streakeagle

If one company's cards were always the best quality and price, the other company would have gone out of business. Right now, both brands seem to get the job done with the SF series. Get the best card you can at the best price you can. I have used ATi almost since SFP1 was originally released. Over the years, there have been a few driver issues with SF2 here and there, but either ATi or Third Wire quickly addressed the problem. nVidia has had its driver issues, too. If you read the tech support entries in recent history, you will generally find more problems reported by nVidia users... but that stems from the fact that it seems more of the SF2 users have nVidia cards. The only recent issue I have seen reported repeatedly regards a "split-screen" effect in laptops that have both an integral low end Intel gpu and a discrete gaming GPU. Most of the reports are from nVidia users but ATi users have had a similar experience. It isn't the brand of the gaming gpu causing the problem. It is the mix of two GPUs available, how Windows 7 wants to use them, and how SF2 is programmed to select which adapter to use. Another typical problem as of SF2NA involves white terrain with no textures, which isn't a brand issue either, more of a RAM limit being reached which can usually be addressed by lowering the in-game graphics settings a bit. I don't recall any recent issues that are tied to either nVidia or AMD hardware or drivers.

Ironically, CombatAce is the SF site that was offline, but SimHQ is the one that shut down its SF forums. So, if McDonalds' were closed for a week or two, would Burger King go bust? edit: SimHQ has reopened their Third Wire forum in "read only" mode... effectively and archive. Which, if you have some time to kill (as when CombatAce was down) reading the old SF forum archives is interesting. The types of posts and conversations have changed little despite 10 years of game development.

The US Army has a high school to flight school program for helo pilots. Of course, good people are good people regardless of whether they went to college or not. But the US Army still makes the pilots go to warrant officer school rather than have enlisted pilots. I am not sure why the military believes only officers are capable of operating aircraft. Generally, the number of pilots needed is very small compared to the overall force, so pilot selection is an "elite" filtering process and by establishing officer criteria, you are already filtering out a lot of candidates. But, if there are pilot shortages, why would you set the bar too high? Hence the Army high school to flight school program that can more rapidly fill helo pilot slots. Even then, they have trouble finding enough qualified candidates based on physical and mental aptitude tests.

They were made part of the 3d model for the purposes of skinning. A big step forward so you didn't have to make a separate tank for each skin or even have to pick different tanks for different skins.

I saw all of the EAW stuff that was uploaded... wondered why Geo was suddenly so active. The end of another great site from early SFP1 history.

Equally important: On that same day, Oyster flight scored two kills with BVR Sparrow shots, but Robert "Bob" Lodge was shot down and killed trying to score another and his WSO, Roger Locher, survived on the ground for a long time before he was finally recovered by SAR. Another pilot/wso team in Oyster flight got a kill at the same time: Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue, both future USAF aces. May 10, 1972: "the most active single day of air combat over North Vietnam". It is the "Tet Offensive" of the air. "338 missions were flown by U.S. aircraft over the North. Sixteen planes on both sides were shot down; U.S. forces lost only four." Inexplicably, the North Vietnamese threw everything into the air that day. There is an old book: http://www.amazon.com/One-Day-Long-War-Vietnam/dp/0394576225

Check out Yankee Air Pirate for a WoV version of the RF-8... but beware, if you tell Zero-Cinco you are just buying his products for the models, he'll get angry and say he doesn't want your money (after happily taking it). You can only use YAP products the way Zero-Cinco specifies and if you ever release a screenshot showing the products being used in "unauthorized" ways, be prepared for hellfire and brimstone to rain down upon you :)

Jane's USAF really loves Win98SE the most. Everything worked as well as it could aside from some longstanding AI and FM problems. I thoroughly enjoyed Jane's USAF until I got SFP1 at Walmart. Even in the flawed, limited press-release version sold at Walmart, SFP1 was clearly better than Jane's USAF in most ways. Of course, if you wanted to fly modern planes, use a built-in mission editor, have decent multiplayer, and inflight refueling, then Jane's USAF was still the way to go. TK has finally provided a mission editor and has provided modern planes up to the F-16, but rather than improve multiplayer, it was deleted and inflight refueling remains out of the question. So, if you can live with dated graphics, slow ballet flight, quirky flight models, and suicidal AI that bounce off of a magical barrier rather than crash into the ground, Jane's USAF is the perfect game for you. Always loved the Jane's USAF music, user interface, training missions, ramp starts, and the free Thunderbirds addon. Many fond memories!

Jane's USAF never liked Windows 2000 or its later WinXP derivative. It was in the transition from Win98 to 32bit WinNT based OSes that the menus became problematic. If you hang out at the Gulf Knight forums, you can get comprehensive support for Jane's USAF: http://www.gulfknight.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=238

The question is, which do people value more: freedom or security? The FBI's job is to provide security and if our freedom allows terrorists and other criminals to communicate without any fear of being monitored, the FBI's job is much harder. They have already had the right to monitor phone calls and even made sure digital phones would provide a way for them to decipher any digital voice traffic. So, this is a no-brainer for them, just extending the rights they have already had to the latest technological advance in communications. I heard a discussion about this on the radio and it was pointed out that even with encrypted email, they get a warrant to put a key logger on your PC while you aren't home and get the info they need to access your digital information anyway. The new laws being proposed just make it easier to do what they have already been doing anyway. No one has really raised a fuss about the NSA continuously scanning phone calls for keywords, cameras being put up all over the place, or numerous other compromises in our privacy and freedom that should otherwise be protected by the original right to no unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. It is quite apparent that a significant majority of US citizens want big brother to watch them, provide their health care, feed, cloth, and shelter them. Careful what you wish for... Famous quote cited by Ben Franklin:

I have had issues with HDMI scaling the PC images despite being set to 1080p and having the computer set to display the same resolution. Look at your desktop. Do the letters on the shortcut icons look as clear and distinct on the 1080p TV as they do on a PC monitor? I always end up with the letters looking a bit blurry which results from some sort of slight upsizing or downsizing despite matching the native resolution of the TV. When I switch to the VGA or DVI ports on the TVs, everything is crystal clear.

People appreciate animals more when they can get up close, which ultimately helps promote protecting wild habitats endangered by man. So, as long as people accept the risks, I am all for letting them "play" with wild animals or even keep them as pets. In some cases, the number of pets outnumbers the number in the wild, so these "pets" may actually help prevent total extinction. Where I have a problem with people mixing it up with wild animals is after an incident like this, they think they are entitled to some kind of monetary settlement or some entity calls for the animals to be killed. The animal should never be punished for the stupidity of people. Look at Sea World. They have a killer whale that has killed 2 or 3 people. They have correctly chosen not to kill or punish the whale for being itself. At the same time, they clearly aren't smart enough to keep clear of the whale to avoid further incidents. Killer whales are clearly too big to be held in captivity and be both mentally and physically healthy. But, Sea World has used these animals to promote awareness and respect for these animals in particular and ocean life in general. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A very rugged design combined with a very determined crew and a lot of luck. How many more planes took far less damage and took one or more of their crew down with them? Did the 109 pilot make it?

MiG-23 and F-4 Phantom. Similar intakes, similar performance, similar radar and missile capabilities. Scaled down to 1 seat and 1 engine with VG wing for short takeoff performance. The A-5 Vigilante certainly set the standard for a practical Mach 2.5+ airframe (as opposed to the SR-71's Mach 3.5+ airframe), but aside from the basic planform and intake arrangement, the A-5, MiG-25 and F-15 have very little in common. look at how the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are attached to the airframe and the underlying structures that hold everything together. The A-5's fuselage is rather unique due to its intended capability to lob nuclear weapons out of its internal center tube. The MiG-25 has intakes/exhausts necessary for its unique engine configuration and high altitude/speed performance. Its internal structures gave up strength and limited maneuverability to focus on top speed at high altitude. The F-15's budget was justified as a response to the MiG-25, but the original Mach 3 concepts looked nothing like the MiG-25. At the same time Boyd was calling for weight and size reduction, the Navy was trying to trap the USAF into buying the F-14 (as they did with the F-4). So, the resulting F-15 proposals had to meet very complicated restrictions: 1) Give up the VG wing to cut weight, complexity, and look as dissimilar to the F-14 as possible. 2) Add a large bubble canopy to overcome situational awareness issues encountered in Vietnam (didn't we already learn this lesson in WW2?). 3) As high a top speed as possible despite having a large bubble canopy, no VG wing, and minimal high-temperature materials. 4) Have a large wing area and turn like a bandit despite the high speed requirement. The F-14 variant for a fixed wing proposal looked a lot like the F-15/A-5 Mach 2.5 layout and was being drawn up well before the MiG-25s layout was evident. The original 60,000 lb Mach 3 VG F-15 proposals had spaced engines just like the F-14. I am guessing the engines were pulled back in for two reasons: the change to the fixed wing design with the twin tail booms was more practical and to not look like an F-14. So while the layouts already existed and the A-5 marked the first full-scale production example of that type, it looks like less a case of blatant copying and more a case of engineers facing certain problems arriving at similar solutions. The MiG-25 that landed in Japan gave the US an up close inspection that revealed how different Soviet engineering was to anything the West would have produced. There's a lot more to aircraft design than the basic wing/tail plan view. Now, for a nearly identical external copy: US space shuttle oribiters versus Buran. Soviet engineers arrived at an extremely similar solution, too similar!

