FrankD

Be safe and take care PvtDK2

Looks like we've lost some answers. Anyway, Fubar's answer is, of course, sound, your ship need to be updated to really work right. Be also advised that if all platforms aren't normalized, don't expect everything to work correctly. It would like a football game where all players are playing with their own homemade rules and ball. Try to find a few reliable sources (only one would be better but I've yet to find one source that provides all the datas we need) and work from them, while keeping a coherent approach for all platforms. For example, a small sized destroyer/frigate ala Type 42 have a RadarCrossSection closer to 30000m² (not a typo, it's really thirty thousand) than 25m² so, up to you to decide to scale down the RCS values but if you do, I would suggest that you do it equally for all platforms and increase the radar's strength accordingly. The road is long but the journey is very rewarding since, even if it's a lite sim, SF2's engine is very powerful... and fun. Good luck PvtDK2

Ok, in fact it may be that the radar is not used at all and that the missile is visually guided. Please try two things, first add this line ad the bottom of the [DetectSystem] section: NetworkType=Sea Dart and change "RadarPosition=0.0,0.0,2.30" to "RadarPosition=0.0,0.0,23.0" (that will give the radar a better point of view, making it able to increase its distance to horizon.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to Harpoon 4.0, a board wargame, not to the missile. http://clashofarms.com/saw2.html Be sure to check that your weapons' TypeName, "Sea Dart" in your above example, matches your ship's WeaponTypeName in its "_DATA.INI".

Hello PvtDK2, I'm no expert but the RadarStrength seems a bit low to me. Try to increase them at big values to check if it helps, then tune them down at more reasonable values. I strongly suggest you to use Harpoon as a guide there since it's a wargame that does nothing bu simulating naval warfare and it does it very well. What ship is it by the way? PS: I'm not sure that this is simulated but keep in mind that a surface radar's range is often limited by its horizon distance against sea skimming targets.

Great! The greenish stuffs will be all right in cultivated areas anyway

Great eye candies Sundowner! Would you even have them in desert outfits?

I barely understand what it's all about, probably that I have to find a read a TE tutorial, but it sounds to be a great news so cheers Wrench! To let me go to bed less idiot tonight, could you simply vulgarize what are you now using instead of that SF for desert-based terrains?

Same issue here Dels, WinXP and lastest patch too.

Great pics Gustav, I especially love the last one, this angle of view gives a dramatic atmosphere to the pic. Chapeau l'artiste!

Thanks for the details PureBlue, Terrain creation looks awfully tempting. About the SAM radius circles, I thought about adding it on the maps but I decided that it would be better to give the max range of each system to keep things flexible. Then up to the pilots to check his notes to figure the danger zone in regards of his RWR's display.

Good to know, thank you. I noticed it on the Lybian (^^) map but didn't realized that it were placeholder. It seems that it was the "_cities.INI" that was the troublemaker since, now, I'm experimenting with "ActiveYear" and "InActiveYear" parameters to have an "evolving" theater (with major changes, otherwise I would only use the parameters on specific targets), rather than erasing whole areas, and it's only the _cities.INI that were still empty blocs. PS: very nice PureBlue, I didn't thought about going step by step, that's sound!

That's how I made it work Wrench, after reading you, probably, mentioning the process in an old post. What happened here is that while modifying the files, I deleted some targets but the kept the [TargetArea###], now without any Target. Same with the cities.ini file, and that's what arouzed issues with the Pfmap as it perfectly works with the original terrain, unmoded.

Thanks for your input PureBlue. Does it extract the informations about the build up places from the target.ini or is it from the cities.ini file? PS: Nevermind, the original terrain is working all right, I may have messed up with my mods.

Hello modders, trying to generate a 3rd party terrain's planning maps with SfMap, I'm continuously facing an error named "Run-Time error '5'". To make it work, I'm using a WOI installation folder, in which I pasted the 3rd party terrain folder I'm using in SF2. The error show up whenever I select the "Show Cities" or the "Show Airfields" and there ain't much of either to display, otherwise, the process is all fine. Would anyone know how to make it work? TIA

Thank you very much JediMaster for the clarification, it helps a lot. As EricJ confirmed, in the avionics.ini, you can use the parameter "MaxAzimuthAngle" to set the lateral limits when used by the player, and, in the data.ini, the parameter "RadarAzimuthLimit" to set it for the AI.

Hello Catfish, in the _DATA.INI, replace the following lines: [Perche] ParentComponentName=Nose ModelNodeName=Perche ShowFromCockpit=True by: [Perche] ParentComponentName=Nose ModelNodeName=Perche_ok DestroyedNodeName=Perche DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE HasAeroCoefficients=FALSE and voila! Soon™

Thanks for providing this insight into the scan modes JediMaster. In an _AVIONICS.INI file, for example, the F-15A one, here is what it looks like: [RadarDisplaySearch] RangeSetting=1,2,3,4,5 BarElevation[1]=1.50 BarElevation[2]=0.50 BarElevation[3]=-0.50 BarElevation[4]=-1.50 ScanRate=140 ScanBeamAngle=2.5 ScanArc=60 So, I assume that the radar first let its 2.5° wide beam ride the first bar at 1.50 apple for 60° from it's left limit to its right limit at 140° per second, then switch to the bar at 0.50 apple and so forth. Now, in the same file, in the " section, the ElevationAngle are defined, "MaxElevationAngle=60" and "MinElevationAngle=-60" for the F-15A (APG-63, don't know which version). If the apples are degrees too (since the parameter is named "BarElevation"), how the 120° sector is covered since the actually scanned area only cover 4 times 2.5°?

Hello modders, in the Avionics.ini files, one can notice the parameters "BarElevation" for each radar mode available. I'm not sure to really understand what it's referring to and what is the unit used. Could anyone who know it for sure tell me more? Best regards

Hello Bearwolf, here's an answer that might give you an hint: http://combatace.com...th-to-diminish/ Good luck with your campaign.

Stary, it had been suggested some times in the forum and some posters feared that the ground units would then focus on aerials and forget their own battle. As as side note, engagement of the aerials is also "common" for ICV's gunners and given their high ROF and turret traverse, they are efficient at it, certainly at downing helos and slow movers. Mixed ground units would be awesome, in the waiting someone, I think that it's Wrench (who else?), suggested to add point AD located at the end points defined in the movement.ini file.

Hello Stringray77, a possible way would be to create a squadron specific version of the plane, in which the only thing different would be the pilots. Wrench will probably pop up with a more elegant solution though, so waiting for more inputs is probably worthwhile. ;-)

Good to know Arthur666, thanks for sharing.

Some details about serials and org: http://www.acig.org/...ticle_169.shtml The Mirage 5 COAM's radar is an Elta EL/M-2001B, HHQ being correct, while the COA, COD and COR had no radar as per this Colombian page (crosschecked with Jane's publications) : http://www.fuerzasmi...aza_mirage.html COAM Pit: From my books (amongst them "Minidocavia #19" by Hervé Beaumont), the COA were ready to be equipped with an Aïda II radar and a Doppler ground radar but were actually not. The fuel system and capacity is probably identical to what I posted on TW's forums about the Mirage 5D.

Awesome! I assume that a comfortable SeekerRange would prevent such issue but it looks like I haven't done my homework, I should have tested it more. Thanks for this truly enlightening clarification Fubar512.