Gunrunner

Ok, has it anything to do with the piece of crap Michael Caine was filming instead of accepting an Oscar ?

First off, what are your settings (global game settings, or more precisely, your weapons settings). If you are playing in easy mode, it's perfectly "normal". In normal mode it seems a little unusual from memory... In hard mode, then yes, it is a problem, in fact it shouldn't happen at all unless the .50s of the G.91 are over-modeled which shouldn't be the case as they use stock guns.

It seems the files are in WoI Objectdata.CAT, so... Here's what to do : 1) Extract WEAPONDATA.INI from /Objects/OBJECTDATA.INI to /Objects/Weapons/ 2) Add the following lines at the end of WEAPONDATA.INI (replace xxx by the next number after the last weapon) [WeaponDataxxx] TypeName=AIM-4D FullName=AIM-4D Falcon ModelName=aim-4d Mass=66.000000 Diameter=0.166000 Length=2.060000 SubsonicDragCoeff=0.364000 SupersonicDragCoeff=0.580000 AttachmentType=USAF SpecificStationCode=AIM4 NationName=USAF StartYear=1963 EndYear=1972 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=4 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1966 ExportEndYear=1972 ExportAvailability=1 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=TRUE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE HasGrowl=TRUE EffectClassName=SmallMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=2.000000 WarheadType=0 Explosives=18.000000 FusingDistance=0.000000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=10 Accuracy=70 MaxTurnRate=14.000000 MaxLaunchG=2.000000 LockonChance=40 LaunchReliability=60 ArmingTime=2.300000 SeekerFOV=4.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=25.000000 SeekerTrackRate=11.000000 SeekerRange=9600.000000 MinLaunchRange=1500.000000 MaxLaunchRange=9600.000000 Duration=20.000000 CounterCountermeasure=40.000000 NoiseRejection=40.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x00000200 LoftAngle=0.000000 DescentAngle=0.000000 MaxLoftAltitude=0.000000 CLmax=5.984000 MinFreq=0.000000 MaxFreq=0.000000 BoosterStart=0.000000 BoosterDuration=2.200000 BoosterAccel=55.000000 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-1.456000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=0.000000 SustainerAccel=0.000000 SustainerEffectName= SustainerSoundName= SustainerPosition=0.000000,-1.456000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 CEP=0.000000 3) With the right WeaponEditor version (the 2.x for WoI), open the modified WEAPONDATA.INI, and save. 4) If everything went fine, go play Be aware though that you might not get it to work IF the plane you're testing doesn't have the right nationality and attachment type (or station code).

I'd guess that's because the AIM-4 are stock in SFG/WoE/WoV but absent in WoI, consequently, they are not in the Weapons Pack, and since they never served in any Israelian conflict (or modders simply ported them from earlier sims), you won't find a 3rd party version.

Don't worry, it's very difficult to set aside your own point of view to try and examine things as coldly and clinically as possible, it's the natural state of things to be biased. :-) If you really are interested in a topic, try to search not only what confirms a data, but also what debunks it, or offers another explanation. It might end up a little schizophrenic as you might end up able to believe in everything and its opposite, and defend contradictory positions (or end up defending positions opposite to what you believe in, because you "know" that it's the solution most likely to work), but it's a good exercise and a great way to look at life (except you may end up being irritated by people not sharing this outlook).

Yeah right, and cigarettes make you free and cool, having an Audi gets you the girl and I'm the Grand Duchess Anastasia... Just close this and the incest one already, here anything interesting and reasonnable has already been said, it can only go downhill, there (incest thread) the tone of the discussion is not into a detailled examination of the legal, patrimonial, moral or genetic implications, it's more about tabloid stories and moral panic... it has no worth whatsoever, close it before someone brings up Leviticus.

Thanks for the correction Streak, and no need to justify yourself, it never was the intent.

You probably could find the same things with French fighters, but in our case it's been a regular courtesy visit from Russian squadrons detachments to the EC 01/30 since the end of WW2 as commemoration of the original Normandie-Niemen squadron.

and Stalin... you forgot Stalin, dead since 1953... But fear not, Lenin in a secret mission deep inside the Himalayas will come back with Fu Manchu's giant battle robot (using Marx's brain) to repulse the imperialist bombers menacing the workers' paradise...

So, it's a robotic geriatric McArthur (he was well over 80 in 62 IIRC) battling it against a zombie Stalin (come on, he'd been dead for nearly a decade, and would have been in his 80s too). Is it by the same guy who did Stalin vs. Hitler (http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/1.html) ? PACMAN> Nothing in the SF engine is limiting air speed, now to get the FM to work properly is another matter entirely, especially since a little trick of the XB-70 can't be used as nothing of the sort is supported by the engine AFAIK (riding his own shockwave to use compression lift), and that would limit the reproduction of the XB-70 performances as it would have more drag and less lift than with it (but you can probably account for it and "cheat" in the FM to reproduce it while not making the thing too efficient at lower speed). Of course, the real FM experts will correct me on that. ^^

So, that would make, chronologically : MiG-19P early, radar "A", 2x23mm MiG-19PG, radar "A", 2x23mm, ground control link MiG-19PM, radar RP-2U, no gun, AA-1 MiG-19PML, MiG-19PM with ground control link MiG-19PT, prototype of a MiG-19P to carry AA-2 MiG-19P late, radar "A", 2x30mm, AA-2 MiG-19PF early, radar "A" or "B", 2x30mm, AA-2 ? MiG-19PF late, radar "A" or "B", no gun, AA-2 ? Right ?

Is that good enough for a placeholder ? A few little antennas are missing, but not remembering where exactly they are mapped, it's the best I could do in... 10 to 15 minutes...

Shouldn't be too hard, MiG-21PF/PFM with SovietSilver1 + "invasion" bands and a touch of "soviet green"... Do you have any pics of the bottom ?

