my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » How many israeli programers does it take to... (Page 1)

This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
Author Topic: How many israeli programers does it take to...
Major Tom

posted 10-24-1999 02:55 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mess up the declassified stores loadouts on a 35+ year old aircraft?

Answer: 131 to be exact

Now I dont know how much of an effort it is to look around the internet for the weapons loadout charts for the F-105. But I found one in about 3 minutes.

For a company that now works for Janes, Pixell Multimedia seems to know less about aircraft than my 13 year old sister. Honestly, how hard is it to look up general information on aircraft? They guys at pixell dont even need to borrow an old edition of Janes All the worlds aircraft. They could easily enough look up the information on the internet.

Sheesh, mabey Pixell should hire me as a consultant on their next game. I've got an ample supply of books on aircraft, you know, books, the things you use to attain basic knowledge and information about a given subject.

If you are buying USAF looking for a fun or even slightly reslistic representation of how the THUD handled, dont. Rather than buying USAF, purchase 3 or 4 sandbags, and a machinegun. Afterwards strap the sandbags to your chest, and legs, then try running around in circles while firing your machinegun at empty coke cans sitting on fence. Trust me, it's one heck of a lot more realistic and fun simulation of how a THUD handles than USAF will ever be.

Pixell has no concept of how a gunsight works, I'm conviced of this. The gunsight aiming system in Chuck Yeagers Air Combat was better made. Speaking of Chuck Yeagers Air Combat being supperior, the cockpits in USAF suck. Well...there is no better way to describe them. They just dont all. Functionaly, Graphicaly or realistically. It's bad enough that Pixell reuses the same avionics system for each aircraft. But it's a sucky avionics system at that.

Aviod this sim like you would a 6 foot 4 inch man wearing a 20 lb trenchcoat in 106 degree weather.

If you want a realistic and "good" vietnam air war simulation, wait for Airwarrior Vietnam. If you unfortunately cant wait that long, please take my suggestion about the sandbags and machinegun to heart.

Oh by the way, if one of you Pixell dogs is lurking around...dont know why you would be since you cant seem to do a simle search on yahoo about F-105's. Note this, SA-2 missiles, uncontrary to popular belief, do work durring night time. If you dont believe me, set up a quick mission at night in vietnam and put some SAMS in the arena.

and before I forget, this is what a THUD can carry in real life

one more question, how many israeli's does it take to make a good simulation

answer: well, there hasn't been a good israeli simulation yet, but we know that 131 at pixel cant cut it

I think that EA could have tasked Novalogic to do this same USAF simulation and would have gotten a more realistic, and more enjoyable simluation. I honestly do.

"what? an arcade game with no background music? that's downright unheard of!"
-my good friends first impressions after toying around with USAF for a bit

IP: Logged
Member # 638

posted 10-24-1999 03:28 AM     Profile for SGAV8R   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Much as I agree on SOME points regarding realism in USAF, I cannot for certain say that I KNOW how a Thud or ANY other USAF jet handles, for that matter. Why? Cos I have NEVER flown one in my entire life, and as such, cannot comment on flight modelling. However, I STRONGLY agree with you on the gunsights especially so for the Thud. They somehow seem to prefer traversing ABOVE the gun cross, WAAAAAY above.

Having said that, I hardly think it right for you to use the "how many israelis does it take" stab at them. I mean, it does have rather strong racial connotations no? Well, Pixel does have to strike a "decent" balance between realism and the fun factor no? No HARDCORE REALISTIC sim I know will EVER release a sim with more than 1 plane modelled. Even Hornet Korea, which seems to be rather realistic IMHO, models only ONE plane, the Hornet. Change the skins, yes, model the exact planes, doubt it.

Well Major Tom, perhaps, you could just return the game where you bought it from and wait for AWV eh? Me, much as I hate certain aspects of the game, there are several other aspects which will keep me occupied for awhile, until F/A-18E at least :-)

Posts: 667 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member # 358

posted 10-24-1999 04:27 AM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Whoohoo!!! I dun thimpk I'zz in /luuuv/...

Let me add that, while the loadout chart is -very good-, it doesn't include the AGM-45 Shrike launchers which were singleton capable on even the D and twinned up on some F/G model Thuds.

_And should only be mounted outboard!_

And the bombloads whilst typical are missing the Mk.82 and the .83 which WERE carried as well as the fuze extender 'daisy cutters' variants of ALL bombs that many loads mixed in with conventional fuzing. Mk.84 was actually a little rarer, going from my photos anyway...

And while it wasn't common on the 105 (which was far more a medium level DIVE bomber), I would also like to recommend Snakes.

These make the bomb run on the Airfield and the Comms Center in the Vietnam campaign missions MUCH more realistic, given the start height and bomb frag separation values.

Either that or give us CBU-52/58 which slowed 'automatically' when the case split.

The chart and the game-Thud are also _missing_ the ALQ-67/72/87 pods which could be mounted hear as alternatives to shrike and Sidewinder, outboard.

Given that it was near-certain-suicide not to, it was VERY RARE that at least one ECM pod wasn't uploaded and like the 'American Express Card' you /don't/ leave home without (a working) one.

Indeed, for 'maximum protection girls' you should be able to load BOTH outboard pylons, as individual 'counts' towards EW efficiencies because the USAF pods were based on 'noise' (i.e. think your son or daughters stereo, maxxed out. Now think that amplitude X2) obliteration of the target aircraft signature. The More, The Less, so to speak.

AND, if you load one of the later pods ( 87/101, which were more powerful) on /one side/, you should also be able to load a 'special mission' configured second pod (IIRC, the modified ALQ-72/QRC-160) which _specifically jams_ the missile uplinks.

These uplink antennas were carried on the FRONT of the SA-2 and were /very vulnerable/ to being screwed with, electronically.

Contrary to popular belief, the 2-3K foot 'minimum floor' for the SA-2 was /not/ an absolute value but rather a function of LOS to the target aircraft from the site and the relative over-horizon values on crossing angle.

'Good' sites could kill you from a helluva lot lower, using manual guidance and command detonation.

However, if the enemy is going to use EOCG tracking and 'pushbutton' fuzing, he only has a -very small- window to do it in.

After the missile has dropped it's booster but before it can lose command radar tracking of the missile in the CG tip over into the clutter.

You monkey his CG uplink receiver so he can't 'gather in' the weapon during this critical window and _You_Are_Safe_.

The 'special mission' ECM pod did exactly this and it did it so well that MOST of the 105 missions were flown in the 10-12K or 17-19K (by TFW preference) AGL height bands /throughout Rolling Thunder/.

For those interested, this is also why you see so many Thuds so close together in the game. Mutual protection was a function of 'celling up' fourship formations with more pods equalling more ERP (Effective Radiated Power) blanket protection.

Obviously NO PODS, no protection and the with-regrets, "Yer Son Died 'Cuz He Wuz Shtoopid!" telegram.

And since there is likely never gonna be a dual seat Weasel for this game, I'd like to 'cheat' and use the 105D for the AGM-78 STARM. It's a 17-25nm weapon, even 'direct' fired, and within about 8-10nm it will /remember/ the target location, even if the radar goes dummyload. Also 'nice' is the colored smoke to mark the impact from a long ways off.

Unfortunately, the LAU-78/80 launcher system for this weapon took up a large part of the INBOARD wing pylon as well as the rail itself (which, together with FUEL is why you did NOT put Shrike there).

Oh and Pixel? Pay attention here.
Especially when carrying ordinance on all four wingpylons- 'Zee Beeg Tank, He'em Go On D'_Centerline_.'

Or you will have a /helluva/ time _walking_ home.

F-105 didn't carry X3 TER. Sure it's a 'Survey Sim' but keep in mind the more bombs on a _MER_ (X6) the more Z-Beeg Boomen on the target (and the more you can miss if you're a putz bomber pilot).

"Emperical Marketing Research states that Flite Liters seem to /enjoy/ 'Z-Beeg Boomen.'"

I also agree completely about the guns.

Especially in the F-105, the F2 mode isolates 'virtually' /all/ the 'PB' controls but is the ONLY means of shooting where the bullets don't go UP! (right out the windscreen).


Now take a LOOK at the missile envelopes. The Maverick is... crap. 3-4nm max at low level, maybe another 2-3 high but I get 'in range' cue at 10-14nm!

The AGM-130 is a ROCKET PROPELLED weapon! Not a 'whistle Bomb'. Even so, it should only do about 12-15nm from low and give you the full 30 only from Much Higher Up.


And for Vietnam. The Shrike was about a 3-4nm weapon from lo level. 6 if you were 'feeling lucky'.

It DID NOT have really great cueing such that you could 'run over' (past) a site and have to come back around /again/ before shooting.

This makes Ctrl-Enter target switching (with a pretuned seeker no less!) across 60-90` of azimuth swath and about four bands of SA-2/3, 6, Gun Dish and Fire Can just a /little hard to swallow/...

What Shrike DID have was a 'loft' mode wherein you could see a target '3-ringing' on your RWR (which is a whole 'nother strobe'o'worms... line up _the aircraft nose_ manually and do a dipsy doodle bunt maneuver until the aircraft gyro had rate isolated the range footprint a tad and told the missile what was what.

Once done, you could /then/ lock down the weapon, pull up to a slight climb and launch from 12-17nm (altitude and airspeed dependent) in the hopes that _as the strike package arrived_; so too would the ARM to punch the lights out of the SAM engagement radar 'van' tracking them.

As long as the ballistic parabola wasn't too steep, and the radar STAYED ON, the weapon stayed locked and would come down the far side of the arc like a Big Boy over the rim of the Grand Canyon, letting in the sunlight for some poor troll handcuffed to his console.

With this in mind, if the Weasels had one thing 'going for them' it was that when they were /there/ (on spot); the enemy radar wasn't.

But there were so /many/ radars (and increasingly smart operators) that it was necessary to sometimes standoff and lobfire in order to maintain surprise and total-area coverage outside the flak lanes.

Speaking of the dreaded black cumulus. There isn't even a quarter of what there should be.

To really make you sweat you should be able to roll the wing over, look down, and see solid grey-black (red if your unlucky) 'puffs' like CARPET for upwards of a mile in front and behind.

Lastly, /please/ increase the lolo speed!
I'm begging you, the Thud may not be much compared to what's out there today but the ONE thing it could do was run the legs off just about any aircraft then in-theatre. That's what it was /designed/ to do, with nuclear weapons went it counted more than anything.

By all means, Hire Major Tom, Hire Me, hire /someone/ to FIX THIS GAME!

