Constellation1710

cocas Is this by any chance based on the 1965 advanced day fighter?

Sounds awfully awkward... every time you wish to alter a game on your computer, you have to access a website?

jeanba I think the MiG-21 wouldn't be a good representation. The F-104's performance is basically as follows - Top Speed: In excess of the F-4B and F-106A - Able to operate for protracted periods of time at Mach 2.0 - Climb rate is similar to the F-4B - Roll rate is similar to the F-5 - Corner velocity is around 420 KIAS @ 0.85 Mach - If aircraft is fitted with maneuver flaps, sustained turn-rate is similar to the F-4B

EricJ But the accessing capability isn't via a file or program that you downloaded? You were editing solely through a website? Oh, okay

EricJ Then how did this buffoon get clearance?

EricJ So you really need to pass a lot of road-blocks and jump through hoops in order to be able to get the right to achieve the licensing?

EricJ So you needed a password or to edit you needed access through an other website? By the way, how does the game simulate radar? Does the game actually simulate the radar beams, the programming of the radar itself, or merely tells the computer "scan this much distance, pick up anything this size or more at this distance, scan this many times a second" and stuff? NDA = Non Disclosure Agreement?

Oh... I just read the opening post and responded. BailOut When is EDGE expected to be released? Are they planning on simulating every function? Or just telling the computer "in this case do that" Home Fries Makes sense Gee whiz? You mean they thought the capability was cool though unnecessary? Ruggbutt So, he misrepresented himself? JediMaster Well, for a flight-sim, they want it to accurately simulate the plane. I'm not sure what level of graphic realism is demanded. As for an airplane being designed to make it easy to blow stuff up, that's pretty much what all combat aircraft are designed for. I think some saw the movie Terminator in 1984 and laughed their butts off about the human-shaped robots but thought that Skynet was cool and wanted to create it for real... . Of course they probably thought that they could control such a program (despite it being orders of magnitude smarter than them) and preventing it from turning on them EricJ Which is from 1980 to modern day correct?

EricJ Back when it was LOMAC... That's pretty cool actually Was this because they thought you were advertising something? When you say safer, you mean not running afoul of posting anything classified correct? As for the Moderator, what forum is this? Do you still retain the full game editing capabilities you had before or did you lose that privilege?

Alfie The P-74 Sprite looks like a baby F-84F

Sounds awesome!

streakeagle What requirements are typically needed? EricJ varied histories? Code-bashing? You mean kluging existing code into something you can make work?

I was thinking of a few ideas regarding the following HUD Symbology How much versatility is allowed in altering the HUD symbols compared to, say, Falcon BMS? I would assume it would be substantial considering the Russian designs, and I want to point out that even the F-16 and F-15 despite core similarities, have some significant HUD symbols Russian Aircraft The Russians had a whole different system for not just HUD symbology, but the ADI system. I'm curious as to the feasibility of creating modified cockpits with english symbols, and a western ADI and stuff. Radar Systems I'm not sure if this is classified, but the radars depicted seem to show the radar beam scanning in a relatively slow pattern: Modern radars are phased-array and scan shift the beam in milliseconds. I'm curious if, provided it's not classified, if it's possible to create a more accurate representation (I'm not interested in revealing national secrets or having a premature heart-attack or a car-crash and stuff ).

