RIBob

Mark, you will never know how much benefit to the EAW sim your Site has made. There are uncounted people playing the Sim that we will never hear from on forums like this one (and other Forums) that are playing the Sim thanks to your painstaking creation of your Help Site. If I had not stumbled across your Help Site, I could have never begun to play the EAW Sim. That's a fact. Your helpful instructions about how to set-up the game in modern computers made all the difference in the world to me, and I'm sure, many, many others. I regret that these many EAW players who owe you a debt--as do all EAW simmers--have not taken the time to thank you. May I thank you, on my behalf, at least? Just my own opinion, but if EAW is still alive, it is mostly due to your efforts to help it along. Sure, there are Modders who do this and that, but your Help Site provides the means for people just encountering the game, or perhaps wanting to re-experience the game having found their old CD, a way to do so. Mark, IMHO, the real reason why EAW is not extinct is because of your efforts, and your Help Site. Thank you so much for helping me, long ago. I'm sure you will continue to be helpful to newbies like me. I think that other people should be forthcoming in their thanks to you. I >>hope<<, they will do so; you definitely are deserving of public acknowledgement of your contribution to EAW. All I can say, personally, is Thanks!

None of us are getting any younger. When--not if-- the two people who know how to use these Editors pass away, then the ability to describe how they are used passes with them. The extinction of such knowledge does the community great harm.

That's exactly the sprit in which all of my suggestions are intended to be considered! I certainly know that you, and others, have a fair amount on your respective plates, and I don't expect any of you to even consider dropping long-running projects to work on my suggestions. OTOH, if such suggestions (assuming they are found both practical, and historically worthy), can be incorporated into an upcoming project, that would be nice for the EAW sim as a whole, I think.

Bombers carry Bombs. Bombs explode; usually when they hit the ground/target, but sometimes otherwise. For instance, is there a feature in EAW where a fully--or even partially bomb-laden-- bomber takes a heavy flak round to the remaining bombs in the bomb bay of the aircraft, causing the aircraft to explode? I don't know if even an Armor-Piercing, Incendiary or Tracer heavy bullet (similar to .50 cal) would penetrate a bomb and cause it to explode, but aircraft-fired explosive cannon shells might, and certainly heavy flak rounds could be expected to do the trick. Naturally, the more-or-less instantaneous explosion of all or most of a bomber's load would be catastrophic, and might well take out other nearby aircraft, or at least damage them to some degree. Is this feature available in EAW?

Thank you for the concise, yet full, explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to do so. I assume "TMod" is simply shorthand for "Terrain Modification"? Somewhere, in the dim past, and perhaps in another location altogether, I suggested that the first use of a "shorthand" term, or abbreviation be immediately proceeded by a complete spelling of the term, followed by its' contraction (in parens) so that the term would be instantly understood even by people such as myself who are not used to using it. You--and others-- have every right to be proud of your efforts, and products.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you are saying in above quoted remarks. Perhaps translating your previous remarks into more easily-understood language would be to your benefit.

As to whether or not this thread ought to be locked,; that depends. On most Forums with which I am familiar (many), if the Original Poster (me, in this thread) asks the Forum Mod to lock the thread, that is universally done as a courtesy to the OP. I do not know if that is the custom here, but even if not, I think it a custom worthwhile considering adoption . I hope that I will not need to ask the Forum Mod to lock this thread, but I will certainly do so if contentious comments continue to appear.

I don't pretend to believe any single one of my suggestions for modifying EAW is particularly valuable in itself.--although some have already been enacted. All of my suggestions are intended to provoke some thought amongst those people capable of modifying the game., and to the Game's benefit overall. Perhaps some of my suggestions will provide "food for thought" amongst such people. Perhaps answers to such suggestions, while immediately being thought "impossible" might cause some further consideration, with unaccountable consequences. It appears that a "landing" scenario of 262s is very difficult to achieve, as is currently thought. That's too bad, as such a historical scenario would be very interesting, as described above. However, if it's not feasible, then so be it. I have a lot of confidence in those who are capable of modifying the game to think outside the box, as they have done in the past, and to incorporate wild suggestions, like mine, eventually. Will take some time, and a lot of thought. However, since you all have already demonstrated a willingness to devote a lot of time and thought to your existing creations, what's a little more? Particularly if it makes the sim better? Sure, it's easy for a mere user like me to suggest what is impossible/difficult. I get it. But without people like me asking for the "Impossible", how can we find the limits of the "Possible"? I have a lot of faith in your creativity; perhaps more than you do yourselves.

