Nicholas Bell

Thanks for sharing this, MigBuster - great stuff. If that doesn't get one in the mood for some mud-moving, I don't know what will. I really enjoyed the F-105 M61 sawing off the F-80's tail.

Thanks for the insight regarding the case sensitivity in Win10. That might explain why some maps work and others don't for me.

Nope, nothing near stock with scores of aircraft and SAMS, nukes, additional flak, Stary's effects further modded with increased time length, particles, etc. I've quadrupled the cloud counts. Running unlimited with Mue's mods. And I am using 361.43, albeit with a 980 not a 970. My point is no one should blanket statements about this or that video card or driver working or not working. Everyone's situation is going to be dependent on their system and setup. And while I don't have a specific answer for the OP's problem, falling back to an old driver may not be the solution on his system. Your comment regarding mods, however brings up the question as to how SF2 runs for Piecemeal in just stock mod. Could be a specific mod making things worse for his system. He could go back to stock and add in mods one at a time to see if one creates the problems.

Not 100% true. I'm using a GTX 980 with a 360 series driver (at work so I don't know exactly) and am having no problems.

Thank you for your detailed insight into the DCS AI, Streakeagle. Think I will hold off a bit until I hear of improvements. The predictable part reminds me too much of IL-2 '46, which is good for a mission now and then, but not so if played frequently. I've got my SF2 setup pretty nicely tweaked (damage modeling, gun accuracy/weights, AI by type) to keep me on my toes. Enough that I am often just satisfied to RTB safe (with my flight) - forget gaining victories. Glad you find enjoyment in both sims!

Streakeage, how does the DCS AI compare to SF2?

Slant6- Thanks for the link. The lazy side of me would be very grateful if you shared your modified '53 campaign. Nick

Listen to Dave. I am only using Win 10 because I recently purchased a new computer, but the only program I am having problems with Win 10 is BoB II. Everything else, including SF2, IL-2 1946, CLOD, Arma3, and WOFF run great. In the case of my very old Photoshop CS3, it runs better than in Win 7 where it would never close properly and crashing. The fast boot time is nice too. But I agree that I wouldn't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading given all the privacy issue disadvantages of Win 10. I've also been unable to successfully install Win 7 on a separate HD, and installing my old Win 7 HD complete "works" but I can't get my CH gear to be recognized and have lost use of my mouse wheel. Obviously I have hardware and driver issues, but despite 30+ years of messing with these kind of problems have not been able to rectify them. I can't help but think that MS is somehow screwing with me (and note that MS did say they would not be supporting new hardware with anything but Win 10).

I don't think the Luftwaffe bought into the Raytheon PIP (Product Improvement Program) which ran 3 iterations. I would agree that by the early 1990's IHAWK was getting "long in the tooth" and was phased out quickly in the US Army for Patriot. I think the Marines held on for a bit longer. The "HARM down the throat" was always a tense scenario. Shut down or attempt to shoot down the incoming missile....? Even putting the radars in standby was not much help given the missiles "memory". Thus my desire to have a deep slit trench within easy access. Interesting information, Snailman. I wonder if Soviet data networks worked as poorly as US ones when I was in. Ours were all FM based - all very problematic equipment wise as most was very old. When that failed we had to go to AM voice communications with the battalion TOC. Useless in a fast moving environment with hundreds of aircraft in the air. My plan was to go autonomous, fire off the basic load and then pack up and hide... <g>. I had the wonderful opportunity to participate with my unit (1/7 ADA) on 2 occasions in Red Flag exercises with the Air Force in Nevada 1983 and 1984 IIRC. Quite an experience, and much more fun to be off-duty in order to watch the dogfights overhead. Lesson one for the fighter jockeys is they needed to remember to turn on their IFF and use designated air corridors. I suspect in a hot war there might have been a lot of blue on blue kills. Maybe the USAF learned something from our participation. I also had first hand experience with US ECM, which was not specifically tuned against my radars. The fighter ECM was manageable, but the B-52 put out so much ECM I imagine it might be similar to the SPS-141MVG you mention. The old bird came in NOE and popped up at about 20 KM and totally saturated the system with noise AND false targets. I thru up my hands and stepped out of the control van to watch the monster approach and fly over at 100 feet. I came to understand how the USAF thought they might be able to penetrate Soviet airspace. Given the ECM capabilities of the B-52 the PVO would be relying on guns and AAA.

