UnknownPilot

Is there a link to this somewhere? I'd love to read it.

You were that weird guy at Ubi that insisted on calling the 109, the "Fb-109", weren't you? Yeah, the only way to make the Thud truly effective in A2A is to improve acceleration and turn rate. And the best way to do both is to lighten it. It would have to be a top-down from the drawing board re-think by the engineers. And it would still need more wing. And probably a larger fuselage as well for a turbo-fan for better efficiency/range. It would be sort of like the F-8 to A-7 process. 2 seats are really NOT THE way to go for A2A, just A way to go. If you insist on using missiles as your primary tool, then you need hyper-complex radar, and in that age, that meant someone dedicated to it. But.... with the right ground coordination, proper training, and capable planes with acceptance that the gun is the final say, you could do quite well. IOW, picture 104s used in a manner similar to the intent of the Fishbeds. And of course, once technology improved sufficiently (late 70s), the next generation didn't need 2 people at all, and had more capability to boot (Eagle, Falcon, etc). Either way, like I said, the 101 has 2 seats already. And I love how it looks, it would be sooo cool to see it improved in a what-if scenario. Like I said, a pair of Phantom engines, and the Phantom's radar and missile setup, except with a gun, and you're basically all set. But add in the flaps and slats and you're even better off. Now if you get into more intensive redesigns, like new canopies, wings, etc. That gets into serious LOD stuff, and that is likely to be a long(er) time coming. A large wing 104 would be cool. But I don't think you need to even do that. Better radar, and more thrust, and you're basically good to go. Especially if you can improve on the AIM-9B (which the AF was notoriously bad at lol), but even that isn't a requirement. Also, I'd add some conformal drop tanks as well for increased range, which would allow them to use more fuel getting up higher, faster, and then drop down on the enemy in a superior E position (which they'd then be able to keep pretty easily). Or even burn it for brute forcing through the thick air to avoid SAMs and/or spooking the intended prey.

Can't wait!

Well, with it's power and it's gun, it IS a fighter... vs MiG-17s at least. I've used it as such. Just takes some effort and skill. However I probably need to go back to IL2 to brush up on mine. Been playing with über-fighters like the MiG-29A & OVT, Su-27A & SM, F-16A, and even F-14A. However, in regards to what-ifs in the Century Series.... What-if, the F-104 hadn't been tossed aside, abandoned so pre-maturely, but instead, had some of it's potential explored? It was after-all the single most effective fighter ever - it attained air superiority just by it's mere presence, grounding the MiG-21s, having the NVPAF fear for their very existance. Poorer (than nations willing to spend insane amounts on military [namely us and the sovs]) or not, the Italians, Germans, and Japanese got a lot out of them and extended their life span quite dramatically. What-if, that bastard McNamara hadn't forced the USAF to use a Navy plane? In lieu of an AF F-4, simply upgrade the F-101. McDonnell wasn't very inventiv in it's designs, you can see the Voodoo in the Phantom, and the Phantom in the Eagle. But anyway... the Voodoo already had 2 seat capacity, just give it a gun, the Phantom's radar, slap on some Sparrows and Sidewinders, and add more thrust (Phantom engines). Did it have full length leading edge slats? I can't recall. If not, then give it some. Perhaps even give it a "combat flaps" setting which could be used up to M.8 or so and provide more lift (ie, turning ability) in concert with the L.E. slats. That's sometihng I've been thinking about for a while now and would love to see. Then that takes us into - What-if after all this, they still decided they wanted more: more agility than either of those platforms could offer... 2 potentials, 1 is to boost the Delta Dart. It could have been our own Mirage. Another is to order the F-102 (though at that point, I'd re-designate it F-108, or 9). The trouble with the Fang is we'd need a modding guru to make it for us. And technically, it would be ideal to have a new LOD for the slats on the upgraded Voodoo, but you really could get by without it in a pinch (just code in the effects). For the Thud.... I'd say you'd have to build on the deisgn, but produce brand new airframes, if you really wanted that for intensive A2A roles - lighten it, increase wing area (and with that, fuel), give it more thrust, etc. Probably more work than hot-rodding the Voodoo, Starfighter, and/or Dart. I don't have WOE, unfortunatly. SFP1 and SF2:V are the only titles I have, and SF2:V is the only one that I've really used. What sorts of missions are they (that you were seeing success with it in)? And were those the IR or SARH versions?

