Ticket1

Hi folks, In response to PFunk's complaint about TW simulators running at sub-par speed, I've finally found a solution. Nevertheless, this solution does not represent or support views of any sort that the various simulators run at sub-par speed. I believe it is the scaling of time vs map size which produces an effect that makes some of us feel like it's slow. The resolution is quite simple. Just make use of the "Time Compression" parameter in the FlightEngine.INI file to be 3X. I've tested it, it's quite balanced. You won't feel it's being accelerated, but mind you, if you over-run your target package, you better be very careful. Hope this helps! Ticket1

No I don't. Just judge form the sims and compare to others. Wish I had real flying experience!! :-(

Hey Lexx, Thanks for the hints. I've tried that and I can't fly because can't see clearly things ahead! Actually that's very hard to understand. And it's very tedious to explore into depth. I'd play the game as it is, easier and saves more time. I think it is good that flying at a certain speed we can catch and prepare instruments to perform tasks. For example, I want to strike with LGB, I need to switch and watch the heights and speed, so if the sim's speed is too fast, I can't target. I will over run the target so to speak. Unlike WWII flights, no additional instrument need to be operated so I just fly over and release the bombs. That's why in WWII or WWI fligths the sim's speed can be accepted to be faster. Anyway....thanks for your help I think I will move on to some other things but when i get bored I will come back, hope to see more of your work later! Are you working on some new projects lately for this games?

Hi folks, I've decided to create this thread for primarily the following reasons: (1) in response to one of a threads found in SimHQ -> http://simhq.com/for...tml#Post3055729 (2) show and reveal non-documented features and characteristics of AI aircrafts The purposes which naturally follow are (a) help TW Strike Fighters series 1 simmers to understand better the where we all stands from a user's perspective (b) provide additional information to fill the holes for TW SF series 1 simmers who may be interested in customizing aircrafts characteristics to suit their expectations and needs Action items which arises from the above: ...pending I will keep everyone on this forum posted as soon as I've come up with new findings. Please stay tuned. Thank you. Tk1

Fubar That looks better! So let me understand you correctly. I need to choose a terrain like yours in order to see that effect. The trouble is not too many terrain like that out there or I don;'t know where to go, could you point me to the right direction? Thanks! Ticket1

Hi folks, I guess this is here is the best place to ask the following questions: 1) What values are available for the parameter RadarType? So far I've seen AIR_INTERCEPT and NAV/ATTACK. Are these values related to the AI aircrafts only? 2) In the Avionics.ini file, the line AvailableModes=SEARCH,STT,ACM,GM is placed under [RadarData] but in some other aircrafts's avionics.ini file, it is placed under [AvionicsData], are there any differences between them functionally? thanks Ticket1

FC, Fubar About the included avionics60.dll and avionics70.dll files, I must have been mistaken, just 5 hours sleep every day trying to figure things out has exhausted me completely. There are huge amount of trial & error work to be done. FC, I'm not getting the TV display if I put it into say an A-4E. But I'll try putting the weapons in to see if that does any better. Thanks! Could you possibly confirm if TW series 1 simulators SFP1, WoV, WoE and WoI are not supporting AI to drop guided weapon on Strike missions? It looks like the engine doesn't tell AI how to launch LGBs for instance in a typical Strike mission. I could be missing something though...if so, could you please fill the holes for me, many thanks! Ticket1

Fubar, Thanks for your reply and information. I put a TV into the 'AvailableMode" of the stock A-4E for instance, why I'm not getting the same TV display as shown in the screen shot ? Which avionics.dll should I use ? Also why every add-on aircraft has either avionics60.dll or avionics70.dll in their folder? Ticket1

Folks, This is a screen capture of the EF-111 cockpit which I believe uses avionics60.dll. The [AvionicsData] section reads [AvionicsData] AvailableModes=GROUND_MAP,TERRAIN_AVOIDANCE,TV RangeUnit=NM RangeSetting[1]=5 RangeSetting[2]=10 RangeSetting[3]=25 RangeSetting[4]=50 RadarPosition= MaxElevationAngle=60 MinElevationAngle=-60 MaxAzimuthAngle=60 MinAltitude=800.0 MinReturn=0.05 SearchRangeSetting=1,2 ScanPattern[1].BarElevation[1]=1.875 ScanPattern[1].BarElevation[2]=-1.875 ScanPattern[1].ScanRate=120 ScanPattern[1].ScanBeamAngle=6.7 ScanPattern[1].ScanArc=60 SearchRange=100 SearchStrength=100 SearchTargetTime=5.0 AcquisitionSymbolSpeed=0.5 AcquisitionTime=5.0 LostAquisitionTime=1.0 TrackRangeSetting=1,2,3 TrackCapabilities=HOJ,TARGET_MEMORY TrackRange=80 TrackStrength=80 TrackMemroyTime=5.0 BoresightRangeSetting=1 BoresightElevation=-2.0 BoresightAzimuth=0.0 BoresightBeamAngle=3.7 GroundMapRangeSetting=2,3,4 TerrainAvoidanceRangeSetting=2,3,4 ClearanceDistance=152.4 AcquisitionResetPosX=0.5 AcquisitionResetPosY=0.20 Each of the red-squared shows a TV image of some sort. I hit the "PgUp" key to obtain that. What mode is the radar in at that point? Thanks! Ticket1

Okay, Fubar, so if I can release a GBU in an F-16A_NETZ, it doesn't mean an AI F-16A_NETZ (not my wingmen) is capable of releasing the same? One more question, where is the Mission File when I ran a Single Mission from the main menu? Ticket1

Wrench, This sounds very much like what I've been looking for in the last couple of days and it is very important for me to get an understanding in order to move things forward in my investigation. So let me get this right: You're saying that if 'TV' is included in the 'AvailableMode' in the XXX_AVIONICS.INI file, then I will have a TV display on the MFD AND I can put this into any aircraft's avionics.ini file say the F-16A_NETZ for instance? Also, by doing so, does it enable an AI aircraft to drop Laser Guided Bombs like the HOBOs GBU-8? Appreciate your reply very much! Thanks! Ticket1

Thanks Wrench!! I'll get back to you..did you say the manual? I'll have a look of that. Meanwhile there's a value "TV" I found from using a hex editor, what is it for? Ticket1

Hi folks, A bit helpless feeling...not the OP of this thread http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3055729/This_Game_Has_Annoyed_Me_for_T.html#Post3055729 but myself. As I'm a supporter and long-time Thirdwire TW simulator players, I can't stand the complains the original poster OP mentioned up there. The TW series is very opened in terms of aircraft modifications from flight model FM, artificial intelligence AI, aircraft's skins as well as weapon's performance. I believe the OP is being upset by the stock model of SU-7 the Fitter and some of the Russian arsenals. What he wants is a less-than sophisticated Beyond Visual Range BVR engagement combat. And I think I can be of some help at that. It's quite unfair to the OP as well as TW series of simulators if what is generally known to the community is not precisely conveyed and propagated, especially to the OP in this case. Unfortunately, I've not been granted the permission to post on the forum. I'd like to share with the OP and also others in the forum about how to tweak the Su-7 DATA.INI file as well as some of the weapon's effectiveness, but I need to communicate with the OP as to which weapon or BVR aircrafts he would like to see in actions. I wish the OP will read this forum as well. Anyway...why joining SimHQ needs approval? A bit difficult I say... Tk1

Lexx I'm trying to help, it's just I'm taking a slower pace. I'm planning how to help. It's quite obvious from his writings he wants to have some BVR combat experience and more on that, he actually wants to WATCH AI behaves so. As you understand that there are so many mods out there and add-ons need to dress up before I can set up a test environment. I want to show what I know about the topic by way of Video clips but that takes quite considerable time. Just now I'm back from WoE testing some LGB targeting. There seems to be some sort of glitch in laser designation. I'm too used to hardcore designation skill like F/A-18 and F-15 as well as Falcon 4. I'm still trying to figure out how the same or similar can be done in TW series, it's no easy task because I need to download more aircrafts to try out and Mirage factory's weapon pack contains just a few Russian LGB. Now it takes some time before I can reply. The following is what I'm going to reply him, pending a video demonstrating what I mentioned in the reply: You're wrong then! Excuse me to be so direct. My video has sufficiently demonstrate that AI not necessarily need to engage into dogfight and dogfight only. As you can see, the MiG-23 engaged me at almost right at 21nm away, exactly the range of the AA-7C Apex Semi-Active Radar Homing missile SARH. Note, I've also shown you how I checked my RWR Radar Warning Receiver and the MiG-23 started tracking me when it was 30nm away. You must observe the F-4J's radar closely and estimate the position. The scale is in steps of 25, 50, 100nm. I believe when you're talking about energy management, I would not say the AI can maneuver extremely well. The reason is the Flight Model FM which is described in the DATA.INI file in most case. I do have seen some aircrafts perform 'miracle' turns, nearly right around its own axis. Now that's a faulty FM and should not be considered. As far as using missiles, the AI performs well. Regrettably, I engaged in the fight otherwise, the MiG-23 would have fired upon me using its AA-11 archer and you would see how good it does the job without ever getting close to me to use its guns. Another thing I'm trying to point out is that the AI knows well about its arsenals and is capable of prioritizing which one to use. So, let's take Su-27 as an example. The AI will use the AA-12 Adder first, then Alamo AA-10 and then AA-11 Archer in that order with EXCEPTION that when it is engaged by another adversaries from its six, then it will turn around and tries to engage it. Situations like that will become more complicated. Added to the scenario when a Patriot battery starts tracking it, situation will become even more stormy. If you set the Enemy on Hard setting, the Su-27 might engage its adversaries on its six, and at the same time, try to jingle a bit to evade the Patriot threat until it resolves the immediate threat on its six then it will escape because normally Su-27 loadout doesn't carry Anti-radiation missile on a aerial combat mission. But the AI does have built-in intelligence to engage defensive, meaning it knows when to dump chaff or flares whereas we human pilots can dump both and waste either one of them.

Folks, Didn't know that this simulation can go into such great details where you can count on the number of remaining rockets by visual confirmation Tk1

Dave, Lex Good to have you around, just want to ask you a question. What exactly does the avionics.dll file do? Tk1

Hi Lexx_Luthor, Good to have you back! I've played with you nuke toys quite a few times, it's really impressive. I've spent many hours trying to figure out how the game handles AI, and to my surprise, the Oct 2008 has done a great job. More importantly, it's the flexibility as I mentioned in my thread at SimHQ that the game offers to the simmers which matters. I can just slightly tune the DATA.INI file and the MiG-23 can fire upon my F-4 Phantom at range like 30nm. Likewise, I can do the same to the AVIONICS.INI file and I can lock-up the MiG-23 at 100 nm and fire upon it with a modification of the AIM-7P. It's highly modular. Grafix, it kills a product! I've been spending much time on Civilization IV recently. And the forthcoming Civilization V seems to emphasize on graphics rather than gameplay, I'm quite certain that this move will kill the product's sale. LOMAC is not a failure but the hardware requirement kills its popularity. I can't run DCS: Black Shark at medium with frame rates up to 60, now that's I call it rubbish. If you look at H.A.W.K., not talking about its gameplay but the graphics is good and so are the frame rates on the same machine I'm running. Mnay years ago, Eidos JSF deployed a special technique I've forgotten the name, that you can see smooth transition of horizon to sky so much that as if they are real scenery. If a simulator is produced to run on future PC, there's no point of releasing it before the requirements can be met. Thanks! "It almost made my day", so what is the inadequacy?

Well, I know but just want to get it off my chest. In fact, if we take a look at the flight simulation market in the last couple of years, one may find a few titles countable by 5 fingers which strikes the balance between hard-core and medi-core. Yesterday, I saw a clip on YouTube about Flaming Cliffs 2. Quite honestly, if you fly the Desert Map in SFP1 at 8,000 or above, you'll probably notice the mountains' texture looks way better than that in FC2. And FC2's mountains all have too sharp edges which looks not pretty at all. And the learning curve is steep. The number of aircrafts flyable can hardly be compared to TW series. I wouldn't say the flight simulation market is declining but definitely not good at all. So we should treasure what we have here. And that's why I reply to that thread. But SimHQ is not as good as before as far as forums go.

Hey folks, Really don't know what possess of me, but I've done it! 3 to 4 hours I think to write something back to him. Here, please check my understanding, I could be wrong on the doctrines thing though. http://simhq.com/for...tml#Post3087086 By the way, YouTube sucks BIG time!!! The same .MP4 uploaded, MySpace did it in a heartbeat whereas ja*kas* YouTube turned me down saying that the conversion of my video failed. What the h***!!! One thing though, there is a glitch in Oct 2008 for SFP1. Maybe you've already noticed that in the video. When I jumped external view to the AI MiG-23 and jumped back to my own F-4J by external view, the jet engine sound is gone, any idea? It's not a problem with the F-4J but other aircrafts as well, say if I swap to fly the MiG-23, I hit the same problem. What's the cause of the problem? http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=106441264 Tk1

Hi folks, I can't wait to rush in to report and share with you some of the happiness and excitement plus joys I've just accidentally discovered. The story begins with my aimless wandering around the download section sort of window-shopping around. And I chanced on seeing nixarass's Graphical Enhancement Mod -> http://combatace.com/files/file/8214-graphical-enhancement-mod-for-tw-games/ you can preview on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8eFRHwq7cM. It's also the simplest install ever as far as a TK series mod is concerned. The beauty is that you can deactivate it by Shift+F12. I installed it, ran it for a few minutes and just out of curiosity for some unknown reasons, I hit the ALT-D and the in-game frame rate counter popped out of the fine and sunny sky. I wasn't quite aware of the change initially until I paused for a moment and stared at the figures presented. 125 what!!! The I was beginning to be more serious and check it again, no drama, it did read 100, 125,95 as you know the counter is real-time so figures are overlapping but I did see 3 digits figure so it's gonna to be higher than 100. My good lord!!! I uninstalled by removing the ini from the Flight and home folder. Then I ran the simulator again. The same mission, but the reading just capped at 53 or 52 something which I've already been through tens of time due to some recent research/testing work. As scientific as I am used to be, I installed the mod again and ran it through one more time. Boom!!! Wow!!!!!!! 100~125 and I panned around my F-4J pit, no joke, it's really a double! For your information, my graphics card is a native 4870 1GB DDR5 driven by Catalyst 8.12 running under Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits and my CPU is Q6600@2.4GHz. Surely, the file d3d9.dll is to be crowned for this big boosts of frame rate though I know not about how exactly it works. Amazing and if nixarass is here reading this thread, I would like to say a million of thanks to your contribution! Tk1

The trouble is that you'll have to adjust it for every mission that you design. I'd also imagine that the same altitude will be applied throughout campaign. Funny that I discovered it by sheer coincidence. I was checking out a weather mod, and while I was reading the file I hit this height information and a good guess seems to fit well about my doubt. Anyway, it's for the greater good. Playing this simulator is like a discovery process. So much to explore.

Is it a kind of unbalanced issue. I was riding in a F-4D doing a strike mission. I was hit by an Iranian F-14A by AIM-54A. There is, unlike in the F-4E, no RWR which warned me about incoming missiles.

Sorry for hijacking this thread for a slightly off-topic question. Are the aircrafts in this Iran-Iraq Campaign capable of Beyond Visual Range combat?

Hi folks, haven't you noticed that loading and hanger screens are missing from A-4B,C,E; F-4B, C, D, E; F-100D, F-104G. Here is my little contributions in return to the a number of downloads from CA here. Hope you all like it. Tk1

Funny that pre-Oct 2008 patches don't hide up files like that. Actually I recovered many hanger screens from previous installations. Here is another one I use for F-4D in Oct 2008 version. You may distribute if you like..