Fubar512

Canards provide postive lift, not the slight static (CL0) downforce that elevators and horizontal stabs do (you are using horizontal stab values for your canards). Change this value CL0=-0.0198 to CL0=0.0198 on both canards

These two are the benchmarks that really count for most of the people who come to this site. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5 and http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6 I have no horse in this race, as I'm still using a 5-year old Core2Duo. I have also assembled more PCs in my time than I can recall, for both myself, my friends, and my customers. I have used CPUs from both AMD and Intel over the years.

Did you even bother to look at the date of that post?

RIP, Raz

Panama red is correct. The Xmac table should start 1/4-1/3 of the way back from the leading edge of the surface, and terminate 1/2-2/3 of the distance back from the leading edge, which in the case of a canard, should be foreward of the model's center. Also, the Xmac tables should be applied at the mean chord of a given surface.

Another tip is to set the HUD in debug mode, and note the Mach level where the porpoising is at its worst. You then add the following declaration under the "flightcontrol" section of that aircraft's data.ini: AutoTrimMaxMach=X.X (where X.X is the aforementioned Mach level).

Wrong pylons

You probably don't know this (yet), but: 1) One cannot add animations to models that are not already there to begin with 2) Only the model's developer (or someone with the original source file) can add animations and other physical features to a model.

It's due to a shadow issue, and a time and talent issue. 1) The F-86 model lods are quite old (as models for this series goes), and have issues with shadows when used in SF2. 2) The talent (modeler) that was working on the F-86, had better and more important things to do with his PERSONAL time. Eventually, we'll get better models with bump & spec-mapping, opening canopies, etc. The extended wing is still referred to as a 6-3, because it: 1) Has a 6" deeper chord at the root 2) Still only has a 3" deeper chord at the tip extension. How did they accomplish this, despite having the aforementioned 12" span extension added to each wing? That's your quiz for the day

Sorry wrench, but my statement is 100% true. Name me one TW cockpit .lod that you've seen modified beyond the texture limitations that I have already stated. And if you reread what I stated, its the lod itself he is asking about, not editing .ini files so as to rotate windscreen frames out-of-view and the like, which we have been doing for like 8-9 years now..

Again, there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. Mach numbers have nothing to do with altitude. There is no Mach level difference between sea level pressure and the air pressure at 50,000 feet. There is a difference in Mach level due to ambient temperature. From the wikiedia: The Mach number is commonly used both with objects traveling at high speed in a fluid, and with high-speed fluid flows inside channels such as nozzles, diffusers or wind tunnels. As it is defined as a ratio of two speeds, it is a dimensionless number. At Standard Sea Level conditions (corresponding to a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius), the speed of sound is 340.3 m/s[5] (1225 km/h, or 761.2 mph, or 661.5 knots, or 1116 ft/s) in the Earth's atmosphere. The speed represented by Mach 1 is not a constant; for example, it is mostly dependent on temperature and atmospheric composition and largely independent of pressure. Since the speed of sound increases as the temperature increases, the actual speed of an object traveling at Mach 1 will depend on the fluid temperature around it. Mach number is useful because the fluid behaves in a similar way at the same Mach number. So, an aircraft traveling at Mach 1 at 20°C or 68°F, at sea level, will experience shock waves in much the same manner as when it is traveling at Mach 1 at 11,000 m (36,000 ft) at -50°C or -58F, even though it is traveling at only 86% of its speed at higher temperature like 20°C or 68°F Ergo, the best tool is one that expresses terminal velocity in meters/sec, and then you adjust the value to an average based on the intended operating altitude of that weapon.

I believe that gomwolf is asking how to remove the windscreen frame from the cockpit model. If that's the case, you cannot. Firstly, all the model files (.lod files) are hidden in SF2. Secondly, lod files are uneditable, with the exception of texture associations (.bmp, jpg, tga, or dds). Only the developer of that model can modify the model file's source file (max file), and then export it as a lod file.

NOPE..... The game engine limits carrier decks (deck collison meshes) to a flat plane. And raising the end point of the cat simply causes the aircraft to "jump" up to the designated height at the onset of the cat shot, and then fall back to the deck a few meters futher on. Using the "LaunchDeckAngle" declaration does nothing at all, it is simply another placeholder. So, as it states in the Ulyanovsk's readme file (why do we even bother to write the damned things when no one seems to read them?) this is a known game limitation, and you'll just have to live with it.

IAS is not only effected by altitude, but by temperature as well. That's why Mach level is used. An aerodynamic body will generally behave the same at a given Mach number, irregardless of altitude. That's why the aerodynamic tables are all expressed in Mach numbers.

Anything I code is as accurate as the game engine allows it to be. You'll not find any amateurish physics models or any such nonsense in any of my work. .

The only constant that the game engine recognizes for missile acceleration is Gs. And it has no way of "varying" that acceleration over time (as would happen in RL). I once presented TK once with a set of tables gleamed from a web site, that determined acceleration over time and distance, giving the end produect as a terminal velocity. TK's argument was "Well, that may be so in a vaccum..." Huh, where did you go to school, TK? Sustained G-rate over a measured distance will still arrive at the same terminal velocity (velocity at the end of that acceleration run) whether in a vacuum, in an atmosphere, or in an ocean. Surface drag from media in which one is accelerating will lessen the rate of acceleration (Gs), but the end result will still be the same. .

Well, then the included FM is fine if you're into X-wing versus TIE-fighter. The fuel consumption values are wrong, tank capacities are off, aero values were obtained from God knows what, etc.

Russ, I thought we were holding for the FM to be completed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266794/Stricken-dolphin-asked-Hawaii-diver-help-Moment-mammal-stuck-fishing-line-pushed-scuba-instructor-waited-patiently-freed.html?ICO=most_read_module

From the looks of things, I'd say it is well BUTTressed against just about any eventuality.

And you And you never will in a simple SF2NA-only install. The Solomons terrain requires files from a other titles, not to mention the fact that it may not have been updated to SF2 standards.

At any rate, yes we need a proper cockpit to represent the K-model (and other varients). I will contact Adrian (who built the original '29A pit) and see if he is interested. At the moment, we are carrier-qualifying the model on the Ulyanovsk and (Marcelo's) Kuznetsov

A This is all being worked on. And you unforgivably fogot to mention the inertia values. And the wing area/span/folded span/chord/CLa/CL0 and assorted tables and mass fractions and engine thrust and altitude tables and thrust-specific fuel consumption (both static and at Mach 1, both dry and wet) and the mass locations (see mass fractions) and the repositioning and recalculation of the lift and drag tables, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc (ad infinitum) AND There are two generations of the 29K, early and late (though the early was a prototype), meaning that a new cockpit is only needed for the later version (with the RD-33MK powerplants, etc, etc, etc, etc)

Is both the install and your DirectX updated (patched) to the current standards?

Yeah, that's a remnant of the previous FM, which was frankly, quite unrealistic, bordering on UFO-like. Update: Correction, they are hardcoded animations in the model's max file itself (associated with the landing gear), which is too bad, as short of redoing the model, they are there forever. You'll just have to live with them The eyes of the fleet, the Yak-44, NATO reporting name "Merlin"