streakeagle

If I ever build a pit, it will probably be an F-4. If a hard-core F-4 sim ever comes along that supports external instrumentation, I would make it a two-seater... Especially if it allowed a 2nd player to join via a 2nd PC as the WSO. But the only modern sims I know of that permits any kind of multi-crew participation are Dangerous Waters and Aces High. I don't see anything coming out any time soon that supports multi-crew jet fighter-bomber simulation like Strike Eagle III did.

Eeek! I assume a Saitek buyout would mean restructuring and possibly the loss of HOTAS development and production. I am still nervous about how the new AMD/ATi merger is going to pan out. If AMD/ATi fails to remain competitive with Intel and NVidia, pc hardware consumers like us are going to suffer badly. If Saitek and Thrustmaster fail, that would pretty much leave CH Products all alone on top for us flight simmers. As long as CH doesn't take advantage of such a situation to cut costs by lowering quality and raise prices to take advantage of demand, that wouldn't be so bad. But given that any company's ultimate objective is to maximize its profit, why wouldn't CH jack up their prices and/or cut their costs if they were a monopoly? I really wish Thrustmaster had remained competitive. At one time they were the best. By the time I started buying hardware, their stuff was junk. The Cougar was their chance to clean up with the hard core jet jockeys. The fact that Falcon 4.0 is still going strong should have helped them out a lot. But long drawn out development turned out an overpriced and technically obsolete stick. If the Cougar's quality and performance had just been comparable to CH, it might have become THE STICK to have despite its high initial price. I find it funny that many die-hard Cougar fans eventually ditch it for a CH HOTAS rather than try the aftermarket upgrades. Maybe I should buy a Cougar just to say I had one? I did like the feel of the one on display at my local CompUSA. But I am spoiled by Saitek sticks which almost never need any calibration after initial installation without having to tweak/clean/replace pots. If Thrustmaster had followed through by making plug-in sticks for different aircraft types including the classic B-8, I would have already bought a Cougar. But alas, they took every step they could to turn off many potential customers and even lose many of the existing Cougar fans. I wish some company would come along and give me exactly what I want at a price I can afford. Until then, Saitek has been the best option for me... though I wonder how CH would compare since I have no first-hand experience.

I originally bought the X-36 because it was the best stick available off the shelf in Best Buy the day I decided to replace the problematic Top Gun Platinum. I just briefly scanned the web looking for X-36s and stumbled onto this review which makes my arbitrary choice look like a great one: http://www.epinions.com/content_33726631556

I haven't even opened it... though I intend to this weekend if I can make some time. As for support in drivers, I found that if I installed the X-36 using an older driver that also supported the X-45 and then upgraded the driver/software for the X-45, the X-36 came along for the ride even though it was officially unsupported. Of course that is with the last generation of software. I never bothered to try the newest beta software since it sounded like support for the X-36 was really gone this time and because they don't have a tool for converting my profiles. Aside from some stability issues, I really preferred the original Win98SE Saitek software: it allowed far more complex programming of the buttons and rotaries and activated the appropriate profiles automatically when the associated game started. Saitek's lack of proper software for Win2000/WinXP was one of the reasons I stayed with Win98SE for so long. I agree, the X-45 was a step backwards, which finally drove me to fix the throttle cable on the X-36 and return it to being my primary stick. However, now that I am back on the X-45, the only disadvantages beyond the looks and glowing lights that I can remember are: 1) the resistant to small movements by the stiff center spring, which I largely fixed by tie-wrapping the spring to reduce the tension. 2) the gun trigger periodically nees adjustment to function correctly (haven't had to this for quite awhile, but then I have been primarily using the X-36). 3) the lack of rubber suction cup feed, which Saitek solved a long time ago when it offered free sets to anyone who wanted them on their forum :) There is one advantage to the X-45 over the X-36: the rudder rocker centers better. On the X-36, the return to center differed significantly depending on whether you last applied left or right rudder. So after applying rudder to the direction that didn't return to the calibration center, aircraft would drift until I remembered to tap the rudder in the opposite direction to get a good center. The X-45 still does this, but somehow they deadbanded it (in software I presume?) so that the difference is very small (almost unnoticeable). In fact, it is usually masked out by default deadband settings in games. So, I can live with the X-45 and I still intend to use it as the guts of any future B-8/F-4 Phantom stick I attempt to make.

