New commer with some questions

[UnknownPilot 33]

Well... either way, regarding that info, what I was looking for was to keep that of my own aircraft, and eliminate that of the target, but that level of granularity doesn't seem to be present. The waypoint and target indicators are independent of Alt+d, so those tweaks do need to be done in the ini file.

 

Regarding Track IR.... no way.

 

I really don't like the idea of infrared blasting me in the face (and eyes) for hours on end. Plus, I also don't like the idea of turning my head a few degrees to look over my shoulder, or, turning my head one way while looking back the opposite way with my eyes so that I can control the view and still see the screen.

 

If I had a full dome projection, or a good head mounted display, then PL wouldn't be as necessary. (although, in leiu of either proper visibility distances or IL2 style icons, PL would probably still be necessary to tell you something is there when you SHOULD be able to see it, but can't because of the rendering engine)

 

Regarding these planes being different than what I'm used to.... that is not the issue here at all. And I did rather well in LOMAC if I do say so myself. lol (and yes, I still got down and dirty and knife fought at every opportunity)

[toonces 4]

Dude, I'm not sure what you're talking about. TrackIR is the most significant thing to happen to flight simming since...well, since RAM I suppose. It's that good.

 

I mean, to each their own, but seriously, if you have the $$$ this should be your very next purchase. It's so intuitive that you don't even realize you're moving your head. You just sort of do what comes naturally and your gaze follows the target on the screen. It's not how you (apparently) think it is.

 

How many negative feedbacks have you read about TrackIR?

[+EricJ 3,944]

Its probably personal taste versus the actual benefits TrackIR gives. I can vouch for that personally as I've known it's been out for a couple years, but haven't gotten around to getting it. Sure it is a great help, but honestly I'm surviving fine without it so there's not much negativity, its just some people are used to one way and don't feel the need to buy it.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Well... either way, regarding that info, what I was looking for was to keep that of my own aircraft, and eliminate that of the target, but that level of granularity doesn't seem to be present. The waypoint and target indicators are independent of Alt+d, so those tweaks do need to be done in the ini file.

 

Regarding Track IR.... no way.

 

I really don't like the idea of infrared blasting me in the face (and eyes) for hours on end. Plus, I also don't like the idea of turning my head a few degrees to look over my shoulder, or, turning my head one way while looking back the opposite way with my eyes so that I can control the view and still see the screen.

 

If I had a full dome projection, or a good head mounted display, then PL wouldn't be as necessary. (although, in leiu of either proper visibility distances or IL2 style icons, PL would probably still be necessary to tell you something is there when you SHOULD be able to see it, but can't because of the rendering engine)

 

Regarding these planes being different than what I'm used to.... that is not the issue here at all. And I did rather well in LOMAC if I do say so myself. lol (and yes, I still got down and dirty and knife fought at every opportunity)

 

 

Well each to their own but seriously people who have them wont fly without one ever again - takes a bit of getting used to but well worth it to keep looking at your opponent - something you cant do otherwise.

 

What source do you have the IR light is dangerous? all i have found is this on wiki: "The power output of these LEDs is about 500 times lower than the ANSI safe limit for extended exposure (more than 16 minutes)[3] so is no more harmful than ambient light".

 

 

Ive never played LOMAC but have played Falcon 4 for years so am familiar with modern air combat - that is using reliable radars with lookdown capability and firing off missiles with a good chance of success - and the things turn forever even though turn fights are not best advised. None of these things are really there in most of the 60 - 80s jets.

You will find your self changing tactics and ways of fighting quite a bit even during that 20 year period depending on jet and weapons available.

[Romflyer 25]

Its probably personal taste versus the actual benefits TrackIR gives. I can vouch for that personally as I've known it's been out for a couple years, but haven't gotten around to getting it. Sure it is a great help, but honestly I'm surviving fine without it so there's not much negativity, its just some people are used to one way and don't feel the need to buy it.

 

 

From time to time the odd thread comes up where someone is using the keyboard to control their plane, and everyone else reading the thread is thinking "sure you can play the game like that, but trust me your missing out on how much better it can really be.....I could never play with a keyboard!! "...........well this kinda like that

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

Well each to their own but seriously people who have them wont fly without one ever again - takes a bit of getting used to but well worth it to keep looking at your opponent - something you cant do otherwise.

 

Compared to mouse or hat switch, I'm sure this is true. I use the microstick on my Cougar's throttle to control the view (mapped as a mouse) in every sim except LOMAC (where I use it to control target selection). That too takes some getting used to, but this was before TiR was developed, and I have become adept and smooth enough with it that I don't need PL in IL2 anymore and can also use it to smoothly pan the view while the aircraft is turning, such as on landing approach.

 

The only downsides are that you can't use it for something else (such as target selection) unless you use the shift button (on the stick), but then that also means you can't use that shift button and another function together. Generally speaking that's really not much of a limitation though. Even hard pressed to think of a situation were it really would be a limitation. lol

 

Also you can't use 6DoF, as it's X/Y only.

 

And finally, for some reason, in SF2 it's very slow in panning around. It's a touch slow in IL2 as well, but there is an option for ramping up response speed to the mouse inside IL2 itself. Is there something I can hack/modify in SF for the same purpose? It seems to be a hardware limitation in the Cougar. I have it set to maximum mouse speed output, but my real optical Logitech "gaming" mouse it exponentially faster, with both the cursor and SF view control. So since the Cougar can't drive any faster, I would have to ramp up speed response/sensitivity inside the application (like IL2). Even if not possible, it's still livable right now, it would just really be nice to be able to do.

 

 

What source do you have the IR light is dangerous? all i have found is this on wiki: "The power output of these LEDs is about 500 times lower than the ANSI safe limit for extended exposure (more than 16 minutes)[3] so is no more harmful than ambient light".

 

No source that I can quote. And you may well be right that it's ok. But I find it a bit disturbing that it says "more than 16 minutes". Why not more than 4 hours? I don't know about you but when I fire up a simming session, I tend to find it taking up several hours at a clip.

 

Also, this is just one of my personal quirks. Just like people say that getting hammered isn't really a health risk (so long as you don't make a daily habit of it, or try to drive in that state), but I have still never done so because of health class driving home the point of liver and brain cell damage. Yeah, on rare occasions it probably doesn't happen at all, or enough to ever notice or worry about, but.... I still don't. Or how I freak out over scratches on my car or DVD box set boxes, or PC game boxes (which I keep and collect - even spend time in the store examining them to find the most flawless example... lol). Yeah, I'm weird, I know. lol

 

 

Ive never played LOMAC but have played Falcon 4 for years so am familiar with modern air combat - that is using reliable radars with lookdown capability and firing off missiles with a good chance of success - and the things turn forever even though turn fights are not best advised. None of these things are really there in most of the 60 - 80s jets.

You will find your self changing tactics and ways of fighting quite a bit even during that 20 year period depending on jet and weapons available.

 

In a Sukhoi, definitely. (I do love that 33) Even somewhat in a MiG-29 (another beautiful plane). But not so much in an Eagle. It does bleed speed pretty bad in a tight turn, and doesn't turn all that well at all. It requires one to energy fight. Which, I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do contend is essentially like fighting a 190 in a Jug, or fighting a Spit in a 190, or fighting a Ki-43 in a Warhawk, or fighting basically anything in either a Do-335 or Me-262. Speed, altitude, and overall Energy advantage must be attained, and maintained, making them fight your fight, and extending as necessary to reset.

 

Yes, there are differences in just how that is done, but boiled down, the basic theory/concept still works. :)

 

But I do see your point though. I can see some major differences in the 104 vs F4 vs F-100 vs F9F (god I love that thing - what I wouldn't give to see it with re-heat, and maybe even a little more dry thrust from an improved engine). They still get used the same way, more or less, but they react and behave differently enough that nuances must be addressed and specific tactics have to be tailored to suit. Which, btw, is AWESOME. :)

[+Dave 2,318]

F9F (god I love that thing - what I wouldn't give to see it with re-heat, and maybe even a little more dry thrust from an improved engine).

 

Didn't the F9F-6 Cougar have a burner?

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f9_9.html

 

Or water injection didnt do the same?