This is the basic gist of what I was angling toward. Basically, what you're saying is, burn massive amounts of fuel, and spend a long time, getting to within not just gun's range, but a dead 6 shot within guns range, wait for tone, then wait some more just to make sure, then probably wait again for him to stop trying to evade for a second (basically giving you permission to shoot him), THEN fire your missile and hope it hits. Meanwhile, you could have shot him to bits 10 times over. Not to mention the option of high deflection shots or snap shots, either of which would drastically reduce your fuel consumption and either allow you more opportunity to shoot others down, or reduce your time on station getting shot at by AAA. The gun is the better option. This was true long past when the Navy thought it was dead. It was true right up into the modern era. And soon will be true yet again (for many reasons). Lt James, you would rate the AIM-4 as higher than the AIM-9B? While I bash the 9B, I have seen it actually track and try to hit (most if the time actually, it just tried unsuccessfuly is all), however I've never seen the AIM-4 track anything, at all, ever...

Well.... ya gotta go where the bad guys are, don'cha? If your tasked with fighter sweep, or TARCAP for a strike package down low, and the enemy fighters are down there, then you don't have much choice BUT to go down after them. And when you are riding in a high powered brick, the enemy will use it's greatest strength against you, it's ability to turn. This means that you have to do what you can to follow them and get the kill. On the one hand, the point was made that, if the 9B was designed for, and worked well at, high altitudes, that doesn't do crap when the fighting is down low (IRL or in-game). On the other hand, this came from a discussion about the in-game performance - and even if we can split the hair and say that the real missile performed better than people think it did, that's great, but doesn't mean squat here. We can't deal with issues of maintenance in-game any more than we can drag the Frescoes up high so we can shoot them. So let's take it from another angle then, in a typical SF2:V mission scenario, just how effective can you make the 9B, and(!!)..... at what price? How much fuel and effort will it take, and how much easier would it be just to use a gun?

Watching this I was reminded of the Lewis Black bit where he said that lack of laughter is what has the terrorists so screwed up, and then that Delenn quote came to mind since I was at a loss for a thread title.

Yep. Ya gotta laugh and have fun or you just go nuts.

Damn, that is great work! PLEASE release it.

Just seems strange that they always resort to N/S. hehe (which is why I thought there might be some sort of significance for it)

Which pit is that? (I mean, which download, I know which plane it's for. )

Heh, might as well open the canopy and throw rocks at them. (not a complaint about modeling, just going back to an earlier aside where people were suggesting that the 9B was good in some way. )

Which just back up the point that the AIM-9B sucks.

This has been stuck in my head for a while now, so I'm just gonna break down and reply to it. hehe Perhaps.... but you do need to always use the right tool for the job. The tool itself really DOES play a vital part. And in regards to the musician version of that phrase (that it is a poor musican who blames his instrument), isn't it interesting that all the best musicians have exquisite instruments, incredibly well made and often very expensive. (Satch may well be able to play better music on a fisher-price guitar than many other guitar players out there, but to truly work his magic, he needs instrumentation that allows him to flex, he needs his racks and amps)

Nice! I will be getting this when you release it. And chance you could work some magic on the Su-27A next? That is the one that really needs it (and desperately).

While it's true about techniques (from tactics to medicine) and technology (ditto), you really can compare casualties. Here's the thing, while this whole concept of sanctity of human life is utter bunk, IF we work under that notion, then each one should be seen as equal, right? And in that light, you can show how this screaming going on in the press and protestors of a few people going down here and there is utterly ridiculous. DON'T mis-read that. I'm not spitting on the graves of any fallen ally, and do wish condolences for those who lost someone close to them. My point is just that when you look at Normandy, people did what they had to do, knew there would be losses, and they gitted their teeth and moved on. There wasn't a hippy-loaded press-corp watching their every move, raising hell for harsh language or rough housing, or screaming to bring the troops back home. Likewise in the American Civil War. The losses were catastrophic. By comparison, war is almost harmless these days. So in otherwords, I'm not being cold about the losses we have today, just resentful toward the hippies and their behavior in regards to it. Also, this can be applied to histories villians too. Unless you wish to play favorites in regard to the value of one person over another, then Hitler is NOT histories greatest evil.... Stalin is. (but I know that is anathema to so many people that pine for his ideals)

Good point, thanks. But that still leaves the question of why they always pick THAT one - ok, occasionally it's 18, and I realize that is just coming the other way, but it's never 90, or 270, or 145, or 70, or whatever....

Hmm.... come to think of it, the most 'dangerous' AI is in later stuff. And not just because of missile advances (though largely so), but also because they are more aggressive. I just remembered that the EP2.0 had something about a MiG-17 FM update. I wonder if that's similar to the F-16 FM update, in that it hurt the AI....? I did make a copy of the original MiG directories. I might have to try swapping them tonight if I have time and think about it, and see if that makes any difference. As for the T-V on the Thud.... well, as long as it's not aggressive, and especially if you combine it with butterly-style flaps, like the Ki-84 had, then it could help to push the thing around a loop or turn via brute force without cranking AoA too much too fast. But mostly it would be a neat tech trick.

That's messed up. And seems to be par for the course anymore. Like our guys being accused of "torturing" terrorists when what was done was nothing more than school hazing. "Political Correcntess" will be the ruin of us all.

Yeah, given how it worked, I didn't think it would work with the A/B on. I was envisioning something for mil power. Though... I suppose it could still work in A/B, it would just constrict the flow a bit and lessen it's thrust (IRL). But like you said, it comes down to the animation itself as to whether it would require a new LOD. And that is out of my league unfortunately. :(

More on the original topic... what about that speed brake? I've thought of this as just a what-if for myself, never having heard about any plans or proposals for making the 105 more fighter. What I was thinking was X-31 style thrust vectoring. It opens for full A/B, and laterally for brake. Why not have the top and bottom coordinate in pitch? If the sides move just slightly out, then they aren't in the way and the hinge mechanism could be redesigned. For the game, AFAIK it should just be a coding thing, right? I don't really know how making TVC's effect works, or how the animation works, but since they already are animated to some extent, I thought it might be possible (without any further 3D work). It doesn't address range, but could provide more pitch control authority, and depending on T:W (especially if it was given a little more juice), it might end up being beneficial. ....hypothetically at least.

I dunno... While I can appreciate the desire to not mess up something that is "just so", the patches are an inexorable drive of improvement. I think I'd rather make the corrections and move foward with the patches, personally. Why not just revert to the copy you made before you installed the patch? You did copy (as a pseudo-backup) your install before applying the patch.... right?

SF2:V is really my first experience in the series. I did buy SFP1 back when it launched, but never got too deeply into it as my IL2 squad (well, those who also liked jets) went with LOMAC and I got that as well and got into that and more or less forgot about SF until december 09, then found SF2:V, and here I am. It was there pre-Feb 2010 patch, so I can't really say when it was added. And I don't recall which key combo it is. I have it mapped on my Cougar to hat 4 up and down. L & R raises and lowers my ripple amount, Shift L or R increases or decreases ripple time, and U & D (or forward and back in this case really) cycles through the gun combos. This works for when you are carrying gun pods too (you can go just external, or just internal, or both, etc). Not all planes allow this however. I've noticed that the F9F-8 doesn't (um.... I THINK it's the Cougar.. it's been awhile since I used it, but I'm pretty sure it's that one).

Viper, no jams. I switch to 2 guns rather than 4, to save ammo mostly, but also help defend against jams a bit (well, not so much prevent them, as allow me to get more shots by only jamming the working ones and then having reserves). But I also try not to shoot under heavy G load, and in VERY short bursts. Long bursts and high G loads seem to be the 2 things that create jams (individually, let alone together). But the issue was that the 17s weren't fighting. They were just sitting there and on occasion putting in some effort to not get shot, but they essentially never turned aggressor, they never acted like fighter pilots, and they were never a threat to me. Since MigBuster and I were talking about what causes the AI to do what, he was saying that they do this out of fear of missile shots in the good missile era, and I can understand that, but '64 is not the good missile era, not by a long shot. Regarding the 9B.... you don't necessarily pass through it's envelope to get a gun kill. The 9B is quite insensitive, takes forever to get lock, is dead rear aspect only, and can't track in a turn. Essentially they are only good against targets that can't turn, like bombers. Much like the AIM-4. Many of those kills in that mission were high deflection shots in a dive, or on a snap then they shot across my nose. No 9B envelope there. Others were from times that I got right up on them from dead 6 and had to take the shot before I ever got tone. Again, no 9B envelope there. When I did take the shots, I waited until they locked and tried to get the MiG when it was changing direction or stopped moving, or was not pulling many Gs, but the 9Bs never even TRIED to track. They got lock, I let them go, and off they went like rockets, not missiles. Basically dead weight. It takes far more effort to get them to work than it does to gun the enemy down, and costs too much fuel and time.