streakeagle

The way I am doing Mavericks is to leave the target gate at boresight with the MAV as SOI, zoom in on HUD, center the target in the gate, then use the TMS Forward Short to trigger Maverick "Track". While it is not quite as easy as SF2 (i.e. automatically cycle between targets using a single key), it isn't much harder as long as you can clearly see the target in the HUD. I am getting nearly 100% hits as long as I fire within envelope. Trying to steer the cursor around with the little slew joystick is a pain in the butt. I move to far, then it tries to track when I want to slew it back. So, the other way I have targeted successfully was using the HUD to place the SPI and verifying it with the TGP at long range before switching to Maverick and using the TMS Forward Short to track the slaved SPI. But the first way works much better for small vehicles while the HUD/TGP handoff way works for targeting larger objects like storage and buildings. GBU-38 IAM are a breeze to use to drop bridges. I can get the job done with just one, but there is plenty of time to drop two and that virtually guarantees obliteration. There is obviously a much steeper learning curve than SF2, but if you have the right buttons available on your HOTAS and learn the "shortcuts", it really doesn't have to be any harder than SF2 even with full difficulty/realism. The hardest part is finding/tracking targets which is the part that is completely simplified/automated in SF2. But the instant action and training missions almost make that as easy as SF2... just a matter of mission design with good waypoints to guide the beginner. It is working very well for me.

Being stuck in the LOMAC terrain is not too different from the original SFP1 being stuck in the desert. Until modders (and TK) caught up to provide Vietnam and Israel, I ignored the terrain and focused on the combat. I just did some work ups in free flight to get a handle on weapons. I can CCIP/CCRP bombs (took out a big bridge). I can use Mavericks (took out big storage tanks at some kind of plant or storage facility).

I just put in a few hours in the A-10C doing ramp starts, take-offs, and landings. Challenging, fun and not too hard at all. Now I am fairly proficient at flying, next up is mastering weapons delivery.

DCS let's you play the way you want. Instant action can give you the same gameplay that SF provides, but with better graphics, physics, and more detailed weapons systems. Just like SF, you can start in the air or on the runway ready to rock-n-roll. But it has one more option that SF doesn't: the full ramp start for those that are interested. I haven't tried the Game mode controls, only Sim mode controls... but I was able to fly and fight without ever following a ramp start procedure. However, having finally mastered the A-10C ramp start, it doesn't take that long and makes take off a lot more interesting than starting at the end of the runway and slamming the throttle forward. DCS is an option for gamers, but it is the only choice for people that want both FSX procedural detail and combat. As far as work versus gameplay goes... I feel the same way about Dangerous Waters. I periodically play through the missions of DW to maintain technical/tactical proficiency, but having done 6.5 years at sea on submarines standing long boring sonar watches for mediocre pay, I have little interest in doing so for no pay... unless the fight gets going quickly. I loved the trainers where we were air dropped into difficult situations and had to fight our way out with good sonar work, smart maneuvering, and effective weapons employment. A good DW mission gives me that same challenge/fun. But I can really do without hours of endless searching listening to white noise and biologics. I love the fidelity of DW and wouldn't want it any other way, but because it is so realistic, I don't play it that often. The graphics and flight model are so interesting in DCS, that it is a joy just to takeoff, fly a few minutes out, then turn around and land. I find it equally fun to fly the A-10, Ka-50, or P-51D. In SF, the game engine is set up to make it almost automatic to takeoff and land without any risk of crashing. Even on full difficulty, I and land/takeoff just about anywhere. In DCS, if I go off the runway, I can sink in the soft ground and get stuck. The aircraft can easily be damaged/destroyed by landing too hard. No sim is perfect, but right now, DCS is a much better fit for what I have wanted all along and over the near term it is only going to keep getting better.

Okay, this video sets the standard for what an air burst effect should look like. Effects modders, get hot!

An absolutely amazing achievement that very few appreciate today. People vote for themselves, not the future beyond their own lifetime. I doubt the United States will ever devote the resources toward technology breakthroughs the way it did during the Cold War. The moon landing may be the high point of US history. Instead of going where no man has gone before, US citizens just want internet access and free health care. Maybe China or India will pick up the torch and go further as they transcend into being the next military and economic world superpowers. Of course, the only reason our aerospace industry beat out everyone else is that our captured Nazi scientists were better than their captured Nazi scientists Funny how being able to design rockets gave a bunch of people a free pass on their wartime behavior.

