streakeagle

Well my data is just from books too... whose to say the little words in my books are any more accurate than the little words in your books or anyone elses. I can't be absolutely certain of the years since I am mainly relying on the photo captions... but if you have very old books, as I do, the photos include lots of shots of the original F-15As since F-15Cs were relatively new. The internet and later books show them they way they have been for over 20 years now! I was partially poking fun back... but partially being critical on the "mod mafia" stuff. I believe that other people do have a lot of valid complaints about the way they get treated when they ask a question or disagree with the old guard. I got jumped on big time when I pointed out problems with the original Paco F-15... especially the hyper roll rate in the FM. It didn't matter that what I said or how ludicrous the roll rate was... the modders and their fanboys are always right. I got jumped on again for liking the P-40 that was never released better than Wolf's. That P-40 never did become available... but it looked better and moving control surfaces. It seems stating an opinion... or in the case of verifiable 3d model accuracy, a fact is a crime if it hurts someone's pride.

Notice that while the position of the blister relative to the wingtip may be different in all three of the above models, they all have a relatively square tip compared to photos. I think the wingtip being too angular on all of the models comes from drawings like the big one above... in most drawings (including the ones in my books), the rwr blister is right at the corner. If you look at photos, the curvature of the wingtip protrudes some past the blister. 3d modelers tend to use drawings (for obvious and correct reasons) and drawings tend to be wrong. I guess the government needs to laser scan all aircraft into a variety of 3d model lods so sims can have the best possible models as pc's increase their ability to handle poly counts/vertexes. Maybe we should start a petition that taxpayers are entitled such 3d models of any product purchased by the government for no additional cost beyond the taxes we already pay :)

The game goes to 1980 right? The turkey feathers were installed until about 1982-83 on all F-15As. Show me a dated pic that shows otherwise. Most of the pics in my books are dated and all pics before 83 have turkey feathers. All pics after don't have turkey feathers. Some of my pics are of F-15As in formation over Germany and strangely enough, given the number of F-15As delivered by 1982, more than four seemed to have served there with feathers. The F-15Cs were delivered without turkey feathers, which started around 1979-1980. Holy crap! 2 of the 4 German Eagles with turkey feathers! I guess the photographer was just lucky to catch such a rare sight! I think the same 4 planes are getting repainted and sent to Okinawa! AFAIK, every single F-15A was delivered with tailfeathers and none of them had them removed prior to the stock game's 1980 date limit. So if you are trying to be historically correct and accurate, the F-15A without tail feathers is totally incorrect. The point of these posts is the same point as most of my posts on any forums: to discuss things I am interested in that kind of fall into the category of the forum. One of the things I am interested in is dispelling some myths that have been sprinkled in the forums that the stock F-15 model is completely crap compared to the latest addon revision. Another myth is that LockOn is the king when it comes to detail and accuracy for the F-15. It simply isn't so for the external 3d model. At least in SF/WOV/WOE you can look at the options (there are at least 3 different F-15As to choose from at this point), whereas in LOMAC all you can do is repaint whatever they give you. Now it just so happens that my opinion goes against the "mod mafia" on the issue of which F-15A looks better. I can agree to disagree on which is better overall, but I can't agree that the MF F-15A is superior in all ways or with someone who tells me my eyes aren't seeing something that is as clear as the sun at high noon on a cloudless day.

A friend gave this to me a long time ago. I wish I had read the little note saying I could get full 18x24 posters if I wrote McDonnell Douglas and asked for them!

