HomeFries

Another candidate for quote of the day!

Actually, I'm taking another tack at this. Rather than having one master A6SP folder with subfolders for dates, I'll do my dates off the main (e.g. A6SP, A6SP1976, A6SP1981, A6SPBuno), then just do my existing folder structure from there. I won't have to throw everything into the same folders so I can keep things organized, and reducing the nesting tree by one is all I need. Examples: [Decal011] MeshName=vertical_stablizer DecalLevel=1 DecalFacing=LEFT FilenameFormat=A6SP1981\LVG\A6TailL Position=-9.76,1.90 Scale=4.4 DecalMaxLOD=4 [Decal021] MeshName=vertical_stablizer DecalLevel=2 DecalFacing=LEFT FilenameFormat=A6SPBuno\A-6E_LVG\USNA6BUNO Position=-9.15,1.14 Scale=1.2 DecalMaxLOD=4 The applicable folders will still be identifiable for removal during manual uninstall (they all start with A6SP). Not quite as neatly bound, but equally functional.

Thanks, Wrench. Not the answer I had hoped for, but certainly one that I expected. I was hoping I was missing something fundamental. I take that the "Decals" folder isn't represented as a nested level by the game engine, which in fact restricts me to two levels. I'll do something like this: \A6SP \1976 \1981 \1981_LVB \1981_LVG \1981_CAG \Buno_A6A \Buno_A6B \Buno_A6E \Buno_EXCAP \Buno_ICAP This also means keeping all of my custom decals (e.g. fuselage and drop tanks) in with my tails, and keep all of the CAG files together (I changed the bunos to level 1 on CAG birds so a Buno corresponds to the squadron rather than the modex).

Word!

Dave, This might also be a great opportunity to consolidate a community SQUADRONLIST.INI. While the SQUADRONLIST.INI file has been updated in the last two patches, the beauty is that you can assign blank placeholders for patches. For example, I did a Squadronlist that includes new A-6 squadrons, all of the Prowler squadrons, and a few other squadrons for expansion. I started them at 450 (back when 397 was the max) and just put in blank placeholders for 399-449. This has the potential to get everybody on the same page while still allowing for maximum flexibility at least for the next 45 or so officially added squadrons.

Roger that. I'll be sure to add my prowler ini files when they're ready.

DanW, I've posted some recommendations on the 3W forums (one of which was put in a patch ), but one of my ongoing themes is that realizing that 3W is a small operation with a small budget, TK would make us all happy by adding hooks to the code. Even if he didn't attach anything to the hooks, we're a dedicated enough community that we'll run with it. 3W could use us as a force multiplier. For example, I recently added suggestions for the ability to have multiple RWR sounds (something that has been long requested), as well as allowing additional folders for squadron markings by period. Both of these suggestions would require no work beyond the initial coding, and the modding community could run with this to create sounds for every emitter and desired air wing we wish. While other things may take priority, using these types of suggestions as a philosophy (unlock things for modders without requiring rework of existing data files) should be on 3W's radar. I agree that there's too much negativity and it's to the point where the passion has turned into counterproductive venom. Something like this would do a lot for the goodwill of the loyal community, which would then in turn improve SF2 even more. Win-Win.

Feel free to use any of my A-6/EA-6B stuff. I'm making an effort toward realism in the first place.

Ditto for my stuff.

Playing or modding? If modding, let me know and I'll be happy to help.

mlracing is something of a whiz with hex-editing, so I'll take his videos at face value. He actually helped me quite a bit with some stuff I was working on with Total Air War 2.0, and his hex-edits enabled FOV edits to allow for fullscreen/widescreen EXEs. I think he must do something with IDA Pro and just recognize the patterns from there.

Sure you can! It's as simple as adding the two weapons stations to the aircraft_data.ini file and adding the pylon via fakepilot (also to the aircraft_data.ini). If the existing pylons don't work for the MiG-21 model, I can't help you there, but adding a pylon object as well as the ability to add weapons is quite feasible.

I like the look of those skins as well. I'll give the templates a look once the lights come back on. Stupid storms...

