streakeagle

You can make a nearly perfect by-the-book trap with an F-4B on a carrier with little to no recent practice. Knowing the limitations of SF2 (inability to see the carrier and too little drag and/or too much power in a landing configuration): Applied airbrakes. Lowered my nose just enough to see the deck. Used my throttle to control rate of decent. Observed glideslope right on target without any corrections. Nosed up to correct AoA just before touchdown. Touched down and hooked a wire about center of wires. Rectracted hook and moved out of the way for wingman to avoid collision. I can't say those are always the results I get with so little practice, but it was a smooth landing on CV-41 tonight... Time for another beer, maybe the first one helped out and another will make me even better! I not only landed, but killed all four MiG-17s (more or less simulating the 2 x VF-21 F-4B vs 4 x MiG-17F of 17 June 1965). MiG-17s are miraculously observing and dodging 3 out of 4 AIM-9s, but not doing as well against the AIM-7s

Love it. So far, everything I hoped it would be, and as it is only a "beta", I would dare hope that it is only going to get better.

While I expect DCS to proceed... it is really such a niche that the whole idea could go bust before it gets very far. But due to the lack of competition and the current evidence of steady progress, all my eggs are in this one basket. Against my better judgement, I prepaid for the MiG-21bis, and more than the bare minimum to help improve the odds of it getting done. But paying for a product that isn't available yet is generally a bad idea... paying for a Fighter Ops forum subscription even a worse idea ;) But I wouldn't have bet on the MiG if I didn't have 99.9% certainty that it would get done in a reasonable amount of time. Those that prepaid for DCS:A-10C looking for DCS:Nevada are still hanging out to dry. Hopefully, edge is compeleted AND turns out to be great, followed by an upsurge in third party participation and productivity. Would be nice if DCS creates a market similar in scale to FSX with lots of choices across the range in quality and cost for all types of addons to create whatever world you want to fly/fight in. It would be nice if sea combat makes it into the spread and all aspects of the game have the option to have addons at the A-10C level of quality and realism as well as the FC level to suit everyone's preferences.

Any mod of ArmA is nowhere near the quality of Jet Thunder or even the "lite" SF2 when it comes to flight/air combat simulation. If ArmA was any good in this role, DCS and SF2 wouldn't exist.

The patch was fully downloaded in the morning when I got up, I installed it, installed UH-1H, and activated UH-1H. I didn't have time to try it (still don't have time yet), but had to start a mission to activate it. So, I took off and hovered a few seconds. Just using the default mappings to my BU0836X stick and Warthog throttle, I could lift off and hover with a bit of wobbling. I don't know if one of the throttle axis was providing tail rotor or what, but I could use the cyclic to damp most oscillations and hang pretty steady without using rudder pedals at all. As soon as I get the time, I will get my stick/throttle/pedals all mapped and enjoy this awesome helo ride :)

Some of the QF-4s put up quite a fight. Some survive multiple missile hits and repair cycles before being written off and/or disintegrating. While I would rather see them distributed to museums to be appreciated, it is probably more fitting they go down flying in a blaze of glory while helping make sure the next generation does their job as well as possible.

I am sure those are later delivery manuals. Except for a very few systems (no AAA-4 Infrared, different comms, and fat wings for fat tires), the early blocks of F-4C was for all intents and purposes an F-4B right down to the paint job on initial delivery. The early F-4D may have retained the capabilities of the F-4C, but most certainly couldn't even carry AIM-9s on the wing pylons as delivered and had to be field modded to get them back after the AIM-4 proved to be useless in dogfights. So there is not telling what the F-4D could or not carry -- but the missile status panel still had the lights up to a certain point, so maybe the wires were still there? Until later control panel upgrades and/or wiring changes for "special" weapons, it is possible that the only thing keeping USAF F-4s from carrying AIM-7s on their wings was the lack of the Navy pylon. Aside from the odd RAAF photos, it is safe to say, possible or not, the USAF F-4 variants never actually carried the wing mounted AIM-7s and therefore any "realistic" loadout ini files for them should not permit it. At the same time, photographic evidence and cockpit lights indicate that USN F-4s appear to have always retained the wing pylon capability. While not commonly used, it should probably be a valid loadout ini entry for all USN F-4s.

