UnknownPilot

Yeah, I always have an enemy targeted (air or ground) due to the issues with visibility at a distance in this sim. I haven't noticed if they drop all their iron in one pass or not, I know they keep searching and destroying things, and they usually have something available if I direct them to a target, so I just assumed they were being judicious, just like me.

Smokey, it's not all bad. I've been telling my secong wing to free range vs either Air or Ground (depending on mission) and they do it, and they get kills. Often I will tell my #2 to attack my target, just so I can pre-occupy said target a little better. Sometimes he does seem to go off into lala-land, but quite often I find myself competing with him to get the kill. And they do use missles (and bombs). I hear lots of "winchester" calls too (normally from other flights I think, but that's still AI friendlies). When I find a cloud of enemy, I want other friendlies with me, even if all they do is serve as targets for the enemy, they still split the fire. lol But all in all I've been finding the wingmen to be quite useful and "satisfying" (not too good, but not worthless or frustrating either). [i have to say this is most true on ground strikes, a flight of 4 of us will simply obliterate the entire area around the primary target, and I will use #2 as spare ammo, directing him to targets, and he goes after them - calling out, "in hot" and "off", mixed with frequent "Shack!"'s. It's really rahter fun to think of all the devestation we end up causing as a unit. hehe ]

Black Lions. Interesting. :) Every time I hear that I think of Voltron. lol (no offense intended, just the screwed up nature of my mind) What does "SJ" mean?

That's a real shame. When you're down in the weeds in Vietnam or in cities of any place, the challenge and thrill is avoiding not just the dirt, but also all the things poking up form it. (heck, in LOMAC you even have to worry about power/phone lines and fences IIRC - that really puts a new spin on things) It's just as important for immersion as ground and aerial collisions - at least when you have dedicated attack craft. If it was aimed entirely at Air 2 Air stock, then it would be understandable. (granted, time and money aren't exactly falling from the sky, but still.... it's imporant)

I don't think it's so much a matter of when it comes to flight sims specifically, but rather just a natural extension of patriotism and appreciation. I'm largely part German and have always identified with that (so American-ized that nobody in my family speaks German, though I do speak ein wischen thanks to HS and personal interst/study), and of course I like the planes and symbols (aesthetically) of both WWI and II Germany, so, when IL2 hit, I was a dedicated LW-jock. Then again, I'm so American that my "heros" (generally speaking, I'm too independent to have heros in the truest sense of the word) are The Founders (Franklin, Jefforson, and Henry in particular), so let's just say me and anything communistical are like oil and water. Or perhaps more like sugar and yeast, and I'm the yeast - . lol So that's another reason for me to "fly blue" in IL2. Likewise, in the PTO (IL2: PF) attacking the USN in a Japanese plane just doesn't sit well.... That said, in a DF server, while I used to always fly just one side, I'll now go wherever I have to and fly whatever plane is interesting. Being a plane wh0re, I enjoy La7s and Yak3 and MiG-9s, BUT.... I do tend to prefer to put Balkenkreuzes on them. (they really do look good with late war white crosses on them) - given the choice, these days I just look for either a preferred plane (which generally speaking is LW or USN or USAAC, almost in that order lol), or whatever I'm in the mood for, whcih sometimes gets a little more obscure. Still, there is nothing more enjoyable than using a US plane to down a Soviet one. hehe One of the great things about this sim. (love Su-33s and MiG-29s - just as long as they are in non-Soviet use (Russian fine, just not Soviet or any other Commie regeme)

lol Cool! hehe, reminds me of all that Bear escort shots in the Screen Shot thread - "I'm about to go a'huntin' MiG's", mutated from "we're about to go a'huntin' bear" ("they even had a bear in the air!" 'Convoy')

Dedicated Mud Mover, eh? I find that very enjoyble as well. I tend to go back and forth, no matter the genre or sim, between A2A, and A2G. I would probably say that A2A is the sexy part, and my first "love", but moving mud is every bit as much fun, if not more-so (and oddly enough, A2A still remains more sexy and appealing lol). Any particular reason you pick those particular ones though? Is the 334 TFS your actual unit?

