Fubar512

You did nothing other than express your opinion. And if anyone's mad at anything, it's with your calling the new title a "con job", which it clearly isn't. I wouldn't worry about it, though, as anyone who knows you realizes that your intent wasn't to troll. BTW, regarding SF2, I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff under the "hood" that TK has not told us about....yet

LOL....that was a joke. There's nothing in the October 08 patch that can be corrected by anyone other than the developer (Third Wire).

Do you have the source code?

MiG-21MF Flight Model V1208 View File MiG-21MF Flight Model V1208 This represents a minor tweak of the default ThirdWire MiG-21MF flight model. I've found the lastest version to be quite accepatable as an AI-only model, and therefore limited any changes to areas that were just a tad-short on realism from a player's perspective. A big "Thank You" goes out to Jug, for providing feedback and helping me debug the FM. Enjoy! Click here to download this file Submitter Fubar512 Submitted 12/24/2008 Category Mig-21 Fishbed

The FM is fine as is, and is AI-friendly, to boot.

Well, it's certainly about time, as this bird's beta model was finished back in the Spring of 2005....it's taken that long to get it properly wrapped & skinned, it just needs a proper 'pit, but it appears that it will be initially released as AI only.

Model by Tomcat74 and the Mirage Factory, textures by JimmyBibb: VIDEO LINK

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!!!!"