QF4 flightplans

KevinJarvis · Post by **KevinJarvis** » 16 Oct 2007, 02:51

Thank you sir.
I completely overlooked that post.

Thanks flyboy for posting it.
KJ

djnocturnal · Post by **djnocturnal** » 16 Oct 2007, 03:42

nice flight plans! thanks
i changed them to only do a tng once a week since for some reason they havn't flown in months here at holloman, seems like ever since one crashed last year they havn't really been moved.

Victory103 · Post by **Victory103** » 17 Oct 2007, 07:26

Just when I start working on Eglin and Tyndall, a thread starts that answers all my questions.

Model downloaded, repaints for QF-4's?

ronniegj · Post by **ronniegj** » 17 Oct 2007, 14:06

Mark posted those to avsim this past weekend. Search for 53weg.zip by Mark Walsh, and you'll be good to go!

Ron

f47420 · Post by **f47420** » 17 Oct 2007, 18:50

Hi Guys glad you liked the textures.

Have been playing with the smoke effects for the F-4 and came up with this .
I set the Delay at 4 min and the Lifetime at 30 sec.
So the drone has time to take off reach height burst into flames then stop smoking and land.

If you think it is OK add this to the aircraft con fig file.

[lights]

//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit, 5=landing

light.0 = 1, -54.18, 0.00, 7.86, fx_beaconb
light.1 = 3, -46.09, -19.51, 1.02, fx_f16_navredm
light.2 = 3, -50, -19.52, 1.02, fx_f16_navredm
light.3 = 3, -46.09, 19.51, 1.02, fx_f16_navgrem
light.4 = 3, -50, 19.52, 1.02, fx_f16_navgrem
light.5 = 3, -65.01, 0.00, 11.01, fx_f16_navwhih
light.6 = 2, -48.70, -1.95, -0.15, fx_f16_ab_f4
light.7 = 2, -48.70, 1.95, -0.15, fx_f16_ab_f4
light.8 = 2, -55, 1.85, 0.0, fx_nicksmokeAI_sm_lear
light.9 = 2, -55, -1.85, 0.0, fx_nicksmokeAI_sm_lear
light.10 = 2, -45.70, -1.75, -0.15, fx_engsmoke
light.11 = 2, -45.70, 1.75, -0.15, fx_engsmoke
light.12 = 2, -52, 1.65, 0.0, fx_engsmoke
light.13 = 2, -52, -1.65, 0.0, fx_engsmoke

and the mod fx_engsmoke file to the effects folder.

Mark..........

Bone184 · Post by **Bone184** » 17 Oct 2007, 19:11

f47420; that's sweet.....I like it but I don't think I'll keep it in the cfg all the time just for the simple fact I don't like to watch a Phantom meet its fate. Keep up the great work.

Bone184 · Post by **Bone184** » 17 Oct 2007, 19:24

I went a found my copy of the COMBAT AIRCRAFT Magazine vol.6 no.4 issue that has a story call "Born to Fly,Reborn to Die" that covers the Drone Squadron at Tyndall; it's a great read. There's also a article; "Heritage Phantoms"; that covers the QF-4's that are part of Tyndall's Hertiage Flight which include tail numbers 72-1490,74-1652,73-1171 and 72-0135. These are the Phantoms that you see going around the states at Airshows. Does anyone know the tail numbers of the Holloman's Heritage Flight? Does anyone know if Team Tyndall Heritage Flight Fly's in & out of Tyndall it's self since they're manned drones or do they still operate out of 2PAM?
Does anyone know where I can find a add-on callsign of "Rhino", the 82nd ATRS uses "Rhino" for manned flights followed by 2 digits of the pilot status as either a USAF or Lockheed Martin Pilot on board.
Maybe someone can make a callsign "NULLO" for the unmanned flights.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 30 Oct 2007, 03:57

Mark that's way cool!

Here's a hilarious video made by some of the guys associated with the QF-4 demo team. The ending is just classic!

