Gunrunner

If I were you I would have a look at the service dates of ships and planes, it might be that you are trying an anti-ship mission with a plane at dates where no ship (tanker and cargo are the default ships) is available.

Well, depending on the way the forums are coded and the level of access to the code, that may be improved upon (some testing would convince you that anything would be an improvement over the integrated search, even using google (type your search in google and add "site:forum.combatace.com")). For a forum focusing on military simulations, it's a rather strange handicap to not be able to search designations.

To qualify as a real 5th generation fighter you usually have to have : - Stealth included in the design from the start (F-22, F-35), not added to the design to be stealth-ish/stealthier (Typhoon, late F-16, late Su-27, Rafale, Gripen). - Fusion of sensors informations. - Advanced phase array radars. - Super-cruise for fighters or high thrust to weight ratio for fighter-bombers. - High AoA manoeuvrability. - Ability to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions during the same flight. A Rafale has roughly the same range (around 1800km) as a Mirage 2000 which is just fine for France's needs but is indeed sometimes a little short in joint operations abroad. It has a supposedly better combat radius than the F/A-18C, supposedly slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, acceleration, ceiling, top speed and climb rate (on paper that is), a little more manoeuvrability due to an airframe about a decade more recent, canards, more refined FbW, a lower wing-loading. The electronics are also more recent and even though outdated by the time the plane reached production, they are more easily upgradable than the Hornet's. Due to the initial requirements the Rafale (it was designed from the start to be multi-mission, but adding stealth was an afterthought, as was the notion of super-cruise (possible on paper with some versions of the engines, not used actually and not included yet in planned updates, the focus seeming mostly on increasing fuel efficiency)) suffered less from changing missions than from lack of funding and political support and what should have been a revolutionary plane ahead of its concurrent ended up being a nearly obsolete plane entering service 10 years late and costing way too much (sometime french defence programs are reminiscent of japanese ones). The real handicap of the Rafale compared to the F/A-18C is that while able to carry more weight, it can do so with less space and pylons available, meaning that when the Rafale needs to take more fuel, it has to sacrifice ordnance, something less prone to happen with the Hornet. From what you can see on paper and from some pilot's report, we could guess that in A2A the Rafale is a better fighter than both the Hornet and Super Hornet but in A2G both Hornets are superior to the Rafale; when it comes to electronics the Rafale is ahead of the older Hornets, but behind the Super Hornet and newer ones, mostly in the radar area and considering stealth, the Rafale is probably closer to the Super Hornet. Compared to the F-35 now, on paper the F-35 looks way ahead in terms of stealth, range, electronics, slightly better in terms of payloads (even better using SDB) but probably worse when it comes to pure performance and dogfighting ability (even though the F-35 will probably be a less demanding plane to fly which might make a large difference), but stealth would/should be a large advantage for the F-35, and the F-35 would probably operate with air cover or after air superiority has been gained, while the Rafale is destined to be used as the unique type used by the French Air Force and Navy. We can't afford to work on AND order a true 5th generation plane anyway, we're working on combat drones instead (and envision having Rafales acting as command posts for wings of 5th generation combat drones (think X-45/X-47)). Anyway, enough fruitless comparisons, what is sure is that the Rafale represents a jump in capability and versatility from the various types used before (Super-Etendard and Crusader for the Navy, mostly Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Mirage F.1 for the Air Force). And one thing for sure, there soon will be happy US Navy personnel taking photos and working with an exotic bird. P.S. : Completely off-topic, is it only my impression or is there really nobody to love the F-35 ? Israel and European partners seems to border on despising the thing but going along as they have no choice and can't afford a home-grown alternative, the Navy doesn't seem thrilled about it, the Air Force sounds like it would happily scrap the whole thing and get more Raptors instead.

Well, the Rafale is considered more a 4.5th generation design (like the Typhoon, Gripen, , Super Hornet, late F-16 and Su-27; a 4th generation design integrating some 5th generation parts and thinking) than a 5th one. In fact, the only real 5th generation design in service is the F-22. No need to go and invent a 6th generation or try to compare early F-16 to Rafale.

The wheel-trap stutter when using gun pods is a known bug. It's purely visual and anyway, when firing guns you should be inside your cockpit aiming. I have yet to see this bug with some 3rd Party planes, while for others it happens every time, for most planes by TW the bug only occurs when the gun pods are used on any other pylon than the centerline one. What's interesting in your screenshots though is that usually the bug only affects the front wheel, while your screenshots show all three traps opening.

A little less conversation, a little more action please. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Gocad> Thanks, I didn't see that, and from what I understand, it would only be re-releases of the games using a DX10 compatible version of the engine and not whole new games. Let's hope he continues working on the DX9 engine afterwards, even though that would sometime mean doing the same work twice, I don't see most of us buying a new computer or Vista (for up to 600 € a licence, yeah right) just so we can play the latest TW sim (I'd rather pay $10 more for a DX9 version than being forced to move to Vista until it meets my needs). DamonSchumi> Sorry, I answered on the basis of missing information, you were right, there will be a DX10 version. Have a look at this thread for your Vista troubles : http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=19172

DamonSchumi> You're welcome, a merry Christmas and happy new year to you too. Akwar> Keep in mind that ThirdWire is pretty much a one-man operation, with very little cash to work with. Also, SF is a series of "light" sims in many ways, as it doesn't strive for painful realism and instead aims to be fun and easy to learn (even though some parts of the aerodynamics modelling are better than other sims according to some more knowledgeable people than myself), it either doesn't strive to offer a dynamic campaign as immersive as concurrent sims, it also is light on hardware requirements, while a lot of people can't afford a computer to run LOMAC or IL-2 smoothly at a nice resolution, SF runs on practically anything (with the exception of some high definition add-ons). The goal is to offer the most enjoyable game with the limited resources in time and money available to the developer, bringing new content and features with each new "game", and offering an engine light enough for nearly any computer to run it and open enough for the community to create content and keep the games alive (and produce new games based on the engine more easily, meaning at a lower cost). If you want more content, there is quite a lot provided by dedicated modders on this site, and if you want something really that bad, you may do it yourself, most modders around here are friendly and will try to take some time to help you learn how to do it yourself, but be sure to try yourself first and to consult the various documentations and how-to readily available.

DamonSchumi> We all know it might be difficult when English is not your native language (mine's French), but please try to make sentences one can understand without ambiguity, or if you're not sure you can make yourself understood include what you want to say in your own language (so people who share this language can translate for us). From what you wrote I understood that you are complaining that hitting ESC aborts the mission. If you want another key to do so, then change the key-mapping (in Options > Controls > Customize... change the key for "End mission" which should be the first item on the list). If that's not the problem, please try to be more explicit and we'll be more than happy to help you solve your problem. :) If you have trouble running SFP1 with Vista, I think there is another thread specifically for those problems in the Knowledge Base.

Which would be a shame and a relief, imagine the heaps of medals (mostly posthumous purple hearts for some of us )

Yeah right, DX10... spending hundreds of hours to modify the graphic engine instead of focusing on more content or functionalities, as if the market for SFP1 wasn't already a niche, TK should reduce it's market even more by making it only playable on high end computers with an over-priced and useless OS. That sure sounds like good business practice as opposed to catering to people with modest configurations and legacy OS. More seriously, as Badfrank mentioned, there are already new games from ThirdWire : Wings over Vietnam (which you can consider SFP2) : focused on the Vietnam conflict, with the same engine as SFP1, updated (adding carrier operations). Wings over Europe (SPF3) : focused on Central European conflicts during the Cold War, with the same engine as SFP1, updated beyond WoV (adding more modern avionics). First Eagle (a new branch) : focused on WW1 and using a version of SFP1 engine tweaked for WW1 planes. Wings over Israel (SFP4) : to be released, focused on Israelo-Arab conflicts, once again with SFP1 engine updated and a few new tricks. A nice thing with TW sims is the retro-compatibility, every time a new game is out with updates to the engine, a patch is issued for the previous games to get them to the latest standard (SFP1 started without clouds, carrier, 70's avionics and thanks to successive patches offer the same functionalities as WoE, only the content (European map, WoE specific planes) is missing), meaning any content from or for one of the game can be used for the others (excepting SFPx and FE content). The Strike Fighter series is a game engine before being games.

Cover72> Sorry, it was written before your corrections. As for why we are "upset" by the conclusions of a marketing study, well it's not the conclusions, it's the fact you did present a marketing study as the result of real-life DACT exercise. Worse, it compares a development aircraft to production aircrafts, let's look at specific grief we can have against such marketing studies : 1) The Su-39 is a development aircraft with little relation to what would be operational capabilities of a production variant. 2) The study is a result of simulations using formulas, algorithm and weighing of results particular to the constructor (Sukhoi won't say their latest product is nowhere as capable as they advertise). I could produce studies where a Mirage F.1 would "outperform" a Su-39, as long as my study favors the strong points of the Mirage and penalise the weaker points of the Sukhoi. 3) These studies are done using publicly available figures (some being higher than the real capability, others lower, depending on the balance between marketing and security). 4) A Sukhoi study has an incentive to sell more Sukhoi planes. 5) The study cites F-16 (which one, there are huge differences between a F-16A-1 and a F-16C-52+), F/A-18 (A, C, E ?), Mirage 2000 (C RDM, C RDI, N, D, -5, -9 and so on ?), there is nothing precise in such marketing studies. 6) You started talking of simulated air combat and then we moved on to "x globally outperforms y" which is completely different. Some founders of the site and a lot of the people here are military personnel, even real life military pilots and most of the rest are passionate; reading fantasy studies intended for bean-counters and politicians sold as truth has a tendency to strike a nerve. This is nothing against you personally, it's just we don't like to mix facts and fantasy .

CW2. Wells> Yep, and some analyst basically saying "nah, the AF is BSing Congress to get more F22, just use some duct tape and they're good for another 20 years". Let's rant against politicians and bean counter killing pretty planes and worse, risking soldier's lives in a quest for power or perceived savings.

Cover72> Simulated dogfights at Le Bourget Air Show, yeah right... Considering that any demonstration or fly-by at Le Bourget Air Show (and all European air shows I know of) must be planned and known to the millimeter (figuratively speaking) and that Le Bourget airspace allowing demonstrations is rather small (and is overlapping Roissy-Charles de Gaulle's airspace, France's busiest commercial airport and airspace) , I highly doubt there ever has been such simulated dogfight there since a long long time. 1) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace (too small to satisfy security regulations). 2) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace outside of the Air Show context as Le Bourget is still an active commercial airport, used mostly for private and corporate jets (IIRC, LBG is one of the first if not the first European airports in term of corporate traffic). 3) It's doubtful it happened as described at Le Bourget Air Show (demonstrations are simple fly-by or planned and rehearsed aerobatic events within a very limited airspace). 4) It's doubtful it happened as described at a European Air Show during the Gripen "lifetime" (regulations are very very strict when a/ there is public (as is the case at Le Bourget Air Show even during purely industry days), b/ this happens over a densely populated area (as is the case with Le Bourget, Berlin and, to a lesser extent, Farnborough; Have a look at Google Map if you have the slightest doubt) and c/ this might interfere with commercial traffic (as is the case at Le Bourget with CDG's traffic)). So unless you can cite a good, reliable and verifiable source, this looks like a fairy tale.