Being an IL2-er myself, I gotta say that when talking about this thread's subject, _favorite_, ie, preferable or most enjoyable, the idea that dogfights should be looked upon with disdain really smacks of sour grapes to me. Ignoring the notion of strike missions, when it comes to air to air combat, the idea is man and machine vs man and machine. Who gets the drop, who can turn the tables, who can get the most out of their plane, etc. And for that, it's all about the guns. From the Fokker E.III to the F-4J and everything in between. Seeing a target on your scope and loosing a missile then waiting for it to either disappear and not knowing if it's down, or for it to miss... enh. There's an appeal to it, but it gets stale pretty quickly. Getting up close, down n dirty, and earning that kill is so much better. OR... even popping some bandit asleep at the stick, say maybe coming high and hot out of the sun and blasting him out of the sky before he ever knew you were there, that's awesome too. (Boelcke, Richtofen, and Hartmann were on to something afterall.... hehe) (some consider it "cold" and maybe not being earned, but the earning is in preparation and planning, like a sniper. And it's most satisfying with heavy weapons and either sawing a wing off or detonating the target - Butcher Bird, Jug, Pfeil, Schwalbe, and the Wing are my favorite for that purpose. [though it's also awesome to take out a TnB'er with The Wing, fighting their fight, too, they always cry lol ] - Unloading copious amounts of lead from those multiple heavy cannons or 8 M2s, seeing the flames and tracers, hearing those satisfying thuds or saw-like sounds, and watching the enemy pop like a balloon... it really brings out one's fangs ) I dunno, I like all kinds. Missile kills are greatest when you let go of immersion and go movie-style, hit F9 and track the missile in and see it nail the bandit at long-ish range. That is satisfying. As is using the systems on board for more than just eye-candy, finding the target, tracking his range, selecting the weapon, judging the merge rate, figuring out how to intercept him on the fly, etc. For the era I've been messing with though, mid-60s, AIM-9s are just dead weight and Sparrows work best against target drones. So I always carry a gunpod, or fly a fighter with an integrated gun. Use the radar to find and track the bandit (and on the F-8 it seems keeping a lock helps with the gun sight too), then use old school energy tactics to fly circles around him, get off that snap shot, and watch him go down in flames, then get the hell out and start scanning for anyone that might have gotten too close in those vital target fixation moments. I won't reserve any ammo though. lol I'll use missiles first then move to guns and try to come home with as many racked up as I can, however they were obtained.

I see... that makes sense. :) I just noticed that it writes it differently too. When I started out, it said "Second Lieutenant", but then I switched to Navy, changed to Ensign, and earned a promotion from doing just the 4 Range Intercept missions and 2 (or 3? can't remember) successful carrier trap missions, it now says "2nd Lieutenant". Pretty neat. :) I guess I should make a different pilot for USAF stuff though, rather than jumping back and forth with 1 pilot and mass accumulating all scores.

From the games perspective (for however well the various things are modeled), I have to disagree that F-4s are "the perfect MiG killers". Yes, they are fast and powerful, but... that only takes you so far. Used effectively, the F-8 is actually more deadly against MiGs (17s anyway, but that's my frame of reference as I typically use only the F-4B w/gun-pod, I like the early stuff). If the F-8 had just a bit more thrust, it would be nigh-on perfect. Also, the F-104 is in a whole 'nother league, it simply blows the F-4 out of the water (so to speak) when it comes to air to air combat in this era of flaky missiles. Faster, better thrust to weight, and despite the wing-loading, perhaps because of the thrust, or perhaps because of over enthusiastic flight modelling (I'm not sure), it actually ends up being more agile than the Phantom, and it's roll rate is unmatched (roll is important, ask Spitfire pilots about the introduction of the FW-190 lol). The F-104 and F-4 share a common negative point though, fuel - lack of it. As great as the power of the Phantom is, it's actually difficult to use it, because the flight to target is so long that on the one hand you've used most of your fuel already, and on the other hand, need most of what's left to get home, so you can't really linger and play. And because it turns like a brick, you almost NEED to use that power in a method similar to what you describe. When it comes to energy fighting though, it's so much more than simply going up and down. A high (or low) yo-yo is only as effective as the turning capability of the plane. In other words, if you can't turn around in the horizontal, you can't turn around in the vertical. So by the time you get a brick to come around, all you've really done is waste fuel. Unless the enemy is stupid. Even if he can't even hope to come close to your climb, he can still watch you, and while you're floundering near stall, or even trying to get over the top, can nail you. Or run away. Or zip around to stay out of your sights as you struggle to regain air speed. This is where the F-8, F-104, and honestly even the F-100, do better. The real problem is that none of them have Sparrows, nor the level of ground pounding ability that the F-4 has. Depending on how you match up, and how your plane behaves, energy fighting can be as simple as staying above the enemy (not climbing in the fight so much as entering it above, and staying there, making him fight uphill and on the verge of stall). This seems to work pretty well with the F-100 and F9F-8. The F-104 as well, mostly because it just rockets up and likes to stay there. lol It's also about who sees who first - the classic "boom n zoom", dive down at great speed, slash through them, and then, depending on your plane, either run away flat (often called hit and run), or zoom climb back up (true classic BnZ). There's many ways to do it, and it's more involved than even that, hard to discuss really, especially in just one post. But it really boils down to seeing the enemy as early as possible (and preferably first), maneuvering into a better position, and then smartly holding onto that position, utilizing a lot of knowledge of his planes abilities, and your own (plane's abilities), and how they stack up against each other (as that will always dictacte tactics). And it is always most effective in many on many engagements. But that means that almost any plane can "energy fight" almost any other plane. If that MiG-17 comes in high and stays high, and you doggedly hit the burners and try to climb after him, thinking the power of your thrust is unlimited and makes you invincible, he deftly moves around, and waits for you to stall or pull out of the climb, then fills you full of green tracers. Probably one's greatest asset here, IMO, when it comes to taking out enemy aircraft, is your wingmen. Your #2 is useless at covering you, but can be used to double team 1 target, and help tilt the odds faster, while #3+ can be unleased on the whole enemy flight or brought in on 1 target. Ah... Well that was obvious enough, doh! lol Thanks. :)

Regarding the Bombing Range terrain... I downloaded and installed it tonight. I noticed it was for SF1, not SF2, so I knew there would be a little more to getting it to work. I pointed the installer to the SF2 mods directory, then looked and found that it made a "terrain" directory next to the "terrains" directory. So I moved the contents from the singular to the plural, fired it up, and sure enough, the intercept missions ARE there. But... how do you use the bombing part? There are no specific bombing missions. Am I missing something in the install, or do you just have to load bombs and go hit something, ignoring the target drone (and the mission parameters, getting a "failure" result)? Even in that case though, other than the F-4, there are no attack craft present, no F-105, no A-1/4/6/7, etc. Come to think of it, there's no F-104 either (from the fighter side).

Here's something that should help that - http://www.bunyap2w1.com/Range_SFP1.htm I have seen reference to it here in the forums, but just found the download today. I plan on downloading and installing it tonight when I get home. I wish I could offer more "by the numbers" steps, but honestly, I never really bothered to learn it that way. I just started doing it and kind of building an intuitive 'skill' for it. And in all honesty, I could probably do better if I actually did it in a more scientific method. Another technique, which is even harder to master, is lobbing. I've mainly seen it used for skip bombing shipping in IL2 (though you don't need to lob it to skip bomb there, technically), what you do is come in very low, and pitch up and release, essentially "lobbing" the bomb up into an arc. The advantage here would be that you could be pulling up and turning away to avoid the blast, while still allowing you to be cutting the grass with a standard bomb type. however.... it contains more variables and is much more difficult. Some other things to note : - For level bombing - Retarded bombs will not travel as far, so you will have to release closer to the target, but you can be lower. Standard bombs will not slow down near as much, so if you are too low, you may still get caught in the blast radius. - Try to line up on your target length-wise if you can. ie, if it's a ship, hit it from stem to stern or vice versa, rather than broadside; hit an armor column or row of tanks (fuel/oil/water/etc) inline with the row, rather than across it, etc. This way, if you are a little long or short you still hit your target. An interesting links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing I was trying to find a chart, or even a step by step guide for IL2 (just because it's computer-less, fixed site, unguided iron delivery), but came up emtpy. I know I basically outlined this above, but partly for my own benefit, want to re-touch and expound a bit: If you are at 1000ft Above Ground Level, your bomb will take [t = √(2alt/g) = ] about 8 seconds (7.9ish). If you are travelling at 300kts at the time (TAS), you (and for practical intents and purposes, your bomb) will travel [1Kts = 1.68781 feet per second] approximately 4,050.7 feet forward. Which means, at that speed, and height, you would need to drop 4,050.7 feet from your target. However, the question is, what would you see at that alt, that far from your target? Depends on the downward view. If you could find, or determine, the angle of view from your pilot's virtual eyes, you could then determin just how far ahead of you something could remain visible before disappearing beneath the nose, this would be varied by altitude (simple triangle geometry). So from that, you could then play with speeds (available to you) and altitudes to find the right combination to hit your target every time based on a chosen reference point, be it the reticle, or upper dash frame. In fact, you could further modify that to line it up, count X number of seconds then release, and still be just as accurate. Again, the key is knowing that angle and what it means at your chosen altitude above ground level. Trouble is, I don't know where to locate that last piece of vital information. So that's where trial and error come in, and why I tend to just guesstimate and rely somewhat on intuition and utilize a dive. I really would like to be able to do it level though, would make things so much easier (and safer). And all this goes largely out the window with the retarded bombs, as they pop drag brakes upon release, so then you need to know just how much they slow down, which will be based on initial release speed, and it just gets a bit more complex.

USAFMTL, thanks for that link. Cool site. Now I have a new question about the series.... I've re-read the manual and searched the forum here, but found nothing. My pilot started out as a 2nd Lieutenant, but has suddenly dropped to Ensign for no reason that I can see. At least, his record stands at 3 successes in 3 missions total, so.... does not accepting a result demote you? (had to do that a few times ) Or is it something to do with jumping between USAF and USN? It's a bit disappointing, but also seems a bit odd to be leading a flight in a campaign as an Ensign. lol

I've not actually gone A2G in an F-4 yet (even though it is quite arguably just a bomb truck), because I prefer to use the dedicated strike craft for that role (A-7, A-4, A-6, F-105, etc). However..... it would really end up being much the same. Have you ever done any WWII prop simming? If so, ever done any ground attack in them? It's really the same thing (with some of the parameters being slightly different). If not, you have to basically just practice and work on finding a technique that works. There are some methods that allow you to do low alt level bombing, involving speed, approximated distance and alt AGL. The good news is that Navy planes give you a TAS reading along with a RADAR altimeter. So then the technique involves lining up level at a set speed, and knowing where the target should be in your view for you to release and have your bombs hit. Part calculation, lots of experimentation (unless someone else has already done the work). [basic idea being that the bomb will fall at a known rate, thus taking a calculable time to fall from your given altitude, and at your given speed, will have to be dropped a given distance out] Personally, I dive bomb. Just more intuitive for me, and overall easier. It's not without it's downsides though (having to pop-up into enemy air defense RADAR, risk of hitting the ground, or being caught in your own blast, etc). In a prop, what I would do is come in from several thousand feet in a fairly steep dive, and know that I could pull out very late. In a jet.... because of the AAA you don't want to be that high, so you have to do shallow bombing. I do use the reticle, but know that the bomb will fall short of the aim point, so I aim a little higher, guestimate, and rely on the blast radius. It works. I've had more success in A2G than A2A. The stats claim that I am missing with my bombs, but the targets are blowing up, I'm getting kill credit and the missions are being accomplished. Hope that helps. Just work on getting the stick time.

I loved the puzzles and the story, and the music and the feel. Speaking of the music, it was done by "The Fatman", who also did music for Wing Commander, a score I also love. (god, hearing it in my head as I type this, and it's causing swelling nostalgia and Confed patriotism hehe ) The good part about 7th Guest from a modern perspective is that none of the puzzles were against the computer. The 11th Hour has this one othello like game and because it's written to use the computer as an opponent, but 486s and Gen 1 Pentiums, running it on a P4 3.2 results in an impossible opponent, and there is no cheat code or walkthrough to help get you past it. grrr.....

I have found that I generally love all things Grumman, and so, they are my favorite design house. The Hellcat is my favorite combat plane of WWII, and I like the Wildcat too, though the FM-2 is a mean little thing. And the Bearcat is a Hellcat on steroids and diet pills. The F7F (the Tigercat, mistakenly called the F11F Tiger that, whoops) is a beautiful twin, I like it and I'm not even a fan of twins. The Panther was kinda cool, but the Cougar was just mean. Long before I ever heard of Grumman, I saw Flight of the Intruder, and ever since have been a fan of that plane. Lately I've found a new appreciation for the Tomcat as well (in general, I'm not a fan of 2 seaters, but the 2 that I do really like are the Tomcat and Phantom (II)). At some point I looked back and realized, "wow, all these planes I like so much are all from Grumman" lol. I guess with them now being out of the plane making buisness, and some of their great potential designs being brushed aside, I just love the "what if" idea of revving them up. The F9F-8 available for SF2 on this side is a real sweetheart. It can't out turn a MiG, but can hang with it a bit, especially at higher speeds, handles beatifully (if one is not comparing it to a MiG 17 directly), fairly fast, climbs well... and with a good E advantage can't be touched by a MiG (even though the MiG is technically faster and a better climber). It's actually somewhat reminiscent of an F6F-5/6 vs A6M5. But.... yeah, the F-8 is cool too. I love that crazy articulated wing it's got. That's just wild. The AIM-9 racks are quite funky too. (funky in a cool/unusual way) And the A-7 is death from above with super long legs. The integrated cannon is nice too. That's the only downside of the Intruder. Hey, speaking of which, the FOTI edition download has a gunpod, something I didn't see listed in the Wiki of it's armaments, but I can't tell where it's shooting since it's not integrated to the site. Is there a trick or technique there? (also, would love to see a breakdown comparison/competition between the A-7 and A-6 just for interest's sake) That Super Crusader is kinda ugly with the goofy mouth and long nose, but the performance was damned impressive. I heard that NASA pilots used to bounce, DF, and pwn Navy Phantom pilots until they complained enough that the Navy had to ask NASA to quit.

I'm guessing that water injection acts similarly to the boost on an ICE engine, sprayed into the supercharger's compressor, the water acted like an intercooler, cooling the intake charge, allowing it to be more dense providing better power. I'm guessing the same is true on the compressor side of an axial flow turbine. But I would also guess that an afterburner would provide even more thrust. The F9F-6 and 8 didn't have an afterburning engine according to what I've read. There was an account of an F-4 Phantom that was modified with water injection to reach a speed record, so it seems that the 2 systems are compatible, but the production version just had a burner. As do most aircraft, so it seems to be a better system (would be my guess anyway). Grumman always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and it sucks. The Bearcat was a world beater, just too late. The Cougar could have been outstanding with more power, but it was too early, etc. They did well with the Intruder and Tomcat at least, but I've read good things about the Tigercat too, and that was bought just as a bet hedge against the F-8, which seems to suggest that the Navy already had their mind made up, so long as the F-8 didn't totally suck balls, and once it showed that it didn't, they dropped the F11F rather than seeing where it could go. Some sources say the F-8 was a better performer, but.... slap some J-79s in the F11F and it would be a beast. But by the time they did, nobody cared anymore. Either way, the Blue Angles used them until transitioning to the F-4, so that seems to say some positive things about them. Enh, but anyway..... I just think that an F9F-8 with afterburner (perhaps even a touch more dry thrust if one speculates a total engine model change rather than just a simple matter of adding injectors to the existing model), would be a great what-if, and great fun to use along side F-8s to slap MiGs around.

Hehe, no worries Toonces. If all stalkers were as helpful as you people would brag about having them. ;) Interesting, and it makes sense too. I guess I'll just have to live with it, not that big a deal really. I just can not afford a new system now (or any time soon) so I'll have to make do with some oddness. You have any thoughts on Widesky? I've heard great things about it, and it does look great, but... does it eat frames? Would turning it off bump up my fps any? Regarding ENB Series, it seems totally hit or miss. I tried it anyway and on the stock game with my settings it took me from the low 20s up to the low/mid 30s. Was great. Then I upgraded my nvidia drivers from 190.something to the latest (195.62 IIRC) and didn't see the fps change any. But with this Expansion pack it dropped to the high teens/low 20s if I'm up high. Lower if in or around a city. So I turned things down more and brought them up to the low/mid 20s. At least it's not choppy anymore, but ideally for a flight sim, high 20s/low 30s are about the minimum one should have I think.

Compared to mouse or hat switch, I'm sure this is true. I use the microstick on my Cougar's throttle to control the view (mapped as a mouse) in every sim except LOMAC (where I use it to control target selection). That too takes some getting used to, but this was before TiR was developed, and I have become adept and smooth enough with it that I don't need PL in IL2 anymore and can also use it to smoothly pan the view while the aircraft is turning, such as on landing approach. The only downsides are that you can't use it for something else (such as target selection) unless you use the shift button (on the stick), but then that also means you can't use that shift button and another function together. Generally speaking that's really not much of a limitation though. Even hard pressed to think of a situation were it really would be a limitation. lol Also you can't use 6DoF, as it's X/Y only. And finally, for some reason, in SF2 it's very slow in panning around. It's a touch slow in IL2 as well, but there is an option for ramping up response speed to the mouse inside IL2 itself. Is there something I can hack/modify in SF for the same purpose? It seems to be a hardware limitation in the Cougar. I have it set to maximum mouse speed output, but my real optical Logitech "gaming" mouse it exponentially faster, with both the cursor and SF view control. So since the Cougar can't drive any faster, I would have to ramp up speed response/sensitivity inside the application (like IL2). Even if not possible, it's still livable right now, it would just really be nice to be able to do. No source that I can quote. And you may well be right that it's ok. But I find it a bit disturbing that it says "more than 16 minutes". Why not more than 4 hours? I don't know about you but when I fire up a simming session, I tend to find it taking up several hours at a clip. Also, this is just one of my personal quirks. Just like people say that getting hammered isn't really a health risk (so long as you don't make a daily habit of it, or try to drive in that state), but I have still never done so because of health class driving home the point of liver and brain cell damage. Yeah, on rare occasions it probably doesn't happen at all, or enough to ever notice or worry about, but.... I still don't. Or how I freak out over scratches on my car or DVD box set boxes, or PC game boxes (which I keep and collect - even spend time in the store examining them to find the most flawless example... lol). Yeah, I'm weird, I know. lol In a Sukhoi, definitely. (I do love that 33) Even somewhat in a MiG-29 (another beautiful plane). But not so much in an Eagle. It does bleed speed pretty bad in a tight turn, and doesn't turn all that well at all. It requires one to energy fight. Which, I hate to sound like a broken record, but I do contend is essentially like fighting a 190 in a Jug, or fighting a Spit in a 190, or fighting a Ki-43 in a Warhawk, or fighting basically anything in either a Do-335 or Me-262. Speed, altitude, and overall Energy advantage must be attained, and maintained, making them fight your fight, and extending as necessary to reset. Yes, there are differences in just how that is done, but boiled down, the basic theory/concept still works. :) But I do see your point though. I can see some major differences in the 104 vs F4 vs F-100 vs F9F (god I love that thing - what I wouldn't give to see it with re-heat, and maybe even a little more dry thrust from an improved engine). They still get used the same way, more or less, but they react and behave differently enough that nuances must be addressed and specific tactics have to be tailored to suit. Which, btw, is AWESOME. :)

Yep. That was it. So it's all fixed now. :) BTW, I'm seeing large white squares around shore lines and river beds. Any idea what that is? I did not apply the 5th part, the terrain updates, this time, because this pack kills my frame rate, and I thought it might be the new maps, but it wasn't, frame rates still took about 40-50% hit, I've turned almost everything but the cockpit detail down to medium or low and have it in the mid 20s now so it's playable. One thing I noticed was that in a night mission, the frame rate was still low, but it was stormy and when I got above the solid overcast, the frame rate jumped into the 50s! I figured it would increase, but the amount surprised me. So it's something with the new maps in the expansion pack. However, I must say they look fantastic! I am using the ENBSeries dll. Previously that gave me nearly 50% more frame rate under given settings, on the stock game. Any thoughts on how to reclaim some frames? Does widesky consume many? I was ok with it before, so perhaps I could turn that off if it'll increase fps any. (just thinking out loud) I'm trying to avoid dropping res. Currently at 1280x960 (desktop res) on a GF 6600 and P4 3.2 (2GB). Prior to this pack, I had tried dropping to 1024x768 and didn't see an increase in fps, but did see a drop in quality, so I went back up. Also.... I just gotta say, that Starfighter is something else! So much speed, acceleration, and a roll rate that would make a 190 blush. Plus it pulls some good Gs too with the speed it's able to get and keep. And it likes to get high, and stay high.... and fast. Always did love that thing, but now, even more-so. I had been diggin' on the Phantom since I was inspired to pick this up, but in a straight up A2A fight... I dunno, I think the 104 has it in spades (assuming the enemy is close enough for it to reach with those short legs lol) Is the lock/track mode in the 104's radar CRT supposed to be missing the closure ring? It's not there on mine and I'm not sure if that's the way it's supposed to be or not. (do wish I could clip or retract that fuel probe, I know it needs it, but it spoils the lines of the missile [with a man in it]....but I'm just rambling here) Just been messing around with some of the content in single missions so far, can't wait to try the campaign. A HUGE thanks to all involved in this Expansion Pack.

How much of that "eye candy" aspect is simply because we don't use it properly? With the red box automatically highlighting your target and E/Crtl+E functionality, the ground map radar is allowed to fall into disuse, ultimately being eye candy as a result, but.... could the real thing actually lock on to a target and guide you in? In modern jets, the HUD will coordinate with the RADAR, lock on to a chosen target, guid you in, tell you range and elevation info, even give you a pipper that accounts for your speed, alt, AoA, target elevation, and bomb type so that you can place the dot on it, press the button, and forget about it. But that's in the A-10 and some other modern jobs. Not so much in these older ones. It's basically like mud moving in a Jug, or Pfeil. You gotta find it manually, then use skill to place the iron on target and get out. I still think there is a bit too much "haze" in this rendering engine, that everything is much more visible in other prominent ones (it's hard for me to see anything until I'm on top of it, then I need to back off and plan a run once I know where it is, would be much easier though if I could see at a greater distance - but then again, I'm on older hardware too and have to turn some of the settings down for the sake of frame rate, so I am sure some of it is my rig too), so that red box comes in handy. But still.... picture having that extra bit of info in a Jug loaded for bear with 2000 lbs of iron and some rockets. It's not a make or break, but it could certainly come in handy with the right training to use it. And as noted, the terrain avoidance is helpful as well (so long as your AoA is low enough, else you could still fly into the ground).

I think I see what happened. For some reason (that I really can't explain), I thought 7zip would take all the files and extract them all as a unit. So after I double clicked part 1, told it to extract and waited, I thought it was done (with all content from all 4 files). But it seems each of the 4 must be extracted. Am I ever embarassed. Also, after I read that readme, I see that the MiG-17 FM update is from MiGBuster and Fubar, so I'm guessing it is that download I linked to earlier. :) I wiped out my mods directory, had SF2:V recreate it, and am working on properly extracting (all) the files. Will try again. :)

It's been so long since I've played it, that I don't recall the mission you guys are talking about. But what about cheats? Surely there must be some for SL. It's not an ideal path, but, sometimes mission designers are a little over zealous and it results in that once mission that, for whatever reason, you just can't get past. No sense in letting that ruin the whole game. So I normally just cheat code my way past it, then turn them off and continue playing. In any game.

Thanks for the info on that guys, have been wondering for a while now. Eric, I've downloaded the 4 parts plus tile file, installed 7zip and extracted the .7z files into a temp directory, and followed the instructions to drop the "mod folder" content into my mods folder. Now, I come to the A-6 step and it says - I had already downloaded the FOTI A-6, but my mods Object\Aircraft directory does not contain the A-6B, nor either EA-6's. What should I do? Regarding the optional install parts, what does the MiG-17 stuff provide? I was looking at getting this - http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=9577 Is that what your MiG 17 optional install is, or is it updated to that, different from that, if so, how, etc? Also, unrelated to the patch, the FOIT cockpit is very tinted, like it has limo tint on it. Is there anyway to use regular glass in that? Thanks.

I've read something about the December patch and the Expansion Pack for SF2:V. I've also read something about SF2:V being released in December of 2009 as well. So.... is that patch applicable/necessary for the SF2:V I just bought after Christmas? (some of the patch fixes/upgrades I've read about appear to already be in my install) And... will it interfere with the application of the Expansion Pack 2.0 for SF2:V?