Lexx_Luthor

Wow this is great. Thanks lindr. Second on the Blue Steel. Was a candidate for B-36 as well. If anyone is interested, here's how I fly B-47...using F-104 instrument panel inside the aircraft external model. I think the B-47 pilot compartment *might* be large enough to avoid the terrain alpha object flickering seen by some. Better, FastCargo told me something about the WoI having "open cockpit" variable that gets rid of this problem totally. Does the WW1 sim use cockpits directly inside external models like this?

ErwinHans:: Nope. No DA. But lots of PVO. Map is made to base the "ring of fire"....a ring of SAC airbases surrounding the Soviet Union, although the auroral zone is also called by the same nick-name, "ring of fire." Long PDF on this...Strategic Frontier: American Bomber Bases Overseas, 1950-1960 huge PDF file ~> http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/ADA353633.pdf

Special Request: Lavochkin V-300 Just the missile. Its single stage, no booster. Thanks if its possible!!

lindr...my Hound Dog Map has been waiting for this...THANKS!!! Green half dot: location of 1960 north magnetic pole (NMP) Yellow dot: night shift of NMP Red dots: location of aurora emitters

mmm, very interesting thanks.

Muwahahaha Player view of ravenclaw's Martin Baker seat in Russo's F.6 using stargetic cockpit method.

RF-84F, all we need now is something to carry it into some good Peacemaking. :yes: Soulfreak:: Oh man I missed that! Way back in March even. I have been using the F-100D panel for inside Mirage Factory's F-84F model, so it is here inside GMG RF-84F. Nice external model canopy framing... Nice rear canopy wall but its just barely visible because the seat gets in the way...Perfect. (moving player/seat position back brings up the rear wall better).

Wow this is so nice classical era jet. Thanks for thinking about it. This is Big...Huge major... readme:: WOAH AWSIM this should be uploaded as a mod all by itself. This is the seat I've dreamed aboutover the StrikeFighters. MK GW at 423kb is larger than many aircraft models. Ya'll just make this?

On the other hand, Soviet VMF may wish to fly between the land masses, say, north of Britain, and not fly over Iceland or Greenland that may have NATO search radars, but between the land masses, like Kreigsmarine had to sail from Germany to get to the Atlantic. A carrier stationed there might be able to intercept VMF aircraft like HMS Hood intercepted the Bismarck (okay not the best analogy). The point is, it might be best to do the interception in somewhat confined waters than have to search the vast Atlantic for aircraft. Find them before they reach the Atlantic. Well that's an idea to work with anyways. And so you have your justification. For my mythological Siberian Sky campaign, I wish to justify high altitude strategic air warfare into the 1960s, to justify using B-70 for example. I assume in a long shooting war, SAC and RAF will keep up with the ECM war, like the RAF did over nightime Germany without retreating with tail between leggs to low altitude. I will assume an early start for anti-radiation missiles. The first I know of was a subsonic job to be used by B-36 against Soviet search radars (cancelled in peacetime). So, I look for examples where strategic aircraft use ARMs against SAMs, and we have a good example with Avro Vulcans and Shrikes in the Falklands. So, the B-70 can survive.

Wow, I was lucky to check this thread so soon after your poast. Low cirrus: something is wrong -- if the cirrus is regularly at sea level, the problem is probably something to do with the target. I've seen this before in other experimental large cloud-like effects using ground units. Does the cirrus emitters use PositionHeightOffset=12E+3 ? The EmissionVolume used is 500E+3,500E+3,4000 ... I think that's a 4km box depth. Set it to zero and see what happens. Notice the two effects use the same five cirrus emitters. I thought that would be a nice short cut. It works for me. Are you using the WoI? Maybe they should not share the same emitters. It would be simple to copy-paste the five emitters and change block number and names. What altitude is the terrain? That shouldn't matter, the cirrrus should float pretty darn high, unless the box depth of 4km is too much. ---------------------- 3D cloud objects: That would be a way to introduce water clouds, like altocumulus layers. I've always wondered if such a cloud deck could be created in MAX, made like an invisible ground unit (I don't have WoI so no balloons) but the visible layer detached up high, say 12km, and set with waypoints. The balloon idea sounds even better, more simple. Can WoI balloons be set free to travel at the mission defined wind speed? Holes or clear areas in the layer might be possible, with varying levels of transparency (ie...like canopy glass). Skin texturing clouds would be fascinating. If it works, the ultimate goal is towering cumulus as 3D white skinned objects, with differing LOD levels. The bottom of the giant cumulus could be flat, but still white. Why? The cloud would interact with sunlight just like aircraft models, and the underside would always be darker than the sunward upper side.

