Conspicuous by Their Absence

[aleatorylamp]

A part = a text file!

Hello Ivan,
OK, slowly I´m getting to see how you make your useful little programs do things.

Your comment "The MoveIt program only works on a single Part. I just use it on
ALL the Parts in a directory if I intend to move the entire aeroplane." hinted that
the AFX or the SCASM Code are not the only places where the x,y,z vertex numbers
exist. I found them in the parts themselves! I didn´t know parts were text files too, but
they have to be for the AFA to process... How logical, and I hadn´t seen it.

That will make things much easier for a Qbasic program to work on a part, than
to open and search through the whole AFX for vertices - and then choke on them!

How interesting!
Thanks for your patience...

I´m glad your Texture mapping experiments with the Airacobra airplane-caricature

models are successful - textures faithfully adapt to all deformations!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

The Real Victim

The actual intended victim was the slightly stretched version of the P-39D.
These are Before and After screenshots.

Next step is to move the Nose Wheel down a bit to match the drawing by Paul Matt.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It´s looking sleeker now, isn´t it? I´m actually beginning to like the model!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I had actually missed your prior post

I found them in the parts themselves! I didn´t know parts were text files too, but

they have to be for the AFA to process... How logical, and I hadn´t seen it.

Yes, AF99 Parts are text files. I have known about that for a very long time and thought that was obvious.
The necessity for Parts to be text files in order to be processed along with the AFA is not a logical conclusion.
PCX and R8 graphics files are NOT text files and are also processed along with the AFA file.....

Working with Binary Files is no real problem either as you already know from the AIR file editing and record extraction and replacement programs I have been using.
Given a choice between working with a Text File of unknown format or a Binary File with a well defined format, I actually prefer working with the Binary file. The result is not readable in a simple text editor but isn't difficult with a Hex editor.

It´s looking sleeker now, isn´t it? I´m actually beginning to like the model!

From the screenshots there should be no visible difference from the images after the Propeller change.
The whole model is 2% larger but that is hardly visible in a screenshot.
The resize and remap was necessary to have a clean model to make further changes.

I did some reworking of the Nose Gear last night and was very surprised by the way it was done.
The Nose Wheel was lowered by 0.50 Feet as were the other associated pieces and I extended the Parts to fill in the resulting gaps.
Spring rates were adjusted in the AIR file and Contact Points were changed by editing the "Footprint" in the AF99 Assembly.

This is the proper nose-high altitude I expect to see with the Airacobra. Contrast this with the original model.

There were more edits to do, but my Development Computer was encountering too many errors to continue last night.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Sleeker:I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that the
model looked ever so slightly longer than before. Maybe I was
biased after seeing the changes in the dimensions undertaken,
shown on the two superimposed drawings/blueprints you posted.
Anyway, not important! The stance looks more fitting now.
By the sound of your reported progress, and by the looks of the
screenshot, it´s turning into quite an improved model.

AF99 Parts as Text files:
I solved the QBasic Path problem - it was my fault. I can now open
any of the AF99 files to read them in QBasic. The double inverted
commas clearly show up clearly infront of the Vertex Coordinates,
so I only have to ignore those infront of the part-name lables.

The next step is to automatize a sequential processing of all .afp
files in one directory, without having to manually enter each filename,
so changes are saved onto copies of the files. This would cover all
individual parts, including parts in components and the templates for
structures.

If I can´t automatize it because of the file names, I´ll have to try and
do it on the AFX, which will be a little more complicated.

Finally, I was wondering whether the posts related to stretching an AF99
model were better moved to a thread of their own, but it´s debatable
because they all relate to the Airacobra too.

I´m a bit worried that the QBasic Stretching thing is a bit off topic, and
I don´t know yet how successful I will be.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Off Topic?

Hello Aleatorlamp,

This thread strays to so many areas that I don't think it makes a difference any more. We are OFF topic more often than we are ON topic.
The original idea was to discuss designs for important aeroplanes that had not been built for Combat Flight Simulator over the years.
None of the designs mentioned recently actually qualifies.
They may not have good representations but that is a different matter.

