streakeagle

Phantoms 4 ever! But the F-4G manual is one I don't have. Just B/N, C/D, E, F, and J/S

It is rare to see justice these days. Nice!

This is one aircraft I really, truly wanted to see fully developed and in production. Northrop designs were almost always cutting edge technology, and yet they almost always got the shaft on winning big contracts. The B-2 was kind of a win... until production was stopped at 21 aircraft. Shafted again. Of course, I am also a long time McDonnell fan. With rare exception, the military doesn't want revolutionary, but evolutionary. The F-22 was a bit more conservative and a bit more maneuverable. Of course, F-22 production was seriously slashed as well and the F-35 may be the last big-budget top-line manned fighter the US ever buys.

I finally took the time to download & create a "complete" KAW install per Jeanba's posted list. I also installed the RAZBAM F2H-2, which is a fantastic aircraft to fly in this environment. First: Why are there duplicate weapons? When I go to a loadout screen for the F2H-2, I see similar but slightly different names for 250 lb and 500 lb bombs. I checked the data inis, and they have almost identical entries except for things like subsonic and transonic drag. The 5" HVAR listings are equally confusing with no less than three GP rounds plus a GP Proximity. The one labled "HVAR5" with the (TW) in the description is presumably default game version? That is the only one with the color pattern I have seen in actual photos (i.e. light gray/aluminum/white body with olive drab warhead), so it is the one I have currently assigned in the F2H-2 loadout.ini. I wish RAZBAM would bring the F2H-2 model and ini files up to full SF2NA standards. Aside from the issue with shadows, it doesn't look so good when it takes damage, and the wingtip tanks aren't set up to be jettisonable. I found the loadout.ini wasn't entirely accurate either, but that was an easy fix once I decided which versions of the bombs and rockets I wanted to specify. The F2H-2 could also really use some new skins with decal support. If only I had the time to make a template and whip up some decals!

The difference is that we now have the numbers from the former Soviet Union instead of US pilot claims. The numbers in Vietnam turned out to be very accurate. Only a handful of disagreements between US claims and North Vietnam losses. But Korea was overclaim central. Against USSR pilots the kill ratio in Korea was close to 1.5: 1 in favor of the US and somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 overall. Which makes the mantra from Top Gun about dropping from 10:1 down to 2:1 a bunch of poppycock. In Vietnam, like Korea, the kill ratio varied greatly over time as tactics and orders were changed. Overall it wasn't far from 3:1, about the same or even better than Korea. But with better equipment and better pilots, the kill ratio goes insanely high with the F-15... but the F-15 never fought in a 10-year politically restricted environment with USAF generals ordering tactics that further increased losses to enemy fighters. The Navy was far smarter and saw its kill ratio improve in Vietnam despite using the same aircraft (F-4) and facing the same political restrictions. As for flying the MiG-15bis at the limit... no, you don't have to fly at the limits to beat the F-86, but the MiG-15 is just harder to fly, period. It is far easier to stall/depart and taking off and landing require more care. The F-86 was well-designed to be pilot friendly. The MiG-15bis was not.

You will find a few links to those pits in my first post. The problem is the latest releases of DCS have broken many older "flyable" mods, though I understand the MiG-31 mod is presently functional.

I haven't flown multiplayer in DCS since the MiG-15 became available, so my experience has been either flying in F-86 against AI MiG-15s or in MiG-15 against AI F-86s. The F-86 is a much easier aircraft to fly, but you have to fly it to its limits to beat the AI MiG-15. I don't find the F-86 to be "weak", just requiring patience to get the AI in front of the guns. Some people think the MiG-15 takes too many rounds to kill. But that historically claimed 10:1 kill ratio was really less than 3:1 because most of those "kills" flew home, were patched up, and fought again. Personally, I can take out a MiG in a very short burst: aim for the wing root, it comes off quick and they go down instantly.

Overall, I think SF2 still has better AI, but it is hard to compare. I have problems with both of them. The biggest problem in DCS is that the AI, like SF, use a simpler FM than human flown aircraft. The simple FM usually favors them getting away with maneuvers you may have trouble following. But that is partially offset by the other big problem: the AI is fairly predictable. It will almost always make the same choice when faced with the same situation. So, you can find a hole in its logic that will allow you to beat its over-capable FM. But even with those two flaws, I have had some great dogfights against DCS AI. They are best at vertical stall fighting. They will climb until you stall, then come back down. They rarely succeed in going offensive with this strategy, but you can only shoot them if you risk it all on a snap shot that will end with you stalling/spinning or learn to be exceptional at energy management. They usually only get hits on me in two situations: chasing wingman too long while lead is behind me or a head-on pass. When fighting a flight of four, it seem like the lead engages while everyone else hangs out waiting to see the results. If you can identify and engage the lead, the other three are usually harmless. If you chase a wingman, the lead is fairly aggressive and must be watched. When I write multi-aircraft engagements, I tend to break flights up into pairs so I face twice as many aggressive leads. As stupid as this sounds, I think this behavior isn't a bad model for the failures of the fluid four, and just like real life, it is solved by going to the fluid two. The AI seems weakest in a horizontal rolling scissors. I can usually spit out any enemy in front of me no matter how our aircraft performance compares. In SF2, the AI seems to be a bit more dynamic. I can play the same mission repeatedly and get different results even if I follow the same course of action. But it I typically end up in turn fights with agile aircraft and can win with patience staying in the circle and using altitude if necessary since most SF2 AI pilots don't do well in the vertical. I say most, because sometimes I think I have found Col. Tomb from Vietnam who unexpectedly engages me in the vertical. SF2 AI has a preference for the player. SF2 AI can and will kill me far more often than DCS AI, but I can and usually do kill them far faster and easier than in DCS. SF2 AI is also suicidal. They like to hit the ground -- a lot. Sometimes, DCS AI will misjudge and scrape a hill or mountainside, but SF2 aircraft seem to just dive to the ground sometimes. Despite any differences in AI, the outcomes of the fights are usually the same for me in both games. Using F-86 vs MiG-15 as an example: If I fly the F-86 in DCS, I can get proficient enough to win the majority of the time in 1 vs 4 fights, ammo fuel being my only limits. If I fly the MiG-15bis, I can pretty much do the same, but having less ammo, I have to aim more carefully to get multiple kills. When I do the same in SF2 KAW, the main difference is that the AI has a better chance of getting hits on me, but I won't run out of ammo or fuel: if I get a good burst on a target, it goes down. In DCS you have to be more careful with your aircraft. You can stall your engine, cause structural failure, or even depart controlled flight. I am fearless in both games since I can't die, but if I want to win, I have to be more patient and careful in DCS. SF2's flight and systems modeling is much more forgiving. Overall, due to the FM and systems modeling as well as the UFO like MiG-15 AI, I find flying the F-86F in DCS more fun and challenging than in SF2. The better looking terrain doesn't hurt either even if it is the wrong map. But the overall superiority is marginal, and SF2 has a lot to offer in terms of large scale fights, correct map/environment/ground objects, etc. So, if you enjoy 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 dogfights that focus on the accuracy of the aircraft modeling, I would fly DCS. If you like full fledged missions or better yet, campaigns with a broad environment, SF2 is still far superior. I may have seen these, but I don't believe I downloaded them, or if I did, I don't believe I installed them. Looking into it tonight. Thanks.

If the F-86 and MiG-15 were the only planes available for DCS, I would still be spending most of my time flying DCS. Even the earliest beta releases were better than anything else I had ever flown on a PC before. The F-86 in particular is a dream to fly... very simple to start up/fly/use weapons. Only a few more switches to mess with than an SF2 airplane. But startup/taxi/takeoff/landing experiences are far more realistic/immersive than in SF2. You can stall the engine and then have to try to relight it. The gunsight is well modeled. The MiG-15 offers a similar, but radically different experience. It has a different cockpit layout and handles very differently than the F-86. It is more capable in some ways, but requires a lot more skill to use correctly. They are well matched opponents. But, the key limitation is you are flying/fighting in 1990s Black Sea terrain. The location/weather used for the stock missions makes it look a lot like Korea, so it doesn't bother me that much as an air-to-air nut. But with the P-51D already in the game, that's three of the most used aircraft in the Korean War. All they need is the F-80 and F-84 and you have to core aircraft of the war from the land based side. Add the F4U-4, F9F, and F2H-2 and you get the sea side. But they still need a map and carriers.

When I built/migrated to another PC so my son could play his games on a decent PC, I didn't migrate my massive SF2 mod folder, including the SF2 Korea install. The other night, I copied over the Korea install and I just got it working right tonight. After months of flying DCS World and spending quite a bit of that time flying F-86s and MiG-15s, coming back to SF2 Korea and flying the F2H-2 didn't seem all that different. Of course, starting up, taking off, and landing aren't nearly as fun, but the terrain and cockpit didn't look that much different from DCS World and the flight model was close enough... despite my lack of time/interest to make it more compliant with published figures. But I would really like to see DCS World provide a Korean War environment up to the new Nevada terrain standard and match it with some of the key aircraft that SF2 Korea has. In particular, I want the F2H-2, but I realize the F9F is what most people would prefer and could live with that aircraft. In the mean time... I still have to fly SF2 if I want my favorite McDonnell products flying in their historically correct combat environments: the F2H-2 and F-4.

I will give it as much of a chance as I have given any flight sim: finish it before I die. Combat Helo Fighter Ops Jet Thunder Targetware Only Targewaret made it to a playable download stage, and that stalled to a point that it wouldn't even work anymore and the source code was lost. I don't care if it is a DCS module or a small independent: I believe in something when it is installed on my hard drive and working 95% or better the way it should. Still waiting on this one.

Typically, mods are to make AI into flyable aircraft using cockpits from existing flyable aircraft. F-15E: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1459229/ MiG-31BM: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1520559/ Su-30M: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1412237/ The original MiG-21bis was a mod for LOMAC/FC. I never tried it, but as I understand it was complete from a 3d modeling point of view: external and cockpit, but I am guessing it still had to borrow another aircraft's avionics. So, it can be done. But in general, to do it right, you need support from ED. That requires being approved as an official 3rd party. Apparently, meeting their 3rd party criteria is a pain in the butt. Recent patches also keep breaking the user mods aircraft.

I have some issues with Steam. So, I only use it when it is practical. 1. I can't open Steam without always getting some sort of update and potentially needing to restart Steam. If it is late at night and I only have a few minutes to kill, wasting even the smallest big of time authenticating/updating Steam is annoying. 2. In the past some Steam games required Windows Administrator rights to be properly installed and/or updated despite Steam's recommendation not to run it with full admin rights. So, on top of the aforementioned updates, I also have to deal with a pop-up every time I start Steam. 3. Some Steam games don't work so well if the internet connection is slow or non-existent. 4. Some Steam games have anti-piracy schemes in addition to Steam that defeat the biggest advantage of Steam: portability of my game library to as many PCs as I want. (Here's looking at you, DCS World) 5. Steam is just one more user database that is at risk to be hacked, potentially with critical financial information. My preference for games has been and always will be the style that Third Wire and GOG follow: clean installs without any copy protection schemes that degrade with time, require some sort of online authentication server, or degrade the performance of my PC in any way, shape, or form. But, if I am going to have to deal with a protection scheme, Steam is the way to go when it works correctly (and your internet service is consistently up and fast).

I think of you every time I see Godzilla stuff at Epcot in the Japan store and at comic book stores.

With the pod as part of the model, the limit is whether you can get the missile to extend with the rail. This is really the same problem as having an F-102/F-106 with missiles extending out of the bombay, but with the bombay on the wingtips instead of the belly. I don't recall, but I don't think anyone ever got the F-102/F-106 setup to work 100% the way it should? If they did, that is pretty much the answer... except that it has to be symmetrical: to bays instead of one.

I grew up playing wargames on hex maps and with miniatures. The mechanics of alternating turns always annoyed me from a realism standpoint, but plotted simultaneous movement over useful time intervals works even worse, or takes a lot of work and time to model well using phased movement. The simplicity of alternating turns makes gameplay simple and fun, unless the turn order causes you to get trounced! As long as you enjoy the subject matter of WW2 ships with guns duking it out at close range, what is there not to like about this game series?

I didn't see TacPack support mentioned anywhere. I am not even sure if TacPack is going to be good enough for me after being spoiled by gameplay in SF2 and DCS World. Sight seeing gets boring really fast and TacPack is principally useful for ground attack since AI opponents in the air are pretty much unsupported. Of course, the options for flying bird cage Corsairs are pretty limited, so if it is your main ride, I guess this is a good option if you just want to enjoy flying the airplane.

It is a great game overall, and the visuals are just that much better on a large screen. The game mechanics are such that my son got many hours of fun out of Pacific Fleet. It is rare that a game can make both of us happy. He is not much into simulations. He does like blowing things up with detailed graphics and being able to consistently win.

It is not meant to be a real-time simulation/shoot out. It is a graphically superior version of the old game Pill Box, where you take turns with the computer setting your barrel angle and muzzle velocity to get over hills and land on the target. It is a game I play to relax and have fun while enjoying the graphics and sounds. I love the sinking ships... unless they are mine.

Gunnery skill comes with practice. If you use the same ship all the time, you may not always hit first shot, but you will get on target by the 2nd or 3rd. Personally, I prefer submarines. Torpedoes have to be fired from very close or the target may escape before they hit. But fired in a tight spread over the area you know the target will be is an instant kill.

I don't particularly care for the vector nozzles, as they add quite a bit weight, reduce the power output of the engine, and give you minimal return except at the very edges of the flight envelope, particularly at low speeds. However, the F-15 was really cheated out of being the dogfighter it could have been due to a lack of a leading edge flap or slat and no maneuvering flaps. So, the canard does a lot to fix that without even having vector nozzles. Of course with a canard and vector nozzles, the F-15 could finally dance with the other teen fighters who all add much better low speed/high-AoA characteristics.

I believe any image showing 0291 with canards/nozzles is photoshopped. Only one ACTIVE demonstrator.

The tablet version is great fun. The PC version on a 46" LCD TV is epic!

Build a simple mission with you approaching low from behind an enemy aircraft, sweep vs cap or something like that. If you can get the enemy to keep flying straight despite being completely in his blind spot, enjoy. Sometimes the AI does things they shouldn't, like abandoning their primary to hit AA, etc. Flying straight when they shouldn't is always a possibility, but that had been an absolute standard in the past. No matter what you did, some aircraft would keep flying straight. So, TK revised the code to almost guarantee a defensive reaction. This included disabling the blind arcs listed in the data.ini file. So, unless TK slipped in a big change in the last patch, the AI isn't flying straight because he can't see you. Some other aspect was keeping him flying straight.

Photos of this puppy all over the internet, but finally found a decent caption: http://www.online-instagram.com/media/1014605520409236593_213727340 The North American F-86H Sabre (S/N 53-1250), on display in Lakeville, Minnesota. This aircraft bears the markings of the 21st Fighter Day Squadron (FDS), and sports their beautiful green trim throughout the aircraft.