streakeagle

But I think SF2 isn't that far from accurate on jet vs jet 20mm/23mm/30mm cannon combat. MiG designers figured they could get kills with just 3 round fired down range with the latest 30mm laser ranged cannons. F-4s and F-105s were embarrassingly vulnerable to minor hits from flak shrapnel and small arms, much less direct hits from cannon rounds. Some of those aircraft made it back despite severe damage, but unlike B-17s, this was the exception rather than the rule. There are not many photos of heavily damaged survivors when it comes to Mach 2 jets. The F-4 received field mods that helped with some of the worst problems, such as retrofitting self-sealing tanks and armoring some key areas. Who buys a combat aircraft of any kind without self-sealing tanks (the lack of a guns wasn't nearly as critical as the other design issues with the F-4)? But the F-4 and MiG-21 were virtually tanks compared to the MiG-21s, which not only burned like Japanese Zeros when hit center of mass by even 1 or 2 rounds, but usually exploded violently. When you pack a plane that tight (i.e. all engine, fuel, and just enough room for the pilot and a small radar), there is no armor and a vital spot just behind the pilot that explodes almost every time one is hit. The loss rates for jets in Vietnam after being hit by air-to-air cannon fire leads me to believe SF2 is not that far off from reality. WW2 is a different story when you look at .50 cal, .30 cal, 13mm, etc. Plenty of cases where the airframes absorbed lots of hits, even on aircraft made of wood and fabric. But again, 20mm was devastating to fighters. In SF2, 0.50 cal fire seem way too lethal, lending credence to the idea that the whole system is a little bit heavy on the damage despite my opinion that jet-vs-jet might be close to dead-on. But DCS is just ridiculous. Have you seen what a single 20mm hit does even to just a non-critical wing or fuselage location? I can see my hits on the MiGs and Sus. Yet, I have to aim very carefully to cause fatal damage and to my recollection, always see a pilot bailing out. When the angles permit, I always pull lead and track back through the canopy... it is an instant kill in just about any other sim to hit canopy glass with a cannon. Yet that rarely if ever seems to happen in DCS. I enjoy flying DCS, but if the goal is high fidelity modeling, the damage modeling has a long way to go compared to engine and flight models.

I never got around to getting the A2A Mustang, but always think about it. What is it that the DCS Mustang does better besides the fully functional combat features? I love the DCS flight model. I love the clickable buttons. The K-14 gunsight is a pleasure to operate. I guess the only things I don't like about flying the DCS Mustang involve limitations of DCS World, such as the terrain and dogfight AI. I suppose the sounds in DCS World are a bit gamey/movie like: I shouldn't hear enemy planes tooling around at all. I don't fly MS FSX very often at all, unless the A2A Mustang's flight model and feel was known to be more accurate than DCS, I think I am better off saving my money for other toys/games. If A2A releases the F-104 and/or F-4 before DCS gets to those aircraft, I will probably buy those... but maybe not. SF2 is better for the combat until I can get DCS fidelity.

Found one panel light on ebay and used that to get a national stock number which corresponds to many equivalent part numbers: 6210-00-812-0243 On ebay: grimes aircraft A7075: http://www.ebay.com/itm/A7075-Grimes-Aircraft-Instrument-Panel-Avionics-Control-Panel-Indicator-Light-/131035890671?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item1e825903ef&vxp=mtr Now to see if I can get some of these at a reasonable price :) This part number gets results: MS25010A15A Complete brand new parts are about $23 each, a bit steep for me. Ebay has some of the knob parts in bags of 5 for about $2.50, but the shipping is about $40. Very tempting, and I could cheat and rout LEDs in the lamp covers to simulate complete lighting. http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-x-Lampholder-Aircraft-quality-MS25010-13A-NOS-/291011048033?pt=AU_Transportation_Collectables&hash=item43c19c3261 Readily available in California at $10 plus shipping per lamp: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Panel-Mount-T-1-3-4-Bayonet-Indicator-Lamp-Assembly-270-1930-0111-702-/321221463099?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item4aca4a8c3b&vxp=mtr

Someone probably programmed head bobbing or attempted to and connected the stick axis to cockpit position, or something similar. Typically, in the cockpit ini files, there are dummy instruments such as g-meters, that cause cockpit movement to simulate head bobbing due to g-load and or bank/roll/pitch indications. These can be safely deleted or commented out.

I have some Honeywell lever lock toggle switches coming in from ebay to do the YAW, ROLL, PITCH, and INT WING TRANS switches, these should be real close if not identical to the switches used in the real panel. I am in the process of building an order list for a variety of switches and knobs with a supplier to cover as many of the controls as I can. Now if I can just get my hands on a clear sheet to cover the panel.

How is your cockpit arrangement going? Please post photos when you are finished. I got all the left console panel photos squared up, resized, and pasted on to my wooden console. Could you take another photo of the left sub panel that is centered and perpendicular from a distance, but zoomed in to help minimize the perspective effects. Alternatively, if you could just post the original without the yellow measurement across the panel, I could make that work, too. What I need now is to get some switches and knobs mounted, then place some clear plexiglass or lexan about 1/8 or 1/4 inch thick to place on top. Is there anywhere I can buy those black knobs with 4 ribs that provide the lighting for the lables? Thanks, Stephen

The F-4 weapons delivery manuals are available for sale at eflight manuals, but unless they have been rescanned, the prices are kind of high for the quality of the scan and the hassle of the electronic copy protections.

