Gunrunner

Erik, it seems that you changed your IP filtering settings a few weeks ago and I haven't been able to access the site from my usual IP since then, DNS resolve, but packets are ultimately dropped, which would be consistent with an IP range being filtered (proxies and my other IPs work well). I'm using a fixed IP ISP also using that IP range (109.190.84.x) for his hosting services and the whole block apparently once belonged to a russian ISP associated with spam, which would explain why my range might end up in not up to date blacklists (and why some sites occasionnally default to russian as a language). Any chance you can spare a few minutes investigating it ?

Thanks Erik, fixed, however my IP (and from what I know, the part of the range use for ISP duties) is not in any RBL and supposedly have not been for quite some time.

For those interested, you can reinstall up to May 2013 and use the DLC and CAT files of July 2013 without any adverse effect, I haven't tested with July 2012 engine and July 2013 data though. It seems a good compromise between the engine stability and the data improvements. Of course for modded installs, all planes using stock LODs will have to have their data.ini upgraded because quite a few node names and hierarchies have been modified.

I haven't tested it yet, but has anyone tried FlapSettingForTakeOff=0 in [FlightControl] to solve the Spitfire flaps at take-off ?

Just for clarification on the Mirage G front... There has been 3 prototypes built for 3 programs, however two of these prototypes were used for 2 programs successively : Mirage III G / Mirage G : Mostly intended as a testbed and proof of concept for the Dassault swing-wing, dual seater, single engine, based on the Mirage F.2 prototype airframe. Mirage G4 : Intended for small scale production as a strike aircraft, dual seater, two engines, two prototypes were built, unfinished before cancellation, they never flew. Mirage G8 : Study for an interceptor, single seater, two engines, the two G4 prototypes were finished to G8 standard, the first one still as a dual seater (G8 01), the second as a single seater (G8 02), the final airframe would have been shorter than G8 02. Most plans you will find are of G8 01, which was previously G4 01 and a dual seater, technically it is a G4. A G8 trainer would have been markedly different from G8 01 as it would have had a transparent section between both seats, as the Mirage G had, and the seats would have been stepped more to offer a better view from the back seat, giving a more hunchbacked profile. So, if it's a swing-wing Mirage : 2 seats, 1 engine = Mirage G 2 seats, 2 engines, strike = Mirage G4 1 seat, 2 engines, interceptor = Mirage G8

A few more tests... I've reproduced the tail-wheel issues... It's not happening at Normal damage settings, but does at Hard, meaning it simply is destroyed on loading, it's not something wrong with it per se, but a consequence of the Spring/Damping problems. It also seems the takeoff problems are indeed engine related, as the direction toward which the plane veers is directly related to PropRotationDirection, which does make sense. The violence of the reaction seems disproportionate though.

There's no obvious symmetry problem in the spits data.ini (the usual reason for that in most 3rd party planes exhibiting it), there seems to be nothing weird going on with the engine (the one running the propeller, not the game) and the behaviour is only apparent in Hard, which is kind of dead on SF2 anyway... but good luck. What mystifies me is that for the life of me, both on May and July, I never managed to reproduce tail-wheel issues most of you seemed to have. I'm still having far more new lockups with July than I ever had (mostly when trying to access the briefing map or loadout page, and in flight when using coms), and that's with a fully stock install and a concurrent May install has no such trouble...

The exact same way... most modern IR missile have the ability to slave their initial course to helmet sights anyway.

Maybe you should teach TK about QC...

Wait, are you sure Spinners ? With a stock July 2013 install I have no tailwheel trouble with the new Spitfires (and no FM trouble in Normal, in Hard it's still FUBARed, but most planes, especially props are, TK almost abandoned Hard for quite some time and there's zero chance he's spending time on it for AI only planes), are you sure you don't have an old data.ini for them in the aircraft folder ?

So far, not really, it may improve performances but is more unstable than the previous one, it does correct a few things and adds new LODs and skins, but introduces some new sloppy INI errors, so I would stear clear of it and wait for the next one, apparently all of us testing it are back-rolling as fast as possible (I was in the process of going back into the game, remaking most of my installs from scratch and then Erik decides to update hardware, putting downloads offline for a week while they transfer (a wonderful idea, just bad timing for me)... and the new patch screws things).

tiopilotos, for which plane exactly, have you checked with the userlist as well ? TK might have modified the engine to give priority to userlist dates over those in data.ini. Also remember that the dates behave erratically when outside of the range defined in options.ini

I'm contemplating using June 2012 or May 2013 EXE and DLL with a mix of July 2013 CAT (at least for some of the modified LODs) and files extracted/modified from earlier versions, but the amount of work seems far too important considering the possibility that we'll have to face another patch soon.

You'd think that by now TK would have a validation tool... at least HE has access to all variables, possible values and ranges, it should be fairly easier (and make it faster for him to work, integrate temporary contractors and conduct quality control).

Seems quite a few decals.ini have been changed to have decals disappearing earlier than previously. Quite a few skins have switched from BMP to JPG as well. There seems to be quite a few new specular maps. I think we're in for quite a few new bugs... The An-12_DATA.ini now has a ClimbSpeed value of "97.22ffu", and the [Nose] ModelNodeName became "Nose" instead of "FuselageFront" (which might be a correction but given the LOD hasn't changed since 2010 it seems weird).

Oh my, don't let Fubar read that thread on a bad day. :D

I think you didn't need to warn us about that one.... Reading only this has me both laughing and feeling dirty, then there's the Amazon reviews and the real fun begins...

The V-507 was a competitor to the Tomcat, the Tomcat entered service in 1974, so if the USN went for the V-507 instead of the Tomcat, it would have been ready for 1977. It's highly unlikely that both V-507 and Tomcat would end up in service. The Convair 201 was a competitor for equipping SCS in a program started in 1973, had it worked, in 1977 at best if would barely be entering service, it could however serve as a F-8 replacement/F-4 substitute for the Essex carriers (in a scenario were they were kept in service as escort carriers, historically by 1977 none were still in operation as carriers), which were deemed too small to operate the F-4 anyway. Now for the Mirages, the most interesting and realistic in my opinion are the F.2 (as interceptor) and the G.4 (as strike aircraft).

You also have the Mirage F.2 and G G.4, G.8, G.8A/F.8 . But I guess you still have the 4000 to finish someday first. :D There's Russo's P.1211 in the works for a few years now that would fit the time period. The P.1154, either the RAF single seater or FAA two seaters would also fit the period and usage. The Vought V-507 would also fit the time period.

I'd say edit the userlist or data INIs to change the availability. Both the 17 and 21 have multiple versions classified as VERY_COMMON while the 19 only had one rated as COMMON so when the game has to decide how to populate, the weight of a 19 against the rest is pretty low.

Or they can have been put there by campaign creators (some CA members are aces in NATO Fighters campaigns).

Reselling is allowed under conditions by section 3.© of the Licence Agreement included in the installers (emphasis mine) :

Wait, the RN is back to getting C models ? I thought they finally decided to go B and STOBAR all the way... (and they don't have a carrier able to operate them yet, or am I that behind ?)

Well, off the top of my head a fully loaded Skyhawk (about 12t) is about as heavy as a clean Hornet, and a loaded Hornet can weight up to twice a loaded Skyhawk, it's only marginally lighter than the Phantom II which was deemed too big and too heavy to operate from the Essexes with any useful payload.

Just remember, don't eat the snow in Hawaii. It's cute, makes the situation in the EU as seen by Russia look like utopia.