F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[UnknownPilot 33]

The "commie crates" in IL2 are quite good, not surprising as they came from a former soviet aeronautical engineer as a developer. If he had done the migs in SF, they'd probably wipe the floor with any American plane instead of accurately representing strengths and weaknesses. Just with a pure F-105D I've done very well in air to air against migs, far better than I've ever managed in a Hun and without any real adjustment in tactics.

 

I've since become a plane wh0re and will fly any plane from any nation in any time period, though I have my favorites and most of that is for evening up sides when necessary online. However, I still don't fly those damned evil red-stars. Yak3s and La7s in their grey cammo look awesome with late war white crosses on them. But if proper "side" markings are required, then ANY other allied markings would do in a pinch. lol

 

Either way, yes, if Oleg made SF2, the MiGs would be made to their design specs, while all other aircraft would be made to beat down front line status with poor mechanics on the flight line. He deftly managed to keep it within a few percent all around, but the VVS are on the high side, while the LW and USAAF and USN are on the low side. The Hellcat is pulling a damned invisible drag chute. And don't even get me started on how that fanboi's wet dream, the ugly assed over-popular hose nosed ensign eliminator, is actually EASIER to see over the nose of and land on a carrier than the Hellcat. That's just infuriatingly insane.

 

 

 

I always thought it was humorous though that the 2 (arguably) best props in the game are the F4U-1C and the Ki-84 1C.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Yes most patches make a difference because the AI gets tweaked in nearly every patch over the years I would say. I commend TK for the amount of effort he has put into the AI over the past 8 years - you need to remember that unlike IL2 (ww2) and LOMAC(Modern) TK has to cover a vast time period in SF2 of changing airframes, tactics and weapons so he has done pretty well by himself considering. And it sound like you are using the game post 1984/5 which is out of the games time period - the best Soviet missiles are the extremely pants AA-7C/D and AA-8 in the stock game - which TK no doubt has the MiGs trying to employ these within certain parameters.

 

Your AI experience will differ depending on what year you are flying (and settings) - I think that the friendly and enemy AI exhibit different behaviour and might be separate entities - buts that's logical - if we know TK the enemy is following the Soviet doctrine of GCI controlled fighting tactics - which kinda goes with the most advanced MiG being the MiG-23 with pants missiles - Although as you say there could be improvements in how the 23 fights- Once you beat its BVR Apex shot its got to get on your tail or go for slashing gun attacks which I cant imagine is that easy against F-16s anyway tbh.

 

I have noticed that the friendly AI is ok if it has good missiles - aka the AIM-9L, but take away the missiles it tries to get into a turning fight and gets slaughtered - take out a flight of F-100, F-4, F-8 (and even the F-15A in 1976 ) and they will get taken apart by MiG-17Fs or MiG-19S's with guns.

 

 

So the enemy AI is strong at turning fights(in the right frame), and head to head guns, - you may also notice that unlike years back the MiG-23 and 21 often keep high energy states, so gunning them down like ducks at a shooting range in an A-1/A-4 is thankfully less likely. Also last time I went BVR the enemy AI can render BVR SAHM shots totally useless by breaking radar locks sending the AIM-7 ballistic - this was a welcome improvement.

 

Both sets of AI are poor under ultra low level - apart from when escaping missile shots or running for it.

 

Tactically you will notice (when only poor missiles are about) that the AI will play the carrot and stick - you go chasing one MiG - but another is creeping up on your tail - I turn off the enemy jet map icons btw and they are very effective at creeping up on your tail under most situations if you dont check 6.

 

 

Now you mention evading - unlike in IL2 the MiG in the 70s has to consider missile shots from afar and might get a radar lock on it from another jet miles away - in which case needs to try to avoid that also - so this is another reason they might not seem to want to get you - I base this on how the AI reacts when you are in an F-100D in 1960 when they definitely do go out of their way to kill you.

Edited April 13, 2010 by MigBuster

[Gr.Viper 131]

Which file is that?

Ahh.. I wish I could remember. Saw it long time ago in cats of the first-gen sims. It was one of the general use inis. Contained a list of all nations with their training level.

 

The difference is, missiles here allow "head on merges" to take place as much as 5 miles apart. lol

Guns are an option. After one pass in which a Fresco almost scratched the paint job on the belly of my F-8 with its tail I said "***k it", pretended my guns jammed and headed home. Had similar epiphany after a Farmer decided he can go head on on me in the vertical. And he DID and knocked leading edge off the left wing of my F-100, after which I barely remembered to pull out of dive.

 

I always thought it was humorous though that the 2 (arguably) best props in the game are the F4U-1C and the Ki-84 1C

Well, you can't disappoint your publisher

[UnknownPilot 33]

Yes most patches make a difference because the AI gets tweaked in nearly every patch over the years I would say. I commend TK for the amount of effort he has put into the AI over the past 8 years - you need to remember that unlike IL2 (ww2) and LOMAC(Modern) TK has to cover a vast time period in SF2 of changing airframes, tactics and weapons so he has done pretty well by himself considering. And it sound like you are using the game post 1984/5 which is out of the games time period - the best Soviet missiles are the extremely pants AA-7C/D and AA-8 in the stock game - which TK no doubt has the MiGs trying to employ these within certain parameters.

 

Your AI experience will differ depending on what year you are flying (and settings) - I think that the friendly and enemy AI exhibit different behaviour and might be separate entities - buts that's logical - if we know TK the enemy is following the Soviet doctrine of GCI controlled fighting tactics - which kinda goes with the most advanced MiG being the MiG-23 with pants missiles - Although as you say there could be improvements in how the 23 fights- Once you beat its BVR Apex shot its got to get on your tail or go for slashing gun attacks which I cant imagine is that easy against F-16s anyway tbh.

 

I have noticed that the friendly AI is ok if it has good missiles - aka the AIM-9L, but take away the missiles it tries to get into a turning fight and gets slaughtered - take out a flight of F-100, F-4, F-8 (and even the F-15A in 1976 ) and they will get taken apart by MiG-17Fs or MiG-19S's with guns.

 

 

So the enemy AI is strong at turning fights, and head to head guns, - you may also notice that unlike years back the MiG-23 and 21 often keep high energy states, so gunning them down like ducks at a shooting range in an A-1/A-4 is thankfully less likely. Also last time I went BVR the enemy AI can render BVR SAHM shots totally useless by breaking radar locks sending the AIM-7 ballistic - this was a welcome improvement.

 

Both sets of AI are poor under ultra low level - apart from when escaping missile shots or running for it.

 

Tactically you will notice (when only poor missiles are about) that the AI will play the carrot and stick - you go chasing one MiG - but another is creeping up on your tail - I turn off the enemy jet map icons btw and they are very effective at creeping up on your tail under most situations if you dont check 6.

 

 

Now you mention evading - unlike in IL2 the MiG in the 70s has to consider missile shots from afar and might get a radar lock on it from another jet miles away - in which case needs to try to avoid that also - so this is another reason they might not seem to want to get you - I base this on how the AI reacts when you are in an F-100D in 1960 when they definitely do go out of their way to kill you.

 

 

 

Interesting... and good points.

 

As for myself and the era... I'm all over the place. The post '84 stuff is all about my lust for the MiG-29 and only slightly lesser lust for the Su-27. As well as playing around with some interesting what-ifs (X/F-29, F/A-24 (ancient beta unforutnately), B-1R, A-12, etc), and the occasional bit of pure curiosity (MiG-31, JAS-39 Gripen, soon to add Mirage, etc).

 

And that's also due in large part to the lack of ability to run a campaign anymore. I had been really sticking only to F-4Bs, F-100s, F-105s, F-104Cs, A-4s, and the like (if I had a better more fully functioning pit for the A-6 I'd be all over that!), etc. But one day I got curious and decided to try the F-14A (but ONLY the A lol), and after that blew my mind I needed a point of reference, so I got the F-15A. Eventually that led to me neededing the F-16A for the same reason. And after a bit of that, I had already blown the door off of what I considered to be 'modern' (even if the years technically fell in the 70s), so I went looking forthe Fulcrum, and the rest is history. lol

 

I should add that I've had the same lack of threat from the AI when I've flown F9F Cougars, F-11F Tigers, F4D Skyrays, and even got easy kills in my A-4 campaign (check the DiD thread, it got to the point where I imagined I'd be getting chewed out for going after fighters so often lol ). Ditto in the Thud, just treat it like a 190D9 with a little extra weight and lot more power, and the Frescos weren't hard to beat. Heck, in basically all of my DiD campaign attempts, it was always AAA or SAMs that did me in. And after having done 1 F-4B campaign where I was scoring sick numbers by always taking a gun pod (and dealing with the encumberance penalty), I decided on my next one to forego it and go with just the Navy loadout, willingly handicapping myself in order to bring down the kill score to at least a more reasonable (if not outright reasonable), level.

 

 

And I think that is partly why I've been in modern stuff so much lately too - as you said, with better missiles they become more potent. Ditto with better airframes. So when they are in a Flanker or Falcon they are actually interesting. Also had a wild fight in Foxhounds against Tomcats - I forgot to change the Air Force and went up as soviets ( :::: shudder :::: ) and the game put me up against USAF Tomcats (lol "USAF Tomcats"... that still makes me chuckel ), and they slaughtered us. But I think the poor missiles combined with the 31's poor agility pretty much made that inevitable.

 

Ahh.. I wish I could remember. Saw it long time ago in cats of the first-gen sims. It was one of the general use inis. Contained a list of all nations with their training level.

 

Would that be the same place to add air forces? I notice that currently, post iron curtain fall, while it includes all the former soviet states as their own entities, it does not include the Russian Air Force - only the soviet air force. I'd like to change that. Not that I mind Ukranian markings, but still, it would make more sense to see the list changed.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Ahh.. I wish I could remember. Saw it long time ago in cats of the first-gen sims. It was one of the general use inis. Contained a list of all nations with their training level.

 

 

 

Nations.ini

[MigBuster 2,884]

Interesting... and good points.

 

As for myself and the era... I'm all over the place. The post '84 stuff is all about my lust for the MiG-29 and only slightly lesser lust for the Su-27. As well as playing around with some interesting what-ifs (X/F-29, F/A-24 (ancient beta unforutnately), B-1R, A-12, etc), and the occasional bit of pure curiosity (MiG-31, JAS-39 Gripen, soon to add Mirage, etc).

 

And that's also due in large part to the lack of ability to run a campaign anymore. I had been really sticking only to F-4Bs, F-100s, F-105s, F-104Cs, A-4s, and the like (if I had a better more fully functioning pit for the A-6 I'd be all over that!), etc. But one day I got curious and decided to try the F-14A (but ONLY the A lol), and after that blew my mind I needed a point of reference, so I got the F-15A. Eventually that led to me neededing the F-16A for the same reason. And after a bit of that, I had already blown the door off of what I considered to be 'modern' (even if the years technically fell in the 70s), so I went looking forthe Fulcrum, and the rest is history. lol

 

I should add that I've had the same lack of threat from the AI when I've flown F9F Cougars, F-11F Tigers, F4D Skyrays, and even got easy kills in my A-4 campaign (check the DiD thread, it got to the point where I imagined I'd be getting chewed out for going after fighters so often lol ). Ditto in the Thud, just treat it like a 190D9 with a little extra weight and lot more power, and the Frescos weren't hard to beat. Heck, in basically all of my DiD campaign attempts, it was always AAA or SAMs that did me in. And after having done 1 F-4B campaign where I was scoring sick numbers by always taking a gun pod (and dealing with the encumberance penalty), I decided on my next one to forego it and go with just the Navy loadout, willingly handicapping myself in order to bring down the kill score to at least a more reasonable (if not outright reasonable), level.

 

 

And I think that is partly why I've been in modern stuff so much lately too - as you said, with better missiles they become more potent. Ditto with better airframes. So when they are in a Flanker or Falcon they are actually interesting. Also had a wild fight in Foxhounds against Tomcats - I forgot to change the Air Force and went up as soviets ( :::: shudder :::: ) and the game put me up against USAF Tomcats (lol "USAF Tomcats"... that still makes me chuckel ), and they slaughtered us. But I think the poor missiles combined with the 31's poor agility pretty much made that inevitable.

