serverandenforcer

the last two are to peek up or down (adjusting seat height) and peek left or right (to see around the dashboard of the cockpit).

Well that answers my question in why there was a gap between the F-16 and the F-18. Was wondering what had ever happened to the F-17. Didn't know it was originally going to be the Hornet its self. Just goes to show my limited knowledge on military aircraft. BTW... was there ever an F-10, F-11, F-12, and F-13? I know there is a mystery about the gap between F-18 and F-22 as well.

I noticed some differences too between this model and the movie model other than what Shin_kazama pointed out. But I'm not going to say what they are because, 1.) you've worke really hard on this model as obvious as it is, and 2.) I'm just happy to get a Talon that looks this good. So I say carry on with what you're doing.

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Don't worry, I'm not going to release this thing until this jet can simulate the real deal as best as possible.

Building the dashboard for the cockpit. Got a ways togo with panneling, rivets/screws, buttons, switches, knobs, control devices (i.e. joystick, throttle, and rudder pedals), and some smaller displays. Unless you think that's over the top, please say so now and I'll stop while I'm ahead.

Please do, cause I already modelled them in (the LEFs). Well, this will definately cut some time since I don't have to do those speed brakes. I guess I'll work on the pit then. Been looking forward to do that. BTW, in regards to the LEFs, do they rotate downwards, or do they "slide 'n roll" out from a sheath inside the main wing?

So this pic that I have here, those "flaps" that are being deployed right behind the rear landing gears, that's not part of the production model?

Just like USAFMTL said, you can't compare the 2 because they are totally different sims. However, I will say this, they both set the bar for the type of sims that they are. I have bothe SFP1/WOV/WOE and LOMAC. LOMAC has stunning graphics that make it ultra realistic. However, it is not system friendly or is it user friendly (in regards to modding - although, I've been out of the loop for LOAC mods for quite some time). You need a high end system to get the most out of LOMAC. For how system friendly WOV/WOE is, it has some very impressive graphics. Not to mention that you can easily add mods to it that really don't cause any conflicts with the game's operation, nor limit to how much you can modify it. It currently might not be as realistic in operating a fighter jet as LOMAC is, but it will only be a matter of time until the game evolves to have such realism from the mods that the online community is pooring out for it - which will make it much more enjoyable to the aviation enthusiast. The bottom line is, it all depends on what you are looking ot get out of in a combat fighter simulator. If you really want to feel like you operating a F-15 over what you can mistakenly assume to be the real mother earth, then go for LOMAC. If you want to enjoy flying a fighter jet and experience a really decent campaign story, in where you never repeat the same scenario (incase you have to do the mission over again), go for WOV/WOE. You want to know what game I play the most? WOV/WOE. The only time I playe LOMAC was after I first installed it on to my computer.

You have to take into account that there is a certain percentage of AB thrust that you can apply. It's not like in an arcade game where it just kicks in at 100% of full power. Each aircraft has a unique military power limit, ranging from 70% to 80% of total thrust. After that, you enter the AB stage of thrust, where you can apply anywhere from 1% of AB power to 100% of AB power ontop of your full military power (full throttle without burners). However, you're not going to see 1% AB thrust on your screen. Basically, there is no way to calibrate your joystick the way you want, because it's a game issue. You can however mess around with the .ini files of the aircraft and tweak stuff that way to have it work the way you want - but it won't be realistic. Believe it or not, this is how it's done in the real world with burners. You can only go up so far on the throttle before those babys kick in. Hope this makes sense.

This will be my last update for the night. Weapon bays complete. Just need the hinges for the doors and pylon mounts - which will be taken care of during the final construction phase of the aircraft. Next to do will be the speed brakes and puting a dashboard and seat into that cockpit with the roll bar. After that... ugh... landing gears. Once that is taken care of, I'll be doing the asymetrical cosmetic features, such as the cannon, and some other feature on the opposite side of the aircraft. Here are the picks of the weapons and landing gear bays (don't worry, doors are there, I have them hidden so you can see the bays).

Hey, this things got a cockpit now.... sort of....

O.K., here are 2 pics. One shows the landing doors hidden, and one shows them unhidden so that you guys can see what I actually did so far with the gear bays. Yes, I know I forgot to make a lip for the front bays. I will fix that later on. Also, if any of you have some advice on what it actually looks like (cause I couldn't find any reference material to show exactly what the inside of the bays look like) that would be very helpful. I have many save of many versions of this plane. So it is easy for me to go back and re-do some stuff the right way.

Just some shots to show the progress. As you can tell, I got the Laser Designator on the bottom section of the nose and some kind of avionics hub in front of the cockpit. Now as you can see, the smoothig doesn't look real clean on the bottom side of the nose and the rear area of the main sings. That's because of the cuts made for the front gear doors and the flaps. I also did some more shape refinement on the ventral side of the fuselage (probably won't be able to tell from the shots).

Well, due to my lack of experience with max, there are some features that I'm not aware of in regards to boolean operations. So what I will say may seem like old information to a lot of you. Thanks to wpnssgt, he explained to me that my problem could be simply solved by clicking on the "cap holes" modifier. This will fill in those "missing polygons when you do a boolean subtract operation. However, you have to connect the appropriate vertices because it won't fill in those missing polygons very nicely. He also explained that this action should be done after the model is totally complete and that all segments (i.e. wing, nose, fuselage, etc...) have been detached. Basically, you don't want to have a "whole" model. Things need to be in pieces so that the aircraft can operate correctly in the game. So far, I got all control surfaces and the front landing gear doors finished. Now I need to work on the rear landing gear doors, the speed brake, the weapons bay, the hinges to all of the moving parts, the actuall landing gears, completely model in the canopy (it's just an extrusion off of the fuselage right now), and build the cockpit. I believe it's safe to say that there is probably even more stuff I have to do to the model... oh yeah, the cannon and some other cosmetic features. This is one of the most involved models I've ever had to deal with. Now I know why it takes so long for these things to be built.

Does anybody here play SF/WOV/WOE online? I haven't found anybody through gamespy. Would be cool if combatace would have a section here to setup multiplayer games to play against/with each other including with mods since it seems that everyone who has the SF/WOV/WOE comes to this site.

The problems that I had encountered in the modeling process have been resolved and contruction has resumed.

Is their a way to increase air traffic closer to friendly bases, and enemy air traffic the farther you get into enemy turff. Also, how about some civilian traffic as well in areas that are far from the battle zone. Would give me a better reason to stick the ride out back to the base instead of hitting the ESC key.

Well I tried what you said and it still didn't solve the problem. Perhaps I didn't build this thing right. I guess I'll have to try hand cutting it. Ugh, this is going to take a lot longer than I originally anticipated.

To me, hand cutting is more work than doing boolean operations. I used to do the hand cut stuff myself before I found out what boolean operations do. I guess in this case it's to each his own. I'll try the import stuff tomorrow. I gotta get going to bed cause we turn the clocks ahead tonight. I liked it better when you turn the clocks back and get a few more hours of sleep - unless your the sucker working the mids shift and have to work an extra hour.

Well, I've tried all techniques and I haven't had any success yet. Oh, and why not subtract? That's what I've always done. Infact, that's what even the tutorials from Mc Fly Aviation website say to do.

LOL, I replied to the PM that you replied to me about this before looking at this topic. Well, it seems that all of the above (except for number 1) that you mentioned maybe the problem here. When I'm up tomorrow, I'll see about working on them. Thanks for the advice.

Well, I've run into a few problems here with the mesh. I'm trying to do a boolean cut into the wing to make the flaps. When I use my "cookie cutter" to cut out the portion of the wing where the flap is supposed to go, the is supposed to be a cut out in the wing and solid material around the perimeter of where the cookie cutter was on the wing, creating a perfect indention to the form of the cookie cutter. Instead, I get empty space in that perimeter area. Now, I've done boolean cuts before, so I know what I'm doing, but I've never had this problem. So if anybody out there knows what needs to be done, please send some advice this way. I can't go any further with this model until I've gotten this taken care of. I've gone through the tutorials at Mc Fly's site to see if he did anything different compared to how I build my models, and I've basically done the exact stuff that he has done (in regards to boolean cuts). So please, help is needed. Thank you.

These aircrafts maybe uninhabited, but they are still monitored and controlled by man, via remote control. However, the praticallity of replacing conventional manned aircraft with remote drones has not yet been an easily feasible option. Right now their main specialty is short range s&d or recon missions. Here are the main factors limiting these things to become the wave of the future for aerial combat: 1.) training, 2.) cost, 3.) limited capability, 4.) survivability. When I was at Indian Springs AFB in Nevada (where they train the officers to pilot the predator drones) I saw quite a few of these things crash when just only attempting to land. Also, these things are getting shot down quite frequently in the AOR. As an individual model, they're cheaper than the next gen manned aircraft. However, if you add up to how many we have to replace more offten than a F-15 or F-16, it becomes a hefty price tag. There are also folks in Congress who are opponents to the UAV/UCAV as well. So seeing these things quickly replacing our pilots might not actually happen (at least during the first half of this century). There is a lot more technology that has to be developed before that takes place. I personally feel that several more aircrafts will come in the next 10 to 20 years to replace the F-117/B2 and possibly the F-22 (give about 15-25 years).

If you were ever really interested in making an actual HMD helmet, here's a site to go to... http://www.ausairpower.net/hmd-technology.html

Hey Furbar512, what exactly are you trying to do? I made a suggestion to Dueces about sunlight reflection off of aircrafts so it would immitate real world visuals of them when they're far away. Are you actually trying to accomplish this? If so, then wow, cool! Perhaps a really bright reflection off the canopies as well since they're glass. Anyways, carry on with what you're doing. Looks fantastic.