malibu43

Unfortunately i just learned they didnt add trackir in the final release. I was ready to spend some money on Flight, but they wont see a dime without head tracking support!

Well, its the 29th somewhere in the world right now. So its time to post these. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Damn! I'm on vacation. Look forward to hearing about it! Who won the free copy?

I really like the ENB mod the blurriness is starting to bug me.

Could C's carry dual AIM-120's on the outer stations? I know they could carry dual AIM-9's, but I thought the station could only carry 1 AIM-120... FYI - the reference I'm going to site for my information is Graphic Sim's Hornet 2.0 for the Mac!

Good grief! SF2NA isn't out yet and we're already complaining about what other aircraft it should include in addition to the F-14!

If you play around with supply level and mission rates, you might be able to get one force to run out of supplies and the other to go on the initiative at approximately the right time, but depending on how precise and consistent you want the switch to be, it might not be doable. The other thing you could do, if it's just one major switch you're looking for, would be to split it into campaigns - campaignX part I: The Offensive, campaignX part II: The Retreat. Or something like that. You can fill the gap in the story with the campaign_end.txt files and then point players to the next campaign. Just a thought.

+1 for what Baltika said. Unfortunately it's a limitation of TK's engine.

(Not trying to hijack this into a MS Flight discussion...) I think that is one of the incorrect assumptions that a lot of people are making.

March 2nd, 2012.

If I hadn't already posted I would just quote this with a "+1".

I'm gonna go the complete opposite direction here and say that it seems like a lot of flight simmers are the ones smoking something (I am NOT neccessarily referring to you, tn_prvteye. Your questions mostly reasonable.). I don't what the cause is (I'm sure it's some very complicated combination of availability of information on the internet + higher standards + people thinking they're the sh1t, etc...), but people need to chill out. No one owes you anything unless you've paid for it. 15-20 years ago we would have all been amazed by these games; now we nit pick and complain instead. TK doesn't owe us any new features in SF2NA. Also, if you don't like what he does in his FREE patches, don't install them. No one forces you to. M$ doesn't owe anybody anything in terms of a sequel to FSX. You don't like the direction they're going with MS Flight? Don't buy it! It seriously seems like people think they know EXACTLY what Flight should be and that M$ isn't doing it. Do you really think M$ just threw money at this without researching it a little first? I wouldn't be surprised if these same people expect that M$ is going to issue a press release at some point that says "Wow. You were right, crazy flight simmer from AVSIM. Flight was a total waste and we should have been working FS11 with all those features you wanted even though they appeal to 2% of the market that Flight does." I keep seeing people say M$ is "abandoning their loyal fan base." What? So just because a group of people really enjoyed a product that M$ no longer sees value in developing, M$ should keep developing it? Would you expect any other business to do the same thing? IL-2 - People get their panties all in a bunch because they don't like the way engines overheat in patch 4.11 (just an example)... WTF! First of all, you're still getting free patches for a game that's over 10 years old. Second - You're upset becuase an airplane's engine doesn't overheat in a computer game per the flight manual? Hmmm... Oh, don't forget it's just one of the 30 or so aircraft that come free with said game. RoF - Honestly, 15 years ago we would have been happy if RoF came with one flyable plane and a campaign or two. Now, we complain that the tens of add-on planes they're producing aren't the right ones. Oh, and lastly, people need to find better things to do with their time than come on internet forums and complain about the things other people say on internet forums. Oh. Wait a second...

Cool. No offense meant.

Dude, hate to break it to ya, but there is a big team that has been working on ODS for SF2 for a very long time. As far as I know, it's almost done. So I think your effort may have been in vein.

As Eric said, the "default" loadouts for the F-4's are historically accurate. The USAF won't have both winders and bombs loaded on the inner pylons. The USN will. The option is still there for the user to add both bombs and winders to the inner weapon stations. This can be tweaked in the _data.ini for each F-4, but I didn't feel the need to go in and make those changes as well. If we were to try to modify each aircraft so that only historically accurate loadouts are possible, we would probably go crazy, as well as realize at some point that it's simply not possible due to the number of aircraft and weapons available and the way the weapon stations work. I've tried it before with a couple different aircraft and nearly diven myself off the edge. If you know a loadout isn't accurate... just don't load out your aircraft in that way.

SF2NA is looking epic!!!

Sorry MigBuster! I totally missed this part of your post! I have that F-16 installed and didn't see any issues with it as of the August/September patches. Don't know if November may have changed something else, though.

The link I posted isn't just skins (unless I pasted the wrong link); it creates a separate USAF/NATO F-16A aircraft for SF2 that uses the model and cockpit from the Netz. End1e551 - All you should have to do is download and install the F-16A that I linked. Then download and install the campaign editor. Run the editor (by clicking on the pencil button at the campaign select screen). You will be able to select the 1979 "Red Lightning" campaign and select the F-16A as your aircraft.

No need to build an F-16A. There's one in the downloads section that converts the SF2I Netz into a plain old F-16A for use in Europe. Give me a few minutes to find it... edit - here: http://combatace.com/files/file/11764-f-16a-block-10-usaf-nato/

What you need to do is go into the _data.ini file for each F-4 (ie F-4E_72_data.ini, etc...) and then change the inner pylon bomb station and sidewinder stations to use the same "StationGroupID=" number. Then you will have one dropdown for both the pylon and winder rails where you can select either bombs or winders. ... [LeftInnerWingStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=3 StationGroupID=3 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-2.05,2.74,-1.22 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,0.0 LoadLimit=1400 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,EOGB,NUC,CGR,EOGR,ARM,EP,LP,TER,TLR,RP AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName= ;PylonMass= ;PylonDragArea= LaunchRailNodeName=AGM65_rail_L LaunchRailHeight=0.07 LaunchRailMass=61.23 [RightInnerWingStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=4 StationGroupID=3 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=2.05,2.74,-1.22 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,0.0 LoadLimit=1400 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,EOGB,NUC,CGR,EOGR,ARM,EP,TER,TLR,RP AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName= ;PylonMass= ;PylonDragArea= LaunchRailNodeName=AGM65_rail_R LaunchRailHeight=0.07 LaunchRailMass=61.23 ... [sidewinderStation1] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=10 StationGroupID=2 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-2.32,2.63,-1.12 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,90.0 LoadLimit=90.72 AllowedWeaponClass=IRM AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName=missile_rails_L PylonMass= LaunchRailNodeName= MinExtentPosition= MaxExtentPosition= [sidewinderStation2] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=11 StationGroupID=2 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=2.32,2.63,-1.12 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,-90.0 LoadLimit=90.72 AllowedWeaponClass=IRM AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName=missile_rails_R PylonMass= LaunchRailNodeName= MinExtentPosition= MaxExtentPosition= [sidewinderStation3] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=12 StationGroupID=2 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-1.77,2.63,-1.12 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,-90.0 LoadLimit=90.72 AllowedWeaponClass=IRM AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName=missile_rails_L PylonMass= LaunchRailNodeName= MinExtentPosition= MaxExtentPosition= [sidewinderStation4] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=13 StationGroupID=2 <--- This number StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=1.77,2.63,-1.12 AttachmentAngles=0.0,-1.0,90.0 LoadLimit=90.72 AllowedWeaponClass=IRM AttachmentType=NATO,USAF ModelNodeName=missile_rails_R PylonMass= LaunchRailNodeName= MinExtentPosition= MaxExtentPosition= ... Just a word of advice - Trying to make it so that no "inaccurate" loadouts can possibly be loaded from the custom loadout menu can become a huge headache (maybe not in this case, but in other cases...). I used to do that, but simply rely on the loadout.ini file to give me accurate loadouts by default. It's much easier and keeps me saner.

????

Your throttle controls how much thrust the engine is producing. Thrust vector controls which direction that thrust is pointed.

You need to have A LOT of throttle. All the thrust vectoring does is vary the direction of the thrust from the engine. For regular flight, the nozzles should be pointed back. For hovering, VTOL, etc... you vary the angle of the nozzles to get the right combination of vertical thrust and forward/backward thrust.

I doubt you'll be able to do much (especially hover) with your throttle at 0.

The guys on KNBR just said the exact same thing. My friend and I also made the same observation at the end of the day yesterday. It certainly would be easier (for me anyway) if Eli had owned us and put up 45 points. Losing the game on a muffed punt and fumbled punt is tough.