How realistic is SF2?

[names 8]

So, apart from avionics,almost all of the planes give a realistic feeling of flight as a flight sensation. That's  right ?

[+EricJ 4,094]

I mean I've been playing flight sims since the early nineties, and so I don't know the real sensation of flight (other than flying on a passenger plane), but I think the FM coders can say it's as best as possible. Not many people critique the feeling of flight of the game.

[+Mr_Tayto 109]

9 minutes ago, AcariaPlainum said:

RCS isnt really a thing, false positives arent, active homing missiles plenty of things radars lack

Its halfway arcade halfway sim

RCS? Barely a consideration in the 50s and 60s. No false positives, true, but the radars can still be finicky and hard to use due to sweep arcs etc. I think you're being harsh and not giving enough credit.

 

What active homing radar missiles would you like to see?

 

EDIT: Oh, and no IFF too. Some of these things are corrected for by mods (where applicable to the correct time period), but you have to remember the game is representing 1948-1979 as a basis for its mechanics.

Edited August 24 by Mr_Tayto

[names 8]

4 minutes ago, Mr_Tayto said:

RCS? Barely a consideration in the 50s and 60s. No false positives, true, but the radars can still be finicky and hard to use due to sweep arcs etc. I think you're being harsh and not giving enough credit.

 

What active homing radar missiles would you like to see?

I have not used DCS World before, are there any differences for the 'AV 8 B' plane, for example, in terms of flight feeling?

[names 8]

Just now, names said:

I have not used DCS World before, are there any differences for the 'AV 8 B' plane, for example, in terms of flight feeling?

If you compare it with SF 2

[AcariaPlainum 33]

10 minutes ago, Mr_Tayto said:

RCS? Barely a consideration in the 50s and 60s. No false positives, true, but the radars can still be finicky and hard to use due to sweep arcs etc. I think you're being harsh and not giving enough credit.

 

What active homing radar missiles would you like to see?

 

EDIT: Oh, and no IFF too. Some of these things are corrected for by mods (where applicable to the correct time period), but you have to remember the game is representing 1948-1979 as a basis for its mechanics.

Then its not fully realistic dude he asked how realistic it was. Like i said its half way arcade halfway sim if you want more realism then go to falcon bms but keep in mind then its gonna be more complex

Also even frequencies arent fully modeled either like i said SF2 is great due to its having a nice niche of being halfway sim

Edited August 24 by AcariaPlainum

[+Mr_Tayto 109]

I have DCS but only the F-4, F-5 and A-4. Obviously they have more realistic flight models compared with SF2, more realistic radar, and certain weapons are far more realistic in DCS because you have computerised bombing systems accurately rendered (and things like accessible bombing tables). 

 

What I can't do, is compare weapons behaviour because I don't think I've seen an AIM-9B in DCS.

[AcariaPlainum 33]

6 minutes ago, names said:

If you compare it with SF 2

Depends what do you wanna do i mean graphics wise sure DCS is better. Its also a lot more performance demanding and start up takes longer too its more realistic for sure but again more complex and performance demanding

Also beware DCS isnt fully realistic either in some regards yes but not every aspect for example rcs in DCS is just 1 value

Edited August 24 by AcariaPlainum

[+Mr_Tayto 109]

2 minutes ago, AcariaPlainum said:

Then its not fully realistic dude he asked how realistic it was. Like i said its half way arcade halfway sim if you want more realism then go to falcon bms but keep in mind then its gonna be more complex

Also even frequencies arent fully modeled either like i said SF2 is great due to its having a nice niche of being halfway sim

I'm not arguing that it's realistic, forgive me if it comes across like that. It's not (compared with a study sim like DCS) realistic in terms of aircraft handling, but I don't think I've ever played a sim before that was more immersive in combat than SF2.

 

If the OP wants to fly a realistic F-4 he should spend £60 on HB F-4E for DCS, or DCD F-4s for MSFS, but neither will give you (at least, at the moment) the feeling of being part of an Alpha Strike over Hanoi or a Ho Chi Minh trail interdiction like SF2.

[+daddyairplanes 9,698]

45 minutes ago, Mr_Tayto said:

If the OP wants to fly a realistic F-4 he should spend £60 on HB F-4E for DCS, or DCD F-4s for MSFS, but neither will give you (at least, at the moment) the feeling of being part of an Alpha Strike over Hanoi or a Ho Chi Minh trail interdiction like SF2.

not to mention DCS has plenty for 21st century combat. but gets much sketchier the furhter back into 19xx you go. individual aircraft are absolutely beatiful. there's an excellent F-4E now, the mark used by the most users. and its the closest you can get to flying a Phantom sitting at a desk.

but what if you want to Fly a FGR.2 in the Falklands? F-4N in the Eastern Med? Do some recce or SEAD in the models exclusively tailored to those missions?

[+EricJ 4,094]

Having some prior experience with ED, they're not big on classified material, and rightly so. I think it's the reverse with ED, they can get a lot of open information on WWII planes and the like, but the modern stuff is classified, so they make their own guesses on what a radar and the like can do. So DCS can model systems well, but gets fuzzy when you're talking about modern jets. There shouldn't be any issue with old aircraft which information is declassified, or known to all, so I would bet that WWII planes are easier. I mean you can do some stuff in SF2 if you have the right info, but mostly like DCS things are at a guess of the true capabilities, and goes with more modern equipment, like jets and missiles, and so on.

[Stratos 3,181]

On 24/8/2024 at 3:03 PM, Mr_Tayto said:

One thing I do miss is a proper LABS or Dive/Toss system, and also the ability to manually target EO weapons.

I would love those too!

[OlWilly 122]

On 8/24/2024 at 10:43 PM, names said:

So, apart from avionics,almost all of the planes give a realistic feeling of flight as a flight sensation. That's  right ?

Flight model is decent. One of the strongest parts of the game.

This is true for the majority of stock aircraft (sans F-15 and F-16, they're not); for modded ones the quality varies 

But things like F-100, F-105 or F-4 are represented very well 

[OlWilly 122]

On 8/25/2024 at 1:21 AM, EricJ said:

Having some prior experience with ED, they're not big on classified material, and rightly so. I think it's the reverse with ED, they can get a lot of open information on WWII planes and the like, but the modern stuff is classified, so they make their own guesses on what a radar and the like can do. So DCS can model systems well, but gets fuzzy when you're talking about modern jets. There shouldn't be any issue with old aircraft which information is declassified, or known to all, so I would bet that WWII planes are easier. I mean you can do some stuff in SF2 if you have the right info, but mostly like DCS things are at a guess of the true capabilities, and goes with more modern equipment, like jets and missiles, and so on.

Not really, since the days of LOMAC, Chizh maintained that the majority of features and decisions in the game should be backed up by official documents and flight manuals. Therefore, ED won't officially accept a module not backed up by primary documents. 

This is also the reason why jets like Su-30 or Su-34 don't have official modules, the docs for them are held tight

US apparently is more relaxed with documentation and shares anything not being a strategic asset like F-22 or F-35

[+EricJ 4,094]

9 hours ago, OlWilly said:

Not really, since the days of LOMAC, Chizh maintained that the majority of features and decisions in the game should be backed up by official documents and flight manuals. Therefore, ED won't officially accept a module not backed up by primary documents. 

This is also the reason why jets like Su-30 or Su-34 don't have official modules, the docs for them are held tight

US apparently is more relaxed with documentation and shares anything not being a strategic asset like F-22 or F-35

Yeah unclassified documentation as right now they don't accept anything with a classification. Sure they use official documentation, but it better be unclassified first. I didn't say they didn't use official documentation, they don't use classified documentation, hence the 1.16 rule on the forums. I had to make sure that the info I was talking about wasn't classified so they could use it in the A-10C module when I was helping them out.

Edited Monday at 10:44 AM by EricJ

[simonmiller416 1,197]

On 2024/8/25 at 6:21 AM, EricJ said:

Having some prior experience with ED, they're not big on classified material, and rightly so. I think it's the reverse with ED, they can get a lot of open information on WWII planes and the like, but the modern stuff is classified, so they make their own guesses on what a radar and the like can do. So DCS can model systems well, but gets fuzzy when you're talking about modern jets. There shouldn't be any issue with old aircraft which information is declassified, or known to all, so I would bet that WWII planes are easier. I mean you can do some stuff in SF2 if you have the right info, but mostly like DCS things are at a guess of the true capabilities, and goes with more modern equipment, like jets and missiles, and so on.

I own some modern aircrafts in DCS, such as F-16CM Block50, and it does a much better job of simulating 21st century electronic systems, such as datalink, which are completely absent in SF2. After all, SF2 is focused on the Cold War, which is understandable.

But then, although it is a higher-level simulation, for an aircraft like the F-16C, I don't think it is that difficult to operate even in DCS. Its logic is very simple, kinda like we get ability to operate in the cockpit in SF2.Perhaps it is indeed because ED is designed and produced by "guessing" through unclassify information.

Oh,one of the main reasons why I keep playing SF2 is that it can easily generate dynamic battlefields. I often just need to select a plane and then directly enter the game, and the map will automatically generate air and ground units that are in line with the current era, so I don't have to worry too much.

