Gunrunner

Look, you never hurt or offended anyone, you just irritated some of us, which doesn't mean you were doing something "wrong", you were just over-enthusiastic and lacking proper restraint, patience and understanding of what you were dealing with. We've all been like that at a time or another, and we're not asking you to refrain your enthusiasm, we need motivated players willing to modd the game and push its limits. What we don't need is people affirming the existence of a problem that does not really exist, either because it is out of the scope of the sim, or would not make sense operationnally. So just take your time to learn the game, understand its mechanics, read the very good articles on the Knowledge Base (even though it is in a somewhat broken state at the moment), learn about the way air wars are thought and fought, the planes and missiles involved, and then proceed to methodically mod things, while trying to avoid hacks and cheats (like you AIM-120 seeker modification) so the game won't completely break with another patch enhancing or changing that particular aspect of the sim. Language is not a problem, a lot of us don't have english as our native language, mine is french, we also have a lot of other europeans, chineses, indians etc... You just have to remember that while you may be new to the game, the SF community is mostly a community of old hands... Old simmers who started in the 80's... Old (or still active) military fliers who actually did the real thing... Old modders, for whom SF is just another game to modd... Old SF players, who played the game from the time it didn't even have clouds... We all have years behind us that made your agitation irritating, because we knew you were wrong, most said nothing, or too politely, because we need your enthusiasm, but most just wished you would learn and stop wasting your time, and other peoples time, with what, to us, amounts to non-problems. So, you now start with a clean slate, by all means keep the enthusiasm and the fire, just keep down the assertiveness when it comes to identify something as broken and do just that little bit of research that will make the game, modding and blending with the community that much easier. BTW, I'm nobody ^^ I'm just good at talking, playing and modding for my own purpose without giving back much (rights clearance always being my pet peeve, but I've seen Dave mention that the community was moving from a freeware type licencing to a free software one, which might end up with the unleashing of my horrible experiments some day), there are a lot of better people you SHOULD listen to when they say something though (I won't name names as I would forget hundreds of great people around here and don't want to spoil or hurt egos j/k). Oh, and I hope I didn't came out as too agressive when I tried to explain why you BVR experiments and expectations were "wrong", I do have that tendency to be a little too nasty and give people the impression I'm assaulting them, if I gave that impression, please accept my apologies too.

Ok, so I'll be nice and help Basher11 to get a bloody clue. The BVR "issues" in the SF series stems from 3 major sources, design decision, historical accuracy and tactical reasons. 1) Design decisions a) The SF series aims at simulating air planes from the late 60's to the early 80's, an age where missiles were unreliable, it never was meant for modern BVR engagement with AMRAAMs. b) The SF series aims to be fun, rather than a button-pushing or study sim, thus the emphasis on close combat. c) The SF series never aimed to reproduce any kind of strategic warfare, leaving aside interception of strategic bombers, nuclear bombers etc... and this case is the very one for which the concept of BVR was conceived on the time lapse we're concerned. 2) Historical accuracy a) In WoV, you have to remember that the RoE called for a visual identification of the target, thus negating most chances of BVR engagements and making the attitude of your wingmen logical, you tell them to attack a target, first they close in for visual identification. b) In WoE, you have to remember you are in a very heated conflict with a LOT of planes supposed to be in the air, in a day and age where IFF are either not there or not completely trusted, thus you can be sure that the RoE would have been fairly restrictive toward BVR too, except for strategic interception, which is outside the scope of the series, as seen earlier. c) In WoI, you have to remember that most kills were obtained with IR guided missiles or guns, and very few with Sparrows, even then, most Sparrow uses where WVR, for reasons we will see later. 3) Tactical considerations Leaving AMRAAMs out as they are out of the scope of what the engine is supposed to use, you have to condider what your BVR weapon is. The AIM-7 is a passive missile, relying on the illumination by the launching plane to reach its target, it's been known to be rather unmaneuverable for the first versions (it was designed to engage slow bombers, not fighters), then very unreliable and finally "the best we have, until we get a real missile or you are in the Navy (and even there...)". What that means is, the farther you launch your AIM-7, the higher the chances are that the target will have time to get out of its range, that it will break your radar lock (thus getting the missile out of his back), that it will outmaneuver the missile when it finally closes in, that you will get shot down thus losing your lock or that it will get time to properly jam or deceive it. So, most AIM-7 you will launch at extreme range or even BVR will be lost. The best way to ensure a kill is to be WVR and thus reduce the flight time of the missile, leaving as little time as possible to the target to break the lock, maneuver or jam/deceive it. Now, does the AI engage ? Oh yes, it does. Does the AI engage at extreme or maximum range ? Very rarely, if ever. Does the AI engage at ranges ensuring the highest PK for the weapons systems it's supposed to use ? Seems to me like it does. Is there is problem with BVR in the SF series ? Nope, there's a problem simulating something it never was designed for. So, you want a lot of missiles flying at once, kills at very long range and AMRAAMs, go buy LOMAC. You want to simulate air combat in the late 60's to early 80's, SF is where it's at. Just don't come whining that something is broken when it obviously is not and the only real problem is that you have no clue on what the game is supposed to do and why it does so.