1. It doesn't take a $5000 PC to run DCS. With settings maxed out, my new $1500 PC averages 45-55 fps and if I knock down the FSAA a bit I get 60+ fps locked down by vsync. 2. With the same PC and max settings, SF2NA runs at 30 fps over Iceland and falls to 20 fps at times. With FSAA adjusted a bit, I get 30-40 fps over Iceland. Over water or in the older sims, max settings will let me exceed vsync 60 fps. The terrain in DCS has lower resolution than Iceland (hence the 30 fps in SF2NA), but looks better because they paid someone like Stary to make it look as good or better than SF terrain looks after Starry gets a hold of it. 3. I haven't learned ANY of the complex controls, yet I am having a blast flying the P-51D, Ka-50, and Su-25T using runway starts to skip all the ramp start procedures. I have the setting on full difficulty/realism with the exception of permitting external views. The instant action P-51D vs P-51D and Su-25T vs A-10C are both more fun and more challenging than SF series dogfights -- the AI is equally proficient at energy and turn fighting and switches as the situation requires. 4. Moddability is an issue -- but the purpose of modding is to tailor the game to suit your needs. DCS is getting very close to suiting my needs out of the box better than SF2 ever will with unlimited modding. 5. My only gripe about DCS is the unknown future. By the end of the year (hopefully sooner) I should be happily flying a MiG-21bis and only firing up SF2 to enjoy my F-4 stick while flying an F-4. As it stands, my favorite aircraft so far is the Ka-50 because the flight model is so cool. Best helo I ever flew on a PC. I just got Take On Helicopters and there is simply no comparison. TOH is barely better than ArmA2 helos in terms of the flight models. I also like the P-51D a lot more than I thought I would -- its ground handling and FM is stunning too. The A-10C, aside from all the new buttons, isn't that big a jump from the FC2 A-10A, which isn't that much different from the SF2E A-10A, so until I learn to use the buttons, it is the least interesting for me to fly. TK doesn't want to consider SF2 and LOMAC/FC/DCS to be competitors, but I WAS one of the biggest SF supporters. The combination of SF2's direction and DCS's direction has easily brought my SF2 time down to mere minutes over the past couple of weeks after years of having an hour or more of SF2 nearly every night. DCS runs better, looks better, plays better, and may explode in growth/variety of what can be simulated without needing me to waste even one minute modding it.

While it is easy to break the landing gear, I can easily fly where I want and land where I want with a little patience as I learn the sensitivity and the rate at which I can transition to a low hover from a high cruise. The FM is far more stable/smooth than OFP/ArmA but the basic maneuvers I can use to slow down and hover/land over a particular spot remain similar. I haven't even begun to learn how to do a ramp start or even use any weapons. My experience in OFP/ArmA is that I actually have more fun doing transport missions trying to land and lift people out of hot spots. I personally would prefer a Huey or Cobra, but clearly this is one awesome helicopter and a great choice for a combat sim. I am downloading the Take On Helicopters / Hind bundle tonight (bought it earlier today on steam). I suspect the Ka-50 FM will be far superior, but Take On Helicopters' FM better be superior to ArmA 2, or what is the point? I find the Hind more appealing than the Black Shark simply because it is legendary and the proper opponent of the AH-1. I will probably try to master one aspect of the Ka-50 per week while I continue to mainly fly jets. Once I can fly a full mission from ramp start to landing, I think I will really enjoy the Ka-50. I am not going online in any DCS aircraft until I get proficient with at least one of them. I think I can master the A-10C faster and given that I am using a Warthog stick, it comes more natural when learning the full operation of the aircraft.

Got link from SimHQ to this news from Eagle Dynamics: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1327908 Overall, I like the plan even if I don't yet have a PC that can run their stuff. Now if they can just follow through reasonably close or even do better than the road map. What is the "legendary" aircraft for DCS? Fixed wing or rotary? I can only think of a few that qualify and fit in the sim: MiG-21? MiG-23? Mi-24 Hind? Can it be USA? F-4? AH-1? UH-1? F-16 and F-18 are still very current and the F-18 is the most likely next US fixed wing aircraft mentioned. I would bet on a Hind or MiG-21 given that this sim IS Russian, but due to marketing considerations, I could see a "legendary" US helo or jet being added. If it was an F-4, I suspect I still have plenty of time to save up for a new PC. Just did a quick search and it seems "flying legends" could be an aircraft from any period and is possibly a P-51 Mustang or similar aircraft. Just what I need... another P-51 simulator. Possibly the most simulated aircraft in all of flight sim history along with the F4U, and Bf109.

AIM-7 performance versus firing parameters varies widely among models and patch levels in SFP1/SF2. Typically the AIM-7E works very well at long ranges, especially against head-on non-maneuvering targets, but can handle beam shots to some extent. The AIM-7E2 is not so good at long ranges, but is a great dogfight missile able to handle maneuvering targets, but it doesn't handle beam shots well at all. I don't have nearly as much time firing AIM-7Fs and AIM-7Ms, as I usually fly before they existed. But I have some F-15 time and usually get 50-75% reliability out of them if they don't get chaffed. The effectiveness of decoys has been a problem over the years. Some patch revisions, missiles missed every time chaff was released. Other patch revisions, chaff is ignored completely. If you are having trouble with AIM-7s, you are probably flying in later years against opponents with chaff and jammers. In the Vietnam era, I do much better with the AIM-7 than the AIM-9 unless the AIM-9G/H is available. In which case I save the AIM-7s for long range or head-on shots and the AIM-9s for close in.

I have read all of their statements... but ED has been a little shifty over the years as they shifted from making the Black Shark an addon to FC to creating an entirely new game approach that is still being flushed out. Marketing hype means nothing to me. When I have a product in my hand, I don't care whether it is labeled "DCS" or not: what does it actually do, does it meet my needs, and was it worth the price. The MiG-21bis is the focus of my interest, now how long do I have to wait for a release?

The Su-25T is "DCS" but is still modeled on a LOMAC/FC level. Of course the Su-25T has the AFM (advanced flight model) and to the best of my knowledge, none of the third party releases will have that yet. So, the MiG-21bis can be called the "DCS MiG-21bis" but still have a flight model at the LOMAC/FC level and possibly not even have a clickable pit. The Su-25T is really nice, but lacks little things like toe brakes--you just press a single key to apply wheel brakes. I would rather have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised, than expect perfection and be greatly disappointed. I went ahead and pre-purchased at the $50 level, though. People are complaining about $40 addon planes like the P-51D. But if you give me a plane I want to the level of detail the A-10C and P-51D are modeled, $40-$50 is plenty fair to me as each plane is the equivalent of buying another study sim like Falcon 4.0, DCS A-10C, Jane's F/A-18, etc. Of course, at that kind of price, I won't buy every addon that comes down the line compared to the much cheaper Third Wire DLC products where I bought everything to support the future growth of the game. I essentially want DCS World with the planeset of the SF2 series, and it looks like it will be even better as TK refused to provide flyable MiGs or proper avionics dlls to support 3rd party versions. 2 or 3 years from now, I may have a DCS library covering the F-4, F-104, MiG-21, F-15, A-10, P-51. There will even be some aircraft I want from the same time frame that Third Wire would never even do such as the T-38. Of course, the market could collapse and almost none of this will ever come to be a reality. But even then, as long as FC3 and MiG-21bis makes it into DCS World before then, I will have a sim with the MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, F-15, A-10, Ka-50, and P-51. That's pretty much on the level of Jane's USAF, which along with Fighters Anthology are the sims that set the benchmark for what I want. As an added bonus, I think DCS is becoming what people looked forward to in Fighter Ops. Nevada terrain plus T-38, F-15, A-10 detailed well enough to follow real life procedures and training. Fighter Ops isn't vaporware, it just ended up being done by a different company and being named DCS :)

I am not talking about a tool that moves files in and out of folders. It needs to read a list of changes and apply them to stock files. 1. Determine stock files to be changed. 2. Extract them. 3. Read and apply change list to stock files such as adding and removing lines of ini files. 4. Place final files in correct folders. Can JSGME do that for SF2? The term "Generic" tells me it probably can't extract files from SF2 cat files. With the way SF2 already works, I can keep mods in folders on the side, paste them into the user folders with a single copy/paste command or revert back to stock by deleting the entire folder in question and allowing the sim to rebuild it from scratch the next time the game starts.

