Caesar

I usually fly on Hard. I also spend most of my time in the F-14, which feels more natural on Hard. If memory serves, yes, some of the newer aircraft are more accurately represented on Normal, and the AI uses Normal as well.

That is the first thing I thought when I read this.

Well, the treaty says you can't have WMD in space, it doesn't say you can't have weapons (in general) in space (The Outer Space Treaty of 1967). Prezact wording is: "States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner" Which is how ballistic missiles are legal - they don't attack from space, they attack through space (i.e., they never achieve orbit, even if they do leave the atmosphere). I'm still not entirely certain what the aim is with this new Space Corps, but then, it's above my pay grade.

You would be correct in thinking that - there may have been plans for one, but it was never implemented. Similarly, there are commented-out entries for intake ramps in the data.inis, but even when activated, the ramps don't move.

Star Fox II? Dammit, now I have to buy this. Which sucks, because I have an SNES already.

Pensy, Yes, I remember those FD missions well! It would be nice to see something like that for sure, but I'm not aware of any current efforts to make a modern Korea campaign. As for VF-103, no I haven't gotten around to making that yet. Not like it was a very complex sceme to do; a gray arrow with drab-yellow inlay on the tail, AA tailcode and Sara markings...I just need to get off my ass and do it.

Tom Cruise stars as Tom Cruise in the action flick of the summer: Top Gun: Tom Cruise!

Just saw the E3 trailer...they not only still have the F-14D, they got rid of that stupid DOGFIGHT MODE! Now I have to consider buying a PS4...dammit. EDIT: Nevermind, it's coming out for Steam. Count me in!

Typically the way I see it reported in the open source is static thrust against a given aircraft weight (i.e., the thrust rating of the engine on a stand, uninstalled, at 0 airspeed). This is misleading because of the dynamic nature of engine thrust. Sometimes some of the numbers are made public; for example, the F/A-18C (F404-GE-402) and F/A-18E (F414-GE-400) installed outputs were partially published in a GAO report during the whole "is the F/A-18E/F actually worth the money" debate of the early-mid 90s. Outputs around max sustained turning velocity (between .8 and 1.2M-1.6M depending on altitude) for altitudes of sea level, 5,000ft, 20,000ft and 40,000ft were published and should be pretty eye opening for folks who heretofore thought of thrust as static. What is the T:W of the F/A-18E at combat weight at 40,000 feet and .9M? 0.27:1! And yes, drag is another big performance inhibitor, not just in terms of max speed, but general fighter performance as well (sustained turning, acceleration, etc.).

Something to remember about T:W is that it isn't static. Even the advertized thrust is probably the engine sitting on a stand, vice installed in the aircraft. Installed thrust is almost always lower (sometimes by several thousand pounds) at zero airspeed. Of the same token, as speed increases, thrust increases (to an extent), while increased altitude causes available thrust to decrease. As such, installed thrust at 0 airspeed might yield a <1:1 T:W, but the engine might provide a >1:1 T:W for a region of the envelope as the aircraft starts moving. It may be able to maintain >1:1 at certain airspeeds as altitude increases, but inevitably will drop below as altitude continues up. A published example in the open-source is the TF-30 for the F-14A. Advertized max thrust is 20,800lbs/engine. Once it is installed in the aircraft, at 0 airspeed, it produces only 17,077lbs/engine. As airspeed increases, thrust increases, and the engine maxes thrust output at sea level at .9M with 28,000lbs/engine (56,000lbs total), before bowing back down as the ramps deploy to full to stop supersonic airflow from stalling the engine, before starting to increase again (different inlets have different effects). So, a combat-weighted F-14A (~53,000lbs) achieves a better than 1:1 T:W at sea level from a little before to a little after .9M. As altitude increases, that thrust "curve" decreases, so at, say, 10,000 feet, the F-14A cannot achieve a 1:1 T:W at any airspeed. For the Gripen, then, with the new engine, (and even with the old), there's probably a region of the envelope where the aircraft hits or exceeds 1:1, and regions where it does not.

If you check the Downloads section here at CA, you should be able to find a few Indian Ocean, Vietnam, and general campaigns where the Pacific Fleet squadrons would be involved. You can then adjust the units in the campaign to use the Super Pack F-14s (How-tos are in the Knowledge Base). Have a look!