Wonder

As I understand it, the lighter the plane, the shorter the takeoff, and the faster roll rate. I've been having a hard time controlling Kegetys' hawk with joysticks, because it rolls 3 times in one second! It gets out of hand easily. Also it needs a full runway to take off. On the other hand, Hudson's F/A-18C handles just beautifully, and needs no more than 100 meters of runway.

What if you made holes on the invisible chaff/flare model, so that it wouldn't be 100% sure?

I once had an idea of a gunner operating a rotating laser designator in an aircraft and providing laser illumination for itself, so that it could drop LGB's, but then i heard someone say that you can't have turrets in fixed-wing aircrafts. I'm not sure if this is true tho.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Koolkid101 @ Jan. 15 2003,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Theres a b-29??<span id='postcolor'> It's the bomber that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was also used in Korea and it was america's only atomic bomber before the B-36 entered service.

I don't use no double negatives, and i persenaly think peeple shoud lern to speek englesh perfektly.

The weapon loadouts look a little weird to me. I'm not sure if Skyhawks normally carry sidewinders on centerline pylons. And Judging from the size of those bombs they look like MK-83 1000lb bombs, and such bombs mounted on a triple ejector rack on the outer wing pylons seem a bit unrealistic, although the A-4 DOES carry an impressive bombload for its size(6 500lb bombs on the centerline hardpoint, 3 more on each inner wing pylon, and 1 on the outer ones). Here's a loadout i'd suggest: A/G: 6 Mk-82 500lb bombs in the centerline station, 3 more on each inner wing pylon and rocket pods on the outer pylons. Dual-role: 2 Sidewinders on the outer wing pylons, 2 rocket pods on the inner pylons and a centerline fuel tank.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 15 2003,21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this Dynamo guy has to learn english and to stop d/ling free 3d models off the net<span id='postcolor'> IMHO it's okay to use finished 3d-models as a base for some addon. It's better than making a crappy one from scratch. And what goes to Dynamo's english, I had no trouble understanding what he said. Did you?

Is it just me or does it seem like: - the canopy is oversized and lacks the canopy frame in the rear? - the weapon pylons look completely the same in every stations? - there are AIM-7 Sparrow missiles on every station, even on wingtips? - the gears look like the would snap on the first touchdown? - the ejector's seat looks like WW2 model?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hudson @ Jan. 15 2003,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I sure would like an update on this addon, I guess the maker is too busy trashing everyone elses work (Mr.Dynamo)... Here is dynamo trash talking the A6 Intruder ...And trash talking Col. Klinks Harrier... ...And trash talking alot of people including myself.... Now I just want to know dynamo, when is your addon going to be finished or for that matter even make it out of 3ds max and into O2? From the way you talk in the last post you obvoiusly havnt open o2 before....Need help setting it up? Just give us an update plz...<span id='postcolor'> It looks like Dynamo doesn't know what he's talking about, when critisizing the Falklands mod's Harrier model. He posted pictures of AV-8B Harrier, which is completely different from the Sea Harriers used in the Falklands. These harriers DO have 2 hardpoints on each wing and shorter wings. However I DO agree with him that there are addons out there with obvious modelling flaws that are left uncorrected. Anyway this model looks like it's top-notch quality. It goes in the same category as Deadsoldier's F-15E, G8's Tornado, Kegetys' Hawk and DKM's Bronco. I extend my deepest gratitude to the modellers of these aircrafts!

Good work! We now have a Hawkeye, a beta Hornet and an Intruder and a Tomcat on the way. We've almost got a full carrier wing! Now all we need is the carrier

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ Dec. 19 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay so last one was the navy variant will this one be air force? Â Oh and could you make the machine gun sound different from the last one. Â Make the cannon sound more like the cannon on the Tornado. Â That was the most realistic thing, or else the stock A10.<span id='postcolor'> Actually the Vulcan cannon sounds nothing like the tornado's cannon. 100 rounds per second sounds like a low-pitched buzz. Also the barrels need a 1/3-second time to accelerate to 6000rpm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Edge @ Jan. 15 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I saw the island in the 3D first, I started to think about rather smaller airstrip, more field airfield than something regular. Since I play Sturmovik a lot, I am gonna make custom texture of some tarmac or grass to land on I am not going to add the HUGE Everon-like airfield You have to count the sleepless nights of research on this forgotten piece of rock too BTW two pics to be found here: My Webpage<span id='postcolor'> I was thinking about one military/civilian airfield about 1km runway with ILS, civilian airport on the other side of the runway and military airbase on the other, and one Highway strip on the other end of the island about, just about long enough for a HAWK to take off and a parking tarmac big enough for 2 fighters on each end of the runway on the opposite sides. (ok i admit i want these things mainly because i served in the air force )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Horochaya rabota<span id='postcolor'> "Good work" ...right?

Will you guys stop fighting already! And TooTall, if you don't like someone, keep it to yourself! Don't bring it in this forum! This is not a place for insulting people!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sseagle @ Jan. 12 2003,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man too tall, you are quick, but you say you are an expert in ECM, such as flares and chaff, which by the way are countermeasures, and nothing about them is electronic. My point is that if you want something perfect, why don't you make your own?<span id='postcolor'> True. ECM Is regarded as ACTIVE coutermeasures. It's a device that emits radar energy to the enemy radar's side beams. This creates false targets on the enemy's radar screen at the direction the enemy radar antenna is facing at the time. As the antenna sweeps from side to side, the enemy's scope will gradually be filled with these false targets. Chaff on the other hand presents a real physical target to the radar and it shows only on the spot where the chaff cloud is deployed. Chaff is regarded as PASSIVE countermeasures, as it doesn't emit anyhing. it just reflects the enemy's radar energy.

I hate it how easy it is to destroy an A-10 with a single strela. Even though missiles manage to hit the target it doesn't always destroy them. I think that in ofp missiles should explode IN THE PROXIMITY of the target, not on contact. That's why Kegetys' missiles (which i assume Hudson also used as AIM-9J's) keep missing its targets. Not even real missiles actually HIT the target. Anyway, my point is that if the missiles in ofp would detonate like 5 meters away, they'd be more accurate, but then again would not always destroy the target, which i think is realistic. Oh, by the way! I found some flaws in some of the lower LOD's. The flaps seem to be attached to the airbrakes next to them and if you apply full flaps and airbrakes the whole wing looks twisted. Also, as someone in this thread mentioned earlier, there seems to be something extra below the plane, because i was enable to retract my landing gear and the plane still stayed about 2 meters off the ground. Also there seems to be something invisible sticking out of the canopy, because when i tried to place a hornet inside a hangar it flipped over when the canopy opened. Any chance of getting a working HUD? I think Deadsoldier has some experience on HUDs. I also have some other ideas (mostly cool but useless) like Bitchin' Betty, working velocity vector on the HUD, ect. Not sure if they'd work tho.

Hey Hudson! I've got a bunch of sound files you can use, mostly from Falcon 4. I can email you some sound files if you want! [email protected]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (~Too Tall~ @ Jan. 11 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well "wonder" what it has the same LOD as the flares. .so no lag shall occur. . unless u have a shity machine. . .or ALOT of addons. .like me   (937MB  and still growing)<span id='postcolor'> 1.07G and that's only in the res\AddOns folder

Not bad! In real life i've only seen chaff on a radar screen, so I can't really tell what it should look like. The chaff cloud could be bigger tho... say about 4-5 times bigger? How is that going to effect the game speed?

The chaff/flare dispensers are located right in front of the rear landind gears

Err... yeah.. actually it was the one from Dutchsoldier... my mistake! Hope you'll do a better job!

here's a better one:

NOO! Not from front to back! It swings back right between the engine nozzles! You want me to draw a picture? Where did you get the idea that it's supposed to be where you put it?Email me your email address, so i can send you a picture.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadsoldier @ Jan. 10 2003,08<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wonder @ Jan. 09 2003,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This might be off-topic, but could it be possible to put a vertical speed indicator on an artificial horizon? This way we'd have a velocity vector, you know the little -ó- symbol on the HUD, which shows where the plane is going... could make landings a helluva lot easier if it could be done. I also had some thoughts about bitchin' betty yelling "Pull up! Pull up!" when altitude<x and speed>y. Somebody also mentioned about a missile lock/gun aligned sound in another thread.<span id='postcolor'> in real life, you can turn off bithin betty if u wanna fly low level and have her bitch the whole time. In OFP you cant turn it off...we thought of that alread, plus we dont realy need it. In OFP, ppl fly planes low most of the time, so thi way she would be bitching most of the time your flying. cheers<span id='postcolor'> It doesn't have to bich the whole time! Just when for example the criteria of say speed>400kts and alt<30m. You don't go zooming over 400kts below 30 feet the WHOLE time do you? If there's a way to use the rate of descent as a variable, then that would be even better. Back to the topic: if you're going to add a HUD on russian aircrafts, you'd have to find a way to reverse the pich&roll axes, because instead of "climb ladders" they use a plane symbol that rolls/piches the way the plane itself is piching/rolling. Anybody who has played Flanker 2 knows what i'm talking about. Oh! and please change the cockpit... don't wanna see a western style cockpit in a mig-29!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don´t see why that island would be located between Sweden and Finland. No warzone there... except if all the of rest of Finland has already been conquered. <span id='postcolor'> Either that or the swedes have gone sour on losing yet another hockey game with Finland