streakeagle

I never get tired of F-101 Voodoo screenshots, especially ones that look as good as that :)

F-8s could not get onto the tail of a MiG-17 any easier than an F-4. If they were getting onto the tail of a MiG-17 in a level turn, the MiG-17 wasn't turning or had hit speeds where it couldn't turn. Statitics such as kills per engagement reflect the entire war. The F-8 had good pilots the entire time. If you look at USN F-4 units in 1972, you will find that they did every bit as well as F-8 units. The three principal reasons F-8s did so well compared to the F-4 over the same time frame (1966-1968) were: 1) They got most of their kills with the AIM-9D, a missile far superior to the AIM-9B. 2) While their guns did not directly contribute to their success, the extensive training they received on how to dogfight to use the guns got them into position to use the AIM-9D despite being far less maneuverable than their MiG-17 targets. 3) They rarely had to fight MiG-21s. Even the F-105 got a significant number of kills against the MiG-17 almost exclusively with guns. Maneuverability was not the key. Being aware of the MiG-17 and taking the correct course of action to counter it was the key. Tecnically, F-105s got more kills than F-8s, so we should get rid of the F-8 and F-4 and switch to the F-105? Put those same F-8 pilots in F-4Bs with AIM-9Ds and you would have gotten the same or better results in the same engagements. Take the USAF pilots and throw them in F-8s and watch them do as bad as they did in the F-4C despite having AIM-9Ds, because they still won't have the ACM skills it takes to beat an angles fighter with an energy fighter.

I completed the 1v1 heaters only. The MiG-23 got my several times before I solved my problem. I had rear aspect AIM-9Ps vs all-aspect R-60Ms, so I had to survive the merge to position for a shot. Performing missile avoidance tactics made it difficult for me to maintain visual contact. I would merge, lose sight of the MiG-23, then end up getting shot while circling/looping to look for him. Or, while maintaining visual contact I would get hit by one or more R-60Ms. Finally, I learned to zoom in visually and use trackIR to maintain visual as I dove low in idle tossing chaff and flares, after the merge, I select afterburner and pull through the vertical, then look for the small dot moving against the terrain. If I spot him, I out perform him, line up for a tail aspect, and win with a single AIM-9P shot. The MiG-29 got me first time, but all the practice against the MiG-23 ensured that I nailed the MiG-29 on the 2nd try using the exact same formula. The Su-27 brought a new surprise: armed with R-73s, but I gained AIM-9Ms. First try, I dodged two R-73s, but as I realized I had AIM-9Ms and nosed back up for a point blank face shot, I died of a point blank R-73 face shot. Second try, I knew I had AIM-9Ms, dodged two R-73s and scored an AIM-9M face shot at point blank range. He never even had a chance to pop a flare. As I had expected, FC2 plays the same as its predecessors once missiles are back in the fight. The entire fight is about correctly employing missile avoidance maneuvers. If you can master that, then the focus shifts back to the fun twisty close-in dogfights.

The F-8 didn't "perform" better than the F-4, it simply had pilots well trained in air-to-air combat tactics. Something US Navy F-4s did not have until Top Gun and USAF F-4s never got until after Vietnam. All the way back to WWI, people in the know knew it wasn't the crate that determined the outcome but the pilot unless there was a huge gap in technology or problems caused by mandatory doctrine. USAF pilots in Vietnam were not the only ones who suffered as a result of doctrine and rules of engagement. NVAF pilots got roasted a few times due to the limitations and failures of their GCI system. Operation Bolo being the most famous case. Had the MiG-21 pilots not had to wait for GCI instructions to run for cover, they probably would have lost only 1 or 2 instead of 6 or 7 MiG-21s that day. The weather was horrible and it was easy to hide in the clouds and go home. But GCI was stunned by the discovery that the inbound flights were air-to-air F-4s and not strike F-105s. They hesitated way too long before issuing orders to run for it. If there had been more officers like Robin Olds and they hadn't been forced to do things like fly Fluid Four and switch to AIM-4s rather than adapt their aircraft to AIM-9Ds, the early years in Vietnam probably would have gone so well that there wouldn't be much to fight by 1972.

I only have the demo for now. I could never get ArmA running fast enough to be fun on this rig, so it is a pleasant surprise how well ArmA 2 runs on my ancient rig. Win 7 64 + HD 4890 is giving me the same benefits in this game as it did in SF2. It seems to capture the best points of OFP AND add the best points of ArmA while otherwise working much better. I am tempted to buy it, but I already have two copies of ArmA I will never use because ArmA 2 came out before I could get around to buying a new rig. I am sure missions in the full version will load down my single core A64 3800 too much. So I may settle for the demo until I either get a new rig or ArmA 3 is released.

