull up hard, passing right over him as we almost collide into each other. As I come back 180 deg, I can barely make out his exhaust trail as he flys west and begins to turn to the south. I switch to A/A mode, select a winder and wait for the missile to lock. I hear the tone and let one loose. Two seconds later, splash one Flanker. I call out for RC to give the location for the second Flanker. RC comes back, giving the location to my south west, at 50 miles, angles 5, heading... south west. A Flanker running from an A-4. I turned around, locked him up, and he was cooking at 500 somewhat knots to get away from me. Thought it was the funniest thing that I ever saw. Darn it, if it didn't take me so long to write that out.

Looks like it's Tornado season

You would have to get a hold of the original model maker and ask him.

Flegmatica, if it's any consulation to you, I'm running an AMD 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ that operates at 1.99 GHz, 3 GB of ram, OS is Windows XP, Video card is an GeForce GTX 280 and I still get a Graphics FPS of 5 on the deck with a full flight (albeit on a heavily modified install of WOI) with all the settings maxed out. The problem for me is my CPU, which is old, slow, and unfortunately a dual core (I hate dual core). I adapt by adjusting the graphic settings (which are pretty much everything on high except for the horizon which is at normal, and have cockpit reflections turned off - you really don't need them). Unless you have an uber system (2+ GHz CPU (single core), 2 - 3 GB of ram, and the latest and greates of video cards), you're not really supposed to be operating the sim with all the settings at max. The setting adjustments are there for you to balance what you really would like to see to that which you really would care less for. And I'll tell you one thing, when you're dog fighting around up there at 15,000 - 30,000 ft, the last thing that you'll be focusing on is how well the horizon and canopy reflections are rendered, how cool the shadows look, and how many objects you can see on the ground. You're really not going to be focusing on those things with a Flanker on your tail. Now if you just want to play the sim for sightseeing, take on a solo recon mission with minimum air and ground threats and you can be able to operate the sim at a decent level with maximum graphic settings. But you won't be having any fun. Another thing to note, the SF sims viewing distance (horizon) is a lot more farther, in much more detail than in any other sim, which is probably what will kill your FPS. Infact, running the horizon on normal still has better quality than any other sim. Sims like MSFS, cheat by reducing visually quality significantly after a certain distance. GTA 4's horizon distance is also significantly shorter than SF. So those are other factors in regards to why they seem to run better. If you reduce the horizon setting to it's minimum levels, you'll be running SF at the same level of quality as most other games, and your FPS count will sky rocket.

Cockpits are a lot more involved and frustrating to build than aircarft. Plus, TMF probably has a lot of other projects that are in the works that are higher up the ladder of priority than the viper pit. So don't expect anything soon.

Perhaps they were playing Marko Pollo?

The only thing I did on that aircraft was the skin, not the HUD (I think this was actually my first mod). Just like everybody else had said, you can easily use another viper pit to replace this one (I would actually since this one was never finished). What you do is go into another F-16 folder that has a pit that you like. Copy the cockpit.ini, the avionics.ini, and the cockpit folder. Then paste them into the F-16D folder. Now there are two ways you can go from here. The first one (and probably the easiest) is opening up the F-16D.ini file, change the entries for the CockpitDataFile and AvionicsDataFile to match those of the files that you copied and pasted. The second way that you can do this is change the file name of the files that you had copied and pasted to match the ones listed in the F-16D.ini file for CockpitDataFile and AvionicsDataFile. If you have any further questions regarding this, you can PM me. Hoped this helped.

Yeah, an A-4 being faster than a Tomcat. Definately smaller, maybe a little bit more maneuverable, but definately not faster. That line always cracked me up. Even an 8 year old would know that to be bogus.

This video is sooooooo true. Of all the accidents that I've had to respond to. 99% of them involved a female driver. The other 1% ivolved young and inexperieced male drivers at the average age of 18. Hell, just the other day, some girl was doing 120+ mph on one of the freeways in a Hyundai Tiberon. Almost hit me as she drove up next to me and gave me a dirty look (guess I was in her way at 75 mph in a 65 zone). 10 minutes later, and about 5 - 6 miles further down the freeway, I found her smashed into the far right retaining wall. Man I got a good laugh seeing that (it only involved her and the wall - nobody else) as I drove by (somebody else had stopped to help her - so please don't think I was being cold and heartless - I would've stopped if nobody else did). I've even caught my mom doing stupid things behind the wheel (she claims she's never been in an accident, but for some odd reason, the car keeps coming back home with more dents than it left with when she's out driving on her own - hmmm).

Who the @#$! pees in the shower!?!?!? That is just wrong.

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am at 50,000 feet at Mach 1.73

Also make sure in the weapons editor that the missile that are supposed to be loaded up haven't been retired prior to the time period that you're flying in.