Gunrunner

Shiny ! I'll eagerly wait for the camo ones as I never got around finishing them, and maybe replace some of the insignias I use by yours, as some of mine are not very clean and I don't see rebuilding them all from vector drawings, ever.

For ECM gear, I lack dimensions and weight, however by removing the navigation radar you end up with a space you could allocate to ECM gear, the rest is wiring and antenna, so you probably have the space if you can find the gear that will fit in, I'll see what info I can get on the topic. As for weight, with the more powerful Avon, if you are ready to trade a little performance and ordnance capacity for security, you can afford it while retaining range and performance above the original Mirage IIIE. I just checked and there's certainly not enough space, the navigation radar being mostly "external"; Your best bet then to have internal ECM gear would be into the keel, however that means losing fuel capacity. You'd go from 2915kg to 2370kg (on the data.ini it's labelled RearBottomTank), that's almost a 20% reduction in fuel capacity. It would however liberate 545kg and a 500 liters volume. As an interceptor, would range or protection matter more ? Getting more ammo for the guns seem a tad more difficult, ammo for the BK has a marginally lower diameter but is both longer and heavier; Let's imagine those two aren't a factor and visualize our ammo in a line, each round separated by 15mm : (125*(30+15))-15 = 5610mm now let's calculate what that would make with 27mm rounds... (x*(27+15))-15 = 5610 42x = 5595 x = 133,2 So, assuming no other constraint than the length of the link feed and no extra space for ammunition, you could have up to 133 rounds per gun. On the weight side, that would mean adding 4.16kg, a marginal enough increase for the possibility of getting one more kill.

One last thing, let's talk weight (it may influence performances and range). The original Atar 9C weighed 1430kg, an Avon 301R without AB 1309kg, most informations about AB section for Avon engines I could find place it between 400kg and 500kg, so let's arbitrarily decide on adding 450kg. Atar : 1430kg Avon : 1759kg Engine weight difference : +329kg Total weight difference : +329kg Next, we remove the doppler navigation radar, useless on an interceptor, the data I have suggest a weight of roughly 500kg. Avionics weight difference : -500kg Total weight difference : -171kg Then, the guns, ignoring the length difference (the BK 27 is apparently 60cm longer), let's concentrate on weight, all things being more or less equal, Wikipedia's suggested weights seem right, hence : DEFA 552 : 85kg + 125*220g = 112.5kg BK 27 : 100kg + 125*260g = 132.5kg Guns weight difference : +40kg Total weight difference : -131kg Now to the radar. Cyrano II : 188kg Cyrano IV : 217kg Radar weight difference : +29kg Total weight difference : -102kg Let's not forget the added weight of a more modern ejection seat plus additional avionics, RWR systems and you should end up a few hundred kilos above the original Mirage IIIE weight if, and only if, you remove the doppler navigation radar, otherwise you'd end up close to a ton over the original weight. On another note, the Mirage IIICJ2 could have been used instead of the IIIE, depending on the backstory (whether the germans originally procured IIIC or IIIE airframes).

