NATO fighters 5 advice

[PMIK 4]

Hi guys,

 

I've just recently started to get back into SF2 after a long hiatus.  I've just started to play NATO Fighters 5 and I'm finding the experience to be quite variable depending on which aircraft I choose (as would be expected).

 

I've tried the A-26, and while it is fun, it is a bit annoying that I have to rely on my allies for air support or get shot out of the sky.

 

I've tried a few missions in the tornado and it was a hell of a lot of fun but absolutely no challenge.  My missiles never missed and the engine is so powerful I don't even have to dogfight properly.

 

I've just now tried a couple of missions in the Venom in the 1953 campaign, and again it is just too damn easy.  I'm flying circles around the Mig-15s and shooting down hundreds.

 

 

Do you guy's know which aircraft in NATO fighters, in which campaigns, give the best challenge but still are winnable.  I should probably mention I have all difficulty options on their highest.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I guess you won't have such an easy time in 1962 with a F-106. Good luck shooting something down with its useless missiles.

 

I've always found NF campaigns to be quite well balanced. Of course, some planes are easier than others, but most of the time the skies are quite deadly.

[Antares81 16]

Unfortunately Torndado Cockpits sucks .... I'm sad for this then I don't fly whit him

[Peugeot205 2,745]

Unfortunately Torndado Cockpits sucks .... I'm sad for this then I don't fly whit him

I totally disagree with you. It is an old, but very good cockpit. 

[Streakfalcon 57]

Antares, please choose your words more wisely. Someone worked very hard on that free Tornado cockpit. The word "sucks" is a bit harsh and disrespectful. It's discouraging and hurtful in this community. A better solution would be to create your own high fedelity cockpit for us all to enjoy and then engage in a little light hearted one upsmanship.  Untill then shut the f*ck up. Thanks.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                               Yours Truly, The rest of us.

Edited April 14, 2014 by ikon71

[+Sundowner 4,837]

Antares, please choose your words more wisely. Someone worked very hard on that free Tornado cockpit. The word "sucks" is a bit harsh and disrespectful. It's discouraging and hurtful in this community. A better solution would be to create your own high fedelity cockpit for us all to enjoy and then engage in a little light hearted one upsmanship.  Untill then shut the f*ck up. Thanks.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                               Yours Truly, The rest of us.

Well said that man...

[+Gunrunner 314]

And here kids, is how you make friend with the natives.

[jeanba 1,920]

Unfortunately Torndado Cockpits sucks .... I'm sad for this then I don't fly whit him

What about this one ?

[Centurion-1 1,228]

I think if one tried to actually create a high detail cockpit from scratch with all that goes with that, one would be more appreciative of other peoples efforts. It is fiddly as hell, takes a long time, and finding good reference material is hard. 

 

Back on topic, most Nato Fighters campaigns are hard, but any bird that gives you no or very bad BVR missiles are bound to be hard. Mirage 3C and the like.

[jeanba 1,920]

 

 

Back on topic, most Nato Fighters campaigns are hard, but any bird that gives you no or very bad BVR missiles are bound to be hard. Mirage 3C and the like.

Actually, the Mirage IIIC should concentrate on CAP and intercept missions after 1975.

Same for the EE Lightning for instance 

[Viggen 644]

F-102 in the 1962 campaign.