(WaltBJ) wrote:
The only recent one I've messed with is Jane's Fighter Anthology - it
is deficient in that it does not incorporate the effect of gravity in
3-dimensional maneuvering. Pitch-over is same rate as pull-up which is
totally false. G limit is the same no matter what the pitch angle is
up, down sideways or in between. Zero-G acceleration is not modeled.
Fuel burn is also bogus - way below actual when in AB/reheat. Lots of
little quibbles but those are the major ones which really detract from
reality. BTW I speak from about 4500 hours in fighters and about 1500
hours instructor time also in fighters, from F86 Sabre, F102, F104 and
F4.

There was an independent patch that fixed some of that.
Unfortunately they never extended their work beyond the initial patch,
but it dramatically improved things like zero-G accelerating,
corrected roll and pitch rates, etc.

It fixed fuel burn rates (mostly) but your wingmen ran out of
fuel LONG, LONG before you did - even if you kept them out of burner
with carefully planned ingress speeds.

A fully-developed 'created' mission could include a major
strike package, with SEAD over a heavily defended Soviet Motor Rifle
Battalion (or worse). The basic modeling engine was quite robust - the
exchange of fire between a dozen A/C and 30+ air defense units was
VERY impressive - and the loss rates were, too.

It's NOT full motion in a real plane - but sit through one of
*my* simulated missions, and you'll have cramps, a sore backside, a
slight case of motion sickness, noise fatigue, eyestrain and a serious
case of stress from your RWR screeching at you over the target.

Now shoot a pseudo-ILS approach. ;-D It's not *totally*
bogus.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---