malibu43

Hmmm... haven't posted in this thread for a while. I have quite a back log!

Unless you know something I don't, we are both just guessing. And my guess is that is sold better because they are easier to fly (or some combination of both). I haven't bought A-10C or Black Shark because I know I won't have time to learn how to use them and enjoy them. Otherwise I would have bought them a long time ago. I don't if it also comes with the advanced systems modeling that the A-10C and KA-50 have, for reasons stated above.

And I'm in agreement with both of you. FC3 level of detail is all I have time for (well, more than I have time for, really....). Streak - I agree that DCS's original (and maybe primary) niche is the DCS level A-10C/Blackshark stuff, but I think they have a secondary niche which is "more than arcade but less than study sim" modern (anything post WWII) aircraft. They are the only ones doing that now. As JM pointed out, anyone else that was doing that hasn't been around for over 10 years. SF2 is kinda in the same market, but it's clearly going to evolve more in the arcade/very light direction. I don't have numbers to back this up - it's just a guess. My own opinion based on personal experience, preference, and anecdotal evidence. But my guess is that there is a decent sized market for FC3 type aircraft. But it's just my guess.

Same here. FC3 is plenty to keep me busy. I don't understand some of the people that slam FC3 for being "arcade crap". This is Arcade? That's over an hour of tutorials just to walk through the radar for one aircraft. That's what we call "arcade" these days? I get that some people prefer more in-depth, A-10C type stuff, but people appear very narrow minded and self centered when they insist anything less is "arcade" and that ED should not even give it the time of day. I'm really hoping that FC3 (and the individual FC3 modules) does well, and that ED and 3rd parties will produce more FC3 level aircraft as a result. I'd love a FC3 level AH-64A/D, or F/A-18C.

I think the game engine doesn't trigger them as much as it used to. I don't ever get them in campaigns anymore.

While that is not what I meant or was trying to do, I can see how it may look that way. My point was simply that (IMO) the trees are there so things look "nice" from the cockpit of the airplane. That means small enough so they convey a sense of speed, dense forests, and look to scale from the cockpit, but large enough to allow for acceptable performance. IMO, if you have to zoom in on a tank to see that they are out of proportion, there may not really be an issue. If they look out of proportion from the cockpit of an aircraft while it's at whatever altitude it would fight at while moving at whatever speed it fights at, then, yes, there may be a size issue. It's a preference thing. I have no issue with someone resizing the trees so they are closer to scale. My comment was meant to be more along the lines of what DaddyAirplanes said. I guess it's a good sign that we have modded this game to the point that we are now concerned about tree scale down to the meter.

To be honest, it seems like you guys are getting a little picky. It's not an armor sim. Trees in flight sims are often over sized, otherwise you would need too many objects to fill out a forest. As long as they look OK from the air and help to convey a sense of speed and altitude, I'd say they're fine.

I'm getting some real bad shimmering on building roofs in the distance. Is this a known issue or something unique to me? NM. Found my answer here: http://combatace.com/topic/72088-sf2-tod-buildings-shimmering-bug/?do=findComment&comment=568292

Alternatively, one could also find-replace the names in targets.ini and change them back to their original,names. That would mean just going through the names once instead of for each campaign file (5 times?).

Gulfwarfighter - your best bet for acomplishing what you want is to start with the LBII campaign as a starting point. Using the North Atlantic campaigns is unessecary and making much more work for youself. Take your time and change one thing at a time. Look at other campaigns to get ideas for how things work. Don't worry about adding soviet carriers and menu screens until you have flyable aircraft showing up correctly.

If you look in the SF1 downloads section, you can find my Linebacker III campaign. It has all the strategic nodes laid out for a ground war on the VietnamSEA map.

I just attempted to fly a CAP mission in an F-4M in the 1979 campaign and got another CTD part way through the mission. I switched back to my old terrain folder and was able to play through several missions. I wish I knew where to suggest to look for the cause of the CTD, but I have no idea...

