turkeydriver

Hiya Brother, I'm just getting back into DCS mysself. I recommend starting with flaming cliffs 3-as the simulation level is more "survey" and the MiiG-29 is the easist to learn in my honest opinion. The campaigns will get you comfortable with NAV, weapons employment, tactics, and takeoff and landing. I have A-10 and MiG-21 as well but havent scratched the surface of those 2. The Nellis NTTR map is amazing!

I listened to his daughter speak at our annual POW/MIA ceremony today. Just WOW. Apparently the A-7E or his unit had problems with losing oiil pressure and the CO was going to down all the jets if it happened a 3rd time. Pike's jet was the third incident.

This +10. Multiplayer in this game would allow gamers interested in learning the more hardcore sims a "gateway" sim. Just way too much fun. Imagine taking a flight of A-4s against ground targes in Israel and then having to deal with attacking MiG-21s and ground attack SU-7s. That would be awesome. The difficulty level could be restored for SF2:NA and it would be easier to both destroy the Kiev fleet and take out bombers aggressively trying to launch 16 Vampires at your floating home! That would be awesome, and bring in more revenue for TK.....I'm sure he has some chart showing its not worth it though... Would be great if it included an ingame voicechat instead of relying on TeamSpeak.

Before you call one too effective and the other weak, remember what the AIM-7 was designed for- that being head-on engagements and as long as beaming and ECM aren't employed- it should do very well outside of internal missile failure or failure during launch on the aircraft side. I've been playing Falcon since falcon3, and the Sparrow in BMS just isn't very playable ATM due to how the weapon and radar act in game. It has HOJ, and it should beam ride like crazy during non- maneuvering head on shots. It doesn't at all. The SF series is more of a game but simulates some aspects much better than BMS. Beaming and ECM work very well against the AIM-7 and AIM-54A. However, missile failure isn't modeled in either game so you just cannot compare it to real life, however the SF series models guidance failure and the AIM-54 seems to fail more than the AIM-7 in this regard. AIM-7s did fail on the rail and drop without motor ignition during Desert Storm, but they've also accidently engaged and destroyed a high sceep Mercedes car mistaken for a low flying helicopter and an American Destroyer in Vietnam, as well as AN-2 Colt bi-planes in Vietnam( canvas covered difficult radar target). Just keep that in mind.

I just went from an AMD HD 6950 2gb card to a Nvidia GTX 660 ti. The Nvidia card is faster but it takes sever FPS hits when I look at the steam on the catapult. Is there a workaround for this?

Yes the TF-30 in the F-111 in its final form produced more thrust than in the F-14 did it not? The TF-30 makes more thrust at mach.9 at sea level(at least in the F-14) than the F-110. As the F-111 was a low level TFR strike platform, this engine was well suited to the role. In thinking of the F-14 as a high speed, long range, high altitude, bomber interceptor-the TF-30 actually makes more thrust at high speed 9 above mach 1.7? IIRC, and high altitudes, than the F-110. So if the 1960s and 70s mindset of aerial warfare actually happened (nuclear bombers and mach2 interceptors), the TF-30 would have been adequate. Vietnam showed that visual range aerial combat was more of a rule than the exception though, so the F-14 needed the F-110. The F-110 may have been able to get better speed at high altitude if the intake ramps on the F-14 were scheduled for Mach2+ flight in the F-14B/D. AFAIK, there wasn't a lot of time spent, if any testing F110 motored tomcats above Mach 2.

edited as it detracted from the original topic.

excellent point-a lot of reality here. There are Navy pilots in the area who agree that Duke because their RWR gear did not indicate a SAM site in the area. Whether "colonel Tomb or Toon" actually existed as a single person is a hot topic. "Scream of Eagles" does a good job of describing this as does "One Day in a Long War."

The more I read about fighter development and history, it becomes easy to spot fashions and trends and political maneuvering to support a specific type of fighter and all the real physics and engineering doesn't really matter because the powers that be want X instead of Y. The tomcat isn't a clean Block 30 F-16C in the dogfight arena, but man that potential, truly the F-22 of the 70s and 80s.....including costwise.

Actually the stick on the left is from the cancelled A-12, I had no idea HARM trials went beyond load testing, thanks for the info. I know the LANTIRN pylon was the HARM pylon, and that was a key point in keeping the cost low. Ace888, I have no idea where you got those pictures but they are amazing, thanks for them.

Careful there Beach, you almost caught my house in one of those target images....

well looks like im gonna buy it then, delete my current merge and reinstall everything.

