Lexx_Luthor

That's a faxinating photo. KB-50J? You can just see the jet exhaust, J-47s, flyin chickens in the barnyard. I'm desperately looking for a way to let SAC shoehorn those jets into B-50 a few years earlier, to get better preformance over Siberia. KB-50J ~> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b50_13.html

Its not that hard. Use the exclusion region. Download a map that uses the method. My 6M map with blank development terrain tiles uses it alot, in fact, I used the method doubled up to further restrict tiles beyond where Major Lee's tutorial took it. If you look at mine for your example, focus on Baikal lake tile for example... First exclusion is set up with initial Baikal tile definition. The numbers are kilometers. [baikal] : : ExclusionRegion=1 ExcludeMaxX=2900 ExcludeMinX=0 ExcludeMaxY=6000 ExcludeMinY=0 : : Second exclusion set up with the specific Baikal__.bmp definitions... [baikal.bmp] : : ExclusionRegion=1 ExcludeMaxX=6000 ExcludeMinX=0 ExcludeMaxY=6000 ExcludeMinY=2220 : : Beware that this map is still in pure X experimental phase, and not at all usable by normal real life people.

Like every SAC crew, they earn every minute of sleep they can get.

There's a famous pic running around with Putin holding a gold bar. Some say Russia is buying gold, or at least its own mine prodution, so that could explain the takeoff. Interesting. I know of one F-106 and an Su-9 that landed by themselves after pilot ejection, engines running. Both flew again.

If you have not tried my 3D rocket exhaust, take a look here... ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=a&start=16 Note: Short missile trails are caused by short burn time. Some SAMs may offer longer burn times especially for the sustainer stage. However, ThirdWire sustainer motor grafix do not work, and some sort of compromise must be made.

Man I've tried enough stuff that never panned out I should be poasting from a padded cell.

Enviro? I never knew it was in there. I guess it rules over game created missons, including campaigns. That's another thing. My Enviro that I often share assumes hand crafted missions. I never use the other quick mission features, nor campaigns. mmm

dannn:: At this point, I would avoid mixing my stuff with HDR bloom stuff. I have not looked at the HDRBloom, since I think some of the basic ideas I use are available in Enviro. I'm starting to think I got lucky in labelling my stuff "siberian" as perhaps the label serves as a warning to the innocent and unwary of the weirdness lurking within. USAFMTL was cheering me on during my nuc development, but then after releace, he said he could not use it. I felt kinda bad about that, but I do push the sim beyond what most would desire I think.

I don't see many of pics of this. I thought it wonderful. Anybody know of others out there? From http://f-106deltadart.com/87fis.htm

But then, weapon file can't sequence the stations, unless such an ability were added to the weapon data system. Anyway, what a mess, but the best things usually are.

I'll look around for the video, no luck so far. In the real thing, they would fire two: IR then radar. I wish TK would tweak the code to let AI fire missile salvoes, the salvo sequence and number defined in a data file. That would be interesting -- what data file would this be in for best results. Not the weapon file, since aircraft may have differing uses for the same weapon (not sure). I think the FM data file for each aircraft, but may need a new type of data block, with timings between firings, and sequencing of weapon station usage. But that's a mess. Better use the weapon data file, as multiple weapons of the same missile could be made to represent different salvo configurations.

I usually let people figure out the files for themselves, because its a great learning experience. But I can give a handy dandy tip: Make an extra folder containing the objectlist cat file alone, and extract using that isolated cat into that extra folder. Thus, all the files extracted, and there will be many, will be isolated, and not mixed with lots of other files. Warning: one may miss a number of "A-7" cockpit texture files, as they are shared among multiple aircraft in The WoV. You will have to figure out what they are. Once you do that, you can do anything.

Well we have to think of something, since having escort fighters of some kind would make things more interesting in a game. Here's an interesting quote I found about the Korean War. I'm thinking that LeMay wanted to test the much longer range F-84s in combat as escort fighters, even if F-86s had the range to help in this limited case. That's just a guess of mine of course. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : Lt. Gen Stratemeyer thought that the F-84s were no match for the MiG-15s and preferred the Sabre for the task but he was under pressure of the temperamental SAC commander, General Curtiss LeMay, who wanted to see the Thunderjets of the 27th FEW acting as escorts. This is an unusual episode since FEAF was distinct from SAC and under the direct control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. SAC continued to control all the bomber forces in the ZI (Zone of Interior - i.e., the United States). Stratemeyer gave in and crossed his fingers in hope that the 334th FIS will be enough to keep the MiGs away from the bombers. Nothing remotely similar would happen in what turned out to be one of the worst USAF operations up to that date. : : ~ http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_315.shtml ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most interesting is an old study I found (locate?), I think roundabout late 1940s or early 1950s, concluding that if the Soviets hunkered down, nucular weapons alone might not have been sufficient to force a surrender. The damage done by nukes is NOT so "amazing" after all, at least if the enemy is prepared for it, both psychologically and physically. Dresden was basically "nuked" by conventional bombing, but only the Allied armies could force a German surrender.

Thanks ojcar! In addition to flying harassment over night fighter airfields, after the summer of 1944, the Mosquito's centimeter radar allowed it to perform interceptions against Luftwaffe night fighters, picking them out from the bomber stream. NAVY F3D Skyknights and USAF F-94s performed a roughly similar escort role over North Korea, interfering with MiG-15s that worked with searchlights against B-29s. Equally fascinating were tactics developed by MiG pilots to entrap the NAVY and USAF night fighters, so this was certainly another interesting night air war, yet far smaller than Bomber Command's in WW2, that can be looked at for some ideas. Agreed about the distances. Range is the greatest problem facing SAC escorts of the period. The distance from England to Berlin is insignificant compared to what SAC has to fly deep into Soviet lands. However, if escorts can cover at least some of the distance, like P-47s in Europe, the escorts will be used. I'm thinking that 1950s single seat Soviet all weather interceptors, never mind day fighters, were at best useful against very large non-manuevering bombers at night, and even the early radar equipped interceptors would not be overwhelmingly successful against night escorts, although the Yak-25 may be another story, and was probably the best all weather interceptor for a brief period in the mid 1950s. What happened in Korea tells me that SAC would shift to night operations after the MiG-15 and its successors became available, unless the Soviet war machine was sufficiently damaged to keep MiG-15 from becoming numerous...ie...the 8th AF managed to "beat" the timing of Me-262 and its problematic engine development. The fighters reserved to meet any Soviet bomber counter attacks would already be flying for Air Defense Command, still based in Ussia, and not based in offensive SAC airfields surrounding Russia. Also, I'm thinking that the rather ineffective Soviet bomber force at the time, and their factories, would be among the first targets in a SAC offensive.

I'm in. My stuff is so weird, well...if somebody can use some of that weirdness, have Fun!

ojcar:: No dogfight, just humble high speed tail chase. Recall that the PVO interceptors want mostly to chase bombers. If MiGs and Sus turn to avoid Voodoo AIM-9Bs, the bombers get through. Now, there may be more interceptors waiting further along, but there should be more flights of Voodoos as well. Once the MiG-21F and (original) Su-7 day fighters are available, they have the speed to also fly multiple flights in contest the multiple flights of Voodoos, and so protect interceptors targeting the bombers, much like Bf-109s were used to fly cover for the more heavily armed Fw-190s targeting the 8th AF bombers. But once the MiG-21/Su-7 start flying, so can F-105 which, if given some thought, would make a brutal penetration fighter to replace Voodoo, or Voodoo can be upgraded. There was a plan for J-79 Voodos there somewhere. Another possibilty is the F-110, although somewhat later than F-105. That's something I'm working around, and its fascinating since the real thing, like Wings Over Europe, thankfully never happened. High altitude penetration is always desirable over low altitude, assuming air defenses have been sufficiently destroyed or neutralized. The RAF was successful in combating the Luftwaffe in night electronic warfare without having to retreat, tail between leggs, to low altitude penetration. If SAC had to actually go in and fight in the 1950s, especially over a long period of time, they would place Prime focus on electronic warfare over and above all else, as they would use the RAF experience as a model. Mosquito escorts were essential for the RAF against the Luftwaffe, so even with electronic warfare, escorts may still be needed.

If its the sizes, one may edit the effects ini files, and change particle sizes to a smaller Taste.