EricJ You mean they would want to know what a bunch of people were going to do with their code? That makes sense. Well, as I said from the outset, I wasn't interested in releasing anything that was classified. SkateZilla 3. Cockpit systems complexity can be as simple as you want them (ie, Basic Electric, Hydrualic, Fuel Systems, Basic Radar, Basic SMS, Etc, Clickable or not, etc) (Again LUA Scripting Knowledge is a Must)Understood - SFM All Aero and Engine Parameters are in the Base AIRCRAFT.LUA ( USED BY AI) - SFM + External FCS Would Use the above parameters, and augment them with FCS System Scripted in LUA to manage Control Surface Movements. ( USED BY SFM FC3 JETS + Some 3rd Party Mods) - EFM, Allows Custom Aerodynamics, Forces and Advanced Control Managements Etc ( Used By Licensed 3rd Party Developers )So to use EFM you'd have to be a licensed 3rd Party developer? As for the rest, those features are in the game itself right? - You could, Simply Define a New Radar, Enter a bunch of Public/Generic Parameters, Define the Symbology, Create the Symbology Art easily if One knew how.True enough That makes a lot of sense, so basically you'd be using the same cockpit for those models. So 3rd Party mods that are unlicensed must obviously avoid IP violations, and be for personal use only? The Coding is Done in LUA and Microsoft Visual Studio Projects (DLL). If you're not proficient in those, then that's already a HUGE Barrier to overcome.Heh, tell me about it. Admittedly, I probably should learn computer programming (if for no other reason than to better understand computers) The SDK is for making new terrains? What would you have to do to get licensed other then presumably pay money? I think this could be something of use for everybody Which is likely why no SF2 Team has Even Tried to make a FC3 Level Aircraft.I didn't know that! I just thought of this right now, with the whole SDK thing: I remember there was a game called IL-2 Sturmovik. I'm curious if it would allow that level of terrain detail to be modeled (if somebody of course had the detail, and willpower LOL)

Everybody I was thinking like how in BMS they often had several F-16 cockpits due to upgrades in the models if anybody's thought of similar things for other aircraft within the boundaries of what's not a matter of national security? Fubar512 I'd have thought to about 1991 -- they didn't seem to be using AESA then. While I know you made an error regarding the forum you responded to: When you say workaround, do you mean like a kluge to allow it to work in the sim with the existing avionics files? I assume it would be difficult to modify these files? Or is there some kind of legal issue around this (I don't really feel like running afoul of copyright laws)? Is DCS the same?

EricJ At the penalty of appearing stupid, what's a cracked file?

Still, I've seen some people here make some incredible models, the statistical data for the aircraft's performance is a bit more complicated and I'm not sure what ability exists here to do it.

Fubar512 What kind of 3rd Party Mods?

So sad... I guess it's only a matter of time before we all die.

Is What-If designing possible here? If so somebody could build such a model on their own

Spinners It's nice to see a picture of the B-36 with it's turrets extended... I'm not sure if you took creative license, but the XB-35 didn't have the turret arrangement you put on it: The actual design had the following 4 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the tail 4 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the central dorsal blister 4 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the central ventral blister 2 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the port dorsal blister 2 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the starboard dorsal blister 2 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the starboard ventral blister 2 x 12.7mm (retractible) in the port ventral blister For a total of 20 x 12.7mm That wasn't too far off, the F-14A's really were in the skies in the final days of Vietnam. We were no longer fighting a war anymore, but, we were there. The XF-90 was quite an interesting aircraft with a breathtaking rate of climb for it's era. The wing-design was so strange it was kind of cool in it's own right. The US Navy really could have used some gun equipped F-4's in Vietnam. I love this design! Is this something you came up with, or was this an actual aircraft? It's a shame the F11F-2/F12F never flew in service. What a fascinating design: To whoever made it, they did a fantastic job. PraetorH While this isn't in your posted images, what paintjob is that? mdatelmi B-1R: The Missile Truck The X-29 looks good in combat Sundowner The B-58A was a great aircraft, and often highly underrated. I have a great respect for model builders in general, but a special respect for people who can build their own designs. EricJ You really got the textures and skin detail down-pat http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_10_2011/post-5735-0-27928100-1319552715.jpg[/img] The digital camouflage looks great... The XF-103 was one of those designs that, while not terribly practical were freaking awesome in appearance Monty CZ I've never heard of the AST-2 before, but I gotta say I love the design: It has many XF5U traits combined with what looks like lots a dakka... Val Astur I gotta give you credit, the F-14 looks good in IAF colors. Centurion-1 Good camo, simple, but effective enough. FastCargo The CF-105 Arrow was a fantastic design with truly remarkable capability. russouk2004 That's incredible: Have you given it a name?

I love the clouds...

Are all models only constructed in 3DS Max? That program last I checked was beaucoup expensive, and Lightwave was way cheeper yet as good

The lean-green zippin machine! I love it

Spinners Fantastic!