Gunrunner

Actually they engage, they are marked as being engaged in level bombing, but since getting out of that state (and following the next waypoint, or trying another pass) requires dropping their bombs and they can't/won't, they remain in the level bombing mode, flying level, straight in the same direction. The dive bombing profile is different because there's a distance to target/altitude set of conditions for getting out of it and doing another pass, so even if there is no weapon release, they disengage and try another pass, "endlessly". At least the part I identified, you can see it by using the debug HUD info, it tells you which AI profile the plane you're observing is performing, the strike crafts going straight endlessly are stuck in level bombing.

That's the same bug, but using two different bombing profiles*, the one Menrva describes is when guided bombs are mounted on AI flights trying to perform dive bombing attacks, the one described by Major Bloodnok is when they try to perform level bombing attacks with the same loadout. * Don't ask me how the engine decides which to perform with FIGHTER or ATTACK planes, the same mission, with the same planes and loadout doesn't always lead to the same bombing profil being used by the AI, there's probably a RNG and a chance for each in some file for each plane type and mission type, but I haven't bothered searching for it. Only BOMBER are predictable as in my experience they only use level bombing.

Excellent job... any chance of a template being released? /me dones his rivet-counter hat Nooooowwww, on a less positive note... - The flare boxes are untextured. - The ground crews need a good talking to because the state of the B versions is simply disgraceful (you forgot to remove or tone down a weathering/dirt layer when exporting the B skins, except the Tiger Meet one). - The front "exhausts" behind the air intakes do not all have shadows "baked" and some use the top colour rather than the bottom, making them "asymetric". You must be sick of staring at all the skins you have to manage and small mistakes like these are easy to let slip (hence the template question, so you can concentrate on releases and OCD twits like myself can "fix" things themselves without pestering you).

I'm using a mix of Paint.NET (for 95% of the work, and it's free) and Photoshop CC (the monthly version) for the rest (mostly TGA work - Paint.NET sucks at it - and converting modern PSD templates to be read by Paint.NET - there's a PSD plugin but it doesn't play well with files from beyond version 7.x). Be aware that the modern Photoshop interface and keyboard layout is radically different from what you're used to, it might be a pain to adapt at first.

Yes, it's normal, you don't return exactly at the same heading and it depends on your airspeed. The NORMAL behaviour is closer to the real thing. Oh, by the way, it's spelt "rudder".

I thought of it but then they wouldn't be in this long close single-file formation, the second picture could under some circumstances have been that, but the first couldn't. @don246 Glad to have been of help.

Considering the formation in the first picture, I'm willing to bet that in the DATA.INI of that particular ship, the GroundObjectRole is set to TRANSPORT rather than CARGO_SHIP.

Most of us just figured it out independently, which is why there are so very few modders competent in the most complicated tasks (it requires time to learn and be any good, even with guidance from old hands) and being a choosy beggar is very poorly received (we've had drama and modders quitting over this bullshit).

Oh wait, the included Foch file is "wrong", it has the U deck code instead of F, mine was fine then... damn...

For SF2, we still have the early one from TMF hidden away within another download from 2008 (not sure it's still around) and I think there was another one in development at some point, alas I haven't seen anything recently.

Yeah, their carriers are usually great, now if only we had a Charles de Gaulle and a Kuznetsov.

I had a quick look, same story, they're not exactly identical but are variants of the same files. There seems to be a minor difference when it comes to the glass material, the CA version has a GF picture that is missing from the YAP variant (it's mapped, it's just missing the texture file). The INIs have a high commonality but are not exactly identical, but I haven't delved into the details, there doesn't seem to be major functionnalities differences though, just alternative implementations, seat positions etc.

Actually it seems the 3D model is a variant of Bobrock's model (https://combatace.com/files/file/13412-sf2-korean-war-era-f9f-2-panther-pak-by-bobrock/, this one). The YAP variant has the pilot seat integrated into the model but no 3D damage model, the CA one lacks the seat but has a 3D damage model, there's also a name difference on the texture file the wings, but that's all, the mapping is the same, the skins are built from the same template. The INIs on the other hand are unique to each version. If it's the Panther that interests you, the one on CA is the best option IMHO.

Here you go...

@Menrva, Yes, there are hardcoded behaviours, including the aliasing for NationID 002/003/004, some aliases for default decals (which is why some DECALS.INI call for insignia that don't exist but nevertheless appear, mostly for wing specific insignias or left/right variants) etc... I never bothered to establish a full list of those yet but there should be no hardcoded behaviours for NationIDs beyond 212, at least I never encountered it. I'm not aware of a limitation to the NationID, but if there is a limit it's at either 255 or more likely 256 (since the sequence starts at 1). - Are you sure the NationID you chose are in sequence without gap ? If your NationID stops at 212 and you register locally as 221, the sequence will be broken and 221 ignored, it should be 213. To avoid this you could pad your global NATIONS.ini as such : [Nation212] Name=Oman_OLD65 [Nation213] [Nation214] [Nation215] As long a the [Nationxxx] entries exists, even with nothing else in it, the sequence will be considered as ongoing, the check being done only on the NationID. It's what I do to avoid having to remember what's the next number in sequence, I just know I have space between x and y and can assign whatever ID I want in my terrains. - Are you sure you have the right DecalLevel in your DECALS.INI and have not left it at something other than 0 through copy-paste ? - Does it work when you explicitly call the ID, there might be another problem at play. I'm betting it's the sequence thing; The engine reads all relevant files that might have a Nation definition, and among them after putting all entries to a common format (with terrain-specific entries overrinding terrain-specific entries from the CAT file overriding global entries overriding global entries from the CAT file), searches for existing definitions in sequence (starting with 1) and stops once there is no definition found EVEN if there are entries beyond (I never tested it for Nations, but that's how it works for all other INI files), so if it finds a 212, but no 213, it won't bother searching for 214 even if it's there. I'll check my own install to verify if I've had to use some trickery beyond the padding, but I don't recall anything else right now.

OK IIRC, since we started to talk of the F-15X, the proposed payloads started at 24 (in mid 2018) with : - 8 missiles on the CFT rails, mounted on dual launchers - 8 missiles on the inboard wing pylons on quad launchers - 8 missiles on the outer wing pylons on quad launchers But apparently Boeing then moved to 22 (in late 2018) - 8 missiles on the CFT rails, mounted on dual launchers - 8 missiles on the inboard wing pylons on quad launchers - 4 missiles on the center wing pylons on dual launchers (spot the wording... center ? wing pylon...) - 2 missiles on newly qualified outer wing pylons on single launchers (limited to AIM-9) But the latest (early 2019) we're back to "only" 20 missiles, the idea to open the outboard pylons being dropped - 8 missiles on the CFT rails, mounted on dual launchers - 8 missiles on the inboard wing pylons on quad launchers - 4 missiles on the outer wing pylons on dual launchers Mostly, it feels like Boeing is making it up as they go along to test waters, I wouldn't be surprised if the final product is down to 16, dropping the dual CFT launchers.

With SF2 to guarantee a plane to show up for a specific nation reliably it must either be the primary operator or have a userlist entry for the nation. For example in your MyAircraft.INI file you need to have : [AircraftData] AircraftFullName=Whatever (...) Userlist=MyAircraft_Userlist.ini (...) then you need a MyAircraft_Userlist.ini file with content following the syntax : [China] ServiceStartYear=1980 ServiceEndYear=1990 Availability=COMMON [Russia] ServiceStartYear=1978 ServiceEndYear=1988 Availability=VERY_COMMON The nation names in brackets being the NationName used in your Nations.ini (and it works with nation declared locally in a terrain as per my previous post). Entries in the Userlist have priority over entries in the AircraftData (so the AircraftData might say the plane is not exported to the Enemy and had a service end year of 1985, but has long as there is an entry in the Userlist for an enemy nation, beyond 1985, it will be picked up nevertheless). Really, the service dates and availabilities in the AircraftData files should be considered deprecated, and a Userlist as the preferable and reliable method to do things. Seems I was wrong, the statements do not have the same usage. The service dates in the AircraftData files are for determining the availability dates for the player or, should a UserList be missing, for AI planes as well; while the UserList is used only to determine which planes to spawn for the AI.

