fallout3

Thank you for the info! Guess I`ll test a little myself. Am always interested in AA rocketry~

Many thanks for the info! I saved them for training sorties~ I agree with your comment on the game being philosophical. Maybe there`s such an aspect since the beginning of the franchise, as I remember someone commenting that TK is somewhat inspired by Area 88 anime to make the SF series. Sometimes when I duel with flaks in SF2 to take out a foot bridge (not exactly a duel in any sense because there are so many of them firing at you without any decency or mercy), I ask myself if it is wise to be there trying so hard, thousands of miles from the white picket fence of home, trying to blow up several agitated, perhaps brainwashed youngsters who are brought up so cheap by the "one more child, add one more bowl of water (not even rice!) to the rice pot" attitude and considered as much more expendable than the weapon system they operate, with a million-dollar jet and my own life, by means of unguided bombs and rockets and cannons that actually could give me little if any edge over these enemies despite all the great value assumed of my jet and myself. SF Nam do give moments like this, and thus give us some insights into people who fought there. As many of us, now and due to recent affairs, are beginning to see that Kennedy was more or less right about certain factions in the world always trying to conquer Earth in a domino game of bloodbath if left unchecked, and about checking such unhealthy ambitions requires not only lofty words but also willingness to become "bogged down" boots on ground and make the ultimate sacrifice in mortal, unsung combat, SF may provide a chance for us to not only look into the endurence and vulnerability of humanity, but also appreciate more the aviators who daily went up north into a man-made-hell. Back to SF tactics, I usually fly Hi-Lo-Hi and drop to the deck entering or leaving NV airspace just beyond effective range of the SAMs. As you said, having no RWR is a major concern, and I have to assume that every SAM launched is launched for me. I do have experiences of SAMs exploding several thousand feet behind and slightly above me when going feet wet. The AI SAM operators never happen to look the other way or become drowsy, and this also makes the seconds of pulling up looking for TGT the most nervous for the whole mission, as keeping 450 or 500 knots won`t do you any good against SAM, and I have to split-S quite often to the extent that if they make it an Olympic event you`ll probably see me there. The MiGs are much less a concern once you learn when to extend and control the engagment... I abhor all soviet AAA, they are simply Evil, especially when compared with the feeble quad .50s on blue air bases~

Thank you very much for knowledge regarding the [Strafing] section! Will note it down. I am also curious about some other questions regarding AA rocketry. Does AI use only "AA" rockets against air targets, or will it also employ ground attack rockets? Does AI have any preference if it has both at the same time AA rockets and guns?

I fly the Nam air-ground expansion, too, in USMC Red Devils F-8. The experience is mostly romance with AAA of various kinds. As far as I know, real life delivery with non-hud optical sight those days calls for the pilot to look up ballistics of the ordnance or pre-calculated attack patterns from respective manuals, and then calculate with various other factors like target altitude/local weather to determine the depression he needs to set for the sight reticle. He then flys at this predetermined angle (glide bombing or dive bombing) and speed towards target and release when target reaches center dot of the reticle or some predetermined part of reticle. This is why CCIP got the CC for continuously (and automatically) calculating the impact point in flight, instead of manually calculating for once before flight, or by the pilot, relatively slowly, in flight. It is also very desirable for pilots to memorize several typical release patterns and certain ballistic data for use, so he could pick one pattern when a target appears, check its altitude from map and adjust for observed metrological conditions, then attack. In SF2 non-CCIP release is almost all guesswork. Even in real life, pre-hud and CCIP/CCRP release also always calls for the seat of pant feel to certain degrees. For targets like AA or moored PT boats I try to dive bomb at angle as high as possible, 90 degrees sometimes, to improve accuracy and minimze chance of being hit. I presume that certain AA weapons in SF2 have max elevation less than 90 degrees. My observation is that soviet-made AA, especially the small caliber ones, are very deadly in SF2 Nam as in reality, so I was forced to jink constantly almost until weapons release. Otherwise you will very probably lose a wing before gun/rocket range, given they have bigger guns than you and no care for their own lives and how fragile SF2 planes by default are. Usually I drop bombs singly against small, individual targets like single AA, for if one doe not hit so small a target, usually nor would two or more do. The exception is when you really want to destroy that particular target, when you could release quickly in train to "walk" the trail of impact points through target. However, for larger, area, or linear target(s) like power stations or truck convoy or bridges, especially those heavily defended by AA, it might be more preferrable to get in and drop the whole load to ensure that you have enough coverage to hit the target, and that the bomb(s) that hit add up with enough explosive to destroy the target. At the same time, doing only one pass minimilizes you change of getting hit. It`s hard to see any ground target in SF2, actually, except for moving units with the dust trail. What I do is trying to remember the ground texture color patch the AA muzzleflash/missile plume is found in, and keep an eye on it, better if there are landmarks like distinctively shapes bushes or hootches nearby for reference. Still, you could only see the target 3D model when really close, with all the jinking you have to do. Especially as I usually fly fully zoomed out without hud, and only zoom in seconds before attack. I certainly wish that SF2 could have a feature that display outside objects larger with distance for better detection, as the cockpit view is zoomed out, though the end effect might be grotesque. Currently, as FOV increase everything is zoomed out as the computer display is fixed-size, so if you choose to fly with a (somehow) "realistic", zoomed-out pilot`s view, everything outside cockpit becomes harder to detect, and you could no longer see what you could see when zoomed-in, even if the object is at the same distance. Falcon 4 had the option of increasing display size of 3-D objects, but that`s a global setting and will make objects bigger regardless of their distance to you. Good Luck, and let MiGs whisper their wisdom into your ear like in the screenshot :P

After several years, I have again taken up the miraculous mission pack: The Last Of The Lightnings, made by Comrpnt. As some of the missions require formation flying and pairs landing with AI controlled Lightning, I feel the need to ask for piloting tips from you tigers, as I now know that I am a pilot of ham fists as I always suspect The main observations after 5 sorties for the first mission in the pack, a 2-ship circuit, and 1 sortie for the last mission, the 9-ship flying pass, turned out the following questions and observations, which might be useful for our discussion of the extrodinary mission pack, and some aspects of SF2 more generally: 1. Unusually Fast Accleration Uring Take-off Roll The AI acclerates very fast during and immediately after take off. First thing I do after mission loading is shoving the throttle to Max and release brakes. My Lightning starts moving when the AI lead is still static (so I actually develop full engine thrust before him), and at the inital stage of takeoff roll I could close the distance and separation to some extent. However, the AI lead could still dash away afterwards, and I am not able to stay quite close later in the take-off roll. I suspected that this has something to do with friction of the runway slowing my Lightning down, as there is no way to confirm the take-off technique the AI uses, and possibly he has applied backpressure quite early to lift his nosewheel just off ground, so to reduce the total friction on the wheels, even as this might introduce more induced drag. Thinking about this, I tried to ease nosewheel just off ground earlier than I could observe any sign of rotation of the lead Lightning, there is no telling if this works, as there is no way t precisely time the events during the whole take-off phase, but the AI lead could still consistently out-acclerate me despite my engines reaching full reheat earlier than him. Seen from the rare in this screenshot, the lead seems to have his main wheels a little off ground? Or it`s just an illustion caused by view angel and the Lightning`s contours? I`m not so sure of anything now. 2. Very Fast Acclearation Away Without Reheat After Take-Off Immediately after lift-off, the AI climbs very sharply, and it is not possible for me to keep very close to him for fear of acclerated stall. During the last phase of the take-off run, when lead is already in air and my aircraft is just above to clear ground, he`s almost right over my head instead of above and ahead of me. I understand that this is probably the result of him curving his flight path at linear speed not so much higher than my own, or even lower, as he gets rid of the ground friction but gets at the same time much more induced drag with his sharp pull-up. I could understand that AI does not give so much consideration to his human wingman, as if he does he should be climbing-out straight and shallower for wingman to catch up and adjust formation. However, the AI will make a sharp turn right after this, with reheat off, and with reheat on I could not keep up with him acclerating away until a while after, so the distance and separation of the formation will enlarge quite much after take off, due to the lead`s quick, acclerating turnaway that needs not even reheat. This is the most I can get out from the pairs takeoff, and it is very busy. He gets aways from me without needing the burner plume at all. 3. Suspected Unusual Decent and Deceleration Ability During Turns During turns in the circuit, the AI seems to be in the habit of acclerating rather quickly at the beginning of the turn, and is apt to decend at the same time, and at the end of the turn, they seem to have the habit of idling the throttle. I usually fly on wing outside of the turn, and am of the impression that during a turn I should fly just a little higher and faster than the lead, so that we will turn at the same angular speed, but I at slightly greater linear speed due to the greater turn radius. This is quite hard to actualize, though, and as soon as the turn begins, the lead seems to be able to make it a descending turn, and at the sametime very tight, so if I try to match his angular speed, the lift component in the vertical will be stop my machine from decending in the turn with his, and the lateral separation increases as a result. The other issue is that the AI seems to like idling, or at least retarding very sharply the throttle at the end of a turn, and it would be very easy to overshoot. However, in the final 9-ship fly-past mission, it is not hard to stay close in formation during the shallow, gentle turns, so I need to confirm these turn-related observations by starting the mission and staying on the ground, while using F6 to observe how the AI solo the circuit all the way, lest they are only visual illusions caused by perspective during a tight formation turn at large bank angle. This is result of the 9-ship flypast. I could manage the turns better than in the pairs circuit, but certainly hope to be able to turn in as close formation as when flying straight and level, for more RAF style. 