malibu43

I've used Avast for the last 3 years or so and haven't had a single problem. I highly recommend it!

You were close, Stary! I finally figured it out yesterday. I remember when SF2 first came out, I think it was KillerBee who discovered that custom effects classes had to be added to the data.ini file for the weapon or gun in question. New effects classes couldn't be added to the object.ini files. So, at first, adding the GAU8Effects Stary posted above to bulletobject.ini didn't work. But adding it to the bottom of GAU8data.ini in the guns/GAU8 folder did.

Hmmm... I think we may not be on the same page here. I do want smoke coming out of the gun muzzle... lot's of it!!! It's the smoke trails from the bullets that I'm trying to get rid of. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen that in "real life" A-10 videos. Thanks Stary, I'll try that!

... this: No GunFireEffect (which I want to keep) and no tracers, but still tracer smoke. I also commented out this line from bulletobject.ini, but it had absolutely no effect. [30mmEffects] TracerEmitterName=TracerSmokeEmitter GroundHitEffectName=30mmGroundHitEffect GroundHitSoundName=DirtHit WaterHitEffectName=CannonWaterHitEffect WaterHitSoundName= ObjectHitEffectName=30mmObjectHitEffect ObjectHitSoundName=Impact2 ArmorHitEffectName=30mmObjectHitEffect ArmorHitSoundName=Impact2 AirBurstEffectName=FlakEffect AirBurstSoundName=FLAK2.wav Any other thoughts?

Here is all that's in the data.ini for the GAU8: [GunData001] TypeName=30MM_GAU8 FullName=30mm GAU-8/A Cannon Caliber=30.000000 ROF=4200.000000 MuzzleVel=1030.000000 AmmoWt=0.360000 WarheadWt=0.036000 CartridgeWt=0.739000 Reliability=100.000000 Accuracy=50.000000 AddLight=TRUE MaxLightRange=70.000000 FireColor=0.500000,0.450000,0.320000 GunFireEffect=Gau8FireEffect GunFireSound=GAU8 EffectClassName=30mmEffects EffectTime=0.100000 TracerTexture=Tracer.tga TracerSize=0.200000 TracerDistFactor=0.002000 TracerLength=0.018000 MaxVisibleDist=4000.000000 MaxStreakVisibleDist=1000.000000 TimeFuzed=FALSE

I'm not at home right now, but I think there were only lines for the tracer and effects class. Obviously I don't want to remove the line for the effects class, since I'd loose the impact effects as well. I'll double check when I get home and make sure I didn't miss anything. This is a up to date NF4+ install, BTW.

Hmmm... I feel like I should know how to do this, but I'm missing something. Been watching all these sweet DCS A-10 videos and I really like the way you hear the sound of the GAU8 and see some smoke puff off of the nose and then a few seconds later see the impact on (or maybe just near depending on how good a shot you are) the target. You don't really see or notice any tracers (and definitely no tracer smoke). I wanted to get the same thing in SF2E. 1) I grabbed a GAU8 sound file from the downloads section. Sound. Check! 2) I installed Stary's new unified effects pack. Ground hit effect. Check! 3) Commented out the tracer line in the data.ini file for the GAU8. No more tracers. Check! But then I got stuck when trying to remove the tracer smoke. The GAU8 uses 30mmCannonEffects for the effects class, and I see that there is 30mmCannonTracerSmoke.ini (or something like that) in the effects folder, so I assume the 30mmCannonEffects entries are still embedded in particlesystem.ini and are calling out the 30CannonTracerSmoke.ini. Is that correct? I tried deleting (well, renaming) the 30mmTracerSmoke file in the effects folder as well as just deleting all the entries from that file so that it was empty, and I still had tracer smoke for the GAU8. Can someone tell me what edit I need to make and where I need to make it to remove the 30mm tracers smoke? Thanks!

Here are the expansion packs merged over their respective titles. XP1 XP2

I can certainly live with the new format for the D/L section, but if I was to share my opinion (and I am going to ) the old format was much easier to use. Definitely appreciate all the work Erik does, though, and if it isn't a priority to get it fixed, then that doesn't bother me.

Glad to see it got worked out. Let us know how the infinite campaign plays out!

And as for your question about the super campaign, it could be done. But, you would have to do a lot of tweaking to the supply levels and mission rates to set up a campaign that would last 30 years. I would suggest setting supply levels so that offensives happen rarely and setting mission rates very high (they are set at 180 in the SF2V Rolling Thunder campaign) so that the player isn't flying very often. Not sure about upgrading ground units, though. I can't remember if I've ever seen that or not.

The NF4+ campaigns are based on the SF2E ones. What patch level are you running at? Do you have the correct NF4+ updates installed (they're in the download section, this one is for the jan '11 patch ---> http://combatace.com/files/file/11795-nato-fighters-iv-post-dec2009-update-pack-4/ ) What air unit are you flying when you're not getting enough air activity around you? Also, what unit resulted in the campaign crash? Do you have issues in the other campaigns? Sounds like it could be a unit numbering issue, but no one else has reported this problem...

Thanks! And, yes, I am still flying. Although a lot less frequently now ($$$). In fact, I'm still paying off my lessons. Worth every penny, though. I actually sheduled some time with my instructor this weekend to learn how to fly a "Bay Tour". If you take a look at the airspace surrounding my home airport, KSQL, it's a little complicated with San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland airports on all sides. I know how to get around it to the South, East, and West. But, if you want to head North to take a look at San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge, or anything else a friend or family member is going to expect to see when you tell them you'll take them up, you need to transition through San Francisco's bravo air space. Most of the time, they don't have a problem clearing little VFR, GA aircraft in, as long as you know what to ask for and what to expect. If you sound like you don't know what you're doing, or if they're (meaning KSFO controllers) busy, or if the weather's marginal, they just won't let you in at all. This will be the first time I've flown with my instructor since I got my license, so it should be fun. I'm also really looking forward to learning more about all that airspace just to the North of KSQL that haven't yet dared to venture into yet! Here is part of the KSFO terminal chart. You can see all the airspace I'm talking about.

Very interesting indeed... It would be cool if it is some sort of one-time .ini edit to a single file somewhere, but that seems too good to be true and unlikely. If it ends up being a trick that requires customs weapons, loadouts, targets, and scripted missions for it to work, then it's a little less useful. Still cool, but not quite as useful. I'll be watching this one...

This mod has been updated! In addition to adding carriers to the stock SF2 campaigns, it now includes an optional set of campaigns that are for SF2 installs merged with SF2V and SF2E. These new campaigns add F-8's and A-7's to the five SF2 campaigns (where appropriate), as well as a new 1978 desert campaign that includes F-14's, F-15's, A-10's, A-7's, and Harrier GR3's. Enjoy!

The flak and AAA effects you are referring to are included in the SF2 Expansion Pack, NF4+, and the SF2I '48 mod. I may talk to eburger68 about a standalone AAA effects pack, but for now they're only in the 3 mods mentioned above. *edit* - Oh, they're also in the Falklands mod. I'd guess they'll probably be included in most big mod packages moving forward.

Well, if that is the case, then maybe I should just stick with SF2 in all its simplistic glory and use my new laptop to crank the graphics up! And, from what I've heard, there is a lot of pooping in addition to the eating and sleeping the first few months!

Agree completely. If I had to ask for one realistic thing for TK to fix/implement, it would employment of A2G weapons. Add the same simple functionality to the A2G Radar that the A2A has. Let us lockup targets using the EO display and radar instead of just hitting the E key. That, for me anyway, would go a long way.

Well, for the first time in my life I may be getting a computer that is capable of playing the latest and greatest games out there, and I'm excited about it. Unitl now, I have never bought a desktop/laptop with gaming in mind, and, as a result, have always found myself limited to playing games that are 5-10 years old. So of course, the first thing on my list to get after my new laptop arrives is DCS A-10C. What better way to enjoy my sweet new laptop than with the latest and greatest flight sim out there. But there's a catch (there always is, right?). The drawback to being able to afford my new laptop is that I am now a "grown up" and, while I have $$$ for lot's of fun toys, I don't really have as much time to play with them anymore. I'm also going to become a dad in June, so take whatever time I did have available and subtract 99.99%. That's the time I'll have left to do any flight simming on my new laptop. I would love nothing more to learn what every little button and switch do on the A-10C and learn how to press a million different buttons to deploy a GBU on target, but I just don't know if I'll have time. So, how scalable are the avionics? Is there just a "Sim" mode and "Easy" mode, or can I adjust each option individually? I've seen some images of DCS Black Shark with "Easy" avionics and it looked like an arcade game. I don't want that. I'm just interested in maybe some simplified aviionics and systems; I don't want a bunch of icons and labels all over the screen and a super omnicient top down radar in the corner of the screen. I'd just like a few less buttons to push and procedures to learn. Is that possible? Or if not, how detailed is? Something along the lines of F4AF I could make time for if it was the only option... And, the reason I ask is because if I really am not going to be able get what I need out of DCS A-10, I can always get FC2 for 1/2 the price. Based on what I've seen/heard, I think the avionics in FC2 might be suitable to my time constraints. But FC2 isn't the latest and greatest. And like I said, I'm ready for the latest and greatest.

I disagree. I don't think we should "complain" to TK with the long list you just spouted. Your suggestions sound more like completely reinventing the game rather than making improvements, and they make it sound like you really don't like the game as it is. Yeah, those would all be nice, but that is unrealistic to expect. How about we ask TK to fix things like effects not displaying correctly and trees showing through clouds before we demand he completely revamp his game. If you really want all that, then why not just find a game that you like instead of expecting the developer of a game that you don't like to completely reinvent his product to meet your needs? In short what you're saying sounds like this to me: "This girl would be perfect if only she was a different height, different weight, had a different hair color, different eye color, and a different personality. I'm going to date her and try to get her to change all those things instead of just finding a different girl."

OK. What I should have said was "Are you sure you're out of weapon stations? Because you can have A LOT!"

The only ways are to: 1) make them weapons with weapon stations. How did you run out of weapon stations? There is no limitation on weapons stations. There is a limit to how many weapon stations show up in the loadout menu. But, just make the new countermeasures weapon stations the last in the number sequence so that they don't show up. Then make the default loadout carry the countermeasure pods. That way they'll load on their own, but only when the weapon is available per its service years. Use stationspecificcode= entries to keep other countermeasure pods from being loaded. or 2) make two versions of the same aircraft that cover the different service years.

Well, that is a good point. I've been using my 11" macbook for the last few years, and I WANT SOMETHING BIGGER! I'm not super concerned about portability or travel. I have my work laptop for work, and my wife will get my 11" MacBook which we could take somewhere if we needed to. The only reason I was looking at the 11" alienware initially was that I thought that was all that was in my price range. Now I'm seeing that that isn't the case. That being said, I can get the exact same configuration of that HP laptop in a 15" or 17". So, I will probably just head to Best Buy or something to look at sizes and see what I really want. The 15" sounds nice, since it claims to have up to 5 hours of battery life vs up to 3 with the 17". "Up to 3 hours" probably doesn't amount to a whole lot under normal usage. Also, since I haven't gotten a lot of feedback actually comparing the technical aspects of the Alienware and HP, I'm going to post an email response I got from a friend when I asked him about the two: I'm not claiming that the above is "the truth" and I'm not trying to start a flame war and piss off Alienware users. I just thought it seemed like good, data based feedback on my original question.

What graphics card does your MBP have in it? The newer ones come with the NVIDIA 310M, and if that's the case, it would probably be cheaper just to add more RAM to your MBP. I am also in the process of going from a MacBook (not pro) with intel graphics to a better "gaming" laptop. Here is the thread I've started. Some of the info may be helpful for you: http://combatace.com/topic/63108-getting-a-new-laptop/page__view__getnewpost__fromsearch__1 I've been looking at laptops for a while, and have concluded that anything with an integrated graphics card (which the 310M is) is not worth the money if I'm trying to improve gaming performance. That doesn't mean it won't run SF2 (my intel x3100 chipset runs SF2 just fine on a combination of low, med, and high settings). That's why it would be helpful to know what your switching from and how much of an improvement you want.

I would agree that I've never heard that either. But, just looking at the specs (and being someone who isn't an expert on the subject matter), the HP looks to be pretty powerul: i7 processor (vs i5 for the M11X) 1GB DDR5 ATI 6570 (according to notebookcheck.net, it performs better than the GT 335M) 6 GB DDR3 RAM (vs 4GB on the M11X) 17.3" display (vs 11" on the M11X) Again, as sort of a noob when it comes to this hardware stuff, the HP looks to be more powerful than the M11x. If I'm wrong, then by all means let me know (and if you can tell me why, that would be great too!). If i had to pick one at this point, I'd probably go with the M11x (based on the fact that folks here are very happy with it). It seems to be a very safe choice. However, I'd hate to realize after the fact that I could have gotten more bang for my $.