eburger68

Gepard: Yes, you can have multiple carrier groups. Some of the custom campaigns for the SF2NA Expansion Pack uses 2-4 carriers groups on the Blue side. I don't recall ever having seen the game itself generate multiple carrier groups in Single Missions, but you could script missions with multiple carrier groups. allenjb42: I would check the Nations.ini to ensure that USN is the first nation listed. I would also check to ensure that the designated nation of the carriers you're using matches the nation for the amphibious group. Also check service years for the amphibious ships and other capital ships that could be used for battle groups. One thought (which I haven't been able to test): the generation of an amphibious group might be tied to the possibility of a ground war. Does the default front line in the terrain you're using allow for a ground war? Does the terrain's Movement.ini have the InvasionRoute data for CAS missions? Another thought (again, untested): all the terrains where I've seen the game generate amphibious groups (SF2NA Icleand, OpDarius Iran/Iraq, ODS Persian Gulf) do not use discrete CV zones in the water map. Instead, they use contiguous friendly vs. enemy zones that take up the majority of the water surface area available on the terrain (with a small neutral border around land masses and the map edges). It might be that the CV zones the terrain is using are too small. Take a look at the SF2NA Iceland water map to see what I'm talking about. Eric Howes

Wrench: It's tied to whether the game can find either of the following two ships: - LPD-4 - LCC-19 Remove those two ships from \GroundObject and, in my experience at least, the game will not auto-generate an amphibious group tied to the main carrier group. This was a huge problem with the OpDarius SF2NA conversion because in single missions the game was auto-generating an amphibious group with one of the two above ships with every carrier group. And the amphibious group was always positioned at a pre-set distance behind the main carrier group. The result (depending on the direction of the carrier group) was ships churning up desert sand because the game ran out room in the Gulf to position one of the groups. Solution: remove LPD-4 and LCC-19 (both new in SF2NA) from \GroundObject. Presto! No more auo-generating amphibious groups on land. I believe the game can also auto-generate secondary battle groups based around other non-CV capital ships (battleships, cruisers), but the positions of those groups relative to the main carrier group don't appear to be as narrowly fixed as amphibious groups built around the two ships listed above. Eric Howes

russouk2004: The model definitely appears to be a ThirdWire model. Ajundair's Canberra has thinner tires. Plus, Dave's skin pack is designed for the ThirdWire model, not Ajundair's. My best guess as to the cause of the problems you're seeing is that you're using an outdated DATA.INI for the Canberra. In the Dec2010 patch TK made changes to the B-57 model that shifted the center of the aircraft by several meters. Dave's skins are based on the new model, and the decals in your screenshots appear to be correctly positioned. Thus, it would seem that your install is still using an outdated DATA.INI with the old positions for the pilots and loadouts. Try unpacking a newer version of the B-57B_DATA.INI from a CAT file and drop that in to your install. I'll bet it fixes the problem. Eric Howes

daddyairplanes: No offense taken. I just didn't want to leave anyone with false expectations as to what might be included in future updates to the Expansion Pack. Eric Howes

