Jump to content

cgold

SENIOR MEMBER
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    375

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cgold

  2. Posted

    All materials called out by an effect require a shader association, as everything is now shader driven. Just keep it simple, download and install one of Stary's recent effects packs.

     

    Hey Fubar... I found Stary's profile...

    but I must be a complete idiot... Where can I find one of those effect packs that you mentioned?

    I looked under the SF 2 Downloads page and nowhere is there an effects page...

    (tells you how far behind I am... :blink: )

  3. Posted

    Welcome back cgold - What effects are you putting in? if they are old they might be missing ini statements.

     

    Let me patch up some holes in the frame here...

     

    I'm running Windows 7/64-bit (if this helps...)

     

    I recently downloaded SF2: North Atlantic and let the folders that needed to be created be created (for mods and etc.)

    I have the effects folder right in with the rest (objects/pilotdata/sounds/etc.) and nothing is showing up...

    Afterburners, flares, flak explosions, and some others are not showing.

    Is there something I need to add to the .ini files?

    I read the Knowledge Base, and I'm still a little hazy on "re-naming" things...

  4. Posted · Edited by cgold

    Wow... It has been a long while since I have been involved with Strike Fighters... with college firing up, getting a computer that actually can do some graphics crunching... the Third Wire sims faded into memory for a while... but here I am again... knockin' off the rust...

     

    I have been reading the knowledge base and learning up on how to md the SF2 versions of Thrid Wire's sim's... (since the last I was involved, it was the much simpler SF: Project 1 days...

    I recently got SF2: North Atlantic and I've created the folders where everything needs to go... I've added aircraft, weapons, menu screens/sounds, and the like... under the Users/(username)/Saved Games/...wherever the rest goes...

    The only folder that is mis-behaving is the 'Effects' folder... flares, afterburners, and some other effects don't show... (flak, missile flames, etc.)

    What is it that's messing up? (besides me...) :blink:

  5. Posted · Edited by cgold

    I have no beef here... Vet's and, certainly, pilots are better informants than me... The problem is that the Tomcat got construed into a job it really wasn't meant for... Close in aerial dogfights are the Hornet's forte' (per se...they move mud better) ... whereas the Tomcat excelled at longer ranges...and against bigger, slower targets. The F-14 took on the role of the F-15 from the carrier, and it seemed to do just fine (ex: Libya - 1980's) The F-15/F-14 debate has always gone on... but that's because of both being a similar job (stemming from the F-14A vs. F-15A in the 1980's) But, sometimes we forget, it is the man and not the machine that wins the battles up there... The F-14 did a great job over Libya (shooting down 6 confirmed adversaries and countless more skirmishes that ended in just hostile maneuvering (which the Tomcats won...)), Yugoslavia (where the BombCat made its debut (also a hard earned success)), and later on in Iraq (2003-2006)... They were getting old, yes... but they could have fixed that if Boeing didn't have such a huge lobbyist base in DC. Like I said before, they both are good at what they are meant for. Hornets are just a really good way to sum-up aerial warfare today, whereas, in the Cold War, the Soviet bomber presense/"threat" was much more prevalent, and aircraft like the Tomcat were more suited for the job. As time progresses, times change. The F-14's job really just disappeared, and made it into another (precision bombing) to see out its service life.

  6. Posted · Edited by cgold

    Let's settle this in the best way possible; with the facts...

     

    Grumman F-14D "Super Tomcat":

    Role: Carrier-borne Interceptor/Fleet Protection Fighter

    Top Speed: Mach 2.39 (Approx. 1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h)

    Thrust (GE F110-400 Series): 2x 27,800lbs = 55,600lbs total (in full Zone-5 reheat)

    Maximum Search Radar Range: Can exceed 120 statute miles (190 km)

    Armament: (Typical Air-to-Air Loadout)

    (*varies depending on loadout)

     

    -2x-4x AIM-9 "Sidewinder" Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

    -2x-6x AIM-7 "Sparrow" Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

    -4x-6x AIM-54C "Phoenix" Long-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

    -675 20mm HE shells (M61A1)

     

    *Assorted Laser Guided Bomb's, Cluster Bombs (MK-20's/etc.), external recon. pods (TARPS),

    external FLIR/LANTIRN pods, and a wide arragement of un-guided munitions can be all be armed upon the aircraft...

    (depending on type of sortie)

     

    Boeing F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet":

    Role: Carrier-borne *Multi-Role* Fighter/Bomber

    Top Speed: Mach 1.8 (Approx. 1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h)

    Thrust (GE F414-400 Series): 2x 22,000lbs = 44,000lbs total (in full reheat)

    Maximum Search Radar Range: APG-79 capabilities (???)

    Armament:

     

    Since it is a multi-role aircraft that is typically lauched off of aircraft carriers, the Super Hornet will carry any assortment of weaponry the mission requires. Anti-Ship duties will require AGM-84E's, whereas a Precision-Strike will require anything from AGM-65's, Laser-Guided-Munitions, FLIR/LANTIRN Pods, which might differ from the Air-to-Air capabilities (anything from the AIM-9 series, AIM-7 series, to the newer AIM-120 "AMRAAM" systems.).

     

    -578 20mm HE shells (M61A1)

     

     

    In conclusion, the F-14 and the F/A-18 have different jobs.

     

    The Tomcat was supposed to be the aircraft that intercepted high-altitude (Soviet) bombers/anti-ship aircraft. The Hornet had air-to-air capabilities just in case it needed them; The Tomcat was supposed to provide the CAP for the strike package flight of aircraft (A-6's/A-7's/F-18's/etc.) The Tomcat had a better radar range, and weapons systems that could be deadly, if used upon the correct target. AIM-7/9's were meant for the fighter aircraft, whereas the AIM-54's were more suited for bigger, slower targets at great distances/altitudes. The Tomcat had more powerful engines (after GE got involved), higher top speed, and the variable geometry wings helped in many aspects of the Tomcat's operation (T/O and Landing/Stowage upon carrier deck/etc.)

     

    The Hornet (A-F series') were meant to replace the ageing F-4 "Phantoms," and the A-6 "Intruders;" Both of which did a little of everything off of the carrier decks. The F-18's were meant to have air-to-air capabilities, in the event they ran into an adversary. They were meant to be bomb-trucks, though. Their ordinance capabilities favor more "mud-moving" rather than tangling with fighters (even though they could...) The Hornet may not be as fast, or be able to see targets as far out as the Tomcats, but they don't need to. Their job was eliminating targets on the ground, in the water, ...pretty much, anywhere.

     

    *In my personal opinion, the Tomcat reigns supreme. Albeit, retired, it is an amazing aircraft. But trying to compare the two is almost like comparing apples to oranges. Even though the Hornet has grown on me recently, they both had different roles (as history progressed through the Cold War into the battlefields of today... things changed), so it is almost pointless to continue this back-and-forth about them both. Both aircraft are good at what they do. 'Nuff said...

  8. Posted

    It's not fake... And it wasn't a collision with an F-5 that caused that to crash either. The Il-76 or "A-50" variant that crashed did so due to its radar dome on top coming loose and striking the tail section...notice as the plane is falling, there is no tail. I read an article in either AirForce's Monthly or Combat Aircraft, and they said that the pilot declared an emergency, but by that time, it was too late. The radome flew off and hit the tail, causing the aircraft to completely lose control and crash...during a military parade, I believe. Kinda sucks for them... that was their only operational "AWACS-ish" Il-76 aircraft...The other one is an old Ex-Iraqi Baghdad-1 or -2 Ilyushin Il-76 variant that's been rotting away in Tehran ever since the first Gulf War, I think...

  10. Posted

    I installed SFp1 back onto my laptop... The game starts, runs nicely, but after a mission, I hit 'Esc' and the game doesn't debrief. It just crashes to the desktop. This game did work on this laptop before. The trouble is now finding what to straighten out in order to complete a sortie fully. Any ideas? This is Windows 7 OS and it *is* installed to the correct place on my :C Drive. All patches are installed (also in the correct place) from Third Wire's website and the weapons pack is working correctly as well. :blink:

  12. Posted · Edited by cgold

    So, after just some simple copy and paste action, SFp1 works great...WoI works and WoV works. WoE is now the odd man out. All of these are installed straight to my C: drive... (I had SFp1 (on my laptop , at first) in that Programs(x86) folder before...it really didn't like it in there...) So, maybe when my the data off of my other IDE-style hard drive comes in, maybe the simple copy and paste idea will work. I also have the computer 'in it's place'...the Third Wire games all work without the computer asking me any questions on admin. stuff.

     

    ALSO, I know this is a simple fix...but my WoV sim has no weaponry. I downloaded the latest Weapons Editor and ran it in compatibility mode for Windows98...the main 'menu' pops up, but it does nothing else. It will not allow me to open the weaponsdata.ini and save it so the game will recognize it, essentially. Fixable?

  14. Posted

    My new computer is behaving at the moment...and I finally got a chance to install all of my Third-Wire Sims on to this machine. I seem to recall there being a problem of having the Wings over Europe sim quitting after a sortie was performed. I just finished patching the sim up and it is up to date to the max. I also seem to remember it not being a real hard fix, either. I know it's something simple...I've just been away from WoE for so long, I have forgotten what it was exactly. :doh:

  16. Posted

    I have a very updated and patched-up version of SFp1...so moving away from it is going to be tough. I have a few backwards-transfered aircraft for SF2 in SFp1 (the new F-14's, a B-1B)...I do the Unicode to ANSI 'conversion' for the files I need to...but all I get is a still (non-moving), invisible object...any ideas? I have visited the SF2 Knowledge Base on this and nothing seems out of the ordinary in what I'm doing...

    post-18157-009301400 1291847763.jpg

    (Pic to help illustrate what's going on.)

  18. Posted · Edited by cgold

    I have a very updated and patched-up version of SFp1...so moving away from it is going to be tough. I have a few backwards-transfered aircraft for SF2 in SFp1 (the new F-14's, a B-1B)...I do the Unicode to ANSI 'conversion' for the files I need to...but all I get is a still (non-moving), invisible object...any ideas? I have visited the SF2 Knowledge Base on this and nothing seems out of the ordinary in what I'm doing...

  22. Posted

    I actually got the new F-14's to work in SFp1 (First Gen.)...As long as you have patched up to the 2008 standard, you will see very fruitful results...

     

    post-18157-066233100 1277749823.jpg

     

    If you wish to know how to get the *AWESOME* new F-14's (and anything else geared to 2nd gen.) to work on a first gen. game, follow this link...

     

    http://combatace.com/topic/43234-how-to-make-a-sf2-aircraftweapon-useable-in-gen-1-thirdwire-sims/

     

    Hope this helps!!! :grin:

  24. Posted

    What I admire is that the game developers *did* install a menu saying that there was sensitive material in a certain campaign mode and they also gave a chance for one to say 'yes' or 'no' to play the un-edited campaign. If you want to see what war is really like (from the protagonist and antagonist sides), don't complain about the things you see if you say 'yes' to play the normal *unedited* campaign. Terrorism and war isn't supposed to be pretty. I do not agree with the behavior that this particular mission exploits, but it shows what its like from all sides.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

  I accept