Svetlin

Thanks for the mod, Kevin, greatly appreciated. I am by no means an F-16 expert and I may be wrong, but I think there are a couple of errors with the new models of the F-16A/B ADF variant - I would say the shape of the tail fin is wrong on both the A and B ADF models. F-16A/B aircraft had the shorter and narrower triangular base for the tail fin. The wider and longer triangular base was introduced with the F-16C/D Blk25 aircraft. By looking at the F-16A/B ADF models in this mod, I would say they have the F-16C/D longer and wider triangular base for the tail fin with the ADF specific side bluges added and blade antenna removed. On a second note, according to the F-16.net site, the F-16B ADF differed from the F-16A ADF not only in being a 2-seater, but also in the lack of a Bendix-King AN/ARC-200 high freqeuncy single-sideband radio. The radio, being installed in the leading edge of the tail fin of the F-16A ADF lead to the flight control accumulators being relocated to the side of the tail fin. To provide sufficient space for the flight control accumulators, 2 long bulges appeared to the side of the F-16A ADF tail fin. Since the F-16B ADF did not have a Bendix-King radio installed, the flight control accumulators were kept in their original location and so no side bulges were needed for the tail fin. It means, that the F-16B ADF looked much like the F-16B Blk15 OCU with just the "bird-slicer" antenna added in front of the cockpit and in front of the front landing gear well. I have attached a couple of pictures of real F-16B ADF and a few screenshots from Mue's tool - of the F-16B ADF from this mod, of the previous F-16A ADF model from TMF, of the F-16C Blk25 with the blade antenna hidden for the purposes of illustrating my point, of the F-16B Blk15 OCU model and a couple of scrreenshots from the front to illustrate the incorrectly shaped wider triangular base of the F-16B ADF model compared with the F-16B Blk15 OCU model. I think the older F-16A ADF from TMF had the correct size and shape of the triangular base of the tail fin and the F-16B ADF should have the same size shape but without side bulges. I hope I will be excused for the nit-picking. Kind regards, Svetlin

That's great. Love to see 2-searers. I wonder what kind of mischief the guys in the cockpit did to deserve a no-seat-flight punishment. Technicians must have been mad at them.😀

No disrespect, but if I were you, I would not take all pictures as pure truth. I do not mean you are looking at a fake picture. It seems to me the aircraft on the picture is being prepared for an exhibition or something similar and is being loaded for show purposes, not necessarily for practical purposes in an actual warfare. I am not an expert and I might be wrong, but there seems to be too liitle clearance between the AIM-9s and the rocket pods. The other thing that is making me look with a suspicious eye is that in the picture you have a TER loaded with 2 rocket pods and a bomb at the same time. I have not seen other examples of such mixed load on a TER. Until someone knowledgeable or experienced says otherwise, or until I saw inflight pictures of such load on an aircraft during a real mission, I would rather consider this load as an unrealistic one, just for show purposes. Again, I mean no disrespect.

Take a look at that picture: You will notice that the Matra Magic missile is loaded on an angled rail. As far as I know the anlgled rail was for French IRMs and the straight one was for AIM-9s. Probably the Magic missile needed bigger separatiion from the inner pylon stores. I am thinking of those bomb-carrying fuel tanks, that had bombs hanging on the sides, designation RPK-10.

OMG, absolutely love it! Please apply the same magnificent treatment also to the RPL-501/502 and the RPL-522, if you have the time of course.

Looks gorgeous, ludo.m54, hope you could repaint also the drop tanks for the M2000, so that they match the excellent skin.

May be it would make more sense to follow this IAI Sa'ar scheme with respect to the shape of the bright yellow areas on the wings and the tail: The Mirage F1AZ looks fantastic in that what-if Israeli camo, brilliant idea!

Nice! There is a small typing error though in the text between the 2 black squares. ЗАМКИ ЛЮКА ЛЕРЕД РАБОТОЙ ЗАКРЫТЬ Should be: ЗАМКИ ЛЮКА ПЕРЕД РАБОТОЙ ЗАКРЫТЬ I hope you do not mind me pointing this out.

Hi, guys, could anyone confirm if the bombs in the picture are Mk.83s? I assume that odd arrangment on the MERs is to provide enough separation. I also wonder if TERs could have been used instead. Thank you in advance!

Oddly, I could not find many more pictures of this load setup. In fact I found just 1. Judging by the length of the bombs, I would say those are Mk.83 indeed. I have already editted the wonderful MER created by Ravenclaw to allow such setup as per my needs. Just needed to be sure of the type of bomb.

