RIBob

Well, I sure do need to do some looking and studying. Oddly enough, the thoroughly re-furbished Win 98 (SE) computers, all maxxed-out with Pentium IV CPU, Max RAM, big HD, CD burner, USB capability, and so forth are more expensive than the similar Win XP Pro computers. Perhaps this due to is scarcity, or perhaps the level of refurbishment. I am not very keen on emulators, but perhaps I am missing something. At any rate, it's just an idea, and figured I'd run it up the flagpole and see if any one saluted. I appreciate further comments! I have by no means discarded this idea. As an aside, when deciding on an Opsys for such a retro computer, It seems that a choice needs to be made between Win 98 (SE being much preferred, IIRC), and Windows ME. I still have Win Me disks, but don't know if they are capable of being installed into a computer for which they were not originally intended. FWIW, I never had a problem with Win ME, although I understand some others did have such.

OK, my apologies in misnaming folder for file. Will delete the whole ini file, and proceed. Will advise, and thank you!.

No, not yet. By "no "eaw.ini" at all", do you mean delete the eaw.ini folder altogether, or to leave the folder, and delete its' contents?

ETA, the "Game Bar" feature in Win 10 is apparently set up to easily provide video "movie" captures which can then be easily posted on YouTube, for all to enjoy. Haven't tried it yet, for that purpose, but might be useful to some folks. Such a feature might be useful as a diagnostic tool; for instance, the viewer can see the problem(s) and perhaps make more informed comments where the video is posted, or in a thread to which the vid is linked. It also occurs to me that such "movies" might just make the best possible advertising for a particular creation. I understand the Modders are very busy, but if one of their friends made a good "movie" of their particular creation, it might greatly enhance the use of same.

There has been an ongoing concern with--and discussion of-- Frame rates when playing EAW and other "vintage" games. I have heard of FRAPS, but IIRC MarkEAW said the utility, while running, caused a slight loss of frame rates. Not surprising, but not desirable, either. I was looking for GPU/RAM/CPU utilities for other possible uses, and the "MSI Afterburner" utility came up well-recommended everywhere I looked. Turns out that the Afterburner utility has a great many uses, not the least of which is a Frame Rate Counter. The following link to a tutorial on how to set up the Afterburner utility contains a link to same, as well as full graphical instructions on how to set up and use the frame rate portion of it. I have no idea whether the user-selectable frame rate segment of Afterburner has any effect on frame rates, by itself. https://www.gameplayinside.com/optimize/how-to-check-your-frame-rate-and-gpu-usage-in-any-game/ Submitted for consideration and comment. RIBob

Yes, I have. The game (in Win 10) now launches, and almost instantly freezes. There is a very slight amount of initial movement of the image on the screen, maybe a frame or two, and a short squawk from the sound system, then complete freeze-up.

Do your favorite "Dummy"--not your phrase, a BIG favor, and re-phrase the above in single steps. Treat me like I am a Newbie, please. Assume nothing on my part.

Can we put the "Front End" discussion into the background for a moment? I'm having some problems installing the game into Win 10, and that problem concerns me the most, at present. After the game is successfully installed, and runs, then we can re-visit any problems with it, including the "Front End". I notice you have made some revisions to it, all improvements, and thanks for doing so. Once I have the game successfully installed on Win 10, I will use the existing front end, and give my reactions, either privately, or publicly, as you wish. Please DO NOT consider me as having anything but friendly intentions to yourself, your sim, or any other variants of the game, for that matter. I make constructive criticism, from time to time, to various Modders of the game. Not always in public. I know you have received IMs from me, and others have received IMs as well. Some suggestions are considered, some dismissed. Fair enough. I DO NOT take sides in the battles amongst devotees of one version or another of the game. I like them all, and appreciate them for what they are. Please DO NOT make the serious mistake of thinking me to be a devotee of one version of the sim over another. I am agnostic, so to speak, and want the very best for them all.

Will do. Downloading huge file from employer concerning retirement right now, so getting back with results might take some time. Stand by. And thanks for the help. Nice to see there are folks who will help out self-admitted 'dummies" like me. Might be a few more of them around; Just guessing. No offense to any Modder/Contributor, but IMHO, the single best thing to do, for the sake of the Game's future, is to concentrate on providing easily installable versions of the game that are entirely Win 10-compatible. D/L the Game file, install, and play. Only something that simple will allow the game player base to grow. I am certainly no genius, but neither am I totally inexperienced, either. I am having a few problems,installing the game into win 10. Sure, they seem surmountable--right now. Time will tell. OTOH, it's unreasonable to ask a flat-out newbie to perform file-editing in order to install ANY game. Old-timers, OK, they are used to it. Newbies, no. Just no. The vast majority of them will be unfamiliar with doing such, and will dismiss doing so as not worth their time. They will move on to another sim that does not require special knowledge to install. That's the way it IS, people. If it wasn't for Mark's EAW Help site, I would not be playing the game, and that's a certainty. Oh, and I wouldn't be playing any of the alternate versions, EITHER. Perhaps I speak for a number of other people, both on this Forum or not. I believe that this is so. As I said before, newcomers to the game will likely be unwilling to jump through hoops in order to play the sim; they will get frustrated, and go elsewhere. I mean NO offense to anyone, but just speaking my mind. I want EVERY version of the Game to be easily installable and playable by modern users on Win 10. If I may be so bold, I would ask EVERY Modder/Contributor to STOP the fine work they are currently doing, and instead re-focus their efforts on providing versions of their Game that are easily accessed by Win 10 users. We have here a situation of Modders building ever-better creations, but with a diminishing number of people able to play it. Like building a city, with no access roads. Surely the same skills that the Modders possess can be applied, for a brief time, to providing versions of the game that a computer semi-literate can download and play. Is that too much to ask to ensure the future of the game?

Can do. Will report back with results. So, just delete current contents of Ini folder--leaving the empty folder-- and run a single mission, NOT Instant combat, right? Mind you, all this is on Win 10.

Unfortunately, and this is SINCERELY said, my attempt to D/L AND install V1.60 on my win 10 computer failed, despite my following instructions to the letter. The initial download/install failed to work on my computer, sad to say. I VERY MUCH want to install V1.60 onto my modern win 10 computer, and need some help. I did notice that the dreaded "Mouse pointer" made its' appearance before the game crashed. I'd hoped I'd seen the last of that. Oddly enough, a copy of Microsoft Combat Flight Sim 2, provided to me by a Member here, installed and worked perfectly on Win 10. No telling how these old sims will work out. Same person provided me with a GTG version of V1.60, and so the failure mentioned here. I subsequently downloaded the 1.60 primary file from Jel's site, and had the identical failure to run. In any event, been playing CFS 2 for a few hours, and enjoying the retro experience. I modded the given CSF 2 game by adding in all the CSF 1 aircraft; took me all of 10 minutes to add a few dozen Aircraft into CSF 2. Unfortunately, CFS 2 does not seem to be TIR-friendly, at least at first inspection. EAW, generally speaking, is also GTG with Track IR, but being unable to play v1.60 on my Win 10 computer, I cannot comment on the important issue of V1.60 vs. TIR. Yes, I have an up-to-date version of v1.60 on my Win 7 computer. It runs well. The point is that Win 7 computers are far behind the cutting edge, and wearing-out. The future is in Win 10, and whatever new OS's might come along. That's my reason for wanting to get EAW (all versions) running in Win 10 That, and vastly upgraded CPUs, and Graphics cards. Meaning no disrespect to anyone, but if their version of the simis is inherently adverse to running on Win 10, then such should be PROMINENTLY stated prior to any downloading of files. I will consult Mark's site on concerning my difficulties.

Oh, I will still make comments from time-to time. Whether my comments are ill--received is not my problem. Everything I say is intended for the betterment of the overall sim, regardless of how it is received. I think most fair-minded people will perceive my comments as well-intentioned, and constructive. I don't really care how the others consider them. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have NO bad intentions towards anyone, or any version of the Sim.

Congrats!

It was you, but in this context, "OP" was intended to mean "Original Poster", lol. I am of an age where I no longer make light of older people. I hope that the success of your experiment will allow improvements to EAW, in general, and V1.60 as well. As always, I appreciate all your hard work.

Thanks! I appreciate your efforts!

I stand by my opinions, and reject the inaccurate categorization of my remarks as "misinformation". While v1.6 is a fine sim, it's also fair to say that it is more difficult to install than most other sims, particularly for someone with scant experience concerning installing sims--IOW, a Newbie. Be that as it may, and there is obviously room for disagreement with the above, what is less disputable is the lack of a decent Tutorial concerning how to select scenarios, select aircraft, and so forth. In other words, the user interface (Front End) could be modified slightly to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Along with slightly redesigned Front End, and a well-written tutorial for same, V1.60 would be, IMHO, vastly more attractive to most new users, and more easily played by even some experienced users. Ideally, such a tutorial on how to best use the Front End of the game would NOT be a "README" tucked-away within the game folder, but something that the User cannot possibly ignore, as well as something that most users will understand. Again, V1.6 is a fine sim, but there is no sim so wonderful that there is no room for improvement. Granted, the above is simply my personal opinion, and some will dispute it. Fair enough. Hopefully, the obviously helpful nature of my suggestions and proposed solution for some problems (as I perceive them) will be apparent to most fair-minded readers.

I saw that post. I think it's a pity that some folks who could help decline to do so. You have been asking for help for a long time, and receiving scant response. That's very unfortunate. Now, I'm still offering uneducated, unskilled, help. Just give me a goal, and point me in the right direction, and I will do what I can.

That pic looks nice. Some neighborhoods might have different roofs due to being constructed, and subsequently repaired/renovated in different time periods. A certain variance is artistically--and realistically--correct. Even the shade of the roofs can vary due to different materials being used over time and location. I commend this variable/different-shading of the same overall hue for your consideration. Roof-tile suppliers' products can be expected to vary in color over time. As to "Climbing Ivy" granted it is a simple overlay, so to speak, but If I may suggest, such might be very appropriate to certain climates, and in particular, older stone buildings. Climbing Ivy has a very nasty effect on wooden buildings, and such plant encroachment is generally avoided in such building types. Submitted in all helpfulness. RIBob

Certainly looks intricate, and time-consuming to do properly. I wonder if climbing ivy is possible? Not so sure it is native to Italy, but it sure is in England. At any rate, keep up the good work!

Added: Thanks to RWatson, downloaded today a full, latest-issue of V1.60, and plan to try it out on my win 10 computer, which is specifically set up as a gaming machine. NOT cutting edge, but not far way, either. For reference purposes, my internet speed is set at "basic" level by Cox, and I use SSDs. The 2+Gb file D/L time was approx. 20 minutes. Unfortunately, one of my favorite sims, "Crimson Skies" does not seem suitable in conjunction with TIR. This was a disappointment, but not entirely unexpected. Anyone having info on getting "CS" to run with TIR is asked to respond, and thanks in advance. Report on V1.60 in a little bit; doing some outdoors work on my Miata, and the weather stands still for no man.

