Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by mue

  1. 45 minutes ago, Gepard said:

    The main difference between me and you is the side of the iron curtain on which we grew up.

    I didn't know you grew up in west germany. I always thought you grew up in east germany. :biggrin:


    46 minutes ago, Gepard said:

    30, 40 years ago so called experts and scientists agreed, that the socialism will be victorious. For the main stream in my country the statement "the socialism will be victorious" had had the status of a law. It was written in books. It was proofed by scientists.

    I don't understand, what east german propaganda has to do with climate change?


    46 minutes ago, Gepard said:

    Again doubts are not allowed. Again people with non mainstream opions are shouted down.

    That's straw man fallacy. Of course you are allowed to say that 2+2=5. But if scientist then say that's incorrect because 2+2=4, that's not shouting down!

  2. @Gepard you sound like the typical climate change sceptic :lol:. All of your climate myths are already debunked. e.g. here: https://skepticalscience.com/

    11 hours ago, Gepard said:

    Is carbondioxyd CO² really that "big" problem? Its a problem, of course, but ...

    To say it clearly CO² is a fertiliser for plants. Without CO² no plant can survive. Without plants we cant survive. As more CO² as better plants can grow up.

    And who can really say, that the climate change is caused by CO².

    Maybe the climate experts? 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. Source: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm and https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

    11 hours ago, Gepard said:

    Where i live, in the middle of Germany we have very thick layers of sand. This sand came with the iceage from Skandinavia to Germany. 10.000 years ago we had an ice glacier which was more than 100m thick. In a relativly short time the ice melts away and formed the landscape we have here in north and central Germany. The climate change came very fast. In less than 30 years the temperature climbed by 6°. And surely it does not climbed, because our ancestors made to much Mammoth BBQ.



    11 hours ago, Gepard said:

    But what you cant see is the reason, why it became hotter.

    In the 1920th till 1950th the airport had only grass runways. In the 60th one runway and some taxiways made by concrete were built. Concrete is a heat reflector. When the sun is shining the temperature climbs much faster than over gras areas.

    In the 1990th, till today, the airport was completly rebuilt. Very big areas are covered now by concrete. Of course it is now hotter there as in the time before.

    Our big towns, our big streets, parking areas, industrial areas and so on, are all mady by concrete or similar materials. Of course they are hotter than in the natural landscape. The town grew up, became bigger and bigger. Meteorological stations, which 20 or 50 years ago were situated on meadow areas are now mid in cities.

    How is it possible to compare the datas?



    11 hours ago, Gepard said:

    My problem with the "Greta movement" is, that they have the strong believe, that they are 100% right. They believe to be infallible .

    They believe they are right, because they are backed up by most climate experts and scientist.


    11 hours ago, Gepard said:

    Yes we have a climate change. But we cant stop it. We must adapt our society. Darwin said "survival of the fittes", not "survival of the strongest".


  3. 6 hours ago, ChristianRG said:

    Hello, I recently downloaded and installed the addon to blender both 2.79 and 2.80 and they both don't show up on the addon section.

    Any solutions?

    The LOD exporter isn't compatible with blender 2.80. They made a lot of API changes in 2.80. I haven't found the time yet to update the LOD exporter for the newest blender version.
    But the exporter should work in 2.79. You run the exporter via File->Export->Strike Fighters 2 LOD. In the User Preferences->Add-ons section the plugin is listed under Supported Level = Testing!

  4. On 5.11.2019 at 12:32 PM, derpface said:

    This YouTube series remind to those done by SelenicMartian at Let's play archives: https://lparchive.org/Strike-Fighters-2/

    SelenicMartian went both to highlight games behavior, mechanics, limitations and bugs as well as history and details of the stock SF2 titles war theaters and planes. 


    This guy is hilarious. Quite entertaining. I already had a laugh when he described the fighter generations :lol:


    Fighter generations (sometimes applied to attack planes as well) are just marketing bullshit, like game scores in the press. The generation boundaries are not clearly defined, but the general idea is something like this:
    I. Take a very surprised WW2 airframe and shove a barely functional jet engine into it. Give it enough fuel to stay in the air for an hour, tops. You might want to give the pilot an ejection seat, but safety is optional. If you think you're badass, sweep the wing backwards.
    II. Add an afterburner to burn the fuel quicker, and give the plane enough power to go faster than the speed of rock 'n' roll. Provide hydraulic boost to the controls, so that a human pilot actually has a chance of pulling out of a supersonic dive. Install a radar, which gets startled by seeing the Earth. The guided air-to-air missile is king, we shall never need the guns again.
    III. Holy crap, put at least one gun back in! The missiles can't hit shit! But good news - ground targets can't dodge, so our TV repairman made these guided bombs and missiles to use against them. Now we can finally wreck the goddamn evil comm building with one hit, as opposed to carpet bombing the fuck out of the next door chicken house. Ah, and we've also figured out how to calculate the impact point for unguided bombs, so the pilots no longer need to bomb tents going by their gut feeling while dodging intense ground fire.
    IV. Machines don't make mistakes, right? Let's put a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces to filter stupidity. Let's also design airplanes in such a manner, that no human can actually fly them without computer aid. If only there were a way to get rid of humans...


    • Haha 5

  5. He removed the link.
    His answer to my comment to his latest SF2:Vietnam Ep 43 video:


    @fsmue I took care of it. My preference has always been to send people directly to Thirdwire but when I wrote that boiler-plate description it seemed at the time that the store was permanently down and the game was dead. I should have changed it back earlier, but it's fixed now.


    • Like 7
    • Thanks 1

  6. It seems as he started his SF2 video series the Thirdwire store were down.

    From the description of his first SF2:Vietnam video:


    In these videos I am using the base Strike Fighters 2 game with the Vietnam and Europe addons. Thirdwire.com seems to no longer be selling their older games, as their store had been down forever. However, the game and all its DLC can be found free at several sites, including this one at [link to illegal copies] I have used this one with no trouble, but just be aware that downloading files from 3rd party site can be potentially dangerous and you do so at your own risk.

    I think at this time he thought the SF2 games were abondoned. But later as the Thirdwire store were up again, although he now mentions that you can purchase the games from the store, he still provides the link to the illegal copies.

    • Like 1

  7. 9 hours ago, streakeagle said:

    ..., especially because TK changed how the flight model engine handled stalling/departure,...

    The stall modeling in SF2 (e.g. the Stall*TableData) is still a big unknown to me. The regime between -AlphaDepart and AlphaDepart I mostly understand. Currently I'm implementing  the SF2 P-51D FM in JSBSim/FlightGear. In the normal non-stall/non-departure regime it already "feels" quite similar to SF2. But I still have to run some validation tests.


    9 hours ago, streakeagle said:

    There were/are several SFP1/SF2 veterans that produce new flight models and/or tweak old ones. But they mostly have moved on from this game or only pursue their own pet projects.

    Yes, while sifting through the TW forum archives I noticed that back then there were several FM guys active. And according to the questions they have asked, it seems they know that they are doing.
    I think one guy was from avhistory.org and wanted to port CFS? flight models to SF.

    • Like 2

  8. 33 minutes ago, russouk2004 said:

    With GPL then adding models,might make people release them as Payware...if I do,i for one might consider this....if others make £££ $$$ off my free model,then why shouldnt I first ?....lol

    is this GPL obligatory for Flightgear...? maybe we could if it happens....create a group that is strictly freeware. ?

    I assume GPL means General Public License ?

    Yes GPL means General Public License.
    Only if you want your aircraft included in the official FlightGear hangar "FGAddon", then the GPLv2 is obligatory. Otherwise you can license your model as you like (assumed the whole model is your own creation and don't contain or uses GPL content) and use it in FlightGear.

    • Thanks 1

  9. 44 minutes ago, swambast said:

    so under the GPL if I made this available I or anyone else can then subsequently take it and sell it?  Or am I totally misunderstanding...