P.S. : Damned, I managed to post it in the wrong forum... this should have gone into Bug Reports/Suggestions, sorry. Can't we have the old system back, or at least as an option, please, pretty please with a cherry on top ? Let me explain... From a pure usability point of view, this is a giant leap backward, why ? Take the first page; No one really cares about what's new, highly rated, most watched regardless of the game and type of download; Consequently you have to generate a page, load tiny useless images for informations nobody cares about (as they are mostly irrelevant to one's particular interest). The only relevant informations displayed is the navigation on the left... Now let's go into the SF subsection, once again we are presented with useless pictures and a great mix of skins, weapons, planes, terrains, for both SF1 and SF2, with no clear distinction between them (you have to read a pale grey text on on pale blue background to be sure of the nature of the download and can determine whether it's for SF1 or SF2 only by going into the details or if it's in the first line of the description. Utterly useless, and once again, you lose resources, bandwidth and viewers time by loading all those ridiculous thumbnails. Once again, the only useful part of the page is the navigation. Let's move on to the SF2 subsection (and below), at last informations displayed start to be relevant enough to be useful, however, the thumbnails are too small to be useful and use bandwidth and loading time for nothing, getting rid of them entirely would make more sense. Next are the titles, beyond the pale grey on pale blue readability issue there is the whole problem of the title being far too big, diminishing it a little and reducing vertical spacing won't reduce readability but it will increase the density of information, needing less scrolling for the end user (at the moment I can have up to 9 articles on one page on a 1680*1050 screen). Worse, if you go into the SF1 subsection rather than SF2, what was one page away is now two pages away; In the old system you could go from the SF1 subsection directly to the SF1>Planes>Cold War planes, now you have to first load the SF1>Planes page. Quite frankly, it's atrocious; I don't doubt you made the move because the new code offered better back-end, but on the front-end it's just mind-bogglingly bad. I also do understand the changes might be a way to augment page count and thus get better returns from ads for non-subscribers, however, the increased resource use and the degradation of experience for everyone, including subscribers, might not be worth it in the long run. What was once austere but efficient became an atrocious scroll-fest full of useless thumbnails and barely readable text next to uselessly over-sized titles (granted, those points are easy to fix). What's worse, despite all the useless cosmetic changes, the IP.Board search engine is still ridiculously outdated, still resembling some student project from the early 90's in terms of functionality, meaning you have no other way to find your download than through browsing it all through this crime against web design.

Praetor, I'm not sure the Cyrano IV can't receive Sparrow guidance, but I'm sure it's never been done and given the state of French radar design of the era probably would have required extensive changes. Moreover, you have to take into account the geopolitical implications of such changes, a Sparrow-compatible Cyrano would mean Franco-American cooperation in an era where we still were fierce competitors for selling planes, and not on the best of terms politically. If the germans were to ask the US for assistance, I think at the time they would be offered a custom variant of a US design more readily and at a better cost than helping integrate Sparrows with a French design. Any other european design though makes more sense if you really want Sparrows. The main trouble with changing the radar on the Mirage for anything other than the Cyrano IV is the limited space and diameter. On the engine front, here are some interesting figures : Engine Diameter Length Dry Weight Atar 9B (Mirage IIIC) 1 000 mm 6 732 mm 1 356 kg Atar 9C (Mirage IIIE) 1 000 mm 6 732 mm 1 430 kg Avon 301R (Lightning) 907 mm 3 200 mm 1 309 kg Atar 9K-50 (Mirage F.1) 1 020 mm 6 589 mm 1 582 kg However I'm not sure if the information given for the Avon takes into account the afterburner section or not (the Atars do).

Erik, that's a better proposition yes, it eases access with less clutter and when there's "embelished" content, it's actually relevant; Thanks for taking my whining into account, but don't lose sleep over it if you lack the time/motivation. Revan, which version of Chrome are you using ? I'm using Chrome 10 and have no trouble of the sort.

The Mirage IIIE can pose as a refitted Mirage IIIC with increased fuel capacity, you'll just have to remove the doppler and the rest is skinning and ini work (well, removing the doppler is ini work too). For the radar, think that the time frame means it's not just a simple matter of taking the electronics and playing on the antenna size and shape to fit a plane. In the 70's and early 80's electronics are still bulky and relatively hard to reconfigure spatially. Think also that radars need electricity and you're starting with a design where mechanics and hydraulics are the rule, and engineered to generate enough power for it's initial needs, not a more powerful, more modern design, at least not without modifications (that should rule out the F-15A radar even if it would fit once heavily castrated). For the era let's consider the alternatives, anything's an improvement over the Cyrano II anyway : From France you have two choices, either the Cyrano IV (once again taken from the Mirage F.1), a definitive improvement over the Cyrano II, geared more toward air, with limited lood-down and multirole capabilities, or the Agave (taken from the Super-Etendard), geared more toward maritime strike but with air combat and classical strike modes (Marinefliegger ??). From the UK you only one modern likely candidate, the Blue Fox (taken from the Sea Harrier FRS.1), the Lightning's AIRPASS wouldn't fit AFAIK. From Sweden you have the PS-01 from the J 35F Draken, a purely swedish design, geared toward air interception. From the US you have more choices, however the fit may create problem : - APQ-120 taken from the F-4E, possible but doubtful. - APG-66 taken from the early F-16A, very unlikely, at least not a full version of either the antenna or the electronics behind it, also I doubt the Mirage has what it takes to power it. - APG-63 taken from the early F-15A, with a different antenna, maybe some loss of capability and definitely more around early 80's than mid 70's. From Italy/US you have the F-104S R-21G radar. If you want a pure interceptor you should avoid the Agave, APG-66 and Blue Fox as they won't offer SARH compatibility in your timeframe. If you want to use Sparrow/Aspide/Skyflash you can take either the PS-01, APQ-120, APG-63 or R-21G. If you want maritime modes in addition to air modes, only the Blue Fox and Agave offer them. The Cyrano IV gains the advantage by being the easiest fit, however it limits you to the R-530s, clearly an inferior choice in the late 70's, however by chosing the Cyrano IV you have an easy upgrade path to the far better Cyrano IVMR a few years later. However, since we are in the What-if realm, you can decide that special versions were made just for the Luftwaffe. If you have MFG Mirages, you could buy French and use Agave radars for MFG planes and Cyrano IV for Luftwaffe ones. Take into account that those changes cost time and money, some more than others. Changing the Atar to an Avon would cost little, as much of the work has already been done by Dassault and they would be happy to charge you to do it; Another Atar might be a minor operation, the J79 however would require years of feasibility study, trials and refit. Likewise, switching the Cyrano II for another french radar would be easy and painless, most of the work being already one, for the others, especially if there are necessary changes, it might be a long and costly process. That is often a decisive factor in the real world.

HrntFixr, that wouldn't be a what-if, the M-21/D-21 couple was used a few years before being retired, the D-21 proving fairly inefficient and an accident at launch destroyed a M-21. For a time D-21 were even launched from B-52s IIRC. M-21s were two seat variants of the A-12 rather than SR-71.

P.S. : Sorry Derk, wrote this before you then went away and published it only now. Concerning the J79, on the top of my mind the changes on the Kfir were mostly due to three factors : - The J79 ran marginally hotter dry than either the Atar or Avon and tremendously more wet, creating the need for some additional thermal protection. On the Kfir that meant a titanium casing around the engine and a fuselage of a slightly larger diameter. - Corollary of above, there was a need for more engine cooling for the afterburner, that was the purpose of the intake at the root of the vertical stab. - Finally, the increased power and design of the J79 meant that more air was needed to feed it so slightly larger air intakes were fitted. You probably could opt to create a J79 derivative not requiring those changes, however to do so you would have to reduce its performance, especially its afterburner, however such loss of power, added to the fact it wouldn't change the fact the engine would still be the heaviest of the choices would reduce performance to the point where it holds no advantage over the Atar 9K-50 or the Avon, it would also reduce fuel efficiency if I'm not mistaken. The Mirage-Avon tested for the Australian market was a Mirage IIIC fitted with... an Avon 301 without major modification, it proved able to reach Mach 1.3 dry. Here's a view of the nozzle : The historically tested configuration are : Mirage III + Atar 9B (Mirage IIIC) - Stock Mirage III + Atar 9C (Mirage IIIE, Mirage 5) - Drop in Mirage III + Avon 301 (Mirage-Avon (Mirage IIIO prototype)) - Minimal changes Mirage III + J79 (Kfir) - Extensive changes Mirage III + Atar 9K-50 (Mirage IIING) - Minimal changes The RM 5A2 is highly possible (there is no additional constraint compared to an Avon 300), the RM 6C highly probable (it's an Avon 300 derivative, but the swedish afterburner may run too hot, see the rear air intakes of the Draken).

On the engine side we have three lines of engine we can use for a total of 6 engines. First we can use newer members of the Atar family, either the 9C (from the Mirage IIIE/5 family) for a small thrust increase and increased reliability, it's an almost drop-in replacement but it still is an outdated engine. Then given the timeframe we can opt for the Atar 9K-50 used on the then new Mirage F.1, it would offer both better performances, reliability and range at the cost of minor to no airframe change. We could also opt for a member of the Avon family, they're not as easy to maintain, are a few hundred kilos heavier than the Atar but require very little adaptation and offer better thrust for a different fuel consumption scheme. The Volvo RM 6A, an Avon 200 derivative used on the J 32B Lansen offers better fuel consumption than the Atar 9 family, with better thrust, it is however inferior on both instances to the Atar 9K-50 or the Avon 300 series. The Volvo RM 6C, an Avon 300 derivative used on the J 35F Draken offers one of the best fuel consumption figures of the possibilities, with the greatest thrust, the swedish AB is probably more fuel efficient than the original one. The Rolls Royce Avon 301, used on the Lightning F.6, offers good figures dry but is burning fuel like mad on afterburner. Lastly, we could use the J79-GE-19 used on the italian F-104S, it would require more extensive airframe changes and offer performances somewhere between the Atar 9/Avon 200 and Atar 9K/Avon 300. Take into account that the J79 is the heaviest of the possible engines, while having a real thrust and fuel consumption advantage only on afterburner. Worse, to use it you'd have to perform extensive airframe changes, further increasing the weight. If you still give the Germans getting F-4F, it may make sense to use the J79 though. Otherwise the use of the Atar 9K-50 would be the simplest, easiest and less costly to perform, the use of the 9C would make little sense. The Avon upgrade path makes sense however and, assuming the swedish AB is more fuel efficient than the Lightning's, the RM 6C would be a good choice. Engine Dry Thrust Wet Thrust M0TSFC ABM0TSFC M1TSFC ABM1TSFC Atar 9B 41.635 58.841 1.010 2.030 1.417 2.352 Atar 9C 41.973 62.760 1.010 2.030 1.417 2.352 Atar 9K-50 49.030 70.600 0.800 2.000 1.200 2.250 J79-GE-19 52.800 79.600 0.843 1.970 1.183 2.282 RM 6A (Avon 200) 47.000 65.300 0.863 ?? 1.211 ?? RM 6C (Avon 300) 56.500 78.400 0.720 ?? 0.904 ?? Avon 301 56.449 72.774 0.720 2.045 0.904 2.500

Revan, Works fine in Chrome here too... what is exactly happening for you ? Mods/Admins, thanks for moving the topic in its proper place.

Funny, I used to have that problem with the Dec-2010 Patch (fully merged install on Win7 64, DX 10/11 ATI) and it went away with the Jan-2011 one.

The Ye-8 has already been done here, here and here.

The whole Mirage F/G family, namely : Mirage F.2 (tandem seater, single engine, F.1 type swept wing, strike oriented) Mirage F.3 (single seater interception version of the F.2, theoretically shorter) Mirage G (tandem seater, single engine, swing wing, modification of F.2) Mirage G.4 (tandem seater, twin engine, swing wing, strike oriented) Mirage G.8 (single seater interception version of the G.4, theoretically shorter) Mirage G.8A (fixed swept wing variant of the G.8 to decrease cost, the wing was very different from the one used on the F series) And then... Mirage 4000 From our british neighbours I'd take the Hawker P.1154 (rather than a French Mirage IIIV). And a large fries and a large coke, to go.

