MigBuster

Use Shift and Delete to remove a file and avoid the recycle bin.

found another thread on this http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3561686.html I remember when skinning it was very limited in regards to colour and texture size - especially when comparing it to a true DX9 game like Strike Fighters 1

Apologies for the swearing in this

Like in "Afterburner" the 80s arcade game where it used to appear above you Hmm this is DCS you know - I hope you used correct comms berevity code.

Crikey yeah was DX7 level - they did improve the lighting somewhat compared to Falcon4.0 If you are worried about Graphics then AF is not going to deliver (even if SweetFX did work). Yes the box does say that - but pretty certain it wasn't - need to check.............. Being at DX9b would allow you to run newer games at the time and still be backwards compatible with older DX versions (although they stopped that after DX10)

Never played them. I would compare F-16 BMS to DCS A-10C for avionics - install it and you will see what I mean - BMS doesn't go as deep as A-10C which after all is pretty much the USAF ANG sim but it goes deep. The BMS flight model and FLCS is the exact NASA one - took ~8 years to develop apparently - basically I would be surprised if this wasnt the most accurate F-16 sim on the planet - can see why DCS are avoiding the F-16 if they have to match this. Taking off I almost feel sick - you get all the turbulence when you go past clouds - this is the real deal.

Well I wouldn't say it was a fact - there is no supporting evidence or sources to back up this posters lack of understanding. On F-16 net there are some credible posters such as ex pilots (Gums) and ex design engineers (John Will) who relay credible information on things such as aerodynamics etc - thats the main reason I look at this site. If you go through the 19 pages of that thread the above poster confirms his clueless ignorance on page 12 with this generalization: .. the Gripen has proven to be completely superior in BVR and WVR fights against F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. What's interesting is that the pilots claim the Mirage 2000 to be tougher to beat in WVR than any of the teen's." You will even find other claims that NoAF F-16AMs with wing tanks and an ECM pod fought Swedish Gripens with centerline tanks and it ended 50/50 blah blah - but as you can see without information such as configuration, ROE etc there is nothing you can draw from exercises - so kinda irrelevant really.

So if you choose another jet the campaign works? Can you fly the Super Etendard in a single mission?

In theory anything can be cracked - that card needs a physical swipe it looks like so you need physical access to the card and a reader. (Very brief / Lazy research shows no wireless) How secure it is depends on the security that's been implemented. I like that its a dedicated device and a replacement for normal plastic cards - it probably is preferable to it going on as a phone app on an embedded OS where its difficult to see whats logging your transactions and are usually transmitting wireless.

On F-20 look at post #54 - not putting that again - more of a relationship to how it was V the F-16A compared to how it looks Vs the Gripen point 2 - again already discussed throughout the thread (proven technology) - also see last paragraph in post #65 above

Well I know how to do it for individual aircraft in SF2 using subfolders in the decals folder. But if you want to globally add it to the Thirdwire set of Decals then I would guess at having a correct naming format and them sitting in the root of the Decals folder - but not so sure (and cant test at them moment) - so someone else will have to answer

Some valid comments. The state of the airframes is somewhat important - so in that case they would have to access if they meet their needs (whatever they are). On proven technology - No European fighter AESA radars are in service yet (AFAIK) and even the US ones are not problem free - so no guarantee on that one. look at BAE Systems - upgrading South Koreas KF-16 fleet using Raytheon AESA radars - and they are bidding to do a similar thing with Taiwan. On the subject of flying F-16s off roads then Taiwan are a perfect example - any conflict with China means the runways being taken out in hour 1 by a hail of ballistic missiles - the entire air force would have to disperse to other roads - there are vids on you tube of F-16A B20s practicing this. You could of course argue that Gripen would be a better option (in light of political ties blah). With new build F-16s it seems on paper you get comparable airframe performance but with superior range and proven avionics to the Gripen E - you might also pay for some US support - for example if you ever have to use them who gets the SigInt and upgrades ECM suites etc.

Well regardless of bias you cant consider everything because no one has information regarding the big picture on political/economic/availabilty/tech transfer and future needs - so you can only speculate anyway. However based on manufacturers figures we can get a very good picture on relative performance and capability between airframes competing in the 4+Gen market.

Was it this thread? http://combatace.com/topic/71249-sf2na-iceland-classic-tfdhfd-terrain/ There's a few ion the downloads section and lights / runways etc - and even an expansion pack

The Parking span variable and nation can also affect types that appear.

Had to look for myself - didn't think it was lacking as much Perhaps Brazil see it more as a better opportunity to develop their own aircraft industry: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131224/DEFREG01/312240006/Swedish-Government-Looks-Add-Value-Gripen-E-Sale-Talks

You do realize that it has to compete with those platforms on the world market - and others like the MiG-35 - so every country will be comparing them - in fact Brazil have just done it - kinda point of the thread

We’re actually well ahead of schedule on cockpits with the project, which I guess is the best news I have to offer at the end of 2013.

I expect they got a fat load of dosh from mobile IAP sales SF2 could be under the radar - I don't see why it wouldn't hurt them to run a few sales on SF2 though

Difficult to compare the F-20A (never got past a few test versions) to a production (Heavier) block 10 F-16A - but if you use the proposed 18k thrust and 200sqft wing area for the F-20A: * F-16A B10 has much lower Basic wingloading, comparable / better TW ratio, more fuel and weapons carriage, better visibility and room for growth (The F-20 would be using CFTs from its introduction 1985!) The F-20 did have some better pit avionics that went into the FA-18A according to a test pilot who also flew F-16As for the USAF According to SAAB the Gripen E has a worse TW than any F-16 version across weight range and is also lower than Typhoon or Rafale - a wingloading comparison would need a better understanding of the canard configuration. Internal fuel given as >2.0 metric tonne (4,409 lbs) compared to 7,189 lbs for F-16 (would hope its higher than that) The Max TOW of Gripen is ~31,000 lbs - gives a weapon / fuel carry range 31k - 16k = 15k compared to (Rafale ) 54k - 23k = 31k (Typhoon) & 50k - 25k = 25k Good Gripen E points would be: · GE engine · Selex AESA radar · Advanced sensors & fusion · Rough/short field operation · Square intakes and good RCS reduction potential · cheap to run in comparison · Seems to have a bigger nose (than F-16/Rafale) so could house bigger radar dish and other avionics Brazil FAB operates M2000-5 & F-5EM - so yes Gripen E can replace that lot on account of its advanced radar, avionics and tech transfer promise at the very low end of the price scale. Did someone mention Sea Gripen for Brazil? don't you kinda have to redesign the airframe and gear for that making it a lot heavier - who would fund that? Maybe they will get Frances old Super Etendards Can the Gripen be compared to the F-20A vs F-16A?: · Potentially lacks range · Room for other internal Airframe growth debatable · Lacks in store weight carry capability · Has good avionics So the Gripen is purely a light weight F-16 concept but lacks the raw performance of its Euro peers it seems. Rafale C sits in the middle for me - not as good raw performance as Typhoon (on paper) - but its a good attempt by a single country and good avionics. Typhoon combines F-16 with F-15/TornadoF.3 concept and has good high alt supersonic performance, good RCS reduction features, 4 x recessed AIM-120 carriage, good internal sensor suite - I would happily place this at the top of the 4++ Gen tree on performance and capability for Western jets. I expect the above will all get AESA radars eventually - probably not a big deal at the moment though.

The latest Falcon 4.0 mod is BMS 4.32 which is DX9 so think SF1 potential - has realistic lighting effects and variable weather Although im sure this may improve over the years - you can use 2048 x 2048 textures currently which is pretty good - but like SF you still need the people to create the skins and terrains etc If you are prepared to do a bit of modding then you will get better looking graphics like in SF - (but yes its far harder to add the mods) Advise TrackIR or similar and HOTAS if you have one Default pit (3D 6DOF clickable) Janhas F-16C B52+ over Tomkatz Korea tiles MiG-23MF mod over mod korea tiles 3D trees (JanHas) Default view of JHMCS and KC-10

When you start a campaign you can choose a squadron by clicking different links on the map and the type of F-16 will be listed. For example in the Balkans you can flu the F-16AM (MLU) from Italy. In dogfight mode - you can select different types from the list. When creating your own missions in the Tactical Editor mode you can select different F-16 models.

Well if anyone can upstage JC Van Damme