Gunrunner

Julhelm> Since you worked on the bird and seemingly did both versions, maybe you could answer a question for which I never found a satisfactory answer so far. The first RA-5C screen you post lacks the leading edge extension of the last two screens, supposing it's not just because the first one was a model in progres s, it would be consistant with photos of RA-5C where most have it but a few lacks it, yet I never found why it's absent on some planes (my best guess is those missing it are the handful of converted A-5B), do you have any answer ? Anyway, a huge thanks, a new, high-quality RA-5C on the horizon has me grinning like a madman.

Marc> That's a great Christmas gift to the community, thank you. :) Russo> None (the MD5 of the LODs is the same), as should be since the basic J-11/Su-27SK uses the same airframe as the Su-27S (the Su-27K being the navalised one, a very different airframe and the first with canards).

CW2. Wells> Sorry, you're perfectly right on that one, I just saw the ridiculous rhetoric and reacted just as stupidly. -_- It's just so removed from common sense... I removed it, it didn't help anyway and anything useful I could say has been said and well said by streakeagle anyway.

*insert foot in mouth, childish over-reaction* USAFMTL> You are hot-headed but fair and always make things right again once you cooled off, I think no-one can complain about that.

It all boils down to your view of "intellectual property", namely whether you consider you should have total control of your creation, or you trust your users to do the right thing; whether you are modding for your pleasure and the benefit of others, or only to boost you ego and get yourself a semblance of status. The trouble with the modding community is that it is full of egos (most with good reasons) and little method (they are very very efficient individually but mostly inefficient at collaborating on a large open scale (not just a small selection of people, but everyone who cares)). Ok, I'm starting to rant again on how modding should take some pages, no, whole chapters from the open-source book (open development, versionning, issue-tracking, precise and/or simple licences), so I'll stop here. I think most modders in it only for the status are out already, and even if some do have a similar rhetoric in times of crisis (as two weeks ago), they do not act upon it and probably don't have real disdain for the simple users. And quite frankly, it's not only the users keeping the game alive, it's the combination of modders and users, the modders alone can't help TW live, and pure users alone wouldn't make the games as attractive as it is with the wealth of elements added by the modding community, it's the subtle alchemy between TW's mode of operation and (relatively) open engine, the dedication of modders and the passion of simple users that makes it stick and allow everyone to find what they seek in the series.

What a nice little bird... That's really nice. Just out of curiosity, are you planning to work on other Fencer variants beyond the Fencer-D ? While the Su-24M (Fencer-D) is the most numerous and interesting variant game-wise, earlier (Su-24 Fencer-A/B/C, for 1971-1983 scenarios), export (Su-24MK Fencer-D, basically the Su-24M with degraded avionics and the wing-glove pylons removed, the one in Nele's picture I suspect) and specialised (Su-24MR/MP Fencer-E/F, yes I like recon missions ) airframes might be interesting but even more work, so I'll just shut up, we'll all be happy enough with a D.

Ronan> You filthy infidel, remember CombatAce First Commandment ! Thou Shalt Not Pester The Modders. Now don't say you haven't been warned if USAFMTL smites you into 2010.

Also, the RCS varies depending on the angle from which the plane is "seen" by the radar (ie. some aircrafts are optimized to reduce RCS when seen from the front and above, while some are optimized to reduce the RCS from all angles). Another interesting point is the fact that depending on the method used to obtain stealth, the RCS is not the same depending on the frequency of the radar. Then you have to understand the various methods used to reduce the RCS of an aircraft, and their limits. 1) Using material with a low reflection The material used in building the plane have an impact on the RCS, the classical exemple being the wooden Mosquito being naturally stealthier than its counterparts of metallic construction. Using composite material, especially some specifically designed to enhance stealth is a simple way to partly reduce the RCS. 2) Hiding echo chambers and avoiding scatter points With this method, you try to hide, reduce or remove anything that could amplify the radar signal, or redirect it indiscriminately (hiding reactors, removing a maximum of sharp angles, protrusions, draining holes). The goal is not to eliminate or scatter the radar echo, but to avoid amplifying it. 3) Specifically shaping the plane to redirect the echo away from the emitting radar Here the whole point is to avoid being seen, by adopting a shape that when hit by a radar wave, will be returned away from the emitter, making the plane "invisible". Yet it's not that easy, with the first generation of shaping, the stealth was directionnally optimised, meant to reduce RCS only when seen from a particular angle. The latest generation of shaped planes are more efficient and able to reduce RCS from wider angles. But it's not perfect, as it is also optimised for some radar frequencies, and it has been demonstrated that low frequency radars coupled to large arrays of passive receiving stations (ie. one radar emits, the plane scatters the echo, but a multitude of these echoes are received bye the passive receiving stations and using triangulation, the position of the plane is determined, it has even been demonstrated using reflection of TV signal) negate most shaping. 4) Using Radar-Absorbent Material Adding material to the plane designed to "trap" the radar waves is a way to reduce RCS, unfortunately, these materials are optimised for specific range of frequencies and are mostly useless against other frequencies, with some older materials, they even acted as echo chambers, amplifying and scattering the radar signal). 5) Actively cancelling the radar signal Active echo cancellation, consisting of detecting the radar wave and reemitting a counter-wave to reduce or remove the echo is still not very well documented, and is a very difficult task as it needs to identify a large variety of signals and determine which signal to add to diminish or suppress the echo. All these factors and the fact that real numbers on the efficiency of these methods and the way to calculate their impact makes it impossible to model in a game.

So far, in terms of players sold the Blu-Ray is ahead of the game, mainly due to the PS3, in terms of movies sold, the HD-DVD is ahead by a short lead. In terms of raw capacity and technical merits, the Blu-Ray is a clear winner, in terms of costs the HD-DVD still has the advantage, the quality for both is now equivalent if not identical with some encodings. Sony has recently regretted not cooperating toward a unique standard seeing the competition as hurting both formats, especially the Blu-Ray. In all, there is so little volume, either in players or movies sold, that the figures so far can't really serve to identify a winner of the format war. The trouble is that as long as there is no clear winner, most people will hesitate before committing themselves to one format, and as long as people don't decide, there will be no clear winner. If the situation persists they will have to decide on a joint format or risk offering all the profits to multi-standard players manufacturers (and licences are not as interesting financially as having the only winning HD format).

My only grip with the 5th generation military jets is that it is a radical departure from what made military jets interesting. They once were some glamorous, the fighter pilot was something of a modern day knight; With the 4th generation, we departed from the pilot flying the plane and started toward the plane partially flying itself (yes, I do know that even before, the F-106/SAGE couple meant the pilot might end up being only a radar and weapon operator, as was the case with the MiG-23P, etc...), with he 5th generation, it's not a plane anymore, it's a weapons system. From an efficiency perspective, it might be a really good thing, but that makes them awfully boring and completely unsexy. A Sabre, a Hun, a rhino, they all have a raw quality to them, they represent something, even the Eagle manages to be interesting, but a Raptor or a F-35, they're sexy as a washing machine, an efficient, stealthy, deadly washing machine, but an appliance nonetheless. Besides it creates another problem, due to their complexity and cost, they are tailored to be built, serve for a time, be used for a few days for a low to medium intensity low to high-tech conflict and then remain mostly unchallenged for the rest of the engagement. They are not suited to a long, high intensity conflict, should they encounter some serious opposition and attrition, especially with reduced dotations, it might fast become a problem as you just can't churn out new planes to replace them as you did up until the 4th generation. While optimized for being easy to maintain and require little maintenance compared to previous generation, this is also at the cost of a maintenance infrastucture, which might be a handicap in a catastrophe scenario. Also, seen from the perspective of Boyd, they probably just are gold-plated toys unworthy of calling themselves fighters (well, at least he would have hated the F-35). :p At least Flankers are keeping the flame of the old-style jets alive.

If you are patched correctly and the F-4G is the only plane crashing, you might find the answer HERE.

