Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jjlehto

  1. 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
  2. ..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.
  3. thanks for your reply, this is valuable information. I'll post back here if I ran into any other doubt while testing
  4. MiG-15bis "Fagot-B"

    why do mig-15s and 17s have a crazy instability on the yaw plane? you can't touch the rudder that the plane starts swinging left and right, seems to be made to make these aircraft miss their shots. is there any edit that can be done to bring them back to reality? neither the DCSW or any other Fresco/Fagot simulator has ever had this tendency.
  5. Hellenic Air Force F-5A Volume I

    Would had given six stars, if it was possible. Thanks for raising the bar, and to provide this amazing "modding school". I hope I can learn something from it.
  6. Nations & Medals Expansion

    several data is missing from nations.ini, causing weird events like planes starting in the same point in air and colliding. I already tried inputing formation data (for example) where it wasn't present, and that fixes this problem. pls fix it, it's the best nations mod i've tried
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. Thanks. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. The truth is out there...........on US Navy FLIR

    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.
  16. The truth is out there...........on US Navy FLIR

    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.
  17. The truth is out there...........on US Navy FLIR

    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.
  18. 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.
  19. The truth is out there...........on US Navy FLIR

    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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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 :)
  24. many thanks, I think I have enough info to get started. I'll get back to this thread if I get any issue.
  25. 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.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..