streakeagle

Whether Putin has been legitimately elected or not, I think he is one of the most capable leaders Russia has had since Peter the Great. But the very thing that molded him into such a strong person also limits his ability to lead his nation into prosperity: his Cold War/KGB experience. It may never happen, but I would like to see Russia and its people do as well as the USA without needing a war to get there. Those people have been oppressed for centuries and despite shaking off the Czar and most of the Soviet chains, continue to suffer despite having abundant resources and a large and fairly well educated population. At least they have Vodka :)

Thanks for the history lesson. I love B-26s but never knew about this mission.

I have really enjoyed the abilities of the new system to run older games well such as ArmA 2, FC2, and SF2. I can see that I may need the 7970, multi-gpus, or better if I am going to go "Ultra HD" (the new 2160p TV resolution) or use multi-monitors with DCS.

The slider that kills my DCS performance is the Anit-Aliasing Mode in the max quality "Super sample AA" position. Super sampling greatly increases the image quality, especially when looking at gauges from longer distances or looking at terrain into the distance from a low altitude, but the FPS cost in DCS is just too high. So, I knock it back one notch to Adaptive Multi-sample AA, which still looks almost as good, but gets much higher FPS. In other games such as SF2, I can use Super sample AA and maintain Vsync 60 fps, unless I am over Iceland, then its more like 30 fps.

There is a CF-104 "walkaround" website that shows a cockpit without the RWR, but otherwise looks very similar: http://www.arcair.com/awa01/101-200/awa101-CF104/00.shtm

I have been studying the history of the CF-104 and wanted to know how its cockpit looked, especially the later variant with a RWR. After a bit of poking around, I found this photo, which is somewhat different than the stock cockpit found in the old SFP1 F-104G: CF104 STARFIGHTER COCKPIT by JmHerigstad, on Flickr

The original free MiG-21 cockpits created head bobbing effects. Use those as a reference. Essentially, you are creating a g-meter, but instead of connecting it to a needle on a gauge in the cockpit model, you are connecting the animation effect to the entire cockpit model. So, select the correct instrument parameter, connect it to the right node of the cockpit lod, and choose the correct type of movement (roll, translation, etc.) around the correct axis and you can get any kind movement you want.

Focusing on the F-15C means focusing on the US market, which makes sense for a lot of reasons. I am the US customer they are aiming at and I prefered flying the F-15C in LOMAC/FC/FC2 primarily out of familiarity with the systems combined with the fact that it was one of my all-time favorite aircraft long before there were flight sims or even MiG-29s/Su-27s. While I would prefer an F-4 to the F-15, I prefer the F-15 to the MiG-29 or Su-27. The DCS:MiG-21bis, if done well and I am able to employ it as successfully as I can in the SF series may end up outranking the F-15C. Of course, as an air-to-air fanatic, I prefer all of them to the A-10, Su-25, and Ka-50. FC3 will hold me until the MiG-21bis, and the MiG-21bis may be my favorite for a long time until F-104/F-4 aircraft and others of similar capabilities from that era become available.

I saw this on SimQH and wanted to make sure it got echoed here: http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9059&start=0&sid=e6bcc07dc7df8535afc45cab7ef27466 I hope this does well, as competition is good for us simmers :)

Just caught up with this. Much better, but there is still an extra large blurry flight path marker wandering around on the HUD when tracking a target for a Sparrow shot.

For the dev forums to only have traffic directly related to them and the community chit chat to be somewhere else is actually a good thing. And the developers are perfectly welcome to continue using this site as well if they happen to have time and are interested in the daily chit chat stuff. The only complication I have seen in the Third Wire/CombatAce setup is people going to Third Wire for tech support on mods and people coming to CombatAce to report bugs with the game engine, which is quickly resolved by someone suggesting that the poster seek help on the other site. Most of what happens on other sim sites gets mentioned here sooner or later anyway, so it is not a bad thing to focus your time here.

Nothing stopping you from moving back here. Go to SimQH briefly once a day to look for dev news (or wait for it to leak here), then spend the rest of your time here. Problem solved. As time progresses, more will do the same and the SimQH forum will be solely used by the devs and those needing to communicate with them. Such a system is actually preferable and is the way it has been with the SF series where most of the community hangs out here and then pops in to the official Third Wire forums when seeking tech support or other questions for the developer.

