streakeagle

Still one of my favorite skins for the F-15.

As for TK/Third Wire putting Wings Over Europe on Steam: I think you will find that it was the publisher, Strategy First, that put it on Steam. If you read the reviews, it is evident that it is an old, buggy, unpatched build so people who buy it have to find their way to Third Wire's website to get the most recent patch. But at $8.99, it is a steal compared to $39.99 on Third Wire's website. I suspect TK keeps his prices high to encourage people to buy the final all-in-one SF2 package. But most people don't understand that it is worth the $99.99 price tag and just buy one of the other SF2 games for $39.99. Of course, this is where the open game framework hurt TK: if you buy the right game, you can get mods to make it anything you want without having to buy the all-in-one package.

TK started with an almost completely open sim, which resulted in his IP getting pirated. 3d models were stolen. It was interesting that he never resorted to anti-piracy systems as it is very clear that a lot more people pirated the games than bought them. TK's decisions were logical. He locked down files that were costing him time and money. To say he wasn't listening simply isn't true. He spent a lot of time on Sim HQ forums both prior to and after the release of SFP1. A lot of the things that were implemented from Wings Over Vietnam to Wings Over Europe to Wings Over Israel were exactly what people had been asking for. SimHQ forums became hostile to TK. He opened his own forums and never looked back. The transition to SF2 marked the beginning of the end. Most people who bought one or more of the SFP1/WoX games never bought any of the SF2 games. The criticism was valid: why buy the same game(s) twice? Modded versions of the older series were largely comparable to the new series. Each SF2 release returned less revenue: notice I didn't say profit because as far as I can tell, TK was losing money throughout SF2 development, particularly when he developed the mission editor and North Atlantic. Apparently, the free-to-play games were much more profitable. 3d models/texture quality are much lower requiring less time to add new aircraft. Virtually no cockpits modeled. Minimal controls. He doesn't even have to interact with the customers anymore, which greatly reduces stress. He did attempt a crowd-funded cleanup of SF2 to make it more Windows 10 friendly. But that didn't draw enough support, perhaps deservedly so since SF2 generally works ok on Windows 10 and Windows 11 for most people and there would have been no new content. What's left is still a decent workable game with tons of mod support and room for many more. But for me, SF2 has been dead for years. DCS World isn't that much harder to fly than SF2. Hop in an F-86F or F-5E: you can use a key-combo cheat to get started up, then you largely have the same controls you would have had mapped in SF2. Most of the older aircraft don't take that much effort to do a full-blown by-the-manual startup. Again, the F-86F and F-5E are great examples. I have been looking forward to the GD F-100D. It will be even more fun than the SF2 F-100D with its higher fidelity flight model and systems modeling. The GD F-100D will support one of the most challenging aspects of DCS: inflight refueling. It will essentially be a supersonic F-86 with poor handling qualities and less maneuverability. DCS will now have the entire line of fighter designs produced by Edgar Schmued: P-51, F-86, F-100, and F-5.

TK wanted a survey sim. But when you look at the changes from SFP1 to SF2, there were a lot of improvements in realism. The modeling of ECM was drastically improved and is still equal or better than the ECM modeling in DCS. The F-4 Phantom variants each had correct cockpits and systems (RWR/ECM changed constantly) with detailed flight model variations. The A-4 Skyhawk variants were the same way. The modeling of the F-14 and F-15 avionics were very realistic with the main limitation being the lack of clickable cockpits. At the very end, when SF2 North Atlantic did not do well enough, TK was threatening to start dumbing down the game to more of an arcade level by taking away mapped controls such as having automatic landing gear and flaps. Instead, he simply ceased production and migrated his idea of a simpler arcade level game to free-to-play Android games. At that time, SF2 was a more realistic sim than LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. Until the Heatblur F-4E was released, there wasn't a more realistic combat simulation of the F-4 in a PC game. LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs had superior terrain graphics, but the 3d modeling/textures of aircraft in SF2 were more accurate and more detailed. It wasn't until DCS World Flaming Cliffs 3 that the flight and systems modeling of the F-15C exceeded the SF2 implementation. DCS has come a long way. But still falls short of SF2 in several areas. The biggest one is the terrain: No Vietnam. But they recently released Cold War Germany which beats SF2 Europe and the Kola map which is superior to SF2 North Atlantic. There is no shortage of desert maps to beat SF2 Israel with Syria, Sinai, Iraq, and Persian Gulf. While TK never released a Korea themed expansion, the free mod version is comparable if not superior to official SF2 terrain. If DCS added decent Vietnam and Korea maps as well as the appropriate era asset packs to support them, it would be real close to surpassing SF2. The dynamic campaign for DCS World is still a long way off, but it should end up being superior to SF2 campaigns. In some ways, SF2 AI was better than DCS World, but a lot of AI improvements have been made recently and will continue to be improved to make the dynamic campaign work. Ultimately, it should be possible to have online dynamic campaigns similar to if not superior to Falcon 4.0/BMS. SF2 would need a lot of money/time/work to get it up to modern standards: 1. Aircraft and cockpits with high poly counts/hi-res textures and fully modeled for looking in all directions. 2. VR support. 3. Proper online multiplayer support compatible with offline missions/campaigns. How many people would buy an upgraded SF2 compared to staying with the already established DCS World? Even when SF2 was at its best, it ran out of money while LOMAC continued to evolve. Arcade people have Warthunder. Hardcore people have DCS World. Is there a market for an in between game? I honestly don't know how DCS World has survived. It is a niche market. DCS World is going to have new competition: Il-2 Korea. Its existence may guarantee DCS never makes a Korea map. But Il-2 may discover why there has never been many Korea themed combat flight sims: everyone loves World War 2 and the only other popular era was the modern teen series fighters. World War I sims never do that well and Korea/Vietnam era sims are almost non-existent. It is a tough market. I hope SF2 continues to be playable despite its age and that both Il-2 and DCS continue to move forward.

When Strike Fighters Project 1 was released, the flyable aircraft were the F-4B/C/D/E/J, F-100D, F-104G, and A-4E. DCS has the F-4E and now the F-100D. A free A-4E-C mod is available for download whose quality is comparable to payware. The F-104G is in progress (and a free VSN F-104C mod is already available for download). Red opposition already has the MiG-15bis, MiG-19P, and MiG-21bis. The MiG-17F is close to release. If Heatblur ever gets around to releasing a naval F-4 variant (or you download the free VSN F-4B/C mod), then DCS can pretty much match the original SFP1 lineup. The F-8J Crusader and A-7E Corsair are in progress. Heatblur will eventually release a flyable A-6E. The A-1H Skyraider was cancelled by ED, but may get relicensed and continue moving forward. So, a Wings Over Vietnam equivalent plane set is not too far off. The biggest problem is the lack of a Vietnam map which presents performance problems with the current DCS World terrain/graphics engine. It has taken a lot of years to reach this point and is going to take quite a few more to reach parity with the Strike Fighters series. But the results are amazing: both a survey sim allowing you to fly almost any aircraft on any map combined with a hardcore study sim for nearly every flyable aircraft. It is like combining Strike Fighters with Falcon 4.0. DCS also covers the main complaints against the Strike Fighters series: record and playback missions, air-to-air refueling, ejection sequences, dated terrain engine, and excellent online multiplayer that supports advanced scripting.

As Steam OS rises in popularity, I expect more modern games to begin favoring compatibility with LINUX. I am actually rooting for this because MS Windows has been a monopoly for too long, and MS has been abusing that position for decades. The problem is that SF2 is an update of SFP1, a game that was originally designed to run on Windows 98 with 3dfx Voodoo cards. While the update made it far more compatible with DirectX and Windows 7, some people have struggled to get it running well on Windows 10 and Windows 11. The various LINUX windows emulation layers have largely been developed to run far newer games and work with much newer gpu drivers. It does not surprise me that SF2 is having issues running on LINUX. I have thought about purchasing a new hard drive just so that I can experiment with running Steam OS or a straight LINUX distribution. But I am waiting for DCS World to support Steam OS/LINUX, as that is my primary reason I am still on Windows. Beyond DCS World, I need the Quest 3 for VR and several utilities like SRS, Voice Attack, and VAICOM to be compatible with LINUX as well as support for WinWing/WinCtrl USB controllers and its associated software, SimAppPro. I have no advice or experience to offer in your quest to run SF2 on LINUX, but I do offer support since Microsoft deserves to lose and LINUX appears to be the future to escape the Windows trap. Good luck. If you finally figure out the solution, please post it here on Combat Ace.

It could all be AI slop, but I can't find any better references.

