streakeagle

1. Fully functional drag chutes. 2. Complete ejection/parachute sequences. 3. Mission replay. Sounds like long time wish list items from SFP1. If the planeset could just get to where I want it a little faster

Still enjoying DCS. FC3 is nice, but I don't care for the scripted effects at stall speeds and takeoffs/landings. SF2 is far superior in flying qualities/ground handling to FC3. But when I go back and play SF2, I am still thoroughly annoyed by the over-effective Vietnam era missiles since the release and patching of SF2NA. So, until the UH-1H, MiG-21bis or F-104G becomes available, I am enjoying the P-51D and Ka-50. The flight model of the P-51D is challenging in a dogfight with the AI. The Ka-50 flight model is so smooth and fun that I haven't fired one shot. Just takeoff, pick a landing spot, hover, and try to land on the desired spot, rinse, wash, repeat. I can't imagine what it will be like to fly a UH-1H with no computer stabilization. I was recently flying the UH-1 in ArmA 2 and having a blast, but I can't wait to get a taste of the DCS flight model. I find the DCS level of detail far more fun and interesting than any other sim I have. It could take me years to get proficient with the limited plane set already available.

You can reset the key settings to default by deleting the controls ini which forces the game to create a new one. Then you can try making the modifications you want through the game interface or manually editing the controls.ini file using notepad.

I currenty the use Thrustmaster Warthog stick with SF2 and don't have any issues.

What kind of keyboard are you using? I had a Saitek Eclipse USB keyboard that worked great for years... then one day it didn't work correctly at all with the SF2 series (and only SF2). I don't know what changed? Windows patch? SF2 patch? But from that moment on, I had to switch back to my old MS Internet Pro USB keyboards, which solved the problem.

Are you sure you are hearing a radar warning receiver and not a stall warning horn? RWR's are specified in the cockpit ini and/or avionics in files of each specific aircraft. KAW jets won't have the entries, so unless you are using incorrect cockpit files, you aren't hearing RWR beeps. The default game uses wind noise to indicate stall warnings, but it is possible that your install has been modded to use a stall horn rather than wind noise. The stall horn could even be assigned the same sound as a RWR, though I find that highly unlikely. Good luck on figuring out the problem. Check the cockpit.ini and avionics.ini files for the aircraft in question if you are certain you are hearing RWR sounds.

All I had time to do was play the F-15C instant action mission, but that played fairly well. Modern look and feel of DCS mixed with fun and simplicity of SF2 or Falcon 4.0 instant action. The enemy AI is not very aggressive at all in this mission, so unlike FC2's F-15 ACM missions, you have plenty of time to fiddle with buttons and easily live and kill the enemy, Using that mission to tune how I want the Warthog stick set up. I still don't care too much for the way advanced missiles. I much prefer struggling with old missiles to get into firing parameters and still having a fairly high chance of missing. But this clearly will do the trick for now.

What game is ever released finished with no further patches? I pay now I get to play now, finished or not. Already have FC3 downloaded, waiting for DCS auto updater to finish. In the mean time, I have to work on Kindergarten homework with my son. By then, I should be able to fly an F-15C in DCS:World. If it works as well as it appears in previews, that should hold me until the MiG-21bis and UH-1H are available. The combination of all three should keep me happy until the F-104G is available. Of course, the timeline for addon releases may be in the "years" ballpark, so maybe I get bored in between releases. Of course, paying to get to play a decent beta is quite a bit different to those that have (continue to have?) paid forum accounts for Fighter Ops ;)

If I had to choose between FC3 and the UH-1H + P-51D, I would take the latter. I have had Lockon/FC/FC2 for years and haven't played it much, simply because I have no interest in 90's air combat. I can fly the F-15 and A-10 or contemporary F-16 and F/A-18 in numerous sims, some of them to a DCS level of detail: Jane's F-15, Jane's F/A-18, Falcon 4. There has never been a true UH-1 sim (OFP/ArmA2 is almost the only immersive one). The P-51D represents one of the most famous/popular aircraft of all time. To have the Mustang modeled to a DCS level where it has comparable systems and flight modeling to the A2A P-51D for FSX and fully functional combat is a real treat. I prefer the spread of aircraft being tackled by all of the 3rd parties to a few of '90s to 21st century fighters I already have and hardly ever fly. So, I guess it is good to be me... and those wanting the FC3 stuff will still have their day too. F-15E, F/A-18 is multiple flavors, etc. The only area coming up short is Soviet/Russian aircraft, and I get a big win there with the MiG-21bis, presumably followed by a MiG-23 :) Still waiting to see what modern US aircraft ED is providing (presumably F/A-18 ?).

Having worked and lived on a nuclear submarine, I fail to see the problem with leaving the spent reactors on board, In fact, I would be willing to bet that it would be a superior solution to burying the spent fuel in steel drums in some unknown salt mine in Utah. As it stands, If the ships can be refueled without catastrophic damage to the hull, they can certainly be defueled without such damage, as you have to defuel to refuel ;) Money spent saving this ship wouldn't entirely be wasted. I am sure among the 8% unemployed in this country are many shipyard workers qualified to do the work. This is a "shovel-ready" job if I ever saw one. Privatize the project and turn it into a luxury cruise liner where you can fly to/from the ship mid-cruise. If the government can afford to build and operate a nuclear merchant ship, I think it can afford to turn Enterprise into a museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Based on that argument, no other USN aircraft carriers are ever going to be preserved since they are all nuclear. There are two USN nuclear submarines lying on the bottom of the ocean that are considered "safe" despite not having been properly defueled and scrapped. If they really wanted to save her, they could, even if it involved leaving the reactors in place. Just like the last Enterprise CV-6, the Navy will eventually regret not turning this ship into a museum.