BMS didn't run especially well on my old single core A64 PC, but it runs like a charm on my new quad-core i5 machine. So, I did some basic evaluation flights to refresh my memory of why I never really got into Falcon 4 that much over the years. Now my memory is quite refreshed. Like LOMAC/FC2, air-to-air combat in Falcon 4 occurs with AIM-120s and late model AIM-9s. The sole correctly modeled flyable, F-16C, is also one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the game (compared to LOMAC/FC2's F-15C). When I engage an overwhelming number of AI, I can just pull a tight circle and end up with everyone forming a conga line behind me. I then proceed to use my performance advantage to work my way up the line, limited only by ammo and fuel. The whirlwind dogfight that devolves into the conga line reminds me very much of Jane's USAF: All of the aircraft involved look like they are performing a very slow ballet. I don't know if it is a scaling issue (such as lods made larger than they should be for a given range to be easier to see on a monitor) or if it is the fact that the AI pilots willing drop to if not below their safe stall speeds. Being focused purely on basic air-to-air combat missions, the mix between the conga line and the slow speed ballet destroys the immersion and fun that is so well built up by every other aspect of the game. Aside from the modern missiles, dogfighting in LOMAC/FC2 is far more diverse, challenging, and fun. The stock gunfight training missions for the F-15C range from 1-v-1 against the MiG-23 to 1-v-2 against the Su-27. The AI will split up and react differently to your moves rather than having both enter a pure pursuit curve and form a conga line. The IRM missions give the F-15C tail-only AIM-9Ps vs all-angle AA-8Bs, which gives the MiGs a huge edge that works well with their divide and conqure tactics. Their response does very with how you approach them, so they don't fly the exact same pattern every time unless you approach them the exact same way every time. Now the cockpit and controls work as well with my Thrustmaster Warthog as DCS A-10C. The clickable cockpit is on par with DCS A-10C. If only I had a Cougar for the correct throttle. If it wasn't for the slow mo conga lines and dated graphics, I could enjoy dogfighting in this game as much as LOMAC/FC2/DCS. Of course, my style of play doesn't tap into the dynamic campaign engine. Nor do I see the point of multiplayer unless you prefer co-op only with everyone flying the same airframe. So, even with all the amazing improvements to Falcon 4 over the years and the fact that in many ways it is still comparable or even superior to DCS, it is still not the game for me to play. Yet, I have the original Falcon 4.0 and Falcon 4.0: Allied Force. P.S. Shouldn't this forum be renamed to be something like Falcon 4 and Friends since Allied Force is no longer being developed and various mod versions are far more popular?

Far too easy. I don't even have to look that one up.

Off topic: Currently, my job title is "SCADA technician" for the Toho Water Authority in Kissimmee, FL. I am principally paid to solve industrial control problems, but this is not the place to go into details about what that means, what I actually do, or how to get into this field. On topic: Now I am heading off to buy the Mirage IIIEL to complete my collection of SF products (much as I have a collection of 1/48 scale model airplanes).

I can't say I fly 100% stock: from the moment I complete a new install, I have to edit the ini to turn off sun flare and set antialiasing. Out of the box, I can fly F-4s/F-8s/F-105s/F-100s/Mirages vs MiGs... so what exactly do I need mods for? I tend to substitute 600 gal drop tanks for guns pods on F-4 loadout files when I get tired of manually doing so through the in-game loadout screen. I also tend to make MiG-21s/MiG-23s flyable as time and interest permit. Sooner or later, I throw a few addon aircraft like Julhelm's Convair, the F-101 Voodoo, and/or some of the Razbam stuff like the F2H-2. It takes me months to accumulate all of the above minor changes after a new patch/install. As I don't care too much for modern or hypothetical fights and the crappy stock terrain doesn't affect air combat, I rarely bother to install any other mods. While I have bought all of the DLC except for the latest Mirage IIIEL, I hardly ever fly any of those. I like having the option to fly whatever I want whenever I feel like it, but I am not compelled to periodically fly every stock aircraft. I do enjoy collecting them, and unlike user mods, they stay current with every patch/new release. My pay is on the order of $35/hour, and I get time-and-a-half for overtime, so if I inadvertently clock out late like I did today and get 1/4 hour of OT, I have $13 of play money I can blow on DLC. Which means, whether I need it or not, whether I will fly it or not, I will buy the Mirage IIIEL tonight and have lost nothing for doing so while expanding my stock flyable plane set by 1. As long as a significant number of other Third Wire customers do the same, what does TK have to lose by making every minor variant of every stock model into DLC? If the changes required to create finished DLC variants truly took only 30 minutes, TK would be cranking these out even faster than he has. I suspect he budgets a certain amount of time to research the variant as well as time spent creating textures/decals, making minor mods to 3d models, and editing ini files. I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the releases. I look forward to seeing what else he digs up and the history behind the real aircraft.

