Fubar512

Implementation of "optical sensors" in early Soviet-Bloc SAMs, was, IIRC, nothing more than "TV-guidance", that is, the SAM was remotely steered based on an image displayed on a monitor in the controller's shack. I believe that it was somewhat limited in its effectiveness, due to an FOV issue. But yet, I did find this : F-4E-37-MC tail code 0306 (366th TFW) was shot down Apr 28,1972 by optically-guided SA-2 and crashed in the mouth of Cai Viet River near Dong Ha. Crew ejected safely and was rescued by helicopter. Source: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1968.html

A "no entry" implementation of stealth wouldn't be a good idea, as there is no true stealth, just varying degrees of "low-observability". TK needs to fix the BaseRCSModifier statement so we would be able to set the variable accordingly. Another issue he might want to address, is heat signature. At present, there is a non-working "HeatSignature=" statement in the groundobject.dll, which (even if it were working), is pretty useless. IMO, it would be better applied to aircraft.

Well, since all non-model specific pylons, tanks, bombs, and missiles have entries in the missileobject.ini, that is where TK would have to add the RCS statement.

At present, RCS "values" are not properly implemented. It's either a positive value (visible to radar in-game). Or, it's a negative value (totally undetectable by radar). What you're asking for, if I'm not mistaken, is a variable RCS statement that's effected by the aspect presented to the radar source for every separate component of the model. While that would be cool, keep in mind that even separate components would again have differing RCS values depending on aspect (IE, wing panels would reflect back more energy from their top or bottom surfaces, and less from side or head-on aspect, etc) A little not-so-secret factoid for you: When RCS values are expressed in real life, they are normally expressed as total frontal RCS.

Great pics, Harold. Please forgive me for the following statement, I just could't resist................................. "MiG-28's! No one's been this close before!"

The proper fix for the "Bouncing Wingman" syndrome is to adjust the interaction between the horizontal stabs and the wings. This requires a basic knowledge of aerodynamics, in as far as defining the proper Cla values for the stabs (though admittedly there's a bit of guesswork involved, as in real life, the stabs sit in an airflow that's already been disturbed by the wing surfaces). You can try adjusting the pitch damper value upwards, but that's more of a band-aid than anything else.

He was one of my favorite actors. "You're gonna need a bigger boat....."

Try this: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons...non/cannon.html

We could show you, but then we'd have to kill you.....

Greetings from the former capital of the Confederacy, Richmond, VA. That game was football at its best, a contest that harkens one back to the days when the old NFC central division was known as "The Black and Blue Division", due to the intense rivalries and physical style of play. Both the Giants and the Patriots played as if their very lives hung in the balance.

You have my blessings in regards to using any of my work.

If by "lethargic", you mean in as far as excessive takeoff rolls, that's an issue with the original terrain data file for that particular terrain. You cannot have an airfield as the first entry in a terrain's data file, as it otherwise causes aircraft to behave as though someone had coated the runways with molasses Also, all of the runways in that terrain are well above sea level. You might be starting at 5K to 7K altitude.

There are some interesting anomalies in the current game-code. For example, I once flew a B-52 strike in WoV, managed to get myself shot down by a SAM, and decided to let the game run, just to observe my flight's behavior. I was surprised to see the entire flight nail the primary target, without any direction from me! It seems that if the (non-AI) flight leader gets killed, the rest of the flight reverts to some basic AI-code, and attacks just as they would, had they been an AI-led flight to begin with. This is the same behavior that you'll see when you're flying an intercept mission against an opposing strike-package. They always manage to bore in on the primary target (unless you shoot them down, of course).

The F-16XL's top speed, its near sea-level acceleration from 350 KIAS to Mach 1, and its Vmax at altitude (1.95-2.0) are accurate, as is its abilty to supercruise at altitude (with the F100-PW-229 powerplant).

The image below will illustrate what you should see on a MiG-21MF's display while you're lining up a target on radar. Notice the cross above and to the right of the reticle? That's my target. I need to center it in the reticle. See the in-range light on the lower left of the display? I need to get the light above that one to illuminate. That will indicate that I've achieved a firing/guiding solution for a SAHM. See the target acquisition light below the gooseneck for the gun camera prism-housing? That means that the radar has acquired a target. Just leave your radar on boresight, and let the system handle the acquistion end of things. You'll then only need to fly the cues to help ensure a successful kill. Not a big deal, as the '21MF was primarily armed with IRMs, anyway.

I posted this video some time ago on another site (or so I believe). This is Gabilon's Yak performing a takeoff from Marcelo's Kiev (still a W.I.P). YAK-KIEV VIDEO

Two weeks closer relative to two weeks...muhahaha!

Ahhhh, you do realize that stealth does nothing for you if your opponent's radar is "pointing" the other way, right? And that without the aforementioned parameters declared exactly as I mentioned, you're flying with nothing more than "placebo" stealth?

Stealth is nothing more than a method of controlling the scattering of radar waves away from the aircraft so as to minimize its return....a powerful enough radar will still see it at some point. The trick is to minimize that by flying a profile that further reduces the chances of detection (ie, low level in the ground clutter).

Did you declare it as "BaseRCSModifier=-0.0012", under the detect system section in the data.ini? If so, there is no way that you should see his return on a radar screen, with the options set to hard.

From what I've gathered from our model-making gurus, if you're under the impression that you're brainless now, wait until you're halfway through the model creation process. By that time, you'll be able to count all your remaing brain cells on the digits of one hand.

1C3X1? In Star Wars, Chapter IV, "A New Hope", don't two storm troopers discuss that while Obi Wan is trying to make his way past them to deactivate the force field that's preventing the Millennium Falcon from escaping? I could've sworn that one storm trooper turned to the other and said; "Have you seen that new 1C3X1?" Just messing with ya, Dave. Congrats on a job well done.