streakeagle

There is always an opportunity cost. If you don't build strong enough defenses, you may tempt an enemy into a war he thinks he can win. If you build your defenses too strong, you may bankrupt your country. Clearly, the US realized the situation resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nearly every major program was cancelled. Sea Wolf subs: only 3 built. Commanche LHX: never went into production. The F-22 had already reached prototype in the early 90s, so it was "finished", but with a production of only 200 compared to the original intentions of 800 then 400. The F-15 and F-16 were needed not just to overcome design limitations, but because the F-4 fleet burned up their flight hours in Vietnam. While the F-22 might be "overkill" in terms of its price/effectiveness compared to the enemy, the F-15 and F-16 fleet at best is close in performance to the Su-27/MiG-29 fleet AND over thirty years old! The Navy was far more practical in replacing aging aircraft with an evolved, cheaper F/A-18E/F Hornet, but the Su-27 can literally fly rings around an F/A-18E based on power/weight and wing loading. The only way to know for sure which path was the correct one in major national decisions would be to have alternate time lines to see the consequences. Anything else, even "20/20 hindsight", is nothing more than pure speculation. Has the United States wasted a lot of money topping off the treasure chests of defense contractors since the end of WW2? Most certainly. But somewhere along the way, a NATO/Warsaw Pact World War 3 was avoided and the enemy completely collapsed economically.

I wish the B-70 and F-108 had been produced as well.

While the AIM-54 clearly shares the aerodynamic shape/layout of the Falcon family, it is in an entirely different size/weight class. No aircraft that was designed to carry Falcons could squeeze an AIM-54 in its place. But the F/A-18E/F is still considered a "Hornet" despite being almost an entirely new aircraft that retained the shape of a Hornet to bypass some budgetary red tape/development costs. So it is a personal opinion kind of thing. Certainly, any history of the Phoenix could/would/should mention the Falcon family it came from. Likewise, any history of the Falcon would be incomplete without mentioning its ultimate evolution into the Phoenix.

Forums were down as well, everything is back up now.

Would I have ever bought SF2 if the core aircraft were the F-22 and F-35? The only flight sim I have ever owned that came with the F-22 was Jane's USAF. What aircraft did I fly almost exclusively in Jane's USAF despite a rather nice selection of modern US aircraft? The F-4 and F-105. You may not care what 3d model is involved in your shooter game as long as it is fun, has good graphics, and decent AI... But the only shooter I have ever bought is OFP/ArmA series since it was the only one that provided a game engine that supported the only hardware/setting I liked for shooting: M-16s and AK-47s. The M60A3 and AH-1 Cobras were icing on the cake :) I have very specific interests. I never tried Bioshock (or any of the other blockbuster FPS games) because it wasn't in a Cold War setting with M-16s and AK-47s. All I have ever wanted PC sims to do is replace my old Cold War/Third World War board games that were set in the 1950s-1980s. My interest in flight extends to all aircraft, but with a focus on combat aircraft, and preferably the Cold War era aircraft. So, I am a lot more flexible on which flight sims I buy. DCS barely fell into my area of interest and only the imminent release of the MiG-21 pulled me into to buying it. I was very disappointed when OFP2/ArmA abandoned the announced Vietnam setting. The future setting of ArmA 3 is a total turn off to me. Even if I eventually buy it, I will never play any of the stock missions, much less the campaign. My sole interest would be to mod it back to the era of M-16s and AK-47s. If I had any interest at all in the "futuristic" settings, I would have bought any and all other games supporting them. I don't own any revision of Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, Battlefield series, Call of Duty, or Medal of Honor series. OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 is unique--the only shooter game to capture my otherwise aviation focused interest. I love 1980 Corvettes. Modern Corvettes are better in every possible way. But I still prefer 1980 Corvettes. Does it make sense for me to buy a modern Corvette, strip it down to a frame, and mod it to look and drive like a 1980 Corvette when I already have a 1980 Corvette? Is my view "narrow" because what I am looking for in a shooter game is different than you? Or the masses that think Arma2 is just the name of the game engine you need to play DayZ? I have never installed DayZ and never will. I simply have no interest in playing a zombie sim no matter how "realistic" or "fun" it is. Shooting sci-fi zombies isn't how I want to spend my time. Nor is fighting a war in 2030 with ultramodern hardware. What I would really like is the original OFP game with the content updated to match the ArmA 3 engine... I already have the mod to do so with ArmA 2. But the mods are done by volunteers for free and never quite match the stock Bohemia quality. I would like to see Bohemia direct the modders to meet their standards or even provide such an addon themselves... that would get me to buy 8 copies of ArmA 3 to replace my 8 copies of OFP/Resistance. and my 3 copies of ArmA 2. But developers looking for profits aren't looking to make me happy. I am too small a niche customer. It is almost a miracle that the SFP1 series and OFP series showed up to exactly match my hardware/setting preferences. The miracle is over. Third Wire has gone mobile and Bohemia has gone "Modern Warfare".

