Jump to content

streakeagle

+MODDER
  • Content count

    2,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

streakeagle last won the day on October 9 2016

streakeagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

422 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

13,538 profile views
  1. I need to update my specs. The original Oculus Rift supported Windows 7 at release. But as they kept adding new features, Windows 7 did not support many of them. So Oculus dropped official support for Windows 7. In the mean time, I had been studying the contenders for the next generation of VR and came to realize that all future VR hardware was going to only be compatible with Windows 10. So, I bit the bullet and ran the free Windows 10 upgrade on my Windows 7 PC. I first imaged the Windows 7 installation from my 500 GB SSD to a new 1 TB SSD (the latest Samsung superfast M2 release). I then downloaded the still publicly available free Windows 10 upgrade setup from Microsoft to a USB key and ran it to upgrade to Windows 10. I am in the process of doing the same thing for my son so that he can use the old Oculus Rift with the latest features.
  2. I simultaneously made the jump for a 46 inch 1080p LCD tv from 2006 to a 49 inch 4K TV and received a new Oculus Rift S. Playing DCS World in 4K on a large screen TV is stunning. It looks good and I can visually track aircraft out to more realistic ranges. The Rift S makes a subtle but significant improvement in VR image quality without penalizing performance too much. I can now read all the labels and gauges in most aircraft as well as visually acquire and track small fighters.
  3. The MiG-21 has several issues. The most important to me is that after many years since the original release, the gunsight does not have the basic functionality that it should have. It should essentially behave like the P-51D's K-14 with the option to use manual range input or radar range input like the F-86. So the diamond circle should change size with the range input and the wingspan input like every other gunsight from that generation. If you have the range input and wingspan input correct, the diamond circle should match the wingspan of the target. It has none of that functionality and does't seem to compute lead very well either. The P-51D's K-14 probably works too well... I am able to use it to place rounds with near pinpoint accuracy if the target co-operates enough. The F-86 gunsight appears to function correctly, but the lead computation seems to be off compared to the accuracy I get with the K-14. The MiG-21bis' LCOS reticle is effectively useless, you can be more accurate just using the fixed reticle and judge the lead from experience. The MiG-21 generally looks as good or better than any other module... but it achieves those good looks inefficiently. It takes too much hard drive space and degrades frame rate performance, especially when other MiG-21s are flying nearby. But the other problem that has bothered me as much or more than the gunsight functionality is the dirty canopy. The globs of sealant around the periscope and the much splattered all over the glass resemble a museum bird that has been left out in the weather without maintenance for 10 to 20 years. The glare from the sun combined with all the dirt on the glass made dogfights very difficult for me. So, in response to questions/complaints about these problems, the company reps who post on the DCS forums are very hostile and defensive. They ultimately claim they are providing improved canopy visibility options, but also claim they don't have enough information to model the gunsight correctly. I have read the manual it spells out behavior damn near identical to the F-86 gunsight except for a few new features/options. Why is it that nearly every other DCS World aircraft has been able to get the gunsight working correctly, but not the MiG-21? I am a huge MiG-21 fan and was amazed by how complete it was for the initial release. But over the years, the MiG-21bis got a lot worse before it started getting better. Instead of fixing the MiG-21bis or releasing a contemporary opponent, Leatherneck releases a biplane.
  4. DCS Weekend News: 17 May 2019

    I know they chose the A-8 because of its high production numbers in their target year of 1944, but the A-5 was a much better air superiority version that would be much closer in performance to its DCS allied rivals, the Spitfire and Mustang. The A-8 weighs more, has less speed, lower climb rates, worse turn performance. The D-9 is the aircraft intended to take on 1944 era air superiority. The Fw190A-5 is a contemporary of the Spitfire Mk IX. It is the variant that should have been modeled.
  5. DCS Weekend News: 10 May 2019

    I couldn't resist the I-16... a Gee Bee with machine guns and open cockpit :)
  6. Based on my experience with the MiG-21, I have zero confidence in Leatherneck. I hope they can produce a respectable F-8, but if it ends up being comparable to the quality of the MiG-21bis, it will end up a hangar queen if I even bother to buy it.
  7. Both the Hornet and the Tomcat like very low speeds. The Hornet has issues with its G restriction, so you have to go slow to access its full maneuverability. The Tomcat has to be flown very carefully... too fast and it accelerates even more rather than turning. Too slow and its speed bleeds very quickly. Finding and maintaining the sweet spot is challenging. I find the F-15C more forgiving than either one. I can adjust my AoA to build energy or trade speed for angles. Keep your speed between 300 and 450 knots, and you will do fine. If the F-15 had been given maneuvering flaps and leading edge flaps or slats, it would have dominated ACM aside from its large size being too easy to spot. I like the view out of the F-15, too. Right now, I think the Hornet is a good choice for most people: it can dogfight, it can pound the ground, and despite all the buttons and menus, it is very easy to start up, take off, fly, and land. Once you get its speed low enough, it is incredibly agile. For pure air-to-air, the F-15C would be my favorite, but the lack of full systems modeling / clickable cockpit is a huge drawback. If I wanted to fly a "lite" sim, I would have stayed with SF2. But that simplicity makes it so much easier to employ effectively with little or no practice. So, for me, the F-14B is the coolest of the available US "teen" fighters. It is probably the most capable, but requires a lot of skill and knowledge to operate correctly... and you have to deal with an AI RIO and/or switch seats to get certain things done. I haven't used the RIO much. If I ever learn how to use the Voice Attack / VAICOM Pro correctly, the RIO will be more realistic and useful.
  8. Blohm & Voss BV 141

    I have a 1/48 model of this aircraft hanging from my ceiling. I would never have expected to see it in a flight sim!
  9. The F-14B is an amazing module. It is largely old-school analog... roughly the same tech level as the F-4J. Even with its powerful engines, you aren't going to beat small, agile fires by just pushing the throttles forward and yanking hard on the stick. I can't wait for the F-14A, whose power-to-weight is very close to the F-4J. It will even more skill and patience to wing gun fights. This module will keep me entertained until the F-4E is released. I question the performance modeling of the F-15C vs the F-14B. The F-14B should be somewhat equal or better than the F-15C over most of the flight envelope. Yet, I can win just about any dogfight quickly and easily in the F-15C but have to work my butt off to win in the F-14B. Is the F-15C overmodeled? Is the F-14B undermodeled? Or are they are both dead-on and I am ill-informed? I am uncertain of the validity of the attached graph. I would have expected the F-16C and F-15C to be have their data lines swapped based on pilot anecdotes. This only shows the F-14A. It shows the F-4E and F-14A to be very close at Mach 0.8 or above, which largely agrees with the info I have available. Most published data on F-14 vs F-4 is against a hard wing F-4J rather than a slatted F-4E.
  10. New book, written by me.

    Very nice!
  11. DCS Weekend News: 15th March 2019

    Each aircraft module is effectively a complete study sim (some more complete than others). The fact that they share the same free graphics engine and base world maps doesn't change the fact that one aircraft is modeled to an incredible amount of detail. Microsoft FSX / Lockheed P3d is far from cheap. Buy the base games, then go get an Accusim aircraft like the P-40, P-51, and/or Spitfire. Buy TacPack. Buy Orbx terrain addons... Hardcore simulation is labor intensive, and labor costs money. I said many years ago at SimHQ that I would easily pay $100 or more for a study-sim of the F-4 and MiG-21. I am halfway there ;) I have all of the DCS World addon aircraft. It wasn't cheap. But I have spent far more on hardware: joysticks, HOTAS, gpus, RAM, entire new machines, etc. Once purchased, the modules are good until ED goes bankrupt... which is a lot longer than my much more expensive hardware has lasted and will last in the near future.
  12. F-4 Cockpit Revisited

    Warthog Throttle removed, real F-4 control panels surrounding the throttle levers installed.
  13. Cold War in miniature

    I used to own every air combat wargame I could find, both board game and miniatures rules as well as most modern armor board games and miniatures rules. I had GHQ 1/285 miniatures to support US Army battalions of M60A3, M1A1, and M2/M3 with infantry stands and USSR T-72/T-80/BMP-2 regiments. I played using the GDW Command Decision Combined Arms rules where 1 miniature = 1 platoon (3-6 vehicles). But I had some miniatures rules and board games that were 1:1 scale, too. Avalon Hill's TAC Air board game had 1 counter = 1 battalion, so the hardware details didn't matter, but it was fantastic for recreating the tactics needed to hold or break a line using combined arms: armor, infantry, artillery, helos, air support, supply, and command/control. TAC Air would have been even more fun to play with a large scale 3d map and miniatures. My favorite 1:1 scale board game was Air Cav. Board games and miniatures are a very different experience than PC games. I miss playing them, but they are no fun if you always have to play by yourself. PC games' inherent support of single player is what makes them the dominant way to play wargames in the present. I threw all my games away when I moved to a new house. The only game I have left is a very realistic air combat game: Birds of Prey. It plays out 3d 1:1 scale dogfights nearly as realistically as PC flight sims. Very good physics, but a little slow and painful to play with multiple people if none of them know the rules and/or have never played a wargame before.
  14. FM is not dead on, but mostly OK for the player. AI is allowed to cheat in many ways, including the ability to catch up and get in formation faster and easier than a player could under the same circumstances.
  15. I know the A is coming later. Originally the A was the focus... but everyone that really wants a D begged for the B. The F-14A is the aircraft I grew up with and is the one I want to fly. The F-14B (F-14A+ to me) was just going into service when I went into the Navy and I saw one of the F-14D prototypes at Miramar's open house/air show in the 1989/1990 time frame with its distinctive double nose sensor. The F-14B is an F-14 on easy mode. I want to fight the TF-30 engines and struggle to manage energy as the F-14A had almost the same T/W as the F-4J. The TF-30 had a lot if issues that made it difficult to employ in a dogfight that might require rapid throttle changes between idle and Max A/B. You don't fly the plane, you fly the engine ;)
×

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..