streakeagle

I generally prefer to use few or no mods to make it easy for newbies with clean installs to join. The mods I like are ones that don't affect the other players: hi-res pits addon pits for migs additional terrains don't hurt as long as everyone has the terrain the host is using. I have been flying with a VMFA-531 install that mods some skins and adds terrains, but has no noticeable impact when joining/hosting with others that have stock installs. of course I modded my VMFA-531 install to have hi-res F-4 pits and mig pits, and still fly just fine with the other 531 guys. I don't use the whole mig-21 addons, i have spliced in just the pits so that I don't tamper with the stock data ini file... i.e. I am trying not to cheat other than adding mig-21 3d pit with proper radar and rwr per the particular MiG-21 variant.

Storm, thanks for showing up. Also a new WOV player showed up and proved capable of hosting via hyperlobby on his first try... which I would say is impressive given the past history of this sim series, but lately I have seen total newbies succeed on first try as well. So, the trend looks good as long as people keep showing up. Unfortunately, VMFA531 wasn't there at all tonight.

I am online with hyperlobby wov room and combatace teamspeak lobby right now (8:26 PM EST on 4 Dec 2007)... but don't see any of the 531 and doghouse went to a concert. I am going to switch to something else if I don't see anyone soon.

This is a nice supplement. Looking forward to the F-89 package as well.

It seems to be that "European One" camo was not used until the early '80s and the 48th converted to F-111Fs in 1977... So you shouldn't find any pics of operational 48th TFW F-4D's in Euro One (as opposed to museum birds painted any way the museum sees fit).

The stock F-4 FMs are generous and forgiving as are the FMs of most stock aircraft. This was a purposeful choice on the part of TK: make the FMs easy enough for anyone to fly. At the same time, TK managed to keep a lot of the relative differences between FMs: a MiG-17 will pretty much turn tighter than any plane in the game while heavier aircraft like the F-105 have to rely more an power/speed and less on turn performance. The main flaw I have found in many of TK's FMs is too high of lift/drag ratios. Aircraft seem to float quite a bit with idle throttle making landings a bit difficult since the aircraft's sink rate won't drop the way it should as you cut the throttle. The AI has gotten a lot better since I originally made my F-4B FM. Presently, the AI can fly it fairly well. TK added an AI FM customization feature that didn't exist when I made the F-4B, so the AI can be "taught" to fly it even better without messing up how they fly the other aircraft in the game. At this point, the main problem with using realistic FMs is that they need to be implemented on every aircraft, or the game becomes very unbalanced. As for stock hard wing F-4s (F-4B/C/D/J/K/M) vs stock slatted F-4s (F-4E), the relative differences between these aircraft are modeled aside from the departure characteristic. The stock F-4E handles high-aoa hard turning much better and it really shows if you play online MP. The differences are emphasized even more since the F-4E is not penalized in weight or drag for having an internal gun while all other variants carry a centerline gun pod by default. Generating a realistic FM that has detailed and correct lift and drag characteristics is difficult and time consuming. Adding stall characteristics is not. If you can read a text file (which is what the data.ini files are), then you can see the obvious differences between aircraft that stall the way you want and ones that don't. Stability issues such as how the aircraft repsonds to control inputs as a function of AoA are perhaps the most difficult to model since they partly depend on the lift/drag definitions but also include interaction between other parameters that are not easily estimated or adjusted. Feel free to try FM modding. If you do so, you will learn a lot about the math that goes into modeling flight and how much potential the SFP1 FM engine has. You will also learn that the stock FMs aren't so terribly bad and even make a good starting point since TK has already solved most of the stability and control issues, leaving you free to focus on thrust, lift, and drag curves. Alternatively, you may learn that FM data is incomprehensible to most people without spending a lot of time studying college level material on physics and flight dynamics.

Every game in the series is based off the core SFP1 engine. Every time a new game is released, the other games receive patches to bring it up to the same standard as the new release. So technically, if you have SFP1, you never need to buy the later games. However, each new game comes with: new terrain, new stock aircraft, new missions, new campaigns, etc. If you are happy with the terrain, aircraft, missions, and campaigns available to you with SFP1, then you shouldn't buy any of the other releases... Unless you want to show your appreciation for TK's efforts by paying him for his continued support of SFP1. SFP1 did not originally have aircraft carriers, clouds, 1970's avionics, V/STOL thrust vectoring support, animated water, ecm/chaff/flares, etc. TK has provided these at no charge unlike the IL-2 series, which always requires you to buy the next game to get the patch benefits. $30 once every year or two isn't bad for the support, especially when you consider IL-2 series games sold for $50. I love TK's SFP1 series and want to see continued support/growth, so I show my appreciation by buying everything he releases.

