streakeagle

AIM-7 performance versus firing parameters varies widely among models and patch levels in SFP1/SF2. Typically the AIM-7E works very well at long ranges, especially against head-on non-maneuvering targets, but can handle beam shots to some extent. The AIM-7E2 is not so good at long ranges, but is a great dogfight missile able to handle maneuvering targets, but it doesn't handle beam shots well at all. I don't have nearly as much time firing AIM-7Fs and AIM-7Ms, as I usually fly before they existed. But I have some F-15 time and usually get 50-75% reliability out of them if they don't get chaffed. The effectiveness of decoys has been a problem over the years. Some patch revisions, missiles missed every time chaff was released. Other patch revisions, chaff is ignored completely. If you are having trouble with AIM-7s, you are probably flying in later years against opponents with chaff and jammers. In the Vietnam era, I do much better with the AIM-7 than the AIM-9 unless the AIM-9G/H is available. In which case I save the AIM-7s for long range or head-on shots and the AIM-9s for close in.

I have read all of their statements... but ED has been a little shifty over the years as they shifted from making the Black Shark an addon to FC to creating an entirely new game approach that is still being flushed out. Marketing hype means nothing to me. When I have a product in my hand, I don't care whether it is labeled "DCS" or not: what does it actually do, does it meet my needs, and was it worth the price. The MiG-21bis is the focus of my interest, now how long do I have to wait for a release?

The Su-25T is "DCS" but is still modeled on a LOMAC/FC level. Of course the Su-25T has the AFM (advanced flight model) and to the best of my knowledge, none of the third party releases will have that yet. So, the MiG-21bis can be called the "DCS MiG-21bis" but still have a flight model at the LOMAC/FC level and possibly not even have a clickable pit. The Su-25T is really nice, but lacks little things like toe brakes--you just press a single key to apply wheel brakes. I would rather have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised, than expect perfection and be greatly disappointed. I went ahead and pre-purchased at the $50 level, though. People are complaining about $40 addon planes like the P-51D. But if you give me a plane I want to the level of detail the A-10C and P-51D are modeled, $40-$50 is plenty fair to me as each plane is the equivalent of buying another study sim like Falcon 4.0, DCS A-10C, Jane's F/A-18, etc. Of course, at that kind of price, I won't buy every addon that comes down the line compared to the much cheaper Third Wire DLC products where I bought everything to support the future growth of the game. I essentially want DCS World with the planeset of the SF2 series, and it looks like it will be even better as TK refused to provide flyable MiGs or proper avionics dlls to support 3rd party versions. 2 or 3 years from now, I may have a DCS library covering the F-4, F-104, MiG-21, F-15, A-10, P-51. There will even be some aircraft I want from the same time frame that Third Wire would never even do such as the T-38. Of course, the market could collapse and almost none of this will ever come to be a reality. But even then, as long as FC3 and MiG-21bis makes it into DCS World before then, I will have a sim with the MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, F-15, A-10, Ka-50, and P-51. That's pretty much on the level of Jane's USAF, which along with Fighters Anthology are the sims that set the benchmark for what I want. As an added bonus, I think DCS is becoming what people looked forward to in Fighter Ops. Nevada terrain plus T-38, F-15, A-10 detailed well enough to follow real life procedures and training. Fighter Ops isn't vaporware, it just ended up being done by a different company and being named DCS :)

I am not talking about a tool that moves files in and out of folders. It needs to read a list of changes and apply them to stock files. 1. Determine stock files to be changed. 2. Extract them. 3. Read and apply change list to stock files such as adding and removing lines of ini files. 4. Place final files in correct folders. Can JSGME do that for SF2? The term "Generic" tells me it probably can't extract files from SF2 cat files. With the way SF2 already works, I can keep mods in folders on the side, paste them into the user folders with a single copy/paste command or revert back to stock by deleting the entire folder in question and allowing the sim to rebuild it from scratch the next time the game starts.

