Fubar512

Lights cannot be added to ground objects via .ini tweaks. They must be incorporated into the model (.lod file), by the developer.

They're MF birds, and they're either being worked on, or will be updated. I do have a '21MF FM, that I will upload, shortly.

There are several sources, two of which I mentioned. To start with, there was (and there may still be) a rather interesting, free applet available from NASA, called "Enginesim", that allowed one to either create, or use an existing jet engine design, and produce altitude table graphs with literally dozens of entries.

This example, is from the Mirage Factory's (Kreelin's) Tumansky R-13 series, and illustrates my point: AltitudeTableNumData=83 AltitudeTableDeltaX=303.8 AltitudeTableStartX=0.0 AltitudeTableData=0.9993,0.9642,0.9330,0.9046,0.8783,0.8535,0.8298,0.8070,0.7850,0.7637,0.7431,0.7233,0.7043,0.6862,0.6690,0.6528,0.6376,0.6233,0.6099,0.5975,0.5858,0.5748,0.5644,0.5545,0.5450,0.5357, 0.5265,0.5172,0.5079,0.4983,0.4884,0.4780,0.4673,0.4560,0.4442,0.4319,0.4191,0.4058,0.3920,0.3780,0.3636,0.3490,0.3343,0.3195,0.3048,0.2903,0.2760,0.2621,0.2485,0.2355,0.2229,0.2109,0.1995,0.1887,0.178 5,0.1689,0.1598,0.1512,0.1431,0.1354,0.1280,0.1208,0.1139,0.1071,0.1005,0.0939362,0.0873,0.08087,0.0744,0.0680,0.0617,0.0557,0.0499,0.0444,0.0392,0.0345,0.0302,0.0263,0.0225,0.0187,0.0144,0.0090,0.0017 ,0.000 DryMachTableNumData=25 DryMachTableDeltaX=0.05 DryMachTableStartX=0.0 DryMachTableData=1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0042,1.0080,1.0133,1.0205,1.0296,1.0410,1.000, 0.9713,0.6908,0.3134,0.1394,0.00,0.00,0.00 WetMachTableNumData=22 WetMachTableDeltaX=0.1 WetMachTableStartX=0.0 WetMachTableData=0.9842805,0.9915914,1.0004157,1.0029738,1.0092311,1.0103222,1.0560442,1.1012654,1.1314681,1.2330341,1.3844839,1.5556399,1.8760589,2.0332034,2.1909406,2.3390799,2.4647821,2.5867926,2.6 835739,2.756534,2.8496669,2.9270453

Good call, though we have data from -1 and NATOPs manuals available to us. Also, 7-figure resolution is rather basic, as both Streakeagle (independent), and Kreelin (Mirage Factory), have produced dry and wet-Mach tables with upwards of 20-30 entries. That level of resolution can certainly be "felt" in a model's performance.

Here are some generalizations, to give one an idea as to what's required. A) Most piston engine fighters tend to be nose heavy, when compared to jet a/c, so the wings were mounted further forward on the airframe to compensate (moving the center of lift forward), but this also adds to he forward weight bias. B) Straight wings generate most of their lift in a narrower range than do modern swept wings, resulting in lower stall (alpha) values, but relatively higher Cla values, when compared on an area-by-area basis to modern designs. C) Stall and post-stall behavior is generally more benign on straight wings, and the nose-heavy weight bias almost guarantee's an easier stall recovery (think of a nose-heavy paper airplane, and you may find it easier to understand). D) Roll-rates are slightly different left-to-right on prop planes, due to the effects of propeller and engine torque. Feel free to add or critique

Climbing (lofted) Phoenix....

So, I guess that means that I should shelve my pulse-ion powered T-38 mod

OK....are all your addon weapons contained in the weapons folder? Is that weapons folder located INSIDE of the objects folder? Is the weapondata.ini located within the weapons folder?

Yes, there is a variable that controls a ship's sink rate. However, in RL, ships tend to slow to a stop as they sink. It's somewhat of an immersion-killer to see a ship crusing along at 15 knots, on its side, half submerged, leaving a wake, and not sinking

Ships sink.

Yes, as WoI uses the latest pack and weapon editor, all the other titles were updated to bring them into parity with WoI.

Here's an image of a US 16" inch, 2200 lb shell, to give you an idea as to what a BB was theoretically armored against: A link providing a nice explanation of the construction and armor protection of the USS Massachusetts: http://polyticks.com/bbma/armor.htm

The thickness of a BB's side belt traditionally matched the diameter of its main battery round. Using this generalized formula, a BB with 16" (400+ mm) main guns, would have 400 mm's worth of protection on its hull sides and turretts. The deck armor would be thinner, but would be "progressive" as one went further down into the BB's innards. Only an armor-piercing 2000 lb bomb would be capable of causing significant damage to such a beast, and then only if it found a chink in the BB's armor, near or above a vital or vulnerable area (powder magazine, machinery spaces, etc.).

I could not tell you as, I've personally never gone that route. My preference has always been to add weapons manually.

Other than errata with the station code IDs used in the newer patches and typos in the naming of tanks or weapons, I have not experienced any issues.

I don't know what to tell, but using the tank folder I sent in conjunction with your weapondata.ini entries, yielded these results...not that I mean to rub your nose in it... And for your benefit KCT, before you even ask, the answer is, as always, "Two Weeks!!!!"

Extract, and drop the TANK330_F14 folder into your weapons folder. Use this until the Mirage Factory releases their new F-14 models, with new tanks, etc. Also, carefully examine the folder and .ini structure, and you'll understand the process. tank330_f14.rar

That's not what I was referring to.

That wasn't cool (getting their ha has out of teasing that dog). As a pet owner, while I found it disturbing that they teased the pup, I did not see any of them physically abuse it. However placing an animal's welfare above a human being's, is nothing to brag about, either. So I strongly suggest that you rephrase your post, as several other board members found your wishes vis-a-vis the troops stepping on a land mine, even more disturbing than the content of the video.

Yes , you're right. Evidently, he is doing something wrong, either a tank designation mismatch between what's in the weapondata and the tank model's .ini, or folder name. Rambler, you are placing the tank model .lod(s) and any associated texture files in its own folder, and using a proper .ini file, right?

Try removing the station code entry for the tanks (if they have one), using the weapon editor.

You're wrong. He's a Nigerian Prince....at least that's what he claimed to be in the many emails that he's sent to me, requesting my assistance on urgent financial matters.

You need to extract the Missileobject.ini from the objectdata.cat, and then edit it like so (keep in mind that these are my edits, you need to make sure that you perform edits based on the name(s) of the effects file that you have): [NukeExplosionEffect] GroundHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect GroundHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav WaterHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect WaterHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav ObjectHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect ObjectHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav ArmorHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect ArmorHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav AirBurstEffectName=AerialNukeEffect AirBurstSoundName=Nuclear.wav CraterModelName= CraterType=5 [AerialNukeEffect] GroundHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect GroundHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav WaterHitEffectName=NukeExplosionEffect WaterHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav ObjectHitEffectName=AerialNukeEffect ObjectHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav ArmorHitEffectName=AerialNukeEffect ArmorHitSoundName=Nuclear.wav AirBurstEffectName=AerialNukeEffect AirBurstSoundName=Nuclear.wav CraterModelName= CraterType=5