FastCargo

Lets see how long it takes before someone figures out what this is... FC

Actually, I did find that video very informative. Not that I'll remember much of it....but I had learned a lot from my Canadian wife beforehand. FC

Actually, it is better in that if you pooch something up, you don't have to reinstall SF2...you can just delete the mod folder. FC

The CAT files in SF2 are similar to what were in the original SF series of games. I assume at some point you did extract files in the SF1 series. Here is how to extract stuff from the CAT files in the SF2 series: http://combatace.com/topic/44027-extracting-files-from-sf2-series-cat-files-by-migbuster/ And here is where you add mods now...do NOT put files in the StrikeFighters 2 directory! http://combatace.com/topic/62302-what-is-the-mod-folder/ FC

MAKO, What? Slow down and clarify...what exactly are you trying to do and which sim is it in? FC

Yep, been laptop gaming for 8 years now...about the only gaming you can't do are things requiring precise foot petals (of which there are workarounds). Everything else (including things like joysticks, TrackIR) you can fit into a laptop bag. I've often wondered what the market would be for a durable, truly portable HOTAS... FC

You need to remove any and all mods from your install. The FASTEST way to do that is go into where your mods are at and rename the mod folders...usually something like: C:\Users\[yourname]\Saved Games\ThirdWire. Within that directory you'll see your mod folders (like StrikeFighters 2, StrikeFighters 2 Europe, etc, etc). Simply rename them (like rename StrikeFighters 2 to xStrikefighters 2, etc) for whatever particular sim you are having the issue. The run the sim...it will rebuild the directories with all stock stuff. Then test the particular aircraft you are having trouble with. FC

I remember this issue...it had something I think do to with the video drivers... FC

You should always patch a stock game before you install any mods. Also, Bunyap's weapons pack is very old. Use the Community Weapons Pack instead. FC

ThirdWire.com FC

Sure...it'll just revert to the stock AircraftObject.ini file located in one of the CAT files. FC

Vietnam 1984 is a VERY old campaign...there is probably something in it (maybe the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.INI file) that is causing the problem. I would recommend doing the first four steps, then install the campaign in another folder and copy the files to your install individually. FC

Hahaha...note to self, don't land there...not sure you would WANT to know what that place ships... FC

What's your point? The idea is still sound. FC

Because some of us travel for a living and need a mobile way to game. Good luck throwing your desktop and 27 inch monitor into your bag and dragging it around the planet. My last laptop was more powerful and had better resolution than most desktops at the time I bought it. Don't you ever presume you know what's good for gaming or simming for other folks and what isn't. FC

US spacecraft have had solar energy before. Skylab, the ISS, a lot of unmanned satellites. Frankly, the whole way we approach our space program needs an overhaul. If it were me, I'd have a tiered system. Make your man rated system a small reusable item, like a spaceplane. It doesn't (and shouldn't) be a big large spacecraft...the idea is to get people up and down safely...maybe small reconnaissance type missions, but that's it. The idea is not to send up something the size and weight of a DC-9 everytime you launch a human. Then, have a family of dumb, simple boosters (aka Big Dumb Boosters) for your freight hauling needs. Simple, robust, cheap. Hell, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, but kept on going...that's the kind of rockets we could use for our freight hauling. You could even make the first, biggest stages recoverable if you want. FC

Oh yeah, I had that same problem for a little while. Download this: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=a7b7a05e-6de6-4d3a-a423-37bf0912db84 Install, then retry. FC

You don't need to apologize, you just needed to tell us so we know. We have several folks on the forum who have disabilities of their own who are welcome here. FC

These aircraft may not work for that level of patched game. FC

Redownload and reinstall: http://combatace.com/files/file/8371-fa-18e-super-hornet-new-model-v15/ http://combatace.com/files/file/8375-fa-18f-super-hornet-new-model-v15/ http://combatace.com/files/file/8380-ea-18g-growler-new-model-v15/ http://combatace.com/files/file/8809-fa-18e-and-fa-18f-new-model-update/ There is nothing wrong with these models...they should work as is. If the animations still don't work, there is something wrong with your control setup (assuming you are patched to the Oct 08 level). FC

Nice catch Florian! Though I'm not sure why those entries were changed...I just checked the downloads and the data.ini files for the Super Hornets have the correct animation entries. FC

JM is correct. Even if you manage to reproduce the aircraft exactly, rebuilding the jigs, milling machines, etc, I guarantee they would still have to flight test it and recertify it. And if you decide to incorporate modern technologies in construction and/or capabilities, it is now considered a whole new aircraft and must be put through the entire envelope and certification process. Why do you think they spent the money to pull the old T-38s out of the boneyard, after they had refurbished them when they got them back from the Taiwanese? I remember seeing those aircraft on blocks when we got them from the Taiwanese...they were in BAD shape. If you had seen a car in as bad a shape, you would have thrown it in a crusher and called it a day. But it was still cheaper to tear them down completely, inspect, clean, rebuild them and all the various parts, verses starting a whole new production line...because they were not considered brand new aircraft. Why also due you think companies campaign hard to keep production lines open...because once they shut down, they are expensive to restart. It's real friggin simple. It isn't that it is less expensive to start production on brand new old aircraft, it is that it is not cost-effective. Any savings you have is not worth the loss of capability compared to a clean sheet plane...it's better to start with a brand new aircraft that can incorporate the new technologies from the ground up verses trying to put them in an airframe not designed for them. Now, note this is different from retrofitting technologies into airframes you already have because you are not trying to restart (or build from the ground up) a production line. So, do you get it yet? If you look at the entire life-cycle cost of an aircraft, from first drawings to being cut up for scrap, the only difference in cost between a brand new old aircraft and a new aircraft is the initial R&D cost. And the more new technologies you incorporate into the new old aircraft, the smaller the savings gets. And if that new old aircraft gives you less capabilities than the new aircraft, it may in fact cost you more money on the operational side of things...further whitting down your savings. A real world example...the USAF is looking for a next generation replacement for the T-38, verses restarting the production line. One of the aircraft being strongly considered is the T-50 Golden Eagle. It looks sort of like a baby F-16, powered by a single F404. Anyway, one of our T-38 IPs went over to SK to evaluate it personally, including getting checked out to operate it and fly it. He came back extremely impressed: 1. It's MTBF rates are extremely low compared to current T-38s and even new model T-38s didn't rate as good. 2. Modern and integrated avionics similar to 4th/5th generation fighters. Results in smoother training transition. 3. Range and duration (plus capability to add drop tanks...to a dedicated trainer). Higher utilization rates...you can turn a T-50 faster because it does not need refueling between sorties unlike a T-38. 4. Flight envelope much larger than T-38. 5. Flight characteristics much more forgiving than T-38 in low speed regime. A T-38 takes almost 10 flights before you are considered good enough to not kill yourself landing. A T-50 will take about 3 flights...if that. The IP commented that he was 'greasing them on' on sortie 1...it was that easy to handle. The only reason the USAF hasn't already started replacing the T-38 with the T-50 is because of the high initial cost of each airframe verses the T-38s which are paid for and built. And that's pretty much it...I guarantee we get to a crunch point where the current T-38 will not be cost effective anymore because it keeps coming up with new ways to break, and it's out of here. Don't get me wrong...I love the T-38...I flew it for most of my USAF career. But it's like driving an MG. Imagine if you drove a brand new MG verses a brand new Mazda Miata...which would you want? What's going to be more reliable? Handle better? And not cost that much more (if any) than your brand new old MG. And if folks don't believe a new old build can cost just as much as a clean sheet vehicle...price out the parts to build a new old car (like a Ford Mustang) from scratch. You'd be surprised how much it costs...and that's doing most of the work yourself. FC

There is nothing wrong with the aircraft. You must assign keys to the animation commands in the Controls menu. FC

I don't think so. FC

Uh...2100? Devil, I have to ask, what is your native language? If it is something other than English and there are translation problems, we may have a forum that can help answer your questions more completely. FC