Flanker562

Yep. I've had it for awhile, but wasn't going to convert it due to it being an unreleased beta and not sure where Julhelm is going with it though.

As a note, be advised that when converting original works to SF2... it can only be ini edits, and that's about it. If the model's jacked up from the get go, then it'll be jacked up in the conversion process. We can only do so much.

As a note, be advised that when converting original works to SF2... it can only be ini edits, and that's about it. If the model's jacked up from the get go, then it'll be jacked up in the conversion process. We can only do so much.

Okay, I figured it would be plug and play... and a little editing, but got this when adding the A model cockpit:

What's kept me interested in Strike Fighters series is it doesn't require a PhD in coding to get something new added into the game. As said... there's a wide variety of aircraft, time periods, in one sim. LOMAC I always liked, but it's limited coding well, forced me to delete it, and haven't gone back. Sure not as expansive and detailed as LOMAC, but they just released a Nevada terrain years after it was released. Here? I got like eleven different areas of the world, and all I did was extract it from an archive, dropped it where it needed to be, and flying the skies...

Brain you going to convert it? Because eventually I'll get around to checking it out and making it SF2 compatible..

Not sure why it's doing that, I think I have the same problem with a skin or two on my Super Hornet... I think it has to do if you select that nation, you can only use those weapons. I noticed that yesterday, or the day before with the Typhoon. I had the nationality set as "USN" and I could only use USN noted weapons on a British aircraft... so I switched it back to RAF and viola, I can use RAF weapons...

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.