Gunrunner

To have less lag ? Kind of circular isn't it...

Wrench did the moving, Mono did the thanking :)

Thankfully, even for such cases, we always have the Pythons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3LJYO3r1xw)... What I don't get is what's so culturally different in England to allow such a rampant and generalised problem with teen pregnancies, it's not as if they mostly were Roman Catholics ( ).

I just realised when the limited capacities of the Forger would nevertheless shine and make them a credible threat even against Carrier Groups. Used in conjunction with a massive missile attack from the Soviet Cruiser and/or Blackjacks, a dozen Forger with Kerrys or Karens coming fast and low, undetected by assets too busy with the massive missile strike; While the Group is designed to defeat such a strike, a new menace suddenly popping out of nowhere, unexpected, from a completely different vector might complicate things, either inducing enough latency in the defenses to increase the main strike chance at dealing serious damage, or by being mostly ignored to concentrate on the main threat, getting a chance to deal some significant damage. That's insane but might just work, and in such a case the limited range and limited sophistication of the missile wouldn't be such a handicap. Now I've got to reinstall Harpoon.

Actually, the nozzles do rotate down. The difference is that instead of having forward nozzle redirecting air from the reactor like the Harrier, the Forger has 2 small reactors behind the cockpit for additionnal thrust. And while these reactors and their exhausts are fixed (except according to some sources for the second one on the Yak-38M, but I didn't find photographic proof of that), they have different positions, for there are doors below them, closed in normal flight, open in vertical operations, and a slotted cover above, with 4 positions (down and closed, down and open, up and open, up and closed). From what I've gathered the down/closed is obviously the storage and normal flight position, the up/open is the position for VTOL operation; I haven't found the use, if any beyond transition, for the down/open position, and while I've read suggestions that the up/closed position was used as an airbrake, it makes absolutely not sense (mind you, as an airbrake the up/open would make more sense, as doubtful as it may be). To have the topic moved, just PM Dave or any of the moderator and ask kindly.

You mean dual graphic cards, right ? It is unlikely that TW games have a specific path in nVidia's drivers, so you might have to choose one that's actually compatible with the games.

AFAIR yes, you get replacement, how much and when depends on the campaign settings (and your own difficulty settings for the campaing). You may also question your tactics... The AI being suicidal shouldn't force you to be the same... As you can't use the sun in FE, your best chances against bombers is using dead angles or less covered ones... Coming frontally might work, from the front sides has a nice chance of success and eases the maneuver after your firing pass, exposing you as little as possible to the rear arc of fire.... You could still attack from behind though, but not from above, being lower than your target enhances your survivability as most gunners have limited depression on their guns, just be aware that bombers cover each other and that while your prey may not fire at you, others in his formation may, so concentrate on those on the outer part of their formation and straddlers... Better pilots who played more recently will probably give you far better advices latter on :)

Changing the TargetType to one with a collision box ? IIRC you can't collide with CITY_BUILDINGs even though the entries suggest otherwise. PS : Fubar's faster and more useful :-)

Gepard, it was a useful asset, for it was all the AV-MF had... Now let's be realistic about it... It was under-powered, limiting range, performance in some weather and at some altitudes, and even worse, payload; Even in the best conditions, it lacked any kind of payload useful beyond anti-shipping with Kerrys, air defense and reconnaissance with short range IR missiles and amphibious assault support with rockets. For air defense duties, it lacked range, endurance, maneuverability. For close air support of amphibious assaults, it lacked range, endurance, payload. Finally, for anti-shipping duties, it lacked the range, missile and avionics to be of any use against anything more than a lightly defended convoy as the short range of the Kerry and the need for the launching aircraft to guide the damn thing made it a suicide mission. Yet, the AV-MF had no other asset able to operate from their aviation cruisers even coming close to the Yak-38. So yes, to the AV-MF, it was useful, but in all honesty, it never managed to really do his assigned jobs very well and couldn't stand the comparison with similar fleet assets of NATO. To compare them to the Skyhawks is not even in their favour as even the Skyhawks offered more range, more payload, and a better ability to deliver it under fire (and probably a better capacity to withstand battle damage). To compare them (with Kerrys) to the Super Etendard/Exocet tandem is even worse, the Exocet having at least 5 times the range of the Kerry and not needing guidance from the launching aircraft. At best they were an annoyance to NATO task forces and a threat to convoy, nothing more... Damn, I love this plane, but it doesn't mean we must be delusionnal about it. PS : Yes, I know the Yak-38M was a far better airplane, but it only made it finally usable, and still inferior to comparable assets... The use of better missiles, didn't really increase the usefulness as in anti-shipping missions it still required the launcher to pop-up far too long and too close to the fleet for comfort, and the only one with real range where SEAD versions using a flight profile unsuitable to attack ships anyway...

If I can locate it I had a not too inaccurate 3-view plan of the Yak-38 I used when I tried to work on it, can't promise anything though, it's somewhere in a stored hard drive.

Ahem, not to play the carebear, but turning that into "us experienced modders" against "them amateurs" was not the purpose of the thread and nothing good would come out of it. Comparing the FMs and explaining why the changes are bad, though time consuming, is a little better and may help the "cooks" to avoid the same mistake later on (of course it would have been better if they started by asking those who know better first).

A generic system would not be too hard to implement for the player, it's the AI side of the thing for which I have doubts...

The Yak-41/141 projects were shelved in 94, had they reached production they wouldn't have entered service before the late 90's. The Yak-38 on the other hand, entered service in 75/76, they even briefly served in Afghanistan, and were completely retired in the mid-90's.

Not the same thing at all, and not the same time period if the Yak-41/141/141M was produced.

Su-24, I think Veltro2k is working on one, Marcello had one too in progress, they'll be released when ready, meaning when the creators are satisfied enough with their work. Yak-38, that beautiful if almost useless bird :) to my knowledge noone's working on it anymore.

It would be simple if there only was the F-4 to simulate... But if you do it for the F-4, you'd have to do it for the A-6, and if you do it for them, why not for the F-104, F-105, F-16 etc... Each of them with systems both close in essence and different in capabilities and behavior... And you'd also have to rewrite the AI* so that it knows what flight pattern to adopt to take advantage of the onboard system (and adapt depending their actual loadout). The actual compromise is to use the lowest common denominator, thus effectively offering only no fire-control or late 80's style fire-control as they are the easier to implement, as the AI always know how to deal with it (well, with LGB it doesn't do quite well, and you'd suppose it's not that hard to implement). Until there's enough interest in the community and enough money to be made to cover the development costs (or TK's grand scheme involves small expansions increasing the simulation of a particular plane rather than a theater) I doubt you'll get what you're looking for soon, just as we all have a list of things we'd like to see implemented, for equally good reasons... So... while in essence I understand your frustration and agree it would be infinitely better that way, I have to strongly disagree on the perceived simplicity of the task. * I believe the AI is the main reason behind a LOT of design choices and compromises in TK's sim, I think he envisions his AI as as generic as possible, having as little code as possible for specific planes and situation, and that it does limit his options unless he had the luxury to spend most of his time working on the AI code and testing it.

Well, it would help Jarhead1 put in context a comment by Icarus999 that apparently struck a nerve.

I don't think that was his point... He mentionned "noobs" aiming his comment at new people with no knowledge and understanding of how this community work. Of course that wouldn't work and wouldn't be fair, it was hopefully just frustration speaking, no need to take it personnally. It's each according to his mean, the whole idea is to offer free stuff, but, as with Thirdwire, we should all be aware that running things cost money, that even free mods do cost money, in download bandwidth, in 3rd party models, in documentation... So, everyone should be aware of the costs, and know that if they have the financial means to help a little, they could, here on CA by suscribing, and on Thirdwire by buying games as Direct Downloads even if you're not interested yet or already have it on CD. There's other ways to contribute to the community if you can't afford to help financially, either through sharing your work or just being there, welcoming, helpful and making it a community people like to interact with, so let's not get carried away by careless words.

Gepard, of course the training and morale of some WP countries and units were above the average NATO units... Unfortunately they didn't constitute a majority... You also forget that East Germany was an exception in the WP, being always among the first to get the latest hardware, with little or no downgrade compared to the Russian version, they trained more and got spare parts more easily than most other WP countries. For the Air Forces, the training regimen of NATO forces was far superior quantitatively to anything the WP had and qualitatively to almost all except part of the Russian and East German air forces. But doctrine plays a part too, and the Soviet one concerning the air forces was less efficient than NATO's, underusing assets, which coupled with maintenance and availability problems would mean a sortie rate far inferior to standard NATO forces. You also have to take into account that the West Germans would have been fighting for their own land, their families, and while in peace time it doesn't affect morale, in wartime it does, just as morale does decline when you start losing half your unit just to invade some land for which you have little interest yourself and you are the agressor (of course political ideals are to be taken into account but you know more than me how it affected East Germany). My comment and disbelief wasn't meant to be demeaning to the men, only to the structure they served.

Pigeon guidance, what else ?

Well said, but just try to put things back into perspective, the community only gets better and better, the situation was worse 1, 2, 3 years ago... We regularly had drama unfolding, with unreasonnable people on both sides. We reached a point where the standard modder agreement is used and allows the community to thrive with as little drama, friction and useless negotiations as possible. Now we have only sporadic douchebag eruptions on the pure user front and level headed modders. We also reached a point where everyone is aware of the passions and work involved and the community won't let modders be insulted, and if we manage to emit a crude comment on the spur of the moment, excuses and mortification ensues (see serverandenforcer who apologised for weeks for something that was only a badly worded opinion for which noone felt anything more than a rewording was necessary).

