Gunrunner

You don't, the Fake Pilot method doesn't work for that. Ok, let's say you have a plane with a Fuselage node, an Antenna node, which you want to remove, there are 2 methods to hide a node : 1) The Delete node method [AircraftData] ... Component[xxx]=HideAntenna [HideAntenna] ParentComponentName=Fuselage (regardless of the actual inheritance) ModelNodeName=Antenna DestroyedNodeName=Antenna DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE HasAeroCoefficient=FALSE 2) The fake fuel tank method - Set up a LODless, almost empty and massless fuel tank as a new weapon (it needs to have a non-0 fuel capacity and weight to work AFAIR), make sure to have idiotic dates or stationcodes guaranteeing they can't be manually loaded. - If you are below the maximum number of WeaponStations : [Fuselage] ... SystemName[xxx]=HideAntenna [HideAntenna] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=xx StationGroupID=7 (This is so they can't be added back manually, they can be added through _loadout.ini though) StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=0.0,0.0,0.0 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 AllowedWeaponClass=FT AttachmentType= ModelNodeName= PylonMass=0.01 (Not sure if massless pylons work) FuelTankName=DummyFuelTank (or whathever name you used) FuelTankNodeName=Antenna If you aren't, just add the FuelTank parts to an existing WeaponStation not already having FuelTank entries. I personally favour the fuel tank method as I find the other... inelegant, but it's the historic one. There's also a third one, setting up the node to hide as a pylon or rail, but I don't remember the details and it usually requires a bit more fiddling to get right (plus it tends to waste more WeaponStations). That's the best I can do out of the top of my head, I'll let others correct me if I missed something.

Not allowed for me either.

Probably because it's not the same Nation, keep in mind that countries with multiple entries for each of their services are considered separate nations by the game engine. So for instance, if you try to load a USAF weapon on a USN plane, the dates used will be the export ones. Also IIRC the date checks are done for the player aircraft's nation at mission load, not the aircraft's nation of origin, so if you load a stock USAF Phantom but as a Greek Air Force one, the available weapons will be the ones available for export, if you change back to USAF in the loadout page, the available weapons will not be updated.

To my knowledge, no, we never used any in fact AFAIR.

Let me Google that for you... Ah here it is... The host plane is a Chinese evolution of the An-12, the Shaanxi Y-8. The Chinese have an AWACS variant themselves, the Shaanxi KJ-200, using the same radar as the Swedish Saab Argus and Erieye. This one is a Shaanxi ZDK-03, a KJ-200 variant built for Pakistan with an AESA radar of Chinese origin, supposedly with better performances than the Erieye also operated by Pakistan.

Seems you found the solutions to your problems in PM, just in case you didn't, and in public so other people can benefit if they find this thread with the same concerns : 1) Mue's LODviewer doesn't degrade the rendering of the models, what's missing is some tricks in texture rendering, as well as normal and specular maps (but that's less of a problem in FE). 2) You can rotate the models by keeping ALT+LeftMouseButton pressed while moving your mouse around. 3) You can translate the models by keeping SHIFT+LeftMouseButton pressed while moving your mouse around.

You don't need to extract them to view them, if what you are after is indeed just an asset viewer, Mue's tools work for FE too, last time I checked : However, if you are after real extraction to modify the models, then you'll get no help from this part of the community; it's possible, the tools exist somewhere, but it opens the gate to people stealing other people's hard work and is frowned upon around here.

What, no Supermarine Attacker, really ? How could one take that list seriously without the Attacker ?

Let's try something, have you seen Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams ? Ok, I don't know what to think, it's both childish and half-assed, utterly asinine... Americans and their pathological fear of "dirty" words, it's not as if they were firearms...

Erik, yes, there are more places, but quite frankly, they are far less useful than the previous system. First, my suggestion, drop the subcategories below at least the main categories (skin, plane, terrain) or ideally the game level (SF1, SF2, FE, OFF), adopt a flatter hierarchy, replacing subcategories by tags (this can be done in batch through scripts). And then, my comments on the current situation. The sliders look great, but that's about all they do (I mean, they only work for the last 10 to 14 uploads, depending on which page and they're not present on useful intermediate levels). The new content indicator is nice, but only works at the root of the download tree, not on the further nodes, making it completely useless (eg. I know there's something new in SF, or DCS, but once I go more specific than that, I lose that information, I don't know if the new file is in SF1 or SF2, and so on). The superset categories not showing the content of the subsets is frankly a huge step back ("No files here[...]", forcing you to search down to each lowest level to find if there is something new to you, but not new enough to show up on the sliders). The release threads, they've always been kind of redundant and do not constitute a useful search tool as they are not categorised, forcing you to open each thread to be sure whether it's a map or campaign, a plane or skin etc... So, sure, Marat's question is weird, but it's easily explained by the fact that the current system is objectively less functional than the previous one. As usual, no offence was meant, you're used to the system, navigating it and to you it makes sense and is useful enough as is, but from an outside perspective, it's a step back. Also take into account that it means that to find new content you have to go though more pages, most of them with pictures, using more resources because the information we need is not provided in a meaningful way. Just in case you need an example, let's say I get away for some time, that a skin I'm interested in gets released, then a few dozen other files are uploaded. When I come back, I only get the information that there are new files, not a useful information, I either need to go down deep into the tree to the specific plane in the skin branch to know there's a new file there, or I need to open every file release topic since I left to find it... It's not efficient. With the old site, I just went to the Strike Fighters 2 downloads, and there was the list of all files, by update date, no need to go diving each and every subcategory to get that.

Is this a joke ? Ah no, you're new, sorry, let's just say for us who have been around long enough and have a tendency to push SF2, we don't really agree with your assessment of how well SF2 aged and how optimised it is...

Nice, take your time, we know it's in the name of quality work.

Any news ?

They obviously saw an hovercraft and tried to jump on board.

*unfolds his seat* *grabs pop-corn* *sits comfortably, grinning* Now this could prove entertaining...

Now let's wait 2 to 4 years before it has a fully actually operational complement of aircrafts...

The comments are even funnier/depressing than the video.

Let me guess, it will be a 100mn F-35 infomercial.

Oh but you see, it's all Windows 10 now, for all eternity, meaning that things that worked and were certified for Windows 10 two years ago no longer work with Windows 10 as it is now, and things working and certified with Windows 10 now are not guaranteed to work with Windows 10 next year, unless you don't do any update at all, except for some reason you can't escape some updates... that's progress you see, and clear, pertinent information for the end user. Dropping retro-compatibility between major releases is one thing, but dropping it within the same major branch and not clearly documenting it or letting the average user opting out of it ? That's pure, unbridled genius Microsoft...

You're right, it doesn't make sense for it to be the CG, guess this is a confusion with the other red line in the source I found (or, just as probable, I got confused).

As far I know you are correct, the red one is the center of gravity of the tail assembly, the black lines are where the tail is supposed to meet the dolly used to roll the tail away (supposedly because they are the sections able to withstand the tail assembly weight), see this : .On some planes there used to be another red line behind the canopy denoting the aircraft's center of gravity, probably to help when having to crane them for shipment or something.

Nope, not updating to 10, not even because of that.

What could possibly go wrong ?

Maybe just the same pod with differing designation depending on the service or... Manufacturer produces rocket pod A with etching with that model number on part 1. Manufacturer has contract to produce similar but slightly different rocket pod B, of a design similar enough that part 1 is the same. Does manufacturer change production line, uses two references for the same part, has two reference for spare parts, maintains two stocks or just uses the same part for both pods ? I'm not saying this is the case here, but that's been known to happen in other industries.