serverandenforcer

Because I only have SF2E

Solved it! I was a moron and didn't clearly read what Dave posted in the KB for SF1. You have to go into the <terrain>_targets.ini file and change the airfield.ini that are being called by the AirfieldDataFile line... and I think that's what you meant Wrench. I was just too much of a moron and was looking for an actual .ini file in the terrain folder. So, for anybody else who is having this problem... 1.) open your <terrain>_targets.ini file in your <terrain> folder 2.) search for AirfieldDataFile (there will be more than just one, and you will have to do the following steps for all of them) 3.) you will notice that the AirfieldDataFile is calling for a <name>airfield/airbase.ini (the GermanCE.cat file use the title airbase instead of airfield) 4.) change the name of this .ini file to the approriate name by finding what runway it's callig for (which would be located a couple lines under the AirfieldDatatFile line). 5.) use the following table (provided by Dave) to correctly change the name of the .ini file Runway1: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD1.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, GERMAN_AIRBASE1.INI Runway2: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD2.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, not available * Runway3: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD3.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, GERMAN_AIRBASE5.INI Runway4: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD4.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, SOVIET_AIRBASE3.INI Runway5: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD5.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, SOVIET_AIRBASE1.INI Runway6: for the cat file from SF2V, VIETNAMSEA_AIRFIELD6.INI; for the cat file from SF2E, GERMAN_AIRBASE6.INI *You'll notice that there does not exist an "AirfieldDataFile" for Runway2 in the GermanyCE.CAT. If you're using the GermanyCE.CAT file, you'll need to pick one of the other 5 runway names, and the correct "AirfieldDataFile" for all instances of Runway2, if you're using the GermanyCE.CAT file. - Dave That means on the line that's calling out the runway number for Runway2, you'll have to change it to Runway1,3,4,5 or 6... if you're using the GermanyCE.cat file

Yeah, I went through the KB and saw what you're talking about. Actually, that's what helped me in getting them to work in the first place... and it's the first place I went to get instructions on how to get this to work (one thing that I kind of missed though - which was mentioned by Dave in the SF1 KB - is that you need to creat a Terrains folder under [users/<name>Saved Games/ThirdWire/StrikeFighters2<version>]). It's not a texture issue... cause textures don't make you go boom! So I did check the terrains' folders and there are no airfield.inis or LODs. Guess that's the problem. Might want to include that in the KB as well.

No error messages. And when I mean by crash, I mean that I blow up on the runway... not a CTD. Ya know, I was going through all the .ini's, but I wasn't looking for that. I'll go back in and take another look. If I can get this to work, I'll see about uploading some of these old Gen1 terrains for SF2.

Well, after almost 2 years of not playing this game, I finally got back into it with SF2E. I have to say, the sim seems to be a lot better. Now, of course, I've downloaded and installed some of the terrains from Gen1 and I'm having a problem in which I always seem to crash at mission start (and that's starting on the airfield). I got everything setup correctly for the cat pointer. What I notice is that my entire flight spawns on exactly the spot where I'm at. Odd to say the least. So my question is, is there a way to curb this?

LOL... ok, um, hi, welcome to combatace! I think your translation program is slightly inaccurate. There are some words that it got wrong. Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? Most of the modders on this site are busy with other projects, not to mention that they are also much busier with their personal lives. The request for the F-20 has been made on several occasions, and I think someone may already be working on it.

Hm... I was just thinking of having ground vehicles classified as aircraft, except that they can't fly, and that way the turret can track them. Although, this means you can't use any EO guided weapons on them... Unless there's away of attaching a ground target to them? Bright side of this is that you can get a radar lock on tanks and whatever other vehicle you have classifide as an aircraft now.

Dels, just to give you a poly count idea... this was 28675 triangles... and this is after I had removed some features. It was originally up at 33447 triangles.

Yes, that cannon is definitely a difficult piece to model. Took me a couple days to build, if not a week.

