Fubar512

And now, how does the AI handle the flight model, and it's capabilities? Judge for yourselves http://forum.combatace.com/uploads/1264974100/gallery_279_54_8015870.wmv

Screw the Cobra maneuver......I present the "sidewinder Slide" http://forum.combatace.com/uploads/1264974100/gallery_279_54_493202.wmv

X, Y, and Z coordinates. X = East-West line. Y = North-South line, Z = Elevation in meters.

To anyone who's ever read "Skunkworks" by Ben Rich, the whole concept of an F-117 "N" variant, would seem pretty far-fetched.

F-16 centerline tank weighs about 180-200 lbs empty, wing tanks about 150-175 lbs.

You've clearly misunderstood. I've never once said that it "looks too slow". Reread my comment...I'm implying that the perspective from low altitude is all wrong in EVERY sim I've tried (when compared to real life), due to the lack of depth perception, and scale. At 60-70 knots @ 200 feet MSL (typical final approach in a Cessna 172), one gets the impression that they're floating just above the rooftops, and in danger of hitting tree tops, cars, and trucks.

"Duke" Cunningham wrote that he preferred flying with a single center-line drop tank, as opposed to the wing-mounted drop tanks that were considered a normal loadout at the time. He stated that the latter "severely compromised the handling of the F-4, even when they were empty". I interpret this as there having been a policy against jettisoning the tanks during a mission.

All of mine have working shadows, and the shadow parameter's enabled in the .ini by default.

If my memory serves me right, it "fired" white plastic rounds, at a machinegun-like cyclic rate! My parents soon regretted getting it...lol http://cgi.ebay.com/1964-Deluxe-Reading-Defender-Dan-Machine-Gun_W0QQitemZ330400735970QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20100201?IMSfp=TL100201166003r10510

Looks as if you have mip-mapping enabled in the alpha0bject material section.

And here it is....judging by the Horribe Hamilton action figure and matching torpedo tank ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Invaders ), I'd say that this was taken on Christmas of 1964. That's me, with my (toy) .30 cal machine gun at the ready. Imagine what they'd think about the (wired) RC '63 Lincoln convertible in the background.....

LOL, there's an old photo of myself, that I need to find, scan, and upload...it was taken on Christmas morning in '64 or '65....I wonder how the school board in question would react to it?

Actually, I find it to be quite the opposite. Having flown light aircraft in real life, I can tell you that when flying much below 200 feet, it appears as if one is scraping the ground, and about to trade paint with cars. You don't quite get that perspective in any flight sim I've ever played.

I beg to differ...it's not simply "Dumb School News" it's more like "Dumb Education System News". The entire education system in this country (including pricipals, administrators, and yes, teachers), is shot to hell. They've continually shown that they cannot convey simple concepts, such as responsibility, the consequences of one's actions, and the difference between fantasy and reality. Hell, quite often, the teachers themselves cannot differentiate between the latter two

Regarding the Su-27, I suggest you try Kreelin's flight model, as at the time it was compiled, it was the most accurate. There's been a host of parameters added to the flight engine since that time (and the various lift and drag tables are now calculated to a higher degree of resolution). Though some of those parameters are automatically applied as "standards" to earlier models that initially lacked them, they are best individually calculated and tailored on an aircraft to aircraft basis. In simple terms, this means that the existing flight models need to be recompiled to SF2 standards.

First, you only have one wingman. The others are element leads and wings. YOur wingman would be "12", your second element's wing would be "14". If I understood correctly, it sounds as if your asking your wingman to attack an already destroyed target

That's the biggest culprit. Say your terrain tiles are 512x512 bitmaps, a resolution which translate to 768 kilobytes per tile. With the horizon distance set to "very Far" your system's trying to put down 300-400 of them. That's anywhere from 150-300 megabytes, just in terrain tiles alone! I recommend you set horizon distance to "normal", and you should notice a 20-50% increase in frame rates.

Gregory, Did you rename the .lods to match the "host" aircraft?

JM, I agree with you, except from my perspective, the "Golden age of sims" stretched from 1997-2000. It was pretty much over and done with by the beginning of '01. Wow...I recall the "simulations" aisles (in the PC games section) at either CompUSA or Computer City positively dwarfing those at the average EB store in both size and quality. Hell, the console games section at either of those stores amounted to no more than 25% of the floor space taken up by PC games.

Are you over 40 yet? Have you been married for at least 10 to 20 years? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", then it's not considered a mid-life crisis.

Practically every aspect of AI behavuor is tweakable in a model's data.ini.

There really isn't much reason to mess with the aircraftobject.ini anymore, as the relevent parameters can (and should be) set in the individual aircraft model's data.ini. This allows one to tailor the AI to take advantage of a specific model's attributes, without compromising the performance of other aircraft.

In a word, yes. The thrust-axis would work in the vertical range, from straight ahead, or 0.0 degrees, to whichever negative pitch angle you've decided on (I'm using -20.0 in the Active, to keep it realistic).

House MD, is a televising series, who's main character is a talented, but eccentric physician. House is world renown for his ability to cure people when no one else can. He surrounds himself with a team of doctors, for the purpose of providing "differential" diagnosis. His team members often supply diagnoses that are at odds with his own, and quite often, he finds insights in these opposing diagnosis that result in a cure, even though they are initially wrong, in of themselves. Actually, this mapping still allows for VTOL TV, as the controls still retain the statement for key-mapping. Using this mapping, in VTOL mode, you can "park" the nozzles, by fully retracting them. Afterwords, no amount of pitch input will activate them, until you depress the TV "down" key, in effect "unparking" them . Unfortunately, while in VTOL mode, the nozzles are still pitch-linked. This may be advantageous for "viffing", however. I also notice that that the entries have a numbered control set staement...perhaps one can create a "ControlSet002" in addition to the existing one, and switch between them, prior to game start.

Proof of concept video, notice the ability to hold steady altitude at 33 units of AoA at less than cruise power. Also note the pitch angle change of the ab plumes. And yes, you're neot seeing things, that heat blur effect is really there http://forum.combatace.com/uploads/1264640372/gallery_279_43_11844042.wmv