RIBob

On further investigation, replacing the Nvidia GT 730 card in my Dell 760 SFF computer with an Nvidia GT 1030 card allowed the formerly unavailable graphics features on Crimson Skies (seen on other computers) to become available. Some of the relevant selections were initially de-selected/turned-off by the game/computer, but when I selected them, and played the game, the selected items remained activated. For those interested, I have tried to insert a Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti card into this computer. It is perhaps a 20-25% upgrade over the 1030 card. While nowhere the top of the heap, it is a reasonably decent card, and the retail price shows it. Such a card might be of use to some players--YMMV. Unfortunately, the card did not physically fit. However, a solution might be at hand, namely a "PCEI extender cable" which cable links the existing PCIE slot to a flexible cable which connects to one's graphics card. Such an arrangement will, I hope, allow installation of the Nvidia 1050 Ti card into the Dell 760, although some jiggering might be necessary. The point to all this is to submit that, given an elderly computer with (Maxxed-out) 8GB RAM, an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU (not replaceable), and a modern SSD feeding the system, one can definitely access formerly unobtainable graphics features on some games.. I suggest that one take a close look at the gfx settings available in all one's games. Tinker with them to see how much one can elevate the settings before one runs into problems. With older games, the settings will likely be higher than with newer games. IOW, a modern computer will probably run a modern game, like IL-2, on reasonable settings. One's older computer will likely run out of capacity, in any number of areas, running modern games at anywhere near max. Unless you upgrade your older computer, intelligently. Older games need less capabilities, but can still benefit from intelligent upgrading. Modern games need the same upgrades. So why not upgrade your older computer, to get the most out of what you have, and play some modern games, perhaps at less diminished levels that you might formerly have thought?

Test post. And thanks for the invite, VBH!

I believe I know why this has happened. I regret the discord --which has occurred on other sites-- that has caused this. There are two groups, the EAWPRO group (Vonbeerhoven), and the "Code-group" Mr Jelly, R Otten, that are at odds. This contention has been going on for a long time. These two groups have competing versions of the EAW sim. Some folks are neutral, such as MarkEAW, who tries to modify his longstanding EAW Help Site to help everyone. Perhaps some sub-forums with "Read-Only" content might be appropriate. Perhaps some other alternatives will be deemed useful. My point in typing this message is that some sort of modus vivendi should be found that does not require an inordinate amount of Moderator/Admin attention. FWIW, I am familiar with such. I doubt that the two opposing groups will ever "settle down". So, some constructive method needs to be made to resurrect the Forum, and both groups kept in check. I propose a 1) Read-Only EAWPRO sub-forum 2) Read-only "Code Group" sub forum 3) A General EAW forum which has a Mod who is enabled to move topics to one or the other sub forums at will, and who is authorized to suspend/boot the posting capabilities of all posters in a fair manner, with reasonable provision for appeal. Such a Moderator will necessarily have to spend a good deal of time in the General EAW forum, at least until such a point where the folks posting therein understand that NO shenanigans will be tolerated. This will be a learning process for all involved; especially the posters. Given the nature of some of these posters, this Moderating task will be an everyday task, until the posters are whipped into shape. I say this from experience. No offense to current Mods. Submitted for consideration.

With all due respect, whether or not there are competing versions of the game is beside the point. The issue at hand is the contention between the parties who offer the different versions of the game. RIBob

No offense, but perhaps you paint with too broad a brush re your comment on what Players prefer. There is a wide spectrum of Player tastes and preferences, and to say that Players care about one thing to the exclusion of others goes too far, I think. As for myself, I am visually-oriented, and can usually see details in aircraft that some others might gloss over, or perhaps not detect at all. It is a niggling bother--to me, at least-- when the depiction of an A/C contains visual errors. The presence of such errors often causes me to question whether the Modder has done due diligence to other, unseen, aspects of the A/C, such as Flight Model, and so forth. I know that some issues are not easily corrected, but that does not reduce the responsibility of the Modder to do his/her very best to "get it right". I understand that others will have different preferences. I prefer to not discuss your other remarks.

Perhaps. I would have thought so, but I am writing from a position of ignorance. Perhaps VBH has something else in mind. Saying that there is no need to re-invent the wheel is only a partial truth. For example, once the pneumatic tire was added to the wheel, its' rolling resistance was greatly reduced, and the speeds at which it could be used greatly increased. So, while not exactly re-inventing the wheel, some modders considerably increased the wheel's usefulness. Let's see what VBH has in mind for a final product. I think it only fair to evaluate a work on its final iteration, and not when it is in development.

