Gunrunner

A few reasons not to mess with this : 1) Some maps are 1:1, messing with the planes is a recipe for disaster. 2) Mixing and matching planes with artificially scaled performances and planes with "real-world" performances would be a mess. 3) It's already easy to run out of fuel, especially for wingmen who make an unrealistic use of afterburner at time, artificially reducing range further would mean that your wingmen WILL crash out of fuel on missions that, even at the reduced scale, they should have been able to accomplish with you. 4) The mix of scales within the same dataset makes me grit my teeth, it's simply not done.

Yep, out of your choices, Number 2 is the best value for money, Number 4 might shave a few seconds in video editing depending on the task and video software used, but it's not worth the money in my opinion. Avoid Number 3 as the GT 720 is an underperformer for a gaming rig nowadays. Number 1's R7 240 is an old model now, it can't compete with the GT 750Ti, it's barely better than the GT 720, it's the least value for money of the four.

Disclaimer, I don't know how moving pylons work and have not yet investigated them, however, a suggestion... Are your moving "pylons" a system attached to the Wing or the OuterWing ? Because it might be that movement is restricted relative to the bounding box of the parent component, if your parent component is the "inner" wing movement range will indeed be more limited. This may not work as I described, but that's how I'd have coded it, it might be worth checking if making your pylons a system [Left|Right]OuterWing and attaching them to Wing[R|L]Out changes anything (and yes, doing both, if only so that they detach when the outerwing is damaged/destroyed but not the inner part).

Not yet, thanks for signalling it, I'll have a try. On a GTX 970, under Windows 7, it seems ok so far. I'll have a try under Windows 10 later.

@allenjb42, that's because the DATA.ini of the Superbugs are f*ed up when it comes to parking. Let me explain how it works: All your SystemType=LANDING_GEAR entries referencing an AnimationID will use it when the plane is parked, whether it is on land or on a carrier (on the Superbugs it's AnimationID=1). IF your SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT entries reference a CanopyAnimationID, it will be used when the plane is parked on land, but for some reason it doesn't seem to work on carriers (on the Superbugs it's AnimationID=7, which combines canopy and wingfold). IF your [MissionData] has CarrierBased=TRUE and a CarrierParkAnimationID entry, this will be used when the plane is parked on a carrier but, logically, not on land. The Superbugs either miss CarrierParkAnimationID entirely or have it set to 1 (the landing gear, which is redundant) instead of 7, which is why they have their wings folded and canopy opened on land but not on carriers. A corollary of that method is that you might have multiple animations used when parked on land (say one for canopy, one for wingfold, one for a ladder) by using multiple SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT entries, but you can only have one animation used when parked on a carrier, meaning modders need to plan their animations ahead for carrier-based planes (which EricJ and FC did, they just missed some of the idiosyncrasies of the INI).

Windows 10 is an untested piece of shit forcing untested piece of shit updates upon consumers and SMBs (since December, updates have been breaking more things than they have fixed). It was supposed to be to Windows 8 what Windows 7 had been to Windows Vista, but the damn thing is a disaster akin to Windows Me, in theory it has a lot a nice under the hood improvements and if you happen to have the right hardware and the right softwares and settings, it works like a dream, but step out of its comfort zone and it's a nightmare, and every new update seem to make it worse.

I can't fathom how the Sea Vixen made the list yet they failed to include the Attacker... I heard a joke about the Attacker's only strength being how fast it was, so fast it was out of service almost as soon as it entered it.

Everything's in the title, I was wondering if anyone had tested something along the following lines: [Soviet] ServiceStartYear=1950 ServiceEndYear=1951 Availability=VERY_RARE [Soviet] ServiceStartYear=1951 ServiceEndYear=1952 Availability=RARE [Soviet] ServiceStartYear=1953 ServiceEndYear=1960 Availability=VERY_COMMON [Soviet] ServiceStartYear=1961 ServiceEndYear=1972 Availability=RARE and whether it's know to work (or not).

Yes, I know the theory, and given the parsing style I doubt it would work there, but there are places where TK does parse INI files differently (can't remember which ini file accepts duplicate keys)... anyway... I guess I'll have to make do with multiple INI files and a clever use of junctions.

The trick apparently is to deactivate anti-aliasing in OPTIONS.INI and then only force it for the game through nVidia Control Panel, that seemed to work for others, I can't test it myself at the moment but there's been a thread by FalconC45 on that topic a few days ago.

@Nicholas Bell, Well, I was about to angrily describe the dozens of hours and test procedures I used (using two different machines, 4 GPU and 5 sets of drivers) to reach my opinion on the matter, while I bet you have no idea how much VRAM a typical mission on your install consumes and whether or not swapping occurs... then I decided testing 364 drivers was a better use of both our time... Ok, after few tests, I have a good news and a bad news. Good news, under Windows 7 x64, drivers 364.51 seem to work great in modded conditions, I haven't pushed things to the limit yet, but it's encouraging. Bad news, under Windows 10, the game crashes to desktop after loading the mission even in lightly modded conditions. Anyone care to test it ?

@JonathanRL, not that I'm aware of, the trouble being reproducibility, the problem being mostly absent on stock installs. @streakeagle, I'd say it came back about a year ago, I remember it didn't happen when I first tested a R9 270X, but at some point it came back and it's present with every newer AMD card and drivers.

Unfortunately I can't help you there, I've been running 353.62 on Windows 7 for as long as they were out (on more than one machine), except when I tried updating, without any of the problems reported. I can't even guarantee they're the best for W10 as I am still under W7 when it comes to gaming. One thing I notice with the stuttering reported is that it happens with games I don't even own, so I can't tell you if it's just bad luck or game-related. However that might be the reason for Crusader's comment. All I can tell you is that crashes are not an issue in my experience (nor is stuttering with SF2). If you have time to spare you can try 358 drivers, or the latest ones to see if you have more luck than me, if you don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time testing though, from what I've been reading up since you asked, it seems the safest bet might be 353.30 (but that might be a problem if you intend to play some really recent games I guess).

@Piecemeal, Yes, you have to uninstall the previous drivers first, sorry. Windows 10 shouldn't be a huge issue, you will get a bit less FPS compared to Windows 7 but nothing too drastic (and that common to most DX9/DX10 games under Windows 10), and there has been reports of problems of a loss of quality with some shaders and when it comes to anti-aliasing but I've read nothing game breaking. Personally I run a dual-boot with Windows 7 stuck at 353 level drivers and Windows 10 with up to date drivers for anything that absolutely requires it, but I've come to hate Windows 10 with a fiery passion (due to the broken networking when it comes to VLAN and LACP teaming on Intel network cards). Keep in mind that some people have reported having luck with newer drivers, mostly the 358 series, none with a GTX 970 though. For me only the 353 works 100%. @Nicholas Bell, you are, partially, correct, if you are running the game stock or near-stock, but I did not mention it as it wasn't Piecemeal's purpose nor what most of us do. Note however that even in pure stock, if you run in Unlimited in some extreme situations, like SAM heavy action, or B-52 bomb runs over Vietnam, you WILL have the same problem with any driver beyond 353, but it will be temporary (and might be less prone to happen at certain resolutions) and going to map view an back usually solves it.

Revert to 353 series drivers, it's the only way to entirely get rid of it, the only alternative is to get rid of custom shaders, custom environment.ini and the problem will happen slightly less, but there is no combination of settings that will make it go away entirely. There is no interest from TK to correct it game-side and since it's specific to SF2 and SF2 is low profile, I doubt there's any interest from nVidia to solve it when it's probably game-side. As it stands now, the only way to play Strike Fighters as we used to is to either use an AMD graphic card (and even then, the next generation might break things), or a nVidia one supporting 353 series drivers (meaning no card beyond the current generation and no GTX 950). The bad news is that AMD cards still have their max FPS at 60 and offer a lower average FPS than similarly priced nVidia cards, the good news is that they offer better minimum FPS. It is the end of the road for SF2, within two to 5 years it won't be playable except on legacy machines.

This would have to be done plane-side, set up pylons specifically for rocket pods and set NoJettision=TRUE (sic) for those pylons, it should do the trick; To my knowledge there's no way to set it up pod-side.

So basically a reboot/remake of the original with up-to-date effects but inferior acting and inferior humour but an all female cast because hey, it's 20-whatever... Noooo thanks...

Considering how previous bomber programs went and the development hell of most programs since the 80's, I'd say B-21 White Elephant...

21 as in B-2.1, 2+1, 21st century, 21 B-2 built or $21 billion for the development contract ? Also, anyone notices anything about the engines on this concept drawing ? I'm sure it's going to drastically reduce costs.

Yes, that's obviously a troll, it can't be otherwise, it's too tone-perfect. Erik, I can never have fun for long around here, damn you.

Oy vey indeed, I knew we had a good one... "This is just a waste of a good plane." implying the modder wasted his time, and probably, more importantly to you, yours as well, that's not insulting at all... "this is simple stuff." implying that if modders are not doing it, it's either because they are idiots, or are deliberately going out of their way to thwart you, with no legitimate reason for doing things the way they do, not insulting at all indeed... "Half the planes here people like me can't fly because of stupid simple reasons like this." once again, you reiterate that the work of modders is worthless to you and that the reason is stupid and simple, hence modders are either idiots or evil... "What a waste of space." once again dismissing entirely the value of modders work. Even now, with everyone understanding your rant the same way, your only thought is that WE must have read it wrong, rather than you might actually have gone overboard ? Add to that your ridiculous attitude "I have a problem, I don't intend to learn anything about it or how to fix it myself, YOU do it", your antagonistic tone and the fact that you seriously avoided doing the ONLY constructive thing you could have done (telling us what plane you are interested in) and let me tell you, you come up as a downright piece of shit, and being Russian is no excuse for it*, you clearly demonstrated you have enough command of the English language not to be misunderstood to that extent. Dave/Wrench/Fubar, I'm totally ready for my warning points, it's well worth it. *For our Russian friends, I'm not suggesting that Russians are by nature assholes, only that, not being a native english-speaker and from a different cultural experience, he might not properly evaluate the tone of his posts.

Oh yes, of course, "all modders are idiots producing skins that are worthless to me" is not an insult, indeed... Smeg-head. I wonder how long he will last before one of the curmudgeonly trio decides we don't really need your kind around here, I should start taking bets. I'd say he doesn't even make it past 10 posts.

Some decals and insignias are placed directly on skins for various reasons among which : - Aesthetics : it's the best way to have panels lines and rivets show up on decorations on planes without normal maps. - Geometry : some aircrafts have peculiar shapes or LOD bugs that make using some decorations in some positions as decals impossible or bug-ridden (malformed decal, parts of it appearing on another part of the plane). - Decal number limit : there can be only one instance of a decal per orientation per part, and only 4 decals per orientation per part, sometimes that makes things very awkward to setup, or even impossible. So, when you say this is "simple stuff" yet declare "I am not a modder, nor do I have the desire to become one", contradicting yourself later with "I would gladly do it myself, but I do not have the first clue in how to accomplish this.", please consider to educate yourself first, then decide whether you intend on actually DOING something, or still plan on opening your big mouth to either insult modders who actually have a clue or alternatively, insert your foot deep in it. What you should apologize for is not potentially posting in the wrong section, but declaring that you know nothing about the specifics of the problem, have no intention to learn or do something about it because you know nothing about it (seriously, how dumb, lazy and entitled can you get ?), yet insult the efforts of those who actually know about it and probably had a very good reason to do things the way they did (even though there might have been other ways to do it); In short, you should apologize for being a wilfully ignorant, arrogant and entitled twat, I hope I'm not being too blunt, I'm just trying to get my point across, waste of flesh. I'm sure you also have some useful suggestions on how to solve the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, put an end to the Islamic Wars and ease tensions with Russia, I'm sure it's very simple stuff, but since you know nothing about diplomacy, politics and international relations and don't intend to learn or do anything about, you're expecting others to fix it, unfortunately they're all a bunch of idiots aren't they ? After all, it's easy if even a half-wit like you thinks it easy, right ?

There seems to be some LODs not properly read, so far I've found Florian's SH-3D ( http://combatace.com/files/file/12642-sh-3d-seaking-for-sf2/) which loads but is just not displaying at all, and Yakarov's Sea Stallion ( http://combatace.com/files/file/15829-sikorsky-ch-53a-ch-53d/ ) which doesn't load and has the LOD Viewer freezing or crashing after a few minutes. Any chance of a fix ?

I'm building a template for Veltro2k's KC-97G (and planning to release it once it's done) and modding it to use as a number of C-97 but I can't find any reference for the MC-97C during the Korean War, anyone can help ?