To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V4 : I45 Falcon3 Digest Volume 4 : Issue 45 Mon Aug 30 05:49:08 PDT 1993 Compilation copyright (C) 1993 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Is enough for Mig-29? (was: Is 382 Jason_Burrell@fcircus.sat.tx.us (Ja more "flight" test results masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast Re: Loadout and flying MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU F302V42 problem brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) 3.02 Update to OFT? "Zarin, Jason (G) ECON" UGF3 format wilfred.wong@cutting.hou.tx.us (Wil F302V42 again brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) Re: ordance exploding stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg Mig 29 and Falcon 3.2 Richard Bookout <70720.2555@CompuSe ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jason_Burrell@fcircus.sat.tx.us (Jason Burrell) Subject: Is enough for Mig-29? (was: Is 382 enuf for Mig 29?) > Hi, I've been monitoring all the success stories about people > the Mig, and I'm wondering, are most of you using 486's? Beca > my 386/40, I seem to have one of three choices 1) fly in the s If you say that you need a 486 to run Falcon 3.02, then before you shell out your money, you may want to check your system setup. I am running off a LOWLY 386/20 with 2MB RAM and both Mig-29 and Falcon 3.02 run very nicely. I admit its a little chunky, but I'm not overly obsessed with frame rates. If you have a disk doubler installed, I know from experience that that dramaticly reduces system performance in a program like Falcon 3.0 or Mig29. - -- Jason_Burrell@fcircus.sat.tx.us Device Driver Stacker.sys not found. Hit (P) to panic! -- PGP public key available upon request. ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: more "flight" test results Results of some more "flight" tests. I think you'll find some interesting, so bear with me :-) The objective was to explore the behavior of the complex and hifi models with load effects. I looked at climb and acceleration rates. Here, loaded includes 10 mk82's, 6 agm65's, 2 9P's. Total weight is about 31000, near the max of the actual F16A. Unloaded is no weapons. For fun, I compare it to the much maligned Strike Commander. The SC bird was loaded pretty much the same. Climb Test: Elapsed time from 1000 to 21000 ft starting at 500 kts level flight, 45 degree climb (60 degree gave slightly faster rates), AB5. F3 hifi loaded 41 sec hifi empty 34 sec complex loaded stalls! (but about 45 sec) empty 29 sec SC loaded 34 sec empty 31 sec I don't know the actual numbers, but the above correspond to about 40000 ft/min for unloaded, which sounds reasonable. Note SC numbers are close to F3's. F3's complex mode allows large vertical climb acceleration when unloaded. I got up to 60K ft in 60 seconds! Hifi allows slight acceleration, at low altitude. If I recall correctly, SC's vertical climb behavior is closer to hifi's. Acceleration Test: Elapsed time from 0.5M to 0.9M (330-595 kts) from low level flight (1K for F3, 5K for SC). F3 hifi loaded AB5 22.0 sec hifi loaded mil 56.0 sec hifi empty AB5 14.8 sec hifi empty mil 38.0 sec complex 7.5 sec for ALL except loaded, full mil power! Obviously complex's acceleration is way out of line. For comparison, "Modern Air Combat" lists the F4 doing the above in 22 seconds in AB and 54 seconds mil power. So I guess the hifi numbers above are reasonable. What happened in complex for loaded/mil power? It topped out at about 476 knots. As I fired off each weapon, the cruise speed increased. Yes, F3 now models weight/drag effects in complex! But it's pretty bogus as the speeds rapidly accelerated to the terminal value, than stopped on a dime. Hifi still showed no cruise speed correlation to weight/drag. SC loaded AB5 19.5 sec loaded mil 52.5 sec empty AB5 15.0 sec empty mil 41.0 sec Again, pretty similar to F3's hifi. So it looks like SH keeps tweaking the flight models as I'm pretty sure the complex drag effects are new, and so are the fuel consumption vs altitude noted before. But it still accelerates like it has a second, massless, Pratt and Whitney strapped on! ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Loadout and flying >Results of some more "flight" tests. I think you'll find some >interesting, so bear with me :-) >The objective was to explore the behavior of the complex and hifi models >with load effects. I looked at climb and acceleration rates. Here, >loaded includes 10 mk82's, 6 agm65's, 2 9P's. Total weight is about >31000, near the max of the actual F16A. Unloaded is no weapons. For >fun, I compare it to the much maligned Strike Commander. The SC bird was >loaded pretty much the same. {everything else removed} Comparing flight models and the like was never my thing. Too much has to be altered for the sake of making the program "fun". I just get headaches when it come to matchin reality and games :-) Case in point, the loadout used by Dave for his tests. Maybe Stuart can clarify, but the loading Sgt and F16 Pilot I talked both laughed when I asked what the flying characteristics were like when loaded out as Dave did. Basically they did not think it was even a flight approved load out. It would take every bit of gas just to get off the ground, then flyin would be all but impossible. I saw a Few MAVs and they is *BIG*. I would venture to guess that flying with 6 of them alone is pipe dreaming. I would say that the latitude the programers have allowed us for the sake of having fun (weapons load outs, fuel consumption, etc etc etc) has compromised just about all the realistic features of the game. Everything is interconnected. Let the constraints on one aspect slide and so goes the rest. What does all this mean??? Probably nothing I guess. I have just seen a million and one comaprisons of reality to games (flight sims, racing, sub, helos, etc). In the end it is a great hobby because of talk like Dave and others have provided. Maybe that is the real value of the games, not what the games themselves do, but what people learn from them. I can honestly say Iknew shit about flying till I got F3 way back, now I can half talk like I know what I am saying just from reading notes about this and that related back to what F3 (F15, Tornado,Fly Sim 4 etc) is doing in the sim. If someone made a space or other world sim that was as engrossing as F3 then I would probably be as into that as F3. For me it is the FUN of sims and the talk about them that keeps me coming back. I hope programers keep that in mind. I think an exactly true to life sim would probably not keep many peoples attention for too long. What is it some say? "29 minutes of bordem, 1 minute of shear terror" Just wanted to say that :-) Scott "playing for entertainment, war and killing suck!" in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) Subject: F302V42 problem > | Unfortunately, the F3V42A patch is for version 3.01.1 only, BUT I have just > | finished the update for version 3.02. This version is blistering fast! It's > | in a file names F32PAK.ZIP here on Compuserve, in the FSFORUM and MODEMGAMES > | forums. Also included in this file is the updated F302COOLIE and F302PADLK > | patches. All these patches will remap COM ports so you can connect your > | modem to COM3 or COM4 and still connect with Falcon communications. Also > | available is M29PAK.ZIP which is the MiG-29 counterpart, V42patch, CoolieHat > | patch, and Padlock patch. > | > | Ken "Stinger" Richardson > | > > Whoever, uploaded the new utils from CIS, please. pick up the v42 files for > us. or whoever has access to CIS. My friend did, and it locks our systems up a wee bit before the mission planning screen. Ideas? - -- brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W) ------------------------------- From: "Zarin, Jason (G) ECON" Subject: 3.02 Update to OFT? Does anyone know if future (or recent) releases of OFT will easily install onto F3 3.02? Since I installed the 3.02 patch, to currently install OFT (if I ever get around to buying it) will require deleting F3, reinstalling 3.0e, installing OFT, and installing the 3.02 patch. Blech. I'm glad I don't have Mig29 or this would really be inconvenient! So is there a 3.02 OFT due anytime soon? Thanks! Jason Zarin zarin@econ.sscnet.ucla.edu ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Marj your calender Hi all, The subject should have said Mar*K* your calender :-) GEnie, Wed night at 9:30 there will be a conference with the new VP of Marketing of SH. The purpose of the conference is to get input from users as to what features they would like to see in upcoming SH releases. Here is a chance to get a "response" from your requests on Falcon4 so you can hold them to it later :-) It is at 9:30 pm in the Scorpia conference room at 9:30. Check the weekly announcements for more info. Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: F302V42 problem | > | > Whoever, uploaded the new utils from CIS, please. pick up the v42 files for | > us. or whoever has access to CIS. | | My friend did, and it locks our systems up a wee bit before the mission | planning screen. Ideas? | | -- | brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W) | Well, maybe if we can get our hands on it, we may find a solution :). And since not a lot of us have seen it, we really can't help. Yet. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the kris.ong@rose.com whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- From: wilfred.wong@cutting.hou.tx.us (Wilfred Wong) Subject: UGF3 format I was playing with Ghostscript today and found that the UG "can" be converted to ASCII using the batch file PS2ASCII. (Don't smile yet...) However, format on pages like TOC & Index are all mess up... Now, normal pages (02_*.*) did convert "fine" (with minor format problem on some lines). BUT!! all the pages are in reverse order!!! *sigh* Ghostscript v2.6.1 can be found at wuarchive.wustl.edu DIR: /mirrors/msdos/postscript PD1: 24TIMES.ZIP 206834 8 920329 Font for GS24: Times GS261286.ZIP 212181 8 930612 Ghostscript v2.6.1, EXE for 286 machines GS261386.ZIP 404280 8 930612 Ghostscript v2.6.1, 386/486 EXE w/extended mem GS261INI.ZIP 335951 8 930804 Ghostscript v2.6.1, required files + examples On the side, which program can import ESPI files? --- * SLMR 2.1a * \/\/ilfred Wong Internet: wilfred.wong@cutting.hou.tx.us ------------------------------- From: brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) Subject: F302V42 again We seem to be making progress. After turning off music on both ends, we got one of those awesum fast transfers and in the air REALLY quick. Nice work. After the debrief and start next mission, things locked up again. Both computers stopped transmitting. No sign of overrun. Man, if this thing could be thouroughly debugged, it would be the best thing since sliced bread! - -- brad@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W) ------------------------------- From: stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg Stenger) Subject: Re: ordance exploding Jason Burrell asked in Issue 44: > Does anyone know if in real life the ordance detonates when > jettisoned? I think it's somewhere mentioned in the F3 manual. In real life You would have to arm Your weapons whereas in F3 You just have to choose it. If a weapon is disarmed it shouldn't explode when it's jettisoned (well, maybe if it hits the ground at some "bad" angle). The choosing/arming mechanism is nicely simulated in Tornado. It keeps You very busy on a target run, e.g. You have choosen and armed some slip bombs and a SAM site lights up. You have to disarm, choose antiradiation ordance, arm, fire, disarm, re-choose the bombs, re-arm and then You realize that You have bypassed the target... > Device Driver Stacker.sys not found. Hit (P) to panic! Hit (L) to boot Linux ;-) Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- From: Richard Bookout <70720.2555@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Mig 29 and Falcon 3.2 Can the Mig 29 really be that hard to fly? I recently installed Mig29 and 3.2 and am really wondering if it is possible that a modern fighter could be as hard to fly as the Mig seems to be in the realistic flight model. I realize that in a real aircraft you would have physical cues to assist in controlling gforce and flying the aircraft, but in this sim, in the most realistic mode I almost always "break" the aircraft, when I attempt ANY ACM. Flaps and Ordinance are the first to go on almost any mission. The falcon also seems much harder to fly in this version than the old. I always stayed away from the HI-FI mode because it felt too arcadish, and I heard so much about the HIFI model being designed for BVR and not ACM anyway so I felt justified in dropping back one level for what I hoped was a more realistic "feeling" flight model. The current 3.02 flight model seems to be more like to old HIFI, but I am getting used to it. I wonder about missile effectiveness, however. I can go into instant action and Im immediately on the six of several "victims," at close range, but even with this, I can launch an unrealistic barrage of locked-on missiles, (any type) and only get one or two kills, and I think these are mostly cannon kills. I can follow one of these bandits from his six and watch him dump a few flares/chaff and easily confuse and lose my missiles, from solid six position and good lock etc. but I can dump chaff and flares like crazy, fly NOE, head-em into mountains, and generally jink all over the sky without being able to dump the missiles, are the MIG armaments better than the falcon, is it the sim. Ive been flying falcon since the first version came out for the XT and while I might not be a great sim pilot, I would think that solid missile locks on the bandits six from a few hundred yards and stable flight should be better than 30-40% accuracy, while the "enemy" seems to enjoy 90% or better in a turning, burning furball. I've heard that in the real world its generally a 40 or 50% hit rate for missiles launched, so Falcon doesnt seem out of proportion if you're considering normal combat situations, but it does seem off in the instant action setting with all the sitting ducks out there in front of you. Any comments would be appreciated. R. Bookout 70720.2555@Compuserve.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 4 : Issue 45 ]]