streakeagle

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.

My eyes aren't "wonky". The old website is gone, but it used to be filled with rendered screen shots show casing both aircraft under development (T-38, F-16, F-15, etc.) and Nevada that had amazing geometry, texturing, lighting, shadows, and reflections. They weren't in-game shots, but they looked amazing. These above in-game screenshots remind me of their old rendered screenshots, especially the glass on the Mirage. This is no SFP1 or LOMAC, this is the promised land that FighterOps never delivered... Only instead of a T-38, we get an L-39 or a Hawk or a C-101. But with the A-10 and F-15 already available as flyables, DCS will be very close to what Fighter Ops advertised. This is an archive that has some of what I remember that I see in DCS 1.5 Screenshots: https://web.archive.org/web/20051103024330/http://www.fighterops.com/ Hit "Next" until you get to the shot of the F-15 in the foreground with two-seat F-16s in the background with the shiny glass. There were also various shots of Nellis. The last useful screenshots published had a T-38 parked at Nellis or flying over Nevada. The in-game shots of the T-38 never quite matched the rendered models, but the above screenshots jarred my memory. I had all but forgotten about FighterOps. Technically, FigherOps still exists, though there does not appear to be any pretense that there will ever be a game and the private pay-access Area 51 forums are long gone: https://www.facebook.com/fighterops?fref=ts http://www.fighterops.com/

Looking at those screenshots, DCS is ultimately providing what FighterOps had promised for years... Ultra realistic sim and graphics centered on Nellis. Is it just me, or is the aircraft floating a bit above the tarmac. Look at the shadow versus the main wheels over several different pics to see what I am seeing.

I remain patient. I have no interest in maintaining a beta install in parallel with a main install.

I remember announcements for Capt Sim products, most famously the MiG-21UM, but I have never bought any MSFS products other than FSX and FSX Gold. In that time frame, only two sims had my attention: SFP1/WoX and Aces High.

The DCS L-39 (like the DCS P-51D) presents me with a unique opportunity. The Kissimmee airport near my workplace operates T-6 Texan, P-51Ds, and L-39s for the purpose of allowing people to fly them and even get rated to fly those aircraft solo. It would be nice to save money over a few years (perhaps soaking up some overtime for my own personal gift fund), then use the money to fly the P-51 and L-39. It would be interesting to compare the responses of the real aircraft to control inputs, then come home and try duplicating the results. I would need to wear a go pro type setup so that I could record instrument indications. It would be a fun experiment for me (though a costly one). I could better use the money on other things that I would use far longer. I also might be better served to save up for a one-time flight in the Collings Foundation's F-4 Phantom, but again the cost-effectiveness is extremely prohibitive... much better ways to spend the money for long-term benefits rather than a few minutes I would never forget.

Fantastic stuff!

They eye candy all over forums and facebook is so beautiful... but mixed in with one helluva bug list, both global and end-user specific. I hope they squash them bugs quick, because I want the long promised higher frame rates, higher quality graphics, new gameplay features, and a large squashing of long existing bugs, a very rare combination!

I am going to patiently wait for the general/debugged public release of 1.5. Looks pretty good, though!

It was a small scale development aircraft, designed to test the concepts of stealth. The F-117 was preceded by a scaled down demonstrator as well, Have Blue.

After buying in early and waiting forever, I ultimately got the MiG-21bis and love it even in its current "beta" condition. I flip-flopped on DCS WW2. I put in money to get all the expected planes for free (including the Me262 for $75-$80 and get some printed manuals). I pulled my money out since I knew their goal was extremely unrealistic. Then I put just enough money back in ($40 I think) to maximize my chance of getting 4 or 5 aircraft. When the house of cards collapsed, I ended up getting the Fw190 and Bf109 for $40. I don't think the map is included any more or maybe it is... doesn't matter since it has never materialized. If you want the earliest possible access at the lowest possible initial price, buying in early has paid off every time for me. But the delays, the endless excuses and/or lack of communication is stressful. If you are patient, the best thing to do is wait a few weeks for a flash sale and get a decent price or wait a few more months and get the newer releases for almost nothing. I have bought into all of the available pre-orders. The Hawk and C-101 still don't have EFM's. Based on the latest info, the P-40F is going to miss the promised release date, too. If I were smart, my days of paying full price for delayed, half-baked releases would come to an end. But I would like to believe that combined with others who are doing the same, my financial contributions are helping the DCS World ball to continue rolling. It may be slow and painful, but I like where it has gone and appears to be going. I have RAZBAM's SF2 aircraft. The results were great despite some lingering graphical bugs. I certainly didn't want to return them for a refund. If the RAZBAM DCS World releases match or beat Belsimtek and Leatherneck, I will be very happy. I will take a chance and pre-order the Mirage 2000, then use the success of that release or lack thereof to decide on future RAZBAM products. I am utterly amazed at the progress that DCS World has made despite the delays and bugs. In the past, air combat sim developers always compromised between survey sims and study sims. DCS world has uniquely provided both. Some fault the diversity in era, especially given the very time/place specific Black Sea map, but I love it. If RAZBAM transitions to being an established/successful DCS developer via the Mirage 2000, their unique list of planned projects will definitely be part of my DCS stable.

This is a great aircraft and I can't wait to fly it. I hope it marks the beginning of a string of successful RAZBAM addons for DCS World!

Was that an exercise or a party with one hell of a fireworks display? Fantastic firing range with an amazing group of air and land forces operating concurrently. Seeing the old F-4, F-5, and AH-1 operational takes me back at least 30 years. "Impressive" is an understatement for this exercise and the video.

I have Shoot installed and working on Win 7 64-bit. I use it for DCS. Sometimes it glitches and it can only be fixed by closing the program and restarting, but for the most part it works well. A key aspect of this software is that it uses a very old version of .net, so you have to install the old version and use a special config file to make it work. The config file can be generated by .net which has some sort of backwards compatibility tool, but I provided my copy to the Shoot people, so I think they are still hosting it. The support forums for Shoot go over all of this, but they are long and confusing after all of these years. Some people who once used Shoot have gone on to more modern payware that works as well or better without having to install ancient versions of .net. I was going to do so myself, but after years of not using Shoot at all, I tried it again and found on my latest PC. It rarely glitches at and is working well with DCS. I use it to make and respond to radio calls, very immersive!

So let me get this straight, the effects of a nuclear bomb are immoral compared to conventional warfare? WW2 covered far more area than any single atom bomb. The effects of fighting a large scale (global) conventional war for just a few years lasted decades, certainly affecting children not even born yet. There were (and still are) minefields and unexploded ordinance all over Europe. Does Japan surrender without dropping the A-bombs? Probably not. Those two bombs saved millions of lives in exchange for the thousands that suffered their effects. It would have been immoral to invade Japan D-Day style when the bombs were available to avoid that blood bath. Japanese women, children, and elderly were supposed to fight to the death. Based on the the island hopping campaigns, I believe a large majority of them would have done so. Jump ahead to the Cold War. The frightening potential of atomic warfare ensured that even big conflicts like Korea were carefully fought to avoid an all-out World War 3 fight between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I can fully understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons. Once a country has them, they will never be invaded and they get to sit at the big boys table in the United Nations. Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea get a level of respect from their enemies that ensures most conflicts are at best minor skirmishes. Unless some odd situation triggers a major nuclear exchange, nuclear weapons have been the most sane, humane, and moral weapons to ever be created. Unlike all conventional weapons created before or since, they were only used once and dramatically reduced the number of lives lost over the long haul.

My preferred method of testing FMs is simply to have known performance data points, better yet complete charts, and then turn debug mode on and see for myself how the net lift and drag values compared at that those points. My AIDE tool allowed me to convert SFP1 flight models into standard performance charts found in flight manuals. I would simply tweak the values until the output of my program fit the charts. Unfortunately, the last version I made/released to accommodate some changes TK made to the flight models introduced bugs that I could never fix making the program unstable, most likely a memory leak or worse. The program was large and my free time had dwindled. I always dreamed of a day when I could start from scratch and make a newer better version. NASA has CD0 plots for many aircraft of the 1960s/1970s, so it is fairly easy to get that value correct. Many flight manuals for jets have V-n diagrams that let you get Clmax vs speed and altitude. Many have level acceleration times from one mach number to another (i.e. Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2), which provides T-D/W (specific excess thrust). If the sustained g performance charts are available in standard height vs Mach format, you basically have everything you need to get complete lift, drag, and thrust tables. The difficultly is in proportioning those numbers to various parts of the aircraft. There is a program called DATCOM based on all USAF performance prediction techinques that can be extremely useful for SF flight modeling: http://www.holycows.net/datcom/ Of course WW2 aircraft performance was never documented as well as jets. The pilot manuals are generally devoid of performance tables. Military testing was sometimes very subjective... unclear what fuel was used, weights, and other critical test conditions. The performance of particular engine and prop combinations are hard to determine. Jets are generally easier to model than prop planes... at least at subsonic speeds.

Looks like a great museum! Thanks for the pics.