jjlehto

woooooooo !

that did it.

4 hours ago, russouk2004 said:

the other for me sometimes wouldnt load..

well i must say that for now, I'm unable to get either to work.

In fact they report as "loaded" in the plugin list, with a green dot on the left.

But - there is no option to save objects as ".LOD" in the export section. idk if i'm doing something wrong, i'm a total noob with 3ds interface.

14 hours ago, russouk2004 said:

I prefer this one 

twObjectExporter Dec2010-C.dlu

Many thanks.

Can you explain me why?

I admit that, although I have some experience in blender, with 3ds I have to start all over. Nonetheless, I have learnt the basics of 3d modeling, so I don't think It's going to be that hard learning 3ds.

In fact, since I have unlimited access to blender, and limited (although generous) access to 3ds, I was thinking that the best way for me could be to build objects in blend, save them in a common format and then use 3ds for exporting to SF2. It would be good to know if someone else works this way, and how effective it might be.

the best part is that I even went looking for it in the download section .. i must be getting real old.

thanks for your kindness.

Hello,

I'm trying to download the tool from the thirdwire page, but all the downloads links appear to be broken and return an error.

could someone provide me with the 3d max exporter tool?

I have been able to secure the usage of  several hours per day  of the 2009 version from an acquaintance, and would like to try creating some weapons and simple objects.

I hope asking for this is not illegal, besides, the tool is free and (should be) available from 3rdwire.

thanks for your attention

I'm 42, and I can say I've seen some in my life; probably more than most of the ppl my age.

But no doubt, this 2020 is gonna stay among the "highlights", probably forever (well, at least, hopefully not, it doesn't become the first event of some tough series, which we aren't going to know until some years).

Although I don't always necessarily agree with the ideas of the relevant ppl of this site, I can say for sure, that you words are honest and true - unlike most of the billions of words wasted nowadays in this age of social medias and instant information (whether it's real information or most commonly, just debris).

And let me tell you just this: I'm happy this site exists.

Best wishes for the new year to you and your family, and to all the members of this community.

35 minutes ago, Menrva said:

You must not have any INSIGNIAXXX.tga in the decals folder from numbers 002 to 212

good info, thanks. As I said, I'm not knowledgeable in the decals subject.

I used your mod for several months and found it to be several steps towards real-life accuracy, from the baseline of the original.

Then I started a general rehaul of my own, as I wasn't satisfied with how nations different from the US or the UK were treated in the original game. This project is still far from completion, as I have little time to devote to it, but I wanted to keep the original nations structure intact so I had to remove your mod.

I was able to "solve" only by deleting a picture called "INSIGNA006.tga", located in the mods decals folder.

What happens now, is that older RAF aircraft (from the 50ies to the 80ies) wear only the tricolor roundel, which is of the right size. I'm not a roundels / decals specialist, and idk if that's correct.

Did the two-color roundel become unused after ww2 and then reintroduced in modern times? If that's the case then the game is behaving correctly now.

I was under the impression that the RAF used both roundels post ww2, and then dropped the tricolor one only more recently. Perhaps I was wrong about that.

Anyway, thanks for the help.

Since a while, I find myself in this condition (see pic).

The RAF roundels are like 4 times the correct size. Happens only with RAF decals (all the other  air forces are correct). Also happens on most other RAF planes (like Javelins, Hunters etc).

I was thinking, perhaps some mod broken them, but I'm unable to trace back when it started.

I reckon someone probably incurred in this already, I'd be grateful to know how can it be solved.

Thanks.

..Success.

I started tweaking the parameters you suggested, only to notice that, even if rudder dynamics were changing, the original problem was not corrected.

It was like in fact the problem would occur at another level, possibly "higher" than the rudder itself.

This made me look upon the "vertail" section, which is parent of the rudder one.

So I simply substituted the aerodynamic parameters contained there with those from another plane with a known functioning rudder (f-86d), in block, just to see if those were the culprits. Ran a single mission, and bang!, the problem was gone. The aircraft still don't feels right, obviously, but I know what to tweak now.

I'll gladly accept any suggestion on the single parameters pertaining to the vertical fin section, as there are even more params than in rudder, and I don't have many clues about them (I would proceed changing them one by one and perform a test between every change). It appears that the vertical empennage has a counterforce that makes the aircraft bounce to the opposite direction to where the rudder has been depressed, roughly with the same force.

