Brain32

Pretty model, very nice skins and multiple lods - VERY, very nice

Umm don't judge by the game screenshots, especially not the 6DOF ones. I believe you would have to sit left of the HUD with your head between your knees to get this view in the real plane lol

Wrench you just made my day...never knew about that one

Unfortunetly no, I actually wanted to make a set for every aircraft and limit the weapons with "SpecificStationCode" entry. For example I would take MiG-21tank,R-13,R-3R,R-60 s few bombs MiG-21_ReconPod and give all those weapons "SpecificStationCode=MiG-21", then I would put the same entry on every weapons station and voila... That is possible , but I would have to copy every single of those weapons for every such edit(skins,LOD's everything) and that would make a huge weapons folder so I gave up.. What would be cool is if we could have multiple entries for every weapon in DATA.ini file, it would be the return of WeapondataXXX entry lol but it would make creation of super-accurate weapon sets much easier to do...

Well because that's still not enough for proper Korea, sure we have mods that can make uber-complete Korea but TK needs a complete product. First you need F-86, several versions(A-E-F) with proper cockpits F-84F is fine(needs a cockpit) but at the very least you'd need a Panther for the navy and F-80, and all this should be flyable, and even then all this together with the Mustang is only 4 flyable planes, but that would just be the core. You also need supporting AI planes, B-29,B-26, etc. Also you can't leave NK,China and SSSR with only MiG-15A and bis, Yak and Lavochkin props as AI are nearly a must for a serious Korean scenario. I mean just look at WoV and SF2V, if done by that standard TK would really need A LOT of models to make it at the same level, and did I mention ground objects? Don't get me wrong I would apsolutely LOVE to see TK's "SF2:Korea", but I just don't see it as an realistic option as TK stated himself several times. It would sure be an epic flight sim suprise though

Based on what I do know about TK's policy: No particular order 1. Falklands 2. Pakistan-India 3. FE - Eastern Front For all those most of the assets are already made, Pakistan-India would have to include the flyable Fishbeds which in turn would be in good agreement for future Multiplayer game. I doubt in Korea as that would take waaaay too much new models to make,same for some more modern scenarios unless they are VERY limited, for example USN vs Lybia might be interesting as basically all TK would need is an F-14 and a new terrain on which he could even re-use WoI tileset....

Su-27 was for air superiority, more fuel, great range and well it's a freakin flying sam site lol MiG-29 was I think more like point interceptor like MiG-21, but they tried to make it more like F-16 in terms of A2G capatibilities.

Ahhh now I get it, that scheme is called MOD Eagle Geeez and I call myself an Eagle fanatic, this will be a nasty stain in my record

Nothing like some Eagle goodness, this will be beyond cool Anway I just missed out on something, is the mapping changed for redone C or not? If it is it would be cool to have 33rd TFW 58FS(yeah I pulled this out from a textureset.ini lol) that looks like this: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images...-15C_CAP_lg.jpg Although I'm pretty sure you have that covered already

Terrains, I mostly concentrate on high res PR tiles but as Korea will show I can build from scratch I don't do the targets but I hope STT will change that Secondary: I can also make all kinds of ini dancing(avionics, moving stuff around the pits,weps, pretty much anything) including a good deal of FM, actually I don't do from scratch FM's because well, the only place I can pull RL data is my behind lol Oh and recently I found out I can do skins, I may show something in the nearby future too. I don't do the 3D modelling as that is not something one learnes overnight, I used photoshop before this game, but I only saw 3D modelling program a few times in my buddies office lol This is very well noticed, and VERY appriciated, FC

Actually I like the looks of F-23 better than F-22. F-23 for me is just one of those planes that look like they are moving even when standing still on the runway...

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=40081

I know what is flyaway cost, I also know how to add, and I see nearly 4 times the flyway cost per plane here. Anyway there's nothing in it for me, so no point in arguing, I just think that with smarter export policies USAF and USN could prosper much better.

Only the initial 28 Hornet E's will get AIM-120 and AIM-9; 36 JSOWs that's like what - one per plane 10 HARMS? - I can't even comment on that 60 JDAM's that's not even two per plane guys and they are dirt cheap compering with other stuff 36 ASQ's is ok Training and logistics are not mentioned btw. According to wikipedia 2009 flyaway cost for Superhornet is 54,7mil$ so what exactly justifies the extra 140 mil$ per plane in this package? Czeh's paid 68mil$ per plane for their Gripen package, that ofcourse included all necessary equipment to introduce the airplane into their airforce, sure F-18E is a better solution for a big country like Brazil because of the range needed to cover that vast airspace... ...but overall that's insanely expensive, unless the competition is fixed, there's no way in the world Boeing will win it...especially in conditions of global economical crisis! The industry always worked the same regardless of the product if you are selling rifles or modern combat aircrafts, the more you sell the cheaper the price for your own forces.

Divide 7 bilion with number of planes so it's 7bil$/36 aircrafts you get 194 444 444 $ per plane

With this kind of export policy: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...per-hornet.html ...I would look for problems outside of presidents office. 200 mil.$ for one SuperHornet?!?!?!?!?

It is, I know because I asked: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6346

TK said it is modelled in the game at the moment, this is how I calculate for "BaseRCSModifier" entries in aircraft's data.ini

You are right ofcourse but the explanation for that exists. NATO name for MiG-29 is Fulcrum, and for 9.13 MiG-29S, NATO codename is Fulcrum-C Thus we call it MiG-29C So in a way it's not incorrect, it's just named from the perspective of the other side :)

Oooops sorry I've meant TFD, or tile map data...as for HFD I recommend using the new one then Yes you are right about that but check the question: EffectShaderName=terTerrainEffectDX9.FX ...or does the terrain engine determine which version is appropriate for the system if one simply specifies the default? EffectShaderName=terTerrainEffect.fx Both are new naming convention

Honestly I don't know I don't use it and didn't notice issues, but I don't fly over it much lately... It's safe to use either, my HFD had some tile corrections off the original one, I don't know if those were fixed in SF2V... And third, you don't have to adjust shader names

Hmmm just to make things clear for myself - doesn't the real F-18 have automatic flaps, FBW and all that? I think I've read that somewhere, but I might had just made it up lol

Actually I can't even say it's ugly - it's just too damn interesting.

A pumped-up ANG F-16E/F Block60 would surely be a sweeeeeeeeeet plane :yes:

Actually I could even upload it if those concerned allow me to do so... But anyway, you take that old "C" pit, delete the avionics file, edit the existing HUD TGA's to show nothing(I forgot about that part sorry)... Now you just take all the avionics from DS F-16C including the avionics.ini and pull it all in the same folder Go see how it matches in-game...if it's off then just adjust Offset setting in your cockpit ini and that's it - fully functional F-16C pit, not perfect - but it's here and it's functional