Lexx_Luthor

Okay

There is a line drawing of the F-108 and it has dozens of little access panels. You already have done alot of the top panels, for example the little squares on the wing, tail, stab leading edges are for getting at de-icing valves, the big squares you made along top are for fuel. There's a bunch of very small panels on the lower fuselage, mostly behind the inlet where the maint fellas would have easy access. A few panels on and (mostly) under the nose. Radome hinges sideways. If you want, I might could photo-chop your screenshots, upload it, to show where things go.

Toryu:: Could be. I've also read at f-16net (thanks MiGBuster) a pilot saying that F-104 was very easy to maintain. Okay, I'll guess that the F-5's primary design advantage is ease of use for allied nations. Is this Correct Thinking? I like thinking about this...F-5 vs F-104...thanks to both of you for bringing it up. Maybe it would be a great Another Thread, for one thing, I'm poking about for, in the computer game, an inexpensive additional option for protecting deep tanker flights. F-104 would be able to respond more quickly to approaching threats. How about endurance? No matter, both will be involved at one time or another since both are "nifty" planes. Should I do a thread on this if ya'll are into it? If not, a J-20 thread might be okay.

...up until early last year. I got a 4850 in spring 2010. I only have SF1 now, but I can offer moral support. :good: I need to know what you see wrong, or don't see at all.

What are you seeing or not seeing? Some SF2 players here have told me it works in SF2, and I've seen screenshots. Don't know about the current EXP2 level game though. How long ago did you download it? Some months back I updated the nuc download (and some others) to include two tga files that I didn't include earlier. The two files, years back, were included in the most popular weapon pack, but that changed. Keep in touch. I really ought to get SF2 just so I can update some of my stuff. I *finally* got a really good video card and if I had to do things over, I'd do things different and better. I used ATI-9200 up until early this year. That's sad.

Jedi:: mmm, I've kinda wondered if Vista threw TK a bad curve ball, like I think it did to other software developers. That's a wild guess however.

Jedi:: TK picked a good coverbutt name: Strike Fighters. I've always wondered about A-6. It really was a bonus, but that was Wings Over Vietnam and A-6 had wings, so... Now, why did he limit the (stock) cockpit view settings to block the view out the right canopy window? Its so immersive looking out the right window at wingmen, even if there is no pilot there...which is not so bad as he would just block the view anyways. Great cockpit too, one of my Thudwire faves. Another good coverbutt name was Pacific Fighters. If I recall, that's exactly what it was; fighters.

Okay if they can't catch you. In F-102 vs MiG-19 that's seems okay, and the 102 probably could turn around quickly. For F-101 vs MiG-21/Su-7 which I'm thinking about here, its alot more risky if you don't *already* have altitude, speed, or distance. Both those can catch you up there within some window of opportunity (how large?) before they run dry. Also, if they carry Atolls well...I don't know if the game AI can model this, but in the real thing, I'd guess you should not pin alot of hope on pulling alot of Voodoo~esque AoA at high speeds to avoid missiles or guns if they do catch you. And, in many situations, its "okay" to let the bad guy go, if all you do is keep him away from the bombers you are supposed to be protecting. I wish games would model this more often.

Gepard:: I don't know who published those numbers, but, the souls who know how to build airplanes usually get pretty close to the numbers they are building for. And they used to do it with slide rules!

Gun:: Its was all one package, F-14 and its weapons system, they kinda go together, like Barbie and Ken.

FC, the 10 December thread, p.4, third poast ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8077&start=24 I feel bad for stepping in that patch TECH SUPPORT thread and me not even having the game (SF2) but I may yet still go for SF2 and when I saw TK use the word "hardcode" related to DetailMesh and Clips, two of my fave gems in the game, I poked my nose in. I couldn't explain how I never use the stock grafix that may be conflicting with DM and Clips, so I got and stayed the heck out a few poasts later. ...as for thread crashing: Dave I apologize for making you work overtime in the -9G thread. Sorry.

Hey good thinking MiGB, I didn't think of F-104 as it didn't fit what I was thinking. Was thinking more like F-5 would be a handy dandy inexpensive fighter "presence" to have around, in less demanding situations, well supposedly you know how that goes. Mostly, it was simply inexpensive and not hard core like F-104 but I'll have to think again about that. Thanks. Everything in history tells me bigger is generally better if you had only *one* choice of either "heavy" or "small" but not both. SPAD, SE-5, P-47, P-38, P-51, F-4, F-14, MiG-25, J-20 hehe well maybe....! I think about that one engagement where F-15s couldn't catch Foxbats in Iraq. I try to imagine MiG-25 flown by NAVY with air refueling from land bases and how THEY would have used its good points and avoided its bad points to clear the skies. I think I recall the Israelis used some deception tactics to down some MiG-25s, or am I making that up? When the Shah's or Ayotollah's F-14s took off, MiG-25s either didn't fly or they came tumbling down. No deception tactics needed there with F-14.

Okay, only 2 files need converting from ANSI to unicode to get a plane *basically* working in the old game. B-52.ini B-52_DATA.ini That said, I am for the n+1000 time thinking of going SF2...and then I'd have to convert everything BACK to that.

Jedi (last page):: I tried the alarm thing, sorta, it didn't work. I see things that are invisible to others, things going back to 2008. My SF Story is the tale of a loner bending the game to my own brazed honeycomb steel will. Even as a loner, I totally depend on the real modders creating, over this entire last decade, nearly the entire SAC and PVO line up, Vee bombers, and now Lincoln and TSR.2, not to mention ADC and DA line ups. Who'd a guessed that would have happened in a combat flight TheSim? I still can't get over it, amazing. uh...okay, doing my own game thing, I make slashing compromises and insane FlightEngine settings to make a deep visual environment that brings out the best in these stratospheric aircraft. I see things in the game few or no others suspect is out there. Doing this makes TK a bit edgy. ...Anyways, my first clue of what may be a "decline" -- for me -- was SF1 Patch 2008. Being alone, few or none here would appreciate this, but in that Patch, TK went to a different sunset sky that I cannot use for my very high altitude game flying, and it seems this can't be modded away. More 2008 tragedy was an AI feature that, sure, may be useful in the stock game with stock aircraft, but is near useless with another other important type of plane set: This feature is the AI BVR engagement, which is not really BVR, but BVR RHM engagement only. AI aircraft must be armed with at least one radar missile to engage BVR. This rules out the AI doing radar BVR engagements with IRM or guns only. This is something that should be "on the scope" for the new Korea campaign modders if they plan on including F3D having a big long range radar but no long range radar missiles. These odd 2008 changes to the game told me TK was starting down a wrong path -- for me. The BVR RHM feature works for the stock game I suppose, because stock game fighters mostly either have big BVR radars and come armed with big RHM, or they are visual day fighters (say, Suez game) with no big radar to begin with. So no "F3D Problem" arises in the stock game. That said, TK is still the best today, and is the ONLY game developer out there, simply because of Cold War jets. That's it! Without TK's game and modders, I would not be doing SAC vs PVO at all, zip, nothing. I'd still be playing Master of Orion 1. It was recently revealed that the new game has reduced horizon distances, which is a terrible backwards step from the past. And TK has been talking about hardcoding limits on some FlightEngine variables so modded game users will be unable to use settings that can cause problems in modded newer games. Retreating to hard coded limitations to cover up new flaws appearing in modding could be a bad sign. Being the standup honest guy TK is, he politely tells poasters if they don't like the game, they should find other games that appeal to them better. At times he gets mad at me for never upgrading, but, I finally found another game that appeals to me better than his current games:: Strike Fighters Project 1, 2006 --- I will say this. Many of us asked TK for sky blue changing with altitude. He did it in 2008. He's fixed a bug or two I found long ago. The SF Moon, for example, had a retrograde orbit. This was a whopper, and nobody noticed it. I whined about it, threw a temper tampon on Thudwire. The SF Moon went prograde orbit in the very next Patch sometime in 2005. I figure there was an errant or missed negative sign somewhere in the SF Maths. He fixed it. One of the reasons I love TK so much, czech it out ~> http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2257 (this was after the orbit fix). Militant radical RAF Vulcan fans, and fans of manual or auto star nav would know this is a nice touch TK made here.