Hi EricJ, In the aircraft data.ini of the FA-18G: [RightMiddleWingStationA2G] //SUU-80 Pylon SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=12 StationGroupID=3 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=3.6136,-0.5421,-0.28 AttachmentAngles=4.0,-3.0,0.0 DiameterLimit=0.742 LoadLimit=1501 LengthLimit=5.181 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,LGB,EOGR,LGR,FT,2BR,EOGB,CGR,MER,TLR,ASM,NUC AttachmentType=USN,NATO,WGermany,USAF,Australia ModelNodeName=USN,NATO,UK,SWEDEN,Italy,Spain,WGermany,USAF,Australia <--- should be RightMiddlePylon PylonMass=140.9 PylonDragArea=0.03 LaunchRailNodeName=RightMiddleAGMRail LaunchRailHeight=0.169 FuelTankNodeName=RightMiddleDT FuelTankName=Tank480_FA18EFG MinExtentPosition=3.75,-2.43,-0.347 MaxExtentPosition=3.395,0.297,0.337

Hi, sophocles, great news. The refueling probe can be treated and set as a drop tank type of weapon. One would be able to select it and load it through the loading menu in the game. It would require the NoJettisionTank=TRUE line though so as to prevent it from being jettisonned in flight.

Hi, I think I found the data entry, which is causing this effect. Open the aircraft data.ini, go to the sections for LeftMainGear and RightMainGear and find the following line in each section: CompressGearOnRetraction=TRUE You may either change TRUE to FALSE, or comment out the line (//CompressGearOnRetraction=TRUE), or simply delete it. That will solve the sinking-wheels problem. It will result though in a slight visual oddity on gear retraction to where the landing gear will not compress and the wheels will pass through the aircraft fuselage, because the landing gear compartments are shorter than the fully extended landing gears. So not perfect, but works and so far I have not noticed any negative effect.

Anyone care to guess today's mission?

As NIELS said above, I would check Ravenclaw007's weapons pack 1 and 2, but also the WIP page for weapons pack 3: Weapons pack 3 has not been released yet, but Ravenclaw007 was generous and kind enough to share some of the weapons from it in the WIP thread above. I am not sure though if the bombs you are looking for have already been released or are yet to be with the weapons pack 3.

Just make sure to keep TK's typo - jettision instead of jettison. If you typed NoJettisonTank, it would not work. It must be NoJettisionTank as Crusader wrote. I myself keep forgetting that.

Yes, these are the stock Intruders and rails from Nightfall's A-4 packs and not only. Luckily Nighfall has modelled the AIM-9 rail with an adapter.

The odd part is that only the main gear of the static Intruders appears sinking in the flight deck, while at the same time the player's aircraft and the AI aircarft appear with main gear spot on.

You can use an invisible weapon, such as the attached. You can modify this to any type you want - bomb, LP, IRM, etc. EmptyBombPylon.7z

Gents, has anyone tried to edit the data.ini of the J-10A to correct the problems with the control surfaces? - canards visually working in reversed mode - ailerones not moving at all I have played with the data.ini a bit to make the canards work properly and sort of managed to fix that. The ailerones however seem a tough nut for me. In reality they should act as both ailerons and flaps on take-offs and landings, however currently these do not move at all. I did try to follow the example of other similar aircraft - JAS-39 and EF-2000, but so far no progress. Anyone got a clue or could point me to a tutorial how to fix the problem with the ailerones?

Hi, from wikipedia: Armament: 120 mm L11A5 rifled tank gun Rate of fire: 10 rounds per minute for the first minute and 6 thereafter. Elevation: -10 to +20 degree Laser rangefinder Coaxial L8A1 7.62 mm machine gun Cupola-mounted L37A1 7.62mm machine gun Mark 1 and Mark 2 models had a coaxial Browning .50-inch (12.7 mm) ranging machine guns prior to the introduction of the laser rangefinder. I believe what you have circled in the picture is the ranging machine gun, mentioned above, which is apparently fixed to move together with the main gun barrel.

Nope, not a torpedo launcher. Torpedo launchers are usually placed at the side, so that the torpedo launches straight over water. Too risky to launch a torpedo from the middle of the ship's deck. Hope this helps: Source: https://i.redd.it/ffmn0da1pml11.jpg

Su-15 perhaps?

Hi Veltro2K, I have a soft spot for Intruders and Prowlers, so I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into a new model. Could I just ask you to look into the front part of the canopy / the windscreen? That area seems a bit too rounded on your model, whereas on the real Intruder we have 2 flat surfaces in front of the pilots, meeting in the middle with a prominent edge between them and prominent edges with the side parts of the windscreen as well. Here are a few pictures, which I hope illustrate my point. I do apologize if you have not finished work in that area and my comment comes a bit premature.