4. Tremendous Deceleration and Abrupt Pitch Change Before Approach Right when the AI lead reaches the approach waypoint, he will decelerate sharply, and with some abrupt pitch and altitude changes, without even deploying the speedbrakes. In a welded-wing close formation overshooting will be certain, as retarding the throttle quickly to idle cannot match such great deceleration, and the speed brakes will cause quite much pitch change. At the same time, as the new speed is quite low, flaps will be needed, or the aircraft will start losing stability. The solution I found is to loose the formation somewhat before the anticipated lead deceleration, and use speedbrake right away when seeing the lead "stops" in the air, and lower gear and flaps at first chance. The speed brake will be kept out for rest of the approach and landing, as this seems to be the only way to adjust formation during the pairs landing, by leaving you the possibility of using throttle. Without the boards out, there seems to be every chance for you to creep ahead of the lead. Pairs landing is possible and consistent in this way at satisfactory formation distance and separation, but still needs care when it certainly should in SF or not. This happens when I sense the AI lead is doing his dread deceleration. If I manage to keep formation after the magic slow-down, a formation like this could be managed right to touch-down. My thought is that certain AI behaviour is coded rather than aerodynamic, especially in accleration and deccleration, and during take-off and approach. This may be a trade-off to make AI able to fly everything. It seems to me that AI is flying every landing like carrier landing, keeping just above the touchdown speed, at a pitch angle and thus AOA that does not allow for seeing the runway sometimes, and without control and throttle corrections, along a precise glideslope. This technique is very hard for players to follow, expecially someone like me who likes too (probably overdemanding) fly in formation with AI take-off to Touch-down. By far the best game in this respect is MSFS, and at a certain update for IL-2 1946, 4.09 or 4.10? I could manage to land in pairs with even an AI I-16. However, now in IL-2 all that an AI can do is to make a strange, probably hard-coded turn seemingly along an invisible axle attached to the trailing edge of rudder into "approach mode", and let down all the way at precisely the touch down speed, nose-high, to an stalled 3-point landing. SF2 fairs good enough as I could pair land with an Lightning, or F-5C with some struggles against the dreaded "approach mode" deceleration, but we could certainly use more probably. This experience with Lightnings also led to some questions. We know that there are values given for critical speeds like landing or MaxSL or take-off or stall, but how does they affect AI behaviour, and what other possible factors and setting affect AI behaviour, is still in question, at least for me in my ignorance. If only a take-off speed is given, but not landing speed, then how will AI decide its own landing speed. Is the take-off speed for rotation, lift-off, or climb-out? Similarly, is landing speed approach speed or touch down speed, and what should the value be for aircrafts that are supposed to be at different speeds for crosswind and final leg? Is the stall speed for all-up or gear and flaps down, power on or power off? Additional questions could be asked on how the AI respects these numbers or not, and if it does, to what extent. Will AI force itself not to exceed the maximum speed SL even if it could? Will it do its best to keep above the dictated stall speed? And the most curious question among all is how many AI behaviour are hard-coded and to what extent we could change that. It would certainly be nice if we could work around all we could by certain clever tricks in number tweaking and mission editing. I guess it is already a lot of questions and a lot of words from my part indeed. Time for some screenshots of my hairy attempt at the legendary Lightning, and I will be most thankful for your thoughts and comments on the potential issues, not necessarily covered above. As I felt that something might be due to my clumsy formation turning techniques, any piloting tips or your experience in flying with the AI will be more than welcome.

Love the dark nights! Why IFRing fast jets in SF, sim without trim, is another question, though.

Anotherthing to mention when having breakfast cheese... Bumps and seams on runway when taxiiing and rolling.

Will try! Could we also reduce the muzzle smoke texture?

Trim Stronger Mission Editor Muzzle effects that don`t kill FPS on my old rig when 48 Tu-4 or BUFFs fire at me with those turrets at the same time Better Weather Engine Darker Darker Nights (could be part of weather engine) A2G Radar So far so much

Wonder if trimming of the three axle could be made possible, the autotrim we have now feel kinda of...Strange, no need to step on the ball while turning. Also, wish AI could have two different ways of handling the aircraft in and out of engagment, have been playing around with The Last of Lightning missions, AI fly in a very peculiar way and it is not possible to fly close formation with an AI fighter even in a simple pattern. Better Navaid and Weather Maybe? Regards.