eburger68

John: As it is currently configured, the Mirage IIIEA does have more thrust than the CJ/Shahak. Here are the numbers: CJ/Shahak: SLThrustDry=41635.4 SLThrustWet=58841.1 IIEA: SLThrustDry=46080.00 SLThrustWet=64840.00 The IIIEA does have a difference in engine thrust position: ThrustPosition=0.0,-2.0,0.0 Try setting the position to: ThrustPosition=0.0,0.0,0.0 As for the CJ cockpit, try using the attached files. Eric Howes MirageIIIEA_Cockpit.zip

2ltJoch: I've now compared the Mirage IIICJ (Shahak) with the MirageIIIEA. For starters, the flight models are pretty much identical. As I said, I transplanted an SF2I delta flight model into the MF Mirage IIIEA. So why the performance difference? 1. Empty weight of the Mirage IIIEA is 1000kg greater. 2. Mirage IIIEA carries 800kg more internal fuel. 3. Your comparison used 1700 tanks vs. 500L supersonic tanks. That's another 1900kg additional weight for the Mirage IIIEA. So, all told the Mirage IIIEA is carrying 3700kg more weight than the Shahak. That's a large difference. Does someone have good numbers (empty weight, internal fuel, engine thrust, etc.) for the IIIEA? That would be something to double-check. Eric Howes

Adrian: You wrote: Well, not quite. There are minor mapping differences. You can see them if you put the files from torno' skins side by side with the Nesher files from SF2I. The differences are minor, but they are there. Some experienced skinner could probably take care of those easily. But the mapping is not the biggest problem. The real problem is that the set consists of individual skins for aircraft with all the various serial numbers painted on the yexture files themelves instead of being done as decals. They look great, but that means using them in a campaign is a problem. Since a squadron can point to only one texture set, all the aircraft in the squadron would have the same serial number -- not exactly desirable if you were looking to improve the historical accuracy of the mod. Now, if someone were to do generic versions of these skins (preferably one with the blue fields, one with the yellow fields, and one with no colored fields) along with a decal set that could be used with them, then we'd be in business. As things stand, though, using these skins for a campaign is problematic. Any chance someone could do the three generic skins with decals? Great. When you have them finished please post them in the "fixes & updates" thread. Whatever model we use, the historically accurate loadouts will be a plus. Eric Howes

2ltJoch: You can substitute the cockpit. For us to do it would require a change in installation requirements. I'll consider making it an optional substitution, but we would ship only the INIs to do it. FWIW, the MirageIIIEA is already using a 3rdWire flight model from SF2I. I'll look it over again -- esp. draggy surfaces. Eric Howes

TerceraEscuadrilla: Which of torno's skins are you referring to? DAGGER over the Malvinas-Falklands 1982 http://combatace.com...falklands-1982/ 3 Historical Dagger Skins http://combatace.com...-dagger-part-1/ http://combatace.com...-dagger-part-2/ http://combatace.com...-dagger-part-3/ Also, both sets appear to be for WOI. Are you sure they map correctly to the SF2I version of the Nesher? Edit: I just checked both sets of skins against the SF2I Nesher skins. There are indeed mapping differences, which means that whichever set of skins you had in mind would need to be reworked somewhat before we could use it for the SF2I Nesher. Eric Howes

Gunrunner: If you're willing, I say go for the GR3 mods and the Skyhawk skins. The time-frame you suggest is completely reasonable. Keepin mind that the 3rdWire GR3, like the Nesher-based Dagger, would be an optional install for those with access to those models. Once I have your GR3, I can adjust the 3rd-party data to match it, though. Thanks, Eric Howes

Gunrunner: The Harrier GR3 squadron is an easy fix. Any ETA on the other things you're working on? Eric Howes

luk1978: My understanding is that the 500L supersonic tanks on the delta Mirages were not designed to be dropped, unlike the larger drop tanks that can also be carried on the wings. If someone has other information, please do share. Not much I can do about the in-game message that the tanks have been dropped when in fact they haven't -- that bug or anomaly has been in the game for years. I'll look at the other items you mention. Btw, I tried the "stock" waternormal.bmp that you supplied. It didn't appear to have any effect on my system -- WinXP DX9. By contrast, when I unpacked the 3rdWire waternormal.bmp from the Desert.cat (as someone else suggested to improve the appearance of the water), it did work, giving the water a much more liquid-like appearance. Are the .bmps that you supplied for DX10 only? Eric Howes

2ltJoch: Interesting information. And you've gone through the TYPES.INI & TARGETS.INI to ensure that there are no mising terrain objects? I'm still inclined to deliver the Nesher-based Dagger as an optional install, as there are plenty of folks who won't have SF2I. Thanks Eric Howes

luk1978: Thanks much for uploading that. Funny enough, the "stock" photo actually looks best to me. What I'll probably do is use your repainted tiles and include all three versions of the waternormal.bmp, with two being optional versions that users can select. I notice that you included alternate verions of the non-water tiles as well. What changes were made to these? Thanks, Eric Howes

TerceraEscuadrilla: I think he was referring to a campaign that he's playing in the game, not the actual conflict as it happened. That said, any temporary disappearance of Argentine aircraft in the campaign after the tankers were destroyed would have been pure coincidence. There's nothing in the campaign or game to tie mission generation to the existence of the tankers. Eric Howes

luk1978: Water looks great. Were you planning to upload your work to the "fixes" thread I started? Thanks, Eric Howes

