Canadair

Who knows; might be more real than fiction

Il pod laser su questi loadout è installato nella sede per l'amramm davanti a destra, e non sul pilon centrale. Ora vedo con il typhoon tank. eil problema che dici, ma questo è un fatto del modello e non si può far nulla. Purtroppo questo giochino è quello che è, ma ai "poteri che sono" piace cosi com'è Senza niente togliere a Craig, il cui EF2000 è bellissimo E basta Ce ne fossero di craig; altro che, invece, certi.. vabbè vah

Admirable organization of downloads The search function, both for threads and downloads does not accept designation such as F-something. Not really a big deal, eventually one finds what he is looking for. On the other hand I guess it is a known and worked on characteristic

Spiritoso. Poi un giorno, quando farai il pilota, e ti capiterà qualche bollettino meteo interessante, magari, fra le tantissime cose che avrai imparato e studiato, ci sarà anche il piccolo ricordo di un post di Canadair...

Prova questi .ini Ti serve il pod litening III che dovrebbe essere disponibile con il gripen se mi ricordo bene, così come il meteor. http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...0&start=540 In questo thread trovi ulteriori spiegazioni su come aggiornare leggermente lo schermo radar (Ti ricordo che ti serve il file Radar_HORIZON.tga che è disponibile, per esempio nella cartella cockpit\radar dell'F-16A Blk10 disponibile qui su CA ) craig l'autore è al corrente di quese modifiche e potrebbe incorporarle in una nuova versione se decidesse di rilasciarla. Con questo data.ini inoltre l'EF2000 (e i wingman) dovrebbero atterare in automatico senza fare un buco per terra. Io ho fatto qualche esperimento, ora dovrebbe andare un pò meglio. Provate un pò Non ce la faccio più EF2000inis.zip

Uzzo il video che hai postato è un classico che gira da un pò di tempo Grazie per ricordarci che nel volo "vero" il meteo è spesso un nemico quotidiano e il pilota di sim spesso non se lo ricorda. Questa è cultura aereonautica. Come avrai osservato, l'avvicinamento viene compiuto con la "prua" nel vento per mantenere l'aereo sull'asse pista. L'asse dell'aereo forma ovvimanete un angolo con l'asse pista. Tale angolo va eliminato prima del contatto intervendo sul timoneper riallineare il muso e sul volantino inclinando le ali dalla parte del vento. In questo modo l'aereo tocca su un solo carrello (dalla parte del vento) e con i comandi "incrociati". Sulla maggior parte dei grandi velivoli commerciali invece (dal 737 in su, diciamo) è possibile toccare la pista mantenendo tale angolo, o cmq dimiuendolo il più possibile ed il più tardi possibile con un azione sul timone che prima del contatto allinea i carrelli con la pista. Questo senza inclinare le ali, sopratutto nei velivoli con motori subalari dove un inclinazione eccessiva ( anche piccola circa 6° sul 737) può fare impattare la gondola del motore con il terreno (come nel DC-8 neel video) Finchè il vento è stabile anche se ntenso è relativamente semplice stabilire le correzzioni necessarie e manterle ed aggiornarle fino al contatto. Spesso però il vento intenso è a "raffiche" presenta cioè variazioni in intensità, oppure varia in direzione. In questo caso diventa tutto un pò più difficile, e come avrai visto nel video nel caso di avvicinamenti molto "destabilizzati" l'equipaggio ha preferito abortire l'atterraggio, effettuanfo una riattaccata, o "go around". Meglio un altro giro che farsi male.

What I meant is that sead is always two ships only that I know of.

Of course they do; I made a Mig VS Mig campaign in madagascar in which you take off from carrier with taskforce, and attack various convoy stations and get anti ship mission over shipping routes. It is hre on CA. I am talking something different here. Think about this, a map with defined routes but instead of ground vehicle you get ships using this type of entry in campaign file [GroundUnit026] GroundObjectType=BTR-152 ships here (althoguh just one class) UnitName=22nd Infantry Brigade ForceID=3 Nation=Syria BaseArea=Mafraq as definded in movement .ini RandomChance=80 StartObjects=60 this number could be reduced MaxObjects=60 this number could be reduced Experience=40 Morale=60 Supply=100 Intelligence=80 UpgradeType=NEVER StartDate=06/07/1967 StartDateDeviation=0 those ground unit would wander on attackroutes and meet the other force groundunit, and trigger anti-ship missions (caS) In this case the formation used should be the formationtank used in corresponding nation ini. , which probably could be modified for a ship convoy or taskforce that has less unit than tanks. It is something complex and obivuosly separated install. Quite academic and not very practical, but perhaps feasible thus saying I know you mean no harm, but could you please use a nicer tone to me? Thanks.

Somewhere, apparently. And sadly, not in my harddisk, Ask fondacaroalfonso for details

Oh well: I guess I see your point.

Talking campaigns you would need to redesignate formations and size I guess if you want to assign ships to ground units And sead, as I said works in campaign too, but with limited results. Who is scared of tWO Tu-16?

As much as I agree with you about effective teaching,I have to say that it was an idea I already had back in january, and needing of course polishing. On the other hand works for missions but tt is difficult to use in campaings thoguh, you will agree, for a good number of reasons.

Ships modeled as tanks, or ground formation. I was thinking about this a while ago, and posted about this; Talking campaign here.. you can have ships formations modeled as tank formations, or units and have them wandering on the map and in this case the CAS missin generated when two ships formations meet will have attack with ASM or whatever.. Not very practical, but workable,, let me see if I can find my own post.--- http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...t=0&start=0 third and fourth from above, dated jan19th Oh and I see saguanay is no longer a member herE? And a lot of brainstorming in that topic, there was Typhoid too Okei I rebrowsed the topic; it got deranged with animosity and bad feelings and trying to figure out a better way to have air-sea war; the idea I had would require a total redesignation of ships as tanks, and formation as well. Plus they would be of oneclass only, being defined as groundunit in campaign.ini; not to mention the need to carefully design movement routes for the terrain, and the antiship (CAS) would be always over two sea units fighting. On the other hand on a smaller scale , perhaps with subs could work BTW I am talking campaings here

Fubar, formation size maybe?

Fine Think you can share your knowledge then? I bet that it would be intersting for many

Now it is clearer. Your entire flight attack is not a surprise. You just order them to attack and they will, your wingman for sure, and number 3 and 4 because they will attack ground targets with radars, and AAA. That happens most of the time. Other times they wander loking for targets elsewhere,(as Typhoid stated it happens, in other threads) prolly becasue they can't see the ships without radar as AAA, or SAM. But the point is not MY flight. The point is OTHER flights, those that I am escorting for example Or an enemy bomber raid, assuming enemy AI gets tasked antiship mission which does not happen. But you could have ship formations set as target area in terrain data.ini and bombers would be launched in strike missions against those formations. Strike AI mission please note. And according to my experimnts they won't launch anything. But I alredy posted this in details many other times and unless something is missing, this is not possible. And I d really love to be proven wrong, so I could start immediately building campaigns

okei can you help please?

ah yes you could model ASM as ARMs and script the mission as SEAD. They will launch their arms. This leaves open the problem for other guided weapons, but we already know. Besides in campaigns, AI never gets tasked antiship, so in order to setup an antiship campaing, which is what started everything, you need to have ships formations as targetareas. Which is okei; the system will generate a "strike" mission either for you or for AI, and hopefully a SEAD mission, which would be the REAL antiship assuming the ships have radar which is true for many cruisers etc. and easy to do for others (there are some ini from fubar) Works and I have made a campaign that implements this. Only problem is that I ve never seen SEAD flights bigger than 2-ships, so no big-soviet-bomber formations. Am I missing anything here Fubar?, Thanks for this discussion anyways..

Let me think. Designate the whole runway as a "truck" ? still the problem is the "strike" mission... Redesignating LGB etc etc for AI as freefall? it is an idea but it makes loadouts a mess, and each player mission one would need to rearm

I am not rehashing, assuming I can't, because it is old, it is not intersting, everyone knows etc etc On the other hand, Basher is obviously a new user and I was updating it BTW, since I strongly agree with you that KB is a valid tool and many user could incur and rightfully so enquire about the ground-attack thing, that could be part of the KB itself To Fubar, I beg, if you have a solution please explain me

Well hmhm can you point me (and others) to the proper solution please? Seriously..

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...202&start=8 You mean in this topic fubar?

Single engine in blue-water-ops? yes I know A4, F-8. etendard, etcetc..but but...

A few questions: How many bombers has USAF lost in the last two months? I guess a B-52, a B-2 and a B-1B And this in-flight-breakdown is really freaky. How many F-22? Less than 200? And the Navy? Basically revolving around superbugs, and with this debatable F-35 promise. Chinese have Su-27, plenty of them, so do Indians. Mig-29 in advanced versions are a dime and a dozen. Think of those planes (large numbers AND good quality) employed in effective way by someone a little bit more-skilled that some camels-breeder. Don't get me wrong, as a Western Citizen I like a powerful USN and USAF as allies against all the bad guys. (you name them) that threaten our lifestyle. But I think something is wrong in the system, I just have this feeling that if we (you guys over there and us in europe as well) don't get it togehter soon, we might be up for bad surprises

Someone else noticed it apparently. I don't think it has to do with detectsystem, rather with Guided weapons "modelling" To summarize: (KB maybe for this, what do you think Moderators?) Guided weapons release specifications are, as for now: -You can release guided weapons (GW) on planned targets and targets of opportunity, assuming they are targetable. (some objects are targetable only is primary targets, don't ask) -Wingman will attack with GW targets that you order to attack. -other elements of your flight will attack AAA and SAM around your target; they will employ GW, but won't attack your primary targets, because of TK's (Game Chief Designer) design choice, in order to "make sure player is focused on attacking primary target.) :dntknw: -AI flights (not player's flight) won't employ GW, unless on CAS or SEAD missions. All above has been discussed in other threads, and opinions have been expressed. I expressed mine multiple times. They are just what they are, opinions, since it is obviously TK's visions and we have to live with his ideas. WOI's system has not changed the above, according to my limited experiments. I don't know about WOI's lates patch effect on what above.