From falcon3 Thu Oct 1 05:40:49 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:38 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 00:05 PDT Received: by shannon.ee.wits.ac.za (/\==/\ Smail3.1.22.1 #22.3) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:36 EET Received: From WITS_EE2/WORKQUEUE by cerberus.ee.wits.ac.za via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.921001081700.336; 01 Oct 92 08:22:41 +0200 Message-ID: To: falcon3@onion.rain.com From: "Dean Redelinghuys" Date: 1 Oct 92 08:16:50 SAT Subject: Re: Ways we have trashed ourselves.. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2). >Subject: Ways we have trashed ourselves.. > While we were talking about cool ways that we killed bogeys, > how about cool (annoying) ways we killed ourselves? I have a LARGE confession to make on this one, but bear with me and try not to snigger too much.... I have only had OFT for about 2 weeks now, and have played far less than I would like to. However, I started on the Kuwait campaign (was this a good idea?) and landed up ACTUALLY SUCEEDING IN A COUPLE OF MISSIONS. Thanks SH for making the EASY campaign setting :-) Anyway, I finished one (2300) mission where I had to bomb something, and actually managed to release the bombs, fly home via a couple of Mig-21s/TU- 22s, and got to the part where the flying had to stop and the landing start. It's at this point that I (most of the time, anyway) press the 'A' key and get amazed at how the autopilot lands (flying over the runway, do a sharp turn ALWAYS to the right, fly out for about 2 miles and then turn smooth and nicely to put the wheels down on the number, every time, makes me sick). YES GUYS, I CAN'T LAND PERFECTLY EVERY TIME!!!! Go ahead, call me a weenie, etc. I can handle it (actually how many other guys out there have the courage to admit they are so inept that they land on autopilot?) Well, the short of it is that the AP landed perfectly, but to my horror I realised that there was a burned out B52 on the runway. True to the spirit of the game, the AP didn't expect it there, so it kept going. I rapidly took evasive action (turned off AP, hit the brakes, cut the engine, hit the wheelbrakes, almost lifted the landing gear) but didn't stop in time..... Yup, I crashed into a crashed B52 on the runway. Landing on AP. I'm ashamed, but then I don't think anyone else has managed this, so it's kinda unique. Doesn't it amaze you that SH managed to program an environment where you CAN do this type of thing, and HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR IT (how many other flight sims do you know that actually do things while you're not watching?:-) Well, that was rather a short description wasn't it? Guess I'm feeling guilty about the AP landings. Cheers Red Boron Dean Redelinghuys |------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Have another day. | redel@odie.ee.wits.ac.za. | | | | | ``There are no weird people | Postgraduate Student | | in this world - some just | Electrical Engineering Department | | require more understanding | University of the Witwatersrand | | than others'' Tom Robbins | Johannesburg South Africa | |------------------------------|---------------------------------------| From falcon3 Thu Oct 1 05:41:24 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:38 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 02:48 PDT Received: from media03 by sun4nl.nluug.nl via EUnet id AA21708 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:47:44 +0100 Received: from media01.UUCP by media03.UUCP (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA21700; Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:45:00 GMT Received: by media01.UUCP (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA01247; Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:43:51 GMT From: media01!wde@relay.nluug.nl (Wim Dekker) Message-Id: <9210011043.AA01247@media01.UUCP> Subject: Ways we have trashed ourselves.. (fwd) To: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:43:50 GMT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > > Hey, > > While we were talking about cool ways that we killed bogeys, > how about cool (annoying) ways we killed ourselves? > ... > > And there's also the case where I completed my mission, landed, parked my > plane, then my wingman landed, and decided he wanted MY parking space > and rammed me from behind, blowing me up. @!@^%&@#!!!!! > > Chris > I always try to be the last one who lands, because it happened several times to me that my wingman flew into from behind. I think it is because i slow down too fast once landed. Wim From falcon3 Thu Oct 1 21:38:12 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 21:35 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 21:34 PDT Received: by rain.psg.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.2) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 20:48 PDT Received: from mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au by vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (PMDF #2413 ) id <01GPH4G8TW3K8WXELW@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>; Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:48:40 +1000 Received: by mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA11914; Fri, 2 Oct 92 13:48:35 +1000 Date: 02 Oct 1992 13:48:35 +1000 From: int766m@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (S Malnovic) Subject: f3 - QEMM To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Message-id: <9210020348.AA11914@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Some people have metioned the QEMM manager. I just arecently saw it advertised for a small fortune. 154 $ australian for QEMM386 ver 5.01 or something like that. This is even more expensive than dos 5.0. I was wondering if someone could justify this cost to me, and tell me more about QEMM. How does it compare to EMM386 that comes with dos 5.0. Also, what - if any - difference is there in running falcon when using QEMM as opposed to EMM. I would really appreciate a n answer to the above. Perhaps you could give me an idea of what a good price for it is also. Sascha From falcon3 Fri Oct 2 06:33:30 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 06:30 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 01:18 PDT Received: from utis31.cs.utwente.nl by utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (4.1/RBCS-2.3mx) id AA08627; Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:18:22 +0100 Received: from utis71.cs.utwente.nl by utis31.cs.utwente.nl (4.1/RBCS-2.0) id AA00720; Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:18:19 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:18:19 +0100 From: out@cs.utwente.nl (Dirk Jan Out) Message-Id: <9210020818.AA00720@utis31.cs.utwente.nl> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Unwinnable missions... Has anyone on this list ever had missions which simply CAN NOT be done? Yesterday I was asked to hit an Iraqi regiment under attack by Allied ground troops. Despite flying on full afterburner the ground troops had finished the Iraqi off without loss. Coming home.... Mission summary: mission failure...you failed to hit a single enemy ground unit. I wonder if others on this list have similar experiences... On another topic... Are AWACS planes really so blind and stupid that all they can tell me is 1) Where my waypoints are. 2) Enemy ECM activity 3) Increased enemy air activity 4) Violating rules of engagement (I know when I do that) I thought that the least they could do was telling me about enemy flights near me (speed,heading). One of the big advantages of an AWACS should be that *I* don't have to use my radar, so I can sneak up on them Migs undetected. Dirk-Jan out@cs.utwente.nl From falcon3 Fri Oct 2 07:23:16 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 07:21 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 07:20 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:17 CDT To: att!onion.rain.com!falcon3 Subject: Re: Unwinnable missions... >From: out@cs.utwente.nl (Dirk Jan Out) > >Has anyone on this list ever had missions which simply CAN NOT be done? > >Yesterday I was asked to hit an Iraqi regiment under attack by Allied >ground troops. Despite flying on full afterburner the ground troops >had finished the Iraqi off without loss. Coming home.... > >Mission summary: mission failure...you failed to hit a single enemy ground >unit Just find some other concentration of units close by (check for this using the recon feature BEFORE you take off) and blow a few of those away. This will allow you to succeed, or at least it does in 3.0D. >Are AWACS planes really so blind and stupid that all they can tell me is >1) Where my waypoints are. >2) Enemy ECM activity >3) Increased enemy air activity >4) Violating rules of engagement (I know when I do that) > >I thought that the least they could do was telling me about enemy flights >near me (speed,heading). One of the big advantages of an AWACS should be >that *I* don't have to use my radar, so I can sneak up on them Migs undetected. This has been discussed some on the net. The feeling of most people is that Spectrum Holobyte wanted you to use their whiz-bang HFR that they went through all that trouble to model. Having real AWACS coordination would, as you said, allow you to fly most of the time with your radar off. I think it would be nice to have some campaigns with full AWACS support and some with none. The waypoint business really could be completely dissociated with AWACS functionality, and that would be all you'd get if no AWACS were around. Even in the Kuwait campaign, for example, there are targets so deep in enemy territory that I don't think an E-3 can search that far (I can't remember the Sentry's radar range exactly--been a while since I played Harpoon). This would certainly add a whole new dimension to the game. It would surely require some significant code changes, though. Perhaps in a future mission set (but I doubt enough people care enough for them to put it in). > Dirk-Jan out@cs.utwente.nl Rob ihlpy!opus@att.att.com From falcon3 Fri Oct 2 09:27:09 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:25 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 2 Oct 92 08:12 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA28852; Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:12:01 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA08164; Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:12:00 CDT Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:12:00 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210021512.AA08164@urbino.mcc.com> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Need some material "USENET Guide to Falcon 3" Hello all. I've got too sections that I would like to put more material in than what I have. This is your chance to be famous, so get your crayons, pencils, pens, or fingers ready. I need some material for a History of Falcon section. There is a little in the books, but I'd prefer that it come from someone out on the net (perhaps even from someone at Spectrum Holobyte, hint, hint) since that is what this guide is all about. The second section I need material for is the "There I Was" section. Send me your humorous, dramatic, awe inspiring, amazing stories and you could be the next Randy Cunningham. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 06:58:04 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:54 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:31 PDT Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA17112; Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:26:09 -0700 Message-Id: <9210051326.AA17112@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> Received: from heavy.enet; by decwrl.enet; Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:29:50 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:29:50 PDT From: Thunder knows all things. To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Apparently-To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Falcon 3.01 (OFT) >Does anyone know when Falcon OFT will be released in Europe ??? I saw it in the shops in the UK on saturday. That was when I bought Falcon 3! I hope no one here minds me asking a real novice question... I'm working through combat school, on mission 5, which is the first mission to feature an enemy plane. Now I follow the instructions in the book, but at no point does the enemy appear in the threat warning indicator. I also find that the main radar screen shows a "scale" of 20 miles even when the enemy distance indicator is less than 10 miles. I have version 3.0D. Am I doing something wrong, or are these bugs of some kind ? Thanks, Jamie. From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 09:53:06 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 09:50 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 09:31 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA16429; Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:30:27 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA10446; Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:30:26 CDT Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:30:26 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210051630.AA10446@urbino.mcc.com> To: jamie@heavy.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Falcon 3.01 (OFT) Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com > I hope no one here minds me asking a real novice question... I'm working > through combat school, on mission 5, which is the first mission to feature > an enemy plane. Now I follow the instructions in the book, but at no point > does the enemy appear in the threat warning indicator. I also find that > the main radar screen shows a "scale" of 20 miles even when the enemy > distance indicator is less than 10 miles. I have version 3.0D. Am I doing > something wrong, or are these bugs of some kind ? The OFT manual describes when radar is used by computer controlled aircraft (which includes both wingmen AND enemy aircraft). Lesson 5 uses a waypoint type of NOTHING for the enemy plane, so he won't turn on his radar and therefore, you won't see him on your TWI. You can go to Red Flag Control, Enemy Aircraft, Select Waypoints and change the second waypoint type to something like CAP, ESCORT, or INTERCEPT. This will cause the Mig to turn its radar on. Your radar range control is either manual or automatic. In SAD and SAM modes, your radar will automatically adjust the range to include the target on which it is locked. In HFR mode, the range must be manually adjusted (although I think it may adjust range while locked as well). Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 12:54:25 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:53 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 10:48 PDT Received: from RCHLAND by vnet.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2089; Mon, 05 Oct 92 13:50:23 EDT Reply-To: "Eric Johnson" Received: by po1.rchland.ibm.com (5.51/4.7) id for falcon3@onion.rain.com; Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:47:17 CDT Received: via switchmail; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:47:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smurfville.rchland.ibm.com via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:46:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smurfville.rchland.ibm.com via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:46:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Messages.7.15.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.smurfville.rchland.ibm.com.rs.aix32 via MS.5.6.smurfville.rchland.ibm.com.rs_aix32; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:46:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:46:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric Johnson To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Enemy buildings When attacking command control and communication targets located in a city, are there particular buildings that need to be taken out, or is any building in the city fair game? Eric Johnson rchland(ericj), ericj@rchland.vnet.ibm.com Open Interfaces, 535/025-3 Phone (507) 253-5046, Tie-Line 553-5046 IBM Rochester, Hwy 52 & 37th St NW, Rochester, MN 55901 From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 14:06:04 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:04 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:59 PDT Received: by camelot.bradley.edu id AA14016 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for falcon3@onion.rain.com); Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:59:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:59:31 -0500 From: Shaun Burnett Message-Id: <199210052059.AA14016@camelot.bradley.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Thanks for info ... For all of the info on Falcon, however, I've removed it from my HD for the time being (low disk space). I'd appreciate it if the upcoming Falcon "FAQ" to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games, so when I get back into Falcon, I'll have some tips from the "pros" to help me. Thanks. Shaun Burnett | "You can't survive on a new planet with a widow@camelot.bradley.edu | soul full of hope and fresh air you know." OS/2--Happy Happy Joy Joy--OS/2 - Dr. Who (Tom Baker) From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 14:13:41 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:12 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:08 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA20325; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:07:43 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA10633; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:07:42 CDT Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:07:42 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210052107.AA10633@urbino.mcc.com> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com, ericj@rchland.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Enemy buildings > When attacking command control and communication targets located in a > city, are there particular buildings that need to be taken out, or is > any building in the city fair game? If you go to the waypoints screen and select the waypoint where you deliver your ordinance, you can select Zoom to Target to find out which building you are supposed to take out. You can also zoom in on the map to mag 20 or so to see the bullseye for that target in relation to the rest of the area. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 14:50:49 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:49 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:23 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:36 CDT To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: OFT Changes, Direct Connect, HiFi Vs. Complex I recently got OFT and immediately tried some direct connect two-player allied missions with a friend at 57.6Kbps. Just thought I'd share some miscellaneous things I've noticed. Direct Connect Allied Missions - Missions take a long time to set up, even between two 486/33s over a 57.6Kbps link. - Mission summaries were rarely the same for both players. Ground units which showed up on my screen did not show up on my wingman's screen. - Although the some difficulty settings seem to be shared, others are allowed to vary, such as flight model and radar type. - All in all, I thought it was fun, but too slow and inconsistent to be worth lugging my weighty machine and monitor over to my friend's place. The real drawback was that I couldn't speed up time. I normally use this feature all the time. For those that don't have type-A personalities, this might be less of a problem. :^) Complex Vs. HiFi Flight Models - Ever since I've gotten Falcon 3.0, I've only used the HiFi flight model. My friend doesn't like it because it's too sensitive (a common complaint, it seems). I got to compare the two by watching how he controlled his plane while we were connected. The Complex model seemed much more responsive to throttle changes, but the biggest difference was fuel usage rates. At low throttle settings (e.g. 40% throttle = ~450 knots), I was burning fuel about half as fast as he was, since he had to use a much higher throttle setting to maintain the same speed. The OFT manual states that the fuel calculations it shows are valid for both the Complex and HiFi flight models. Unless things change drastically under two-player mode this is far from the truth. I wonder which is more true to life. I guess I should see how the range listings in the OFT manual compare to the mileage I get. OFT Changes from 3.0D - My plane is definitely faster (again, this is using the HiFi model). - My wingmen seem more effective at attacking ground units. - The quantity and quality of escorts I'm given on strike missions is much better, though it's still possible to get A-4s. - Forward quarter missile shots are MUCH deadlier than they used to be. My settings are Cadet intelligence and Low weapons effectiveness. Head-on shots with AMRAAMs or AIM-9Ms used to be mostly fruitless, but now it seems like I get a better than 50% kill rate! On the downside, it seems more difficult to dodge APEXs and SA-6s than before. Probably makes the game more realistic. It certainly makes it more challenging. - My favorite addition is the ability to detect AAA and SAM radars from farther away (though it seemed a bit unrealistic when I could pick up an SA-6's search radar from over 200 miles away when I was only flying at 250 feet!) This single change makes campaigns about three times easier than they used to be, since SAMs were always the leading cause of death for my pilots, even at the second lowest (Reserves?) level. Now I can take them out using stand-off attacks with Shrikes and HARMs. - At the Standard campaign difficulty level, you get way more stuff on resupply days. This applies not just to the number of planes you get, but also to your fuel supply. The latter was always a problem for me under 3.0D in that I couldn't put up as many planes as I'd have liked in a lot of situations for fear of running out of fuel. I'm currently flying a campaign in Kuwait, a theatre I was never able to win under 3.0D. After the first day, which I used to refamilarize myself with the game since I hadn't played in a while, I stopped aborting and restarting missions (BTW, they fixed the bug where your ordnance would be lost if you aborted) and just let the chips fall where they may. I'm now on day 4 and well on my way to victory. This is exactly what I'd hoped for. Now I'll be able to ramp up the enemy pilot and SAM-AAA intelligence without getting totally blown away. Under 3.0D, I despaired of ever being able to consistently complete missions, even at easy settings, and was getting kind of discouraged. Can anyone truly admit to being able to complete missions under 3.0D with the SAM-AAA intelligence set to Elite? If so, I'd like to know what tactics you used! Enough babbling for now. Rob ihlpy!opus@att.att.com From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 14:54:11 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:53 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:43 PDT Message-Id: Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:43 PDT Received: from [128.165.186.22] ([128.165.186.22]) by J8LOSA.JDOLA.LANL.GOV with SMTP; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:42:54 GMT To: falcon3@onion.rain.com From: adams_g@jdola.lanl.gov Subject: Re: Enemy buildings >When attacking command control and communication targets located in a >city, are there particular buildings that need to be taken out, or is >any building in the city fair game? It's been my experience that the mission has a set of pre-defined targets (i.e., buildings) that are considered "primary targets." Nailing other buildings may not count for mission success. Also, hitting civilian buildings if definitely not PC. :) >Eric Johnson >rchland(ericj), ericj@rchland.vnet.ibm.com >Open Interfaces, 535/025-3 >Phone (507) 253-5046, Tie-Line 553-5046 >IBM Rochester, Hwy 52 & 37th St NW, Rochester, MN 55901 --- Gavin Visualize Whirled Peas! From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 15:41:29 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:39 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:49 PDT Received: from pldote.intel.com by hermes.intel.com (5.65/10.0i); Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:47:27 -0700 Received: from trr9.plfg by pldote.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA13886; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:12:06 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:12:06 PDT From: dregis@pldote.intel.com (~Regis) Message-Id: <9210052212.AA13886@pldote.intel.com> Apparently-To: Hey All, I've been using the SAD mode radar (blue/white/orange tadpoles), and have a problem. The danged thing won't let me extend the range when I'm currently tracking a target. Now, this is especially bad when it's locked onto one of my own wingmen or a friendly flight. I can't figure out how to clear the lock so I can F8 it to 80/40/20 range! I tried the 'x' and 'z' key, but those seem to be restricted to ground targets. I find this _real_ frustrating! Is there a way around this or am I going to have to resort to the more realistic, manual radar? Sorry, after months of using the SAD mode, the change is difficult. Anyone? DAve REgis ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Regis (MS:FM3-43) _____ dregis@pldote.intel.com 1900 Prairie City Rd. | Intel Corporation Folsom, CA 95630 -------______O______------- PLDO Software Tools From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 15:42:11 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:08 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA01012; Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:08:43 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210052208.AA01012@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: Enemy buildings To: ericj@rchland.VNET.IBM.COM Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:08:42 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: ; from "Eric Johnson" at Oct 5, 92 12:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Eric Johnson asks > > When attacking command control and communication targets located in a > city, are there particular buildings that need to be taken out, or is > any building in the city fair game? > When you are assigned a bombing mission, go into the 'set waypoints' screen, hit the 'waypoint #' button until 'bomb' comes up, then hit the 'zoom to target' button. You can then plan your attack more effectively by knowing what the target looks like, and plan your in/out headings. Also, use the 'recon' feature so you know what to expect, and toggle thru the map modes to get a feel of what else is around town. ALWAYS do this! Even if you are escorting somebody else, use this feature and *familiarize yourself with the target area*. The time you spend prepairing yourself for your mission is always well spent. You are allowed to add aircraft to your flight, and select pilots for these aircraft. Usually Falcon default gives you a good choice of weapons, pilots, waypoints, etc. But not always! Sometimes, there are SAM and radar sites nearby, and these are fair game to say the least. You might want to set up another flight to take these guys out before you arrive. Remember that the success of your mission is based upon your success at hitting your primary target. After that, other military targets *do* help your success in the overall campaign, but I wouldn't mess with anything that looks like a civilian target. That's not what knighthood is about... -longjohn From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 15:42:23 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:12 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA01374; Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:12:03 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210052212.AA01374@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: Enemy buildings To: ericj@rchland.VNET.IBM.COM Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:12:02 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: ; from "Eric Johnson" at Oct 5, 92 12:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > > When attacking command control and communication targets located in a > city, are there particular buildings that need to be taken out, or is > any building in the city fair game? > Oh, yeah. Forgot to mention that on your 'ground radar' screen (f7) you will see a crosshair for your target when you get within range. Boy, what handy gadgets these young scientists make! -longjohn From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 16:42:00 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:06 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 17:59 CDT To: att!onion.rain.com!falcon3 Subject: Autoranging Radar >From: dregis@pldote.intel.com (~Regis) > >I've been using the SAD mode radar (blue/white/orange tadpoles), >and have a problem. The danged thing won't let me extend the >range when I'm currently tracking a target. Now, this is >especially bad when it's locked onto one of my own wingmen >or a friendly flight. I can't figure out how to clear the >lock so I can F8 it to 80/40/20 range! I tried the 'x' and >'z' key, but those seem to be restricted to ground targets. > >I find this _real_ frustrating! Is there a way around this >or am I going to have to resort to the more realistic, manual >radar? Sorry, after months of using the SAD mode, the change >is difficult. Sorry, but you'll have to go all the way to the hifi radar model to get rid of this limitation. Even the SAM setting does it. Sure, you'll lose lots of valuable target information, but look on the bright side--you'll be able to detect bandits MUCH farther away. >Anyone? >DAve REgis Rob From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 16:42:19 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:41 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:25 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA10946; Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:23:58 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210052323.AA10946@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: your mail To: dregis@pldote.intel.com (~Regis) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:23:56 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: <9210052212.AA13886@pldote.intel.com>; from "~Regis" at Oct 5, 92 3:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Regis asks: > > I've been using the SAD mode radar (blue/white/orange tadpoles), > and have a problem. The danged thing won't let me extend the > range when I'm currently tracking a target. Now, this is > especially bad when it's locked onto one of my own wingmen > or a friendly flight. I can't figure out how to clear the > lock so I can F8 it to 80/40/20 range! I tried the 'x' and > 'z' key, but those seem to be restricted to ground targets. > Tell me about it! You can turn off the radar, then hit the zoom key the appropriate number of times, but it will just jump back to the close-up when you select a nearer target. Or you can turn until there isn't anybody in front of you and zoom it. Real dumb way to fly, but you might get a quick glance. I *like* that tadpole radar! I don't care if it isn't realistic, it *should* be! About time for the DoD to catch up? -=longjohn From falcon3 Mon Oct 5 18:46:16 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 18:44 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 5 Oct 92 18:13 PDT Received: from csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU by csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU (PMDF #2556 ) id <01GPMK31ZDGGA4LVWD@csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU>; Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:11:09 +1000 Date: 06 Oct 1992 11:11:09 +1000 From: U8843619@csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU Subject: super-SAMS To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Message-id: <01GPMK31ZDGIA4LVWD@csdvax.csd.unsw.EDU.AU> X-VMS-To: IN%"falcon3@onion.rain.