Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


streakeagle last won the day on October 9 2016

streakeagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

343 Good

About streakeagle

  • Rank
    Premier Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Orlando, FL USA


  • Website

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Yahoo

Recent Profile Visitors

12,656 profile views
  1. F-15A Air Superiority Blue

    Thank you for this skin :) I did see the comment that you had dedicated to me :)
  2. Combat Tree

    If you find a photo showing the rear cockpit with an APX-80 control unit, then you probably have the information you seek. But that should be in every F-4 with IFF rather than just the Combat Tree equipped planes, per the above conversation.
  3. Combat Tree

    First, I don't think it was ever declassified. So, you probably won't find any detailed descriptions or photos. But then there was this conversation in a forum: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/199958-looking-for-photos-of-a-combat-tree-f-4-phantom/
  4. I have been waiting a long time for DCS 2.5 to become the standard release branch. With development ceased on all other branches, I finally committed to the DCS 2.5 beta. I finally have access to the NTTR terrain. Flying out of Nellis over Nevada reminds me of when I got my first Windows PC in August of 2000 and Jane's USAF immediately became my primary sim because it was the best option for flying F-4 Phantoms against MiG-21s at that time. Having played Jane's Fighters Anthology on my work laptop, the graphics in USAF absolutely amazed me. In particular, the Las Vegas terrain looked great. There was a training mission called "Step Down" that taught you to fly low under radar (<300 feet) while navigating to waypoints. I flew it many times. I have briefly looked at the scripting for Jane's USAF missions and it seems to me that the DCS mission editor can replicate most if not all USAF missions. If the voice files can be accessed and converted, the experience would be almost identical beyond the updated graphics engine and differences in the flyable plane set. The problem is that it takes patience to extract the necessary information from the USAF missions and insert it into the DCS World mission editor by hand. I installed Jane's USAF and patched it up to support Windows 7 64-bit. The annoying flight models with stability issues are even more annoying on a modern PC with the patch installed. The inability to map more than one usb controller is almost as annoying. But the Las Vegas terrain still looks surprisingly good after all these years aside from the static low-resolution water. You can really appreciate the jump in technology when you compare USAF's early 3d cockpits with typical DCS World aircraft, but you can also appreciate that the foundations for the current level of graphics/realism were established with Jane's USAF.
  5. The problem with a small interval is correctly filling out the data without errors. It is tedious to fair in all the points compared to the 0.4 Mach interval. But the gains in accuracy in areas of steep transitions is critical. All aircraft have a critical Mach number where the wave drag spike's up. When you are talking transonic/marginally supersonic aircraft, accurately modeling wave drag is critical to accurate performance above Mach 0.75. For aircraft like the MiG-15 and F-86, it will define their top speed. The F-86 has a higher number and is therefore more controllable at speeds the MiG-15 can barely attain and able to attain speeds the MiG-15 cannot. The problems caused by this region are the reason for coke-bottle (area-ruled) fuselages. The specific excess power needed to go supersonic doesn't exist if the aircraft isn't designed to minimize transonic drag and provide decent control/stabilization in that speed range. As for building EM diagrams, my old tool, AIDE, would plot height-mach sustained and instantaneous g curves and easily could have been modified to show specific excess power curves. You just had to weight while it searched for the data minimum and maximum data points over the Mach range for a given altitude and over the complete altitude range. The math isn't really hard, just time a consuming re-iterative process. The first problem is to build a data structure that can be loaded with every possible value in the data ini files, then you have to read in the data ini file and parse it to populate the data structure, then you choose the table/parameters you seek, then the program performs the calculations to balance thrust, drag, lift equations based on the provided parameters, then a plot of the data is displayed. The problem starts with the number of variations that have to be handled when parsing the ini file into a useful data structure. The re-iterative calculations that produced useful performance charts could cause a memory leak, an infinite loop, or just outright CTD or BSOD, so it was important to carefully test and error-trap each subroutine that performed any data object creation/destruction and/or complex calculations. I used to have the time an patience to develop such a tool. Now, I don't want to perform any work, I just want to enjoy the end result and better people than me are providing great flight models for me to enjoy in both DCS World and FSX/P3d. I am far less critical/demanding than I once was because of how well I understand the limitations involved in trying to produce a truly accurate flight model on a PC. I don't expect anything close to perfection, not even a true "1%" error margin. But I have zero tolerance for oversimplification such as the original LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs flight models that made Strike Fighters look like a real NASA engineering program.
  6. I looked at JSBSim when I was evaluating Flight Gear flight models. I think you will find that the numbers will not directly translate between the two flight engines. TK uses extensive tables so that you can plot correct, empirical data. So, if you have a NASA wind tunnel study or better yet a collection of curves/data points from live flight testing, you can usually tweak TK's flight models to match those results. If I recall correctly, JSBSim was much simpler. You start with a core set of numbers and the flight engine estimates all of the other values at various machs/altitudes. I don't recall how JSBSim handles transonic/supersonic mach numbers, but I don't recall being impressed. TK's flight models suffer first and foremost a problem with resolution. The original SFP1 flight models were tabulated in increments of 0.4 Mach. In general, this was adequate from Mach 0.4 to 0.8 and Mach 1.2+ where the curves are fairly linear and flat. If you fed the tables the correct numbers, you could get magical "1%" accurate flight models that seem to be the "gold" standard for flight sims. But a lot of things change quickly at very specific Mach numbers over the Mach 0.8 to 1.2 range. To model transonic fighters like the MiG-15, MiG-17, and F-86 accurately, the interval needs to be Mach 0.05. Even Mach 2 fighters like the F-4, MiG-21, and F-105 benefit from high resolution intervals over the transonic range. If TK's flight models could have been so much more accurate if they had supported varying the resolution as needed instead of a fixed interval between all data points. It is a pain in the butt to develop flight models with the original Mach 0.4 interval, and insufferable to use an interval like Mach 0.1 or smaller. The other problem with TK's flight models is that they can't show interference, such as between the wing and tail. The effectiveness of the tail can be greatly effected at higher AoA by the wing's airflow. The table for the horizontal tail (elevator, stabilator, etc.) is pretty straight forward based on the Mach and/or angle of attack. But the wing can cause the tail to see different speeds and/or angles than the air which originally hit the wing. So you have to choose between tailoring the tail control tables to normal flight conditions such as level flight or to reflect high AoA conditions. The F-100, F-101, F-104, and F-4 are all subject to problems based on this. In my F-4B flight model, I simply ignored the interference effects which combined with the Mach 0.4 table intervals left it quite inaccurate over the transonic range, but still did great at Mach <= 0.8 and ok at Mach >= 1.2.
  7. F-15A Air Superiority Blue