 

 

 

Okay youve hit the nail on the head - I mention the Enemy is good in a turning fight - it is against the freindly AI or if you are in a stock jet ( F-100, F-4, Mirage) and try to follow them. However in an A-4 or the SF2 F-11A that I redid you will beat them in a turning fight - might be another reason the F-5 hasnt made a TW debut yet.

 

One measure and why I agree the AI needs to be better here - is that Ive flown the A-4 against the MiG-17 Frescos A and F online in WOI 2008 - and A-4 is in practise dead every time against an experienced human pilot.

 

Your Foxhound story reminds me of the time I tried a few MiG-25PDS missions in WOI armed with AA-6s - came up against a flight of F-4s at med/low level - and the slaughter was enevitable - ended up running for it but couldnt get high enough quick enough so they ran me down!

 

I still maintain that the enemy AI in SF2V seems a lot less potent on average than SF2/SF2I in my experience - but the AAA was always lethal. Now the SAMs have been toned down abit the combo of poor Migs + lethal AAA is about right - but again if you ever used YAP the AAA was a lot more lethal in that

 

Going missiles only in an F-4B - now thats what I'm talking about

 

All my modern combat is done in Falcon 4 btw another reason I like the earlier periods.

Edited April 13, 2010 by MigBuster

[UnknownPilot 33]

Okay youve hit the nail on the head - I mention the Enemy is good in a turning fight - it is against the freindly AI or if you are in a stock jet ( F-100, F-4, Mirage) and try to follow them. However in an A-4 or the SF2 F-11A that I redid you will beat them in a turning fight - might be another reason the F-5 hasnt made a TW debut yet.

 

But aren't the stock planes just undermodeled? Seems to be the case with the Phantoms and Crusaders (though even the MF Crusaders still don't seem able to turn with the Frescoes and Farmers).

 

The F-5 is in my install... is that part of the Expansion Pack 2.0? I don't really remember. It's a good little fighter too, but not spectacular either.

 

 

One measure and why I agree the AI needs to be better here - is that Ive flown the A-4 against the MiG-17 Frescos A and F online in WOI 2008 - and A-4 is in practise dead every time against an experienced human pilot.

 

Has there ever been any effort at making AI-only editions of the various planes, designed to get the most out of the AI? Granted, you can only go so far in that direction, and you'll be likely giving them more power, turning ability, etc, than they ought to have, but done within reason, I would think should wake them up a bit. (maybe.... )

 

 

I still maintain that the enemy AI in SF2V seems a lot less potent on average than SF2/SF2I in my experience - but the AAA was always lethal. Now the SAMs have been toned down abit the combo of poor Migs + lethal AAA is about right - but again if you ever used YAP the AAA was a lot more lethal in that

 

Hmm... the AAA already seems WAY too deadly. It makes it impossible to survive a campiagn without pure luck on your side. And I mean to the point where virtually nobody flying up north would ever have returned home (unless they had their first flights at the end of the campaigns), were reality like this.

 

At some point, I do plan on having a full merged install. But since they stack in release date, if I got say just SF2, and then added my :V on top of it, wouldn't that then re-neuter the AI?

 

Going missiles only in an F-4B - now thats what I'm talking about

 

All my modern combat is done in Falcon 4 btw another reason I like the earlier periods.

 

Missiles only in an F-4B is mostly frustrating because I end up with so many chances to gun them down and just can't do it. lol That's far more frustrating than missile troubles.

 

I have Falcon 4, but never installed it. Lost my taste for the modern (US) stuff before I could (long story). How are the mods in that? Are they like LOMAC (mere palette swaps), or are they like in SF (complete new aircraft, done with TMF levels of accuacy and care)?

[MigBuster 2,884]

But aren't the stock planes just undermodeled? Seems to be the case with the Phantoms and Crusaders (though even the MF Crusaders still don't seem able to turn with the Frescoes and Farmers).

