Trident

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1101459/L/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1119973/L/ To any skinners out there: hint, hint! :D

LOL, awesome! I used to love doing that in Commanche Gold.

Hear hear! I would definitely prefer for the LOMAC sequel to be a F/A-18C vs. MiG-29K sim rather than Tank Killers and yet-another-Falcon, to be honest. I wouldn't mind if ED included the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27/33 and Su-25 aswell (initially or as add-ons), but the former two airframes seem like a match made in heaven. And the MiG-29K only barely missed entering service IIRC, so it's not that much of a stretch. But we digress :) Keep up the good work walmis!

I agree about the nozzles, the first screenshots of the model showed turkey feathers which are not installed on any American Eagles. Not sure if walmis has fixed this since then, I didn't read the whole thread ;) The F100-PW220 was NOT uprated compared to the -PW100, infact it is slightly downrated (negligibly so). It was introduced to offer better care-free handling characteristics among other improvements. Since LOMAC does not model things like compressor stalls and flame-outs you would gain absolutely nothing by having -PW220s modelled.

As realistic as possible, IMHO. Two reasons: - I've learned more about real-world aircombat/aviation from flying and discussing sims than any book I've read sofar. Books aren't worthless, but for example descriptions of certain three-dimensional tactics are tricky to understand when you just have words to feed your imagination (I never could see the sense in a high-yoyo untill I found myself unconciously adopting this maneuver in Flanker2.0 - I was like: so THAT is what a high-yoyo is!). Realistic sims complement your library very nicely. - Flexibility! Hardcore realism features can be made optional only if they're there in the first place. And noone prevents the player from trying out what-if scenarios in realistically modelled aircraft, if anything the latter makes stuff more interesting, IMHO.

It's a question of terminology AFAIK - there are only 'primary' (one) and 'secondary' targets according to the official definition (= the F-15C manual), but the crucial bit is that it is actually possible to have *several* 'secondary' targets ;) And yes, the F-15C can likely track more than the 8 targets it can engage. This number is simply a function of the amount of AMRAAMs it can carry (and the number of mid-course update channels on some other aircraft, such as the MiG-29S which engages 2 while tracking 10 and carrying 6 missiles). Similar situation with the F-14 (engages 6, tracks 24) and the MiG-31 (engages 4, tracks 10 - with SARH missiles though!)

Na, not as fuel. But it might make a good binder :D

My thoughts exactly. I think saving the memorial is a very honourable thing to do, but if the locals don't accept it chances are slim that the memory of the pilots can be preserved in peace. That is what it should be after all, a peaceful place of remembrance, not an object of dispute or even violence.

Good work. I can see what the others were talking about with your in-game screenshots though, it does look a bit 'squashed' there (not just because of the distorted texturing). It must obviously have been something you inadvertantly did when resizing the pictures, or the relative dimensions of the model did not get carried over into the game correctly when you exported it. Either way your model itself is not at fault though :) EDIT: Or you changed the focal length of the virtual camera lens in LOMAC when zooming in/out to take the screenshots - this happens when you use "shift + /" and "shift + *" (or ctrl, can't remember right now) to zoom and can cause a noticable fish-eye effect.

I really hope they find a way to keep a few flying for airshows, I've never seen one in person and would love to someday :(

For the AIM-120C, yes. The Sparrow will continue to be a most welcome addition :)

No, they're sensor-fuzed anti-armour submunitions like the American BAT. The name of Russian weapon escapes me at present too though ;) What you're thinking of is probably the British ALARM missile (which should've been called Damocles, really :D ).

I think gys71 is already on the job. Patience ;)

Is your model in LOMAC to scale already? If so you absolutely need to replicate this formation (seen during a visit of the Russian Knights to France, IIRC): http://perso.orange.fr/aeromil-yf/REIMS%20F1C%20ET%20SU%2027.jpg

Of course there are, but there are none that both build 3D models AND write code ;) That said, I can understand the frustration but how do we expect ED to capture things like better AI behaviour in a screenshot (capturing bad behaviour is demonstrably easier ;) )? However, I do think that ED could show us some more relevant information about BS via screenshots, we've all gotten the message that ground units and helos will look mind-boggling by now ;) How about some action shots, for example showing off the new muzzle-flash effect that can be seen in one of the recent videos? Or some screenshots showing the menu screen for changing your load-out at a FARP? Or the additional terrain that is being built? Or the Ka-50's datalink that was reportedly implemented not long ago? I realize these features might simply not be in a presentable state yet, but they would certainly be of more interest to me than yet another highly detailed model ;) Just a couple of suggestions on my part.

Just a heads-up, the real Tu-160 has an all-moving vertical tail while your model appears to have a conventional rudder.

I don't think so. A particle effect like the one used on the rocket exhaust would make sense, but this is a totally different matter AFAIK.

Nope, we had the smaller Tsaplya (spelling?) of the MBG in Flanker2.X. This means that there's a slot available for this fine (and more appropriate) model though, good work!

Yes, but the cockpit shot is STILL a Su-34. And no, Russian Su-27S' do not have a refueling probe, this is an option for export customers (I'm sure the package could be installed on Russian Flankers aswell, but in reality it has not been done sofar).

It's not even a Su-27Sanything, it's a Su-34. Nice try :D

I don't think it's the smoothness, a normal static object just does that no matter how careful you are (Ever tried to land on a bridge in LOMAC? I have, and I couldn't seem to touch down without exploding, same thing when you try to touch&go on a building roof). Luckily, there are atleast 2 objects in LOMAC which are different, namely the Kuznetsov and the Vinson. Maybe they can be modified so one can put them on dry land and then be replaced by the ramp model (it could also be a good idea to make the model include not only the ski-jump itself but also the flat ground infront of it)? EDIT: IIRC the *final* angle of the ramp on the Kuznetsov is something between 12 and 15 degrees. Now, the ramp is curved, but the Kuznetsov model in-game only uses something like 3 flat surfaces to represent this, so I don't think those 10 degrees were causing the problem.

*BUMP* bug2, are you still out there somewhere?

Just thought of this - would it be possible to create a ski-jump for Saki airbase? If so I might make one after the radar is ready (if someone else doesn't do so earlier, as I said it's going to be a while before I'm done).

SK, glad you like it :) You don't happen to have some reference material (photos of the building in the center, accurate quotes on any dimensions) on this monster, do you? I mean, it's basically your field of expertise ;) and my command of Russian, while improving, is still very basic. In particular, anything that will allow a decent estimation of the height of any part of the complex would be most gratefully received. With, for the most part, only Google Earth's top-down view of the building to work with it was quite a challenge to get my head around some of the facility's geometry (usually by examining how it casts shadows). The fact that the other high-res one at Mukachevo appears to be a slighly different version (same with the one at Olenegorsk that seems to be shown on most photos I could find) didn't help either.

I needed a break from studying, so I threw this together :) I should mention though that I don't have 3DSmax, this is being done in a CAD programme. However, CAD models are supposed to be converted into 3-view drawings ;) So if there are any volunteers that do have 3DS7 I will gladly produce detailed drawings for them including dimensions (painstakingly worked out from Google Earth and a few precious photos, lol) to make building the model as easy as possible. Don't expect much in the coming weeks though, I have 2 exams that will require most of my time.