I want to like it, there's nothing else available compareable, and IF you will fix it, I _WILL_ buy-try to like it again.

Kurt Plummer

Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

posted 10-24-1999 09:30 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote



IP: Logged
Member # 6

posted 10-24-1999 10:15 AM     Profile for leafer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If you don't like it, DON'T READ IT! It's that easy.

You guys are sitting there getting mad as hell at his posts but it looks to me Kurt doesn't even give a sh!t about you all! He never once responded to your harassment in a negative manner so why antagonize him?

If you think his posts are meaningless, you should read your own.

Posts: 803 | From: Alhambra, CA U.S.A | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

posted 10-24-1999 12:08 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Leafer, I'm sorry to diagree with you. Kurt takes up space and spouts info as true. Please read my post under USAF forum "lack of speed". when you come across as all knowing you have to be prepaired for the backlash! The reason he has not responed is because he can't back up his info/posts!! As I've said before his hobbie is NOT combat Sims but posting to the message boards! Sims only give him a reason to post and show "how much he knows"! That's crap!!
IP: Logged
marc quintin
Member # 261

posted 10-24-1999 12:25 PM     Profile for marc quintin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hi guys! the reason why people get mad at kurt is that for a newcomer like me and others it doesn't make this forums look to serious.Who is that kurt anyway?at first i found him amusing but come on!!!I think COMBATSIM.COM is a very good informative site that doesn't need feedback from a guy like mister Plummer.i know i don't have to read is post but what about the replys? Now i end up going throught a bunch of posts with no informative values.I can see that Plummer is getting a kick out of it,i am not and many others don't.So Kurt, it is not amusing anymore,or am i talking throught air!
ps.sorry for my english Marc

Posts: 15 | From: ste-julie,quebec,canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 657

posted 10-24-1999 02:11 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What a bunch of loosers!
Let Kurt post whatever he wants within the limits posed at the Terms of Use as provided at registration. Even if all he wants is to show up who the f*ck are you not to let him? And bg, of whoever you maybe, you must think you are really funny, huh? I can see your frustration. I mean it's pretty understandable, you being dislectic and all... I wish I could help.

As for "how many..". lame s*it, you're probably the same wit that flamed Sean Long when he said that F-15E model was good. Uh well....

The only thing I can blame Pixel for, is not including kickass background music for their USAF GAME. I never had any expectations for USAF being hardcore. C'mon, how can you expect loadouts and flightmodel to be right in the same game that lets you fly F-117 equipped with RADAR for christsake!


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 634

posted 10-24-1999 02:53 PM     Profile for Box-man   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well I see Kurt Plummer has once again succeeded in ruining another thread. Really guys, there's no way to stop him from taking up space, but we can certainly stop letting him succeed in getting us off-topic.

Just pretend his posts don't exist. Just skip over to the next one when you see the name "Kurt Plummer".

Posts: 74 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged

posted 10-24-1999 03:59 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Box-man you are right and I for one will do that!
IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-24-1999 04:48 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Please believe me I meant no disrespect to Israeli's. It's just funny that the boys at pixell cant seem to get any research done on the aircraft they simulate. Infact, the FACT they work for Janes only serves to make the situation more humorous.

One thing I'd like to add, the "calculating" gunsights on the vietnam era aircraft were in a word, useless. You couldn't go entirely by your gunsight, you had to whip out your good old MK1 eyeball. The M61's high rate of fire and reliability more than made up for any gunsight errors. It's just plain hard to aim with the M61 in USAF.

Has anyone noticed that in the padlock mode in the virtual cockpit, tracers sometimes dont show up at all?

Of course that just exasterbates the problem of the HUD being 1/8th of your screen. It's like Pixell tried to include every little flight instrument (working or not) on the screen. I haven't seen cockpits this bad since the BF-109's in Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe.

There is no excuse for some of the things that Pixell has done in USAF.

Radar in the F-117a, Radar in the A-10!

Infact I went up against 4 MiG-29's in USAF, set on max "realism" and max enemy "skill." 1 crashed into the ground. I managed to dispatch the other two and the last one kamakasied into my arse.

All this was done in a F-105.

I have come to the conclusion that the AI in USAF is downright stu...stu...stu...stupid.

There is no beating aroung the bush about this one. USAF is cheese, pure cheese. For Vietnam action I'll wait for Air Warrior: Vietnam. At this point I'd recommend getting Fighters Anthology and downloading the Vark Lib, over USAF. Pixell took far too many shortcuts in USAF for it to be even mildly appealing to me.

IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-24-1999 06:01 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom, excellent post! Did you try to make any missions in 'Nam with the fabulous UME? Where are the targets? Where is the harbor in Haiphong? How 'bout those historic missions...where we supposedly bomb Gia Lam AF? Can't even find any MiG-17s in the UME. Those 85mm AAA...they fire flak at higher altitudes, but regular bullets with tracers down low! "Bolo" was flown over Phuc Yen AF, but it isn't even in the mission... historically correct?
Man, I'm very dissapointed...Pixel is a joke...think they secretly work for Novalogic...should change their name to PixieLogic. This is an arcade sim and isn't even close to being FA. I returned mine today, but I am not finished blasting this blasphemous attempt to make light of some of the greatest sacrafices made by USAF fighter pilots. Our vets deserve better simulation than this. This makes the Vietnam stuff to be a joke, especially the Thud. I consider this to be trying to warp history.

