streakeagle

I just got my Warthog last week and stayed up late on the weekend to develop and debug a profile. It works good for me, but I haven't used it enough to know if I want to rearrange anything. PM me contact info and I will try emailing it to you. I am using one little trick I developed with my Saitek X-52 Pro: Drop Track/Acquire in sequence on the same button. This allows you to either add or delete a radar lock with only one button assigned. With boresight mode, I find myself needing drop track more, whereas normal search mode I need the Acquire button. This solution is slick :) I also use a Track IR, which has some influence on my button assignments. I use the default view (F1) key as the same key to re-center the TrackIR view, so I always make sure that is a readily accessible button. Overall, I mapped nearly every single key to some control on the Warthog, but it is overkill as I almost never use many of those keys.

The Warthog is as good as I could have hoped it to be (so far). However, despite all the gains in weight, feel, and precision, I really find no difference in my ability to fly/fight in the SF2 series, Aces High, and Steel Beasts Pro PE. Other than having an authentic dual throttle setup, for the money, the X-52 Pro gives you almost the same thing for a lot less money. If you take money out of the equation, the Warthog has a few more buttons/hats while the X-52 Pro has a few more axes and better ergonomics. I think the Warthog will certainly shine best in DCS A-10C, but I don't have a nice enough computer to bother buying that yet. It is also a better setup for LOMAC/FC/FC2. Even at $350, I don't think I should have bought the Warthog given that my X-52 Pro still works as well even after years of use. But the throttle is perfect whenever I get around to building my own pit, which will largely be F-4 based and be built around my B-8 stick. I never could afford the couple of F-4 throttles that popped up on eBay over the years.

In reality, the quality and/or quantity of the people, be it infantry, armor, aircraft, or ships, almost always win over technical superiority. There has to be a major technological advantage with adequate numbers to overcome superior training/tactics. Usually, when there is a "turkey shoot" in air combat, whether it is over the Marianas in WW2, Korea, or the Bekaa Valley in 1982, there is a lot more going on in favor of the victor than a particularly good airplane or missile. Some computer simulated combat with AMRAAM to validate its value prior to going into production showed that great pilots win no matter what aircraft or weapons they are given, largely due to an uncanny ability to maintain "situational awareness" no matter what is going on. Of course, lesser pilots benefited greatly when given agile aircraft with great avionics and AMRAAM. In the case of Israeli performance, not only are they good at air combat with whatever they have available to fly, but they are good at propaganda as well. It can be hard to assess performance accurately when the information needed is being provided by the people being judged. It doesn't help when Israeli opposition either says nothing or makes claims as or more outrageous than the Israelis. I have read some Soviet assessments of the MiGs versus F-4s from Vietnam to Israel. But where the US is willing to admit they made mistakes and suffered unacceptable losses, the Soviet reports do nothing but praise their aircraft and criticize the F-4 and/or the poorly trained crews that failed to fly the MiGs properly. Whereas, the assessments I have read of the MiG-21 versus the F-5E and MiG-23 versus all major western aircraft from the F-4 and Mirage to the F-15 and f-16 seem far more honest/sincere. No one has ever set up a lab where we can perfectly compare equipment in a way to provide fair data for flight sims. The fact is, mass production never produces identical products. Any two aircraft or missiles may have very different characteristics, perhaps performing significantly better or worse than the brochure data. The great thing about the SF series is you can easily change it to match your preferences if there is some aspect that really bothers you. At this point, so many patches and upgrades keep coming down the line, that I would rather stay stock just to keep it simple and not worry about which files didn't get updated correctly due to mods or broke mods due to updates. I still drop some stuff in for fun, just not the gigs and gigs of stuff that is available online (though I have downloaded and burned to DVD quite a bit of it). In the latest SF2 patches, the Soviet equipment is performing much better than ever. MiG-23s are very much a threat. I can get comparable results with AA-2 Atolls as to AIM-9s per comparable versions. Later Atolls work plenty good :) AA-8s are absolutely the way to go if you can get into firing parameters. AA-7s seem to perform comparably to AIM-7Es, which is a pretty fair way to model it given what I have read online and in books. I have lots of stick time flying MiG-21s and MiG-23s. I can very much beat F-15s if I know where they are coming from, but agianst AIM-7F/Ms and AIM-9L/Ms with no decoys, there is no room for mistakes.

