zmatt

It could be an issue with the orientation of the pylon.

I don't have SF2, but that should be the way it works. That is how the SF2 users have been doing it. I have seen where the game will overwrite the .ini and make it's own truncated one. re-copy the one form the zip there and then make it read only.

It's a great idea. I have an ATI card and I don't use nHancer so I can't tell you the specifics but, I have different profiles set up in Catalyst Control center. I have one for WoX, one for HL2 and one for everything else. I enable the one I want based on the game I play just like nHancer. If anyone can point me to some Nvidia control panel documentation online I can add a section in the readme on how to do this for both ati and nvidia cards.

I'm putting together the readme for the upload. Can someone tell me the file path for installing in Windows XP SF2? I have Vista/7 for SF2 covered and SF1.

To make things easier on everyone I'm thinking I may just upload my latest personal tweak of the .ini with the .dll and a readme on how to use it. That should make everyone's life easier. The way things are now the information is a bit convoluted and in different spots.

The issue here is that Atom powered netbooks either have the intel 945 chipset with the GMA 950 graphics, which are nowhere close to what you need. Or the newer Intel GMA500 (don't ask why the number is lower). The GMA500 is faster than the the 950, but it is based on a video card made for smart phones and media players. because of this, it's better at playing video than rendering 3d. Either way you slice it, if you can get the games to work it will be on the lowest settings. Netbooks are meant to be low cost and highly portable laptops than anyone can buy. Gaming is a secondary or tertiary consideration.

Is this in first gen or second gen TW games?

For almost all settings 0 deactivates and 1 activates. From there other numbers do different things. I know that under the main effect section you should only use 0 and 1, anything else will tell it to use a set number of rendering passes for a particular algorithm. Some are fast and low quality, some are slow and high quality, some are middle of the road, and some are workarounds if the regular ones don't work. I recommend not messing with those values. What you want to fiddle with are the values under the header for each effect that you are using. Take Bloom for example: [BLOOM] BloomPowerDay=0 BloomFadeTime=400 BloomConstantDay=1 BloomQuality=0 BloomScreenLevelDay=95 BloomCurveDay=0 BloomPowerNight=18 BloomConstantNight=0 BloomCurveNight=0 BloomScreenLevelNight=20 BloomAdaptationScreenLevel=24 BloomAdaptationMultiplier=100 BloomAllowOversaturation=1 BloomMaxLimit=100 There are a lot of important numbers there. Power day deals with the total light intensity I believe. As for the rest you will need to fiddle with them.

Make sure you are actually using the radar to acquire targets. In earlier patches it would lock on for you, but TK added some realism and you have to work the radar.

Campaigns are designed to be used with a specific terrain and that terrain only. However, some modders have made campaigns for the new terrains. Just look in the campaign section of the downloads page. They should say what terrain they use and where to get it.

PNGs have several distinct advantages over .jpgs. Most of them don't make a difference for screenshots though.

Funny WoE saves .bmps in the screeenshot folder for me. But I did notice the enbseries screenshots. @Fubar, There is one way to get around it, Ray traced graphics (link) are able to very accurately simulate light. Ray Tracing engines have been used for quite some time by the film industry for CG movies and SFX in general. Most commercials with 3d use ray tracing. The only problem is, up until recently only huge computer clusters were capable of rendering ray traced graphics. But, Intel has a new product that is due out in the near future code named Larrabee (link). It is a video card that essentially is 80 cut down cpu cores working together and optimized for ray tracing. Now that huge computer cluster can fit in your tower. Of course this really doesn't help us right now with SFP1, but it is good to know that these things are in the works.

The light and dark changes are due to the new .dll guys. It's supposed to better simulate how light works. If you step outside and it's bright, at first it's overwhelming, but then it darkens as your eyes adjust. If you have an object eclipsing a light source, like your aircraft most things in your view will appear to be dark. it all has to do with point of view. Although it is exaggerated a bit, I think it does the job pretty well. As far as lighting realism goes it's better than the previous version of enbseries, but as far as good screen shots and playability go the older one was better because the lighting was more consistent. Like most things you have to decide between realism and fun factor.

The L is fire and forget. That means it can't be laser guided.

Remember guys, this is really only recommended for people with video cards from 2008 or newer, and with Vista or better installed. If you don't meet those two requirements don't be suprised if your performance is lower then the previous enbseries .dll.

What do you mean? I don't frequent the Thirdwire forums.

Not sure. I have seen a similar effect, but to a far lesser degree. I am pretty busy tonight so I will have to get back to you on that. As for Bloom levels, the previous thread on enbseries discusses how to tweak it. If you need help feel free to ask.