Just did some testing today with the 790 Dell OptiPlex SFF computer. It has an (upgraded) I7 2600 3.4 Ghz CPU, 16 Gb RAM, and is running Win 10 Prox64 Operating System. First series of tests were done with the Nvidia GT 1030 GPU. Idle: 32W Wings of Prey (a variant of IL-2): 93 W This was merely to establish a baseline, and so far, so good. I then installed the Nvidia 1050 Ti GPU, which has considerably more power draw. The question was: Will it work in this computer with the non-upgradeable 240 W PSU? Idle: 50 W. Using the downloadable "MSI Kombustor" stress-test program, I tested the GPU at the "Medium++" level, which is to say, about 95% GPU usage. Wattage use was 182 W,, which is well below the desired Upper wattage limit of 192W (240W-10%=192W (IOW, 90% of PSU capacity). This is nominally a 75W GPU, so even running it at 100%, the wattage required will still be within desired limits. This program deliberately stress-tests the entire computer, GPU being a particular focus. I have yet to test a Flight Sim that comes close to making demands on the computer that a "stress test" requires. I also installed and upgraded the old MS Crimson Skies game, so that it will run properly on Win 10. I regret that my notes are incomplete as to its Wattage use, but IIRC the wattage used was approx in the low 90s. I'll revise this figure tomorrow, if need be. To my delight, the GTX 1050 Ti card made available the "Shadows" and "Ground Clutter" features, heretofore unobtainable with an Nvidia GT 730 GPU. Along with having all the other Gfx features set at Max, these additional gfx features really transform the visual aspect of this old sim. The result is a pleasure to view, and some of the vids on YouTube show the "Shadows" features. So, this is the entire point of my upgrading exercise so far. Some intelligent upgrading can be done even to SFF computers. Such upgrading will likely allow the use of Gfx features that were formerly not accessible, and not over-stress the components of the computer. Submitted for consideration.

Just a suggestion, and I'm sure that you would know better than I how to go about it. Bravo, and keep up the good work.

As submitted elsewhere, if it is desired to have a shorter, rounder nose on any of these flying bombs, perhaps the modder could use the nose of a torpedo. should be ideal for some variants which sported stubby, round noses.

It is this sort of bickering that causes me, and certainly others, to move away from any sort of EAW-based game, and onto other, newer, platforms, where the modders do not try to crucify one another. You people are poisoning your own well.

I don't think that comment was necessary, particularly in view of a work in progress. VBH has access to all the relevant pix of various WW Ii carriers, and I am sure his final product(s) will differ considerably from these initial pix.

NOTE: I am neither an electrician nor a computer whiz. The remarks below are for comparison and informational purposes only, and they reflect what happened on my equipment. Use at your own risk. After performing some limited, preliminary, tests on a couple of different computers, it would seem that the two games I tested, the BAT version of !L-2 1946, and Crimson Skies (Widescreen) do not move the power requirement "needle" much above simple idle. The games were allowed to set their own Gfx "preferences". For example, a Dell 760 SFF OptiPlex with Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, Nvidia 730 Gfx card (49W max draw), and 240 W Power supply, idled at about 66W. Playing BAT raised wattage requirements to 102W, Crimson skies to 99W. On the Dell XPS computer, with I7 8700 CPU, Nvidia 2060 OC Pro Gfx card, and 600W Power supply, idle was 72W, BAT was 75 W, and CS was 78W, which, incidentally seems to confirm that the new 2060 Gfx card allows some gfx features formerly unavailable with lesser Gfx cards. I attribute the variance of wattage draw between the two computers as being due to the GT 730 Gfx card having to work "harder", and so drawing more power than the 2060 card, which easily played both games without breaking a sweat. There are certainly games which demand more of one's power supply than the ones I tested. However, I was surprised at how little of the available power supply was used. by these particular combinations of games/Gfx cards. YMMV. The real test will be when I install an Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti Gfx card (75W max draw) into a Dell OptiPlex 790 SFF computer with the same 240W Power supply as the Dell 760 mentioned above. Since the 1050 Ti card only requires an additional 26W vice the 760, given the "headroom" available, this should not be a significant issue, IMHO I should add my testing seems to indicate that there is sufficient wattage "headroom" to do so. The Nvidia 1030 card which currently resides there goes into the 760 OptiPlex because it is a definite upgrade, AND, it actually has a smaller Wattage draw then the 730 GFX card (30W Vs. 49W. Submitted for your consideration.