Out of the box, ArmA 3 doesn't have anything I want aside from game engine improvements. Unless some massive amounts of really well done retro content are released, I won't be getting this game.

Some pics of the new stick configuration: BU0836X and linear pot for roll axis: New centering springs and linear pot for pitch axis: Overall: The beginnings of a wooden semi-replica Martin-Baker Mk H7 ejection seat with real components:

As long as the Satellite is geostationary or moved slowly enough not to hit the map limits over the duration of the mission, there would be no problem at all. There is not altitude limit and IIRC, SF sims models the horzion at high altitude fairly well. But the space shuttle is very fast and very early in the launch profile leans over to accelerate into orbit. Other than making nice screenshots of lift-off and initial ascent, I don't see what you could do with a shuttle in the SF series. Whereas sims which model the Earth more correctly as a globe are much more suited to shuttle operations. I know x-plane permits landings, not sure about orbits. But between the payware Space Shuttle Mission Simulator and free Orbiter, I see very few reasons to add the shuttle to other sims.

The shuttle is more correctly called an "orbiter" because it goes into orbit. SF series games have small square maps with magic barrier walls. There are better sims for conducting shuttle missions. One of them is open/moddable and free. Can you guess the name of this program? ...wait for it... Orbiter I highly recommend Orbiter. With mods, you can recreate Mercury, Gemini, and the stuff available for Apollo makes DCS look like a sim lite!

Title says it all. I can take an FC3 F-15C down to ground level at 250-350 knots and feel like I am going fast without zooming out. I am going to venture that this has to do with the level of detail for the terrain. Who knows? Games sometimes mess with the 3d graphics and/or time scaling. Regardless of how they do it, it looks and feels good.

The truth is always better than any fiction. I just wonder how many stories as great as his were lost over the centuries. Some of the best stories become myths and legends, but I can only imagine how many died with the people that lived them. In this case, he lived a long life, 93 years! <S> to him and the unsung heroes like him.

I will post pics of the seat parts once I get a semi-scale seat bucket built to use them, but here are the AMARC tags identifying the parts and what aircraft they came from: Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I have fully re-engineered the F-4 stick into its best form yet. No more hacked up joysticks and rotary pots. The PC interface is now a BU0836X USB board with industrial grade linear pots that precisely match the range of motion provided by the stick. I had to do some grinding to create a slot in the aluminum tube for the pitch pot, but it has worked out extremely well. Some springs were installed to provide centering for both the pitch and yaw axis. The pitch springs are fairly tight, so it takes some force to pull back 100%. The overall feel of the stick is amazing: like a Warthog stick with an extension shaft and no detents around the center range. The bit resolution is 0-4095 versus the Warthog's 0-65535, but I would know the difference while flying as I can make very subtle roll/pitch adjustments--this is much better than the resolution provided by the SIdewinder or X-45. But the really big news is that I have used sketchup to design a cockpit installation. I am going to make a wood replica the aluminum box that covers the stick along with a cloth "boot" similar to a stick shift boot. I am going to use wood to make the ejection seat "bucket" and back rails to go with the real survival pack, cushions, and parachute pack that I just bought. The survival pack/lower seat cushion is out of F-4C 63-7704, a MiG killer! I will also make the left console and install the Warthog throttle in it (though I may make my own F-4 throttle handles at some point and connect them to the BU0836X at some point). I am excited. I am very close to having my own replica F-4 cockpit :) F-4C 63-7704 is now a gate guard with a fictional number painted on the tail: My upper "lumbar" back cushion came out of 72-1482:

I am exclusively speaking of SF2. The only time I touch WoX is WoI with expansion pack 1 for multiplayer with SF2-like AI and graphics features.

