Gunrunner

Bounder, as a matter of fact Tac Ops introduced both the F-22 and the F-23, so merely having the F-23 doesn't solve our problem. Anyway, that might be a moot point if the focus is rather to recapture the look and feel than to recreate the game as close as possible to the original.

What we'd need : - List of planes - List of ordnance - List of nations and squadrons encountered (with a pilot list for the Wildcats and the Jackals) - List of terrains used - List of missions, including objectives, opposition, briefings... (or a new list of missions) For Tac Ops, that might be a tad more delicate since it featured a F-22 and that particular plane is not available yet. A few things we couldn't do with SF : - Cinematics - Scripted campaign - Scripted missions (IIRC in some SC missions you couldn't destroy some planes, your mission changed halfway through it and a few other tricks)

1) The Lightning F.6 is by RussoUK IIRC 2) There is an updated FM by Kreelin here 3) Keep in mind that at air shows planes are clean and most of the time aren't fully loaded with fuel, also bear in mind that the impression of speed and acceleration from the ground is always rather different from up there mostly because you have different set of references.

As stated, previews are not a problem in themselves, it's the conjunction of prolific previews AND naive non-modders which is the real problem. Maybe a central project tracker would help. It would give a place to see the list of projects, the status, the SP-compatibility, a place for bugfixes. It may also help the whiners realise the amount of time needed, the number of projects around, the number of projects in which some modders are involved (and therefore the fact that they have a life and can't devote a lot of time to a particular project just to have an unknown whiner shut up). Well, all in all, maybe the modding community has something to learn from software development (including backup, versioning, branching, bug-tracking, documentation and licence models).

The real trouble is that most whiners have never tried to mod the game themselves, they just can't understand the learning curve, the sheer amount of time it requires to even get to the point where you are vaguely satisfied with the result. Any of us with a little experience modding (or trying to mod) know to just wait and be satisfied with what we get (or modify it to suit our own standards, or just ignore it). Alas, the whiners are not entirely to blame, part of the problem is some prolific modders, posting a lot of previews, releasing a lot of material, sometimes rather unpolished, creating the impression among the less discriminate and naive members of the community that modding is easy and fast, or that they are in some way "entitled" to a new plane a day.

The best filter's called Education. Filters are either too strict or puritan (banning museum sites daring to display photos of nude statues), completely useless (either being too lax or too easily circumvened) or at worst an invitation to break it and search for the censored content.

There are a few versions out there with strange values for drag and landing gear (which might fit the problem described), either reinstall from another copy or compare the values on your copy with the suggested bugfixes HERE. But hopefully the new shiny version will be out soon-ish.

Actually, it is originally a NIN song, yet even Reznor agreed that Johnny Cash's version was better and more moving than his own.

Well, here goes nothing... Link : 3-Way Bomb Comparison Tool Since I have some free time at the moment I started a little SF-related project (among other things). The goal is to have an online database of the weapon's pack so you can consult, compare, research and filter them. Ultimately it would also allow editing, versionning and the building of standard and personnalised weapon's pack (no installer though). In theory we could extend that beyond weapons and go all the way to aircraft aerodynamics, but let's not be too enthusiastic, there is a long way to go. I already compiled the data dictionnary I needed for my coding (after a little cleaning-up it could be used for the knowledge base) and built the importing scripts. The first night of work produced a basic (from a coder point of view, it's simplistic, from an aesthetic and ergonomic point of view, it's rather crude, but functionnality is here) 3-Way comparison tool, restricted to bombs at the moment. I'll probably add other weapon types later today. The next step is a n-Way comparison tool for research and filtering. What I'd need from you is : - suggestions for ergonomic improvements - relevant filtering and research criteria for n-way comparison and listing - suggestions for graphics and graphic comparisons relevant when comparing weapons (ie. range and FoV of various missiles and guided bombs, range and aspect of heatseeking A2A missiles) - Equations and suggestions of representations you may want to see applied to weapons (ie. mission planning functions to determine how much ordnance of which type you'd need) Be as precise as you can, and try to focus on what's really useful first. Oh, and be easy on the testing, the hosting is sometimes slow (shared hosting) and the code is far from optimised.