To be fair, Falcon 4.0 has two maps and Jane's F/A-18 has two maps. I guess when you focus on systems fidelity of modern combat aircraft, there is little left for terrain. I can enjoy well-modeled aircraft regardless of the terrain, especially in air-to-air combat, but historically accurate WoV and WoI were far more appealing to me than the fictional SFP1 terrain/campaigns. ED appears to be maintaining more of a WoE approach: historical terrain with fictional campaigns. I suspect their grab for FSX business will fail if they don't ever provide a complete "world". Perhaps the product should have been named "DCS:Georgia". As long as aircraft I really, really want are well-modeled like never before, the developer(s) providing them will get my money. But at a minimum, I would like dedicated maps like SF2:Vietnam, SF2:Europe, and SF2:Israel. However, I am much more interested in having a complete globe like FSX, especially one that varies with time to match major combat periods. All I can do is wait and see what ED and its partners offer over time.

Mention of the X-31 takes me back to the opening sequence of Jane's Fighters Anthology.

I always liked the original air superiority blue with white lettering. I assume that the ghost gray scheme quickly replaced it because it was not only more effective visually, but also incorporated some IR supression/defusion technology in the paint. p.s. note the color of the canopy frames: some sort of metallic red.

I love most of the announced DCS projects. The fact that this one is Vietnam era, I love even more. I am excited about the UH-1H as well. When/if they are completed correctly, the DCS plane set will be respectable. I just hate the fact that it may be 1-3 years before all the projects start being released. It is the price of high fidelity, and I am grudgingly willing to pay it. Hopefully, decent terrains are available by that time as well.

The key is to search SF downloads section for "Mustang", as that was the name it was given as a Rockwell (formerly North American Aviation) project). http://combatace.com/files/file/10496-rockwellmbb-f-31a-mustang-ii-version-10-for-sf2/

Finally have a fairly definitive answer on the AN/AAA-4 IRST: Only installed on the original F-4B, never restored after being removed as the system never worked very well. All should have been removed as ECM/RWR systems were retrofitted to all F-4Bs. The easy test: can you see a somewhat blunt round glass eye at the front? If not, the IRST is not there. Most photos of F-4s with chin pods (even of F-4Bs) show the more conical cover that replaced the IRST. Based on what I have seen of F-4N photos: none ever had the IRST. Given the number of F-4Bs produced, I can see where there might be a few exceptions, but I doubt it.

I have a lot of F-4 Phantom books. Many have lots of photos. Some have lots of text as well. Only one other has the kind of photos and detailed info as this one: DACO Publications "Uncovering the US NAVY Q/F-4B/J/N/S Phantom" by Danny Coremans http://www.amazon.co...ils_o02_s00_i00 The editing could use some work (the book is published in Belgium), but the mistakes are mainly minor typos and grammar mistakes that don't negate the accuracy and usefulness of the information. Many of my F-4 books end being focused on the USAF F-4E or even exclusively centered on USAF variants. This is easily the best book I have on Navy Phantoms for equipment details other than the NATOPs manual. Sweet! When I checked the credits, I found Maarten Waterloo among the text contributors. Maarten is a true F-4 Phanatic, whose website is a treasure to behold as well in case you have never seen it: http://members.chello.nl/m.waterloo/index.html

I think Adam Sandler already had a solution along those lines in this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Don't_Mess_with_the_Zohan I genuinely liked if not loved that movie. Unfortunately, life isn't like the movies. But I think one movie ultimately got it right:

Third Wire has turned into a Monkey's Paw. You will get what you wish for, but you will certainly gets something you don't want or expect in return.

Or those that don't like objects the size of B-29s suddenly popping into view rather than growing steadily from 1 pixel as it once was in SFP1.

The load limits for usually listed for full internal fuel. They can be safely uprated by the ratio of the fully loaded weight divided by the actual weight. It is this effect that makes a slatted F-4E appear inferior to an early hard wing F-4E, as the slatted F-4E weighed more fully loaded, but at the same weight, the load ratings were identical. In practice, pilots pulled as many g's as they could/needed in combat, sometimes permanently damaging the airframe, especially during pull-outs from bombing runs and SAM evasion maneuvers. It was such hard hours on the F-4B airframes that necessitated the F-4N rebuilds.

While I would very much like the slotted tail and droopy ailerons, I am overall very happy with the F-4N as it is. The main feature, the ECM fairings, as well as the slick chin pod are there. I have seen valid photos of F-4Ns showing conflicting tail RWR antenna configs--TK's take is very common in the photos. Of course, I would very much appreciate getting the remaining details right, as that is the primary reason to get the DLC instead of modding an existing variant via ini files or even using "fake pilot" method.

I had no concept of what slats were at the time, but this is the 3rd Phantom model I built (1/48) somewhere between the 4th and 6th grade and it mentioned having slats:

These are the images of what an F-4 should look like that were burned in my mind (as well as being what I remember seeing at MacDill AFB open house when the Thunderbirds were F-4Es): This was my 1st F-4 model (1/72) I built in the 2nd grade: This was my 2nd F-4 model (1/32) I built somewhere between the 2nd/3rd grade: