streakeagle

Tooling around in BoB2 Spits and 109s is easily as fun and challenging as DCS:P-51 with a much better environment (i.e. historical setting and opponents). BoB2 AI is probably the best close-in dogfight AI I have fought with full scalability from dummy to ace. But even the best AI is never as fun or hard as fighting good people. For me, Aces High is still the best way to enjoy the thrill of multiplayer. But for several years now, I haven't had the time to get proficient enough to make it worth the monthly fee.

I don't suppose TK will ever get around to doing a proper late F-4J / F-4S ? As it stands, the F-4N DLC could use a few revisions.

I have looked at that page a million times and never noticed that panel. That is where the lights went to when the old missile status panel was replaced! That seals the deal that the Navy F-4s had the wing pylon option from start to finish. Only a select group of USAF and export F-4s lost the capability.

Finally got around to installing BoB2 on my "new" PC. First time flying the 2.12 update. Some aspects of the graphics are looking a bit dated, but overall I still love this sim. Simply taking off using full realism in a Spitfire is pure joy and dogfighting 1v1 is as good or better than SF2. I don't have IL-2:COD to compare it to, but aside from that one, I haven't ever played a better sim for the massive interceptors/escorts/bombers type of engagement. Clickable cockpit, great flight modeling, decent if not the best AI. Just expanding the planeset to encompass the full WW2 experience and I would be very happy. DCS:P-51 has a bit more control detail and better graphics, but it could use a lesson or two on how to make fun/interesting/challenging dogfight AI. Of course, DCS has decent multiplayer, making AI obsolete anyway if you can find others you enjoy flying with/against. I still think this sim is highly underrated. It is a top notch sim and a fun game to boot.

One photo shows an F-4J with the AIM-7s on the wings, and its number marks it as a mid-production F-4J (not sure when the F-4B panel was dumped for the later AWG-10 style panel), so it is appears likely that even later F-4Js/Ss retained the wing pylon capability. If the F-J's kept it, then I assume the F-4N's kept it as well. As or the F-4 model having problems, guess you need to build a new one to go with the new missile models :)

I have been playing with the edits for the F-4B. I have run into a minor problem: either the pylon is too short or the missile is too long (whether I use the stock AIM-7D or the one in Ravenclaw's F-4E release). I am guessing it is the pylon. From photos, it seems that the point where the leading edge of the forward fin more or less marks where the missile lines up on a panel line on the pylon. When I do so, the missile seems to project out too far compared to the photos and the rear of the missile remains to close to the end of the pylon (there should be a gap from the back of the pylon to the back of the missile). It still looks pretty good, just not quite the same as the photos. Also: When adding the two wing pylon entries, if you use the next sequential station IDs (17 and 18), then the fuselage stations are fired first. It seems the practice was to fire the pylon stations first, which makes sense as it would be a better sequence to reduce drag. When I just added the SAHM entry to the existing inner pylon entries, I accidentally got the "pylon first" order I would prefer. The problem is, if I disturb the default station IDs, the loadout ini has to be carefully updated (I was trying to get away with a minimum change AND get rid of the adapter). But I see no other way to get it. I intend to bump Sparrow stations 3 and 4 down to station IDs 17 and 18, bump 1 and 2 down to 12 and 13, and Stations 5 and 6 (the pylon AIM-7s in my data ini) to 10 and 11. Really, the forward fuselage stations and aft fuselage stations should be separate groups to permit in-game selection of aft-only AIM-7s. USAF F-4s should have the AIM-9s, AIM-7s, and regular inner pylons in the same group to limit them to only having one of the three as the USAF AIM-9 rails were not wide enough to safely carry both AIM-9s and bombs at the same time. Based on the website, all USAF F-4Es and some export versions made after 1966 should have the pylon AIM-7 option deleted. Since the deletion is supposed to be related to nuclear weapons employment, I am going to guess that the export versions in question might be F-4K, F-4M, F-4E (Israel), and F-4F. The website shows photos of two different restored F-4M panels with the blanked out pylon Sparrows status indicators, so I am fairly sure the F-4M fell into post 1966 export versions. The F-4EJ was bought as an interceptor and they aren't supposed to lob nuclear weapons, so would they have the pylon AIM-7 option? It might make sense to remove the pylon AIM-7 option from the F-4C_67 and F-4D_67, though they were apparently only changed out as wear and tear required.

That pic pretty squarely locks down the case for Navy F-4s. Early production F-4Js were nearly identical to F-4Bs in terms of controls and avionics. 155553 was a Block 33ag F-4J, which I am guessing would have been late enough in production to have the AWG-10 and updated control panel that became the standard for the F-4S. In other words, I am agreeing with Ravenclaw that the USN F-4s always had/retained the wing Sparrows. But I think F-4Cs and F-4Ds ended up matching the F-4E with field mods substituting other capabilities (nuclear is what is claimed on the website reference). F-4Ds are a strange case, as Sidewinder capability was removed/replaced by Falcons. They had to be modded back to supporting Sidewinders. So illogical deletions of capabilities are not only possible but actually happened.

Clearly, from the photos I can find, the Australians operated the F-4E with USAF style pylons, but were initially delivered with Navy style pylons and their loadouts had little to do with whether they were usuable or not.

Apparently it was no longer practical to carry AIM-7s on wing pylons around 1966. I don't see too many (any?) USN photos after 1965. The BARCAP loadout was quickly changed to the one used in the faulty book cover in my initial post: 2 x AIM-9 (1 on each outer wing rail) and 2 x AIM-7 (rear recess). USAF F-4s clearly had their panels rewired to not use the wing pylons. Later USN panels are not very clear as they removed the old missile control panel. I don't see where the selected missile can be determined and "ready" status monitored on the new panels. Australia is an interesting case since they primarily trained for strike missions in preparation for the receipt of F-111Cs. Why would they be even hanging AIM-7s on the wings? Just because the physical rails remained all the way to the F-4S is no guarantee they retained the capability to fire them. I agree that it is likely that the Navy F-4s retained the capability, but I am almost positive that I read a source that said otherwise.

I will give this ini edit a shot :) The limitation I ran into is that in the one "normal" loadout ever using the AIM-7 on the wing pylons, it was asymmetrical. So, to do this correctly, you need to be able to independently assign a pair of AIM-9s or an AIM-7 to either side. For my loadout ini edit, I chose to put the AIM-7 on the right side due to that being the side used for the mission I was interested in modeling. However, I have seen photos showing the AIM-7 on the left wing and the AIM-9s on the right wing. I can't find a reference citing that only the early F-4Bs were wired for AIM-7s on wing pylons, so maybe the later modded USAF variants are the only ones that lost that capability. I would also bet that F-4Fs never had the wing pylon wiring. It certainly makes sense that F-4Cs should have originally been wired for it. So it is possible that my aging memory has flipped a bit... but I could swear I read that in a reliable source. It would make sense to give up that capability even if the control panel still had the switches for it. Aside from the early Navy BARCAP missions, I don't know of any other photos/texts showing/citing use of the Sparrows on the wing pylons. Nuclear weapons aside, a lot of air-to-ground weapons came out after the F-4 was designed/built. It is entirely likely that the unused/unnecessary AIM-7 wiring would be removed to make room for A-G wiring. Think about ARMs and Mavericks as examples of weapons that might need extra custom interfaces that could push out the AIM-7 connections. But the "imagined" source didn't cite why, just casually mentioned that only the F-4B had actually been wired. I spent years sorting out the facts about the AAA-4 chin IR detector. I now know for sure that the F-4B was the only F-4 produced with the IR detector installed. All other F-4s (modded B/N, C, D) with chin bumps either had empty shells or RWR antennas. So even the "minimum change" F-4C had major systems removed compared to the original production F-4B. The pilot manuals don't cover that aspect and I don't have the weapons employment manuals. Most of the references I have don't even mention the capability to carry 6 Sparrows, unless covering the early prototype/development history, and then never mention it again. So unless some veterans with firsthand experience with the F-4 speak up, I have no solid answer.

You can customize the allowed station loads in the data ini file and the loadout ini file. You can see the loss of the wing Sparrows on the missile select/control panels. The original F-4B panel shows 6 Sparrows, later aircraft have the wing Sparrow lights blanked off or use an entirely different panel that never showed the option for wing mounted Sparrows. As for the reason the Sparrow capability was lost on the inner wing pylons: wiring was re-purposed for other systems. An explanation is found here: 6 Sparrows: 4 Sparrows:

I probably should not have used the word "unique", since besides the F-4B, RAAF F-4Es (as pictured above) were also wired to permit AIM-7s to be carried on the inner pylons. As far as I know, no other F-4 variants had that capability and the F-4Bs lost that capability over the years as they were overhauled/upgraded.

At this time, the AIM-7 was considered the most effective/primary weapon of the F-4. However, AIM-7s carried in the forward wells could not be fired while carrying the centerline drop tank. So, F-4s frequently flew missions with empty forward wells. The early F-4B's unique ability to carry an AIM-7 on the wing rail was utilized to balance the load / make up for the empty forward AIM-7 wells. As of this combat on 17 June 1965, the Navy's faith in AIM-7 combat without the need for dogfighting was validated. Results with the AIM-9B were very disappointing, so the AIM-7 remained the principal USN F-4 weapon until the introduction and success of the AIM-9D. The Navy realized that the AIM-7 was less useful and later switched to loads of 2 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9 when not using the forward wells.

