Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Spitfire

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    461

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Spitfire

  1. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RaptorAce @ Feb. 15 2003,04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nope, the F-15 has a 100+ kill record and no combat losses EVER...

    Many an F-16 has been shot down, probably all by SAMs...  adversary aircraft have been sucking ever since vietnam<span id='postcolor'>

    I definitely remember at least one F-15E shot down during the Gulf. Another F-15 fighter variant was shot down in Yugoslavia. Syrian MiG-23s have scored at least three confirmed kills agains Israeli F-15s. And to think that IAF pilots are one of the best trained pilots in the world, some would say that even better than American.

  2. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Feb. 14 2003,14<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to several books i have from a family member who flew F-16's in the dutch airforce the aim-54 phoenix has yet to score a kill.<span id='postcolor'>

    That may be true about US Navy Phoenix, but Iran & Iraq both claim to have kills with the Phoenix.

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml

    http://www.f-16.net/library/legacy.html

    btw. Are we off topic or what?! wow.gifbiggrin.gif

  3. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jacobaby @ Feb. 14 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heres an interesting snippet that made national news in england.

    Col Blake is the face of  MP James Plaskitt.

    He was visiting CM in Leamington and they got him into the game.<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, check it out here:

    http://www.oxfordstudent.com/2002-01-17/news/7

  5. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FerretFangs @ Feb. 14 2003,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's probably over simplifying it a bit much... I think nearly all shootdowns were performed using the excellent AIM-120C AMRAAM.<span id='postcolor'>

    AMRAAM is combat tested, but afaik it has only scored 3 kills. I believe most of the MiG shootdowns have been scored by the AIM-52 Phoenix, which is a whole lot easier to dodge than the AMRAAM, or the AIM-9 Sidewinder. I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of all USAF/NAVY kills have been done by the Sidewinder, but I'm not sure about the few MiG-29 kills.

    I believe most of the MiG-29's downed in its history must have been during the Iran-Iraq war, with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile launched from a F-14 Tomcat platform.

  6. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 13 2003,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, you do not have to wait at all after doing a createVehicle to put the men in.  I create hundreds of vehicles in the EnemyStack system at the CoC on a Dedicated server without any issues like this.<span id='postcolor'>

    It seems to be a performance issue. I have a low-end 800MHz Athlon and when the CPU load is high, the first command following the createUnit -command is sometimes discarded. I have no other logical explanation than this. That's why I use ~0.5 always in my scripts after creating a named unit.

  7. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Feb. 13 2003,22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They did the Cobra maneuver in the movie Top Gun?  <span id='postcolor'>

    Not in it's original form, but remember the first time Maverick "slammed on the brakes", he also did a rapid break up maneuver similar to the Cobra? It's fairly obvious that the movie makers derived that maneuver from Cobra.

  8. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wonder @ Feb. 13 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Cobra is not an air combat maneuver! It's an aerobatic maneuver, period!<span id='postcolor'>

    That's what the makers of Top Gun the Movie never knew when they gave the audience a wrong picture about the usefulness of this maneuver wink.gif

    By really stretching your imagination, there could be a very far-fetched situation where it could prove advantageous. Such a situation has to be a low total energy (low speed & low altitude) guns-only dogfight situation. But - as I said before - a Fulcrum/Flanker pilot getting into a situation like that is first of all very unlikely and secondly, a sign of incompetence by both pilots. If I would be an F-15 pilot catching a Flanker in a close situation with guns only(even if I was the one tailing him), I'd curse myself to hell to let a close-up situation like that happen against the most dangerous adversary imaginable without noticing it first at a safer BVR distance.

    Period. biggrin.gif

  9. Posted

    Everything in this mission is strictly scripted. I once shot down the Hind with the RPG (after dozens of saves & re-loads, of course tounge.gif ) but the extraction chopper got downed anyway. And - to my dismay - the Hind I shot down re-appeared in After Montignac to bother me. And I shot it down again. Two air kills in a mission with only one Hind. Neat, eh? wink.gif

  11. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NAA_Us_Marine @ Feb. 12 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What most people dont know about the cobra manuver is that it leaves a few seconds with the Su facing vertical which would give an experienced pilot just enough time to shoot the shit out of it. So its not the absolute fool proof move that will set you up behind an aircraft every time you do it.<span id='postcolor'>

    That's not even the biggest problem of the maneuver. The biggest one is the fact that Cobra is virtually useless near corner speeds (350-500 kts) where the majority of close A-A encounters happen. Though the main goal of the maneuver is to quickly reduce speed, doing it at 400 kts is nothing more than a normal vertical pull-up from which it will take an eternity to slow the speeds down to zero (and during that time it's easy to shoot you down, just as you said). It only works like it's supposed to work when flying at relatively slow speeds. But a pilot finding himself in a low energy situation like that with an enemy on his tail is very likely to end up getting shot down.

    A pilot skilled enough to use the Cobra is probably skilled enough never to get into a situation where the maneuver would prove handy.

    Pugachev probably never intended the maneuver to be used in dogfight, after all. It's great for air show aerobatics, though! biggrin.gif

  12. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The_Taurus @ Feb. 12 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">is action index, the same as ActionID?<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, the one you use to remove the action.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">unitName removeAction actionIndex<span id='postcolor'>

    EDIT: Using the action index parameter makes it possible to remove the action from the action script itself. However, if you wish to remove the action from the same script that you created it in (without using a global variable to save the action index) you can use this:

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_myActionIndex = unitName addAction ["My Action","action.sqs"]<span id='postcolor'>

    Then you can remove the created action from the same script by using that _myActionIndex in removeAction.