SFP1 doesn't naively support AA and AF, so you have to force it through your video card drivers. I noticed your screenshots were jaggy, that's why I asked.

Unfortunately we can't emulate hmds in the game. No counting those and using AA-11s against lima and mike winders I find F-16s beat them handily. The thing turns like brick and acceleration is average.

You should optimize it for '06 patches. The avhistory FMs only cover 3 or 4 aircraft. Most prop heads want to use all of their aircraft and that will take time to bring over.

That's motion blur. Are you using my settings? As I have it disabled.

Nice screen shot. Are you using AA at all?

SFP1 doesn't support multicard and I have seen marginal improvement with crossfire. I doubt dual 9800GX2's will give you any speed boost. And I have seen tests that suggest that over 3 cards you get worse performance. As far as SFP1 goes i would recommend one good car dsuch as a GTX260 core 216 or a radeon HD 4890 (which can be had for a great price right now by the way). Anandtech has a good recent article onthe current state of affairs for those in the market for a gpu http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3588 @ Jomni my broswer just froze after 10 minutes of typing a long winded response so I am kind of pissed at myself right now. So much for linux huh? Anyways this is an abridged version. I wouldn't say that older games necessarily have better gameplay. For those of us who have been playing pc games long enough know that there have always been good games and bad games. Gameplay is somethign that you really can't innovate upon much. Story telling ha sbeen around as long as spoken language has and we have worked on it for a long time. Good gameplay will always be based around a few criteria, they are a compelling story, good, solid controls, competent AI (scripted or otherwise), origonality, depth and replayability. Some games can skew these a bit depending on their audience. but for the most part the cirteria are set. As for graphics, they are always improving and there will always be a cutting edge game. I thinkt hat grpahics gets an unfair reputation now a days, as a lot of people (most too young to know much about the past) tlak about hwo gameplay has gone down as grpahic shave improved. The grpahics somehow being a cheap and watered down substitute. Let me be the first to say this isn't true. Good graphics ad to and improve gameplay. They add immersion which is very important in the depth part of gameplay. swords are more beleivable if they look and act liek swords, similarly you will be more apt to buy into a racing game if the cars look and behave like race cars. galaga is nothing like what real space combat would be like, and I don't knwo anyone who can shoot fireballs becaus ehtey ate some shrooms. ;) Not to say those are bad games though. I think that good modern games are equal parts gameplay and graphics, each rely on eachother to make a good game. Part of Half Life 2's appeal in 2004 was it's use of realistic physics (which was a major part fo gameplay) combined with good acting and a compelling storyline. I think a good example of grpahics bashing is in Crysis. I have heard many people lable it as a benhcmark and nothign more. First off, there will always be one game that will have incredible and gratuitous graphics every generation. This time around it was Crysis. Those games are essential to the industry as they are a trial by fire for new tehcnolgies and their sucess is essential to the future adoption of them on a large scale. Secondly, the people who actually played crysis know that it actually has pretty solid gameplay. Nothing ground breaking or award winning, but ti worked well. The enemies were origonal and the gam mechanics worked well. I would say in gameplay it was on par with FEAR which won awards, but has far inferior graphics. Overall objectively that nmakes crysis better. Anyways that was pretty longwinded, but that's my sincere feelings about it. And I think that we can all agree that these grpahics hacks do make the TW games more fun.

For me the MiG-25 and MiG-23 are both pushovers. The red missiles at that time aren't that great and they both are very lacking as dog fighters. No maneuverability and the CM does nothing to save you. I do find that BVR equipped miG-23s can be effective against stupid Mirage pilots but thats about it. For me its the old gunfighters. Especially at high altitude. MiG-15s dominate up at 30k feet in the '50s and the -17 only improves on the formula. The -19 is a beast but it really needs good missiles by the time its around, as any high flying jet from a distance is sparrow fodder. The -21 can also be very effective. especially with the r-13, the more advanced atoll. It's endurance in both weapons and fuel leaves much to be desired though and it is a true point defense aircraft. I have never had trouble with the MiG-29, The best thing it has going are the missiles. Archers and alamos can be deadly even with liberal application of CM. I find that even the superbly done MF MiG-29 is easy to kill. This has to be attributed to the actual aircrafts ineffectiveness as MF always makes very accurate mods. Either that or I just suck in the fulcrum! :) The su-27 is a good match for F-15s, but the lack of internal ecm and good cm mean that it doesn't live long. In general I think that red cm is inadequate. I don't know if this is game bias or if it really is that bad. If so then I think it is a good reflection of Russian doctrine about waves of disposable austere fighters.

F-86F going for a joy ride over south California in 1956. WoE heavily modified with enbseries and forced AA and AF.