Meteor cockpit? If someone is cranking out pits, I would think having high quality correct pits for every non-flyable stock aircraft would be a great direction to go :)

Keep in mind, you still need to get the latest DirectX 9 updates as well to run the old SF1 series.

Not really surprising. Entertainment in any form that appeals to the masses has been reduced to simple easy to repeat formulas: movies, sitcoms, reality shows, books, etc. With music being more akin to mathematics than any other form, it makes sense the those seeking to make millions selling music figured out a formula that works and haven't failed yet. Consider all the '60s pop/rock'n'roll hits. There were a handful of writers cranking out most of the hit songs while the groups that sang them were often composed of random people, some of whome were not even talented in any way shape or form. Some of the girl groups swapped out members as necessary to keep the group cheap and on the road. At best, Peter and Mike of the Monkees were actually musicians. Need I mention later versions like Milli-Vanilli? There are some greats that are wholly original that lead the new waves of music rather than followed. David Bowie constantly went down new paths and stayed on top for almost 20 years. Like her or not, Madonna was a trend setter for about the same length of time. At the other end of the spectrum are groups like the Beach Boys who were stuck singing the same ten songs for their entire lives with very few exceptions. I did find it interesting comparing their list tof my own CD collection. I counted about 38 songs in their routine and I have 17 of them. While the chords may be similar or even the same in all of those songs, chords are not unlike percussion. Most songs could be reduced to chords and a drum beat and sound very similar. What really stands out in most songs is the melody and/or the voices used to sing them as well as the arrangement of instruments used to play them. Musical styles that focus on the beat with little or no melody all sound the same to me. My wife is from Colombia and all Latin reggaetón songs sound the same to me: loud obnoxious percussion accented with some periodic catch phrase. There is even one song I have heard at every Latin party or club I have ever been to with the reptitive catch phrase being "gas-o-li-na" pronounced "gas" "oh" "lee" "na". There are other lyrics being mumbled under the Latin reggaetón drum beat, but they are wholly inconsequential. My all-time favorite group is Pink Floyd. Anyone who has listened to their complete catalog of music has experienced a dynamic range of sound. But their most popular albums Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall more or less evolved into a formula centered on Roger Water's themes. So much so, that Roger Waters went his separate way since he didn't need the rest of the group to continue his music. Meanwhile, the remaining members spit out two more albums where they did their best to infuse the themes of their best albums with an updated sound to bump up their pension funds. I still like their post Roger Waters albums (as well as Roger's and Dave's solo work), but how much does that say when I am the type of person who likes Lady Ga-Ga's Poker Face?

It doesn't change how the RWR works, just allows it to be displayed on the screen at all times.

Aside from learning where the key commands are, the game is meant to be learned by trial and error while flying, though there is a pdf instruction manual and my SARH tutorial listed above is a quick shortcut. I have made keyboard map for the latest SF2 mappings as well: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6892&hilit=keyboard+layout

Much needed? I already have a Skyraider pit I enjoy using :)

Nice work! I know many have asked how to do this. With radar and RWR displays always visible, SF2 becomes a bit more like Jane's Fighters Anthology that typically had four popup windows across the bottom showing radar, rwr, targeting video camera, and performance envelope.

Completed the 1 vs 2 DACT. Cleaned the pair of MiG-23s clocks with no resistance. Had to play MiG-29s twice, 2nd time got into a really good groove and smoked them both quickly. Su-27s almost went down on the first try, but I lacked the finesse I needed when I dropped my nose in a stall and missed the shot. By the 4th try, I killed the first one as fast as a MiG-29 and didn't take too much longer to get the 2nd Flanker. I am guessing the pilot quality in the opposing aircraft is dumbed down slightly for training purposes in these missions? or is there a setting I am missing where I can increase the AI skill level? I don't think I should have even a 50/50 chance against a MiG-29 in a knife fight and I can beat a pair of much superior Flankers, too. If by chance this is the best the AI can do, I think SF2 is much better than FC2 in dogfighting AI. Now, I could see that the Flankers were very maneuverable, but they didn't take advantage of it very well nor did they take advantage of 2vs1 tactics very well. They should split well before the merge and force me to pick one or the other or fly straight through. Instead, they only split after the merge. If I take too long to kill the first one, the 2nd will convert on to my tail and kill me. But the AI seem far too susceptible to being suckered into an overshoot while leaving me with plenty of energy to paste them with gunfire after they slip into my forward quarter. Tomorrow, I will try to complete all of the heaters only DACT missions. I expect I will get clobbered in that unless I learn how to employ flares correctly.

I haven't played LOMAC in years as I much prefer Vietnam era jet combat, but the release of FC2 has got my attention. I got my joystick mapped (prior to FC2 I played using their default config, but FC2 doesn't seem to support that anymore). I started with 1v1 MiG-23 and smoked him easily as the F-15 just plane out turns him, especially with speed above 300 KIAS. I feared the MiG-29 would be dramatically harder, but I did a split-s to get my speed up, got a visual on him and pulled enough lead to kill him. The Su-27 was what I thought the MiG-29 would be. First try, the Su-27 got me as easily as I got the MiG-23. He just pulled around and shot me. However, I stomped the Su-27 second time around. After split-s, I could see the Su-27 on my tail and very close. I chopped my throttle, got him into my port forward quarter, pulled the necessary lead, and toasted him. While the operation of the radar is more detailed and realistic than SF2, in this guns only mode the flight modeling and gameplay feels about the same with similar results. The graphics are definitely a bit better in FC2. If this sim modeled the F-4 Phantom and MiG-21 as well as the F-15 and Su-27, I don't think I would be playing SF2 very much any more. But, I know from LOMAC/FC1 that once you start using AIM-120s and fighting Su-27s with equivalent missiles, the game becomes more about evading radar and/or missiles. I much prefer SF2's era that almost always turns into a close in dogfight. SF2's technical detail and realism may be a bit simplified, but the dogfights are quite fun. Having a lot less buttons to deal with makes it easier to maintain proficiency with the SF2 series.

This was just a hasty mod. Using the jpgs, better decals could be made. But some of them would need custom skins and/or decal ini files to get it 100% correct. The point of my mod was to stick to the stock generic skin which is far more practical for campaigns and historical single missions. I made this for me, but like all of my other self-serving work, I don't have any problems with sharing it (in the hope that someone else will pick up the ball and carry it further than I did). The documentation shows not only a wide variance in the tail numbering color, size, and location but also at least 2 or 3 ways to paint the camouflage scheme. The game engine only allows you to assign one skin per flight and a starting tail number index for the first aircraft in the flight. So there are limits to building historical missions with the aircraft skinned 100% correctly. The only way I see to get around these skin limitations is to make all flights contain only 1 aircraft. Unfortunately, this results in strange behavior for the AI. Independent aircraft will not provide mutual support they way a flight will. i.e. if you have a 4 aircraft flight that gets jumped by a MiG, they will all engage the MiG and/or cover each other's tail... especially if the flight leader is the one being attacked and/or counter-attacking. Four independent aircraft will try to complete their assigned mission as long as they are not directly attacked. Engaged aircraft turn and fight while unengaged aircraft continue to fly waypoints. In some situations, this behavior is preferable, but most of the time it is more realistic if the entire group fights or flees together. I have been working steadily on one simple mission, endlessly varying parameters to try to recapture as much of the historical situation as possible. I have varied aircraft placement and grouping, AI pilot quality for both sides, environment, formations, etc. This also led to these tail number decals, as I discovered what the aircraft involved in the mission probably looked like at the time. I intend to release the mission in several variants so others can see how the game engine works and play the version they like best. While I intend to provide a version that covers the mission from takeoff to landing, this will be the worst version to play since the all-knowing AI make it impossible to duplicate the original surprise conditions. The enemy MiGs could magically appear at a certain time to create the element of surprise, but where will the player's flight be when this happens? I am favoring the board-game style approach of placing the aircraft based on the locations during initial detection. But again, the all-seeing AI that reacts to aircraft directly behind and below them makes it extrememly difficult to surprise the AI. The stock formations keep the aircraft far too close together compared to historical doctrine. The quick fix for the fluid four is to break the aircraft up into individual flights, but as I mentioned before, the AI doesn't fly to smartly in that situation. So I am favoring having two pairs. Historical spacing can be used between the two pairs. If the 2nd pair is assigned to escort the first pair, they still work together and per historical doctrine, the flight leader becomes the primary shooter while everyone else maneuvers to protect the flight leader. But a stock flight of four is much easier to place and still behaves better in some ways. Presently, aside from these decals, the only other thing I have released related to this F-105 mission is my hand typed copy of the original USAF Red Baron report, which can be found here: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7540

