SF .1 compared to SF .2

[RUSTYMORLEY]

I am currently running Strike Fighters Gold, Wings over Vietnam and Wings over Europe. However like most members I am keen to improve on what I have. Can some one tell me what is the major difference between the SF.1 series and SF.2 series is, and is it worthwhile leap.

[future_tuskegee_airman]

Graphics and capabilities, I would say...DX10 engine definitely improves the lines and curves of the aircraft and allows for more detailed scenery. I have SF2 Vietnam and I went from SF1 and I have never looked back at all! 

[+JonathanRL]

Also you have access to a lot of great mods that are SF2 only. I can name a few recommended ones should you desire it.

[MigBuster]

A lot of changes were under the hood so to speak

 

http://combatace.com/topic/56091-whats-new-in-the-sf2-series/

[RUSTYMORLEY]

Future_tuskegee_airman, JohnathanRL and MigBuster, thanks to all you guys for the replies. I would seem a logical step to progress onto SF.2. Thanks again for your info.

 

RUSTYMORLEY

[+Gepard]

Depends on your computer. WoX or SF1 is much faster on older an weaker systems. SF2 is better on  newer computers with dual and quad core.

[Spinners]

Actually I found SF2 ran smoother than SF1 on the same computer (the one before my existing rig).

[+Gepard]

At my system the loading of a mission in SF1 is below 15 seconds, while on SF2 i have loadtimes between 2 and 3 minutes. In this time i can go away and make a coffee.

[+streakeagle]

SFP1 ran great on Win98SE machines... but later WoX releases and patches kept slowing it down.

When I built my Athlon 64 PC with a Radeon x800XL gpu, it was smoking fast running WoV even with mirrors enabled and maxed out graphics settings.

WoE slowed it a bit more and WoI brought it to the limits of playable frame rates for me (as if I was back to Win98SE and a Radeon 9800 Pro even though I was using an x1800XT and WinXP by this point).

The shift from WinXP to Win7 (64 bit), a newer video card that supported DX10, and SF2 restored my frame rate and improved visual quality as well (higher resolution stock textures).

SFP1 patched up to final level still runs quite a bit slower on this same setup, presumably due to DX9 and other things that were never designed for multicore CPUs and 64-bit OS.

If you don't mind giving up a ton of advancements in the game code and available addons, SFP1 patched to SP2a was pretty darn good and was the patch level of the original Korea mods.

It also had the best dogfight AI until WoI came out.

WoV and WoE all the way up to the classic 083006 patch level had incompetent AI that was not very effective had engaging in air to air combat.

 

But once you have had a taste of the SF2 level of gameplay, especially up to the SF2NA level when considering naval operations, it is hard on me to go back to any version of SFP1/WoX.

The only reasons to do so would be for compatibility with Win98SE or multiplayer... though if your hardware can't run SF2 fast enough but could run SFP1 SP2a, that might be another reason to go back.

[FA515]

Just because you have dx10 installed on your rig and a game is created with dx10, unless your gpu is dx10 capable(i.e.late model cards) you will render less than desirable graphics and playability.That being said, in order for spf2 series to be "better" than spf1 you must have the hardware (gpu and cpu) to exploit spf2's full potential. Very few, if any games are written these days that require quad-core capability.When it comes to gaming processor speed is more important than multible cores(more than4) which can actually slow fps performance.Unless you muti-task while you game look for speed over number of  cores. P.S. remember to install all games and patches on win7 and up OS's in < run as administrator > mode.

 

                                                                                         God bless all.