 

The F-5 is in my install... is that part of the Expansion Pack 2.0? I don't really remember. It's a good little fighter too, but not spectacular either.

 

 

They handle differently depending on the game settings but TK does seem to model these things from the energy charts and manuals he has - he uses examples whenever its queried on his forums. There are a few old posts on here from ex F-4 pilots that give there opinion on it. I don't think the F-8 was as agile as the 17/19 - another energy fighter from what I gather.

 

There is no Thirdwire F-5 of any version- but it was the only US jet fighter of that period that could turn with the 17 - well according to the have drill/doughnut papers.

 

 

 

 

Has there ever been any effort at making AI-only editions of the various planes, designed to get the most out of the AI? Granted, you can only go so far in that direction, and you'll be likely giving them more power, turning ability, etc, than they ought to have, but done within reason, I would think should wake them up a bit. (maybe.... )

 

 

There have been AI versions of jets in the long distance past - there was an uber AI mod to help the AI a bit also - but its not really relevant for the later better AI - and bottom line needs someone with the skills to do it.

 

Hmm... the AAA already seems WAY too deadly. It makes it impossible to survive a campiagn without pure luck on your side. And I mean to the point where virtually nobody flying up north would ever have returned home (unless they had their first flights at the end of the campaigns), were reality like this.

 

Its not too bad - dont fly slow and level at low level - the AI comes in level at 350kts so will be hit every time. The real thing was very lethal so I would expect YAP to be near the mark - well from a vet F-4 pilots point of view since since he tested it all.

 

 

At some point, I do plan on having a full merged install. But since they stack in release date, if I got say just SF2, and then added my :V on top of it, wouldn't that then re-neuter the AI?

 

Don't know - I am running the games as 4 separate installs at the mo.

 

 

 

Missiles only in an F-4B is mostly frustrating because I end up with so many chances to gun them down and just can't do it. lol That's far more frustrating than missile troubles.

 

Just like the real F-4 pilots did then I guess!

 

 

I have Falcon 4, but never installed it. Lost my taste for the modern (US) stuff before I could (long story). How are the mods in that? Are they like LOMAC (mere palette swaps), or are they like in SF (complete new aircraft, done with TMF levels of accuacy and care)?

 

I have the official 2005 F4:Allied Force version which is very limited in mods to pits, skins and terrain which are either exes, but the skins are not as easy to put in.

 

All the modding is done in the unofficial versions which I dont have "Free Falcon 4/5" and "Open Falcon" which work over the Original Falcon 4.0

Edited April 13, 2010 by MigBuster

[squid 21]

Well, here you got it. It wouldn´t look like anything at all. Maybe void, air, wind, supersonic fart...

 

 

This forum is hilarious :P

[exhausted 55]

Part of the struggle of making the A-105 (which it should really have been called) a fighter would be giving it a powerful enough engine with lower fuel consumption. This plane couldn't have strolled into N. Vietnam escorting B-52s with two ridiculously huge drop tanks, only to tangle and burn the rest of it's meager fuel supply. The kills the F-105 got almost always lead to nearly empty tanks.

 

The F-105 might have been able to serve as an effective fighter if the following conditions were met:

- Larger wings for low speed (below 300 kts) handling and larger fuel load

- More fuel efficient engine

Edited April 14, 2010 by exhausted

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Fuel efficient...

 

How about high altitude, like replacement for original F-101A, before F-110 arrives.

 

AIM-9B works miracles up high.

[UnknownPilot 33]

They handle differently depending on the game settings but TK does seem to model these things from the energy charts and manuals he has - he uses examples whenever its queried on his forums. There are a few old posts on here from ex F-4 pilots that give there opinion on it. I don't think the F-8 was as agile as the 17/19 - another energy fighter from what I gather.

 

Interesting. A Phantom driver in the Air Combat forum in the Military and Aviation forum here said that the stock F-4B was woefully undermodeled in turn performance (but that all were too fast on the deck). Others have vouched for the MF flight models over stock as well (and generally they are more lively than stock, particularly the F-8).

