streakeagle

This link is from an ad on CombatAce.com: http://lp.vertitechnologygroup.com/flightSim/?o=33&campid=352&creaid=33&cm=D67C5214-D9DD-4F58-8475-1FA942100125 "FreeFlightSimulator" Purports to be an upgrade of Flight Gear with combat. This looks all too familiar. Not even going to bother investigating any further, just asking the question: is this legit? Or does CA need to get rid of it.

Not every body has heard of Flight Gear, and the clones trying to rip you off by selling you free software are all too common. The "honey" for this one is the idea that it fully supports combat. I doubt it contains any more support for combat than can be obtained via the Flight Gear website. There are plenty of people who are not in the online flight sim community and wander to what ever website their browser take them to. The presentations on these ripoff sites look very convincing and only someone already in the know can readily distinguish their tricks. If this one isn't asking for any money, it's not too bad. Plenty of legit software installers try to trick users into installing Google toolbar, Bing toolbar, etc. As long as it is as "harmless" as all the other bloatware (i.e. little performance penalty and easily uninstalled), it isn't as bad as it could be. Arguably, Facebook is as bad as any of them even though quite a few people, including myself, are willing to tolerate the invasion of privacy for the free services it provides.

In TK's defense, he was even accused of stealing a third party shader effect for the improved afterburner effects of SF2. Locking down the text files eliminates those kind of liabilities which could cost a lot of time and money in court even if you are innocent. If you can't read his files, you can't make mods based on them, then turn around and claim those mods as your own IP and sue Third Wire. The reason most games are locked down is to make sure the ones selling the games secure all profits possible from the game. If end users are able to compete with and even surpass the source files, why would people buy the various expansions/DLC? There were quite a few posts by people explaining that they only bought SFP1 and never any subsequent games because they were able to get any aircraft or map they wanted for free and if they ever upgraded to the SF2 series, they only bought one sim again for the same reasons. From the very beginning, TK should have made SFP1 the "core" game and each release after that a module that added features unique to that module. WoV: carrier operations. WoE: clouds, 70s avionics. etc. As Jessie Jackson once said repeatedly in an SNL gameshow skit, "The question is moot!" Nothing has really changed since I bought my first PC and flew the F-4E in Jane's USAF. All I can do is settle for what's available and wait to see if things will improve. On the bright side, both SF2 and DCS are still being actively developed, which means one or both have the potential to improve significantly over time. Whereas, imagine if SFP1 had stopped without WoV and/or WoE ever being released? I am sure there would have been fans similar to EAW still trying to wring every bit of potential out of the unchanging core code, but the majority would have moved on. Sadly, given the lack of support for F-4 Phantoms, I probably would have been one of the ones still playing SFP1. My F-4B flight model worked really well in SP2a... damn near text book performance right down to the instability at high AoA. Instead, TK brought us a lot of improvements that were exciting to experience (and frustrating to debug!).

The trap I am in is that I have to stay with the latest patches to use the latest DLC. If I go back to the revision of the game that has several key features I am currently missing... I lose so much content (and features) that came with later patches. Way back when the unified SFP1/WoV/WoE 083006 was the standard, Korea played much better with SFP1 SP2a. The AI was clearly far superior in the older revision. But so many things had been added between WoV and WoE, both in terms of graphics and game play, that it was too painful to go back to SP2a. So, for a mod to be useful to me, it has to stay current. The fact that most user mods do not maintain currency due to the rapid development of SF2 versus the number of mods available is why I almost wholly run stock installs. Didn't really expect a problem with this one. Oh well.

Why can't TK make this more accessible as an easily edited ini setting or even a graphics option drop down or slider? It was really sad when people couldn't even see runways as they were coming in for a landing. Is there a similar shader file for extending the range to view aircraft? Aircraft used to "pop-up" at the range specified by their data ini file, which was typically at or further than the range they would show up as one pixel when zoomed all the way in... the way I preferred it. It is extremely frustrating from a game play perspective to deal with all the limits currently imposed in SF2 that were not there before.