Caesar, it's a choice between emotive and anecdotal truth (a way to tell the truth appealing to personal experience and building up a narrative) or cold and rationnalised truth (more concerned with numbers and their relationships, often offering counter-intuitive truth but no real clue on why things happen). None it better than the other, they offer two different facets of truth, one on how people see and live truth, the other on what's really going on, but without clue on why... I'd rather rely on data, you'd rather on experience, fine by me, both are as good and as true as long as we know of which we speak.

The gateway drug argument is a falacious one not backed by any statistical data (at least I have yet to see an independent study with precise methodology and raw data whose conclusions actually correlates with the data), in fact, data I browsed until now tend to show the contrary... However, it is true that for those seeking to escape reality through drugs, marijuana is often a first step, but the decision was already taken, it's the will to destroy yourself that pushed them to marijuana in the first place (because it's the easiest and cheapest to get, and it's the one inducing the least fear), not the other way round. One could also make the argument that all those pot-smokers that went into heavier stuff were coffee drinker... and coffee is a psycho-active and addictive substance, you might as well blame coffee as a gateway drug then... The gateway drug argument is indeed a cognitive bias inherited from decades of anti-drugs campaign (unfortunately, while they managed to plant this idea in the public debate, they didn't reach their goal or reducing drug consumption). There has always been, and always will be people ready and willing to destroy their lives, and they'll do it with whatever they can find, no one product is to blame, it's like blaming the gun for the murder...

It's in human nature to be "addicted" to things, that's how we learn... The trouble is addiction to psycho-active substances, but some, as all good things, are only a matter of degree and control, just like alcohol is not necessarily dangerous and doesn't necessarily destroy lives, it's the abuse that creates trouble (just like eating too much is not such a good idea... exercising too much isn't either... some drugs in the right quantity can save you, abused they can kill or get you addicted for life...) Unfortunately in our societies the notions of personal responsability, self-control and mesure are becoming relics of the past... Why fight a war against a "mostly harmless" product, when the war's already lost and the insistance of criminalizing it is only lining the pockets of delinquants and criminals ? It might as well help finance health, education, anti-tobacco/alcohol/marijuana campains etc...

I'd rather criminalize tobacco and alcohol... but as long as these two are legal and generating revenues for both the industry and governments, then why not do the same with marijuana indeed. It's not nearly as addictive and dangerous as alcohol, legalizing will mean more revenues, tribunals less crowded by annoying but mostly harmless potheads, police and narcs free to deal with the more serious stuff, the part of occasional users that started because it was illegal and to stick it to the man would not have a reason to indulge PLUS it will severely undercut the profits and livelihood of certain criminal organisations and delinguant gangs (on the downside, it might push them toward more violent or dangerous activities). It's also one of the oldest (with ergot) and safest psycho-active substance used by humanity and has been part of society for centuries in various forms. In fact, in most of occidental society, the recreative and medicinal use of marijuana is a de facto more. It makes sense as lons as you don't factor "moral panic". I don't condone it, but wouldn't condemn it either, the usual official attitude toward marijuana is an incoherent one, more concerned with morals than public safety.

Who would doubt that ? All good things for WoX are at CA... Well, except MarcFighter's (but his site is hosted by CA IIRC), Nazca Studio's (the quite nice Wyvern S.4), YAP (due to their payware status), Razbam (same, but they have a forum here) and He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (or is it She ? The updated profile confused me; Anyway, I shouldn't joke if I end up applying for an access)... Oh, and Kreelin's updated FM. Hope I forgot no one...

Here, in two weeks, when it will be ready... Or, translated : It's still a work in progress, no publicly known time to release.

Simple, create a directory with the plane's name under Objects/Aicraft, put the [name of the aircraft].ini file inside, add a skin directory with skin files (they are missing, but by taking some downloadable one, it will work fine) and there you go... Or, if you have $20 to spare, you can just buy the downloadable version of WoV/SFPG with the plane you want to import...

Then call it F-112, except that, IIRC, the YF-112 (and following) were used for soviet aircrafts used for evaluation. Nevertheless, whatever its designation and how cool it looks, it doesn't seem aerodynamically sound, or a practical configuration... but that's just my amateurish 2 cents.

Nope, nothing like a CL-1200, neither like a XF8U-3, it's a combination of a F8U and a F-104 three view plans. And it seems like a horrible intake design, the flow being perturbed by both the cones AND the wings leading edge ? You can't put loads on chins like in the F8U, but you don't have the whole span of the wings either because of the bulge of intakes and the folding (and variable incidence...) wings ? You can't put centerline loads either because of the low ground clearance and landing gear inherited from the F8U... Folding wings, naval design ? But no hook and a rather limited forward view due to the long nose ? Transonic area rule ? Never heard of it, with this intake position, the fuselage cross-section is near it's highest exactly where it should be at its lowest... That thing is a heresy ^^

Except this is not a F-108... That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-108_Rapier) is a F-108 ! What you have is more like the bastard child of a F-104 and a F8U, giving something remarkably similar to a Mirage F1, just a little less gracious.

Looks great Sounds a tad high... For reference, TMF's A-7 are around 22k polys, MiG-29's 14/15k polys, F-4s are between 10k and 12k... You should keep the 25k LOD, but a lighter one simplifying the little details (ie. replace the blades of the lift engines by a flat surface with a texture simulating the blades) while not taking away too much might be a good thing for those with older PCs... I know FastCargo did a huge optimisation job with the F/A-18E/F series, starting from a high poly model and building simpler models, his second level model being almost as detailled while shaving the poly count significantly, you may ask his opinion if you need advices or ideas on what works best. Anyway, that's a wonderful job, if I were a woman, I'd want to have your children