Jump to content

streakeagle

+MODDER
  • Content count

    2,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

streakeagle last won the day on October 9 2016

streakeagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

334 Good

About streakeagle

  • Rank
    Premier Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Orlando, FL USA

Networking

  • Website
    http://sites.google.com/site/streakeagle68/pc-games/strike-fighters

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    streakeagle68
  • MSN
    streak_eagle@hotmail.com
  • Yahoo
    streakeagle68

Recent Profile Visitors

12,373 profile views
  1. DCS Weekend News 1 December 2017

    I don't do beta installs, so it may be a week or two before I can fly this. I wasn't going to buy the early release. But I couldn't resist the idea of flying a Harrier with what will probably be the best possible flight model on a PC. I will never fly it as an attack aircraft, just not my cup of tea. I would have preferred an earlier AV-8A for the challenge of the flight model or the AV-8B+ for the air-to-air radar. But this will still be one hell of a fun aircraft to fly. I will of course use it for air-to-air the same way I fly the AJS-37 Viggen. This will be a great aircraft to enjoy VR flying with the Oculus Rift. VR really works well with helos, so it should be great with VSTOL, too. Lately, I have been trying to rotate frequently between every aircraft (I own them all). The Harrier will probably get a few nights of dedicated flying time before I go back to rotating.
  2. Up until a few years ago, I had a fair number of old D&D figures... mostly the original "official" figures made by Grenadier for the original AD&D with some Citadel and Ral Partha figures. When I was moving, I dumped anything I considered to be dead weight, and those figures were among the tabletop game related stuff that was dumped. I still have the original books, though. While I loved the figures, I never had more than grid squares marked up to show walls/doors to use them. Certainly nothing even close to what you posted above. It didn't stop me from enjoying looking at them though. I appreciate the post, both for the quality of your work and the memories those photos bring back to me.
  3. 94 years is a remarkably long life. I hope she enjoyed most of them. I can only dream of flying a Spitfire or any other fighter plane for that matter, so I envy her for that.
  4. Share your thoughts about "USN Sky Penis."

    I hope the pilot doesn't get in any kind of official trouble that goes on his record and affects his career. But in this modern PC world, I suspect there may be some penalties. My private submarine sailor groups on facebook suggest that the pilot will get free drinks at the bar for the rest of his life from any other sailors that know who he is and what he did :)
  5. Whether discussing range or endurance, early jet engines were thirsty and did not provide much power for the amount of fuel consumed. The theoretical range listed on wiki sites is clean and hi-hi-hi... ferry range. In actual experience, the F9Fs had some serious problems with time on target with any useful ordnance load during Korea. The F2Hs were significantly better, but were in short supply in Korea and still vastly inferior to prop aircraft. When you consider the cost of using a Skyraider to using an F9F or F2H, the only thing you lose with the Skyraider is speed. It can carry more than a B-17 and can get there with enough fuel to hang out for awhile waiting for ground support calls. Whether you are talking about an A-1 Skyraider or an A-10 Warthog... you need air superiority and decent SEAD to avoid losses. But if they are properly supported, no fast jets can do a better job.
  6. I recently bought and read all of the Osprey books on Skyraiders, F4Us, P-51s, and F9Fs over Korea. The F9F was always short on fuel which degraded range, endurance, and payload. The F2H had much better range in comparison. But the prop aircraft were far superior to these early jets. F9Fs and F2Hs did fly some attack sorties, they mainly provided top cover for F4Us and Skyraiders due to their endurance limitations.
  7. Yankee Air Pirate moving on

    They have some screenshots on their Facebook page. F-80 model in development. F9F in the air. A bridge target. They already had the carrier/F9F available, so this makes sense. But it is like they never announced that they were shutting down after eightlein said he was leaving the team. I was black listed for disagreeing with 05 on the SimHQ forums before YAP3 was released, so I don't have any YAP products beyond YAP2, and may have missed the last bonus material/patches for YAP2.
  8. Yankee Air Pirate moving on

