malibu43

Well, not as tweakable as it used to be. But, TK does do a good job at getting patches out quickly. I was just having a little fun...

Ah... so that's what this "beta testing" thing I've been hearing about is for... I wonder why TW doesn't do that. It must be very expensive to pay people to be beta testers. I mean, surely, it can't be free...

I'm a little surprised they announced in September that it would be released in September. I would think that at that point they'd be close enough to know how much work is left. But I don't know that much about software development... No biggie. I can wait.

Yep. I was very excited to have the chance to see it! Thanks!

I am by no means proficient at photography...

Excellent!

+1

Well, if it's really a matter of folks just not knowing the rules, why don't we just let them know when it happens and ask them to correct it? Punishment is only appropriate for those that we "remind" of the rules and still refuse to abide. Maybe we could put something in the fair use agreement that "suggests" not to make very minor edits to someone's work and then release it as a new version without asking permission of the author. I've seen some instances where long-time modder X releases Plane A, and then someone new I've never seen before rereleases it a day later as a Plane A Edited because they changed the loudout.ini or something like that... just a thought...

@ ED: Shut up and take my money!

Welcome and nice pictures!

On my way to the "range" for some guided missile practice. Taking off for guns and rockets practice. Landing. A lot better this time! NM. Floated and landed too far down the runway. Started taking screenshots during the roll out and didn't pay attention to where the runway ended...

My first DCS World landing... attempt...

:sohappy:

Not to totally undermine TW's DLC, but with FC3 coming soon I'd like to save my money for that and maybe go the free route for some USAF F-4 skins. The only skin I'm really interested in is the Euro Camo for the all the SF2 D and E variants. Does Sundowner have those in the DL sections already?

Not bailing, but definitely "getting out and stretching my legs a bit". And I might get back in a different car for the next part of the journey. I'm just kinda tired of modding (or lately a lot of fixing). The idea of multiplayer in FC2/FC3 that includes all the DCS flyers sounds fun, for now anyway. But my SF2 install isn't going anywhere. I'm just ready for that install to be at a stable point where I don't screw with it anymore. I just want to fly. I don't have the spare time that I did a few years ago. I found this to be very true and one of the most annoying things out of everything you listed. And it wasn't always like that.

Let's add that to the list of fixes then. As long as it doesn't screw up any stock loadouts... which I don't think it would. I'm going to be out of town for the long weekend, so I may be slow to reply (or not reply at all) for the next few days. It sounds like we're close to having something together pending some weapons fixes/additions.

Well, unless someone comes forward and helps us with what weapons need to be fixed or added, I think the best we can do is just do the few that we know of. There's not much else we can do. I mean, no one can think of a reason for a large weapons pack, so why are we trying to add one? Also, I don't think there's really much point in adding the MK77. The stock game doesn't have any enemy infantry or base camps in heavily forested or jungle areas, so they aren't very useful. All the CAS loadouts (USMC included) need to be geared to taking out large soviet tank formations, since those are the missions the game will generate. We can still add the MK77, but it really just ends up being another not-so-useful weapon to filter through when using the loadout screen. In other words, there is a trade off between having accurate loadouts and loadouts that are usefull in the game. I tried to balance that trade-off with my F-4 loadouts. Not saying we can't include the MK77. I'm just giving something to think about when deciding what weapons to include.

The aircraft would have to be flown by a "Friendly" nation, and the aircraft would have to have attachment points that allow either USAF or USN (if they're just NATO, the weapon won't load). Well, like I already said, I don't see a glaring need for any weapons or weapons changes other than the couple that I've already included. So I don't know if I can be much help in telling you what to include. This is where we need to be careful; KB's Ordnance Pack II is several patches old. If we start replacing stock weapons from that pack, we could screw up the balance of the game (although I guess that may not be that likely). My suggestion would be to, without even looking at a weapons pack, list the stock weapons that you think are broken or missing. Then, for the weapons that are "broken" lets just extract the stock .ini files and fix them (there's no guarantee that the ones in weps packs are any better). Then, for ones that are missing, grab them from the newest weapons pack you can find and test the crap out of them to make sure they work like they should. In general, I'm thinking more of a "pull" philosophy vs a "push" philosophy. Identify the shortcomings in the game and pull the parts in to fix it, rather than identifying all kinds of addons in the 3rd party world and push them into the game whether they're needed or not (if that makes sense). *edit - regarding the AGXP, I think I only added a few missing weapons initially (like a dozen or less, following my "pull" philosophy from above). eburger68 assembled the rest of that weapons pack. We'd have to ask him where most of the weapons came from, what he had to change to make them work, and what the need was to add them.

You got 'em both already. Either don't allow the weapon to be exported, or only allow a certain attachment type.

I just found Retrograde's speech pack. I was looking at the wrong one earlier (can't remember which one off the top of my head). The one you want to use is tits! I like it!

That's fine if I'm in the minority. I can live with it or find ways around it.

So, my vote in terms of speech packs would be: 1) Speech pack for EVERYTHING (Redcrown, Hawkeye, AI, Approach/Departure, etc...) 2) if 1 doesn't exist, I'd vote for no speech packs except for Sprectre's edited Hawkeye pack. My 2 cents.

It doesn't mean there couldn't be an accident in which age was a factor or that 75 year olds racing airplanes is safe. It just simply states the fact that in this specific accident his age wasn't a factor. He could have been 25 years old or 90 years old - either way he wouldn't have been able to do anything when the trim tab came off. So, no, it seems to be a very factual, non-insane statement to me.

Is that the CV-59 from Beers? If it is, the quality was pretty low compared to stock carriers, and we're better off just using CV-63 as a stand-in. If it's the one Fubar was working on (?), then that might be a different story. Is there a speech pack that fixes Red Crown (I don't see one listed in your post above...)? While a lot of those speech packs are much better than stock, I've found in the past that hearing stock Red Crown (or Hawkeye or Departure/Approach) in the middle of the other modified radio calls is a HUGE immersion killer. To the point where I felt it was better just leaving the stock AI speech files.