streakeagle

Yes, FRAPS. Works fairly well now that I have a modern quad-core PC :)

Here is a new one I just uploaded at full 1600x1200 resolution with stereo sound. It took quite a while, so I don't know if I am going to bother to upload the first two parts. Here are the links in order part 1 to part 3:

This is an old video at far less than HD quality, but it demonstrates my style of gameplay: no external view and no icons: TrackIR makes this style of play more realistic by not using a POV hat or zoom axis. The WoV game engine allows you to see objects if they are at least one pixel in size, so you can lean forward to zoom in and spot distant targets. Unfortunately, SF2 eventually took this capability away, so aircraft now pop into view at a hard-coded range. I am still playing this way despite the new limits, which are painfully obvious with B-52 sized aircraft but not to bad for MiG-17 sized targets. I use this same style with all every game I have that can use it: DCS, Aces High, ArmA 2, Falcon 4 BMS, However, I don't have videos for the others.

Driver version doesn't affect me much. It takes very little time for me to set up the one profile I like for all my games, I save it, and then never really look at it again. I didn't realize that the ability to look 180 was a TrackIR driver problem rather than a Third Wire feature. I just realized one day that I could look all the way around if I wanted to. Usually I am too lazy to edit the viewlist and just play stock anyway.

I can do that without any problem at all. The cockpit ini settings don't matter as the viewlist parameters are like a master key in disabling all limits. I used to have the TrackIR limits in SFP1/WoX series no matter what ini settings I used, but I have not had that problem in SF2 (not sure when it was "fixed"). I am running SF2 to the latest patch level, but had realized the limits of SFP1/WoX had been removed from SF2 long ago. I would check your TrackIR profile and make sure it is not preventing you from turning around 180 degrees. I am using a TrackIR 4 Pro with the latest software from natural point and I can easily exceed 180 degrees on the virutal sphere co-ordinate grid when turning my head left or right.

I can use TIR to look freely in pitch and yaw anywhere in the cockpit by editing the viewlist.ini file: [ViewClass002] ViewClassName=CockpitViewClass LimitPitch=FALSE LimitYaw=FALSE File placed in: C:\Users\Stephen\Saved Games\ThirdWire\StrikeFighters2 NorthAtlantic\Flight

The only unique difference between the A-7H and A-7E 3d models is the removal of the refueling probe. This appears to be consistent with reality. Anything and everything I could find on the A-7H said that it was pretty much an A-7E with the refueling probe removed. I barely glanced over the cockpits and didn't see any obvious differences. The price says it all. None of the DLC variants with significant 3D model changes had the $2.99 price tag.

In place of the ADI2 on the far left, I can get a RWR to work. The only other node that can do this is the radar, so it had to be the somewhat clipped ADI2. It does work even if it is small and partially clipped: By streakeagle at 2012-09-08 I have many questions about the later CF-104 upgrades. In the original delivered version with no gun, what was the gunsight like? Fixed reticle identical to the standard sight? Once the gun came back, was LCOS restored if it was previously deleted? If there was LCOS, could the radar provide gun ranging? Did the radar ever get upgraded/replaced to provide any air-to-air modes such as search, track, boresight, ranging? For now, I have restricted all my CF-104s to ground mapping and terrain avoidance modes with no LCOS, just a fixed reticle. The absence of a search radar makes finding incoming bandits harder, but the functional RWR partially solves that problem. What versions of the AIM-9 (if any) were carried on the various CF-104 variants?

Whether Putin has been legitimately elected or not, I think he is one of the most capable leaders Russia has had since Peter the Great. But the very thing that molded him into such a strong person also limits his ability to lead his nation into prosperity: his Cold War/KGB experience. It may never happen, but I would like to see Russia and its people do as well as the USA without needing a war to get there. Those people have been oppressed for centuries and despite shaking off the Czar and most of the Soviet chains, continue to suffer despite having abundant resources and a large and fairly well educated population. At least they have Vodka :)

Thanks for the history lesson. I love B-26s but never knew about this mission.

I have really enjoyed the abilities of the new system to run older games well such as ArmA 2, FC2, and SF2. I can see that I may need the 7970, multi-gpus, or better if I am going to go "Ultra HD" (the new 2160p TV resolution) or use multi-monitors with DCS.

The slider that kills my DCS performance is the Anit-Aliasing Mode in the max quality "Super sample AA" position. Super sampling greatly increases the image quality, especially when looking at gauges from longer distances or looking at terrain into the distance from a low altitude, but the FPS cost in DCS is just too high. So, I knock it back one notch to Adaptive Multi-sample AA, which still looks almost as good, but gets much higher FPS. In other games such as SF2, I can use Super sample AA and maintain Vsync 60 fps, unless I am over Iceland, then its more like 30 fps.

There is a CF-104 "walkaround" website that shows a cockpit without the RWR, but otherwise looks very similar: http://www.arcair.com/awa01/101-200/awa101-CF104/00.shtm

I have been studying the history of the CF-104 and wanted to know how its cockpit looked, especially the later variant with a RWR. After a bit of poking around, I found this photo, which is somewhat different than the stock cockpit found in the old SFP1 F-104G: CF104 STARFIGHTER COCKPIT by JmHerigstad, on Flickr

The original free MiG-21 cockpits created head bobbing effects. Use those as a reference. Essentially, you are creating a g-meter, but instead of connecting it to a needle on a gauge in the cockpit model, you are connecting the animation effect to the entire cockpit model. So, select the correct instrument parameter, connect it to the right node of the cockpit lod, and choose the correct type of movement (roll, translation, etc.) around the correct axis and you can get any kind movement you want.

Focusing on the F-15C means focusing on the US market, which makes sense for a lot of reasons. I am the US customer they are aiming at and I prefered flying the F-15C in LOMAC/FC/FC2 primarily out of familiarity with the systems combined with the fact that it was one of my all-time favorite aircraft long before there were flight sims or even MiG-29s/Su-27s. While I would prefer an F-4 to the F-15, I prefer the F-15 to the MiG-29 or Su-27. The DCS:MiG-21bis, if done well and I am able to employ it as successfully as I can in the SF series may end up outranking the F-15C. Of course, as an air-to-air fanatic, I prefer all of them to the A-10, Su-25, and Ka-50. FC3 will hold me until the MiG-21bis, and the MiG-21bis may be my favorite for a long time until F-104/F-4 aircraft and others of similar capabilities from that era become available.

I saw this on SimQH and wanted to make sure it got echoed here: http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9059&start=0&sid=e6bcc07dc7df8535afc45cab7ef27466 I hope this does well, as competition is good for us simmers :)

Just caught up with this. Much better, but there is still an extra large blurry flight path marker wandering around on the HUD when tracking a target for a Sparrow shot.

For the dev forums to only have traffic directly related to them and the community chit chat to be somewhere else is actually a good thing. And the developers are perfectly welcome to continue using this site as well if they happen to have time and are interested in the daily chit chat stuff. The only complication I have seen in the Third Wire/CombatAce setup is people going to Third Wire for tech support on mods and people coming to CombatAce to report bugs with the game engine, which is quickly resolved by someone suggesting that the poster seek help on the other site. Most of what happens on other sim sites gets mentioned here sooner or later anyway, so it is not a bad thing to focus your time here.

Nothing stopping you from moving back here. Go to SimQH briefly once a day to look for dev news (or wait for it to leak here), then spend the rest of your time here. Problem solved. As time progresses, more will do the same and the SimQH forum will be solely used by the devs and those needing to communicate with them. Such a system is actually preferable and is the way it has been with the SF series where most of the community hangs out here and then pops in to the official Third Wire forums when seeking tech support or other questions for the developer.

BMS didn't run especially well on my old single core A64 PC, but it runs like a charm on my new quad-core i5 machine. So, I did some basic evaluation flights to refresh my memory of why I never really got into Falcon 4 that much over the years. Now my memory is quite refreshed. Like LOMAC/FC2, air-to-air combat in Falcon 4 occurs with AIM-120s and late model AIM-9s. The sole correctly modeled flyable, F-16C, is also one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the game (compared to LOMAC/FC2's F-15C). When I engage an overwhelming number of AI, I can just pull a tight circle and end up with everyone forming a conga line behind me. I then proceed to use my performance advantage to work my way up the line, limited only by ammo and fuel. The whirlwind dogfight that devolves into the conga line reminds me very much of Jane's USAF: All of the aircraft involved look like they are performing a very slow ballet. I don't know if it is a scaling issue (such as lods made larger than they should be for a given range to be easier to see on a monitor) or if it is the fact that the AI pilots willing drop to if not below their safe stall speeds. Being focused purely on basic air-to-air combat missions, the mix between the conga line and the slow speed ballet destroys the immersion and fun that is so well built up by every other aspect of the game. Aside from the modern missiles, dogfighting in LOMAC/FC2 is far more diverse, challenging, and fun. The stock gunfight training missions for the F-15C range from 1-v-1 against the MiG-23 to 1-v-2 against the Su-27. The AI will split up and react differently to your moves rather than having both enter a pure pursuit curve and form a conga line. The IRM missions give the F-15C tail-only AIM-9Ps vs all-angle AA-8Bs, which gives the MiGs a huge edge that works well with their divide and conqure tactics. Their response does very with how you approach them, so they don't fly the exact same pattern every time unless you approach them the exact same way every time. Now the cockpit and controls work as well with my Thrustmaster Warthog as DCS A-10C. The clickable cockpit is on par with DCS A-10C. If only I had a Cougar for the correct throttle. If it wasn't for the slow mo conga lines and dated graphics, I could enjoy dogfighting in this game as much as LOMAC/FC2/DCS. Of course, my style of play doesn't tap into the dynamic campaign engine. Nor do I see the point of multiplayer unless you prefer co-op only with everyone flying the same airframe. So, even with all the amazing improvements to Falcon 4 over the years and the fact that in many ways it is still comparable or even superior to DCS, it is still not the game for me to play. Yet, I have the original Falcon 4.0 and Falcon 4.0: Allied Force. P.S. Shouldn't this forum be renamed to be something like Falcon 4 and Friends since Allied Force is no longer being developed and various mod versions are far more popular?

Far too easy. I don't even have to look that one up.

Off topic: Currently, my job title is "SCADA technician" for the Toho Water Authority in Kissimmee, FL. I am principally paid to solve industrial control problems, but this is not the place to go into details about what that means, what I actually do, or how to get into this field. On topic: Now I am heading off to buy the Mirage IIIEL to complete my collection of SF products (much as I have a collection of 1/48 scale model airplanes).

I can't say I fly 100% stock: from the moment I complete a new install, I have to edit the ini to turn off sun flare and set antialiasing. Out of the box, I can fly F-4s/F-8s/F-105s/F-100s/Mirages vs MiGs... so what exactly do I need mods for? I tend to substitute 600 gal drop tanks for guns pods on F-4 loadout files when I get tired of manually doing so through the in-game loadout screen. I also tend to make MiG-21s/MiG-23s flyable as time and interest permit. Sooner or later, I throw a few addon aircraft like Julhelm's Convair, the F-101 Voodoo, and/or some of the Razbam stuff like the F2H-2. It takes me months to accumulate all of the above minor changes after a new patch/install. As I don't care too much for modern or hypothetical fights and the crappy stock terrain doesn't affect air combat, I rarely bother to install any other mods. While I have bought all of the DLC except for the latest Mirage IIIEL, I hardly ever fly any of those. I like having the option to fly whatever I want whenever I feel like it, but I am not compelled to periodically fly every stock aircraft. I do enjoy collecting them, and unlike user mods, they stay current with every patch/new release. My pay is on the order of $35/hour, and I get time-and-a-half for overtime, so if I inadvertently clock out late like I did today and get 1/4 hour of OT, I have $13 of play money I can blow on DLC. Which means, whether I need it or not, whether I will fly it or not, I will buy the Mirage IIIEL tonight and have lost nothing for doing so while expanding my stock flyable plane set by 1. As long as a significant number of other Third Wire customers do the same, what does TK have to lose by making every minor variant of every stock model into DLC? If the changes required to create finished DLC variants truly took only 30 minutes, TK would be cranking these out even faster than he has. I suspect he budgets a certain amount of time to research the variant as well as time spent creating textures/decals, making minor mods to 3d models, and editing ini files. I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the releases. I look forward to seeing what else he digs up and the history behind the real aircraft.

As much as TK focuses on budget/profit issues, he is still an avid fan of aviation. TK has specifically mentioned that he prefers to release aircraft in groups so that rare or interesting types that only a minority would like have their cost covered by popular types that most people want. His theory is that If he produced addon aircraft, only the most popular would make back the time/money invested in them, which means only the popular ones could be produced. Of course, he totally defeated that objective with SF2NA as it released only one new flyable and perhaps the most popular flyable ever included in a TW release. The days of four or more new flyables per release are gone unless there is a massive change in the economics involved.