If you follow the < 2 nm and low g target rule (preferably firing from slightly below the target at altitudes > 2-3,000 feet, you can get a pretty good ratio even with the AIM-9B (though you need to add one more rule to help the seeker: target in afterburner). The only time I couldn't get good performance out of missiles no matter what I did was the original release of WoI, where the MiGs instantly put their beam to doppler radars and easily broke lockons. The MiGs also stayed fairly low to the ground making both AIM-9 and AIM-7 shots difficult. This gave me results comparable to reality and in the case of F-15s with doppler radars, even worse than reality with almost 0% AIM-7 hits. Of course, TK quickly made a patch that made the AI far less likely to succeed in breaking lock and the F-15 returned to being a sniper with AIM-7s. I really enjoyed that original WoI release: the most challenging version TK ever published. If you count unreleased beta versions, I believe the title of most challenging goes to First Eagles. The Spad was somewhat unstable in pitch and would depart wildly if you didn't use a precise light touch. But the public release made the Spad more like its historical reputation: a fast stable gun platform.

But US information is generally available. I have few references on the F-105 (though the pilot manual is a really good one if you are only going to have a few), but I was aware that TK's sight was lacking. In particular, I knew for sure it was a full blown LCOS like the F-4, though the pilots complained that it was too hard to switch between ground attack and air-to-air sight modes and usually ended up leaving it in a fixed reticle mode since they were usually enroute to a ground target when bounced. I am glad you have nothing better to do than fix these things, but it would be even better if you could get TK to incorporate them into the stock game to avoid the ini conflict problems that arise with new patches/installs. I usually end up making ini edits gradually as I want/need them after each major patch/install release and lose them all to the next release before I get more than a few of them installed. I usually don't just copy/paste, but prefer to extract the originals and merge the changes into the latest ini files to avoid breaking new stuff. That approach is much too time consuming, so I end up hardly using any mods at all. What I should do is create a tool that identifies the mod files in a folder, extracts the stock files, and automatically merges the listed mod changes into the stock files, then place them in the appropriate folders. For that to work, the mod files would have to contain only the changes, but it would be a powerful way to manage ini mods after major patches/new installs. However, I can still think of situations where TK's changes would break such a tool, so I don't know if it would really be worth the effort.

Just ran the stock Operation Bolo mission and would have hit 4/4 with AIM-7E if a MiG-21 had not broke line of sight by ducking behind Thud Ridge. It feels like I am firing AIM-9Ms at non-maneuvering targets: lock, shoot, kill with no effort.

I don't know why TK doesn't bother to get stuff like this right. Crusader really shouldn't need to release these kinds of mods... But, since these mods do make the game a quite a bit more realistic, Crusader should put all his mods into a package much like the old Weapons Pack. Then again, how hard is it to find and download all of his releases with the "See user's other files" button on the download page?

Even before the patch, AIM-9Gs were always very good. The main difference between AIM-9G/H Sidewinders and AIM-9Ls is the all-aspect capability, otherwise performance is very similar. If fired within parameters (even against MiG-17s), I expect at least 50%, typically 75%, and possibly 100% success with AIM-9G/H. Even AIM-9Ds are not that bad, just slide the % down by 25: 25%/50%/75%, just a tad less maneuverble. Its the AIM-9B/E/J series that was much more challenging. The patch doesn't appear to effect the maneuverability or seeker tracking, just the reliability and/or lethality. So getting a hit with an AIM-9B against a MiG-17 is just as hard as it ever was, but if you do hit, you will probably get a kill. So the patch doesn't greatly improve the low end missiles since they have many other limitations besides reliability and lethality, but it makes missiles that were already decent into near 100% PK wonder weapons... but again only if fired within seeker and maneuverability limitations. So, in a 1972 era Vietnam dogfight such as May 10,1972 with 4xAIM-7E2 and 4xAIM-9G/Hs, I expect to get about 7+/-1 kills. When in reality, you were lucky if you got one and in the rare case of Duke, three kills in a single sortie. Of course, not even accounting for the changes from the patch, it was already normal for me to get 2-4 kills in the same situation and 7-8 was possible with patience and luck. Unlike reality, the AI sooner or later gives you the shot opportunity that was very rare in reality. Unlike reality, I can run my fuel pretty low waiting for that opportunity without any real worries. Weapon ini changes aside, multiplayer with 1:1 scale maps would create an environment with the potential to get much more realistic results. A MiG-17 pilot aware of a gunless F-4 attacking it can always deny a missile shot. An F-4 aware of a MiG-17 pilot attacking it can always deny a gun shot. So if both are aware of each other, who is going to make a mistake or be forced to turn and run due to fuel? The lack of multiplayer means the AI needs to be very complicated to produce realistic behavior that will produce historical results. The AI has come a long way, but it still isn't even close to being capable of replicating the behavior of a true ace. But the nice part about AI is that you can scale it up or down to suit your preferences. When you play online, mismatches between skill levels on both sides may be realistic, but not very entertaining for the aces or the cannon fodder. The solution is co-op play until enough of the lesser pilots catch up to the veterans. Even then, you may have one pilot so skilled/talented that the only way to balance the fight is to have everyone else on one team to fight against him. Back to the original topic: having every missile I fire hit and kill the target is not very challenging or fun. If the changes that result in that are hard coded and not made optional, then I have no use for such a game.

