Jump to content

Menrva

+MODDER
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,499

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Menrva

  1. Menrva
    Again, where did I mention it is available? I think you're misunderstanding quite a bit. Let me quote posts as they happened and tell me if I said otherwise. Then you said this after my post, and I must suppose you were referring to cocas' version if you missed angelp's posts at the screenshot thread. After that, angelp posted screenshots on this topic of his work in progress X-32 (not yet available, and miles different than cocas' F-32). However, you still continued to state it's not a proper X-32. So this left me with a big WTF. I give the benefit of the doubt that you were initially referring to cocas' version, though the way it was worded it was quite confusing to my eyes. But I don't understand why you stated the same in front of a yet to be released X-32 that angelp teased over here. I hope it is clear now.
  2. Menrva
    It looks like you are salty and want a fight somehow. It's your mistake if you were referring to cocas' F-32 while I explicitly mentioned angelp's version which was shown in the screenshots thread a few days ago (and honestly you weren't referring to cocas' version either, you criticized angelp's version even after he showed it here as well). So, it seems to me you f*cked up and don't want to admit it. At this point it's clear you want to be trolling and I am saddened to see this happen, I did not expect such toxic behavior from you.
  3. Menrva
    Well, the way you worded the message it sounded different to me. It is language barrier I guess, it happens to misunderstand. Again, about the X-32, angelp also wants to reproduce the real one, but without many references that is the best he got at the moment. So, instead of saying look at the pictures, I think it'd be best to share those references, no? If you don't want, it's no problem, but then what was the point of the message? The only thing we got closer to an X-32 was cocas' F-32, and that one looked nothing like the real X-32. Apart from this, peace brother. russouk2004 was making a U-2R, then I think he had to leave modding due to RL issues. So yeah, I think the U-2R is a good suggestion to the list. Though the list is big already, may I add the Alpha Jet E? In theory we have Florian's wonderful Alpha Jet A, the E version features a different nose compared to the A. If only we had a source file of that one, an E version would be much feasible to make.
  4. Menrva
    Hmm, I am genuinely wondering what is wrong about it to be honest. We were shown two 3d models, one featuring the delta-wing of the X-32 prototype, the other featuring the revised wings Boeing had designed after further JSF program requirements. If you have more info and references, I think it'd be more constructive to share those instead of spitting on new additions for a dwindling game and community. I know angelp did his best to reproduce the different X-32s with the few references he had. The only what-if I see in those is the skin, and weapon loadouts of course. Also, I do not get this point. UllyB is willing to bring something to the table for everyone. I think it is no good for the community that some aircraft are not recreated just because few privileged or lucky end-users still have such models that cannot be distributed. What is the point of that? To share is to care IMHO. Even if some old-timers have exclusive access, it'd be nicer if the roster of CombatACE aircraft could be expanded to include those which IMHO cannot be defined as existing for the community as a whole. There are aircraft I'd like to feature in the ODS opera omnia mod we're slowly improving for completeness sake, but obviously I cannot feature capun's Mohawk and other such aircraft as they are not for everyone as per capun's wishes. Just my two cents. As for cockpits, I'm not against having aircraft without one, we have tons of those and usually I keep them for AI use in proper scenarios where they are needed. Having an aircraft 3d model done is already a good step, the community can always produce a proper cockpit at a later stage (though chances for this are very slim at this time). And giving how nicely detailed cockpits are more complex to recreate, I'd rather focus on aircraft overall.
  5. Menrva
    My pick is the X-15, I'd be very interested to see it in Strike Fighters. But also the S-2 Tracker would be a nice addition to the ODS mod. The X-32 is being made by @angelp as far as I know, so I don't think we need someone else start a new one from scratch. The C-2A Greyhound was made by Veltro2k but it is still unreleased and maybe someday Wrench will release it. It will be included in a future update of the ODS mod with specific tweaks, though. Unfortunately no, there is no OV-1C. The one you found is a dead post, it was made by capun of the A-Team, then the Strike Fighters community got divided long ago and A-Team stuff got fully removed from CombatACE. Such stuff is only released on the A-Team site which is not exactly end-user friendly nor freely available for downloads. So yeah, the Mohawk would be a nice addition to the CombatACE roster of aircraft as well. Even better, I would wish such a decade long rift would be solved, but when I joined CA it had happened already and I'm not fully aware of how it unfolded. I don't mean to open old wounds, I'm sure both sides have reasons. The 3d models are inaccurate, from the canopy shape to the F-35C having just one wheel on the nose instead of two wheels as required for carrier ops. Back when those models were made, the F-35s were not even operational, so such inaccuracies had to be expected. I was working on revamping Klavs81's F-35 cockpit with tons of .ini tricks and new textures, but even that 3d model leaves a lot to be desired for SF2 (it was made for SF1 at the time, and SF1 had more limited functions for cockpits). A brand new cockpit 3d model with more realism and functions would be quite difficult to recreate on Strike Fighters' engine, so the old one could do okay anyway.
  6. Menrva
    I think you have a corrupt/incomplete downloaded .ISO file or the tool you used to extract the .ISO messed up badly. There's no such thing as installe.exe and installx.bin files. Inside the .ISO you should find the following (check screenshot): The completely downloaded file weighs 3.47 GB. The ISO does not need to be extracted, you can mount it directly on a virtual drive if you're on Win10 or Win11 (more details here: How to mount ISO images on Windows 10 | Windows Central). If you really want to unpack it, you should use the latest available version of 7-Zip.
  7. Menrva
