rotton50

On steroids. Some of these have been around for a while, some are updates to old models and a couple are entire makeovers. Included are all the favs from the old LucarsArts SWOTL plus a few that were missing plus, the Allies get some much needed improvements too: Ar234 B Ar234 C Do335 A Go229 A He111 Z Me1091 Me163 B Me262 Turboprop FW190 TL Me309 A He162 A Me109 TL A-26 G F2T (P61E) MB-5 P-51 X P-55 B P-55 D P-60 C P-72 B Sea Hornet Whirlwind MK IV NA-98 X Meteor Mk III I'm also working on a couple of screens based on the originals. I still need to work on some of the flight models and proper loadouts then it will be finished. There's been a late edition to the mix as we're uncovered a very good He177 model that just needs a little tender loving care to be added to the inventory. PS - Don't forget, the "Alt E" combination will start and stop the contra-prop models rather than using the 1 and 2 engine start/stop buttons.

We do appreciate all your efforts but I don't think we need to have sub-forums, as long as all parties stay within Stratos' guidelines, that is.

Just what we've been asking for too.

In the original SPAW there is a B-25H with the 75mm cannon. At the time we were just getting into altering the code with the acquisition of the source code and we hadn't explored the gun calibers so I bodged the cannon. See, at the time there were only 4 guns possible, Light MG, Heavy MG, 20mm cannon and 30mm cannon. Through trial and error I ended up with a 75mm cannon that was actually twenty one 30mm cannons with a firing rate of 1.3. The normal firing rate for the 30mm was around 8 so you can see it was slowed way down. It worked great, taking three shots to destroy a freighter and 5 to take out a destroyer. A couple of years later, Ralf had made great strides in flight modeling and ballistics so we worked together to make heavy cannons an integral part of EAW. We ended up with 3 new cannons. Heavy (37mm to 50mm), Very Heavy ( 75mm to 88 mm) and my favorite, a 20mm revolver cannon. The last is used in some of my "what-if' 1946- 1948 scenarios since though they were in development at the end of WWII, none saw use. While the revolver cannon is basically useless in a dogfight it is the weapon of choice for bomber interception. With a firing rate of 30 (remember, cannons are more in the range of 8-10) and a high dispersion factor the bombers have a very tough time. Not long after that Ralf developed the last thing missing from the ballistics, that is, gun convergence. You can set it easily to your own preferences in the EAW.ini file. So if you have a need for some big boomers, check out the 1.6 EAW line, you won't be sorry but your adversary will.

If you all look dispassionately at the exchanges herein there has been no discrediting of anyone's work. Everything stated by Jel is correct and my questions about where to draw the line as far as what constitutes an PC that is too old to run 1.6 are cogent to the discussion. There have been no attacks on anyone's work, only requests for quantifying data and a request that innuendo NOT be used to determine the ability of a player's system to use one of the two main development branches of EAW. In a normal environment this is called healthy debate and as long as all involved remain respectful, is certainly not inflammatory. BTW, to clear up Mark's comment, my ban at SimHQ was an error, fixed with the help of two moderators. It took a couple of weeks to correct because the site Administrator is in a terminal health situation and so of course has other things on his mind. The correct ban was then enacted on the same guy who's been banned from two different EAW forums five times over a twenty year period. Also, BTW, take look over there now. A number of comments have cropped up stating how pleasant the forum has become over the past month. Much like the old days of EAW. So, Stratos, you do have a problem here but it ain't us.

Stratos, this has been civilized. There's been no heated rhetoric of any kind, far as I can tell. Certainly not on my part. My point it pretty simple. There have been claims made in multiple threads on multiple forums about the inability of the newest version of 1.6 to run on old machines. All I've done is ask for some kind of numbers to back that up. So far it's all just innuendo. FWIW, I'm not saying it's not true. The 1.6 series has a lot more going on that plain vanilla 1.2 but I know for certain that my 12 year old PC runs it just fine. So the "older machine" claims need better definition, for the greater good of the community.

All due respect, there are members here who don't not frequent SImHQ so they wouldn't know about those discussions. In addition, it would require them to search through a myriad of 8 year old posts to find out what we could tell them right here. That is, if we've actually quantified what the minimums were for EAWPro and 1.6, which, far as I know, hasn't been done. Your comments lead people astray when you insinuate that 1.6 is both complicated to use and a system hog. I can say that it is not complicated to use but I have no idea how much of a hog it is on systems older than my own. So, how about a more positive approach? One that encourages members to try out both branches of the EAW world and let them decide for themselves which works best for their enjoyment.

Of course it matters how old the machine is. Your contention is that players with "old machines" can't play EAW 1.6. My questions are how old? 386? 486? Pentium I? What operating system? Windows 3.1? Windows XP? Windows Vista? And maybe, what video card? FWIW, it is a disservice to the community to scare them away from the most advanced version of EAW based what seems to be conjecture. So, could a standard be developed that states "These are the minimum requirements"? They used to put that right on the game box in the old days. ( maybe they still do but I haven't bought a game since EAW) We could come up with something similar to that rather than a generic statement that "old machines won't run 1.6". At the very least, since we're trying to keep old players AND entice new players, the general attitude around here SHOULD be "try it and see" not a blanket statement that players won't be able to use it. Seems only fair to all involved.

How "legacy" are we talking? I run EAW 1.6 flawlessly on a 12 year old Dell with Windows Vista and a built in video card using D3DWindower. Truly, nothing fancy. FWIW, so do A LOT of other players, with units older than mine.

FWIW, we have about a gazillion......no, TWO gazillion add-ons that work flawlessly in 1.6.

Good for you for NOT noticing. Situational awareness is the name of the game.

Actually, from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn, not just at the equator. However, that would be splitting hairs, I suppose. I think a bigger problem is using shadow files that use texture elements rather than transparent elements. I always try to use transparent elements because I can make the shadows less distinct. If they're less distinct they look more realistic and the "flatness" becomes a non-issue. FWIW though, I don't spend too much time on the aircraft shadows. A basic shape that matches the plane is good enough. I mean if you're spending time admiring the shadow of your plane, you're going to get shot down.

Looking at the screenshot of the MB-3 it reminds me, I'm upgrading pretty much all the cockpits in the inventory with modified instrument panels to make them more readable. Another SimHQ member, Ribob suggested it a while back and I think it makes sense. It's taking a while to do them all but I hope to be finished in a month or so. For instance, from this: To this: I'm also adding animated landing gear and flap actuator switches or lights. Notice in shot #2 the set of four vertical red lights next to the flap warning plaque. The lights change depending on the flap position, from full up to full down. Other cockpits have a rotating handle for the flaps rather than the lights. The big silver switch to the right of the fuel gauges goes up and down for the landing gear activation. Adding these animations is a challenge to say the least but they do add a nice touch to our otherwise static cockpits. True there are some cockpits with engine on/off levers and some with gear / flap indicators but not that many. When I'm done pretty much all the cockpits will have these functions. In addition, many of the single seaters will have opening and closing hatches. That is not my invention but I've vastly increased the number that have them.

"I didn't say you're in doubt either but ''when you're in doubt'' " - That is some fine hair splitting. To be perfectly clear, declaring it isn't science doesn't make it so: "Science (from the scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world." Sums up my position nicely. So my question still stands. How could you quantify your claim? I don't know the answers but you can't say you do if you're response is "because I say so". The only way I could envision an acceptable test would be for your players to play a week? month? with as light a graphic load as possible and then play the same period with as heavy a graphic load as their machines can handle. At the end of that time do a survey to ask if they noticed any difference in AI behavior. It's not a perfect test but it might be illuminating. Or you could just walk away from this whole conversation and stick to your preconceived, and quite possibly correct, notions. If it were me, I'd want to know.

Hey, I didn't say I was in doubt, I just asked if there's way to really KNOW. It's a healthy debate, that's all. I'm not saying you are wrong but wouldn't you want to KNOW you are correct? So, input, whether measured or a group of opinions, would help confirm your claim. I mean, that's what science is all about. Someone presents a theory and then that theory has to survive the resulting questions. Despite claims from certain quarters, there is no such thing as scientific consensus.

By anecdotal, I meant can your players confirm that they see a difference in how the AI behaves when frame rates drop. It would be interesting to read what they have to say.

Here's a couple of questions: How do you know for certain that the AI behaves differently depending on frame rate? Is there a metric to measure such a thing the way FR's are measured or is it purely anecdotal?

The only plane I know of that took full advantage of the flap animations is the P-51. It was a PITA to set up but it would only take about 15 minutes to undo. Generally speaking it's a lot easier to delete elements than add them. Talk it over with your group. If they want to try some modified versions of any of my models that won't tax their older machines I'd be happy to oblige.

With the state of chip processor speed being what it is today, vis-a-vis a 20 year old flight sim, I dare say there's no worry about having enough processing capacity to handle, well, anything EAW can bring to the table. Heck, even 10 year old PC's could handle EAW requirements. What you could do would be to try a one month experiment using only hi-res models and see if you or your players notice any difference in the AI behavior. You might be able to upgrade to better quality models if you find out there's no hit to the AI performance. Wouldn't that be something? Upgraded models and all the bells and whistles of EAWPro. Just a suggestion to improve the overall satisfaction of the customer base. BTW, I forgot to add that Gurney's R/S/ checker is NOT 100% accurate. I too thought it was until I started combining left and right side tail sections as I've upgraded old models using my "empty F" process. I do this to free up one of the add-on sections to be used for some other part of the plane. Imagine my surprise when I assembled a new tail section, got a green light from the R/S checker and then had the horizontal stabilizers show through the vertical rudder. And it's happened more than once. I'm not being critical, just passing on the information.

We obviously have a different definition of serious flaws but that's neither here nor there. You have your goals and I have mine. The main point is that the most important thing in the EAW world is not the perfection of 3dz plane models. The most important thing is that players keep playing this 20 year old marvel of the flight sim world. My inventory of perfect and not so perfect models satisfies that need and keeps players interested, which keeps them coming back. FWIW, the 1.6 group has now produced an inventory of 300-400 war planes from pre WWII bi-planes to early jets, in a dozen scenarios from the Mediterranean to the South Pacific. There's also a huge selection of X-planes, some perfect some not perfect, that allow players to try their hand on experimental models. in addition, players can use preset plane packages or build their own by picking from those 400 or so planes. So if a player IS a perfectionist, he can edit out any plane that doesn't rise to that level. It's a win-win. And let's not forget, this is a combat flight sim, not a scenery sim. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but not true. SOME models have R/S element issues, hardly noticeable to downright awful. However, it is incorrect to say that nearly all models have errors. I've got plenty of perfect models flying throughout the EAW world. I have some that have minor R/S issues but they look fine too. Haven't had any complaints in 15 years. I mean, how many times while flying do you jump out and check to see if the middle axle on your bi-plane landing gear is rendering properly? Do that too often in you're going to get shot down. I mention the bi-planes because all of the originals were dreadful but I patched then up pretty well except for looking up directly under the model. I guess it's simply a case of the old German saying - "The enemy of good is perfect".