Major Tom, download my FA libs at Psycho's site NAMSTUFF2 & SOUNDS+) I think you might like flying my 18+ historic missions over NVN. If you can't get them, e-mail me.Jim

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-24-1999 07:48 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Try this site for downloads for FA.

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 11

posted 10-24-1999 07:57 PM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good post ,Major Tom

Unfortunately , Burt Bummer had to mess it up (as usual).

Whoever bg is- THANKS! That was funny.

Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 352

posted 10-24-1999 08:26 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
When you mentioned to wait for Air Warrior "Vietnam series" instead of getting USAF, I was interested. When will this sim be released?

Also, will it only have on-line restricted play? and will the graphics be the usual cheezball kinda stuff we usually see in Air Warrior type games?

Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lud von Pipper
Member # 82

posted 10-24-1999 09:17 PM     Profile for Lud von Pipper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Whoah Kurt, this is the first time I see a posting Half a meter long!!!!!
(Yeah, I took a meter and measured it on my 17" monitor)
Beurp... (oops, pardon, too much reading)

Lud von Pipper

Posts: 273 | From: Italy | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-25-1999 12:39 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You know what, I've been toying around with the idea of purchasing one of those Duosoft Lib makers and basically ripping Fighters Anothologys guts out. What I mean is completely getting rid of any non vietnam period fighter aircraft, maps and weapondry, then building back up the sim from the ground up. I might leave some of the european maps in there for a doomsday WWIII campaign.

I'd primarily focus on the F-105 and F-4. Tweaking them to the point of perfection ( close as you can get in FA anyways.) But at this point it would involve too much research, I'd have to dig my nose deep in books. Which I simply dont have the time to do right now.

Thankfully since Air Warrior: Vietnam is going to be doing all that for me, I'm not so deeply motivated to do a ultimate Vietnam Lib for FA as I otherwise would be.

Combat Sim has an excellent pre-preview on Air Warrior: Vietnam. I remember seeing the first and only screenshot about a year ago. No doubt the graphics in that game have already surpassed the screenshots. It's all there in the Combatsim pre-preview (except for the screenshot that is.)

JimG, you bring up a good point about how inaccurate the missions are in USAF. They are very innacurate...nuff said. Epecially the Ke Sahn mission, what a joke, I mean honestly. Did you see how the NVA where firing rockets into the camp. No artillary, ROCKETS. Rockets that looked suspiciously like re used SAM graphics.

Another pet peave about USAF is that there are for all intents and purposes, no structures. And I'm talking an extreem lack there of. In fact there are less structures in this game than in Battle of Britian.

It honestly feels like they took a pre Chuck Yeagers Air Combat pollygon flight sim and stuck a new graphics engine on it.

Pixelogic (nice nick name for that company to, by the way) should be advertising things like "ability to see the planes shadow on the ground" and "visible ordinance on the aircraft", not "historical missions."

When I saw the THUD couldn't even carry it's standard armament of 6 MK82's 4 sidewinders and 2 external tanks, I lost all faith in Pixelogic (it should be noted that I never really had any faith in them.)

The USAF shouldn't be ashamed that their name was used in bad taste. Janes should be ashamed that they released this title under their name.

Anyone else having problems with their controlers spiking like nuts while playing USAF. I mean even when your aren't touching the damn thing and simply look at it kind of funny.

One last thing... HOW STUPID IS THE AI ANYWAYS!!!

After I got blown away on a mission in vietnam I watched my wingmen for a few minutes. THEY ALL CRASHED WITHIN A TWO MINUTE TIME SPAN! Not from AAA, or SAMs, nor MIGs. They simply acted like they where flying high performence aircraft and kept stalling the thuds durring manuvers. It took about 4 stalls from around 5,000 feet before my THUD wingmen killed themselfs. Which is interesting because the THUD was such a hard aircraft to get in an unrecoverable stall, it was a naturally stable aircraft.

Now that's downright sorry. Whats worse is that I got fined "point" wise in the final mission score because my wingmen killed themselfs.

I'm not an advocate of cruel or unusual punishment...but I honestly believe that the lead beta tester should be pistol whiped severely with a Browning M2 .50 caliber machinegun.

IP: Logged
Member # 31

posted 10-25-1999 02:53 AM     Profile for juzz   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Is there any reason to buy USAF, or is it just so full of bad design choices and stupidity that it's not worth bothering?

PS: When you're done "using" that M2, can I borrow it and some canvas bags, I have my own sand supply.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-25-1999).]

Posts: 125 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

posted 10-25-1999 07:22 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well I see Jim is back with his bashing of USAF. jim why don't you give it up and go play something else. I mean I wish I was around when ATF USNF and FA were released I bet they got the same kind of bashing and out of the box they are alot worse sim than USAF. So Jim just because you could hack FA to death to get your vietnam war spare us your negativity and go back to FA.


IP: Logged
Member # 240

posted 10-25-1999 10:43 AM     Profile for KMHPaladin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Folks, there's a simple solution to any problem you might have with Kurt's posts - don't read them. Nobody's forcing you to. I think he might try to tone them down length-wise in the future, but you can't tell someone how much they're allowed to write on a forum, so stop whining about it. As for "ruining" a thread, I would like to see a lot more intellectual-minded conversations as opposed to the mindless drivel that some others post. Bottom line is, you're going to have to either leave, or not read them - you can't stop him.

- "The duty of the fighter pilot is to patrol his
area of the sky, and shoot down any enemy
fighters in that area. Anything else is rubbish."
Baron Manfred von Richthofen, 1917
- [email protected]

Posts: 794 | From: RPI - Troy, NY; originally from South Jersey | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 692

posted 10-25-1999 12:00 PM     Profile for Greggy_D   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm brand new to this board and I actually enjoy reading Kurt's postings. But Kurt, come on man.....USAF is a survey sim!!!! Get all techincal and crap on F/A-18 or Flanker 2.0 when they come out. I played ATF, USNF, FA, and now USAF because it's fun to blow $hit up. Did you go this balls loose on F-22 Lightning 3 six months ago? Just have fun with what's there and save your strength.

Greggy D.

[This message has been edited by Greggy_D (edited 10-25-1999).]

Posts: 199 | From: Livonia, MI, USA | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 463

posted 10-25-1999 12:22 PM     Profile for Vector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You have to admit it guys, Kurt just cannot grasp the idea that this sim Isn't supposed to be military simulator grade material here! At the most you shouldn't expect it to be anything more than X wing vs. Tie fighter only USAF style.
Jesus Christ Kurt give it a freakin rest already, your posts only serve to make you look stupid trying to turn this /survey sim/ into the next Falcon 4. Get a life man :P

-Vector, Flight Sim Enthusiast

Posts: 903 | From: Comox, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-25-1999 12:35 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I would like very much to be able to recommend USAF. Unfortunately, I cant. The game takes one step forward in graphics, but 8 years back in flight dynamics and gameplay.

I'm not even joking about this next comment I'm about to make.

If someone would give Chuck Yeagers Air Combat USAFs graphics and include flack, SAMS, and the ability to blow up ground targets. Chuck Yeagers Air Combat would be by far the better Vietnam Air War simulator.

Nuff said.

IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-25-1999 04:57 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Well I see Jim is back with his bashing of USAF." John Winger, USAF Central host.

Big John, I never attack people on the internet, just problems. However, there are exceptions. Since you are the host for the hottest USAF web site on the net, seems that you would not be so thin skinned. Pres. Truman said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". I noticed that my negative, but truthful posts on your site seemed to mysteriously dissapear. Better be nice, Johnny boy or some of us might flood your site with bunches and bunches of anti-PixieLogic's-cheesy-USAF-arcade-sim posts. Then you won't have time to come over here 'cause you'll be busy trying to bash all of the negative posts. :-)

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member # 358

posted 10-25-1999 09:05 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Greg and Vector,

Appreciate your comments but some things cannot be 'detached' from the simulation portion of things without also ruining the GAME fun.

Vietnam was a war about broken weapons systems and bad tactics both in targeting and control for the USAF.

Frankly you should NOT be /allowed/ (locked trigger for instance) to fire AIM-7E outside WVR conditions without an IFF cue from Teaball or Red Crown or Disco. Even then, it might take ALL FOUR AIM-7's to find one that could 'go the distance' without exploding some 2-3K feet downrange.

Even then, when the enemy is inside 5nm of /any other/ friendly aircraft _bearing_ (compass spread), you should not be allowed BVR shots.

You should be tanked to the gills on every airplane and you should BURN that gas at a helluva pace and faster as you go faster. Yet none of the baseline loadouts include ANY tanks.

Which is important because every USAF 'fighter' jet over the North was upwards of 300knots speedier than the enemy and had the thrustloading to get away when it couldn't win (the MiG-21 is an exception but only at high level).

As long as it has the gas to do so. Why then can't I go level-faster than 580-590 knots in the F-4 and 105 (or the 15C for that matter)?
And where's my tanks?

In Vietnam, neither VPAF nor USAF should have 'personal' expendables countermeasures dispensers, of any kind. Even 1-shot speedbrake Chaff wasn't all that common early on.

Short of 'formation, break!' (i.e. 1v.everybody) you should NOT be able to fly anything but 'fluid four', welded wing, and unless you shift 'leader' positions /inside/ that formation (ESC mission-map delays and then only to the #3 second section lead position), those three other guys shouldn't be allowed to /shoot/.

Sure, it sucks but that's the way it was.

The MiG-17 and 21 have some of the smallest visual signaures out there. Yet the game has X2 airframes and airfields and and and to /enhance/ the acquisition ranges.

Even with 'cooperative' IFF (interrogate the enemy fighter beacon and track the return) there was a great degree of 'operator skill' in the bearing spread and clutter losses were on tracking past Hanoi were /terrible/.

So bad that you should only get the fighter team in the 'same stadium' (say 10nm globe) as the enemy.

It took a LOT of luck and skill to 'find your seat' on the six of that threat and we really didn't get GOOD at it until the F-4_D_ with Combat Tree (miniaturized IFF interrogator) came along. The F-4_E_ shouldn't even be /in theatre/ prior to fall 1968 when most of the 105's were already -gone-.

If you miss the intercept, you won't have the gas or the time to run down the bandits and the F-105's die, in numbers, because their ECM technology forces them to fly a dense 'cell' package of typically 16 aircraft with NO rear cross coverage and NO 'missile warning'.

Of course there IS NO ECM on the 105 in-game, so 'how hard' can it be? Where's the reward?

To go back to baseball, every foul shot in USAF is a 'homerun' and the outfield couldn't catch a popfly to center if you gave them a glove for each hand.

NOTHING is like Vietnam really was.

I've already started to see questions about what's under the eyecandy and the fact is: NOTHING.

People wonder where the depth is and then can't handle challenges to the technical and tactical baselines that would GIVE that 'depth'.

It's too bad. Vietnam deserves a better simulation AND GAME but either way you fly you only get return 'playing value' by sticking to the same rules the real pilots were forced to.

Aviv, as quality control and reality check 'fighter pilot on staff' should _Know Better_ than to have allowed this mess out of the gate.

But I won't give up on him until AW:V comes out.

Kurt Plummer

Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-25-1999 11:56 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Another thing that irks me about USAF is the poorly designed and totaly unrealistic missions.

In most missions the USAF flew in Nam, they where basically told to bomb the **** out of a nice little section of terra firma. Such is not the case in USAF, you are given unrealistically high numbers of targets to oblitarate. Whats worse is that those targets are perticularly hard to spot, but you still have to hit them with pinpoint accuracy in USAF. This was not the case in Nam, you where told where to bomb and you got the recon photos back from the labs days if not weeks later. By that time no one really cared either way.

The number of missions you fly in USAF is downright pathetic as well. "100 missions to be flown, 100 bridges to be blown"...again the propoganda song of old USAF documentaries shown to the troops doesn't lie. You flew 100 missions in Nam, then you rotated back to the states.

How many missions do we have in USAF, 8?

Fighters Anthology has at least 200 missions, 60 of which I believe are vietnam oriented.


IP: Logged
[email protected]

posted 10-26-1999 06:53 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

I have been reading all the bitching and moaning about USAF.

You guys are pretty naive. What would you expect out of the game industry, a miracle?

The point is to collect as much money on a ice-candy light sim with as little investment as possible. Pixel is nothing but the developer given the ressources and the time Janes agrees to.

Developing a game is a hudge amount of work that you have to squeeze in a very small amount of time for even less money.
Shortcuts have to be made, sacrifices done.

Now, if you lower your expectation and don't buy every single word the guys with the ties sell you, you can have a very enjoyable time playing USAF. (remember the time there was Apple IIs?) We had fun and everything was cheap and far from "realistic".

my two cents

IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-26-1999 07:33 AM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt Plummer, you are wrong on the speeds of USAF planes v. the NVAF MiGs. In 1972,the latest MiG-21 model (MF?) was faster than the F-4 at low altitudes. Several F-4 drivers reported this because it amazed them. Also, there were instances in 1972 (Linebacker I & II) where F-4s engaged MiGs at BVR because the IFF and electronic surveillance technology permitted them to do so. Steve Ritchie got some of his kills with Sparrows at BVR. There were also instances where the RC-135s/RC-121s assisted the Red Crown in identifying which NVAF planes were taking off and even were able to alert the US planes about the skill level of the enemy pilots (they were able to tell by the callsigns of the flights and tracked the performance of the particular pilots via pilot debriefs after missions as well as kills). This is not all of the time, but was a far cry better than the tactics at hand during Rolling Thunder ('65-'68). This info can be found in a book titled: "A single Day in a War-May 10, 1972" (or something like that... :-)
One of the authors is the late Jeffery Ezzel.
A study of the tactics used by the USAF in attacking the Doumer bridge on May 10, is facisinating. Today we have replaced the chaff bombers with the EW flights of which the EA-6Bs are struggling to fill all of the needs in EW.

Braxenyk: You are absolutely right, but if Pixel had put a little more effort in designing more and better missions, then some of us might not be so hard on them. It is obvious to some of us that although this is a "survey sim", it lacks quite a few things that the Janes/EA USNF/ATF/FA series did of a few years back, which is where the survey sim concept was defined. I know that the definition of "survey sim" can be relative to each's own interpretation, but Pixel has built this thing up (just like you said) to be much more than it is. It may be a lot of fun to some (glad for y'all) but it is what it arcade sim, designed to attract people to play on-line in a fun-fun shoot-em-up play style. Some of us are ticked because we were expecting much more (besides the excellent graphics) and I think we have a right to complain and expose the truth about this product to other potential buyers.

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member # 12

posted 10-26-1999 07:53 AM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

I'd promised myself that I would not respond to your lectures anymore. But your latest post changed my mind.

>>NOTHING is like Vietnam really was.<<

You weren't there...right? I was. Here's something to keep in mind. There was not a 'Vietnam air war'...there were a bunch of them. The conflict spanned at least 10+ years and involved just about every airplane we had in the inventory, from T-28s and B-26s to SR-71s. These is absolutely no way anyone can lump this war into one bag. Show me 10 pilots with a Vietnam tour, and I'll show you ten different experiences.

What was Vietnam (actually, the term should be Southeast Asia - SEA) really like? Depends on when a pilot was there. Some guys only flew north. Some only flew in the south. Some only flew at night. Some only flew air to ground. Some got shot at real bad...some didn't. It was a weird, what 'was', was whatever was going down when you were there.

>>Vietnam was a war about broken weapons systems and bad tactics both in targeting and control for the USAF<<

This is BS. We didn't have 'broken weapons systems'. We had systems that were not designed for that type of combat. They weren't broken..they were at the worst, just ineffective given the ROE restrictions and demands of modern, high 'g' air combat.

We didn't have bad tactics. Since you apparently did not fly in this war, I suggest you keep your mouth shut when it comes to crititicizing the the men who did. Given the restrictions placed upon us by the Johnson administration, we had our very best tacticians busting their collective butts trying to find a way to kill the gomers despite McNamara's miserable ROE. Considering that we had to fight with our hands tied behind our backs, we did a pretty good job.

So, Kurt...just stick to your book-learning drivel, and leave the war fighting to those of us that were there.


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 41

posted 10-26-1999 11:30 AM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

Thanks for the counter post to Kurt. He's been doing a real good job at pissing some of us off. I for one have refrained from retorting some of his posts since its really not worth it.

Kurt's an enigma on these forums since we really don't know who he is or what he does (did). He tries to sound like a military type but...I have my reservations on his personal background.

Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
nick moyrand
Member # 214

posted 10-26-1999 12:00 PM     Profile for nick moyrand   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt, whenever you know damn well that some folks have done things that you only can talk about, as in real world fighter pilots (jeez, Andy comes to mind!), don't be surprised at some of your "talk" coming back to bite you on the a-ss.

If I were you, I wouldn't get offended, on the contrary, I'd be glad that a guy like Andy took the time to answer your post.

Kurt, it's time to get real chief, try to understand why folks have beef with some of your posts, like I say, you just aren't legit enough for your posts.

You exhibit a truckload of USAF or whatever kind of jargon... but somewhere chief, that just ain't good enough, just don't cut it, just don't match.

Until you come clean, you ain't worth a dang.

And yeah Spectre, you were correct, I came back, just couldn't let this one slip by.

Nick Moyrand

Posts: 897 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 453

posted 10-26-1999 12:06 PM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
:^0 LOLOLOLOL Careful Andy Bush - your letting the Mr. Plummer get to you - like he got to me Saturday night and I gave him a hyperlink to USAF recruiting. Hahaha.
{enjoying a good belly laugh while drinking a cup of joe.}

[This message has been edited by SPOT (edited 10-26-1999).]

Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-26-1999 12:28 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks, Andy Bush. I wonder sometimes if Kurt doens't work in D.C. as a MD. of spin.
Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member # 12

posted 10-26-1999 01:35 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

Pardner, I think you're on to something here.

Could it be KP is the James Carville of flight sims?!!


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 403

posted 10-26-1999 03:07 PM     Profile for Cinders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom,

Could you give me a pointer to a picture of a Thud with the 'standard' 4 Sidewinders? I've got some pics of strange 105 weps loads but not that one. Thanks

Posts: 112 | From: Lancaster, CA US | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member # 358

posted 10-26-1999 08:20 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Jim,

My list for the MF at sea level is 684mph/595 knots. Which is right at the edge of controls envelope and probably /beyond/ flat-attain on fuels. An F-4 will outrun you with close to 130 knots on the clock, especially if he can unload.

The thing which made the Fishbed dangerous was the Atoll and the ability to take good control from the GCI. With these options (and much higher flight formations, later in the war) the MiG's could come up, turn in, unload and be doing 700+ before making their single-rollaway pass.

MiG-17's were a lot 'looser' because they were almost entirely a guns platform.

The BVR stuff you're talking about is correct. It refers to the APX-80/81 on the F-4D Phantom and the 'Quick Look' ARC-248 system aboard the EC-121 and PIRAZ vessels.
It still doesn't change the fact that you were not allowed to use the BVR spear until and unless you had confirmation that NOBODY was within 5nm of bearing spread (up/down/left/right as well as 'distance') of the contact because there were a couple incidents where the F-4's were cleared in hot and ended up taking shots at... Other F-4's.

This is part of why the F-4's in the sweep formations got the lions share of the kills.

So why is it that I'm flying MiGCAP /behind/ the F-105s?

One answer is that with only 16 aircraft there may be limits on doing detached support. There could easily be /16 F-105/ in four cells of four airplanes forming the 'strike' element alone.

But it doesn't change the fact that those 105's don't have ECM or that there are F-4E's escorting them or that the F-4E's are badly positioned relative to the REAL tactics used.

Mr. Bush,

Fluid Four didn't come out of the White House, it came straight out of the FWS and TAC. ONE article in the USAF FWR, published in 1971, stated that the USN sysem "Might be superior, but this is not an endorsement of Double Attack". And was promptly followed by two more retrenching the party line. Guess which formation was flown throughout the war.

Of course this was 'war' and you could have broken the rules without necessarily telling anyone and it wouldn't show up in 'book learning drivel' but you didn't. Which again places the blame squarely on the TACTICS, at the front end.

USAF faced more MiGs, albeit of higher quality. But despite the removal of QRC-248 restrictions in summer 1967, losses soared.

USN: 5
USAF: 22

Why? Well, if you were stuck in the 'back end' of Fluid Four the answer is obvious. The lead-shooters thought it was great of course.

And of course the VPAF stayed away from the Grey-Rhino's because they knew that they meant trouble. But did the USAF repaint their's? No, they went the /other way/ from Gull to SEA, way back in 1966. An incredibly poor choice for MEDIUM level approach and utterly inefficient in saving you from mortars and rockets. Gosh, do you suppose that's in anyway /tactical/?

OTOH, could it also be that the USN was taking twice as many 'good' (1 at a time) shots with a GOOD heat weapon?

If there IS a better weapons system (AIM-9D/G) available and you fail to exploit it _ON THE SAME AIRCRAFT AND PRODUCTION LINE_ then the weapons system is 'broken'.

Inadequate, deficient, whatever.

And what about FSL versus 'Boresight'? Turns out that the system did a power level switch on going to the latter mode that changed PRF to 'short-pulse' and occasionally dicked the antenna due to gyro misalignment.

So you've got an FCS solution that had less ERP and bad angles on the target signature and so dumped lock in a couple seconds accordingly.

Is it small wonder that Sparrows were fuzing off 3-4K feet down range when the lock dumped?

Yet what WAS the 'recommended' firing mode?

Boresight of course.

Because it didn't take 5-7 seconds of closure time waiting for FSL 'solutioning' and didn't require a 'genius' (read dedicated WSO instead of pilot-in-waiting, oops another /tactical/ error) to hold down the clutter OVERRIDE and manually advance the ACQ bars upscreen using the pilot initial LCOSS values to get the antenna point index to match and /then/ go fast-FSL.

Was there a fix? Yeah, but it took a man in Manilla to find it, in 1970 IIRC. It never did come out of the Factory.

I could talk radios that looked like they'd been soaked in battery acid, I could talk Olds doing empty-pylon 'strafe' passes over MiG's that should have been free for his wingmen.

But I won't. Because that detail (apparently) 'doesn't belong here'. And you sure as hell can't stand to hear it.

Nor will I tell you to keep your mouth shut because I do read and accept your posts for what they are. But you will have to crawl a long ways higher on the all-growed-up scale before I let you give me behavioural advice in turn.

Kurt Plummer

Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-27-1999 07:07 AM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Could it be KP is the James Carville of flight sims?!!"
...if Kirk can talk like he types, he would be an interesting person to listen to (for about 5 minutes!).

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-27-1999 07:53 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Send me your E-mail and I'll send you a scanned picture of one.

Actually, if you want to get technical, the F-105 in vietnam, for the greater part of the war, didn't even have 1 sidewinder loaded on one of the outer pilons, let alone two of them.

When the MiG threat became greater, the USAF started using a ECM pod on one outer pylon and a sidewinder on the other pylon type deal.

I'm suprised that you haven't seen the 2x2 sidewinder arangement before. Your local library probably has a collection of WINGS video's, there are some rather lengthy shots of the 2x2 combo in the Video on the THUD.

The THUD, well, it couldn't all. It wasn't designed to. A few years ago a video company re-released some USAF late 60's in house videos (DOD stuf.) They put 3 USAF films on 2 tapes called Thunder Over Vietnam, and Mission Vietnam. A large part of it was borderline propoganda, but it did include some THUD video that I had never seen before and some spectacular early 60's armament tests.

You can almost feel how heavy the THUD is when it chases a MiG and fires a few hundred cannon rounds in vain. There are a few Gun kills, one of which I hadn't seen before. But the best part of the two tapes is the rocket spread tests. If you ever wanted to know what rocket launcher does in real life, the tapes have some spectacular education material.

Ever wanted to know what a rocket spread looks like when a THUD aims it right at you, look no further. They have this footage of a cammera looking right into the spread comming strait for the cammera. You see the smoke from the launch, then VWABOOOM! dozens of little rockets shred the cammera and the screen goes blank. The Zuni's remind me of poor mans cluster bombs, you get the angle right and you can level a neighborhood block.

I must take my hat off to the tactical bomber pilots durring the vietnam war, they put bombs, no different really than the ones used in WWII, on target, repeatedly, and accurately. Ground fire was downright nasty on those low level runs, I must say, I was genuinely impressed with how the pilots handled their aircraft.

Well, getting back to my talking about the Aim-9... It just wasn't as accurate or reliable as the M61A1 (note the M61A1 was made accurate because you aimed more or less with your MK1 advanced eyeball target aquisition system.) And a vietnamese pilot stupid enough to fly right in front of a THUD, was, in a word, stupid. 25 out of the 26.5ish THUD kills, where made with guns. Why not carry 2 Shrikes or MK82's instead of the sidewinders. Just think of how bad the F-4 pilots had it early on with only their Aim-7's and Aim-9's to protect them.

IP: Logged
Major Tom

posted 10-27-1999 08:12 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Actually... "Standard" wasn't the best word to use, I appologise. Something like "optional" or "possible" would have been a better choice of words.

All the F-105 pictures my grandfather showed me (the ones stationed out of Bitburg AFB in the 60's) had the 2x2 sidewinder with drop tank arangement. Mabey I just got that perticular configuration stuck in my noggin :-) Or mabey my grandfather just liked taking pictures of the BARCAP loadouts.

IP: Logged
Member # 153

posted 10-27-1999 08:23 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Few folks know (and probably couldn't care about)the true legacy of the F-105. This plane as well as it's pilots were asked to do something that it wasn't designed to do and often tasked with missions that would make even the most patriotic Thud driver, question his loyalty. Consequently, the USAF lost over 300 Thuds over NVN and a high percentage of US POWs in Hanoi were Thud drivers. This plane wasn't particularly beautiful but it did fly a lot of missions over heavily defended areas in NVN. Today, there are only a few Thuds left and those are either at the Boneyard (about 4) or have become static displays. In Aug.'98, I saw a demo with 2 F-104s flying...sure wish someone would restore a Thud and fly her around.
Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved