Gunrunner

I suppose you could nicely ask Armourdave (or Sundowner, who seems more active around here) if he still has the 3ds files for his F.6 and if he would allow you to use it as a basis, provided he still has it. That way would be nice and friendly without raising any touchy subject.

Yes, if you wish to make clean engines you'll have to edit the /objects/aircraft/[aircraft]/[aircraft]_DATA.ini (or extract that file from /objects/objectdata.cat and place it there then edit it). The lines you want to edit are those starting with ExhaustEmitterName Then you have 2 options, the easy one and the hardest one. a) The easy is simply replacing the line by a void line : Change "ExhaustEmitterName=DirtyExhaustEmitter" with "ExhaustEmitterName=" (you should think of adding the void line and commenting the original one for easy reference, meaning the entry would look like : //ExhaustEmitterName=DirtyExhaustEmitter ExhaustEmitterName= b) The "harder" would consist of the same as above, but instead of removing the emitter name, you would change it to something like VeryCleanExhaustEmitter, and then create a INI file for this emitter in the /effects directory. That would also allow you to add emitters either dirtier or cleaner, per plane, instead of using the same for every (class of) plane, but that needs a little more work and is not necessary if your goal is to completely get rid of those trails. From a realism point of view, I advise not removing them, and making checking some replacement effects for "more beautiful" trails, I think Deuces and CA Stary made some. I never tried removing condensation trails so I can't give you pointers for these, I doubt they are plane dependent and are probably something you'd find in the FLIGHTENGINE.INI

A picture might be needed for a definitive answer, but the answer's probably yes. Jets from that era had smoky, or even very smoky engines, even today most engines aren't completely clean. At high altitude you also have white condensation trails.

OK, I'm curious, does Razbam tileset allow for highway strips ? Does it add anything in term of objectives, features, airbase design ?

I would suggest something, but since some people would deem it illegal, piracy, heresy and would launch a holy crusade to cleanse the surface of the earth of the very mention of a program able to open a WAV file (do you realise ? With that you could open a file created by someone else, modify it and release it, without crediting the original author if you are a complete jerk, this kind of thing should not be allowed), I'd rather not. Kidding and bitter sarcasm aside, have you tried Audacity (link), it's overkill but would allow nearly any manipulation you may wish, but most audio softwares should suffice to manipulate a WAV file.

Wrench> Bah, happens to everyone. On the plus side that allowed me to add a site to my bookmarks.

Wrench> Google, when well used, is your best friend (http://ed-thelen.org/loc.html). ;)

The last and only time I remember it in a sim was with F-15E Strike Eagle III.

Q-5 in chinese service, A-5 as an export designation. The same for the fighters, using a J designation in China and a F designation for export.

Craig, that's a AW 681 (or HS 681 as written on it). It was one of numerous insane projects of the 60's to have nearly everything VTOL, including tactical transport planes, the AW 681 was the british entry in the category, supposed to be using, IIRC, variants of the Harrier's reactors to obtain VTOL capabilities.

Oh, yes, like with Home Server, the famous Data Cleansing feature, the whole new concept in Backup technology to solve once and for all storage capacity troubles, you send it to the server, the server trashes it...

From what I gathered so far, it's more a case of "not completely fixed but rare enough we will release anyway". It concerns a subsystem theorically only used by retailers that may end up with losses of data, it apparently also affects Vista's SP1. The paranoid would wait (the really paranoid would not touch a MS product with a 10 feet pole anyway), the rest of the world may probably go ahead with little if any risk on that front. I upgraded one machine, and so far nothing catastrophic happened...

There has been a major bug with it a few days ago, which forced MS to pull it in a hurry, I'd rather wait for independant confirmation that everything has been corrected if I were you.

Welcome aboard, to know how to add content, just have a look a the Knowledge Base : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showforum=99 It should answer most questions a beginner can have. Otherwise you'll always find someone to help you for matters not covered. As a rule, do a copy of your installation pre-modifications (or after a succesful one you'd like to use as a basis), so you can freely experiment with the game without fearing to break anything. Have fun.

Sorry to contradict you Spectre, but CAT files are not compressed at all, they are concatenated (meaning, they are just files glued to each other into one big file, which is why it is extracted so fast). As a matter of fact, the CAT file is actually bigger than the sum of the files concatenated, as the CAT file adds at the head of the file the names and offset of the files it contains. The goal of the CAT format is to have something cleaner to work with, as well as to save space by using less small files eating up clusters (with the CAT you'd only lose one cluster max.). It IS possible to create a CAT file that would be read by the SF engine, but there is no tool for that at the moment, and doing it manually is a bore.

Well, with BPAO and/or Russo on the case of the S.2B, that might end up nicely done... Now, dear sir, if one day I could interest you in adding, say, a Buccaneer S.1, maybe update the Scimitar F.1 and Sea Vixen... With the DS map, changed to reflect the 60's era, that would make a nice what-if in 1963 (or 1961, in which case we wouldn't need the Buccaneer, but where is the fun of that ? Especially when that would leave Iraq with only Vampires, Venoms, Hunters and a handful of MiG-17F, while 1963 gives us a handful of MiG-19 too), with a British intervention to stop the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by the flailing Qasim regime seeing the move as the last chance to regain some kind of internal support.

Ah, the Buccaneer, another "strange" (well, not that strange given the rounded nature of the beast) omission from the community... Great find...

Well, the program does say where the files are extracted, but you can't chose where that is, and that is in the directory of the opened CAT file, so say you wanted to extract files from C:\program files\strike fighters\objects\objectdata.cat, the files would be in C:\program files\strike fighters\objects\ If they are not here, then something didn't work right...

Oh, so that was not funny, even once explained , and that would be a nice name, for an AWACS killer...

Viper6> Nope, this clearly is a Targa (forget the geeky pun, I'll explain if needed). cgold> My guess without being able to test right now would be that it is indeed an issue with the tinting of the canopy, through a TGA file IIRC, meaning it's either missing, incorrect, uncorrecly named etc... From memory, there is 2 TGA needed for WOI's F-16, one named GoldCanopy.tga and another CanopyGlass.tga or something like that, I guess you only extracted one and not the other. BTW, why spending time backporting WoI's F-16 into SFP1/WoV/WoE when the Mirage Factory version is quite adequate ?

Longestpants> Outis, I sure get the reference, what I don't get is the relation to the topic. Polecat would be nice and open a whole new range of mustelid names (ferret, mink, marten, otter, weasel, badger, rattel or for the lovers of "cool", wolverine) while keeping a bridge with the Grumman cat tradition (well, the non-cat cat name would not be a first as the bearcat is a viverrid IIRC).

Look, you never hurt or offended anyone, you just irritated some of us, which doesn't mean you were doing something "wrong", you were just over-enthusiastic and lacking proper restraint, patience and understanding of what you were dealing with. We've all been like that at a time or another, and we're not asking you to refrain your enthusiasm, we need motivated players willing to modd the game and push its limits. What we don't need is people affirming the existence of a problem that does not really exist, either because it is out of the scope of the sim, or would not make sense operationnally. So just take your time to learn the game, understand its mechanics, read the very good articles on the Knowledge Base (even though it is in a somewhat broken state at the moment), learn about the way air wars are thought and fought, the planes and missiles involved, and then proceed to methodically mod things, while trying to avoid hacks and cheats (like you AIM-120 seeker modification) so the game won't completely break with another patch enhancing or changing that particular aspect of the sim. Language is not a problem, a lot of us don't have english as our native language, mine is french, we also have a lot of other europeans, chineses, indians etc... You just have to remember that while you may be new to the game, the SF community is mostly a community of old hands... Old simmers who started in the 80's... Old (or still active) military fliers who actually did the real thing... Old modders, for whom SF is just another game to modd... Old SF players, who played the game from the time it didn't even have clouds... We all have years behind us that made your agitation irritating, because we knew you were wrong, most said nothing, or too politely, because we need your enthusiasm, but most just wished you would learn and stop wasting your time, and other peoples time, with what, to us, amounts to non-problems. So, you now start with a clean slate, by all means keep the enthusiasm and the fire, just keep down the assertiveness when it comes to identify something as broken and do just that little bit of research that will make the game, modding and blending with the community that much easier. BTW, I'm nobody ^^ I'm just good at talking, playing and modding for my own purpose without giving back much (rights clearance always being my pet peeve, but I've seen Dave mention that the community was moving from a freeware type licencing to a free software one, which might end up with the unleashing of my horrible experiments some day), there are a lot of better people you SHOULD listen to when they say something though (I won't name names as I would forget hundreds of great people around here and don't want to spoil or hurt egos j/k). Oh, and I hope I didn't came out as too agressive when I tried to explain why you BVR experiments and expectations were "wrong", I do have that tendency to be a little too nasty and give people the impression I'm assaulting them, if I gave that impression, please accept my apologies too.

