streakeagle

Multiplayer will allow you to fly non-flyables using a generic A-4 Skyhawk cockpit, but that won't allow the aircraft to function correctly, i.e. no radar for MiG-21, and MiG-23. You need to download 3rd party mods for MiGs. As for how to win against an F-4 with an aircraft which has inferior maneuverability, inferior power, and inferior weapons... sheer pilot skill using reflexes and timing. I used to fly multiplayer a lot and would fly the F-100D Super Sabre to give new pilots a fighting chance. But, I could still beat them by forcing them to overshoot and taking a quick snapshot with guns as they zipped by me. Against a good pilot, all I could do is hope for a lucky head-on pass and then wait for the inevitable tail-chase followed by death. If you are flying with the Oct 2008 patch level, AIM-7 Sparrows and even AIM-9s can be easily defeated: stay low. If you stay low and keep your speed up, you should be able to fight the F-4 on nearly equal terms, gun to gun. But you will find a slatted F-4E is still quite a bit more maneuverable than many of its contemporaries. Chaff and flares are not available on many aircraft in the old SF/WoX series games, as most of the planes covered did not have chaff or flare dispensers in the time frames covered by the game. Try flying the same type of aircraft for a bit to evaluate tactics and skills. Then pick matchups designed to balance the game. i.e. if one player is simply better at ACM, don't give him the more maneuverable aircraft! If you both fly tubs like the F-100D and F-105D, the pace of the game will be a bit slower due to the wide turn radius and limited power in the vertical. The MiG-17 and MiG-19 are tough planes to beat close-in. The F-4 can't win using missiles against such maneuverable aircraft and will have a hard time getting a gun solution as well. Of course, the gun packages on the MiGs are low on ammo and rate of fire, so you have to be a skilled gunner to score hits or get in real close.

The only one that really impacts me is the "Fixed: Two cursors", and my workaround is Alt-Tab. The other stuff would either break what I already have or have no impact at all. I will still download it, but doubt I will try installing it any time soon.

Well, with 20/20 hindsight, it is no secret that air defenses at the time were extremely vulnerable to treetop level flying. Ultimately, that is what the B-52 crews were trained to do. If you have ever looked at the effectiveness of F-101s and F-102s versus bombers, you might not find it that surprising that only one Vulcan was intercepted. But you can be sure that the rules were set up to favor the air defenses as the point of the exercise was probably to prove how safe and secure the US was from air attacks by nuclear bombers. The fact that the Vulcans got through is a testament to their crews' ability to use their aircraft to its full capability despite any handicaps present in the exercise. Unfortunately, it also meant that skilled Soviet crews could do the same, so it is no surprise that no one would publicly admit any failures of US air defense forces. Why tell the enemy where your weaknesses are? As it stands, those defenses never really got put to a live test, so it ultimately didn't matter. I would be curious to see how vulnerable the US is today. Despite all of the satellites, radars, and aircraft available, I am pretty sure a surprise attack on select targets is still feasible.

I have read endless posts online about the Logitech and the Warthog. As appealing as force feedback sounds, the Logitech implementation is of lower quality than the old MS stick AND has far too many firmware and mechanical/electrical issues. A shame, because if it worked as good as it looks, I would have gotten one of those. The key problems I see with the Warthog are price and reliability. $500 or $600 for something that I will probably have to send back to the manufacturer isn't right! But at $350, I will take a chance. Just have to squeeze in some overtime to cover the $350 that I don't really have right now.

I still have OFP / Resistance / GOTY installed and running. What tweaks are there? I really wouldn't want to uninstall/break my modded installations (I have 8 keys, though probably only 4 or 5 installed at the moment) unless they made a significant improvement.

