Jump to content

streakeagle

+MODDER
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,676

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Everything posted by streakeagle

  1. streakeagle
    I didn't really see that coming. They have been cruising along like everything was going great. But they were far from feature complete and had no plans to support VR. The battle right now is between P3DV4 and XP11. Flight Sim World was too far from matching either one in features. I have them all and P3DV4 with TacPack is the only one I like at all, and I still fly it rarely compared to DCS World. Sad to see another option go out of business, but how many versions of FSX can make it in what already is known to be a niche market?
  2. streakeagle
    As for having ineffective countermeasures due to designing them to decoy your own guidance systems, this has been a problem for a long time. From the loss of Gary Power's U-2 to the SA-2 to the present, countermeasures have sometimes not only been ineffective, but acted like beacons. I can say from personal experience that this extends down to submarines, sonar, and torpedoes. The cure to the problem is to acquire functional examples of the enemies weapons complete with manuals. Thanks to India natively speaking English, we have some great manuals on Soviet hardware properly translated to English.
  3. streakeagle
    His manner of speaking is very pleasant. His accent is very mild and his vocabulary and grammar are beyond typical native English speakers. He clearly enjoyed the F-4 despite its age and inferiority.
  4. streakeagle
    All I can do is wait, see, and hope for the best. But I have been doing that for quite a few years now.
  5. streakeagle
    More information about ""
    I am a huge fan of the AIM-7 and love the 6 missile loadout. I was disappointed to find that the USAF didn't retain that capability and the Navy notoriously found the AIM-9 to be the better weapon for their situation where the reliability was almost nil after any amount of captive flights given the hard landings.
  6. streakeagle
    There are countless mistakes he could have made that would have sent him down into the water. I doubt he was shot down. There is a happier story about a mechanic that stole an A-4 Skyhawk... and flew it just fine, then landed safely.
  7. streakeagle
    After years of delays, 2.0 became merely a beta with 2.5 becoming the long promised release utilizing DX11 to improve performance AND image quality. The 2.5 public release is a slight disappointment to me. It isn't very stable or fast. The graphics and terrains were improved in many areas, but at the cost of performance and some glitches with the new deferred shading. With all the years of development and recent months of beta testing, I expected more from the final 2.5 public release. It is still good, but my next PC needs at least 32 GB of the fastest RAM I can afford and a gpu that smokes my current 1080 GTX. Overall, I am disappointed with the transition form 1.5 to 2.5. 1.5 looked so much better than Strike Fighters 2, and ran fairly fast and stable. 2.5 is largely a step backwards for the moment other than the fact that it supports all three terrains currently available.
  8. streakeagle
    What a horrible story. I could have done without having read that :(
  9. streakeagle
    More information about ""
    Let me commend you for still working on updating these aircraft so many years after the original release. I don't recall my source(s), but from memory I seem to recall that aside from the original blocks of F-4Bs, no F-4 versions were actually wired to carry AIM-7s on the wing pylons. I am fairly certain the F-4J did not have that capability. I am pretty sure the F-4B lost that ability at some time in its life... maybe by the time it became the F-4N? I think the capability was lost when wiring and other things were changed to support later AIM-9 variants (different seeker cooling) and advanced air-to-ground stores. Photos of F-4s armed with 6 x AIM-7s are pretty rare.
  10. streakeagle
    Another interesting aspect of SF logic: increasing the skill of enemy AI also decreased the skill of friendly AI. So if you don't want your friends to be total idiots counting on you to win the war for them, it is best to have the game difficulty/AI level at normal and use pilot skill settings in the missions/campaigns to improve the ratio of skilled pilots on the enemy side without turning all of your friends into novice targets.
  11. streakeagle
    The game engine itself is balanced to make the player a 1-man air force. No matter what aircraft I fly, the only limits to my kill ratio are fuel and ammo... even when I am the only aircraft and I am tremendously outnumbered. I only get shot down if I focus on getting a kill rather than avoiding a threat. The game always had AI logic that made the enemy gravitate toward the player: i.e. if you target a plane through a visual padlock or radar lock, the AI will almost immediately engage you if it can, even if he couldn't see your and didn't have a RWR. Later patches after SF2NA was released addressed player complaints about missile reliability and unwinnable missions against naval formations resulted in friendly weapons having boosted reliability/accuracy/lethality while enemy units received the opposite. I never bothered to check the weapon files to see if this was done in the weapon definitions or if it was done through some sort of hard coded cheat for the player aircraft and/or side. In prior patch levels, especially SFP1 era, AIM-7s and AIM-9Bs were almost as ineffective as portrayed in historical data. No fun for a game, but I was in hog heaven watching missiles behave roughly the same as their real world counterparts. So even if you think you have achieved some kind of play balance based on enemy numbers and tech being balanced with friendly numbers and/or tech, the game engine may still give the player and/or the player's side a huge advantage.
  12. streakeagle
    There's no kill like a guns kill!
  13. streakeagle
    While there were a lot of USAF F-4 pilots sent into the theater with minimal training and ordered to use poor strategy/tactics leading to needless losses, the USAF still had some outstanding pilots that were the equal of any in the Navy and the gun armed F-4E gave history something the gunless USN F-4s could not: a supersonic gun kill, reportedly the highest speeds involved in a guns kill in history with the F-4 at about Mach 1.2 and the MiG-19 at a 90 degree crossing angle at about Mach 0.77. Listen to the audio from that kill here:
  14. streakeagle
    This is a sore spot for me. Way back when SFP1 was originally released, you could create a mission with a ramp start. It was buggy, but it was clearly intended to be an option that wasn't finished yet. Of course some other unfinished intended options included drag chutes and an "action view". Instead of debugging and perfecting the "ramp start", TK took it away after some patch revision that escapes my memory... WoV? WoE? I am fairly certain it was there up to Service Pack 2a. TK intended to deliver the perfect survey sim, but found he lacked sales/popularity to fund its completion.
  15. streakeagle
    I always liked Iron Eagle. I love Lou Gossett jr. and will tolerate almost any movie he is in. Hollywood never game him the leading roles he deserved. It is great that he wasn't so arrogant as to be above clearing a paycheck for the very low quality Iron Eagle series. Even if you take Lou out of the movie, the soundtrack alone, particularly Queen's track, made it worth it for me. This was a popcorn fantasy movie not unlike Independence Day. Kick back, enjoy what humor and excitement you can, and try not to cringe too much at the horrible writing/editing. Of the entire series, I could only really stomach the first one. Though the return of Doug Masters in the last one kind of makes it worth watching. I never saw the original or the first sequel in the theater, but I saw 3 and 4 in the theater. The idea of the 2nd one was probably the best story of all four movies. But I couldn't understand why they killed off Doug Masters in the opening seconds and had a hard time accepting F-4 Phantoms as substitutes for MiGs. These days, it would probably be my favorite if I watched them all again just to see the F-4 in the air. But the first one still has me with the soundtrack and the basic feel good story of saving his dad without losing anyone as well as the common but popular idea that the kids are smarter than the adults.
  16. streakeagle
    From your stated preferences, I am guessing SF2 Europe is the one for you. But study the stock plane sets (both player and AI) of all the releases before your decision is final. Most AI aircraft have mods available to make them flyable, many with dedicated cockpits. List the top 10 aircraft you like to fly from the late 40s to the early 80s and the game that has most or all of these will probably be the on that is best for you.
  17. streakeagle
