F-15 WVR capabilities

[SgtPappy]

What are the most outstandingly unrealistic things you've noticed in this game (particularly in BVR)?

[GGTharos]

You were wondering about use of superior speed in a similar fashion for example in F-15C versus Su-27S in WVR (I prefer the term CWC to distinguish from BVR but ad hoc WVR has become popular apparently).

 

WVR is within 5nm officially IIRC. BFM is 'too close for missiles, switching to guns' (though in reality you can still use missiles in BFM) and it happens within WVR - don't confuse WVR combat which means literally 'within visual range' and dog-fighting which is BFM, and is still WVR. And then you have BVR - beyond 5nm.

 

Then I made a huge mistake.

What you do in WW2 birds is go for altitude in combat every chance you get, but in jet fighters with missiles weapons and radar sets the whole thing is backwards.

 

Actually altitude works well for BVR and modern fighters. Here's the hint: Fighters are built to go higher and get there faster, they're not optimized for some medium or low altitude BVR. A high to low shot will always be longer. Now FC2 does lack some representation of this, but without going into specifics anyway, altitude+speed will still rule the day unless you carelessly waltz into a bunch of bandits and let them shoot you up from close range.

 

Jet weapons systems get beautiful locks in lookup mode and have greatly reduced performance in lookdown or against clutter. Given that isn't so extensively modelled in sims from what I understand, nevertheless the first point is technologically speaking altitude is death in modern combat where it used to mean life.

 

Real life jets get excellent look-down results with radar -and- missiles ... especially if they're F-15C's. Even an F-16A MLU equipped with AIM-120A shot down a MiG-29 in mountainous terrain at a disadvantageous aspect.

Altitude in modern combat = win. But you can't have everyone at high altitude either ... we're talking about a LOT of altitude to cover, after all, and you have to set up your teams and tactics. In general FC2 play yes, if you're not really applying safe parameters for your engagements you'll get eaten up at altitude, especially when playing solo.

 

Mostly the energy management aspect in jet fighters is coming from the fact they're all so high performing, with tremendous climb, acceleration and speed characteristics compared to ancient birds, that the margins between them come down to very specific corner speeds and performance altitudes, that relatively minor advantages in circumstance translates to very exaggerated returns where an F-15C goes from being in front of you to suddenly on your six in the blink of an eye.

 

This isn't really that different. The difference is that you have a much higher performing aircraft than your WW2 plane, but the differences are still there and they are noticeable. The F-15C for example, at 'nominal combat load' meeting a flanker at 'nominal combat load' has an insane climb (aka energy) advantage over the flanker at 21000' + within 0.8-1.2M (and further into the supersonic with the -220s). Really, it comes down to the pilots in the end - whoever gets to sucker the other guy into his fight wins.

 

I'd say really energy management is a lot more sweeping with WW2 aircraft and much more specific and sudden with modern jets, everything is faster, a few seconds mean kilometres rather than hundreds of metres and a good zoom climb doesn't get you 15,000ft it takes you 18 miles vertical.

 

Things happen faster, but it isn't like they're different. All the signs are the same, the behaviours are the same, and in the end a mature dogfight ends up at 250kt on the deck anyway.

 

Energy is on tap so energy management is more intellectual I think than with WW2 birds where it's more instinctive.

 

Some of the same rules still apply but I think the whole energy equation starts off very differently with jets and then there is electronic weapons systems to consider, which like nice bold targets against a clear sky background very much.

 

That was all I wanted to mention, which like I said might be of no value, and others like GGTharos are giving you excellent advice on how to actually go about and approach jet combat itself. I just wanted to say what I noticed about energy difference jumping from WW2 virtual-cockpit to a jet fighter sim.

 

I don't think you need to characterize your experience as of 'no value'. If you're right, you're right, if you're wrong, you learn :) In general I think you described the feeling you get from going from WW2 birds to modern birds and I find descriptions of such transitions interesting myself.

 

The thing is, when it comes to missile combat (BVR specifically, as in beyond the regime where you cannot just turn around and escape the missile) things get a lot more mathematical and rule-based than instinctive ... whoever knows his stuff better will tend to win. Yes, talent factors into it, but talent will only get you so far.

[GGTharos]

FC2 has changed some of that, but because most missions have unrealistically short ranges between opposing forces, it encourages people to scoot around low burning fuel and 'teeheehee shoot up at everyone'. This is the price you pay for keeping the interest of the general population.

