Bongodriver

Best tool I've used for tweaking angle of attack is my joystick. p.s. you do know what angle of attack is don't you? simply it is the angle between the relative airflow and the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing, not as I susspect you think, something to do with the angle at which you attack your target, it is purely an aerodynamics value.

Gosh, looks like this beastie is surrounded in controversy, all we need now are some socialist pinko's to come along and cancell it But, there are clearly 2 compelling arguments, Fastcargo has a very good point, a name endears the aircraft more to it's crews etc.... the other point is equally as valid, let's not take this thread down that road, so for now, keep names to PM's to me or Ant so we can make a list of the ones we can make a poll on. So to start this thread back on the correct path, heres a quick screenie of an effect I am working on, basically I don't like the way the game cuts off exhaust smoke when burners kick in so I have created ths effect to keep some smoke on burner (this particular effect is an edit to the data ini, but I am creating taylored AB and smoke effects for the TSR) We all know how smoky aircraft were from that era.

The debate hots up but I see no real conclusion in sight, depending on how both sundowner and I feel, I may suggest this goes to poll after all, but it would work better if there was nothing more than a vote on a list of names and no discussions outside of that list IMHO, but first of all a list must be created, suggestions? I would rather take the naming of this bird outside of this particular thread and perhaps start a new one for creating the list, then a further polling thread, how does that sound?

We need Lazyboy, I believe he has a wealth of information that might just pin down what might have been in terms of names, I would just hope to avoid polling on this one for various reasons. BAC was formed from Hunting, Bristol, English electric and Vickers Armstrong, so we could narrow down naming convention to something from any of those company's.

Not something I,ve heard, but I will have it researched, for now were just getting the thing built, the FM is still a donor jaguar as are other bits. Interesting to hear the name suggestions, untill we have researched what might have been it's official designation, we have in mind Tempest(II) or Tempest GR.1 poosibly, but since anything beyond the development aircraft are pure 'what if' almost anything goes. Zephyr is good, but for me it brings images of a very old ford car.

Short answer is probably yes, but don't get too exited, these things can take at least 2 weeks.

I am trying to think hard what the aircraft that Brown's character is hacking up, looks awfully like a C-17, is there something I don't know?(probably actually ) .....EEEEWWWWGGGGHHHHH!!!!! Yes that pic sums up what the goverment did and continues to do to our country, and they don't give us the courtesy of a reach around.

Well me ans Sundowner have discussed the possible name for it, and I think we have found one, keep it under wraps for now untill were sure.

Not to disagree with Fastcargo and wagsled, I do agree simulators are damaging to the student pilot, but I don't agree entirely that MSFS is even worth using, especially in terms of VFR flight, I found all my students who used MSFS never had a good scaning look out of the window, they all fixated on the AH when there was a beautifull horizon out of the window, but on the other hand some students who were combat sim fans had a very good use of lookout, stemming from the fact they were looking for their quarry all the time in the simulators. By the time a student is learning to fly instruments They usually have either gained their PPL or they are an advanced commercial student with a good few hours behind them, this is when MSFS can fill in, but even then a propper procedural trainer can not be beaten. I know I am not Military fast jet experienced (I fly a beaten up old Islander and some other Twins) but I am a commercial pilot and flying instructor, so I am talking from my own experience. Oh, one quick point to lorddemonicus, Do Not tell your instructor 'but when I did this in my combat simulator at home' ,they will have a sense of humour failure, Instructors don't appreciate kids who think they know better, and they wil s**t a brick when that kid says they know it all because of a computer game.

Ok heres a quick vid of my gear retraction sequence And a vid of the real thing with a section showing the retraction sequence

My initial thoughts are No, I can't see how it could work, and I dont believe the game engine has any such support for a feature like that, but.... I believe someone is working on a small project which involves a component added as a weapon and is animated, the results of the experiment are unknown at this time, I am waiting with baited breath.

Yes basically, the same component is animated twice, once for retraction and second for shock stroke. will have a vid of the sequence on take off shortly. Actually I just realised I am confusing things, I actually changed the sequence I am talking about, my first model attempt I had exactly the sequence I am talking about, one mesh animated twice, I have to say I did change that so that 2 meshes now complete the sequence, I changed it because I was unhappy with a lack of detail in the original, and when I changed it I thought I may as well split the animation between components. To shorten the above edit, both versions gave the same effect.

I will see if I can get a fraps capture of the gear sequence and post it here.

All 4 main wheels are reported in the ini, the animation I think overides all entries in the ini, and to be honest the effect is so short lived that it is probably acceptable, not sure how the min max extents would affect this so I will try that.

It's actually quite simple, a component can be animated in two animation slots, so the pivot for the main gear bogey has a function for retraction and as a shock, this is actually quite a complex gear and I didn't know if my idea would work, but it seems to work well enough, one small saccrifice I had to accept was as the aircraft lifts the trailing wheel slightly sinks into the ground as the shock animation kicks in.

Well I'd like to know if best of's count too, in which case I would never live without Free's Molten gold anthology

Ok some more screenies of my TSR, not sure if there is some confusion over this as jullhelm has posted his TSR on here, reminds me of an old joke, TSR2's are like busses

That is exactly what I did with the typhoon, so yes it works, IMHO it works best for digital displays, not sure how analog instruments would look if done that way.

Can't be done

Check me out I'm blushing

I'm pleased to say you have passed the interview, welcome aboard the TSR development programme

FC, yes I have a job, did you check out my islander thread recently, I posted a youtube vid of me flying it. and the bonus is with all the standby I do, theres time to fire up 3ds max.

Saccriledge, how dare you say it looks like an oversized jaguar, the TSR is pure sex on stalky undercarriage Only kidding, it does look a bit jaguar, and I would bet any money the TSR influenced the british half of the jag development

You can have illuminated instruments, take a look at my typhoon, all the digital displays are illuminated at night, but as jug says, there is no function for actually switching them on, unless they were linked to a spare external animation.

Hi Spectre, a little OT but can you tell me how many decals you are trying to apply to the typhoon tail, I had this problem before but I honestly thought I solved it on the typhoon, the problem was from putting too many decals on one mesh, max of 4 I believe so I split the tail into 2 halves so the fin could have 4 decals each side. Back on topic, I still would strongly recomend paint.net for it's simplicity and the fact its free, even just to have it in the toolbox, before sundowner made the skins for the typhoon, I only used this prog, it really is a poor man's photoshop.