The addition of slats to the F-4E (which the F-4G was converted from) pretty much eliminated the nasty departure characteristics of the F-4. It is the primary reason that slats were added. The enhanced turn performance was a nice secondary gain. With slats, the F-4 could pull a lot more AOA before stalling and had a nice docile mushy stall rather than snapping into a flat spin. The slatted models were: late F-4E (early F-4E was upgraded except for Thunderbirds), F-4F, F-4G, late F-4S. All others would have the nasty stall/spin behavior with only a modest excursion beyond the safe AOA limit. From the USAF pilot's manual (TO 1F-4E-1): Accelerated stalls produce only mild to moderate buffet. Wing-rock normally does not occur below 25 units AOA, and often does not occur until reaching 28-30 units AOA. Departures which occur above 30 units tend to be gentle, and are predominately roll rather than yaw. Normal recoveries are positive. Prompt neutralization of controls will generally effect recovery from accelerated stall approaches. Control of angle of attack with stick position is of paramount importance to effect recovery from the stall. Oscillations in roll and yaw which may be present during recovery should be allowed to damp themselves out and should not be coutnered with aileron or rudder. In other words, when you depart, the aircraft pretty much just rolls to one side and if you let go of the stick, it will fix itself. This is quite different from the F-4B/C/D/J which will depart around 25 units AOA by yawing violently and most likely enter into a non-recoverable flat-spin. For those of you have have never heard about it or tried it, I made a very realistic F-4B FM for Strike Fighters Service Pack 2a (SP2a). My post at the Thirdwire forums contains a link to the file: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=7986#7986 If you make an SFP1 install and patch it up to SP2a, you will get almost exactly the stall behavior from the NATOPs manual. After Wings Over Vietnam came out, SP3 was released, which changed the stall behavior. Most of the my F-4B FM works as originally intended, but accelerated stalls at high speeds will not depart the way they used to. Now you have to bleed your speed down quite a bit to get the aircraft wing rock/yaw behavior that leads to the flat spin. I am hoping that the next service pack/patch brings over the stall/spin code from 1st Eagles and permit me to restore the behavior lost after SP3.

Sparrow counting is a tedious hobby. Pouring over hundreds if not thousands of combat sortie photos trying to glimpse a Sparrow fin in the forward bay is challenging. First, there is the camera angle: most inflight F-4 photos are shot from an angle where the Sparrows are not visible. Then there is the loadout: bombs/missiles and wing tanks frequently block the view as well. The number of shots where you can actually see a full 4-Sparrow loadout are quite few compared to the number of photos available. Most of those show no centerline store. The exception seems to be RAF Phantoms, which have been frequently photographed with 4 Sparrows and either a centerline tank or gunpod. Last night, after reviewing every book I have with F-4 photos, I found maybe 4 showing USAF/USN F-4s with 4 Sparrows and a centerline tank. While the quantity was low, they were combat sortie photos: aircraft taking-off or en route to assigned CAP/escort missions. I don't know why the number of photos showing this is so low, but clearly F-4s could and did fly combat missions with centerline tanks and 4 Sparrows. There were only about 5 or 10 more showing 4 Sparrows with no centerline stores. These photos were mostly publicity photos, though some may have been cases where the centerline tank had been jettisoned. It would seem that only 2 Sparrows are carried for several reasons: 1. Forward bay(s) may be occupied by ECM and/or targeting pod(s). 2. Aircraft's mission is not air superiority: 2 Sparrows are a bare minimum defensive load, saving 1,000 lbs+ for fuel/ground ordance or lower drag/higher speed. 3. To reduce maintenance costs: Sparrow reliability falls off rapidly with captive flight hours (flying multiple sorites without ever being fired). Carrying fewer Sparrows when they are not needed means less time/money wasted working on them. 4. The actual supply of Sparrows may not have been high enough to easily equip all available aircraft with a full loadout, so only MiGCAP planes may have gotten priority? While researching F-4 Sparrow loadouts last night, I discovered that flight leaders received AIM-9Js while wingmen continued getting AIM-9Es during 1972 due to shortages of AIM-9Js.

the home for "VTE" is here: http://falcon4.nekromantix.com/ I found the F-4E fairly controllable in OFP, I don't know about Armed Assault. I do no that the AH-1 in Armed Assault (including the latest patches) seems harder to control than the AH-1 in OFP. Zipping across the maps remains an issue, though the MiG-21 and me stayed close with a tight turning circle/vertical loop fight. The MiG-21 flew into the ground once. It would be interesting to see how an online MP mission involving 8 or more aircraft for each side would turn out. It is not very realistic in any way shape or form... yet if fun and immersive.

