streakeagle

I don't have time for study sims either. I play these games with full difficulty/realism aside from permitting external views, but I don't have to use all the buttons if I don't want to: Just like SF2, I can start in the air, ready to fight and essentially use the same buttons/controls I use when playing SF2: Roll, pitch, yaw, throttle, weapons selection and trigger. FC2 will soon be FC3, so you add the complexity of learning the controls of the F-15. Having played all the DACT missions in the FC2 F-15, again not much more complex than SF2 other than a few more radar modes, most of which I don't need/use in the DACT missions. Of course, since I have a Warthog HOTAS, it makes it easier for me to enjoy the A-10C study sim side. I just tried free flight with the Ka-50 the other night. No trouble flying it... not too much different than the ArmA helo flight models. The complex part is learning all of the options hidden in the MFD menus, but since the A-10C cockpit is clickable and I can read, I have already learned quite a bit just poking around. The rest of the cockpit knobs are well labeled, too. So I haven't had to read the manual to do basic tasks, just looked around until I found the switch I already knew would exist. I almost never play dynamic or static campaigns in any sim. I like to spend my free time flying missions I like, not whatever some campaign decides. Ultimately, multiplayer with no AI is where the real challenge/fun will be, but I don't really have the time to get proficient enough to compete against more dedicated online types. So far, I have rotated quite a bit, flying the Su-25T and P-51D the most since they have instant action dogfight missions and I am primarily an air-to-air fanatic. But I have spent almost as much time flying the A-10C and the FC2 F-15C in anticipation of FC3. The Ka-50 is the low hours machine of the bunch. I don't know nearly as much about flying helos as I do flying jets, so it will take me a lot longer to get proficient enough to function in combat, especially with a foreign aircraft with weapons and systems I know next to nothing about. The map looks good enough that I don't really care where it is at, though I would prefer Vietnam and Israel/Middle East terrains for historical accuracy. In many ways, I feel like I did when SFP1 was first released: amazed and excited about what might be in store for the future. Except that nearly everything I would want is already included and functional minus a flyable F-4, MiG-21, Vietnam, and US Navy carrier ops, preferably CVAN-65 :) SF2 can only be varied from arcade to sim lite. DCS can almost be dialed down to an arcade level or dialed up into a full bore study sim if you can get through the all the setup menus. Despite using full difficulty settings, I am dogfighting in the P-51D and having no trouble with engine management. All I am doing is moving throttle and rpm levers as I have done for years in Aces High. I have yet to burn up the engine while fighting, though I nosed over and bent my prop while landing. All those little details that were missing from SF (or removed in later patches) are there, such as the option to do a ramp start (originally possible in SF via player edited missions and later disabled) and drag chutes (SFP1 originally had a key mapped for this function, but budget limitations made sure it was never implemented). Landings are much better in DCS. You can actually damage your aircraft and/or die, whereas SF2 will let you land at very steep angles and high speeds with little or no consequences. If a decently modeled F-4 ever becomes available, I will have little reason to ever play SF2 again despite having enjoyed it from the Wally World release until the latest patch. To be fair, I played Jane's USAF almost exclusively and Jane's Fighters Anthology before that purely for the ability to fly and fight in the F-4 Phantom. My sim loyalty has generally always been to the ones that best modeled the F-4 and P-51. SF has had an unusually long run as my primary F-4 simulator and Aces High gave me my P-51 (and F4U Corsair) fun. Now, DCS is poised to replace both of them as my all-time favorite jet and prop flight sims.

For me, FSAA is a must. And if FSAA is supported in the title, I can enable Adaptive AA as well, which smoothes out tgas like decals and wire fences. I found the setting in the Catalyst driver that caused the dropouts in DCS World, went back the original setting and have my fps bounce between 45 and 60 fps. I have also discovered that my motherboard supports an unusual feature: it comes with Lucid Logix Virtu MVP software which uses the built in Intel 4000 GPU to boost my video card's performance. DCS World didn't show any useful improvment and may have actually averaged a few FPS slower. However, SF2 ran much better. The 30 fps I had been seeing over Iceland jumped up to 40-50 fps, which looked and played much better.

I take my son to this museum about once every 2 or 3 months. I was hoping I would get to see the Albatros fly. I am sure he won't be flying that one very frequently, sorry I missed it.

Finally got a new PC, and just in time: Got DCS World A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, and Combined Arms. Looking forward to the MiG-21 and there is even a 3rd party F-104 in the works. I have a Thrustmaster Warthog stick and it is a blast using it for DCS. I can't wait for the FC3 module to integrate some air-to-air jets into the "World". But it is the MiG-21bis I am really pining for!

Got a chance to play and do more testing/evaluation. I am used to DX10/11 titles not permitting forcing of FSAA, so I didn't have DCS tweaked up as well as I could have. Now, I get about 55-60 fps with drops to about 25 fps while dogfighting an A-10. I can imagine the drops will be worse in a full-blown combat environment, so I may have to back off the card settings a bit or the game settings.