Do the Chinese have aircrafts with compatible service dates ? Do these aircrafts have missions types compatible with the player flown mission (Intercept vs Strike, CAP vs Sweep, and so on) and the terrain ? Do these aircrafts have the range required to perform assigned missions ? These are 3 things I'd check if we are to assume the problem lies with the planeset.

Actually, this isn't the whole truth (what Wrench said being true, but not the whole picture). The first format is for using Nations already set in the global NATIONS.INI file (this is usually all SF2 needs) or set within the local *_NATIONS.INI file (requiring further declarations). The second format is to set new Nations, not already present in the global NATIONS.INI, for use by the AI only (as you can't select the defined nation otherwise); you have to make sure it uses a unique NationID though as duplicates MAY cause problems (usually doesn't because they exist as SF1 legacy, representing the same nations with same names and IDs). I use this to prune nations I don't intend to fly from the global NATIONS.INI, while adding them to their specific terrains, allowing me to have a shorter, more pertinent service list to choose from, while keeping everything working as intended. In short, in SF2 they're complementing each other for specific purposes, not alternatives. For example you can do something like : [LimitedNationList] FriendlyNation001=Australia FriendlyNation002=AustralianNavy FriendlyNation003=NewZealand EnemyNation001=Indonesia EnemyNation002=China EnemyNation003=Mordor [Nation001] NationID=xxx (ideally a number greater than the last one used in the NATION.INI, but I haven't tested if it's required to be in sequence or if gaps in the sequence are supported, assume it's not) Name=Mordor DisplayName=Mordor Alignment=Enemy PilotNameList=NamesChineseWG.lst RankList=RanksUSAF.lst CallsignList=CallsignsUS.lst Formation.Fighter=USFighter Formation.Attack=USFighter Formation.Bomber=USBomber Formation.Transport=USBomber Formation.Tank=USTank Formation.MobileAD=USAD PilotTrainingStandard=Normal GenderRatio=0

There's a field "SF2 Installation Directory" in the "CAT File Access" field of the "Extra/Settings" tab of the LOD Viewer, than when it's set to your... drumroll... SF2 Installation Directory (that is, by default "C:/Program Files (x86)/ThirdWire/Strike Fighters 2" of course, and should be pre-set) and the checkbox is Enabled, allows the LOD Viewer to read LODs inside CAT files (for that you read not the LOD file obviously, but the main object INI, so for the A-1H, you'd read AH-1.INI using the LOD Viewer).

Can you imagine engaged in dogfight with a few tons of bombs ? It makes you less maneuverable, it makes it risky because you're taking the risk of the attach point/pylon/wing breaking under the stress, and if you're not breaking anything and survive the engagement, you have a high risk that the release or detonation mechanism will not work as intended. It's normal behaviour for the period covered by the sim. As the mission leader, it's up to you to give relevant orders, you order them to attack, only their guns qualify for ground attack, therefore they resort to suicidal strafing. Of course that creates problems when you are flying modern swing-role aircrafts with modern ordnance.

In my experience there's no point in using LAA with the SF series, VRAM being a problem much faster than RAM will ever be.

Yep, TK has lost the plot, to compensate the loss of revenue that the loss of sales volume created, he increased his prices. Frankly, if I were him, I'd go next door ask Chris Roberts if he needed someone with an aero engineering degree and flight sim experience to join his team for atmospheric flight, then try to sell him the idea of a Strike Commander/Pacific Strike/Wings of Glory successor, or get sold on the idea of fan funding.

We don't have a Kuznetsov, only an Ulianovsk and a Minsk. We also don't have a Charles de Gaulle (well, we have one but with crappy statics baked in unfortunately).

That's not a "problem" it's the way the engine renders relief attenuated by atmospheric haze at a distance, it's not always very aesthetic against some skyboxes (as in your picture), it might necessitate some color tweaks,and the effect might benefit from being more gradual and subtle, but that's what we have, you didn't do anything wrong.