I seldom fly air-to-ground in any sim and have principally flown air-to-air in SFP1/SF2 all these years with a focus on flying the F-4 and MiG-21. Recently, I have spent quite a bit of time on the MiG-23. The MiG-21bis is clearly going to be modeled better than any SF2 implementation which cannot properly support Soviet avionics functions. But my concern is that it will be modeled at the LOMAC level when I would prefer it to be at the A-10C level of detail. I have read the flight manual of the MiG-21 almost as much as the F-4 in trying to refine the SF2 implementation. I would love a fully functional clickable MiG-21 cockpit. The MiG-21bis can carry 4xAA-8 and 2xAA-2, the AA-2 can even be the SARH model for NAW intercepts. While it did not have the payload, range, or avoinics, it was otherwise the Soviet equivalent to the F-16: a lightweight single engine multirole fighter. In the bis form, it is very much an air-to-air threat against F-16s that typically carried 6 or less AIM-9s. The absence of chaff, flares, and ECM are as much a problem as the endurance. Adding a belly pod with all of those things costs the centerline fuel tank which is critical to MiG-21 operations. While the MiG has many advantages over the F-4, its cockpit view is even more restrictive. Learning to fight with a limited outside view and a weak radar system will be all the more fun/challenging for me.

I don't have time for study sims either. I play these games with full difficulty/realism aside from permitting external views, but I don't have to use all the buttons if I don't want to: Just like SF2, I can start in the air, ready to fight and essentially use the same buttons/controls I use when playing SF2: Roll, pitch, yaw, throttle, weapons selection and trigger. FC2 will soon be FC3, so you add the complexity of learning the controls of the F-15. Having played all the DACT missions in the FC2 F-15, again not much more complex than SF2 other than a few more radar modes, most of which I don't need/use in the DACT missions. Of course, since I have a Warthog HOTAS, it makes it easier for me to enjoy the A-10C study sim side. I just tried free flight with the Ka-50 the other night. No trouble flying it... not too much different than the ArmA helo flight models. The complex part is learning all of the options hidden in the MFD menus, but since the A-10C cockpit is clickable and I can read, I have already learned quite a bit just poking around. The rest of the cockpit knobs are well labeled, too. So I haven't had to read the manual to do basic tasks, just looked around until I found the switch I already knew would exist. I almost never play dynamic or static campaigns in any sim. I like to spend my free time flying missions I like, not whatever some campaign decides. Ultimately, multiplayer with no AI is where the real challenge/fun will be, but I don't really have the time to get proficient enough to compete against more dedicated online types. So far, I have rotated quite a bit, flying the Su-25T and P-51D the most since they have instant action dogfight missions and I am primarily an air-to-air fanatic. But I have spent almost as much time flying the A-10C and the FC2 F-15C in anticipation of FC3. The Ka-50 is the low hours machine of the bunch. I don't know nearly as much about flying helos as I do flying jets, so it will take me a lot longer to get proficient enough to function in combat, especially with a foreign aircraft with weapons and systems I know next to nothing about. The map looks good enough that I don't really care where it is at, though I would prefer Vietnam and Israel/Middle East terrains for historical accuracy. In many ways, I feel like I did when SFP1 was first released: amazed and excited about what might be in store for the future. Except that nearly everything I would want is already included and functional minus a flyable F-4, MiG-21, Vietnam, and US Navy carrier ops, preferably CVAN-65 :) SF2 can only be varied from arcade to sim lite. DCS can almost be dialed down to an arcade level or dialed up into a full bore study sim if you can get through the all the setup menus. Despite using full difficulty settings, I am dogfighting in the P-51D and having no trouble with engine management. All I am doing is moving throttle and rpm levers as I have done for years in Aces High. I have yet to burn up the engine while fighting, though I nosed over and bent my prop while landing. All those little details that were missing from SF (or removed in later patches) are there, such as the option to do a ramp start (originally possible in SF via player edited missions and later disabled) and drag chutes (SFP1 originally had a key mapped for this function, but budget limitations made sure it was never implemented). Landings are much better in DCS. You can actually damage your aircraft and/or die, whereas SF2 will let you land at very steep angles and high speeds with little or no consequences. If a decently modeled F-4 ever becomes available, I will have little reason to ever play SF2 again despite having enjoyed it from the Wally World release until the latest patch. To be fair, I played Jane's USAF almost exclusively and Jane's Fighters Anthology before that purely for the ability to fly and fight in the F-4 Phantom. My sim loyalty has generally always been to the ones that best modeled the F-4 and P-51. SF has had an unusually long run as my primary F-4 simulator and Aces High gave me my P-51 (and F4U Corsair) fun. Now, DCS is poised to replace both of them as my all-time favorite jet and prop flight sims.