The idead behind the Cougar was great... the execution was horrible. I understand if you have money to burn you can mod the Cougar into a pretty decent stick. I thought about it since they are available in CompUSA for $250 (sometimes as low as $200). But if I had more than $500 to spend on a joystick, then I would be happier building a custom B-8 stick to F-4 Phantom specs as I posted in my other thread... Since I my son was born in November, spending just $200 on a surplus B-8 doesn't make sense especially when I still have a perfectly good stick. I don't know when I will have the spare time and money to implement my ideas (ultimately I want to build an F-4 pit!). The loss of the X-36 leaves me with an X-45 and an MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 USB. There is no urgent need to buy anything at the moment. If the X-45 fails, then I will be forking out some dough right away for either a CH hotas or X-52 Pro. Despite all the good things people say about CH products, I am still leaning toward the Saitek stick. I prefer the Saitek throttle setup. The buttons, switches, sticks, rotary knobs, and rudder rocker are just they way I like them (unfortunately the X-52 series deleted the rudder rocker and changed some of the switches). The joystick is very similar to a B-8, and I like the feel of the Saitek sticks. The CH stick has the F-16 layout that I don't really like and the dual springs for x and y axis mess up the feel. I don't know if I would like the X-52 Pro better than the X-45. Until the X-45 fails, I probably won't find out.

Thirdwire sims' multiplayer support simply does not have enough features to support an online community comparable to Jane's FA or IL-2/FB/PF. 1) Co-op mode only permits canned missions with 8 vs 8, no user created missions. 2) To ensure the opposing sides are in the right place at the right time to make the missions interesting, both sides always start in the air near the target, so no ground starts. 3) The environment is dumbed down compared to single player to keep communications/lag problems to a minimum: no 3d clouds and only air defenses/ground objects near the target. 4) In co-op, those who are shot down will be bored waiting for the mission to end before they can get a plane an fly again. 5) Dogfight mode does not permit refueling/reloading on the ground. If you are out of ammo or fuel, you have to ESC and get a new aircraft. The above limitations quickly bore virtual squadrons that are used to having so much more with other online sims. Personally, I think co-op is adequate as long as you have enough people. I have never seen it happen, but 8 vs 8 co-op would be awesome. Of course, it wouldn't be any fun to get shot down 5 minutes into a 30+ minute fight. Most of the time I hosted dogfight to make it easy for people to join and permit an unattended server. For me, that remained fun as long as everyone flying had comparable skills since dogfighting real people is much more interesting than the game's AI. Those interested in multiplayer with this sim series represent a very small percentage of the community. So, despite years of asking TK for more features, the best TK would do is bugfixes to get multiplayer working at least as well as he intended. I would still be carrying the SFP1/WOV/WOE/FE multiplayer torch to try to encourage others to try it out, but I have a baby boy now. It will be a while before I have the kind of free time I used to have. So, all I can do is sit here and watch to see if someone else will succeed where I have failed in promoting online multiplayer with Third Wire sims.

Patch 1.08 finally brings this game up to the level it should have been at release given how long they have been working on it... but my fps with decent graphics settings is still too low to play well :(j In a year or two I intend to build a new PC roughly twice as good as the one I have now, hopefully Armed Assault will run smoothly on it.

I have all the data and tools I need to make a pretty good flight model (NASA is very generous with its test reports via the web). However, I need to spend quite a few days extracting the data into Excel forms so that I can build the fm data ini file. I just don't have the time. These days, when I get free time, I spend it relaxing rather than working hard on mods. I am supposed to go out of town to work very soon. Hopefully, while I am out of town, my evenings from Monday to Thursday will be free since I won't be home to take care of the baby and my wife will be too busy taking care of the baby to talk very long on the phone. I see this as my opportunity to focus on the XB-70. I too would like to see this project finished so I can enjoy flying in one of my favorite aircraft of all time. I have flown this in X-Plane and MS Flight Sim, but I wasn't very happy with the way they flew and of course there was no ability to drop nuclear weapons.

But most of the addon files in the original release were ;) Reselling files that were once free in a single package never impressed me. Especially when the effort that it takes to install this package is more than if you downloaded the original files separately. YAP finally has significant new content to justify the cost, but it is still a mess to install correctly. Quite a few of the freeware packages have equal or better quality and are virtually hassle-free to install. I like YAP as a whole, but it could use a more professional method of installation given that it is payware. I have zero problems with payware as long as I get what I am paying for. Of course, if someone wants to spend endless hours working to provide me with free addons, I have no objections either. I really don't understand all the fuss. If someone would pay me as much as I make at my job to make realistic flight models and/or a better FM tool, I would quit working and do this stuff full time. But I don't see it happening, so I do mods when I have the extra time for my own personal benefit and give them away because I see no reason not to.

