Fubar512

Offer them peanuts...

Sorry, that's not a realistic value by any stretch of imagination, and realism's what I'm all about. Su-27s and 33s have an imposed 26 degree AoA alpha limit, that can be overidden during emergencies. The Cobra maneuver is a "controlled" departure (talk about an oxymoron!). What actually prevents the aircraft from departing into a spin, is aerodynamic drag from the horizontal stabs when they are returned to zero deflection during the maneuver forcing the nose back down. I've been able to emulate this drag, in a creative manner, without compromising the model's flight characteristics in an arcadish manner. The model performs the Cobra cleanly between 260-300 knots. Performing the maneuver at 300 KIAS, yields an 8.93 peak G-load, and scrubs off 155 knots of airspeed in less than 3 seconds, which still leaves you with just enough airspeed to maintain level flight at the end of the maneuver (that is, as long as one doesn't cut the throttle prior to the maneuver).

A public service message from your friendly CA Moderating team: Piracy will not be tolerated on this site. Anyone (or, any group) who violates this policy, will be banned from this site, and the offending upload(s), deleted.

A public service message from your friendly CA Moderating team: Piracy will not be tolerated on this site. Anyone (or, any group) who violates this policy, will be banned from this site, and the offending upload(s), deleted.

A public service message from your friendly CA Moderating team: Piracy will not be tolerated on this site. Anyone (or, any group) who violates this policy, will be banned from this site, and the offending upload(s), deleted.

When you force DX9, you are most likely also disabling support for multi-threading.

He did mention a Mirage F-1 in the context of a future DLC, and that will undoubtedly require a new cockpit.

Did you apply the edits in the for each flap in a block, like so? HasGearDownSetting=TRUE GearDownMaxDeflection=X.xx GearDownMinDeflection=X.xx The answer's "probably no", but it depends on what you wish to change, and if there's an animation available for it. I animated the SAM launchers on the TW CVA-63 model many years ago, because there was an otherwise unused pitch and yaw axis available for them.

Progress report (it's self explanatory) Video: Cobra.wmv

Moonlight ops: Su-33 by Marcfighters, Ulyanovsk by Julhelm (both are WIPs).

That means that you're missing the texture files for them. You forgot to transfer those over.

Nice shots, Bibbo.

Cool! Do you have the decals made up for it? The procedure for ground objects is the same as it is for aircraft. A numbers.lst file, a decal.ini file (both placed in the ship's texture folder), and decals placed by objectname/texture/D sub-folder, in the decals folder.

I've been using it that way since day one. Here's my layout for a dual-rail Nike Facility:

You don't call a 180 degree gimble limit much cheating? When it comes to tracking, it makes no difference whether the FOV or the Gimble limit is increased to that degree. Also, unless you've imbued models with 100G turn rates, 20 minute sustainer durations, 100% noise rejection, etc., I can attest to the fact (just going by my meager experience in this series) that "Hollywood style" missile performance is pretty much out of the question. Are you hand placing the Nike launchers in their historic locations, with the launch pads oriented as they were in real life, or are you just letting the game engine seed them around, in a Warsaw Pact-style arrangement (6 launchers arrayed around a single radar)?

I've often fished over the submerged remains of Texas Tower Number 4. It sits 67 NM east of Manasquan, NJ, in 185 feet of water. Up until the winter of 2000, it was possible to easily dive to the top of the submerged radome platform, as it was no more than 70 feet beneath the surface. A severe winter storm that year collapsed the remaining tower leg that was holding the platform above the bottom, dropping the whole mess down to 120+ feet. http://njscuba.net/sites/site_texas_tower.html

SA-N-6 missiles should use the same 3D model as the SA-10, and be painted white* The Slava (1164) model lacks any usable local yaw axis to assign the missiles to. Vertically launched missiles in this series need to be able to yaw 360 degrees (as of the last three or four patches). That's why the SA-10 and Nike models are having issues locking on to and tracking targets prior to launch. The VLS SA-15s in the Udaloy 1155s, and the Kashtan mounted SA-19s on 1155.1s don't have that issue, as they can be assigned yaw and pitch axis (though they cannot coexist in the same model, due to the current single launcher axis per-model limitation). *Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)#Sea-based_S-300F_.28SA-N-6.29

Not much chance of that in a river.

Yes, I've redone the FM to SF2 standards, and have upgraded the cockpit and avionics files to match.

VLS fixed.....

It's been that way for almost 9 years. In fact, the ability to mount multiple guns on a single ship is a fairly "recent" development (IIRC it was introduced with the '06 patch for the first gen). We've been after TK to allow multiple missile launchers for years, and he hasn't shown any inclination to do so. One can only hope that will change with the introduction of the Tomcat title. For now, I'd rather have VLS SAMs sharing one viable launcher axis, nesting perfectly under the VLS cells, than having either non-working ones (because they have no yaw axis), or having to resort to "invisible" ones.

Looks pretty, but they still need a rotatable yaw mode to work effectively, WBS, and that in of itself limits one to a single set of axis.

The Udaloys presently have "fake", or invisible missiles. If you make them visible, they hover 20 or so meters above the model's centerpoint, irregardless of the stated positioning in the data.ini. As of the present, only one set of launcher axis is assignable per model. It took me all of a few hours to find a solutiuon that allow VLS missile systems to work, as they should. Trust me on this, real solutions are in the works Test mule image:

Because the average person is unaware of the operation of a vessel, doesn't posses the experience or knowledge to tell when something's amiss (I'm sure the list was no more than a few degrees, barely enough to notice), and because the average person can't be bothered to read safety placards, even when they're posted in plain sight. These were simply people looking to enjoy a nice day out on the water, who assumed that the owners and crew of the vessel could be trusted to maintain and operate said vessel in a safe manner.