Gunrunner

You're welcome, and welcome aboard.

Oh hgbn, then I'll take you on your offer, I have all the crashes of the RDAF birds and all C-xx planes listed, however I'm missing a lot of informations on the early years, individual planes introduction dates, squadron code - Serial associations, so far I have only 5 of those confirmed (51-1865 as KA-G, 53-7574 as KA-F, 53-7581 as KA-J, 53-7649 as KA-K and 53-7651 as KA-B) of which one crashed in '61. Any help on that front would be welcome and would avoid having only those 4 and the rest as placeholders. Also if you could confirm the date at which the transition from natural metal/KA-X codes to camouflage/C-xxx was made, it would be better than my guesstimate based on photographs placing it in the first quarter of the 60's. Oh, and color pictures of the camouflage would help, I only have one very inappropriate for color reference, and drawn profiles but I tend not to trust those to much. Here, just for you in the meantime...

Nice ! Are you planning to do its shorter nosed cousin ? Because I have a thing for the NF.11/13 and it would be a great addition to Suez and Europe in 56 as it was used not only by the RAF but also Belgium and France.

Thanks, I unfortunately already had that one, so far I have 6 numbers (which is a tad short) and no explanation on the way bands were (or not) applied, the sites of former 38th TRS personnel start with the Voodoo, maybe I'll try mailing them if any of them has time to spare helping.

You'll find the same question, with answers here.

They'll work as placeholders in SF2, but they're not needed in theory as if the ini files are done properly the engine will not try to attribute numbers out of range.

As far as I understand it, it still handles it the same way, SF2 just adds parameters to define the count and starting/ending of available numbers and whether or not they should be attributed randomly. It seems a half-assed way to do things as a count and an offset would be an easier implementation but maybe a harder concept to grasp for non-dev who apparently had a hard-time getting around the fact that counting starts at 0. It offers an interesting way to do things as you can build up your numbers in one big block and only attributes part of it to each skin. Let's say I've done decals for 48 French RF-84F, numbered from 000 to 047 and want to use only 16 per squadron, then I'll define DecalNumberStart=0 and DecalNumberEnd=15 in the ER1/33 TextureSet.ini, then use DecalNumberStart=14 and DecalNumberEnd=31 in the ER2/33 TextureSet.ini and so on... It's an elegant way to build it up for some things and keep decals close together without having to play on long names or folder to differentiate between years/squadrons etc... Soulman : Nope, you don't "have to" start at 000 any longer.

Would you need norwegian Thunderflashes ? I have those for '56 done, and I'll be doing those for '62/'68 later on. They'd have little reason to be there, but hey, who knows...

I know I'll regret making the offer but... is whoever working on NF5 interested in, let's say, Thunderflashes (hey, I like it and it's the least likely to interest others), for a start ? It seems I'll have enough free time to finish/update them, and if I don't I have everything in good enough order for someone else to take over.

Or can anyone give me the name of the AN/ALE-40 launchers to remove them for a GR.1 model (the AN/ALE 40 were fitted starting with the GR.1A in 1983).

No trouble Sundowner, that's what retirement does to you.

Thanks Wrench, found it ! In case anyone wants to know without searching, the ModelNodeName are Flares_01 and Flares_02.

Thanks Sundowner, but it's the ModelNodeName I'm searching for, and apparently it's not the same as the SystemName, I'll check if I haven't mistyped it.

Uh ? Why not simply buy the SF2 Exp 1, which is the Suez add-on for SF2I ?

AVG was good once, but the company behind it has been known to delve into some shady practices lately, plus AVG is getting more and more false positives. Avast is... complete crap, uses resources, has a fair share of false positives and useless interruptions, plus is known to fail to identify known threats long after others have implemented them. And frankly, unless you are a fan of porn sites, warez or have senior moments and click on any shining, glittering banner telling you you've won a cruise or that a long lost friend you've never heard of wants you to read the virus.pdf.exe attachment, you're safe enough with MS Security Essentials, it's also one of the most discrete and least resource consuming of the current crop of AV. One downside though, if you are playing Strike Fighters 2 with a heavily modded install, think of deactivating it before playing, as while it doesn't interfere with gameplay, the real-time scan does introduce long loadout delays (I didn't experience the same with other games, but the number of files is an important factor). However the best AV is using your brains and good practices, most viruses and malwares require active/willfull participation from the host to be a real threat, so remember, think before you click, the best AV software can't help against terminal user stupidity.

And that's about it, unless you add Air Force Bat 21 (1988). Danny Glover, Gene Hackman The air war in vietnam was not as much an inspiration as the ground war and it's consequences on those who fought it.

