Fubar512

It sounds like it may be a classic case of "folder within a folder". The aircraft folder needs to be a subfolder of the obects folder, and cannot contain another similarly named folder within itself. For example, the F-15A folder should NOT contain another folder named F-15A. the other possibilty is that you're installing aircraft that are not meant for the particular sim you have (ie, WoV-only aircraft in SF, SF-only aircraft in WoV). They won't work because specific files needed to support them are not present. Give us a list of the AC you've DL'ed, and which sim (SF/WoV), you're trying to install them in.

The author of that piece created a non-functional addon just for show purposes. In flight refueling would require coding on a high level , and SF/WoV's developer (TK) has already stated that he's not going to make that a priority anytime soon, as (in his own words) "It's not that kind of game." Of course, you can join Thirdwire's forum and ask TK yourself. Who knows, you may convince him to go for it. Otherwise, what's the worst thing that could happen, other then him telling you no?

That wasn't air to air refueling, that was same plane sex

You have to be kidding me. No one's figured it out yet? I'd have thought it much too easy. The answer is, of course, a BUCK AN EAR

Which leads us to the age-old question..... How much is corn going for nowadays? Anyone?

When your wingman warns you that a SAM's been launched, hit the "R" key, and then the CTRL + F8 keys. this will give you a view from your AC to the threat (SAM). That helps... Depending on the AC, you'll also have an idea where the threat lies by watching the blips on the RWR display.

You were being "painted" by a Fansong SAM radar.

Why not buy them both? Circuit City's web site lists WoV for $29.99, and they also carry Strike Fighters for $4.99.

In order to get the AC-130 up and running in WoV, you'll first need a copy of Strike Fighters: Project 1, from Valusoft (I've seen it for $4.99 on Circuit City's website). You must then extract all the C-130-related files from the objectdata.cat in SF:P1, and place them in the AC-130 folder in WoV. At present, that's the only (legal) way to have have a working AC-130 in WoV.

The extracted/edited file stays in the same folder that you've extracted it to. The game will read that copy first. The real beauty of this method, is if you screw up, or do not like what you've done, simply delete the file, and the game will read the default one that's in the .cat file. All the add on aircraft have their own flight models, with unique flight characteristics.

Get into your BIOS and try setting the AGP Aperture setting to 256 mb. test it, if the issue still persists, lower it to 128, repeat, try again. Conversely, you can start from the opposite end, and set the aperture as low as possible, thereby defeating AGP texturing, and try it there. If the last idea works, the next step is to see if it's mearly an AGP driver issue, by downloading and installing the latest AGP drivers for your board.

Yes, But only if: 1) You are the flight lead, and you go into A/B. Your flight will then follow suit. 2) You create a mission using a flight of B-58s, and at the desired WP, set the speed (and altitude), so they dash in at Mach 1+ to deliver their ordnance.

Go to Start/Run, type in "DXdiag" in the run field, and hit "OK". This will launch the DrectX Diagnostic Tool. Towards the bottom of the first, or "system" page, it will tell you the DirectX version that's currently installed. You'll find the Diagnostic Tool quite useful. For instance, hit the Display tab, then run the Direct3D test. You may find that it brings up errors, which will require you to reinstall (or upgrade) your DirectX.

Are you running DX9.0C?

Try the 66.93s. They seem to be the most stable drivers for SF:P1 & WoV at the moment.

Jug, I'll take a shot in the dark, and say that what you're currently experiencing is the result of a driver compatibilty issue. Just for the helluvit, give the 66.93 drivers a whirl and see if that fixes your problem : )

Yes they are all flyable, and many come with their own cockpits (as opposed to "borrowing" one from another SF:P1 aircraft).

You'll need to get a hold of Skypat's SFP1E extraction utility. Once you have that, extract every F-105 File from WoV's objectdata.cat, and place it into the F-105 folder. You'll need to place all cockpit files into the F-105/Cockpit sub folder, as well. Once you've done that, just copy and paste it over to SFP1. If I were you, I'd save myself the time and trouble and get the F-105D-25, F-105D-31, F-105F, and the F-105G Wild Weasel from Column5's site ( http://www.column5.us/aircraft.shtml ). They all come with an excellent hi-res cockpit.

Read here, Misty FAC: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...7209;p=2#000063

I was recently considering building a new system to replace my aging Abit KT-7A. While it was a solid performer back in it's day, it was starting to show it's age, finding itself incapable of running today's titles at a decent resolution or frame rate. Or, can it? This particular mainboard had scaled from 933 MHz (800 Athlon unlocked at 7@133 fsb), to 1333 MHz, to an XP1900 at 1680 MHz (12x140 fsb), and finally to a 2100 MHz (XP 2400+ @ 2100 MHz w/140 fsb). Graphics-wise, it's gone from its original Voodoo 5500, to a GeForce 2 Ultra, to a GeForce 3 Ti500, and eventually, to a GF4 Ti4800. There are several bottlenecks with this system. First, it's FSB is only capable of a stable 145 MHz, as it has no way of adjusting the PCI or AGP clock. Bottle neck number two, is it's use of SDRAM. Number three, is it's 4X Max AGP speed. While the last one is no biggy (I've yet to see anyone prove that there's any significant performance increase between AGP 4x and 8X), the other two seem serious enough to warrant scrapping the board at first glance. Or, are they? How would this board compare in benchmarks to a modern system? Well, there's only one way to find out......another CPU upgrade. Is it possible? Lets find out....

Update: I treated the Old Dog to aother video card upgrade, a GeForce 6600GT AGP, this past Monday, ran several benchmarks, and then tried WOV, for comparison. The average Frame Rate went up by 2-3 FPS, and the low Frame Rate went up fractionally (no more than 1 fps). Afterwords, I shut the system down, and took a nice four day vacation to upstate NY. Upon my return last evening, I hit the power switch on the Old Dog, saw the system get as far as the video check during post...heard a light pop through the speakers, and then, everything went dark. After spending hours trying different processors, video adapters, etc. I realized that the Old Dog had died, its VRM has probably fried as a result of the high CPU frequency (which it was never designed to handle), and the abuse that it's endured over the course of the last four plus years. I've managed to get a hold of a somewhat mediocre NForce 2 U400 board to get me through for a while (an Abit NF7-S2), and had to finally give in and pin-mod the XP-M to get it to work at a decent frequency. This "setback" at least allowed me to compare the performance of the two systems back to back., So, just for grins & giggles, here are my findings: XP-M 3000+ @ 2366 MHz (145 MHz FSB & SDRAM speed), Geforce 6600 GT AGP WoV average FPS @ 1600x1200 x2 FSAA & 2x SF = 35, low 17/high 76 3D Mark 2001 SE = 10984 @ default, no aa or af, "quality" image setting XP-M 3000+ @ 2400 MHz (200 MHz FSB & DDR RAM speed), Geforce 6600 GT AGP WoV average FPS @ 1600x1200 x2 FSAA & 2x SF = 38, low 18/high 76 3D Mark 2001 SE = 17362 @ default, no aa or af, "quality" image setting As you can see, the new board allowed me to ramp up the CPU's clock frequency up slightly, to 2400 (from 2366), and of course, bestowed upon it the advantages of a higher FSB, and the greater memory bandwidth of PC3200 DDR RAM. All that, made a only a slight difference in WoV, proving that it's much more CPU intensive, than anything else. 3DMark, on the other hand, saw a HUGE jump in score, proving that you cannot always trust a 3D benchmark when it comes determining how well a system will run a flight sim!

1 Gigabyte of video RAM? Damn! Here's a link to the article at Tom's hardware: LINK

Deuces isn't kidding when he says that it's tedious. i've tried it myself, and found it an absolutely mind-numbing process.