streakeagle

I have varied the response of my original posted mission by switching to P-51D vs 4xSpitfire IXc and altering the starting range. I have gotten both immediate engagement and steady straight behavior. In the steady straight behavior, I have to get very close (< 0.2 nm) before I see engagement behavior. I still need to do more testing to isolate what triggers engagement behavior. Possibly related to whether the mission starts near max visible detection range or inside it? I need to move my IP and objective waypoints further out to make sure they aren't triggering behavior changes.

Keep in mind the MiG-17F has no RWR and is specified to be completely blind to the rear: [DetectSystem] RadarType=RANGING VisualBlindArc=5,6,7 VisualRestrictedArc=4L,8L,12L MaxVisibleDistance=6000.0 HasRWR=FALSE It seems to be no small coincidence that the MaxVisibleDistance for the F-4 is 10000.0 meters, about 5.4 nm. So I don't understand what would be different in an F-86 vs MiG-15 mission that you wouldn't see the exact same results I get in an F-4C vs MiG-17F mission.

Duplicate those results with the mission I provided. The F-4C is 3,000 feet lower and trailing by 6 nm. The instant you hit 5 nm, All four MiG-17Fs turn left to engage. Don't know what you are doing different in your mission. I don't have any mods installed. Give me a stock mission where you can approach from dead 6 without AI reaction so I can duplicate the performance. There will have to be some difference in AI settings/mission/waypoint or something else. By TK's own words, the AI is programmed to be visually aware 360 degrees, the blind arcs listed in the ini files are disregarded. This was a feature he added to address complaints about flights not reacting to approaching enemies. Usually, when they go straight and level without reaction it is either due to out of fuel/ammo or pilot skill. I cannot have AI approach my flight from the rear or approach an AI flight from the rear without the flight being bounced magically reacting. I discussed this fact on the Third Wire forums and TK was pretty clear on why that was.

Simply the sound of a single unopposed enemy aircraft can cost sleep and cause stress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_Machine_Charlie But actually dropping bombs and doing meaningful damage provides even better results. Imagine being in Iraq when the F-117s were coming every night. As soon as the AA guns lit off, everyone knew some very specific target was going to be utterly destroyed.

