So long fellas

[exhausted 55]

I would like to see TK develop his F-4 series for DCS. It is a high-value slot and I think it would keep TW in the mid-to-hardcore range and make TK money for more SF games that aren't on the iPad. Also Dave, I know it's not constructive, but I wish I could join you on the range in MP.

[+streakeagle 871]

I stopped modding long ago aside from sometimes tweaking MiG-21s and MiG-23s. As I understand it, the patch made "player weapons" more effective: i.e. an AIM-9M launched by an AI is less effective than an AIM-9M launched by the player. There is no way to code around that change AFAIK, custom weapon pack or not. Might as well be floating powerups that repair damage or shields that stop all damage. SF has always had some balance issues in favor of "fun" such as AI automatically engaging the player when the player is engaging the AI as well as leaving the primary target to the player.

 

There are plenty of fun flight games. I simply have no interest in playing them. I want some minimum level of realism which SF originally maintained (if only barely at times). For me, the last patch crossed the line between "lite sim" and "arcade game". SF2 might as well be Ace Combat or Hawx, which are actually better games from a gameplay perspective with generally better graphics as well. I have no interest in F-4 vs MiG fights where Atolls tend to do only light damage and Sidewinders fired by me tend to be lethal.

 

Is the game still playable? Sure. Will I get the same results? I already get very favorable kill ratios no matter what aircraft I have or what the numerical odds are. I can beat 4:1 odds in a MiG-23 vs F-15s without any player "cheats". So, I don't need any more "play balance" adjustments of this type. Make a default setting to have the gameplay balanced, but make it an option that can be turned off (as it should be when "HARD" is selected).

 

As it stands, I see no point in developing further historical missions for SF2.

[Wrench 9,893]

hmmmmmm........

maybe all the more reasons to develop more WW2 mods for this engine*? Guns only; hard to cheatout that!

 

 

(* I mean, we only need to replace like 200 aircraft....and some dozens of ships/tanks/vheicles, etc)

[+Julhelm 266]

I stopped modding long ago aside from sometimes tweaking MiG-21s and MiG-23s. As I understand it, the patch made "player weapons" more effective: i.e. an AIM-9M launched by an AI is less effective than an AIM-9M launched by the player. There is no way to code around that change AFAIK, custom weapon pack or not. Might as well be floating powerups that repair damage or shields that stop all damage. SF has always had some balance issues in favor of "fun" such as AI automatically engaging the player when the player is engaging the AI as well as leaving the primary target to the player.

You got it wrong though. "Player weapons" = Air to air missiles. The last patch made the campaign easier by nerfing the SAM's, and as a result broke all the missiles. So this latest patch just separates the code so that AAM's are separate.

[Caesar 305]

Honestly, I noticed the opposite - the smaller, less powerful Soviet AA-8 air to air missiles (6.6lb warhead) would bag friendly and player aircraft every time compared to the AIM-9L and M (20lb warhead) which would regularly take 2 or more to down a single MiG-23 (I think I've had them take 3 before, which required closure for guns to finish them off), and were physically incapable of downing bomber and large interceptor aircraft - I've had Tu-128's eat 12 AIM-9's and not drop (my own, -2's and -3's, every one hit).

 

That observation, however, is just that. I agree with StreakEagle 100% - All missiles should work based on how they are defined in their data.ini's, not based on "who" fired it.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Caesar

[+DoctorQuest 125]

The problem is guys......you have forgotten to have fun. We get too focused on making mods or using mods and not flying for fun. I am off to the range because I just realized after 10 years I can not rocket attack for sh!t. Sit back and have fun and quit taking this so seriously.

 

Well said.

[+streakeagle 871]

You got it wrong though. "Player weapons" = Air to air missiles. The last patch made the campaign easier by nerfing the SAM's, and as a result broke all the missiles. So this latest patch just separates the code so that AAM's are separate.

 

From the patch readme:

* Damage from player missiles has been increased.

 

I am going to take TK at his word and assume that non-player missiles follow one set of rules and player missiles follow another set.