I am the opposite of YAP: could care less about whether the cows are standing in the fields or there is a party at the end of the ramp... the "story" to be told is in the geometry of the real life encounters. The AI is very sensitive to speed, altitude, and angles. I can get very different results just by altering the start positions, headings, and speeds. My goal is to get the setup so close to reality that playing it out using the same decisions as the real pilot(s) gets similar results... at which point, you can see how it might have come out differently. I am slowly making my way through the Red Baron reports. I would like to make a proper master mission covering April 4, 1965 where you can fly in any of the key flights: the F-105s that got bounced, the F-100D RESCAP flight of this mission, the F-100D CAP flight that encountered MiGs, or The F-105s that made it all the way to the target, but lost one to ground fire in USAF account, but more likely to a MiG-17 by VPAF account. The problem is, that no matter how well I time the flights, it would be pure luck if any of the historical encounters even took place. Whereas in these little missions with forced start conditions, you get an idea of the problems faced in each specific encounter. Something that was never really apparent to me from prior studies is how bad the weather/visibility was during a lot of the air-to-air encounters. Whether playing out various dogfights with board games in the 1980s or flying in flight sims, I never choose more than scattered clouds. But the Red Baron reports make it clear there was frequently a high overcast cloud layer above 20,000 feet with broken to overcast cloud layer somewhat lower between 3,000 and 10,000 feet. Additionally, it was also hazy, which cut down visual detection and identification ranges. I am sure there were plenty of encounters with better weather, but so far, all of the ones I have been studying had similar conditions despite occurring in different years and months.

View File 650404 F-100D Probable MiG Kill Four F-100Ds of the 416th TFS, call sign Robin, were tasked with RESCAP on April 4, 1965. The flight had just started orbiting when they crossed paths with two MiG-17s almost head-on. During the resulting dogfight, one of the MiGs was fired upon repeatedly by Robin 02. Capt Donald Kilgus could see hits on the tail, but lost sight of the MiG in the clouds. The gun camera had failed and no one was able to see what happened to the MiG. So, the USAF only awarded a probable kill. After the war, the VPAF admitted to losing three MiG-17s in air-to-air combat that day. This was the first and last time F-100s tangled with MiGs in Vietnam. Most likely, this was the first United States air-to-air victory of the Vietnam War. Robin flight was on RESCAP and had just started orbiting . /*****Sources******************************************************************/ A. USAF "Red Baron" WSEG Report 116 Event III-2 Detailed account. (very detailed, most accurate) B. Osprey Combat Aircraft 89 F-100 Super Sabre Units of the Vietnam War by Peter E. Davies, pg. 21. (general account) C. MiG KILLERS A Chronology of U.S. Air Victories in Vietnam 1965-1973 by Donald J. McCarthy, Jr., pg. 23. (photo and call sign) /*****Design*******************************************************************/ After extensive testing, this mission uses the following design decisions: Written for a stock SF2V install, no mods required. The stock environment does not permit multiple levels and types of clouds/haze. So the only the haze and cirrus layer are modeled. The lead F-100D and second pair are on a SWEEP over the Thanh Hoa area. The player is tasked as an ESCORT for the lead. The initial aircraft positions reflect WSEG Report 116 Event III-2. The F-100s are in an orbit at the Objective over water, south of Than Hoa. The mission starts when the lead MiG is first detected by the F-100s. The player and the other pair of F-100s are modeled as a separate flights with the same callsign. This permits historical positioning of the aircraft and differing missions. The player is flying as Capt Don Kilgus, Robin 02 (Rambler 01 of the 2nd Rambler flight in the game). The MiG-17s have been broken up into two flights. This permits historical starting positions and target objectives. Outcomes are typically close to historical results, but depend greatly on how the player flies. The MiGs tend to run away when being tailed. However, if not pursued, they will get a good firing position and score kills. /*****Playing Tips*************************************************************/ The mission begins with the enemy nearly head-on at 12:30 o'clock and closing fast. The first thing the player should do is jettison all ordnance and break into the threat. The F-100D has less power and is less maneuverable than the MiG-17. Do everything you can to keep your speed as high as possible. Do the following to make this mission challenging and realistic: ONLY USE THE NORMAL IN-COCKPIT VIEWS: <F1>, <F2>, and <F3> Do not use map <M>, target <T>, padlock <F4>, or any view target <F8> keys. Doing so provides the player with exceptional situational awareness. The player unrealistically always knows everyone's location. This extra knowledge allows a skilled player to possibly kill both MiG-17s. Be proficient with the POV hat, look up <NUM 5> key, and zoom view controls. Due to the way the game renders distant targets, spotting MiGs is very hard. MiGs that are not very close cannot be seen at all when zoomed out. Learn to zoom in and scan the horizon for small moving dots. This will be frustrating and the spotting distances may seem unrealistic. The end results are exceptionally realistic. The player may frequently get lost or disoriented. Like real pilots, level out and/or use check turns to find your way back. It will take skill and luck to spot MiGs. It requires even more skill and luck to get one or more kills. Of course, TrackIR makes this whole process much easier and realistic. Play the mission several times following these restrictions. Once used to it, the player will learn two skills critical to real pilots: 1) Visual scanning discipline to focus and pick out distant contacts. 2) Situational awareness to mentally track planes not within view. Good luck! Submitter streakeagle Submitted 09/18/2011 Category User Made Missions  

Absolutely amazing. Now what happens if you put a wall just like that one on the same track and the two walls collide at the same 500 mph speed? Something has to give!

Gepard was trying to say that the Atoll is even worse than an AIM-9B in the game, which he would argue is unfair since the design was nearly identical. Right or wrong, TK tends to favor western assessments of Soviet equipment over Soviet assessments. With no real solid reference, it is more a matter of personal opinion. It is my opinion that the observed build quality of Soviet equipment (such as tanks, MiGs, and ships) and the publicly reported combat records favor TK's assessment. A Mirage III cannot turn tighter than an F-4E, with a very significant difference between sustained rates as observed by Israelis.

I have rudder pedals... what I like are authentic controls. CH throttle has never appealed to me. CH pedals were too close together. While I don't really care for the F-16 style stick, the quality of the hardware in terms of accuracy/precision is top notch on the Warthog with plenty of data to prove it. The throttle setup is the other great component. If and when I get a setup that can play DCS:A-10C, the Warthog stick is by far the way to go. Too many have sent their Logitech sticks back and replaced them with CH sticks for me to even think about trying them. From wiring problems in the throttle to precision problems caused by deadbanding in the firmware, the Logitech sticks have some major unresolved issues. There are certainly some nightmare stories out there my Warthog owners as well, but the overall design and software are solid, seems to be more of a quality control problem. So, as long as I don't get one of the nightmare lemons, I may actually end up with a stick I like better than Saitek. Previously, all of my HOTAS have been Saitek. I loved the X-36 USB. The X-45 has problems due to the centering spring, but the X-52 Pro got it right 100% for me. As I already have my preferred F-4 Phantom B-8 stick, a nice realistic throttle would be what I really need, and the Warthog throttle is an excellent match for it. Similar to the F-15A throttle, which also had a B-8 stick grip. If only SF series sims could use the dual throttle to its fullest.

If you delete the tga, it will be perfectly transparent... no reflections of any kind either.

Multiplayer will allow you to fly non-flyables using a generic A-4 Skyhawk cockpit, but that won't allow the aircraft to function correctly, i.e. no radar for MiG-21, and MiG-23. You need to download 3rd party mods for MiGs. As for how to win against an F-4 with an aircraft which has inferior maneuverability, inferior power, and inferior weapons... sheer pilot skill using reflexes and timing. I used to fly multiplayer a lot and would fly the F-100D Super Sabre to give new pilots a fighting chance. But, I could still beat them by forcing them to overshoot and taking a quick snapshot with guns as they zipped by me. Against a good pilot, all I could do is hope for a lucky head-on pass and then wait for the inevitable tail-chase followed by death. If you are flying with the Oct 2008 patch level, AIM-7 Sparrows and even AIM-9s can be easily defeated: stay low. If you stay low and keep your speed up, you should be able to fight the F-4 on nearly equal terms, gun to gun. But you will find a slatted F-4E is still quite a bit more maneuverable than many of its contemporaries. Chaff and flares are not available on many aircraft in the old SF/WoX series games, as most of the planes covered did not have chaff or flare dispensers in the time frames covered by the game. Try flying the same type of aircraft for a bit to evaluate tactics and skills. Then pick matchups designed to balance the game. i.e. if one player is simply better at ACM, don't give him the more maneuverable aircraft! If you both fly tubs like the F-100D and F-105D, the pace of the game will be a bit slower due to the wide turn radius and limited power in the vertical. The MiG-17 and MiG-19 are tough planes to beat close-in. The F-4 can't win using missiles against such maneuverable aircraft and will have a hard time getting a gun solution as well. Of course, the gun packages on the MiGs are low on ammo and rate of fire, so you have to be a skilled gunner to score hits or get in real close.

The only one that really impacts me is the "Fixed: Two cursors", and my workaround is Alt-Tab. The other stuff would either break what I already have or have no impact at all. I will still download it, but doubt I will try installing it any time soon.

Well, with 20/20 hindsight, it is no secret that air defenses at the time were extremely vulnerable to treetop level flying. Ultimately, that is what the B-52 crews were trained to do. If you have ever looked at the effectiveness of F-101s and F-102s versus bombers, you might not find it that surprising that only one Vulcan was intercepted. But you can be sure that the rules were set up to favor the air defenses as the point of the exercise was probably to prove how safe and secure the US was from air attacks by nuclear bombers. The fact that the Vulcans got through is a testament to their crews' ability to use their aircraft to its full capability despite any handicaps present in the exercise. Unfortunately, it also meant that skilled Soviet crews could do the same, so it is no surprise that no one would publicly admit any failures of US air defense forces. Why tell the enemy where your weaknesses are? As it stands, those defenses never really got put to a live test, so it ultimately didn't matter. I would be curious to see how vulnerable the US is today. Despite all of the satellites, radars, and aircraft available, I am pretty sure a surprise attack on select targets is still feasible.

I have read endless posts online about the Logitech and the Warthog. As appealing as force feedback sounds, the Logitech implementation is of lower quality than the old MS stick AND has far too many firmware and mechanical/electrical issues. A shame, because if it worked as good as it looks, I would have gotten one of those. The key problems I see with the Warthog are price and reliability. $500 or $600 for something that I will probably have to send back to the manufacturer isn't right! But at $350, I will take a chance. Just have to squeeze in some overtime to cover the $350 that I don't really have right now.

I have wanted to get a Warthog, but I simply don't have the money, especially considering that my Saitek X-52 Pro still works 100%. However, I can't pass up this price. My Saitek X-45 works 100% as well, but I got the X-52 Pro for $100 when it retailed for $200 and never regretted it. Hopefully, this will be a repeat of history where an unnecessary upgrade turns out to be an excellent decision. Now I need some overtime to cover the difference :P I really hope I don't get a lemon as many have. I still have a spare B-8 stick grip that was meant for helicopter control sticks. Instead of the threaded mil-std pin connector of my F-4 B-8, it has an open hole with wires dangling that may prove to be adaptable to the TM Warthog stick mount. Then I would have the flexibility of using my full F-4 stick or a desktop B-8 :)

I still have OFP / Resistance / GOTY installed and running. What tweaks are there? I really wouldn't want to uninstall/break my modded installations (I have 8 keys, though probably only 4 or 5 installed at the moment) unless they made a significant improvement.

The only equivalent to IFF in the game is padlocking your target. you get a message in the buffer saying what kind of aircraft it is and if you HUD/Visual Spotting settings are on normal, you get all his information in the lower right corner of your screen. If you are like me and don't have HUD info and/or missed the text buffer message, you can use the F8 button to see the target you have padlocked. So, if you are in an F-4 and you have a radar lock but aren't sure if you have a friend or foe, <CTRL><R> to set the radar contact as your visual target. If you did not have the target previously padlocked, the aircraft type should show up in the message buffer. If you missed it, or want to simulate TISEO or similar TCS systems, use F8 to see the target up close. Otherwise, the only other IFF in the game is in the F-15A radar display in TWS mode. Of course, the real F-15A didn't have that mode with the original APG-63.

ECM effectiveness is for the most part classified. This works out great for games since they can adjust ECM effectiveness to improve gameplay. The F-16 did not have extra space for ECM, it was designed to be small and cheap, so it has to either rely on pods, remove something useful to get internal ECM, and/or add bulges to squeeze in more stuff. Noise jamming is tough to counter, but requires powerful systems to be useful. EA-6s and EF-111s were the only fighter sized aircraft able to really do this to any useful effect. Of course, the source of such jamming becomes an HOJ magnet, so they need to stand off a bit and have a barrier CAP protecting them. Deceptive jamming is far more practical, but requires knowledge of threat systems to get it right. The early jammers carried by U-2s were effective against the US theory of missile guidance, but didn't do much other than possibly help Soviet SAMs home in on them. I would love to see real world test results on the effectiveness of various jammers, flares, and chaff on all the different radars and missiles. I was a submarine sonar tech, and we had equivalent systems for jamming/decoying sonars and torpedoes. Despite having extensive training and Top Secret clearances, I still have no idea just how effective those systems would have been in actual combat. I don't think there has ever been all-out air combat that would force the US and Soviet Union to compromise their state-of-the-art technology by actually using it to the full extent. Vietnam would have great data on older systems vs SA-2. Israeli conflicts is the only place where you might get good data, and even then, it would be good for their own systems, not evaluating front line US and USSR/Russian systems. An absolutely important question... with no really useful answer possible.

Congratulations, it is an honor to have contributed so much material that you get your own "hangar" on CombatAce!

There is a Christmas version of that song as well... I think the Red Baron is winning, but instead of finishing off Snoopy, he waves and says "Merry Christmas".

back in 1997, Federal Hydrashock 230 grain 0.45 ACP was the best 0.45 round with a 94% single shot knock down success rate excluding vital shots like head and heart. Other 0.45 hollow points were in the 80-92% range, standard ball 0.45 was in the 50% range. You would be hard pressed to find a round in any hand gun caliber that would score better than 94%. Now how far has the ammo tech come since then? Doesn't really matter to me as long as I know I am going to take a guy down better than 90% of the time with a single shot that hits ANYWHERE, much less the effects of hitting a vital area.

I have Tamiya 1/350 (F-14A, F/A-18A, F-4S) but they don't stock non-naval aircraft and are slightly lower detail/quality. 3 of the 4 in this set cannot be found in plastic at this scale. More importantly, once these get the go ahead, the next 4 aircraft will be offered up for production. A lot of those will be other aircraft not available via Navy models. MiG-17/19/21/23/25, F-15, F-16 etc. I played Air Superiority/Air Strike/Desert Falcons/Speed of Heat. That was a great system, especially at portraying the whole picture of SEAD, CAS, Strike, CAP, Intercept, etc. But, Birds of Prey is focused purely on one thing: close-in air combat with exceptionally accurate physics yet more playable than ever before. Air War was the slowest, most complex air combat game I ever had, but Air Superiority was far more realistic, especially with the Speed of Heat revision where all of the missiles and avionics were modeled much better. Birds of Prey plays like a flight sim: roll your wings onto the threat and pull your nose onto him, then move the pieces on the map to reflect what you did. While the map is still vital to the game, the key is each aircraft has a PHAD (pitch, heading, and attitude display) which allows flawless realistic loops at any bank angle with correct changes in roll, pitch, heading, altitude, and horizontal motion... and you never have to do any trigonometry. You draw temporary lines on charts using a straight edge to determine key calculations, which is quick, easy, and accurate. I wish this game had existed when I was a teenager. Then I would have the time to really enjoy it and have friends with both time and interest to play it with me.

I have the board game, Birds of Prey. It is essentially a 3d flight sim on paper. Of course the game would look better and be more fun with a decent line of miniatures rather than the stock "box" miniatures. The first ones up for pre-order are the F-14, F-5, F-86, and MiG-15 which can be found here: http://www.airbattle.com/ or here: http://www.adastragames.com/ I am trying to promote this because I can't get my order until there is a total of 250 orders in any combination of the four different aircraft. Presently the total count is 135 of 250. The miniatures look pretty accurate for their scale, so I am sure there are people who might like them for purposes other than playing Birds of Prey. I personally suggest getting Birds of Prey as well. I have owned and played nearly all of the air combat board games and miniatures ever released, and this one takes the cake. It is optimized for close-in dogfights between jets. If you have lots of room, you could try to do longer range combat with missiles, but the game mechanics really shine when you are looping and rolling like crazy to get your nose on a bandit. The flight physics are first rate, yet don't require the use of a digital calculator. This is simply an amazing game! I need this miniature order to get produced so that the next batch of four fighters goes into pre-order. I am hoping for an F-4 and a MiG-21, though I would be happy with just about any aircraft in the game. I have ordered 1xF-5, 1xF-86, 1xMiG-15, and 2xF-14 (the F-14 only comes with 2 planes, so I ordered two sets to have four of each aircraft, which is about as many as I could ever see me using unless I end up with a gang of friends crazy about air combat board games). I have been waiting for these for a very long time! So, Tomcat, Top Gun, and MiG Alley fans, snap these up so I can finally get my little planes

My family was eligible for food stamps and used them while my father was in the Navy... that's how low Navy enlisted pay was in the late 60's. He got out and got a job as a Tampa police officer and was able to rent a house and get off food stamps.