streakeagle

That is big news to me. I know Bodø well thanks to an old naval warfare board game, Victory Games 2nd Fleet.

I remember the transition from Biohaz to CombatAce

Some more naked birds, fighter type. I suspect they aren't totally naked but have primers applied to protect the metals. For instance, the F-15A Streak Eagle has a lot more bare metal finish than the F-15 shown here. Unpainted Fighter Jets - Aviation Humor

There is a reason that polished metal finishes went away toward the end of the 1950s. The materials needed to support Mach 2 caused airplanes to start having a "patchwork" appearance when unpainted. By the 1970s, composites further complicated the unpainted colors. The F-4 Phantom was the first Thunderbird aircraft to have the all-gloss white finish because of this with the F-100D (and F-105B) being the last Thunderbirds with the natural metal finish.

I have been flying this free module for quite some time now and watched it develop. There are few bugs left. It works as well or better than any payware module. I am friends with one of the guys coding the systems. What he has done with the ground mapping radar is fantastic. It is one of the best modules in the game with its ability to perform almost any role except all-weather interceptor since it lacks air-intercept radar and Sparrows. It is a fun challenge to land on a carrier.

From the time I was a young boy, I loved the P-51D with the bubble canopy and the F4U-1A and later with the malcom hood style bubbled out canopy. But in recent years, I have developed a fondness for the original bird cage canopies on P-51A/B/Cs and F4U-1s. I have come to appreciate the sleeker, low drag lines despite the horrible looks of the frames. In VR, frames don't really block you vision much: stereo vision lets you see around them. So, I would rather have an extra 2-5 mph performance than frameless canopy. Operationally, the Malcom hood was a huge step forward for the P-51B/C, comparable if not better than the F4U-1A/F4U-1D bulged canopy. But I have come to prefer the much sleeker original P-51B/C lines. But real men fly Allison engined P-51/P-51A Mustangs/A-36 Apaches. High altitude performance issues aside, they are by far the sleekest of all the Mustang variants. The ones with 4 x 20mm cannons are top notch fighters at sea level.

Many Russian women are very attractive when they are young. But sooner or later, they end up looking a little bit less attractive:

TK wanted the SF series to be "light", i.e. fun to fly without horrible handling characteristics. So most stock FMs produce a simple stall that just "mushes" out in a stable way. Since the flight models don't have the elements that are required to accurately model departing controlled flight, asymmetrical data at high AoAs can be used to create a decent effect. The one aircraft TK didn't dumb down the handling characteristics and perhaps made it even harder than reality was the English Electric Lightning. But I complained about it: if a hard-wing F-4 isn't going to depart at high AoA like is should, why should the Lighting? While the Lightning remains one of the more difficult aircraft to fly, TK apparently agreed with my argument and dumbed down the difficulty a bit to be more in line with the other SF2 aircraft that should otherwise be very difficult to fly in some areas of the envelope: i.e. the F-100 and F-104 should be able to kill you instantly under certain conditions, instead they have very docile flight models compared to reality. When TK started "dumbing down" SF2 in later patches, I gave up trying to make SF2 more realistic. I fly DCS World for the flight models, SF2 for the amazing range of aircraft and historical environments available.

I only know two sims with really great helo flight models: DCS:World and Aerofly FS 2. Aerofly FS 2 has a lot of limitations compared to X-Plane and MSFS variants, but it is strong in VR with steady max FPS even with maxed out graphics settings and the helos it comes with plus a free Westland Lynx mod are directly comparable to DCS helos. I spent many years looking for a good helo simulator. DCS won the race, but Aerofly FS 2 matched them. For the record, I have flown DCS World multiplayer missions with some real Army UH-1 pilots and they say DCS is impressive, but is actually harder to fly than the real one: i.e. it is easier to get into vortex ring state (the helo equivalent to stalling/departing controlled flight). The Mi-8 and Mi-24 have a very different feel and are amazing, too. The one with the least realistic flight model is the Gazelle, but its lightweight, super-responsive controls make it fun to fly in contrast to the UH-1 and Russian helos. It is hard to beat the OFP/ArmA series for helo missions, but the flight models are utter crap in comparison to DCS. DCS supports many of the same mission types as OFP/ArmA, but aren't as immersive due to invisible passengers. If you can get your axis curves tuned right, OFP ArmA feels a lot better and the new ArmA 3 Vietnam DLC is absolutely amazing for UH-1 and AH-1 missions. But DCS and Aerofly FS 2 have VR. Once you have flown helos with a realistic flight model in VR, you will never want to fly helos on a flat panel monitor with a crappy FM. Vietnam type missions with rockets, miniguns, door guns, and deployable squads is an incredibly immersive experience in DCS World with VR. I am a huge fan of flying air-to-air combat with jets like the F-5, MiG-21, F-86, and MiG-15, but UH-1 missions are by far the most fun and immersive, especially in a multiplayer with a group of player flown UH-1s flying NOE down a river valley through hostile territory. I flew one mission where there were about 8 or 10 player flown UH-1s and many of them had human co-pilots and door gunners. The voice chatter combined with the visuals provided immersion beyond anything OFP/ArmA had ever given me.

At this point, I have as much flight time in DCS as SFP1/SF2. Some of the aircraft can be configured/flown very much the same as SF2 aircraft. Flaming Cliffs aircraft have common systems mapping just like SF2, so you can setup your hotas to accommodate the US controls and/or the USSR controls and pretty much share the same control maps between all of these aircraft. Older aircraft like the F-5 and F-86 have similar controls to SF2. There is more detail in the operation, but overall, you can fly with just HOTAS buttons mapped. One aspect of DCS that is the hardest is the startup procedures. Some aircraft are similar and/or easy, but many have long, complicated procedures. There is a keyboard shortcut for startups. If you air start rather than start on the ramp or runway, most aircraft have all the combat switches in the correct positions, which leaves most aircraft ready to fly air-to-air as easy as SF2. Some aircraft are extraordinarily complex. There is no getting around all the button pushing. Particularly modern glass cockpit aircraft which have multiple MFDs plus a good amount of conventional switches and buttons. The A-10C and F-16C are the most complex to me. In theory, the F/A-18 is just as complex with all the displays, buttons, and switches. But I find that the F/A-18 can be flown mostly from the HOTAS and feels almost as easy as the F-5 with more power and better radar/weapons. The MiG-21 cockpit is intimidating, but the startup isn't too bad and there aren't many switches you need in combat. If you air start or use the startup shortcut, it only needs a little more effort than the other aircraft. I mostly fly everything from the F-86/MiG-15 to the F-14A. I prefer the SF generation of aircraft and these are they. I also fly the WW2 aircraft, but not as often as I really enjoy the Korea to mid 70s jets. The UH-1H is possibly the most fun module in the game. Once startup is accomplished, weapons are armed, and the gunsight is down and on, it is all about the stick, collective, and rotor pedals. I am not sure how difficult it would be for you using a twist stick and throttle. If you already have the hardware to run and play DCS, you don't have to waste time asking about it. You can fly each module for 2 weeks for free. Given the number of modules available, you could keep yourself busy for free for many months if you don't start the next module until you finish the two weeks for the current one. Also, the A-4E-C Skyhawk is available for free. It is a little harder to fly than an SF2 A-4, but it is amazing. At this point, it is as good or better than most of the payware mods. The A-4 is actually helping DCS sell more modules. People that join the Forgotten's Vietnam server to try out the Skyhawk usually end up buying the UH-1H and/or F-5E after seeing what DCS is like and all the fun those aircraft can have in a good environment.

