serverandenforcer

Does Gunship, by Micro Prose/Hasbro, support Track IR?

How low do I go?... so low that my aircraft is not only equiped with Terrain Following Radar, but also Hell Following Radar. I can pick up a pitch fork for ya as a suvenire if you want one and maybe some red hots while I'm at it. EDIT: I got Satan's autograph on my vertical stabilizer! Muwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

To add on to what FC said (it took me a while to write my previous post before he posted)... in the 3D rendering world, when you build a simple part... like a can (which is actually just a cylinder), it does not build the interior of the can, only the exterior. Now, there are techniques on how to get the interior of the can to render, but that is getting really involved into the discussion of making 3D objects when you don't even have a 3D rendering program. Get Gmax, mess around with making 3D objects like what FC suggested. You might figure out what is being discussed. It took me a while to figure this part out when I first started with making 3D objects... thought something was wrong with the program. Also, if you zoom in too closely, you will actually be zooming past the renderd parts, and you will get that "open space" that you maybe refering to. What you are actually doing is peering inside the 3D model, in which there will not be any 3D parts being rendered.... just like our example with the can. You are actually zooming into the interior of the can.

If the case is that the cockpit on the 3D model of the aircraft does not have a floor, then a solution to that problem can simply be by making a 3D object (more likely a square) and add it on to the aircraft using the "Pilot Method". I will explain what this is. In the data.ini file, under the section for the crew, there are several lines that call for 3D object outside of the specified aircraft folder to be implented into the 3D aircraft model. The first line should say: [Pilot]; 2nd line should say: SystemType=Pilot_Cockpit (this line tell the SF engine that a 3D object, outside of the specified aircraft folder, will be needed); 3rd line says: "PilotModelName=InsertNameHere (obviously the "InsertNameHere" would be replaced by whatever pilot .LOD file you would want in the aricraft. This line directs the SF engine on what the 3D object that is outside of the specified aircraft folder is); 4th line should also say: Position=x,y,z (x,y,z, would realy be reaplced by numbers that tell the SF engine where the 3D object would be positioned on the 3D aricraft model). Knowing what these three lines do can now allow us to get our square to be inserted into the floorless cockpit of the 3D aircraft. However, before we do that, we need to understand one more aspect of the "Pilote Method." Every major part of the aircraft has systems attached to it. The crew section in the data.ini file is a system that is part of a major 3D part of the aircraft. We need to find out what that part is and then add a new system to that part to install our new floor. Usually the crew system is located in the Nose section of the data.ini file. So what you do is add in a new system (let's call it... SystemName[***]=Floor). Now lets go down back to where the crew entries are located. Add in a new entry underneath the last crew entry. Let's have it setup like this... 1st line: [Floor] (remember that this is what we had called the new system?); 2nd line: SystemType=Pilot_Cockpit; 3rd line: PilotModelName=Floor; 4th line: Position=x,y,z (it would be relatively close to what the postions are for the previous crew entries). Now if the case is with the actual 3D cockpit, then you will need to have a whole new cockpit to be made. You can either contact the original model maker, or make one yourself.

Well, I doubt prisons carry shoulder mounted stinger launchers... but you would think that this prison would considering that these two have already done this kind of an escape before.

Nice!!! :yes:

Somebody has been watching way too much XXX State of the Union. -LINK HERE-

Why yes, yes I have.

Spinache/Artichoke Cheese dip, Guacamolie, Salsa with some hot peppers, Cool Ranch, and maybe even some Bean dip goes well with my taste buds.

That's 25k polys? That kind of detail looks like it would range up to the 35+ range. Nice work.

I think what he meant was if the 3D cockpit that you sit in is positioned inside the 3D model of the aircraft. That is still a yes and no answer. The 3D cockpit only exists while you are in that view mode, and it's co-ordinates position it relatively where the cockpit should be for that aircraft. However, that cockpit is not part of the aircraft's 3D model. Once you go to an external view, you are seeing a different cockpit that is part of the aircraft model. You will notice that cockpit is significantly less detailed than the 3D cockpit. If you used the same 3D cockpit for the 3D aircraft model, the poly count for that model would be so high, that the sim would be a slide show.

Roger that. I'll try to do some more brain storming on how to solve that issue.

Well, another way of going about it is to build a seperate A2A pylon for it in the actual model in max, and have a weapon station specifically for that pylon setup in the data.ini file which would call for that part when armed with Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. That is the only time that when I don't see pylons dropping off. Example from the F-35 data.ini [LeftOuterStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=2 StationGroupID=5 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-5.013,-2.568,-0.141 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,45.0 NumWeapons=1 LoadLimit=300.00 DiameterLimit=0.18 LengthLimit=3.656 AllowedWeaponClass=IRM,AHM AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName=LeftOuterPylon <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This is the part modeled in 3D max that is part of the model. It does not appear unless a weapon, under the allowed weapon class, that meets the load limit, diameter limit, length limit, and number of weapons is armed. I don't know how to go about it when you have two weapons loaded up. Perhaps you have two attachment positions and two attachment angles. PylonMass=72.58 PylonDragArea=0.02

Ya know what I see from this... the gun cam for the Apache and possibly the helmet mounted optics. This is uber cool!

Would this line (NoJettisionWeapon=TRUE) work to keep the pylons from jettisoning after the last missile was fired? It's sort of the same as what the F-16I has for the CFTs except their's say: NoJettisionTank=TRUE

Well, I don't think I could do any better. Matching things up really has to do with renaming the nodes (which are basically the names of the parts of the aircraft - which are given to them in 3D Max by the model maker and can be found in the .OUT file) and making sure that the x,y,z coordinates for those parts are matched up correctly as well (the main ones to be concerned of would probably be the center of gravity, center of pivot, and collision points). Then there's animation key sets that are assigned to specific parts that operate with a complex animation (for instance, the collective on the Apache, which involves 17 moving parts for a single animation key). If you throw in the wrong animation key for the part, you're not going to get the part to animate (but may incidentally get another part to animate with the function). Aero-dynamic data is another matter, in which I have no idea on how to construct.

Well, so far only AleDucat has stepped up to take a crack at it. The only skill I have with FM is just minor tweak work. I do not have the knowledge or the expertise on how to build one up - even from an existing FM. I don't mind if others want to try building one with a different way of doing it. However, my main objective is for the player to be able to control the aircraft like a real helicopter. Essentially you can with the thrust vectoring capabilities with the harrier. On a regular helicopter, the handle of the collective does two things: as you rotate it, you increase engine speed, and as you pull it up, you increase positive collective (or in this case, rotating the imaginary exhaust nozzles down). Definately the AI wouldn't be able to do it, so I am going to have a seperate FM for the AI. However, for the time being, the primary goal is to get a FM setup for the player. After that, I'll focus on building a FM for the AI... which can probably be made from a minor alteration to the player's FM.

Well, I've never played the game... I kind of had a feeling that they would make a movie out of it, and that it probably wouldn't stay true to the game. Waiting on them to make a movie out of Strangle Hold and Half Life.

Actually, Stary, your effect is probably the best that I've ever seen from a combat sim.

Just bought Max Payne Unrated yesterday on DVD. Haven't watched it yet, but was wondering if anybody here saw it and if it's any good?

I can see where you're comming at, but the thing is, in law-enforcement, the official is placed in a position that carries a heavy level of trust and expectations of professionalism, probably more than what should be expected from a human being. Unfortunately, because these officials are human beings, they are probably going to be prone to do something really stupid... such as covering up evidence. However, because of the position that they're in, and the fact that as a law-enforcement officers, they should know way better than the average joe on how bad it is to do such a thing. They are essentially violating a serious level of trust placed upon them and are opening themselves up to the severiest of ridicule and scrutiny. They need to be set as a severe example of such actions to encourage others from doing the same. Is it harsh, yes. Is it cruel or unusual, to the average citizen, yes, but to a cop, it should be expected. Cops are not average citizens. Once you swear in, you're essentially placing yourself at a higher level of expectations than the average American citizen, and failing to meet those expectations can come with a price that is just as high. You are essentially no longer the American citizen that you once were. You're supposed to be better, you're trained to be better, and swore to be better, and if you're not, you get the boot a lot harder.

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.