streakeagle

The DCS mirror is wrong. The purpose is to see behind you, not take selfies. It should be angled up a lot more. As for SF2 mirrors, I never mess with them, but there should be some sort of ini file that specifies the viewport angle so that you can get what you want. But be warned: TK set up his views to hide areas that weren't detailed. You aren't ever going to see what you see in a DCS World mirror because SF2 won't be able to show you the cockpit or pilot in a rear view unless you modify the cockpit model and/or external model along with the associated ini files that determine the way the two interact (i.e. clipping and hidden nodes).

I am downloading the package for free right now. I used the authorization code from the very last DLC and my order was instantly accepted. This reminds me of the 2009 Combo pack, which was the last time TK offered a deal like this. I got that one for free, too.

It can be done using VorpX. But there is no functioning profile for SF2, so you have to borrow one from another game. It matters which one you use, and even if you get the right one and set it up as well as can be, it is less than perfect. Stary is the man that knows how to get it to work. I tried it. The incomplete cockpits are the first obvious flaw: they were designed for you to look past certain view angles, certainly not with a wide view. The cockpits also look bad on the side panels where details were minimal and low resolution textures were used. After seeing VR done right in Aerofly FS2 and mostly right in DCS World as well as working adequately in P3d and X-Plane, I am not going to play SF2 in VR. As it stands, I have a 49-inch 4K tv that makes SF2 look beautiful. So the lack of VR support doesn't really hurt.

And that is just the stock game out of the box! Most if not all of the AI aircraft have mods available to make them flyable, many complete with decent cockpits. Countless other aircraft are available for free. Entire mod packages for NATO, Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, and many others exist. Besides having an obsolete terrain engine, the main limitations of the game are the absence of multiplayer and the inability to record and playback missions. This is a great deal for those that never got into SF2. But as good as it is, I barely fly it any more because DCS World gives me nearly everything the SF series did AND has all the "missing" features like drag chutes, ejection sequences, refueling, exceptional multiplayer support, helicopters, etc. Plus it has state of the art graphics and decent VR support. Once Belsimtek releases the F-4E, my only reason to come back to SF2 is for the century series fighters and some of the Korean War types like my favorite, the F2H-2 Banshee.

TK didn't turn his back on us... he turned his future toward being able to pay his bills because many if not most SFP1/WoX fans never bought SF2 and countless others were simply pirating all of the SFP1/WoX/SF2 games. If the newer material had sold as well as it needed to, particularly the XP2 (with the mission editor) and SF2:NA, we might have had an SF3 or at least a very well polished and updated SF2. But market forces convinced TK that he needed to make dumbed down games that more people could enjoy and in a marketing strategy that guaranteed him a steady income stream even if the players never actually paid him $1 (free to play with ads). Repackaging SF2 into this bundle is something he should have done a long time ago. If he really wants to move product, he would price the bundle at $40 to $60 like a console game or a modern flight sim. People new to SF2 should not have to debate about which games to buy. 10-year old obsolete games still selling at the original retail price, while countless alternatives are available at an extreme discount through STEAM, GOG, or outright free as abandonware doesn't make sense. $100 makes it a lot more accessible, but that is still a lot of money for some people.

From Third Wire's Facebook page:

I would be very surprised if there was even one change. This is a last grab for cash before SF2 becomes so old that it may not run on Windows anymore. They aren't selling so well at $30 a pop plus DLC costs. So this is a chance for people who held out on getting SF2 because they were happy with all the free stuff for SFP1/WoX to get all of it for a decent price. I can still remember the 2009? release which sold at Christmas for like $25 or $30 that had all of the the then available SF2 games integrated into a single downloadable installation file. Many people regretted missing that release over the years. As I already have everything released, the only motivation for me to buy such a package is just to thank TK for over a decade of fun flying Phantoms and MiGs over Vietnam and Israel. Even with all remaining bugs/limitations, this is really quite a deal when you consider how many aircraft are available and how many historical maps with missions and campaigns are available to fly over.

I have the original Rift and the Rift S. The S is way ahead in graphics. I like the pass through cameras, but the tracking was more precise and reliable with the sensors of the original Rift. My main problem with the Rift S right now is the mic. It suddenly stops working and will only start working again if you pull out the USB connection and put it back in. I cannot remove the face pad: I have glasses so the headset needs to be pushed clear of them. The Rift S fits better with my glasses. I don't know why they downgraded the audio. If you cup your hands over your ears, it sounds much louder. The original Rift audio worked fairly well. Since the mic isn't working, I have found that I have been able to wear my regular headset under the Rift S headband providing me with both better audio and a reliable mic. The Rift S works fairly well I am generally locked at 40 fps when playing DCS World. Aerofly FS 2 is much better for VR in terms of speed, smoothness. However, I still enjoy flying without VR. I now have a 49 inch 4K HDR TV for a PC monitor that looks absolutely stunning. There are tradeoffs flying missions in DCS World: the clarity of 4K allows you to see everything well including spotting very small objects in the distance or reading any and all gauges. But VR provides much better head tracking orientation: you know which way you are looking and can follow a contact through maneuvers much easier. But spotting aircraft is much harder with the resolution of the Rift vs the 4K TV.

It is wishful thinking to believe TK is ever going to patch SF2 or add new content. He would sooner delete all the options to purchase the SFP1/WoX/SF2 games to eliminate any form of tech support and focus on his income: the free-to-play mobile games.

An Xbox is a Windows 10 PC. As long as they don't stick the PC gamers with the console control interface they way they did with the last two Star War Battlefront games, this could be a winner. I won't hold my breath waiting to find out, but I am not assuming that this is going to blow for PCs either. Wait and see. In the mean time, my biggest problem is deciding whether to play DCS World on a 49" 4K TV or the Rift S: awesome graphics or awesome VR with 1:1 scaling and head tracking. Both are great and it is really hard to pick one over the other.

Some final thoughts on VEAO and the Hawk, starting with VEAO's side of the story: Based on the way VEAO was branching out into other sims ( Flight Simulator World with their P-40F for instance ), I suspect there is more to the story than VEAO is telling. I am sure ED has a very different point of view as to why things went down the way they did. I am pretty sure the contract terms that VEAO refused to sign were principally introduced due to VEAO. Why would ED want to penalize buggy modules and want the rights to their IP? VEAO left, now people who paid for the Hawk have the option to stay with an obsolete revision of DCS World just so they can fly the most incomplete, buggiest and worst looking DCS World aircraft module. Furthermore, those that paid for the P-40F never got more than some screenshots and some videos. Imagine if RAZBAM abandoned DCS World and took all of its source code for its aircraft with it. How long would it take for those aircraft to become incompatible with the latest DCS World release? ED should have demanded sufficient rights to maintain code from the start, or they will never be able to support third party contributions over the long term. The fact that other developers overcame the same obstacles that VEAO faced to produce far more complex aircraft to much higher standards (AJS-37, F-14A/B, Mirage 2000, AV-8, etc.) over a much shorter time frame tells me a lot. I would have been happier if VEAO had been able to deliver all the aircraft they listed as being under development (many of them with screenshots of 3d models in advanced stages of completion). But if they couldn't handle a subsonic trainer with simple avionics and a very basic armament, then they had no business developing any further products for DCS World. To be fair, Eagle Dynamics development plans and execution has been very erratic. It must be extremely difficult and stressful trying to debug and keep modules working over the frequent and sometimes drastic changes to the core game engine. But again, I point to how other developers have weathered that storm and are still releasing more modules. The other third parties are far from perfect, but their initial releases tend to look better and function better than the Hawk despite having far less time to develop and debug them. So VEAO can play the blame game all they want, but the fact is they took peoples' money and made promises they couldn't keep. I think everyone is better off with VEAO out of DCS World third party development.

The mobile games look impressive for a tablet/phone game. But the simulation value is negligible. It is wishful thinking to believe TK will ever release anything else for SF2. He doesn't even officially support it being installed past Windows 7. If anything good is going to come of this, it is that the mobile game will eventually morph into SF3. But as it stands now, the PC version is a very basic port. It could not handle having all of my flight sim USB hardware installed. You have to have only one game controller device connected to guarantee correct behavior. The best device for playing the PC version is an Xbox controller, which is sad.

Cockpits are a nice start... but the mobile games are still along way from the original SFP1, much less SF2. Fortunately for me, I can mostly get what I wanted out of SF2 from DCS World. But you still can't beat SF2 for the plane set. SF2 also remains the best sim for Korea, Vietnam, and Arab-Israeli Wars. It has all the right terrains with all the right ground objects and all the right aircraft. I tried all of the mobile games and have the PC version, but I never play them.

All you have to do is look at the lives of the people who are shouting the loudest about climate change and how you have to give up luxuries to save the planet. I can't name one of them that isn't hypocritical. If you believe the planet is in danger, you don't just tell other people to change their ways. You set the example. Having huge mansions that consume tons of electricity and need tons of water for gardening, which also consumes tons of electricity, is not setting the example. Flying all over the world in your private jet or a chartered jet when you can use the internet to provide high definition live video and audio feeds is insane. Driving around in limos or large SUVs isn't exactly following the example either. Excusing all of this by claiming you are paying for "carbon credits" is the same as saying, "rich people can live anyway they want while middle and lower classes have to follow the rules."

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.

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.

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.

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.

I couldn't resist the I-16... a Gee Bee with machine guns and open cockpit :)

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.

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.

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.

Very nice!

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.