    They don't, I mean TK doesn't. TK created the server and no moderators exist for his TW server. Actually, it is surprising it is plagued very rarely by spammers, but nobody can remove any such posts from the server when they happen. TK does not deal at all with his own server, technical support for end-users is non existent. I'm sure there are fans who would gladly help him manage the server, but he's not interested in any interaction at all with the community. BTW, ThirdWire is a one-man development team, it's just TK at this time.
  8. Menrva
    We need a beacon of light to show us the way...
  9. Menrva
    Nope, Strike Fighters does not support a third Neutral force. It's either Enemy or Friendly side.
  10. Menrva
    It's not, I downloaded it and it's there (F-19_cockpit_NS.LOD). Make sure 7-Zip or WinRAR are updated to the latest.
  11. Menrva
    It will, but it won't offer the correct experience. If a terrain requires a specific .cat, using another one can cause all sorts of issues, like missing stock objects for target areas. Desert.cat and IsraelME.cat share various types of target objects but not all of them, so using one instead of the other can bring issues. If a terrain requires GermanyCE.cat for instance, it's just best to own Strike Fighters 2 Europe for a flawless experience rather than changing the referenced .cat archive.
  12. Menrva
    Add-on package has been updated to Version 1.1; read the change log for further details.
  13. Menrva
    Add-on package has been updated to Version 1.2; read the change log for further details.
  14. Menrva
    Add-on package has been updated to Version 1.2; read the change log for further details.
  15. Menrva
    Oh man, great stuff! I had started a remake of the Cuba terrain last year with hi-res heightmap. I should get back to it someday.
  16. Menrva
    No, it doesn't work like that. DLL files cannot be packed into CAT archives nor can be added to mod folders, they are the main game's logic and libraries. You have to add your DLL in the proper subfolder of the game directory alongside the other stock game ones.
  17. Menrva
    If you did what I explained already, you can merge both my mods and they work fine. I'm not adding fictional countries to my nations expansion package. The Ace Combat one is meant to be used by modders who want to build an Ace Combat mod folder, but no one will make it given the little interest it got. Maybe someday I'll complete it with reworked userlists for aircraft and objects so that it works with those fictive nations right away without the need of having real ones.
  18. Menrva
    Well, folder support would actually be useful, it would allow us to replicate the stock game's .CAT archives. I think it's worth having. It depends. I experimented with a terrain packed into a CAT and there was no such gain. The real gain, if folder support is added, is to have identical textures be shared between objects instead of having dozens of copies of the same texture. That would bring some gain. An effective way to optimize stuff would be to map aircraft and object 3d models to a limited number of texture files. Having 4 or 5 bitmaps for each aircraft skin surely offers best quality but at much expense of VRAM. That is why sometimes you get black/missing textures in ODS and in other bigger mods. How the game loads textures into VRAM is not in our control and from what I see the game is ineffecient on this end; play consecutive missions in a campaign and it feels like VRAM is filled with textures loaded from those previous missions, even if certain objects are no longer present in the new mission. Unfortunately it's not like we can remodel and remap hundreds of aircraft. Resizing all textures to 1k or 512 resolution is out of question for ODS, I already lost weeks in resizing most of them manually to reasonable values as a compromise between quality and performance.
  19. Menrva
    Glad to hear it. The screenshot was not needed, I already understood the bug with what you wrote.
  20. Menrva
    Except he isn't. I'm afraid some people don't recognize it for what it is. That is no interactive cockpit if you ask me. It's interactive when it works properly in-game and all the counters and other bits reflect the in-game physics. And the A-10 cockpit? I've heard he's done it many years ago, nothing fresh and original to the table. The ones making something very big are the Falcon BMS guys. And all for free, without deceiving people with a Kickstarter showing 3d models and renders took from other authors and sites. I'm happy for Phanotek, they made 10k rather quickly. TK should probably learn from them on this regard. I'm just glad I'm not wasting money on it. Those who do, well, happy for them.
  21. Menrva
    I literally gave you a solution, haven't you read? Duh
  22. Menrva
    Weird. You may want to install my Nations & Medals Expansion mod first, then install the Ace Combat one on top of it. I'll have a look at this when I have time. EDIT: I double checked, my Ace Combat nations mod removes all real nations. The bug you mentioned is most likely due to the fact you merged the NATIONS.ini file with a stock game one, but the ALIAS.LST file included in the Ace Combat mod references decals of my nations expansion mod. So I suggest you merge the nations.ini files from those two mods I released, as well as adding all .tga textures of the decals folder. The ALIAS.LST file you need to keep is that of the Ace Combat mod obviously.
  23. Menrva
    I truly hope no-one is throwing money at this Kickstarter project. It screams "scam" all over the place. Their Discord server is a comedy show and users started to figure out what a scam this is. The 3d models being shown were actually bought instead of being modelled by these so called developers. They made exaggerated claims, saying the game will change mobile gaming forever, having VR and carrier ops more complex than DCS. No real gameplay shown, no take-offs, no landings, no air-refueling, no weapons employment, nothing serious... Just renderings of various 3d models and cockpits. Explain me what Desert Storm has to do with renderings of an F-35 cockpit, among other things. They don't seem to have a clear idea of the complexity they promise to deliver. Simply put, save your dear money and stay away from this.
  24. Menrva
    Haha, I will play it soon on my new PC as well. The PS2 series of Ace Combat games is old but timeless. If I want fun and feelings, that's the obvious choice.
  25. Menrva
    Heavens... Just because the file extension name is LOD doesn't mean it's exactly the same file type of Strike Fighters 2. File extension names are arbitrary, by no means one should assume they are related by their file extension name. On top of that, Falcon BMS and Strike Fighters run on totally different game engines. Many third party objects and aircraft of Strike Fighters have much higher detail and fidelity. I recall various objects in Falcon BMS still have a very low number of polys, mostly remainders of the original Falcon 4.0. Not worth converting, simply put.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..