From devnull@onion.rain.com Tue Nov 9 10:50:35 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA03995; Tue, 9 Nov 93 10:47:43 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 8 Nov 93 17:30 PST Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 17:55 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I1 Content-Length: 21240 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 1 Mon Nov 8 17:30:22 PST 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: Review of _Falcon Domain F-16_ VCR manfred@mjmnode.equinox.gen.nz (Man HiFi-Mode spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de Mig101.exe and comms??? MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Re: "The 29th" mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Re: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Strange black-out bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) RE:Mig Radar MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Various items Ric Testagrossa [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the > the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] Somewhere in the first few pages of the MiG-29 manual, it says the Russians have over time begun calling the plane "Fulcrum" just like the NATO folks, but some simply refer to it as "the 29th." >I have been wondering why it is only possible to load six AAM's on the >29th. According to the original Falcon3 manual (SH), the 29th can carry >six to eight AAM's. In flying head to head, this presents a distinct >disadvantage against the F-16 (which carries up to eight). I'm happy with >six if that the true maximum the 29th can carry. Anyone have any info? SH may be wrong, but I find it difficult to believe that they'd screw up something this basic. My guess is that the former Soviets just aren't big on MERs (multiple ejector racks?). >The 29th, according to the F3.0 manual, also has type 1 or "multiple >tracking, look-down shoot-down radar". > >The F-16 has type 2 or "single target tracking radar". I see no differences >(except for SEA mode) between the FSX and F-16 radar either in the OFT >manual or in actual simulation play (using HFR config), which would lead >one to assume that either the FSX actually "will have" radar type 2 or that >such a mode was not included for simplicity. > >In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform >multiple tracking. Why? Shouldn't I be able to get info on multiple >targets at the same time? The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. I share your confusion over this, though. When I was writing my review of MiG-29, I was going to list this as one of the MiG's advantages over the F-16 when I realized that in F3 I can do the same thing! It's called SAM (situational awareness mode, under HFR), and it allows you to scan one target while tracking the rest. I don't know if this is a realistic capability or not. As an aside, F-15 Strike Eagle III implements all this stuff much more realistically. When you're in TWS (track while scan) mode, the updates for the targets you aren't scanning is very slow as it should be--your radar is spending most of its time and energy on the scanned target to get the detailed information it presents. >Also, why can't I leave my radar on in the scan >mode and still get infrared locks through the helmet mounted aiming system? >Has anyone been able to do this? I think the IR and radar systems are supposed to be integrated to work together. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: Strange black-out I did have a strange experience concerning black-out with Mig29 1.01. I was in an Israel campaign mission when I receive a RWR warning for a AIM120 launch at me. Using Padlock view, I spot the incoming threat and quickly (too quickly) pull the stick back with full throttle to begin a vertical climb (I was trying to do a reverse on the missile, a tactic fairly successful). My maneuver blacks me out instantly (10+ G !!!). I effectively dodge the AIM120. But... I NEVER recover from the black-out: my 29 just keeps doing a beautiful vertical loop with full A/B. I think the program lock the stick in the back position when I lose conciousness... (thus keeping high G's) .I have been waiting for more than 10 full loops (min. altitude 4.000 feet and max. alt. 22.000 feet) before aborting the mission (I was thinking about waiting for 0 fuel before ending the mission, but even with full A/B, it seems it take a while...). I think the stick lock in a non neutral position is not a realistic thing (a pilot blacking out must release his grip on the stick ?) Anyone with similar experience ??? Christophe Bonnet (bonnet@cr2a.fr) ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: RE:Mig Radar Hi all, Regarding discussion of Mig 29 and its weapons and radar. [stuff deleted] >>The F-16 has type 2 or "single target tracking radar". I see no differences >>(except for SEA mode) between the FSX and F-16 radar either in the OFT >>manual or in actual simulation play (using HFR config), which would lead >>one to assume that either the FSX actually "will have" radar type 2 or that >>such a mode was not included for simplicity. > >>In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform >>multiple tracking. Why? Shouldn't I be able to get info on multiple >>targets at the same time? *The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs *on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe *any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position *information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. *I share your confusion over this, though. When I was writing my review *of MiG-29, I was going to list this as one of the MiG's advantages over *the F-16 when I realized that in F3 I can do the same thing! It's *called SAM (situational awareness mode, under HFR), and it allows you to *scan one target while tracking the rest. I don't know if this is *a realistic capability or not. I am not an authority either. But I'll stick my neck out for giggles and grins. I thought I heard somewhere (Wings??) that the F14 could track some odd number of targets and fire on all simulataneously! Of course the Pheonix is not your everyday missile, but the radar of the Tomcat was designed to handle big time air engagements. The Falcon being more of a multi role plane of course has a much more crippled radar due to size/weight limitations. I don't know wuch about the Eagle. As for the Mig, I would agree with the first poster that as an Air to air plane, and the radar description, it would likely be able to multiple track different targets simultaneously. Of course since the Old Soviet Union is not exactly turning over the records of their defense systems to SH, we may never really know just what it is capable of. It really seems that the radars of F3 and Mig are the same thing to me. [stuff deleted] My two dramha's worth :-) Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: Ric Testagrossa Subject: Various items I have some comments/questions about several facets of Falcon/MiG: * I've been monitoring the message traffic both here and on Compuserve; Has anyone else noticed the comments from the people who either love or hate MiG-29? Some writers absolutely love the manuverability of the plane, while others hate it. Some find it easy to control, while others flail all over the sky. Even allowing for differences in skill level, personal flying styles, and computer system speeds, I've decided that we're not all flying the same plane MOSTLY DUE TO OUR DIFFERENT BRANDS OF COMPUTERS. Using myself and my system as an example, I truly believe those people who say that they'd much rather fly the MiG-29 than the F- 16, since they can always outmanuver the 16. However, I've given up on flying the Mig, since it handles ON MY NAMEBRAND 66MHz SYSTEM like a dead horse. And before you suggest that I change my joystick and/or controller card to get better response, let me mention that I've tried 2 different Thrustmaster FCS, 2 different Thrustmaster ACM cards, a CH flightstick, a Kraft card, the joystick port on a SoundBlaster card, and a CH Gamecard 3, all with about the same results. Remember the problems/bugs some people encountered in the previous versions of F3 that were only seen on certain specific computers, while other people (with different computers) never encountered those problems? I think we're seeing the same kind of thing here with the flight characteristics of the Mig-29, and I predict that this situation will only get worse with every revision to the program. Please understand that this is not intended to put down the F3/MiG29 sim; I try to fly it every day because I enjoy it so much, but I only fly the F-16 plane since the Mig doesn't respond on my system as it does on other people's systems. I'm not sure there's any way to deal with this, other than to be aware of this when you start looking for version 4.0 of F3. * Does anyone else get the same sense of SUPER satisfaction when you successfully complete a mission after taking significant damage? I was on my way back to base alone, my wingman had been hit by a SAM and the other flights were on different routes, when I was jumped by a Mig-29. The ground attack portion of the mission had been brutal, and I had damage warnings about the HUD, the flaps, the brakes, the burner, the radar, the weapon arming mechanism, and the NWS, so basically all I had left was my cannon and my manueverability. I won't go into detail here (I'm writing a series of short stories based on some of my more "interesting" missions, and I'll be uploading them sometime soon), but I managed to defeat the bandit, AND get the plane safely landed back at the base. Now, even though I've built myself a partial cockpit to fly the missions from, I KNOW that this is "just" a simulation. But as I sat there on the runway, I realized that my breathing was ragged, my muscles were sore, and I felt GREAT. Am I just weird, or do other people get into it as much? * I've noticed something in Red Flag. If I'm going round with a bandit, he usually does his best to stay out of cannon range an won't fly straight and level for more than a second or so, UNTIL I run out of cannon rounds and only have missiles left. Then that little #*%$@^! will fly straight and level in front of me at about .4 miles range, almost like he's taunting me. And my experience has been that if I shoot a Sidewinder at a range of less than a mile, the probability of a hit goes WAY down. Does anyone know if the enemy pilots know when you're out of cannon ammo? Seems to me that another pilot could see when you're out of missiles and act accordingly, but how do they know you're out of bullets? * In a related question, what's the RMIN for the enemy's Magic missiles? It must be a very short range; I've been hit by them when they were fired from a distance of about .3 miles. And what about the seeker head angle; they seem to be able to hit me when they're fired at impossible angles. How about we buy some of these missiles from France to put onto the F-16? :-) * How does the enemy pilot evade/spoof my heat-seekers while they're still a good distance away? I try flares and manuvering at extreme angles, and they usually miss but they only miss by what seems like a few feet. Enemy planes seem to be able to evade by hundreds/thousands of feet, which gives them more time to reposition. Can we do that, or is this something which is an ability programmed into the enemy planes? Ric T. (Pigpen) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Mig ramblings/questions > From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU > Subject: Mig ramblings/questions > * I have gotten into some interesting loss of control of the aircraft. One > such loss is flying knife edge at about 450 knts with seeming no control > of the craft. Is this due to compressability? What type of a stall (for > lack of better definition) is this? If you are turning, I assume that's what you mean by "flying knife edge", you proabaly pulled past the AOA for max lift, so you have therefore stalled. If you stall an aircraft at more than 1 g flight, it's called an "accelerated stall". Aircraft with hydraulically actuated controls do not suffer from the classical "compressibility" problems of WWII fighters. > * Any hints on how to judge G's? I turned on effects, but I prompty > got into a bad stall and crashed. I am hoping by blacking out I will > get an idea when g's are getting high enough to damage the plane. Yes? No? If the effects were modeled properly, yes you would be able to use greyout/blackout as an indication of high load factors. However, SH dropped the ball here. You don't actually get greyout/blackout. You go from awake to passed out, nothing inbetween. Now while this can happen for very abrupt stick inputs, for a sustained high G turn you will gradually lose your vision. I don't see this in F3/MiG-29. I thought their original G effects model was junk, but it was better than the one they have now. ------ Stuart slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@scc.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (aka slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil) Please send all messages to both addresses, thanks. ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? > From: mcoyne@cs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > Subject: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? > [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the > the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] I have been wondering this for quite some time now. This must be some kind of computer phenom, 'cuase we don't refer to it as the 29th in the USAF. :) > I have been wondering why it is only possible to load six AAM's on the > 29th. According to the original Falcon3 manual (SH), the 29th can carry > six to eight AAM's. In flying head to head, this presents a distinct > disadvantage against the F-16 (which carries up to eight). I'm happy with > six if that the true maximum the 29th can carry. Anyone have any info? Six AAMs is correct. > The 29th, according to the F3.0 manual, also has type 1 or "multiple > tracking, look-down shoot-down radar". ... > In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform > multiple tracking. Why? SH must have learned some new info between the release of F3 and MiG-29. :) ------ Stuart slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@scc.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (aka slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil) Please send all messages to both addresses, thanks. ------------------------------- From: jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Why it gets called the "29th" In response to: [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] your friendly local Russianist comes to the explanation.... Slang for the MiG-29, as with many other numbered vehicles, uses the numeric designation: in Russian, this is technically an adjective. There's two schools of translation: straight literal and idiomatic. Straight literal translation provides you with "29th".... Idiomatic translation (attempting to translate such that things "sound right" - which depending on your point of view may or may not better preserve the meaning) would call it the "29". I, unlike SHolobyte, tend to lean towards idiomatic translation, especially as the slang term in this case is used as a noun ("29").... Clear as mud now? 8) James Sterrett jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca ------------------------------- From: "WADLEIGH, DAVID" Subject: Re: Safe F16... Thomas Weichert writes: >"Turns out there are some people out there, that don't quite agree with: The >F16 is safest single engine in the world! >Ah well, sad stats they are indeed, as at October 1992, more than 140 >Falcons have actually crashed with 90 pilots killed so far, almost as bad as >the old F104 in Germany I believe the statement that "the F16 is the safest single engine fighter in the world" relates to engine performance/durability/reliability, and not overall "safety" of the aircraft. I am sure that the majority of those F16 crashes were due to LOC (loss of consciousness) due to high G maneuvers. The F16 is really the first fighter in the US arsenal which can easily maintain more sustained G's than a pilot can withstand. It has taken many lessons (these crashes) for the Air Force to realize both the potential, and the dangers, inherent in the F16 and to train its pilots accordingly... Dave "Phoenix" Wadleigh "There are two types of people in the world...those with guns, and those who dig..." ------------------------------- From: Andrew J. Schmitt Subject: Chad Theatre is now availible at onion.rain.com Hey Guys: I have downloaded the Chad scenarios from SH's BBS and posted them on onion.rain.com. Enjoy! [ It's in /pub/falcon3/misc/f3chad.zip -Jeff] Andrew J. Schmitt University of California Santa Barbara schmitt@mcl.ucsb.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 1 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Nov 11 00:48:41 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08297; Thu, 11 Nov 93 00:48:07 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 10 Nov 93 06:37 PST Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 06:55 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I2 Content-Length: 13876 X-Lines: 358 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 2 Wed Nov 10 06:37:12 PST 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: chad theater Rolf Velthuys ET4000-W32 Flicker Fix sep@netcom.com (Scott E. Pendleton) Hi-Fidelity shanev@aol.com wingmen and ECM "Emilio Radius ((+39)-2-596.25081)" Re: Strange black-out stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg HiFi-Mode slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil MiG-29 Weapons and Radar ?? slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Safe F-16 slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil "The 29th" slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Chad theatre Ric Testagrossa ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rolf Velthuys Subject: chad theater #From: Andrew J. Schmitt #Subject: Chad Theatre is now availible at onion.rain.com #I have downloaded the Chad scenarios from SH's BBS and posted them on #onion.rain.com. Enjoy! # [ It's in /pub/falcon3/misc/f3chad.zip -Jeff] make that /pub/falcon3/missions/f3chad.zip [Oops! -Jeff] Thanks Andy (and Jeff of course!). Rolf ------------------------------- From: sep@netcom.com (Scott E. Pendleton) Subject: ET4000-W32 Flicker Fix Does anyone know where I might be able to find a fix (patch) file for Falcon 3 that eliminates the annoying flicker seen when using a fast DX2-66MHz machine with a Tseng based ET4000-W32 video card? Apparently SpecHolo has released a fix for users of this type of card. I'd appreciate info on where I might be able to get this file. Thanks Scott [ Note: This sig was highly edited. When the signature is longer than the article... -Jeff ] -- Scott E. Pendleton Netcom - Online Communication Services sep@netcom.COM ------------------------------- From: shanev@aol.com Subject: Hi-Fidelity Andreas Spengler writes: >I have just a small question: When I run Falcon 3.02.1 in >HiFi-Mode on my 486DX-33 it appears to me, that my >engine is performing far too well, if you ask me. For >instance I have to reduce throttle to 60% to maintain >a speed of 450 knots. Since this is in my opinion totally >unrealistic I use Falcon3 only in Complex Mode. Congratulations, Andreas. You've discovered the fact that Hi-Fidelity is a cartoonish flight model. Complex is much closer to reality. Spectrum Holobyte got the Hi-Fi flight model from the USAF and are prohibitted from changing it. Hence, it will never be improved, and I would be very surprised if it wasn't dropped altogether in F4. It was designed by the military as a BVR trainer, and is a complete mess when it comes to dogfighting. Regards, ShaneV ------------------------------- From: "Emilio Radius ((+39)-2-596.25081)" Subject: wingmen and ECM Often my wingmen are hit by missiles even if they bring ECM. I survive because I keep ECM turned on but I'm note sure wingmen has turned it on. Is there any way to force them to use it. Thank you Emilio Radius ------------------------------- From: stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg Stenger) Subject: Re: Strange black-out In issue 1 (V5 sic!) Christophe Bonnet wrote about an unrecoverable balck-out in MiG-29. I experienced almost the same in IA as I tried to find out the maximum flight-level for the '29. As I stalled I decided to gain speed and dove with full AB. When I wanted to pull up at about 20k feet, I imedately blacked out and didn't recover from that. Using the track-view I saw my MiG doing one vertical loop after the other. With every loop the maximum altitude was a bit lower than at the one before. After about 10 loops with hands off stick and throttle I hit and ended IA. Joerg "Dancer" Stenger PS: I use the "realistic" flight-model ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: HiFi-Mode > From: spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de > Subject: HiFi-Mode > I have just a small question: When I run Falcon 3.02.1 in > HiFi-Mode on my 486DX-33 it appears to me, that my > engine is performing far too well, if you ask me. For > instance I have to reduce throttle to 60% to maintain > a speed of 450 knots. Since this is in my opinion totally > unrealistic I use Falcon3 only in Complex Mode. > Has anyone made the same experience or I am just wrong > in thinking that this behaviour is not normal ???? This particular aspect of the model is definately messed up. Either the engine is generating too much thrust at low power settings, or the parasite drag term (which I'm sure they don't even model ) is too low. I also prefer the complex mode, because the flying qualities are much more accurate than those of HiFi, as well as low altitude energy-maneuverability characteristics. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: MiG-29 Weapons and Radar ?? > From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net > Subject: Re: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? > The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs > on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe > any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position > information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. Both the F-15C and F-16C can simultaneously track up to 10 targets while in Track-While-Scan (TWS) mode. Using AMRAAMs, the F-15C can simultaneously attack 8 targets, while the F-16C can simultaneously attack 6. The F-14 and F/A-18 have similar capabilities. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Safe F-16 > From: "WADLEIGH, DAVID" > Subject: Re: Safe F16... > Thomas Weichert writes: > >"Turns out there are some people out there, that don't quite agree with: The > >F16 is safest single engine in the world! > >Ah well, sad stats they are indeed, as at October 1992, more than 140 > >Falcons have actually crashed with 90 pilots killed so far, almost as bad as > >the old F104 in Germany > I believe the statement that "the F16 is the safest single engine > fighter in the world" relates to engine performance/durability/reliability, > and not overall "safety" of the aircraft. I don't have the exact stats with me, but the F-16 is the safest (or maybe next safest) single engine fighter, now or anytime in history. You determine this by looking at accident rate per flying hours. There are three classes of accidents in the USAF. Class A accident is loss of life or more than $1,000,000 worth of damage. Class B accident is between $100,000 and $1,000,000 worth of damage. Class C accident is less than $100,000. The F-16 has historically had a Class A mishap rate in the USAF around 2. Class A mishap rate is number of Class A accidents per 100,000 flying hours. Other single engine fighters in the USAF were considerably higher. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: "The 29th" > From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > Subject: Re: "The 29th" > According to SH's MiG29 manual, "the 29th" is the nickname which Russian > Air Force Pilots give the MiG29 Fulcrum (see page 3). I must have missed that Michael. - Stuart "removing foot from mouth :)" Butts ------------------------------- From: Ric Testagrossa Subject: Chad theatre There was a message recently that the Chad theatre had been uploaded to onion.rain.com, but when I went to the directory it was supposed to be in (/pub/falcon3/misc), this is what's listed: dir Did I misunderstand, or has it been moved? ------------------------------- From: carlos@tick.HQ.ileaf.com (Carlos Smith) Subject: Re: Mig Radar > From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU [stuff deleted] > *The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs > *on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe > *any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position > *information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. [stuff deleted] > I am not an authority either. But I'll stick my neck out for giggles > and grins. I thought I heard somewhere (Wings??) that the F14 could > track some odd number of targets and fire on all simulataneously! > Of course the Pheonix is not your everyday missile, but the radar of > the Tomcat was designed to handle big time air engagements. [deleted] > As for the Mig, I would agree with the first poster that as an Air to air > plane, and the radar description, it would likely be able to multiple track > different targets simultaneously. Of course since the Old Soviet Union > is not exactly turning over the records of their defense systems to > SH, we may never really know just what it is capable of. The Mig 31 has a phased-array radar, capable of tracking and engaging multiple targets simultaneously. I believe the number was four. This was according to "Wings of the Red Star" on Discovery channel. As I recall, they said that the Mig 31 radar was the most sophisticated on any fighter, at least when it was first built. If anyone is curious, I can try to look up more details from the video and my book collection. As for the Mig 29, they haven't had it on yet (hopefully tomorrow (Wednesday) night!), so both I and SH are waiting for the facts! ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: The '29th' Regarding Jeff's query of why some of us refer to the MiG-29 Fulcrum as 'the 29th', note page 3 of the MiG-29 Flight Manual from SH: Here you will learn to fly and fight in the best fighter plane ever made: the MiG-29, which NATO calls the Fulcrum. With time, we have also adopted this name, but some of us call it simply the `29th'. j ------------------------------- From: Mik Butler Subject: F16 & GLOC (for real) Re. F-16s that have crashed due to G-LOC : I've got a video documentary about the pilot/modern fighter aircraft relationship, and the difficulties that both pilots & aircraft designers now have to face. The conclusions reached are that there are two major problem areas: 1) High workload, especially in single-seat fighters, and particularly in the F-15 Eagle. 2) Physical stress on the pilot (i.e. G). There is an -ahem- interesting extract recorded from the video camera of a two-seater F-16 a training flight over the Arizona desert. The student pilot is pulling about 9G (the HUD is visible on the video), when he completely blacks out. As the pilot releases his grip on the stick, the G drops to one, the nose of the aircraft falls and falls (it was at a very high angle of bank) until its going almost straight down. The desert is now clearly visible, getting closer and closer, the airspeed is going up, the altitude is going down.... the instructor realises the student pilot is out, and pulls the aircraft out of its dive. It takes a full 9G pullout to miss the desert floor, during the pullout the instructor says "GOD-DAMMMMMMMMMMMM". If that aircraft had been a single seater, it would have crashed and the pilot killed. The documentary also shows an F-16 pilot in a centifuge pulling 9G, without doing the "energy straining manoeuver" (which is what keeps you awake/alive at 9G). As soon as he's asleep (after a second or so), they stop the centifuge. Even though the pilot wakes up fairly quickly (within a couple of seconds), it took him about 30 seconds (!!!!) to realise where he was/who he was. As they say, the lights were on but no one was in. Pretty scary. When the pilot was pulling 9Gs in the centifuge while performing the energy straining manoeuver, he was very much awake/alert, describing what was visible on a screen in front of him. He showed no signs of blacking out even during an extended 9G session. BTW, Last year at the Farnborough air show I spoke with a USAF major (F-16 instructor), and I asked him about high G & the F-16s reclining seat. He said that he personally didn't have a problem with high G, and he thought that the best thing about the reclining seat was that it made checking six much easier. He also let me fly the (non-motion) full-size F-16 simulator the USAF had brought to Farnborough! Interestingly enough, he let the visiting Russian Mig-29 & Su-27 test pilots also fly it.. Mik Butler ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 2 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 12 00:36:06 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA12764; Fri, 12 Nov 93 00:35:46 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 11 Nov 93 07:00 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 07:57 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I3 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 3 Thu Nov 11 07:00:09 PST 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: Straining manouvers k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Re: MiG-29 Radar att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Bombing tactics "Tony Cecce, Corning, NY" F-16 and GLOC shanev@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Straining manouvers What ar the anti-g staining manouvers? Tensing feet? Step dancing? Lewd thoughts? Does anyone know about those any more? Second. The fellas who hav flown a 'real' simulator of F-16, how does it compare to the game we all love? Did you manage to handle it? (Please, no replies from the real fighter jocks! :-) Ok, go ahead, but don't flame me for the comparison, I just want to know what it felt like) T.Korhonen *** If ever any beauty did I see, *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** which I desired an got ** Physics & Something *** 'twas but a _dream_ of thee *** ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: MiG-29 Radar slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) writes: >> From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net >> I don't believe >> any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position >> information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. > >Both the F-15C and F-16C can simultaneously track up to 10 targets while in >Track-While-Scan (TWS) mode. Using AMRAAMs, the F-15C can simultaneously >attack 8 targets, while the F-16C can simultaneously attack 6. The F-14 and >F/A-18 have similar capabilities. Thanks for the info! Could you describe how in the heck a tiny CRT screen can display speed, direction, and altitude information for multiple targets at the same time? Or does the system KNOW this information for missile guidance (or other) purposes, but can only DISPLAY the numbers for one target at a time. Or is this classified? :^) == Mik Butler writes: >He also let me fly the (non-motion) >full-size F-16 simulator the USAF had brought to Farnborough! Lucky you! How did it fly compared to F3's "HiFi" (cough) flight model? >Interestingly >enough, he let the visiting Russian Mig-29 & Su-27 test pilots also fly it.. Hey, if the Soviets were willing to let a Popular Science editor fly a MiG-29 and Su-27 (I believe this was before the breakup), this only seems fair! == stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg Stenger) writes: >In issue 1 (V5 sic!) Christophe Bonnet wrote about an unrecoverable >black-out in MiG-29. > >I experienced almost the same in IA as I tried to find out the >maximum flight-level for the '29. As I stalled I decided to gain >speed and dove with full AB. When I wanted to pull up at about 20k >feet, I immediately blacked out and didn't recover from that. >Using the track-view I saw my MiG doing one vertical loop after the >other. With every loop the maximum altitude was a bit lower than at >the one before. > >PS: I use the "realistic" flight-model Sounds like your plane was trimmed for low speed, so at the high speed you were going you had way too much up elevator. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: "Tony Cecce, Corning, NY" Subject: Bombing tactics I've been sitting back, reading the digest, and playing Falcon for quite a while now all the time building up lots of questions. I will try and limit this post to only one question (well, maybe two or three ;-)). My first question comes from the red flag mission to bomb the nuke plant cooling towers. To be blunt the death dot does not seem to do what is advertised. I have been using the following tactic: fly straight and level at ~2,500', speed 400kts, align to the tower, hit the trigger when the dot is on the base of the tower, continue to keep the tower aligned (using rudder), and let the computer release the bombs. The book says the dot indicates where your bombs will hit if released imediately. Yet the computer releases the bombs when the dot is way past the tower. The bombs hit where the dot was when I hit the fire key. What am I missing? The problem with this tactic is I am miles out from the target and the target is too small to accurately hit. I have not tried dive bombing. Will the death dot perform as advertised in this case? Do you manually release the bombs, or do you select the target as above and let the computer do the work? I have searched the WAIS server (what a great resource!!!) and found several articles on bomb strategy. A level approach as I described is a option, although it seems a low dive is the preferred approach. But this still doesn't answer my targetting concerns. There is also a great article in there "Falcon3.0d Tactics (Part 1)" by darons@netcom.com. Part 1 covers missile evasion and enemy logic tactics. I can't seem to find additional parts in the wais. Does anyone else have a copy of the missing parts? If so, these articles look like they would serve as a beginning to a strategy FAQ. Thats all for now, Tony CHICO Cecce P.S. My contribution to the THERE-I-WAS file: There I was playing IA. I took out the MIG-19 escort and went after the AN-12 planning on a guns kill. I came from low and behind, putting more rounds into this plane than any other gun kill I have made. Smoke was pouring out, flames licking at the wings, and chutes started popping as I passed the dead bird. Knowing I had more bogeys somewhere to my six I pulled a 180 turn. Right in front of me was the falling AN-12, and I was lined up perfectly with the string of chutes. My ethics were out to lunch as I pulled and held the gun trigger }:^) and watched chutes collapse. I screwed up and let a few get away (he he...). Getting back to the bogeys I was looking for I hit the Q key. The view I locked onto was of a paratrooper (chute intact) just before he hit the ground. In the back ground was a series of collapsed chutes (now where did they come from?). I instantly knew I was about to see the answer to one of life's great mysteries. The intact lucky paratrooper hit the ground and the chute disappeared leaving the guy standing there. I intently watched as the unfortunate others hit the ground leaving nothing but a big black spot. SO THE ANSWER WAS "They don't bounce, they splat!" (before I get sizzled for being sick, remember someone programmed this) 8-) ------------------------------- From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Bombing tactics > My first question comes from the red flag mission to bomb the nuke > plant cooling towers. To be blunt the death dot does not seem to do > what is advertised. I have been using the following tactic: fly straight > and level at ~2,500', speed 400kts, align to the tower, hit the trigger > when the dot is on the base of the tower, continue to keep the tower > aligned (using rudder), and let the computer release the bombs. The book > says the dot indicates where your bombs will hit if released imediately. > Yet the computer releases the bombs when the dot is way past the tower. > The bombs hit where the dot was when I hit the fire key. What am I missing? > The problem with this tactic is I am miles out from the target and the > target is too small to accurately hit. SH screwed with the bombing stuff and came up with a hybrid kind of CCIP/CCRP system. If it was CCIP, the bombs would drop immediately and hit whatever the dot was on. With CCRP, it extends the aim point ahead and calculates how long it takes to get to the release point. If you keep the vertical bar aligned, then release will occur when the timing line hits the release line (this is all from memory as I haven't done this in a while). I don't know why they did this. > I have not tried dive bombing. Will the death dot perform as advertised > in this case? Do you manually release the bombs, or do you select the > target as above and let the computer do the work? It might if the release parameters are all in sync. > I have searched the WAIS server (what a great resource!!!) and found > several articles on bomb strategy. A level approach as I described is > a option, although it seems a low dive is the preferred approach. But > this still doesn't answer my targetting concerns. There is also a great > article in there "Falcon3.0d Tactics (Part 1)" by darons@netcom.com. > Part 1 covers missile evasion and enemy logic tactics. I can't seem to > find additional parts in the wais. Does anyone else have a copy of the > missing parts? If so, these articles look like they would serve as a > beginning to a strategy FAQ. No additional parts that I know of. I think there may have been some planned, but Daron left SH before he got around to it. There's a chapter on tips, tactics, and strategy in the USENET Guide to Falcon 3. You might try there for additional info. It won't be as current or as extensive as the WAIS server, but it will be better organized. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Thanks + SAM range + Padlock view First, a small note of thanks. I've been through many of the USENET collected information and utility files available and they've greatly enhanced my enjoyment of Falcon 3.0. Especially info about the debug mode -- it brings a whole new dimension to the game! It's nice to see some of the detail that SH put into the game. Thank-you to all who have contributed to those archives. Now, has anyone else noticed a problem with SAM ranges in the game? It seems like they'll only fire at you when you are in range, but I've been hit well beyond (SA-7s at much more than a mile, and hit once by an SA-N-6 at more than 100 -- it followed me to my airbase and hit me while landing). Also, I've learned to dodge most radar guided SAMs, but any hints on the SA-7 would be appreciated (I think my problem here is that by the time I hit Padlock to see the missile, it's too close for countermeasures...) Finally, does anyone know if SH has plans to fix the distortion in the Padlock view? F15-III really shines here, as the plane parts you can see move up and down as your view does, making it real easy to know where you are looking in relation to where you are going. After numerous tries, I just can't get used to how F3 handles this, and end up using Padlock strictly to ID enemies. I always use front view to hunt them down. On the other hand, I found F15-III's Padlock easy to use and immensely helpful in a dogfight. -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: Michael Sutton Subject: Falcon Squadron in D.C. The 703rd Falcon Squadron located in Maryland, Washington DC, and northern Virginia is looking for recruits. It doesn't matter how good you are or are not. If you are new to Falcon/Mig-29, this is a great way to improve. If you are very good, this is a great way for us to improve. The squadron currently has about 16 members and has existed for about one year. Many of us fly head-to-head by modem on a regular basis in the evenings. We generally get together about once every 3 to 4 weeks, hook the PCs up into a network (we have 12 network cards and are getting 12 more), and spend the weekend flying multiple plane engagements and campaigns using both Falcon and Mig-29. The network cards are cheap (20-50 dollars) and we have a number of extra cards for new people to use while they decide whether to join the squadron. If you live in the area and are interested in trying us out, please call me at (703) 671-2251 (leave a message if I'm not home). Our next meeting is this weekend (November 13-14). If you are a member of a similar squadron within a state or two of us, call me or leave a message (caustic@digex.net) and let's arrange a multiple squadron engagement. Michael Sutton caustic@digex.net (703) 671-2251 ------------------------------- From: Chera Bekker Subject: HIFI/Complex Stuart wrote: > This particular aspect of the model is definately messed up. Either the engine > is generating too much thrust at low power settings, or the parasite drag term > (which I'm sure they don't even model ) is too low. > I also prefer the complex mode, because the flying qualities are much more > accurate than those of HiFi, as well as low altitude energy-maneuverability > characteristics. > - Stuart I think that not the engine but the drag modelling in HIFI is seriously wrong. I have two arguments for that: 1) with your engines off you can glide for many miles without any significant altitude loss. Normally the drag generated by the lift of your wings would slow your plane much faster so you have to use a steeper dive to maintain speed. This obviously means larger altitude loss per travelled mile. 2) When manouvering in a dogfight the energy loss is much larger in HIFI than in Complex. As I am pretty sure that in Complex your engines generates far too much thrust I think the engine modelling in HIFI is better. I think it was mentioned before in the list that in Complex you could stuff your plane with over 30000lbs on ordnance and still take off in a 40 deg. climb. (I haven't checked this yet). I think that to ultimately resolve this debate we need an F-16 pilot who will compare both models. Probably they are both not very good . Chera H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente 'This magic day when super-science mingles The Netherlands with the bright stuff of dreams' -RUSH ------------------------------- From: shanev@aol.com Subject: F-16 and GLOC >I've got a video documentary about the pilot/modern fighter aircraft >relationship, and the difficulties that both pilots & aircraft designers >now have to face. Mik, What's the name of this video? I'd like to get it. Thanks, ShaneV ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 3 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 13 20:47:29 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA16818; Sat, 13 Nov 93 20:47:12 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 12 Nov 93 21:24 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 21:24 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I4 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 4 Fri Nov 12 21:24:23 PST 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: Patching Order: F3 + OFT eperez@hpprdos.prd.hp.com (Edgar Pe Hi-Fi/Complex shanev@aol.com Straining Maneuvers slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil F16 & GLOC slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil TWS radar mode slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Bombing tactics slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Dodging SA-7s slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil HiFi/Complex slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil No Digitized Speech kirti@Cadence.COM (Kirti Parmar) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: eperez@hpprdos.prd.hp.com (Edgar Perez) Subject: Patching Order: F3 + OFT Hi, I upgraded my original version 3.0e to 3.02 a few months ago. Now i want to install OFT. Do i have to reinstall the original 3.0e before installing OFT? Sorry if this is a faq. Thanks, Edgar Perez eperez@hpprdos.prd.hp.com ------------------------------- From: shanev@aol.com Subject: Hi-Fi/Complex Chera Bekker writes:>travelled mile. 2) When manouvering in a >dogfight the energy loss is much >larger in HIFI than in Complex. As I am pretty sure that in Complex >your engines >generates far too much thrust I think the engine modelling in HIFI is >better. I have to disagree with you here, Chera. I've found that in full military power, both models bleed energy pretty much the same (ver.3.02), however, in full afterburner, you can maintain a 9G turn in Hi-Fi while continuing to accelerate. In fact, I was able to go over 700 kts at 9G while accelerating until blackout. In Complex, you can maintain a 9G turn, but your airspeed will hold at around 450 kts (the correct airspeed for a 9G turn.) Also, in Hi-Fi, you can pull 9G at almost any speed except standing still. (A slight exaggeration, but not by much) ShaneV ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Straining Maneuvers > From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) > Subject: Straining manouvers > What ar the anti-g staining manouvers? > Tensing feet? Step dancing? Lewd thoughts? > Does anyone know about those any more? There are two of these maneuvers, called the "L-1" and "M-1". I always forget which is which, but they both have you straining essentially every muscle in an effort to force the blood back up into your head, the difference between the two is in how you breathe. In one, you essentially hold your breath for a couple of seconds: quick inhale, hold, quick exhale, repeat. In the other you let your breath out slowly: quick inhale, slow exhale, repeat. I never really noticed much difference in terms of G-tolerance between the 2 maneuvers, but the one with the slow exhale was definately much less tiresome and more relaxing for me. Each guy has his own preference on which he wants to do. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: F16 & GLOC > From: Mik Butler > Subject: F16 & GLOC (for real) > BTW, Last year at the Farnborough air show I spoke with a USAF major (F-16 > instructor), and I asked him about high G & the F-16s reclining seat. > He said that he personally didn't have a problem with high G, > and he thought that the best thing about the reclining seat was that > it made checking six much easier. This was the first thing that impressed about the F-16 during BFM. Flying in the F-4 and F/A-18, you really have to twist your body to see what's going on above and behind you. This can be difficult under high G loads. In the Viper, you just lay back and you can see everything. It's great. > He also let me fly the (non-motion) full-size F-16 simulator the USAF had > brought to Farnborough! Interestingly enough, he let the visiting Russian > Mig-29 & Su-27 test pilots also fly it.. This past summer, several Russian test pilots came to the USAF Test Pilot School (TPS) to fly F-15s and F-16s. Then several USAF test pilots went to Russia to fly MiG-29s and Su-27s. I bet we have a Russian attending the USAF TPSbefore the end of the century, and probably the USN TPS as well. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: TWS radar mode > From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net > Subject: Re: MiG-29 Radar > >Both the F-15C and F-16C can simultaneously track up to 10 targets while in > >Track-While-Scan (TWS) mode. Using AMRAAMs, the F-15C can simultaneously > >attack 8 targets, while the F-16C can simultaneously attack 6. The F-14 and > >F/A-18 have similar capabilities. > Thanks for the info! Could you describe how in the heck a tiny CRT > screen can display speed, direction, and altitude information for > multiple targets at the same time? Or does the system KNOW this > information for missile guidance (or other) purposes, but can only > DISPLAY the numbers for one target at a time. Or is this classified? :^) Each of the tracked targets in TWS mode appear as a triangle. Below each triangle is a number that indicates altitude (x 1,000 ft). There is a line eminating from each target to show its direction of travel and speed. The longer the line the faster he's going. There will be one "bugged" (ie. priority target) you select with the cursor. For this target you get a digital readout of airspeed, groundtrack, and a few other things. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Bombing tactics > From: "Tony Cecce, Corning, NY" > Subject: Bombing tactics > I have not tried dive bombing. Will the death dot perform as advertised > in this case? Do you manually release the bombs, or do you select the > target as above and let the computer do the work? If you do a quick double trigger pull, you release the bombs immediately bypassing that CCRP function SH built into the CCIP piper. So, if the death dot is over the target you should get a hit. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Dodging SA-7s > From: "Greg Stelmack" > Subject: Thanks + SAM range + Padlock view > Also, I've learned to dodge most radar guided SAMs, but any hints on the SA-7 > would be appreciated (I think my problem here is that by the time I hit > Padlock to see the missile, it's too close for countermeasures...) This technique probably shouldn't work, but I have had pretty good succes with it, maybe 70-80%. When you determine it's an SA-7, light the burner and do a loop back into the missile. 99 times out of 100, the SA-7 should be coming from behind you, so this cuts a corner it can't hack I guess. If you've got the smash to maintain 400 knots over the top, you probably don't need to light the burner. I got this tip from Howard Bornstein's F3 book. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: HiFi/Complex > From: Chera Bekker > Subject: HIFI/Complex > I think that not the engine but the drag modelling in HIFI is seriously wrong. > I have two arguments for that: 1) with your engines off you can glide for > many miles without any significant altitude loss. Normally the drag generated > by the lift of your wings would slow your plane much faster so you have to use > a steeper dive to maintain speed. This obviously means larger altitude loss > per travelled mile. I agree with you that it is most probably the drag model that is messed up, I was just trying to point out the the possible causes. > 2) When manouvering in a dogfight the energy loss is much larger in HIFI than > in Complex. Only at the higher altitudes (20,000 ft and above). At 10,000 ft, I got the HiFi model to do a sustained 9 g turn at 700 KTAS. This is total BS. Complex does about 450 KTAS at this altitude, which is still wrong but it is closer. However above 20,000 ft the HiFi model is a little better in this respect. > I think that to ultimately resolve this debate we need an F-16 pilot who will > compare both models. Probably they are both not very good . Well I'm not an F-16 pilot, but I do have a lot of experience with the aircraft as a performance and flying qualities flight test engineer. I've also got some flight time in the F-16. So my views are based on what I know about F-16 performance and flying qualities. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: kirti@Cadence.COM (Kirti Parmar) Subject: No Digitized Speech Greetings -- I recently purchased a MediaVision Pro Studio 16 sound card for my 486DX2-66 machine. With the card installed, I do not hear any of the digitized speech that I could previously hear (albeit, very uniteligible) thru the PC speaker. This occurs both with Falcon 3.0D and the new Falcon 3.0.2 that I picked up a few days ago on onion.rain.com. Reading the MediaVision manual, I noticed that they mentioned this was a known problem and to contact Spectru Holobyte for a patch/fix. Any info on such a fix would be greatly appreciated. -- Kirti "Alseep At The Wheel" Parmar ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 4 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 17 15:31:21 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA22315; Wed, 17 Nov 93 15:30:52 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 16 Nov 93 18:06 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 05:57 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I5 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 5 Tue Nov 16 18:06:35 PST 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: Re: HIFI/Complex Chera Bekker Chad theater problem Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Re: HIFI/Complex > > From: shanev@aol.com > Subject: Hi-Fi/Complex > > I have to disagree with you here, Chera. I've found that in full military > power, both models bleed energy pretty much the same (ver.3.02), however, in > full afterburner, you can maintain a 9G turn in Hi-Fi while continuing to > accelerate. In fact, I was able to go over 700 kts at 9G while accelerating > until blackout. In Complex, you can maintain a 9G turn, but your airspeed > will hold at around 450 kts (the correct airspeed for a 9G turn.) Also, in > Hi-Fi, you can pull 9G at almost any speed except standing still. (A slight > exaggeration, but not by much) > > ShaneV > Ahem, I stand corrected by Shane and Stuart. The only excuse I can give was that I only have experience with complex in version 3.0d and there it flew like you had a second engine in your viper. Sorry for extrapolating this beyond its valid interval. Stuart wrote: > > Only at the higher altitudes (20,000 ft and above). At 10,000 ft, I got the > HiFi model to do a sustained 9 g turn at 700 KTAS. This is total BS. Complex > does about 450 KTAS at this altitude, which is still wrong but it is closer. > However above 20,000 ft the HiFi model is a little better in this respect. > This I didn't check, but it is nice to know :). About the only conclusion I can draw for the moment is that Complex in 3.02 deserves a second look from all the HIFI die-hards. > Well I'm not an F-16 pilot, but I do have a lot of experience > with the aircraft > as a performance and flying qualities flight test engineer. I've also got > some > flight time in the F-16. So my views are based on what I know about F-16 > performance and flying qualities. > > - Stuart > What I meant with an F-16 pilot was someone who had done some 'for real' dogfighting in the Viper (Gulf War?). I guess that test flying is still not the same as combat flying. Don't get me wrong Stuart, I think you are the person on this list who knows most about the F-16 and I fully acknowledge your expertise in that field So please keep sending those articles. But testflying is still not the same as combat flying, right?. Chera H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente 'This magic day when super-science mingles The Netherlands with the bright stuff of dreams' -RUSH ------------------------------- From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Chad theater problem Hi! I couldn't install the Chad theater. I put the two files chad.exe and resource.chd (?) into my Falcon dir. and started chad.exe, but after a few seconds and some disk activity, the program terminated with a runtime error message (runtime error 2, I think). Is this a) because I have Falcon 3.02.*1* b) because I don't have MiG-29 c) because I don't have OFT d) because of something else ???? By the way, has anybody tried the commercial Bosnia theater by the same author? Any comments? so long Heinz-Bernd ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 5 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Fri Nov 19 01:37:32 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA27379; Fri, 19 Nov 93 01:37:01 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 18 Nov 93 06:31 PST Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 07:01 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I6 Content-Length: 11198 X-Lines: 258 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 6 Thu Nov 18 06:31:36 PST 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: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, corru DECvp our highest volume product f3chad "Emilio Radius ((+39)-2-596.25081)" MiG-29 1.01.1 (Beta) Patch rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de Books and G's rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de ------------------------------------------------------------ From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, corrupt squadron files, bombing with a mig and memory management to get full detail objects Split flaps? Well I've managed to get caught in that spiral to the ground about 5 more times. In each case I had bent the airframe dodging a missle. Despite the fact that the configuration display in the cockpit doesn't show it I've come to the thought that perhaps SH modeled a split flap condition. I think it would explain why I get into a high angle of bank turn and can't get out of it, and just spiral to the ground. The stick and rudders do *nothing* once I'm in this fix...Has anyone else done this to themselves? What I've tried to get out: 1. increasing/reducing power/airspeed 2. all sorts of stick manipulations 3. airbrakes 4. rudders, I even tried to use the rudder/stick to roll it all the way around rather than trying to correct against the spiral The other thing I enjoy :-) is getting into a spin, I never spun the f16, I'm not sure it's possible in the game, but you can sure spin a mig29. Makes life interesting for a short period of time. I've seen two different spins, the standard spin and what appeared to be an end over end spin, that one was actually easier to get out of, apply power, a bit of rudder and pull nose up. The other is more dicey but not impossible to get out of unless you run out of altitude. re: bombing 400kts, 30 degree nose down for the pipper to be accurate. Dropping from 3000 ft. onto a target trying to get this all lined up seems to be very difficult, I usually bomb myself out of the sky as I pass below 2000 feet and take damage from my bombs..any suggestions to mek ths easier? re: Chad When I installed this on my machine my nose up/down control got very mushy, so much so that I took it off and yes things got better.anybody else see this? I fly hi-fi mode, and it acted like the simplest mode with Chad installed re: Corrupt squadron files I find that I still have this problem. Originally after talking to SH on the phone we thought that QEMM stealth mode was responsible, Then I took a month or so to learn how to fly the MIG (which was frustrating the heck out of me) and when I got back to falcon, my falcon squadron files were corrupt. So I killed those squadrons and started a new one, low and behold my mig squadron files were corrupt. I send internet mail to SH over a week ago and no one is answering. They'd just tell me to re-install anyway (seems to be their stock answer to any problem). I may send surface mail explaining that I'm dissapointed in the lack of response and help for this problem. I'm interested in conversing with anyone else who has this problem. Perhaps we can find a common thread between our configurations and resolve the problem. My machine is a DECpc 450DX2, 8meg, DOS 6.2, dblspaced drive with qemm 7.02 for memory management. I figured that if I had falcon commander/mig commander then the backup would help me manage this bad situation, so I ordered them from SH.3 weeks later still nothing...Yeah I'll call for status today but so far I'm unimpressed with their sales/shipments, I waited forever for Mig29 after ordering an "advance copy". I think they use dogsleds to ship... And lastly for those jocks who want but can;t get full detail, my plug for QEMM as a memory manager (no I don't work for Quarterdeck...just DEC er...Digital) Before I upgraded qemm to version 7, I ran version 6.00, the best I was able to achieve for free conventional memory was 606K, not enough to get full detail objects. With Qemm 7.02 I'm getting 634K free and the detail is all there now... I especially like seeing a groud war in progress rather than just some objects in row. Gotta love it! tight lines and good hunting! dave ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Hi-Fi/Complex > From: Chera Bekker > Subject: Re: HIFI/Complex > > Ahem, I stand corrected by Shane and Stuart. The only excuse I can give was > that I only have experience with complex in version 3.0d and there it flew > like you had a second engine in your viper. Yea, SH has made some real good progress in bring the complex model more in line with reality. Complex in v3.0d was pretty bad. :) > What I meant with an F-16 pilot was someone who had done some 'for real' > dogfighting in the Viper (Gulf War?). I guess that test flying is still not > the same as combat flying. ... But testflying is still not the same as > combat flying, right?. What I was keying on was your "we need an F-16 pilot who will compare both models" statement. You don't need a pilot to compare the physics of the real aircraft to that of a model. That's what flight test engineers do for a living a large part of the time: update the simulation models based on aircraft flight test results. Besides that, I have put 3 different pilots in a sim that accurately modeled all the dynamics of the X-29 aircraft and gotten 4 opinions , so don't necessarily believe what a pilot tells you. You've got to look at real engineering data to determine if the model accurately represents the aircraft. You're right test flying is not comabt flying, so if you had said "we need an F-16 pilot who will compare F3 comabt to real combat" I might (just might ) have kept my big mouth, uh keyboard, shut. BTW, there were no dogfights involving F-16s flown during the Gulf War. During a real shooting war, USAF F-16s will be dropping stuff in the dirt, not shooting people down. There have been a couple USAF F-16 a2a kills since the war, but they were not exactly what I would call a dogfight. The Israelis have the most experience in actual air-to-air comabt in the F-16. They have somethinglike 40+ wins to no losses I believe. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: Rolf Velthuys Subject: re:chad theatre problem Heinz Bernd Eggenstein writes: #I couldn't install the Chad theater. I put the two files chad.exe and #resource.chd (?) into my Falcon dir. and started chad.exe, but after a #few seconds and some disk activity, the program terminated with a #runtime error message (runtime error 2, I think). Am not writing this from at home, but I seem to remember the chad.zip file contained more then just these two files and a readme. I installed it on F3.02 (without mig) and had no problem there. I only test ran the installation and it seems to work fine. First mission required bombing a large truck convoi. I got blasted out of the sky by SAMs. #Is this #a) because I have Falcon 3.02.*1* Maybe. Will try tonite. #b) because I don't have MiG-29 Nope. See above #c) because I don't have OFT Doubt it. #d) because of something else ???? #By the way, has anybody tried the commercial Bosnia theater by the #same author? Any comments? Good question. Rolf ------------------------------- From: "Emilio Radius ((+39)-2-596.25081)" Subject: f3chad I tryed to install f3chad onto my f3 version 3.02 but the installing program returns this error: Runtime error 002 at 0000:0814. This happens after it gave the 'please be patient' message. Who knows ? Thank you Emilio Radius ------------------------------- From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: MiG-29 1.01.1 (Beta) Patch I've uploaded the beta version of the MiG-29 1.01.1 patch to onion.rain.com. This is the beta fix for the 1.01 patch, as that one apparently introduced a problem that did not allow two MiG-29 players to connect in comms mode. SH requested feedback on its effectiveness. I have a couple of requests for the SH representative that monitors this list: The release notes for patches have generally been quite good, but the latest revisions provide little detailed information - > - Adjustments to the flight model have made manoeuvring and control smoother The patch is for both Falcon and MiG, which flight model(s) have been changed and what has been changed? I don't expect documentation on every individual item, but changes of this nature are pretty relevant to the people who fly the sims... Finally, how about giving us back the joystick control sensitivity we had with versions before 3.02? I fired up my Falcon 3.01.1 yesterday and took it out for a test run (Hi-Fi) - what a joy to fly, far less overshoot on roll manoeuvres, much better response to stick input...3.02 really is a pig in comparison. Before I get flamed for not calibrating my stick, not buying a TM or CH stick and adjustable game card, not practising enough and finally the ultimate sin of requesting the return of that awful stick sensitivity!, bear in mind that I do agree it's good SH have taken the trouble to think about modelling `control effects', I just wish I could disable them... Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ------------------------------- From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: Books and G's I'd like to thank Mark Doran for the help he provided on obtaining a copy of Shaw's book - sorry it's taken so long, but thanks Mark, hopefully it's winging its way to me right now :) I mentioned that I thought the Falcon was subject to less G effect modelling than the MiG when playing head-to-head comm's via network, Michael Coyne suggested it was because of the G onset rate of the MiG, which is fair enough but I was specifically refering to flying comm's head-to-head. We set up two machines and flew a comparison, I was G-meter (accelerometer?) watching in the MiG, my friend in the Viper - those F-16's can sure hold 9 G's for a long time... Michael's other suggestion was the F-16's inclined (27 degrees) seat, allowing +0.5 - 1G better tolerance at 30000ft, (figures subject to correction by those who know), was interesting - it would be nice to know SH had modelled this? Finally, as an addition to my comments on views and G modelling, Greg Cisko wrote "I guess the only excuse left is "TRACK VIEW" is for wimps!", well I don't know about that Greg, but I do know that all real aircraft are flown from inside the cockpit . (This is not a `flame'!) Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 6 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 20 00:52:02 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA02814; Sat, 20 Nov 93 00:51:18 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 19 Nov 93 07:08 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 07:30 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I7 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 7 Fri Nov 19 07:08:19 PST 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: Re: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, c knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Re: Books & G's cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis RE: Books and G's davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransie Corrupt Squadron Files jbeltran@autodesk.com (John Beltran Re: Corrupt files MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Sams, Chad, Shaw k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, corrupt squadron files, bombing with a mig and memory management to get full detail objects > What I've tried to get out: > > 1. increasing/reducing power/airspeed > 2. all sorts of stick manipulations > 3. airbrakes > 4. rudders, I even tried to use the rudder/stick to roll it all the way around > rather than trying to correct against the spiral A spin recovery technique for the F-4 was to pop the drogue chute. It would slow the plane, get it pointed nose down and you could use the rudder to stop the rotation. Unfortunately, I think SH limited popping the chute in the Mig-29 to 100' AGL or something like that. > The other thing I enjoy :-) is getting into a spin, I never spun the f16, I'm > not sure it's possible in the game, but you can sure spin a mig29. Makes life > interesting for a short period of time. I've seen two different spins, the > standard spin and what appeared to be an end over end spin, that one was > actually easier to get out of, apply power, a bit of rudder and pull nose up. > The other is more dicey but not impossible to get out of unless you run out of > 400kts, 30 degree nose down for the pipper to be accurate. Dropping from 3000 > ft. onto a target trying to get this all lined up seems to be very difficult, I > usually bomb myself out of the sky as I pass below 2000 feet and take damage > from my bombs..any suggestions to mek ths easier? Try looking in the WAIS library for the technique someone came up with. It's basically fly level at somewhere between 3000-5000 feet lined up with the target. As it passes under the nose, count N seconds and then start your dive. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Books & G's > From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de > Subject: Books and G's > Finally, as an addition to my comments on views and G modelling, Greg Cisko wrote > "I guess the only excuse left is "TRACK VIEW" is for wimps!", well I don't know > about that Greg, but I do know that all real aircraft are flown from inside the > cockpit . (This is not a `flame'!) Well... Thats funny. I always thought that "real aircraft" were flown from the seated position :) Heck, I am usually seated when I run falcon3/mig29.... :) ------------------------------- From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) Subject: RE: Books and G's > From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de > Subject: Books and G's > MiG, my friend in the Viper - those F-16's can sure hold 9 G's for a long > time... > Michael's other suggestion was the F-16's inclined (27 degrees) seat, allowing > +0.5 - 1G better tolerance at 30000ft, (figures subject to correction by those > who know), was interesting - it would be nice to know SH had modelled this? I can't remember who I talked to, or what I was reading, but recently it was explained to me the advantage the Viper has with the inclined seat was rear visiblity while pulling high Gs. Rather than having to lift and turn your head (hard to do with a 160 lb. head) you just lean back and look up. Maybe this is less fatiging (SP?) than the "lift and turn" method of looking over your shoulder. This could be what adds to the tolerance advantage for high Gs in the Viper. - -- +++++++++++++ David Ransier davidr@pdx.mentorg.com These comments are my own. I paid for Office: (503) 685-1528 them. I own them. They're not my Fax: (503) 685-7704 employers, and you can't have them. +++++++++++++ ------------------------------- From: jbeltran@autodesk.com (John Beltran) Subject: Corrupt Squadron Files In Falcon3 Digest V5 : I6, David writes.... >Re: Corrupt squadron files > >... >I'm interested in conversing with anyone else who has this problem. >Perhaps we can find a common thread between our configurations and >resolve the problem. >... I have also encountered this problem for both MiG and F16 squadrons. The problem only seems to occur when I have created and flown missions for a squadron of each type -- if I only create and fly squadrons under MiG, it works fine. However, if I then create and fly a squadron under F16, I will find that when I return to fly my MiG squadron I will either get a message (I can't remember if it was "File not found" or "File Corrupted") or my machine will HANG. I have been able to demonstrate this problem for both programs, depending on the order in which they are created. I have re-installed the software (after deleting the original files), and the problem persists. My machine configuration is as follows: Software ("Right out of the box" -- F3, MiG29, OFT): Falcon 3.02 Mig 1.00 DOS 6.2 Hardware 486DX33 8Mb memory, 256K cache ATI Graphics Ultra Pro SoundBlaster Pro Thrustmaster FCS Thrustmaster WCS Mark I Memory Manager: EMM386, configured for EMS (no XMS) Approx. 615K free conventional memory I have a few other drivers loaded (e.g. soundblaster, etc.). I do not think QEMM is the culprit (since I have the same problem using EMM386)... more likely a bug in SH software, but it's strange that this hasn't come up for other people and been all over the newsletter.....I had pre-ordered MiG-29 -- David, did you do the same? Do we have a different version 1.00 than everybody else? Like David, I would really appreciate the experiences/opinions of anyone who has had similar experiences. It's really a pain to backup files whenever you want to fy the campaign from the other side. (Editor PS: I've been a bystander now for about six weeks reading this digest. I have really enjoyed it and owe you sincere thanks for taking the time to put things together. It's professional and VERY useful. You're doing a great job! Thanks!) [ Thanks! -Jeff ] All the best. John Beltran ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Corrupt files Hi all, I remember us discussing this aways back. Yes, I can also document that a similar thing happens to me. I get corrupted files and Migreset or F3reset are the only things which get me back, with the loss of all squad stuff of course. Speaking with others, we kinda thought it might be becuase I have my disk cache software write back option enabled. I never did disable to try to see if it helped. This is mostly because I really don't fly the Mig anymore so I haven't had the problem reoccur. Has anyone tried to disable their write back option of their disk cache to see if it helps?? Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu PS I have mailed no less than three letters to SH without a response. If I weren't paranoid, I would think they didn't like me personally :) ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Sams, Chad, Shaw Hi, I have here some various subjects: Sams: Do they have number limits at all, or can one sam site shoot as many missiles as they like to?? I have seemd to notice that now that I have learned to evade radar sams, they just keep on shooting them... If I circle around a sam site, even if a lone one, they seem to have inexhautible supply of those big SAM-6 Gainfuls. Is this true or do they run out of those? Chad: I installed Chad on my f3.02 last night, and it worked all right. I tried just one mission, and I love the campaing. Ok, the map problem is annoying, but hail to the one who has written the area. Does anyone know if the guy has an internet (or any net) address? I have this problem that I'd very much like to register a copy of it, and possibly get the Bosnian theater, but from the Old Continent the fees for money transfer are just enormous. The fee for sending the insignificant $6 from Finland to the States would be over $10! Outrageous. If I could reach the fellow, I could perhaps make a deal with him, (Do you read the list?) I could also consider the commercial falcon/mig supplies package, but that also would proove just too expansive. (I mean this "Falcon Commander" package, right?) Shaw: This has a connection with the previous one: The book has been sold out from the distributers and they say they can't get the book from the publisher. Is this correct? Does anyone know where to get a copy? I could put up with either of the versions of "Fighter Combat" (My retaler says that the other is published by the Navy, and the other is more "civilian" version. But that they essentially would be the same book?) Thanks, check six, dodge hard! Tommi "Ghost" Korhonen T.Korhonen *** If ever any beauty did I see, *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** which I desired an got ** Physics & Something *** 'twas but a _dream_ of thee *** ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 7 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Mon Nov 22 23:49:34 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA00507; Mon, 22 Nov 93 23:49:07 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 22 Nov 93 06:20 PST Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 06:29 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I8 Content-Length: 14598 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 8 Mon Nov 22 06:20:41 PST 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: Spins slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil G effects slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil MiG bombing, file corruption opus@ihlpf.att.com H2H blackout "WADLEIGH, DAVID" From: DECvp our highest volume product > Subject: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, corrupt squadron files, ... > > The other thing I enjoy :-) is getting into a spin, I never spun the f16, I'm > not sure it's possible in the game, but you can sure spin a mig29. I'm pretty sure you can't spin F3, I never have, and you shouldn't be able to. You can depart the F-16 and get it into a deep stall (the real one, not F3), but that looks more like a falling leaf. It's not a spin. I think SH will have to go to a full blown 6 degree of freedom, aerodynamic stability and control derivative based model to get this down accurately. They'd also have to get the flight control system right as well. > I've seen two different spins, the standard spin and what appeared to be an > end over end spin, that one was actually easier to get out of, apply power, > a bit of rudder and pull nose up. The other is more dicey but not impossible > to get out of unless you run out of altitude. This end over end motion is normally called a "tumble" in the aeronautical community. The wind tunnel data we had for the X-29 forward swept wing aircraft indicated that we had an unrecoverable tumble mode for that aircraft. Luckily, we never actually say it in flight. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: G effects > From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de > Subject: Books and G's > > Michael's other suggestion was the F-16's inclined (27 degrees) seat, allowing > +0.5 - 1G better tolerance at 30000ft, (figures subject to correction by those > who know), was interesting - it would be nice to know SH had modelled this? Actually, you'll get this benefit everywhere, not just at 30,000 ft. Your heart/brain don't know and don't care what altitude you're at. All the care about is how high the blood needs to go to get to the brain, and how much resistance it's seeing trying to get there. 8 g at 30,000 ft is the same as 8 g at sea level as far as they are concerned. As to if/how SH modeled this, I have no idea. But if I were to guess, I'd say when they created MiG-29 they said "Oh yea, the Fulcrum doesn't have that reclined seat, so take everything from F3 wrt greyout/blackout and reduce the trip level by 0.5 to 1 g." - Stuart ------------------------------- From: opus@ihlpf.att.com Subject: MiG bombing, file corruption knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) writes: >> Dropping from 3000 ft. onto a target trying to get this all lined up seems >> to be very difficult > >Try looking in the WAIS library for the technique someone came up with. That would be me! >It's basically fly level at somewhere between 3000-5000 feet lined up >with the target. As it passes under the nose, count N seconds and then >start your dive. It's been so long since I've played that I don't even remember what the delay is supposed to be. This method works even better when using high drag bombs on the deck--deadly accurate. I've found another bombing technique that's almost as good. Set the bombsight to the fastest speed (550 knots) and then just bear down on the target as fast as you can. At high enough speeds the bombs don't arc much before they hit if you release low enough to the ground, so boresight aiming plus a little fudge factor (so you aim a bit beyond the target) works surprisingly well. As for avoiding bomb blast damage, it helps to turn away as well as pull up after release. If you just pull up, you have to overcome your downward momentum before you start generating separation from the bomb impact point, whereas turning away has a more immediate effect. == MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU (Scott Morgan) writes: >Speaking with others, we kinda thought it might be becuase I have my disk cache >software write back option enabled. I never did disable to try to see if >it helped. This is mostly because I really don't fly the Mig anymore so >I haven't had the problem reoccur. > >Has anyone tried to disable their write back option of their disk cache to see >if it helps?? With 3.0D, I used to get random file corruption ALL THE TIME when I had write caching enabled. Since I started turning it off when I play F3 or MiG-29, I haven't seen a recurrance. Unfortunately, it does slow the disk accesses way down when you do this, but at least my squadron files stay sane this way. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: "WADLEIGH, DAVID" Subject: H2H blackout Hi, fellow falconers...I had posted an earlier problem with the blackout model in modem 2 player duel, and didn't recieve any replies. Am I to assume no body else has encountered this problem before? Just to recap: My opponent and I are flying 2 player duel by 2400 modem, I (with Falcon 3.02) am the caller, and he (with the corresponding version of Mig29) the answerer. I DO have the blackout/redout model set to ON in the CONFIG screen before COMM'ing, but once we are in the air, he can blackout/redout, while I CANNOT. What is going on? Is this because I am flying Falcon3.02 and he the Mig29, and there is some weird compatability problem I've never heard about? Has anybody ever experienced this? Any suggestions? HHHHHEEELLLLPPP!!!!! By the way, there is no problem with the model when I am flying solo vs the computer. What's up! Any help will be GREATLY appreciated! Thanks and sorry to "repost" this request for help! Dave "Phoenix" Wadleigh ------------------------------- From: "c86501::ros_scops"@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: Corrupt Campaign Squadrons Following the resurgence in problems with corrupt Campaign Squadron files, I looked up a post I made in September that should be of help. Perhaps Brian Sweeny could add this to the FAQ: [[Volume 4 : Issue 72 ]] There's been quite alot of traffic lately covering corruption of campaigns after switching Squadrons and when playing Falcon and MiG alternately. With the upgrade to Falcon 3.02, SH fundamentally changed the method used to store the `profile' for campaign missions, with the introduction of the file `mission.sav'. Previously, the mission profile for the selected squadron (say, the Fighting Tenth in Kuwait, campaign files squad0.*) was written to the file squad?.mis (squad0.mis in example) after the sequence `NEXT MISSION' - `LOAD ARMAMENT'and `TAKEOFF' was completed - so the mission profile was directly linked to its squadron by filename (same squad0.squ, squad0.cam and squad0.mis filenames). With 3.02, the mission profile is written when `NEXT MISSION' is selected, but to the file `mission.sav', (though on `TAKEOFF', the squad?.mis file is still generated). `mission.sav' is not specific to any particular campaign, but a generic storage file for the mission profile. What this means is that if you create the squadron Fighting Tenth, theatre Kuwait, then fly a mission, debrief and accept `NEXT MISSION', the profile for the upcoming mission (all the allocations for object types in the mission) will be written to `mission.sav'. If you now go back to the War Room and select another squadron, the profile read from `mission.sav' is not correct for the new squadron - when you hit `TAKEOFF' the symptoms vary from the expected computer controlled aircraft not turning up (no enemy or allied flights), to complete failure. To overcome the problem, backup your campaign files from the dos prompt, before you switch squadrons (or programs), as follows: 1. After selecting `NEXT MISSION', complete flight planning and go through to `TAKEOFF'. Once in the cockpit, ape and mission Abort, then back to the War Room and finally the dos prompt. Make certain to complete the above routine, otherwise the mission profile in `mission.sav' will not correlate with that stored in the squad?.* files. 2. Copy the `squad?.*' _AND_ `mission.sav' files for your campaign to an appropriate sub-directory (I use \falcon3\`theatre'\day[1...?]\mission[1...4]). If you're not certain which `squad?.*' file (range from squad0.* to squad5.*) to copy, you could use a little utility called F3Supply (freely available from onion.rain.com via ftp and co-incidentally written by me ), to identify your squadrons. 3. When you want to switch back to your saved campaign, finish your mission planning as in 1 and backup the files with step 2. Then, just copy your original `squad?.*' and `mission.sav' files back to the \falcon3 directory, overwriting what's in there. You can freely change squadrons, fly old favourite missions, exchange missions, etc. without problems. I haven't confirmed this yet, but maybe MiG uses the same `mission.sav' file for its profile - it would certainly explain the co-incidental problems. The same solution should also be effective. Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ------------------------------- From: "c86501::ros_scops"@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: MiG-29 1.01.1 Patch The final MiG-29 1.01.1 patch has now been released. The good news is that there were no changes from the Beta that I uploaded to onion.rain.com last week, so that is still the latest update. [ This is in the archives as /pub/falcon3/programs/mig1011.zip -Jeff ] Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Bosnia Theatre I posted off a money order to the author of the CHAD/LIBYA & Bosnia theatres yesterday. Let you know what happens. I sent him a list of suggested DB's, Viet Nam/SEA being prime. I'd also like a nice 'terrain-rich' environment to fly -- say, incorporate the Grand Canyon from Nellis, add in the Tibetean mountains, and while we're at it, generate a fictional plot containing mountains that reach the ceiling of the Falcon, and valley's that bottom out the range of vertical terrain. This is one thing I find sadly* lacking in Tornado -- Now that I've got a plane with terrain avoidance equipment, the only place to fly it is a bleakly flat fiction-land. Ho hum. j ------------------------------- From: "c86501::ros_scops"@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: Seats and G's David Ransier wrote: > I can't remember who I talked to, or what I was reading, but recently it was > explained to me the advantage the Viper has with the inclined seat was rear > visibility while pulling high G's. Well David, I think I might have the same book as you, only it say's the reason the seat is inclined is due to the influence of "the Crew Station Design Group". `The USAF Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory conducted experiments with seats tilted to 65 degrees, using a closed-loop centrifuge to subject test subjects to a constant 7 Gs while they performed target acquisition, tracking and firing solution tasks.' General Dynamics' Director of Flight Test, Phil Oestricher explains why: `The tilt back seat is just the greatest thing going! The G's are very easy to take...just the other day I was pulling 9 G's and didn't even start to grey out! The reason for that, of course, is the way that you sit in the airplane. The heel rest line is so high that your buttocks are actually the lowest part of your body, and since you are tilted back, the vertical distance from your heart to your brain is also less. In all other airplanes, when you pull G's, the blood tends to pool in your lower extremities and the first thing that happens is that you lose vision. In the F-16, the blood flows DOWN to your posterior, which creates pressure for the blood to return to the heart...it's a kind of natural G suit effect'. The "Crew Station Design Group" conducted testing with inclined seats during YF-16 prototype testing - the 30 degree tilt was chosen. The advantage it also gives to head movement and subsequently vision (not forgetting the bubble canopies large contribution) is a very desirable secondary effect, a bit like the way the pilots weight is distributed over a wider area, rather than concentrated on his butt, when pulling G's. Maybe F-16 pilots are easier to recognise, as they have lesser neck muscles and don't suffer from such acute cases of piles as pilots of lesser fighters . Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: WAIS library (as stated in the F3 FAQ) I tried the WAIS library (quake.think.com), and just at about every command, I got a 'segmentation fault (core dumped)' error. In other words, the WAIS program bombed. I've never used a WAIS before, so is there anyone here who runs it? Or anyone I can contact about the error so that WAIS server can be fixed? Thanx. On another note: I bought MicCalc utilitites. The backup/restore function does NOT prevent file corruption when you hop in between F3 and Mig. The only CONSTISTENTLY STABLE way to hop back and forth is to use xcopy. (DOS 5). Xcopy has a date stamp - you xcopy ALL the files dated after, say, the installation date, to a Mig directory. Then you xcopy all the files from the falcon backup directory. (This was an example to 'save' a Mig campaign and 'restore' a falcon campaign.) I've used this technique for a couple of months, and has had a 100% success rate. -The Doctor ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 8 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 24 07:11:17 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA07869; Wed, 24 Nov 93 07:10:53 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 23 Nov 93 16:59 PST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 17:01 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I9 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 9 Tue Nov 23 16:59:25 PST 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: Re: WAIS library problem knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) H2H G's, Radar avoidance k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) FALCON3: Destroying those damn Heli lwallen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Lester W. garbled speach w/PAS16 BECK@CCV.NERSC.GOV F-4 departure recovery slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil G tolerance/seat angle slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Shaw slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil ------------------------------------------------------------ From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: WAIS library problem > I tried the WAIS library (quake.think.com), and just at about every command, > I got a 'segmentation fault (core dumped)' error. In other words, the > WAIS program bombed. I've never used a WAIS before, so is there > anyone here who runs it? Or anyone I can contact about the error so that > WAIS server can be fixed? Thanx. There are a couple of things you can try. One is to get your own WAIS client software. You can use swais (a UNIX screen oriented interface), xwais (An X windows interface), WAISstation (Mac Interface), the DOS interface, or one of the others. The other is to mail to postmaster@quake.think.com and let them know what's going on. They may be able to direct your comments to the correct person. Jim ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: H2H G's, Radar avoidance About H2H G's: I also had similar occasion when playing H2H. The other player who used falcon3 as a caller, did not black out. I used mig, and I could at least grey out. He hada, on the other hand have moderate G's on, because he had never flown against another human being, but when he got home and tested: even moderate G's give you blackout. At the time we thought it was an installatio/update failure at the other machine. Radar Avoidance: How to do it? When ever I have a deep strike, and the distance is so long that my pilots don't have too much extra fuel to burn up in an afterburner fight, I should slip through the enemy nerwork. But no. Every single time the enemy cap, or interdiction flight attacs us. No matter how high or low we are, use speed or not, or if the nav point is 'nothing','cap', 'intercept' or 'escort'. I know some of them allow the use of radars to the wingmen, but what I have noticed it is just no use. Every single time the enemy will engage. And if we will not track and hunt them, then they will get us from behind!! The forward flying escort/cap/intercept flight will happily fly towards next nav point and let the strike force do the fighting! Ok, they usually take out the cap, but not the interceptors. I have done anything from 600-32000 feet and speeds from 250-550. I have used tangential approaches etc. No radar emissions noticed other than the interceptors, at the last notice. I now tend to use the radar all the time and know what's up there. (Correction: on one occasion we NAP:ped in to Kuwait City, but that was with another human pilot. No computer wingmen.) Besides, the wingmen don't engage the enemy when he shoots from less than 1.2 miles! They just try to evade it, and continue straigth forward. Ok, this is on 'nothing', and the enemies do the same. :-). But in the manual it says that they will engage when shot at... T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: lwallen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Lester W. Allen) Subject: FALCON3: Destroying those damn Helicopters!! I know this is a FAQ I've tried all the methods posted for knocking those helicopters out of the sky with limited success. Does anyone have any updated methods for knocking off helicopters in FALCON. Thx. ------------------------------- From: BECK@CCV.NERSC.GOV Subject: garbled speach w/PAS16 I don't recall this subject being addressed in the past so please forgive me if it has. . . I just replaced my plain ol' sound blaster with a Media Vision Fusion CD16 kit. Everything works great in Falcon 3.01.0? (Patched OFT) but whenever "bitchin' Betty" does her thing it comes out garbled/static. Is there another patch for the PAS16 or should I pound on Media Vision? >Phil 'nudem till they glow' Beck< ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: F-4 departure recovery > From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) > Subject: Re: Mig/split flaps, spins, Chad, corrupt squadron files, bombing > with a mig and memory management to get full detail objects > > A spin recovery technique for the F-4 was to pop the drogue chute. It > would slow the plane, get it pointed nose down and you could use the > rudder to stop the rotation. It really wasn't to slow the aircraft down (your already pretty slow if you're in a spin), but rather to break the AOA and get the nose pointed downhill so you could pick up some knots and recover. Not also that this was not the desired recovery procedure. Most squadron commanders frowned on this type of incident. :) - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: G tolerance/seat angle > From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) > Subject: RE: Books and G's > >I can't remember who I talked to, or what I was reading, but recently it was > explained to me the advantage the Viper has with the inclined seat was rear > visiblity while pulling high Gs. Rather than having to lift and turn your > head (hard to do with a 160 lb. head) you just lean back and look up. Maybe > this is less fatiging (SP?) than the "lift and turn" method of looking over > your shoulder. This could be what adds to the tolerance advantage for high > Gs in the Viper. While it is true that it is much easier to see in the F-16 than other aircraft, this isn't really what gets you the better G tolerance. Its that fact that in the reclined position, the vertical distance between the heart and head is less, therefore not requiring as much work to maintain adequate blood flow to the brain and eyes. _ Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Shaw > From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) > Subject: Sams, Chad, Shaw > > Shaw: > This has a connection with the previous one: > The book has been sold out from the distributers and they say they can't get > the book from the publisher. Is this correct? Does anyone know where to > get a copy? I could put up with either of the versions of "Fighter Combat" > (My retaler says that the other is published by the Navy, and the other > is more "civilian" version. But that they essentially would be the same > book?) Robert Shaw's "FIGHTER COMBAT: TACTICS AND MANEUVERING" has just gone into its eighth printing here in the States. I think you should be able to order it directly from SH. - Stuart ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 9 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 26 11:25:36 1993 Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA17718; Fri, 26 Nov 93 11:24:20 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA21870; Thu, 25 Nov 93 15:19:01 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 25 Nov 93 11:52 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 12:18 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I10 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 10 Thu Nov 25 11:52:29 PST 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: Radar avoidance Tomi Junnila Re: 'Copter kills cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: Radar Avoidance, Helicopters "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Radar avoidance I would like to add an what mr. Korhonen said about radar avoidance difficulties, that the enemy will also get a radar lock on you (ok, and so can you on them) through mountains. I've been jumped upon by MiGs dozens of times flying in a river valley (at approximately 1000' AGL. The mountains on either side were more than 5000' high) solo with radar off-line. However, I have been able to avoid enemy interceptors by flying very low (at approximately 250'). I set up a Red Flag mission in which I fled a bombing site at 650-700 kts at 250' and pitted up 4 MiG-29s, 2 MiG-31s and 2 UMFs to search for me along my escape route. While most of them noticed and fired upon me, not one of them ever hit me (I didn't even have to use ECM or chaff). I don't know whether this is because of my low altitude (missiles lost me in the ground clutter?) or my high speed, but it worked, time after time (I flew the mission with Elite enemy pilots for 6 times until I got bored out of having nothing to do, engaged them and promptly got shot down). /------------------------------------------------------+------------------- | Tomi Junnila |"You're never gonna | Department of Physics @ University of Turku, Finland | die as long as | topeju@polaris.cc.utu.fi | you live." | Address: Kressunkatu 31, 20460 Turku, Finland \------------------- | Phone: +358 (9)21 247-1281 Fax/Data: +358 (9)21 247-1282 \-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: 'Copter kills [ PLEASE EDIT THE BLOODY SUBJECT LINE! Thanks :-) -Jeff ] > From: lwallen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Lester W. Allen) > Subject: FALCON3: Destroying those damn Helicopters!! > > I know this is a FAQ I've tried > all the methods posted for knocking those > helicopters out of the sky with limited > success. Does anyone have any updated > methods for knocking off helicopters in > FALCON. > Thx. Excellent question... Not getting the helo's, is what prevents me from advancing to the NEXT IA level. There is one thing that did work though. Obviously you have to kill the helo's with guns. I have only been able to do this using front view (scrolled up). This did work pretty good. [ I find them easy to kill. Either use a '120, or guns. To kill them with guns, line-up from several miles out, and blast away. I've often killed them both on the same pass. -Jeff ] Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Re: Radar Avoidance, Helicopters >Radar Avoidance: >How to do it? >I have done anything from 600-32000 feet and speeds from 250-550. The best success I've had when doing a deep strike is to fly below 500 feet on approach, popping up over the target. Anything higher subjects you to much more radar. Also, plan your route to avoid radar, don't necessarily accept the default. As an example, when flying the Israel campaign, I had to bomb a bridge near the coast. I flew out to sea, then up and across into the target. They didn't know I was there 'til after we dropped (then the SA-7 crews opened up). >Does anyone have any updated >methods for knocking off helicopters in >FALCON. Guns. Line 'em up, then give them a burst. Slow up a little on approach or you'll overshoot very easily. Paratroopers are excellent target practice for this... -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Reference sheet [ These are in /pub/falcon3/docs/f3sheet.{ps,txt} --Jeff ] Falcon 3.0 Data reference sheet: I wrote a nice sheet some night this week, and now I uploaded it into Onion.rain.com. (To */incoming, so I don not know where it might come, if at all) [ Note: See above. --Jeff ] It is a postscript file, two pages, and is supposed to have some use when defining the enemy threat. Information from all the parts: falcon, OFT and Mig. Here is the description: (f3sheet.txt) =================================== The file F32sheet.ps is a postscript format reference sheet made for the games Falcon 3.02(.1) and Mig-29 1.01(.1). It has nothing to do with the version numbers thought. :-) It is a two page reference sheet including all the TWI codes, for planes and SAMS in the game. It has some additional information too: The weapon choice tables for different targets, as well as information about their minimum release altitudes. The information is very shorthanded, and composed ONLY from the manuals of Falcon, OFT and MIG-29. If differences were found, then the corresponding Falcon manual overruled. I have only few sources outside the games. Sometimes even the one manual data was confusing, and I had to "interpret" it. If outrageous mistakes are found, please inform me. Tommi Korhonen, k138836@cc.tut.fi ======================================= Print and enjoy. (If Jeff permits!) I could think about an ascii version also, depends on the willingness of my data chart program! Ask if you are interested of one. [ As long as it's not a complete Falcon3 manual which would violate copyright laws, why wouldn't I? -Jeff ] T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Michael Douglas Sprague Subject: Problems with Pro Audio Spectrum 16 Hi Everyone, I'm posting this for a friend. He's not getting the digitized sound in Falcon. His system: 486DX266 VLB 16 Meg Ram CD-Rom 340 Meg HD Tape Back up STB video SuperVGA Pro Audio Spectrum 16 Sound Card DoubleSpaced Drive Falcon 3.02.1 Mig 29 1.01.1 If you have any ideas as to why he's not getting the sound, you can send mail to jayscott@wpi.wpi.edu Mike +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Michael Sprague + "Bouncy ball is the source of all goodness + + Worcester Polytechnic Inst. + and light" + + bljack@wpi.wpi.edu + Taipei for Windows + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 10 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 28 00:50:00 1993 Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA19636; Sun, 28 Nov 93 00:49:56 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA01860; Fri, 26 Nov 93 23:47:24 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 26 Nov 93 20:46 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 93 20:46 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I11 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 11 Fri Nov 26 20:46:12 PST 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: Helicopters jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Mig-29 campaign - Panama ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edwa Joystick Troubles Richard Bookout <70720.2555@CompuSe Please help with Falcon 3.02 over a Izar Tarandach Midi sound remapping. Andreas Ott ------------------------------------------------------------ From: jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Helicopters You might try dropping bombs at the helicopters as well. I tested Shaw's assertion that bombs make good anti-helicopter weapons in Red Flag, and _if_ you can get the helicopter inside the lethal radius than Falcon _will_ consider it shot down. I've never been able to hit the choppers in IA; this is either because I'm a poor shot with the bombs (usually using max ripple of Mk84s in IA 8) or because the helos are flying high enough to stay outside the lethal radius of the bombs. James "Overload"/"Peregruzhyonii" Sterrett jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: Mig-29 campaign - Panama Hi. Just to let you know that when you're based at Bocas Del Toro, and you're assigned to escort Mig-23's so they can attack ground targets in La Chorrera, don't even bother. The Mig-23's run out of fuel before they get to the target. Every time! Even using KCC's utilities to boost all Mig fuel levels to 100% doesn't help... -Eddie ------------------------------- From: Richard Bookout <70720.2555@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Joystick Troubles I just upgraded my Sound Blaster 8bit card to a new SB16bit w/CDRom and my TM flight stick turned to crap... Im running a 486/DX33, 8meg ram etc. nothing unusual, but cant get the stick to work. In Falcon and other games as well the stick seems to be in a constant right roll and no amount of calibration will help..there are no calibration controls on the TM. TM documentation is non-existent and the only help provided by the SB docs is a suggestion that I run my machine at SLOWER speed if I experience joystick problems. I hate to believe that Ill have to install another game card, and ....... run my machine at SLOWER SPEED.....I dont think so....... Thanks Rick ************************* * Well that didnt work........again! ************************* ------------------------------- From: Izar Tarandach Subject: Please help with Falcon 3.02 over a Novell connection Hi all! We finally got a Novell setup here at our lab, and the first test was, of course, Falcon. One client is a 486dx2, the other a 386sx 33mhz, and the server a 486dx2. Our problem is that after the "Receiving satelite downlink" everything seems to stop. None of the computers lockup (num lock light still answers), and a sniffer shows LOTS of activity going own between the two clients. We are using DOS 6, the latest IPX/ODI soft from Novell, and the 3 computers are in a closed link. We tried all speeds from 1200 to 57600, both computers as answer/call, to no avail. The falcon version is 3.02, but we have the patches up to Mig, just haven't applied them yet. Any clues ? --izar ------------------------------- From: Andreas Ott Subject: Midi sound remapping. Hi. Does anyone have experience with remapping midi .pat files to make falcon sound more realistic under the "Roland" option? I would like to at least get the gun sounds instead of a piano note. There are a number of f/x .pat files now available for guns and explosions. Which file contains the .pat file mapping information in Falcon? what is the syntax for changing it. Any help would be appreciated. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 11 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Nov 29 13:15:14 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA22409; Mon, 29 Nov 93 13:13:49 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 28 Nov 93 20:54 PST Message-Id: Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 20:55 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I12 Content-Length: 8015 X-Lines: 227 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 12 Sun Nov 28 20:54:14 PST 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: Re: Help with Novell Connection Michael Sutton ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Michael Sutton Subject: Re: Help with Novell Connection Izar: I have also experienced lockups like those you describe in your earlier message. Memory conflicts have been the source of problem in almost every case. Usually a conflict with the video memory specified in the CMOS. Assuming that this is the problem you first need to identify which PC is having a problem. You can do this by watching the disk access lights during the satellite downlink. The caller's PC appears to communicate with each of the answering PCs. The PC with problems should be the last PC to be communicating with the caller's PC. The next step is to identify the source of conflict and do whatever you can to correct it. I do not recall that we have ever had to do more than change some of the CMOS settings and/or toggle some of the shadowing options on/off. I recommend using COMCHECK (it comes with Novell) to test the system. We have had very good luck with flying Falcon 3.0 over a network, though multiplayer duel is more stable that multiplayer campaign. No problems with up to six planes at once (all Falcons and different mixtures of Falcons and Mig-29s). We have also found that you can have separate groups (e.g., two or three callers, each with their own set of answerers) flying on the same network. Our hardware/software setup is as follows: 1. 8-bit 10-baseT arcnet cards. Hooked up using coaxial cable in a bus topology. Six of the cards are Compex net-1a and the rest are a mixed bag (e.g., Aquila, Arcnet C100A, and Arcnet-PC110). These cards are not very expensive: We can get them new for about $44-$55 (U.S.) and used for $20 (just be sure that you get documentation for used cards). 2. Novell 3.1 (or is it 3.10, I forget), using the IPX specified for the above type of network cards. 3. We do not setup any of the PCs as a server. Any of the PCs can either call or answer. 4. Mixture of MS-DOS (versions 5.0 through 6.2) and DR-DOS operating systems (whatever the latest version is). 5. Mixture of different memory management software. Mostly QEMM and the MS-DOS EMM386. We have found, however, that PCs with non-Intel CPUs would have frequent lockups when using QEMM. These lockups have not occured since the non-Intel PCs replaced QEMM with EMM386. 6. Mixture of different PCs ranging from 386DX 33s to 486DX2 66s. 7. Falcon comms: network, multiplayer duel/campaign, 57600 (this setting should not have any impact on network speed, and we have changed it without seeing any difference). NETWORK PERFORMANCE We have found a number of factors that influence the speed with which the network and Falcon perform: 1. Have the fastest PC be the caller. 2. Put the calling PC at the end of the coaxial bus. We do not know why this affects performance, but it can have a dramatic impact on speed. 3. Keep the coaxial cables short. Good Luck Michael Sutton caustic@access.digex.net 101st Squadron, 703rd Falcon Wing (DC Metropolitan Area) We're always looking for new members (703) 671-2251 ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: F3Maps > Edward, > > There is a patch available on Compuserve's FSFORUM, LIB 8 to suit your > needs. If you have MCU, download MCUPAT.EXE. If you have FCU download > FCUPAT.EXE. > > Greg Since we all have SOME patch for Falcon and Mig (if not the latest), F3MAPS no longer works. Could you Greg (or SOMEBODY on this list) go into Compuserve and get these two patches and put them on the Cockpit BBS, or onion.rain.com, or somewhere NON-compuserve? Thanx. -The Doctor ------------------------------- From: darrin vallis Subject: Thrustmaster Questions Hello everyone: Would some informed 'voice-from-the-net' be able to answer a couple of questions about the Thrustmaster joystick? I have never seen the answers here on the list yet: 1) When you move the coolie hat or press a button on the TM, how is this info sent to the computer? Is the analog joystick port somehow multi- -plexed, or does the stick send a scan code to the keyboard port. Some other way....? 2) On some games, the coolie hat is remapped to a new set of functions by pressing some button on the stick (pinkie button for instance). Instead of four functions you now get eight. How is this accomplished? 3) Does the CH Flightstick Pro implement these things in the same way? Thanks for the time Darrin Vallis vallis@hawking.nes.dnd.ca ------------------------------- From: jeff@neon.rain.com Subject: Re: Thrustmaster Questions > 1) When you move the coolie hat or press a button on the TM, how is this > info sent to the computer? Is the analog joystick port somehow multi- > -plexed, or does the stick send a scan code to the keyboard port. Some > other way....? It's sent on the Y-axis of joystick #2 I think. Something like 20% deflection = right 40% deflection = down 60% deflection = left 80% deflection = up I'm not sure of the exact values, but that's how (more or less) it's done. The rudder is on the X-axis of joystick #2. > 2) On some games, the coolie hat is remapped to a new set of functions by > pressing some button on the stick (pinkie button for instance). Instead > of four functions you now get eight. How is this accomplished? They do it by software. The software in the game uses the pinky button sort of like how the computer uses the "shift" or "control" keys. > 3) Does the CH Flightstick Pro implement these things in the same way? Beats me. Later, -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Thrustmaster Questions | | Hello everyone: | | Would some informed 'voice-from-the-net' be able to answer a couple of | questions about the Thrustmaster joystick? I have never seen the answers | here on the list yet: | | 1) When you move the coolie hat or press a button on the TM, how is this | info sent to the computer? Is the analog joystick port somehow multi- | -plexed, or does the stick send a scan code to the keyboard port. Some | other way....? Like what jeff said... they use one of the axis at certain degrees. | 2) On some games, the coolie hat is remapped to a new set of functions by | pressing some button on the stick (pinkie button for instance). Instead | of four functions you now get eight. How is this accomplished? I have no idea.. jeff might be right. =) | 3) Does the CH Flightstick Pro implement these things in the same way? | Nope. CH uses button combos. I don't know the exact procedure but I think it's something like hat right is button1 & button 2 pressed simultaneously.. I may not be exact but you get the idea.. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 12 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Tue Nov 30 10:32:16 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA25246; Tue, 30 Nov 93 10:29:10 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 29 Nov 93 20:10 PST Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 20:11 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I13 Content-Length: 7101 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 13 Mon Nov 29 20:10:19 PST 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: Re: ThrustMaster Joerg Stenger Subject: Re: ThrustMaster This seems to be first "cross-posting" to both lists so I send my $0.02 to both ;-) I think the remapping of the buttons only works if You also have the WCSII but I might be wrong. Anyway, here is the connection scheme for the FCS/ FCS Pro and the WCSII: Keyboard--->|-------|--->Keyboard-port at the computer | WCSII | FCS(Pro)--->|-------|--->Joystick-port at the computer The joy-port has to be fully connected, i.e. you must be able to connect it to two 'normal' sticks via an Y-cable. With the WCSII you have two alternatives for the hat: 1) You use the hat as analog device, then inputs from the head are routed through the y-axis of the 2nd stick. Of course You can only use the digital throttle then, i.e. moving the WCS produces a series of characters; in F3 it's a series of '+' and '-'. 2) You use the hat as digital device. You have to programm the appropriate keystrokes then, eg. 'BTN HU 3' (button hat up -> Front view). That gives You an analog throttle, i.e. the the movements of the WCS are routed directely through the y-channel of the 2nd stick. (3) You also have the possibilty to set both to digital. With the WCSII comes a TSR that allows You to remap all buttons during the game by pressing a before defined key, e.g. F12. The TSR then remaps the keystrokes to some other characters, e.g. You press 'e' on the keyboard but the character output is 'r'. Of course You must have set the hat to 'digital' if You want to remap it. I hope that clears up things a bit ;-) I would like to add a few lines about the FCS/WCSII combination as input devices for flight-sims. IMO there's nothing comparable available at the moment. Without using the above mentioned remap-TSR You have the ability to program 3 times 6 various functions only to the WCS-buttons; plus 3 times 3 functions if You have an FCS; plus 3 times 4 functions if You set the hat of the FCS to digital. I'm just writing a map-file for Tornado and I think when it's ready I won't need to touch the keyboard anymore! (Of course You have to learn what button is what for in what rocker-position, life is hard ;-) A further big 'plus' for ThrustMaster is their outstanding customer support. They answer not only e-mail but also questions in the NewsNet (c.s.i.p.g.f-s). I never saw a company answer to questions in a NewsGroup and even registered users seem to have problems to get support from e.g. SH ( what's the last status, Scott? (yes, You in WV ;-)) No, I'm not working for TM, I'm just a very confident customer, who wished that more companies would have such a support. Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: latest patches to FCU/MCU and the padlock tsr's Has anyone of you folks with compuserve access pulled the 3.02.1 patches for the Falcon/Mig commander utilities and/or the patches to f3 and mig padlock tsr's? If so can someone push them to the archives on onion? I know the padlock patches are called: F321PK.ZIP M101PK.ZIP These patches are all supposed to be available on compuserve;'s fsforum thanks dave ------------------------------- From: kirti@cadence.com (Kirti Parmar) Subject: Problems w/Pro Audio Spectrum 16 Hi, Jay -- I, too, was having problems with digitized sppech after I installed a Pro Audio Studio 16 card on a new system that is configured similarly to yours. One call to SH cleared it up. Turns out I had set up my system without expanded memory. As soon as I added 2MB as expanded, wallah! Hope this helps. -- Kirti "Asleep At The Wheel" Parmar ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: F/A 18? I'm just wondering if anyone has heard any news on the F/A-18 add-on? -Michael ------------------------------- From: jeff@neon.rain.com Subject: Re: F/A 18? mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) wrote: >I'm just wondering if anyone has heard any news on the F/A-18 add-on? Last I have heard, it'll be out in time for Christmas. (Dec 25th) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: jeff@neon.rain.com Subject: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) One thing that Falcon3 is missing that would be really helpful is waypoints on the radar display. From what I've been told by "real Fighter Jocks(tm?)", waypoints are shown on the radar display. This would be very helpful, expecially for multiplayer campaigns. Another thing that would be nice to have is Rmin and Rmax computed and shown instead of the 5-mile countdown when in STT. Full of ideas today, -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: (jeff prey) Subject: falcon 4 I received the Sierra mag the other day and in it the Chips and Bits software company had a listing for Falcon 4.0, did I miss something here? Has SH come out with a 4.0 version of falcon? If so, what is better over the 3.0 version. Any info would help Thanks p.s. think the list is great , keep up the good work ------------------------------- From: jeff@neon.rain.com Subject: Re: falcon 4 >I received the Sierra mag the other day and in it the Chips and Bits software >company had a listing for Falcon 4.0, did I miss something here? Has SH come >out with a 4.0 version of falcon? If so, what is better over the 3.0 version. >Any info would help >From what I've heard, Falcon4 is at least a year away from being done. C&B has always been a company to advertise products that don't even exist yet. The next product in the EBS series due out (that I am aware of at least) is the F/A-18 add-on for Falcon3, due out in time for Christmas. >p.s. think the list is great , keep up the good work Thanks! -Jeff P.S. Can anyone tell that I am on vacation this week? :-) - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 13 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 2 02:08:54 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05054; Thu, 2 Dec 93 02:08:29 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 1 Dec 93 08:53 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 08:54 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I14 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 14 Wed Dec 1 08:53:53 PST 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: Re: A suggestion for Falcon3 J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHopp FYI: Shaw's Fighter Combat book @ B vly@netcom.com (Vinh Ly) re: F/A-18 and A-10 from SH Larry Bain Re: CCIP death-dot knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Re: Huh? knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Re: Huh? a825199@pan.mc.ti.com (Pete William Wingperson messages. jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) Subject: Re: A suggestion for Falcon3 > One thing that Falcon3 is missing that would be really helpful is > waypoints on the radar display. From what I've been told by > "real Fighter Jocks(tm?)", waypoints are shown on the radar display. The Real Thing is even better. I saw a HUD movie recording on a local airshow (genuine F16 maintenance crew, no SF story) of some interesting F16 maneuvers and the waypoint marker IS SHOWN AS A RECTANGLE ON THE HUD when the radar is in AIR mode. You can actually SEE YOUR GROUND TARGET bounded by a rectangle from thirty miles out! They set the waypoint on one of Holland's big anti-sea constructions (for insiders, the Oosterscheldedam) and the rectangle remained there rock solid during some hefty maneuvers. I can imagine waypoints being "echoed" onto the REO. That would not be ANY problem if you can map them onto the HUD. Jeroen -- Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at | When does the Falcon version Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | for OS/2 come out? ------------------------------- From: vly@netcom.com (Vinh Ly) Subject: FYI: Shaw's Fighter Combat book @ BookStar I bought Shaw's book @ BookStar for a total of $24.78. 25.56 (list price) - 2.56 (10% off - I'm a BookStar member) 23.00 (sub-total) 1.78 (7.75% tax) 24.78 (total paid) I think BookStar is a bookstore chain in Texas and southern California. - -- Vinh Ly vly@netcom.com ------------------------------- From: Larry Bain Subject: re: F/A-18 and A-10 from SH From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > >I'm just wondering if anyone has heard any news on the F/A-18 add-on? > Standing on the sidelines (I've met a few SH employees thru the 510th TFW that I recently joined), the folks at SH are working feverishly on the the finishing touches for release of the F/A-18. (this may account somewhat for the lack of responsiveness from SH of late, alot of folks there have be working long long hours for the last month or two). Officially, the word is still 'by Christmas'. Unofficially, I get the impression that it could be any day now but that's just my hunch. My preference is that they take the time to debug it well so I hope that Christmas isn't creating undo pressure but I did see (not fly) a beta version and it looked nice. I watched a carrier landing that I've been waiting a couple of years to see in a flight sim. Nice looking modern Multi-Function Display avionics package as well. Anyway, F/A-18 seems close to release. F.Y.I. for those who are interested in what happened to the A-10 (I heard this at SIM-CON), supposedly SH decided to wait until there were better hi-res video platforms available before they could do the low level air to ground simulation that they wanted in A-10. A-10 is now slated for the Falcon4 series. And don't be misled by Chips and Bits * early * ads for Falcon4, F4 is still a long ways off on the event horizon. But heh, if F/A-18 is a good simulation of real carrier flight operations, it will be a long time before I get bored. (hech, I've barely scratched the surface with the Fulcrum) and of course SH may well have more in store for the F3 series. -Larry 'Missile-Bait' Bain lmbain@netcom.com ------------------------------- From: seik0028@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Eikermann) Subject: subcribe falcon3 please contact me under: seik0028@rz.uni-hildesheim.de I'm intrested in some utility's for FALCON3.02 etc. ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: CCIP death-dot Swoop in. Carefully aim the CCIP pipper ("death-dot") at the target. Lock. Hold course. Listen to the bombs fly. Watch as the iron flies 50 feet over the target and explodes harmlessly beyond. Should it be the "scare-em-to-death-dot"? Seriously, I set up Red Flag missions and tried this again and again. Ordinance overshoots every time. IF however I aim with the intersection of the 2 lines above the pipper, I end up on target. Should it be like this? I am using 3.02.1. - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: Bryan Cass Subject: Huh? I just started my first campaign after a few months of really perfecting how to crash gracefully into the end of the runway :-). But there are a few things the wingmen say that are not documented. Can you explain "Music on!" and "Alpha Mike Foxtrot"? BTW, I laughed out loud when I finally figured out what "Kilo Mike Alpha" meant! Thanks, Bryan ------------------------------- From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: CCIP death-dot > Swoop in. Carefully aim the CCIP pipper ("death-dot") at the > target. Lock. Hold course. Listen to the bombs fly. Watch as > the iron flies 50 feet over the target and explodes harmlessly > beyond. Should it be the "scare-em-to-death-dot"? I reported this in Aug '92 when I was practice bombing on one of the gunnery ranges and couldn't hit anything. Apparently, it hasn't been fixed. Basically, my solution was to release when the circle of the death dot touches the target. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Huh? You can find answers to these questions in the falcon3 wais library. Telnet to quake.think.com, login as wais, select falcon3 as your source library and ask about "alpha mike foxtrot". Then review whatever the query returns. Basically, "Music on" is a wingman turning on ECM. "Alpha Mike Foxtrot" is similar to "Kilo Mike Alpha". It's "Adios Mother F*r". Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: a825199@pan.mc.ti.com (Pete Williams) Subject: Re: Huh? >I just started my first campaign after a few months of really perfecting how to >crash gracefully into the end of the runway :-). Hehe, sounds familiar, no? > But there are a few things >the wingmen say that are not documented. Can you explain "Music on!" and >"Alpha Mike Foxtrot"? BTW, I laughed out loud when I finally figured out what >"Kilo Mike Alpha" meant! Well, 'Alpha Mike Foxtrot' is on the same vein - try 'Adios, Mother Fu%#er'. Usually means he has killed his adversary. 'Music On' means your wingman has activated his ECM; I've always assumed it also means every bad guy on your hard disk now knows where you are.... I thought this stuff *was* listed somewhere in the manual, but it's been a while since I read it so I'm not sure. Pete Williams ------------------------------- From: jeff@neon.rain.com Subject: Wingperson messages. Bryan Cass wrote: >I just started my first campaign after a few months of really perfecting how to >crash gracefully into the end of the runway :-). But there are a few things >the wingmen say that are not documented. Can you explain "Music on!" and >"Alpha Mike Foxtrot"? BTW, I laughed out loud when I finally figured out what >"Kilo Mike Alpha" meant! Music on == ECM on. AMF == Adios MotherF*cker. Later, -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 14 ]] From falcon3@onion.rain.com Fri Dec 3 14:01:57 1993 Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA04113; Fri, 3 Dec 93 14:00:46 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA27427; Fri, 3 Dec 93 03:09:07 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 3 Dec 93 00:08 PST Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 00:08 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I15 Content-Length: 9806 X-Lines: 247 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 15 Fri Dec 3 00:08:08 PST 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: Re: Huh? knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) RE: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransie RE: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Modem settings requested. Chuck Reid (x5992) Re: ipx over the internet? (fwd) Kris Ong ------------------------------------------------------------ From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Huh? [ meaning of wingman messages deleted. ] > I thought this stuff *was* listed somewhere in the manual, but it's been > a while since I read it so I'm not sure. It was probably described in the OFT manual. However, I'm not sure that it's described in the F302 patch README, so people could be seeing these without having a clue. [ Most of the messages are in the Falcon3 manual on page 162-163. at least in my version of the manual dated 9-91 on the back cover. -Jeff] Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) Subject: RE: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) > From: jeff@neon.rain.com > Subject: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) > > One thing that Falcon3 is missing that would be really helpful is > waypoints on the radar display. From what I've been told by > "real Fighter Jocks(tm?)", waypoints are shown on the radar display. This information is available in an F-15, but does the real F-16 radar offer this information? Can any of you "real" fighter drivers answer? An F-15 pilot described the use of the on-radar-waypoints as reference markers. You give bering and range to a bogie from the reference waypoint because the other flights you're talking to may not know where you are, exactly, so you don't make a good reference, but a predefined waypoint does. > Another thing that would be nice to have is Rmin and Rmax computed and shown > instead of the 5-mile countdown when in STT. Add, also, information about Rmax1 and Rmax2 (within weapons parameters, but marginal, and well within weapons paramters.) This was a disappointment in Art of the Kill. I thought the video/book were great. Pete Bonani's discussion of weapons envelope described Rmin-Rmax as a variable min-max range. Basically, the weapons envelpoe changes with aspect ratio and closure rate (when you're on the bandit's six, you need to be closer becuase the bandit will be further away by the time the missle reaches him.) I'm unclear, though, if aspect and closure rate are the main variables in Rmax1-Rmax2, or if there are other factors to consider. Thanks. - -- +++++++++++++ David Ransier davidr@pdx.mentorg.com These comments are my own. I paid for Office: (503) 685-1528 them. I own them. They're not my Fax: (503) 685-7704 employers, and you can't have them. +++++++++++++ ------------------------------- From: knutson@mcc.com (Jim Knutson) Subject: RE: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) > Add, also, information about Rmax1 and Rmax2 (within weapons parameters, but > marginal, and well within weapons paramters.) This was a disappointment in Art > of the Kill. I thought the video/book were great. Pete Bonani's discussion of > weapons envelope described Rmin-Rmax as a variable min-max range. Basically, the > weapons envelpoe changes with aspect ratio and closure rate (when you're on the > bandit's six, you need to be closer becuase the bandit will be further away by > the time the missle reaches him.) I'm unclear, though, if aspect and closure > rate are the main variables in Rmax1-Rmax2, or if there are other factors to > consider. I was not as impressed with AOTK as you I guess. I'm still reading through the book, but the detail in the video and first part of the book is VERY basic. If you can read and understand Shaw's book, then I think it's a better buy. For instance, nothing was said about how the weapons envelope changes in a turning fight. For some weapons, it gets very distorted. Rate of turn of the bandit is a variable in the envelope. You also need to remember that the weapons envelope is 3 dimensional even though only the top view was shown. Jim Knutson | | knutson@mcc.com --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson + Wk: (512) 338-3362 Check Six! ------------------------------- From: Chuck Reid (x5992) Subject: Modem settings requested. I friend and I are getting down to the short strokes of trying Falcon3 in Head-to-Head mode over modems and a phone line (local call). We have both updated to the 3.02.01 patch level to set the best stage for this trial. He and I both have sexy new 14.4 modems and are wondering what setting various folks have found to work best in your own experiences. I understand that the program does not make use of the V.32 or V.42 standards (this would be my first choice on the Falcon4 wishlist or for a later enhancement to Falcon3). So please offer up your tried and true settings for your modems which you find work best. Thanks for the help! CHR. ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Modem settings requested. > I friend and I are getting down to the short strokes of trying Falcon3 > in Head-to-Head mode over modems and a phone line (local call). > > We have both updated to the 3.02.01 patch level to set the best stage > for this trial. Actually, the best level for head to head is 3.02 with the F302COMM TSR from F32PAK.ZIP. The TSR allows you to use V32.bis/V42.bis connections with hardware flow control and fast (i.e. 38400 and faster) baud rates. Mission download times will be cut from ~7 minutes to ~30 seconds. Warping will be reduced. If you can back down to 3.02, I'd HIGHLY recommend it. Be sure you test your joystick control before connecting as the joystick calibration bug might bite you while dueling. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: fishead@corona.unomaha.edu (David L. Britton) Subject: Falcon & TCP/IP A quick question... I recently got ahold of several 501 Ethernet cards and was wondering (since i don't have the money for a novell lan) is there any way to get Falcon 3.0 to work across the TCP/IP? Thanx in advance... David L. Britton fishead@corona.unomaha.edu ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Falcon & TCP/IP | | A quick question... | | I recently got ahold of several 501 Ethernet cards and was wondering | (since i don't have the money for a novell lan) is there any way to | get Falcon 3.0 to work across the TCP/IP? | | Thanx in advance... | | David L. Britton | fishead@corona.unomaha.edu | Oh I do wish.. there might be a way to run ipx through tcp/ip.. that's my mission in life. =) But if you're just gonna play on your own with friends.. you don't need the novell software.. just the ipx.com which either came with your card.. or you can probably find at some ftp site.. (or you can ask someone with the same card to give you a copy) Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: ipx over the internet? (fwd) Forwarded Message.. | Check your Novell manuals on IPTunneling. IPTunneling allows a PC on an IP- | ONLY network interact with the fileservers in a IPX network as though the | PC was using IPX. To do this the Client PC must be running LanWorkPlace for DOS | and they must have one FileServer connected to the IPNetwork and the IPXNetwork | (They Can Be the Same Network) doing IPTunneling also. | | The way this works is the Station will encaptulate its IPX packets in IP and | then transmit them to the fileserver which will strip off the IP header (Maybee | more) and then transmit it on the IPX network. The server will also do the | opposite for packets going to the workstation. This is not a pretty solution | but it works quite nicely. | This is what I got.. after asking some questions... Does anyone have the facilities to test this?? if it works.. maybe 6 player falcon?? =) Kris. P.S. (I really don't understand what this guy is telling me) - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 15 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 4 10:18:23 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA04868; Sat, 4 Dec 93 10:18:02 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 3 Dec 93 17:38 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 17:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I16 Content-Length: 16141 X-Lines: 392 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 16 Fri Dec 3 17:38:31 PST 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: A Newbie's comments gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So More F16 Trainee questions Bryan Cass Re: More F16 Trainee questions a825199@pan.mc.ti.com (Pete William Any of you have this silly lockup w SHOCKEME@DELPHI.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM Falcon midi f/x Andreas Ott Something for Falcon4 jmm0021@ephsa.sat.tx.us (Jason Mont Thrustmaster FCS ""Jay Hui" Aliasfile: ~/.mh_alias" Modem settings requested shanev@aol.com Meeting for TFW in Alb., NM Beau Mersereau Subject: More F16 Trainee questions Please excuse my ignorance, but I cannot find explanations for these things in the F3 manual. I keep hearing another phrase from the wingman that I don't know how to interpret: "Radar Contact: xxx degrees, xx miles". Is this the same as "I've got a spike", and if so, why doesn't *my* radar pick up the same signal? How should I react to this abundant radio message? [ This means that your wingie sees an unidentified plane at your xxx degrees, and xx miles. Spike means that he was painted by a hostile radar. -Jeff] And here's one that left me saying, "What the heck are you doing, Hydra?". On a bombing run in the Kuwait theater, there is an enemy airbase on the way to the target that the wingman (and my plane, in autopilot) always wastes all of his bombs on; and I can't tell him to stop. There is no waypoint around that airbase, so I can't figure out why the game chooses to use up A to G stores, then continue on to the real target with no ordinance! And speaking of continuing on...I can't believe that the game would not automatically load extra fuel for a bombing mission over 200 miles away, but my wingman and I flameout about 3/4 of the way to the target and the Allies lose 2 Falcons and pilots (maybe that's why he bombs the closer airbase). Hm. I did run the mission again with external tanks and we got to the target OK, but it sure is hard to dogfight with all that weight on the wings. I guess the answer is to load my own weapons and experiment; maybe I should add another flight in front with all A to A weapons to clear the skies for us. Thanks for your input, Bryan P.S. How do you get this message to the Digest so quickly? The other day I received 3 responses via email within hours of submitting the message. Thanks! [ There's a list of around a half-dozen people who get the articles as they come in. They help out by answering questions, so I don't have to (because I don't have the time) answer all questions. The other 700+ people get this via the digest. :-) --Jeff] ------------------------------- From: a825199@pan.mc.ti.com (Pete Williams) Subject: Re: More F16 Trainee questions Bryan Cass writes: >Please excuse my ignorance, but I cannot find explanations for these things in >the F3 manual. > >I keep hearing another phrase from the wingman that I don't know how to >interpret: "Radar Contact: xxx degrees, xx miles". Is this the same as "I've >got a spike", and if so, why doesn't *my* radar pick up the same signal? How >should I react to this abundant radio message? I thought the 'got a spike' referred to a G/A (SAM) threat. The 'radar contact' message means your wingie has picked up an *unknown* radar contact at that distance and bearing from *him*. You might want to check it out yourself if he is near you and run an IFF. A lot of these contact reports turn out to be friendlies. If you choose to ignore it (you ought to do that if the report is from some guy 50 miles away), just keep in mind that there is another potential bad guy out there.. > >And here's one that left me saying, "What the heck are you doing, Hydra?". On >a bombing run in the Kuwait theater, there is an enemy airbase on the way to >the target that the wingman (and my plane, in autopilot) always wastes all of >his bombs on; and I can't tell him to stop. There is no waypoint around that >airbase, so I can't figure out why the game chooses to use up A to G stores, >then continue on to the real target with no ordinance! Gee, don't remember this one. Check your waypoints - did somebody (computer) assign SEAD waypoint over that airbase? If so, then the flight did what the computer asked. Try either re-routing or breaking you flight up into sections - maybe 2 for the SEAD (or CAS ro whatever it was) and the rest with no waypoint or a no action waypoint. If you find that there was no waypoint action at that airbase, but your flight dropped anyway, then I'm as confused as you... > >And speaking of continuing on...I can't believe that the game would not >automatically load extra fuel for a bombing mission over 200 miles away, but >my wingman and I flameout about 3/4 of the way to the target and the Allies >lose 2 Falcons and pilots (maybe that's why he bombs the closer airbase). >Hm. I did run the mission again with external tanks and we got to the target >OK, but it sure is hard to dogfight with all that weight on the wings. I guess >the answer is to load my own weapons and experiment; maybe I should add another >flight in front with all A to A weapons to clear the skies for us. Sounds like a job for FALCCALC (or it's replacement) which figures approximate fuel usage. F3 will not always choose the nest loadout (some say it *never* chooses the best loadout) - sometimes it will give you impossible loadouts (too heavy to fly - you crash when you transition to HiFi at 300 knots). Always do a reality check on what they give you. For better fuel economy try immediately climbing to 15-20K - you'll get something like double the miles/gal. Only do this on hops of more than 100 miles or so each way. And yes, it's good practice to assign escort flights - just watch your gas supplies. Good luck! Pete Williams ------------------------------- From: SHOCKEME@DELPHI.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM Subject: Any of you have this silly lockup when changing versions? I downloaded the 3.02 patch stuff from onion.rain.com (the arj'ed version) and after installing it, I tried to run falcon3..... The screen went blank, there was a click over my SBPRO and then nothing. So, I deleted the whole thing, retried installing falcon3 but setting the option to not use the sound card. Tried the patch...same thing. Then, I reinstalled falcon3, moved only the .rtp and .exe that the readme file talked about, then ran the gopatch manually....same thing. Then, I tried the Epatch. Got a different opening screen (version at the bottom said 3.0c) went to Red Mission, hang. I'm using an ACER (sucks) 486DX2/66, Sound Blaster Pro (2.0), Thrustmaster and the OLD Falcon 3.0 (Well, I bought it a while back). I tried the bootup disk batch files for the Dell, the Mouse and the basic, nothing worked? Finally, I went to a different ftp node and found f3fixd.zip, tried it, and it worked. The opening screen is the same as the original. I THEN tried the patches for E and 3.02....same hang. Well, my wish list would be to never have to go through this type of install/reinstall/re-reinstall again. Steve Shockeme@Delphi.DASD.Honeywell.Com ------------------------------- From: Andreas Ott Subject: Falcon midi f/x Hello all. Is there a way to remap some of the midi sound effects for falcon? The mapping SH uses has a cello patch for cannon fire. Other sounds like the TWI, engine, missle release etc. are no better. When I managed to remap a machinegun patch to the cello, the volume level in falcon was very low. Any help in solving this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Andreas Ott@gov.on.ca ------------------------------- From: jmm0021@ephsa.sat.tx.us (Jason Montgomery) Subject: Something for Falcon4 This might have been mentioned before but a nice feature for falcon4 would be direct support for TCP/IP. It would make games over the internet alot simpler than it is now. Jason Montgomery -- jmm0021@ephsa.sat.tx.us (Jason Montgomery) Rivercity Matrix -- +1 (210) 561-9815/21 -- San Antonio, Texas ------------------------------- From: ""Jay Hui" Aliasfile: ~/.mh_alias" Subject: Thrustmaster FCS Hi, I'm quite new to this list, so an initial 'hello' to all. Now, to business, I recently got a FCS with a Kraft game card to use with Falcon 3.02 (& Mig29). Until I bought the stick, I've been a hard-core keyboard player (are we rare?). When I started to use the joystick, say in Mig29, I found that there is considerable 'lag' between turning, because there is such a long throw between "point-to-point" (if you all my inclusion of a driving turn, which is the distance from making a full left turn to a full right turn). I found that it was quite hard to do precise turns, cause I'd turn the joystick, then 5 seconds later, the Mig turns!!! I don't know if the 'real Mig' or all fighter planes are like that, but it became quite difficult! Not sure, if it is a hardware problem, but it works fine, just slowly. Is it me, and I have to get used to it, or is there a problem or something, or are jets always like that? If this matters, I have Falcon v3.02, Mig v1.0 (haven't got the upgrade yet) Hardware: Kraft gamecard (Has it's own software that detects bus speed) 486Dx2 66Mhz Thanks for any info... Jay [ 15 line signature deleted. --Jeff] ------------------------------- From: shanev@aol.com Subject: Modem settings requested Jim Knutson writes: > Actually, the best level for head to head is >3.02 with the F302COMM TSR >from F32PAK.ZIP. The TSR allows you to use V32.bis/V42.bis >connections >with hardware flow control and fast (i.e. 38400 and faster) baud >rates. Mission download times will be cut from ~7 minutes to ~30 >seconds. Warping will be reduced. >If you can back down to 3.02, I'd HIGHLY recommend it. Jim, the new version of this utility pack is out and it's called F321pk, so if you can get a hold of this utility, you can use it with the latest Falcon3 version. Shane ------------------------------- From: Beau Mersereau Subject: Meeting for TFW in Alb., NM On one of the local bbs I saw an annoucement for a meeting of the 505th TFW. This meeting will be held on Sat. Dec. 4th at 7:00 pm at the Page One bookstore on Montgomery. I believe this is going to be an organizational type meeting. Can someone send me some ideas that you've included in your local TFW's? Thanks. Email me if you would like more info. - -- Email: moosic@triton.unm.edu Check Six! | Moose | (0) X--------<_._>--------X XxX (_) XxX X X ------------------------------- From: Kestrel Subject: T-Master . . . What is the top of the line Thrustmaster joystick? The FCS Mark II Pro? Or just the FCS Pro? [ In a nutshell, the Thrustmaster line has: RCS - Rudder Control System. Rudders, quite solid, IMO, the best. WCS - Weapons control system. This is a throttle and a bunch of buttons. There are two types. The older version is called the Mark I, and isn't very programmable. The newer one is called the Mark II, and is quite programmable. FCS - Flight Control System This is a "joystick". There are two models, both of which are available. The standard FCS is made of plastic, and the "Pro" has a metal base & other "frills". There's other products that they sell, but these seem to have the most questions asked of them. -Jeff] Thanks for your help. Paul prt40684@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 16 ]] From falcon3@onion.rain.com Mon Dec 6 11:33:24 1993 Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA06430; Mon, 6 Dec 93 11:32:40 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA20109; Mon, 6 Dec 93 02:30:40 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 5 Dec 93 11:39 PST Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 23:30 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I17 Content-Length: 5083 X-Lines: 117 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 17 Sun Dec 5 11:39:48 PST 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: Mig-29 performance against the "rea knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) H2H Falcon... Jeff Duvall ------------------------------------------------------------ From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Mig-29 performance against the "real" thing I have been reading the book "Fulcrum" by Alexander Zuyev. He's the Russian pilot who defected with a Mig-29 to the West. The book is quite interesting and I would recommend it. In it he describes a combat wing readiness test in which you start at 6000' AGL, go full afterburner, pitch down 10 degrees to descend to 3000' AGL and go flat out for 75nm. In his description he said he reached a speed of 805 kts. I decided to try Mig-29 1.00 (haven't upgraded yet) to see how it compared. I set it to the realistic flight model, loaded lesson 1 in Red Flag and started off. Other than fighting the trim and having to hold a 5 degree nose down pitch to maintain my 3000', it was pretty much the same as the book. I achieved a speed of 810 kts. Of course, the difference could be between their true altitude and Red Flag's 3000' AGL true altitude as the higher I crept up, the faster I went. I have no idea on how true the book is on performance specs, but it probably isn't far off. I'm also surprised at how well Mig-29 actually matched the spec. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + ------------------------------- From: Jeff Duvall Subject: H2H Falcon... My uncle and I are just beginning to attempt playing head to head with falcon3. I'm on a 486sx-25 and calling with a 2400 baud modem, and he's on a 386sx-16 answering with a 2400. We are both up to version 3.02 patch level. I just have some questions. 1.) Is it worth while to even attempt this a such at low baud rate? 2.) What kind of connect times should be expect at this speed? 20 min? 1 hour? 2 hours? ;) 3.) Should we upgrade to 3.02.01? Thanks for the help. By the way, I just wanted to add that I think the list is great. Good work, Jeff! If you have any hints on a place that I can get internet access in the Southwest Washington region (Longview) I'd sure appreciate it. ___________________________________________________________________________ Jeff DuVall | University of Washington, Seattle, Washington | Internet: mirage@u.washington.edu (O) Phone: (206) 528-4660 X--------<_._>--------X @@ (___) @@ ___________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------- From: Kevin Franden Subject: Lag Time (was: Thrustmaster FCS) > From: ""Jay Hui" Aliasfile: ~/.mh_alias" > Subject: Thrustmaster FCS > > When I started to use the joystick, say in Mig29, I found that there is > considerable 'lag' between turning, because there is such a long throw > between "point-to-point"... I don't know for sure but I suspect that this is "supposed" to be like this (hold on and I'll explain). When your cranked out in a 9g turn and suddenly flip the stick the opposite way it takes a fair amount of energy (read time and distance) for your plane to get level and then to start the turn in the opposite direction. Now, the flight model may not be 100 percent correct but there is still a more excellent way. A better move is called a split-S. When in a hard turn and the bandit breaks across your nose, continue the roll in the same direction ALL THE WAY THROUGH. Before you know it you'll be pointed in the opposite direction and nearly on the bandit's six. My point is, even it the flight model or hardware is not quite up to snuff, you should still try to practice good BFM. The split-S was the first BFM (Basic Flight Manuver) I learned (it's REAL easy). It opened up a whole new world to me (immelman's, yo-yo's, wing- over's, side-slipping (ok, ok, I started flight sims on "Red Baron" and "Aces of the Pacific" (both still pretty good, IMHO)). The falcon manual as I recall goes over a few BFM's but Shaw's book is a bit better. Hope this helps. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kevin Franden Informix Software, Inc. [ 8 lines of signature deleted - Jeff ] ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 17 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 7 22:55:01 1993 Return-Path: Received: from unidui.uni-duisburg.de by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA13940; Tue, 7 Dec 93 22:55:01 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by unidui.uni-duisburg.de (1.37.109.4/SMI-3.2) id AA17392; Tue, 7 Dec 93 22:51:45 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 7 Dec 93 06:32 PST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 06:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I18 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 18 Tue Dec 7 06:32:19 PST 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: Basic flight questions (Stuart?!) J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHopp Re: Installing v3.02 patch Bryan Cass ILS mode geraldp@wv.MENTORG.COM (Gerald Page SH Acer TSR bios fix? MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------ From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) Subject: Basic flight questions (Stuart?!) Hi, Now for the boring kind of stuff. How does a "real" F16 handle during the not-so-action-packed parts of a mission? How do you taxi it? NWS? Amount of used throttle? Max. kph during taxiing? Takeoff roll and initial climbing? When are you allowed to break out the straight climb path and go for your first waypoint? If you fly straight and level with no real turbulence or winds around, and you let go of the controls, will the FBW hold your attitude or do you eventually deviate? Are you required to constantly make tiny corrections? How much autopilot is kicked in during point-to-point transitions, especially while flying in formation? Are you allowed to come back to the field with any ordnance under your wings at all? This sort of operational stupidities... Jeroen -- Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at | Falcon 4.0 for OS/2: Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | just a dream? ------------------------------- From: Bryan Cass Subject: Re: Installing v3.02 patch > From: SHOCKEME@DELPHI.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM > Subject: Any of you have this silly lockup when changing versions? > > ... > I'm using an ACER (sucks) 486DX2/66, Sound Blaster Pro (2.0), Thrustmaster > and the OLD Falcon 3.0 (Well, I bought it a while back). I tried the > bootup disk batch files for the Dell, the Mouse and the basic, nothing > worked? Finally, I went to a different ftp node and found f3fixd.zip, > tried it, and it worked. The opening screen is the same as the original. > I THEN tried the patches for E and 3.02....same hang. > > Well, my wish list would be to never have to go through this type of > install/reinstall/re-reinstall again. > > Steve > Shockeme@Delphi.DASD.Honeywell.Com > I went through the same thing one night until 5am! I finally found that having the SMARTDRV disk cache on was causing corruption of the Falcon files during the install process. After turning off disk caching on the hard drive, the installation worked great. > ------------------------------- > > From: Andreas Ott > Subject: Falcon midi f/x > > Hello all. Is there a way to remap some of the midi sound effects for > falcon? The mapping SH uses has a cello patch for cannon fire. Other > sounds like the TWI, engine, missle release etc. are no better. When I > managed to remap a machinegun patch to the cello, the volume level in falcon > was very low. Any help in solving this would be appreciated. > > Thanks in advance. > > > Andreas Ott@gov.on.ca > I'm guessing that you have a Gravis Ultrasound card that is doing Roland emulation. If so, then you're out of luck until Jayeson can upgrade the software emulator to handle Roland sysex messages, which I think is how SH gets sound effects from the Roland MT-32. IMO, music takes a back seat to sound effects in Falcon anyway, so I use the Soundblaster emulator and put up with FM music. Bryan ------------------------------- From: geraldp@wv.MENTORG.COM (Gerald Page) Subject: ILS mode I recently purchased "Falcon 3: The Complete Handbook", by the Waite Group. As I'm pretty new to F3, I've yet to complete an un-assisted landing without landing up way off the runway. I was reading through Chapter 3's "Flight Lesson #5, The Landing". On page 103 it says that the ILS mode is broken for F3 version 3.0D. It then goes on to tell me how the ILS mode works, but warns that I'll have to do it manually (VFR) anyway. My question is has the ILS mode been fixed for version 3.02.1? Or is this lesson bogus? Thanks, Jerry ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: SH Acer TSR bios fix? Hi all, I recall seeing an Acer TSR somewhere related with F3. I saw it in the travels through the many F3/Mig 29 and associated after market addons and fixes. Only problem, now I can't seem to locate it as my files are off my system right now. I am throwing this out to the list users to see if any others have run across it and its purpose before I go to a Wais search (if no responses here). Thanks for your time!! PS. The TSR was to address some problem with the Acer Bios which has caused them to have trouble with F3 and/or what ever after market fix or add on was written for F3/Mig. Thanks again, Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 18 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Dec 9 08:56:42 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA24517; Thu, 9 Dec 93 08:56:23 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 8 Dec 93 18:18 PST Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 18:25 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I19 Content-Length: 2678 X-Lines: 84 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 19 Wed Dec 8 18:18:12 PST 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: Re: SH Acer TSR bios fix? Kris Ong What is F/A-18 upgrade? SL6SN@cc.usu.edu MiG-29 new package "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Re: SH Acer TSR bios fix? | | Hi all, | I recall seeing an Acer TSR somewhere related with F3. I saw it in the | travels through the many F3/Mig 29 and associated after market addons and | fixes. Only problem, now I can't seem to locate it as my files are off | my system right now. I am throwing this out to the list users to see [stuff deleted] | Thanks again, | | Scott in WV | Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu | I'm going to upload the ACER fix, and the tseng fix to onion.rain.com, acer.zip and tseng.zip, no guarantees, as I haven't used them just found them. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: SL6SN@cc.usu.edu Subject: What is F/A-18 upgrade? Can anybody tell me about the F-18 upgrade and when it will be released? Thanks, Paul ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: MiG-29 new package When I bought Falcon + OFT 2 months ago, MiG-29 was sold in a box around the same size/price as OFT. When I went to Software Etc. this weekend, they had a new MiG-29 package the same size/price as Falcon (bigger than the old one in both respects). My question is, what's different with this package? Is this simply a stand-alone (doesn't need Falcon), or what? The box did not indicate either way. BTW, the box did mention compatibility with their F/A-18 game, so I guess that IS right around the corner :) I'm eagerly awaiting it, as the -18 is my all-time favorite jet fighter. And maybe it will calibrate the stick better than Falcon 3.02.1... -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 19 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 10 21:56:51 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01951; Fri, 10 Dec 93 21:56:36 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 93 06:28 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 06:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I20 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 20 Fri Dec 10 06:28:32 PST 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: Thrustmasters e-mail address Ake.Berg@sa.erisoft.se (Ake Berg) f/a-18 jeeem@aol.com Falcon3.02: Is the MiG-19 as deadly Daniel Gaiennie Hyams F321PK.ZIP "Frank Racis" > Can anybody tell me about the F-18 upgrade and when it will be released? According to SH's rep here on AOL, the Falcon add-on version of F/A-18 will be out before Christmas (my wife has been notified :->). It sounds like the carrier ops will be so-so, with a moving ship that does not move up and down, and water which can be landed on. One bright spot: a new theater will be included, Bosnia, and we'll be able to play it in Falcon and MiG-29 too. Jeeem ------------------------------- From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams Subject: Falcon3.02: Is the MiG-19 as deadly as it seems? I have have Falcon3.0 for quite some time, but when the 3.02 patch was made available, I decided that it was time to really get serious about the sim. My question is: Does anyone else have as much trouble downing a MiG-19 as I do? Other planes are difficult, but this one simply can't be caught (by me, anyway!) I have gotten into turning battle with it time after time, and it stays a turning battle until I get frustrated and try something different (which usually ends up in a smoking F-16). It seems that the place turns on a dime and flies much slower than I do (at cornering speed). About the only luck I have had getting rid of the little green thing is a head-on missle shot, head-on guns shot, or an AMRAAM from 20 miles (cheap!). Would someone please post on this subject? Any successful tactics that an old veteran can share with a rookie? Thanks, Daniel Hyams "Dove" ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Falcon3.02: Is the MiG-19 as deadly as it seems? >My question is: Does anyone else have as much trouble downing >a MiG-19 as I do? ... To beat this plane is REAL simple. Use the vertical plane. *DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER ENTER A TURNING FIGHT WITH A MIG-19* Fight the '19 with loops, split-s, and zoom&boom tactics, and you'll win 99 times out of a hundred. (The other 1% you auger. :-) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: "Frank Racis" Subject: F321PK.ZIP F321PK.ZIP is corrupt. I downloaded it twice to make sure, used Binary mode, got "ZIP file has errors". PKZIPFIX would fix it so that 3 files in the ZIP file could be extracted, but there are 2 other files which only give an error. -Frank ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 20 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 13 09:40:26 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA03300; Mon, 13 Dec 93 09:39:21 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 12 Dec 93 18:43 PST Message-Id: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 18:50 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I21 Content-Length: 4072 X-Lines: 89 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 21 Sun Dec 12 18:43:28 PST 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: Mig-19 chips@coleslaw.me.utexas.edu (Chris Orchid Soundwave 32 Mark Taylor Subject: Orchid Soundwave 32 I bought one of these sound cards recently having despaired of persuading a Soundblaster 16 to work in my machine and guess what... selecting SB mode for sound fx and Roland for music causes a lockup as I try to leave the setup screen. I have to delete the .def file to be able to get back in, so it's obviously getting so far. The card emulates an MT32 and (or?) supports General Midi. Selecting the SB and Roland combination works with other games, so does anyone know of a fix for F3.2.1? Mark ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Major IHHD success!!! There was huge IHHD falcon success yesterday (saturday). Chera Bekker & I picked up where we left off with our IHHD testing. This time though he was using v3.02. I had 3.02.1 & Mig 1.01. I knew that falcon 3.02 & Mig 1.01 would work on a modem connection. I had already tested that, as I have 2 phone lines & 2 computers at home. So our first attempt was falcon 3.02 vs Mig29 1.01. Well, it worked... Flawlessly. The first thing I want to report, is the mig flew life a pig! No matter what I did, I just wasn't able to turn inside of the F16. I finially flew into the ground. (good shooting chera :) On our second attempt, I tried to use the supierior speed of the 29th & out climb him, turn around & have a chance. No dice :( He got me that time... (good shooting chera... I mean it this time :) After that disaster I gave up on the Mig. I decided to try F16 vs F16. On this try I flew into the ground AGAIN!!! But the fight was much more managable. As luck would have it, Chera was being visited by Joerg Stenger & Ian Kent. They were probably helping him :) Well this time I flew against Joerg. I eventually knicked him with my guns & finially finished him off with a 9M. Joerg & I flew again... This time he got me... Finially I flew against Ian. To put it bluntly; I got wiped out! All of this success is with 2400 baud. We still need to try IHHD with me being the caller. Chera had been the caller & I was answerer for all of the flights. All in all IHHD does seem to work pretty well. I think we did have alot of fun. I can't wait for F18. One thing this did do, was give a good feeling (first hand) Of the differences of the Mig vs F16. If you are a Mig pilot wanting to go against a F16, you better be good. I had no problem in IA killing alot of yankee scum. I was pretty suprised... Greg Cisko ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 21 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 14 12:03:20 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA11946; Tue, 14 Dec 93 12:00:56 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 13 Dec 93 20:56 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 20:58 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I22 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 22 Mon Dec 13 20:56:19 PST 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: Pointer to TFX-Review Joerg Stenger Subject: Pointer to TFX-Review Hi all, I sent a basic review of TFX to the Hitech-Sim-list. It should appear in digest 83. Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: > From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) > Subject: RE: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) > >> From: jeff@neon.rain.com >> Subject: A suggestion for Falcon3 (and SH) >> >> One thing that Falcon3 is missing that would be really helpful is >> waypoints on the radar display. From what I've been told by >> "real Fighter Jocks(tm?)", waypoints are shown on the radar display. > > This information is available in an F-15, but does the real F-16 radar offer > this information? Can any of you "real" fighter drivers answer? Yes, the F-16 radar provides this type of info to the pilot. > Add, also, information about Rmax1 and Rmax2 (within weapons parameters, but > marginal, and well within weapons paramters.) This was a disappointment in Art > of the Kill. I thought the video/book were great. Pete Bonani's discussion of > weapons envelope described Rmin-Rmax as a variable min-max range. Basically, > the weapons envelpoe changes with aspect ratio and closure rate (when you're > on the bandit's six, you need to be closer becuase the bandit will be further > away by the time the missle reaches him.) I'm unclear, though, if aspect and > closure rate are the main variables in Rmax1-Rmax2, or if there are other > factors to consider. Rmax1 is the range at which you can hit a non-maneuvering target given your and the target's current flight conditions (airspeed and altitude) and geometry. Rmax2 is the range at which you can hit a target executing a constant-speed, constant-altitude, 6.5g 180 degree turn from its current flight condition. This is also referred to as the "no escape" zone. Sorry for the long delay guys, been pretty busy. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Basic flight questions > From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) > Subject: Basic flight questions (Stuart?!) > > How does a "real" F16 handle during the not-so-action-packed parts of a > mission? How do you taxi it? NWS? Yes, you use nosewheel steering to taxi, controlled through the rudder pedals. > Amount of used throttle? Max. kph during taxiing? Actually you just leave it at idle. From the chocks, you push the throttle up to get the aircraft rolling, but after it gets going, you really need to pull it back to idle or you'll exceed the 40 knot limit for taxiing. > Takeoff roll and initial climbing? For a MAX AB takeoff, it's a real kick in the pants when you light the burner on the roll. The aircraft really like to fly, so it gets up and goes on the initial climbout. Even MIL power takeoffs are impressive. > When are you allowed to break out the straight climb path and go for your > first waypoint? This really depends on what kind of flight plan you're on. It its IFR, ATC will tell you what to do and when to do it. If its VFR, as soon as you get to the end of the runway basically. Just don't hit anybody pretty much. :) > If you fly straight and level with no real turbulence or winds around, > and you let go of the controls, will the FBW hold your attitude or do you > eventually deviate? Yea it will fly pretty much straight and level. > Are you required to constantly make tiny corrections? No. For just flying from here to there it will basically do it by itself. > How much autopilot is kicked in during point-to-point transitions, especially > while flying in formation? It depends on what you turn on. There is a heading hold mode, altitude hold, etc. You pick how much of the autopilot you want to use. For close formation you won't use the autopilot at all. > Are you allowed to come back to the field with any ordnance under your wings > at all? Yea, just about anything you can load on the Viper, you can come back and land with it still there. Sorry for the long delay. - Stuart ------------------------------- From: "ANDREW LAVERY CALGARY ALBERTA," Subject: Falcon upgrades Hi all, Yesterday in a feat of sanity I picked up falcon 3.0 :) Anyway I noticed my version didn't have the CH FlightStick PRO compatibility that it should have... So i figured i'd have to upgrade, so I ftp'd to cactus.org and checked out the onion.rain.com mirror, and now I have one small question... Which upgrade do I need? Well, i'm off to read some more of the manual... Andrew Lavery (Msquito) laverya@abe.cbe.ab.ca / abe3@educ.ucalgary.ca ------------------------------- From: eshelbyk@ucs.orst.edu (Ken Eshelby) Subject: Serial H2H advantages- what gives? Recently, one of my roommates and I made a serial cable to reach between our rooms (success!). We've been playing both head2head and campaigns via 57K baud! It's a great change of pace from the 2400baud speed (we have 2 phone lines, and *had* to do it! My frustration is this, one of the planes always has the advantage. I believe it's the answerer that can always shoot better and turn faster. Each setup is the same (we've checked over and over again). The machines we are using have 40mhz 386DX's w/no coprocessor, one had 5mb ram, one has 2mb. Both are AMD chips. Eric's machine has a cheapo Trident card in it, I've got a SpeedStar 24X (he's got one coming in the mail). And I've got a PAS16, he's getting a SoundBlaster. I wouldn't think that any of that makes a difference as long as the machines are about the same speed. Is it the caller/answerer situation causing the unfair advantage? (we both use v2.02 patch) Has anyone else had this problem? Thanks a bunch for any help! ken - -- Ken Eshelby - Dietetics - Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA ---> eshelbyk@ucs.orst.edu <--- (Notice: there is *nothing* to do with flying in my .sig!!!!) ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: Orchid Soundwave + F3 I haven't tried the Orchid Soundwave, so I can't offer much advice. But have you set the board to typical SB defaults (IRQ 7, DMA 1, address 220)? As a side note, F3 probably won't work all that well with non-Roland cards emulating the Roland music/effects. While F3 offers the option of SB plus Roland, most of the effects still come from the Roland side, if you choose that option. Only the digitized radio messages come from the SB (DAC) side. So guns, missiles, explosions, engine sound, etc, will come from the "Roland". This is fine if you use a Roland LAPC1/MT32 which has the sys-ex commands to handle this. But most any other board emulating Roland will give you bad effects, like a piano key for engines, or similar. I've hear the Orchid does some of the sys-ex commands, but even an Orchid rep said it wouldn't do too well with MT32 emulation. Should be just fine for general-midi which is used by newer games, but not F3 (actually, I've heard that the Orchid doesn't sound all that great compared to other wavetable g-midi cards too). I tried a Gravis Ultrasound with F3. While it gave excellent sounding music, the sound effects were so bad, I just switched back to SB+SB. Summary, for F3 (and Tornado), if you don't have a Roland LAPC1 or MT32, just choose SB+SB. Dave masten@beta.lanl.gov ------------------------------- From: SHOCKEME@DELPHI.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM Subject: How fast is IHHD with Falcon3? I've recently been reading about the IHHD and joined their newsgroup, but I've been wondering about the transmission speed of the Falcon3.2 patch using the IHHD. Question for those of you who have used the IHHD and Falcon3: What is it like at different speeds ie 2400, 9600 etc and relationship between machine speed ie 25Mhz, 33 Mhz, 66 Mhz. Thanks Steve. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 22 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 15 23:02:23 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA19328; Wed, 15 Dec 93 23:02:09 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 15 Dec 93 07:32 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 07:32 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I23 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 23 Wed Dec 15 07:32:29 PST 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: Re: How fast is IHHD with Falcon3? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Problem when installing OFT. J.M.Darrigol@frec.bull.fr (Jean-Mar Newbie and ground targets Justin Hawkins > From: SHOCKEME@DELPHI.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM > Subject: How fast is IHHD with Falcon3? > > > I've recently been reading about the IHHD and joined their newsgroup, > but I've been wondering about the transmission speed of the Falcon3.2 > patch using the IHHD. Question for those of you who have used the IHHD > and Falcon3: What is it like at different speeds ie 2400, 9600 etc and > relationship between machine speed ie 25Mhz, 33 Mhz, 66 Mhz. > Thanks > Steve. >From what I've seen. You get the best results at 2400. I wouldn't even really attempt anything above that. When Jim Knutson & I tried 9600, the handshaking/sync time was noticably longer. IHHD worked the same with my 386/16 & 486DX2 66. On each machine, I didn't notice any huge slow down or anything. It seemed fairly smooth. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: J.M.Darrigol@frec.bull.fr (Jean-Marc Darrigol) Subject: Problem when installing OFT. Greetings to all. I am new to this list so I am sorry if this is out of place. I have the following problem: I have purchased from a shop in France a package which contained Falcon 3.00d and OFT. The installation for Falcon works OK, but the installation for OFT does not work properly. During the installation, the program seems not to recognize a .BIN file, and stops the installation. I have called Microprose but they can not help me (the corrected disks they sent me back are still buggy). Is there someone out there who already experienced the same problem ? Any help or any pointer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jean-Marc. ------------------------------- From: Justin Hawkins Subject: Newbie and ground targets Why can't I ever find any enemy ground targets? On strike type missions I usually find lots of my own guys, mostly already trashed, but I can never find any enemy ground forces. Where should I be looking? And is there any way to tell which forces are friendly and which are not other than by getting close enough to see the colour of 'em (the whites of their eyes? :) - Justin (A really bad pilot) ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 23 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 17 23:33:51 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA27080; Fri, 17 Dec 93 23:33:14 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 17 Dec 93 06:37 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 06:37 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I24 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 24 Fri Dec 17 06:37:06 PST 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: Re: Problem when installing OFT bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Orchid Soundwave 32 Mark Taylor ,T ------------------------------------------------------------ From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: Re: Problem when installing OFT In Issue 23, Vol 5, JM Darrigol writes: >I have the following problem: I have purchased from a shop in France a >package which contained Falcon 3.00d and OFT. The installation for Falcon >works OK, but the installation for OFT does not work properly. >During the installation, the program seems not to recognize a .BIN file, >and stops the installation. Try to boot with a minimal configuration (without SMARTDRV, virtual disk and so on...) before installing the Add-On disks. I have had a similar problem which disappears when I remove my CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT for the installation. If all else fails, you could try to install by hand: copy the files PATCH.EXE and *.RTP from Disk#1 in your FALCON3 directory (I hope I remember correctly the filenames). go to this directory and type PATCH PATCH1.RTP (execute the patch program with the patch data file for parameter). Do the same with the Disk#2 (Warning: DO NOT copy the patch.exe file from the second disk, ALWAYS use the patch.exe from Disk#1). If I remember well, you will find 2 (or 3?) patch data files on the second disk. You must execute the patch.exe for each. Good luck... Christophe "Rafale" Bonnet. bonnet@cr2a.fr ------------------------------- From: Mark Taylor Subject: Orchid Soundwave 32 Thanks for the info, it does seem to be the sys-ex commands that aren't fully implemented (whatever they are). I heard the midi sounds weren't up to the standard of things like the Gus, but I reckoned that the range of emulations would be sufficient to cover any eventuality - in this case, SB/SB works fine. I don't think my ears are sufficiently critical to notice the finer points of the midi patches anyway. Also, I keep hearing of problems with the Gus, which seemed to be the other choice - I get the impression that people seem to devote a large part of their lives getting it to work with each new game. The card works fine with SB/Roland for things like Privateer though without using clarinets for guns or whatever :-) Mark ------------------------------- From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) Subject: Re: Newbie and ground targets > Why can't I ever find any enemy ground targets? On strike type > missions I usually find lots of my own guys, mostly already trashed. Yup. Falcon often is a bit too good itself: the ground forces have already slaughtered eachother before you arrive. On this type of missions (mostly in the Kuwait area), I normally just fly to the assigned kill box, note that everything there is already dead, and then fly directly towards the next enemy defense base (plot your course beforehand; just assume that the first kill box is empty). There I always encounter enough brown dots to do something useful with and get my scores. > And is there any way to tell which forces are friendly and which are not > other than by getting close enough to see the colour of 'em? Nope. That's part of the fun. Until we get simulated forward air controllers (guys with a radio far out in the frontline), we have to zip around and hope we spot them earlier than their SAM-7 does us ;-) I think that a supersonic fighter like an F16 is less fitted for such search-and-destroy missions than, say, an A10, but it does the job. Wait until we can get our hands on the A10 add-on... (mmm) Jeroen -- Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at | Stop connecting computers; Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | start connecting people! ------------------------------- From: Andreas Cardeneo Subject: Falcon4.0 suggestion and bug list First of all hello to all of you, I wonder if someone is already working on a list concerning all the features we all would like to see in Falcon 4.0 and all those bugs we would be glad NOT to see. I think it'll be usefull if we gathered all those wishes in a list and mailed them to SH, so they can, at least, have a look at it and include some of the wishes in the sim if still possible. If there is already one please let me know, if not I would start such a list if you also think that's a usefull thing. OK, that's it for now, I'll let you know what happend, so long Andreas 'Orca' Cardeneo ula7@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de *** Don't work harder - work smarter !!! *** ------------------------------- From: Eric Johnson ,To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: Beginner H2H Question Hi all, I've finally found a local person with an interest in Falcon, and we're ready to try some head to head combat. My question for you is this. Currently we both have 2400 baud modems. Will these be too slow? Thanks, Eric Johnson rchland(ericj) or ericj@vnet.ibm.com Graphic Ops Development, Dept 51N Phone (507) 253-5046, Tie-Line 553-5046 IBM Rochester ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 24 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Dec 20 00:17:41 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA27316; Mon, 20 Dec 93 00:17:12 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 19 Dec 93 07:03 PST Message-Id: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 07:10 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I25 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 25 Sun Dec 19 07:03:52 PST 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: Sound Cards. Glenn=Andrews%Comm%DRC@S1.DRC.COM Add ons "ANDREW LAVERY CALGARY ALBERTA," ------------------------------- From: "ANDREW LAVERY CALGARY ALBERTA," Subject: Add ons Hi all, Well, it's me again :) I was just wondering what add ons I should really have, and what they are. Operation Flying Tiger everyone seems to be talking about...I haven't the foggiest as to what it is, MiG 29 I already know about and am about to buy. The FA-18 looks cool (Is there a demo for f18 or MiG 29?) and I'm probably going to buy it. But what about the A-10 add on thats mentioned in the manual? someone on irc this morning mentioned that it was going to be for falcon 4.? (gee...thats in the planning stages still... I'm not looking forward to waiting that long...i have the urge to point that 30mm gattling gun at some unsuspecting MiG :) or at a tank for that matter...) Are there any other add ons i'm missing? Well I'm off to go do some school work (!NOT!) Andrew Lavery (Msquito) abe3@educ.ucalgary.ca / laverya@abe.cbe.ab.ca ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Which addon? >Hi all, >Well, it's me again :) I was just wondering what add ons I should really >have, and what they are. Operation Flying Tiger everyone seems to be >talking about...I haven't the foggiest as to what it is, OFT = Operation Fighting Tiger. It was the first add on for F3. It upgrades you to F3.01. With the OFT patch (available at Onion.rain.com) you get upgraded to F3.01.1 OFT adds three new theatres..Pakistan, Kurile Islands, and Korea. New weapons in Huriles include Harpoons, advanced AMRAAMs, AIM 9L's, and the Japanese FSX F16 fighter. New enemy planes also. >For the hardcore F3 flyer, OFT is more critical to have than Mig 29 (IMO). >...... MiG 29 I already >know about and am about to buy. The FA-18 looks cool (Is there a demo for >f18 or MiG 29?) and I'm probably going to buy it. To the best of my knowledge, there are no demos for either at this time. > But what about the A-10 add on thats mentioned in the manual? someone on irc > this morning mentioned >that it was going to be for falcon 4.? (gee...thats in the planning stages >still... I'm not looking forward to waiting that long...i have the urge to >point that 30mm gattling gun at some unsuspecting MiG :) or at a tank for >that matter...) I heard the same thing in a post here (author??). That post said that A10 was put on hold till better whatevers are inplace to give the ability to create detailed ground features. Hmmmmm.... >Are there any other add ons i'm missing? Well there are alot of after market F3 addons created by ravenous F3 fliers. What you can get depends on your version. Useful ones are FALCNR (which allows you to edit your pilots abilites and replenish stores (among other things), F3MAPS which are the maps of the theatres, and FALCALC which is a useful recon and mission planning utility (among other things). All should be available at Onion.rain.com. I *think* they might require F3.01.1 or the D version, I am not too sure. If you get Mig 29, you are then F3.02 and the above will not work. They are, however, sold as an aftermarket addon. Details should come in the Mig 29 Box. You can get F302PAK or MIG29PAK from Onion.rain.com that have some useful comms and coolie hat (for Tmaster FCS) utilities. >Well I'm off to go do some school work (!NOT!) >Andrew Lavery (Msquito) >abe3@educ.ucalgary.ca / laverya@abe.cbe.ab.ca Enjoy!! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 25 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Tue Dec 21 12:44:48 1993 Return-Path: Received: from unidui.uni-duisburg.de by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA00587; Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:44:47 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by unidui.uni-duisburg.de (1.37.109.4/SMI-3.2) id AA26727; Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:41:06 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:12 PST Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:12 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I26 Content-Length: 12982 X-Lines: 316 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 26 Mon Dec 20 21:11:59 PST 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: SH and the solar system MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Graphics Cards ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edwa SoundBlaster digitized voice proble "Kevin Wein" Subject: SoundBlaster digitized voice problems I have F3/OFT/3.02 upgrade and a SoundBlaster (clone) card and all functions operate normally, however there are times when the digitized voices seem to cut out (AWACS waypoints, etc.). Most of the time, the sound cuts out during the intro sequence either right when the roar of the planes start or else a few words into the dialog. I still get the "Pull up" sound, etc. during flight but it seems like the AWACS waypoint messages seem garbled. Being new to F3 I have no comparision as to what they should sound like. The IRQ and vector configs seems to be okay since I use them in all other applications, and the music and missle tones are fine. My main questions are these: 1) Does anyone use F3 with a "Golden" sound card or know of common incompatibilities? 2) Does using Stacker 3.1 have any adverse effects on sound drivers? 3) Do AWACS messages sound clear to others? 4) Are there any suggestions for problems with digitized voices in F3? BTW, if it helps, my system is a 486DX/33/VLB with 4M memory Thanks Kevin Wein ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Digitized sounds Hi all, (Kevin), I am kinda unclear what you mean by voices cutting out. I am by no means a sound expert, but it "sounds" like you are getting about all there is. I'll address what I can below: > I have F3/OFT/3.02 upgrade and a SoundBlaster (clone) card and all > functions operate normally, however there are times when the digitized > voices seem to cut out (AWACS waypoints, etc.). Most of the time, the > sound cuts out during the intro sequence either right when the roar of > the planes start or else a few words into the dialog. I still get the > "Pull up" sound, etc. during flight but it seems like the AWACS > waypoint messages seem garbled. Being new to F3 I have no comparision > as to what they should sound like. The IRQ and vector configs seems > to be okay since I use them in all other applications, and the music > and missle tones are fine. > My main questions are these: > 1) Does anyone use F3 with a "Golden" sound card or know of common > incompatibilities? Nope, not I > 2) Does using Stacker 3.1 have any adverse effects on sound drivers? Not that I know of, I use DOUBLESPAC (licensed from Stacker, Inc by Msoft?) and sounds are fine. > 3) Do AWACS messages sound clear to others? Yes they do. However, with the C patch (I beleive) SH shortened the AWACS waypoint data to just "Waypoint" No longer does F3 give your the compass heading to the next waypoint though the message does appear at the top of the screen. Do you get the following AWACS messages?? "Warning, Enemy ECM activity detected" "Negative, Pigeons to home plate" To hear if you get the latter, just shft-b till you try to bypass your last waypoint, you should hear the negative message. Do you hear other pilots? You should hear alot of "Clean clear and naked" "Bandit Bandit!" "Request permission to engage!" "Engaging" And when I plan missions I hear alot of.. "I'm hit!" "Flame out!" "Ejecting!" These are quite common when flying. If you hear some of them (in full) you are getting sounds. If they break up (e.g."Request permission to... garble garble") then there is something up. > 4) Are there any suggestions for problems with digitized voices in F3? Not that I recall, but as I said, I am no tell all expert. It seems to me, if you are getting most of the sounds, but not all, then all that can be done has been done and it is just the way your sound card operates that may be causing headaches. You might try: 1. Confirming your sound card operates with alot of other programs that have digitized messages. 2. Boot from a very clean Autoexec.bat and Config.sys with only the bare minimum included. 3. Be sure you have atleast 1 mb of RAM configured as EXPANDED memory, this is what F3 uses for sounds. 4. If all else fails, completely reinstall F3 (YUCK! I know :( and repeat 1 through 3. > BTW, if it helps, my system is a 486DX/33/VLB with 4M memory > Thanks > Kevin Wein Hope you figure out what is up, good luck!!! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: Larry Bain Subject: SH F/A-18 Hornet Report 12/19/93 Completely unofficial report on the SH F/A-18 Hornet to follow: I actually got to fly a couple of networked missions with a beta version of the Hornet at the 510th TFW's flyin on 12/18. Really nice! I didn't survive to attempt a carrier landing although the sole surviving member of one flight flamed out 1nm out from the carrier at Angels 7 and he shot a miraculous dead stick approach! Then he missed the trap by inches, bummer. ('Bolters'- carrier trap misses - are embarressing enough, but a dead stick bolter can ruin your whole day). Launches from a cat are a blast, pun intended, and the Hornet can fly from land bases as well from a deck. I did get to shoot some practice traps at Nellis. Red Flag missions have a carrier deck outline and a practice trap set up on 36R at Nellis. Sure gives you a great perspective on how small carrier decks are compared to a decent runway! Asphalt doesn't pitch and roll either (although neither does the carrier deck in the Hornet). One irritant for me was the joystick 'center dead spot' that I've experienced ever since Falcon 3.02, it becomes really noticable during precision trap approaches. If the final release has the same behaviour on my system I may need to experiment with joystick h/w to get rid of the dead spot (hopefully). The F/A-18 is really nice, neat new glass cockpit, more AA capacity, more precise speed control at lower speed (IMHO). I liked it ALOT more than the Fulcrum, could easily end up liking it more that the Falcon too. Contrary to an earlier post of mine, it appears that SH did decide to rev the COMMS again. The Hornet beta that we installed updated Falcon to 3.03. Supposedly the COMMS upgrade is accountable for the delay in shipment. We flew 9 missions without a glitch (mostly as 3.03 Falcons) with 3 to 6 players networked. We did not attempt any serial H2H though. All the flying and weapons systems worked great, all the debriefs were in perfect synch, only bug noticed was that sometimes more SAMs were visiable to one player than to another (external views). Bad news is that it doesn't look like Hornet will be out before Xmas. SH knows that we're anxious (they have over 10,000 pre-orders) but they're trying to insure that the quality is there first, I have to hand it to them for that. Judging by the amount of 'new releases shipping just in time for Xmas', I can imagine how much of it is really 'beta s/w released for Xmas, ready or not'. I really respect SH for not caving in. If the wait is getting to you let me recommend a good book on the Hornet to help tide you over; 'Hornet, the Inside Story of the F/A-18' by Orr Kelly, Presido Press ISBN 0-89141-344-8. Not only does a great in depth story on the development of the F/A-18, but gives a real nice overview of U.S. Naval Aviation from the turn of the century. Great background color for SH Hornet when it arrives. In the meantime, happy holidays to all, and remember, no BVR kills on the reindeer. -Larry Bain lmbain@netcom.com ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: SH F/A-18 Hornet Notes First of all, Thank you Larry for the report!!! Second of all, everyone excuse me for not including the original post in my comments, I am at home and cannot delete all the header stuff. :( RE: Approaches: Larry, can you tell us if the SA in landings is better than in F3?? Excuse me for my 2 cents, but in F3 they stink. If we have to deal with the same on a carrier, then all bets are off for me EVER making a carrier landing in Hornet. [ I find it interesting that some people find it hard to land F3. It's always been easy to me, but I've seen very few other people who can land the aircraft on the runway in once piece. I land sucessfully ~95% of my attempts where I'm not jumped. --Jeff] RE: 3.02 JS dead spot: If there is still a dead spot in this JS routine, then SH *definitely* dropped the ball. In Mig, a lot of experienced flyers said it was due to the non- FBW controls of the 29th. If this occurs in F/A-18, then SH should re-evaluate their JS routines! RE: Might like the 18 more than the 16: I already do!! Not that anyone cares, but I have waited for a good Hornet sim! I am ready for it! Did SH do like the Canadian Air Force and paint a cockpit on the underside to confuse opponents as regards to the opponents orientation?? [ The USAF's F15's do this as well I believe. --Jeff] RE: Good Net Comms: I am glad to hear SH is still perfecting comms. I will say that I am glad that Net comms is stable, but I will venture an unsubstantiated guess that 90% of the comms fliers are modem fliers. Mig did some nice things, but in doing those, they slowed comms to a crawl!! Even at 14.4 the set up time for an allied match was slow (as compared to 3.01.1). Although Ken Richardson has done some great things with his second source works, I hope SH starts to incorporate the advanced features of v.32/v.42 modems into the source code. [ Ah, but the net comms people are growing, and is a new "market" for SH. It's sweet flying in a 4-ship on a campaign. --Jeff] RE: 10,000 advance orders: Make that 10,001 :) RE: Waiting to release a quality product: I agree!! F3 has never worn off like other flight sims. Myself, there is plenty of life in F3. I can wait for another plane :) Kudos also to MPS holding off on F-14 Fleet Defender. One thing I really hate is endless patches, bug fixes, and dealing with incomplete software and manuals. [ It could be worse... It could be a buggy product with a no patches available... :-) --Jeff] Thanks again Larry for the insights!! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 26 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Dec 23 06:46:52 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA03259; Thu, 23 Dec 93 06:46:31 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 22 Dec 93 14:45 PST Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 14:45 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I27 Content-Length: 15769 X-Lines: 421 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 27 Wed Dec 22 14:45:08 PST 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: Opening Scene Brian William Whalen F/A-18 beta, Q&A Larry Bain Subject: Opening Scene I was wondering. Since I first started playing F3 on my computer (486/33, 8MB RAM, PAS16, Orchid Farenheit VLB, 386Max) I've had this unusual problem. When I watch the boot-up screen (F-16 splashing bandit) the screen stops or rather pauses in the middle. The jets will fly for about a second and then stop and then track and kill. The first time I played the new version (v3.02?, the one with Mig) it didn't happen but has continually done so since. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------- From: "Kevin Wein" Subject: Re[2]: Sounds >From MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU: Yes they do. However, with the C patch (I beleive) SH shortened the AWACS waypoint data to just "Waypoint" No longer does F3 give your the compass heading to the next waypoint though the message does appear at the top of the screen. Do you get the following AWACS messages?? "Warning, Enemy ECM activity detected" "Negative, Pigeons to home plate" To hear if you get the latter, just shft-b till you try to bypass your last waypoint, you should hear the negative message. Thanks for the tip - I was able to verify that I am indeed getting the digitized messages just fine. That is, as long as I don't let the intro sequence run. What I find is that if I abort the intro sequence before the sound goes away, the sim runs perfectly. However, if the intro runs and the digitized sound stops during the intro (which it always does at some point), the intro completes (silently) and the sim runs normally with full music and sound until the first digitized message occurs - at this point my machine locks up. By being able to force the messages "Negative..." I was able to see the relationship. Not that I recall, but as I said, I am no tell all expert. It seems to me, if you are getting most of the sounds, but not all, then all that can be done has been done and it is just the way your sound card operates that may be causing headaches. You might try: 1. Confirming your sound card operates with alot of other programs that have digitized messages. 2. Boot from a very clean Autoexec.bat and Config.sys with only the bare minimum included. 3. Be sure you have atleast 1 mb of RAM configured as EXPANDED memory, this is what F3 uses for sounds. 4. If all else fails, completely reinstall F3 (YUCK! I know :( and repeat 1 through 3. I have tried with more EMS (over 1Meg) and such but that doesn't help and I have installed from scratch F3/OFT/3.02 (oh joy!), but to no avail. At least I can run normally now, but I never get to see the intro :( which is fine for now. I can still fly while I pursue the matter with the sound board manufacturer. Thanks for all your enthusiastic help, Scott! Kevin ------------------------------- From: Derek T. Dang Subject: F3 and Cirrus 5426 card Hi, Does any one have problems with trying to run F3 (I have OFT) with a Cirrus Logic 5426 card? The colors are all wrong on mine. By the way, what is the latest F3 patch? F3 doesn't seem to run very well on my new machine (SCSI disks only, PAS16 sound card, 5426 graphics card, 486DX/66); the colors are all wrong and there's no digitized sound. Help! Derek. ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: F3 and Cirrus 5426 card | | Hi, | | Does any one have problems with trying to run F3 (I have OFT) with | a Cirrus Logic 5426 card? The colors are all wrong on mine. | Nope. | By the way, what is the latest F3 patch? 3.02.1 | F3 doesn't seem to run very well on my new machine (SCSI disks | only, PAS16 sound card, 5426 graphics card, 486DX/66); the colors are | all wrong and there's no digitized sound. | I've heard nasty things about SCSI and Falcon, can someone elaborate on this?? And I'm not sure about the PAS16, and digitized sound.. This is getting to be an FAQ, but I don't know the answer... I see it a lot. Maybe put it in the next FAQ (Brian?). | Help! | | Derek. | Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: Larry Bain Subject: F/A-18 beta, Q&A Scott Morgan asks about my flights with a F/A-18 beta version. > >RE: Approaches: Larry, can you tell us if the SA in landings >is better than in F3?? > I'm not sure I have the answer to this as I was flying the Hornet w/o benefit of documentation or a check ride. I used all the normal views standardized in F3/Mig but the fact that there was a meatball on the deck ('call the ball') and that I could not see it until I was landed (or wreckage) made me suspect that there may be additional views available, perhaps something along the line of the LSO view (Landing Signals Officer) found in AOTP. - as an aside - a method that I've developed to help overcome the limited peripheral vision available in F3 during approaches when close in and above your strip is to use AWACs as an 'approach control' (assumes waypoint on landing strip). o advance your waypoint to the landing strip. o fly a heading that is 90 degrees off of the heading for the desired runway (there will obviously be 2 headings that are 90 off, fly the one that will close on the airport). o use AWACs waypoint info (repeatedly shift N) and watch the waypoint bearing move until it is exactly 90 degrees off of your heading. o break turn 90 degrees into the waypoint bearing. You will now be very close to lined up with the runway. o you obviously need to be managing your speed and altitude during all of the above so that they end up somewhere within reasonable parameters in relation to your distance from the strip. (Sorry, AWACs Discount Approach Control - Glideslopes not included ). The above steps can result in an approach that is 180 off of the designated approach heading in the ILS mode, but I ususally just land anyway. If its important, just overfly at 45 degrees to the strip and start the above steps at the top. (no I don't know if the carrier will trap you if you land 180 off in Hornet :-) > > Stuff about Joystick 'Dead Zone' since 3.02 > Since I was flying a beta version I can't assume that the released Hornet will behave the same. However, I've been concerned about the joystick 'Dead Zone' in Mig 29 and Falcon 3.02....01. I'll be posting more on that later. > >Did SH do like the Canadian Air Force >and paint a cockpit on the underside to confuse opponents.... > No, but I always thought that fake canopy was great! > >but I will venture an unsubstantiated guess that 90% of the >comms fliers are modem fliers. Mig did some nice things, but in >doing those, they slowed comms to a crawl!! > I would have to agree with your assessment but add that network play is a magnitude more fun (IMHO) and as Jeff alluded to, SH may suspect that there will be an explosion in popularity of networkable games. I know that multiplayer comms is going to be a cornerstone (rather than after thought) of some of the SH/Microprose games being planned for next year. Hopefully they'll keep improving the serial comms too. An encouraging note for the modem players from the 510th fly-in was that a couple of regulars said that they were supposed to be getting ahold of some prototype modems that will multiplex voice and data over a single line! > >Thanks again Larry for the insights!! > > Glad too. Wish I had time to contribute more, I get 10x more from the Falcon3 digest than I ever put in. Now, if it just wasn't for that small matter of the family, and the job, and finishing that pc for my nephew, and Xmas, and oh ya, that campaign in Isreal that I started two months ago.... -Larry Bain lmbain@netcom.com ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Landings MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU writes: >Subject: Re: SH F/A-18 Hornet Notes > >First of all, Thank you Larry for the report!!! Ditto! >RE: Approaches: Larry, can you tell us if the SA in landings >is better than in F3?? Excuse me for my 2 cents, but in F3 they >stink. If we have to deal with the same on a carrier, >then all bets are off for me EVER making a carrier landing in >Hornet. > >[ I find it interesting that some people find it hard to land F3. > It's always been easy to me, but I've seen very few other people > who can land the aircraft on the runway in once piece. I land > sucessfully ~95% of my attempts where I'm not jumped. --Jeff] Landings in F3 and MiG-29 suck big time. I've tried doing it "the right way" and the plane either floats or drops like a rock. Instead of fighting the poor low speed flight model I just slam the plane down on the runway. Works every time. I think this would be a lot harder to do on a tiny target like a carrier deck, though. If only SH would learn some lessons from DI's Tornado. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: kirti@cadence.com (Kirti Parmar) Subject: Graphics cards and Digitized Speech ejones writes: > From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) > Subject: Graphics Cards > > Hi. I'm going to get a REAL (read: 486DX2 66) computer in the > beginning of Feb., but what graphics card would be least error-prone > for F3? I've heard it hates and crashed on accelerator boards. I want > the most powerful graphics card that I can get without having to worry > about compatiblity problems with Falcon. I rarely run Windoze. Thanx. I've been using the Diamond Viper VLB w/2MB on my 486DX2-66 Micronics motherboard and have had absolutely no problems with any software I run including Falcon 3.0d, Falcon 3.01, or Falcon 3.0.2. The Viper is an excellent card and I would recommend it without any hesitation. Enjoy! Also, weink writes: > > From: "Kevin Wein" > Subject: SoundBlaster digitized voice problems > > I have F3/OFT/3.02 upgrade and a SoundBlaster (clone) card and all > functions operate normally, however there are times when the digitized > voices seem to cut out (AWACS waypoints, etc.). Most of the time, the > sound cuts out during the intro sequence either right when the roar of > the planes start or else a few words into the dialog. I still get the > "Pull up" sound, etc. during flight but it seems like the AWACS > waypoint messages seem garbled. Being new to F3 I have no comparision > as to what they should sound like. The IRQ and vector configs seems > to be okay since I use them in all other applications, and the music > and missle tones are fine. > > My main questions are these: > > 1) Does anyone use F3 with a "Golden" sound card or know of common > incompatibilities? My MediaVision ProAudio Studio 16 works quite well w/Falcon 3.0.2 when used in SB/SB mode. I have been unable to use the Roland mode for music; each time I try, it locks up the machine (requires a hard re-boot) when I hit the DONE button of the Sutup screen. > > 2) Does using Stacker 3.1 have any adverse effects on sound drivers? No ideas > > 3) Do AWACS messages sound clear to others? > AWACS waypoint messages are "truncated" by SH. I read somewhere (probably in the manual or one of the update notes) that the Waypoint messages simply "Waypoint xx at" because it would require a large file to digitize all waypoint bearings, altitudes, and ranges. I guess that SH expects you to look at the screen and read these. On my ProAudio Studio 16, the waypoint messages do sound like they are garbled a bit. I think this is because the message is so short (only 4 syllables) rather than a function of the sound card or software. > 4) Are there any suggestions for problems with digitized voices in F3? > Sorry, none! ------------------------------- From: Gerry Roston Subject: DOS memory setup - Oh no, not again! Sorry to bring up a topic that's been beaten to death, but... When I set up my system for game playing, i.e., I enable EMS memory, this is the report I get from mem/c (shortened) MSDOS 33629 HIMEM 1168 EMM386 3120 COMMAND 3056 MOUSE 272 ------------- 41522 FREE 613808 (599K) The real question is this: is there anything I can do to increase the amount of free memory. I am not at all certain that this is enough for Falcon. (I haven't tried yet because I am currently without a joy stick...) Now, what disturbs though is this. I know how to add, and when I add up the number shown above, I get 41245 bytes, not 41522. Even, when I subtract either of these numbers from 655360 bytes (640 kB), I get 613838 or 614115, neithr of which are the numbers reported. Is DOS so brain-dead that it can not even add and subtract correctly? - -- Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu) | The Virginia Act for religious freedom... In Field Robotics Center, | fact it is comfortable to see the standard of Carnegie Mellon University | reason at length erected, after so many ages Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | during which the human mind has been held in (412) 268-3856 | vassalage by kings, priests and nobles; and it | is honorable for us to have produced the first The opinions expressed are mine | legislature who has the courage to declare and do not reflect the official | that the reason of man may be trusted with the position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, | formulation of his own opinions. Thomas or any other organization. | Jefferson ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: falcon3 and flight_sim wais libraries are back. I've finally been able to install the falcon3 and flight_sim wais libraries on cactus.org. The port number has changed to 210 and I now support boolean searches ("and" and "not") and literal searches ("literal text in quotes"). Don't know if the directory of servers stuff on quake.think.com has been updated yet, but it should be soon if it hasn't already been. Jim ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 27 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Dec 23 23:19:10 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA07117; Thu, 23 Dec 93 23:19:00 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 23 Dec 93 09:22 PST Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 09:24 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I28 Content-Length: 6763 X-Lines: 176 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 28 Thu Dec 23 09:22:31 PST 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: F18 tidbits, approaches, and 'the c Larry Bain Subject: F18 tidbits, approaches, and 'the claw'. Some more F/A-18 tidbits in response to email questions I've recieved re: my 'unofficial report on SH Hornet' - Larry. The Hornet I flew did have a complete new interior and HUD (as compared to the F16 or MIG), with the exception of similarity in the damage indicator panel. I do not know how 'current' the instrumentation was but it was primarily oriented around MFDs (Multi-Function Displays) which were consistent with the layout of F18 cockpits as I remember them from the few pictures that I have seen. Each MFD can be cycled thru various displays; radar, TWI, engine stats, etc. As we didn't have docs I was sort of doing the 'on the job training' thing as we flew into combat (hmmm, lets see what this does? and this?, and oh oh). Now I can empathize with those poor under-trained b*st*rds at the end of a losing war when they get sent into combat after 'instant' flight school. Most of the keyboard controls are unchanged with a few exceptions. The one that tripped me up the most led to a newly developed ACM tactic I'll call the 'Kamikaze Claw'. The 'H' key in Hornet drops the landing hook (instead of cycling the HUD colors). I'd get into a 1 circle head to head knife fight where the sun kept bothering me so I'd kept trying to change HUD colors but in reality flapped my landing hook up and down as I flew around sun blinded in circles with a faint hope of hooking my opponent's Mig before he gunned me. Keep this one in mind for those occasions where everyone's gone winchester and all the guns are jammed. I wonder if Shaw will include the 'Claw' in his next edition? RE: carrier approaches. I'm not so sure now that there are any additional views available. Someone pointed out that a recent F/A-18 product review claimed that there are supposed to be a bunch of LSO 'radio messages' that help guide you during approach. We had Radio Messages set OFF during my flights so I have no idea how effective these may be. There is definitely a 'meatball' on the deck, but I sure couldn't see it until the very last seconds (do in part I'm sure to fixation on the trap cables). I don't know how far out the 'meatball' is supposed to be used in real life, but it sure didn't seem like it was going to be effective at a distance to me. Not like a VASI system leastways. Anyone out there on the list familiar enough with carrier approach systems to give us an overview of how they really work? -Larry Bain lmbain@netcom.com ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: DOS memory setup - Oh no, not again! >From: Gerry Roston >Subject: DOS memory setup - Oh no, not again! >Sorry to bring up a topic that's been beaten to death, but... >When I set up my system for game playing, i.e., I enable EMS >memory, this is the report I get from mem/c (shortened) >MSDOS 33629 >HIMEM 1168 >EMM386 3120 >COMMAND 3056 >MOUSE 272 >------------- > 41522 >FREE 613808 (599K) >The real question is this: is there anything I can do to increase >the amount of free memory. I am not at all certain that this is Strangely enough, you probably can get more memory out of your system. I say this because your MSDOS number looks high. Make certain that the "lastdrive" variable is not excessive, in your config.sys. This has been a problem on a few machines I've configured. Also make sure your "files" variable is not excessive. And try to load that mouse high! >enough for Falcon. (I haven't tried yet because I am currently >without a joy stick...) ------------------------------- From: cfyu@cs.cuhk.hk ( |--|) Subject: Re: F3 and Cirrus 5426 Card Hi. I'm using Cirrus Logic 5426 card with no problem of playing F3. I'm using OS/2, so no digital sound can be heard. :( However, which 5426 card are you using, ISA or Local Bus? I'm afraid there is some difference. I've also install the F3 on SCSI harddisk (Maxtor 340MB). I think I better list my config here : 486 DX/33 ISA Motherbord Quantum 120MB ISA Harddisk (boot disk w/OS/2) Adaptec 1542CF SCSI Controller Maxtor 340MB SCSI Harddisk (my F3 is installed here) SB 2.0 (going to change to SB 16ASP) Cirrus Logic 5426 ISA display card w/1MB RAM Hope this helps. Aylwin Yu ------------------------------- From: m.roesch@genie.geis.com Subject: F/A-18 Released by SH! All, The SH rep on GEnie announced the release of F/A-18 today! (Wed 22nd) It should be showing up in stores on Monday, so scrape together your Xmas money!! "Madman" Marty Roesch | A Mig on your six is m.roesch@genie.geis.com (preferred) | better than no Migs or roeschmf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu | at all! ------------------------------- From: nassio@cfassp16.harvard.edu (George Nassiopoulos P-353 495-7181) Subject: bug in F3? i keep getting frustrated by what i consider to be a bug in falcon3, i'm running F3, with OFT installed on top of it and finally with the "mig 29" patch level that was put on the net last fall (but not mig 29 itself). anyway, the bug is that in Instant Action, i keep hearing the chaff and flares dumped by enemy aircraft when i don't feel that i should be hearing them... e.g. i start IA, i lock aim-120's on the su-25 that is in front of me, i launch a missle, i hear my missle "growl" as it leaves my f-16, but then i can hear the su-25 dumping chaff and flares. i think this should be a bug! if i hit "q" to track the enemy then i expect to hear them dumping chaff and flares, (and i wouldn't even mind hearing them if i'm tracking my own plane), but i don't think i should hear them if i'm in my own cockpit... anyone agree? disagree??? george nassiopoulos nassio@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 28 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sun Dec 26 22:13:26 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08825; Sun, 26 Dec 93 22:13:20 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 26 Dec 93 09:46 PST Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 09:50 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I29 Content-Length: 3712 X-Lines: 90 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 29 Sun Dec 26 09:46:49 PST 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: falcon impressions Phasor Re: falcon impressions Jeff Beadles Joe Wohrstein Subject: falcon impressions Hi all, I am new to this mailing list and only caught the flight sim bug a couple of months ago. I've played a couple of others like f15 and f29, and finally bought f3. I have a couple of questions about f3 tho: 1) After flying f15, and being impressed by the realism of the cockpit, f3 took me by total surprise. What's with the huge radar in the centre of the 'pit that doesn't even show a 360 view (in hfr mode)? Did sim enthusiasts want one big radar, or did SH find it impractical to do it more realisticaly? 2) The ILS landing system seems to be intent on trying to crash me into the ground about .5nm before the runway. I can land manually much faster and quicker, with about a 90% success rate. Is it the s/w, or am I using the ILS wrong? Despite these two things, I LOVE the multi-plane missions and the cool digitized speech. Later all, and check six! -Travison.rain.com  [B ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/ "You don't have to like it. _/_/_/ You just have to do it." _/hasor is failing.... -R. Marcinko, Commander SEAL Team Six ================== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/ "You don't have to like it. _/_/_/ You just have to do it." _/hasor is failing.... -R. Marcinko, Commander SEAL Team Six ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: falcon impressions >... What's with the huge radar in the centre >of the 'pit that doesn't even show a 360 view (in hfr mode)? Did sim >enthusiasts want one big radar, or did SH find it impractical to do it >more realisticaly? A 360 degree radar is not realistic. SH has produced a more realistic sim, instead of an "arcade-style" game. If you want a 360 degree radar, use the simplest radar mode. (I don't remember what it's called -- sad?) >2) The ILS landing system seems to be intent on trying to crash me >into the ground about .5nm before the runway. I can land manually much >faster and quicker, with about a 90% success rate. Is it the s/w, or >am I using the ILS wrong? I don't use the ILS here, and wouldn't want to guess. :-) The manual talks about how to use ILS around page 148, and how to use it. Later, -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Joe Wohrstein Subject: The latest date for F/A-18 at my store for it to get to the wharehouses is 27 Dec. So with any luck it will be out by next june maybe. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 29 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Dec 29 11:41:24 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01525; Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:39:25 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 28 Dec 93 22:11 PST Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 22:20 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I30 Content-Length: 9992 X-Lines: 217 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 30 Tue Dec 28 22:11:51 PST 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: Falcon impressions shanev@aol.com F18 book bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Carrier ops DECvp our highest volume product > What's with the huge radar in the centre >>of the 'pit that doesn't even show a 360 view (in hfr mode)? Did >>sim >>enthusiasts want one big radar, or did SH find it impractical to do >>it >>more realisticaly? Travis, F3 is more realistic in this regard than your other sim. The F-16 radar doesn't scan 360 degrees around the jet. It projects forward. You can adjust how wide and high it scans to a certain degree, but if you want to scan behind, you'll have to turn the sucker around. F3 includes a "cheat" radar mode called SAD that will show you 360 degrees around your jet, but it's not realistic. When it comes to realism, few sims can touch Falcon3. ShaneV ------------------------------- From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: F18 book For all of you waiting the upcoming release of SH' F18, I would like to mention a good book about F18 systems: "STING OF THE HORNET - McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 in Canadian Service", by David L. Bashow, McClelland & Stewart editor (This is a Canadian editor, I don't know if there is other editor for USA...). The book, written by a Canadian F18 pilot, only speaks about Canadian F18 (so no carrier ops...). But it's very interesting, with diagrams, pictures and explanations of F18 avionic systems (Radar, HUD, MFD, ...), very complete cockpit layout, and so on. If SH accurately simulates the avionic systems shown in this book, it will be another BIG hit (F18'MFD functionnalities are far more advanced than F16A avionics...). Christophe 'Rafale' Bonnet. ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: Carrier ops Somebody asked about carrier ops over the weekend. I used to be an E2 aircrewman and have a few cat shots etc. under the belt. What normally happens for a recovery is that all the returning flights stack up over the carrier, about 1K ft apart, fighters on the bottom, E2's on the top, with the attack, asw etc. somewhere in the middle. Once the deck is cleared and the recovery starts the fighters will "push" (drop down) and begin to land. Essentially a plane will fly in the same direction as the ship on the starboard side, after passing the nose of the carrier they will pull a 180 and head downwind. Then when they're at the magic spot, they'll turn inbound and "call the ball" (more later) and land. When they turn downwind is a function of surface winds. The ship is normally heading into the wind which helps reduce the aircraft's landing speed with respect to the deck. 22-30 kts of wind over the deck is normal. In extreme conditions, like a winter North Atlantic operation, the wind may in fact be much higher, making landing very touchy. I know fo flights where they went 8-10 miles upwide of the ship before turning downwind as the surface winds were severe. The pilot will roll out approximately 1/4 mile aft of the ship to call the ball, the ball being the lens system. The lens provides glide path/altitude info to the pilot, if the bright bar is high so is the aircraft. Centerline info is provided by the stripes painted on the deck, or by a row of lights when it's dark. The LSO (landing signal office, a pilot BTW) will acknowlege the ball and give the pilot radio messages that will assits him in landing, keep him alert etc. The LSO is very valuable in the landing effort as he can see where a pilot is drifting off sooner than the pilot. It's the LSO who will also give a wave off if things are too far out of kilter or something happens on the deck that makes a wave off necessary. The Ball system will also begin flashing lots of bright red lights to help a pilot see that landing is currently not a good idea...The ideal or goal is to land an aircraft every 45 seconds, so timing is very important when moving about in the pattern. If you're late you'll most likely hear about it, if you're early, you'll most likely get a wave off. All of this is video taped and the LSO's go from ready room to ready room during the playback to go over the ladning with the pilots...The LSO's also grade each landing and it's used to keep track of the pilot's skill and readiness. A typical exchange would go like this: E2: Alpha Juliet 112 Hummer ball 3600 (3600 is the current fuel state) LSO: Roger hummer ball, 22 kts over the deck, you're slightly high and right E2: pushes his mike key twice, no actual message LSO: you're slightly right coming down on glide path As the aircraft hits the burble, a bunch of nasty turbulence caused by the island: LSO: Power, power Then given that the aircraft gets a wire it's over or you'll hear the famous words: LSO: Bolter bolter bolter and the pilot jams on the power and you get back in the pattern and try again. The "burble" is different on each type of carrier as the island is shaped differently, on the Enterprise back when it had a square island, the burble was the worst in the Navy. The square structure was some sort of pulsed radar array, they've since taken it off and built a new island as I guess it didn't work that great and the burble was bad. On Nimitiz class carriers the deck is very wide (you land between rows of parked aircraft) and the burble isn't too bad. Now I wonder if SH has modeled the cat officer "dance" as well... The dance: You're on the cats, they go to "tension" (apply tension to the catapult mechanism to make sure everything is loaded and ready to shoot). You go into flgiht idle on the throttle. The deck crews, (airframes, avionics etc. folk) all look over the aircraft and give the cat office a thumbs up. The pilots are scanning the controls and the pilot or copilot if you have one salutes the cat officer. The "blue shirts" that run the cats look around, forward, backward, and accross the deck. In the meantime the cat officer has been giving his signal for the pilots to rev it up and get ready, he sees the thumbs up from the blue shirt and he more or less leans forward and touches the deck with this hand pointing down the cat. the blue shirt pushes the button and you're off dudes...a good cat officer has a distinctive "dance" and is fairly entertaining. There's style and then there's style... I have a great amount of respect for the folks who do this for a living, it's probably the most dangerous "workplace" in the world, even in peacetime. The pilots are constantly in training to be able to perform their tasks, particularly landing. Landing at night, with a pitching deck is a chore and requires exceptional skill. Carriers also have ILS systems that work pretty much like they do in civilian aviation. Some more modern fighters have ILS systems that allow hands-off landings...not that they get used much :-) In some types of operations, "radio silent" ops it's a bit more convoluted as you'll hold on station farther away from the ship and push at a pre-briefed time and perform a ILS/visual approach, that last 1/4 mile is always visual. You may not have any discussion with the LSO during one of these. When there is a problem with an aircraft things can change, for example if you can't get your hook down or have a hook unsafe indicator they might "rig the barricade", essentially a net gets strung over the deck and you put it in the net. I never saw this done, I did however, help "rig the barricade" a bunch of times for drill. I never wanted to land in one... Glad to discuss it more if there are questions. dave ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: Chad/Bosnia, F18 Did anyone register the shareware Chad campaign and recieve the Bosnia campaign? I registered, the check has been cashed but I have received nothing to date (it's been over a month). I called SH today about F18. It's supposed to ship on 12-31. $59.00 plus shipping direct from SH. They couldn't tell me if it was a standalone or an F3 upgrade. I'll wait for it to show up locally, it'll be cheaper. thanks dave ------------------------------- From: Martin Gosselin Subject: Differences between CF-18 and F/A-18? Hi all! With peoples talking more and more of the F-18 add-on, I would like to know if there is a difference between the F/A-18 from the USAF AND the CF-18 from the CAF (Canadian Air Force)? Also, does anyone know if the canadian pilots have a reputation of being "bad" with their opponents? I mean that they are VERY VERY wild up there. Someone told me that teh russian pilots would never engage a canadian pilot. (No offense intended here. The cold war is up as far as I'm concerned) Is it true? He told me too that is was the main reason why during the gulf war that the CF-18 were used to clear the way for the bombers. Well I guess that's enough of it, hein? After all I'm on a F-16 mailing list. (Wich I like very much, like the sim too :) ). Bye now. Take care and check six! Martin "Nasa" Gosselin E-mail:gosselin@etu.gel.ulaval.ca ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 30 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Dec 30 13:32:30 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA03755; Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:32:19 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 29 Dec 93 23:56 PST Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 00:10 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I31 Content-Length: 5998 X-Lines: 136 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 31 Wed Dec 29 23:56:12 PST 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: Hornet Robear Re: Differences between CF-18 and F slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil CF-18 vs F/A-18 schao@monet.uwaterloo.ca (Stewart C ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Robear Subject: Hornet Well, the F3 add-on version is in the stores here. I found it for around $40 at a local EB. It has a small MiG-29 sized manual, a special briefing for MiG-29 standalone players, and will function with either of the 2 standalones. 3 3.5 inch disks; it upgrades both previous games during install. Hornet adds a Bosnia campaign. The carrier is present everywhere except Pakistan. You still get 18 planes, so it is like a "group and a half" command. Flew a few IA missions and one real. The plane seems snappier in rolls and turns than the F-16. Nice to have two engines. Didn't survive to make a carrier landing :-(. Lots of SAMs in them thar hills. In the limited time available, I saw no bugs. David Pipes ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Differences between CF-18 and F/A-18? > From: Martin Gosselin > Subject: Differences between CF-18 and F/A-18? > > With peoples talking more and more of the F-18 add-on, I would like > to know if there is a difference between the F/A-18 from the USAF > AND the CF-18 from the CAF (Canadian Air Force)? I went to Cold Lake CFB several years ago for an exchange visit with the CAF's Air Engineering and Test Establishment (AETE), its equivalent of the USAF's Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, CA. There was also an active duty wing of CF-18s as well as the main depot for CF-18 avionics maintenance and training at Cold Lake CFB. So, I can speak to the differences somewhat. As far as the basic airframe goes, there are no differences. All F/A-18s, no matter who they are sold to be it Canada, Australia, Kuwait, etc., are the same as those flown by the USN and USMC. Canadian, Australian, Kuwaiti, etc. HORNETS are all carrier capable. There is no "land-only" version. As in just about all foreign military sales (FMS) programs, we don't sell our top of the line avionics to anyone. The FMS radar sold with the F/A-18 is essentially the same as the US version, but it won't have quite as good a detection/tracking range as ours and its ECCM will be inferior to ours. When I was at Cold Lake CFB, it was appearant that the Canadians were changing the programming of some of the avionics to suit there needs. As far as external stores go, the Canadians (and I believe the Australians as well) still use unguided rockets, the USAF doesn't and I don't believe the USN/USMC does either. The Canadians have also developed this massive 600 gallon external fuel tank for carriage under the wing. I guess they didn't like having to carry 3 "bags of gas", 2 under the wing and 1 on the centerline, to fly across the Atlantic. The HORNET is notorious for having very short "legs" (ie range). These tanks are not ones you want on your jet when fighting. They turn a beautifully departure resistant aircraft into a deprature prone pig. :) > Also, does anyone know if the canadian pilots have a reputation of > being "bad" with their opponents? I mean that they are VERY VERY > wild up there. Someone told me that teh russian pilots would never > engage a canadian pilot. (No offense intended here. The cold war is up as > far as I'm concerned) Is it true? He told me too that is was the main reason > why during the gulf war that the CF-18 were used to clear the way for > the bombers. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "bad" and "VERY VERY wild". I now several Canadian fighter pilots, and they're just like American fight pilots as far as I can tell. :) As far as using the CF-18 to "clear the way" during the war, all but 4 of the fixed-wing air-to-air kills were recorded by USAF F-15s. The other 4 kills were by 2 USN F/A-18s and 1 Saudi F-15. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: schao@monet.uwaterloo.ca (Stewart Chao) Subject: CF-18 vs F/A-18 > From: Martin Gosselin > Subject: Differences between CF-18 and F/A-18? > > Hi all! > > With peoples talking more and more of the F-18 add-on, I would like > to know if there is a difference between the F/A-18 from the USAF > AND the CF-18 from the CAF (Canadian Air Force)? The only differences that I'm sure of are that the CF-18 have the fake canopy and a search light (!) on the right side near the canopy. I believe they might have removed the hook, and the aircraft refitted for colder climates. > Also, does anyone know if the canadian pilots have a reputation of > being "bad" with their opponents? I mean that they are VERY VERY > wild up there. Someone told me that the russian pilots would never > engage a canadian pilot. (No offense intended here. The cold war is up as > far as I'm concerned) Is it true? He told me too that is was the main reason > why during the gulf war that the CF-18 were used to clear the way for > the bombers. I have no idea. Stewart ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 31 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Fri Dec 31 08:26:23 1993 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05833; Fri, 31 Dec 93 08:26:11 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 30 Dec 93 15:52 PST Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 21:05 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I32 Content-Length: 12793 X-Lines: 326 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 32 Thu Dec 30 15:52:46 PST 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: CF-18, SH F18 bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) ...and *poof*, I was in Panama! Bryan Cass SoundBlaster configuration and F3 c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar F/A 18 add-on primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si WAIS library access knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Comms mode in 3.02 Justin Hawkins Re: Comms mode in 3.02 Kris Ong Re: Bosnia Jeff Beadles Falcon3.03/Mig-29 1.02 patches avai Jeff Beadles ------------------------------------------------------------ From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: CF-18, SH F18 Boys, I don't know how we European folks could wait until the release of SH F18 here (usually 1-2 months after USA...). To just add a point about differences between USA'F18 and CF-18: I think the only external visual difference is the search light which is placed under the left side of the cockpit, and could light up an area left of the plane. This is used during visual contact intercept at night to identify targets. Of course, this is not of much use if the boggie is not cooperant (ie does not fly straight and level 8-)...) Christophe "Rafale" Bonnet ------------------------------- From: Bryan Cass Subject: ...and *poof*, I was in Panama! I have worked my way up to day 10 on my first campaign and was winning in Kuwait! So last night I decided to practice a little BFM in Red Flag after bumping up the enemy logic level to Cadet. I did a few 1X1H2H and 2X2H2H, the missions that came with the game. When I went back to the main screen and selected my Fighting 10th squadron. The theater was Panama! So I committed anyway and tried to fly a CAP mission. All of the ground units and targets are from the Kuwait theater, but the terrain is from the Panama theater. I couldn't even taxi down the runway - the plane kept sinking into the ocean! Is this a known bug? I had to move the squadron back to the Kuwait theater, which of course, wiped out my campaign. BTW, I bought a video called "Top Gun: The story behind the story" with Randy Cunningham describing some of his dogfights in Viet Nam. Good information, but rotten sound and video quality. Does anyone know of a similar, but better quality, video? I really like his descriptions of how he maneuvers to get on the enemy's tail, since I have no idea what it's like to fly a fighter jet. I went out and bought a 1:48 scale F-16 model the other day; you know, model glue, little Testors paint jars, etc. I haven't built a model in 20 years - I love this stuff! I'm hooked. Bryan ------------------------------- From: c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar) Subject: SoundBlaster configuration and F3 Hello all. I posted this to c.s.i.p.g.flt-sim but did not get a response, so I thought that I would bother you with it here. My Angelic wife bought me a SoundBlaster 16 for Christmas and F3 has never been so good. Right now I am running things without any tweaking and with both Speech and F/X set to soundblaster on the system config screen. Is this the optimal way to run F3 with a soundblaster, or are there any secrets that I should know about. Thanks in advance, and happy New Year to all you readers. --chris -- /////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\ The University of Illinois Christopher G Kolar at Urbana-Champaign Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory Internet: c-kolar@uiuc.edu Center for the Study of Reading NovaNET: chris / mfl / nova ------------------------------- From: primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si Subject: F/A 18 add-on Hi! I am interested, how detailed is the carrier modelling in this latest SH simulation? Does it include catapult takeoff? LSO? Will (is it allready?!) there be some traffic on the carrier deck? All those people perhaps? :) What about refueling in the air? And, will the simulator provide realistic bad weather conditions (unsteady deck perhaps) ? Thank you for all information...Oh, and if you have allready been talking about this, please tell me where I can find this old messages. Bye, Primzi primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: WAIS library access I just received confirmation from the directory of servers that my WAIS library sources have now been updated. If you were having problems before (past month or so), you should try again. In addition to the falcon3 and flight_sim libraries, I've created an IHHD library for those interested in doing doing head-to-head over the Internet. The IHHD library is not limited to flight sims. I've also expanded the flight_sim library somewhat. Apparently, I wasn't indexing my entire collection of information. This has been fixed, so now there's probably more than you ever wanted to know. Eventually, I will try to organize this stuff into a more presentable fashion using gopher. This will end up being similar to an online and current version of "The USENET Guide to Falcon 3.0", but with expanded information (covering most flight sims). I had originally planned on allowing boolean expression searches using freeWAIS, but ran into search problems with it, so there will be no boolean search expressions until a more robust freeWAIS is available. For those who are without Internet access, but would still like to use the service, there is a WAIS mail server. Send email to waismail@quake.think.com with the text 'help' as the message body for more information. Now for the mandatory blurb on WAIS. WAIS is the Wide Area Information Service. It's like an online library where you select the library you want to get info from and then search for titles that contain specified keywords. The titles returned to you are shown in "relevance" or most significant order. You can then choose which articles you want to read. To use this service, you can use the email interface as explained above, or use a local wais client such as swais, xwais, or waisq. Lastly, you can telnet to quake.think.com, login as wais and use their swais client to lookup the information. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: Justin Hawkins Subject: Comms mode in 3.02 Hi All I have a few questions about comms mode. I am using F3.02 with a friend via a null-modem cable, and maybe in the future via a modem. (so he doesn't hafta drag his computer round :) Generally it works well, but for a few things: 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? 2) How can we end it gracefully? At the moment the only option seems to be while at the next mission briefing to press alt+x, but this hangs one computer, and the mission records don't seem to be saved properly. If the other computer hits alt+x I can still wiggle the mouse around but thats it. 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but what have others experienced. Ta all. - Justin ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Bosnia The copy of the 'Bosnonian' (is that correct tense?) theatre I ordered (from the same fellow who put up MigLibya and F3-Chad) came this week. With X-mas, I only had time to load it, and run it once. I just tooled around a bit while my flight went about their business. Found some beautiful mountain ranges. Be lovely to dogfight in 'em. Unfortunately RF_FALC (his utility to map Red Flag theatres) still doesn't work. I included info on this digest, and how to subscribe, along with my address, but it appears he doesn't use the net.. Pity. A post from last week indicated that the F/A-18 modelling will include Bosnia. In any case, for $6, I consider the theatre I picked up to be a bargain. I asked the local Software Etc. jackals about SH's F/A-18, and all the guy could figure out was that it MAYBE cost $79, and is for the Mac. Something wrong with this story? We can hope. j ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Comms mode in 3.02 Justin Hawkins wrote: > 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am > hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? In comms mode, you can't. The "flight leader" can use "Alt-Q" to quit the mission however. > 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only > have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to > beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but > what have others experienced. I would think that 38.4kb is pushing it for non-16550-like comms. Hooked on network play, and getting ready to load Hornet! (yeah!) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Comms mode in 3.02 | | Hi All | | I have a few questions about comms mode. I am using F3.02 with a | friend via a null-modem cable, and maybe in the future via a modem. | (so he doesn't hafta drag his computer round :) Generally it works | well, but for a few things: | | 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am | hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? | I never did thik about that... | 2) How can we end it gracefully? At the moment the only | option seems to be while at the next mission briefing | to press alt+x, but this hangs one computer, and the | mission records don't seem to be saved properly. If the | other computer hits alt+x I can still wiggle the mouse | around but thats it. I believe it's alt-q to end mission. And the caller has to be the one doing this. | | 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only | have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to | beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but | what have others experienced. | Well, if your speed is limited, tou could always use the f302comm if you're using 3.02, and f231comm if you're using 3.02.1 Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Bosnia >I asked the local Software Etc. jackals about SH's F/A-18, and all the guy >could figure out was that it MAYBE cost $79, and is for the Mac. Something >wrong with this story? We can hope. I just bought "Hornet" (That's what SH is calling the Falcon3 add-on for the F/A-18) at Egghead for $35.88. It (according to the box) comes with the Bosnia theatre, and works with both F3 and standalone Mig-29. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Falcon3.03/Mig-29 1.02 patches available In the archives on onion.rain.com (and soon on cactus.org): /pub/falcon3/programs/f303.txt /pub/falcon3/programs/f303_1.arj /pub/falcon3/programs/f303_2.arj This is the patch that comes with the Hornet upgrade. Enjoy, I'm gonna go flyyyyy! -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 32 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sat Jan 1 16:31:38 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05966; Sat, 1 Jan 94 16:31:24 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 1 Jan 94 02:57 PST Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 03:05 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I33 Content-Length: 12782 X-Lines: 330 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 33 Sat Jan 1 02:57:12 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Hornet + Joystick calibration "Greg Stelmack" Hornet: I like, I hate MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU 3.03 patch buggy? gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So Bosnia jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Hornet + Joystick calibration I got Hornet yesterday (unfortunately only Electronics Boutique, the most expensive store in town, had it...) and finally picked up MiG-29 as well. After installation, I still have the joystick calibration problems that caused me to get rid of the 3.02.x patches and re-install Falcon from scratch. Here's the detailed text that I just mailed to Spectrum Holobyte's Compuserve address. If anyone knows of a Game card or other hardware combination that works fine with Hornet, please let me know! --- Begin Message Specifically, often (but not always) when I calibrate the stick will not use the entire area given it on the calibration screen. When I am asked to move it to the upper-left corner, it goes all the way to the left but only half-way up the box. When I am asked to move to the lower-right, it will go all the way down but only half-way to the right. Then, while flying, the aircraft behaves erratically. First, there appears to be a rather large dead-zone where stick movement has little if any effect. Then, movements to the right once out of the dead-zone will cause the plane to roll at a ridiculous rate. As soon as it starts to roll, it will flip completely upside-down with very little movement. Trying to roll left will cause only a very lazy roll no matter how far over the stick is pushed. Pitching up and down behaves erratically, with differing responses every time it is tried. Sometimes the stick will calibrate OK and allow me to fly, but the dead-zone and quick roll-rate persist. As I move the stick slowly to one side, I'll get no response until suddenly the plane will flip completely over. There is a very small area of lateral movement in which the stick causes roll, and with the Hornet's high roll-rate it is extremely tough to roll like you want. Pitching up and down seems OK, though, when this is happening. MiG-29 behaves similarly, although when the calibration works we don't have the roll-rate problems, so it can be controlled fine. I haven't tried the Falcon itself since upgrading. Is there a known game card that these updates work with? All my other games (X-Wing, F-15 Strike Eagle III, Air Warrior, M1 Tank Platoon) work fine with the joystick set-up, however. My system setup is: 486DX33 clone AMI BIOS (7/91?) 4 meg RAM dual floppies (1.44 & 1.2) connected to an old AT-style MFM/floppy controller (no harddrive attached to it) Future Domain TMC-950 SCSI host adapter 200 meg Rodime SCSI harddrive AdLib sound card Quik Game card w/ 2 joystick ports Oak Technologies 1 meg SVGA card, chipset v077 Generic I/O card, dual 16550A serial ports, single parallel port CH FlightStick Generic MicroSoft compatible mouse, using the MS-DOS driver (8.2?) QEMM MS-DOS 6.0 -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: Angel Rodriguez Subject: Hornet thoughts. Hey all just a couple of things I have noticed during my playing of Hornet for the past couple of hours since I got it. I took off from the carrier and decied to let the Autopilot take me in back to the deck. With out activating the ILS system the Autopilot set me down in the ocean blue! My engines stopped turning and bitching Betty kept calling out Warning warning.. But I didn't die! Any thoughts on this! Number two, I tried again with Autopilot and called the LSO he directed me in after 3 or four planes had landed. When I landed the Autopilot parked my plane out of the way WITH the NOSE gear hanging over the edge of the carrier! As per the booklet that SH distributed don't Acclerate time when Wingmen are landing on deck, I saw one park and fall right off the carrier!!!! It was pretty cool watching his plane float off in the distance!! Number three, during a RED FLAG mission and some regular mission flying I noticed that the AWACS will not call out Nav settings with Shift-N, I get the annoying static, no other noises are going and other wise it talks when I change waypointspoints and such. The LSO also coughed up a lot of static when it instructed me to land, I WANT TO HEAR the INSTRUCTIONS! Finally, did anyone else notice the pitching of the carrier deck when viewing from outside. At least I think it was pitching. Let me kow if anyone has encountered some of these things, especially the static when certain people speak, I think this was a bug in a previous version with the AWACS not saying anything and I find that it chooses to play static over voice messages more often than the other two games (MIG29 and Falcon). Later, hope to hear from someone soon. ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Hornet + Joystick calibration >I got Hornet yesterday (unfortunately only Electronics Boutique, the most >expensive store in town, had it...) and finally picked up MiG-29 as well. >After installation, I still have the joystick calibration problems that >caused me to get rid of the 3.02.x patches and re-install Falcon from scratch. >Here's the detailed text that I just mailed to Spectrum Holobyte's Compuserve >address. If anyone knows of a Game card or other hardware combination that >works fine with Hornet, please let me know! I had all sorts of weird problems until I switched to a ACMI card by Thrustmaster. The Soundblaster port is braindead, and I had a Kraft(?) card that wasn't any better. My configuration that works is: Clone, with AMI bios, VLB 486/33dx2 (Is that what they call a 486/66? :-) 16MB RAM. IDE/2serial/1parallel/1game (disabled)/floppy controller 1.44MB/1.2MB floppies 340MB IDE disc. Soundblaster Pro Intel Ethernet Express16 ethernet Diamond Stealth VLB-SVGA card, 1MB DOS6.2, EMM386 TM ACMI dual joystick card TM FCS, WCS-MarkII, RCS One thing I did have to do, is after the automatic install, I had to run all of the reset programs (F3RESET, F18RESET, MIGRESET). Before I did that, I couldn't fly any campaign mission, and received "out of memory" errors when I had 619KB free. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Hornet: I like, I hate Hi all, I just got Hornet last night. I've had the opportunity to mess with it a good bit and thought I would post some thoughts. Of course, this is to stimulate conversation hehehehehehe :) I like: The flight model. Aside from Air Warrior (can I get info about the 666 th or other Internet squads?), the flight model of the Hornet is the best I have felt in a long time. It feels like a cross between Mig 29 and Falcon 3. When banking, I can almost feel the side slip and need for opposite rudder or stick back. It really feels great to me. The rudders are cool in that in straight and level flight they don't just yaw the aircraft. They tend to start a cork screw flight if you don't use ailerons (sp?) also. I like: The carrier landings and SA in landing. I do not know what they did, but in low speed, the Hornet is much more forgiving. Practicing in Red Flag, I had to call on learnings from ATP. I practiced (for about 3 hours) a "race track" landing pattern and to stay in glide slope, I had to pull back on stick, control power, and use rudders. I began to think back about in ATP where they give you the 30 degree mark on the screen to help you keep a 30 degree bank. With this set up, I can for sure land on pavement. I only got 1 clean deck landing in Red Flag. Talk about a fast stop! I Like: Bosnia. Weaving through the mountains is cool, though not really needed. I was just messing around on missions :) I like: The Hornet. I may never fly the Viper again..except for... I hate: The crappy JS routines SH uses. I have given up all hope with my Tmaster FCS. It just doesn't work for some reason (views, control). So I am using my ol' Kraft. There is no "dead space" This has been replaced by low response space (very nice!) butted abruptly against high response space (auuugghh!!!). I get a nice gentle roll, but go a millimeter too far and I am inverted. Try to compensate back and I roll like a banshee just to be inverted through the opposite direction. If this were real, the navy would go broke on new canopies and helmets! Practice has helped me control this, but it is still wicked touchy! Can someone tell me the differences in the flight models?? I went through the manual a few times. I am flying the hardest (realistic?? the one just above Difficult). I have not seen any descriptions of the differences and felt non between realistic and difficult. Any ideas or page numbers for me to look at?? I hate: Comms. I still have yet to get trouble free comms. Could be my system. But none-the-less I hate the comms. Enough said. I hate: The price!! 44.00 for a stinking add on????? Granted I got it from Elect. Boutique. But here it is comparable in price to a whole sim. I hate: Having to pay 16.99 for Falcnr, Falcalc, Mapper, Show F3, KCC's combat Missions, KCC menu *EACH*!!! Lets see, that is...umm..err.. uhh..101.94 for add ons. Now call me cheap for complaining about supporting these individuals. But 17.00 a pop??!! UH, no thanks. Maybe 17 for two or a set, but not for each. Call me cheap. I still think SH should allow you to configure pilots or select a dream squad without buying a second source product. The method SH has for selecting pilots sucks in my opinion. I have run out of scrap paper to jot names and abilities down. A windowing environment would likely solve this problem (of mine). Well that is enough venting, on with your regularly scheduled program :) Scott "No DOOM posts here! Thank God!!!!!!" in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: 3.03 patch buggy? Just installed the 3.03 patch - and two immediate bugs reared their ugly heads. I installed on vanilla 3.02.1. No OFT. No Mig29. Kuwait theatre. 1. On 5 successive missions one of my two wingmen splashed to the left of the runway just as I was taking off. Eventually I got it on tape: he just rolled into the ground following the other wingman. Back to 3.02.1, restart Kuwait: problem gone. 2. Completed the usual "3 TU22s heading towards ...." type intercept mission. Got the message: -------------------------------------------------------------------- MISSION UNSUCCESSFUL: YOU FAILED TO HIT A SINGLE ENEMY PLANE. (!!??) Enemy losses: 3 TU22 2 Mig29 2 Mig27 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The latter (of course :-)) was correct. Back to 3.02.1 - problem solved. BTW - I am well aware of reasons for being unsuccessful on this type of mission: this wasn't one of those occasions where the strike force slipped past! This is ancient history to me but are these bugs not reminiscent of 3.00.0? So - as patch 3.03 ostensibly just fixes the comms to be Hornet compatible, my advice is DON'T RUSH TO UPGRADE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT and if you do - keep up a backup of 3.02.1. Roll on 3.03.1. Ho-hum. - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Bosnia I also ordered the Bosnian theatre from the fellow who did CHAD/Libya. I got it last week, about a month after I mailed in my cheque. I haven't had time to do much exploring, but from what I've seen it's very nicely done; deep green hills and forests, rivers.. The comed map doesn't work.. And neither does his utility (rf_falc2) for re-setting IA/Red Flag theatres. In my opinion, it's worth six bucks. j ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 33 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Mon Jan 3 08:05:50 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA06094; Mon, 3 Jan 94 08:05:11 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 2 Jan 94 17:45 PST Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 17:50 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I34 Content-Length: 10468 X-Lines: 277 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 34 Sun Jan 2 17:45:53 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Speech from AWACS David Sitsky Re: Speech from AWACS Jeff Beadles RE: Speech from WACS Kris Ong Aircraft and scenery designer from "Michael Jordan" Subject: Speech from AWACS Hiya, I recently purchased Falcon 3.0 and have upgraded it to 3.0.2 and then to 3.0.3. All the speech through the game seems fine (I get Bitching Betty and responses from my Wingman) except from the AWACS plane. No matter which waypoint I am heading towards, the noise I get from the AWACS sounds something like "one point one". Is this the correct behaviour? For the record, I have a 386DX-40, 4Megs of Ram and a Sound Blaster Pro. Cheers, ;) David ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Speech from AWACS | | Hiya, | | I recently purchased Falcon 3.0 and have upgraded it to 3.0.2 and then to | 3.0.3. All the speech through the game seems fine (I get Bitching Betty | and responses from my Wingman) except from the AWACS plane. | | No matter which waypoint I am heading towards, the noise I get from the AWACS | sounds something like "one point one". | | Is this the correct behaviour? For the record, I have a 386DX-40, 4Megs of | Ram and a Sound Blaster Pro. | Yes it is perfectly ok, that's what it's supposed to sound like. They (SH) truncated the sound. This is Falcon, not Strike Commander. =) Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Speech from AWACS >> sits@cairo.anu.edu.au (David Sitsky) wrote: >> I recently purchased Falcon 3.0 and have upgraded it to 3.0.2 and then to >> 3.0.3. All the speech through the game seems fine (I get Bitching Betty >> and responses from my Wingman) except from the AWACS plane. >> >> No matter which waypoint I am heading towards, the noise I get from the AWACS >> sounds something like "one point one". > krismon@quack.kfu.com (Kris Ong) wrote: >Yes it is perfectly ok, that's what it's supposed to sound like. They (SH) >truncated the sound. This is Falcon, not Strike Commander. =) I don't think so. It sounds like they reverted to the original 3.0 fiasco, where they played static. In 3.0d(?), they changed the message to just say "Waypoint". Now, with 3.03 (at least with Hornet), all you get is static again. Sigh. I'll be trying 3.03 network comms tomorrow. I hope it's not as bad as the sound. Then again, Falcon3 & add-on's are starting to approach the size of Strike commander... :-) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: RE: Speech from WACS | > krismon@quack.kfu.com (Kris Ong) wrote: | >Yes it is perfectly ok, that's what it's supposed to sound like. They (SH) | >truncated the sound. This is Falcon, not Strike Commander. =) | | I don't think so. It sounds like they reverted to the original 3.0 | fiasco, where they played static. In 3.0d(?), they changed the | message to just say "Waypoint". Now, with 3.03 (at least with Hornet), | all you get is static again. Sigh. | | I'll be trying 3.03 network comms tomorrow. I hope it's not as bad | as the sound. | | Then again, Falcon3 & add-on's are starting to approach the size of | Strike commander... :-) | | -Jeff | -- | Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com Mine, (just the patch) didn't change anything. still sound the same to me. Note, however that I used manual install of the patch, didn't patch any of the hor*.rtp files all I did were the... report1 303patch asiapat4, 5, & 6 and m102pat and the 303arm patch in the armsdata directory. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: "Michael Jordan" Subject: Aircraft and scenery designer from SH This past Friday while I was out searching for SH new add-on F-18 (Later I found out its title is Hornet) I ran across a new package from SH. I can not remember the name. It was a aircraft and scenery designer. Has anyone else seen this software? Can you use anything you design with Falcon3? Can anyone recommend it or not. I did remember the price was about $65 at EB. Thanks. Michael Jordan ------------------------------- From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: F3 Landings The F3 manual shows a racetrack landing pattern, which I find difficult to maintain; the autopilot uses a different pattern. What's the purpose of the pattern(s), and what kind of approach do real Falcon drivers use? - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Hornet: More thoughts, bugs Hi all, (This note is being posted to the Internet flight sim news group, the F3digest, and sent to SH) More notes on Hornet, submitted for your review. I still tend to like Hornet, and would recommend it to all Falcon 3.0 devotees. I have seen several things that continue to frustrate me. Has anyone else seen these?? 1. Joystick routines. Beating a dead horse I know, but the subtle controls needed for a slow precise carrier approach require exact controls. I was doing several slow approaches onto a carrier after missions. During the approach I rolled a little to the left, I passed the "magic point" on the stick deflection and *POOF!* I am inverted, KIA. Whoever SH fired who's responsibility it was to write JS routines, they should get him (or her) back!! (this is a statement not based in fact, point is JS routines in Mig and Hornet are bad (IMO). In F3 they are good, what changed??) [side note.. ok, I am not a professional pilot and not a DOD systems engineer, I admit that. Maybe I don't know what I am talking about. But I stand here and say that the JS controls for Hornet are flawed at best. Yes it is flyable with slow meticulous movements. Yes it is enjoyable. But by SH's interpretation of flight control would indicate Hornet drivers take a hit of Valium before flying. In a high stress situation where the adrenalin gets flowing, I can see the whole strike package flying uncontrollably over the target as they jerk their sticks just a *little* too much.] 2. In landing pattern, wingy starts calling out bandits. Sure enough just in front of my nose there is a TU-22 escorted by Mig 23's. They were dispatched easily enough, but I ask... Wasn't there a complete break down of fleet defense for them to be so close?? Where were those extremely expensive F14's when they came in?? Were they sleeping at the radar screens on the carrier? What about the pickets for the carrier group?? For 44$ (the cost of a complete sim) I would hope SH would be truer to carrier ops. 3. In Kuwait, there is that little island just to the north where a lot of missions are directed to. Several times I have been assigned to provide TAC support, aid in retreat, nail a tank column, etc. 3 out of 4 times, there were no enemy armor!! This is exasperated by the fact the allied troops were IN THE WATER!!!! ( all the time) Did the enemy troops have submersible armor divisions?? Must have, I searched all over the island, all around, and no enemies. Captain, sonar contact bearing 090, moving slow. Can you ID the contact?? Alpha class? No sir!! My Gawd!! it is a column of tanks and personnel carriers!! Radio officer, call in our secret Marine Boy submersible aircraft to stem this enemy advance!! 4. Escort mission for B-52's to Kuwait Int. airport. I assign a SEAD flight. We fly the whole mission. Nothing on RWR, no bandits, nothing. Mission over, failure, bombers could not attack. **sigh** Ok, hold on a minute..... I am looking for something...where..ah yes, there it is my SOAP BOX!!!! Ahem.... This stinks!! I pay full price for an add on and get a half finished sim that looks like the virgin version of Falcon 3.0! It has many merits, true. But I am so damn tired of getting something new just to get flustered by things that any beta tester worth his or her salt would pick up on in a heart beat. I don't fault SH or other publishers (well, maybe a little). This is a though industry (as I am told), deadlines must be met, money must be made or else people lose jobs. Fair enough. In my heart of hearts I believe the entertainment software industry *NEEDS* a dedicated gaming platform. Be it 3DO, CDI, whatever. Something the coders can write to and know exactly what hardware is there and the like. Something the end user can just drop a CD into and run. The myriad of PC components available just creates too many variables to account for (IMO, I am also not a coder). The end result is some users get a new piece of software which does not run. All this person may be told is "well, it works for me; check your system; Your BIOS, OS, Modem, Game card, sound card, is not supported; etc" Well I have put my soap box away. All I can say in closing is, when do we get the HRNT101.exe patch??? Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 34 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 4 22:02:03 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA14221; Tue, 4 Jan 94 22:01:35 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 94 23:04 PST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 02:05 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I35 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 35 Mon Jan 3 23:04:25 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Returned mail: Cannot send message MAILER-DAEMON@iconet.ICO.Olivetti.C More on Joystick calibration "Greg Stelmack" ; Thu, 30 Dec 93 15:52 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 23:30 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I32 Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 32 Thu Dec 30 15:52:46 PST 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: CF-18, SH F18 bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) ...and *poof*, I was in Panama! Bryan Cass SoundBlaster configuration and F3 c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar F/A 18 add-on primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si WAIS library access knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Comms mode in 3.02 Justin Hawkins Re: Comms mode in 3.02 Kris Ong Re: Bosnia Jeff Beadles Falcon3.03/Mig-29 1.02 patches avai Jeff Beadles ------------------------------------------------------------ From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: CF-18, SH F18 Boys, I don't know how we European folks could wait until the release of SH F18 here (usually 1-2 months after USA...). To just add a point about differences between USA'F18 and CF-18: I think the only external visual difference is the search light which is placed under the left side of the cockpit, and could light up an area left of the plane. This is used during visual contact intercept at night to identify targets. Of course, this is not of much use if the boggie is not cooperant (ie does not fly straight and level 8-)...) Christophe "Rafale" Bonnet ------------------------------- From: Bryan Cass Subject: ...and *poof*, I was in Panama! I have worked my way up to day 10 on my first campaign and was winning in Kuwait! So last night I decided to practice a little BFM in Red Flag after bumping up the enemy logic level to Cadet. I did a few 1X1H2H and 2X2H2H, the missions that came with the game. When I went back to the main screen and selected my Fighting 10th squadron. The theater was Panama! So I committed anyway and tried to fly a CAP mission. All of the ground units and targets are from the Kuwait theater, but the terrain is from the Panama theater. I couldn't even taxi down the runway - the plane kept sinking into the ocean! Is this a known bug? I had to move the squadron back to the Kuwait theater, which of course, wiped out my campaign. BTW, I bought a video called "Top Gun: The story behind the story" with Randy Cunningham describing some of his dogfights in Viet Nam. Good information, but rotten sound and video quality. Does anyone know of a similar, but better quality, video? I really like his descriptions of how he maneuvers to get on the enemy's tail, since I have no idea what it's like to fly a fighter jet. I went out and bought a 1:48 scale F-16 model the other day; you know, model glue, little Testors paint jars, etc. I haven't built a model in 20 years - I love this stuff! I'm hooked. Bryan ------------------------------- From: c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar) Subject: SoundBlaster configuration and F3 Hello all. I posted this to c.s.i.p.g.flt-sim but did not get a response, so I thought that I would bother you with it here. My Angelic wife bought me a SoundBlaster 16 for Christmas and F3 has never been so good. Right now I am running things without any tweaking and with both Speech and F/X set to soundblaster on the system config screen. Is this the optimal way to run F3 with a soundblaster, or are there any secrets that I should know about. Thanks in advance, and happy New Year to all you readers. --chris -- /////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\ The University of Illinois Christopher G Kolar at Urbana-Champaign Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory Internet: c-kolar@uiuc.edu Center for the Study of Reading NovaNET: chris / mfl / nova ------------------------------- From: primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si Subject: F/A 18 add-on Hi! I am interested, how detailed is the carrier modelling in this latest SH simulation? Does it include catapult takeoff? LSO? Will (is it allready?!) there be some traffic on the carrier deck? All those people perhaps? :) What about refueling in the air? And, will the simulator provide realistic bad weather conditions (unsteady deck perhaps) ? Thank you for all information...Oh, and if you have allready been talking about this, please tell me where I can find this old messages. Bye, Primzi primoz.marolt@uni-lj.si ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: WAIS library access I just received confirmation from the directory of servers that my WAIS library sources have now been updated. If you were having problems before (past month or so), you should try again. In addition to the falcon3 and flight_sim libraries, I've created an IHHD library for those interested in doing doing head-to-head over the Internet. The IHHD library is not limited to flight sims. I've also expanded the flight_sim library somewhat. Apparently, I wasn't indexing my entire collection of information. This has been fixed, so now there's probably more than you ever wanted to know. Eventually, I will try to organize this stuff into a more presentable fashion using gopher. This will end up being similar to an online and current version of "The USENET Guide to Falcon 3.0", but with expanded information (covering most flight sims). I had originally planned on allowing boolean expression searches using freeWAIS, but ran into search problems with it, so there will be no boolean search expressions until a more robust freeWAIS is available. For those who are without Internet access, but would still like to use the service, there is a WAIS mail server. Send email to waismail@quake.think.com with the text 'help' as the message body for more information. Now for the mandatory blurb on WAIS. WAIS is the Wide Area Information Service. It's like an online library where you select the library you want to get info from and then search for titles that contain specified keywords. The titles returned to you are shown in "relevance" or most significant order. You can then choose which articles you want to read. To use this service, you can use the email interface as explained above, or use a local wais client such as swais, xwais, or waisq. Lastly, you can telnet to quake.think.com, login as wais and use their swais client to lookup the information. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: Justin Hawkins Subject: Comms mode in 3.02 Hi All I have a few questions about comms mode. I am using F3.02 with a friend via a null-modem cable, and maybe in the future via a modem. (so he doesn't hafta drag his computer round :) Generally it works well, but for a few things: 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? 2) How can we end it gracefully? At the moment the only option seems to be while at the next mission briefing to press alt+x, but this hangs one computer, and the mission records don't seem to be saved properly. If the other computer hits alt+x I can still wiggle the mouse around but thats it. 