While the avionics are still based on FC3 aircraft, the new F-104 mod has a dedicated (presently non-clickable) 3d cockpit and a high fidelity EFM (external flight model). It is a work in progress, but it is already very impressive despite some known bugs/limitations. This is a further development of the VSN F-104G that previously used an SFM (simple flight model) and the F-15C cockpit (it still uses the F-15C avionics). To fly it, you need the F-15C or Flaming Cliffs 3 module. I think there are ground attack versions that use the Su-25T, which means you could fly it for 100% no cost. Get it here: Ordner: VSN F-104G FC3 EFM - filehorst.de Release Notes (changes to previous SFM Version and PreRelease-Version): 3d-Model: -Some minor changes (working leading edge flaps) and some changes regarding special sub-variants (CF-104 e.g.) -changed suspension and hitbox of front wheel 3d-Cockpit: - integration of a 3d-cockpit (non clickable at the moment), licensed from Tolis (HellasPilot) -widened front-window -functionality of all aerodynamic instruments in the cockpit (frontal instrument panel) except: pressure (hydraulic and oil), ground-speed-error-indicator, stand-alone bank-indicator, radar-altimeter, oxygen supply, -no functionality of right- and left side-console -passiv functionality of pylon-lights, gun-switch, light-switch, gear-lever, flap-lever, throttle, flap-indicator, stick and rudder-pedals -working red-flood lights -working drag-chute-handle -functionality of warning/indicator box (right hand side, bottom) -HUD functionality via FC3 (F15C/Su25T) -Radar/"T-Pod" functionality via FC3 (F15C/Su25T) -working mirrors -slightly elevated seat-position to match real pilot positioning -revised and major overhaul of cockpit textures by GlobalHawk/VB6 EFM: -EFM integrated with thanks to JNelson, TheRealHarold and A4-Team -Database NASA CR-2144 known EFM shortcomings: -acceleration SL to 10kft at about 30% to fast, above 10kft acceleration at about 60% to fast -TopSpeeds about 3-10% off depending on altitude -drag- and thrust-profile clean/TipTanks/full load-out not 100% accurate Liveries: New Liveries by Jocko417 and Soulfreak Theme: New main-menu, loading-screen, briefing-screen and sign By Yogi.

During the Easter Offensive when the NVA crossed the DMZ and was heading south, they had ZSU-23-4 Shilkas SPAAG and SA-7 Grail shoulder launched SAMs. They had limited quantities, so everything they had was deployed to the front lines to the south. The ZSU-23-4 is what rendered slow movers like the A-1 Skyraider useless. UH-1s would get chewed up, too. ZSU-23-4 wouldn't have helped up north. The US had learned how to almost completely shut down the SA-2 sites with jamming and chaff corridors, so tactical aircraft flew at 15,000 ft, released weapons at 10,000 ft, and were not supposed to go lower than 8,500 ft. The ZU-23 AAA was worthless at those altitudes and it would have been at the limits of the ZSU-23-4. The heavier AAA wasn't particularly effective either as the radar for those was jammed, too. Having a large number of modern resources available, May 10, 1972 looks a little different than it did to me 20 years ago. One interesting aspect is that many pilots who thought they were hit by SAMs and AAA were probably hit by Atolls, including Duke Cunningham. The reason so many MiGs went up in the air on May 10 is because North Vietnam could see new US tactics and equipment were defeating their SAMs and AAA. The MiG-17s got stomped that day because GCI was also being jammed. If the VPAF records are accurate, the MiG-21s more or less traded one-for-one. Of the 3 MiG-21s claimed by Oyster Flight (Major Lodge and then Capt Ritchie), one flew home and the other was a MiG-19. So the US account of MiG-21 losses needs to be lowered by 2. Add two kills for MiG-21s against Navy F-4s and that pretty much evens the score aside from the MiG-17 turkey shoot including 3 by Cunningham. The MiG-19s were potentially their best aircraft for close in dogfighting, yet in all the confusion, they only got Major Lodge and lost one to his Oyster flight. Sneaking up from behind with an Atoll and veering off without ever being seen was the winning tactic, including that day.

The latest Windows 11 update made Ryzen performance even worse.

Here is a detailed article. It involves Windows 11 not supporting a key performance feature on AMD cpus: recognition and use of its "preferred core" selection feature. Apparently, AMD is working with Microsoft to resolve the issue. Windows 11 To Slow Down Performance Of AMD | Nasdaq

YouTube hardware guys. The performance drop can be significant, especially for games. Improves intel products? Degrades AMD products? Coincidence? My very old Core i5 4690K is apparently too old to support Windows 11, even though it still scores very well on performance benchmarks. The key factor is the security functionality. Newer motherboard chipsets and cpus are needed to be "secure". I am not excited about Windows 11 at all. The switch to Windows 10 wasn't too painful since I waited for it to mature a bit. I still think Windows 7 was better aside from modern hardware support.