One of the advantages of using a command line interface rather than a graphical user interface is that I can do multiple calls using a batch file. There are lots of advantages to working with the command line. This is why I have been trying to set up processing of textures using command line parameters to utilities. That was how the textures for the Ki 61 were done.

Regarding P-39D:
Main Gear Fairings were corrected on the last pass. Compare to the last screenshot from a similar angle.
The Pitot Tube was redone a while back but last night, I edited it to be as close as possible to the part on the actual aeroplane.
Note that the Torque Links on the Main Gear do not appear correct.
The last thing that I "Must" fix is the Brace on the Nose Gear.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
OK then... we´ll see how it goes. I have to use wild cards for file names,
if that allows the next file in a folder to be automatically opened when
the instruction is repeated in a loop.

It works in a batch file, because I know you have done it, but I don´t
know if Qbasic can do it. Someone in a forum says to cut out a piece
of the screen image of the directory listing, and turn it into a file-name!
Sounds like a strange way of doing it.

Re. Airacobra Torque links: Strange how on on older computer displays,
single 2D shapes like a cut-out cardboard "C" or "V" work fine on models.
It must have been an AF5 technique of saving on components. I´ve even
seen 2D shapes bent in helicoidal ways!

A thought on the behaviour of the plane - being a middle-motor aircraft
(The Germans would say "Mittelmotorflugzeug"), expectedly, it would be
quick to respond on all axes, i.e. very manoueverable, but probably only
with a decent engine like the one it was designed for.

Anyway, fun is what counts.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
One last word on my plan of using a Qbasic Program for multiple-part manipulation:
Qbasic can´t handle wild cards. All files to be opened need their names written in,
at most in a loop with name and number - e.g. "belly01 to "belly12" - more work
than processing parts with AF99 itself.

So, the only way is with the AFX. But... how to identify the lines with the vertices,
with only the twin inverted commas to go by?
As Orwell once said: Once that is given, all else follows.

Update: I´ve managed to separate all lines containing titles (part labels) and vertices,
so probably it´s going to work!

Update2: Extracting the Vertex Coordinate values to apply a multiplier or an adder should
be no problem, and then to put them back into the AFX text and save it should work as well.
Anyway, as you say, the old Command Line Interface programming allows many things that
would otherwise be impossible nowadays, and in this case, but in a different way, the primitive Qbasic 1.1 seems to do so as well!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Why make things Simple when you can make them Complicated?

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe you are making this task into a much more complicated thing than it needs to be.
What you really need is a very simple Command Line utility that processes the exact file that is specified on the command line with the parameters specified on the command line.
The program should do ONE thing and do it very reliably.

As for driving the Command Line Utility, I actually have done a LOT of Windows NT shell programming in the past.
There are a LOT of very cute things you can do, but why spend the time to make things Complicated and more difficult to Debug when it isn't necessary? The batch file that drives the program is a throw-away. You write it and use it ONCE unless you are developing the utility which I was doing a couple days ago.
Now that I am done with development, I don't intend to use that batch file again. It would not make sense to do it more than once.

To build the batch file is easy. You DON'T need to pull file names from a screenshot.
Try the command
DIR /B *.AFP > BatchFile.csv

That gives you a "Bare" listing of the files you are interested in and puts them into a CSV file that MS Excel can process.
Open the file with Excel and then add a column for the command name and a couple extra columns for the parameters.
Save it as a fixed length space delimited file (probably PRN extension).
Rename the file to a .BAT extension and you are done!

Generating and running this batch file took less than 5 minutes for the roughly 650 Parts of the P-39D.
My only issue was that my Development Computer was periodically barfing during program execution and I had to retry a couple times which is why I would extract everything from the AFX when things did not look right.

Regarding P-39D:
I didn't do anything on it last night. I was not feeling well.
The Concave Parts seem to display fine sometimes and sometimes not.
I have not figured out when or why that happens, but I will try to make some corrections to them so they always display properly.
After making those changes and reworking the Nose Gear some more, I MIGHT shorten the Tail and lengthen the Wings if I am feeling ambitious. Otherwise, it is done and good enough for my purposes.

Yesterday afternoon, I powered up the Game Machine again. The HDD appears to run fine but doesn't always spin up because there appears to be an issue with either the bearings or drive motor. The machine is all taken apart in my living room at the moment.
I ran a backup on the user data yesterday. I hope the "New" HDD actually works. I don't remember where it came from.
I am trying to decide whether to clone the old drive onto a newer one or to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional onto the new drive.
It has been so long since the machine was installed that I don't remember the admin password any more and apparently I never wrote it down.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Hmmmm.... I understand what you´re getting at. Unfortunately,
I´ve never written a batch file or done anything other than writing
Dir:C or Run an .exe in MS DOS, and I´m not familiar with EXCEL.

In 1978, I went to a computer school for 6 months and learnt COBOL.
After 5 months of 2-hour classes on Fridays, I wrote my first and only
programme there, which was punched into cards at the local Oil Refinery.
They let the school use their Univac 2030 computer, as they were the
only guys in town with a computer, apart from Iberia Airlines.

Two Fridays later, a 5 ft error list came back, and I did the corrections.
Another two more Fridays later, I got a 7 ft error list, and that was the
last they saw of me there!

10 years later I bought a Spectrum +, which had an operating system in
BASIC, and you could write your own programmes! I remembered my COBOL,
and spent hours making my own games and applications to my heart´s content.

I also had to customize the drivers (done in BASIC and some machine code) of
a disquette interface and a parallel port matrix printer for the Spectrum +.

Writing batch files in MS DOS and using EXCEL is a piece of cake if you know how,
but I only know BASIC, or QBASIC, with Spagghetti-type programming as I don´t
use function calls.

At the moment my QBASIC code separates lines containing part-names and vertices,
and it was easy.

Now, in the program, a new file has to be opened for output, and each line, unaltered
or altered, will be APPENDED to it. Altered lines will be the ones with vertices, which will
have their values processed as needed before being appended to the output file.

This way I get a complete, new, altered AFX. Any offset applied to parts "pushed around"
is also shown, so that can be taken care of too!

I´d say it´s quite straight forward - not as complicated for me as learning MS DOS and EXCEL.

Anyway, sorry - must rush! I´m being summoned.... again.
More later.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
...continuing from my last post answering yours...
Firstly, I hope you feel better!

Re. Airacobra: Perhaps concavities displaying or not depends on the viewing angle.
As to the difference in length and span - it´s only inches, and I think will go totally
unnoticed. Much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare´s play is called, but it´s
your re-work, not mine, so I can only express my opinion.

Re. Old hardware - Years ago, I´d upgraded the CPU on a new 9-month-old
computer from 950 to 2000 Mhz, but in my ignorance, didn´t put in a case fan!
After 3 months, the HDD spindle bearing failed, but I managed to save my data
onto a new HDD just in time, adding a case fan of course, and I had to re-install
everything. Cloning was out of the question because the old HDD was failing, and
it wasn´t an identical size HDD either, but that´s not point, of course.
For your dismantled computer in the living room and your other old HDD with the
installation you have the CD for, I´d say re-installing a-new is more reliable, but
again, it´s only my opinion!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I decided to correct some of the markings to what I believe they should be.
The National insignia if there is only one on the wings, should be on the upper left wing.
The very large nose number is more typical of those used on fighter trainer aircraft after they had been withdrawn from combat use.
I figure we should be representing a combat aeroplane rather than a war weary and obsolete model.

Regarding the mid engine configuration:
That was an interesting idea in theory, but work out nearly so well in practice.
The problem is that for a car with an engine amidships, a couple percent shift in CoG makes no great difference though the expert driver may notice a handling difference. With an aeroplane, a CoG that moves a bit may cause some dangerous or unpredictable handling.
With the engine near the CoG and the heavy armament near the nose, expending the ammunition load caused a pretty serious change in CoG which might made for dangerous stall and spin characteristics. There were even some reports of the Airacobra tumbling in the air.