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but what have others experienced. Ta all. - Justin ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Bosnia The copy of the 'Bosnonian' (is that correct tense?) theatre I ordered (from the same fellow who put up MigLibya and F3-Chad) came this week. With X-mas, I only had time to load it, and run it once. I just tooled around a bit while my flight went about their business. Found some beautiful mountain ranges. Be lovely to dogfight in 'em. Unfortunately RF_FALC (his utility to map Red Flag theatres) still doesn't work. I included info on this digest, and how to subscribe, along with my address, but it appears he doesn't use the net.. Pity. A post from last week indicated that the F/A-18 modelling will include Bosnia. In any case, for $6, I consider the theatre I picked up to be a bargain. I asked the local Software Etc. jackals about SH's F/A-18, and all the guy could figure out was that it MAYBE cost $79, and is for the Mac. Something wrong with this story? We can hope. j ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Comms mode in 3.02 Justin Hawkins wrote: > 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am > hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? In comms mode, you can't. The "flight leader" can use "Alt-Q" to quit the mission however. > 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only > have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to > beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but > what have others experienced. I would think that 38.4kb is pushing it for non-16550-like comms. Hooked on network play, and getting ready to load Hornet! (yeah!) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Comms mode in 3.02 | | Hi All | | I have a few questions about comms mode. I am using F3.02 with a | friend via a null-modem cable, and maybe in the future via a modem. | (so he doesn't hafta drag his computer round :) Generally it works | well, but for a few things: | | 1) How can I eject? Is it impossible while linked? If I am | hit am I doomed to wait till I hit the ground? | I never did thik about that... | 2) How can we end it gracefully? At the moment the only | option seems to be while at the next mission briefing | to press alt+x, but this hangs one computer, and the | mission records don't seem to be saved properly. If the | other computer hits alt+x I can still wiggle the mouse | around but thats it. I believe it's alt-q to end mission. And the caller has to be the one doing this. | | 3) What is the best bps speed for null-modem play? We only | have 8250 UARTS in that com port, this leads me to | beleive that 38400 is the maximum reliable link, but | what have others experienced. | Well, if your speed is limited, tou could always use the f302comm if you're using 3.02, and f231comm if you're using 3.02.1 Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Bosnia >I asked the local Software Etc. jackals about SH's F/A-18, and all the guy >could figure out was that it MAYBE cost $79, and is for the Mac. Something >wrong with this story? We can hope. I just bought "Hornet" (That's what SH is calling the Falcon3 add-on for the F/A-18) at Egghead for $35.88. It (according to the box) comes with the Bosnia theatre, and works with both F3 and standalone Mig-29. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Falcon3.03/Mig-29 1.02 patches available In the archives on onion.rain.com (and soon on cactus.org): /pub/falcon3/programs/f303.txt /pub/falcon3/programs/f303_1.arj /pub/falcon3/programs/f303_2.arj This is the patch that comes with the Hornet upgrade. Enjoy, I'm gonna go flyyyyy! -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 32 ]] ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: More on Joystick calibration Well, to fix my joystick calibration problems I went out hunting for a Thrustmaster ACMI card. Since no one in the area carries them, and I was impatient to get my Hornet in the air (and my brother his MiG-29), I settled for a CH GameCard 3 (figuring its quality would be comparable to the ACMI). For the first time ever, the plane on the calibration screen actually went to the upper-left-hand corner! And all the way to the lower-right! OK, now things were cooking. However, I then had a huge dead zone. This makes it fun, as the aircraft is slow to respond, you tend to jam the joystick over and end up inverted. I then noticed that when I calibrated, the marker hit the corner long before the joystick did. So, I stopped moving the stick when it got to a corner. In other words, I only moved the stick enough to get it to the corner. Then I played. Things worked beautifully! You have to have a light touch as you are dealing with only about half the normal travel, but there is no dead zone and a smooth progression out to the extremes. I finally have decent joystick control (although I would like the full travel). So, if you're having stick problems: 1) Get a better gamecard. I don't know if the ACMI allows full travel, but the CH GameCard 3 works with the limited travel. 2) Try calibrating as above and see if it helps. Someone else suggested: 3) Move to the opposite corner of where calibration tells you. I'm going to try this one tonight to see if it gives me full travel. -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Hornet impressions Some quicky Hornet impressions now that I have my calibration problems worked out: I love my 12 missiles! Six Sidewinders + six AMRAAMs + fuel-tank is great. Not needing to mount an ECM pod. Carrier-landings are neat to watch (it'll be a bit before I try one). IFF-light up-front! Much easier than listening for the tone. The new navigational system. Compass super-imposed over the map. Much better navigation. The don't like: Short legs. Remember those fuel tanks. The F/A-18 has always been my favorite plane; it's so nice to have a sim that does it justice. Now if I can just get a strike mission to try out its ground attack capabilities... -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet: I like, I hate > From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU > Subject: Hornet: I like, I hate > I like: > The flight model. Aside from Air Warrior (can I get info about the > 666 th or other Internet squads?), the flight model of the Hornet > is the best I have felt in a long time. It feels like a cross > between Mig 29 and Falcon 3. When banking, I can almost feel the > side slip and need for opposite rudder or stick back. I hope this doesn't sound too picky, but if SH modeled the F/A-18 properly, you shouldn't need to use the rudders when rolling at low AOA (less than 25 deg). The flight control system is designed to make it a "feet-on-the-floor" aircraft, meaning that rudder, aileron, and horizontal tail deflections are programmed to give you a coordinated roll. At high AOA you will need to feed in rudder to increase the roll rate. I'm not sure why the FCS programmers didn't just do this themselves. > The rudders are cool in that in straight and > level flight they don't just yaw the aircraft. They tend to start > a cork screw flight if you don't use ailerons (sp?) also. GREAT, they finally figured out that rudder deflections do cause rolling moments, although in the F/A-18, and F-16 for that matter, at low AOA the rudder to aileron interconnect will keep you from rolling very much. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: F3 Landings > From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) > Subject: F3 Landings > The F3 manual shows a racetrack landing pattern, which I find difficult to > maintain; the autopilot uses a different pattern. What's the purpose of > the pattern(s), and what kind of approach do real Falcon drivers use? There are 2 basic landing patterns used in the USAF for fighter aircraft, the overhead and the straight-in. The overhead pattern is the racetrack one you refer to. The straight-in, as the name implies just has you line up on the runway a few miles out and drive it in. As far as purposes go for each pattern type, the overhead allows you to stay close to the field and do lots of touch-n-go's if you want to get in some landing practice. The straight-in allows you to do formation landings. From the standpoint of real aircraft, the overhead is more challenging, but also much more fun to fly. For sims, I usually just shoot a straight-in, since landing is pretty boring in them, IMHO. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey Stewart) Subject: gamecards Got a question for the gurus. I just got F3.02.1 and am condsidering getting a CH Flightstick. Can I plug it into the gameport on my I/O card or do I need a spcecial gamecard? I'm running a 486/50 w/ 8 MB of RAM and an ATI Graphics Ultra+ w/ 2 MB of memory. Thanks. Jeff ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Re: Hornet: More thoughts, bugs >1. Joystick routines. Beating a dead horse I know, but the subtle The joystick routines have gotten progressively worse since F3. I found that when using the release version of Hornet I get max right roll with the stick fully deflected, but max left roll with less than 1/3 travel. Makes it damn near impossible to fly straight and level. >For 44$ (the cost of a complete sim) I would hope SH would be truer >to carrier ops. SH was probably going for the quick kill to make just a little more money off the existing F3 engine. To do what you (and I) would like to wrt carrier ops probably required mode development bucks than they wanted to spend. It's the same old "migs over your runway as you takeoff" bug. >3. In Kuwait, there is that little island just to the north where Sounds like the same "friendlies wipe out the badguys before you get there bug." 8-( Climbing on my own soapbox: >It has many merits, true. But I am so damn tired of getting >something new just to get flustered by things that any beta tester >worth his or her salt would pick up on in a heart beat. I don't Having done testing for a lot of different companies I've found that having a beta testing team and actually listening to them are two different beasts. Most game companies still don't acknowledge how large the "hard core" sim market is. >Well I have put my soap box away. All I can say in closing is, >when do we get the HRNT101.exe patch??? I suspect you're going to find little enthusiasm at SH to provide a bug fix at this point. Salvation, if it comes, will be from the multitude of hackers out there. Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: H1.0 I've noticed some of the problems with Hornet1.0 that others have: - Excessive roll rate. The F-18 is way too sensitive in the roll axis. Is this realistic? I doubt it. The Viper and the 29th won't roll nearly as fast at full joy- stick defelection as the Hornet will at half deflection. (generic game card and Ch FS) - Amphibious tanks. All sorts of enemy forces (in Panama) located in the ocean. Oh well. At least I can successfully attck and destroy them. - Planes drive off deck. This is neat but kind of annoying. I am also a little annoyed that: - Only Hornets land on the TR. The F-14s don't. Furthermore, even the manual indicates that the TR carries 24 F-14's, 24 F/A-18's, 10 A-6E's, 4 KA-6D's, 4E-2C's, 4EA-6B's, 10S-3A's, and 6 HH-60H's. With the exception of the Hornets and the Tomcats, (correct me if I'm wrong) none of these other aircraft are even included in the add-on, much less can be observed landing or taking off from the TR. On the positive side: + The update included w/Hornet fixed all my joystick problems with MiG29! + The addition of carrier landing is great. It took a few hours of practice, but I can now land on the carrier using the realistic flight model. Despite the roll rate problem, the Hornet handles MUCH better for landings than the Viper. It's actually VERY EASY to make a runway landing with it. I've always had trouble landing the Viper, but the Hornet and the 29th are not bad at all. I'm actually glad that SH released Hornet despite its bugs. It's a really great add-on anyways. These should be fixed in a future patch though. Moreover, adding the other types of aircraft would make it more realistic. I also like the idea of adding in-air refueling. Now I'm just waiting for the F-15E, F-14, and Su-27 add-ons. - Mike "Mustang" Coyne mcoyne@acs.bu.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 35 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Jan 5 23:38:54 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA20371; Wed, 5 Jan 94 23:38:17 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 94 07:02 PST Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 07:03 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I36 Content-Length: 10075 X-Lines: 236 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 36 Wed Jan 5 07:02:52 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Binary Editting jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) running comms off of com3 c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar Update Patches white7@server.uwindsor.ca (WHITE BR ILS Kevin Franden Scenery Editor/etc jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Binary Editting Howdy. I noticed someone complaining about the KCC utilities no longer being shareware, and I thought I'd mention the various shareware programmes available, and some of the things they do, and how to replicate it. If modifying your squadron stats is of interest to you, Frank Racis wrote a routine to do just this, the programme names are FCE and FC309. I'm not sure whether or not they're still available for FTP on onion.rain.com or not. Over the weekend, after wanting to map BOSNIA to the Red Flag area, and having no luck with the routines sent by Jason Irby, I want back to the last shareware version of F3MAPS, and using FC (file compare) and Nortons' Diskedit, I determined what needs to be changed to map Red Flag areas and Instant Action theatre. First I'll list the offsets for FALCON3.EXE and MiG29.EXE, and then explain the process. If you've got a binary editor, (I used Norton's Diskedit) you can modify the executable to change the RF/IA theatres by modifying four areas. Assuming you're using diskedit, and have the FALCON3.EXE or MiG29.EXE opened, to modify the RF area: The file name for the theatre to load for RF can be determined by looking in your falcon directory. dir *.stm, for example, should give you a list of the theatre file names. 'Kurile Islands' for example is 'JAPAN'. The file name will always be six characters or less. At offset C1D52h (F3) and C2C3Eh (M29) is the file name for theatre to load. This will be 'NELLIS' on an un-modified executable. You can modify this to load any of the theatres. Just replace 'NELLIS' with the file name of the theatre you'd like to load. At offset C1E59h (F3) and C2D4Fh (M29) is the extension to store RF missions as. Default is 'RFM'. I just change the first character (JFM for Japan), but there's nothing stopping you from changing the entire extension, if you desire. At offset C22E3h (F3) and C3229h (M29) is the 'radio button' label 'NELLIS COMMAND' (default). There's nothing compelling you to change this, but if you want to have the proper message when you switch to RF, change 'NELLIS' to whatever theatre you've changed to. If the theatre file name is LESS than six characters, in the file name (the first address), place 00 after the shorter file name, and then change any remaining characters from the origional file name to spaces (32d, 20h). Re-mapping the IA theatre involves only changing the theatre file name. At offset C1D35h (F3) and C2C27h (M29) you'll find the file name. The default is 'KUWAIT'. These addresses are for F3.02.1 or M1.01. If you're using a different version, and want to find the addresses yourself, here's what to do. Search the file (either Falcon3.exe or MiG29.exe) for 'RFM'. Note the address for future reference. Back up a couple of pages, and search for 'NELLIS'. This'll bring you to the address where the theatre file name is stored. Searching again for NELLIS should bring you to the 'NELLIS COMMAND' address. If for some reason it doesn't, search again. For IA, search for 'KUWAIT'. The first match will be in a list of all the theatres. Search again. This SHOULD bring you to the address of the IA theatre file name. Needless to say, you should always make a backup of any file you're going to be editing. I'd like to compile a list of the data formats, addresses, and modifiications that others have managed to de-code from the Falcon files. A lot of 're-inventing the wheel' must occur as information is decoded again and again by new 'hackers. Frank Racis sent me a list of the squadron file formats some time back. Ian gave me an overview of what's being stored in the \armsdata directory. To anyone who's wrote utilities/decoded file formats/hacked the executables, or any other form of modifications or additions that would like to share your knowledge, or if you've got questions, comments, suggestions, please leave me mail. The information will be available to anyone requesting it. Have fun! j ------------------------------- From: c-kolar@uiuc.edu (Christopher Kolar) Subject: running comms off of com3 My life is so incredably bad that I have to run my modem out of com3. As of 3.01.1 the comms only allowed for connection via com1 or com2. Is there a way of "fixing" this so that I would be able to utilize modem play? Thanks much, --chris -- /////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\ The University of Illinois Christopher G Kolar at Urbana-Champaign Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory Internet: c-kolar@uiuc.edu Center for the Study of Reading NovaNET: chris / mfl / nova ------------------------------- From: white7@server.uwindsor.ca (WHITE BRAD) Subject: Update Patches Hi, I have lost track of all the falcon updates in the past few months :(( Could someone please post a summary of all the changes etc? I have OFT, and for x-mas received MiG29.. where does that put me in the update line? :) Is it worth going to the new one 3.3 or whatever? Thanks, I appreciate it :) Also, i didnt receive any info on ordering the available addons (Falcnr etc..) does SH include that normally in their new releases now or what? (ie order info) Thanks so much !!! Regards, Brad White ------------------------------- From: Kevin Franden Subject: ILS Hello All! I've been a lurker here for awhile and would like to get your input on landing in general and the ILS in specific. I have been winping out and landed w/ the autopilot or had the the autopilot get me lined up and took over on the final approach (which was sucessful about 75% of the time). Point 1: Before playing Falcon3 I played Jetfighter 2 for awhile and it was easier to land. That's not to say that it was easy but it was easier. One thing that was invaluble (esp. for carrier traps) was the ILS. In JF2 What I found to be easiset was to put the flight path marker on the point at which you wanted to land and then adjust your attitude such that the ILS ended up as a giant plus sign in the center of the HUD. Doing this I could hit the arrestor cable most of the time. The ILS in falcon seems to lie (alot). I have tried and tried to use the ILS and it seems to be of no value. In fact, the only thing that seems to be of value in ILS-mode is the attitude indicator that looks like: v o ^ And this, of course can be duplicated with the analog attitude indicator. I know that I'm not all the great at landings BUT if the ILS mode worked more like I expect it to I think I might actually be able to put a viper down on the numbers instead of a mile too short or becomming a grey lawn-dart. I guess my question/gripe is: is the ILS-mode totally brain-dead or am I? Point 2: Is there anyone out there in the KC-metro area that is interested in h2h? Is there a 913 figher wing out there? Anyone? Anyone? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kevin Franden kevinf@informix.com Informix Software, Inc. 16011 College Blvd Lenexa, KS. 66219 #include fprintf(DISCLAIMER,"I said what I said and not my employer\n"); =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Capre Diem ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Scenery Editor/etc Michael Jordan wrote about seeing, from SH, an aircraft/scenery designer/editor.. Are you sure this was SH and not Domark? I noticed that they have one out, in the $60 range, that fits your description. This product has no relation to Falcon3. When a 'real' jock is coming in for a landing, he'll do the race-track run. Expecially on a carrier, but the entire carrier launch\trap process was described in excellent detail a few issues back. The reason for the run-around is to keep all the aircraft currently airborn from colliding, mainly. (At least that's how I understand it. If the fellow who's flown Vipers before can add more?) How useful do you find the AWACS messages? A ton of them are worthless. Telling me the heading and distance to the next waypoint if I'm dogfighting, or hitting a target of oportunity off the beaten track. Hell, I don't NEED that. I've got a real grudge about the communication line wiping out part of my external view. I think if I had the option, I'd just as soon nuke the entire thing than loose part of my SA. (I'm running an Ad Lib board, so I don't get any digitized messages.. They sound too rotten on the PC speaker to bother with, IMO.) Regarding the comments about how programmers 'should' do things -- I agree, a standard sim 'engine' is a fine idea. Something that can handle aircraft, armour, ships, and even cars. As you mentioned, you aren't a 'coder', I can understand your misconceptions about the programming process. j ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 36 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Fri Jan 7 05:58:53 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA23066; Fri, 7 Jan 94 05:58:31 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:38 PST Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I37 Content-Length: 7750 X-Lines: 221 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 37 Thu Jan 6 14:38:52 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Can't upgrade Mig-29 1.01 to 1.02 Izar Tarandach Flight Models: F3.02,M1.02,H1.0 mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Joystick Calibration, the last chap "Greg Stelmack" PAS16 ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edwa Other sources for Shaw's book? Kinstrey Subject: Can't upgrade Mig-29 1.01 to 1.02 After installing the Hornet patches, my F3+OFT upgraded alright to 3.03, but checkver (and opening screen) still show Mig as being 1.01. I even tried applying M102*.RTP by hand, to no avail. Suggestions ? thanks!! --izar ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Flight Models: F3.02,M1.02,H1.0 I have been enjoying the Hornet add-on very much, despite a new bug I found: In the Kurile Islands, the antiship mission tells me to: "Attack the Russian Fleet. Your targets are the ver.exe 's. Good Luck." I flew the mission anyways, unleashing three harpoons at the Admiral Kuznetsov and one at the other ships. When I debriefed, the system crashed at the point where it would have given me feedback on Harpoon hits. Anyways, on to the main point of this post. I like the Hornet and MiG29 flight models, realistic or not. H1.0 and M1.02 seem fine. I just tried F3.03 in complex mode. What a joke. It flew as if it had a 10:1 thrust to weight ratio for acceleration and six drag chutes for decceleration. I then tried the dreaded hi/fi mode and found the same results.d ...... I don't remember the older versions being this bad. But 3.03 is so bad I won't be using it anymore. Michael ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Joystick Calibration, the last chapter My joystick now works perfectly in Falcon 3.03/MiG-29 1.02/Hornet 1.00. Here are the things to try: 1) Get a good gamecard. My QuickShot gave me lots of fits, I've heard of problems with Krafts and the one on the Soundblaster. I now own a CH GameCard 3 ($33, so it's not much more than the cheapos), and have heard second-hand that the Thrustmaster ACMI and Gravis cards work well also. 2) On the calibration screen, do the OPPOSITE of what it asks. When it says go to the upper-left, go to the lower-right. When it says go lower-right, go upper-left. I now get full joystick range with no dead-zone or sudden rolls (well, not until I get shot at and start jamming the stick all over the place :). 3) Before I tried #2, I tried just moving the stick until the aircraft marker hit the requested corner, then stopping. This gave me no dead-zone, but reduced the joystick play area to be much smaller, making the stick more sensitive and the plane harder to control. But, it was playable. So, with stick problems, first try #2, then #3. If they don't work, try #1. Falcon does work fine with the joystick given these parameters. I'm going to send this off to SH to let them know (this stuff isn't in the technical supplement but probably should be). -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: multifighter tactics? I one day here flew in a NICE trap made by the computer: I was flying the MIG to save the poor Irak from the evil capitalists trying to drive the ancient country from their rightful areas. I was supposed to drive off or kill all of the enemies from the borders. I noticed two of the western planes in the radar display I sometimes used... And I was to engage them by two aphids of mine. But before I could register any prooved hits against them I got flanked by two excellent Hornet pilots! It later occurred to me that the two planes I had been hunting for were hornets also. Was the trap made on purpose, or was I just a geek!? The very first thing I noticed from the trap were the bullets flying through my plane!!!! Just when I had learned to achive good SA, and land 'correctly' on 95% of the time and give the opponent a good adversary, they trap me with a simple basic, but effecive trick! I am managing myself on one-on-one. But where to find tactics against these groupd tactics used by the machine!? I had FOUR pileots on my squad, and two more wathing my behind...! (the Shaw's book is not even yet available here in Finland. The distributor send me a message that the book is not available! Second: Busting enemies is really easier with a faster machine! My brothers 486 66 is so clean that I can manage with it easuly, while on my 386 40 the game is still so boggy (no max, but average detail!) that the gameplay is too hard after that! The ability to fly smoothly is not to be underestimated!!!! And yes, the math co-processor DOES affect speed of frame rates: on my machine (the mentioned 386 40 gives about 8-12 fps, but my roomies machine (same with co-proc) gives about 24-36 on Hifi!!! But on other modes the difference is not even noticable! T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: multifighter tactics? >And yes, the math co-processor DOES affect speed of frame rates: on my >machine (the mentioned 386 40 gives about 8-12 fps, but my roomies machine >(same with co-proc) gives about 24-36 on Hifi!!! But on other modes the >difference is not even noticable! Not really... You can't use Hifi without a math processor. Comparing hifi and complex are like comparing apples and oranges (ok, well above 300kts.) -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: PAS16 I'm soon to get a PAS16 sound card with my new 486Dx2 computer. (No more slide show game play! Accurate manual bombing! Wow! :) ANYWAY, has anyone ever had problems/fixes using falcon 3.xy.z with this 'sound blaster compatiable' card? Any help would be appreciated - I'd hate to have to lug my old sound blaster pro into my new computer just to hear 'Bandit on Fire!'. Thanx. -The Doctor ------------------------------- From: Kinstrey Subject: Other sources for Shaw's book? Well, Santa didn't hear my request for Shaw's "Tactics and Manuevering" book, so I'm going to order it myself. Should I order it direct from SH, or are there cheaper places? What's the going price on this book? $32.95? more? Anybody willing to sell their copy? __________________________________________________________________________ Mike Kinstrey (518)385-8214 "If thine enemy wrong thee, kinstrmi@dso001.sch.ge.com buy each of his children a drum." kinstrey@crd.ge.com - unknown __________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 37 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 9 01:54:34 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA26951; Sun, 9 Jan 94 01:54:00 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 8 Jan 94 06:55 PST Message-Id: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 07:05 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I38 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 38 Sat Jan 8 06:55:23 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: PAS16 kirti@cadence.com (Kirti Parmar) Re: multifighter tactics? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: Other sources for Shaw's book? intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Re: multifighter tactics? intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W PAS 16 soundcard "W.Renger" ELVIS LIVES! Kurt Rompot From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: PAS16 > > I'm soon to get a PAS16 sound card with my new 486Dx2 computer. (No > more slide show game play! Accurate manual bombing! Wow! :) > > ANYWAY, has anyone ever had problems/fixes using falcon 3.xy.z with > this 'sound blaster compatiable' card? Any help would be appreciated - > I'd hate to have to lug my old sound blaster pro into my new computer > just to hear 'Bandit on Fire!'. Thanx. > > > -The Doctor Ed -- I'm using a ProAudio STUDIO 16 card in my DX2 and have had no difficulties with any version of Falcon 3 (3.0, 3.0d, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03) when using the SoundBlaster option for both radio messages and music. I do have a problem with my machine locking up when I select the Roland option for music (Any sugestions on what the cause of this lockup would be appreciated) All in all, I'm happy with the card tho I don't relish having to "upgrade" to the ProAudio Studio-16XL version (w/Korg wavetable synthesis!) when MV finally releases it. Enjoy. :) -- Kirti "Asleep At The Wheel" Parmar ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: multifighter tactics? >From: Jeff Beadles >Subject: Re: multifighter tactics? >>And yes, the math co-processor DOES affect speed of frame rates: on my >>machine (the mentioned 386 40 gives about 8-12 fps, but my roomies machine >>(same with co-proc) gives about 24-36 on Hifi!!! But on other modes the >>difference is not even noticable! >Not really... >You can't use Hifi without a math processor. Comparing hifi and complex are >like comparing apples and oranges (ok, well above 300kts.) The thing I have a real problem with is 24-36fps. WOW!!!! I have a 486DX2 that gets 41.6 with 3dbench. Add to that the fact that falcon maxes out at around 25 fps. (This is the same type of thing as f15seIII. Nomatter what you do you can never get better than 15fps with f15III.) I have never gotten more than aprox 26fps or so. A 386/40 with a mathco that gets 24-36 is REALLY something. Give your roomie my congratulations! Greg "Hammer" Cisko ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Re: Other sources for Shaw's book? Try Flight Sim Central at 1-800-477-SIMS. Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Re: multifighter tactics? >And yes, the math co-processor DOES affect speed of frame rates: on my >machine (the mentioned 386 40 gives about 8-12 fps, but my roomies machine >(same with co-proc) gives about 24-36 on Hifi!!! Are you sure all the detail levels are set the same? Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: "W.Renger" Subject: PAS 16 soundcard >Subject: PAS16 >I'm soon to get a PAS16 sound card with my new 486Dx2 computer. >(No more slide show game play! Accurate manual bombing! Wow! :) >ANYWAY, has anyone ever had problems/fixes using falcon 3.xy.z with this >'sound blaster compatiable' card? Any help would be appreciated - I'd >hate to have to lug my old sound blaster pro into my new computer >just to hear 'Bandit on Fire!'. Thanx. >-The Doctor I own a PAS 16 soundcard and went through a lot of trouble before I got proper sound and gameplay. First, make sure you got proper memory management (EMM or QEMM), but the main problem I had had something to do with DMA and IRQ settings! If I recall it properly the soundblaster compatible settings are default DMA 1 and IRQ 5, but everything works fine on my system with DMA 3 and IRQ 7. But I believe this has everything to do with other cards on my system. With Falcon 3d things didn't work out in Soundblaster settings, so I tried the Adlib setting (in most games this works fine with the PAS). But the volume of engine in relation to speech was just rotten! The 3.02 patch cleared the sky and the sound. Very Clear Clean and Naked :-) Just Great sound in stereo, adding quite a lot to the game!!!!!!! But using the PAS joystick port it's the same story as mentioned so often before (the 'deadbeaten' story, something about calibration.... >8-( But I didn't try the suggestions mentioned in the recent Issues. Hope this can be of any help. (By the way, after a dogfight when returning to base, try some of the wingmen commands coming with the 3.02 patch (shft-F, shft-G) and some break-high, break-low and you'll get a nice Kilo Mike Alpha from your wingman!) Check Six! ______________________________________________________________________ Willem-Jan 'Engine' Renger _-_ _-_ Renger@frw.ruu.nl <0> <0> ^ O "He who sees first, lives longest" _______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------- From: Kurt Rompot Subject: ELVIS LIVES! O.K., this isn't a joke. I was flying RED FLAG today out of Nellis A.F.B. As I was flying around LAs Vegas, I noticed a target I don't recall seeing before. Looked like a large white tent city from afar. I flew over and looked down. Turned out to be "ELVIS LIVES !!!" displayed marquee style in huge letters. Today is Elvis' B-DAY. Has anyone noticed this before? [ Yes, almost everyone. This is an old "easter egg", along with several others in Falcon3 and OFT. -Jeff ] Thanks, Kurt P.S. Elvis is everywhere, even in Falcon 3.0e. ------------------------------- From: Stephen L Stclair Subject: Necessary equipment Here's something I thought I'd share with you. There's an outfit in California called Quartermaster (800-444-8643). They sell military stuff, etc. You can get a ball cap from them (high quality) with an elite unit patch sewed to it. For instance, for Falcon they have about 5-6 unit patches (Kansas Air National Guard, Florida Air National Guard, "The Boys from Syracuse--Fastass CAS," and more); for Hornet, they have patches for VMFA 323, Death Rattlers (starring in Hornet NSF); VMFA 513, Flying Nightmares (wish they were in Hornet); VMFA 235, Death Angels (Unfortunately, this patch is too big to go on a hat); for MIG, they have a patch from the Aggressor squadron at Nellis (I think)--it says "Aggressors" under a set of USSR pilot's wings (rectangular red patch trimmed in gold, gold wings--looks neat). The price for a cap with patch is $16.95. Caps in five colors: Black, Navy Blue, Royal Blue, Red, and Gold. Check it out. Call for the catalog. Finally, when I enter the cockpit in Hornet, the AOA limiter is disengaged and the G-limiter is engaged. If I press Shift-o, the AOA limiter engages (both lights green). If I press o, the G-limiter light stays green, i.e. I don't seem to be able to disengage the G-limiter. Am I doing something wrong? Sandman ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 38 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 11 01:08:31 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01539; Tue, 11 Jan 94 01:07:45 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 10 Jan 94 06:37 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 06:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I39 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 39 Mon Jan 10 06:37:27 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: HORNET FLT PROBLEMS Charlie Gamet Hornet Charlie Gamet Latest Falcon Charlie Gamet CH Throttle Wheel g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (mic Re: Latest Falcon Jeff Beadles 36fps---HORNET cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Hornet and KCC Utilities Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml8 ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Charlie Gamet Subject: HORNET FLT PROBLEMS I just installed Hornet FA18 on my Falcon series...I'm having tremendous Yaw and Pitch problems..the disk says its F18IBM50 release. My system is 486/66 4meg ram Expanded mem dos 6.2 Falcon seems to fly without to many problems..so I'm thinking its *another* spectrum screw-up that passes the problems on to buyers..then sends out patches. (sigh) I hope I'm wrong... ------------------------------- From: Charlie Gamet Subject: Hornet Problems...I put Hornet on line and I'm having major pitch and slight yaw problems...forget about landing on a carrier..just flying straight is the challenge...Falcon has no problems (after X amount of patches)..is this more of the same from Spectrum? ------------------------------- From: Charlie Gamet Subject: Latest Falcon Whats the latest version,patch,up-grade to the falcon3.0. I've got the (E)...how far off am I? thx... ------------------------------- From: g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (michael dobbs (micro bio)) Subject: CH Throttle Wheel I have recently upgrades my motherboard/processor to a Magitronic Opti VESA 495slc/w. 128K cache 486dlc40. Ever since the upgrade, my CH flight stick throttle wheel no longer works. During the joystick calibration, I get the "detect throttle control" message and proceed to calibrate it as usual. Opon returning to game, the rpm indicator will not move from around 60%...no matter what the wheel postion. The after burner keys can still result in the "sound" but no change in speed/rpm occurs. I have tried both my sound card (ATI stereo fx...8bit) and game card joystick ports....niether work anymore. I have also disabled the s.card's joystick port (using the card's setup program) and then tried the game card port again....still no go. The game still works great if I only use keyboard. I used to have a 386dx25 with 6 meg ram...noew I only have 5 megs (new board doesn;t take 6meg config.). I am running f3.02.1 with the CHAD theater add-on (all was fine prior to MB upgrade). Any Suggestions? Anyone else experience something like this? Mike. ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Latest Falcon > Whats the latest version,patch,up-grade to the falcon3.0. I've got the >(E)...how far off am I? thx... 3.03. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: 36fps---HORNET I will take back some of what I said about NEVER getting higher than 25FPS with my 486DX2/66. I was using TRACK view with HORNET yesterday. I was also in debug mode, switching views & checking framerate. In TRACK view I was getting 36fps. In cockpit view I was getting 25 fps at the most. When I got close to the mountains of Bosnia I did see a low of 7fps! Hornet: I am using a CH Pro flightstick & the game port from my Sound- Blaster v1.5. Control seems fine. Roll is much quicker than falcon & Mig29 (obviously). The up-down control seems sluggish (probably realistic though). I certainly get the feeling of weight, to the aircraft. (This is the flight model I expected from falcon.) Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) Subject: Hornet and KCC Utilities Hornet has not yet arrived in the stores on the East Coast, but I am eagerly awaiting its appearance. The reviews posted here have been favorable. Quick questions. First, how do the various KCC utilities react to the new versions? I have the initital Mig Commander Utilities and have found them invaluable for mission planning. While they definitely have a few problems, these are offset by the amount of time and the number of headaches that they save. Second, does anyone know if KCC plans to release updates anytime soon if there are problems with Falcon3.3 etc. Much Thanks, Michael Lebrun "Dragon" ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 39 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 11 19:47:03 1994 Return-Path: Received: from unidui.uni-duisburg.de by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA04815; Tue, 11 Jan 94 19:47:02 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by unidui.uni-duisburg.de (1.37.109.4/SMI-3.2) id AA11691; Tue, 11 Jan 94 19:38:00 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 10 Jan 94 23:28 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 23:28 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I40 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 40 Mon Jan 10 23:28:41 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: New falcon3 owner David Reeve Sward Does F3.03 fix the 'corrupt campaig D_E_Demoulpied%MBCORP2@mbmgate1.mit RE: Hornet & KCC Utilities "Carl D. Fago" MiG29 Carrier Ops mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) wingman commands geraldp@wv.MENTORG.COM (Gerald Page Landings & Fun & Rudders lmbain@netcom.com (Larry Bain) Re: Hornet, more grumblings;though knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hornet: More thoughts, bugs knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hornet: More thoguhts, bugs MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Hornet and KCC Utilities jeeem@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Reeve Sward Subject: New falcon3 owner I got Falcon3 for christmas :), unfortunately disk 1 was bad. The replacement disk arrived in the mail today and just tried to install it. However, the install program asks for disk 5 and I only have 4 disks, so I can't complete the installation. Help! - -- David Sward sward+@cmu.edu GCS: -d+ -p+(---) c++(++++) l+ u+ e+ m+()@ s+/+ n+@ h+ f !g w+@ t+@ r+ y? ------------------------------- From: D_E_Demoulpied%MBCORP2@mbmgate1.mitre.org Subject: Does F3.03 fix the 'corrupt campaign' problem? Anybody know if F3.03 fixes the corruption of campaign files when switching squadrons? Here's an old post from Ian Kent describing the problem & his solution (which has worked swimmingly for me). Thanks, Dave deMoulpied ddemoulp@mitre.org ******************************************************************************** From: rm09@orzspr.op.dlr.de Subject: Campaign Squadrons There's been quite alot of traffic lately covering corruption of campaigns after switching Squadrons and when playing Falcon and MiG alternately. With the upgrade to Falcon 3.02, SH fundamentally changed the method used to store the `profile' for campaign missions, with the introduction of the file `mission.sav'. Previously, the mission profile for the selected squadron (say, the Fighting Tenth in Kuwait, campaign files squad0.*) was written to the file squad?.mis (squad0.mis in example) after the sequence `NEXT MISSION' - `LOAD ARMAMENT'and `TAKEOFF' was completed - so the mission profile was directly linked to its squadron by filename (same squad0.squ, squad0.cam and squad0.mis filenames). With 3.02, the mission profile is written when `NEXT MISSION' is selected, but to the file `mission.sav', (though on `TAKEOFF', the squad?.mis file is still generated). mission.sav is not specific to any particular campaign, but a generic storage file for the mission profile. What this means is that if you create the squadron Fighting Tenth, theatre Kuwait, then fly a mission, debrief and accept `NEXT MISSION', the profile for the upcoming mission (all the allocations for object types in the mission) will be written to `mission.sav'. If you now go back to the War Room and select another squadron, the profile read from `mission.sav' is not correct for the new squadron - when you hit `TAKEOFF' the symptoms vary from the expected computer controlled aircraft not turning up, to complete failure. To overcome the problem, backup your campaign files from the dos prompt, before you switch squadrons (or programs), as follows: 1. After selecting `NEXT MISSION', complete flight planning and go through to `TAKEOFF'. Once in the cockpit, ESCape and mission Abort, then ESC back to the War Room and finally the dos prompt. Make certain to complete the above routine, otherwise the mission profile in `mission.sav' will not correlate with that stored in the squad?.* files. 2. Copy the `squad?.*' _AND_ `mission.sav' files for your campaign to an appropriate sub-directory (I use \falcon3\`theatre'\day[1...?]\mission[1...4]). If you're not certain which `squad?.*' file (range from squad0.* to squad5.*) to copy, you could use a little utility called F3Supply (freely available from onion.rain.com via ftp and co-incidentally written by me ), to identify your squadrons. 3. When you want to switch back to your saved campaign, finish your mission planning as in 1 and backup the files with step 2. Then, just copy your original `squad?.*' and `mission.sav' files back to the \falcon3 directory, overwriting what's in there. You can freely change squadrons, fly old favourite missions, exchange missions, etc. without problems. I haven't confirmed this yet, but maybe MiG uses the same `mission.sav' file for its profile - it would certainly explain the co-incidental problems. The same solution should also be effective. Check Six... Ian "Terminator" Kent ******************************************************************************** ------------------------------- From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Hornet & KCC Utilities In message Mon, 10 Jan 94 06:40 PST, Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) writes... > Subject: Hornet and KCC Utilities > > Hornet has not yet arrived in the stores on the East Coast, but I am > eagerly awaiting its appearance. The reviews posted here have been > favorable. Not true. Hornet is on the shelves of Electronics Boutique as of early last week. Maybe you just have a slow store. :-) *-=Carl=-* ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: MiG29 Carrier Ops Here's another suggestion: How about adding carrier ops for the MiG29? The Kurile Islands theatre includes this when playing from the Falcon or Hornet perspective. Why not add the capability when playing from the MiG's perspective? Michael ------------------------------- From: geraldp@wv.MENTORG.COM (Gerald Page) Subject: wingman commands I have a quick question that I haven't been able to find in the manual (I haven't looked too hard though). When I give commands to my wingmen only the first wingman responds. How do I get the other guy(s) to respond? Thanks. Oh... I got my first hang in Falcon 3.03 (it may have been there before, I just hadn't exercised it). While in ACMI I was replaying a scene I had captured. After replaying a particular subsequence a couple of times I then clicked on the fast forward button. I had to do a hard reset to get back. Jerry ------------------------------- From: lmbain@netcom.com (Larry Bain) Subject: Landings & Fun & Rudders >From lbain@hpmpes2.cup.hp.com Mon Jan 10 17:59:27 1994 Return-Path: Received: from hp.com by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id RAA14695; Mon, 10 Jan 1994 17:59:25 -0800 Received: from hpmpecff.cup.hp.com by hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.7/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA13456; Mon, 10 Jan 1994 17:58:46 -0800 Received: by hpmpes2.cup.hp.com (1.37.109.4/15.5+IOS 3.20+cup+OMrelay) id AA16803; Mon, 10 Jan 94 17:58:45 -0800 From: Larry Bain Message-Id: <9401110158.AA16803@hpmpes2.cup.hp.com> Subject: land post To: lmbain@netcom.com Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 17:58:45 PST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: O The topic of landings in Falcon has come up several times recently between the Falcon3 digest and .../games/flight-sims. Thought I'd share my little experience about the difference that h/w made in F3 landings on my PC. Landings have always had a special fascination for me and I still get a big thrill when I can land a sweet 170 knot Falcon approach, 12 degrees AOA, that floats in just over numbers. Even though I quickly mastered landings in other sims (FS4, ATP, Elite), until recently I thought that I would never enjoy a landing in a F3 sim. I really struggled with F3 landings for over a year. Then a couple of months ago I hooked up analog (joystick) rudders. UNBELIEVABLE difference. With keyboard rudders, I used to need 10nm for lineup on final approach, just to hit the asphalt. Now I can easiy turn final within 3 nm miles of the threshold and rotate the nose wheel down near the center line most every time. Even though I've always used a CH Flightstick or FCS/WCS for controls, I didn't have room for floor rudders so I used to use the keyboard rudder controls. Big mistake! On my system, using digital (keyboard) rudder control for the Falcon is like trying to steer a motorcycle through an obstacle course using bungee cords as reins instead of using handle bars. I still don't have floor rudders, instead I have CH's tiny Mach I joystick mounted next to my WCS where I can manipulate it with my thumb w/o removing my hand from the WCS. The point is that I now have analog rudder controls, and that put the fun into F3 landings for me. (an old pilot saying, "Flying is the second most fun known to man, landing is the first") -Larry Bain Mt. View, CA ============================================================================= L M Bain "It is not a problem of whether machines think, Mt. View, Calif. but whether men do." lmbain@netcom.com B. F. Skinner adage, ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hornet, more grumblings;thoughts > The flight model. Aside from Air Warrior (can I get info about the > 666 th or other Internet squads?), The 666th is a group of Air Warriors that fly on GEnie. There's also another looser group of people CHP's (?) that fly AW. You can subscribe to a mailing list of AW players by sending email to listproc@cactus.org with the text "subscribe 666th-etal yourname". There's an AW ladder that uses IHHD over the Internet that runs on this list. There's also the 505th and 515th fighter squadrons that are made up of Falcon flyers. However, I don't think they are Internet based in any way other than some of the flyers having access. I don't know of any IHHD based ladder or squadron for Falcon. > I hate: > The price!! 44.00 for a stinking add on????? Granted I got it from > Elect. Boutique. But here it is comparable in price to a whole > sim. I got mine from Best Buy for $32. I think mail order from Chips & Bits was something like $32-$35. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hornet: More thoughts, bugs > 2. In landing pattern, wingy starts calling out bandits. They were > dispatched easily enough, but I ask... Wasn't there a complete break > down of fleet defense for them to be so close?? > > For 44$ (the cost of a complete sim) I would hope SH would be truer > to carrier ops. Read the README. They basically ran out of memory and couldn't put in the normal fleet defence stuff you would find. Instead they made the carrier invulnerable. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Hornet: More thoguhts, bugs Hi all, >> 2. In landing pattern, wingy starts calling out bandits. They were >> dispatched easily enough, but I ask... Wasn't there a complete break >> down of fleet defense for them to be so close?? > >> For 44$ (the cost of a complete sim) I would hope SH would be truer >> to carrier ops. >Read the README. They basically ran out of memory and couldn't >put in the normal fleet defence stuff you would find. Instead >they made the carrier invulnerable. >Jim Knutson | | >knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- >cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! Well I suppose the lack of fleet defense was not really the issue. I don't often have time to look about while trying to land/etc and the extra's would have been nice, but...eh what can you do. However, if the carrier group is indestructable, then by gawd I would like to be too when within the carrier "bubble". If SH had at least some how told the code that bandits may not fly within X distance from the carrier then that would have been good enough for me. But, standard disclaimer, I don't do code so that may have been a herculean effort. All in all I would say any die hard F3 devotee should get Hornet, warts and all. As said before, the realistic flight model is really a sweet feeling fly! IMO BTW..THanks to all who sent the 666th AW info. I was on last Sat under ShadowCapt and got to chin gun w/ Moggy. Loasds of fun, no kills but there was a new dimension I never saw in AW before. Thansks again all! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: jeeem@aol.com Subject: Hornet and KCC Utilities Dragon, Mark Shepler said on CI$ that a patch for MCU and FCU for 1.02 and 3.03 will be out Tuesday or Wednesday. The Hornet Utilities won't be finished for a couple of weeks, and there will be a modest upgrade fee for MCU or FCU owners. Jim Hughes ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 40 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 13 02:50:07 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA02914; Thu, 13 Jan 94 02:49:40 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 12 Jan 94 06:41 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 06:45 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I41 Content-Length: 12521 X-Lines: 313 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 41 Wed Jan 12 06:40:59 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: KCC utilities Stephen L Stclair Hornet problems "D.J.Williams" Falcon utilities for 3.02 "Kevin Wein" Hornet Observations "Don McCrady" Subject: KCC utilities Dragon (Michael Lebrun) asked about the KCC utilities vis-a-vis the new versions of Mig and Falcon and Hornet. 1) The Mig/F3 utilities won't work any longer (although you can still use the menu). Mark Shepler, the honcho of KCC, said the other day on CI$ that the patches would be posted there soon (Flight Simulation Forum, section #8--Modern Air Combat). [Jeff: if I were to get them, how would I send them to you? I mean, upload to where?] 2) The Hornet utilities are forthcoming--Mark says that registered owners of the previous utilities will get a discount. Some followup to my last post about Quartermaster: I failed to mention that you can buy a patch without buying a hat, prices :$4.95--$5.95. Sandman ------------------------------- From: ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Subject: Joystick I have Falcon 3.03 installed on my system. I have had a problem since I got Falcon in that I was unable to enter any data such as name and waypoint info. I also discovered that there is an animation sequence at the begining that I don't see. I recently got MS DOS 6.2 and the program MSD (Microsoft Diagnostic) has revealed that my computer not only thinks that it has a game card with two joysticks hooked up to it but that a combination of buttons on the joysticks are pressed. I have contacted the manufacture of my computer but have as yet not recived any responce from them. I have EMailed Spectrum Holobyte with the same result. Perhaps someone out here can help me. What I am looking for is a way to tell Falcon 3 to ignore all joystick input. I am using the following system Processor: Cx486slc Coprocessor: FRANKE.387 emmulation Memory: 1Meg conventional and UMB .5Meg extended memory 2.5Meg expanded (emmulated with EMM386.SYS ver 6.0 Any help would be apreciated, I have gotten about all I can get out of Falcon in it's present state:) ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Hornet details. I think we all remember the massive amount of detail in falcon. For me, this was highlghted by a tape I made of a train destruction mission in the Kuriles. In the replay I plainly saw all of the passangers empty out of the train, as it was hit with my mavericks. I was really impressed. Then others have talked about roaming the battlefield (in [pause-tab] mode) watching tank battles. There are still other examples of detail. It was this level of detail that let me "ignore" most of the other annoying bugs that falcon had. With HORNET I was expecting the same detail. I went to [pause-tab] while I was on the flightdeck ready for take off. (I haven't tried this while flying.) I roamed the flightdeck to see if there were flight deck workers. I didn't see any... It looked just like a flight deck in AOTP ( for all practical purposes). So the $64,000 question is: Has anyone seen deck workers in HORNET. I'm also impressed with the fact that AOTP models a larger Task Force :( And as far as the Task Force goes.... Why can they model a massive Russian Task Force in the Kuriles, but not with HORNET. I also didn't see any other planes on deck either. Is this "normal" for carrier ops? I doubt it. Other than that. I really like HORNET. As I said earlier HORNET's flight model is what I was expecting from falcon. Realistic or not. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: KCC utilities > >Dragon (Michael Lebrun) asked about the KCC utilities vis-a-vis the new >versions of Mig and Falcon and Hornet. 1) The Mig/F3 utilities won't work >any longer (although you can still use the menu). Mark Shepler, the >honcho of KCC, said the other day on CI$ that the patches would be posted >there soon (Flight Simulation Forum, section #8--Modern Air Combat). >[Jeff: if I were to get them, how would I send them to you? I mean, >upload to where?] 2) The Hornet utilities are forthcoming--Mark says that >registered owners of the previous utilities will get a discount. You can ftp things for the archive into /pub/falcon3/incoming. Then, send me a note with a description, and I'll move it into the archives. You may also want to send a note to the mailing list. I'll update the pathname to the file before it's sent out. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: "D.J.Williams" Subject: Hornet problems I finally found Hornet at BestBuy for $32 yesterday and installed. I have a problem getting the red flags to run. *Instant action runs fine*, but now Falcon _and_ Hornet get through the mission load-out and then give a "fatal error, insufficient memory". I have 604K (618,000+) free in DOS6.2. Can't get any more (stacker) and would prefer to use native memmaker for now. I tried the red flags under OS/2 set-up as described in the guide which has lots more reported DOS headroom and it won't light up at all (screen stays black). Can the rest of you run the missions thing in approx 604K-605K. The support email addresses seem nordo for now. Any suggestions would be appreciated via Email. Dale ------------------------------- From: "Kevin Wein" Subject: Falcon utilities for 3.02 Are there versions of the Falcon 3.0 utilities such as FalcCalc or Falconer for version 3.02? I've heard good things about FalcCalc, but the latest one I saw was only valid for 3.01. Anyone working on this or know where to find it? Thanks, Kevin Wein ------------------------------- From: "gary cooper (ntdo)" Subject: Hornet, GEnie... > [Scott in WV wrote] > > BTW..THanks to all who sent the 666th AW info. I was on last Sat > under ShadowCapt and got to chin gun w/ Moggy. Loasds of fun, no kills > but there was a new dimension I never saw in AW before. Thansks again > all! Should'a told me who you were, Cap'n! And Jeff, it's been a while since we've (well, *I*) seen you up... Got Hornet and LOVE it. I'm three days through a Bosnia campaign and haven't even fired a shot in anger - all I do is B, tell my wingie to go home, launch and enter the pattern - trappin' on the Roosevelt is the most fun I've had with the F3 universe. _________________________________________________________ gary cooper (not the dead one) cooper@digex.com "Death is a small price to pay for looking shit-hot" 666th Fighter Squadron; #1225 - "Moggy" Internet Daemons !2! ------------------------------- From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) Subject: Re: Hornet: More thoughts, bugs > From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) > > For 44$ (the cost of a complete sim) I would hope SH would be truer > > to carrier ops. > > Read the README. They basically ran out of memory and couldn't > put in the normal fleet defence stuff you would find. Instead > they made the carrier invulnerable. They had to make the carrier invulnerable because SH knew "we" would be trying to land on it :-) I don't know about yours, but the aft section of my carrier is looking pretty dented. Landing on the ocean's not bad though :-) - -- +++++++++++++ David Ransier davidr@pdx.mentorg.com These comments are my own. I paid for Office: (503) 685-1528 them. I own them. They're not my Fax: (503) 685-7704 employers, and you can't have them. +++++++++++++ ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Falcon utilities for 3.02 | | | Are there versions of the Falcon 3.0 utilities such as FalcCalc or | Falconer for version 3.02? I've heard good things about FalcCalc, but | the latest one I saw was only valid for 3.01. Anyone working on this | or know where to find it? | | Thanks, | | Kevin Wein | FalcCalc, along with F3Maps, and other Utilities have become commercial products, there might be some info on how to get them in the archives. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: "Don McCrady" Subject: Hornet Observations I finally succumbed to temptation last weekend and picked up a copy of Hornet, I haven't done anything outside of Red Flag except for some carrier landing practice in the Bosnia theatre. I do have a few observations, though, so let the ramblings begin: Two notable changes in Red Flag are (1) the carrier deck painted onto one of the Nellis runways, which others have mentioned and (2) slightly modified Las Vegas scenery, including a very large new pyramid building. Bugs and/or Problems: (1) While practicing landings, I noticed a definite tendency for the aircraft to pull to the left. To keep myself lined up on approach, I had to hold a small amount of right bank using the joystick. Much has been said about SH's sub-optimal joystick handling, but I've never had a problem with Falcon or MiG-29. For the record, I have a CH FlightStick, attached to my SoundBlaster Pro game card (a combination that has been much maligned in this group, but again, it has worked well for me in the past). (2) The view scale in Hornet defaults to 1X (unlike MiG-29 and Falcon, which default to 2X), and it appears there is no way to permanently change this outside of modifiying the .EXE. (3) The ACMI (or TACT, in Hornet lingo) bug still hasn't been fixed. I recorded one of my better landings, which I made a beautiful 170kt approach, touchdowned nicely right on one of the wires, and finally folded my wings. Played it back, and it showed me plunging into the dirt about a mile before the runway. I think the folding of my wings is the culprit. When I managed to repeat the exercise later, and did not fold my wings, the replay was accurate. Aircraft Performance: I still have to get used to the roll rate. I'm getting better, but after months of MiG-29's sluggish roll rate, it'll be a while before I can really control it. In a dogfight, the F18 seems to be a real loser. The 7.5 G limit and the high speed-bleed means that if I don't get my bandits BVR with missiles (F18 is a great missile platform: 6 AMRAAM + 6 AIM9M, or 10 AIM9M's!!!), I might as well try to bug out, because there's little chance of me winning a guns-only dogfight. I have tried disabling the G-limiter bug not without bending my wings in flight. In addition, protracted dogfights at full afterburner, consume way too much fuel. Now just one question about carrier arresting wires... How are they numbered? Why is snagging the number 3 wire better than the number 1 wire? Thank you all. I now return you to your regularly sceduled mailing list. __ \ \ _ _ ,---------------------------, \**\ ___\/ \...............| ++don; | X*#####*+~~\_\ `---------------------------' o/\ \ \__\ ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 41 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 14 10:09:37 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05051; Fri, 14 Jan 94 09:54:50 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 13 Jan 94 15:20 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 15:21 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I42 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 42 Thu Jan 13 15:20:34 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Fatal error.... mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Re: Hornet Observations cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Updated Las Vegas adams_g@jdola.lanl.gov (Gavin Adams (none) cmjames@beech.demon.co.uk (Chris Ja Frame rates on 386 k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Handy ideas for the WCS MKII and FC Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml8 Falcon3 Flight Model Survey Daniel Gaiennie Hyams From: "Don McCrady" > Bugs and/or Problems: > > (1) While practicing landings, I noticed a definite tendency for the aircraft > to pull to the left. To keep myself lined up on approach, I had to hold a > small amount of right bank using the joystick. Much has been said about I noticed this also. Suprisingly this was cured by hitting the trim reset key [*] on the keypad. Then a day later I start doing Hornet IA. I get good left roll, almost no right roll, not very good up or down control. I thought the lame up-down control was normal. I re-calibrated (normaly), and every thing was absolutely fine. Good controlable roll. Up-down was now responsive. Somehow my first calibration attempt was bad. I rebooted several times and tried re-running hornet. Each time the calibration was fine. Re-calibration was not needed. If this calibration sticks, then I'll be happy. I would think it has been time enough for SH to have their joystick routines squared away though. > SH's sub-optimal joystick handling, but I've never had a problem with Falcon > or MiG-29. For the record, I have a CH FlightStick, attached to my > SoundBlaster Pro game card (a combination that has been much maligned in this > group, but again, it has worked well for me in the past). THis is the reliable combination I've been using. (Ch Pro & SB v1.5 gameport). > > (2) The view scale in Hornet defaults to 1X (unlike MiG-29 and Falcon, which > default to 2X), and it appears there is no way to permanently change this > outside of modifiying the .EXE. The release docs that came in my box explicitly warned not to change the scale factor when you are within 15 nm of the carrier. They say that you WILL crash, and so will the drone computer planes!!! > Aircraft Performance: > > I still have to get used to the roll rate. I'm getting better, but after > months of MiG-29's sluggish roll rate, it'll be a while before I can really > control it. In a dogfight, the F18 seems to be a real loser. The 7.5 G I was kind of having a problem with this too. I kept stalling during high G turns. My solution (which isn't much of a solution) is to maintain a high amount of speed & altutude (smash?). At over 500knts the hornet seems to turn tightly enough. For about 25-35 degrees of the circle. When I start loosing speed (drop below 225 knts) I have to let off of the stick & build speed back up. I have noticed that starting high G manouvers at the 400 knt optimum cornering speed, really stalls the aircraft quickly. And, I haven't tried any low G BFM manouvers yet. Guess I'll keep trying. > limit and the high speed-bleed means that if I don't get my bandits BVR with > missiles (F18 is a great missile platform: 6 AMRAAM + 6 AIM9M, or 10 > AIM9M's!!!), I might as well try to bug out, because there's little chance > of me winning a guns-only dogfight. I have tried disabling the G-limiter > bug not without bending my wings in flight. In addition, protracted > dogfights at full afterburner, consume way too much fuel. I haven't messed with the AOA limiters of the G limiter yet... But I do think a SH Mig29 would get shot down VERY quickly. I mention a SH Mig29 since a REAL Mig29 may indeed manouver as good as a REAL f-16. In which case the F/A-18 may be in a little trouble. The Sh Mig29 does not manouver as good as a SH F-16. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: adams_g@jdola.lanl.gov (Gavin Adams) Subject: Updated Las Vegas >Two notable changes in Red Flag are (1) the carrier deck painted onto one of >the Nellis runways, which others have mentioned and (2) slightly modified >Las Vegas scenery, including a very large new pyramid building. > This would be the Luxor, just south of the Excalibur on the strip. I'm kinda bummed they didn't put in the MGM or Treasure Island. Since TI has cannons, it would make a great ground defense for the strip. Plus being able to bomb the amusement park at the MGM would have been fun too. --- Gavin (Visualize Whirled Peas!) Gavin Adams GEnie: G.ADAMS13 Digital Equipment Corporation #3644, 666th FS Internet Daemons Gavin.Adams@lso.mts.dec.com 505.662.2011 ------------------------------- From: cmjames@beech.demon.co.uk (Chris James) Subject: (none) I'm a new f3 enthusiast and have upgraded to 3.03. I read the f3 FAQ and downloaded Falconer and FalcCalc 2.51 from cactus.org today. Sadly they can't cope with 3.03. Is this a well known problem? Are there patches / workarounds? Should I revert to 3.02? Help gratefully received! ================================================================== | Chris James in Gosport, Hampshire, UK | Veritas in Vino | | | 158.152.20.159 Compuserve: 70624,53 | No one told me there was | | cmjames@beech.demon.co.uk | a communications failure! | | ================================================================== ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Frame rates on 386 Even if threatened to make a fool out of myself, if possible anymore, I'd like to get the frame rate thing straight. -I use FRANKE.378 emualtion to get high-fidelity on my non co-prosessored 386. So I use hifi. The frame rate of emulated hifi is as fast or perhaps even a bit faster than other modes. -My roomie uses a real 387 -I tested it on the Red Flag only: starting HIGH and at the default RF there is not much ground details. (I tried flying over the sam site at the island, but it isn't that big site) -I kidded you all. The biggest frame rate I gave was 36 fps. That was ON PAUSE... The normal rate would have been perhaps 24 (or RF) -I didn't test it that long, I was so pissed because of that... My machine (386 40MHz) gives me 8-12 rames... So that's about that. Now my brother has a 486dx2 66. That's a BEAST. I do not know about the frame rate. But it is so good that I am going to update too! The furballs are so much easier to handle!! Sucking: The Hornet hasn't even YET arrived here Europe...! T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) Subject: Handy ideas for the WCS MKII and FCS MK I I am now well and truly psyched! I finally sunk the substantial capital investment into the Thrustmaster product line and am the proud owner of the WCS MKII and the FCS MKI. While I realize that Thrustmaster and SH both provide default programs for the system configuration, I hope to customize my flight controls for more optimal settings. Do any of you tired old veteran TM users have any suggestions? Thanks in advance, Michael Lebrun Dragon ------------------------------- From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams Subject: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey Falcon3 Pilots: After flying Falcon3.0 for some time and being an avid reader of this mailing list and comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim, I often wonder what is the most common flight model (HiFi or Complex) that everyone uses. There is a small section in Jim Knutson's USENET Guide to Falcon3 and some info on the wais service, but I would like to "survey" a cross-section of Falcon3 pilots to see what flight model you prefer, and why. *** *** Please send: *** 1) The flight model YOU fly (HiFi or Complex) *** 2) A brief description why *** 3) The version of Falcon(3.02, 3.03, etc.) you use *** *** to the address *** *** dgh1@ra.msstate.edu *** *** If I get responses, I will compile them and post them for everyone. I will also do my best to include *everyone's* description of their likes and dislikes, and compile other stats also. Maybe this would also be a good thing to forward to Spectrum Holobyte! I especially want to know what flight model the "big boys" use that I see posting so often...Jim K, Greg C, Gary C, and others. Also, could some kind soul post this message on the comp.sys.ibm.pc. games.flight-sim newsgroup? I can read it, but can't post because I am vi-illiterate. Thanks in advance, and please respond! It will only take a second, and I think the results could be very beneficial. --Daniel Hyams dgh1@ra.msstate.edu PS. An afterthought that I would love someone to answer...I like the HiFi model for reasons that I will state later. BUT, the F-16, as everyone knows, is able to accelerate in a vertical climb, but the HiFi model (at least in my experience) doesn't. Why? f-16 supposedly has T/W ratio of 1.1. That is one of my gripes of HiFi. (Falcon3.03) ------------------------------- From: eshelbyk@ucs.orst.edu (Ken Eshelby) Subject: Falcon/Mig/Hornet Wish List... Virtual Reality Visor and gloves with AroundSound (tm) built into the helmet. I want to turn around in the cockpit and see EVERYTHING! (AroundSound is my own creation, could you imagine?) After the gloves and helmet, I would also like a body suit hooked to my brain giving real feelings of the G's and gun/missle hits (that never happens to ME of course!). Death could be left out, though. Some day, some day... :-) Ken - -- Ken Eshelby - Dietetics - Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA ---> eshelbyk@ucs.orst.edu <--- ------------------------------- From: Stephen L Stclair Subject: Practice landings in Hornet I know the manual says to choose a campaign and practice your landings there, but here's an easier way: Go to the Config screen and set the enemy logic level to Cadet, SAMs to None. Then go into Instant Action. When you get in it, shoot at everything at the very beginning. This scares the hell out every enemy pilot--they won't come near you again (or, at least they haven't so far). There's an island off to your port side; if you turn and fly toward it, in a bit you'll see a carrier off your starboard side. Practice your landings here. You can use Alt-A to get out quickly, and then do it again. I think this is alot more efficient than using the campaign method. Everything works as it should, LSO etc. Sandman ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: The good old #3 wire somebody asked why a #3 wire is better than #1 etc. The number 3 is in the middle of 6 cables. If you catch #1 or #2 then you were too low on the approach, if you catch a #4-#6 you were too high on your approach. Of course any wire that stops you is better than missing (bolter bolter bolter says the LSO). So #3 is the ideal wire for a perfect approach. dave ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Problems with 3.02 and fast machines I recently bought a Gateway 2000 (486/66 DX2 VLB) and had problems with running Falcon on it. It had previously worked fine on the GW2K 486/50DX2 that it was on. The symptoms are that in a hard G pull, the pitch ladder would move in spurts and the G load would constantly move between some low value and some high value. It was more pronounced in any view that wasn't the front view. So much in fact that it was nearly impossible to turn. The differences between the two machines are: previous current 50 MHz 66 MHz ATI Ultra ATI Ultra Pro VLB DOS 5 DOS 6 (no compression) I don't know the reasons for why it was a problem, but it seems like the new machine was just getting things done too fast and the G load would fall off. This was particularly devastating when playing head to head. I just could not turn with my opponent. I haven't upgraded beyond 3.02 due to head to head play using the F302COMM TSR. It's great! I tried the following to fix it: 1. Tried turning off the "turbo" mode. Frame rate dropped to about 4 fps. 2. Tried turning off the internal cache. Couldn't calibrate the joystick. It wouldn't move all the way left. 3. Tried turning off the external cache. Seemed to work ok, but I had a max G of only 3-5 Gs even when doing 500+ kts. 4. External cache off and calibrate joystick backwards. Seems to pull full G now. Anyway, I thought I'd let people know my experience with this. It seems that going to a faster machine doesn't always make things run better. :-( I will test some more tonight to see if this has fixed the problem. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: "Gary L." Subject: Re:FS5 and slow machine > I am running a 486-33, Speedstar24X (ISA), > 8 meg ram, etc. I realize this was a marginal machine for FS5. > So, I tried it on a Micron 486-66(DX2) , Diam. Viper, 16 meg, etc. and > it just wasn't much better. If a faster processor dosn't speed things up, then the bottleneck is somewhere else. (Like the ISA bus itself). I'd suggest trying it on a Local Bus System (VESA or PCI). With the video card on the local bus, I'd bet you'd get a big improvement. ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Various replies > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > Subject: Hornet details. > > It was this level of detail that let me "ignore" most of the other > annoying bugs that falcon had. With HORNET I was expecting the same > detail. I went to [pause-tab] while I was on the flightdeck ready for > take off. (I haven't tried this while flying.) I roamed the flightdeck > to see if there were flight deck workers. I didn't see any... Well - not much going on at Falcon3 base airfield, either! ========================================================================= > From: "gary cooper (ntdo)" > Subject: Hornet, GEnie... > > Got Hornet and LOVE it. I'm three days through a Bosnia > campaign and haven't even fired a shot in anger - all I do > is B, tell my wingie to go home, launch and enter the > pattern - trappin' on the Roosevelt is the most fun I've had > with the F3 universe. > Hah. Welcome to the funny farm! (I knew he'd crack) ========================================================================= (Hornet...) > Bugs and/or Problems: > > (1) While practicing landings, I noticed a definite tendency for the aircraft > to pull to the left. To keep myself lined up on approach, I had to hold a > small amount of right bank using the joystick. Much has been said about > SH's sub-optimal joystick handling, but I've never had a problem with Falcon > or MiG-29. For the record, I have a CH FlightStick, attached to my > SoundBlaster Pro game card (a combination that has been much maligned in this > group, but again, it has worked well for me in the past). F3 drifts to the left in this way on my system in Complex flight model. CH flightstick, Sound Galaxy NX Pro card port. > Now just one question about carrier arresting wires... How are they numbered? > Why is snagging the number 3 wire better than the number 1 wire? I do believe .... (a) 1 2 3 4 (!) (b) Cos' that's where you are meant to be aiming! =============================================================================== - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: timd@sparky2.sps.mot.com Subject: falcon3 over the modem is this the forum where i post request for falcon3 players in the 602 area code or 303 area code? looking for local players to fly head to head over the modem. currently flying 3.02.1 with a 14,000 ppi modem, using stinger patch of course. sparky out. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 42 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 16 09:33:11 1994 Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA11421; Sun, 16 Jan 94 09:32:50 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAvzal03116; Sat, 15 Jan 94 20:53:30 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 15 Jan 94 17:52 PST Message-Id: Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 17:52 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I43 Status: RO X-Status: *** IMPORTANT NOTE*** *** IMPORTANT NOTE*** One of the mail hosts here last night decided to preform a self-lobotomy, and kill the root drive. It's back now, but there's a chance that anything sent to the list last night (Friday, January 14th) might bave been lost. If you don't see it in this digest, then I don't have it. What fun... I'd rather be flying! -Jeff *** IMPORTANT NOTE*** *** IMPORTANT NOTE*** Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 43 Sat Jan 15 17:49:52 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: 36fps IS POSSIBLE!!! cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Waypoints in Comms mode Jerry Davis Re: Various replies cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Digitized sounds found Joerg Stenger Subject: Waypoints in Comms mode When I fly as the Wingman in Comms mode I have no controls over my waypoints. I can get a heading from the AWACS using but bypassing won't advance it. I have tried sending messages to my flight leader to send wingman commands, but they have no effect on my controls. Anyway, I've asked my flight leader and he could be heading to waypoint 4 and I would still be on waypoint 2 and we're way beyond it. I wouldn't care so much but it's nice to have the carrot in the HUD telling you what direction to fly. Any suggestions on how to keep the squads' waypoints in synch. thanks, Jerry ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Various replies > From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) > Subject: Frame rates on 386 > -I kidded you all. The biggest frame rate I gave was 36 fps. That was > ON PAUSE... The normal rate would have been perhaps 24 (or RF) I see :) :) :) You can fool all of the people some of the time. > From: "Gary L." > Subject: Re:FS5 and slow machine > > > I am running a 486-33, Speedstar24X (ISA), > > 8 meg ram, etc. I realize this was a marginal machine for FS5. > > So, I tried it on a Micron 486-66(DX2) , Diam. Viper, 16 meg, etc. and > > it just wasn't much better. > > If a faster processor dosn't speed things up, then the bottleneck is > somewhere else. (Like the ISA bus itself). I'd suggest trying it > on a Local Bus System (VESA or PCI). With the video card on the local > bus, I'd bet you'd get a big improvement. HOW DID THIS END UP HERE??? Anyway I can't resist :) The "bottleneck" you are looking for is in all likelyhood the program itself. I had FS5 on my DX2 66 mhz-->VLB. I get 41.6 in 3dbench. It wasn't exactly a slideshow, but it wasn't smooth either. > From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) > Subject: Various replies > > > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > > Subject: Hornet details. > > > > It was this level of detail that let me "ignore" most of the other > > annoying bugs that falcon had. With HORNET I was expecting the same > > detail. I went to [pause-tab] while I was on the flightdeck ready for > > take off. (I haven't tried this while flying.) I roamed the flightdeck > > to see if there were flight deck workers. I didn't see any... > > Well - not much going on at Falcon3 base airfield, either! Actually this is an excellant point. I did spot my "little guys", on the second Bosnia mission. After I wiped the tank column (those cluster bomb explosions sure looked cool!) I went into [pause-tab] and looked at the carnage. Sure enough there were several groups of 3 soldiers. Each group had one soldier with a shoulder launch SAM, ready to put a missle up my tailpipe! But still... I think I'm not the only one that was dissapointed in the lack of detail on the deck. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Joerg Stenger Subject: Digitized sounds found Hi all, I don't know if that has been mentioned a long time ago but I didn't see this subject for at least a year ;-) While playing around a bit I found the location of all the digitized sounds in Falcon and MiG (Hornet isn't available yet in Germany but I guess that it follows the scheme). The sounds are stored in some kind of VOC-format, you can easily play it with any program that can handle this format like plany or v386. The intro-sequence sound is stored in the files DGDEMO (F3) and DMDEMO (MiG) at 11kHz. All radio messages are stored in DIGISNDS (F3) and DIGISNDM (MiG) at 5kHz. To my surprise there are messages stored I never heard since I play Falcon. The first 8 seconds of the F3-file are amazing. Further for me unknown messages are: "Altitude", "A Cloak", "Request you check Bingo", "Fuel critical", "Don't miss", "Transmission bad, say again". After about 1 minute and 53 seconds there is a message that I completely don't understand. I guess that's why english isn't my native language; if sombody please could mail me the contents of that message? It closes with a "Yepee" (the rest sounds like some drunken hacker ;-). (BTW, I also don't understand what the viper pilot in the MiG intro says before he states "Let's get out of here".) Joerg "Dancer" Stenger stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de ------------------------------- From: Jerry Han Subject: Re: 3 wire One small correction- modern US CVN's and CV's have four arresting cables, not six. Jerry Han - jhan@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca - I disclaim everything //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Asking all kinds of questions to myself - but never finding the answers"- Genesis ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Hornet I picked up Hornet last evening and did an install. Beutiful! I was very pleased to find that I had no problems with the joystick routines (I'm using TM's FCS, the JS port on my multi-I/O board), but does that baby ROLL! I've only had time to fly around Nellis a bit. I like my first impression, but I haven't tested it in combat yet. The two DDI's are excellent. Having to cut out my radar view every time I was launching a AGM-65 was an unspeakable inconvenience.. I notice that the manual states you can't have the same view on both HDD's. Will this include having ground mapping radar on one HDD, and air radar on the second? Don McCrady asked by the three wire is 'the place to be'. If you're following the glideslope at the correct AOA and speed, that's the point on the deck where you'll crash. Err, Land. Controlled crash. :) I just glanced through the Hornet manual, but I noticed the sketches of the carrier show only three wires. There's usually four. (Or, that was the standard, Viet Nam era.) Jay ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Joystick stuff Hi all, Well, have a few questions and notes on the SH JS routines. First: Hornet I bitched pretty good about the Hornet JS routine, I thought I would pass along an observation. A friend and I did some allied comms the other night. We waited and wiated for the damn spinning wheels to do their thing (at 14.4 no less (did someone say comms only goes to 9600 without second source addons?)) I set up the mission, calibrated the JS before dropping into the 'pit and Voila!! Nice JS response! No sweet spot of super roll, nice pitch up etc. Playing in stand alone the nice JS feel stuck!! I can now fly it with no JS headaches at all. What happened? Not a clue. I calibrated that stick 12 ways from Sunday prior to this and nothing seemed to help me. Oh well, if anyone feels adventerous, give this method a shot. Maybe there is something there, maybe not. I don't recall doing anything else. Questions: 1. I hear Tmaster has there own JS routines now. Are they proprietary? Freely distributable? Only for use with the MKII and FCS? 2. Is their a comms patch for Hornet? 20 min to get into a mission just to find a bug downed one of us is a bit much. For us at least. Check your drink! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: bash@intgp1.att.com Subject: Re: Hornet Observations >From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) >> control it. In a dogfight, the F18 seems to be a real loser. The 7.5 G >I was kind of having a problem with this too. I kept stalling during high G >turns. My solution (which isn't much of a solution) is to maintain a high >amount of speed & altutude (smash?). At over 500knts the hornet seems to >turn tightly enough. For about 25-35 degrees of the circle. When I start >loosing speed (drop below 225 knts) I have to let off of the stick & build >speed back up. I have noticed that starting high G manouvers at the >400 knt optimum cornering speed, really stalls the aircraft quickly. >And, I haven't tried any low G BFM manouvers yet. Guess I'll keep trying. Actually, Greg, that's a pretty good solution. Extending for energy doesn't always mean unloading to 1g with wings level. Extending for energy can mean unloading slightly for just a few seconds and grab just a little energy back, which is what you're doing here. From what I've been told from a couple of sources, the F/A-18 is pretty bad about bleeding speed, but performs pretty well at slow speeds; if you can get the other guy to slow down too, you'll probably nail him. If he doesn't slow down and you do, he'll probably nail you. It just goes back to the old "g-fer-brains" and "fight smarter, not harder" debates. ------------------------------- >From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) >Subject: Problems with 3.02 and fast machines >I don't know the reasons for why it was a problem, but it seems like >the new machine was just getting things done too fast and the G load >would fall off. This was particularly devastating when playing head >to head. I just could not turn with my opponent. I haven't upgraded Jim, this is just a wild-ass guess, but what kind of game card are you using? Do you have a speed-adjustable bus in the new machine? Do you have a speed-adjustable game card? It sounds to me like timing problems with the stick, maybe the card is not updating as fast as the CPU is reading it, so it appears to "Drop off" to the CPU. Even if the CPU was completing tasks "too quickly" it shouldn't be resetting the logical position of the stick (ie, where F3 thinks the stick is as opposed to the physical position your hand moved it to). Yet, that's about the only way I can see to make the G drop off. Numerous other high speed machines (including my own) are not seeing this, which might to support my theory. ------------------------------- >>Now just one question about carrier arresting wires... How are they numbered? >>Why is snagging the number 3 wire better than the number 1 wire? There are 4 wires, and I wondered for a long time why the #2 wire wasn't equally "safe" as the #3. After plowing into the back of the deck a dozen or so times back in Flight Of The Intruder, I finally came to the conclusion that landing long and boltering was a helluva *LOT* safer than coming in too short. Better to guess long and miss then guess short and die, I suppose. ;-) Tom "KC" Basham bash@intgp1.att.com 73760.1251@CompuServe.COM AW.EVENT6@genie.geis.com <-----yep, I'm finally into online AW 8-) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Handy ideas for the WCS MKII and FCS MKI > From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) > Subject: Handy ideas for the WCS MKII and FCS MK I > > I am now well and truly psyched! I finally sunk the substantial capital > investment into the Thrustmaster product line and am the proud owner of the > WCS MKII and the FCS MKI. While I realize that Thrustmaster and SH both > provide default programs for the system configuration, I hope to customize > my flight controls for more optimal settings. Do any of you tired old > veteran TM users have any suggestions? I basically try to group together the functions I'll need, based upon the type of flying I'm doing. In the real F-16C, F/A-18, and to some degree our favorite time killers (F3 and NSF ), there are three basic modes of operation for the avionics: air-to-air (a2a), air-to-ground (a2g), and navigation (nav). I break it up a little different because of the way the sim is structured and look at it in this way: within visual range (WVR) a2a, beyond visual range (BVR) a2a, a2g, and power approach (pa), ie landing. I let the bvr a2a double as my nav master mode. I use the rocker switch to change between the wvr a2a, bvr a2a, and a2g modes, and use a key in the a2g mode to trigger the remap program to put me into and out of the pa mode. The functions I think I need for all modes I put on the three buttons of the (P)FCS: top=a2a/a2g weapons select, middle=radar on/off, bottom=ecm on/off. I also try to standardize repeated functions between modes so they are on the same button. If you haven't gotten the new WCS II chip, I highly recommend ordering from it TM. It's only $10 but the capability and software that comes with it is really worth a lot more. If you do have the new chip, look at the f3sb.