streakeagle

The mobile games look impressive for a tablet/phone game. But the simulation value is negligible. It is wishful thinking to believe TK will ever release anything else for SF2. He doesn't even officially support it being installed past Windows 7. If anything good is going to come of this, it is that the mobile game will eventually morph into SF3. But as it stands now, the PC version is a very basic port. It could not handle having all of my flight sim USB hardware installed. You have to have only one game controller device connected to guarantee correct behavior. The best device for playing the PC version is an Xbox controller, which is sad.

Cockpits are a nice start... but the mobile games are still along way from the original SFP1, much less SF2. Fortunately for me, I can mostly get what I wanted out of SF2 from DCS World. But you still can't beat SF2 for the plane set. SF2 also remains the best sim for Korea, Vietnam, and Arab-Israeli Wars. It has all the right terrains with all the right ground objects and all the right aircraft. I tried all of the mobile games and have the PC version, but I never play them.

All you have to do is look at the lives of the people who are shouting the loudest about climate change and how you have to give up luxuries to save the planet. I can't name one of them that isn't hypocritical. If you believe the planet is in danger, you don't just tell other people to change their ways. You set the example. Having huge mansions that consume tons of electricity and need tons of water for gardening, which also consumes tons of electricity, is not setting the example. Flying all over the world in your private jet or a chartered jet when you can use the internet to provide high definition live video and audio feeds is insane. Driving around in limos or large SUVs isn't exactly following the example either. Excusing all of this by claiming you are paying for "carbon credits" is the same as saying, "rich people can live anyway they want while middle and lower classes have to follow the rules."

I need to update my specs. The original Oculus Rift supported Windows 7 at release. But as they kept adding new features, Windows 7 did not support many of them. So Oculus dropped official support for Windows 7. In the mean time, I had been studying the contenders for the next generation of VR and came to realize that all future VR hardware was going to only be compatible with Windows 10. So, I bit the bullet and ran the free Windows 10 upgrade on my Windows 7 PC. I first imaged the Windows 7 installation from my 500 GB SSD to a new 1 TB SSD (the latest Samsung superfast M2 release). I then downloaded the still publicly available free Windows 10 upgrade setup from Microsoft to a USB key and ran it to upgrade to Windows 10. I am in the process of doing the same thing for my son so that he can use the old Oculus Rift with the latest features.

I simultaneously made the jump for a 46 inch 1080p LCD tv from 2006 to a 49 inch 4K TV and received a new Oculus Rift S. Playing DCS World in 4K on a large screen TV is stunning. It looks good and I can visually track aircraft out to more realistic ranges. The Rift S makes a subtle but significant improvement in VR image quality without penalizing performance too much. I can now read all the labels and gauges in most aircraft as well as visually acquire and track small fighters.

The MiG-21 has several issues. The most important to me is that after many years since the original release, the gunsight does not have the basic functionality that it should have. It should essentially behave like the P-51D's K-14 with the option to use manual range input or radar range input like the F-86. So the diamond circle should change size with the range input and the wingspan input like every other gunsight from that generation. If you have the range input and wingspan input correct, the diamond circle should match the wingspan of the target. It has none of that functionality and does't seem to compute lead very well either. The P-51D's K-14 probably works too well... I am able to use it to place rounds with near pinpoint accuracy if the target co-operates enough. The F-86 gunsight appears to function correctly, but the lead computation seems to be off compared to the accuracy I get with the K-14. The MiG-21bis' LCOS reticle is effectively useless, you can be more accurate just using the fixed reticle and judge the lead from experience. The MiG-21 generally looks as good or better than any other module... but it achieves those good looks inefficiently. It takes too much hard drive space and degrades frame rate performance, especially when other MiG-21s are flying nearby. But the other problem that has bothered me as much or more than the gunsight functionality is the dirty canopy. The globs of sealant around the periscope and the much splattered all over the glass resemble a museum bird that has been left out in the weather without maintenance for 10 to 20 years. The glare from the sun combined with all the dirt on the glass made dogfights very difficult for me. So, in response to questions/complaints about these problems, the company reps who post on the DCS forums are very hostile and defensive. They ultimately claim they are providing improved canopy visibility options, but also claim they don't have enough information to model the gunsight correctly. I have read the manual it spells out behavior damn near identical to the F-86 gunsight except for a few new features/options. Why is it that nearly every other DCS World aircraft has been able to get the gunsight working correctly, but not the MiG-21? I am a huge MiG-21 fan and was amazed by how complete it was for the initial release. But over the years, the MiG-21bis got a lot worse before it started getting better. Instead of fixing the MiG-21bis or releasing a contemporary opponent, Leatherneck releases a biplane.

I know they chose the A-8 because of its high production numbers in their target year of 1944, but the A-5 was a much better air superiority version that would be much closer in performance to its DCS allied rivals, the Spitfire and Mustang. The A-8 weighs more, has less speed, lower climb rates, worse turn performance. The D-9 is the aircraft intended to take on 1944 era air superiority. The Fw190A-5 is a contemporary of the Spitfire Mk IX. It is the variant that should have been modeled.

I couldn't resist the I-16... a Gee Bee with machine guns and open cockpit :)

Based on my experience with the MiG-21, I have zero confidence in Leatherneck. I hope they can produce a respectable F-8, but if it ends up being comparable to the quality of the MiG-21bis, it will end up a hangar queen if I even bother to buy it.

Both the Hornet and the Tomcat like very low speeds. The Hornet has issues with its G restriction, so you have to go slow to access its full maneuverability. The Tomcat has to be flown very carefully... too fast and it accelerates even more rather than turning. Too slow and its speed bleeds very quickly. Finding and maintaining the sweet spot is challenging. I find the F-15C more forgiving than either one. I can adjust my AoA to build energy or trade speed for angles. Keep your speed between 300 and 450 knots, and you will do fine. If the F-15 had been given maneuvering flaps and leading edge flaps or slats, it would have dominated ACM aside from its large size being too easy to spot. I like the view out of the F-15, too. Right now, I think the Hornet is a good choice for most people: it can dogfight, it can pound the ground, and despite all the buttons and menus, it is very easy to start up, take off, fly, and land. Once you get its speed low enough, it is incredibly agile. For pure air-to-air, the F-15C would be my favorite, but the lack of full systems modeling / clickable cockpit is a huge drawback. If I wanted to fly a "lite" sim, I would have stayed with SF2. But that simplicity makes it so much easier to employ effectively with little or no practice. So, for me, the F-14B is the coolest of the available US "teen" fighters. It is probably the most capable, but requires a lot of skill and knowledge to operate correctly... and you have to deal with an AI RIO and/or switch seats to get certain things done. I haven't used the RIO much. If I ever learn how to use the Voice Attack / VAICOM Pro correctly, the RIO will be more realistic and useful.

The F-14B is an amazing module. It is largely old-school analog... roughly the same tech level as the F-4J. Even with its powerful engines, you aren't going to beat small, agile fires by just pushing the throttles forward and yanking hard on the stick. I can't wait for the F-14A, whose power-to-weight is very close to the F-4J. It will even more skill and patience to wing gun fights. This module will keep me entertained until the F-4E is released. I question the performance modeling of the F-15C vs the F-14B. The F-14B should be somewhat equal or better than the F-15C over most of the flight envelope. Yet, I can win just about any dogfight quickly and easily in the F-15C but have to work my butt off to win in the F-14B. Is the F-15C overmodeled? Is the F-14B undermodeled? Or are they are both dead-on and I am ill-informed? I am uncertain of the validity of the attached graph. I would have expected the F-16C and F-15C to be have their data lines swapped based on pilot anecdotes. This only shows the F-14A. It shows the F-4E and F-14A to be very close at Mach 0.8 or above, which largely agrees with the info I have available. Most published data on F-14 vs F-4 is against a hard wing F-4J rather than a slatted F-4E.

Very nice!

Each aircraft module is effectively a complete study sim (some more complete than others). The fact that they share the same free graphics engine and base world maps doesn't change the fact that one aircraft is modeled to an incredible amount of detail. Microsoft FSX / Lockheed P3d is far from cheap. Buy the base games, then go get an Accusim aircraft like the P-40, P-51, and/or Spitfire. Buy TacPack. Buy Orbx terrain addons... Hardcore simulation is labor intensive, and labor costs money. I said many years ago at SimHQ that I would easily pay $100 or more for a study-sim of the F-4 and MiG-21. I am halfway there ;) I have all of the DCS World addon aircraft. It wasn't cheap. But I have spent far more on hardware: joysticks, HOTAS, gpus, RAM, entire new machines, etc. Once purchased, the modules are good until ED goes bankrupt... which is a lot longer than my much more expensive hardware has lasted and will last in the near future.

Warthog Throttle removed, real F-4 control panels surrounding the throttle levers installed.

I used to own every air combat wargame I could find, both board game and miniatures rules as well as most modern armor board games and miniatures rules. I had GHQ 1/285 miniatures to support US Army battalions of M60A3, M1A1, and M2/M3 with infantry stands and USSR T-72/T-80/BMP-2 regiments. I played using the GDW Command Decision Combined Arms rules where 1 miniature = 1 platoon (3-6 vehicles). But I had some miniatures rules and board games that were 1:1 scale, too. Avalon Hill's TAC Air board game had 1 counter = 1 battalion, so the hardware details didn't matter, but it was fantastic for recreating the tactics needed to hold or break a line using combined arms: armor, infantry, artillery, helos, air support, supply, and command/control. TAC Air would have been even more fun to play with a large scale 3d map and miniatures. My favorite 1:1 scale board game was Air Cav. Board games and miniatures are a very different experience than PC games. I miss playing them, but they are no fun if you always have to play by yourself. PC games' inherent support of single player is what makes them the dominant way to play wargames in the present. I threw all my games away when I moved to a new house. The only game I have left is a very realistic air combat game: Birds of Prey. It plays out 3d 1:1 scale dogfights nearly as realistically as PC flight sims. Very good physics, but a little slow and painful to play with multiple people if none of them know the rules and/or have never played a wargame before.

FM is not dead on, but mostly OK for the player. AI is allowed to cheat in many ways, including the ability to catch up and get in formation faster and easier than a player could under the same circumstances.

I know the A is coming later. Originally the A was the focus... but everyone that really wants a D begged for the B. The F-14A is the aircraft I grew up with and is the one I want to fly. The F-14B (F-14A+ to me) was just going into service when I went into the Navy and I saw one of the F-14D prototypes at Miramar's open house/air show in the 1989/1990 time frame with its distinctive double nose sensor. The F-14B is an F-14 on easy mode. I want to fight the TF-30 engines and struggle to manage energy as the F-14A had almost the same T/W as the F-4J. The TF-30 had a lot if issues that made it difficult to employ in a dogfight that might require rapid throttle changes between idle and Max A/B. You don't fly the plane, you fly the engine ;)

I will have to settle for the F-14B. I prefer the F-14A.

On the joystick side of this problem, I have an extra B-8 style grip that doesn't have a multi-pin mil-spec connector like the real F-4 B-8. Instead, it was designed to screw on to a stick and run the wires down the to the controls, presumably for a helo stick like the OH-58 Kiowa or the UH-1 Huey. I have ordered the VKB addon space grip for my MCG Pro stick. I didn't want or need that grip, but I bought the cheaper version with fewer analog axes for $70 so I could open it up and transfer its guts to my xtra B-8 (a $250 purchase from an aviation parts supplier). That should give me a fully functional B-8 grip that screws on to my VKB stick just like the MCG Pro grip. At the same time, I have two Warthog sticks because when my throttle died, I couldn't get a spare board to fix it, so it was more cost effective to buy an entire HOTAS with both throttle and stick for $380 from Germany than to by the throttle by itself for over $300. The new stick is smoother than the old one, perhaps better lubrication? or a molded gimbal without the rough texture? So, I may reinstall my real F-4 stick with its awesome springs that provide not only centering but an awesome feel much closer to the artificial stick forces provided on a real F-4 but this time connect it to sensors and buttons from my old Warthog joystick providing higher resolution and maintenance free hall sensors as opposed to the BU0836X 12-bit analog usb board with industrial linear potentiometers that eventually required daily cleaning with alcohol to minimize electrical noise from dirty contacts lines.

I am not sure what would cause this problem. Try deleting your controls ini file and using the default keyboard assignments. If those work, then the file isn't taking your input mapping correctly. I like merging the default key mappings with my custom stick mappings as a secondary control set so I can use either/or. To do this, I create a custom ini named after my stick (I have more than one type and have to make a custom map for each type). I map the inputs for the stick then edit the file to have all of the customized stick mappings in a secondary set while copying/pasting the default mappings to the default/primary control set.

