Svetlin

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.

On this day back in 1989 the Bulgarian Air Force received its first and second MiG-29s, which both happened to be MiG-29UB (izd. 9-51A) and received board numbers 01 and 02 respectively. Later board 01 was re-numbered to 11 and was lost in 2011 due to a crash. It was a result of premature rotation and gear retraction on take-off, which caused damage to the centerline drop tank, leakage of fuel and fire. The pilots managed to gain altitude, point the aircraft into a safe direction, where it would not crash into inhabited places and successfully ejected. First touch-down on Bulgarian soil (or should I say tarmac):

A very sad day for the Bulgarian Air Force. At 00.45h LT today a MiG-29A (9-12) of the BuAF disappeared from radar over the Black Sea during a night training mission. The crash site has been located with oil/fuel spills on the surface of the sea and small debris indicating the crash. The pilot is still missing, just an empty life jacket was found floating and the search and rescue operation has been unsuccessful so far. The chance to find the pilot still alive is getting slimmer every minute. My prayers are with him and his family.

KA-6D would be nice too

I have been looking for detailed pics of the TARPS pod for the Tomcat for a long time and finally came across a good walk-around. Here is a link in case anyone else is interested: https://www.moose135photography.com/Other/F-14-TARPS-Pod/

So am I...

Thank you, Crusader, I will give it a try.

Hi guys, could anyone help confirm the way 2AR rack type is used? When looking at a 2AR type rack in the weapons editor, the rack type entry says 2AR (ARM). I know that 2AR racks are used on the Hornet/Super Hornet to load 2 AIM-120 on a single pylon, so I know 2AR is good for AHM weapon type, but the editor says ARM, not AHM. So I was hoping the 2AR racks could be used both for AHM and for ARM weapon type. So far I have been unable to make ARM appear on a 2AR rack and I wonder if I am doing something wrong, or just the entry in the weapons editor is misleading. Perhaps 2AR (ARM) stands for 2AR (Active Radar Missile) as opposed to 2AR (Anti Radiation Missile). Quite confusing if that is really the case, should have been 2AR (AHM) instead of 2AR (ARM). P.S. I cannot recall ever seeing ARM loaded on dual racks in real life (size, weight limitations I guess), but for my purposes that does not matter.

Thanks, but no, I was looking for something completely different.

Hi Veltro2K, I know about dual IRM rails - there are plenty examples, even the A-10 uses a dual rail for AIM-9. My question was about dual rail/adapter for ARM missiles, such as Shrike, HARM, etc. Now I already know the game does not support such a rack type. Thanks for the attention though.

Thanks a lot, guys. I did not look as far back as SFP1 days. Well that clarifies things and unfortunately I have to look for a different solution.

Oh, well, I might be wrong. I remember pappychksix posted some screenshots of Buckeyes back in 2016 and then in 2019 and I was left with the impression that they presented the Razbam model. Anyway I do not think that model is readily available either.

We do have Tu-16s as stock AI aircraft, so if you are to choose whether to dedicate time to a Tu-16 or to another aircraft, which is not available at all for the moment, then I would vote for the latter. I was quite excited seeing your T-2 Buckeye model as an example of an aircraft that is not readily available for SF2 (I know of the Razbam one, but it is not readily available).