MigBuster

If your decals are in Object\Decals\F-4B_67\USNVF161\d 

 

then this is incorrect:  

FilenameFormat=F-4b/161/d/bbun

 

Since you renamed a folder just simply change each statement in that ini file to account for the change:

 

FilenameFormat=F-4b/USNVF161/d/bbun

The Vf-161 skin must still have a decals ini file (open in Notepad) that will tell you where it is looking (path) for the decals.....

 

 

 

In SF2 decals go in the Decals folder..overview here in step 2:

 

http://combatace.com/topic/44026-converting-older-planes-to-work-in-sf2-%E2%80%93-a-basic-guide-by-migbuster/

You are using Intel HD5500 Graphics built into the CPU? (which CPU)............. I am surprised you can run 1.5. 

 

Recommended for 2.0:

 

Recommended system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+; RAM: 16GB; Hard disk space: 30 GB; Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / ATI R9 290 DirectX11 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

The 16GB of RAM is essential..........8GB really struggled using 1.5 it was stuttering and running out of memory...........your issue looks like Graphics hardware.

 

There may be some file tweaks to take out some of the changes to 2.0 on EDs forums.  

If you don't have the Campaign customiser you will need to extract ini files and do it the old fashioned way..... should mostly still apply.

http://combatace.com/topic/44798-adding-aircraft-to-campaigns-in-sf2/

 

 

What are your system specs? 

This one with 8 parts?

 

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. But despite this I would imagine that shooting literally 20 of the unmodernised R-40s would not result in exactly 0 hits.

 

 

For sure...........as long as they are fired within the missile and the radar parameters of the guiding aircraft and the target is cooperative.

 

When I say cooperative, flying straight and level like the typical bomber they were designed to be fired against is a good example. As for Chaff......well it was proven quite effective in Vietnam against fire control radars....the radar and missile technology here (mostly pre solid state) was very limited and primitive compared to even 1991 DS (let alone today) and didn't have the processing power to filter out Chaff...so radars usually just saw a valid target. 

 

As for parameters..........in game as a rule with aircraft without lookdown radar (like a lot in the 60s/70s) you should be getting well under the target (not level) for SARH missiles.

 

Not sure about the pack but as an example the MiG-25PDS used by Iraq had by accounts the same radar type originally in the Soviet MiG-25P. This was not a Pulse Doppler radar and thus had very limited look down capability (can't filter out the ground return)..........and the real thing couldn't even distinguish targets at all below 500 mtrs.

 

One thing that was in the game from the start was a degree of missile unreliability which was a very big part of Vietnam although TK never implemented it fully. What I mean is all missiles had a terrible reliability rate in Vietnam and big part of this was due to handling and weather.....the technology was too fragile, meaning hung missiles, missiles that drop off without the rocket firing, missiles that go stupid in flight and some AIM-7 types had a tendency to not guide and prematurely detonate.

These last 2 are in game but hung missiles and no motor fires were likely seen as a step too far.

Still got that Jewel case as well ................ahh those were the days dreaming at what the future may bring. 

Hmm, seems like a lot of work for the "possibility" of the sims working in Windows 10.  DCS, from what little I know about it (and I actually have it installed) is quite popular.  I have been simming since around 2004.  Mostly I fly FSX (carrier ops), but then happened upon SFP1 and WOV, and thought I would try installing them and flying.  But it appears too much of a problem!  Thanks all for your comments/advice.  Pete

 

They were replaced by SF2 and SF2 Vietnam respectively....both of which do currently work on the latest Win 10 (64) okay without doing much at all (for me)...sadly the latest builds are stuck in 2013 and TK only officially supports them on Win 7.

