@ranger822: Phantom loadout problem

[Skwabie]

Hi ranger,

As FF5 released I got a chance to check out the Phantoms. They're quite amazing as in those screenshots. I can say finally there's an accurate exterior presentation of F-4s in Falcon4.

There's one hitch which is quite obvious, that is the AIM-9 loadout on the wing pylons. They seem to use the LAU-88 rack for the mavericks, although only on some F-4 versions. It was like this in FF4, and I thought it was fixed with the newer models. The preview screenies didn't show either otherwise I'd post earlier.

Not a FreeFalcon flyer myself, but that doesn't mean the Phantom models aren't a masterpiece. Really appreciate your hardworks and dedication! It's just that LAU-88 is a realism hit. Wish the phantoms can be more perfect.

[molnibalage]

There's one hitch which is quite obvious, that is the AIM-9 loadout on the wing pylons. They seem to use the LAU-88 rack for the mavericks, although only on some F-4 versions. It was like this in FF4, and I thought it was fixed with the newer models. The preview screenies didn't show either otherwise I'd post earlier.

There is a problem for F-4s. They don't have the same 3D model. IRL as I know F-4s could carry 4 x AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9s BUT under pair of AIM-9s under each inner wing HPs could carry bombs! I have picture about this. Yes, this wasn't a so common configuration because of huge drag. Above Vietnam where were only a few MiGs F-4s sometimes carry full stores. Maybe IAF also did this because of short distances in their wars.


In Falcon not all F-4s are able to simulate the real full capacity. F-4s that are able to do this have more HP location as other F-4s. It is defined by 3D models. For example check the F-4ESK. Inner wing HPs are not part of 3D model. Other problem there isn't dual AIM-9 rail in DB. (Actually there is but for F/A-18s I don't know what used F-4s.)

Check the F-4K or F-4S. The Sidewinders don't have rack just put next to the pylon that is part of AC 3D model. I will explain to you via screenshots when I will be at home.

DB is not finished. This is also true for F-4s. For ex. ECM pod under CL is not real.

It is clear what I'm trying to explain?

[Skwabie]

There's one hitch which is quite obvious, that is the AIM-9 loadout on the wing pylons. They seem to use the LAU-88 rack for the mavericks, although only on some F-4 versions. It was like this in FF4, and I thought it was fixed with the newer models. The preview screenies didn't show either otherwise I'd post earlier.

There is a problem for F-4s. They don't have the same 3D model. IRL as I know F-4s could carry 4 x AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9s BUT under pair of AIM-9s under each inner wing HPs could carry bombs! I have picture about this. Yes, this wasn't a so common configuration because of huge drag. Above Vietnam where were only a few MiGs F-4s sometimes carry full stores. Maybe IAF also did this because of short distances in their wars.


In Falcon not all F-4s are able to simulate the real full capacity. F-4s that are able to do this have more HP location as other F-4s. It is defined by 3D models. For example check the F-4ESK. Inner wing HPs are not part of 3D model. Other problem there isn't dual AIM-9 rail in DB. (Actually there is but for F/A-18s I don't know what used F-4s.)

Check the F-4K or F-4S. The Sidewinders don't have rack just put next to the pylon that is part of AC 3D model. I will explain to you via screenshots when I will be at home.

DB is not finished. This is also true for F-4s. For ex. ECM pod under CL is not real.

It is clear what I'm trying to explain?

Hi,

All agree/clear with what you say.

What needed to fix this is:
1. Add AIM-9 wing pylon racks, or, add rack parts to the AC 3D model like the existing B/J/S/K versions.
2. Add corresponding hardpoint slot nodes/data in 3D model/parent data.
3. Add hardpoint data in vehicle/weapon loadout entry.
4. Hardpoint data in FM.dat
5. rack.dat (or bmsrack.dat now?) edit

Just hope the phantoms be better is all. With some effort, it can be done. I'd done it myself, but thanks to the DB lock.

[molnibalage]

I think all F-4s should have the same 3D model as F-4K/S.

[ranger822]

Thanks for input guys. Phantoms still need some tweaking. CCC did a fantastic job with Thoarek's original model. But, we have a lot of variants now - each one is separate and the short-nose versions (Navy) have different racks than long-nose versions (Airforce). So, we sort of ran out of energy. I will consult with our chief modeler and CCC and see if something can be done. For now - enjoy what we have given and perhaps in the future it will get even better.

[Skwabie]

Thanks for input guys. Phantoms still need some tweaking. CCC did a fantastic job with Thoarek's original model. But, we have a lot of variants now - each one is separate and the short-nose versions (Navy) have different racks than long-nose versions (Airforce). So, we sort of ran out of energy. I will consult with our chief modeler and CCC and see if something can be done. For now - enjoy what we have given and perhaps in the future it will get even better.

Hehe. Pat pat. Energy is always critical when dealing with ACs from a large family.
Hope you guys get a long egress and let those J79s pump some more.

[ranger822]

I have some new energy and time for ITO2 for FreeFalcon 5.x. It would indeed be nice to address the inner pylons for the land versions of the Phantom the way they were done for the sea-based versions. That is something I may look into after the initial public release is made.

[derStef]

I have some new energy and time for ITO2 for FreeFalcon 5.x. It would indeed be nice to address the inner pylons for the land versions of the Phantom the way they were done for the sea-based versions. That is something I may look into after the initial public release is made.

cheeers for that.