Regarding Dimensions:
It is relatively easy to adjust the model to match the actual dimensions of the aeroplane.
In this case, the measured dimension from tip of the Spinner to the end of the Rudder was 30.16 feet and 30 feet 2 inches would be 30.166666 feet. Perhaps I will stretch the rudder by 0.01 feet, but it is certainly close enough.
I figure that getting the dimensions correct makes it mare likely that we will get the shape of the entire aeroplane correct.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Wow! Very good! I´d agree with the markings too.
I had overlooked that of course the work on tail and wingspan adjustments
would be done with the little programmes, not with more lengthy AF99 work,
so it won´t be a fuss, and it will be exact.
It is noticeable how the the model now reflects the charisma of the real plane.

Pity about the ammunition upsetting the CoG and actually tumbling the aircraft!
Having a more ideal placing for the ammunition store would probably have meant
more complicated ramps, rails or shutes to feed the nose artillery, so maybe more
Wing Guns would have been better instead. But... can you mount cannon onto
wings? Probably not - or maybe only at the wing-root.

So, that´s why it was an amazing plane but a lousy fighter. I couldn´t connect the
two concepts. It would also account for why surviving examples are so successful
in acrobatic competitions. Very interesting.

Then, I read that someone also did a balls-up on several units by taking away the
supercharger because they didn´t need to fly so high, and wanted to save on fuel
and weight I believe. In consequence, handling got so poor that pilots hated the
planes. Obviously they simply weren´t designed for such low power. A pity too.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have actually been in a discussion (really several concurrent discussions) over the last couple months, so any summary that I can type here will lose a lot of detail.
I also am certain that I do not have the expertise to properly address the points you brought up.

Regarding CoG:
The ammunition for Motor Cannon and .50 Cal Cowl guns were all way ahead of the CoG.
The Fuel Tanks and Pilot were also ahead of the CoG, so when ammunition was expended and fuel was low and if there was a skinny pilot on board, the CoG was pretty far aft.
Putting heavy armament in the wings would have caused other problems because the wings were so short. Look at where the .50 Caliber wing guns are installed in the P-49Q.

I don't think the Airacobra was a terrible fighter, it just had its problems.
In the modern airshow rounds, no one actually competes in aerobatics and everything is done at low altitude and low to medium speeds. The airshow Airacobras perform well because they are all ballasted to compensate for the missing ammunition in the nose and at low altitude, their low rated engines are not a handicap.

The Airacobra lost its TURBO-Charger because it really had no hope of living up to the claims of the manufacturer and was not about to reach the performance goal of 400 MPH at 20,000 feet even in its test configuration.
It had no armament, armour, or self sealing fuel tanks.
In the combat-ready models (starting with the P-39D), it had gained about 1000 pounds from its original test weight.
Although it lost its Turbo, it did get a Supercharged engine very similar to that installed in the early P-40's.

There is a lot more to this story, but I will save it until it has its own thread. I would be just echoing what I have been reading anyway.

There are actual benefits to reworking Eric Jobson's P-39D.
I am finding out what works in the assembly sequence and grouping and what does not.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thank you for the clarifying summary of what was actually going on with the
development on the different Airacobra Versions and current examples.

The pilots who thought it was a terrible fighter and hated it, probably didn´t get
the correct training, being used to more conventional aircraft, but I won´t say
who they were, as I don´t want to offend anyone... and then I confused (again)
superchargers with turbochargers mentioned there - I know the difference, but
this kind of thing always catches me out - more and more often!

Due to two or three other current things, I couldn´t find time for a deep research,
and consequently got a rather confusing picture, which I was conscious of, so
I am grateful for your information!

It´s lucky that your work on the model turned out to be interesting and enjoyable,
and gave such pleasing results! What? Even more interesting results on sequencing?
It shows one never ceases to learn things!

I had done some AF5-to-FS98 updating on the AFX of a series of WW1 biplanes, and
despite the fact that the results were very pleasing, I didn´t enjoy it at all: I got my
knickers into a twist on every one of them, and vowed "never again!".
Maybe I should try it again after all...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have actually been interested in the Airacobra for a very long time and have been collecting data on it for a while.
The current AIR file I am using was done by me before I ever started building models for CFS and in fact was specifically for the "Plain Flaps" version of the P-39D which was the best I could find at the time. It may still be the best out in the wild.