How "Configurable"--by you, not a user-- will this be? For instance, most all WW II carriers were not of modern slant-deck configuration. Also, toward the end of WW II, Fleet carriers had LOADS of AA armament installed, making them a very tough target to attack, at least if the pilot wanted to survive. Presumably such AA armament would come into play once an enemy (or unlucky friendly) aircraft came into range. What are the structures on the deck? Test device of some sort? I wonder if this vessel will be "scalable" in that the basic model can be used (with some minor changes) as an escort carrier, light carrier, and/or full-sized Fleet carrier? Looking forward to your creations, as always. RIBob

I have many versions of EAW playable on my Win 10 computer. Some work better than others. If you want specifics, then that will be version-by-version. I an NOT trying to be a jerk, or confrontational. Nor have I had the time, to investigate the most recent offerings. Let me digest things, try them out, and report back. Family things, and personal health have taken a toll, but I am rebounding. All I want, and what should be in your best interest, is an easily downloadable version of V1.60, playable on Win 10. I have a very good Win 7 computer, but my Win 10 computer, along with its' vastly better Gfx card is Soooooooooo much better. That's the difference. Modern Win 10 computers are capable of accepting Modern GFX cards. Older Win 7 computers not so much.

Is this version of the sim suitable for downloading/playing on Win 10?

iosted elsewhere, but offered for your consideration: " Following my own advice, and also putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak, I am taking my Dell OptiPlex 790 SFF computer out of storage, and upgrading it. As-is, it has an (upgraded) 2nd gen I7 CPU, and (also upgraded) 16 GB RAM This might be a fair replication of the computers many users of EAW are now using. Or maybe not. Can't help that; it's what I have on-hand, and with which to experiment. I would caution any and all computer users that using any computer configuration other than a "tower" style can seriously reduce one's possible choice of upgrade components. My SSF (Small Form Factor)-related upgrades will (hopefully) not show size (SFF) related constraints that other computer uses might encounter. I would suggest NEVER buying any sort of computer that is less than full-size "tower" type computer, in order to retain vital, future, upgrading options. In short, NEVER buy another computer that is not a full-scale Tower computer. Tower computers allow many upgrades. SFF factor computers allow very few. .l propose upgrading my stored Win 7 Pro OPSys computer with initial upgrades with a 2 Tb SSD, and also install a secondary 2 Tb SSD, as there are connections for such. The benefits of SSD vice HDD have long been settled, with the SSDs being wholly superior in every way. Granted, upgrading to SSDs is an expense, but also allows much faster access speeds. At my age, I have little time to waste. How much is your wasted time worth? Where I will be sticking my neck out a little bit is installing an Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti graphics card, which is vastly better than the Nvidia GT 730 Gfx card currently used in my Win 7 computer. The 1050I is quite on the edge as to power requirements, but I have some info that it will do, especially given the reduced power requirements of the SSDs vice the former SSDs. For those considering upgrading their computers: It's all a balancing act between how much power your Power Supply Unit (PSU) provides, how much power your GFX card draws, and how much power your CPU draws--that is taken as a whole along with the MotherBoard requirements. PSU Wattage power MUST exceed the Watteage power of the components which draw power from the PSU, with at least a 10% allowance Power supplies are often upgradeable, depending on one's computer Buy the best you can afford. Cheap PSUs run the risk of failure, or worse, a fire. I decided on a Seasonics 600W Platinum fanless unit, for another computer, and it has worked flawlessly. DO NOT cheap-out on this component. In short, have enough power to run things, with at least 10% unallocated overhead. For this budget re-vamping, I am using the OEM 240W (non-upgradeable) PSU, and hoping my Gfx card info is reliable. We'll see. I know the Nvidis GT 1030 Gfx card will work in this application, but the Nvidia GT 1059 has a LOT more capability vice the 1030. All the above said, note that I still retain the Nvidia GT 730 Gfx card, and the Nvidia GT 1030 cards as backups, in case the Nvidia 1050 card fails to work. Always nice to have backups. I'll update, as time allows. Stay tuned." I might add that my primary, Win 10 computer completely blows away the "updated" Win 7 computer. The Win 7 upgrade is just an investigation of what is possible on an older computer.