I finally got my MC-2/B-8 stick grip. Despite using the stock number for an actual F-4 grip on eBay, it has the hand rest that was not present on F-4 grips. It is definitely used, but has been restored to a nearly new condition. I would have been happier without the hand rest, but the stick looks good and all the buttons work. Now I have to figure out how I am going to use it :)

Early production yokes had an issue as discussed in the Saitek support forums. Apparently, customers with bad yokes have to ship them to Saitek at their own expense. I wouldn't buy one until I am sure that the one I get is a later fixed version.

I forgot to mention that I got the X-52 Pro for $100 from GoGamer.com What a steal! The must not have been selling too well. At $200, I would have eventually bought the X-52 Pro, just a matter of time. But at $100, I jumped on it and got the rudder pedals as well. I have been able to program profiles I like. With more buttons and axis, immersion is up. I use the thumb slider on the throttle thrust vectoring on Harrier V/STOL fighters. I don't have a use for the twisty stick axis yet, though, I could program in two more butons: left for one button, right for the other. The toggle switches on the base are great for functions like dropping external tanks. I don't have a use for the LCD display yet (though it is functional in MS Flight Sim X). Perhaps I can think of a function and program it myself?

I didn't realize it had been ported over to Armed Assault... I should have looked closer at the PMC website. The 3d model for the F-4 could be a lot better, but from the cockpit perspective, it was adequate for OFP style gameplay. Of course, unlike any other combat sim that has ever modeled the F-4, you can actuactually carry another player in the back seat. But with little to no avionics modeled, the backseater is mainly just another set of eyes.

I have yet to see any photos at all of USAF Phantoms (C/D/E/G) with AIM-9s installed on inner pylons when carrying anything else on inner pylons. I am fairly sure the G would have retained the ability to carry the AIM-9s, but it would always have air-to-ground ordnance on inner pylons and therefore never AIM-9s. As for the AIM-7s, the forward bay(s) would be reserved for ecm pods critical to the Wild Weasel mission. But it also appears that all Phantoms tended to carry only 2 Sparrows in aft bays when carrying centerline tanks. I guess the AIM-7s in the forward bay didn't always clear the tank if fired while carrying the tank, so it was safer not to carry them at all. Most photos of F-4s support this. If you see 4 AIM-7s, the centerline tank is not being carried. If you see the centerline tank, at most 2 AIM-7s in rear bays are carried. But, there are some exceptions where photos show 4xAIM-7 and CL tank being carried.

I hung out at SimHQ working with McFly and friends on modding Jane's USAF, which was the latest sim to support F-4 Phantoms. I stumbled upon the SimHQ Project 1 forum via the USAF community. The screenshots looked awesome, I couldn't wait for TK to find a publisher and release the game. I went to Walmart to get a computer cable for a friend and guess what I saw on the shelf: the infamous Walmart release. It was buggy and incomplete, but I knew the instant I flew the F-4 in Strike Fighters that I would never play Jane's USAF ever again. I had found my holy grail. Here I am 5 or 6 years later, still playing the same game. This game series has come so far since the Wally World version, but I still have the disk that first gave me TK's version of the Phantom and 60s jet combat. Of course, TK is still working hard to make it better. I think it is his dedication that has kept this sim going. Without him and his willingness to open up his code for mods, we would have nothing even close to what we have now.

There were 11 people in Hyperlobby ready to play multiplayer. Unfortunately, people had to leave before we could get everyone into a single server. But after solving some connection issues about 6 to 8 people were flying continuosly in dogfight mode.

with 11 people... we need just 5 more to have a FULL co-op session. Unfortunately, co-op has proven to be exceptionally finicky with connection quality and/or bugs: Some people can't fire on enemy aircraft, but can perform ground attacks. Some people see other aircraft flying at or beneath ground level. The higher the connection quality in terms of speed and latency, the less I have seen these problems. Dialup suffers the most while the crappy high-latency/random bandwidth connections I am getting while staying in hotels isn't doing much better. Maybe I will get a chance to fly online with a large group while I am home the week of Thanksgiving... I need to find out if FIOS is delivering all the performance they promised.