If you follow the < 2 nm and low g target rule (preferably firing from slightly below the target at altitudes > 2-3,000 feet, you can get a pretty good ratio even with the AIM-9B (though you need to add one more rule to help the seeker: target in afterburner). The only time I couldn't get good performance out of missiles no matter what I did was the original release of WoI, where the MiGs instantly put their beam to doppler radars and easily broke lockons. The MiGs also stayed fairly low to the ground making both AIM-9 and AIM-7 shots difficult. This gave me results comparable to reality and in the case of F-15s with doppler radars, even worse than reality with almost 0% AIM-7 hits. Of course, TK quickly made a patch that made the AI far less likely to succeed in breaking lock and the F-15 returned to being a sniper with AIM-7s. I really enjoyed that original WoI release: the most challenging version TK ever published. If you count unreleased beta versions, I believe the title of most challenging goes to First Eagles. The Spad was somewhat unstable in pitch and would depart wildly if you didn't use a precise light touch. But the public release made the Spad more like its historical reputation: a fast stable gun platform.

But US information is generally available. I have few references on the F-105 (though the pilot manual is a really good one if you are only going to have a few), but I was aware that TK's sight was lacking. In particular, I knew for sure it was a full blown LCOS like the F-4, though the pilots complained that it was too hard to switch between ground attack and air-to-air sight modes and usually ended up leaving it in a fixed reticle mode since they were usually enroute to a ground target when bounced. I am glad you have nothing better to do than fix these things, but it would be even better if you could get TK to incorporate them into the stock game to avoid the ini conflict problems that arise with new patches/installs. I usually end up making ini edits gradually as I want/need them after each major patch/install release and lose them all to the next release before I get more than a few of them installed. I usually don't just copy/paste, but prefer to extract the originals and merge the changes into the latest ini files to avoid breaking new stuff. That approach is much too time consuming, so I end up hardly using any mods at all. What I should do is create a tool that identifies the mod files in a folder, extracts the stock files, and automatically merges the listed mod changes into the stock files, then place them in the appropriate folders. For that to work, the mod files would have to contain only the changes, but it would be a powerful way to manage ini mods after major patches/new installs. However, I can still think of situations where TK's changes would break such a tool, so I don't know if it would really be worth the effort.

Just ran the stock Operation Bolo mission and would have hit 4/4 with AIM-7E if a MiG-21 had not broke line of sight by ducking behind Thud Ridge. It feels like I am firing AIM-9Ms at non-maneuvering targets: lock, shoot, kill with no effort.

I don't know why TK doesn't bother to get stuff like this right. Crusader really shouldn't need to release these kinds of mods... But, since these mods do make the game a quite a bit more realistic, Crusader should put all his mods into a package much like the old Weapons Pack. Then again, how hard is it to find and download all of his releases with the "See user's other files" button on the download page?

Even before the patch, AIM-9Gs were always very good. The main difference between AIM-9G/H Sidewinders and AIM-9Ls is the all-aspect capability, otherwise performance is very similar. If fired within parameters (even against MiG-17s), I expect at least 50%, typically 75%, and possibly 100% success with AIM-9G/H. Even AIM-9Ds are not that bad, just slide the % down by 25: 25%/50%/75%, just a tad less maneuverble. Its the AIM-9B/E/J series that was much more challenging. The patch doesn't appear to effect the maneuverability or seeker tracking, just the reliability and/or lethality. So getting a hit with an AIM-9B against a MiG-17 is just as hard as it ever was, but if you do hit, you will probably get a kill. So the patch doesn't greatly improve the low end missiles since they have many other limitations besides reliability and lethality, but it makes missiles that were already decent into near 100% PK wonder weapons... but again only if fired within seeker and maneuverability limitations. So, in a 1972 era Vietnam dogfight such as May 10,1972 with 4xAIM-7E2 and 4xAIM-9G/Hs, I expect to get about 7+/-1 kills. When in reality, you were lucky if you got one and in the rare case of Duke, three kills in a single sortie. Of course, not even accounting for the changes from the patch, it was already normal for me to get 2-4 kills in the same situation and 7-8 was possible with patience and luck. Unlike reality, the AI sooner or later gives you the shot opportunity that was very rare in reality. Unlike reality, I can run my fuel pretty low waiting for that opportunity without any real worries. Weapon ini changes aside, multiplayer with 1:1 scale maps would create an environment with the potential to get much more realistic results. A MiG-17 pilot aware of a gunless F-4 attacking it can always deny a missile shot. An F-4 aware of a MiG-17 pilot attacking it can always deny a gun shot. So if both are aware of each other, who is going to make a mistake or be forced to turn and run due to fuel? The lack of multiplayer means the AI needs to be very complicated to produce realistic behavior that will produce historical results. The AI has come a long way, but it still isn't even close to being capable of replicating the behavior of a true ace. But the nice part about AI is that you can scale it up or down to suit your preferences. When you play online, mismatches between skill levels on both sides may be realistic, but not very entertaining for the aces or the cannon fodder. The solution is co-op play until enough of the lesser pilots catch up to the veterans. Even then, you may have one pilot so skilled/talented that the only way to balance the fight is to have everyone else on one team to fight against him. Back to the original topic: having every missile I fire hit and kill the target is not very challenging or fun. If the changes that result in that are hard coded and not made optional, then I have no use for such a game.

I seldom fly air-to-ground in any sim and have principally flown air-to-air in SFP1/SF2 all these years with a focus on flying the F-4 and MiG-21. Recently, I have spent quite a bit of time on the MiG-23. The MiG-21bis is clearly going to be modeled better than any SF2 implementation which cannot properly support Soviet avionics functions. But my concern is that it will be modeled at the LOMAC level when I would prefer it to be at the A-10C level of detail. I have read the flight manual of the MiG-21 almost as much as the F-4 in trying to refine the SF2 implementation. I would love a fully functional clickable MiG-21 cockpit. The MiG-21bis can carry 4xAA-8 and 2xAA-2, the AA-2 can even be the SARH model for NAW intercepts. While it did not have the payload, range, or avoinics, it was otherwise the Soviet equivalent to the F-16: a lightweight single engine multirole fighter. In the bis form, it is very much an air-to-air threat against F-16s that typically carried 6 or less AIM-9s. The absence of chaff, flares, and ECM are as much a problem as the endurance. Adding a belly pod with all of those things costs the centerline fuel tank which is critical to MiG-21 operations. While the MiG has many advantages over the F-4, its cockpit view is even more restrictive. Learning to fight with a limited outside view and a weak radar system will be all the more fun/challenging for me.

I don't have time for study sims either. I play these games with full difficulty/realism aside from permitting external views, but I don't have to use all the buttons if I don't want to: Just like SF2, I can start in the air, ready to fight and essentially use the same buttons/controls I use when playing SF2: Roll, pitch, yaw, throttle, weapons selection and trigger. FC2 will soon be FC3, so you add the complexity of learning the controls of the F-15. Having played all the DACT missions in the FC2 F-15, again not much more complex than SF2 other than a few more radar modes, most of which I don't need/use in the DACT missions. Of course, since I have a Warthog HOTAS, it makes it easier for me to enjoy the A-10C study sim side. I just tried free flight with the Ka-50 the other night. No trouble flying it... not too much different than the ArmA helo flight models. The complex part is learning all of the options hidden in the MFD menus, but since the A-10C cockpit is clickable and I can read, I have already learned quite a bit just poking around. The rest of the cockpit knobs are well labeled, too. So I haven't had to read the manual to do basic tasks, just looked around until I found the switch I already knew would exist. I almost never play dynamic or static campaigns in any sim. I like to spend my free time flying missions I like, not whatever some campaign decides. Ultimately, multiplayer with no AI is where the real challenge/fun will be, but I don't really have the time to get proficient enough to compete against more dedicated online types. So far, I have rotated quite a bit, flying the Su-25T and P-51D the most since they have instant action dogfight missions and I am primarily an air-to-air fanatic. But I have spent almost as much time flying the A-10C and the FC2 F-15C in anticipation of FC3. The Ka-50 is the low hours machine of the bunch. I don't know nearly as much about flying helos as I do flying jets, so it will take me a lot longer to get proficient enough to function in combat, especially with a foreign aircraft with weapons and systems I know next to nothing about. The map looks good enough that I don't really care where it is at, though I would prefer Vietnam and Israel/Middle East terrains for historical accuracy. In many ways, I feel like I did when SFP1 was first released: amazed and excited about what might be in store for the future. Except that nearly everything I would want is already included and functional minus a flyable F-4, MiG-21, Vietnam, and US Navy carrier ops, preferably CVAN-65 :) SF2 can only be varied from arcade to sim lite. DCS can almost be dialed down to an arcade level or dialed up into a full bore study sim if you can get through the all the setup menus. Despite using full difficulty settings, I am dogfighting in the P-51D and having no trouble with engine management. All I am doing is moving throttle and rpm levers as I have done for years in Aces High. I have yet to burn up the engine while fighting, though I nosed over and bent my prop while landing. All those little details that were missing from SF (or removed in later patches) are there, such as the option to do a ramp start (originally possible in SF via player edited missions and later disabled) and drag chutes (SFP1 originally had a key mapped for this function, but budget limitations made sure it was never implemented). Landings are much better in DCS. You can actually damage your aircraft and/or die, whereas SF2 will let you land at very steep angles and high speeds with little or no consequences. If a decently modeled F-4 ever becomes available, I will have little reason to ever play SF2 again despite having enjoyed it from the Wally World release until the latest patch. To be fair, I played Jane's USAF almost exclusively and Jane's Fighters Anthology before that purely for the ability to fly and fight in the F-4 Phantom. My sim loyalty has generally always been to the ones that best modeled the F-4 and P-51. SF has had an unusually long run as my primary F-4 simulator and Aces High gave me my P-51 (and F4U Corsair) fun. Now, DCS is poised to replace both of them as my all-time favorite jet and prop flight sims.

For me, FSAA is a must. And if FSAA is supported in the title, I can enable Adaptive AA as well, which smoothes out tgas like decals and wire fences. I found the setting in the Catalyst driver that caused the dropouts in DCS World, went back the original setting and have my fps bounce between 45 and 60 fps. I have also discovered that my motherboard supports an unusual feature: it comes with Lucid Logix Virtu MVP software which uses the built in Intel 4000 GPU to boost my video card's performance. DCS World didn't show any useful improvment and may have actually averaged a few FPS slower. However, SF2 ran much better. The 30 fps I had been seeing over Iceland jumped up to 40-50 fps, which looked and played much better.

I take my son to this museum about once every 2 or 3 months. I was hoping I would get to see the Albatros fly. I am sure he won't be flying that one very frequently, sorry I missed it.

Finally got a new PC, and just in time: Got DCS World A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, and Combined Arms. Looking forward to the MiG-21 and there is even a 3rd party F-104 in the works. I have a Thrustmaster Warthog stick and it is a blast using it for DCS. I can't wait for the FC3 module to integrate some air-to-air jets into the "World". But it is the MiG-21bis I am really pining for!

Got a chance to play and do more testing/evaluation. I am used to DX10/11 titles not permitting forcing of FSAA, so I didn't have DCS tweaked up as well as I could have. Now, I get about 55-60 fps with drops to about 25 fps while dogfighting an A-10. I can imagine the drops will be worse in a full-blown combat environment, so I may have to back off the card settings a bit or the game settings.

DCS World and/or A-10C: Everything maxed out in the game settings and on the graphics card: locked at vsync 60 fps. SF2NA everything maxed out: locked at vsync until iceland comes into view, then locked at 30 fps. Haven't experimented to see what I could do to get it up to 60 fps over Iceland. LOMAC FC2 maxed out (can't force FSAA) vsync + (in game frame rates indicate 70-120 fps) ARMA 2 Combined Arms: don't know frame rates, but running smooth with High settings. Aces High 2: pegged at vsync 60 fps. DCS A-10C is absolutely awesome. Whether rolling on the ground or flying in the air, looks and feels great. Now, can I use the same FSX license on the new PC (i.e. no re-activation issues)? I would hate to think I have to buy another copy because I got a new PC. Will try it right now.