Jump to content

SupGen

+MODDER
  • Content count

    844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SupGen

  1. PFunk, I don't know how useful this stuff will be, (it's old, SF1) and the weapons delivery manual seems to relate more to the actual, real world weapons, but still some interesting reading. Here: http://combatace.com/topic/34507-bunyaps-weapons-wiki/?do=findComment&comment=219482 .
  2. Chutedangle, one thing no one's mentioned is that SF2 NA will allow you to use a lot of mods on this site that enable carrier ops in every era from WW2 to the present. For example, if Carrier vs Carrier is your thing you can either build a kick-ass WW2 Pacific mod from stuff available on CombatAce or download a complete Pacific mod from the A-Team site. (You have to be a member there and cleared for downloads.) Either way, it's hammer and tongs Carrier Alpha Strikes until one side or the other is in Davy Jones Locker. Verrry Niiice!
  3. Iceman, take a look at this: http://combatace.com/topic/78069-another-question-about-old-terrains/page-2?do=findComment&comment=622951 . The WOA/WOR mod is here: http://combatace.com/files/file/13996-wings-over-africa-and-wings-over-russia-sf1-style-menu-screens-in-sf2/ . Good luck, and if you have any problems, post 'em!
  4. Hey DARoot; that weapons pack was a quick and dirty (and pretty sloppy, too) attempt to just get most WWII weapons into one pack; I (I'm a him by the way ) didn't really change anything except to bring SF1 weapons up to SF2 standards. Check out this thread, though: http://combatace.com/topic/77300-carrier-vs-carrier-not-happening/ . From post #12 on there's some info on CM functionality and some give and take on relative superiority between Type 91 and Mark XIII torpedoes as well as Mark XIII launch parameters; after 1943 the U.S. Navy was dropping them from as high as 2000 meters and as fast as 400 Kts IAS with good results. Great thread by the way.
  5. Razbam F-102 Update NO.2

    Version 1.0.1

    250 downloads

    Well, this is my second update for the Razbam F-102, the first was pretty well recieved, to the point that Paulopanz is going to be releasing an update to his old skinpack for this aircraft, which by itself is beautiful and works very well with this release, (you just have to rename some stuff in the main ini.), gorgeous work, though. Anyway, I've been doing a little more research and it seems the F-102 was limited to the AIM-4A, AIM-4C and AIM-26A and B.* The other missles in the Razbam Weapons folder are part of the Super Falcon family and were not only physicaly larger but also looked like the ones in McGunny's Weapons Pack; I'm not sure if the stock ones differentiate between them or not. The sources I'm using also cover the Falcons employment in Vietnam in some depth, giving some insight on it's lack of sucess in combat; ie., this may have been due more to the fact that the F-4 did not have the specialized FCS of the aircraft it was designed for than the missle itself. The F-4 pilot had to manually perform a lot of functions that were completely automated when using the MG-10 or MA-1 Fire Control Systems, this and the fact that many of the missles were fired "outside of parameters" leads inescapably to the conclusion that "we" (both the SF1/2 community and TK) may have been entirely too hard on certain aspects of performance (low Accuracy, LockOnChance, Reliability, NoiseRejection, and CounterCounterMeasures values). Realistic modeling might be better realized by limiting TurnRate, SeekerFOV, SeekerGimbleLimit, and SeekerTrackRate; in other words they should probably have a much higher probability of intercept when used in their intended role against large, non-manuvering targets like Soviet bombers than against small nimble fighters. They did not have proximity fuses, being contact fused they would actually have to hit the target in order to pass their OpEvals and be accepted for use. This may sound naive, but I find it hard to believe the Air Force would have flown F-102s and F-106s as long as they did if they thought they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. When used in their intended role, fired from aircraft equipped with the proper FCS I'm thinking these missles should really be much more potent in the SF universe than they are at present. Needless to say, any thoughts on this would be appreciated. The other thing I'm modeling here is the removal of that damn radar hood; it looks great, and it would be great if you weren't actually trying to fight from this cockpit.This is what I kinda think of as the curse of looking real; at first glance it does look real, however a real Deuce pilot, leaning forward to place his helmet visor against the Radar Hood would have seen an entirely different picture than we do even if we zoom in to the max. The game just does not give us the same view angles; no matter how close we get there is still a huge segment of the radar sacreen we can't see. This update removes the Radar Hood and lets you see the entire radar screen. So there it is. If you don't like being limited to the AIM-4A and C, with the Nuclear Falcon for those saturation attacks, if you like not being able to see squat on your radar screen even though the real pilots could, don't install this. On the the other hand, if you want a realistic loadout, and you want to be able to fight the aircraft to it's full potential (which seems to be much higher than anyone gave it credit for, if this thing had a gun you could OWN some Migs that gave the F-4, for example, a very hard time), then by all means install this and go out and KILL SOME MIGS. So drop the aim.4LOD and the parts01bmp. into the remaining AIM-4 missle folders, then just drop the Objects folder into your mod folder and allow to overwrite. Enjoy. *Edit: 1/05/13. Well wrong again. The AIM-4D is now cleared for use. Seriously, the documentation for this stuff is kinda thin, and what there is is sometimes contradictory. Doin' my best, if you know of any source material, please let me know. SupGen 1/3/13
  6. Glad I could help you guys out. Heck, I told ya it was weird, no? IIRC, in my case, the game kept trying to run Operation Kadesh; since there were no modern aircraft in the folder, it would crash. Adding modern aircraft back into the folder, along with those required for BoB let me select the BoB Campaign; which was then first up on subsequent starts. Why this happened however, I have no idea.
  7. Gee, what happens when you hit that LNG tanker?
  8. Hey, Heck and Hans. (Try sayin' that three times fast!) I'm not sure if this will fix your particular problems as there are a million things that could be wrong, but I had similar issues with both of those Campaigns. This is how I fixed BoB: http://combatace.com/topic/77843-what-makes-campaigns-tick/ . This was the fix for WoR: http://combatace.com/topic/78069-another-question-about-old-terrains/page-1?do=findComment&comment=622132 . Wierd fixes for wierd problems, lol. By the way, Hans; try my menu screen mod for WoR and WoA, here: http://combatace.com/files/file/13996-wings-over-africa-and-wings-over-russia-sf1-style-menu-screens-in-sf2/ . This lets you use the beautiful menu screens that came with those mods. Hope this helps you guys out.
  9. ace, glad I could be of assistance. Usually, an empty (or non-existant) folder indicates that the game is using the stock .inis in the .cat files in the core install. A (for instance) FLIGHTENGINE.ini in the Flight folder in your Mod folder in SavedGames will override the one in the .cat file. At first I thought you must have one that lacked the ForceFeedback segment I posted above. Then I looked again at the ForceFeedback statement and remembered that you said you had the ForceFeedback motor mounted on your rudder pedals which, obviously, control YAW, (here comes the DOH! moment) so in the FLIGHTENGINE.ini I posted I simply changed ForceFeedbackControl=PITCH_CONTROL to read ForceFeedbackControl=YAW_CONTROL and, voila! Really, not knowing how you stuff wired up, I wasn't sure it would work but I'm glad it did. Again, glad I could help!
  10. ace, I'm not sure if this'll work but, stick this in your flight folder: (If you don't have a Flight folder, just create one). FLIGHTENGINE.7z
  11. ace, do you have a FlightEngine.ini in your Flight folder? If so, make sure it has this section: [ForceFeedback] ForceFeedback=FlightFFBEffect.ini ForceFeedbackControl=PITCH_CONTROL FadeStartTime=0.2 FadeTime=1.0
  12. See this thread: http://combatace.com/topic/71259-pimp-my-cat/page-2 Yes there are some updates comin'!
  13. Looks really good, thanks Pappy!
  14. Saisran, take a look at this post; http://combatace.com/topic/80675-need-some-pc-help/ , unfortunately Viggen (the OP) doesn't say how he figured it out but follow Migbusters' advice and see if your Nvidia card shows up. And on another note, glad to see you back; I was beginning to think the damn typhoon had gotton you!
  15. What aircraft were you using? You shouldn't have to go lower than LightRange=5.0, as Stary said that's the stock value. Lots of earlier third-party aircraft, especialy those from SF1, had values (IIRC) up around 200.0. Even some aircraft updated to SF2 standards still have this problem as it was missed in the update process. Edit: OK, just looked at the pic at the top of the post; FA-18s. If those are from the May2012 Pack, they definitely have the problem. In your mods folder, look in the Effects folder for a file called F18EFFECTSEMITTER and open it. It's basically a custom version of the particlesystem.ini that Stary posted. The relevant entry says LightRange=250.0, change that to 5.0 and your problem should be solved. This isn't the only aircraft with this problem; IINM the Tomcat Superpack has one or two ABEmitters with it and I'm sure there are others. There's also some info in the KB, somewhere. Something to keep in mind whenever you D'ld a plane.
  16. Take a look at this: http://combatace.com/topic/72591-strike-fighters-2-screenshots/page-152?do=findComment&comment=645312
  17. Earlier in this thread: http://combatace.com/topic/80528-trouble-installing-a6/?do=findComment&comment=643864 . You might have missed it.
  18. Happy Thanksgiving.............

    Gobble, Gobble!
  19. The NSA should be stopping by your place any minute now.
  20. The pit looks superb; the only major flaw is that the DME (time/distance to next waypoint/target) on the HSI doesn't work. I've got it and think it's well worth it.
  21. porschefan, not quite the same problem, but; take a look at this thread, might be the same solution! http://combatace.com/topic/77715-modern-planes-returning/
  22. F-105 vs F-35 JSF

    Ahh, Jesus Chri... Did any of you guys actually read the article? I've had some serious disagreements with Perfesser Kopp in the past, but not this time. At no time in this article does he attempt to say that the F-105 could substitute for the F-35; he merely points out that similar requirements resulted in aircraft of similar size and weight. He isn't really comparing the two aircraft but the way they fit into the same niche in their respective eras. He opines that the F-35s namesake P-38 Lightning was more like the F-22 Raptor of its day and that the F-35 was more analogeous to the P-39 and P-40; I'm pretty sure he didn't mean they could be substituted for the F-35 in the present day. Where he does miss is in his analysis of the Thuds' performance in Vietnam. He sounds like a bombing campaign like Rolling Thunder was what the F-105 was designed for. It was not. For one thing, check out the eighth picture down in the article. Almost every picture you see of Thuds in action in 'Nam shows the same thing; F-105s dropping bombs from high altitude. The F-105 wasn't just designed as a high speed, low level strike aircraft, it was designed as a high speed, low level NUCLEAR strike aircraft. It wasn't designed to be self-escorting; it wasn't intended to have any escort at all. It was intended, if the balloon went up in Europe, to carry a single, fairly high yield nuclear bomb into and beyond the interdiction zone (which is why its combat radius was so much higher than other USAF fighters of its day), and deliver it on a high value target. Period. It obviously never flew this mission profile in Vietnam. OK, nuff said on that. As far as the F-35, F-22, vs Su-27, Su-35, Su-37, Pak-Fa, whatever; I think the only answer is a weapons hot fly-off; Stipe, you get the Sukhoi; I'll ummm, I'll be in the Raptor.
  23. Heck, some beautiful skins; keep up the good work! Funny you should mention the P-40s' "alleged mediocrity", though, this always burns my ass when people who get their history from TV bring it up. In the world of TV history, we were losing the war until the arrival of the Hellcat, Corsair, and the Mustang. They were all great planes but the fact of the matter is that they were all playing cleanup; the war in both theaters had already turned in our favor by the time they arrived. After Midway and the battles around Guadalcanal in mid and late 1942, Japanese Naval Aviation had been crushed; a shell of the force that had attacked Pearl Harbor. Likewise, Japanese Army Aviation had also shot it's bolt; this was all achieved with the aircraft we started the war with, namely the F-4F Wildcat (another "mediocre" aircraft), the P-40 Warhawk, and the P-38 Lightening. In the Mediterranean the P-40 was widely used by both us and the Brits and in the European Theater, the combination of the P-38 and the P-47 Thunderbolt had the Luftwaffe cracking at the seams by the time the Mustang arrived; with the right drop tanks either of them could escort bombers to Berlin, and in the case of the P-38, far beyond.
×

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..