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=eeabb63b

StingingCanine · Post by **StingingCanine** » 30 Oct 2007, 13:44

I just read a blurb that the Air Force has put out a feeler for the possibility of converting old F-16A's into target drones. But it will be a while before that ever happens. This is only an initial request for information.

Oh, and thanks Mark for all the repaints! I have every single one. You do some great work!

Bone184 · Post by **Bone184** » 30 Oct 2007, 19:18

MIKE JG wrote:Mark that's way cool!

Here's a hilarious video made by some of the guys associated with the QF-4 demo team. The ending is just classic!

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=eeabb63b

That's a good video......

f47420 · Post by **f47420** » 31 Oct 2007, 20:00

Here you go death of a QF-4E

Mark...

Chrisb · Post by **Chrisb** » 31 Oct 2007, 22:11

I can't believe someone would want to do that with a Phantom.
Isn't it immoral?

Chris

Bone184 · Post by **Bone184** » 31 Oct 2007, 22:25

Chrisb wrote:I can't believe someone would want to do that with a Phantom.
Isn't it immoral?

Chris

I would think that someone with the name "f47420" they'd protect the phantom.

LOL

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 01 Nov 2007, 09:18

Good Screenies! Some day MS will realize if they just add weapons and damage capability to the "civil" sims (FS9 and FSX) they will have a winning combat sim. The Beta testers on CFS3 pointed that out but it was ignored.

We have tubeliners and Warplanes flying in the real world-why not in the sims??

StingingCanine · Post by **StingingCanine** » 01 Nov 2007, 13:12

Quite simply it's not politically correct to have warplanes shooting down airliners in a sim. Pardon the pun, but it just wouldn't fly. Sometimes 'as real as it gets' is a little bit too real.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 01 Nov 2007, 16:47

It is pretty simple-A simulation is that-a replica of something like flight. You just have to have the understanding that it is NOT the real world. It is a simulation. Personally I think we induce too many PC arguments that distort the real world. Just Opinion. After many years as a mental health counselor, I recognize that many people have difficulty making the distinction between reality and their perceptions. I think we fail in that regard by 'dumbing' down reality with PC. Not trying to start an argument, just recognizing that in the real world military stuff flies simultaneously with airliners. They also do shoot down airliners-as in the KAL shot down by the Soviets. That doesn't mean YOU have to do it in a sim. There is a lot of effort put into accurate scenery, flight dynamics, flight planning etc. Why not the realities of ALL the possible flight events??

KevinJarvis · Post by **KevinJarvis** » 01 Nov 2007, 17:05

Having been on a flight sim beta team in the past, IMHO, since the developers have such a small window in which to produce this program, and with the main emphasis soley on civilian aircraft they leave the rest up to the thousands of add-on developers that work closely with MS and other designers.

I believe it is more of a socially moral subject. And one of possible liability too. Notice that all the airlines are fictional?

I see no difference in the reasoning or the ability of the developers to add military weapons in FS9 or FSX versus the ability to add civilian aircraft to any of the MS Combat flight sims that are available.

KJ

f47420 · Post by **f47420** » 01 Nov 2007, 17:05

OK I am sorry !! But at least it's gone out in style rather than just rusting away in a bone yard or gone for scrap.

Hope this is a bit better...
Mark F47420

StingingCanine · Post by **StingingCanine** » 01 Nov 2007, 17:15

I agree. I would love to see the military aircraft with their full capabilities. I'm on your side. I'm also surprised that there isn't a mod out there that gives full capabilities to military aircraft. Definitely beyond my understanding of the FS engine.

Bone184 · Post by **Bone184** » 01 Nov 2007, 20:21

f47420 wrote:OK I am sorry !! But at least it's gone out in style rather than just rusting away in a bone yard or gone for scrap.

Hope this is a bit better...
Mark F47420

True, I won't hold it against you.......since you are providing me with plenty of phantoms for my virtual skies, now if I can just get my AI Package for the 184th TFG during the Phantom Days completed.