First I ever saw of this in any aircraft. The Lightning skin, both old and the Nov07 update at C5, does not respond to TextureSet file, and remains a fairly flat colour. I was hoping to setup the Lightning with a nice metallic shine, but it won't work at all. Now, the canopy framing does respond to the TextureSet file, and can be made very shiny, but that's it. The Wings and Fuselage remain dull flat. Any ideas? I looked at the LOD in a hex editor, in the appropriate areas, but have no idea what to look for.

Wow, the external model has a nice 3D canopy framing to fly inside. AwSim! Stargetic Cockpit Theory here ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4410

AI doesn't salvo missiles, something I always hoped to see talked about. Standard ADC and PVO procedure was firing IR then radar missile, hopefully offering better kill probability. Right now, AI fires one missile and waits to see the results before trying again.

Fellas, Fellattes...Veltro's MM's are station ID "09" and up...wozup here? Veltro::

Wow, just...wow!!

Wrench, you added a sustainer. Interesting.

Would this mean the upcoming WoI-esque update Patch for SF+ will break every 3rd Party aircraft, so none are flyable anymore until changed over to WoI standard?

I fly what nobody flies, and I fly what I'm not supposed to fly.

That's nothin. Czech out the The De Havilland Hornet, speed and range. I did not know about this. Ceiling doesn't seem very high though. This is forcing me against my will to add RAF to the Siberian Sky legend. ~> http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss_3.html

Yep, its real. Czech out the performance figures. For Ussian aircraft, this is a good one ~> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/oldseriesfighters.html For Russian aircraft (and many others), try this ~> http://www.vectorsite.net/masterav.html

Timmy:: According to Vectorsite, "much was done" by the Swedes to improve the Falcons. I need to find more about this. I like the Draken so much, I've decided to add Sweden to the Siberian Sky mythology. That means I'll need a J-32 after all.

Wellcome back Stig. I use the ThudWire F-104 instrument panel inside Russo/capun B-47 external model. I like to think of this as poor precision, but high accuracy in terms of the cockpit/aircraft visual relationship. Since I've developed this "stargetic" cockpit method, I find a more 3D depth being inside these external models than even the best complete cockpits, of any sim, can provide. Compared to this, I find "normal" cockpit usage to give a detached feeling from the external model, detached from the aircraft, as if the cockpit and aircraft were two completely divorced and isolated objects. Of course in all The Sims, the aircraft and cockpit are artificially separated at birth, and I've spotted it. We all know the cockpit should be literally part of the aircraft, inside the aircraft. That's the feeling I get using the stargetic method seen here. The panels can seem isolated and detached from the external model's crew compartment, but that probably is because the external models were never designed with this method in mind, and so lack extra detailing in the crew compartment. But overall sitting inside the aircraft's external model crew compartment, is worth the trade. One thing that hurts the aircraft/cockpit interface in this sim is you either (1) have to turn OFF the fuselage or nose grafix to properly position a "normal" cockpit, or (2) place the cockpit in a totally wrong position, usually forward, so the player won't see the external model canopy. Often, the fuselage is needed (F-82 twin boom is one fuselage), or turning the nose OFF also turns off the prop disc. Its significant that TK designed his sim around 1960s western aircraft generally sharing a common trait: poor to no visibility of the external aircraft from the cockpit, and the prevalence of cockpits having massive rear walls suffocating the player. Its possible that TK's WW1 sim uses a form of this stargetic method, but I'm not sure. It would make sense, since so much of WW1 aircraft are visible outside the cockpit. Stiglr (from locked thread):: We should think of accuracy vs precision, and what they are defined in relation to. Given the following lack of features in this sim -- features the developer has no interest in ever addressing -- the stargetic cockpit method, or cockpit swapping in general, may offer sufficient "accuracy" for the moment. No air-air refueling for AI or player No AI afterburning dash waypoints No ripple fire of AAMs for AI interceptors No AI programming modelling radar search No AI avoidance of SAM or intercept threats AI programmed for 24hr max AoA turn fighting No ground radar (or ground observers) modelling of AI ground control intercept etc... These are almost entirely "offline" or AI programming issues, which would of course not be relevant to a pure online sim.