Hint: Read the column on the right of the Osprey book cover.

Hope everyone likes Strike Fighters Mobile Edition, because the programmers have to follow the money. On the other hand, if you take the kind of people modding for games like DCS and Strike Fighters and unleash them on an open source platform, there is nothing that can't be done over time. But it takes commitment for no pay. FlightGear can be made into anything anyone wants if they are willing to code it. MS FSX even has great potential because it was designed from the start to support external code and the codebase has become very stable. VRS has demonstrated that it is possible to make major additions/changes necessary to support a combat flight sim. Over time, their solution could improve to a level that surpasses SF2 and challenges DCS functionality. But no one is going to invest so much time if there is no profit for doing so. All I know is that I am not going to be the one to make any breakthroughs and I am left with SF2 and DCS as my only acceptable options for jet sims. Since SF2 development has come to a halt (or even started going backwards), I can only hope DCS will reach their stated goals.

The truth is, the product had changed a bit over the years... wasn't quite the Twinkie I grew up with. Cheaper ingredients? Getting rid of trans fats? I don't know, but it wasn't quite the same. Nonetheless, I have tried to raise (pollute?) my son with Twinkies. But the Publix across the street from my house didn't carry them very often. Most Publix grocery stores had a huge Hostess products section, but apparently Latin customers that predominate the area I currently live in prefer "Bimbo" products. So, my son has been calling the Little Debbie Cloud Cakes I have been feeding him "Twinkies". Close enough.

There are only so many ways to relieve stress and/or be "macho"... humor happens to be one of the best :)

I have had mine for years... it has been through hell. One of the pivot joints got broken, but I glued it in place (the remaining movable one gets the job done). I have had to tape on the external shell together in several places (two halves no longer stay snap-tight). But it still works exactly as intended. I find the vertical response of the LEDs superior to the reflectors, so I usually put up with the discomfort of wearing a headset to get better tracking over wider look angles even if my sound is coming from speakers. But other times, I just don't want to wear a headset and will sacrifice a little track quality for comfort. When I first broke my Clip, it stayed that way for months before I decided to fix it. Having both options can be nice at times.

In my experience with the TIR 4 (which is still working so well that I never upgraded to a TIR 5), the active LED lights clipped on a headset generally work a little better than the relfectors clipped on a ball cap. But both work well. So, if you are going to wear a headset while using TIR, I suggest the clip-on LED thingy, but be careful with it since it has wires and is made of light somewhat brittle plastic. If you don't normally wear a headset, you are better off with the reflectors (a ball cap is way more comfortable than a headset). The reflector clip is also spring steel or something like that... very tough to break. The best option is to get both so you can use them as needed/required/preferred.

I would assume CombatAce IS something you want, or you wouldn't have supported it It is a question of opportunity cost... instead of thinking in $, try something else you like as much as CombatAce. For instance, maybe you had to give up "x" cases of beer, cartons of cigarettes, or boxes of condoms to support CombatAce.

I have my game modded to play some Top Gun tunes on some of the screens, and Iron Eagle on one of the screens before/after flying a mission. But verbal responses were conditioned out of me when my son was born and both my wife and son needed absolute quiet to sleep through the night. That was the end of using a mic with Teamspeak chat or Shoot voice command.

Absolutely put your family first! But if any combat flight sim is compatible with little to no free time, it is the SF series. Choose a single mission or fly one campaign mission, start near target, fight for a few minutes, hit "ESC" when you are done. It would be real easy to squeeze in at least one flight a week, maybe one nightly if all your game hardware is already connected/ready for game play. Of course, if you quit cold turkey for a while, you may find that if and when you do come back to the SF series, you will enjoy its strengths more and hardly notice its flaws... at first.

You can make a nearly perfect by-the-book trap with an F-4B on a carrier with little to no recent practice. Knowing the limitations of SF2 (inability to see the carrier and too little drag and/or too much power in a landing configuration): Applied airbrakes. Lowered my nose just enough to see the deck. Used my throttle to control rate of decent. Observed glideslope right on target without any corrections. Nosed up to correct AoA just before touchdown. Touched down and hooked a wire about center of wires. Rectracted hook and moved out of the way for wingman to avoid collision. I can't say those are always the results I get with so little practice, but it was a smooth landing on CV-41 tonight... Time for another beer, maybe the first one helped out and another will make me even better! I not only landed, but killed all four MiG-17s (more or less simulating the 2 x VF-21 F-4B vs 4 x MiG-17F of 17 June 1965). MiG-17s are miraculously observing and dodging 3 out of 4 AIM-9s, but not doing as well against the AIM-7s

Very useful progress: