Righteous26

I doubt SF2 spends much processing time in the space between an i5 and an i7. It's not designed to use either chip to its maximum performance. Hence, you won't see an increase in performance. SF2 is not a high end game requiring that sort of horsepower. Please note I claimed it happens only rarely and I can't replicate the issue even now.

Not at all. I have all settings maxed out and it has not happened for months. It is rare, but I can see that the CPU bogs down in certain instances because the game is slowing down and it's not just the graphics. The engine is having problems keeping up with everything. It sorts itself out most of the time but it has crashed sometimes as well. I moved it to an SSD and that seemed to help. My CPU is an i5 8700 at 2.8GHz with 16GB RAM and the video card is an RTX 3060 with 8GB VRAM. The SF2 textures and shaders aren't taxing either of these cards. Hence, it's not a graphics issue.

Strange, I run it on Windows 10 x64 and I have had what he describes happen. The CPU clearly bogs down if too many entities are active and the game will crash. I have plenty of RAM, VRAM and no corrupted files. Some of these campaigns are clearly more than the game was designed to handle.

It depends on what it has to load. There could be more units in that campaign. That means more in the air at one time.

The base game does not appear to be written for modern multicore processors. When you merge and order your wingmen to engage the computer does the same with nearby enemies. This increase in loading on the CPU can cause a crash. SF2 likely can not use the full power of your CPU. I have had similar problems. You may try moving the game to an SSD or a drive connected to your motherboard if it is on a USB drive. The increased data transfer rates may help.

To amplify this I have taken all the AAMs I use in the game and consolidated them with the best models and textures I could find. I also adjusted the data files to change the ranges to better match the available data. Several of the weapons available here seem to be above the maximum resolution and number of vertices the game engine can handle so you are not likely to improve much.

Yes, you can add things like this on the flight line and move the equipment between aircraft. In the US Navy they have aircraft called "strike birds" that are in such bad shape by the end of a cruise that they take functional parts from these aircraft for use on aircraft that can be made mission capable. The US Army does the same thing and calls it "controlled exchange" or "CAN" in the maintenance records. You absolutely can move sensors, armament, computers, MPDs, ASE, engines, wire bundles and just about any black box or electronic device to another aircraft. It may be frowned upon officially, but the units do it to meet mission especially when they are at the end of a deployment and parts are in short supply. You must record it in the maintenance logs of all affected aircraft however, as the parts are often serial numbered and accounted for by SN and aircraft tail number. If a squadron is going to war then they will likely get the best kit available even if it means taking it from another unit. Further, the units leaving theater leave some equipment behind so there is a supply of spares in theater.

It would be reasonable to assume that any aircraft in SF2 would have the countermeasures installed as all the aircraft simulated are in an operational theater with an active war ongoing. The US military will swap mission essential equipment from vehicles leaving a theater to those entering it and will prioritize units going to a theater over those not scheduled for deployment.

Just because the item does not appear in the manual until a given date does not mean that it was not in use earlier. If you note page 8-4 reads "Change 4" at the bottom and page 8-5 reads "Change 7" next to the page numbers. These pages were added to the manual at different times after 1975 and then released as one comprehensive package in 1979. Unfortunately, any interim changes in panel position, if any, are lost. The installation of the control panels was likely an ad hoc affair if a unit did not get the technical support representatives from the equipment manufacturer and there was no USAF guidance for where the panels should be placed. Hence, there may have been several configurations depending on when the panels were installed. Further, some units would receive the equipment for installation on the flight line and others would have it installed during depot level maintenance or overhaul. The manual reflects the official requirements for the placement of the panels as of its publication. It is likely not the only configuration that was approved or used as these change over time.

Here is a campaign movement file I made for the TexasASC terrain. The attached picture shows the routes. The units appear to be moving properly between the nodes. However, the frontline trace becomes a mess after the first day or so and loops back on itself. TexasASCCampaign.txt

Is there a campaign movement file for the Texas ASC terrain set?

Check the attachment type in the MiG data files. It should look something like this. Ensure it reads AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET. If you intend to use Chinese weapons then you must add ,CHINA to that line as well. [RightOuterWingStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=2 StationGroupID=1 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=2.68,-1.49,-0.42 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 LoadLimit=500.0 LengthLimit=3.5 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,RCKT,RP,IRM,FT AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET ModelNodeName=WingPylon_Outer_R PylonMass=60 PylonDragArea=0.02 LaunchRailNodeName=MissileRail_Outer_R LaunchRailHeight=0.10 LaunchRailMass=25 FuelTankName=Tank490_MiG21

Check each file in the list when Windows prompts you to replace files. It is very easy to overwrite things you want to keep. I keep the weapons I want to use most in separate folders and copy them last. I also remove redundant weapons.

The order of operations matters. As an example the weapons in NATO fighters may override the Weapons Pack. Check the weapon ini files and ensure the correct LODs are referenced as a weapon may load without a 3D model but the airplane still has the weapon available.

