Anthropoid

LOL, fucking dumbass islamofascists

Any you guys play the Nitro Games? That was the best Age of Sail tactical battle model I had seen as of 5 or 10 years ago. Curious how this compares?

I'm a retired professor of anthropology and most of my gaming has been strategy & tactics type historical war games. First bought a flying sim maybe 10 years ago, realized the stick & throttle were not optional, got the Saitek X52, used a plexiglass sheet on my lapboard to get it the suction cups to stick. Played the heck out of a few games to learn the basic 'instincts' of flying (MS Flight Sim X; IL-2 1946; Falcon 4.0 Allied Force [which I never managed to play much as it just seemed overwhelming]; Battle of Britain Wings of Victory). Within a year or so of 'trying' out these games, I felt like I was getting nowhere but frustrated and let my interest lapse. Put the controllers away and went back to other things. Recently got a hot new Xidax gaming rig and I've been reinstalling all of my old games (including the ones above). IL-2, as fun as it is, doesn't seem to like my controllers these days. Getting the trim settings so I don't wobble around in the sky was driving me crazy. Falcon 4.0 has graphical glitches, which I hear I can get around by installing a free-to-play version of it somewhere out there on the interwebs. I may get around to that eventually. BAB, I seem to be missing one CD, and Matrix Games doesn't show me a digital download. I reckon either they or A2A will get me set up though; Scott at A2A said "buy it and I'll reimburse you" but I'll first see if Matrix has me listed as a digital download order. I honestly do not remember but the box says it on it. Thankfully MS FSX works like a charm and it was quite edifying when I was able to zip through the first 6 or 7 Learning missions without a single hitch. Hmmm! Maybe I DID 'learn' a bit about flying from that previous attempt some years back! Kinda felt like riding a bike; I was wobbly but I knew what to do :) So then a buddy recommended the Strike Fighter 2 series and I took the plunge and bought Vietnam. Have to say, this is the most fun I've ever had with a flight game and I think I might well become a regular of the SF2 series and I'd like to eventually own and master all of them, and get a nice selection of mods. But for now, I'm just getting started and have a few basic questions about the stock game--JUST SF2 Vietnam, nothing else installed as yet. So far my experience with the game is playing a few single missions to get the hang of it, and then starting (and failing) at the Rolling Thunder Campaign repeatedly. I've probably created about 13 pilots, none of whom made it past 7 missions, and many of whom got random boomed by AA or SAM (or stupidity on my part, though still haven't been shot down by a MiG) within 2 missions. So all that "who am I" stuff laid out, my questions: 1. Is it realistic that there are SAMs shooting down US flights in 1965? It was my understanding that those did not get deployed for a while and did not cause any losses until the campaign was a year or so old? 2. I don't imagine it is possible without mods but worth asking: if I fail at a mission, it is not possible to fly back and reequip and take a second sortie, right? 3. If I bail out in the gulf, or closer to the coast or closer to the border, does it have any influence on probability of being rescued versus captured? Is it even possible to get shot down, get rescued and continue the campaign without reflying? 4. Has anyone ever actually flown through the whole 3 years of this campaign and survived without reflying (on Normal or harder)? 5. If I go to the effort of strafing and destroying as many additional targets as I can take out on each mission, will the losses actually impact the overall success of the campaign in game? Do P-35 or AAA vehicles just magically 'respawn? Do the loss of these assets actually "do" anything? Reason I ask this is, while the sim clearly strikes an ideal balance between playability and realism/accuracy/detail, for which I'm hugely thankful, it is also rather unrealistic when it comes to the execution of the campaign at the operational level. As you may know, one of the main problems with Rolling Thunder was that LBJ was afraid to go all out, and in effect 'sustained but gradually escalated' was a code word for 'militarily stupid operation organized[and micro-managed] by a civilian politician.' As the operation progressed, it evolved into more and more of a free-for-all 'strike targets of opportunity,' but for the first year or more, there was a quite restricted list of targets and certain 'provocative' targets were just simply forbidden (mining harbors, e.g., as well as a number of strategically important target types). I'm not complaining, as the game is plenty fun without the added layer of restricted target authorization. But what I'm wondering is, given the stock scenario effectively depicts an 'alternate history' in which all targets were fair game (I can attack anything I want in addition to my mission primary target, and I seem to be in no risk of a court-martial! ), are the background replacement algorithms setup so that the player weeding out radar and/or AAA vehicles will in fact advance the campaign toward 'victory' (meaning reduction of northern logistical sufficiency, air superiority, reduction of their air defense effectiveness and eventually, force them to the table in Paris?). So for example: if I on each of the first 10 or so missions I fly in the campaign focus on taking out any and all P-35 sites I encounter, will it actually reduce northern ability to coordinate A/A defenses or fighter interdiction? If I were to focus on destroying buildings that are clearly storage or distribution facilities, else target ships in port, or other logistic elements (bridges, rail yards, ports, etc.) will THAT actually have any effects, apart from upping my pilots tally sheet and 'score?'

