Gunrunner

How can there be no offense when the choice of words is so poor ? "One crappier than the other" imply that BOTH objects compared are crappy, but one is significantly more crappy than the other... That's the most insulting way to say what you intented, managing to insult everyone...

Timmy> As a matter of fact I'm "working" on the A 32A version (and hypothetical A(J) 32A field conversion using B pylons wired for Sidewinders). I think the "issue" of the air brakes can be solved through INI only, I just haven't found how yet... And building them at the 1/72 scale must have been quite an experience, that's what I call dedication. :yes: From my point of view of eternal novice in 3D, your model as a A 32A is already very good, one of the things not present is the guns shutters, but there's no way to implement them in any realistic manner because : - You'd have to use up an animation. - They were opened automatically on safety off, an event which doesn't exist for the game (AFAIK). - If using an auto-opening sequence when firing, it will end up either so fast that it's not worth bothering adding the pieces and animating them, or too slow and will hamper use of the guns. I could do with the "missing" pylons though if you ever decide to work on that. You actual model "misses" A type pylons on position 2 and 5 (which should be easy, just clone existing A pylons where B pylons are situated). We could safely ignore the D centerline pylon (as I found not evidence they were ever used except to validate them) and the BF pylon (as the pics I saw show no significant external difference from the B type). We should also ignore the ability to dual mount rockets on A pylons as it should be done using a "rocket pod" to save up on pylon count. Besides, adding any more pylon would push me beyond the 32 pylons limit. For the J 32B there would be a few changes to be made : - Size and position of the gun ports (larger, rounder, higher and closer together). - Removal of the deflectors (even though it is a quick ini edit). - Modification and enlargment of the intakes (the J 32B intakes are slightly rounder, not flush with the cross-section of the fuselage when viewed from front, but it often takes good eyes to notice it, also the system to trap the boundary layer is slightly different, but it's barely noticable). - Changing the engine exhaust, which is longer, of larger diameter and straighter than on the A 32A. - C pylons on position 2 (lacking good pictures of it unfortunately) - S pylons on position 2 and 4 (lacking good pictures of it unfortunately) But in the end, this is your project, your time and your interest ^^ I'm only listing suggestions, but since you're interested in the bird already, you no doubt already had most of this list established. Spillone> Apparently the radar weight is a non-problem, it seems the non-radar equipped Lansen used ballast to compensate for mass repartition, akin to what was done with the early Tornado ADV and its "Blue Circle" "radar". That leaves only the back-seater, around 100kg of weight, so it's no difference at all between version when it comes to mass and weight repartition. Uhuh, we have to disagree (and thus started the first rivet-counter war) ^^ The gun ports on the actual model are in almost the right place, the only thing is the section of the ports, which is rounder than it should be, as the section with plates open was more rectangular. The exhaust seems right to me (in terms of length, diameter), the lid though is a good point. The intakes' boundary layer split are already there if you look closely, it's just they are very thin and hard to distinguish. Finally the D pylon is really not necessary, especially since we'd be out of pylon count to model it anyway.

Any clue on how to get the airbrakes to be deployed by default on the ground ? (as was apparently the case from what I've read and seen) I tried to extrapolate from the lines used to tell the AI which flaps settings to use, to no avail so far.

Only in campaign, by assigning a particular unit to that base.

Well, unless you want to make static displays, this is not necessary anymore, just have the spots where you want static planes to appear coded into the airbase definition and planes will appear there automatically without the need to create a static version. It works way better in campaign mode as the engine will then show at airbases only planes of units stationned there, never more than the surviving number of planes available, with the right skins and numbers.

Thanks Spillone, I'll have to get search inside Bunyap's WP... Thanks also for your modded J32B ini, I was spending far too much time trying to find the right numbers for wheels and lights. -_- I've just finished reorganising the pylons on the A32A... making for a total of 27 (each pylon being in double, because positions of rockets and bombs are not the same, plus the G pylons, plus the belly tank). For the BOZ 3 I was thinking of converting another BOZ pod as the size and shape are more similar. Anyway, thumb up to Timmy and Lexx for letting us play with the Lansen.

Has anyone found a rough estimate of the weight of the PS-431/A radar ? As only one A 32A out of four was equiped with it I'm making two sub-variants, an A 32A flight leader, with radar and navigator, and a "regular" without radar and navigator, but I haven't found an estimate of the radar weight so far (yeah, I know, I'm a rivet counter)... Also, do we have illumination bombs in any of the weapons pack ? I can't seem to find them.

So that's really why he was so nasty !

Spillone> Hehe, I see you're playing with it too ^^ although I'm more into getting it back to the A 32A it really represents. BTW, you should remove the fences under the nose if you're making it a J 32B.

Timmy, while you're around, could you answer a question for me ? I'm trying to make the Rb 04 pylon work properly (it's actually the composite one, with one simple small pylon for the rocket, with another pylon with spars in order to load the Rb 04), I'm trying to have both pylons appearing only when using an anti-ship missile, only the smallest when using rockets, bombs etc... and none when using nothing, but I haven't quite figured out the name of parts and the hierarchy involved yet. Don't bother, I found out, the only real thing still bugging me is that the plane's "floating" 10cm above ground.

Gwar, I'm not saying that the methane trick doesn't work... the science is good... I'm just saying it is highly improbable and completely unnecessary to analyse the Bermuda Triangle situation unless you are determined to attribute some rare quality to the region to explain the supposedly higher rate of incidents. The trouble is that the higher rate itself is a myth (and like all myths it has a kernel of truth, for there are incidents, there are historical reasons for the reputation, there are conditions making part of the zone dangerous to the unaware); so going all the way to find a scientific explanation for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place is only a clever way to cater to the sensationnalists while staying mildly rationnal.

Tsss, the region had a bad reputation for centuries... originally because of piracy in the Carribean and the Sargasso Sea, but in modern times the reputation endured and the masses had to find a more modern cause for a supposed higher rate of incidents... From what I recall the rates of real incidents is in fact lower that than the mean for such high-traffic storm zones... Add the the Sargasso Sea (and the near-windless zone where it resides), the regular storms, the proximity of the Gulf Stream and you explain away the boating incidents which are not complete fiction (ie. records do exist for the boat and the boat actually sunk in the Bermuda Triangle and not on the other end of the globe). Now there's planes... once again, the real incidents are really far fewer than the general public would like to believe and weather, human error and technical incidents explain away most if not all of the serious cases... Even the methane theory is not necessary, it's only a clever way to reconcile the myth and science.

I really love how the community's doing these days... Awesome work guys, I'm eager to get my greedy paws on the final release.

And that, children, is one of the reason why installers are a bad idea... sorry, couldn't resist...

No comment yet, but don't push the "incompetent cops" argument too far kids, it may well backfire and ruin a thread meant to respectfully mourn the dead...

Within your installation directory the path are : ./Effects ./Sounds ./Objects/Decals ./Objects/Aircraft (yes, drop the pilot files at the aircraft directory root) ./Objects/Weapons (you might have to create it and extract WeaponData.ini and WeaponData.dat from ObjectData.cat) and for seats, the path is ./Objects/Aircraft (yes, like the pilots, just drop the seat files at the aircraft directory root)

Nice start so far... Now, for those trying to fly without wing tanks, the changes to solve the "issue" of not getting any thrust (due to a lack of fuel), it's only a temporary fix using bits already present : In your MirageIVA_DATA.ini, 1) In the [Fuselage] section, add the following lines at the end SystemName[017]=FuselageFuelCell01 SystemName[018]=FuselageFuelCell02 2) In the [Nose] section, add SystemName[011]=NoseFuelCell 3) In the [LeftWing] section, add SystemName[013]=LeftWingFuelCell01 SystemName[014]=LeftWingFuelCell02 4) In the [RightWing] section, add SystemName[013]=RightWingFuelCell01 SystemName[014]=RightWingFuelCell02 I'll post the elevon values later on as they are purely cosmetic on a beta plane and won't keep the thing from flying.

You don't have to extract anything since 2006 IIRC... To make it work, just put the vindictive_data.ini back into the /vindictive directory then open the vindictive.ini file and replace the content by : [GroundObjectData] ObjectName=Vindictive ObjectFullName=HMS Vindictive ObjectDataFile=vindictive_data.ini [LOD001] Filename=Vindictive.lod Distance=20000 [Shadow] CastShadow=TRUE ShadowCastDist=3000 MaxVisibleDistance=8000 Now, how to use carriers in game ? Just consult the Knowledge Base (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showforum=190).

Oh, nice idea Spinners, I second that idea, MarineFlieger Buc's would have been so much better than F-104 (which was such an odd choice mission-wise, even though it made political and economical sense).

Geo's place (http://geos-aircraft.com/SFmain0.htm). For DAT, use google and search Capun, should be the first result, if that's not that, seach A-Team Skunkworks...

For the AV-8S you have two different ways to deal with it... 1) Use Wpnssgt old AV-8S, in which case you only need Wpnssgt permission as he has not signed the CA modders agreement yet, while other participant in the AV-8S (C5, Dave and Sundowner) are signatories. 2) Use TW's AV-8A or GR.1 model with added RWR, a new skin and a hybrid of TW's GR.1 and GR.3 cockpit. The problem of method 1) is the FM, inconsistent with TW's Harriers (and Bobrock's)... meaning you'll have to heavily adapt it to fit. Also, the AV-8S skins I'm aware of are quite dated and won't fit the actual standards. If you can't contact Wpnssgt directly I'm sure either C5 or Dave may get in touch and obtain clearance for you. Method 2) still has a skin problem, as there's no AV-8S skin available for TW's Harriers and the templates are mostly useless for a quick job, you'll have to do an extensive job for a skin up to standards. On the other hand, it saves some work on the FM, make it more consistent with the available planeset. You'd still need some 3D work for the obvious external difference between TW's Harriers and the AV-8S, the forward RWR antenna. Of course, this method is also completely irrelevant if you don't have WoE...

Couldn't find it yet... If it's there it would be in the Speech folder, one the *ndur*.wav (attack reports), *retr*.wav (retreat messages) or *ndas*.wav (request of assistance) files (at least that's the only files I remember responsible for these messages). The closer I could find yet was G1retr002.wav, the second Retreat message from ground troups, saying "We're taking heavy casualties, we're retreating", in fact it's the only one with the "heavy casualties" part I found yet. Maybe you mind playing tricks on you, or maybe it's been corrected in the latest patch and you're not patched up yet.

GreyCap, i'ts a wombat, and as you might notice, he's an ace, a wombat ace...

I know, but you know I just delight in forum drama. :D

Well, we all have, let's say my douchebagery knows no bounds and is ranging far and wide... ^^ If I'm that insufferable, as I told you, just say the word and I'll only come for the downloads.