Lexx_Luthor

Also, BVR can be anything beyond, say, 500 meters if at night or in thick weather. This is what I was hoping to see for early guns only situations, not just AI BVR radar detection for radar homing missile armed aircraft. Night BVR can be greatly increase when a target operates afterburner, or the target is caught in searchlights, or the target pulls contrails in the moonlight causing visual range to be over 50km. After the MiGs drove B-29s from the daylight sky, B-29 crews most feared their own contrails on moonlit nights. There is so much The Sims fail to model, unlike the ground war games which go far in modelling the ground war environment, and so find success in the market.

Interesting about the skill. Never thought of that. Actually, I mean "AI" and not restricted to the subset of AI wingpersons, and engage means fly in a behavior that will intercept the target, no matter what weapon types are loaded, even if just guns. ie...if the AI aircraft detects a target BVR with radar, will it fly to engage with whatever weapons it has? As far as I can tell now, you can tell if the AI detects a target BVR with radar by noting if the data display indicates RHM missile attack. ...try loading without RHM and see what happens. You need to check the aircraft data to see what BVR is. 10nm is near 20km, which should be somewhat beyond the visual detect range in stock Thudwire aircraft, and most 3rd Party mods. BVR is anywhere beyond the defined visual detect range, and possibly also depending on skill level, which is something I hadn't considered. mmm

Okay so now AI aircraft can fly to chase for engagment in BVR combat with radar missiles. Anybody get AI to do this from BVR distance with IR missiles or guns only?

wooops ... I forgot this was the shared PUB and not The StrikeFighters forum hehe

v:: HAHA no huds needed in this The Sim. They are available, but I keep it MFD-FREE and ZERO HUD TOLERANCE zone!!

Were they setup for Player or AI?

Now this is weird. I had SF2008 working just fine for weeks. I was just running SF2006 doing some experiments. Then it won't start. After the initial loadup, I click SingleMission and the screen flashes the main menu once and dumps to desktop. Not complaining. I'll figure this out, or repatch up SF 1.0. I've found my ticket. I fixed SF2006 so I get some good high altitude blue sky changes, but keep the sunset sky glow. I'll be passing on Patch 2008, anyways that's the end of the line for this game in XP.

Moonjumper poasted at Thudwire that manually placed SAMs don't work now. Earlier I had tried to get them working, but couldn't. Is this confirmed? SAMs placed in mission text file don't play anymore, they packed up and went home?

Mike:: Thousands of stories there http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/ some scary, some funny. One Army guy, sargeant I think, modded a little trick he taught to one of the site's story tellers: Sneak a look early to see the fireball and special effects nobody else would see as they were supposed to follow safety instructions. He did this everytime he got a chance, and he volunteered for as many nuc tests as possible.

Hey charley that's interesting. I'm looking for ways so RAF can make Lightnings have more range for fictional escort, including extra drop tanks or highly fictional air-refueling. Any source for these hardpoints you use? I know the Saudis added some extra carrying ability, for strike I think.

Yes, they're real. Detail writeup downabit here ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=a&start=24

Trees make a new experience. If you have forested terrain, you can make a primitive airstrip bounded by trees. Below is my first experiment. I made these for PVO airbases that may be under constant threat of long range SAC fighterbomber demolition (say, P-47N, F-105, etc...). Kinda like Luft bases in Germany were under threat from P-51s and P-47s. These are CAStary's pine trees, stretched to approximate thin Siberian pines. Stary made me a "9-pine" tga that allows much greater number of trees with less framerate hit. At the ends of the runway, I've cut down Stary's trees to stumps (visible here). This gives extra room for landing and takeoff. This is new. Trying to land inside this tub of trees. It should be possible to define an invisible ground object that has collision boxes corresponding to the treeline. Several of these should be placed around the runway player plane may be damaged or destroyed if run off the runway.

Icarus, an interesting thought... Boxed games today cost the same number of "dollars" that they did 15 years back, while real money/debt inflation has maybe doubled (not .gov cpi). The same games should cost 100$ now. There are two ways businesses handle inflation... (1) Increase prices. (2) Decrease package size for the same price -- cereal boxes come to mind. ...or a combination of both. I think game devs reduced package size: No more thick paper manuals, and now "online" sales which have no boxes at all. Icarus (last page):: I'd pay 100$ or more. Considering the "dollar" has lost about half its value since the 1990s, 100+$ would be a normal price.

This is what I got: EmptyInertia=16400,35500,42100

How did you get it up there? I thought you can only Move an item once. Has that part already been moved? What's wrong with the position I had it in? Instruments not working? In that thread, the first three pages have the core examples worked out. The other 500 pages are fluff.

Oh man thanks for the 3D stuff you do. Do you have the T49 data.ini. I can send it again.

BLEW IT. Now he won't read it...he "knows" about it, and that is good enough. I used to tutor physics and teh maths up to Linear Algebra. I know how this works. Thanks alot Wrench!

hehe STUMPED! You missed a steppe. 76, this method can be extremely useful. Use this as a resource, as muddled as it is... Specific detailed steppes start about 1/2 down page, below the pretty pics ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...410&start=0

Okay, I don't know about you guys, and I don't know if it was WW2, but Chuck Yeager...paraquoted here... Its the player, not the flight model. Of course, they are both equally important, but Chuck was trying to confront the populist idea that flight model is everything. Another one...I forgot who, but probably WW1... He who see first, wins. Both Chuck and Forgotten tell us something that is ignored by The Sims: The air warfare environment is the beginning and end of all air combat. That environment has never been modelled in The Sims. In fact, the level of air warfare environment modelling even today can be compared to a current ground combat game that has... No buildings. No roads. No trees. No hills. As the air warfare environment is also among the most beautiful things God created (and its a wonder how people fly in such a beautiful sky to kill each other with their machines), it is no coincidence that most people find air combat The Sims to be rather sterile, or lacking in immersion perhaps.

The entire cockpit is dropped 9 meters, and selected items are raised back into view. You will notice that some blocks are re-named as [xMoveN], these incorrectly named blocks are ignored. I left them here for you to experiment with. Just remove the "x" to correctly spell MoveN to see the results. I prefer the game on-screen radar box for large aircraft, so the radar is xMove ie...not Moved back into view. Other items are also "x"'d out. The only needed Moves are "Move" and not "xMove." [Move1] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=airframe MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=-9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=-9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [Move2] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=panelMain MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [Move3] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=gmeterPanel MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [xMove4] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=radarBox MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [xMove5] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=gunsightBox MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=8.920 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=8.920 Set[02].Value=1.0 [xMove6] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=panelTop MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [Move7] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=floor MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=9 Set[02].Value=1.0 [xMove8] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=heatReticle MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=-0.0075 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=-0.0075 Set[02].Value=1.0

And I if recall propaganda about poor eyesight Japanese pilots wearing thick lens glasses.

76, what about Su-15 panels? Here is an example inside TK's An-12.

T-49. I thought I sent them to you. I didn't change much, just some basics. I'll look at my old install see what I got.

What problem? You can darken the A-4 panels, if that's what you mean. As for Russianizing panels, Ordway would be the one for advice. The A-4 panel changes he made for Soviet and French guages are amazing stuff if you haven't seem them yet. In fact, czech out some of the MiG-15/17/19 panels he squeezed out of the A-4 and use them with some further Tu22-esque tweaks.

DOH I just did some experimenting with Patch 2008, and unless I am wrong, I found... Sure there is now "BVR" engagement, but it only works for RHM armed aircraft. IRM or gun only armed AI aircraft still don't go full on to intercept BVR targets it has on radar....they still have to be in the defined visual range. Nothing really changed here. I was hoping to combine visual distance variables with AI radar strength to simulate long range GCI guided intercepts even in guns-only years, and work with visual/radar strength variables to allow more realistic night combat for AI aircraft. I hope I'm wrong about this, if not one of the big reasons for me staying with Patch2008 just went down in smoke, as the older versions have features I need that are now gone.