Gunrunner

Thanks for the confirmation... too bad, I'll just have to migrate to SF2, won't be a complete loss of time though (except I'll lose the very few props still (half-)working).

Oh yes, that's a Rapier. ^^ Except that in the comic version it seems to have the canards of the early version. Anyway, that already looks sweet. :)

Amazing job

First off, with some planes it only happens with the legacy shadowing system, and it's easily solved. 1) Open the [plane].ini file 2) Search for the [shadow] section 3) Replace the whole [shadow] section (or add, in case the section is missing) by [Shadow] CastShadow=TRUE ShadowCastDist=10000 MaxVisibleDistance=800 That's the default for TW's planes 4) Save the changes It might happen that the line still exists even after doing that, it is the result of a "flaw" in the 3D model and can't be fixed by an .INI change. The obvious solution is either to correct the model, if you have the 3DS file, but there is another, using the pilot method to patch new 3D objects to correct these shadow problems, however it requires quite some work to get it to work as intended. Some planes I know with this Peter Pan effect due to the 3D model are : TMF SD Mirage F1s Geo's F8F All F-15 based on the early F-15C/E model by Flying Toaster (only visible when going below 45° roll) Keep in mind this is not a "bug" of the engine, or a fault of the modders, as in the early days of SFP1 the shadow system was rudimentary, buggy, required to create a separate 3D model for the shadow, and had a toll on performance (for an unconvincing result most of the time). So, most players played without shadows, and most modders couldn't test their model properly (as they couldn't determine whether the fault was one of the engine, of their original 3D model, or of the shadow 3D model).

Interestingly enough, the "mystery" missile seems to be lacking something ahead of the fins that the AIM-26A/B have... On the other hand, the training Rb-27 also seems to be missing these parts. I'm trying to find pictures with good enough angles for size comparisons.

As someone pointed out, the HARJ inscription on the finnish model indicates it's an exercise round (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=251813), so it's not really a useful picture... A quick research brings up the GAR-5/6 project, of larger derivatives of the GAR-1/2/3/4 (AIM-4) family. The GAR-5/6 research eventually led to the GAR-9/11 (AIM-26) family. The GAR-5 was to be a radar guided version, the GAR-6 would have been the IR guided version, it would have looked like what's on your pictures. As you can see on your second picture, with a Sidewinder for reference, the missile seems longer than the AIM-9 (even accounting for the seemingly wide angle). Since an AIM-9 is roughly in the 3m length, and an AIM-26 is 2,2m... it can't be an AIM-26... However, the GAR-5/6 would have been 3,5m long... The only picture I can get of a "large" Falcon with "optical" head is always from the same source, the USAF Armaments Museum at Eglin AFB... On the one hand you can think that they, better than anybody else, would know what they are displaying. On the other, you can't seem to find any other picture of such a configuration with clear nose. Here is a picture of a real AIM-26B/GAR-11A with an AIM-4, it's very different from your pictures. Just in case, here's an AIM-26A/GAR-11, you'll notice it seems shorter, and doesn't fit your pictures either. If I were to take a bet, I'd say that what you have is a GAR-6. Now, it does seem to be the same airframe in the first picture... how it did end up as a training round in Finland I haven't got a clue... After examination, on the first picture the missile is too short to be 3,5m, it is simply a Rb-27, with the seeker head in a different color, as seen on the GAR-11A picture above. For your second picture, you'll also note that the mention of AIM-24A is made into the remarks (http://marvellouswings.com/Aircraft/Missile/M-026/M-026.html), now if only someone could translate the chinese part, it probably would make more sense.

You're basically right... IIRC, the F-2 was mostly a way to keep the industry up to speed, and his main duty would be anti-shipping and CAS (at least they replaced primarily the F-1 units and the F-4 units with this role first), with air defense coming only second, the F-15 assuming the air superiority role. So, going for subsonic lift rather than supersonic drag makes it better at his first duty, allowing more payload, farther, at the cost of raw supersonic performance, of little use in his primary mission, a similar compromise to the F/A-18 indeed.

Apart from some alarmist anti-militarist Pulitzer-winning crap (http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722), I never saw anything with hard data on the IR problem. The same paper make "interesting" arguments on reliability and accidents rates, but never seems to try to explain the reasons of these discrepancies, instead concluding the plane is just a flying widow-maker... It's the F-104 all over again, blaming the plane instead of the circumstances... Pathetic... What puzzles me is to see mppd, usually one to research meticulously (at least when it comes to F-4s) to buy wholesale into that pile of b*******... Maybe the fact it replaced the Phantom explains the bias

There is another (related ?) problem with airbrakes... they won't deploy manually but will deploy automatically at certain speeds/AoA.

What next ? An A-12 (OXCART), hurriedly converted into a YF-12A (at least one year in advance) comes to the rescue ?

AFAIR it's more the efficiency of weapons than the "softness" of targets. Just try it with weapons set on hard and it'll settle it. ^^

As long as it's clear I'm a wombat and not a gopher... Damn, haven't seen caddyshack for years.

Ok, has it anything to do with the piece of crap Michael Caine was filming instead of accepting an Oscar ?

First off, what are your settings (global game settings, or more precisely, your weapons settings). If you are playing in easy mode, it's perfectly "normal". In normal mode it seems a little unusual from memory... In hard mode, then yes, it is a problem, in fact it shouldn't happen at all unless the .50s of the G.91 are over-modeled which shouldn't be the case as they use stock guns.