Both wet and dry thrust as a function of mach are highy sensitive to the installation. Different aircraft with the same engine type need to have different thrust versus Mach tables. However, I have rarely encountered tables for any aircraft showing net thrust as a function Mach number. So, except in cases where the data is available, FMs have to use generalized tables for thrust versus Mach. Likewise, thrust versus altitude does not follow the theoretical values based on air density versus altitude. Once again, detailed data for various aircraft/engine combinations is generally not available. So, most FMs will have to rely on generic thrust versus altitude data. Typically, specific excess power is available via derivation from level acceleration charts and/or time-to-climb charts. So I define either thrust or drag as accurately as I can and use the computed specific excess power to get the other value. In the new F-4B fm I have been working on for quite some time, I had been using TK's thrust as the reference point, but now I have very accurate drag as a function of Mach. So, whenever I get done working on the XB-70A flight model, I will be able to make the F-4B FM even better. I wish I had the time to get it done now so I could enjoy the accurate takeoff, climb, acceleration, and deceleration performance. Typically, TK's stock FMs have too little drag at 1g, so you can glide at a very shallow angle for a very long time in aircraft that were notoriously bricks. With realistic drag values, airspeed bleeds a little faster when you idle and/or use speed brakes and it also makes for longer, slower takeoff rolls.

Anything I have released is open to anything anyone wants to do... as long as no one is selling the results for profit. As for engine performance data: I have a new trick. The NASA data I have acquired shows the drag at 1-g for the entire Mach range. The pilot manual has the level acceleration tables. The thrust has to be equal to the sum of the drag plus the acceleration :)

Small fixed canards are usually added to "energize" airflow with vortices. The vortices induce drag, so there is a penalty, but they can smooth out turbulent airflow. It is a means of stabilzing/controlling airflow at high angles of attack. They perform a function similar to leading edge root extensions on F/A-18 and F-16 fighters.

http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/xp/radeonx-xp.html

I have finally made some useful progress. I have created an Excel file that charts drag from Mach .2 to Mach 3 both Cd0 and Total CD at 1g. If I have detailed acceleration data over the same speed/altitude, I will be able to calculate accurate thrust data as well. This could turn out to be a very accurate flight model in terms of thrust, lift, and drag. NASA data may even make it possible for me to come up with accurate stability co-efficients.

I love the original OFP/Resistance. As recent as December, I had a LAN party at my house with 8 people playing OFP together in the same room. It seems like I have been waiting forever for the sequel. So, I got tired of wating for the US release. I bought the UK release, installed it, and have played it as much as time permits (a half hour here and there). I have TrackIR 3 Pro with Vector, which works well with this sim. However, for various reasons I am less than happy with the state of Armed Assault. First, the performance drop is too high. I find that even in a simple mission with the video settings dumbed down quite a bit, my pc struggles to maintain 30 fps. My system is by no means slow. I can play any other game I have with maxed out graphics settings and maintain 40-60 fps (capped by my LCD's refresh rate). But in armed assault, just laying down on a road with buildings, grass, and trees on either side while watching a truck approach drops my fps to 18 or less. This makes it very hard to fight in close. With the graphics set to the lowest quality possible (other than maintaining my LCD's 1600x1200x32 native resolution), FPS peaks at about 40 under lightly loaded conditions. Second, I find many of the same bugs and limitations from OFP still in AA. After all these years, I expect more than just new eye candy. A simple but annoying problem is that the game still doesn't recognize all of the buttons on my mouse. 5-button mice are far from new at this point. I should be able to map functions to the 5th button. When I play the first single mission, I have problems with the sniper rifle that I supposed to pick up becoming invisible. After I pick it up, the new waypoint never shows up anymore (it did show up originally, but stopped working). It would be nice if they had added the capacity to jump. The AI seems a little smarter and the graphics look good aside from the low frame rates, but I don't see any real improvements in gameplay or realism at this point. Hopefully, AA will get as much patch support as OFP, but I bet the problems I am seeing right now never get addressed.

Happened on these new drivers by chance. I am in the process of installing them right now.

I don't exactly get a whole lot of time to play games anymore, but I spent a couple of hours playing Wings Over Vietnam, Yankee Air Pirate, Aces High 2, and Armed Assault. Saw no real differences other than maybe slightly higher frame rates when using some advanced FSAA features available via the 3rd party ATi Tray Tool. For quite some time, Catalyst Control Center hasn't been working for me (since Cat 6.xx?). The settings revert back to defaults (despite what the sliders indicate) the next time I start a game unless I change at least one setting before starting the game. So I have removed the CCC and installed ATT. It is very complex (even more so than the old Rage3D Tweak), but it does work and the new EATM gives good FSAA to tga type textures (think fences and tree leaves) at a much lower performance cost than the settings available in CCC. This is critical to Armed Assault and Aces High 2 where trees, bushes, and/or fences are common and prone to shimmering and/or looking aliased.

If your hardware is strong enough to run it well and you can afford it, I strongly suggest you get LOMAC with the Flaming Cliffs expansion. I love the SFP1 series and spent most of my time playing/modding those games, but LOMAC is awesome too especially if you love the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, MiG-29, and/or Su-25. The SFP1 series has monopolized my time only because I prefer flying the F-4 Phantom with old unreliable missiles and no guns to AMRAAM/ECM/chaff/flares. Likewise, if I loved the F-16 the most, I would spend most of my time playing Falcon 4.0.

The problem is that 1.5 should have been out 2 years ago and 2.0 should be out now They fell way behind the game market while they were messing around with the XBox. While I don't care for the Ghost Recon series compared to OFP/Resistance, more of its simulation/realism features should have found their way into the OFP game engine given how much time they have had.

From what I have read, the XB-70A was capable of supersonic cruise in the Mach 2+ region, but the afterburners were necessary to make a Mach 3+ dash. I have very little data on what the final production version was capable of doing. The books I have indicate that the wave compression lift was not as critical to the success of the design as one would think. It provided a useful increase in the lift-to-drag ratio, but not on some overwhelming scale. I have been playing with DATCOM as time permits using the F-4B. It seems that it is not as accurate as I had hoped, but it is still very useful for getting an idea about the relationship between the fuselage, inner wings, outer wings, horizontal tail, and vertical tail. Given that I have other data to help calibrate the total lift and total drag curves, DATCOM will be used to divide those values among the fuselage, canard, inner wings, outer wings, and vertical tails. I have yet to have enough time to experiment with modeling flaps, elevons, rudder, etc. but the software will easily handle it as well as the drooping wingtips. If I had a week or two of time, I think I could put out one awesome flight model. But I haven't even had time to perfect my methods using the F-4B example. As long as my baby has acid reflux and has to be held upright for an hour after every feeding, I don't see when I am going to get more than a few minutes per week to mess with this.

The patch surprisingly fixed some of the minor issues I didn't expect to see fixed anytime soon. Now, if they would just add some key immersion features that were missing from OFP: Wounded soldiers that are immobilized and need to be rescued and dragged/carried to appropriate positions. Hand-to-hand fighting including punches, kicks, knives, bayonets, and rifle butts. The ability to climb and/or jump over certain obstacles.

I turned off shadows and got my fps to hover near 40. Now I am playing much better, but aside from eye candy and trackIR support, it doesn't really feel any better than OFP/Resistance.

I can't believe it. F-4 throttle sticks are available on e-bay: http://cgi.ebay.com/F-4-Phantom-THROTTLE-C...1QQcmdZViewItem Wish I had the cash :(

I literally spent years trying to rally people to play SFP1, WOV, and WOE online. For quite sometime I left a dogfight server up at Hyperlobby for SFP1, WOV, and finally a merged WOE/WOV install. Traffic was too low and real life has prevented me from playing very much myself for a couple of years now, so I shut my server down. Multiplayer works and is very rewarding compared to fighting against AI, yet it never caught on with this sim series for various reasons. It doesn't help that TK/Third Wire has low to no interest in refining/improving MP features. I hope this series stays around long enough that TK finally gets around to expanding MP features to attract a multiplayer crowd.

The wing-droop will be controlled per the real aircraft: automatically scheduled based on Mach number. I have yet to determine if they will provide any aerodynamic function. If it is possible, they may be used to increase yaw stability as in the real aircraft.