Bingo! Assigned the Spitfires to be "FIGHTER" rather than "ATTACK" and changed its primary/secondary roles to be like the F-4 except deleting the anti-ship. The Spitfires immediately turned to engage the Mustang as it crossed visibility range. While I haven't done any other tests, I can only speculate that there might be different rules depending on the actual mission assigned and current waypoint type (IP, OBJECTIVE, etc). No telling without extensive testing. When they were ATTACK, they immediately made a shallow check turn (10 or 20 degrees?) when I first got within visual range, then returned to waypoint path (perhaps not spotting me because the turn wasn't wide enough?). As "FIGHTER"s, they broke hard to the left as soon as I entered maxVisibleDistance, clearly spotted me, and engaged. I stand by original assessment: the AI does have 360 degree vision, if they don't automatically engage you, it is because some other constraint is forcing them to remain on course, whether it is their assigned role, fuel/ammo status, or whatever. In my particular case, where I was trying to recreate historical Vietnam missions, the criteria I was using ensured that I never once saw the "steady state" flight pattern permitting a bounce. In one example, I struggled to get the AI to replicate the response of the real pilots per fluid four training and the documented actual response of the pilots. I achieved the best results by assigning a flight of 1xF-105D on a strike (or maybe SEAD) mission, made the player F-105D with wingman with an escort mission, and created a 2xF-105D flight assigned to escort the lead strike F-105D. Per reality, all planes dropped their ordnance with the lead F-105D going pure defensive, his wingman trying to clear his tail, and the remaining pair trying to support/clear the tails of the lead pair. This was optimum for the scoring of the player since his real life counterpart would shoot down a MiG while trying to cover the lead, the goal not being to get a kill but to make sure his lead survived. To keep the player from being able to kill all four MiGs and give the MiGs a historically good chance of hitting the lead on the first pass, I had to give the MiGs the best possible pilot skill. To keep the F-105s from getting unrealistically slaughtered, I had to give them the best possible pilot skill as well. If I tried to start the MiGs at a longer range, the F-105s would magically engage the MiGs despite the fact that the MiGs were in a blind spot. So I had to start the MiGs at firing range to even have a chance of duplicating historical results.

Well, it might be fair to say that after the introduction of jets, props were mainly used for attack, as the P-51 and F4U in Korea. Of course, in their SF2I Expansion Pack role, they might still be regarded primarily as fighters? But I think all aircraft were used as multi-role (at least recon and strafing if not outright bombing?).

This project has updated their website to reflect the loss of Ed Rasimus. It also stated their intent to finish the project and provided updated screenshots.

It is not listed in the data ini file RWR = FALSE, same as the prop planes. When I substitute and F-4 for a P-51 vs the Spitfire, The Spitfires still fly straight no matter what range. But no matter what range I start the F-4 at, the MiG-17Fs always engage. It has proven very hard to isolate what is going on. The AI for the MiG-17Fs may somehow be different than the Spitfires. The only key difference I see in the data.ini files is that a MiG-17F is a fighter while a Spitfire is listed as an attack. Ran out of time to test that angle last night, maybe more testing tonight.

I have varied the response of my original posted mission by switching to P-51D vs 4xSpitfire IXc and altering the starting range. I have gotten both immediate engagement and steady straight behavior. In the steady straight behavior, I have to get very close (< 0.2 nm) before I see engagement behavior. I still need to do more testing to isolate what triggers engagement behavior. Possibly related to whether the mission starts near max visible detection range or inside it? I need to move my IP and objective waypoints further out to make sure they aren't triggering behavior changes.

Keep in mind the MiG-17F has no RWR and is specified to be completely blind to the rear: [DetectSystem] RadarType=RANGING VisualBlindArc=5,6,7 VisualRestrictedArc=4L,8L,12L MaxVisibleDistance=6000.0 HasRWR=FALSE It seems to be no small coincidence that the MaxVisibleDistance for the F-4 is 10000.0 meters, about 5.4 nm. So I don't understand what would be different in an F-86 vs MiG-15 mission that you wouldn't see the exact same results I get in an F-4C vs MiG-17F mission.

Duplicate those results with the mission I provided. The F-4C is 3,000 feet lower and trailing by 6 nm. The instant you hit 5 nm, All four MiG-17Fs turn left to engage. Don't know what you are doing different in your mission. I don't have any mods installed. Give me a stock mission where you can approach from dead 6 without AI reaction so I can duplicate the performance. There will have to be some difference in AI settings/mission/waypoint or something else. By TK's own words, the AI is programmed to be visually aware 360 degrees, the blind arcs listed in the ini files are disregarded. This was a feature he added to address complaints about flights not reacting to approaching enemies. Usually, when they go straight and level without reaction it is either due to out of fuel/ammo or pilot skill. I cannot have AI approach my flight from the rear or approach an AI flight from the rear without the flight being bounced magically reacting. I discussed this fact on the Third Wire forums and TK was pretty clear on why that was.

Simply the sound of a single unopposed enemy aircraft can cost sleep and cause stress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_Machine_Charlie But actually dropping bombs and doing meaningful damage provides even better results. Imagine being in Iraq when the F-117s were coming every night. As soon as the AA guns lit off, everyone knew some very specific target was going to be utterly destroyed.

This is a very simple mission I created starting with the stock F-4J vs MiG-17F: 1xF-4C flying from the low 6 (a blind spot for every single seat aircraft) of 4xMiG-17F. Try getting less than 5nm from the MiGs before they all magically reverse to engage. I cannot construct a fighter vs. fighter mission where one side does not automatically spot the other and engage WVR. [MissionHeader] AircraftType=F-4C MissionMap=DESERT MissionType=CAP StartTime=14:30:00 StartDate=03/18/1966 [MissionData] FriendlyAirActivity=1 EnemyAirActivity=1 FriendlyAirDefenseActivity=0 EnemyAirDefenseActivity=0 PlayerMissionID=1 PlayerPositionID=1 MissionNumber=5123 GeneratedMission=FALSE AdjustStartPosition=FALSE AdjustBaseWaypoint=TRUE CreateStaticAircraft=FALSE CreateHelpFlight=FALSE [Weather] WeatherType=SCATTERED WeatherAlt=3962.399902 WeatherThickness=304.799988 HasHighLayer=FALSE FogAmount=0.570000 ContrailAlt=7924.799805 StartWindDirection=180.000000 StartWindSpeed=2.573764 WindGustingAmount=2.573764 [AircraftMission001] Name=SHOWTIME AircraftType=F-4C Size=1 Alignment=FRIENDLY RandomChance=100 MissionType=CAP TargetArea=Al'Duhok ObjectiveID=2 RatingForSuccess=100 CarrierBased=FALSE Position=479521.640606,461348.984340,2000.000000 Heading=39.543674 Speed=240.279465 StartTime=0.000000 BaseArea= LandArea=D7 Airfield Waypoint[01].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[01].Position=517605.248866,507476.414779,2000.097534 Waypoint[01].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[01].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[02].Command=INITIAL_POINT Waypoint[02].Position=522119.846570,512217.369865,3000.146484 Waypoint[02].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[02].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[03].Command=OBJECTIVE_POINT Waypoint[03].Objective=TRUE Waypoint[03].Position=537093.750306,531464.843754,3000.146484 Waypoint[03].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[03].Speed=240.389557 Waypoint[04].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[04].Position=443548.256816,533580.780085,3000.000000 Waypoint[04].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[04].Speed=240.279465 Waypoint[05].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[05].Position=468492.565498,524644.052383,3000.000000 Waypoint[05].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[05].Speed=240.279465 Waypoint[06].Command=APPROACH Waypoint[06].Position=399093.365024,532251.109278,1524.000000 Waypoint[06].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[06].Speed=139.554001 Waypoint[07].Command=LAND_LINEUP Waypoint[07].Position=392999.999190,549740.000000,762.000000 Waypoint[07].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[07].Speed=83.357964 Waypoint[08].Command=LAND_TOUCHDOWN Waypoint[08].Position=393000.000000,558081.500000,0.000000 Waypoint[08].Size=50.000000 Waypoint[08].Speed=74.860001 Nation=USAF FormationType=USFighter PilotTrainingStandard=EXCELLENT Loadout=AirToAir AmmoPercent=100 FuelPercent=100 TracerMixRatio=6 Texture=USAFCamo1 Squadron=391TFS Aircraft[01].AircraftNumber=0 [AircraftMission002] Name=BANDIT1 AircraftType=MiG-17F Size=4 Alignment=ENEMY RandomChance=100 MissionType=CAP TargetArea=Riqdur ObjectiveID=1 RatingForSuccess=100 CarrierBased=FALSE Position=487190.000000,470265.000000,3000.000000 Heading=38.210281 Speed=166.423233 StartTime=-112.143585 BaseArea= LandArea=P5 Airfield Waypoint[01].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[01].Position=514557.400924,505029.926389,3000.146484 Waypoint[01].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[01].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[02].Command=INITIAL_POINT Waypoint[02].Position=518972.166573,511372.035793,3000.146484 Waypoint[02].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[02].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[03].Command=OBJECTIVE_POINT Waypoint[03].Objective=TRUE Waypoint[03].Position=535082.031399,531289.062680,3000.146484 Waypoint[03].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[03].Speed=166.265152 Waypoint[04].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[04].Position=494551.272570,443295.933045,3000.000000 Waypoint[04].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[04].Speed=166.423233 Waypoint[05].Command=WAYPOINT Waypoint[05].Position=500146.272570,448428.433045,3000.000000 Waypoint[05].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[05].Speed=166.423233 Waypoint[06].Command=APPROACH Waypoint[06].Position=534563.406941,444016.969278,1524.000000 Waypoint[06].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[06].Speed=95.472000 Waypoint[07].Command=LAND_LINEUP Waypoint[07].Position=546999.999190,457740.000000,762.000000 Waypoint[07].Size=1500.000000 Waypoint[07].Speed=67.822495 Waypoint[08].Command=LAND_TOUCHDOWN Waypoint[08].Position=547000.000000,466081.500000,0.000000 Waypoint[08].Size=50.000000 Waypoint[08].Speed=53.040001 Nation=Syria FormationType=SovietFighter PilotTrainingStandard=EXCELLENT Loadout=None AmmoPercent=100 FuelPercent=100 TracerMixRatio=6 Texture=SyAAFSilver1 Squadron= Aircraft[01].AircraftNumber=0 Aircraft[02].AircraftNumber=23 Aircraft[03].AircraftNumber=56 Aircraft[04].AircraftNumber=15 [Callsign] GroundCallsignID=1 FACCallsignID=1 TACCCallsignID=1

I have played the current patch revision quite a bit. Quite a few patch revisions ago, TK took away the visibility arc functionality. The enemy can always see you... just a matter of whether he chooses to react to you. In my historical Vietnam missions, MiG-17s coming into the blind spots of F-105s never ever worked due to the visual spotting arcs being disabled. I had discussed this on the Third Wire forums with TK, and he favored the dogfight over the old fly straight and level behavior using this simple cheat. I am not sure what sim you have been flying if enemy fighters allow you to bounce them... unless the AI skill levels are set low where they may act oblivious to your aircraft?

While modding SFP1 guarantees nothing will get broken in a patch, SF2 may have reached the point of no more patches. Stable since July 2012 patch. The last hope for SF2 is that all the mobile SF releases draw in new SF2 PC customers to generate demand and cash for continuing SF2 addons. But the fact that TK only posts in his own forums to announce the latest mobile release or a desperate tech support issue ignoring questions/comments by long time SF/SF2 fans is a very bad sign.