Tango

I have to address this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2169482&postcount=1 We are under NDA so we can not comment on some things (NDA that we had to agree to as part of the 3rd Party License, and that we maintain). Wags knows this, so to say that we are supplying an "incomplete explanation" is to ignore this fact. Let me address Wags, point by point: To the best of my knowledge, we had no idea about this when we were granted a 3rd Party Developer license. I was certainly not aware of it. I will let SE and Blaze speak for themselves. Correct. This is not the reason in isolation that we decided to cancel. I will defer to Blaze on this point. To my knowledge, it was merely treated amicably. No-one would be happy receiving the news that you suddenly have a competitor product by the same people that made the sim, and dictate all the terms under which you operate. I will split point 4 into two parts, 4a and 4b. Correct. We are not sure what is meant by "well before" the ED version. This is pure conjecture on the part of ED. They have no facts to support this statement (and in fact, we are VERY capable of completing the product). Some delay has been incurred through ED being slow to respond to requests for information, but 98% of the product is independent of the base simulator so we are able to work at full rate (allowing for the usual R&D that goes into creating such products). Frankly, we have no idea what this means. Best regards, Tango.

I know a lot of code was written in LUA pre SDK access, so I just figured they converted the code that already existed from LUA to C++. That would make it 5 years. Heck - even we had a lot of code for the L-39 that SE made a herculean effort converting to C++ after we got SDK access at about the same time. I'm still not quite sure how he did it so fast. :weight_lift: Even the initial codebase for the Hawk was using LUA DLL. Best regards, Tango.

Let me remind the community of another fact - the MiG-21 has been in development for I think 5 years now... we have been 28 months. If you think these things happen overnight, you're gravely mistaken. Best regards, Tango.

Whilst I'm sorry you thought this, it was not the case. SE was working like crazy every waking hour when he wasn't at work. I was fitting stuff in between development of other projects. "Let it die" we certainly did not. Best regards, Tango.

You're a moderator... saying "it's between VPJT and ED to discuss" doesn't help. You make it appear that we didn't. Facts as we know them: * VPJT started L-39 dev 28 months ago (complete with officially licensed 3rd party developer contract) * ED announce their own L-39 last week I don't think there is much to discuss. Best regards, Tango.

Slow on (public) news does not make development non-existent. I can't say more due to NDA (believe me, I'd love to tell). Best regards, Tango.

Correct. It was what was said that matters - NDA. Best regards, Tango.

Wow. NDA prevents me replying to this! All I will say is: inaccurate. Best regards, Tango.

No problem - your post suggested that we decided to "just not work on it anymore", which couldn't be further from the truth. Regarding the mod comment - there is zero tolerance on speculation as to why we have made this decision. We appreciate there are things we can not share with you to shed light on our decision, but rest assured we have not made this announcement without very good reason. Let me say this - we would never abandon a project after expending so much time, effort and cost, unless there was no other option. Development costs money. Best regards, Tango.

I challenge anyone here to do what we did in less time, with the given resources. Just an FYI - the mods are watching this thread like a hawk. Best regards, Tango.

With respect, that is wholly incorrect. Being mindful of NDA, we were blissfully unaware that ED were creating their own L-39 until very recently. We were bitterly disappointed when we were told by ED of their plans. This was an extremely tough decision for us to take, but we feel we have no other choice other than to halt development before incurring any further costs. Best regards, Tango.

We can look into it, but the aircraft never made it beyond prototype stage. Chile flew the A-36 Halcón with the Sea Eagle, but it [sea Eagle] never entered service. Best regards, Tango.

Ahh yes! Thank you. In that case, the CC won't have the AGM-65s. I think the same applies to Sea Eagle. Best regards, Tango.

Still researching. It would seem, though we are not sure, that these weapons require an MFD to be operational. The version of the CC we are modelling (at least, initially) only has a HUD. As far as I can tell, it can only drop unguided weapons in the AG role. Note that I have not looked into this in detail, so this could change. Best regards, Tango.

Hi, We are still unable to comment at this time. Best regards, Tango.

You're welcome! Yes. As soon as we're able we will add full multi-crew capability to both variants. We will be adding full rear cockpits to both variants after we have the single crew version of the CC model completed. Hopefully it won't be too long. ;) 8) Thank you! 8) Best regards, Tango.

Hi, We are pleased to be able to announce that work has commenced on the CC version of the C-101! There are many features in this aircraft that are slightly more advanced than those found in the C-101EB, with some new systems added as well. A quick, brief, overview of some of the differences are outlined below: * More powerful engine * Increased takeoff weight * Some minor differences in systems display and operation * More advanced ADI and HSI * More advanced AHRS * Radio altimeter * AoA indexer * AoA instrument * TACAN is replaced by ADF * Advanced Flight Director system * Touch Control Steering (TCS - part of FD system) * IAS hold FD mode * Weapons system * HUD We are still getting acquainted with the aircraft systems, but once the models are sorted out, then I expect the systems will take about a week to update. Stay tuned! 8) Best regards, Tango.

A systems programming update: Complete ADF radio simulation. This doesn't just include the wandering needle and general inaccuracy of the direction finding circuitry, but a COMPLETE simulation of the entire system. List of features: * Simulation of A1, A2 and A3 modulation of the ground station * Highly accurate BFO tuning mode (yet another simulation first AFAIK) * BFO mode ident (A1 modulation) * Audio mode ident (A2 and A3 modulation) * Accurate BFO tuning capability (characteristic hetrodyne when tuning) * Sense and loop antennas modelled * Comparator circuitry modelled, including simulation of cardioid signal pattern in loop antenna * Automatic DF mode (comparator based) * Accurate manual DF mode, including accurate signal peak simulation/nulls * Stations can overlap and interfere with reception * Accurate analog tuning - no digital on/off selection of the station * Signal strength is affected by multiple conditions (range, altitude, weather conditions, time of day, accuracy of tuning) * Coastal effect * Night effect * Weather (thunderstorm will cause needle to point away from station, and humidity can affect the signal) * Static noises and clicks from simulated lightening strikes during thunderstorm and general noise * Another cool feature that shall remain secret for now... ;) * Manual and automatic mode for dual ADF approach (single receiver/RBI, dual-head tuner) * Complete simulation of auto mode for dual-ADF approach Stay *ahem* tuned *ahem* ... Best regards, Tango.

LOL - we had corrupted files a few times trying to do things. 40 Mb Max file going to 4.2 Gb... :megalol: Best regards, Tango.

One method is to create a hendecagon (11-sided shape) and put a texture that uses transparency on it. At position 0 - 9 you animate it 0.0 to 0.9, then at position 1.0, you have it set invisible so that it can be switched off. These digits then overlay on the clock background texture to complete the effect. I'm not aware of another method without trying to create it using MFD methods (but this is vastly more complex). Best regards, Tango.

You animate it like an analogue movement, but instead of smoothly moving the animation to display digits, you jump to the position that shows the digit. e.g. 0.0 will display '0', 0.1 would display '1', etc.. You then set the animation to 0.0 or 0.1 etc.. to make the clock display accordingly. Best regards, Tango.

We are planning both C and ZA models. They will essentially be the same, only the C model will not have the weapons system/associated panels of the ZA, and will gain features such as a fully customizable smoke system. Best regards, Tango.

Hi everyone, Quick update from me: you may or may not have seen the huge systems list I produced for the C-101, detailing the fidelity in the systems. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the L-39 will be no exception in this regard (remembering that the list is not exhaustive). We are not done with the systems development yet, so I will leave the final list until we are at such a point that I can comfortably post such details (it's a huge list as I'm sure you can appreciate!). I'm currently working on the ADF simulation and RSBN. The ADF has been a lot of work as the system in the L-39 is perhaps the most complex ADF system you will find on any aircraft. Again, I will have a detailed list of features of this system when it is fully implemented - it will blow your mind. ;) That is all from me - we'll post as and when we have something. :thumbup: Best regards, Tango.

Well actually... ;) We will have updates soon. Apologies for the silence - we are working on a few other things in the background that we can't talk about (yet). Best regards, Tango.

Hi, We will have more as soon as we are able to bring it to you! 8) Best regards, Tango.