Damn, Greg Goebel mentions only one strobe under one wing, which contradicts the few photo references I found where both wings are visible as well as Bob Jellison's site... Does anyone have any reliable information on that ?

Unfortunately I made so many little tweaks to my A-5B and RA-5C that I can't track all the differences properly. Since no Readme seems to prohibit redistribution of mods based on the original work without prior authorisation, I'm posting a link to an archive containing the version of the RA-5C I'm using now, with dependencies and readmes. File : RA-5C Mod v0.8 If you think it's not appropriate, juste delete the link, if you think it's worth it you're welcome to publish it ^^ I'll try to publish some missions I designed for my RA-5C once I figure exactly what 3rd party content is needed and all the modifications from the original I used so far -_- BTW, what is the rule for attachment types ? I can't seem to find any comprehensive documentation on which names or format for names are supported, as very restrictive attachment types might be a good idea with special loads.

I feel, the problem is less what was used during peace time and "police operation" than what would have been available in case of a "full-scale" conflict. Yes the bombcat is an heresy, yet, once the intruder gone, it would leave only the tomcat with the range for certain missions until the arrival of the super-hornet, and if you wish to play an hypothetical conflict in that time frame, you would have to use bombcats for certain missions. Same goes for unusual A-6 or A-5 configurations (ie. RA-5C with bombs, never used but still a possibility throughout the service life of the plane). As long as the ordnance was tested and integrated, it's not completely absurd to add them, even if they were never used in operation so far.

Thanks, I didn't know the designation used for the latest standard. F.1 designations (well Mirage designations for that matter) are so numerous and confusing it becomes hard to track them.

The F.1CR since the mid 90's has no gun at all as the remaining one was replaced by still more electronic (a FLIR IIRC). And yes, it is a maximum of 135 rounds per gun. BTW, I don't think spanish F.1 were F.1EM... The C.14A is a F.1CE. The C.14B is a F.1EE. They also bought second-hand F.1 from France (F.1C) and Kuwait (or was it Qatar ?) (F.1EDA).

Jedi Master, unfortunately the RA-5C was an A-5B, it had the new wings of the A-5B, the avionic hump etc... So we're stuck with the "old" A-5B as a basis for the RA-5C. BTW I modified my own mod to correct the position of the strobes as they were mounted directly under the wings and not on pylons, allowing the return of the traditionnal loads, added the landing light and corrected the strobes. Added the corrections from the A-5B too.

Ok, after another exchange with 76.IAP-Blackbird, I have finally understood what he meant, I can be a tad dense sometime -_- So, here we are with the updates... 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 Commented lines on the fixes are the original values. 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 Status : Closed 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 Status : Closed, optimisation possible 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 Status : Closed Bug #04 : Incorrect ailerons animation Reported by : 76.IAP-Blackbird Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200 Description : The depression sequence of spoilers is not identical on both wings, outer spoilers depressing slower than inner spoilers on one wing, while inner spoilers depress slower than outer ones on the other wing. Conditions of Reproduction : On the ground, outside view, push the stick left, then center, look at the order in which spoilers return to neutral, do the same pushing right, notice the difference. Confirmed by : Gunrunner Fix proposed by : Gunrunner Fix : Harmonise the ControlRate of spoilers so they react identically on both sides. I have no idea what the real values should be, I just corrected an obvious consistency bug, this isn't necessarily more realistic. [RightSpoiler] ... // ControlRate=4.0 ControlRate=1.0 ... [RightOuterSpoiler] ... // ControlRate=1.0 ControlRate=3.0 Fix confirmed by : To be confirmed Status : Waiting for fix confirmation, optimisation possible Thanks to : Crusader and Timmy for the proposed solution for a misidentified bug on our part. 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 Status : Waiting for bug confirmation and reproduction instructions.