The AIR file I "created" for the Airacobra was fairly well behaved in terms of handling but was done with out any significant knowledge of AIR file parameters and with only a VERY basic knowledge of aerodynamics. The engine power is reasonably correct and the supercharger boost gain is probably reasonable, and I suspect the speeds are about right, but very little else matches. Manifold pressure for example is about 10 inches too high for the correct power.

It is interesting to think about how far we have gotten since then to something along the line of an Engine Performance Tuning Tutorial and even tuning Propeller Tables. My guess is that this "Airacobra" was really a lightly modified P-51D Mustang.....

For what it's worth, I thought you might want to know what I believe this P-39D was modeled after.
It is a P-39Q from the USAF Museum in Ohio. While the basic shape is the same, there will be some detail differences between the D and Q models.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The Airacobra seems to have been a revolutionary, innovative, and non-conventional design, and must have had
some advantages over other more normal designs, advantages that were perhaps not appreciated, or were eclipsed
by the CoG thing with the ammo you mentioned, that required a lot of getting-used-to.

I believe it was very popular with the Russians, so I´m sure they thought it was something special.
The .air file you are preparing sounds very intriguing, and with the new stance the model has now obtained, the
visual impression is totally different from what it was before. I get the feeling that before, it didn´t quite have the
impressive looks this plane always has on photos - the photo in your last post really shows what I mean.

What you mention about the difference in manifold pressure required for the model to have the correct performance
seems to be something quite usual, specially for 2-speed superchargers, and often even for single speed ones, I find.
Even making fine adjustments on both propeller tables, I am seeing this in the performance of the two Russian models
I´m working on at the moment.

So, I´m definitely looking forward to adding your re-worked Airacobra to my little collection, if and when you release it,
and also of course, having a look into .air file!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

It turns out Number 31 was really a P-39D that served in the Aleutians at the beginning of the war. I am somewhat surprised that it did not have any other distinguishing markings other than the victory tally.

Yes, the Airacobra was innovative, but not every new idea is a good one. There are always trade-offs and at least in US and British (and even Italian) service, it was not appreciated by most. For some reason, it was an amazingly effective fighter in Soviet service though I still can't quite understand why.

The AIR file at the moment is really somewhat generic. It is "average" at best.
Back in those days, I didn't really know how to tune for Engine Power, so it was a matter of adjusting Manifold Pressure until the Horsepower Reading was reasonable. It was THAT simple. There is nothing worthwhile to look at in the AIR file as it stands today.
What was done here can be done today with a few hours research and about an hour's worth of tuning. I don't believe I even had a standard testing protocol back then.

The attached screenshot shows the kinds of things to be learned from playing around with an existing model. It is pretty obvious that puttint the Nose Gear in the Nose Gear Group can cause a few problems one might not expect. It would barely show up in an un-animated model such as for FS 5, but is quite noticeable here.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

With more modern AF99 building techniques like the ones you have shown me, the nose-gear flaw can hopefully be fixed without much problem.

I thought you had already doctored up a stock P51D with a better propeller and all the other nifty engine parameter adjustments CFS1 offers, but expectedly, that´s not going to be a problem.

The only real issue, I suppose) was going to be trying to emmulate the peculiar "Mittelmotor" aircraft behaviour, which I know you have not done yet, and are doing, or will be doing. When I mentioned I wanted to look into the .air file, I meant the one that was going to accompany the model if or when you were going to release it.

Updated paragraph:
About the lack of success the real model had in the countries you mention, it was not the peculiar behaviour of the plane, as I´d thought before. It was the lack of high altitude, long range performance that put the British off, and I don´t know why the Italians didn´t like it. Please see further below for more details.

Also, the fierce competition among aircraft manufacturers could have caused competitors to take advantage of the situation and severely criticize the model (as is still usual nowadays). As a result perhaps, not even when Bell corrected the flaws and brought out the new, slightly bigger and more powerful Kingcobra, interest could not be revived very well until after the war.

