Gunrunner

After some research... I found no mention of a real and "automatic" avoidance radar on a Vigilante, however it had one of the first INS coupled with the auto-pilot, which means it could follow a course by itself, even at tree-top level, provided informations (including altitudes) were provided before-hand, mess the altitude in the checkpoints and the plane will happily automatically crash into the ground. This can be easily simulated by planning your missions with a mission editor and letting the ingame autopilot do the work. The RAN though had access to radar, video and inertial informations to verify and correct navigation data, but nothing was automated, and it doesn't have its place in the front cockpit. For the RA-5C, I suggest only installing the loads of the RA-5C at C6, and duplicating the A-5B into a RA-5C folder, then applying the following changes : A-5B_LOADOUT.INI RA-5C.INI (renamed A-5B.INI) A-5B_DATA.INI

Fubar, I know who you are and what you did already for the community, not knowing the problems you already had, I thought that, out of context, your answer a tad too agressive and unjustified. Glad this is all cleared now, sorry to have initially over-reacted myself instead of clarifying the matter right away. Sag, Thanks. 76.IAP-Blackbird, I can't seem to reproduce the animation bug (Bug #04), in my installation both F.1 have proper ailerons and "spoilers" animation. Typhoid, I can't reproduce any added roll once airborne (with fixes to bugs #01, #02 and #03 applied), I just flew the GermanyCE map from one end to the other without gaining or losing a degree (I took off, went to 5k feet, leveled, set the throttle to 55% and accelerated time). Can you give me instructions to reproduce this behaviour ? Informations I need are game settings (Simulation Difficulty, especially Flight Model and maybe Fuel Usage) and the loadout (I'm usually testing with a clean plane), altitude, speed, throttle and manoeuvers needed to reproduce the problem. In case I still can't, we'd need to arrange so I can compare LOD (for the animation bug) and DATA.INI (for both), in case significant differences between those I use and yours are to blame. Can anyone else test and confirm (or not) bug #04 and #05 ? Also, I'll meddle a little with bug #03 as the bouncing is still sensible (and gets the plane off the axis of the runway).

A RA-5C can be found at C6 (link : RA-5C) It should be noted that it is mostly a derivative of the original A-5B, with INI modifications and 2 specific loads, the camera gondola and the strobe. It is possible to modify the A-5B 1.1 into an RA-5C with these elements.