Folks: It was the perfect mission -- or should have been. I was doing some testing with the SF2V Expansion Pack, and the campaign mission generator gave my F-4Ds the task of escorting eight F-105Ds on a strike against the Hanoi rail yards in June 1967 -- a very typical mission for that stage of the war. What should have been a fun and challenging mission, though, turned into sheer frustration as the F-105D strike package starting breaking down after individual AI pilots left formation to engage individual ground radars that had painted them. In short, those F-105Ds never made it to the target. Instead, I was treated to a gaggle of Thuds spread all over the Hanoi area prosecuting their own private wars against offending radars. Even a few of my own wingmen tried the same stunt, only to return to formation after being repeatedly ordered to do so. After that mission, I decided I'd had enough. I've complained about this ridiculous AI behavior before on the 3W forums and even threatened to rip the RWR out of all friendly aircraft. This time I finally did it. I thought I'd share what I found after setting the HasRWR= statement to FALSE in the DATA.INI for every friendly aircraft in my SF2V install that was previously set to TRUE. 1. That obnoxious AI behavior stopped completely -- as expected. Wingmen behaved and kept formation right into downtown Hanoi. AI strike flights got to their targets and hit what they were supposed to. Amazing stuff, really. I hadn't seen this type of AI behavior since flying WOV patched to the 2006 or 2008 patch levels. 2. AI aircraft tasked with SEAD missions still attacked enemy radars with AGM-45s and AGM-78s and did so successfully. This was a bit surprising, but it appears the game code doesn't require aircraft to have HasRWR=TRUE in order to use ARMs. 3. AI aircraft still took steps to avoid SAMs when they could. Having the RWR turned off had no effect on their SAM avoidance behavior. 4. SAM launches were still called out, allowing me to recognize threats to my own flight. 5. The RWR warning tones for my aircraft still worked. I'd noticed this bug before. It would appear that as long as an aircraft's AVIONICS.INI has the proper RWR statements included, the game will still provide the expected RWR warning sounds even when HasRWR= in the aircraft's DATA.INI is set to FALSE. There was one downside, though: the RWR warning display did not work on my own aircraft, despite the presence of audio warning tones. This wasn't necessarily a huge problem, as SAM launches were still called out. The lack of an RWR display could be a big problem, though, when flying anti-radar missions. With the testing I did I was unable to determine whether the limited RWR that I retained (audio only) was respecting the frequency parameters specified in the aircraft's DATA.INI. I suspect they were not being respected, but I never set up a test to confirm that. So, there it is. The HasRWR= statement in an aircraft's DATA.INI appears to have only two main effects or functions: 1. Controlling the cockpit RWR display (on or off) 2. Determining whether AI pilots feel compelled to start private wars against ground-based radars. I suspect that for most players the lack of a working RWR display would be a deal-breaker, but with some mod scenarios - esp. ones that have players flying aircraft in heavy SAM-threat environments with aircraft equipped only with audio RWR -- taking RWR away from AI pilots may be an option you want to consider. In any case, I thought someone here might find the results of this little RWR experiment (conducted on the Jul2012 patch level) interesting. Eric Howes

daddyairplanes: For the record, I've no plans to add squadron variants to the SquadronList.ini just to handle changing tail codes. Nor do I plan to add unit specific skins for Navy birds, as that would blow up the size of the Expansion Pack far beyond what it already is. The Expansion Pack is already a monster to maintain, and I just don't need the additional headache that would result. To me it seems like a hell of a lot work just to get tail codes that most players aren't even going to notice or appreciate. Others may have a different view, understandably. Eric Howes

Bigstone: The problem with tail codes in SF2V is that the game can assign only one tail code per squadron. Tail codes are a set of decals that are indexed against the numbered list of squadrons listed in SquadronList.INI. The primary reason you see incorrect tail codes in SF2V is that over the course of the Vietnam War carrier air wings (and their respective squadrons) hopped from one carrier to another, changing tail codes in the process. To get 100 percent accurate tail codes in SF2V you would need to: a) Expand the SquadronList.INI to include entries for a good number of Navy squadrons that match each deployment or cruise. Some squadrons might have as many as three or four SquadronList entries, depending on the number of carriers they were aboard during the course of the war. b) Create custom tail code decals to match the new SquadronList entries. c) Update all the campaigns to use the squadron entries in SquadronList.ini. Even then you'd see correct tail codes only in campaigns. Single missions would not respect the matching of tail code decals and carrier air wings at all. I suppose if you're really into tail codes this might be an interesting project, but it would be a significant one. Eric Howes

Kyot54: The only time I've ever seen a crash such as the one you're describing is when I forgot to recreate a custom .EXE file from a new patch level after patching to a higher level. In other words, I patched my main SF2 install to Jul2012 (from, say, May 2012) then tried to launch a custom mod like ODS using an .EXE that had been created from the May2012 version of the StrikeFighters2 Europe.EXE. The solution was the delete the old .EXE and recreate my ODS .EXE from the latest version of StrikeFighterers2 Europe.exe. Eric Howes

pilot267: In order to fly Single Missions from carriers (Navy aircraft always fly from carriers in campaigns), you need to have SF2NA installed as part of your base install and you need to have installed the Mar2012 and SF2NA update files from this install package. Eric Howes

File Name: SF2 SAMs Pack File Submitter: eburger68 File Submitted: 17 August 2012 File Category: Ground Object Mods -------------------------------------------- SF2 SAMs Pack -------------------------------------------- This package collects updated versions of most SAMs that have been released for the Strike Fighters series at ComabtAce.com. Updates performed include the following: - added new versions of existing SAMs (e.g., an SA-5BL on top of the existing SA-5L) - added new skins (Green or Tan) to objects that lacked one or the other - added missing Freq data to a number of radars - implemented numerous tweaks to launchers & radars to standardize data and improve performance - overhauled weapons to standardize data (w/ 3rdWire weapons as baselines) & improve performance - added RadarFamily data w/ associated TEWs entries and TGAs Please review the following section for notes on what's included in this package and how to install the various components. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Package Contents ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the root of whatever folder you unpack this mod to, you will find the following standalone files, which include data to be added to various config files: - MISSILEOBJECT_ADDITIONS.TXT: additions to MissileObject.INI, which should be unpacked from the ObjectData001.CAT in your SF2 installation directory and placed in \Objects in your Mods Folder. - SOUNDLIST_ADDITIONS.TXT: additions to SoundList.INI, which should be unpacked from the FlightData.CAT in your SF2 installation directory and placed in \Flight in your Mods Folder. - RWR-LST_ADDITIONS.TXT: additions to individual aircraft RWR.LSTs (these reference the new TGAs included in \Flight) NOTE: to unpack files from CATs, you will need the ThirdWire CAT Extractor tool, which can be found at ThirdWire's web site: http://thirdwire.com/downloads_tools.htm * * * You will also find the following directories, which include the main installation files: \EFFECTS: effects for the various weapons included; to be placed in \Effects in your Mods Folder. \FLIGHT: new RWR TGAs for TEWS RWRs; to be placed in \Flight in your Mods Folder. \SOUNDS: sounds for the various weapons and ground objects; to be placed in \Sounds in your Mods Folder. \OBJECTS\GROUNDOBJECT_BLUE: "friendly" (mostly NATO) SAM launchers and radars; to be placed in \Objects\GroundObject in your Mods Folder. \OBJECTS\GROUNDOBJECT_RED: "enemy" (mostly Soviet/WP) SAM launchers and radars; to be placed in \Objects\GroundObject in your Mods Folder. \OBJECTS\GROUNDOBJECT_XTRA: optional versions of various "Red" or "Blue" ground objects that use different models (but closely follow the "original" Red or Blue objects); use these only as replacements for the corresponding main ground objects. \OBJECTS\GUNS: several guns for the several launchers that have them; to be placed in \Objects\Guns in your Mods Folder. \OBJECTS\WEAPONS: the missiles for the launchers; to be placed in \Objects\Weapons in your Mods Folder. \_SAM_SITES: data and files for building SAM sites in terrains and single missions -- for experienced terrain modders only. NOTE: if you need assistance installing these items, please consult the KnowledgeBase at CombatAce.com: KB for SF2 http://combatace.com/forum/268-thirdwire-strike-fighters-2-series-knowledge-base/ KB for SF1 http://combatace.com/forum/99-thirdwire-strike-fighters-1-series-knowledge-base/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Credits ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This mod package collects a large number of launchers, radars, weapons, and other files previously released at CombatAce.com in various packs or standalone mods: Pasko ......................................... "SAMs and Vehicles Pack: Euro & Desert" The Mirage Factory ............................ Weapons Packs for SFP1/WOE/WOI ErikGen ....................................... NIKE 4xMIM-14, HIPAR, LoPAR, & TTR Abhi, SUICIDAL, & YEYEYE....................... AN/TWQ-1 Avenger, Pantsir-S1 bigal1 ........................................ Bloodhound SAM Kesselbrut .................................... ADATS, Rapier, Blindfire, Skyguard, Roland_Shelter, SA-9 Pasko ......................................... Chaparral, Hawk launcher & radars, EW_Radar, SA-3 launchers, Flatface, Sidenet Fubar512 & Wrench ............................. Hawk INI tweaks Florian ....................................... Roland Rad CrazyhorseB34 ................................. Roland Rad desert skin FastCargo ..................................... SA-5, SquarePair, Firelight (based on SquarePair) Monty CZ....................................... SA-10 & Flaplid, Stinger site Fubar512 ...................................... SA-10 INI tweaks EricJ ......................................... SA-11 & SA-17 EricJ & winterhunter .......................... Starstreak Stormer Gabilon ....................................... 2S6, Tor-M1, SA-13, MRoland YEYEYE ........................................ PAC-2/PAC-3 system, Akash SAM, TubeArm Gerald14 & Kesselbrut ......................... M6 Linebacker BANIDOS Team .................................. TAM VCLM rebel ryder ................................... BRDM-SA9 Unknown author ................................ SA-8 & SA-9 (alternates from TMF Weapons Packs) ThirdWire ..................................... SA-2, SA-6, SA-8, Barlock, Fansong, StraightFlush WhiteBoySamurai ............................... R440/FM-80 Nicholas Bell ................................. WOE Air Defense Mod (Hawk Sites) Wrench ........................................ Hawk Site upgrades/layout Fubar512 ...................................... NIKE-Hercules sites layout/placement OldDiego ...................................... SAMSite01 If I have neglected to credit anyone whose work is included in this package, please let me know and I will correct this list of credits ASAP. --------------- Eric Howes eburger68 16 August 2012 Click here to download this file

Rokvam: It has nothing to do with the Campaign_data.ini. Simply go to the \Flight folder in your Mods directory and remove the following two files: HUDDATA.INI MAPENEMYICON.TGA That's it. If you want the bad guys to disappear again, add the above files back to the \Flight folder. Eric Howes

ignacio91: The original author of the Atlantic Conveyor will be listed in one of the original Falklands mod ReadMes, The original ReadMes are included in the SF2 Falklands '82 Redux mod or in the original SFP1 mod by Kesselbrut: http://combatace.com/files/file/6700-falkland-1982-all-inclusive-mod/ Eric Howes

Folks: The game isn't so good at "randomly" choosing cargo ships from the GroundObject folder for Anti_Ship missions. Depending on the SF2 title and patch level, the game tends to choose the first ship it encounters alphabetically in the GroundObject folder. Some patch levels have seemed to "fix" ths bug, but it only returned in later patch levels. Also, some titles (SF2E, for instance) seem to be better at randomizing selection than other titles (SF2V, for instance). Eric Howes

Wrench: The belly tank is already on the Meteor in all loadouts in NF5. There's no need to extract and edit the Loadout.ini -- it's already been done. Eric Howes

dtmdragon: Unfortunately, I have no idea why you're experiencing problems. There's almost nothing specific to go on. I can't reproduce the problem, and I've received no other reports of similar problems in the two years since OpDarius was released. The only thing I can suggest is changing the .CAT file reference in the terrains main .INI file (IR2003.INI). By default it points to Desert.cat. You could try changing it to point to Germany CE.cat or VietnamSEA.cat. Eric Howes

dtmdragon: A few questions: Which campaign? Which aircraft/squadron? What patch patch level are you on? Which SF2 titles are part of your target install? Can you fly single missions? Eric Howes

malibu43: Actually, the SF2E and WOE campaigns aren't done that way. The correct, unique UnitIDs are called out in the main campaign .INI -- but those aren't mercenary campaigns like the SF2 campaigns. Eric Howes

santiagoace57: I can't say what happened, because I'm not sitting in front of your PC. I can tell you that the F-14 and Linebacker '75 campaign were not left out. If they had been, someone else would have reported it long before now. Indeed, I would have discovered it myself quite some time ago. Eric Howes

santiagoace57: If the new campaigns and F-14s are not showing up in game, then you didn't install the mod correctly. Eric Howes

Folks: The speech files used for each service are specified in the NATIONS.INI (found in \Flight, if you've unpacked it from the MissionData001.CAT). The relevant lines for the USAF (RedCrown) and USN (Hawkeye) are: SpeechFile=USAFSpeech.cat SpeechTextFile=USAFSpeechText.cat SpeechFile=SpeechUSN.cat SpeechTextFile=SpeechTextUSN.cat Keep in mind that the SpeechUSN.CAT has a few more lines of speech to cover carrier operations (mainly approach/landing), so if you use RedCrown (USAFSpeech.CAT), you'll be missing recorded voiceovers for some speech used when flying naval aircraft. Eric Howes

Paul: The EAF decals are missing from this package. Could you either upload them here or update the download package? Thanks, Eric Howes

JMBalestre: You wrote: One might as well say: there is not super super solid evidence that we are not all being secretly controlled by the lizard people from outer space, in the same sense that there is not any evidence super super solid that tell us that we are being secretly controlled by the outer space lizard people. But that confuses the burden of proof and falsely presumes the two assertions make for two equally plausible theories or accounts. And there are not two equally plausible theories, with the matter of choosing between them simply a matter of personal whim or belief. There is one theory that has been offered with no clear supporting evidence to support it and plenty of reason to doubt it. Without such evidence the logical conclusion is that it didn't happen. You then wrote: You already answered this question yourself when you pointed out in an earlier post that militaries and governments do lie and spread misinformation when it is in their own interest. And, indeed, the entire case made for this allegedly successful attack is based on the assumption that the UK government lied and has continued to lie about the events of that day in 1982. But, again, the burden isn't on the UK government or anyone else to prove that the Invincible didn't suffer battle damage from that attack; it is on those who assert that it did. Eric Howes

JMBalestre: You wrote: But there were over 1000 men who would have had to keep quiet -- for over thirty years. And the families of the dead and wounded (not likely you hit a ship, even a large one, with an Exocet and multiple bombs without causing at least some casualties). And the personnel of any shipyard where repairs were made (or the ship rebuilt) which, if done in the Mississippi (as some theories allege) would necessarily involve the surrounding community as well as U.S. government officials. And members of the British government and the MoD. And amongst all of these thousands of people, both civilian and military, not one cracked after thirty years? Not a single person? No one with ill will towards the Thatcher administration or outrage at the alleged cover-up? And why would the British government be so concerned about apparently minor battle damage to the Invincible after dealing with much more devastating attacks on other ships as well as widespread outrage at the sinking of the Belgrano? Simply not believable. And not possible either, given that we know how the attempt to hush the Dasher sinking failed so miserably. As for the long passage in Spanish that you posted, I looked through it -- it's mainly a rehashing of alleged events. Not a shred of concrete evidence or eyewitness testimony offered save for the mention of the name of one nurse, who was reportedly traumatized by treating casualties while aboard Invincible which (in the language of the original) "presumably" came from "attacks by Argentine aircraft during the days of the conflict." Pretty thin. I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to claim that this attack did score direct hits on Invincible, then the burden is squarely on them to provide evidence for it. Such evidence ought to be abundant and easy to find, given the nature of the alleged event. And so far, they have offered none. Eric Howes

JMBalestre: The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the attack, which might well have been mounted, actually damaged the Invincible. Two pilots might have died, but that in itself does not speak to any damage to the Invincible. That all the Exocets possessed by Argentina at the start of the war were expended also fails to prove that any damage was done to the Invincible. As for the Invincible being the last to return, that again provides no direct evidence of any damage to the ship. Moreover, by all accounts the Invincible stayed behind in the South Atlantic to provide protection for the islands until relieved in August by the Illustrious (the British no doubt being eager not to repeat the mistake of leaving the islands undefended). And the "signals of having suffered a huge repair" -- where is the account coming from? Please provide a link or reference, because every account that I can find online from eyewitnesses of the return has the ship looking "smart" and undamaged. Photos included in this video here: If the ship had been hit by the Exocet and bombs, it surely would have suffered major damage and, undoubtedly, numerous casualties. Yet in the 32 years since this alleged attack none of the one thousand crew members have reported this damage. None of the families of those killed or wounded have spoken up. At least none that I'm aware of. And despite the ship allegedly having undergone major repairs (or even being rebuilt from scratch according to some conspiracy theorists), there have been no reliable witnesses from the shipyard that performed these repairs (which was where?) or among the hundreds or even thousands people who would have been involved in such an effort. And please don't tell us about the HMS Dasher, whose sinking in 1943 the British apparently did try to hush up. That effort failed miserably for precisely the same reasons that any effort to cover up major damage to the Invincible would have failed. And there would have been plenty of folks in Britain with plenty of motivation to expose such a cover-up. The Thatcher government was a controversial one with plenty of determined political enemies who would not have hesitated to exploit an opportunity to blacken Thatcher's major accomplishment, esp. heading in to the general election of 1983. No, fallenphoenix1986 is correct: the only evidence offered for the attack and its alleged success is the testimony of a few pilots. And that testimony is simply uncorroborated by any other eyewitnesses or other evidence that surely would have resulted from a successful attack. I think what we're dealing with here is a cherished national myth that acts for some a salve to wounded national pride. The mistake is assume that the British would have been as concerned with covering up such an attack (after dealing already with the fallout from the sinking of the Belgrano as well as the loss of several Royal Navy ships, events which shocked the British public) as others are interested in proving that it really happened. Eric Howes

JMBalestre: Interesting mission. But why does the Invincible have no escorts or even a destroyer screen? How about Harriers flying CAP? Eric Howes