Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Dark_Knight_667th

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tulsa OK US
  • Interests
    Flight Sims, Flight Sims, and women


  • Website

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. savag..you may take a gander over at the saitek website under support..there is a forum there for all the sticks..various problems as well as software updates are discussed for each..also custom profiles are uploaded there..not saying that your posting here is wrong mind you..but may not be many people using that stick..the forums there are regularly checked by their support staff, questions answered etc. I've got a Saitek X45 and they do respond a lot faster than they used to with a lot more knowledge on their merchandise..used to be that wasn't the case. Saitek has done a complete turn around on their customer service and it shows in their latest software releases. www.saitekusa.com DK
  2. over weight aircraft

    235,000 lbs the AH1 I don't think should be getting off the ground period..I would take a look around the net for max payloads for the aircraft types. Then stick to the numbers..at least the stock aircraft anyway..add on aircraft may be errors in the fms and weapons loadouts causing the problem. DK
  3. Andy..it was in regards to the F104 that I posted the bit about the rudder induced roll :D DK
  4. been speaking with Julian data and a few others..as well as doing some reading of my own. Julian confirmed what I have been thinking for a bit. These following lines in the wing, tail, rudder, etc all affect the roll rate and roll inertia. and will also possibly fix the unwanted roll when yaw (rudder) is applied. As taken from the F100 D data.ini wing section. CLa=0.5105-Lift coefficient with aileron applied CD0=0.0011 CDL=0.0014-coeffiecient drag vs lift Cmq=-0.1944-this is mass coefficient of some sort..working on full definition Cmad=0.0170-same with this..something with mass with aileron applied which may be the solution to the roll inertia.. Cyb=-0.0085 Clb=-0.0494 Clp=-0.0434-lift coefficient with elevator applied ( I think) Clr=0.0164--lift coefficient with rudder applied..this may be the excess roll we see when rudder is applied.. Cnb=-0.1397 Cnp=0.0021 Cnr=-0.0037 I'll break these down in further detail as I learn more. DK
  5. Future Of SF

    Problem number 1 that modifications in SF face.. Understanding the data in the ini's..not all of us are aerospace engineers like TK and some others..but yet to add an aircraft..you gotta have a set of ini's for it..some are extremely simple..some like the data.ini's are spanglish in some areas..and they are all different in between aircraft..so it all deals with the flight characteristics of each..wing type, airfoil type, sweep, drag coefficients ets..these are what I have been able to figure out so far..lift coefficents and so forth..obtaining full flight parameter diagrams for aircraft of that age is next to impossible unless you live across the street from the edwards afb reference library at the flight test center or across the street from the air and space museum.. Email either and neither one have the time to help..makes the job even tougher. Aircraft manufacturers no longer have the data..out of date aircraft no longer in production..ask the airforce.. Try building a data.ini that is within 1% of real life specs on that..its impossible. These numbers aren't constants for all aircraft.. DK
  6. win a campaign

    US.. As you, me, and about everyone else on the net unfortunate enough to be expecting another patch even though the word continuously comes down that its being worked on..and I'm not saying that isn't true mind you..so don't think that...that this sim has more bugs and holes in the code than a piece of cloth has threads....please remember..what set him off was your "stupid comments" remark in your reply..Yean..I'm still pokin around in the aircraft dat files..but as far as flying SFP1 for campaign or any other reason except in a free flight type to check a change to a dat file I'm not doin jack with it..and for good reason. After all..air to air missiles that will track and kill air to ground targets is somewhere along the lines of an arcade game..not something that even somewhat resembles real life..The game engine is porked..you know it..I know it..we both know that TK is probably doing whatever he can to fix it..but the stupid comments thing was about as needed as his comment in reply. Everyone has the right to question, comment, or vent as long as the moderators allow and keep an even keel to their judgements. To me SFp1 in its current state is a somewhat worthless pile of gaming code that runs yes..but does not run anywhere close to how the designer intended it to run..fixable yes..moddable is a given..I'm learning what I can now before its fixed but not releasing anything but what I find out..the info..not the files themselves and I won't until its fixed..simply because when it is fixed too many things will have changed for things that are currently out already to not have to go through a major overhaul to work right. The game engine is too much out of whack at the moment to try anything other than what I am. For all I know..everything about the way the files are currently structured is going to change to fix the problem. That, in and of itself is preclusive to releasing modifications or anything for the sim. Heck..the 3d model requirements are probably going to change because last I heard, there was a new graphics engine in testing to fix issues with radeon cards..which means that all the 3d models to date that have been done by third party modders are going to have to be updated to work with the new engine in a worse case scenario..same with building models, ship models, terrains..the whole shooting match..It may make all work that has been done to date totally obscelete and incompatable with the new engine. The old graphics models could produce ctd's, lock ups, etc..same with old data values when the game engine code is updated..which is why I stepped out for a while and did other things. I have no idea whats in store when sf is fixed. Only TK and the beta group does know..and notice they aren't sayin. so, everyone, keep it polite..there may be a whole lot of work in store for all of us in the very near future DK
  7. Just some FYI

    on modern aircraft there sony..if you deploy the flaps at over three hundred knots you will rip em off your wings..thats why it won't let you DK
  8. ~yawn~ "Dad? Are we there yet?" "No son..go back to sleep.." "...ok...." funny how yall say it in different words..but hey..a little clarification is needed for thos of us not fine print savvy DK
  9. Just some FYI

    ok..that modification in and of itself worked..it did have the five degree down on the first flap position..now for the problem..it lost the landing flap position. so..elsewhere there is something that says there is only a landing flap and a take off flap position..the affect etc is easily put in..its now a matter of figuring out how to get the sim to remember all three... DK
  10. Just some FYI

    Here is one quicky I have discovered..in the control surfaces area of the .ini file under flaps it should be very easy to create a 3 position flap system instead of a two position..addint the all important combat flaps setting to the ini for any aircraft..as some of you, or all of you, know combat flap setting is in between take off setting and full retract, giving some extra lift at lower speeds, and up until later fighter fly by wire systems was manually selected by a pilot..by setting up combat flaps as the first position, with a 5 degree deployment setting, it should be first in line on the deployment cycle..and last on the retract..result will be a little extra lift in those tight slow turns. DK
  11. Out of sheer boredom and lack of anything better to do at this point..I'm back to poking around the aircraft data files again..Please note..this does NOT mean I know any more about them than I did..nor does it mean that I can do FM's for the addon aircraft out there..I'm just mucking about a bit...as I find things out I will post em..I'm basically gonna take the F100 Data.ini file apart and see what makes it tick. If I destroy my SF in the process..so be it..no great loss to me at this point. The main focus of my search at this point will be the wings, ailerons, stabs and vertical tail/rudder "assemblies" in the dat file as these may very well hold the key to the roll inertia bug that plagues so many of you..after all..roll is a function of the aileron, which is a function of the wing. Up until this point, things that i have discovered...1. the deploy/retract values of the LEF or slats should be the same for both positions..deployed it adds that value to the the wing dynamics..retract it subtracts it. example. last patch put the LEF value of the slats in the F100 at 133....so at 133 on both retract and deploy you get the base wing, and the wing with the deployed slat. Same with the aileron values..area, lift, etc should be the same numerical value in either the up or down position..how to put those values in so the sim reads it correctly is the concern..the size of the control surface, in this case, the aileron, doesn't change with movement..how it affects the wing, and thus the lift of that wing is what changes. Assuming that the drag coefficient or Cd is correct for all parts, and the lift coefficient Ca is also correct for the wing type whether a high speed airfoil or supersonic..(to be determined per aircraft) then factoring in degree of sweep, wing area, wing chord and wing span should give a certain amount of lift as a constant for a certain given speed. Thus this can be tested in the debug to make sure that the wing is then performing to spec. Now..as Ca and Cd coefficients are listed at what could possibly be settings at different speeds as baselines for the aircraft..I'm not going to be messing with those too much..my main area of concern is to figure out what part of the data detirmines what changes when a control surface is moved.. I've been poking an eye in the forum about once every couple of months since the last tweak (can't bring myself to call it a patch) from thirdwire to see if any new news on this flop actually flying..and yeah its a flop...its not on the shelves anywhere in tulsa for sale whatsoever..its not even in the bargain bins any more..I did find it at the used software place which had about 20 copies..all previously owned..had to get a replacement cuz mine had ingrained water rings on the shiny side from all the pop cans it has had set on it. Spent 3 bucks on the new copy.. Anyway..I'll probably post somethin in a couple of weeks or so if I figure something out.. DK
  12. IL2 FB patch 1.9 is up at IL2FB website under upgrades and no..patches for fb were not lined up. only the first patch had a bit of prep work done from beta tester input..mainly bug fixes that were not show stoppers..all other patches were add on aircraft that were mainly developed after IL2's release..not before. DK
  13. Let me put another perspective on this. IL2 First patch 45 days after release of the sim, second patch was 60 days after that, third to add new a/c only and tweak flight models according to newly found data was 45 days after that, last patch before fb was to add the stuka as flyable, tweak the FW 190 FMs and make the sound files editable..gee..all done within six months time of release..IL2 FB was also in development during this time..hmmmm..anybody getting my point? IL2 FB was then released after beta 6 months later..its been out for..3 months..first patch for it to add more aircraft has already been released..not a whole lot of bugs to begin with in either of them on release..dev time was less..team size about the same as on SP1..oleg doing most of the coding..Wow..gee whiz..maybe TK should give Oleg a call.. DK
  14. mid july..still no second patch..last I checked it was march..checked TW site about a month ago..saw the update..not much has changed it seems..oh well..back to Falcon. DK
  15. the 667th has pretty much given up on strike fighters. I was hoping multiplayer wise for a sim that would allow 16 pilots into a session for some very good squad vs squad dogfights..needless to say SF fell way short of that, and continues to fail. Add to that problems with single player etc. I'm not bashing TK, but the ball was severely dropped with strikefighters. If these problems are not addressed soon then SF will be the sim that almost never was..its damn near a has-been now, already in most software stores bargain bins and shelves..because of its problems. Most sims don't make it there until the end of their first year. Not at the end of their first month, SF set a new record there..and that isn't a good record to have. DK

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..