The auto updater has downloaded 120 MB... torrent has gotten 3 GB... now do I have to completely uninstall to use the torrent? I don't want to uninstall and certainly don't want to waste/disturb module activations. But I also don't want to wait a week for the auto-updater.

1.2.4 is out. Already have DCS:UH-1H downloaded. About 1/3 the way through the 1.2.4 auto-update, but it has slowed down a tad. I wish the auto-updater could tie into torrents. Correction, 2/3 done... must be moving in spurts. When it moves, it jumps. It really jumps... applying update now, but won't have time to try it yet. Have to fix dinner and take my son out to play. Oops... must have only finished "file check", auto-updater is at 11.8 out of 1359.9 MB and crawling very slow. Others say the torrent to download the whole install is faster, but I think I will let the auto-updater do the job.

I see little to no value in FC level flight models. SF2 has far superior flight modeling to Lomac/FC. If DCS merely expanded the FC planeset rather than having higher fidelity aircraft modeling, I would play it as much as I did LOMAC/FC/FC2... once in a while. I already have a wide range of sims at a survey level with only a few at the hard core level... and none of those cover aircraft I want to learn to the hard core level. DCS only has my attention because of the announced hard core aircraft: MiG-21bis and the promise to deliver more aircraft from that generation and older. Additionally, the F-104, F-86, MiG-15, and UH-1H are the projects I am interested in. But aside from the UH-1, those aircraft fly and fight better in SF2 better than they ever would at an FC3 level of modeling. So I am willing to wait quite a while if the finished products are at the level of accuracy of the A-10C module. Pending the release of the UH-1 and MiG-21bis, most of my DCS time is spent in the P-51D. While I would prefer historically accurate terrain and even better yet, the complete globe, all I really need is a sandbox capable of modeling the missions I want to fly. The existing terrain is adequate for this purpose.

It may have a sight center option... but I just struggle to get the right angle with TrackIR. Though I agree, sight centered is the way to go for a default view. But since the sight is fixed, it doesn't really help that much once I get used to where the bullets are falling. i.e. in Aces High, the best pilots use just a dot for reference leaving their view unobstructed. I have always preferred to fly with historically correct sights, but then Aces High doesn't give the P-51D once of its advantages: K-14 LCOS. So, I can understand people gaming the game rather than using the diamonds that don't adjust to wingspan/range and don't move to reflect calculated lead. Unfortunately, having precision in one sim doesn't directly translate to precision in another given different physics calculations. One aspect of DCS: P-51D I like is that the K-14 works pretty close to the original (at least after they got rid of the bugs). But with just a little practice, estimating lead angles visually with just a dot works just as well or better and leaves your forward view a bit more unobstructed.

I think the "multiple 3rd parties doing the same plane thing" is already fixing itself, and not necessarily in a good way. The F-15E is one of the most complex systems you could try to model and a poor choice for learning how to do things the DCS way. Will 3rd parties even be able to produce modules comparable to the existing Ka-50, P-51D, and A-10C? If they can't do so in a reasonable amount of time and make a profit, they won't be releasing any DCS modules at all. All I can do is sit back an wait to see the results of both ED and the 3rd parties. The UH-1H will give me a taste of 3rd party capabilities. Hopefully, the MiG-21bis follows soon as well. But I am not holding my breath waiting for 3rd parties to deliver everything or even anything they originally announced. I hope I am wrong, but I expect most will pull out of doing DCS modules before releasing even one module. I am counting on ED to produce their official modules in a reasonable amount of time and more importantly to the same level of accuracy as DCS:A-10C. I just hope they finish something I like and want before I am too old to learn/enjoy hardcore flight sims.

I now have a headrest :)

Been spending a lot of time doing 1v1 with the enemy set to the highest level, "Hero". With the Spitfire Mk1A vs the Bf109E-4, I can kill the Bf109 every time, though sometimes needing a lot of patience. But the I cannot get the Spitfire while flying the 109. I can't close him, I can't out climb him, and I certainly can't out turn him. Just to stay with him, I have to slowly bleed my altitude down until he drives me into the sea or he gets a good burst into me. At any other level: Regular, Veteran, or even Ace, I can smoke the Spitfire. Just not on "Hero". i will say this: I hate the German cannons because of their low muzzle velocity/fast drop, making high g shots very difficult. I also hate the offset gunsight. In reality, being offset doesn't mess up the sight, it just appears to move around and you have to move so that it is on the glass. In the game, if you are not centered over the sight, the bullets do not fall on the cross in level flight. Overall the Spitfire is much easier/more capable aside from the wimpy 8x0.303 guns. Aces High has performance charts that agree with BoB2. They show that the Spitfire I actually was superior to the Bf109E-4 in almost every area of the flight envelope. Given that the Bf109 pilots were low on fuel and ordered to stick close to the bombers rather than boom-n-zoom on fighter sweeps, it is amazing that they didn't do much worse. I also practiced full realism take-offs, which are graded verbally. It took me a few minutes, but I finally got a perfect takeoff rather than the reminder to be "gentler with my kite." The Spitfire is also much easier for performing a rapid scramble takeoff.

I have faith that DCS can and will become THE combat flight sim for any time frame... if they can make enough money to keep going. My only problem is whether they will get as far as I would like before I die ;) When you choose to make a combat flight sim that is both a hardcore study sim and a survey sim, that is a huge can of worms. Rise of Flight is along those lines, but models a time frame with only the simplest of aircraft systems, and it has still taken many years to expand to its current stable of fairly well-modeled aircraft. Which is better/easier? Starting with a survey sim, then going back and filling in the details to make each aircraft into a dedicated hardcore study sim or starting with a hardcore sim and slowly expanding the library of flyable hardcore aircraft? I was enjoying the Third Wire approach -- starting off with a decent number of flyables and slowly improving the game engine while also expanding the planeset, but the money ran dry before it got as far as I would have liked. The idea of polishing Falcon 4.0 into Falcon Allied Force, then adding an equally well modeled aircraft like the A-10 or F-15E sounded good, too... but again the money ran out. Flanker -> LOMAC ->FC->DCS:Ka50->FC2->A-10C -> DCS:World -> FC3 has a unique flow from study sim to survey sim to study sim to survey sim... rinse, wash, repeat. For now, it seems to be working as a business model as long as people are willing to keep paying for updated versions of the same original code (much like Third Wire in that aspect). The Fw190 will enhance P-51 air combat fun, but the UH-1H is what I am anxious to see. How can this be the first time one of the most popular and prolific helos has been modeled to a hard core level in a combat flight sim? The one fatal flaw I see preventing DCS from taking over all PC flight simming is the small regional map (again like Third Wire) versus the globe of FSX and X-Plane. I hope they have plans to eventually create a globe that gets populated with their regional maps. I would rather fly into generic blue or green unmodeled areas on a complete globe than hit imaginary walls.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/150836 One step closer to the future that DCS is promising me. Can't wait to fly the MiG-21bis in DCS.

Tooling around in BoB2 Spits and 109s is easily as fun and challenging as DCS:P-51 with a much better environment (i.e. historical setting and opponents). BoB2 AI is probably the best close-in dogfight AI I have fought with full scalability from dummy to ace. But even the best AI is never as fun or hard as fighting good people. For me, Aces High is still the best way to enjoy the thrill of multiplayer. But for several years now, I haven't had the time to get proficient enough to make it worth the monthly fee.

I don't suppose TK will ever get around to doing a proper late F-4J / F-4S ? As it stands, the F-4N DLC could use a few revisions.

I have looked at that page a million times and never noticed that panel. That is where the lights went to when the old missile status panel was replaced! That seals the deal that the Navy F-4s had the wing pylon option from start to finish. Only a select group of USAF and export F-4s lost the capability.

Finally got around to installing BoB2 on my "new" PC. First time flying the 2.12 update. Some aspects of the graphics are looking a bit dated, but overall I still love this sim. Simply taking off using full realism in a Spitfire is pure joy and dogfighting 1v1 is as good or better than SF2. I don't have IL-2:COD to compare it to, but aside from that one, I haven't ever played a better sim for the massive interceptors/escorts/bombers type of engagement. Clickable cockpit, great flight modeling, decent if not the best AI. Just expanding the planeset to encompass the full WW2 experience and I would be very happy. DCS:P-51 has a bit more control detail and better graphics, but it could use a lesson or two on how to make fun/interesting/challenging dogfight AI. Of course, DCS has decent multiplayer, making AI obsolete anyway if you can find others you enjoy flying with/against. I still think this sim is highly underrated. It is a top notch sim and a fun game to boot.

One photo shows an F-4J with the AIM-7s on the wings, and its number marks it as a mid-production F-4J (not sure when the F-4B panel was dumped for the later AWG-10 style panel), so it is appears likely that even later F-4Js/Ss retained the wing pylon capability. If the F-J's kept it, then I assume the F-4N's kept it as well. As or the F-4 model having problems, guess you need to build a new one to go with the new missile models :)

I have been playing with the edits for the F-4B. I have run into a minor problem: either the pylon is too short or the missile is too long (whether I use the stock AIM-7D or the one in Ravenclaw's F-4E release). I am guessing it is the pylon. From photos, it seems that the point where the leading edge of the forward fin more or less marks where the missile lines up on a panel line on the pylon. When I do so, the missile seems to project out too far compared to the photos and the rear of the missile remains to close to the end of the pylon (there should be a gap from the back of the pylon to the back of the missile). It still looks pretty good, just not quite the same as the photos. Also: When adding the two wing pylon entries, if you use the next sequential station IDs (17 and 18), then the fuselage stations are fired first. It seems the practice was to fire the pylon stations first, which makes sense as it would be a better sequence to reduce drag. When I just added the SAHM entry to the existing inner pylon entries, I accidentally got the "pylon first" order I would prefer. The problem is, if I disturb the default station IDs, the loadout ini has to be carefully updated (I was trying to get away with a minimum change AND get rid of the adapter). But I see no other way to get it. I intend to bump Sparrow stations 3 and 4 down to station IDs 17 and 18, bump 1 and 2 down to 12 and 13, and Stations 5 and 6 (the pylon AIM-7s in my data ini) to 10 and 11. Really, the forward fuselage stations and aft fuselage stations should be separate groups to permit in-game selection of aft-only AIM-7s. USAF F-4s should have the AIM-9s, AIM-7s, and regular inner pylons in the same group to limit them to only having one of the three as the USAF AIM-9 rails were not wide enough to safely carry both AIM-9s and bombs at the same time. Based on the website, all USAF F-4Es and some export versions made after 1966 should have the pylon AIM-7 option deleted. Since the deletion is supposed to be related to nuclear weapons employment, I am going to guess that the export versions in question might be F-4K, F-4M, F-4E (Israel), and F-4F. The website shows photos of two different restored F-4M panels with the blanked out pylon Sparrows status indicators, so I am fairly sure the F-4M fell into post 1966 export versions. The F-4EJ was bought as an interceptor and they aren't supposed to lob nuclear weapons, so would they have the pylon AIM-7 option? It might make sense to remove the pylon AIM-7 option from the F-4C_67 and F-4D_67, though they were apparently only changed out as wear and tear required.

That pic pretty squarely locks down the case for Navy F-4s. Early production F-4Js were nearly identical to F-4Bs in terms of controls and avionics. 155553 was a Block 33ag F-4J, which I am guessing would have been late enough in production to have the AWG-10 and updated control panel that became the standard for the F-4S. In other words, I am agreeing with Ravenclaw that the USN F-4s always had/retained the wing Sparrows. But I think F-4Cs and F-4Ds ended up matching the F-4E with field mods substituting other capabilities (nuclear is what is claimed on the website reference). F-4Ds are a strange case, as Sidewinder capability was removed/replaced by Falcons. They had to be modded back to supporting Sidewinders. So illogical deletions of capabilities are not only possible but actually happened.

Clearly, from the photos I can find, the Australians operated the F-4E with USAF style pylons, but were initially delivered with Navy style pylons and their loadouts had little to do with whether they were usuable or not.

Apparently it was no longer practical to carry AIM-7s on wing pylons around 1966. I don't see too many (any?) USN photos after 1965. The BARCAP loadout was quickly changed to the one used in the faulty book cover in my initial post: 2 x AIM-9 (1 on each outer wing rail) and 2 x AIM-7 (rear recess). USAF F-4s clearly had their panels rewired to not use the wing pylons. Later USN panels are not very clear as they removed the old missile control panel. I don't see where the selected missile can be determined and "ready" status monitored on the new panels. Australia is an interesting case since they primarily trained for strike missions in preparation for the receipt of F-111Cs. Why would they be even hanging AIM-7s on the wings? Just because the physical rails remained all the way to the F-4S is no guarantee they retained the capability to fire them. I agree that it is likely that the Navy F-4s retained the capability, but I am almost positive that I read a source that said otherwise.