Boresight

Yes maybe, but you I believe one may install other scenarios (although payware they might be.) But did you know/tried the Falcon BMS already, and are you looking for hardcore flightsim?

Hello everyone. MrGoTime, why don't you try " Falcon BMS " ? Summarizing about it: - it's the most complete and realistic F-16 sim until now (step learning curve); - it's free, so you may download it from the web; - although it's mainly about the F-16 (there's also a Mirage 2000 C model, if I remember correctly); - I believe it has even more avionics features than Lock On series; - very good graphics (aircraft and scenarios). Currently I'm not playing it, because I was tired of flying always the F-16.

Hello Nesher, Are you absolutely sure it weren't the rebels or even another foreign country?

I was astonished when I've read this morning (in Portugal), the following article, allegedly about the Iranian Air Force's F-14 being shot down by UFOs, probably some new kind of drone. (Surprisingly, the article I've first read was at a generalist news site, not on a geostrategic one.) I'm almost speechless. Might it be the F-22 operating discretely? (They're in the area, and already warned the IRIAF F-4s.) https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b9bded1d2580 Anyone feel free to post your opinions.

Hello Caesar, It's true, in warfare, technological lag tends to be unforgiving for the weakest side. But, what do you think might be happening? Was it F-22's work, or anything totally different?

Nice article. Some aspects: First, liked to see that the MiG-29's end appears to be not so close, as the K version is planned to enter service on Russia and India's navy. Second, although the Chinese efforts to modernize its military industry are highly notable, one can't help to notice that, it's also in a controverse and polemic fashion, i.e. the typical shameless, all the way copy, of foreign products. Some might argue for instance, that actually, the Su-27 airframe plans were integrally bought from the Russian. However the Russians also claim that a number of other components were illegally copied along the time. ( Not to mention their J-31 fighter's airframe is a major copy of the F-35 / F-22 designs - and they didn't pay any royalties to any US manufacturer, that I'm aware of. ) Either way, although their J-11 and J-15 aircraft aren't with full potential yet, they do represent a rapid and serious increase of Chinese military capabilities.

Well, in SF 2: North Atlantic, an A-7 Corsair II with a load of M117 bombs can sink pretty much anything that floats. ( US & URSS carriers included. ) Now, I don't know exactly what class is the stock game carrier's, but if they're stock, then they can be sunk. ( The Kuznetsov will go down it just 5 or 6 well placed M117 (750 lbs) bombs. )

Yes, that's where I'm at nowadays! My "path" with the Tomcat on PC games / 'simulators' (not going to mention pure arcade type softwares) was: - TOPGUN: Fire at Will !, ( unfortunately didn't caught Fleet Defender at Portugal ), somewhat simplistic, yet was very immersive; - Free Falcon 5 ( F-14 mods ), although with F-16's HUD and MFD's, the cockpit was good though; - Flightgear F-14b, freeware, although not finished was the most feature accurate so far, (pylon activation switches, HUD mode switches, etc.) - Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic, it made install Win 7 for the first time, I know it's a 'light sim', but wish it could have more features, TMF F-14 made wonders.

Hello everyone, While I'm flying for example the F-4 Phantoms even during day time, in some angles in relation to the sun light, the cockpit instrumentation gets somewhat dark. Therefore, after searching the forum, I've found advices about changing certain parameters at the aircraft's Cockpit.ini files. However, the only aircrafts who seam to have this file, are only the add-on aircraft. Where can I find the stock aircraft's Cockpit.ini? Thank you.

Well, everything went just great, and so I've managed to use the CAT extractor just like NeverEnough said. In my case, I got the best results in obtaining the best cockpit light at night and/or dark environments, by tweaking with the: NightLightColor ; NightLightOn and LightRange parameters at the ' COCKPIT.INI ' files. I leave photos below just to compare the differences. Thank you again, NeverEnough!

Very interesting article, and (to me) always nostalgic... The F-14 Tomcat, the Air Combat Warfare, the Cold War, the Eastern Block, the tense environment... yes, it does have a mystic, like the peak of an era. And at those times, the Tomcat appeared as a special "tool" of power and strength which stood behind the US external politics. The F-14 was not just a war machine, it represents an whole ideology of serious effort to achieve TOP capabilities and combat power. I believe that, what made it stand out from every other fighter jet of that era was, its might, hi-tech and pioneer charisma. ( I guess it's better I'll end it here, otherwise somebody may call the psychiatrist on me and I'll end at the mental hospital. )

Hello NeverEnough, I'm now reading the tutorials on how to use the Cat extractor, and will try to use it tomorrow. Thank you for the detailed info.

Hello turkeydriver, Actually, as I mentioned some posts back, it makes me very confused how the early F-4 versions (with just a gunsight reticle on its combining glass) might be much easier to land than the F-14. I know, it's been said back there, that Phantom's "felt like flying on rails when approaching the carrier" or something like that, and I believe it. I also feel the Phantom seems more stable, less prone to oscillating and changes of flight path, than the Tomcat. However, in terms of the pilot's guiding the aircraft to the carrier, don't you feel that the lack of a flight path marker (velocity vector, whatever) is a major handicap?

Hello, Ok, that makes more sense to me, as the Phantom's flying characteristics gave him a reputation of a "flying brick". And the Phantom's SF 2 flight model does depict well that reputation. Hence my curiosity on the Phantom's carrier landing speeds.

Hello Z09SS, (and anyone who wishes to answer), Thank you for your reply, and I do believe your method works too. However, how do you manage to see the carrier (even with the view in wide screen and looking up), with approach speeds in the 130 - 140 range? It's because, I've tried with a REALLY light F-4J Phantom II (no external stores whatsoever, and almost no internal fuel), and still, much bellow 150 knots and the aircraft would start to sink bellow glide slope. Again, just like on your landings - observing the carrier just barely above the slip bubble at the combining glass. EDIT: by the way, is your flight model set to HARD at the options menu?

Hello Z09SS, Thank you for your time. You've chosen to post night pictures, and on the 2nd. pic the flight deck's height isn't much noticeable. ( One only gets an approximate idea of it's height, through the parked helicopter. ) From the first pic and captions, I see your landing procedures are a bit based on the AoA lights. I on the other hand, always try to keep visual track of the carrier, even if that means not being always on optimum AoA. I always try to follow an imaginary glide slope (and not a straight, parallel course, directly do the flight deck), and try to maintain the carrier at the bottom of my ' HUD '. However the lack of a " flight path marker " on the F-4 Phantom II, does difficult landing procedures. What's your typical carrier landing speeds for an F-4, with low internal fuel and clean configuration?

By the way, I'll take this thread to post another doubt, wihtout having to open a new similar thread: Does anyone has advice on the procedures to do a reasonable F-4 Phantom II landing on carriers? It's because, although I've managed to do it, I find the lack of symbology aid (typical to the F-4) somewhat difficult to help landing this bird. Thank you.

1 - Very true. I believe "Fleet Defender" vs "Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic" is an example of those differences. 2 - I already was aware of that, as it's been spoken a lot of times at third wire forums. Unfortunately, sometimes things have to be developed on budget and in a specific format. I just hope TK don't ruin what's left of SF 2 PC titles with those money centered changes, and leave them to the mobile platforms. 3 - About the small Russian and Chinese market, might it have been poor marketing again?

Hello MigBuster, Well, my english is not prime, so I've had to see the vídeo twice trying to follow Mr. Ilya Shevchenko's message when he spoke faster, but I believe I managed to understand the general idea. And for the most part I agree with him. If I understood well, he says that the search for the maximum realism, actually impaired the flight sims in the way that, make it loose it's appeal to general (not harcore fans) gamers. So, now he's trying to create fligh sims which although still generally hard, are also more progressive learning and rewarding/fun to the gamers. 1 - About the decline of the flight sim: What does concern me, is when I see more people warning about for example: the developer TK intending to dumb down some SF 2 (PC) game features, and so I remember him: What made buy his PC games again, was - the possibility to fly / enjoy an F-14 Tomcat with the at least minimum acceptable standard features, like it's radar; HUD symbology; flight model; etc. and not some crap, arcade style, PC game. ( For arcade fans, there's Playstation's Ace Combat, which is very good and I've played it too ). Just don't turn SF 2 PC series on arcade style - for me that's the kind of supreme decline. 2 - About the fall of the flight sim: Maybe I didn't understood quite well the thread, but aren't: DCS MiG-21bis; Aerosoft's F-14a for FSX; and several other releases coming out ?

Previous post EDIT: "Them" - the active carrier lights at night.

Well, judging from the general opinions about the game creator "TK" on several sites, and with the all respect for his work, I'm going to take a chance: Because he didn't bother to place them on the game. If anyone knows best, please tell.

1 - Well there you have it. In reality with a high sink rate, it was becoming more of a crash than a landing. (Just to give you an idea, comparing with the reality's worst case scenario I believe that it would end with the aircraft's crew severely injured.) 2 - Why don't you use the aircraft's rudder?

Hello Wrench, That really was my first thought, but the second is - I don't know if I'm ready to do that kind of tweaks without messing my installation, but I may give it a try. I'm yet to learn things like: how to do if I want to replace it again with the old carrier, etc. I've only went so far as installing other add-on aircraft and avionics. Fubar512, I didn't even know it was supposed to different for each model, but as the stock carriers don't have OLS, this one caught my interest. Thank you all.

Glad to know that Leviathan! And also follow the other member's advice, as they are probably more experienced than I'am. About the other aircraft you mention, I believe you mean the A-7 Corsair II right? So, what procedures did you do differently this time to succeed?

Hello Fubar512, Do you know if the Skatezilla's CVN-75 does have the fresnel lights system? And what's the main diferences from that to the stock game carriers? Thank you for your attention.