jjlehto

Hey folks. Lately i've been busying with modding my gun files, with the intent to create a mod with much more variance in sounds and tracer effects for those types of weapons. Sadly, I'm stuck at the very beginning of sound modding; I was able to substitute the sound of a 30mm gun with a good one i found on web but my problem is the following: I can't for the life of me make it sound like it's firing at its nominal RoF. A gun having, say, 900 rpm sounds like firing at 150 rpm. I understand that, for the simulator to work properly, the sound file i use should be of a single shot - not of a volley, as it seems that it 'd create unrealistic overlaps and generally sound bad. Is there a way to configure this particular aspect? Also, I'd like to know if there is a way to make multiple gun configs sound like there's more than one: for example, a Mig-19 with two guns of the same type should play the sound twice (stereo would be the icing on the cake, but perhaps i'm asking to much), yet the sim produces only one dull shooting sound. Any ideas? Thanks for your attention.

Did it. Yesterday I downloaded and installed the SAM pack only, and it opened up a wide range of scenarios, especially strike missions. Today I'm downloading the other two packs and installing them. Thank you for your assistance.

please pardon my ignorance, I get there are no ground objects included. I have anyway a large number of ground objects installed but a "Slava" class cruiser is everything I get in all missions (of the single type). Do I have a problem with my config or is there some step I should do that idk of? thanks and cheers for another great map.

the shapes and forms of lifeforms are determined by the evolution, like pretty much everything else "formal" in the universe. Men of religion will often give answers like the one you received, I tend to agree with it in the sense that if there is a God, then all lifeforms are his "sons'. Besides, many religions on earth tend to force the notion that only their believers are the "sons of God" and other men are miscreants or who knows - you can understand how difficult could be for such mindsets an effort towards a more general, universal approach to religion. To get back to evolutionism and creationism, I'm not sure, I rather think that both views have some valid and some not valid points. One of the biggest obstacles imho to correctly interpret these subjects is time. Men tend to take time as a given fact, as something that exists no matter what. In fact, they could not be more wrong: time exists only in human (and in the other lifeforms) perception. What happened in the past, and what will happen in the future, already exist, and never cease to. It's our perception that is able only to observe a certain portion of these events, which we call present - and then through memory recall these events. But I think I'm going too ot with this.

I fully agree. And you know, imho that this kind of advancement, isn't "forbidden by God until we grow up" or something like that - it's rather an accomplishment that, in order to be achieved, needs an evolution of how we as human look at and perceive things. Such evolution would most likely determine, among other things, large changes in the scientific method and how it is applied. Sadly, the herds are unable to direct themselves and they are led by elements which stay outside of them. In particular, the ability of not thinking clear as masses, is crippled not by emotions in general, but by fear. To keep it simple: the herd is kept afraid and terrorized by the shepherd, who managed to assume the control of it by killing some of the sheep with a stick. The stick is, in human matters, where the largest part of all the wealth and resources available go, and we all know what that is.

i think that such entity is actually entities, in the sense that if there are intelligent species, we can be sure that there are lots of them, not only one. Very likely, the universe is big enough to contain everything you hypothesize, and yet much more. We tend also much to see this subject as an interaction between human and "others", when actually it makes much more sense that these different entities interact among each other. Why is the human race and Earth in general being somehow "ignored"? Some users talk about our tendency to kill and make suffer each other, and I think that it's the right track. If there is a condition by which such "advanced" (again, we focus on technology, but i suspect that it's a much more general aspect) beings can't or don't want to, approach the humans is that humans are divided and do not act with a single will, which should be the "most general good possible" at their level of culture, society, etc. I sincerely doubt that anybody who is able to perform voyages over light years distances would enter in contact with our current leaderships - so that they can keep it secret and try to exploit it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the other creatures of the Earth. There is also another problem, and this one is pretty much "human only" - religions. The disclosure of the knowledge that we "aren't alone" would force all the human religions to readapt to a much more universal context. It would also probably mean that some of them, especially some of the monotheistic, would be subtracted of most of their fundamental reason d'etre. The way human matters are managed these days, I don't think that such adjustements will be allowed in any short period of time.

