UllyB

We have some update for you with the current project. There has been some 3D work made and corrected (lamps, canopy actuator, lower pitot, plane's hook), damaged meshes added. Logan4 also built and adapted , from scratch, a brand new HF-2 surface to air missile. Work will continue to the project as planned with some expected (slightly) delays due to the summer holiday I think. We'll see when the time comes.

I still have the Win 10 installed. Never tried it on Win 11. Game was made fully compatible to Win 7. Win 10 and 11 have the same NT core. It should be working. Strange that you say it doesn't. Try what Eric suggested and then try to run it as admin.

Status update - the scoops and gear door actuators are finished. - there have been added most of the antennas - a hook was made for the aircraft - Maverick rails ready - other 3D model improvements Further "to do list": - the canopy mechanism - adding the bottom and spine light meshes - L/R landing lights at the main gears. - afterburner emitter texture and mesh - further skin work

Yes, reshade makes wonders, even in new games, not just the old ones. I am using it in different presets for my own games, including the new ones.It's a very good bargain and choice.

More WIP... Gear, gear door animations tested, correction and polishing almost finished. Minor aircraft body correction as well. Weapon pylons for AG ordnance finsihed and polished. Added external fuel tanks to the model. Some tweaking and editing for the main plane's files. We also work for some skins. Landing lights, gear door actuators, canopy mechanism, missing airscoops/outlets, Maverick rails will be next on the to do list.

How about you read again the post you're referring to ? ;) The answer is there.

I trimmed yesterday the old thread, from all these began, "What will be next" and I reread this part: Let's take the Su-34 as an example. I would love to have it in game, but first we have the cockpit issue - a Su-34 with F-111 or B-1B cockpit - no, thanks, I'd rather have something else. Then we also have the various pylon and rail taypes used on the Su-34 for A2A, A2G missiles, bombs, drop tanks, etc. I doubt many modders would be interested and would spend the time needed to model all correct pylons and rails for the Su-34 and having bombs loaded on missile rails or missiles on bomb pylons is a no-go for me. Well I don't know if Svetlin remembers his post but I want to let you all know, Svetlin included, that...we will have these...various pylons fro A-A and A-G missiles, bombs, drop tanks etc :) Actually half of the work is already made. You are welcome :)

Some WIP shots. I would like to add that we are making serious progress with our FCK-1 project. Our 3D Max "operator", Logan4 is binding things together with a ferm grip; our project starts to get a clear contour.

Oh, didn't know that. Yes, I agree, small mistakes there could mean death, unfortunately. They knew the risk, they all do.

well, they are profesionals, that's what they do.

Yeah , the other fellow collegue already flagged that in the thread. Take a look to what SUNDOWNER said about the issue.

Taking into account that is a issue with a stock thing (no matter its purpose) it needs a serious investigation. When you think to TK who was a one man band and what he did by himself for us , it's hard to think that he forgot or did something wrong there. Of course I left from the basic premise that what that collegue said is true (he never changed anything and played just a stock faulty campaign mission)

Well first idea that crosses my mind is to copy over another similar file. If that and other will give the same crash it would mean one thing: 99% people who played the game, never tried that Mercenary side and realized that something was missing from that library. Only TK would know I guess, if that's the case. I would have upload it for you guys but I am not home right now. If the matter will still count , in a few days, I will upload it, to give it a try.

As Sundowner pointed out (that's news to me , too) the event viewer could give you a clue which module faulted. Take a look there and let us know. Maybe we can pinpoint the problem.You do know to read a event viewer log right (Win 7/10)?

I agree , I've been carried away. I was describing what kind of crashing I encountered myself in the days I was creating campaigns and I just skipped from here to the matter.

Righteous26 beat me to it. These are obviously custom made. The game stock ones are limited to what I already told you.

The metamorphosis of our plane...

Where did you see runway 7 or 8 ? Did you see that in a STOCK file ? Or was it a modded one ? Or are you just asking ? If you did see it in a stock file, please share the info, I would like to take a look. If it's a modded one, there is no need to show it to me.

I know what a razor is :). You missunderstood. It's not about precision in Ocam's blade (sac!), it's about...chance, logic and statistic, in that order. About CPU tests. What games did you test, can you tell/show me ? If you were looking for tests of todays games or even 10 years ago games, you are just beating a dead horse because that is not the subject of the dispute here, you understand that, right ? I was talking (I remind you again) about old 32 bit games, where CPU i-5 and i-7 features won't mean a thing to them. It matters just the brute force and you are telling me that "in the tests you took a look" is just 10% ?? LOL Maybe you are looking in the wrong place. Remember what I said about leaving from WRONG presumptions you end up elaborating wrong conclusions ? I guess you have a hard time to really understand that concept. Please try again. We are talking about brute force (no sofisticated modern CPUs features here). An i-7 has double the cache NO MATTER the frequency its clock runs to, so logically, it will be at least twice faster, with the same load in terms of brute computing force, right ? Twice is 50%., not 10%, not 15, not 20 , not 30 etc. That plus what I already stated (older games , especially flight sims were greatly dependable of CPU power !) send us to the initial conclusion: i-7 beats the crap out of a i-5 in any test under the conditions already stated. Now is it clear for you the exercise in logic I just did or should I try again ? :) About the crash now and your experience , since you decided to help your collegue. Now having your testimony in the matter, the problem is more hazy than it was. Your collegue said initially that it happened when he took off with his plane. For you happened into the mission when those things you are talking about happened. Apparenty there is no connections between the situations, EXCEPT when one type of plane is "asked" by the game's engine to load or it is spawned , the crash happens. So my guess is that those enemy plane loaded weapons that are NOT in those campaign files, so the game's engine couldn't find them and returned a crash as "answer" to that request. It also could be a plane that is not there in campaign files, but being a stock campaign it's a slim chance to be that. or could still be a third situation we are not aware for the moment, because of lack of concludent data.(insufficient data)

WIP for FCK-1

You are confusing POWER, raw power given by a full cache with...threads thecnology which mean NOTHING for older 32 bit games of course. Also you are forgetting an important factor, old 32 bit games, especially flight simulators are very dependable on the CPU raw power (bigger is better, so, again, you are wrong) rather than the graphics card. At the same clock frequency, the differece between a i-5 and a i-7 is bigger than you say there. It's not 10%, it's at least 50% depending on the frequency (the more the frequency, the more tha gap between them, keep that in mind). I am talking here about THE SAME CPU frequency ! So, again, you are wrong. You are a persistent person in being wrong instead of proving me wrong aren't you ? Rememeber that if one goes forward from a wrong presumption, its conclusion will be, you guessed, wrong, too ;) Maybe you learn something here after all. :) PS - Ocam's blade is the same with Ocam's razor. Potatoes, patatoes ;)

None of them, at least for me. I played two of them and there was no CAP yet. They are randomized. Missions type in a campaign are given by the percentage allocated in the campaign files by the user who made/created the campaign. If there is 10% CAPs chances fixed in its file, then , in the unfolding of the current campaign , there will be 1 in 10 chances to get a CAP mission etc.The same for the other types of missions.

A runway is not LONG, MEDIUM etc because YOU consider it's enough LOL. It has a designation in airstrip files (TERRAINNAME_targets.ini file, see the pictures!) ! If it says there that it's a SHORT one, and in your plane's file it says it needs a MEDIUM one, the game will crash. That was what I was saying. Take a careful look to how things are going in the following phrases please. This is the short rundown to have a picture in your mind about airstrip sizes: Sizes for runaways (See targets.ini file in each terrain!) runaway 1 (MEDIUM - 2500m) runaway 2 (MEDIUM SMALL* - 2500m) runaway 3 (SMALL - 1200m) runaway 4 (LARGE - 3000m) runaway 5 (MEDIUM - 2500m) runaway 6 (MEDIUM - 2500m) Game, the whole game, has archives hulks ("CAT" extensions). In it , except planes 3D models and sounds (I think !?) you can find EVERYTHING this game has, from decals to terrains. There is a special archive software , you can find it in the download section (make a little research on your own if you want to learn things nad make , generally, things easier for you). The TERRAINNAME_target.ini file, for EACH MAP, is in the X:\...\StrikeFighters2\Terrains\TERRAINNAME folder! Data for each aircraft is in its AIRCRAFTNAME_DATA.INI file ! Look for the line: MinBaseSize=MEDIUM/SMALL/LARGE (There will be just one of them, not all three!) It's tough isn't it ? And you ain't seen nothing yet...:D

Oh, It seems that I got it all wrong. My apologies. I think you realize that I don't have time to play all the campaign to see which one is a CAP, don't you ? If that's the case, check first what planes types are into your formation. Check if you have them in those folder. If they are where they were supposed to be, then check if they are MERCENARY (country=MERCENARY). Maybe they aren't. If they are, check if you have the base accordingly to your planes requirements. Maybe the airstrip you are taking off with a wingman's plane that requires a medium strip is not..medium, it's a small one. In this case game will crash. But to check them you have to deflate the archive of the game where the campaign files are located. Do you know how to do that with SF2 ?

Ok then. If you can replicate just randomly, then it could be a lot of things, agree ? Are you familiar with Ocama blade's theory ? Between two explanations , one sofisticated , the other simplier, the odds to be right for the second one it's much higher than for the the first one. And you are wrong about dimsissing that double the cache for a CPU it wouldn't count. It's the cache that makes the difference (plus the frequency of course the core works, but let's say they have the same core frequency for the argument) between two CPUs, one with full cache and the other with half of it. So saying that processing time (between i-5 and i-7) is insignifiant is a little far fetched. The more the load, the less time spent by the full cache CPU to process the data to the motherboard bus, so a full cache CPU wins everytime by far a race with a halved one. That is why a full cache CPU is so expensive comparing with a no horse/no donkey one. :)