From what I was told, yes. Capable of handling frequency jumping, although most Soviet jammers were broadband (we did train on a type of "frequency hook" (I don't recall the exact nomenclature anymore) which took your emitted frequency and then modulated the return to fool the radar). The beauty of HOJ is that it is passive and tracks the strongest emitter. Sure the pilot could shut off his ECM if he knew he was being tracked HOJ by a missile, but then risks being reacquired. The missile also had memory, and the ability to coast - it wouldn't immediately self-destruct which in theory negated short pulsing. Of course nothing is perfect. And there's a lot to contend with, especially when you've got Wild Weasels breathing down your neck. Those were the most difficult training scenarios (and yes, it was really like playing a coop computer game with others in the van with you and others over radio directing you). My wartime plan was to dig a deep trench right outside the control van (I was close to the door!).

This caught my eye as I was an US Army Air Defense officer in IHAWK in the 1980s (and spent several years in Wuerzburg). The Soviets didn't have the technology to miniaturize ECCM equipment and relied on "brute force" jamming requiring large power sources - thus the reliance on stand-off jammers. IHAWK was upgraded with electro-optical control used in conjunction with data-links to remote acquisition sources in the mid-80's as a counter to this. Any aircraft that was self-jamming was of course susceptible to HOJ - another good reason to use standoff jamming. There was this large red button labeled "HOJ" on the console controlling the HPIR radar which use was usually proceeded by the comment "F***k you" by the radar operator when we were training (imagine SAM Simulator using actual equipment ) HOJ made engagements simple.

I've noticed in single player missions that the KAW B-29's have always been at high altitude - which is great. But I was wondering why, because normally one sees a lot of odd mission profiles (usually too low) based on the missioncontrol.ini altitudes - like TU-4's at 8-12,000 feet. I was doing some editing on the B-29 to toughen it up a bit and noticed it's ceiling is 32850. My initial thought was in was incorrectly entered as feet. But something told me there was more going on here so I tripled the ceiling of the TU-4 and now it's flying at high level too on a couple of tests I was able to run last night. So either: 1. I've just got a lucky and the program is "rolling" high altitude missions consecutively, or 2. Maybe the program takes the mission aircraft ceiling into account in selecting the mission altitude profile 3. And maybe this is old news and it didn't get pinned. The search engine (not the best) didn't come up with any threads... If any old hands can confirm, I would be grateful so I don't waste time further testing something already known. Thanks, Nick

Thanks! I didn't notice the bombing AI stuff, which doesn't say much for my attention to detail.

I've not seen that behavior with the Korean B-29's - I've not checked the B-17/B-24's. B-17's normally cruised at around 180 knots, B-24's a little faster. Do they ingress and then slow down?

Amazed at your work, Geezer. Stunning. The pilot is terrific - I'd like to see more of that bomber

I read an earlier post that in the one of the last patches, TK had made it impossible to bounce FIGHTER type aircraft by giving them 360 degree vision. I had a different experience this weekend while flying one of Wrench’s excellent F-86 updates in NF5 1953 campaign using my recently purchased SF2E. I was flying the route (rather than alt-n skipping) and using “GCI” to direct me to the nearest threat rather than following waypoints. I’m playing with sighting and HUD settings on hard, and not using padlock until I can actually see what I want to padlock. Makes for a much more surprising environment. After a bit of zig-zagging my flight stumbled low behind a flight of MiG-15bis and I called my flight to engage air. I nailed the tail end Charlie from very close range, but of course the rest of my flight aimed high and missed. When my target started down the rest of the MiG’s broke right and left and a melee ensued. I ended up losing two with only my kill to show for it. So the commies won despite being bounced (enemy setting was normal). Now I don’t know what state the MiGs where in, although they were in good shape and had not apparently previously engaged. But I definitely snuck up on them without being spotted. They were not the primary target. Maybe they were in RTB mode – but they definitely fought like they were “interested” as opposed to wanting to get back to the bar. In any case it I was happy to see it was still possible to perform a classic bounce even if I don't know why I was able to... Not that this has any bearing on the AI sighting and my bounce, but I’m using the AIRCRAFTAIDATA.INI and the various AIDATA contained in the individual aircraft data ini’s from the KAW campaign package in my Germany-centric setup. Great stuff, and I really appreciate all the work people have done over the years to improve this sim. I think that 50’s era jet gun slinging is where SF shines brightest.

Probably not new to everyone, but new to me. Pretty terrifying. http://www.businessinsider.com/f-16-dodging-6-missiles-2015-1 Now if we could only get a speech pack conveyed the raw emotions of combat like this. Nick

I’m in a quandary and looking for advice. I don’t know where the time has gone, but the last time I fired SF (or any flight sims) was 2007. At my age time slips away quickly. A lot has changed in the SF world since then. I am especially disappointed in TK’s decision to essentially turn his back on this series and at the same time impose limitations on modding it. Be that as it may, there are so many enticing aircraft, campaigns and other mods which dedicated modders have completed in the last 8 years which draw my attention. The “problem” is that for me to use them I would have to spend about $164 on all the new SF2 series products necessary for the fully-merged installed required by most of the new campaigns. That’s a big chunk of change to lay down for a program series moribund save for those here, who from what I can tell, find their enjoyment in creating works of art in their mods as opposed to in-depth playing. And that is not meant to be a criticism – I totally get that, and have spent more time in the last 20 years hex-editing, writing little editors, creating maps & scenarios and volunteering for development/beta-testing than I have ever actually played anything (I think I am over that). But it does beg the question on whether the SF2 series is holding anyone’s interest to play enough to get a decent return on a $164 investment. If I had purchased the programs one at a time when TK was still apparently supporting the series, I would not have batted an eye. But that is not the situation now. When I read about how the patches have dumbed down portions of the sim, I get especially concerned. I’m primary interested in air to air combat, and the SF series AI was “pretty good” in this area, although the lack of AI defensive action against SAMs and poor AI ground targeting really annoyed me. From what I’ve read SF2 was originally reported to having improved AI, flight modeling and avionics - apart from the graphics improvements. But I’ve picked up that follow on patches really pooched the AI and weapons effectiveness. The fact that at some time apparently the 2012 patch was considered better than the follow on patches is troubling. So what patch are you using? Maybe I should just enjoy the SF1 series which I have in its entirety. It does look a bit long in the tooth these days, and much as I hate to say it (especially as a long time wargamer) graphics do matter when it comes to immersion and suspension of disbelieve. Once exposed to new graphics it’s difficult to go back too far. I’m not a “systems” guy and don’t have the time or energy for DCS or F4 BMS, so SF has always been the sweet spot for me. But I’m really having a hard time with this one. Sure I could purchase one program and give it a try, but the knowledge that other new campaigns which I know are better done than anything stock are out there will be eating away at me… (not to mention the WW2 stuff). Well, thanks for reading my ramblings. Pretty ridiculous “predicament” to most people I suppose. Nevertheless, I would appreciate your thoughts. Nick

You've nailed it for my Streakeagle - Thanks!. But first I have to get my CH setup working with Win 10 in my new rig - nothing but problems which change daily. The original plan to drop in my old Win 7 HDD, update some drivers, dual boot and carry on is a bust, so I may end up installing Win 7 on a third HDD this weekend and start from scratch.

Thanks for your comments. I'll follow your advice for going slow on the purchases - now to decide where to start. I must admit I am amazed at all the familiar names from 7-8 years ago. Amazing dedication. Nick

Von S- Thank you for your work on these flight models. They do feel "heavier" in most cases. Is there are reason some do not include Peter's [AIData], [DogfightVeteran], [DogfightAce] which were specific to each aircraft he did? Without these, the AI simply uses AIRCRAFTAIDATA.INI. Perhaps you've modified this for your own use? Just curious - I can add the missing data in myself, of course. Thanks, Nick

The detail level, especially in the cockpit is amazing. No way anyway can crank that out quickly. You are a master!