streakeagle

Got the answers I wanted from RAND, and like Vietnam, there was much to be learned from studying the enemies reports on kills and losses: Recent Scholarship Reveals MiG-15 / F-86 Exchange Ratio Much Closer Than Traditionally Thought • For decades Western sources reported that USAF F-86s achieved kill ratios as high as 14:1 against the MiG-15 – Lop-sided kill ratio claimed to be the result of superior USAF pilot training, experience and tactics – Research conducted since fall of the Soviet Union casts doubt on these claims • Indicates actual number of MiG-15s shot down was just over 200 vs. almost 800 claimed by USAF • Overall kill ratio likely closer to 1.8:1 with F-86 kill ratio against Russian flown MiG-15s likely 1.3:1 • Why the big difference between USAF claims and actual MiG kills? F-86 Armament a Key Factor • F-86 designed as an air superiority fighter – Primary mission to fight other fighters – Designers believed six M-3s .50 in machine guns would be sufficient armament • Developed versions of M-2 .50 in machine guns of WWII with increased rate of fire • Fired 43 gram (1.5 ounce) projectiles with ~ 1 gram of incendiary composition in nose –Effectiveness reduced above 35,000 ft (where most Korean War engagements took place) • MiG-15 designed as a bomber interceptor –Carried heavy cannon armament • NR-23 23mm cannon fired projectiles weighing 175 grams (6.2 ounces) with 19 grams of HE – NR-23 hit ~ 6 times as destructive as .50 in hit • N-37 projectiles weighed 729 grams (25.6 ounces) with 49 grams of HE – N-37 hit ~ 18 times as destructive as .50 in hit … and So Was MiG-15 Design • MiG-15 was ruggedly built – Self-sealing fuel tanks – Rear armor – Thick bullet-proof windscreen – Jet engine much less vulnerable to battle damage than piston engines of WWII fighters – Kerosene-based jet fuel less likely to ignite when hit than gasoline – In interviews after the end of the Cold War Yevgeni Pepelyaev, successful MiG-15 pilot of the Korean War stated: The US Browning .50-calibre guns bounced off our aircraft like peas! It was routine for our aircraft to return home having taken forty or fifty hits. – One crash landed with 200+ hits and was repaired and back in the air in 8 days • Postwar USAF study concluded: – On average an F-86 needed to fire 1,024 M-3 machine gun rounds to kill a MiG-15 • About 64 percent of an F-86’s normal ammunition load • Required just over 8.5 seconds for 6 M-3 machine guns to fire 1,024 rounds • Bottom line – lots of MiG-15s were hit, damaged and seemed to fall from the sky, but lived to fight another day

After flip-flopping a couple of times, I finally backed the DCS:WW2 project at the minimum level to get all of the planes including the Me262. So at some point, I should get access to the Fw190D9 and I look forward to trying out its flight model and dueling AI P-51Ds for the flip side of the dogfight I have been doing for months.

Are you ready for the DCS summer? Hawk, F-86F, MiG-21bis, and FW190D9 if all goes well?

Unlike "the last of the gunfighters", the Thud drivers actually got plenty of guns kills.

There are certain aircraft that have always been on my "flyables" list for any and all combat flight sims. TK and/or the modders for SF sims pretty much covered them all, but nowhere near the level of detail that DCS does. So, I am hoping DCS duplicates that success.

The water shader caused CTDs when exiting missions, and people are still having that problem. The final patch theoretically fixed that and some people are doing okay, others still have problems. Of course, DX9 has to be installed, which Win 7 does not have by default.

Great news! I live in Orlando about 30-40 minutes east of the theme parks. I have annual passes, so keep me informed about your Disney plans and if you don't mind I will come and meet you at one of the parks as time permits (unless I end up traveling for Thanks Giving).

TK doesn't want to even try to jump through the hoops Steam requires and appears not to like their business model anyway. After having been burned by his experiences with old school big-name distributors, I am sure he likes the end result of being an independent: Every single penny you earn goes back to you. But Steam provides a great way to access a much larger audience, so any losses in profit per unit sold might be corrected with volume.

As far as I know Strategy First never had any rights to distribute anything after SFP1. WOV and WOE were backed by Bold Games, but obviously TK retained some sort of distribution rights because he has them for sale at his online store. But maybe Strategy First bought rights from Bold Games or TK? But why now? Apparently, the version being distributed is the same as the online store: 083006. This has caused problems since it is inherently incompatible with WinVista/Win7, but it is still a good patch level to start at since it gives you the option to maintain compatibility with all of the old mods. While it may not be selling like a new game, the Steam user base is so large that it has sold some copies: there are a few posts in the Steam forums. The posts involve how to patch WOE to get rid of the CTD after exiting a mission in Vista/7 and to check out CombatAce and Capun's site for mods. Of course, they also include comments like "it looks and plays like a 1999 flight sim" and about the limitations of multiplayer. If TK had bit the bullet and jumped through the legal and financial hoops to put the entire SF2 series on Steam, would the exposure have generated enough sales to justify the costs? Is it too late for TK to put SF2 on Steam and make any profit? It is sad that TK can make a better living with a free-to-play ad-supported mobile version of SF than the original PC game. Although, TK is probably happier with the game play of the mobile versions since it leans way more heavily towards the arcade "fun" game that could be played and enjoyed by anybody that he wanted SFP1 to be.

Your Sabres still look and work great in SF2. Nothing to feel inadequate about. One reason I feel TK never ventured into releasing a Wings Over Korea game is how well the free mod was done, and aside from the terrain, it was clearly centered on your F-86 variants.

I can't wait! It will be torture trying to decide whether to fly the F-86 or MiG-21 and also trying to stay proficient on the P-51D, F-15C, UH-1H, and Mi-8. Of all of them, the Mi-8 is the most challenging just transitioning into a hover before landing. I think I have almost got the landings down on the P-51D despite the difficulty of trying to do a soft-touch three-point landing with a tail-dragger.

If you can overlook the "easy" FMs and AI cheats, SF2 single player dogfight AI is almost the best there is. In my opinion, only Battle of Britain 2 Wings of Victory has more challenging/realistic dogfight AI. I have been playing tons of DCS, and now that the F-15C has a very detailed flight model, I have been spending most of my time flying the Eagle in DACT with guns only. It doesn't matter whether I fly 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, or 1 vs 4 against the MiG-23, MiG-29, or Su-27. The MiG-29s are by far the most aggressive of the three, but I can still smoke all 4 with relative ease. I can flip it the other way and fly a MiG-29 or Su-27 vs 4 x F-4E, F-15, or F-16 and still end up with the same results. If I don't go for a head on shot at the merge, I can easily avoid taking any fire at all, pick a target, focus exclusively on my target, then look for another target until all four are dead. But in SF2, things are quite a bit different. Using 4 x F-16A Netz to represent the MiG-29, I am in danger of taking fire at the merge whether I take a headon shot or not. In fact, there is a fair chance of being shot down altogether. The AI is aggressive and accurate. Combine that with the much higher lethality of gunfire in SF2, and you have a real challenge. Unlike DCS, the other AI pilots in the same flight will aggressively pursue and shoot even without regard for what the leader is doing. If I focus on one target and ignore the others, one or more of the other will rapidly position themselves for a good shot and possibly kill me. My target may try to evade, extend, force an overshoot, and/or drag me past his friends. In DCS, I can casually and carefully line up the gunsight with the target, then fire to hit specific parts: engine, wing, cockpit, etc. Not so in SF2, that baby jinks and jinks well, frequently spoiling my aim and certainly preventing shots aimed at anything more specific than center of mass. In SF2, it is rare for me to kill more than one target before getting sliced and diced from the rear or side. Of course, the AI in SF2 specifically focus on the player and know where you are at all times regardless of whether you get below and behind them. Perfect situational awareness or not, SF2 pilots with max skill level are most certainly capable of killing me especially with a 4 to 1 numerical advantage. DCS AI pilots only kill me under very specific circumstances and only rarely when in those circumstances. I doubt DCS is going to improve their AI anytime soon. At least the AI in DCS don't form a "conga line" like they do in Falcon 4 where I can catch up to the tail and munch on some aircraft that were all trying to follow me in one big circle.

Keep in mind, SFP1/WoX series had absolutely horrible AI for dogfighting from the release of WoV to the release of WoI, that's quite a few years! They barely engaged in useful maneuvers, and when they did they almost never fired, and if they fired at all, they only hit anything on accident. For the duration of those years I had only two options: fly online (which I did as much as possible given the small online crowd and my own schedule) or use an old SFP1 SP2a install for single player, especially for the Korea mod. WoI brought back good AI, but they crashed into the ground quite a bit. The latest version of the AI is by far the best implementation, especially considering weapons employment from missiles to rockets to guns, but they still like to hit the ground a bit more often than I would prefer. The only glaring limitation I see in the present AI besides ground collision risk is a general preference to fly the 2-d turn fight. Fortunately, my enemies are usually angles fighters anyway, so it doesn't hurt them. But watching heavy energy fighters try to turn fight with agile fighters is quite painful. The flight modeling seems too generous in available lift, stability, and usable angles of attack, as it seems like a can turn fight against MiG-17s with heavy fighters like F-100s, F-104s, F-105s, and F-4s when I shouldn't have too much of a prayer without using vertical tactics or lucky "Maverick" style overshoot snapshots. But overall, the balance and net results appear to be far more realistic than competing sims. Before missile accuracy/reliability was souped up to make the game "more fun" during SF2NA patching, the results were exceptionally close to reality in AI vs AI missile fights. Gun lethality has always been substantially higher than other games, both in % of rounds hitting and the damage caused by a single hit. I am ok with 20mm/23mm doing this to fighters, especially the very vulnerable MiG-21 where a single hit could result in a catastrophic loss. But 0.50 cal/12.7 mm and 0.30 cal/7.62 mm are typically way too effective as well. DCS swings in the other direction with multiple 20 mm hits on a MiG-29 doing little more than causing fuel leaks and possibly an engine fire. Against a MiG-29 flying straight and level, I can empty quite a few rounds into it until I light both engines on fire. With the wing planform exposed by a hard turn, I can easily saw a wing off for a very quick kill with minimum rounds. A stern approach requires me to do one of two things: multiple bursts until I light both engines on fire or a single burst with some rudder kicked in to saw across both engines. The nice part about air combat in DCS is that I can get into steady state gunsight tracking to verify the accuracy of the gunsight and observe the strike pattern. Unless a target is focused on going home, SF2 targets always know you are there and jink like mad if they have the energy to do it. So SF2 is more realistic, but not as good for practice and learning the physics of the bullet stream. Back in the day when I played SFP1/WoX online almost every night, I got extremely proficient at hitting with US 20mm whether it was a 6-barrel or four separate guns in the belly or nose like the F-100 and F-8. But I don't play enough to have that instinctive judgement and have to rely on the LCOSS too much, not effective against SF2 flip-flopping fish AI. To be fair to DCS, real pilots don't magically maintain situational awareness and flop all over continuously in a pattern that is perfect for breaking a gunsight track. Top Gun and Red Flag gun camera footage from the 70s and 80s clearly show opponents caught in steady state turns/loops allowing the attacker to momentarily sustain classic steady gunsight tracking. What I would prefer is to fight AI that flies historically correct with the tactics and skill levels appropriate for the nation and time frame. SF2 is the only sim that I know of that permits modding the AI (per aircraft type!) to get the desired results. Playing online isn't really good for historical fights: guys who fly online all the time typically become above average honchos and the talented ones are almost unbeatable no matter what aircraft they fly against any reasonable numerical odds, which is not very realistic and certainly not fun for pilots who can't fly enough to be above average.

There is an entire 3rd party WW2 game based on the ArmA2 engine, but free mods include Invasion:1944: http://www.moddb.com/mods/invasion-19441 If you don't mind paying you can try this ArmA 2 WW2 mod: Iron Front: http://ironfront.deepsilver.com/en/

A great game that can't be beat for moddability/fun is the old Operation Flashpoint GOTY which has been re-released as ARMA Cold War Assault on Steam. This will run on just about any PC given its age and is a great shooter with fun arcade action in tanks, helos, and planes. My son loves driving around in an M1A1 or M60A3 and decimating infantry. Of course, if you have modern, strong gaming PCs, then ArmA 2 or ArmA 3 might be what you are looking for. All of them have tons of free mods.

Did FC3 sell well because the aircraft were easier to fly? or because there are a heck of a lot more people interested in flying F-15C/MiG-29/Su-27/Su-33 than the A-10C/P-51D/Ka-50? Who doesn't want an Su-27 with a PFM that accurately models the Flanker's unique high AoA controlability? Some people may prefer easier flying, which is already available anyway even with full DCS level aircraft, but it is the type of aircraft that people are more concerned about. Throw out an F-14, F-16, or F/A-18 or for those more interested in stealth/tech, F-22 or F-35 and the dollars will roll in. Obviously, the newer aircraft cannot be modeled very accurately at all, but people still want to fly them. Casual or not, jet sims have never sold as well as WW2 prop sims. I am willing to bet that despite being full DCS complexity that the WW2 modules will kill the post WW2 thru modern jets in sales, including FC3 if the AI doesn't screw up the experience. I don't understand why Korea has not been covered my more companies. Many of the same principles as WW2 even some of the same aircraft plus early jets with minimal radar and no guided missiles. Of course the era I prefer is both the least modeled, the least profitable, and probably the most complex to model in any detail: 1960s/1970s.

If the avionics are little better than SF2 and the SFM is absolutely inferior to SF2, why would I ever fly DCS? At a bare minimum, I expect the AFM of the Su-25T, but having enjoyed the PFM, I really don't want to buy anything less. Having thoroughly enjoyed the UH-1H and P-51D more than any other aircraft I have ever flown in all of my flight sim history, I am more than patient of enough to wait for more aircraft of their equal. I truly hope the MiG-21bis has an FM that is as good or better than anything ED or Belsimtek has done to date. Anything less can be had in countless other sims from Jane's FA to Jane's USAF to MS FSX to SF to Falcon BMS. DCS's unique market niche IS DCS level aircraft. Falcon BMS and SF2 are essentially free at this point and MS FSX/P3D appears to be as strong as it ever was if you don't need combat. If the only thing added to DCS between the P-51D and the imminent future had been FC3 as a pure import of FC2 into DCS and more aircraft of that quality, I wouldn't have spent a dollar on DCS. The announcement of the MiG-21bis followed by the release of the UH-1H and the promise of DCS F-15C, FA-18C, F-86F, and AH-1G are what got me to buy everything they have released and are planning to release. You would think that It certainly wouldn't hurt if some 3rd parties would flood the the market with FC3 aircraft with the promise of upgrading them later. But all of the current 3rd parties had that option and decided it was financially in their best interest to do otherwise. The Hawk is a hybrid, initially being released with the advanced clickable systems and an SFM, while the F-15C is the inverse with a PFM but with mainly basic non-clickable systems. But the Hawk is supposed to end up with an EFM comparable to ED's PFM. The F-15C might ultimately get upgraded to true DCS product with advanced clickable systems. I am sure Typhoon and F/A-18C fans will truly appreicate full-blown DCS releases over mere FC3 level modeling. Once the F-86/MiG-15 are paired up, I am hoping a 3rd party will provide a good historical match for the MiG-21bis. A "quick & dirty" solution is to develop a stock F-15A from the F-15C. The PFM would be the hard part since the older F100 engine would be somewhat different and far more tempermantal in behavior than the digitally controlled variant in the F-15C. I am not sure how much work would be involved providing the AIM-7F and AIM-9J missiles or the original, simpler APG-63 radar. But I would much prefer a more balanced historical opponent like the F-4E, F-5E, or Mirage III.

The MiG-21bis should finally be coming very soon, latest at the end of June if their latest release date discussion is accurate. It seems like I have been waiting for this forever and the false "end of March" announcement didn't help either. AFAIK, the F-104 is permanently out of the picture. The Hawk is imminent and is supposed to be out before the MiG-21, though the initial release only has SFM to be retrofitted later. I am not interested in aircraft with SFM, but will buy the Hawk to help guarantee it gets the FM upgrade. Razbam has no shortage of 3d models, but no releases. Not sure when or if any of their planes are ever going to come, especially complex aircraft like the F-15E and M2000, though they say the M2000 will be their first release despite all the effort put into the Navy T-2 trainer. Iris? Not really ever going to be in the picture as far as I can see. From what I have read about them, I don't know if I really want their business model/honesty/integrity delivering any products I want/like. Not sure about the Super Hornet. If it ever gets released, I will wait for reviews/debug before I consider buying it. I am far more interested in the ED DCS F/A-18C, closer to my preferred generation of aircraft. Belsimtek is my hero: UH-1H and Mi-8 that truly rock and an F-15C flight model that makes it far more interesting to FLY the F-15C. While I prefer true DCS aircraft with both clickable fully modeled systems and the PFM, if I can only have one, gladly take the PFM. I can't wait for the AH-1G and F-86F. If the F-86F comes out alright and a comparable MiG-15bis becomes available, I might actually be drawn back into online multiplayer :)

<S>

<S> May the next generation serve as well as the past ones.

A very important milestone!!! How long after the last treatment before you will know if it was effective or not?

Sounds like you found a real gem. Just read a bunch of reviews on this. As long as the game doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores, this processor won't slow you down much if at all when paired up with a strong gpu. It also comes with another benefit beyond the lower price: lower power usage/less heat generation.

SF2 still allowed the 1-pixel distance until somewhere around one of the expansion packs when the new ground-object fade-in feature was introduced. Aside from the loss of multiplayer, the view distance limits, some previously open files being hidden/locked, and cloud altitude being limited... SF2 is way too much better for me to go back to SFP1. RWR/ECM, dogfight AI, SF2NA naval features, etc. make the game way better. I was never happy with the preferred 083006 patch level that dominated for so long until WoI was released. WoI with Expansion Pack 1 almost gives you the best of both worlds, but it had several bugs that TK never patched. It was also a lot of work to port over SFP1/WoV/WoE/SF2 content into WoI Exp Pk 1.

His main argument is number of objects being drawn. He should have left it moddable/optional, then those with lower performance could use stock distance and those with higher performance could have the old "1-pixel range".

Pixel size has not been the only limit since the terrain fade-in was added. B-52s do no appear until they are quite large. This problem affects medium and larger aircraft. Only smaller aircraft render at the correct 1-pixel distances since this falls within the new artificial limit.