 

I still remember my 70nm-to-FLOT mission, where one guy got all upset and started asking 'What idiot made this mission? It takes too #($(& long to find anyone!' ... good thing he didn't see the 200-nm-to-FLOT we flew :D

 

That one REALLY had you watching your fuel gauge instead of afterburning to the FLOT ... and you had to keep an eye out for fuel during and after combat too. Enemies would have to give up their planes to chase you down, and managing your fuel better meant supporting your assets better. Sneaking around at low altitudes only made that gauge suck down faster etc... it was awesome :D

 

This is one of the reasons why the lessons learned from a flawed game will translate to virtual death when a simulation that accurately models air combat arrives.

 

When the "sim" you fly models actual behavior inaccurately, the end product, the tactics used and developed because of the poor modeling of missiles, radars, ECM/ECCM - active and passive, become just as unrealistic.

 

In many ways for both BVR & WVR combat, but especially for BVR combat, this game punishes many realistic tactics and rewards many tactics that would result in poor outcomes IRL.

 

Shame really.:(

[vanir]

I liked watching some of Israel's early combats using the F-15 on the dogfights series. That generation of missiles were still fairly unreliable and at that stage Israeli pilots still respected gun kills more than missile kills anyway.

So basically you had F-15 pilots running around doing classical dogfights going for gun kills, often up against MiG-21s.

 

Shows the classical guns dogfight scenario with something like an F-15 isn't unheard of.

 

Certainly it happened a lot in the Vietnam era too although Phantoms often were stuck without guns. Early sidewinders lost track above 3G so you had very extended dogfights with MiG-19s waiting until you could actually get a tracking shot or somebody made a really dumb mistake.

[GGTharos]

Actually they only got a single gun kill. That's the one gun kill the F-15C has to its credit, is that one MiG-21. Everything else has been shot down by sidewinders (including one F-15J and one F-15C), sparrows or AMRAAMs.

 

Given these statistics, even though you always want to have a gun around, it might -seem- like the era of missiles that was heralded for vietnam has in fact arrived.

[vanir]

FC2 has changed some of that, but because most missions have unrealistically short ranges between opposing forces, it encourages people to scoot around low burning fuel and 'teeheehee shoot up at everyone'. This is the price you pay for keeping the interest of the general population.

 

I still remember my 70nm-to-FLOT mission, where one guy got all upset and started asking 'What idiot made this mission? It takes too #($(& long to find anyone!' ... good thing he didn't see the 200-nm-to-FLOT we flew :D

 

That one REALLY had you watching your fuel gauge instead of afterburning to the FLOT ... and you had to keep an eye out for fuel during and after combat too. Enemies would have to give up their planes to chase you down, and managing your fuel better meant supporting your assets better. Sneaking around at low altitudes only made that gauge suck down faster etc... it was awesome :D

 

I love that kind of mission building no matter the sim. The immersion is awesome.

I used to make some of the most gigantic Pacific Fighters missions, flying hands on in Wildcats for literally hours real time, hitting some target for a few minutes and flying escort cover, then all the long long long way back to the carrier, just trying to find the damn thing, using full "sim difficulty settings" so that you had to actually use the guages for navigation and flight control, none of these external/map views. Fuel management, engine/cruise management, constant trimming and handling combat damage, altitudes and so on.

 

It really took one into world war two, just a hint of what that experience might've been like for combat pilots. That was an amazing afternoon. When I finally landed, no kidding my hands started shaking. Heavy landing too, but I made it in one piece.

 

And you know there's nothing like the emotions of being in the air for over an hour real time in a large formation and being shot down in the very first merge with the enemy just like a bad roll of the dice. It's like the whole time you've been looking forward to giving some and suddenly, all wasted. Grrr.

 

The only thing missing was simming the search/rescue operation and copping all the flak and bad jokes back at the carrier :)

[GGTharos]

Yep, those are some of the best types of missions. On the other hand I also understand the guys who want things close: They don't /want/ to spend 30 min flying up to the FLOT just to get suddenly whacked.

 

I recall flying a 3.5 hours mission though where about 16 aircraft went and sank Ice's carrier ... 5-6 Su-25T, 2 A-10A, 4 F-15C and 4 SU-27, IIRC. Nothing could stop us ... except for the sea claiming Wolfie's frog when he commenced his anti-ship run. Darned PIO ;)

[SgtPappy]

 

This isn't really that different. The difference is that you have a much higher performing aircraft than your WW2 plane, but the differences are still there and they are noticeable. The F-15C for example, at 'nominal combat load' meeting a flanker at 'nominal combat load' has an insane climb (aka energy) advantage over the flanker at 21000' + within 0.8-1.2M (and further into the supersonic with the -220s). Really, it comes down to the pilots in the end - whoever gets to sucker the other guy into his fight wins.

 

Things happen faster, but it isn't like they're different. All the signs are the same, the behaviours are the same, and in the end a mature dogfight ends up at 250kt on the deck anyway.

 

 

This is good to know, though of what value is all that acceleration and climb rate if the missile's bound to hit you? I remember you mentioning a careful vert. rolling scissors could be won, but it wouldn't be easy. I guess it's all about keeping in Rmin then, and somehow keeping at corner speed as much as possible while making sure the Flanker isn't at its corner speed.

 

And about the long missions, oh I've had my share... the best of mine was landing back at home base in an F4U-4, 3 kills under my belt. Though in Ace High II, the -4 didn't have much range, but even a half-hour sortie felt pretty long! Had to land once to re-arm and refuel. Of course, that was when the game was free!

[GGTharos]

This is for BFM; generally guns only. If you're going in and you both have missiles, the style of fighting changes - if you can put him in Rmin, then it is regular BFM but you're still constrained by the fact that you don't want to give him a missile shot.

 

In other words, yes, if you're in your F-15, it is a good idea to avoid WVR/BFM if you can :)

If you enter a fight then you need to decide if you're going to go one or two-circle to begin with (obviously, or I hope obviously, the latter means you'll me employing missiles) and you base your decision upon a few factors pre-merge. In general you want to achieve one of two things:

 

Two circle: Better turn rate (get that missile shot off first. Not easy)

One circle: Smaller turn circle (Ok, so he's probably going a lot faster than you, this is why you chose this)

 

... etc. It's um, complicated :D

 

And once you DO get that close, good luck staying an corner speed ... scissors = slow. You want to stay faster because he has better slow speed handling, therefore rolling scissors - you keep a bit more speed but you don't end up in front of him, he can fly slow but he can't climb to roll with you and you will in theory eventually get a shot. If he doesn't out-turn you first ... it's all about the pilot.

 

The Flanker v Eagle this is really a very classic angles v energy fight. Except if you let him drag you to low altitude, there you still have a climb advantage, but it isn't as good.

 

So yeah, you can dogfight, the trick is getting there. Between you and the flanker, you generally have better tools to prevent a BFM situation from happening (ie. your AMRAAMs) but a knowledgeable and experienced opponent might give you a run for your money.

Edited October 3, 2010 by GGTharos

[Rhen]

FC2 has changed some of that, but because most missions have unrealistically short ranges between opposing forces, it encourages people to scoot around low burning fuel and 'teeheehee shoot up at everyone'. This is the price you pay for keeping the interest of the general population.

 

I was stationed at Kadena, so one of the possible scenarios we trained for was OPLAN 5027, or defense of ROK against DPRK hostilities. Several scenarios, you can imagine by just playing Falcon. When you forward deploy to S. Korea to discourage hostile air incidents, you're talking about DCA with most legs of the flight plan in minutes, while remaining within multiple IADS threat envelopes.

 

Regardless, there's tactics that can be employed for those short missions that still fail to work regardless of what improvements (I'm sure for the better, despite never having actually played LOFC2, yet - soon, but not yet :) ) have been made.

 

A short, and (arguably) intentionally vague list using UNCLAS information:

Radar lock limits related to main lobe capability to direct weapons at certain distances vs. lock distances, radar channels, interference,

Radar ECM/ECCM modeling vs adversary aircraft, especially related to off-axis attack.

Radar automation and absence of certain modes which increase ability to track targets which perform poor notches, track formation and data acquisition.

Threat protection system performance as related to readily available sources, anecdotal evidence, and ability to deny detection, lock, and weapons employment inside 20NM.

IFF capability of aircraft in jamming environment vs datalink

Datalink.

TEWS automation and integration.

