Righteous26

Is there a campaign movement file for the Texas ASC terrain set?

Check the attachment type in the MiG data files. It should look something like this. Ensure it reads AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET. If you intend to use Chinese weapons then you must add ,CHINA to that line as well. [RightOuterWingStation] SystemType=WEAPON_STATION StationID=2 StationGroupID=1 StationType=EXTERNAL AttachmentPosition=2.68,-1.49,-0.42 AttachmentAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 LoadLimit=500.0 LengthLimit=3.5 AllowedWeaponClass=BOMB,RCKT,RP,IRM,FT AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET ModelNodeName=WingPylon_Outer_R PylonMass=60 PylonDragArea=0.02 LaunchRailNodeName=MissileRail_Outer_R LaunchRailHeight=0.10 LaunchRailMass=25 FuelTankName=Tank490_MiG21

Check each file in the list when Windows prompts you to replace files. It is very easy to overwrite things you want to keep. I keep the weapons I want to use most in separate folders and copy them last. I also remove redundant weapons.

The order of operations matters. As an example the weapons in NATO fighters may override the Weapons Pack. Check the weapon ini files and ensure the correct LODs are referenced as a weapon may load without a 3D model but the airplane still has the weapon available.

It sounds as though one part of the install was installed under the "install for all users" option that windows has and that some of the file structure was installed under the "install for a specific user" option. Did you create a new user after installing SF2? It might help to run everything from the run as administrator option you can select from the right click menu.

Did you run the new executable you created before creating or editing an ini file for it? You must run the new copy of the game first and adjust the settings to your liking. The executable will make the ini file when it runs.

The missiles in SF2 tend to be over modeled as compared to other simulations. BMS Falcon comes to mind as hitting a fighter at 20 miles is effectively impossible with an AIM-120C-5. I reduced the impulse of all AHMs to reduce their effective ranges and the AIM-120C-5 can still reach 30 miles with enough energy for an intercept.

If the enemy fighter is an Su-35S you will get outranged because his radar will burn through your jamming before you can burn through his and fire. These reduced firing ranges also put both combatants well within the no escape envelopes of each other's missiles so the player can't just turn and run away at full afterburner. Players must then defeat the missile with chaff as the ECM is of no value against a missile and a kinematic or seeker track rate defeat is unlikely. The Su-35S radar data is obviously lifted directly from Russian promotional materials and is suspect to be fair. I have adjusted all the range, impulse and drag values for the AAMs in my copy of the game and limited their useful ranges to the range at which their velocity drops below Mach 1 based on the Missile Range Simulator projections as the missile likely has little energy left for an interception at this point.

This is a major problem for the active homing missiles (guidance type 13). The AA-9B is particularly problematic in this case as the seeker range is set to 120000. There is no such thing as an active homing missile with a seeker range of 120000 meters. You can fix this by going to the data file and changing one line. Set SeekerRange=120000.000000 To SeekerRange=20000.000000 This will prevent the computer from firing at you until it can get an accurate range on you with its radar or it closes to within 20000 meters. This will force it to respect the same constraints the player must follow. You can also reduce the firing range by changing this line. MaxLaunchRange=120000.000000 Note that changing this line will also prevent the player from firing the missile at a longer range regardless of other factors. I recommend against changing the SeekerRange value for semi-active homing missiles (guidance type 12) as the computer must first lock you up before firing regardless of the range of the seeker so there is no point in reducing that number. Also, the missile seekers do not appear to be affected by aircraft RCS. I have had MiG-31s fire at my stealth aircraft from the maximum missile range without ever seeing me on radar. This stopped when I adjusted the seeker range.

It could be a negative habit transfer from the simulator. The missile may work just a little differently there and it could throw the pilots off the first time they fire a live missile.

Look at the Nations.ini file in the Flight folder and find the Russian Federation. Check the start and end dates and make sure they cover the period you want.

The radar in question is a PD Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) or PD Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA). SF2 does not simulate these sorts of radars very well as it was intended for radars that use only one antenna and are mechanically scanned and AESA/PESA radars have hundreds of small antennae and are electronically scanned. RadarMissileGuidanceCW=TRUE This means that the radar can provide CW illumination to guide a missile to the target. The missile is likely a Semi-Active Homing Missile (SAHM). However, some missiles may require guidance to the target before switching to their own internal guidance (e.g. AMRAAM, Phoenix) but SP2 does not simulate this properly because you get a launch warning on your RWR and this likely would not be the case especially when facing an AESA/PESA radar. RadarSearchTime=0.4 This is the time required for the radar to complete one scan of its search sector at any given range. This means it updates contact positions every 0.4 seconds. RadarTrackTime=0.8 This is the time required for the radar to switch from search to track mode when acquiring a target. This will take 0.8 seconds in this case. The radar likely has to track the target before the computer will fire a missile.

Which missile is this? These lines look like data for an Air Intercept (AI) radar.