At some point Japan was interested in the F-22, probably partly supported by the fact that some Air Force Generals wanted Japan to have F-22 in order to have more of these available in the region without having to battle with Congress to fund them. AFAIK this idea never went further than suggesting and evaluating it. Australia wants the F-22 because it is clear the F-35 for all it's worth won't ensure any kind of air superiority. But AFAIK the US never offered anything. England is not interested in the F-22 much, they seem to see the couple Typhoon/JSF as the future of the RAF. The F-15 "crisis" is played very tightly, on the one hand some try to dramatize the situation in order to get the Congress to approve the funding for more F-22s (hoping to get back to 350 F-22, pretexting the supposed premature ageing of the F-15 airframes), on the other hand, the USAF doesn't want to export the F-22 to minor partners before a long time and doesn't want to have a watered down variant worked on just yet, so it hopes to export F-15, new and second-hand, instead, and it's hard to do so when at the same time you are claiming internally that the airframe ages prematurely. (source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 12) At the same time Boeing is trying to push the F-15E+ "Super Eagle" as both a replacement for the oldest F-15 and a complement to the F-22 and F-35. (source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 15) The situation is even worse with the F-35, since most major partners (except some military personnel) have been kept in the dark about the latest suspension of flight tests and redesign needed. (Source : Johan Boeder) Most partners signed on the JSF program under the impression they were financing and buying planes identical to those to be used by the USAF/USN/USMC, unfortunately for them it appears they will only have watered down versions, for the cost of the "common" version. In the same manner, the civilian authorities are guaranteed that everything's alright, when the military is notified that the F-35, while on time, won't have most capacities enabled at first, with air-to-ground implemented first and air-to-air probably only available in 2015. While this won't be a major blow for some partners, some of the smallest are counting on these features, and that would also mean that the F-35 would have very limited auto-defence or multi-role capabilities at first, making some partners downright anxious. The impression that there is some momentum gained in the US in favour of the F-15E+ also signals there might be something wrong with the JSF program either related to deadlines or capabilities. Add to this the reduced support of Israel to the JSF program, the lack of enthusiasm in some circles of the Pentagon and the JSF looks like an ill-fated project.

USAFMTL> Oh well, I guess I'll stop trying to help people see other point of views, or helping whiners to fix things themselves, since it seems to be an offence worth suspension... j/k I understand what you meant by it. Yet, I don't see what's wrong in suggesting you relax a bit, you are obviously taking the matter very personally, which isn't wrong at all but does tend to make the point very aggressive and harder to understand for some, and tends to make you see criticism and whining where there is none... and leads you to suspend someone until 2010... You wouldn't be wrong being fed up with whiners; As you say, it's your site, if you really are fed up with some of us, suspension or ban is your prerogative; Maybe you are too tolerant of whiners. Quite frankly, all modding communities go through such crisis, either they overcome them, or they die, either because the whiners pushed the modders away, or the modders decided to become a closed community and the community dies slowly as people lose interest, real life interferes and fresh blood is lacking.

USAFMTL> So ? No one's saying the MF or anyone else is responsible, just giving solutions and explaining why there is a problem (how could anyone consider the MF responsible, how could we expect them to make sure their WP doesn't break anything when everyone has his own WP, and Bunyap's contain over 2k weapons...). Fixing the problem starts by understanding it, we're not saying that the MF must change their WP, we're just explaining what we should do to get the weapons we want to work. Or maybe explaining how to "fix" things and why is unacceptable now ? You should relax a little... you are becoming a tad obsessive.

Jarhead1> That's easy to say when you know better, but we've all been annoying brats at least once. I'm not trying to find an excuse for them, just getting things back into context, what is inadmissible from grown men can be understood from kids (you just have to explain), getting the community into such a state of emotional and existential turmoil because of a few ingrate kids is a little disproportionate, event though it's easily understood. At least we're not in a situation where modders are throwing mud at each other any more, and hopefully we won't be seeing that again.

<MoronMode> Come on modders, get back to work, less ranting, more releasing, the planes won't make themselves you know... </MoronMode> I think the modders should also realise that most whiners are only kids, with a different vision of the process; most can't understand the fact they COULD do it (if only they cared to learn to) and that modders don't have as much free time as they do themselves, that they have lives, jobs, wives, kids and are not some sort of demi-gods with unlimited free-time and a life dedicated to answering the prayers of others. Also, they don't have a clue to what constitutes an informed and constructive criticism and what is just obnoxious and annoying whining.

BPAO, no-one's "blaming" the MF, I think we all understand the work involved and the priorities, a little editing on our parts is a little price to pay. I mostly tried to explain why this wasn't working so they can understand how to troubleshoot such things themselves instead of whining and blaming the modders.

Yep, that is exactly your problem since the files have been changed. It should read AIM7E2 (as the E-3 and E-4 are basically the E-2 airframe with respectively a different fusing mechanism and a new seeker). The problem is that the MF WP changes files used by Bunyap's WP instead of duplicating them, that results in weapons present in Bunyap's pack but absent in the MF pack to incorrectly call the weapons. The MF changed the AIM-7E, AIM-7E-2 but "forgot" the AIM-7E-3/4, so they are added by bunyap's pack still calling the weapons the "wrong" way.

