streakeagle

Where: meet at hyperlobby When: Tuesday thru Thursday nights from 8pm to 11pm (est) What: stock/patched install of WOV, Hamachi, and optionally teamspeak the goal is to try to get as many people as possible into a co-op mission. ideally exactly 16 people for 8 vs 8 and no AI airplanes, but we will make do with whoever shows up. Hyperlobby can be downloaded from here: http://hyperfighter.sk/ Hamachi can be downloeaded from here: http://www.hamachi.cc/download/list.php the hamachi network will be: wovnet (password = wovnet) Teamspeak can be downloaded from here: http://www.goteamspeak.com/ I will be using the combatace teamspeak server found here: http://combatace.com/index.php?categoryid=12

The F-4X would have used water-injected air with advanced air intakes to increase J-79 turbojet performance. Spey engines, being turbofans, are less efficient in supersonic applications in comparison to turbojets. Spey engines enhanced the F-4's subsonic performance (very useful for climb and turn performance at dogfighting speeds), but decreased supersonic performance through a combination of increased drag (caused by the installation of the Speys) and turbofan inefficiency as speed increases beyond Mach 1. For a similar example, the F-16/J-79 intended for export to countries not elligible for F100 turbofan technology, actually had equal or better supersonic performance than the F-16A despite the fact that the F100 was rated for at least 5000 lbs more static thrust at sea level. Read up on the speed records set by the early F-4s and you will find that some were exceptionally fast (faster than F-15s Mach 2.3/2.5 limits) because they used alcohol spray injected air to get results similar to the F-4X (no small coincidence). Also note that Israeli F-4s have already been modified to use such a spray system to provide emergency power (comparable to WW2 fighters). The systems used by the Israelis and for the speed records could cause uneven cooling resulting in engine damage, which is why such systems were not standard in all J-79 engined F-4s. Presumably, the F-4X was going to solve that problem or else be very expensive to maintain.

I would not criticize Iran's design without knowing what it is actually capable of doing. Every design choice has a cost and a benefit, perhaps the costs in weight and complexity are offset by performance and/or stability enhancements? The F/A-18 is the bloated, heavy, underpowered navalized multi-role evolution of the F-17 lightweight fighter. The F-17 evolved directly from the F-5. Why don't you ask why Northrop added the 2nd tail? Yet when they made the single engined F-5G aka F-20 (the alternative to the twin-engined F-17 design), they stuck with the single tail. When the US wanted to experiment with forward swept wings, they canabalized many parts from other existing aircraft to keep costs down. The X-29 had the nose of an F-5. Iran should be applauded for maximizing the use of its available resources to do something few countries can do: design and build supersonic fighters. While they have copied the F-5's basic technology, what country hasn't copied another's technology at one point or another? Russia and the US certainly got a lot of technology from Germany. Russia also got quite a bit of technology from Britain and the US. China has warped the MiG-19 and MiG-21 into various arrangements to suit their needs and along the way developed the ability to completely design and build their own. The US was even influenced to some degree by the MiG-25 and MiG-21 which drove the design requirments for the F-15 and F-16. The F-15 even looks very similar to the MiG-25, both of which owe some of their layout heritage to the A-5 Vigilante. Iran is doing what it should be doing: learning how to build planes step-by-step instead of trying to build an F-22 killer with so little experience in aircraft design and manufacturing. With an adequate budget, 10-20 years from now, they might have very competitive new designs of their own.

I agree, BF Vietnam and BF2 are sims. Unfortunately for me, they are too arcadish to provide immersion for me. Whereas even with old, inferior graphics, I find OFP to be the most immersive "sim" I have ever played. Falcon 4.0 with all its button-pushing glory does not make me feel like I am in combat with my life on the line the way OFP has over the years. What is the qualifier for a helo sim? Does it have a cockpit? does it have collective and cyclic? Do the instruments provide correct indications? Do the helo flying qualities approximate the performance expected for the available control inputs? The OFP physics model is obviously toward the arcade side in terms of the response to the control inputs... But all sims vary in their degree of simulation of various aspects of reality. I have never played a helo sim that got 100% of the physics correct. What % does it take to be a sim? Operationally, OFP can simulate things none of the other "sims" can. How many flight sims have people in them? Combat helo operations involve lots of people be it a transport hauling people or a gunship strafing people/vehicles. OFP can provide quite convincing immersion in most respects with the exception of the physics. It should be noted that while the physics are not correct, they are very challenging. The helos in OFP are harder to fly than in some dedicated helo sims. Neither MSFS nor X-Plane are very good helo sims. What dedicated sim comes even close to modeling a UH-1 Huey correctly? Modeling fly-by-wire AH-64s and subsequent digitally controlled helos is quite different from modeling traditional helos. To me, a true sim is a program that has been designed to replicate some aspect of reality to train its users to perform a real task. Do any of the PC games available meet that standard? X-Plane and MSFS have been successfully certified for this purpose for small single engine fixed wing aircraft, but are more for procedural training with flight model replication merely being adequate for familiarization. PC helo "sims" (including MSFS and X-Plane) at best provide no better and at worst are intended purely for entertainment. So, if we can agree that the available combat helo sims are really more games than sims, then what makes them useful is how much you enjoy flying them. Having flown in a Huey hanging out the side door, I find OFP to give me a better sense of what it is like to fly and fight from a helo than any other game available and as such I consider it to be a superior sim head and shoulders above those focused high-tech cockpits and/or detailed physics models. Even for jet aircraft, OFP offers some unique experiences. You can walk around on an aircraft carrier deck and climb into your F-14. You can raise and lower your helmet visor. You can have another player fly with you as your wso/rio/gunner. Being able to pick-up/drop-off a squad of players and having another player as a door gunner is far more interesting and realistic to me than using a mouse to push panel buttons on a screen while listening to computer generated radio chatter. All the while, I am using a cyclic, collective, and tail-rotor pedals to fly in a way that reasonably mimics helo flight. Now would I prefer a game that has all the flexibility of OFP, the details of Falcon 4.0, and the graphics of LOMAC? Sure. Give me a game where I could crawl with an M-16, drive an M-1 Abrams, fly an AH-1, or fly an F-4 Phantom all with exceptionally good graphics and physics. But PCs aren't strong enough to do it all and development budgets for sims aren't so big these days, so each game designer makes the approriate compromises for their target market. Armed Assault improved the graphics and retained the flexibility of OFP... if they could just get the physics right for ground vehicles and aircraft and permit more detailed controls, Bohemia Interactive could establish a new class of super sim that would largely replace the separate shooters, armored warfare, and flight sims. The fact is that many sims are heading in this unified reality direction where you can experience warfare from many perspectives: Aces High: focused on hi-fidelity planes, but including somewhat realistic sea and land combat just short of infantry battles. Battleground Europe-WWII Online: focused on infantry, but including somewhat realistic air and armored combat, have they added sea combat yet? Dangerous Waters: A true simulator used as a cheap supplement to train real sonar techs in the USN covering in depth ASW operations from submarine, surface, air... add in the ability to fly fighters and operate cruisers and destroyers and this would be the ultimate blue-water naval sim.

Can you be more specific about what problems you are having? The game has a very simple folder structure: aircraft name->cockpit the F-4E folder needs to contain the ini files that are named F-4E****.ini and the supplied cockpit folder replaces the existing cockpit folder. If you extract the hi-res cockpits, this should be as easy as dragging and dropping the ini files and cockpit folder into the approriate aircraft folder (F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E, F-4J etc.). If you don't see the hi-res bitmaps in the game, then you haven't located the files/folder correctly.

An Mi-8 with a ton of rockets is very fun too. A recurring theme for me: rockets can be hard to learn to use effectively, but are so much fun once you do. There was a huge user-made mission one time where along the way you acquired an Mi-8 and then had to use it to get to your final objective. The more damage you did with the Mi-8 on the way in, the less you had to fight door-to-door after you landed since you needed to clear a town. I lost that mission after formatting a hard drive one time and never found it again :(

I have contacted "warbirds parts and memorabilia" about getting a B-8... the owner is out of town right now (in Reno) but I will be getting one of the T-219 sealed units. This is not the F-4 adaptation, but the generic B-8. I am working out of town almost every week for a while, so I may end up having to wait awhile before I can pick this up in person (the owner laughed at the idea of shipping it since his business is so close to where I live). Of course, I am watching eBay like a hawk looking for an F-4/F-15 B-8 in fair condition for a fair price.

If you can live with the flight model (which isn't so much worse than the so-called dedicated heli sims once you get used to it), I find Operation Flashpoint/Resistance to be the most immersive helo sim. I made a multiplayer Vietnam mission (using addons of course) where 3 UH-1D slicks have to land 3 squads in a small clearing while 2 gunships with miniguns and rockets provide support as an overwhelming number of VC squads surround the clearing. No dedicated heli sim ever made can compare with the experience. I have played this mission over and over as gunship pilot, slick pilot, and infantry squad leader. The VC can and do shred the helos with MG fire, but if the gunships can identify and strafe/rocket their positions fast enough all helos can survive the landing. My favorite is trying to hunt down VC in the jungle vegetation using the gunship with rockets. With good eyes, you can spot the squads and level them with rockets in a couple of passes. I have played the stock single player mission where you are in a Cobra hitting a defenseless convoy countless times. I like to kill the trucks using the 3-barrel 20mm cannon so that the crews survive and try to run away... then I revert to rocket hunting. However arcadish the FM may be, it is still extremely challenging to fly helos and land them exactly where you want when you don't use the "autohover" freature. Another stock mission I have played countless times is the cargo helo one where you drop troops off under enemy fire then pick up wounded soldiers before returning to base. The initial drop can be done from the air, but I have much more fun trying to land on one of the few flatspots in the assigned area. Due to the open nature of OFP/Resitance, the possibilities are endless (aside from a realistic hard-core FM). I have the newer Armed Assault and have played the stock helo mission in it a few times. Graphically, it is far superior, but I think the FM took a small turn for the worse. Still a pleasure to play though.

The target's aspect also affects the reliability of the shot. In the game, sparrows will frequently fail on either a beam or front quarter shot. They are most reliable for head-on or rear hemisphere shots. Strangely enough, the otherwise much more capable AIM-7E2 is even more sensitive to the front quarter aspect than the AIM-7E: it will self-destruct halfway to the target almost every time. The AIM-7E has a higher minimum range, but also has a higher maximum range. I love it when my F-4 is carrying two of each. I use the AIM-7E for long-range/head-on shots and the AIM-7E2 for close-in dogfighting tail-chasing shots. If I was forced to choose between carrying one or the other, I prefer the AIM-7E2 since its envelope is much more friendly after the merge... it is superior to any of the USAF versions of the sidewinder for close-in dogfighting until the AIM-9L. If you are only carrying AIM-7Es, you should really only be firing these under two circumstances: 1. The target is far away and is pointing directly at you with a high closure rate. 2. The target is close (but outside minimum range) and is flying directly away from you. Sparrows seldom hit hard maneuvering targets (i.e. a MiG engaging a target with sporadic high-g maneuvers). But if you use sparrows a lot, you will find they can be used outside the two cases I listed above with varying degrees of success depending on the circumstances. With patience, you can frequently get 75% to 100% success with the AIM-7E and/or AIM-7E2 when none of your missiles fail their reliability check at launch. No amount of patience consistently gets me those kind of results with the AIM-9B/E/Js of the USAF. This is one area where the game follows reality pretty closely: if you analyze the USAF and USN air-to-air kills from Vietnam, you will find the USAF was much more successful with the AIM-7 than the AIM-9. They had technicians from the manufacturers grooming their radars and sparrows to maximize their reliability. USN sparrows didn't fare as well with the hard life of carrier landings and they had much better versions of the AIM-9, so the USN scored far more kills with AIM-9s.

Daco had a military style throttle with wing-sweep lever: http://www.daco.co.uk/html/custom_built_controllers.htm Of course, you could get almost identical functionality out of the new Saitek throttle quadrant.

Ok, so having a baby slowed me down quite a bit both in time and money... but I have been working my butt off away from home and getting paid $30 per day per diem for food. If I ate $30 per day worth of food, I would be even fatter than I am now, so I am building up a fund for game controller stuff... I could get a Track IR 4 Pro, or a Saitek X-52 Pro, or whatever I want... I am on the hunt for an F-4 B-8. It doesn't have to be a real one... just identical in size, shape, functionality. Most B-8's have a hand rest at the bottom on the right side. The F-4's did not. So most of the B-8s available won't make me happy. I wish I had bid on the F-4 throttle levers and stick shaker (the box the B-8 is mounted on with the pinkie switch) I saw on e-Bay. I simply did not have the money to waste back then, but now I would do it. The throttle levers are nearly impossible to find and this was almost the complete mechanism except for the actual name-plate/panel mount with slots that the levers moved through. Ugh! I was stupid not to try to get it! Oh well. So do I simply get an old Thrustmaster for about $10 and mod it? or buy surplus for about $200 from the warbird shop that is close enough to my house to pick it up in person? Or patiently wait for another ebay opportunity? If I had a place to put it, I would sell my wife on gettiing the ejection trainer cockpit at the warbird shop for $3000. I could slowly buy real pane parts as they became available and convert it into a geniune F-4 cockpit. I want my... I want my... I want my B-8 stick!

You have been misinformed... internet play works fine through the multiplayer interface... you just have to manually specify the IP address of the host. (and the host has to have the proper settings for his router and firewall to permit you to find his pc). read my thread at thirdwire for the most complete description of online MP for thirdwire sims: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1410 While having identical installations is a very good idea to increase the probability of successfully joining a MP host, not all files have to be identical... but the person trying to join MUST have every aircraft the host has, have every terrain the host has, and have identical weapons data. So you can have more addon planes than the host, but if the host is not using the weapons pack, then neither can you. Some addon planes automatically modify your weapons data to add missiles and/or fuel tanks when they are installed... if the host doesn't have that aircraft, then his weapons data will be different than yours. The best approach is to start out with stock installs, then have all involved parties download the same addons from the same links and install them in the same order. If done correctly, custom installations work well with MP. Personally, I prefer stock installations for MP, because it makes it easier for new players to join. If they have just bought the game, they may need the official service packs/patches and perhaps enable some port forwarding throught their firewalls/routers, then they can play just fine. But Check 6 made a good SFP1 MP addon package that included the Draken, F-5, and F-14. This added quite a few steps to installation, but added a nice variety to the mix for SFP1.

Same old routine: http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html

All you have to do is click on the store link, and it lists all acceptable payment methods: https://store.thirdwire.com/store.htm Per the website, Paypal is acceptable.

From the pilot's summary reports: The XB-70 has proven itself to be a very remarkable airplane. It has accomplished every milestone that was set down for it. No aerodynamic changes were required in order to achieve the objectives; but in spite of its tremendous performance, the XB-70 is an unfinished airplane. It was operated in a completely new speed and altitude range, but with off-the-shelf navigation equipment and flight instrumentation that were obsolete for this type of flight operation. This pilot believes that with normal development, including some aerodynamic refinement, some system changes, and better instruments and navigational equipment, this would be a truly outstanding airplane. General: In reading this pilot's summary report, consideration should be given to the fact that the combination of this airplane's size, weight, and speed ranges compares to no other airplane in existence; and that the program was primarily a research program with ground rules that allowed only those changes which were necessary to safely accomplish the test objectives. In the normal sequence of development to an operational airplane, many of the opinions and recommendations expressed herein would have been made after the initial airworthiness flights. They are presented now, for the record, and for consideration if improvements can be made for follow-on programs. In general terms, the XB-70A was an interesting airplane to fly. It had some peculiarities due to size, weight, and configuration that were different from most other airplanes. The movable wing tips introduced some new characteristics in the airplane that had not been experienced before, such as the wide variation in directional stability, roll power, and dihedral effect. The airplane had a tremendous performance capability and was a thrill to fly from that standpoint, but this capability combined with the fact that the airplane was climbed and cruised very near the boundary of the allowable flight envelope quicker and easier than any other airplane this pilot has flown. The duct pressure limits and the low allowable 'g' aggravated the recovery. All this adds to the pressure on the pilot by requiring greater concentration on his part. This was acceptable in a research program of this nature, but would certainly not be acceptable in an operational vehicle. The potential for a great airplane is here, but some refinements are required. More specifically, the pilot's opinions and recommendations are as follows:

I am working on the XB-70 flight model. I had not made any progress for several months. Now, I have extracted a lot more data from the NASA documents and have started to adapt that information into the data ini file for the game. If I am able to model this aircraft's performance and stability correctly, it will be a challenging but rewarding aircraft to fly.

Sudden Strike hasn't died. Sudden Strike 3 is nearing completion.

Other than graphics, I don't find ArmA to be that much better than OFP. However, I still think OFP is by far the most realistic and fun tactical fps ever made and ArmA corrects one of its major limitations: dated graphics. There are still quirks with the physics of the vehicles, especially aircraft/helos, but I don't know of a more flexible and immersive shooter sim. Given that OFP runs well on all the PCs at my house and ArmA barely runs acceptably on only two of the 6 PCs, guess which one I still play when I have friends over?

I believe the multiplayer game engine TK uses is his own coded with Microsoft's DirectPlay libraries... which is free and is part of the DirectX API. DirectPlay makes it relatively easy to make networked MP games... but the interface is notoriously inefficient. Typically having problems with lag and connectivity. I would rather have what TK has provided than no multiplayer at all. Operation Flashpoint started out with DirectPlay technology, but added the option to use sockets after the limitations of DirectPlay became quite apparent with large groups playing together. I believe TK is not a network guru, so it would require far too much effort on his part to make a better MP system. Apparently, hiring someone else is far too expensive for the return he gets coding this sim series.

Therein lies the real problem... very few are willing to put in any time or effort when they can just install something like IL-2 or Aces High and be happy right away. TK has very little interest in MP, so its not going to improve in that area any time soon. So the problem is finding people who enjoy the SFP1 era enough to put up with its limitations rather than going for the instant gratification offered by other sims' MP suuport.

There have always been people on hand to get connection/server issues resolved. Anyone who ever asked for help with MP on the forums or at HL got support if they really wanted it. But every single virtual squadron I have ever seen fly this sim is gone within a month or two. While I never really tire of dogfighting, I can understand why someone who is accustomed to fully supported multiplayer options would get bored. Half the fun of flying together is ruined when you can't even start on a runway much less design training missions that can be flown together. Why struggle so hard to get a less than stellar online experience when other products fill this role much better? I think the squadrons have it wrong. While it would be easier and perhaps better if TK provided the support other sims have, most of the stuff virtual squadrons like to do can be done with the SFP1 series. Instead of complaing about the limitations of co-op, simply take advantage of the flexibility of dogfight mode. There is nothing stopping the host from setting up the spawn points near opposing bases, dividing players up into teams, and having everyone respawn until they start at the correct base. Everyone could land immediately so that runway starts could be utilized. If bombing missions are desired, everyone's installs could include copies of aircraft with edited loadout ini files so that the desired weapons would be carried. For instance, besides the F-4E, there might be F-4E Mk82. Of course there would be no SAMs/AAA or other interesting targets, but it would be perfect for a training environment. Those same teams could then play a corresponding coop mission when they want to face air defenses and/or to play for points.

I am sure this will turn out as well as it should... a fully operational CH stick in the shape of an F-15 dual throttle. I hope the mechanicals of the stick are good enough to be worth the CH insides. I wish I had bought the real F-4 Phantom throttle that was briefly available on ebay. Unlike the B-8 stick grip, I don't know of any other source for F-4 throttle grips other than the few real ones that pop on ebay. Oh well... the money went into things like a very nice Radio Flyer red wagon for my son. But maybe some day he will want to help me build an F-4 cockpit. I could live with the stick you are building. I prefer it much to the stock HOTAS available.

A small crowd is gathering... could it be WOV MP is finally being discovered? Where was everybody else when I had time to play this all night every night?

Your support has always provided a key source of information for people new to the series. Are you closing everything? or just the "links" page? Or are you just going to stop updating it and leave the existing links up? Either way, thanks for the long time free service.

I got a chance to fly with TexAg02, God, and Doghouse last night. It was a lot of fun, though I didn't get to fly long since my wife called me away to put away laundry and go to bed. Hopefully, more people will start showing up. I really want to see an 8 vs 8 co-op. I think it would be awesome.