C5:: Thanks! This counter-tactic might let the bombers through...not sure. If Voodoos came down, they won't come down far. Say Voodoos at 45k feet, MiGs at 30k. Any lower and the MiGs pose no threat to anybody, so ignore them. Voodoo drops to 30k and can keep its speed and attack, if miss, forget and keep going. Another flight of Voodoos would be following. If most MiGs are missed, that means they likely were forced to turn away from their target, assuming high altitude Sidewinder effectiveness of 1958. If MiGs turn away, they may not have another chance at the bombers. An RAF Lightning interceptor pilot wrote that they had enough fuel for one high speed intercept attempt, similar to Me-163 strangely enough. However, there was a tactic the PVO trained for with Su-9 and Su-11, and that was against high flying intruders (U-2 primarily) but this was not ready until after Gary Powers. This tactic involved gaining high supersonic speed at about 50k feet, then pulling up into a zoom to launch. I'd guess the older missiles PVO were not great at this. On the other hand, the R-80 used by Tu-128 was designed for engaging targets at altitudes far higher than the launch aircraft, but that was years after Voodoo prime time. Some severe game limitations must also be considered. I believe that deleting guns would let AI aircraft fly away after missiles run out, instead of looking for a gunfight. Also, the sim does not allow AI aircraft to use afterburning dash as a waypoint. I have not figured out a way to overcome this other than over powering the engines, and using afterburner emitters, for "normal" non-afterburning flight. I don't like that but can't think of anything else. The sim is not made for strategic gaming, only for tactical, but then they all are.

C5:: I smell a contrarian buying opportunity. Heavy weight and "lack of maneuverability" are shared traits among the most successful fighters of all time: SPAD, P-47, etc... MiG-19s would have stood no chance against properly missile armed F-101 escort fighters, assuming the tactic is waves of small penetration flights, using missiles only, and at high altitudes only, and no turning and slowing down to gunfight targets missed by missiles. However, I would certainly, as soon as possible, re-arm the F-101 with either nucular Falcons, or AIM-9Bs which proved stunningly reliable and destructive against "manueverable" MiG-17s at the high altitudes of the 1958 Formosa Straits air combat....and drop the gun. SAC gave up because even the F-101 did not have the range to escort B-52s all the way to their targets, but over medium distances, the Voodoo would have made a stunningly successful penetration fighter with some decent missiles. At high altitudes, the MiG-19 could not manuever any better than F-101 for practical use in combat, nor could anything else (B-36 could out turn F-86 what version I'm not sure). The MiG-21 (or Su-7 fighter) would have the speed to catch an afterburning F-101, but not for more than a few minutes.

Czech out skin folder. It might be Reflection=0 in skin texture set. Try a similarly low but nonzero number, say 0.1 [TextureSet] Name=Soviet Silver Nation=Soviet Squadron= Specular=0.400000 Glossiness=0.300000 Reflection=0.000000 --- This first happened to me here...scroll down until BREAKING NEWS, F84F ~ http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=a&start=24

On the other hand, for my Stargetic Cockpit panel methods, I prefer high polygons in the external model's cockpit area, but anything else can be low poly. Below is the view from the rear seats inside of Pasko's MiG-15UTI and Pappy's TA-4 external models. Both shows nice basic 3D structure. J-8 won't allow this, but MiG-31BM I think can. What is sad is that Veltro's WIP models seemed to show good cockpit interior framing that I could use stargetically.

Insky J-8 is one of the best 3D models around here now because its a different kind of plane than we are used to seeing, and most important, I mutate J-8 into a fair molding of MiG Ye-152A and M. But that's just me. Anyways, at Mach 2 speeds and BVR ranges, I try real hard but I don't see many polygons... er ...on any 3D external model that is.

Julhelm, the Pilot Boots are good enough for a "litesim." I always move Pilot Pants out of the way in the cockpit files anyways. I can understand Pilot Pants for The Jetsims, but in another age, hairy white leggs in the cockpit might kill the immersion.

BearKiller Why a European Army would have to stand "against" Ussia I don't know. Eurarmy would be just another army among many (although no standing armies are best). But if it did ever stand against Ussia, it might be for a good reason since its not like we follow our Constitution anymore. Best, an independent Euro Army would maybe see the development and fielding of entire new independent technology and machinery. I for one am Stoked that history gave us Drakens, Mirages, and Lightnings instead of everybody using stock F-104 or F-4. ...although if more nations had used F-106 that would always be a good thing.