Thanks again for the great feedback. Perhaps I will reconsider doing a "straight-up" mod for the next release after all. Here's another question: If all A-6 variants require SF2V and SF2NA (SF2V for A-6A/B, SF2NA for A-6E/TRAM/SWIP), is it worth having separate folders for both installs. Even if I don't build-in the GME structure and just make folders that say "Common Files (add first)", "A-6AB (for SF2V users)", and "A-6E (for SF2NA users)", is this ok with people, or should I just integrate the file structure ahead of time since those without merged installs just won't get the added features? I'm trying to find the proper balance between flexibility and complexity. For GME users, I will still create separate folders for optional mods (e.g. restricted modexes, flares on the A-6A, etc.) that can either be dropped into an existing install or dropped into the existing MODS folder for GME integration. I will also provide instructions for GME integration in the readme. Finally, I think the smart thing to do is to put the campaigns in a separate download. This is quite simply because I will be releasing the EA-6B pack either concurrently with or shortly after the A-6 superpack, and I would like to include the new prowlers in the campaigns as well (esp. Linebacker II and the updated carrier-based desert campaigns). For KISS reasons, I don't want multiple versions of the campaigns floating around, so version control via separate download makes a lot of sense. One last thing: the storms this weekend knocked out my power, which is still down and will likely be down until at least the end of the week. This will obviously delay my release, although thankfully I was able to save all of my work on the new low visibility skins before the lights went out.

Don't forget to update the TMF Tomcats to "AIM54" for the SSD so that you can load the Phoenix on them as well.

Thanks for the input, guys. I didn't realize how many people bypass GME for the manual install. It won't be this coming version, but I'll look into using an installer/uninstaller combo to provide the simplicity of install while still providing a means to remove modified files in case of major changes. This also puts the onus on me to create a different means of using the decals folder so that manual removals are much simpler.

swambast, It is your ambition that should be admired; STT is pretty big in scope. I won't get to it this weekend (social calendar is booked), and my free time is prioritized on getting out the next A-6 Superpack. The latest patch pushes my own release date forward, and I'm completely redoing the low visibility skins for both USN and USMC, as well as adding 5 Prowler variants. That, and my day job is quite busy as well. That said, i will definitely PM you to work on this thing, and it will be sooner rather than later. Thanks for your offer; the fact that you have an on-the-fly ANSI/UNICODE detector/translator helps remove the biggest hurdle of the program.

For compatibility with the June 2012 patch, add the following lines to the existing SQUADRONLIST.INI: [squadron397] Name=3RAAF DisplayName=No. 3 Squadron Nation=Australia [squadron398] Name=75RAAF DisplayName=No. 75 Squadron Nation=Australia [squadron399] Name=76RAAF DisplayName=No. 76 Squadron Nation=Australia [squadron400] Name=77RAAF DisplayName=No. 77 Squadron Nation=Australia [squadron401] Name=79RAAF DisplayName=No. 79 Squadron Nation=Australia // ------------------------------------------ // Placeholders [squadron402] [squadron403] [squadron404] [squadron405] [squadron406] [squadron407] [squadron408] [squadron409] [squadron410] [squadron411] [squadron412] [squadron413] [squadron414] [squadron415] [squadron416] [squadron417] [squadron418] [squadron419] [squadron420] [squadron421] [squadron422] [squadron423] [squadron424] [squadron425] [squadron426] [squadron427] [squadron428] [squadron429] [squadron430] [squadron431] [squadron432] [squadron433] [squadron434] [squadron435] [squadron436] [squadron437] [squadron438] [squadron439] [squadron440] [squadron441] [squadron442] [squadron443] [squadron444] [squadron445] [squadron446] [squadron447] // ------------------------------------------ // User Added Squadrons [squadron448] Name=800NAS DisplayName=No. 800 Naval Air Squadron Nation=RoyalNavy [squadron449] Name=801NAS DisplayName=No. 801 Naval Air Squadron Nation=RoyalNavy [squadron450] Name=809NAS DisplayName=No. 809 Naval Air Squadron Nation=RoyalNavy [squadron451] Name=VMA332 DisplayName=VMA(AW)-332 Moonlighters Nation=USMC [squadron452] Name=VMA202 DisplayName=VMAT(AW)-202 Double Eagles Nation=USMC [squadron453] Name=VA42 DisplayName=VA-42 Green Pawns Nation=USN [squadron454] Name=VA128 DisplayName=VA-128 Golden Intruders Nation=USN [squadron455] Name=VAQ134 DisplayName=VAQ-134 Garudas Nation=USN A new version to update the campaign will be out most likely in a couple of weeks.

