Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


streakeagle last won the day on October 9 2016

streakeagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

353 Good

About streakeagle

  • Rank
    Premier Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Orlando, FL USA


  • Website

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Yahoo

Recent Profile Visitors

12,930 profile views
  1. You can't really evaluate TrackIR very well from a single test. It takes most people at least a few days to get used to how it works and much longer to tune the profiles to suit your taste. The basic problem Is that it has to amplify your head movement to allow you to look 180 degrees behind you while turning your head no farther than you can comfortably see the whole screen. So, a head movement of about 20-35 degrees has to be scaled to 180 degrees in the game. The same problem occurs with the vertical axis, too. It is like tuning a joystick response curve for a fighter with a sensitive control stick. You may or may not want a deadband around the pitch and yaw centers. You may want a flat response or one that is soft around the center but really aggressive at the endpoints. You can have the software smooth out your head movement by slowing down the response or have aggressive immediate response to even the smallest movement of your head. A well tuned profile makes using the TrackIR a lot easier. While you can download other people's profiles for any given game, I think it is better to understand what can be tuned and end up getting exactly what you want/like. Different games may require different profiles. So if you get a TrackIR, be prepared to spend a little time getting used to how it works and learning what you want out of a profile.
  2. I have flown TrackIR for many years, starting with a TrackIR 3, then adding "vector", then TrackIR 4 Pro, and finally TrackIR 5 Pro. Since I already had committed to a 1080 GTX when I saw it at Newegg for $470, I jumped on the Oculus Rift when it dropped to $400. My PC display is an old 46-inch 1080p LCD TV from 2006. I tend to pick one of the two ways I can play (VR or conventional display/TrackIR) and stay that way for a few days or even a week or two and then alternate. The VR experience is unbelievable, but I absolutely can't stand the low resolution not to mention some fatigue from having the head mounted display pressing on my face for hours (which is made even more uncomfortable because I wear glasses, which get pushed pretty hard into the bridge of my nose). When I switch back to TrackIR and the 1080p TV, the graphics of modern sims like P3d V4 and DCS World 2.5 are unbelievable, but I can't stand the limitations of TrackIR and the field of view of even a large TV after experiencing VR. As a general rule, I use VR primarily for "fun" flights where I am looking to feel like I am inside the cockpit and have time to look around and be immersed by the view and smooth, precise 1:1 head tracking. But with rare exception, I tend to use the display/TrackIR for any situations where I need to be able to read the cockpit instruments and spot/identify targets. If I had to choose only one, it would have to be TrackIR since the only real loss is a feeling of immersion. So, if the low resolution is bothering you in VR and you have the money to waste on TrackIR, I highly recommend it. I love the option of being able to switch between the two as I see fit rather than being stuck in one setup or the other.
  3. But if you like online game play, try Aces High 3. If you can catch a good time when lots of people are online, it is a lot of fun.
  4. The IL-2:Battle Over X series is very good. I don't play it much because I spend most of my time on DCS World. But I like the P-40 in AVG colors and it plays very well in VR on the Oculus Rift. It is slowly becoming a complete replacement for IL-2:1946. I was never a big fan of the original IL-2 for a variety of reasons, but I used to enjoy flying the F4U Corsair from/to carriers from the time Pacific Fighters was released. I am hoping this much better sim continues to expand to reach and even surpass the variety provided by IL-2:1946.
  5. Some sims are starting to need more than 8GB of RAM with higher quality settings (here's looking at you DCS World), but you should be able to run most sims available perhaps with the quality levels turned down a notch or two. Steam shouldn't affect the speed of the game application, but it gets updates of one sort or another very frequently. I like some aspects of steam such as the portability of most games across multiple PCs and some awesome sale prices, but it is better for the game developers if you buy directly from them. So, if you like the devs and want your money to go to them rather than steam, buy direct. I am split about 50/50 between steam and non-steam games. In some cases, steam was the only choice. In other cases, the economics made steam the way to go. But whenever practical, I buy direct.
  6. The Lightning was released with a more difficult/realistic flight model than any other SF aircraft I can recall. I complained to TK, why does the Lightning get a flight model with such wild stability and stalling problems when the core aircraft, the F-4, gets a more dumbed down easy flight model? My desired response would be to see consistency: preferably to have all the aircraft modeled to the same level as the Lightning. TK chose to level the playing field a bit by going the other way, making the Lighting a little easier to fly. Given that his goal was to make the game fun and had made even the most difficult aircraft somewhat safer and easier to fly and that it was easier to fix one aircraft than upgrade all of the other ones, this was the right response. But the Lightning, especially the earliest variants is still one of the wildest rides in SF2. This makes it more fun and a better simulation. But I still feel cheated that the Century fighters and F-4 don't have nearly as much realism/difficulty baked into their flight models. I don't know if he intentionally made the Lighting this way or just didn't have the time to polish the flight model as much as he did on earlier planes. When you fly AI planes like the MiG-21, their primitive flight models are somewhat comparable to the Lightning. The AI flight models were roughed in to be just good enough for AI to operate rather than be polished for player "feel".
  7. Razbam and SF2 series

