Gunrunner

It all started by a group of French tourists being mugged and killed by local no-gooders, the threat considered is more tribe organized crime than terrorism; The incident, added to various global and local terrorism concerns (which are not the main concern here), just convinced French authorities and the Rally organization that the security in Mauritania couldn't be guaranteed. This usually never posed a problem as the answer was usually to change the program by choosing another country, unfortunately this year there wasn't enough time for such contingencies plans, the greatest part of the rally scheduled to take place in Mauritania. Also, the Dakar has lost a lot of support through the years and gathered little interest in Europe in the previous editions (compared to what it once was), it also has been widely criticized on humanitarian, sportive and ecological ground. This blow should not be a huge problem for the finances of the Dakar organization thanks to insurance, but some private participants won't have the same chance; added to the general decline of that particular rally and the falling financial support, it might make the next ones hard to organize.

Being a great fan of anti-runway missions I was quite disappointed of not being able to use Durandals. Since Durandals are modeled as rockets, they can't be used without some editing. The basic editing would be changing pylons in the plane data.ini to add the RCKT WeaponType, but that would mean mounting only one Durandal per pylon. That would be better but wouldn't represent the way they were used in Israelian, French or USAF service. Fortunately we could do some simple modifications to emulate the mounting used. Since we are dealing with rockets we can simply add specialised rocket pods using the TER and MER LODs. Below are the MER and TER adapted to carry 2, 3, 4 and 6 Durandal, the exemple deals only with the French Durandal, adapting them for the BLU-107/B is minimal. [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx2 FullName=Matra Durandal (x2) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=2 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx3 FullName=Matra Durandal (x3) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=3 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket03Position=0.000000,0.000000,-0.355000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx4 FullName=Matra Durandal (x4) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=4 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx6 FullName=Matra Durandal (x6) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=6 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket05Position=0.000000,1.240000,-0.330000 Rocket06Position=0.000000,-1.260000,-0.330000 The positions are not perfect, especially on the TER, but they are close enough for now. The x2 and x4 adapters are stand-in, as in reality specifics adapters were available, IIRC a low-drag quad used in France and a duo one used on German Phantoms and during the USAF evalutations. Also, the dates in the Weapons Pack are incorrect, the Durandal entered service in the French Air Force in 1977, and entered service in the USAF around 89/90. Of course, once this is done, you still have to edit your planes data.ini to add the capability to use rocket pods (RP) on pylons that should be able to use Durandals.

Wolf65> Absolutely, but Austria doesn't have the same geographic, financial and military safeguards as Switzerland and would have had to take an active part in defending their territory, and since the WP would have been the ones menacing their frontiers and they lack the forces to withstand the push for very long, they would either have had to surrender fast or "accept" NATO's support. From a gamer's point of view, the last option is the most interesting, besides, you could try and design a friendly campaign with Austrian units whose purpose is purely defensive over Austria. ShadowRain X Zero> Sorry, the whole WoC scenario doesn't make much sense, even though Larry Bond collaborated (probably took the money to finance something really worth his talent). Gocad> You're right, my bad -_- Don't know where that came from... an unconscious way to solve the problem of not having Upper Heyford or Lakenheath on the map.

