Gunrunner

BPAO, no-one's "blaming" the MF, I think we all understand the work involved and the priorities, a little editing on our parts is a little price to pay. I mostly tried to explain why this wasn't working so they can understand how to troubleshoot such things themselves instead of whining and blaming the modders.

Yep, that is exactly your problem since the files have been changed. It should read AIM7E2 (as the E-3 and E-4 are basically the E-2 airframe with respectively a different fusing mechanism and a new seeker). The problem is that the MF WP changes files used by Bunyap's WP instead of duplicating them, that results in weapons present in Bunyap's pack but absent in the MF pack to incorrectly call the weapons. The MF changed the AIM-7E, AIM-7E-2 but "forgot" the AIM-7E-3/4, so they are added by bunyap's pack still calling the weapons the "wrong" way.

The most retarded in the present situation is that it focus on the single point requiring the least level of expertise and work to suit to your tastes. Unhappy with skins and templates ? Well, that may require talent, expertise, access to the model and/or time. Unhappy with the 3D model ? That may require expertise, software, talent, eventually access to the original model and time. Unhappy with the flight model ? That may require expertise and knowledge, experience and a lot of time. Unhappy with the loadouts ? All it requires is a text editor and a handful of seconds or minutes if you're not sure what you're doing.

Nice job. For those still waiting to try it, just remember to verify your AttachmentTypes, the MF WP tends to categorize weapons as NATO, when Bunyap is using individual attachments and using NATO for special purposes I can't remember right now, so you have to either changer the weapons AttachmentType, or your aircrafts DATA.INI. Fortunately one day we'll have arbitrary AttachementTypes (and no limitations on pylons, more weapon groups) and all this non-sense to obtain semi-realistic loadouts will be over. DySkO> Have you merged the MF pack with Bunyap, or the other way round ? The procedure for the WEAPONDATA.INI is to open the MF file, merge Bunyap's (or your old WEAPONDATA.INI) into it, then save. Otherwise there might be references to changed files (ie. Bunyap's pack calls the AIM-7E LOD directly, while the MF calls the AIM7E INI file) explaining your problem.

At the moment the values of AttachmentType are static, limiting our freedom to assign weapons and forcing to adopt arbitrary conventions to categorize weapons. Does anyone know if this is a restriction of the WeaponEditor (meaning the WeaponEditor prunes the AttachmentType it doesn't know, and that could be solved by modifying only the WeaponEditor or writing a 3rd party one) or of the game engine (meaning the game itself would ignore anything not belonging to one of these AttachmentType). I searched around for an answer and found none. A quick look at the WEAPONDATA.DAT suggests it is a game engine limitation as the value seems to be converted to a numerical value. Even in that case that may not be the end of the story, as the known values might be only part of a larger range, so far unused but potentially recognised by the game engine anyway, potentially adding AttachmentTypes.

Being a great fan of anti-runway missions I was quite disappointed of not being able to use Durandals. Since Durandals are modeled as rockets, they can't be used without some editing. The basic editing would be changing pylons in the plane data.ini to add the RCKT WeaponType, but that would mean mounting only one Durandal per pylon. That would be better but wouldn't represent the way they were used in Israelian, French or USAF service. Fortunately we could do some simple modifications to emulate the mounting used. Since we are dealing with rockets we can simply add specialised rocket pods using the TER and MER LODs. Below are the MER and TER adapted to carry 2, 3, 4 and 6 Durandal, the exemple deals only with the French Durandal, adapting them for the BLU-107/B is minimal. [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx2 FullName=Matra Durandal (x2) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=2 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx3 FullName=Matra Durandal (x3) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=3 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket03Position=0.000000,0.000000,-0.355000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx4 FullName=Matra Durandal (x4) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=4 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx6 FullName=Matra Durandal (x6) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=6 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket05Position=0.000000,1.240000,-0.330000 Rocket06Position=0.000000,-1.260000,-0.330000 The positions are not perfect, especially on the TER, but they are close enough for now. The x2 and x4 adapters are stand-in, as in reality specifics adapters were available, IIRC a low-drag quad used in France and a duo one used on German Phantoms and during the USAF evalutations. Also, the dates in the Weapons Pack are incorrect, the Durandal entered service in the French Air Force in 1977, and entered service in the USAF around 89/90. Of course, once this is done, you still have to edit your planes data.ini to add the capability to use rocket pods (RP) on pylons that should be able to use Durandals.

Thanks, I had little hope anyway.

Ahem, if you actually cared to read, the point is not merely rivet-counting (which mostly consist of belittling the work of others and demanding that others do something to get to the standard we don't care to work toward ourselves), but actually finding a solution to change that myself (and having not as much free time as I wished, asking the community for input is a more efficient solution than tinkering or assuming there is none). So let's make the point of this thread clear for those so obsessed by useless whiners and rivet-counters that they can't even accept the notion of trying to better anything (sorry, you got me quite pissed). Is there a way to play on LODs scales without having to basically redo the whole process ? That is all I'm asking, the rest is merely a context so those with a potential answer could understand the answer I'm trying to find.

Well, I was playing with various AA loadouts when something struck me as odd when loading some IRIS-T along with some MICA. The IRIS-T appears as a rather heavy, long and large missile, while the MICA appear very small and short in comparison, I decided to perform a larger comparison and obtained some strange results. I tested the following missiles : AIM-120A AIM-9J IRIS-T MICA IR/EM AIM-7P AIM-132 ASRAAM I gathered the following data for these missiles, length and diameter, they roughly were the following (in mm, ordered by diameter, the most impressive visual clue) : AIM-9 L = 2850 D = 127 Iris-T L = 2900 D = 127 MICA L = 3100 D = 160 AIM-132 L = 2900 D = 166 AIM-120 L = 3650 D = 178 AIM-7 L = 3600 D = 203 Meaning that the relation in diameter of the various missiles should be : AIM-9 = IRIS-T < MICA = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7 Now in game the relation in diameter between the missiles is roughly the following : MICA < AIM-9 = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7 = IRIS-T So we end up with one the smallest missile ending as one of the largest, and a medium missile ending as the smallest one, even smaller than the supposedly smallest. The problem seems to be mostly scale, but not only, the IRIS-T is the right length, but appears to be at least 50% too large. The MICA also seems to be about the right length (maybe a tad short but who cares), but only half as wide as it should. A quick .ini butchering of a poor Dhimari Hornet later, a look at the pictures should illustrate the problem more than words and figures : From left to right, AIM-132, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, AIM-120C, AIM-7P, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, MICA IR It's visually annoying and poses problems when trying to position them on models. So, does anyone have a quick and dirty solution ?

A Bronco successor... with those loud contra-rotating propellers (think Tu-95, Westland Wyvern) ? Let me doubt that Nice model anyway

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.