Squiffy

I've used the KB quite a lot these past few months. I have also spent a lot of time doing it. I sure hope I haven't pranged someone's install by shooting off my newbie mouth! But as far as the KB goes, I am a research librarian and use online databases all day long. I also cataloged through 3 courses in grad school and did a retrospective converion project in my first job. The KB could use some work as far as searching goes but it still contains a wealth of information. So I am just harping here. Maybe I should set about keyword tagging the KB, post by post, to make it more search friendly by subject? The weapon editing, and graphics info is really spread out so getting down to the funtional, make or break lines of code can be frustrating for newbies. I'm not trying to complain here, but overwhelming search results do not make for an efficient KB. But yeah, it would take a ton of work to streamline it so please accept my true thanks and respect for what's been done. It's just not a cake walk. <BR><BR>p.s. Maybe this could help: add a search field or two to what we have so you can include title terms, full text terms, forum limits, date, and so forth - all together. Maybe even add a hit count that will retag by relevance adding more and more immediate sorting to the questions they answer. This could be all wrapped up in the forum code but it would sure help. The forum setting istelf is rather clunky. ie You dont' need to search Nuke effects in OFF. ;)

Actually it's too bright and I found it really annoying. I dimmed it down a little using the alpha channel. I can send you the file later today if you like.

Fubar, isn't it also horizon distance/lod related? Snakeyes are pretty vertex intensive for bombs right? More planes equals the same thing. Sometimes I think the sim design conventions put way too much load on the hardware when it's really not necessary. How many B-52s do you need in a desktop sim mission to pound a target? Or how many do you really need to render? ;)

Unknown, The 104 was a fine machine and it's popularity in Europe is proof of that. A beautiful ship and I enjoyed building my kit when I was younger. And dang it looks sweet in polished aluminum! It's use in europe might even be influenced by the "it's a generation old so we can afford to export it" mentality, national security-wise. (but not a real point) Now when you talk about "cranking up the thrust," you're saying add power, which was really done by adding more or bigger engines. The F-4, 14, 15, 17 and 18 were all twin engine. There's also the combat survivability issue too, and the open ocean feet-wet safety issue. So to do this, you needed a larger airframe, hense the bigger heavier fighter. You also made a good point about the expensive junk, dud missiles in the early days. True, but that is what was new at the time and everyone was thinking it would be great. No one believed dogfighting would be a serious survivability question. Multirole is pretty silly from a design point. But when an air superiority fighter runs out of missles or some are duds, but the bandits are still coming, you gotta get home somehow. THAT's where the modern fighter profile comes from. The multi-fighters just take advantage of it and apply it to the attack/strike role and explain it as fighting your way in or out. Wildcats, Warhawks, Jugs, and Mustangs ended up doing a lot of e fighting because they could get away with it outside of gun range. Now with missiles in the mix, booming and zooming are not a guaranteed safe tactic if another flight can lock you up from 20 miles away. I would hate to merge with a long range missle, slow and out of e at the top of a zoom. I don't know much about the political situation the Starfighter arrived in, but the pace of change was rapid and the level of change was huge. Thermal thicket, guided weapons, a lot of that was hot new science and engineering and it was hard to think "inside" of the box when so much was outside. Peoples minds were being blown by all the cool new stuff. I'll close on one important point. At least the 104 had a gun! That was good thinking!

"Snake Sez!" http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/Starfighter/8701/ http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/Starfighter/8699/ http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/Starfighter/8715/

Don't get these designs out of context. Tactics always followed the capabilities of the bird you were flying. The 104 arrived at a time when speed was everything and guided missles were the rage. Even the Phantom developed this way. Remember what happened in Vietnam and where the late models came from? Fighter Weapons School, Red Flag, Euro Nato. The Starfighter (look at that name!) Was designed as an interceptor. Get up, get ther fast, and pound them with fancy weapons. Well you know what happened after that. Current designs combine intercept AND dogfighting well. The Cobra maneuver and vectored thrust are not from the e-fight boom and zoom stock. And for Northrop's stake, the curse is broken and Jack died a happy man. The B-2 is the be all, end all of long range, fuel efficiency and platform stability. Oh yeah, and stealth too ; ) There is a cartoon from a 104 squadron back in the day, with a two ship formation booming, then zooming on a flight of Fishbeds, punching holes through the clouds, climbing out and turning around. The migs are shredded and didn't see what hit em. Pretty funny. Also, there was no "keep" about having a bandit in front of a 104. You just zoomed out of range to turn around and try to lock them up again. In the age of Amraams, that is not a comforting thought.

Sounds great. Any chance someone could spot me the terrain.lods for Rivers and towns from WOI? I'm using GermanyCE and somethign is whacked out about the tree scale and bitmap samples. I'm getting 1/4 skin trees, some of the top, some of the bottom and way bigger than Gepards terrain pack trees.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt! So what is it with point blank intercepts nowadays? I had the same thing on a CAS mission last night. My stingers and gunpods wern't workign so I got slammed. Glad the effect is working. Take a screenie please when you get a chance. Thanks

Hi gang, I have problems in two of my favorite airplanes so far. The F-15C and T-6A. I think there is a grouping issue in the F-15C models that causes gaps in the shadow. The T-6A seems to be missing its rear canopy material. The loading screen and loudout screen for the T-6A seem to show it from game screenies. What gives? The AT-6 canopy is fine but the big optics turrent underneath is a turn off for "training" practice. Any help? Here are some screenies. I am running a GeForce 7600 GS, XP, and advanced shaders.

Excellent! I just had the bright idea to swap the models and change the skin name to match for the T-6A (using the good AT-6 model with complete canopy) Worked like a charm. I didn't realilze that the turret on the AT-6 was a fake pilot until just today. You don't need to draw it if it's not added to the plane. On a regular T-6A you get a finished canopy with at-6 model. I'm happy now, even though I have to rebuild my weapondata.ini after hunting for broken gunpods. Yeah the usual reasons. No sweat now. Editor works great.

And remember, the remaining percentage is for CLEAR. I've found that the sim can default to overcast and inclement regardless of your weather settings, the first time you run the sim. After that, it will apply your settings in the terrain ini. If you don't have a terrain.ini, it will use the one from the cat file so make sure you unpack that too. I would like to know what the update rate line does in the environment.ini where the cloud settings are. Does that effect how often the sim resets the weather, and THEN the probability number take effect, or is it something else entirely?

Sweet, now go nuke em till htey glow. :)

OK here it is: Last page, last post. The shader is the important part. You can choose from a couple. Follow another weapon as an example. One you know that works. http://forum.combatace.com/topic/41168-using-custom-effects-in-sf2/page__view__findpost__p__372523 <BR><BR>Oh yeah, and it's a group of lines not just one. Basically you're addign the effect to the weapon itself. A missle might require more work than just this.

The thread and KB info on this is a little scarce and spread out. I think what ended up working for me is to add a line at the top of the weapon or effect. In this line place a callout for the shader or fx dll that will run it. Give me a minute to find it and I will post back. It worked great for me.

Yes, you've got it! That's completely crazy and right on the money. I picture the box seat view, loitering in your bone with 20,000 lbs of JDAMs and a pack of amraams and a cup of coffee. Pickle-ing off bombs when the FAC says "See my smoke?" "Yes!" WEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeee ...... BOOM!

OOOooo baby! She is sweet. FC, quit harassing us with those completely awesome screenies. F-104s are defintely off limits. Are you ready to get your "compression lift" on? NICE! p.s. Inertial guidance I think. Or radar, like the houndogs. Then there's good ol' "nuke and run" technique.

Hell yeah! That stealth tail Bone is sweet. I swear, more and more, that with smart weapons we are seeing the development of the "aircastle" or the megafortress as someone put it earlier. Cranking out amraams from low vis swing wing heavy was practically unheard of a few years back. Now, it seems a logical progression. And yes the BUFF was fast. Transonic, not super, but that damn wing was swept for something. Looking forward to this!

Wow, OK, so I will go fly now and see. I just downloaded the big pack and just installed the C D and E-04. Any ideas about the T-6. The calls look ok in Hex. If anyone has a better model that wraps the rear canopy properly I'd appreciate a look at it. Something else is awry in the model. It's not as simple as a file rename. Does "misc.bmp" get used in the canopy?

Thanks Grumps. I downloading the new model now.

Strike Eagles kick butt. Nice aircrew.

OK great. I just saw the F-15 pack. Thanks guys. Now for the T-6, by texture folder you mean the Squadron/color scheme folders right? The front conopy is fine, but the rear must have been misspelled or omitted in the lod file? I'll take a look. By the way, something similar might be happening in the Stinger missle crew skin. The guys helmet shows but nothing else. He's all white. I'l take a screenie, but I think you might know about it. I have looked and I think it IS mispelled. Thanks again. Flying lessons could cost up to $200/hr up here in Norwood, MA. I'm thinking a new system (projector an all) might be a better investment. Am I crazy?

So to fix these I need a new model for the F-15C (where do I get it?) and how do I fix the callout in the T6?

Thanks G. I'll check it once more.

Gepard, It's looking really nice. I have only one issue that may just stem from my lack of a full WOI install. Everything was fine until I deleted what I thought a didn't need in ISSEA2 files. At least on the old terrain. Not smart. I am almost back to complete but I am still missing some tiles in the new Kandahar region. Am I missing these or is something missing in the terrain? Check out my screenie. I even have a couple of upgraded Israel tiles in there for good measure. It's ISSEA2FARM...something... that I think is missing. I have all of them as far as I can tell. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Excellent! I have been playing with GemanyCE .tod files and they work only about 50% of the time. The Tree/grass breakdown doesn't always work right for the Afghan tiles. Great to know about the other resources. I am on vacation next week so I will try to download things over the weekend. I'm working on a sutable border to border front and strategic targets so the single missions will work. But campaign is the real goal. Looking forward to it!