Jump to content

gospadin

Members
  • Posts

    1984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by gospadin

  1. At this time, I don't think so. Might want to PM some of the other modeling projects though, maybe they could use some assistance. Maybe poke your nose into reddit and volunteer, or onto one of the discord chat servers. Good luck.
  2. A-4E July Update Hi everyone, just checking in... Progress has been slow in July, as most of the team have had vacations this month or been otherwise occupied with real life. Since the start of July, we've been integrating more animated cockpit elements (switches, levers, etc.) into the code as the cockpit modeling moves forward. Unfortunately, there's something weird where our SSM cannot override the drawing of the arresting hook animation, so we had to back out our changes relative to making the hook lever clickable, and just rely on the keyboard command. (It's still animated.) The landing gear handle and other systems thus far don't seem to have similar limitations, there just appears to be something special about the arresting hook. We also took the time to re-factor a lot of internal code to simplify weapon system setup, which makes it much easier for us to add new MER/TER racked weapons with minimal effort and fewer typos/errors. The electrical and hydraulic systems are coming along, along with the emergency generator properly powering the critical systems in the event of a primary generator failure. With the help of another modeling volunteer, we're in the process of adding more period-accurate weapons which would have been used either in training or earlier in the Vietnam war, such as the WW2-era AN-M30A1 (100lb), AN-M57A1 (250lb), AN-M65A1 (1000lb) and AN-M66A2 (2000lb) bombs, as well as the AN-M81 and AN-M88 fragmentation bombs. (ED already implemented the 500lb AN-M64, so we're just extending that line of weapons.) We hope to show these off next month in their finished state. On a related note, we found a photo of Rockeye cluster bombs mounted to an A-4E in 1966 onboard the Oriskany, so we've added Rockeyes (Mk-20) to our arsenal as well. We've also have added placeholder gun pods while we work on the 20mm Mk-4 cannon, and they are now integrated correctly with the weapon control panel. While the Mk-4 pods had a relatively high jam rate, the USMC used them to good effect in Vietnam, and with 2250 rounds available (750 rounds per pod) they're potentially quite useful in a CAS role against lightly armored targets. Attached is a screenshot of a USMC VMA-311 Tomcats A-4E loaded for bear with six Mk-82 Snakeyes, four Mk-20 Rockeyes, and a pair of LAU-10 Zuni rocket pods. --gos Edit: Decided it wasn't fair to post an update without at least 1 screenshot. =P
  3. I'm almost (90%?) certain that the retaining ring on the Mk-82 SE fins is purely mechanical, and is always opened when the bomb is dropped. Edit: nevermind, I am wrong: http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14313/css/Mk-15-And-Mods-Snakeye-Fin-Assembly-34.htm Edit 2: There appear to be 3 modes, listed on page 36. Unretarded (no pilot option), Retarded (no pilot option), and Pilot Controlled based on whether the pilot energizes the tail fuse solenoid. --gos
  4. Chizh posted in the AIM-9P5 thread that 2.0.3 will be out this Friday. (7/29) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2856449&postcount=83
  5. That image only has a single pylon on each wing. Likely the customers said they wanted more pylons, and were willing to live with less weight per pylon.
  6. You're talking about the purple chevrons on the map on the kneeboard? They work fine in the huey for me.
  7. I highly recommend Devrim's cockpit mods, they're excellent.
  8. Does this mean that any new weapon created by a mod developer will use the SFM only? And thus have really bad performance? (I assume AFM access requires SDK access to implement the weapon) Or is the distinction based on wsType classes, such that new "bomb-common" models can be created that share the existing embedded AFM based on parameterized data?
  9. As long as you stay out of the death curve areas, you have enough energy to auto-rotate if needed.
  10. Do not raise the collective until after you're out of your own rotorwash. Just push forward (or sideways or backwards).
  11. it should have very high yaw resistance (lateral traction of rubber tires), infinite roll resistance, and almost zero pitch resistance. The rolling resistance of the tires should be very low, but more than the pitch resistance from the ground/landing gear system. Without applying brakes, once the nose settles down, the plane should be able to roll for a mile or more I'd imagine, unless the tires were not inflated enough.
  12. Okay, wow, I had no idea it was so broken. Maybe SFM would behave better if drag coefficients were modeled better on weapons by the core engine? I can't seem to get any in-game numbers to line up with various published analysis info.
  13. I don't think dumb bombs need AFMs, SFM is plenty good enough for them IMO. What we need is a better modeling of soft damage and armor, for every ground unit. As in, "hitpoints" of various systems and where they're located on a vehicle, along with directional armor that mitigates incoming damage to a certain point. No amount of 20mm cannon fire should be able to stop a T-90. A 2000lb JDAM missing by 5m should still kill it quite easily. Once that's improved, they can work on splash damage and fragmentation damage modeling. The fragments of a 500lb bomb should have a low chance of killing soft targets out to half a mile.
  14. I don't need Nellis ATC to vector me for the FYTTR 3 departure (though that'd be cool). What I would like to see, more or less in order of "importance" to me: QNH instead of QFE on non-Georgian maps (essential for any terrain above 1000 feet MSL) Support for multiple parallel runways Better AI managing / interacting with traffic on the surface Support for all existing ILS approaches Support for GPS approaches (with the upcoming GNS 430) Support for declaring an emergency to ATC and having that affect inbound non-emergency traffic Taxi clearances with pathing Smarter takeoff clearances Support for VOR/DME or just VOR navigation hardware in/near NTTR Support for mobile TACAN stations (trucks placed in the field with mission editor and/or aircraft carriers... seriously, these radios are man-portable these days) Live AWOS / ATIS information, including active runway, so ATC doesn't have to waste time repeating it Separate ground/tower channels
  15. Did you map the differential wheel brakes? Even small brake input that's asymmetric will cause significant yaw. I wait until I've slowed below about 100kts, then I enable NWS and try to hold both brakes even, with as little steering input as possible.
  16. Yup. I have plowed some new paths next to the taxiways already.
  17. I actually prefer it this way.
  18. what took you so long? slacker!
  19. You essentially need to create a new SFM airplane, reusing something else's avionics/cockpit, and attach the existing model to it.
  20. negative curve won't eliminate the deadzone. That deadzone looks unnatural (in the OP's video). Maybe that's how it is in the real plane, dunno.
  21. South China Sea or Eastern Mediterranean
  22. I'm sure it's been mentioned, but from a CA perspective, it'd be nice to have the possibility of sub-surface vehicles, along with ASW gameplay. Torpedos, mines, anti-ship missiles, etc.
  23. The ATC always gives you QFE. You have to convert to QNH yourself. On runway hot starts, sometimes I see the game engine think I am at zero feet of altitude in NTTR, regardless of the airport. Doesn't happen on cold starts.
  24. An actual magnetic compass doesn't know its grid. Only an INS would know how to adjust a compass-provided value. Actual VORs and VORTACs are calibrated to magnetic headings every 15-20 years, but you have to know on a per-VOR basis what *that* specific VOR wants you to fly, relative to the others. This information is on charts and in the AF/D or Chart Supplements, updated every 56 days.
×
×
  • Create New...