This is a very simple mission I created starting with the stock F-4J vs MiG-17F: 1xF-4C flying from the low 6 (a blind spot for every single seat aircraft) of 4xMiG-17F. Try getting less than 5nm from the MiGs before they all magically reverse to engage. I cannot construct a fighter vs. fighter mission where one side does not automatically spot the other and engage WVR. [MissionHeader] AircraftType=F-4C MissionMap=DESERT MissionType=CAP StartTime=14:30:00 StartDate=03/18/1966 [MissionData] FriendlyAirActivity=1 EnemyAirActivity=1 FriendlyAirDefenseActivity=0 EnemyAirDefenseActivity=0 PlayerMissionID=1 PlayerPositionID=1 MissionNumber=5123 GeneratedMission=FALSE AdjustStartPosition=FALSE AdjustBaseWaypoint=TRUE CreateStaticAircraft=FALSE CreateHelpFlight=FALSE [Weather] WeatherType=SCATTERED WeatherAlt=3962.399902 WeatherThickness=304.799988 HasHighLayer=FALSE FogAmount=0.570000 ContrailAlt=7924.799805 StartWindDirection=180.000000 StartWindSpeed=2.573764 WindGustingAmount=2.573764 [AircraftMission001] Name=SHOWTIME AircraftType=F-4C Size=1 Alignment=FRIENDLY RandomChance=100 MissionType=CAP TargetArea=Al'Duhok ObjectiveID=2 RatingForSuccess=100 CarrierBased=FALSE Position=479521.640606,461348.984340,2000.000000 Heading=39.543674 Speed=240.279465 StartTime=0.000000 BaseArea= LandArea=D7 Airfield Waypoint[01].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[01].Position=517605.248866,507476.414779,2000.097534 Waypoint[01].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[01].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[02].Command=INITIAL_POINT Waypoint[02].Position=522119.846570,512217.369865,3000.146484 Waypoint[02].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[02].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[03].Command=OBJECTIVE_POINT Waypoint[03].Objective=TRUE Waypoint[03].Position=537093.750306,531464.843754,3000.146484 Waypoint[03].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[03].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[04].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[04].Position=443548.256816,533580.780085,3000.000000 Waypoint[04].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[04].Speed=240.279465 Waypoint[05].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[05].Position=468492.565498,524644.052383,3000.000000 Waypoint[05].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[05].Speed=240.279465 Waypoint[06].Command=APPROACH Waypoint[06].Position=399093.365024,532251.109278,1524.000000 Waypoint[06].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[06].Speed=139.554001 Waypoint[07].Command=LAND_LINEUP Waypoint[07].Position=392999.999190,549740.000000,762.000000 Waypoint[07].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[07].Speed=83.357964 Waypoint[08].Command=LAND_TOUCHDOWN Waypoint[08].Position=393000.000000,558081.500000,0.000000 Waypoint[08].Size=50.000000 Waypoint[08].Speed=74.860001 Nation=USAF FormationType=USFighter PilotTrainingStandard=EXCELLENT Loadout=AirToAir AmmoPercent=100 FuelPercent=100 TracerMixRatio=6 Texture=USAFCamo1 Squadron=391TFS Aircraft[01].AircraftNumber=0 [AircraftMission002] Name=BANDIT1 AircraftType=MiG-17F Size=4 Alignment=ENEMY RandomChance=100 MissionType=CAP TargetArea=Riqdur ObjectiveID=1 RatingForSuccess=100 CarrierBased=FALSE Position=487190.000000,470265.000000,3000.000000 Heading=38.210281 Speed=166.423233 StartTime=-112.143585 BaseArea= LandArea=P5 Airfield Waypoint[01].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[01].Position=514557.400924,505029.926389,3000.146484 Waypoint[01].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[01].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[02].Command=INITIAL_POINT Waypoint[02].Position=518972.166573,511372.035793,3000.146484 Waypoint[02].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[02].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[03].Command=OBJECTIVE_POINT Waypoint[03].Objective=TRUE Waypoint[03].Position=535082.031399,531289.062680,3000.146484 Waypoint[03].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[03].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[04].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[04].Position=494551.272570,443295.933045,3000.000000 Waypoint[04].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[04].Speed=166.423233 Waypoint[05].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[05].Position=500146.272570,448428.433045,3000.000000 Waypoint[05].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[05].Speed=166.423233 Waypoint[06].Command=APPROACH Waypoint[06].Position=534563.406941,444016.969278,1524.000000 Waypoint[06].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[06].Speed=95.472000 Waypoint[07].Command=LAND_LINEUP Waypoint[07].Position=546999.999190,457740.000000,762.000000 Waypoint[07].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[07].Speed=67.822495 Waypoint[08].Command=LAND_TOUCHDOWN Waypoint[08].Position=547000.000000,466081.500000,0.000000 Waypoint[08].Size=50.000000 Waypoint[08].Speed=53.040001 Nation=Syria FormationType=SovietFighter PilotTrainingStandard=EXCELLENT Loadout=None AmmoPercent=100 FuelPercent=100 TracerMixRatio=6 Texture=SyAAFSilver1 Squadron= Aircraft[01].AircraftNumber=0 Aircraft[02].AircraftNumber=23 Aircraft[03].AircraftNumber=56 Aircraft[04].AircraftNumber=15 [Callsign] GroundCallsignID=1 FACCallsignID=1 TACCCallsignID=1

I have played the current patch revision quite a bit. Quite a few patch revisions ago, TK took away the visibility arc functionality. The enemy can always see you... just a matter of whether he chooses to react to you. In my historical Vietnam missions, MiG-17s coming into the blind spots of F-105s never ever worked due to the visual spotting arcs being disabled. I had discussed this on the Third Wire forums with TK, and he favored the dogfight over the old fly straight and level behavior using this simple cheat. I am not sure what sim you have been flying if enemy fighters allow you to bounce them... unless the AI skill levels are set low where they may act oblivious to your aircraft?

While modding SFP1 guarantees nothing will get broken in a patch, SF2 may have reached the point of no more patches. Stable since July 2012 patch. The last hope for SF2 is that all the mobile SF releases draw in new SF2 PC customers to generate demand and cash for continuing SF2 addons. But the fact that TK only posts in his own forums to announce the latest mobile release or a desperate tech support issue ignoring questions/comments by long time SF/SF2 fans is a very bad sign.