The correct behavior would be an aircraft that keeps its nose horizontally in the direction of rudder action, while taking a slight roll in the same direction (to be compensated by ailerons) proportional to rudder force.

Thanks again.

thanks for your reply, this is valuable information.

I'll post back here if I ran into any other doubt while testing

I found out that some aircraft have an incredible tendency to instability on the yaw axis.

At pretty much all speeds, touching the rudder will cause the aircraft to start swinging left and right, making hitting (with guns) anything smaller than an aircraft carrier almost impossible.

I've been trying to fool around with several parameters in the data.ini file, in particular the "damping" ones, and then some of those in the "rudder" section.

Sadly, these changes have brought no real improvement. I even tried (for testing purposes) to substitute the entire "rudder" section with another from another similar plane: in this case the rudder ceased to work altogether (which weirdly enough, made aiming the plane easier).

My question is, which parameters to I need to tweak in order to remove this anomaly?

For example, the MiG-15 (both TW and user made) all have this tendency, which is also unrealistic. The Sabres, the french and the british early jets  are not plagued at all by this problem, their rudder is silky. Historical and technical publications tend to agree that the Fagot would become unstable only nearing mach 1, which is very much a higher speed than those I'm testing it.

Thanks for your attention

I have solved with the method of deleting the options and version inis, then restarting, let the program rebuild the two files and editing "options.ini" to point to the correct mod directory.

After doing this, there has been no rewrites.

Apparently though, I've cheered to soon.

There seem to be another issue, don't know if it's related.

When using red side, the aircraft start at the same exact position in the sky, literally one inside the other, and explode.

I've read that it was an issue with some airports in some terrains, but this happens when starting the mission in the air.

It also appears that the radio menu is messed up, like there is a "third squadron" but not a "second" in the list, and it doesn't reply to orders.

This game will never cease to amaze me.

15 minutes ago, yakarov79 said:

I am 100% sure that on Windows 7 stock files rewrite issue occurs.

no doubt.

I was saying that in my particular combination of w7 and sf2 it didn't occur. I've personally edited dozens of lines of inis of these planes without a single rewrite happening. I'm trying to understand what determines that condition so to replicate it, but i'm afraid w10 makes it impossible.

22 hours ago, yakarov79 said:

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/93001-stop-the-game-from-overwriting-files/

Thanks. 

14 hours ago, Wrench said:

Pretty sure this is covered in our ever ignored Knowledge Base (tm)

AI planes made user flyable will always be rewritten back to AI-only as a matter of course when the game starts. You just simply have to make the main ini (ie: MiG-21MF.ini) read only. Of course, that is after adding all the cockpit bits and listing the inis..OTH, you won't be able to add any further skins to it, as it can't write to a read only (duh!)

 

Thanks.

Before posting the question, I searched the KB, but couldn't come up with an answer. A google search was negative too. I prly used keywords too vague.

Anyway, what you are saying makes sense - but I'm 100% positive that back under windows 7 (I've switched to 10 only in early '19) the inis were not being rewritten.

Which makes me believe that there is some method to prevent that (besides read only, which is fine if you only fly, but as you said becomes a  burden if you're modding and testing - basically launching the .exe every five mins).

I'm currently trying to understand if there's a way to revoke writing permission for the sf2 executable to a specific directory, which equates making the files read only for the program but not for the user. I'll report back if I manage something, but what I've found so far makes me rather pessimistic.

hello.

i've met a strange but pesky occurance with my sf2 install.

i installed some plane mods from this site, some of them are improvements over the old sf2 vanilla aircraft and supposed to give them a cockpit and make 'em flyable.

now what happens, is that on starting SF2, the program seems to rewrite the main ini for these aircraft with the vanilla version, so the mods are never enabled. I can cite as example the fine Fishbed pack found on this site.

now, the only solution i've found so far is to change the ini files attributes to "read only".

but it seems a rather clunky method to prevent SF2 to revert the changes I made, especially since I like to tweak and tune myself and having to change the "read only" attribute every time i change a file to test it would become anightmarish waste of time and clicks.

this thing started happening with windows 10, it appears, or more likely, with *some update* of windows 10.

has anybody met this problem, and how was it solved?

thanks for your attention

Ok, thanks for all your replies.

