streakeagle

The F-4N/S soldiered on because they could never afford enough F-14s to replace them and at the time the F-14s were not used for any mission other than air superiority/fleet air defense. Under Reagan, they bought even more carriers and needed planes to fill them. Ultimately, the Navy was waiting on Hornet production to permit retirement of the F-4, much like the arrival of enough F-16s allowed them to be pushed out of active service in the USAF. Since the F-4N/S didn't make the cut for SF2NA, I would expect them to be in an expansion pack much like the Lighting, which had lots of variants and completely new cockpits. But I wouldn't expect the cockpits to function any different than what SF2 has now, just 3d modeled to look like the photos. F-4S cockpit:

I have had ATi almost since SFP1s Walmart release (Voodoo 5500 back then)-> 8500, 9800 Pro, 800XL, x1800XT, HD4890, HD6870. There were some driver issues along the way (8500 in particular), but I haven't had an ATI driver issue with SF2 in recent history (years?). The changes TK has made with respect to view distance and fade in have caused problems compared to the past (that are independent of the video card brand), but nothing that can't be fixed. In Win 7 with DX10 enabled, it does no good to specify anti-aliasing in the Catalyst control window. Only the application settings affect the level of FSAA. This is true of ALL DX10/11 games! So, the checkbox in Catalyst should be "determined by Application". SF2 supports FSAA, so you can edit the options.ini in the user folder to specify the level of FSAA you want, including none if you so choose. Having discussed this with TK on the Third Wire forums, the settings should be easy to understand: [GraphicsOptions] AntiAliasing=4 2 = x2, 4 = x4, etc.

The AWG-10 system went through progressive upgrades with three major versions: AWG-10 AWG-10A AWG-10B The 10B on the F-4S was the "fully digital" version, but all of them had more modes and functionality than the F-4B before them. The F-4S had the most radically improved mode selection and display changes, but even the base version had auto aquisition which is only available in the 70s avionics dll. As the radar was an integrated part of the system, there is no point in specifying its specific designation. For an AWG-10 tech's best recollection of the details on the AWG-10/10A/10B systems, go here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,149.0.html It had more modes, more control knobs, and progressively different displays. When working correctly (initially it had very high failure rates), it also performed much better than any other radar used in the F-4. The final AWG-10B system looked a lot more like the digital APG-63 and APG-66 systems than any radar previously used by F-4s. It also had the option for a helmet mounted sight, but few were purchased due to cost considerations. Check out this F-4J cockpit and compare how it looks to TK's early F-4J. The gunsight glass looks a lot more like a HUD (much wider and minimal frame) and the radar display indicator is clearly very different. This is not an F-4S, just a later F-4J. There used to be some sample display images available on the web, but I can't find them any more. This pilot's stick grip on an F-4J also reflected HOTAS improvements. Aside from the lack of a gun and slats, the F-4J was built to win dogfights with MiGs and with the arrival of the F-4S, slats were finally added. The F-4S is simply the best air superiority variant of the F-4 that the US ever flew (at least if you value a much better radar over an internal gun). It would be nice to see TK cover the variants of the F-4B/N and F-4J/S up to the end of the SF2 time frame (1982). They certainly would fit into the SF2NA release.

The AWG-10 was much smaller and less powerful than the the F-14's AWG-9, but it used the same digital doppler radar adaptation that was much more like the fully digital radars of the F-15 and F-16 than the old analog pulse radars of the previous F-4s. Initially, it had a lot of reliability problems as it was cutting edge technology at the time it was built, but the F-4J, F-4K, and F-4M all had variants of this very capable radar. The later mods in the F-4J/F-4S were easily better than the APG-66 on the F-16 for interception/air combat purposes. Whereas the APQ-120 on the F-4E with its smaller football shaped antenna was in many ways a downgrade from the F-4D and its attempt at lookdown/shootdown (COORDS) was a failed system. The APQ-120 was more digital than the F-4D's APQ-109, but the smaller, cheaper APG-66 was essentially more capable with better displays. To model the AWG-10 correctly, TK would have to expand the 70sAvionics.dll or make a separate "65" dll for interim radars that were much better than the 1960's radars of the F-4D and earlier yet not quite as flexible or user friendly as the 1970s multimode radars. The AWG-9 of the Tomcat was really in this interim generation as it was developed in the early 60s and modestly improved with digital retrofits, but I am pretty sure TK will make the AWG-9 a 70s dll radar like the F-15 and F-16.

