column5

OK guys, this is the time to put up or shut up: The success of ThirdWire directly affects what we get in the future in terms of expansions and new games. I urge everyone who can afford to do so to go on over to the TW store today and buy something. Maybe there is a sim you don't have yet, or maybe you have a friend who is in need of a gift. TW has products ranging from a ridiculously low $9.99 to a...ridiculously low $19.99. https://store.thirdwire.com/store.htm I just grabbed something for myself. This is not a "whose wallet is bigger" thread though, so there is no need to post saying how much you spent. Thanks to everyone who supports ThirdWire. If we all chip in, maybe we can turn June into a good month for them.

The original TMF Tomcat was a good release 5-6 years ago, but it can't compete with the current state of the art from either ThirdWire or the community. The new version coming out very soon will remedy that. I'm torn because I don't want anyone to skip SF2T, but at the same time all of us in TMF want to make sure as many of the projects Oli worked as possible get released. With the exception of the multi-target tracking and flight model enhancements to better simulate VG, all of the improvements I can think of that would be desirable for a Tomcat sim involve the AI, which TK has stated will not be getting any major changes. It will be interesting to see what transpires as TK has always provided interesting tweaks and additions with each new release.

Great point! There were air strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon in December 1983 in response to a SAM being fired at an F-14. Expanding on that event would be very logical. With regard to TK choosing a theater without much potential for strike missions, I was making an assumption--possibly a bad one--that the F-14 would not be the only player flyable aircraft in this new sim.

Here is what we know: "...next SF2 game is not Falklands." "...we're not doing any modern realistic sim..." "we're doing SF2 Tomcat game, but no, its not going to have detailed carrier or AI (at least not beyond what we currently have)" "We're working on another SF2 Expansion Pack for the summer" "third SF2 Expansion Pack for the fall" "SF2 Tomcat game for the Christmas" "games we're releasing this year (FE2, SF2 Tomcat, SF2 Expansion 1, WOI expansion, etc)" "Both SF2 Exp2 and Exp3 will be for SF2 Europe. Exp2 will cover campaigns set in the late 50s to early 60s, and Exp3 will cover campaigns set in the late 40s to early 50s" "FE2 Expansion will be next summer at the earliest" "we already have a whole new SF2 game planned after that as well" "there will be no F-14 sim using the first-gen engine"

No, I've been so bad what I really need is a good spanking from a dominatrix. Er, aviatrix. Uhm...maybe an aviatrix dominatrix.

I just wanted to provide an example, and since the only example I am capable of providing is a bad example...

Hey did you hear Obama's lame speech last night?

Not in the world of software development. If he is able to meet his release date of Christmas 2010, that gives him 191 days, 11 hours and 21 minutes from the time of this post.

I do hope you guys are right about the game having a fleet defense scenario. The reason I'm not so sure is that setting the game in the North Sea, or GIUK area, limits scenarios to A2A only, unless TK plans to significantly enhance the anti-shipping missions. While my nickle is still bet on some sort of conflict with Iran, I would be happy to be wrong.

There is no point to allowing politics in the forum if you aren't willing to let it get heated. We are all big boys. I'm not sure why people get uncomfortable when this happens.

I managed to get my reservation in this morning, despite the problems with Apple and AT&T's servers. Will pick it up on launch day.

No, they were done back when separate models were required. We do have both grey and white tanks in the pack though, and the the aircraft versions are roughly divided at point when the color schemes changed: F-14A (1974-1981) F-14A_82 (1982-2005) F-14B (1988-1995) F-14B_96 (1996-2006) The later model F-14A has the TCS, while the later model F-14B adds the full precision strike capability with LANTIRN and LGBs. Very soon now.

There are couple of things that will have a large impact on the aircraft's pitch rate. Find the elevator subsections and look for the Cmdc line. This is the pitch moment due to control surface deflection, and will directly increase the moment generated by the elevator. Also important is the Xac for the stabilizer. This is a table defining the exact aerodynamic center of the stab as its distance from the aircraft's center of gravity over a range of Mach numbers. It should look something like this: XacMachTableNumData=27 XacMachTableDeltaX=0.10 XacMachTableStartX=0.00 XacMachTableData=-7.743,-7.744,-7.747,-7.752,-7.7857,-7.765,-7.774,-7.787,-7.806,-7.836,-7.790,-6.961,-7.034,-7.085,-7.126,-7.063,-7.207,-7.260,-7.305,-7.332,-7.355,-7.376,-7.397,-7.416,-7.435,-7.454,-7.472 On the A-10 of course you don't need to define this all the way up to Mach 2.7. Make sure that the values are roughly correct for the A-10. Basically, this is going to tell the game how far from the center of gravity the Cmdc moment is going to be applied. The further back the more "leverage" the moment has, and the greater effect it will have. Finally, look at the stall values on the wing sections: AlphaStall=16.50 AlphaMax=30.00 AlphaDepart=35.00 For a straight-wing aircraft like the A-10, the AlphaStall shouldn't be any less than about 18 units, probably higher. You could copy the values from TK's A-10 to make sure they are good. Hope that helps.

Glad you have discovered and are enjoying NATO Fighters. It is a monument to the huge number of talented people who contributed so much of their time over the years to make the individual mods. If you can buy a copy of SF2E, you'll enjoy NF4+ as well! c5

FT built the main model and then handed it off to Oli for the detail work necessary to get it into Strike Fighters. Including model-specific detail meshes, all of the animations, etc.

Agreed. Unfortunately, we are limited to the LODs that were completed before Oli passed.

Well, Top Gun doesn't exist today as it did when the original movie was made. For a new movie to be somewhat true to reality, the pilots would be flying Hornets on simulated attack missions at the NSAWC at NAS Fallon, Nevada.

No Vf-51 skin yet, but templates will be posted soon after release. Actually, the finishing touches on the skins are really the only thing holding up release now. I'm finding it hard to overcome my year-long "modder's block." Soon though.

An F-14B Phoenix launch and a VF-84 F-14A dusk takeoff. Anytime, Baby!

Going vertical. This project is moving again. Stay tuned...

Apparantly, streakeagle developed this problem at an early age...

<sigh> Yeah, that is why it is difficult for me to get as excited about cutting-edge military aviation as I am about that of the 1970s and 80s.

Apparantly some of the early criticism of NATOPS revolved around the idea that standardization would kill creativity. Its a great point you make though that the information published in flight manuals does not cover the entire flight envelope, but only that part of it deemed "safe' for normal operations.

Skipping over all of your other BS, I do want to address this for anyone who happends to come along and wonder about the charts. The formulas used in all of the charts are the same for each aircraft. Refinements will be made when published data can be found for the trickier aircraft such as the F-14, F-18 and F-16. I thnk we can all see from yet another rambling, venom-filled post that you are the one who is so desperately trying to defend your pet aircraft that you refuse to even read much less comprehend what other people are saying. I will give you credit for one thing, though. Being so wrong, so consistently in the face of an entire body of published reference material takes some chutzpah.

Again, reading comprehension comes into play here. This is what I actually said: "Individual anecdotes don't serve either side in this debate. For the historian, primary sources are often the most problematic because it is nearly impossible for a person who experiences an event first hand to report on it objectively. Its human nature. In this case, we have two guys saying (and I paraphrase) that their side beat the other side 100% of the time. Clearly, that cannot be true." That is specifically why I have avoided quoting from the voluminous accounts of F-14 pilots, and even from the results of the F-4 versus F-14 trials conducted by the Navy. The weight of the anecdotal evidence is on the side of the F-14, but the individual stories themselves can't be used as definitive proof because pilot skill is so important, and the ego-factor cannot be ignored when evaluating broad statements.