FastCargo

I've done 3d clouds in the engine before...the in game shadowing/shading makes them look really bad. And I seriously doubt bump mapping will give better results. I have had much better looking results using airborne emitters from balloon objects. FC

That means there is no CarrierParkAnimation. FC

Guys, come on, really? Break out your rulers somewhere else...this thread is not the place to be comparing virtual penises. Now, discussions on how SF2:NA runs on a particular rig configuration are legitimate in that folks do need comparisons. Obviously, there are going to be variances depending on specific optimizations...but those need to be noted. Also, it should be obvious that if your rig is right at or below minimum specs, SF2:NA will not run without a lot of adjustments. In addition, I think a comparison between available freeware and payware is legitimate. People do need to have an idea on what the payware will get you in comparison to what is already available. I thought PFunk's review was fairly accurate. I think the tone of the review was harsher than it needed to be, but I think it summed up the good and bad pretty well. I might have gone into some detail of what exactly about the freeware F-14 is more compelling than the payware F-14...that seemed a bit glossed over to me. FC

Actually, if I remember, the F-14 uses spoilers and differential stabilizers to roll...but the spoilers are deactivated when the wing sweep exceeds 57 degrees... FC

I pretty much do it like that as well, then use xNormal instead of a plugin. Basically...anything less than 128/128/128 will show as a 'dimple' and anything brighter than 128/128/128 will show as a 'bump'. The farther away from 128/128/128 it is, the more pronounced the effect is. FC

IL2 1946 is why. BoB II is why. WOP is why. TK's profit model is to NOT do what others are doing. Everyone is doing WWII...only TK is doing the 60s to the early 80s. FC

Alrighty then... The question is always value...are the benefits of the purchase enough to offset the detriments? Modern combat aircraft simulations, especially those with electronic warfare included, are very complex programs...which is why most software companies have gone bankrupt or have abandoned the serious air combat simulation market. You can count on one hand (and have several fingers left over) the number of companies that still exist that put out air combat simulations that include electronic warfare. One company is large, putting out simulations that focus in detail on one aircraft, have closed systems, cost tons of money and lots of people to develop, and benefit from work done for the government. One company is very small, putting out simulations that are more survey sims, has an open system for 3rd party modifications, and has very little budget. One thing no one has mentioned really is that payware has a budget. Every day that product is not released is another day money is being spent with no return. That tends to put increasing pressure on a developer to get the product out...regardless of what potential customers want. It is always a tradeoff between how long a feature will take to make and how much money it will make...all superimposed on the relentless pace of technology. Freeware has no such constraints...because there is no monetary pressure (ie cost) to get it done, an infinite amount of time can be taken to release the product. All things considered, what TK has done is quite remarkable, making a simulation that in many ways is very detailed in terms of what it has to model (AI, electronic warfare, aerodynamics, ballistics, graphics, etc), yet still trying to keep it backwards compatible and open. Is that an excuse for a crappy product? Of course not...the market can be unforgiving for a non-functional product. SF2:NA is certainly functional, with a lot of little bugs, and a few large ones (Fringe ships, co-mixing fleets, A-7E campaign start crash). For any product, the idea of 'release now, fix later' can hurt long term sales. However, the developer may feel boxed into a corner...no money to spend on beta testers (or bad past experiences with extensive beta testing), but no money left to continue development of the current title, especially if that title has implemented several new core features (new terrain engine, new avionics, new dlls, etc). The pressure to release may become overwhelming...if the product gets out there now, revenue will be available to spend on fixing post-release bugs. I am not saying that's what happened here. I will say, there is nothing out there on the market that is like the TW sims...period. I challenge anyone to find sims that cover the time period, aircraft, gameplay and remain available to freely modify. FC

1) Correct...and specifically only for the 32-bit version of MAX 2009. 2) As far as I know, MAX will not let you save to earlier versions of the program...and earlier versions cannot read later versions of MAX files. FC

Don't know if that's going to happen...I don't think we were ever able to recover the latest F-14 model before most of Oli's work was lost. FC

It seems to be aa A-7E campaign issue...single missions start out just fine on the carrier. FC Roll I can understand...but ain't no way your head is going to be that far to the edge when strapped in unless you push it there yourself. FC

Also, head inertia you can adjust yourself in one of the inis... FC

It's not a bug then. The LHA is not being used by any stock TW title (yes, even merged) as a carrier. As such, it does not require a deck. Now, once a stock SF2 install uses the LHA as a carrier, then it not having a deck is a bug! Having said that, once we can get a look at the new carrier ini, we should be able to add the appropriate entries into the LHA to make it a functional carrier. FC

Well, until the Tawara is being used by SF2:NAs game engine with stock TW Harriers, I'd take a bug report of a spawn issue with a grain of salt because you're still using 3rd party objects. FC

Aren't the Harriers and Tawara third party? We probably shouldn't include errors with non-TW stuff as 'bugs'. FC

I meant that the components of the new engine aren't necessarily the big FPS killer so much as the amount of polygons themselves... FC

Outstanding...so it sounds like it's not so much anything new per se in the terrain engine as the pure amount of polygons being shown on screen. I'd imagine flatter terrains would do better, yet still allow the newer texture details available. FC

I guess the issue is that TK's terrain doesn't do 'scaling'...ie go to a lower mesh resolution when farther away... So I wonder if there is an 'in between' setting to maybe get better 3rd party terrain but not quite the frame rate hit. FC

That might explain it... FC

Awesome sauce! Thanks! So far, from what everyone is saying, the obvious bugs are the 'Fringe' ships and the Map view. Everything else seems relatively minor in a standalone install. I'd agree with what Dave said in the other thread...this is more than I was expecting. Targetable cruise missiles, implementation of the F-14's more complex radar/missile engagement mode, better terrain, WAY better water. more populated carriers, ships with multi weapons... FC

Say, are those the stock clouds? FC

I'll be really curious as to how the deck is populated...if the Sea King is a separate model, it raises all sorts of possibilities to fully flesh out the deck. Hopefully, this also means I can kill the carrier addon mod I had been tinkering with. FC

Can you post your settings once you get what you consider a good frame rate? My laptop specs are similar to yours. "In Soviet Russia, missile finds y...BLAM!" FC

The super-duper Fringe Nimitz...heh. Also, that looks like 3 ships total in that screenshot. FC

Hey, that looks real nice! I really can't wait until we can get our hands on the code changes... FC

Seems like every other time I was in Memphis I would pass a different burned out hulk on the side of the road...looked like the road warrior out there. Funny, one time when I was a teenager, some friends and I were out and about in my car. My friend in the back says that his seat feels kind of warm...next thing is that smoke appears, smelling like an electrical short. We rapidly pull to the side of the road and bail out in short order. The car doesn't go up in flames, but after I cautiously go back to investigate, I lift the rear seat and find a rust hole in the floorboard that was right over the muffler. The heat had melted the seat's cushioning, and the speaker wires that were laying right over it had the insulation melted off...causing the short. Learned how to patch sheetmetal from that... FC