You see, that's the trouble, what Basher wants is BVR, with NO visual identification, in birds with primitive or no IFF. What he wants is lobbing missiles blindly over the horizon at maximum range of the missiles. What he wants is cleaning the skies of pesky korean airliners with his mighty Su-15...

[Here was a long rant about clueless newbies declaring something broken, when the only things broken are their understanding of the situation, capacity of finding out things by themselves and ability to learn] For the sake of the community and my blood pressure, is there an option to ignore a specific poster and his threads (275 posts... in 39 days...) ?

This a a MiG-31's backseater's cockpit, the one you would NOT see ingame. And since there is no stable release of a MiG-31, there is no pit to go with it.

Well, there is speculation and speculation. Speculation can be based on rational components, like the expectation of diminishing production (long term), deliveries (short and medium term, due to political instability and uncertainties), increasing costs of exploitation (long term), the increase of consumption (medium term), fueled by China's expansion (medium term), global economy needs (medium term) and increased demand for the war in Iraq (short to medium term, hopefully, from a purely US perspective). Speculation can also be purely financial, one buying because he expects the prices to go up, and thus resell at a later date at a higher price, getting a nice benefit; by buying, he is increasing the demand and thus raising the price, if sufficient actors of the market follow such a trend, we have a market steadily going up for no external reason. Of course the oil market today is a result of both these movements. Also, keep in mind an important factor, oil is traded in US dollars, and while the oil prices go up, it is partly due to the value of oil going up, but also the value of the currency used to trade it going down, meaning that even if the value of oil was stable, the price of oil would go up, as you would need more currency units to buy the same value. That is beautifully illustrated by the trend of prices for oil suppliers using other primary currency than the US dollar to trade oil.

There was a F-117 published by EA ? Microprose's one or another ? Funny how no one seems to have started with Fighter Bomber or Birds of Prey.

No, that's actually Jedi Master's idea, I'm against it. -_- Besides, it is fairly normal that the F-29 ressembles the F-20, as both were developped from the F-5. AFAIR, the F-29 program was started from the F-5A in the late 70's and flew mid-80's, while the F-20 from the F-5E in the early 80's with a first flight in 1982 IIRC, but both ended with similar solution when it came to giving more power to the craft, using a F404 (AFAIR both programs were independent and the F404 integration for both projects were separate). By the way, the F-29 denomination would not have been used for a production X-29 anyway, as the X-29 was a pure X pure denomination (yes, I know about the JSF, but that was an exception due to the peculiarities of the competition and financing of the prototypes). That would mean the plane would rather take a free designation in the F range... F-20 going to the Tigershark, F-21 to the Kfir, F-22 to the Raptor, F-23 to the Black Widow II, you'd then think that F-24 would be the most logical unless you decide to displace the F-22/23 (which would be logical as the RFP for the ATF program was only in 1987 I think), BUT, you have to consider that while the F-20 flew first, the X-29 actually predates the F-20, so the next F number in line would have been F-19, never officially assigned... Yep, I like arguing about futile points. ^^

Wrong. Why, because : F-5A to D were Freedom Fighter. F-5E/F were Tiger II. F-20A was Tigershark, a name partly given due to the new shark nose, also fitted to late F-5Es, and upgraded ones. Yet, if we accept your distopian naming scheme, that still would make the F-20A as Tigershark III, thus making F-29A the Tigershark IV (yeah, I know that IRL the X-29 flew before the F-20, but in a distopian situation, the reverse would probably have been true, manufacturing processes for building the F-20 being already in place while they would require extensive changes for the F-29 due to its wing). ;)

Was there ever a Tigershark II (apart from, according to google, a pool cleaning robot) ?

Way too much... Let's see, in France, we reached 1.4 euros per litre of diesel. Now, 1 gallon is 3.785 litres, which makes (rounding up) 5.3 euros per gallon of diesel, and considering a 1.6 exchange rate, $8.48/gallon of diesel... And gas is even more expensive... so don't come and whine about gas prices in the US. ;)

objectdata.cat

If it only was in some games... just think of the DVDs you can't legally read on Linux unless you broke your contractual agreement with the publisher, think of the protected CDs that no longer conform to the CD specifications and won't be played on most computers, play with degraded quality on most others and will just not work on old legacy CD players and car radios... Think of the eBooks so ridden with restrictions you can't have them on your home and mobile computer, you can't print them and in some extreme cases, can't search them. Think of the region encoded DVDs, just so you can't legally play a legally bought legit copy of a movie for half the price abroad once you get back home, just because publishers want to decide which country can support the most margin, and wish to enforce it even in your living room. Piracy never was the real reason behind those anti-consumer protections, piracy is only the excuse the content publishers have found to make money at the expense of both the consumers and the content creators, adapting to the new environment not by giving creators and consumers what they want (which would virtually eliminate the need for publishers and their fat margins, look at TK's business model), but by slowly but surely switching from a possession economy to a licence economy, where you don't own the music you paid for and can use it, resell it, transfer it as you see fit for your own purpose, but instead the publisher decides what you can do with the music, how you should listen to it, how long you are allowed to use it, etc... There has been precedent of this new economy where the servers authorizing the licences failed, or the services closed, leaving consumers unable to use the products for which they paid for (the DVD-HD scheme was such a catastrophe, it was basically DVD with WMV-HD films, requiring the green light from a server to play the content, the trouble was 1) you could only play your DVD on a computer 2) running a very recent Windows OS as the codecs won't install 3) with an internet connection; the trouble was for some users of the scheme, the servers were never up, or closed quickly, leaving users who paid good money for the movies as a premium product with a new shiny beer coaster; or think of those who bought movies through the online Google scheme, only to be told month later that the service closed, so they lost their movies but were instead given credits to be used on things completely different, and offering no way to get the movies back). The trouble is the legislators simply do not understand the technologies and stakes of this matter, following their limited understanding of the question and who represents the most funding and votes. The publishers either do not understand the technology enough and fall into the anti-piracy frenzy (making some protection software publishers rich), or understand way too well and scared by having to completely rethink their activity, do all that is in their power to stop the changes in economy. The consumers now, are mostly oblivious; for the vast majority, there is no trouble, if something doesn't quite work, they just buy another format, another player, and mostly never think of the underlying issues; they never go beyond the initial frustration and how things used to be simpler. The geeks now, are informed enough, but unfortunately, most are quite radical and way too involved, so much in fact that most sound like complete unreasonnable fanatics (or lunatics for some), and some really are, not helping one bit to change the situation for the best, their caricatural behavior serving as an argument for over-protection of publishers. Quite frankly, this is a pity, as what started to be laws and rules to protect the interests of creators against publishers now serves to protect publishers against creators and consumers, and that is very bad indeed, for everyone. OK, rant off. Sparko, don't worry, I myself am very used to buying crippled games/CDs/DVDs and then simply using a less legitimate version simply to avoid the hassles (or, as in your case, simply to get it working at all) of my legally bought one, that may be legally dubious, but morally neutral. Gwar, morally AND legally speaking, while taking, in this specific case, is alright, giving is, alas, not (since SH3 can't be considered abandonware by any stretch of the term, and even then abandonware still is, in most instances, a grey area).

Sparko> It's just we have nothing better to do and positively love seriously arguing about something so trivial (especially since changing a name is one of the easiest change there is). Dels> Rapier has a Vought ring to it, somewhat not fitting as most Vought crafts were Navy crafts and the Rapier name might evoke the cursed Cutlass, another (Vought) plane named after a blade type.

Razor fits, that's why it would probably be an unofficial nickname, just like Warthog is better known than Thunderbolt II. But here we are talking about official designation, most of which ARE lame. And anyway, once it proves itself in combat, the damn thing would be known as Straight Razor... Whatever is chosen, once out, I will fly it as Warhawk II over the Taiwan Straight. ;)

Silverbolt, What-If are even more fun it they take verisimilitude into account, otherwise they are just fantasy, so why bother to model it at all, we could just use a box and everyone would just pretend it's a high-resolution model. ^^ Since I was not under the impression the F-29 was part of a Ace Combat/Macross/Whatever Is Fashionable, I assumed it strived for verisimilitude (the quality of ressembling thruth). Anyway, it was just a motivated and argumented opinion, whatever happens, once out, you can still rename and mod the damn thing how you please. You could even paint it pink and have unicorns on the wings if that strikes your fancy, which, strangely, I doubt. Talos, unfortunately, no, this is no precedent, let me explain why : In the case of the Tiger, you have the F-5E Tiger II, named in the 70's. Then you have the european recon/patrol/escort/attack helo, originally named Tigre/Gerfaut/whatever in France and PAH-2 (then a host of other designations as focus shifted and intended missions evolved) in Germany (I'm not aware of Tiger being an official name for the machine in German service, as it would be unusual for the Germans, the Tigre's predecessor was simply known as PAH-1). Notice that in this case, the US designation predates the European one (europeans never gave a damn about what the rest of the world calls their hardware, our names are often purely national and in our own language, we never really made efforts to "translate" Viggen, Gripen, Rafale, Mirage... for export purposes). Now, in the Lynx case, we have the Westland helicopter named at the beginning of the 70's, before the naming of the F-29, thus, the US, having a naming policy avoiding confusion not only nationaly but internationally, would certainly not use the name. Different situations, different outcomes.

Ok guys, what was your first taste of combat flight simulator, and by that I mean a game in contemporary or historical setting, with "real" planes and played from the cockpit. Mine was LucasFilm Games/Lawrence Holland's "Their Finest Hour : The Battle of Britain" (it was indeed, one of the first four games I owned, the other three being SimCity, M1 Tank Platoon and Zak McKracken), which I played, at first, in 1989 on a ridiculous 8088 with a CGA (4 colors, black, white, cyan and the dreaded magenta) display. Can't believe the time I spent playing at the time, anyway, that started a long, very long serie of simulators over the years. So, what was the first sim that got you hooked to the genre ?

Ok, let's be rationnal for one minute : We have to consider DoD's naming style, USAF naming tradition and current fancy as well as Northrop/Grumman heritage. The Northtrop/Grumman part points toward a cat name, because it is mostly a Grumman plane AND a F-5 derivative, itself named, in its E variant, after a Grumman plane named after a big cat. - Razor, sounds "cool", 70's/80's "cool" that is, and definitely not a name in the tradition of either the manufacturer or the USAF. - Lynx, in keeping with Grumman's tradition, but already taken by a helo from an allied country, still in service. - Panther II, follows Grumman's heritage, yet fails to capture the imagination. - Puma, see above, plus the trend seems to be paying homage to legendary planes. - Cobra II, even though the YF-17 was named Cobra, the name didn't stick because of the helo, also, since the original Cobra was assigned to a prototype and thus was never officially assigned, it would still be Cobra (unless in your distopian setting the F-17 was produced, in which case the Cobra II wouldn't be used either, as the F-17 would still be in service when the question of naming the F-17 occurs), not Cobra II, which reinforce the rejection of the name to avoid confusion with the AH-1. - Warhawk II, a Curtiss-Wright name, whose heritage is "lost", if I really wanted to defend it by being ridiculous, I'd suggest using the link with the Flying Tigers to come back to the big cat theme, plus the homage. - Kittyhawk II, only as an homage, with no other relation, plus it's not a fancy enough name for the period. - Raven II, well, the first Raven performed a completely different duty and was retired not so long ago, so it is dubious the name would be chosen, also, seeing a Grumman bird taking the name of a plane whose role after retirement was taken over by another Grumman plane seems, strange, also, in your distopian timeline, the F-29 would enter service while the EF-111 is still in service, so the Raven name wouldn't be reused anyway. So, Raven II, Cobra II and Lynx would certainly not be used; Razor seems improbable; Warhawk II, Kittyhawk II are in keeping with celebrating WWII planes; Panther II and Puma are in keeping with Grumman's heritage but seem somewhat... tame. Oh, and did I say that "Razor" sounds lame, like something that would sound cool only after watching "Top Gun" again and again for a week. Anyway, just my very biased 2 cents...

Unfortunately the latest 7200rpm drives from Seagate, Western Digital and Samsung are less expensive, offer more space, consume less, heat up less and make way less noise. Except in some very precise uses, they also offer better performances (even though the new 300GB version should partially close the performance gap). So, unless you know what you are doing and that you will benefit from it, the Raptor series are just shiny, noisy, hungry gadgets bringing no real benefit besides bragging rights. BTW, I owned pairs of 74GB and 150GB Raptors, at first supposedly to improve system performances and due to the disappointing comparison with any modern 7200rpm drive in real use situation, used them to house databases, where they really shined as a low cost alternative to SCSI drives.

As a matter of fact, depending on the mother, it's either a Liger (Lion male, tiger female) or a Tig®on (Tiger male, lion female). Ligers are generally larger and way more impressive than Tigrons. Anyway, I voted Warhawk II, for nostalgia reasons and because the P-40 (and what it stands for) is well worth an homage.