It was never realistic to come across a flight of 4 attack planes and have them hold formation straight and level as you gun each one down. It works for B-17s/B-24s in massive formations in WW2. But in the Vietnam time frame the game is supposed to be about, no one held formation under attack. Wingman blows up... you break hard and scramble to figure out what is going on before you blow up too. SF2 swings to the other extreme. It is fairly easy to drive enemies off their intended paths, since they see you coming even when you approach from below and behind. The inability to surprise an enemy creates more interesting dogfights, but makes it impossible to properly simulate historical combat where 4 out of 5 targets died without even knowing they were under attack. So, when I make historically based missions, my only recourse to start the fight at the point where visual contact was made. Neither friend nor foe can be "bounced".

The problem with Oct 2008 level is that the AI has a good chance of running into the ground, but is otherwise far superior to the AI in any previous release.

No contest for me despite liking/loving most of the major Vietnam movies: The Green Berets But a close second might be We Were Soldiers.

Call me slow, stupid, or whatever, but I finally got around to renewing after the last subscription recently (past month or two?) expired. I took the 2 year option.

For those that don't know it, Ed Rasimus has died. I wish this project would be finished in a way that would honor his memory. I am guessing that the total lack of activity on the WTR website combined with TK's migration to mobile apps is a sign that this project will never get any further than this old announcement. <S> to one of the greatest fighter pilots of all time.

The only option that might work is porting over the terrain and aircraft from FE2 into a version of SF2 that supports the mission editor. Create your missions via SF2. Then copy the missions back over to FE2. But, I don't know if FE2 terrain and plains are supported well enough in the latest SF2 engine or whether the mission editor output will be fully compliant with the mission file standards of the earlier FE2 patch level. The key is that missions are simply text files anyway. Let SF2 do most of the work for you and if there are any minor incompatibilities, you should be able to edit or delete them.

+1 Same job, same pay, same standards. Why are two bathrooms needed? Used to be called segregation when you had one facility for one group and a separate facility that was reserved for another group. If they have to add anything to submarines to permit women to serve, then they aren't really "equal" are they?

There are those in the DCS world that detest the very idea of even bothering to release the P-51D who have no objections to the T-38. They see DCS as a "modern" jet sim. Personally, I want a complete simulator that is capable of simulating all aspects of flight and combat to the highest practical realism level, which really translates into a complete physics model: aerodynamics, mechanics, the Earth, etc. for flight, avionics, sensors, weapons, etc. and decent AI. If DCS succeeds in doing all that, why can't it be a replacement for FSX? Won't a T-38A modeled on a DCS:A-10C level be equal to or better than any T-38 ever released for FSX? What DCS needs right now as much or more than a rapid expansion in the range of flyables is realistic terrain other than Georgia. I would prefer a full blown globe that could even be flat and/or mostly blank until filled in by addons. Adding in land combat and presumably sea combat is icing on the cake.