As much as TK focuses on budget/profit issues, he is still an avid fan of aviation. TK has specifically mentioned that he prefers to release aircraft in groups so that rare or interesting types that only a minority would like have their cost covered by popular types that most people want. His theory is that If he produced addon aircraft, only the most popular would make back the time/money invested in them, which means only the popular ones could be produced. Of course, he totally defeated that objective with SF2NA as it released only one new flyable and perhaps the most popular flyable ever included in a TW release. The days of four or more new flyables per release are gone unless there is a massive change in the economics involved.

In case you haven't noticed, the days where TK gives away the F-4J and A-4F for free are gone. The bills went up and the market value for '60s era "sim lite" air combat games remained the same. TK made it clear from the start what DLC would be: skins and minor variants of existing aircraft. So, what is wrong with TK trying to maximize customer choice and income by releasing these minimum change DLCs? If you don't like a particular product, vote with your wallet. My only problem is that I have to keep applying the latest patch revisions to use the latest DLCs whether I like the changes in the patch or not. The game is becoming more "nerfed" for "casual" players who expect hard settings to allow their missiles to work every time and enemy missiles to miss or do at most minor damage, and can't be bothered to lower and raise landing gear/flaps/tailhooks (TK actually expressed that he is considering eliminating gear/flaps/hook controls in favor of automation to reduce button complexity), Charging $3 for minor aircraft variants that nobody is forced to buy is simply a non-issue for me, especially when contrasted with the future of the core detail/gameplay. For the record, the A-4L is just as unique as the Japanese F-4. It retains many physical features of the A-4C, especially the length. But besides the obvious hump, it has updated "separate" intakes and adds the spoilers prevalent on later Skyhawks. You can't make a 100% physically correct A-4L from either an A-4C, A-4E, or A-4F. It requires a dedicated model to get all the details correct. As a fan of the F-4, I appreciate every minor detail that distinguishes every variant of F-4 TK has released. It is therefore equally easy for me to appreciate the many Skyhawk, Hunter, Mirage, and other variants of stock aircraft TK has decided to cover. While I happen to like Skyhawks and Mirages, I have never cared much about Hunters -- yet I own all the variants released by TK. Call me stupid, but I actually enjoy having the largest possible library -- and in a way that doesn't get broken every time a major game engine update is released. If you can live without an A-4L (and I am sure everyone can short of true Skyhawk fanatics), don't buy it. But when you consider the price, it is more than fair for a unique new model with a customized ini. I have paid far more for the same or less between Razbam and YAP.

There is a reason to use third wire refueling probe: textures. Cockpit's texture won't change with external textures, external probe will.

Original F-15As (not sure when this stopped) were delivered without ALQ-135 system... development issues. I have the books that would document what systems were added when... just have to dig up the facts.

Actually, they made it clear that you already had to have FSX Gold or FSX + Addon installed in addition to the $50.

First month is $50... probably competitive rate after that. Looks like it will fulfill the intent of Fighter Ops. Some sort of role playing at being a real pilot starting with the training. Looks like it will favor modern aircraft... which isn't very compelling for me.

You need to try the free 2 weeks with Aces High and find a P-47 squad. They have plenty of P-47 variants to choose from and some really good guys. With built in voice coms that have multiple "radio" channels, you can have a lot of fun. The flight models are detailed enough that it takes a while to learn how to push a particular aircraft to its limits and the weaknesses of the other aircraft you are flying against. It you have the time to commit to flying regularly with a squad, Aces High can be one of the most rewarding sims you can fly.

Sorry for the misinformation. I had wrongly assumed that DLC skins locked the textures. I am sure TK would be bothered if somebody "modded" these new skins and distributed them. So, if terrain files that very few would ever steal or benefit from are locked down, why are skins that he is trying to sell be open to extraction/modding/redistribution? I don't get TK's logic on which files to lock down or no lock down? Leave them all open or protect your property as best you can, but sitting in the middle where honest modders are impeded but dishonest pirates are not does not make any sense to me.

$600/year? Not so sure I will even consider trying it. I don't believe they are going to deliver a flight/combat experience even as good as FC2 much less DCS. Of course if they get a sizable user base, they will have the kind of income it takes to make it as good or better than DCS. But they better do some market research. Aces High was $30/month and eventually trimmed its price down to $15/month which remains the going rate for a decent online game. $600 will take me a lot further in DCS... and still be mine to fly every year after tha. But, if it was everything I ever wanted in a combat sim... I still might try it for a month or two.