cover72

Kdyžtak kdyby byl zájem, mohl bych vyrobit woe-style hangar screen

Mňo, když jsem dělal mapy pro HalfLife, narazil jsem na tohle: http://collective.valve-erc.com/data/docs/...es/mdldec12.zip mdl decompiler http://www.ecct2.com/files/mdldecompiler.exe Mělo by to konvertovat mdl do 3ds, ale nevím, jestli není více druhů .mdl nebo jestli už tenhle plugin nemáš... Každopádně Alca by byla skvělá

Jj, Marcfighter's Su-27 mám a znám. jen pak ještě detail - neboj se klidně manévrovat na plnou forsáž. Vzhledem k tomu, že all-aspect Lima-Sidewinder jde stejně po trupu, který ose ohřívá třením o vzduch by forsáž mohla paradoxně pomoct oslepit čidloo. Tedy v reálu, a na chviličku, než se optika přenastaví. každopádně forsáží nic nezkazíš. A proti Sparrows - mohlo by fungovat, že poletíš na minimum a s ABK kolmo dolů - což by mělo zmást dopplerovské radary amíků, ze kterých bys měl prostě zmizet. Není zámek - není Sparrow. V LOMACu to prý funguje, tady nevím - proti Aim-7 jsem ještě neletěl (viz. podpis - tedy nerad létám proti američanům). Což mě přivádí k otázce - mohla by jedna z těch modifikací Red Hammer nebo něčeho pozdějšího být i verze, za kterou by se létalo ČSLA+USAF proti ruským okupantům? Jen návrh... Dík

Well, AoA certianly belongs here, because, as I've said, it's one of 3 crucial factors giving aircraft maneuvreability and therefore is critically needed for developement of FM. Those ratios then were a bit O-T and I apologize for them.

Well, it was ment somehow different - I surely can understand you all DO mind that DACT→sukhoi "simulation"*, but I ment it in way "Why is everyone talking about some stupid ratios, while AoA is much more important?" And, well, it was not me (or not completely me) who changed from DACT to simulation - you asked for source, i googled it again and figured out that source has changed from DACT to "simualtion". After reading this, I've immediately distanced myself from those ratios ("while that is a Sukhoi study, very small weight should be admited to that, and therefore forget about 3:1 ratio" - all @post 280). So, It was the source which has changed, not me - so I appologize once more. *I know how "real" those simulations and sukhoi ads are, too. The one for Su-37 speaks for all

Gunrunner: Yes, I've already admitted that - if you see post 280 in this thread, you can read "but that was few years ago, ant it now seems to be a mistake of those sources, which was corrected then." So, it's no doubt it was only sukhoi "study" and therefore it's not relaible. LeBourget info was just mistake of one source, copied by others and corrected in meantime. I was only unlucky I've red original, uncorrected version which quoted "LeBourget" instead of "sukhoi study". That's it, I've admitted I was wrong, so I dont fully understand why are you writing all of this after all? EDIT: why is everyone so upset about that "3:1" ratio? Even if it was originated from some real ACM training, it does not tel anythink about real-world aircraft capabilities as training is never that close to reality. On the other side, angle of attack is one of three crucial physical factors of aircraft maneuvreability (along with TTW ratio and combat wing loading) and is even important for FM development...

Yes! Finaly,I got it - somewhere else than before, but source seems to be relatively reliable: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp (find "Figure 1: Technical Comparisons") Optionaly: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:215fk...mp;client=opera 26 degrees/units of AOA due to AFA.

About what - that LeBourget results?Well, "Sukhoi analysis says, that in BVR air combat of Su-39 with american F-16 is better in ratio 1.2:1, but in ACM, Su-39 outperforms F-16 in ratio of 2:1. Interesting is comparation with other aircraft in 12 identical fighting tasks, especially in air-to-ground combat. Here, Su-39 achieved decisive victory, in outperforms F-16 in ratio of 1.38, F/A-18 in 1.8:1, Mirage2000 in 2:1 and Gripen even in 3:1" Notice that while F-16's ratio is 1.38, Hornet's is 1.8:1. That means, that ACM results were taken as more important over A-G - because AFAIK Falcon's air-to-ground capabilities are worse than Hornet's one - just my opinion. Similar text/info was in article about Su-39 in one of czech most popular/best military magazines - but that one was compressed to just one sentence, ie. "Su-39 outperforms Gripen in ratio of 3:1" - and this was the one i remembered and wrote to previous post. Therefore, I'm sorry for somethink that might be mis-interpretation, as those ratios were gained from 12 different tasks, from whose unknown number was air-to-air combat. And that Le Bourget think - it's a bit weird, as I've red that those ratios were originated from LeBourget flight demonstration on both english and czech-languaged news and articles - but that was few years ago, ant it now seems to be a mistake of those sources, which was corrected then. Well then, while that is a Sukhoi study, very small weight should be admited to that, and therefore forget about 3:1 ratio. I'll possibly delete that ratio-thing from my previous post, as it was not (too) important for the rest of the post and as it could throw other people in mistake as those old articles did to me. Sry. Brain32: well, I found that some time ago trough google - i think this was in some e-book on gripen.com or BAe or like that website. But I'm not sure about that, i'ts been some time. I could ask AČR via mail, but I doubt they'll respond.

Sorry za takové hrabání se v historii, ale to je i realita. Zatímco IR AAM 1. a 2. generace se naváděly na trysku motoru, popř. výstupní plyny, Aim-9L (1978) byla první střela, která byla all-aspect - protože se dokázala zaměřit na teplo způsobené třením letounu o vzduch. První východní raketou, které toto dokázala taky baly R-73 - které zase "Lima-Sidewinder" předčila o třídu a byla to vl. 4. generace, ale také přišla o dost později (1985) a k nám snad už vůbec, nebo až na MiG-29 (1989). Tedy simulace tohoto "jevu" je ve WoE více než reálná...

Well, this is interesting but I must oppose: basic formula for computing an aerodynamical drag (Q) is: Therefore, fuel tanks DO have their noticeable drag, which depends mainly on speed of carrier and diameter of given fuel tank. Only possible explanation is, that in comparation with thrust given by P&W F-100 engine, drag of fuel tanks is insignificant OR that this drag is noticeable in speeds much higher than those achieved in ACM. And, this also stands again another statement about Gripen - because on LeBourget airshow, Gripen lose simulated fights with Su-39 in incredibly high ratio (think about 3:1 or even 9:1) while F-16 lose them only about 1.5:1 [sure they both lost it because Su-39 is subsonic and has wing and aerodynamics optimized for low-speed maneuvreing, but such an asymmetry between F-16's and Gripen's achievements while they should be the same? Chmm.] (sorry for possibly over-complicated article, english is my secondary language)

Well, on f-16.net, there were few articles [written by Swedish people] that in DACM training with Norweign F-16s, Gripens were able to outmaneuver them (F-16s) even from dis-advatage positions because of Gripen is, quote, "aerodynamicaly cleaner", so it loses less speed in tight curves/turnings than F-16 does. This, according to that article, causes that Gripen can out-meneuver F-16 even with it's less-powerfull engine. On the other side, it seems that those F-16s were flying with external fuel tanks as they were taking off Norway, while Gripen was "clean", with training AIM-9 (and possibly AIM-120) only. And, it is weird because official max. stable angle of attack (one of crucial factors in ACM, while exceeded - aircraft stalls out) of Gripen is 21 deg./units, while F-16's is something over 30, Su-27's over 38, SuperHornet's 45 and F-22's 60+.On the other side again, maybe those canard wings really do help. But so much? And I never saw "ours" (Czech) Gripen to exceed som 30 deg. on CIAF airshow...

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...ode=sst&id=5552 File Name: MV-22 hangar menu screen - WoE styleFile Submitter: cover72 File Submitted: 22 Nov 2007 File Category: Hanger/Menu Screens MV-22 hangar menu screen - WoE style Made using in-game top-view of "MV-22 by David Zurawski" and default hangar menus of A-10A, F-4 and mine previous F-14 and F/A-18 hangar menus. You have to update the .ini file to include MV-22_hangar.bmp * * * Please report by mail if file invalid or broken Correct filesize is: 639 kB (654817 bytes) /* It is not asi nice as planned because of props */ Click here to download this file

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...sst&id=5540 File Name: MiG-29 hangar menu screen - WoE style /FIXED File Submitter: cover72 File Submitted: 19 Nov 2007 File Updated: 21 Nov 2007 File Category: Hanger/Menu Screens MiG-29 hangar menu screen - WoE style - working Made using in-game top-view of "MIG-29C Fulcrum-C by Wpnssgt,Column5 and Typhoid" and default hangar menus of A-10A, F-4 and mine previous F-14 and F/A-18 hangar menus. I am sorry for previous /status_bad/ vresion - my inet broke down. Correct filesize should be 860kB (881 634 bytes). By cover72 cover72@gmail.com ICQ: 308387179 Please inform me if zipfile bad or invalid Click here to download this file

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...ode=sst&id=5191 File Name: F-14A hangar menu screen - WoE styleFile Submitter: cover72 File Submitted: 3 Sep 2007 File Category: Hanger/Menu Screens F-14A hangar menu screen - WoE style with shadow Made using in-game top-view of "The Mirage Factory and Olivier ANGUILLE's F-14A" and default hengar menus Click here to download this file

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...sst&id=5188 File Name: FA-18A hangar menu screen - WoE style File Submitter: cover72 File Submitted: 2 Sep 2007 File Updated: 3 Sep 2007 File Category: Hanger/Menu Screens F/A-18A hangar menu screen - WoE style Made using in-game top-view of "SPF1 F/A-18A Hornet V1.0" and default hengar menus of A-10A and F-4 V1.1 - shadow now present Click here to download this file