DCS World and/or A-10C: Everything maxed out in the game settings and on the graphics card: locked at vsync 60 fps. SF2NA everything maxed out: locked at vsync until iceland comes into view, then locked at 30 fps. Haven't experimented to see what I could do to get it up to 60 fps over Iceland. LOMAC FC2 maxed out (can't force FSAA) vsync + (in game frame rates indicate 70-120 fps) ARMA 2 Combined Arms: don't know frame rates, but running smooth with High settings. Aces High 2: pegged at vsync 60 fps. DCS A-10C is absolutely awesome. Whether rolling on the ground or flying in the air, looks and feels great. Now, can I use the same FSX license on the new PC (i.e. no re-activation issues)? I would hate to think I have to buy another copy because I got a new PC. Will try it right now.

Assembled PC yesterday, got all my game hardware/software installed last night. Runs like a dream. More details later.

SF2NA is exactly the example of why someone might want a dedicated Japan map. Higher resolution of Japan for fighting on Japan. Can't fault someone for asking even if you don't want or need it yourself?

You are saying stop modding and have fun but then asking me if I have tried all the new mods? Which is it Dave? Have fun playing the game or have fun modding it? I have been playing it for years. In fact, because I have played certain situations so frequently, I can detect changes in FMs, AI, and weapons performance fairly easily. 1966 or 1972, F-4B/C/D/E or J, Fighter Sweep or Escort, Vietnam, Afternoon, Scattered Clouds, Light Air, Light AA, and edit loadouts to replace gun pods with centerline tanks. Of course thanks to the relatively new "Save" button, if a particular mission plays well, I can play the same mission in the future (when a release/patch hasn't broken the mission save function!) Typically I fly an F-4B in 1966 or an F-4D in 1972. I have played that same setup since WoV was released (minus the clouds), and technically played some form of it since the SFP1 Walmart release. When that exact mission plays well (i.e. somewhat matches historical results), I am having fun. When I can slaughter the AI without even a chance of being killed, I am not having fun. SFP1 SP2a was fun (using the free DRV terrain). WoV was somewhat fun, but the FMs were broken and the enemy AI was strongly degraded. WoE added clouds and fixed the FM issues, but left the AI as being gutless. WoI initially broke a bunch of stuff, but provide the best dogfigting/gunning AI SF has ever had. SF2 improved upon WoI. From that description, you would surmise I had a long time where the AI sucked for dogfighting from WoV to WoI... but I overcame that problem by almost exclusively playing online against real people. But it was real important for the AI to be working right by the release of SF2 since multiplayer was removed. While there were some bugs along the SF2 road, usually TK released fixes fairly quickly. I had a good run with little or no problems with my favorite mission. Then TK started messing with core code in the Expansion Packs and patches leading up to SF2NA. Many of these fixes were in response to complaints caused by problems resulting from mods. I could no longer visually spot aircraft at the ranges specified in the Data ini files. Terrain faded out at short ranges. Runways weren't visible until you were on top of them. Clouds were locked at high altitudes well above the ones I needed for historical Vietnam missions. Now, since SF2NA: New terrain that doesn't really look any better than WoI/SF2I (can I say it actually looks a bit worse?), but lowers FPS 60s avionics cause a stutter (unresolved despite a hotfix and a patch) the pendulum of play balance has swung all over the place on the effectiveness of air to air missiles, currently settling out with uber missiles that effortlessly smoke MiGs in the Vietnam timeframe. And those are just the problems that affect my specific mission I like to play. I think the terrain modders are a wee bit more disappointed than me. So, this isn't really a matter of me just disliking one tiny aspect of some minor patch. I have watched my "fun" steadily go down the drain with no indications the trend is going to change. "Playbalancing" missiles was simply the last straw. Dave, what aircraft and missiles do you normally use? Do I dare guess not AIM-9Bs/Ds and AIM-7Es/E2s? Its hard to notice "nerfed" missiles if you were already using AIM-9Ls and AMRAAMs So, you are having fun, great! But some of us are not, and for me it has nothing to do with not spending enough time playing the game... It is the way the game plays.

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?

From the patch readme: 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).

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.

Yes, as much as it has improved since WoI and SF2, the AI still has many flaws dating back to the original SFP1... and even picked up a few new odd behaviors as old problems were addressed.

As Yoda once said, "There is another..." FSX is still gearing up to be a combat flight sim if VRS Tac Pack is any good. X-Plane almost went that direction, but decided blowing people up was a bad thing, so weapons do no damage.

One would have hoped the new SF2NA engine would have looked that good instead of looking worse than SF2I and making the sim run slower.

The best pilots don't even need bullets. They can maneuver in such a way as to evade enemy attacks and force the enemy to crash. In SF, it is actually very easy to get AI to hit the ground if you dogfight way down low. If you can keep a MiG chasing you in afterburner long enough, he won't make it home. But of course, that doesn't work in SF since the AI never crashes due to fuel shortages.

