JediMaster

Fortunately, a lot of that doesn't apply to my wife and me. She makes quite a lot more than I do, for one.

I've noticed as time has passed my wife has enjoyed her birthdays less and less. I wonder why?

Those would be ridiculously old instead of merely seriously.

I think picking a plane that is single-role is a path to failure unless you make multiple planes (like the LOMAC/SFP route) because some people just want to shoot down planes and some just want to move mud. Multinationally used planes are another plus, but not strictly necessary.

Going by that, and the 1980 max time limit (I've seen some planes listed here that were not only not yet in service but in some cases didn't even have full prototypes flying by then), here's my list.

F-4x (maybe multiple variants?)

Tornado (ADV and IDS would cover the duality needed)

F/A-18A (in service before 1980! )

Just to clarify, am I to understand that some of the details of a 40 yr old Russian SAM system are classified??

I wasn't referring to the "attack" 111s with missiles or tanks, only the Raven, but I thought I recalled that the external tanks had to go on the outer pylons which didn't have rotation capability? That meant they would have to leave the wings full forward to have the tanks which limited speed. I'm a bit fuzzy on it, it's been years since I read about the Spark Vark and its brethren.

The only problem is some of their AAMs are barely known as far as things like range and agility, let alone what seeker they use--specifically the radar-guided kind. Aero performance isn't nearly as hard to determine as things like radar and weapons capability.

One of their tactical nuke fighters, I don't think they've built any of those for awhile now. I don't know when or if the Rafale is scheduled to take over for it.

$50m/fighter basically. Certainly not a cheap plane.

Crap, now who am I going to get to finish the design of my Jihadists on Ice! website?

The driver version listed in Catalyst isn't the same as the drivers as listed on the website. The website lists them in easy date fashion: 8.1 were released in January 2008, while 7.11 were released in November 2007. You're looking for a number like that, which isn't listed as driver version but I believe Catalyst version.

It's possible whichever driver you have now has a bug with LOMAC. I've seen instances where something like 7.10 work, 7.11 won't, 7.12 work again.

What I REALLY want TW's sims to have is missions in MP like Il-2 and LOMAC have. Sure campaigns like Il-2 and EECH offers would be nice, but it's not something I insist upon.

The main limitation of TW's MP side is every plane in the mission must be a flyable, and you can only have 4 different types maximum. You also are limited to 4 bombers and 12 fighters/fighter-bombers or 16 fighters/fighter-bombers. You can't have a mission where say 6 fighters are escorting 2 C-130s and a flight of 6 comes after them, or any anti-shipping missions, or ones involving carriers, etc. Well, those are other limitations. However, I've come to accept that TK just isn't going to go there.

No, the EA-6B was modified to carry HARMs after Desert Storm, I believe, but the Ravens were just retired. No 111s ever carried AIM-9s into combat AFAIK. One got a "manuever kill" on a MiG during DS when it went low and fast and an Iraqi MiG trying to chase it down crashed into the ground, though.

As far as the external tanks go, I just never saw any pics of them carrying them.

Yes, the renamed F-5G. I'm not sure what it would offer over the F-16, though. Same engine as an F-16 but same old avionics and weapons (2/4/6 AIM-9s, guns, limited radar, VERY limited AG options).

J-10 is to Lavi as F/A-18E is to F/A-18C or Su-27 is to MiG-29. They LOOK similar, but are different sizes and other than general layout aren't the same under the skin at all.

I fly both, although I probably fly LOMAC/FC a little more because of the MP. In fact, I ONLY fly them MP pretty much, a good 95% of the time. LOMAC's MP offerings are richer (missions rather than simple random flights) so I wind up spending more time there lately. Of course, that's what I do with ALL my flight sims, including Il-2:46 and F4:AF and CFS3 and FE and SFP1 and such...MP almost exclusively. What time I spend offline is usually dedicated to things like RTS (Company of Heroes!) or FPS (Crysis, FEAR, Ghost Recon, Armed Assault, Rainbow 6), even though I play some of those MP as well.

Here's a fun statistic: number of above mentioned flight sims I have played a campaign on--ZERO. MP or single missions or just goofing around. The only sim I have installed right now that I've played a campaign till the end: EECH/AH, and that was YEARS ago, and I've not touched it in probably over a year. The latest mods for EECH beg for me to get back into it, though...3d Apache cockpit at last!

Yeah, the Draken, Viggen, and Gripen are sweet planes. Not a big fan of the Lansen, though.

Might I suggest the DL 2.5 upgrade? It will cost more, though.

Well, here's the main thing...a complex campaign system does NOT require complex avionics system modeling.

You could take TK's planes, terrain, modeling, etc and mate it with an F4-style campaign and it would work. Likewise you can take a plane as complicated as the one in F4 and give it a bare bones SP/MP game to go with it. In fact, it was done, and it was called Back to Baghdad. Anyone remember it? No? That's because it was like flying a REAL F-16 simulator. All the switches, bells and whistles, accurate systems and all, but outside the cockpit was NOTHING. Horrible terrain, AI, campaigns, etc. Oh, and it was $100.

I'm not saying it doesn't cost as much or even more to make a fancy campaign as it does to make fancy systems modeling, just that a fancy campaign does NOT require the "study" that advanced systems do.

While I'd prefer "ultimate", and that is my wish for more sims like that, I know that's a pipe dream.

Advanced is what SFP1/WoX offer now, and I consider that the bare minimum. Basic isn't even worth my time (like Jane's F-15 had) and no MP means I may or may not bother with it.

Back in the 90s I had many SP-only sims, but I had more free time and spent 90% of my PC time on flight sims. Now my time is less and split between other genres, so I tend to gravitate towards ones I can play MP in a coop environment.

The Raven had a "canoe" on the underside where the gun was. I think that was it as far as external differences went. I also believe it had no pylons, or at least never used them operationally, although it might have had the ability to carry them.

The real aircraft looks like a Kfir/F-16 mix lol.

It basically started from the Lavi (itself based on the F-16) and was scaled up and taken from there. Is it better than what the Lavi would've been had it entered service? Hard to say as no Lavis did! Better than an F-16? Could be. Than a Kfir? Definitely.

I've not heard a NATO name for it yet. I've heard a rumor the JH-7 is called Flounder, though.

SR-71 would be kinda dull, really. It goes high and fast but fires nothing and turns like a glacier!

Or a chef serving rat?

Stealth had some redeeming features--an Su-35 in flight was one, Jessica Biel in a bathing suit was the other!