Fubar512

The real issue here, as I see it, is available processing power. Onboard sound "steals" processor cycles. The less overall processing power you have to begin with, the less you can afford to lose. You might be able to gain some of it back, by setting the priority of the audio adapter within the PCI bus. There's at least one app that I'm aware of (the PCI Latency Tool), that allows you to lower the latency value of the various devices on the PCI bus. You need to research this, and go from there.

Did you try adjusting the audio options to a lower setting? 8 channels instead of 32 or 16?

Make sure that the flap entries in your F-15E_Data.ini match these values: [LeftFlap] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE CLiftdc=0.34 CDdc=0.080 Cmdc=0.005 DeltaStallAlpha=-3.75 AreaRatio=1.00 DeploymentMethod=MANUAL Setting[1].Angle=45.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=120.0 Setting[1].RetractValue=126.0 MaxDeflection=45.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=0.3 AnimationID=5 ModelNodeName=Left_Flap ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE [RightFlap] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE CLiftdc=0.34 CDdc=0.080 Cmdc=0.005 DeltaStallAlpha=-3.75 AreaRatio=1.00 DeploymentMethod=MANUAL Setting[1].Angle=45.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=120.0 Setting[1].RetractValue=126.0 MaxDeflection=45.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=0.3 AnimationID=5 ModelNodeName=Right_Flap ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE

As I said, they work fine for me.

Convert it to a jpeg format, upload it to our gallery, and then copy and paste the url link to that image on to your reply.

Yes, models work "all across the board". I, in fact, tested it in WoE.

That's strange, just tried the '15E and the flaps work fine.

Sound Blasters have a reputation for being PCI-bus resource hogs.

The muzzle velocity needs to be 299792458.0, to be "realistic". You mean also find that velocity requiring a tracer length of 10.0 or better, with miniscule diameters (0.010 might be too large).

What speed is your processor? Flight sims are among the most CPU-dependent titles that one is likely to encounter. Another thought, 512 mb of RAM is marginal, at best, when running any of the SF series that have been patched to the most recent level. You'll find that upgrading to 1 GB of RAM will net you a noticable improvement.

Please take no offense at what I'm going to say....and it applies to everyone. Any information relating to upcoming projects, works in progress, (etc.), shall be disseminated by the developer of that project, when they feel that you (or anyone else) should know it, and not before then. Asking about it on a continual basis does not earn one respect. Instead, it earns you a place on the "special" list. And trust me, you do not want to be on MY special list...

No, it cannot be a load out. How would you activate it, without it flying off. Try it and see. Been there, done that, a Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago (well, 5 years is a long time in the sim world ) The only way to make it work, would be to add a JATO or RATO pack as an additional engine(s), that is only equipped with afterburner(s). That way, they would work on a B-47 or a C-130 (and have their own, dedicated effects), but might pose a bit of a problem on an aircraft that already comes equipped with an afterburner.

In most cases, what I do is calculate a range, based on the premise that the calculated Cla at Mach 0.4 (which is the SF standard) is "100%". For example, if the calculated CLa at Mach 0.4 was 3.286905, my Excel spreadsheet would look something like this: Cla Mach Percentage +/- 3.200263 0.1 97.4 3.216983 0.2 97.6 3.245509 0.3 98.7 3.286905 0.4 100.0 3.342821 0.5 101.7 3.415707 0.6 103.9 3.509169 0.7 106.7 3.628587 0.8 110.3 3.782265 0.9 115.1 3.983700 1.0 121.2 The standard formula that we use does not take such variables as airfoil type, wingtwist, (etc.) into account, so if I were to use the figures I just calculated, I might find that the FM would perform well beyond the limits of the real aircraft, so I might have to "compensate" for that, somewhere down the line. And that brings us to your next question. Strike Fighters simulates real world atmospheric and inertial values quite accurately. Generally, the end result is only as accurate as the data that you've used.

The Tornado is not my model, nor did I have any association with it. Regarding your questions: 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes, but tables are defined per individual component as declared in the data.ini, and then "combined", by the flight engine 5) "Reference Area" in this case, is the total wing area in square meters.

MiG-17 "Fresco-A", and MiG-17F "Fresco-C" FMs have been uploaded. Get them here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=22585

View File MiG-17A & C flight models These are flight dynamics (Flight Model, FM, etc.) files ONLY. They do not contain models, skins, cockpits, or any other files, other than the FM itself. They were developed using Kreelin's AeroConvert, and data from the USAF's "Have Doughnut" tac evaluation, performed in 1969. The FM's are somewhat of a compromise, in that, while they are tailored to both mimic the real aircraft's performance in turn rate, sustained G, landing and takeoff speeds,(etc.) as much as possible, they do not impose unreasonable limits on the aircraft under AI control. In short, their stall behavior is somewhat benign, yet, they can enter an almost unrecoverable spin, if you insist on flying them in a ham-fisted manner. The only issue I have with them, is one imposed upon me by time-constraints. And that is, I feel that they are about 25-30 knots too slow when flying just above sea-level, at full military power (not in afterburner). Submitter Fubar512 Submitted 10/07/2007 Category Mig-17 Fresco Skins

Just rename the folder to something like "VietnamPhotoReal", then rename the VietnamSEA.ini to "VietnamPhotoreal.ini" Next, open the newly renamed .ini file, and edit the first line to match this : TerrainFullName=VietnamPhotoReal, and then you'll have two separate, selectable terrains.

Congrats, man!

Regarding the F13, I suggest that you try the Mirage Factory's MiG-21F13. It's FM was penned by Kreelin and myself, and the 3D model (by Flying Toaster) is a lot better than the default Strike Fighters, WoV, or WoE model.

Lexx and Timmy, I have an as yet unreleased cockpit for the F-80, that was created by Kesselbrut for a project that USAFMTL and I were working on. I believe that it would be a far better "fit" for an early jet, then would the A-4's pit. If you can get permission from Kesselbrut and USAFMTL to use it in your model, I'll send it to you.

LOL..I guess you can say, "BUSTED!" I've been updating the '21 series FMs all along, and yes, I have newer versions. I'll put them together when I get some free time and upload them for you.

mac = Mean Area Chord, Is used as Reference Chord=x.xx under the aircraft data section. It's also the area of the wing surface from where one would calculate the Xac tables from. Usually a range starting 25% of the distance along a longitudinal line drawn along the mac, aft from the leading edge (LE), and ending 60-70% of the way back from the LE along the chord. BTW, calculate the the coordinates fore or aft of the centerline using an accurate three view for reference..not the 3D model. Ymac = The mean area chord as represented along the "Y" axis, measured out to either side of the centerline of the aircraft(left=-value, right=+value). And yes, the 'significant digits do matter.... if you're taking the trouble to do it, why not do it right? BTW, Kreelin's Aeroconvert is under utilities, in our downloads section.

Just for grins, I plugged some figures into Kreelin's Aeroconvert (calculated off an accurate scale 3-view drawing of the MiG-9), and came up with the following values: CLa= 2.314 (per wing) Ymac= 2.222 mac= 1.768 (reference chord) While I did not find any resources dealing with stall speeds for that particular bird, most of the straight-winged jets of the time had stall speeds within a few knots on either side of 90 kias (clean).