Fubar512

The first issue may have to do with how the sim defines a "shore" (as opposed to land or water), for effects purposes. The second is easily resovable by using the proper skins and data.ini files:

Under the engine entries for each aircraft (in that aircraft's data.ini), you'll find the following declarations for an afterburner-equipped model: FullABThrottle=XXX FullABRPM=XXX I normally set the values, like so: FullABThrottle=1.12 ; equates to 112% normal travel, or, "around the horn" FullABRPM=1.00 ; equates to 100% RPMs On multiple-engined craft, don't forget to set the same values for each engine Now, on some aircraft, afterburner engagement is controlled through an outboard detent on the throttle quadrant. Due to the limitations of hardware (lack of support for this on available flight controllers), this feature isn't implemented in Strike Fighters, or, any other sim that I'm aware of.

There were no less than nineteen (19) active Nike sites within 25 miles of NYC, back in the late 1960s.

I recall an interview on Tech TV (a few years ago), where they asked a PC "game" developer if there was any sort of an agreement among the various companies as to the backwards-compatibility of new titles. His response was something to the effect of: "No, not officially, but off the record, we all more or less agree that a three year-old system is about as old a set up as we'd want to support". Flight sims that where released in the 1997-1998 period would NOT run well on anything older than a 2-3 year old system (though in all fairness, Pentium processors were only released at the end of 1993, and 3D graphics cards were quite uncommon prior to 1996). By late 1999 early 2000, most titles coming out were written with hi-end PIIs and PIII's in mind. For example, Jane's USAF (released at the end of '99) was coded to take advantage of the PIII's SSE capability. And the PIII was only 10 months old at the time... In closing, remember that SFP:1 was written in 2001-2002, and was officially released in November of 2002. I personally know at least two members of this board who are running it on PIII systems, even with the latest patch installed.

How the mighty have fallen... The terror of Jurassic park...is now the "Killer 'Keet"

I've recently had a conversation with someone, regarding whether or not dinosaurs were the forerunners of modern birds, and then, I stumble across this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../scidino120.xml

The "well simulated avionics" in Jane's USAF, were a joke. They were oversimplfied, and they weren't authentic. For example. the A-10A in Jane's has radar, with air-to-air modes! The MiG-29 in that same title, uses a cockpit that doesn't even begin to model the real Fulcrum's cockpit with any degree of accuracy. The only sim that modeled modern avionics with any degree of fidelity was Falcon 4.0, and even there, compromises were made to allow that title to run on the CPUs and GPUs of the day.

Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords

No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

It depends on the target's aspect while the missile's in flight. Targets that are heading towards, or away from you, present a simple tracking solution. They do not pose the additional challenge of a (rapid) change in bearing to the missile's seeker head, so you will experience a higher PK under those circumstances. Targets that present a beam-wise (side) aspect, are much more difficult to kill with early AIM-7s, as their relative motion makes for a tougher tracking solution.

That's Polack's updated desert terrain tiles, for SFP1. I have it working in WoE, so it is compatible.

Cities...that's my favorite Talking Heads single.....

Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait 'til lunchtime

Моё судно на воздушной подушке полно угрей

This is what I did.... I remarked out the tailhook entry, as I felt it unecessary: ;[Tailhook] SystemType=ARRESTER_HOOK MaxDeflection=60.0 Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=2.0 ModelNodeName=tailhook I then added the cockpit entry, like so: [Canopy] SystemType=ARRESTER_HOOK MaxDeflection=0.0 MinDeflection=38.0 DeployTime=5.0 AnimationID=8 ModelNodeName=canopy_frame_rear_outer DeployWhenOnGears=TRUE I tried to use an animation key instead, so as not to sacrifice the tailhook, but it seems that animation ID as originally posted ("8"), may not have been the correct number.

Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left. "Yes, I have." Look! "Just a flesh wound!"

Because it's hardcoded that way. Also there are declarations for overcast light and overcast ambient light modifiers in the .dll file.

Personally, I prefer this method for animating the canopy...push a key and it opens, push it again and it closes...but only while on the ground, and stopped Canopy Animation Video

Perhaps so, but.............he could always claim that it's a General Dynamics model

I was working on the Sa-10 system, though I am currently using a modified SCUD transporter as an analog, as the launcher and radar models still have not been built yet.

Well, now that you've mentioned it.... We could use a Talos missile for an upcoming project, as well as an SA-10. If you're interested, I'll see if I can dig up a few accurate drawings.

Two weeks!

I believe that they haven't come up with a title for it yet. There's more at Third Wire's site....