Julhelm

North Koreans have had widespread access to satellite TV for the last decade. At this point we should really just offer $10 million or something to whoever caps fatty boy.

It is much easier to do it in the schematic view.

If you use the schematic view it's very easy to link parts together in a hierarchy. I'd use the Chassis as a base and then work from there. For a ground object like this you can probably get away with having it a single mesh if it doesn't require animations.

Flight of Black Angel is the one. Iron Eagle 2 is about Americans and Soviets cooperating to strike a middle eastern nuclear reactor, with F-4's standing in for Mig-29's.

It's either LeftFlap/RightFlap for the canards or LeftElevon/RightElevon for the wings.

I see you're working off of another of Baghera's drawings. They are usually inaccurate since the guy doesn't seem to pay huge attention to details. On the real Lockheed submission the canards actually swing out from the underside of the LERX. There is a really good picture of the design here. Also it has a weapons bay in the center since you don't want to hang external stores on a design clearly optimized for high supersonic cruise.

The heightmaps need to be 256 color indexed palette. Open one of the _HM maps that work and grab the palette from that.

Ouch

If you can make custom tiles for airfields you can make custom tiles for area targets or urban targets. And don't drop targets on the foliage part of the texture because that probably has alphaobjects on it. Problem solved.

Newsflash: Iraq and Afghanistan are the wars of the past. The wars of today are currency wars between east and west and the wars of tomorrow are going to be tradewars then hot wars between US/EU and China/Russia.

F-35 does a lot more things than the F-22 - for example the entire deep strike mission which the F-22 can't do since it lacks a bay large enough to carry anything other than SDB's. Arguably the F-35 will also turn out to be more than a match for any opposition in BVR & WVR combat since it has unlimited situational awareness courtesy of EODAS.

Who gives a s**t what TK thinks is commercially viable? The man infamous for actively refusing to market his franchise. Really? If there's no money to be made in realistic sims, why do companies like Gaijin invest millions into realistic combat sims with high production values like War Thunder? Or why does 777 persist with developing Rise of Flight? Or how something like Euro Truck Simulator 2 can top the retail sales in UK and France? Guess they all must have missed the gospel that there's no cash to be made in realistic sims.

Why can't you add decals?

That's the McDonnell Douglas / BAE JSF you got there Cocas. Also it was not supposed to have a fan like the F-35 but rather lift + cruise arrangement like on Yak-141 which was reason why it lost.

By divine right hail and kill!

Well it's kind of noticeable how console sims (and semi-realistic console fps) went out of fad sometime back in 2007 when Modern Warfare suddenly hit and made a billion dollars.

It looks really cool, but you could you smooth out the curve on the intake lips just a wee bit?

Well here are some shots from IcelandNA where I experimented with this. You can clearly see the effect on the snow and other parts.

I experimented with getting specular effects on the entire terrain by using only .tga tiles and a modified water shader. The alpha channel on the tiles is used both as a specular level map and a mask for the water effect at the same time.

But they don't have a lot more detail than before. I can downscale an SF2 1024 texture to 512 like in SF1 and the difference is negligable. Yes, if we're talking very high detail like DCS or FSX payware. The SF2 planes are not that much higher detailed compared to SF1 planes. The ground objects are all the same. No, just no. It takes me a whooping 15 minutes to derive a specular map from my diffuse texture. Creating the bump maps takes no more than half an hour, tops using the free nDo plugin. And since you obviously do not bake from highpoly meshes, we can conclude all the normal map work is done in photoshop. So that's less than an hour getting both maps ingame. If you know what you're doing you shouldn't even have to tweak either very much since you can already preview the result in the 3ds max viewport using a viewport shader. Are they really that more detailed compared to the SF1 avionics? Mine sure as hell haven't. So we can conclude that the terrain engine was a bad business decision in terms of cost vs the visuals it delivered. It frankly amazes me that it couldn't be seen that it would clearly be inadequate compared to existing benchmarks like Il-2 or even on the legacy engine such as Stary's tile mods. It almost looks as if no attention is paid to what the competition is doing. Also, there is no reason tools like a mission editor should cost so much to develop that the business almost goes bankrupt since stuff like that are usually derived from tools used during development. Has it ever occurred to you that development costs might be disproportionately higher because there's never been an investment into developing better tools to allow for faster workflows? It would fit perfectly with TK's very risk-averse attitude to not risk anything by investing in infrastructure. If asset production takes too long, you develop new workflows that allows you to turn around that content faster, even if there is an up front cost programming-wise.

You need to have a lot more mountain tiles. Right now the tiling is much too apparent.

Also look at Tu-80 and Tu-85 for the final steps in the evolution from B-29 to Tu-95.

Yeah

Since you made an SB2C, how about an BT2C?

It's the major new feature so it stands to reason they want you to use it. Besides, it's more fun compared to standard endless turnfights like HAWX 2.