I have gotten Track IR (TIR) running on various older versions of EAW, as well as the latest version of EAWPRO. I have not yet had the time to downlead the latest iteration of v1.60, and so cannot make any comments there, although I expect V1.60 to be TIR-friendly. The only important thing is, within EAW, to invert "Y" axis within the in-game selections (not the Ini). I have been using a "mouse emulator" sub-program within the main TIR game folder, but some say this is not necessary. It was a pleasant surprise to get various versions of EAW running with TIR; Some sims of similar vintage were not constructed to enable TIR, unfortunately. While certainly a newbie with regards Track IR, and with much to learn about the feature, I have come to feel it is an indispensable aid to player immersion, and to one's situational awareness once in the game. It's very nice, and entirely NATURAL to look around, when within the cockpit, and SEE things like a real pilot would see them. Be advised, that the system takes some getting-used-to. That is to be expected. Let's put it this way: Previous to TIR, and being an EAW newbie, I got, at most two enemy A/C before I either got shot down, or ran out of bullets, in the "instant combat" scenario . Not terribly impressive, to be sure. With same level of experience, can now down usually 4 enemy A/C, without any risk of being shot down, since Situational Awareness (SA) is so much enhanced. A pleasing increase in effectiveness, particularly since the TIR feature mimics the natural view/action of the pilot. No more hat switch for me. YMMV. I don't need a mapped button to return to front/cockpit view. Just get used to the feature, get used to "finding" the cockpit dashboard again--like a real pilot would, and you are GTG. YMMV. Some prefer this feature. I defer to SkyHigh for more detailed info, since he has been using such for far longer. Perhaps other people will chime in. TheTrackIR feature is available from other vendors, usually at lesser cost. Your call, and read the reviews, by all means. Disclaimer: no financial interest. The most complaints about TIR, specifically, concern the older, reflective clip that was mounted on the brim of one's baseball cap. Newer iterations from TIR, and other vendors, to be fair, have a rig with IR-illuminated LEDs that attaches to the side of one's earphone headset, or other head-rig. By all accounts, such IR-illuminated headset-mounted rigs have overcome the problems encountered with the reflective rigs. To sum: TIR is a far more natural, far more immersive, far more intuitive means of playing any sim for which it is suited. lt is VASTLY better than using the conventional hat switch, and incomparably better than using complicated key combinations to achieve similar views, then switching back. Like Night and Day, my friends. Flying without it now seems like I'm being deliberately put at a serious disadvantage. I don't fancy being a sitting bird, and I reckon you don't either. Read the reviews, decide on the various products offered, and give it a long-term tryout. It WILL take some experience for some folks, but others will take to it immediately. That's all.

I presume your last paragraph, enclosed in parentheses, pertains to FE 2, as well? The only thing of which I am certain is that many complex mods for FE1 are problematic when trying to install them into FE2. As I am a fan for both SF2 and FE2, your comments are valuable, and informative. I have some small experience in adding Mods to both games, and having done so, the (carefully selected) Mods add a great deal to both games. Comparing a fully modded version of either FE2 or SF2 to the original game is like comparing a Volkswagen Beetle to a Porsche of the same model year. With a modern computer/GFX card, all the Gfx features can be enabled, and both games are considerably enhanced by doing so. Thanks for your comments. That said, and back to the original Topic, lest we drift too far, OP has not responded, as far as I know, to my original question. Why the choice of using these files? No doubt there is a simple reason for doing so, and I am too ignorant to see it. My presumption is that these files are relatively easily obtained/Modded, offer some advantage over existing/non-existing original EAW files, and are also legitimately used. So, this question is asked out of ignorance, plain and simple. As a fan of all the games involved in this discussion, I hope that this is but the first example of such adaptations.

Perfect explanation for something that I ought to have known in the first place. Thanks.

Speaking of carriers, has anyone even created an accurate model of the "Graf Zeppelin"? This link has some (possibly inaccurate) US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) recognition drawings, and enough info is available to be able to render a fair reproduction. of the ship and its' aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin#/media/File:Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg Note that within the text Adm. Raeder was asking for purpose-built fighter aircraft in lieu of the "navalized" Bf 109s, which had landing problems enough on dry land, let alone the deck of a carrier. I'm guessing that the wider-stance FW-190, in navalized form, might not have been a candidate for such a role in the event that the GZ was used later on in the war. Perhaps the original Stukas might have also been replaced by heavily modified FW 190s as well, thus easing maintenance issues. Of course, such a carrier would be sent out with other ships, amongst them numerous destroyers, and possibly tankers and cruisers. That this was common practice at the time was well-known to the Germans, and it is also highly likely that any such vessels would have their original AA armament heavily augmented, which again, followed existing trends. Had the fortunes of war gone only a little differently, the GZ might have been used in combat. That being the case, the re-creation of a GZ carrier is changed from a "What If", near-fantasy scenario, to a alternative history scenario that could easily have been, bit did not quite come off. Submitted for discussion.

Sounds like some digging on the wayback machine is needed. I can try that, if you like. I've dug around there a little bit. If you ant, let me know what you are looking for, and I will see what I can do.