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi I am currently playing the Korean campaign in OFT and noticed a funny thing last night.... The mission was to escort B52s and on return I got left behind due to some MiGs and An12s. After taking care of them I returned home to my base to find the B-52s sitting on the runway !!! No problem I'll land just in front of them Did this and whilst cycling thru the wingmen view I noticed my aircraft explode! Mission summary said I was hit by a SA6 gainful and the mission was a failure because none of the B52s returned. I presume they were hit by sams as well wh whilst rolling down the runway. Has this happened to anyone else. ?? On another note, since I have had OFT the program seems to crash after I complete the first mission. Everything just freezes. Solution after each mission just reboot. Not a problem now that I am aware of it but annoying. Is this a problem with my system or a bug. My system is a 386-33 with DOS5, trident 8900 card and a SB. Regards, Derek From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 08:09:44 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 08:04 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 07:33 PDT Received: by utu.fi id <250062(2)>; Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:33:26 +0200 Subject: Re: Falcon 3.01 (OFT) From: Jari Tapio Lehtonen To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:33:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9210051326.AA17112@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> from "falcon3@onion.rain.com" at Oct 5, 92 03:29:50 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 210 Message-Id: <92Oct6.163326eet.250062(2)@utu.fi> > > >Does anyone know when Falcon OFT will be released in Europe ??? > It must be widely available in Europe, if it is available in Finland, and it is. I bought mine today and I'm dying to get to playing it! From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 08:11:42 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 08:09 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 07:58 PDT Received: by utu.fi id <250063(2)>; Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:57:45 +0200 Subject: Falcon 3.0 Flight manual From: Jari Tapio Lehtonen To: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon Newsgroup) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:57:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 378 Message-Id: <92Oct6.165745eet.250063(2)@utu.fi> This might seem funny, but has anyone expereienced the same problem with Falcon that I have? I was supplied with a FAULTY MANUAL... Yes, the game itself worked fine, but the manual was short on pages. There were no pages between 151 - 182! Just wrote to ask if this is a common problem? The game was version 3.0c, and the manual was printed in December 1991, Second Edition. From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 10:48:11 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 10:44 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 10:41 PDT Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29868; Tue, 6 Oct 92 10:41:05 PDT Received: from chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06583; Tue, 6 Oct 92 10:41:06 PDT Received: by chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03181; Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:40:16 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:40:16 GMT From: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck Price) Message-Id: <9210061740.AA03181@chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM> To: jlong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com Content-Length: 1363 > From: John Long > > Regis asks: > > > > I've been using the SAD mode radar (blue/white/orange tadpoles), > > and have a problem. The danged thing won't let me extend the > > range when I'm currently tracking a target. Now, this is > > especially bad when it's locked onto one of my own wingmen > > or a friendly flight. I can't figure out how to clear the > > lock so I can F8 it to 80/40/20 range! I tried the 'x' and > > 'z' key, but those seem to be restricted to ground targets. > > > ... > I *like* that tadpole radar! I don't care if it isn't realistic, it > *should* be! About time for the DoD to catch up? > I like it too. I'd like to believe this is what the AWACS would be beaming to me if I was using their radar instead of my own. If any SH types are listening, why not provide a passive-feed-from-AWACS option which gives a presentation like SAD mode, but doesn't cause my own plane to emit radar energy? And if the AWACS gets shot down, I lose the feed and am on my own. > -=longjohn -chuck ===================================================================== Chuck Price ------------- Sun Microsystems _\__(_)__/_ price@sun.com ./ \. ===================================================================== From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 18:04:07 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:00 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:08 PDT Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08455; Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:07:54 PDT Received: from chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03293; Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:07:57 PDT Received: by chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04244; Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:07:04 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:07:04 GMT From: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck Price) Message-Id: <9210062307.AA04244@chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM> To: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM, knutson@mcc.com Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com Content-Length: 1822 > From knutson@mcc.com Tue Oct 6 12:57 PDT 1992 > > Hmm, where do I start? I can think of several reasons why this is not > done. > > 1. The F16 does not have a radar display big enough to handle > the 200 mile (or whatever large number) radius of data that the > AWACS handles. > > 2. It is not necessary nor desirable for the F16 pilot to know all this > information. The F16 is a tactical not a strategic weapon > platform. > > 3. It takes a whole plane load of GCI officers (is Ground Control > Intercept the right terminology if they're airborne?) to sift > through the data the dish brings in. No way one pilot can do this > and get his job done. I have a hard enough time sifting through > what's friendly and what's not as it is. > > 4. AWACS carry general officers to evaluate the strategic situation and > make decisions. F16 pilots are told what to do based on this. > > Granted, the current AWACS implementation leaves a lot to be desired, > but please, don't turn my F16 into a one man AWACS. I would suggest > that more vector information be reported by the AWACS, OR SH could > implement role shifting ala Micropose B17 in which you could hop into a > GCI officer's seat or whatever on the AWACS and get the strategic > situation. > > Jim Knutson | | > knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- > cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + > Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! > Interesting note. Now I know a bit more about the AWACS, thanks. However, I was under the impression that what I suggested (in principal anyway) is done today in the real world. I never believed that the tactical a/c were fed raw AWACS data, but were fed tactical information relevant to their situation. Maybe this is not technically possible, but isn't something like this done today? -chuck From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 18:04:44 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:00 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:39 PDT Received: by rain.psg.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.2) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:58 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA03430; Tue, 6 Oct 92 14:56:44 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA00863; Tue, 6 Oct 92 14:56:43 CDT Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 14:56:43 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210061956.AA00863@urbino.mcc.com> To: Chuck.Price@eng.sun.com Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com > I like it too. I'd like to believe this is what the AWACS would be beaming > to me if I was using their radar instead of my own. If any SH types are > listening, why not provide a passive-feed-from-AWACS option which gives > a presentation like SAD mode, but doesn't cause my own plane to emit radar > energy? And if the AWACS gets shot down, I lose the feed and am on my own. Hmm, where do I start? I can think of several reasons why this is not done. 1. The F16 does not have a radar display big enough to handle the 200 mile (or whatever large number) radius of data that the AWACS handles. 2. It is not necessary nor desirable for the F16 pilot to know all this information. The F16 is a tactical not a strategic weapon platform. 3. It takes a whole plane load of GCI officers (is Ground Control Intercept the right terminology if they're airborne?) to sift through the data the dish brings in. No way one pilot can do this and get his job done. I have a hard enough time sifting through what's friendly and what's not as it is. 4. AWACS carry general officers to evaluate the strategic situation and make decisions. F16 pilots are told what to do based on this. Granted, the current AWACS implementation leaves a lot to be desired, but please, don't turn my F16 into a one man AWACS. I would suggest that more vector information be reported by the AWACS, OR SH could implement role shifting ala Micropose B17 in which you could hop into a GCI officer's seat or whatever on the AWACS and get the strategic situation. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 19:44:55 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 19:42 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:42 PDT Received: by m2xenix.psg.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.2) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:42 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA10196; Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:42:05 -0400 Received: from mailrus.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 214148.8326; Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:41:48 EDT Received: from mailrus.cc.umich.edu by destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (5.65/2.2) id AA03165; Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:33:49 -0400 Received: from handies.ucar.edu by mailrus.cc.umich.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA04372; Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:33:35 -0400 Received: from noao.edu by handies.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Backup Central Post Office 09/09/92) id AA26714; Tue, 6 Oct 92 19:33:28 MDT Received: from enuucp.eas.asu.edu by noao.edu (4.1/SAG-Noao.G82) id AA03025; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:33:06 MST; for mailrus!uunet!m2xenix!onion!falcon3@handies.ucar.edu Received: from gtephx.UUCP by enuucp.eas.asu.edu with UUCP id AA13152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for noao!ncar!mailrus!uunet!m2xenix!onion!falcon3); Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:34:27 -0700 Received: by gtephx.com ( 5.52 (84)/5.17) id AA01325; Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:18:25 MST From: gtephx!herrj@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Jim Herr) Message-Id: <9210061918.AA01325@gtephx.com> Subject: OFT at a good price To: m2xenix!onion!falcon3@uunet.UU.NET Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:18:22 MST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL14] I was in Babbages yesterday, and picked up their monthly sale catalog. In it, they advertise Operation Fighting Tiger for Falcon3.0 for $22.99. That is the cheapest I've seen yet. If you are thinking about picking up OFT, you may want to check this out! - Jim +--------------------------------------+--------------------+ |Jim Herr | | | At: ncar!noao!enuucp!gtephx!herrj | This space | | or: uunet!zardoz!hrc!gtephx!herrj | intentionally left | | or: gtephx!herrj@enuucp.eas.asu.edu | blank | |AGCS, Phoenix | | +--------------------------------------+--------------------+ From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 19:45:31 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 19:42 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:46 PDT Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20580; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:45:43 PDT Received: from chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12594; Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:45:48 PDT Received: by chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04313; Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:44:55 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:44:55 GMT From: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck Price) Message-Id: <9210070144.AA04313@chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM> To: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM, knutson@mcc.com Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com Content-Length: 360 > From price@chuckles Tue Oct 6 16:07 PDT 1992 > > Interesting note. Now I know a bit more about the AWACS, thanks. However, > I was under the impression that what I suggested (in principal anyway) is ^^^^^^^^^ Sh*t. I knew I shouldn't have washed my fingers today. "principle". "principle". -chuck From falcon3 Tue Oct 6 20:44:31 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:42 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 6 Oct 92 19:55 PDT Received: from csc.canterbury.ac.nz by csc.canterbury.ac.nz (PMDF #2553 ) id <01GPO7W3FPB4E306QI@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:54:59 +1300 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:54:59 +1300 From: MECH413@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Subject: The Russain fleets invisibility trick. To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Message-id: <01GPO7W3FYYAE306QI@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> X-Envelope-to: falcon3@onion.rain.com X-VMS-To: IN%"falcon3@onion.rain.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Greetings, I was flying (OFT, Kurile Is.) a SEADSHIP mission against the russian fleet. I stocked up on mavericks and Harpoons and went hunting. I launched my two Harpoons as soon as I got a fix and watched them sink a ship. I then proceded to the waypoints where the fleet was ment to be. The SEA Radar acknowledged their presence but I couldn't see any ships on the sea, Just alot of wave crests. Even with the scale on 8X still nothing. What made thing s worse was seeing SAMs rise out of "empty" ocean right in front of me - Still no sign of a ship. My wingmen (7 of them, in 2 flights) could'nt find any ships either and resorted shooting down aircraft. I got a mission failure due to not killing any Air-defense type ships. The debrief didn't even acknowledge the ship I got with the Harpoons. Anyone had this happen?? and can symathise with me. Comments welcome. Thanks. Tim Pierre. From falcon3 Wed Oct 7 10:46:00 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 10:41 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 07:15 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA12318; Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:15:06 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA02105; Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:15:05 CDT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:15:05 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210071415.AA02105@urbino.mcc.com> To: Chuck.Price@eng.sun.com Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com > Interesting note. Now I know a bit more about the AWACS, thanks. However, > I was under the impression that what I suggested (in principal anyway) is > done today in the real world. I never believed that the tactical a/c were fed raw > AWACS data, but were fed tactical information relevant to their situation. Maybe > this is not technically possible, but isn't something like this done > today? There is a system in use now called Jsomething (JCCS?) which is a Joint military branch integrated command and control system (they used to be separate). This system shares information between the Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force (both ground and airborne) CCC systems so that commanders can get a better picture of what is going on and apply all appropriate forces for the situation. I don't remember if this information sharing is by data link or voice, but I think at least some of it was by data link. Flight information in the F16 is loaded during preflight using some kind of cassette. I don't remember seeing/reading/hearing any reference to aircraft receiving downloaded tactical information (other than voice) during flight except in the Microprose F19 simulator manual. I'm not going to claim to be a leading authority on this, but I do try to keep current. Someone correct me if you know otherwise. I'd like to know more about it if it really does exist. Personally, I can think of more reasons why you wouldn't want to do this than reasons why you would. First, if communications security is compromised (remember Walker?), then directly integrating your tactical information into someone else's CCC system becomes easier with data link communications. Second, with voice, you need to copy the transmission, translate into your language, interpret the information and then enter it into your system. The amount and type of voice data that might or could be intercepted may not be worth it for time critical tactical information. On the down side, the fighter pilot doesn't have information that might make it easier for him to do his job (such as automatic ID of targets without IFF interrogation). Even with this, you would still need someone in the GCI role watching the strategic situation. I would not want to be in a furball AND having to watch my radar for approaching enemy reinforcements. I'd rather have the AWACS watch my back and report "Showtime, bandits 6 oclock, 10 miles". Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Wed Oct 7 19:12:34 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:10 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:05 PDT Received: by tamsun.tamu.edu id AA14581 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for falcon3@onion.rain.com); Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:05:05 -0500 From: Cedric Sims Message-Id: <9210071905.AA14581@tamsun.tamu.edu> Subject: Re: your mail To: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:05:02 CDT Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com In-Reply-To: <9210071415.AA02105@urbino.mcc.com>; from "Jim Knutson" at Oct 7, 92 9:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > > > Interesting note. Now I know a bit more about the AWACS, thanks. However, > > I was under the impression that what I suggested (in principal anyway) is > > done today in the real world. I never believed that the tactical a/c were fed raw > > AWACS data, but were fed tactical information relevant to their situation. Maybe > > this is not technically possible, but isn't something like this done > > today? > <> > > Personally, I can think of more reasons why you wouldn't want to do > this than reasons why you would. First, if communications security is <> Not to mention that erroreous data could be feed by the enemy. > strategic situation. I would not want to be in a furball AND having to > watch my radar for approaching enemy reinforcements. I'd rather have > the AWACS watch my back and report "Showtime, bandits 6 oclock, > 10 miles". I'm waiting for this feature! I can't wait... > > Jim Knutson | | > knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- > cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + > Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! Cedrico. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric J. Sims Texas A&M University Computing Services Center cedrics@tamu.edu (SELL) Room 216 Teague +1 409 862 4104 College Station, Tx 77843-3142 ------------------------------------------------------------------- From falcon3 Wed Oct 7 19:18:27 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:15 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:31 PDT Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21545; Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:31:27 PDT Received: from chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12714; Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:31:30 PDT Received: by chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06043; Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:30:40 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:30:40 GMT From: Chuck.Price@Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck Price) Message-Id: <9210071930.AA06043@chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM> To: knutson@mcc.com Subject: Re: your mail Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com Content-Length: 606 It would see straightforward to implement the following: 1) The AWACS controllers identify enemy a/c on their scopes. These a/c are "tagged" for tracking by the AWACS electronics. The locations of these a/c are broadcast in the clear. Locations of friendly a/c would not be broadcast, only those considered threats by the AWACS controllers. 2) The F16 would carry GPS equipment on-board. The systems on the F16 would integrate the AWACS broadcast with its own GPS-determined position and its heading. This should be sufficient to build a display similar to the SAD display. What am I missing? -chuck From falcon3 Wed Oct 7 19:18:31 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:15 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:11 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA03514; Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:11:15 -0400 Received: from lurnix.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 161054.5850; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:10:54 EDT Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA21370; Wed, 7 Oct 92 07:41:25 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA28567; Wed, 7 Oct 92 07:38:11 PDT Message-Id: <9210071438.AA28567@figaro> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Oct 92 23:07:04 GMT." <9210062307.AA04244@chuckles.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 07:38:10 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % > 1. The F16 does not have a radar display big enough to handle % > the 200 mile (or whatever large number) radius of data that the % > AWACS handles. % % ... Just make the blips smaller. % ... % Interesting note. Now I know a bit more about the AWACS, thanks. However, % I was under the impression that what I suggested (in principal anyway) is % done today in the real world. I never believed that the tactical a/c were fed raw % AWACS data, but were fed tactical information relevant to their situation. Maybe % this is not technically possible, but isn't something like this done % today? % % -chuck Actually, the Navy is currently working on a tactical information integration system called JTIDS (I believe ... Joint Tactical Information Display System). The Air Force has had something comparable for a while. The idea is that each aircraft/airbase/ship has a terminal that can receive a copy of the tactical information being viewed by any other unit. The main idea is for interceptors to be able to use someone else's radar without revealing themselves, but it also allows remote aircraft (like E-2's and F14's) to pass their long-range observations back to a command-control facility (like the fleet). Such a system should have been in place a long time ago, but the military always lags behind industry in electronics technology. From falcon3 Wed Oct 7 19:18:56 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:15 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:51 PDT Received: from prism (sundial.gatech.edu) by hydra.gatech.edu (5.65c/3.1) id AA17296; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:51:31 -0400 Received: by prism.gatech.edu (4.1/1.0) id AA02435; Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:51:29 EDT From: gt3017a@prism.gatech.edu Message-Id: <9210080151.AA02435@prism> Subject: Autoranging Radar To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:51:28 EDT > > >From: dregis@pldote.intel.com (~Regis) > > > >I've been using the SAD mode radar (blue/white/orange tadpoles), > >and have a problem. The danged thing won't let me extend the > >range when I'm currently tracking a target. Now, this is > >especially bad when it's locked onto one of my own wingmen > >or a friendly flight. I can't figure out how to clear the > >lock so I can F8 it to 80/40/20 range! I tried the 'x' and > >'z' key, but those seem to be restricted to ground targets. > Sorry, but you'll have to go all the way to the hifi radar model > to get rid of this limitation. Even the SAM setting does it. > Sure, you'll lose lots of valuable target information, but look on > the bright side--you'll be able to detect bandits MUCH farther away. I remember using SAD radar... and am thinking of going back to it now that you mention it... nah, HFR is soooo much fun ;-) If you are willing to re-adjust your way of looking at the radar display a little, you might solve your problem by switching to SAM mode. As long as your wingies are behind you, most of the time you can expand the radar range to full 80nm. I used this mode for about 6 months, until I learned about HFR... the real advantage to HFR is having even more control over the range... but in any of the 3 modes, whenever you lock onto a single target... i.e., you get heading, altitude, bearing, and speed info in your radar screen, it magically adjusts the range... kinda sucks if you want to keep your eye on other targets as well, but you gotta make sacrifices somewhere... Give SAM a try... I think it'll add a new level of 'excitement' to the game for you... cause you'll have to use padlock or external views to watch your back... From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 06:49:39 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:45 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:24 PDT Received: by rain.psg.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.2) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:35 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 1:34:07 -0500 (CDT) From: JMM0021@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU Message-Id: <921008013407.2062b1e0@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU> Subject: OS/2 and Falcon3 To: falcon3@onion.rain.com X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"falcon3@onion.rain.com" Has anyone tried running falcon3 under os2. If so are you getting the same frame rates that you were before or is os/2's overhead slowing the game down to an unworkable level. Jason Montgomery Texas A&M University Gig'em Aggies From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 08:20:14 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:16 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: <@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu:lrj@helios.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:20 PDT Received: from helios.TN.CORNELL.EDU by CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Thu, 08 Oct 92 10:19:14 EDT From: lrj@helios.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Lewis R. Jansen) Received: by helios.TN.CORNELL.EDU (4.1/1.2-Cornell-LASSP) id AA00437; Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:16:45 EDT Message-Id: <9210081416.AA00437@helios.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Subject: Re: OS/2 and Falcon3 To: JMM0021@rigel.tamu.edu Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:16:44 EDT Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com In-Reply-To: <921008013407.2062b1e0@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU>; from "JMM0021@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU" at Oct 8, 92 1:34 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > Has anyone tried running falcon3 under os2. If so are you getting > the same frame rates that you were before or is os/2's overhead slowing the > game down to an unworkable level. I've had it running under OS/2. The frame rate is _workable_, but painfully slow. Radio messages don't work. The game goes to "unplayable" when something else starts running under OS/2 (like my uupoll daemon). It is worth the trouble of shutting down OS/2 and booting MeSsyDOS to play the game. -- Lew From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 08:20:15 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:16 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:54 PDT Received: from beta.lanl.gov by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA00624; Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:54:09 -0600 Received: by beta.lanl.gov (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C) id AA15143; Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:53:20 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:53:20 -0600 From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Message-Id: <9210081353.AA15143@beta.lanl.gov> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: auto-ranging > If you are willing to re-adjust your way of looking at the radar display >a little, you might solve your problem by switching to SAM mode. As long as >your wingies are behind you, most of the time you can expand the radar range >to full 80nm. I used this mode for about 6 months, until I learned about >HFR... the real advantage to HFR is having even more control over the range... >but in any of the 3 modes, whenever you lock onto a single target... i.e., >you get heading, altitude, bearing, and speed info in your radar screen, it >magically adjusts the range... kinda sucks if you want to keep your eye on >other targets as well, but you gotta make sacrifices somewhere... Is this because the F16A radar was a 'single target track (STT)'? Would the F16C's TWS capable radar work differently as far as the sim is concerned? Sorry if this has been mentioned a bunch of times here before, but of course the disadvantage to using HFR vs SAM mode is the damn HFR locks much less readily. But I use HFR just to get past the auto-ranging problem. >Give SAM a try... I think it'll add a new level of 'excitement' to the game >for you... cause you'll have to use padlock or external views to watch your >back... Yep, I agree. With those 360 degree 'God's Eye' 'radars', I end out flying with my eye on the radar, not out the canopy. Dave Masten From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 10:53:08 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:49 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 09:09 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 11:05 CDT To: att!att!onion.rain.com!falcon3 Subject: Re: auto-ranging >>the real advantage to HFR is having even more control over the range... >>but in any of the 3 modes, whenever you lock onto a single target... i.e., >>you get heading, altitude, bearing, and speed info in your radar screen, it >>magically adjusts the range... kinda sucks if you want to keep your eye on >>other targets as well, but you gotta make sacrifices somewhere... > >Is this because the F16A radar was a 'single target track (STT)'? I believe this is so. >Would the F16C's TWS capable radar work differently as far as the sim >is concerned? If Falcon 3.0 modelled the F-16C's TWS radar which can track five targets simultaneously (according to the Wings episode on the F-16), I'm sure it would be different, but it doesn't. I wonder how the F-16C's REO can display position and velocity information for all five planes at the same time! Rob ihlpy!opus@att.att.com From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 14:22:41 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 14:18 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:28 PDT Received: by mp.cs.niu.edu id AA26814 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for falcon3@onion.rain.com); Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:27:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:27:50 -0500 From: wiseman john jeffery Message-Id: <199210082027.AA26814@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Falcon 3.01 file strcuture hacking I'm looking to share information with anyone who is working on figuring out or has figured out Falcon 3.01 data structures. I have gotten about 90% of the SQUADn.SQU files figured out, and about 30% of the SQUADn.CAM files. My goal is to write a library of routines that myself and others can use to develop F3 utilities. If interested, email me. John From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 15:59:42 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 15:51 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 15:16 PDT Received: from rodan.acs.syr.edu by mailbox.syr.edu (4.1/CNS) id AA27041; Thu, 8 Oct 92 18:16:17 EDT Received: by rodan.acs.syr.edu (4.1/Spike-2.0) id AA14704; Thu, 8 Oct 92 18:13:14 EDT Message-Id: <9210082213.AA14704@rodan.acs.syr.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: OFT HANGS DECpc 420SX!!!help! Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 18:13:13 -0400 From: oecheruo@mailbox.syr.edu Hi, I just got the new OFT upgrade package. The new manual is a big help for planning and executing succesful missions. I can't wait to play the game. My problem is that after running OFT install on a FALCON 3D installation, the game refuses to run. Typing falcon3 without enough memory invokes some memory warning and the game quits. However, when I boot up with enough memory, the drive is read for a second, then the screen clears and the computer hangs completely. Pressing the reset switch causes diskette seek errors at POST time, so I have to hit the ON/OFF switch. My configuration is a DECpc 420SX with 8MB RAM, mouse v6.26 (old one), smartdrive 4.0, QEMM 386 6.02 and an ethernet card (NE2100) I have tried all software combinations (exluding smartdrive/mouse,qemm) etc.. Everytime the game hangs. So now, I have lost my 3.0D campaings and I cannot even play the new ones. The previous installation of Falcon 3.0D worked flawlessly. Anyone experience something similar. Also, there are no network/ethernet drivers loaded. help! From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 17:33:58 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 17:30 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 17:27 PDT Received: from lurnix.lurnix.com by uunet.UU.NET with UUCP (5.61/UUNET-uucp-primary) id AA08959; Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:27:08 -0400 Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA02293; Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:05:46 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA01679; Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:02:31 PDT Message-Id: <9210082302.AA01679@figaro> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Oct 92 11:05:00 CDT." Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:02:28 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % If Falcon 3.0 modelled the F-16C's TWS radar which can track five targets % simultaneously (according to the Wings episode on the F-16), I'm sure it % would be different, but it doesn't. I wonder how the F-16C's REO can display % position and velocity information for all five planes at the same time! When dealing with the real F-16 radar, there is a difference between "track" and "search". I believe that an F-16 can keep multiple targets spotted in search-mode but it can only track (or lock onto) a single target ... that is, it only provides detailed information about a single aircraft. One of the big deals about the F-14 radar/weapons system is that it can track and engage up to 6 targets simultaineously. Multi target "tracking" is a sophisticated feature that must be explicitly built into modern aircraft weapons systems. I'm pretty sure that the F-16 does not have this functionality. But the ability to search while tracking a single target is a common feature on most American combat aircraft. If the F-16 DID have multi-target tracking, then it would be able to launch and guide AMRAAMS simultaneously to every target onto which it had a lock. (AMRAAMS are only capable of active homing for something like the last 30-40% of their maximum range) This would be a nice feature, but it would also be an expensive addition that I don't think our budget-strapped government would be willing to pay for. Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Thu Oct 8 20:55:58 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:52 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:42 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT) From: VACSC09L@VAX.CSUN.EDU (MARTY) Message-Id: <921008204541.5079@VAX.CSUN.EDU> Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: falcon3@onion.rain.com X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"falcon3@onion.rain.com" Unless I am mistaken, the F-16 can fire AMRAAM's against multiple targets simultaniously, at least the "C" model is supposed to be able to. I beleive i saw this on some program on the Discovery Channel, probably "Wings". We should keep in mind that even in the F-14, it does not "Track" targets in the track while scan mode in the purest sense of the word. Since the radar beam can only be in one place at once, in the F-14 it looks at each target it is tracking while in TWS mode just long enough to get its speed, range ect, then using that data predicts the targets position continualy on the radar display until the antena comes back to him and updates the info on him. In single target track (on the F-16 and just about anything else) the antena makes the beam stay on the target continualy, thus giving a real continual update. The F-14's pheonix missles are active homing, so it does not need continual target illumination. From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 05:50:40 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:46 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 02:37 PDT Received: by rain.psg.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.2) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 01:59 PDT Received: from media03 by sun4nl.nluug.nl via EUnet id AA27114 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:57:37 +0100 Received: from media01.UUCP by media03.UUCP (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA18757; Fri, 9 Oct 92 09:54:26 GMT Received: by media01.UUCP (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA00791; Fri, 9 Oct 92 09:53:52 GMT From: media01!wde@relay.nluug.nl (Wim Dekker) Message-Id: <9210090953.AA00791@media01.UUCP> Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 9:53:50 GMT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > > If the F-16 DID have multi-target tracking, then it would be able to launch > and guide AMRAAMS simultaneously to every target onto which it had a lock. > (AMRAAMS are only capable of active homing for something like the last 30-40% > of their maximum range) This would be a nice feature, but it would also be > an expensive addition that I don't think our budget-strapped government would > be willing to pay for. > > Scott Silvey > scott@xcf.berkeley.edu > Is this also true for the simulator? I always thought that AMRAAMS are fire and forget missiles. If Falcon 3 realy simulates the reality, it means I have to hold a lock on an enemy plane until the missile is near by. Wim From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 05:51:15 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:46 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 92 21:03 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA05936; Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:12:25 -0400 Received: from lurnix.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 154312.21458; Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:43:12 EDT Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA01356; Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:24:18 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA00462; Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:21:03 PDT Message-Id: <9210081521.AA00462@figaro> To: uunet!mcc.com!knutson@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Knutson) Cc: Chuck.Price@eng.sun.com, falcon3@onion.rain.com, scott@figaro.lurnix.COM Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Oct 92 09:15:05 CDT." <9210071415.AA02105@urbino.mcc.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 08:21:01 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % % Personally, I can think of more reasons why you wouldn't want to do % % this than reasons why you would. First, if communications security is % % compromised (remember Walker?), then directly integrating your tactical % % information into someone else's CCC system becomes easier with data % % link communications. % % Not to mention that erroreous data could be feed by the enemy. Not. JTIDS uses spread-spectrum technology which is nearly indistinguishable from random EM noise. Without the key, it is nearly physically impossible to decipher transmissions because the energy transmitted at each frequency is roughly equivalent to the average background noise on Earth. Also, each frequency used is narrow and it is used for only very short periods of time. Each JTIDS terminal has both data and voice channels. The advantages of this are tremendous. It effectively gives interceptors long range 360 degree radar as well as possible target ID information ... especially for friendly aircraft. And, this is done without compromising the interceptor's electronic visibility. Moreover, any data seen by any JTIDS equiped unit on the net can be viewed by any other unit. This gives CCC facilities superior battlefield situational awareness. Granted that aircraft with RIOs can probably sift through information more easily, especially if in the heat of a fight, but at least the information is there now when it is needed and when there is time to use it. Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 05:51:50 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:47 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 04:53 PDT Return-Path: Received: from Grendle.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:53:34 -0400 From: Robert Schwartz Received: by grendle.think.com (4.1/Think-1.2) id AA17700; Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:53:33 EDT Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:53:33 EDT Message-Id: <9210091153.AA17700@grendle.think.com> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging ... > If the F-16 DID have multi-target tracking, then it would be able to launch > and guide AMRAAMS simultaneously to every target onto which it had a lock. > (AMRAAMS are only capable of active homing for something like the last 30-40% > of their maximum range) Does this mean that the AMRAAMS are not truely a "fire and forget" weapon? If this is so does anyone know if this is how they are implemented in F3? It could explain some of the accuracy problems I have been seeing with the AMRAAMS. Bob Schwartz Thinking Machines Corp. Cambridge MA From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 11:08:59 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:01 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 08:32 PDT Message-Id: Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5057; Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:32:30 EDT Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 4554; Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:32:30 EDT Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:32 EDT From: Subject: Radar tracking and AMRAAMS To: falcon3@onion.rain.com >From what I've read, the AMRAAM is basically a short-range Phoenix. The electronics are a miniaturized version of the Phoenix's. The missile contains an Inertial Navigation System (INS) which guides it to the general area of the target, at which point the active radar engages for terminal guidance. The missile can recieve mid-course corrections from the launch aircraft. (I haven't read specifics on this, whether it's a semi-active radar or a command guidance system). The launch aircraft finds the target, downloads its position to the AMRAAM, and fires. The AMRAAM will fly to the assigned waypoint and hit the first thing it finds. The launch aircraft could give it a steer if the target moves a lot, or to hit the proper target. Constant target illumination is never required. As to the radar set - the APG-66 in the F-16A could not provide any sort of missile guidance, and was single-target-track only. The F-16C came with a new radar (same or similar to F-15A?) that could track multiple targets (4-6) while scanning. I'm not sure if this is compatible with the Sparrow/AMRAAM. >From a 2 second glance in a "Wings" episode, it looks as if each target has a small "tail" behind it (like SAD mode), and that different symbology is used to represent altitude(?). It seemed as if the targets were squares or diamonds. (All conjecture, it wasn't explained). They mentioned a multi- target track-while-scan feature. Note that target tracking is different than missile guidance. An F-14A can track 24 targets but only guide 6 missiles. Note: This information is from a bunch of different sources, none of which are with me now. Any of this may be wrong :-( -Frank From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 11:09:34 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:00 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:55 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA18613; Fri, 9 Oct 92 10:55:12 -0400 Received: from srg.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 105420.18523; Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:54:20 EDT Received: from spica.srg.af.mil by srg.srg.af.mil id aa08712; Fri, 9 Oct 92 10:24:34 EDT From: Dave Pipes x4552 X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2) To: onion.rain.com!falcon3@srg.srg.af.mil Subject: AMRAAM accuracy Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 10:24:53 EDT Message-Id: <9210091024.aa17401@spica.srg.af.mil> I was under the impression that this was due to a) long ranges allowing the target more time to evade/decoy the missile if it is spotted and b) the fact that radar-guided missles have a lower hit rate in general than IR missles (I believe this came out of the VietNam War, and has held true since). I have used them to occupy someone closing from far out, before I turn and engage a closer target. Seems to work, especially in OFT (I attempted to spoil an attack by two Indian ground-pounders this way. I kept watching for their break and evasion, right up until the first vaporized. *Then* the second one dropped ordinance, broke right and vaporized :-). Gotta watch that radar detector. Anyone notice a greater difference in enemy pilot proficiency in OFT? David Pipes robear@digex.com From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 13:09:53 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:08 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:35 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:32 CDT To: att!onion.rain.com!falcon3 Subject: Re: AMRAAM accuracy >From: Dave Pipes x4552 > >I was under the impression that this was due to a) long ranges allowing the >target more time to evade/decoy the missile if it is spotted and b) the >fact that radar-guided missles have a lower hit rate in general than IR >missles (I believe this came out of the VietNam War, and has held true since). This may be true, but I found it interesting that some gun camera footage I saw during the Gulf War showed a plane (F-15?) fire a Sidewinder at a target in visual range, which missed or exploded too far away from the target, then fire a Sparrow, which made the kill. I was really surprised that the pilot would even consider using an AIM-7 at such short range. Speaking of which, I've noticed a lot more proximity explosions with OFT than I used to with 3.0D. >I have used them to occupy someone closing from far out, before I turn and >engage a closer target. Seems to work, especially in OFT (I attempted to >spoil an attack by two Indian ground-pounders this way. I kept watching for >their break and evasion, right up until the first vaporized. *Then* the >second one dropped ordinance, broke right and vaporized :-). Gotta watch >that radar detector. They are extremely effective now. I fire one at every target at maximum range until I run out, to thin out the herd. >From: > >From what I've read, the AMRAAM is basically a short-range Phoenix. The >electronics are a miniaturized version of the Phoenix's. The missile >contains an Inertial Navigation System (INS) which guides it to the general >area of the target, at which point the active radar engages for terminal >guidance. The missile can recieve mid-course corrections from the launch >aircraft. (I haven't read specifics on this, whether it's a semi-active radar >or a command guidance system). This is my understanding as well, though I didn't know it could take mid-flight course adjustments. Pretty neat. >The launch aircraft finds the target, downloads its position to the AMRAAM, and >fires. The AMRAAM will fly to the assigned waypoint and hit the first thing it >finds. The launch aircraft could give it a steer if the target moves a lot, or >to hit the proper target. Constant target illumination is never required. > >As to the radar set - the APG-66 in the F-16A could not provide any sort of >missile guidance, and was single-target-track only. The F-16C came with a >new radar (same or similar to F-15A?) that could track multiple targets (4-6) >while scanning. I'm not sure if this is compatible with the Sparrow/AMRAAM. The "Wings" episode said the F-16C could carry AMRAAMs or Sparrows. >Note that target tracking is different than missile guidance. An F-14A can >track 24 targets but only guide 6 missiles. Good point. Rob ihlpy!opus@att.att.com From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 15:24:28 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:20 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:02 PDT Return-Path: Received: from saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (saifr00.ateng.az.Honeywell.COM) by fishery.honeywell.com (5.65c/3.16) id AA07651; Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:01:46 -0500 Received: from du08.cfsat.honeywell.com by saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA23294; Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:57:46 MST Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:57:46 MST From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) Message-Id: <9210092057.AA23294@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Flight Simulation (I read an article in the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games board about Thrustmaster coming out with a "cockpit mockup", including a Main Instrument Panel, side consoles, Thrustmaster joystick, etc., apparently intended to give you a better flight simulation. I posted a reply, which I have expanded upon here.) I have a REAL hard time envisioning this thing. What are you supposed to sit on? If what you're building is essentially what the contractors call a "lighting mockup" without the lights, where do you put the monitor? Honestly, if what you're interested in is a simulation of a flight environment, you would be much better off by buying yourself a surplus flight helmet (preferably one that doesn't fit perfectly), a sun lamp (to get your head nice and toasty), and a pair of Nomex/leather flight gloves (soak `em with sweat/oil/hydraulic fluid for that crisp but slick feel). Put your monitor a little above coffee table height. Get about 4-5 of those concrete slabs you see at the garden section of your local K-Mart, top `em with the thinnest cheap cushion you can find. (That's your "ejection seat".) Wipe the mask out with denatured alcohol (smells nice), and clamp a rag soaked in JP-4 (kerosene will do) on the end of the oxygen hose, and strap that puppy on `till it leaves a ring on your face that lasts for hours. (You do this `cuz when your face is sweaty and you`re pulling Gs, the mask will be on your chin if it isn't on TIGHT.) Turn the sun lamp on and point it at your head. Now you're doing it like the big boys! Optional "realism" techniques: Buy some nylon webbing (the kind you use to repair old-fashioned lawn chairs with). Cut two straps of this and wrap them between your legs TIGHTLY. (That's your `chute harness.) Play when you've got a BAD hangover. (Rough night at the O Club.) Have your wife/friend/neighbor pester you with questions out of the Owner's Manual (your pretend "Dash One") while you're trying to fly (Check Ride!) Get up and play at 4:00 am (otherwise known as "oh-dark hundred"). Make a cheese sandwich, wrap it in waxed paper. Stick it in a shoe box with a half-pint of milk, a bruised apple, a crushed bag of Fritos, and an onion. Put in the fridge overnight, then take it out, throw out the onion, put the box under the sunlamp while you're flying, and eat when you're hungry. (Box lunch.) With some imagination and very little cash outlay, you can do a hell of a job simulating what it's like to fly. That other shit (side consoles, switches, speakers, etc.,) is strictly for show, and doesn't do anything towards giving you that "There I wuz" feeling. Mark Shanks Principal Engineer, 777 Displays From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 15:25:50 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:21 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:30 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA10688; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:29:21 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210092129.AA10688@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: media01!wde@relay.nluug.nl (Wim Dekker) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:29:20 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: <9210090953.AA00791@media01.UUCP>; from "Wim Dekker" at Oct 9, 92 9:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] scott@xcf.berkeley.edu says: > > If the F-16 DID have multi-target tracking, then it would be able to launch > > and guide AMRAAMS simultaneously to every target onto which it had a lock. > > (AMRAAMS are only capable of active homing for something like the last 30-40% Wim says: > Is this also true for the simulator? I always thought that AMRAAMS are > fire and forget missiles. If Falcon 3 realy simulates the reality, it > means I have to hold a lock on an enemy plane until the missile is near by. It seems to me that if you fire one AMRAAM at great range, the target has so much time to dodge you, it seldom does the job. If you fire one and wait about 5 seconds, and fire another, your chances of hitting the target more than double, possibly only because the enemy gets too far 'out of shape' to dodge *both*. Whether the 1st is still tracking after the second is fired, I don't know, but it seems like it would be easy enough to find out with a Red Flag exersise (set up two big slow easy targets, and fire one at each). -longjohn From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 15:26:05 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:21 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:00 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA13397; Fri, 9 Oct 92 12:00:12 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210092200.AA13397@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: media01!wde@relay.nluug.nl (Wim Dekker) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 12:00:11 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: <9210090953.AA00791@media01.UUCP>; from "Wim Dekker" at Oct 9, 92 9:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] This discussion of radar types, radar modes, the purpose of AWACS, etc. etc. is interesting. We are discussing several things; what is in actual military use, what the simulation has implemented, what is possible in reality, and what would be ideal in reality, and what would be ideal given the constraints of the CRT. We are blurring the boundry between the virtual and the real. I wonder how long it will be before the actual military systems model the virtual systems we are speculating upon here. Who's simulating who? Should Falcon limit itself to what is already implemented in reality? As long as something is possible, why shouldn't programmers be allowed to demonstrate a concept by implementing it within a program, with the caveat given that it is not 'the real thing (yet)'. I'd like to see SH 'open up' the architecture of the program to allow programmers to develop library routines which implement different approaches to various sub-systems within it, such as viewmodes and radar. But I ain't gonna hold my breath. SH has to cover its ass. Maybe there should be a GNU project... -longjohn From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 18:19:59 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:14 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:11 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA05626; Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:09:47 -0400 Received: from lurnix.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 193749.3246; Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:37:49 EDT Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA04359; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:53:52 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA03260; Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:50:37 PDT Message-Id: <9210091850.AA03260@figaro> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Oct 92 20:45:41 PDT." <921008204541.5079@VAX.CSUN.EDU> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:50:35 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % Unless I am mistaken, the F-16 can fire AMRAAM's against multiple targets % simultaniously, at least the "C" model is supposed to be able to. I beleive % i saw this on some program on the Discovery Channel, probably "Wings". As long as the targets are close enough that the AMRAAM's own active homing radar can track them, it may be possible for the F-16 to engage multiple targets "simultaneously" in the same way that one can do so with Sidewinders. Basically this entails launching against one target, obtaining a new lock on another target, launching, and so on in rapid succession. Unless there is some new feature that I've never heard of (which is certainly possible ;^) where the F-16 can simply pass down search mode contacts to multiple AMRAAMS while in active homing range and have the AMRAAMS independently lock on to the targets prior to launch, I do not see how the F-16 can actually engage multiple targets simultaneously. When firing AMRAAMS from beyond their active homing range, the targeting computer must provide guidance information to the AMRAAM via a data link. In this case, since the F-16 is only capable of locking onto one target at a time, the F-16 will only be able to engage a single target. % The F-14's pheonix missles are active homing, so it % does not need continual target illumination. This is not strictly true. The Phoenix does not require illumination, but it does require the F-14 to track targets and tell the missile where they are until the Phoenix is able to obtain an active lock. Since the radar dish on Phoenix and AMRAAM missiles is very small, their range is limited to a fraction of the maximum flight range of the missile. Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 18:20:04 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:13 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:48 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26540; Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:43:34 -0400 Received: from lurnix.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 193756.3306; Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:37:56 EDT Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA04447; Fri, 9 Oct 92 12:14:23 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA03327; Fri, 9 Oct 92 12:11:09 PDT Message-Id: <9210091911.AA03327@figaro> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Oct 92 07:53:33 EDT." <9210091153.AA17700@grendle.think.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 12:11:06 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % Does this mean that the AMRAAMS are not truely a "fire and forget" weapon? % If this is so does anyone know if this is how they are implemented in F3? % It could explain some of the accuracy problems I have been seeing with the % AMRAAMS. % % Bob Schwartz % Thinking Machines Corp. % Cambridge MA They are true "fire and forget" weapons at "close" range. % Is this also true for the simulator? I always thought that AMRAAMS are % fire and forget missiles. If Falcon 3 realy simulates the reality, it % means I have to hold a lock on an enemy plane until the missile is near by. % % Wim Aim-120's must be told where to fly until they can obtain an active lock on the target. Their on-board radar has a short range so they cannot enter active homing mode until they are within this range and are able to lock onto the target (I'm pretty sure this range is something under 20 miles ... probably as low as 10 miles). Until they go active-homing, they require mid-course guidance corrections from the launching platform. This means that at long range, the F-16 must track the target while the missile is in flight until the missile is actually able to spot the target itself. In this stage, the F-16's weapon system automatically guides the AMRAAM via radio transmissions as long as a radar lock is maintained on the target. (This is not the same as illuminating the target as must be done when guiding a Sparrow). When the AMRAAM finally sees the target itself, the missile may be "forgotten" and the launching aircraft can break away and engage another target. If the launch point were initially within the active homing range of the AMRAAM, then the missile would theoretically be able to go active almost immediately, effectively making it "fire and forget". Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 22:03:57 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:01 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:25 PDT Received: from jeeves.ucsd.edu by ucsd.edu; id AA26944 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun via SMTP Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:25:03 -0700 for falcon3@onion.rain.com Received: by jeeves.UCSD.EDU (4.1/UCSDGENERIC.4) id AA02793 to falcon3@onion.rain.com; Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:25:02 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:25:02 PDT From: garton@jeeves.UCSD.EDU (Simon Garton) Message-Id: <9210100325.AA02793@jeeves.UCSD.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: challenge ! OK, I at last have my second line, so my roommate doesn't murder me for hoggin the line all the time. I would love to find someone in the (619) area code to try H2H with : my phone is 457 8390 (La Jolla) so I'm really looking for a local (free) call : anyone out there ? Simon From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 22:04:29 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:02 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:51 PDT Received: by swindle.Berkeley.EDU (5.65/XCF-1.34) id AA10239; Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:52:01 -0700 Message-Id: <9210100452.AA10239@swindle.Berkeley.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:29:20 -1000." <9210092129.AA10688@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 21:51:58 -0700 From: Scott Silvey % It seems to me that if you fire one AMRAAM at great range, the target % has so much time to dodge you, it seldom does the job. If you fire % one and wait about 5 seconds, and fire another, your chances of hitting % the target more than double, possibly only because the enemy gets too % far 'out of shape' to dodge *both*. Whether the 1st is still tracking % after the second is fired, I don't know, but it seems like it would % be easy enough to find out with a Red Flag exersise (set up two big % slow easy targets, and fire one at each). One reason missiles are much easier to dodge at the long range end of their flight is that they no longer have thrust and are therefore much more sluggish. Most missiles just have rocket motors in them that burn for a short period to accellerate them up to top speed and then they burn out. The missile just coasts the rest of the way to the target. I'm pretty sure that the burn period for most American missiles is significantly less than half their listed effective range. A result of this is that the missile's velocity bleeds away while it coasts to the target. If they try to attack a target near the end of their engagement envelope, they can even stall out attempting to maneuver with it. And since they no longer have a motor to propel them at that point, they just fall out of the sky (and detonate). Anyway, this could be why you are noticing poor kill probabilities when you fire missiles at long range targets. I would be very impressed with SH if this is the actual reason, since would be a great testament to their attention to detail and realism! (Of course, instead of going to all the trouble of modelling reality this way, they could just put in a cheat function that says the probability of a hit is inversely proportional to the distance the missile flew. ;^) Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Fri Oct 9 23:37:58 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 23:35 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 9 Oct 92 23:06 PDT Received: by copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU (cudenver.ether) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:09:07 -0600 From: jkobach@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU (John Joseph Kobach (W)) Message-Id: <9210100609.AA15151@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Full Detail Graphics Cc: Jkobach@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU Somewhere I read that full detail graphics (B52s with engines) could be done by freeing up more conventional memory. Is this true and if so, what is the amount of free mem. needed? Also, I tried the loadhigh command for falcon3.exe and got locked up. Any suggestions for config.sys/autoexec.bat setups? From falcon3 Sat Oct 10 09:44:37 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 10 Oct 92 09:41 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 10 Oct 92 01:03 PDT From: oecheruo@mailbox.syr.edu (Okechukwu Chima Echeruo) Received: from rodan.acs.syr.edu by mailbox.syr.edu (4.1/CNS) id AA26049; Sat, 10 Oct 92 04:04:22 EDT Received: by rodan.acs.syr.edu (4.1/Spike-2.0) id AA19423; Sat, 10 Oct 92 04:01:19 EDT Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 04:01:19 EDT Message-Id: <9210100801.AA19423@rodan.acs.syr.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: OFT HANGS MACHINE!! HELP! I wrote earlier about my problem with OFT and a DECpc 420SX. Well I have tried it on different systems and in all cases. OFT has HUNG (on/off required) the systems. the only common factor is the presence of a NOVELL ethernet NE2100 board. I have reinstalled the original falcon 3.0A and 3.0D and they both work. ANY ADVICE? DOS 5.0 QEMM 6.02,EMM386, NO EMS MANAGER 8 MB RAM 486SX, 386-33 64KB CACHE PARADISE VGA/OAK VGA NOVELL NE2100 (NOVELL ODI DRIVERS / WITHOUT DRIVERS) SMARTDRIVE 4.0 (both without also) MOUSE 8.20 (and an older one too) NETWORK DRIVE & IDE DRIVE SERIAL MOUSE OFT FALCON UPGRADE thanks. From falcon3 Sat Oct 10 11:43:03 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 10 Oct 92 11:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 10 Oct 92 11:25 PDT Received: by mp.cs.niu.edu id AA29971 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for falcon3@onion.rain.com); Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:25:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:25:27 -0500 From: wiseman john jeffery Message-Id: <199210101825.AA29971@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Falcon network #: 115545 S8/Modern Air Combat 02-Oct-92 23:36:08 Sb: ATTN all F3 pilots!!! Fm: Tom "KC" Basham 73760,1251 To: all All falcon 3.0 pilots interested in forming squadrons and competing in nationwide H2H contests read on: Mike Drake, in conjunction with several fighter pilots (including Bonanni) is trying to form a nationwide network of F3 pilots, organized in squadrons, to compete in regular H2H battles. I don't have all the details, but from what I understand, all squadrons will be formed and administrated according to exact Air Force procedures and Jargon. Activities would include intra-squad trainging H2H hops and inter-squad competitions. Mike is trying to form the largest pool of people possible to generate the most fun. Mike is looking for both willing pilots and squadron COs. If you're at all interested, give Mike a call. He has set up an 800 number to promote this thing at 1-800-AIR-ACES (247-2237). This number routes to his home, so you will get his personal answer machine. Just tell him that you read the post from KC Basham on CIS and want more info. He'll call you back with details. As far as I know, there's no $$ associated, this is just to get people together to have fun. Mike is currently a regional coordinator for the SIMCAP/Intercept Magazine F3 competition. Mike is also hoping to provide network play on BBS systems. He asked me to help spread the word. Whether your interested or not, please refer this message to any/all other F3 pilots you may know. The larger the pilot base, the more flying we can get in. KC From falcon3 Sun Oct 11 10:40:20 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 10:28 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:37 PDT Received: from jeeves.ucsd.edu by ucsd.edu; id AA27844 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun via SMTP Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:37:48 -0700 for falcon3@onion.rain.com Received: by jeeves.UCSD.EDU (4.1/UCSDGENERIC.4) id AA20701 to falcon3@onion.rain.com; Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:37:47 PDT Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:37:47 PDT From: garton@jeeves.UCSD.EDU (Simon Garton) Message-Id: <9210111637.AA20701@jeeves.UCSD.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Cserve and f3 Apparently there is a way to play H2H thru Compuserve : does anyone know the details ? I noticed them in the back of one of the f3 books .... Simon From falcon3 Sun Oct 11 14:53:06 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:51 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:21 PDT Received: by vipunen.hut.fi (5.65c/7.0/S-TeKoLa) id AA125705; Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:21:08 GMT Message-Id: <199210112121.AA125705@vipunen.hut.fi> Subject: OFT, Korean map, crashing planes, IFF To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:21:07 EET From: Timo.Teinonen@hut.fi Organization: Helsinki University of Technology , Finland X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Cheers. My version of OFT (made in the UK) seems to have screwed-up map in the Korean theatre. The map itself is ok, but the _icons_ on it are from India/Pakistan theatre. So it's rather hard (to put it mildly) to draw any reasonable conclusions about what's going to happen during the missions. If anybody happens to have ideas about the files that contain the icon data (if they are stored in separate files...), I'd be most grateful to share that info. I have this primitive hope, that somehow swapping these (so far hypothetical) files might do the trick. Also, if that hope is without any basis in reality, any comments are appreciated. Another note: There was some discussion about the crashing B52s (during landings, I seem to recall). Looks like there might be some general problem with the flight models of the bigger (?) planes. I just tried to fly the 'escort the AWACS' mission three times in a row and noted the weird way the E3 flew. It kind of couldn't keep up in the air, it's speed was somewhere between 100 and 200 knots and it kept trying to climb up, but couldn't, and stalled. It continued to do fly pumping up and down, slowly losing altitude and eventually crashed (twice it just ended up on the ground in one piece). I tried to look into this using the VCR (which, BTW, still sucks, and even froze my machine a few times...), and as far as I can tell, it was not shot with anything, it just seemed to be underpowered. I might suspect my conclusion made with the 'help' of the VCR _IF_ I hadn't noticed this very same phenomenon _many_ times before, usually with B52's and also in version 3.0 D. I wonder what the actual bug fixes in 3.01 are, can't wait for 3.02 ;) Shit! I almost forgot another 'minor' flaw in my OFT (with PC speaker): The IFF tone is gone... quite annoying at times. Pressing 'N' during radar lock on fiendly plane only mutes the buzzing, I get no beeps whatsoever. And when there's lots of radio messages in the air it's mostly impossible to use it reliably, only sure way is to use 'Q' key to visually check the target. And that has proven to be very unhealthy at times, kinda too slow. That's all folks. Have a safe trip. -- o-=Timo Teinonen=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-o Master of Nothing (in Anyth.) Timo.Teinonen@hut.fi From falcon3 Sun Oct 11 19:47:35 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:43 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 11 Oct 92 18:07 PDT Message-Id: Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5349; Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:07:33 EDT Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 9627; Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:07:32 EDT Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:07 EDT From: Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com In-Reply-To: scott AT swindle.Berkeley.EDU -- Fri, 09 Oct 92 21:51:58 -0700 >One reason missiles are much easier to dodge at the long range end of >their flight is that they no longer have thrust and are therefore >much more sluggish. >Most missiles just have rocket motors in them that burn for a short >period to accellerate them up to top speed and then they burn out. >The missile just coasts the rest of the way to the target. I'm pretty >sure that the burn period for most American missiles is significantly >less than half their listed effective range. A result of this is that >the missile's velocity bleeds away while it coasts to the target. All short range missiles are powered throughout their flight. Most medium and long range missiles are not. The AMRAAM is unusual in that, as a medium range missile, it _is_ powered throughout the flight. The Phoenix missile is a burn and coast missile, but the AMRAAM is not. At long ranges, you have more time to try countermeasures and devensive maneuvering. This seems to be the main reason for misses in F3. -Frank From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 05:51:38 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 05:49 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:14 PDT Received: by swindle.Berkeley.EDU (5.65/XCF-1.34) id AA13050; Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:15:08 -0700 Message-Id: <9210120715.AA13050@swindle.Berkeley.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:07:00 EDT." <9210120108.AA23781@xcf.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:15:05 -0700 From: Scott Silvey % All short range missiles are powered throughout their flight. Most medium and % long range missiles are not. The AMRAAM is unusual in that, as a medium range % missile, it _is_ powered throughout the flight. The Phoenix missile is a % burn and coast missile, but the AMRAAM is not. At long ranges, you have more % time to try countermeasures and devensive maneuvering. This seems to be the % main reason for misses in F3. % % -Frank If AMRAAM has a sustainer which maintains it's mach 3+ velocity throughout it's full flight, what happens to the missile when the sustainer quits? Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 08:44:03 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 07:37 PDT Received: by hkkk.fi (16.6/15.6) id AA05224; Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:37:47 +0200 From: Tommi Saikkonen Message-Id: <9210121437.AA05224@hkkk.fi> Subject: Campaign logic - destroying ground forces To: falcon3@onion.rain.com (falcon3@onion.rain.com) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:37:46 EET X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Does anybody know about the campaign logic; how much does it help the campaign to destroy "extra" enemy ground units and installations? I mean, if your mission is eg. to escort strike aircraft, and you would like to destroy something that is not exactly part of the mission... ..it seems to me a waste of ammunition. But if there were a certain number of enemy forces in a theater...might increase motivation to shoot anything brown-coloured in sight....Any experiences? (Oh yes, I still have 3.0D.) - Tommi Saikkonen Helsinki School of Economics, saikkone@karl.hkkk.fi From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 08:44:39 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:20 PDT Message-Id: Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7748; Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:20:09 EDT Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 6877; Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:20:09 EDT Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:20 EDT From: Subject: Re: auto-ranging To: falcon3@onion.rain.com In-Reply-To: scott AT swindle.Berkeley.EDU -- Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:15:05 -0700 (discussion of where missiles are powered and not) >If AMRAAM has a sustainer which maintains it's mach 3+ velocity >throughout it's full flight, what happens to the missile when >the sustainer quits? I'm not sure. Either themissile will continue to follow beyond max. rated range until it runs out of energy, or it will disarm/self destruct at that point. The flight profile is designed with powered flight in mind. Missiles that glide to the target (a la Phoenix) ususally climb very high and use a diving attack to hit their target. The AMRAAM would fly a straight-line course and could not trade altitude for energy. -Frank From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 13:53:57 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:52 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 10:04 PDT Received: from jeeves.ucsd.edu by ucsd.edu; id AA25243 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun via SMTP Mon, 12 Oct 92 10:04:29 -0700 for falcon3@onion.rain.com Received: by jeeves.UCSD.EDU (4.1/UCSDGENERIC.4) id AA04829 to falcon3@onion.rain.com; Mon, 12 Oct 92 10:04:28 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 10:04:28 PDT From: garton@jeeves.UCSD.EDU (Simon Garton) Message-Id: <9210121704.AA04829@jeeves.UCSD.EDU> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Marie Celeste and other strange things ... tootling through Kuwait, I'm on a Scud S and D mission. Suddenly my wingme start shouting about 'attacking ship target' and let go with a horder of Harpoons .. which all hit this one empty patch of desert. Mission unsuccessful but what can I do ? Simon From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 17:36:51 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:33 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:56 PDT Received: by sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (4.1/1.30.1) id AA01149; Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:52:05 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:52:05 PDT From: felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (Felix Hack) Message-Id: <9210122052.AA01149@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Missile Powered Flight Regarding the recent mail on whether AA missiles use powered flight throughout, most missiles, including all short-ranged ones, boost for only a few seconds, and then they fly unpowered. A few missiles have sustainers, which extends their range and improves their terminal maneuvering energy. The Phoenix is very special in that its maximum range profile uses a high altitude 'up and over' trajectory, to minimize energy loss due to drag. However, at the end of its flight it too is slowing down and probably can't catch an evading fighter. A Badger or similarly lumbering aircraft, on the other hand, has far inferior evasion maneuver possibilities. Keep in mind that G-loads on missiles go up as the square of speed, if they are to keep a certain fixed turn radius. That means a missile has to pull 45 G's if it wants to turn with a target pulling 5 G's and it is flying three times faster. Most missiles have very small flying surfaces, and can't pull that hard. If they can, they lose lots of energy in trying. It's definitely easiest to hit an airplane with a missile if the former doesn't know it's been fired at. -Felix From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 17:37:06 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:34 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 14:48 PDT Received: from urbino.mcc.com by turtle.mcc.com (4.1/isd-master_920825_x) id AA20219; Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:48:01 CDT Received: by urbino.mcc.com (4.1/isd-other_920825_17:05) id AA07462; Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:48:00 CDT Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:48:00 CDT From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Message-Id: <9210122148.AA07462@urbino.mcc.com> To: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com Subject: Re: Flight Simulation (f16 cockpit) Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com My, my. Aren't we being pessimistic today? I think the sun lamp, helmet, gloves, and JP-4 are other Thrustmaster products that they haven't announced yet :-). I just talked with Thrustmaster about it. They haven't discuessed pricing yet and they almost, but didn't quite, give me a rough estimate. I did find out that the cockpit is a sit in cockpit, but was supposedly being unbundled into optional parts (of which I assume the seat is one). The monitor will be mounted in the front panel. They will have more details in their next newsletter which comes out in December. They also weren't sure if they were going to make it in November, so like every one else's product announcement dates, add your favorite delay to it :-(. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! From falcon3 Mon Oct 12 21:53:28 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:51 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:43 PDT Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AB05308; Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:42:13 -0400 Received: from lurnix.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 214139.7584; Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:41:39 EDT Received: from figaro by lurnix.COM (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA11801; Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:55:19 PDT Received: from localhost by figaro (4.0/SMI-4.1) id AA08215; Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:52:04 PDT Message-Id: <9210130052.AA08215@figaro> To: Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com, scott@figaro.lurnix.COM Subject: Re: auto-ranging In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:20:00 EDT." Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:52:03 -0700 From: scott@figaro.lurnix.COM % >If AMRAAM has a sustainer which maintains it's mach 3+ velocity % >throughout it's full flight, what happens to the missile when % >the sustainer quits? % % I'm not sure. Either themissile will continue to follow beyond max. rated % range until it runs out of energy, or it will disarm/self destruct at that % % -Frank Well, I would think that the missile would do just fine until it finally did run out of energy. First of all it would be pretty silly to just selfdestruct once the sustainer ran out (if it does have a sustainer) since the missile would theoretically still have plenty of energy with which to pursue a target. So, if the missile DOES continue to the target with a velocity of mach 3+, then it's capable range is significantly farther than what is supposedly listed. But then, I have never heard of a competative defense contractor listing performance parameters that appear weaker than what the weapon is actually capable of (except in the case of very top secret programs or undeveloped programs). So I am reluctant to believe that AMRAAM's motor runs for the entire duration of it's maximum capable range. I don't have any hard information, I am just speculating based on what I generally know about air to air missiles. Would you mind pointing out your source of detailed information on the design of the AMRAAM and the other weapons which you are speaking authoritatively about? I would love to learn such detailed information about any modern air weapons for which you have reliable sources. I'm sure a number of other people on this mailing list might be interested in reading more on the weapon systems in Falcon 3.0. % point. The flight profile is designed with powered flight in mind. Missiles % that glide to the target (a la Phoenix) ususally climb very high and use a % diving attack to hit their target. This is not true, actually. One of the reasons Phoenix climbs to attack is that it was designed to squeak as much range as possible out of the technology of the day to enable F-14's a safe fleet defense intercept range. Phoenix of course can engage targets up to 100+ miles (nm's?) away and the only way to get this sort of range is to climb to a relatively drag-free altitude (as you pointed out earlier I believe). This is possible because the proposed targets are far away and there is time for the missile to execute this relatively complex trajectory. However, I am pretty sure that the Sparrow in particular commonly glides to it's target. And this missile is a semi-active homing missile, meaning that it must pretty much point at the target during the entirety of it's flight. An arcing flight profile is not necessary for coasting missiles, it just happens to be efficient for very long range intercepts. % The AMRAAM would fly a straight-line % course and could not trade altitude for energy. Any missile can essentially trade it's energy for altitude by simply continuing to aim at the target (at an intercept point actually). By doing so, the missile must gradually increase it's angle of attack to maintain lift so it can fly even a flat trajectory as it's speed bleeds away. This does not have to be specially programmed ... the missile merely tries to intercept the target and as it's speed drops away, it has to aim higher and higher (until it stalls). Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 06:35:41 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:28 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 04:23 PDT Received: from odin.dhhalden.no by fenris.dhhalden.no with SMTP (PP) id <29416-0@fenris.dhhalden.no>; Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:20:36 +0100 Received: From SOFUS/WORKQUEUE by odin.dhhalden.no via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 100.921013122005.448; 13 Oct 92 12:20:36 -100 Message-ID: To: falcon3@onion.rain.com From: KJELLJF@dhhalden.no Organization: Ostfold College Date: 13 Oct 92 12:19:55 +0100 Subject: UPPER & lower case X-pmrqc: 1 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R3). I have problems getting my falcon3.0d to obey the keyboard. When I press SHIFT-H to tell my wingmen to go home, nothing happens exept that my HUD changes color. When I press SHIFT-F to close formation my flaps jams...Does this happen only if I am in cockpit-view? My computer has about 620K conventional memory, how much does falcon need to show motors on the B52's? From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 06:35:41 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:27 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:43 PDT Received: from helix.ericsson.se by mailgate.ericsson.se (4.1/SMI-4.1-MAILGATE1.10) id AA16605; Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:42:38 +0100 Received: by helix.ericsson.se (4.1/SMI-4.1-LME1.6) id AA22787; Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:42:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:42:37 +0100 From: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se (Stefan Frick) Message-Id: <9210130742.AA22787@helix.ericsson.se> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Falcon 3 - auxilarily programs Hi all F3 pilots! Could some kind soul post a listing of all the 'spin-off' programs that are available for anon. ftp and from where they can be picked up? I'm thinking of fmap etc. Thanx in advance! -Stefan -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stefan Frick | Email: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se | | Ericsson Telecom | Phone: +46-11-241098 | | Box 72 | Fax: +46-11-241207 | | S-601 02 Norrkoping | | | SWEDEN | -------------------------------------------------------------------- From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 06:51:01 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:48 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:48 PDT Message-Id: To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Re: Falcon 3 - auxilarily programs In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:42:37 BST." <9210130742.AA22787@helix.ericsson.se> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:48:28 -0700 From: Jeff Beadles Stefan Frick wrote: >Could some kind soul post a listing of all the 'spin-off' programs that >are available for anon. ftp and from where they can be picked up? >I'm thinking of fmap etc. They're available on onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] in ~ftp/pub/falcon3/programs. -Jeff -- Jeff Beadles jeff@onion.rain.com From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 08:07:26 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:28 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:07 PDT Received: by en.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA17502; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:07:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:07:39 -0500 From: castelin@ecn.purdue.edu (Sanjay J Castelino) Message-Id: <9210131407.AA17502@en.ecn.purdue.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Hi, I have a few questions so here goes... 1. I am still playing falcon with my keyboard but I want to get a good joystick well actually an FCS, can anyone reccomend something good and give me an approx. pricing. 2. Is it worth going from 3.0D to 3.01 What are the key enhancements ? 3. What exactly do the auxilary programs on onion.rain.com do, the index doesn't really give much of an explanation (sorry to jeff since you probably wrote that) Anyway could someone tell me exactly what the do. thanks in advance.... Sanjay From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 09:09:37 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:29 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:16 PDT Received: by en.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA17918; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:16:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:16:19 -0500 From: castelin@ecn.purdue.edu (Sanjay J Castelino) Message-Id: <9210131416.AA17918@en.ecn.purdue.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: One last thing I had one final question for anyone out there, would someone please post the debug codes and what they do for Falcon, I am running 3.0D. Thanks Sanjay From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 12:57:15 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:39 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:37 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 7:41:32 -0700 (PDT) From: VACSC09L@VAX.CSUN.EDU (MARTY) Message-Id: <921013074132.18ea@VAX.CSUN.EDU> Subject: RE: UPPER & lower case To: falcon3@onion.rain.com X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"falcon3@onion.rain.com" perhaps you can't get shift-h and shift-f to work cause your caps lock is on? From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 13:06:54 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:39 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:41 PDT Received: from helix.ericsson.se by mailgate.ericsson.se (4.1/SMI-4.1-MAILGATE1.10) id AA22154; Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:41:25 +0100 Received: by helix.ericsson.se (4.1/SMI-4.1-LME1.6) id AA00933; Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:41:24 +0100 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:41:24 +0100 From: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se (Stefan Frick) Message-Id: <9210131441.AA00933@helix.ericsson.se> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Motor show :-) Wasn't there a trick with the two files 'objects' and 'sobjects'? I think I copied one of them on top of the other and... Voila! There's the engines! -Stefan -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stefan Frick | Email: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se | | Ericsson Telecom | Phone: +46-11-241098 | | Box 72 | Fax: +46-11-241207 | | S-601 02 Norrkoping | | | SWEDEN | -------------------------------------------------------------------- From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 14:10:18 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:40 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:46 PDT Received: by mp.cs.niu.edu id AA17725 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for falcon3@onion.rain.com); Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:45:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:45:52 -0500 From: wiseman john jeffery Message-Id: <199210131445.AA17725@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: OFT Icons messed up >Subject: OFT, Korean map, crashing planes, IFF >To: falcon3@onion.rain.com >Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:21:07 EET >From: Timo.Teinonen@hut.fi >My version of OFT (made in the UK) seems to have screwed-up map in the >Korean theatre. The map itself is ok, but the _icons_ on it are from >India/Pakistan theatre. So it's rather hard (to put it mildly) to draw >any reasonable conclusions about what's going to happen during the missions. I had the same problem after using F3MAPS. It may have been related to me switching both IA and Red Flag to the Kurile theater. I eventually wound up manually editing my SQUAD0.SQU file to fix it (change the "Korea" to "India" near the very beginning of the file, I think). John Wiseman From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 14:23:36 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:41 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:01 PDT Message-Id: Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6241; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:01:24 EDT Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 7166; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:01:22 EDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:59 EDT From: "Carl Fago" Subject: Re: UPPER & lower case To: KJELLJF@dhhalden.no Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com In-Reply-To: KJELLJF AT dhhalden.no -- 13 Oct 92 12:19:55 +0100 >I have problems getting my falcon3.0d to obey the keyboard. When I >press SHIFT-H to tell my wingmen to go home, nothing happens exept >that my HUD changes color. When I press SHIFT-F to close formation my >flaps jams...Does this happen only if I am in cockpit-view? These actions are available in the E patch or OFT. I don't think the E patch is out yet to the general public seperate from OFT. >My computer has about 620K conventional memory, how much does >falcon need to show motors on the B52's? I use the loadhigh /link command to get about 730k available to programs. The loadhigh /link is a command from QEMM. I _think_ you need about 630k to get engines. *-=Carl=-* INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu | Be wary of strong drink. | DELPHI - WULFGAR GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax | Carl Fago State College, PA | collectors -- and miss! | From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 14:43:22 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:41 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17 PDT Received: from Corp.Sun.COM (lemay.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03722; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:18 PDT Received: from migkiller.Corp.Sun.COM by Corp.Sun.COM (4.1/elliemay (corpmail1 inbound)) id AA29569; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:16 PDT Received: by migkiller.Corp.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09963; Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:13 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:13 PDT From: Mike.Figueroa@Corp.Sun.COM (Mike Figueroa) Message-Id: <9210131617.AA09963@migkiller.Corp.Sun.COM> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Logitech Trackman Bus Mouse..... Hello all... Does anyone know if there is a problem using the Logitech series Bus mouses? I know that there is a performance issue if you use QEMM386 and the mouse but I'm running Falcon OFT and whenever I load the mouse before running falcon3, the system just freezes. I know it's not a memory issue, I have about 624K after loading the mouse and before running falonc3. I've called Spectrum Support and left a message, I haven't received any replies from them yet... Thanks, Mike From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 15:25:28 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:42 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:09 PDT Received: by fri.cri.nz (MX V3.1B) id 12996; Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:08:15 +1200 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:08:11 +1300 From: "John Threadgill, New Zealand Forest Research Institute" To: FALCON3@ONION.RAIN.COM CC: threadgj@fri.cri.nz Message-ID: <00962120.40C327C0.12996@fri.cri.nz> Subject: Falcon 3 Debug Keys Here is a listing of the some of the keys available in debug mode. If anyone knows anymore, could you please post them as well. John. ----------------------------------- Snip Here ---------------------------------- Falcon 3.0 Debug Mode Keys To get into debug mode: Press [P] ... wait, then press [Tab] when the 'Pause' notice disappears. Once in debug mode, valid keys are: [d] - statistics (coordinates, altitude, step size). Toggle key. [t] - teleport in debug mode. Enter coordinates at prompt. [+]/[-] - increase/decrease step size. [Left arrow] - left [Right arrow] - right [Up arrow] - forward [Down arrow] - backward [Pg U] - Increase altitude [Pg D] - Decrease altitude [F3] - Rotate left. [F4] - Rotate right [Sft]/[F3] - Rotate up [Sft]/[F4] - Rotate down [`] - Start action again. Toggle key. (Select autopilot mode before using). [n] - Takes snapshot of screen. Use SHOWF3 utility to view snapshot. [p] - Return to cockpit and exit debug mode. From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 15:33:39 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:42 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:22 PDT Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA22307; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:20:47 -0700 Message-Id: <9210131820.AA22307@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> Received: from browny.enet; by decwrl.enet; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:21:06 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:21:06 PDT From: Progress Through Tradition 13-Oct-1992 1319 To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Apparently-To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: AMF? What does your wingman mean when he says, "Alpha Mike Foxtrot"? I haven't seen it in either the 3.0 or OFT manual. Is it related to Kilo Mike Alpha (Kiss My A**)? Perry Donham VMS Course Development From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 16:31:51 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:10 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 13:57 PDT Message-Id: From: opus@ihlpy.att.com Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:55 CDT To: att!onion.rain.com!falcon3 Subject: Detailed Plane Graphics (was Motor show :-)) Should this be in a FAQ list? There are three ways to get the detailed planes while playing the game (so they look the same as in the "REPORT" rotating displays). 1) Copy objects onto sobjects (save the original first, of course). 2) EMM386 users: start up Falcon using "loadhigh falcon3." This fools the game into thinking you have more conventional memory than you really do. 3) QEMM386 users: before running Falcon, type "loadhi/link." This links in all free UMBs into the conventional memory list. This will only work if your combined total of free conventional memory and free upper memory exceeds around 630K (I can't remember the exact number, but "K" in this case means 1024 bytes, not 1000). This will not affect the appearance of F-16s, but all other planes will look much, much better. Cockpits will be blue, engine pods on B-52s and C-130s will appear, F-14s will have the underbelly trough between the two air intakes/engines, A-4s will have their characteristic refueling probe, etc. In general, more colors and more polygons are added to make the planes look more realistic. If you don't use the "q" view, then don't bother making the change, since it is rare that planes fly close enough for the extra detail to show, unless you have the scale cranked way up (Hi Dave!). Rob opus@ihlpy.att.com From falcon3 Tue Oct 13 17:35:07 1992 Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:14 PDT Sender: falcon3 (Falcon 3 list) Return-Path: Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:30 PDT Received: by uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (4.1/Sun690) id AA22067; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:30:17 HST From: John Long Message-Id: <9210132130.AA22067@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Debug mode To: castelin@ecn.purdue.edu (Sanjay J Castelino) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:30:15 HST Cc: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing List) In-Reply-To: <9210131416.AA17918@en.ecn.purdue.edu>; from "Sanjay J Castelino" at Oct 13, 92 9:16 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Information regarding Falcon3's controversial "debug mode" is available by anonymous ftp to onion.rain.com in the directory /pub/falcon3/incoming [[ Moved to /pub/falcon3/hints/debug-mode -- Jeff]] -longjohn