SFP1Ace

That one with ATI switchable 5650 is not good - it has seriously limited memory bandwitch. That Qosmio looks very nice, decent CPU, lots of RAM and best GPU (360m) of all laptops you listed. However it has uncommon native resolution of 1680x945. I'm not sure if many games would support such resolution...Can anyone else chime in on this?

I ain't guru but I'll express my opinion if you don't mind. 310m & 320m are kinda low end even for a laptop graphics, definetely not for "all the eye candy on" or "graphics up". If you are serious about gaming on a laptop than try to get one with 350m, 360m or even the newest 480m if you can afford it. Even the previous generation 250m, 260m, 280m, 285m would still be much faster than 310m or 320m. Hell I think that 280m or 285m would be even faster than 350m and 360m (so much for newer generations always being better ;) ). If you don't mind ATI products than I would recommend at least Mobility Radeon 4850 an up (4860, 4870 etc., forget about 4830). From the newest egneration Mobility 5750, 5770, 5850, 5870 would do the trick (forget about 5830). Also remember that you'd need at least 2 GB of RAM and quite fast CPU - both SF2 series and LOMAC/DCS are heavy on the CPU side. Hope it helps....

Pomóżcie rodacy, lol. Nie zajmuję się tworzeniem samolotów, ale poradniki Mustanga to chyba dobre miejsce by zacząć: http://combatace.com/files/category/30-sfwo-utilitieseditors/page__sort_by__DESC__sort_key__file_submitted__num__10__st__30

I'm pretty sure it's War For Israel campaign.

SF series always used to be CPU limited, but that changed with transition to DX10. If you are using WinXP/DX9 than I would suggest upgrading the CPU only. See if you mainboard supports Core2 Quad q9650 - if you can get one cheap of ebay than you get 3.00 GHz instead of 2.33 plus its a decent overclocker (I get my Q9650 to 4.4 GHz ;) ) plus if your motherboard supports it then you won't have to spend money on new mobo and RAM. If you're using Vista/Win 7/DX10 than things complicate a 'lil. Unfortunately TK forces 4xAA under DX10 which can be an issue with your graphics card if your using 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. I "think" 9600GT should be enough for DX10 & resolution no greater than 1280x1024. For higher resolutions consider upgrading to at least Radeon 5770 or Geforce 460. These upgrades should let you enjoy some of the BIG mods out there more!

1024 MB ATI 4890 here. Activating EO cuts my FPS from 60 to 40. Still plenty of FPS left, but the drop is noticeable.

That would be the best solution. TacRef Falcon 4 style :). On a sidenote I think I'm somehow half-way through the AC database. I've got M(igs) to P(51-D) covered. I still wonder if i should upload it as a text document or just post it in the relevant forum section when finished? I'm using font size 10 and it's already 22 pages. I think when I get to year specific version of american ac, i'll have to squeeze/combine them somehow. BTW you can always use CTRL+F to find the aircraft you want intel on .

Dzięki Ciacho! Now this is getting curiouser and curiouser . Can we contribute it to Soviet intelligence effort in spreading misinformation, among western countries, about it's armament?

Thanks Monty, great find, I didn't know this one. To make things even more complicated the book on russian a2a & a2g missiles I received yesterday mentions 1985, Jane's webstite 1987, LOL. I guess it's really up to how much i wanna it in game. I think I'll follow Fubar's info and create a loadout of 2x R60M, 2x R-73, and 2x R-27. Or I'll toss a coin ;). Thanks to everybody for chiming in with you knowledge/opinions.

Err, right Wrench coz if he/she has Windows XP and by mistake created mod folder Vista style then it would still work? And the question was " if i need to download other stuff like the campaigns or something". Well something is you can add aircraft to a campaign yourself, right?

You need to tell us more, pal. What is you OS? Which F-18 did you downloaded exactly? F-18C for Mirage Factory F-18A or one of the Super Hornets? Like guys said, 3rd party aircraft, if installed correctly, will show up ONLY in single missions. If you want to add to a campaign, read the knowledgebase: http://combatace.com/topic/44798-adding-aircraft-to-campaigns-in-sf2/

The thought of Su-27 squadrons being deployed to EGermany in the event of war has actually crossed my mind, but only after posting my previous message. . Anyways I just mentioned Su-27 in the context of being umm, "a detail freak to a degree" and even then, like you said, it would up for a debate. I surely don't intend to remove Su-27 as it would just remove too much fun, and fun is important, right? Right know I'm just like a puppy running around, trying to take a bite at everything SF2 engine has to offer as far as customization goes. After a while my head will cool off and I'll probably settle with stock settings + great 3rd party mods (NF4+ baby!) + maybe some minor little little tweakos of my own (YAY)! Until then please bare with me. Thanks to everybody for participating in this discussion! Let your fighters never brake down, let your missiles alway hit their targets, let your girlfriends.... oh I'd better shut up :wink2:.

Right guys I guess I seem to be obsessed with things I can't get out of SF2 engine because there are many unknown variables that TK won't, can't, or just doesn't remember to share. And that just makes me even more obsesive, like a pitbull fixated on a target, LOL. Yeah, I'll just follow your (subliminaly suggested) advice and stick the chewing gum in that special place and go guns (read - have a cold bear, relax, and let the radar stuff in the hands of TK - what else did you think ? ). Afterall why should I bother to study mysteries of SF2 engine? It's such a waste of time, right? But in the end I still believe that info TK provided on RadarSearchRange and RadarSearchStrength is interesting and can be useful for modders when creating avionics for 3rd party AC :P Edit: same as always, typos etc.

Belay that, my fault, TK pointed me to right direction - track radar mode entry in avionics is still limited to 80 NM: [RadarData] AvailableModes=SEARCH,TWS,STT,ACM RangeUnit=NM RangeSetting[1]=10 RangeSetting[2]=20 RangeSetting[3]=40 RangeSetting[4]=80 RangeSetting[5]=160 RadarPosition= MaxElevationAngle=60 MinElevationAngle=-60 MaxAzimuthAngle=60 MinAltitude=50.0 BoresightElevation=-2.0 BoresightAzimuth=0.0 MinReturn=0.01 MinimumSpeed=25.72 SearchRange=160 SearchStrength=200 TrackRange=160 - I thought this was an error TrackStrength=150 TWSUpdateTime=0.5 AcquisitionSymbolSpeed=1.0 AcquisitionResetPosX=0.0 AcquisitionResetPosY=0.2 AcquisitionResetTime=5.0 DisplayLimitLeft=29 DisplayLimitRight=226 DisplayLimitTop=29 DisplayLimitBottom=226 StartRangeSetting=4 But here it seems to be allright: [RadarDisplayTWS] RangeSetting=1,2,3,4 - Range setting 4 is 80 NM so it's OK, player doesn't have an advantage over AI afterall... BarElevation[1]=0.75 BarElevation[2]=-0.75 ScanRate=60 ScanBeamAngle=2.5 ScanArc=60 PPI=FALSE

Yes, nautical miles... I think that F-15 radar is kind of awacs or something, that's totally too much. But the you've got the values slightly wrong. First one (160) is radar searchrange in nautical miles which is around 296 KM, the other value (200) is abstract radarsearchstrength value. If that value was 100 instead of 200 than it would indicate that TW F-15_A can detect targets with RCS=10m^2 at it's maximum range, and because the value is even higher (200) than it means that its able to detect even smaller targets (RCS=5m^2 I think) at its maximum range of 160 NM. And I don't think F-15A radar was THAT good, can anyone confirm/dismiss this?

Would Wrigley's be good enough?

I would guess that track range is the range from which you can obtain a lock and/or track targets (for avionics70 equipped aircrafts)? But I'll have to play with it to be sure :) Hmm I've just looked up F-14B data files and there's seem to be some discrepancies - in avionics.ini search and track range are 200/160 NM but in data.ini it's only 150/100??? So basically it makes your wingman and other AI F-14 be at disadvantage compared to palyers F-14 when detecting tracking targets? Is this normal of is it a mistake? Anyway to me TK's explanations make sense (they allow for quite close approximations), and if we only knew how to calculate in game RCS then knowing real life detections values for given RCS (usuly from the data I found western radars are described for 5m^2 and russian radar ranges are for detecting 3m^2) for given radar, then it would be possible to mod the hell out of this game, as far as radars go!!! ;) Still I intend to tweak some radars anyway... avionics.ini searchrange/searchstrength trackrange/trackstrength data.ini searchrange/searchstrength trackrange/trackstrength: TW F-15_A avionics.ini - 160/200 160/150 data.ini - 160/160 80/160 - WTH??? AI F-15s have half of the tracking range of the players aircraft??? TW F-15_BAZ avionic.ini - 160/200 160/150 data.ini - 160/200 80/200 - even more confusing?

Awww Fubar, you've just smashed my hopes to smithereens . " The flip side of this is that while a radar set at a value of "120" was able to detect a stealthy model at 17 nm, one imbued with a value of "30" was still able to detect that same model at a range of 12 nm (be my guest, perform the math for us).". Okay, here's the math, all according to TK's info: radarstrength=120 - detection range=17 NM. So for radarstrength=30 detection range for a same RCS target will be (30/120)^1/4=0.7; 0.7*17 nm = 11.9 NM. Sounds about right, right? So why were you able to detect bomber at max range even though you lowered signal strength to 60? Because you didn't lower it enough! :D According to TK all radars are normalised to detect 10m^2 RCS targets at max detection range (say in your case the said 200 NM) at signal strength 100. If you lowered the strength value to 60 ten max detection range dropped from 200 NM to (assuming that default strength was 100?)....(60/100)^1/4 = 0.88; 0.88*200 NM = 176 NM. So even with RadarSearchStrength at 60 you aircraft was still able detect RCS 10m^2 at 176 NM, so i don't see any problems for it to detect 100m^2 RCS B-52 bomber at slightly longer range of 200 NM :D. So far every numerical data provided by TK checked out! So what's the theoretical limit to detect this 100m^2 bomber in game? Ok (100/10)^1/4 = 1.78. The radar (in theory) would be able to detect that bomber at 1.78*200 NM = 356 NM (at RadarSearchStrength = 100). But it won't cause RadarSearchRange = 200 imposes a "hard" limit of 200 NM (what TK's written in his post). So no wonder that even though you lowered the RadarSearchStrength from (I'm assuming) 100 to 60 it still had no problem finding that bomber :) You would have to try much lower value of 10 or even 5 to see radical drop in detection range. The most importatnt information that TK has provided is that (in game) radars are normalised to detect RCS of 10m^2 at max radarsearchrange, when radarsearchstrength is set to 100! All the rest we can work out with equations. I hope I didn't bore you all to death? Best Regards!!!! EDIT: loads of typos

TK was kind enough to explain how the RadarSearchRange and RadarStrength parameters work in-game. This is from the topic I started over at thirdwire forums: "Well, in reality, I _think_ max range is determined not only by target RCS (and return signal etc), but also by the radar's PRF (pule repetition frequency). In order to detect far away target, your radar has to wait long enough between each pulse so it doesn't send out next pulse before return from target is obtained, otherwise, it'll get "ghost" or "alias" returns resulting in incorrect range measurement. But having long wait time between pulses (low PRF) means less frequent target update, somthing not desirable when you're trying to track targets. This is why most radar has longer range for seach (with lower PRF settings), but shorter range for track (higher PRF setting). (of course, modern radar may or may not be so limited, they can send two different types of pulses and modulate them and do all sort of fancy stuff with computers, but thats beyond the scope here) In the game, I think the max range range setting , say at 160 NM, reflects this PRF limit, so it is the absolute max range you can detect. The radar will not detect anything at 161 NM no matter how big the target RCS is. Target with small RCS can only be detected at shorter range than max range setting. I _think_ the game data is normalized so if the radar strength is at 100, it detects 10m^2 target at max range. If radar strength is less than 100, then it can only detect larger RCS than 10m^2 at max range, and if strength is higher, it can detect smaller RCS target at max range, etc. TK" And another one: " I _think_ (I could be all wrong here ) the strength modifies the RCS required for detection at max range, so strength 100 = 10m^2, 50 = 20m^2, 25 = 40m^2, etc... And the radar return signal is proportional to inverse of range^4, so the detection range is proportional to the strength^1/4. So, I think, the detection range for the same 10m^2 target would change to, based on strength, 100 = max range, 50 = 84% max range, 25 = 70%, etc... I think... And again, this is "game RCS", which may or may not have any relation to the real life RCS, its calculated based on collision radius... TK"

Epic FAIL . Although it contains quaite many articles, they're all generic, outdated (Su-15TM as one of the latest sukhoi's products, lol, in1987 ;) ) and I can forget about stuff like radars or missiles parameters. Well it can always serve as a curiosity...Time to start hunting for those Jane's yearbooks I guess....

Holy cow, that's some outstanding graphics you've got there, ravenclaw!!! Which terrain is it?

No tak, that's very true. I want it in game only if it complies with historical reality :) There are so many things IN SF2 we can't control and make realistic (avionics, mission planning, refueling, you name it...) but at least we can control (to a degree, depending whether the object's been modelled at all) is order of battle, right? So I'm aiming to create a little bit more realistic setting within the game's engine limits...I guess I'm a detail freak ( to a degree ;) - I would have to remove Su-27 sq as I'm pretty sure that in 1986 they weren't deployed anywhere near East Germany, rather than to Kola Peninsula). anyway I just order another book on soviet and russian a-a & a-g missiles, somehow I trust printed sources more than websites (irrational?). The second question - I really have no idea, I would probably have to try it and see, but I really don't feel like doing it :D

from http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/MiG-29-4.htm R-73 (AA-11) "ARCHER" Missile Family: R-73M1 off-boresight version utilized with helmet mounted sight R-73M2 training missile shape with seeker head R-73E APU-73-1D pylon R-73U purpose: highly maneuverable dogfight missile design bureau: Vympel development: early 1980's first airborne tests: 1989 first delivered IOC: 1992 See? Even more confusing....

Do you mean adding something like this in campaign.ini for squadrons in question: Supply[001].WeaponType=R-73 Supply[001].Quantity=6 But weren't specific supply parameters removed in SF2 series? Does it even work? UPDATE: from SF2 knowledge base It seems Weapons loadouts for player squadrons are NO longer required in SF2 – that’s these bits: Supply[001].WeaponType=Shafrir1 Supply[001].Quantity=60 Supply[002].WeaponType=Matra530 Etc………

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well, to create a year specific versions say MIG-29_86, SU-27_86, MIG-23MLD_86. The case of MIG-23MLD is easier - in '86 campaign there 3 sqs so I could equip just one (from what I found on the net in the '80s only some regiments of mig-23mld where carrying aa-11 so that would make sense). But there's only 1 sq of 29s and 27s each. I would have to create additional squadrons just to carry alternative loadout and combined with AA-11 it would bump the difficulty way too much I think. Plus I don't wanna stray too much from the vision creators of the original '86 campaign intented, just wan't to enhance it slightly :). And I'm also aiming for realism too so if I get the proof that in '86 AA-11 was NOT part of a standard loadout then it will have to go. Thanks for the ideas though