Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Erik

      2019 Drive   05/31/2019

      Can you lend a hand?  GET STARTED TODAY

Gunrunner

+PLATINUM MEMBER
  • Content count

    1,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Gunrunner last won the day on October 22 2015

Gunrunner had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

185 Neutral

1 Follower

About Gunrunner

  1. Nowhere to be found, at least they don't extract, which might mean 5 things, from most to least probable : - They were omitted from the DLCData028.cat intentionnally with the calls for them as a placeholder. <<== (Innocent looking arrow pointing at the most probable reason, considering other decals are in the same situation.) - The were omitted from the DLCData028.cat by error. - They are aliased to another decal set. (Nope, they don't show up.) - There was an error in the name of the decal called. (But there is no eligible decal in the DLCData028.cat or anything close to what they should be in any other CAT.) - For some reason they don't extract AND don't show up on CAT extractors AND don't show up in-game. (Yeah, riiiiiight.)
  2. It's a known problem with some old models that were either not meant for the "new" dynamic shadow model, or had bugged meshes that were never fixed by the author. The easiest fix is to disable the shadows on that particular plane, it's not ideal but usually the only clean solution. You can do that by locating the Objects/Aircraft/[PlaneName]/[PlaneName].ini file for the plane with a problem and change : ... [Shadow] CastShadow=TRUE ... to ... [Shadow] CastShadow=FALSE ...
  3. Actually they engage, they are marked as being engaged in level bombing, but since getting out of that state (and following the next waypoint, or trying another pass) requires dropping their bombs and they can't/won't, they remain in the level bombing mode, flying level, straight in the same direction. The dive bombing profile is different because there's a distance to target/altitude set of conditions for getting out of it and doing another pass, so even if there is no weapon release, they disengage and try another pass, "endlessly". At least the part I identified, you can see it by using the debug HUD info, it tells you which AI profile the plane you're observing is performing, the strike crafts going straight endlessly are stuck in level bombing.
  4. That's the same bug, but using two different bombing profiles*, the one Menrva describes is when guided bombs are mounted on AI flights trying to perform dive bombing attacks, the one described by Major Bloodnok is when they try to perform level bombing attacks with the same loadout. * Don't ask me how the engine decides which to perform with FIGHTER or ATTACK planes, the same mission, with the same planes and loadout doesn't always lead to the same bombing profil being used by the AI, there's probably a RNG and a chance for each in some file for each plane type and mission type, but I haven't bothered searching for it. Only BOMBER are predictable as in my experience they only use level bombing.
  5. Excellent job... any chance of a template being released? /me dones his rivet-counter hat Nooooowwww, on a less positive note... - The flare boxes are untextured. - The ground crews need a good talking to because the state of the B versions is simply disgraceful (you forgot to remove or tone down a weathering/dirt layer when exporting the B skins, except the Tiger Meet one). - The front "exhausts" behind the air intakes do not all have shadows "baked" and some use the top colour rather than the bottom, making them "asymetric". You must be sick of staring at all the skins you have to manage and small mistakes like these are easy to let slip (hence the template question, so you can concentrate on releases and OCD twits like myself can "fix" things themselves without pestering you).
  6. I'm using a mix of Paint.NET (for 95% of the work, and it's free) and Photoshop CC (the monthly version) for the rest (mostly TGA work - Paint.NET sucks at it - and converting modern PSD templates to be read by Paint.NET - there's a PSD plugin but it doesn't play well with files from beyond version 7.x). Be aware that the modern Photoshop interface and keyboard layout is radically different from what you're used to, it might be a pain to adapt at first.
  7. Yes, it's normal, you don't return exactly at the same heading and it depends on your airspeed. The NORMAL behaviour is closer to the real thing. Oh, by the way, it's spelt "rudder".
  8. Ships on terrain

    I thought of it but then they wouldn't be in this long close single-file formation, the second picture could under some circumstances have been that, but the first couldn't. @don246 Glad to have been of help.
  9. Ships on terrain

    Considering the formation in the first picture, I'm willing to bet that in the DATA.INI of that particular ship, the GroundObjectRole is set to TRANSPORT rather than CARGO_SHIP.
  10. Most of us just figured it out independently, which is why there are so very few modders competent in the most complicated tasks (it requires time to learn and be any good, even with guidance from old hands) and being a choosy beggar is very poorly received (we've had drama and modders quitting over this bullshit).
  11. Oh wait, the included Foch file is "wrong", it has the U deck code instead of F, mine was fine then... damn...
  12. For SF2, we still have the early one from TMF hidden away within another download from 2008 (not sure it's still around) and I think there was another one in development at some point, alas I haven't seen anything recently.
  13. Yeah, their carriers are usually great, now if only we had a Charles de Gaulle and a Kuznetsov.
  14. I had a quick look, same story, they're not exactly identical but are variants of the same files. There seems to be a minor difference when it comes to the glass material, the CA version has a GF picture that is missing from the YAP variant (it's mapped, it's just missing the texture file). The INIs have a high commonality but are not exactly identical, but I haven't delved into the details, there doesn't seem to be major functionnalities differences though, just alternative implementations, seat positions etc.
  15. Actually it seems the 3D model is a variant of Bobrock's model (https://combatace.com/files/file/13412-sf2-korean-war-era-f9f-2-panther-pak-by-bobrock/, this one). The YAP variant has the pilot seat integrated into the model but no 3D damage model, the CA one lacks the seat but has a 3D damage model, there's also a name difference on the texture file the wings, but that's all, the mapping is the same, the skins are built from the same template. The INIs on the other hand are unique to each version. If it's the Panther that interests you, the one on CA is the best option IMHO.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..