jomni Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 If there's so much effort, why not do a proper NF5 from ground up? :D Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 If there's so much effort, why not do a proper NF5 from ground up? :D Very funny wise ass. Quote
Streakfalcon Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I vote for the bug fixes to the June09b patch. 1. theres not that much to fix 2. judging by the feedback from the community, SF2I might scare some off who dont want to fool around making mods work, and 3. TK may institute a new patch for SF2I before he updates any others. Just a thought. Quote
+Fubar512 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 TK may institute a new patch for SF2I before he updates any others. Just a thought. Too late, the SF2I patch was uploaded at Third Wire's site earlier this evening. Quote
haukka81(Fin) Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I vote for advance shaders fix for merged install. Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 I decided that we will just do a Jun 09 fix pack for now. A shader fix, will require a ton of rework, something I just don't feel like doing right now. I am sure the team is spent as well. Quote
MaverickMike Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Quick question are the s300 and sa11 sams new to this version of the mod. As far as I know I have never run into them in previous versions..... The SA-11 is an absoloute nitemare! Mike Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 Quick question are the s300 and sa11 sams new to this version of the mod. As far as I know I have never run into them in previous versions..... The SA-11 is an absoloute nitemare! Mike Yes they are nightmares. Quote
MaverickMike Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) Managed to avoid two consecutive SA-11 in my previous mission. Could not avoid the ground however...... Also the SA-8s seem to be a bit more deadly. It seems to me that they fly slower and its alot harder to avoid. Love the challenge though Mike Edited October 27, 2009 by MaverickMike Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 Managed to avoid two consecutive SA-11 in my previous mission. Could not avoid the ground however...... Also the SA-8s seem to be a bit more deadly. It seems to me that they fly slower and its alot harder to avoid. Love the challenge though Mike Well I will say this. I didn't adjust any weps values at all. C5 had a beta pack set up and I went from there. What the team did was add aircraft and fix campaign bugs. Other than that its exactly how C5 left it. Quote
MaverickMike Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Well it seems alot more challenging as I said. If your still in contact with C5 could you please pass on my (and countless others no doubt) endless appreciation. Hope he comes back soon. As for you guys that finished it off, I can give you my thanks on here.... Thanks very much Mike Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 No, you loaded 4 more AIM-7's that are supposed or be on the FAST packs. You either load 4 AIM-7's that fit on the outside of the intakes, OR you load 4 to the FAST packs, you try to do both and that is what you get. It be design to do either, or. Quote
haukka81(Fin) Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 No, you loaded 4 more AIM-7's that are supposed or be on the FAST packs. You either load 4 AIM-7's that fit on the outside of the intakes, OR you load 4 to the FAST packs, you try to do both and that is what you get. It be design to do either, or. Ok, it's clear now. And what about those outter pylons? I never know that F-15C has more than two wing pylons ?? And possibility to carry hevy Agm-88Harms on them feels bit weird or unreal. Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 Ok, it's clear now. And what about those outter pylons? I never know that F-15C has more than two wing pylons ?? And possibility to carry hevy Agm-88Harms on them feels bit weird or unreal. They are pylons that WERE going to be wired for ARM's. But they decided not to use them. (They can be added if needed) However for the fun factor FC put them in there since it was tested like that for real. Trust me dude we research the hell out of this stuff and just do not go throwing crap in the for the hell of it. Quote
haukka81(Fin) Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 They are pylons that WERE going to be wired for ARM's. But they decided not to use them. (They can be added if needed) However for the fun factor FC put them in there since it was tested like that for real. Trust me dude we research the hell out of this stuff and just do not go throwing crap in the for the hell of it. Ok, thanks for quik answers. I never ever know that Will Nato fighters 4+ ever get fixed for Merged install ?? I get better FPS with advanded shaders in SF2Israel. SF2Europe is just too slow Quote
+Dave Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 Will Nato fighters 4+ ever get fixed for Merged install ?? I get better FPS with advanded shaders in SF2Israel. SF2Europe is just too slow I don't know, its going to be alot of work just for a merged install. Maybe TK will do a patch for SF2:E to get it to SF2:I standards. Then I can see the shaders update. Right now we are working on the bug fixes for the June 09 patch. One thing at a time. Quote
+hgbn Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Ok, thanks for quik answers. I never ever know that Will Nato fighters 4+ ever get fixed for Merged install ?? I get better FPS with advanded shaders in SF2Israel. SF2Europe is just too slow Have you tried the HDR plug in?? It gives really good FPS if you got a high end rig Quote
haukka81(Fin) Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Have you tried the HDR plug in?? It gives really good FPS if you got a high end rig Not yet, i have been playing campains in my SF2 + SF2V +SF2E +SF2I merged install. Runs so good, unlimited settings and 1920x1080 4xaa & 4xaf (35-60fps, v-sync forced on) My rig: Intel core 2 duao e8400 (overcloked 3,6ghz) 4g 800mhz DDR2 Ati 4850 512mb Quote
+JediMaster Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Are you guys who're talking about the advanced shaders thing using Vista? I ask because I'm still running XP and didn't see and real differences in speed that I noticed, not that SF2 has ever run poorly. Quote
haukka81(Fin) Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Are you guys who're talking about the advanced shaders thing using Vista? I ask because I'm still running XP and didn't see and real differences in speed that I noticed, not that SF2 has ever run poorly. Yes. Vista or Windows 7 (it's great) SF2 Israel runs with advanded shaders (DX10) default on vista or win7, It'runs so smooth with my 4850 Nvidia cards have some stutter broblems but it will be fixed. Quote
FalconC45 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Not yet, i have been playing campains in my SF2 + SF2V +SF2E +SF2I merged install. Runs so good, unlimited settings and 1920x1080 4xaa & 4xaf (35-60fps, v-sync forced on) My rig: Intel core 2 duao e8400 (overcloked 3,6ghz) 4g 800mhz DDR2 Ati 4850 512mb Your card might "choke" with the ATI HDR plugin. 512mb is pushing it. If you install the ATI HDR plugin, tell me the performance ie FPS. Maybe this will make me do a plugin for med range cards. Falcon Quote
+Dave Posted October 28, 2009 Author Posted October 28, 2009 Fix pack is out. http://forum.combatace.com/topic/49295-nato-fighters-4-plus-fix-pack-and-aaa-addon/ Quote
schurem Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 I am having trouble locating the last two parts of nf4+. In the readme it says it should come in four parts: main, nf4objects, nf4aircraft1 and nf4aircraft2. where are they? the search function did not cough them up :( Quote
+Dave Posted June 25, 2010 Author Posted June 25, 2010 They are in the downloads section under the campaigns section. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.