Depends on the scenario, I keep my weapon as the gun or sparrow in order to attain lock in RWS and then re-designate to go STT. This doesn't allow the multi target ability for all of your AIM-54s but it does give you longer engagement range(you can shoot sooner). Once I'm in STT, I then switch to AIM-54s and let one rip from about 75 miles out, monitor the shot and take another if it misses or engage the next bandit. Quick question in regards to the MODDED North Atlantic campaign....I have all the SF2 titles except the first one (Strike Fighters 2), can I trick the mod into working with everything else merged? What does the first SF2 give you that the others don't have besides an F-104? I tried installing it just to see and it locks up when I try to select the campaign and only missiles show with an invisible jet when I do instant action. Guessing it won't work but if I could edit an .ini to force it to work it would be greatly appreciated. **EDIT** Using RWS and then going STT before switching to AIM-54 leaves the radar in STT for the longest range AIM-54 shot-like MiG Buster said, only good for a HEAD-ON shot. However, some of the enemies have a better RWR than others and pick up an STT lock from a long ways out, so they'll go defensive sooner. IRL during the 70s/80s TWS didn't signal an enemy's RWR that you were shooting, for electronic purposes it looked like you were scanning still if they could even pick you up. That was the big advantage of being able to shoot in TWS mode, then the F-14 said, "I'm gonna shoot 6 at a time in TWS mode, so what do you think about that?"(albeit, the targets had to be fairly close in heading, altitude, and speed to ensure all 6 shots would be successful.) That's what I love about this game. Although its a "survey" sim, it models the technology aspects and tactics pretty well for demonstration purposes. I wish the enemy bomber formations where smarter and attacked your carrier from different directions of the carrier at the same time instead of flying a nice, juicy target-close formation all the way in.

The brick nickname comes from learning to ACM with the bird, its actually quite good around the boat and much easier to land than the F-14. The flaps (blown?), slats, and landing config make it very stable on the glidescope. I love the way the F-14 acts BTW, TK did a great job with the "dutch roll" of the nose at low speed, and the inability to quickly get power back on if you backed down too much.

I haven't seen an AI wingman miss the ship. Do you have any mods or is this the stock game? While you are pretty much 100% visual, if you follow the theory with an overhead approach and gentle break to 180 after passing the island, then 180 again about 3/4 a mile from the ship you should be fine. If you're crashing into the ship in the wires your sink rate is too high. F-14 will land safe from 140 knots, just don't drop it onto the deck with a huge sink rate. The F-4 is the easiest by far to land on the carrier as its very stable in the landing configuration with about 160kts airspeed. If you don't have a track IR you may want to practice landings using the outside view as your AoA can put your nose over the ship so you cant see it. The F-8 is a little more difficult, and the F-14 is just big and feels very heavy behind the boat. The A-7 is also easy to land on the ship. List your step by step landing process and we'll help you get there. Be aware that being 10 knots too high can result in your aircraft being destroyed, your aircraft wont rip off its hook on snap a wire, but you will push your nose through the deck and be destroyed.

For 300 years in the future it wouldn't be voice comms. It would automatically handled by a sensor network that responds to an action on the battlefield. If you want the human element, I'd say a requester would tap a map grid and tap the type ordnance requested with near real time laydown.

Mach 2.34 is a clean F-14A with factory TF-30s not detuned to preserve life and reduce catastrophic failure. You also need to fly a good curve to and unload down to 33k ft to get some acceleration to get there. It's not a straight and level speed, you'll need about 40k of fuel to get there.

....so disappointing. I just finished a HARD campaign with limited weapon supply and it was a cakewalk. Less bombers carrying less missiles- and when they released their AS-6 missiles they just fell away as if jettisonned. Anyone know of a way we can mod the game to an old difficulty setting.

Did any F-4Ns fly in Vietnam or were they too late for Linebacker 2?

I dug out my old F-4B/N NATOPS dated 1973 that my 7th grade teacher gave me. Yes all F-4Ns had slotted stabs and droopy ailerons. I was just doing some lite reading to see if the climb performance in game matched the IRL jet. Also found that the design limit is 8.5g but maneuvers are restricted to 6 unless absolutely needed (war) to preserve airframe life. 6.5g is avaialble from about 450 knots on up with only 4.5 g attained in the 300 knot area. Anyone need any info from it, let me know. **EDIT** F-4Bs didnt get the slotted stabs.

Right Caesar, the only F-14B that had glove vanes was the original with the PW401 engines( or whatever they were called) on the prototype F-14B in the 70s. I'm not even sure they were ever tested with the new motors. I've eyeballed a few F-14B® and F-14D®s and they're glove vanes were not there at all.

The later version of the MiG-21 supplied to Vietnam (MiG-21MF or ML?) had a revised intake and shockcone, plud other additions that gave it insane acceleration at low-level to deal with F-105s and F-4s. They had no problem catching and outrunning their American counterparts only they were limited by their tiny fuel tanks.

Rapier?