Google changed it mind and spit out this: "Chan. Ind." on Turkish F-4 Phantom (specifically F-4E 2020 Terminator) instrument panels refers to the Channel Indicator for the UHF radio or navigation system, likely associated with the 18-channel preset system of the ARC-150 UHF radio or the updated MFX-484 UHF/VHF system installed during modernization. YouTube +2 Context: It is part of the UHF/COMM or AUX radio control panels, enabling the pilot or Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) to see which pre-programmed frequency channel (1-18 or 1-20) is currently selected. Function: In the Turkish F-4E/2020 Terminator (modernized by IAI and Aselsan), this indicator works with the updated CDU-900 (Control Display Unit) to show selected comms channels.

I think it is labeled "Chan. Ind." as in Channel Indicator. Google AI spit out this in response to my guess: In the context of the Turkish Air Force F-4E 2020 Terminator cockpit, "CHAN. IND." is an abbreviation for Channel Indicator. Global Aviation Resource +3 Function: It is part of the upgraded avionics suite, often linked to the radio or electronic warfare systems (such as the EL/L-8222 ECM pod) operated by the backseater (Weapon Systems Officer) to show the current active frequency channel or Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) channel. Upgrade Context: Following the Israeli-led modernization (Terminator 2020 project), the cockpit was overhauled with new digital displays and modern mission systems, retaining some analog switch labeling. Usage: It is commonly used in Turkish Air Force F-4E 2020 jets flying in modernized, 111 Filo (Eskişehir) 111th squadron training operations

Why use DgVoodoo2? It should work with DirectX.

Oh no! I hope it is as minor as possible, and you recover quickly and fully.

For me, the problem was caused by the gpu driver. I think I had to lower one of the Strike Fighters 2 graphic settings from Ultimate? That was using an nVidia 1080. Eventually, an update to the driver allowed it to run without issues. One thing I learned going from Windows 7 to Windows 10 was upgrading the Windows 7 caused many headaches, particularly with USB 3 ports which was critical to my original Oculus VR headset. I ended up wiping the hard drive and using a clean Windows 10 install, which at the time still worked perfectly using the Windows 7 key to validate the free Windows 10 install even though Windows 7 was wiped off of the drive. Right now, I am not only able to run SF2 on Windows 11, but can even implement primitive but functional VR using the 3rd party vorpX software with Stary's SF2 vorpX profile. With my 7900 XTX, performance is oustanding.

It is risky because compatibility has been on and off over the years. But right now it is working better than it ever has before.

I have now verified that the HP Reverb G2 works with SF2/vorpX just as well as the Quest 3 if you use the SteamVR mode instead of the OpenXR driver. This leads me to believe that almost any mainstream VR headset should work with SF2/vorpX as long as it is compatible with either OpenXR or SteamVR.

I just remembered: SimHq was the place for refugees from CombatSim.com after they went payware. CombatSim.com learned real quick that no one wanted to pay for community forums, especially when there were plenty of competitors still available for free. The late 90s to the 2000s was a crazy time for the flight sim community. But CombatAce.com (formerly BioHaz) rose above the mess and is still here over 20 years later.

I generally don't mind these types of disruptions as long as CombatAce comes back. Whereas I remember a certain WWI group abandoning CombatAce for SimHq because of an unavoidable unplanned outage. As if SimHq was an upgrade. At one time, SimHq was the place to be, but at some point CombatAce became the refuge for people fed up with SimHq, especially for the Strike Fighters series. SimHq eventually gave up the .com for a .net because the new owner had a better use for the .com domain. Maybe its just me, but pc game forums are a luxury not a necessity. It is no big deal if service is down, especially since I am active on so many other forums, too. Now, if the internet goes down, I am screwed. One of the disadvantages to my primary sim, DCS World, is that you can only play offline for 24 hours, then it shuts down until you can log into the internet again. Likewise, when their licensing servers are down, I am screwed. SF2 may not support multiplayer and the graphics engine may be a bit dated, but the software has no anti-piracy crap and runs anytime. If Eagle Dynamics were to go out of business, would they issue one last patch to unlock their software so people could keep playing without the ED servers? If not, I would be back to flying Strike Fighters 2 until another F-4/MiG-21 sim arose from the ashes.

It isn't implemented yet. I had not noticed that, or I would have mentioned it. The radio is important for getting GCI calls as well as ATC.

