Fubar512

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."

LOMAC FC

You seek YODA!!!!! I mean, Spectre....

Ael-50s? Is that the new designation for the much feared 50 eel-dispenser? 50 Morays and 50 electric eels per aircraft? How sinister!

Blastin' squirrels out of trees at sunset

Happy Birthday, Jug

Oh....you mean this thing....

A bit off topic: I recall reading one naval aviator's take on bomb delivary via LABS, and his comment was something to the effect of "It was more of an attempt to turn pilots into halfassed artillarymen, than anything else".

I am ?

The point of my post was not to pit experienced modders against new ones, but to lament that someone may have taken something that worked well, was balanced, and pretty accurate out of the box, and changed it, without really improving it.

I'll bet the values have been all buggered up. If it was Kreelin's original FM, it was fine to begin with, until all the "cooks" showed up and put their respective spins on it.

Well, someone wrote it...lol I'm just trying to determine whether or not it was current, or an older model, and what values are used. For example, the FM you're using may possibly have wildly inaccurate stall and control surface deflection & displacement rate values.

That would imply dumbing them down. What FM are you using, and who wrote it?

a) & b) sounds like a pretty accurate description of how an aircraft of that type might respond in RL. You must keep in mind that modern aircraft (such as the aforementioned Su-27) have an aerodynamic center that's located waaay aft of the center of gravity, than was customary with earlier fighter designs. This renders them quite sensitive in the pitch axis. In fact so sensitive, that they must rely on FBW systems to retain stability in level flight, as anything more than the slightest displacement in the pitch axis would otherwise result in a loss of control. One problem is that this sim does not model FBW control, so one must employ a series of cheats to establish a workable compromise.

This has always been around, to a greater or lesser extent. You can try lowering the afterburner material's priority level, down to 3. If it's already set at that value, there's probably nothing that you can do.

This series requires 32-bit TGAs (24-bit + 6-bit for the alpha channel). If you're not saving it in the proper format, it's not going to work.

I seriously doubt that anyone here can help you. The best thing you can do, is to report this on the SF2 board at Third Wire's site, so TK is made aware of it (it seems to have happened to other players, as well).

Your answer lies here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=134827