File mistakes aside, Starry is a "funny" guy in a good way. Enjoy his photos and comments on Facebook

But is it really upgraded and are they charging for it? There are several guys out there reselling FlightGear. These guys are at least admitting it is flight gear, but is this a legit payware project or just the same scam (maybe even by the same people?) misrepresenting their "product" to get people to buy software that is publicly available for free? It seems like they are using this as bait to get you to install their "Rocketfuel Toolbar".

Two problems: 1) I get double range scales on the right hand side of the HUD when in STT (whether I use search or air combat mode to go into STT). 2) Maybe provide a USAF stars-n-bars without the blue edge on the bars per early Eagles. Otherwise, looks good and flies well :)

I would be one of the ones whining about the setting of ArmA3. I have no interest in playing Zombie games either. I want to simulate specific equipment in specific circumstances... usally historically accurate or hypothetically probable with existing equipment/orders of battle. You can like whatever you like... but that's what I like and why games like OFP and SFP1 were appealing to me as opposed to fanciful console games.

Oh, I forgot to mention another feature of DCS long sought after in the SF world: air-to-air refueling :)

A-10C is absolutely a blast just to take off, fly, and land. Instant action Su-25T dogfight with A-10C gave me a quick taste of air combat... again well done. P-51D is challenging to fly on the edge and fun to fight another P-51D. I don't have time to map the controls and figure out how to fly and fight the Black Shark yet, but the feel of the flight models is very interesting. Oh, and the graphics aren't too shabby either!

You may not see it -- but by your own admission FSX sales of your model surely reflected it. No amount of research can produce truly accurate flight modeling for something that never flew. Most planes that sell well are historically significant in some way. They are also normally one of the most capable of their generation. There are some "what-if" planes that tend to get demanded, but even most of those actually had flying prototypes like the XB-70. But an obscure aircraft that nobody has ever heard of that never even reached the flying prototype stage isn't going to draw the sales that a far more famous aircraft like an F-20 Tigershark might get. Personally, I love the SF2 version of the Convair. It is different and fun yet clearly a believable aircraft. However, like most other addon aircraft, it doesn't survive the next patch/game release and I primarily prefer to fly historical matchups using random single missions -- having the Convair pop up was an undesired effect.

Jug, it is simply a matter of reorganizing the WoV/YAP2 files into the SF2 format. The carrier deck mesh is flawed, so you can fall off the port edge trying to use the waist catapults. But someone said that can be fixed by borrowing the stock (or mod?) deck mesh or something like that. Call me stupid! I essentially paid $100 for CVAN-65 (actually $200 since I originally bought YAP1 expecting to get the Enterprise). The model and textures are awesome. I guess it really wasn't worth the money, but the only other version available wasn't even up to SFP1 standards much less SF2. Another problem is the YAP approach of making 2 or 3 different models of the carriers to arrange the deck for launching and landing. I would rather have a single model set up to support both. It would be great if the carrier was re-released in a format fully compatible with the new SF2NA setup. At one point, I had reworked several F-4 skins that were available into a single very accurate one to match photos I had of Enterprise operations in Vietnam. I lost them in a uninstall/reinstall for an expansion pack or something like that. I love the Enterprise. I also got the America before I pissed of 05 and stopped getting notices of new files from him. Funny, I paid in full but didn't get the updates other customers eventually got. He claimed he didn't want my money but certainly didn't give me a refund either. If SF2 had DLC or expansion packs with all the super carriers from the game's time frame, I would have no further need of any YAP files.

As long as the DCS majority is made up of people wanting A-10C level of realism, it doesn't make sense to release a "what-if" aircraft. These guys are already upset that an F-22 is planned when the performance and operation of that aircraft remain classified, so providing and aircraft that never flew is not likely to draw a crowd. On the other hand, if the SF type customers start showing up in numbers who are looking for variety, you might score well and it is a decent opponent for the MiG-21bis given that the imminent 3rd party and FC3 releases and current flyables are not exactly the best match-ups.

SF2 gave the game a facelift in looks, functions, and frame rates. Stepping back to WoV (even with 3rd party models and textures) is not nearly as good as the current revision of SF2. If you can accept that, the YAP stuff looks good and mostly works well... at least well enough to "tell stories". The focus in YAP 2 is reliving specific historical missions as best as possible within game engine limitations. While the missions are exactly as promised, to me the value is in getting nice carriers like an excellent CVAN-65 Enterprise. Aside from the carriers, I much prefer SF2 and the free mods that are available for it. If you have money to burn, give it a try, otherwise, SF2 up to the SF2NA standard for carriers is more than adequate, perhaps even preferable. The YAP models can be transferred into SF2 in case you are wondering ;) One big factor is that WoV in the 083006 format has relatively dumb AI. The AI came a long way since then.

FC2 AMD settings for anti-aliasing: Anti-Aliasing Mode (drop down): Override Application Settings Level (slider): desired level (8xEQ gives me 40-60 fps, 4x gives me 60+ fps) Anti-Aliasing Mode (slider): Super Sample AA awesome AA quality!

If you like creative missions exploiting existing game mechanics to create new ones... YAP is the addon for you. Unusual cargo type missions. Rescue missions. Even a way to simulate in-air refueling. But you have to go back to WoV as TK took away many of the bugs/features the YAP crew was exploiting. Beware of pissing off 05 though. He only wants you using his product if you play his way and kiss up to his point of view.

I don't know what TK is doing, but he has and is certainly progressively changing his business model. It is somewhat obvious that the game is heading more in the direction of MS Flight where you get all the mods you want via DLC. So it is no surprise to me that templates are no longer provided and more and more files are being locked down. This could also be a sign that multiplayer is somewhere around the corner since TK thinks you can't have multiplayer without having everything locked down. Of course Bohemia has proven with the OFP/ArmA series that you can have one of the most moddable games ever made AND one of the best multiplayer games ever made. So, I have never bought that argument. I really don't mind files being locked. The changes to the game are so frequent that I can barely keep up with making sure my takes on the MiG-21 and MiG-23 work after every overwrite. But if I don't like where the game is going and I can't easily mod it back to what I liked... then it becomes totally irrelevant. Which is where I am at. I might buy the Mirage from Oz (though I really want the F-1C!) and the F-4 skins DLC or maybe not. All my money has gone into DCS. I just put $50 into a MiG-21 that isn't even available as a beta yet. TK wouldn't give me a stock MiG-21 at any price and no user mod has fully matched the quality that could be achieved if TK created a stock one (i.e. a radar for the MiG-21 that is as accurate in display and functions as the F-4, F-14, F-15, and F-16). Heck, TK hasn't even brought the stock F-104G into SF2 as a flyable and that is one of the planes that really made SFP1 special. DCS may have one or more F-104 variants sooner than TK ever gets around to bringing the F-104 back into SF2 (and that may be awhile!). It is hard to believe after all the years that I spent on the SF series that I have outgrown it or a competitor has passed it by or TK is heading down a different path or a combination of all three. Countless memories playing this game, though some of my best memories are from playing online. I just flew a fighter sweep in the F-4D over Vietnam in 1972 last night. After flying DCS A-10C all week, it hurt my eyes as much as going back to Jane's USAF after playing SFP1 or going back to Fighters Anthology after playing Jane's USAF. Eye candy isn't everything, but SF terrains looked dated in 2002 and its 10 years later. Technically, LOMAC/DCS terrain is somewhat dated, but was state of the art when it was originally released and runs fairly smooth now... making it look much better than SFP1. I am waiting to see what TK does with the new terrain engine. The resolution is there but if he can only make small islands surrounded by water without bringing a PC to its knees and can't even populate that island any better than SFP1, what is point? TK might surprise me and grab me back. Over the short term, SF2 is still the only sim to use with my real F-4 stick (besides the A-10A in LOMAC/FC2). When A2A releases their F-4 for FSX, I might actually buy an FSX addon and try my stick out with that... but without combat capability what is the point? I am really hoping for a DCS F-4 within the next year or two. I guess I will live with the MiG-21bis and FC3 planeset until a decent DCS F-4 addon appears. While I wait for DCS and SF to progress, I am going to stay away from Third Wire's site. I have nothing good to say and have already spoke my mind there, so nothing more to say. Kind of frustrating after waiting for SF2NA so long. I was pretty happy with the state of the sim a patch or two before SF2NA, but had to stay with the later patches to support the later DLC. I love some of the features of SF2NA: decent F-14A, decent naval combat, and populated carrier decks. But why did anything else have to be broken/changed to add these things?