Thanks Nyghtfall and Migbuster. Answers my questions.

What I mean is, do I need to install SF2 Israel in any particular location (inside or at the same level as SF2 Vietnam?) I'm guessing based on your response that it is a pretty flexible procedure, and to be honest I'm not even what it amounts to nor the benefits of doing it; "doing a fully merged install" I mean. I've just seen a few people comment on doing this once you own all the separate packages so I assume I'll want to do it once I own them all. Going back to the F-100 upgrade issue . . . my squadron is the Panthers ( selected on that was closer to minimize in flight time mainly).

One more question 5. How will I know my X52 gear is "worn out?" Seems like it is getting a bit unresponsive. I've got the sensitivity in game set to maximum and I still have to depress the stick to maximum to get any response. I guess when I was first learning to fly sims I probably wrenched on it far too hard much of the time. I've probably used it for something between 500 and 1000 hours of play by now.

I've flown the F-100 up to summer 1966 and managed not to get killed (well, there was that _one_ time I was a bit intoxicated (in RL) and went for that 3rd MiG with no missiles and low ammo and wound up a pancake somewhere southeast of Hanoi . . . but it was actually my Dachsund sitting in my lap which was the cause of it, so a justifiable refly!). Couple questions: 1. I'm still not getting any option to upgrade to a more modern plane and there are now Fishbeds in the air (why "fish beds" would take the air I'm not sure but it is concerning given they seem be able to go very fast and are difficult to hit with cannon fire, not to mention that Sidewinders seem to be pretty close to useless) If I started a campaign with the F-100 does it ever give me an option to fly another plane!? 2. I saw a Youtube video of a modded FSX with a B-52. Is the MS FSX forum the best place to tap into that stuff or what? (figures MS site is borked and my attempt to create an account seems to have stuck midway through). 3. Which SF2 title should I buy as my 2nd? 4. Any precautions I should take so as to be able to eventually make a fully 'merged' install, whatever that means?

Is there a minimum score to be admitted to the Cool Combat Ace Club? Can I study first? Is it timed? Are crib notes okay?

Thanks SupGen. That looks to be the motherlode of good orientation material.

I'm a noob to flight sim games, so I have a hard time discriminating what is my own lack of experience and knowledge and what is 'not good game.' That said, I find IL-2 1946 (purchased off Good Old Games) in basic vanilla form to be quite . . . erm, annoying for lack of a better word. Trim and the UI controls for looking around being my main issue. To me, Strike Fighters 2 does a great job of striking a happy balance between detail, realism, and playability for a relatively inexperienced flight simmer. I was within 10 or 15 hours able to do missions competently in SF2 Vietnam, but in IL2 I don't think I've ever got the hang of it. Maybe I just need a different profile for my controllers, I dunno. If I thought I could get the game to perform as smoothly on my rig and with my controllers as SF2 Vietnam did pretty much immediately 'out of the box,' I'd be all over every expansion and download availalble and happy to make paypal donations to the modder/designers responsible. But with so many games I've never played that are shiny new out of the box (ROF, all the various SF titles, etc.) I'd have to say that IL-2 is not on the top of my list. But I'd definitely be interested to hear if anyone has any suggestions to change my mind :)

Thanks guys. I'm sure I'll have more questions soon, but I'll stock up for a while.