The most retarded in the present situation is that it focus on the single point requiring the least level of expertise and work to suit to your tastes. Unhappy with skins and templates ? Well, that may require talent, expertise, access to the model and/or time. Unhappy with the 3D model ? That may require expertise, software, talent, eventually access to the original model and time. Unhappy with the flight model ? That may require expertise and knowledge, experience and a lot of time. Unhappy with the loadouts ? All it requires is a text editor and a handful of seconds or minutes if you're not sure what you're doing.

Nice job. For those still waiting to try it, just remember to verify your AttachmentTypes, the MF WP tends to categorize weapons as NATO, when Bunyap is using individual attachments and using NATO for special purposes I can't remember right now, so you have to either changer the weapons AttachmentType, or your aircrafts DATA.INI. Fortunately one day we'll have arbitrary AttachementTypes (and no limitations on pylons, more weapon groups) and all this non-sense to obtain semi-realistic loadouts will be over. DySkO> Have you merged the MF pack with Bunyap, or the other way round ? The procedure for the WEAPONDATA.INI is to open the MF file, merge Bunyap's (or your old WEAPONDATA.INI) into it, then save. Otherwise there might be references to changed files (ie. Bunyap's pack calls the AIM-7E LOD directly, while the MF calls the AIM7E INI file) explaining your problem.

At the moment the values of AttachmentType are static, limiting our freedom to assign weapons and forcing to adopt arbitrary conventions to categorize weapons. Does anyone know if this is a restriction of the WeaponEditor (meaning the WeaponEditor prunes the AttachmentType it doesn't know, and that could be solved by modifying only the WeaponEditor or writing a 3rd party one) or of the game engine (meaning the game itself would ignore anything not belonging to one of these AttachmentType). I searched around for an answer and found none. A quick look at the WEAPONDATA.DAT suggests it is a game engine limitation as the value seems to be converted to a numerical value. Even in that case that may not be the end of the story, as the known values might be only part of a larger range, so far unused but potentially recognised by the game engine anyway, potentially adding AttachmentTypes.

Well, I was playing with various AA loadouts when something struck me as odd when loading some IRIS-T along with some MICA. The IRIS-T appears as a rather heavy, long and large missile, while the MICA appear very small and short in comparison, I decided to perform a larger comparison and obtained some strange results. I tested the following missiles : AIM-120A AIM-9J IRIS-T MICA IR/EM AIM-7P AIM-132 ASRAAM I gathered the following data for these missiles, length and diameter, they roughly were the following (in mm, ordered by diameter, the most impressive visual clue) : AIM-9 L = 2850 D = 127 Iris-T L = 2900 D = 127 MICA L = 3100 D = 160 AIM-132 L = 2900 D = 166 AIM-120 L = 3650 D = 178 AIM-7 L = 3600 D = 203 Meaning that the relation in diameter of the various missiles should be : AIM-9 = IRIS-T < MICA = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7 Now in game the relation in diameter between the missiles is roughly the following : MICA < AIM-9 = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7 = IRIS-T So we end up with one the smallest missile ending as one of the largest, and a medium missile ending as the smallest one, even smaller than the supposedly smallest. The problem seems to be mostly scale, but not only, the IRIS-T is the right length, but appears to be at least 50% too large. The MICA also seems to be about the right length (maybe a tad short but who cares), but only half as wide as it should. A quick .ini butchering of a poor Dhimari Hornet later, a look at the pictures should illustrate the problem more than words and figures : From left to right, AIM-132, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, AIM-120C, AIM-7P, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, MICA IR It's visually annoying and poses problems when trying to position them on models. So, does anyone have a quick and dirty solution ?

Thanks, I had little hope anyway.

Ahem, if you actually cared to read, the point is not merely rivet-counting (which mostly consist of belittling the work of others and demanding that others do something to get to the standard we don't care to work toward ourselves), but actually finding a solution to change that myself (and having not as much free time as I wished, asking the community for input is a more efficient solution than tinkering or assuming there is none). So let's make the point of this thread clear for those so obsessed by useless whiners and rivet-counters that they can't even accept the notion of trying to better anything (sorry, you got me quite pissed). Is there a way to play on LODs scales without having to basically redo the whole process ? That is all I'm asking, the rest is merely a context so those with a potential answer could understand the answer I'm trying to find.

A Bronco successor... with those loud contra-rotating propellers (think Tu-95, Westland Wyvern) ? Let me doubt that Nice model anyway