SupGen

Well, as usual I've opened my fat mouth and stuck my foot in it...but I do have an answer. If you look at the attached screenshots you'll notice they look a lot like yours, the first three are from a Block 30 F-16C Cupid, the second three are from a stock F-4E_78. In both the Flight Path Marker and what you've referred to as the Horizon Line (it's actually part of the Attitude Bars .tga) are firmly nailed, as you put it, on one spot; but that spot is the horizon. I think this is correct. It looks like you've got the "Hud" (combining glass) raised up in the AUP but this isn't really the issue. The problem is that the F-4s hud isn't a hud at all, it's a combining glass that really is just a gunsight; the glass itself isn't tall enough to contain the information given on an actual hud, even an SF2 hud. Look at the screens I've got here and fly that AUP of yours and watch what the hud does; part of the problem is the way they're modelled in SF2. I think you may have to make a taller glass, luckily, for you that shouldn't be a problem. I hope this helped you in some way.

Cool DA, I was only speaking for myself.

Which F-16C? This is for the F-16C_B30: [HUD_AttitudeBars] SymbolType=ATTITUDE_BARS //ImageFilename=cockpit\HUD\HUD_attitude_bars%d.tga ImageFilename=cockpit\HUD\16A_attitude_bars%d.tga ImagePosition=0.0,0.00 //ImageSize=0.170 //StepInterval=5 //StepHeight=0.25 ImageSize=0.200 StepInterval=2.5 StepHeight=0.125 Send me the file; I think I can get to it tonight.

Hey, I'm 57 and didn't get my first computer until 2009. Then I built this one; Core I7 860 O'Cd to 3.6GHz, Biostar T5XE Motherboard, 8 Gigs of Kingston Hyperx 1333 RAM, and a RadeonHD 6870 Vid card. So you can teach old dogs/donkeys new tricks.

Ravenclaw, ImagePosition=, ScaleImagePosition=,and TextPosition=, given in X/Y coordinates. Hope this helps; if not send me the file and I'll take a look.

Agreed.

There are many people at this site who still work with Capun; the dispute preceded my involvement here and shouldn't affect anyone who wasn't involved in it; I have friends who can't stand one another and yet I'm friends with both. DA, I screwed up over there and had my download privileges terminated also; I answered the E-mail, apoligized, and explained that it had been an honest mistake (I'd been up 'til the wee hours (A.M.) one night and d/loaded some stuff, and then d/loaded some more when I got home from work the "next" day (24 hour clock)). Capun took it into account and my d/load privileges were restored. I also made a cash donation afterwards, I also pony up here. These sites cost money to run and I think anyone who runs one, whether it's Eric or Capun, is doing it because they love this Sim and the community that's involved with it, but lovin' it don't pay for it. 'K, just wanted to say that cuz I think Capun gets a bad rap sometimes, I mean, Razbaam does stuff for SF1/2 and charges money for it; and it looks like they're following the money to DCS. DAT produces a lot of stuff for SF and it's free, a lot of work for no money. Alright, that being said, if anyone does have access to A-Team downloads, run, do not walk, and get this. I can only say: GREAT!!! Worth it for the Coral Sea Campaign alone; just what I was looking for, Carrier vs Carrier in the South Pacific! Hopefully, battles like Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz will be featured in future update packs. For those who've gotten it, the Mission Editor problem can be fixed by extracting a new MISSIONEDITOR.INI, adding the statement for the .Wav file, and dropping it into the Menu folder. Again, if you can get this, do so. Congragulations to all concerned.

Unmatched Patch Date? Go to Thirdwires download page and download the latest versions of everything you're trying to install. Then install those in the proper order and that should do it. You don't have to pay twice; once you buy something from ThirdWire, you have unlimited downloads.

Ah, Zipper skins, I've been waiting to hear someone say that. Can't wait. As far as the Data.inis go, I've been comparing the F-104C_61 to the stock F-104G and, as far as positions go, they are about 98% the same; some minor differences in wing stations (as you would expect; the G's wings were a little bigger), in fact the stock F-104G cockpit position seems to work fine in the F-104C, too. (The pilots seat position is exactly the same, so why not?) There are some minor things, the fuel tank layout is wrong, the stall and landing speeds seem much too low (maybe for the AI pilots?), but like I said, minor. The animations are all the same, and you can make the nose wheel steerable the same way: CastoringNodeName=lg_front_piston. The one thing I've noticed is most of the entries relating to the flight model are much more detailed; here is one entry from the right wing of the G model: CL0MachTableNumData=7 CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.40 CL0MachTableStartX=0.00 CL0MachTableData=0.973,1.000,1.104,1.269,0.970,0.743,0.604 And the same entry from the C: CL0MachTableNumData=24 CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.10 CL0MachTableStartX=0.00 CL0MachTableData=0.977,0.979,0.983,0.990,1.000,1.014,1.031,1.054,1.083,1.083,1.301,1.246,1.230,1.203,1.125,1.027,0.948,0.883,0.826,0.773,0.728,0.688,0.652,0.620 Now I don't know that much about FMs, I couldn't tell you what each of those numbers means, but the increase in number of data points deliniating the same thing would seem to indicate a more "refined" flight model, with smaller transitions. Notice I didn't say correct, because I don't know, however I would be hesitant to just "swap out" things because it might be felt that the plane is too agile or responsive, as I've seen suggested; I'm not sure what we might be losing. There are also entries relating to Stalls, etc. that have no corallary in the G models FM entries. This is also true in the Engine section. I don't know if these "extras" were just not modelled in SFP1 or if this is more "refinement". In short (Hah!), this part of the Data.ini needs a Flight Model expert. Streak, one should never regret not being a drone.

Well, this is just my opinion, but I don't think TK started this whole thing as a way to make money, at least not to get rich. He used to work for ED, right? He probably made a decent salery and had a fair amount of job security, what he didn't have was creative freedom. I mean, look at the time period he chose; I think the big name development houses skip this period because their "focus groups" show more interest in WWll or ultra-modern FA-18, Raptor, PakFa, helmet mounted sights, can't miss missiles, etc. The period StrikeFighters covers is unique in the history of air combat because all those "ultra-modern" things (BVR and missile combat in general) were in their infancy, the jet fighter was "coming of age" and beginning to live up to it's potential. Jet combat prior to that was "WWll Redux", only faster. Again, this is only me, but I think SF is as much a "Labor of Love" for TK as anything else. One other point, Streak, I think TK's got a lot more in common with you than you might think; what aircraft has been in this series from the very beginning yet still benefits from updates, (the latest patch added slotted tailplanes for the F-4N), DLCs, DLC skinpacks, etc. Yessir, the Phabulous Phantom. In its purest form, and especially before NA, StrikeFighters IS Rhinotown, USA, and I think that's how TK likes it. Everything else is supporting cast.

Thanks Paulo, I'm definitely going to check that out.

My condolences to you and yours.

No, that means you have to change Exported=FALSE to Exported=TRUE.

I'm using this right now and it looks okay: Position=0.00,5.781,0.616

Not only can you drop flaps at 550kts, the leading edge flaps are linked to them. Sweet!

I think the slats are open on takeoff by default. I'm using this temporarily just to see how they work; they open and close between 128 and 140 kts. [LeftSlat] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE CLiftdc=-0.0403 CDdc=0.0023 Cmdc=-0.0025 DeltaStallAlpha=1.59 AreaRatio=1.006 DeploymentMethod=AUTOMATIC_AERODYNAMIC_LOAD Setting[1].Angle=15.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=51.47 //Setting[1].RetractValue=102.9 Setting[1].RetractValue=72.9 MaxDeflection=15.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=4.0 AnimationID=9 ModelNodeName=slat_L SmoothDeployment=TRUE [RightSlat] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE CLiftdc=-0.0403 CDdc=0.0023 Cmdc=-0.0025 DeltaStallAlpha=1.59 AreaRatio=1.006 DeploymentMethod=AUTOMATIC_AERODYNAMIC_LOAD Setting[1].Angle=15.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=51.47 //Setting[1].RetractValue=102.9 Setting[1].RetractValue=72.9 MaxDeflection=15.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=4.0 AnimationID=8 ModelNodeName=slat_R SmoothDeployment=TRUE I'm pretty sure the original values were fairly close to correct; the aircraft had a fairly small, highly loaded wing; with the original values they should open/close around 190/200 kts. when you figure they had a top speed in the 350 kt. range, that's probably about right.

Yeah, that's WaltBJ in the link I posted above; according to him (and several other sources) you can drop flaps (to the first notch) at up to 550KIAS; of course, you can't leave 'em out there forever, but it'll definitely boost your turn rate.

Try enabling the flaps on the S-99; aside from the effed-up pivot point, (I guess that's why they're commented out) they buck like broncos. And I'd hate to have to adjust shockstroke etc., in every aircraft in my install.

March2012 had definite Control.ini issues. Check the KB. Onboard graphics chips are not sufficent to run the Iceland terrain. You should probably go to a later patch, and definitely get a dedicated graphics card.

Mac, I think the Zippers were another plane that got a bad rep from people who didn't know how to fly it properly, check this out: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Sounding%20off%20about%20the%20Zipper.htm . Lots of other good stuff at the site. A lot of aircraft don't respond well to the "yank and crank, pull harder on the pole" method of ACM, the F-104 was definitely one of them. Hell, "everybody" knows the F-4, for instance, turns like a brick; and it does if you just yank on the stick and try to follow a MiG-17 through a level turn. Put it into the vertical though, and fight the Rhinos' fight and it was very often a different story. Aircraft lose energy quickly in sustained hard maneuvering, having a high thrust to weight ratio allows you to maintain energy and therefore speed, and as we all know, Speed is Life! Anyway, click that link and enjoy yourself.

They all work except the PD. Try them on the ground. They're actually a brake chute for landing. The entries for them are at the bottom of the Data.ini files.

These are real nice. Nice skins, the F-104C has the missile catamaran as part of the .lod, what's not to like?

Thanks, DA, I figured it out. I have my mod folders on my F: Drive so I have to have a duplicate in C:\SavedGames with an Options.ini pointing to the folder on F:. The method I've been using to prevent Patches/DLCs from overwriting everything is to change the pointer to C: while I update. Worked flawlessly for the new patch, once I ran all the .exes I changed the pointer back to F: and, Voila! May2013. The DLCs seem to act just like other Objects/Aircraft; they only generate the first time you run the .exe. It's actually an advantage; I can just extract and install only the ones I want in any particular mod folder. Pretty cool.

Two things: One, the "in the air, near base thing. If you noticed, eburger enabled the "Turn off lens flare" on the Options page, in game, I think with just edits in the .ini. Perhaps this could be done the same way? Two, I picked up the F-4N DLC; when I installed it, it only installed to SF2NA. All the Version.inis showed it, but I had to manualy drop the Main.ini into all my other mod folders. Any idea why?

You don't need decals; in the skin folders with no D folder, the Decal.inis call for "stock" decals: Insignia and SovietNum. These are in the games' Cat files.