squid

wow ancient history :)

ok sony just informed me

Good stuff ! :D will parts be used in anatolia ? hehe

btw, didnt thought to check, is the -5 lacking the self cast shadows in your setups too ? (just in case its something related to my own install only)

google / wiki, right. Ahhh there we are, at least about the difference between beam-riding and semi-active , wery clarifying :

The basic concept of SARH is that since almost all detection and tracking systems consist of a radar system' date=' duplicating this hardware on the missile itself is redundant. In addition, the resolution of a radar is strongly related to the physical size of the antenna, and in the small nose cone of a missile there isn't enough room to provide the sort of accuracy needed for guidance. Instead the larger radar dish on the ground or launch aircraft will provide the needed signal and tracking logic, and the missile simply has to listen to the signal reflected from the target and point itself in the right direction. Additionally, the missile will listen rearward to the launch platform's transmitted signal as a reference, enabling it to avoid some kinds of radar jamming distractions offered by the target.

 

Contrast this with beam riding systems, in which the radar is pointed at the target and the missile keeps itself centered in the beam by listening to the signal at the rear of the missile body. In the SARH system the missile listens for the reflected signal at the nose, and is still responsible for providing some sort of “lead” guidance. The disadvantages are twofold: One is that a radar signal is “fan shaped”, growing larger, and therefore less accurate, with distance. This means that the beam riding system is not accurate at long ranges, while SARH is largely independent of range and grows more accurate as it approaches the target, or the source of the reflected signal it listens for. Another requirement is that a beam riding system must accurately track the target at high speeds, typically requiring one radar for tracking and another “tighter” beam for guidance. The SARH system needs only one radar set to a wider pattern.[/quote']

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-active_radar_homing

 

 

(reading on)

It appears my questions are result of lack of knowledge mainly regarding terminology. So its about filling the gaps in basic weapon technology stuff details. One recent clarification for me from here is that beam-riding refers to the weapon "riding" also a radar beam and not necessarily a laser beam only. I never thought of radar emissions in the form of beam, more like rather wide angle electromagnetic pulse waves transmission and reflection reception.

questions :

1. In Laser beam-riding the weapon slides on the beam axis. How the weapon in this case senses the laser beam ? ( is it just the head detecting the laser reflection on the target?) And If the target is illuminated by a source located at a way off different direction than the weapon release source, what do we have in that case? A different type of laser tracking head detecting and following a laser beam reflection ? (are laser beam reflections having the form of a wide-spread radiance or a straight single beam ?)

2. what is the proportional navigation group exactly? why called proportional ?

3. in Semi-active homing, the communication between the weapon and the homing radar is of radio type? How is the type of guidance called where an external radar have to continuously guide the weapon till impact? Is there a case of weapons where the external radar illuminates with its transmissions the target and the weapon (instead of radio type communication with the radar carrier) just picks up with its own radar "reflection" receiver, the reflection from the target?

mucho interesting. Can we have this projection on the HUD also ?? interesting project ....

A cumulative pack is in general a great idea :) I actually never installed a complete weapons pack. I try to keep things as neat and clean and sane as possible :P What i do with packs is install only specific weapons a new plane might need that are not already in the plane pack or some ordnance (pod or weapon) i am specifically interest at a given time. But its good if my "library" was a cumulative pack of all weapons pack released. What i dont like is repetition though, same weapon or pod repeated twice or thrice and having to figure out what are the differences. But smoke pods for example i might like to play with at some point, load an aerobatic skin/plane hit and fraps it etc

may i ask, have someone maybe discovered some sort of quick fix or workaround for the taking off from AB thingy untill TW is ready with the upcoming patch?

Its only the 2000-5F that has the shadow thing. i think.

The release loadouts are perfect. especially under the the scope you described. I am just informing the rest of people if they want they can do those ordnance tweaks, and they are not fictional (more its about being excited my experiment to alter the loadout the way i wanted worked )

all and all its a great package and relase !

Didn't TK once make a comment along the lines that the reason the A-6A was dropped from SF2:V (after being in WOV) was he felt a pure ground-attack plane (especially one with no gun) didn't "offer enough gameplay"?

He seems to pick planes that are either AA only or more usually capable of being fighter-bombers. AI-only are a different issue, of course.

In other words, if you offer planes that can "do it all" you don't need as many in the game for people to feel like they're getting something good ie 3 multirole planes = 3 AA-only + 3 AG-only as far as gameplay value but costs only 1/2 to make.