It sounds as though one part of the install was installed under the "install for all users" option that windows has and that some of the file structure was installed under the "install for a specific user" option. Did you create a new user after installing SF2? It might help to run everything from the run as administrator option you can select from the right click menu.

Did you run the new executable you created before creating or editing an ini file for it? You must run the new copy of the game first and adjust the settings to your liking. The executable will make the ini file when it runs.

The missiles in SF2 tend to be over modeled as compared to other simulations. BMS Falcon comes to mind as hitting a fighter at 20 miles is effectively impossible with an AIM-120C-5. I reduced the impulse of all AHMs to reduce their effective ranges and the AIM-120C-5 can still reach 30 miles with enough energy for an intercept.

If the enemy fighter is an Su-35S you will get outranged because his radar will burn through your jamming before you can burn through his and fire. These reduced firing ranges also put both combatants well within the no escape envelopes of each other's missiles so the player can't just turn and run away at full afterburner. Players must then defeat the missile with chaff as the ECM is of no value against a missile and a kinematic or seeker track rate defeat is unlikely. The Su-35S radar data is obviously lifted directly from Russian promotional materials and is suspect to be fair. I have adjusted all the range, impulse and drag values for the AAMs in my copy of the game and limited their useful ranges to the range at which their velocity drops below Mach 1 based on the Missile Range Simulator projections as the missile likely has little energy left for an interception at this point.

This is a major problem for the active homing missiles (guidance type 13). The AA-9B is particularly problematic in this case as the seeker range is set to 120000. There is no such thing as an active homing missile with a seeker range of 120000 meters. You can fix this by going to the data file and changing one line. Set SeekerRange=120000.000000 To SeekerRange=20000.000000 This will prevent the computer from firing at you until it can get an accurate range on you with its radar or it closes to within 20000 meters. This will force it to respect the same constraints the player must follow. You can also reduce the firing range by changing this line. MaxLaunchRange=120000.000000 Note that changing this line will also prevent the player from firing the missile at a longer range regardless of other factors. I recommend against changing the SeekerRange value for semi-active homing missiles (guidance type 12) as the computer must first lock you up before firing regardless of the range of the seeker so there is no point in reducing that number. Also, the missile seekers do not appear to be affected by aircraft RCS. I have had MiG-31s fire at my stealth aircraft from the maximum missile range without ever seeing me on radar. This stopped when I adjusted the seeker range.

It could be a negative habit transfer from the simulator. The missile may work just a little differently there and it could throw the pilots off the first time they fire a live missile.

Look at the Nations.ini file in the Flight folder and find the Russian Federation. Check the start and end dates and make sure they cover the period you want.

The radar in question is a PD Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) or PD Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA). SF2 does not simulate these sorts of radars very well as it was intended for radars that use only one antenna and are mechanically scanned and AESA/PESA radars have hundreds of small antennae and are electronically scanned. RadarMissileGuidanceCW=TRUE This means that the radar can provide CW illumination to guide a missile to the target. The missile is likely a Semi-Active Homing Missile (SAHM). However, some missiles may require guidance to the target before switching to their own internal guidance (e.g. AMRAAM, Phoenix) but SP2 does not simulate this properly because you get a launch warning on your RWR and this likely would not be the case especially when facing an AESA/PESA radar. RadarSearchTime=0.4 This is the time required for the radar to complete one scan of its search sector at any given range. This means it updates contact positions every 0.4 seconds. RadarTrackTime=0.8 This is the time required for the radar to switch from search to track mode when acquiring a target. This will take 0.8 seconds in this case. The radar likely has to track the target before the computer will fire a missile.

Which missile is this? These lines look like data for an Air Intercept (AI) radar.

RadarSearchCW=FALSE This means that the radar does not search in Continuous Wave (CW) mode. RadarTrackCW=FALSE This means that the radar does not track in Continuous Wave (CW) mode. Further, the radar is most likely a Pulse Doppler (PD) set or a simple range only radar. This means that a jammer designed to interfere with a CW radar may not work as the fundamental operating principles of CW and PD radar are different and jammers useful against one type are generally not useful against the other. Later jammers may have settings that allow them to be effective against both types. Are there any other lines with the words "Search" or "Track" in them?

The US Army and USAF did something like this to open Operation Desert Storm in 1991 in Operation Normandy. Several Army AH-64As guided by a USAF MH-53 PAVE Low attacked an Iraqi EW radar site and made a large hole in their EW radar coverage through which the first coalition attack aircraft flew to strike targets in Iraq. The mission pretty much made then LTC Richard Cody's career. The US Army tried this again on 24 March 2003 and attacked an Iraqi tank brigade that was in a marshaling yard. This turned into a disaster when the AH-64Ds flew through a 40km long flak trap set by the Iraqis in an area that turned out to be their equivalent of the National Training Center and an AAA school. The tanks were bait. The US Army lost one AH-64D outright and had two battalions (6/6 Cav and 1-227th AVN) put out of the rest of the war because they were so badly damaged. In fact, some of the 1-227 aircraft were transferred to 2/6 Cav later in 2003 and still had bullets in the airframes.