 

 

 

Its not too bad - dont fly slow and level at low level - the AI comes in level at 350kts so will be hit every time. The real thing was very lethal so I would expect YAP to be near the mark - well from a vet F-4 pilots point of view since since he tested it all.

 

I never fly slow and level if I can help it, and I try hugging the deck and using terrain to hide behind, but even with that, just trying to survive Rolling Thunder has proven utterly impossible. I have lost something like 10 pilots (starting from the beginning again) and never made it more than I think 15 missions. On averate, it's about 8. Now, if reality was that you'd only survive 8 missions... then like I said, we wouldn't have any vets. ....at all.

 

 

 

I have the official 2005 F4:Allied Force version which is very limited in mods to pits, skins and terrain which are either exes, but the skins are not as easy to put in.

 

All the modding is done in the unofficial versions which I dont have "Free Falcon 4/5" and "Open Falcon" which work over the Original Falcon 4.0

 

Ah. I remember hearing about a leak of the F4 code leading to an unofficial re-write/expansion, but not about a new official version. What planes are in the official version? Do you know much about the unofficial mods? Basically I'm looking for more than just F-16s, and then, more than just palette swaps like in LOMAC (where they give you a new 3-D model, but it's actually an F-15 or Su-27 or whatever they've swapped models with, it just looks like something else).

[Gr.Viper 131]

Now, if reality was that you'd only survive 8 missions... then like I said, we wouldn't have any vets. ....at all.

You're flying a sim with simplified damage modeling and limited control over wingmen. Can't use A-6 as group high altitude CCIP either. So you're spending more time low and alone with ground targets on a plane that's not protected against machine guns.

[UnknownPilot 33]

You're flying a sim with simplified damage modeling and limited control over wingmen. Can't use A-6 as group high altitude CCIP either. So you're spending more time low and alone with ground targets on a plane that's not protected against machine guns.

 

 

Right, but the end result is that, in essence, the flak is too deadly. There will always be limitations in simulations, but the idea is to recreate the overall experience, and work around those limitations, whether that is padlock views, or enemy icons (to deal with visibility and FoV limitations), or toning down AAA accuracy, volume, damage, or some combination of the above.

[column5 63]

Well this was more about building an true fighter out of the base F-105 design. Like a reverse of how the A-7 Corsair II is obviously related to the F-8 Crusader

 

One thing to consider about this statement is that while the F-8 and A-7 look similar, there is almost zero parts commonality between them. The aesthetic similarity was enough for the Navy to let them slip by the VAX requirement that the new aircraft be based on an existing design, and actually gave them a significant advantage over their competitors--the North American proposal was based on the thoroughly outdated Fury and Grumman's single-seat A-6 development would have been too expensive.

[column5 63]

But aren't the stock planes just undermodeled? Seems to be the case with the Phantoms and Crusaders (though even the MF Crusaders still don't seem able to turn with the Frescoes and Farmers).

 

Based on all of the sources availble to me, I designed the TMF Crusader flight model to be slightly inferior in turn performance to the MiG-17, but better than the stock models. As someone above pointed out, the F-8 is really an energy fighter, it just happened to be more agile than just about all of its contemporaries.

 

I like to apply the same rule of thumb that the US Navy did: when simulating Soviet tactics, they used the F-5 to represent the MiG-21 and the A-4 to simulate the MiG-17. Since we have more data available to us on those aircraft, it allows for an easier comparison when working on a flight model.

[column5 63]

One measure and why I agree the AI needs to be better here - is that Ive flown the A-4 against the MiG-17 Frescos A and F online in WOI 2008 - and A-4 is in practise dead every time against an experienced human pilot.

 

The A-4 is significantly undermodeled in the game. In real life it could reach transsonic speeds in a shallow dive and maintain that energy fairly well, especially the aircraft with the 408A engine.

[UnknownPilot 33]

One thing to consider about this statement is that while the F-8 and A-7 look similar, there is almost zero parts commonality between them. The aesthetic similarity was enough for the Navy to let them slip by the VAX requirement that the new aircraft be based on an existing design, and actually gave them a significant advantage over their competitors--the North American proposal was based on the thoroughly outdated Fury and Grumman's single-seat A-6 development would have been too expensive.

 

A single seat A-6?!

 

 

That would be an awesome what-if to add to the stable. (too bad I can't mod for crap lol)

 

 

 

Regarding your FMs, I didn't know your process, but was saying that while they ARE more agile than stock, it's not like they are turned into UFOs or something, because they aren't able to out-turn the migs (a good thing).

 

Any chance on the MF doing an F-4B?

[+malibu43 142]

Right, but the end result is that, in essence, the flak is too deadly. There will always be limitations in simulations, but the idea is to recreate the overall experience, and work around those limitations, whether that is padlock views, or enemy icons (to deal with visibility and FoV limitations), or toning down AAA accuracy, volume, damage, or some combination of the above.

 

I'm not sure how this relates the original topic, so maybe I'm missing the point of this statement. But, anyway, if you're referring to the flak in the SF2V expansion pack, it was tuned up a lot to make it more deadly, since most of the stock AAA is laughable. The expansion pack comes with 3 levels of "deadliness" (stock, deadly, suicidal), so if you're having a hard time, make sure you're using the least deadly files.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I'm not sure how this relates the original topic, so maybe I'm missing the point of this statement. But, anyway, if you're referring to the flak in the SF2V expansion pack, it was tuned up a lot to make it more deadly, since most of the stock AAA is laughable. The expansion pack comes with 3 levels of "deadliness" (stock, deadly, suicidal), so if you're having a hard time, make sure you're using the least deadly files.

 

It doesn't... directly. But if you read the whole thread you'll see how the conversation flowed.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Interesting. A Phantom driver in the Air Combat forum in the Military and Aviation forum here said that the stock F-4B was woefully undermodeled in turn performance (but that all were too fast on the deck). Others have vouched for the MF flight models over stock as well (and generally they are more lively than stock, particularly the F-8).

fhjh

 

Yes Wagsled has put up a few posts and has put some figures down that better represents his experience which are very useful.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/topic/27934-phantom-tactics-some-thoughts/

 

http://forum.combatace.com/topic/27931-phantom-tactics/

 

See C5s reply regarding the F-8

 

 

I never fly slow and level if I can help it, and I try hugging the deck and using terrain to hide behind, but even with that, just trying to survive Rolling Thunder has proven utterly impossible. I have lost something like 10 pilots (starting from the beginning again) and never made it more than I think 15 missions. On averate, it's about 8. Now, if reality was that you'd only survive 8 missions... then like I said, we wouldn't have any vets. ....at all.

 

SA-2Fs used to be the main issue for me(but are better now) - rarely get hit at low level by AAA with the stock game.

You will lose a lot wingies - especially now with later patches they disobey orders to return to formation and do their own thing.

Limit the amount you take - I do recces alone, and rarely take more then 1 wingy on a bomb run - the rest of you flight wont bomb - and if you send them off fighting you generally lose them.

 

 

 

Ah. I remember hearing about a leak of the F4 code leading to an unofficial re-write/expansion, but not about a new official version. What planes are in the official version? Do you know much about the unofficial mods? Basically I'm looking for more than just F-16s, and then, more than just palette swaps like in LOMAC (where they give you a new 3-D model, but it's actually an F-15 or Su-27 or whatever they've swapped models with, it just looks like something else).

 

Falcon 4: Allied force has been around since 2005 - its standalone and the most stable for online multiplay and you can buy it still from most places online - but its F-16s only to get the best from it.

 

You could try FF or OF as you already have the original F4.0 - FF has some truly stunning pits for other jets in the game.

 

Not sure how stable FF/OF currently are - and beware Falcon has a pretty steep learning curve.

[Gr.Viper 131]

SA-2Fs used to be the main issue for me(but are better now) - rarely get hit at low level by AAA with the stock game.

The SAMs are severely undermodeled, so is flak. Firing patterns are off, launches are weird, no tricks are used, warheads are wrong, sites are fixed, no FC radars for AAA etc etc... A realistic air defence setup in SF2V would mean you sweat from the moment you enter the North to the moment you leave.

 

Funny how so many things are undermodeled but we all play it.

[squid 21]

free falcon multiplayer is hugely bugy and unstable. Open Falcon multiplayer is stable.

 

the most modable sim right now, or to say moding friendly, or even better, built to be moded, is SF. Falcon family maze is joke graphics and incompatibilities with new OSes. But teaches you the F-16 and RL combat aviation like no sim out there yet. LO/FC kindof stands in the middle in all aspects except graphics where it still holds 1st place

[UnknownPilot 33]

The SAMs are severely undermodeled, so is flak. Firing patterns are off, launches are weird, no tricks are used, warheads are wrong, sites are fixed, no FC radars for AAA etc etc... A realistic air defence setup in SF2V would mean you sweat from the moment you enter the North to the moment you leave.

 

Funny how so many things are undermodeled but we all play it.

 

I thought you could link the radar for guns and SAMs in SF2? I am sure I've seen stuff about that in regards to mission building and how taking out 1 radar won't necessarily take out a site as it may be linked to another.

 

Mobile can be modded in. To what extent I don't know for sure, I just know that it was an option in the Expansion Pack 2.0 install, but I removed it as the frame rate was too poor and the flak simply too dangerous.

 

As for sweating.... I don't, only because I know each time I go up, there's a 90% chance that some random hit will take me out, no matter what I do - no matter how many people I take with me, or how fast I move, or how low I fly, or how careful I am about ingress and egress, or how many (or few) passes I make, or what i'm flying.... it just doesn't matter. And actually, flying G/A actually is safer than A2A, because at least in the former you down in it and can fly around things, undert SAMs and use hills and so on. A2A you have to be up high were everything can shoot at you, and of course they never lock on or shoot at their own.

 

Technically, I'm sure you are correct, each individual piece may be undermodeled, but it's a flight/air combat sim, not a SAM/AAA sim. The goal of a simulation is to recreate the experience - whether Apollo crews training, or us computer jocks having a bit of fun. And to that end, not every little tiny detail needs to be done to 100% fidelity. You need to look at the overal mix and adjust accordingly. I still maintain that even using the lightest AAA/SAM options from EP2.0 it's sill too deadly, simply because it's a guarenteed death sentence. It's just a matter of time, how long can your pure luck hold out.

 

And SEAD missions.... ugh, forget it. I often cheat and leave and re-enter to generate a new mission, because those ARE death-sentences. You can't coordinate with your wing, and they seem to know who is AI and who is not and you WILL go down.

 

The only way I've found surive SEAD or generic late 60s missions is to bring the whole damn squadron with me. This way the flak is split enough that I stand a slightly increased chance of making it back. (and probably alone)

 

 

Speaking of undermodeling that leads to increased danger - I brought an F-14 back (to an airstrip) last night from my vs. Falcon test mission and got nailed by the flak on the map. I lost the right engine and right main. When I landed it dropped down and I reacted and caught it then paused and went to external. Sure enough, wheel missing. I snapped some shots and then decided to try my damndest to ride it out. I was giving rull right rudder to steer into the missing wheel (to try to rock the plane the opposite way) and slow down gently and hold that wing up as long as possible, but as soon as it touched.... BOOM! I exploded like a 1000lb'er went off. lol

 

 

Ah well. It's still great fun. But it's good to talk about limits, not as complaining, but as a means to highlight them so that they can either be removed by the dev (about as likely as forcing a mule to drink), or worked around by the modders.

[UnknownPilot 33]

free falcon multiplayer is hugely bugy and unstable. Open Falcon multiplayer is stable.

 

the most modable sim right now, or to say moding friendly, or even better, built to be moded, is SF. Falcon family maze is joke graphics and incompatibilities with new OSes. But teaches you the F-16 and RL combat aviation like no sim out there yet. LO/FC kindof stands in the middle in all aspects except graphics where it still holds 1st place

 

What do you mean by the Falcom famile maze?

 

I've heard that systems modelling has gone up in quality in LOMAC, so where would that be lesser compared to F4?