Well, traditionnally Navy dual seaters have had very differentiated pits with a pilot and a radar/weapons/system/whathever officer, while Air Force aircrafts had more similar pits, both crew being able to fly the plane and being qualified pilots. Since either the NATF or the AF/X were Navy planes I would say something along the Superbug lines would be more logical (if you ignore the A-12 exception). Also, since the A-12, the doctrine evolved toward a more network centric task repartition, so you could see the AFX/NATF as a super-dual-seat-superbug. Now, from a gameplay point of view and given SFP engine limitations, a pit with all functionnalities is probably more interesting though. Well, that's my 2 cents, I can't remember reading anything concerning the pits.

From what I remember that's not exactly the story. In the 80's the USN was pushing a few programs to modernize the fleet, namely the next generation strike aircraft that was to be the ill-fated A-12, the interim solution that was the A-6F (a reengined, rewinged, renforced A-6) and the upgraded F-14D. Unfortunately funding, development troubles and political pressure forced the USN to drop the A-6F, then the A-12, leaving them with no heavy strike airframe. That's when they started the AX program (not to be confused with the USAF AX which gave birth to the A-10) to procure an advanced strike aircraft (mostly a reboot of the A-12 procurement process). But in the meantime they still needed an interim strike aircraft to replace the aging A-6, the two main proposal were transforming the F-14D to a more multirole aircraft (with plans to produce new built F-14D AND converting the whole Tomcat fleet to the D standard), or an evolution of the Hornet (what would become the SuperBug). For various reasons, but mostly budget ones, the procurement of new F-14D was limited (about 40) and only a handful of of upgrades were performed, making the Super Hornet program a vital and crucial one for the USN if they wished to keep some operationnal capability. At approximately the same time, the ATF program for the USAF was progressing and a NATF variant was studied for the USN, as a long term replacement for the aging Tomcats, but due to budgetary constraints and afraid of losing yet another program, the Navy cancelled the NATF program, favoring the SuperBug and thus chosing strike capacities over air superiority. The AF/X program was born from those cancellations, as the Navy was now with a handful of interim air superiority oriented fighters (F-14D), a handful of aging heavy strike aircrafts (A-6), quite a lot of light strike aircrafts not suited to modern constraints (F/A-18A/C), an in-development interim heavy strike aricraft (F/A-18E) and no long term solution in development for either strike or air superiority. The AF/X was thus started, to procure a modern heavy strike aircraft with good air capabilities. As you know, the AF/X was cancelled (which must have been a dreadful time, imagining the future of the USN with an interim design being the only modern asset). Yet, it was not completely dead, as the need for a long term solution for the USN was still present, and the AF/X specification served as the basis for the Navy part of the JSF requirement. BTW, if they had chosen the AF/X over the F/A-18E, the Navy would have been without a heavy strike aircraft and possible Tomcat replacement before at least the 2020's, which was clearly unacceptable in a context where budgets were shrinking and it was safer to bet on a well underway program than one that could be cancelled, go over-budget, thus leaving the USN with no plane at all. PS : A quick look at Greg Goebel's site partly confirms my memories, yeah !

Wonderful, I never saw the 3rd picture before. IIRC, on the AF/X it was supposed to house a FLIR/Laser designator/tracker combination, but without sources to confirm it right now (even though that seems logical).

By the Lord's Holy Loincloth, you have me grinning like an imbecile. Actually I think what you have here is an AF/X proposal (Lockheed's one if I'm not mistaken), not a NATF one. But that was a good choice as it looks way better than the NATF proposals I know (closer to the F-22, single seaters and somewhat more angulous in design), even though the target performances of the AF/X program were lower than the NATF (the AF/X was more the search for a heavier Hornet complement (a "stealthy" self escorting mud mover, the Super Bug somewhat replacing it) while the NATF was a navalised F-22, primarily destined to air superiority. Strangely enough there seems to be very little information on the AF/X requirement lying around on the net. IIRC, the AF/X requirement was started to find a replacement for the cancellation of both the NATF program and the A-12. Judging by the lines you probably worked from the artist's impression and cutouts once published in Air & Cosmos (I can't remember if they were published elsewhere, any mention of these drawings I found always point back to A&C). Brilliant anyway, wish I was that good when it comes to modelling -_-

May you please make your request clearer ? Are you in search for a specific trainer aircraft ? Have you checked it's not already available in the downloads section ? Or are you asking for a trainer/cheat program ? That would be strange as WoE, being a flight simulator doesn't have or need one, you just have to lower difficulty and/or learn to fly. Or maybe are you asking for a tutorial, in that case, narrowing down what you are trying to learn will probably yield better results.