streakeagle

I question the value of his opinion on the Sabre vs MiG: other people didn't have his experience, so they must be wrong! It couldn't possibly be that he personally didn't know how to squeeze optimum performance out of the F-86 or that the initial conditions were such that it created the appearance of exceptional performance on the part of the MiG-15bis. In online multiplayer flight sims, there are guys who accuse others of cheating and/or flight models being bogus because what they saw contradicted their understanding of the situation. For instance, in Aces High, there was an extensive post debating the energy retention of the F2A Brewster Buffalo because some guy in a much faster airplane like a P-51D couldn't pull away from the Brewster. Somehow the Brewster magically kept up and remained within firing range. Of course, the game allows recording tracks and people did all kinds of tests: conclusion, the F2A bleeds energy like a stuck pig, as it should. But, if it started with enough of an energy advantage, it could easily accomplish what was observed by the angry pilot. This is why anecdotal information from pilots is of limited use in determining flight model accuracy in sims. They may accurately recall what they saw and felt, but their perception cannot provide precise physical states of their own aircraft, much less several others flying around them. While it would be useful to suppress enemy superiority to prevent embarrassment in Washington D.C., there would be no logic in the USAF giving inaccurate tactical analysis to its pilots on the front line. Here is an anecdotal fact that contradicts this pilot's belief that the MiG-15bis was overwhelmingly superior and could have controlled the outcome of any and all engagements: Chuck Yeager flew the MiG-15bis versus the Sabre AND flew the Sabre against the MiG-15bis... whatever aircraft he was flying won. As to his questioning of why the NK/China/USSR pilots flew the tactics they did rather than hover at 50,000 feet: could he not understand that their mission wasn't to rack up F-86 kills at 30,000 feet? Their mission was to prevent ground attacks. When you are flying defense/interception, you always have to go to the altitude where the enemy is flying in a guns only environment. The MiG-15bis proved to be an exceptional B-29/B-50 killer, so the bombing missions fell to single engined prop fighters and slow jets at low altitudes. The F-86's were just an obstacle in the way of their real mission to kill F9Fs, F-84s, P-51s, F2Hs, etc. So, other than getting another first person perspective on Korean War air combat, I found little technical information that was of any use. I have far better references that go into much more detail and cover many points of view, including the enemies' viewpoint and experience.

The blog posts have a bitter, condescending tone. Everyone but him must be delusional, a liar, or ignorant. I think his assessment of Americans applies equally well to himself:

SimWorks Studios now has a website: http://simworksstudios.com/ If their F-4B is as good as they are claiming, it will easily equal DCS in flight model and systems accuracy. So, they are inadvertently going to make me a Tac Pack customer. This will finally satisfy my curiosity about Tac Pack and FSX viability as a combat flight sim. There is a limitation: They are using tools that do not support P3D, so they are only officially supporting an FSX version. I don't know if FSX Steam Edition is supported, but they would be completely stupid if they didn't at least support that.

For this to happen, one of two things needs to be true: 1) Third Wire needs to expose the desired variables to programmers to make it easy to port the data to external software/hardware. Games that have applets generally had some sort of documentation/toolkit that would tell you how to exchange information between the game and other software and/or hardware. This is by far the easiest, best solution, but requires a lot of work on the developer's part. Multiple variables need to be gathered and communicated without impacting the speed/flow of the game. In SF2, debug mode exposes a few flight modeling parameters to the display. If there were an ini file that permitted the selection of instrument parameters and sent them to a file that could be shared at a decent frequency, it could work. The control aspects could be handled through DirectX/keyboard emulation as per other dedicated controllers. 2) Someone has to reverse engineer the SF2 exe so that they can make an application that can detect and locate the required variables in memory at run time. The application would have to read from key memory locations without disturbing the game. This could slow and/or crash the game unless the looping cycle and memory management of the game are fully understood. Someone could waste a lot of time trying to do this and still never succeed. So far, no one has publicly acknowledged having attempted this process.

I think the closest you are going to get is this history of Sukhoi. It isn't a very big book and it covers all of their aircraft, so it can't be too detailed: http://www.amazon.com/Sukhoi-Interceptors-Red-Star-Vol/dp/1857801806

If you don't already have your own code library to handle a complex programming task, you have to study and/or learn by trial and error to build it or use someone else's. Multiplayer was not TK's specialty, so he went the easy (and at the time, common) route: Microsoft's DirectPlay. Without such a well-documented and easily accessible (free!) library, you can bet SFP1 would have been single player only. However, DirectPlay had its disadvantages. It didn't really handle the latency of the internet so well, data transfer rate wasn't particularly high, not designed to handle network address translation (users hiding behind routers) or DHCP (temporary/random assignment of IP addresses). For reference, Operation Flashpoint started out with DirectPlay, but was quickly retrofitted with an alternate "sockets" method of connection that was both faster and more reliable. TK's solution to the bottleneck caused by DirectPlay and the SFP1 game engine was to limit the objects and view settings in multiplayer. As implemented, SFP1 multiplayer was best in the everyone vs everyone dogfight mode which kept traffic to a minimum and all players happily flying since they could respawn after being shot down. The co-op/team vs team mode exposed the limitations of SFP1 multiplayer. The only ground objects/AAA/SAMs were around the target area with no clouds or aircraft carriers. The massive multiplayer online flight sim, Aces High, has specialized proprietary code to try to minimize warps and lag despite hosting hundreds of players with various internet speed/latency issues. I always felt that both TK and HiTech (founder/lead programmer of Aces High) could have benefited each other by melding TK's content with HiTech's network coding and servers. Microsoft omitted DirectPlay from DirectX10. Multiplayer tech support had always been a thorn in TK's side. It should not have been a surprise that he abandoned multiplayer entirely when SF2 transitioned into DX10. At the same time, TK could see how well multiplayer was working out for other flight sims. The people flying online with even the most popular games like IL-2 and Aces High didn't even begin to total enough income to waste even one more penny trying to develop or purchase new multiplayer code.

Happy Birthday!

Use the settings to customize as you see fit... you don't have to have everything on Hard or Normal or Easy.

In general, he locked down the files he didn't want distributed, i.e. the lods... but then left the new DLC unlocked which leaves them open to easy distribution/piracy if you are trying to make money selling skins. TK's original goal of being as open and moddable as possible conflicted with his later goals of preventing piracy and tech support issues caused by widely distributed user mods. Only TK really knows what he means since he clearly contradicts himself :P But based on the LOD issues, I am pretty sure he doesn't want the exe, dlls, and/or lods being distributed for free. But apparently he wouldn't be against distributing patches that alter legitimately owned copies, per his email response approving local edits and Fast Cargo's logic that doesn't involve distributing the edited files. If someone has the time and energy to try to disassemble TK's code to fix minor bugs or maybe even add new features, more power to you. I have some experience doing down that path when I was younger, single, and more of a machine code/C++ programmer. I have no interest in doing that now and seriously doubt anyone following that path will get very far, especially trying to add features. I remember when the Battle of Britain source code was released and chatting with Osram on SimHQ about progress on successfully compiling, running, and then improving the game. I didn't even try to join the team as I was more focused on Jane's USAF as well as the future promise of SFP1 (both having F-4E Phantoms), but watched the BoB modders become the BDG and work hard to produce what would become BoB2, which is still a great sim and game even compared to DCS level realism. My point being: they had the source code and it took them many years to achieve a stable build with any useful changes/fixes/improvements. From what I have read online posted by others that worked on EA Jane's projects, having TK's source code might not help too much since apparently his organization and documentation skills are less than optimum: i.e. while the code works great, it is very difficult to read and follow if you are not TK.

As far as fuel consumption rates go, TK usually has good numbers for the specific fuel consumption rate of the engines, but historically his flight models were a little low on zero-lift drag... So it doesn't take as much thrust as it should to maintain cruise speeds. Also, the maps are a little smaller due to the maps being imported in English units but use metric measurements in the game: i.e. 1 mile on a real map will be only 1 km in the game, or something like that. One benefit of the "shrunken" maps is that it helps compensate for the lack of in-flight refueling. Without this benefit, flying historical missions from Thailand to Hanoi would be impossible in the game. If you want to test fuel consumption effects (i.e. run out of gas), engage full afterburner at sea level where fuel consumption is at its highest level possible and see how long it takes to empty all your tanks ;)

The key is, you aren't supposed to distribute his files, presumably even hex-edited versions. So he is condoning doing anything you want with your installation, but you don't have the right to post/distribute anything/everything you create from his work.

Hard settings generally mean more realistic, but some players find Normal more realistic, and some aspects of the game don't work as well with everything set to Hard. For example, the flight model is far more detailed reflecting more accurate physics on Hard. But the values used in the flight models are estimates, sometimes even wild guesses, which combined with slightly simplified tables of aerodynamic data can lead to behavior that a given aircraft should not have. The flight physics for Normal are far less detailed/realistic, but can more easily produce text book performance numbers and just "feel" right to some people. Combat aircraft aerodynamics is a hobby of mine, so I appreciate and prefer what the Hard setting brings to the table when it comes to flight modeling. So, I can't stand playing with any lower setting. AI behavior is a case where Hard is actually less realistic. Normally, AI difficulty is determined by preprogrammed stats for each nation. Some nations have better training/experience, so fewer pilots are novices and more are veterans. When Hard is used for AI, the pilot quality percentages/probabilities are skewed toward veterans and aces for the enemy, and dumbed down to green/novices for friendlies. So, to get better flying/more aggressive enemies, you have to tolerate dumb/cowardly wingmen. My work around for that is user created missions with AI set fairly high for both sides to produce the best possible dogfights instead of one-sided slaughters, or player versus everyone else fights while your friends run or do nothing. When playing campaigns, Normal is probably the best bet for AI assuming TK or whoever assigned unit pilot quality stats successfully recreated historical parameters and/or created fun/interesting play balance. Even on Normal, you will encounter some veterans and aces that are as capable as the AI can be. Though you will probably face a lot of cannon fodder, too.

I loved what was done in BoB2 and wish that the planned P-40 Flying Tigers evolution of the sim had been done. DCS P-51/Bf109/Fw190 is great, but BoB2 is easily the equal in aircraft modeling and has fantastic dogfight AI. MiG Alley should have been brought up to the same standard as BoB2. They were also at one point planning on updating B-17, including the addition of multiplayer. Alas, all that is left are minor updates to BoB2.

The DCS:MiG-21bis is the sole example of any other sim surpassing SF2 in modeling 1960s/1970s missile armed aircraft. If you want to fly and fight with Century Series, F-4s, F-5s, and pre MiG-29 era MiGs/Sus, SF2 remains the sim of choice. But as DCS fills in some key aircraft in that era, it should supplant SF2. I love SFP1/SF2 Korea, but DCS has fantastic F-86F/MiG-15bis modeling and the P-51D/Bf109Fw190 are also great. At this point, the only time I fire up SF2 is to fly select aircraft: the F-4, Mirage, MiG-23, and F-14A. DCS:F-14A will scratch one of those off the list.

TK hasn't been answering any posts of any kind for quite some time that I can see.

The long lost forums are back.

If there is any doubt about which way TK is going, check out the new home page. The ads and link for the store selling PC games are gone. If you go to the download center, the old links still exist for now, but it will be interesting to see what happens over the next week. Perhaps the PC games are finally being relegated to "obsolete" with minimal support from Third Wire.

One can only hope that all of the aircraft in the phone/tablet games were modeled to an SF2 level then stripped down to a lods used for these games... Then TK could go for the cheap AI DLC money. But, to be of immediate use to us, the flight models would need to be to a flyable level. I wonder how much of the SF2 flight engine is used for these games?

No one lives forever, but it is always sad to see someone you know and care about die. <salute> to Jug. He was one year older than my mom and four years younger than my dad. I need to spend more time with my parents. My grandfather, now dead for over a decade, once said that it is a time when your address book starts getting smaller as you are cross off friends and family as they grow old and die. I am old enough (47) that some of my friends/shipmates have already died of cancer, heart failure, and other illnesses/accidents. My address book is getting smaller :( Hug and kiss your children, you never know what day is your or their last! http://combatace.com/topic/46359-an-interview-with-jug/ http://combatace.com/user/7429-jug/

I was thinking the Ouragan was in SF2Israel/Expansion Pack 1... I guess not!

TK does sometimes work in mysterious ways. He blindsided the community when WOV originally came out with no previews or announcements. SF2 also popped up out of nowhere. But, the loss of the forums on the website tell me that SF for the PC is dead.

Ouragan makes sense, especially since it was already in SF2. Wishful thinking that maybe TK has been slowly but surely working on SF2Korea with some of the 3d work bleeding over into SF tablet.

Is that an F9F being targeted by the F-100? There was quite a bit of SF series code and models reused to create the tablet game. I would hope that the improvements in the tablet game could be leveraged back into the PC game.

On the Third Wire website, TK's twitter feed displays this recent progress for the tablet game --> multiplayer? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBOJwosUMAAAKju.png:large

It is a huge jump going from a "simple" single engine, single seat supersonic interceptor like the MiG-21 to the twin-engined, swing wing, avionics wonder of the F-14. I will be amazed if they can meet the goal of a beta release by the end of this year that works as well or better than the MiG-21bis beta release. I am expecting at least the same 2-year schedule slide the MiG-21 had, regardless of how many people are working on this. If Leatherneck can do this right and do it on time, they will become the leader in third party DCS aircraft despite Belsimtek's strong showing in quantity and quality.