Lexx_Luthor

Here is my R3 effect for R-8 missile with about 11,000kgf thrust. I made these things for long distance visibility which probably all combat flight sims ignore, so things may be a bit oversized here. One thing --- there may be a HUGE difference in solid and liquid propellent rocket exhaust. I'd imagine solid gives off far more smoke. Think of Space Shuttle strap on booster smoke and the clean H2+O2 exhaust of the main engines. Granted, that is hydrogen which is as clean burning as you get.

Wow, great work. Poast your R0 here. I'll try it. Thanks! You gotta love that loadout.

mmm, to make one step smaller than R1, in all emitters you divide four numbers by SQR(2) -- about 1.412. These four numbers are the rate, life, and the two sizes. First, you have to add some text blocks like the other Rn. I might do this with an update. You could also divide the light range and max vis by SQR(2), but they are not so critical. WAIT ...better...to keep it simple, use the R2 data instead, since any say "R0" would then be dividing the above numbers by 2 instead of SQR(2)...and R2's numbers are nice numbers (they are the numbers I started the project with). In fact, you could just delete R7's data at the bottom and copy/paste R2's data there, rename everything from R2xxx to R7xxx, divide by 2, and use R7 (or call it R0) for the new smallest effect. R7 is probably larger than any SAM you'd need, and may be more like something used by a medium sized ballistic missile.

Nothing here should change the burst, or warhead detonation effect. There are three effects concerning missile exhaust... BoosterEffectName SustainerEffectName InFlightEffectName A single stage should just use Booster. Many SAMs have two stages, and we have a BIG problem with the game. The Inflight effect is...I don't really know what but it lasts from launch to end of flight. I *think* TK made the Inflight effect to make missiles easy to see after motor burnout. Not sure. Use the stock Inflight effect if desired. One way to think of Inflight is the last bit of smoke coming out but I don't think this is correct. I'd think that after motor burnout, you only see missile and nothing else. Sustainer effect does not work (physics yes, grafix no). To make multistage missiles without sustainer grafix, some possibilities are.... (1) Approximate the missing sustainer effect with the Inflight effect -- but it lasts all the way to missile end of flight. (2) Make the missile single stage, with an "average" sized Booster effect and average the physics between the stages. I don't like this as its too much sacrifice of physics for grafix, but its a choice. --- What is thrust of Matra? Should I make one more smaller sized effect? I just found out that early AIM-9s may have had thrust smaller than 2000kgf. The R-3 Soviet derivative is larger and I guess correspondingly greater thrust to make up for this.

Wow thanks capun. That's very interesting stuff. I wish there were a more inexpensive 3D Max "lite" to get started with, to test the waters maybe, but not the student thing for non (or post!) students.

Right. In your WeaponData text file, you assign Rn of choice to the following variables -- n an integer of [ 1 , 7 ]. Sustainer grafix don't work in the sim however. If you work in the WeaponEditor, I guess place an Rn in the fields....I never use the editor except to SAVE as described in the CombatAce tutorial -- mmm I didn't think about this. BoosterEffectName=Rn SustainerEffectName=Rn InFlightEffectName=Rn edit...this could be confusting: There is only one (1) unguided rocket effect -- S5. There are no Sn except for S5. The "S5" name came to me from the ancient rocket called S-5. Maybe I should just call it R0 or something. You can change names if you wish.

True, true... TK's sim is generally "detailed" enough as far as aircraft, as streakeagle has shown in his/her F-4 flight models. The avionics is light, but more important needs are... Ramp up the AI coding, add things like abstracted air-air refueling for player and AI, working ground radars that function as a basic ground control intercept for AI (see even the old 1995 Su-27 Flaker sims), stuff like that. Maybe even a mission editor inside the sim that can use these newer features. All this can deepen the air warfare environment far more than having one or two "detailed" player planes. EDIT -- abstracted air-air refueling would be something like a designated "tanker" aircraft flying waypoints, and any AI aircraft that comes within, say, 10km of that tanker gets instantly refueled. Although it sounds 'lite' it adds very hardcore mission features such as AI aircraft having to find a tanker...actually getting close to a tanker and flying formation waiting for fuel could be restricted to player plane if desired. Another need is for AI aircraft to actually stop flying when they run out of fuel!