Ok, so I'll be nice and help Basher11 to get a bloody clue. The BVR "issues" in the SF series stems from 3 major sources, design decision, historical accuracy and tactical reasons. 1) Design decisions a) The SF series aims at simulating air planes from the late 60's to the early 80's, an age where missiles were unreliable, it never was meant for modern BVR engagement with AMRAAMs. b) The SF series aims to be fun, rather than a button-pushing or study sim, thus the emphasis on close combat. c) The SF series never aimed to reproduce any kind of strategic warfare, leaving aside interception of strategic bombers, nuclear bombers etc... and this case is the very one for which the concept of BVR was conceived on the time lapse we're concerned. 2) Historical accuracy a) In WoV, you have to remember that the RoE called for a visual identification of the target, thus negating most chances of BVR engagements and making the attitude of your wingmen logical, you tell them to attack a target, first they close in for visual identification. b) In WoE, you have to remember you are in a very heated conflict with a LOT of planes supposed to be in the air, in a day and age where IFF are either not there or not completely trusted, thus you can be sure that the RoE would have been fairly restrictive toward BVR too, except for strategic interception, which is outside the scope of the series, as seen earlier. c) In WoI, you have to remember that most kills were obtained with IR guided missiles or guns, and very few with Sparrows, even then, most Sparrow uses where WVR, for reasons we will see later. 3) Tactical considerations Leaving AMRAAMs out as they are out of the scope of what the engine is supposed to use, you have to condider what your BVR weapon is. The AIM-7 is a passive missile, relying on the illumination by the launching plane to reach its target, it's been known to be rather unmaneuverable for the first versions (it was designed to engage slow bombers, not fighters), then very unreliable and finally "the best we have, until we get a real missile or you are in the Navy (and even there...)". What that means is, the farther you launch your AIM-7, the higher the chances are that the target will have time to get out of its range, that it will break your radar lock (thus getting the missile out of his back), that it will outmaneuver the missile when it finally closes in, that you will get shot down thus losing your lock or that it will get time to properly jam or deceive it. So, most AIM-7 you will launch at extreme range or even BVR will be lost. The best way to ensure a kill is to be WVR and thus reduce the flight time of the missile, leaving as little time as possible to the target to break the lock, maneuver or jam/deceive it. Now, does the AI engage ? Oh yes, it does. Does the AI engage at extreme or maximum range ? Very rarely, if ever. Does the AI engage at ranges ensuring the highest PK for the weapons systems it's supposed to use ? Seems to me like it does. Is there is problem with BVR in the SF series ? Nope, there's a problem simulating something it never was designed for. So, you want a lot of missiles flying at once, kills at very long range and AMRAAMs, go buy LOMAC. You want to simulate air combat in the late 60's to early 80's, SF is where it's at. Just don't come whining that something is broken when it obviously is not and the only real problem is that you have no clue on what the game is supposed to do and why it does so.

You see, that's the trouble, what Basher wants is BVR, with NO visual identification, in birds with primitive or no IFF. What he wants is lobbing missiles blindly over the horizon at maximum range of the missiles. What he wants is cleaning the skies of pesky korean airliners with his mighty Su-15...

[Here was a long rant about clueless newbies declaring something broken, when the only things broken are their understanding of the situation, capacity of finding out things by themselves and ability to learn] For the sake of the community and my blood pressure, is there an option to ignore a specific poster and his threads (275 posts... in 39 days...) ?