Missile performance with respect to launching aircraft speed and altitude vs. the "brick wall" speed coded into LOFC.

Missile ECM/ECCM.

Slammer use of updates until high PRF and effect on Pk, or mechanics of updates as presented by LOFC don't have the expected effect when supporting missile.

SAM radar/ECM/ECCM issues, missile datalink, visual qualities of launch-Day/Night vs. visibility.

Ability to see wingmen in cloud in close formation.

Afterburner visibility at night vs. distance.

 

There's more, but it's late-here.

 

Again some of the things that would drive realistic tactics can't be in a virtual world without tangible penalties for pressing a tactical situation with low probability of survival i.e. "Who cares! I'll just respawn/eject and jump in to a nice shiny new aircraft and do it again.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Rhen

[SgtPappy]

Heh, I may need a glossary for OPLAN 5027, ROK, DPRK, UNCLAS... :D

 

At any rate, there was a member of the Aces High II community who was trusted as an authority on the F-15.

 

Of course the mature sim community understands the fact that we can easily take 'lives' for granted in a game, unlike in real-life. He stated that the caveat was really to take on a Flanker BVR and use the F-15 performance to stay BVR. Even then, he said a fight would be close between the two planes in a dog fight, but the Flanker's easier turning abilities means it's a little likelier to win WVR. Can an F-15 out-maneuver an Su-27 in real life? Maybe, with proper E-management. Is it worth the risk to do so in real life? Probably not.

[GGTharos]

Basically angles fighting is easier and typically faster. E-fighting requires more training, finesse and patience. To add to this, the flanker has that off-bore missile capability which means merges with a flanker are just plain dangerous because there's very few scenarios in which he does NOT get the first shot.

 

For this reason the F-15 would use its BVR capability to drop as many flankers as possible from afar and then if merge is necessary, merge with numerical superiority.

[vanir]

Don't know if it's of any relevance but I've some of the communications log (don't know what the right terminology is), of that Eritrean/Ethiopian Fulcrum versus Flanker battle.

The Fulcrum was instructed to land and manoeuvred to the Flanker's six o'clock. The Flanker pilot then informed the Fulcrum that she was now in a position to shoot his aircraft down and repeated the instruction to land, which would seem odd since you'd think an aircraft behind you would put you at the disadvantage.

The Fulcrum refused, the Flanker won the following aerial contest and took it down with a guns kill.

 

That just seemed like such abject superiority to me. The Fulcrum pilot had also been one of the instructors at the flight school the Flanker pilot had attended too, so they knew each other but also I think it suggests there was a definite case of aircraft superiority going on rather than pilot experience/inexperience.

 

What is it exactly the Flanker has over the Fulcrum for such casual air superiority?

[Moa]

Even then, he said a fight would be close between the two planes in a dog fight, but the Flanker's easier turning abilities means it's a little likelier to win WVR. Can an F-15 out-maneuver an Su-27 in real life? Maybe, with proper E-management. Is it worth the risk to do so in real life? Probably not.

 

As you have found with LockOn it depends far more on the 'initial conditions' as for who wins. For simplicity we mostly choose to debate merits when considering a 'neutral' start. However, even an A-10 can mug a Flanker if the Hog is at 300 knots and it stumbles on a Flanker low and slow. Similarly Aircraft A can best *any* Aircraft B if A starts with a significant angles, altitude, or speed advantage (despite pilot or aircraft performance differences).

 

Don't be surprised if your pet plane (whatever that may be) is fragged in actual on-line combat even by supposedly inferior aircraft - all due to the situation you find yourself in. This is why the endless debates on 'which plane is better' all make huge, often unstated assumptions, about the starting conditions (which is why the debates aren't that applicable to much except 'tournament ladder' style engagements) and is really akin to debating the "number of angels that would fit on the head of a pin" (kind of interesting, but actually a waste of time when you could be considering/learning 'realistic' situations and tactics/team tactics instead).

Edited October 5, 2010 by Moa

[GGTharos]

Don't know if it's of any relevance but I've some of the communications log (don't know what the right terminology is), of that Eritrean/Ethiopian Fulcrum versus Flanker battle.

The Fulcrum was instructed to land and manoeuvred to the Flanker's six o'clock. The Flanker pilot then informed the Fulcrum that she was now in a position to shoot his aircraft down and repeated the instruction to land, which would seem odd since you'd think an aircraft behind you would put you at the disadvantage.

