streakeagle

My F-4 throttle handles and associated panels arrived. They are in pretty good condition. There were some buttons on the left throttle whose function I couldn't identify. After searching the internet, I found a reference from a book I have read that revealed the functions of the unidentified buttons. From Ed Rasimus' "Palace Cobra: A Fighter Pilot in the Vietnam War", "... and simultaneously reach over the front of the inboard throttle to hit the dogfight button on the front that will switch the radar to five-mile scope and boresight. All I'll have to do is put the gun sight on the MiG and the radar will feed the AIM-7 a lock-on. If I need the gun, a flip of the tiny switch on the outboard throttle with the pinky on my left hand will give me the Vulcan." So in the early 1970's, F-4s were already modified to have a basic HOTAS: a button to engage boresight radar mode and a switch to enable the gun. Not too much later, the famous 556 mod would give the F-4E an outboard throttle grip pinky switch to select guns / AIM-9 / AIM-7. As the DCS World F-4E will be a late ARN-101 version, it will probably reflect the 556 mod or better. I may need to modify my authentic throttle grips to account for later revisions of their switch configuration.

I think I spotted two SF screenshots.

That is my WSO. He isn't very good at operating the radar or navigating, but he barks at anything that moves or makes a sound and stays by my side as long as he is fed a steady diet of treats.

I need to model the flaps lever and mount it in the correct position, outboard of the throttle, behind and above.

I have replaced my Warthog stick with a VKB MCG Pro, which has been great. But I have been getting the itch to make progress on making a more complete F-4 cockpit experience in anticipation of the future DCS World F-4E that may be only a year or two or three away. I have throttle handles, the panel with the slots and brushes where the throttle protrude, and the panels to either side on the way. I have a Warthog throttle that "bricked", so I am finally going to order a board and try to fix it, then hopefully use it as the base for making an F-4 throttle. I have two Warthog sticks as a result of buying a replacement for the broken throttle, so I am thinking about adapting it to my real F-4 stick so I don't have to clean pots like a did the last time I used the real F-4 stick. Alternatively, I may buy another VKB grip and gut it to adapt an extra B-8 grip I have to fit on the VKB stick. I may end up with two sim pits, one dedicated F-4 pit and one designed to be reconfigured to support several DCS aircraft. The F-4 pit would be in front of my PC and the generic/adaptable pit would be in front of my son's PC. I just need to upgrade his gpu or better yet build a new PC for me and give him my current PC. Just a matter of time and money along with some creative engineering.

I have never been much of a campaign person. I prefer flying generic 1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 1v4, 2v4, and 4v4 single player missions to test particular tactics and types against each other or fly historically accurate single missions. So what matters most to me is the accuracy of the flight models, the weapons/damage modeling, and the behavior of the AI. I haven't played CloD enough to really get a feel on how it compares to my other sims. But I have played BoB2:WoV enough to know that I love the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf109 flight modeling as well as how the AI flies those aircraft when set to the highest skill levels. The SFP1/SF2 series has some of the most entertaining/challenging dogfight AI of any flight sims I have played... but it has cheats that make it so. SF2 AI can always see you without regard to canopy/visibility limitations even if you are low and on its 6. SF2 AI knows if you are looking at or targeting it even if it can't see you... so the enemy almost always reacts to your presence and will probably engage you rather than other AI enemies. BoB2 seems to do a much better job of having dynamic AI reacting to the entire situations instead of just you with the skill level somewhat realistically affecting its choice of tactics. So BoB2 AI is as fun and challenging as SF2 AI, yet doesn't appear to be cheating as much if at all. There is nothing that can replace the experience of trying to defend Britain against a sky full of Nazi bombers and fighter escorts with but a few Spitfires and/or Hurricanes. I can only imagine how the real pilots felt having to face those odds day after day. If Germany had stayed focused on bombing the airfields and other strategic targets rather than trying to break morale by bombing the general population, one can only wonder whether the UK would have been able to hold on and maintain a Western front to help the USSR stay in the fight. CloD may not be as good as BoB2 at modeling the full scope of the Battle of Britain, but the graphics and plane set still let you experience aspects of it in a way that the very dated BoB2 can't. But if I could only have one, it would be BoB2. But the truth is that I don't have the time to play all of the flight sims I have accumulated over the years. I used to focus on the SFP1/SF2 series because of my preference for the F-4 Phantom and MiG-21, but the halt in SF2 progress followed by the rise of DCS World forced my transition. Lately, I have spent more time in civil flight sims than I ever have due to FSX/P3d having TacPack supported F-4s and AeroflyFS2 and X-Plane 11 also supporting VR. But I by far spend most of my time flying all of the DCS World modules. It is hard but fun for me to try to maintain basic proficiency with such a large library of aircraft modeled to a study-sim level. So BoB2 isn't even installed and CloD is only on my hard drive as long as I have room for it.

