streakeagle

Outstanding!

After all of these years of PC flying with some variant of a real F-4 Phantom's B-8 grip and stick, I have removed/replaced it with the Warthog stick that has been collecting dust for so long. The B-8 grip is impractical for any "modern" aircraft (if an aircraft flying since the '70s can be called modern?). The BU0836X was adequate as a USB stick controller, but the linear pot I was using for the pitch axis was high maintenance. If I didn't periodically clean it with alcohol, it was very noisy. The precision and accuracy of the Warthog is far superior with little or no maintenance. With a 15 cm extension from Sahaj, the "sticktion" and clunky transition across the center is largely overcome. I selected the extension to match the physical throw of the real F-4 stick (i.e. maximum linear displacement of the top of the stick from center). The Warthog is also mounted to match the height of the real stick. As nice as the new installation is, removing the B-8 comes at a price. The B-8, like the AR-15 and 1911A1, fit my hand perfectly. The engraved diamond checker pattern made it feel as comfortable as the stock 1911A1 pistol grip. The B-8 also does not feel like cold metal and angular like the Warthog stick does. I used some fairly stiff springs for the pitch axis on the F-4/B-8. Near the center felt smooth and light, but holding the stick back took some strength and even cause muscle fatigue if constantly used. Surprisingly, the Warthog springs have enough tension to self center despite the increase in weight and lever action caused by the 15 cm extension. But I can't feel any change in tension as I pull the stick back, so it is impossible to fly by "feel" the way I could with my hard sprung custom F-4/B-8 stick. The new installation did not damage the old one in any way, so I can always revert back if I want to. I also have a spare B-8 grip that could be adapted into a Warthog stick if I had the guts of a Cougar or Warthog to put inside of it. Here is the end result:

Great news :) When the DCS 1.5 branch goes hot (by the end of December?), I will have the L-39 and Mirage 2000 to enjoy for the first time. Guess which one will get the most time? I hope all the problems with the MiG-21bis are sorted out by then. Will all the bug fixes and newly added features, the F-86 should be a step up from 1.2 as well.

My changes don't work well with copying over directly, particularly if the module's controls were changed in any way. I am doing scripting in the module's files to get the behavior I want/need with toggle switches. So, I have all my changes grouped at the beginning of the file. After a patch, I have to go to the previous version backup folders for each aircraft and copy out my changes, then paste them into the new version. Simple, but tedious when I have custom mods for the: UH-1H, F-86, MiG-21, Bf109, and Fw190. So, I am pretty happy when there is a functional, stable version. I love flying the Bf109. Cold start, taxi, takeoff, oval back for a landing... whether it correctly models a Bf109 or not, I cannot say. But, based on my real world flying experience, the DCS Bf109 "feels" like I am flying a real airplane instead of the "riding on rails" effect typical of sims. I don't care for the guns as I am spoiled by high velocity/high rate of fire US guns, but with a bit of patience and precision, the Bf109 can use its power advantage to get in close and blow the enemy out of the sky with very few hits. The Fw190 is fun to fly, too, but I like the Bf109 a lot more... far more agile but at the same time a wild beast in need of taming.

For me, there is a need to wait. Stability. Every time there is a patch, I have to re-do my custom control mappings. AFAIK, the MiG-21bis completely broke its control mappings to appease complaints of people using conventional HOTAS, which will leave me unable to fly the MiG-21bis as I have since its initial release. The F-86 has been going through some changes as well, which is the aircraft I fly as much or more than the MiG-21. I read the bug reports. I will wait and hope that most if not all of my concerns are addressed by the time DCS 2.0 is released publicly rather than as a 1.5 beta or 2.0 alpha. I have very few complaints about the current 1.2.x release. So I will continue to enjoy the MiG-21, F-86, MiG-15, P-51D, Fw190, Bf109, UH-1, and Mi-8 as they are while everyone else suffers the teething problems of 1.5 and 2.0. But I am closely watching all the videos and screenshots.. can't wait for better looking graphics AND higher frame rates as well as the new NTTR map. But my main obsession is with the aircraft modules: when will the Hawk and C-101 get proper EFMs? When will the P-40F and Mirage 2000 be released? Spitfire? P-47? F-4F? Leatherneck announcements and F-14 release? etc... Of course, I will have to have 1.5/2.0 to enjoy any of the new releases, so get that 1.5 beta/2.0 alpha up to an integrated 2.0 beta and a final public release!

Done right, superman, batman, wonder woman, and the whole justice league could be as successful as the Marvel Universe movies. But somehow, DC movies usually get it wrong. Yet, they have done well on TV many times over the years. I usually like both Marvel and DC stuff regardless of how badly the critics pan it, so I will certainly see this movie, too. Though I missed the last Fantastic 4 based on my brother's assessment... wait for Netflix.

Glad to hear you solved your problem. I hope this profile serves you well.

It looks so good! But I will keep waiting patiently for a final release :P If only someone, ED or a 3rd party, would put a fully modeled F-4 in the game. I would gladly take any non-recon variant ever built: F-4B/C/D/E/F/G/J//K/M/S. The Simworks Studios F-4B for FSX would be great adapted to DCS World!

Despite the delays involved and the fun I am missing out on, I have even less interest in maintaining an alpha and a beta install in parallel with a main install :P I am looking forward to both the improved Georgia and NTTR terrains in 2.0. But I am equally or perhaps more interested in bug fixes to various aircraft modules. I am also curious about improved frame rates.

$60 with free TacPack upgrade sounds more realistic to me. A comparable DCS aircraft is typically $50 and frequently goes on sail for $40 or less. Of course, I would also have to buy TacPack. I would also have to decide whether to use FSX, FSX:SE, or buy Prepar3d. Prepar3d looks appealing, but keeps changing and addons don't necessarily maintain compatibility. I am not sure if FSX:SE is a better choice, because it already is a bit different from vanilla FSX and keeps changing. But the alternative is to stay with the bugs and performance issues of the now very old FSX.

As tempting as the Milviz F-4E and F-4S are... $60 and adding TacPack later will cost more? Not even an expected release date for TacPack despite F-4E having been out for quite some time. And people think DCS charges too much for individual aircraft? The Simworks Studios F-4B looks more promising than the Milviz offerings. But whichever of them is released in a fully functioning state including properly operating weapons and radar will get my money. At the present rate, 6 months to a year before one of the two even claims to have reached that state?

Not sure if I am going to buy it. The graphics look amazing, but my son and I still enjoy Battlefront 2 (which I have 4 copies - one disc and 3 on steam). If I do buy it, I am not sure if I will get 1 or 2 copies. Right now, I have only 1 origin account which I got for my son. But he wants me to get a 2nd account so we can play Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare together, which would also make sense for the new Battlefront.

Yes, this is a target profile. Technically, you can put it into any folder you want and then open the file using Target. I don't recall where the default folder is. I synchronized all of my computers via a common public documents folder system, so I filed all of my profiles in the same folder I store the target software I use whenever I am building a new PC. I think the default path for the profiles that come with the Target is: C://Users/<User Name>/AppData/Roaming/Thrustmaster/TARGET/Scripts

When you can get the right people into the right situation, there is nothing better than multiplayer. But it is hard to find more than two people that like playing the same way and can fly at the same time. The issues with SFP1 multiplayer connectivity made things even worse, though Hamachi solved most of the networking issues.

You can get the entire Falcon series, including Falcon 4 for $10 at gog.com: http://www.gog.com/game/falcon_collection

My situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that I use an SSD for Windows, but have a conventional mirrored raid 1 array that hosts all my other files including windows user folders and steam applications. So, I might be better off staying with Windows 7 or fully migrating... though I could image the RAID array to a new pair of drives as well... maybe even make those SSD, too.

Well, it can't hurt if I use a new hard drive for Win 10, and then roll back by swapping hard drives? Ultimately some games will require later DirectX than Win 7 supports, so I have to go to Win 10 sooner or later. But DCS isn't going that route any time soon and I don't think I presently have any games that will require a later DirectX. But if I ever get Prepar3d FSX flavor, I guess I could use more advanced DirectX?

Great story and loved the posts that went with it, too. Go back for more and tell us how it goes!

Is this is trick question? I thought the answer was to format the drive and install Win 7 ;) My Win 10 upgrade icon still reports, "We're validating Windows 10 for your PC". If it ever allows me to download Win 10, I plan on installing it on a new hard drive. Win 7 has worked better for me both at home and at work than anything before it. I am fearful of destroying such a stable and fast installation.

Two PCs on the same network have no problem with multiplayer. You don't need Hyperlobby at all to find other PCs on the same network. But the available dogfight and coop modes are the same. As long as both PCs are configured exactly the same in terms of mod files, they should theoretically be able to go online together. There is a less than perfect file checker anti-cheating program. Sometimes it has false alarms that keep pure stock installs of the same exact version from playing, yet it doesn't detect complete aircraft swap-outs if certain files have the same names as the aircraft that has been replaced. The only way to accomplish base take-off is to fly the dogfight mode and have players agree to fly to their respective bases, then take off on command. For such a situation, I suggest unlimited fuel and unlimited ammo. There is no refueling or reloading of ammo in SFP1, using unlimited fuel and ammo will help flights last longer without having to respawn.

Historically, any virtual squadron that flew SFP1 online co-operatively as described above (dogfight mode, landing at base, taking off together, flying formations etc.) would get bored very quickly and move back to whatever sim they came from that supported multiplayer much better. The only people that stayed over the long haul were those that were happy to just randomly dogfight whoever showed up with whatever planes they happened to like flying. Most of the time, I was willing to fly aircraft that would balance the fights better. The draw to SFP1 multiplayer was the plane set, but the limitations were just too great for most people. Third Wire missed an opportunity by never providing useful multiplayer, but ultimately the SF PC series couldn't even afford to keep up in single player, so TK was wise to not waste time and money on multiplayer.

Later marks may have more performance, but nothing beats the grace and beauty of the original Mk1 and Mk2 Spitfires. An amazing aircraft with a great history.

When I was hosting, newbies were common. I would fly the F-100 so that they had a chance to kick my butt... and if they still had problems, I would coach them on using their aircraft and its weapons (usually the F-4). As they improved, I would upgrade to the F-104. Once WoV was released, the F-105 was a good aircraft for me to fly versus newbies. There were some regulars that were about equal to me and we would fly F-100 vs F-100 until others would show up. Then there were some elites, like doghouse, who could win no matter what they flew or what you flew. My best online times were with SFP1 SP2a (before WoV was released). After WoV, there were lots of flight model issues, especially at transonic speeds. But the almost everlasting 083006 patch level was the dominant one even after the last SFP1/WoX patches that arrived with WoI just before SF2 was released. If anyone is going to start playing online again, THE install to use is the merged WoV/WoE at the 083006 patch level: a great planeset, a very stable install, and compatible with almost all of the older addons. The only problem is if you are playing co-op/team vs team type missions, the AI is a box of rocks. 083006 was around quite a long time, but had crappy AI making single player, or multiplayer that included AI less than challenging. The 083006 flight models also annoyed me. I much preferred the SFP1 SP2a AI and flight models. SF2 was a huge step forward in so many areas: stock aircraft variants with much better cockpits, more detailed realistic ECM systems, AI as good or better as SP2a aside from colliding with the ground far too often. It is a shame SF2 couldn't support the original multiplayer :( I haven't hosted in years. I am not sure my present router/pc combo will work as a host via hyperlobby, though it probably works fine with Hamachi, if Hamachi still supports enough connectivity for free (they kept changing their licensing rules). If someone wants to try SFP1/WoX multiplayer, we need to agree on a base, unmodded install and a type to hang out at hyperlobby. It takes time to get everybody connected and working properly (though it is mostly a problem for the host). Once everything is working for everyone involved, you can start adding mods one at a time to make sure everything works. EVERYONE has to have the exact same install to avoid connectivity issues. Again, the merged WoV/WoE at the 083006 patch level is the ideal install for this purpose since it provides a decent planeset and map variety out of the box.

I used to leave a server up 24/7 hosting dogfight/deathmatch. I would pop in when I could every evening between 8 PM and 11 PM EST. The magic time seemed to be from 9 PM to 10 PM EST back then. But even at peak popularity, the most people on at any one time was typically between 3 and 5 with a one-time event where briefly 12 people were on at the same time. Now you will be lucky to get 2.

Some graphics settings are automatically limited to help frame rates stay smooth in multiplayer. While the co-op/team vs team missions are a nice idea, they aren't much fun if you get shot down early and have to wait for everyone else to finish the mission before you can join in the fun again. The option to respawn into an AI aircraft that is still flying could have helped solve that problem. The deathmatch/every-man-for-himself was far more flexible about people joining/leaving, which helps quite a bit when both the game and the people playing it have connectivity issues. You could still play teams if you wanted, just the game wouldn't score it that way and it was only good for air-to-air. Third Wire is never going to go any further with multiplayer in the PC SF series. The tablet/phone versions of SF recently added a multiplayer capability and it is little different from the SFP1 deathmatch setup, but with a much broader planeset if you don't mind flying from a third person shooter point of view. The SFP1/WoX online community was never very large and is completely gone as far as I know.