Cliff7600

I feel the need, the need for speed ! Now, I feel the retract of my flying licence...

Just for fun, in the HercMk2a_DATA.ini file [Engine] ... ExhaustPosition=-0.5,0.85,-0.95 : )

The title FRP, the title!!!

Yes, now all the wishes to the belgium team!

Super Etendard

I guess there's 2 reasons 1) because stealth (I've learn my lesson well) 2) to be sure that french navy Rafales won't hang around : ) jk

No, all the people told you it was ok.

IF I'M RIGHT , because I didn't test your stuffs, just had a look at it A) I think your Parani MiG-23MF flies with the soviet MiG-23MF data. The Parani skin entries don't show up in the MiG-23MF.ini file textures list (only soviet, czech, est germany, poland, syria) B) "AircraftDataFile=MiG-23MF_data.ini" Where is this file? I think you didn't rename the main folder, like "MiG-23MFparan" and the game is using the regular MiG-23MF data file, the soviet one. So : - Rename the main folder and the specific ini files to be different than the soviet one - Add a MiG-23MFparan data file in your parani MiG-23MF folder.

It's obviously on purpose [CenterlineStationT] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=4 StationGroupID=2 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition= 0.0,-2.10,-0.26 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 EjectVelocity=0.0,0.0,-1.0 LoadLimit=5000 AllowedWeaponClass=FT AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET ModelNodeName=CenterHP01 NoJettisionTank=TRUE PylonMass=86.18 PylonDragArea=0.02 FuelTankName=PTB-5500 And if you don't like it, delete the entry. Are you sure that such a big tank can be dropped without colliding with the plane? : /

I don't "worry"... I just don't believe and I'm not convinced. About my assumptions, I speak my mind (and I'm done by now) I don't pay, so if you're happy with F-35 that's cool. Don't put F-35 and A-7 in comparison as they don't cost the same price, when things go wrong. And talking about safety records of the F-104, in Germany or in Canada, or Spain or Japan, there were no war. It's peace time safety records. And If I'm right there were no F-104 loss during VietNam war and no F-117 loss during Gulf war (not sure about that) EDIT : wrong about the F-104 : 5 losses for 15 F-104C operating during 8 months in 1965 at Da Nang. It's the same ratio than German/Dutch/Belgian F-104G in Europe during total service time. It's about buying F-35s instead of F/A-18s. As Harriers and Sea Harriers had been scrapped they must be replaced, and no F/A-18 won't take the job... (Buy F/A-18s and operate them from the Charles de Gaulle) I don't have to google for F-100, there has been F-100s in french Armée de l'air and they have been quite well appreciated. Main issue was the drag chute that sometimes cannot deploy at all, and french pilots were very aware of the "danger" of the aircraft (damaged spare parts as an example) but that's off topic. out and thanks for reading.

I agree 100% about the right use of the F-104, intercepts, and the safety records of spanish and japanese F-104s. The relation is the sacrifices made to the stealth aspect of the plane, the F-35 (or F-117 designed something like 40 years ago), to make it a technological weapon, when to me it should be an aircraft that flies well enough, like the F/A-18 Super Hornet for instance, to perform military tasks airborne. What if the plane is damaged by a bird strike? What if the plane lost a wing tip, because of a midair collision or a SAM that has found its way...? F-14 or F-15 had survived such situations. A-10s had been damaged during Gulf war and made it to return safely, as it was designed. F-35s won't fly as well as F/A-18s, like F-104s didn't fly as well as Mirage IIIs for example. The F-35 is twice the price than a F/A-18 and surely doesn't fly as well as the F/A-18. But air forces will have F-35 because it's the "new toy" and some people will have to pay for it $$$ £££ €€€ Several tons of metal flying can be sighted, heard, and shot down. So there's no need to add small wings, small flaps, single engine, and electronic devices that could just failed, like the batteries in the Boeing Dreamliner : ( It's just a market thing, an economical battle. F-104 won the battle against Mirage III in Europe. F-35 will win the battle against F/A-18 in Canada that's the relation... Hey, it won't be the first time : The CF-105 Arrow had been scrapped to rent some F-101B Voodoo, good deal!!!

Yes I think the F-35 is a vicious little plane that will screw NATO users. The F-104 had proven to be deadly (and versatile... as NATO air forces had to deal with what their governments had purchased) The F-35 is a great asset to scare off enemies ...and I hope there will be some A-10s left to fight enemies. or F-18 SB, at least in Australia U-2 : fly so high that it couldn't be shot down F-117 : Stealth fighter, can't be detected (flies like a stone) both had be shot down by SAM over enemy territory. SR-71 : great success!!! but I don't know the cost of 1 flight hour, can somebody tell me? All Lockheeds (C-130, Neptune, F-94 : ok nothing to say...) And I don't discuss the fact that all these planes are legendary planes. There were skilled and brave crew members to fly them

“They are expensive but the fact that America’s key, modern allies are on board is telling: they are convinced they have to have them.” lol That is marketing. The F-35 is a new kind of weapon, far more effective than anybody can imagine. Poors Boeing employees, they're only making a plane that flies well... Pretty close to the F-104 : The lastest novelty, a real rocket no-one could catch up (and that was true) and they SOLD it. EDIT : please be sure to find a minimum of irony while reading this... (the whole post) thx EDIT 2 : to ease the reading, the unironical parts had been highlighted in blue ; )

Was the F-104 a failure? ; )

Same problem with the alpha Rafale, there's actually no flap. But it seems to be something with the viggen canards. [url=http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-AJS-37-Viggen/2358538/L/&sid=99a713c53543276429eca7b4f2c3a214%22%5D%22%5D]

: ( Il y avait mieux...

You're right, that's not working : /

To answer what you ask : [LeftWingStationInboard] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=1 StationGroupID=1 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=-1.91,1.60,-0.87 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 the same way you did for the guns It would work only for the rockets ballistic, not for the bombs. And every weapon related to the weapon station will have that angle. So it would be more accurate to add specific weapon stations for rockets. (I think the real pilots just have to dive to have the rockets in the correct angle of vision, same for the bombs) Edit : THAT DOES NOT WORK : ( The gunsight maximum position is part of the 3D cockpit LOD so it won't be fixed with ini edit, if I'm right. Can you share what is the new angle of vision?

Maybe I could help (still 1st generation / like to edit cockpits...) What do you want exactly? (sorry my bad, I didn't get it)

Not in slow motion, it's the actual speed (budget cuts) : p

Hi : ) I have a question about decals : Other than wasting the good looking of a model, does the decal bleeding bring some issue to the running of the game? Something like frame per second, display bugs, ...?

It was on purpose, it's not an issue. To have the number 01 or 81 with a stripe on the fuselage side, and not the other numbers. It's a accidental discovery, but it can be done for horizontal or vertical stripes around the number. The idea of the MiG-17K is from Cocas ; )