Edited Tuesday at 02:25 AM by simonmiller416

[+EricJ 4,094]

16 hours ago, simonmiller416 said:

I own some modern aircrafts in DCS, such as F-16CM Block50, and it does a much better job of simulating 21st century electronic systems, such as datalink, which are completely absent in SF2. After all, SF2 is focused on the Cold War, which is understandable.

But then, although it is a higher-level simulation, for an aircraft like the F-16C, I don't think it is that difficult to operate even in DCS. Its logic is very simple, kinda like we get ability to operate in the cockpit in SF2.Perhaps it is indeed because ED is designed and produced by "guessing" through unclassify information.

Oh,one of the main reasons why I keep playing SF2 is that it can easily generate dynamic battlefields. I often just need to select a plane and then directly enter the game, and the map will automatically generate air and ground units that are in line with the current era, so I don't have to worry too much.

SF2 does have a datalink system, just with SAMs if I remember right. But yeah DCS is more modern and of course more worked on, and constantly evolving. We don't need to start a gripe session on SF2 as it just goes nowhere anyway. But if I had the space for it, I'd probably play it more as the Afghanistan map is tempting to get.

Yeah I like the flexibility of the years with SF2, in which I update the missions I play as the years go by, just so I can "keep up with things", and so on.

[Wrench 9,718]

SAMs are networked within their 'types" (SA2, SA6, etc). The add-on SAMs have also been redone (years ago!) to be newtworked with their types, too.

AAA can also be networked. Most 3rd party AAA units have been networked, either through the Firecan or the ASR (that's on every airbase)

Just look at the data in for NetworkType=

[+EricJ 4,094]

Yeah I know that, but does it work for jets? Or does the fact that you can see them is considered a datalink? (even though it shows regardless of time period). Can you give planes a datalink?

[Wrench 9,718]

no, there's no data link for aircraft. (I remember in Jane's Fighter's Anthology, there was a keystroke to engage the AWACS data links, if one was available in the mission. you could run with your radar off, and still get the feed displayed on your scope)

AFAIK, there's no way to link to an AWACS or surface search radars. Unless it's another of those unused items hidden in a dll someplace. Operational wise, the E-2 Hawkeye exists only for eye candy

[simonmiller416 1,197]

14 hours ago, EricJ said:

SF2 does have a datalink system, just with SAMs if I remember right. But yeah DCS is more modern and of course more worked on, and constantly evolving. We don't need to start a gripe session on SF2 as it just goes nowhere anyway. But if I had the space for it, I'd probably play it more as the Afghanistan map is tempting to get.

Yeah I like the flexibility of the years with SF2, in which I update the missions I play as the years go by, just so I can "keep up with things", and so on.

Datalink for ground air defenses are obvious, yes, wrench mentioned that too.
But for air units it's not, we can't even fill in radar blind spots via datalink, not to mention when we turn off radar, but I won't complain too much on this issue bcuz of SF2's era design(even though I seem to mention it repeatedly lol)

I have thought about how to "restore" the data link under the existing system. The only thing I can think of is to give those fighters a super radar with a 180-360 degree field of view, but this is obviously too imba and unreasonable.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:50 AM by simonmiller416

[+EricJ 4,094]

4 hours ago, Wrench said:

no, there's no data link for aircraft. (I remember in Jane's Fighter's Anthology, there was a keystroke to engage the AWACS data links, if one was available in the mission. you could run with your radar off, and still get the feed displayed on your scope)

AFAIK, there's no way to link to an AWACS or surface search radars. Unless it's another of those unused items hidden in a dll someplace. Operational wise, the E-2 Hawkeye exists only for eye candy

Okay, was going to ask about that, thanks

2 hours ago, simonmiller416 said:

Datalink for ground air defenses are obvious, yes, wrench mentioned that too.
But for air units it's not, we can't even fill in radar blind spots via datalink, not to mention when we turn off radar, but I won't complain too much on this issue bcuz of SF2's era design(even though I seem to mention it repeatedly lol)

I have thought about how to "restore" the data link under the existing system. The only thing I can think of is to give those fighters a super radar with a 180-360 degree field of view, but this is obviously too imba and unreasonable.

 

Yeah gotcha

[+Gepard 10,893]

The data link network for SAM has nothing to do with simulating an Integrated Air Defence Network. It is simply there, to make sure, that all SAM Launchers around a SAM Radar are of the same type. There are also no real SAM tactics available in game. What makes the SAM defence stupid. Its a big weakpoint in SF2 world.