Drawings are all well and good... but like 3d models, they are usually done by artists and no two drawings are ever the same. Besides, drawings are flat without any distortions, whereas any screenshots are going to have distortion due to perspective and/or field of view. But just for comparison purposes, it wouldn't hurt to throw a few 3-view drawings on here. The problem is that you have to use a narrow field of view, get somewhat far away (making for low resolution), and line up the camera exactly to get a useful screenshot for good comparison. Finding perfect photos and having the game engine lighting match reality isn't going to happen (especially with the rather poor lighting in SF/WOV/WOE), but I prefer photos to drawings any day since photos are close to what my eye actually sees, which is exactly what 3d engines in games are trying to reproduce. If you can ignore the lighting and textures and mentally compensate for the angle differences in the photo, quite a few things can be learned about flaws in the 3d model from the comparisons. My mistake in the overhead shots was having made the screenshots first, then trying to comb the net for an equivalent photo (which I had to rotate and zoom to get the orientation and size close to the other aircraft). Things like the wing tips, canopy shape, and the way the various shapes are blended together on the back and at the wing roots, and the relatively straight edges of the intakes (which are beveled for some strange reason on the LOMAC model), . These images aren't meant to be measured directly to make the necessary corrections, but rather to identify the obvious errors in sizes and proportions leading to further research and better revisions in future 3d modeling attempts. Here is a small 3-view that has a fairly accurate top view, the front is ok, but the side looks a bit off: Yet another 3-view... again the side has more issues than the other views, but the canopy appears to be a two seater? I had to go to a Russian website to get a decent hi-res drawing I could scale down into a jpg for here. My uncalibrated eye likes this drawing: Now let us assume that this drawing is 100% correct (which is true enough on a relative scale when compared to any of the 3d model screenshots above). Check out how the canopy frame is close to parallel to the fuselage over most of its length. There is no super wide spot at the front canopy frame (MF F-15A), nor does it bulge a bit at the aft frame (WOE F-15A), and the LOMAC F-15 definitely did not use this Russian drawing as a reference for its canopy... but I could already see all of this was true from the original post ;)

It would be great if 3d models were like text files: easily cut-n-paste to merge the best features of each one. At a glance, the LOMAC model looks really good... it is amazing how much good lighting and textures do to improve the basic 3d model. What my screenshots from LOMAC don't show is how shiny the F-15 looks in that sim. I carefully placed the aircraft and camera to avoid the blinding flash that makes the F-15 look like it has a mirrored silver finish! But the LOMAC model always has sharp corners where there should be blending. Beyond the engine nacelles, look at the top view around the speed brake. I have seen some early F-15A model kits that had similar errors... I wonder if they based their model off of a kit rather than photos of the the real thing? The seat model is independent of the 3d model, so it can be easily replaced. But problems like the sharp wingtips, mishaped nose, distorted canopies, etc. can only be fixed by those with the source files for the base 3d model. Overall, I still like the stock model the best of these 3... general proportions just look/feel right over most viewing angles and the texturing is pretty good for a stock skin. The original pre-flying-toaster/MF F-15 was better than nothing, but its nose was downright repulsive to me. If the MF F-15 ever got the canopy lines right, it would probably be my #1 choice.

Here is a comparison I did between WOE and LOMAC during WOE beta testing. Note how the extra width of the WOE cockpit causes a distortion toward the rear of the canopy), in this case, the LOMAC image is better overall... but only by a very small margin. Also note that neither model captures the shape of the nose perfectly, and that once again, LOMAC does a better job: Here is an equivalent screenshot from WOE in the current release. Note that the lighting changed a bit, the shadow model is now present, and the seat is different (apparently tryinig to reflect the F-15A's original Escapac seat):

Whose eyes are off? Look at the canopy very closely in each pic. None of them are 100%correct, but the F-15 mod has always had and continues to have a badly distorted canopy: way too wide at the front and way too narrow at the rear, which is very obvious from almost any angle. It isn't even close. The WOE canopy is just a tad too wide at the rear, but you can barely tell even from a direct overhead view such as this, and by far looks much closer to actual photos than even the LOMAC F-15. LOMAC didn't use enough polygons: the rear part of the canopy has distinct corners and overall is a tad too narrow by about the same amount WOE is a tad too wide in the rear section. Also note the blending of the engine nacelles into the fuselage, which is another area that the stock WOE F-15 beats out the other two. The MF F-15 nacelle blending comes to a sharper point. The LOMAC blend is too blunt. The stock WOE is hardly different from the photo. To each his own. But I don't see any reason to replace the stock F-15 unless you want the nozzles without the turkey feathers.

Take a look and you be the judge: Real F-15 in flight: Stock WOE F-15A: Mirage Factory F-15A mod: LOMAC F-15C: All of them have their flaws, but my eyes prefer the stock WOE F-15 to any other combat flight sim I have ever flown.

I may be going back to Atlanta sometime between July 24 and July 31, but if you make here before I leave, Orlando is less than an hour from my workplace and just over an hour from my home... we could meet for dinner one night ;) Airshows I am not sure about... Sun-n-Fun is the big one and has already happened for this year. The closest air museum of any decent size is: http://www.fantasyofflight.com/ It is a little small for the price, but the aircraft collection is very respectable considering that all of the aircraft are owned by one person: Antonov AN-2 Avro Cadet North American AT-6D Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Douglas B-23 Dragon Consolidated B-24 Liberator North American B-25J Mitchell Martin B-26 Marauder Bachem Ba 349 Natter Viper Bell 47G Helicopter Bucker Bestmann Bucker Jungmann Bucker Jungmeister Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair Cierva C 30-A Autogyro Curtiss Junior Curtiss Model D Headless Pusher Curtiss TP-40N Fieseler Fi-156 Storch Fieseler Fi-103 V-1 Flying Bomb Focke Wulf FW-44 Steiglitz Fokker D-VIII Ford 5AT Trimotor Gee Bee Z Grumman Duck Grumman F3F Flying Barrel Grumman FM-2 Wildcat Hiller Hornet Lockheed Vega Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero Morane A-1 Morane/Brock Monoplane Norde Stampe North American P-51C Mustang Piper L-4J Grasshopper Polikarpov PO-2 Ryan NYP Spirit of St. Louis Short Sunderland MK5 Spirit of Peace Balloon Capsule Standard E-1 Standard J-1 Stinson Trimotor Supermarine Spitfire MK16 Thomas Morse Scout Trautman Road Air Travel Air 4000 Valkyrie Another museum not too far from Orlando is the Florida Air Museum at the Sun-n-Fun in Lakeland. For a look at the aircraft there: http://www.sun-n-fun.org/content/interior....amp;body=planes In Kissimmee (a suburb of Orlando), there was a little warbird museum there, but I have not ever visited it. The website looks cool, but it says the hurricanes in 2004 made them move to Georgia! Another small one to the east near the Space Center is: http://www.vacwarbirds.org/index.html Doesn't look too impressive from the website, but you never know what you will find at some of these smaller ones. The best museum I know of in Florida for military aircraft is the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, but that is a bit of a drive from Orlando. If you have the time to drive there and spend the whole day, it is worth it.

Thanks for restoring this important service!

To be a tad more precise, the map is 1000 km x 1000 km (540 nm x 540 nm). It looks like this:

Not all of the decals were included. Screenshots of the F-104G will prove that quickly. The tail decals for the squadrons are missing. Not a huge loss, but the F-104G looks naked without these colorful decals on the tail.

Don't post here... post there! If everyone that ever bought the sim posted at TW forums about this, TK just might listen... but posting on a forum that he doesn't even read does absolutely no good. I share your enthusiasm for SFP1/WOV/WOE MP, but would appreciate it if you made sure TK knows about it too!

I would certainly love the ability to create custom MP missions, but the programmer/developer (TK) does not believe online MP additions are worth the time and effort. Please go to his website and post on the forums there about your wishes: http://www.thirdwire.com/ I have always hoped that if enough people requested MP features, TK would finally recognize the value in adding them. But so far, only a handful of people have made requests supporting his idea that people playing online are an insignificant fraction of the market.

CombatACE has a free teamspeak server. It works great. The beta testing group for WOE used it to test online MP without any issues. The main obstacle is agreeing on what version to play. I suggest clean installs without any mods until everyone is able to join and fly successfully. Progressively add mods one at a time, i.e. add a new plane and/or weapon then see if everyone is still able to join/fly. Do not add the weapons pack! MP for SFP1 game engine does not seem to like that large of a weapons pack. The CheckSix! community always builds a small custom weapons pack for their MP installs, which solves the problem. I am more than willing to help anyone who needs help troubleshooting MP problems. As I announced in another post, I am now hosting a merged WOE/WOV install on HL. Someone paged me via HL to let me know they were able to join and fly. So it works!

The missions I made use the Desert terrain by default (WOV and WOE did not exist when I created the original addon. If you want to use the missions, you can open the missions with any text editor and change the terrain to one of your choice, i.e. VietnamSEA. Otherwise, there is no terrain requirment.

Hyperlobby does not support Wings Over Europe, but it does support Wings Over Vietnam. So, I copied the WOE.exe and renamed it WOV.exe. I then configured Hyperlobby to find the WOV.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder. While I have not yet had anybody join externally, tests from within my own LAN went well. I have a dogfight host up now with the year set to 1978. To ensure being able to join, you need to: Install WOV. Install WOV Service Pack v05.15.06 Install WOV Patch v05.25.06 Install WOE (check the option to merge WOV). Install WOE Patch v05.25.06 Copy the WOE.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder Paste a copy into the same folder Rename the copy WOV.exe If you already have Hyperlobby and it is already set to open Wings Over Vietnam, then you will have to: "Disconnect" from Hyperlobby Select "Wings Over Vietnam" from the Hyperlobby Connect/Select list of games Press <CTRL><SHIFT> while clicking on "Connect" This opens a dialog box for setting the path to the WOV.exe, you must either manually type in the patch, or do a search and select the copy of WOV.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder. I cannot promise compatibility if you have any mods installed, especially the weapons pack. Follow the above procedure and it should work.

Yes, this does work. However, you will be missing some decals from the default skins. The only way to get these decals is to buy SFP1 (available for $5 from Circuit City) or buy SFG. If you don't have SFP1 or SFG, besides the F-104G, you will get the C-130A, the desert terrain, the original campaigns, and guaranteed compatibility with a lot of the older terrain mods that depend on the desert terrain ;)

http://www.yankeeairpirate.net/NavyPage.html Even the simplest historical missons can require hours of research to find the necessary details to make it authentic... but the real work is in all the mods: 3d models, textures, effects. Why would anyone pay for a guy who edited a few text ini files (which is all missions are) most likely using free 3rd party addons to do so. If you are going to start handing out money, it should be to the modders that made this product possible not someone who threw together a few missions. I hope all of the modders invovled approved the sale of their work. Even if the product is top-notch, I don't care for the approach being used. Especially in a sim where everything but the game itself has traditionally been free ;)

I love it when he rolls over and dives down the side of the mountain to shake the MiG. While I am sure it was all staged for the cameras, it looks very good. Some say it looks like the MiG was mainly doing formation flying with the Hornet... but watch the vapor from the hard turns... no one flies "formation" when they are yanking and banking that hard. I think they had some scripted ideas, and then smiled for the camera :)

Too close, switching to guns! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...amp;q=luftwaffe

Given that you can pick up SFP1 at Circuit City (in person or online) for only $5, I don't see what the big deal is? Go buy it!

Some valid installations may have a registry issue, etc. that blocks the communications that the validation program needs. You need to go to Microsoft's website (and maybe even contact microsoft directly) to get the proper solution to the problem.

Good news: the latest Service Packs/Patches fixed the TrackIR uplook angle bug! see my most recent post in the above referenced thread at TW forums for more details.