So I've got a couple of questions. I bought this book called F-15 versus MiG 23/25 over Iraq 1991. I was looking for sources about the MiG-25 and sadly this is the only book I found on the MiG-25 available to me. I say sadly because even though it tries to be neutral and objective in it's assessment they still say a lot of opinionated things against the 23 primarily. However it is still not as biased as Strike Fighters can be. I was looking for sources on actual missile performance because the game simply dismisses early Russian BVR missiles as additional weight to the aircraft at best. In the book I found an account of an Iraqi pilot who shot down an F/A-18 (which was going in full afterburner) from 30km away with a single R-40R missile. Unfortunately there are no mentions of whether the F/A-18 pilot was aware of getting shot at (which I assume he would be since RWR exists) and if he was performing evasive maneuvers and/or deploying chaff. Now considering this account I would expect the in-game R-40R to hit something occasionally. Considering it was able to hit a state of the art fighter plane of the mid 1980s when itself was designed in the early 1960s

.

 

 

In the book the Iraqi pilot (Dawoud) clearly states he fired an R-40RD which was an upgraded variant of the R-40 from the late 70s I understand and came into service with the PD/PDS.

 

Even with Soviet test fire data it would be unlikely you would get an accurate picture because of all the other factors beside the missile that occur in combat...........the disparity between test and combat performance regarding technology of this era was well and truly demonstrated in the 60s/70s.

Have there been any exercises with relevant aircraft of today yet?

 

 

 Northern Lightning was one:

 

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/931394/f-35a-continues-fifth-generation-tradition-of-air-superiority-against-legacy-ai

 

http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2016/09/f-35-shows-superiority-legacy-aircraft

 

You don't need to provide any current pilots having serious concern over F-35 AA performance because you probably cannot .

 

 

Not really the answer I was looking for...........there is a slew of tech data released on the XL from NASA that will tell you all about it............the lead engineer on the program is easily contactable.........there are ("shock horror") industry pros available who know a lot more than you. (No offence but you sound like you are siloed on the airliner side of things) 

 

You have missed the point...could F-4s and Buccs operate from the ski jump through deck cruisers? Real great the F-4s could CAP from Ascension however despite the compromises you keep highlighting the SHAR was the only jet that could do the job at the time and it did a great job. A lot of people saw the value in the concept and ASTOVL was put down in the late 70s.....this work eventually went directly into JSF (F-35B).

 

So sticking a buddy pod on the SH makes it a great tanker does it , and the F-35 despite it's far superior sensor suite cant perform any type of Fast FAC role you state?. The notion that the SH was ever the best fleet defender despite it's compromised design is a good one.........and again the F-35C is looking superior.

 

There has been mismanagement and likely money lost that is clear but no one in the industry is surprised a cutting edge IT project of this undertaking is over budget and delayed..this is hardly unexpected. The F-35 is not the first program and wont be the last to have flaws but the taxpayer has ended up with what appears to be a very sound end result that has believe it or not learnt from some past failures such as the TFX (According to an otherwise highly critical USN case study from 2008).  

 

There is plenty out there if you want to look...the official Danish comparison even stuck the F-35 as cheaper to operate over the projected lifetime. There was some contention over that because Boeing later claimed the the SH is only a 6000 hour design when used on carriers but has more life used on land.

 

 

You don't need to provide anything to back up anything you have said...............mainly because you can't in most cases and are clearly not going to bother anyway. You have provided next to nothing to this discussion to demonstrate how the SH (despite being a great product) provides any real value to the taxpayer over the F-35.

 

If you think you are being clever by putting in little digs as you have done since your first post in this thread to go with the many assumptions and falsehoods already discussed and debunked time and time again then I guess you like digging your own grave. 

The XL is a slightly stretched F-16 with a larger wing is it...........no it wasn't ........that is no different to me stating the SH is a Legacy with stretched and enlarged wings etc............. instead of throwing out wild assumptions perhaps you need to do a bit more research on it. 

 

Yes they have participated in exercises so far will need to check which ones.

 

I am well aware of the factors in the Falklands war thanks so no need to keep bringing up mute points like a better AEW capability....while still denying how well the SHAR did under the circumstances. The SHAR was modified after the conflict to try and mitigate some of those issues.

 

I noted what you had said............sorry but the P-51 / F-4 / F-14 had training support and logistics setup before they went into history.....how is that a valid argument for clinging onto the past. Apparently saving some pennies now but risking the entire future on what is really the past (the SH).

 

You are wrong....the F-35 is clearly a best shot at providing what might be needed for the future not the past and might have tried to cover all bases. ......... but still apparently does everything better than the SH E/F in its supposed primary role. Boeing (you guys) had a shot at this and were even further behind with the X-32............so are now left to try and flog a few warmed over aircraft that despite these claims you make (that no one else in the industry seems to agree with you on). 

 

On the one hand dismissing stealth and on the other trying to shove warmed over F-15/18 with claims on how much the RCS has been reduced........funny.

 

You could argue for keeping the Growler variant......but according to (just) you, because it is just a collection of boxes and pods you could easily just stick it all onto another platform!! 

 

You are desperately trying to make out these supposed compromises are somehow major issues and totally ignore the fact that the services provided the requirements for it in the first place that LM have worked to. Your current spin seems to be that LM got a load of money and gave us this!...........hey why not waste the money on our slightly warm Boeing stew instead.

 

The only possible reason Trump would advocate seeing if Boeing can come up with a comparable SH (which will never exist ) was to frighten LM to get the cost down even further below the SH unit cost.

 

Which ever way you spin it or whatever you think the USN will try to upgrade it in the future the SH is not good enough for the overall cost for the future. F-35 was designed with internal stores and fully integrated sensor fusion and very low RCS from the very start............you cannot and will never get anywhere near that or its growth potential sorry.

The F-35 won't be able to replace them. They're not designed to do so. Lipstick on a pig won't help there.

 

 

 

This is the USAF take on this (AIR FORCE MAGAZINE Mar 2016):

 

Thanks for this debate guys, I'm following you with great interest. I wonder how the EuroFighter is considered? I think countries like Spain made a good purchase as it can work on a real variety of roles, but I have no idea how stealthy is If any.

 

 

 

I love the EF / Typhoon...........kinda similar to what the F-16XL might have been but sadly the participating countries never really had the enthusiasm to make it cutting edge....low volume very high cost.........and still soldiers on with an old MSA radar here although the later tranches have been given AG capability.  Did Germany ever get IRST on their EF-2000s?.

 

As far as the UK is concerened hopefully it will be lethal used alongside the F-35 with the new ways of doing things that will enable.

Can you provide a quote from a current F-35 pilot worrying about missing this extra wing area and perceived lack of horizontal turn rate in a realistic A-A exercise please?

 

Being an aerospace engineer (Boing related by any chance?) doesn't make you an authority on what is actually important in a combat aircraft in 2016 or the near future considering what has been discussed so far.

 

In terms of kinetic metrics like acceleration and turn rate which seem to be your priority metrics for A-A a USN pilot who flies both puts the SH about equal with the higher thrust FA-18C.

 

I'm sure there were positives about the FA-18A procurement but going with your line of reasoning it was compromised and could have been a lot better.  There are a ton of positives the F-35 brings..that you cant even bring yourself to admit can you! 

 

The FAA didn't have F-4Ks and the Ark Royal at the time of the Falklands so what I stated still stands regardless of what you want to dream about. Politics or whatever determined the way the force went and the only fixed wing jet that could do the job was the Harrier simple as.

 

Again this alternate reality about the SH being good value when everything shows it representing extremely poor value considering the published cost to real performance ratio......can you provide something! anything! (Are the JDAM SHs drop on the 3rd world cheaper as well?)

 

Retrofitting avionics...well you might get far if you chuck enough money at it.......and the politics allow it. Just because you can assume it can be done doesn't mean anyone is stupid enough to spend that money on an obsolete aircraft. Thus F-22 as is publically known performs functions combined with its other attributes that are unique and the F-35 will likely do it better in some respects.

 

So you think the F-16V being touted has the internal space and structural design to carry EODAS/EOTS/BARRACUDA do you....and still retain enough internal fuel...............

With the F-16ES (Enhanced Strategic to you) they tried to internalise both LANTIRN pods and I'm certain today they could do it............but the point is mute...who is going to spend the money on an airframe clearly at the end of its life with an RCS the size of the moon when carrying all that external stuff. You should know this just like with your beloved Hornet external stores vastly reduce and compromise performance including range, acceleration, cruise etc etc. 

 

Why do you think the SH was more radical redesign than the XL............? 

F-35 Pilots have flown 4/5 Gen (A-10 to F-22) and likely don't give a **** about having bigger wings............because those in the know probably get it by now.

 

You are right the FA-18A is a good example of a jack of all trades master of very little that was compromised by being designed as a LWF and used in a different role........didn't stop it being an exceptional aircraft though did it. The redesign to the SH was nearly as radical as the F-16XL to make it fit its role better and had some similar goals such as better high AoA handling and reduced RCS. Notice they were happy to have pretty much the same performance as the FA-18C (somewhat less than the F-35A)........but unfortunately couldn't add in all the sensors, fuel and RCS shaping to remain relevant.

 

Super Hornets are not as cheap to procure as you like to think..........the point is mute anyway as already stated.

 

Regardless of these compromises the Sea Harrier still performed when it had to despite the perceived lack of kinetic ability and payload from those scratching their heads.

 

Some of the F-16s left might be taken to a 12,000hr SLEP but they will be replaced in the USAF by the F-35 regardless.

 

F-22 has very good sensor and information sharing capabilities it would seem compared to other US jets.

 

 

"Unfortunately, that's not how the game works: One airplane for each service would have outperformed the F-35 and donse so at a lower total price. Looks like this has to be learned anew by each generation of generals and politicians."

 

Well nobody plays your game it seems. ....and regarding the cost is also wishful thinking and something you couldn't prove anyway.................

30 year old F-16s don't last forever and run for free you know..there are only so many SLEPs before they have to be replaced......and so they will be.

 

What little is known about F-22 deployment suggests it brings some very unique capabilities (not just Stealth and a limited AG role) particularly in areas where there are high end Air Defence systems in Syria (like S-400 etc).

 

Logically you could assume the A and C have been compromised but the end results don't suggest there is anything particularly bad about it.....just proves what an achievement it really has been. They rightly put more emphasis on the AG role and went for similar performance as 4th Gen (regarding old fashioned metrics) . The A has a smaller wing........but find a single F-35A / B pilot feeling compromised in the A-A arena at this or any moment in time.  

 

 

There is no point trying to point out what a waste of tax payers money the F-35 is and then basically say it would be better off wasted on Advanced Super Hornets which look neither cost effective or value for money........(the figures for the Saudi deal were eye watering!) 

How about comparisons after it has been in service for a good period......because anything else is clutching at straws.

 

No evidence the F-35 sucks at anything at all in reality.............say they didn't have the VTOL requirement how would it be better?...because it is also funny how people think that better means faster, TV and a few more degrees per second in a horizontal turn.

 

You can question why they are bringing a manned fighter online despite the advances in computing tech to put in Drones....but for the next few years they remain a complement only as they always have been (for a few airforces). As for throwing money at LM that can be questioned too.............as long as it isn't followed by the notion they should just throw similar or more at Boeing for a pretty much obsolete airframe in the SH.

An ex F-102 pilot did claim about 60 miles for a B-52 head on on IRST back in the 1960s but this just serves to give the wrong impression (USAF ditched them till the F-35) . IRST has no doubt come on...........but if the EF with weapons shows up like a barn door on everyones radar (GCI/AWACs etc) a few hundred miles before it can get anything useful from a limited scan IRST then it really isn't levelling the field.

 

The F-35 is certainly not reliant on just RF/IR Stealth for survival..........certainly a big part of it sure.

Happy New Year to all

Christmas Sale last days!

 

Dear pilots! We are happy to remind you that the DCS World Christmas Sale will last until Tuesday, 3 January 2017 with up to 60% discounts! Get 40% off on all DCS E-Shop items, with the following exceptions:

• DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 - 60% off
• DCS: Combined Arms - 60 % off
• DCS: Hawk by VEAO - 60% off
• DCS: MiG-21bis – 50% off
• DCS: A-10C Warthog - 50% off
• DCS: Black Shark 2 – 50% off
• DCS: NEVADA Test and Training Range Map – 30% off
• DCS: F-5E Tiger II – 30% off
• DCS: Spitfire LF Mk. IX - 20% off
• All Campaigns – 50% off

DCS: World War II, a Year in Review and Looking Forward

 

As 2016 closes, we are looking back to what we have done during the past year and reveal some of plans for 2017.

We completed several new tasks in 2016 for DCS: WWII. This included the official release of DCS: Bf 109 K-4, which was preceded by extensive work on flight model, skins, and training missions. We also added two FW 190 D-9 rocket types for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

 

 

 

 

The main event this year though was the Early Access release of DCS: Spitfire LF Mk. IX. The huge project to recreate this legendary British fighter included the virtual reconstruction of the external model, cockpit, systems and flight dynamics. We are proud to add this to our stable of DCS World War II aircraft. In 2017, our Spitfire work will continue with bug fixes and the addition of bombs and an external fuel tank.

 

 

Our next big World War II event will be the Early Access release of the DCS: Normandy 1944 map in the 1st quarter of 2017. The postponement of this release was the result of two primary factors:

 

• DCS: Normandy 1944 will be the first DCS World map to use our new lighting system. As a result, we have had to remake all landscape textures and objects. This has been a massive task, but we believe it will be worth the time and effort.
• As our first map for DCS: World War II, a great deal of time and effort has gone into creating many new period objects like tanks, trucks, air defense units, trains, ships, and AI bombers. We are also creating many objects that make up the "Atlantic Wall" along the Normandy coast. We believe these objects are essential for making great missions.

 

We hope these efforts will bring DCS: World War II to new level for us.

 

 

We are also still working on other previously announced features:

• New aircraft damage model systems. This new system will be based on a much more precise system of positional agregats within an aircraft structure such that it will give players a new level of realistic air combat damage modeling- especially with machineguns. Because this system will dramatically change simulation balance, the system will be released for all World War II planes simultaneously.
• Unpaved airfields. This feature will provide the ability to place additional, small airfields on flat ground surfaces via the Mission Editor. Such airfields were used by all sides in World War II for refuelling, emergency, and dummy airfields.

This is only a small part of our plan for 2017. Our goal is to create an entire World War II environment for our warbirds which will continue our strategic goal of creating an air combat simulation that spans the world and across the decades. Strap in!

 

Happy New Year!

The Eagle Dynamics Team

The War Zone reported on the existence of a second rendition of China’s Shenyang FC-31 Gyrfalcon stealth fighter when pictures of the design under construction surfaced during the Zhuhai Air Show in early November. Now that aircraft—which features substantial upgrades in its low observable shaping and manufacturing quality—has flown for the first time, as evidenced by the photos and video below.

 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6673/chinas-highly-evolved-fc-31-stealth-fighter-makes-its-first-flight

Happy Christmas and New Year to all. 

DCS World Christmas Sale - up to 60% off!

 

 

You've waited all year for the big sale discounts, and they are here today with the start of our Christmas Sale! Get 40% off on all DCS World E-Shop items, with the following exceptions:

• DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 - 60% off
• DCS: Combined Arms - 60 % off
• DCS: Hawk by VEAO - 60% off
• DCS: MiG-21bis – 50% off
• DCS: A-10C Warthog - 50% off
• DCS: Black Shark 2 – 50% off
• DCS: NEVADA Test and Training Range Map – 30% off
• DCS: F-5E Tiger II – 30% off
• DCS: Spitfire LF Mk. IX - 20% off
• All Campaigns – 50% off

 

 

The Christmas Sale starts today at 1500 GMT and will last until 3 January 2017 at 1500 GMT.

DCS World 1.5.5 Update

 

This weekend we are releasing a new update to version 1.5.5 of DCS World with the primary focus on correcting several Mission Editor triggers.

 

DCS: AJS-37 Viggen is now available for pre-purchase!

