Fubar512

Jeff, those are some awesome shots! Welcome back.

Two more hints:

IIRC, The Wrench did this about four years ago, and even created a "what if" WWII Japanese heavy bomber using the An-12.

Guess what terrain this is....

Then you need to use a different "WaterNormal.BMP", in your Falklands/Malvinas terrain folder.

This was answered today, almost 7 hours before you asked the same question: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=23446

A member of the cleaning crew, just prior to the accident: "Let's just make sure that it's in park...."

LOL...in the spirit of that statement: Aerodynamic Test Series: ZUR At first glance, one might believe ZUR to be robust, and capable of carrying a sizable payload. Sadly, appearances can be quite deceiving. After performing extensive wind tunnel tests, we've found "Zur" to be both unwieldy, and aerodynamically unsound. Zur is often configured (or attired) in drag-inducing garb. We see no advantage in this, as the high-drag garb neither provides any appreciable lift, nor added stability. Of equal concern, is ZUR's extremely high TSFC, which we've found to be quite unacceptable, and potentially hazardous, as it limits ZUR's combat radius in areas where the MDBLS (Mean Distance Between Liquor Stores), is greater than four city blocks. Furthermore, despite the manufacturer's claim that ZUR can be run on almost any inexpensive alcohol-based fuel, we've discovered that ZUR will fail almost immediately when run on either Night Train or Ripple. Some success was achieved with products produced by the Gallo vineyards, but this immediately had an adverse effect on ZUR's (so-called) advanced control and stability system. In short, we recommend that the DOD refrain from purchasing any more ZUR units.

Taking an intuative guess, I say that the sideways "V" (caret) on the altitude scale reprents the MiG-23's altitude, and the symbol marked "9", the target's altitude.

Had a Moray once, that I christened "Wilber". He was a barrel of laughs at feeding time, as he tried his best to appear menacing. And while you might get away with "jabbing" your finger into an anemone (not all of them are toxic to humans), stroking a Lionfish is not something that I'd recommend.

Very nice. I'd also follow Paladrian's (Mago's) directions for removing the camera housing and prism, as it would improve visibilty a bit.

Looks like something Darth Maul would have worn while piloting his Sith Fighter.

You mean, cockpit views like this? http://walkarounds.airforce.ru/avia/rus/mi...g-23s/index.htm

Unfortunately, Lou Rawls isn't doing much of anything these days, as he passed away almost two years ago.

Did you edit the "Avionics60.dll" statement in the MiG-23MK.ini so it reads "Avionics70.dll", instead?

Sounds like a possible weapondata.dat issue. You must use the current version of the Weapon Editor to save the weapondata.ini, which will create a new and compatible weapondata.dat.

In a word, no. TK, the developer of Strike Fighters, has stated in the past that the focus of the series will not be on multiplayer gaming.

You could only accomplish that if you had the 3D source file.

Don's 'Vette is a 1974 (C3), L48-powered automatic. The '74 L48 sported a vacuum advance on an old-style point-type distributor, and 8.5:1 compression.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Mus...raft/index.html

The assigned eject positions are fixed, and do not move in sequence. If you add more CM eject positions in an effort to simulate sequential deployment of CMs (ala MiG-23MLD, MiG-29A, Su-25, etc.) you'll discover that they will deploy their assigned CMs simultaneously. I'm afraid that sequential CM ejection wasn't coded into the current release.

Did you remember to disconnect and plug the hose running to the distributor's vacuum advance cannister, prior to setting the initial timing? You'd be better off running the recommended initial timing, and then having the distributor recurved so that all the centrifugal advance is in by 2100 RPM.