JediMaster

Sure, for WWI (ROF) and WWII (Il-2 through CloD)! Oh, and EECH and Arma 2 for modern helos. I think there are 2 seat fast jet mods for Arma 2 but I don't know which offhand. While it's true the last fast jet sim that had it was F15SE3, and honestly I'm hard pressed to remember one BEFORE that, think how many fast jet sims came out in this century? LOMAC, which had the same MP options as DCS World today, so that's not different, but had only single seaters. Jane's F/A-18E...modeled a single seater. Falcon 4 and Flanker 2 came out in late 90s, but it was still all single seaters. F4 was supposed to get an F-15E expansion, but no idea if they were planning on FS/BS coop over F4's. TK's SF1 series, which had 2 seaters but only allowed 1 per plane, then gone altogether in SF2. Other than non-combat like X Plane and MSFS, what other fast jet sims have come out in the last dozen years? I'm drawing a blank...

I'm not going in the water for several reasons: 1, it's winter. I don't care that it's Florida, the water is warm enough for me maybe from July-Sept max. 2, it's the ocean. I like fresh water, I despise salt water, and I'm not a big fan of the sand! 3, sharks aren't normally a big issue, I think we have more whale and dolphin beachings than shark attacks, but there are plenty of other things hiding under the sand or swimming near shore that are. This just reinforces my choice!

LOL, you're using a top end 2011/12 system and claiming you have no trouble running a game with 2003-era graphics at max details? Naturally! Plus, the naval maps were extra easy on the PC. Try that number of airplane over the Gulf of Finland map over Leningrad and I'm sure it will be a bit slower. FWIW I know people with substantially less powerful systems that likewise run Il-2 at max with no problems. CloD is not as easy since it's a later generation, but with a machine more like yours you'd still get comparable performance with that number of planes as long as you're not fighting over a city like London.

I have an old Logitech Wingman Extreme that I use for things like that. I also have a gamepad, but I restrict that for games like Tomb Raider, Force Unleashed, or Lego XYZ that were literally designed for them.

A lot of the positioning of control surfaces is based on wind tunnel testing and actual flight testing. The Hornet's stabs are where they are so they wouldn't be "blanked" at high AOA by the vortices off the LEXs. With older fighters, high AOA wasn't an issue. As planes became capable of higher and higher ones, things that were never an issue on planes built in the 40s-60s become one. In addition, rear of the current attachment point the Hornet's fuselage gets even narrower. Twin fins need SOME distance between them after all. Look at the Su-27's T10 prototype...those fins were REALLY far forward, but that didn't survive testing. As for the Hornets being bombers...they do everything. There is no other USN plane that is for AA ops OTHER than the Hornets and Super Hornets. Not until the F-35C enters service. The reason they've been used mostly as bombers in service is because the USAF has dominated the AA arena in every conflict, although a Hornet in ODS did prove the concept early by taking out a MiG en route to its bombing target. Planes don't need highly swept wings necessarily. Notice the F-35's wings are very reminiscent of the Hornet's. Before that, remember the VERY straight and stubby F-104 wings! Straight wings of narrow chord aren't suited to speed (like the U-2 or Global Hawk), but if there's a very wide chord compared to the wingspan it is.

It's not that kind of throttle. You land a shuttle like a glider, but you don't fly it like a plane!

I know on western planes that feature multi engagement it seems to be prioritized based on "bug" order.

As I'm not on Facebook, I don't go "liking" anything. I've also heard FB might starting CHARGING for people to "like" a company's FB page. That will certainly put the brakes on that! Is the F-14 already in SFA? Or would that wait for SFA:NA? I concur with the belief that having made money on SFA he's going to do all of them before he returns his focus to the PC. How Exp 3 does will certainly dictate his future plans, however I think he's made a mistake in timing. Look at the "big" games like CoD and BF. All their DLC comes in the first year after release. Exp 3 is going to be for SF2:E, right? How many years after its release? He SHOULD have done Exp 3 for SF2:NA and released it in 2012, or at least before the 1 yr mark. id software released a DLC for Rage just about a year after its release and was criticized for taking too long. Why the delay? They were working on the Doom 3 BFG edition (id's very own SFA!) and had to get that done first, likely at the publisher's request. Meanwhile, Exp 3 with the F1 was mooted as perhaps coming out before SF2:NA! Now it not only is coming out afterwards, but it may come out LONG afterwards. TK has shown every indication of having lost interest in the PC side. Whether he comes back or not is anyone's guess.

Are you referring to Il-2:46 or Cliffs of Dover? CloD could use missions since it came with so few. 1946 has been around a long time, and there are lots of missions out there already, so you may not see as much response for that.

When it comes to "current" models, there aren't many to pick from. CH's line seems very stable, though. They obviously have their costs under control.

He retired from acting. There's talk that he'll come back for a Ghostbusters 3 if it happens, but other than that he got fed up with Hollywood.

Yes, that was a bit of a jolt when it had all that stuff. Of course, this isn't the first time they've done that. In OHMSS, Lazenby goes thru a bunch of items in his desk from Connery's films. In The World is Not Enough, Desmond Llewelyn's final appearance as Q, there are tons of things like the Thunderball jetpack and the Octopussy alligator lying around in Q's shop. I liked M's comment about the ejection seat, too.

Yeah, they're making pretty good strides in that area. Still likely too expensive and too finicky, but I'm sure within this decade it will be practical.

I don't know, 9 MFDs are pricey, especially as IIRC they come in pairs, so you have to buy 10 and not use 1! You'll also notice unlike every other pit out there...there's no throttle.

The Super Hornet and Growler are certainly still in production, but oddly few seem to like them other than their pilots.

That would be awesome if I could get my PK on the R-77 to be better than 50%! So frustrating when you think you've got it setup right and the missile sails off... I don't have that much practice with the 77 since it went 29S only. Back in the day when we could use it on the Flankers I knew it better.

Considering half of what it can do is likely classified, hard to say. I will say that it will probably swing things heavily in its favor by its presence vs its absence. I mean, it doesn't really matter if an F-15, F-16, or F-18 drops the bombs, so if one or the other can't be there, no big deal. No Growlers or EA-6B's, though, and things are VERY different.

No argument there, but he wasn't a "good" guy to start with, so...

Purely performance. I don't recall what the upper limit is, but as you approach it I understand the game becomes unplayable. I don't know if it's the AI routines or the FMs or both or what exactly, but all flight sims have a limit for maximum planes in the air and other than BoB for most it's not far over 100.

Yes, the so-called "Agile Falcon" program that never made it past the design stage. That would've helped the performance, but I'm referring more to the straight-up design. It wouldn't make the plane lighter (or alternatively stronger for the same weight) or give it more space in the fuselage. You could put the same engines, radar, and missiles the F-15 has on an F-4 (ok, not literally, but...) but it still wouldn't be as good. Planes are designed around the capabilities of the time plus projected advances in the foreseeable future, and these 70s designed planes are far outside that range. Only because of their larger size making them less sensitive to weight changes are the Flanker and Eagle still going as strong. What happens when you take a 70s design like the F/A-18A and overhaul it to be a more modern plane that fixes the worst problems with the original? You get the F/A-18E! Few countries are willing to go that route, and as we did it for the Hornet 20 years ago I don't think we'll do it again soon.

I will admit I never played it, so if this happens and I pick it up I would be evaluating it on its own merits with no regard to what came before it...other than the ones I HAVE played in the past, of course.

To address your last point first, the campaigns aren't that great. The RAF one is almost universally panned, and the German one is better on a mission-by-mission basis but disjointed and has you following no particular pattern (ie Ju-87 flying to 110 flying to 109 flying to He-111 flying, etc). There are 3rd party campaigns, both free and payware, that are far superior. If you enjoy that aspect of flight simming, do yourself a favor and skip the stock ones. However, there are still limits to the number of planes in a single mission that I believe will prevent you from ever achieving what you picture. For that, I think you'll need to visit the re-release of BoB2 that is far older but DOES support hundreds of planes at once. As to views, I've used TIR for years now, so I have no experience with hat/view issues. Can't say if it's something others have seen much or not as so many others use TIR too and I honestly don't recall anyone else mentioning it. Saving first for last, the FFB in this does seem odd. It works for me but erratically. Usually on entering a mission the stick is very stiff but has no feedback to flight forces...it's like it just doesn't support FFB (which the initial releases and early patches did not, BTW). Then I pull the trigger, and the stick instantly loses like 75% of its tension...but I can feel the forces happening now, weakly. It's an irritant, but I've managed to live with it. I presume you are using the Logi 5.10 SW for the 940 and the final updated firmware that added the hysteresis in the driver calibration screens? If not, that's what I use, so perhaps you should upgrade drivers and/or firmware. Beyond that, well I'm using Win 7 64-bit, and if you're using something else maybe it's an OS-related issue. Bottom line is it DOES work for me, not great but serviceable, but there were no tricks or hoops I had to go through that I can recall.

Or P'd on.

The Indian choice of the 29K notwithstanding (based on the needs of using them on a smaller carrier with limited space), I think the Fulcrum's time has passed along with the F-16, F/A-18A/C, and other early-gen 4 planes that have been upgraded. The F-16 for instance was designed as a lightweight fighter. "The F-16 FSD differed in several respects to the YF-16 prototype since the ADF design now was be become a multimode fighter. No changes however, were made that would degrade the prototype’s aerodynamics. At the same time, the design team had to adapt the airplane to amplified air-to-ground requirements that foreshadowed the F-16’s transition into a multirole fighter. The overall length grew by thirteen inches. The nose, which accounts for about three of those additional inches, acquired a slight droop to accommodate the AN/APG-66 multimode radar. To respond to the need for larger air-to-ground payloads, the wing and tail surfaces were enlarged to carry the extra weight. The wing area grew from 280 to 300 square feet, which is about as much as it could grow without requiring additional internal bulkheads to lengthen the fuselage. The horizontal tails and ventral fins grew about fifteen percent. The flaperons and speed brakes grew by about ten percent. An additional hardpoint was placed under each wing, giving the aircraft a total of nine. The airframe was structurally strengthened for these new loads as well." -wiki That was just for the F-16A Blk 1. "The empty weight of the Block 10 F-16A is 15,600 pounds. The empty weight of the Block 50 is 19,200 pounds. MTOW of Block 50 is 37,500 pounds" -- fas.org That's another 3600lbs on the same basic airframe, some of it due to structural strengthening and some just due to the extra stuff piled on, and then it carries almost 20,000 lbs of fuel, armament, and other removable equipment like TGP or ECM pods. True late-gen 4 planes like the Super Hornet, Rafale, Tyhpoon, Gripen, etc do have life left. The F-15 and Flanker families straddle an interesting spot where due to their size and power they can receive many upgrades that make them into true late-gen 4 planes and not suffer the same performance penalties that the lighter planes do. In other words, their airframes still have "growth" space while the smaller planes need to be designed that way from the start. After 30+ years, the other light gen 4 planes are maxed out. It would require a much larger redesign to "zero" them out, to the point where it would not be cost-effective and you'd still have the basic problems of stealth, sensor fusion, and so on that would never let them be gen 5.

Early Tomcats = F-14A (like the Iranian ones) using the TF30 and later the TF30-P-414A. Late Tomcats = F-14A+/B and D. Those used the F110-GE-400, which is similar to (ie derived from a common beginning) but not identical to the F-16's F110-GE-100, F110-GE-129, and F110-GE-132. Some late F-15s use the 129s as well. "The primary difference between the F110-GE-400 and the F110-GE-100 is length - the F110-GE-400 has a 50-inch (1.3 m) tailpipe extension to suit the F-14 airframe, which is fitted downstream of the augmentor. The new engine provided 23,100 lbf (103 kN) of thrust (can go up to 27,600 lbf (123,000 N) max augmented thrust if authorised and or if the situation dictates) compared to the TF30's maximum thrust of 20,900 lbf (93 kN)." -- wiki To take F-16 engines and fit them to their first-gen Tomcats would mean Iran basically making their own F-14B variant, a non-trivial task. I don't doubt it could be done, but I doubt it could be done easily, cheaply, or quickly.