EricJ

T-80

Nice Fubar512, makes me really want to get Google Sketchup....

Erm.. I think it's model issues, not so much ini, like the gear could be redone fo sho. All the fixes (so far) are from that topic, fixing the stabilizers, foreplane animations to be correct. Other than that man I'm not sure.

I'm sure everybody's noticed, but just in case.... Su-35 beta was uploaded.

Oh good looking out don't get me wrong, but it's bound to also get lost too amongst everything else. So still it's looking out for those who also make it too just so they're not looking jacked up either

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showforum=246 Bookmark it

I was using them quite a bit for some ad hoc SEAD work after that post I made and fired horizontally, and an angle. Could be the fact you're firing too close?

Yes, once we approve the file the thread is created, standby and I'll get it.

Actually didn't know about this... but just in case.... just replace this on your SF2 install: [WeaponData001] TypeName=BrimStone3Pack FullName=BrimStone 3-Pack ModelName=BrimstoneLaunchRails Mass=55.000000 Diameter=0.203200 Length=1.600000 SubsonicDragCoeff=0.200000 SupersonicDragCoeff=0.770000 AttachmentType=NATO,UK SpecificStationCode= NationName=RAF StartYear=1999 EndYear=2020 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=25 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=6 WeaponsRackType=TLR NumWeapons=3 LoadLimit=51.000000 LengthLimit=1.810000 MaxFuelAmount=0.000000 Attachment01Position=-0.215000,-0.004500,-0.059000 Attachment01Angle=0.000000,-3.876633,0.000000 Attachment02Position=0.215000,-0.004500,-0.059000 Attachment02Angle=0.000000,-3.876633,0.000000 Attachment03Position=0.000000,0.082900,-0.112600 Attachment03Angle=0.000000,-3.876633,0.000000 I'd also like to ask people that once they fix SF2 bugs, please as a good samaritan service, PM 331Killerbee and FastCargo/Kowalski. (or those weapons that you know belong to the author) your fixes so they can update their own files accordingly. Plus you're helping out the community as well by allowing them to get the files fixed/updated, and the community to have the fixes too.

Various flying around shots, nice ones Silverbolt!

I've got an old .3ds viewer I've had stashed for years that I never use due to the fact that it's for only .3ds, but agreed, it would be sooooo nice to have a LOD viewer instead of going back in and out of the game..

Agreed, I fly this terrain in a free flight manner more than any other

And let's not forget China is getting better in the realm of training. Still not as well adept as Western pilots, but they're working hard to fill that gap. Plus you still got alot of those old airframes still chugging around (some, like the F-7G), modded and upgraded to be at least a threat to nations, like Taiwan. But I agree with you Jug, a Westernized Su-35 would put alot of stuff to shame, or we can just buy MKIs, or MKMs. Alot of the Russian hardware is getting pulled out and more capable Western electronics are being put in.

The reason we built the F-15,-14, and -18 was because of the Soviet threat, to intercept the bombers, and maintain air superiority over Western Europe when things supposedly got hot. The thing is, all were built in a time when there was that definable threat, not the un-definables that exist today. People who designed the Strike Eagle never envisioned it performing a CAS role, but a Sniper pod equipped Eagle is a very effective CAS platform, and it has the tools at it's disposal to drop on the "three Talibans" because those Talibans are effective in doing serious harm to ground troops, either as a spoiling attack or IED emplacers. And I've had no second thoughts about dropping my two bombs during an engagement either from an Eagle, and my FOs surely appreciate a good bomb from either an A-10 or Eagle. It's simply proven and works, so therefore the Air Force is working to provide those tools to work. Sure an OV-10 would be nice, but in some cases a bomb is preferable to just rockets and machine guns, it does wonders for people's morale , and the Tucano can't deliver what an A-10 can do, so while it would be kinda cool, it just wouldn't do anything for the ground pounders who daily rely on that airframe. Simply because a Tucano can't close a cave if needed (which we have done), nor an OV-10. The F-22 is purpose designed to intercept aircraft, and that's it, with a secondary capability for ground attack, but it's cost isn't worth the pounds of bombs it could drop, when you already have two effective aircraft as it is that are getting worked heavily, dropping bombs on three Talibans. It's definitely worth every penny to keep those planes flying.

Great shots man....

No they shouldn't especially when using lethal hardware. As mentioned the "Skynet", "Stealth", and "I Robot" scenarios make it all too vivid on when things go wrong. Nope I'll deal with the human operator...

Plus another way to look at how Congress may be looking at: What has it really done to prove it's cost? Fly in airshows? Alot of good arguments but seriously, the Raptor hasn't proven the "bang for the buck" that other airframes have, or systems. I think more C-17s do more for the GWOT and improved targeting systems for aircraft, along with UAVs and other highfalutin stuff that is proven to work, rather than fly around. So why would we need to spend more money on a capability that hasn't been matched? PAK-FA? Whatever, it's an ambitious program, but hardly able to surpass the Raptor even if upgraded. The Raptor really can't be matched yet. So if we somehow have to fight Talibans flying PAK-FAs, I think we can stay with what we've got, and shift to what we need. Air superiority isnt' needed if there's no threat of it.

As somebody who required air support for a year, I can't agree more. Realistically the loss of the Raptor... isn't a loss because F-15s, A-10s, and various other assortment of aircraft we depended on to just drop bombs. Stealth isn't needed to provide Close Air Support and never saw a Raptor in-theatre anyways, and it sucks but from my personal opinion the world will still turn and bombas are needed more than a plane that hasn't done much, yet. A couple years for PAK-FA is a bit optomistic anyways, sopposedly five to six.. but whatever they say

Here's the ones that work for me fo sho. Dave (USAFMTL) hooked me up with these, I just had t take some time and figure out which ones. AGM_65E2.zip

Using the Weapons editor isn't going to help, least didn't work for me. I'll find out which models do work, and upload them ASAP.

It's part of the ini really, Kowalski/FC can help you out in figuring out what the issue is. He's helped me with the SH and I'm helping him with another project, and none of the burner can effect is texture based as far as part of the aircraft canvas.

Mornings in SoCal.. And beautiful shot fougamagister

Pretty much that hasn't been touched already, except these: Mirage Factory Planes (They're doing the conversion themselves) GMG (They're also doing the conversion themselves AFAIK) Just be mindful on the previous page by Dave (USAFMTL)'s requirements. Make sure you include the original readme, and if one isn't present, I like to provide the original SF1/WoX link just to keep it legal. It should be noted some don't (except for the previous ones) mind, but if you have to ask, just do it to cover your six.

File Name: Taliban DSHKA for SF2 File Submitter: EricJ File Submitted: 19 Jul 2009 File Category: SF2 Series Add On Objects Original download: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=7838 Not much just added a USER_LIST for Afghanistan EricJ Click here to download this file