streakeagle

With a good wing/tail combination, the F-104 would have been the US equivalent to the MiG-21. Instead, it was optimized for speed/rate-of-climb/altitude to put it out of reach of the MiG-15/MiG-17 class it was designed to beat. This strategy was a direct outcome of Korean War experience. When MiG-15bis fighters were flown correctly, they used their thrust-to-weight advantage to pounce on F-86s from above with boom-n-zoom passes. So, the goal of the next generation of US fighters was to restore the boom-n-zoom advantage that the US had always preferred over flat-turn angles fighters. This approach was actually quite correct and successful in Vietnam: the F-105 could use speed/power to escape MiG-17s and come back at their leisure to score guns kills. But the MiG-21 had more boom and zoom, better maneuverability, and missiles that the MiG-17 did not. By the time the USAF realized they needed an aircraft like the Lancer rather than the Starfighter, the YF-16 and YF-17 had jumped a generation ahead in technology. Ultimately, the F-16 is what the F-104 should have been from the start, with a bit more thrust and superior aerodynamics thanks to about 15 years of technological advances. For a glimpse of a "Lancer" class aircraft might have been like, check out the Mirage F-1C. The French figured out they were using the wrong wing, too! Unfortunately, they reverted back to the pure delta with the Mirage 2000. Only by adding the canard with the Rafale does the rear wing/delta configuration become practical or even superior to the conventional wing/tail for anything other than speed. Of course, the Rafale abandoned the pure delta and ended up with a wing a lot more like and F-16 than a Mirage. Performance aside, your screenshot above looks great! It looks a lot better without the t-tail. It looks like a MiG killer :)

The idea is simply to convert the F-4 radar from 60s avionics dll to 70 avionics dll. The original mod should mostly work, but may require some tweaks to accommodate any changes between WoX and SF2 70s avionics files.

The name OFP may have belonged to Codemasters, but the game was Bohemia Interactive. Codemasters shutting down their shooter group is no loss to me since Bohemia is still going strong making the only shooter sim that I have ever liked and bought (unless you count Star Wars Battlefront).

I couldn't find cockpit photos of the F7F-3N Tigercat published anywhere on the internet, so I am posting them here for future reference :P I didn't think the pilot had a radar display, but he most certainly does. The lower panel is important as it has the fuel gage and the accelerometer. Would love to see this modeled in the SF2 series... <hint hint>

There is a mild oscillation at transonic speeds meant to simulate the buffeting that occurs in real life. But this is just a visual indication and shouldn't affect your ability to fly the aircraft at all. I have no problems flying the new DLC Mirage IIIC at any speed.

Mission accomplished! The X-45 permitted a much cleaner installation than the MS Sidewinder. I ran into a Windows 7 64-bit driver issue with the X-45, but after deleting a registry key everything is working pretty darn well. What I would really like to do is disassemble my Thrustmaster Warthog stick and splice it into the F-4 B-8 stick as I am already using the Warthog throttle. The Warthog stick has a much higher precision than the X-45 and the F-4 stick eliminates the Warthog's biggest disadvantage: sticky detents when crossing dead center. But I am not cutting up my brand new $350 stick in the hopes that it could be merged with the F-4 stick as well or better than the X-45. My next step is to use the left over buttons of the X-45 to create control panel buttons/switches. I have a few leftover from the joystick and can hack up the throttle to get at its buttons. Since my primary sim is SF2 and my favorite aircraft is the F-4, it makes sense to mimic an F-4 cockpit and model switches/buttons that are common to both SF2 and the F-4: weapon selection, jettison, radar modes/range scales, etc.