Setting modded files to read-only always worked for me.

The AI wasn't designed to leverage the abilities of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Those aircraft are really beyond the scope of the game. MiG-29/Su-27 AI should have their radars off and be positioned by GCI/AWACS, then try to use IRST, laser ranging, and HMS to avoid lighting up RWRs. In the right circumstances, MiG-29s and Su-27s could rack up kills way better than the VPAF did with MiG-21 hit-and-run Atoll tactics (which were really effective against rigid USAF formations and tactics). If you are in a fairly big fight, your RWR may be lit up my multiple bogies from multiple directions. The RWR can only give you so much information. I was a submarine sonar tech. Submarines have WLR systems (sonar warning receivers). They false alarm quite a bit. When you get a threat alarm (i.e. torpedo homing sonar), you have to decide is it real or false. If in doubt, you execute standard torpedo evasion maneuvers... which the enemy may know and intentionally force you to execute to draw you into a trap. Electronic warfare is a difficult game to win at 5 kts (typical submarine speed while trying to be quiet), way harder at 500 kts. Keep in mind, the SF2 game is very predictable despite TK's efforts to make it otherwise. If you play enough, you will learn situational awareness, of which the RWR is only one part. You will learn the flaws in the AI logic and once you do, the AI will only beat you if you are tired, distracted, or go out of your way to avoid exploiting their weaknesses. Fly an F-4 against a horde of MiG-17s, MiG-19s, and/or MiG-21s. Fly a MiG-23 against a flight of F-4Es, F-15s, or F-16s. If you fly the same missions over and over, you can learn to win them. Once you do, the game becomes an algorithm... execute the right moves to avoid attacks while patiently waiting for useful/effective firing opportunities. Later patches made most of the missiles somewhat reliable when fired within parameters. You can get between 50% and 75% hit rates with early AIM-9, AIM-7, and R-3/K-13 (AA-2 Atoll) missiles if you are patient. With later variants, you don't have to be as patient or you can get 90% or better hit rates.

There is an "Action View" that was finally made functional after many years of being a placeholder. It will automatically jump to events like weapon launches. Using action view or radio calls... use the pause button, then position the camera wherever you want it. You can quickly jump between aircraft or ground objects until you are near the shot you want, then go free camera to get the screenshot you want. It is hard to make videos because there is no way to record and playback a mission, so you may have to play the same or similar missions several times to put together a good video. But thanks to the pause button and the ability to move the camera anywhere, you can always get great screenshots.

R-73 wouldn't trigger a RWR. Only the launching aircraft's radar.

The F-15X has the explicit purpose of acting like an AIM-120 magazine with an AWACS radar. If produced, you can be sure it will be able to carry as many missiles as safely possible and the radar will hopefully perform as well as hoped to allow F-22 and F-35 fighters to leave their radars off.

RWR can be useful if the aircraft has one... but only for radar guided missiles. The only warning you will get for an IR missile is possibly a launch call over the radio. In a high threat area like downtown Hanoi, the RWR will be so cluttered that it is effectively useless. Robin Olds was forced to accept RWR field mods in his unit's F-4C Phantoms. He found them useless and turned the volume off. From the time they flew into enemy territory the RWR was lit up with threats from all directions... something he already knew. So he didn't want the distraction of all the audio warnings. He was a master of situational awareness. He was able to continuously call SAM launches and break warnings while engaging enemy MiGs. SF2 in its final patched form has major limits on ranges for drawing objects. The range at which a B-52 becomes visible on screen is remarkably short for such a large aircraft. There is help somewhere on these forums on how to manipulate the ini files to get longer view ranges if your cpu, RAM, and gpu can handle it.

