Jump to content

streakeagle

+MODDER
  • Content count

    2,433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

streakeagle last won the day on October 9 2016

streakeagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

649 Great

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

14,947 profile views
  1. MSFS 2020 now supports VR

    It worked better than I thought it would with my new Reverb G2, but the frame rates are really low and the visual quality settings are such that I watch ground objects like buildings and trees pop up into view like a stock SF2 installation. It does look pretty good. DCS World still runs far better for me and has aircraft I prefer and combat, so MSFS2020 will mostly sit idle on my PC like FSX, X-Plane, and P3d before it. Aerofly FS2 remains my best civil sim for sight seeing in VR with a great aircraft selection out of the box and outstanding performance with visual settings maxed out. I hope that when I build a new PC that MSFS2020 will run faster, but comments I have seen show that it doesn't improve much when you go to the most modern and powerful hardware you can get right now. It is easy to see why: the core of the code under the hood is really still FSX despite the 64-bit update and the new world graphics. I don't have P3dV5 yet, but up to P3dV4, I see the same thing: very low performance due to the long existing FSX core code. X-Plane seems to be about halfway between MSFS/P3d and Aerofly FS2 for performance vs quality. Hopefully, MSFS2020 continues to be updated/optimized to run much better at higher quality settings in VR. I also hope TacPack is added since it makes military aircraft so much better with functional systems and weapons. TacPack doesn't even support P3dV5 yet, so I am still running P3dV4.
  2. Shadow in the Cloud

    The camera angles may make it seem a little larger than it is. But I think the lead actress is either really small, or that ball turret is a lot bigger than I remember. I think she was the cute little killer girl in the Kick-Ass movies.
  3. Shadow in the Cloud

    Aside from the monster, more like Die Hard in a B-17 with a female lead.
  4. It comes and goes. This is maybe the third time TK has offered it.
  5. Real Warthog throttle vs TM Warthog throttle

    Not exactly the best resolution, but it is hard to find many photos of the real throttle, especially with an angle that shows the cursor control.
  6. It has been 3 years since I posted this? It feels like yesterday. I wiped my hard drive to do a clean install of Windows 10 to try to solve some USB 3.0 driver issues that cropped up when I got my original Oculus Rift. I didn't bother to save my KAW install. It would be a lot of work to tweak it back to the way I had it, so I haven't had flown KAW in quite a while. I enjoy flying the F-86 and MiG-15 in DCS World, but I really miss the F2H-2.
  7. Real Warthog throttle vs TM Warthog throttle