To start with, I have the merged 5-ways install with SFNA updated to the latest patch.

I begun  this work by examining the original, generic 30mm sound; and noticed it was a single gun shot sound that the simulator would repeat while the the trigger is pressed and the gun is firing. 

Then I went looking over the web and found more specific 30mm (and other kinds and calibers) sounds from different cannons, normally these files contain the sound of a burst, at the proprietary rof.

Since though, the simulator sounds format is one shot only, and then the program repeats it to form bursts, i thought to proceed by cutting 1 shot only from my sound files, saving it in the relevant folder and proceed editing the inis.

The in-game result is good - for what it concerns the sound itself: it plays perfectly just like in the sound editor.

But the rate of fire is completely different from the one written in the ini.

I had reasoned that the simulator would repeat the single shot file according to the rate of fire value written in the ini file, but at this point i doubt it has anything to do with the "sound part" of the gun; probably it's there only to calculate damage, ammo consumption and so on.

So I reckon you are suggesting to employ soundfiles already containing entire bursts. But how does that work with the amount of time the trigger is pressed? If the soundfile contains say - 30 shots - and i press the trigger to fire only 10, the simulator will still play a burst long 30 shots right?

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.

On 3/19/2018 at 12:35 PM, Menrva said:

I suggest that you dowload eburger68's ground object packages (SF2 SAM Pack, SF2 AAA Pack, SF2 Tanks Pack, etc.) as they include various fixes. 

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.

9 hours ago, RUSTYMORLEY said:

 

Have we been purposely given an overall similar physical form so that one day in the future we will all be able to interact with each other. Oddly enough as the Vicar pointed out - the phrase ''The Divine Plan'' appears repeatedly in the Christian Bible.  I just don't what to think......am I a complete nutter or is the Vicar a complete nutter...........

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.

2 hours ago, logan4 said:

There are few more natural laws that we haven't even discovered yet (there is no black matter just missing natural laws) that will allow FTL speeds/ interdimensional travels and understanding the working of galaxies and the universe. Few inventions that are still to come that will tip the balance more and more toward graduating up in the kinder garden to primary school, then above. How long will take? Anywhere between 25 to 1000 years, its only depend on ourselves, and the willingness to change our way of life (leadership, greed, ego, hatred, etc) The better we get the more inventions will be available to us to make life easier and better and advance faster ahead.

 

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.

3 hours ago, logan4 said:

Until we graduate out of the sandbox, individual sightings/encounters (like in OP) will still happen. Mankind have a habit to grow out of, namely we behave alone or in small groups differently then in big masses. Individuals can have curiousness and attention to try to understand such events, masses currently can still behave like sheep or a low conscious herd of animals, without ability to think clearly only driven by emotions.

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.

5 hours ago, Snailman said:

It also assumes that such an "outside force"  would find Earth as it is today.  Again assuming they did not interfere with anything here and they just came..  and   A,  they are benevolent/ at least neutral and just watching  B, Outright hostile (came to enslave, consume .. etc etc the humanity.)

 

I think whatever such entity or force may exist, superior and advanced..  it may have very well existed 100 thousand or even a million year ago. I don't think a first contact was in the 20th century. And, Their intentions can be much more complex than just and utter Hollywood invasion force, or grinning Zoo watchers..

They could be farmers... seeding,  weeding - then ultimately harvesting.

They can be land owners,  directly/indirectly managing the planet interfering when something they don't like

They can be more, even gods, not just managing but completely controlling the system like we do with a strategy game, via their "human" pawns and puppets. Just like how it is being done in small scale in every human country between the power holders and the masses.

They can be scientists... making something, observing... then clean up the failed mess and starting a new one in a new pot.

 

OR,  simply, they are the same of us. What would WE do with a stone-age alien civilization on a newly discovered world?  Discover them, observe them, befriend them... teach them...experiment on them,  take their lands away, good alien is the dead alien. We need another Earth, say the stockholders. How dare they throw stones... alien terrorists.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Stick said:

B-52G_72: This version went to Vietnam for Linebacker with the ability to carry only 27 bombs and very inferior ECM.

Perhaps this the version you may want to use?!

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.