There is no way to padlock a missile. However you can padlock the subject of the last radio call the <R> key by default: SELECT_LAST_RADIO=R So if a SAM launch is called, you will be able to look at the launcher, and therefore presumably see the missile and/or its launch contrail. The same is true of an aircraft missile launch that has been called on the radio. The problem is that in a high threat environment, there may be multiple radio calls close together and you may not be padlocking what you wanted to padlock.

I haven't had BoB2 installed since I migrated to this computer to let my son have my former PC. You are making me thing about installing it again. It provides many experiences that few if any sims have ever provided.

The older analog radars using the Avionics60.dll always have green graphics. It is hard coded in the library and no provision was made to customize the color.

Unicode files can be saved as simple text files. JPGs can be saved as bmp files, but WOI with the expansion pack should be compatible with unicode and JPGs if I remember correctly.

There was a point where SF2 was patched to lock up the stock lods and a point where the 3d models were changes such that they wouldn't work in earlier patch revisions... I am thinking that was when bump mapping was added? I was always a fan of SFP1/WoX multiplayer and had done a lot of work importing SF2 aircraft models (external and cockpit) into WOI with expansion pack 1. SF2 was more complicated / realistic avionics, such as the RWR functionality, so you have to dumb down the cockpit ini files to match the capabilities of WoI Expansion Pack 1. My work was primarily on F-4 variants. You have to splice relevant ini lines from the WOI F-4s into the SF2 files to create an F-4 with WOI functionality and SF2 models/textures. It is not hard, but a little time consuming. I think my main problem with WoI Expansion Pack 1 in terms of bugs was with the F-16. I vaguely remember it had some kind of flight model problem. But the real work is integrating the other WoX games into SF2: merging the terrains, objects, weapons, etc. I decided it wasn't worth the time.

WOI with the expansion pack was just short of being SF2I. Much of the code going into the first SF2 release went into WoI, its patches, and its expansion. WoI with the expansion pack provides a unique situation: it can import the 3d models and textures of the stock aircraft from the early SF2 releases and it also supports multiplayer. However, there were still plenty of bugs in the final patched version which TK never addressed. So, if you don't notice or mind the remaining bugs, it is the most advanced version of the SFP1/WoX series, just short of SF2.

I never cared for the original IL-2 very much. When Pacific Fighters came out, I enjoyed flying the F4U from carriers. Other than F4U carrier ops and some P40 missions vs Japanese, I have less than 10 hours of flying time invested in all the IL-2 releases from the first all the way to 1946. If you count mods, you can also fly just about anything in the SF series. I don't like IL-2 1946 to begin with, so I have zero interest in its mods... Especially trying to make jet fighters with radar and missiles work. Mods not withstanding, virtually no sims ever had the Blenheim or the Beaufighter as flyables out of the box... and certainly none with the graphics quality and realism of CoD.

It has taken a long time, and there is still some work to be done, but the C-101 has succeeded where the Hawk failed. For me, the C-101 was always better than the Hawk. But the simple flight model ensured that I did not fly it often. The new external flight model and armed variant now make it a viable alternative to the L-39. I did not go for the pre-release of the Christen Eagle. In fact, I wasn't planning on buying it at all. I have much better alternatives for flying civilian stunt biplanes: P3D and Aerofly FS2. However, I am all about the flight modeling and a review by a real Christen Eagle pilot convinced me to get it. I don't have much stick time yet, so I haven't explored the edges of the envelope that this aircraft is supposedly the first to capture correctly in DCS World, perhaps in any consumer PC flight sim. But as cool as it is to fly, it is unarmed and therefore won't get any more flight time from me than trainer jets like the L-39 and C-101. DCS World's principal advantage over P3D / X-Plane is its comprehensive and realistic modeling of combat. I am in favor of DCS World expanding its capabilities to compete directly with FSX/P3D/X-Plane such as a map comprising of the entire globe and a healthy civil aviation plane set fully modeled. But sight seeing in aerobatic biplanes is really low on my priority list when I could be knocking Tomcats out of the sky with Tigers while flying over Nevada. While I am more familiar with the Fw190A-5, I will gladly buy the Fw190A-8 when it becomes available for download. It will be interesting to compare it to the performance of the Fw190D-9 when fighting against the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX LF. I am eagerly awaiting the F-14 and the MiG-19 which are being released very soon.

I bought the updated Steam version a while back because it was cheap and I understood it was largely fixed compared to the original release. The graphics are nice. I like the plane set. For me, it is the one reason to fly CoD. The Beaufighter and Blenheim aren't flyable in any recent and/or mainstream WW2 combat flight sims. But I will hardly ever fly it. There are simply too many available options that are better, both newer and older.

There is an instant action for the Hornet in the Persian Gulf that is a guns only 2 vs 2 fight against the MiG-15bis. It reminds me of so many SFP1/SF2 fights with the F-4 vs the MiG-17. AI response is similar and tactics required to win are similar... Given both sims have fairly realistic flight models, here is why the combat feels so similar: Weight: F-4 41,500, F/A-18 36,970 A/B thrust: F-4 2x17,900, F/A-18 2x17,750 Mil thrust: F-4 2x11,905, F/A-18 2x11,000 Wing loading: F-4 41,500 / 530 = 78 lbs/ft^2, F/A-18 36,970 / 410 = 90 Wing span: F-4 38 ft 5 in, F/A-18 40 ft 4 in The Hornet's aspect ratio and maneuvering flaps make up for its wing loading, but a slatted F-4E has respectable AoA authority. The F/A-18C is really a slightly smaller F-4 with more agility, a bubble canopy, but slower and smaller stores load. The F/A-18E pretty much matches the size and payload of the F-4. Of course the MiG-17 is basically a MiG-15bis with an afterburner and wings swept back a bit more for better transonic/supersonic performance. At dogfight speeds, the MiG-15bis is a lot like a MiG-17F stuck in military power with a higher wing loading. So, beating the Korean War era MiG-15bis with an F/A-18C in a guns only fight is not much easier than beating a Vietnam War MiG-17F with a slatted F-4E. The Hornet can climb and turn using its power/weight advantage to spiral above the MiG-15 and then bleed that altitude pulling high AoA to saddle up for a medium to close range gunshot. It is a little bit easier than the F-4 vs MiG-17 because the Hornet can briefly pull some radical AoA to lead for a gun shot while the MiG-15 can't turn or retain energy quite as well as a MiG-17. If you try to beat the MiG-15 with a ham-fisted turn-n-burn fight, you will bleed your speed giving the MiG-15 a chance to gain angles or even get a decent shot. Of course flying an unslatted F-4 or better yet an F-100D or F-105D vs the MiG-17 is far more challenging, but the overall fight looks the same. You just have to be more proficient at exploiting boom-n-zoom opportunities given the AoA restrictions on unslatted F-4s.

I never bought CloD until the relatively recent Steam Blitz edition offer popped up in December of 2017. Patch 4.54 was just released a few days ago. The patch was so big (8 GB) that it was effectively a new installation. So I took it for a ride. The graphics look very good, especially for such an older game. The Spitfire feels twitchy, i.e. really sensitive to very small stick movements, but that is not surprising considering the DCS World Spitfire Mk IX pretty much feels the same way. The problem is that despite great graphics and what seems to be a passable flight model, I still like Battle of Britain 2: Wings of Victory more for the excellent dogfight AI and the option to fly in full scale bomber interception battles where the sky is truly filled with Nazi bombers. Additionally, the latest games like DCS World and IL-2 BoX support VR and generally have equal or better graphics. If I didn't have DCS World, I would probably be flying IL-2 BoX. But if I didn't have either of those sims, I might be playing CloD. But since I have DCS World and pretty much spend most of my sim time flying DCS aircraft, both CloD and IL-2 BoX just take up space on my hard drive. I will keep my eye on CloD to see where it goes in the future, but it will probably never be good enough for me to want to play it with any frequency.

Both BoB and MiG Alley were monumental sims for their time despite the bugs. BoB2 ensured the game would look good enough and run well enough for many more years. Unfortunately, MiG Alley did not get the same overhaul. Kudos to Rowan for releasing the source code for both sims allowing BDG to produce patches and ultimately deliver BoB2.