The Fulcrum refused, the Flanker won the following aerial contest and took it down with a guns kill.

 

It was an R-73.

 

That just seemed like such abject superiority to me. The Fulcrum pilot had also been one of the instructors at the flight school the Flanker pilot had attended too, so they knew each other but also I think it suggests there was a definite case of aircraft superiority going on rather than pilot experience/inexperience.

 

What is it exactly the Flanker has over the Fulcrum for such casual air superiority?

 

There are two things here, like you said the fulcrum pilots lacked some training (the pilots were usually Ethiopiean or Eritrean for the migs, I forget which), and the instructor may have lacked the will to shoot down his former student.

 

Also, the flanker will out-turn the daylights out of a MiG-29 but that matters little if you're already sitting int he elbow so I believe the story isn't told quite right. I never heard any credible account that described the MiG getting in an advantegeous position to begin with, ever.

[GGTharos]

I disagree a little with your conclusion; the 1v1 'at given conditions' do count, because they are how you learn to fight your plane and they are how you know where your best part of the envelope is - despite 'starting conditions', you can still drag your opponent into a place he doesn't (or shouldn't) want to be. Eg. a flanker or mig sucking an eagle into a low and slow speed fight.

 

I agree that mugging can happen, but it's mugging and has more to do with SA than skill (then again, you might claim that SA is a skill ;) )

 

 

As you have found with LockOn it depends far more on the 'initial conditions' as for who wins. For simplicity we mostly choose to debate merits when considering a 'neutral' start. However, even an A-10 can mug a Flanker if the Hog is at 300 knots and it stumbles on a Flanker low and slow. Similarly Aircraft A can best *any* Aircraft B if A starts with a significant angles, altitude, or speed advantage (despite pilot or aircraft performance differences).

 

Don't be surprised if your pet plane (whatever that may be) is fragged in actual on-line combat even by supposedly inferior aircraft - all due to the situation you find yourself in. This is why the endless debates on 'which plane is better' all make huge, often unstated assumptions, about the starting conditions (which is why the debates aren't that applicable to much except 'tournament ladder' style engagements) and is really akin to debating the "number of angels that would fit on the head of a pin" (kind of interesting, but actually a waste of time when you could be considering/learning 'realistic' situations and tactics/team tactics instead).

[vanir]

What you say Moa can be painfully illustrated with prop engine combats on the early Eastern Front in 1941.

When Heeresgruppe Mitte moved so deeply into Soviet territories so quickly it captured several new MiG fighters on airfields and combat evaluated them. They were among the aircraft types being downed by the dozen.

So it came as somewhat of a shock the evaluation of its combat performance revealed what was at the time the fastest combat aircraft in the world, with a high altitude performance so superior the Luftwaffe released an advisory to avoid combat with the MiG above 6000 metres.

 

The combats so far against the MiG were simply well outside its element. They were flown by inexperienced pilots with poor training and poorer organisational infrastructure, virtually no communications (most weren't even fitted with radios), often surprised, caught at low speed and altitude and outnumbered with local air superiority.

 

The combat record of the MiG actually improved 1-2yrs later when it was outdated by newer models on all sides, several Soviet aces made their careers in the MiG in '42-43 then went to airacobras or Lavochkins (airacobras were special not because of performance but because of excellent pilot equipment such as good radios and reliable cockpit heating/air).

 

You know and that's another point. Other things like good pilot equipment made an aircraft a better combat fighter than sometimes performance on paper. A lot of Soviet aces I noticed when I traced histories of their piloted aircraft went from airacobras to much higher performing Lavochkins in the guards regiments, but then requested back their airacobras because they had much better equipment still.

 

I guess when it comes down to it individual pilots make judgement calls between performance advantages because of technical capabilities and because of real world considerations like equipment, sometimes these can make the difference instead.

[vanir]

Are we talking about the same encounter Tharos? 26Feb99.

 

Ethiopian Cpt Aster Tolossa was initially escorting a Fishbed strike force in her Flanker SK and departed to intercept a radar contact, which turned out to be an Eritrean Fulcrum UB.

 

The two had some manoeuvring and the Fulcrum wound up on the Flanker's six. At this point she became prepared to shoot it down and contacted the pilot by radio directly, discovering it was her old instructor.

