Kyot54

I'm tryign to figure out how to configure 2BR/BRU-55s to allow carriage of 2 1000 lbs JDAMs (GBU-32). I can't figure out what I need to change. I have gotten it to carry two GBU-16s

See, Holidays. Things picked back up nicely today.

Dang, for a second I thought it said F-*14*D. I was about to dump my life savings into lottery tickets! LOL

Trying this from my phone so we'll see how it woeks. Wikipedia's page on jet fuel was interesting but moderately useful. Seems USN uses JP-5 mostly and USAF uses -8, just s O thing don't get too boring for us :P. LOL So ultimately this was all the government bureaucracy's fault. :D

Back to DACT for a moment, here's some pics of my Tomcat vs Vicious Dragon flights, flown in the aforementioned Op Darius install

EricH, My apologies, I'm not trying to dis your campaigns, I really like them, and have more than a couple of SF2 installs for that purpose. If you've corrected the .ini's that is awesome. It's been a while since I downloaded Darius, and my Super Hornet install for basic SF2 was a separate download, not a cut and paste from Darius, so I can't be sure if the fuel glitch was for both, though I do know it was in the download for my basic SF2. I do know I had to fix the F-22 for Darius, but I'm not sure whether I got the updated version or not, but as you have it set where it needs to be at this time, I see no further reason to dwell on it. Thanks for being willing to check up on all that. EricJ, As Crusader mention, the data.ini's calculate fuel based on Kg, not pounds, so if you are using the pounds number, it is going to be way off to the magnitude of 2.2x. As far as the JP-4/5/8, while I readily admit I am a recovering perfectionist (i.e. still really anal), differences in the order of 100lbs over 300 gallons (give or take) I wouldn't fuss as much about, nor is it going to double the fuel load in poundage. For example, in the Tomcat the difference in a full internal load of JP-5 vs JP-8 is roughly 2000 lbs, however we are talking deviances in the order of 15,000 lbs for the E/F/G Hornets. Looking at the original download files (I keep backups, for just such an occasion) it looks like the lbs vs. Kg exchange is the culprit. If, as you said, what you have listed in the data.ini is based on lbs ; [FuselageFuelCell1] SystemType=FUEL_TANK FuelTankID=1 MaxFuelAmount=2380 SelfHealing=TRUE FireSuppression=TRUE MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 2.636,0.293 MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.686,-0.426 [FuselageFuelCell2] SystemType=FUEL_TANK FuelTankID=2 MaxFuelAmount=2600 SelfHealing=TRUE FireSuppression=TRUE MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 0.203,0.633 MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.335,-0.598 Then it would be off if the game is calculating based on Kg. Based on metric measurements they should read [FuelCell1]:1082 [FuelCell2]:1182. I know when I adjusted the numbers myself, I cut them all at least in half, and then a bit more, which would follow in the order of Kg vs lbs scenario. I apologize, I feel like I've started a ruckus. As long as I can mod thing to my liking, I'm pretty happy. That's one thing I like about Sims, the Tomcat may not have carried AMRAAM's IRL, but in here I can correct that perceived injustice, though I do try to keep things to a plausible reality. Which means as much as I would love an F-8(X?) with an F135 engine, 4 wing hardpoints for whatever my heart desires including AMRAAMs, and a glass cockpit, HUD and AESA radar would be AWESOME, I'm still probably not going to make one :/

EH, were you looking at them in the data.ini or in the Hanger screen? In the Hanger screen was where I noticed the discrepancies. As you can see in earlier post, we determined that the .ini uses Kg for fuel, which would explain why they were slightly over double if the number over lbs were used as the value. I'm not sure on the Strike Eagle, I do know I had to fix the Raptor,Super Hornets, and Growler for sure. I'll list the appropriate weights according to Wikipedia (which I'm sure is using FAS and Global Security in turn) for the planes in question below in pounds with the metric equivalent in parentheses. Note: there are INTERNAL fuel loads, as that is what is listed on the fuel and ammo section of the hanger screen, external fuel is calculated separately and therefore should not need to be accounted for in the data.ini, except in the case of the CFT's on the Strike Eagle. F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,780 kg) F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,354 kg) E/A-18G: 13,940 lb (6,323 kg) F-15E: ~ 13,455 lb (6,100 kg) internal w/o CFT. w/ CFTs :each unit carries an additional 849 US gal of fuel (don't have the exact numbers, but JP-5 weighs around 7lbs/gal so roughly 12,000 lbs with both [~25,500 total internal]) F-22A: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally Hope that helps. P.S. If memory serves, before adjusting them, the Super Hornets/Growler were all in the 30,000lbs internal range, and the Raptor was up to 38,000lbs internal

Well, that would definitely explain why in the cases we are discussing the fuel numbers have been slightly over double: 2.2lbs per Kg. Mystery solved. I am toying with the idea of converting my Block II Super Bugs to EPE or some variance (maybe a halfway point between the EPE/EDE, not that engine life is something we deal with in game), partly because I don't see much difference between the Block I's and II's except for Squadron assignments? I have generally accepted that the "F" is a justifiable successor to the medium range duties of the A-6 in lieu of the A-6F, with the additional benefit of self-escort and picking up slack in fleet defense, while the Tomcat could still handle the long-range strike duties. I've even converted some old Intruder squadron skins to VFA status to see how this concept would look visually. Black Panthers, Boomers, Sunday Punchers all look pretty nice "Bugged" out. Wish I has a decent Main Battery decal, but maybe I can rig something. I'm going to fly some 4th gen versus the UFO (MiG-17) DACTs here soon, maybe we'll see how it all turns out.

Caesar, I generally keep my ammo on normal, mostly because I am trying to develop some situational discretion. Most of the times I have been happy I had a few more round is when I have been a cocky jack___ and continued to hunt bandits when I've run out of missiles. Better to save the gun for in case I get jumped on the way home, not go out looking for more trouble. I figured as much regarding the weights, thrust etc. As I mentioned, it's genrally more just getting them to engage, as opposed to maneuvering with the wingmen (Dash 4 mainly, as I said). When I am flying campaigns I've begun to challenge myself to see how many in my squadron I can get to survive and make it to ace status. It's kinda interesting choosing to fly top cover and allow the wing to bag the MiG, very realistic in fact if you are flying by loose deuce tactics. Eric, I don't have sources readily available, but yes, to an extent you are correct regarding the Rhino call. From what I understand, it was implemented during carrier landings with the ball and fuel state call: "Tomcat ball, 6.5" for example. Since the Super Hornet is upwards of 7000lbs heavier even when empty, there easily could be 12,000 lbs worth of difference in the landing weights between a "Hornet" (say 33,000) versus a "Super Hornet" (31000 plane, 10000 fuel, 3000 weps bringback). That kind of calculation difference would be disastrous if the arresting gear were set to the wrong weight. So to avoid the chance of missing the Super in "Super Hornet" during a landing cycle, the pilots call "Rhino, ball, 9.2" for example. The E/F/G's are very similar to the F-4 in weights to a degree (31000 empty, 42000+ loaded) so it's an understandable connection.

Ok, so take whatever numbers I have for thrust and times them by 1.2. Is that 20% both dry and wet? I will say I have noticed that at full mil on the deck with the Super Bug I am not even doing 500knts, where as the Tomcat I am hauling along at .95-.97 Mach all the time. I just tweeked a "D" Tomcat to carry SLAM and JSOWs in the tunnel, which looks pretty raid, and added the 4xSDB rack, which is nice for SEAD, so I take that instead of the Super Bug when speed is needed. I do like the Bugs ability to carry up to 5 AMRAAM's plus Winder's and a nice bomb load, so for Armed Recon and the like, it just depends on the mix I need, if speed isn't a factor.

I have just plain quit trying to determine a correlation between the numbers in the data.ini files and flight models. I just assume that whatever numbers they are using regarding thrust and stuff are going to work out. That being said, the data.ini's that I have found are generally off are mod's that I have downloaded, mainly from here. I guess people are thinking that things are a 1 to 1 ratio, but they aren't. I know that in the case of gun ammo, what shows up on the hanger screen has to do with weight, not rounds (there is a spot in the gun data for both in the .ini). Also, for whatever reason it doubles whatever rounds you actually have listed in the .data.ini, at least it does when it shows up how many rounds you shot it the debrief screen. If I want to be realistic, I generally knock my ammo in half on the weapon load screen. That being said, there have been a few times I was more than happy to have some extra rounds in my gun. As far as gas goes, I know I have at least had to tweak the Super Hornets, the Raptor, and I think even the Strike Eagle in Op Darius. I will say those models he used for that campaign all had fuel figures off. It's gotten to the point that when I download a new plane, I probably end up fixing something on it, whether it be fuel, ammo, weps, and sometimes occasionally skins.

Unfortunately I'm at work right now, so I can't post the pictures I have to go with this, maybe add another post later. Couple of points if I may: A. Hoser is awesome! I might make that points A-M. Nah, just kidding, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. B. Is changing the g limiter more for Single mission 1V, 2v? Or will it help with Campaigns? My biggest frustration with wingman, especially -4s is getting them to just plain shoot. I've ended mission where everyone has shot all their missiles except for -4, who hasn't fired anything. C. I've noticed there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to when I'll get a tough fight versus easy fight, except with MiG-17s, they are almost always generally a pain. But more on that later. I took the Tomcat against what I thought would be the end-all-mother-of-all-DACTs: F-14B vs J-10A. After working it so that they couldn't just shoot me in the face everytime, it wasn't as fulfilling as hoped. I was almost always behind his 3-9 line, but still not pulling lead enough to get a shot. Instead of attempting to play games going around and around endlessly, I dropped landing flaps at around 220kt, plugged it into full burner. Within seconds I was pulling lead enough to get a good shot. Splash one Vicious Dragon. I flew a couple against the Naval Flanker from Black Sea Crisis, similar results regarding disappointment, though not as much need to drop flaps. If I didn't get a good angle in the first turns, and avoided the temptation to get into a sustained turn engagement, more often things would lead to a scissors scenario. Flanker has good guns defense, so if it was guns only it could be difficult, but not so much if you still have some heaters when he pushes out front. D. Did some F-4J/S,F-8 vs Fresco flying recently. I love the hard-wing on the S. That being said, I still say (with the Phantom for sure) best way to beat the -17 is the altitude game. After the merge I would zoom to as much as 26K ft, loiter if I could until he would have to dive to gain energy and try to put a sidewinder into him. If he did a turning dive, it might take a time or two, but it beats shaking them off your butt. About the only way I've found to do this if they can get in close is by exploiting the roll lag. I actually had three -17s close on my tail in an F-8E (campaign mission where they threw the whole squadron at just me and a wingman, and he didn't help much) and I was able to shake them off by doing shallow turn to keep speed up, then half roll into opposite turn, then repeating as soon as he would match wing position. Have to be careful though, I got low quite often and since the tendency for me is to roll underneath, I have to be sure to come out in a slight climbing turn if I can. Eventually you gain enough separation and throw them out of the circle, but it takes some patience and an iron gut (or at least a simulated one, lol). I flip-flopped and flew the Flanker for a few engagements versus F-15C/16C and found I had much the same results as the Tomcat v. Flanker, though the Eagle was much easier to kill with guns than the Falcon. That new Flanker cockpit really is nice, if you haven't tried it out yet. Black Sea also has some nice skins for the Russian birds. Out of curiosity, Eric, what do you have the engines rated at for the EPE Bug? I played with it against the J-10 as well, predictable results. Does anyone know if the FM takes into account the pylon cant? I have wondered if that could be changed in the .ini or if it is an LOD thing? Just me being aerodynamically anal.

Streak, you failed to take into account a very important engagement that, while it did not lead to the initial pilot getting a kill, it was the first half of the engagement in which Dick Wyman got his kill. You emphasize that it was 4 F-8s versus 1 MiG-17, but fail to mention, importantly in my opinion, that just minutes before it was 1 F-8 versus 4 MiG-17s, and quite unlike the later situation, the Crusader pilot (Lt. Cdr Dick Schaffert) was very much on the offensive during much of this, firing all of his Sidewinders (with one likely kill if not for a fusing malfunction) as well as momentary guns, which also failed due to a jam. While I'm not going to get into the maneuverability debate between F-4's and F-8's, it is easily verifiable that the success of the F-8 in Rolling Thunder greatly contributed to the success of the F-4 in Linebacker thanks to A. change in operational tactics (i.e. adopting "loose deuce" vs. Intercept formation), B. Infilitration of experienced Crusader pilots into F-4 cockpits (Teague, McKweon, Houston, to name a few), and most importantly C. Confident and aggressive flying. It doesn't matter if you are flying an Su-27 or F-15, if you don't have the confidence and aggressive attitude to take the fight to your enemy, even Snoopy could shot you down with his doghouse.

One place the Tomcat really shined was in the FAC(A) role, which a lot of guys took over to the Super Bug when they were forced to transition. The 18F just doesn't have the loiter time or ability. I agree that the Super Bug is a decent Strike plane, and I can carry enough A2A, plus bombs that I don't worry about having to bug out (no pun intended) because I've gone Winchester, however bugging out is a more realistic scenario= "select Zone 5 and extend, better to save your plane, than push a bad position", so sayeth the Viper. I do miss the ability to designate multiple strike targets (for thing such as an airfield) that I had in FA. It's bad@** skimming the tree tops at 700kts, popping up and dropping 4 JDAMs (1 on the runway, 1 on the tower, and a couple on hangers) all in one fell swoop before hitting the deck and hauling out of there. I have to use dumb bombs to do anything similar in game, and then I have to jink to drop them in the right spots. I love going in fast and low, and the Hornet, either one, just can't do it as well as the 'cat. Saisran, you said your country used to fly F-5's? Where from if I might ask?