So I need to re-engineer my wooden left console to mimic the dimensions and geometry in the photos. I currently have a 3/4 inch thick piece of very nice wood covering the top, but I think I made it just wide enough to accommodate my paper printout from the manual and not the bordering frames. I can get cut two new pieces of wood with the right shape and dimensions, then route the edges to support angled aluminum frames, then attach imitation DZUS rail tabs made from angled aluminum to match the geometry of my panels as shown in the above "before" photo. If I can get a clear weekend, I can probably get it done in less than a day. Then all I have to do is come up with a mechanism that replicates the throttle quadrant size/range of motion complete with the finger-lift idle detents and the movement of the throttle levers to the outboard to engage afterburners. I want to make the whole thing adjustable so that I can match the angles described in the manual and/or adjust the stops to meet the DCS World implementation of the after-burner detents. I would also like to modify Strike Fighters 2 to precisely hit 100% military power at the MIL detent, then allow afterburner staging after moving to the outboard position. I can't wait for the DCS World Mi-24 and F-16 to be delivered so that the former Belsimtek can return to the F-4E they had started before ED absorbed them and focused their effort on the F-16. After years of hoping for a Falcon 4.0 study sim focused on the F-4 and MiG-21, ED is going to finally deliver my dream with its highly developed version Flanker/LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs/DCS game engine. DCS World will probably never equal SF2's plane set with its huge range of flyable and AI aircraft with countless minor variants reflected in cockpit models, external models, and systems modeling. But I am already very happy with its multi-generational survey library of great air superiority matchups modeled beyond the Falcon 4.0 study sim level of realism: P-51/Spitfire vs Bf-109/Fw190, F-86 vs MiG-15, F-5/F-15/M2000/F-18 vs MiG-21/MiG-29/Su-27/Su-33. With the MiG-19 and F-14 about to be released, the F-16 within the year, and the MiG-23 and F-4 on the horizon... it is an extremely bright future for me! Not to mention the other aircraft and helicopters already available and an F-15E and an F-105G in Razbam's future plans.

I so badly needed a photo showing the left console/throttle quadrant with all of the panels removed so I could try to replicate its geometry now that I have real panels. I have been searching the internet for information on the F-4 throttle quadrant for many years (more than a decade?), and just when I need it, this pops up: a before and after photos set of a an F-4 left console being restored. Perfect :)

In comparison to the F-4, P-51s are a dime a dozen. I see two P-51s flying near my work place almost every day giving paid rides. The Collings Foundation F-4D Phantom is the only privately owned operational F-4 in the world to my knowledge. I think Congress had to approve its sale. It would be an absolute treasure to get this F4H-1F/F-4A fully restored and flying the airshow circuit. There are plenty of F-4s at museums (including this limited production early prototype), having something like this touring the country and/or world for public airshows would be awesome. When I got out o the Navy, I went to the Mac Dill AFB open house airshow nearly every year until I got married (and went to a couple more after my son was old enough). For me, the star of the flight demonstrations was the F-104 team with their awesome J-79 jet engines, which have a distinctive sound compared to all the more modern turbofan engines. It reminded me of my childhood airshows at Mac Dill with F-4s, which sound even better with twin J-79s :) Don't get me wrong, I love the P-51 Mustang. But they are fairly common compared to the F-4 unless you happen to live in one of the countries still operating F-4E variants. As for the one-piece front windshield, it was developed to increase resistance to bird strikes and also increased forward visibility. I would think it would be hard to get one, but maybe modern manufacturing techniques made it cheap to make a new one or they recovered a spare from one of the very few upgraded F-4s? As a safety upgrade with its much greater strength and much better forward view, I don't mind considering the goal was to make this aircraft flyable.

I doubt I will ever be able to afford either one, but that F-4 is pretty special. Look at the nose. It is a version prior to the F-4B, most likely designated as an F-4A in later documents. It looks like the front windshield has been replaced by the single-piece version used on a handful of F-4Es, F-4Gs, and RF-4Cs. That would be a sweet ride if restored to flying condition... but it is a hard wing that will bite you at high AoA.