*update* v1.11 Siberian Sky -- Experimental 3-D Rocket Exhaust View File *** Note added August 2013: Decrease the particle generation rate in case of slow flying launching platforms, such as helicoptors or WW2 fighter bombers, to avoid too high density of smoke particles which look bad. ** June 2010. Updated to include the ancient Smoke3.tga. I had always thought this was game stock. I was wrong. Somebody, I don't know who, made the Smoke3.tga for the old Weapons Pack but that pack seems not used much today. So I include it now, finally. ** I'm using 7zip as file compression. I first saw it at Column5's Cold War downloads pages, so I tried it and love it. 7zip ~> http://www.7zip.com/ This project is part of a planned series of grafix effects that may be used in an attempt to simulate classical era strategic strike/interception (Siberian Sky). In 3D Rocket Exhaust, large numbers of 2D images combine to form 3D flame and smoke trails. The goal is immersive smoke/flame seen from the cockpit, and long range visibility of flame (night) and smoke (day). There can be a cpu performance hit with large numbers of missiles firing off within the defined MaxVisibility distances. Description, development, limitations, and possible employment or improvements of this and future grafix effects are at the ThirdWire webboard thread below... ThirdWire thread ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4964 PROJECT USE PRE-REQUISITES: (1) Know how to work the sim's weapons and the Weapon Editor. This editor and some basic tutorials are found here at the CombatAce. (2) Know how to work the Cat Extractor to extract encrypted text files for editing. This extractor is found here at the CombatAce. ----------- V 1.11 has Smoke3.tga included. V 1.1 has... (1) One additional step smaller rocket exhaust effect, and two effects for smaller unguided rockets -- U1 and U2 are made with greatly reduced particle density in expectation of large rocket volleys. (2) Better naming system .... R1 (the new smallest effect) to R8 (the old R7 of v1.0).... also U1 and U2. (3) Hopefully better instructions. Submitter Lexx_Luthor Submitted 02/11/2008 Category Effect Mods

Great. Glad I could help! :wink: -- I forgot ... but if I recall, the times I used A-4 cockpit, I dropped the whole thing and raised up the instrument panel.

True, but we can toss out various matching aircraft ideas regardless of WW1, WW2, late 1930s, Korea, and beyond. The basic theory is the same. ---- On the other hand....a land based Pacific study-2 sim could use Corsair and Ki-61. These are far better matched in service lifetime, and there are enough variants of both for addons, although they are not nearly as different as the Grummans and A6M which offer an astonishing gulf between the two designs and offer both land based and carrier ops for both sides from the start to the end of the war. Corsair vs A6M series would be like...F-15 vs MiG-21. They don't match as well as F-4 vs MiG-21. You see, this is the stuff you have to think about if you want to plan a very good combat flight The Sim.

C5:: Its that bad? If the budget allows only one (1) flyable, then you cut the complex difficult to model F-4, and go with the simple, easy, Budget Friendly MiG-21. ------ As for any "additional" aircraft, these would be different versions of F-4 and MiG-21 -- there's enough of them both. That said, if the thing breaks out and make it, then more aircraft could be added later, especially by 3rd Party modders. We assume the sim will be open for this. doyo:: Not appearing until Guadacanal and restricted to land bases until much later, the Corsair would not allow playing A6M2 at its most successful, and would not allow Corsair carrier ops until very late in the war. The Wildcat/Hellcat series parallels the A6M lifetime, and the Wildcat offers carrier ops from the start. Here I assume both these Grumman aircraft as part of the same series. You need... (1) two opposing aircraft series that are.... (2) very different and so offer different gameplay over... (3) a parallel and very long time span.

To gain leverage in the market, you can do something never done before, and its very possible here. (1) To leverage playability, you want a study sim that, unlike all the others, would offer two (2) flyable, equally "detailed" but totally different aircraft with very different tactical use and which offers different gameplay depending on which of the two aircraft is played. (2) There are no two aircraft that are more different in design, tactical use, mission, and overall support environment than the F-4 and MiG-21. (3) For later sim paid upgrade packs, there are no two aircraft with as long a service lifetime, series of development, and over the same years as the MiG-21 and F-4. (3) If there will be any Online play, you do NOT want to offer the customers nothing but F-4 vs F-4 Online. Other possibilities are... F-86 series and MiG-15 series -- very different aircraft. A6M series and Wildcat/Hellcat series -- very different aircraft. Spitfire series and Bf-109 series -- not so different. etc... possibly...Nieuport series and Albatross series -- very different aircraft.

These were all designed for large scale unlimited air warfare WW3 style, before McNamara. Since we are here to poast about it, these aircraft performed perfectly. The Soviets were especially impressed in the late 1950s with what the F-105 could do. Su-7B was their best response to the F-105. F-101 also used as strategic interceptor. Even in the Age Of McNamara, the F-104 was the most successful escort fighter in Vietnam as the MiGs stayed on the ground when F-104s flew.

Wow, just found this. Very nice. To greatly save performance hit, use several different "emitters" for the smoke -- lots of small smoke particles for the lower heights that terminate (relatively) quickly, then far smaller numbers of larger growing particles at high levels that last longer. May want to add a wind so the overall cloud bends over with height ... ParticleWindFactor=0.5 for example ... the number can be from [ 0 , 1 ], and different smoke emitters can have different wind factors (low smoke low wind, high smoke high wind). Stuff like that. CA stary:: Don't get "tired" of this effect...make it work! -------------------------------------- The Hanoi Pol Strike Colonel James H. Kasler : : Looking back toward Hanoi, I could still see the smoke column over 150 miles away. : : ~> http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicle...dec/kasler.html --------------------------------------

Ya yehas yough! On that ThudWire thread's first page is a link to my personal TE learning thread, czech it out. Deuces dragged me kicking and screaming through it all. I made it. Thanks Deuces!!

ordway, you can make larger 1500km maps by following the instructions on page 2 of this ThudWire thread...and with the latest TE, there are no longer restrictions on combining a square of 4 adjacent DEM files. ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...asc&start=0

christian:: We forgot to put this in the download? Thanks for catching this. I made the FM (my first) purely experimental and also super "lite" to overcome AI dogfighting problems. I'm thinking a player plane FM for player plane alone would be nice -- I made a much more exciting and challenging FM. But that would require two (2) MiG-9's, and would require player to fly alone, well maybe one wingperson could have the more complex player FM.

delta:: Although the thread is about applying cockpit chopping for placement inside external models, you are needing only information on how to chop cockpits for otherwise normal gaming use. Page 1 should cover the basics of cockpit chopping, but additional details may be found through page 4 after which the author assumes the reader has learned the basics. EXAMPLE: The first Move below drops the canopy frame (solid top roof) which also drags down several other items (see the OUT file). [Move1] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=CanopyFrame MovementType=POSITION_Z Set[01].Position=-9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=-9 Set[02].Value=1.0 ...the Move below raises up the dropped compass box, which carries up the compass also. Read about Parent and Child Moves in the thread. Note how the axes are mixed up here...Z for the drop, Y for the raise. I don't understand this but its the way it works in some cockpit Moves. [Move2] Type=AIRSPEED_INDICATOR NodeName=StbyCompassBox MovementType=POSITION_Y Set[01].Position=-9 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=-9 Set[02].Value=1.0

yea bump C5...I added a pic of this above for delta. Weird? Yes!

Drop CanopyFrame out of view, which carries down the compass and side windows, but those can be raised back up seperately if desired. If you don't use the tinted windows, leave them down I guess. delta, see this thread for the theory ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4410 ** Don't panic about the classical era "junkpile" above the radar -- its the gunsight rotated as described on page 22 of that ThudWire thread, since I will be using early F-106 without guns (and with solid top).

Yough, we forgot a missile. Using Hawk for standin R-4.

Rambler, near the page bottom you can select up to 25 downloads viewable at one time, instead of just 10. Going through 25 at one time might could possibly shave a few hours off the procedure.