Do335

Bah. If he who shall not be named doesn't agree, it will be removed. Otherwise it stays.

Looking great there! (if one attaches a wire to it, can these go up with the wind?)

Yes because think about it: a wing with sweep (or dihedral) but with the same volume. If you use bounding box as hitbox, the larger the swept back angle, the bigger the hit/bounding box is. So this would give the swept wing an unfair advantage with hitbox size --> more toughness. Therefore the ideal hitbox should contain the same volume as the component. But.... I have yet found an accurate way to do it, even looking at the stock min/max values. Atm one just has to eye it I suppose, what they say in aviation TLAR rule (that looks about right...), also some tests by shooting at it.

Have thought about the same thing but fuel consumption affects range but the same time endurance. If I increase it against proportion of map scale the endurance will suffer i.e. 5 min of dogfight, what amount of fuel is used before and after? Something like this doesn't "scale" so not worth bothering. (If it's airliners that simply fly from point to point, it could suit though.) I think if you wanna be more fuel critical, better way would be increasing NormalMissionRadius and MaxMissionRadius so the mission generator gives you more targets far away --> more fuel required on ingress and return trip.

^on a higher level, such is the problem of open modding, isn't it. You got all them different mods, in various quality, and most likely not quite compatible with each other. It's probably one reason many games don't support modding any more. This is a good debate topic I reckon and digress atm.... But when building the all in one mod it's my job to make the mods play nice together. Stability is the top priority, that's always been clear to me.

bah... It's a constant debate of game balance in my head. For example with default value the AI mig-15s could unload entire ammo without hitting anything. I reckon that is not great. But ofc, giving it too small angles would surely mean certain doom for the BluFor. So ultimately yes depends on how MAN one is.

Palpatine i'm on Korea mod so might be different for each theater.. Globally I'm using half the default values and for individual radar gunsight equipped aircraft I use 1/20th of default. But it is for korea and usually radar gunsight = 50cal peashooters so those need to be really accurate. Cannon armed later fighters probably doesn't need to be that small/overkill I think. StrafeAI numbers are for ground attack strafing..

oh YES. Check [dogfightgreen] (or DogfightAce, DogfightNovice etc) in the AircraftAIData.ini CannonFireAngle=X.XX <--reduce this DRASTICALLY. If you just wanna change individual aircraft instead of globally, put it into individual aircraft data.ini like this [DogfightAce] CannonFireAngle=0.04 I think TK gave this relatively high numbers so the player can have an easier time dodging gun fire etc. Have seen no bad effect but more AI accurate shooting by lowering it.

LucShep: I've uploaded the previous version (Wings over Korea) to the missions/campaigns section of Downloads, it doesn't have the new mods released since then by CA's awesome modders, but it is more than stable/flyable if looking to try it out.

sky crawlers:D

Handling quality thing on the 6-3 is solved, the problem was actually not over pitch but over banking. I think the slatted wing aeros hit the really really sweet spot of handling there including roll sensitivity, and changing one value without changing the others affected that. So it was merely a problem of updating the rest of the wing aero datas in line with the increased wing area. I have done more research though. According to flight manual and other RL docs, the slats on the A/E early sabres would NOT open above mach .65, whatsoever. Therefore there was a lift deficit at high alt high mach maneuvering and prompted the 6-3 config to introduce vortex lift. The mach limit on slat opening seems to be another thing the TW FM engine could not model... (Highlift devices don't have maxdeployspeed callouts or anything like that) But if anyone has ideas to implement it that'd be great. (Another search result is max deflection angles on all the control surfaces. The stabs and elevator deflection angles of the tail unit is something i've been looking for for like forever. Apparently the angles are huge, -10/6 deg on the stabs and -20.9/8.3 deg on the elevs. With these kinda angles the F-30 go into flat spins at 130-140kts with pitch oscillation so not good... more tuning.) http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/069271.pdf

Maybe CAP2 dev team can implement it on their harrier.

Happy 'holiday' WBS Loved that anime to bits

An interview. It is looking great and ticks a lotta boxes there.

aha more flight sim politics eh? This is like a monthly period thread. So for this month's period I'll drop this bomb: Amen to this. It is a problem for every community project no matter big or small. The erosion to stability is huge. And you have no way to fix it, because --> it is locked yet again in the code. Just not TK's code. But someone else's. And bear in mind, this someone else, he is NOT obligated to do your tech support, he is NOT obligated to patch his bugs, because you are NOT his customer. He can just troll you to GTFO, or just ignores everything, if he pleases, or introduce a multitude of bugs and disappear forever, because simple: beggars can't be choosers. So, to the "uninitiated" newbie players in the field of free community source code modding, when you dream up of some saint of a coder is gonna come and drop free pies from the sky (pffffft...), keep in mind that nothing is really free. More importantly, the freebies you get depend on who issues them. Some people are very talented and dedicated, and you get all those success stories about commercially dead sims getting a second and better life. But there're also just ppl that don't have much dedication and just like to mess around, make a half-assed code mod etc and disappears. Now a question bomb: what kind will SF get, the former, or the latter??? PS What's my point? If wanna try a new sim that is still being developed, look elsewhere! If you wanna try mods, stay! But the source code while it doesn't progress, is happily stable, and it is totally fine to stay that way. Some day when windows12 or something gets out and everybody moves on from incompatibility issues etc, that is fine. There are/will be other sims/games.

I'm still tuning them.

Thanks for the report Nicholas Bell. big furballs are very fun, exciting and sometimes hair raising and why I like the 50s as well! If you get any chance/time, it'd be great to try the F-86E-10/F-10 and see if they are a tad better gunnery platform wise, in your hands. I still can't quite put my finger on it, but no matter how i adjusted the numbers, the E-10/F-10 just gives me more precision in fine aiming. Perhaps it was also a problem on the real aircraft and why they put the extended 12inch on the F-40 and moved back the lift center hmmm But anyway dig it that you're having fun with 'em! I'll likely keep at it and post back if i found a reason. edit Apr 1st: okie know what to do. more testing...

LOL. I call the f-35 the "frog" coz it looks like one:D Froggy McFrogFace. Tis nothing about aircraft performance etc... the euro canards are great aerodynamically or so I heard. The frog's cards are ofc stealth and great sensors but i (and probably most ppl) have no idea what those mean yet.

Slightly OT and more about general modding, I've been keeping an eye on Il2. Looks like stability is still the biggest problem. That game was not made to be modded...

hmmm indeed... also NoJettisionTank=TRUE for drop tanks