Here is my skin for Ira Kepford's Corsair. I am not quite finished, but when I am I will post the JPEG of the skin here. Hope you like it.

Art

PS: Quoted from 1918 Forum ... <S> to all respectfully:


HELLO FOLKS!

New player here, but I've been into and used SF since the days of SF2000!

I have another solution to the "dead end" game that is everyone's concern. It is perhaps not kosher to talk about another company's product, so I will not mention its name ... But WHAT IF all the major (and minor) online users of SF would decide en masse to migrate?

1. It is a warbird combat flight sim game though it has a steeper learning curve and is definately not "arcade-style".

2. It is Macintosh compatible (OSX) and it is supported by an active phpBB online forum. It has been supportive of Mac and as far as I know has always been Mac compatible as well as PC.

3. Upgrades are always (though slowly) being made. In fact, currently they are working on a NEW graphics engine that will improve the game in many ways.

4. Offline play is completely FREE (absolutely no 5 minute limit).

5. Offline airplane artwork can be customized in any way (you can make your planes with pink or yellow polka-dots or skull-n-crossbones) and the graphics are also 1024x1024. I use PhotoShop exclusively to create skin files.

6. There are LOTS more types of planes, including jets, bombers and tanks. DC3 and JU52 planes drop paratroops. Tanks fire machine guns and turrets rotate and fire.

7. There is a World War I component and LOTS of 1914-1918 planes, including bombers and Zeps.

Oh, well! I think it would be a good idea to try another MAC combat flight sim game. The quality is very good, the models are excellent ... but of course you have to learn new keyboard commands, etc.

Art

See Bentley's comments here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27&start=30
"it's probably the closest we'll ever get to another SF."

I've never played Warbirds and it's been a long time since I looked at it. If I remember correctly, I chose SF over it because: A) SF had more of a balance between realism and playability, and B) SF didn't charge for online play while with WB I think you have to sign up for a service.

With SF essentially dead we do need to see if there's something else we can agree on. Could you provide more details on similarities and differences between SF and WB?

similarities:
-customizable skins
-customizable sounds (provided your audio editor can go low to 8-bit)
-varying levels of AI skill
-full mission builder
-its settings can make the experience quite real or just plain fun

differences:
WB:
-realistic shadows (look at the Rise Of Flight shadows to get an idea), which i admit need some working because they dont quite line up sometimes but overall add a really nice sense of depth
-more planes, bombers, tanks and even AAA guns
-3 modes for flight realism (easy, relaxed realism, full realism).
-If you play on 1172x768 (or whatev) + the image is stretched and gives everything a pancaked looks
-the 3D modelling (including cockpits) is much more advanced
-the physics model needs tweaking as a) a Gotha G. IV shouldnt be able to turn with an albatros D.V and b) Wildcats shouldnt be able to outturn spitifres and Mc 202's. but those are the only major performance issues i can think of
-paying for online flight (annoying)
-supports many players simultaneously

SF:
-free online
-easy to use - WB can be a bit tedious to set up and tweak to your liking
-easy to customize - in WB you have to have 8-bit sounds fr replacement sounds, and 8-bit is completely obsolete, also the skin files are a .vfc (which i have absolutely no knowledge on) or a 2-part (wings and fuse are separate files) targa file.

since i havent been online in WB i dont know what the experience is like, although im assuming its more like IL-2 with massive numbers of players, the sheer size will seem a bit alien since SF has been a small communtiy

i have been debating which to get. WB looks like it is "newer" but reading the reviews gives me some concern. especially the ones on amazon. with SF my big concern is i just updated everything to snow leopard!! i would play and could get a few more probably if i knew i could get it to work decently...

the other thing i was looking at was ww2 online..battlegroup europe...but again a monthy cost.

Just a reminder to add to your pros/cons list. WB has totally FREE offline play.
I know that online is what it's all about, but just wanted to add those 2 cents worth.

Art

PS: go here to see comments from a newbie WB player about the game:
http://forum.totalsims.com/viewtopic.php?t=10093

also, here to read (a FIRST for me) tech help from the OWNER/CREATOR of Warbirds
usually hard to get this busy guy in the forum -- WOW!
http://forum2.totalsims.com/viewtopic.php?t=10097
except that this is help for a PC problem.

With Warbirds is there any ability to limit/select the people you're playing with online, or are you basically jumping in with everyone else who's chosen the particular era/area of combat as you?

ask the guys in their forum...

but i suspect you can form a Squadron and fly with your buddies.

art

i'm not an online player -- that's why I can't answer you.

instantaneous turn performance is roughly a function of the wing loading of the aircraft which is equal to the Weight divided by the wing area (W/S). So it is possible that the gotha could turn with the albatros and most certainly possible that the little wildcat could out turn later models of the Spitfire (MK IX on). Don't hate the wildcat....its cute Probably the simplest warbird once could own - the Landing gear is hand cranked and flaps are pneumatic.

I mean more of a sustained TnB fight, the airspeed of the Gotha and (maybe) the wildcat would drop off more than that of and Albatros and Spitfire while in a sustained almost-about-to-stall turning fight

My Skyfighters program doesn't load any more, since I don't have any reg. number.

Therefore, I have not been able to fly or finish the Kepford skin. It is 98% done.

So, now I will upload it here in case any of you want to use it.

Art