streakeagle

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

No RWR on the top of the fin. No visible antennas sticking up on the spine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The stock game has missions: F-4J vs MiG-xx 1v1. Play those missions over and over to learn how to dogfight with the F-4. Of course, you can edit and save them to use your preferred Phantom FGR2. The MiG-21 and the unslatted Phantoms are almost a dead even match. If you maintain your speed above 450 knots close to sea level, you can equal or even out turn the MiG-21. The sweet spot for turning well seems to be somewhere between 450 and 500 knots. It takes a light touch on the stick to hit maximum turn performance and/or control your speed. If you dump your speed below 400 knots, you will be in trouble. But as you get comfortable with avoiding the stalling point, you can fight all the way down to insanely low speeds, which may be necessary against the MiG-17 and MiG-19 to get a shot off. 1 vs 1 against agile MiGs like the 17 and the 19 is absolutely the hardest fight for the Phantom. Horizontal turning will not beat the MiG-17 and the MiG-19 has the power to fight in the vertical, so it is the toughest fight of all. So: 1) Learn to fly at the edge of an accelerated stall. 2) Learn to control your speed while turning. 3) Learn to fight in the vertical to separate from and reverse on agile opponents who don't have as much power as the Phantom (MiG-17!). 4) Hope the MiG-19 is being flown by an inferior pilot because he can match or beat the Phantom in turn and climb performance, it takes real skill to beat a well flown MiG-19. 5) Try the F-4E and F-4F if you want an aircraft that looks like an F-4 but is much better at close-in stall fighting.

The FGR2 lacks the AoA indicator that is so important to flying the F-4 to its limits, but Strike Fighters provides an audio indication of stall warning, so you can live without it. Get your Indicated Air Speed up to 450 knots, if you are down at sea level, this will also be your True Air Speed, which is also indicated in the FGR2. Roll to a 90 degree bank. Engage full afterburner power. Carefully pull back on the stick while watching your speed indication. About the time you start hearing a wind stall/buffeting sound, you will notice the speed really start unwinding. Repeat the same procedure, but hold your angle of attack/pitch to the highest angle you can while maintaining 450 knots, then take a glance at your g-load indicator. Repeat this procedure at 350 knots, 400 knots, 500 knots, and 600 knots. At 500 knots or greater, you should be able to pull 5g or more without bleeding speed, the faster you go the easier it is to pull a lot of g. Below 500 knots, you should find even pulling 5 or 6 g will start dropping your speed and if you exceed the stall angle of attack, it is like popping a drag chute: no additional g, but an extreme loss of speed. I like to fly by the AoA indicator, but since for some reason the FGR2 lacks that indicator, learn to listen to the stall buffet warning. By watching the gauges as you approach that angle of attack, you should learn how much pitch you can pull before killing your speed. You may find you need to stay away from hearing that sound at all or that you don't mind just barely triggering that sound. Just a matter of learning the cost of stalling and learning to fly close to the limit or just past that limit as it suits your needs. Unslatted Phantoms don't like high AoA, but if you try the F-4E and F-4F, you won't ever want to fly a "hard wing" Phantom. They don't solve the problem of bleeding speed in a turn, but they let you pull a decent amount of AoA with resulting increased g and turn rate before dropping the speed so badly. But I love the challenge of flying hard wing F-4B/C/D/J/K/M Phantoms against much more agile MiGs. If you keep your speed up and only bleed it at the "right" time, you can win in hard wing Phantoms just like real pilots did in Vietnam.

Guessing when AI will truly supplant human pilots is probably like trying to guess when missiles will have finally rendered guns obsolete. Modern aircraft armed with the AIM-120/AIM-9X and/or equivalent missiles may seem to have reached that point in recent years, but they have not been employed in combat in massive numbers with comparable opponents and a fully engaged electronic warfare environment. Missiles are unmanned drones programmed to kill people. They have suffered from all of the limitations of an AI controlled aircraft that is otherwise faster and more maneuverable than their target. When missiles nearly always hit and kill the enemy and almost never hit and kill friendlies, then you are getting close to the point of being able to replace manned aircraft with AI piloted aircraft. Until then, a pilot with MK 1 eyeballs and a gun is going to still be important if not quite as numerous as in the past.

The problem is that fuel tanks have capacities determined by volume: gallons or liters, while aircraft performance depends on weight. So, you really need to know both the size of the tanks in terms of volume and the type of fuel to know its associated density. What I don't know is how an aircraft's display/indicator for fuel works when it displays weight. It wouldn't make sense for it to be using a float to determine tank level. It would make sense to have a flow meter that is calibrated for mass flow, but that requires assuming the density of the fuel and in my experience in industrial controls, flow meters aren't particularly accurate with errors of 2 to 5% being common no matter what the manufacturer's brochure claims.

SF2 has never left my hard drive. I can't stand the FSX/P3d environment, so I rarely fly it. But I primarily fly DCS World. I do fly SF2 every now and then for all the aircraft it has that DCS World doesn't: the F-4, century series, F2H-2, etc. While the F-4s will work without TacPack, they work far better with TacPack. You lose a lot of systems functionality if you don't have TacPack. Unfortunately, P3d keeps making major version changes that break TacPack. VRS ends up releasing newer versions of TacPack, but the workload is so high, they usually end up charging for an upgrade to support major P3d version changes. The F-4E and F-4J/S are much more modern and multi-role compared to the F-4B. So, if you want a less complex aircraft to fly, the F-4B is your plane, though it comes with the option to fly updated versions of the F-4B and the F-4N, which is much closer to the F-4S standard. Not accounting for price, you should get the one you like the most because they are all very good. But with the Milviz products there are different price tiers. Besides the option to buy TacPack support, you also may want to buy the advanced flight model package. The F-4B comes with everything for that one low price. No extra fee for TacPack support. No extra fee for a better flight model. So, once you include cost-effectiveness, the F-4B is the way to go. Only having flight manual performance charts for reference, I can't say whether the F-4B or the Milviz F-4s have the better flight model. The Milviz advanced flight model seems more detailed, but then it also exhibits some weird behavior that doesn't fit my understanding of the F-4's stability. It would be a matter of personal preference whether you think one feels better or is more accurate. So you are asking me would I rather go fly over Europe, Vietnam, and Israel with the F-4B/C/D/E/EJ/F/G/J/K/M/N/S (G and S are user mods) facing aggressive SAMs, AAA. and MiGs or take a scenic tour of the modern world while popping airliners with AIM-9s and AIM-7s, I have I have only one answer: SF2. Some people like yourself that never upgraded from the SFP1/WoX series have recently bought it when the entire package of games/DLC was on sale (twice). The ones that have posted about it were pleasantly surprised at all the improvements that SF2 offers for the loss of the limited DirectPlay multiplayer implementation. The F-4 is one of the best examples. Each major variant, i.e. the F-4B, has several minor variants reflecting production blocks and field changes typically in the form of adding new RWR and/or ECM equipment, which also means updated unique cockpits. The F-4D started production with a slick nose (no RWR). Early updates added the chin pod back to house a RWR antenna. The final variants had a bug-eyed monster of a chin pod for all the new antennas. SF2 models all of these. But like the original SF1 series, there were countless patches along the way and while each patch fixed some issues, they typically caused a few more. But the sim has been stable for years and you need to fly the final patch to support all of the DLC and expansion packs as well as SF2NA. So, everyone knows what the bugs are and some people have found workarounds for many of the issues that remain.

For the most authentic combat experience in terms of flyable variants, correct radar indications, weapons employment, etc. Strike Fighters 2 is by far the best sim. It comes at a price: no multiplayer and a very dated terrain engine. But with mods, SF2 still looks very good, but more importantly has absolutely everything you need to fly virtually any version of the F-4 in any of its historical combat roles. I am an F-4 Phanatic. The above screenshot shows why I never fly the F-4 in Falcon 4: look at the radar, look at the HUD. You are flying and F-16 in an F-4's skin. Unlike DCS World, Falcon 4 was designed to be only an F-16 study sim. Modders have worked wonders with it, and it is nice to have the variety of aircraft available. But contrasted against Strike Fighters 2, a so-called "lite" sim, SF2 turns out to be better in almost every way for single player if you are into F-4s. Now if you would like more detailed systems operation with clickable cockpits, you want one of the Prepar3d versions of the F-4 with TacPack installed: F-4E and/or F-4J/S from Milviz F-4B/N from Simworks Studios Those F-4s have excellent flight modeling and very detailed, realistic systems modeling comparable to DCS World. But using a civil sim to fly combat comes at a cost: limited AI support for enemies, limited sensor and weapons system modeling, and a modern global environment that is difficult to mod into a historical combat environment. I have been waiting for the DCS World F-4E that Belsimtek screenshots teased for years. DCS World combines the study sim quality of P3d F-4s with the combat environment of SF2. But it still Vietnam. The new Syria map is a nice move in the direction of showcasing Israeli air combat. Unfortunately, a DCS World F-4 of any kind is still probably two or more years away from early access downloading.

It is very hard to find many photos and text on F2H-2 operations in Korea. The F9F was there in greater numbers and the entire time. Whereas the F2H was mostly reserved for the front line defense against the USSR. I have what few books are available. But most of the photos show unarmed F2H-2s over Korea. I have a few photos of them on deck that show some armament, bombs and/or rockets, but no photos of F2H-2s en route to target with "typical" loadouts, making it impossible to establish what a typical loadout was. From what I have read, I am guessing rockets on the wings and 2 or 4 bombs on the center hard points depending on the size of the bomb, as it could only carry two 500 lb bombs.

I just spent this afternoon flying the DCS A-4E with a great group of guys that alternate between Korea and Vietnam every Sunday. As I am mostly an air-to-air guy, it is painful learning how to drop snake eyes and CBUs in a heavily defended area with 23mm cannons and tanks with 14.5 mm guns all over the place. We were trying to rescue a BAT pilot, but after hours of effort, a tank we missed got to him before our CSAR helos could. While I still find air-to-air much more fun and rewarding, I have so much more to learn to get my air-to-ground skills up to a decent level that it is a great challenge. Next Vietnam mission, I will alternate between attack jet and CSAR helo instead of leaving a bunch of pilots for someone else to try to pick up.

In general, I never liked the flight models of LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs other than the Su-25T, which paved the way to the much more realistic and detailed flight models of DCS World aircraft. This is an important point: simple flight model = very bad, especially compared to the very detailed and potentially very realistic flight model available in the Strike Fighters series. In general, unofficial, unlicensed community aircraft mods for DCS World cannot access the SDK needed to make proper DCS World modules, so they usually exist in one of two forms: borrowing the modeling of a Flaming Cliffs aircraft while using a different 3d model or being completely limited to a simple flight model. Along comes the MB339 and the A-4E-C (c for community mod). These two mods are somewhere between the SFM of the old LOMAC series and the Professional Flight Model of ED's official DCS releases. I believe they have figured out (or were told by ED or a third party) how to use a custom external flight model similar to the way the licensed third parties are able to provide one. So, their flight models can potentially be as good as ED's PFMs in many ways... yet there are still limitations to the systems modeling without the SDK and/or ED's support. The MB339 and A-4E-C are absolutely amazing. You would swear they are a full-blown licensed 3rd party modules... except for some little difficulties. Wheel brakes and radio functionality are two big ones for me. But if you can ignore those little problems, you get amazing aircraft that are far superior to the crappy VEAO Hawk that was fully licensed and supported by ED before they finally dropped out of the market. The A-4E is particularly interesting to me, because its existence represents a big step to what I want: the best of both worlds. I want Strike Fighters's historical environments, aircraft, and ground objects mixed with DCS World's superior engine for modern graphics, terrain, multiplayer, exceptionally realistic systems modeling, VR support, and countless other features TK never got around to adding to the SF series (recording and playing back missions, ejecting, refueling, etc.). DCS World has been slowly, but steadily moving in the direction I want since around the time that TK ceased development for SF2. With the arrival of the P-51D and the announcement of the MiG-21bis, I knew DCS World would eventually surpass SF2 as my go-to sim for flying every night. The F-86, MiG-15, F-5E, MiG-19, Mirage 2000, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14, UH-1, and Mi-8 really sealed the deal. A MiG-23MLA and F-8J Crusader are just around the corner, too. But it has taken a very long time to get this far. The A-4E proves to me that the community can step up and provide great aircraft that rival payware quality without having to deal with ED's licensing obligations or trying to turn a profit. Flying the DCS World A-4E provides everything flying the SF2 A-4E did, and so much more. So, to help support the A-4E, someone is hosting a server with a Vietnam like environment in terms of aircraft, ground objects, and missions. You can fly A-4Es, F-5Es, and MiG-21s. You get a call on what the target is and where it is at. You can dial the latt and long on you A-4E's navigation computer, which is as easy as twisting a knob until the numbers match the message. You can use the ground radar for all of its available modes: search/navigation, terrain avoidance, and attack. You can carry all the appropriate ordnance, including ARMs for SEAD. You have a RWR control panel (primarily audio and light indications) and decoy dispensers with manual and automatic programs. The A-4E is not really compatible with the new hyper-realistic Supercarrier, as ED only works with licensed developers and the SDK to provide support for that payware DLC, but it works great with the existing carrier, providing carrier operations far superior to what you can do in SF2. The thorn in you side is the unsupported radio comms critical to both airfield and carrier operations as well as getting inflight updates, etc. But the experience of flying the A-4E in VR and watching SA-2 SAM missiles lift off and head your way while hearing your RWR and some panicked voice calls is super immersive. If SAMs, MiGs, or SA-2s get you and you are able to eject, you are in for a real treat in VR. I hate to get shot down, but I love to eject. If you are flying high up in an F-86 Sabre and eject, the view is fantastic as well as observing the sequence of falling with the chair, separating from the chair, and having the chute finally open when you are low enough. The A-4 ejection is just as fun/immersive. If you make it past the SAMs and MiGs to your objective, you get to enjoy setting up your weapons delivery, including dialing in your gunsight depression. Rockets, bombs, missiles, and guns all work great. So here is what the A-4E and this great "Vietnam" server tell me: ED needs to get off their butt and provide both Korea and Vietnam maps and modders from other flight sims need to converge on DCS World and fill in the plane set at a pace that can't be matched by professional developers trying to run at a profit. With the right modding community, DCS World free content could explode to fill in the gaps that are going to take a long time to fill with licensed developers while nearly matching their quality. In the mean time, I am going to continue a balance between training offline and flying online in Korea, Vietnam, and Cold War servers that focus on the same combat environments I loved in SF2, but with really good multiplayer. I haven't had this much fun since SFP1 and Wings Over Vietnam were originally released. Unless ED suddenly goes bankrupt and switches to making free-to-play mobile apps, my combat flight simming future is very bright. Now, it could be a whole lot better for me if ED would get rolling on the F-4E that Belsimtek had started but stopped after being absorbed and tasked by ED to focus on the F/A-18, F-16, and Mi-24. Alternatively, Heatblur is in a great position to make an F-4J or F-4S with their experience with the F-14: Super Carrier compatibility, jester AI for the backseat, and older AIM-7E missiles. In the interim, I fly the F-14B quite a bit, because aside from the amazing power to weight, low speed agility, and AWG-9/AIM-54 weapon system, flying the F-14 feels a lot like flying the F-4 with steam gauges and no fly-by-wire. Once the underpowered F-14A is released, it will be darn close to flying an F-4S if you don't carry AIM-54s. Some people think DCS World is too complex compared to SF2, but if you could operate an F-4 or an A-4E/F in SF2, you can fly just as easily in DCS World. There are a few more buttons to push/knobs to turn, but you can use one keypress to complete startup, and after that most of the necessary controls are similar to SF2 controls, or remarkably obvious/easy to use by reading the labels and clicking on the in-game cockpit with a mouse or VR controller rather than trying to memorize the keyboard map, which was actually quite complex in SF2, where most keys had 2 or more functions using <shift>, <alt>, and <ctrl> modifiers. The older aircraft like the F-86, MiG-15, and F-5E are incredibly easy to fly with full-realism: no harder than SF2. The MiG-21 has a cockpit full of switches, but after a few flights it is almost as easy to operate as the other older analog aircraft. If you love SF2 and haven't played DCS World in a while, get the free A-4E and take it for a spin on the Vietnam multiplayer server. It's like SF2 is on graphical steroids, while at the same time being more realistic and equally fun to fly and fight.

I would have loved the shadow fix, but I have enjoyed flying the Razbam F2H-2 for many years despite the flaw. I wish DCS World would give me an F2H-2. But if anyone does a Korean War era Navy jet DCS World, you can be sure it will be an F9F. I will gladly take an F9F, but I strongly prefer the F2H-2. But until DCS World supports more of the 1950s/1960s fighters that are the heart of the SF series, SF2 is staying on my hard drive.

I would think the F-5B would be almost as much work as an F-5E, but I will gladly take any variants you can produce to the same standard as this one. The NF-5A and F-5C are the principal variants I would want, so your intentions are very good news to me. It is great to see such amazing progress in a sim that should otherwise be completely dead by now. I don't know what motivates people to work so hard for free, but I am more than happy to take advantage of your generosity and determination. Great stuff, keep it coming!

Congratulations on finishing this project! I am sorry that Sophocles had to go through so much upheaval at home, both personally and economically. But despite the heartbreak, stress, and resulting long delays, this F-5A has turned out to be a top-notch add-on. Certainly among the top 5 aircraft you can get, and arguably the best available at this time. I would have enjoyed a lot more back in 2012 when SF2 was still my primary sim of interest. At this point, I primarily play DCS World, but I still download and try out SF2 mods that interest me. This one most certainly interested me. Are there going to be follow on F-5A addons based on this release to cover other users/variants, which aside from texturing and minor FM/model edits shouldn't be too hard or time consuming compared to the previous effort)? I would love to see an SF2 F-5E completed to this level, but that is substantially different and would pretty much be the same as building a new aircraft from scratch apart from being able to reuse a lot of the cockpit and most of the flight model.

I am enjoying VR right now, particularly with DCS World and to some extent in other sims like IL-2:BoX series, Aces High 3, P3d, and Aerofly FS2. But I want the tech to reach the point that VR image quality matches flat panel image quality with a full natural field of view at 90+ fps... and that level of hardware isn't going to exist for quite some time, if ever. To use VR in P3d, you have to disable all the Orbx terrain addons and lower the quality settings too much. The whole point of the civil flight sims is to have amazing image quality if you are focused more on sight seeing than realistic systems or flight modeling. And even if you are more focused on the systems and flight modeling, neither requires VR. So, it is understandable that MS chose to focus on 2d panel quality and performance. The only question is have they really delivered or is it marketing hype like the in-game screenshots on the back of old PC games sold at stores in big boxes.

I looked at the options. I decided to preorder the best one with the 10 extra planes and 10 extra airports. The airplane selection isn't very exciting for me because I like Flight Simulator X having the P-51 and F/A-18 as well as helicopters built in. I also liked the ultralight. Very good variety. But if you are just going to have general aviation aircraft, I want a Cessna 152 and Cessna 172, they have both. Airport wise, they came pretty close to giving me everything I would want. I like airports/cities I know well. I lived near San Francisco and flew in/out of that airport many times. I lived in San Diego, but spent some time in LA and flew in and out of LA a few times. I currently live in Orlando, so it is great that they included that one. Chicago and New York are must haves if you are going to have any US airports/cities at all, and I have traveled to those a few times, too. But I would have loved to have my favorite two cities with their airports: San Diego and Tampa. Now if this looks and runs as well as the trailers, the only thing that should disappoint me is the lack of VR support. But I have to wait for over a month to find out.

The differences between an i5 and an i7 are absolutely useless for an old game like this one. Single core clock speed is the only thing that really matters for cpu performance and an i5 clocked the same as in i7 from a given generation will perfom identically in older games. RAM capacity and speed are both useful. GPU speed and RAM capacity are useful. But there are tools where you can see how hard your gpu is being pushed. If it isn't pegged at its limits, it isn't a bottleneck. I have been flying DCS World with i5 for quite some time and my numbers are only slower than i7 and i9 cpus by the percentage difference in clock rates. I am running 4.4 GHz and most of the "high end guys" run at 5+ GHz. I fly VR on a Rift S, and can do so in SF2 without any limitations from flying with an i5. If I had money to blow, I would experiment with an i3 just to see if it would make a difference in my flight sims. When flight sims start being coded to leverage more than 2 cores, AMD is going to take the title for cost-effective cpus. But until then, single core clock speed combined with the effective work per clock cycle will dominate flight sim performance, and i5s running at the same clock speeds at i7s and i9s will have identical frame rates and graphics quality for a given GPU and a given RAM size/speed. I am not sure what the minimum level of GPU it takes to max out SF2 performance, but I know a plain jane GTX 1080 is practically idling with a stock SF2 setup and my old AMD 7970 GHz edition could hold 60 fps vsync without a problem mixed with my i5 and 16 GB RAM. DCS World will chew up more RAM than any SF2 setup. With maxed out settings, DCS World can easily exceed 16 GB RAM on some terrains and some missions. I have 32 GB RAM. Only in certain cases is that RAM helping me. Most of the time, DCS World needs less than 16 GB RAM and SF2 normally doesn't even come close because its terrain quality, even with mods, is much lower quality and consumes much less resources.