From 76.IAP-Blackbird Ok, now I understand what you meant, it's about the spoilers NOT deploying on one side when you do quick roll manoeuvers... I'm afraid this is a normal behaviour... It's due to the delay deploying the surfaces and the possibility that aerodynamically it may not be necessary or wise structurally at that moment. Let me try a simplification of the system (please don't yell at me, I know there is far more to the problem than that, but the goal is not to put down equations, just to explain why it is "normal", correct me if I messed up the effects of surfaces on drag and left) : Step 1 : Stick Right #1 : Right spoilers and aileron go up, increasing drag and decreasing lift Left aileron goes down, increasing drag and lift The aircraft rolls right... Step 2 : Quick-stick Left #1 : Right spoilers and aileron go down, decreasing drag and increasing lift Left aileron goes up, decreasing lift and drag The aircraft stops rolling, and the surfaces are preparing to engage the second part of the roll but... Step 3 : Stick Right #2 : see #1 This is apparently also translated aerodynamically, when performing a left roll followed by a right roll, you can see the plane stopping the roll slowly and then suddenly rolling again on the other side (and the F.1C as modeled has a high roll-rate so you can't miss the times when you're not rolling anymore). When you move the stick from one side to the other there is two sequences taking place, the first is to obtain a neutral roll rate (by having all surface horizontal) and then the second is to roll (by elevating the surfaces on the side of the roll and depressing the ailerons on the opposite). With quick manoeuvers, you initiate a new roll on the same side while the first sequence is either not over, or the second is just beginning, so the spoilers are not supposed to move yet. I'm not quite sure this is a bug. Changing this would mean modifying at least the [LeftSpoiler], [RightSpoiler], [LeftOuterSpoiler] and [RightOuterSpoiler] entries, but I don't have enough informations on the F.1 to "fix" this and produce a significantly "better" or more realistic FM, it's also a tad out of the scope of what I intended, especially with a new F.1 in the works. I think we'll leave that to the pros.

A little off-topic... but not by much... Is anyone interested in an online tool that would be : - a weapon database displaying the content of the weapons pack in a human readable manner - a comparing tool allowing to view side-by-side two or more weapons of the weapons pack - a validation tool allowing to check whether or not the data for a weapon are valid and if dependencies (LODs, sounds, effects, guns) are present (not ending up with a rare occasion of a weapon without a LOD and skin) - a pack building tool, allowing to add, edit, remove weapons, eventually permitting personnalised downloads (archive, no installer), with versionning for weapons That would make weapon building and weapons pack maintenance and update easier and potentially more frequent, allowing modders to update it with their creations and removing part of the burden from Bunyap's shoulders. On the things it would need... - A server with PHP/MySQL and no restriction on script execution time. - A data catalog for everything concerning weapons/pods/guns (doesn't exist as such here or at TW but could be derived from the outputs of the editors). - Quite a lot of time coding and testing. - Ideally one or more people with enough PHP knowledge to help/take-over once real life makes a come-back. Fortunately, while I'm out of my depth when it comes to aerodynamics and 3D modelling, you see, Iron Hand is my thing... errr I meant development of course... At the moment, and apparently for at least a few weeks, I have the time to quickstart it if there's an interest in such a tool (and eventual further suggestions for functionnalities), but don't expect anything polished before some time, even though the purely functionnal stuff shouldn't take ages (if not done with a too perfectionnist approach). Other ideas might be to set up a project/bug-tracking tool for WIP and new releases, a sourceforge for SFP1, but that would mean changing the way most modders work I guess. Why do I have an inner voice telling me "Oh my, what are you getting yourself into ?" ?

Ooooooh... nice... Including the special train stores ?