TerceraEscuadrilla: It's a nice set of skins, no doubt. The problem is that using them would completely change the installation requirements for the mod. Players would need an install of SF2I. Whether SF2I alone would work with the mod, I don't know. We'd have to go through the TYPES.INI and TARGETS.INI to check that every terrain structure being used was also in SF2I. If there were any missing structures, then the installation requirements would become SF2 or SF2V plus SF2I. Whatever the case, it would not be a trivial change. Edit: A few more thoughts. What we could do is offer the Nesher-based Dagger (sans the LODs) as an "optional" install within the installation package, somewhat like we do with various things in the SF2V Expansion Pack. There would be an optional IAI Dagger directory with the all the necessary bits (again, minus the LODs) for folks who have SF2I. We would supply simple instructions for swapping out the default Dagger with the Nesher-based Dagger. It would really be a matter of: 1) move or delete the default Dagger; 2) drop the new one in. Eric Howes

Folks: Seems that bad patch fever is spreading. The Jan 2011 Updates that I released a few days ago contained some errors -- misplaced files, missing files, etc. To correct these problems I have refreshed the Jan 2011 Updates this morning. Those who downloaded the initial, buggy release of either patch can download a smaller "fix pack" here: SF2V: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/sf2v/SF2V_XP_Jan11_Upd_Fix.7z WOV: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/sf2v/WOV_X-P_Jan11_Upd_Fix.rar Installation process for this smaller fix pack is the same as for the main update. Apologies for the confusion. Eric Howes

Folks: Seems that bad patch fever is spreading. The Jan 2011 Update that I released a few days ago contained some errors -- misplaced files, missing files, etc. To correct these problems I have refreshed the Jan 2011 Update this morning. Apologies for the confusion. Eric Howes

Folks: Seems that bad patch fever is spreading. The Jan 2011 Update that I released a few days ago contained some errors -- misplaced files, missing files, etc. To correct these problems I have refreshed the Jan 2011 Update this morning. Apologies for the confusion. Eric Howes

2ltJoch: The problem with carriers in campaigns is that we can't control the alignment of the carriers. Carrier alignment is determined by the game engine itself based on wind direction in the game-generated missions. In game-generated single missions (set in 1983) the carriers are correctly aligned because they're terrain objects placed in the TARGETS.INI, so we have complete control over those. Of course, the downside to that arrangement is that you can't take off from the carriers. You always take off from FOB San Carlos. Eric Hwoes

Folks: If you are planning to submit something for inclusion in the updated version of the SF2 Falklands '82 mod but haven't finished whatever it is you're working on, please post a notice here. Tell me what it is you're planning to submit and how much work you have left to complete it. The window for submitting items for the updated version is not going to stay open indefinitely. Thanks, Eric Howes

Folks: Both the SF2V & WOV Expansion Packs have been updated: SF2V Expansion Pack - Jan. 2011 Update http://combatace.com/files/file/10466-sf2v-air-ground-war-expansion-pack-v20-jan-2011-update/ WOV Expansion Pack - Jan. 2011 Update http://combatace.com/files/file/10658-wov-air-ground-war-expansion-pack-gold-jan-2011-update/ This Jan. 2011 Update replaces the Jul. 2010 update that was previously available. It incorporates all the fixes & additions from the Jul 2010 Update plus some new ones. The SF2V update also includes updates for those with Exp. Pack 2 merged into their installs. As always, please read the ReadMe before plunging in. Eric Howes

Folks: This update package has once again been updated. It is now the Jan.2011 Update. It incorporates all the fixes from the Jul. 2010 Update plus some new new fixes and updates. As always, please read the ReadMe before plunging in. Eric Howes

Folks: This update package has once again been updated. It is now the Jan. 2011 Update. It incorporates all the fixes from the Jul. 2010 Update, some new new fixes and updates, plus updates for those w/ Exp. Pack 2 merged into their installs. As always, please read the ReadMe before plunging in. Eric Howes

Piecemeal: If you're doing Vietnam air bases, don't forget the ubiquitous blue pickup trucks and the sneaker-wearing Catholic priest in the arming area. Eric Howes

Folks: Those who planning to use GH3 with the Expansion Pack will probably want these alternate air base tiles, which were kindly supplied by Stary: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/sf2v/GH3_XP_Airbase_Tiles.zip Those alternate tiles generally follow the new AB tiles used in the Expansion Pack. Eric Howes

Malibu43: Although I am finishing an update for the Expansion Pack right now, I am not planning to incorporate GH3 into that update. See my post above for the reasons. Eric Howes

ChampionsVA56: Unfortunately, I don't think compatability with the Expansion Pack terrain is going to be so simple. Yes, you can get the new tiles TODs to load no problem. The problem lies with all the custom target areas in the Expansion Pack terrain. Those target areas were specifically constructed to fit particular features of the GH2 tile set. A lot of time was invested getting object placement just right so that buildings and other structures looked appropriately located in that older tile set. GH3 uses a new tile set & new TODs-- this is not just a repaint of the old version. Although I have not tested this new tile set, I have done some spot checking of individual tiles. There are significant differences. As a result, target areas from the Expansion Pack could very well look oddly placed -- as if they simply didn't belong where they are located. Again, I haven't tested GH3 yet, just compared tiles with GH2. Eric Howes