    At one point, RAZBAM was going to release models updated to be fully compatible with SF2 (i.e. fixing the shadow issues). But years later, nothing was ever released. RAZBAM has committed to DCS World. This had turned out to be a good thing with their Mirage 2000 and AV-8B+ being among the best aircraft available for DCS World. I really wish RAZBAM would bring the F2H-2 to DCS World. Their SFP1/WoX F2H-2 is fantastic. I still fly it. But I would love to see it modeled at the DCS World level of detail/accuracy and RAZBAM is in the best position to make that happen.
  8. The only hope for multiplayer is SFP1/WoX. WoI with the expansion pack and final patch provides a platform just short of SF2's original release quality. The problem is getting SFP1/WoX to run stable on Windows 10 at normal frame rates. At this point, I believe there is a DirectX dll drop in package that solves the problem. It is extremely unlikely SF2 will ever have multiplayer or have any more patches or expansions. TK is done with "PC flight sims".
  9. The Drop Tank Dilemma

    It never almost never hurts to have the option to use drop tanks. It very much hurts if you need them but can't have them.
  10. Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement

    I hope the Hawk and P-40F are delivered in a decent condition very soon given the long wait. But they aren't full time developers and they have demonstrated DCS World level work is beyond their ability in any reasonable amount of time. The Hawk represented the easiest possible release: a subsonic trainer with no radar and relatively simple systems. RAZBAM started down the same path of developing a trainer... but then they must have realized the real workload is in the flight modeling and decided to start with a Mach 2 fighter with a decent radar and associated missiles. The MiG-21bis is another example of a Mach 2 radar equipped fighter being the first release. Both the Mirage and the MiG are far from perfect, but despite their supersonic capability and much more complex systems, they are still the best simulations of those aircraft available to the public. Whereas the Hawk has been and remains so buggy/low quality that people would probably be better off with an FSX or SF2 version than VEAO's Hawk. In the time that VEAO released the Hawk and still hasn't released the P-40F, Razbam released the Mirage 2000 and AV-8B and is nearing the release of the MiG-19. If ED's F/A-18C is completed in the near future and provides a radar function library that can be shared with the F-15E, you can bet Razbam will be heading down that road as fast as they can. Supposedly, Heatblur is going to follow up their excellent Viggen (my biggest complaint is that its mirrors don't work) with the F-14A/B sometime this year. In the meantime, the best VEAO can hope to do is deliver the completely redone Hawk 2.0 and finally release the P-40F that was "two weeks" from release when I pre-ordered it. Will VEAO even attempt to go any further with the Spitfire MkXIV or Eurofighter Typhoon? If they do, how many years before one or the other can be purchased/downloaded? I wish them the best of luck. I would love to see them complete their original planned series of releases. But past performance indicates we will be lucky if the Hawk 2.0 finally provides the product customers were expecting and even luckier if the P-40F is ever delivered at all no matter how many bugs it has.
  11. Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement

    There is one aspect of this that makes me chuckle a bit... VEAO didn't do so well with DCS World, still struggling with the Hawk, yet to release the P-40F, and with an unfinished projects list that rivals the number of flyable aircraft in the entire SF series. So a "new" company appeared, "Blue Sky FS", that delivered a P-40F to Flight Sim World and was nearing delivery of the Spitfire MkXIV. The spokesperson for Blue Sky FS, also the spokesperson for VEAO, made sure to proclaim that these were two entirely different companies... it was just the 3d models developed for VEAO were now being ported to FSW by Blue Sky FS. VEAO had already announced that they were slowing to a crawl if not outright abandoning DCS World as a platform for their products and seeking other avenues, so why hide the fact that they created a new company to limit liability. But in a market dominated by FSX with the rise of P3D as the 64-bit update to FSX and the ever present and improving X-Plane, VEAO/Blue Sky chose Flight Sim World. It looked like a good choice. Unlike FSX (and to a lesser extent X-Plane) there was literally no competition in FSW for warbirds. But what they failed to realize is that there was a reason most of the major third party FSX companies chose to ignore FSW: they were trying to grab to big a slice of the FSX addon pie and give a piece to Steam, too... the same way they have done with their Train Simulator series for years. If FSW had been the only game in town, this strategy might have worked, but quite a big slice of the market is still flying FSX and/or Dovetail Games' FSX:Steam Edition. The rest either migrated to Prepar3d or X-Plane. Most of those potential customers weren't interested in a new sim with less features, limited addon support, and little or no backwards compatibility with old FSX addons. VEAO/Blue Sky bet on the wrong horse... again. Which flight sim will the VEAO/Blue Sky roulette wheel land on next? Have they thought about SF2? It is a stable code base with all the features and bugs being fairly well documented. If you don't count the literally thousands of free addons already available or YAP payware, there is virtually no competition. Unlike FSW, SF2 and even SFP1 is still for sale.
  12. Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement

    I didn't really see that coming. They have been cruising along like everything was going great. But they were far from feature complete and had no plans to support VR. The battle right now is between P3DV4 and XP11. Flight Sim World was too far from matching either one in features. I have them all and P3DV4 with TacPack is the only one I like at all, and I still fly it rarely compared to DCS World. Sad to see another option go out of business, but how many versions of FSX can make it in what already is known to be a niche market?
  13. As for having ineffective countermeasures due to designing them to decoy your own guidance systems, this has been a problem for a long time. From the loss of Gary Power's U-2 to the SA-2 to the present, countermeasures have sometimes not only been ineffective, but acted like beacons. I can say from personal experience that this extends down to submarines, sonar, and torpedoes. The cure to the problem is to acquire functional examples of the enemies weapons complete with manuals. Thanks to India natively speaking English, we have some great manuals on Soviet hardware properly translated to English.
  14. His manner of speaking is very pleasant. His accent is very mild and his vocabulary and grammar are beyond typical native English speakers. He clearly enjoyed the F-4 despite its age and inferiority.
  15. A brief look at DCS World v2.5

    All I can do is wait, see, and hope for the best. But I have been doing that for quite a few years now.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..