I am 100% in agreement with you. I hope DCS follows through and fills in the void where I thought SF2 was going. SF2 is now meant to be the modern kind of game where you won't die and you can easily engage and kill overwhelming odds. Of course, it is still great for making screenshots, too. If gameplay is so challenging that a bunch of newbies complain, just dumb it down a bit more to "make the game more accessible." Tic Tac Toe is very accessible, but I don't see it selling much on PCs DCS already has many key features. The main limitations of LOMAC/FC/DCS have been limited modding capability, limited flyable planeset, and lack of a dynamic campaign system. The new 3rd party mods may largely overcome the first two problems and I never really play campaigns, so the last part isn't a problem at all for me. I just want the planeset (and preferably matching terrains) to cover more of the Vietnam/Yom Kippur era. The future of DCS is much more promising based on where it is at and where it seems to be going. Whereas SF2 keeps moving not only away from where I wanted it to go but from where it already was. Even if you don't ever play SF2 again, I don't see any reason to go inactive on the CombatAce forums. Surely you will still participate in other games/sims that are covered by this site? If not, then farewell, Jeff!

At least the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds are real units and authentic skins. Dhimar? Show me where it is on the map and what the actual history is. Maybe in the SF universe, the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds were rushed into service to fight and their paint schemes were retained to intimidate the enemy. They are so good they don't need camouflage and in fact will put on a formation show complete with colored smoke while decimating the enemy!

The point of skin packs is to provide a variety of previously unavailable but popularly requested skins. VX-4 Black Bunny never flew in combat either, but every body wants it in either F-4 or F-14, right? Among the first Marc Fighters skins were the Blue Angels A-4s and F-4s, which I absolutely loved. If someone is skilled and has the templates, how much more effort is it to throw in Blue Angels skins? I have been very lazy about trying to make hi-res Thunderbirds skins. I am not that skilled and painting and don't have templates. So, I would greatly appreciate an unslatted F-4E DLC with Thunderbirds skins. Though I doubt TK would bother to provide all of the variants and crew blocks from initial factory paint to 1974. So, as long as TK is doing Blue Angels skins... what about the A-4s? If he has the rights to do the Thunderbirds, how about F-100C/D, F-105 (settle for a D given no B available), F-4E, and F-16?

We use Amazon for everything as well... but never for high end electronics (like LCD TVs or PCs). NewEgg has been great on both prices and reliability, so I hate to abandon them. But thanks to Amazon Prime, it was just the better way to go. NewEgg has an equivalent to Prime, but it wouldn't pay for itself compared to the frequency we use Amazon. At some point, I may regret not getting the nVidia GTX670 due to its superior performance... But I have everything working just the way I want it using my HD 6870 and don't want to gamble on driver issues. The main reason I am going with the 7870 instead of the much cheaper 6870 is the fact that its drivers allow enabling adaptive AA in DX10/11 sims that have in-game support for FSAA, which should fix the only issue I have with my current gpu setup. The main issue I found with the 7000 series with blurry textures was a driver issue that got fixed.

Reinstalling won't fix the fact that I have issues with the content of the patch itself

This is a fun and interesting airplane in SF2. I highly recommend it.

Logan's Run got it right: Live a glorious 30 years with good health and all the fun you can stand, then go to "carousel" to be "re-incarnated" if instantaneous incineration by a laser can be considered re-incarnated. Within a few generations, no one will know any other way and unwittingly accept such a harsh means of population control, health regulation, and resource distribution. An absolute Utopia if you don't realize you can live way past 30 ;)

The OFF crowd has been an active and welcome addition to the CombatAce site. I don't post in this forum much, but I read it all the time. I am sorry that the glitch in CombatAce forced the "official forum" to move. Perhaps the "official forum" should be hosted by the developers themselves (like most "for profit" games rather than putting the wheel of destiny in someone's elses hands if they can't handle having problems beyond their control. SimHQ is hardly different than combatace and can go down at times without knowing when it will be returned to service. The Strike Fighters modding community was originally based at SimHq. It was the place to go for info, even for official news from Third Wire. Things changed and everyone that was a major contributor to SF mods left SimHq with most of them being present at both the official Third Wire forums and CombatAce. I suspect it won't be long before many people figure out why CombatAce became so important despite the existence of SimHq and the official Third Wire forums. It will be interesting to see what happens to the OFF "official forums" as well as they adjust to the environment at SimHQ. The CombatAce community has its flaws (nobody is perfect!), but it provides a great place where you can upload/download just about any mod for any major sim without any major hassle and get technical support on those mods that may not be available from "official forums". It is also a place where you can talk about anything with a minimum of censorship unless you can't respect warnings from the moderators when unnecessary friction/spam is being generated (I myself have made posts that have resulted in entire threads being deleted... oops, sorry!). I had hoped the OFF crowd would continue to be active here. I have not been disappointed. Keep posting about history, game experiences, technical questions, or just sharing a personal thought. I will keep on reading and enjoying those posts

They got the syntax wrong: "All you need, love is!"