I can understand those who want to simulate being a real fighter pilot... studying and performing all of the associated qualifications. Kind of like leveling up in WoW. The equivalent is "boot camp" in an infantry tactical shooter game. It all depends on your own definition of "fun". I use the shooting range in Steel Beasts Pro PE to get my reflexes and precision up where they need to be for being a gunner. It gives me time to make mistakes and keep going instead of restarting the whole mission every time I get killed. However, it uses exactly the same tank with exactly the same ammo against the actual targets with the only differences being that they don't shoot back and you get a steady flow of clear targets instead of alternating between being overwhelmed and having little or nothing to shoot. It is also very quick as opposed to spending weeks or even months working your way up the virtual fighter pilot school curriculum. But consider that DCS isn't just trying to be the best combat flight simulator, but also trying to grab the market share being abandoned by Microsoft. There are plenty of people who enjoy flying any and all types of aircraft in FSX who could just as easily be flying in DCS as the plane set and terrains are expanded. The fact that there is now a pay-for online FSX based simulated flight school for combat pilots is indicative that a market may exist for realistic trainers. If I was going to pay a monthly fee to fly, it would be (and has been in the past) Aces High. With AH, I can fly any aircraft I want and choose between various servers ranging from all-out war, dueling, training, historical, etc. Wasting time flying according to someone else's rules doesn't really appeal to me. I haven't joined any virtual squadrons for that very reason. Expecting me to pay for something I won't even do for free is a bit unrealistic. But clearly, some people feel differently and some developers seek niches other developers won't touch. Looking at it from the current DCS 3rd party developer's perspective, it seems many want to get familiar with developing for the DCS engine by working their way up from trainers. Taking on the most complex aircraft possible such as an F-15E, F-14D, or F-22 leads to years of no profits in the hope of scoring the big cash with a brilliant final release. If the lessons (and code?) learned from each project can be used as building blocks for the next level, you could get to the high end types almost as fast while getting a chance for profits releasing the basic and intermediate complexity aircraft. A T-38 to F-5 to F-16A to F-16C type of progression could make a lot of sense if plenty of people would buy the T-38 and/or F-5. I don't know if I will buy every DCS release, but I am a fan of the T-38 and the F-5. So, if someone made decent DCS addons of the T-38A, F-5A, and/or F-5E, my money is ready and waiting. But the T-38A needs to make up for its lack of combat capability by coming with very well done Thunderbird skins, preferably all of the variants actually used from initial delivery, to the Bicentennial to the diamond crash.

As great as that looks, I hope for a day when a 360 degree dome is practical for the average combat flight simmer. The wide screen view only whets my appetite for the elimination of needing Track IR to look around.

Really, given all the projects announced, the only thing to complain about is the time it takes to create a module. But if you want clickable cockpits with high fidelity systems modeling in a small, barely profitable niche market, you have to wait as very small teams do the research on the real systems and try to figure out how to code them in DCS. I don't really expect the flight models to be all that good, at least on the first releases. The drive to start making a profit will override the desire to provide a high fidelity flight model. Given how hard it is to get the necessary data and translate it into the game engine, I expect the 3rd party FMs to be closer to the simple FMs of FC3 rather than detailed to the level of A-10C. If they prove me wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised rather than expecting A-10C quality and being disappointed to get FC3 quality.

It doesn't matter what anyone else says or does. All that matters is what is actually released for sale to the public and how well those sales do. Aces High faces similar complaints, but they hold polls to see what planes to add next and US aircraft almost always take the top 3 spots. Developers with limited resources are going to focus on what they perceive to be the most profitable options. Fortunately, Aces High also adds unique interesting aircraft in addition to the most popular ones. TK did the same with the SF series: wrapping some less popular aircraft up with popular ones so that everyone would be happy. Of course, TK refused to release even one flyable opposition aircraft within the jet series. But unlike SF2, DCS is a multiplayer environment and decent opposing aircraft are a necessary component if you want people flying on both sides. ED would be smart to make DCS modules out of the aircraft from FC3 as quickly as possible (which I think they are doing). If the MiG-21bis is done as well as the A-10C, it will become my primary ride. I would also love the chance to fly the MiG-23, so I hope that is the next aircraft after the MiG-21bis from that developer. People should voice their preferences, but they should also wait to see what is actually released. There are long lists of planned modules. So far, none have been released. The MiG-21bis and UH-1H should actually be available in just a few weeks/months. However, given the nature of a DCS level model, I think it will be years before any other 3rd party releases a worthwhile addon. Anyone that produces one sooner will probably be releasing a less than accurate module. As long as the MiG-21bis and UH-1H come out as well as I hope, I can be patient for the others. I hope the developers doing the F-104 are as capable as the developer doing the MiG-21, which would make a great matchup.

Yes, native hardware beats Matrox addon any day! My 7870 has enough outputs to do the 3-panel wide view and have a 4th for the instrument panel, but I don't like the FPS hit. My card just isn't strong enough to drive that much video at the resolution and quality I prefer. Those Thrustmaster MFD frames provide a very cost effective way of having a functional and realistic front panel without using a touch display. I will probably end up getting those. Right now, I am finalizing my plans for a full scale wooden mockup of an F-4 ejection seat. It won't have much in the way of details (no mock rivets, frames, mechanisms, etc.), but the overall shape/dimensions will be as good as I can get with the info I have. If the seat goes well, a mockup of an F-4 side console with the Thrustmaster throttle embedded is next. At the same time, I am cleaning up my F-4 stick. I got some industrial linear potentiometers and a BU0836X to give me a clean, reliable USB interface. I should be able to hide everything by building a mockup of the housing that goes around the base of the stick. When I finish all of that, I am going to build a faux F-4 main panel/computer desk that integrates with the stick/seat/side console. I think I am going to upgrade the family room TV to a modern 46-60" LED LCD TV and hijack the old Mitsubishi 46" LCD to become my dedicated PC monitor.

