quote:

---

> Just got Wings over Vietnam, and have been playing it.Its a good Game
> if you like Strike fighters, but it would have been better in my
> opinion if they would have just made it a add on to Strike Fighters
> instead of a stand alone version. That way you get more planes and
> terrain and campaigns in Strike Fighters. I would love to Fly to F-8
> in Strike Fighters or the F-104 in WOV, my two most favriot planes.
> Speaking of wich anybody know how you would get the F-104 from SF into
> WOV. I tried copy and pasting the F-104 folder from one game to
> another but it didnt work?
>
> Thanks
> Lyle.

quote:

---

> Some other poster here got me thinking recently about how cool it would be
> if Maddox/1C decided to take the next step in flight sims, and move from

quote:

---

> props to Korean-era / 1950s early jets. Wouldn't that be fun?
>
>

quote:

---

> I would love to Fly to F-8
> in Strike Fighters or the F-104 in WOV, my two most favriot planes.
> Speaking of wich anybody know how you would get the F-104 from SF into
> WOV. I tried copy and pasting the F-104 folder from one game to
> another but it didnt work?

quote:

---

> You would need to use the Cat Extractor to get the model out as a lot of

quote:

---

> files aren't in the F-104G folder but in the ObjectData.cat .
> They should be pretty interchangeable.

quote:

---

> Just got Wings over Vietnam, and have been playing it.Its a good Game
> if you like Strike fighters, but it would have been better in my
> opinion if they would have just made it a add on to Strike Fighters
> instead of a stand alone version. That way you get more planes and
> terrain and campaigns in Strike Fighters. I would love to Fly to F-8
> in Strike Fighters or the F-104 in WOV, my two most favriot planes.
> Speaking of wich anybody know how you would get the F-104 from SF into
> WOV. I tried copy and pasting the F-104 folder from one game to
> another but it didnt work?
>
> Thanks
> Lyle.

quote:

---

>
> "Lyle" <lyle5653@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:seovo0t75ggv2octtucdvbsbdcgksj07gn@4ax.com...
>
>
> If they had bothered to model the bomb delivery systems on the A-6 it
> would be a must have for me. But since they didn't I will give it a miss
> since I can get everything it adds for free.
>

quote:

---

>
> "rob" <roball@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:L80kd.103$944.5835@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> And to make matter worse, the carrier OPS that was so highly touted by the
> fanbois is nothing more than a small little airfield on the water that
> doesn't move and it is totally devoid of life. No cables are visible even.
>
>

quote:

---

> Just got Wings over Vietnam, and have been playing it.Its a good Game
> if you like Strike fighters, but it would have been better in my
> opinion if they would have just made it a add on to Strike Fighters
> instead of a stand alone version. That way you get more planes and
> terrain and campaigns in Strike Fighters. I would love to Fly to F-8
> in Strike Fighters or the F-104 in WOV, my two most favriot planes.
> Speaking of wich anybody know how you would get the F-104 from SF into
> WOV. I tried copy and pasting the F-104 folder from one game to
> another but it didnt work?
>
> Thanks
> Lyle.

quote:

---

> "Lyle" <lyle5653@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:seovo0t75ggv2octtucdvbsbdcgksj07gn@4ax.com...

quote:

---

> Some other poster here got me thinking recently about how cool it would be
> if Maddox/1C decided to take the next step in flight sims, and move from

quote:

---

> props to Korean-era / 1950s early jets. Wouldn't that be fun?
>
>

quote:

---

>
> Just on a whim, I decided to revisit SF last night and fly a quick

quote:

---

> I chose to fly the F4 on a shipping interdiction/destroy mission in a

quote:

---

> map (the only choice). It was one of the most boring missions I've ever
> flew (and this includes Pacific missions in PF). 20 minutes of sterile
> flying along the coast and then over water, following the convenient
> airborne waypoint triangles that were dangled in front of me, with
> absolutely no defense. No plane intercepts, no missiles, no AAA, nothing.
> And the flight model was so forgiving that I could literally take my hands
> off the stick, reach into my cooler for a beer, open it, take a swig and

quote:

---

> it back down with *no* change in heading, altitude, or anything. By the
> time I got to the target I took two passes on the ship (conveneintly lit

quote:

---

> with a red marker on the water) and then quit.
>
> Did I mention I did all this with no in-game sound? For some reason the
> sound was porked last night.
>
> You know, I've got something of an interest in early jets, and this sim
> could be so much more if it only presented a configurable realism level

quote:

---

> modeled some more complex aspects of flight than the arcade physics it's
> already got. The graphics, while not stunning, are passable. The game
> supports TrackIR, which is good. But it's so *boring* that I can't ever

quote:

---

> myself putting the time into it like I do with IL2-FB/AEP/PF. It's too

quote:

---

> because IL2 for me has been a srpingboard to learn all about WW2 (with an
> emphasis on planes, of course). I'd like to have an excuse to push my
> interest to the next era in history, but SF certainly isn't the sim that's
> going to do that for me.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cmqlh0$csr$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> <snip>
> mission.
> desert
nothing.[vbcol=seagreen]
hands[vbcol=seagreen]
> set
> up
> that
> see
> bad,
an[vbcol=seagreen]
that's[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> For some reason I don't recall this game (Strike Fighters). I had to look
> it up.
>
> http://www.metacritic.com/games/pla...ghtersproject1/
>
> The overall score is a little low, but I do see where they released two
> service packs & a F-4J Phantom II Add-on.
> http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/stri.../downloads.html
>
> James, did you play it with the two service packs? I might get it, cause

quote:

---

> wouldn't mind being able to fly and still reach over for a cold beer every
> now and then.
>
>
>

quote:

---

>
> Yeah, I've got the patches applied. It's still a really boring sim, and

quote:

---

> only reason I don't delete it from my hard drive is because it's pretty
> small. It's a real bummer that it never met its potential.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> Just on a whim, I decided to revisit SF last night and fly a quick

quote:

---

> I chose to fly the F4 on a shipping interdiction/destroy mission in a

quote:

---

> map (the only choice).

quote:

---

> flew (and this includes Pacific missions in PF). 20 minutes of sterile
> flying along the coast and then over water, following the convenient
> airborne waypoint triangles that were dangled in front of me, with
> absolutely no defense. No plane intercepts, no missiles, no AAA, nothing.
> And the flight model was so forgiving that I could literally take my hands
> off the stick, reach into my cooler for a beer, open it, take a swig and

quote:

---

> it back down with *no* change in heading, altitude, or anything. By the
> time I got to the target I took two passes on the ship (conveneintly lit

quote:

---

> with a red marker on the water) and then quit.

quote:

---

> , I've got something of an interest in early jets, and this sim
> could be so much more if it only presented a configurable realism level

quote:

---

> modeled some more complex aspects of flight than the arcade physics it's
> already got. The graphics, while not stunning, are passable. The game
> supports TrackIR, which is good. But it's so *boring* that I can't ever

quote:

---

> myself putting the time into it like I do with IL2-FB/AEP/PF. It's too

quote:

---

> because IL2 for me has been a srpingboard to learn all about WW2 (with an
> emphasis on planes, of course). I'd like to have an excuse to push my
> interest to the next era in history, but SF certainly isn't the sim that's
> going to do that for me.

quote:

---

>
> So many ingredients go into making a computer game. And sometimes the
> developers forget the most important one: is it fun?
>

quote:

---

> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cmqsmc$hna$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> snip
> the
>
> So many ingredients go into making a computer game. And sometimes the
> developers forget the most important one: is it fun?

quote:

---

>The fact
> that WoV is being marketed as a brand-new sim is just a crying shame,
> since the community pretty much already built everything in this "new"
> sim except that static CV.

quote:

---

>
> "Scharmers" <scharmers@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ec399479.0411091648.20a856ef@posting.google.com...
>
> Actually, they've built those too in the past.
> WoV is SF P1 with a different terrain, some different aircraft & different
> missions but it is an improvement over the original.
> I don't know who is marketing it as a brand new sim (currently unavailable
> in retail in Europe) but TK has never said that.
>
>

quote:

---

> BTW, it was marketed as a brand new sim, which is why they have a totally
> new website for it, iow, there is only a link to it off the main thirdwire
> site.
>

quote:

---

>
> "BUFF" <NOSPAM@HERE.COM> wrote in message
> news:G4ekd.96$zi5.56@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> BTW, it was marketed as a brand new sim, which is why they have a totally new
> website for it, iow, there is only a link to it off the main thirdwire site.
>

quote:

---

>
> "CustomPC" <spc@home.com> wrote in message
> news:y%ekd.25147$LU3.15404@fe11.usenetserver.com...
>
> Third Wire are not responsible for marketing - that website is run by the
> publisher & having had a quick look there is actually nothing on it that
> says it is a new sim.
> However, as I am in Europe I don't know what US game magazines etc. are
> advertising it as.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cmoonf$55l$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> <snip>
>
be[vbcol=seagreen]
> WW2
>
> Actually, if they would jump to WWI, Korean, Nam, and then to modern day.
>
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "BUFF" <NOSPAM@HERE.COM> wrote in message
> news:38fkd.102$zi5.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
totally[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So, then you do require SF to play it , iow , you are saying it is an

quote:

---

>
> NO, you are wrong. It is a new sim, it is not an addon. It was marketed

quote:

---

> way.
>
> BTW, does the site say it ISN'T a new sim.
>
> BTW, it only says "developed by the makers or EAW and SF". It doesn'

quote:

---

> are relation to SF as far as coding, engine etc goes.
>

quote:

---

>
> "CustomPC" <spc@home.com> wrote in message
> news:FSfkd.39064$3i3.1888@fe56.usenetserver.com...
> totally
> the
> addon.
> that
> mention
>
> Is PF a "new" sim - I would say not but it is marketed as such.
> Worse if you have AEP you pay a full game price ($65 rrp in the UK ) for
> what should have been an addon - I doubt that WoV will be that price ($24.99
> at Fry's I believe).
>
> & as I have said Thirdwire aren't responsible for the marketing & I don't
> know (other than the website) how it is being presented by the publisher.
> I do know that TK doesn't view it as a new sim.
>
> Oh & in case any body is interested Sp3 for SF P1 has just been released & a
> patch for WoV to bring it up to the same code level .
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote in message
> news:Gk9kd.45668$tL5.6924@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Personally, I find the air to air side a lot of fun.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cmqlh0$csr$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> mission.
> desert
>
> The only stock choice - there are a no. of terrains (Europe, Alaska,
> Madagascar etc.) available from the community as downloads.
>

quote:

---

> It was one of the most boring missions I've ever
nothing.[vbcol=seagreen]
hands[vbcol=seagreen]
> set
> up
>
> Given that you had the screen indicators on which settings were you using
> for flight model, targeting , HUD etc.?
> They can all be switched off if you don't want them. In fact the game is

quote:

---

> its very nature very configurable if you care to spend some time.

quote:

---

> SF actually has fairly complicated flight modelling but a deliberate

quote:

---

> was taken to stay away from the extremes of the envelope as it was always
> designed to be a mid-level fun sim rather than the replacement for Falcon

quote:

---

> People who have flown the F-4, F-104, & A-4 in real life have all said

quote:

---

> essentially they are well represented (apart from at the extremes). A
> serving AV-8 pilot even said that the community addon for that (which
> definitely fakes the vtol side) said that even that has a fair element of
> truth in it.
> You should see further improvements in Sp3.

quote:

---

>
> Still each to their own - even though I religiously buy Oleg's releases I
> just can't get into them.
>

quote:

---

> Actually, I would like a sim based on the "forgotten" theatre. The Med,
> including Malta, North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Dynamix got started

quote:

---

> their Desert Aces, but unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere. Think of the
> fun you could have flying "Faith", "Hope", and "Charity". Oleg already

quote:

---

> most, if not all, of the planes available. I guess the hard part would be
> maps, missions, and campaigns. But it sure would look gorgeous with that
> new engine. :-)
> Silvertip

quote:

---

> Just got Wings over Vietnam, and have been playing it.Its a good Game
> if you like Strike fighters, but it would have been better in my
> opinion if they would have just made it a add on to Strike Fighters
> instead of a stand alone version. That way you get more planes and
> terrain and campaigns in Strike Fighters. I would love to Fly to F-8
> in Strike Fighters or the F-104 in WOV, my two most favriot planes.
> Speaking of wich anybody know how you would get the F-104 from SF into
> WOV. I tried copy and pasting the F-104 folder from one game to
> another but it didnt work?
>
> Thanks
> Lyle.

quote:

---

>When is SP3 slated to release?

quote:

---

<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Hey - how's that band of IL2 Nazi's doin? <G>
>
> As for SFP1 SP3, go here to get it, released 11/5/04
>
> http://www.thirdwire.com/projects/p1/rt_patch.htm
>
> Enjoy!
> Icer

quote:

---

> What's a good site for this community? (Please don't say SimHQ!)

quote:

---

> perhaps?

quote:

---

> I didn't immediately see in the setup screens where these things could be
> configured. I'm a big fan of manual navigation (i.e. navigation by sight,
> or dead reckoning). I don't need a line telling me where to go in a map,

quote:

---

> airborne triangles to aim at.

quote:

---

> When is SP3 slated to release?