squid

oh i am not being aggressive at all either :D i like these discussions very much myself too :D Yeap adding nice externally planes as AI, i do that myself too :D the more the better applies definitely here :D Gosh the Viper ... so many years, and still waiting. The poor Viper being undermodeled for so long (i think is my most SF flyable plane along with the Phantoms) Yes the TW F-16 has indeed inaccuracies too but from all the F-16 models available for SF the TW i think is the most acceptable, for an A variant at least. I wish i was a pensioner to start working on one or somehow an accurate C would appear soon ... Even Gripen (*) style glass pits can be made in a way that could make you go "oh, wow and i thought this couldn't get any better" From a point after its a matter of professional illustration work ;) trust me, a LOT lies in the textures :) If i could only afford that luxury to devote time and paint a demo, would give an idea of what i am talking about ... detail needs artistic experience , research and talent on it at equal degree ... ( i think i recall that Tornado cockpit canopy frame being thin like toothpick ... :P ) (* actually that external 3D model i think could be maybe the best 3D work i have seen ever in SF planes. playing with external views I often find myself wanting to lick that aircraft :P)

there are some add-ons that have flawless external models, such are : Grippen, Hornet, AV-8B, (Mig29, Su27 from what i saw in screenshots), Jaguar (some canopy z-buffer issues). But a good external is not enoug for me if its not a complete package on the same level. I cant recall right now most cockpits, my free time being limited :( :(, but from what i recall i cant remember now seeing a cockpit that would feel and look as the TW ones ... textures would be simple and flat comparing to TW, or /and there would be shape mistakes, or 3D model quite simplified etc For example the Grippen cockpit can't keep me in the cockpit, simplified-flat, the hornet from what i remmember is overally good but the canopy frame is more of a hexagon than a curve, etc etc the current mirage 2000 models from what i checked are no way worth keeping installed in any sense ... The external models of single seater F-5s are WRONG period. The two seaters F-5 appear from screenshots to be better than the very inacurate single seaters, they are in my list to check. The mirage F1 too, WRONG. The F-16Cs are also way wrong externally and AFAIK theres no C cockpit, unless i am mistaken, if there is one, i would ofcourse like to check it. The starfighters and Sabres are nice. I notice a big number of addon planes that exist stock in SF and they are both nice according to me, but i don't see a reason to bother use the add-on version, if the stock one is good ... But the addon planes that don't exist stock in SF are rarely on that level and even maybe their number is not that extended ... And higher polys is not a guarantee for a better addon. If the design is inaccurate and the textures poor, poly count in this case only adds more processing load. Actually, the best designs besides being accurate can be recognised by appearing as high poly models when actually their poly count is the most minimal possible (and i dont mean poor ofcourse) incorporating many smart solutions in their making. As polys will always be a deciding factor in processing resources and fps. And all that only makes sense as its one thing having a professional delivering a product for purchase, a professional who only the experience alone in their hands not to mention the rest of factors like talent, know-how, training etc is a factor that can make a huge difference in the shape of a finished project. And on the other hand is the enthusiast, hobbyist. How many times havent you read a readme line like "this is my first 3D model i hope i haven't been far off and that my addon will be as fun for you as it is for me" etc ? This diference must count for something ... Now when it comes to my own criteria. Maybe i am picky and a nit picker but thats something that cant be avoided when you are a preoffessional graphic designer for 20 years and a scale modeller for 35 lol :P and again i am happy with the TW style even if in some cases the models are of a bit lower polycount. (yes the MF mirage 3/5 series was awesome, great 3D model, great skins as well, but now i have two good choices for the same plane family, while i have non for non stock planes ...)

sorry to say that, but although honestly appreciating what many people who devote time and passion on giving us FREE addon planes (and other mods) i can count enough planes from my list that cant stand up to the TW level, maybe according to my subjective preference ofcourse .. In general i prefer too the look of TW models, exterior and cockpits. (i will try the russian birds asap, i haven't tried them yet).

My list refers to TW stock aircraft or at least of absolutely equal quality and completion level addons Basicaly : F-16C Block 30 (or 40 or 50) Mirage 2000 C or Mirage 2000-5 F/A-18A/C Secondly maybe F-5A/B/E/F, Talon F-104A/C/G, TF-104 (with some solution regarding the Lockheed copyrights ...) Korea Theater warbirds Falklands Theater warbirds 80-90's Russian birds (MiG29, Su27, Su25, MiG25) Full Jumpjet range (especially FRS1 Sea Harrier & AV-8B) A Tornado, Jaguar, Mirage 3/5 (easily done), Mirage F1, Vigen, "Europack" (♥) 4th generation jets (EF2000, Rafale, Gripen, Raptor, F-35)

Thanks Dave :) I was about to post what exactly is the connection of WOP with IL-2. Did i got it right that Birds Of Prey was an a lot lightened up IL-2 version for Consoles (why maddox is nowhere refered to about Birds Of Prey and Wings Of Prey? not even in the credits?) and Wings Of Prey is a ... Birds Of Prey version for the PC? ...

the MF one maybe?

I noticed that the ObjectData.cat files numbering goes from 006 to 007. Its a merged install, wondering if thats ok or should there be a 005 somehow too ? ..

Is it possible to assign to the canopy of an add-on plane the effects (reflection, transparency, specular, glossiness etc) of some stock (eg F-16) canopies ? Is it information implemented in the LOD file therefore only it can be edited only by Max ? or can we mess with the lod file manually (hex?) to do that? or is it controlled by some .ini ? And is there a way to get rid of the flicker on some add-on plane canopies? (of previous generation i guess)

Thank you guys. I think its maybe not the same F-16 3D model ... For one, the canopy in this screenshot has surface effects similar to stock F-16A, which the one in this semi-LANTIRN mod (MF?) doesnt have. I think all the MF F-16s dont have those canopy surface effects. Then the LANTIRN in the screenshot i post looks to be more on correct scale, while the pods in the semi-functional LANTIRN mod look kinda out of scale? (thats probably a mod we can use with any F-16 model i guess? will check later ...)

ObjectDarpa005.cat LOL (or maybe ObjectAcme005.cat :P )

The framerate indicator is not showing actual current framerates. Both indications are stuck on a blend of 59 & 60 projected one on top of the other. Only the indicators of the second row show actual clear numbers that make some sense although static. Even in the case of framerates getting to be slide show slow, nothing changes in the first line. SF2 feb '10 i am missing maybe some readme on how the new framerate counter works? checked SF1 in XP and the counter is different, the usual one i knew so far, single line, on the fly actual fps

oh true, SF2 runs noticeably smoother than the SF1 on same system here too. Its just that in some missions and under certain angles (or cockpit views) on certain position in the scene i can witness a sudden big drop, I havent noticed the 59/60 of the first line changing at all though, not even something like 55 lets say or 57 Yeap i should do that, will start with FRAPS as well :)

yeap i am not claiming its wrong. i am just stating what i see, and how i interpet it with my current knowledge, untill i get more input and learn more on what exactly are the figures or behavior i see. Cant help it noticing that when the game crawls and obviously does way less than 60 or 30 it is still showing the 59/60 merging figure on the first line. Maybe theres something funky with my dx or drivers setup or something, or should i read somewhere how exactly to read this. One more thing to check, does the 60 variates at all to less, like 50-40 or something with your pc's out there? Thanks :)

i didnt say its wrong. i am asking first if its ok :) and then some input on how to read it properly as i have no clear clue on how exactly to read the new system. There are instances where fps are for sure under under 60, and by experience felt like lets say 15, the thing crawls, and nothing changes in the indicators, the 59-60 mix remains the same ... Thats a lovely screenshot btw :) whats delta? whats the difference between game and graphics ?

why bluetiger would be necessary on a non bluetiger setup ?? is there a patch for SF2 as well?

probably no software can accurately give you wattage info of your installed PSU even if it existed. You can check the sticker on the PSU (after ...screw the case open :P)and subtract some percentage from that value depending on how old is your PSU and how often used. "Electrolytic capacitor aging. When used heavily or over an extended period of time (1+ years) a power supply will slowly lose some of its initial wattage capacity. We recommend you add 10-20% if you plan to keep your PSU for more than 1 year, or 20-30% for 24/7 usage and 1+ years." http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp remember what counts most in choosing a PSU is the combined wattage and combined 12v rails amperage

How can i modify the menus inis so that the user inteface doesnt stretch and transform to the screen resolution and aspect ratio (eg 1680x1050, 16:10)? more specificaly 1. keep the menu original aspect ratio and maxmize the size to the screen height , and second option to 2. keep all the menu at its original resolution and aspect , (or give it a custom resolution) i used to be able to control there in SF1 from my previous nvdia card control panel, but now with 7, Radeon and SF2 dont seem to be given by Catalysts these options (unless they are somewhere in 7?) I am interested in the inis anways as i am playing with modifying the GUI Thanks :)

Found out that the Catalysts (9.12) can do the same on my XP setup, but with the Win7 64 there's no way i can do that .... Any input maybe?

Does anyone maybe happen to know, if you notice Pureblue's signature, this F-16 looks like the stock F-16A (or am i wrong?), is it here depicting "C" variant? Is there such a mod out there somewhere ? How the LANTIRN got loaded on it? :)

thanks :) any idea about the canopy flicker maybe ? edit: answering my own question, one way/workaround to control the flicker is adjusting the canopy glass tga file transparency (alpha channel), the more transparent the less flicker.

( they must always have the most original ideas dont they lol :P ) I am not having in HUD any "graphics". Symbols and such. just numbers/text. Is that normal? merged install of all sf2 titles febr patch And most of all i like the RWR tga LOL i wonder whos touch is that :P

Just a small wish. Finding many skins in the download section not clarifying which 3D model they are for ... browsing through the skins to find something i am looking for, has been time consuming to find if the skins i was interested were for the model i am using. Btw, i think i havent find any skins for the stock A-7s. Is there some resource maybe with SF stock A-7s ? (arent any in coulmn5 either)

sorry for not being clear. i mean for example, there are more than one or two 3D models for the same aircraft in some cases. eg, stock, early MF, late MF etc. Many uploads identify which 3D model are the skins for, but there are still many i think that dont clarify that. not a big deal

great pack :) of the kind of addons i appreciate very much :) only addition missing a JHMCS pilot & a EF2000 pilot :) (especially the first would need 3D work i guess ...)