streakeagle

What AI difficulty setting are you guys using? If you set it to hard, AI enemies are more likely to be smarter, while AI friendlies are more likely to be dumber. Use Normal to get the correct experience/skill per nationality settings. I guess it would be nice if TK had separate setttings for both enemy and friendly AI so that you could make both sides as smart or dumb as you like.

A lot of great planes on the list, but there are some sleek, graceful, "sexy" planes missing. The most obvious would be the Spitfire. If you are going to include bombers on the list, how could the B-17 "Queen of the Skies" not be listed? Of those listed, many are "brutes" rather than "sexy". I might choose either the Spitfire or F-86 Sabre, but since neither of those are listed, I am left with the P-51 Mustang, especially a highly polished P-51D which really has nice curves aside from having squared off wings and tail. While I love the looks of F-4, F-105, F-14, and F-15, big boxy intakes don't follow the form of a woman in any way shape or form. As I type, I think the one aircraft that I would call "sexiest" of all time is the T-38A. Small rounded intakes, pinched waste, clean lines, and bubble canopy. The F-5 is a little bit boxier and has a flush canopy. T-38A in Thunderbirds colors is even better. So there you have it, my vote is for the T-38A in Thunderbirds colors.

While I have played many of the other sims listed, Jane's Fighters Anthology is the only one I spent years playing and I even have it installed and running correctly in Win 7 64-bit. In many ways, the Strike Fighters series has striven to be an updated Fighters Anthology. But it lacks the mission editor, multiplayer support, and little details like being able to eject and parachute.

The combo package last Christmas was the ultimate deal. I had already purchased all of them, so it didn't help me out, but for those who didn't have any SF2 sims yet, it was great. Hopefully, TK offers something similar to it again this Christmas to draw in more newcomers and old SF2 holdouts.

It looks impressive, but so did the Cougar. Maybe this stick will put Thrustmaster back on top for quality and replica HOTAS markets. Maybe this stick will have as many problems as other Thrustmaster joystick products of recent years. I will wait and see. The new Logitech and Saitek sticks have already disappointed me. So I am not getting my hopes up at all. And how will it compare to CH Products new A-10 HOTAS?

I don't actually expect any flight model enhancements to support V-G. Probably an animation link based on Mach for the visual position, while any aerodynamic effects will probably be hard-coded into the standard tables. But, I am still curious to see what he decides to do. My statement took into account the new TMF F-14. Surely TK will includde some feature to reward those who choose to get the new Tomcat sim despite the TMF release. Perhaps the new terrain will be the reason the buy this sim for those that are happy with the free mod F-14s? Only 6 months to go. Given the F-4E was produced with its trademark shark mouth, will the F-14A get a proper VF-84 Jolly Rogers skin rather than some generic decals? Maybe a shiny new Nimitz class to land on?

There were other features lost in translation. Lexx is big into environmental mods and can no longer get the realistic results he wants in the SF2 implementation. TK changed the game in a way that cannot be fixed by modding. I also have several issues with broken features in player-designed single missions. There are things I can do in the old series to model historical situations properly that I cannot do in SF2. Those still using WinXP and/or DX9 may benefit by staying with the old series as well. Those blessed with the latest hardware/Windows and happy with random single missions will be the happiest with SF2. Those with older hardware/Windows or multiplayer or mission editing types may find SFP1/WoX series more rewarding. There is also the issue of payware. If you have Razbam's stuff, it can be made to work in SF2, but will have a few issues (primarily shadows). YAP1/2, being built on custom missions and having helicopters definitely has problems working in SF2. For the most part, any SFP1/WoX era installs on my hard drive are there so I can extract files that are needed to support stuff I want in SF2. I recently re-installed SF2 without any mods, so the only first gen install I have right now is YAP2, which I never play. I can't wait to see what the F-14 sim brings to the SF2 series. How will TK implement aerodynamics of the VG wing in the data.ini file? Will multitarget tracking be added? What is the new terrain going to be like? What other flyables/non-flyables will be added? Will any aircraft carriers and warships will be added? Will there be any surprise revisions to the game engine? What is going to be in the other expansion packs? This is going to be an interesting year for Third Wire sims. I hope the Tomcat sim makes a Xmas release (or earlier).

If you have a sense of humor and are not French, then: Go to http://www.google.com Type in the search window: French Victories Click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Follow the suggested "did you mean" link on the resulting page.