From Belsimtek forums via Wags on DCS forums: Looks like the BST site is down, so I will re-post their news about the F-15C AFM. Note that BST is developing the F-15C AFM and Yoyo at Eagle is developing the Su-27 AFM. --- DCS: F-15C Eagle. Advanced flight model development overview Dynamics modeling experts at BelSimTek are completing work on advanced flight and engine models of the F-15C Eagle for the upcoming module for DCS World. The current model featured in DCS was originally developed over a decade ago and represents an earlier generation of technological potential and resulting model accuracy and performance. Despite exhibiting generally correct aerodynamic properties under normal flight conditions, by today’s standards the model falls short of increased user expectations, computing power, and experience gained by the developers over time. In an effort to meet these demands, we have begun to develop new flight and related component models as upgrades to some of the existing DCS aircraft. As the primary U.S. jet fighter in DCS and indeed one of the premier fighters of the world in reality, the F-15C Eagle will be the first DCS aircraft to receive this upgrade. The flight model has been through over eight months of development and is now undergoing initial external (closed beta) testing. The complete aerodynamics model accounts for the entire spectrum of mass, force, and moment interactions of the aircraft as a physical object subjected to airflow. Unlike the mathematical approach of the previous model, which regarded the aircraft as a single point of focus, the new flight model consists of individual aircraft elements carefully tuned to reflect their unique aerodynamic characteristics and joined together to determine the sum vector of the airframe’s momentum. Such an approach makes it possible to accurately recreate the specific performance of the F-15C Eagle airframe throughout the entire flight envelope, including critical regimes like high angles of attack, stalls, spins, as well as specific flight conditions such as ground effect. Additionally, a new engine model is also created on par with the flight model to provide more realistic and accurate performance, for example featuring effects like negative G loading. The flight control system is modeled realistically, for example including input authority coefficients dependent on speed and altitude scheduling, the Aileron/Rudder Interconnect (ARI), Control Augmentation System (CAS), as well as Attitude and Altitude autopilot modes. F-15C refuel DCS: F-15C refuel The new model significantly improves the entire flight control experience making special flight conditions like air to air refueling, landing, and edge of the envelope flying far more dynamic, exciting, and possibly even more challenging. Even straight and level flight loses the old feeling of flying on rails. We are considering the possibility of creating a complete avionics model with clickable cockpit and accurate systems modeling. This would be a major development however, so a final decision has not yet been made. The estimated release date for the advanced flight model for F-15C Eagle DCS module is end of November, 2013.

I am not having any problems flying latest patch SF2NA with minimal mods besides aircraft and associated weapons/sounds/pilots/etc. Flying North Atlantic, Israel, and Vietnam with no issues.

Real life may trump sims, but the "virtual" friends made over long distances through forums such as these can be all too real. Somehow, a little <S> or emoticon can almost be as good as having a real person standing there when you know the truly good intentions of the people posting them. Dave has had some rough times in recent years, I hope this latest event with his wife's father's health is the last one for a long time. Keep doing what you've been doing Dave... being strong and holding your family together! ...and taking care of CombatAce and its dwellers ;)

You can't bring WoI Expansion Pack content into SF1/WoX series... but you can bring SF1/WoX series content into WoI Expansion Pack game. It is a lot of work, but can be very rewarding if you aren't going to migrate to SF2, or want some aspect of SFP1/WoX AND SF2 updated aircraft (i.e. all the great F-4s and their cockpits). So, export stuff out of SFP1/WoV/WoE and bring them into to a WoI Expansion Pack installation and you will get what you are looking for.

The WoI Expansion Pack is unique. It provides a bridge between the early versions of SF2 and the SFP1 series. You bring SFP1/WoV/WoE content into the WoI Expansion Pack version AND you can bring some SF2 content (early lods that weren't locked away yet) as well. But: WoI does not support SF2 level RWR displays/indications and there are some bugs that TK never bothered to fix. SF2 was progressively patched beyond recognition, so much later lod content can't even be legally extracted and wouldn't work if they were. This unique install provides one interesting benefit: almost SF2 level game (looks and AI comparable to early SF2) AND multiplayer. At one time, I was trying to build a multiplayer install package for this setup, complete with all compatible SF2 models and textures. But I just didn't have the time and patience.

You cannot force anti-aliasing with an ATI 5870 in DirectX10. So, you should set the card to use application settings and then set the anti-aliasing to the desired level in the options.ini file of SF2, which you can find in the user folder for the game of interest. Apparently, you simply set the number to 1, 2, 4, 8, etc to match the option you want (i.e. 1 = none, 2 = x2, 4 = x4, 8 = x8). I hope this helps out!

Wags just posted details about Edge. Last item: maps can be projected onto globe. So, while DCS may not be set up to use the globe, Edge is.

Is it a normal X-52 or a Pro?

I just wish DCS would trade in small flat maps for a true globe. They don't have to populate the whole globe, just build the same maps they are already making on the globe at the right place so that navigation works 100% correctly. Then, as more maps are built, you eventually cover the entire globe.

Haven't seen a whole lot of F-16s go down during over a decade of continuous warfare. Even an F-35 can be destroyed on the runway. Numbers will overcome technology when the tech costs so much that the odds become outrageous. MiG-21s equipped with modern heaters and directed by AWACS/GCI are still a viable threat aside from their short range/endurance. There are not and probably never will be enough stealth aircraft in the US inventory to overcome the numbers we would face in a real all-out war. F-15s and F-16s have been adequate if not superior for anything less. Consider the money lost when an F-35 tries to do the A-10's job. F-35s will go down to AAA performing close air support. A-10s are about to be axed to keep the budget for the F-35s.

I had dropped all my backing funds due to the way they were waffling on the goods versus backing level. But given that they will probably make good on all the promised aircraft per funding level, I went back to the $40 pledge. Free: 1 plane of Bf109/P-47/Spitfire. $1: The other two of the first three. $40: All three plus Fw 190, P-51, and Me 262. Since I already have the P-51, that means I end up getting four aircraft at DCS level for $40 or $10 per plane... not bad. What remains to be seen is the actual quality of the simulation. I never cared for IL-2 flight models very much, though they did improve quite a bit toward the end. Now all I can do is wait to see when it is finished.

As a one-trick pony (i.e. relying almost 100% on stealth for survival), the F-35 better remain very stealthy for the duration of its entire career. I have never been a big fan of stealth. All it takes is a technological breakthrough in sensor technology to waste both the money spent and performance trade-offs made to accommodate stealth. Just as there was a hi-lo mix of F-15s and F-16s, perhaps the strategy should have been to have a useful number of F-22 quality aircraft to support a much larger cost-effective force rather than trying to build an all-stealth force.

This change bothered me more than any other. The SF series already had some game oriented features to make gameplay more interesting for the player, but intentionally making separate laws of physics for players and AI for no other reason than to appease players that want to smoke the enemy without being smoked by the enemy is ludicrous. Couldn't such an effect been associated with the difficulty level or an optional checkbox? For most of the history of SFP1 and early SF2, the game got more and more detailed/realistic. When something didn't behave as expected, it was a bug and TK tried to make it right. Now, since around the release of expansion pack 1, every release seems to take a step backwards. However, I will say that I have not back-dated my installs. What little time I now spend on SF2 doesn't seem too bad despite all negative changes. I have seen enemies and wingmen use AA-2 and AA-8 missiles quite effectively. I also still have great difficulty using AIM-9Bs and AIM-4s effectively. So, despite any stated bias in the readme, I don't see any outlandish results caused by it. I hope DCS eventually matches the planeset and terrains of the SF series. DCS also needs much better air-to-air AI for both single player and co-op. AI needs to be scalable from novices to aces and able to reflect doctrine and training. While I enjoy DCS dogfights on 1 vs 1 situations, 1 vs 2 exposes some flaws and 4 vs 4 is just messy compared to SF2. Of course, SF2 is far from perfect. But, I think Battle of Britain 2 is the only sim I have played with equal or better air-to-air AI than SF2.

Aerodynamically, the only difference between an F-4B and an F-4C is the wing bulges for the fat tires required by the USAF. This only slightly decrease lift/increases drag of the wings. The F-4D was nearly identical to the F-4E. Per the flight manuals, all of the "hard wing" (unslatted) F-4 variants could easily get into a violent departure at high AoA. With enough altitude, recovery was possible and easy... unless it developed into a flat spin. When the famous ace, Robin Olds, hastily converted to the F-4C after flying F-101s, he wanted to experience this problem. He went to 30,000 feet, yanked the stick back, applied some aileron to generate the adverse yaw, and went tumbling. He went below 10,000 feet before figuring out how to recover.

While it may look 1999 visually, I can tell you that in 2001, the only sims with F-4s and F-105s worth playing was Jane's Fighters Anthology and Jane's USAF. USAF looked a lot better, but a modded FA install played much better and had much more accurate FM limitations. To this day, there is no more realistic modeling of the 50's to 70's aircraft and weapons technologies. Only in SFP1/SF2 would you have an AIM-7E that would not work every time or an AIM-9B that is almost useless except against a high flying non-maneuvering target. But in the past year or two, missile reliability and warhead effectiveness was slanted back towards the arcade kill probabilities of most other sims/games. If Jane's USAF had been patched to have decent FMs, AI, and had the object size/time/distance scale corrected, I would never have needed SFP1. But TK stepped up and made a sim that had a great FM foundation that was easily comprehended and improved if you know aerodynamics. That the textures and resolution of the terrain were dated never kept me from enjoying the flying and fighting. But trading modability and realism for new terrain, locked down files, and arcade style combat is a step backwards.

This has been the problem for a while: Someone complains about a valid gripe and TK waves a cursed monkey's paw over the problem so that his "fix" makes the situation as bad or even worse than the original problem.