    Correct! But the buyer/recipient also get the same rights as you from the GPL. He can use/modify/distribute/sell the content under the GPL. His right to modify the content also means that you have to give him the "source code" of your content. The GPL says about the source code: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think (maybe Richard can confirm or correct me here) that means, that if you sell the lod file then you must also include the e.g. *.3ds or equivalent file.

  10. 36 minutes ago, RichardH said:

    and remember that this model licenced under the GPL v2.

    For those who don't know the GPL: If you use GPL content for your aircraft then the derived work, i.e. your aircraft, is also automatically licenced under the GPL. That means you can not distribute your aircraft under the CombatAce Modders License Agreement, because the CombatAce Modders License Agreement forbids the sale of the content (as payware). However the GPL doesn't allow those restrictions. Under the GPL the user has the right to sell the content!

  11. Maybe you FM gurus knew this already, but I only recently noticed that:
    Internal fuel and the pilot (and internal ammo too?) don't change the center of gravity (cog) of the aircraft. The additional weight will always be placed at the cog. Only the inertia tensor (Ix,Iy,Iz) is changed as follows:
    Ix = (mass_total/mass_empty)*Ix_empty, Iy = (mass_total/mass_empty)*Iy_empty and Iz = (mass_total/mass_empty)*Iz_empty

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

  12. 25 minutes ago, RichardH said:

    Because FlightGear is so open we don't really want to publish something that could be used to cause grief /  interfere with civilian flight operations - i.e. the normal multiplayer. It would be bad for OPRF if someone put up a set of AI fighters that decided to intercept and shoot down (or just annoy) civilian traffic.

    Ok, now I understand. I forgot/haven't considered that you use the official multiplayer network with it's civilian traffic.

  13. 13 hours ago, RichardH said:

    The python code isn't generally available (due to the risk of griefing)

    Since the multiplayer protocol is open, you always have the risk of cheating. I don't understand how releasing the python code increases the risk of griefing?
    I assumed the FlightGear combat community isn't that big, means you know each other, and therefore cheating isn't that much of a problem.

  14. 1 hour ago, swambast said:

    In my opinion, I could not disagree more and hate the way this is heading...The Developer of this Sim created an encrypted .LOD file format for a reason - to prevent theft and unauthorized distribution.  I have never seen a post where the Developer has made a claim about not caring about reverse engineering - why do you think he ended up locking certain .LODs and other game components away then if he didn't care?  Anyone can justify anything if they want, but it doesn't make it right.  I'd personally prefer to see Thirdwire continue to go on it's own way and FlightGear do the same - I don't see what benefit Thirdwire or the community has in this arrangement - for example, do we suddenly get access to FlightGear assets?  But I'm sure I'm again in the minority - seems to be just a free for all these days.  

    TK posted this in Sep. 2007 in his forum. See this forum thread: LOD file format. - Third Wire Forums.htm. And I wrote already that he used obfuscation methods later.
    Just to clarify: I don't want to distribute any assets. I only want to use assets from the game I purchased or assets from this community within FlightGear. For this I plan to write a tool that automatically converts the SF2 data ini files into FlightGear files (Edit: the .lod file itself can be directly loaded into FlightGear via the OSG pluging, so no conversion of lod files needed). Again: no distribution of any assets! I think that's legal within TWs EULA and CombatAce Freeware License Agreement.
    And I see benefit for Thirdwire and the community: Maybe some will buy SF2 games if they know they can use the aircraft in FlightGear too. And maybe FlightGear can be enhanced to be a fully community driven open source air combat simulator. Then why not use the already by this community created assets?
    And yes, everybody has access to FlightGear assets. Most FlightGear assets are released under GPL or other "free" licenses. I was told recently, that FlightGear aircraft were already converted to SF2.

    • Like 2

  15. 6 hours ago, RichardH said:

    Looking at the aero notes[1] if you have these coefficients it should be relatively easy to put together a JSBSim model - as that's what JSBSim is designed for; it's fortunate that SF2 uses the 'standard' way of doing things.

    Yes...if engineers make games...:smile:


    6 hours ago, RichardH said:

    Making an importer is the best way of converting SF2 models to FlightGear.

    I've  implemented an OSG file loader plugin for the SF2 3D model file format (*.lod). So the SF2 3D models can be directly loaded into FlighGear.
    I'm still not sure if I should make the LOD loader plugin open source. I myself wouldn't mind, but I don't know what the game developer and the 3D modders would think about it.
    In the past (Sep 2007) the game developer himself wrote in a forum post after he was asked about documentation about the LOD format:
    "...although we didn't publish LOD format, we also don't stop people form reverse engineering it either ;) Its not encrpyted or anything, so its fairly straight forward to figure out..."
    Unfortunately later LOD format versions contain some obfuscation, so maybe his opinion has changed? I also think the 3D modders consider the (non published) LOD format as a kind of intellectual property protection.
    But keeping it closed source would mean it can not be officially distributed/supported by FlightGear and it would only work with FlighGear versions/platforms for which I compile/release the binary (e.g. Windows).


    6 hours ago, RichardH said:

    The way that OPRF aircraft work is to do all of the combat simulation within the aircraft model; with the hit notifications being transmitted over the multiplayer system  OPRF aircraft must have radar simulation that has correct ranges and can't see through terrain; accurate weapons simulation, damage modelling. Most of this is implemented in FlightGear's Nasal scripting language.  Damage works over MP and currently uses the MP text chat to inflict damage. AAA/Flak could be simulated using the same system - but what we don't have (yet) in the OPRF is much in the way of missions or automated enemies - but this area is under development. The automat aircraft opponents are reasonable and work is ongoing. Remember that OPRF was originally about enabling dogfights between people, then we had organised events - and now we're moving towards more AI and hopefully one day we'll have missions and even campaigns. The development is slow - but because it's all opensource we can pretty much do anything that we have the time to implement. There is a python AI system under development that integrates with the Multiplay and provides targets and will provide opponents.

    If I understand correctly, only hit notifications are transmitted, but no bullet or missile positions? Does that mean, that no tracers or missiles from other aircraft are visible?
    Is damage calculated by the "receiver" or "sender"?
    Do you have a link or pointer to the "automated enemy" code and the Python AI system?


    6 hours ago, RichardH said:

    [1] Although some of what you refer to as derivatives are in fact just coefficients; the real derivatives are those that are due to the output from the aero model (p,q,r, alphadot, betadot) I've highlighted the derivates in green

    Thank you for the clarification.

  16. Richard, thank you for coming to CombatAce and offering assistance regarding (military) FlightGear.
    I'm fascinated by the flexibility of FlightGear and JSBSim.
    Currently I'm implementing the Strike Fighters 2 FDM  and the (very light) systems in JSBSim. The developer of SF2 has an aerodynamic engineering background and therefore his FDM uses "standardized" aerocoefficients (My notes about the SF2 FDM: sf2_fdm_notes.pdf). Because of the "openness" of SF2 the aerocoefficients of each component (LeftWing, RightWing, LeftOuterWing, RightOuterWing, LeftStab, ...) are easily accessible from aircrafts data text (*.ini) files. Currently I'm doing the FDM/systems "conversion" to FlightGear/JSBSim manually, but I think this could be done later automatically by a tool.

    As I wrote, I haven't looked in detail at the combat stuff in FlightGear yet. Maybe you can give a short overview of the features of the "OPRF" combat system (and maybe "Bombable")?
    What weapons are supported (guns, rockets, (guided) missiles, bombs)?
    I assume it works in multiplayer?
    How is the damage modelling?
    Since you mentioned SAMs, do you support AAA/Flak too?
    How sophisticated are the automated (AI?) enemy aircraft?

  17. 1 hour ago, GKABS said:

    Thanks Wrench, it was making me go crazy 

    but it come everywhere it mast be like you stated "missing texture for object in the terrain's folder" coded it be some trees scattered?  but I dont see any thing for it listed in the TAE ID type.

    I think it's a TOD object (a tree) and therefore not listed in the target list window. You can show/hide TOD objects via View->Show TODs or the respective toolbar button.
    TOD objects are contained in *.tod files. TOD files are associated with tiles (textures) via the <terrain>_data.ini.

    • Thanks 1

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..