CoolHand29> The trouble here is that there is differences betwen a F-16A-1, a F-16A-15, a F-16C-30 and a F-16C-52+. The RCS comparison doesn't specify which F-16A or which F-16C. The F-16A-1 was of almost completely metallic construction, with little study and thought given to reducing RCS. Later variants included more and more composite materials, and once RAM were becoming cheap and maintenance-friendly enough, some were incorporated as well (starting with Block 40 (a F-16C Block)). Anyway, RAM are not a panacea, being mostly useful against a rather narrow range of frequencies, and given that their use in the F-16 is an afterthought such a spectacular decrease seems a little exxagerated (unless perhaps if you compare an early F-16A-1 to a F-16A-52+/60), especially when there has been no major redesign accounting for it (the differences between the B-1A and the B-1B being due to both the redesign of the inlet for the larger part, and use of RAM for the rest).

Thanks, I was getting confused...

Wait, two other F-22, that makes what, three of them as WIP ? Well, there's such thing as too much choice... Even though I'd rather see a Q-5 (WIP), a Yak-38 (WIP, release in a couple of decades at the rate things are going ), a JH-7 (IIRC a Marcello's WIP) or a Buccaneer (WIP too)... How I wish I had the experience to produce nice, clean, satisfying models without spending way too much time for something I end up scrapping anyway.

Nice job you have :yes: Congrats on passing

Probably : 1) Greater use of composite materials 2) Changes in the position and size of maintenance traps, draining holes, etc... 3) Changes in the canopy better isolating the cockpit, avoiding to have it acting as an echo chamber 4) Propaganda Since most of these modifications were already included in Block 15/20, propaganda might account for a large part of the difference, unless the C include some RAM, which would be surprising given the maintenance needed for the generation of RAM available at the time.

Or even better, other illustrations of the same artistic rendering. They come from the french edition of the book "Stealth" by Doug Richardson and supposedly there are others of the same concepts, but I never found anything (not even these), I only recently tracked the book where I first saw them more than a decade ago. That was a supposed MiG-37, a counterpart to the ATF (future F-22) : And that was the way the A-12 Avenger II was envisionned, vastly sexier than the real thing :

Yes, we know, the book was published in 1988/1989 and no-one had a clue what the real A-12 would look like. And frankly, even nowadays, any picture of the real thing looks retarded. I can't resist in case some forgot the "real" A-12 : There has been beautiful planes never reaching production for all the wrong reasons, but frankly the A-12 is the best example of a plane that should never have been designed in the first place. I'm just a sucker for artistic renderings and that A-12 haunted me.

Wait, wait, I know that one ! Two weeks... right ?

Not bad enough for you you take the trouble scanning them if you don't have already (I could scan them myself now, it's just that the book and the scanner are hundred of miles apart for now), it's a want rather than a need. On the other hand, if you can confirm or deny there is more illustration of these "planes" in the English version, I'd be more interested in these, but knowing myself I'd have to order it anyway. So unless you already have them scanned, don't bother (it's not as if I weren't sitting on other things for years now, that one can wait). Thanks FC.

- According to F-16.net and as dumb as it sounds, the Pave Claw gun pod with a GAU-13/A was used for a short time during Desert Storm by the 174th TFW (N-Y ANG). (source : F-16.net) - There is a GAU-13/A gun (just the gun, not the gun pod) in Bunyap's latest WP (at least I'm sure it came with it), inaccurate enough (you hardly ever hit what you aim for and even as an area weapon it's not that effective unless you really are unable to drop a cluster bomb within 30m of your target) so you can use it in a SUU-16/A pod as a good placeholder (with the graphical ugliness mentionned by Wrench). As Wrench and USAFMTL already said, it isn't worth the time spent as it is mostly useless. Also it suffers from the same problem most gun pods have, meaning that when firing it the nose gear door stutters open and shut.

Thanks a lot Julhelm, it's been, with the use of strobes (most literature suggests only one was used, while most photos contradict that by featuring one under each wing, which is a useless intellectual speculation since strobes weren't used much anyway), one of my idiotic questions about the Vigi, finding numerous conflicting answers depending on the author (here you would trust Greg Goebels and his sources IIRC).