Fubar512

LOL, a bit off topic.. I once found myself broke a few days before payday, but had promised tp take my girlfriend out for dinner. As I was deciding which jacket to wear, I decided to try on a leather jacket that I had not worn since the previous Winter. Much to my surprise, I found a pair of crisp $50 bills in the inside pocket . It seems that the last time I'd worn the jacket, I'd gone to Atlantic City, and had won some money....

There are two Su-25 WIPs. Wpnssgt's and Marc's.

Iraqi Fulcrum-A

Also, the relevant statement is a "modifier", which implies a multiple, ie 1.0 = set standard, 2.0 = 2x the standard, etc. This differs from ground objects, which have an actual "RadarCrossSection" statement, not a modifier.

Be aware that ground objects in this series have had RCS values for years, if not right from the onset.

It depends where they "hit", and the the location (or lack of) of hit boxes. For example, the first FM for one popular model had no hit boxes defined for the rear section of that model, and missiles seemed to explode harmlessly against it, until someone corrected it.

Fuzing distance as it applies to weapons in this series has no effect, in as far as proximity from the target is concerned. The weapon will still only detonate on contact. Hopefully, this will be resolved in the future, possibly in SF2, or with its follow on titles.

30 or 40 miles is a bit far, in-game, and well out of the SA-2's envelope. If tasked with eliminating SAM defenses around Haiphong, I normally cruise at altitude while I let my wingman loose on the AAA, and target the nearest SAM radars with my Shrikes (the sites immediately north and south of Haiphong). I then wait for the sites off to the west to light off their radars, and engage them with STARMs when they switch from track to acquisition (guidance) mode.

In my experience, it's best to carry a full load out of ARMs, and have your wingman loaded out with CBUs. You take out the SAM radars, and task your wingman with eliminating the AAA threat in the immediate vicinity of the target area. The real AAA threats are the 57 mm and larger weapons, as most strike packages will fly high and fast enough so they won't be bothered by 23 & 37 mm guns.

Well, you certainly have an issue, as evidenced by this: It's kind of hard to use Shrikes and STARMs against AAA, right? And, your priority targets during such a mission should be in the "area" of the airfields, not inside the airfield proper. The airfields during such a mission are generally the targets of a strike package, your task is to neutralize the SAM threat. There's a WoV mission in the downloads section, titled "Haiphong Strike 67", which I recommend trying.

Very simple. Fly an Iron Hands mission instead of a SEAD, and you'll be tasked to kill SAMs.

No 'effin way. The Torno should, at best, be slightly better than the default "1.0" RCS value, or about 0.98, and it has no provisions for IR masking (no "beaver tail" or side dam diffusers), so it's IR signature should be left at the default "1.0". In fact, from a side profile, its RCS should be greater than the default, due to its over-sized vertical stabilizer.

Well, a Phoenix is much heavier to begin with, and that renders it at a marked disadvantage agility-wise, when it comparing to something the size and mass of an an AMRAAM. The '54 was designed to be a long-range bomber killer. The fact that "its faster", is again, a moot point against an agile target. LPI radar in combination with GPS, means that at least in theory, that one can acquire ranging and position data on a target with a single sweep, secure the radar, and then launch a missile "dumb" at the target's projected flightpath. As the missile approaches its waypont, it lights off its radar, and acquires the target without any further guidance from its launch platform.

The AIM-120D has almost the same effective range as the last generation of the AIM-54 (rumors are, 180 km), and something on the order of 3X the PK as the '54C. Its seeker head sports an LPI AESA radar. So, why use a 35 year old missile design that's not been upgraded since the late 80s/early 90s? Also, the only thing preventing the B-1B from exceeding Mach 1.4, is its low-observable inlet design. It's within the realm of feasibility to modify the design in order to allow it to supercruise.

The easiest fix (which I'm surprised no one's mentioned) is to simply set the horizon distance to "normal". That alone will significantly reduce your CPU load.

MiG-17s are all but uncontrollable above 450-475 KIAS. Their unboosted controls suffered lock ups in the pitch axis, and they went into a wing-warp induced dutch roll above that speed. The '17 also had a roll-rate that was inferior to even an A-6 Intruder.

Based on my observations, a value of 1.0 is seems to be the standard figure used for F-4 and F-15 sized aircraft, and is quite possibly the default (hard-coded) value in this series. From what I've seen so far, ECM strength corresponds directly to radar track strength. In other words, if radar track strength is 40, an ECM value of 40 would jam it completely. This would of course be quite unrealistic. In real life, a radar would eventually burn through a jammer's output, mostly due to the focused nature of a radar beam as opposed to the omni-directional signal from a jammer. The AI makes effective use of whatever ECM capability its given.

The RCS value used by the series may have been originally intended and coded to use square meters as a reference, but this means nothing to the current avionics code. Effectively, radar can still "see" a target well beyond what it should be able to, so we needed to compromise in this area for game-plays sake. The value we used limits the ability of a radar to lock onto the target, as stated in my earlier post.

Upon researching it a bit further, it seems that the collision data for a terrain object, would be contained in a separate collision mesh. Simply having the model .lod pull double-duty obviously doesn't cut it.

The RCS value we chose for the F-117 is based on testing it in-game against ground-based missile systems, and against airborne interceptors. A powerful radar will "see" the F-117 at 25 nm, but cannot acquire it (achieve "radar lock"), until it's within 4-5 nm. The only ground-based threat that is deadly at close range, is the SA-10 (S-300). The heat signature value likewise renders that model invisible to all but the closest threats, and even then, 70-80% of IRMs that do manage to initially acquire it, go stupid and lose lock, just after they're launched.

You need to give them "hit boxes". You can do so by simply defining min and max extents, as you would with any other object (planes, ships, tanks, etc.)

SF2 has over a dozen atmospheric environment shaders...BTW

Having any luck?

Cool....this is from a post there...one that would make Stiglr slit his wrists, so, I'm quoting it here... "The new platform will be Strike Fighters 2 and we are also monitoring developments in LockOn which may allow us to continue our research there. The Strike Fighter engine is a far more complete 6-DoF than FSX/CFS. The damage model is also more developed as well. We have a test P-51D flying with SF2's more complete FM it's really nice. Graphically SF2 is not up to CFS3 levels but in the functionally department it's superior with carriers, guided missiles and radar to name a few. But the best thing is the dev openly and actively supports his product and it's continued evolution."