The Warthog works fine with SF2. But I am not cutting it up to mix its internals with my F-4 stick. so I am primarily flying using my F-4 stick which is currently mated to my old X-45. I love the feel and functionality of the Warthog, except for the feel of moving through the center detent. It is not a stick I would use for delicate formation flying and is equally problematic when I play Steel Beasts and use it for aiming the main gun. I need to be able to make small subtle movements with little resistance and certainly no bumps from detents, whereas the Warthog requires a bit of force to get it moving and bumps to much around the center. For aggressive flying, it works great as you either move in a way that doesn't pass through the center or slam it around so hard that it doesn't matter. For me, it is the throttle that makes this stick such a good product. Looks and feels realistic and can be programmed to do almost anything. The ability to use the Target software to mix all the Thrustmaster products into a single virtual device is really useful for some games, but the lack of integrated rudder pedals is a big miss on Thrustmaster's part. Can't believe they would miss out on the cash flow for such an obviously useful accessory to complete this package. Since I got my Saitek X-45 working really well with the F-4 stick as opposed to the complicated 24VDC relay interface I had to use with the MS Sidewinder Pro USB, I kind of regret getting the Warthog. Could have used the money elsewhere. But when I start building a semiscale F-4 cockpit, the Warthog throttle will be a main feature unless I decide to cut up the Saitek throttle to make authentic F-4 throttle levers. Of course, if I stick with the Warthog throttle, then it isn't that hard to swap out the F-4 stick for the Warthog stick for DCS Warthog or throw it on the right side for some F-16 action. The Warthog throttle is very similar to an F-15 throttle and my F-4 stick grip is identical to the F-15A stick grip... so if I was smart, I would build an F-15 or A-10 pit rather than an F-4 pit. But guess which airplane it is I love so much that I acquired a real stick and adapted it for game use? I wish I had the money to get a real Martin-Baker MK7 and a real F-4 panel. But my semi-scale intentions should be more practical and possibly might look almost as good.

I know the cockpit is more important to me in actual gameplay, but that screenshot looks awesome... almost real! A decent 3d model with great textures and bump mapping take SF2 to the top notch of aircraft modeling. If it wasn't for the repeating patterns of the old terrain engine, even that looks very good.

The stock MiG-21 really should have been made a flyable by TK a long time ago. It is every bit equal or better than the F-4 in popularity, universal use, and an excellent dogfighter well suited to the game's fun flying/shooting intent. The data needed to model it well enough for this "sim lite" has been readily available for quite a while, too. Fortunately the community support has done nothing but improve the situation over time. Better cockpit modeling, many variants, and better textures. Special thanks to all of those who have contributed to making flyable MiG/Su mods over the years, from the early repainted stock cockpits, to the present dedicated external and cockpit 3d models! Always glad to see someone who appreciates the MiG-21 as much as I do and who also promotes its use in the SF series!

Nice looking plane! I am surprised to see a delta for a carrier aircraft though, especially without a canard. That makes me wonder about the aircraft's angle of attack for landing and/or landing speed. I wish they would have succeeded in providing their own engine. Hopefully, their multimode radar ultimately makes it into production aircraft. I love to see a country able to fully develop its own front line supersonic jet fighters instead of relying on the usual suspects.

Keep in mind that look down radar capability depends on the doppler shift in the frequency of the radar return resulting from motion toward the aircraft conducting the radar search and/or tracking the target. So even the mighty F-15 radar goes blind against a low target that is flying perpendicular to its radar. The radar filters out all returns that match the frequency of ground returns. Aircraft flying parallel to the flight path of the searching aircraft generate a large frequency shift that greatly contrasts against ground returns while aircraft flying perpendicular to it have the same frequency. When the effects of ground clutter and doppler shift were first added with the release of WoI, the AI would immediately put their beam to the F-15 and instantly break their lock, making AIM-7 kills almost impossible with a pulse doppler look-down radar. TK made some changes in the patches for WoI, so now the F-15 radar and its AIM-7s are effective again. But I am sure that a target can still use the "beam" maneuver to break radar locks/dodge missiles, as I have used such to defeat F-15s while flying MiG-23s. With older radars, merely flying low blinds them completely. With newer ones, fly low and use your RWR to put your beam to the radar. If a target is aware of your radar and flys correctly, you will never maintain a lock long enough to guide an AIM-7. Of course, low altitude is very good for heat seeking missile, either. So, you are heading for a close-in, ground level gunfight unless the target pops up long enough to permit a quick missile shot. Fortunately, the AI generally stays away from the ground or collides with it. WoI was the first time I saw AI planes in the SF series use low level tactics to avoid detection and tracking, but they tended to hit the ground a lot. AI is no longer as effective at using low level and beam maneuvers, which provides a lot more missile shot opportunities.

