eburger68

Kyot: I just double-checked the fuel loads in the three aircraft you mention. The Super Hornets are a little high, but the other two (F-15E & F-22A) appear to be spot on by my calculations. If you've got different numbers, I'd love to see them. Eric Howes

Folks: There's just one little problem here: the latest screenshot posted by the OP -- presumably taken after installing Green Hell 3.5 -- doesn't show Green Hell v.3.5. It shows the stock terrain. Fubar512 is correct: the SF2V Expansion Pack is using a custom tile set -- that from Green Hell 2.0. It appears that the OP installed the DATA.INI file from the Sf2V Expansion Pack, which references a number of tiles in addition to the stock tiles (which are re-used in custom form by GH 2.0), but somehow didn't install the GH 2.0 tiles in the correct location. Thus, the white patches where the missing tiles should have been. His original set of screenshots show the default VietnamSEA tile set, not the GH 2.0 tile set. Even after supposedly installing GH 3.5, the proper tiles still aren't showing -- if that last screenshot from the OP was indeed taken after an attempt at installing GH 3.5. As I'm not sitting in front of the OP's PC, I can't determine exactly what was done or what was installed, but it certainly looks to be like the OP is not installing terrains correctly. Eric Howes

Typhoid: Wrong. What they have already done. As I noted in my original post, Verizon and Comcast have already demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to hose a popular internet service -- Netflix -- used by their own customers. And they did that in order to subject Netflix to a good old fashioned shakedown. And that's what it was. Don't let the fact that everyone involved was wearing suits and ties fool you at all. And who's going to pay for it? Netflix customers, including Netflix users who are on Verizon and Comcast. That's a neat trick, actually: jacking up the price for your customers but doing it via proxy so that the cost increase appears on some other company's bill. Not too many companies are in a position to do that. Telecoms are, though. So, the issue is not speculative -- it's real. It already happened. And it's likely to get a lot worse. You also wrote: Again, wrong. When the telecoms began making plans to start charging content providers for the bandwidth that ordinary subscribers had already paid for, they changed the rules of the game. This entire Net Neutrality discussion is happening not because the government hatched a secret plan to take over the internet or impose a backdoor internet tax. No, it's happening because the big telecoms decided to change the de facto rules of the game. And they did that in order to fluff their already substantial bottom lines at the expense of you, me, and everyone else. Absent that power grab by the big telecoms, we would not be having this discussion. Eric Howes

Typhoid: I'm sorry, but that's beyond ludicrous. No one government can "seize control of the internet," given that the internet is not a single entity but a collection of networks spanning the globe, owned and operated by over a hundred countries and thousands of different organizations and companies, all knitted together by a defined set of protocols and technologies. As for the alleged imposition of a "backdoor internet tax" through the extension of Universal Service Fund (USF) to internet providers, the quote in question comes from one of Republican FCC commissioners, not the FCC chairman (as you stated), and was made in a speech to a right wing think tank (by a guy, I might add, who's on the commission to be "in the tank" for the big telecoms). Even he allows that it is only a possibility, not a certainty, because the manner in which the Net Neutrality would be legislated is very much in the hands of Congress and the net effect could actually be to reduce individual USF contributions by spreading them across a wider base. The alleged planned "spending spree" that would cause individual contributions to go up is based on private conversations the commissioner claims to have had with persons who are, as you might have guessed, unnamed. In other words, he's basically asking you to trust him that there's a secret plan to go on a spending spree despite the fact that he can provide no evidence for it. So there it is: the "secret plan" to raise your taxes that isn't quite yet a plan and doesn't have any advocates that the commissioner can identify. But of course that didn't stop the several news articles you referenced from taking that one comment and running with it. One article instantly turns it into "Obama's plan for a backdoor internet tax." (Cue scary organ music.) A Forbes opinion piece cited in the TheHill.com article one ups everyone else by invoking the United Nations' plan to tax the internet. I suppose Obama planned to have this backdoor internet tax plan delivered by a squadron of black helicopters. Hey, it's a "false flag" operation, as you yourself told us, so who knows the extent of the sinister intentions here. Seriously, Typhoid, this is blatant fear-mongering by a powerful industry with expensive D.C. lobbyists and high-powered allies like the FCC commissioner being quoted. It's all of a piece with the earlier article you referenced in which AT&T claimed it would stop building out its network -- and just as believable. Eric Howes

Typhoid: Actually, you don't. You're in favor of allowing companies like Comcast and Verizon to set up toll booths all over the internet, use different practices for handling different types of traffic, set different kinds of discriminatory policies against companies and their content, and effectively charge twice for the same bandwidth. Just because it's not coming from government doesn't mean it's not a form of regulation that we''ll be getting. Quite to the contrary, we'll be seeing a massive level of interference in what was until now the relatively unhindered (setting aside technical limitations) flow of data through the virtual pipes that these companies maintain. And it won't be government doing that -- it will be the private telecoms. Net Neutrality may not have been the law for all these years, but is was the de facto standard for the handling of traffic by the various different telecoms whose networks make up a large portion of the internet. De facto net neutrality -- the principle that traffic through the pipes should all be treated or handled equally -- was what enabled the internet as you know it today, with all of its innovation from small startups who grew to be highly successful businesses offering new types of services pushing different types of data through those pipes. An internet that does not protect Net Neutrality and allows telecoms to discriminate against companies, organizations, and their content is an internet that has effectively devolved into a mess of private fiefdoms, each demanding tribute to allow traffic to pass through its pipes. That kind of environment rewards and protects established, entrenched interests -- those with the cash to pay and the relationships to ensure favorable treatment. That's why the Net Neutrality principle -- be it embodied in new regulations set forth by the FCC or new legislation passed by Congress -- is so important, because several large telecoms have decided that it's not enough to charge their customers for the bandwidth they consume -- even through tiered plans based on usage levels. No, they now want to charge content providers with deep pockets (like Netflix or Google) for the traffic that those telecom's customers are already paying for. That's why the push for regulations enforcing the principle of Net Neutrality is happening now -- because the telecoms want to change the de facto rules of the game. For those conservatives out there who maintain deep faith in the miracle of markets to deliver, I ask you to imagine the following scenario, which could take place, say, five or ten years into the future if the principle of net neutrality is not enshrined in law. Imagine a conservative media site that hits on a winning combination of journalism, commentary, broadcast streams, short viral videos and who knows what else -- this is the future, after all, and someone could very well come up with new ideas for pushing conservative news and messaging that we haven't anticipated. The site is wildly successful but, like many startups, is taking some time to figure out its revenue model -- a very familiar situation. The site's traffic has been growing leaps and bounds -- it has become THE place for conservatives to go. It is the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Show of the internet and stands poised to play a decisive role in upcoming election cycles. But then the dreaded day comes -- a demand from one of the major telecoms for payment to allow the site's traffic to flow to audience members at speeds that allow the most popular parts of its site to work properly. Worse, the rates demanded are steeper than what some had anticipated. Why? And why now? Could it be the presidential selection cycle, which is beginning once again? Then some disturbing news comes to light. The CEO of this telecom -- who has publicly expressed great admiration for George Soros -- has been making a number of generous contributions to liberal advocacy groups and the Democratic Party, including a new organization whose stated mission is to pick up where ACORN left off and fulfill its mission. I ask you now: would you trust that this telecom's demand for payment was entirely motivated by financial considerations and the desire to be compensated for the bandwidth consumed by the traffic this web site phenomenon has been pushing through the telecom's data pipes? Note that it is no comfort to this web site that there are other competing telecoms and services in the United States, because a good chunk of the site's audience members live in southern and rural areas where this telecom predominates. A good chunk of the site's audience is on THIS telecom's internet service, and the site simply can't tell its users "Sorry, to access our content you'll have to switch providers." If there even are any providers left who aren't making similar demands. That is a possible future. Without Net Neutrality, the telecoms have license to approach any content provider they like with the same chilling message: "Nice internet business you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it -- like maybe your content not getting to your customers." I don't think that's a future any of us want, but without regulation to force the telecoms to perform as common carriers, we would have no option but to trust the telecoms to behave. And given that two of them have already demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to hose a popular internet service (Netflix) for millions of their own customers -- I repeat that: THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS -- I see no reason at all to place that trust in them. Eric Howes

Folks: The OpDarius installation packages have been refreshed and updated. This refreshed set of install files includes all the updates included in the Update 1 package posted earlier in this thread, plus numerous other updates and additions that have accumulated since then. If you're interested in this refreshed set of installation files, I would recommend doing a new install (do not simply drop over an existing install of the earlier version of OpDarius). The four refreshed files can be found here: Part 1 http://combatace.com/files/file/13300-operation-darius-final-part-1-of-4/ Part 2 http://combatace.com/files/file/13301-operation-darius-final-part-2-of-4/ Part 3 http://combatace.com/files/file/13302-operation-darius-final-part-3-of-4/ Part 4 http://combatace.com/files/file/13303-operation-darius-final-part-4-of-4/ Eric Howes

Caesar: Glad to hear you're enjoying the campaigns. The Fleet Defender comparison is interesting, thanks. Folks, I just noticed that I made a small error in packaging up the third and fourth downloads. The error involves the folder structure that results when the third and fourth files are unpacked. The folder structure should be: To_Mod_Folder\Objects\Aircraft. I goofed,however, so what you get is: To_Mod_Folder\Aircraft. In other words, the Aircraft folder isn't embedded in an Objects folder as it should be. I'm guessing that most folks did move the aircraft from those last two 7zip files to \Objects\Aircraft in their Mods folder (which is where they should go). If you're a newcomer to the world of Strike Fighters, though, please be aware that the Aircraft folder is supposed reside as a sub-directory of \Objects in your Mods Folder. I will be uploading corrected versions of those last two download files in the next few days. (No need to re-download if you already have them, as there will be no new content.) My apologies for the confusion. UPDATE: the corrected files for Part 3 and Part 4 are now posted. The only change is the directory structure, so if you previously downloaded, there's no reason to re-download. Eric Howes

Folks: Today I noticed there was a strange surge in the number of downloads of the fourth part of this mod package. (Usually the first part has the most downloads and the rest lag as users download the latter parts successively.) I strongly suspect this happened because word got out that there is a Su-33 in the fourth part. Now I've got at least one player complaining that he can't see the canards. For those interested in the Su-33, let me save you some trouble: the Su-33 included in this mod packages is a re-purposed Su-27 (Marcfighter's Flanker) with fake canards attached through the "fake pilot" method. The canards are included in the first part of the mod (in the \Pilots folder) -- as are the engine sounds (in \Sounds). We're all still waiting for a real Su-33 model (whose release is said to be coming soon). A Su-34 that could be redistributed would be nice as well, but the Su-33 is the more likely to arrive first. Eric Howes

Emp_Palpatine: Thanks. I was planning an re-upload later today of the first download file to correct some ReadMe issues. I can take care of those as well. Eric Howes

File Name: SF2NA: Black Sea Crisis (Part 4 of 4) File Submitter: eburger68 File Submitted: 26 October 2014 File Category: User Made Campaigns Part four of the "Black Sea Crisis" mod for SF2NA. Click here to download this file

File Name: SF2NA: Black Sea Crisis (Part 3 of 4) File Submitter: eburger68 File Submitted: 26 October 2014 File Category: User Made Campaigns Part three of the "Black Sea Crisis" mod for SF2NA. Click here to download this file

File Name: SF2NA: Black Sea Crisis (Part 2 of 4) File Submitter: eburger68 File Submitted: 26 October 2014 File Category: User Made Campaigns Part two of the "Black Sea Crisis" mod for SF2NA. Click here to download this file

beachav8r: Here are the ones I know about: - NATO Fighters 5 - Op Desert Storm - Op Darius - SF2NA Expansion Pack There are undoubtedly others. Eric Howes

420107: This is a cumulative update pack, meaning that it is designed to be installed on top of previous updates and includes all the updates from previous versions of the cumulative update. FWIW, there was no July 2013 update pack for the SF2V Expansion Pack. The previous one was September 2013. July 2013 is the last patch level for SF2V itself. Eric Howes

citizen67: Yes, you will probably need to reinstall those other mods. Eric Howes

File Name: Green Hell 3.5 Enhancement Package File Submitter: eburger68 File Submitted: 18 September 2014 File Category: Tilesets for Terrains Green Hell 3.5 Enhancement Package for the SF2V Air & Ground Expansion Pack This package contains a set of enhancements for CA_Stary's Green Hell 3.5 (GH 3.5) replacement tile set for the ThirdWire VietnamSEA terrain. It is primarily designed for users who are using GH 3.5 in conjunction with the SF2V Air & Ground Expansion Pack. This mod package makes the following enhancements to Green Hell 3.5 with the SF2V Expansion Pack: 1. Replaces the main air base tile with a new one designed to better belend into the surrounding terrain -- i.e., no more expansive green lawns surrounding all the air bases. The "jungle" air base tile is unchanged. 2. Replaces the ground TGAs used for many barracks areas in the lower Route Packs of North Vietnam with new TGAs that allow the barracks areas to more naturally blend in with the surrounding terrain. 3. Replaces the bright, aqua blue water tiles of GH 3.5 with a darker, greyer set of water tiles, which (at least to my eyes) look more natural. 4. Replaces the default WaterNormal.BMP used in GH 3.5 with a new WaterNormal that produces more pronounced wave effects. If you are not using Green Hell 3.5 (the SF2V Expansion Pack by default uses an enhanced version of CA_Stary's Green Hell 2.0 tile set), there is no purpose in installing this enhancement package. It is designed strictly for Green Hell 3.5, not any earlier version (including 3.0). ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Installation ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Installation is simple: copy all of the files in the \ForVietnamTerrains folder to the \Terrains\VietnamSEA terrain folder in your Mods directory. Allow Windows to overwrite files as prompted. If you have also installed GH 3.5 to the SouthVietnam terrain included with the SF2V Expansion Pack, copy the same files to the \Terrains\SouthVietnam folder in your Mods directory. That's it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Notes on GH 3.5 w/ the SF2V Expansion Pack ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As noted above, the SF2V Expansion Pack ships with an enhanced version of Green Hell 2.0 tile set. The numerous custom target areas in the Expansion Pack were hand-placed with an eye towards exploiting the particular visual features of the GH 2.0 tile set in order to make buildings, vehicles look as though they "belonged" in the places you find them. As the GH 3.5 tile set is a complete departure from (not a mere revision of) the GH 2.0 tile set, some of the ground target items might look a bit oddly placed in some target areas with GH 3.5. Thankfully, the GH 3.5 tile set is quite forgiving visually speaking (much more than the earlier GH 3.0) -- so much so that in most cases the worst you'll see is trees crowding buildings just a bit too much. ~~~~~~~ Credits ~~~~~~~ CA_Stary ............... Green Hell 3.5 Replacement Tile Set for VietnamSEA ------------------ Eric Howes eburger68 9 Dec. 2013 Click here to download this file

Folks: The cumulative update package for the SF2V Air & Ground Expansion Pack pack has been refreshed once again. It is now known as the Sept 2014 Update. As with previous versions of the update package, this is a cumulative update -- meaning, that it includes all the updates, fixed, and additions from previous update packages plus some new things as well. Please note that unlike previous update packages, this update consists of two parts -- so please make sure that you download and unpack both part 1 and 2 from this link: http://combatace.com/files/file/10466-sf2v-air-ground-war-expansion-pack-v20-sep-2014-update/ Each part is about 300 mb. Also, please take a look at the enclosed ReadMe for installation instructions as well as notes about the various optional goodies that are included in this update package. Eric Howes

Folks: The SF2NA Expansion Pack has been updated with new aircraft & ship models, new skins, support for two different alternate terrains, as well as plenty of minor fixes, updates, and corrections. You can download all three updated parts here: http://combatace.com/files/file/13980-sf2na-expansion-pack-part-1-of-3/ http://combatace.com/files/file/13979-sf2na-expansion-pack-part-2-of-3/ http://combatace.com/files/file/13978-sf2na-expansion-pack-part-3-of-3/ Please see the enclosed ReadMe for installation instructions as well as notes on the various optional goodies included in this mod package. Eric Howes

CoolhandF4: No such animal has been developed for the A-6A/E in SF2. MiGbuster does have a mod that adds a working CCIP to the A-6 cockpit, and that mod is incorporated in the update mentioned in my previous post. Eric Howes

Folks: Asked and answered on several previous occasions: the user needs to apply the Sept. 2013 Update package, which includes the updated A-6 files (and a bunch else to boot): http://combatace.com/topic/52002-sf2v-air-ground-war-expansion-pack-v20-sep-2013-update/ Eric Howes

CoolhandF4: The USN squadrons flying the A-6B in SF2V campaigns fly only from carriers. If you're starting an A-6B campaign and end up flying from a land base, then something is wrong with your installation. The game is defaulting to a land base because it can't find the carrier specified in the campaign INIs. Eric Howes