 

I know the straight wing version didn't though.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Didn't the F9F-6 Cougar have a burner?

 

http://home.att.net/...gher1/f9_9.html

 

Or water injection didnt do the same?

 

I know the straight wing version didn't though.

 

I'm guessing that water injection acts similarly to the boost on an ICE engine, sprayed into the supercharger's compressor, the water acted like an intercooler, cooling the intake charge, allowing it to be more dense providing better power. I'm guessing the same is true on the compressor side of an axial flow turbine.

 

But I would also guess that an afterburner would provide even more thrust. The F9F-6 and 8 didn't have an afterburning engine according to what I've read. There was an account of an F-4 Phantom that was modified with water injection to reach a speed record, so it seems that the 2 systems are compatible, but the production version just had a burner. As do most aircraft, so it seems to be a better system (would be my guess anyway).

 

Grumman always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and it sucks. The Bearcat was a world beater, just too late. The Cougar could have been outstanding with more power, but it was too early, etc. They did well with the Intruder and Tomcat at least, but I've read good things about the Tigercat too, and that was bought just as a bet hedge against the F-8, which seems to suggest that the Navy already had their mind made up, so long as the F-8 didn't totally suck balls, and once it showed that it didn't, they dropped the F11F rather than seeing where it could go. Some sources say the F-8 was a better performer, but.... slap some J-79s in the F11F and it would be a beast. But by the time they did, nobody cared anymore. Either way, the Blue Angles used them until transitioning to the F-4, so that seems to say some positive things about them.

 

Enh, but anyway..... I just think that an F9F-8 with afterburner (perhaps even a touch more dry thrust if one speculates a total engine model change rather than just a simple matter of adding injectors to the existing model), would be a great what-if, and great fun to use along side F-8s to slap MiGs around.

[+Dave 2,318]

I love the Cougar, always have but F-8's are my favorite. I eat Mig-17's and 21's in them. Energy energy energy.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I love the Cougar, always have but F-8's are my favorite. I eat Mig-17's and 21's in them. Energy energy energy.

 

 

I have found that I generally love all things Grumman, and so, they are my favorite design house.

 

The Hellcat is my favorite combat plane of WWII, and I like the Wildcat too, though the FM-2 is a mean little thing. And the Bearcat is a Hellcat on steroids and diet pills. The F7F (the Tigercat, mistakenly called the F11F Tiger that, whoops) is a beautiful twin, I like it and I'm not even a fan of twins. The Panther was kinda cool, but the Cougar was just mean.

 

Long before I ever heard of Grumman, I saw Flight of the Intruder, and ever since have been a fan of that plane.

 

Lately I've found a new appreciation for the Tomcat as well (in general, I'm not a fan of 2 seaters, but the 2 that I do really like are the Tomcat and Phantom (II)).

 

At some point I looked back and realized, "wow, all these planes I like so much are all from Grumman" lol.

 

I guess with them now being out of the plane making buisness, and some of their great potential designs being brushed aside, I just love the "what if" idea of revving them up.

 

The F9F-8 available for SF2 on this side is a real sweetheart. It can't out turn a MiG, but can hang with it a bit, especially at higher speeds, handles beatifully (if one is not comparing it to a MiG 17 directly), fairly fast, climbs well... and with a good E advantage can't be touched by a MiG (even though the MiG is technically faster and a better climber). It's actually somewhat reminiscent of an F6F-5/6 vs A6M5.

 

 

But.... yeah, the F-8 is cool too. I love that crazy articulated wing it's got. That's just wild. The AIM-9 racks are quite funky too. (funky in a cool/unusual way) And the A-7 is death from above with super long legs. The integrated cannon is nice too. That's the only downside of the Intruder. Hey, speaking of which, the FOTI edition download has a gunpod, something I didn't see listed in the Wiki of it's armaments, but I can't tell where it's shooting since it's not integrated to the site. Is there a trick or technique there? (also, would love to see a breakdown comparison/competition between the A-7 and A-6 just for interest's sake)

 

That Super Crusader is kinda ugly with the goofy mouth and long nose, but the performance was damned impressive. I heard that NASA pilots used to bounce, DF, and pwn Navy Phantom pilots until they complained enough that the Navy had to ask NASA to quit.