This is his solution to the problem of people complaining that they have to fire countless missiles to take down a single aircraft without making missiles fired at the player too lethal to be any fun.

Otherwise, he should have said "Damage from air-to-air missiles has been increased".

Of course, given that you can't fly MiGs in the stock game, Western air-to-air missiles could be called "player missiles", but that would be just as bad if SAMs and Eastern AAMs use a different set of rules.

 

All missiles (or any other weapons for that matter), be they SAMs or AAMs, Western or Eastern, player or AI, should follow the same damage rules based on explosive weight and warhead type. If SAMs are too lethal (and real world Vietnam pilots who played this sim always said that they were in WoV), then make them less reliable and/or less accurate (i.e. more shots gone ballistic or failed fusing or passed by too far to detonate/do damage).

Edited July 6, 2012 by streakeagle

[+malibu43 142]

I'm taking an approach to this whole thing that's more along the lines of what Dave said. As TK has made the changes he has over the last year or two, I've simply spent less and less time modding and more and more time having fun with the game*. And, to be honest, I've found that I like it!

 

TK's doing whatever he needs to do to make sure people want to buy his game and then have fun playing it. The first SF2NA campaign mission I flew, I tried to intercept a flight of 8 unnescorted TU's. I fired every missile I had (most of them hit) and eventually got shot down trying to get a gun kill. I didn't down a single bomber. Was that realistic? I have no freaking clue. It sure as hell wasn't fun, and I didn't walk away from my laptop wanting to fly to fly another mission. I haven't had a chance to fly since the last patch, but it sounds like I'll have more fun next time I fire the game up.

 

* (I'd be lying if I said the fact that my son being born a year ago didn't also have something to do with me wanting to mod less and just have fun shooting at bad guys when I have the time)

[+hgbn 91]

The last couple of weeks I have had a blast playing instead of modding. I fired up the game for the first time in over a half year Made a totally fresh install patched it up to the latest level ( which was May12) added the extra mods and go fly. Like Dave said its all about having fun gaming. And it is.

[+Stary 2,428]

I'm wondering what is the imagined target customer's age TK is aiming at with those "fun" changes? 10 years old? If so, he has no chance of success with such target group given how the titles look OOTB...

[Canadair 16]

Congrats, TK

[+malibu43 142]

I'm wondering what is the imagined target customer's age TK is aiming at with those "fun" changes? 10 years old? If so, he has no chance of success with such target group given how the titles look OOTB...

 

I think we (meaning those that are really into this stuff) think anything "game-like" is for kids, but that isn't necessarily the case. I have friends at my age (29) that would want something simple and fun, and would expect that if they hit a bomber with every missile they had, that bomber should crash.

 

I agree with you on the look of the game, though. Doesn't matter what the target audience is or how old they are; no one will be happy with the games as they look OOTB. Those are the mods I still consider essential. The day I can't add Stary's trees or some better clouds is the day I stop playing Strike Fighters.

[+Stary 2,428]

see I do like the fact that of my whole four precious brand new Sparrows I carried half the map two can explode 200 meters in front of me for no reason other than simulated s**tty technology and programming and two other could do just minor damage to that Badger I'm after. Makes things unpredictable*. I think in 2011 one certain patch gave us the best balance between missiles kill propability and generally in field of damage modelling, which one was it?

 

*unpredictable=fun in my personal flightsims dictionary

[+malibu43 142]

see I do like the fact that of my whole four precious brand new Sparrows I carried half the map two can explode 200 meters in front of me for no reason other than simulated s**tty technology and programming and two other could do just minor damage to that Badger I'm after. Makes things unpredictable*. I think in 2011 one certain patch gave us the best balance between missiles kill propability and generally in field of damage modelling, which one was it?

 

*unpredictable=fun in my personal flightsims dictionary

 

My experience with the May patch was all missiles hitting the target and nothing happening to the target. A little random unpredictability is fun, but invincible bombers was not.

[+Stary 2,428]

agree, but I'm talking about certain 2011 patch which was great as far as bombers damaging goes. Or was it 2012? Can't say exactly

[+hgbn 91]

Probably lost somewhere in patch hell

[bwild 5]

agree, but I'm talking about certain 2011 patch which was great as far as bombers damaging goes. Or was it 2012? Can't say exactly

 

I think it was the last pre NA patch, november IIRC.

[+streakeagle 871]

There was a point where there was a happy balance, and as far as I can recall, it lasted quite a while until SF2NA or a patch or so just before it. I was popping B-52s with AA-2s fired by MiG-21s, so the bombers were not invincible.

 

My question is what did TK change that made bombers invincible? Was it the missiles? The armor on the bombers?

 

Right now I can fire 8 missiles and get 7 hits for 7 kills, which goes back to the pre WoI time frame where I could make ace on every single flight no matter what I or the opponent flew. It also seems like enemy tail guns are less accurate than before. Even in the original SFP1, flying straight and level at tail guns was certain death. I saw my wingman die to tailguns, but I never took a hit while carefully positioning for short-burst (single tap of fire button) kills of Bears. While I believe M61 20mm rounds are very effective against fighters, they shouldn't repeatedly shoot down a large bomber with one short burst... unless my aim is super precise. I haven't been playing enough to have that kind of aim, so I am assuming the hit boxes are fairly large and I am catching a fuel tank nearly every time based on the flames I observe. The only Bear to survive one burst was grazed on a wing, and he was killed after I corrected my aim and hit the lucky "ball of fire" box on the next tap.

 

As far as realism goes: with KILL rates of 8-10% for AIM-7s and 12-15% for AIM-9s in Vietnam, do that math: you could fire all 8 missiles and expect exactly 1 kill, but that is averaging together many times when no kills were scored with some times when multiple kills were scored all against especially small and vulnerable MiG-17s and MiG-21s. Of course later missiles had much better numbers in the range of 35% for AIM-7s and 75% for AIM-9s. Which means the same 8 missiles should typically get 4-5 kills against small single engine fighters (that aren't using ECM or decoys!).

 

Now consider that there have been friendly fire incidents where F-4s, F-15s and A-10s flew home after taking direct hits from AIM-9s that they weren't even trying to evade or decoy. So a larger, twin engined fighter and/or well armored one may be incapcitated but won't necessarily go down with just one AIM-9 hit. Single engine aircraft aren't necessarily automatically dead either. F-105s and MiGs flew home with missiles stuck in their tails.

 

So, what I would like to see are three options:

 

Missile Reliability

EASY: missiles launch and guide correctly, completely disregard ini parameters.

NORMAL: missiles mostly launch and guide correctly, ini parameters spruced up a bit by some formula (maybe take the square root of the failure chance?).

HARD: missiles behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence.

 

Missile Lethality

EASY: missiles kill target with every hit.

NORMAL: missiles probably kill target, ini parameters spruced up a bit (maybe take the square root of the damage effects?).

HARD: missile behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence.

 

Player vulnerability to damage should be a separate function:

EASY: Invincible

NORMAL: Square root of all damage effects?

HARD: Straight damage unmodified.

 

With those three settings, you could get any measure of fun you want out of the game.

NORMAL settings would be what most gamers would like

HARD settings would hold to the original SF2 non-nerfed code and keep long time users happy.

 

But all these settings are too confusing for the target audience and would take too much time and money for a one-man company to develop.

So, would anyone care for another skin pack?

[+Brain32 265]

I would like to point out just one thing here that TK thinks he evades as do some other users especially on TW forums.

 

There is NO such thing as GAME and FLIGHT SIM!!!

 

Flight simulations are a genre of games for God's sake, they are not military grade professional simulators, that and only that can be called a flight simulator that is different to games.

 

LOMAC DCS? - Game!

IL2/Cliffs of Dover - GAME AGAIN!

FSX - One more, GAME!

 

When TK and some others jump on the "more a game than a sim" bandwagon, it's as if management of GM are saying, we will make our cars more elephants than cars...freakin ridiculous and complete and utter BS!

 

If it's a car it can be split into variants, by purpose, by equipment options, but it will never be an elephant right? Atleast in the sane part of the world...

 

Sorry for this rant but I just got fed up with this manure...

[+Dave 2,322]

Missile Reliability

HARD: missiles behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence.

 

Mine already do that. AI uses my modded missiles as well. TK's tweak I suspect affects a straight install with no mods. I have yet to see a change affecting my mods in regards to his new missile code.

 

Missile Lethality

HARD: missile behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence.

 

See above

 

Player vulnerability to damage should be a separate function:

EASY: Invincible

NORMAL: Square root of all damage effects?

HARD: Straight damage unmodified.

 

I see your point here but I like the ability to belly in and not get killed ALL the time.

 

With those three settings, you could get any measure of fun you want out of the game.

NORMAL settings would be what most gamers would like

HARD settings would hold to the original SF2 non-nerfed code and keep long time users happy.

 

Well as a well known F-4 pilot and Mig Killer said (one who you actually argued with about the F-4, SE) if real life was as hard as TK's hard setting then no one would of made it out of Vietnam alive. I use hard fuel, hard ammo, hard radar. The rest is normal.

 

So, would anyone care for another skin pack?

 

Yep, I would, I like them alot.

[+Dave 2,322]

Some of guys have lost your fun of the game. Pure and simple. As I said, other than Avionics60 issue, this patch is stable and working. He might of tweaked the campaign to be easier to win but I havent seen it. My fleet got waxed yesterday on the 4th mission. More cruise missiles than I had missile to counter. You all need to stop your bitchin' and start having fun. Man every patch that comes out all I hear is bitch bitch bitch. Some of you are tired of more patches....Im tired of hearing the whining about the patches and so are others.

 

SE

 

Have you tried RC Bucc's? Have you flown my Viper Team's F-16C's? The F-14 Super pack? Installed some of Stary's effects? Downloaded the butt load of F-4 skins Ant and I made? You're doom and gloom. Its getting old. All of this doom and gloom is getting old. If someone wants to step away from the series then by all means do so. But do we have to dwell on the fact that some people aren't happy with it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again??

[+Stary 2,428]

I would like to point out just one thing here that TK thinks he evades as do some other users especially on TW forums.

 

There is NO such thing as GAME and FLIGHT SIM!!!

 

Flight simulations are a genre of games for God's sake, they are not military grade professional simulators, that and only that can be called a flight simulator that is different to games.

 

LOMAC DCS? - Game!

IL2/Cliffs of Dover - GAME AGAIN!

FSX - One more, GAME!

 

When TK and some others jump on the "more a game than a sim" bandwagon, it's as if management of GM are saying, we will make our cars more elephants than cars...freakin ridiculous and complete and utter BS!

been telling the same for years my friend... try saying it to diehard FSX crowd, not here but on their forums. Oh, remember to wear dragonskin armor, you'll need it...

 

See guys, we're starting to annoy Dave. No good...

[+Brain32 265]

Dave you have a bad case of having a good day

 

But you are largely right...it's mostly other stuff that worries us though but sometimes we went off on this one...

[+Dave 2,322]

I'm not getting annoyed...yet.....just you guys are sounding like the IL-2 Luftwhiners...

 

We still have a very playable sim....and I would rather talk about mods and aircraft than keep beating this dead horse.....its is no more, it cease to be........

[+Stary 2,428]

We still have a very playable sim....

 

we never said that we don't... If it wasn't playable I wouldn't be playing and modding it past 7 years :) only other game with such long life for me is OFP Resistance and Max Payne. Maaaybe Half-Life.

All we want Dave is this playable sim to be still playable -yes, for "us", people who maybe aren't that much into full-blown knob-switching realism but who don't want the sim to turn into another "title with planes and unlimited missiles"

 

See, I'd gladly pay 50$ for revamped ATF or FA with better graphics running on current hardware... SF series gives me that to an extend

 

 

edit2:

What's the reason we discuss this here? Because known respected member of this community is walking away. And I don't want others to follow Jeff

Edited July 6, 2012 by Stary