Fubar, just so we understand each other. Yes, I was careless in my wording, since the problem described affects take-off (I consider take-off as part of the flight, I never was a great fan of appearing magically in the sky with idling reactors) as stated by Sag previously, neither Sag nor myself suggested that CG affected the airborne part of flight, we stated that the change seemed to solve the problem (said problem being at take-off where unless something escaped me (in which case you would be welcomed to correct me, but in a civilised way... please...) CG still matters making the situation a communication problem rather than a technical one). On the other hand you could have read the thread to understand what was meant (it was clear by reading Sag previous posts on the problem) instead of over-reacting on assumptions, or at least reacted in a way both helpful and civilised, being arrogant and insulting never helped anyone. Displacing the CG was not a wild experiment by aspiring aerodynamicists, but simply carrying over a change made by Column5 from the most recent Mirage F.1C to the most outdated one. In short, we were both right (and wrong), but failure to be precise enough on one side and to research before reacting on the other led to a stupid situation and us both making fools of ourselves for no good reason. But let's not dwell in the excesses of our tempers. Now gentlemen, let's try to remember we're a community and not a loose assemblage of inflated egos with a short temper. Let's do our homework, be methodical and precise so we can hose those bugs, not each other (at least on a forum). Let's fill the blanks and squash the remaining bugs. F.1C refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C v1.6 available at Column5.us F.1C-200 refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C-200 v1.0 available at Column5.us (Sorry it took me 2 hours to get them from C5, and it would have taken me another 2 hours for those available here for the sake of comparison, but I had other more pressing uses for the bandwidth. Ah, the joy of a 33.6k line) Commented lines on the fixes are the original values. The game now is to each independently reproduce and document the bugs, the fixes, and confirm them as real or not, working or not... Bug #01 : Take-off differences between the Mirage F.1C and Mirage F.1C-200 Reported by : Saguanay82 Model concerned : F.1C-200 Description : Some people were finding the F.1C-200 harder to get off the ground than the F.1C-200 Conditions of Reproduction : To be clarified Confirmed by : To be confirmed Fix proposed by : Saguanay82 (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C) Fix : Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C [AircraftData] ... // CGPosition=0.00,0.75,0.00 CGPosition=0.00,0.00,0.00 Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82 Bug #02 : Excessive ground bouncing on the Mirage F.1C-200 Reported by : Gunrunner Model concerned : F.1C-200 Description : Excessive bouncing of the aircraft on the ground leading to lateral instability on the ground, more difficult take-off and troubles for the AI planes. Conditions of Reproduction : Start on the ground with the F.1C-200 and compare the amount of bouncing around to the F.1C Confirmed by : To be confirmed Fix proposed by : Gunrunner (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C) Fix : Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C [NoseGear] ... // SpringFactor=3.0 SpringFactor=2.5 // DampingFactor=0.3 DampingFactor=0.45 ... [LeftMainGear] // ShockStroke=0.2 ShockStroke=0.3 // SpringFactor=6.0 SpringFactor=3.0 ... [RightMainGear] // ShockStroke=0.2 ShockStroke=0.3 // SpringFactor=6.0 SpringFactor=3.0 Fix confirmed by : Gunrunner Bug #03 : Extra left roll when using wingtips loads Reported by : Saguanay82 Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200 Description : When wingtips missile pylons are present the aircraft has a strong tendency to roll left. Without wingtips missile pylons, this tendency is absent/not so noticeable. Conditions of Reproduction : Fly any of the F.1 with wingtip loads. Confirmed by : Gunrunner, 76.IAP-Blackbird Fix proposed by : Gunrunner Fix : Correcting the asymetric drag of the wingtip pylons. [SidewinderStation1] ... // PylonDragArea=0.04 PylonDragArea=0.03 ... [SidewinderStation2] ... // PylonDragArea=0.02 PylonDragArea=0.03 Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82, 76.IAP-Blackbird Bug #04 : Incorrect ailerons animation Reported by : 76.IAP-Blackbird Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200 Description : Whatever side the aircraft is rolling, ailerons on both wings are moving identically. Conditions of Reproduction : To be clarified Confirmed by : To be confirmed Fix proposed by : Crusader / Timmy Fix : Changing the value for the animation inversion on one of the ailerons [LeftAileron] // or [RightAileron], I can't test it from here ... // ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE ReverseModelOrientation=TRUE Fix confirmed by : To be confirmed Bug #05 : Residual extra-roll Reported by : Typhoid Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200 Description : More precision needed Conditions of Reproduction : To be clarified Confirmed by : To be confirmed Fix proposed by : Typhoid Fix : To be disclosed Fix confirmed by : To be tested and confirmed

Mmmm Fubar that was sooooo nice... I do admit my last post IS misleading... The facts are the following concerning the CG : - People had problems with one of the F1 but not the other - CG is placed differently in each version - As Sag discovered, displacing the CG solves the problems they were having Both Sag and I, separately applied the same method to correct a perceived FM problem, we checked the INIs for obvious differences, changed them, and tested them to see if they corrected the perceived problem, which they did. So yes, I should have been more circonspect when describing a problem I never experienced myself, anyway, what would that have changed ? You would have tried to ridicule Sag instead of myself, what would that have achieved anyway ? Was the goal to make sure that noone except yourself and a few select ones would dare trying to meddle with the game, lest they end up ridiculed when their empiric methods end up producing a result that you wouldn't expect working ? EDIT BY MODERATOR: since profanity is not allowed, you've just earned yourself a warning....

Typhoid> The only real problems with the FM are the pylon drag (inducing a left roll when wingtips rails are present) and the CG (which tends to make it harder to fly but not in my opinion "vicious"). Solutions to both problems are in this thread Jedi Master> That's exactly what Blackbird means, but only as far as animation is concerned.

It's not such a blasphemy, throughout the late 60's North American offered modified Vigilante to the Air Force as an interceptor, culminating in the early 70's with a version adding a third reactor and Phoenix missiles.

No trouble, I just wanted to be sure I understood the problem. I'll post the problem on the C6 forums in case anyone has an idea or BPAO has a quick answer. BTW, is the animation problem present on both variants, or only on one, which version are you using (strangely the v1.5 is the most common on the net but there is a v1.6 at Column5 which corrects a few problems) ? Sag> The value for the drag area is not that important as long as both pylon have the same, I chose 0.03 because it added to the same total drag area while being balanced. Given the somewhat perfectionnist nature of the MF nowadays, it might be some time before a release of the new F1...

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.