Gunrunner

That's intentional, MAPENEMYICON.TGA is entirely transparent, to "solve" it, just remove that file from the Flight folder.

1952, somewhere over Korea Tailless designs, modern ? Pah ! And I'm pretty sure it should read Julie, but I'm yet to find solid sources to confirm my gut feeling.

Flogger23, if you only want to see changes in the texture, just hit the reload button. Of course, if you made any change to the LOD itself, it's another story I think (haven't tested it though, maybe the whole thing is reloaded not just textures).

It seems the meshing over textures doesn't work all the time and sometimes only on part of models (the F-86E-10 LOD doesn't display some parts, it's fairly weird, I'll upload a screenshot later on). Also, I may have missed it, but is there any way to unselect a node once selected ? Finally, a suggestion, is adding a "hide node" option on right-click in the node list on the table ? It would help when skinning overlapping rails/fuel tanks or when checking if parts you plan to remove don't leave a gaping hole.

And the guy is - given the mods presented and some of the links - at least a lurker here, so he should know better... That's what pisses me off most.

On the bottom list, right-click on a texture filename, click on show all nodes on texture, choose the mesh color and you can save it as jpg (just do it with a plain color file as "skin" if you want a clean file) and you're golden... or have I misunderstood what you wanted ?

Damn Mue, thanks a lot, again, I don't know how I did without your tool before, spending hours or days doing what takes minutes now; You really provided us with an invaluable tool. Any chance you'll add the handling of decals at some point ? (and fake pilot grafts, and loadouts, and... just kidding... even though, now that I think about it... ;) keep up the good work)

Let us be clear, "reverse-engineering" is not a crime, it might be a breach of contract under certain legal systems, but reverse engineering something you have a legal ownership or licence over is actually a good thing, it starts becoming a problem depending on what you do with that newly found knowledge/content. What is legally and ethically dubious is to use that ability to either pass someone else work as your own, or distribute in ways the original author didn't intend or allow. The first priority of the community should be to keep itself alive and make the work of modders easier while staying legal and ethical, not to handicap itself to increase revenues of payware, however good it is and however nice the people behind it are. Believe me, if someone wants to profit from your hard work, they will, whether honest modders have easy access to the tools or not. An acceptable compromise in my opinion would be to have a read-only version generally available, and a full version accessible though CombatAce only to members recognized as modders or having proven they will not use it to abuse someone else's work.

AFAIR, the problem is that you are modeling it as a SARH missile, which to the game engine means you need a constant link, what you want to do is model it as an ARH, besides, I'm quite sure the R-77 had been done over and over as part of red birds or in weapons pack, by people actually knowing what the hell they are doing, so please save yourself (and those trying to help you) the frustration and headache and just use that, believe me, they know what they are doing, the reason why it's been modeled as an AHM is not because some of the finest modders in the community are complete idiots and you are a genius, but because it's how you should do it to have it behave as closely to the real thing as possible. ;-)

It so happens that currently the site is in recurring financial difficulties, the paying members being too few relative to the free members, which means that the site can't cover operating costs and more importantly the bandwidth costs (when you download a mod, it costs money to the site, publicity covers part of it but is not enough, subscription are there to try and cover the rest). I would gather that Jarhead1, a long-time member of the community made a sizable donation to help relieve that situation, hence Dave's enthusiasm and well-deserved recognition of Jarhead1's contribution to the community (btw, I tip my hat to you, sir). I must point that the situation is due to too many people thinking that they can just download and not give anything back, be it by being an active member on the boards, becoming a modder or simply paying for a subscription plan you can afford. I think we all understand that you might not have the age or financial means to contribute, which is probably why Erik et al really don't want to resort to limiting download access, but for those of us who can and as of yet don't, please consider subscribing.

Dave, could you discuss with Eric the possibility of a financial breakdown of the site's operation, maybe as a sticky, so that non-subscribing members can get a better idea of WHY they need to subscribe if they can afford it (of course it's understandable not to if you can't) ? By the way, how much money would you actually need (on that note, I know you usually don't like it but maybe the donation could be back for those of us who don't have the option to further upgrade our existing subscription - through wire transfer would be nice too) ? Maybe also work out something that would remind each of us how much bandwidth we've used so far (and how much it did cost), maybe as a private information like our warning status ?

You can't remotely operate a mule, you can't have mules mount weapons (well, you can, but the results might be a tad... underwhelming). Further research/training into real mules won't have them being autonomously useful. Even trained mules have a tendency to wander around, or if under fire, behave erratically, I don't think soldiers under fire would welcome having to deal with a panicked pack mule on top of that... It's easier and faster to deal with attrition with robot mules (field repairs are an option) rather than real mules (who can't get back right to service after changing some parts, meaning you need to have 2/3 times the number of mules you need to replace the casualties). Even not taking into account the higher number of real mules it would take to perform the same mission as robot mules, one should consider that real mules need to be fed, their pens need to be cleaned, there arise a need for field veterinarians, and suddenly the support necessary to operate real mules is superior to the one needed to operate robotic mules, of course the cost, including R&D, of robotic mules still maybe higher, but it's so much easier, more predictable. Robot dogs... a dog sensor package is fixed, varies depending on the individual, requires years of training and gives information fairly incomplete and subject to interpretation, a robot is immediately operational, upgradeable, the efficiency is a given, the readings are supposedly unequivocal, you can send it to it's "death" without batting an eye should the situation require it and so on. Of course it's horrendously costly if you take the R&D costs into account, but the end result has the potential to be far superior and more useful than their biological inspirations. On another note, one can't complain about these programs and still find the F-35 costs entirely justified. (I HAD to ! ^^ )

Are you really missing the point ? Do I really have to explain why choosing the wrong tool for the job at the cost of procuring less of them is not a good solution (in the F-104 case, it was the wrong tool but at least it was compensated by the fact A LOT of them were procured). The less aircrafts you have, the more crippling a loss is. The less aircrafts you have, the quicker it will age and/or the less training your pilots get. The less aircrafts you have, the less aircrafts you can get in the air at any given time. The less adapted to it's main mission an aircraft is, the more planes you need in the air to fulfill the same mission. Norway and the Netherlands are placing themselves in a situation were it would be simpler and less costly to simply abandon their air force altogether, with their current plans in a decade they'll be where Switzerland currently is, forced to operate minimal hours, reduce training and be on the verge of not being able to fulfill its mission in a credible manner. Of course some would say that the F-35 is more survivable and less maintenance intensive than alternatives, increasing its availability and thus making fewer planes as efficient, and that is partially true, however there is little chance that the increase in survivability and availability are in the vicinity of what is needed to compensate for the very small fleets (by some estimates the F-35 gains make it up to 1.5x as efficient, but they cost 2x to 3x time as much...). Now, concerning Australia and Canada, it is true that it has indeed better range than the Hornet (and AFAIR the Super Hornet), however that range increase comes at the cost of a smaller air-to-air payload in air defense role (which would mean the need for more planes etc...). It is also true that for decades Canada made do with planes falling very short of their needs anyway. The curse of the F-35 is that its cost progressed faster and further than its gains in operational advantages, making it a poor choice for anyone not being able to afford a large fleet and intending to use it as their main or only asset. Is that so hard to understand ?

Indeed, suppositions, and what do you think the optimistic estimates are ? Suppositions as well... No one ever got the best result by just assuming that everything will be rosy and work as expected, always prepare for the worst-case scenario, and in that worst-case scenario the F-35 is simply NOT the right tool for the job for at least a third of the buyers... It doesn't matter that a Bugatti Veyron is the fastest and most luxurious car money can buy, when what you have to do is haul a family of 5 and their luggage, there are cheaper and better alternatives.

Yes, because it's so much better to assume success based on gross exaggerations from the manufacturer and a government desperate on selling the plane to lower it's own unit price... Look, for what it's worth the F-35 is a great choice for the US (inflated cost and teething problems notwithstanding) , it will be a great asset for Israel as well (they intend to use it in a manner well suited to its design), Italy, Japan, South Korea and the UK should have no real problem with it either (they'll use it primarily for its VSTOL features and/or as a primarily strike oriented asset, it might be overkill for Italy and Japan, but still, these countries will use it as one plane among others). For Canada it's a stupid choice, it lacks the endurance for its main air defense role (but that's been a constant for Canada), and the benefits it brings in its secondary strike role are too small and come at too high a price considering how little (if ever) it will be used in that role. For Australia, again a lacking choice, it is barely adequate in its air defense role and lacks range in its long range strike role. For Norway and Netherlands, it's an inferior choice for it's main role as an air policing asset, which costs forces them to have a smaller, less competent force, all this for a theoretical advantage in its secondary role that will materialize only in scenarios those countries almost never participate... For Turkey the plane itself is irrelevant, the F-35 procurement is above all a political status symbol and as such will perform admirably, politics is the only dimension that matters in that particular case. Any country buying the F-35 as its main air defense asset is making a costly mistake, it's not a fault of the aircraft though, it's not the hammer's fault if its owner's using it to hammer screws.

I think you are all missing the point about the F-104 (and possibly F-35) shortcomings, it's not about being a "bad" airplane or being a dangerous one to fly. I once had an interesting discussion with former MFG F-104 pilots, to them, once you got the hang of it, it was a wonderful aircraft, when asked if it would have been able to perform it's task in combat situation, the answer was that, of course, it would have performed its duties, but the answer were already a bit less enthusiastic, and when asked if it was the plane they would have chosen for the task, none of them would have, one emphatically stating it was the last plane he would have chosen, and THAT is the damn point... A combat aircraft that is considered by its pilots as a great aircraft but the last COMBAT aircraft they'd chose for the task at hand is certainly not a wise choice, a combat aircraft is not meant for being a joyride for pilots (not that it's how it was viewed by the pilots) but as a tool to fulfill a mission. I feel the F-35 is the same thing, a compromise aircraft that is, indeed a great aircraft, and great in the limited role it was designed for, but a piss poor choice otherwise. Let's see, in the US case, the use scenario in high threat (modern SAM, true C3I and a networked AF) scenario for the F-35 is the following : Step 1 : The F-22 go in, get rid of scary SAM sites, C3I infrastructures and the bulk of the opposing Air Force. Step 2 : The F-35 finally go in too, as a bomb truck and airspace policing plane, protected from the few surviving SAMs and lone enemy aircrafts by their limited stealth and number, still having the F-22 to cover the most dangerous tasks. In that role the F-35 is perfectly adequate and will probably perform admirably. Now, let's take a typical foreign customer which will use it not as the Low component of a High-Low mix, but as the only plane they have and for both air superiority, air policing and strike tasks. As long as they face a low threat environment (little to no SAM, non-networked opposing air force, technologically inferior opposing aircrafts), they'll be king of the hill, nothing will touch them... just as would happen with modern F-16, F-18, Gripen, Rafale etc... for a fraction of the cost. But low threat environment is not the reason why these countries buy the F-35, they buy it on the promise that it will perform in high-threat environments, now let's see how it performs in that context without US support... Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force. The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them. The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost. Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority. The real operational danger of the F-35 is that it will give a sense of false security to the politics, to whom the plane has been sold as a golden bullet, and on that impression they might end up cutting military budgets to a point where a country is basically defenseless, or approve military interventions that puts them at a disadvantage, on the faith that their wonder plane will simply dominate the skies, when it will not.

I'm just waiting and grinning, the Lockheed bribery scandals will seem like the jolly good old times... I'm not saying the F-35 is not a decent discrete bomb truck, that it is... but that it can fulfill effectively and cost-efficiently the air defense role for which most export customers intend to use it makes as much sense as using the F-104 as a fighter-bomber. Oh right, "but it has a super secret feature that makes it a super weapon, it's so secret we can't even hint what it is", yeah riiiiiight...

TLDR; For God's sake, what are you trying to do ? Could you be more specific as to what your problem exactly is ? The more precise your question, the more useful the answers. As long as you are not precise enough you are condemned to get irrelevant answers and by multiplying similar posts you'll start pissing people off, learn that the best way to get an answer is to ask an actual question. From your two threads I'm left wondering which of the following you are trying to do with the F-16 : 1 - Manually load another existing weapon than the ones automatically loaded (hey, some people don't get that there is a loadout screen ingame). 2 - Change the default weapons automatically loaded for a specific mission type. 3 - Add an existing weapon type that is not available for the F-16 yet, if so, which F-16, which weapon, for which nation in what timeframe. 4 - Creating a non-existing weapon from scratch.

That's because you're not thinking in Russian. Oh wait, wrong Firefox...

Long ago, way before Julhelm's there was an early RA-5C with a recon canoe implemented as a weapon, it either never had a readme or I lost it, does any old hand remember whose it is and under which licence it would fall ? I'm specifically interested in the canoe for use on the Arrow and TSR.2 and eventual bundling for release.

Thanks Eric, I apparently missed it, C6 is such a mess, I'll check it and ask Rhugouvi then.

Nice FC, and here I was working on your Arrow (and wondering about the F-108 Rapier *cough, cough*). @Stratos, stealth is implemented simplistically through a global RCS modifier, it doesn't simulate directional stealth (you can't have the F-35 be more stealthy from the front than from the back) or restricted to a specific radar band (but I can't remember if stealth is hard-coded to apply only to certain radar bands or all of them).

Is there a version of the CF-105 with both the wing pylons of CF-105_RAF.LOD and the use of specular map of the most recent CF-105.LOD ? I was working on silver skins for the RAF but used the original LOD to tweak them, heavily depending on the specular maps, only to find out later that they weren't supported by the RAF LOD - at least not under any name I tried (and I intended to use it in order to mount Red Tops). It's a shame because I was becoming quite fond of the result and many of the other skins for it I was working on (black/red/white tails on silver, dark green+silver and a few more) don't work at all without a specular map.

Thanks for taking the time to check that, I hope you'll find a solution, in the meantime I'll try my hand at USAF skins.

Another vote for "No, wingmen are dumb and suicidal", the AI is decent in BVR and dogfight now (if somewhat too tenacious at times, taking too long to decide to switch to boom and zoom, and still prone to maneuvering kills during low altitude dogfights), but for interception it's still pretty stupid, it's routine being "Getting into the bomber's six, getting closer and closer without maneuvering much and dropping speed to match the bomber's", it's a sure fire way to be shot down if they only have guns.