Lexx_Luthor

Okay, lemme get this right, since I've never played TK's new smart sim. You shoot blue, green, yellow, or mercenary coloured rockets to kill the red migs that stole your drop tanks, and you have to do it before you run out of fuel. Do the comm buildings really collapse on the migs, or is that like a red sanctuary?

Toryu:: It is a wonderful thing. Some of the best threads take on lives of their own, going beyond, but not too far, with various members coming and going. Here's a good example of how easy it is to get trapped in what could be called sound bite historical labels, from Tom Cooper... : ....the type was designed as simple point-defence fighter-interceptor that was to operate under close GCI-control and attack its targets from the rear hemisphere with R-3S (ASCC-Code AA-2 Atoll) heat-seeking missiles. The Indians, however, were to use it as an air superiority fighter, over extended ranges and well inside the enemy airspace, with minimal or no GCI-support at all – as well as a fighter-bomber. It was therefore little surprising when they required the aircraft to be armed with cannons.... : ~ India - Pakistan War, 1971; Introduction ~> http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_326.shtml There is room for confusion there and a loss of understanding, as -21PFM was indeed created to be a GCI controlled missile armed interceptor, but the MiG-21 (ie...Ye-5) was not. The MiG-21 was never intended to carry missiles at all -- there were none for it in the USSR -- leaving guns, and to fly all types of air superiority missions, in daylight. Same with Su-7 which competed with the MiG-21 roundabout 1959, and that's where we start having fun, since the Su-7, like F-104A, was abandoned after its initial version, so we have to get creative about developing it ourselves into later fighter versions. Toryu:: That's it! -- impressive WVR A-A ... that's what F-104 in general, and Su-7, as tactical fighter was made to be (but then dropped). I'm going to guess the F-104C makes a better "interceptor" than F-104A, because it was simply better equipped overall as an advance beyond the original, while the F-104A as fighter was left to suffocate from birth with no further development. If the F-104 as air superiority fighter had not been abandoned, but further developed, that's where we can have more fun over The StrikeFighters.

lol i++

Sorry, I've been away too long. Toryu:: I'm getting this from Yefim Gordon's Su-7/17 AEROFAX. The Su-7s were replaced in 1965 by Su-7BKL, so they converted to a different role, but kept flying a similar plane. For Su-7 avionics, get the book, but they had gun ranging radar for twin 30mm. The original S-1 fighter had 3 x 30mm, like MiG-19S, but they dropped one for the production S-2 aka Su-7. (1) From the start, in 1952, what became the F-104 was Kelly Johnson's "lightweight" TAC air superiority fighter, optimized for speed and climb, in memorandum of the MiG-15 vs F-86 Problem. But by 1956 or so, TAC wanted heavy fighters and so it seems they basically went without until the Phantom. (2) I think the 104A waited so long for a cannon because the fighter was abandoned, unlike the 104C which got its working Vulcans early. F-104Cs flew tac escort here ~> Starfighters in action in Vietnam 1965-1967 While looking at that, bear in mind that Escort/CAP/etc... often requires on the spot interception of interceptors before they reach your bombers, or your AEW, tanker, etc... Interceptor and Fighter are often just names that become blurred as when we compare the Zero (dogfighter) and P-38 (interceptor) and their creation and later use. Do what you have to do to replace MiG-21F (no atolls) in your game with basic Su-7 (no atolls). You then need Yefim Gordon's book for the details on how to downgrade Su-7B into an Su-7, then carry over much of the later development of the real Su-7/17 bomber variants to come up with reasonable Su-7/17 fighters to replace later MiG-21s. Its fun. I assume you play The StrikeFighers. The Su should have some faults as a fighter -- higher cost so less numbers, blown flaps apparently weren't fielded (need to read more about that) so maybe need larger airfields until the swing wings, etc... and has some advantages, damage model, gun power, better payload potential, etc...

The 25 Sept. Nightwatch has interesting comments on this... ~> http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_12000184.aspx I suppose, it will be a decade or more before China has a carrier capability, but then it took everybody else who has it, or once had it (Japan), the same time span.

Maybe not! Space travel should start as a rich man's toy, like airplanes started out in the 1900s, before the banks.gov funded WW1 with debt and destroyed private enterprise. One of my fave movies ~> Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines (1965) That's how you get started, space for the wealthy and risk takers (pilots), and then it spreads to more and more souls as experience is gained over time and business and profitable services follow into space.

Toryu, There's some great history that gets missed by western TheSims players, especially as it can be employed for alt.history SF campaigns. Czech it out. Su-7B was a later variant, an attack aircraft, having a number of improvements over the Su-7. Su-7 was assigned to two VVS fighter regiments, as a tactical fighter. Like the MiG-21F, and the F-104A, the Su-7 had limitations, caused by the rush to Mach 2, that hindered their promised operational use and make us want to call them "interceptors," which is fine but not a full description or their development. Toryu:: ^ this ... emphasis added... Unless you fluffed your poast, as I do here *ALL* the time, and you meant to poast "light tactical fighter/bomber" ... How does increasing A-G turn an interceptor into a light tactical fighter? The MiG-21 was always a fighter, like F-104A and Su-7, and all shared limitations that came at a brief but very unique era in tactical fighter development.

Stary:: lol bra +1

Stary:: You don't backup your Patches, and your game before you Patch up? One should always keep version 1.0 and all the Patches on backup and archive. Arhives are old backups that are never to be backed up to again. I still have SF 1.0 from 2004 or whatever, with *all* the Thudwire Patches most I never use, in folders in various hard drives laying about, and not one of them are hooked up to a power supply. As with all topics, every thing leads to (1) debt, or (2) backup your stuff.

+1 bra Skate:: One minor quibblet. How can a product no longer satisfy The Need? Its not like TK programmed the game to self destruct after a certain date where you have to buy the new product. Even then, just reset your BIOS date. I ran Windows 7 RC for years like that, for free, but eventually bought The Pro. For me SF-1 2008 still serving The Need.

Toryu:: No, they didn't. It got *weird* here and not many know about it, like Grumman Tiger vs Vought Crusader but worse since there were two independent services involved, VVS vs PVO, not just one navy. Sukhoi went with swept wings for frontline VVS tac fighter in the S-2 or pre-"B" Su-7 early production batch, with gun ranging radar and gun cam, which were assigned to, at best, a pair of VVS fighter regiments in the Far East. The smaller cheaper delta MiG was eventually chosen instead for mass production. I think lindr here poasted long ago that the AL-7 was very expensive engine to manufacture, and I guess that could have led to the decision. Su-9 was the concrete runway PVO strategic interceptor competing against Apple's MiG's heavy AL-7 swept wing i-series interceptors, I-3,I-5, i-7, I-75,etc... Su-9, like the i-MiGs, from the start had PVO specific avionics, PVO GCI comm gear and weapons, unlike the Su-7 fighter which more resembled the MiG-21F. Only later came the S-22 fighter bomber prototype for VVS; the well known Su-7B. Su went with swept wing fighter, MiG went with delta fighter. Su went with delta interceptor, MiG went swept wing interceptor. Weird, yea. I would rather have Su-7 and its VG wing derivatives as PVO inteceptor for use on more primitive and less vulnerable airfields. Strategic Air Command never sleeps.

Toryu, recall Su-7_blank competed against MiG-21 for frontline fighter. Hanging atolls won't make it Su-9, like adding atolls to Mig-21 wouldn't make it a MiG-23. The Su7 and 9 were born as completely seperated twins back in the original Su swept vs delta experiments in the 50s. If it keeps the swept wings, it stays seven. I didn't mean "dogfighting" but pushing MiG-23 hard on the job in service...fast and low, high speed g's when needed, bad weather, doing whatever it took to intercept the target, etc... Heard the maintenence was bad though, very much opposite the MiG-21 as implied by the dougnut article last page. Good F-104 pilots could show what was possible (not just dogfighting), no so much the "average" guy perhaps. Dunno. MiG-23 was similar to that in my suspicion. Well thanks alot MB, I hava a busy day today and here you are with that PDF. AAAHHHH

SupGen:: Sup! Yea its a long story, the greatest story never told. Toryu, yea as always I "forgot" to mention Su-7 as a fictional competitor subject to fictional changes, although the Su vs MiG-21 flyoff intrigued me no end, the limited number of afterburner starts especially. If you have the inclination, examine the possibility of adding gunsight, atolls, etc... foryour self as that goes beyond this thread. Some good points are that Su did evolve into heavier payloads, and seemed to be a very, very tough air frame. Built like a LaGG lol. About the US red squadron, I had read some account of that -- about MiG-23s -- the US pilots were not comfortable using it, at all, and didn't do well with it in practice engagements, or so I recall reading. What about Soviet pilots, or at least the more experienced ones willing to push it? Was it seen as useful but hot to handle in the VVS?

Toryu, what about Su-7? At the bottom of this Indian page, they describe a -7 vs -21 flyoff. ~> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Su-7.html For those of you playing WoV, just for fun replace -all- MiG-21Fs with Su-7, and MiG-21MFs with (early) Su-17s; either Thudwire or 3rd Party models. Su-7 was originally a frontline tac fighter, but for some reason they chose -21 for that role, leaving -7 to evolve into the -7B strike fighter. In my game, well someday, I intend to have Su-7 (original) as PVO fighter either with MiG-21 or instead of it, depending on variables (like if MiG's or Su's dispersed and buried factories get pounded by SAC for one example). Later in the 1960s, if the campaign goes that far, Su-7 and MiG-21 will act like Bf-109s that supported, or protected, the Fw bomber killers, and support/protect MiG-25s or Su-15s and such, well depending on the extent of small-vs-large PVO airfield damage at the hands of SAC. LEXX SHUT UP. Yea I better stop here. Anyways, think of Su-7/Su-17 as a possible fun substitute for various MiG-21s as frontline tac fighter in ya'lls games.

Well when he/she hits the brakes -- okay -- the brake button, or the Left Turn key, on Earth, it takes a few minutes for the brakes or steering wheel on Mars to get the message. The operater skates on this one.

Sounds like you are investing in The Sims game. (1) Sex:: Replace sex with B-47E navigation for gameplay, roughly simulating the whole 3 man crew, but don't include the pilot worrying over the nav being pregnant. But then, if aircrew pregnancy were modelled, there could be a 1950s SAC Commander Giving Out Cigars video. (2) Watching a game and drinking:: Replace with B-36J ECM gameplay. Why? Back in ye olde Su-27 Flaker 1.0, the most challenging missions I made were solitary penetration of heavily defended air spaces with all different types of SAMs and patrolling or GCI'd interceptors I had to be on the lookout for on my radar. It could take hours to fly a short distance, because I had to fly around long range SAM sites at high altitude, and if I went low level, I had put dozens of short range mobile SAMs and they'd pop up in front by surprise, and I'd have to hard tail away and guess another route. It was pretty nerve wracking doing that kind of thing, especially in the dark relying ONLY on the red lighted panel guages to fly hard evasive manuevers. I couldn't relax much, as I designed the missions to be that way. Best was taking off at sunset in the Crimea, approaching the nasty Ukraine air space in twilight, and getting lost in a maze of SAMs and occasional hostile aircraft in the dark, and THEN finding a way OUT of that nasty space, with afterburning hostiles in tow if I couldn't avoid them, hopefully to meet return escorts I had setup to meet me on the way out. I randomized that too, and it was scary if they weren't there -- or I was off the planned exit route. I couldn't just hit the burner and outrun these guys, since I was very low on fuel from flying so long. Man, its nice to see your return escort patrolling on your radar about 60km away, and when they turn to you in their orbit waypoint (yes), they can see on their radars your pursuers, its a nice feeling. But can you get to them in time, cos the bad guys are coming up behind? Just a "bit" of afterburner may be needed, but that depends on how well you managed fuel/distance in your mission. The challenge was to destroy the target, and get out without ever engaging any enemy fighters -- NO AIR COMBAT. (3) Bar Fights ... If you like throwing real punches, replace Bar Fights with modelling B-58A targeting, using hysterically correct payloads. For the "anti nuc" types, they can always fly Red with Su-15, which would be, finally, a real sukhoi, in a combat flight sim; a first. Seems everybody has "invested" in that kind of game before, and didn't always do well. We have a "lomac" or "dcs" thread about a game like that, I think. If you want to "invest" you do something different. I always said, the first combat flight TheSim with a great white B-70 on the box cover will outsell all those Flaker, Flacon, and Rapper games.

Okay I tried it myself -- and I get BLANK drop list. But I did this fast and I could have spent more time on it. I think I "forgot" how to work with normal terrains everybody else uses. I downloaded the WoV Patch 2008, and downloaded Thudwire.com TE -- that says 2006 I think so it may be old. I thought the newest SF-1 TE was 2008...? Where do you get your Terrain Editor? Your WoV is 2008? I forgot, sorry. Anyways, I see the DROP LIST lol. Now, the edit texture TYPE list works, but the edit MAP list is blank. Both edit lists should work. BLANK drop list... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I suggest build your own Texturelist from zero, from a BLANK file, copying and modifying parts of other (working) Texturelists, and slowly building it up, and one-by-one build up a bmp tile collection -- convert to tga later. Its the closest thing to self-crucifixion (sp?) you'll ever get, but its the ~best~ way to get to know Terrain Editor. I always work with the text files, rarely with the TE texturelist editor. There are lots of tricks you can use to make the text files simple and shorter. Also, start out with tiles only. No "tero objects" until later.

Putin = Chuck Norris lol I was just thinking the same thing.

I poasted wrong above, sorry. Which of these two TE menu items are you using to get your blank "drop list?" (1) Edit Texture TYPE List (2) Edit Texture MAP List Or both of them? ---- --- -- - Following Wrench's idea --- Where did you get your TE.ini?

Okay, you mean the drop down menus Edit Texture Type List and Edit Texture Type List show nothing? Following Wrench, do you have a backup TE.ini, or does it come with TE? I forgot.

and MONTY_CZ Yak-28

91, you could poast the texturelist here, and we can look at it maybe. Okay, you want ideas for terrain, something never done before, then look no further than here. :) I suggest late 1950s to early 1960s, USSR and China try to do what the Japanese did in 1942. The terrain is brutally mountainous, very good vertical relief and would look fantastic with beaches. And, no need to worry about snow capped mountains. Its all jungle. Even a simple texture set with only a few tile types would look great, because the whole area is pretty much jungle or ocean. And, not much of cities nor built up civilization. You get a mix of older subsonic jets, some mild supersonic stuff (-19, -101) and a few of the first double sonic set. China provides the manpower, USSR provides the shipping and air power. Long range DA (edit) VMF stuff like Tu-16s, Tu-95s, and maybe some M4s (thanks Veltro). US NAVY has to respond, and there is always room for Royal Navy too. USAF can provide F-101A for long range fighter cover, yes it has extreme limitations, but flying range is NOT one of them. Flying range in the Pacific is king. The big difference, aviation wise, is the (1960) jet equivalent of the Zero with its seemingly infinite range. The closest the Reds may field to a long range escort is Yak-25, or maybe Yak-28 (thanks Pasko). I'm busy with Strategic Air Command over the pole and up under over the Himalayas, but I've always liked the idea of 1960 South Pacific. I can help here. Its a totally fantasy kind of campaign, but its all about, as TK would say, nifty planes, and 1960 had the niftiest planes of them all.

oops, AGAIN I have to remember to poast that I run my SF game in its own folder, NOT the stock folder buried deep inside C: wherever games are "supposed" to go. In fact I dedicate a hard drive partition (D:) to SF. Keeps things neat. This also is one of the neat things about TK's games, at least the older game. D:\SF I have a few supporting folders where I keep SF stuff, like cockpits. I reference all aircraft cockpits to D:\A where many planes can share one cockpit. Its weird but its insanely efficient with little clutter.

Stary:: Within the last year, I somewhere read that TK talked about making Border be a constant PERCENTAGE of map size. If so, ie...an SF standard 1000km map would have 80km border, so, if this is the case, then a 2000km map might have a 160km border. Is the Border really fixed, or fixed percentage? Can you extend the map a bit?

Fubar::