TK can't make everyone happy. He counts on moddability to get people to buy at least one of the games, since you can taylor any one of the sims to suit your needs. Of course, ever since the original release each patch has fixed some things and broken others. I have many fond memories of SFP1 SP2a. It had few bugs, AI was good in a dogfight (think Korea mod), multiplayer mostly worked, and my F-4B flight model departed almost exactly as it should. But WoV brought carriers and naval aircraft, WoE brought clouds and advanced avionics, WoI fixed the AI and ECM problems of WoV and WoE, SF2 made everything look better and improved frame rates for DX10 cards. If SF2 had retained the basic multiplayer of SFP1, I would have almost nothing to complain about. However, since I am not even trying to make time for multiplayer at the moment, SF2 pathced to the latest revision is easily my favorite version. Will the F-14 really bring in a lot of new blood? I don't know. The F-14 already exists in mod form and I can't imagine the new game improving much other than cockpit/avionics details (maybe multi target tracking?). Will Tomcat fans that haven't already bought some version of this sim to fly the mod F-14 suddenly decide to buy it for a stock F-14? The F-14 is probably the most popular aircraft that is missing from this sim's time frame. If it doesn't help TK get back in business, what will? Sooner or later TK will have to deal with modern aircraft. A decent F/A-18, F-22, and/or F-35 added to this game would probably draw a lot more sales than anything like the last expansion pack. I guess I am weird, because I would much rather see TK do the 1950s to 1970s aircraft than the modern types. I personally think the USSR aircraft should start being added as flyables. They are almost as well documented as the US aircraft as I have been able to get almost any info I want or need on the MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-29 (flight manuals, radar operaion guides, cockpit layouts, etc.). Korea would be a big deal, even if it started with only an F-86F and a MiG-15bis. It will be interesting to see where he goes next. As long as he keeps adding high quality flyables from the 50s/60s/70s at a decent rate I will be happy with whatever he decides to do.

As for TK's financial situation, he never gives too many details, but he has stated that sales plummeted with the economy which forced him to drop his prices. The combination of lower sales and lower prices means that he has to release more products in the same time just to break even. Open modability has really hurt TK's potential sales. Just from the various support forums I have seen many posts where the poster admits that they have just one or two versions of the game and rely on free downloads to fill in the rest of their needs. Additionally, there are a significant number of "loyal fans" that can not or will not upgrade to any of the SF2 sims due to financial constraints, operating system limitations, hardware limitations, or simply being satisfied with the original series. There are even a handful who won't buy another copy of the series unless multiplayer is reinstated. So I think TK's productivity reflects his eagerness to keep Third Wire in business despite the effects of the global economy on his already limited niche customer base.

Wasn't there a post a long time ago in which TK stated that the F-14 was enough work that it would be the only new flyable aircraft in its game whenever he got around to adding it? I would expect A-7s, F-4s, and possibly A-4s to be the other USN flyables in the 1973-1982 time frame. Unless he suddenly decided to bring the A-6 back, which is very unlikely. For the sake of variety, would he make sure the hypothetical scenario was geographically positioned to allow for other flyable allies besided USN using previously released aircraft? USAF, Israel, RAF, France? Korea would easily allow for USAF/South Korean support. Whereas middle eastern locations largely leave only Israel. A GIUK setting could get the USAF involved from Keflavik. Lebanon really looks attractive from TK's low budget perspective: reuse almost 100% of SF2I plus the naval components of SF2V, add a new map, the F-14, and a campaign or two and you are pretty much done. AI non-flyables would be needed to round out the 80's carrier deck and the F-4N/S would be extra work to do the flyables correctly.

As the F-14A in TK's time frame was only employed in air-to-air applications and photo recon, I would expect any F-14 sim to only assign F-14s to fleet defense (which is really a CAP), interception, escort, sweeps, and recon, all of which would fit just fine into a naval or coastal conflict. Libya would definitely support ground strikes to be escorted/swept by F-14s. I do see one other hypothetical situation that fits really well with what TK has already done: US intervention in Lebanon after Syria and/or Israel invade? A key factor is the fact that this will be some sort of new terrain. If Vietnam, Israel, and Europe are ruled out, what other area would be a good hypothetical conflict for a mid 70s to early 80s time frame? South America (Nicaragua, El Salvador)? Cuba? Africa? Japan/Taiwan/China? Korea? Korea would be a great choice as it would continue to lay the foundation for a 1950's Korean War game. Since South Korea mainly used US assets TK has already modeled and North Korea mainly used USSR/China assets TK has already modeled, the terrain would be the only big part to do.