I got FSAA of some sort to work in FC2. I can't remember what I did, but I have a 7870 and I am using the application profiles provided by AMD with the Catalyst driver. I went to create my own application profile like I use for SF2 and Aces High, but I was warned that I would be overwriting AMD's profile if I did so. So I trusted warning and left everything at Application Settings and upped the AA quality to Super Sample. Not sure because I didn't save the settings and have tweaked them all over the place due to playing/experimenting with other games. FC2 at high frame rates is very entertaining. It is like SF2 on steroids. However, I always get bored of flying modern types and being limited to only a few aircraft. If the SF2 planeset and historical terrains were in the FC2 game, I would be pretty darn happy. But DCS doesn't have to be that much harder and may end up having an excellent plane set and similar terrain locations. Keeping my fingers crossed :)

You can be sure TK will draw the line at the early 80s (maybe as late as 85 or 86?). You can also be sure that the variant you want or expect of the cockpit won't match the documentation TK used. The RN/RAF F-4s have some cockpit issues because the documentation TK used didn't show what was commonly used. So some critical indications for F-4 operation were missing such as AoA indicator and AoA indexers needed for flying safely/landing correctly. But, as long as it is as well done as all the other DLC aircraft, I wouldn't worry too much. TK will certainly fix any major issues and most minor ones.

The problem with coming to the SF2 party late is that you have to start at the current patch level. If you had bought the original version and saved it, you could patch it up to whatever level torqued your twinkie. I can't remember all the dates, but there were several key turning points in the patches such as: Lods no longer compatible with SFP1/WoX series (with WoI Expansion pack you can put a lot of SF2 stuff back into WoI, useful for SF2 eyecandy while retaining SF1 features such as multiplayer). Lock down on lod data (lods could read in a hex editor to find node names). Lock down on clouds/environment. Lock down on view distance addition of new fading system. Compatibility with certain mods varies throughout the patch run. AI, campaign, and other bugs come and go with various patch levels. Unless you have some need for one of the lost features or you are dead set against the latest bugs/features, none of this really presents a problem. You didn't experience all the ups and downs, so you won't know what you missed. In going from SFP1/WoX to current revision of SF2, you will mainly see tremendous upgrades to nearly every aspect of the sim except for the terrain, and arguably, SF2NA has set the ball in motion to fix that issue. The only reasons to stay with SFP1/WoX would be older hardware/operating system unable to handle DX10 and the load SF2 puts on a single core PC. I found upgrading to Win 7 and having a good DX10 card left my cpu as the only bottleneck and could still play SF2NA, though a bit choppy even with some settings dialed back more than I would like (mirrors, horizon distance, and shadows). Get one SF2 sim (either your favorite environment or the cheapest one) and see how it runs on your PC. It doesn't cost much to try one of them. If it runs okay on your pc, I doubt you will ever go back to SFP1/WoX.

For a lot of supersonic jet aircraft, the optimum altitude is 11 km or 36,000 feet... which is where the atmosphere temperature stabilizes until you go insanely higher. However, aircraft performance may also be limited by heating effects that are reduced by going higher to reduce air density. The F-15 is an aircraft whose performance increases up to about 45,000 feet. Because the game flight model may not reflect reality, and in fact has some artificial limits to keep players from exceeding published performance due to limits not modeled in the game, the only way to be sure is to perform flight testing. To save time, you can save a mission that starts in the air and edit the start altitude, speed, and fuel weight (i.e. full or 1/2 are the standards) to find the limits more quickly. I would start with 5,000 foot samples (i.e. sea level, 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, etc.) Ideally, performance will fall off as you exceed 36,000 feet (or approach the aircraft's ceiling). But due to the design of the stock flight models and/or flight engine limitations, you may find some aircraft achieve max speed at their ceiling. Once you see the speed drop off, you can 1/2 your way in between sample points, until you get an answer to the level of precision you want. A long time ago, I had released a tool that could plot the 1g flight performance for the aircraft based on reading the flight model data from the aircraft's data ini file. But a major bug had cropped up in the final release that I never tracked down and the game has changed quite a bit since then, so it wouldn't necessarily interpret the current data ini files correctly (not to mention the fact that it can't read unicode, the encoding format of SF2 text files). I did develop a program capable of reading the unicode files, but lack the time and motivation to make an updated version of AIDE.

Was the Jane's F-15E or F/A-18E any less well modeled than the DCS A-10C in terms of avionics? SF2's simplicity means under the skin is it little different than Jane's Fighters Anthology or Jane's USAF, just better modeled 3d cockpits. An updated Jane's Fighters Anthology is exactly the market SFP1 appeared to be targeting... but without the mission editor, crippled multiplayer, and as of SF2 no multiplayer. Jane's FA had some whacked stock flight models (UFO F-16). The 714th libs and other free downloads damn near made it a decent sim. Primarily the dated repulsive graphics are what makes it inferior to Jane's USAF and the SF series. The simpler flight modeling was actually easier to tune to match real world performance charts because it was based on performance charts rather than NASA quality aerodynamic equations. The framework for SF2 favors a LOMAC/FC level game with good cockpits, moderately detailed avionics, and even better physics. But that simply is not the niche TK wants to target even though the pendulum has been swinging that way for much of SFP1's development. I have the flight manuals for most major US aircraft and some for USSR (including the MiG-21bis in both English and Russian language). I look forward to becoming proficient in all of them. I was never the market TK was aiming for. SFP1 was the only game in town beyond the abandoned Jane's games. DCS is almost dead on what I want and hopefully will be exactly what I want within a few years of expansion. People said it couldn't be done, but DCS is both a study sim and a survey sim. The total cost is high, but that is the price you pay to have it all. Will the market bear the price? I think FSX answers that question.

TK's projects are his sole means of support. $13,000 sounds like a lot for a two or 3 week campaign, but if you subtract out the costs it is going to cover, what does he have left to buy food, pay utilities and rent? So, I am assuming that he has a full time job and does this in his spare time. $13,000 is a fraction of what a skilled programmer/artist makes in the US in a year... and that was from only 300 contributors with one person donating $1,000. He has yet to deliver a finished project, and how many more are going to buy it after it is released? Multiplayer in the big leagues often gets deleted (B-17) or dumbed down (Halo) to keep costs in check (and Halo was a blockbuster title). So TK isn't understating the costs of multiplayer when using Western labor. It would cost TK a lot of time to learn to net code correctly. However, both Aces High (a very small programming team not much larger than Third Wire) and Bohemia developed their own networking code. But their products focus on multiplayer gameplay and would fail without it. To be fair, Bohemia started out using DirectPlay, but was forced to create their own code due to the poor performance of DirectPlay. I bet $50 that this guy is going to give me the MiG-21bis I want. Based on the fact that he already had a decent mod for FC2, I think it is a very safe bet.

As I have the Warthog stick... my stick mapping is exactly as it should be. It is quite a load to remember all of the combinations possible with SOI/short/long modifiers to button functions. I printed out the manual pages 86-93 to help out. But there are key functions I use all the time that are nearly 100% instinctive. However, I still end up pushing a button wanting the function of another SOI and screw things up. In the instant action missions, the steerpoint automatically advances to the next waypoint as I am passing over the current one. This breaks my laser designation, too. I am having trouble figuring out how to disable the auto next waypoint and/or preventing the TGP from following the shift in waypoint. I personally prefer cycling the waypoint manually when I am using waypoints for the SPI.