I'm just saying that, as radar guided SAMs were perfectly able to observe and attack the B-52s, I feel the ECM are unrealistically strong. I mean, probably as it is you have more chance to acquire a B-2 than this B-52. In addition, basically most of the bomber variants employed were D or F versions. In any case it's just my opinion, everybody can modify the inis as he sees fit. ECM is not a subject that can be measured and abstracted into a simulator with any rate of certainty; my observation is to remark that this model ECM does not abstract the historical reality at all, being the NV sams able to attack the bombers.

I think that the aerial phenomenons known as UFOs are actually several different, distinct phenomenons. There are of course some still not known atmospheric effects among them. There also could be some man-made craft in the fray, although I don't believe for a second conspiracy theories that make claims on parallel developed technology by some unknown elite or the like - I don't think such setting could be kept completely hidden, especially in an era where information is available at unprecedented extension and speed. Don't forget that basically every human being, excluding some areas of Africa and Oceania, is able to photograph and film anything he observes and release it to the public in a matter of seconds. Then there are vids like this, which for us that have some experience with the observing technology, can only mean that those filmed are solid objects, with dimensions, a thermal signature, a velocity vector and everything an aircraft would display, except that they behave in ways that are way outside the limits of the current state of the art tech. They also seem to be intelligently controlled and well aware to be observed. From this, I can't really decide that they are aerial objects manufactured by species living outside our star system. I think somehow the truth will in future times unfold on this subject, but it is definitely too soon, probably in much part owed that as humans, our imagination still has limits too far away from this realities to be able to theorize about them.

Hello, I have a problem I'm not sure how to solve. Consider this situation: - Aircraft is able to accept several types of equipment on a certain station (AAMs, Guided Bombs, Guided Missiles, External Pods). - When mounting a weapon on said station, it correctly hangs from a pylon. - When mounting an External Pod though, the actual pod is "detached" from the station, like there is an invisible pylon in-between. - These pods are somehow conformal, they don't need any pylon and should attach directly on the fuselage. - I would like to attach the pods correctly, without adding pylons to them, but also without ruining how the other ordnance behaves, which is correct. Where should I work? at the aircraft inis, or at the single weapons ones? Thanks for your attention.

I checked the pods diameter and it appears consistent with the real life counterparts (no way to check the 3d model parameter i guess). In any case, what error would cause space between attachment and payload? I mean, if the payload diameter is *less* than the 3d model value, then I have space between the two points, or is it the other way around? thanks for your help folks.

ok, it appears I've solved it. The problem was in the aircraft ini, and it seems related to the fact that different equipment has different shapes. In particular, the EP and LP classes. Probably who made the aircraft had to compromise somehow in the placement of said weapon types (which can only be attached to a single station). The Pods I was trying to load (like the Litening) have a rather small height, so they ended up with an empty space between the fuselage and them. Other equipment is "taller", or has a small pylon in its own 3d model, in those cases the pod was loading fine. I've tried with several different planes and loadouts and noticed that some compromise is always present, although in this particular case it particularly caught the sight with that empty space. The solution was to retouch the loadout Y position to make the pod be slung 50 clicks higher. I've tested the configuration with most of the possible LP and EP equipment and it does fine for me. Of course other types of ordnance aren't affected, as in the ini they are treated like a different weapon station. The key is that on the basis of the loaded equipment class, a different loadout station is used, yet they share the same position in 3d space. It's something that in my very limited modding experience I did not know and I'm glad to have learnt. Thanks for your attention and replies.

so it isn't possible, for example, to give more targets to a single strike pack? for example, I'd like to have a section of tornados target several objects inside an airbase, in their mission - the runways, the shelters, the tower and so on. So far you get to target the "fuel tank", or "the runway" and that's it :)

many thanks, I think I have enough info to get started. I'll get back to this thread if I get any issue.

Hello. Is it possible to tweak the cfg files to make modern planes with AESA and PESA radars be able to track and attack more than one target simultaneously? I've got the impression that the game engine isn't able to deliver this feature, but then again, modders have done wonders and I was curious if this has been attained somehow. I tried searching older threads but couldn't find anything. thanks for your attention.

the ecm strength seems really out of this world. i respectfully remind that vietnamese air defences were able to engage and attack b-52s.