Damn, had to switch computer and couldn't edit the previous post... So here we go with the changes... 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 (replace the content) // Station 1 = Left Wing Station Outboard // Station 2 = Right Wing Station Outboard // Station 3 = Left Wing Station Inboard // Station 4 = Right Wing Station Inboard // Station 5 = Centerline Fueslage Station [Recon] Loadout[03].WeaponType=strobe Loadout[03].Quantity=1 Loadout[04].WeaponType=strobe Loadout[04].Quantity=1 Loadout[05].WeaponType=canoe Loadout[05].Quantity=1 RA-5C.INI (renamed A-5B.INI) [AircraftData] //AircraftFullName=A-5B Vigilante AircraftFullName=RA-5C Vigilante A-5B_DATA.INI [MissionData] ... //PrimaryRoles=STRIKE,RECON //SecondaryRoles=CAS,SEAD,ANTI_SHIP,ARMED_RECON PrimaryRoles=RECON ... [Fuselage] ... SystemName[009]=StrobeLight1 SystemName[010]=StrobeLight2 SystemName[011]=ECM ... [LeftOuterWingStation] ... //AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,ARM,GP,IFP,FT,MER,RP AllowedWeaponClass=FT ... [RightOuterWingStation] ... //AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,ARM,GP,IFP,FT,MER,RP AllowedWeaponClass=FT ... [LeftInnerWingStation] ... //AttachmentPosition=-2.59,-1.82,-0.225 AttachmentPosition=-2.59,-1.82,-0.00 ... //AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,ARM,GP,IFP,FT,MER,RP AllowedWeaponClass=EP ... [RightInnerWingStation] ... //AttachmentPosition=2.59,-1.82,-0.225 AttachmentPosition=2.59,-1.82,-0.00 ... //AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,ARM,GP,IFP,FT,MER,RP AllowedWeaponClass=EP ... [CenterlineStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=5 StationGroupID=5 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=0.00,-1.8,-0.55 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 LoadLimit=2500 AllowedWeaponClass=EP AttachmentType=NATO,USN ModelNodeName= NoJettisonTank=FALSE PylonMass= PylonDragArea= LaunchRailNodeName= MinExtentPosition= MaxExtentPosition= FuelTankName= [ECM] SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=DECEPTIVE_JAMMER JammerStrength=55.0 MinExtentPosition=-0.23, 1.60, 0.74 MaxExtentPosition=0.23, 2.99, 1.15 ... [StrobeLight1] SystemType=LIGHT Color=0.66,0.66,0.60 Brightness=0.8 Position=2.59,-2.50,-0.8 LightSrcOffset=0.0,0.0,0.1 LightSrcRange=0.05 CanFlash=True FlashTime=0.10 [StrobeLight2] SystemType=LIGHT Color=0.66,0.66,0.60 Brightness=0.8 Position=-2.59,-2.50,-0.8 LightSrcOffset=0.0,0.0,0.1 LightSrcRange=0.05 CanFlash=True FlashTime=0.10 Known issues : - All the known issues of the A-5B (Absent tailhook and inflight refuelling perch, opening of the canopy, wing roots in air intakes, lights position, landing lights, stabs not acting as yaw enhancer... Nope, I'm not complaining, the Vigilante is still great work, but as always, there is room for enhancements). - Strobe lights are bound to the model and not the strobes packs themselves, meaning that when not loading them and using the lights, you still have the strobe lights showing, the strobes were rarely used, so if this bug bothers you and you don't intend to fly with strobes, you can comment the strobe lights. - Strobe lights are not illuminating much but I haven't had time to play with them. - The ECM might be too strong. - RA-5C retained all load abilities of the A-5B but apparently only ever used fuel tanks, strobes and sensor pack, you can't have strobes and normal loads on inner wing pylons working properly as they need different pylon height settings and it would result in either having normal loads too high or strobes too low. Disclaimer : None of the work is in any way mine, I only adapted Rhugouvi's changes to the A-5B v1.1 and corrected a factual error (the strobes were apparently used by pairs or not at all while the original RA-5C mode used only one under the right wing, causing asymetric drag in the process).

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....