As is my usual intent, my suggestions are intended to cause those folks who understand the EAW sim, and who are capable of modifying it, to sit back, after reading my suggestion, and perhaps wonder if it is feasible. If so, and my suggestion being an advancement of the sim, then how to accomplish it? Whether they do so is up to them. I propose; they dispose. I seldom make suggestions that are frivolous, or wildly impractical. Even my "King Kong" scenario, proposed on another forum, is not that wildly impractical, except that a skilled animator would be required to implement it. I might add that such a scenario would be attractive to potential users of the EAW game. I think we can all agree that augmenting the number of users of the advanced versions of the game would be a good idea. I know some of my suggestions are almost impossible to implement, but maybe not. What seems impossible at first might not be so after a little thought--or after some discussion. I know that I, personally, have had instances where I have been pondering a difficult problem whose solution suddenly appeared to me. Particularly after putting aside the "impossible" problem, and deliberately NOT thinking about it. Some of my best work is done by my subconscious mind. More to the point, my suggestions might provoke others to uncover unexplored realms of the sim whose exploration might provide unexpected dividends. The unasked question is never answered.

I would certainly also enjoy the experience, as I am addicted to learning things as I get older in order to forestall or prevent senescence. I would also being tutored by others. There seems to be room, for fair-minded people, for many approaches to the same subject. As I say, I am learning, and no expert. I am glad that I can learn from all of the Modders, and enjoy their products.

Before this thread is inevitably locked, allow me to reiterate the suggestion for modifying the hitbubble to distinguish between fully/partially laden bombers whose bomb loads are detonated by either Flak and/or enemy cannon fire delivered by aircraft, and bombers whose bomb load has been dropped. At present, I lack the time to learn new, involved skills. Simple as that; I have a lot on my plate. However, if circumstances change, I will let you know. I have never set a challenging, but realistic,goal, and failed to achieve it.

I have no doubt whatsoever that actually modifying the game itself is a very painstaking and lengthy task. However, I speak as a user who is (mostly) uninvolved with that end of things. I certainly do appreciate the labor that you, and others, have put into their products. If it means anything, I know a little about computer programming, Assembly language being my personal favorite. I can make an educated guess at the amount of time and effort that goes into even what appears to be a simple change. That said (and this has been mentioned before) despite my ignorance of modifying the game itself, I occasionally propose suggestions for changing or possibly improving the game. This is done not to create difficulties or dissention, but in an attempt to stimulate discussion, and to see, perhaps, if the suggestion is actually workable, possibly without a tremendous amount of time and effort. After all, discussion of reasonable suggestions might provoke some thought amongst those capable of implementing the suggestions. An solution to a particular suggestion might not be immediately apparent, but over time, an answer might become visible. In some cases, the suggestion may seem to not be worth the effort. In some cases, it may well be possible to implement the suggestion relatively simply. In any event, the unasked question is never answered. Please allow me to reiterate my sincere thanks (and I'm certain that I speak for many others) for the work that you, and others, have done-- and are doing-- to improve EAW.

I understand that this is not possible with legacy mods. Please make this elemental point of doing do in the future. The quality, and explicitness of the 'README" ad installation instructions of your Mods have a GREAT DEAL with their being adopted, and their subsequent reviews. If possible, please revise your contributions so that possible downloaders are prevented from making mistakes. Thank you for your Mods, but thanks also for supplying adequate instructions and so helping people to install them properly. We can ALL benefit from this, bit only the Modders can provide reasonable Instructions for their creations.

Is it possible to control the emplacement of AAA guns directly? In other words, can the player select where and what types will be located? I mention this in relation to a 262 landing/takeoff scenario (outlined above) in that the AAA guns would presumably have been sited in addition to the airbase proper, in areas outside the airbase in order to deter Allied aircraft from attacking 262s on their landing approach, and just after takeoff. Naturally, such locations would have light and medium caliber flak guns, heavy caliber flak being inappropriate for such a task. Perhaps it might be possible to site particular (ground) AAA/flak units in such locations. Naturally, I have no idea if this is possible but perhaps it is not impossible. After all, if one can control the type/density/ROF/accuracy of AAA fire, it seems not unreasonable to be able to control where such fire might originate.

That's an interesting--and clever-- way to go about it, and as regards my original suggestion in first post, I will take 1/3 of a loaf instead of nothing at all. Some experimentation will need to be done so that it can be determined if the 262s behaved as they did in real life or not. That aspect will be of critical importance to the realism of the scenario. As I understand it, the Allies discovered that the 262s were highly vulnerable on take off and landing, so they detailed certain numbers of fighters to catch them whilst doing so. The Germans attempted to counter this by running CAPs of piston engine fighters around the 262 bases to interfere with the Allied planes trying to attack the 262s in their most vulnerable state. Naturally, the ground-based AAA was strengthened considerably, possibly beyond that which was usually encountered at other air bases. So, perhaps what can be accomplished in order to to approach a 2/3 loaf of my scenario posted above would be to overfly a base of piston-engine fighters en route to the 262 base, have the piston engine fighters trail after the Allied attackers, and attack them while they are attacking the 262 base. It's a pity that a 262 landing scenario is not in the offing, as in that instance, they were throttling back with flaps/gear down, whereas in takeoff, they were throttling up, albeit with flaps and gear deployed. There are other important differences, too. In landing, the aircraft has to line up with the runway sooner or later, whilst immediately after takeoff, the aircraft can diverge from the runway axis fairly quickly. Presumably, in a take-off scenario, the 262s became more rapidly able to defend themselves than in a landing scenario. Put conversely, during landing, the 262s became vulnerable sooner, and longer. We will have to see how accurate the flight model is for the 262, particularly at low speeds, and whether or not the very slow throttle movement required by the 262 engines is depicted accurately. Is there any way to modify the FM of the AI 262 aircraft, particularly at low speeds, or perhaps for a certain time period after it has spawned and subsequent to its' taking off? That might be a 'work-around'. Any way to replicate the notoriously slow rate of engine speed increase/decrease? If it is not possible to manipulate the FM of the slow-flying 262, would it be possible to "dumb down" the AI of the 262 pilot (NOT the piston engine fighter pilots), at least temporarily? As an historical side-note, one of the delays in fielding the 262 was caused by the necessity to slowly rev up the engines to max before take-off. The original tail-dragger version would set the asphalt runway on fire, or at least melt it before the engines reached sufficient power (revs) for take-off; the concrete runways would be scorched. Indeed, photo-recon pix of early 262 testing airfields showed such "burned/melted/scorched" spots, and alerted analysts that something was up. As an aside, I can say that abrupt manipulation of the throttles of a Horten aircraft (same engines as in the 262) in IL-2 1946 game will definitely cause one or both engines to catch fire. Also, can the AAA fire at the 262 base be controlled by the gamer? One would presume that AAA would be unusually dense around such bases. Might be nice if the AAA could be dialed up or down. At any rate, thank you very much for looking into this matter. I certainly do appreciate it, and perhaps the recognition of this feature latent within the game will cause other people to come forth with other interesting scenarios. I wonder what other features within the game await future exploitation.

I suppose I am being dense, but could you provide a link to the Beta file that you are offering? Much obliged!

So, it would seem that at least part of the puzzle is in place. The question is: Are the other necessary pieces also there? For example, if coming sufficiently near an air base will "trigger" a scramble of aircraft from that base (or any others nearby), will the AI command the scrambled aircraft to attack the intruders who will remain nearby while beating up the base? Given what I know at this point, and that is probably not enough, then a possible way to re-create a scenario like the one I originally proposed is to have the intruders overfly a base with piston-engine aircraft on their way to the Me 262 base. If the base for the German piston-engine aircraft is sufficiently far from the 262 base, the German aircraft will have enough time to gain altitude (not much is needed) and hopefully attack the intruders trying to kill the 262s just taking off. It would be nice to have in-the-air Germans trying to interdict the intruders when the 262s were attempting to land, but perhaps that is asking too much. So, is the aforementioned scenario a possibility?

Like you, I don't know if this proposed scenario is possible to accomplish in any existing platform, or at least platforms that have not been specifically designed to do so. It's just a proposal, and intended to see if anyone knows if it is possible. It's unknown if anyone has attempted this type of scenario before, but someone, somewhere, must have designed a game one of whose scenarios was a "beat-up" of an enemy air base. With that in hand, perhaps some flying aircraft could be AI controlled, partly piston-engine "covering" fighters, and partly landing/taking off 262s. For that matter, the AI could control the attacking aircraft, and the player control one of the defending aircraft, or even one of the 262s. So, perhaps it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that the abovementioned scenario could be constructed.

I typically run EAW using D3d Wrapper, and set resolution within the wrapper to figures for H x W slightly less than 1080 X 1920; native resolution of my monitor is 1080 x 1920. Doing so allows as much of the sim as possible within the window within which it plays. The outside edges of the window are the inside edges of my monitor. I use the windowed setting (in wrapper) because I can toggle a frame rate meter, showing effects of various add-ons which I install/delete via JSGME, which is embedded within that particular version of EAW (my "test" version), and which has an effect only on that particular game. I mention all this for the benefit of others who may be unfamiliar with the particular wrapper, the JSGME, or both. In addition, I use the nGlide program to obtain the horizon haze. You, obviously a more experienced EAW player, probably have a different set-up, not to mention a better computer. I plan to obtain a vastly better computer at some point in the future, wherein a Virtual Machine will reside, and on which I can experiment with various forms of TrackIR. the latter is currently impossible with my current graphics card, and there are none that I know of that are better and that will fit within the small form computer that I'm currently using. In the meantime, I would be obliged if you would offer constructive criticism of what I have so far. As you can tell from my comments in this and other threads, I am quite new at all this flight sim stuff, not to mention EAW.

The question is, I suppose, what benefits does DVVoodoo and the shader program mentioned above confer? Like you, I am using V1.28e, but probably without many/most of the mods you have installed into your version. If you would go into much greater detail about the mods you have selected for your V1.28e, being very specific about the individual mods, and where they can be obtained, I'd be much obliged. That said, I am always willing --no, eager-- to investigate methods that will enhance my EAW sim, and possibly other sims as well. I did install a "Widescreen Fix" into a version of Crimson Skies, and the "Fix" certainly enhanced the visual aspect of the sim. Perhaps this is possible with judicial application of similar "fixes" to other games. Currently running an old Dell OptiPlex 760 with Core Two Duo processor, Win 7x64, RAM maxed put at 8GB, and Nvidea 710 graphics card. Surprisingly, this rig will play IL-2 Stormovik with all video/graphics options maxxed out, so it is not as bad as it first appears.

That certainly does look nice! I'll need to look into the ground/terrain mods, at least, and thanks for the suggestions about the settings for the graphics card. I am using nGlide to get the horizon mist, and it looks very much like that I see in your screen shots.

I can get the games to run on my Win 7x64 system, bit no sound. I also cannot get the official upgrade to "Antietam" called "South Mountain" to play, as the battle pack (upgrade) keeps asking for the game disk. Now that's odd, because the "Antietam" game on which it is installed plays fine with no disk whatsoever--although with no sound. Can someone help me, or direct me to people or forums where such help might be available? I'd be much obliged!

I'm having a very difficult time getting Jane's LB2 to run on Win 7x64. I can get to the main screen, but most of the selectable choices (buildings on the screen) are somehow disabled, except for the main building and the bunkroom, where pilot selection is made. I got rid of the weird psychedelic screens by using D3W Windower (wrapper) program, but I'm stuck at this point. Any advice would be much appreciated. RIBob

And a Happy new Year to all of you as well!

That's a nice Christmas present for the community. Thanks!