Wow, FC I never knew this. Amazing stuff. Devil, from the 2nd link FC poasted... I'm stuck with old SF1 games, so I have to make a few small changes to get new SF2 planes to work in SF1 games, like WOE you have. There are at least 2 data files for B-52 airplane that need to be converted to old style ANSI -- the DATA file and either avionics or cockpit, also maybe the basic "b-52" file. I forget which files until I have to do it again. DUH!!!! To get new game plane in old game, what I do is copy over an old SF1 ANSI data file from an old SF1 plane, open it and delete the contents, and copy in the new data. Then just SAVE the file. I then rename the files to match the new plane. Its a bit messy and VERY HARD to describe in a forum poast. ---------- I think this is correct, maybe:: If you just want to use old game B-52s, just copy over the new cockpit folder and new cockpit.ini file, and make sure your old B-52 file "points" to the correct new cockpit.ini folder. To get the radar to work, copy over the avionics.ini file and make sure your old B-52 file "points" to the new avionics file. This is easier than using the new planes.

Ah Mig, that forum does have some interesting reads. Thanks again. Lots of very old timers there. ~> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum.html I think I may be mixing up Air Force bureaucracy with the guys who got crushed by it long ago.

B-52:: I use the WoV A-6 cockpit, and replace the angle of attack indicator with an RWR. But I do it in a totally like WEIRD way, and there may be better cockpits out there for "normal" use for B-52. I suggest you get THE WOV simply for the A-6 cockpit, before it becomes unavailable to mankind...or is A-6 in the SF2 series? WoE has flyable F-105 right? That's my fave Thudwire cockpit of all time.

STORM:: Yeap. Maybe they needed the size to provide western equivalent systems, or maybe not. I do LOVE the size of this Chinese jet thingy. Breaking the mold....maybe. THANKS MiG for the link. Looks interesting. This poast *snip* sums it up for me. bruant328 (I think, the format is messed up a bit):: I would have loved to see USAF have some F-5As and Es in regular service as backups to F-4s, like say as return escorts, or deployment to where F-4s were not needed -- or whatever -- they were fine light planes (but I think overly vulnerable against N-V AA ???). As for Boyd, he seems like a fine man, and I never read up on him much, but I see what *seems* like fans advocating aircraft similar in spirit to Ki-43 and A6M2. I mean, NAVY had all this sewn up long before Boyd with stuff like (for example) Thatch Weave and Loose Deuce -- team work. As for Air Force, Claire Chennault is TEH MAN, then and now. The first time I saw "OODA Loop," I thought it was some obsolete Fortran 66 programming statement.

My fave is Spartan general Gylippus who defeated the Athenians at Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War, and after Lysander defeated Athens and entrusted Gylippus with tribute silver, Gylippus stole it, but eventually got caught and had to run.

That would be like Quails releacing Sub-Quails to further confuse air defences. Never thought of that hehehe

Also the F-4, designed as fleet defence interceptor. So it could never become a tactical fighter. ( ) I would also ignore the F-14's ATG ability because that would be an expensive Sturmovik...as long as A-6s and A-7s were flying around.

I don't see anything, but didn't really watch it (can't control the video time). I'd like to see somebody photoshoppe some curved black and yellow handles above the two front pilot seats in (operational) jet airliners, and no other seats having any. You know, must control the Budjet

hmmmm. Could be!!! Yours is a good 1.5 years newer, which is alot in s-f time.

Something I've been thinking about is Early Cold War Overflights 1950-1956: symposium proceedings (2003) About 400 pages! A review of the proceedings book here ~> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3101/is_2_51/ai_n29100074/?tag=content;col1 Found some quick googled RF-100A pics if you ain't seenum yet ~> http://www.f-100.org/hun111.shtml

I've got the.... STRIKE FIGHTERS/WINGS OVER VIETNAM : EDITING INFO ...dated ... First Revision: October 2002 Current revision: March 2005 It does not state who is the author, and I don't recall. It has been very helpful indeed. Lots of stuff about collision points.