streakeagle

The question is, which do people value more: freedom or security? The FBI's job is to provide security and if our freedom allows terrorists and other criminals to communicate without any fear of being monitored, the FBI's job is much harder. They have already had the right to monitor phone calls and even made sure digital phones would provide a way for them to decipher any digital voice traffic. So, this is a no-brainer for them, just extending the rights they have already had to the latest technological advance in communications. I heard a discussion about this on the radio and it was pointed out that even with encrypted email, they get a warrant to put a key logger on your PC while you aren't home and get the info they need to access your digital information anyway. The new laws being proposed just make it easier to do what they have already been doing anyway. No one has really raised a fuss about the NSA continuously scanning phone calls for keywords, cameras being put up all over the place, or numerous other compromises in our privacy and freedom that should otherwise be protected by the original right to no unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. It is quite apparent that a significant majority of US citizens want big brother to watch them, provide their health care, feed, cloth, and shelter them. Careful what you wish for... Famous quote cited by Ben Franklin:

I have had issues with HDMI scaling the PC images despite being set to 1080p and having the computer set to display the same resolution. Look at your desktop. Do the letters on the shortcut icons look as clear and distinct on the 1080p TV as they do on a PC monitor? I always end up with the letters looking a bit blurry which results from some sort of slight upsizing or downsizing despite matching the native resolution of the TV. When I switch to the VGA or DVI ports on the TVs, everything is crystal clear.

People appreciate animals more when they can get up close, which ultimately helps promote protecting wild habitats endangered by man. So, as long as people accept the risks, I am all for letting them "play" with wild animals or even keep them as pets. In some cases, the number of pets outnumbers the number in the wild, so these "pets" may actually help prevent total extinction. Where I have a problem with people mixing it up with wild animals is after an incident like this, they think they are entitled to some kind of monetary settlement or some entity calls for the animals to be killed. The animal should never be punished for the stupidity of people. Look at Sea World. They have a killer whale that has killed 2 or 3 people. They have correctly chosen not to kill or punish the whale for being itself. At the same time, they clearly aren't smart enough to keep clear of the whale to avoid further incidents. Killer whales are clearly too big to be held in captivity and be both mentally and physically healthy. But, Sea World has used these animals to promote awareness and respect for these animals in particular and ocean life in general. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A very rugged design combined with a very determined crew and a lot of luck. How many more planes took far less damage and took one or more of their crew down with them? Did the 109 pilot make it?

MiG-23 and F-4 Phantom. Similar intakes, similar performance, similar radar and missile capabilities. Scaled down to 1 seat and 1 engine with VG wing for short takeoff performance. The A-5 Vigilante certainly set the standard for a practical Mach 2.5+ airframe (as opposed to the SR-71's Mach 3.5+ airframe), but aside from the basic planform and intake arrangement, the A-5, MiG-25 and F-15 have very little in common. look at how the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are attached to the airframe and the underlying structures that hold everything together. The A-5's fuselage is rather unique due to its intended capability to lob nuclear weapons out of its internal center tube. The MiG-25 has intakes/exhausts necessary for its unique engine configuration and high altitude/speed performance. Its internal structures gave up strength and limited maneuverability to focus on top speed at high altitude. The F-15's budget was justified as a response to the MiG-25, but the original Mach 3 concepts looked nothing like the MiG-25. At the same time Boyd was calling for weight and size reduction, the Navy was trying to trap the USAF into buying the F-14 (as they did with the F-4). So, the resulting F-15 proposals had to meet very complicated restrictions: 1) Give up the VG wing to cut weight, complexity, and look as dissimilar to the F-14 as possible. 2) Add a large bubble canopy to overcome situational awareness issues encountered in Vietnam (didn't we already learn this lesson in WW2?). 3) As high a top speed as possible despite having a large bubble canopy, no VG wing, and minimal high-temperature materials. 4) Have a large wing area and turn like a bandit despite the high speed requirement. The F-14 variant for a fixed wing proposal looked a lot like the F-15/A-5 Mach 2.5 layout and was being drawn up well before the MiG-25s layout was evident. The original 60,000 lb Mach 3 VG F-15 proposals had spaced engines just like the F-14. I am guessing the engines were pulled back in for two reasons: the change to the fixed wing design with the twin tail booms was more practical and to not look like an F-14. So while the layouts already existed and the A-5 marked the first full-scale production example of that type, it looks like less a case of blatant copying and more a case of engineers facing certain problems arriving at similar solutions. The MiG-25 that landed in Japan gave the US an up close inspection that revealed how different Soviet engineering was to anything the West would have produced. There's a lot more to aircraft design than the basic wing/tail plan view. Now, for a nearly identical external copy: US space shuttle oribiters versus Buran. Soviet engineers arrived at an extremely similar solution, too similar!