 

 

 

 

Leatherneck Simulations, in association with The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics, are pleased to announce the AJS-37 for DCS World is now available for pre-purchase! The pre-purchase provides a 20% discount off the retail price!

 

DCS: AJS-37 Viggen will launch on January 27th for $59.99. Pre-Purchase now for $47.99 and save 20%!

 

Pre-purchase from DCS E-Shop

Pre-purchase launch video: DCS: AJS-37 Viggen

 

The AJS-37 Viggen is a Swedish double-delta supersonic attack aircraft from the late Cold War. It was the backbone of the Swedish Air Force during the Cold war, serving as the main attack and anti-ship platform. The AJS is the 90’s upgrade of this 70's era aircraft, adding several advanced weapons and systems functionalities. The aircraft was designed around the pilot, with an excellent man-machine interface, supporting the pilot through the smart use of autopilot systems, radar and HUD symbology in order to deliver the ordnance onto targets from treetop level with high speed attack runs.

The aircraft is armed with multiple weapon systems ranging from programmable stand-off weapons such as the RB-15F antiship missile to the BK90 Cluster munitions dispenser to various bombs, rockets and missiles for a wide range of target types. The aircraft can also carry gun pods and the Sidewinder series of infrared-guided missiles for air defence and self-protection purposes.

 

 

more screenshots

 

 

Key Features of the DCS: AJS-37 Viggen include:

• Highly detailed and accurate 6-DOF (Degrees of Freedom) cockpit.
• Extensive and highly detailed aircraft modelling systems such as:
  • CK37 aircraft computer with navigation data, time on target, and fuel calculation systems.
  • Data input / output interface and pre-planned data cartridge functionality.
  • Automatic dead reckoning navigation and terrain contour matching position update system.
  • Flight instrument systems.
  • Electrical and hydraulic systems.
  • TILS Tactical Instrument Landing System.
• Advanced RM-8A jet engine modelling with thrust reverser, compressor surges and stalls.
• Sophisticated high-resolution air-to-ground radar technology modelling the PS-37/A radar including:
  • Multiple radar amplifications and filter settings.
  • Obstacle detection mode.
  • Memory mode.
  • Air-to-Air mode.
• Highly accurate advanced flight model based on real performance data and documentation.
• Maritime reconnaissance capabilities to determine position, course and speed of vessels.
• Advanced programmable weapons such as the RB-15F anti-ship missile with multiple waypoints and the configurable BK-90 "Mjolnir" Cluster munitions dispenser.
• Detailed modelling of over 14 unique weapons and miscellaneous stores with multiple versions and delivery methods, ranging from rockets, bombs, to advanced air-to-ground missiles such as the command-guided RB-05A and the TV-guided RB-75 "Maverick" missiles.
• Comprehensive 400+ page flight manual.
• Extensive interactive & voiced training tutorials.
• Several campaigns and missions including:
  • Caucasus campaign*
  • Mini NTTR DACT campaign*
  • Mini Caucasus introduction campaign.*
  • Instant action and single player missions.

* may not be available in early access.

 

This is the product of several years of passion and dedication and we are incredibly excited to bring it to life in DCS World! We hope that you will have as fun learning and flying the aircraft as we have had in recreating it.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays with best wishes for the new year,
The Eagle Dynamics Team

more screenshots

Been waiting for this the whole year and 3 days before release i got a displaced collarbone. I've been trough parachute jumps wich crippled half my company and came out unscathed and i got screwed up during our christmas party. At least I'm better than the other "senior private-acting corporal"  in my squad who got a testicle almost to explode...without even remembering what he did. We left our poor Sarge alone with the newer guys...wich come to think about it, at least have more brains than we do.

 

Had to undergo surgery and i'm staying with my parents at home while recovering. They wont let me go to the theater just in case "What if Ana (my girlfriend, who drives so slow i could outrun her on foot) brakes too hard and the seatbelt takes the bone back out, or you get bumped in a crowd"

 

27, I'm freaking 27 and grounded

 

Hope you get better soon.....plenty of time to watch the film so no need to panic.