[+Dave 2,318]

I have found that I generally love all things Grumman, and so, they are my favorite design house.

 

The Hellcat is my favorite combat plane of WWII, and I like the Wildcat too, though the FM-2 is a mean little thing. And the Bearcat is a Hellcat on steroids and diet pills. The F7F (the Tigercat, mistakenly called the F11F Tiger that, whoops) is a beautiful twin, I like it and I'm not even a fan of twins. The Panther was kinda cool, but the Cougar was just mean.

 

Long before I ever heard of Grumman, I saw Flight of the Intruder, and ever since have been a fan of that plane.

 

Lately I've found a new appreciation for the Tomcat as well (in general, I'm not a fan of 2 seaters, but the 2 that I do really like are the Tomcat and Phantom (II)).

 

At some point I looked back and realized, "wow, all these planes I like so much are all from Grumman" lol.

 

I guess with them now being out of the plane making buisness, and some of their great potential designs being brushed aside, I just love the "what if" idea of revving them up.

 

The F9F-8 available for SF2 on this side is a real sweetheart. It can't out turn a MiG, but can hang with it a bit, especially at higher speeds, handles beatifully (if one is not comparing it to a MiG 17 directly), fairly fast, climbs well... and with a good E advantage can't be touched by a MiG (even though the MiG is technically faster and a better climber). It's actually somewhat reminiscent of an F6F-5/6 vs A6M5.

 

 

But.... yeah, the F-8 is cool too. I love that crazy articulated wing it's got. That's just wild. The AIM-9 racks are quite funky too. (funky in a cool/unusual way) And the A-7 is death from above with super long legs. The integrated cannon is nice too. That's the only downside of the Intruder. Hey, speaking of which, the FOTI edition download has a gunpod, something I didn't see listed in the Wiki of it's armaments, but I can't tell where it's shooting since it's not integrated to the site. Is there a trick or technique there? (also, would love to see a breakdown comparison/competition between the A-7 and A-6 just for interest's sake)

 

That Super Crusader is kinda ugly with the goofy mouth and long nose, but the performance was damned impressive. I heard that NASA pilots used to bounce, DF, and pwn Navy Phantom pilots until they complained enough that the Navy had to ask NASA to quit.

 

The F7F is a beast, man I would of loved to fly that bad boy. Glad Geo made one for the sim. The Super Sader was a serious contender and I heard the same stories, poor Navy didn't like getting waxed by the jet they didn't buy.

 

Here is a great online resource for aircraft facts.

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usfighters.html

 

He also states all his resources. I use all the time.

[+EricJ 3,944]

In a Sukhoi, definitely. (I do love that 33) Even somewhat in a MiG-29 (another beautiful plane). But not so much in an Eagle. It does bleed speed pretty bad in a tight turn, and doesn't turn all that well at all. It requires one to energy fight. Which, I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do contend is essentially like fighting a 190 in a Jug, or fighting a Spit in a 190, or fighting a Ki-43 in a Warhawk, or fighting basically anything in either a Do-335 or Me-262. Speed, altitude, and overall Energy advantage must be attained, and maintained, making them fight your fight, and extending as necessary to reset.

 

Agreed with the 33, you have to maintain energy in order for it to move right, but then again I've enjoyed the 33 since Flanker 2.51, and I've been a dogfight (mainly for tutorials, I prefer BVR) with an F-16. I've come out on top, but since I mainly dropped bombs, it was just Sierra Hotel for that.

[UnknownPilot 33]

USAFMTL, thanks for that link. Cool site.

 

 

Now I have a new question about the series.... I've re-read the manual and searched the forum here, but found nothing. My pilot started out as a 2nd Lieutenant, but has suddenly dropped to Ensign for no reason that I can see. At least, his record stands at 3 successes in 3 missions total, so.... does not accepting a result demote you? (had to do that a few times )

 

Or is it something to do with jumping between USAF and USN?

 

It's a bit disappointing, but also seems a bit odd to be leading a flight in a campaign as an Ensign. lol

[+EricJ 3,944]

Probably, as an Ensign in the US Navy is a 2nd Lieutenant in the USAF.

[+Dave 2,318]

^{Whatever aircraft you flew i.e. a Navy plane then it will revert to a Navy rank. Then if you jump into a USAF plane it will revert to that USAF Rank. You do not get demoted though. You just get the next branch of service's equivlant.}

 

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

I see... that makes sense. :)

 

I just noticed that it writes it differently too. When I started out, it said "Second Lieutenant", but then I switched to Navy, changed to Ensign, and earned a promotion from doing just the 4 Range Intercept missions and 2 (or 3? can't remember) successful carrier trap missions, it now says "2nd Lieutenant". Pretty neat. :)

 

I guess I should make a different pilot for USAF stuff though, rather than jumping back and forth with 1 pilot and mass accumulating all scores.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Me again. lol

 

A friend of mine is over right now, flying an A-7 (his favorite plane), and I am surfing on my laptop, and I got to thinking...

 

Is there any sort of external output in this sim-engine? For instance, some way to link in another screen, or maybe to pipe instrument output to another screen, so that I could act as his second seater (ok, the A-7 doesn't have one, but he doesn't have much stick time and it is really helpful to him, plus if he were to take an Intruder or Phantom there really is one there. lol).

 

The ideal would be to have the second cockpit modeled, or to have a duplicate of the cockpit he's in but give me independent view control. I'm guessing that level is probably not possible (but damn would it be sweet). But I know IL2 can pipe out instrument data for cockpit builders, and I thought I saw some cockpit builders here, so I'm guessing that's a little more feasible? That way I could at least watch his instruments for him. (and involve the second person as more than just a passive spectator).

 

 

Also, on a couple of missions targets have not shown up. On an anti-shipping mission there were no ships. Another time there were glorified paddle barges. And I've done a few fighter sweeps with no enemy air presence at all. (all "create mission" single missions)

 

Any idea what might be going on there?

[JDSnypes 0]

For the Aircraft visibility, you may try reading this. I think its simple and easy to edit. just backspace and ad 0, or i think he said 00 and you get extra 3-4km visibility

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7030

[MigBuster 2,861]

Planes not showing - haven't seen that in years - if there really were no enemy jets then it could be an intermittent bug - sometimes you just have to find em.

 

The ships take a while to appear with SF2 - try to arrive on target on time - if not they will eventually appear - maybe something tk needs to change.

 

If you got paddle barges - thats because the game will just choose an object of the correct type in ground objects - so you either take out the paddle barges - or maybe set their availability to RARE.

 

AFAIK there is only 1 output from the game - something you could ask TK about.

[UnknownPilot 33]

For the Aircraft visibility, you may try reading this. I think its simple and easy to edit. just backspace and ad 0, or i think he said 00 and you get extra 3-4km visibility

 

http://bbs.thirdwire....php?f=5&t=7030

 

 

Interesting find, ty!

 

I have tried this, and I can't say it's really helped too much, but I've only tried it in actual use (combat missions), so the variables are far too great in number.

 

One the one hand, a minpixelsize of 0 would seem to suggest that it will be allowed to disappear, but on the other hand, I guess it's saying once it's smaller than 1 pixel, the default setting (of 1) would cause it to just go away, whereas this change should still show it. I wonder what it does to frame rate.... (ugh - I wish I could buy a new system)

 

Also interesting is the comment that a higher res should allow things to be visible longer. Is that some aspect peculiar to TW's sim/rendering engine? I ask because I am running at 1280x960. In IL2, I run at 1024x768. And as noted, that is my comparison, where I can see a WWII prop fighter at 5Km (or more, really) distance in IL2, but can't see a comparably sized object at a mere 1.5NM in SF2:V. Now, with that in mind - some of the hardcore _gamers_ in IL2 will run at 800x600, specifically so that they can see enemy planes more quickly and easily and at greater distances. This is especially true for the full difficulty users and servers (where icons are turned off completely). I think the idea there is, as long as the plane is supposed to be visible, it will be displayed at whatever the smallest dot is, and the lower the res, the larger the dot. It can screw with depth perception, but you spot the target more easily.

 

If anyone has any further thoughts or ideas on increasing aircraft visibility distances, please step forward.