The Warthog works fine with SF2. But I am not cutting it up to mix its internals with my F-4 stick. so I am primarily flying using my F-4 stick which is currently mated to my old X-45. I love the feel and functionality of the Warthog, except for the feel of moving through the center detent. It is not a stick I would use for delicate formation flying and is equally problematic when I play Steel Beasts and use it for aiming the main gun. I need to be able to make small subtle movements with little resistance and certainly no bumps from detents, whereas the Warthog requires a bit of force to get it moving and bumps to much around the center. For aggressive flying, it works great as you either move in a way that doesn't pass through the center or slam it around so hard that it doesn't matter. For me, it is the throttle that makes this stick such a good product. Looks and feels realistic and can be programmed to do almost anything. The ability to use the Target software to mix all the Thrustmaster products into a single virtual device is really useful for some games, but the lack of integrated rudder pedals is a big miss on Thrustmaster's part. Can't believe they would miss out on the cash flow for such an obviously useful accessory to complete this package. Since I got my Saitek X-45 working really well with the F-4 stick as opposed to the complicated 24VDC relay interface I had to use with the MS Sidewinder Pro USB, I kind of regret getting the Warthog. Could have used the money elsewhere. But when I start building a semiscale F-4 cockpit, the Warthog throttle will be a main feature unless I decide to cut up the Saitek throttle to make authentic F-4 throttle levers. Of course, if I stick with the Warthog throttle, then it isn't that hard to swap out the F-4 stick for the Warthog stick for DCS Warthog or throw it on the right side for some F-16 action. The Warthog throttle is very similar to an F-15 throttle and my F-4 stick grip is identical to the F-15A stick grip... so if I was smart, I would build an F-15 or A-10 pit rather than an F-4 pit. But guess which airplane it is I love so much that I acquired a real stick and adapted it for game use? I wish I had the money to get a real Martin-Baker MK7 and a real F-4 panel. But my semi-scale intentions should be more practical and possibly might look almost as good.

I know the cockpit is more important to me in actual gameplay, but that screenshot looks awesome... almost real! A decent 3d model with great textures and bump mapping take SF2 to the top notch of aircraft modeling. If it wasn't for the repeating patterns of the old terrain engine, even that looks very good.

The stock MiG-21 really should have been made a flyable by TK a long time ago. It is every bit equal or better than the F-4 in popularity, universal use, and an excellent dogfighter well suited to the game's fun flying/shooting intent. The data needed to model it well enough for this "sim lite" has been readily available for quite a while, too. Fortunately the community support has done nothing but improve the situation over time. Better cockpit modeling, many variants, and better textures. Special thanks to all of those who have contributed to making flyable MiG/Su mods over the years, from the early repainted stock cockpits, to the present dedicated external and cockpit 3d models! Always glad to see someone who appreciates the MiG-21 as much as I do and who also promotes its use in the SF series!

Nice looking plane! I am surprised to see a delta for a carrier aircraft though, especially without a canard. That makes me wonder about the aircraft's angle of attack for landing and/or landing speed. I wish they would have succeeded in providing their own engine. Hopefully, their multimode radar ultimately makes it into production aircraft. I love to see a country able to fully develop its own front line supersonic jet fighters instead of relying on the usual suspects.

Keep in mind that look down radar capability depends on the doppler shift in the frequency of the radar return resulting from motion toward the aircraft conducting the radar search and/or tracking the target. So even the mighty F-15 radar goes blind against a low target that is flying perpendicular to its radar. The radar filters out all returns that match the frequency of ground returns. Aircraft flying parallel to the flight path of the searching aircraft generate a large frequency shift that greatly contrasts against ground returns while aircraft flying perpendicular to it have the same frequency. When the effects of ground clutter and doppler shift were first added with the release of WoI, the AI would immediately put their beam to the F-15 and instantly break their lock, making AIM-7 kills almost impossible with a pulse doppler look-down radar. TK made some changes in the patches for WoI, so now the F-15 radar and its AIM-7s are effective again. But I am sure that a target can still use the "beam" maneuver to break radar locks/dodge missiles, as I have used such to defeat F-15s while flying MiG-23s. With older radars, merely flying low blinds them completely. With newer ones, fly low and use your RWR to put your beam to the radar. If a target is aware of your radar and flys correctly, you will never maintain a lock long enough to guide an AIM-7. Of course, low altitude is very good for heat seeking missile, either. So, you are heading for a close-in, ground level gunfight unless the target pops up long enough to permit a quick missile shot. Fortunately, the AI generally stays away from the ground or collides with it. WoI was the first time I saw AI planes in the SF series use low level tactics to avoid detection and tracking, but they tended to hit the ground a lot. AI is no longer as effective at using low level and beam maneuvers, which provides a lot more missile shot opportunities.

The Soviet answer to the Ticonderoga class. Amazing ships. I am attached to the 2nd hull, Frunze, as it was the sole effective surface unit in the old board game, 2nd Fleet. "Effective" in this case meant able to go head to head with a US carrier group and survive. Its theoretical anti-aircraft capabilities are over-the-top. On paper, a VLS Aegis cruiser of the 80's and 90's cannot get any hits through those defenses and can be overwhelmed by its surface-to-surface missiles. In reality, the ability of US standoff ECM to suppress those defenses is unproven but possibly very effective, and the USSR had trouble getting the radar/fire-control systems to work correctly. Of course Aegis had its problems as well. I would be very interested in seeing how a late '80s Ticonderoga centered surface action group would have held up against a Kirov centered surface action group. I think the results would hinge upon three things: real-world weapon system reliability/functionality (versus sales brochures), ECM/ECCM effectiveness, and whether the Aegis system would be able to datalink and control its surrounding anti-air warfare assets in a wartime evironment (which really depends on the first two things, but if it works, the Aegis group becomes exponentially more effective and I don't believe the USSR had any equivalent). Since the game allows systems to work ideally or even better, good luck on rolling back the SAMs of any group with a Kirov! It was difficult to impossible in the fairly accurate Harpoon miniatures game. Much easier and safer to attack with Mk 48 torpedoes from below :)

Link works. Too bad I already have nearly all of the F-4 flight manuals including this F-4B manual. Nice to have it available online though.

:) Another future flyer!

US aircraft typically have air-to-air range scales in miles such as 5/10/25/50/100/200 -- F-4 series Some aircraft have a minimum range scale of 10. Their ground mapping modes usually have 2 to 4 scales in miles, something like 10/20/40. Attack aircraft radars with no air-to-air capability usually have two modes: ground mapping and collision avoidance. Multimode radars usually have: 1. either boresight or autoacquire modes 2. search (range-while-search) 3. track 4. later airacraft may have TWA (track while scan) 5. ground mapping 6. many have a collision avoidance mode The F-14 has a completely unique radar that gets its own dll file defining its special displays and functionality. You can find some detailed descriptions of radar functionality using the online help guide at Third Wire Productions.

As long as NZ doesn't mind waiting for help, why waste money on airplanes? That's what its leaders already figured out. If any real threat appears, surely the larger Western nations can bear the cost and defend NZ, probably at no charge. The USA (and to a lesser extent Japan and Australia) will do everything within their economic and political constraints to stop any hostile expansion in the Pacific, be it from China or anywhere else. 12 planes are not going to turn the tide against anyone capable of launching an attack on NZ, so why even bother? If NZ were like the UK in the early 1940s facing the Nazis almost entirely alone, then I could see trying to buy as many airframes as its economy could support. But in this day and age, the USA and/or NATO are playing world police. If NZ is going to spend any money on any kind of "combat" aircraft, shouldn't they be long range patrol types (i.e. P-3 Orion family) to try to identify potential threats and pass on intel to militarily stronger nations? Of course, help from the USA usually comes with a few strings attached, like the right to bring the very nuclear powered ships that would be saving NZ into NZ ports. So, my final answer per the discussion is that NZ should choose what it already has chosen: allow other nations to provide for its defense. That is the cheapest solution and in the absence of any real war, the absolute best solution to government spending issues.

Miniatures met their preorder limit, just waiting for them to get "printed" and shipped :) I made a spreadsheet that completely eliminates all laminated charts, which helps speed up gameplay. Ordered the materials I need to make "3d" stands: telescoping inspection mirrors (6"-36") and magnetic adapters that will allow me to easily swap airplanes. I have introduced my 10-year-old nephew to the game, so I may actually have someone to play against face-to-face!

There is a reason there are lots of WW2 games, several modern ones and almost no Vietnam era games. WW2 games = simple cockpits/weapons/avionics (note how few if any WW2 games model aircraft with radar, especially night fighters but even bombers like TBF/TBM never have radar). Modern aircraft have digital displays. Jane's USNF/FA and Jane's IAF/USAF used digital displays even for older aircraft. Modeling complex early avionics with analog displays requires more effort than its worth. As "lite" as the SF series appears to be, the appearance of the F-4 radar is a masterpiece. It looks like the real displays under ideal conditions with a skilled operating dialing in the gain controls. The WW2 market has been the goldmine of flight sims. Korean War aircraft are really just extensions of WW2 technology: barely supersonic (really high transonic) and radar scarcely more common or capable than WW2 radar. When I see the F-86 gunsight modeled as well as it is in MiG Alley, then I will know how realistic this sim is going to be. I would be majorly surprised if World of Planes ever covers the Vietnam era, especially the radar interceptors like the F-4 and later MiG-21s. F-100s are really just supersonic Korean War era aircraft. I could see those making it into World of Planes. But does the World of Planes flight engine even support supersonic flight modeling? World War 2 flight sims seldom make good starting points for supersonic jet flight. FSX is wide open and can become whatever the market desires. The DCS series is kind of like FSX with the addition of air combat systems modeling. Given a choice between DCS' limited planeset and FSX, which do you think would sell better if FSX rivaled the DCS systems modeling and remains wide open to modding with the added bonus of multiplayer support? I don't know that the networking code is very conducive to whatever gets added on to support combat in FSX, but I suspect it is at least adequate. But I agree that it is a longshot, as it is a major investment risk to perform the programming at a level that customers are willing to buy and use. But I have more faith in this FSX combat project becoming a reality than Fighter Ops or Jet Thunder. Who knows? I already have FSX and have nothing to lose either way other than the stress of waiting/not knowing. I like the sound of this: I didn't have enough faith to preorder, but after I see reviews on this, I will get the Superbug and the TacPack to send the message that I want more. I hope they not only get this out on the market, but follow their plan of providing a free SDK to other developers, especially Accusim. Of course, Accusim might be the type to develop their own code in the face of competition, especially since their modeling standards are exceptionally high.

They don't go into much detail about the damage to the B-52. Was it very light damage? Or did it abort its mission and limp back to base? The HARM is not much use if it can't take down an aircraft with a direct hit on the tail. But it may be simply a matter of selecting the right warhead for the mission as I don't see why it couldn't have a warhead as effective as a Sparrow, but it might also need the fusing of the Sparrow to work against aircraft. The effectiveness of a warhead against an aircraft is definitely affected by the timing of its detonation.

Why is it that by the time you apply the rules, it reads like a bad Hollywood German accent? Ve Hav vays of making you talk!

The store still overs SF products. IIRC, the official policy when you buy the download is something like 3 downloads within 30 or 90 days? After that, they are just being nice if they give you access to another download opportunity. But I am pretty sure they are going to want a customer to be happy regardless of the official policy. Never hurts to ask. I have backup DVD copies of all my SF downloads, both payware and freeware, including all of the RAZBAM SF aircraft (never bought the terrains).

All great stuff that is suddenly far more useful than it once was :)

There is a huge limitation of air-to-air ARMs compared to air-to-surface ARMs: what happens when the target shuts down? A stationary SAM site has already revealed its position, so the missile can try to fly to the last known location of the target. It is much harder to hit a 500 mph target if it is no longer being tracked. AWACs is the only practical target for such a missile. I don't know how easy it would be for AWACs to detect such a threat and momentarily cease radar transmissions. I could see a formation of fighters being decimated the first time such a weapon is used. Imagine 4 or more F-15/F-16s charging toward a thread radars blazing. At what point would they realize that the missiles that are inbound are seeking their radars? In an all-out war, US fighters would probably be using LPI pulses anyway (low-probability of intercept). Such radar is difficult to detect with RWR much less use for missile homing. The airplane radar/stealth/ecm game is starting to sound a lot more like the sub/sonar game.

That paint scheme really brings out the "fighter" in the F-4E. Camo with a shark mouth is classic, but looks more like a mud mover than a dogfighter. Excellent work :)

For me, TK is steadily heading the opposite direction of what I want. Given a choice between detail and scope, I prefer scope. A full globe with no walls. Initially, the globe would be pretty empty: all flat open ocean at sea level. With each official release, the appropriate area would be filled in. While modders fill in whatever they like. Of course, when official terrain overlaps modder modules, the end user can decide to overwrite the official terrain with third party terrain, just like aircraft mods. Using Google Maps, I bet modders would have a global terrain comparable to the early revisions of X-Plane in just a few years (or maybe even months if the terrain tools worked well). Instead, the terrain is becoming more and more like an FPS. Try flying a jet in the OFP/ArmA series. Lots of cool details that usually can't be seen except at very short ranges and you reach the edge of the island maps very quickly. Small maps are needed for the much slower/lower flying helos, but jets need some room. TK's trick of scaling nm to km helped him fit the geography necessary for historical conflicts into a much smaller package and overcome the absence of in-flight refueling, but I have never liked it. Now the maps are even smaller. While I am not optimistic, I am still hopeful that third parties will succeed in making MS FSX into a reasonable combat flight simulator. FSX is even more open to modding than the SF series and is capable of being much more realistic, yet retains the option to dumb down the difficulty to a "lite" sim. I am excited by the possibility of flying an Accusim F-4 or F-104 mated with an air combat expansion module covering the radar, rwr, ecm, and weapons. Of course, all of the WW2 aircraft would work as well or better. As long as the weapons/avionics/damage models are comparable if not superior to the SF series, I would be extremely with this setup. But it appears to be wishful thinking. I haven't seen any news from either of the two companies supposedly adding air combat to FSX. So for the duration, the only useful option I have for F-4 era combat is the SF series. But aside from the new approach to terrain, the view range has decreased and the clouds have too many restrictions on them. I am really tempted to abandon SF2 and go back to SF1 to regain multiplayer. But to the best of my knowledge, there are only 3 left of the long term core online group and my free time/schedule hasn't really improved much since the time I was forced to abandon multiplayer. If the overall attitude of customers towards SF2:NA is as bad as the forums make it out to be, TK will finally move onto something else anyway.

Jason was a real good guy with gogamer.com before he left it for 777 Studios. He always provided a lot of feedback at SimHq as well... about the industry in general as well as the games he was selling. I was surprised to see his comment and have no idea what he was thinking when he made it. I doubt it will affect their core business, but he has certainly lost the respect I had for him and his opinions.