Solved [4.36] new aircraft bug
-
Thanks a lot for the F-14 note.
But please excuse me: which voice has to be modified in those fm files, please?
I found them in those .dat ones, instead.
Almost sure I am wrong about that, but the same…With best regards.
-
-
@Jackal said in [4.36] new aircraft bug:
But please excuse me: which voice has to be modified in those fm files, please?
I found them in those .dat ones, instead.
Almost sure I am wrong about that, but the same…sorry you have to check sound section in fm dat. it is beyond my scope.
-
@ccc1tw
I see know… thanks a lot.With best regards.
-
@Jackal said in [4.36] new aircraft bug:
Thanks a lot for the F-14 note.
But please excuse me: which voice has to be modified in those fm files, please?
I found them in those .dat ones, instead.
Almost sure I am wrong about that, but the same…With best regards.
What voice ? what you want to do?
-
@white_fang
Oh, nothing in particular. I was to find the way to make the F-14s to refuel in a more realistic way, but after seeing what ccc has in mind… that’s all.With best regards.
-
-
Hello,
I am very happy to publish tonight an extensive update of my J-20 to v2.0. Here is the changelog :
- Addition of parachute to improve aircraft realism
- Attempt to make a non static parachute set, animations were inserted
- Rework of slots coordinates, especially side bays
- Rework of bays opening speeds, to avoid contacts
- Update of PL10E, to have proper flame and accurate position
- Rework of refuel drogue
- Various Acdata improvements
- Addition of the “two tones segment livery”
- Correction of some LODs that could lead to crash in some cases
- Deletion of flaps capable ailerons, now, only TEF act like that
You can get the files here : https://www.mediafire.com/file/qi2wl3x7auip9at/J-20_v2.1.rar/file
This is not a full package, but a patch for the stock J-20 that I is implemented in stock DB.
You can follow the full thread here : https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/16886/chengdu-j-20
Best regards,
Radium
-
Hello,
Regarding Yak-38 questions, especially by C³, here is some explanations about my choices :
- My Yak-38 was created to look good from an AI perspective
- For this reason, and because I wanted to have VTOL hatches opened during at least landing phase, I chose to link them with tailhook. For take off, I still have no idea how to make it appear.
- I have no clear evidence of any usage of Yak-38 by Ukrainian navy. That being said, Yak-38M “Yellow 83 & 46” and Yak-38U “Yellow 04” were painted under Ukraine navy colors. While I have no pictures of them inflight, they look to have been on duty till at least 1994. I then decided to make a Ukraine livery for my Yak-38.
- For gears issue, Topolo fixed what was necessary. No more actions on it.
I then consider Yak-38 debug closed.
Please feel free to let me know if you find more issues !
Best regards,
-
One bug that has been noted with regard to the Eurofighter’s new 3D Model from @Manos1981 is that the left engine seems to drive the animations of both engine nozzles and afterburner. If you keep right throttle at idle and left increases both nozzles will move and both afterburners light up. Right throttle only had no impact here. It wotkd from an FM perspective, but the 3D Model doesn’t correspond accordingly.
Covert lights seem to be implemented for the anti-coll lights on the spine and beneath the intake, rather than the position lights on wing tips and fin.
-
@white_fang
As first, thanks a lot for kindly confirming my thoughts, dear mate.
I am not a native English fellow, so you know well as it goes more than sometimes…
Second: so, is it the case to hope that nice release day may come (more or less ) soon?With best regards.
-
@Jackal Ah, all ok my friend… It was damn impossible to decipher the “voice” part in your post, that damn translate
- 3-4 weeks ?
-
@white_fang
About the “voice” matter: so true, my apologies.
About the ETR (established time of release), I already knew it.
It must be a weird pandemic attitude of these places of ours, I guess.With best regards.
-
@Scorpion82
I wouldn’t say bug… more like they use same dofs… Mistake maybe… I just copied the geometries over without changeing anything else -
-
not ac bug, just an old, carrier bug.
carrier vinson, or the rest two that use the same model… when ac on the deck, it seems they are few inch above the deck.i check parent 1844, the carrier hitbox height is -67.0886
in FE/objectives, the carrier obj - 8.runwayDimListtype , the Z value is 67.5 ( not -67.5 ?)the difference could cause the bug.
-
@ccc1tw As you say, old and known bug… I do not see a short term resolution of this one
-
@ccc1tw said in [4.36] new aircraft bug:
not ac bug, just an old, carrier bug.
carrier vinson, or the rest two that use the same model… when ac on the deck, it seems they are few inch above the deck.i check parent 1844, the carrier hitbox height is -67.0886
in FE/objectives, the carrier obj - 8.runwayDimListtype , the Z value is 67.5 ( not -67.5 ?)the difference could cause the bug.
my test shows… change Z value from 67.5 to 67.0886, can fix the bug.
in the past, Z value is negative, now it’s positive.
and, 67.5 ft is higher than carrier deck height.
I’d suggest check carrier model again to get precise deck Z value. -
G’day Gents.
Now when you speak of the bugs… beetles/insects. and pests.
Would one of you old… EXPERTS , kindly take a look what would be the cause of AV8B/II “running away” when landed (landing/touchdown) VSTOL .
Specifically on LHD (by Radium) deck., but think, someone else tested, also other flat-decks. - on the ground all is peachy.
Think it started happening in 4.35 on entroducing anti-skid , as it is not there in 4.34.
I have a theory… but still I’m not even close to BMS “mechanics”/models , as you are. - so maybe just take an educated peek and tell us what you think is really going on here… Please.
When you land vertically, basically esatblishing speed same as lhd , which is ~20kts … so , the moment you touchdown , plane wants to drive forward - fast… could it be that the:
- yourspd + carrierspd = ~40kts > “imaginary deck , objective/rwy speed” = 0kts !!!
You see? … yes carrier is moving, 20tks… but objective runway still thinks it is 0kts … so everything kinda “adds up” -
Maybe is not even related to the anti-skid code but , newer moving carrier in MP - code. - I just don’t know … , suspected tire-friction in afm , but on the ground is ok. - but “deck” is not ? ground ?
Just my observations, but I would like , second, …your opinion on this… it’s “not” that is “bugging me/us” , but is kinda … PITA
THANK YOU… in advance.
Cheers