streakeagle

Awesome link. These are from the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. I was just there not too long ago.

I am just happy that TK made a hard wing variant at all. As my models growing up had the short gun fairing, I actually like my hard-wing F-4's with the short muzzle :)

I didn't make myself clear: TK's new N-model definitely did not implement droopy ailerons.

I just got in an active adapter today to permit me to use three old Samsung Syncmaster 204B 20" 1600x1200 LCD monitors via DVI ports. My card is an AMD 7870 with 2 GB GDDR5 RAM. I wondered if this card could handle flight sims at 3 x 1600 x 1200. It cost me some FPS, but still played well with SF2. In DCS world, I had to go from maxed out settings to medium settings to get similar frame rates. But it worked very well and looked very good. I think the key would be to have 3 1080 TVs at 46" or larger, then it would be even more amazing. I would prefer to use the monitors in portrait mode for more vertical depth, but SF2 would CTD until I went back to landscape orientation. As it is, the wide view angle greatly enchanced my sense of speed and helped me know where I was looking while panning around with Track IR. Looking down into the cockpit and seeing the sides of the aircraft makes you feel like you are really inside a small cramped cockpit. I can see where using a high end card or multigpu would be very useful to use multiple screens and still have high FPS while keeping quality settings maxed out.

Every written description I have read in regular books indicates that many F-4Bs and ALL F-4Ns had slotted stabilators. Locked inboard leading edge flaps are also mentioned every single time. However, the F-4B/F-4N manual I have which was up-to-date as of 1975 makes no mention of the locked leading edge flaps, only the original operation is described while some later modifications to the operation of the blown flaps system are described. There should have been separate performance charts for aircraft with slotted stabilators as well since it affected landing speeds, but no such charts exist. Don't know if this is due to the manual being too close to the initial flights of the F-4N. The few clear photos I can find of F-4Ns either clearly show the slotted stabilator or the leading edge is too indistinct to tell one way or the other. I can also say for sure that dropped ailerons have not been added. I have no further info on AN/AAA-4 in F-4B and F-4N aircraft.

I got it to run A-10C in portrait mode by using the "windowed" option... but it had much lower frame rates at about 20 fps. I never got SF2 to even make it to a menu screen in portrait mode. I have come to the conclusion that I would rather have 60+ FPS with full quality at 1600x1200 than 30-40 fps with wide view. I still have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor that I haven't tried with the new PC yet, but I use that one as a TV monitor in another room since it has every kind of TV input including stereo sound. Whereas these old Samsung 204Bs don't have any HD tv inputs and no sound.

Spirit in the Skies implies that the AAA-4 was never removed from the F-4Bs and the RWR antennas were just shoehorned in around it with the F-4N retaining the never removed AAA-4. But I am pretty sure another source which I can't recall had the AAA-4 being removed and never being restored. Can't remember the other source.

The F-4Bs had their chin IRST replaced with RWR antennas similar to F-4C/F-4D (the F-4C never had an IRST, just an empty fairing and early F-4Ds were slick noses like F-4Js). As the RWR's capabilities were expanded, the chin fairing gained bulges. Look at F-4B photos and you can see this evolution. The F-4Ns were made much later, but the chin fairings went back to the original streamlined shape used by the original F-4Bs. So my question: is the chin fairing on an F-4N still a RWR antenna, empty, or was the IRST restored by given that the RWR could have been relocated to match F-4J/F-4S which have no chin fairing? From all of my reading, I doubt the IRST was restored, but if the both the money and space were there, it would have been smart to restore it. I will have to review my references to find out.

I already had this working correctly with bezel correction when I posted. TrackIR doesn't like Triple Buffering with an AMD ATi gpu, so it is always disabled for me. I didn't need to do anything to the SF2 viewlist to make this work. The actual field of view of the three displays in landscape mode is on the order of 100-120 degrees, so why would I want to be able to look behind me with a 240 fov? SF2 crashes to desktop if the monitor is in portrait rotation (3:4), so I was forced to use landscape (4:3). The flaw I see in the system is that the monitors need to be angled toward me to have correct colors/brightness/contrast whereas the graphics engines of games distort the images to accommodate flat screens. So, theoretically, one big flat panel viewed at the right distance (i.e. matching the game engine's FOV) would have little to no apparent distortion. Whereas the angled monitors will look distorted regardless of the view range.