The Soviet answer to the Ticonderoga class. Amazing ships. I am attached to the 2nd hull, Frunze, as it was the sole effective surface unit in the old board game, 2nd Fleet. "Effective" in this case meant able to go head to head with a US carrier group and survive. Its theoretical anti-aircraft capabilities are over-the-top. On paper, a VLS Aegis cruiser of the 80's and 90's cannot get any hits through those defenses and can be overwhelmed by its surface-to-surface missiles. In reality, the ability of US standoff ECM to suppress those defenses is unproven but possibly very effective, and the USSR had trouble getting the radar/fire-control systems to work correctly. Of course Aegis had its problems as well. I would be very interested in seeing how a late '80s Ticonderoga centered surface action group would have held up against a Kirov centered surface action group. I think the results would hinge upon three things: real-world weapon system reliability/functionality (versus sales brochures), ECM/ECCM effectiveness, and whether the Aegis system would be able to datalink and control its surrounding anti-air warfare assets in a wartime evironment (which really depends on the first two things, but if it works, the Aegis group becomes exponentially more effective and I don't believe the USSR had any equivalent). Since the game allows systems to work ideally or even better, good luck on rolling back the SAMs of any group with a Kirov! It was difficult to impossible in the fairly accurate Harpoon miniatures game. Much easier and safer to attack with Mk 48 torpedoes from below :)

Link works. Too bad I already have nearly all of the F-4 flight manuals including this F-4B manual. Nice to have it available online though.

:) Another future flyer!

US aircraft typically have air-to-air range scales in miles such as 5/10/25/50/100/200 -- F-4 series Some aircraft have a minimum range scale of 10. Their ground mapping modes usually have 2 to 4 scales in miles, something like 10/20/40. Attack aircraft radars with no air-to-air capability usually have two modes: ground mapping and collision avoidance. Multimode radars usually have: 1. either boresight or autoacquire modes 2. search (range-while-search) 3. track 4. later airacraft may have TWA (track while scan) 5. ground mapping 6. many have a collision avoidance mode The F-14 has a completely unique radar that gets its own dll file defining its special displays and functionality. You can find some detailed descriptions of radar functionality using the online help guide at Third Wire Productions.

As long as NZ doesn't mind waiting for help, why waste money on airplanes? That's what its leaders already figured out. If any real threat appears, surely the larger Western nations can bear the cost and defend NZ, probably at no charge. The USA (and to a lesser extent Japan and Australia) will do everything within their economic and political constraints to stop any hostile expansion in the Pacific, be it from China or anywhere else. 12 planes are not going to turn the tide against anyone capable of launching an attack on NZ, so why even bother? If NZ were like the UK in the early 1940s facing the Nazis almost entirely alone, then I could see trying to buy as many airframes as its economy could support. But in this day and age, the USA and/or NATO are playing world police. If NZ is going to spend any money on any kind of "combat" aircraft, shouldn't they be long range patrol types (i.e. P-3 Orion family) to try to identify potential threats and pass on intel to militarily stronger nations? Of course, help from the USA usually comes with a few strings attached, like the right to bring the very nuclear powered ships that would be saving NZ into NZ ports. So, my final answer per the discussion is that NZ should choose what it already has chosen: allow other nations to provide for its defense. That is the cheapest solution and in the absence of any real war, the absolute best solution to government spending issues.

I have the board game, Birds of Prey. It is essentially a 3d flight sim on paper. Of course the game would look better and be more fun with a decent line of miniatures rather than the stock "box" miniatures. The first ones up for pre-order are the F-14, F-5, F-86, and MiG-15 which can be found here: http://www.airbattle.com/ or here: http://www.adastragames.com/ I am trying to promote this because I can't get my order until there is a total of 250 orders in any combination of the four different aircraft. Presently the total count is 135 of 250. The miniatures look pretty accurate for their scale, so I am sure there are people who might like them for purposes other than playing Birds of Prey. I personally suggest getting Birds of Prey as well. I have owned and played nearly all of the air combat board games and miniatures ever released, and this one takes the cake. It is optimized for close-in dogfights between jets. If you have lots of room, you could try to do longer range combat with missiles, but the game mechanics really shine when you are looping and rolling like crazy to get your nose on a bandit. The flight physics are first rate, yet don't require the use of a digital calculator. This is simply an amazing game! I need this miniature order to get produced so that the next batch of four fighters goes into pre-order. I am hoping for an F-4 and a MiG-21, though I would be happy with just about any aircraft in the game. I have ordered 1xF-5, 1xF-86, 1xMiG-15, and 2xF-14 (the F-14 only comes with 2 planes, so I ordered two sets to have four of each aircraft, which is about as many as I could ever see me using unless I end up with a gang of friends crazy about air combat board games). I have been waiting for these for a very long time! So, Tomcat, Top Gun, and MiG Alley fans, snap these up so I can finally get my little planes