algherghezghez

What about a flyable S-3. I remember IFE Made one for FSX so he must be interested in the plane. Would be a fun little airplane

Yes please! It would make it way easier

I agree the sim does a terrible job at depicting night lighting. I also agree that in a completely dark setting your eyes adjust quite well, but in an airplane you are never gonna be in that situation as you need at least some instrument lighting. As already said, in the cockpit we dim everything possible, not much differently from what they would’ve done. depends on what they were doing, but aside from intruder missions mosquitoes weren’t flying that low. Also I’m not saying that night should be pitch black, just that higher gamma setting seem way to bright to me. I could try and take some pictures tonight but I’m afraid it wouldn’t correctly depict what the human eye can see. Also, quoting again the author of cover of darkness, planes were picked up either with a full moon against the sky (with lots of luck) or against a cloud Layer; or finally against the light of ground fires from bomardments.

I’m not sure what you mean, if you mean external lightning we were over southern Germany and then over the alps, so not much light there (not that at 30.000 ft it matters anyway); if you mean cockpit lightning we switch off everything that’s not necessary and dim down everything that is. As far as walking without a torch is concerned, yes but I think it’s different. On the ground, thanks to moonlight you can see where you are going in the next x meters, what h the same ground from 10km in the air and it’s going to be black.

I’ve seen that you suggest to cranck up the gamma to make night less dark and supposedly more realistic. This morning I flew the second mission of your brilliant mossie campaign, using 2.7 as gamma setting, still lower than what you suggest. Everything seemed excessively bright, but I said hey, maybe with a full moon this could be not so far off. Now I just landed from a night flight IRL and I payed special attention to what I could see and how. Tonight we had almost a full moon and it still was incredibly dark. The ground is still completely black, I see how you could pick up contacts flying above a layer of cloud which reflects the moonlight very well, but other than that seeing anything that it’s not illuminated is almost impossible. I think I will go back to 2.2 setting as it’s what I think reflects reality better. Also I just read cover of darkness, a must read if you haven’t yet, from a night fighter which operated beaufighters and later mosquitoes. He very well describes how dark the night is, how sometimes you couldn’t see a plane until 100 yds. I want to make clear that this is not in any way a critique, but hopefully a point for discussion.

Range to do what? An interceptor has a pure defensive role, it takes off, shoots everything it has at the intruder and lands. An air superiority fighter needs to loiter to maintain that superiority and have missiles to repel more than one attack, otherwise he can’t control the airspace

If you go beyond the first paragraph even he says that it’s a G equipped as an all weather interceptor. It lacks the range and armament to be an air superiority fighter.

Touché, I stand corrected, didn’t know some As mounted the -19 as well, while being lighter than the S. theoretically the NF is the best performing (sorry this is just my ego fighting having to concede to you lol)

This is just not true. The S was faster, having a better engine. Also the J was an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, and the last pure interceptor variant is not the J but the ASA/M which saw service until 2004.

The S was the second most produced variant, after the G, it was the backbone of an entire air force, but we shouldn’t have it because you don’t want it if doesn’t have a gun? (Btw as already stated the FB variant of the S and S/ASA had the gun) Shouldn’t we hope for just more variants? It’s the best performing 104, with a beefier engine and reworked nozzles. I’m betting my money on it being the second variant we’ll see: it’s very similar to the G, it requires little 3D modelling modifications, the cockpit it’s pretty much the same and it brings interesting capabilities. The A/C start being a little more work: different cockpit layout, different landing gear, major differences in the tail etc etc

It’s not half fidelity, it’s a forgotten full fidelity. A payed rework might bring it back to its greatness.

After erroneously switching UV lights off in flight I was unable to get them on again, any idea of what might be happening?

It's a bit unfair that having some eyecandy with a high resolution monitor makes spotting almost impossible. We should have a way imputing resolution and monitor size to have something more realistic. With my 4k 32" I hardly see anything at 2 nm. Also can we please have a way to change the dot only label scale separately from UI scaling? Ideal dot dimension for me is between 1.25 and 1.5 UI scale and I would like to keep that without my menues looking like a potato

In nighttime navigation lights should be visible by enourmous distances; it's actually way easier to spot something at night with navigation lights on than in daytime, it's litelly a beacon in the dark. I'm talking about almost 20+ nm. While in game they immediately disappear, it is often easier to see the plane rather than the lights.

The recon orpheus pod would be awesome. As for the refueling probe i think depends on the version: C, yes, G no (there was only a test on the S

Thanks mate! You never finish learning

I’m pretty sure the CF-104 is just a licenced built G model by canadair. The G is by far the most produced variant. Out of the 2500 104s built almost 1800 where some form of G (1100 G models and the rest CF or dual seater G), 250 S variants, 200 J, only 150 A and 80 C. It’s straightforward that we are first getting the G version (probably still with the old C2 seat as the Spanish had that) and later maybe a dual seater and hopefully the S variant for Italians and Turks.

If it’s the G we definitely need Italians skins from 3 Stormo, a recce group which operated out of incirilik iirc during desert storm. (They even had the ALE-40 countermeasures external pods) And the mighty Oplympus!

Pretty sure, this comes directly from the pilots themselves. I will try to find something on the manuals.

This! it wasn’t a dangerous aircraft per se. It surely was a demanding aircraft, but what made it dangerous was flying it in conditions and roles it wasn’t designed to.

I’m talking about the S, which had no rwr, I think it got only a generic locked light if you want to call that rwr

The S can have the gun. there are two S variants, the fighter, with the gun removed to make space for the sparrow tracking and launch computers, and the fighter bomber variant, with no sparrow, a basic radar with no ability to lock a target, but retaining the gun

If you want the original A/C version as it was used you are basically getting a light air to ground Vietnam bomber or a mig-19 training target . If you want what was most produced and used it’s a fast recon airplane and a light bomber in the G variant. And a valid interceptor what was needed in the S variant. Still INS, primitive radar, no HUD, no RWR. A modern F-104 does not exist.

The six missile load out was never used though. In the 104 external tanks are a must, especially with that additional weight and drag, otherwise you are bingo fuel at the gear up. The 1x7 + 1x9 + 2xtip tanks was the standard load. They tried with 2x9 on the tips + 2x7 + 2xpylon tanks under the wings but this made the plane sluggish and added tons of drag. Edit: I just asked a friend who knows better than me and the 6 missile loadout never flew. It was used to train the ground crew and it could theoretically fly but it never did.

They point is that it does not concern the 104 at all. the S is the variant that saw most extensive use in the Italian air force, along with ASA and ASA/M for the last years. The G was relegated to recce and air to ground roles. Without a radar guided missile it’s pretty useless as an interceptor which it was.