The only equivalent to IFF in the game is padlocking your target. you get a message in the buffer saying what kind of aircraft it is and if you HUD/Visual Spotting settings are on normal, you get all his information in the lower right corner of your screen. If you are like me and don't have HUD info and/or missed the text buffer message, you can use the F8 button to see the target you have padlocked. So, if you are in an F-4 and you have a radar lock but aren't sure if you have a friend or foe, <CTRL><R> to set the radar contact as your visual target. If you did not have the target previously padlocked, the aircraft type should show up in the message buffer. If you missed it, or want to simulate TISEO or similar TCS systems, use F8 to see the target up close. Otherwise, the only other IFF in the game is in the F-15A radar display in TWS mode. Of course, the real F-15A didn't have that mode with the original APG-63.

ECM effectiveness is for the most part classified. This works out great for games since they can adjust ECM effectiveness to improve gameplay. The F-16 did not have extra space for ECM, it was designed to be small and cheap, so it has to either rely on pods, remove something useful to get internal ECM, and/or add bulges to squeeze in more stuff. Noise jamming is tough to counter, but requires powerful systems to be useful. EA-6s and EF-111s were the only fighter sized aircraft able to really do this to any useful effect. Of course, the source of such jamming becomes an HOJ magnet, so they need to stand off a bit and have a barrier CAP protecting them. Deceptive jamming is far more practical, but requires knowledge of threat systems to get it right. The early jammers carried by U-2s were effective against the US theory of missile guidance, but didn't do much other than possibly help Soviet SAMs home in on them. I would love to see real world test results on the effectiveness of various jammers, flares, and chaff on all the different radars and missiles. I was a submarine sonar tech, and we had equivalent systems for jamming/decoying sonars and torpedoes. Despite having extensive training and Top Secret clearances, I still have no idea just how effective those systems would have been in actual combat. I don't think there has ever been all-out air combat that would force the US and Soviet Union to compromise their state-of-the-art technology by actually using it to the full extent. Vietnam would have great data on older systems vs SA-2. Israeli conflicts is the only place where you might get good data, and even then, it would be good for their own systems, not evaluating front line US and USSR/Russian systems. An absolutely important question... with no really useful answer possible.

Congratulations, it is an honor to have contributed so much material that you get your own "hangar" on CombatAce!

There is a Christmas version of that song as well... I think the Red Baron is winning, but instead of finishing off Snoopy, he waves and says "Merry Christmas".

back in 1997, Federal Hydrashock 230 grain 0.45 ACP was the best 0.45 round with a 94% single shot knock down success rate excluding vital shots like head and heart. Other 0.45 hollow points were in the 80-92% range, standard ball 0.45 was in the 50% range. You would be hard pressed to find a round in any hand gun caliber that would score better than 94%. Now how far has the ammo tech come since then? Doesn't really matter to me as long as I know I am going to take a guy down better than 90% of the time with a single shot that hits ANYWHERE, much less the effects of hitting a vital area.

I have Tamiya 1/350 (F-14A, F/A-18A, F-4S) but they don't stock non-naval aircraft and are slightly lower detail/quality. 3 of the 4 in this set cannot be found in plastic at this scale. More importantly, once these get the go ahead, the next 4 aircraft will be offered up for production. A lot of those will be other aircraft not available via Navy models. MiG-17/19/21/23/25, F-15, F-16 etc. I played Air Superiority/Air Strike/Desert Falcons/Speed of Heat. That was a great system, especially at portraying the whole picture of SEAD, CAS, Strike, CAP, Intercept, etc. But, Birds of Prey is focused purely on one thing: close-in air combat with exceptionally accurate physics yet more playable than ever before. Air War was the slowest, most complex air combat game I ever had, but Air Superiority was far more realistic, especially with the Speed of Heat revision where all of the missiles and avionics were modeled much better. Birds of Prey plays like a flight sim: roll your wings onto the threat and pull your nose onto him, then move the pieces on the map to reflect what you did. While the map is still vital to the game, the key is each aircraft has a PHAD (pitch, heading, and attitude display) which allows flawless realistic loops at any bank angle with correct changes in roll, pitch, heading, altitude, and horizontal motion... and you never have to do any trigonometry. You draw temporary lines on charts using a straight edge to determine key calculations, which is quick, easy, and accurate. I wish this game had existed when I was a teenager. Then I would have the time to really enjoy it and have friends with both time and interest to play it with me.

My family was eligible for food stamps and used them while my father was in the Navy... that's how low Navy enlisted pay was in the late 60's. He got out and got a job as a Tampa police officer and was able to rent a house and get off food stamps.

Taking down a government is one thing. Replacing it with something better is another. Somewhere the spirits of "Preble's Boys" are smiling, as is Ronald Reagan

I did some testing. I did observe what the Third Wire thread noted: Standard ARMs being lofted don't do so well. But I witnessed a Shrike veer from the track I selected and hit an entirely different radar. I was not visually locked on the other radar, I was padlocked on an SA-2 launcher immediately in front of me. So, I am guessing your hit on a launcher vice radar was more of a near miss than anything to do with visual padlocks. I have yet to get a Standard ARM to hit because my targets are at short range, while the Standard ARM loft profile doesn't start trying to acquire until after following a ballistic arc for some distance. If my F-105D would stop getting shot down, I could probably take the time to set up a Standard ARM hit, but I can't follow missiles in F9 view AND dodge SAMs at the same time.

You mentioned that the ARM hit the launcher instead of the radar. Someone else commenting about ARM behavior at the Third Wire forums mentioned that the ARM seems to work properly when you are visually locked on a target. So my thinking is that when you launched the missile, you were visually targeted on the launcher. If so, that is an interesting fact that the ARM doesn't really target the radar, but your visual padlock.

Any similarity between the shuttle Buran and the NASA space shuttle is purely coincidental. Two independent space programs with similar goals happened to produce identical solutions. Likewise, it was purely coincidence that the Tu-4 was so similar to the B-29, the RPG-18 to the M72 LAW, etc.

Only in the SF series would you ever see a fully flyable combat-capable version of this aircraft. Thank you FC for your continued contributions.

Can't argue with that. But it does gather a group of highly motivated professionals all in one place... kind of "special forces" among sailors. Great people accomplishing great things. Just too much for me to handle for 20 years. 8 is enough (though only 6.5 was sea duty, the first 1.5 was boot camp/schools).

I don't have any clue what the airburst should look like frame by frame, but there is a photo of the aftermath of the only Genie detonation: So, I think a flash followed by a big ball of white smoke would due for me.

F-101B(67) moonlighting after destroying 12 Badgers with 2 AIR-2 Genies:

It appears that I was wrong, there is and effect, I just don't know that it is working the way it is supposed to: View from F-101B(67) cockpit, targets (12 Badgers) just prior to launch of AIR-2: View from F-101B(67) cockpit, AIR-2, and Badgers just prior to detonation of AIR-2: View from AIR-2 (Cube of triangular particles), F-101B(67) cockpit, and Badgers (2 of 12 are undamaged and continue flying) just after detonation: View of AIR-2 a few moments later after detonation. Expanded cube of triangular particles: Final image of Badgers (10 destroyed, 2 flying):

That is exactly the same file I am using. AFAIK, I just have to have that file in the effects folder along with the specified tga files... which having tried both CAStary's effects pack and Killerbee's pack, I don't know what can be wrong? I am thoroughly puzzled. I have been trying to get this to work in the SF2I folder of a fully merged install. I tried again in the untouched SF2E folder: drag n drop CAStary's Unified Effects package, drag n drop Voodoo Megapak V2. Lob some AIR-2 Genies at Badgers. Badgers die, but the only effects are the explosions/fires of the Badgers, which I see whether I hit with AIM-4s or Genies.

I can't get the aerial nuke effect to work despite installing MGunny's Ordnance Shop II for SF2. What do I have to do besides drag-n-drop the files from the Ordnance Shop?

Somehow I missed this post. One comment from an SSN sailor: "Boomer f*gs!"