So far I've only flown the F-100 in 1965. Before finding this thread at SimHQ, Techniques for Weapons Delivery in SFP1 I found it impossible to hit anything on the ground. After skimming through it once, my eyes had a donut-glaze and it seemed far too technical for mere Earthbound mortals such as me to comprehend. Coming back to it a day later and reading it more carefully, it all clicked. My take home from this was: 1. Without CCIP, your reticule is only useful as a 'reference' to where your weapons will strike. 2. Range and speed (and probably angle of attack, though if speed is accounted for, I think that adequately covers the variance across most ranges of angle of attack that are safe and viable) are the two other factors that must be considered. 3. The "system" that they experimented their way into (which a high school physic student knowledgeable in aerodynamics might well be able to arrive at mathematically) was as follows; A. Approach at 10,000ft ASL at 475 knots B. At 3 nm, turn throttle to zero, pitch down and put reticule (in ground attack mode) on target (achieving a ~27-degree Angle of attack). C. At 1.1 nm, you should be around 535KIAS of speed and 4000ft altitude; At that speed, and position relative to the target with the reticule directly on target (at least with the plane they used with I believe was an F4), bombs dropped will achieve a direct hit. I found that their 10,000ASL/475KIAs/dive at 3nm/reticule directly on target/drop at 1.1 wasn't _exactly_ right for the F-100 in SF 2, but it was definitely in the ball park. Rather than hitting 1.1 nm to target at 4,000 ft I've generally found I get their at a lower altitude. Generally, relative to their system, I have found that I need to overshoot, so instead of reticule directly on and drop at 1.1, reticule slightly past and drop at 1.0 or even 0.9 seems to work better for me. It may be that I'm not actually going fast enough a lot of times, or it may be the physics calculations in SFP1 are a bit different than SF2, or it may be specific to the planes. Guns and rockets are certainly going to be different but I've found the same 'algorithm' useful to get in the ballpark and with practice have a reasonable intuition for these weapon systems too. With that system in mind, and with a good deal of practice, I've achieved a certain level of 'instinct' for improvising ground attack runs and can generally take out most targets that are vulnerable to cannon fire, with about 80% success per pass, and approaching from a variety of altitudes and angles. I'm a bit less accurate with bombs, but with a stick of 3 or 4 with ripple of 1 and manually dropping each one with repeated clicks (simply because I don't have a clue about how different the available intervals [60, 100, and 140ms], nor how to use them effectively) . . . I can take out most targets now. I figure if I drop 4 250lb bombs I can achieve about a 90% success rate for one pass (though a 4-times less efficiency rate!) and with 1 bomb maybe 40 or 50%, though getting better and better. So that is how I have so far taught myself to be 'competent,' though not expert with ground attacking using dumb guidance in SF2 Vietnam. It is a testament to the marvel of human perception and cognition that people are able to pull off this stuff in real life. I do hope that our pilots are allowed to get some experience with dumb bombing as it seems clear that; (a) with a bit of instruction, and practice, anyone can do it with some degree of success and with not terrible risk; (b) technology is great, right up to the point that it breaks and then when you have to use pencil and paper instead of smartphone, you'll regret having never learned how to write else being so rusty you cannot do it well.

Cool, good to know. I thought it might have been AI confusion as I did not do a "by the book" take off and kept my ascent rather shallow and my turn toward my first waypoint rather hard. That tells me that I probably do not want to do that if I don't want my computerized flight mates crashing and burning!

Sure thing! I'm a novice, but that might a good thing to have at least one tester. Other constraint is, so far I only own SF2 Vietnam . . . however, a good excuse to buy one or two of the other one's wouldn't be a bad thing :)

Ah, thanks NeverEnough and WhiteBoySamurai! I will definitely take up both of those suggestions :) I actually did start to download the ROF free demo last night, but for whatever reason it was moving glacially (which is atypical for my point on the network and my machine). So I had a look at what Steam has and also compared it to what they have on the ROF site. Actually now I'm a bit curious and confused. Question El Numero Nueve (9): Are the sum total of all the modules and packages available from Steam and ROF site exactly the same? Or are there some things that are included in one but not in the other? 10. I get that, you cannot have part of your ROF install Steam and part ROF-store. But does that mean you cannot do Multiplayer except with players with the same package origin? Normally I wouldn't think that was the case but my observations of the total package compositions is making me wonder if these are actually two slightly different licenses for slightly different versions of the same games. When I tallied up all the packages Steam seems to sell (all of which had ROF: Channel Battles at the beginning of the title) it came to about $260. When I put everything on the ROF store site into a cart, it came to about $218 and that was with a supposed 50% discount. I totally get that a developer wouldn't want Steam to be the only channel for distributing, and also would assume that Valve would negotiate a deal in which they distribute a slightly different and incompatible version. But I'd just like to know exactly what is up with these two games so that I can decide which one I want to take the plunge with. I'd lean the store bought if it is the one that has more content and is best option for compatibility in the broadest set of multiplayer servers. But if the sum total of contents are identical, and compatibility in MP is not an issue, then I think I'd actually lean Steam. I used to be a bit of one of those tin-foils who was anti-Steam but I've grown to become quite a Steam groupie and really like having a lot of my games in one cloud. Ah, one other question: 11. So far, 95% of my play in SF Vietnam has been in the F-100 Super Saber, which I enjoy. I read from wiki that this plane was fairly problematic and suffered a non-trivial rate of operational failures. I've noticed that, on at least three maybe as many as five times, when I was taking off for a mission as part of a campaign, one or two of my flight mates just seemed to crash shortly after take off! The first time it happened I was like "Huh!? What was that crash!? Are the Viet Cong setting up AAA near Da Nang!?" When I looked in the log after the battle one pilot had crashed after take off but evidently had bailed out. A second time it happened both of them were killed. Is this modeling operational losses?

Ah thanks for the replies dudes. Now that you mention Gary Powers, oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. I may give Rise of Flight free demo whirl. If it rolls my socks up (which based on the Youtubes and the reviews, I'm guessing it will) then even at that price it would be worth it. War in the Pacific Admirals Edition, published by Matrix; an excruciatingly detailed one-day per turn strategic sim of the entire Pacific theatre from Dec 7 1941 till war end, in which virtually every ship (down toe minelayers and coast guard cutters), every airplane (hard to believe I know, but it is true), every airman, and at some level of abstraction every soldier and sailor . . . the gaming community from whence I could be said to hail . . . just on the principle of supporting the guys who made it (and it was definitely an Indie type thing) I pre-ordered it for some insane price, I forget if it was $125 or maybe more. I think I had it installed on a machine at one point and actually played it for a few hours! I'm sure I will eventually install it and relearn it and play it devotedly, but just not yet. So I totally get that there are games that are so good, you are happy to pay full price and even if it is a somewhat inflated price. Would you guys say Rise of Flight fits that bill? I've seen four of five points of information that suggest to me that it really is that good, but it is always good to get multiple perspectives on these things. One of my favorite planes from MS FSX is the piper cub, so I tend to think I'd really enjoy chugging around in a little tub machine-gunning the bad guys.

Some more questions: 6. If I intend to eventually own all of them, but to play though slowly mastering each era's planes as I go, what package or DLC would you guys recommend as my "second batch" of purchases? I'd think that getting the editor is a good second purchase? 7. This is about a different title, Rise of Flight, assuming it is okay to ask about that here . . . what do you guys think of that game? I had a look on Steam and it looks more like "Rise of Profiteering!" $30 for the basic game and then $20 to 30 for each DLC just to get a couple more airplaines!? 8. Will have tons of mod questions as I go, but here just a basic one: any mods that add more operational realism' to the basic game? For example, more air traffic comms a bit more like in MS Flight Sim X? or the capacity to land at a friendly base, replenish and then do a second sortie?

Not sure if you own it already, but there is an expansion pack that you must buy to get the campaign editor.

I generally play games this way, which is why I very rarely finish games. I have a long and rocky history with flight sims, but happily I seem to have absorbed and put into 'long-term ability' some of the learning I had done 5 or 6 years ago playing IL-2 and MS Flight Sim X. I was complaining to a buddy at another forum about how poorly IL-2 handles with my hardware (X52) and also how Falcon 4 Allied Force has graphical problems and he suggested these Strike Force series . . . Love them! One of the best balances between realism and game play I've ever seen in a flight sim. So far only bought SF 2 Vietnam, but something tells me I'll be owning pretty much all of them in time. So far, I've flown probably 15 or 20 hours all in an F-100 Super Saber, which is a lot of fun. Have probably shot down 10 or 15 enemies and been shot down 9 or 10 times! Finally seem to have got the hang of ground attack using some old thread on the simHQ. So, all that said, I'm definitely into "Dead is Dead," but if I posted a thread for every toon that dies the forums would quickly be swamped with threads.