GwynO

Just been reading the globalsecurity.org website and that seems to tally with what they say too, F-111 F strike profiles were adapted to medium altitude as opposed to traditional low altitude during ODS. F-111 F's carried the largest laser guided class of weapons weighing in at 5000lbs and performed a "tank plinking" night role with 500lb laser bombs.

How did the F-111 do it in real life during ODS, presumably they had some way of doing it that worked for point targets using dumb weapons? Or maybe they only carried GPS enabled bombs. Time to go find some F-111 books/articles...

Prayers and wishes to all the victims and their families.

I remember my Dad telling me all about the boffins at Ferranti when I was little, one of their factories was in Bangor back then, possibly still is. AA fire control is great too, I saw one film that kind of implied that the F-16 has such features to fire the cannon at just the right moment for both AA and AG so long as the target is locked up on radar. I can't see it being to difficult to have it irl, probably handy in those close in scissors when the target passes over your sight for fractions of a second.

..or Sparkbrook Birmingham :ph34r: In the old days they used to stick their heads on poles in the Thames as a warning to sailors what the British courts would do to them. Now we would probably give them asylum, a council flat, community centre, mosque and free hip operation for their elderly neighbours donkey on the NHS.

Intense!

Very interesting! I was aware that many F-4 pilots disliked the automated release modes, apparently it was that misgiving that led to the ARN 101 and CCIP display on the HUD. Different crews, aircraft and systems led to varying degrees of success. I take it that the reference in that extract to the F-105 baro toss being more accurate than the manual mode is a comparison with using a direct approach. One can only imagine how much improved the systems had become by the time they were used in Tornado. The F-111 didn't do too badly out of their fire control though, pretty accurate by all accounts. The great thing about mc Donalds is that if I want a fish burger and the next guy doesn't, or some guy behind me wants a cheeseburger while the rest of the crowd want plain, and even if one guy wants a veggie burger, they have them all. I don't know why the other thread was closed at the juncture it was at. I wanted to add that either way, that it is not about what one person or one crowd think is proper, it is about having the choice in the first place. Some like to play with all settings on high graphics, some on low, likewise if TK did put in the ability to use fire control, some would use it and some wouldn't just as in real life, although for some platforms such as the F-111 or Tornado I believe the chances of not using it would have been highly unlikely to say the least! Great source of information there Crusader, that really shows both sides of the story as regards the F-4's fire control and shows that both sides had very valid arguments.

Oh my Lord!!! ! That is hilarious, mind some copper would likely find a problem with it over here

No worries! That is a gorgeous looking rifle! The cheese looks nice too! Yo hold on, Beer and afford, in Swizerland how is this possible? I was charged 8 euros for a pint of green in Zurich, here that would buy sixpack.

I have never read Ed Rasimus, he is on my list though. To be honest most of my reading into the Vietnam air war and military aviation in general goes back 10 years to when I lived at home pouring through my fathers collection of hundreds upon hundreds of various flight magazines and the occasional book about his favourite warbird, the F-4 Phantom. What I remember reading was very different, I clearly remember the emphasis was on the accuracy of amazing systems and how advanced they had come from the Second World War aircraft of only two decades previously. I will ask my father to lend me his collection the next time I return to the village whenever that will be, in the meantime I will have to search out some books in the second hand shops. As for the F-111 well that is possibly my all time favourite aircraft ever, in close competition with the Bone and the Vulcan.

Delicious!!! What's for dessert?

Aye Aye Admiral!! And can you get us a reduction on beer prices? Swizerland is the most expensive place on earth for a thirsty Welshman. Make the chocolate a Toblerone Noir

Well thank you very much for agreeing with me in principle that it would be nice to see! I had been wondering if maybe you didn't see it as relevant at all. I brought this up on the Thirdwire forums specifically to see what TK thinks, at least I got a response and quick! I hold out that one day TK might just see that dive toss is not really that hard or different in fun factor to CCIP which he already added ages ago. Swiss Navy! And I have more chance of unifying Greece and Turkey under the Byzantine flag, but dreams are dreams. We do have fun with the game as is, yes that is what it is about, I'm just an addictive personality, I always want more fun!! Keep me away from the crack and the meth and all should be fine.

