baffmeister

Something to do with the time of day? I don't play around with the environment ini much but did notice quite a few variables for time of day. The purplish haze looks good in your screen shot, maybe it's in the morning?

Everything about this flight sim seems to be "high end." You need a high end computer to run it, probably a high end control system to enjoy it, and from what I've read the development costs are high end as well. Something like $100,00.00 US to develop an aircraft for the series? Considering that, I can understand the prices. I can also understand why hard core military flight simmers don't mind spending the money. The modeling of the aircraft systems and aerodynamics seems to be unparalleled and the terrains look fantastic so I think in this case you get what you pay for. Having said all that the development time is very long requiring an equally long term commitment from buyers. Maybe re-mortgage the house to get started?

Mountain Hideaway. My still unfinished fictional terrain.

None that I'm aware of. I did see some marginal super cruise from the Mirage F1 charts in a very clean configuration but I think at about 18000ft. Quite sure the dash 19 powered F-104C could super cruise as well but have to check the charts. Wrench is right, you can check out a lot of these questions yourself. Here's a link to a site with some flight manuals. You can look for free but downloads cost money: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-104starfighter/t-o-1f-104a-1-f-104a-b-c-d-flight-manual.html

The lighter F-105 will accelerate faster. The heavier F-105 will require a higher angle of attack for a given airspeed compared to the lighter one. The higher angle of attack will generate more induced drag during the acceleration phase, requiring more time to reach a given airspeed. The additional weight would slow down the acceleration as well, similar to what happens during the take off phase. The top speed question is a bit different. Considering that both aircraft have no external load, it may be a question of whats the limiting factor for top speed. If the limiting factor is thrust, then the heavier F-105 would be slower than the light one. If the limiting factor is structure or aerodynamics, the heavier F-105 might possibly be as fast. For the F-104, the limiting factor for speed was the compressor inlet temperature, limiting the design to about Mach 2.0, although the design was probably good to about mach 2.2 - 2.4. For the EE Lightning, the limiting factor on early versions was the nose radome structure which was only good to about mach 1.6 - 1.8, although it could fly faster. The numbers are a bit of a guess as I'm working from memory.

I like the new site, and I'm a Luddite!

I'm going to throw in a few comments here because I've been tinkering with a VooDoo flight model for quite some time and the VooDoo pitch up issue was common to some other types as well. From my research, the VooDoo pitch up is initially caused by wing tip stall. With the loss off lift associated with the tip stall, and keeping in mind the swept wing, the center of lift moves forward to the inner unstalled section of the wing. This would generate an initial pitch up but would also contribute to the tail blanketing issue resulting in loss of stabilator effectiveness. The result was a potentially uncontrollable pitch up. The tip stall could be aggravated by high roll rates so ultimately, the VooDoo was equipped with a roll limiter as well as a pitch limiter system. From anecdotal sources, at least one VooDoo pilot said the stability systems could be "outsmarted" probably from overly aggressive control inputs. Some other aircraft that would pitch up from tip stall include the F-100 [even with the low tail] and the early Hawker Hunters, which had a G limitation at higher mach numbers due to the risk of pitch up coupled with over G possibilities. The problem with the Hawker Hunter was addressed by the dogtooth/sawtooth /whatever it's called wing that was used on the later version. This info is all from memory. The F-104 Starfighter pitch up might be a bit different but it's been a while since I looked into it. Streakeagle made some intersesting comments a long time ago regarding the TW F-104 FM. He suggested it was based on the theoretical behavior for the low aspect ratio wing. This made a lot of sense to me as the TW F-104 seems to over perform in some areas and under perform in others. I "think" the stick kicker system in the F-104 kept the AoA somewhere in the 15-16 deg range while the low aspect ratio wing could probably operate effectively at significantly higher AoA. The pitch up issue with the F-104 "may" have been caused more by tail blanketing and a significant amount of lift being generated from the forward fuselage/canopy area coupled with the long moment arm of the forward fuselage/canopy. These comments are more of a quick overview over some potential causes of pitch up and, like I said, all from memory.

Watch out for model size differences between FE2 and SF2. For some reason, TW went with smaller models in FE2.

Geary, you might want to try the SF2 FM included with the Paulopanz Sea Fury package. It was made for Simon Porters Sea Fury model. I think the FM is similar more or less to the one I made for the SkippyBing model. If you're on the last SF1 patch it should be OK, not sure about earlier patches. Here's a link: https://combatace.com/files/file/13443-hawker-sea-fury-fb11-mk-50/

Working well for me also. I was using an old driver [347.88] due to cockpit jaggies and texture issues but this latest one [385.69] doesn't seem to have those issues and the anti-aliasing appears better as well. System: Win7-64bit, 4GB ram, GTX750.

After spending even more time on the strange bomb weight distribution problem and getting no where, I put together a relatively simple work around that I think is OK. The bomb pylon is now controlled by a no weight, no fuel, no jettison, fake pilot, specific station fuel tank. The new fuel tank is called "bomb pylon" and will be included in the loadout ini for any missions that require bombs. It will load automatically with the bombs. If, for some reason, you wish to take bombs on a recon mission or whatever, you will have to manually load the bomb pylon. The actual bombs use no pylon. I will include this work around in the next update. This is one of the weirdest model issues I've ever seen. When bombs are loaded on the pylons, the plane flies very right wing heavy. If I use the rocket rails to load the bombs, it flies slightly left wing heavy. If I use no pylons or rails, it flies straight. Anyway, this fix should work with the Typhoon as well.

Tried removing Object01 and 09. They are the "clamps' that hold the bomb to the rack. Doesn't fix the problem though. Did see another possible cause when looking at the model with Mue's Lod viewer. The inner portion of the bounding boxes for both the left AND right wing BOTH terminate on the R/H side of the fuselage. Not sure why that would affect the weight distribution to such an extent for bombs but not drop tanks but it's another area to investigate. Edit: Taking a look at the actual numbers generated by Mue's lod viewer as opposed to using the pointer like I did the first time the left wing extends from 0.0 to -6.306 and the right wing from 0.03202 to 6.338. The fore/aft and up/down bounding boxes are the same for both wings.

Good news!

Probably not a false lead but I don't know much about model building either. I was thinking it might be a hierarchy issue but that's just a wild guess.