RadarSearchCW=FALSE This means that the radar does not search in Continuous Wave (CW) mode. RadarTrackCW=FALSE This means that the radar does not track in Continuous Wave (CW) mode. Further, the radar is most likely a Pulse Doppler (PD) set or a simple range only radar. This means that a jammer designed to interfere with a CW radar may not work as the fundamental operating principles of CW and PD radar are different and jammers useful against one type are generally not useful against the other. Later jammers may have settings that allow them to be effective against both types. Are there any other lines with the words "Search" or "Track" in them?

The US Army and USAF did something like this to open Operation Desert Storm in 1991 in Operation Normandy. Several Army AH-64As guided by a USAF MH-53 PAVE Low attacked an Iraqi EW radar site and made a large hole in their EW radar coverage through which the first coalition attack aircraft flew to strike targets in Iraq. The mission pretty much made then LTC Richard Cody's career. The US Army tried this again on 24 March 2003 and attacked an Iraqi tank brigade that was in a marshaling yard. This turned into a disaster when the AH-64Ds flew through a 40km long flak trap set by the Iraqis in an area that turned out to be their equivalent of the National Training Center and an AAA school. The tanks were bait. The US Army lost one AH-64D outright and had two battalions (6/6 Cav and 1-227th AVN) put out of the rest of the war because they were so badly damaged. In fact, some of the 1-227 aircraft were transferred to 2/6 Cav later in 2003 and still had bullets in the airframes.

Just punching out a few dozen pilots won't change much anyway. There is no chance for them to do collective training and learn the tactics, techniques and procedures that would allow them to make the most of the new aircraft. This is the big advantage the US has. The US can conduct large scale training events such as Red Flag in the desert outside of Las Vegas. Other nations show up to these events and everyone gets to see what the others are doing and work with them. This allows the US and other participants to develop planning and operational requirements for a conflict of almost any scale involving a large number of participants. This sort of thing doesn't just happen because you can field a lot of very good pilots. You have to train together in realistic circumstances to get it right.

There is a way to mitigate this if you take a flight of four to eight aircraft. Arm half your aircraft for air to air and half for air to ground. Be sure to keep your two flights with you until the enemy planes show up and then order the flight armed for air to air to attack them while the other flight attacks SAMs and AAA units that you target.

Check their weapons loadouts with the external object viewer. If they are loaded with ARMs, rockets and bombs then they are on a SEAD mission as well. They are likely following their mission orders. You may not be the only flight tasked to provide SEAD escort. You could order your wingmen to attack enemy aircraft at which time they will likely jettison all their air to ground weapons. Regardless, escort missions are a dicey affair as you will be ordered to intercept enemy fighters or destroy enemy AA units, but not both and will fail the mission even if you are able to destroy several enemy units because the escorted aircraft must generally survive the mission until a specific waypoint, usually waypoint five, they are not under your control and they tend to act suicidal. I avoid escort missions wherever possible because they are so easy to fail despite your best efforts.

I have the complete installer. It does it automatically. However, posts in other threads indicate that SF2 can be installed in any order so long as you have the July 2013 patch executables.

It seems the majority of the patches on this site are tested for the fully merged July 2013 version of the game. It is the version I run.

These are mission 7, 8 & 9.

These are several storyboards from my attempt at the Easter Offensive Campaign in the B-57G TROPIC MOON. I will post more as I continue the campaign.

As I stated above I got hit by two 14.5mm rounds according to the debriefing at the end of the mission. I fire at the vehicles from a much lower angle. The rounds should not be going through the top. Keep in mind that muzzle energy estimates assume that the round imparts all of its kinetic energy to the target and that may be a game engine issue as a round that passes through a sheet metal structure can not impart all of its energy to said structure. Simply adjusting the velocity or mass of the round opens up a new set of issues but adjusting the mass is likely the way to go as it should have less impact on accuracy. Here's something from 1977 on the issue of penetration. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0 The T-62 has less armor than the T-72.

I use the numbers the computer gives me in the post mission summary to determine how many times I hit the enemy and how many times they hit me. Those numbers are for all hits not just tracers. Ball rounds just punch holes in sheet metal. A 14.5mm round will not take a large component with it. The warheads are usually shock resistant and not armed on the pylons anyway. It takes at least a 10g acceleration to arm a missile warhead. Shooting it won't detonate it. If the motor is hit the missile will just leave the rail. This happened to an A-10 pilot in Desert Storm. The pilot indicates there were 378 holes in the plane. He also states that the ordnance he was carrying had at least 40 holes in it. He lost part of the hydraulics but no major assemblies appear to have detached. 14.5mm rounds just don't do that to aircraft especially those designed to survive 23mm rounds which was the Warsaw Pact standard for AAA systems supporting tank units when the A-10 was designed. Several of the holes shown in the video are 20mm plus. Here is the video link: That plane has far more than two holes in it. The pilot indicates there were 378 holes in the plane. He also states that the ordnance he was carrying had at least 40 holes in it. He lost part of the hydraulics but no major assemblies appear to have detached. 14.5mm rounds just don't do that to aircraft especially those designed to survive 23mm rounds which was the Warsaw Pact standard for AA systems supporting tank units when the A-10 was designed. Several of the holes shown in the video are 20mm plus.