hhf

Still Arcade game. I think there are many people like me out there always looking for serious simulator games. The only thing MS had to do, to take the FSX code, put on it a well tuned graphical update and continously add some new features or fix bugs. And if they still wan't to go arcade: it's still big mama Microsoft. How hard would it be to take some developer and place that arcade version beside the serious one on the market. That won't cost MS not that much and they would see, that the FSX 2.0+ will sell better.

Absolutely correct! It's insane. Should Iran possibly get the nuke working, USA must hurry up to give some nukes in the hand of all neighbours and potential target contries. Laughy joke, caesar50!!!!

F-22 and F-35 are pure waste of money. US militaries should think about weapons, offering a better relation of costs and effects. And further - much more money should be invested in avoiding military conflicts. Look at the astronomic costs of Iraqi war. Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted to destroy a countries infrastructure and to cement the instability in this region and the hate to the invadors. High tech weapons cannot fight the poverty and political crisis in the far east - today less than ever before. Useless weapons like these are the monument of an antiquated strategy of foreign politics and nothing more. Don't misunderstand me: I like military aircrafts (though I'd more like to see the YF-23 instead of the F-22 in duty) from a technical and flying fascination. But in today's reality, their purpose and use should be completely be rethought.

I'd rather wish to have more heavy ground objects. That would be a much higher increase in reality than a weather that better fits the season. I just miss to collide with trees or buildings and would like to see them explode on a bomb hit.

Exactly my opinion. I'm german and though it might be more convenient for me to write german, the english language is the most common language for all users here and the forum is not meant to satisfy communication, that skype or messanger could do - to communicate for Yourselves. Greetings! hhf

I miss the ground detail too. Maybe most players don't need it. I like low level flying through valleys and over industrial areas or even under bridges? But the problem is also, that it's often not destroyable or just heavy for collisions. For example in the third wire games You just fly through houses and trees. This was solved already or even better in "tornado", which is an really old game. God bless digital integrations! I think the frame rate loss of good detail can always be avoided by good level of detail. And in my opinion it's not so important to have many light effects and high resolution textures, than a lot of vectorized buildings and other ground objects, that's really "heavy".

Say something nice or nothing at all.

From me too! Happy birthday and go on! Thomas

Hi! I asked the same question to myself and looked for a solution for WoE in the forums before. I did it this way: - I downloaded the libya terrain and installed it. I copied the GermanyCE.cat from germany terrain into libya folder and renamed it to libya.cat, so the terrain should work - I downloaded the CVN-59 Forrestal ground object package, which includes actually 4 carriers of the forrestal class. - I downloaded the mission package "Tomcats over Libya" which includes carrier based missions - Then some fine tuning was needed. So did the forrestal file- and directory names didn't match. This is always a point You must check. The objects included in missions will not appear in the game if the references don't fit. Mostly the directory and ini name of the referenced objects don't match and must be renamed. But check this out for Yourself. These are smaller problems everyone must solve for himself. If the carrier's not in the game Your aircraft will fall simply in the water at the beginning. - last but not least: You can takeoff from carriers, but for me landings were impossible, because the gear brakes away at launch, because the takeoff speed is too high. First I was wondering, if I could do anything like less throttle to avoid it, but the real problem is, that the F-14 configuration says, that the gear max speed ist about 130m/s. It sounds strange when I checked, that the F-15 for example has an max speed value of about 170 m/s. A carrier based aircraft's gear is more instable than the gear of an land based aircraft? I think this is an misconfiguration and corrected the max speed value to 170 m/s. I don't know if this is realistic, but at least, now I can land on carriers too. - If You start one of the missions You can even choose any other available aircraft than the F-14 for You So, good luck !

Many thanks !!! It's exactly as You said. Ok. I will try to learn to use the cockpit intruments more than now.

Hi, everyone ! I fly WoE and tried many aircrafts. But they exceed their maximum speed as specified in the aircraft ini for "MaxSpeedSL" at any altitude. (I'm using highest realistic flight model in gameplay options) For example: The F-14 maximum speed at sea level is 407.7 m/s = 1467 km/h ("MaxSpeedSL=407.7") If I'm flying at about 12.000 m with the same speed (as the shown data in the lower left corner says). The aircraft should reach an air speed at high altitudes of about 2400 km/h. And all other supersonic planes do the same. Is the flight model too dumb? But why You can specify the maximum mach number in the INI's (with real values). Or do I misunderstand something? All You guys out there must recognize the same phenomenon !? Please could anyone tell me, what's the truth ? Thanks!