WOV Flight Models

[rlwicker1967 32]

Hello All,

I currently have the first WOV. My problem is, I can't get the fighters up to prototypical speeds. Just the other day, I was returning to base with the F-8E carrying 1 sidewinder. I took her up to FL370 and tried to go supersonic. I was able to go supersonic but nowhere near the prototypical performance as we've read in all of the accounts from the pilots. Acceleration was abysmal! I'm talking like 1 kt/sec in full AB from 345 KIAS with 4000 pounds of fuel in Hard Flight Model mode. I have the same speed issue with the Phantoms too. From all of the accounts I've read, the Phantom had an abundance of power and was able to separate from the enemy with ease in full AB. I have had problems with the F-4J not going supersonic in a dive, even without drop tanks. I can go supersonic but, nowhere near Mach 2. It's more like Mach 1.2 max and that's after over a minute in full AB. The F-100? Forget it! I haven't even seen the Mach numbers show up in the indicator, EVER. Now, I've messed with the DATA ini files before and could get the prototypical top speeds but, then I would get super-cruise. I once had a version of the Tomcat which I tinkered with to get the correct performance but, I'd rather not mess with anything. 

Has anyone else had this problem? The reason why I ask is, I'm thinking of purchasing SF2 Vietnam and the others and I don't want to spend a couple of hundred bucks if I'm going to have the same issues. I chatted with someone that had a Youtube video of SF2 flying the Phantom and I told of my difficulties getting up to speed in the Crusader. He said that it didn't seem right.  Any help would be appreciated.

 

Ps: I have downloaded DCS and it doesn't work for me. I'm not going to go through all of that and have to buy a new video card with 3 GB when I have a 1 GB card that runs WOV smooth as silk. I just want to fly the dang plane. I got really deep into Falcon 3.0 back in the day and at almost 53 years old, I don't have that patience anymore. By the time I get done with all of the startup procedures, I'd have to go pee twice. HELP! Thank You!

[MigBuster 2,884]

I don't remember tbh...........what patch version are you running ?

The flight models did change a lot over the years up to 2013..............although WOV was only updated to what 2008?

Assuming you are aware of the difference between KIAS and KTAS  you normally need to be clean to get the very top end max speeds published on web sites.

Are you timing runs here and comparing with actual manual flight test data?

 

 

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

18 hours ago, MigBuster said:

I don't remember tbh...........what patch version are you running ?

The flight models did change a lot over the years up to 2013..............although WOV was only updated to what 2008?

Assuming you are aware of the difference between KIAS and KTAS  you normally need to be clean to get the very top end max speeds published on web sites.

Are you timing runs here and comparing with actual manual flight test data?

 

 

 

I am not running a patched version. So all of our tax dollars went to interceptors that couldn't do Mach 2+ as they said? I had to climb to FL650 and dive at full AB to get to Mach 2 with just missiles. At FL360, I can only manage Mach 1.2 in full AB. Does that sound right?

[MigBuster 2,884]

2 hours ago, rlwicker1967 said:

I am not running a patched version. So all of our tax dollars went to interceptors that couldn't do Mach 2+ as they said? I had to climb to FL650 and dive at full AB to get to Mach 2 with just missiles. At FL360, I can only manage Mach 1.2 in full AB. Does that sound right?

Going back in the day the guy that did the Thirdwire models (TK) was usually right.........Aerodynamics is not exactly common sense and these were modelled for the most part from actual flight test data whereas nothing can be modelled from anecdotes from a persons memory. It might be worth emailing him or going on Twitter to ask him if you are concerned.

 

The only thing I have on the F-100D for example at 35,000ft is a level flight chart showing acceleration (Max Burner) from M0.9 to M1.35 with no pylons....which if this is correct took about 8 minutes. 

It generally gets stuck in the transonic region just before M1 because this is where you get a massive rise in drag. To get through quicker a shallow climb to 43000 ft then shallow dive will get you past that and then in level flight it will stay at that speed.