I would think the idea would be to showcase the F-14's abilities: using the Phoenix to stop Bears from hitting the carrier group. North Atlantic/GIUK/Baltic? Or the idea would be to expand on the area where the F-14 was actually used: Libya. Fictional escalation of conflict beyond SEAD strikes and 2 vs 2 fighter encounters. MiG-25 could be AI, again to showcase F-14 ability with Phoenix. I don't see TK releasing a game with a time frame beyond 1982. North Atlantic/GIUK fleet defense fits well with SF2E universe.

I think the F-4 owns the Black Bunny, but nothing can touch the Tomcat in Jolly Rogers colors. It looked so good that way that the Macross/Robotech VF-1 was made to resemble the F-14 and wore those same colors. The F-4 and F/A-18 just don't look right compared to the Tomcat. Anyone who voted to take the F-14D out of service obviously had not seen photos of the F-14 in Jolly Rogers' colors.

If you install the F-105 Early Tail Numbers skin I released earlier (found here: http://forum.combatace.com/files/file/10842-f-105-early-tail-numbers/ ), the mission can be easily modified to use this skin to have the correct tail code for Crab 02. I have been unable to document the tail numbers on the other three aircraft in Crab flight. Note that in the actual mission, the lead, Crab 01, was flying an F-105F and Crab 03 was flying the real life equivalent to the F-105D (66) of the game. Crab 02 and Crab 04 were in the game's F-105 (i.e. no RWR). For the mission, I used an F-105 (66) as a substitue for the leader. Crab 03 is stuck in a regular F-105D as I would have had to break the Crab 03/Crab 04 element into two flights to give Crab 03 the correct aircraft.

View File 660629 First F-105 MiG Kill for SF2V June 29, 1966 was a pivotal point in the air war over Vietnam. Restrictions on bombing in Hanoi and Haiphong were lifted by Washington, D.C. The first targets were major POL storage depots (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants). The USAF struck Hanoi and the USN struck Haiphong on this day. About 56.8% of North Vietnam's POL storage capacity was destroyed. However, another significant even took place on this day. An IRON HAND flight of four F-105s was bounced by four MiG-17s. Two F-105s were damaged. One MiG-17 was hit and last seen diving into a cloud just above the ground. This MiG-17 became the first confirmed kill by an F-105. The pilot was Maj. Fred L. Tracy of the 421st TFS, 388th TFW. He was flying in F-105D 58-1156, callsign Crab 02. /*****Sources******************************************************************/ "MiG Killers" by Donald J. McCarthy, Jr. Brief synopsis of the aircraft and pilot involved. "Clashes" by Marshall L. Michel III Detailed but generic account of the action, no name, units, etc. USAF "Red Baron" WSEG Report 116 Event II-15 Incredibly detailed account. /*****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 low level clouds experienced that day. Only the higher level clouds are modeled. The initial aircraft positions reflect WSEG Report 116 Event II-15. the mission starts when the MiGs are first detected by Crab 04. However, the AI cannot be "bounced" as was historically the case. So all F-105s are immediately aware the approaching MiG-17s. This means that the MiG-17s do not get the first pass on Crab 01 and Crab 02. It also means that Crab 02 does not automatically get a point-blank free shot. It does lead to the correct situation of trying to clear MiGs from tails. The historical F-105 mission is SEAD until the arrival of MiG-17s. This forced the F-105s to jettison their ordnance to evade attack and engage. So the flight leader, Crab 01, has been placed on a SWEEP mission. This makes the AI flight leader drop all ordnance and focus on the MiGs. The player is flying as Crab 02. Presently, players can only be the lead aircraft in a flight. So, Crab 02 is modeled as a separate flight assigned to ESCORT Crab 01. The player cannot issue commands to any other aircraft. The focus is realistically shifted from MiGs to protecting the flight leader. To win the mission, the flight leader must live. As in reality, MiG kills are just an added bonus. Crab 03 and 04 are also a separate flight. This permits historical initial positioning of the aircraft. The default game formation is too close together. This is also necessary due to the player being assigned as a separate flight. Otherwise, Crab 03 would end up in the wingman position of Crab 01. Crab 03 and Crab 04 are also assigned to ESCORT Crab 01. This largely makes them act as members of Crab 01's flight. The MiG-17s have been broken up into two flights. A three plane flight and a single plane flight. This permit historical starting positions. Historically, the F-105s got separated. Each pilot made decisions based solely on what they saw or heard. Some F-105s disengaged while others were still fighting. This is an added advantage to having one flight get broken up into several. Each flight decides to fight or flee independently of the other flights. This permits outcomes that are very close to the historical results. /*****Playing Tips*************************************************************/ 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 easily kill all of the 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. The first thing the player should do is jettison all ordnance. Then the player should maneuver to cover the flight leader's tail. The flight leader, Crab 01, is very close and to the right of the player. Crab 01 can be observed to jettison his ordnance at the start of the mission. Historically, Crab 01 broke to the left, but the AI breaks to the right. Next, a decision will have to be made: Follow and protect the flight leader, or engage any MiGs encountered. 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 hunting! Submitter streakeagle Submitted 05/30/2010 Category User Made Missions  

What clear evidence on the F-8? Give me a link or scan any reference that isn't an F-8 pilot saying F-8s always beat F-4s in ACM. No one ever did in the other thread devoted entirely to assessing F-8 maneuverability, I don't expect anyone can or will produce one now. The only data I could find on the F-8 clearly showed that the two aircraft were very close and that which one was better would depend on the specifc altitude and speed being compared. How does that equate to a clear advantage for the F-8? None of the F-4 performance (or any other aircraft) I have ever cited has ever been fantasy. I cited a specific point for the purposes of a simple, precise comparison to disprove the statement that an F-4 could never out turn an F-14 even with slats. The official data directly shows that a slatted F-4 actually could turn better than an F-14. The point I cited at Mach 0.9 at 10,000 feet isn't just some arbitrary point on the envelope where the slatted F-4 just happens to be better than the F-14. It is a major performance benchmark for contract flyoffs. The aircraft which is superior at Mach 0.9 and 10,000 feet is generally better over the entire subsonic envelope from sea level to 20 or 30 thousand feet. But my point never was to show that the F-4 is better than the F-14, but to back my original statements in many threads over many years that the F-14's performance was a marginal improvement over the F-4. The F-14's position on the wing loading chart should never have been modified to make it look better. Its high wing loading combined with its mediocre thrust ratio (both of which clearly apparent on your chart if you don't alter the numbers) is the reason why it was the worst performing aircraft of the teen series. It is your fantasy to selectively alter the wing loadings on your chart to favor specific aircraft. It should be noted that all the comparisons I have seen between F-14 and F-4 have been against the unslatted F-4J. I don't have the flight manual or charts for the F-4S, but the slatted F-4E should be close enough. Its max AoA is similar to the F-14 and its instantanous performance very close to the F-14A. The Aero book openly admits that the F-14A has a lower T/W ratio than an F-4J, but the F-14 is still going to accelerate better due to its lower CD0. For all the advantages slats offered to the F-4, there was one penalty: an even higher CD0. Wing loading by definition is W / S, where S is the reference area of the wing design. It is specified during the design process as an unchanging reference to make all other aerodynamic coefficients meaningful. You don't change S because some book mentions how other parts of the aircraft contribute to lift. Almost all aircraft generate lift with parts other than their wings, but the effective lift is by definition accounted for in CL not S. Wing loading comparisons are common for several reasons: the numbers needed to calculate wing loading are readily available, the calculation is simple, and if both aircraft have similar wing designs, it can be very accurate. But if the wings differ too much in aspect ratios, wing section profiles, lift devices, etc., it can't be used to judge relative performance at all. If your goal is to accurately show relative performance, why are you plotting wing loading? Not only does it not account for lifting bodies and LERXes, but misses slats, flaps, and wing section. Why not pick a Mach and an altitude and plot actual performance for all of the aircraft? Max instaneous lift load accounts for almost everything by including CL ( CLmax * S * q / W ). The only components missing are thrust and drag. If you want to account for everything in one shot, plot max sustained G... not because dogfights are won by flying in a constant circle, but because they are won by exploiting a combination of specific excess power and agility directly reflected by an aircrafts max sustained g. Your current chart plots purely W/S for most aircraft and some form of W/(CL*S) for those aircraft whose wing loadings you don't like. So it doesn't compare wing loadings or relative performance. Of course it is your chart and you are free to plot any points anywhere you want them. It is not my numbers that are "selective" or "fudged". I have always posted scans of entire performance charts and only select points to simplify comparisons and save time. I do not pick one number I don't like and change it to whatever I feel it should be. If you came up with an aerodynamically correct approach for figuring out the "effective wing area" for every plane on the chart instead of just the F-14, I would never have accused you of fudging the numbers. Instead, you take one discusssion limited to only the F-14 and twist it onto your chart. On the next page in the book is a comparison of CL curves for the F-14, F-4, and MiG-21, there is where your "effective area" is factored in to aero equations. Doing the math ( CL / (W/S) ) will quickly show you why the F-14's instantaneous performance chart looks so much better than the F-4 and only marginally better than the MiG-21. But beware, the F-4 curve stops at about 13 degrees, when the unslatted aircraft have a safe white mark for max g that is about 18 degrees, so the CLmax for the F-4 on the book chart is about 72% of what it should be. Find or estimate CLmax for all of the aircaft on your chart and divide the wing loading by that value and you will have a chart that (1) provides useful information and (2) realistically ranks the F-14 where it should be. Otherwise, my accusation of "fudging" isn't a taunt or an insult, it is by definition what you did to your wing loading table.

A standard reference point used for comparison is Mach 0.9 at 10,000 feet. Typically, you will find the peaks of sustained g curves at almost exactly that Mach and 10,000 feet is considered a good medium altitude for comparison, though sea level and 30,000 feet are also commonly used. The F-14A can sustain about 6.5g via visual interpolation, (I am too lazy to find a better chart to get a more precise number, but the value for 10,000 feet is nearly halfway between the 7g and 6g curve peaks at Mach 0.9. Exact data was observed and documented during slatted F-4E evaluation by the USAF and NASA for the standard 10,000 feet/ Mach 0.9 reference point: The unslatted F-4E can sustain 5.68g while the slatted F-4E is 6.78g. These F-4Es and F-14A are at 1/2 internal fuel and clean per standard table conditions. Now who is living in fantasy land and fudging numbers? No amount of taunting, insults, or Admiral anecdotes will alter hard numbers from objective sources. If you don't believe those numbers, I don't know what you will believe. And why do I always bring up F-4s when discussing aircraft performance? Because it is the stick by which all other aircraft are measured in almost every reference I have. F-16 vs F-4, MiG-21 vs F-4, MiG-17 vs F-4, MiG-23 vs F-4, F-15 vs F-4, F-14 vs F-4. Even combat aircraft design books use the F-4 as a primary example, because extensive data is readily available and it is comparable to anything else flying. Now, since you never reply to my posts with any facts, only vague contradictions to whatever I post and sometimes selected anecdotes that favor your position, I will throw in some facts that are less related to aircraft quality, but still prove my points about relative F-4 performance: VF-302 achieved the highest number of "kills" and placed 2nd out of 12 squadrons in the 1981 Fighter Airborne Early Warning Wing Pacific fighter derby. 8 of the competing squadrons were flying the F-14. VF-302 was flying the F-4 (either F-4N or F-4S, they were transitioning to the F-4S in 1981). VF-201 took first place honors with a 15:2 kill ratio in the 1982 Felix International Fighter Meet. They flew the F-4N against F-5E, F-14, F-15, and F-16 adversaries. There is no doubt that the pilots flying the F-4s were top notch, but were all of the other pilots so bad that the mighty teen fighters lost so badly to F-4s? You questioned my F-4 versus F-8 anecdotes because you said they contradicted each other, but they didn't. I am sure that the VF-96 pilot was 100% honest when he said he never saw an F-4 lose to an F-8 after Top Gun training. Likewise, why would the F-8 pilot lie about his experience against F-4s? They served in different units at different times, and had different expriences. But, even though almost all information on the F-8 versus the F-4 is anecdotal due to a lack of hard data on the F-8, when an F-4 pilot in a decent unit offers an experience that contradicts your opinion, you deem the anecdotes unacceptable? If an F-4 unit can get a 15:2 kill ratio over teen fighters and the F-5E, what do you think they did to F-8s when flown by equally good pilots? Is anyone ever going to respond with flight manual data? Maybe a NASA evaluation? Mathematical analysis of observed data? Any sort of aerodynamic data from some sort of factual soruce? Or just insult me and make line-by-line contradictory statements without any supporting data? Someone else in another thread said that no matter what data was posted they would never change their opinion. And I am the one that is biased

