streakeagle

For those not familiar with the quirks of SFP1/WoX multiplayer, it performs an anti-cheating file check prior when someone tries to join. Some files are not even monitored, so there is some leeway for local clients to have mods without causing problems. However, the safest way to get started is for everyone to have clean installs all patched to the same version. For the purposes of everyone getting started, we need to agree on a game and install version (apparently WoV? but it could be WoI, WoE). WoE merged with WoV is the most flexible with two terrains and a wide array of aircraft to choose. What is WoV patch 84? The only two versions I would consider hosting are 083006 or Sep 2008. 083006 runs smoother, but Sep 2008 looks better.

Hyperlobby is just a tool for meeting players and sharing the IP. If I get a server up and running correctly, I can post the IP or send it by email and people can try to join directly. However the DirectPlay multiplayer code used by SFP1/WoX is very finicky. It wasn't designed with routing/network address translation in mind, so a much more reliable way to play is on virtual LANs that trick the game into thinking everyone is hardwired to the same switch with the same IP subnet and mask. Hamachi was the old free tool used in the past for SFP1/WoX. Hamachi has changed a lot. I don't think the free version is as useful as it once was. I am in the process of trying to set up an old PC to be a server and see if a laptop from and outside network can properly join/fly on this server. I have to make sure my router is set up correctly, too. Clients don't usually have too many issues as long as they can form a good two-way connection with the host. The host server is the one that has to make sure nothing is firewalled preventing clients from joining/playing.

A long, long time ago, before Wings Over Vietnam was released, I used to host an Strike Fighters Project 1 multiplayer/online server on Hyperlobby. I left it in dogfight mode to support being unattended most of the time. Every night, I would check in and play for a few hours whenever anyone else was around and reboot as necessary. When others wanted to, I would take down the dogfight arena and host co-op/team vs team missions while I was available, then restore it back to the free-for-all dogfight host when I went to bed. As Wings Over Vietnam, Wings Over Europe, and finally Wings Over Israel were released, I continued to host as time permitted. I also would spread the word on how to join my server using Hamachi to overcome some of the routing issues encountered using the Hyperlobby room to join/play. Strike Fighters 2 progressed to DirectX10 which did not support the DirectPlay library used to implement SFP1/WoX multiplayer, which encouraged me to give up multiplayer for the SF2 improvements in single player. Would anyone appreciate a Hyperlobby server running one of the games? I think the best way to maximize connectivity is to run stock installs at either the 083006 (August 30, 2006) patch level or the final October 2008 patch level. The older 083006 patch runs faster but needs an ini file tweak to turn off the water shader to avoid CTDs when exiting with Vista/Win7. The final patch offers more aggressive, but somewhat suicidal AI and better modeling of radar missile limitations near the ground. Neither one is perfect, but the speed/stability/popularity of 083006 probably make it the better patch revision unless playing WOI, which requires running at the 2008 patch level. I need to get my server PC set up and do some hosting tests routing across the internet. However, that shouldn't take but an hour or less depending on whether I run into any problems.

The money is better spent on two things: DCS, which I use almost daily and a 1981 Corvette that needs a lot of cash after years of neglect.

Wishing you the best... may stubborn determination and a little luck see you through this horrible situation with the least possible pain and best possible recovery. <S>

There is another side to that statistic. Consider Desert Storm. The threat from the enemy was so minimized that US forces lost more people to friendly fire than enemy fire. It is not that the friendly fired incidents were dramatically higher than any other war. It is the marked decrease in losses to the enemy. So, if modern aircraft and their associated maintenance standards dramatically decrease losses due to aircraft failures while the number of problems caused by pilot errors stays the same... you get statistics like this. Now having read about the pilots that stalled a twin turboprop and killed everyone on board because they didn't understand the physics of a stall and overrode the automatic stall limiter to pull the nose up even more... I can't believe pilots with that level of misunderstanding were certified to fly any airplane much less a passenger liner. How has this happened?

FSX/P3D with TacPack keeps getting better for combat aircraft. Milviz is doing a great job providing Vietnam/SFP1 era aircraft with TacPack support. But my experience with Simworks Studios' F-4B, TacPack, and available Vietnam mods for FSX convinced me that even with TacPack, FSX is far from a complete combat flight simulator. SF2 Vietnam is far superior for replicating the mission from ingress to egress. However, FSX is better for the takeoff/comms/landing aspects. I am tempted to buy the Milviz TacPack jets like the F-100D, F-4E, and F-4J, but I know they would just mostly remain unused and take up space on my hard drive as the Simworks F-4B already does.

05 punished anyone who disagreed with him in any way. He also ripped off some of the modders who provided material to him. As I prefer to research and create my own historical missions to suite my preferences, my main use for YAP was the models, especially the aircraft carriers. No one else ever released a comparable Vietnam era CVAN-65 Enterprise.

Had to come to and end sooner or later.

I have always loved SAAB aircraft since the first time I saw a Draken. At this point, I am not sure which I love the most, the Draken or the Viggen. The Gripen comes in third, but all three are among the best looking and best performing fighters of their time. What more could you ask except maybe an engine and avionics/weapons upgrade for the Draken and Viggen?

I have been out of country for two weeks and just now got the chance to try the latest patch. LCOS gunsight works much better now. It didn't move before.

I don't understand the argument at this point. The MiG-21's combat record is far from good. It only performed reasonably well when given very specific environments where the enemy had ROE and/or leadership issues that crippled the opfor's aircraft. Whenever it fought in environments where the enemy had no such restrictions, it was decimated... even by large, smokey F-4s and/or F-15s. Even in the best case, using radar and speed to ambush loaded F-4s with inexperienced pilots, it never did better than 1:2 overall. That fact that it couldn't be spotted head-on at ranges longer than 2nm was extremely annoying, but it was only when it performed precision ground controlled hit and run attacks from the blind 6 at Mach+ speeds where its size wasn't a factor that it excelled. What cannot be denied is that the MiG-21 was the most produced supersonic fighter jet and still serves after all of these years. But despite costing far more, F-4 Phantoms were produced in quite substantial numbers and are still serving, too. If I had to fly one against the other in combat tomorrow, I would easily take the latest Turkish or Greek F-4s over any variant of MiG-21 still serving. Despite its size and smoke, the F-4 had the advantage then and still does.

Like previous Belsimtek releases, their the F-5 beta is better than many other sims' final releases. But look in the last round of patches and look at the bug list on the ED forums. It is still listed as a beta because it still has the rough spots to be expected of a beta.

Try not to go to the doctor so much! Spend more time shopping for Godzilla and playing flight simulator games!

<S> One of the many that gave all. But one of the few whose name will be celebrated for many years to come.

The F-5E is absolutely a treat to fly. The main problem I have with the beta after dogfighting MiG-21s and F-14s is the dysfunctional LCOS sight. I can fight just fine without it, but I love a well-modeled LCOS. Nothing more satisfying than putting the pipper on a specific aiming point like the wing tip, tail, or cockpit canopy and then squeezing off a very small burst and having nearly every round hit with a catastrophic result.

If the MiG-21 is so hard to beat, why did F-4s average 2:1 or better kill ratios against them while being heavy smokers with crappy missiles? In 1972, with better training and missiles, the Navy was getting 6:1 or better kill records with hard wing F-4Js against MiG-17s that turned better and were just as hard to spot as MiG-21s. Why would the Su-27 be built at all if small size were the key to air superiority? I love the MiG-21. In some ways, it was the forerunner of the F-16, at least for WVR dogfight performance. But pilots could not see out of the cockpit. They were very short range and meant to be pure interceptors. When used for dog fighting, they ran out of fuel. The guys at groom lake liked beating teen fighters, but could only win if: 1) they were allowed to fly in a way that allowed them to get WVR undetected. 2) they flew in a way to have enough fuel to fight. 3) the opposition didn't have experience against the type, which affected their ability to spot the MiG-21 and exploit its weaknesses.

I just tried out the new F-5E. It is a little rough as an early beta... but extremely impressive. I can't wait to see how the F-14A, AJS-37, and F/A-18C turn out. I can remember when I used to host SFP1 multiplayer 24/7 and there was a mod that added the F-5 and F-14. I loved the F-5 a lot.

I assure you, I want you to succeed in any and all endeavors to improve SF2. Discovering how to use the SF2NA terrain engine and implement a terrain better than TK did would add a lot to the existing maps... especially if they could be scaled 1:1. TK was such a genius in so many ways. DCS World still hasn't caught up to his level of making the aircraft and decals so modder friendly. But he made some odd compromises. less than 1:1 terrain and a refusal to even provide an arcade/automated in-flight refueling system were big ones. Abandoning ramp starts and drag chutes that were clearly planned in the original SFP1 release were odd choices too. The avionics were right at a sweet spot between fun/playable and realistic. If the terrain engine had been up to the level of the aircraft in shape and texture... it would have beaten the crap out of LOMAC/FC with good marketing. It was always the better game AND sim but lacked some eye candy and multiplayer that many gamers need to see before even considering buying a game. Until the DCS World quality cockpits arrived, TK's were inherently better... and when pro modders like you took over, the engine really shined. It is a shame TK couldn't make the business model work well enough to continue. The tablet games are ok for tablets, but a pale shadow of the fun to be had in the SF2 series. As far as mesh resolutions go: I have the FSX/TacPack F-4B and installed some upgrades to model Vietnam better, both mesh and textures. The Hanoi/Thud Ridge area in this modded FSX is directly equal to Google Earth meshes. It is pretty impressive to see detailed mountains, valleys, etc. But, as low a resolution as the stock SF2 Vietnam mesh is, your textures smoke anything I can find for FSX... much closer to photo real... and seasonal, too. Nice Korea meshes. Reminds me of how much better SF2I terrain looked compared to the original SFP1 map.

Whether you understood or liked the tone of my reply, the answers remain the same: 1) TK already provided a way to do this and somebody needs to look for it, but the odds are low since people have already dissected most of his dll ini keys. 2) The game files need to be hacked/modified with a hex editor. 3) The stream of data going from the physics engine to the display engine needs to be intercepted and altered by an outside program in real time per the shader plugins for DirectX. I have no objections to anyone trying to increase the accuracy/realism/immersion of the SF series. But it has been under the scrutiny of so many modders that I would really be surprised if anyone could find anything new and not have already posted it here. I have only seen three efforts of note to push this sim beyond its current boundaries: the WTR effort, the mysterious and mostly ignored hacker-type, "mlracing" or something like that that appeared to be altering the game files (option 2 above)... and you with your never ending struggle to expand and improve terrains and cockpits. Of those three, only you would answer anyone on these boards. So, if you can't answer this question, I don't have any idea of who else to ask beyond the cockpit guru, moon jumper. I suspect if MJ knew how to make the HUD any more realistic, he already would have done it. No one wants you to pack up your toys because you make them and paint them so nicely and even share them for free. But you have to accept, you are among the last of the serious modders for this sim and this is the last English speaking forum that cares about this sim to that degree. So when the one remaining expert asks for help... you are probably only to get one or two types of answers: total silence or half-humorous/half-sarcastic comments.

It does suffer from the "sterile" effect that IL-2 also had. But DCS World has some events that aren't so sterile. It can be scripted to look and feel a lot like MS FSX in terms of traffic and comms. Lots of work on the mission author's end, but even basic missions are fairly entertaining to me with just a few events taking place outside of my focus... stray traffic, radio comms, etc. But the flight and systems modeling combined with the graphics is so much more immersive for me than SF2... and the combat, however limited the AI are, is by far better than anything you can do in FSX, even with the latest 3rd party addons. So DCS gives you a sim whose graphics, scripting, and systems modeling is comparable, if not superior to FSX and combat functionality that is generally as good as SF2. The area that FSX and SF2 smack down DCS World is the maps... or lack of them and the the objects that need to exist on those maps for significant time frames. I am still waiting for the 2.x engine to prove that it is going to close that gap significantly while I am still young enough to enjoy it. The Normandy 1944 map needs to be done well enough to impress and win over WW2 fans from other WW2 air combat sims. The F/A-18C needs a great carrier and the Middle East map to show off the new engine in the modern era. But ED is missing a huge opportunity if it doesn't provide an awesome Korean War package. The most recent competition is MiG Alley and the SFP1/SF2 KAW mods. Model Korea and the combatants on the ground, in the air, and at sea decently, and you will have an amazing one-of-a-kind sim/game.

If you can play and enjoy SFP1/WoX/SF2 all these years and live with the sight drifting off combiner glass, why would smooth, accurate indications on a HUD bother you? As for fixing it. All of those animations are driven by hard coded dlls. Unless you are very talented at interpreting hex code and manually editing it, the only other way to change it would be a hidden or ignored ini parameter. Given TK's attitude toward the game play superiority of the wild gun sight drifting down into the cockpit, I don't see why he would have made any provision for having slow or glitchy updates to HUD data. But he did have some whimsical features that favored extreme realism in some areas, so who knows? Good luck finding an already coded internal solution. Of course if you could identify a stream of information and intercept it the way some of the DX shader drop ins take over the graphics quality... there is some hope with time and skillz.

However slow and problematic it may be... the best part about DCS World is that it is steadily progressing. The game engine, the core modules, and the third party addons are all steadily getting better. Whereas SF2 is a dead engine. The terrain engine for SFP1 was obsolete from the day it was released and SF2NA's new terrain engine was a failure for me (and apparently the modding community since absolutely no one has been able to release a terrain based on its "improved" tech). The DCS World plane set has significant overlap with the SFP1/SF2 plane set at this point. There is not one aircraft that I can fly in both sims for which I prefer flying SF2 over DCS World. The F-4, the century series, MiG-23, and F2H-2 are the principal aircraft that draw me back to SF2 at all. I hope DCS World eventually covers most of those aircraft before ED goes out of business or I get too old to enjoy them.

DCS progress on integrating the old with the new into what will be Version 2.5 has been incredibly slow. I don't do "betas", which means I haven't even experienced the new Nevada map. My refusal to install the 2.x beta is somewhat ironic because even the current official release version 1.5.4. xxx is really a beta with all the bugs that get released despite beta testing. The aircraft that brought me to DCS World, the MiG-21bis actually seems to get worse over time. Leatherneck doesn't take kindly to criticism, yet can't ever live up to even one announcement on fixes and/or dates. Don't even talk to me about VEAO, their Hawk, or the P-40F. But that is all I have to say that is negative. Despite old and new bugs, the Leatherneck MiG-21bis is still one of the most amazing aircraft I have ever flown in any sim. The F-86F and MiG-15bis almost bring tears to my eyes with the level of immersion they bring to flying those aircraft. The DCS P-51D, Bf109K4, and Fw190D9 are the only WW2 aircraft I will fly for any length of time after years of Aces High being my favorite WW2 air combat sim. And when it comes to helos, NOTHING else even comes close to touching the DCS UH-1H and Mi-8. Even the Flaming Cliffs F-15C and Su-27 appear to be modeled better than in any other sim with those aircraft. While I prefer air-to-air combat, the level of immersion in DCS World is such that I am perfectly happy enjoying cold starts, talking to the ground crew and control tower on the radio, taxiing, taking off, following real-world approach procedures, and landing. If DCS World had a global map, like FSX, especially with the option to populate that map with objects based on the current date, it would be THE mother of all flight sims. I am eagerly awaiting the F-5E, F/A-18C, Viggen, and P-40F. The F-5E in Nevada will be especially cool. I would like to be an F-5E/MiG-21bis pilot that takes down online players flying F-15Cs, but I can settle with taking down much easier to kill AI F-15Cs since I will probably never have the skill/luck to kill human players in F-15Cs. DCS World's glaring limitation is that the world is restricted to the Black Sea and or Nevada. With the completion of the WW2 Normandy map and decent Korea, Vietnam, and Israel/Middle East maps with period correct objects, DCS World could be the absolute best combat flight sim ever produced. One can only hope that they reach their goals before going bankrupt.