    Over a year later and despite the announcement, YAP not only continues to be available but appears to be developing a Korean War product. So was the announcement an advertising trick to bump up sales? Or did they just change their mind and keep going because the money was still rolling in?
  9. The A-4H is essentially an A-4F without the hump and 30mm cannons in place of the 20mm cannons. So the A-4H should be better than the A-4E.
  10. Bunyap is very public in the DCS World Community. You should be able to contact him via their forums or through commenting on his YouTube posts.
  11. F-16 weight increased over time with more internal equipment being added with nearly every block. Wing loading affects turn performance in more ways than one. The later up-engine F-16Cs had a dramatic increase in thrust-to-weight, but that doesn't fully compensate for the increased wing loading. So an F-16A would be an angles fighter versus an F-16C, but both would be angles fighters against most opponents.
  12. Fuel is proportional to mass air flow. At high altitude the air is less dense (up to 36,000 feet). So the amount of fuel required at max throttle is much less (about 30% of the value used at sea level). The lower air density does reduce drag, but it also reduces thrust and lift. Aircraft that want to be fuel efficient AND fast fly at high altitudes where the indicated airspeed that determines optimum cruise speed remains the same, while the actual ground speed increases thanks to the net changes in air temperature and pressure (density) at altitude.
  13. I guess I never directly answered the original question: "How Can We Be Sure it is Accurate?" Verifying accuracy is fairly easy. Find a reliable source for extremely detailed/accurate performance of the aircraft in question, then test the sim aircraft under the same conditions. For most aircraft, you can buy a pilot manual online that will include performance charts. Some manuals are better than others. Fly the sim aircraft in the same conditions used to generate the chart data and see how closely they match. The total weight is a critical component. I prefer to investigate clean configurations as it is doubtful that any game will get the drag penalty of various stores loads anywhere near correct. Simple tests are the 1g flight envelopes: i.e. the minimum and maximum speeds for level flight at any given altitude as well as the maximum ceiling. If a game can't get these right, there is no point in going any deeper. SFP1 and SF2 has a debug view that can be enabled in the ini files. This provides data that lets you verify the g-load, lift, drag, etc. If you are good on a stick, you can learn to test instaneous and sustained g-loads. Another easy test is acceleration. The F-4 flight manual has extensive tables on how long it takes to accelerate from one mach number (say 0.5) to another (say 1.2) for a given altitude, weight, and drag configuration. Rate of climb can be harder to measure, but can be done as well. The key is deciding on an accurate source for performance data, replicating the conditions used to generate that data, and then comparing in-game results. But I don't care what PC flight sim you fly, if you dig deep enough, you will be disappointed in the results. Learn to appreciate the look and "feel" of the game rather than the absolute accuracy of the physics and you will be a lot more satisfied.
  14. First: Aerodynamics cannot presently be modeled to 100% accuracy on a PC. I would argue that even the most powerful CFD software (computational fluid dynamics) used by the aerospace industry and/or NASA still must be validated by extensive wind tunnel testing and full-scale development test flights with extensive instrumentation. Within the limits of what a PC is capable of doing, Strike Fighters uses the most practical approach: Interpolated look-up tables. The SFP1 and SF2 flight model engines' look-up tables can be customized to the resolution desired by the person filling in the data. Out of the box, SFP1 lookup tables that were based on Mach number were based on 0.4 Mach intervals: 0.0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, etc. If I recall correctly, SF2 went to a 0.2 Mach interval. The problem is that around transonic speeds of Mach 0.75 to Mach 1.2, the changes are extreme over a very small interval. So even with a 0.2 Mach interval, you can't show the subtle but significant differences in how aircraft handle in that region. So, if you fly/fight around that Mach number, you will find odd behavior inconsistent with published performance data. Unfortunately, from the F-86/MiG-15 and on, this is exactly where most air combat starts. Out of the box, the flight models generally aren't too bad by the time SF2 was released. TK responded to customer feedback and greatly improved the F-4 and F-105 flight models compared to published performance. He never spent a whole lot of time developing refining flight models for AI aircraft. When you set the game to use "HARD" flight models, the full strength of the game's flight engine is unleashed for player flown aircraft, but all AI aircraft still follow a simplified system that is more like the "NORMAL" flight model. Some of the data needed for accurate "HARD" flight models is simply not available and TK fills in "reasonable estimates", particularly in the area of the stability and inertia coefficients. Over the years, TK constantly tweaked the flight models. Not necessarily to make them more realistic, but to make them "flyable" for the fun "lite" sim quality he aiming to deliver. I am an F-4 Phanatic. While TK greatly improved the drag numbers for the F-4 in the SF2 version of the game (the level flight/zero lift drag was always to low in SFP1/WoX), the unslatted F-4s never displayed the nasty high AoA spin/departure behavior that downed around 200 F-4s in Vietnam and the "lite" approach of the SFP1/SF2 series on handling high AoA flight made it difficult if not impossible to edit the flight model to reflect this problem. But aside from high AoA stall/stability behavior, SF2 flight models can generally be tweaked to almost perfectly replicate real-world performance charts. Even if you had access to all the real-world aerodynamic coefficients tabular data needed to create an SF2 flight model, the tables still aren't extensive enough to replicate what actually happens. For instance, t-tail aircraft like the F-104 and even the F-4 have control/stability issues caused by the wings disturbing the airflow to the horizontal stab/elevator at high AoA. There is no way to model the changes in tail surface effectiveness based on the AoA of the wing. If you "bake" the numbers to reflect high AoA limitations, then the aircraft won't fly correctly at normal level/low AoA conditions. Despite all of limitations, I don't know of another PC flight sim engine that is more capable of replicating real world flight performance than SF2. The out-of-the-box flight models were generally dumbed down a little to make the airplanes easier/more fun to fly. But if you have the time and patience to research real world aerodynamic coefficient tables and port them to SF2, you can end up with flight models that can only be bettered by hand-coded FMs such as the Professional Flight Models of the best DCS World aircraft modules. But even DCS World aircraft have buggy/inaccurate flight models due to insufficient real-world data and/or not enough look-up table data to properly replicate the real world aerodynamics physics of any one particular aircraft. In the end, unless you actually have flown the aircraft in question, all you can really test in flight models are the peak chart numbers: ceiling, max speed for a given altitude, instantaneous g, sustained g, sustained climb rate for a given altitude, etc. For the most part, SF2 is reasonably close to those real numbers, most especially on a relative scale: i.e. the MiG-17 should turn like a bat out of hell compared to the F-4, and it does. So, play the game. If you don't like the way the flight models work for a particular aircraft, try doing some research and tweaking the FMs yourself, or find another game where you do like the flight model for that same particular aircraft. How close the numbers are to the real world is insignificant compared to your own subjective enjoyment of the game. The less you dig into how accurate the numbers are, the happier you will be with any of the flight sims that are available for the PC, because none of them are truly accurate.
  15. A pair of F2H-2s from CVA-39 Lake Champlain fly a strike mission against an airfield runway with F9F top cover.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.