    The real one has pretty much the same thing, just a much higher quality: https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0807/24/throttle-quadrant-a-10-warthog-fighter-aircraft_1_c6ab54baf2526f106344073467754b4d.jpg
  8. No RWR on the top of the fin. No visible antennas sticking up on the spine.
  9. One additional consideration about SF2 F-4 Phantom flight models: when I learned SF2 had new, higher resolution data tables, I got out my old F-4B data and compared it to TK's latest revision. What I found is that the main flaw in TK's SFP1 version was the CD0 (zero lift drag) was too low, so the F-4 had a little extra power. On Third Wire's forums, I had posted an image of the SF2 CD0 table data graphed on top of my FM and the data from a NASA document. The SF2 data didn't have as high a resolution as I preferred, but it was very close to my data and the NASA curve. TK's flight models were never meant to be 100% accurate. They had some "give" in them to make the aircraft a little easier/more fun to fly. But they were intended to show the relative differences: i.e. an early MiG-21 could turn a little better than an early F-4 and and an early F-4 could climb and accelerate a little better than an early MiG-21. In SFP1, the relative differences were mostly there, but the F-4 flew more like an F-16 compared to real data. SF2 brought the flight models of the core flyable aircraft into a reasonable line. The F-4 had more drag. It also couldn't pull 12g at speeds the real F-4 could only manage 7 or 8. SF2 was a huge improvement across the board. It was sad to see SF2 development crash to a halt after watching the original SFP1 Walmart edition go through so much growth and improvement.
  10. Regarding my old Aircraft Ini Data Editor: TK kept issuing patches refining the flight model, so I had to keep editing my application to account for the new features. At some point, I introduced a bug that broke the functionality of saving/opening multiple documents (a memory leak? or a problem with the serialization routines for opening/closing documents?). I had already lost the previous working version of the source code and didn't have the time or energy to figure out what was broken. So, I abandoned further development quite some time ago. SF2 data ini files have similar, but larger more detailed tables. If my program was set up correctly, it would automatically handle the larger tables. But TK may have added more features or changed how the data was being used by the game engine. As programmed, it would throw away any data it didn't recognize and only process the variables it was programmed to read. I would use debug mode to try to verify my lift and drag equations. But that was so many years ago. What AIDE did was read in all of the pertinent flight model information and solve for specific aerodynamic values to produce tables similar to those found in flight manuals. So, you could tweak a flight model parameters in the data ini files and see how it affected performance. It could not take performance tables and turn them into ini data tables. So, you had to have some insight into how all of the variables interacted to make useful changes. With a re-iterative trial and error process, you could build a flight model that would reasonably replicate flight manual performance tables. In particular, you could strive to replicate specific excess power, instantaneous turn performance, and sustained turn performance. This also meant realistic stall speeds and climb rates. If you could get NASA data on some of the drag or lift parameters, you could build a flight model superior to what most sims offered at that time. Some people look down on using lookup tables for flight model data, but the fact is if the tables have high enough resolution and have accurate numbers, there is no more realistic or faster way to model flight. I would love to make a new version of AIDE that leverage modern hardware for better performance and was 100% compatible with SF2 without any bugs/memory leaks. But it has been a long time since I programmed at that level and I don't have the time or energy it takes to get such a project done in any reasonable time. After all the work I did on it, the only thing I ever produced was an F-4B flight model tailored to the flight model engine as of SFP1 SP2a patch level, and that was partially broken after the release of Wings Over Vietnam. I have learned to accept that PC flight sims are never going to be as realistic as I would like them to be and I would rather spend my time flying in sims than reverse engineering and attempting to improve them. SFP1/WoX/SF2 had one principal competitor, LOMAC. LOMAC had some awesome terrain graphics quality compared to SFP1/SF2, particularly the water. But its flight models were horrible. Its modern evolution, DCS World, now has flight models that are extremely complex and detailed as well as being among the most realistic/accurate you can get on a PC today. I no longer chart data from the game and perform calculations to compare the results with flight manual tables. As long as the aircraft flies reasonably close to the descriptions in the flight manuals, I am pretty happy. The problem with DCS World is that it takes a lot of time and money to produce accurate flight and systems models, so there will never be as many flyable aircraft types/variants compared to SFP1/SF2.
  11. As I much prefer air-to-air over flying air-to-ground, I love the Sea Harrier :) Until the AV-8B got upgraded with a multimode radar and AMRAAM, the Sea Harrier was by far the best variant for air-to-air. The late model AV-8B with a radar and missiles comparable to the F/A-18C Hornet was a first rate aircraft. The F-35B more or less gives you an AV-8B+ with even better sensors/avionics and a supersonic capability. I still like the Harrier's engine setup better than the F-35's lift fan. But the F-35 approach retains the V/STOL capability while providing the afterburning supersonic performance the Harrier lacked. However, there was an afterburning supersonic Harrier approach that might have worked had it been funded, it just wouldn't have had the F-35's stealth.
  12. The Sea Harrier did a lot better than it should have, but that was a result of two factors: Outstanding pilots and the AIM-9s the US supplied. Great pilots combined with a solid performing weapon can do a lot to make up for aircraft limitations. To be fair, the Argentinian aircraft sank some ships despite being behind overall in technology. The Mirages/Daggers were faster, but otherwise not that much superior to the Harrier in air-to-air. The Skyhawks were essentially in the same performance class as the Harrier with lower thrust to weight. So the lop sided air-to-air victories of the UK were firmly the result of their pilots leveraging their situational awareness from their various GCI/AWACS sources, great tactical skills, and a bit of luck. The AIM-9's simply performed reliably enough to not get in the way of good pilot decisions, unlike AIM-9B/E/J performance in Vietnam. The AIM-9L was really just the mature evolution of the AIM-9D/G/H that actually had a great record in combat compared to the B/E/J variants. The all-aspect capability didn't really have an effect. The kills were generally stern chase situations and the AIM-9L proved that in the absence of countermeasures like flares in a cold weather environment, it was an outstanding weapon.
  13. Having just played and replayed both the F-4J vs MiG-17 and MiG-19 1v1 missions repeatedly, I have rapidly regained hard wing Phantom proficiency. The MiG-17's only advantage is turn rate, so he can be beat fairly easily by making him try to climb to you. If you are aggressive and good at lag rolling, you can make him overshoot and kill him with your weapon of choice. The MiG-19 is by far the most difficult opponent. He will almost match your power in a climb and can turn better, too. If you try to fight in the horizontal, the MiG-19 will eventually gain on your tail. If you try to fight in the vertical, you will at best stay in a neutral position if you manage your energy well while trying to turn into him. So the MiG-19 requires flawless barrel/lag rolling skill while he is close on your tail to avoid getting shot and forcing him to overshoot. Once he overshoots, you can engage him at will like the MiG-17 with careful speed management. But until then, the MiG-19 will by spraying rounds all over you while you try to roll around his shots. In the original SFP1 series, multiplayer was available and the MiG-17 and MiG-19 were the planes to beat. A player proficient with either of those aircraft was very hard to beat. When Wings Over Vietnam came out, the flight models had changed a bit. The MiG-19 lost unbeatable "UFO" status only to be replaced by the F-8 Crusader, whose original flight model made it a Phantom killer just as the MiG-19 had been. There is reality and there is the game. When you fly in the game, you have to learn two aspects: 1) How the in-game flight models compare (which can be very different between complex/realistic flight model for the player and the simpler flight model used by the AI). 2) AI behavior under various circumstances. The AI in the Strike Fighters series is very different from the AI in DCS World. The AI in the Strike Fighters series varied greatly over the years from the original Walmart version of SFP1 all they way to the final patches releases for SF2 North Atlantic before SF2 development was abandoned. The AI has weaknesses. Learn them and exploit them or be punished for trying to use real world tactics in a game that cannot and does not totally reflect real world physics and pilot abilities.
  14. Many vs Many tactics are different. An aircraft ultimately doesn't maneuver much harder than his target in gun combat. So, go for MiGs that are tailing friends. They can set up good gun shots. AIM-9 shots are dangerous because you may hit your friend, but if you know what your doing, that won't happen too often. AIM-7/Skyflash shots can be very difficult in short range turning environment. But you won't hit your friend very often lobbing radar homing missiles. If you learn their limitations, the AIM-7 family can work really well in Strike Fighters games.
  15. I just played the F-4J vs MiG-17F 1vs1, which I haven't done for a long time. Unlike a hard fight against a MiG-21, you don't win by spiraling down to the deck in a turn fight. If you try that, the MiG-17 will match your speed, turn on to your tail, and gun you down. So, you have to climb way above him so that his speed stays below 150 knots, which keeps him from flying circles around you. Your speed needs to be high enough to keep turning with him while keeping 5,000 feet or more above him. As long has you have altitude separation, you can afford to drop down to 300-350 knots, but I would try to keep 400+ knots. If you maintain this vertical fight, you will end up at 25 to 30 thousand feet while he flops around at 15 to 20 thousand feet. If you are lucky, you can trade that altitude for a gun or missile pass on his tail, but if his speed comes up as you dive on him, he will out maneuver early AIM-9s. You may get off a snap shot with a gun pod. In 1 vs 1, it is a game of patience. At some point, he will turn tail and run. Then you can hit him with your choice of missile or dare to close for a gun shot. If you study the classic F-4J vs MiG-17 fight of Randy Cunningham in Vietnam, he could not get off a shot and took some gunfire until his opponent retreated. 1 vs 1 in close against a MiG-17 is otherwise close to impossible if the AI is engaging you in a turn fight. The best bet is to shoot the MiG-17 in the face with an AIM-7 or Skyflash before getting into gun range :) Otherwise you will be in a boring vertical fight trying to stall him out.
×

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..