I can not ever see these photos enough. Proof once again that the reality is more impressive than anything Hollywood can dream up. The skill, determination, and luck it took to complete this mission is amazing. Of course, if they had been truly lucky, they never would have been rammed in the first place ;)

My son has loved playing the old Sega Star Wars Trilogy arcade game at Chuck E. Cheese and Disney Quest since he was about 2 1/2 years old (he just turned 6 in November). So, after discovering the joystick wasn't working do well at Disney Quest, I thought to myself, I bet I can find a PC emulator on the internet. Long story short, aside from a few minor graphical glitches, I got the original ROM running great on a PC emulator with my Warthog stick as the controller. However, the heavy axis springs require me to use two hands to be both fast and precise. Using the trigger button is slow. To fire fast, I have to use a keyboard key to fire while using the stick single-handed, which cuts down my speed an precision. After playing only a few minutes, my wrist hurts. In short, the Warthog sucks for arcade flying/FPS games (though it is extremely smooth and precise two-handed). I think the insanely lighter axis springs and trigger in the X-52 Pro will be much better when I get around to trying it (though I may lose some of the precision and smoothness). That is all!

I have a Saitek gamepad with rumble, but the real arcade game was designed to work well with a full size analog stick, not the crappy, sensitive sticks on gamepads. I tried using the Saitek X-52 Pro, and while it was much lighter and easier to move, it was also much sloppier than the Warthog. When using two hands to make up for the "stiction" of small movements and the spring force changes over large movements, the Warthog is an exceptionally fast/precise device, as it should be for its price.

It was originally known as the Su-19 Fencer in the West. There was some confusion in the 1960's/early '70s between the MiG-23 and MiG-25. Some publications used the name MiG-23 Foxbat. The old board game, Foxbat and Phantom, used the MiG-23 designation for the Foxbat. It was 1983 when I found the first books at Walden Books and B. Dalton that described the RAM-L and RAM-K MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters in some detail using DoD artist concepts and/or early prototype satellite photos and TV footage. I still have those books. It was feared that the US teen series fighters had been completely outclassed in dogfighting ability. Bill Gunston was a contributor/author in a lot of those books, and he felt the Harrier made all of the other planes obsolete. Mike Spick was the other common contributor/author, and he seemed to be more of an F-4/F-15/ATF kind of guy. I still have and love all of those old books even if some of the information is not as accurate as modern publications. Public info on MiGs (MiG-17/19/21/23) was surprisingly accurate prior to Glastnost. Some details were wrong, especially the actual Soviet designation for variants, but big picture details engine and armament were usually pretty close. A minor fallacy was the belief that Soviets always carried missiles in matched IRM and RHM pairs to be fired together at the same target for increased kill probability. Until very recently, every source I have says that is the way AA-7s were carried and used on MiG-23s when in reality they usually carried two SARH variants and were not really set up to carry or fire a mixed pair of AA-7s.

To justify the huge defense budget, Reagan had a propaganda report published and periodically updated: Soviet Military Power It was a lot of wild intelligence guesses packed with slick graphics. The version I own was the 1985 edition that was published by an anti-Reagan author, Tom Gervasi, The Pentagon's Document Annotated and Corrected The beauty of having that is you get to see two extremes at the same time: inflated US intelligence estimates used to justify horrendous defense spending and wishful thinking believing that the Soviets were incapable of challenging US military technology. Decades later, one can see that many of the estimates were not so wild. In particular, Tom Gervasi would have us believe that the Soviets only had 30 operational MiG-29s rather than the 300 estimated by the DoD. In retrospect, the in-service numbers were much closer to if not higher than 300 by 1985.