For me, FSAA is a must. And if FSAA is supported in the title, I can enable Adaptive AA as well, which smoothes out tgas like decals and wire fences. I found the setting in the Catalyst driver that caused the dropouts in DCS World, went back the original setting and have my fps bounce between 45 and 60 fps. I have also discovered that my motherboard supports an unusual feature: it comes with Lucid Logix Virtu MVP software which uses the built in Intel 4000 GPU to boost my video card's performance. DCS World didn't show any useful improvment and may have actually averaged a few FPS slower. However, SF2 ran much better. The 30 fps I had been seeing over Iceland jumped up to 40-50 fps, which looked and played much better.

I take my son to this museum about once every 2 or 3 months. I was hoping I would get to see the Albatros fly. I am sure he won't be flying that one very frequently, sorry I missed it.

A-10C is absolutely a blast just to take off, fly, and land. Instant action Su-25T dogfight with A-10C gave me a quick taste of air combat... again well done. P-51D is challenging to fly on the edge and fun to fight another P-51D. I don't have time to map the controls and figure out how to fly and fight the Black Shark yet, but the feel of the flight models is very interesting. Oh, and the graphics aren't too shabby either!

Finally got a new PC, and just in time: Got DCS World A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, and Combined Arms. Looking forward to the MiG-21 and there is even a 3rd party F-104 in the works. I have a Thrustmaster Warthog stick and it is a blast using it for DCS. I can't wait for the FC3 module to integrate some air-to-air jets into the "World". But it is the MiG-21bis I am really pining for!

Got a chance to play and do more testing/evaluation. I am used to DX10/11 titles not permitting forcing of FSAA, so I didn't have DCS tweaked up as well as I could have. Now, I get about 55-60 fps with drops to about 25 fps while dogfighting an A-10. I can imagine the drops will be worse in a full-blown combat environment, so I may have to back off the card settings a bit or the game settings.

DCS World and/or A-10C: Everything maxed out in the game settings and on the graphics card: locked at vsync 60 fps. SF2NA everything maxed out: locked at vsync until iceland comes into view, then locked at 30 fps. Haven't experimented to see what I could do to get it up to 60 fps over Iceland. LOMAC FC2 maxed out (can't force FSAA) vsync + (in game frame rates indicate 70-120 fps) ARMA 2 Combined Arms: don't know frame rates, but running smooth with High settings. Aces High 2: pegged at vsync 60 fps. DCS A-10C is absolutely awesome. Whether rolling on the ground or flying in the air, looks and feels great. Now, can I use the same FSX license on the new PC (i.e. no re-activation issues)? I would hate to think I have to buy another copy because I got a new PC. Will try it right now.

Assembled PC yesterday, got all my game hardware/software installed last night. Runs like a dream. More details later.

SF2NA is exactly the example of why someone might want a dedicated Japan map. Higher resolution of Japan for fighting on Japan. Can't fault someone for asking even if you don't want or need it yourself?

You are saying stop modding and have fun but then asking me if I have tried all the new mods? Which is it Dave? Have fun playing the game or have fun modding it? I have been playing it for years. In fact, because I have played certain situations so frequently, I can detect changes in FMs, AI, and weapons performance fairly easily. 1966 or 1972, F-4B/C/D/E or J, Fighter Sweep or Escort, Vietnam, Afternoon, Scattered Clouds, Light Air, Light AA, and edit loadouts to replace gun pods with centerline tanks. Of course thanks to the relatively new "Save" button, if a particular mission plays well, I can play the same mission in the future (when a release/patch hasn't broken the mission save function!) Typically I fly an F-4B in 1966 or an F-4D in 1972. I have played that same setup since WoV was released (minus the clouds), and technically played some form of it since the SFP1 Walmart release. When that exact mission plays well (i.e. somewhat matches historical results), I am having fun. When I can slaughter the AI without even a chance of being killed, I am not having fun. SFP1 SP2a was fun (using the free DRV terrain). WoV was somewhat fun, but the FMs were broken and the enemy AI was strongly degraded. WoE added clouds and fixed the FM issues, but left the AI as being gutless. WoI initially broke a bunch of stuff, but provide the best dogfigting/gunning AI SF has ever had. SF2 improved upon WoI. From that description, you would surmise I had a long time where the AI sucked for dogfighting from WoV to WoI... but I overcame that problem by almost exclusively playing online against real people. But it was real important for the AI to be working right by the release of SF2 since multiplayer was removed. While there were some bugs along the SF2 road, usually TK released fixes fairly quickly. I had a good run with little or no problems with my favorite mission. Then TK started messing with core code in the Expansion Packs and patches leading up to SF2NA. Many of these fixes were in response to complaints caused by problems resulting from mods. I could no longer visually spot aircraft at the ranges specified in the Data ini files. Terrain faded out at short ranges. Runways weren't visible until you were on top of them. Clouds were locked at high altitudes well above the ones I needed for historical Vietnam missions. Now, since SF2NA: New terrain that doesn't really look any better than WoI/SF2I (can I say it actually looks a bit worse?), but lowers FPS 60s avionics cause a stutter (unresolved despite a hotfix and a patch) the pendulum of play balance has swung all over the place on the effectiveness of air to air missiles, currently settling out with uber missiles that effortlessly smoke MiGs in the Vietnam timeframe. And those are just the problems that affect my specific mission I like to play. I think the terrain modders are a wee bit more disappointed than me. So, this isn't really a matter of me just disliking one tiny aspect of some minor patch. I have watched my "fun" steadily go down the drain with no indications the trend is going to change. "Playbalancing" missiles was simply the last straw. Dave, what aircraft and missiles do you normally use? Do I dare guess not AIM-9Bs/Ds and AIM-7Es/E2s? Its hard to notice "nerfed" missiles if you were already using AIM-9Ls and AMRAAMs So, you are having fun, great! But some of us are not, and for me it has nothing to do with not spending enough time playing the game... It is the way the game plays.

