streakeagle

When I built/migrated to another PC so my son could play his games on a decent PC, I didn't migrate my massive SF2 mod folder, including the SF2 Korea install. The other night, I copied over the Korea install and I just got it working right tonight. After months of flying DCS World and spending quite a bit of that time flying F-86s and MiG-15s, coming back to SF2 Korea and flying the F2H-2 didn't seem all that different. Of course, starting up, taking off, and landing aren't nearly as fun, but the terrain and cockpit didn't look that much different from DCS World and the flight model was close enough... despite my lack of time/interest to make it more compliant with published figures. But I would really like to see DCS World provide a Korean War environment up to the new Nevada terrain standard and match it with some of the key aircraft that SF2 Korea has. In particular, I want the F2H-2, but I realize the F9F is what most people would prefer and could live with that aircraft. In the mean time... I still have to fly SF2 if I want my favorite McDonnell products flying in their historically correct combat environments: the F2H-2 and F-4.

I will give it as much of a chance as I have given any flight sim: finish it before I die. Combat Helo Fighter Ops Jet Thunder Targetware Only Targewaret made it to a playable download stage, and that stalled to a point that it wouldn't even work anymore and the source code was lost. I don't care if it is a DCS module or a small independent: I believe in something when it is installed on my hard drive and working 95% or better the way it should. Still waiting on this one.

Typically, mods are to make AI into flyable aircraft using cockpits from existing flyable aircraft. F-15E: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1459229/ MiG-31BM: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1520559/ Su-30M: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1412237/ The original MiG-21bis was a mod for LOMAC/FC. I never tried it, but as I understand it was complete from a 3d modeling point of view: external and cockpit, but I am guessing it still had to borrow another aircraft's avionics. So, it can be done. But in general, to do it right, you need support from ED. That requires being approved as an official 3rd party. Apparently, meeting their 3rd party criteria is a pain in the butt. Recent patches also keep breaking the user mods aircraft.

I have some issues with Steam. So, I only use it when it is practical. 1. I can't open Steam without always getting some sort of update and potentially needing to restart Steam. If it is late at night and I only have a few minutes to kill, wasting even the smallest big of time authenticating/updating Steam is annoying. 2. In the past some Steam games required Windows Administrator rights to be properly installed and/or updated despite Steam's recommendation not to run it with full admin rights. So, on top of the aforementioned updates, I also have to deal with a pop-up every time I start Steam. 3. Some Steam games don't work so well if the internet connection is slow or non-existent. 4. Some Steam games have anti-piracy schemes in addition to Steam that defeat the biggest advantage of Steam: portability of my game library to as many PCs as I want. (Here's looking at you, DCS World) 5. Steam is just one more user database that is at risk to be hacked, potentially with critical financial information. My preference for games has been and always will be the style that Third Wire and GOG follow: clean installs without any copy protection schemes that degrade with time, require some sort of online authentication server, or degrade the performance of my PC in any way, shape, or form. But, if I am going to have to deal with a protection scheme, Steam is the way to go when it works correctly (and your internet service is consistently up and fast).

I think of you every time I see Godzilla stuff at Epcot in the Japan store and at comic book stores.

With the pod as part of the model, the limit is whether you can get the missile to extend with the rail. This is really the same problem as having an F-102/F-106 with missiles extending out of the bombay, but with the bombay on the wingtips instead of the belly. I don't recall, but I don't think anyone ever got the F-102/F-106 setup to work 100% the way it should? If they did, that is pretty much the answer... except that it has to be symmetrical: to bays instead of one.

I grew up playing wargames on hex maps and with miniatures. The mechanics of alternating turns always annoyed me from a realism standpoint, but plotted simultaneous movement over useful time intervals works even worse, or takes a lot of work and time to model well using phased movement. The simplicity of alternating turns makes gameplay simple and fun, unless the turn order causes you to get trounced! As long as you enjoy the subject matter of WW2 ships with guns duking it out at close range, what is there not to like about this game series?

I didn't see TacPack support mentioned anywhere. I am not even sure if TacPack is going to be good enough for me after being spoiled by gameplay in SF2 and DCS World. Sight seeing gets boring really fast and TacPack is principally useful for ground attack since AI opponents in the air are pretty much unsupported. Of course, the options for flying bird cage Corsairs are pretty limited, so if it is your main ride, I guess this is a good option if you just want to enjoy flying the airplane.

It is a great game overall, and the visuals are just that much better on a large screen. The game mechanics are such that my son got many hours of fun out of Pacific Fleet. It is rare that a game can make both of us happy. He is not much into simulations. He does like blowing things up with detailed graphics and being able to consistently win.

It is not meant to be a real-time simulation/shoot out. It is a graphically superior version of the old game Pill Box, where you take turns with the computer setting your barrel angle and muzzle velocity to get over hills and land on the target. It is a game I play to relax and have fun while enjoying the graphics and sounds. I love the sinking ships... unless they are mine.

Gunnery skill comes with practice. If you use the same ship all the time, you may not always hit first shot, but you will get on target by the 2nd or 3rd. Personally, I prefer submarines. Torpedoes have to be fired from very close or the target may escape before they hit. But fired in a tight spread over the area you know the target will be is an instant kill.

I don't particularly care for the vector nozzles, as they add quite a bit weight, reduce the power output of the engine, and give you minimal return except at the very edges of the flight envelope, particularly at low speeds. However, the F-15 was really cheated out of being the dogfighter it could have been due to a lack of a leading edge flap or slat and no maneuvering flaps. So, the canard does a lot to fix that without even having vector nozzles. Of course with a canard and vector nozzles, the F-15 could finally dance with the other teen fighters who all add much better low speed/high-AoA characteristics.

I believe any image showing 0291 with canards/nozzles is photoshopped. Only one ACTIVE demonstrator.

The tablet version is great fun. The PC version on a 46" LCD TV is epic!

Build a simple mission with you approaching low from behind an enemy aircraft, sweep vs cap or something like that. If you can get the enemy to keep flying straight despite being completely in his blind spot, enjoy. Sometimes the AI does things they shouldn't, like abandoning their primary to hit AA, etc. Flying straight when they shouldn't is always a possibility, but that had been an absolute standard in the past. No matter what you did, some aircraft would keep flying straight. So, TK revised the code to almost guarantee a defensive reaction. This included disabling the blind arcs listed in the data.ini file. So, unless TK slipped in a big change in the last patch, the AI isn't flying straight because he can't see you. Some other aspect was keeping him flying straight.

Photos of this puppy all over the internet, but finally found a decent caption: http://www.online-instagram.com/media/1014605520409236593_213727340 The North American F-86H Sabre (S/N 53-1250), on display in Lakeville, Minnesota. This aircraft bears the markings of the 21st Fighter Day Squadron (FDS), and sports their beautiful green trim throughout the aircraft.

Make no mistake, I like DCS World far more than what I have seen so far of FSX/TacPack for air combat. But for now it is the only way to go for a nearly DCS level F-4 Phantom. The global map of FSX is far better for just simply flying around with all of the detailed ultra-realistic addons. My interest would be in areas I have lived: Tampa, San Diego, San Francisco, and presently Orlando/Kissimmee. I would also want Bogota, Colombia since my family visits there regularly.

Against better judgement, I committed to the Simworks Studios F-4B and TacPack/Superbug for FSX/FSX:SE. I am currently running FSX:SE. It turns out the FSX (and FSX:SE) don't like the past couple of years of AMD gpu drivers, especially when DX10 is enabled. I haven't researched whether Prepar3d also has similar issues with AMD drivers. But I may end up buying TacPack/Superbug again if I decide to try Prepar3d. Right now the F-4B is in beta and a bit raw. When it is finalized, I will make a decision on whether or not I intend to keep flying it. If I do, I will take whatever path is best to fix my graphics issues and have the best FSX type experience whether that means switching to Prepar3d or buying an nVidia card. Once I know where I stand, I can then consider buying the Milviz Phantoms. In my brief experience with TacPack, the Superbug, and the F-4B, DCS World is still my preferred air combat sim engine, not even counting the combat part. Even with TacPack and the Superbug working 100% correct (as far as I can tell), it is a clunky installation which does not easily match up with my HOTAS and MFDs. Single player combat options are very limited and I wouldn't expect multiplayer to be much better due to plane set limitations. For all its limitations, I do find the FSX/TacPack/Superbug and F-4B to be quite impressive... approaching DCS capabilities WITH a 100% full scale global map. I live in Orlando near the big airport and work in Kissimmee near its smaller air port (with P-51Ds and L-39s flying almost every day). I cannot take off from Kissimmee in an F-4B and buzz Epcot and Cinderella's Castle in DCS World. Most importantly, I cannot even fly an F-4B at all in DCS World. The MiG-21bis is a great plane to fly in DCS, but a late-block USAF slatted F-4E would be a fantastic experience for both air-to-air and air-to-ground simmers.

I hope you can get SF2 to sound the way you want with or without software enhancement. So much has been focused on graphics while sound remains buggy and inconsistent depending on what hardware and software you are running. Of course the sound card companies (especially Creative's Soundblaster series) were hit hard when Windows stopped supporting direct hardware acceleration. But to be fair, Microsoft had little choice given all the stability problems Windows PCs had over the years due to mismatches between motherboards, sound cards, drivers, interrupt assignements, and games. I had to buy Turtle Beach sound cards for my Pentium 3 based PCs because sound blaster cards wreaked havoc with the stability of my ASUS motherboards based on VIA chipsets. Even with the brand change, it was a battle trying to find the right slot combination so the interrupts used by the AGP video cards didn't cause conflicts with the slot used for the sound card or the ethernet card. To date, I have been lazy and rely on motherboard realtek chipsets rather than trying to find the right sound card to suit my taste. I principally use headsets to avoid bothering my family with air combat sim noise and to mount my TrackIR clip, so the motherboard chipsets generally do the job well enough for me. If I didn't have a wife and kid, I would probably use a high end 7.1 stereo system connected by fiber to rock the house. But, that isn't going to happen as long as I am married.

While accelerated stall behavior is too simple/predictable, getting low and too slow gets crazy and fatal, even with this slightly simplified flight model. I just wish A2A would get off their butts and follow their stated path: T-33 -> F-104 -> F-4, especially if they used TacPack.

I have two ways to configure stereo as virtual surround: 1) via a Razer sound package (which I tried but never used and uninstalled), last version I used was: RazerSurroundInstaller_v2.00.10 about 2 years ago. 2) via my onboard Realtek sound card software as updated by Asus: Republic of Gamers SupremeFX, which has a Sonic Studio tab that includes a Virtual Surround button as well as a Sonic Soundstage tab that lets me adjust crossover to make sure I don't hear a sound exclusively in one ear no matter which way I turn my head. The Soundblaster GUI should have similar settings available, though they may only be available if you specify a simple stereo or headset output. If it doesn't, you can always try the Razer sound software. Razer now has two versions, free and pay for Pro. It is set up for headphones and is up to version 7.1. http://www.razerzone.com/surround

Okay, the F-4B beta went on sale a couple of weeks late, but it has arrived. I couldn't make up my mind on whether to wait for Prepar3d support and buy into that can of worms or stick with FSX/Acceleration and/or FSX/Steam Edition. I committed full force to FSX and FSX/SE: bought VRS TacPack for FSX, VRS Superbug for FSX, and Simworks Studios F-4B beta. I have FSX/SE installed on my current PC, so I didn't waste any time re-installing FSX/Acceleration. VRS TacPack and Superbug installed easily. Some weird graphic artifacts showed up sometimes, driver issues? FSX/SE DX10 issues? Not sure. But mostly worked okay. I will say that flying the Superbug felt pretty good, but the ability to map MFDs is limited unless you buy extra software or get creative with LUA scripting. I much prefer DCS World's approach. The F-4B has an installation issue because I used it with FSX/SE despite the installer wanting FSX. A later version should solve that problem. Graphic anomalies similar to Superbug, but 10x worse. Switching back to DX9 seemed to minimize if not completely eliminate graphic glitches. The cockpit looks great. Not so sure I like the key mapping setup of FSX. Again, I much prefer DCS World for setting up controls. All I had time to do last night was take-off and fly several times in between trouble-shooting graphics issues. It feels very light and agile the exact opposite of the advanced digital fly-by-wire Superbug. I am going to bet that if I do some acceleration measurements versus the flight manual, this F-4B is a bit too powerful/fast. Max g at high AoA seemed reasonable at sea level. However, the flight model isn't advanced enough to show proper instability/departure at high AoA. There is some wing rocking with a slight possibility of rolling inverted and having to dive with neutral controls to recover, but it is nothing like the lethal snap-roll/flat spin departure that claimed over 200 F-4's in Vietnam. I haven't tried to use the radar or weapons in either the Superbug or F-4B, so I don't have an opinion on that yet. The Superbug flight model impressed me. The inability to quickly and easily map both of my Thrustmaster MFD's to the game's button was an unexpected surprise. I have never been a huge fan of the Superbug, but the flight model is so enjoyable that I may actually spend some time doing carrier ops. Despite a great looking 3d model and textures, both inside and out, I am disappointed so far with the F-4B. The flight model isn't even close to the fun/challenge of the MiG-21bis, F-86F, and MiG-15bis in DCS World. To be fair, the F-4B is still in beta and the forum administrator stated that the flight model is going to be improved a little, hopefully showing more of the wild character at high AoA that justified adding slats to F-4Es. All I can do is wait and see. But so far, I am far more excited about the F4U-1D and AJS-37 Viggen coming to DCS than this version of my all-time favorite airplane.

SF2 does support surround sound, but it doesn't come out very well. Turn your head one way or the other and sounds disappear or are only heard in one ear. It is better to use stereo with sub woofer and then use virtual surround. The truth is that we only have two ears and with good enough processing, it should take only a stereo headset to provide a true-to-life surround experience, though a sub woofer is still badly needed to generate true bass.

Good stuff. Brings the manual to life.

Saitek has had problems keeping supply up... almost everything available on Amazon has inflated prices. I was guessing they had a bad Christmas season and might be on the verge of going out of business. Another bad omen from quite some time ago was the removal of their support forums. If you can't afford direct online support or even a forum for users to support each other, you are in trouble.