Based on what I have heard, Windows 11 increases the performance of the newest intel CPUs but reduces performance of AMD Ryzen cpus. As I just built a Ryzen PC, I don't think I will be trying Windows 11 anytime soon.

The problem spread to Edge in both PCs, but I finally cleared the cached files/cookies and now both PCs can use edge to browse combatace.com again.

I have two nearly identical PCs. One of them started having this problem with Edge, but still works with Chrome. The other has no problem at all. I haven't tried deleting cookies yet.

A perfect, realistic aircraft is not promised. An individual, unique aircraft no longer dependent on the SFM or FC3 cockpits is what is promised. I suspect it will be released in a state not unlike ED Early Access: useable but with known bugs still being worked on and planned improvements over time. This is a big step forward for the VSN crew. I hope they ultimately end up producing A-4E-C quality mods, but I won't get my expectations up. I can only hope that I am pleasantly surprised by the quality of this upcoming F-104 release.

As for my source: it is the VSN Flyable Mods thread at the official DCS forums:

New trailer with some details:

The rumor is that this is going to have its own dedicated cockpit and an external flight model. If the rumor is true and it eventually reaches the quality of the A-4E-C presently available, it will be a big deal. But with the exception of the T-45 and MB-339, no other mods have even come close to the quality and fidelity of the A-4E-C. So, I am not holding my breath hoping that this will be a top-notch mod.

It will be to the advantage of WTR if TK can release his Win 10 compatibility version of SF2 fairly soon and it doesn't break any of the work that has been done while possibly improving performance. As the YAP owner/manager died, can it still be purchased and delivered, or did YAP die with John Shelton? I wouldn't build WTR around any YAP limitations, as it best it was only supported by WOV and was partially broken by the final WOV patch level, necessitating YAP 3. At one time, I was a play tester for this project. I didn't have the time and the progress was incredibly slow. But if it is ever finished and released, I have no problems supporting it. I have in the past and continue to wish the WTR team the best of luck, but having watched many flight sim projects come and go without ever being finished, I have low expectations, but love to be surprised by brilliant success. Prove my lack of optimism is wrong and provide a product that takes my money.

I found this photo of a model of the original lift-engine variant. The intakes were moved to the side to fit in the radar, just as was done on the Su-9/11 and the Chinese MiG-21s. WofRussia04_Mig_23-01.jpg (464×349) (impdb.org) This is the prototype in flight: mig23pd-1.jpg (600×296) (bp.blogspot.com) Early MiG-23 development concepts were based on the Ye-8, which was the MiG-21 with the intake under the nose and a small canard. The Ye-8 variants progressed into the 23-01 variants, which were barely flying before they were canceled in favor of the swing wing redesign that became the MiG-23. So, they didn't start with a blank sheet of paper and build a design around the idea of the swing wing and F-4 style intakes... they started with a MiG-21 variant and kept making changes until they got an acceptable design. The time frame was about: 1963-64 for Ye-8 with lift engine concepts, 1966 for the flying 23-01 prototype, and then about 1969 for several flying MiG-23 prototypes. They spent so much time figuring out what wouldn't work that they were left with almost completely different airplane than the starting point. That is what you can see in the development of the F-105 and F-17 (F/A-18) as well. But that doesn't alter the fact that the design started from an existing aircraft and gradually evolved over time. The Super Hornet is one more case to consider: while it looks very similar to the legacy F/A-18A/C Hornets, it is essentially a new aircraft, yet the first thing the Wiki entry says about it is that it is ultimately a derivative of the F-5.

The MiG-23 was an evolution of ongoing V/STOL work done on the MiG-21. I have the really big MiG-23 book that details the evolution of the MIG-21 that led to the MiG-23 that entered service. I won't waste my time scanning in the photos, but the MiG-23 is a derivative of the MiG-21 just as much as the F/A-18 is a derivative of the F-5. MiG spent many man-hours testing/changing the design to get the final form. Another example is the Su-15: it looks different, but it was an evolution of the Su-9/11. Another example of evolution that included a size change was: F-84F -> RF-84F -> F-105.