To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Sender: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I52 Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 52 Thu Jan 27 08:07:39 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: markf@adcmail.atlas.com (Mark Ferri Re: F4.0 mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Debug mode jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey S Re: your mail Kris Ong Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: Flaps, gear, brakes slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F A slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: EEGS gunsight slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re; F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Falcon 3.03 Bug? glenn976@aol.com Re: Hornet in France bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Re: Hornet in Europe???? mounie@jura.enet.dec.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From: markf@adcmail.atlas.com (Mark Ferris) Subject: What's the current version of Falcon? I just downloaded from a local BBS two (rather large) files that upgrade me to 3.02. Is this the latest or should I be looking for more files? If 3.02 is not the latest, is there a bug list for this version so I can decide if I need to upgrade? By the way, I don't have OFT or Mig-29 or any other addons that I don't know about. Does that make any difference as to what version of the Falcon engine I want? ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Re: F4.0 Rob (opus@ihlpf.att.com) writes: :Tom "KC" Basham writes: : :>FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if [STUFF DELETED] :>gave more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to :>escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just :>discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) :>to the cockpit, :>fixed the view angle problem with padlock, DITTO, Also: real AWACS support, communications with other friendlies, and more tactical goodies. :And added wings to the view so you'd have more visual cues. And turn off :the ability to spot SAMS heading toward you from 2,000,000 miles away :(okay, so I'm exaggerating a little bit). NO, (wrt missiles) I totally disagree. This would be acceptable to me only if F4 is a virtual reality sim where I'm using technology that enables me to see whatever exists in the direction I'm looking. Unfortunately, in F3 I can only really deal with missiles in the Padlock view. Since switching in and out of this is a costly manual task (i.e., the unrealistic, tedious, and performance degrading task of having to manually switch views via keyboard thrustmaster or whatever), the unrealism of long range visual missile sightings is a balancing benefit. :>allowed us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. YES :All this would be very nice, but by the time it comes out I think it :will NEED improved graphics just to survive. Broader appeal = more sales. Perhaps true :>I can live with the graphics we've got (and I actually prefer them to :>the smeared bitmaps of SC and others). : :You have got to be kidding me! Forget the ground graphics for a moment; :you actually prefer F3's plane renderings to Strike Commander's? BTW, :"bitmap" usually refers to one of several fixed views of an object (like :Wing Commander or SWOTL), and is not normally associated with gouraud :shaded texture mapped objects (like Strike Commander). Anyway, just :take a look at the "1942: The Pacific Air War" demo if you want to see :the new state of the art (I can uuto this to you if you want, Tom). I totally agree with Tom. I tried SC (first rendition) and found that while the graphics were pretty (e.g., cities) they lacked a certain crispness. Moreover, I used max everything on the strike commander set-up and while framerate was still impressive on one of my machines (the other was totally unplayable) the enemy aircraft seemed to be out of scale at dogfighting distances (a potentially biased observation as referenced to f3 1x) and sort of materialised from no where. I wouldn't trade graphics engines with strike commander. However, I would like to see the improved detail, gouraud shading, and other features if SH could properly implement them. -- Michael -- mcoyne@acs.bu.edu ------------------------------- From: jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey Stewart) Subject: Debug mode A few issues back, someone mentioned how to find frame rate in debug mode. Which number is it? If this info is in the manual, please forgive my laziness. I'm working toward a paperless life. Thanks. Jeff ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: your mail | | | What's the current version of Falcon? I just downloaded from | a local BBS two (rather large) files that upgrade me to 3.02. | Is this the latest or should I be looking for more files? | | If 3.02 is not the latest, is there a bug list for this version | so I can decide if I need to upgrade? | | By the way, I don't have OFT or Mig-29 or any other addons that I | don't know about. Does that make any difference as to what version | of the Falcon engine I want? | The latest is 3.03 it goes like this.. 3.0D or E --> 3.01 F3 with OFT. 3.01.1 F3 with OFT + oft patch(equal to 3.0e) 3.02 F3 with MiG-29 (with or without OFT) 3.02.1 bugfix for 3.02 3.03 F3 with Hornet (with or without MiG-29) Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings > I ended up coming way too fast. I hit the deck at about 220, but fortunately > I had the perfect approach, touching down soft but fast at a very slight > angle. > > Somehow, the arrestor cables stopped the plane. Interestingly, the warning > lights all lit up like a x-mas tree but the plane was not destroyed. Had to > end mission though because I couldn't taxi off to the side without an engine. > > Will the cables really stop a plane coming in that fast? Maybe it was because > I caught more than one (impossible??) ? I don't know for sure, but I would suspect so. I know guys that have taken the approach end engagement (ie the wire ) at USAF bases with hard over rudders in the F-4 at 200+ KCAS. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Flaps, gear, brakes > From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) > Subject: Flaps, gear, brakes > > As I understand it, the air brakes are just high-drag devices that cause > loss of air speed given the same thrust, but only influence attitude > and altitude indirectly (by loosing speed, you might drop in altitude, > and at low speeds you might drop your nose). True? The part above about losing speed is true of all aircraft, and is the primary purpose for speed-brakes in the first place. Wrt to trim transients (ie the nose pitching up/down and/or loss/gain of altitude), that depends on the aircraft and the flight control system (FCS). In modern day fighters, the FCS is designed to compensate for any trim changes due to speedbrake actuation so the pilot won't usually see it. In older aircraft like the F-86, F-100, even the F-4, you would see a pitch change with speedbrake deflection. How much and in what direction depends on where they are located on the aircraft. > The flaps, however, are not intended as drag devices although that's their > primary side-effect. What they do is "artificially increase the AoA of the > plane without the nose rising". You can fly level at lower speeds with just > about the same AoA as at much higher speeds, at the expense of needing > far more thrust. Right? In some cases, the flaps are intended as drag devices as well as lift enhancers, but your first statement is true for the most part. (There's always an exception and some a**hole to point it out to you huh? ) I guess you could look at flap deflections as "artificially increasing the AOA of the aircraft", but the way the aerodynamics community looks at it is as increasing the area as well as camber of the wing. More surface area means more lift and more camber means faster airflow over the top of the wing, which means less pressure on the top of the wing, which means more lift. There are essentially 2 things that determine your 1-g stall speed for a given weight. One is how big the wing is (area wise), the bigger the wing the slower you can go. The other is how much lift the wing produces at a specific AOA. The more lift you can produce at a lower AOA the slower you can go, because you are just that much farther away from the AOA for stall. Lowering the flaps gives you both of these and that's why the 1g stall speed is slower with flaps down than flaps up an added benefit is also a lower AOA for approach so you can see over the nose. Note too that the same above about trim transients wrt speedbrakes applies here also. > The gear should function as a less effective air brake, I presume. Basically yea, the same also goes here wrt trim transients. > Then you line up roughly and below 250KTS you can drop your gear. As > you get nearer, you can add in flaps (only 1 position in F3, alas) and > with dropping speed you increase your AoA and touch down etc. That flap thing in F3 is bogus. Flaps are automatically controlled by the FCS. Pilot only messes with them if there is a problem. > Now, is the gear usually put out BEFORE or AFTER adding (some) flaps? You should automatically get the correct flap settings in F3 with gear handle actuation. SH messed this up. In the F-4, you always did gear first then flaps. So on takeoff you raised the gear then the flaps, and for landing you lowered the gear then the flaps. In the T-38, takeoff was the same, but for landing you lowered the flaps and then the gear. > In FS5, you can immediately feel the drag of the gear because the nose sinks > and speed drops, but in Falcon this is far less visible. That's how it should be. You won't see a pitch transient but you will notice some speed loss. > No matter what I do with the stick, attitude jumps and if I manage to > keep that stable, vertical speed will get a thump. Is this normal or > do my flying skills stink? Yea that's normal, especially on an airplane with a simple FCS. You just have to get into the habit of knowing where the nose is gonna go and what you speed is gonna do when you raise/lower flaps so you automatically know what to do to with the stick and throttle to keep your nice approach going. > Anyway, what is the usual "look and feel" of a normal Viper approach > and how do you control especially the flaps? I just put the flaps down in F3 whenever I get to it. Sometimes I don't even bother. ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > > Thanks for the info on F16 gunsights. I'm very surprised that > this thing in F3.0 is "for real", because I can't make much use of > it, and I'm always having a hard time when it comes to using the > vulcan. But may be I need more practice. I don't really use the funnel part much. Just to get a hack at what the range is because it's so messed up. The point where the bullets first show in your view is messed up. They seem to emminate from the center point of the HUD when they should be coming from the Gun Cross at the top of the HUD. I bascially just use the center point to fix my lead and the funnel for a hack on the range and then make small bursts and watch where the tracers go so I can make adjustments. If they'd program the EEGS right I'm sure everyone would be very pleased with there gunnery skills. :) - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: EEGS gunsight > From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk > Subject: EEGS gunsight > > Presumably this means the real EEGS is some kind of hybrid > historical/predictor sight. E.g. when you get a good radar lock it > adjusts the funnel into a kind of predictive sight, but otherwise acts > as a historical sight showing bullet flight. Basically yes. the fire control algorithm uses a Kalman filter I believe to do the prediction part. > I guess the problem with > the F3 version is that it is (a) probably a little flaky in > implementation (those ripples you get when you're flying > straight-and-level always struck me as a bit suspicious) and (b) purely > historical and so doesn't get more helpful once you have > position/velocity info from a radar lock. That's my basic assessment as well. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re; F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints > From: bash@intgp1.att.com > Subject: F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints > > I thought Tweety told us the F-14 *did* use EEGS (or something > similar). I'll have to ask him again. It may be something similar, although I bet its just an LCOS, but Greg would know better than me. > No, he means waypoints with time of arrival attributes. 8-) Smarta**, that's what I said. :) > FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if > it used THE SAME graphics as F3, but cleaned up the flight models, > fixed all the campaign bugs, eliminated the randomness problems, > made wingmen smarter, made the cockpit systems operate as a specifc > F-16 version and not a hodge-podge of every F-16 ever built, gave > more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to > escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just > discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) > to the cockpit, fixed the view angle problem with padlock, allowed > us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. I agree. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: glenn976@aol.com Subject: Falcon 3.03 Bug? Just a question to you all.... When playing Falcon and in Red Flag I have encountered the following problem: When setting up a mission that has F/A-18's in it, I am unable to assign them any weapons. As a result, they get whipped out by the opposition with out being able to fire even a single shot in their defense. (Note: I do not have HORNET, only the 3.03 update. And I have not tried to see if this happens in MIG.) Is this only happening to me or are others experiencing it also? I'd hate to think that I'm the only one who is accidentally sending Hornets to certain doom against those pesky MiG's...... Glenn 'Enforcer' Howell glenn976@denver.relay.ucm.org ghowell@nyx.cs.du.edu 70711,1370 - CI$ ------------------------------- From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: Re: Hornet in France >From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) >Subject: Hornet in Europe???? > >Has anyone heard of a projected release date from SH? I have heard some rumors about Hornet release in France (I don't know if this apply also to others European countries ???). The French distributor (Ubi Soft) DO NOT PLAN to release SH'HORNET in France, due to the new Bosnia theater. They think that this war is too much questionable in Europe to be played in a game. So I'm afraid that we will have to rely on overseas distribution to play it... Christophe "Rafale" Bonnet ------------------------------- From: mounie@jura.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Hornet in Europe???? Hello All, My fisrt posting in this list, quite sometime after I started to enjoy it. Concerning Hornet in Europe, I called today my preferred shop and they told me that they will get 2 (yes only two !) boxes tomorrow. That's make one left 8^) BTW, this shop is in Switzerland. So Hornet is landing in Europe. As the Swiss Army managed to buy some F/A-18 last year, sure SH should sell quite well here. It's going to be a long and wet week-end...plouf, re-plouf...keep missing this damn boat ! Thierry ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 52 ]]