It all depends on the history behind the conflict. You have to answer a few questions : - What started the conflict ? - Had anyone time to prepare for the conflict or was the eruption of the war a surprise for nearly everyone ? - When does your campaign starts, at the very start of the conflict or a few weeks later once everyone had time to organize, resupply, take positions in the Atlantic and suffered tremendous attrition ? - Do other nations join in on the fun, opening other theatres and stretching US forces thin, or can the US concentrate on defending Europe ? Then you can start thinking about which nations still have a capacity to fight, the level of supplies, the losses, the troops sent into the Central European theatre, etc.. Keep in mind that in 1989 it was estimated that Europe could fight 3 weeks of a WW3-type conflict without resupply, but after that we were all out of ammo and planes, the main effort of the US and Western navies would be to secure the Northern Atlantic, meaning you would see very little USN planes in Central Europe (they would be out in Iceland and the Northern Atlantic), very few USMC presence (they would be defending Norway, and unless Norway fell, would not be seen much in Central Europe (most Harriers you'd see in CE would be British ones)), as well you wouldn't see some British types over CE as they would be used to patrol the GIUK gap. Some basic source material to get numbers, types and the overall feeling of such a conflict would be : - Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy - Soviet Military Power reports produced by the DoD until at least 1991, the most interesting would be 1987, 1988 and 1989, to get a sense of progression of forces (unless you want to rewrite history over a long period of time). - Any literature relating to the organization and composition of the USAFE, the TwoATAF and FourATAF. Concerning French involvement, by types : - Mirage 2000C : We started receiving them in 1984, replacing Mirage F.1C, they would have been to precious at home and we don't have yet a model. - Mirage F.1C : Most would have stayed protecting France, but being phased out in favour of the 2000, some units might end up operating either with the FATac, or as escort. - Mirage F.1CR : The tactical reconnaissance variant, recently received, would have been used by the FATac over Germany. - Mirage 5F : Would have been used, but we lack the proper model for it. - Mirage IIIE : Would have been part of the French presence in Germany, helping slow down armor units. - Mirage IIIC : The last ones were retired in 1988 being replaced by Mirage IIIE or Mirage F.1C, but most were stored, so it would not be unreasonable to see some resurface should attrition dictate it. - Jaguar A : Probably the main French presence over Germany, unfortunately we lack the right model at the moment. Let's consider the forces in presence, limited by the map available : - Friendlies : - West Germany (part of the TwoATAF and FourATAF) - United Kingdom (part of the TwoATAF and FourATAF) - Canada (part of the FourATAF) - Austria (probably very fast out of an air force, but to take into account) - Denmark (little presence, the Baltic being their main concern) - Belgium (part of the TwoATAF) - Netherlands (part of the TwoATAF) - Italy (too busy in the Adriatic and Mediterranean) - Switzerland (neutral and of no interesting use) - France (keeping most interesting units at home but helping in the tactical strikes, probably basing units in Germany) - US Air Force Europe (unfortunately we can't have units based in England, but unless the conflict went nuclear, the F-111E/F wouldn't be seen much over Europe) - US Navy (too busy in the Atlantic and unless the Atlantic AND the Mediterranean are lost OR there has been an attrition severe enough and no other ready replacement, we shouldn't see much of them). - US Marines (too busy in Norway and Iceland) - Enemies : - USSR (Russia and other soviet states with no proper air forces) - Poland - Czechoslovakia - East Germany - Hungary

Sparkomatic> Sorry to ruin the party, but there won't be a DX10 for XP. And the comparison with Win95 is unfair, Win95 was usable, to find a fiasco of the amplitude of Vista, you have to look at the much more recent WinMe, the main difference is that Microsoft didn't bet the farm on WinMe and forced the hand of customers to migrate. Jazz5150> What's funny is that the ability to use more than 4Gb of RAM was the only selling point (all the other were cancelled during development or went FUBAR in the process) in favour of Vista for most serious users, but since that is broken and not fully fixed in SP1 (AFAIK), there is no reason not to keep using, or even switching back to, XP (better performances, better ergonomics, better security if you know to set it up, better hardware and software compatibility, lower cost, lower hardware requirement).

If I were you I would have a look at the service dates of ships and planes, it might be that you are trying an anti-ship mission with a plane at dates where no ship (tanker and cargo are the default ships) is available.

Well, depending on the way the forums are coded and the level of access to the code, that may be improved upon (some testing would convince you that anything would be an improvement over the integrated search, even using google (type your search in google and add "site:forum.combatace.com")). For a forum focusing on military simulations, it's a rather strange handicap to not be able to search designations.

