Gunrunner

Pros : - Lighten the load and bandwidth requirements on CA hosting, which is a good thing. - Allows to share on other forums easily. - Makes it possible to see pictures while not logged in. Cons : - Makes it more work to include pictures respecting the width/height limits of threads. - Might preclude pictures from showing in some environments/with some security settings. - More work to post pictures. Looks like a tie to me

Amazing... It will make life over European and Parani skies... interesting in the mid-80's. As for the polemic on details, guys, it's a simple .INI job to "correct" these things to your liking, live with it, it's not as if the 3D model wasn't top-notch, the FM wasn't convincing or the pit was an A-4 repaint. -_- I never understood the need to fuss about things requiring only a text editor and 5mn of your time to "correct".

It is suitable for XP/Vista, you just have to right-click on the .EXE, and in compatibility settings, set it up for Windows 95 (under Vista, depending on your setup, you should also check Execute as Admin). Save the changes, and it will work. Be aware that if you bought the download version and/or are patched up to date, you MUST use the newest weapons editor (the 2.x branch). If you have more specific troubles, please try to post more informations on what seems to be going right and what doesn't work.

Another hunch (hey, I'm no aeronautic engineer), since you removed the dog-tooth from the wing, the variable incidence is gone, the intakes are moved and you apparently diminished the anhedral of the wing, I'd suggest that the stabs now have no good reason left to be dihedral, in fact, in addition with the large and tailfin I'd be willing to bet the present configuration is more subject to yaw-roll coupling than the original design. I'd also add ventral fin(s) to help yaw stability (most planes of such a configuration had fins or quickly adopted them). If you're going for a dirt cheap plane, you could also remove the avionics hump inherited from the bullpup-capable Crusader. It couldn't be used to store enough fuel to be interesting, and the lack of need for advanced avionics in such a cheap plane would not justify the presence of spare space. Oh dear, next I'll suggest a smaller tailfin, a moving intake cone and an angled landing gear to improve the ability to use centerline plyons, and we'll end up with a Mirage F1, except you could have your plane up in the air in the early 60's, whereas the Mirage entered service in the early 70's.

Everything's in the title... I've tried backporting the Hunter F.5 (using parts from the F5 from SF2 and the FGA9 from WoE) into SFP1 (fully patched), to no avail so far... Any clues, ideas or simply confirmation it's (im)possible ? PS: Ok, seems "impossible" as the SF2 LODs seem to map textures differently than SF1 ones.

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.