With the greatest of respect FC, I do not bring this up even once a week on average. I rarely bring it up and when I do it is usually because I notice someone else other than me for a change has noticed something that relates to it. If I am irritating to you because we don't share the same wants, imagine how irritating it would be to me if I had that attitude whenever someone starts a thread about wanting some extra high detail skin or other, personally I don't give two flips if the artwork is worthy of Da Vinci like as I am on a low end machine anyway, but I appreciate that others like it, and had I the means to enjoy it so would I. Point is, just because you don't share the same outlook doesn't make it every 30 seconds, if I was starting a thread on this every other week even I could understand. As I said in the title of the thread, this is probably the last time the issue will crop up again for months, so I was hoping to advocate my case well and leave it at that. If other people however bring it up, I will not be shying away from answering questions or contributing to discussion, I think that is fair.

I have been frustrated for years But I have hope that with a little bit of a push, the game engine could easily throw out a dive toss or other ccrp mode without breaking the bank! I have thought it odd though that hardly anyone ever brings the issue up, or when it does come up it just gets swished under the carpet as if it wasn't there in reality, that is even more frustrating! As for being satisfied with TK's provisions as is, sorry C5 but if the community was like that, it wouldn't exist! We all want different things that are not there out of the box whether it's an F-14 or an Israeli skin, we all are obsessed to a degree with what each of us think is missing or desirable to the series. Whereas aircraft, skins, ground objects, terrains, campaigns and effects all have myriad proponents all championing their list of desired missing extras, and multi play has its fair share of advocates; no one consistently rings the bell for fire control it seems other than me. I wondered if it was because people were not bothered, but I doubt it. I think more and more people are realising that there is a sorely overlooked gap in the flight sim market between WW2 fixed gunsight games and modern smart weapon based sims, unfortunately what TK set out to address, the 1950's through 1970's era of precision strike platforms as opposed to weapons, just isn't there. Anywhere. It is a gap that someone will one day plug I hope, I just hope it will be TK because he set up the groundwork already.

I agree. I have suggested to TK that one way to achieve something fun for everyone yet extremely simple would be if the game could make a waypoint on the fly corresponding to a calculated release point, that waypoint could be created and triggered by the pilot aligning the target under the pipper during the dive part of the dive toss, then we just follow the needles in the cockpit or better yet have it relayed through the avionics dll on the HUD. I really don't think it would be all that hard to do, I take TK's points in his reply that a fully automated system that is not accurate wouldn't be fun for everyone, but surely dive toss is just as fun if not more so than CCIP or laser guided bombs.

With many happy returns of the day!

Well I don't think it need be individual systems for each aircraft, rather like we have pretty generic radar modes between platforms is the way I see fire control. I don't think it would be much more difficult to add than guided weapons for example, but you seem like you know more than I about the complexities of coding. Myself I am little more than a curious mind, while I created a russian roulette program for a graphical calculator once (including blood effect) that was 10 years ago and since then I have no idea how to code anything! I know that perhaps I sound like I am beating a dead donkey over this issue, just it wont ever go away from the moment I start the bomb run in a Phantom, my heckles raise to the point where I am eschewing the Phantom altogether. I like the games still, for what they are warts and all and will no doubt continue to buy the products (I have every single Thirdwire title, SFP1 twice) but I don't want to do the math, based on the current rate of development it seems by the time such functions ever see the light of day, I would have spent way in excess of what I initially thought was reasonable for a crack at a bit of Phantom mud moving 7 years ago! I just think it is sad if this series were never to include basic CCRP type calculations because everything else about it imho is great, especially the way that we get patch support, mod tools and so on direct from the source. Not many developers will do that, so I will continue to chip in for a Thirdwire title every now and then in the hope that one day it will. In the meantime, with all due respect, I would continue to point it out in the hope that more people realise the existence of such systems as the norm, not as the exception. I am a bit of a stickler for correct form in all things, comes with marking grammar

Below is a copy paste of a post I submitted to the Thirdwire boards a few minutes ago, I am sure it makes sense to some of you too. This is not in any way meant to stir up animosity, I think you all know by now that I mean well for the developer, the game and the community. However I am not one to withhold what I feel is of benefit ultimately to all involved just because the flow of the crowd is against it. Having been playing the Thirdwire games for the best part of 7 years, I obviously like them. However it is no surprise to anyone who know me from CA that I am also flumaxed at the lack of fire control. To better explain what I mean, here is an example of my feelings. I am putting this up here as food for thought to the community and hopefully that by bringing it to the Thirdwire forums, TK might respond with his opinion on the matter. With all my best intentions, Gwyn. Indeed by the Gulf War, the emphasis was very much on precision weapons as opposed to precision aircraft. That is why the Tornado was largely obsolete for the beginning of the conflict. The Tornado as with the F-111 had been designed from the onset as a precision platform with computers to do almost everything apart from emergency procedures. Having said that the Tornos can and will drop CM's automatically or steer the aircraft automatically to avoid CFIG. The crew would load a tape cassette into the avionics computer with all the waypoints, target location and so on so that all they had to do was sit there in case the auto nav failed etc. At the IP the pilot would follow instructions on the HUD to reach the point that the computer determined was right for the ordnance selected. The computer would then release the bombs automatically so long as the pilot had given the computer permission to do so. Likewise the F-111 had automated bomb release as standard and a basic HUD/ optical system to show flight cues to the pilot to get him to steer to the correct point. Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing in any of these games to simulate this, perhaps the nearest is the waypoint needles in some cockpits. I have long thought these might serve a base for an ILS workaround but either way, there is provision for guided munitions in the games. All third party packs at CA include them as does SFP2 out of the box. For me though this is really a very hard thing to live with because the sim has sidestepped the 1950's and 1960's simulation in favour of the 1990's doctrine of cheaper, dumber planes, smart bombs. I just can't get the feeling of it "simulating" anything from flying a Phantom into the target area in direct mode (dive bomb or dead reckoning level bombing) it doesn't even have enough fun factor to make it rewarding as a game for me either now. I started playing these games in 2002 and stuck with the company, pouring money into the one man band that is Thirdwire in the hope that one day, I might at least be able to use the pipper as it was used in real life by Phantom pilots in Vietnam. The preferred method for bombing in the Phantom by far was dive toss, that is the pilot comes in low towards the target area, pulls up a good few miles out so there is some stand off distance between him and AAA etc. pitches down and adjusts to get the target just under the pipper, now for the good part... in the games we would have to drop the bombs now but of course they wont travel that far, but in real life when the pilot pressed the button it told the computer to work out where the point he was looking at was in relation to the aircraft very accurately indeed through the onboard systems, radar altitude, ranging and speed etc. all calculated to plot the perfect release point, the pilot then continued his dive to pick up a bit of speed and initiated a shallow or steep pull up depending on the parameters, the computer would then release the bombs at the correct point automatically. The accuracy was phenomenal, much better than the first CCIP HUD's, the dive toss method in a F4 Phantom was accurate enough to get a 500lb bomb within 50ft of the target from 5 miles away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (source from ex WSO group, perhaps someone may have an alternative source http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/jargon.htm) If only we had even some hint of that kind of automatic fire control in these games, it would really increase the fun factor as much as the immersion factor. I understand that TK wants to promote fun over realism but as I see it he can have both while not only satisfying both crowds (light gamers and simmers) but simultaneously removing the bug bears of both groups. Now not to single anyone out but a members response on CA to my observation is typical of the type of poo pooing that this subject always gets, the goal posts are moved by people who know da@@ well just how crucial radar bombing was to the success of the Phantom in Vietnam. One of the key reasons they were there at all is that they had the much vaunted ability to drop bombs very accurately from stand off distances using for example medium altitude release via offset radar bombing. It really is not very complicated to model into the game, fly your aircraft over the area from up high, follow the line on the radar, then the bombs are released at the right time by the computer. With some built in error into the calculation we even simulate real life problems such as windage or radar glitches. But some insist to only discuss the issue in terms of LORAN A the very first radio beacon navigation and bombing system used by B-29's in Korea, this was replete with problems as it was actually a WW2 development, but it was how fire control worked in the 1950's and it was rapidly and completely revolutionised by the time the F4 Phantoms were doing their thing over SEA. The Problem of this community to engage with the issue of what we do with aircraft in game as opposed to how they look, very much relies on the knowledgeable ones that know about the reality of 1960's - 1970's technology not to muddy the waters with descriptions of the very very early problems of fire control and accept that the game is lacking something far more integral to the F-4 generation than a carrier or a tail hook, of far far more importance than the placement of a few rivets. Anyway, I encourage you continue to enjoy the games and take from them what you will but personally I am holding my breath for the day when such features are included, that would tip this game for me closer towards "sim lite" than what it currently is rather than the opposite.

You raise some very good point here Typhoid, I do not dispute the fact that computer aids are not one hundred percent accurate, merely that they are and have been for quite some considerable time, the norm. I intend to continue this in another thread so as not to hijack this one further. I will say though that I disagree with your view that the reality of military aviation is to fly a depressed reticle over a target with absolutely no fire control whatsoever other than "one potato two potato" that strikes me as pure fantasy to be honest, that such dead reckoning bombing has been used since the 2nd World War is no doubt true, but it is by and far the exception to the rule. As for the fact that you correctly state, that fire control is prone to error, my attitude is to model it into the code. I believe there is or was an entry for CEP in the old weapon editor, perhaps TK has already been thinking along those lines, certainly I am not proposing he add something to the game that makes bombs magically fall off the aircraft and always hit the target, that would be just as bad as not having any fire control at all imho. With respect sir, Gwyn.

I knew that you knew about those, some people do, but too many don't. The OP brought up one of the most important issues of playability in the Thirdwire gamesm chiefly that what we do in game with "multi million dollar" jets is little more than what was expected in a Stukka divebomber or other such craft with a dumb gunsight reticle (i.e. no fire control). Yes LORAN A had its problems by all accounts, yes fire control was shoddy even into the 1960's but the important thing is it was the backbone of how it was done. I put my two pence in because I feel too many people on CA would be shocked to realise that in a real life shiny 1960's jet fighter like an F-4 well before CCIP or even a proper HUD to show it on ever saw the light of day, the norm for bombing was for the pilot to give permission to a computer to drop the bombs at the right time. Accurate or not, that is what the OP was enquiring about but when it crops up it seems to end up boiling down to the same argument of.. it didn't have a CCIP/HUD so it had nothing, which is wrong, it means rather that we have nothing in game as is to even begin to hint at the vaguest, slightest accuracy of what 1950's onwards bomer/attack fighters did because what they certainly did not do was rely on doing the all math themselves with only a depressable gunsight to help!! The game is fantastic at making things look good though, and there are ways to suspend the disbelief factor. I like to imagine for example that every time I fly a phantom on a strike mission in the Thirdwire games, that it took a hit in the avionics or they caught fire or something, or maybe the groundcrew tied one one the night before and installed it upside down. Other than that I turn on CCIP as a next best thing, I would suggest the OP to check out the knowledge base on adding it to aircraft if that might help to resolve the issue for now. Glorified stop watch! I don't know about that, from what I read it was quite a complicated glorification to say the least! Besides, the nuclear application of over the shoulder lob bombing grew from the low altitude level bombing for iron bombs that required a much smaller CEP. Dive toss as another preferred method had accuracy at least as good as the early CCIP enabled HUD's and all.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by these fires. Saw the news reports yeaterday, looks nasty.

Sorry to but in on this but Fubar you really do know what the OP is referring to is fire control, I suspect that you are well aware of the fact that radar bombing, loran, labs and ins based bombing modes where the norm for most bombing profiles since the 1950's. CCIP and hudology is something related but not the same thing at all. Plenty of aircraft had bombing computers to do the math without a hud, B-29 over Korea for example. As for the AIM-7 not giving you a clue when to fire, that guide is excellent, but in an F-4 you also have the in range light in the cockpit.

Horrible feeling to be drawn out to sea in a rip, luckily though, you can get out two ways. If you are feeling energetic, swim as hard as you can 90 degrees against the current, a rip is usually narrow enough that you can swim out to the side of it and then turn in to shore. Failing that if you are too tired, weak or lazy but casual about survival, float with it and hope it dissipates out until you can then start swimming at an angle away from it toward shore. The second way will require a lot more swimming in total but less frantic swimming to start with. In different circumstances, had you had the luxury of knowing that your dad and other people could summon help in the shape of a boat and the kids were slipping under with you, I would have probably suggested to you to get them to lay back and float with it. I think you should get some recognition for this mate! Takes a real hero to jump in like that when you know it can go pear shape. Well done!

AFAIK the settings in the missioncontrol ini effect all the aircraft, normal will be the level that they appear during most parts of the flight through their waypoints, low level effects how low they will go during ACM I think, as does high altitude, I may be wrong though. Also I thought perhaps the low level effects the altitude that the AI drop weapons from but doesn't seem to be the case as my big bombers drop from 30,000 as soon as I tell them to. The only irritant is that when you fly as a stirke fighter, you don't always want to alt N to the IP as you will have a very steep decent into the target area before you can attack, my solution is to keep two seperate instances of the file and swap out the appropriate one as needed. Also a word on setting the low altitude, if you fly on enemy skill level hard, this reduces the skill of your wingmen while increasing the AI so setting this value too low will result in more deaths by ACM to your AI flights, setting the enemy skill level to normal and reducing to 40 gives a better balance IMHO.