Lexx_Luthor

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!

View File *update* v1.11 Siberian Sky -- Experimental 3-D Rocket Exhaust This project is part of a planned series of grafic 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... Please read the enclosed read me for notes, instructions and other important data Submitter Lexx_Luthor Submitted 02/10/2008 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.

Jug:: That's what I'm kinda doing with Siberian Sky, but earlier with more classical B-26, B-29, B-36 (possible wip?), B-45, B-47, B-50, B-52, B-57, B-58, B-66, B-70, etc...with lots of escort (F-47N, F-51H, F-82, and on up), and what I like to call penetration fighters clearing corridors of hostile interceptors. Original Siberian Sky thread, with embarassingly outdated Environment file grafix ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3233 Jug, did you see people wearing eye patches as described below...? INTERVIEW WITH OVIDIO PUGNALE - 30.8.1996 ~> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/inter...2/pugnale3.html INT: Good answer. What was it like to fly a B-52 at low level at top speed? : : ...We had to fly the airplane manually, and it was a handful and get a little bumpy and some heat thermal and we had what we called 'thermal curtains' and these thermal curtains where you have all this glass around you, these windows. What you did, you pulled up all these curtains and the co-pilot, or whoever was not flying the airplane, had a little peephole there, maybe a six by six square. Everything else was closed and they wore.. now this may sound like I'm telling a story and an interesting anecdote.. add later on. We wore an eye-patch, one eye-patch covered one eye so that, you know, we.. then there.. and the co-pilot or the other pilot was kind of a safety observer. If something was coming up or something like that. Now, because there were weapons going off all over the place and these nuclear blasts, this light would blind you so if one went off, you got blinded. But you only got blinded in one eye, you see. So, you know, that may sound like a story but it's the truth to the extent that we used to get we'd get a pilot, a co-pilot, on alert for the first time. Someone would get a pair of goggles, the eye-patch, and they would tell him, says 'now you have to wear this on alert'. So 'what, why do I have to wear this?'. 'It's practice. You have to learn to see with one eye because when you fly, you're going to be sitting over there operating with one eye and while you're on alert here, this is the opportune time to do that' and of course this co-pilot would be walking round the facility with this one with this eye-patch on and of course everybody else would.. giggle and laugh about it.. at him. They knew that this young man had been had and after he found out about it, why, he, you know, was.. (interviewer laughs) it was something that.. we did to relieve some stress... : : :

The seat position might be used in addition to the pilot. ie...for every "pilot" object added, another object can be added as "seat." You should be able to delete the collision box, for simplicity, and to save just a little bit in performance (**but see edit below). Also, using this pilot method frees up and simplifies the loadout file, but it must assume that the objects added are always used -- no loadout options once this method is chosen. --- **edit...just PURE speculating here....this method does not allow mass or drag modelling, but for many purposes, for fixed objects always used, this might be approximated in the general flight model instead. The collision box may be useful if the added "pilot/seat" objects can be damaged and hence offering a possible change in mass or drag. This is just pure speculating here, as I have not got this deep into learning and modifiying FM's for my purposes yet.

Additionally, the seat position might be used in addition to the pilot. ie...for every "pilot" object added, another object can be added as well as "seat." You should be able to delete the collision box, for simplicity, and to save just a little bit in performance. Also, using this pilot method frees up and simplifies the loadout file, but it must assume that the objects added are always used -- no loadout options once this method is chosen.