A little tricky to taxi / takeoff and far from stable, but the only real limitation of this "early access" release is that many useful controls cannot be mapped to controllers, you must use the mouse to click on a lot of controls particularly during startup. It is otherwise a fairly polished release.

When TK was a programmer for other game companies as part of a team, he was notorious for writing code only he could understand. Falcon 4.0 was leaked over 20 years ago. It was a long time before real gains were being made in key areas such as updating the graphics engine or supporting anything other than F-16 avionics for non-F-16 flyable aircraft. That fact that TK never finished his Win10 update that began with a failed GoFundMe campaign should tell you that updating the code will take some effort.

The investment it would take to update the game to modern standards by someone other than TK could be more costly than starting from scratch. The only way this moves forward is if TK releases the code for free. Even then, it will require some talented coders investing a lot of their time for free to reverse engineer TK's source code to make useful improvements. To date, TK has no intention of giving up the rights to his software for free and who knows how much money it would take for him to sell it?

I did another test using Virtual Desktop and the OpenXR driver. That works, too. I don't know why it is suddenly working so well, but it is great.

Every now and then, I test to see if I can use VR with Strike Fighters 2. This requires a third party application named vorpX that allows 3d games to be adapted to VR with a correctly configured profile. A long time ago, CAStary made a DX10 profile that worked with Strike Fighters 2. I got a copy of his custom profile and he gave me permission to upload it to the public vorpX profile library. However, as gpu drivers change, windows gets patched, and vorpX is updated, my ability to run Strike Fighters 2 in VR has come and gone. It has been on the gone side for quite a few years. I don't normally use the Oculus driver for my Quest 3, as Virtual Desktop using the WiFi connection gives me the best graphics quality and performance in most VR games, especially DCS World. But that format doesn't work for HiTech Creations Aces High WW2 combat flight sim. So, I updated my Oculus install and used it yesterday. Today, I decided to see if the Oculus/Quest 3 combination would work with the latest vorpX and AMD gpu drivers. It works great. The game looks good and runs between 70 and 90 fps. It takes a little bit of practice to learn how to start the game and toggle between the 3d VR view and a floating 2D view, but once you have that down, it is easy to use and works really well. The main limitation is that SF2 was not designed for VR. In particular, you head movement is limited by default to keep you from seeing the low detail and/or non-existent cockpit behind and below the pilot's viewpoint. Some modern free mods don't have this limitation: if you view is unlocked, you can see a fully detailed cockpit in all directions possibly with animated controls like the stick and rudder pedals. One advantage of SF2 in VR is that the graphics are relatively low quality compared to modern sims, which leads to high frame rates and the ability to fly complex missions with lots of AI. This isn't for everyone and the fact is compatibility isn't guaranteed. Another vorpX update could break it for another 5 or 6 years. But when it works, it is impressive, especially if you already spent a decade or more playing the SFP1/WoX/SF2 series.

First Eagles 1 & 2 were great games. I wish TK would bring these games up to modern standards with full support for VR and being able to look around 360 degrees with full detail.

Not only a great F-4 video, but correctly presents the fact that it is the pilots that ultimately make the aircraft great

Aside from any bias in the weapons data, TK's way to make missions more "fun" is to have AI focus on engaging the player. It is one thing if the AIM-7 and AIM-9 perform better than they should relative to Soviet missiles, it is another thing if every aircraft with overpowered weapons aims them all at you. While TK did quite a bit to make a rivet counter like me happy over the years, he still made a lot of decisions that favored gameplay and fun over realism. Early on he decided to make the game only playable from the blue NATO/Western/US side and complaints about player missile reliability were addressed in patches, particularly after the release of SF2 North Atlantic. If you install SFP1 SP2a (the last major release before Wings Over Vietnam, which marked a major turn in AI dogfighting ability and flight modeling), you will find a given scenario such as 4 x F-4D vs 4 x MiG-21MF plays very differently. The AIM-7s and AIM-9s are far more likely to fail and if you don't have a gun, the MiG-21s have a decent chance. Having played online multiplayer with SFP1/WoX for years, I can say in a 1 vs 1 with player flown F-4s vs player flown MiGs, the F-4 has a hard time winning. The MiG-19 was the best PvP aircraft in the game, having the maneuverability of the MiG-17 and the power of the F-4. The MiG-17 wasn't easy to beat. The MiG-21 was for the most part a fair fight. The deviation between blue and red weapons parameters are but one small piece of the puzzle: it is the AI that really determines the difficulty of a given mission.