WIP:AV-8B
-
-
very very very nice my friend keep walking you have talent!!!
-
5-6 hours for that? For me it would be months… lol
-
very very very nice my friend keep walking you have talent!!!
+1 here to my friend’s Antonis opinion.
Nikos. -
-
You know that i’m a great fan of your projects, don’t you?
Another nice work by you my friend, Thank you ;).
Nikos. -
Great work as usual! One of my favorite aircraft.
-
Nice as usual, Hayab.
Cheers,
LS -
-
Eh’ Hayab,
you usually don’t “speak” much on the forum.
BUT your great work speaks for itself.Cheers,
LS -
more work, less words is a good politic to create
beautiful creature for future balkans campaign I think
cheers
dema
-
DAYUM!
That’s gorgeous. I hope you consider producing the other members of the Harrier II family while you’re at it. This is an earlier block of the AV-8B, having optical sensors in the nose, and not even having the sensor mount above the nosecone. The Marines currently use many AV-8B+'s, which feature radar (and the AIM-120), as well as the Italian Navy. It might also be worth considering the British Harriers, Gr.5 and onwards.
-
DAYUM!
That’s gorgeous. I hope you consider producing the other members of the Harrier II family while you’re at it. This is an earlier block of the AV-8B, having optical sensors in the nose, and not even having the sensor mount above the nosecone. The Marines currently use many AV-8B+'s, which feature radar (and the AIM-120), as well as the Italian Navy. It might also be worth considering the British Harriers, Gr.5 and onwards.
As long as there is only one AV-8 / Harrier DB entry in DB pointless to create more than one Harrier, you cannot put into DB.
-
Err… doesn’t the BMS team modify the DB whenever an official commit is made, and furthermore, do not mod teams also edit their own databases to include different aircraft all the time as well? I don’t know much about this as you can tell, so if I’m wrong, please explain.
-
-
(Well he IS fast ehh??)
-
Awesomesauce.
:mrgreen:
By the way, is that shape for the APG-65 radome a bit off?
-
Err… doesn’t the BMS team modify the DB whenever an official commit is made, and furthermore, do not mod teams also edit their own databases to include different aircraft all the time as well? I don’t know much about this as you can tell, so if I’m wrong, please explain.
I haven’t checked any 3rd party DB but my guess they did not created new DB entries. If you add new AC it requires a new dat file because of FM, racks, fuel data, etc. The dat files are linked to DB via actypes.lst file and the data in dat file. As I know no one of theaters demands swapping your \sim directory. –-> MODs use 100% same DB entries as core DB. If anything were modified some unused AC were “sacrified” or did not required serious DB changes AND dat file swapping.
BMS4 DB is filled with lots of garbage, there are many unimportant vehicles, ships and AC in it. They can be used to model more important things. For ex. two different MiG-17 and MiG-19 have no use in Korea, older AC are 100% unimportant for Korea or modern campaigns, even for '80s campaigns. F-4C, F-100, OV-10 and other stuff provides little or no functionas and eye candy. If you replace the 3D model of DB entry, change the modeling values and link the DB entry with neccessary dat file you can use not useful DB entr to model something important. This is what I’m doing in my MOD.
Of course it have to be decided what is the goal and function of core DB. Should be able to be fulfill the requirement of all 3rd party theaters? Some people say “yes”, some “no”. The “yes” would be the better but it is literally impossible to fulfill the demands. Different theaters requires different battalion rosters, different weapons, AC, etc. In the latest 6+ year BMS4/OF DB got 0 development. —> All theater makers have to work on a dedicated DB. Of course this makes harder to keep fresh the DB if something will be ever applied in corde DB or exe demands radical changes in DB.
-
If you add new AC it requires a new dat file because of FM, racks, fuel data, etc.
For the Harrier versions talking here, no problem implementing that by copying and updating the same db entry. FM, racks, fuel, performance are all the same. The different things are mainly radar/electronics and weapons.
-
Did all Harrier versions had the same empty weight, fuel, thrust and specific fuel consumption? I doubt because these were many different variants of RR Pegasus engine. At least the Sea Harrier was much different for original RAF variant. The US AV-8s has more HP as older UKs variant, therefore their loadout is different, racks setting can be required. Differnt dat files are required.
Biker made a post was days ago which suggest that upcoming BMS4 will support separated \sim directory, which solves one of the mai issues of 3rd party developers.