Fubar512

The pertinent ones, of course

Not yet. I'm waiting for Swambast's Object Placement tool, and then we'll be able to accurately place it, with properly oriented launchers and SAM radar. That way, all it would take to place it, would be to locate and identify a suitably flat area on any given terrain map, and then create a targets.ini entry for the "new" site(s).

Oh, really? Model by Diego....

Only 3rd-party effects need to be in the effects folder. The default effects are contained within the particlesystem.ini, and it (and its attendant .tga files), reside within the flightdata.cat. I suggest that you do not mess with it, unless you know what you're doing.

400 is probably grossly inaccurate. The person to ask, would probably be TK at ThirdWire, as perhaps he uses some formula to estimate output based on real-world values. then again, it may just all be based on his taking a S.W.A.G at the values. And the multiple frequencies used by some units (search, track, uplink), should be self-explanatory. Stick, what a radar operator "sees" on their display, would depend on the type of display, and the jammer used. I'd imagine that it would run the gamut from a subtle distortion, to snow or grass, or just possibly a multitude of false targets, when (in reality) there's only one.

That's just ghosting of the B-scan strobe, and is probably intended to add a modicum of realism.

i'd really like to see a screenshot of that. BTW, which aircraft are you flying when you experience this?

Going by your description, those "blocks" are returns off of aircraft. Jamming in this series does not show on radar displays as snow (or noise), nor does it steal your range gate, or any of the other neat things it might do in real life. All it would do, is prevent you from either acquiring a target, or from maintaining lock on it. And, as you correctly observed, none of the VPAF aircraft as modeled in WoV or SF2V, were equipped with jammers.

Well, in RL, the latest F-18 varients have an AESA-based jamming system, that can defeat just about anything at standoff range, and can utilize the full-power of the AESA radar as a jammer.

A commercially available 9and popular) marine radar-set, has a higher output than the AWG-9 did: http://www.furunousa.com/Furuno/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?ProductCategory=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B55569A8B8619E148AE7923E9133AF845%5D%5D&Product=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B20ED4D72F6BCBE4EA89B42A75F214632%5D%5D&Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B10DBCBB62D72944FADA152BF1E2E0373%5D%5D Yes, 12 KW, for less than 12,000 (including a 6' open area antenna). The issue is not one of output, but of the ability of the unit to discern and discriminate tragets at range. The above-mentioned RADAR is limited to 72 miles, by the curvature of the earth. Its energy reaches much further than that. One thng that's not modeled in this series, is the reflectivity of different materials. I can attest (with probably over 1000 hours playing with various marine radars), that anything made of wood or fiberglass makes for a notoriously poor radar reflector, while aluminum and steel all but overwhelm a radar, with sharp, bright returns. I once had the opportunity to look at a surfaced 688 class submarine on a radar, and found it to have a smaller signature than a nearby, 10+ meter long party-fishing boat. The sub's rounded hull, and its anechoic tiles, are probably what was responsible for that.

There are threads in the knowledge base dealing with frequencies. Frequencies in this series are expressed as Gigahertz (Ghz), or fractions thereof. Radar Cross Sections (RCS), are calculated off of a models area ratio, and are expressed as multiple or fractions. For example, the MiG-21, instead of having an RCS of "1.0", should instead have one of "0.77", as it's relative RCS is roughly 3/4s of its area ratio. An F-117, has a tiny, fractional ratio, actually smaller than some birds. Radar track and search strength values are somewhat ambiguous. For example, one of the most powerful radars ever mounted on a fighter, the F-14's AWG-9, has a real-life output of 10.5 Kilowatts. So do we set it's search or track strength to 10.5? Obviously not...as the model would not be able to maintain lock against another model outside of visual range (I tested this to make sure). Only TK can supply an answer to that one, though I suspect that most are over-modeled. Through trial and error, I found that a value of "60.0" allows me to track and lockup bomber-sized targets at 200 km range with an F-14, yet it won't see an F-117 until it's within 20 miles, and will not lock one up until it's visible from the cockpit.

I was about to reply, until I noticed this line in your post: "Please dont ask me to use search engines,if you know anything about what i posted above then reply otherwise not." That is considered damned rude, in any society or culture. How do you think we arrived at this data? Via osmosis, from having the install disk close by? NO, we used SEARCH ENGINES, both global (google, yahoo, etc.) and proprietary, such as the search engines at this site, the one at Third wire, and at SimHQ. I will give you the benefit of doubt, and assume (for now) that it's a syntax/translation issue, and not a lack of manners...

File Name: NukeBeta File Submitter: Fubar512 File Submitted: 3 Dec 2004 File Category: SF Weapons Mods/Skins Nuclear weapons effects for SFP1 & WoV (SFP1 SP3 & WoV SP1 are required). Works with latest weaponspack for SF/WoV, dated 11/19/2004. Includes sound. Click here to download this file

Contact Marcelo from MarcFighters, and BPAo from the Mirage factory. They both have accounts here, and produce models in all the categories you've mentioned, except for the MiG-21PF-'21bis, which are proprietary ThirdWire models (my apologies if I've left anyone out).

This is hilarious. The question begs to be asked: WTF was he thinking at the time? http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/new_york_ap_a.html

Useless Alien factoid #1: The Alien's proboscis, was modeled after (drum roll) a Moray Eel's ! http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php?topic=6440.msg144567

Freudian slip? If that was the case, the late Frank Perdue might have appreciated (and understood) it....

This should answer your first question: http://www.a7dpit.com/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=1&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=47

I recall one gaffe by a sports commentator during a mid 1970s Miami Dolphins game. It went something to the effect of "Holy Shiit!!!! How about that catch!!!" Or the time that another commentator slipped up while describing a punt-return by the Denver Bronco's Rick Upchurch (showing my age here)..."Look at that Sumnabitch Go!!!!"

The fly-by sound is nothing more than a doppler-compressed or lengthed version of the engine souund .wav file (or combined engined & afterburner sounds, if applicable). The series is hardcoded to use whichever engine sound is in use by a particular model....so you cannot have a separate fly-by sound, as you can with engine, afterburners, or internal "wind" sounds. All sounds used in this series are 11025 Hz, 16-bit monoaural .wav files, by default. You can edit the samplerate, right on up to 44100 Hz (and possibly higher), and use either an 8 or a 16-bit format. But, you can never, never use more than single channel (mono) encoding.

Maybe it's your speaker setup. That's a fairly common issue. Fly-by.wmv

I realize that we're talking about two different systems, but you did state that the Su-27 lacked the supplemental intakes that the MiG-29 had, and I showed you that it does not. The MiG-29's intake shields are not there just for FOD-protection, they also close during high-alpha states. This is due to the inlet's position, below and behind the LERXs (Leading Edge Root Extensions). During high-alpha flight, the LERXs would all but cut off airflow to the power plants, so the upper intakes open, to provide clean (non-turbulent) airflow. I believe that a similar system is utilized on the Su-27, through the lower and nacelle-side intakes.

From: http://ma.hit.bg/su27history/history1.html While preserving the general arrangement of air intakes, the new aircraft had a new foreign-object damage (FOD) system introduced for preventing FOD during taxiing, run and take-off through the use of extendable screens in the air intakes' ducts. Supplementary air inlet ramps were added to the lower surface of the air intakes. So the supplemental intakes are probably under, and aft of the main inlets, like the ones outlined in red, below:

If I'm not mistaken, those are inlet debris screen, similar to the ones on the MiG-29 "[2] SU-27 INTO SERVICE * The production Su-27 clearly retained much of the look of the original T10, but the changes were visible and obvious. The most apparent change was the adoption of a larger wing that featured straight edges, replacing the curved wing of the T10. Other visible changes included: Moving the twin vertical tailplanes from positions directly atop the engines to just outboard of the engines. Moving the nosewheel back behind the cockpit to reduce engine ingestion of debris during ground operations, and for the same reason installing inlet debris screens that retract and extend along with the landing gear. Twin ventral fins." Source: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avsu27.html

Not really. Goldwater was not that way. Neither was Ford, nor Reagan. Remember that Ford "took" one for the team, in pardoning Nixon. Even corrupt 'ol Teddy boy later admitted that it was one of the wisest moves ever by any serving president, as it saved the country both the expense, and the embarrassment of an investigation and prosecution. I was not too impressed by either Bush, when it came to both the economy, and domestic policy. They both compromised their ideals for political gain, as best evidenced by G.H.W. Bush's infamous "Read my lips" speech. His agreement with liberals in passing the resulting Luxury tax, put a crimp in the economy, and cost him the '92 election.