  13. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 12 2003,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And no, you can not pass in any parameters that I know of.  You can however access some variables like who called the action, what the action is attached to, and the index of the action in the called script by using

    x= _this select 0;

    y= _this select 1;

    z= _this select 2;

    That's how I remember it.

    confused.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Bingo. Except for that the first parameter is the object the action is attached to and the second one is the unit calling the action.

  14. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rattler @ Feb. 12 2003,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You sure the Mig-29 can't do that? The mig was the first jet that I ever heard could do this. And I heard about this awhile back before I learned of the -37<span id='postcolor'>

    Well, maybe it cannot do the somersault maneuver due to lack of thrust vectoring nozzles, but from what I've read it can fly backwards (without killing the engines) at negative airspeed.

    EDIT: I just reviewed it from the net - the 29 was the first plane to do the regular Cobra maneuver. Nothing about the 360 Cobra somersault, though.

  16. Posted

    It can be a real pain finding out the formula for the force of air resistance (it's not necessarily that real life physics formula you suggested). Even if it was, I remember it being a b*tch to find out the drag coefficients of various objects in physics lab a couple of years ago. Therefore using Denoir's fuzzy logic neural network solution could give better results.

    In addition, I would rather put a gun in my mouth than design a solver from the scratch with OFP scripting commands.

    While I haven't looked through all artillery/projectile motion scripts I've seen for OFP, I got the impression that no-one has actually made a working drag formula based on real life physics, but used workarounds producing rough approximations instead.

    All I can say, good luck with your attempt wink.gif

  17. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shashman @ Feb. 11 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">biggrin.gif Heh..Pugatchev's Cobra manoueuvre..the plane is actually flying backwards for a couple of seconds..The pilot has to override the aircraft's fly by wire system, so that he can put in the inputs necessary to perform such a maneuovre (Fly by wire is sytsem that limits pilots inputs so that the aircraft remains in teh flight envelope).....Shash's lesson for the day  biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, I've seen that movie too wink.gif

    Seriously, Flanker and MiG-29 are one of the few jets capable of doing the maneuver without stalling/overheating the engines when the supply of air cuts off. And without using the manual pitch override (that fly-by-wire override) the plane is very susceptible to entering a deep stall.

  19. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Feb. 11 2003,14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Totmacher @ Feb. 11 2003,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@Kegetys this http://www.sci.fi/~fta/su-27-02l.jpg is a Sukhoi Su27 Flanker! smile.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, I can see that (Same pic I posted, duh?), and certainly nothing like the flashpoint.ru screens.<span id='postcolor'>

    Actually Kegetys was right from the beginning. The picture is actually Su-37 Super Flanker, though the file name says Su-27. The Super Flanker has those extra airfoils in front of the wings, whereas Flanker has not. Both Su-35 and Su-37 are based on the same model, and they're both called Super Flanker.

  20. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PiNs_Da_Smoka @ Feb. 11 2003,11:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Da Phat Mans Orifice<span id='postcolor'>

    I don't know if I'm just too tired but this one actually cracked me up! biggrin.gif

  21. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ Feb. 10 2003,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remove the "" :

    player sideChat ctrlText 663

    ctrlText already returns a string, ie a set of characters enclosed in "", so you don't need to add these, otherwise "ctrlText 663" is seen as a string and not interpreted (= executed)<span id='postcolor'>

    Does it really work like that?

    If it doesn't, this should work for sure:

    unitName sideChat format [ctrlText 663];

  22. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JAP @ Feb. 10 2003,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you use the "knowsabout" command you can have 4 degrees of detecting.

    1 least => 4 : knows exactly where enemy is.

    Especially with binocs us the knowsabout command at 4.<span id='postcolor'>

    The knowsabout level is a stepless decimal number ranging from 0 to 4, not 1 to 4, and certainly not 4 distinct degrees of detecting. There are some "treshold values" however, like knowsabout of 1.5 seems to be the one where the AI knows the actual side of the unit (friendly/enemy). It's hard to tell what the values really indicate, or how they are linked to actually knowing the position of the enemy. Knowsabout seems also to be stuck at 1.5 when the AI knows that there is an enemy somewhere, but not sure where. Then it gradually starts to fall below 1.5 until the enemy reveals his presence again.

    Value of 4 seems to indicate that the AI knows the exact type and position of the enemy, but values ranging from 1.5 to 4 (and their meaning) are a bit of a mystery for me.

  23. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dutchsoldier @ Feb. 09 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe a stupid question but do these things really exsist as far is i now it only exist in james bond movies confused.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    They do exist. Believe it or not, the one used in the Bond film is real and it actually flies! Only for 30 seconds and not higher than 9m, but it does fly.

    There are later, better working jetpacks as well.

  24. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (D.murphy man @ Feb. 09 2003,01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tell u what would be a nice feature,if u could walk bout with the jet back on your back when u land.<span id='postcolor'>

    Yep. Wait for a couple of weeks and you'll get it smile.gif

    Not flying as smoothly as Martin's, but at least you can use your personal weapons while flying wink.gif

×