Finding out planes missing that were previously released is kinda let down, to my personal view. No reason can justify such choice enough i think (except external factors like legal issues). Not good policy me thinks. Great thing ofcourse that with minimum tweaking they can be imported from 1st gen.

all this talk about A-6's i didnt know we were doin write in candidates. in that case how about F-16C? i know i know avionics aren't really in line with whats available and it'll take time money and many bugs but one can dream can't they? we might see it right before Dave gets his pony:lol:

I don't think anyone would compain about a TW F-16C using the current avionics engine :D ( i know i wouldn't :P )

There's something shadow wrong with the -5 LOD. No matter what shadow settings i use in the ini, the plane isnt casting shadows on itself. It casts on the ordnance but not on its own surfaces. Any ideas ?

Btw, ordnance wise, Mica stations are interchangeable. It can carry any given combination. For example a documented practice is 3 EM + 3 IR. (I also think that the fuel tank stations can get Micas too, not sure, still researching this)

Also it can carry one Scalp-EG (Storm Shadow) on the center pylon and with the software uprade SEG-53 it can also launch Exocets. Easily modified my -5 loadouts :)

F-5A, F-5B, T-38 ♥♥♥♥♥

indeed European Mirages III & F-16A (+USA vipers) its very easy for TW to do (been more or less done already by the community i think), it would had made perfect sense to have been included in Expandsion Packs despite that they are easy to do and whatever the community done already. The F-104 its a fetisch must for SF ... A HD, HQ TW F-104 ... but i think there are still Lockheed legal issues not allowing TW to publish some Lockheed related products? Again here in CA my eye caught i think a High Poly F-104 and a HD starfighter cockpit. Untill there is a TW F-104.

LOL LOL See Stary ? its all about the women LOL Our hobbies are probably manifestations of freudian slips :p I still keep hopes though for some of the attractive ones lol Btw about the actual topic :P i agree with Stary

3. Weapon editor presents information like those screenshots (Terminal PoP-Up, etc) for 3d party weapons that i just throw the files in the weapons folder. I guess the weapondata.dat file is somewhere inside its cat file and includes only the stock weaponry? And where Weapon Editor gets this information from ?

4. I found those Storm Shadow family missiles have EO (5) as guidance system. I am going to try when i have time, but just had to ask anyways, if i altered it to 3 (CGR - "Semi-Auto Command guided") or 7 (inertial homing) will it work ? Will it work in same distances? or will lose range? or will not guide at all ? etc - I also guess theres no such as GPS in SF2 yet, right?

2. why Beam Riding is separate from Laser Guidance in the Weapon Editor?

What would be the suggested method of the ones available (EO/TV is one?) to model in SF2 a stand-off (long range) A/G precision fire and forget weapon? Either targeting ship or ground target. What would be the way to choose for a weapon ini file to ensure long range fire and forget accurate hit ?

Btw, where do we set what kind of missions an aircraft can take? anti-ship, sead, etc

1. Now which one of the two AM-39 in the screenshots is most effective and modern ? (i am not sure the dates are accurate)

2. What exactly are

- Semi-Auto Command guidance

- Inertial Homing

- Radio Command Guidance

- Beam Riding

both in RL and in the SF2 gameplay ?

3. Which lines in the <XYZ Weapon>_data.ini define the options like Terminal Guidance (what is that?), IFF interogator, Target Memory etc? Except for the "GuidanceType" line i haven't been able to spot other lines related to Guidance details ...

4. Shouldnt weapons like Apache, Taurus, Scalp-EG, Storm Shadow have a different than EO/TV guidance system? Maybe GPS or Inertial Homing (is that an independent 'fire & forget' INS guiding system?) ? Wouldnt that be closer to the RL role and characteristics of those kind of cruise missiles?

I hope someone out there has the patience lol

To ask also ..

1. How are the antiship missiles used ?

2. And how are the stand-off / cruise missiles used ? (apache, storm shadow, Jsow etc)

Looking for an explanation of what kind of weapon guidance each value of GuidanceType (weapondata.ini) corresponds to. (There are i think 12 types?)

Thanks :)

F-5A all the way

1. I have a double OS installation in my rig. My good old x86 XP and the W7 x64. The other day i wanted to check something from one of my old moded SF1 XP installations, while i was on the 7. So while still in W7 i located the SF1 exe double clicked and voila .... Game ran perfectly without any glitch , message or something missing .... impressed lol

2. Imressed #2, those killerbee's ordnance packages. After having my jaws droped checking what was in the package, and the models quality, the toping came when i saw the 273 page PDF ... Some people out there are really sick :D LOL awe

in any case

You can't go wrong with Stary's terrains. Currently the best there is really. Of any theatre. period. (he should be hired by TW)

Squid,

 

 

As you can see, you are getting most of the stores supplied with the Mirage pack, probably that the BGL ("Bombe Guidée Laser" for Laser Guided Bomb) would be available for a Strike mission. The other weapons shown on Dave's screenshots are from a 3rd party weapon pack, so don't be bothered being short. (She don't care she said ;)).

 

 

I'll give her a go now that my list is not short any more and check what she has to say now :P

i sense a point here