streakeagle

As for AIMVAL/ACEVAL and large expensive fighters versus small cheap fighters, read "Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs". Interesting pilot anecdotes are sprinkled throughout this otherwise non-technical unit history. Some of the "Red Eagles" are F-14 pilots who were Top Gun graduates. Overall, the book reads more like a soap opera going into details about personal issues, but there are plenty of insights into MiG capabilities and how they compared with contemporary US fighters to make it worth the read. One conclusion that can be drawn from the MiG pilot experiences in this book is that F-14/F-15 fighters flown by well trained pilots who aren't hampered by safety rules of exercises will decimate MiG formations before ever being seen (much as F-22s claim to be able to do the same to F-14s/F-15s!). But it also makes it clear that if you are going to get into close range dogfights that F-16s are the way to go. The combination of a much smaller size, superior thrust/weight, and exceptional turn performance made the F-16 very difficult to beat if the the pilot made no major mistakes. I think history shows that a balance of F-14/F-15 size aircraft supporting F-16/F-18 sized aircraft is a better solution than exclusively flying one type or the other. Having the right plane for the right job is much better than trying to make one plane do every job.

Comparing the ThrustMaster MFDs to the CH equivalent, http://www.chproducts.com/retail/mfp.html , I must say ThrustMaster has the much better deal if you are replicating the standard MFD frame. As I have the Warthog, they would make even more sense for me. However, as I am about to travel to Pensacola in mid-April and get the photos and measurements I need to replicate aspects of the F-4 cockpit, MFD frames are not what I need. I could make a CH panel work for what I want, but more than likely I will mount real knobs and switches to a faux main panel and interface them through some sort of crazy keyboard mod or third party generic USB input card. But making a control panel is the lowest priority. First, I want to build a semi-scale Martin Baker Mk 7 seat and the left side console to mount a throttle. Then I need to arrange them around my F-4 B-8 stick and rudder pedals along with a large monitor. If I had the money and a PC able to drive it, I would get a 30" 2560x1600 LCD. For now, I will settle for a 24" 1920x1200 LCD already in my possession.

SF2 games don't support multiplayer, so you won't find anyone on teamspeak for those games. At one time you could find people flying SFP1/WoV/WoE and for a bit even some WoI guys on teamspeak, but those days are long gone.

I remember when that song was on the radio as often as Lady Gaga is now

Here is a similar chart that compares the F-4C/D, slatted F-4E, and F-15A/C. I had to switch from KCAS to Mach to match the F-15 charts. One nice thing about using Mach is that you can see where the F-4E's slats become dead weight -- near the sound barrier. The weights are all similar, but the F-4s only have AIM-7s while the F-15 adds AIM-9s and a centerline pylon (useful data considering the F-15 almost always flies with its centerline tank). My only other choice was a clean F-15, and that would not have been anywhere near fair to compare. The F-15 uses two main changes to beat the F-4: thrust:weight and wing area. The F-15's wing is optimized to permit Mach 2+ speeds and does not have slats, so its lift curve is only marginally better than the F-4, but its wing area means a lower wing loading and less drag for the same amount of lift. With AIM-9s and the centerline pylon, the F-15 is a bit slower than the F-4D. If the F-4s were tagged with the same ordnance (a typical air-to-air loadout), their top speeds would be lower, too. I don't have equivalent charts for the F-14 or F-18. The Navy didn't have sustained turn charts in their flight manuals, just V-n diagrams that allowed you to determine the max instantaneous load. In the case of the F-18, you actually have to cross reference the weight with the degrees of bank (g load) to get the stall speed, and there are only a few banks to pick from up to 60 degrees. I may have the F-16A data laying around somewhere. If I find it, I will make another overlay to show how it runs rings around them all.

Here is a nifty chart I made by overlaying the USAF F-4 turn rate charts for the F-4D, F-4E, and the F-4E scaled to match the weight of the F-4D. The black lines are the F-4D, the dark orange lines are the heavy F-4E, and the blue lines are the lightweight F-4E (same weight as F-4D). Up to low transonic mach numbers and up to medium altitudes, the F-4E is about 7% better than the F-4D (15% better with the same weight). At higher mach numbers, the F-4 doesn't have to pull as much AoA to get the same lift, so the slats actually cause a drag penalty that allows the F-4D to perform better. For reference, the F-14 is known to turn about 20% better than the unslatted F-4J. So, if the slats made the F-4S turn about 15% better, sustained turn rates would almost be pretty close between the F-14 and F-4S. The F-4E, being heavier, would still be significantly under the F-14. However, with numbers this close, pilot quality is everything rather than precise performance figures. Note: After countless reviews/edits, the turn rate varies with (n^2 - 1)^0.5, which is not quite linear. So my linear shift of the turn rate is off by a bit at lower loads and almost dead on at higher loads: i.e. if the load was 2g, and the shift is weight decreases by 10%, the turn rate would increase by 13% rather than my shift of 10%. At 8g, the actual shift would be very close to 10%. So my original graph underestimates the gain at lower loads and is almost dead on at higher loads, hence I am reposting my original graph and my original text.

One item that seldom gets mentioned when looking at slats versus hard wing performance: the F-4E gained some serious weight with the addition of the gun and an extra fuel tank to the rear to counterbalance the gun weight in the nose. So, when you look at the performance charts of the slatted F-4E versus the hard wing F-4D, it doesn't look like the slats helped that much and it looks like the F-4E suddenly had a lower max g load compared to earlier F-4s. But if you rectify the comparison to equal weights, not only does the load limit become equal, but you see the true gain of the slats. Since the F-4S only suffers the weight/drag penalty of the slats and not the guns installation, It would be nice if the F-4J and F-4S manuals had the same sustained performance charts as the USAF F-4 manuals to get a true apples-to-apples comparison. The best comparison would be an early unslatted F-4E manual so that the only variable would be the slats with no other weight/drag changes. My manual is a late 70s manual after all F-4Es were slatted.

Anyone who hung out at SimHQ when SFP1 was originally released will know who Andy Bush is: F-104/F-4 pilot that helped develop the game. Anyone who follows F-105s will know who Ed Rasimus is: F-105 pilot and author. Check out this discussion: http://www.aviationbanter.com/archive/index.php/t-9918.html My favorite quote is the perfect end to an ages old argument about the F-8 Crusader versus the F-4 Phantom by John Carrier, a pilot who transitioned from flying F-8s to flying F-4s: But a more important part of the discussion is what the leading edge slats did for F-4s. Slats were added to solve the safety issues with pulling high-AoA. The side benefit was better instantaneous and sustained turn performance (which happens at high AoA). However, they also came with a penalty. At lower AoA, slats cause extra drag. This drag effects specific excess power, which in turn affects top speed, level acceleration, and sustained climb performance. In other words, hard winged F-4s could go faster, accelerate quicker, and climb better unloaded. But if you were pulling hard g, the slatted F-4s induced much less drag and therefore performed significantly better in high pitch/turn rate situations. The accident rate of hard wing F-4s ensured that slats were preferable, but a highly skilled energy fighter might actually do better if he could keep the fight away from extended hard turns and not depart controlled flight. As modeled in the SF series, the slats make dogfighting much easier. I kill MiGs much quicker in the slatted F-4E/F-4F Phantoms much more quickly than any other variant even using just missiles. But I find it much more fun/challenging to take on agile MiGs in hard wing gunless F-4s, F-104s, and F-105s :)

The hotfix affects the user interface in the game. As long as you aren't remapping any keys, it doesn't really matter. But it wouldn't hurt to fix it? Unless the hotfix breaks more than it fixes ;) I only remap the joystick axis assignments. All of my keys are mapped in my joystick software (Saitek and/or Target), so I didn't even know there was a problem. I applied the hotfix, but didn't test it.

I know 3d pits are a lot of work, but I have really enjoyed every Soviet cockpit made available. I know there is a backlog of cockpits yet to be done, but the SF2:NA Yak-38 is just begging for a proper cockpit. Of course the only reward will be a high download count at CombatAce, but that seems to have been enough for all the other work that has been done. Thank you for your time

The F-4N/S soldiered on because they could never afford enough F-14s to replace them and at the time the F-14s were not used for any mission other than air superiority/fleet air defense. Under Reagan, they bought even more carriers and needed planes to fill them. Ultimately, the Navy was waiting on Hornet production to permit retirement of the F-4, much like the arrival of enough F-16s allowed them to be pushed out of active service in the USAF. Since the F-4N/S didn't make the cut for SF2NA, I would expect them to be in an expansion pack much like the Lighting, which had lots of variants and completely new cockpits. But I wouldn't expect the cockpits to function any different than what SF2 has now, just 3d modeled to look like the photos. F-4S cockpit:

I have had ATi almost since SFP1s Walmart release (Voodoo 5500 back then)-> 8500, 9800 Pro, 800XL, x1800XT, HD4890, HD6870. There were some driver issues along the way (8500 in particular), but I haven't had an ATI driver issue with SF2 in recent history (years?). The changes TK has made with respect to view distance and fade in have caused problems compared to the past (that are independent of the video card brand), but nothing that can't be fixed. In Win 7 with DX10 enabled, it does no good to specify anti-aliasing in the Catalyst control window. Only the application settings affect the level of FSAA. This is true of ALL DX10/11 games! So, the checkbox in Catalyst should be "determined by Application". SF2 supports FSAA, so you can edit the options.ini in the user folder to specify the level of FSAA you want, including none if you so choose. Having discussed this with TK on the Third Wire forums, the settings should be easy to understand: [GraphicsOptions] AntiAliasing=4 2 = x2, 4 = x4, etc.

The AWG-10 system went through progressive upgrades with three major versions: AWG-10 AWG-10A AWG-10B The 10B on the F-4S was the "fully digital" version, but all of them had more modes and functionality than the F-4B before them. The F-4S had the most radically improved mode selection and display changes, but even the base version had auto aquisition which is only available in the 70s avionics dll. As the radar was an integrated part of the system, there is no point in specifying its specific designation. For an AWG-10 tech's best recollection of the details on the AWG-10/10A/10B systems, go here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,149.0.html It had more modes, more control knobs, and progressively different displays. When working correctly (initially it had very high failure rates), it also performed much better than any other radar used in the F-4. The final AWG-10B system looked a lot more like the digital APG-63 and APG-66 systems than any radar previously used by F-4s. It also had the option for a helmet mounted sight, but few were purchased due to cost considerations. Check out this F-4J cockpit and compare how it looks to TK's early F-4J. The gunsight glass looks a lot more like a HUD (much wider and minimal frame) and the radar display indicator is clearly very different. This is not an F-4S, just a later F-4J. There used to be some sample display images available on the web, but I can't find them any more. This pilot's stick grip on an F-4J also reflected HOTAS improvements. Aside from the lack of a gun and slats, the F-4J was built to win dogfights with MiGs and with the arrival of the F-4S, slats were finally added. The F-4S is simply the best air superiority variant of the F-4 that the US ever flew (at least if you value a much better radar over an internal gun). It would be nice to see TK cover the variants of the F-4B/N and F-4J/S up to the end of the SF2 time frame (1982). They certainly would fit into the SF2NA release.

The AWG-10 was much smaller and less powerful than the the F-14's AWG-9, but it used the same digital doppler radar adaptation that was much more like the fully digital radars of the F-15 and F-16 than the old analog pulse radars of the previous F-4s. Initially, it had a lot of reliability problems as it was cutting edge technology at the time it was built, but the F-4J, F-4K, and F-4M all had variants of this very capable radar. The later mods in the F-4J/F-4S were easily better than the APG-66 on the F-16 for interception/air combat purposes. Whereas the APQ-120 on the F-4E with its smaller football shaped antenna was in many ways a downgrade from the F-4D and its attempt at lookdown/shootdown (COORDS) was a failed system. The APQ-120 was more digital than the F-4D's APQ-109, but the smaller, cheaper APG-66 was essentially more capable with better displays. To model the AWG-10 correctly, TK would have to expand the 70sAvionics.dll or make a separate "65" dll for interim radars that were much better than the 1960's radars of the F-4D and earlier yet not quite as flexible or user friendly as the 1970s multimode radars. The AWG-9 of the Tomcat was really in this interim generation as it was developed in the early 60s and modestly improved with digital retrofits, but I am pretty sure TK will make the AWG-9 a 70s dll radar like the F-15 and F-16.

I had a lot of fun with several of the DLC aircraft. The A-4K and F-8E FN are certainly among my favorites... but you know I have to say the F-4K is my favorite DLC followed closedly by the beautifully painted F-4EJ. TK is just needs to release the F-4N, F-4S, F-4G, RF-4B/C/E to complete the all the models that existed in the SF time frame. SF2NA will apparently be the first SF series game released without a flyable F-4 variant... needs F-4N/F-4S DLC to make it right! I think an F-4S with a properly modeled AWG-10 radar would be my favorite plane in the game... the only thing missing on the F-4S was an internal gun, otherwise it was the best F-4 variant until the modern foreign F-4E/F-4F upgrades with F-16 and F-18 radars.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the new terrain is just that... new features that don't and won't exist in the old terrains. Yet, the new engine will support the old terrains to permit merging/backwards compatibility with previous mods. As I understand it from TK's previous discussions about improving the terrain engine and the tradeoffs it requires: needs more resources (double the RAM requirements in the hardware specs!) and smaller maps to permit higher detail with the limitation that the more the map looks like high-end first person shooter games the closer in size it will be to such games with corresponding horzion/fog limits. While I would prefer maps like Vietnam/Thailand with 1:1 scale, accurately placed bases, and aerial refueling... SF2 is heading in the direction of an island in the middle of nowhere... like OFP/ArmA series. Ok for shooters, not much fun for recreating historical missions. But backwards compatibility with the older terrains means you can pick you poison: latest graphics with small detailed map or the old ugly graphics but nearly full size terrains. As long as that option exists, I am OK with the new stuff.