I am going with a condition "SV" (serviceable) part 1680-00-064-5145 from Space Coast IC, Inc. for $552.50 plus shipping. This should be identical to the F-4 stick grip (no hand rest) but does not come with the cable adapter (at least another $100 for that part). I don't get to see a pic of it, but SV is just one grade lower than "new". I am sure all of the switches will work correctly, I just wonder how good it will look... for that price, I am hoping it looks new! Now do I need to get the adapter? I am suddenly wishing I had bid on the stick shaker box a few months back... would have made a very authentic F-4 stick.

If we have to pick between HD and Blu-ray, why would anyone pick HD over Blu-ray purely from a storage capacity perspective. Blu-ray can store uncompressed 1080p movies. The primary reason for me to buy a new video player is to watch 1080p movies on my 46" 1080p tv. If this battle continues too much longer, a third-party format is going to come along and beat them both with comparable or better quality at a much lower price. I am rooting for the third-parties... some of them are becoming available now. I won't buy a thing until there is a winner or the prices are so low that I can afford all competing formats.

My wife has authorized me to purchase a "new" B-8. I can go with an overhauled grip that is exactly the same stock number as the F-4 grip that just sold on e-Bay. Or I can go with a brand new Otto grip for about the same price (over $500). The original grip will be missing the $100+ threaded adapter used to connect it to control sticks. The used one came with the adapter, so perhaps I should have bought it just for the adapter? The Otto stick does not use the threaded adapter and can be sleeved to fit different size sticks, but is not the true F-4 grip since it has the hand rest on the right side. However, the Otto sitck is brand new rather than overhauled. Decisions, decisions...

While "reasonably priced" is wide open to interpretation, parallel markets like MS Flight Sim addons provide a reference and I personally believe Razbam's approach is pretty much ideal: A pretty good 3d model with pretty good textures suitably modified to provide several variants for $15. Due to the complexity of the physics involved and the lack of published data, I will never expect addons to provide the quality of FM I want. I do expect that payware addon FMs should try to at least get the basic max speeds, landing speeds, and roll rates close enough that it doesn't feel like an arcade airplane on HARD settings. Such is quickly achievable by tweaking FMs from the stock aircraft provided by TK. I have paid anywhere from $10 to $40 for plastic models hanging from my ceiling so I don't have any problem paying similar prices for virtual models that are ultimately more entertaining. But I only paid more than $20 when it was an exceptionally high quality kit of an aircraft that was either hard to find or one that I really love. i.e. I paid $35 for a 1/48 Tamiya P-51D and it was worth every penny as the parts fit together so well you almost didn't need cement. I didn't have to use any putty at all to fill seams since there were no gaps or uneven edges. Call me insane, but if someone could somehow provide an FM certified to be as accurate as the game engine permits, outstanding hi-res layered texture templates, and hi-fidelity external and cockpit 3d models, I would buy all of my favorite aircraft at $50 to $100 per series (i.e. F-4B/J/N/S might be a complete series). I think that is fair since an excellent hardcore study sim focused on one aircraft could easily be priced the same. If I believed there was enough demand for hi-fidelity flight models to pay me enough money to quit my day job, I would qo into business myself as my wife and sister-in-law are capable of doing the 3ds-max work while I would have to do the FMs and textures. But I don't believe there is enough demand and I don't have the spare time to do this as a 2nd job.

Excellent footage.

I went to the warbird parts place in Tampa to buy a B-8, but was disappointed to find out that the website is not up to date. The only B-8 in stock was no where near new condition, but more importantly had a gun trigger that sticks. I probably could have made it work, but it is easier to find a whole new stick in better condition than to get spare parts. On the bright side, the X-52 Pro and Rudder Pedals I ordered from GoGamer.com arrive tomorrow afternoon.

I will buy any reasonably priced addon aircraft. I generally love all aircraft and want to be able to fly them. I have my favorites and will pay more money to see them done to the highest possible standard. I find RAZBAM's set up to be fair. My wishlist has largely been covered between TK's releases, free addons, and payware. But, the F-101 and F-102 are painfully absent from an otherwise great implementation of the Century series. Ultimately, I would like to see every jet fighter ever produced rather than just the principal NATO/Warsaw Pact front runners. The Mirage Factory is a blessing. They are giving away aircraft with quality generally comparable if not superior to any commercial developer. However, since they work for free, their progress is relatively slow.