- Code: Select all
<system file="Particles"/>
Also, the Tubroprop engine model has no 'engines/engine[0]/n2' property so that has to be renamed to 'engines/engine[0]/n1' got proper sound and model animations.
Erik
<system file="Particles"/>
erik wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:37 am:Looking at the difference between the MQ-9-JSBSim2.xml and mine it looks like you will only loose the Particles system line so that has to be added again:
- Code: Select all
<system file="Particles"/>
Also, the Tubroprop engine model has no 'engines/engine[0]/n2' property so that has to be renamed to 'engines/engine[0]/n1' got proper sound and model animations.
Erik
Not trying to sound negative here, but is there still a lot of the community that uses Bombable?
There's also a damage.nas that ties into the default failure manager and extends to custom failures if the aircraft has any (for instance, the Viggen has a lot of non-default failure modes).
OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system altogether that is entirely included in the aircraft,
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:06 pm:It has quite able AI opponents, something that seems unique.
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:06 pm:If you want realistic failures, you have to code them deep into the systems definition of your airplane - no generic package will ever capture the intricacies of how effects of failing systems cascade down the chain or what instrument readings for failing equipment will show. The default failure manager is a simple cartoon, nothing more.
wlbragg wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:18 pm:I didn't know OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system.
PINTO wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:33 pm:Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:06 pm:It has quite able AI opponents, something that seems unique.
So I made it off your ignore list? Awesome!
The AI is okay, but it's nothing to write home about in my opinion. But this is all opinion, so we're probably going to disagree with this.
I have working AI "aircraft" that exist over MP as another plane (so can be seen by everyone - that's a big deal to OPRF) and can be controlled by MP chat using this system; this includes SAM sites and a flying drone. Yes, this requires multiple computers or multiple instances of FG to be running, but it's worth it for what we want to do with it.Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:06 pm:If you want realistic failures, you have to code them deep into the systems definition of your airplane - no generic package will ever capture the intricacies of how effects of failing systems cascade down the chain or what instrument readings for failing equipment will show. The default failure manager is a simple cartoon, nothing more.
Hence why I said damage.nas extends to any custom failures that "have been coded deep into the systems definition of your airplane" - as long as your able to add them as a custom failure via this method. It takes damage taken from missiles/guns/bombs, and applies those to failures you've coded into the aircraft. No need to rag on it until you try it. Maybe you should come out dogfighting with us sometime and see?wlbragg wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:18 pm:I didn't know OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system.
Yeah, I get the feeling most people think we use bombable. We tried it in the past, but it was too buggy and hit-or-miss for us, and having another layer of installation complexity for new fliers just made it not worth it. Now it's just "install this aircraft, and off you go!"
but it's worth it for what we want to do with it.
Not trying to sound negative here, but is there still a lot of the community that uses Bombable?
Hence why I said damage.nas extends to any custom failures that "have been coded deep into the systems definition of your airplane" - as long as your able to add them as a custom failure via this method.
Thorsten wrote in Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:43 am:That seems to be the point here, no? Something that doesn't fit your particular use case (fair enough) and which you don't use seems obsolete to you. Here's the news - FG has other use cases than yours, communities besides yours and AI opponents for dogfighting without using a second computer etc. is a unique feature of interest to some - deal with it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests