jenrick

Padlock, and zooming way in to see them out of my canopy are my solution. -Jenrick

I'd say the advantage that stealth high level has over low level penetration is the number of detection systems you can be tracked by and weapon systems you can be engaged by. At under about 3K everyone with a rifle has a chance of shooting you down. Good intel and mission planning will keep you from flying over enemy troops concentrations most likely, but all it takes is one lucky guy with a gun. Additionally you've got a much more obvious signature, screaming over head and breaking windows is gonna have some radio reports flying along to the ADC. Nothing you can really do about that. Everyone with a working set of ears can let the ADC know where you're at roughly. A high level penetration with stealth isn't going to tip anyone on the ground off unless they see the aircraft shilouetted against the moon or something. No noise or visible signature when done correctly. Far as detection goes you only got a very limited number of systems that will be able to detect or track you, and of course your stealthiness is designed to prevent that. Additionally there are few fewer aircraft and high altitude missile systems then there are small caliber AA guns, men with rifles, etc if you are detected. Arguably if you're located at high level, the threats are much more capable and deadly (an SU-27 vs. a grunt with an AK-47), but I'd say low level subjects the aircraft to a significantly higher chance of being engaged. This of course is all based on an enemy with some AD capability beyond individual troops with rifles. In the environment we're operating in currently higher level attacks just make sense, as there is almost no threat above small arms range. Contrast that with the Israeli experience in the Yom Kippur war, where the relative lack of concentrated ground fire made it safer to stay out of the higher altitude ranges due to the massive amount of SAM's being deployed. All things being equal I'd say being invisible beats being fast and low. -Jenrick

I'd say the creating "diversions" in the mission structure wouldn't actually be too difficult to do. The problem Jug noted, is that to truly simulate that sort of things there are ever increasing series of nested conditions triggered by other nested conditions ad infinitum. However we're not after a true simulation for the most part, merely a representation that masquerades as a true simulation. Just as the ground war of the SF universe ebbs and flows through a series of less then accurate calculations but still maintains a pretty decent appearance of being realistic the same can be done in the air. The mission title and brief is labeled "sweep" or "CAP" or "armed recon" for that matter. It's not terribly hard for the computer to setup conditions for the AI flight's to be intercepted, have their escorts fly over an AAA/SAM complex, etc to create these shifts. This of course creates the need to divert to provide cover, fly SARCAP, etc. Now why the heck there can't be an unattached flight on a sweep/CAP mission that can actually come help me out, I'm still not sure. -Jenrick

I second that, the graphics look great. Knowing that they run on a non-spec'd system is even more impressive. Hat's off to the engine and graphics guys :) -Jenrick

Tac nuke profiles in general are going to require VERY high speeds (FB-111, B-58, A-5, etc at max burner) and release altitude of several K feet to survive if you're not toss bombing. Strategic nukes are going to be from as high and as fast as you can get, then as noted dive and turn away. Take a look at the century series fighters, and their contemporary bombers. All were designed to fly in the 40-60K altitude range at supersonics speeds due to the flight profiles need. Now if you just have to take out that come building and don't care about coming home, I have to say that dive bombing with strategic nukes can also be an amusing past time. -Jenrick

Oh boy, next to dropping nukes of of a FB-111 or possibly super sonic low level night conventional missions in my FB-111, the B-1B is just the best thing for lots and lots of bombs realllllly low :) -Jenrick

Hmm I've got a low post count here, so I'll play ;) First off though, TK and the modders have done an amazing job so far. Hat's off to the entire community for continuing to expand and improved on a series most thought was DOA upon it's initial release. All right my list: - Improved avionics functionality as an option. For that matter, just the adding the ability for them to be created by 3rd parties if desired. Much as MSFS gauges can be used to wondrous things (GPS, simulate VTOL flight capabilities, etc.) through scripting having that ability in the engine would open up a lot of areas. Want a working TFR for you're FB-111, write one. Want to have a working bombing lobbing system, write one, etc. - Improved FAC's. Yep sometimes all you've got is a bearing and a target description. On the other hand.... I'd love to see the airborne FAC's mark target's, or have ground units pop smoke or the like. Also having a lot more radio chatter from the ground to the CAS would be great. Rolling in hot towards a unit under fire, getting a nine line CAS request, and having to formulate you're attack on the go would be an awesome experience IMO. - Dynamic mission re-tasking. Get pulled off of an Armed Recon flight for a SAR mission, or have you're pre-planned CAS loiter time cut short by a "broken arrow" call. Have to divert to an alternate target as the first wave already blew up the comm building (die comm building, die!) Get pull off of CAP for an intercept etc. However have them be related to what's going on in the battle space. Don't have a single aircraft just auger in to create a SAR diversion, if an aircraft goes down on a CAS or strike run though... - As a tie in to the above, Improved world busyness for lack of a better term. Campaign missions where you are just one plane in a big war are great. Single missions seem to lose a lot of this. Having just a busier world, with other aircraft and ground units going on and doing there thing would add immensely to immersion. - Improved ground attack options. First off being able to adjust the reticle depression on your sight while in game. That alone would give manual bombing a tremendous boost in accuracy and immersion. You only have yourself to blame if you forgot to depress your sight before you rolled in hot. Secondly and much more of a long term issue would be to have an increase in weapons fidelity in terms of locking on and selecting targets. LGB's are basically useless in the CAS or armed recon role. In reality so long as you or another aircraft can designate you can "tank plink" all day long with them. - An In-game mission creator, rather then an external program (something like F4 or LOMAC). Also as noted previously a way to tweak single missions in-game. I know a lot of that isn't going to happen as it would take a fundemental re-write of a lot of code I'm guessing. Little things from it though, like maybe just more audio chatter on CAS missions from the ground I think would be easily implemented and add to the sim. Thanks, -Jenrick

I'm with Dagger, keep working till it's ready (though watch out for feature creep). -Jenrick

Looks great, keep up the good work. BTW Dante did you get the other PM I sent in reply to you? -Jenrick

Hi I've got a couple of questions on game features, just curiosity, I'm going to get the sim when it comes out regardless of the answers :) 1) Will the aircraft feature adjustable sight settings? Will the user be able to set the sight based on a certain mill setting for different weapons delivery profiles (dive bombing at 400kts with a release altidude of 15K ft, vs level bombing at 400 kts at 500 ft)? I'm not asking for the sim to figure that profile out, and auto generate me the mill data, rather just I can set the sight where I want it, and it's up to me to get my numbers right. If not user adjustable will the sim at least have this auto set based on default strike profiles (ie switch to A2G weapons/A2G weapons delivery mode automatically sets the sight for a dive bomb profile, the parameters which are detailed in the manaul, etc.) sort of how Third Wire has the reticle setup in their products. 2) What kind of fidelity are you planning on modeling the weapons in game? The AIM-9L featured multiple launch modes, and the integration and utilization of the weapon into the SHAR and Gr3 platform was a big issue for a lot of the pilots (Sharky's "bombing" with a sidewinder by accident for instance). Also for a large portion of the conflict the bombing fuze types, and profiles flown had poor success do to fusing issues and impact angles. I don't expect that the user will be able to set their fuze type or anything along those lines, but will there be a "dud" percantge or the like till a certain date during the war for Argie aircraft etc? Best of luck, -Jenrick

Ah glad to have been of assistance then :) Revisionary modes sound like they won't be all that much fun to implement. If I recall correctly Morgan mentions using a pencil twice, once in the quote I had, and the other was to mark a horizon line on each side of the canopy to give him a dive angle reference. To be honest I've wished for something close to that in any game that features manual A2G deployment (SFP1, Mig Alley, etc), as getting your dive angle right can take a lot of practice. -Jenrick

I had a chance to look at my copy of "Hostile Skies" and was able to find the two sections I was thinking of: pg 66: "I double checked all the armament settings in the cockpit and setup the heads up display aiming data, adding two chinagraph pencil marks on the sight glass in case I suffered a display failure. .... The marks were calculated for a delivery at 480 knots and a height of 200 feet." Morgan never actually directly mentions mils or depression settings that I can find. Was the bombing reticle for the SHAR a true CCIP display that calculated factors in real time (such as displayed in the F-16, F-15 etc.)? If so I can't see where sitting on the deck of a carrier prior to launch, one would be able to get an accurate reticle to mark a physical backup mark. If the bombing reticle was generated and displayed based on inputed parameters, in Morgans case 480kts and 200 ft and releasing cluster bombs, and the reticle is displayed for those parameters regardless of the actual flight path I can see where it would work. Possibly the pilot could enter parameters, as a back up, and normally the reticle displayed a true CCIP? pg 194: "After a short pause he called, 'What the hell is the sight setting for guns, Moggie?' ....The Sea Harrier was considerably heavier then the GR3 that John was used to and as a result the sight setting was further depressed. This accounted for the 100-yard miss on the first pass." Again Morgan never states exactly what unit the sights are adjusted in or how. However from the text it would appear that a value has to be entered or changed to get the guns on target. I'm very unfamiliar with the Aden Cannon and it's normal employment symbology and HUD integration, so I unfortunately can't even hazard a guess. I apologize for raising questions to which I have no answer, and don't even no where to look to find them, -Jenrick

Thanks for the response. I was just re-reading "Hostile Skies" recently, and that's what prompted these questions. In regards to #1. I recall according to Morgan, when he and the Gr3 pilot where chasing helicopters, the Gr3 pilot initially fired his cannon rounds approximately 100 yds off target. Morgan wrote that he was surprised that the rounds were that far off. The Gr3 pilot then radio'ed asking what the sight setting for the cannons was supposed to be. Also Morgan mentions several times using a wax pencil to mark various things. One of which was a particular mill depression on the HUD glass, in case his HUD went out before he left on his first bombing mission. I don't have my copy of the book handy, but I'll look when I get home and give you page numbers. I'm definitely not trying to contradict the flight manual, I just recall those particular occurrences in the book. Regarding #2. I like having the option for fusing being adjustable. Historically the pilots had a pretty decent idea about what needed to be done to make the weapons work effectively (again referencing Morgan, his reservation about using low angle/level bombing to knock out the runways proved correct). It would be quiet interesting to see what would happen if the initial Argentinian strikes where made with bombs fused correctly for the attack profile flown. Again best of luck, and thanks for the response, -Jenrick

Okay took them apart for a good cleaning before they got installed in their final location in the new pit I'm building. Well I had a heck of a time getting the main spring back in, and now that I did I'm not totally sure I got it installed right. If someone happens to have a set of these and can snap a picture of the main spring installed I'd appreciate it. -Jenrick