To my knowledge the single-tone grey scheme is something "new", apparently sometimes in starting in August June 2008 (some references say 2007 but not backed up by photographs so far 3 planes, replaced at Kandahar by 3 others in August 2008) to go with small upgrades to serve in Afghanistan, prior to that the 2-tones grey scheme was is still the standard. Apparently after a very quick search, I can't find references to SEM others than those of the 17F to use the single-tone scheme and only 6 (n° 1, 8, 17, 24, 31 and 51 are confirmed so far) of them are confirmed as using it, those based at Kandahar. I'll continue searching and post more when I find more, it's easier and faster to search for this in french. Update : The changes for Afghanistan I could confirm are only the ability to use the EGBU-12/GBU-49 INS/GPS Paveways, nothing seems new other than that, the use of the Damocles and Standard 5 work was done earlier AFAIK. Update bis : Apparently the 6 planes once using the single-tone scheme are using the standard 2-tones scheme now. Concerning the 2-tones scheme : From what I've gathered so far, it did correspond with the SEM upgrade, so planes started receiving it in 1993 and the last one received it in 1997. So, no Super Etendard wore it before being upgraded. The Etendard IVP however started using it in 1993 before being replaced in 1997 by the Standard 4 SEM.

Has TK hard-coded graphics parameters relating to horizon distance, clipping etc... since the May-2011 patch ? I can't seem to change these parameters at all, I used to be able to have skyscrapers showing on the horizon while flying at 10k ft or more, now at less than 1k feet, right on top of the city I can't get them all to show, whatever settings I try. Any clue ? It's extremely irritating after getting used to having good (if somewhat unrealistic) viewing distances to suddenly be reduced to being a myopic flying mole.

Oh, shiny ! Thanks a lot Baltika ! The only thing I missed was "ObjectsFade=FALSE" as it's not a line in the original FlightEngine.ini and I couldn't find the parameter name on TW's forums. And yes, the fade effects are nice and a quite elegant solution to the problem, but the distances are far too short especially with modded installs (skyscrapers). P.S. : Oh, options.ini, damn, I'm an idiot. -_-

Damn, and all that thanks to the whiners modding and breaking and then blaming TK rather than themselves... Thanks for the confirmation. Well, I'll survive, but that's a disappointment in 3 major cases : 1) Mipmap distances leading to a sensation of crappy graphics 2) "cheat" buildings in cities (true buildings can be seen from farther) 3) large structures composed of a lot of small structures (most airfields disappear beyond 8nm because of that even though they should still be visible) I guess he'll gradually push the limit further to follow hardware replacement and his own code optimizations, as usual, it's just tedious to be held back because of people not understanding that using their own settings is their own responsibility.

Hey, maybe they hope to get some money to licence the use of the island ingame and thus help alleviate their debt problems...

Or, alternatively, you can make use of Windows Junctions, it's far cleaner and universal. 1) Install the Link Shell Extension, the manual is clear enough. 2) Move your files from their old location (OLD) to their new location (NEW). 3) If necessary, delete the OLD folder. 4) Right-click on the NEW folder, select "Pick Link Source". 5) Go to to parent folder where your OLD folder was, right-click on it, select "Drop Here...", "Junction" It will make it absolutely transparent to the system, with no problems for installers expecting the default path. Of course that can be done faster from the command line without having to install a shell extension, but the potential for errors is greater. Oh, and 25Gb, tsss, I'm nearing 280Gb.

So, let me get this straight... You're ready to shell out hundreds of dollars worth of hardware to get a few more FPS when it's already good enough, but you don't want to pay 30 dollars to get the better game... And you do realize that SF1 mods are easily ported to SF2, provided you pull your fingers out of your backside, right ? Besides, almost no one's releasing for SF1 anymore and most SF2 releases are updated, upgraded and full packs rather than bits and pieces as it was for SF1, so instead of having to get the plane, the updated FM, the updated cockpit, the skins, the variants... you get everything in one package without having to ponder whether this release has the latest FM, or whether to take the FM from that one but the avionics from this one.

*reads the thread* *reads the article* *reads the french news* *thinks on the incident and what the site of Marcoule is* *takes another look at the thread* *searches for anything to say without sounding condescending or offensive* Oh yes, I've got it ! No comment ! Seriously guys, overreact much ? I mean, sure, nuclear security in France is not perfect (as everywhere else) but we've had far closer calls with much less publicity and you worry about that ?

AFAIK, it's part of the LOD, you won't find it in the INIs and wouldn't be able to edit it without the original 3DS File.