Incidentally, I had taken for granted from previous e-mails, that you also thought it was a "lousy fighter", and my short, hurried comment was by no means meant as offensive. I should have expressed myself better and said that pilots in other countries regarded it as such, and that the comment came from an article that mentioned British pilots´ reactions to it.
Anyway, I´m sure you weren´t offended! I´m still trying to find the article again.

I have to feed the cats - they are jumping all over my desk and the keyboard, and I can´t concentrate!

Update:
OK, the cats have now breakfasted.
I´ve also been searching around (in fact, the other two things I´m working on are
momentarily on "hold"), to try and elucidate the reason for the Airacobra´s success in Russia, and found this:
http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39.html
Almost half way down the article it says that the Russians concentrated on and needed ground-attack planes (hence also the huge production of IL-2 Stormoviks). Long range was not a requirement, and they had also rigged up the guns and cannon on their Airacobras to fire simultaneously, which instantly disintegrated a target. Interesting factors. (How vile... that´s probably why it was named after the Cobra... Instant death.)

Apart from its immense destructive power, as the plane itself demonstrates acrobatic handling, I suppose this was very useful for ground attack too. Here is another extense very illustrative article, which you must know about because it mentions some things you´ve already said:
http://www.airvectors.net/avp39.html
It says, mentioning the export version called P-400, sent to Britain: "...It should be noted, however, that Bell engineers were correct in believing the mid-mounted engine was good for maneuverability, the RAF report concluding that an Airacobra could easily out-turn a Messerchmitt Bf 109."
Further down it mentions that the Russians thoroughly tested the plane (several test pilots were killed) and bought 5,500 units, almost half the production of Airacobras and trained their pilots very well. Apparently Soviet women ferried the planes from the US over Siberia to the Eastern front.
Russian aces called it "Kobruschka (Sweet Little Cobra), and it says that it seems to have been more a tactical-support air-fighter that worked together with the close-support Sturmoviks.

When I look at the plane now, I always think of a well-balanced, roaring, fast, Formula 1 "Mittelmotor" racing car! The P39D air-intake behind the cockpit and the exhausts a bit lower on the sides give it a really charismatic look. There is a picture at the beginning of Aviation History article, of a P-39 with the air-intake on the left side.

The Aviation History article also says that British were disappointed because they were concentrating on and needed high-altitude performance for long-range bomber escort-fighters, where their Hurricanes, Spitfires and Hawker Typhoons, did very well. The P39 was not as good a performer so high up, so they sent all P-39´s thay´d bought to Australia after only 4 missions for service in the Pacific.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe you are right about the Nose Gear. I do not expect it to be a problem in my version.
It is just nice to know ahead of time that something will not work before doing any major planning.

My current knowledge of AIR file tuning is much superior to when this P-39D AIR file was done (I figure around 2002).
That AIR file despite its lack of accuracy is still quite well behaved and quite good enough to use in developing a 3D model.
There are still factors that are not quite determined yet because certain things cannot be simulated effectively in CFS, so they must be handled by other means.

I am actually not a great fan of the Airacobra any more than I am a fan of the P-40 even though I have built a bunch of them.
I won't be insulted if you have any unfavorable information to report. In fact, I would welcome the additional data.
It is really a matter of learning and discovery and building a model is just part of the process.
I believe CFS could use one and I also would not mind owning one!
The REALLY IMPORTANT and difficult thing to pin down is the CoG of the empty airframe.
I will spend the time to get this as close as I can before ever starting the model because it is a pain to correct afterwards and on this model, almost all the weird flight characteristics depend on it.

This discussion is getting to the point where it really should have its own thread, but I am just not quite ready to start it yet.
I can tell you that there is a LOT more to the story than we have covered here. I figure I should do that when I get to the point where I have a stable enough Development Computer to do a little bit of building or tuning. At the moment I do not have a working computer that I can use for Combat Flight Simulator. A HDD is on order and should arrive some time tomorrow to rebuild the Game Machine.
Hopefully it comes back without any problems. I know the backup was not as thorough as it could be. The drive would not stay running.
Interestingly enough, I managed to get Windows 2000 Professional loaded onto a different spare drive but much lower capacity(2.1 GB). The problem is that it does not recognize the joystick.....

- Ivan.