malibu43

F-111's do it too.

Could be. But if he's getting hit by AAA 100% of time, gotta try something, right? I've had lots of success in the SF2 A-10 using that strategy. Reduces the "golden BB" effect.

I have noticed that too since one of the more recent patches. Not sure what changed...

Do you have any mods installed? Probably not but it's worth checking. What I'm going to suggest is different from what others have said - you need to be higher in something as slow as the A-10.. 1600 feet is in the engagement envelopes for both AAA and SAMs. I would get up around 4-5K where you'll be safer from the small caliber stuff that's getting you. If you get engaged by SAMs, use that altitude to gain speed and avoid the SAMs. Then climb back up and continue your egress. When you get to the target area use mavericks and CBUs to clear the area of AAA. Then you should be able to mop up your targets.

Some of what I have so far: Does anyone know if/when IAF F-4E's would have started using LGB's and Laser Pods? The _78 variant is the earliest with the capability in game, but I wasn't sure when Israel would have realistically had the equipment and put it to use.

1. Not sure. I don't think so, though... 2. As mentioned before (at SHQ), nope. 3. Remember; 50's, 60's, 70's, and early very 80's are what the game is design for and does best. So, no, no data linking is possible. It's just you and Red Crown. 4. Based on the way the game engine works and the way the targets.ini file is set up for the terrain, that's really the only way to do it. But, yeah, it does require you to have some knowledge of where target areas are in relation to the map. I'm with you that I usually have no idea where some of the target areas listed acutally are.

Ok. I think you mis-understood what I was hoping for (although it may be equally as unlikely to happen). I realize that actual RP's loaded on TER's by the game is not possible. What I was hoping for was a single weapon which would be a "RP" type. The model for this rocket pod would actually look like 3 rocket pods loaded on a TER. The data.ini for the rocket pod would have 3 times the rocket positions defined, and they would be positioned so that they matched up with the locations on the model. You could assign the weight and diameter values for this rocket pod so that it still fits on stations that currently accept a standard rocket pod (ie - inner pylons on the F-4). If this worked, there would still be one dropdown menu for the inner pylons on the F-4 and you see LAU-3 like normal, but there would also be a 3x LAU-3 listed. Selecting the 3x LAU-3 would load the single rocket pod that really looks like 3 LAU-3's with a TER. I know this would require more work up front, but it eliminates the need for anymore data.ini editing and makes things easier down the road. Well to be honest, I don't have time to re-extract all 22 _data.ini's for (for just F-4's) and look through them once a month (which seems to be how often we get patches these days). Add even more time to that if I there were actually updates and I need to change something. The reason I am OK with doing this with loadout.ini files is that they don't seem to get affected as much by patching. And if they do, the changes are either insignificant and don't need to be updated right away, or they are obvious and the loadout.ini files are small and easy to comb through and edit. This is all just my opinion based on my experiences over the last few years. If the games were being patched once every one or two years, then I'd be more willing to dig deeper into the data.ini files. While TK's constant patching is great for getting fixes and new features out there quickly (or breaking things more often depending on who you ask ), it's kinda got me turned off of extensive data.ini editing. I used to be all about it. I will respectfully disagree with you on this. If you want to be able to select the loadout from the loadout screen, then, yes changes need to be made to the data.ini file. However, the loadout.ini file trumps whatever's in the data.ini file. In the .rar file posted above, I have this in the loadout.ini for the F-4M: [Attack_TripleRP] Loadout[03].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[03].Quantity=1 Loadout[04].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[04].Quantity=1 Loadout[05].WeaponType=SUU23 Loadout[05].Quantity=1 Loadout[06].WeaponType=AIM-7E-2 Loadout[06].Quantity=1 Loadout[07].WeaponType=AIM-7E-2 Loadout[07].Quantity=1 Loadout[08].WeaponType=AIM-7E-2 Loadout[08].Quantity=1 Loadout[09].WeaponType=AIM-7E-2 Loadout[09].Quantity=1 Loadout[10].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[10].Quantity=1 Loadout[11].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[11].Quantity=1 Loadout[12].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[12].Quantity=1 Loadout[13].WeaponType=Matra-155 Loadout[13].Quantity=1 Loadout[14].WeaponType=Tank370_F4 Loadout[14].Quantity=1 Loadout[15].WeaponType=Tank370_F4 Loadout[15].Quantity=1 The extra rocket pods are just loaded onto the winder stations with no data.ini edits required. Now, if you go into the loadout menu and start changing things, you won't ever be able to get it back. If that's what someone wants, then yes, we either need modified data.ini's or the new "triple rocket pod" weapon I mentioned above. Now, I didn't post all of this to argumentative. I just wanted to make sure it was clear what I'm trying to do and why I'm going about trying to get it done the way that I am. To be totally honest, I don't really even fly F-4's that much in SF2. For some reason I just felt like doing this...

Sorry if I'm being dense, Wrench, but I'm not sure if I'm getting your point or not. At first I thought you were just pointing out that the mission editor makes having additional loadouts in loadout.ini useful (which is what I acknowledged in my last post). I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see in your loadout for the FGR3. It looks like you've added extra weapons stations to the _data.ini for the aircraft to allow triple rocket pods with a TER on one pylon. I'm aware of that trick, but if you look at my first post in this thread, I'm trying to stay away from messing with the data.ini files so these loadouts are a little more robust when it comes to all of TK's patching.

That is a good point. I may look back through the loadouts and see if there are any instances where there may be secondary loadouts for certain mission types that I should include. Loading LAU-3's Matra 155's on winder stations is a decent work around for the triple rocket pod issue so it could be included along with standard single rocket pods as well as TER's with CBU's BL755's (although one would need to add BL755's to their weapons folder)...

Here are the loadouts if anyone wants to give them a try: F-4 Loadouts - Oct 2011.rar These should be complete with the exception of the triple rocket pods, if that's even going to happen. *edit* - updated the file 10/25 at 1:30 PDT to add more F-4M loadout options selectable in the mission editor. Now includes Ravenclaw's BL755.

This sounds like a lot of fun, but I am really strapped for time right now. What about next time around setting it in a stock terrain, stock aircraft, etc... (ie - full scale war in GermanyCE circa late '70's early 80's)? That way no downloads or comprehensive packs will be required. It seems like that would make the set-up work a lot less... Just a thought.

I know that you can get 3 LAU-3A's on an F-4's inboard plyon by creating new weapon stations, but that requires going into each F-4's data.ini file, adding the weapon stations and groups IDs. That by itself isn't a huge deal, but at the rate TK's been patching, it would be a HUGE pain to have to go back and re-do all of it if he changes the _data.ini files for all the F-4's. Is anyone interested in taking existing LAU-3 and Matra Rock Pod models and combining 3 of each together with a simple TER model all as one rocket pod? This would allow the triple rocket pod to be added from the loadout screen to any of the F-4's (or other aircraft for that matter) without needing to do extensive data.ini editing. Any takers?

You can do it via loadout.ini as well, but you have to put 2 of the pods on winder stations and the third on the pylon. It works but then you can only use it if it's the default loadout. You wouldn't be able to select it from the loadout screen.

I'm modifying all my F-4 loadouts in WOE and WOV, and have a couple questions: 1. When in Vietnam did F-4's start regularly carrying ECM pods (if at all)? 2. Did they carry AIM-9's if they also had a TER of MK82's? It seems like the AIM-9's would be kinda close to the bombs is you fired one. I think I'll add teh ECM pod to the loadout for my F-4E's in WOE, since they're used in a 1979 campaign and I would assume if they were used in a conflict at that point, they would have had ECM pods. WOV, I'm not sure though. I know they were around in the late sixties, but I don't know at what point they would have become part of a standard loadout. Thanks! *edit* - what about Israeli F-4's? Did they regularly carry ECM pods?

Thanks guys. I've settled on no AIM-9's for any A/G missions for RAF, Germany, USAF, and IAF (this is just on the default loadouts, the capability to load them is still there if the user - ie. me - wants to). USN get their AIM-9's.

Thanks for the help. I have removed the gunpods from the F-4M loadouts prior to 1978 (a little artistic license to make the jets a little more lethal in the 1978 Red Lightning campaign). I am going to go with wing tanks wherever possible instead of the center line tank (F-4's look way cooler with wing tanks anyway). One thing I'm struggling with is what to do with AIM-9's and the use of TER's for all the non-navy F-4' (I know it's already been discussed in this thread). Based on different sources on the web, I get a lot of different answers about when the USAF would have been able to load AIM-9's with TER's on the same pylon. According to crusader's post earlier in this thread, it should be in the late 70's or early 80's, if ever. I saw a post by Ed Rasimus himself that claimed the USAF had the spacer to do it by 1973. So, for USAF and IAF F-4's I'm leaning toward adding AIM-9's with TER's in the standard loadouts around 1975 (a compromise). This brings up 2 more questions: 1. Were these "spacers" really that hard to come by that all allied F-4's wouldn't be able to get their hands on them pretty quickly in the case of an all-out, Cold-War-Gone-Hot scenario? If the USAF really needed them in Vietnam, maybe they would have gotten their hands on them a little quicker...? 2. What about F-4F's and M's? Did the RAF and German F-4's get the spacers as well? Without sparrow capability, a German F-4F would be pretty defensless with no AIM-9's and just the gun...

Looks amazing! Just needs some custom .tods from Stary... (hint hint)

Common' people!!! With all the phantom fans that frequent this site, I thought I'd have pages of responses by now!

Well, I don't have MiG-31 installed, so I can't test anything out for you. But, assuming you have the necessary weapons installed, they are loading out on the plance correctly, and you aren't jamming with some super-ECM, the next thing to look at would be the *_avionics.ini and *_data.ini files for the aircraft. I seem to remember a while back (as in years, not months) some updates being released for the MiG-25 and MiG-31 that improved the radar strength. That could be the problem - the AI are simply not able to lock you up with the radar. If you fly the MiG-31, are you able to lock up and engage blue aircraft? And again, if you post exactly which MiG-31 download you're using, it will help us help you better!

If its resetting without patching or dlc addditions it sounds like a bug. I would report it at thirdwite.