I think it would be able to fire at ground targets. The only reason why AI bombers with turrets don't fire at ground targets is because of distance. They're too high up and the turrets can't aim at the right angle to be able to engage them properly. If I recall correctly, Monty built a model either last year or the year before, very simpilar to the C-130 specter gunship, that could fire at ground targets with the cannons and guns. In regards to the engines. To make sure that the aircraft has a reasonable level of stability at or near stall speeds during flight, it might be best to setup up four engines (each one at 1/4 of total thrust power), at where the blade tips would be at the front, rear, left and right of the aircraft. That way you won't be having to deal with a balancing act. Although, it might not make much difference either way. Also, to simulate gyro yaw from the tail rotor, you might want to place an engine back there to simulate that kind of movement. In regards to the optics turret. I would use the same method as the gun turret so that way they can track on to the target. Same with the pilot's heads (which would mean that you would have to build pilots into the model). One idea I had to get an MFD visual of the target was to have the bullets fired from the cannon to be actually laser or tv guided (which ever one gives you and MFD visual) missiles with no guidance factors. Not sure if that would work though. Sorry if I'm getting a bit carried away with this. I had big plans on how to simulate things with my apache.

I think I remember the technique for the turret now. The turret is setup as an ai turret. However the canon is only attached via a loadout. This way, the turret can automatically select targets, but you can only give the command to fire. Another idea I had with having the model perform as a helicopter in which the ai can operate as one is to setup two different types of engines. One engine only thrusts the aircraft forward at ground level. The second engine thrust the aircraft upwards. Once the aircraft takes off (and it should be rather quickly when you throttle up to full power) the forward thrusting engine loses all power and the aircraft is now only being powered by the upwards thrusting engine. This should allow the ai to taxi to the runway and be able to take off, fly, and land as a helicopter.

Hey FC, how did you get that mach effect?... was it through that method that you and I had talked about a while ago? It looks cool!

Is that bump mapping I see?... If so, that is freaken dope bro!

Actually, FC and I were talking a while ago about the apache I was building, and we thought of a few ideas for the turret. I can't remember off the top of my head on what the idea was, but I think it would've worked. Get in touch with him, he could probably explain it way better than I could. Also, if you want, I could send you my max file of the apache so you can use it as sort of a reference. However, I'm pretty sure yours will be far superior to what I was going with. I will definitly be keeping my eye on this project. You have a big thumbs up from me

Man, I keep hearing stories of new troops coming back talking about all the priveledges that they got in basic. I don't remember any priveledges at all when I was in basic, and that was only 5 1/2 years ago! Not once did we ever go to Burger King, not once did we have 15 minutes to watch TV, not once were we ever allowed to carry a cell phone with us. I'm hearing these stories from the new troops. I mean WTF?!?!?! Seriously, why change things, why make things easier when in the methods in the past have proved to be succesfull. Aren't all the victories in the wars past a testament to that? Who's F-ed up brilliant idea was it to wimpify the military? How the heck are our troops supposed to have that combat, ready to give it all, no fear mentality? Hell, I don't think even basic was tough enough when I went through. I didn't crap my pants at least once. Don't get me wrong, it was the most hell I've ever went through and I would never want to do it again. But I feel like I've been done a dis-service to be able to be mentally ready if I get deployed in a hot combat zone (which apparently I've been told that the AF will never allow their troops to be in... whatever ).

If I subscribe to a paid membership here, how long does it take in to effect? I just subscribed for Choice membership about 10 minutes prior to this post and this site hasn't recognized my subscription. Been downloading stuff all day and I hit my limit being a non-paid member .

All right, so I did a quick study up on how much the AIM-120A cost when first distributed, and it came up to $300,000. So I told my dad this and he was kind of surprised. Then he told that he might have gotten the figures wrong and instead of almost 1 million bucks, it might have been in the 1 thousand dollar range lol! Anyways, wanted to make sure I gave you guys an accurate story.

In Russia, weapon blows up for you.

Some of you here may have already heard from me that my dad, back in the 1980's did work on the AIM-120 AMRAAM. What I didn't know until tonight is how influential he was with the project. Apparently, during development, Hughes Aircraft and Missiles (HAM) contracted a company down in San Diego to design and produce the AGC Amp for the missile. They were going to build it out of gallium-arcinide, which would have cost the part $330,000, and the part was going to be used 3 times in the missile. My dad saw this and told his bosses that he thinks he can design a part to do the same job, but made out of silicon, in which the part would only cost $50! HAM did a design concession and approved for my dad to design and build the part. The design ended up being a big success. It was more efficient and reliable than the part from the other company and just about took $1,000,000 off the price tag of a missile! He received a peformance achievement award and several other commendatoions for the job. I just thought that was kind of cool and wanted to share it with you folks.

Heaven is where beer is made by the Irish, chocolate by the Dutch, and waffles by the Belgians... Hell is where Beer is made by the Dutch, chocolate by the Belgians, and waffles by the Irish.

Whew... you scared me there FC. I was on the home page when I saw the subject title (didn't show the sub-title) and was thinking the worse. Yeah, the guy is funny. Used to occasionally watch his show.

For 3D modeling, you need to understand that one model is made up of many different parts, especially cockpits which can be vert exhausting and time consuming to build correctly. However, the end result is very rewarding... that is if you finish the project... which I'm notorious for not doing. Which brings me to another point on 3D model making... it requires a lot of free time and motivation, and the later can burn out quickly, especially if your free time is very limited. I started 3D model making by just fooling around with the free ware stuff. It's not really that difficult to do, and with greater understanding of the program that you're using, it can be quite easy to use. I know some guys who can build an entire model in 3 days! Just goes to show that it's not a very complicated hobby to get into; but if you really want to get into it, prepare to make a significant financial investment in it because the best software to use will cost you an arm and a leg, and maybe even your kidney.

Today on shift, I'm posted on a perimeter patrol, where we do periodic exterior and interior perimeter checks. Addition to this, me and my partner are responsible for lowering the flag at end of day, respond to any calls that may occure during shift, and assisting with other assigned posts and patrols where needed. So we can become kind of busy if things pick up quite a bit. So today we first had to respond to a fire alarm that was trigered by the heat wave that we are experincing in SoCal. After that was completed, we conducted an exterior perimeter. Once that was done, we had to go to the gate to temporarily relieve the lead member to take care of some supply issues. Then we had to respond to the desk to prepare to lower the flag for end of day. Once completed (and we had to re-fold the flag because it was kind of done sloppily), we conducted an interior perimeter check. Now after we had completed that, my partner had to drop off some distro for one of our members up at the main gate who was off for the day. While there, the lead member at the post pulls me aside in private, inside the gate shack and chews me out for not checking up on him in a frequent manner (now mind you, he is partnered up, he is a TSgt, there are two other patrols posted 100 meters in front of him at the vehicle inspection facility - who are doing nothing but watching DVDs since it's a slow day). I ask him why does he not advise over the radio that he needs a quick relief or a check up? He responds back saying that he shouldn't have to and that me being as an NCO, I should automatically frequently check up on him - disregarding the fact that we had already been up to his post about 90 minutes prior, and we also dropped off a soda bottle for his partner - who was also a TSgt. He continues on, stating that I'm not putting in a good effort as a NCO by failing to check up on him (btw, I should state that the FC has mentioned during our guardmounts that if we need a relief, we shouldn't hesitate to CALL it in over the radio - which this guy does not do). I advise him that his accusations are rediculous, uncalled for, that he is mis-using his authority and rank in this matter, and that this conversation is done and over with. I go and open up the sliding door to the shack to walk out and he immediately slams it shut, pushes me aside, grabs my arm, and cusses me out. Now, this guy also practices martial arts and suffers from ADHD and takes the meds for it. So I was kind of on the verge of crapping myself when he did this. At that point I immediate notify the desk via landline, advising of the situation, that I'm under duress and need assistance. The desk sergeant then asks to speak with this TSgt and after that I am able to leave the post (not without the TSgt trying to back pedal and re-explain to me what he was trying to say - and at this point I'm just humoring him to get the F out of there). Once I leave, I notify my supervisor of what happened (oh, and the best part about this, the TSgt. is my supervior's supervisor). So my sup doesn't want me to immediately file a statement on this, that he will talk to this TSgt and hopefully "squash" the matter from here on out. Although, everybody else wants me to file a statement. This sup is new to our element and I don't want to just push him aside, in an act that pretty much would say that I have no faith in him. However, this isn't the first time that this TSgt has done something like this, and he is taking medication for ADHD (and from what I understand, he isn't supposed to be working on flight while taking those meds because they are known to cause folks to snap - just like this). So what should I do? Let my sup handle this, or write up a statement? I've pretty much stated that I do not want to work with this individual anymore, and would rather change flights or elements to avoid further contact with him. This is a first for me in this unit (infact the Air Force itself in the past 5 years of serving) in which I've been in a physical altercation with someone. I know on the active duty side, this would warrant an Article 15. However, this isn't an AD base, and it kind of operates a bit differently because of that. So saying that, I have no desire to see someone's carreer get tossed down the drain. However, I have zero tolerance for someone using unjustified physical force on me to gain submission to their will. So, your advices please.

Track IR has never failed me. It is one of the best things I have ever bought for PC simming!