column5

Both are being worked on. I'll be all over skinning the A-7 when one is released. The biggest obstacle to new aircraft right now, IMO, is the lack of Flight Model tools or documentation.

Just finished this long-term project: Ready for download at my site.

Thanks! That skin took at least 20 hours to complete, compared to 2 to 6 hours each for my Phantom skins.

Sweet. I'm gonna ahve to grab this and some of the other great Air Force skins and go on an "exchange tour." :D

Storm sent over a new F-4D skin for the 194 FIS: I'm hosting several other skins for him as well, including a couple of new and very nice F-100Ds. Check them out in my 'Guest Artists' section!

Storm tells me that he has two more 194 FIS skins in the works. One will be a Euro One scheme, but I can't recall what he said the other is...

Not trying to spin your thread at all, BirdDogg. Just putting my opinion out there.

One additional comment: This situation with SFP1 reminds be a lot of my job. I'm a network admin and I often have to fix stupid mistakes made by other people. If anyone deserves our hate mail, its Strategy First, who are ultimately responisble for both the Wal-Mart Fiasco and the slightly premature Gold release. Had TK been given another month to polish the game, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I hate to sound like an apologist, but that is the way I see it.

I agree that they should relese a patch for the single-player bugs, and then focus on a patch that only deals with the multi-player problems. But, they aren't, so... There is more than just potential, here. The game is, in fact, already being heavily developed by the community. Let's see, there is an A-1 Skyraider, an F-105, a Mirage III, an A-7 and an A-37 that have already been imported into the game and are nearing completion. A beta mission editor was released recently. The extract utility gives you access to all the goods. Skins are a-plenty. Deuce released his great Euro terrain. And, yes, there is a patch in the works. Sorry but I just can't see what there is to be upset about. This may be the most game you will ever get for $40. I want the patch as much as you do but I don't see any reason to complain about its delay. Look at it this way: out of the box, its the best simulation of Air-to-Air combat in the F-4 Phantom that has ever been made. They could have sold that alone for $40, and the rest of it WILL arrive.

FWIW, I finished my VMFA-232 skin: As a bonus feature, I've included name tag decals below the canopy. These come blank, but if you have photoshop or a similar program you should be able to easily open the files and add names to them. The real squadron appears to have used a white "font" on the red background.

:D

I didn't know Coyote had one out. Although I'm eventually going to skin every USN and USMC squadron that flew the Phantom, I've been focusing mainly on squadrons that have not been done yet. Oh well, we'll just have two VMFA-232 skins available! Maybe I'll move the Red Devil insignia to the tail so they will not be completely identical. Also, as Weasel_87FIS said I've been skinning the F-4B. I assumed that dagger's request for an F-4E was a typo since USMC markings on an F-4E would be historcally inaccurate. Sorry Dagger, that's what I get for making assumptions.

Here's a work-in-progress shot: Still a lot to do, including some tweaking on the VMFA-232 font and the Red Devil badge, but I think this one will turn out nice. Look for it to be finished this weekend.

Hammer, meet nail You sure hit the nail right on the head with that thought. My sentiments exactly My copies of "McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies" and the NATOPS Manual for the F-4J arrived today, so I am in Phantom heaven!

I think I like yours better, Fast Eagle. The Devil insignia looks better on the side. And the black trim around the cockpit always look good. Damn. There is something about the Phantom that screams, "Let's get this sh*t ON!" :twisted:

Something along these lines? Edit: Pic deleted. See below.

Hey, that's a damn nice skin! :D As soon as I have some free time I'd be happy to work on some name tag decals for your squad.

I have. The conversion factor stated by TK on the SimHQ forum is 4.44822, which might be responsible for the discrepency in our figures, if you are using 4.442 as stated above. Here is a link: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...TML/002239.html Using this conversion factor, A-4B and A-4E have correct thrust, while the A-4C is incorrect. A-4E: SLThrustDry=37809.9 (37809.9 / 4.44822 = 8500.006) A-4C: SLThrustDry=34251.3 (34251.3 / 4.44822 = 7700.001) A-4B: SLThrustDry=34251.3 (34251.3 / 4.44822 = 7700.001) The A-4E and A-4B match up well with the site I linked to. The A-4C obviously is underpowered.

I want to add the following: My humble opinion is that the what Dark_Knight is doing is great--that is, we all want the highest-fidelity flight models that we can get given the constraints of the game's physics engine. I want my work to be taken seriously and so I respect everyone else's contribution in kind. That said, I have one huge problem with modding the .INI files by hand: There are lots of variables in the flight models that serve as inputs to other equations. An example: Pitch inertia is a factor of fuselage weight and length. If I were to change the weight of an aircraft without recalculating the pitch inertia, along with every other stat for which weight is an input, I have not made the flight model any more accurate, in fact I would argue that the flight model has been made worse because it is now unbalanced. I expect that TK will release a flight model editor which will allow us to make changes to the basic stats, such as thrust, weight, etc. and which will recalculate all of the other stats for us. Until that time, I'm going to stick to the OTB flight models and put my own pet projects, the A-4F and F-4J, on hold. This is all, or course, just my opinion. Dark_Knight, I hope you don't take offense to my being so vocal on this issue.

The A-4B and A-4E both have the correct thrust OTB. The only model where a change can be justified is the A-4C. They do not all use the 7800 lb figure. The A-4E is clearly rated at 8500 lb out of the box.

The Skyhawk modeled in the game, the A-4E, has the 8500lb thrust J52-P-6A engine. This is correctly modeled in the game as: SLThrustDry=37809.9 37809.9 Newtons / 4.44822 = 8500 lbs Only certain A-4Fs and later models had the higher powered J52-P-408A, rated at 11200 lbs thrust. Thus, there is no need to increase the thrust on the stock A-4. Here's a good source for information on the various Skyhawk models: http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/d...douglas/a-4.htm

Everyone is raving about these skins: http://www.marcfighters.hpg.ig.com.br/index.htm I haven't downloaded any yet myself, but the screenshots look great!

I've been fooling around with the SFP1 Extract Utility and in particular have been looking at the MiG-17F performance specs. The default thrust values in the MIG-17F_DATA.INI are: SLThrustDry=38245.94 SLThrustWet=56290.17 TK posted at SimHQ that most of the values are metric, so these thrust ratings appear to be measured in kN (kilo-newtons, IIRC). These figures correspond to 8598lb thrust dry and 12655lb in afterburner using a conversion factor of 4.44822 (also specified by TK). These figures seem high, and indeed searching around the 'net for MiG-17F performance data seems to bear this out. There are numerous sites I could link, but this one is most interesting: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig17-01.htm Scrolling down towards the bottom you can see the thrust of the Klimov VK-1F turbojet rated at 29.5kN dry and 33.14kN with reheat. Or, 6632lb dry and 7450lb with reheat. In game terms this would look like: SLThrustDry=29500.00 SLThrustWet=33140.00 Considerably less that the out-of-the-box MiG-17F. On to my point. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm going to reduce the thrust and see how the MiG performs with the mroe realistic figure. It isn't my intention to water down the MiG-17 in any way, but I do think the Phantom should display a marked superiority in power v. the MiG-17 which I really haven't noticed to this point.

You don't need to put it back into the .cat file. As long as the file is in the correct folder it will override the one in the .cat file. As for the F-100, its flight model is so screwed up that a Cessna with underwing BB guns would be a serious threat. "Lead, Two, he's got a pair of Daisys! No joy, no joy!"

Emails sent!