streakeagle

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Taking off and landing on a carrier with the Su-33 is everything I hoped it would be. The flight model feels right. The animations look great. My only complaint is the naked carrier deck. I can takeoff fly an oval and land over and over using Oculus Rift. What a great experience. It does take a long time to refuel, though. I can see the fuel gauge creeping up while I wait. Taking off with a full load of gas and air-to-air missiles is moderately challenging. I need a long take-off roll before hitting the ramp and still come pretty close to the water before the speed comes up enough to raise the flaps. I would rather be landing an F-4B on a Vietnam era carrier (which I can do in FSX), but this looks good, feels good, and is so much fun, too. I can't wait to see how the F/A-18C and F-14A turn out with their carriers.

Well, the Israeli's liked their Mirages upgraded to J79s :)

Let the free market decide. I don't see my self every buying this addon. But I have already seen posts from many who have already bought it. Modeling the GPS in detail took some work. If people want to retrofit gps to aircraft that originally didn't have it, more power to them. Many have complained about how ED is itemizing everything such as the WW2 terrain being sold separately from the WW2 AI objects. If ED goes to far, they will lose an already small market. I am with them for the detail/accuracy of the aircraft, particularly the flight models. If they give me what I want for a fair price, they keep my business. If not, I will stop buying more products. To be fair, you need to compare DCS World to FSX. An A2A Simulations Cessna costs $50. A Cessna has no radar, no weapons, just basic instruments and maybe some advanced navigation equipment and/or gps. ED is meeting or beating the prices of the competition. FSX has special addons not unlike the WW2 assets or gps that sell for similar or higher prices. I have spent far less on DCS than someone committed to FSX/P3D. I don't get a beautiful global map, but I can fly combat aircraft in a much more realistic combat environment than any FSX/P3D/TacPack installation for a much lower price. Best wishes for the people that have money to blow on a GPS addon at $15 for an aircraft that cost at most $50 or maybe even $25 on sale. If ED makes a profit on this and that profit gets re-invested into aircraft and terrains that I want, it is a win-win situation for me :)

I was drawn to SFP1 by the F-4 Phantom. At the time early work in progress screenshots of SFP1 were being posted at SimHQ, I was flying Jane's USAF because it was the best option for the F-4/Vietnam era at the time. Wings Over Vietnam provided what I thought SFP1 should have been upon release: historical Vietnam map with carriers, the only thing missing was clouds. Wings Over Europe added clouds and the F-15A. But the user made addon, Korean Air War, was the outstanding centerpiece of the SFP1/WoX series. MiG Alley was the go to sim for the Korean War and allowed the player to experience the F-86, P-51, F-80, F-84, and MiG-15. But SFP1 KAW brought a much more up to date platform with superior modeling of everything except the gunsight. Fast forward quite a few years to the release of KAW for SF2. The terrain pushes the limits of what is possible in SF2. The available plane set is simply amazing. My preference is flying the Razbam F2H-2 payware addon aircraft, but the option to fly F7F Tigercats and F3D Skynights as night fighters isn't possible in any other sim. The experience is almost as good as possible on a PC at present. Only DCS World is poised to surpass SF2 KAW, but to date, no announcement has been made to support a Korean War map/objects and the only available flyable aircraft are the F-86F, P-51D, and MiG-15bis. Unless DCS decides to step up to the plate, I doubt there will be any combat flight sim that will surpass SF2 KAW in the foreseeable future. It is a shame that the Korean War isn't more marketable and that Third Wire never produced their own KAW product, but the free user made KAW SF2 would be hard to beat.

The hours of work that went into KAW over the years will never be replicated by commercial sim. Freeware has its limitations. It can be slow. The quality is inconsistent. The community becomes fragmented over time. If the work isn't accomplished fast enough, the project often dissolves before making any real progress. The original SFP1 version that worked with Service Pack 2a was quite good. But all of the additional years poured into the development of the current SF2 release is quite noticeable and an amazing achievement. Thanks to everyone that was involved :)

SimWorks Studios has previously released an F-4B for FSX/TacPack and is planning on releasing an F-4C and F-4D in the future. They are considering trying to model the special EF-4C Wild Weasel variant tested in Vietnam but have very little information to go on beyond photos of the rear instrument panel and a vague description. Ideally, some sort of operational reference would allow decent modeling. But any pertinent information would be greatly appreciated. I know this is the community to ask if anyone knows anything about this obscure F-4 variant. The developer is particularly interested in a detailed description of the operation of the ER-142.

This looks cool. What grabbed my eye was all the skins that are available. My favorite is among them: the prototype F/A-18 with the gold/blue stripes and the hornet logo.

Back to the future: I have now had the SimWorks Studios F-4B, VRS Super Hornet, and VRS TacPack for awhile. What has been accomplished within the FSX framework is utterly amazing, but still falls way short of the combat experience you get from SF2 and DCS World. It is fun to operate the systems with most if not all of the buttons/switches working per the manuals, but the radar and weapons modeling is really basic... more on par with Jane's Fighters Anthology than SF2 or DCS World. You can set up cool air-to-ground missions with lots of AI traffic, but the only semi-realistic opponent are SA-2 SAMs. So it is great for making screenshots and after action reports, but worthless for anyone looking for a good ACM experience. I haven't tried using multiplayer to make up for the lack of AI, but I suspect my dislike of the somewhate simple weapons and radar modeling would make even multiplayer dogfights less than thrilling in an FSX/TacPack environment. In the mean time, Belsimtek has released the F-5E and announced an upcoming F-4E for DCS World. I don't see much more of my time or money being spent on FSX or any of its derivatives at this point unless FSX/TacPack takes a giant leap forward to catch up in modeling key parameters for combat: weapons, sensors, and AI. P.S. Despite the promise of an advanced external flight model, I have never bothered with the Milviz F-4E. Per the above screenshot, they couldn't even get the 3d model correct. The oversized bulbous canopy bothers me so much that I refuse to buy it... unless the entire package (aircraft, tacpack supplement, advanced flight model) goes on sale for a really low price this Christmas. Their last sale tempted me... but the advanced flight model wasn't available yet and the 3d model is so repulsive that I easily passed up a 50% off sale.

Looking on the internet, you can find plenty of cool screenshots and some videos, but how well does it really work? With all the limitations of the FSX engine, combined with running the Tacpack addon, can air combat really be handled with an fps fluent enough for gun fights? Are the physics/flight models/damage models at least comparable to the Strike Fighters series? Is air to air combat limited to unresponsive AI drones and multiplayer? Is multiplayer decent? What level of hardware does it take to get this setup to run adequately? For now, I am skeptical. But as I see more products released with Tacpack support, I am tempted. I love DCS, but I have no problems enjoying parallel products that are equally good or even switching products if a better one steps up to the plate. But I have no interest in rudimentary experimental code. I suspect even DCS's buggiest beta releases are far closer to what I am looking for than the present state VRS, but I am open to information that can refute my suspicions.

Flaming Cliffs 3 is the gift that keeps on giving. While I enjoy the clickable cockpits, my real gripe with the LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs series has always been the horrible flight models. The beautiful graphics were always betrayed by the way the aircraft flew in a dogfight or even during takeoffs and landings. As each FC3 aircraft has received an update to a professional flight model equal to the best of the DCS modules, it is like getting a $50 aircraft for free. I am really looking forward to the Su-33. The F-15C and Su-27S are fun, but flying the Su-33 from aircraft carriers will be a great place holder until the F/A-18C and/or F-14A become available. It will be fun to look for differences between the Su-27 and Su-33.