Looks good so far, Rends. However, I did get a CTD while approaching my Armed Recon target. I believe the target area was a border crossing (forget the name). I'm not sure if the CTD was related to your terrain or not. I can say that I can count my SF2 CTD's in the last 5 or 6 years on one hand, and your terrain is the only thing I've added lately.

Here is a modified set of Air Offensive entries that can be added for both Friendly and Enemy sides in any of the SF2E campaigns. My goal was to incorporate the items that Rends added, as well as make the campaign offensives more closely resemble how I imagine something would play out in real life (targeting things like airfields and comm centers early on, then progressing to supplies and supply chain infrastructure later). Please give these a try and let me know how they play out! Only by lots of people testing and providing feedback will improvements like this work. ie - We need to play all the way through a campaign, preferably more than once, and also with different types of units (A/A, A/G, CAS, mix, etc...) to get a feel for the balance of target/mission types. I'm curious to see if players get too many missions striking runways (those aren't the most exciting). Maybe I should reduce the number of those....

Oh. I see. For some reason I thought they weren't included.

Can the latest version of Stary's trees and tiles be dropped over the top of this without any issues?

To add to what Wrench said, the groundattack routes aren't used in campaigns. They are just used in CAS missions generated from the single missions menu. I believe you can place them anywhere on the map, regardless of whether it's red or blue territory, and the game engine will just set up a battle there. In campaigns, the locations of ground battles/CAS missions is determined by the strategic nodes defined in the campaign file. However, the armedrecon (or whatever they're called, can't remember right now) and shipping routes in the movement.ini file will be used for Armed_Recon and Anti-ship missions in campaigns, as well as single missions.

Also, FWIW, I think that section of the campaign files is the same in the both WoE and SF2E.

Ah. I see. I missed that in your previous post. I will try to remember to extract them and send them to you next few days... if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

Ah. I see. There's two options: 1) Change the building to to "WAREHOUSE" or something that comes up a lot. or 2) Just edit the campaign files to add in "POWER_PLANT" as a target during different offensives. Ultimately, since you're adding so much great stuff, that might make sense to go ahead and edit the offensives of the campaigns. That way you can utilize other types as well (as Wrench mentioned, NAVAL_BASE, ARMY_BASE, BRIDGE, etc...) and make sure all this stuff gets targeted in campaigns. You can always just include the Offensive[001]...Offensive[xxx] sections in the readme of your terrain mod and let users copy that section into any GermanyCE based campaign they want to take advantage of the new targets. Also, FWIW, I don't think I've ever seen the EW_RADAR type work as a campaign offensive target for strike missions. I'm not sure if it does. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As Wrench mentioned, try changing the type to "POWER_PLANT." Let's start from there.

Maybe you can expand on that part so folks can tell if they're setting them up properly or not.

Every campaign has target types defined for different air offensives in the *campaign_name*_data.ini file: This is from one of the SF2 desert campaigns: I'm not an expert at terrain design, but from what I've seen, when you add an object to a terrain via the *terrain_name*_targets.ini, you also add that object to the *terrain_name*_types.ini file. In the _types.ini file, you assign a "type" to each object. From the VietnamSEA_targets.ini file in the SF2V AGXP: and then from the VietnamSEA_types.ini So, you could assign the ships, cranes, etc... that are used in the ports as "warehouse" or "fuel_storage" types, and then the campaign would select those as targets for strike missions whenever those air offensives come up. You could do it with any object you are adding that you think could be a target during wartime. This is something that I think could make a HUGE difference in breaking up the repetitive nature of strike missions in the SF2E campaigns. It's made a huge difference in the SF2V AGXP... If (pretty please), you were to go back to some of the objects you've added and place a few AAA entries around them as well... the results could be interesting... Maybe someone (I will if I get a chance) can extract the SF2E campaign_data.ini files so you know what types are called out in the stock campaigns.