If you can dive to about M1.4 in an F-4 it will probably start going up in level flight quicker. 

I tested the DCS MiG-19P............the DCS flight models are supposed to be more accurate but that could be debated for eternity. Even at 5 degrees colder it gets stuck in the transonic region and I have to climb and dive to get to get top speed it seems.

Depends on what aircraft you refer to when you say M2...the only thing I have ever seen have a M2 intercept profile was the F-104G. The profile they had to fly was not go to altitude and sit there, it was more dive past the transonic region and then climb to high Mach with 2 AIM-9s.

Must admit in all the years playing SF I was rarely over Mach 1 because of the stores and lack of fuel to do it. Even in real Vietnam the highest recorded speed was apparently M1.6 and we are talking seconds here......for tactical use that top speed of M2+ was mostly useless. 

 

 

 

 

[Wrench 9,857]

Quote

I am not running a patched version

That's impossible. Unless you have the original 2003 release. Look in the lower left corner on the main screen; there's a month/year display. Tell us what it is.

Also, WHERE was the game obtained?

[rlwicker1967 32]

It is the original release. I believe I got it from Walmart in Clarksville, AR.  The screenshot is in the Crusader at Full Afterburner and accelerating at 1 Knot per second.

[MigBuster 2,884]

A lot of the official patches were uploaded here before they were removed from Thirdwire

 

You could try updating from 2004 to 2008 (at your own risk) 

See the README and note the system specs states over any version so should be ok maybe. 

 

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

1 hour ago, MigBuster said:

A lot of the official patches were uploaded here before they were removed from Thirdwire

 

You could try updating from 2004 to 2008 (at your own risk) 

See the README and note the system specs states over any version so should be ok maybe. 

 

 

When I do the 2008 Patch, I get extremely low framerates and it's unplayable ever since Windows 10. The first time I used the 2008 patch with Windows 7, I only had slow framerates with water texture on. So, that's why I am not using that patch. Truly amazing because I used to play on a dinky Acer laptop with integrated graphics and just 3 GB memory. The 2008 patch yields 5 fps even on low graphics settings even on this machine.

 

My System

OS Name Microsoft Windows 10 Pro
Version 10.0.18362 Build 18362
Other OS Description Not Available
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name ROBOT-PC
System Manufacturer Dell Inc.
System Model OptiPlex 3010
System Type x64-based PC
System SKU
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz, 3201 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A10, 6/6/2013
SMBIOS Version 2.7
Embedded Controller Version 255.255
BIOS Mode Legacy
BaseBoard Manufacturer Dell Inc.
BaseBoard Product 042P49
BaseBoard Version A02
Platform Role Desktop
Secure Boot State Unsupported
PCR7 Configuration Binding Not Possible
Windows Directory C:\WINDOWS
System Directory C:\WINDOWS\system32
Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume1
Locale United States
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "10.0.18362.752"
User Name Robot-PC\Robot
Time Zone Eastern Daylight Time
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 16.0 GB
Total Physical Memory 16.0 GB
Available Physical Memory 12.9 GB
Total Virtual Memory 32.0 GB
Available Virtual Memory 28.6 GB
Page File Space 16.0 GB
Page File C:\pagefile.sys
Kernel DMA Protection Off
Virtualization-based security Not enabled
Device Encryption Support Reasons for failed automatic device encryption: TPM is not usable, PCR7 binding is not supported, Hardware Security Test Interface failed and device is not Modern Standby, Un-allowed DMA capable bus/device(s) detected, TPM is not usable
Hyper-V - VM Monitor Mode Extensions Yes
Hyper-V - Second Level Address Translation Extensions Yes
Hyper-V - Virtualization Enabled in Firmware Yes
Hyper-V - Data Execution Protection Yes

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

Yes part of SF2 redesign was better support for things like multicore CPUs and DX10.

Did you try it with that DX9 enbseries mod assume it is still on here?

[Wrench 9,857]

This is a laptop with a low end video card, too, isn't it? Although that won't effect the FM. It sure will screw the graphics

By chance, did you install the game to the default location? C/ProgramFiles, etc?

Try moving the entire game folder to the ROOT of the C drive. Make a new, or edit your shortcut.

Maybe it's simply time to evolve??? Otherwise, you're just wasting time and far too much effort into trying to make something work in an environment it's not meant to.

[rlwicker1967 32]

2 minutes ago, MigBuster said:

Yes part of SF2 redesign was better support for things like multicore CPUs and DX10.

Did you try it with that DX9 enbseries mod assume it is still on here?

Yes, I'm using the enbseries and D3D9.dll

[rlwicker1967 32]

38 minutes ago, Wrench said:

This is a laptop with a low end video card, too, isn't it? Although that won't effect the FM. It sure will screw the graphics

By chance, did you install the game to the default location? C/ProgramFiles, etc?

Try moving the entire game folder to the ROOT of the C drive. Make a new, or edit your shortcut.

Maybe it's simply time to evolve??? Otherwise, you're just wasting time and far too much effort into trying to make something work in an environment it's not meant to.

This system is not a laptop. It's a Dell OptiPlex 3010  i5 3.2 GHZ Quad Core. 1 GB AMD Radeon HD 5570. I installed it in the system root folder.

Edited June 17, 2020 by rlwicker1967

[Wrench 9,857]

That's not even the Third Wire version, but the "other" publisher, Bold Games. One wonders if all the necessary internal files are there. Well, don't matter.

Way back in the day, when these first came out, there were many issues with Radeon cards. It's too bad the archives from 2004-06 are gone; might find a cure. Yes, I've been around here that long.

Well, good luck. Cause I"m out of ideas. I stand by my previous statement above. All things evolve.

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

13 hours ago, rlwicker1967 said:

This system is not a laptop. It's a Dell OptiPlex 3010  i5 3.2 GHZ Quad Core. 1 GB AMD Radeon HD 5570. I installed it in the system root folder.

Wow so that HD 5570 was released from Q1 2010 and the rest of the system having a core i5 must be more recent is it?

Actually can see the Core i5-3470 was Q2 2012 - but that actually might be okay to a degree compared to the card at least - and supports PCIE 3 according to Intel Ark.

You must be able to get a better card than that from anywhere dirt cheap.

 

Bold Games was one of the original publishers I think for WOV before everything went online......... so that is totally fine (I have a Bold DVD version also)

I was going to say you may as well wait for the Win 10 version of SF2 because that will be designed for Win 10 at least - but that card you have wont run Jack...... 

Should also say that SF2 was last updated in 2013 and doesn't work as well on modern hardware as it could.

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

1 hour ago, MigBuster said:

Wow so that HD 5570 was released from Q1 2010 and the rest of the system having a core i5 must be more recent is it?

Actually can see the Core i5-3470 was Q2 2012 - but that actually might be okay to a degree compared to the card at least - and supports PCIE 3 according to Intel Ark.

You must be able to get a better card than that from anywhere dirt cheap.

 

Bold Games was one of the original publishers I think for WOV before everything went online......... so that is totally fine (I have a Bold DVD version also)

I was going to say you may as well wait for the Win 10 version of SF2 because that will be designed for Win 10 at least - but that card you have wont run Jack...... 

Should also say that SF2 was last updated in 2013 and doesn't work as well on modern hardware as it could.

 

Thanks for that. I was thinking of getting a new video card. This one runs the plain install silky smooth and I can actually see SAM smoke now. I can run FSX on high everything including full highway traffic and water texture. It just looks amazing. 

 

I actually got this Dell computer out of a dumpster. I used to drive for Super Shuttle and when they closed the local office, they threw out everything. I looked in the dumpster and saw it. I asked the manager if it was just an empty case and his hesitation to say "It has been cleaned out and it doesn't work anymore" made me think he was lying. Well, he was lying and one of the reasons Super Shuttle failed in this area. The case was fully loaded with a hard drive and all of the files on it. Someone just tossed it.

 

I was thinking about getting SF2 Vietnam for Windows 7 and hoping it would work on 10. For some reason, I remember seeing something about getting a free patch for SF2 to update it to the Win10 version once it comes out. I must say, I was able to play with the 2008 patch up until the Windows 10 Anniversary Update. Whatever they did with that update killed it for me.

[rlwicker1967 32]

9 hours ago, Wrench said:

That's not even the Third Wire version, but the "other" publisher, Bold Games. One wonders if all the necessary internal files are there. Well, don't matter.

Way back in the day, when these first came out, there were many issues with Radeon cards. It's too bad the archives from 2004-06 are gone; might find a cure. Yes, I've been around here that long.

Well, good luck. Cause I"m out of ideas. I stand by my previous statement above. All things evolve.

 

If I can remember correctly, the case that my disc came in has Third Wire on it on the backside.

[rlwicker1967 32]

So, getting back to my main issue, I just want to know, in the SF2 Windows 7 version,  if the jets can get up to Mach speeds as we've all read in accounts about these aircraft. I've flown many simulators since 1982 Jumbo Jet Pilot. Out of all the Combat flight sims I've used, this is the only one that has given me problems with going supersonic. 

Thank you all for your input and advice. 

Ps: I have 1423 TT actual. I was a Flight Instructor CFII MEI. I had an interview with Mesaba. I was told when I got 1500 hrs, they would sign me up. However, in 1996, I was stricken with the onset of Multiple Sclerosis. My childhood dream was to fly airplanes. I was a kid that constructed model airplanes and would walk through the neighborhood making all of the sound effects so, people thought I was just that crazy kid. The other kids would want to play with me and I would say "You're not flying it right. You can't bank that much! You can't climb that steeply. " Well, my dream was destroyed but, having these flight sims keeps me sane and I really appreciate those that interact with me. Currently, I drive for a company that transports Pilots and crew to and from TPA and hotels. 

[rlwicker1967 32]

 

 

 

 

 

4

On 6/16/2020 at 12:05 PM, MigBuster said:

 

Depends on what aircraft you refer to when you say M2...the only thing I have ever seen have a M2 intercept profile was the F-104G. The profile they had to fly was not go to altitude and sit there, it was more dive past the transonic region and then climb to high Mach with 2 AIM-9s.

Must admit in all the years playing SF I was rarely over Mach 1 because of the stores and lack of fuel to do it. Even in real Vietnam the highest recorded speed was apparently M1.6 and we are talking seconds here......for tactical use that top speed of M2+ was mostly useless. 

 

 

 

 

I realize Mach 2 might be impractical but, I would expect a Fleet Defense Interceptor to be capable of the Mach 2+ dash to intercept incoming aircraft as far away from the fleet as possible.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Any intercept that requires such a thing depends entirely on the enemy being detected at a range that allows for time to get to that altitude / Speed - also the higher fuel burn can actually reduce the radius it is capable of going out to.

Next issue is can the aircraft actually hit M2 with the payload it is carrying (not always).

A given example of an F-4J deck launched intercept with 4 x AIM-7E & 1 x 600 US Gal tank (dropped when empty):

   

[rlwicker1967 32]

Well, I think I've found my happy place with this sim. I decided to tinker with the Aircraft DATA files again. I've done that before messing with aerodynamic parameters but, it was always the issue with too much speed in Military thrust because the plane was just too slick. This time I was thinking the published afterburner thrust figures could be incorrect (because duh, CLASSIFIED) or there was no modeling for the increase in exhaust velocity. Either way, I decided to work with the "SLThrustWet" parameter. Low and behold! When I took the "SLThrustDry" parameter of 52800.4 KN and doubled it to 105600.8, for the "SLThrustWet" parameter, the F-4J now performs the way it is depicted in all of the pilot reports and documentaries. All of that talk about going vertical and being able to open the distance on the enemy at will is realized. Mach 2 is absolutely attainable and the kick in the seat of the pants going into full AB is apparent. But' it's not like the crazy speed and acceleration. You can still get caught slow but, when you point the nose down to the ground, you will go supersonic. You can go vertical but, it won't be accelerating. It's just you can go vertical for a while and have to level off at about 300 KIAS. It's still wise to stay above 400 KIAS though. I just flew a sortie with the F-4C using the same technique and I was able to disengage and open up the distance with ease. Try setting your "SLThrustWet" parameter to 105600.8 and tell me what you think.

[MigBuster 2,884]

11 hours ago, rlwicker1967 said:

Well, I think I've found my happy place with this sim. I decided to tinker with the Aircraft DATA files again. I've done that before messing with aerodynamic....

LOL I think you have turned it into a UFO - Ideally you want to change the various drag coefs not just the thrust.

We used to have a few ex F-4 Vietnam vets here and there are still a few around at f-16.net if you want to ignore the only actual useful information (Flight test data) in the manuals and go from stories. Here is a quote from one of them - perhaps good idea ask him:

 

In my experience in 5 fighters, I found that the F-4 guys were the most likely to embellish their stories. Once again, no harm in it. Most of them were very colorful and charismatic.
.......

There were a number of things required to get an F-4 to Mach 2. You didn't just jettison the tanks, light the ABs and suddenly find yourself there.

First, you had to have a clean aircraft, no more on it than the fixed inboard pylons for lateral stability plus recessed AIM-7s, FCFs of course generally clean, pylons but no AIM-7s. You had 12,100 pounds of gas internally at engine start.

Second, you had to climb up in the high 40s. On the way up, other required FCF checks were done with delays at various altitudes. Now you're down to 6-7000 pounds of gas.

Third, the FCF run was a timed run from IIRC 0.8 Mach, maybe 0.85, done primarily to assure proper vari-ramp scheduling, something that operationally you would probably never need.

(You also needed a convenient FCF track profile never pointed at any densely populated area (other than bovines) to do everything so you could finish within range of home.)

Fourth, IIRC the straight-ahead run from 0.8 or 0.85 to 2.0 (if you got there at all) took somewhere around 6-8 minutes in AB depending on ambient conditions, at an average of 14-15 miles per minute, so at the end you had covered about 110ish or more nm and were down to around 3000 pounds of gas....just enough to travel the 110 or so miles back home, maybe do a touch and go to get some more numbers, and then land, check the anti-skid and drag chute and go to the bar.

The F-4 was not a Mach 2 'fighter', it was a Mach 2 capable aircraft at the outer extreme.
 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53085&p=434552#p434552

[rlwicker1967 32]

50 minutes ago, MigBuster said:

LOL I think you have turned it into a UFO - Ideally you want to change the various drag coefs not just the thrust.

We used to have a few ex F-4 Vietnam vets here and there are still a few around at f-16.net if you want to ignore the only actual useful information (Flight test data) in the manuals and go from stories. Here is a quote from one of them - perhaps good idea ask him:

 

In my experience in 5 fighters, I found that the F-4 guys were the most likely to embellish their stories. Once again, no harm in it. Most of them were very colorful and charismatic.
.......

There were a number of things required to get an F-4 to Mach 2. You didn't just jettison the tanks, light the ABs and suddenly find yourself there.

First, you had to have a clean aircraft, no more on it than the fixed inboard pylons for lateral stability plus recessed AIM-7s, FCFs of course generally clean, pylons but no AIM-7s. You had 12,100 pounds of gas internally at engine start.

Second, you had to climb up in the high 40s. On the way up, other required FCF checks were done with delays at various altitudes. Now you're down to 6-7000 pounds of gas.

Third, the FCF run was a timed run from IIRC 0.8 Mach, maybe 0.85, done primarily to assure proper vari-ramp scheduling, something that operationally you would probably never need.

(You also needed a convenient FCF track profile never pointed at any densely populated area (other than bovines) to do everything so you could finish within range of home.)

Fourth, IIRC the straight-ahead run from 0.8 or 0.85 to 2.0 (if you got there at all) took somewhere around 6-8 minutes in AB depending on ambient conditions, at an average of 14-15 miles per minute, so at the end you had covered about 110ish or more nm and were down to around 3000 pounds of gas....just enough to travel the 110 or so miles back home, maybe do a touch and go to get some more numbers, and then land, check the anti-skid and drag chute and go to the bar.

The F-4 was not a Mach 2 'fighter', it was a Mach 2 capable aircraft at the outer extreme.
 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53085&p=434552#p434552

Wow! Thanks for this info. This is what I was looking for. Now as far as the UFO thing, that's exactly what I was trying to avoid and I thought I had as it still takes quite some time to make it to Mach 2 without the tanks. Really, Mach 1.4 comes in a few minutes in level flight but it comes much faster in a medium dive. Before, I couldn't even go supersonic at all except for a steep dive when loaded. That's why I have been so frustrated. As I said before, I was trying to avoid that outrageous power and I figured going vertical from 1000 AGL @ 550 KIAS and getting to FL250 @ 275-300 KIAS sounded about right. Back to the drawing board. LOL!

So, the exploits of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, as described everywhere, being able to switch from Attack mode to Fighter mode and back is very impressive if true. 

 

One last thing. Was the Tomcat a Mach 2 aircraft or just Mach 2 capable? Thanks

[MigBuster 2,884]

23 hours ago, rlwicker1967 said:

So, the exploits of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, as described everywhere, being able to switch from Attack mode to Fighter mode and back is very impressive if true. 

One last thing. Was the Tomcat a Mach 2 aircraft or just Mach 2 capable? Thanks

Not sure because the F-16A could switch from A-A to A-G with a switch on the HOTAS in 1978............remember that if you have to switch from Attack to A-A then something has probably gone wrong which might even mean having to ditch your stores and get mission killed.

The F-105s over Nam had no such switch so the MiG-17s they shot down with guns were literally spray and pray in nearly all cases. 

 

F-14A possibly better than the F-4 as in it could go through Transonic and supersonic quicker.

Okay so if you defined Real Mach 2 Aircraft as:

• Concorde - cruised at M2 on passenger journeys.
• A-12 & SR-71 - Cruised at M3.2 on recon sorties
• MiG-25 & MiG-31 - capable of cruise at M2.4 e.g. for recon or very long distance intercept. (Top aero speed ~Mach 2.8 to Mach 3)

 

I would say the F-14A is none of the above but better than the F-4........its top speed of Mach 2+ is most likely only ever a short DASH speed NOT a cruise speed.

An Iranian Pilot claimed to accelerate (Power Up) to M2.2 while intercepting an Iraqi MiG-25 in a tail chase.

Here a high flying MiG-25 will be detected early likely giving time for interceptors to get into position.

The pilots description if true is misleading because nothing "powers up" to M2.2 he was likely (although am guessing) already at high Mach (M1.8) at 40000 + ft

 

So if the above is not fantasy this could be the only time a Tomcat went that speed in actual combat.....but there must be more informed F-14 fans or pilots out there.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

Gotcha!

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

Well, I finally got WOV 1 to run correctly with the Oct2008 update. It runs very smoothly using Windows 7 Compatibility mode. But, damn, I lost 3 wingmen on a mission to take out a warehouse. I think they got stupid. LOL! 

It really sucks being in a VF squadron coming off the boat and having to take out a single warehouse! Let somebody else do that crap! Ha Ha! 

I guess it's time to get the add-ons now, I'm ready...to have fun!

 

Thank you all for the tips and info about the flight models. I can't get to Mach 2 still but, with info from MigBuster, I have more of an understanding of what to expect from these birds. I actually did get to Mach 1.6 at FL400 in the F-4B and, there seems to be a nice brick wall at Mach 1.2 down on the deck.

Once again, THANK YOU all and I will see you in other threads, perhaps. 

 

Regards,

Robert "Qwick" Wicker

 

Ps: I'm still patiently waiting for SF2 for Windows 10.