This link has some valuable info and pix, not the least of which is proper nomenclature, and descriptions of the various types, both built and planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY-7_Ohka Note that the ""Suzuka-24" (Japanese designation unknown)" variant had 2 x 2 20 mm cannon, and was purportedly used against B-29s. No idea if the pilot was supposed to ram once running out of ammo, or bail out in order to try again. Note also that this aircraft, or at least some variants, were planned to be launched from land and sea platforms, as well as the initial air-launched variant. The pix contained in the link will, I hope, prove useful.

Latest version has the canopy correct, as well as general outlines of the A/C. Any number of pix of the A/C on the web, for reference. the rocket-powered version was, IIRC, never used. Glider version was used. to indifferent effect. Initial attempts to use this A/C, launched from twin-engine Japanese bomber aircraft, were mostly failures, as the bomber was usually detected, at long range, and shot down long before the release point of the suicide A/C. Some of the initial suicide GLIDING bombs made it, and were devastating when they hit, which was seldom.

Further addition, posted elsewhere: To continue, the following is a link that is concerned with stress-testing computers: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2028882/keep-it-stable-stupid-how-to-stress-test-your-pc-hardware.html Performing such tests will reveal weak points in one's computer, and if such are present, will also suggest possible improvements. Such might be as elementary as simple wire-re-routing to provide better cooling air flow, perhaps the installation of additional fans are required, or even liquid cooling. A very basic evaluation of one's Power Supply Unit is to connect an in-line $20 "Kill-A-Watt" meter to your computer's power cord, and then run your most demanding game, with everything set to the max. If your wattage draw is no more than 90% of the max wattage output of your PSU, you should be OK. The max output wattage of your PSU will be written somewhere on it. Rely on no other figure other than what is printed on your PSU. The "Kill-A-Watt" meter is an essential tool for those who wish to know which devices use how much power, and when such power is consumed. Sometimes surprising sources of energy wastage can be discovered. The "Kill-A-Watt meter is a very useful tool.

I would add one thing, since editing of the above post is no longer allowed. It is completely understandable why many modders construct their mods to be compatible with older computers. I get that. However, such construction of mods/depictions perhaps limits users of more modern computers and Gfx cards, particularly those using greatly upgraded Win 7 computers and modern Gfx cards. Is it possible to construct mods/features to be useful to both users of legacy computers, and also be fully available to users of more modern computers? I understand that I, as a mere User, am asking the Mdders to undertake an additional burden. I also understand that there are certain, inherent limitations within the platform/coding. Still, a question un-asked is a question that will never be answered. Submitted for consideration

Well, all right! I'll tinker with it, and much obliged. To what level was the original EAW modded? I believe V1.28e was not the final iteration. I would like to have a final version of the original EAW game that is runnable on Win 10. If you can provide such, I, along with many others, would be in your debt.

I understand your interest in maintaining framerates, and believe it a very worthwhile goal. Since displaying multiple species within a given depiction would be problematic, perhaps it would be almost as effective, and far more gratifying for an aerial sim, to change the hue of a certain number of randomly-scattered trees. Is that a viable proposition? Again, I am making this suggestion, as with all other previous suggestions, on the basis of realism, and certainly NOT as a negative criticism.

Thanks for providing this valuable resource. I am currently running a V1.28e version of the game, and find it very satisfactory. I might add that on my win 7 computer, I have many versions of the EAW game, as well as variants. I collect them as they appear/ as I come across them, although I have not installed most of them; they are stored for possible future use. I suppose that this version of the EAW game is not easily played on Win 10?

Coniferous trees, I presume? Many older coniferous trees have an elevated, flat bottom because they have had their lower limbs "trimmed" by deer and other, similar, animals. The flat bottom is usually about 7 feet above the ground, as that is the limit of the deer's grazing capabilities. I don't know if that level of detail is worth portraying in an aircraft simulation, but in a ground-level sim, it would be extremely important. I note the presumably coniferous trees are all the same color. There is certainly a color variation within coniferous trees. Perhaps a few, slightly different, but appropriate hued trees, intermixed might not only be more visually interesting, but more realistic. As always, submitted for consideration.

That common-sense agreement applies to the signatories thereto. Many, perhaps all, provisions contained therein ought to pertain to ALL Modders. I am a simple User. That said, I am also a human being, with a decent sense of Right and Wrong, and can see the benefits from being aboveboard, and giving credit where credit is due.