It seems the files are in WoI Objectdata.CAT, so... Here's what to do : 1) Extract WEAPONDATA.INI from /Objects/OBJECTDATA.INI to /Objects/Weapons/ 2) Add the following lines at the end of WEAPONDATA.INI (replace xxx by the next number after the last weapon) [WeaponDataxxx] TypeName=AIM-4D FullName=AIM-4D Falcon ModelName=aim-4d Mass=66.000000 Diameter=0.166000 Length=2.060000 SubsonicDragCoeff=0.364000 SupersonicDragCoeff=0.580000 AttachmentType=USAF SpecificStationCode=AIM4 NationName=USAF StartYear=1963 EndYear=1972 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=4 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1966 ExportEndYear=1972 ExportAvailability=1 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=TRUE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE HasGrowl=TRUE EffectClassName=SmallMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=2.000000 WarheadType=0 Explosives=18.000000 FusingDistance=0.000000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=10 Accuracy=70 MaxTurnRate=14.000000 MaxLaunchG=2.000000 LockonChance=40 LaunchReliability=60 ArmingTime=2.300000 SeekerFOV=4.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=25.000000 SeekerTrackRate=11.000000 SeekerRange=9600.000000 MinLaunchRange=1500.000000 MaxLaunchRange=9600.000000 Duration=20.000000 CounterCountermeasure=40.000000 NoiseRejection=40.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x00000200 LoftAngle=0.000000 DescentAngle=0.000000 MaxLoftAltitude=0.000000 CLmax=5.984000 MinFreq=0.000000 MaxFreq=0.000000 BoosterStart=0.000000 BoosterDuration=2.200000 BoosterAccel=55.000000 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-1.456000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=0.000000 SustainerAccel=0.000000 SustainerEffectName= SustainerSoundName= SustainerPosition=0.000000,-1.456000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 CEP=0.000000 3) With the right WeaponEditor version (the 2.x for WoI), open the modified WEAPONDATA.INI, and save. 4) If everything went fine, go play Be aware though that you might not get it to work IF the plane you're testing doesn't have the right nationality and attachment type (or station code).

I'd guess that's because the AIM-4 are stock in SFG/WoE/WoV but absent in WoI, consequently, they are not in the Weapons Pack, and since they never served in any Israelian conflict (or modders simply ported them from earlier sims), you won't find a 3rd party version.

Don't worry, it's very difficult to set aside your own point of view to try and examine things as coldly and clinically as possible, it's the natural state of things to be biased. :-) If you really are interested in a topic, try to search not only what confirms a data, but also what debunks it, or offers another explanation. It might end up a little schizophrenic as you might end up able to believe in everything and its opposite, and defend contradictory positions (or end up defending positions opposite to what you believe in, because you "know" that it's the solution most likely to work), but it's a good exercise and a great way to look at life (except you may end up being irritated by people not sharing this outlook).

Yeah right, and cigarettes make you free and cool, having an Audi gets you the girl and I'm the Grand Duchess Anastasia... Just close this and the incest one already, here anything interesting and reasonnable has already been said, it can only go downhill, there (incest thread) the tone of the discussion is not into a detailled examination of the legal, patrimonial, moral or genetic implications, it's more about tabloid stories and moral panic... it has no worth whatsoever, close it before someone brings up Leviticus.

Thanks for the correction Streak, and no need to justify yourself, it never was the intent.

You probably could find the same things with French fighters, but in our case it's been a regular courtesy visit from Russian squadrons detachments to the EC 01/30 since the end of WW2 as commemoration of the original Normandie-Niemen squadron.

and Stalin... you forgot Stalin, dead since 1953... But fear not, Lenin in a secret mission deep inside the Himalayas will come back with Fu Manchu's giant battle robot (using Marx's brain) to repulse the imperialist bombers menacing the workers' paradise...

So, it's a robotic geriatric McArthur (he was well over 80 in 62 IIRC) battling it against a zombie Stalin (come on, he'd been dead for nearly a decade, and would have been in his 80s too). Is it by the same guy who did Stalin vs. Hitler (http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/1.html) ? PACMAN> Nothing in the SF engine is limiting air speed, now to get the FM to work properly is another matter entirely, especially since a little trick of the XB-70 can't be used as nothing of the sort is supported by the engine AFAIK (riding his own shockwave to use compression lift), and that would limit the reproduction of the XB-70 performances as it would have more drag and less lift than with it (but you can probably account for it and "cheat" in the FM to reproduce it while not making the thing too efficient at lower speed). Of course, the real FM experts will correct me on that. ^^

So, that would make, chronologically : MiG-19P early, radar "A", 2x23mm MiG-19PG, radar "A", 2x23mm, ground control link MiG-19PM, radar RP-2U, no gun, AA-1 MiG-19PML, MiG-19PM with ground control link MiG-19PT, prototype of a MiG-19P to carry AA-2 MiG-19P late, radar "A", 2x30mm, AA-2 MiG-19PF early, radar "A" or "B", 2x30mm, AA-2 ? MiG-19PF late, radar "A" or "B", no gun, AA-2 ? Right ?

Is that good enough for a placeholder ? A few little antennas are missing, but not remembering where exactly they are mapped, it's the best I could do in... 10 to 15 minutes...