There was a point where there was a happy balance, and as far as I can recall, it lasted quite a while until SF2NA or a patch or so just before it. I was popping B-52s with AA-2s fired by MiG-21s, so the bombers were not invincible. My question is what did TK change that made bombers invincible? Was it the missiles? The armor on the bombers? Right now I can fire 8 missiles and get 7 hits for 7 kills, which goes back to the pre WoI time frame where I could make ace on every single flight no matter what I or the opponent flew. It also seems like enemy tail guns are less accurate than before. Even in the original SFP1, flying straight and level at tail guns was certain death. I saw my wingman die to tailguns, but I never took a hit while carefully positioning for short-burst (single tap of fire button) kills of Bears. While I believe M61 20mm rounds are very effective against fighters, they shouldn't repeatedly shoot down a large bomber with one short burst... unless my aim is super precise. I haven't been playing enough to have that kind of aim, so I am assuming the hit boxes are fairly large and I am catching a fuel tank nearly every time based on the flames I observe. The only Bear to survive one burst was grazed on a wing, and he was killed after I corrected my aim and hit the lucky "ball of fire" box on the next tap. As far as realism goes: with KILL rates of 8-10% for AIM-7s and 12-15% for AIM-9s in Vietnam, do that math: you could fire all 8 missiles and expect exactly 1 kill, but that is averaging together many times when no kills were scored with some times when multiple kills were scored all against especially small and vulnerable MiG-17s and MiG-21s. Of course later missiles had much better numbers in the range of 35% for AIM-7s and 75% for AIM-9s. Which means the same 8 missiles should typically get 4-5 kills against small single engine fighters (that aren't using ECM or decoys!). Now consider that there have been friendly fire incidents where F-4s, F-15s and A-10s flew home after taking direct hits from AIM-9s that they weren't even trying to evade or decoy. So a larger, twin engined fighter and/or well armored one may be incapcitated but won't necessarily go down with just one AIM-9 hit. Single engine aircraft aren't necessarily automatically dead either. F-105s and MiGs flew home with missiles stuck in their tails. So, what I would like to see are three options: Missile Reliability EASY: missiles launch and guide correctly, completely disregard ini parameters. NORMAL: missiles mostly launch and guide correctly, ini parameters spruced up a bit by some formula (maybe take the square root of the failure chance?). HARD: missiles behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence. Missile Lethality EASY: missiles kill target with every hit. NORMAL: missiles probably kill target, ini parameters spruced up a bit (maybe take the square root of the damage effects?). HARD: missile behave per data ini, which is tweaked to get results comparable to historical evidence. Player vulnerability to damage should be a separate function: EASY: Invincible NORMAL: Square root of all damage effects? HARD: Straight damage unmodified. With those three settings, you could get any measure of fun you want out of the game. NORMAL settings would be what most gamers would like HARD settings would hold to the original SF2 non-nerfed code and keep long time users happy. But all these settings are too confusing for the target audience and would take too much time and money for a one-man company to develop. So, would anyone care for another skin pack?

From the patch readme: I am going to take TK at his word and assume that non-player missiles follow one set of rules and player missiles follow another set. This is his solution to the problem of people complaining that they have to fire countless missiles to take down a single aircraft without making missiles fired at the player too lethal to be any fun. Otherwise, he should have said "Damage from air-to-air missiles has been increased". Of course, given that you can't fly MiGs in the stock game, Western air-to-air missiles could be called "player missiles", but that would be just as bad if SAMs and Eastern AAMs use a different set of rules. All missiles (or any other weapons for that matter), be they SAMs or AAMs, Western or Eastern, player or AI, should follow the same damage rules based on explosive weight and warhead type. If SAMs are too lethal (and real world Vietnam pilots who played this sim always said that they were in WoV), then make them less reliable and/or less accurate (i.e. more shots gone ballistic or failed fusing or passed by too far to detonate/do damage).

I stopped modding long ago aside from sometimes tweaking MiG-21s and MiG-23s. As I understand it, the patch made "player weapons" more effective: i.e. an AIM-9M launched by an AI is less effective than an AIM-9M launched by the player. There is no way to code around that change AFAIK, custom weapon pack or not. Might as well be floating powerups that repair damage or shields that stop all damage. SF has always had some balance issues in favor of "fun" such as AI automatically engaging the player when the player is engaging the AI as well as leaving the primary target to the player. There are plenty of fun flight games. I simply have no interest in playing them. I want some minimum level of realism which SF originally maintained (if only barely at times). For me, the last patch crossed the line between "lite sim" and "arcade game". SF2 might as well be Ace Combat or Hawx, which are actually better games from a gameplay perspective with generally better graphics as well. I have no interest in F-4 vs MiG fights where Atolls tend to do only light damage and Sidewinders fired by me tend to be lethal. Is the game still playable? Sure. Will I get the same results? I already get very favorable kill ratios no matter what aircraft I have or what the numerical odds are. I can beat 4:1 odds in a MiG-23 vs F-15s without any player "cheats". So, I don't need any more "play balance" adjustments of this type. Make a default setting to have the gameplay balanced, but make it an option that can be turned off (as it should be when "HARD" is selected). As it stands, I see no point in developing further historical missions for SF2.

Yes, as much as it has improved since WoI and SF2, the AI still has many flaws dating back to the original SFP1... and even picked up a few new odd behaviors as old problems were addressed.

As Yoda once said, "There is another..." FSX is still gearing up to be a combat flight sim if VRS Tac Pack is any good. X-Plane almost went that direction, but decided blowing people up was a bad thing, so weapons do no damage.