    This is a matter of personal taste. The best thing to buy is all of them. That guarantees as much compatibility as possible with all of the SF2 mods. However, I understand the cost is prohibitive for an older game like this, especially for someone on a tight budget. SF2 North Atlantic was the final game release. It is pretty cool, but has a very limited flyable plane set compared to older games. If you love the F-14 and the idea of recreating the Red Storm Rising battle around Keflavik, Iceland, this is the game for you. SF2 Europe is probably the most popular and the most compatible with mods. The plane set is outstanding and with a single large addon, the final revision of NATO Fighters, it is absolutely the biggest and best of all versions. But I am a historical re-creation nut. I don't want to make up new or alternate history like SF2 NA and SF2 E, I like to recreate history as is possible with SF2 Vietnam and SF2 Israel. It is a tossup as to which I prefer more. SF2 Vietnam has all of my favorite aircraft and includes carrier operations. SF 2 Israel has a much better looking stock terrain and includes more modern fighters like the F-15 and F-16 as well as Mirages and even old WW2 aircraft like the P-51D Mustang. Mods can make the SF2 Vietnam terrain look as well or better than SF2 Israel. The original SF2 release that updated the original SFP1 with its fictional terrain and history has its own unique values: a pretty good plane set and a mercenary campaign that provided unique gameplay not possible with any of the other historical/hypothetical games. If I could buy only one game, it would probably be SF2 Vietnam because of my love of all the aircraft used by both sides as well as the history of this war. SF2 Israel would be my 2nd choice. SF2 Europe my 3rd choice. SF2 NA my 4th choice. And finally, for its mercenary campaign system, plain vanilla SF2.
  18. streakeagle
    There is an Osprey book on the F-15 in Israeli service. It covers a lot of the fights in detail along with pilot comments. The gun was used a lot more often on the F-15 than is otherwise apparent, especially prior to 1982. They went out of there way to use the AIM-7 since that is the primary weapon of the F-15, but the AIM-7F didn't do much better than the AIM-7E2 (which was actually pretty good as far as AIM-7s go). You can also look at the F-14 engagements with Libya. They use the AIM-7 as much as possible but ultimately end up using AIM-9s. I am a huge AIM-7 fan and the AIM-7M finally achieved a useful PK, but the AIM-7 never achieved the reliability of the AIM-9. More complexity = less reliability. The USAF F-4s assigned to CAP in 1972 did fairly well with the AIM-7, but that was out of necessity due to the ineffectiveness of AIM-4s and AIM-9E/J missiles. Combat Tree helped them attempt BVR shots which were the ideal situation. The AIM-7E2 also performed much better than earlier AIM-7s in a short range dogfight/tail chase situation with shorter minimum range, higher allowed launch g, and more maneuverability. The AIM-7F was supposed to be far superior to the AIM-7E, but apparently its seeker was inferior to the British Skyflash. Rather than buy the British weapons (which had the older inferior AIM-7E platform), the AIM-7M had a seeker comparable to the Skyflash and the engine/performance of the AIM-7F. An AIM-7 with an AMRAAM equivalent seeker would have been great, but with funding going down after the collapse of the USSR, all further AIM-7 development was canceled in favor of the lighter AMRAAM, which could be carried by just about any aircraft that could carry the AIM-9.
  19. streakeagle
    As for the value of the gun, just read about Israeli experience with the F-15 in combat. They still used the guns quite a bit despite the advances provided by the AIM-7F and Shafrir missiles. They don't have any good things to say about the AIM-7. They love having the gun when all else has failed. The F-4 was originally designed to have guns (4x20mm in the belly IIRC). It was a mistake to delete them. If you think the chin mount is bad for a gun/radar installation, just look that the F/A-18 Hornet for a worse idea. If an opponent has stealth/ECM comparable to the USA, guns may yet prove to be the key to success in air-to-air combat.
  20. streakeagle
    The AWG-10 evolved into a great radar but it fell far short of the brochure data as released with the F-4J. A slatted F-4S with the AWG-10B was an awesome machine only lacking a gun. But look at where the F-4E was at during the same time frame. The APQ-120 evolved in parallel with the AWG-10... digital improvements increased reliability and capability across the board. But look at what the F-4E gained in its multi-role ground attack capability as well as the frameless front canopy that was deployed in limited numbers. I would have been happy to be a pilot of either one, but I think I would have preferred the F-4E unless I specifically was tasked with fleet defense over water, in which case the F-4S/AWG-10 was just short of the F-14/AWG-9 capability. But the F-4E was better at dogfighting and far better at ground attack.
  21. streakeagle
    More information about ""
    Thank you for this skin :) I did see the comment that you had dedicated to me :)
  22. streakeagle

    Combat Tree

    streakeagle replied to strahi's topic in The Pub

    If you find a photo showing the rear cockpit with an APX-80 control unit, then you probably have the information you seek. But that should be in every F-4 with IFF rather than just the Combat Tree equipped planes, per the above conversation.
  23. streakeagle

    Combat Tree

    streakeagle replied to strahi's topic in The Pub

    First, I don't think it was ever declassified. So, you probably won't find any detailed descriptions or photos. But then there was this conversation in a forum: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/199958-looking-for-photos-of-a-combat-tree-f-4-phantom/
  24. streakeagle
    I have been waiting a long time for DCS 2.5 to become the standard release branch. With development ceased on all other branches, I finally committed to the DCS 2.5 beta. I finally have access to the NTTR terrain. Flying out of Nellis over Nevada reminds me of when I got my first Windows PC in August of 2000 and Jane's USAF immediately became my primary sim because it was the best option for flying F-4 Phantoms against MiG-21s at that time. Having played Jane's Fighters Anthology on my work laptop, the graphics in USAF absolutely amazed me. In particular, the Las Vegas terrain looked great. There was a training mission called "Step Down" that taught you to fly low under radar (<300 feet) while navigating to waypoints. I flew it many times. I have briefly looked at the scripting for Jane's USAF missions and it seems to me that the DCS mission editor can replicate most if not all USAF missions. If the voice files can be accessed and converted, the experience would be almost identical beyond the updated graphics engine and differences in the flyable plane set. The problem is that it takes patience to extract the necessary information from the USAF missions and insert it into the DCS World mission editor by hand. I installed Jane's USAF and patched it up to support Windows 7 64-bit. The annoying flight models with stability issues are even more annoying on a modern PC with the patch installed. The inability to map more than one usb controller is almost as annoying. But the Las Vegas terrain still looks surprisingly good after all these years aside from the static low-resolution water. You can really appreciate the jump in technology when you compare USAF's early 3d cockpits with typical DCS World aircraft, but you can also appreciate that the foundations for the current level of graphics/realism were established with Jane's USAF.
  25. streakeagle
    The problem with a small interval is correctly filling out the data without errors. It is tedious to fair in all the points compared to the 0.4 Mach interval. But the gains in accuracy in areas of steep transitions is critical. All aircraft have a critical Mach number where the wave drag spike's up. When you are talking transonic/marginally supersonic aircraft, accurately modeling wave drag is critical to accurate performance above Mach 0.75. For aircraft like the MiG-15 and F-86, it will define their top speed. The F-86 has a higher number and is therefore more controllable at speeds the MiG-15 can barely attain and able to attain speeds the MiG-15 cannot. The problems caused by this region are the reason for coke-bottle (area-ruled) fuselages. The specific excess power needed to go supersonic doesn't exist if the aircraft isn't designed to minimize transonic drag and provide decent control/stabilization in that speed range. As for building EM diagrams, my old tool, AIDE, would plot height-mach sustained and instantaneous g curves and easily could have been modified to show specific excess power curves. You just had to weight while it searched for the data minimum and maximum data points over the Mach range for a given altitude and over the complete altitude range. The math isn't really hard, just time a consuming re-iterative process. The first problem is to build a data structure that can be loaded with every possible value in the data ini files, then you have to read in the data ini file and parse it to populate the data structure, then you choose the table/parameters you seek, then the program performs the calculations to balance thrust, drag, lift equations based on the provided parameters, then a plot of the data is displayed. The problem starts with the number of variations that have to be handled when parsing the ini file into a useful data structure. The re-iterative calculations that produced useful performance charts could cause a memory leak, an infinite loop, or just outright CTD or BSOD, so it was important to carefully test and error-trap each subroutine that performed any data object creation/destruction and/or complex calculations. I used to have the time an patience to develop such a tool. Now, I don't want to perform any work, I just want to enjoy the end result and better people than me are providing great flight models for me to enjoy in both DCS World and FSX/P3d. I am far less critical/demanding than I once was because of how well I understand the limitations involved in trying to produce a truly accurate flight model on a PC. I don't expect anything close to perfection, not even a true "1%" error margin. But I have zero tolerance for oversimplification such as the original LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs flight models that made Strike Fighters look like a real NASA engineering program.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..