The data showing the turn performance differences between the F-4J and F-14A comes from the same book used for the wing area illustration in this post. Like the F-4, the F-14 was a heavy interceptor, not a MiG-21 or F-16 lightweight day fighter. The F-15 didn't even have the aerodynamic peformance (CLmax) to out turn the F-4E, just the excess power to sustain higher rates (I cite the F-15 vs the F-4 since the F-15A IS superior to the F-14A at the high subsonic speeds where comparisons are usually made). When the wing is swept back to an intermediate position at higher speeds, the F-14's wing behaves like any other aircraft with that wing sweep, but with 60,000 lbs hanging beneath it. When the wing is fully swept, it is practically a delta and suffers all of the problems of deltas. I am sure I posted the performance charts from the F-14 book a long time ago comparing the MiG-21, F-14A, F-14B (original version from 1970s), F-4J, and MiG-23. The MiG data is largely estimated, but the F-4 and F-14A pretty much match currently available charts. The F-14A is better than the F-4 across the board, but it is not that much better when you start comparing F-16 and F-18 data. Any claim that the F-14A was a nimble dogfighter is pathetic except in very specific circumstances about as useful in typical combat situations as the Flanker's Cobra maneuver. The F-14A+/F-14B/F-14D is another subject because the extra thrust did get the F-14 up to the F-15's class of performance when the wing is in an intermediate position and I can only speculate how much better that would make it when low and slow with wings fully exteneded. As I recalled, from the very same book, and used in previous discusssions about the same basic subject (F-14 vs everything else): http://img185.imageshack.us/i/realf4jsustghm6tx.jpg/ http://img185.imageshack.us/i/f14agsust8eu.jpg/ Keep in mind, that the F-4J is unslatted. The slatted F-4E sustained turn numbers get really close to the F-14A thanks to about a 10% to 20% increase in CLmax for no increase in induced drag.

You can fudge the numbers any way you want, but in reality the F-14 only turns modestly better than an F-4J until you get the wings extended. Aspect ratio greatly affects the lift properties of a wing with a fixed area and the F-14 has exceptionally high aspect ratio when the wings are fully extended. But keep in mind what speed the F-14 must stay below to get those wings out and how bad the drag will affect it because of its less than stellar thrust loading. The F/A-18 doesn't look so good according to your wing loading table, when in reality it will fly rings around an F-14 and is only marginally worse in sustained performance than an F-16 (actually marginally superior to the F-16 in instantaneous performance). The old rules of the thumb just don't work very well when you factor in LERX principles. As for fuselage area, the fuselage reduces lift of the reference wing. In the case of the F-14 (and similar aircraft), the fuselage does not interfere as much as conventional layouts, so the net lift is increased, but you don't change the reference area to account for that and the additional fuselage area cannot be added directly to the reference area to show the gain achieved by the F-14 layout. What really matters is the top surface of the wing. The cleaner the top surface is, the closer the lift curves will be to the theoretical limits of the reference wing. The F-15's clean high-mounted wing scores very well in this area, but almost all modern fighters relect this benefit to some extent. While F-102s and F-106s could pull some scary AoA's with their deltas, I would never call them dogfighters. Visibility out of the cockpit was horrendous and there was no close-in weapon system. I would rather have fought MiG-17s using F-104s with gun and AIM-9s than F-102s and F-106s with AIM-4s.

I think beta testing was taken out because despite all the beta testing, some major bugs were missed and still required more patching after release. So instead of a handful of fans getting an early release to critique, everyone gets to beta test. I actually like it better this way since it means a lot more eyes finding a lot more bugs so TK can spend a lot less time by releasing fewer, but more comprehensive patches.

Not so long ago, someone noticed inconsistent views between Israeli F-4 varians in SF2I, and the answer was that neither one was correct. March 2010 patch provided ini file and lod changes necessary to get a view like the one from the top, which is correct. If you want proof, pause the game and use the <Ctrl><F12> view to move the camera into the pit to see how it looks straight out of the 3d model.

I don't know if this works for Vista, but it is graphics corruption that it fixes. The intro videos and menu screens looked terrible and the game looked worse, but with this fix, it looks 100% like it did in Win95/Win98 as far as I can tell and recall. This game looked so cool to me in 1998 when I played on a work laptop.

Correct, must have deleted a <CR> when I posted this.