streakeagle

When TK was a programmer for other game companies as part of a team, he was notorious for writing code only he could understand. Falcon 4.0 was leaked over 20 years ago. It was a long time before real gains were being made in key areas such as updating the graphics engine or supporting anything other than F-16 avionics for non-F-16 flyable aircraft. That fact that TK never finished his Win10 update that began with a failed GoFundMe campaign should tell you that updating the code will take some effort.

The investment it would take to update the game to modern standards by someone other than TK could be more costly than starting from scratch. The only way this moves forward is if TK releases the code for free. Even then, it will require some talented coders investing a lot of their time for free to reverse engineer TK's source code to make useful improvements. To date, TK has no intention of giving up the rights to his software for free and who knows how much money it would take for him to sell it?

I did another test using Virtual Desktop and the OpenXR driver. That works, too. I don't know why it is suddenly working so well, but it is great.

Every now and then, I test to see if I can use VR with Strike Fighters 2. This requires a third party application named vorpX that allows 3d games to be adapted to VR with a correctly configured profile. A long time ago, CAStary made a DX10 profile that worked with Strike Fighters 2. I got a copy of his custom profile and he gave me permission to upload it to the public vorpX profile library. However, as gpu drivers change, windows gets patched, and vorpX is updated, my ability to run Strike Fighters 2 in VR has come and gone. It has been on the gone side for quite a few years. I don't normally use the Oculus driver for my Quest 3, as Virtual Desktop using the WiFi connection gives me the best graphics quality and performance in most VR games, especially DCS World. But that format doesn't work for HiTech Creations Aces High WW2 combat flight sim. So, I updated my Oculus install and used it yesterday. Today, I decided to see if the Oculus/Quest 3 combination would work with the latest vorpX and AMD gpu drivers. It works great. The game looks good and runs between 70 and 90 fps. It takes a little bit of practice to learn how to start the game and toggle between the 3d VR view and a floating 2D view, but once you have that down, it is easy to use and works really well. The main limitation is that SF2 was not designed for VR. In particular, you head movement is limited by default to keep you from seeing the low detail and/or non-existent cockpit behind and below the pilot's viewpoint. Some modern free mods don't have this limitation: if you view is unlocked, you can see a fully detailed cockpit in all directions possibly with animated controls like the stick and rudder pedals. One advantage of SF2 in VR is that the graphics are relatively low quality compared to modern sims, which leads to high frame rates and the ability to fly complex missions with lots of AI. This isn't for everyone and the fact is compatibility isn't guaranteed. Another vorpX update could break it for another 5 or 6 years. But when it works, it is impressive, especially if you already spent a decade or more playing the SFP1/WoX/SF2 series.

First Eagles 1 & 2 were great games. I wish TK would bring these games up to modern standards with full support for VR and being able to look around 360 degrees with full detail.

Not only a great F-4 video, but correctly presents the fact that it is the pilots that ultimately make the aircraft great

Aside from any bias in the weapons data, TK's way to make missions more "fun" is to have AI focus on engaging the player. It is one thing if the AIM-7 and AIM-9 perform better than they should relative to Soviet missiles, it is another thing if every aircraft with overpowered weapons aims them all at you. While TK did quite a bit to make a rivet counter like me happy over the years, he still made a lot of decisions that favored gameplay and fun over realism. Early on he decided to make the game only playable from the blue NATO/Western/US side and complaints about player missile reliability were addressed in patches, particularly after the release of SF2 North Atlantic. If you install SFP1 SP2a (the last major release before Wings Over Vietnam, which marked a major turn in AI dogfighting ability and flight modeling), you will find a given scenario such as 4 x F-4D vs 4 x MiG-21MF plays very differently. The AIM-7s and AIM-9s are far more likely to fail and if you don't have a gun, the MiG-21s have a decent chance. Having played online multiplayer with SFP1/WoX for years, I can say in a 1 vs 1 with player flown F-4s vs player flown MiGs, the F-4 has a hard time winning. The MiG-19 was the best PvP aircraft in the game, having the maneuverability of the MiG-17 and the power of the F-4. The MiG-17 wasn't easy to beat. The MiG-21 was for the most part a fair fight. The deviation between blue and red weapons parameters are but one small piece of the puzzle: it is the AI that really determines the difficulty of a given mission.

The A-X specification kept changing. At some point, the requirement for 30mm cannon was added. Aircraft designs progressed continuously as the specification changed from turboprop to turbofan and adding the gun. Was the A-10 design significantly complete before the gun requirement was added, then modified? Or was a completely new approach used to accommodate the gun? There is a clear history of the USAF request for proposal requirements. There are examples of proposals with turboprops long before the gun requirement was added. I suspect the designs we know as the A-9 and A-10 were not finalized until after the 1970 RFPs (including the gun). Since the gun was exceptionally large, the aircraft had to be designed around it, but they were also designed around the rest of the specifications for armor, payload, maneuverability, range, loiter time, and redundancy/survivability. The gun was just one of many requirements. But its size, shape, and weight definitely affected the overall design. It is not an exaggeration to say the A-10 was built around the gun, but it was also built around the titanium "bathtub" cockpit and the widely separated pod mounted engines. It is false to believe the gun design came first, then prototype aircraft were designed around it.

I have been wondering what happened to KillerBee. We interacted several times via emails/forums because we shared interest not only in Strike Fighters Project 1, but in some of the skins and missions for it. A lot of us old Strike Fighters fans are on the wrong side of the aging curve, so I had feared the worst. Now I know I was correct. I am sad to hear the news but relieved to know what happened. It seems you are as proud of your father as I you should be and I hope you carry on his legacy with pride. Everyone here shares the love of military aviation and Strike Fighters, too. I am glad you got to share that with your father. My son happens to have joined the Marines last summer. He has never taken to flight sims, but he grew up with my models, played some of my sims, went to airshows, and toured some of the best museums; so he knows a little bit more about airplane recognition than most and has sat in many cockpits. I hope you share your love and knowledge of military aviation with others, too. Semper Fi! and may your father rest in peace.

It has been quite a few years since I used it regularly. Hyperlobby was the only way to really meet people to play the Strike Fighters Project 1/Wings Over X series online. The removal of multiplayer from Strike Fighters 2 largely ended my time on Hyperlobby. I did try hosting SFP1/WoX a few more times, but the few people that used to fly SF online had moved on. Salute to Jiri for having hosted Hyperlobby so long!

Along with Falcon 4.0, this was a precursor to what DCS World is now. I periodically fired it up to enjoy the complexity/realism. But I never took to the Super Hornet. The Blue Angels were flying the F/A-18A and later F/A-18C "legacy" Hornets. Interestingly enough, just as the legacy Hornets were being retired, DCS World added the F/A-18C rather than the far more contemporary F/A-18E Super Hornet. The irony of the old sim modeling the future while the new sim models the past. I was running Windows 98SE on an intel Pentium 3 Tualatin 1.2 GHz with PC133 RAM (512/1024 MB?) and a Voodoo 5500 gpu, later an ATi Radeon 8500 128MB. Of course I downloaded and installed all of the mods that kept it going for years even though I rarely played it. "Team Super Hornet" kept Jane's F/A-18 going for many years with resolution/graphics fixes and extra features -- I seem to remember them adding a flyable F-14 at one point. The only thing holding Jane's F/A-18 back was the fact that the source code was never released, which was the key to Falcon 4.0's longevity. So, Jane's F/A-18 is relegated to being almost unplayable on modern hardware and even if working 100% correctly, it looks dated while Falcon 4.0 is still getting major updates from the BMS freeware team while the new Microprose prepares to release Falcon 5.0. DCS World provides the absolute best F/A-18C experience possible, especially if you have the Super Carrier module with realistic flight deck crew. But it isn't a Super Hornet. For now, the best option is the VRS Superbug for Prepar3d, which cannot match the combat experience of the old Jane's F/A-18 much less the DCS World experience. I still have my Jane's F/A-18 install CD and keyboard map, but it has been quite a few years since I last installed and played it.

AMDs Adrenaline software also supports recording and streaming. I have used both nVidia and AMD to record/stream. There are parameters you can adjust to trade off between image quality/frame rate and file size/performance hit.

SF2 is codes for TrackIR, so any head/eye tracking system that can hook into TrackIR games will work. At only point, the payware app, VorpX, allowed VR to work with SF2. CAStarry had made a profile that worked for several years. But VorpX is constantly updated and around 2020 a patch broke the profile CA Starry had developed. I haven't ever got it working again.

M1's sent to Ukraine had their advanced armor plates removed to prevent capture by the Russians, not unlike export T-72's sent to the middle east that didn't have their advanced laminate armor plates installed, which allowed M60A1 tanks to 1-hole them with 105mm at maximum range.

Did you find and apply the BDG MiG Alley 0.85 patch that improves the stability and supports TrackIR? I was disappointed when they never upgraded/re-released MiG Alley the way they did Battle of Britain. I don't have many mods, just the patches and a couple of basic skins: F-86_Generic_BWStripes, F-86_Generic_YellowStripes, and "The Huff".

That looks great! You are always pushing the limits.

It is a shame that the Strike Fighters 2 series cannot easily be adapted to VR. Due to its older game engine designed for much slower PCs, it runs smooth as glass in VR, which can't be said of MSFS or DCS World. If the interior cockpits were fully modeled for 360 degree views and SF2 natively supported OpenXR, it would be a great VR sim.

Ironic that the master thief didn't want anyone stealing property that he had stolen. He didn't want anyone posting screenshots that he didn't approve of. He accused Third Wire/TK of trying to intentionally sabotage his project with the changes TK made to SF2. The goal of accurately recreating the history of Vietnam was great. His execution of that goal is not a legacy I would want to honor in any way. I respect his service to the country as a fighter pilot who risked his life in combat. But that doesn't pardon his behavior in this community.

Great information. This entire thread was quite the learning experience.

"Sonic boom buster" is an aerospike. Still curious why it is only seen on this one variant. Maybe they were trying out a new idea. Or compared to earlier designs, the AIM-4F needed a drag reduction to reach performance goals?

I would agree that looks plausible. In the other examples, the shape of the cone is very flat or blunt requiring a fairly long spike. Maybe the AIM-4 was sufficiently aerodynamic that it only needed a relatively short one to get the desired drag reduction? My question would be why only this version of the AIM-4? It seems the aerospike concept was first utilized in the 1970s, a bit before the AIM-4F's time. I would bet that even though it may not have been intended to be an aerospike, that it certainly acted like one.

AIM-4F has two claimed improvements: better SARH guidance and better ECCM. The nose probe is probably an antenna involved with one of those two improvements. But I can't find any documents online that go into any real detail on the AIM-4 series of missiles.

What year does the base (fictional map) SF2 install stop? Did a quick install. Base SF2 stops at F-4D_75 and F-4E_75, both of which are the latest year variants included.

Great work!