Gunrunner

So, if I understand correctly... the plane react aerodynamically in the right way to the inputs... BUT there is an animation problem, some aerodynamic surfaces moving when they shouldn't ? I must say I never noticed it and won't be able to test it until sunday. I'm also confused by the terminology you're using... What to you is the rudder (the rudder is not influenced at all by the stick, it's the moving part of the vertical stab, you use your feet to move it) ? Just in case, a quick and simplified view of the controls/aerodynamics of the F1 : Yaw is controlled by your feet, it moves the rudder on the vertical stab. Roll is controlled by moving the stick right/left, it moves the ailerons on the wings. Pitch is controlled by moving the stick up/down, it moves the stabs. Stabs AFAIR always move identically. From what I gather you're speaking of either the stabs or the ailerons. One thing to know with the Mirage F1 (IIRC) is that unlike some other planes, the stabs are only used to control pitch, and not roll. The ailerons are used for roll. If by moving the stick you are slightly moving up or down in addition to left/right, it would move both the ailerons and stabs giving the impression that something IS wrong with the stabs when it is not. If you are speaking of the ailerons and they are always moving identically on both wings whichever side you're rolling, then something is seriously wrong. And probably with the animation since the ini you posted seems ok.

Sag, I already found the problem with the Mirage F1 and posted it on C6. I'll repost the english part here, it doesn't mean the F1 doesn't deserve a new and better FM, but at least you can fly it without the added roll : Doesn't work for me (with Hard FM), after a few trials and before looking at the .INI I note the following : 1) Ground instability is only induced by the boucing, when boucing stops the plane doesn't deviate right or left (except at speeds high enough for aerodynamics to kick in). 2) In-flight instability is linked to the presence of wintips missiles at take off (with missiles there is an extra right roll, without the plane is stable). 3) The roll is not linked to the type of missiles used, it happens with Sidewinders and Magics. 4) Even after firing the missiles, the roll persists. 5) Moving the GC of the F.1C200 doesn't change a thing for the right roll. 6) The Mirage F.1C (v1.6) has exactly the same problem. After looking at the .INI : 1) Bouncing is only due to the gear shock and spring factors and could be easily corrected by copying the values from the Mirage F.1C (v1.6), but it doesn't change a thing for the aerodynamic roll. 2) Aerodynamic data for both versions are identical except for the GC position (in reality the Mirage F.1C200 is longer by 7cm, a tad heavier and his GC is slightly different). Hypothesis : Missile rails have an adverse aerodynamic effect. After checking the appropriate .INI section, I find this : [sidewinderStation1] [...] PylonDragArea=0.04 [...] [sidewinderStation2] [...] PylonDragArea=0.02 [...] And guess what, after correction (I set both values at 0.03) on both versions... The damn things are flying straight whatever the payload.

Don't forget to check the downloads section of CombatAce :) EA-6B Prowler

Concerning the Phantom, from memories and a little research to get details... Prior to 1962, the Phantom was used only by the US Navy and designated F4H Phantom II. When the US Air Force "decided" to use the Phantom as well it was designated F-110A Spectre. But in 1962 after the creation of a unified designation scheme, the F4H was redesignated F-4A/B Phantom II while the F-110A was assigned F-4C. The F-4A/F4H-1F covers the first 45 F4H produced (in 5 Blocks, the first 3 being considered pre-production run), for due to a lack of engines, less powerful ones were mounted on these (they would be upgraged later on). The major differences between the F-4A/F4H-1F (Blocks 1 through 5) and the F-4B/F4H-1 (Block 6 through 28) are (not considering the individual differences on nearly each and every aircraft till Block 3) : - Lower powered engine on the F4H-1F - Simpler cockpit and avionics on pre-Block 3 aircrafts - Straight, smaller nose on pre-Block 3 aircrafts - Lower canopy on pre-Block 3 aircrafts That makes for (at least) 2 different F4H-1F to model ingame : F-4A/F4H-1F Block 1/2 : Lower powered, small nose, straight canopy, older radar F-4A/F4H-1F Block 3/4/5 : Lower powered, otherwise identical to F-4B/F4H-1 In operationnal service most Block 4 to 5 F4H-1F/F-4A were upgraded to F4H-1/F-4B standard. Most of the F4H-1F/F-4A were never used for anything more than training, tests and research. And no, no F-4A exists for SFP1/WoV/WoE yet. It would be possible to make a Block 3/4/5 F4H-1F (5 pre-production Block 3 and 24 production Block 4/5) from the existing F-4B by tweaking the INI to reduce the thrust, but the Block 1/2 (16 pre-production aicrafts) would require a new 3D model. Way more information can be found here or there.

Well, BUFF is right, there only was one loss due to the use of a JP-233 during the 1991 Gulf War. The delivery method meant the Tornado must fly low, at moderate speed in the axis of the runway (too slow and you're a sitting duck, too fast and the munitions wouldn't disperse optimally), which was a tad suicidal. Most (if not all) JP-233 missions were flown at night making it a tad safer, but pilots didn't like the fact that exploding submunitions illuminated their planes and offered a nice bright target to shoot at. In the context it was designed for (against Warsaw Pact airfield), it is doubtful that any Tornado would have made it home, it worked in Iraq because the defenses and the training of Iraqi troops were poor. In a simulator it makes for some VERY interesting and exciting missions.

These weapons were the MW-1 for use with German Tornados (used by pair under fuselage, the one you're interested in, shooting sideways) and the Hunting JP-233 for British and Saudi Tornados (used by pair under fuselage too, shooting forward and backward). While the JP-233 was mostly an anti-runway system, the MW-1 was designed to be more modular. Only the JP-233 saw active service during the 1991 Gulf War in British and Saudi service. More information can probably gathered on the net, I didn't bother to search. To my knowledge none of these weapons exists for the SF series.