I know it was considered, NATO's job was to consider all options and scenarios to be prepared for whatever might happen, all I'm saying is that 1) it's based on an over-estimation of Soviet capabilities and 2) if happening, the game's already over unless Soviet forces are stretched too thin, in which case salvation would only come from uprisings. In all cases Spain would be swamped with refugees, making any military operation that much more difficult. Also, keep in mind that if that scenario was judged that serious and there was a real hope in using the iberic peninsula as a beachhead back into Europe, NATO and the US would have helped military build up of Spain and Portugal far more than they historically did during the Cold War. It was mostly a plan C, in case all else failed (I'm not saying that Spain was unimportant, had little strategic value or fighting capacity, only that due to geography, if the fight came on Spanish soil, the chances of winning were slim). Quite frankly I doubt France in such a scenario would have lasted long, the whole European WW3 scenario was really a hit or miss thing, with NATO putting all it got on Germany for the first three weeks of war, hoping to establish supply lines in the Atlantic, failing that the fight was over and the countries behind Germany would fall fase, and even if the North Atlantic battle was won, it would come down to a war of attrition with numbers in favor of the Soviets, but morale, training, equipment in favor of NATO, the only winning strategy for NATO then being to cripple the Soviets' supply lines and forcing them to peace talks (if you decide to completely exclude the nuclear option). Now, with the Soviets stopping at the Pyrenees for whatever reason, letting NATO rescapees regroup in Spain, supplies and US troops flow in (meaning the Soviet Navy would not do its job), then it might happen, but I can't think of a reason for the Soviets not to push their advantage if they managed to get that far. North African countries "reclaiming" the south of Spain, while a little strange, actually offers something better balanced, and might fit into a WW3 scenario, the move being a diversion for the Soviets. The Iberic Peninsula being the recompense offered by the Soviets for not helping NATO resupply.

Warsaw Pact seems unlikely... In a WW3 scenario, IF WP forces decided to extend their forces toward the iberic peninsula, it would mean that a) Germany and France fell, b) Norway fell, c) Iceland, Ireland and the United Kingdom fell, thus leaving very few possibilities of counter-attack on the North Atlantic front and allowing ground forces to move forward, only leaving reserve and garrison troups behind as occupation forces. In such a scenario Spain and Portugal would already have had forces fighting in Germany and France once the severity of the situation was realised. Meaning that once you'll start your campaign, you'd be facing a formidable opponent (far more than historically, otherwise it wouldn't have been able to meet the requirements), with your already crippled forces (the losses in defense of Germany/France) and little support from anyone else (The US would have suffered tremendous losses in defense of the GIUK gap, Norway, Germany, France and England, the North Atlantic would be mostly in Soviet hands, and help from the Mediterranean would be sparse (maybe from Italy/Greece/Turkey/Israel if they're still in the game, but with the Atlantic lost, the only "safe" ressuply route would be through a long detour and the quite vulnerable Suez Canal)). It would be a fight for a glorious death, as if it comes to that, you'd have no chance to win. You could also envision an invasion from the Mediterranean rather than through the Pyrenees, which would mean a complete domination over the Mediterranean by the Soviets, meaning the partial downfall of at least Italy, Greece, France and Turkey. The Black Sea Fleet never was in a position to accomplish such a feat, and never had enough transport and assault capacity to mount an invasion of the iberic peninsula. The Soviet goal in such a scenario would be to deny complete control of the Mediterranean to NATO forces, "secure" the Suez route and protect the Black Sea. Now, let's say they didn't disable Italy etc... Their fleet would be too vulnerable to mount any serious invasion. Then let's consider that the invasion is mostly a diversion, an attempt to mobilize NATO forces far away from Germany and buy time by opening a new front, even though the chances of succes are slim. In that case it makes much more sense to try that in Turkey or better Italy, as it ends up being easier to secure and offer better strategic advantages in case of success, prompting a more serious reaction from NATO and thus acting as a better diversion. Nope, sorry, as interesting as it might be, without a large dose of suspension of disbelief I can't see it working with the Soviets...

I'd be more interested in earlier marks (-A, -B, -C), or even better, an E-1B/WF-2 but yes, a true E-2 (as opposed to a deformed C-2, wich served valiantly for years) would be nice.

I think the thorny issue with refueling is that TK would want to do it right, meaning that it will not only be there for the player, but the AI and that the AI would be able to use it by itself. In most other sims this is either absent, or partly scripted (meaning that once reaching a certain position, the AI will follow a script rather than really react to outside events). Also, originally, the SF series was more about tactical operations, skirmishes, and there was no real need for refueling as the size of the theater made it unnecessary (except that since WoV it had an historical justification), meaning that the whole campaign engine would have to be changed, since the change in scope would mean really dealing with long flights with refueling, multiple operations, etc...