Svetlin

I myself would prefer 2 separate aircraft, if that is OK with you.

If I may, I would say the centerline drop tank needs a major revision as the shape is close to what it should be, but not quite there. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/J-10.jpg The shape should be much more pointy at the back and the fins should be a bit smaller so that they did not extend beyond the diameter of the tank. If you could fix the shape, that would great, I think.

Hi, there is one more thing to fix with the next update, hope you would not mind. The aircraft data.ini file refers to files AL-31F.wav for the main engine sound and AL-31F-AB.wav for the afterburner sound. These files however are missing in the Sounds folder and in there we have WS10B_0.wav for the main engine sound and WS10B_AB.wav for the afterburner sound. Since to my knowledge the J-10C is powered by the WS-10B engine, I would rather fix the aircraft data.ini file than add the AL-31F related sounds: [Sound] EngineSoundName=WS10B_0 AfterburnerSoundName=WS10B_AB StallSoundName=Stall_PLA DamagedEngineSoundName=PlaneFire BreathingSoundName=Breathing FlapsSoundName=Flaps AirbrakesSoundName=Airbrakes GearsSoundName=Gear LandSoundName=TireTouch

Hi simonmiller416, The folder for the 23MM_Type23-3 gun with ini files in it are missing in the pack and so the built-in gun of the J-10 does not work. Could you please share it? Thank you!

Looking at photos of the real J-10C, I could not help noticing that the wing drop tanks are nearly if not exact copy of the French RPL-501/502 1700-ltr drop tank. So, I could not resist replacing the J-10C wing drop tanks with the actual RPL-501/502. I was satisfied with the result, so went further to replace the center line drop tank with the RPL-522 (I know it is different, but it fits) and even test fitted the RPL-541/542 drop tank. Looks good to me... Just need to correct the colour a bit - it is too dark at the moment, I think.

Cool birds of the Swiss Air Force. The Hunter did not work for me out of the box, so I had some fun fiddling with it.

Well, that is an example of following the user-friendly-system approach to where a system is designed according to the potential users. Here in our country it used to be and possibly still is the other way round - the system-friendly-user approach is more popular to where a system is created or adopted and then one starts looking for users that fit And that applies to many different aspects of life, not just about T-72 tanks

Best wishes for speedy recovery, mate, my positive thoughts will be with you.

... and a major intrusion into Tovarishch Tupolev's territory. I bet he would not be too happy with that, just as he was not with the Sukhoi T-4 An attempt at an upgraded IAF Kfir TC7...

Thanks, but how odd, really... There must be a practical reason for this "upside down" thing, but I just cannot think of any good one right now. Oh, well, that will be an interesting detail for Ravenclaw to replicate in his models

I 've noticed something both odd and curious, to me at least. The pictures of the missiles, loaded on the F-106 show these with the technical texts/stencils upside down. When the missiles are kept in the storage containers, or displayed, the technical texts are shown in the proper direction to be read, so the attachment mechanism must be on the bottom side, when the missile is not loaded. That would require the missile to be rotated 180 degrees before loading. Isn't that odd? Why would it be so complicated I wonder? A missile that weighs some 68-70 kg to be rotated 180 degrees probably by hand during the loading procedure does not look quite practical and time-efficient.

Here is the thing in extended position. The conical tip with slightly bigger diameter than the probe that extends from the nose cone is easily visible. I was going to question whether the warhead was activated by strong direct hit only, or being a radar-guided missile there was some proximity fuse as well, but it seems Nightshade/PR gave the answer above. By the looks of it, the probe was kept retracted and extended once the missile was launched. I suppose the picture below shows inert missiles, which could explain the probe being extended for the picture.

Posing for a photo... Loving the AV-8B Plus, so many fine details, and would love the TAV-8B too, if/once it is released.

They are operational, but not independently, only as part of the swing-wing animation. At high speed and high altitude these do extend: I suppose to change the way these operate, one needs to fiddle with the swing-wing settings.

Hi ludo.m54, do you consider releasing a Mirage F1BE(M) as well?

Yes, that would be great too, especially if the TMF Mirage 2000 single-seater model is accessible for the D/B variants to be created from it, similarly to what has been done with the TMF Mirage F1 model.

Yes, I know, I did buy the DLC. The stock A-6A is good, the one by GKABS is way better. Hope you get my point

Thinking about old SF2 jets that could be replaced with better models, I would point out F-104A/B/C/D with focus on the B and D since I love 2-seaters

Hope to see a KA-6D as well at some point. I know it is of little to none practical use in the game, but the A-6 line woud not be complete without it.

Thank you, Wrench! Yes, you are correct of course about BaseSize=LARGE for heavy bombers and transports, though the game would not populate such on an aircraft carrier, even if it is set as CarrierBaseSize=LARGE, unless someone edits the bomber/transport aircraft data.ini with CarrierBased=TRUE and the proper nation entry. The R91 CDG has in fact slightly shorter flight deck than the Essex class, but much wider and carries fewer aircraft (probably because of the aircraft size difference). Mr_Tayto, yes, I have launched and trapped on the R91 CDG, no problem. I am not sure if the game really "knows" what the runway surface and be able to choose which aircraft to populate on rough fields and which on paved runways only.

Hi guys, may I ask for some guidance on the BaseSize parameter for carriers? I wanted to fly the Super Etendard out of the R91 CDG in Single Mission, but initially could not do it, until I saw that R91 CDG was set up as BaseSize=SMALL, while the respective setting for the Super Etendard required MEDIUM size bases. So, that got me wondering which entry would be correct to edit - that for the carrier, or that for the aircraft? I changed that for the aircraft, just to test and the problem was solved, but the questions remain. How do we decide whether to set up a base as SMALL, MEDIUM or LARGE? Is there any difference with respect to that setting for land bases and carriers? If it was up to me to decide, I would set up amphibious assault ships as BaseSize=SMALL, smaller aircraft carriers as BaseSize=MEDUM and large aircraft carriers as BaseSize=LARGE, but that of course is not based on a specific rule or knowledge about the way the game works, simply on the number of aircraft a ship is able to carry in real life. Based on that logic I would actually change the R91 CDG base size from small to medium and restore the Super Etendard setting to the original state. Thank you in advance for sharing some knowledge on the topic.

Fiddling with the stance of the Crusader. The stock stance did not seem quite right, so I played a bit with the numbers.