PFunk

Currently working on gathering the assets to make this a semi-believable campaign. I am dropping the inclusion of the JF-17 Thunder because it seems there is some reluctance from at least one of the partner nations in the CAC/PAC joint corporation to sell to Iran. So, I am leaving the J-10 from the original Darius package in place and possibly adding the JH-7A Flounder-A instead as maybe an 'optional' aircraft. I will not be updating the campaign that includes a ground war, mostly because I do not think one would happen under the present circumstances. I am basing this on a 2013 paper published by the RAND Corporation that reached what I thought were the most logical conclusions if Iran were ever to gain nuclear weapons. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR310.html So, aviation warfare only. Again, I am gathering what I need from the CombatAce downloads sections and I will be publishing a complete list of requested assets to be included in this repackaging. I am considering a red side campaign, but I have not decided yet.

Do you guys realize you're the last development team making modern combat flight simulations that isn't Eagle Dynamics?

@Caesar, thank you very much, sir. It is appreciated. Just looking at the old plane set, there is a lot of updating to do as much newer versions of just about everything exists.

You got a point.

Sounds great. And I agree. A more updated ORBAT is probably a good idea. The Su-27s and possibly even the Su-30s in the IRIAF probably need to go. I was considering substituting the PAC JF-17 Thunder because the Iranians are actually in talks to get those as they recently inked an $8B arms deal with the Chinese. I figured updating SAMs along with maybe even adding a 'what-if' aspect of the J-31 or FBC-1 in service with the IRIAF.

I don't mind doing a complete repackage, but that would be after there is a tremendous amount of input from Eric Howes and everyone else involved in his work.

Thank you, I appreciate that. You're a good troop. The only thing I think I'd really like to do is use the existing plane and ground object sets and simply adapt the campaign files to use the new terrain and then give it native naval ops. It probably would be something very small, as in, just the .ini files for the campaign.

I would like to request permission to update Operation Darius to the latest SF2NA-standards, using Menrva’s newer, HD Iran-Iraq terrain. If someone is already on the case, cool. I’ll step aside. If not, I’d like permission to move forward on the project. Thanks, PFunk

The Russians used Afghanistan as a testing lab for new technology. Wouldn't be shocked if they did something like that again.

Whoa.

OK, hadn't thought of that. I see the point. I'm going to have to think on that for a minute. I wonder if making the USN the primary FRIENDLY nation causes that behavior and if simply made someone else the primary FRIENDLY nation if the enemy AI would not throw all its resources into sinking carrier groups.

True. You'd have to have SF2NA in order to do it the way I did it, so those who are using other installs would have to add carriers the old way. What's the advantage to having static carrier stations if you don't mind me asking?

I experienced the carrier group being spawned on dry land. So, I removed the CarrierStation entries in the Targets.ini file. Now I get native naval carrier ops in single player mode without problems.

Unfortunately, no. The terrains are small scaled small enough that external tanks generally get you where you need to go. Even with this sim's limitations (and there are a few), it's still preferable to other 'top-tier' titles. There are a lot of very creative people here who have dedicated an immense amount of time crafting ways around these limitations, producing some work that might not do everything we'd like it to do, but it does a lot more than it used to.

Thanks, guys. I'll check back this afternoon. Again, after a long hiatus, I'm relearning the mechanics, even playing around with terrain making. And, yeah the older Super Etendard (v1.2) is....a little more preferable, if not as attractive.

I'm experiencing a little problem with the latest Super Etendard package. The centerline buddy refueling tank is always loaded on my aircraft, regardless of my centerline loadout. I used Mue's LOD Viewer and realized the buddy refueling tank is a part of the actual aircraft's .LOD file. How would I go about using the Fake Pilot method to hide it?

The downloaded file is named TSRFinalPack.7z.001. What's with the .001 file extension? Is it supposed to be that? EDIT: Never mind. File extension is a new one on me.

Is there a trick to opening the download files? It says the file is corrupted.

Ah, got it. Tracking now. Thanks. EDIT: Getting back into SF2 after a long hiatus. Relearning a few things.

Okay, I think I have the SpecificStationCode problem sorted out, but why are all my aircraft using the Exported Availability dates instead of the native ones?

Experiencing a very odd issue with weapons showing up on a plane. Two things are true: 1. If the weapon has a StationSpecificCode in the Weapons Editor, I cannot load it on any aircraft. 2. If the entries for weapons stations in the aircraft's data.ini have a StationSpecificCode for a weapon, no weapons can be loaded on my aircraft except fuel tanks. That's it. Anyone know what I've done?

Yeah, no. Wasn't worth it then, time ain't changed much.

I understand where you're coming from, but I've had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with TK on a couple of occasions, back when I worked for another simulation enthusiast's site. Let's just say he's like every other Teasip I've ever met in my life. If you're from Texas, that means something. If you're not, well, it doesn't translate very well. Frankly, I'd be shocked if TK tolerated someone getting into the game mechanics files like that. Some textures, well, that's one thing. Proprietary game engine files? Not so much. SF2 is still very much TK's beach and ocean. Making an extension for Blender to create new LODs for the game? I'm sure he's not even going to lose any sleep over it. Modding his avionics or AI files? I wouldn't recommend it, but I'm an overly cautious guy. You can't even really make the case that he's not into PC game development anymore, he just made a new title last year. Sure, it was a port of a mobile game, but it's still a PC game. The last exchange I had with TK over the state of the game was about a year ago or so and I was so mad at his response, I stopped playing until this month. I had a hard drive crash and lost a ton of work on a terrain I was building and I didn't even care and I still don't. Guys, it's going to take a lot of polish to get the game where you want it to be and you're going to have to start from scratch. You'd be better off finding a low-cost game engine and just building something new.

Almost 100% sure that TK is planning no future updates to the games, but I doubt he would view editing his proprietary stuff with anything other than anger. I guarantee you'd have a cease and desist order within a day. I know other sims have had community development teams step in and bring a game title up to a new standard of presentation (like Il-2), but I don't see the same magic being re-created here because of TK. The development team would have to start new avionics.dll files from scratch, not modded versions of the originals. Barring the community development team getting written permission, something that could stand up in a court, I don't see how you could get away with modded files that redistributions of the older ones from 3rdWire. The new avionics.dll would have to be something like Avionics8.0.dll or something.

This is....big...