zmatt

An interesting thing happened today. I upgraded my monitor and with the higher resolution came higher fps. I didn't expect that but it is a welcome change. And collum5 I don't see why you have to be a jerk about it and mock me. I haven't insulted you so why are you insulting me. I just wanted to have a mature discussion about it.

If it wasn't for the fact that it came on this side of the ball drop I would vote for the F-29A.

She is a lot more agile than most jets that she would end up against. I'm surprised at how well she fights in the vertical. Does back flips faster than any other jet I have flown, and the turning is pretty good too. The only trouble I got in was after I dispatched a flight of J-7s and then Mig-31's. My whole flight was out of AAMs and Flankers jumped us on the way back home. I went low and fast. Lost 2 of my guys but I dodged every missile. They weren't kidding when they talked about the advantages of forward swept. The only real downside I see is that it takes a fairly sophisticated Fly-by-wire system to keep her going in a straight line. But I think the pros out weigh the cons. She turns more like a prop than a jet and I can always get on the inside.

I have flown the F-29A more than any other plane the past few days. it is a lot of fun to fly. Fast and maneuverable. I upped the on board ecm a tad, it was a little underpowered for my tastes but it is a great Mig killer.

I have done that a lot, but with A-4s. Good thing they are deltas, I have been able to fly many a crippled A-4 back home just because the wing is so big.

Sorry I thought that was evident. I wouldn't have asked about models that aren't animated.

I was pointed to a relevant thread and got the problem taken care of. Thanks for being patient with me.

Wikipedia agrees with you

I have two issues with the AmericaNW terrain. The first is that the airfields have no runways. The AI and when I'm on auto pilot end up landing by going full throttle into the Radar tower, knock the wings off and stop. The second problem is I cant seem to figure out how to switch between seasons. Every mission I have flown has so far been in the winter. I am using WoV Oct '08 patch and I have the newest AmericaNW installed.

This is different. I think its another setting in my options.ini. When i try to make a mission the mission generator only uses January 1st. I'm not sure how long it has been this way since until recently I flew in VeitnamSEA and the data didn't change anything.

For some reason my planes only have a 5 year window where they can fly. Even though the ini's list a much larger range of date's. For example My Su-27 has a start year of 1984 and an end year of 2010 or something. I can only fly it from 1984 to 1989. How do I change this?

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to come across as rude. It's just that several members already said try the knowledge base and I checked that before I made the thread. It seemed as if instead of helping everyone just wanted to send me to the knowledge base. I was able to get it to work last night. Thanks for the help, now I can fly the aircraft during their full service lives.

Well I'm sure it does. Why would the designer make a model with a static open canopy? Isn't there some line in the data.ini that controls the animation? I remember hearing that after the patch some of the high light canopies got reversed and they open in flight and close at landing.

It's not my system. I get 14k on 3dmark 06. e7200 at 4ghz 24/7 4 gigs of OCZ golds 1100mhz 4-5-4-15, Radeon 4850 @ 700/900. My system is far from slow. I don't see why im getting so much resistance to this idea. I'm not blasting the game, and I'm not blasting the developer. I think its a great game and its a lot of fun. I'm just calling ti as I see it. From a technical standpoint the engine leaves some things to be desired but from a fun standpoint its more fun than many big titles. If it was as modern then it would run as fast as FSX. There is a reason why new game engines are designed every 2 or 3 years. it makes more sense on the performance side to make newer code that catrers to newer hardware isntead of shoving higher poly models and higher res textures into an older engine.

The royal navy will be using F-35s on the new carriers. And I'm sure the RAF will use some to. So the meteor will be carried on F-35s, just not the American's F-35s. I'm not sure how well it worked IRL. But in game the AIM-54 does a good job of swatting flies. If you use it at its intended range most guys wont see it coming. I'm sure it isn't a very good dogfight missile but for its intended purpose it does the job well. Too bad we don't carry them any more.

In an F/A-18F I was shot down by an L-39.

This is great but My issue is with the mirage F1.C and the T-45. They aren't included in the mod.

Nice pic. I just wish someone made an F/a-18E to go with it. The only super hornets I see are the two seaters. Its still a nice shot.

I already said I tried that. It doesn't work for me. I took Fubar's advice and changed all of the end years in the options.ini and now it works! Thanks for the help.

I just noticed an interesting thing. when I make a mission, independent of the map the date is always 1/1/**. That would explain why its always dark when I fly in DBS and it is always winter in AmericaNW. But I don't know how to change it or how this came about.

Wiki says the Meteor will be used by the F-35, Rafael, Typhoon, and Gripen. It will enter service in 2013.

what in the options.ini do I need to change?

He means the cpu. Few programs are multithreaded on the cpu. The gpu is a different story, but it is inherently multithreaded. My 4850 has 800 stream processors, each of those acts like a tiny cpu and they each have their own thread. The cpu can benefit greatly form multithreading. But its not an easy thing to accomplish. That is why only a few games and professional applications are multithreaded. Even then that is only one of many optimizations that can be done. To really understand what I mean you have to be a programmer to understand, or at least know something about it. There are a lot of code optimizations you can do yourself that just makes your algorithms work faster. I'm not bashing TK or saying its a bad game. In light that it is a one man project SF has been able to do a lot. Much more than other games with larger staffs of coders and much larger budgets. But I think that it is valuable to know hwy the game is slow. And that is because it is outdated code.

I'm not saying 24fps isn't playable. Ever since DX10 came out I have had to learn to deal with it. Even modern cards still have trouble with most DX10 big titles. I think you are also not giving enough credit to the physics in ragdoll and destructible environments. Particle physics, which Crysis and other games uses is a pretty complex thing. The only difference is they put the physics on the video card, Not the cpu. The P4 used Rambus for a short time. They switched to SDRAM after nobody bought it. I have serviced both types. The willamette didn't used DDR, if it didn I have neevr seen one. That didn't come around until the Northwood core. Which brought a new socket, 478. The world isn't "complex" It's mostly empty with tiles painted on low poly mountains. SF isn't the only flight simulator and others don't have a problem with rendering such a large swath of land. You make your engines to suit your needs. There are engines optimized for enclosed environments and there are ones meant for large expanses of terrain. There have been large environment tailored engines for years. I think you underestimate the power of modern machines.

Well I know about the end and start years and how to mess with them. What the knowledge base doesn't cover is why it will only let me fly in a 5 year window.