Not to completely pile on here, but I'm just passing this on so all changes are made by the same source. While researching stuff for the EA-6B, I saw that the ALQ-126B in the Tomcats use the line "DualMode=1". Per Fubar512, the correct entry should be "JammerType=Dual_Mode_Jammer" instead of "Deceptive_Jammer", and the DualMode=1 can be removed.

I've started work on the EA-6B Prowler variants for the next A-6 Superpack. So far I'm planning on doing the following: EA-6B_71 (the original prowler) EA-6B_73 (EXCAP) EA-6B (3W default, which assuming the 1979 timeline corresponds to the ICAP I) EA-6B_84 (ICAP II) EA-6B_05 (ICAP III) The toughest part of this equation is determining the values for ECM. This problem is complicated by the following: The 3W Prowler has a jam strength of 120 and jams freqs 1-20. The ICAP II Prowler by Hawker/Agemmenon & 331KillerBee has a jam strength of 90 and jams freqs 0.1-10. FastCargo's EF-111 Raven has a jam strength of 90 (no frequency range listed). I realize that both the EF-111 and the Hawker/Agemmenon & 331KillerBee prowler were released before SF2NA, and SF2NA added ships with search/track/FC radars in the 15 freq range. However, 120 seems too strong for the ICAP I. At the same time, I don't want to nerf the default 3W prowler by 25% and possibly upset any balancing, especially since the Iceland campaign is hard enough as it is. The other question I have is the level of ECM modelling in SF2. I'm assuming that the game engine compares jamming frequencies to platform frequencies, and if they overlap then the jammer strength is linearly compared with the radar strength with burn through distance depending on the differences in strength. Could somebody confirm or clarify this for me? Finally, many of the ALQ-99 upgrades were in the form of being able to simultaneously jam additional frequencies. Is this modeled with any fidelity in SF2, or does the game engine assume barrage jamming of all frequencies at full strength? Could the increase in simultaneous jamming be modeled with slightly increased strength to abstractly represent the ECMOs being able to barrage a narrower frequency band? Here are my proposed values for the prowler variants. Please provide your inputs and/or spitballs. EA-6B_71 [ALQ99] SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=65.0 MinFreq=2.0 MaxFreq=8.0 CanJamCW=FALSE I don't want to go less than 2-8 (the A-6B ECM freq range), and strength 65 seems a fair increase over the A-6A/B ECM EA-6B EXCAP [ALQ99A] SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=65.0 MinFreq=1.0 MaxFreq=13.0 CanJamCW=FALSE The ALQ-99A on the EXCAP reportedly covered twice the frequency range of the original; this isn't a 2x increase, but it's fairly close without being able to cover some of the ship radars introduced in SF2NA. EA-6B ICAP (3W Default) [ALQ99C] SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=120 MinFreq=1.0 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=TRUE Here's where it gets trickier. For reasons specified earlier in this post, I'm hesitant to reduce the strength or frequency range of the default prowler. However, a near 2x increase in jammer strength seems too much. Likewise, the ALQ-99 didn't expand its frequency range again until the D model used with the ICAP II. EA-6B ICAP II [ALQ99D] SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=120 MinFreq=1.0 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=TRUE Identical in its entry to the ICAP I, though this time the values seem more representative of reality. Of course, we now have an ICAP II with a strength of 120 comparing to the strengths of 90 for both the Hawker/Agemmenon & 331KillerBee prowler and FastCargo's EF-111. The ICAP III entry would be identical to the ICAP II, as both use the ALQ-99D. I'm considering scrapping the ICAP III variant altogether, as the tactical updates for the ICAP III seem to focus on mission planning and communications jamming, neither being of particular importance in SF2. Please provide your comments and suggestions.

