streakeagle

I thought I had already posted this somewhere, but couldn't find it. So this is how I like to use my F-4 stick when my wife is out of the country:

But the main aircraft I enjoy flying is the F-4, and out of the box Third Wire doesn't support independent throttles. Given the design of the games not going into the details of engine management, independent control of the two engines is pointless anyway. Now in Aces High 2, LOMAC, and moreso in IL-2 and FSX, dual throttles can be very useful. I wonder who the marketing guys are targeting with this product? People that fly hard core jet combat sims like Falcon 4.0 and Janes F/A-18 or even slightly dumbed down sims like LOMAC are few and far between. The WW2 air combat sim pilots are by far a larger market segment, but it is still a small niche market. The only flight sim market worth targeting based on size is the FSX group, and aren't most of them more interested in yokes and throttle quadrants? I could see wanting this setup for the DCS series, but how many people are going to buy the DCS games, and of those, how many are going to run out and buy a G940 setup when they probaly already have a Saitek, CH, or Thrustmaster high end setup? To me, it seems you are mainly going to get one of two guys buying a G940: a junkie like me that wants the force feedback despite already having a comparable setup or a hard core guy that likes the dual throttle implementation and/or force feedback. I wish Logitech well as this looks like a great product and more competition can only make everyone's products get better and/or prices go down. But I just don't see this one hitting a home run given the current national economic situation and the general lack of current/upcoming sims that can really use it. If I get enough overtime built up, I might buy a G940, but I would also like a TrackIR 5 and a few other things, not to mention the fact that I need to build a new PC and $300 would be a big step in that direction.

Despite the quality and reputation of CH Products, I have never liked their "F-16 like" stick layouts. I especially don't like their throttle. So I have never purchased any of their products. Thrustmaster's only interesting product for me is the Cougar. Unlike CH sticks, the Cougar felt pretty good in my hands (I guess I am a sucker for the feel of cold black metal). Of course, its layout being that of the F-16 gives it many of the same problems that I have with CH sticks. Considering the fact that the Cougar needs several hundred dollars of third party upgrades to get the level of quality it should have had out of the box, I have never bothered to buy a Cougar even when I could get one brand new for almost nothing. This has left me with only one viable choice for HOTAS: Saitek sticks. Over the years, I have bought the X-36 USB, X-45, and X-52 Pro. While I had minor fixable hardware problems with the X-36 and X-45, they both still work 100% to this day. The futuristic silver and blue X-52 did not appeal to me in any way. GoGamer had an awesome $100 sale price for the X-52 Pro, which I couldn't resist despite not really needing it. So far the X-52 Pro has been flawless. The problem with Saitek sticks is the software. The profiler always has some minor bug and the next revision is almost always incompatible with the profiles from the previous revision. So, almost every time I upgrade the software, I have to reprogram the sticks. If it were up to me, the stick grip would be identical to the B10 found in all US fighters from the F-80 to the F-15A. I understand most people want more buttons and hats as provided by grips on modern fighters. But if you have ever wrapped your hand around a B10, you would know how good it feels and at the same time have the most used stick grip of all time. A good throttle for me would be an exact replica of an F-15 or A-10 throttle. Suncom's F-15E HOTAS had the right idea, just not the right level of quality. Now enter the Logitech G940. The stick looks like a mod of Saitek X-52 Pro blended with a CH Fighterstick. The big differences from the Saitek are: 1) The extra switch midway down the stick on the left side (common on real stick grips and other HOTAS such as the Fighterstick). 2) A swap in position between the Fire button and the upper POV hat. 3) A swap in POV hat styles between the upper and lower hats. 4) Styled to look more like a Fighterstick (shape of top of stick, especially from the front), which is more like real stick grips. 5) FORCE FEEDBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The throttle is in a class by itself if you don't count the old Suncom F-15E sticks. I love my Saitek throttles over the CH and Thrustmaster iterations, but the G940 throttle looks like a twin engined fighter jet throttle. So if you are flying LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs, this baby is for you. If you are flying P-38s, Mosquitos, Bf110s, etc. in any of the better WW2 flight sims, this throttle is for you. If you are an Falcon 4.0 junkie and have lots of money to burn, you are proably still better off with a heavily modded Cougar since it perfectly replicates that stick's layout and functionality. The rudder pedals are hard to judge at all without actually trying them. But at a glance, they look plenty good enough. Not having felt this stick in my hand, not knowing its actual quality, and disregarding price or need, I think I would pick this stick over any other on the market. With the addition of force feedback, I don't see how any other product can compete except in the area of price. So let's talk price (using GoGamer quotes): Saitek X-52 Pro + Pro Pedals: $160 + $95 = $255 (thanks to an awesome sale, I got this same combo for $200) CH Products Fighterstick + Throttle + Pedals: $109.90 + $109.90 + $109.90 = $329.70 G940: $300 retail (don't know what GoGamer will do with it) CH Products have an unbeatable reputation for quality in an industry where quality is hard to find. If you can live with some of the oddities of their stick and throttle layouts, the difference in price margin is unimportant. Of course, I don't like their stick or throttle, so I am clearly not going to pay a higher price for a product I don't like in the first place. Saitek clearly has the lowest price, but it doesn't have force feedback and the long term quality compared to CH Products is an unknown to me. If the G940 has quality anywhere near the CH sticks and the force feedback lasts as long as long as the rest of the components, how can this product not dominate? Given it generally has the same or better features than the Saitek, I would gladly pay $45 more for force feedback. Now here is my problem: I already have 3 fully functional Saitek sticks and one custom built F-4 Phantom stick, how do I tell my wife I need to spend another $300 to get force feedback and a good dual throttle? In reality, I mainly play two flight sims: Aces High 2 and Third Wires SF2 series. I think both would benefit from the force feedback, but only Aces High 2 would let me use the dual throttle (and then only when I choose twin-engined aircraft). When I have the time, I prefer to set up and use my real F-4 stick which means I can't have force feedback (at least the way I have presently implemented it). If I hadn't already gotten an X-52 Pro, I could probably justify the expense, but I definitely don't need to get another stick anytime soon.

The SP 3.2 version of SFP1 (patched up to WoV level) was one of the worst. The flight models were hosed at transonic speeds and both friendly and enemy AI were almost complete idiots. The SP 2a (last revision before WoV) AI and flight models were generally better. The 083006 version (patched up to WoE) has AI almost as good as SP2a and much better flight models and has all the new features introduced by WoV and WOE (carriers and clouds). The latest Oct/Nov 2008 version has much better avionics, ECM, and AI, but degrades some of the flight models. Unfortunately, this mod was built around the worst revision since the original Walmart pre-release. The air war in Korea didn't depend too much on radar/ecm and most of the mods available were compatible with 083006, so I suggest trying to make this mod work with that revision. Of course, if you are like me, you want the much better dogfighting AI and range-only radar/lead-computing gunsights that come with the Oct 2008 upgrade and SF2. It would be nice if someone would rebuild this mod to be 100% compatible with the latest SFP1 and SF2 versions of the game.

The forums have been deactivated, so you cannot create a new forum user account. However, when you start Hyperlobby, you can create a game user account at anytime. Simply log in with your chosen name, then it will give you the opportunity to attach an email address and password to it. You can create as many game accounts as you like by repeating the same procedure. Of course, typically, you create one account, then set it up to automatically log in whenever you start Hyperlobby by checking the appropriate boxes.

The stock silver skins are in the original SFP1, but there are some other skins here somewhere such as Vietnam SEA camo... I know I downloaded them a while back. Try my thread, here: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5901

TK's last round of sims ups the ante on bitmap resolutions and with addons that have even higher detail, what did you expect? Cap the game to poly numbers and texture resoutions comparable with LOMAC to try to detect efficiency differences between the game engines. All I have learned is that when a game developer allows uncapped poly counts and textures sizes that someone will find the limits of their system TK's willingness to do so is great, otherwise the original series of games would have been obsolete years ago in terms of graphics.

Bigger is not always better, but it is the sure way to bet. Maybe the Navy should go back to WWII sized aircraft carriers with 30 foot long airplanes because bigger is never better and never has been? The F-22s should be scrapped right now, because the smaller F-35 is just a much better fighter. The USAAC questioned the need for a 4-engined bomber when Boeing first showed up with the B-17, then upgraded to the B-29, the B-47, and ultimately the B-52. Yup, bigger never has been better. Actually, bigger has almost always been better whether you talk bombers, fighter planes, or missiles, otherwise why not just use the smaller and cheaper AIM-9 missiles and F-16 fighters? No, when you want range, speed, payload, etc, you have to go bigger. F-15s carried the brunt of the air superiority mission because they were designed to do so with more fuel, a bigger radar, and the capability to carry bigger missiles. Of course the Navy needed even more endurance and a longer intercept range, so they made and even bigger F-14 with an even bigger radar and bigger missiles. F-4s didn't lose early in the Vietnam War because they were bigger, they lost due to poor planning and training... its bigger F-15 replacement easily defeats smaller MiGs. AIM-120 was the smallest lightest package that could be made to be ARH, but that doesn't make it the best choice, just the one that met the specifications that would allow it to work on F-16 Sidewinder rails. As an added bonus, smaller means a better fit into a small internal bay, critical to the stealth fighters... but to be stealthy and have internal bays, the F-22 and F-35 had to be much bigger than conventional fighters built to the same performance specifications. Smaller is rarely better, unless you are talking cost. The smaller F-35 is not anywhere near as good as an F-22... but it sure is cheaper, so that's why the F-22 is being cancelled and replaced with the F-35. Of course, if we ever get into an air war again, it is our pilots who will pay the cost of our decision to save money and prepare to fight only small 3rd rate air forces... Just as the Vietnam pilots paid in blood for the decision to prepare to fight only nuclear wars and to save money and reduce peacetime accidents by not allowing air combat training. AMRAAM is a great missile, but who would argue that a better missile can't be made? We have an awful lot of AIM-7 airframes and an awful lot of fighters that can still carry them, so I am merely suggesting that we tap into that potential and get extra capability at the same time.

Whatever technology improvements that permitted AMRAAM to succeed could be applied to the Sparrow, with the extra size/weight allowing even bigger gains in some areas. For instance, the larger diameter of the AIM-7 permits a larger radar antenna to be used which could improve seeker capabilities. If the same warhead is used, the extra weight/space could permit an even bigger engine for more range/speed. If a smaller engine could be used to get the same range/speed, a larger warhead could be carried... etc. Missiles are no different than airplanes, there are trade-offs in size/weight, but if you can afford the increase in weight, cost, and loss of maneuverability, bigger is generally better. Smaller fighters (F-16) and stealth fighters' missile bays make smaller missiles more appealing. But a whole lot of F-15s, F/A-18s, Tornadoes, F-4 Phantoms, etc. can still easily carry AIM-7 size missiles. Why not use modern technology to create a long range AAM comparable to the AIM-54 and squeeze it into an AIM-7 sized package? The answer is that it was already done, but budgets being what they are, newer versions of the AIM-7 are not considered cost effective given that the ones we already have are still getting the job done and newer fighters can't use them. But, given that AMRAAM seekers are in production, it would make sense to be able to upgrade AIM-7s as needed to the same standard. It is not true to say nothing was given up. There is a big difference in warhead size. AMRAAM's aerodynamic maximum range was about half of the AIM-7F/M missiles (30 nm vs 54 nm). Whatever engine improvment that is giving it a 50% bonus would probably provide a similar improvement to the AIM-7, which combined with midcourse guidance and an ARH seeker would make the AIM-7 a lighter more maneuverable AIM-54.

AMRAAM should have been developed and deployed in the 1980s, but even with all the advances in technology made since the first attempt at the Sparrow II in the 1950s, the engineers found it very difficult to make a missile more capable than a SARH Sparrow fit into an air frame smaller than a SARH Sparrow. The goal was not just to make an active homing missile (the AIM-54 already achieved that) but to make it small enough to fit on fighters that only had AIM-9 Sidewinder rails. In particular, the USAF wanted F-16s to be nearly as capable as F-15s when performing intercepts, sweeps, and CAPs since MiG-23 and later opponents had a credible long range radar missile threat. I am curious as to how good AMRAAM really is. If you shave 150-200 lbs from a Sparrow, go to a smaller airframe, and add an active radar, you have to give up something. Of course you gain a bit in maneuverability, but there must be some loss of range/speed/warhead etc. Given that F-15s, F-18s, F-4s, and Tornadoes can arleady carry Sparrows, I would want active radar homing Sparrows. If the AIM-120 seeker/guidance is better, surely it would fit into the larger Sparrow air frame providing a longer range punch for those fighters capable of carrying them.

Spoken by a pilot whose "external tank" was a specialized version of a KC-135

Since this is a game and neither your life nor your wallet are at risk, do as you see fit. If you think you need the gas, keep them. If you get into trouble and need better performance, drop them. This game does penalize your drag and weight, but it does not seem to affect your structural integrity. Whereas, in real life, extra weight means reduced maximum g-load limits. For example, the F-16 may be a 9g dogfighter with only AIM-9s on the wings, but it is generally a 5g fighter with any useful load such as fuel tanks and bombs. I usually keep the tanks all the way to the merge. When I spot bandits, I accelerate with full a/b into a head on pass with AIM-7 Sparrows (flying F-4 Phantoms), punch the tanks as I go by them, then re-engage by pitching up into the vertical. But I can and have completed many air-to-air and air-to-ground missions without ever dropping the tanks. If I were you, I would do whichever is more fun for you rather than worry about what others think. If you are concerned about being realistic, you can still go either way since there are plenty of examples of pilots always dropping their tanks or trying not to drop their tanks as the situation required.

This is a cool package: it easy to get all the important mods into SF2V without any tweaking hassles.

Clients have to match the host. So, if you host with all your mods, it will only work if he installs the same mods. If he has an unmodded install and your files match his (other than things you have added) things will work fine. However, some of your mods may make it so that you can't match his. The safest way to play multiplayer is either have everyone use stock/patched installs or have everyone use the same mods. If I were you, I would make a separate stock/patched install for online play. Typically, when I install a Third Wire sim that supports multiplayer, I leave the default install unmodded, then copy the install and paste it to make a separate one for mods. There are some mods that can be made to a stock install that won't be detected. For instance, I can add cockpits to the MiGs without breaking anything as long as I don't change the data ini files. I released a MiG-21 mod for WoI specifically for this purpose: allowing someone to have MiG-21 cockpits without breaking compatibility with stock/patched installs. In my opinion, despite its limitations, there is no better way to play Third Wire sims than online. As good as the AI has gotten in SF2, it is no match in skill or creativity compared to real people. Certain online players are exceptionally gifted and can teach others much more about flying/dogfigting than can be learned playing against the AI. Unfortunately, the older versions that support multiplayer have other limitations while the otherwise much improved SF2 series does not support multiplayer at all :(

Older games have only two real functions: online multiplayer, YAP, and NATO fighters I bought all of YAP1 and have what has been released of YAP2, but uninstalled all of it. I don't have time for multiplayer right now, so all I have left of old games are those that haven't been released in SF2 format (FE and WOI) and NATO fighters. If YAP2 never gets updated to use SF2, I may never spend much time playing it. I have no tolerance for 083006 AI and other issues given how well SF2 series is working all patched up. I am also too lazy/short of time to convert YAP2 material to SF2 standards. I still want the 3d model for CVAN-65, so I will still be buying YAP releases.

Third Wire finally included a MiG-21bis model in SF2E:

Instead, they went out of business during/after the A-7... Chance Vought became LTV... where are they now? I have hated watching all the aircraft companies merge/go out of business. North American's last efforts under that name were the X-15, B-70 and F-108... then nothing more unless you count the Rockwell B-1 and space shuttle... and both of those date back to the 70s. I don't know of any aircraft by Chance Vought after the A-7. Northrop was an amazing company that always got snubbed with the F-18 pretty much being their F-17 stolen by McDonnell-Douglas, the F-20 being ignored, and the B-2 line shut down before a useful number of planes could be built. The General Dynamics F-16 is now the Lockheed F-16? How could you make the most successful fighter jet since the F-4 (in terms of customers and production numbers) and still be sold off to the competition? The McDonnell and Douglas merger wasn't too bad: both names stayed and both lines of designers continued to function... but now its Boeing? The DC-9 is now the Boeing 717? McDonnell-Douglas was making the F-15, F/A-18, and AV-8B: almost every tactical aircraft used by every service minus the F-14, F-16, and A-10... and still went out of business. I feel like I have been watching the death of the American aerospace industry. From WW2 to the early 1970s, American aircraft design and development was simply amazing, especially in the 1950s when we went from the F-86 and FH-1 to the F-4 and F-104 with what seemed like dozens and dozens of aircraft variants in both the USAF and USN.

Even if you don't have Vista, the SF2 series is more than worth the money just for the cockpits and aircraft variants. For instance, the early F-4D is the correct slick nose (no chin pod like the F-4J) with no RWR (and no RWR display in the cockpit), while the later variants have the chin pod, RWR, and RWR display. The early F-4E is unslatted and has the early gun muzzle as well. So a lot of little details have been added, too many to list.

Since WoI, AI have benefitted from RWR info and reacted appropriately (i.e. evading RHMs when illuminated). Since WoI, AI have utilized low altitudes/terrain masking to render F-4E radar and RHMs (Sparrows) almost useless. So, I would expect that if you were flying low enough and/or using mountains to break radars while also leaving your radar turned off, that you could penetrate intense 1960s/1970s combat air patrols more effectively since they would have to get within visual range to detect your presence. What I don't know is how well AI communicates amongst each other. If you fly over a manned anti-aircraft gun, say a ZSU-23-4, do air assets get a "red crown" style callout the way the player does?

The AI has improved quite a bit since SFP1 Service Pack 2a. Additionally, the AI constraints can be customized for each aircraft, which wasn't true back then. I would bet that if I ever got around to finishing my new F-4B FM that it would work fairly well in SF2. Of course, for me, the main gain of having hyper-accurate FMs was permitting very realistic dissimilar air combat in multiplayer. In SF2 series, the single missions and campaigns have sufficient immersion out of the box (thanks to greatly refined AI and great looking cockpits), that I really don't feel driven to refine the FM any more... I would still kill for a true hard-core F-4 sim with all the button pushing glory of Falcon 4 (including full support for a 2nd playe to be the RIO/WSO) AND a full-fledged F-4 flight model. But I don't think TK's sims are ever going to get me there, they simply remain the closed available alternative. As my son gets older, maybe I will get the time to continue my own FM research and development. I not only have the info needed to refine the F-4, but have as much or more information on the XB-70, which would be a challenging aircraft to fly in its pre-fly-by-wire generation.

this is an old trick that requires editing the control ini file for the arrow keys. By default, they are configured to auto center and have a very reactive motion to allow you to pull hard turns. Set centering to 0 and play around with the sensitivity until you like it.

I have seen other people on various forums posting similar problems and never thought much of it... But all of a sudden today, I lost the ability to force anti-aliasing at 1600x1200. If I knock the resolution down to 1280x960 or 1400x1050, everything works normally. I did not change my driver or its settings (though I have done a bunch of that today trying to find the problem). Anybody have any clue as to how or why this would suddenly happen? I am thinking it has to be related to a Windows update, like directX or something like that. But I am at a loss as to what to try/test next.

Well, after I exhausted every other path, I resorted to a System Restore. I went back far enough to circumvent a few new software installs and DirectX updates. After system restore, I had to re-install the video driver... then I got my anti-aliasing back at 1600x1200. I am not sure whether it was a Windows Update, a DirectX update, or some software I installed to support a remote controlled wireless R2D2 webcam... But I got it working right again, so I am happy.

Hyperlobby does not support Wings Over Europe, but it does support Wings Over Vietnam. So, I copied the WOE.exe and renamed it WOV.exe. I then configured Hyperlobby to find the WOV.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder. While I have not yet had anybody join externally, tests from within my own LAN went well. I have a dogfight host up now with the year set to 1978. To ensure being able to join, you need to: Install WOV. Install WOV Service Pack v05.15.06 Install WOV Patch v08.30.06 Install WOE (check the option to merge WOV). Install WOE Patch v05.25.06 Install WOE Patch v08.30.06 Copy the WOE.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder Paste a copy into the same folder Rename the copy WOV.exe If you already have Hyperlobby and it is already set to open Wings Over Vietnam, then you will have to: "Disconnect" from Hyperlobby Select "Wings Over Vietnam" from the Hyperlobby Connect/Select list of games Press <CTRL><SHIFT> while clicking on "Connect" This opens a dialog box for setting the path to the WOV.exe, you must either manually type in the patch, or do a search and select the copy of WOV.exe in the Wings Over Europe folder. I cannot promise compatibility if you have any mods installed, especially the weapons pack. Follow the above procedure and it should work.

Funny that you don't want to shoot down bombers with tailguns using missiles... Sparrows and Sidewinders weren't developed to kill fighters, large formations of bombers were exactly what they were supposed to knock down. I like to save Sparrows for MiG-17s since they can be so difficult to kill with F-4s, but AIM-9Bs are almost useless against anything else, so I have no problems expending them on IL-28s. For game purposes, I faced Il-28s a lot while playing campaigns in WoI and to win the mission I had to kill them quickly before they could drop their ordnance. I generally popped off all of my sidewinders, then did high speed passes from almost beam angles and repeated them quickly by using the vertical. With just a bit of practice, I can kill an Il-28 in a single high speed pass with precision gunner. However, there is always a chance that I get too aggressive or the Il-28s get an angle on me first.