To qualify as a real 5th generation fighter you usually have to have : - Stealth included in the design from the start (F-22, F-35), not added to the design to be stealth-ish/stealthier (Typhoon, late F-16, late Su-27, Rafale, Gripen). - Fusion of sensors informations. - Advanced phase array radars. - Super-cruise for fighters or high thrust to weight ratio for fighter-bombers. - High AoA manoeuvrability. - Ability to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions during the same flight. A Rafale has roughly the same range (around 1800km) as a Mirage 2000 which is just fine for France's needs but is indeed sometimes a little short in joint operations abroad. It has a supposedly better combat radius than the F/A-18C, supposedly slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, acceleration, ceiling, top speed and climb rate (on paper that is), a little more manoeuvrability due to an airframe about a decade more recent, canards, more refined FbW, a lower wing-loading. The electronics are also more recent and even though outdated by the time the plane reached production, they are more easily upgradable than the Hornet's. Due to the initial requirements the Rafale (it was designed from the start to be multi-mission, but adding stealth was an afterthought, as was the notion of super-cruise (possible on paper with some versions of the engines, not used actually and not included yet in planned updates, the focus seeming mostly on increasing fuel efficiency)) suffered less from changing missions than from lack of funding and political support and what should have been a revolutionary plane ahead of its concurrent ended up being a nearly obsolete plane entering service 10 years late and costing way too much (sometime french defence programs are reminiscent of japanese ones). The real handicap of the Rafale compared to the F/A-18C is that while able to carry more weight, it can do so with less space and pylons available, meaning that when the Rafale needs to take more fuel, it has to sacrifice ordnance, something less prone to happen with the Hornet. From what you can see on paper and from some pilot's report, we could guess that in A2A the Rafale is a better fighter than both the Hornet and Super Hornet but in A2G both Hornets are superior to the Rafale; when it comes to electronics the Rafale is ahead of the older Hornets, but behind the Super Hornet and newer ones, mostly in the radar area and considering stealth, the Rafale is probably closer to the Super Hornet. Compared to the F-35 now, on paper the F-35 looks way ahead in terms of stealth, range, electronics, slightly better in terms of payloads (even better using SDB) but probably worse when it comes to pure performance and dogfighting ability (even though the F-35 will probably be a less demanding plane to fly which might make a large difference), but stealth would/should be a large advantage for the F-35, and the F-35 would probably operate with air cover or after air superiority has been gained, while the Rafale is destined to be used as the unique type used by the French Air Force and Navy. We can't afford to work on AND order a true 5th generation plane anyway, we're working on combat drones instead (and envision having Rafales acting as command posts for wings of 5th generation combat drones (think X-45/X-47)). Anyway, enough fruitless comparisons, what is sure is that the Rafale represents a jump in capability and versatility from the various types used before (Super-Etendard and Crusader for the Navy, mostly Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Mirage F.1 for the Air Force). And one thing for sure, there soon will be happy US Navy personnel taking photos and working with an exotic bird. P.S. : Completely off-topic, is it only my impression or is there really nobody to love the F-35 ? Israel and European partners seems to border on despising the thing but going along as they have no choice and can't afford a home-grown alternative, the Navy doesn't seem thrilled about it, the Air Force sounds like it would happily scrap the whole thing and get more Raptors instead.

Well, the Rafale is considered more a 4.5th generation design (like the Typhoon, Gripen, , Super Hornet, late F-16 and Su-27; a 4th generation design integrating some 5th generation parts and thinking) than a 5th one. In fact, the only real 5th generation design in service is the F-22. No need to go and invent a 6th generation or try to compare early F-16 to Rafale.

The wheel-trap stutter when using gun pods is a known bug. It's purely visual and anyway, when firing guns you should be inside your cockpit aiming. I have yet to see this bug with some 3rd Party planes, while for others it happens every time, for most planes by TW the bug only occurs when the gun pods are used on any other pylon than the centerline one. What's interesting in your screenshots though is that usually the bug only affects the front wheel, while your screenshots show all three traps opening.

A little less conversation, a little more action please. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Gocad> Thanks, I didn't see that, and from what I understand, it would only be re-releases of the games using a DX10 compatible version of the engine and not whole new games. Let's hope he continues working on the DX9 engine afterwards, even though that would sometime mean doing the same work twice, I don't see most of us buying a new computer or Vista (for up to 600 € a licence, yeah right) just so we can play the latest TW sim (I'd rather pay $10 more for a DX9 version than being forced to move to Vista until it meets my needs). DamonSchumi> Sorry, I answered on the basis of missing information, you were right, there will be a DX10 version. Have a look at this thread for your Vista troubles : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=19172

DamonSchumi> You're welcome, a merry Christmas and happy new year to you too. Akwar> Keep in mind that ThirdWire is pretty much a one-man operation, with very little cash to work with. Also, SF is a series of "light" sims in many ways, as it doesn't strive for painful realism and instead aims to be fun and easy to learn (even though some parts of the aerodynamics modelling are better than other sims according to some more knowledgeable people than myself), it either doesn't strive to offer a dynamic campaign as immersive as concurrent sims, it also is light on hardware requirements, while a lot of people can't afford a computer to run LOMAC or IL-2 smoothly at a nice resolution, SF runs on practically anything (with the exception of some high definition add-ons). The goal is to offer the most enjoyable game with the limited resources in time and money available to the developer, bringing new content and features with each new "game", and offering an engine light enough for nearly any computer to run it and open enough for the community to create content and keep the games alive (and produce new games based on the engine more easily, meaning at a lower cost). If you want more content, there is quite a lot provided by dedicated modders on this site, and if you want something really that bad, you may do it yourself, most modders around here are friendly and will try to take some time to help you learn how to do it yourself, but be sure to try yourself first and to consult the various documentations and how-to readily available.

DamonSchumi> We all know it might be difficult when English is not your native language (mine's French), but please try to make sentences one can understand without ambiguity, or if you're not sure you can make yourself understood include what you want to say in your own language (so people who share this language can translate for us). From what you wrote I understood that you are complaining that hitting ESC aborts the mission. If you want another key to do so, then change the key-mapping (in Options > Controls > Customize... change the key for "End mission" which should be the first item on the list). If that's not the problem, please try to be more explicit and we'll be more than happy to help you solve your problem. :) If you have trouble running SFP1 with Vista, I think there is another thread specifically for those problems in the Knowledge Base.

Which would be a shame and a relief, imagine the heaps of medals (mostly posthumous purple hearts for some of us )

Yeah right, DX10... spending hundreds of hours to modify the graphic engine instead of focusing on more content or functionalities, as if the market for SFP1 wasn't already a niche, TK should reduce it's market even more by making it only playable on high end computers with an over-priced and useless OS. That sure sounds like good business practice as opposed to catering to people with modest configurations and legacy OS. More seriously, as Badfrank mentioned, there are already new games from ThirdWire : Wings over Vietnam (which you can consider SFP2) : focused on the Vietnam conflict, with the same engine as SFP1, updated (adding carrier operations). Wings over Europe (SPF3) : focused on Central European conflicts during the Cold War, with the same engine as SFP1, updated beyond WoV (adding more modern avionics). First Eagle (a new branch) : focused on WW1 and using a version of SFP1 engine tweaked for WW1 planes. Wings over Israel (SFP4) : to be released, focused on Israelo-Arab conflicts, once again with SFP1 engine updated and a few new tricks. A nice thing with TW sims is the retro-compatibility, every time a new game is out with updates to the engine, a patch is issued for the previous games to get them to the latest standard (SFP1 started without clouds, carrier, 70's avionics and thanks to successive patches offer the same functionalities as WoE, only the content (European map, WoE specific planes) is missing), meaning any content from or for one of the game can be used for the others (excepting SFPx and FE content). The Strike Fighter series is a game engine before being games.

Cover72> Sorry, it was written before your corrections. As for why we are "upset" by the conclusions of a marketing study, well it's not the conclusions, it's the fact you did present a marketing study as the result of real-life DACT exercise. Worse, it compares a development aircraft to production aircrafts, let's look at specific grief we can have against such marketing studies : 1) The Su-39 is a development aircraft with little relation to what would be operational capabilities of a production variant. 2) The study is a result of simulations using formulas, algorithm and weighing of results particular to the constructor (Sukhoi won't say their latest product is nowhere as capable as they advertise). I could produce studies where a Mirage F.1 would "outperform" a Su-39, as long as my study favors the strong points of the Mirage and penalise the weaker points of the Sukhoi. 3) These studies are done using publicly available figures (some being higher than the real capability, others lower, depending on the balance between marketing and security). 4) A Sukhoi study has an incentive to sell more Sukhoi planes. 5) The study cites F-16 (which one, there are huge differences between a F-16A-1 and a F-16C-52+), F/A-18 (A, C, E ?), Mirage 2000 (C RDM, C RDI, N, D, -5, -9 and so on ?), there is nothing precise in such marketing studies. 6) You started talking of simulated air combat and then we moved on to "x globally outperforms y" which is completely different. Some founders of the site and a lot of the people here are military personnel, even real life military pilots and most of the rest are passionate; reading fantasy studies intended for bean-counters and politicians sold as truth has a tendency to strike a nerve. This is nothing against you personally, it's just we don't like to mix facts and fantasy .

CW2. Wells> Yep, and some analyst basically saying "nah, the AF is BSing Congress to get more F22, just use some duct tape and they're good for another 20 years". Let's rant against politicians and bean counter killing pretty planes and worse, risking soldier's lives in a quest for power or perceived savings.

Cover72> Simulated dogfights at Le Bourget Air Show, yeah right... Considering that any demonstration or fly-by at Le Bourget Air Show (and all European air shows I know of) must be planned and known to the millimeter (figuratively speaking) and that Le Bourget airspace allowing demonstrations is rather small (and is overlapping Roissy-Charles de Gaulle's airspace, France's busiest commercial airport and airspace) , I highly doubt there ever has been such simulated dogfight there since a long long time. 1) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace (too small to satisfy security regulations). 2) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace outside of the Air Show context as Le Bourget is still an active commercial airport, used mostly for private and corporate jets (IIRC, LBG is one of the first if not the first European airports in term of corporate traffic). 3) It's doubtful it happened as described at Le Bourget Air Show (demonstrations are simple fly-by or planned and rehearsed aerobatic events within a very limited airspace). 4) It's doubtful it happened as described at a European Air Show during the Gripen "lifetime" (regulations are very very strict when a/ there is public (as is the case at Le Bourget Air Show even during purely industry days), b/ this happens over a densely populated area (as is the case with Le Bourget, Berlin and, to a lesser extent, Farnborough; Have a look at Google Map if you have the slightest doubt) and c/ this might interfere with commercial traffic (as is the case at Le Bourget with CDG's traffic)). So unless you can cite a good, reliable and verifiable source, this looks like a fairy tale.

CoolHand29> The trouble here is that there is differences betwen a F-16A-1, a F-16A-15, a F-16C-30 and a F-16C-52+. The RCS comparison doesn't specify which F-16A or which F-16C. The F-16A-1 was of almost completely metallic construction, with little study and thought given to reducing RCS. Later variants included more and more composite materials, and once RAM were becoming cheap and maintenance-friendly enough, some were incorporated as well (starting with Block 40 (a F-16C Block)). Anyway, RAM are not a panacea, being mostly useful against a rather narrow range of frequencies, and given that their use in the F-16 is an afterthought such a spectacular decrease seems a little exxagerated (unless perhaps if you compare an early F-16A-1 to a F-16A-52+/60), especially when there has been no major redesign accounting for it (the differences between the B-1A and the B-1B being due to both the redesign of the inlet for the larger part, and use of RAM for the rest).

Thanks, I was getting confused...

Wait, two other F-22, that makes what, three of them as WIP ? Well, there's such thing as too much choice... Even though I'd rather see a Q-5 (WIP), a Yak-38 (WIP, release in a couple of decades at the rate things are going ), a JH-7 (IIRC a Marcello's WIP) or a Buccaneer (WIP too)... How I wish I had the experience to produce nice, clean, satisfying models without spending way too much time for something I end up scrapping anyway.

Nice job you have :yes: Congrats on passing

Probably : 1) Greater use of composite materials 2) Changes in the position and size of maintenance traps, draining holes, etc... 3) Changes in the canopy better isolating the cockpit, avoiding to have it acting as an echo chamber 4) Propaganda Since most of these modifications were already included in Block 15/20, propaganda might account for a large part of the difference, unless the C include some RAM, which would be surprising given the maintenance needed for the generation of RAM available at the time.

Or even better, other illustrations of the same artistic rendering. They come from the french edition of the book "Stealth" by Doug Richardson and supposedly there are others of the same concepts, but I never found anything (not even these), I only recently tracked the book where I first saw them more than a decade ago. That was a supposed MiG-37, a counterpart to the ATF (future F-22) : And that was the way the A-12 Avenger II was envisionned, vastly sexier than the real thing :