column5

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.

So I was thinking about the new SF2 game announced by TK, and I have decided based on what little info has been revealed that the scenario is going to be the Iran-Iraq war with a fictional scenario in which the US participates on the side of Iraq. I believe this because it will allow the F-14 to appear as both a player aircraft and as an AI enemy aircraft. It also allows TK to maximize the re-use of existing assets, as the Iranians flew several versions of the F-4. The new AI aircraft would be the several versions of the F-5 that Iran used during this time frame. The Iraqis of course had numerous types of MiG which TK already has. On the American side, TK already has the A-6 and A-7 which shared the deck with the F-14 during this period, and players could also fly USN F-4s against Iranian Tomcats as the F-4 remained on the Midway class carriers until replaced by Hornets. We could hope for an AI E-2. USAF aircraft are also already avaialble to TK, including the F-4, F-16, F-15, A-7 etc. An AI F-111 would be a great addition in keeping with the swing-wing theme of the game. The time frame of 1980-1988 might seem to be pusing the avionics boundaries, but all of the necessary aicraft except the Hornet (which didn't appear in the fleet until about 1984) are based on 1960s and 1970s tech anyway. Any thoughts?

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.

Clearly you need to take your own advice, as you are the one who entered this thread with accusations of "fudging' numbers as we worked on getting the numbers correct for our various comparisons earlier in the thread. This thread contains some data on a range of aircraft that can be interesting when considered in light of the many discussion here about relative performance and how certain aircraft might perform in roles for which they were not designed. Your own (typical) knee-jerk response to anything that threatens your phantom phantasy has turned it into something else, which is fine by me since you lose that argument every time. Also, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem, evident in most of the threads you post in, but specifically here with regard to quoting Admirals. To bring you up to speed (if that is even possible), Admirals have been referenced three times: 1. A quote attributed to Admiral Connelly regarding the F-111B's low thrust/weight ratio. 2. A paraphrase of Admiral Gillchrist's comments on the F-14 wing loading, which supports figures in a published F-14 reference work. 3. A reference to Admiral Gillchrist's comment that first visual identification of the enemy usually leads to victory in ACM. None of these quotes were used to buttress any arguments about aircraft performance relative to one another, except, I suppose in your mind.

My opinion, informed by never having flown a plane, is that you would want the best performance you could get in any given regime of flight to expand your options in any given engagement. Why be limited to vertical maneuvers when you can use the vertical and horizontal?

The evidence is clear and overwhelmingly in support of the positions taken in this thread and others, and is not extreme to any degree. The F-8 had a slight advantage in ACM over the F-4, while the F-4 possessed other advantages. The F-14 is superior to the F-4 in almost all respects. Pilot skill makes up for defects in any aircraft. These are the positions you are arguing against, and very, very few people who have studied the history are going to join you over there in the phantom phanboi section becasue the weight of the evidence from many, many sources is so stacked against you. As I said before, you can find single data points to try and defend an indefensible position, but it won't change reality. Those data points could be from fudged math or foggy anecdotes that contradict years of written history, its all the same--you sitting under a naked light bulb, the air thick with smoke, eyes bloodshot muttering to yourself and banging away on a keyboard in a sad attempt to rewrite history using a chart you found in a book.

Maybe he meant F-15?

Gentlemen...we have finally found a republican with balls. Her name is Jan Brewer and she is the Governor of Arizona. This woman must be President.

Heres a cool one...2 F-14s versus an F-16 and an A-4. Tomcats win this one. The F-16s win this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60R_MCHrPhE