View File F-105 Early Tail Numbers This mod is a quick fix to revise the default camouflage skin to have the early tail codes. I have used the stock silver skin tail numbers and added the "USAF" above them using a stock Third Wire "USAF" decal. I have included an Excel spreadsheet listing the tailnumbers included and documenting as much as I know about that tail number. I have also inlcuded jpg files from the internet that show what quite a few of them really looked like. There are three basic variations: all white, black "USAF" with white number, and all black. This is a completely separate skin so it does not overwrite any of the stock skins. It is a copy of the default camo skin with ini edits to use the new tail codes. To install this, simply copy the "Objects" folder extracted from this download to the "Objects" folder of the desired install's mod folder. This pastes in the new skin for the F-105D and F-105D_66 as well as a new folder for the F-105 tail number decals. This mod may be used by anyone to do anything as long as it does not involve payware. The base decals were stock Third Wire decals, so they definitely should not end up being reused in any form of payware. Submitter streakeagle Submitted 04/18/2010 Category F-105  

Throw the right kind of rock into an air intake, then tell me throwing rocks won't do :)

The missiles of the time were slaved forward, but the IRST gave you a display that let you steer your nose exactly onto the target. Then it was just a matter of waiting for the target to come within range of the missile seeker. Radar would eventually have to be used to confirm range unless you got within visual range. The F-4Bs original purpose was to intercept bombers with the mission specified as "fleet defense", which is rather defensive. The USAF F-4D added a lot more support for ground mapping and bombing, making it a much better multirole aircraft. The F-4E not only added the internal gun and slats, but had an even more capable radar and weapon system for ground attack making it by far the best multirole variant. Whereas the F-4J, like the F-4B before it, was focused on providing the best possible interceptor until the F-14 could be delivered. Of course, thanks to digital technology, the F-4J was at least as capable as the F-4D in the ground attack mission. IRST was less important because radar was starting to work really well, even in lookdown situations and the weight and space it would occupy was much better spent on ECM given the SAM threats encountered in Vietnam.

The effective range would depend on the environment as well as the target. Clouds are made of water which block, reflect, and radiate IR energy. At high altitudes with cold clear skies, IR would work very well, especially against targets flying at high speeds with heat not only from their engines but from friction. IRST is a tool commonly found on interceptors. The F-4 and F-14 were both fleet defense interceptors. The F-102 and F-106 were continental defense interceptors. Interceptors in all of these cases meant stopping high altitude and/or fast Soviet bombers and/or cruise missiles. While radar has much better range and isn't blocked as much by clouds, IR is passive and much higher resolution. Before the age of uncaged IR seekers, it was also a good way to find and track targets for IRMs which could then be steered in acquistion parameters. In broad daylight with clear skies, the human eye is more than adequate, but at night is when IRST really shines as a useful sensor. But modern Thermal Imaging which provides a video rendition of the target is much more effective at providing the same service.

I understand that some of the work is copyrighted/payware, but it will be great if all the stuff that was freeware makes it back into this other game. No reason why two separate communities can't build a bridge and work together, even if the other community doesn't have anything to offer back in terms of addons. TK certainly won't mind the free advertising if his sim series somehow gets mentioned or if the credits otherwise lead more people to his games. Of course a lot of modders like to have their name out there and have others appreciate their work, too. So this is a win-win situation except for the original thief. He could have been the hero having done all the work, but he had no concept of respect for other people or their intellectual property. At least some good has come out of it with the two communities becoming aware of each other.

The F-4B was the only variant to ever have the IRST. F-4Cs came with chin pods for commonality of parts to simplifiy and speed up delivery. Late model F-4Cs and early F-4Ds had no chin pod. The chin pod was brought back for F-4Cs and F-4Ds to house RWR antennas. I can't recall off hand, but I am pretty sure even the F-4Bs eventually gutted their chin pods for RWR antennas, especially by the time they were converted to F-4Ns. The lack of the IRST on the F-4J should give you an idea of how much this system was liked/used by the USN. Of course, IRST showed up on the F-14A only to be replaced by TCS. Then both IRST and TCS were installed on the F-14D.

For the record, Jane's F/A-18 Superhornet was modded to allow flying the F-14, though it really is an F/A-18E in terms of flight model and avionics. LOMAC may have been modded the same way, so that at least graphically it looks like you are flying a Tomcat. But TK's new SF2 based sim should be the first one to do it right in a long time. However, his sim-lite approach may leave a few people disappointed.

While it would be nice to have a properly backlit control panel, I don't think TK will ever get around to doing that. As it stands, I almost never fly at night, so I didn't even realize the night lighting was broken in SF2 until I read about other people having problems and confirmed it for myself. Most of the historical missions I am interested in re-creating took place in the morning/afternoon and when I am flying just for fun, I enjoy dogfighting much more when I can see :) Now, for those simulating 1990's and later combat, you had better like flying at night since the US now uses this capability to reduce losses against our not-so-night capable enemies.

You have to change the aircraft type in the flight definition as well as the mission. The first entry you find is for descriptive purposes. Find the player's flight and edit the aircraft type in that flight to change what you are actually going to fly.