I had a lot of fun with several of the DLC aircraft. The A-4K and F-8E FN are certainly among my favorites... but you know I have to say the F-4K is my favorite DLC followed closedly by the beautifully painted F-4EJ. TK is just needs to release the F-4N, F-4S, F-4G, RF-4B/C/E to complete the all the models that existed in the SF time frame. SF2NA will apparently be the first SF series game released without a flyable F-4 variant... needs F-4N/F-4S DLC to make it right! I think an F-4S with a properly modeled AWG-10 radar would be my favorite plane in the game... the only thing missing on the F-4S was an internal gun, otherwise it was the best F-4 variant until the modern foreign F-4E/F-4F upgrades with F-16 and F-18 radars.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the new terrain is just that... new features that don't and won't exist in the old terrains. Yet, the new engine will support the old terrains to permit merging/backwards compatibility with previous mods. As I understand it from TK's previous discussions about improving the terrain engine and the tradeoffs it requires: needs more resources (double the RAM requirements in the hardware specs!) and smaller maps to permit higher detail with the limitation that the more the map looks like high-end first person shooter games the closer in size it will be to such games with corresponding horzion/fog limits. While I would prefer maps like Vietnam/Thailand with 1:1 scale, accurately placed bases, and aerial refueling... SF2 is heading in the direction of an island in the middle of nowhere... like OFP/ArmA series. Ok for shooters, not much fun for recreating historical missions. But backwards compatibility with the older terrains means you can pick you poison: latest graphics with small detailed map or the old ugly graphics but nearly full size terrains. As long as that option exists, I am OK with the new stuff.

As in pre-Eagle NATO :) Soviets get to use the MiG-23 to some extent by 1975 without Eagles around to wipe them out. Of course the early MiG-23Ms and their weapons weren't quite as effective as the later MLDs, but mixed with MiG-21s in large numbers could potentially overwhelm NATO's fighters. A lot more interesting for both sides than a Bekaa turkey shoot.

It seems we have so much in common. TK was an avid Air Superiority fan. I had all the newsletters put out by J.D. Webster and friends which included user content from fans. Among the contributors to new aircraft data cards was TK :) It seems an unusually strong interest in a less than popular subject brings us "niche" guys together... especially with the advent of the internet where we can easily find each other. Of course, a much less politically correct name for our "niche" interest might be nerdiest of computer nerds: flight sim geeks. I am sad to see the decline and almost total disappearance of the tabletop wargaming community. But to be fair, I am never sad about the fact that my 1981 Corvette replaced the horse and carriage. PC flight sims are better for me overall, but even online multiplayer cannot fully replace the fun to be had playing games face-to-face by hand moving markers or miniatures over a map or model terrain... although I must say, all the Operation Flashpoint LAN parties I used to have before getting married and having a kid were about equal since everyone was playing side by side or across from each other in the same room. Much better than online multiplayer. The memories that a simple image intended to be the menu screen of a lite pc flight sim can evoke... Again, thank you for the effort

Prior to the release of WoV, I spent most of my time flying over the original SFP1 stock desert terrain. Gepard's take on North Vietnam saved me from that fictional hell, but just as I was getting serious about building historical missions for it, TK released WoV... the rest is history. But after so many hours over the original desert, it is hard to believe that it isn't real. But with the release of WoI, my interest in flying over a fictional desert terrain fell to zero... except when I feel like playing a merc campaign. The fictional terrain is perfect for this--no preconceived notions due to history.

There are lots more than just those. People did like simulating air combat before PCs made it look pretty and run in real time. I used to own nearly every board game and set of miniatures rules ever released. When I moved last year, I didn't want to bother storing them or hassle with an ebay sale, so I threw them all away except the latest one: Birds of Prey. The 3d physics are so good in this one that it acts like a low resolution PC flight sim. Of course 6 seconds of game time (1 turn) takes 5 or 10 minutes to play out, but the simplicity and accuracy made all of those other games utterly obsolete! Your GUI main screen is so similar to what I used to see on store shelves that it gives me a warm feeling like I used to get when I spotted a new game on at the book store where I bought most of my games, Merlin's Books. Sadly, it is not a new game, just window dressing for one I already have. But it is truly a work of art easily as good or better than the box covers of all the other boxed games I ever had. Thanks for the hard work ;)

Captures the look and feel of board game box cover art -- which is excellent :) For example:

Nice footage. Enjoyed seeing both Phantoms and Bucs.

There is no question that the F-14 is a superior airframe to the Hornet. However, the F-14 was also more expensive. The combat needs of the USN since Vietnam versus the available budget since the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union forced the Navy to go with Hornets while the USAF somewhat unsuccessfully pinned its future on the F-22 and is now struggling to justify the cost of the much less capable but still very expensive F-35. Whatever the limitations of the Hornet, the USN was able to get much needed new airframes while the USAF soldiers on with Eagles and Falcons that will never be replaced by nearly as many aircraft.

It doesn't take hacking your hotmail password to send email via your account... It is just as likely a worm/virus on your pc used your mail while you were using it with the rights your pc granted to you. You need to check your computer for worms/viruses with software other than what you normally run for security (as it would have to be compromised for this to even happen). Alternatively, you have had a keylogger program on a PC you used when you last typed your password yourself. A lot of ways for this to happen that don't involve Microsoft being compromised in any way.

