zmatt

I think your missing my point. But your acting like i worship Crysis. I use it as an example because it is the High water mark in Pc gaming as far as graphical complexity goes. Crysis itself is a terribly optimized game but that is beside the point. A dense jungle where each of the leafs on the plants are 3d is a lot more complex to render than empty sky. The polygon count in Crysis or any other modern fps for that matter is much higher than it is in SF. Further more multithreading is not the only optimization that has come around since 2002. In fact multithreading has been around for quite some time, just not on consumer grade Hardware. In 2002 the Pentium 4 was just coming out. The "Willamette" core Pentium 4 had a 256kb L2 cache. And it operated at 1.3ghz at the lowest. The Front side bus os these systems was still 133mhz. And we used SDRAM. In 2002 we were using ATI Radeon 8500's or Nvidia Geforce 4mx cards at the best. The First Pentium 4 supported MMX and SSE. Now we have SSE2 SSE3 SSE4 and SSE4.1. Not to mention L2 cache sizes at least 4 times as big on budget systems. And overall processor performance several magnitudes faster. The Difference between a Radeon 4870 and a Radeon 8500 are incredible. DDR2 SDRAM has its bandwidth somewhere in the GB/s while SDRAM was a few hundred megs. Modern PCs are about 10 times as fast than what they were in 2002. So the only logical explanation why a game from 2002 runs slow on systems that are 10x as fast as the ones it was designed for is that the game is poorly optimized. I doubt the SF engine takes advantage of many of the improvements we have seen over the past several years. I hope SF2 has. It seems as though it does. I haven't heard any fps complaints on the forums and it is far ahead of SF.

Actually it does for most things. And physics can be off loaded to the video card. The SF engine is several years old so it doesn't take advantage of many things that have come along since then. And even then when SF is cpu heavy most of us are running Core2duo's. They are several magnitudes more powerful then what was around when SF was first released.

The techno babble didn't get me. This time it was a stupid mistake. the ins and outs of the game's file structure is still foreign to me. I feel more at home in Eclipse or Visual studio than a notepad document but it all comes in time.

I have airfields, I lack runways. I'll check the readme. I didn't think i had to do much though most terrains you just drop in and play. EDIT: Ok, I found that the .ini was pointing towards the GermanyCE.cat and not the VeitnamSEA.cat. Thanks for the help.

Sounds like outdated engine coding to me. I can play Crysis warhead on medium setting with my 4850 at my resolution and get a higher average fps than in WoV. And Crysis is a far more complex game. I hope SF2 is better about this.

I took her up earlier today against some Mig-25s. She is a joy to fly and is a straight shooter.

This? http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=7684 EDIT: looks like you beat me too it! Thanks.

Where is the dbs mod? I have searched and I cant find it.

^ So you are advocating dive bombing? As out dated as it is, the Wo* games tend to make that the easiest way to deliver bombs. For me its either dive bomb or low and fast pass. And I risk blowing my own tail off then.

JASDF F-4EJ Kai's over Iraq. It's actually An F-4E AUP with the JASDF 502sqdn skin. That mission I downed 3 Su-27's and 2 Mig-25s.

And here I thought laser cat was a tomcat with laser guided bomb capability.......

So I have noticed something and I am sure others have too. Post oct/08 patch all of my prop powered craft fly very oddly. They stall really easy and have strange flight characteristics. I don't know how many times I have put my P-40 into a flat spin. Does anyone know why this happens, or a fix?

I think that's pretty awesome.

On a related note. My Mirage F1's have open canopies in flight. I found the entry in the data.ini [Canopy] SystemType=HIGHLIFT_DEVICE DeploymentMethod=AUTOMATIC_SPEED Setting[1].Angle=45.0 Setting[1].DeployValue=4.0 Setting[1].RetractValue=1.5 MaxDeflection=45.0 MinDeflection=0.0 ControlRate=0.2 ModelNodeName=Canopy ReverseModelOrientation=TRUE What exactly should I change?

I've seen the internal beta of Windows 7. I know a guy who is an M$ beta tester. It looks just like Vista visually but is a lot faster. They shouldn't have the speed issues that existed with Vista at launch.

I'm not bashing the new ones, I love the F-15 and the F-14. I'm just saying I think its cool to think about what could have happened to the F-4. it just goes to show how upgradable it is. That The Greeks and Germans have F-4s with modern features.

With upgrades like that why have an F-15? I know there were many upgraded variants in the works that got shot down in the 80's and 90's because it would hurt defense contractor sales. But it's still interesting to think that they would be like if they had gone ahead with it. F-4's with AIM-9x capability and glass pits. That would rock.

Why can't we have radars in game that can track and fire on multiple targets simultaneously? I know the F-14 can track something like 7 while engaging an 8th and I'm sure the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-18, and the F-35 can do similar things.

Oh never mind then.

Speaking of new Phantom models wouldn't it be cool if someone made one of the upgraded foreign phantoms with AMRAAM capability?

I think those tests were more about ensuring the parachutes worked. Not actual combat approaches. Notice how the cameraman focused on the parachutes opening fully before they switched to watching the bomb itself .I would imagine they would fly much higher if they were dropping the real thing.

Thanks.

Yeah I set up a mission with F4B's last night and got the same thing. I think its because the weapons pack lists the fuel probe as a gunpod so it chooses it over the SU/U-16.

So how successful were the Navy Phantoms? It goes without saying that the sidewinders and sparrows were not that effective yet.

Do any Navy F-4's have a built in gun?