You can't reload or refuel during a mission. If you need more fuel, you have 4 solutions : - In gameplay options, put Fuel Usage to Normal or Easy. - Use Alt-N to fast forward you to near your objective, or near your base (provided you're not intercepter en route), a "feature" of the game makes it so no fuel is consumed. - Before starting your mission, go to the Loadout page and use fuel tanks. - Learn at which speed/altitude to fly during ingress and egress to have the most efficient use of your fuel. Using the auto-pilot might help with some planes and loadouts, but YMMV. For your ammo, you must distinguish gun ammo and the rest of your ordnance (bombs, missiles etc...); while you can't reload bombs, you can in the gameplay options set Ammo Usage to Easy to have unlimited gun ammo, be aware though that you probably need to set Weapons to Easy (or Normal) to disable gun jamming. That would solve the problem for most missions except some strike missions (you can destroy tanks with most guns except on the most realistic settings, but you won't destroy hardened hangars or say... com buildings, with just your guns). WoX/SF2 are light sims, but not that light.

One might suggest to use those in the SF2 Modern Taiwan or SF2 Modern Korea campaigns.

Oh yes, if only someone made a War for Independence or Suez Crisis campaign (hint : that was a link).

If you really need/want it, I could stop pixel pushing on the Shar (takes a long time and a lot of trials and errors for every change to be seamless) and focus and the GR.3 and Skyhawks, that would make them ready between the coming week-end (almost sure for the GR.3) and the next (depending on my patience and real available free time and for the Skyhawks). The FRS.1 skins, without a layered template or UV/Wiremesh guide is in "2 weeks" territory for my level of expertise (somewhere low) and availability (varied and prone to interruptions).

Would you by any chance have either ChrisBV's layered templates for his magnificent Sea Harrier skins, or UV/wiremesh maps of the new Sea Harrier models ? Also, on the "bugs" list : - Sea Harrier FRS.1 : The pitot tube of the Sea Harrier is skinned outside-in. The tailfin antenna should not be hollow. - Harrier GR.3 : They were part of No. 1(F) Sqn. not No. 3 Sqn. (some came from No. IV(AC) Sqn. and the OCU). On the things I'm working on, with no guarantee to finish it on time, so don't count too much on them from me and use it as suggestions : - Harrier GR.3 : Modifications to use TW SF2E stock one, historical planes, including AN/ALE-40 and Blue Eric fits. - Sea Harrier FRS.1 : Corrected skins for the new model. - Skyhawks : Modifications to use TW SF2 ones as a basis rather than SFP1 ones.

Ideally we would have the UV map for the newer model and/or ChrisBV's layered template. Without any of these two it's a game of coordinate grids and pixel pushing to correct the stretching of the old skins on the new model, most visibly, by order of increasing difficulty : - The pylons. - The upper, trailing part of the wing root. - The whole engine nozzles area. - The whole front fuselage area. Another issue with the new model is the pitot tube being outside-in.

Lexx, you do realize that the "fear" of Iranian F-14 by Iraqi pilots had more to do with the AIM-54 capability than the airframe/radar performance itself, right ?

Maybe he meant this one or that other one... Nah, seems fine to me... dsawan probably clicked on the skins rather than add on aircraft subsection, as it's the first one on the list, happens to me too all the time...

Nevermind, found it.

I'd say, in doubt, update everything (Windows, DirectX, your graphic card driver), if the problem persists try to keep an eye on CPU and GPU occupation, frequency and temperature during gameplay. Both CPU and GPU have a thermal protection mode (or at least should, I haven't checked your particular parts) where, when the temperature reaches a certain point, they would lower their multiplier (and thus frequency and in turn heat generation and more importantly to you, performances) until the temperature drops to an appropriate level. This might well be your problem. One thing to bear in mind is that notebooks are designed very tightly for a target usage, yours was not designed for gaming but rather for productivity and multimedia (requiring very little power for long periods with occasional peaks, think walking for kilometers with brief running period for meters) and thus such problems can occur when gaming (requiring far more power for long periods of time, think running Carl Lewis-style for kilometers) as the chassis was never meant to deal with such heat generation over long periods. If it's a problem with heat generation, a simple fix might be the use of one of those notebook stands with integrated fans to cool down the laptop's bottom. And yes, soldering could influence performances but it's not the first hypotheses I'd try to eliminate.