The last time I checked, when the perceived demand increases, so does price, regardless of the reason the demand increased. They don't sell her music because they like her or respect her, they only value her for the profits she can bring. Unfortunately, like Michael Jackson, she is worth more to them dead than alive. Death can instantly restore a rejected pedophile into a hallowed king of pop in the name of cash, so it is no surprise that Whitney could be so easily exploited given that all she really did was pick a lousy husband and fall into the usual substance abuse/rehab profile of so many celebrities. The beauty of the internet is that consumer backlash traveled fast and brought the prices back down to normal--but they managed to make some sales at the inflated price. Sony: reputation down, gross profits up.

Your loss.

As old as they are, the F-16 looks as futuristic as it did when it first flew (much like the SR-71). While I have never been much of an F-16 fan, the looks of the F-35 make me dread the day when the last Falcon is retired. The F-35 looks like a cheap multi-role fighter that sacrifices performance for cost effectiveness. The F-16 looks like it should fly rings around anything currently flying.

You would have to reverse engineer the game to figure out how to access the necessary values in memory. I don't believe anyone has done this, yet. But I see no reason why it couldn't be done if you are good at monitoring programs while they are running. I am sure there are a few people who would like to see you figure this out. I would certainly benefit from it :)

The problem with a merged WoE/WoV install is that when you play random single player missions, the game engine will randomly match aircraft from the entire planeset no matter which terrain you fly in. i.e. You may see a Soviet MiG flying in Vietnam or vice versa. Other than that little problem, the merged install was the way to go, especially if you play multiplayer, as it gives a much broader range of planes to choose from. I used to manually extract and drag over the files from SFP1/SFGold to fill in the few remaining assets: C-130, dessert terrain, etc.

Make a "2nd" skin (a copy of the first one) that only has the lo-vis decals and specify the 2nd skin for your campaign. Or remove the "hi-vis" scheme from the original skin, and make it into a dedicated skin.

The one size fits all fighter always makes sense on paper. Should the USN have accepted the F-16 instead of the F-18? Should the USAF and USN only had F-16s and no F-14s, F-15s, or A-10s? An F-35 is not an A-10. Nor is it an F-22. It is at best an F-16 with stealth and updated avionics. When you put all of your eggs in one basket, it better be a damn good basket. Only time will tell.

SF1 series runs fine in windows mode... but TK's coding doesn't really lend itself very well to multitasking. The game engine measures how much cpu power is available and scales up the processing loop to use as much as it can. So, in a windowed mode, the PC wasn't of much use other than playing the game. Of course, now the SF2 is designed to use multi-core, which should alleviate that problem, TK has disabled windowed mode... probably because he is still scaling up to maximize cpu utilization and doesn't see the point of running it windowed.

Another area to work on besides bombing is unguided air-to-ground rocket pods. Unlike reality, the game allows you to aim them very accurately if you practice a bit. I have been on SEAD missions in F-4s carrying AIM-4D Falcon IRMs and used the Falcons as supplemental air-to-ground unguided rockets. It is not entirely unrealistic to use them this way. There are references which claim AIM-4s could and did acquire and hit trucks at night in Vietnam.

The bombing options for F-4s aren't much different from WW2 fighters (at least in this game engine). The best thing to do is to practice a fixed routine and figure out when to release when following that routine. Mine is pretty simple: come in at 8-10,000 feet and nose over at the range that will result in a steep dive on the target. Chew up some altitude while lining up. Release at the lowest feasible altitude to maximize accuracy. Avoid hitting the ground. Climb out and evade air defenses. Target destroyed? No: repeat entire cycle. Yes: Identify next target, repeat entire cycle. The steep dive angle + low altitude release allows me to accurately aim with my pipper. If I fly a lot of strike missions, my accuracy gets insanely good. When I am rusty, I pull my pipper through the target. I release one bomb a bit before the pipper is on it, one while the pipper is on it, and one a bit after the pipper passes by the target. When I miss, it is usually because I forced the attack and came in at too shallow of an angle. I also tend to stay in the dive too long if I am having trouble lining up on the target after entering the dive. This can result in a ground strike or even getting caught in the blast of my own bombs. There are different bombs for different purposes. Learn to use retarded bombs to come in at low level without popping up for a dive bombing run. Level bombing from altitude is possible, but you need to practice at a fixed altitude and speed to find the right distance from the target to release the bombs, or use a mod to create a special view simulating a level bombing sight. But I am almost exclusively a dive bomber from 10k. If I have to come in low, I pop up steeply to 8k, roll over on my back, pull down into my usual steep dive, roll back to level, line up, and follow my usual procedure. If I can get lined up quick enough after rolling to level, I don't lose much if any accuracy doing this. When I fly a lot of strike missions, I get very good at this. SimHQ has a nice tutorial written a long time ago for the original SFP1 here: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_055a.html