Gunrunner

Nope, I think he meant the US bought MiGs for agressor training...

AleDucat> Except a lot of photos are poorly labelled, based on Cold War data, and what you might see labelled as an early Yak-38 might be in fact a late Yak-36M. Krizis> Thanks for sharing part of your references, it's quite interesting to see something more extensive and fresher than what I've seen yet.

So, according to your drawings, ALL Yak-38 and Yak-38M had intake splitter plates ? Damn, good thing I stopped trying, there seems to be no two source saying the same thing -_-

True, but we still forget the fact that PC gaming, once a sector by passionate people for passionate people with very little profits, has become a behemoth industry, with only profits as a benchmark, and while most developers still are out there to make products they can be proud of, the various intermediaries, actually funding the projects are there only to make as much money out of it, as fast as possible, and flight sims, even with a large appeal, are no such product.

Wait, were Falcons ever meant to hit a target ? I never ever managed to hit anything with, not even nice slow bombers, the damn thing managed to miss them...

They've gone out of fashion 10 years ago, along with real wargames (miniatures, pen and paper or computer), pen & paper RPGs, model kits and a whole host of classical hobies, now replaced by console games and... well, console games... It's a cultural thing as much as an economical one... Culturally, these hobbies require too much time, too much learning, offer delayed gratification... Economically, there is little interest to get money to produce such things when the market is shrinking and there are more profitable sectors, the shrinking in demand leading to a shrinking in offer, in turn shrinking demand etc... these hobbies fell below their critical mass.

Surely you are joking, right ? The Phantom is a navy bird...

Nice drawing Krisis, never seen it before, that changes the external distinctions quite a bit... Let me sum it up, for the major ones that would show up in the model : Early Yak-38 No intake splitter plate, no dorsal "dam", no ventral "dam", small rear facing "RWR?" Late Yak-38 Intake splitter plates, dorsal "dam", ventral "dam", small rear facing "RWR?" Early Yak-38M Intake splitter plates, dorsal "dam", ventral "dam", additional air intake(s) near the vertical stab, large rear facing "RWR?"

Just a suggestion... As Lindr2 pointed out, someone on the russian part of the forums (Krizis) is already working on one, and making good progress too... It's not a reason to scrap either project, but maybe you could join up and share the workload, working together, one concentrating on the Yak-38, the other on the Yak-38M (or one on the Yak-38/Yak-38M and the other on the Yak-38U), or one on the airframes, the other on the pit if you decide that one of your model is better or easier to map than the other. BTW Krizis, your model seems a bit of a hybrid, as it seems to have the dorsal strakes of the Yak-38M, the ventral strakes of the Yak-38M and late Yak-38 (from the photos I have, the early Yak-38 seem to lack them, but I found the fact mentionned nowhere yet), but lacks the splitter plate in front of the intakes that is typical of the Yak-38M. No offense taken I hope.

Nice find, except that would mean the weapon editor reads inside objectdata.cat. But I just tried and it works fine on a system where there's no TW game to be found, hence, while it "may" allow the game to read a weapondata.dat with more than 2048/2049 entries, it won't help generating one with the editor. Besides, this INI file looks more like the configuration file for the number of "displayed" objects in game (in flight), the various categories they fall into and how the game engine should treat them.

That would still make sense as calculating from the LOD for ground objects, especially when most use simplified models, would be inconsistent, forcing to set "static" values. In fact that might be an argument in favor of a LOD-derived base RCS, as if it is statically set for ground objects, why can't it be for planes, it would be so much easier than a modifier set against an unknown value (simpler both for modders and TK, internally).

Have you tried switching weapons ? In the INI, exchange the content of entries 2049 and 2050. If the file still truncates at 2049, then it's an editor limitation, if it truncates at 2048 then one of your weapons doesn't parse correctly and the editor stop parsing once it reaches it, so correcting the weapon entry would fix the problem. Off the top of my head, if it's the editor's fault, there may be 3 types of limitation of the editor that might cause such a problem : 1) The editor uses a counter limited to 2049 values, dropping anything beyond, which seems surprising... one would understand 2048, but 2049 seems strange, but it's late and I might be missing something; most probable. 2) The editor uses a buffer to keep ALL weapons while parsing them, and when out of buffer, writes all the complete weapons, dropping the rest (corollary, the longer your weapon entries, the less weapons you could use); very unlikely. 3) The editor has a hard set size limit for the maximum size of WEAPONDATA.DAT, in practice it ends up doing the same as 2); unlikely.

That would be about the most elegant way to do it, yet a hard one to mod for, as unless you can get access to the actual numbers used internally, the only way to adjust the RCS will be guesswork (well, it is guesswork now anyway). Also, using such a method would imply that the way planes are modeled would impact the base RCS (ie. modelling rotating fan blades would return a higher base RCS than not doing it and getting them by a pasted texture).

Mostly depends on the opposing SAM forces. While going out en-masse is a great way for them to get experience, when faced with SAMs they usually end up being SAM-fodder, so in such cases I try to limit the number of pilots to the absolute minimum.

YES, I know it's a BETA. NO, I'm not complaining, just pointing out a rather strange and amusing bug in case the Bear Team hasn't encountered it yet. So, I was playing with the nice Tu-95MS beta and noticed an interesting bug. Out of a flight of 6 Bears, 4 had turboprops trouble, with either the propellers missing completely or the propellers stuck. What's interesting is that while I would understand such a bug as only cosmetic (running out of ressources, the game engine decides not to render some parts or animations), it actually affects flight, with the crippled Bears constantly struggling to fly straight as they naturally turn toward the dead propellers... Some pictures... My #3, with the outer left propellers completely missing and one on the outer left stuck My #4, shortly after take-off, the whole left side stuck My #5, ready for his take-off run, with one propeller missing and 3 stuck My #6, left side stuck So, is it a bug, or a feature aiming to reproduce the poor maintenance of the Bear fleet ? PS : Mystery solved, after observing them closely in another mission, it appears that the plane bounces so much that the propellers are damaged, was funny though.

Nice, some more Bears, and they're not dancing :D Not to sound greedy, but do you guys have, by any chance, plan to work on Tu-95RTs, Tu-95MR , Tu-142 and Tu-126 ?

But comrade, we were out of concrete and we had to do something with all this rubber that was delivered to us following Gosplan...

Right here : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=7933

How to add aircrafts to the game : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showforum=174 How to modify campaigns : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showforum=193 The knowledge base is your friend, all hail the knowledge base !

Glad you finally got to a point you liked :) Also, the blame might partially be on nVidia's drivers... as it IS suspiciously low for such a low resolution and a nice little rig.

That's impressively low... I get slightly better results on a C2 4400 (2GHz), 3GB, 7600GS rig, albeit with no AA and a few crashes... Things I'd try to do, by steps, until I'll reach the point where I get enough FPS to my liking (and please give us your results step by step, so other people with the same "problem" might benefit and comment) : 1. Reduce AA to 2x 2. Reduce Shadows to High 3. Reduce Object Textures to High then depending on your priority 4/5. Reduce Terrain Textures to High 5/4. Reduce Ground Objects to High After that, if you still don't get what you want, try, depending on your priorities, item by item, to be one degree lower (High becoming Medium, 2x AA becoming none, Very Far becoming Far). You'd still may experience lag while in cockpit, in which case you may try playing with Cockpit Textures, Mirrors and Reflections until you get to a point you find playable.

No, no, no, you have to cover the GIUK gap ! jk

Ok, 1) which version of windows are you using ? XP, Vista, Vista 64 ? 2) which version does your WoE say it is ? IF you downloaded it from TW after the patch release, it's already patched, in all/most cases, the digital release are patched up to the latest standard. 3) HARD DATA, what are the FPS (CPU and GPU) that you get and consider as lag (is the CPU lagging behind, meaning you have other tasks that you should close, or is it only the GPU lagging) ? 4) what resolution are you using ? 5) what AA settings are you using (in your driver settings) ? 6) are you using stock installs, otherwise what changes have you made exactly (tree mods, weather mods or any change to ENVIRONMENTSYSTEM.ini, FLIGHTENGINE.ini and PARTICLESYSTEM.ini) ?

It was not stupid to ask the question, not accepting the answer though was irritating, just a little. Also these requirements are for "low/normal" settings, for the game pre-patch, years ago, now A LOT has changed in the game, the new baseline requirements are more (as taken from TW site for WoI) : System Requirements OS: Windows 2000/XP Processor: 1.0 GHz Memory: 1.0 GB RAM Hard Drive: 1.1 GB free space Video Card: 128 MB DirectX 9.0c

What did your expect ? You kept answering your own question, you ignored advices and truth, what were you hoping for ? A magic formula that would make your computer or the program do something they can't ? We gave you the best ways to get back performances while not lowering quality too much, you wouldn't hear it... One has matter to get a little irritated don't you think ? Now, if you need anything else, we'll still gladly help you, just try to accept that as powerful your computer might be (or you think it is), it has limitations, and some software, either because they are less optimised or because they are simply more resource hungry, will reach these limitations, you'll have to live with it and learn how to get the best out of it.