KJakker

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/nook/379003208 I have the HD+ model.

Julhelm, would Pacific Fleet run on a nook?

Will these help? http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm

I saw this on the news last night. Vary cool. My grandmother was a rivet inspector at the Willow Run bomber plant during WWII.

I have to agree with Brain32. The last time I flew the F-22 in a WVR fight I was pushing an Su-27 around a turn circle with impunity. ArturR could you post your F-22 data ini file here so it can be compared with other?

Is this the file you are looking for? Never mind. macelena link above should do it.

My grandfather had a story from WWII. He and another GI saw a USAAF plane drop a bomb in their direction and they dived for cover. When the "bomb" hit the ground it bounced, at which point he realized that is the an external fuel tank.

I have been playing about with trying to make a sci-fi kinetic kill SAM with high acceleration and turn rates. What I would like to achieve is a missile that will go from the launcher to the target so fast that it can not be evaded and has enough kinetic energy to destroy a heavy bomber in a single hit without a warhead. The version below is a reduced power version with only a couple of hundred G's of acceleration but I have tried acceleration and turn rates in the thousands of G's. The problem I am trying to solve at the moment is how to make the missile fly in a smooth lead pursuit profile. So far it is flying in a snake like bob and weave profile that appears to be ruining accuracy. Any idea's as to what would make it fly smoothly? I am using WhiteBoySamurai's ESSM LOD and texture as a temporary stand in while testing the weapon data file. [WeaponData001] TypeName=HVM FullName=Hyper Velocity Missile ModelName=ESSM Mass=280.000000 Diameter=0.254000 Length=3.660000 SubsonicDragCoeff=0.160000 SupersonicDragCoeff=0.320000 AttachmentType=NATO,USAF,USN,UK SpecificStationCode= NationName=USN StartYear=1950 EndYear=2050 Availability=3 BaseQuantity=1 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE HasGrowl=FALSE EffectClassName=MediumMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=0.000000 WarheadType=0 Explosives=0.000000 FusingDistance=0.000000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=13 Accuracy=400 MaxTurnRate=200.000000 MaxLaunchG=50.000000 LockonChance=100 LaunchReliability=100 ArmingTime=0.000000 SeekerFOV=30.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=240.000000 SeekerTrackRate=180.000000 SeekerRange=250000.000000 CLmax=14.000000 MinFreq=0.000000 MaxFreq=0.000000 MinLaunchRange=0.000000 MaxLaunchRange=250000.000000 Duration=250.000000 CounterCountermeasure=200.000000 NoiseRejection=200.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x10000038 LoftAngle=0.000000 DescentAngle=0.000000 MaxLoftAltitude=0.000000 BoosterStart=0.000000 BoosterDuration=0.500000 BoosterAccel=10.000000 BoosterEffectName=ShipMissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-1.750000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=5.000000 SustainerAccel=200.000000 SustainerEffectName=InFlightMissileEffect SustainerSoundName=Missile SustainerPosition=0.000000,-1.750000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=LargeSAMTrailEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 CEP=0.000000

DaniloE31, I had this issue as well back when I played around with the F-106 after Expansion Pack 2 came out. Let me take a look at some of my backup files and see if I have a solution.

colmack, I have an idea on how it might be simulated using an AA rocket with a sub-munition warhead. Let me test it and get back to you.

Mirage F.1 F-5A USS Zimwalt DD-21/DDX

WBS, if you need someone to test the overhauled Kirov's data files I am available.

I was editing a ship data file the other day to give it Aspide in place of SeaSparrow when I noticed that all three versions of the Aspide missile from MGunny's Ordnance Shop II have identical booster and sustainer data. Given that Aspide-Albatros is supposed to be the naval SAM version of Aspide I can understand that but according to what I have read the Aspide 2000 has a new more powerful rocket motor giving it extended range. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to point me in the direction of a source for accurate data on them or provide a newer data file for these missiles?

I don't have OFF but I do have a TrackIR 5. I would be willing to help troubleshoot the issue with you. Could you give some more information on your system. Is the TrackIR software up to date and have you updated your TrackIR games list? Also does OFF use a TrackIR DLL file? If so you might want to check that the file is okay.

Great find MigBuster. There are a number of pictures their that I have never seen before. Some of the development concepts have me wishing for some more what if aircraft in SF2. Also I did not realize that they actually proposed equipping the Eagle with the AIM-54.

The "B-47E_DATA.ini" file in the primary download is corrupt. The one in the Mirror is okay.

I have started playing around with Gmax and I think I am starting to get the hang of its basic features. One issue I have however is a visual effect whenever I click on anything in one of the windows. Here I have created a cube and everything looks fine. Whenever I initiate any action inside any of the view windows they flash ether black or white and depending upon the action preformed the windows might stay that color until I use the mouse to initiate another action in the program. I can drag or rotate an object just fine for example but every time I start an action "flash". I also sometimes get distorted image copies of the Gmax program popping up when an action is initiated instead of just the blank windows. Same on and off behavior as above. Does anyone have any idea as to what is causing this and how to fix it? It is interfering in my attempts to learn the program. My system is an i7 920 with 12GB of RAM and a GTX 760 displaying with 1920x1200 24 inch monitor.

I am working on my first scratch built 3D modeling project. A Quad 1.1 Inch anti-aircraft gun. I am doing the primary construction in Google SketchUp and then I am going to import it into Blender to give it pivots, and assign it materials. I would eventually like to get it setup in such a condition that it can be imported into MAX and make it available to the CA community. I would appreciate any advice members have to offer on improving upon this project and my own skills. Edit: Fixed a miss spelled word.

Thanks for the info on gmax, although now I have to figure out how to use a new piece of software. That is what I like about sketchup, the low learning curve, it is the closest thing I have yet found to my grandfather's drafting paper. As for the polygon count, I took a look at some of the WWII ships and I see what you are getting at. I was trying to be to close to the photographs that I have. I think I am going to start a new low poly 1.1 model for in game use.

Did you read the "Product License" and the "Standard Royalty Free License FAQ"? I think Erik or one of the Staff member like Dave would have to review it and check it against the CombatAce rules first. Standard Royalty Free License FAQ Link A quote of the License itself below.

I wanted to go to that but some issues came up this weekend and I forgot about it.

Where is that Lexington from? I would not mind seeing a version of that model updated to represent USS Saratoga, CV-3 in her post January 1944 configuration with 16 5inch/38's in four two gun and eight single mount, 23 quad 40mm and 2 twin 40mm mounts, and 16 20mm Oerlikon's.

Maybe they should have called them "through-deck cruisers" instead.

I just ran the numbers and if everyone with 100 post or more were to simply take a bag lunch instead of stopping for fast food just once and put the saved money toward a simple Choice Member subscription it would earn CombatAce $4635.65. I think that if everyone who regularly uses CombatAce were to donate or buy a subscription at least once a year it would help out tremendously with maintenance and upgrades. I will admit that I have only purchased subscriptions twice due to, at first a lack of awareness of the option, and after that to limited funds, however having run the math I am sure that I will be subscribing again. Erik, thank you for a the work that you have done and are doing.

I don't have much money to spend right now but I had to purchase another subscription to show my support.