Thanks, Fubar. I guess the TMF Tomcats need an update as well...

swambast, Thanks for the information. I know that pulling the data into the comboboxes is a major issue, but fortunately my program requires very little of that. The only things I have pulled in right now are the aircraft name from the aircraft.ini file and the numerical values for gunsight depression. The aircraft name is a "nice to have" that tells you exactly what aircraft you're modding (so that you don't have to strictly interpret from the aircraft folder name), but it isn't anything that is put back into any ini file, so any conversion here would only need to be one-way. I wonder if I could dimension the other values as INTEGER or VARIANT, then convert the value of the textbox into the UNICODE array. That might also simplify things, as I wouldn't need to do a full file conversion. Just spitballing ideas here; given the magnitude of what seems like it should be an insignificant problem, I probably won't have time to attack this for at least a couple of weeks. Since I only have VS6 (which is great for modding stuff for Total Air War as it is backward compatible with Win98, but shows its age with Vista+), this problem won't be going away. Likewise, if anybody else wants to take point on this, I'll happily donate my existing source code and design documentation (i.e. flow charts). BTW, swambast, is your program something that takes MSFS scenery datafiles and converts them to SF airfields? If so, that's really cool!

Everybody, I hit the motherlode of information the other day, and had a breakthrough with my Prowler datafiles. Here's a graphic of the bands covered by the ALQ-99, as well as the corresponding frequencies. The "Standard" (i.e. original) EA-6B/ALQ-99 could cover bands 1/2, 4, and part of 7. Therefore, I went with the following values: [ALQ99_Low] Name=AN/ALQ-99 SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=65.0 MinFreq=0.07 MaxFreq=0.3 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE [ALQ99_Mid] Name=AN/ALQ-99 SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=65.0 MinFreq=0.5 MaxFreq=1.0 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE [ALQ99_Hi] Name=AN/ALQ-99 SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=65.0 MinFreq=2.5 MaxFreq=3.8 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE [ALQ100] Name=AN/ALQ-100 SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=DECEPTIVE_JAMMER JammerStrength=35.0 MinFreq=2.0 MaxFreq=8.0 [ALQ41] Name=AN/ALQ-41 SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=DECEPTIVE_JAMMER JammerStrength=35.0 MinFreq=8.0 MaxFreq=12.0 CanJamCW=FALSE VisualBlindArc=10,11,12,1,2 VisualRestrictedArc=3,9 As you can see, I created 3 separate Noise Jammers identical in capability, but covering separate bands. I also added the ALQ-41 and ALQ-100 DECM suites, though I have no idea whether VisualBlind/RestrictedArc works with ECM as it does for radars This is important since the Q-41 only covers the aft quadrant of the aircraft. If anybody can clue me in on that, I would appreciate it. Also, is there a way to make an ECM system interfere with the onboard radar as well as the RWR? For the EXCAP, the bands covered by the ALQ-99A through 99C are 1/2,4,5/6,7(partial), and 8/9. I left the ALQ-100 and ALQ-41 intact, and made the following changes to the ALQ-99: [ALQ99_Low] Name=AN/ALQ-99C SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=75.0 MinFreq=0.07 MaxFreq=0.3 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE [ALQ99_Mid] Name=AN/ALQ-99C SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=75.0 MinFreq=2.5 MaxFreq=3.8 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE [ALQ99_Hi] Name=AN/ALQ-99C SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=75.0 MinFreq=4.0 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=FALSE InterfereRWR=TRUE I also increased the JammerStrength to 75 to account for the exciter, which significantly reduces the ECMO's workload, thereby providing an arbitrary increase in capability. The ICAP-I is where things start to get interesting. It appears that the ICAP-I is the model physically represented by the 3W EA-6B, as it has both the ALQ-126 "beer can" on the back of the tail and "sawtooth" on the refueling probe, as well as the doppler radar on the belly (which was removed with the ICAP-II). This also meshes with the 1979 timeframe of SF2NA, at which time ICAP-I was state of the art. However, the capabilities modeled are those of the ICAP-II (and even the ICAP-II Blk 89 in terms of ECM). The ICAP-I and the corresponding ALQ-99D introduced digital receivers and integrated computer controlled jamming systems, and reapportioned the ECMO workload so that ECMO 2 and 3 (the "kids in back") were responsible for tactical jamming. The work-leveling and digital integration prompted the increase in JammingStrength to 90, which also matches up with FastCargo's ALQ-99E, which was near-identical in capability to the Q-99D (albeit with fewer bands covered). Finally, since the ALQ-99D covers bands 1/2, 4, 5/6, 7 (partial),8, and 9/10 I have once again split the Noise Jammer into three separate, equally capable systems covering different freqency ranges. To this end, I have significantly nerfed the 3W default ECM suite (JammerStrength=120, Freq from 1-20) to bring it more in line with the ICAP-I capabilities. However, I did add the ALQ-126A DECM suite, so the prowler isn't significantly weaker across the board. [ALQ99_Low] Name=AN/ALQ-99D SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=90.0 MinFreq=0.07 MaxFreq=0.3 CanJamCW=TRUE [ALQ99_Mid] Name=AN/ALQ-99D SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=90.0 MinFreq=2.5 MaxFreq=3.8 CanJamCW=TRUE [ALQ99_Hi] Name=AN/ALQ-99D SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=90.0 MinFreq=4.0 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=TRUE [ALQ126A] Name=AN/ALQ-126A SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=DECEPTIVE_JAMMER JammerStrength=40.0 MinFreq=2.0 MaxFreq=12.0 CanJamCW=TRUE This leaves the ICAP-II. I have split the ICAP-II into the Block 82 and the Block 86/89. The differences between the blocks are the enhancements to the ALQ-99F. The biggest jump in capability for the ICAP II was the universal exciter which covered bands 1-9, thereby obsolescing the dedication of individual pods to bands. Additionally, band 7 was now completely covered. As such, the ALQ-99F system is now split into two systems representing separate bands. (1/2, and 4-10). The increase in JammerStrength is justified by the further reduction of ECMO workload by the TEAMS system, which significantly improves response time against known/planned threats. [ALQ99_Low] Name=AN/ALQ-99F SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=100.0 MinFreq=0.07 MaxFreq=0.3 CanJamCW=TRUE [ALQ99_Hi] Name=AN/ALQ-99F SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=100.0 MinFreq=2.5 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=TRUE [ALQ126B] Name=AN/ALQ-126B SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=DECEPTIVE_JAMMER JammerStrength=55.0 MinFreq=2.0 MaxFreq=20.0 DualMode=1 CanJamCW=TRUE Also note the inclusion of the ALQ-126B, which increases the frequency response of the ALQ-126A and provides 1kW of jamming strength per band. While the TMF F-14 Superpack places a JammerStrength=70 on the Q-126B, I felt that a near-twofold increase in capability from the A seemed too much. This is a gut call with no quantifiable data to back it up (I couldn't find the power output of the Q-126A), so if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll make the correction. And finally, the ICAP-II Block 86/89 (I combined the two because the capabilities are essentially the same). We now have an ALQ-99F that covers the 3 band, now providing coverage over the entire threat spectrum. Therefore, we are back to a single ECM system covering frequencies 0.07-20.0. This version of the Q-99F also provides 1kW per GHz, which IMHO justifies the JammerStrength=120. Additionally, this version of the Q-99F is a "Smart Jammer", which I interpret to be dual mode. The ALQ-126B (also included) is identical to the ICAP-II Block 82. [ALQ99] Name=AN/ALQ-99F SystemType=ECM_JAMMER JammerType=NOISE_JAMMER JammerStrength=120.0 MinFreq=0.07 MaxFreq=20.0 CanJamCW=TRUE DualMode=1 Please provide feedback. Likewise, if anybody would like to test the datafiles please let me know since I won't have time to playtest these variants for balance. @Fubar, you also mentioned that "dual_mode" is a jammer type, yet I also saw the logic flag DualMode=1 in the TMF Tomcat. Is one way preferred over the other, or do both entries yield the same result?

Just had a thought, guys: If I can't figure out how to detect format on the fly, I can always add a search the array for a section common in all cockpit.ini files. If the string comes back, the file is in ANSI, and if it doesn't (because the text is spaced out), the file is likely in Unicode. This isn't the most elegant solution, but it's a start.