It remains to be seen where TK is going to take SF2 development beyond previously announced releases. I doubt it is going to swing back toward what I like/want based on all the hard-coded tweaking during the run up to and after the release of SF2NA. I will use the upcoming Mirage expansion pack to make a decision as to whether I will continue to buy more Third Wire releases. As for the Android game, I don't even have a phone or tablet to play it on. My only cell phone is a basic camera phone issued by my employer and I don't want or own a tablet. DCS, on the other hand, is giving me a MiG-21bis and a UH-1, both aircraft that TK should have provided as flyables. I still find it extremely ironic that exactly as Third Wire began steering away from my preferences, ED steered toward them. I don't think either one consciously did so, certainly not intentionally carving up the market, but the timing and precision couldn't be better for me :)

"KAW" in the title does the trick. Makes finding related downloads exceptionally easy :)

I have always wanted a decent hard core UH-1 and AH-1 simulation as much as an F-4/MiG-21 sim. I am pleasantly surprised by this decision and will most likely thoroughly enjoy this addon if they don't do something grossly wrong. I want a sim that combines all the best features of every sim ever released with a complete planeset ranging from the Wright Flyer to the latest greatest aircraft being built. DCS is short on the map/world and planeset, but is probably the best sim available for just about everything else. Clearly, the planeset is being expanded as rapidly as possible in all directions. If they could just go to a global map like xplane and FSX.

I think all items associated with the once and future KAW release should have a common tag in the title, either KAW or Korea to make them stand out in file searches. In the test I just did, I had to first do a default search of SF2 downloads with just Korea and then a 2nd search with just KAW to cover all the recent releases. If they all had the same tag, probably KAW being the most specific, then they would all show up in the same search. Hard to find or not, it is great to see all this stuff being made accessible instead of wasting away in "beta" installs. The piece are there. Now if someone will put in the effort to glue them together into a single coherent release with lots of spit and polish to make it into a nice addon that looks like payware and is easily installed by noobs :)

Of course Warthogs have the stick in the center ;)

Yes, FRAPS. Works fairly well now that I have a modern quad-core PC :)

BMS didn't run especially well on my old single core A64 PC, but it runs like a charm on my new quad-core i5 machine. So, I did some basic evaluation flights to refresh my memory of why I never really got into Falcon 4 that much over the years. Now my memory is quite refreshed. Like LOMAC/FC2, air-to-air combat in Falcon 4 occurs with AIM-120s and late model AIM-9s. The sole correctly modeled flyable, F-16C, is also one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the game (compared to LOMAC/FC2's F-15C). When I engage an overwhelming number of AI, I can just pull a tight circle and end up with everyone forming a conga line behind me. I then proceed to use my performance advantage to work my way up the line, limited only by ammo and fuel. The whirlwind dogfight that devolves into the conga line reminds me very much of Jane's USAF: All of the aircraft involved look like they are performing a very slow ballet. I don't know if it is a scaling issue (such as lods made larger than they should be for a given range to be easier to see on a monitor) or if it is the fact that the AI pilots willing drop to if not below their safe stall speeds. Being focused purely on basic air-to-air combat missions, the mix between the conga line and the slow speed ballet destroys the immersion and fun that is so well built up by every other aspect of the game. Aside from the modern missiles, dogfighting in LOMAC/FC2 is far more diverse, challenging, and fun. The stock gunfight training missions for the F-15C range from 1-v-1 against the MiG-23 to 1-v-2 against the Su-27. The AI will split up and react differently to your moves rather than having both enter a pure pursuit curve and form a conga line. The IRM missions give the F-15C tail-only AIM-9Ps vs all-angle AA-8Bs, which gives the MiGs a huge edge that works well with their divide and conqure tactics. Their response does very with how you approach them, so they don't fly the exact same pattern every time unless you approach them the exact same way every time. Now the cockpit and controls work as well with my Thrustmaster Warthog as DCS A-10C. The clickable cockpit is on par with DCS A-10C. If only I had a Cougar for the correct throttle. If it wasn't for the slow mo conga lines and dated graphics, I could enjoy dogfighting in this game as much as LOMAC/FC2/DCS. Of course, my style of play doesn't tap into the dynamic campaign engine. Nor do I see the point of multiplayer unless you prefer co-op only with everyone flying the same airframe. So, even with all the amazing improvements to Falcon 4 over the years and the fact that in many ways it is still comparable or even superior to DCS, it is still not the game for me to play. Yet, I have the original Falcon 4.0 and Falcon 4.0: Allied Force. P.S. Shouldn't this forum be renamed to be something like Falcon 4 and Friends since Allied Force is no longer being developed and various mod versions are far more popular?

Here is a new one I just uploaded at full 1600x1200 resolution with stereo sound. It took quite a while, so I don't know if I am going to bother to upload the first two parts. Here are the links in order part 1 to part 3:

This is an old video at far less than HD quality, but it demonstrates my style of gameplay: no external view and no icons: TrackIR makes this style of play more realistic by not using a POV hat or zoom axis. The WoV game engine allows you to see objects if they are at least one pixel in size, so you can lean forward to zoom in and spot distant targets. Unfortunately, SF2 eventually took this capability away, so aircraft now pop into view at a hard-coded range. I am still playing this way despite the new limits, which are painfully obvious with B-52 sized aircraft but not to bad for MiG-17 sized targets. I use this same style with all every game I have that can use it: DCS, Aces High, ArmA 2, Falcon 4 BMS, However, I don't have videos for the others.

Driver version doesn't affect me much. It takes very little time for me to set up the one profile I like for all my games, I save it, and then never really look at it again. I didn't realize that the ability to look 180 was a TrackIR driver problem rather than a Third Wire feature. I just realized one day that I could look all the way around if I wanted to. Usually I am too lazy to edit the viewlist and just play stock anyway.

I can do that without any problem at all. The cockpit ini settings don't matter as the viewlist parameters are like a master key in disabling all limits. I used to have the TrackIR limits in SFP1/WoX series no matter what ini settings I used, but I have not had that problem in SF2 (not sure when it was "fixed"). I am running SF2 to the latest patch level, but had realized the limits of SFP1/WoX had been removed from SF2 long ago. I would check your TrackIR profile and make sure it is not preventing you from turning around 180 degrees. I am using a TrackIR 4 Pro with the latest software from natural point and I can easily exceed 180 degrees on the virutal sphere co-ordinate grid when turning my head left or right.

I can use TIR to look freely in pitch and yaw anywhere in the cockpit by editing the viewlist.ini file: [ViewClass002] ViewClassName=CockpitViewClass LimitPitch=FALSE LimitYaw=FALSE File placed in: C:\Users\Stephen\Saved Games\ThirdWire\StrikeFighters2 NorthAtlantic\Flight

The only unique difference between the A-7H and A-7E 3d models is the removal of the refueling probe. This appears to be consistent with reality. Anything and everything I could find on the A-7H said that it was pretty much an A-7E with the refueling probe removed. I barely glanced over the cockpits and didn't see any obvious differences. The price says it all. None of the DLC variants with significant 3D model changes had the $2.99 price tag.

I have been studying the history of the CF-104 and wanted to know how its cockpit looked, especially the later variant with a RWR. After a bit of poking around, I found this photo, which is somewhat different than the stock cockpit found in the old SFP1 F-104G: CF104 STARFIGHTER COCKPIT by JmHerigstad, on Flickr

In place of the ADI2 on the far left, I can get a RWR to work. The only other node that can do this is the radar, so it had to be the somewhat clipped ADI2. It does work even if it is small and partially clipped: By streakeagle at 2012-09-08 I have many questions about the later CF-104 upgrades. In the original delivered version with no gun, what was the gunsight like? Fixed reticle identical to the standard sight? Once the gun came back, was LCOS restored if it was previously deleted? If there was LCOS, could the radar provide gun ranging? Did the radar ever get upgraded/replaced to provide any air-to-air modes such as search, track, boresight, ranging? For now, I have restricted all my CF-104s to ground mapping and terrain avoidance modes with no LCOS, just a fixed reticle. The absence of a search radar makes finding incoming bandits harder, but the functional RWR partially solves that problem. What versions of the AIM-9 (if any) were carried on the various CF-104 variants?

Whether Putin has been legitimately elected or not, I think he is one of the most capable leaders Russia has had since Peter the Great. But the very thing that molded him into such a strong person also limits his ability to lead his nation into prosperity: his Cold War/KGB experience. It may never happen, but I would like to see Russia and its people do as well as the USA without needing a war to get there. Those people have been oppressed for centuries and despite shaking off the Czar and most of the Soviet chains, continue to suffer despite having abundant resources and a large and fairly well educated population. At least they have Vodka :)