 

She warned him she was in a position to destroy his aircraft, ordered him to land at Debre Zeit and he refused. A further aerial contest ensued.

 

She fired two missiles (listed as "probably R73" by the editor) but he evaded both. She actually shot him down with 30mm fire.

 

The story is published in "Fighter" by Jim Winchester ISBN 1-40543-842-8 © 2004

 

Do you have a link with the account? This is admitedly a second hand account and a more direct source could certainly differ greatly.

[vanir]

Just an off topic aside, I'd like to extend a personal thanks to GGTharos for such an active participation in the forums here, both for the chat and helping us newbies get a better handle on playing Lock On both for success and immersion, alongside the extra info which is just really interesting to discuss.

Cheers mate.

[GGTharos]

What I got came from acig.org, but I can't find the particular article that was there any more (maybe my search was too short).

 

And and you're welcome, thanks :)

[SgtPappy]

A thanks to Tharos is indeed due. The couple things stated helped me really understand just what seems to go on in this game.

 

Moa, of course it'd be very much productive to learn tactics but don't forget, when testing chemical reactions in a lab, one must remove as many variables that may cause error as possible. Then one will find a strong control variable on which to base experiments. That's just what we're doing here. When one learns the science of anything (including air combat), one must first understand a phenomenon, experiment or reaction from ideal conditions, then transfer into higher order understanding.

[nscode]

What you say Moa can be painfully illustrated with prop engine combats on the early Eastern Front in 1941.

When Heeresgruppe Mitte moved so deeply into Soviet territories so quickly it captured several new MiG fighters on airfields and combat evaluated them. They were among the aircraft types being downed by the dozen.

So it came as somewhat of a shock the evaluation of its combat performance revealed what was at the time the fastest combat aircraft in the world, with a high altitude performance so superior the Luftwaffe released an advisory to avoid combat with the MiG above 6000 metres.

 

The combats so far against the MiG were simply well outside its element. They were flown by inexperienced pilots with poor training and poorer organisational infrastructure, virtually no communications (most weren't even fitted with radios), often surprised, caught at low speed and altitude and outnumbered with local air superiority.

 

This is something I can relate to personaly, as my grandfather was sent to Russia, like many men from the Balkans, destined to be put in an aircraft after a few hours of training. Had he not be so lucky to get a bad infection and end up in a hospital instead, I probably wouldn't exist today.

[vanir]

One of the first recipients of the Hero of the Soviet Union award simply rammed his aircraft into an enemy bomber near Leningrad and killed himself, although iirc he shot down two escorts first.

It was a pretty desperate war that I don't think could be understated.

 

Mind you the Ukraine had it a little bit easier and were given plenty of warning of the attack. Your grandfather probably would've been assigned there. Heeresgruppe Süd didn't move from their rallying point until two weeks after the northern groups had been pressing into Soviet territory, so there was time to hastily move reinforcements to support Kiev.

 

Some of the big name Soviet aces of the later war were actually in operations in the south, maybe why they survived. But training was poor, it was actually people like Pokryshin who introduced vertical manoeuvring as practised by the Luftwaffe, Soviet pilots were previously trained to think very two-dimensionally. But even so Stavka would only allow Pokryshin to impart his experience when they thought he was being very patriotic, at one time they thought he was a bad political influence to young pilots so they stopped his training efforts.

[SgtPappy]

It was unfortunate and quite strange that the people of Ukraine believed themselves to be 'liberated' from the Soviets when the Germans took over.

 

Air combat has evolved to more of an electronic form of warfare nowadays, which is why I opened this thread in hopes that some kind of traditional dogfight can be analyzed but with today's advanced weapons.

 

Do we have EM diagrams for the Su-27 and F-15C? I think that would be a good way to see where each aircraft can destroy each other.

 

Also, Vanir, if I ever get this game (as I cannot find it in Canada), I say we have a good classic gunzo fight for ol' time's sake :)

 

GGTharos, someday, I'd appreciate very much a duel with you. Perhaps you can show me the ropes when you have time and then I can judge for myself how to fly the planes! Thanks for your help thus far, btw. Very much appreciated.

Edited October 7, 2010 by SgtPappy

[vanir]

Being in Australia I used a debit mastercard and bought the dvd version online, that's a good way to get your hands on a copy, local stores tend to do a mark up anyway and this way you buy direct plus postage.