Having reviewed the wiring, the Saitek is a superior solution to the MS Sidewinder. I needed isolated contacts for each thumb hat button on the MS stick, but the Saitek uses a single common just like the B-8. So, if I am willing to give up the paddle switch, I can eliminate the extra power supply, relays and wiring I had at the rear of the stick base. The paddle switch is normally on, so I would have to keep its relay and the 24VDC power supply to make it normally open for the Saitek interface. Then the only extra wiring is for the x and y axis pots. I think I am ditching the paddle switch for the cleaner install and elimination of a 120VAC extension cord that powered the 24VDC power supply. B-8 Stick Grip pin-out: A to E = Thumb Hat Left B to E = Thumb Hat Down C to E = Thumb Hat Right D is unused E = common for all Thumb Hat switches F to K = Bottom Button (pinky switch) G to R = Middle Button (side switch) H to N = Trigger (pulled all the way in to the 2nd stage switch) J is unused L is unused M is unused P to E = Thumb Hat Up S to T = Top Button (top switch next to thumb hat) Saitek X-45 Wiring: ---------------------- Fire Buttons ---------------------- B1 TRG Green Trigger B1 TRG Black B2 B Violet Top Button B3 A Gray Middle Button B4 Fire Red Bottom Button Common Brown B7 PKY Gray Spare B7 PKY Gray B8 C + Yellow Paddle B8 C - Blue ---------------------- Hat 1 ---------------------- H1U Violet Trim Up H1R Orange Trim Right H1D Brown Trim Down H1L Green Trim Left Common Black ---------------------- Hat 2 ---------------------- H2U Short White Spare H2R Red Spare H2D Long White Spare H2L Gray Spare Common Orange ---------------------- LEDs ---------------------- GND Blue S LED Yellow T FLock Black ---------------------- X-Axis ---------------------- VDC + white VDC X Brown VDC - Black ---------------------- Y-Axis ---------------------- VDC + white VDC Y Purple VDC - Black

Great stuff! Excellent documentation on control surface movement limits and a graphic depiction of how the control stick forces are generated and trimmed.

I am aware that such software exists... but I want a single USB port stick/throttle combo. Up to now, I have had a Saitek HOTAS plugged in at the same time as the MS Sidewinder/B-8. By eliminating the Sidewinder, I can use the software already installed on my computer AND have games automatically recognize the default stick mapping. Whereas right now, I have to go in each sim and select separate controllers for stick, throttle, and rudder. I do have left over axis and buttons on the MS stick to make throttle, rudder, and a few aux controls, but nowhere near the amount of options I have by going with the Saitek. Combine that with the fact that I already have good profiles for the applicable games and adapting the Saitek remains the clear choice for me.

In my original conversion of an actual F-4 Phantom's control stick into a PC flight sim USB joystick, I adapted a Microsoft Sidewinder USB Stick to accept the buttons presses and mechanical motion of the real control stick. This has worked adequately, but has a key disadvantage: no configuration software that will run on Windows 7 64-bit. As previously posted, I recently got a Warthog, which allowed be to give my son my X-52 Pro and free up my old X-45 for this project. The X-45 configuration software works great with Windows 7, includes a full throttle/rudder-rocker controller, and permits use of a shift key. I have already disassembled the X-45 to expose the necessary wires for the stick buttons and x and y axis potentiometers. All I need now is to modify the existing stick to accept the larger potentiometers and come up with a professional scheme for interfacing between the original control wires and the X-45 button and axis wires. Phase 3 would be to replace the potentiometers with hall effect sensors, but I don't know if or when I would ever get around to doing it.

Try looking at how elevons work on delta winged Mirages/Kfirs: two different controls affecting the same flight surface. Each animation may have its own axis in the 3d model, which would mean that the F-4 ailerons may not have this in the 3d model. But that may be a technique used in SF1. Maybe TK made such a thing possible merely by ini edits?

Very old stuff from Wild Elmo that was copied from SimHQ and repasted: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB3w/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=554&p=3295&hilit=coefficients#p3295 The main numbers you would want to play with are Lift slope, CLa, zero-lift drag, CD0, and lift-induced drag, CDL. CD0 mainly effects top speed, but also effects level acceleration and sustained rate of climb. CDL mainly effects sustained turn performance. Aircraft with a lot of drag for a given lift coefficient bleed speed faster. CLa works together with CLmax to determine stall speed, max instantaneous turn rate, and influences just about everything else. Lift to drag ratios (determined by the combination of all three of the above terms) affect glide slope and ceiling. The rest of the numbers are all about stability and moments. They are very important, but hard to calculate or even estimate.

According to their road map, there are going to be two aircraft: 1) the previously planned DCS jet, which the current best guess is an F-18 Hornet of some form 2) a "flying legend" Given that DCS is a modern jet sim, I would have expected the "legend" to be one of the aircraft already in the LOMAC/FC/DCS universe like a MiG or Phantom. What would you do with a P-51 in the DCS map?

Got link from SimHQ to this news from Eagle Dynamics: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1327908 Overall, I like the plan even if I don't yet have a PC that can run their stuff. Now if they can just follow through reasonably close or even do better than the road map. What is the "legendary" aircraft for DCS? Fixed wing or rotary? I can only think of a few that qualify and fit in the sim: MiG-21? MiG-23? Mi-24 Hind? Can it be USA? F-4? AH-1? UH-1? F-16 and F-18 are still very current and the F-18 is the most likely next US fixed wing aircraft mentioned. I would bet on a Hind or MiG-21 given that this sim IS Russian, but due to marketing considerations, I could see a "legendary" US helo or jet being added. If it was an F-4, I suspect I still have plenty of time to save up for a new PC. Just did a quick search and it seems "flying legends" could be an aircraft from any period and is possibly a P-51 Mustang or similar aircraft. Just what I need... another P-51 simulator. Possibly the most simulated aircraft in all of flight sim history along with the F4U, and Bf109.

Precursor to the Thunderchief :)

:) First Mytai... now you. Its raining original SFP1 modders at combatace.com!

Welcome back!

Poland... suppose in the early 80's, the Soviets decide to suppress Poland with tanks and planes, but the Polish people revolt anyway and NATO decides to risk WW3 to provide interdiction missions to protect the unarmed masses from being crushed by tanks and planes. Very similar to the recent NATO campaign in Libya. This almost happened, so it is a very realistic scenario. Of course, at the time, I thought it was going to start WW3, but having watched the Iron Curtain and Soviet Union collapse with hardly a shot fired, maybe it could have followed a Korean War model fought to a draw or a Vietnam model where one side is forced to retreat for political reasons. This scenario permits an all-out conventional war in Europe with every type of mission being needed for a successful campaign. Maybe a modern Berlin Airlift that goes hot. Depending on time frame, F-4s and/or F-15s have to escort supplies into Berlin and end up performing intercepts/sweeps/airfield strikes. Could lead to some ground action and even threaten WW3, or could back down after a few air-to-air incidents.

And while the USN clearly preferred the centerline tank, I have plenty of photos that show the USN did use the wing tanks.

SF1 multiplayer connectivity is based on DirectPlay from the Microsoft DirectX library. DirectPlay is unsupported in DirectX 10 and later, so the multiplayer support in SF1 had to deleted in SF2 which supports DirectX 10. TK cannot develop the network code for any reasonable amount of time and money. Any code he would be able to develop would be even less capable than the already limited SF1 support. So, TK has stipulated that if and when he tries to bring back multiplayer, it will have to be based on a monthly subscription fee to subsidize the cost of creating and expanding the code base. As the audience for the SF1 support was extremely small, I don't think it will pay for itself even with a monthly subscription model. Who is going to pay for something that is less capable than the SF1 version of multiplayer that almost no one would play when it was free? I am a huge fan of SF multiplayer and would like to see TK bring it back in any form possible, but I don't see it happening since TK is already having trouble keeping the game profitable in the current format. If only Microsoft could put a new but backwards compatible DirectX 10/11 DirectPlay module, TK could at least bring back the original multiplayer code.

One year is simply not enough. I normally alternate between 2 years in Vietnam: 1965 and 1972. When I do Israel: 1973 and 1982. If I absolutely had to do only one year, probably 1972 where I can have historical combat between F-4Es and MiG-21MFs.

Old TV commercial with Russian fashion show... "Day Wear"... "Evening Wear"... "Swim Wear"... With all of the fashions looking identical and being little better than potato sacks and the model looking much like the lady carrying the log. Found a link: Didn't even remember it was a Wendy's commercial... which is an epic fail for the advertising agency because as intended I never forgot the commercial, but had no clue what they were advertising :)