    The F-15 as I remember it when I first saw it on the shelf of a Kmart model airplane section, which my brother chose while I picked the F-4E as presents from my grandfather. I was in the 2nd grade (1975-76 school year). Note the square wingtips of the prototype:
  8. There are some holes in the flight engine, but overall the SF2 flight engine can produce outstanding results if it is fed accurate data. I was able to get SFP1 to get very close to hitting the numbers for the F-4B over the entire altitude and speed range covered by the charts in the flight manual.
  9. The best way to assess flight models is to know the math behind the flight engine and build a tool that reads the FM ini file and then generates the performance charts you are interested in evaluating. A long-long time ago, before I had a son, I created such a tool for SFP1. It was primitive and used brute force solutions that would light up your cpu for a while, but it worked. At one point, I needed to incorporate some changes to reflect what TK had added in a patch, and a nasty bug appeared in my code that I could never fix. I wanted to build a new tool from scratch that would support SF2, but I doubt I will ever have the time/motivation to do so. The next best thing is to build a spread sheet that allows you to manually solve the same equations my tool solved. It just takes time to build the initial spreadsheet, then go through the iterations of changing the speed (in mach) and/or other related parameters to find the solution to the problem. The only other solution is to fly in debug mode with a zero burn rate for fuel so that the weight doesn't change while you are flying and observing measured parameters.
  10. Thirdwire F-15A Eagle Hi-Rez

    Been a while since I fired up SF2, but I specifically flew it tonight to see this skin. I have an old guns-only mission of F-15Ax1 vs MiG-23MLDx4 to compare AI logic of DCS World to SF2 and it was a blast replaying this mission to see this new skin in action. Good job.
  11. Thirdwire F-15A Eagle Hi-Rez

    The Eagle the way she should look: with turkey feathers and the original compass ghost gray scheme :) The only paint schemes I like better are the specail "Streak Eagle" no-paint scheme and the original air superiority blue.
  12. Graphics Card Price Spike.

    I bought an MSI GTX 1080 for $470 from NewEgg last spring and want to get another one so my son's PC can run an Oculus Rift. I was astounded to find my exact card going for around $1,200. Maybe I should sell my card and give up gaming for a while, then buy 2 when the prices come back down... if they ever do. This must be heaven for nVidia and AMD since all of their cards with good bitcoin performance have sold out like crazy. I wish a thousand deaths to the digital currency market so that I can afford to keep building decent flight sim PCs.
  13. As a dedicated air-to-air fan, I would have preferred the JA-37. But the AJS-37 has unique advanced systems that are interesting to figure out and employ. While it can be employed as a fighter, it has only a very basic radar search, no tracking, no BVR missiles, just AIM-9s and the option to use gunpods. To truly enjoy this aircraft, you have to fly it on strike or anti-ship sorties. Low altitude passes can be used to accurately lay down retarded bombs. Rockets are very accurate, too. The Mavericks and antiship missiles are fairly easy to employ and have a great chance of hitting if aimed properly before firing. It is absolutely amazing to have a sim where you can fire and control a command guidance air-to-surface missile. The training, instant action, and regular missions give you plenty of opportunities to try all of these systems out. I like it so much that I may buy the AJS-37 Red Flag campaign.
  14. The Vertical Maneuvering Egg

    These websites provide perspective on what it takes to avoid an "egg": http://www.krepelka.com/fsweb/learningcenter/advancedflyingskills/aerobatics.htm http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/illustration-shows-airplane-loop-fairly-low-speed-son-pilot-air-force-loops-500-mph-jet-pr-q10996085 http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/loop/#.WmgD6lUrJhE http://www.hooked-on-rc-airplanes.com/aerobatic-maneuvers.html
  15. The Vertical Maneuvering Egg

    Imagine that air is a fluid like water. Now imagine that in water, your radius of turn is determined by the position of your rudder regardless of speed. If gravity didn't interfere, you held the stick back at a fixed angle, and you didn't stall before making it past the top of the loop, you would in theory make a perfect circle in spite of the speed changes. In reality, air is a little more "slippery" than water and a lot more than a car turning a circle with a fixed steering wheel position, but the principles is essentially the same. Somewhere online there must be a video of a stunt plane performing a perfect circular loop with both an outside view and a cockpit view so you can see how the pilot moves the controls to hold the circle. Before high thrust:weight ratio fighters, you simply dived to build up enough speed to hold the circle before stalling. You will find that competition pilots use a combination of a visual reference and seat of the pants feeling to maintain a constant force/perfect circle. It does take practice to very the stick pressure at the right rate to hold the circle.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..