As in pre-Eagle NATO :) Soviets get to use the MiG-23 to some extent by 1975 without Eagles around to wipe them out. Of course the early MiG-23Ms and their weapons weren't quite as effective as the later MLDs, but mixed with MiG-21s in large numbers could potentially overwhelm NATO's fighters. A lot more interesting for both sides than a Bekaa turkey shoot.

It seems we have so much in common. TK was an avid Air Superiority fan. I had all the newsletters put out by J.D. Webster and friends which included user content from fans. Among the contributors to new aircraft data cards was TK :) It seems an unusually strong interest in a less than popular subject brings us "niche" guys together... especially with the advent of the internet where we can easily find each other. Of course, a much less politically correct name for our "niche" interest might be nerdiest of computer nerds: flight sim geeks. I am sad to see the decline and almost total disappearance of the tabletop wargaming community. But to be fair, I am never sad about the fact that my 1981 Corvette replaced the horse and carriage. PC flight sims are better for me overall, but even online multiplayer cannot fully replace the fun to be had playing games face-to-face by hand moving markers or miniatures over a map or model terrain... although I must say, all the Operation Flashpoint LAN parties I used to have before getting married and having a kid were about equal since everyone was playing side by side or across from each other in the same room. Much better than online multiplayer. The memories that a simple image intended to be the menu screen of a lite pc flight sim can evoke... Again, thank you for the effort

Prior to the release of WoV, I spent most of my time flying over the original SFP1 stock desert terrain. Gepard's take on North Vietnam saved me from that fictional hell, but just as I was getting serious about building historical missions for it, TK released WoV... the rest is history. But after so many hours over the original desert, it is hard to believe that it isn't real. But with the release of WoI, my interest in flying over a fictional desert terrain fell to zero... except when I feel like playing a merc campaign. The fictional terrain is perfect for this--no preconceived notions due to history.

There are lots more than just those. People did like simulating air combat before PCs made it look pretty and run in real time. I used to own nearly every board game and set of miniatures rules ever released. When I moved last year, I didn't want to bother storing them or hassle with an ebay sale, so I threw them all away except the latest one: Birds of Prey. The 3d physics are so good in this one that it acts like a low resolution PC flight sim. Of course 6 seconds of game time (1 turn) takes 5 or 10 minutes to play out, but the simplicity and accuracy made all of those other games utterly obsolete! Your GUI main screen is so similar to what I used to see on store shelves that it gives me a warm feeling like I used to get when I spotted a new game on at the book store where I bought most of my games, Merlin's Books. Sadly, it is not a new game, just window dressing for one I already have. But it is truly a work of art easily as good or better than the box covers of all the other boxed games I ever had. Thanks for the hard work ;)

Captures the look and feel of board game box cover art -- which is excellent :) For example:

Nice footage. Enjoyed seeing both Phantoms and Bucs.

There is no question that the F-14 is a superior airframe to the Hornet. However, the F-14 was also more expensive. The combat needs of the USN since Vietnam versus the available budget since the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union forced the Navy to go with Hornets while the USAF somewhat unsuccessfully pinned its future on the F-22 and is now struggling to justify the cost of the much less capable but still very expensive F-35. Whatever the limitations of the Hornet, the USN was able to get much needed new airframes while the USAF soldiers on with Eagles and Falcons that will never be replaced by nearly as many aircraft.

It doesn't take hacking your hotmail password to send email via your account... It is just as likely a worm/virus on your pc used your mail while you were using it with the rights your pc granted to you. You need to check your computer for worms/viruses with software other than what you normally run for security (as it would have to be compromised for this to even happen). Alternatively, you have had a keylogger program on a PC you used when you last typed your password yourself. A lot of ways for this to happen that don't involve Microsoft being compromised in any way.

The last time I checked, when the perceived demand increases, so does price, regardless of the reason the demand increased. They don't sell her music because they like her or respect her, they only value her for the profits she can bring. Unfortunately, like Michael Jackson, she is worth more to them dead than alive. Death can instantly restore a rejected pedophile into a hallowed king of pop in the name of cash, so it is no surprise that Whitney could be so easily exploited given that all she really did was pick a lousy husband and fall into the usual substance abuse/rehab profile of so many celebrities. The beauty of the internet is that consumer backlash traveled fast and brought the prices back down to normal--but they managed to make some sales at the inflated price. Sony: reputation down, gross profits up.