Menrva

Pretty cool! Is it available somewhere? I don't recall anything like this in the SF1 download section.

Fedayeen Saddam - Wikipedia Just discovered that this helmet used by Saddam's paramilitary Fedayeen resembles the one of Star Wars.

@Wrench By the way, during the development of ODS 30AE, I discovered that the E-2C_Destroyed.LOD model (and also Yak-38_Destroyed.LOD) actually don't exist in the game files. So if you crash, there's no destroyed model for those aircraft. I use the C-47A_Destroyed.LOD for the E-2C and for this C-2A, better than nothing.

My extended thanks to the team for this release. We need proper ODS skins for the ODS 30AE mod. Any volunteers? References are available here: https://dstorm.eu/pages/en/usa/c-2.html

Most have probably missed this fact that with Strike Fighters 2 North Atlantic, additional types.ini statements for a terrain have been introduced. Here below you'll find the extra ones: [TargetTypeXXX] Reported=FALSE DetailLevel=2 FadeWithDistance=TRUE IgnoreHeading=TRUE AdjustZBuffer=FALSE The most interesting and useful statement is DetailLevel. The Ground Objects graphics setting in the options has always been rather pointless in Strike Fighters as it would only affect randomly parked aircraft. This DetailLevel statement makes it much more useful when applied to most if not all target types defined in a terrain's types.ini. DetailLevel=3 means that the target type will spawn only when Ground Object settings are set to Unlimited, a value of 1 means that the target type will only spawn when Ground Object settings are set to Medium or higher. The below screenshots show it clearly. Ground Objects set to Unlimited; even the smallest eye-candy objects are shown, loading times are obviously higher. Ground Objects set to Low; only priority objects (those that should be targets for missions) are shown, loading times are quicker. The downside is that it requires a terrain modder to add such DetailLevel statement to each of the eye-candy objects in a types.ini file. If you have 300 or more, you can imagine it takes quite a bit of work and trial and error to choose which priority to assign to each object. This update/feature will be part of the IraqWA terrain in a future update of the ODS 30AE mod. The other statements are also used in the stock IcelandNA terrain, here below a summary of what I managed to figure out about them: FadeWithDistance - No matter what, it doesn't seem to work. it would have been cool to have terrain objects fade like TOD entities; most likely this is a placeholder for something TK never implemented properly. IgnoreHeading - Rather self-explanatory, it makes the object type ignore the heading you give to it in a terrain target area of the targets.ini file. TK uses it for the countless tree LODs created for the IcelandNA terrain. AdjustZBuffer - When set to false for runways, they suffer from heavy z-buffering issues on tile based terrains. Most likely this option was needed for specific runways on the IcelandNA terrain, since runway LODs are placed over another LOD, that of the terrain. For our usual tile based terrains, this statement may be of little to no use. Reported - The only statement I couldn't figure out. For sure you wouldn't set it to false for main terrain objects. This info may be useful to terrain modders wiling to optimize their own terrains and make them more scalable depending on graphics settings. Please admins, pin this topic for future reference.

@Wilches I should have specified, do NOT use Photoshop. It doesn't save 8bit bitmaps properly. Now you have to start from scratch. Extract the water bitmap via TFDtool, repaint green and yellow areas with MS Paint. Use MS Paint or it'll most likely break.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve. Just look at the IcelandNA water bitmap. You have to use the same exact green and yellow colors (respectively indicating where friendly and enemy fleets can spawn), save it as 8bit. It's best to use MS Paint for this. You need to have ships in the GroundObject folder, with their data properly updated to SF2NA standards. Then you just have to pray and hope the game spawns stuff like you wish. Nothing else can be done. I cannot help more than this. Use the search bar on the site, I already explained how to create water bitmaps properly on several topics.

I think there's quite a lot of confusion over here. Carrier Stations are never used in single missions, they exist only for campaign use. Adding ship objects to those target areas won't achieve nothing apart from having static ships able to fire back. Naval fleets ala SF2 North Atlantic just require a proper water.bmp and the NavalMap=TRUE statement. You cannot control where the fleet exactly spawns on game generated missions, that's a limitation you cannot overcome. Only in campaign data we can specify precisely where a naval fleet or a static carrier station can be. Fleets ala SF2NA are dynamically spawned objects, nothing to do with terrain target areas.

No. I don't think any of my terrains ever got a campaign (with the exception of IraqWA getting one from yours truly with the ODS 30AE mod, and the Iran-Iraq war mod using a much outdated version of the same terrain). When I released my first terrains, community members who used to make campaign mods had already left. I very much doubt we'll see campaigns for any of those, there's little to no interest in those terrains I released (TexasASC is one of the worst IMHO, it needs a rework). I'm already busy with the ODS mod, so I don't have time to spare in the making of other campaigns.

I fail to see where I've been negative. Actually, I wanted to add something positive, that is, more correct information instead of such a misleading topic title. It's okay, next time I'll simply shut up.

It's not game engine wise, but you're entitled to believe what you want. I already explained above why. If you want to have a parked aircraft be attacked by gunners, it works, but it's just a workaround that applies to Aircraft objects, not GroundObject ones. I won't repeat myself a third time.

Well, to be honest I don't see anything special about it or in its data. It's no wonder gunners would target it simply because it's an aircraft, not a ground object. We know this since ages; it is possible to create a standalone parked aircraft from any aircraft object (done already by comrpnt, like his Static SFP1 Stock Aircraft Pack, Static WOV Stock Aircraft Pack and Static WOE Stock Aircraft Pack), and then manually add them to airbases by editing mission files. It's just a mere workaround that would only work with aircraft. The title of the topic is misleading, we're talking about aircraft objects really, not proper ground object entities.

It's not a grey filter really, you'd be disappointed when you see it. Anyway, it's achieved by using one of those blending ops in the DTVFilterMaterial (INV_DST or INV_SRC, can't remember which one of the two) and by giving it a black texture instead of the stock GreenTVFilter texture.

You can't, it's not possible on Strike Fighters. The way it works, the filter is applied through one of a few DirectX blending operations. Me and guuruu experimented with it after I discovered other blending operations we can use, more details here: Unused Blending Operations - Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - Mods & Skinning Discussion - CombatACE. We managed to achieve some sort of grey IR filter but it's far from being acceptable, lights and the sky are colored and it would only work under certain times of day with other side issues. SF2 includes and makes use of few DX10 features; some other, more advanced blend ops are not implemented at all. It may be possible to achieve a grey IR filter through a custom shader for the DTV filter material, but I haven't succeeded so far in creating one.

You joke but it's also real: At 44:30 he mentions a Pilot Activated Automatic Recovery System. It was implemented starting in 1994 on the Nighthawk, but the Soviets had a similar system since the 1950s. Not to mention that the theory behind stealth aircraft was conceived by Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev, Soviet physicist and mathematician.

I haven't looked into your campaign data yet, but that's the most probable reason why it ends prematurely. You can make the ground war start at a later day, not as soon as the campaign starts. You can find out how by looking at the campaign data I made for ODS 30AE.

@UllyB I'm cool, I already left the discussion since it was pointless. Next time I should ignore certain posts. Can you add the Alpha Jet E to this big wishlist? I had suggested it a few posts ago but I think you missed it. If you exclude it from the list I won't be offended, it's huge already.

Again, where did I mention it is available? I think you're misunderstanding quite a bit. Let me quote posts as they happened and tell me if I said otherwise. Then you said this after my post, and I must suppose you were referring to cocas' version if you missed angelp's posts at the screenshot thread. After that, angelp posted screenshots on this topic of his work in progress X-32 (not yet available, and miles different than cocas' F-32). However, you still continued to state it's not a proper X-32. So this left me with a big WTF. I give the benefit of the doubt that you were initially referring to cocas' version, though the way it was worded it was quite confusing to my eyes. But I don't understand why you stated the same in front of a yet to be released X-32 that angelp teased over here. I hope it is clear now.

It looks like you are salty and want a fight somehow. It's your mistake if you were referring to cocas' F-32 while I explicitly mentioned angelp's version which was shown in the screenshots thread a few days ago (and honestly you weren't referring to cocas' version either, you criticized angelp's version even after he showed it here as well). So, it seems to me you f*cked up and don't want to admit it. At this point it's clear you want to be trolling and I am saddened to see this happen, I did not expect such toxic behavior from you.

Well, the way you worded the message it sounded different to me. It is language barrier I guess, it happens to misunderstand. Again, about the X-32, angelp also wants to reproduce the real one, but without many references that is the best he got at the moment. So, instead of saying look at the pictures, I think it'd be best to share those references, no? If you don't want, it's no problem, but then what was the point of the message? The only thing we got closer to an X-32 was cocas' F-32, and that one looked nothing like the real X-32. Apart from this, peace brother. russouk2004 was making a U-2R, then I think he had to leave modding due to RL issues. So yeah, I think the U-2R is a good suggestion to the list. Though the list is big already, may I add the Alpha Jet E? In theory we have Florian's wonderful Alpha Jet A, the E version features a different nose compared to the A. If only we had a source file of that one, an E version would be much feasible to make.