* files. Those are the f3 files I use and sent to TM during the beta testing of the new chip. I think they may have included my *.adv/*.rmp files in the original WCS II code, but I can't remember. ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey > From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams > Subject: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey > > *** 1) The flight model YOU fly (HiFi or Complex) COMPLEX. > *** 2) A brief description why In the aeronautical engineering community, the study of aircraft flight dynamics is broken into two main subject areas: PERFORMANCE and FLYING QUALITIES. PERFORMANCE basically deals with lift, thrust, and drag. PERFORMANCE data are things like climb rates, cruise range, max speed, ceiling, and energy-maneuverability (turn rate vs airspeed plots that also show how energy bleeds during level turns, note level means constant altitude). FLYING QUALITIES deals with the basic stability and control (S&C) of the aircraft as well as pilot-in-the-loop handling qualities. S&C data are things like control surface power (elevators, ailerons, rudders, etc.), and basic aircraft stability and damping in pitch, roll, and yaw. S&C data also look at the pilots open-loop control capability. Open loop means he just makes an input and watches what happens, he doesn't modify his control inputs based on anything he sees. Handling qualities data are data related to when the pilot is closed-loop, ie. he is trying to accomplish a specific task like landing or guns tracking. The reason I went through this long dissertation, is to explain a little bit about where I'm coming from with my preference of flight model. First lets talk PERFORMANCE. At all altitudes in the HIFI model, thrust produced at low power settings is way to high or the drag produced by the aircraft in cruise is way to low. I have been able to cruise at 450 ktas, 10k ft, with all kinds of bombs (although I don't think they model stores drag/weight effects) at idle power. COMPLEX is closer to reality in this respect. With regards to energy-maneuverability (E-M), which model is closer to reality depends on what altitude your flying at. At altitudes of 20,000 ft and above, the HIFI model definitely seems more realistic. However, I got the HIFI model (clean configuration) to do a sustained 9 g turn at 700 KTAS/10k ft with full aft stick and MAX AB. This is total BS. The COMPLEX model (again clean configuration) did sustain the 9 g, but did it at 450 KTAS at this altitude will full aft stick, this is still wrong but it is closer. So, depending on where you do your fighting will determine which model gets you the most realism. Personally, I find most of my air combat happens below 15,000 ft, so I think COMPLEX is better. Now lets talk FLYING QUALITIES. In the 300 to 500 KTAS range, the COMPLEX model FLYING QUALITIES are much more realistic than those of the HIFI model. In this airspeed range, the HIFI model appears to lack damping (for lack of a better term since I don't know how the equations of motion look), especially in the roll axis. Try this experiment, stabilize the aircraft at 400 KTAS/10k ft/1 g, apply full lateral stick (either direction) as you roll through 360 deg (ie coming back over the top) center the stick, what happened? I always end up inverted. This doesn't happen in the F-16. In the real aircraft, you might continue to roll 20 deg at the most. This lack of damping is also apparent in the pitch axis, but isn't nearly as bothersome as in roll. This makes the aircraft totally unflyable IMO and is in no way representative of the real aircraft, so I prefer COMPLEX. > *** 3) The version of Falcon(3.02, 3.03, etc.) you use These comments apply to F3 v3.02 and v3.02.1 > *** dgh1@ra.msstate.edu > PS. An afterthought that I would love someone to answer...I like > the HiFi model for reasons that I will state later. BUT, the > F-16, as everyone knows, is able to accelerate in a vertical climb, > but the HiFi model (at least in my experience) doesn't. Why? f-16 > supposedly has T/W ratio of 1.1. That is one of my gripes of HiFi. > (Falcon3.03) The airspeed and altitude range where the F-16 can actually accelerate while climbing straight up is very limited. It's basically at 0.9 Mach number below 10,000 ft. ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: Hornet Smoking! I just went and blew a WAD o' Dough on Hornet ($65 CANADIAN!). Although it's steep, I had to have it:) After my first day of flying it (Yeah, I skipped School :), here are my thoughts: I like it, even though I still can't land on the flat top! I wish the manual had more info on the flight model, systems, etc and I also wish it had been proof-read! There are at least 5 or 6 printing/writing error that mislead you. Several arrows/heads are not positioned correctly or are missing (ie. the G-limiter is described in the manual but the light (if it exists) is no labelled on the hud diagram). Also, can someone tell me what the little tick mark is on the inside of the Horizontal Indicator circle? There's no mention of it in the book. During one of my missons, I noticed my engines were smoking! I had not yet encountered any enemies and I wasn't at full military power. I checked my stats and the exhaust gas was about 210 each....which doesn't seem too high. At first I thought, Uh Oh, here's a new SH hidden surprise! Engine failures! But after realizing that I still had maximum output ability and no further degradation (ie. flames etc) I'm thinking it was just a glitch in the program :(! Another thing I've noticed, when trying to land, the LSO states 'recovery underway....go around' but none of the other planes sets up to land....they just keep circling the carrier. One poor chap ran out of fuel (FLAME OUT! FLAME OUT!) and went for a swim :( Is there anyway to demand priority...ie. if you're low on juice or just impatient like me ;) ? BTW, I was hoping the new add-on would solve a recent problem I was having with F3.02.1: Ever since upgrading my 386dx25 to a Magitronic VLB w. 486DLC40 pro. my CH FS throttle wheel won't work anymore. Hornet doesn't solve this....so I'm stuck with keyboard throttle control until one of you guys or my dealer comes up with the solution. Does anyone have a test utility that I can use to check if it's the game or the stick or the port (I've tried both the ATI Stereo F/X port & a generic Game card port)? Oh Well, 'nough said for today.....now back to those flat-tops! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF! ------------------------------- From: smith@ur-guh.COM (Russ Smith - sysop) Subject: Catching the 3rd wire There are only 4, not 6, cables across the Aircraft Carrier landing area. Catching the 3rd cable is the "best" because that is the cable that is right "next to" the -CENTER- of the 4 cables. If you hit the sweet spot in the center of all four cables, the one you'll snag is #3...see below: 1 2 3 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | Aircraft landing this way --> | | X | | | | | | | | | | | | | | X marks the spot! Hit it, snag 3. Russ ------------------------------- From: harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com Subject: CH Pro With WCS MkII I have recently upgraded to a 486dx266 and it seemed like the right time to get serious. So now I have a CH Flightstick Pro plugged into a TM WCS MkII all connected to the games port on a SoundBlaster2. Before I connected the WCS the Coolie Hat on the CH Pro worked fine giving me views in F3 (3.02,1) and trim control in MiG29 (1.01). Now with the WCS the Hat is screwed giving me combinations of the UB MB & LB. Always consistent for each button. Is this a known problem? or has anyone experienced before? I've tried all sorts of things and nothing seems to fix it. And to all those of you who are having problems with Hornet, you are lucky to be able to get it. It isn't even in the country down here yet!! Gary H. ------------------------------- From: Andreas Cardeneo Subject: Sea landings in Hornet, Falcon Hi everyone, a few issues ago (ok, it might be 10 or so) someone complained about landing on the sea surface right in front of the carrier. Well, I don't have Hornet, but I know that you already could 'land' on the sea surface in Falcon. I've made this one time when trying to fly very low. I was in- deed very low because suddenly Betty screamed 'warning, warning', the engine turned off and I couldn't do anything. I guess Falcon thinks that you have landed, when you are at altitude 0, no matter where you are. The warning message probably turned on because the gear wasn't down. So, this is not a new bug, it was there before. But anyway, this is no excuse. So long, waiting for Hornet to arrive in Europe, Andreas 'Orca' Cardeneo ula7@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de *** Don't work harder - work smarter !!! *** ------------------------------- From: Jonathan David Wade Subject: Does anyone know how to get falcon3 to run under OS/2 2.1? I have more than enough low memory (627.5K) available, but when I start the program it doesn't do anything. It just stays at the dos with the cursor blinking after 'falcon3' and is unresponsive. Help would be appreciated. By the way the installation would hang up the same way, at 4gopatch, but I was able to install with a dos system disk. I tried to run falcon in a virtual dos machine from the system disk, but the program went to a blank screen and hung up like before. Please email me any solutions to my problem. Thanks Jon Wade (jdw3@cec.wustl.edu) ------------------------------- From: Glen_Houghton@mindlink.bc.ca (Glen Houghton) Subject: Falcon Head to Head Problems Has anyone else noticed that in head to head over the modem with hornet or Mig29 when flying the Falcon you don't get the 2 am120 missiles anymore. Not too sporting considering the other planes get there radar guided missiles. This would seem to be a major bug. We tested it with several differnet copies of Falcon and same result. Hope Spectrum can fix this one soon! Regards Glen_Houghton@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 43 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 18 02:27:35 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05159; Tue, 18 Jan 94 02:27:08 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 17 Jan 94 07:06 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 07:15 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I44 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 44 Mon Jan 17 07:06:10 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: KCC utilities update Stephen L Stclair Subject: KCC utilities update I uploaded the latest KCC utilities patch to /pub/falcon3/incoming on onion.rain.com this AM (Sunday, 01.16.94). This patches the utilities to make them usable for Falcon 3.03 and Mig 1.02. Enjoy. [ This is in ~ftp/pub/falcon3/programs/mcupat.exe --Jeff] Sandman ------------------------------- From: roveda@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: F3.0.3 questions + Hornet JS gripe. I've started playing Falcon again recently. I have a few questions and comments. I updated to F3.0.3 from version 3.01.1. -I'm playing the Pakistan campaign. I would get a briefing for SEAD mission. However when I progressed with the missions set up screen and press the debriefing button again I would get a different mission (destroy an enemy column). Does this happen in all the campaigns? -The padlock view gives the AB and BRAKE signs in the attitude indicator window, but they are still missing the R (radar) and E (ECM) which Ken Richardson's F3PADLK.COM utility provided. I just cannot believe it would be too hard for SH to program that in. Are they looking at all at the (independent) F3 programs out there before reprogramming and upgrading? -5 mission in and I haven't gotten a single medal, including a CAS mission where I shot down an AN12, TWO (!) Mig21 all by my lonesome and toasted an enemy column: dropped 4 MK84 right in the middle of it :) As well, the debriefing doesn't use "downed" or "destroyed" any more, just a puny "hit" even when I clearly saw the plane go up in flames. GRRRF. -I'm a bit confused about the Falcalc and Falcnr utilities. I have the shareware version for F3.01.1. Are they still shareware, or do we have to buy them (the ones for F3.0.3) somewhere? -There's enough bitching about the Hornet JS routine in the past posts, so I won't add my own. I caught this post on comp.sys.ibm.pc .flight-sim with a couple of suggestions. My joystick routine still screws up: I hope I get it working soon so I can practice. I'm using a shitstick (CH Mach III) with a Kraft speed compensating card. I must do with this set up until I rack up enough cash for a TM system. I read somewhere that the guys at Thrustmaster wrote a routine to adjust the calibration problem in Hornet. Is that only for FCS systems, or it works with an joystick? If so, is it FTPABLE from somewhere? > Go to the Falcon3 directory and delete all the joystic*.def files. > Start Falcon and calibrate the joystick. When you get the Viper flying > correctly, exit Falcon. > When your're in the Falcon3 directory, copy the Falcon joystick > file as the Mig and Hornet files, i.e. > Copy joystick.def joysticm.def > Copy joystick.def joystich.def. >This seems to straighten out some of the problems. >Someone suggested that when the Hornet calibration routine asks that >the joystick be moved to the upper left corner, you instead move it to >the lower right corner. And when it asks for the lower right corner >you move it to the upper left corner. Well, this worked very well! The >Hornet was *much* easier to control after I recalibrated this >way. Before I did this it was essentially unplayable. I still think -I also need some campaign advice. How do you take on a CAS mission on an enemy base which has the usual sundry units strewn about PLUS an extra column moving thru it? That makes up for a LOT of SAMS and AAA. to get rid of. I found I can get thru the mission with 3 CAPS, 3 SEAD (ahead of me) and 2 CAS planes. Problem is, I can't afford to use 8 planes in a mission during a campaign! Thanx to all those who respond. Roberto Roveda roveda@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------- From: Joe Wohrstien Subject: the Number 3 Wire The numbers of the wires are, if i am correct, numbered from forward to aft. #1 being closest to the bow and #4 being closest to the stern. The reason you want to aim for the #3 wire is because this gives you 2 more wires to catch if the hook doesn't grab or hits the deck and skips over the wire (kinda like of you were skipping stones.). Also by aiming for the third wire if you're too low you can grab the #4 wire. If you were to aim for the #4 wire and you were to low your main concern would not be catching a wire but the posibility fo having your nose catch the fantail (something that would truly ruin your day, week, month, life, etc.) This is how it was explained to me by my pilotwhen I did my summer ROTC cruise. Hope this helps. Joe "Boomer" Wohrstein ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: 4 or 6 wires? We folks, the Ranger has 6, the Enterprise has 6, the Nimitz has 6 (I think, so it's been 13 years...). I've flown off of all of them. All 6 are rarely strung up but there are 6 unless the Navy has changed things since I got out. re: Tom Basham: Better to guess long and miss then guess short and die, I suppose. I've see what happens when somebody gets too low twice. It's call a FOD walkdown to pick up the pieces...gets a bit hairy up there with all those pieces of aircraft flying about, not to mention the other things like fire...in both cases the crew (pilot/RIO) ejected safely, no doubt to face a review board. dave ------------------------------- From: "not Britt A. Cummings" Subject: How to extend SAM radar range I use SAM mode radar and I know that the key changes the range. But it seems that if there are "targets" on the REO, you cannot change the range until the REO is clear. So, if I have "strangers" within 20 miles, but enemies closing in at 35 miles, I cannot change my SAM range from 20 to 40 miles and get a lock on the enemy. I tried "X" to break the lock on the friendly a/c, but until they are off the REO, the key will not increase the radar range. Do I have to use high fi radar to do this, or am I missing something? Bryan ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 44 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 19 03:49:56 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA10855; Wed, 19 Jan 94 03:49:39 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 94 07:07 PST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 07:13 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I45 Content-Length: 14307 X-Lines: 319 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 45 Tue Jan 18 07:07:24 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT Hi! After reading the manuals of earlier SH flight sims (Flight of the Intruder and Falcon AT), and playing with them briefly, I was surprised that those sims have some nice features that Falcon 3.0 lacks: -In FOTI, you can't land on water (it's a shame you can in F3!) -In Falcon AT, you are being captured by enemy forces only if you eject over enemy held areas (according to the manual). -The gunsight of Falcon AT looks more like the real thing (like in the digitized video you can see in the Instant Action icon in F3.0's control room) -There's a master arm switch in FOTI. -Most important: both in FOTI and F AT, you can't cycle thru ground targets like in F 3.0 (T Key) when designating targets for guided A-G ordnance. I think this auto-locking is really unrealistic, and sometimes it even isn't convenient, for many people have reported difficulties designating the right target. -FOTI has waypoints with time of arrival attributes. -FOTI and F AT have some AWACS like features: you receive warnings of individual bandits and are being vectored to them or at least you get the bandits coordinates. Maybe Falcon 4 will bring back some of the goodies of those older SH sims. Have fun, Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: Hornet Rudders? Hey, Why don't my rudders work in Hornet? I't like they are attached to a bungie cord or something. I'm using the keyboard control keys [, and ] to control them. However, when pressed the HUD heading display does move but as soon as I let go, the plane returns to the original heading! This happens however long I hold down the key. As you can imagine, it makes life real tough (and DEATH real easy:( ) while trying to land on the flattop! Anyone else got this problem? ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey > From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) > Subject: Re: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey (great description & good points deleted to save space :) > In the 300 to 500 KTAS range, the COMPLEX model FLYING QUALITIES are much more > realistic than those of the HIFI model. In this airspeed range, the HIFI model > appears to lack damping (for lack of a better term since I don't know how the > equations of motion look), especially in the roll axis. Try this experiment, > stabilize the aircraft at 400 KTAS/10k ft/1 g, apply full lateral stick > (either direction) as you roll through 360 deg (ie coming back over the top) > center the stick, what happened? I always end up inverted. This doesn't happen > in the F-16. In the real aircraft, you might continue to roll 20 deg at the > most. This lack of damping is also apparent in the pitch axis, but isn't > nearly as bothersome as in roll. This makes the aircraft totally unflyable IMO > and is in no way representative of the real aircraft, so I prefer COMPLEX. The problem I have with this is that I get 45 degrees of inertial roll at the most. Usually not even that. I think some of this stuff is machine/hardware sensitive. COMPLEX has no inertial roll at all. (I have done quite a bit of COMPLEX & HiFi testing this week end. So much, that my new high score in FALCON Instant Action is now 135,000+. I even made it to the second level.) > The airspeed and altitude range where the F-16 can actually accelerate while climbing straight up is very limited. It's basically at 0.9 Mach number below 10,000 ft. This one point is really the one that I'm interested in. I flew at 10,000 at 450knts, went to AB5 pointed the nose at 45 degrees & climbed (for each flight model). HiFi lost speed DRAMATICLY, while COMPLEX gained speed and accelerated. So much, that I have doubts as to it's realism. While I can't comment as to the realism of the models, I can guarentee that COMPLEX clearly out-performs HiFi. (Proof was my last IHHD encounter with my European friends. I found out in the last week that they changed to COMPLEX, while I was using HiFi. I couldn't understand why I couldn't manouver better. I do now..) My tests (each point was performed at 10,000 and 450knts) showed that COMPLEX will out G HiFi. I got 9.9 G's with COMPLEX and 9.1 (spike) with HiFi. COMPLEX can also gain speed and altitude (energy) at will. This last point is the BIGGIE. Neither flightmodel handles a loaded aircraft all that well. You can still pull maximum G's with a fully loaded craft in both models. Taking off with 32,000 Lbs??? You can with COMPLEX, you crash & burn in HiFi. (Which I have a problem with since HiFi uses COMPLEX below 300knts. So why do we crash & burn?) You would think HiFi would then model weight/load properly. Well COMPLEX is really the flight model where I noticed a speed increase as I would release bombs. Since the aircraft is lighter I would expect this. I didn't notice much change in speed or performance as I released bombs in HiFi. So COMPLEX would seem to handle that part better. I really believe that both flightmodels do model different aspects of flight properly. THey both have problems. Two things are certain... 1) COMPLEX will out perform HiFi. 2) Different strokes for different folks. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: How to extend SAM radar range > From: "not Britt A. Cummings" > Subject: How to extend SAM radar range > > I use SAM mode radar and I know that the key changes the range. But it > seems that if there are "targets" on the REO, you cannot change the range until > the REO is clear. When I moved up from SAD I tried SAM. For about 1/2 hour. This very question you ask is what prompted me to go to HiFi radar. It really isn't that tough. You also get a good feel for what the REAL pilots have to do. The most im- portant thing, is that you target what YOU want to target. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: padlock landings in HORNET and a couple of other bugs I was practicing the REVIEW1 redflag mission. It is just basicly for practicing takeoffs & landings. As I would turn for my finial approach I got used to using padlock for this last turn. Once I was lined up , I went to front (shift up) view. After a couple of sucessfull landings, I tried on the carrier itself. I went into a mission, took off, then went around for a landing. As I was coming around for the finial approach, I hit padlock. Well, I think I padlocked to Charlie Tuna or something. It definately was not the carrier (BUG #1). The padlock TARGET field said RUNWAY, so it did know that I wanted to land on the carrier. At one point I made a nice touch down on the water (BUG #2). On another attempt I boltered. But I stopped. (No Bolter radio warning was given) I thought I had landed. I went to an external view & saw my hornet about 30 ft off of the deck. Just hanging there (BUG #3). Also on the second Bosnia mission.... I successfully destroyed the tank column. There were a total of 4 enemy craft. All of which were destroyed. On my way back to the carrier I notice that the radio is pretty quite. No wing men to be found! I had SAMs turned off, so that shouldn't have been the problem. After the mission, I find out in the breifing that all 3 crashed into the mountains at the same time! No explaination was given. (BUG #4). At least the mission was a success :) Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: bash@intgp1.att.com Subject: 4 or 6 wires? >All 6 are rarely strung >up but there are 6 unless the Navy has changed things since I got out. So, would it be safe to say that the other 2 are basically backups for a primary set of 4? Are the same 4 usually strung unless there's problems with one? Where are the extra 2, do the extend forward of 4 we're all used to seeing? Sorry for all the questions, just curious. 8-) Tom "KC" Basham bash@ihlpb.att.com 73760.1251@CompuServe.com AW.EVENT6@genie.geis.com ------------------------------- From: Andreas Cardeneo Subject: Stupid Yankee Hi, when I was flying a few days ago, I suddenly heard the message 'Hasta la vista, stupid yankee!' (or something similar) from a TU-22 (!). I was flying the Viper, not the MiG. Hhm, is it normal (in reality possible) that your enemy can send you messages in this form. I mean, is radio traffic not scrambled or crypted in any way ? What about the frequency, although I think that this is the minor problem ? I never heard this message before, but, as Joerg Stenger did, I listened to the sounds in DIGISNDS.F3. Could it be that this message did not appear in older versions ? I'm currently using the latest one before 3.03 (3.02.1, right?) Bye, watch your six, eat your Twix, Andreas 'Orca' Cardeneo ula7@rzstud1.uni-karlsruhe.de ------------------------------- From: Brian R Hutchison Subject: F3 Music Is there a way to get F3/MiG29/FA18 to use a General MIDI MPU-401 Compatible as the music device? I guess the Roland support is for MT32 since it doesn't work with my TB Maui. Maybe I'll just keep playing the music with a MIDI sequencer. Sounds preety goof that way and who needs music for a real flight-sim anyway. BTW - My PAS16 still hangs during the intro animation on these games even with F3 V3.03 and all the previous advice. Works fine if I skip this. This is still the only game I have trouble when using my PAS16. Still with all the whing, they're still the best. Thanks, ooOOOO ___ Brian Hutchison oo _____ ______|O|_____ _I__n_n__||_|| ________ | O O O | Microwave Technology Division >(_________|_7_|-|______|-_|__________|_- Hewlett Packard Company /o ()() ()() o oo oo oo oo INTERNET : brianrh@sr.hp.COM ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Hornet notes Has anyone noticed, while dogfighting, the 'square' target designator box surrounding an aircraft in the HUD sometimes changes into a circle? What does this mean? How about the short vertical line on GM radar mode? It shows the projected flight path, straight out from your nose, but HOW far does it extend? Landing: What would be the proper vertical velocity when you're correctly on glideslope? They mention -33, for when you're at 5,000 AGL, 20 NM from the carrier. does this apply all the way to the deck? WHY do they turn off the AOA readout on the HUD while in ILS mode? Talk about DUMB! I believe it was Greg Cisco who wrote that you can 'feel' the plane moving through the air -- a perfect description! IMO, roll rate is WAY to fast, and making minute corrections (i.e. landing or bombing) is VERY hard. I'm figuring that since I've gone from the Viper, to the 29th, and now to the Hornet that it'll be an easier/faster transition, than if I went from the Falcon to the Hornet. If so, I expect the Fulcrum would be a tad easier to assimilate. If you're of a mind to change the RF/IA theatre, the offsets are: C7A45h - Theatre file name. Default: NELLIS. C7B78h - .RFM extension. C8034h - 'NELLIS' COMMAND 'radio button'. C7A2Eh - IA theatre file name. Default: KUWAIT. I haven't been able to locate the carrier in a re-mapped RF. If anyone does, I'd appreciate a note telling me in what theatre, and the coordinates! If SH continues to put out additional aircraft models before upgrading to 4.0, it'll be a waste. IMO, three aircraft models are MORE than sufficient, considering how similar the F-16 and the F/A-18 are. The MiG-29 was an excellent move - having the option of flying from either side. Since they were going to model another allied aircraft, they should have chosen a DEDICATED fighter OR bomber. I was excited when they announced adding naval operations, but there are really DAMNED few, besides taking off and trapping on the carrier. They could improved the 'realism' by having you escort, or be escorted by primarily Navy aircraft. I launched (just to go around and trap) and discoverd a flight of F-15's flying escort for me to fly recon in the Kuriles. Wouldn't a flight of Tomcats have made a leeetle bit more sense? I guess this is fairly trivial, but since they ARE doing Naval modelling.. ------------------------------- From: Stephen L Stclair Subject: Thrustmaster TMSA.EXE Thrustmaster's TMSA utility is now in the Falcon3 archives at /pub/thrustmastrer/fcs/tmsa.exe sandman ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 45 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Jan 20 05:13:42 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA16598; Thu, 20 Jan 94 05:12:58 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 19 Jan 94 07:32 PST Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 17:35 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I46 Content-Length: 9592 X-Lines: 224 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 46 Wed Jan 19 07:32:41 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: 4 or 6 wires? Still Dangerous! Leonard Lau the Number 3 Wire jmoore@pluto.ksc.nasa.gov (John Moo RE: Hornet slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil RE: CH Pro with WCS MkII slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: Hornet Rudders? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: CH Pro with WCS MkII Kris Ong Re: Stupid Yankee Joerg Stenger Subject: 4 or 6 wires? Still Dangerous! Maybe Spectrum Holobyte could model one more thing wrt carrier landings: Some ex-Navy buddies of mine who have served aboard US Navy carriers reminded me of one problem. :-( When aircraft snag the arrestor cables during landing, sometimes a cable snaps, and the cable whips around the deck, maiming and decapitating flight deck crewmen. Therefore the Navy takes seriously the inspection and maintenance of catapults/arrestors. This carrier landing business can be nasty! Lenny "Doofus" Lau ll@linus.mitre.org ------------------------------- From: jmoore@pluto.ksc.nasa.gov (John Moore) Subject: the Number 3 Wire > From: Joe Wohrstien > Subject: the Number 3 Wire > > The numbers of the wires are, if i am correct, numbered from forward > to aft. #1 being closest to the bow and #4 being closest to the stern. > The reason you want to aim for the #3 wire is because this gives you 2 > more wires to catch if the hook doesn't grab ... I was on short cruise on CV-62 (Independence) as an engineer supporting an S-3 squadron. The most cables I have ever seen rigged are four. The number one wire being closest to the stern, the number 4 closest to the bow. The glideslope is set such that the aircraft will intercept the number 3 wire. Number 4 is bad because it is a near bolter. Number one is (very) bad because it is a near crash. I have never seen anyone catch the 1 wire as such an approach would be waved off. Catching the number 2 wire isn't good because it looks bad on your landing reviews (my opinion) which are posted in the ready room (in this squadron anyway). _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ John R. Moore _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ jmoore@pluto.ksc.nasa.gov _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ (407) 861-7816 _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ NASA, TE-LPS-31 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: Hornet > From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) > Subject: Hornet > I notice that the manual states you can't have the same view > on both HDD's. Will this include having ground mapping radar on one HDD, and > air radar on the second? I'm sure it does. The APG-65 is not capable of performing both functions at the same time. I'm pretty you`d need a Synthetic Aperature Radar (SAR), ie one with an electronically scanned beam, rather than a mechanically scanned one to do that. The French claim the RBE-2 radar in the Rafale will be capable of this: simulataneous use of both air-to-air and air-to-ground radar modes. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: CH Pro with WCS MkII > From: harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com > Subject: CH Pro With WCS MkII > > I have recently upgraded to a 486dx266 and it seemed like the right time > to get serious. So now I have a CH Flightstick Pro plugged into a TM WCS > MkII all connected to the games port on a SoundBlaster2. Before I connected > the WCS the Coolie Hat on the CH Pro worked fine giving me views in F3 > (3.02,1) and trim control in MiG29 (1.01). Now with the WCS the Hat is > screwed giving me combinations of the UB MB & LB. Always consistent for > each button. > > Is this a known problem? or has anyone experienced before? I've tried > all sorts of things and nothing seems to fix it. The CH Pro's hat works differently than TM's, but I'm not exactly sure how. I know TM's hat works off the x-aixs of the second joystick port and can be converted to a digital signal by the WCS if needed (ie you want analog throttle instead of analog hat). CH's hat is different. Have you tried the hat setting on the WCS MkII in the "digital" position? If that doesn't work, you will have to plug the Pro directly into the active game port. You'll need another game port (doesn't have to be active) to plug the WCS into for power purposes. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Hornet Rudders? > From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" > Subject: Hornet Rudders? > > Hey, Why don't my rudders work in Hornet? I't like they are attached to a > bungie cord or something. I'm using the keyboard control keys [, and ] to > control them. However, when pressed the HUD heading display does move but > as soon as I let go, the plane returns to the original heading! This > happens however long I hold down the key. As you can imagine, it makes > life real tough (and DEATH real easy:( ) while trying to land on the > flattop! Anyone else got this problem? > I think the reason you see this is simple. Just because you point the nose of the aircraft in a different direction, doesn't mean that it will go in that direction, immediately. The Velocity Vector has to be given time to "come around". The mushieness you describe is the same as for the MiG too. AND is one of the reasons I like the HORNET & MiG "realistic" flightmodel. I will go and try this again anyway to make sure this works the way I think it does. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: CH Pro with WCS MkII | The CH Pro's hat works differently than TM's, but I'm not exactly sure how. I | know TM's hat works off the x-aixs of the second joystick port and can be | converted to a digital signal by the WCS if needed (ie you want analog throttle | instead of analog hat). CH's hat is different. Have you tried the hat setting | on the WCS MkII in the "digital" position? If that doesn't work, you will have | to plug the Pro directly into the active game port. You'll need another game | port (doesn't have to be active) to plug the WCS into for power purposes. | | - Stuart | A couple of points.. 1) I believe the Thrustmaster hat works off the Y axis, not the X, as the X is used for the rudders. 2) the CH Pro uses button combos.. I'm not sure of what they exactly are, but.. let's say as an example , button 1&2 = hat up, and 2&3 = hat down, 1&3 = hat left.. and so on.. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: Joerg Stenger Subject: Re: Stupid Yankee Andreas, I guess you got the message during a Curile Campaign. It can be heard when a Blinder pilot launches an UMF - he probably think he can send you to /local/nirwana with his little toy ;-). Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) Subject: Re: Stupid Yankee > when I was flying a few days ago, I suddenly heard the message 'Hasta la vista, > stupid yankee!' (or something similar) from a TU-22 (!). I was flying the > Viper, not the MiG. It is a Russian text which I cannot remember, but was something like "do vidyanya, stupid yankee" which means "Goodbye stupid Yankee". If you hear it, buckle up and hit AB5! You'll need it, since this message is teasingly broadcasted by the unescorted TU22 (another hint) when they release the UMF. About the possibility to receive enemy messages: probably they are scrambled, but in this case, I can imagine someone intendedly breaking radio silence :-) -- Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at | Friends don't let Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | friends do Windows ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 46 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 21 05:33:17 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA07578; Fri, 21 Jan 94 05:32:48 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 20 Jan 94 06:56 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 06:59 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I47 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 47 Thu Jan 20 06:56:38 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Re: Falcon/Mig/Hornet Wish List... knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Digitized sounds found knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hornet Smoking! knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hornet Rudders? knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Joystick problem ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Re: Stupid Yankee knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hornet notes knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Ch Pro and WCS MK II Beau Mersereau Re: frame speed Jeff Beadles Realistic Flight jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) G-Limiter in Hornet Stephen L Stclair After the gloves and helmet, I would also like a body suit hooked to > my brain giving real feelings of the G's and gun/missle hits (that never > happens to ME of course!). Death could be left out, though. > > Some day, some day... I've been working on this idea for a while. Ran out of time and money to complete the project. Now, if someone wants to fund me ... :-) Jim ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Digitized sounds found > Further for me unknown messages are: > "Altitude", "A Cloak", "Request you check Bingo", "Fuel critical", > "Don't miss", "Transmission bad, say again". I've received the check bingo message on occaision on long flights when my wingmen are running out of fuel. I don't recall a fuel critical message, but perhaps it happens. The don't miss message happens when you ask a wingman to drag left or right. I've never heard the transmission bad message, but perhaps it's related to wingman commands somehow. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > -In FOTI, you can't land on water (it's a shame you can in F3!) Easy to fix. Don't land in the water! :-) > -In Falcon AT, you are being captured by enemy forces > only if you eject over enemy held areas (according to the manual). I believe that enemy capture is based on enemy units in the area. If you look at the occupation map and you are landing in area that is colored with a mix of your color and the enemies, then you have a chance of being captured. It's a macro view, not a micro view, so parachuting over the top of your base gives the same chances as somewhere else that's "purple". I'd have to look this up in Bornstein's book to be positive, but I think that's how it works. > -The gunsight of Falcon AT looks more like the real thing > (like in the digitized video you can see in the Instant Action > icon in F3.0's control room) Yeah, I miss the old pipper on a tail sight and I do believe the real Falcon HUD uses that. However, the funnel sight does exist on some combat aircraft HUDs (F-14 for one I think). > -There's a master arm switch in FOTI. Probably removed for playability. There's a LOT of operations we don't perform that the real jocks do. Take a look at Tornado for better systems handling if you're into that. > -Most important: both in FOTI and F AT, you can't cycle thru > ground targets like in F 3.0 (T Key) when designating targets > for guided A-G ordnance. I think this auto-locking is really > unrealistic, and sometimes it even isn't convenient, for many > people have reported difficulties designating the right > target. Another tradeoff in playability. We don't have the analog control over our aircraft that a real jock does as well. I, for one, am somewhat happier with the auto lock on feature. I almost never hit a SAM with a maverick in Falcon AT. They were just too small, you were moving too fast, the controls moved in too large a chunk, and the visual characteristics (time to acquire, identify, etc.) were terrible in Falcon AT. > -FOTI has waypoints with time of arrival attributes. Well, you could buy the KCC utilities. I loved 'em when they were shareware. > -FOTI and F AT have some AWACS like features: you receive > warnings of individual bandits and are being vectored to > them or at least you get the bandits coordinates. Agreed. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hornet Smoking! > During one of my missons, I noticed my engines were smoking! I had not yet > encountered any enemies and I wasn't at full military power. Sounds like the smoke trail generator for flight demos that was in Mig-29 as well. Don't remember the key that toggles it, but I'm sure the wais library has the info somewhere [just checked and it said Num Lock was used in Mig-29]. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hornet Rudders? > Hey, Why don't my rudders work in Hornet? I't like they are attached to a > bungie cord or something. I'm using the keyboard control keys [, and ] to > control them. However, when pressed the HUD heading display does move but > as soon as I let go, the plane returns to the original heading! This > happens however long I hold down the key. As you can imagine, it makes > life real tough (and DEATH real easy:( ) while trying to land on the > flattop! Anyone else got this problem? Well, that's pretty much how they are really supposed to work. Rudders will yaw the nose of an aircraft. They don't really make you turn. When you release the rudder, you stop yawing. Now, ideally, you would get lined up and side slip rather than turning with the rudder. Basically, this means getting pointed in the same direction as your runway, banking towards it (causes a slip and a turn due to weathercocking), applying opposite rudder to prevent the nose from swinging around. Has anyone tried this in Hornet yet? I'll have to try it tonight. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Subject: Joystick problem I wrote a week ago about this problem I have with my system. It reports having a game port with two joysticks hooked up and buttons pressed. This precludes my being able to enter mission data, which takes a lot of the fun out of F3. Would one of these programs being discussed to control the TM work to program the gameport to nul or something? Note: I spoke with SH today. They won't talk about Falcon 4.0 :( and release of A 10 has been pushed back to 1995 (If they release it at all I was told). Thanks for any help! Warren "Not Larry" Eckstein If at first you don't succeed dig the manual out of the trash ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Stupid Yankee > Hhm, is it normal (in reality possible) that your enemy > can send you messages in this form. I mean, is radio traffic not scrambled or > crypted in any way ? What about the frequency, although I think that this is > the minor problem ? There are two International distress frequencies/channels (121.5 for civilians, 345.6 or something like that for military) that everyone picks up. > I never heard this message before, but, as Joerg Stenger did, I listened to > the sounds in DIGISNDS.F3. Could it be that this message did not appear in > older versions ? I'm currently using the latest one before 3.03 (3.02.1, right?) Started with OFT and the Kuriles theater. I think it's a heads up warning about incoming UMFs, but not real sure. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hornet notes > Has anyone noticed, while dogfighting, the 'square' target designator > box surrounding an aircraft in the HUD sometimes changes into a circle? What > does this mean? I think this means you've lost radar contact, but the missile (a heat seaker) is still tracking. If you turn your radar off, this is what you would see. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: Beau Mersereau Subject: Ch Pro and WCS MK II I recently just set this combo up. Thanks goes to Thrustmaster Tech support. The only way I could get both items to work at the same time, was to plug the WCS MK II into my disabled joystick port on my SB Pro. The CH Pro is plugged into the active joystick port. You can only use the digital option on the Mk II. You also have to disable the throttle wheel on the CH Pro. You disable the wheel by disconnecting one of the wires. The wire that you disconnect is the output wire that runs from the wheel to the joystick cable. Email me if you have any more questions. -- Email: moosic@triton.unm.edu Check Six! | Moose | (0) X--------<_._>--------X XxX (_) XxX X X ------------------------------- From: Subject: frame speed I have seen discussion of frame speed using falcon3. I have been wondering how does one actually measure in falcon3. Is there a program available to do this? I am aware of 3dbench but this does correspond directly to an actual program like falcon3. Scott ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: frame speed >I have seen discussion of frame speed using falcon3. I have >been wondering how does one actually measure in falcon3. Is >there a program available to do this? I am aware of 3dbench but >this does correspond directly to an actual program like falcon3. This is measured by going into debug mode. To do that, press 'p'ause, and then hit tab twice. Then, (from the archives): >From: joak@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jonathan A. Kung) Date: 16 Aug 1992 03:38:23 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility Message-ID: <16kijfINN6rp@agate.berkeley.edu> 1. Getting into debug mode: during a mission, press 'p', then tab twice. You'll find yourself outside and behind your plane. 2. 'd' for some stats (coordinates, altitude, step size of your debug viewpoint). Toggle. 3. 't' for teleport by some funky coordinate system I didn't bother figuring out. 4. '+' to increase step size, '-' to decrease. You start out at step=20, and as your step gets higher, so does your rate of increase. 9999 max. 5. up arrow for forward, back arrow for backward, left arrow for leftways sidestep, right arrow for rightways sidestep, pageup for increasing altitude, pagedown for decreasing altitude. Also the IJLM keys acting as the arrow keys. 6. '`' (that's the one that is probably with the '~') starts up the action while still in debug mode. You should be in autopilot for this :) Good way to scope out the field, and another jock was probably in this mode to view a land- battle between Super-tank and the enemies of freedom. (Sorry I don't have your name, dude!) 7. F3 and F4 + cntl/shift keys do the same things as in regular mode. 8. 'esc' still works, so you can change magnification, detail level, etc. 9. 'n' does something with the hard disk, saving files named "falcon3.###". I guess they're snapshots of the screen. 10. 'p' to get out of debug mode and back into the cockpit. Also, shift-'t' (or just capital 'T') changes the time, so you can dispense with the 'p','t' routine... I'd like to thank the person who stated first that 'p',tab,tab gets you into debug mode, but I don't remember your name... Others keys probably do stuff, too. I didn't fool around with shift/cntl/alt combinations, and haven't touched F5-F12... Oops, I just realized that you might only need to hit tab once to get into debug mode, I think -- it's just that two tabs get your viewpoint out of the cockpit. -Jon Kung, hoping this wasn't some sort of secret that will get the SH people to come knocking at his door... ----------------------------------------------------------------- It's the 'd' key shows things like frame rate. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Realistic Flight Regarding the question posed about which mode I fly in, I use Complex for the Viper, Realistic (or difficult, whatever the bottom choice is for the '29th and the Hornet.) I hope with the release of F4.0, that SH will re-write (or FINISH) the realistic model for the Viper. Dropping down to Complex at 250kts is an unspeakable drag, and the mode was never intended for close in furrballs. BVM is what I've read the realistic modelling was first used for. On another thought, has anyone found a better way to land than following the glideslope down from 5nm out? (The method they describe in the manual.) I found that I had far more ease landing the Viper by ignoring the ILS for everything except lining up on the center of the runway, and just jockeying the plane down. The same method is basically what they describe as landing procedure for the 29th. Landing an A6 or F4 on FotI is much easier, but I take that to be an indication that the flight modelling isn't up to par. I now find myself having to follow the glideslope down, and I find that my method of just 'bringin' it in' is making it very difficult for me to follow the procedure of carrier landing. Any suggestions? ------------------------------- From: Stephen L Stclair Subject: G-Limiter in Hornet Could someone explain the G-limiter function. I thought I understood it, but... I thought that it limited you to 7.5 G when engaged, but on many occassions I have pulled far more that 7.5 G (once it spiked up to 13.1). Just exactly when does it limit you? Along these lines, has anyone ever seen the G-limiter light blinking on and off (green, red, green, red...)? What does that mean? Thanks, Sandman PS, and completely off-topic, did you know that you can daisy-chain Thrustmaster WCSs? That is, if you have 2 TM WCS IIs, you can download a different ADV file to each, then hook one into the other. Buzz Hoffman said (over on CI$) that he has three daisy-chained for FS5. Of course, only someone who works for TM would probably have more than one WCS II handy for this. However, you can hook a WCS I up to a WCS II, and I suspect that alot of us have a I and a II. Something new to try. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 47 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 22 00:14:04 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05206; Sat, 22 Jan 94 00:13:42 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 21 Jan 94 06:29 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 06:30 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I48 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 48 Fri Jan 21 06:29:23 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Twin engines mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Fuel Critical!! k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Fuel Critical!! k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Falcon 4.0 and A10 Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Modem Play spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de ------------------------------------------------------------ From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Twin engines After many sorties of F/A-18 and MiG29, I am left wondering if there is any advantage to twin engines in SH's abstraction of reality. In true reality, one advantage of twin engines is that you can lose one and still make it home on the other. Many of my prior flights in SH's F-16 left me wishing that I had a second engine to limp home with instead of having to eject. Now, I have twin turbofans (and all the corresponding instrumentation) and have yet to experience them behave in any way other than a mirror image of each other. I have taken countless sam-ir hits which often knock out my 'engines', but never only one. This is even more alarming considering that the missile hit often fails to damage any other system on the whole aircraft. I would be really curious to know if anyone out there has ever lost only one engine? One would think that this would be easy enough to model into the sim. Michael Coyne ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Fuel Critical!! The message "Fuel Critical!" is gain from the wingman/men when they are REALLY getting low on fuel, but you don't let them go. The wingie usually calls some three times that he's low on fuel before he starts to panic. Usually the critical fuel is well enough for the return trip, but it doesn't leave space for a single sidestep. One missile launch could ruin it! Or one absent minded missile attack from the pilot. Not always. Nor for the good pilots. I sometimes keep a pilot until Critical. Strange you other people don't? Maybe I am so ignorant and poor leader! :-) Well, it's still me who gets shot down the most of the time... :-) I wonder why? I haven't heard the "check joker" in a long time, not since version 3.0d ... Is it still in? Or am I just overcareful... Cool, could the pilots really ask you for repeatition! That would be nice... Tracon has it. Be careful out there! -Ghost / Prizrak- T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Fuel Critical!! The message "Fuel Critical!" is gain from the wingman/men when they are REALLY getting low on fuel, but you don't let them go. The wingie usually calls some three times that he's low on fuel before he starts to panic. Usually the critical fuel is well enough for the return trip, but it doesn't leave space for a single sidestep. One missile launch could ruin it! Or one absent minded missile attack from the pilot. Not always. Nor for the good pilots. I sometimes keep a pilot until Critical. Strange you other people don't? Maybe I am so ignorant and poor leader! :-) Well, it's still me who gets shot down the most of the time... :-) I wonder why? I haven't heard the "check joker" in a long time, not since version 3.0d ... Is it still in? Or am I just overcareful... Cool, could the pilots really ask you for repeatition! That would be nice... Tracon has it. Be careful out there! -Ghost / Prizrak- T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Falcon 4.0 and A10 > >Note: I spoke with SH today. They won't talk about Falcon 4.0 :( and release >of A 10 has been pushed back to 1995 (If they release it at all I was told). > >Thanks for any help! > >Warren "Not Larry" Eckstein If at first you don't succeed > dig the manual out of the trash Here's the story I got from some folk who chatted with the SH programming folk. A10: basically it was definately planned early on as a follow-up to F3 There was even a prototype WCS with a split handle intended to tie in with the game! However: it became apparent that the F3 GFX engine never would handle sufficient ground detail etc to make a purely mud-moving playable. So the idea was quietly shelved ``for another day''. What you got instead (once F3 had stabilised) was Mig-29 and Hornet. Basically very little if any code intended for release (as opposed to playing around) was ever written for A10. If it ever happens at all it will be an F4.0 game not F3.0. F4.0: As of nov last year a good deal of preliminary design / speccing work had been on F4 (``folders full''). However, essentially zero code had been cut. SH were waay too busy with Mig-29 and Hornet both of which offered surer returns in a more realistic time-frame. I.e. until the F3 engine was exhausted no-one was going to invest the huge programmer hours developing a new engine. I.e. don't hold your breath for F4.0 the earliest concievable is '95: realistically they're probably shooting for '95. Andrew ------------------------------- From: spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de Subject: Modem Play Just a small question, besides being (yet) unable to find somebody to play Falcon3.03 with (via Modem), I would like to know if the reality of the Modem Game is low for low transfer rates (like 2400 bps) or is gameplay essentially the same for all the different transfer rates ? Andreas Spengler ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 48 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Mon Jan 24 09:03:08 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA02299; Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:02:22 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 23 Jan 94 10:42 PST Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 11:30 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I49 Content-Length: 19573 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 49 Sun Jan 23 10:42:16 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Mig29 operating procedures in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk (Marek Paul) RE: CH Pro with WCS MkII slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil RE: how F3 compares to FOTI and F A slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil RE: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil RE: how F3 compares to FOTI and F A slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Squadron Awards mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Hornet patch tsheehy@ccmailpc.ctron.com Re: Twin engines bbrown@gandalf.ca (Bruce Brown) falcon 3 in PHX timd@sparky2.sps.mot.com Re: Modem Play cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Easter Eggs jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Altitude edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu Mig29 Operating Procedures in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk (Marek Paul) How many Migs can YOU trash? gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So MCU utility patch g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (mic ------------------------------------------------------------ From: in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk (Marek Paul) Subject: Mig29 operating procedures I have recently purchased Mig29 for Falcon 3. The manual is excellent reading but seems to omit trivia like take-off speeds, landing speeds, never exceed speeds, etc. Have I missed something or is the US version different ? Marek in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk [ 14-line long signature deleted. --Jeff] ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: CH Pro with WCS MkII > From: Kris Ong > Subject: Re: CH Pro with WCS MkII > > A couple of points.. > 1) I believe the Thrustmaster hat works off the Y axis, not the X, as the X > is used for the rudders. I knew it was one of them, just couldn't remember which one. :) > 2) the CH Pro uses button combos.. I'm not sure of what they exactly are, > but.. let's say as an example , button 1&2 = hat up, and 2&3 = hat down, > 1&3 = hat left.. and so on.. I knew it was some type of multiple button deal, but since I didn't know anymore than that I figured it was best not to say anything. :) - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein > Subject: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > > -The gunsight of Falcon AT looks more like the real thing > (like in the digitized video you can see in the Instant Action > icon in F3.0's control room) The gunsight used in F3 is a real thing. It's called the Enhanced Envelope Gun Sight (EEGS). While both the LCOS (the sight you're talking about) and the EEGS are both available to F-16C [I'm not sure about F-16A, besides we (the USAF) don't fly many anymore] pilots with the push of a button, every Viper driver I know prefers the EEGS. It has some capabilities that the LCOS doesn't have, like front-quarter gun attacks are much more feasible, that haven't been modeled in F3. In F3, the EEGS has far too little damping when you have a radar lock on your target. It should really stiffen up and not jump around as much as it does. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > Subject: Re: Falcon3 Flight Model Survey > > (great description & good points deleted to save space :) Thanks. :) > The problem I have with this is that I get 45 degrees of inertial roll at the > most. Usually not even that. I think some of this stuff is machine/hardware > sensitive. COMPLEX has no inertial roll at all. I wouldn't doubt that there might be some processor specific things going on here, plus I think I screwed the pooch on airspeed. I get inverted at 350 KTAS and about 135 deg at 400. Anyway, back to the processor issue. Some of the guys in the Modem Games Forum over on CI$ have done some testing wrt this issue. They found that while distance traveled at a constant speed was invariant with processor type, they also found that the faster the machine the faster you can accelerate from one speed to another. To me this points to a flaw in the equations of motion, since the navigation equations ("as they are commanlly referred to in my work (ie where am I wrt the earth)) appear to work independant of processor type. I assume then that they check the processor type and adjust the integration step size accordingly to get the same answer irrespective of processor speed. So if the step size is right, the equations of motion must be messed up. Note here that I'm assuming they use the same integration scheme for all equations. I think it'd be a coding nightmare if they didn't. Also an additional note here as to why I said lack of "damping" rather than inertia as you used. If this were an inertia effect, I would except to see the HIFI model require a much longer time to build up to its max roll rate, since it exhibts such a tendancy to continue rolling after you have centered the stick. Inertia will have more of an effect on both ends (start and stop) whereas total system damping (total system meaning both aerodynamic and flight control system damping) effects primarily show up at the stopping end. But again, without knowing how the F3 equation of motion are programmed this is just my part. > I flew at 10,000 at 450knts, went to AB5 pointed the nose at 45 degrees & > climbed (for each flight model). HiFi lost speed DRAMATICLY, while COMPLEX > gained speed and accelerated. These are probably both off. At this condition I'm pretty you should at least be able to maintain 450 KTS up to about 20,000 ft, if not gain a few knots for a while and then maybe sink back to 450 again only up to 20,000 ft. Above that you should definitely slow down. > My tests (each point was performed at 10,000 and 450knts) showed that COMPLEX > will out G HiFi. I got 9.9 G's with COMPLEX and 9.1 (spike) with HiFi. > COMPLEX can also gain speed and altitude (energy) at will. This last point is > the BIGGIE. I have no confidence in F3's "G" reading. I have no idea how they model this andit shows no correlation with the parameter that most effects it for a given speed: AOA. The G limiter is not implemented, in any model, and the HIFI model has something really wierd happening. If you put the VV on the horizon in a level, full-aft stick turn, you'll see about 9.1 g like you said. Drop the nose to about -3 deg and the G reading jumps to 8.1 g. Move it back up at it returns to 9.1 g. What the hell is going on here? There is definitely something wrong with F3's equations of motion in this regard. > I really believe that both flightmodels do model different aspects of flight > properly. THey both have problems. Two things are certain... 1) COMPLEX will > out perform HiFi. 2) Different strokes for different folks. Agreed. :) - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: RE: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) > Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > > I believe that enemy capture is based on enemy units in the area. If > you look at the occupation map and you are landing in area that is > colored with a mix of your color and the enemies, then you have a > chance of being captured. It's a macro view, not a micro view, so > parachuting over the top of your base gives the same chances as > somewhere else that's "purple". I'd have to look this up in > Bornstein's book to be positive, but I think that's how it works. I think there is some randomness thrown in as well, sort of like those MiG-27s that appear over your base as you takeoff. I think the capture thing should be cut and dried. You punch out and land closer to enemy units than friendlies you get captured, otherwise you get rescused. > Yeah, I miss the old pipper on a tail sight and I do believe the > real Falcon HUD uses that. However, the funnel sight does exist > on some combat aircraft HUDs (F-14 for one I think). Negative, EEGS is only available on the F-16. > > -FOTI has waypoints with time of arrival attributes. > Well, you could buy the KCC utilities. I loved 'em when they > were shareware. I think he means a real-time display on the HUD/MFD. I agree that this should definitely be implemented. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Squadron Awards What ever happened to the squadron awards for successful campaign completions? I've never seen these in any Falcon version. Michael ------------------------------- From: tsheehy@ccmailpc.ctron.com Subject: Hornet patch Just to let you guys know, the SH rep on AOL has announced that they have officially started work on a patch for the latest versions of Falcon, Mig-29 and Hornet. Specifically, the patch will include better joystick calibration routines which will have some sort of null zone support, similar to the new Thrustmaster routines being shipped. Also being fixed is a Hornet bug where your wingmen automatically dump external stores when heading towards the last waypoint, in order to lighten the load for landing, or something to that effect. So if you are cycling through the waypoints (shift-B) and get to the last waypoint, your wingmen will dump their external fuel tanks. Apparently this has been the cause of all the reported 'flame-outs' by wingmen in Hornet. I'll try to post any more relavant information from AOL that doesn't make its way to this list. --Tom Sheehy tsheehy@ctron.com ------------------------------- From: bbrown@gandalf.ca (Bruce Brown) Subject: Re: Twin engines mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) writes: > After many sorties of F/A-18 and MiG29, I am left wondering if there is any > advantage to twin engines in SH's abstraction of reality. ... > I would be really curious to know if anyone out there has ever lost only one > engine? One would think that this would be easy enough to model into the sim As in Tornado. I seldom have a double hit on engines in Tornado with a single SAM. (more frequently, I lose 2 engines to an Air-to-Air missile.) It is fun, but sometimes frustrating to dump stores (except fuel), and try to manoeuver a chasing bandit to crash into the hills. With Tornado/one engine/full A-B, you give up approx. 80 knots in speed to the enemy. I can, however, manoeuver the bogey to crash into a hill by following the contours at approx 75 feet over hills, etc. Just pray you don't run out of chaff and flares, and keep bobbing up and down by about 25-50 feet, since there may be a constant stream of tracers running by your cockpit. NEVER EVER leave a flightpath which runs over hilly territory, if you have only 1 engine (i.e. don't fly a course between hills) if pursued by an enemy plane. Splash mud, not planes BSquared bbrown@gandalf.ca | The hurrier I go the behinder I get. 130 Colonnade Rd. S., +-------------------------------------- Nepean, Ontario CANADA K2E7M4 Tel.:(613)723-6500 | Fax:(613)226-1717 ------------------------------- From: timd@sparky2.sps.mot.com Subject: falcon 3 in PHX reissuing a challange for players in phoenix arizona to play falcon 3 H2H over the modem. this is really cool so i hope someone responds!!! sparky out. . . ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Modem Play > From: spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de > Subject: Modem Play > > > > Just a small question, > > besides being (yet) unable to find somebody to play > Falcon3.03 with (via Modem), I would like to know > if the reality of the Modem Game is low for > low transfer rates (like 2400 bps) or is gameplay > essentially the same for all the different transfer rates ? I have do alot of modem play with falcon/mig29 and not hornet. I have done both 2400 and 9600. By far the largest difference in the 2 baud rates, is the time spent syncing the 2 computers together. This syncing process is gone thru every time you finish one mission & want to play again. At 9600 this time took (I would guess) about 2 minutes. Certainly no more that 5. At 2400 the process would take 10-15 minutes. With IHHD, I found that the syncing process at 9600 was worse than 2400. Chera Bekker and I were able to get VERY stable comms at 2400 with Falcon 3.02 & MiG 1.01. Everything worked fine. We haven't tried 3.03 yet bet we did try hornet. The sync time went up to 30 minutes. We were used to waiting 10-15 minutes. Apparently SH has not squared away the comms routines. :( Framerate was VERY acceptable at both 2400 and 9600. Lately I've been using 2400 with my DX2. But, when I ran 9600 with my 386/16 there was no big framerate difference. Greg ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Easter Eggs This isn't a new coolie, but I found it to be cute. I was flying a train attack mission in the Kuriles, using only LAU rockets. After delivering a couple of attacks where little men got out and ran away, I thought I couldn't damage the train with 'em, but decided to make another pass anyway. This time, along with the little dudes (who conveniently 'vanish' after a few seconds), one of the boxcars (not the tail) was emitting puffs of smoke. "YEAH! BURN BITCH!" but, alas, it went out after about a minute. Another pass. This time it's the tail-end-charley puffin' away. And AGAIN it went out. Better use some real ordnance. As you've probably guessed, I used the ACMI feature to watch my attacks after each pass. Has anyone managed to do a train in with LAU's? How about getting one to burn itself to death? Does anything else 'burn', besides trains and aircraft? Jay ------------------------------- From: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Altitude Someone mentioned the radio message "Altitude". This is used by a ground controller (maybe also AWACS) to designate that the aircraft in question has gone below the minimum safe ejection altitude. As a matter of fact, I have actually heard this message on the HUD video of an F/A 18 that departed from controlled flight. The ground controller called "Altitude" at 1500', and the a/c pulled out at about 90' above a golf course. Neat footage! I was puzzled, though, as I thought that the F/A-18 had a zero-zero ejection seat.... ------------------------------- From: in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk (Marek Paul) Subject: Mig29 Operating Procedures I have recently purchased Mig29 for Falcon 3. The manual is excellent reading but seems to omit trivia like take-off speeds, landing speeds, never exceed speeds, etc. Have I missed something or is the US version different ? Marek .-------------------------------------------------------------. | Marek Paul | JANET: in1053@uk.ac.wlv.ccub | | The Computer Centre | EMAIL: in1053@ccub.wlv.ac.uk | | Wulfruna Street | D.D.I: +44 (0)902 322677 | | Wolverhampton | FAX : +44 (0)902 322777 | | West Midlands |---------------------------------| | WV1 1SB | PA28-161 ___!___ | | United Kingdom | _______(_)______ | | | ! ! ! | | | If God had meanT man to fly he | | | would have given him more money | `-------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: How many Migs can YOU trash? I have just been dabbling in Red Flag and came up with a new (for me) training exercise. Load up the Viper with guns only (limited ammo, of course), enemy AI to Ace, and set up an enemy flight of 1 to x Mig-29s, also armed only with guns, flying CAP, about 5 miles away at 10 o'clock. This sidesteps the problems of easy missile kills (for either side). I do admit to using high weapon effectiveness, and fly Complex model with no red-out. Clearly the first and last of these make a big difference. I consider myself to be bad to mediocre in skill, but I cope as follows: x=1: Yawn. x=2: I can handle it. x=3: Interesting. x=4: Aaagh! How do you Falcon aces out there get on? Which enemy plane dogfights the best in this situation: Mig-19? (Incidentally, I have cross posted to c.s.i.p.g.f-s. I think this should be done *occasionally* to keep a high SH/F3 profile there.) -- George Sobala - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (michael dobbs (micro bio)) Subject: MCU utility patch I downloaded the Mig/falcon utilities patch from onion.rain.com and tried it on my F3 Mapper utility (ver. 4.1) but it was unsuccessful. The screen said something about old version detected...0 files modified. Is there another more recent verion of this (and the Other utilies? I downloaded the mapper, Falconr, from cactus.org within the last few weeks. Also, I'n about to get into the communications via modem stuff...it there any patch/new release of the f3v42.coomm utility around? What about the CHAT. tsr...tihs one sounds quite nice to have! Mike. Falcon3: where the safest place to be is on the outside of the moinitor! ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 49 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Jan 25 20:46:53 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA05578; Tue, 25 Jan 94 20:42:37 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:24 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:28 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I50 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 50 Mon Jan 24 19:24:48 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Landed Hornet :d g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (mic Hi Speed Carrier Landings mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Bombing an airfield "Frank Racis" >> Daniel Gaiennie Hyams Re: Altitude slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I49 slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Versions... cjohnson@lisa.sedd.trw.com (Clarenc ------------------------------------------------------------ From: g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (michael dobbs (micro bio)) Subject: Landed Hornet :d After many, many, many attempts, I finally snagged a wire on the flattop! OK, it wasn't pretty (number 4, unsafe rating:( ) but I was overjoyed! I have been having such a tough time of not being able to correct my heading with the F/A-18 rudders...like I used to be able to do in the F-16. One thing weird (among others) I have found....my wings seem to land find when they go first...If I attempt to land first, and either crash (usually the case) or get waved off, the wingmen just keep circling...forever til flame out! Any one find this to be the case? I almost always engage my ILS even though the manual says only use it for night/poor viz....I fing it helps my line up from further away. Could this somehow screw up my wingmen's approaches (not at night...they likely want to use visual only...) ? One more thing I noticed....during a few Kurile Iland missions...I set up S & D type mission with 3 Wingmen. I get about 10 Miles from the hit sire...and check my wingies with the '7' key....at least one of them has been on his way back to the carrier for several minutes! What a chicken! He will even land. There's no message, no enemy encounters...zippo! It's quite a surprise to initiate an attack and find out you are the only plane in the flight over the target zone :( Mike Hornet: Where the safest place to be is back in the USS Rosevelt Rec. romm playing darts rather than dodging singers! ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Hi Speed Carrier Landings I was flying a mission today with Hornet and got into some visious dogfights. Somewhere during this, I shut my G-limiter off to get that extra edge and ended up damaging my flaps. Unfortunately, I still had to land on the carrier. I ended up coming way too fast. I hit the deck at about 220, but fortunately I had the perfect approach, touching down soft but fast at a very slight angle. Somehow, the arrestor cables stopped the plane. Interestingly, the warning lights all lit up like a x-mas tree but the plane was not destroyed. Had to end mission though because I couldn't taxi off to the side without an engine. Will the cables really stop a plane coming in that fast? Maybe it was because I caught more than one (impossible??) ? Michael ------------------------------- From: "Frank Racis" Subject: Bombing an airfield I was flying a mission "bomb this airfield, primary targets are runways and hardened shelters" I set the waypoint code for "BOMB" and "1 RUNWAY". My wingman had to jettison his Durandals, so the runway wasn't hit. I hit two hangars, the tower, and a bunker at the site, all of which were possible targets for the "BOMB" waypoint. In debriefing, the computer failed to notice that I had blown anything up. Is this because: 1.) I didn't bomb the target I specified 2.) Falcon 3.03 has problems with this sort of thing 3.) It was a one-time weird thing. Anyone out there with any ideas, comments, suggestions? -Frank ------------------------------- From: "Chris Muller" Subject: Head-to-head I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what goes on during a head to head game via modem and whether anyone is in the Minneapolis/St. Paul (612 area code) who would like to play so I can figure it out. --Chris ********************************************************************* SEMPER FI DO OR DIE OORAH! OORAH! Chris Muller Phone:379-1442 E-Mail:mull0024@gold.tc.umn.edu ********************************************************************** ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Flight Tests My annoyance with the F-16 flight models led me to do a couple of quick flight tests. Each of these tests were performed on 486-66 with 24Mb ram and 256k cache. I used F3.03, M1.02, and H1.0. All planes were fully fueled with no weapons load. The first test consisted of time from zero to 150 on the runway, starting with cold engine(s) and accelerating to full afterburner as quickly as possible. F-16 (Complex): 7 seconds F-16 (Hi-Fi): 7 seconds F/A-18(Realistic): 22 seconds MiG-29(Realistic): 29 seconds The second test consisted of a full afterburner acceleration straight and level at 10,000ft. The clock was started as the plane hit 400 knots. Some findings were: The F-16 (Complex) took only 0:11 (11 seconds!!!!) to accelerate from 400 to 800. The F-16 (Hi-Fi) took 1:30 to accelerate from 400 to 800. The F/A-18 (Realistic) reached 765 in 1:30, but was essentially at it's top speed for that altitude. I recall people saying that the Hi-Fi mode swithces in and out of complex at certain flight parameters. It is my opinion that this is why the take-off acceleration is about the same in Hi-Fi and Complex. I think the complex model must be really messed up. The old F-16 with space-shuttle-like-thrust trick. Anyways, I hope SH replaces the HI-Fi model with a F-16 "Realistic" model. Note that the MiG29 wasn't included in the 400+ test. I used the keyboard for flight controls and couldn't keep it straight and level enough to get reliable numbers. -- Michael ------------------------------- From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) Subject: Flaps, gear, brakes Hi, I wonder a bit what the exact effects are (in reality) of throwing out the boards, adding a notch of flaps and putting down the gear etc. As I understand it, the air brakes are just high-drag devices that cause loss of air speed given the same thrust, but only influence attitude and altitude indirectly (by loosing speed, you might drop in altitude, and at low speeds you might drop your nose). True? The flaps, however, are not intended as drag devices although that's their primary side-effect. What they do is "artificially increase the AoA of the plane without the nose rising". You can fly level at lower speeds with just about the same AoA as at much higher speeds, at the expense of needing far more thrust. Right? The gear should function as a less effective air brake, I presume. Now, how do these things kick in as you approach a base to land? First you bleed off speed by taking down the throttle and waiting, flying approximately level. If this doesn't help enough, you add in brakes. Then you line up roughly and below 250KTS you can drop your gear. As you get nearer, you can add in flaps (only 1 position in F3, alas) and with dropping speed you increase your AoA and touch down etc. Now, is the gear usually put out BEFORE or AFTER adding (some) flaps? In FS5, you can immediately feel the drag of the gear because the nose sinks and speed drops, but in Falcon this is far less visible. Flaps seem to function as a brake, more or less. And F3 flaps aren't that controllable: it's all or nothing. Even in FS5 I often hate dropping flaps by one notch since it always causes a big hickup in my otherwise smooooth approach. No matter what I do with the stick, attitude jumps and if I manage to keep that stable, vertical speed will get a thump. Is this normal or do my flying skills stink? Anyway, what is the usual "look and feel" of a normal Viper approach and how do you control especially the flaps? -- Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at | Friends don't let friends Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands | do Windows! ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: V42 comm? I`d like to have general knowledge about the *v42.com communication patches. What do they exactly do? (Nothing scientific needed) Does the patch work with non v42 modem? I think it said so in the docs. So it really shortens the communications time? Do I have to do anything else but run the TSR before the sim? All this in connection with IHHD and 2400 non v42 modem. Second: I'd like to try IHHD:ing falcon with someone, sometimes. My unix system is the university's, so we'd have to do it at nights or weekends. Umm... the time zone is -2 GMT. Check ping time :-) I can handle myself with Mig and Falcon. (ie I get shot down in both planes, but usually it's a success, and several bogeys splashed) Hornet ain`t here yet :(. T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: jim@world.std.com (James D. McNamara) Subject: Mig-19 Pursuit George Sobala asked about dogfighting Mig-19's. Frankly, I can't seem to out-turn them, even in a Viper (3.02, Complex Model). Somebody posted (or I read) that you should NEVER try to out-turn a Mig-19, but rather get into a "vertical" fight with them (depart the X-Y plane). Well, personally I'm still a bit inept at managing my energy, so if I go into the Z axis, I might find myself running out of Speed. My personal solution: Zoom & Boom. The viper can effectively outspeed/climb the Mig-19 on a straightaway, and they don't appear to carry high tech ordinance. Get a few nautical miles out, turn & burn into his face, and if you can afford an AIM-120, the radar lock is often effective. Watch his guns if you miss! --Jim Mc. ------------------------------- From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT Hi Stuart! Thanks for the info on F16 gunsights. I'm very surprised that this thing in F3.0 is "for real", because I can't make much use of it, and I'm always having a hard time when it comes to using the vulcan. But may be I need more practice. Thanks again, and have fun, Heinz-Bernd ------------------------------- From: white7@server.uwindsor.ca (WHITE BRAD) Subject: Question about FCS Pro Hello, I was wondering if someone could answer this question for me. Since people seem to have a high rate of pot failure in there thrustmaster products i was concerned when I looked at my FCS Pro. Since the base is metal, and held together with rivets, how do you get in to change the pots? Thanks ! - -- Regards, Brad White ------------------------------- From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Subject: EEGS gunsight Stuart write: >The gunsight used in F3 is a real thing. It's called the Enhanced >Envelope Gun Sight (EEGS). While both the LCOS (the sight you're talking >about) and the EEGS are both available to F-16C [I'm not sure about >F-16A, besides we (the USAF) don't fly many anymore] pilots with the >push of a button, every Viper driver I know prefers the EEGS. It has >some capabilities that the LCOS doesn't have, like front-quarter gun >attacks are much more feasible, that haven't been modeled in F3. In F3, >the EEGS has far too little damping when you have a radar lock on your >target. It should really stiffen up and not jump around as much as it >does. Fascinating! Presumably this means the real EEGS is some kind of hybrid historical/predictor sight. E.g. when you get a good radar lock it adjusts the funnel into a kind of predictive sight, but otherwise acts as a historical sight showing bullet flight. I guess the problem with the F3 version is that it is (a) probably a little flaky in implementation (those ripples you get when you're flying straight-and-level always struck me as a bit suspicious) and (b) purely historical and so doesn't get more helpful once you have position/velocity info from a radar lock. Andrew ------------------------------- From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams Subject: <<>> The FAQ for the COMPLEX and HIFI flight models is now available at onion.rain.com in the directory pub/falcon3/incoming with the filename "fmodel.faq". [ It's in /pub/falcon3/docs/fmodel.faq --Jeff] This FAQ is the result of the little "survey" that I posted to the falcon3 mailing list about a week ago. Due to the length of this FAQ, I felt it was better to place it on FTP than to post it to this list. For those without ftp access, feel free to e-mail me at dgh1@ra.msstate.edu, and I will mail you a copy. Or, if you need directions on how to ftp it, feel free to send me a note. --Daniel Hyams =========================================================================== =========================================================================== COMPLEX/HIFI FAQ FOR FALCON 3.0x Compiled by Daniel Hyams dgh1@ra.msstate.edu =========================================================================== =========================================================================== My original intention in conducting this little information gathering "survey" was to provide a quick database where avid Falcon3 pilots could go to make a decision on their flight model, and to (hopefully) point out that one was definitely preferable over the other. Well, the more I read, the more I realized that, as in the words of Greg Cisko, "Different strokes for different folks." The intent of this booklet is now to simply provide everyone's opinion along with the facts, and to let you make you own decision. Because of the obvious fact that neither model even comes close to simulating the F-16's flight characteristics, I really hope that we will all put pressure on SH to revamp the COMPLEX flight model. Why not make the selections SIMPLIFIED-COMPLEX-REALISTIC-HIFI, where REALISTIC is the F-16 accurate flight model (in the footsteps of Mig-29 and Hornet) and they still have their selling point of the HIFI model? I realize that SH will not be too willing to totally revamp Falcon3's flight model and release it as a patch, but here's hoping! Really, I think it would be a good idea to work hard to get it right in Falcon3 and test it with the customers, and then implement the same realistic flight model in Falcon4. SURVEY RESULTS: COMPLEX --------> 9 HIFI --------> 9 I, to stay in good graces with everyone, choose to abstain ;-) This booklet is divided into three parts: General Info, Complex and HiFi. General Info, of course, simply has info pertaining to Complex/HiFi models that has been received or extracted from another source. The last two sections have the responses that I received (some very slightly edited). My comments, when made, are enclosed in brackets. I would like to thank everyone who participated and hope that many will find some valuable info in this faq, worthy for archiving on your hard drive! Special thanks to Greg Cisko and Stuart Butts for their very helpful comments and suggestions. --Daniel Hyams dgh1@ra.msstate.edu ------------------------------- From: bash@intgp1.att.com Subject: F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints Stuart, >Negative, EEGS is only available on the F-16. I thought Tweety told us the F-14 *did* use EEGS (or something similar). I'll have to ask him again. > > -FOTI has waypoints with time of arrival attributes. ... >I think he means a real-time display on the HUD/MFD. I agree that >this should definitely be implemented. No, he means waypoints with time of arrival attributes. 8-) In FOTI, when you defined a waypoint, you also specified the time the aircraft in question was supposed to arrive, much like Tornado (but more in simple in design). According to Marisa, the aircraft would "cheat" and always make it on time, but human players had to control their speed themselves. I was often late, or running in full A/B trying to catch up. The cockpit did display the time, but you had to write down waypoint arrival information (there was no way to see the info whil in flight). We asked SH to include this in F3 during testing, but it never came to pass. Hopefully in F4. (FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if it used THE SAME graphics as F3, but cleaned up the flight models, fixed all the campaign bugs, eliminated the randomness problems, made wingmen smarter, made the cockpit systems operate as a specifc F-16 version and not a hodge-podge of every F-16 ever built, gave more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) to the cockpit, fixed the view angle problem with padlock, allowed us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. I can live with the graphcis we've got (and I actually prefer them to the smeared bitmaps of SC and others). Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Twin engines > From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > Subject: Twin engines > > I have taken countless sam-ir hits which often knock out my 'engines', but > never only one. This is even more alarming considering that the missile hit > often fails to damage any other system on the whole aircraft. I would suspect that 9 times out of 10 in reality, any kind of missile hit that take one engine will take the other. Since the engines are so close together, explosive decomposition of one, has been know to blow the other in the F-14, F-15, and F/A-18. The advantage you get here with two, is if one quits on you without actually blowing up badly, you still got another to run on. Something as simple (seemingly ) as losing a fan blade in one engine, can trash both of them. A missile hitting the rear of the aircraft and trashing one will no doubt cause all kinds of debris so I wouldn't be suprised to see you lose both the majority of the time. > I would be really curious to know if anyone out there has ever lost only one > engine? One would think that this would be easy enough to model into the sim. Haven't loaded NSF yet, plan to do that this weekend. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: V42 comm? | | I`d like to have general knowledge about the *v42.com communication | patches. What do they exactly do? (Nothing scientific needed) | Does the patch work with non v42 modem? I think it said so in the | docs. So it really shortens the communications time? | Do I have to do anything else but run the TSR before the sim? | All this in connection with IHHD and 2400 non v42 modem. | The NEW commtsr.com will work with v42.bis and does error correcting. So the old *v42.com is outdated. the new TSR's will speed up ANY modem. and ever speeds up null modem connections. I'll upload the new stuff if it hasn't already been uploaded. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Altitude > From: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu > Subject: Altitude > > Someone mentioned the radio message "Altitude". This is used by a > ground controller (maybe also AWACS) to designate that the aircraft in > question has gone below the minimum safe ejection altitude. As a matter > of fact, I have actually heard this message on the HUD video of an F/A 18 > that departed from controlled flight. The ground controller called > "Altitude" at 1500', and the a/c pulled out at about 90' above a golf > course. Neat footage! I was puzzled, though, as I thought that the F/A-18 > had a zero-zero ejection seat.... It does, but the general rule of thumb for out-of-control situations is eject at 10,000 ft AGL. For controlled flight, but something else wrong that makes it impossible to land, eject at least 2,000 ft AGL. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I49 > From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) > Subject: How many Migs can YOU trash? > > (Incidentally, I have cross posted to c.s.i.p.g.f-s. I think > this should be done *occasionally* to keep a high SH/F3 profile there.) Dumb question here, what is c.s.i.p.g.f-s? [ Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim, a newsgroup. -Jeff] - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: cjohnson@lisa.sedd.trw.com (Clarence Johnson) Subject: Versions... I've have falcon 3.0d and would like to upgrade to the "latest version". What is the latest version and what does it consist of,OFT,Mig-29,Hornet? Do I need all or one? Also I haven't seen Hornet in any stores in Calif. Has it been released every where [ Well, it's in Oregon, so it must be in California (except maybe LA) now. The Hornet upgrade comes with the latest patch to Falcon3. --Jeff] thanks Clarence ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 50 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Jan 27 04:35:56 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA12234; Thu, 27 Jan 94 04:35:40 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 26 Jan 94 05:39 PST Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 05:39 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I51 Content-Length: 15212 X-Lines: 368 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 51 Wed Jan 26 05:39:20 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Falcon and the Internet ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Re: F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Re: Flight Tests, Flaps, gear, brak cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Catchin' The Third Wire.... Tigger oh boy! Stupid stupid stupid.... cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Hornet in Europe???? gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So Thrustmaster Flight Stick mk I lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) Re: Twin Engine cfyu@cs.cuhk.hk (|-FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if >it used THE SAME graphics as F3, >but cleaned up the flight models, The most important thing to me. >fixed all the campaign bugs, >eliminated the randomness problems, The second most important thing to me. >made wingmen smarter, made the cockpit systems operate as a specific >F-16 version and not a hodge-podge of every F-16 ever built, I was wondering if that bothered anyone else. :^) >gave more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to >escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just >discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) >to the cockpit, >fixed the view angle problem with padlock, And added wings to the view so you'd have more visual cues. And turn off the ability to spot SAMS heading toward you from 2,000,000 miles away (okay, so I'm exaggerating a little bit). >allowed us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. All this would be very nice, but by the time it comes out I think it will NEED improved graphics just to survive. Broader appeal = more sales. >I can live with the graphics we've got (and I actually prefer them to >the smeared bitmaps of SC and others). You have got to be kidding me! Forget the ground graphics for a moment; you actually prefer F3's plane renderings to Strike Commander's? BTW, "bitmap" usually refers to one of several fixed views of an object (like Wing Commander or SWOTL), and is not normally associated with gouraud shaded texture mapped objects (like Strike Commander). Anyway, just take a look at the "1942: The Pacific Air War" demo if you want to see the new state of the art (I can uuto this to you if you want, Tom). Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Flight Tests, Flaps, gear, brakes > From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > Subject: Flight Tests > The F-16 (Complex) took only 0:11 (11 seconds!!!!) to accelerate > from 400 to 800. > > The F-16 (Hi-Fi) took 1:30 to accelerate from 400 to 800. > I think the complex model must be really messed up. The old F-16 > with space-shuttle-like-thrust trick. Anyways, I hope SH replaces the > HI-Fi model with a F-16 "Realistic" model. Yep... with COMPLEX you can fly like crap, have really bad energy management and not even notice it! How do I know? Well, the above description is about how I felt I flew before going to HiFi. I had absolutely no idea about energy management. I didn't need to know anything except, where the AB's were. Any energy lost, could be easily recovered. At least that is how it was for me. > From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) > Subject: Flaps, gear, brakes > Now, is the gear usually put out BEFORE or AFTER adding (some) flaps? > In FS5, you can immediately feel the drag of the gear because the nose sinks > and speed drops, but in Falcon this is far less visible. Flaps seem I wouldn't say this at all. I have done ONLY landing practice for just about a whole week now. I have been practicing the pattern that the SH manual describes as the RACETRACK. I see/feel a NOTICABLE difference when I lower the gears/flaps/brakes. I try to be at 170 knts on my finial approach. I also have flaps,brakes & gear lowered before I start the whole pattern. I found a throttle setting of 60-70% seemed sufficent. In this configuration the proper AOA is easily acheived. You will most likely have to pull the stick back. The most bizzare part, is to adjust your altitude with throttle, and your speed with the elevator. At very low altitudes I did use the brake for a speed adjustment. If I dropped below 150knts I would turn the brake off. THen turn it back on above 190knts. With this method, sucessfull (undamaged) landings were 100%. I was only able to sucessfully hit the runway if I DID NOT use the keyboard (digital) rudders. > to function as a brake, more or less. And F3 flaps aren't that controllable: > it's all or nothing. Even in FS5 I often hate dropping flaps by one notch The flaps shouldn't be all that controlable :) > since it always causes a big hickup in my otherwise smooooth approach. > No matter what I do with the stick, attitude jumps and if I manage to > keep that stable, vertical speed will get a thump. Is this normal or > do my flying skills stink? > > Anyway, what is the usual "look and feel" of a normal Viper approach > and how do you control especially the flaps? In the real F-16, I'm sure the flaps are automaticly operated. Why then did SH allow us to control the flaps in this manner? Rumor has it that they were pleasing the "common public". ie.. Giving them what they want. And MAKING A BUCK!!! > From: jim@world.std.com (James D. McNamara) > Subject: Mig-19 Pursuit > > Frankly, I can't seem to out-turn them, even in a Viper (3.02, Complex Model). > Somebody posted (or I read) that you should NEVER try to out-turn a Mig-19, > but rather get into a "vertical" fight with them (depart the X-Y plane). Stuart has said that he doesn't have much faith the the G readings that falcon gives. I have to agree. How else could a MiG19 seemingly out turn a F-16? To add to the confusion... I payed attention to the G reading in padlock, as I was in a fur-ball with a MiG19. I was out turning the MiG with only 6.5 G. I could have gone to 9 G but that wouldn't have helped. You see... Just recently (a month ago) I started using the G effects. I know for certain (okay maybe 80% :), that I was not turning any faster at 9 G (blackout turned off), than I was at 6.5 G with (blackout on). I judged the turnrate to be the same. After all, I have much more experience with the blackout turned off. So I should be able to compare. > > Well, personally I'm still a bit inept at managing my energy, so if I go > into the Z axis, I might find myself running out of Speed. My personal > solution: Zoom & Boom. The viper can effectively outspeed/climb the Mig-19 The viper can outspeed/climb just about ANYTHING if you use COMPLEX :)))) Sorry couldn't resist. > on a straightaway, and they don't appear to carry high tech ordinance. > Get a few nautical miles out, turn & burn into his face, and if you can > afford an AIM-120, the radar lock is often effective. Watch his guns > if you miss! My personal solution: I turn my RADAR off and get the MiG19 with 9-M's. If you want to just do GUN's with the MiG19... There is no easy solution. Just mix it up and hope for the best. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Tigger Subject: Catchin' The Third Wire.... Question about the landing in the '18.... On my approach, I have tried lining up various ways, I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for lining up the carrier on final. I can land the '18, and I have caught every wire from 1 - 4, but I have yet to receive a 'safe landing' from the LSO. I line up, and I even get in the glidescope, the LSO confirms my gear and hook and calls the ball... Everything is great till the last couple of seconds before hittin' the flattop...It seems as though in the last few seconds, He starts telling me to check my lineup, well....Looks fine so far...I guess.. =/ Then he tells me to wave off, after about the third attempt I bring it in anyways...Can anyone suggest anything? Should I try and overcorrect for one side of the deck on approach? Things I have noticed so far: Someone else posted already that, if you land first your wingmen never do...they circle and end up flaming out even though you have parked the hornet and folded the wings... Anyone else have this problem too? The only fix I have been able to think of for my campaigns with this, is to try and get my wingmen to land first, or go alone on my missions. Also, once on the carrier, after having landed, wiped the sweat off my brow and taken a nice long swig of homebrew..a couple of times I have lifted my hook to taxi and given some power, but I have been thrown backwards off the carrier? No one was more suprised than me.... Anyone else experience this? BOMBING RUNWAYS: Perhaps one of my favorite missions...My crack squad loves these...I assign a flight of four to take out the hardened shelters and then another four to take the runways...Wow, nothing sweeter than being number four in line on a straight in approach on the runways and blasting the hell out of them...Fly overs on the way home revealed the runway peppered with black spots (presumably from hits?) and shadded in grey (Maybe were the pavement buckeled?). However...a mission or two later, I am sent back to the same place to hit it again, we all fly out and there is nothing to hit...all the hardened shelters are gone, the SAM and mobil units are still smoking from the last mission, so we bomb the runways again, and again and again... How much does it take to take that thing out of operation? Flyovers show the runways so peppered with potholes that trucks couldnt drive over it...But we are still sent back...why? Thanks for all the help!!!!! Check six and stay sharp! Ciao! ************ Dave *Tigger* djohnson@moose.uvm.edu 'Tiggers are Wonderful Things!' Dave C Johnson University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 05401 ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: oh boy! Stupid stupid stupid.... At on point in his career Greg Cisko stupidly wrote: > Taking off with 32,000 Lbs??? You can with COMPLEX, you crash & burn > in HiFi. (Which I have a problem with since HiFi uses COMPLEX below > 300knts. So why do we crash & burn?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is perfectly explained in the FAQ. Since I don't normaly over- load my plane, I wasn't really aware that you would even get off of the ground with 32,000+ lbs load in HiFi. Recently, I was able to take off & fly around with 32,400+ lbs. Until I hit the transition to HiFi. Then I re-loaded my plane with (I think) only 4 GBU-15's. The load was something like 31,900 lbs. I couldn't even get off of the ground (about 5 tries). I reduced the load to 2 GBU-15's (I think they weight 2,500 lbs each). Everything was fine. So... 1) If I was overloaded, I could take off. 2) If I was underloaded I could take off. 3) If I was just barely underloaded (31,900 with 4 GBU-15's) I couldn't get off the ground. What the heck is that all about??? So maybe I should ask my above question, in relation to point #3. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Hornet in Europe???? Has anyone heard of a projected release date from SH? - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) Subject: Thrustmaster Flight Stick mk I Hello all, I have some questions on the Thrustmaster Joystick. First, when I purchased Falcon3.0 it came with the Thrustmaster Joystick and it works really well. However, according to the documentation in Falcon3.0 that the two buttons on the bottom are for "Air Brakes" and "AA-AG". These do not work for me. Is this because they are broken? Or Do I need an add-on to get them to work? OR Do I need to configure them somehow? Also, does this relate to using the software which you can purchase from thrustmaster. What does this software do? Also, I am amazed at how little problems I have been having with Falcon3.0. I have been on the list for over a year now and have heard many problems that people have been having with earlier versions. My dad had many problems with it early on too. Now I have 3.0e which I guess is 3.01.1 or something like that. Are there any bug fixes that I should get out of the add-ons or can I get the bug fixes without having to add OFT, Mig, etc ... I appreciate your help. lefebvre@pbush.com [ 11 line signature deleted. -Jeff] ------------------------------- From: cfyu@cs.cuhk.hk (|--|) Subject: Re: Twin Engine >> From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) >> Subject: Twin engines >> >> I have taken countless sam-ir hits which often knock out my 'engines', but >> never only one. This is even more alarming considering that the missile hit >> often fails to damage any other system on the whole aircraft. > [stuff deleted] I've seen from Avaiation and Space Technology (Don't remember the exact name of the magazine) that an F/A-18 from Marine got a SAM hit and brow up one engine. It DID managed to get back and up in the sky a few days later. So, I think that the chance of browing both engine will not be that high. Aylwin Yu cfyu@cs.cuhk.hk [ 13 line signature deleted. --Jeff ] ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: FotI Re: FotI's Waypoints. At least you could find out what type of waypoint you were approaching (Nav, Attack, etc.) unlike F3, where you either write 'em, remember 'em, or hope for the best. AotI had a number of nice features that didn't make it to F3.. I still long for the ability to 'pop' into the controls of my wingmen (F16 only, of course) when they go off and pull a stupid stunt. :) Has anyone else noticed how EASY it is to fly the Viper after they've been using the '29th or the Hornet for some time? Man. No roll compensation, pull back the stick and >ZOOM; Fri, 28 Jan 94 08:10 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 08:10 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I53 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 53 Fri Jan 28 08:10:10 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Midn Peter Vincent Brahan Subject: How do you get the mouse to work? Also, the ACMI isn't working for me either. --PETE ------------------------------- From: JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se Subject: Update to 3.03 or not ??? Hello all Falconers, I've got the Falcon 3.03 update but I dont know if I should update or not, I read about lots of problems in the c.s.i.g.f group. I have F3/OFT and MIG-29 installed. Should I stick with the 3.02.1 version or should i go 3.03 ? Whats the 3.03 update supposed to fix ? Stay Tuned... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Christer Johansson - HTH - * InterNet : johansson@gemini.ldc.lu.se * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: MCU patch trouble I downloaed the MCU patch file the other day and tried to get it to work on my F3Mapper utility (think it's ver. 4.1). The patch failed. Anyone know why? BTW, are there any 3.03 update for F3v42, F3Chat, FlaconR ? Mike. ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: SA7 Blues Red Flag. Practicing some close air support flying F/A 18. Cannot seem to avoid being shot down by SA7 squads. Tried coming in at Mach1.2 1000ft agl. Detected multiple 4 or 5 SA-7 launches on first pass over target area. Pulled into a climb, trying to exceed SA7 altitude limit. SA7 still caught me at over 20k ft Does this make sense? Are SA7's so good that they can take out a fighter on its first low level pass at over 700 knots and even follow it uo through 20,000ft before destroying it? -Michael ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: G-Limiter in Hornet > Could someone explain the G-limiter function. I thought I understood it, > but... I thought that it limited you to 7.5 G when engaged, but on many > occassions I have pulled far more that 7.5 G (once it spiked up to 13.1). > Just exactly when does it limit you? I think I remember reading or hearing somewhere that a G or AOA limiter tries really hard not to let you exceed their limits, but that you can exceed their capabilities to compensate in certain flight conditions. This was on the real thing of course. I don't know if SH intentionally models this or if the limiters have the same problems because it's a fundamental problem of any limiter. > Sandman Hmm. I think Robin Kim may want to meet you at 20K' and 20 paces for this. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 53 ]] From falcon3@onion.rain.com Sat Jan 29 23:30:05 1994 Received: from relay1.UU.NET ([192.48.96.5]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01097; Sat, 29 Jan 94 23:29:53 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwarh27878; Thu, 27 Jan 94 11:19:42 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 27 Jan 94 08:07 PST Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 08:15 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I52 Content-Length: 18240 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 52 Thu Jan 27 08:07:39 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: markf@adcmail.atlas.com (Mark Ferri Re: F4.0 mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Debug mode jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey S Re: your mail Kris Ong Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: Flaps, gear, brakes slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F A slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re: EEGS gunsight slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Re; F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Falcon 3.03 Bug? glenn976@aol.com Re: Hornet in France bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Re: Hornet in Europe???? mounie@jura.enet.dec.com ------------------------------------------------------------ From: markf@adcmail.atlas.com (Mark Ferris) Subject: What's the current version of Falcon? I just downloaded from a local BBS two (rather large) files that upgrade me to 3.02. Is this the latest or should I be looking for more files? If 3.02 is not the latest, is there a bug list for this version so I can decide if I need to upgrade? By the way, I don't have OFT or Mig-29 or any other addons that I don't know about. Does that make any difference as to what version of the Falcon engine I want? ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Re: F4.0 Rob (opus@ihlpf.att.com) writes: :Tom "KC" Basham writes: : :>FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if [STUFF DELETED] :>gave more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to :>escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just :>discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) :>to the cockpit, :>fixed the view angle problem with padlock, DITTO, Also: real AWACS support, communications with other friendlies, and more tactical goodies. :And added wings to the view so you'd have more visual cues. And turn off :the ability to spot SAMS heading toward you from 2,000,000 miles away :(okay, so I'm exaggerating a little bit). NO, (wrt missiles) I totally disagree. This would be acceptable to me only if F4 is a virtual reality sim where I'm using technology that enables me to see whatever exists in the direction I'm looking. Unfortunately, in F3 I can only really deal with missiles in the Padlock view. Since switching in and out of this is a costly manual task (i.e., the unrealistic, tedious, and performance degrading task of having to manually switch views via keyboard thrustmaster or whatever), the unrealism of long range visual missile sightings is a balancing benefit. :>allowed us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. YES :All this would be very nice, but by the time it comes out I think it :will NEED improved graphics just to survive. Broader appeal = more sales. Perhaps true :>I can live with the graphics we've got (and I actually prefer them to :>the smeared bitmaps of SC and others). : :You have got to be kidding me! Forget the ground graphics for a moment; :you actually prefer F3's plane renderings to Strike Commander's? BTW, :"bitmap" usually refers to one of several fixed views of an object (like :Wing Commander or SWOTL), and is not normally associated with gouraud :shaded texture mapped objects (like Strike Commander). Anyway, just :take a look at the "1942: The Pacific Air War" demo if you want to see :the new state of the art (I can uuto this to you if you want, Tom). I totally agree with Tom. I tried SC (first rendition) and found that while the graphics were pretty (e.g., cities) they lacked a certain crispness. Moreover, I used max everything on the strike commander set-up and while framerate was still impressive on one of my machines (the other was totally unplayable) the enemy aircraft seemed to be out of scale at dogfighting distances (a potentially biased observation as referenced to f3 1x) and sort of materialised from no where. I wouldn't trade graphics engines with strike commander. However, I would like to see the improved detail, gouraud shading, and other features if SH could properly implement them. -- Michael -- mcoyne@acs.bu.edu ------------------------------- From: jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey Stewart) Subject: Debug mode A few issues back, someone mentioned how to find frame rate in debug mode. Which number is it? If this info is in the manual, please forgive my laziness. I'm working toward a paperless life. Thanks. Jeff ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: your mail | | | What's the current version of Falcon? I just downloaded from | a local BBS two (rather large) files that upgrade me to 3.02. | Is this the latest or should I be looking for more files? | | If 3.02 is not the latest, is there a bug list for this version | so I can decide if I need to upgrade? | | By the way, I don't have OFT or Mig-29 or any other addons that I | don't know about. Does that make any difference as to what version | of the Falcon engine I want? | The latest is 3.03 it goes like this.. 3.0D or E --> 3.01 F3 with OFT. 3.01.1 F3 with OFT + oft patch(equal to 3.0e) 3.02 F3 with MiG-29 (with or without OFT) 3.02.1 bugfix for 3.02 3.03 F3 with Hornet (with or without MiG-29) Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com I get by with little help from my kongo@hip-hop.sbay.org friends. Prodigy: GRTV13B --Lennon/McCartney (don't we all wish that's true.) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings > I ended up coming way too fast. I hit the deck at about 220, but fortunately > I had the perfect approach, touching down soft but fast at a very slight > angle. > > Somehow, the arrestor cables stopped the plane. Interestingly, the warning > lights all lit up like a x-mas tree but the plane was not destroyed. Had to > end mission though because I couldn't taxi off to the side without an engine. > > Will the cables really stop a plane coming in that fast? Maybe it was because > I caught more than one (impossible??) ? I don't know for sure, but I would suspect so. I know guys that have taken the approach end engagement (ie the wire ) at USAF bases with hard over rudders in the F-4 at 200+ KCAS. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Flaps, gear, brakes > From: J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) > Subject: Flaps, gear, brakes > > As I understand it, the air brakes are just high-drag devices that cause > loss of air speed given the same thrust, but only influence attitude > and altitude indirectly (by loosing speed, you might drop in altitude, > and at low speeds you might drop your nose). True? The part above about losing speed is true of all aircraft, and is the primary purpose for speed-brakes in the first place. Wrt to trim transients (ie the nose pitching up/down and/or loss/gain of altitude), that depends on the aircraft and the flight control system (FCS). In modern day fighters, the FCS is designed to compensate for any trim changes due to speedbrake actuation so the pilot won't usually see it. In older aircraft like the F-86, F-100, even the F-4, you would see a pitch change with speedbrake deflection. How much and in what direction depends on where they are located on the aircraft. > The flaps, however, are not intended as drag devices although that's their > primary side-effect. What they do is "artificially increase the AoA of the > plane without the nose rising". You can fly level at lower speeds with just > about the same AoA as at much higher speeds, at the expense of needing > far more thrust. Right? In some cases, the flaps are intended as drag devices as well as lift enhancers, but your first statement is true for the most part. (There's always an exception and some a**hole to point it out to you huh? ) I guess you could look at flap deflections as "artificially increasing the AOA of the aircraft", but the way the aerodynamics community looks at it is as increasing the area as well as camber of the wing. More surface area means more lift and more camber means faster airflow over the top of the wing, which means less pressure on the top of the wing, which means more lift. There are essentially 2 things that determine your 1-g stall speed for a given weight. One is how big the wing is (area wise), the bigger the wing the slower you can go. The other is how much lift the wing produces at a specific AOA. The more lift you can produce at a lower AOA the slower you can go, because you are just that much farther away from the AOA for stall. Lowering the flaps gives you both of these and that's why the 1g stall speed is slower with flaps down than flaps up an added benefit is also a lower AOA for approach so you can see over the nose. Note too that the same above about trim transients wrt speedbrakes applies here also. > The gear should function as a less effective air brake, I presume. Basically yea, the same also goes here wrt trim transients. > Then you line up roughly and below 250KTS you can drop your gear. As > you get nearer, you can add in flaps (only 1 position in F3, alas) and > with dropping speed you increase your AoA and touch down etc. That flap thing in F3 is bogus. Flaps are automatically controlled by the FCS. Pilot only messes with them if there is a problem. > Now, is the gear usually put out BEFORE or AFTER adding (some) flaps? You should automatically get the correct flap settings in F3 with gear handle actuation. SH messed this up. In the F-4, you always did gear first then flaps. So on takeoff you raised the gear then the flaps, and for landing you lowered the gear then the flaps. In the T-38, takeoff was the same, but for landing you lowered the flaps and then the gear. > In FS5, you can immediately feel the drag of the gear because the nose sinks > and speed drops, but in Falcon this is far less visible. That's how it should be. You won't see a pitch transient but you will notice some speed loss. > No matter what I do with the stick, attitude jumps and if I manage to > keep that stable, vertical speed will get a thump. Is this normal or > do my flying skills stink? Yea that's normal, especially on an airplane with a simple FCS. You just have to get into the habit of knowing where the nose is gonna go and what you speed is gonna do when you raise/lower flaps so you automatically know what to do to with the stick and throttle to keep your nice approach going. > Anyway, what is the usual "look and feel" of a normal Viper approach > and how do you control especially the flaps? I just put the flaps down in F3 whenever I get to it. Sometimes I don't even bother. ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Re: how F3 compares to FOTI and F AT > > Thanks for the info on F16 gunsights. I'm very surprised that > this thing in F3.0 is "for real", because I can't make much use of > it, and I'm always having a hard time when it comes to using the > vulcan. But may be I need more practice. I don't really use the funnel part much. Just to get a hack at what the range is because it's so messed up. The point where the bullets first show in your view is messed up. They seem to emminate from the center point of the HUD when they should be coming from the Gun Cross at the top of the HUD. I bascially just use the center point to fix my lead and the funnel for a hack on the range and then make small bursts and watch where the tracers go so I can make adjustments. If they'd program the EEGS right I'm sure everyone would be very pleased with there gunnery skills. :) - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: EEGS gunsight > From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk > Subject: EEGS gunsight > > Presumably this means the real EEGS is some kind of hybrid > historical/predictor sight. E.g. when you get a good radar lock it > adjusts the funnel into a kind of predictive sight, but otherwise acts > as a historical sight showing bullet flight. Basically yes. the fire control algorithm uses a Kalman filter I believe to do the prediction part. > I guess the problem with > the F3 version is that it is (a) probably a little flaky in > implementation (those ripples you get when you're flying > straight-and-level always struck me as a bit suspicious) and (b) purely > historical and so doesn't get more helpful once you have > position/velocity info from a radar lock. That's my basic assessment as well. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re; F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints > From: bash@intgp1.att.com > Subject: F-16 Gunsight, Waypoints > > I thought Tweety told us the F-14 *did* use EEGS (or something > similar). I'll have to ask him again. It may be something similar, although I bet its just an LCOS, but Greg would know better than me. > No, he means waypoints with time of arrival attributes. 8-) Smarta**, that's what I said. :) > FTR, I'd be completely happy with F4 if > it used THE SAME graphics as F3, but cleaned up the flight models, > fixed all the campaign bugs, eliminated the randomness problems, > made wingmen smarter, made the cockpit systems operate as a specifc > F-16 version and not a hodge-podge of every F-16 ever built, gave > more strategic info (ie, where are those buffs you are supposed to > escort?), gave you timed mission planning (what we were just > discussing) and added all that real-time info (like missile TOF, etc) > to the cockpit, fixed the view angle problem with padlock, allowed > us to print flight plans and rosters, and a few similar items. I agree. - Stuart ================================================================================ E-Mail: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Please send E-mail messages to both addresses or I may not see them for days. :) ================================================================================ ------------------------------- From: glenn976@aol.com Subject: Falcon 3.03 Bug? Just a question to you all.... When playing Falcon and in Red Flag I have encountered the following problem: When setting up a mission that has F/A-18's in it, I am unable to assign them any weapons. As a result, they get whipped out by the opposition with out being able to fire even a single shot in their defense. (Note: I do not have HORNET, only the 3.03 update. And I have not tried to see if this happens in MIG.) Is this only happening to me or are others experiencing it also? I'd hate to think that I'm the only one who is accidentally sending Hornets to certain doom against those pesky MiG's...... Glenn 'Enforcer' Howell glenn976@denver.relay.ucm.org ghowell@nyx.cs.du.edu 70711,1370 - CI$ ------------------------------- From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: Re: Hornet in France >From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) >Subject: Hornet in Europe???? > >Has anyone heard of a projected release date from SH? I have heard some rumors about Hornet release in France (I don't know if this apply also to others European countries ???). The French distributor (Ubi Soft) DO NOT PLAN to release SH'HORNET in France, due to the new Bosnia theater. They think that this war is too much questionable in Europe to be played in a game. So I'm afraid that we will have to rely on overseas distribution to play it... Christophe "Rafale" Bonnet ------------------------------- From: mounie@jura.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Hornet in Europe???? Hello All, My fisrt posting in this list, quite sometime after I started to enjoy it. Concerning Hornet in Europe, I called today my preferred shop and they told me that they will get 2 (yes only two !) boxes tomorrow. That's make one left 8^) BTW, this shop is in Switzerland. So Hornet is landing in Europe. As the Swiss Army managed to buy some F/A-18 last year, sure SH should sell quite well here. It's going to be a long and wet week-end...plouf, re-plouf...keep missing this damn boat ! Thierry ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 52 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sun Jan 30 06:01:41 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01154; Sun, 30 Jan 94 06:00:37 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 29 Jan 94 12:13 PST Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 12:26 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I54 Content-Length: 10264 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 54 Sat Jan 29 12:13:24 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Re: Altitude knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Flaps, gear, brakes knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Where is Hornet? nwestfal@iris.csci.csusb.edu (Neal Re: Update to 3.03 or not ??? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: Update to 3.03 or not ??? Kris Ong The BIG grephics debate... cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis ------------------------------------------------------------ From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Altitude > that departed from controlled flight. The ground controller called > "Altitude" at 1500', and the a/c pulled out at about 90' above a golf > course. Neat footage! I was puzzled, though, as I thought that the F/A-18 had > a zero-zero ejection seat.... It does have a 0-0 seat. However, that 0-0 is very important. It means that the seat can generate enough vertical velocity for a long enough duration when you (in the plane) have 0 velocity. If you have a subtantially negative vertical velocity, then the seat needs more altitude as it can't compensate for the velocity/time altitude loss. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Flaps, gear, brakes > I wonder a bit what the exact effects are (in reality) of throwing out > the boards, adding a notch of flaps and putting down the gear etc. At 600 kts you probably won't get your gear or flaps down. :-) > As I understand it, the air brakes are just high-drag devices that cause > loss of air speed given the same thrust, but only influence attitude > and altitude indirectly (by loosing speed, you might drop in altitude, > and at low speeds you might drop your nose). True? Depends on the plane. The f-16 has split air brake paddles in the tail. The Mig-21, F-15, F-18 have big barn doors either above or below the fuselage. Other planes have boards that extend sideways from the fuselage midsection. I would expect an attitude change from air brakes that use barn doors above or below the fuselage. I don't know how much though. I'll let you know the next time I'm up in a Mig-21. :-) > The flaps, however, are not intended as drag devices although that's their > primary side-effect. What they do is "artificially increase the AoA of the > plane without the nose rising". You can fly level at lower speeds with just > about the same AoA as at much higher speeds, at the expense of needing > far more thrust. Right? Flaps are many things. They usually are applied in degrees or notches. The first notch or two is usally used to increase lift at low speeds and to lower the stall speed. The last notch or two is basically to increase drag. > The gear should function as a less effective air brake, I presume. Gear is meant to function as the cushion between you and mother earth and give you some control while that bucket is earth bound. They are not mean to function as an air brake though they do add drag. In fact there are speed limitations with the gear down (Vle) and flaps are usually blown up (retracted) automatically past a certain speed if you don't retract them yourself. > Now, how do these things kick in as you approach a base to land? > First you bleed off speed by taking down the throttle and waiting, flying > approximately level. If this doesn't help enough, you add in brakes. > Then you line up roughly and below 250KTS you can drop your gear. As > you get nearer, you can add in flaps (only 1 position in F3, alas) and > with dropping speed you increase your AoA and touch down etc. > > Now, is the gear usually put out BEFORE or AFTER adding (some) flaps? Typically, you won't drop gear 'til on base or final. Flaps come into play on downwind (1st notch downwind, 2nd on base, 3rd on final). However, I supposed it depends on how long it takes to get your gear down. I saw a B-17 drop its gear on downwind. Don't know if it was because it takes forever to crank them puppies down or they like the extra time to verify gear down in a 50 yr old plane. > In FS5, you can immediately feel the drag of the gear because the nose sinks > and speed drops, but in Falcon this is far less visible. Flaps seem > to function as a brake, more or less. And F3 flaps aren't that controllable: > it's all or nothing. Even in FS5 I often hate dropping flaps by one notch In the F-16, the flaps/slats are automatic. SH put a flaps control in F3 because they thought too many people would complain that there wasn't one. It's quite possible that it's really automatic control and all the flaps switch does is doggle the dash light to give you a warm fuzzy. :-) Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: knutson@cactus.org (Jim Knutson) Subject: Re: Hi Speed Carrier Landings > > Will the cables really stop a plane coming in that fast? Maybe it was > > because I caught more than one (impossible??) ? > > I don't know for sure, but I would suspect so. I know guys that have taken > the approach end engagement (ie the wire ) at USAF bases with hard over > rudders in the F-4 at 200+ KCAS. True, but then again, they didn't stop quite as fast (i.e. short as distance) either. Jim Knutson | | knutson@cactus.org --=oOo=-- cs.utexas.edu!peyote!knutson + Check Six! ------------------------------- From: nwestfal@iris.csci.csusb.edu (Neal Westfall) Subject: Where is Hornet? I see lots of people have F/A-18 Hornet add-on for Falcon. One question: where is it??? I have been to all the software stores around here, and no-one has it, and they act like they don't know anything about it. I found the 3.03 patch with disks 1 and 2 of Hornet, but where can I get Hornet? Thanks.. Neal Westfall nwestfal@silicon.csci.csusb.edu ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Update to 3.03 or not ??? > From: JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se > Subject: Update to 3.03 or not ??? > > > Hello all Falconers, > > I've got the Falcon 3.03 update but I dont know if I should update or > not, I read about lots of problems in the c.s.i.g.f group. I have F3/OFT > and MIG-29 installed. > > Should I stick with the 3.02.1 version or should i go 3.03 ? Whats the > 3.03 update supposed to fix ? I would strongly reccomend updating to 3.03. That said.... There is ONLY one reason I can think of to stick with 3.02.1. And that is the reason Jim Knutson gives. He has said that he is sticking with the older version, for comms compatability with that program that allows lightning fast sync times during H2H. (f2v42.zip is the file, I think) Otherwise go to 3.03. > > > Stay Tuned... Certainly. Jaguar ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Update to 3.03 or not ??? | I would strongly reccomend updating to 3.03. That said.... There is ONLY | one reason I can think of to stick with 3.02.1. And that is the reason | Jim Knutson gives. He has said that he is sticking with the older version, | for comms compatability with that program that allows lightning fast sync | times during H2H. (f2v42.zip is the file, I think) Otherwise go to 3.03. The lightning fast sync is now available for 3.03 in the simpak.??? archive by ken richardson, one TSR for all three planes. So Upgrade. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. kongo@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: The BIG grephics debate... Tom KC Basham stated that he would be happy with Falcon4, if it used falcon3 graphics. Then there was dis-belief, then agreement. I have spent many, many hours flying SC. I use max detail, and I have a machine that does 41.6 fps in 3dbench. While that isn't the best numbers for a DX2 66mhz. It isn't all that bad either :) Yes the views of the other jets are stunning... The ground is VERY detailed. With the new DIGITAL FX from SC's addon disk, SC is pretty stunning. This stunningness comes at a cost. In most cases I cannot have a decent dogfight (guns only :) without VERY noticable pauses in the action. For WHATEVER reason, it is bogus. If falcon goes to that type of graphics at the cost of framerate, I'll be disapointed. BIG TIME! I do think the graphics should be better with the next generation FALCON. I'm not really sure that throwing bit- maps all over the place is the way to go though. I also have another well know bit-mapped flight sim. FS5 to be exact. I see slight pauses even during normal flight! (OH YES! GIVE ME THAT!!! I don't think so.) THen there are more pauses as more scenery is loaded. In principal I agree with Tom. Greg Cisko BTW, don't get me wrong. I am VERY satisfied with SC. I am just dissapointed with the lack of glassy smoothness tha falcon has. And yes, yes, yes... Falcon has noticable pauses too... But these were never bad enough to alter the out- come of any furball I've been involved in. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 54 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Feb 2 07:37:01 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA00973; Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:36:25 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:04 PST Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:06 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I55 Content-Length: 8269 X-Lines: 193 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 55 Tue Feb 1 07:04:13 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Scanned-in pilot picture? JIMMY@v8.LJ.SD.RAY.COM Re: Scanned-in pilot picture? Kris Ong New MiGs gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So Something strange Jonathan David Wade Subject: Re: Scanned-in pilot picture? | | Not that this is really relevant to the simulation, but it might enhance | the game play/ fun factor if we could replace the pilot pictures by | scanned-in pictures. I saw pilot.bif pilot.bim or such in my falcon directory. | Are these the files that contain the pictures? What's the format? | | I guess this is a question for SH people? | --Jimmy Chan | I remember these from the 3.01.1, where we'd use falconer to change the stats and picures of the people on our squadron to members of the list.. never caught on though.. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. kongo@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: New MiGs 29th pilots may find the following, culled from rec.aviation.military, of interest. My comment: if the R73 is so damned hot, why do I usually miss? Mig-29 missiles seem much less effective than Sidewinders / AMRAAMs. > Ethan, > please forward the following message to Jack-Lee > Gibbons and Phalcon regarding the MiG-29's missiles. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > I read Phalcon's MiG-29 missile question and Jack-Lee's > reply. Perhaps the following info will be of help: > In the _Wings of the Red Star_ episode "The Last > Generation", there are three chunks of footage showing MiG- > 29 missile firing. In the first two chunks, the MiG-29 fires > an R-27 followed by three R-73s. In the final chunk, what is > advertized as a MiG-29M (MiG-33) is shown launching an R- > 77. The R-77 launch is notable in that this missile drops > clear before motor ignition, where the R-27 and R-73 fly off > their rails. > Jack-Lee, your descriptions of the MiG-29's missiles were a > bit confusing and a little inaccurate. This might help: > R-27R - > This is a SARH missile which is launched from the > APU-470 pylon rail. It is roughly equivalent to the AIM-7M > in range, lethality and shootdown capability; however, it is > probably signifacntly more maneuverable than the Sparrow > and bleeds less energy during maneuvers, due to its high- > aspect, inverse-taper control surfaces. The MiG-29 normally > carries one of these missiles on each inboard wing pylon for > BVR capability. > R-27T - > This is an IR version of the R-27R. It can be fired > with an IR lock, like a Sidewinder, or in an inertial > strapdown mode, like an AMRAAM. It is probably as > maneuverable as an AIM-9M, has substantially greater > range, and has a larger warhead. Not much has been written > about the R-27T seeker head, but it is generally accepted to > have all-aspect capabilities at least as good as the AIM-9M's. > The MiG-29 may carry the R-27T on its inboard wing pylons, > but is not often seen with this missile, as it takes the space > of the R-27R and decreases BVR capability. > R-60MK - > The R-60 is an IRM which does not have a western > counterpart. It is a very short range dogfight or self-defense > missile. The R-60M was introduced around 1980 and is > often credited with all-aspect capability, though there is > some disagreement about this in unclassified sources. The > R-60MK version was introduced with the MiG-29, and is > compatible with the MiG's helmet-mounted sight. Early and > export MiG-29s would carry four R-60MKs, fired off of APU- > 60I launch rails mounted on the outer two pylons under > each wing. > R-73 - > This is the world's finest IRM. It is superior in > maneuverability and seeker capability to the AIM-9M, and > is probably at least as good in range and lethality. The R- > 73A RMD-1 may be fired up to 45 degrees off boresight, > while the R-73A RMD-2 may be fired up to 60 degrees off > boresight. An export variant, the R-73E, is also available, > but its capabilities are unclear at this time. The R-73A is the > primary short range weapon of the MiG-29. Four are > normally carried; mounted on APU-73-1D launch rails on the > outer two pylons under each wing. > R-77 - > This is a SARH with terminal active RH, similar to the > AMRAAM in concept but not in performance. The R-77 is > undoubtedly more maneuverable than the AMRAAM, and > probably carries a larger warhead. On the other hand, the R- > 77 is probably inferior in straight-line range. To date, the R- > 77 have only been seen mounted on advanced CIS aircraft, > the MiG-33, Su-35, and MiG-31M. It is rumored that the > MiG-29K and MiG-29S may also carry this missile, but I > personally doubt it. The MiG-33 (MiG-29M) can carry up to > eight of these missiles, four on AKU-170 rails mounted > under each wing. (Unlike the MiG-29, the MiG-33 has eight > wing pylons, each apparently wired for RHMs) > I hope this clears up some of the confusion. > > - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: Jonathan David Wade Subject: Something strange I was playing IA in Falcon 3.03 while watching Mizzou crush Kansas, and well my game went as well as Mizzou's and it lasted for about 2 hours and I finally died taking a IR SAM up my tailpipe. Anyway what happened when I finished was a little strange. Falcon went to the blue screen where it tells me what I killed, etc., but it never did that. It stayed on the blue screen and my printer started to print these blocks. There were four blocks on a line, they were connected to each other, these blocks were about 1x1 in., it printed 2 rows of these blocks every couple inches. I thought that this might stop, but I gave up after it printed 10 pages and started yet another. I couldn't get off the blue screen and ctrl-alt-del would not work so I shut the machine off. I was flying the complex flight model, vs. ace pilots, HFR, no SAMs. I advanced to the next level twice. I have a 486dx33 with 8 meg. I run Falcon from a boot disk. This is the second time this has happened to me. The first time was only a couple days ago, but I didn't have my printer on. The game functions normally at all other times. Just the two times when I would have had at least 50, probably closer to 80 for the second time, kills. Does anyone know what the problem is? I really would have liked to see me score and the number of planes I shot down. Jon Wade ------------------------------- From: tsheehy@ccmailpc.ctron.com Subject: SH Roundtable on AOL FYI: The SH rep from America Online will be having an on-line conference tonight (Tuesday, February 1st) in the SH area conference room at 7 PM Pacific Time. I am planning on attending, and will post anything of interest. If you have specific questions and can't attend, let me know. tsheehy@ctron.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 55 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Feb 3 15:00:06 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA09170; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:47:47 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:16 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:29 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I56 Content-Length: 8476 X-Lines: 245 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 56 Wed Feb 2 20:16:36 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Wing man won't go home. cjohnson@lisa.sedd.trw.com (Clarenc Re: Wing man won't go home MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Flight Models lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) Re: SH Roundtable on AOL Kris Ong Re: Wing man won't go home. Jeff Beadles Hornet's Rudder Douglas Hanson Had an interesting experience today. While flying a S&D mission I lost >my engine and successfully made an emerengcy landing. I was just sitting >there on the ground when I decided to send my wingman home. His response >to my command was "Negative. Maintaining visual contact." He just >circled around me. Was he waiting for me to get rescued? Finally >a mig-29 came along and destroyed me on the ground! After that my >wingman flew home. Why did he ignore my command? >Clarence J. Wow! Just when I thought I heard about everything there was to hear in regards to F3 (add ons not included :) this comes along. Never seen it and never heard the "Negative, maintaining visual contact" message either! SOunds like he is refusing to go while maintaining a visual on you and circling to give the JG Giant a reference point to come pick you up. But that is specualtion. If it is that, is sounds like a neat feature that I never experienced (usually I just end mission or eject.) Now, if I was sitting on the ground after being shot down, I would certainly look into the option of getting out of the plane and finding cover or whatever. To do this you would have to either end the mission or eject. In that situation, with your wingie refusing to leave, maybe that is what SH had in mind--> get out of the plane, mission over. But as I said, that is pure speculation. :^) Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) Subject: Flight Models Hey all, I was wondering what would be the best flight model to use in Falcon 3.0e to get the best performance that is closest to the "real" thing? I heard many bad things about complex and have tried it and I can't understand why you can't dive or climb better than what is modelled. Ofcourse this has probably been discussed at great lengths. So out of the other options, what would you suggest. Or is this a matter of personal preference? I am not looking for the easy way just a realistic kind of flight behavior. See ya.... Marc Lefebvre lefebvre@pbush.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: SH Roundtable on AOL | | | FYI: | | The SH rep from America Online will be having an on-line conference tonight | (Tuesday, February 1st) in the SH area conference room at 7 PM Pacific Time. I | am planning on attending, and will post anything of interest. If you have | specific questions and can't attend, let me know. | | tsheehy@ctron.com | Ya know.. we could do something like this on IRC.. would someone volunteer to organize it.. I'm sure more people on the list have access to IRC than AOL. Who can we get? And when is a good time for the WORLD.. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. kongo@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Wing man won't go home. >... I decided to send my wingman home. His response >to my command was "Negative. Maintaining visual contact." He just >circled around me. Was he waiting for me to get rescued? Finally >a mig-29 came along and destroyed me on the ground! After that my >wingman flew home. Why did he ignore my command? It sounds like you gave the "kick out" command instead of the return to base command to me... -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Douglas Hanson Subject: Hornet's Rudder I've been playing the F/A 18 Hornet add-on to Falcon 3.03 and although the bracket keys are listed in the Quick Reference Card as the left and right rudder they don't really turn the plane for me (regardless of speed). Instead using the rudders turns the nose about 10 degrees either direction, but when the rudder is released the nose points back to the original direction. I found the rudders very useful when trying to line up for a landing in Falcon and wonder if this is a bug in Hornet or just something peculiar to that aircraft. Thanks for the help! Douglas Hanson University of Georgia dhanson@uga.cc.uga.edu ------------------------------- From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: KCC utilities KCC sells a Falcon utility package, a MiG set, and, I think, a F18 set. It's not clear from their brochure whether or not the MiG is also usable for Falcon, of if the F18 one is usable for all three. If anybody has these and can clarify, I'd appreciate it. I'd also like to know if the utilities are significantly enhanced from the shareware ones. Thanks. - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) Subject: Head-to-Head Opponents I am looking for Head-to-Head opponents in the Washington, DC metro area. I am an experience player and usually fly complex mode with veteran/ace enemies and regular SAM crews. I am currently using v3.03 and have all three aircraft. My setup follows: 486DX2 50Mhz. 4 meg ram 2400 Baud Modem If there are any interested individuals, please contact me at "ml87@umail.umd.edu" or "v-mlebrun@bss2.umd.edu". Thanks, Michael Lebrun Dragon ------------------------------- From: AJONES@EVAX12.ENG.FSU.EDU Subject: Back Issues Does anybody know where I can find individual back issues of Volume 4 of this newsletter? I know there are archives at onion.rain.com, but the computer I use for net access only gives me about 850K for online storage, and there is no way for me to write directly to the disk drive. Can anybody help me here? TNX... [ I've unpacked v4 in /pub/falcon3/maillist/volume004. -Jeff ] AJ ------------------------------- From: ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Subject: Flight Stick Advice I just ordered a serial game port for my laptop from SH yesterday. My problem is that I have never flown with a flight stick before. What I am hoping for is some advice on what is out there, what it does, how it interfaces with Falcon, and what I can expect to pay (new or used). If there is a FAQ out there that would be fine or feel free to E-mail me (unless there are others out there with this question and we need to bulk up the Digest a bit:)). Thank you so very very much! Warren "Not Larry" Eckstein eng_wwe@lub001.lamar.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 56 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 5 10:50:50 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA13308; Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:50:29 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 4 Feb 94 06:28 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 06:33 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I57 Content-Length: 17683 X-Lines: 436 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 57 Fri Feb 4 06:28:52 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Flight Modes k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Network Play Requirements "Greg Stelmack" Re: Hornet Rudders slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil Looking for Modem Opponents Douglas Hanson Re: Hornet rudders gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So F18 Patch? ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edwa ------------------------------------------------------------ From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Flight Modes I'd like to add my share to the HiFi vs. Complex competition. For me the main item to choose a flight model or another is the feel of the airplane. I know it would be nice if you had the exact characteristics of the falcon, or which ever plane you are flying, but for me it is not so important whether the thing accelerates 0-500 in fifteen or twenty seconds. The feel of the plane is what matters the most. How does the plane slip, or how easily it rolls etc. Of course the characteristics should match so that you HAD to take care of energy management etc. You all know how much can a program affect the feel of your stick, for example, even if nothing physically changes. The feeling is the main reason I go for HiFi. I know anomalities like the rolling inertia not damped enough, but I can live with that. In other planes I use "realistic", because it seems to have the best of the both worlds: the feeling and the specs (? Are they even close?) That's what I think about this. You hardly get so much realism on a PC platform that one could have it all... (I think that the ULTIMATE improvement would be the VR goggles!! That would give the game (umm... sim) some boost! Like now your field of vision is so limited... It's either the cockpit or the hud plus some sky...) Happy huntings. T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Network Play Requirements I have heard this question asked before but never heard a clear, definitive answer, so now that I'm ready to set up network play I'll ask again: What is the minimum hardware / software requirements to get network play up and going? I understand that an IPX-based network is required, and that most network cards come with IPX.COM for that card. Is that all I need, or is additional network software (such as NetWare Lite) needed to get things going? -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: "Terry Woodhouse" Subject: Laptop joystick Laptop joystick In Digest V5 : I56 Warren Eckstein writes: I, too, recently bought a parallel game port adapter for my laptop which seems to work fairly well. However, I don't like to carry a joystick on travel that is almost as big as my laptop. Does anyone have any suggestions on what _small_ joysticks are available? Mail order catalogs have been little to no help at all. BTW, my (really old) CH joystick only has 7 or 8 of the 15 pins showing in the D-connector and will NOT work with the gameport adapter, but my flight yoke which has all 15 pins will. Thanx... Terry Woodhouse tjw@mitre.org ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Hornet's Rudder,Flight Models,Wing man won't go home > From: cjohnson@lisa.sedd.trw.com (Clarence Johnson) > Subject: Wing man won't go home. > > Had an interesting experience today. While flying a S&D mission I lost > my engine and successfully made an emerengcy landing. I was just sitting > there on the ground when I decided to send my wingman home. His response > to my command was "Negative. Maintaining visual contact." He just You *MIGHT* have had more success sending your wing home, if you did it before you landed. Then he would not be obligated to stay there & watch over you. Just a thought... > From: lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) > Subject: Flight Models > I was wondering what would be the best flight model to use in Falcon 3.0e > to get the best performance that is closest to the "real" thing? I heard many > bad things about complex and have tried it and I can't understand why you can't > dive or climb better than what is modelled. Ofcourse this has probably been You actually want to be able to climb *BETTER* than what is modeled in COMPLEX??? WOW! Yes... THis has been discussed somewhat :))) I think the consensus, is that neither COMPLEX or HiFi model everything correctly. Both have problems. There are good arguements PRO & CON for both flight models. I think it is as you suggest below. A matter of personal preferance. Or as someone once said, "different strokes for different folks". > discussed at great lengths. So out of the other options, what would you suggest. > Or is this a matter of personal preference? > From: Douglas Hanson > Subject: Hornet's Rudder > > I've been playing the F/A 18 Hornet add-on to Falcon 3.03 and although the > bracket keys are listed in the Quick Reference Card as the left and right > rudder they don't really turn the plane for me (regardless of speed). Instead > using the rudders turns the nose about 10 degrees either direction, but when > the rudder is released the nose points back to the original direction. > I found the rudders very useful when trying to line up for a landing in Falcon > and wonder if this is a bug in Hornet or just something peculiar to that > aircraft. Thanks for the help! Here is my reply to the same question from Issue #46: > Subject: Hornet Rudders? > > Hey, Why don't my rudders work in Hornet? I't like they are attached to a > bungie cord or something. I'm using the keyboard control keys [, and ] to > control them. However, when pressed the HUD heading display does move but > as soon as I let go, the plane returns to the original heading! This > happens however long I hold down the key. As you can imagine, it makes > life real tough (and DEATH real easy:( ) while trying to land on the > flattop! Anyone else got this problem? > I think the reason you see this is simple. Just because you point the nose of the aircraft in a different direction, doesn't mean that it will go in that direction, immediately. The Velocity Vector has to be given time to "come around". The mushieness you describe is the same as for the MiG too. AND is one of the reasons I like the HORNET & MiG "realistic" flightmodel. I will go and try this again anyway to make sure this works the way I think it does. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: Network Play Requirements >What is the minimum hardware / software requirements to get network play >up and going? I understand that an IPX-based network is required, and that >most network cards come with IPX.COM for that card. Is that all I need, or >is additional network software (such as NetWare Lite) needed to get things >going? You need the normal things to run Falcon3 (memory, F3 software, etc.) and the following: A network card that supports IPX. I use the Intel's Ethernet Express here. The program "ipx.com" for your network card. You don't need anything else. Many Ethernet cards come with ipx.com. It's not something that you have to buy from Novell. Some sort of network cable to connect the PC(s) together. Most cards support what is commonly called "thinnet". It's 50ohm coax, with terminators on each end. It looks like: ------- ------- | PC1 | | PC2 | ------- ------- || || T----================----T The || symbols are BNC Tee connectors. Most ethernet cards come with one. ------ The 'T' symbols are 50 ohm terminators. You need two, one for each end. The '===' is 50 ohm coax cable with BNC connectors. IT MUST BE 1.5 FEET (or more) in length. You'll have problems otherwise. To add another machine, remove the terminator from one end, and add another piece of cable, and a tee. Then, add the terminator to the end. You can get more information on stuff like this by asking anyone who knows about ethernet. (or drop me a line) Then, when booting, make sure the hardware is connected, loadhigh ipx, and run falcon3. That's it as far as software/hardware. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet Rudders > From: Douglas Hanson > Subject: Hornet's Rudder > > I've been playing the F/A 18 Hornet add-on to Falcon 3.03 and although the > bracket keys are listed in the Quick Reference Card as the left and right > rudder they don't really turn the plane for me (regardless of speed). Instead > using the rudders turns the nose about 10 degrees either direction, but when > the rudder is released the nose points back to the original direction. > I found the rudders very useful when trying to line up for a landing in Falcon > and wonder if this is a bug in Hornet or just something peculiar to that > aircraft. Thanks for the help! This is a bug in Falcon. The way they work in the Hornet is correct, and should also function that way in F3. When you deflect the rudder, you generate a yawing moment that does indeed point your nose in the direction you wanted, but it also generates a sideslip in the other direction. This sideslip causes a yawing moment to return your nase to its original flight path. If you hold the rudders long enough, you'll slowly drag your flight path will around some. As soon as you release the rudders however, the nose will return to line up with the velocity vector. Its much more efficient to use roll control to set a bank angle and use the lift vector to drag your flight path where you want it. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: Douglas Hanson Subject: Looking for Modem Opponents I'd be interested in finding other fighter pilots to fly against. I live in Athens, Georgia and if you are a local call away and would like someone to fly against let me know. I have Falcon 3.03 and the F/A 18 add-on. My CPU is a 386DX-40 and I have a 14,400 baud modem. One more thing, I only recently got the Hornet add-on and my previous version of Falcon was relatively old (possibly the original 3.0 or close to it) so when I got upgraded to 3.03 it was a major change. Anyway last night I was flying around at night at Red Flag in my Hornet and I passed by a huge sign on the ground that said ELVIS LIVES! in bright white moving letters. Quite funny. Did the programmers leave anything else like that in the game? Douglas Hanson University of Georgia dhanson@uga.cc.uga.edu ------------------------------- From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) Subject: A totally new experience I just experienced the most hairy mission of my two-year Falcon career. I was flying the Falcon in the new Bosnia theater and was in day two of the campaign. At the end of day one, my squadron was forced from Sarejavo to Serb. The first mission of day two called for TACAIR against a Serb armored force back in Sarejavo that an allied force had engaged. I loaded up my wingies and checked the intel report from the Mig Commander Utilities, which listed a small enemy CAP and a sizable ground target set. When I went to take off, I instantly heard my escort flight and intercept flight start screaming "bandit" while the AWACS indicated increased enemy ECM activity. No surprises yet, right? As I start to role down the strip, several explosions occur immediately around my plane. Then I notice the allied tanks rolling right across the runway and guess that the explosions are incoming hostile ground fire. Two of my four wingies never even get airborne before they are hit by incoming ground fire. An allied tank got hit right next to my plane! Big fireball and everything. My escorts and intercept flight are in a full-blown furball with an unspecified number of enemy fighters and ground-attack aircraft. As soon as I get airborne, I come under fairly intense SAM attack from SA-7's and radar missile attack from enemy fighters. I eyeballed both inbound IR sams and Apex. Just before I get hit, I noticed a HUGE line of enemy ground forces at the edge of the airfield. They are engaged with a mid-sized allied ground force. As I eject, my bird takes another hit, producing a nice fireball and everyone's favorite message "Your aircraft has been destroyed. Meanwhile, ..." I viewed the other allied aircraft for a while, and the fight was intense. Out of the eight aircraft from my squadron, 4 were wiped out before they even got into the fight or properly airborne. (Disclaimer: Although my wingies are airborne as I role for take-off, I don't consider them airborne until I am. In addition, the three wingies in my four ship flight died before or immediately after my wheels up.) The escort flight was demolished within a minute. Only the intercept flight survived. The three allied Tornados seem to have made a fairly good account for themselves. At any rate, I replayed this mission a couple of more times with the same results. My question is, has anyone ever run across this before? Is it a new development with v3.03 and the Bosnian campaign? Thanks Michael Lebrun currently a roasted "Dragon" ------------------------------- From: Joerg Stenger Subject: Re: SH Roundtable on AOL/IRC Kris Ong suggested that a SH roundtable should take place on 'our' IRC channel #falcon3.0. I do absolutely agree with this! This would give us european users the chance to get in touch with 'the people who made this thing' (ok, I'm an optimist ;-). Since we are about 6-8 timezones before the USA we have either to go to bed a bit later or get up a bit earlier; for me it would be worth that! I hope that someone over there (USA ;-) will organize such a round- table. Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Looking for Modem Opponents | I got upgraded to 3.03 it was a major change. Anyway last night I was flying | around at night at Red Flag in my Hornet and I passed by a huge sign on the | ground that said ELVIS LIVES! in bright white moving letters. Quite funny. | Did the programmers leave anything else like that in the game? | | Douglas Hanson | University of Georgia | dhanson@uga.cc.uga.edu | | | yes they did.. like if you follow the canyon all the way to the source.. and you'll see wehere the rver comes from. or gozilla and the love boat in OFT. more stuf f like that.. it might be in the faq, but I'm sure its in the archives somewhere. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. krismon@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Re: Hornet rudders > > From: Douglas Hanson > Subject: Hornet's Rudder > > I've been playing the F/A 18 Hornet add-on to Falcon 3.03 and although the > bracket keys are listed in the Quick Reference Card as the left and right > rudder they don't really turn the plane for me (regardless of speed). Instead > using the rudders turns the nose about 10 degrees either direction, but when > the rudder is released the nose points back to the original direction. > I found the rudders very useful when trying to line up for a landing in Falcon > and wonder if this is a bug in Hornet or just something peculiar to that > aircraft. Thanks for the help! > Think of it as a bug in Falcon that Hornet has corrected. Rudders do not turn a plane, they yaw it (which starts a roll). It takes time for the plane to change its velocity vector. The Hornet rudders would doubtlessly be more useful if you had rudder pedals instead of a keyboard! ----- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: F18 Patch? Anybody know the latest word on the F18 patch? Thanx. -The Doctor ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 57 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 6 12:44:57 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA13487; Sun, 6 Feb 94 12:44:42 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:33 PST Message-Id: Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:33 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I58 Content-Length: 9394 X-Lines: 238 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 58 Sat Feb 5 18:33:35 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: tm-stick now available. Jeff Beadles * Key and Padlock tsheehy@ccmailpc.ctron.com Small Joysticks and gameports HIETT@caer.uky.edu Harrier s924732@otto.bf.rmit.EDU.AU (Timoth How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? George Sobala Subject: tm-stick now available. It's in the ftp archives on onion.rain.com:/pub/thrustmaster/misc/tm-stick.zip This is the TSR that you run before Falcon3.03/Mig29/Hornet that fixes the SH joystick functions. [By permission of the kind folks at Thrustmaster] -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: tsheehy@ccmailpc.ctron.com Subject: * Key and Padlock Does anybody else have problem entering Padlock view in Hornet by using the '*' key on the numeric keypad? I can get in using shift-8, but not '*'. The '*' key works fine for me in Falcon. I have tried num-lock, shift-lock, etc.. but still no luck.. tsheehy@ctron.com ------------------------------- From: HIETT@caer.uky.edu Subject: Small Joysticks and gameports recently I read the following.... >on what _small_ joysticks are available? Mail order catalogs have been >little to no help at all. >BTW, my (really old) CH joystick only has 7 or 8 of the 15 pins showing in >the D-connector and will NOT work with the gameport adapter, but my flight >yoke which has all 15 pins will. >Thanx... >Terry Woodhouse - for a compact joystick try a cheap $6 Kraft or Suncom's "My Joystick" For a look at the crop see GAME PLAYER (RECENT ISSUE) article is the 'The Big Book of Joysticks". Also see Computer Gaming World Feb. 1994 issue 115 for a great article on JS called "Get in Control" pg 54. _ I can send info on JS pinouts if it would help. A half count on the pins indicates JS #1 the second set of pins is for JS #2 or slider controls rudder etc. Get the pinouts on the gameport and match them to a layout of your stick. Although the port is a standard that doesn't mean everyone adhears to it. Contact the particular JS manufacturer for exact pinouts if you need to know. -= john "Sirpo" hiett =- hiett@caer.uky.edu CI$:72724,204 INN:89726 shoes:9 1/2 D ------------------------------- From: s924732@otto.bf.rmit.EDU.AU (Timothy RULE) Subject: Harrier I visited my local software store today and found a new sim from SH called Harrier, I was wondering if anyone has seen this around and if so how does it compare to F3 in respect to graphics, flight model(s), theaters and if it is an add-on to F3. (BTW I live in Melbourne Australia) Also is Hornet worth getting and can the bosnia theater be used by F3 ie. can I fly my falcon in the new theater. thanks. ------------------------------- From: George Sobala Subject: How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? Flying a Mig-29 in Red Flag, I can now usually comfortably see off two ace F-18s, in a mission in which the aggressor flight jumps me 5 miles distant on my six, armed with guns and AIM-9Ms. Interestingly, I found it best to arm up with 6 Aphids. However I am finding even a single ace F-16 much more of a handful, chiefly because of his turning ability. I have occasionally suckered one with a high yo-yo, but my failures far outweigh the successes! So - how should I do it? Which part of the performance envelope should I be exploiting to beat the F-16? Low stall speed? Extending to high altitude? (But those F-16s fly Complex, which climbs like s**t). I already know: (a) Practice, practice, practice .... I do. (b) Shaw. I'm going to get it. Any more detailed responses much appreciated! :-) -- Yuri "Redshift" Sobalov ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Beating the Viper in th 29'th Yuri asked how to beat the Viper in a Mig. Flying AGAINST the Mig with Ace pilots what I notice is they drag the fight way high. I'll engage low and get in a turning battle, then they pull vertical (sometimes gradually) till we is up to 20+ k. I assume they are using their larger wing area and power to take advantage of the thinner air. I seem to notice the Falcon does not do as well at alt and stalls become more frequent and engery is harder to come by. The Migs then start wide turns from alt and booming me. After a pass they go vert again and come around for more. When at alt, I then I can't keep up. I wil then go to low alt and they usually follow. I'll start tight turns as they over shoot. Now putting this in reverse order, based on what I have seen of SH's pilots modeling, I would say go for alt, then use your power and hi alt performance to turn on the 16 and do high speed passes pulling for alt after a pass. If the 16 can't keep his nose on you, then you have an advantage to exploit. Those are just my thoughts, ideas. One thing that Yuri says that intrigues me is that he can take out Hornets with no trouble. I would be interested in why they are easier. Flying the Hornet in Hornet NSF, I see they bleed energy like crazy. But in the hands of a competent pilot, I would think they would be a formidable match. Any ideas why the Hornet would be a lesser plane?? Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt -=4551=- ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Tmaster does it again! Hi all! Tmaster has uploaded their Tm-stick program for F3/Mig/Hornet to the Onion as Jeff has informed us. I dl'd it and I can say for all FCS users this is a must have!! I can now fly the Hornet with virtually no effort! Did not try it with Mig. You can program in null zones also to modify your stick, rudder, throttle response to your liking. It has revived Hornet for me. After frustrations with my JS response I gave up on it for a while favoring AW. Now that I have decent control, Hornet is a new game. Engrossing to learn much like F3 was (is). [ Actually I got it from them on a floppy, but close enough. --Jeff :-] The Tm-stick.zip was included with the WCSII so it has alot of functions relative to the WCSII that WCSI owners will not be able to exploit. But as far as fixing the JS for the FCS, it is a winner. Now my questions are: When the hell is SH goin to hire out some out fit like Tmaster or any of the addon programers to do their JS stuff?? Seems all improvements are done by outside people. Why don't other companies and the like have the presence of Tmaster? Comparatively they are a smal company, yet they post on put near every net work there is! Answers alsways come and they are always detailed. I met Buzz once and I can see his drive. Tmaster supports their equipment long after other companies would say "out of waranty, will will fix for a price" My old FCS was dying a slow death, it was just plain old and used. I offered to pay for it to be fixed. No reason Tmaster should eat that cost, after all it is old and well used. But they said in Email that they would send a complete upgrade kit for free to modify the whole thing! I even got a confirmatory call notifying me it was sent out and to call with questions! No to belittle other companies who have very good stuff, Tmaster after all is not the only game in town. But if American industry in general bent over backwards to satisfy as a little company in Oregon does, then I don't think we would here all this bitching and moaning about shoddy American Products and industry (the car industry come to mind.) Sorry for wasting the band width on this, but when a company continues to do right by it's customers I think they deserve Kudos. Much like when a company does bad. We ofter hear of broken parts, buggy software and the like. People that do things right deserve to be reckonized also. Please lets not start a thread about "xzy's are none to break, my pdq never did, ergo they are only fixing a problem they created themselves. I will grant that to a point. But on the other hand who has bought a car, and after a good bit of use (responcible use) and had something go wrong? You take it to the dealer, they say they will fix it for a price. Apples and oranges I know, but what would happen to Japanese auto imports if an American company said "Yep, the alternator went, your warranty only covers "ineternal" parts, but since the car is not that old and it should not have failed this early, we will go ahead and replace it free of charge"?? I think things would start to turn around mighty quick without the govt. feeling the need to go to protectionism. Soap box away. Appologizes again for the use of the bandwidth. Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt-=4551=- ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 58 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 7 14:53:53 1994 Return-Path: Received: from unidui.uni-duisburg.de by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA17128; Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:53:51 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by unidui.uni-duisburg.de (1.37.109.4/SMI-3.2) id AA19289; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:39:34 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 6 Feb 94 20:17 PST Message-Id: Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 20:17 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I59 Content-Length: 6613 X-Lines: 171 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 59 Sun Feb 6 20:17:01 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Hornet*Padlock wahi0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Re: Network Play Requirements JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se Which files to backup? Mikkel Hede RE:Laptop Game Ports ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Harrier gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So H2H/PGP/ETC jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: wahi0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Subject: Hornet*Padlock The reason you're having trouble with the keypad astrisk not tossing you into padlock is because with Hornet and the 29th, the keypad astrisk has been re-mapped to 'center' your trim tabs. Amazing what you learn when you read the docs! I'm curious about others flying the 29th and the F/A-18. Do you use the trims as you use the stick? I can't see flying the 29th without my FCS, trying to fly with one hand and fumble for trim controls with another.. I'm still getting my 'wings' in the Hornet, as it were, and it appears that the trim has a much* much smaller effect on flight than they do on the '29th. Observations? Jay Lee (My regular node's down. Aren't girlfriends who are students a nice thing?) ------------------------------- From: JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se Subject: Re: Network Play Requirements >From: "Greg Stelmack" >Subject: Network Play Requirements > >I have heard this question asked before but never heard a clear, definitive >answer, so now that I'm ready to set up network play I'll ask again: > >What is the minimum hardware / software requirements to get network play >up and going? I understand that an IPX-based network is required, and that >most network cards come with IPX.COM for that card. Is that all I need, or >is additional network software (such as NetWare Lite) needed to get things >going? Greg, You don't have to buy a Novell Netware (or Novell Lite) program to connect 2 or more computers in Falcon 3.x. All you have to do is to get a NE-1000 or NE-2000 compatible network card for each computer, plug them in, connect the cables and load the IPX driver (wich almost always comes with the network card) high in memory, load Falcon/Hornet/Mig and enter the communication setup choose Multi-player, and then (after a couple of screens)..... Full throttle...Pull the stick...OOooopss.... Up where we belongs !!! If you are the Squadron Leader you have your friends to the right and the mission can begin, and be shure to press the IFF-button before you pull the trigger... I think this is the best part of Falcon 3.x and hope SH will continue to improve it and SOON following it up with other crafts, choppers, tanks, submarines, battleships etc...All in the EBS series !! ;-) Stay tuned /Christer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Christer Johansson - HTH - * InterNet : johansson@gemini.ldc.lu.se * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- From: Mikkel Hede Subject: Which files to backup? Hi! Could someone please tell me which files to backup, if I want to be able to "undo" an unsuccesful mission? I plan to make a small batch file, that would copy previously saved files to the falcon3 directory, overwriting the "new" files. Mikkel Hede ------------------------------- From: ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Subject: RE:Laptop Game Ports FYI: I just spoke with Colorado Spectrum (the makers of the serial game port adapter). Though you can not now use this adapter and play head to head with it's pass through serial port a company rep told me they will be shipping a new version in about 3 weeks that will support both gameport and pass through H2H. I was told also that for people who already own the older model port the upgrade should be about $15.00. Warren "Not Larry" Eckstein eng_wwe@lub001.lamar.edu ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Harrier A message from down under ... > I visited my local software store today and found a new sim from SH called > Harrier .... I think this will turn out to be "Harrier Jump Jet" by Microprose (UK branch) which is only being distributed by SH. Instant review: nice graphics, reasonable flight model when set to "realistic", fun VIFFing and VSTOL, needs 486, no wingmen, boring missions, awful enemy AI, terrible weapons and avionics modelling, typical glossy Microprose "superman against the world" product. Give it a miss. - -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: H2H/PGP/ETC I've also got Genovations Parellel Game Port. (Egg Head sells 'em for $29.95, which is cheaper than the company quoted me when I called 'em.) As for a 'small' stick, I've also been looking for one. Lugging my FCS around, which I do, does get to be a drag. I've seen one of those 'Nintendo-type game-pads' that was a duo - both the 4-buttons, and a screw in joystick. It looked.. cheap.. though. Anyone have any experience with this? I want more than just a 'small' stick, I want a GOOD stick, hopefully one with all four buttons and a throttle wheel. (I know, I'm a dreamer.) Unless I can come up with something else, I'm going to pick myself up Gravis. I had one before I bought my FCS, and found it to be an excellent stick, and a fair bit smaller than the FCS. :) The 612th VTFW now has a couple of members. C'mon! There's gotta be more Virual Pilots in Minneapolis who want to 'mix it up' with live opponents! On the same subject, I found that COMM routines won't work if I load falcon3/MiG29 high (I'm using QEMM, and usually do both loadhi /link, and loadhigh falcon3.) The connection will be made, but won't progress beyond 'waiting for response', or whatever the message is. Does anyone know why this might be happening? Jay ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 59 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Feb 9 07:42:40 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA24137; Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:41:44 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 8 Feb 94 06:43 PST Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 06:44 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I60 Content-Length: 14337 X-Lines: 327 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 60 Tue Feb 8 06:43:37 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: The Hornet as fighter Chera Bekker An open letter to Ken "Stinger" Ric Chera Bekker IHHD and the commtsr patch Chera Bekker Re: (trim)Hornet*Padlock, How does cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Mig-29 v F-16 (continued) gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So Various... k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Dual JS, GUS, SB in the same machin Timo Saarto ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Chera Bekker Subject: The Hornet as fighter Scott in WV says: > One thing that Yuri says that intrigues me is that he can take out Hornets > with no trouble. I would be interested in why they are easier. Flying the > Hornet in Hornet NSF, I see they bleed energy like crazy. But in the hands > of a competent pilot, I would think they would be a formidable match. Any > ideas why the Hornet would be a lesser plane?? First of all I can give a number of reasons why the Hornet sucks in a knife fight: 1) low thrust to weight ratio 2) large energy bleeding during high g manouvering 3) A cannonsight which absolutely SUCKS. Reasons one and two combined are a very strong incentive NOT to get drawn in a turning battle. Reason 3 perhaps needs some explanation: why does the function of the sight depend on whether or not you have a radar lock?? Usually when flying against ACE opponents even a MIG19 has ECM! This means that my cannon sight is jumping all over my HUD because of battle between my radar and the ECM. You all know this continuous breaking and reestablishing of the radar lock. It is even worse when attacking a formation: then the lock starts to jump between different planes making a gun kill practically impossible (for me, that is). Please, give me a sight like the MIG has or even a funnel but not this ... thing (stronger words deleted). So how then to fight with the Hornet? I think the Hornet was mainly developed as a strike plane which also could defend itself against modern fighters although relying on the escort of dedicated air superiority fighters like the F14 Tomcat for extra protection. For air superiority missions I would recommend using the Hornet as a Interceptor (akin to the ADV variant of the Tornado). You have six hardpoints for AMRAAMS so use them. Try to kill the bogeys at BVR. Use the 9 mikes for a snapshot in a head-on pass and (especially if there are more then one) get the hell out. Don't get suckered into a 'glorious' dogfight because if you have bleeded all your energy you have nowhere to run (see reason 1 & 2) and your body parts will soon be flying formation with the remains of your good ol' Hornet. Anyway these are just my thoughts based on my absolute inability to win a sustained dogfight against more than one opponent. As a reference, flying the MIG I have no problem killing two F-15's, two F-14's and two F-4's (haven't tried the viper yet). There are also a number of people on the list who can testify that my aim in the Viper ain't too bad either :-). Other opinions on the Hornet strengts and weak points would be appreciated. Chera 'Napalm' Bekker H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: Chera Bekker Subject: An open letter to Ken "Stinger" Richardson The following is an open letter to Ken "Stinger" Richardson the programmer of the TSR's in the simpak package. IF anyone on the list knows him could you then please bring it to his attention? Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I have choosen this way to try to reach you because I heard that nowadays Compuserve members get charged for the amount of E-mail they receive, so I can imagine that you would like to limit your mail. First of all, I would like to thank you for creating all these wonderfull utilities. They make life as a virtual pilot so much easier. I would like to ask you the following: you have written a utility to reprogram the hat and the extra buttons of the FCS. Could you perhaps also make something like this for the hat of the CH flight stick pro? This hat works using combinations of the four joystick buttons so I guess it would not be that hard to do (once you know how to program such a TSR at all). If you think it would be possible for you to do this please mail me and I will supply the exact combinations for the hat positions. Thanks again for all your efforts Chera 'Napalm' Bekker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To all other readers: If anyone else knows how to program such a TSR I would ofcours be willing to help them too. H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: Chera Bekker Subject: IHHD and the commtsr patch Hi falconeers, Sunday evening Feb. 7 Joerg Stenger and I tested out the commtsr patch in the latest simpak utility with IHHD. I am pleased to report that it worked (almost) flawlessly. The connection time for a 2400 baud connection dropped down to about five minutes. The connection time previously was about 20-30 minutes. We still encountered a strange 'assymmetry' in the IHHD communications. Joerg and I coud only get a connection with Joerg as caller. Al attemps to establish a connection with me as caller failed. This goes for attempts with or without the commtsr patch. This is still one of the unsolved mysteries of the F3 comms and any input would be very much appreciated. Ahem, ah yes, almost forgot, I got shot down by Joerg. Just as a sidenote :). Chera 'Napalm' Bekker H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: (trim)Hornet*Padlock, How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? > From: wahi0001@gold.tc.umn.edu > Subject: Hornet*Padlock > > I'm curious about others flying the 29th and the F/A-18. Do you use > the trims as you use the stick? I can't see flying the 29th without my FCS, > trying to fly with one hand and fumble for trim controls with another.. I'm still > getting my 'wings' in the Hornet, as it were, and it appears that the trim has > a much* much smaller effect on flight than they do on the '29th. Observations? The trim for the F/A-18 is mostly for bias adjustments, as the FBW takes care of the "normal" trimming operations. So if you add alot of up trim, you will still fly normaly. But, you will be MUCH more sensitive in the up control. As you might expect, you will be less sensitive in the down control. (this is all from what I read in the manual :) The MiG is completely different. You NEED a different trim setting if you change speeds for any length of time. During an actual furball, I won't even move the trim. Going from point A to point B, I would re-trim if I needed to. > From: George Sobala > Subject: How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? > However I am finding even a single ace F-16 much more of a handful, > chiefly because of his turning ability. I have occasionally suckered one > with a high yo-yo, but my failures far outweigh the successes! > > So - how should I do it? Which part of the performance envelope should I > be exploiting to beat the F-16? Low stall speed? Extending to high > altitude? (But those F-16s fly Complex, which climbs like s**t). You might have somewhat answered the question. Try going to the flightmodel just below "realistic". This *MAY* have some of the qualities of COMPLEX. Such as a *REALLY* high rate of energy increase :) I have never tried, so I don't know. But, I would probably try it anyway. Also, I would try taking the Viper out before you get in the furball (BVR or almost BVR). In principal though, your above problems, match what I discovered during IHHD. A Viper using COMPLEX, completely out matched a MiG29 using REALISTIC. Short of that, I suggest using full AB and attempting to gain altitude. But, be carefull not to do wild manouvers. The MIG will damage it's wing mounted weapons at that high power. You will have only GUN's left (which is okay in a furball) As you can imagine. A Viper using COMPLEX has about the same rate of climb so.... This may be a marginal solution. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Mig-29 v F-16 (continued) Ha! Got the hang of it. 3 consecutive kills, 4 out of last 6. Reprise of Red Flag scenario to those who missed it before: flying alone in Mig-29, realistic, limited weapons (I chose 2 Archers, 4 Aphids), limited chaff, blackout enabled, with aggressor ace F-16 armed with guns and Aim-9Ms starting 5 miles away on my six. "ROE": engage when RWR goes off (i.e. Sidewinder heading up tailpipe!). This is usually 0 to 5 seconds after starting, with engines still spooling up. :-) How did I do it? Only Lenin knows, but .... 1. After dodging the first Sidewinder (by getting it on my 3 and keeping it there, ABs off), I pulled into a high yo-yo. This seemed to confuse the F-16 enough to prevent him launching a second Sidewinder, and often got me a launch solution for an Aphid. If I took this launch opportunity, it was not with any hope of hitting, just of throwing him off balance a bit. Before, when I pulled into a head-on aspect directly instead of a yo-yo I usually got a second Sidewinder straight at me: almost invariably fatal. 2. I used the vertical liberally. 3. I bought time by launching an Aphid FAST if a firing solution presented itself. Often this gave me a second or two to get a better aspect for an Archer. Heh-heh. 4. When stuck in a turning battle (which otherwise the F-16 inevitably wins), I had some success with cutting thrust, hitting the brakes and yanking back the stick. Three times the F-16 careered past me (CLOSE - I could see his panicky face through the cockpit), and once I was quick/lucky enough to take the chance to toast him. So that's my story. How would _you_ do it? Me? I'm off to try 2 F-16s. :-] Incidentally, if I let the autopilot try (even with a pilot with a rating of 95 or so for dogfighting), the result was inevitably capitalist. #-( - -- Yuri "Redshift" Sobalov ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Various... 1. I'd recommend CH's sticks for laptop "mini" sticks. Some of the older ones are rather small. My brother just bought mach I, it is small. 2. I have also noticed that Hornet's trims are next to nothing. The stick somehow remembers the position, trim is not needed. Is this because Hornet is 'partially' fly-by-wire? I use trim release only to counter the possible (program) drift of the stick. 3. The ultimate realism improvement they could do at the SH **WOULD BE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SAMS A (moving) SITE CAN LAUNCH!!** (at least at the moment... I'd still prefer VR goggles over that :-) On a Kurillean mission -under ROE- I once saw one site, admitted it had several sams but..., release 15 (!) Sams straight flush at me! You know, I got the warning, checked it out, and yes there was this (R) SAM. Suddenly it seemed to release CHAFF, the missile! But it turned out to be several missiles coming in a row at me! Scary sight to see 10-15 missiles in a neat column whizzling past, head to aft (sp?). I couldn't fire, ROE as it was. On some other occasions I was flying around a single SA-6, and it fired again and again. Argh! Frustrating. If you could scorch them for that... But in the Kurilleans you always can't. And usually you have less of the HARMful kind than they do. How's about it? Can you scorch a sam with a harm if it launches at you? I mean under "you may protect friendly assets"-ROE? 4. Has anyone tried SIMPAK commtsr with IHHD? Does it work? Is it worth it? 5. The simpak.uue in the archives IS NOT uuencoded - I took it out with PKunzip... ? Rename needed or shrink for me? [ Had you read the index, you would have seen this. I don't rename the files that have been uploaded here. --Jeff ] T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Timo Saarto Subject: Dual JS, GUS, SB in the same machine ? Hello friends ! Santa brought me GUS to replace my old SB 1.5. After losing about a fortnight of sleep with DOOM :-) I started to get greedy. I own a CH Pro and a pre-stoneage Quickshot. Now, my great vision: Anybody care to comment how I could use the QS for throttle-rudder control, perhaps using SB gameport, while CH is connected to GUS. I would have Roland sounds (with Megaem 202) and SB digitised speech (not necessarily cuz' megaem does it with OK results) but still. As somebody a few days ago pointed out maybe I should disconnect throttle wheel of CH ? Anymore comments ?? ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 60 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 10 05:37:26 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA01442; Thu, 10 Feb 94 05:36:38 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 9 Feb 94 06:32 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 06:35 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I61 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 61 Wed Feb 9 06:31:47 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Continuing Network Campaign "Greg Stelmack" :( "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Hornet in Europe Rumors from CES Joerg Stenger Subject: Continuing Network Campaign My brother and I are now running a Hornet campaign across a Null Modem cable (Network cards will be here in 2 days!). The problem is, the save campaign procedure doesn't quite work. The readme talks about comm squadrons being stored in SQUAD6.*, and you need to copy it to an empty slot to re-use it. Problem is, copying SQUAD6.* to SQUAD0.* doesn't seem to save my Hornet campaign. The squadron is there (selecting first squadron by clicking once on the squadron emblem), but the campaign has started over. Am I running into difficulty because I am playing Hornet? In addition to SQUAD0 - SQUAD6, there is SQUAD10-SQUAD16 (I am assuming MiG squadrons) and SQUAD20-SQUAD26 (I am assuming Hornet squadrons). Both of us only use Hornet; there are no Falcon or MiG players in the game. What is the exact procedure to be used for continuing a campaign without Falcon itself being involved? Do we both need to save the squadron files, or just the caller? Am I correct in my assumptions of squadron names? Can this be done in Hornet, or does the caller have to be a Falcon? I have tried copying SQUAD6.* to SQUAD20.*, but that didn't work either. Where do I need to copy the files to, and how do I guarantee that I get that squadron when I start up again? -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: GUS & F3==> :( I just through a Gravis UltraSound into my computer and tried out F3. Well after much tinkering, I got the music to work ok (used Mega-em to emulate a roland...very nice!) but have not been able to get the digitized sounds/speech to go right (except if I use mega-em driver...where I get speech ok but bad FX). The cannon shots sound like a piano note and all the other noises/warnings are also similarly screwy! I cannot live with tinkling a piano at 20,000 ft/550 Knots when trying to put some lead up a Mig29's tail pipes! Can someone more knowledgeable about these GUS thingies please enlighten me? Mike. PS, I've sent Email to Spectrum Holobyte but I'm not holding my breath for a reply...based on my past experiences with them :( ------------------------------- From: davidr@wv.MENTORG.COM (David Ransier) Subject: Harrier > From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) > Subject: Harrier > > A message from down under ... > > > I visited my local software store today and found a new sim from SH called > > Harrier .... > > I think this will turn out to be "Harrier Jump Jet" by Microprose (UK > branch) which is only being distributed by SH. Instant review: nice Domark recently released a SVGA Harrier sim, also. I believe SH is distributing it, at least in the USA. - -- +++++++++++++ David Ransier davidr@pdx.mentorg.com These comments are my own. I paid for Office: (503) 685-1528 them. I own them. They're not my Fax: (503) 685-7704 employers, and you can't have them. +++++++++++++ ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: The Hornet as fighter > From: Chera Bekker > Subject: The Hornet as fighter > First of all I can give a number of reasons why the Hornet sucks in a knife > fight: > > 1) low thrust to weight ratio > 2) large energy bleeding during high g manouvering > 3) A cannonsight which absolutely SUCKS. > > Reasons one and two combined are a very strong incentive NOT to get drawn in a > turning battle. Reason 3 perhaps needs some explanation: why does the function > of the sight depend on whether or not you have a radar lock?? Usually when > flying against ACE opponents even a MIG19 has ECM! This means that my cannon > sight is jumping all over my HUD because of battle between my radar and the ECM. > You all know this continuous breaking and reestablishing of the radar lock. > It is even worse when attacking a formation: then the lock starts to jump > between different planes making a gun kill practically impossible (for me, that > is). Please, give me a sight like the MIG has or even a funnel but not this > ... thing (stronger words deleted). Sounds like an EXCELLANT reason to not to use those sights :) I do all of my GUN kills in padlock. I never use the funnel in the viper. Well, I never use it as it is supposed to be used. The ONLY sight that works as advertised is the MiG's sight. In the viper & the hornet, I look at where the bullets are going. Then I make adjustments to where I want them to be. I admit, I haven't noticed your points 1 & 2. The F-18 seemed as lethal as the viper. Then again, HiFi (to me anyway) has the same qualities as your points 1 & 2. Which is probably why I don't see that much of a differance in the 2 planes :) > Anyway these are just my thoughts based on my absolute inability to win a > sustained dogfight against more than one opponent. As a reference, flying the > MIG I have no problem killing two F-15's, two F-14's and two F-4's (haven't > tried the viper yet). There are also a number of people on the list who > can testify that my aim in the Viper ain't too bad either :-). Sure, your aim is just fine... I'll attest to that. However, since you used COMPLEX & I used HiFi, you did have the energy to get the position you otherwise might not have gotten :)))))) Greg "JAGUAR" Cisko ------------------------------- From: Midn Peter Vincent Brahan Subject: Those darn SAM's Fellow Fighter Jocs of the World, I have had Falcon3 ever since the day it came out. I still am not able to play "with the big boys" when it comes to SAM's. I fly against veterans and the SAM's can never be higher than reservists, and that is on a good day. Can anyone offer me advice to combat these weapons? LONG LIVE DDG-53! --Pete P.S. Also, is Thrustmaster really worth the $85.00? ------------------------------- From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: Target Lock/IFF Is it necessary to lock up ("z" key) a target to make an IFF check? Or is framing it in the vertical bars ("t" key) sufficient? In other words, can I IFF check a square, or can I only IFF check a diamond? (Or should I go back to SAM radar mode until I get a Thrustmaster WCS?) - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- From: ""Jay Hui" Aliasfile: ~/.mh_alias" Subject: Quick Question Hi there, Been a while since I've played (Hornet sounds great! gotta buy it someday when I'm free (By the way, how much money is it?)). I just ftped F303.arj to update falcon to 3.03, and I was wondering if that's supposed to update Mig29 to V1.02? I have Mig29 v 1.0 and SHUPDATE didn't update Mig29. I don't have the stand-alone Mig29, so I was wondering if the mig update is just for the standalone,or what? I downloaded it to my harddrive, unarjed it and put all the files into one directory, but I notices that they have some files that are duplicate on both f303_1.arj and f303_2.arj, which I erased cause they had the same file name and same size, so DOS wouldn't copy over them, without asking me. thanks, feel free to email me at jayhui@rodan.syr.edu or post a follow up... P.S. Does Hornet allow you to fly against Falcon3? Jay . . . . . . . . _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _!/ _!/ (c) 1994 \!_ \!_ _/ Jay Hui _/ .::-' _> .::-' _> Slug <_ `-::. <_ `-::. _/ CEO _/ .:::____/ .:::____/ Power \____:::. \____:::. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~jayhui@rodan.syr.edu ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: IFF Lock Bob Rogers asks: >Is it necessary to lock up ("z" key) a target to make an IFF check? Or is >framing it in the vertical bars ("t" key) sufficient? In other words, can >I IFF check a square, or can I only IFF check a diamond? (Or should I >go back to SAM radar mode until I get a Thrustmaster WCS?) Yes, you can't just coral the target, you have to lock it up. This is the only way that it will know what target to query for IFF since when you are only coraling a target, the radar is still scanning. Of course it is likely the real radar in an F16 has the ability to lock and track multiple targets, in F3/Mig/Hornet it is not modeled as such. Yes, a WCS makes life a lot easier with HFR. But I know those who do without it. Quick typists I guess :) Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt -=4551=- ------------------------------- From: Chera Bekker Subject: The MIG and g's Greg Cisko writes: > But, be > carefull not to do wild manouvers. The MIG will damage it's wing mounted > weapons at that high power. You will have only GUN's left (which is okay > in a furball) Not completely true: I have experienced that sometimes during a high g manouver with a peek load of about 13-14 g my MIG starts to fly like a drunk . I got the impression that the flight control surfaces had become seriously damaged although the damage panel only showed the ordnance as damaged. This is absolutely NOT o.k. for the furball. So you might keep an eye on the g-meter (especially when you just got a new joystick :-) ). My standard tactic for a dogfight: first get rid of the Alamo's and (optionally) the archers. Preferable use them for BVR shots or head on snapshots. Otherwise just dump the Alamo's, they will get damaged in the dogfight anyway. Then in the initial phases of the dogfight (when you are still a bit seperated) use the aphids for off-boresight snapshots. They will prob. miss, but it givee the other something to think about. This will get you the clean configuration you want for the final knife fight. Finally another Falcon-4 suggestion: an 'audio' g-meter. A background buzz which grows louder the more the g-load goes to the maximum allowable load for the current configuration. This would compensate for the fact that you cannot actually feel the g's. Chera 'Napalm' Bekker ------------------------------- From: Subject: Hornet in Europe Hi falconeers! There's no problem getting Hornet in Sweden (because Finland bought F-18 instead of the Swedish JAS-39?). I would like to know how mutch Hornet kosts in the US (in Sweden about $75!!!) Finaly, I've only got one BIG problem with F3/OFT/Hornet and that's finding the time to fly it. Ulf 'STRIKE' Nilsson ------------------------------- From: Joerg Stenger Subject: Rumors from CES Hi, I found in a german game-magazin a review of the CES in Las Vegas. According to that article, Falcon4 will be released (probably ;-) end of 1994. Furthermore SH plans to release seperate CD-rom versions of Falcon3 and MiG - there won't be a collection of both. Every CD will contain "The Art of The Kill". As the subject says: just rumors... Joerg "Dancer" Stenger ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 61 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Fri Feb 11 19:07:16 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08701; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:00:25 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:38 PST Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:40 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I62 Content-Length: 15796 X-Lines: 364 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 62 Thu Feb 10 06:38:29 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Re: The Hornet as fighter att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net GUS & F3 ==> :( masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast Hornet trim slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: GUS & F3==> :(, The MIG and g's cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Falcon 3.03 data files format avail Izar Tarandach Re: those darn SAMS Chera Bekker RE: GUS & F3==> :( Bryan Cass Head to head markf@nwcs.org (MARK FERRIS) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: The Hornet as fighter cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) writes: >> From: Chera Bekker > >> why does the function >> of the sight depend on whether or not you have a radar lock?? Because without a radar lock, you're plane doesn't know the range of the target. Without that knowledge, it can't show you how much lead is required. >> Please, give me a sight like the MIG has The MiG gets even more accurate range data from its IRST. Unless the F/A-18 gets one of these, you're out of luck here. >>or even a funnel but not this... thing (stronger words deleted). That would be a better solution. Then you'd see your bullet path for all distances, but would have to eyeball which part of the sight applies for your target's range. >The ONLY sight that works as advertised is the MiG's sight. Hmmm...I've found that the F/A-18's sight is deadly accurate when you can maintain a radar lock. I've never missed a shot when the pipper was right on the target, something I can't say for the MiG. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: GUS & F3 ==> :( From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: GUS & F3==> :( >I just through a Gravis UltraSound into my computer and tried out F3. >Well after much tinkering, I got the music to work ok (used Mega-em to >emulate a roland...very nice!) but have not been able to get the digitized >sounds/speech to go right (except if I use mega-em driver...where I get >speech ok but bad FX). The cannon shots sound like a piano note and all >the other noises/warnings are also similarly screwy! I cannot live with >tinkling a piano at 20,000 ft/550 Knots when trying to put some lead up a >Mig29's tail pipes! >Can someone more knowledgeable about these GUS thingies please enlighten me? I tried a GUS a while back and had the same experience. Back then, Mega-Em didn't do the SB DAC, but I had an SB in the system also. So I got the nice GUS/Roland music and the SB digitized radio messages. BUT, as you mention, the fx, including engine, guns, missiles, etc, were emulated with piano sounds. Sort of detracts doesn't it? :-) On my soapbox for a minute: I read csipg.soundcard. There, some GUS'ers say that games like F3 work fine with Mega-Em, except for the "slight" (:-)) problem above. To some, music in a game is more important than fx. I think us simmers would be in near 100% disagreement with this. I'd love to have both, but if I have to have one in flight sims, I know which it'll be. So I think your best option is just SBOS and choose SB for both soundcard options. Or, if you have an old SB, use it for F3 instead of the GUS. Or, get a real MT32 and an SB :-) The problem is this: F3, and older games, supported the MT-32/LAPC-1. These Roland boards have sys-ex (system exclusive) commands and sound effects which the GUS (and virtually all other boards which claim to do MT32 emulation *including* Roland's own SCC-1!) don't do. End result, those Roland MT32 effects come out as musical instruments. Yuchh. So, as far as I know (which ain't much!), *no* board except an MT32/LAPC-1, will suffice for both music and fx in MT32 mode. New games have started to support "general midi" or sometimes SCC-1 (which has the Roland "GS" superset of g-midi). Since g-midi doesn't have the extensive (any?) sound effects, virtually all these newer games will allow the combo of SB (DAC only?) for effects and g-midi for music. Neither F3, Mig29, nor F18:NSF do this however. F3, etc's, choices are just MT32 music and SB for digitized effects (radio messages, but not other sound effects). If you have Tornado, you'll have the same problem as it only allows one soundcard option. You either get Roland (MT32) for everything or SB for everything. >PS, I've sent Email to Spectrum Holobyte but I'm not holding my breath for >a reply...based on my past experiences with them :( I wouldn't fully blame them because of the above. However, considering that they charge near a full game price for F18, it would have been nice if they got with the rest of the gaming world and added the g-midi + SB option. Origin did this with the SC-TO add-on. And it allows one to play the original SC with this option too. BTW, the GUS emulated Roland music for F3 sounded terrific! Dave masten@beta.lanl.gov ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Hornet trim > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > Subject: Re: (trim)Hornet*Padlock, How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? > > The trim for the F/A-18 is mostly for bias adjustments, as the FBW takes > care of the "normal" trimming operations. So if you add alot of up trim, > you will still fly normaly. But, you will be MUCH more sensitive in the up > control. As you might expect, you will be less sensitive in the down > control. (this is all from what I read in the manual :) The MiG is completely > different. You NEED a different trim setting if you change speeds for any > length of time. During an actual furball, I won't even move the trim. Going > from point A to point B, I would re-trim if I needed to. I haven't flown NSF yet (only 10 min) so I have no idea how its working, but are you saying that even when you "trim" the aircraft you can change speeds and it still flies straight and level? The way the trim works in an aircraft with a hyro-mechanical flight control system (like the MiG-29) and in a FBW aircraft (like the F/A-18) is implemented differently, but it performs the exact same function. I think SH messed this up, but again I'm just guessing based on ya'll's comments since I haven't flown it enough yet. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: GUS & F3==> :(, The MIG and g's > From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" > Subject: GUS & F3==> :( > > > I just through a Gravis UltraSound into my computer and tried out F3. > Well after much tinkering, I got the music to work ok (used Mega-em to > emulate a roland...very nice!) but have not been able to get the digitized > sounds/speech to go right (except if I use mega-em driver...where I get > speech ok but bad FX). The cannon shots sound like a piano note and all Dave Masten wrote a VERY nice report of the GUS from a gamers point of view. I believe he even included it into one of the falcon digests. You can check the archive on onion.rain.com or cactus.org. Or better yet, give the WAIS library a try... In short though, I think you are experiencing the WONDERS of GUS soundblaster emulation. > From: Midn Peter Vincent Brahan > Subject: Those darn SAM's > > Fellow Fighter Jocs of the World, > > I have had Falcon3 ever since the day it came out. I still am > not able to play "with the big boys" when it comes to SAM's. I fly > against veterans and the SAM's can never be higher than reservists, and > that is on a good day. Can anyone offer me advice to combat these > weapons? There are a few "guarrenteed to work" methods out there. For IR sams... I would suggest turning off the AB, poping a few flares, make a Hi g turn (in any direction at first). THen go to padlock & see what you are up against. I have found that A-A & SAM missles are just as hard to defeat. Usually by the time you go to padlock there is not much time to manouver into position. I usually will wait until the missle is closer than 3 mi. then make a hi G turn while dumping flares. Most times the missle will explode behind me (hits a flare). Other times it will fly past. Other times I am a dot.... The biggest thing about defeating IR missles is to not let them get fired in the first place. This is a rare occurance though. For the Radar missles. As soon as the klaxon sounds, turn on the music (ECM pod). You did bring one right :) Then hit padlock. If this is one of the famous SAM's, that is 2,000,000 miles away ignore it... If it is within... say 20 miles the start worring (but not too much). Fire off one chaff. If the klaxon EVER stops, then hit padlock again to be sure the missle is not tracking you. If the klaxon stops, then congratulations. You just dodged a Radar SAM. If it is still coming at you then start beaming the missle. That is, turn you radar on and fly right at the missle. The "official" method of putting the missle, 45 degrees off to one side, never did sit well with me :) 9 times out of 10 the klaxon will stop before the missle gets to you. Once the missle closes to within 3 miles you better get the chaff ready. Make a Hi G turn, AND DUMP CHAFF! Hopefully you survived. The biggest difference between A-A missles & SAM's is the amount of time you can prepare to evade them. One last tip. If you really want SAM's, them set them to ELITE. The lower ranked SAM units throw everything up at you. Elite, fire fewer missles but they are MORE accurate. Also ELITE will shoot at others in your flight. The rookie & reserve units generaly ONLY fire at you. > P.S. Also, is Thrustmaster really worth the $85.00? > In my humble opinion... NO! The CH Pro is more cost effective. But, since I am seriously considering purchasing a TM WCS II and RCS. I can't be too hard on TM either. Their effort & customer support it to be applauded. > From: Chera Bekker > Subject: The MIG and g's > > Greg Cisko writes: > > > But, be > > carefull not to do wild manouvers. The MIG will damage it's wing mounted > > weapons at that high power. You will have only GUN's left (which is okay > > in a furball) > > Not completely true: I have experienced that sometimes during a high g manouver > with a peek load of about 13-14 g my MIG starts to fly like a drunk . I got > the impression that the flight control surfaces had become seriously damaged > although the damage panel only showed the ordnance as damaged. This is > absolutely NOT o.k. for the furball. So you might Well, if you blow the crap out of your control surfaces... Your on your own... Good luck :))) > keep an eye on the g-meter (especially when you just got a new joystick :-) ). Just EXACTLY what kind of "new joystick" is that anyway. I think we would ALL like to know... Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Izar Tarandach Subject: Falcon 3.03 data files format available ? I am not really sure I'd like to buy the KCC pack, and I'd like to contribute to the Falcon comunity some parallel (but less bells & whistles) version of them. Does anyone has the formats of the data files, or do I have to go a-hacking on them by myself ? --izar ------------------------------- From: Chera Bekker Subject: Re: those darn SAMS Peter Vincent Brahan writes: > I have had Falcon3 ever since the day it came out. I still am > not able to play "with the big boys" when it comes to SAM's. I fly > against veterans and the SAM's can never be higher than reservists, and > that is on a good day. Can anyone offer me advice to combat these > weapons? O.k. this sounds funny but set your SAM rating to regular or Elite. This will make the crews pay attention to multiple targets. IF you use reserves their attention will be fixed on the first target they see (usually your plane) and they will fire all their missiles on you. This is especially bad if you are locked up by multiple sites. The ECM pod will jam only one site at a time! the ECM pod is quite effective against SA-6 missiles when you are locked up by one site only. If you are locked up by multiple sites then you don't want to be there in the first place, so get the hell out, 'Run away and live to fight another day'. Obviously if you have some shrikes and Harms there is no reason why you shouldn't send one to an offending site. That will give them something to worry about :-). As for SA-7's: my best defense is to stay above 15000 ft. I do all my bombing as high altitude dive bombing. Go in at 30.000 ft and pull up above 15000 ft. This is a tactic which is recommended by Tom 'KC' Bashams excellent book 'The complete guide to falcon3'. When doing CAS/S&D missions I usually overfly the tank/truck column at > 550 kts. If I get a SA-7 warning I drop lots of flares and pull max g's into the vertical. This works most of the time, but not always. I try then to get above 15000 ft and to resist the urge to go back and try again, which is almost always fatal ;-( like recent experiments in Bosnia have proven again. Hope this helps you some. Just be glad that it is only SA-6's we have to battle with :-). It would be interesting to test the standard USAF doctrine of medium altitude bombing with heavy ECM support against the newest Russian airdefense systems (SA-10 / SA-12). I have some bad feelings about the outcome .... Perhaps the Brits and the Germans are right after all with the Tornado IDS concept. Chera 'Napalm' Bekker H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: Bryan Cass Subject: RE: GUS & F3==> :( While Mega-Em *emulates* the Roland card, it does not use the sysex messages that Falcon uses to make sound effects. If you had a real Roland card, the sound effects would be correct. I find it very hard to concentrate on the game when the sidewinder growl sounds like violins and a missle launch plays a piano note. Use SBOS until Gravis improves Mega-Em. Bryan ------------------------------- From: markf@nwcs.org (MARK FERRIS) Subject: Head to head What are the mysteries of getting modem play to work? A friend of mine and I are trying to get 3.03 to connect up, and have had no luck yet. We both have the same modem (an Intel 144i) and used Falcon's suggested modem commands, but never got so much as a good modem connect. We have manually connected our modems together at 57600 many times, so I know that it works. What are some head to head secrets you can share with us? - MDF <792> - * SPEED 1.4l #1141 * Why don't you ever write? Or call? Or.. <-- Nagline ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 62 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sat Feb 12 09:27:55 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08746; Sat, 12 Feb 94 09:27:06 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 11 Feb 94 06:33 PST Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 06:35 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I63 Content-Length: 15003 X-Lines: 358 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 63 Fri Feb 11 06:33:37 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Hornet Gun Sights ssmith@gandalf.ca (Steve Smith) Thrustmaster lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) Thrustmaster hat switch "Greg Stelmack" Subject: Thrustmaster hat switch Did anyone ever figure out what the problem was with the view snapping left in Falcon 3.03 / Mig 1.02 / Hornet 1.00 ? Now that I have a Thrustmaster FCS, I have started having this problem and it is getting quite annoying (I've crashed once already because of it). I have a CH GameCard 3 and the new TM-Stick utility, so I thought I had worked around all of the calibration problems (flight works great!). If there are any known solutions, please let me know! For the moment, I'm going to try getting SIMPAK and see if I can remap the hat-switch to unused keystrokes so that at least the view stays forward. -- Greg Stelmack (Greg_Stelmack@mta03.sbi.com) -- Salomon Applications Developer, BTO Tampa -- (813) 558-6189 ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Hornet trim > From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) > Subject: Hornet trim > > > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > > Subject: Re: (trim)Hornet*Padlock, How does a Mig29 beat a Viper? > > > > The trim for the F/A-18 is mostly for bias adjustments, as the FBW takes > > care of the "normal" trimming operations. So if you add alot of up trim, > > you will still fly normaly. But, you will be MUCH more sensitive in the up > > control. As you might expect, you will be less sensitive in the down > > control. (this is all from what I read in the manual :) The MiG is completely > > different. You NEED a different trim setting if you change speeds for any > > length of time. During an actual furball, I won't even move the trim. Going > > from point A to point B, I would re-trim if I needed to. > > I haven't flown NSF yet (only 10 min) so I have no idea how its working, but > are you saying that even when you "trim" the aircraft you can change speeds > and it still flies straight and level? The way the trim works in an aircraft Yep... I'm sure that is how the program works. I think the FBW computer will re-trim at different speeds. The USER only re-trims the bias. Let's put it this way. It sure doesn't use trim adjustments the same way the MiG does :) I don't think there is a "trim bypass" which will allow you to manualy re-trim the plane, either. One cool feature of NSF is the AoA limiter. (The AoA limiter doesn't really exist, does it?) Under certian conditions you are not allowed to perform a loop. Your AoA is too high & you just sit there pointing straight up, going no-where. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet Gun Sights > From: ssmith@gandalf.ca (Steve Smith) > > The problem of having the enemy plane break your radar lock > and thus spoiling the predictor sight may be overcome by > switching off your radar, or putting it in a none single > track mode. The gun sight then acts like a conventional > one (WWII style) and gives a reliable reference point for > your shell's point of departure. Not to nit pick , but I think you mean arrival point. The departure point should always be the same, and it should be the gun cross on the HUD, although it appears to be the center of the HUD for F3. Haven't looked at NSF yet. > Besides, isn't the gun funnel supposed to rely on a radar lock > to work properly (according to our resident real f16 pilot it > does), and it would suffer the same problem with having lock broken > if it were properly modeled in Falcon (which apparently it is > not). It's not a necessity for the EEGS to work, but it helps. I think the EEGS (the real one) is the best gunsight for both radar lock and no radar lock cases. The F3 version is a little buggy though. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com Subject: Harrier and Hornet In a recent digest a local person "Melbourne" referred to Harrier Jump Jet. This IS the MicroProse product out of the UK (as is the SVGA version) and quite frankly, if you are into Falcon etc., forget Harrier. It just doesn't live up to Falcon, even though it may look pretty. Do yourself a favour and get Hornet (Yes!!! It's available down here in the land of milk and honey) it is far better value, even at 70 Oz dollars. Having said that, I tried to do a modem connect with a fellow Hornet pilot recently and got nothing but trouble. We got as far as the "Receiving recently and got nothing but trouble. We got as far as the "Receiving After spending a fortune on phone calls and wating 2 hours we gave up. Are there comms bugs are are we just incompetent (please be kind in your response). And another "problem??". The AWACS messages are not just static when you SHIFT-N for the waypoint information, but the other AWACS messages are fine. Is there a problem here? and if so is there a patch? And if there is a patch how do I get into the account. I had heaps of trouble when I tried. (It's starting to look more and more like I'm just plain incompetent. Just as well that we have this great digest full of intelligent subscribers for me to ask, isn't it?) Happy Hunting!! Gary H. ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Harrier, Hornet Hi all, >In a recent digest a local person "Melbourne" referred to Harrier Jump Jet. >This IS the MicroProse product out of the UK (as is the SVGA version) and quite >frankly, if you are into Falcon etc., forget Harrier. >It just doesn't live up to Falcon, even though it may look pretty. Harrier harrier, which on is it >:) I am not a UK person, but as far as I know there are two Harrier sims that are worth a hoot. Harrier and SVGA Harrier by Domark is (are) 1. I have the old non SVGA version. it is kinda like a cross between Falcon3 and Harpoon. You can plan out attacks with ground forces, assign Harriers to take out targets, etc. You really don't even have to fly if you don't want to. Or, you can set up a bunch of missions and let 'er rip, then jusmping into each harrier as it reaches its targets, do the dirty work, then jump to another Harrier allowing the previous to fly itself home. Graphics were so so. I understand those more knowledgable than I say the flight models are *really* very good. The combat was tough in the sense it was really hard to tell where bogeys were coming from and goin to etc. Kinda neat, but grows old fast. It is really fun to see as you come into land the ships open up on bandits. More on that later. SH distributes SVGA Harrier in the US The other Harrier sim is Jump Jet by Microprose. Never had it, never will. I I hear it is more you against the world MPS stuff. >Do yourself a favour and get Hornet (Yes!!! It's available down here in the land of milk and honey) it is far better value, even at 70 Oz dollars. I was goin to post a note about Hornet, but I guess this is a good a place as any :) I am starting to feel real cheated with Hornet. I love the flight model, the weapons, and the Hornet plane in general. The price I paid for it (retail, I could have gotten it cheaper, sure, through mail order. But for the sake of discussion, lets look at the retail price in Elect. Boutique on Dec 29th, 1993) is the crux of my feelings. I paid 47 dollars for Hornet, and got a new plane and theatre. Other than that it is really just F3 in another skin. There is nothing to make me think this is a Naval flight sim. As said before, there is nothing true to carrier ops in Hornet aside from say the LSO. I spent all day Saturday messing with the Tm-stick program, my FCS, and Hornet. Twice I got jumped, while in the pattern, gear down, low speed, finishing my down wind leg and gettng ready to start my final approach. Then bullets over my head, engine out, into the drink as I see a Mig 27 fly by. No warning, no help, no nothin. In Falcon 3 I can accept this as you could be flying from a poorly defended air field somewhere. But not when landing on a super defended carrier. Sooooo. I would call Hornet F3 in another skin. The price I paid is too much for what I call just an add on plane. Yes Ilike the plane and model and actually enjoy flying it. But I do not feel Hornet represents a decent reality such as Mig or F3 does. Yes, I would say all Falcon lovers should get it. Just know what you are getting. >Having said that, I tried to do a modem connect with a fellow Hornet pilot >recently and got nothing but trouble. We got as far as the "Receiving >After spending a fortune on phone calls and wating 2 hours we gave up. >Are there comms bugs are are we just incompetent (please be kind in your response). Hehehehe, welcome to the club..unfortunately :( A friend and I had nothing but what you say. Then other times we would get in, just to lock in the air or havem some other wierd thing happen. I did find the modem strings listed in the Mig manual for my modem (PP14.4fx) did help. Others report pretty good results if I hear it right. I have not had decent results since flyin F3 ver 3.01.1 I do not know if there has been a Hornet comms add on created. It helped with really speeding up the Mig/F3.02 comms and even seemed to help us get in. If it has been released maybe some kind soul can tell us where it is ;) it might help. As for my thoughts, I just think my friend and I have hardware that Horent doesn't like. >And another "problem??". The AWACS messages are not just static when you >SHIFT-N for the waypoint information, but the other AWACS messages are fine. I don't think this is a problem. I can't remember anymore what was changed when, but I think the AWACS voice was crippled a ways back to make room in the memory to fix bugs. But I don't recall when this happened. Honestly keeping up with SH patches and versions is alot like keeping up with CPU's! In the old days there was Intel (as well as a few others) Now we have Cyris, AMD, IT, IBM, etc etc, each just a little different. Ah for the old days where we just talked about the differences between a 486/DX and 486/sx :) Falcon patches follows this trend. :) >Is there a problem here? and if so is there a patch? And if there is a patch >how do I get into the account. I had heaps of trouble when I tried. Yes I think there is a patch on the way. The patch to fix the patch has not been announced yet, look for the patch's patch about 3 months after we get the patch. What account did you try to into? Onion.rain.com? FTP to the onion, log on (lo) then type FTP as user. Use your email address as your password. >(It's starting to look more and more like I'm just plain incompetent. Just >as well that we have this great digest full of intelligent subscribers for me >to ask, isn't it?) No one is incompetent when it comes to F3 and its relatives. The learning curve just makes it that much better than other arcade sims, and more difficult to deal with :) I look at the digest as a support group :) Tactics? Bugs? Praises? Gripes? We can help you :) The fee is 50.00 per hour, please lie down on the couch..... >Happy Hunting!! >Gary H. Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt -=4551=- ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 63 ]] From falcon3@onion.rain.com Sun Feb 13 22:30:24 1994 Received: from relay1.UU.NET ([192.48.96.5]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08857; Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:30:15 +0100 Received: from onion.rain.com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwcyp10992; Sat, 12 Feb 94 12:53:50 -0500 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 12 Feb 94 09:52 PST Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 09:52 PST Sender: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I64 Content-Length: 7291 X-Lines: 186 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 64 Sat Feb 12 09:52:42 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Drastic action :( MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Re: Hornet Gun Sights, Harrier , H cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Hornet Patch on ONION.RAIN.COM lmbain@netcom.com (Larry Bain) Hornet v1.01 patch and updated util Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml8 ------------------------------------------------------------ From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Drastic action :( Hi all, After coreesponding with Larry Bain of the list here, I went to fly some Hornet. One of the things he mentioned and I replied to was the weapons modeling. In instant action tonight, at the beginning, a launched 7 Aim9's, not one of them hit. I am using medium weapons effectiveness. The guns are very acceptable. I am considering changing to high weapons efectiveness. What are all the thoughts out there? What does everyone else use? Am I selling out to the sim? After hearing of the success pilots have had with real weapons (Wings, etc) it seems that A) the weapons are modeled to reflect less than their real abilities, or B) the bad'uns are modeled to highly in their ability to spoof them. Ay ideas on that> Regarding the gun sight and breaking radar lock so the Hornet site is worse than that of say the Mig or F16. I too have seen the irritating radr lock/delock that makes aiming hard. My question is (for all you technical people) wouldn't enemy ECM at such a close distance be useless? With a large hunk of metal less than 1miles away, I would think the radar could easily burn through ECm lickity split. If not, with the signals being emitted by the ECM, could the radar (or even a radio receiver) be tuned to lock on the emissions from an ECM source? I am using Vet Opponents right now (stop that laughing! ;) I like to think that you configure a sim/game to the way YOU like it. I would like mine to be realistic. What dies everyone use to reflect the most realistic environment? Check your drink! Scott in WV MOrgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt -=4551=- ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Hornet Gun Sights, Harrier , Hornet > From: ssmith@gandalf.ca (Steve Smith) > Subject: Hornet Gun Sights > I felt I should state that unlike Cherra Bekker and Greg Cisco > I really like the Hornet gun sights, and find that they work It seems that I have been mis-understood. I didn't intend to imply that I didn't like the hornet sight. In fact I do. I just don't use it much. BTW, it is Chera Bekker & Greg Cisko (note the difference :))) > very well for me. > > The problem of having the enemy plane break your radar lock > and thus spoiling the predictor sight may be overcome by > switching off your radar, or putting it in a none single > track mode. The gun sight then acts like a conventional > one (WWII style) and gives a reliable reference point for > your shell's point of departure. In the viper jet with the > wiggly worm sight you have to guess on the point of departure, so > I see the Hornet as a big improvement. > > Besides, isn't the gun funnel supposed to rely on a radar lock > to work properly (according to our resident real f16 pilot it > does), and it would suffer the same problem with having lock broken > if it were properly modeled in Falcon (which apparently it is > not). I think the gun funnel on the viper is calibrated for this... The bullets will hit the point of the funnel at a given distance (.5 miles I think). So... If your "worthy opponant" (tm) is closer or further away, you need to make adjustments accordingly. Presumebly the HORNET with a radar lock makes the adjustment for you. Once the lock is broken & you go back to your (WWII style) sight, all bets are off. > From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU > Subject: Re: Harrier, Hornet > the Tm-stick program, my FCS, and Hornet. Twice I got jumped, while in the > pattern, gear down, low speed, finishing my down wind leg and gettng ready > to start my final approach. Then bullets over my head, engine out, > into the drink as I see a Mig 27 fly by. No warning, no help, no nothin. > In Falcon 3 I can accept this as you could be flying from a poorly > defended air field somewhere. But not when landing on a super defended > carrier. Really... What the hell is with this??? The carrier is invulnerable? WoW! Like there wouldn't be some TOMCATS up there flaming those MiG27's?? No one, (who doesn't belong there) is supposed to be within a certain distance of the carrier. What is that distance? 100 miles?? How close could we really get in the Kurlies? Before the Adm. K. started launching billions of inter- ceptors. I would think that the carrier group associated with the NSF could so the same. Sheesh! Greg JAGUAR Cisko ------------------------------- From: lmbain@netcom.com (Larry Bain) Subject: Hornet Patch on ONION.RAIN.COM I have just uploaded Spectrum Holobytes 'Hornet Patch'(es) to the Falcon3 archives on ONION.RAIN.COM: f304.zip - Falcon3.0 ver. 3.04 update m103.zip - MIG29 " 1.03 " h101.zip - Hornet F/A-18 " 1.01 " The files were deposited in /PUB/FALCON3/INCOMING but they will soon migrate to /PUB/FALCON3/PROGRAMS. According to the readme.txt(s), the updates include: - general bug fixes to all programs - joystick routine fixes; *incorporation of the TM-STICK* routines into the .exe(s), plus a compatible tm-stick ver 2 tsr for those who want to retain explicit control over the deadzone parameters. - a MIG 29 'G-Damage' Limiter - an improved ILS system for the Hornet - other stuff Humble thanks from this Falcon enthusiast go to Spectrum H. for following through on their product releases and to Thrustmaster and Ken 'Stinger' Richardson for their EBS salvation, in the form of TM-STICK. -Larry Bain Mt. View, CA ------------------------------- From: Michael_E_LEBRUN@umail.umd.edu (ml87) Subject: Hornet v1.01 patch and updated utilities. First, I really am enjoying the Hornet NSF add-on. I like the differences in flight model from the Viper, but I have to keep reminding myself that it flys differently. The not so subtle reminders of the Mig29 are not present fit the Hornet. I am wondering if anyone knows the release date for the v1.01 patch for Hornet. Second, I just received the upgrade chip for my TM WCS Mk II and love the new flexibility in programming the functions. What caught my eye, however, is the variety of utility programs included for F3 and Mig29. Do others of you use the F3 Padlock utilities and are they useful? Also, the versions I recieved are for Falcon v3.02 rather than v3.03. Will these work with the V3.03 or must I wait for the new version of the utilities? Are the new versions of the utilities available at an FTP site? Thanks, Michael "Dragon" Lebrun ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 64 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 16 07:21:44 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA13112; Wed, 16 Feb 94 07:21:10 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:47 PST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 07:55 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I65 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 65 Mon Feb 14 20:47:03 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Mig patch gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So Re: Rumors from CES Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Thrustmaster hat switch Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Thrustmaster contact informatio Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Drastic action :( att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net MiG-29 Midn Peter Vincent Brahan From: Joerg Stenger > Subject: Rumors from CES > Furthermore SH plans to release seperate CD-rom > versions of Falcon3 > and MiG - there won't be a collection of both. Every > CD will contain > "The Art of The Kill". > As the subject says: just rumors... What do you guys think about this? Is it better to have both programs on one CD and Art of the Kill or ??? Gabe@SimNet ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: Thrustmaster hat switch > From: "Greg Stelmack" > Subject: Thrustmaster hat switch > Did anyone ever figure out what the problem was with > the view snapping > left in Falcon 3.03 / Mig 1.02 / Hornet 1.00 ? Now > that I have a Thrustmaster > FCS, I have started having this problem and it is > getting quite annoying The new upgrade patch to version 3.04 will fix this problem. the TM-STICK.COM TSR is implemented in the joystick routine thanks to ThrustMaster and Ken "Stinger" Richardson. Gabe@SimNet ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: Thrustmaster contact information > From: lefebvre@pbush.com (Sting) > Subject: Thrustmaster > I was wondering what Thrustamsters e-mail address is? > Also, what is > their phone number and address? You can reach ThrustMaster at: Buzz_Hoffman@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net Address: 10150 SW Nimbus Ave Ste E-7 Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 639-3200 Fax: (503) 620-8094 Gabe@SimNet ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Drastic action :( MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU (Scott in WV) writes: >After corresponding with Larry Bain of the list here, I went to fly >some Hornet. Thanks a lot, Larry, for uploading those huge patch files. >One of the things he mentioned and I replied to was the >weapons modeling. In instant action tonight, at the beginning, a launched >7 Aim9's, not one of them hit. I am using medium weapons effectiveness. >The guns are very acceptable. I am considering changing to high weapons >efectiveness. What are all the thoughts out there? What does everyone >else use? I use low weapons effectiveness, and have not noticed that AIM-9Ms are that ineffective. I actually get kills more than half the time with them. If you're firing missiles at a target that's beaming you, you're just throwing them away. >Regarding the gun sight and breaking radar lock so the Hornet site is >worse than that of say the Mig or F16. I too have seen the irritating >radr lock/delock that makes aiming hard. My question is (for all you >technical people) wouldn't enemy ECM at such a close distance be useless? >With a large hunk of metal less than 1miles away, I would think the radar >could easily burn through ECm lickity split. I've wondered the same thing. My back-of-the-envelope analysis went something like this: (1) Radar return signal strength is proportional to 1/R^4, where R is the range of the target. (2) ECM signal strength for the jammee is proportional to 1/R^2. This drop off is much slower than in (1), allowing the much lower power ECM to drown out the radar return at sufficiently high distances. When the radar gets close enough, the ECM no longer gets much benefit from range and it will come down to sheer emitting power (watts/square meter). (3) The reason fighter-carried ECM is low power compared to radar is (I'm guessing here) that it is omnidirectional, spraying its energy all over the place, while radar is more tightly focussed. So my conclusion was that burn-through MUST take place at a sufficiently small distance. But I cannot even guess at how close this transition point is without knowing the actual power levels involved. >If not, with the signals >being emitted by the ECM, could the radar (or even a radio receiver) >be tuned to lock on the emissions from an ECM source? "Lock-on-jam" would be great for giving you the DIRECTION of the target, but would be totally useless for determining the target's range, which is the most important thing to a smart gunsight. >I am using Vet Opponents right now (stop that laughing! ;) If they're laughing at you, they're laughing at me too... Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: Midn Peter Vincent Brahan Subject: MiG-29 Is there any way to download MiG-29 from the archives? [ You can download patches, but you must *BUY* the game from your favorite software retailer. --Jeff ] May all of you have fair seas and following winds! BRAHAN, PETER MIDN USN ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: AWACS Am I the only one who *despises* the AWACS messages? I'm talking about the visual ones that glom off 1/25th of the screen, (your OUTSIDE view of course). I want to hunt the bugger down and flame it. 90% of the info is unwanted, or can be gleened easily from other sources without having my SA destroyed at vital moments. Pah! ------------------------------- From: ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Subject: Falcon 3.03 H2H I am going to visit my brother over spring break and have a couple of questions about H2H play. 1)I recently recived a replacement for my computer and now have a i486DX laptop running at 33mhz. My brother plays Falcon on a 386 running at 16mhz (I think). We connect over a nul-modem cable. Does it mater which machine initiates the connection? Does one of the two machines handle most of the code and thus should the faster machine initiate? 2)Should He upgrade to 3.03? We both have OFT (I have upgraded to 3.03) but I want to make sure that the change to 3.03 won't adversly affect his joystick or something. He is using a very basic flight control stick. 3)He has a friend who just recently perchased Falcon 3.0 and OFT and they have been playing over the modem. Is there a way to simulate a network connection so that all three of us can play? As i said earlyer I have a laptop so there is no room for a network card in my machine (even if I could talk my brother into such a perchase). This could be either a modem connect or direct since I am sure I could get my brother's friend to move his machine for a 3 player event. Thanks once again. Warren "Not Larry, Grass in the intake" Eckstein P.S. Will there ever be an interface between Falcon3 and Tornado? ------------------------------- From: n.johnston2@genie.geis.com Subject: Message from SHI Greetings: Long message ahead -- In response to the queries about the new Hornet patch, here's most of the contents of the README. (Omitted are the parts about ACER BIOS and ET4000-W32 problems/fixes.) PROGRAM FIXES AND ADDED FEATURES SINCE VERSION 1.0 -------------------------------------------------- Version 1.01 fixes the following problems: * Some users reported a problem where the views would switch around (especially to the Left View) without any user input. This no longer happens. * Serious joystick control and calibration problems found in version 1.0 have been fixed. The joystick inputs are now linear, and there is a "null zone" of 20% of the stick's travel. What this means is that the plane will react evenly to gradual increases in stick pressure, and that slight movement of the stick near the center point will not cause the plane to jerk around. * This new version is fully compatible with version 2.0 of the TM-STICK.COM joystick TSR, developed jointly by Ken "Stinger" Richardson and ThrustMaster. With their permission, we have incorporated much of the TM-STICK code into this update. As a result, you do not need to load TM-STICK.COM to fix your joystick problems. If you want the other features of TM-STICK, however, you will still have to load it. After you run this update, TM-STICK.COM will be on your hard drive in the directory that contains Hornet. See the TM-STICK.TXT file for information on how to use this utility. * Numerous users reported problems with wingmen crashing. This was due to two problems. First, there was an error in the flight logic that caused computer-controlled wingmen to stall out in a sharp climb. Stalling out in a dogfight is usually fatal. The other reason for high wingman mortality was running out of fuel. On long missions, where external fuel is necessary to make it back, there was an error that caused wingmen to jettison their stores early. Both of these problems have been fixed. See the next item for a full explanation of the jettisoning problem. * In version 1.0, as soon as you switched to the final waypoint (either by flying to all the other ones or by pressing Shift-B), all your wingmen automatically jettisoned their stores in preparation for a carrier landing. This had some unfortunate consequences if your flight happened to be deep in enemy territory at the time. Now, no stores are jettisoned until the LSO picks up a pilot in the landing pattern and begins giving instructions. At this point, stores will be automatically jettisoned to lighten up for landing. Note that this automatic jettisoning applies to your plane as well: as soon as you contact the LSO (by pressing Alt-H), your stores will be jettisoned. * Enemy planes will no longer show up during landing. You still must deal with any that were pursuing you on the way in, but no new foes will appear once you begin your landing sequence (unless you stray too far from the carrier). In addition, we have added a CAP flight of F-14s that sometimes appear when you are near the carrier to help you escape any pursuers. * The ILS has been completely redone so that it is now useful. The ILS cone (the area within which you can detect the ILS signal) extends 18 nm from the stern of the carrier. At this distance, the cone is 20 degrees wide. When you get within 10 nm, the cone is 70 degrees wide (35 degrees on either side). In addition, the cone extends 1 nm forward from the end of the landing deck, so you will still have ILS information during a bolter. When you are outside the cone, the bars of the ILS cross appear as dotted lines that cross at the center of your HUD, inside the cone the function similarly to the ILS in Falcon. There is no "beacon mode". Be aware that the waypoint indicator at the top of your HUD does NOT show the location of the carrier! It only shows the way to your current waypoint. Once you reach your final waypoint, it is up to you to spot the carrier visually and bring your bird in. You can also detect the carrier using SEA mode radar. Finally, remember that the ILS is not intended to guide you all the way to the deck. It is meant to bring you in on a safe approach until you can finish the landing visually. Once you can see the deck and the meatball, ignore the ILS and fly the meatball in. * The vertical velocity on the HUD is now shown in feet per minute instead of tens of feet per minute. -End of synopsis- We also fixed several other bugs, such as not getting AMRAAMs in Head-to-head, wingtip missiles getting jettisoned accidentally, some display discrepancies between LSO speech and text, and we added a player-controllable damage-limiter to MiG to protect against over-G. This is similar to, but not identical to, the G-limiter in Hornet. We are also working on a second patch for Hornet. Why two patches? We made a judgement call to calve off the fixes in the current patch and get them out asap, since several of the bugs were completely ruining gameplay. Thus, the patch list posted above. We recognize that two patches can be an annoyance; however, we wanted to get the joystick and viewswitching problem fixes out now, along with any other fixes that were made along the way. The next patch will attempt to address remaining bugs. We are also currently debating (spiritedly, I may add) whether we can change certain other attributes of Hornet that have proven unpopular, but that aren't "bugs" in the traditional sense of the word. We've listened to _all_ the comments in the online services, Internet, and to our Customer Support group, about the things the users don't like about Hornet, and it is my desire to improve the product if we can. What gets included in the 2nd patch beyond bug fixes will be a function of time, programming resources, and tradeoffs. But we've heard all the comments about flight model, avionics, etc. and we will do what we can. More details will be forthcoming about the 2nd patch in March. A brief note in response to comments about the price of Hornet. SHI has one price to our distributers. They all buy it from us at the same price. There are no discounts or special deals. They then set the retail price based on their own judgement about cost versus demand. We priced Hornet at the same price as MiG-29 add-on. If Hornet is appearing in stores at a higher price than MiG add-on, it is the sole decision of the retailer/distributer. I introduced myself here several months back, and GEnie Aladdin has been faithfully d'ling all the Digests for me since. I read them at least several times a month. Now that Art of the Kill, MiG standalone, Hornet, the MicroProse merger, and Winter CES dates are past [whew] I hope to be able to do more than lurk. Regards and check six, Neil Johnston Product Marketing Manager, Simulations Spectrum HoloByte ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 65 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Feb 16 17:02:03 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA16023; Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:54:13 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:02 PST Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:07 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I66 Content-Length: 20197 X-Lines: 485 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 66 Tue Feb 15 18:02:51 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: (fwd) Hornet Rudder and Energy jlummel@prog1.caprica.com (James Lu Re: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I59 Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Re: Hornet trim slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Hornet Flight Model, Bugs att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net RE:Hornet model, etc MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU f3.04 jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey S What game card do you use??? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: Message from SHI cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis CH Flightstick Problems Stephen Szymanski >You don't have to buy a Novell Netware (or Novell Lite) program to >connect 2 or more computers in Falcon 3.x. All you have to do is to get >a NE-1000 or NE-2000 compatible network card for each computer, plug >them in, connect the cables and load the IPX driver (wich almost always >comes with the network card) high in memory, load Falcon/Hornet/Mig >and enter the communication setup choose Multi-player, and then (after >a couple of screens)..... Has anyone had any joy trying this with *more than 2* players? I've set things up this way several times on a local net and things work ok-ish with 2 players (usual Falcon falky-isms) but 3 always seems to hang things. Do 3.03 or 3.04 help in this regard? Andrew ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet trim > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > Subject: Re: Hornet trim > > Yep... I'm sure that is how the program works. I think the FBW computer will > re-trim at different speeds. The USER only re-trims the bias. Let's put it > this way. It sure doesn't use trim adjustments the same way the MiG does :) It should, well sort of, the MiG trim was exactly right either, but trim is trim. :) > I don't think there is a "trim bypass" which will allow you to manualy > re-trim the plane, either. I think CTRL-F will "disable" the FCS auto-trimming function. Not sure though, just heard it once. > One cool feature of NSF is the AoA limiter. (The AoA limiter doesn't really > exist, does it?) No, the F/A-18 doesn't really need an AOA limiter, so it doesn't have one. For most configurations it is very departure resistant. There are limits however that the pilot must observe depending on configuration. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs While it seems like there are definite performance penalties for carrying lots of draggy ordnance in the F/A-18 flight model, it seems too toned down, just like for the other planes. For example, while loaded up with four Mk. 83s, two Mk. 82s, two AIM-120s, two AIM-9Ms, and two Shrikes (my usual excessive ground attack loadout :^), I can still exceed mach 1.3 in level flight at 30,000' using only military power (no burners). This can't possibly be realistic--can a Hornet even reach such altitudes starting with a full fuel load without using the afterburners? I know I can go just as fast if not faster if I go on up to 40-45K' or so. My SOP right after take-off is to climb out at full military power in a 20-25 degree climb, accelerating all the way until I reach my high cruising altitude. For a plane with such a poor thrust to weight ratio, that's pretty impressive performance! Even more impressive is the way it can maintain speed while climbing vertically to over 40K' (a move I highly recommend when fighting MiG-19s and Su-27s, by the way, but don't try it against a MiG-29 or he'll eat your lunch). In F-15 Strike Eagle III, the plane can barely maintain level flight at 25,000' after topping off from a tanker with a heavy ordnance load. Microprose has an experienced F-15E pilot working for them, which would argue for the accuracy of its flight model, and Doug Fick (F-16 pilot) said SH could learn a lot from that game's flight model in his CGW review a while back. Has anyone noticed that the joystick calibration in Hornet goes haywire for an instant when digitized voices play? I have a 486/33 ISA with a Sound Blaster Pro (the later version), and I notice plane will twitch sometimes when digitized samples play even with my hands off the joystick. This happens with 1.00 and 1.01. It is especially dangerous when I speed up time, because sometimes the plane will roll to the left and the throttle will get blipped higher for a moment (when flying at 99% throttle, I see and hear the afterburners kick in for a split-second) and I find myself spiraling downward. I have to be quick to stop the time compression or I end up 10,000' lower with all kinds of excess speed. I thank Thrustmaster for developing and releasing the TM-STICK utility, but I am not overly enthused about SH incorporating it directly into NSF 1.01. Like one poster in rec.aviation.simulators, I LIKED the non- linear joystick response of 1.00, since it made carrier landings several times easier than with 1.01 or 1.00 + TM-STICK. I understand that the non-linear response did not work properly for many people and am glad a solution was found for them, but it doesn't make me happy to apply the tiniest amount of deflection I can while on final and watch the nose jump up or dip by five degrees (actually, I'm not positive that this twitchiness isn't due to the problem I described in the previous paragraph). On the plus side, the new linear response allows first rate analog throttle precision for my CH FSPro, unlike the 1.00 original. Very nice. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: RE:Hornet model, etc >Has anyone noticed that the joystick calibration in Hornet goes >haywire for an instant when digitized voices play? I have a 486/33 ISA >with a Sound Blaster Pro (the later version), and I notice plane will >twitch sometimes when digitized samples play even with my hands off the >joystick. This happens with 1.00 and 1.01. It is especially dangerous >when I speed up time, because sometimes the plane will roll to the left >and the throttle will get blipped higher for a moment (when flying at 99% >throttle, I see and hear the afterburners kick in for a split-second) and >I find myself spiraling downward. I have to be quick to stop the time >compression or I end up 10,000' lower with all kinds of excess speed. Yes yes yes!! I thought it was my own system. I saw it in F3 too and posted a note a good ways back but never got much of a response so I just ignored it. It isn't the Tmaster pots, after replacing (upgrading) my old pots with new improved pots and the problem still persists. This problem is especially bad on landing, coming in low, slow, gear and hook down, just about on the deck............."Deck is clear" I twitch inverted------> mission over ;-( >Rob >opus@ihlpf.att.com Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey Stewart) Subject: f3.04 Feb 12 issue mentions the newest update. What will it do for f3 only running with no sound card and a CH flightstick? I know several folks recommended staying with f3.02.1 vice going to f3.03 if not using a sound card. Will this update do anything for me or just the mig/hornet guys? thanks. Jeff ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: What game card do you use??? Hi all, For a very long time, I have been insisting that the gameport in my SB v1.5 gives the best joystick results. (for me anyway) I started looking for a game card that would take 2 joysticks. (I'm working on an analog throttle/rudder system to go along with my CH Pro.) Since quite a few of the people on this list have stated success with the CH III AUTO game card. I went to a store looked at the box, & bought it. It looked god to me :) At the same time, I'm doing the most current falcon EBS upgrades F3.04, M1.03, H1.01. (Oh oh!) These include the new TM-Stick 1.0 patch for the executables. Since I don't really *NEED* any deadzone adjustments, I didn't use TM-STICK 2.0. I just used whatever was patched into the executables. All 3 planes had proper stick calibration and control, with either the SB port or the CH III. So what is the problem??? In the calib screen, the icon didn't go to the limits of the screen, when I used the CH III. When I used the SB the icon would go to the limits of the screen. I'm pretty sure the problem/differance is in the game ports. Also, I didn't really like the fact that I had to run that non-TSR (every time I boot-up) to "automaticly" configure the game card to the CPU speed of my 'puter. Throttle & rudder control in the MiG did seem pretty good with the second stick. (look out Chera) One thing I did like about the CH III, is the fact that the throttle wheel can be un-enabled via 2 jumpers. Also on some other of my games (World Circuit for one). The total joystick travel was less with the CH III than with the SB game port. I didn't like this, so I removed the card and went back to the SB. Luckely the CH only was $20 :) Because of all this uncertanty... I would like to take a survey of game cards that people use. Also, include whether or not,the icon goes to the limits of the calib window. Thanks... SEND TO: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs > Rob > opus@ihlpf.att.com > > While it seems like there are definite performance penalties for > carrying lots of draggy ordnance in the F/A-18 flight model, it seems > too toned down, just like for the other planes. For example, while > loaded up with four Mk. 83s, two Mk. 82s, two AIM-120s, two AIM-9Ms, and > two Shrikes (my usual excessive ground attack loadout :^), I can still > exceed mach 1.3 in level flight at 30,000' using only military power (no > burners). This can't possibly be realistic--can a Hornet even reach > such altitudes starting with a full fuel load without using the > afterburners? That is a little to optimistic. > In F-15 Strike Eagle III, the plane can barely maintain level flight at > 25,000' after topping off from a tanker with a heavy ordnance load. > Microprose has an experienced F-15E pilot working for them, which would > argue for the accuracy of its flight model, and Doug Fick (F-16 pilot) > said SH could learn a lot from that game's flight model in his CGW review a > while back. SE III has a very good performance model (lift, thrust, and drag), even better than F3's, but their flying qualities model (pitch, roll, and yaw characteristics) is inferior to F3's IMO. Don't let the fact that MPS has an F-15 (C I believe not E) pilot on their staff fool you, he thinks the F-15E is FBW. Its not. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Message from SHI > From: n.johnston2@genie.geis.com > Subject: Message from SHI > * Enemy planes will no longer show up during landing. YEEHAAA!! Thank you SH!! > You still must deal with any that were pursuing you > on the way in, but no new foes will appear once you > begin your landing sequence (unless you stray too far > from the carrier). In addition, we have added a CAP > flight of F-14s that sometimes appear when you are > near the carrier to help you escape any pursuers. Well, well, well... What do you know about this? My opinion of hornet's carrier operations could take a turn for the better:) I think I'll give this a try tonight... > The next patch will attempt to address remaining bugs. We are also > currently debating (spiritedly, I may add) whether we can change > certain other attributes of Hornet that have proven unpopular, but > that aren't "bugs" in the traditional sense of the word. We've > listened to _all_ the comments in the online services, Internet, I guess sometimes it pays to voice your opinions :) > and to our Customer Support group, about the things the users don't > like about Hornet, and it is my desire to improve the product if we > can. What gets included in the 2nd patch beyond bug fixes will be > a function of time, programming resources, and tradeoffs. But we've > heard all the comments about flight model, avionics, etc. and we > will do what we can. Can you IMAGINE!!! Merging together the best parts of COMPLEX & HiFi's flight model... I for one, will be very impressed. Especially knowing that *WE* can make a difference. Hmmm... > Neil Johnston > Product Marketing Manager, Simulations > Spectrum HoloByte Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Stephen Szymanski Subject: CH Flightstick Problems Perhaps some of the Falconer's out there might have some suggestions. I just bought a Gateway2000 486DX2-66 with the Diamond Viper Card, and a Gateway Soundblaster Compatible card. My problem is that when I plug the Flightstick in, it kills the sound card AND the CD-ROM unit. Did anyone hear of such a problem? There is only 1 game port and it's on the sound card. Perhaps changing the IRQ in the config.sys for the sound card setup may help? Please e-mail me if you have any suggestions or if more details might help. Thanks! Steve ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Game Card Greg Cisko inquires: > Since quite a few of the people on this list >have stated success with the CH III AUTO game card. I went to >a store looked at the box, & bought it. It looked god to me :) About the reason I got mine ;-) >At the same time, I'm doing the most current falcon EBS upgrades >F3.04, M1.03, H1.01. (Oh oh!) These include the new TM-Stick 1.0 >patch for the executables. Since I don't really *NEED* any deadzone >adjustments, I didn't use TM-STICK 2.0. I just used whatever was >patched into the executables. All 3 planes had proper stick >calibration and control, with either the SB port or the CH III. >So what is the problem??? In the calib screen, the icon didn't >go to the limits of the screen, when I used the CH III. When I used >the SB the icon would go to the limits of the screen. I'm pretty >sure the problem/differance is in the game ports. That is the case for me also. I am none to sure it is of any consequence though. It might be, but my JS works very well through the CH in all other sims except Mig/Hornet. With the new Tm-stick stuff it works well in Mig/Hornet. Point is, I do not know that full movement to the calibration box is incredibley essential. But hey, could be. >Also, I didn't really like the fact that I had to run that non-TSR >(every time I boot-up) to "automaticly" configure the game card to the >CPU speed of my 'puter. Hmm, it is very rare I even tough CHJOY.exe anymore. I thought (but it has been a long time) that the card automatically adjusts to your machine speed and is good up to 33 mhz? 50? The CHJOY program is to adjust senstivity. The Gravis has a neat little knob you can turn to do this manually where as the CH uses software. I would probably prefer the knob myself. I think the CH setting 21 is used for the 150 pots of the high end sticks. Actually, the only time I touched it recently was when trying to fly Mig/Hornet. Other than that, I don't worry about it. Again, mine is a couple of years old, may have different documentation or cards all together. > Throttle & rudder control in the MiG did seem pretty >good with the second stick. (look out Chera) One thing I did like >about the CH III, is the fact that the throttle wheel can be >un-enabled via 2 jumpers. Also on some other of my games (World >Circuit for one). The total joystick travel was less with the CH III >than with the SB game port. I didn't like this, so I removed the card >and went back to the SB. Luckely the CH only was $20 :) Whatever works ;-) >Because of all this uncertanty... I would like to take a survey >of game cards that people use. Also, include whether or not,the >icon goes to the limits of the calib window. Thanks... Whoops!! Will have to send this when it gets echo'd back to me ;) >SEND TO: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov >Greg Cisko Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt -=4551=- ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Anyone know a UK source for OFT? I can't find OFT for love nor money in the UK. Everyone has "sold out" and are "awaiting supplies". I have faxed Microprose (UK distributors) but meanwhile, does anyone know where I can buy a copy? Even US at a good price? (Microprose UK have a really friendly helpline - just ring between 14:00 and 14:01 any weekday when the moon is full and Mars is in opposition.) -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Subject: Embarrasing Defeat I thought that I'd share my latest sortie with everyone. Just having installed the three new patches, I decided to try out the MiG first. Mission involved intercepting 2 B52's escorted by 2 F-16's. I had 4 F1's flying cap. I selected 2 MiGs (versus the default of 4) and went after the Vipers first. Suddenly, we were jumped by four F-15s. The odds were against us. I ended up blacking out while trying to avoid several AIMs. Just before blackness, I knew that an F-16 was pulling up on my tail. I was hit by something which took my engines out. When I regained my vision, I locked up an F-15 with the HMS and launched two Alamos. Without my engine, I was forced to eject (I got out at 300ft agl). After getting board from watching the F1s tangle with the F-15s, I ended the mission in hopes that my squadron's CO would still be active. This is the message I got: Col. Coyne was hit by a friendly truck (MIA). I can't wait to try H1.01. Maybe I'll get hit by the Kon Tiki (sp.?) -- "Czech Truck" -- Col. "Mustang" Coyne (MIA) ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 66 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Fri Feb 18 12:09:58 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02836; Fri, 18 Feb 94 11:59:17 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 17 Feb 94 06:17 PST Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 00:29 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I67 Content-Length: 19071 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 67 Thu Feb 17 06:17:40 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Friendly Fire? k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Re: Hornet Rudder and Energy cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Hornet, Flight Model Bugs masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast Re: Hornet trim slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: F-15E Fly by wire slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: Hornet Patch Info File intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Falcon3 Install - Starting Over richm@ims.com (Richard Mullen) Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net CH FS Mods "michael dobbs (micro bio)" From: jlummel@prog1.caprica.com (James Lummel) > Subject: (fwd) Hornet Rudder and Energy > > I just updated my Hornet to 1.01 with the patch that includes the > TM-STICK code. I observed one thing in both 1.00 and 1.01. If you > enable rudder pedals (like TM's RCS), and you make a banking turn, your > airspeed drops from 500 knots to 150 knots about 3/4 of the way thru the > turn. But if you don't enable the rudder pedals, you can make the same > turn and drop from 500 knots to only 400 knots. Are you talking about enabling the rudders thru the joystick calib routines? Or enabling them, by using the pedals (after calibrating them in the calib routines)? Also, when you are making the turn without rudders enabled, (I'm assuming thru the stick calib) are you still making your turn using the digital rudders (keyboard control)? I can see where this difference would be a big deal. But, if you *ONLY* used the stick for your turns ( I thought the FBW added rudder automagicly :) Who knows? Anything can happen. > > Now, even though I am just barely starting to learn how to use rudder > pedals (yes, I'm a rudder pedal virgin), I don't think it should be > doing that. Can anybody comment? I don't have actual rudder pedals (CH's are due out in may/june with the throttle control to follow 4 months later :) I did finish my analog THROTTLE/RUDDER control. It is a refurbished CH Flightstick that was nolonger in use. I put a stronger spring on the X-axis, to hold the stick more stable when I don't use rudder. The Y-axis throttle control turned out VERY smooth. I removed the Y-axis spring and put a special elastic (black of course :) strip between the body of the base and the rounded part that the stick is attached to. So the resulting friction doesn't let the stick flop back & forth. AND IS VERY SMOOTH! As a finial step I remounted the stick 90 degrees from it's origional (it is on its side) position, making a "t". I am assumning that the pots will be similar. In my tests of the control (before I decided to make the conversion) I did not notice the problems you mention. Control seemed the same. I'll look again tonight once I velcro down my finished product. But in theory, I would think this should give the same control action as pedals would. Things did seem fine... Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs [Robin writes:] >While it seems like there are definite performance penalties for >carrying lots of draggy ordnance in the F/A-18 flight model, it seems >too toned down, just like for the other planes. Old news, but there is some drag effect in F3.03 (and probably earlier) in "complex" but not "hifi". It is pretty bogus however. Drop some ordnance, and the speed virtually instantaneously goes up by a few knots then stops on that new value on a dime. >exceed mach 1.3 in level flight at 30,000' using only military power (no >burners). This can't possibly be realistic--can a Hornet even reach I think this happens in F3.03, etc, too. The plane gets up to about 0.95M at sea level in Mil power, but goes supersonic at high altitude (complex, and maybe hifi). Ditto for Strike Commander. Now we all know that drag goes down with density at increasing altitude, but so does thrust. Do none of these sims account for thrust=f(altitude)? I'm under the impression that the YF22 and YF23 were the first planes capable of "supercruise" (supersonic without AB). Is this not the case? Can some of these older birds maintain supersonic at mil at any flight condition? >In F-15 Strike Eagle III, the plane can barely maintain level flight at >25,000' after topping off from a tanker with a heavy ordnance load. And without maintaining a careful flight profile, you might find yourself limited to about 1.4M. One can only achieve 2.0M by taking it up in about a 3 degree climb past 30K ft up to 50K+. I wondered if this was really the case. I talked to an F111 pilot and he said they just climbed and pretty much accelerated up to M2. Also, mach is higher at the highest altitudes (>50K) in F15III. I thought most planes hit highest mach at about 36K ft. [Stuart writes:] >SE III has a very good performance model (lift, thrust, and drag), even better >than F3's, but their flying qualities model (pitch, roll, and yaw >characteristics) is inferior to F3's IMO. Don't let the fact that MPS has an >F-15 (C I believe not E) pilot on their staff fool you, he thinks the F-15E is >FBW. Its not. Seems that with the release of each sim, the company parades out their expert who says "next best thing is being in the cockpit..." Let's keep 'em honest! :-) I remember discussing whether the F15E was FBW, and even contributed that I read it did have some FBW system. I'm ready to eat my words on this. But are you sure? Does it have some partial FBW system to, say, control terrain following, or auto-trim, or just limiters on G's? Or is it completely in the hands of the pilot? Lastly, Cisko mentioned that he's glad that SH listens to us. Well guys, when are you gonna fix the flight models that the computer planes use??!! I dusted off my Art of the Kill and used F3.03 to "train". Picked complex for my usual reasons but primarily 'cause bogeys use it, and would have a big advantage. A big part of the AotK presentation deals with controlling speed and how you will quickly begin to slow down. Not in horizontal fights in F3! Enemies can fly those 9G turns forever as they don't bleed energy and they don't black out. While I enjoyed AotK, and think F3 is a great sim to use it with (due to the visuals and flexibility of Red Flag), it suffers badly due to the flight models. I lied. One more point on roll-damping: Again, please forgive if old news. Stuart said he gets about 180 degrees of roll continuation when centering the stick after a max roll. Someone else said he gets only about 20 degrees and postulated that it was machine dependent. I suggest you check the speeds when you did this. If I do it at ~350 kts, I continue to roll about 180, if I do it at ~600kts, it rolls only ~20 degrees. That 180 is a pain in the tushy (sp? :-)). Dave masten@beta.lanl.gov ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet trim > From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) > > Did you mean the MiG trim wasn't exactly right either? Yea, the reason you have to trim an aircraft in the first place, is beacuse airspeed and AOA changes, change the force and moment balance about the pitch axis. MiG-29s trim also seemd to be a function of level flight (ie nose on the horizon). That's not right. > I had thought that you didn't really have to "trim" the FBW planes, like the > F-16 & F-18. While the MiG would be completely different. The key here is what is called "proportional plus intergral" control. Not all FBW a/c have this, so they must be trimmed manually. Basically, the F-16 and F/A-18 have what is called "G command" system. The pilot doesn't actually command a tail postion (as he does in the F-15 or F-14), but rather a G load. The FCS figures out where to put the tail to get the G load. In the landing configuration, this becomes a pitch rate command system. For no stick inputs, the system seeks 1g flight (up-and-away) or zero pitch rate (power approach), so the pilot doesn't have to manually balance the pitching moments, its done for him. SH's claim about biasing really is true , I got sorta hung up on their bad MiG trim . Since the system is a G/pitch rate (btw AOA gets blended in here as well at higher AOAs) commands system, if you give the F-16 or F/A-18 a few notches of nose up trim, its gonna search for a 2g or maybe 5 deg/sec pitch rate while you aren't putting stick commands in. What the F-15 or F-14 will do will depend on the airspeed. Speed up from where you trimmed, and the aircraft will pitch up, slow down and it will pitch down. F-16 and F/A-18 don't care, they will stil try to find that condition you commanded regardless of speed. > I will recheck my quick reference card. I don't really remember this though. I was told it was a "hidden feature". Haven't looked at it at all. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: F-15E Fly by wire > To: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil > > I may be wrong, but I don't believe I am. Last I heard the F-15E DID have a > fly by wire control system with mechanical links. This is different from > the F-16 with full true fly by wire with no mechanical links. > > Tom Stoner That's not FBW. FBW means no mechanical links needed or present for normal flight control operation. The mechanical links to the control surfaces in the F-15 are a must to have acceptable flying qualities. If you cut the mechanical path, yea you can fly it, but you can't perform the mission. The F-15 has what is called a "command augmentation system" (CAS). Probably the most sophisticated CAS around. It uses feedbacks from various rate and acceleration sensors, as well as picking commands up from the stick and sending commands to the actuators. But, the CAS can't do the job by itself. It must have the mechanical link there. The F-14 has a similar system, not nearly as sophisticated. Both the F-14 and F-15 are classified as a hydro-mechanical flight control systems. BTW, the only difference between the F-15C and the F-15E is that the CAS resides in an analog computer in the F-15C and in a digital in the F-15E. Other than that,their control systems are almost identical. The F/A-18 has a mechanical link to the horizontal tails, but it is a backup mode and is declutched during normal operation. So, the F/A-18 is a FBW system even though this mechanical path exists, becasue it isn't needed for normal flight control operations and as far as the system is concerned, doesn't even exist when its declutched. The F-16 does not have a mechanical backup. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Re: Hornet Patch Info File To everyone, but particularly Gabe Turk: Regarding the jettisoning of stores, your new scheme to dump them when the LSO picks you up is probably WORSE than the old system of dumping them at the last waypoint. I haven't installed the patch yet, but I assume that when the LSO says "gear down hook down roger ball" away goes your ordnance. It is urban legend that carrier pilots dump their stores before recovery. Although they do have to be within landing params, the carrier pilots I've spoken to (F-4, F-14, etc) have all said the same thing: we don't dump several hundred thousand dollars of ordnance unless there's some kind of emergency. On pilot figured a fully loaded A-6 would be too heavey to land, but generally pilots dump fuel, not weapons, to recover. In addition, I have lots of photos of F-4s, F-14s, and F-18s recovering with weapons and fuel tanks on board. One F-14 pilot said he'd often landed on the carrier with less than 15 minutes of fuel left, but all the weapons he launched with. The bottom line is: NOTHING SHOULD BE JETTISONED AUTOMATICALLY. Even if the aircraft *is* too heavy, the human pilot should jettison the stores. Gabe, you probably already heard this since many of us already discussed this over on FSFORUM, but I wanted to "spread the gospel" so to speak. I know there are some ex/current Navy pilots reading this, so hopefully they'll chime in as well. BTW, Good to see you on the list, Gabe! I haven't had time to log onto SIMNET for quite a while now. :-( Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: richm@ims.com (Richard Mullen) Subject: Falcon3 Install - Starting Over I'm having a little problem reinstalling falcon3. First, a little background. I have had f3 installed on my hard drive since it came out in December of 91. I had applied all the patches through D and then bought OFT when it first came out and had no problems. I upgraded to F3.01.1 with no problems and then upgraded to the version that makes f3 compatible with Mig29. Recently, I bought Hornet and installed that with no problems. Now, here is where the trouble starts. Yesterday, I bought Mig29 addon, and realizing that Mig29 should be installed before Hornet, I blew away my entire falcon3 directory and proceded to reinstall the original falcon3.0 setup ( not f3.0a, but f3.0 ). I then jumped in and tried to install OFT, but it crapped out saying it had an error opening old file "MADFONT.IDX" and aborted. OK I sez, so I dig up my F3.0a patch disk and started over, repeating the same process. I got the same results. Not quite exasperated, I search for C patch for f3, but no luck. I do find my D patch and reinstall Falcon3.0 and apply the D patch. No problems. I then go to install OFT; this time it gets by "MADFONT.IDX" but complains about "MEDALS.BIN" - same error. My question is, am I going to need the C patch? Or is somthing else wrong? Thanks for your time. Richard Mullen ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs Stuart Butts writes: >SE III has a very good performance model (lift, thrust, and drag), even better >than F3's, but their flying qualities model (pitch, roll, and yaw >characteristics) is inferior to F3's IMO. I'll buy that. Too bad you can't get both in one sim--yet. The sad part is that I would think the performance model would be the easier one to get right, or at least in the correct ballpark. >Don't let the fact that MPS has an F-15 (C I believe not E) pilot I stand corrected. >on their staff fool you, he thinks the F-15E is FBW. Its not. The sources I've seen say the F-15E _is_ indeed FBW. Perhaps it does not have a computerized flight control system, but I believe the pilot's inputs are relayed to control surface actuators via electrical wiring. Are we arguing semantics here? Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: CH FS Mods Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 01:34:54 -0500 From: g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (michael dobbs (micro bio)) To: falcon3@onion.rain.com Subject: CH FS mods :) I finally made up my mind and went ahead with a few modifications to my now-out-of-warranty CH FlightStick. I wanted to get at least some of the functions of the CH FS Pro with out spending big $$$ and lowering my standards of taste (that thing is sure ugly ;). So I cannibalised an old Analog-Plus stick for the fire buttons and drilled a few small holes into the very roomy handle of the FS. After mounting the buttons under my middle and pinkie finger-tip positions, I went about replacing the original cable to provide a 15 conductor wire. I now have a very nice setup where I can switch from air to ground weapon mode or put on the brakes all from the stick a handle. My next project is to mount a slider or similar mechanism on the very roomy base to give rudder control. Any one elsoe out there ever done something like this? Does anyone know where I could get a coolie-hat type switch? Are these things special or have they just rigged up 4 ordinary click-type switches inside the enlarged head? Mike. ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Par'l'll Game Port I'm looking for anyone else who might be using Genovations Parl'll Game Port. More specifically, 'load files' for Falcon 3.03/4, MiG 1.01-3, and Hornet 1.0-1.01. The latest version of Falcon that I have a file for is 3.02. (If you're not familiar with PGP, 'load files' are, I believe a TSR that re-maps the joystick routines for a given programm to allow the PGP to be used. You need a specific file for any program that you want to use PGP with. Or so I believe.) Thank'ya Jay ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 67 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 18 17:13:25 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04489; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:12:13 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:33 PST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 21:35 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I68 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 68 Thu Feb 17 20:33:27 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: FALCON3 Patch Ver 3.04 Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( SH is lost in patches too! :-) MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Re: CH FS mods cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Network connections JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: FALCON3 Patch Ver 3.04 Now that my connection is pretty decent with the internet... I'm sure some of you know me from posting around, but allow me to introduce myself: my name is Gabriel Turk and I work in the Quality Assurance department at Spectrum HoloByte, Inc. I would like to point out a simple fix for some users about Falcon3 patch to version 3.04: If you have Falcon3 and Hornet (NSF) but you DON'T have OFT, then before you run F3UPDATE, go to your Falcon/Hornet directory and delete this file: HARPOON.BIN now run F3UPDATE and you're in business. like I said, this only applies to users who did not purchase OFT (Operation Fighting Tiger), all other users should be fine. Thanks for your attention and I'll talk to you guys later. Gabe "Joker" Turk. ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs > I'm > under the impression that the YF22 and YF23 were the first planes > capable of "supercruise" (supersonic without AB). Is this not the case? > Can some of these older birds maintain supersonic at mil at any flight > condition? The YF-22 and the YF-23 were the first to be designed to employ this capability all the time. The F-15 (-229 engine), F-16 (110 big inlet/-129/-229 engines), and F-14B have all supercruised, but only on real cold days, at 36,000+ ft, and in a clean configuration. We even got the X-29 to supercruise one day. All of these were below 1.1 Mach number however, and were just really flukes. ATF birds were designed to operate in the 1.5 Mach number region all the time, not just cold days. > Also, mach > is higher at the highest altitudes (>50K) in F15III. I thought most > planes hit highest mach at about 36K ft. I'm not sure what you're driving at here. The standard atmosphere model essentially says that temperature is constant above 36,000 ft. The speed of sound at a particualr altitude is only a function of the temperature at that altitude, so the speed of sound above 36,000 ft is essentially a constant. Note that I don't think the world has ever seen a "standard day" . It's just a model we use so we can compare stuff. > I remember discussing whether the F15E was FBW, and even contributed > that I read it did have some FBW system. I'm ready to eat my words on > this. But are you sure? Does it have some partial FBW system to, say, > control terrain following, or auto-trim, or just limiters on G's? Or > is it completely in the hands of the pilot? You can look at the CAS as a partial FBW system I guess, but as I stated earlier, it can't do the mission all by itself. The mechanical links have to be there for the FCS to function normally. There isn't an auto-trim in the Mud Eagle. You have to trim it like any other aircraft. The CAS makes the interface to the autopilot a lot easier, it also makes auto TF possible. There isn't a G limiter in the F-15. It has the OWS (Overload Warning System). Tones/voice warnings that come on in differing frequencies depending on what you are doing to the jet. > I lied. One more point on roll-damping: > Again, please forgive if old news. Stuart said he gets about 180 > degrees of roll continuation when centering the stick after a max > roll. Someone else said he gets only about 20 degrees and postulated that > it was machine dependent. I suggest you check the speeds when you did > this. If I do it at ~350 kts, I continue to roll about 180, if I do > it at ~600kts, it rolls only ~20 degrees. That 180 is a pain in the > tushy (sp? :-)). Thanks for the confirmation. If I forgot to mention its in the 450 KCAS and less region where this stuff happens. It gets worse the slower you go towards the HiFi/Complex transition. > > Dave > masten@beta.lanl.gov > ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs > I'll buy that. Too bad you can't get both in one sim--yet. The sad part > is that I would think the performance model would be the easier one to get > right, or at least in the correct ballpark. You're right. The lift, thrust, and drag type stuff is usually much easier to come by for most folks. The pitch, roll, and yaw dynamics should be a little harger to get. SH just got lucky I guess with that. :) > The sources I've seen say the F-15E _is_ indeed FBW. Perhaps it does not > have a computerized flight control system, but I believe the pilot's inputs > are relayed to control surface actuators via electrical wiring. Are we > arguing semantics here? > > Rob > opus@ihlpf.att.com > Sorry Rob, your sources are wrong. The CAS in the F-15 is a sort of FBW system, but it can't do the job on its own. Its got to have the mechanical links to work properly. This isn't just semantics. BTW, there's no difference between the F-15A/C and F-15E FCS, just the A/C is analog and E is digital. How come no one ever claims the F-15A/C is FBW? :) ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: SH is lost in patches too! :-) Gabe Turk writes: >Now that my connection is pretty decent with the internet... I'm sure some of >you know me from posting around, but allow me to introduce myself: my name is >Gabriel Turk and I work in the Quality Assurance department at Spectrum >HoloByte, Inc. I would like to point out a simple fix for some users about >Falcon3 patch to version 3.04: >If you have Falcon3 and Hornet (NSF) but you DON'T have OFT, then before you ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ >run F3UPDATE, go to your Falcon/Hornet directory and delete this file: >HARPOON.BIN now run F3UPDATE and you're in business. like I said, this only >applies to users who did not purchase OFT (Operation Fighting Tiger), all >other users should be fine. See, See! Even SH is getting lost in its own addons and patches! heheheh:-) Ok, Here is one for ya Gabe, recomend to the guys in the code shop that they meunize the installations more, where you click on boxes to tell the programs what you have installed. They can also at this time tell the user the order in which they must install or or reinstall programs to get things to run. Then again, I guess users could RTFM ;-). Oh well, I would suppose the F3 engine is about dead for future use, so this is all moot anyways. :-) >Thanks for your attention and I'll talk to you guys later. >Gabe "Joker" Turk. Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt-=4551=- ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: CH FS mods > From: g055837@labsun1.med.uottawa.ca (michael dobbs (micro bio)) > To: falcon3@onion.rain.com > Subject: CH FS mods :) > My next project is to mount a slider or similar mechanism on the very roomy > base to give rudder control. Any one elsoe out there ever done something like > this? Yes... As I described in an earlier issue, I was working on an analog throttle/rudder control. It was made (like yours) by hacking an old CH flightstick. I tested it last night... The results were very mixed. (I'm not affraid to admit failures :) Rudder control using the X-axis was VERY nice. Worked great in any of the EBS games. The problem was 2 fold. 1) the analog throttle.... I remember recently reading about someone elses experiences with the oscillating AB's of the analog throttle. But I forget the particulars. Anyway, if I tried for 100% MIL power, it would oscillate between 100% and AB1. If I set the power to AB2, it would oscillate between AB2-AB3. This oscillation is pretty annoying. The only hope I see for this, is to replace the Y-axis pot with the pot from the throttle wheel. I kind of assumed they were the same though. 2) going to an external view showed the a/c rotating about 35 degrees at random. It looked like what you would see with 2 frames per second (but I was getting 36 fps). Almost seemed like bad pots. I think this problem was caused by a gameport conflict with the game port on my I/O board (that all computers seem to come with ). So, I'm still working on this one... Point #1, is potentially the one that will do in my project :) What did work great, was when I used the system with COMANCHE. But that story might go to the hi-tech list :) > Does anyone know where I could get a coolie-hat type switch? Are these things > special or have they just rigged up 4 ordinary click-type switches inside the > enlarged head? They come on TM FCS's or CH Pro's :)))) Sorry couldn't resist. Finially, I would like to thank everyone that replied to my survey. I was going to share the results, but only 7 replies came. I don't feel this is enough to base any real DATA on. Last I heard, the list was 700+ people, 1% of that is not a very good curve. So, I would like to thank everyone in advance & try again: ... I would like to take a survey of game cards that people use. Also, include whether or not,the icon goes to the limits of the calib window. Thanks... SEND TO: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: JOHANSSON@gemini.ldc.lu.se Subject: Network connections Andrew Stevens writes: >Has anyone had any joy trying this with *more than 2* players? >I've set things up this way several times on a local net and things >work ok-ish with 2 players (usual Falcon falky-isms) but 3 always seems >to hang things. Do 3.03 or 3.04 help in this regard? > Andrew We have managed to connect with 3 players over a network and this was back with Falcon 3.02 and it worked, but not perfect we had too reboot a couple of times. If my mind is fresh one of the problems where when the Sqaudron leader did the mission setup and zoomed the map... We haven't tried 3.03 or 3.04 over a network yet...Anyone ?? /Christer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Christer Johansson - HTH - * InterNet : johansson@gemini.ldc.lu.se * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 68 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 19 15:25:23 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05388; Sat, 19 Feb 94 15:24:50 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:45 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 23:01 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I69 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 69 Fri Feb 18 17:45:46 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patch Carl Pettypiece 92 Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( F-15 FCS slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Re: Hornet Patch Info File Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Winning ain't worth it. gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George So dumping ord. in H:NSF jeeem@aol.com CH Throttle Wheel rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Ro ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Carl Pettypiece 92 Subject: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patches Has anyone had problems installing patches with Falcon installed on a DoubleSpaced drive? This has happened to me before but I've always managed to get around it by copying falcon3.exe (or mig29.exe, as is the case this time) to an uncompressed drive and applying the patch there and copying it back again. This has worked in the past. However, with the new m103.zip patch, I got the same problem (Data error reading drive C:) and tried to do the same trick. The patch program reported no errors but now my Mig29 is hosed. It runs the intro ok, and gets to the config screen, but when I go into Instant Action, the cockpit is almost all black, with the odd dial, and a well-hung system. Anyway, I'd like to reinstall Mig29 from scratch. What files can I delete without disturbing my Falcon, which patched just fine? It's a mess in that directory, what with F3, M29 and OFT (haven't got Hornet yet). If they'd put them in separate directories, it would make maintenance much easier! Anyway, thanks and happy flying! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@csd.uwo.ca) Disclaimer: Hell, I don't Department of Computer Science even know if these are MY University of Western Ontario opinions! London, Ontario, Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clever quote goes here --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- From: HIETT@caer.uky.edu Subject: Cd or not CD that is the question?! 8-) a past note was: From: Joerg Stenger > Subject: Rumors from CES > Furthermore SH plans to release seperate CD-rom > versions of Falcon3 > and MiG - there won't be a collection of both. Every > CD will contain > "The Art of The Kill". > As the subject says: just rumors... Has anyone noticed that the joystick calibration in Hornet goes >haywire for an instant when digitized voices play? I have a 486/33 ISA >with a Sound Blaster Pro (the later version), and I notice plane will >twitch sometimes when digitized samples play even with my hands off the >joystick. This happens with 1.00 and 1.01. It is especially dangerous >when I speed up time, because sometimes the plane will roll to the left >and the throttle will get blipped higher for a moment (when flying at 99% >throttle, I see and hear the afterburners kick in for a split-second) and >I find myself spiraling downward. I have to be quick to stop the time >compression or I end up 10,000' lower with all kinds of excess speed. below from Avalanche: mission over ;-( >Rob >opus@ihlpf.att.com Subject: Speed of sound / flight profiles Stuart writes: > I'm not sure what you're driving at here. The standard atmosphere model > essentially says that temperature is constant above 36,000 ft. The speed of > sound at a particualr altitude is only a function of the temperature at that > altitude, so the speed of sound above 36,000 ft is essentially a constant. Note > that I don't think the world has ever seen a "standard day" . It's just a > model we use so we can compare stuff. I don't know anything about models for the atmosphere but I know that the speed of sound does largely depend on the *density* of a medium. Obviously for the atmosphere the density is a function of the temperature. But it is also a function of the altitude. So considering the speed the sound to be a constant above a certain altitude is a big simplification. Just consider the limit: in space there is no atmosphere, so no speed of sound :-). Anyway this brings me to my question: How is the performance of a plane rated? In view of the above it is obvious that a mach number is pretty meaningless without additional information like (first and foremost) the altitude. Does, for example the USAF, have a standard flight profile for testing new planes? It would be nice to put the flight models of the Viper, the Fulcrum and the Hornet through such a flight profile and compare the data with those from the real planes. Chera 'Napalm' Bekker H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs > Yeah, I'm a mech eng and I've got the US Standard Atmosphere chart > sitting right next to my computer! Sorry, I was guilty of very poor > choice of words. By "mach", I didn't mean sound spd, but meant the mach > # the F15 is capable of. In F15III, as I dive, the mach # actually may get > lower if I got it up to its approx max of about 2.1 at 50K+ ft. While > most references I've seen list virtually every planes' max speed is at > about 36K. > > Thanks also for the info on the F15 and the FBW debate. > > Dave > masten@beta.lanl.gov > Those max speeds are for level flight. The reason you get that max speed at 36,000 ft (the tropopause ) is because since the speed of sound is constant above that, since temperature is constant, the point where wave drag sets isn't variable anymore. Above 36,000 ft you lose thrust faster than drag essentially. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: F-15 FCS > Could you please elaborate? Are you saying there is an unbroken chain > of mechanical and/or hydraulic connections between the stick and rudder and > the ailerons/elevators/rudders? Yes. > The definition I was using would > say that if ANY part of that chain is replaced by electrical wires (so > you'd need an actuator on the other end), then it's FBW. That's not the industry standard (an industry I work in btw) defintion of FBW. Besides that, nothing in the F-15's hydro-mechanical FCS is replaced by anything electrical. The CAS is used to augment the hydro-mechanical system to improve the flying qualities, it replaces nothing. The hydro-mechanical system can perform adequately with the CAS off. The reverse is not true however. The CAS by itself can get you home, but nothing else. Also, the hydro-mechanical system and the CAS use the same actuators, there aren`t different sets. The control valves are actuated both mechanically and electrically. > Now that I've stated my definition more clearly, I'll bet you will agree > that it IS just semantics. You'll probably also say that my definition > is incorrect, but that's another subject. No I don't agree that it's semantics. Yes you definition is wrong . You're not using the standard defintion used by the industry that does this for a living, and appearently have some misconceptions about how all this fits together. Specifically the part above about having to have an actuator for FBW. That's true, but just cause you got an actuator doesn't mean you have FBW. Ever since the F-86 we've had actuators. > I've seen books that DO claim the F-15A is FBW. Well they are wrong also. > Robin > 4366 Sandman If you want, I can quote from the F-15 flight manual, but I hope you'll take my word on this. The flight manual (and btw I've worked on F-15 programs) says Hyro-mechanical FCS and CAS. No mention of FBW. If we agree that the F-16 is the world's first operational FBW aircraft, then there's now the F-15A/C/E can be FBW, cause the F-15A/C went IOC before the F-16 and the F-15A/C and F-15E FCSs are almost identical. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: Hornet Patch Info File Hi Tom, thanks for the welcome... it's been more than 3 months now since I logged on CI$ and FSFORUM, but I get some of the messages sometimes thanks to No19. I> Regarding the jettisoning of stores, your new scheme to dump them when I> the LSO picks you up is probably WORSE than the old system of dumping I> them at the last waypoint. I haven't installed the patch yet, but I I> assume that when the LSO says "gear down hook down roger ball" away I> goes your ordnance. They are dumped when the LSO says "Deck is clear", I don't think it's worse than before. Before you could be above ennemy land and hit Shift-B to set the last waypoint and away goes your weapons (and fuel),now at least you can make it back to the carrier. I> The bottom line is: NOTHING SHOULD BE JETTISONED AUTOMATICALLY. Even I> if the aircraft *is* too heavy, the human pilot should jettison the I> stores. This is a good point and will probably be raised when time comes. It should be only dealing with the human player; wingmen will keep the same routine they have right now (very stable now on landings). I> Gabe, you probably already heard this since many of us already discussed I> this over on FSFORUM, but I wanted to "spread the gospel" so to speak. I> I know there are some ex/current Navy pilots reading this, so hopefully I> they'll chime in as well. No problem, glad you brought it up here since I don't really have time to call FSFORUM anymore... the list comes to my BBS directly and it's more convenient. Thanks! I> BTW, Good to see you on the list, Gabe! I haven't had time to log onto I> SIMNET for quite a while now. :-( You should check it out, we're getting bigger and send me those Chicago SysOps in order to hook them up on the net :) Gabe "Joker" Turk. ------------------------------- From: gsobala@tube.demon.co.uk (George Sobala) Subject: Winning ain't worth it. I've been determined to win a campaign for some time. Somehow, I have always only got to Day 8-10 when (a) a patch comes out (b) I buy an add- on or (c) an SH bug gets me. So. I got into the Mig. I turned campaign to easy, AI to stupid and SAMs to none and got on with it. Day after day I remorselessly pounded the Israelis until finally I did it. Hooray. But it was becoming a chore. So I switched to the Iraqi theatre, turned AI back to Veteran, SAMs to elite and threw myself back into action. Great! My simple-mindedly-planned CAP flight got blown away by Stingers, as did many of my wingmen. In the commotion I couldn't find the enemy column until suddenly I spotted it on the left. 2 Kerrys and 2 high drag bombs later, I remembered that brown was OUR colour. Sh*t. Tried to get home on my own, downed a F15 in a dogfight on the way but got taken out by a Tornado on my approach. Wow! First mission, 8 Migs down. They'd only have shot me anyway. But it was FUN FUN FUN! I'm raring to go for my next mission. I'll plan this one better .... The morals are .... (i) winning isn't everything. (ii) Boy! Do you go rusty if you make it easy! - -- Yuri "Redshift" Sobalov ------------------------------- From: jeeem@aol.com Subject: dumping ord. in H:NSF >> but generally pilots dump fuel, not weapons, to recover >> The bottom line is: NOTHING SHOULD BE JETTISONED >> AUTOMATICALLY. But Tom, then you might come in too heavy to land. It seems to me that the obvious solution is for _fuel_ to be jettisoned automatically when you start your landing. This should be pretty easy to implement; we don't really need any visual or sound effects to accompany it. Just drop the fuel and weight numbers down low enough to land. Of course with the Hornet's short legs and the TR's skippers aversion to moving his ship closer to the action, I don't think I would ever need to jettison _anything_. Later, Jim ------------------------------- From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: CH Throttle Wheel Greg Cisko writes: >2 fold. 1) the analog throttle.... I remember recently reading about >someone elses experiences with the oscillating AB's of the analog >throttle. But I forget the particulars. Anyway, if I tried for 100% >MIL power, it would oscillate between 100% and AB1. If I set the power >to AB2, it would oscillate between AB2-AB3. This oscillation is pretty >annoying. The only hope I see for this, is to replace the Y-axis pot I ran into the oscillating AB and imprecise speed control during landing approach on my umodified CH FlightStick. The problem was that the mechanical clicker in the FS "digitalizes" the throttle because there are only 16 possible possitions. According to the SH rep on GEnie, F3 itself is able to detect more than 40 different throttle positions. I opend the FS (the screws are under the base's rubber feet), removed the plastic clicker piece, and now I have much better control in F3 and other simulators. - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 69 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sun Feb 20 14:46:26 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05974; Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:46:12 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sat, 19 Feb 94 19:03 PST Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 19:38 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I70 Content-Length: 16259 X-Lines: 442 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 70 Sat Feb 19 19:03:31 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Falcon 3.04 patch schao@monet.uwaterloo.ca (Stewart C Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast polymap.zip wahi0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W falcon3 "VOID WORK(TIME,EFFORT)" Re: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon p Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Thanks for the replies... Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: FALCON3 Patch Ver 3.04 Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: FALCON3 Patch 304 wrt OFT Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: f3.04 Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Falcon 3.04 patch Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( ------------------------------------------------------------ From: schao@monet.uwaterloo.ca (Stewart Chao) Subject: Falcon 3.04 patch Does the Falcon 3.04 patch also include the 3.03 patch? The 3.04 patch is one 1.2Mb file, while the 3.03 is two 1.4Mb files. I'm assuming that this is because 3.03 patch includes Falcon, Tiger and Mig, by please correct me if I am wrong. Stewart Chao ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: Re: Hornet, Flight Model Bugs Cherra wrote: >I don't know anything about models for the atmosphere but I know that the >speed of sound does largely depend on the *density* of a medium. Obviously >for the atmosphere the density is a function of the temperature. But it is also >a function of the altitude. So considering the speed the sound to be a constant >above a certain altitude is a big simplification. Just consider the limit: in >space there is no atmosphere, so no speed of sound :-). Whoa, hold on a sec! Time for a little gas dynamics refresher course! For an ideal gas, the speed of sound is given by: a = (gamma*R*T)^0.5 where gamma is the ratio of specific heats (1.4 for a diatomic, 1.67 for a monatomic gas), R is the universal gas constant divided by the molecular weight and T is temperature. Density is NOT a factor, strange as it may seem. Sound speed is a fcn of altitude only in that T is a fcn of altitude. Well, the molecular composition may change a smidgen as you get some atoms at higher altitudes. But that's way high, and also a miniscule effect. The standard atm has T at a constant -69.7F from 36K to about 66K ft (unless the standard has changed), so for this range, sound speed is also a constant (968 ft/s). >Anyway this brings me to my question: How is the performance of a plane rated? >In view of the above it is obvious that a mach number is pretty meaningless >without additional information like (first and foremost) the altitude. Does, Stuart, I'm sure, will answer this better than I ever could. But mach no isn't meaningless by any means. For gas dynamic effects, it is a lot more meaningful than velocity. Density, velocity, temperature, and P changes across normal shocks are determined by the inlet mach number. Ditto for these variables in many other flow types. These all come into play in determining flight and engine characteristics. Take it away Stuart... Dave masten@beta.lanl.gov ------------------------------- From: wahi0001@gold.tc.umn.edu Subject: polymap.zip Howdy. I recently got the first release of my IA/RF Theatre re-map programme finished, and sent to onion.rain.com as 'polymap.zip' in /pub/falcon3/incoming. Included in the zip file are the executable, C source code (pretty ragged at this point), and a small document file, which will be appended to this list. *NOTE* This is the first release of polymap, and there are a number of documented 'oddities', and surely a few 'undocumented' ones. If you notice bugs, have a suggestion, complaint or a question, I'm looking for response. Send any mail to me at 'jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org'. POLYMAP.DOC follows ------------------- Polymap Polymap is a shareware utility that allows you to re-map Red Flag and Instant Action theatres from the default of Nellis and Kuwait. Polymap works with Falcon3, MiG29, and Hornet. All versions of MiG29 and Hornet are supported. Falcon versions F3.02 through F3.04 are supported. When mapping Hornet Red Flag theatres, the file "NELLIS.MSF" is copied to the new theatre. i.e., if you re-map RF for India, "NELLIS.MSF" is copied to "INDIA.MSF". I'm not positive just what the .MSF file DOES, but Hornet won't function without it. You'll notice that the any theatre that is re-mapped for Red Flag will not be available for regular missions while it is mapped for RF. I'm not sure the extent of this; it MAY not interfere with running campaigns, and it might not be applicable to all three executables. This is the first release of Polymap. It DOES modify the executable. Backing up FALCON3.EXE, MIG29.EXE, and HORNET.EXE would be a prudent idea. Polymap was designed under Turbo-C V2.0. The source is included; keep in mind that this is the first version, and I haven't 'prettied' the code up any. If you discover bugs, inconsistencies, or have suggestions, I can be reached at "JAY.LEE@MSBBS.MN.ORG". Good luck, and enjoy! ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Re: Hornet Flight Model, Bugs >From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) >>Rob said: >>The sources I've seen say the F-15E _is_ indeed FBW. Stu said: >Sorry Rob, your sources are wrong. The CAS in the F-15 is a sort of FBW >system, but it can't do the job on its own. Its got to have the mechanical I'll throw my puny hat into the ring as well. _The Great Book of Modern Warplanes_ gives a good deal of info the F-15 CAS, and the fact that the aircraft is fully flyable with the CAS disengaged. Stuart has told me before that it handles like crap then, but in the _GBOMW_ the first pilots that flew the F-15 thought it flew exceptionally well without the CAS and downright incredible with it. Of course, that was 20 some odd years ago. My how time flies :-) (pun intended) But, more conclusive that _GBOMW_ I offer _Jane's Avionics 1990-91_. This tome has different sections for radar, ecm, flight control, etc, etc. It has two separate flight control sections, one called Control Augmentation Systems (ie, CAS) and the other is Fly By Wire Systems. The F-15[A-E] are all referenced under the CAS section. I figure if the folk's at Jane's thought it important enough to warrant this distinction then there must indeed be a serious distinction. Tom "KC" Basham PS. Later, Greg wrote: >... I would like to take a survey >of game cards that people use. Also, include whether or not,the >icon goes to the limits of the calib window. Thanks... I use the Thrusty ACM card, and the little F-16 goes to the full limits of the calib box. ------------------------------- From: "VOID WORK(TIME,EFFORT)" Subject: falcon3 Having just got into falcon 3 again I have a few problems. 1. dropping cluster bombs to low... This always gives me NWS damage indicated, but when I try to lower the undercarriage, I get no response. Is this normal? should I just RTFM minimum bombing height. 2. UH60's I am playing the Pakistan scenario. I have this rule, it goes like this - any aircraft that refuses to let me lock onto it is an enemy. For some reason I cannot lock onto UH60's. The choppers continually frustrate radar lock and IFF. This must freak pilots in a real battle, as they constantly try to identify an unknown aircraft. I have a similar problem with stealth fighters, but I can understand that. 3. Is there a falconr for the latest Falcon.(3.03?). 4. Having played mig29 only a little, I am very dissapointed by the bombing method. Is this really accurate, or is it a little commie bashing by SH. I also find the mig29 unplayable due to trim problems. Perhaps this is just me. ------------------------------- From: att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: CH Throttle Wheel rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) writes: >>Anyway, if I tried for 100% >>MIL power, it would oscillate between 100% and AB1. If I set the power >>to AB2, it would oscillate between AB2-AB3. This oscillation is pretty >>annoying. There are big jumps between the afterburner settings, so your oscillation must be pretty large. >I ran into the oscillating AB and imprecise speed control during landing >approach on my umodified CH FlightStick. The problem was that the >mechanical clicker in the FS "digitalizes" the throttle because there are >only 16 possible possitions. According to the SH rep on GEnie, F3 itself >is able to detect more than 40 different throttle positions. They are being conservative. Without trying, I can get precision down to about 1.5% with the throttle wheel of my FSPro. With a bit of effort, I can set the throttle to just about any percentage I desire. This fine control makes carrier landings much easier. Speaking of carrier landings, I must have just been whining before when I complained about how difficult they became in Hornet 1.01. I've since nailed three traps in a row on the first pass with two good and one fair rating. I just had to learn to be extremely careful with the stick. Setting the deadzone down to 5% with TM-STICK helped a lot also. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: *IMPORTANT* IP address for onion.rain.com changing Sometime over the next couple of weeks, the IP address of onion.rain.com and neon.rain.com will be changing. The old/new addresses are: HOSTNAME OLD NEW onion.rain.com 147.28.0.161 199.2.109.17 neon.rain.com 147.28.0.163 199.2.109.18 I'm not sure of the exact effective date at this time, but it should be before Monday, March 7th. The DNS will reflect this change, as will the banners in the digests. On the bright side, when this is complete, the Internet connection here should be faster, and much more reliable. (yeahhhhh! :-) Just FYI, -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@neon.rain.com ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patche P> However, with the new m103.zip patch, I got the same problem (Data error P> reading drive C:) and tried to do the same trick. The patch program reporte P> no errors but now my Mig29 is hosed. It runs the intro ok, and gets to the P> config screen, but when I go into Instant Action, the cockpit is almost all P> black, with the odd dial, and a well-hung system. This is because you're missing a file called COCKPIT.MIG, if you are moving around files from the RTPatch and manually installing them, try to get that file over there also. This is due to the new G-Limiter in MiG-29 1.03 where a new COCKPIT file had to be updated. P> Anyway, I'd like to reinstall Mig29 from scratch. What files can I delete P> without disturbing my Falcon, which patched just fine? It's a mess in that P> directory, what with F3, M29 and OFT (haven't got Hornet yet). If they'd pu P> them in separate directories, it would make maintenance much easier! If you move the file that i told you about to your current directory, everything should work fine and no need to reinstall! otherwise, it's really complicated if yuo want to remove MiG, better delete the whole directory and install from scratch. Hope this helps! Gabe "Joker" Turk SimNet: 510:415/1 JetNet: 30:415/120 Internet: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Thanks for the replies... Ok guys, thanks for all who replied, I will try to answer any question that I may answer, but please understand that I am not here as Tech support or official sopkesman for SH etc... you should probably address official questions to Neil Johnston. But this doesn't mean I can't talk to you of course :) Let's say that I'd like to hear (and compile) your suggestions for future flight sim related issues, and since I'm a sim nut like many of you I'm sure we'll have some interesting stories to talk about.. Thanks! Gabe "Joker" Turk SimNet: 510:415/1 JetNet: 30:415/120 Internet: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: FALCON3 Patch Ver 3.04 C> Well, I guess this pretty well explains why you were pissed when I was C> ragging about padlocking the carrier during landings... But, will this C> EVER work? Doing practice landings in RED FLAG; everything worked great. C> It was dissapointing that I was not able to properly padlock the carrier I don't remember being upset about anything here but the guy who was talking about landing on the water and not using the catapult to take off.. I don't think it was you, but anyways I have no info on the Carrier padlock at the present time. C> doing a great job, & have publicly flamed people on the falcon list C> who dared to say otherwise. Your customer support for customers, (as C> far as patches go) cannot be beat in my opinion. Yea, cust support guys are doing a super job.. I'll forward your message to them, i'm sure they'll appreciate the good words :) Thanks! Gabe "Joker" Turk SimNet: 510:415/1 JetNet: 30:415/120 Internet: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: FALCON3 Patch 304 wrt OFT J> From: jimmy@lj.sd.ray.com (Jimmy Chan at Raytheon Semiconductor La Jolla) J> To: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net J> J> Hi Gabe, J> J> If during the first stage of 304 upgrade -- most likely during OFT check -- J> file upgrade went on until it said something like "correct file not found, J> but file with same name found, no updating done", what do you think the J> problem is? If you don't have OFT, delete HARPOON.BIN then run F3UPDATE, it will work fine, otherwise, try to find out what file it was looking for right before the error occured and let me know please. Thanks! Gabe "Joker" Turk SimNet: 510:415/1 JetNet: 30:415/120 Internet: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: f3.04 J> From: jstewart@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey Stewart) J> To: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net J> 3.04. I heard that f3.03 only fixed audio bugs. What about f3.04? I've got J> setup working pretty well and don't want to risk introducing any joystick or J> other probs. if it won't get me anything significant. What's the poop from t There was no audio bug fixes addressed in 3.04 the list was posted here earlier by Neil Johnston, check it out! or read the README.TXT from F304.ZIP Gabe "Joker" Turk SimNet: 510:415/1 JetNet: 30:415/120 Internet: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: Falcon 3.04 patch S> From: schao@monet.UWaterloo.ca (Stewart Chao) S> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com (Falcon 3 list) S> S> Does the Falcon 3.04 patch also include the 3.03 patch? The 3.04 S> patch is one 1.2Mb file, while the 3.03 is two 1.4Mb files. I'm S> assuming that this is because 3.03 patch includes Falcon, Tiger and S> Mig, by please correct me if I am wrong. The F304.ZIP (Falcon 3.04 patch) will upgrade _ANY_ version of Falcon3 that you have. Gabe ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 70 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Tue Feb 22 04:56:43 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([147.28.0.161]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10590; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:56:13 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 21 Feb 94 06:26 PST Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:03 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I71 Content-Length: 8531 X-Lines: 235 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 71 Mon Feb 21 06:26:07 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Sound Card and Mig vs Falcon Advice ENG_WWE@LUB001.LAMAR.EDU Falcon 3.04 question msjav@acs.bu.edu (Mohammad Shahbaz) VOID_WORK jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) .04 update to ver .0 HIETT@caer.uky.edu Speed of sound Chera Bekker F304 patch problems DECvp our highest volume product Subject: Speed of sound [ This is starting to get close to off-topic... -Jeff ] David Masten wrote: > Cherra wrote: My name is Chera, but o.k. :) > Whoa, hold on a sec! > Time for a little gas dynamics refresher course! > For an ideal gas, the speed of sound is given by: > a = (gamma*R*T)^0.5 > where gamma is the ratio of specific heats (1.4 for a diatomic, 1.67 for > a monatomic gas), R is the universal gas constant divided by the molecular > weight and T is temperature. Density is NOT a factor, strange as it may > seem. Ahem, David is absolutely right for an *ideal* gas. Considering however the fact that for a *real* gas like N2 the gamma varies (slowly) with the pressure P (in GPascal) as: Gamma = 1.4006 + 21.8*P (Heat and Thermodynamics, Zemansky & Dittman page 117) and that P is a measure for the density, there consequently is a dependency on the density. I don't want to get to into nit-picking (sp?) about how well the atmosphere is described by an ideal gas. I guess if it is used by the engineers working in the field it is good enough , especially above 36.000 ft. I must confess that when I wrote my original post I had the speed of sound in liquid water (1552 - 1180 m/s) compared to speed of sound in steam (490 m/s). This is ofcourse not a good example because there is a phase transition involved. Enough said. Chera 'Napalm' Bekker H.G. Bekker (bekker@tn.utwente.nl) Voice: +3153893107 ELTN 5214 (Applied Physics) Fax: +3153354003 University of Twente PGP public key - finger: The Netherlands bekker@slater.tn.utwente.nl ------------------------------- From: DECvp our highest volume product Subject: F304 patch problems On my system the patch update fails with the error "can't find sector". I ran scandisk and it foudn no errors, I deltree'd falcon3 and reinstalled, same problem. The mig103 patch installed fine (love the g limiter!) and falcon runs but the patch refuses to install. I haven't tried a manual patch yet. I am ftp'ing a new copy of the patch as we speak. Anyone else have this problem? thanks dave ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 71 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Wed Feb 23 11:48:38 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([147.28.0.161]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16456; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:45:05 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Tue, 22 Feb 94 17:54 PST Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:03 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I72 Content-Length: 10375 X-Lines: 284 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 72 Tue Feb 22 17:54:48 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Gameport survey status. cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Analog throttle cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Problem with coolie hat on TM FCS Life is like an analogy Tailhook on Viper Robear ------------------------------------------------------------ From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Gameport survey status. I recieved 4 more replies to my gameport survey last night. So... The survey is still open for participation:) One thing is certain. The little icon had *BETTER* go to the limits of the calib window. I was messing around with the CH AUTO III setup program. Once the card was calibrated to the "designed" configuration, the icon did indeed go to the extents of the window. Without this, you loose about 35% of range. Included below is my running total for the survey. This is bound to stir some intrest as people want to prove one card over another. Apparently the CH game card isn't nearly as popular as I thought. The headings are fairly self explainitory. I/O, is the normal gameport that is in nearly all I/O drive controller cards. SB TM-ACM CH-III GRAVIS GUS IBM-EZ I/O 8 6 3 1 1 1 2 Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Analog throttle I explained in issue #68 about how my analog throttle would oscilate between 100%-MIL and AB1. Or even AB2-AB3. Well somehow the throttle wheel on my CH Pro was very stable. No oscilating. I first suspected different pots. Nope, they are all the same. What I did find, was that the wheel had more throw than my analog throttle (y-axis of joystick B). So the wheel has more range of motion & therefore control. I remember, someone recently spoke of the need for *MORE* clicks in an analog throttle control. This is for a finer adjustment, that I do believe is nessisary. So... I found the culpret, now all I have to do is fix it. IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING! Greg Cisko P.S. TM may have a future WCS II customer :) ------------------------------- From: Life is like an analogy Subject: Problem with coolie hat on TM FCS I seem to be having a problem with my new TM FCS stick on Falcon3. I have all new versions (F3.04, H1.01, etc). The problem is with the coolie hat. I calibrated it as specified, but the right and up positions appear to BOTH give me the right view -- the front view is not accessible. After some experimentaion, I found that giving the opposite input to the cal routine (i.e. giving up for down, left for right, etc) allowed me to get the following: back - front view / raised front view forward - padlock left - right right - padlock (again!) So forward (up) and right still seem to give the same effect, but at least I can now get front, padlock and right (to see the warning lights). I suspected my stick might be bad, but when using Gunship 2000 I got the correct views as advertised (front, mast, left, right) -- thus I think my stick is sending the right stuff. Has anyone else seen this? I regret I don't have info as to whether it works on versions prior to F3.04 (pre- TM-STICK calibration, etc), as I just got the FCS over the weekend after upgrading to 3.04. On a positive note, the combination of the new (TM-provided) stick code, and the FCS (I set at 15% null zones) gives me *very* smooth control. Carrier landings are now possible :-) Any comments/suggestions re the coolie hat problem are very welcome! Best Rgds, Jimi "Doozer" Ibbett. ------------------------------- From: Midn Peter Vincent Brahan Subject: Mouse on Hornet Can anyone give me some help on how to get my mouse to work for Hornet? I am able to get it working on Falcon3, but not on Hornet. I appreciate your help. Very Respectfully, Peter Brahan, MIDN, USN ------------------------------- From: DAVE@abels.itg.ti.com Subject: MIG29 and com usage I tried to set up a modem link this weekend with a buddy of mine. We were successful in getting falcon3 to connect up and flew a couple of head to heads. Then I tried to use Mig and when I went and accepted the settings it went straight to "waiting for other side to connect". It did not ask wether I wanted to use the modem defaults or not. I can't use the defaults. Any suggestions? Thanks, Dave "OTTER" Abels ------------------------------- From: intgp1!bash@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas W Basham +1 708 979 6336) Subject: Dumping stuff before trap Gabe: >> Regarding the jettisoning of stores, your new scheme to dump them when >> the LSO picks you up is probably WORSE than the old system of dumping >They are dumped when the LSO says "Deck is clear", I don't think it's worse You missed the point, Gabe. At least with the original way, if you don't fly to the last waypoint you don't dump stores and you save that stuff for future battles. This new way, it sounds like there is *no* way to *avoid* dumping stores. No matter what you do, the bombs are going for a swim. That is worse. >This is a good point and will probably be raised when time comes. It should be >only dealing with the human player; wingmen will keep the same routine they >have right now (very stable now on landings). OK, so you have 40 AMRAAMs left. Middle of the war, you got the enmey on the run. YOu send six planes with 4 AMRAAMs each up. You (the human) fire all four. Your wingmen collectively fire 2. That's 18 missiles left. *splash*. Make that 22 AMRAAMs in the stock. You just cut your supply in half because of this problem. 24 missiles gone but only 6 launched. You might as well just push them off the elevator into the drink and save the extra fuel needed to get them airborne. ;-) The problem is: most wingmen come home with waaaaay too many stores on their wings. If they start dumping stuff you're gonna run out of weapons before the campaign ends. Your fighting a logistics/stores battle that the real Navy doesn't. At least there's KCC tools to restock the carrier. ==== >From: jeeem@aol.com >But Tom, then you might come in too heavy to land. It seems to me that the o>bvious solution is for _fuel_ to be jettisoned automatically when you start This would be better, although I would prefer a manual command to jettison fuel over automatic *anything*. Tom "KC" Basham ------------------------------- From: George Sobala Subject: F16s do not land on carriers > From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) > > MiG trimming: It's just you. :) I felt the same way when I started > flying it. Use realistic mode. If you haven't got a TM-FCS or CH-Flightstick > with a coolie hat, you have my sympathy. I don't believe the craft can be > effectively flown without trim controls immediately at hand. Perhaps you want > to try the tm-stick routines; it might make flight a BIT easier.. I just use a plain old CH flightstick and I really have no trouble. > I've seen photo's (and a couple of the plastic models of the Viper I've > built) show the plane to have a tail-hook. Is this ever used? Stuart? If it > DOES have a functional tail-hook, I'd think it would make a FINE carrier-based > aircraft. Sure'd be easier to jockey down, anyhoo.. (The VIRTUAL Falcon, > anyways. :) > Aarghh! Not this again. The thread from hell. It ran and ran and ran on rec.aviation.military. It seems ... No. No. And thrice No. The F16 has never, will never, be carrier capable. Yes, the (your) Navy did buy a few. No, they are not, will not, be for carrier ops. The landing gear / airframe just isn't built for those kind of shocks. Am I not right, Stuart? No - on second thoughts, silence will be taken as an affirmative! :-) -- George Sobala ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Problem with coolie hat on TM FCS | | I seem to be having a problem with my new TM FCS stick on Falcon3. I have all | new versions (F3.04, H1.01, etc). The problem is with the coolie hat. I | calibrated it as specified, but the right and up positions appear to BOTH | give me the right view -- the front view is not accessible. | [stuff deleted] | I suspected my stick might be bad, but when using Gunship 2000 I got the | correct views as advertised (front, mast, left, right) -- thus I think my | stick is sending the right stuff. | grab tmsa.exe from an ftp site.. I think onion has it.. | On a positive note, the combination of the new (TM-provided) stick code, and | the FCS (I set at 15% null zones) gives me *very* smooth control. Carrier | landings are now possible :-) | make sure you don't give y2(or is it x2) a null zone.. that's the hat. | Any comments/suggestions re the coolie hat problem are very welcome! If all else fails email buzz hoffman and ask him for a new hat (takes 5 mins to replace.) Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. krismon@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: Robear Subject: Tailhook on Viper Many USAF planes have arresting hooks, for use in emergency landings. If you fly out of a civilian/military airport, like Okaloosa County Air Terminal (Eglin), you can see the wires by the runway. I guess it is for really fast landings, or really short runways. David Pipes ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 72 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Feb 24 03:21:45 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([147.28.0.161]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18618; Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:21:04 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 23 Feb 94 07:30 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:20 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I73 Content-Length: 16324 X-Lines: 374 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 73 Wed Feb 23 07:30:26 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: f304 patch etc. harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patch Carl Pettypiece 92 Subject: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patches I wrote: >P> However, with the new m103.zip patch, I got the same problem (Data error P> reading drive C:) and tried to do the same trick. The patch program reporte P> no errors but now my Mig29 is hosed. It runs the intro ok, and gets to the P> config screen, but when I go into Instant Action, the cockpit is almost all P> black, with the odd dial, and a well-hung system. then Gabe replied: >This is because you're missing a file called COCKPIT.MIG, if you are moving >around files from the RTPatch and manually installing them, try to get that >file over there also. This is due to the new G-Limiter in MiG-29 1.03 where a >new COCKPIT file had to be updated. Well this was exactly the problem. I simply had to to rerun the gopatch program again (since the mig29.exe had already been updated) and it bypassed all the files except for cockpit.mig, which installed correctly this time. Phew, I didn't feel like reinstalling everything again -- and then of course still having the same problem. What's going on anyway? On a semi-related topic, I can't get my Doom to patch with the new version since it uses the same patch software. Is DOS reporting the amount of free disk space wrong? (I'm using doublespace, but it tells me there's another 40+ meg free) or is this a quirk with the patch program? Anyway, thanks for your help, it saved me hours of hassles. Now if I could only fly the thing! Someone mentioned that you need a coolie hat on the jotstick (a la TM or CH Pro) to fly the Mig efficiently. Well, I don't have such a device, I don't have the dough. I have a standard CH stick (which is a beautiful thing, I might add). Well, try as I might, I can't stop this baby from bouncing around. I seem to be overcompensating with the trim, but since there are no indicators (or am I wrong?) I can't tell what my trims are doing. I have managed to bag a Viper with guns, but it was a surprise attack. As soon as I start trying to turn with him, I'm toast. I usually end up eating sand 'cause the trims are out to lunch. And finally, when will GUS native support be patched in? (someone pinch me, I must be dreaming...) Thanks again! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@csd.uwo.ca) Disclaimer: Hell, I don't Department of Computer Science even know if these are MY University of Western Ontario opinions! London, Ontario, Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clever quote goes here --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- From: Steve Szymanski Subject: Falcon on CD I had sent this question in before, so if you've seen it already, please disregard. Thanks! ************ Since the mention of having Falcon on a CD, a question has come to mind. Will the game simply be copied onto the CD and you download it to your HD or will it be like other CD games, and you need to access the CD? This becomes important when you consider the amount of main memory required to run Falcon. I have to have three different autoexec and config files around. When I run the PC normally I have one set. When I want to play games I overlay another set. When I play falcon, I use the third set. Even with memmaker, there is no way that I can get to the minimal required since the CD driver takes up a fair amount of memory. Soooo. Either new cd drivers will have to be written, or perhaps Falcon will need less memory? :^) I don't think so! Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Szymanski Bell Communications Research sjs@bae.bellcore.com Phone: (908) 699-5026 444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 1C-206 Piscataway, NJ 08854 ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: Mig bombing, Buffs, Jamming I have a campaing in Bosnia with Mig. Isn't it odd how the odds seem always to be on the other side? I think I have had several good missions, but still the Nato pushes me back like never before. When you are on the other side the enemy is so powerful and has plenty of arsenal... Last night, in the game too, at 23:00 I was to intercept some Aardvarks and F-4:s escorting them. I myself never had an aim on them, but wingmen took some bogeys out. Later I shot down some F-15's wandering my patrol area. BUT in the debrefing they said "you didn't manage to shoot down a single enemy" !!! It had counted several kills to us! (2*F111 2*F-4 2*F15) I know I was perhaps a little bit too late, but it was just right after the takeoff, 'we' saw the bogeys right over there... Unfair! How come the leaders think we succeed if the bombs are in flight when we get into the planes? Ok, I know, you DON'T have time in real situations either, and that was very exciting and challenging. But If I fly the F-16, why don't we THEN have such outrageous striking capabilities? Well, just a notice. The other missions was to attack our field the Nato had just previously captured. There was 16 (!) Nato units there already, and they had had the site for six hours maybe! And to use Mig-29 for precision (?) bombing!! The had generously arranged a TWO fighter (mirage III's) cap...! And again we lost many good Soviet youths there... (Excellent squadron I have there: 3 or 4 pilots with all the skills over 85!) BTW does the ratings improve in combat flights? In some earlier version you could train a pilot into 100 with some three RF missions... And then how do you use Buffs in real situations? I thougt they are used for HIIIGH altitude bombing, when the air superiority has been achived. It does't seem that way in Falcon... And what about jamming? I am reading the book Red Storm Rising, and there they use radar jamming very much. How does it work in real life? I know something (not too much) about electromagnetic radiation, and even if you can flood all the frequencies the radar uses, shouldn't they block the incoming direction only? Or perhaps a few degrees around it? That would be just trumpeting that here we come! Are there any other ways to jam a radar from long distance? >From very short you might even scorch the radar altogether, right? I think that the modern radars have supposedly good resolution with direction. So what comes? In falcon I use radar quite often, even on sneaky missions, perhaps 30 or 40 miles is the longest I fly without peeking once or twice. How about YOU? T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Speed of sound / flight profiles > From: Chera Bekker > To: falcon3@onion.rain.com > Subject: Speed of sound / flight profiles > > I don't know anything about models for the atmosphere but I know that the > speed of sound does largely depend on the *density* of a medium. Obviously > for the atmosphere the density is a function of the temperature. But it is > also a function of the altitude. So considering the speed the sound to be a > constant above a certain altitude is a big simplification. Just consider the > limit: in space there is no atmosphere, so no speed of sound :-). For aeronautical engineering purposes, the atmosphere is considered an ideal gas, so density doesn't play a role, just temperature. Also, we're talking aircraft here, not space planes. That constant temperture deal extends up to any altitude these aircraft can get to (about 88,000 ft if I remember right). > Anyway this brings me to my question: How is the performance of a plane rated? > In view of the above it is obvious that a mach number is pretty meaningless > without additional information like (first and foremost) the altitude. Does, > for example the USAF, have a standard flight profile for testing new planes? > It would be nice to put the flight models of the Viper, the Fulcrum and > the Hornet through such a flight profile and compare the data with those from > the real planes. Mach number is the most single important factor affecting performance as far as flight condition (Mach No, altitude, speed, AOA, etc.) is concerned. There isn't a standard 1-flight profile, but several standard flight test maneuvers, test procedures (ie. ways for picking the flight conditions), and data reduction and standardization techniques used to compile and evaluate flight test data for all aircraft. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: dumping ord. in H:NSF > From: jeeem@aol.com > Subject: dumping ord. in H:NSF > Content-Length: 653 > > >> but generally pilots dump fuel, not weapons, to recover > >> The bottom line is: NOTHING SHOULD BE JETTISONED > >> AUTOMATICALLY. > > But Tom, then you might come in too heavy to land. It seems to me that the > obvious solution is for _fuel_ to be jettisoned automatically when you start > your landing. This should be pretty easy to implement; we don't really need > any visual or sound effects to accompany it. Just drop the fuel and weight > numbers down low enough to land. We have a total gross weight indication. We ought to be able to dump the fuel ourselves until we get down to the landing weight. BTW, you can't hear anything wrt fuel dumping, at least not in the F-4 or F-16. Never did it in the F/A-18. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: F-15 FCS > From: opus@ihlpf.att.com > Subject: Re: F-15 FCS > > >> The definition I was using would > >> say that if ANY part of that chain is replaced by electrical wires (so > >> you'd need an actuator on the other end), then it's FBW. > > > >That's not the industry standard (an industry I work in btw) defintion of FBW > >Besides that, nothing in the F-15's hydro-mechanical FCS is replaced by > >anything electrical. > > So since my definition is incorrect, it WOULD be possible to remove some of > the hardware and replace it with wires and NOT have a FBW system? The > definition of FBW must be very subtle. I'm sorry, your defintion is right, but it doesn't apply to the F-15, that's what I was trying to say. The CAS doesn't replace anything. You are right, if we completely replace a push rod with an electrical signal we have a FBW system. Sorry about that, I got wrapped up in applying this to the F-15 and the part about actuator requirement and didn't look at the definition standing alone. > >> Now that I've stated my definition more clearly, I'll bet you will agree > >> that it IS just semantics. > > > >No I don't agree that it's semantics. > > Well of course not, because my underlying assumption was wrong! Thanks for > being complete, but once you shot down my lynchpin, the rest fell apart very > nicely on it's own. I bet you're pissed now huh? :) ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: .04 update to ver .0 > From: HIETT@caer.uky.edu > Subject: .04 update to ver .0 > > I HOPE THE GUYS AT SH ARE LISTENING....WHAT HAPPENED TO MY LOCH NESS > MONSTER AT THE STARTUP...if I can't figure a way to get back Nessie > then I'm going back to ver 3.0. I mean heck we gotta have priorities > and I actually paid for that monster a long time ago!!!!! Geez Sirpo, you been in the dark ages . They took Nessie out when OFT was released. I didn't get a good reason why. I liked it. :) ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Tailhook on Viper > From: Robear > To: falcon3@onion.rain.com > Subject: Tailhook on Viper > > Many USAF planes have arresting hooks, for use in emergency landings. If > you fly out of a civilian/military airport, like Okaloosa County Air > Terminal (Eglin), you can see the wires by the runway. > > I guess it is for really fast landings, or really short runways. > > David Pipes > Basically for landing emergencies that might result in you departing the runway. The above two citations, plus a single main gear down and locked are examples. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 73 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Thu Feb 24 12:15:01 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([147.28.0.161]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19680; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:03:30 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 23 Feb 94 17:16 PST Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:29 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I74 Content-Length: 11234 X-Lines: 281 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 74 Wed Feb 23 17:16:06 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Re: F16s do not land on carriers slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( Viper tailhook slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil ( FCS hat problem fixed Life is like an analogy Hornet in the UK & patches to make "Martin J. Smallridge" From: George Sobala > Subject: F16s do not land on carriers > > The landing gear / airframe just isn't built for those kind of shocks. > Am I not right, Stuart? No - on second thoughts, silence will be taken > as an affirmative! :-) > > -- George Sobala Ha ha, very funny . What's that mean George, I talk (type) too much. :) BTW, yes you are right. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 > ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Viper tailhook > From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) > > I've seen photo's (and a couple of the plastic models of the Viper I've > built) show the plane to have a tail-hook. Is this ever used? Stuart? If it > DOES have a functional tail-hook, I'd think it would make a FINE carrier-based > aircraft. Sure'd be easier to jockey down, anyhoo.. (The VIRTUAL Falcon, > anyways. :) That's only for landing emergencies, on a standard runway, that may cause you to departe the runway, ie only one main gear down and locked, hard over rudder, etc. No way the Viper's spindle gear takes a 5 deg approach. BTW, the F/A-18 is much easier to land in real life than the F-16 (at least for me anyway). Never tried either on a carrier but I'm sure it would prove the same. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: Life is like an analogy Subject: FCS hat problem fixed I found the solution to my TM FCS coolie hat problem, and thought others might benifit if I shared the fix in this forum. The simple solution was to lower the speed of my [Kraft] gamecard from 16MHz to 8MHz. The hat now works perfectly. The 8MHz value was suggested by my Kraft CSOFT utility that has the option to automatically set the speed having read the stick's low/right value. Both GS2000 and AOTP hat operation was fine at 16MHz. Is the SH/TM calibrate routine a little more, ah, sensitive? I suspect it may be related to SH/TM expecting a value of about 82 for centre stick. The card speed will affect that value. A fellow Falcon flier in my company mailed me he obtained the "82" figure (as reported by TMSA) at 7MHz card speed, so his results and mine seem to match. Can anyone familiar with joysticks/cards explain the benifits, if any, of higher or lower card speeds? I didn't notice any less degree of control (granularity) when running at 8MHz vs. 16MHz. Flight control seemed just as good. Best Rgds, Jimi "Doozer" Ibbett [court martialed last night for accidentally hosing an F-15 - FOX UNIFORM] ------------------------------- From: Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein (LS2) Subject: Hornet flight models Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I couldn't find it in the mosst recent issues: The "difficult" and "realistic" flight models of HORNET appear to be quite similar to me, in fact I'm not able to tell them apart. Is there any difference at all? They both feel similar to F3's HiFI, while Hornet's "average" model feels much like F3's Complex. Some other thoughts on Hornet: Am I the only one who thinks that Hornets user interface (outside the cockpit) must have been implemented by a color-blind programmer? Black mouse-pointers on dark grey background, black letters on dark grey-green background (those LCD like letters), black letters across dark brown photos (campaign report screen), blue-and-yellow letters in the "sat downlink" screens ........... Okay, here are more serious problems: -Jettisoning centerline stores will drop the ECM (it's internal!). -After touch down on the carrier, the sound hangs frequently. This would not be too serious if every touch down meant landing, but to be honest, most of the time it's BOLTER! -You can damage your *air*-brakes by setting your wheel brakes and throttle up to AB 5 on the ground (tried this in IA to re-take off from the carrier after having landed there. Of course, it's better use the hook to hold your aircraft back while spooling up). Nevertheless, I still like HORNET, but I find it difficult to adjust to the new flight models (I use COMPLEX with F3). I tend to give up airspeed too quickly, I really have to learn about energy management. To be honest, I have difficulties splashing class B fighters like Mirage III and J7s. Is there a consensus on whether/when to use the AOA and G-force limiter? I tried fighting with both disabled, but this only worsed my energy problems. Heinz-Bernd "Bicycle Repair Man" Eggenstein ------------------------------- From: Kevin Franden Subject: Patches, Addons, and extra amenities Hello All! I've been lax about upgrading (I'm running 3.01.1) because my success rate went waaaaay up when I discovered falccalc and f3pdlk. Where can I get f3padlk and (most importantly) falccalc for 3.04 (or 3.03)? Thanks in advance. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kevin Franden Informix Software, Inc. 16011 College Blvd kevinf@informix.com Lenexa, KS. 66219 uunet!infmx!kevinf #include fprintf(DISCLAIMER,"I said what I said and not my employer\n"); =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Carpe Diem ------------------------------- From: "Martin J. Smallridge" Subject: Hornet in the UK & patches to make bombing runways realistic Hi, I've just resubscribed to this newslist having also been on IHHD yonks ago. But I'm having a small problem with regard to getting a copy of Hornet. Basically I was informed by Microprose that they were unsure if they would be marketing Hornet over here in the Uk because of the fact that it was just 'another add-on' and due to the rather tender subject of British involvementin Bosnia (the add on scenario). Hmm tricky eh. Well anyway I would like to get my hands ona copy of Hornet (legally!) and would really like to know where I can get one, how much, etc... if you can help I'd really appreciate it and yes I am prepared to go to the lengths of importing a copy. Second question is that which has turned up in the faq, ie: the bombing of Runways and Railyards. It's simple realy but is there ever going to be a patch that allows you to hit the runway (as they suggest in the manual) ie: in the middle where you are really going to be putting it out of action. Also will they ever shift the guided weapons point of aim for railyards so that your wingmen can hit the target and complete the mission. If the answer is no, then can someone please say 'why'. Thanks much appreciated, oh and as an afterword could someone please email me privately the address for IHHD, I'd like to re-subscribe there too. Thanks.... Martin ------------------------------- From: hellfire@acs.bu.edu (Peter ng) Subject: Squadron Utils Updates are all fine and welcome but all the constant updates are getting somewhat annoying because I can't transfer my squadron to the newer updates one Is there an utility that will at least allow me to edit the new squadrons ( Falcon v3.04, Mig29 v1.01 and Hornet 1.01) so I can reflect my old squadron abilities and medals? Any info will be greatly appreciated. +--+------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--+ |00| Peter Ng - hellfire@acs.bu.edu |<<|^^| |--+------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--| | \ / This space is currently under a permanent | | ____\___/O\___/____ state of renovation unless I find something | | \_\\_//_/ witty or cute to put here. | | I'm not morbid! I just like the color black! | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------- From: k138836@ee.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi) Subject: TM-stick routines for other sticks? I myself like to keep it challenging, and I don't like the idea of dead zone, not with my Flightstick. It has enough accuracy to handle the older routines too. Has anyone tried the TM stickpatches with other sticks? I have this idea that you might use the patches, you just don't use the buttons and gimmicks you have! (Ch Fstc has the Y-axis throttle wheel so...) But I was just wondering... Happy hunting, and minimal losses! T.Korhonen *** What do you do with happiness? *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Why, you hand it off, ** Physics & Something *** of course! *** ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patche P> Well this was exactly the problem. I simply had to to rerun the gopatch P> program again (since the mig29.exe had already been updated) and it bypassed P> Anyway, thanks for your help, it saved me hours of hassles. Now if I could Hey, my pleasure! anytime I can do that, I'll be more than happy to assist you guys. P> same patch software. Is DOS reporting the amount of free disk space wrong? P> (I'm using doublespace, but it tells me there's another 40+ meg free) or P> is this a quirk with the patch program? The only reports I heard were from non-OFT users who tried to install the patch and got the problem... nothing reported about hard disk space size etc.. I'll check it out tomorrow anyways and see what I can find. Gabe@SimNet ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 74 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 26 15:16:28 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([147.28.0.161]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04479; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:13:23 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 25 Feb 94 17:40 PST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:19 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: [RESEND] Falcon3 Digest V5 : I75 Status: RO X-Status: This digest was truncated due to a silly SMTP-izm, and is being resent --Jeff Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 75 Fri Feb 25 06:43:22 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: old CH joystick - finally working! walkersc@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Beginners Questions James Neill Re: Beginners Questions Kris Ong F3 & GUS "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: Beginners Questions I'm new to this list and Falcon 3.0 itself. So I have a few question (don't we all). 1) After reading the FAQ I decided to do the "Get more detail on the planes" thing. I don't really want to copy OBJECTS onto SOBJECTS. As what's the point in seeing more detial, if the machine can crash any moment. I've tried free up as much memory as possible, and doing the "loadhigh falcon3" thing, but it doesn't work. I can wangle about 614K on my MSDOSv5 4MB machine. My CONFIG files look a bit like this (sorry they're not exact but my machine is at home, and I'm at University). CONFIG.SYS c:\windows\himem.sys c:\windows\emm386.exe 2768? frame=e000 dos=high,umb files=30 buffers=30 AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER= blah..blah..blah .. .. .. d: cd games\falcon3 loadhigh falcon3 I understand that you need lots of memory to do this, but what kind base memory or EMS. Any thoughts 2) I've purchased OFT (but it hasn't arrived yet - mail order), if I ftp the f304.zip file from onion.rain.com or cactus.org, will this update OFT (which will probably need updating) aswell as my Falcon 3.03. Or do I need to get a seperate update for OFT. 3) What's this "Hornet" thing is it seperate a seperate sim or an add on disk for Falcon 3. Because I live in England we're always behind the US when it comes to software, none of the magazines here have mentioned it. Will it be released here. 4) Falcon 4 (thats four), when will it be released. I was going through the back issues of the maillist, and saw it mentioned. I guess a lot of you have seen the game DOOM. Wouldn't it be great to have graphics like that in Falcon 4. I hope existing users get a reduction for F4 after shelling out on the game and all the add-ons, only to have to start again. 5) Will SH ever release a campaign editor for F3?? Keep passing the open window... JAMES NEILL ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: Beginners Questions | | I'm new to this list and Falcon 3.0 itself. | Well you found the right place to ask questions. | So I have a few question (don't we all). | | 1) After reading the FAQ I decided to do the "Get more detail on the planes" | thing. I don't really want to copy OBJECTS onto SOBJECTS. As what's the point |in seeing more detial, if the machine can crash any moment. I've tried free up as |much memory as possible, and doing the "loadhigh falcon3" thing, but it doesn't |work. I can wangle about 614K on my MSDOSv5 4MB machine. My CONFIG files look a |bit like this (sorry they're not exact but my machine is at home, and I'm at |University). | Well try it anyway.. since you only have 4 MB ram.. just backup the objects and sobjects files to something like objects.bak... etc. | CONFIG.SYS | c:\windows\himem.sys | c:\windows\emm386.exe 2768? frame=e000 | dos=high,umb | files=30 | buffers=30 might wanna try 'emm386.exe 3072' get more EMS memory for stuff like replay. | AUTOEXEC.BAT | SET BLASTER= blah..blah..blah | . | . this missing part might be essential to finding more RAM. =) | . | d: | cd games\falcon3 | loadhigh falcon3 | | I understand that you need lots of memory to do this, but what | kind base memory or EMS. they want memory under 1 MB, meaning the first 640, and the rest UMB. | | Any thoughts | | 2) I've purchased OFT (but it hasn't arrived yet - mail order), if I ftp the | f304.zip file from onion.rain.com or cactus.org, will this update OFT | (which will probably need updating) aswell as my Falcon 3.03. | Or do I need to get a seperate update for OFT. you might have to delete everything to install OFT on.. from my experience, OFT can only be installed to 3.0, 3.0A, 3.0C, 3.0D, and 3.0E. and MiG standalone. | | 3) What's this "Hornet" thing is it seperate a seperate sim or an add | on disk for Falcon 3. Because I live in England we're always behind the | US when it comes to software, none of the magazines here have mentioned it. | Will it be released here. | Well none of the magazines here mentioned it either... it's an add-on disk.. like MiG-29 was/is. | 4) Falcon 4 (thats four), when will it be released. I was going through | the back issues of the maillist, and saw it mentioned. I guess a lot of | you have seen the game DOOM. Wouldn't it be great to have graphics like | that in Falcon 4. I hope existing users get a reduction for F4 after | shelling out on the game and all the add-ons, only to have to start again. | My best guess for F4 will be over a year.. sometime in '95 ( anyone comment on that??) | 5) Will SH ever release a campaign editor for F3?? | Doubt it.. but there are third party campaign editors. | Keep passing the open window... | Close it! it's cold. | JAMES NEILL | Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. krismon@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: "michael dobbs (micro bio)" Subject: F3 & GUS >From: Carl Pettypiece 92 >Subject: DoubleSpace and recent Falcon patches >And finally, when will GUS native support be patched in? (someone pinch me, >I must be dreaming...) >Thanks again! Well, I got a rather disappointing response from SH when I asked this same question: NO! NEVER! NYET! There are absolutly no plans to have GUS support for Falcon and only a fague 'commitment for 'other' sound cards in second-generation Flight Sims (presumably the infamous F4 series....evapo-ware???). Well, not satisfied with this, and really wanting to keep me love affair with F3 and still have a fling on the side with my new GUS, I came across a more than suitable solution: I re-placed my old ATI stereo FX 8-bit SB compatible card into my computer, while keeping the GUS there also. I then connected the GUS line out to the ATI's line in, tweaked the GUS ultraini lines in the config.sys/autoexec.bat files and set the irq's; DMA's etc so they don't conflict with the ATI's. Then, when I use my boot disk for Falcon, I don't even load the GUS stuff at all (NO more SBOS!) and play with only the ATI sound (which is much better than SBOS emulated junk!). When I want to play DOOM, with all it's absolutely amazing native GUS support, I use a slightly diff. autoexec/config.sys to load the Ultrasound stuff (except for SBOS...not needed since it has NATIVE support for the GUS) and enjoy! This also has the added advantage of giving the gus a volume control knob, since the output is channelled thru the ATI amp/mixer. I know it's a little expensive/wasteful having two sound cards...but if Gravis was to come out with a daughter card that fully emulated a SB for the GUS, I'd spend at least $50 on it...which is the same price as a used SB compatible these days. Mike. ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: Hornet G-limiter Hi. After getting Hornet 1.01, I was flying around for a while, then suddenly, for some reason, I can't turn the G-limiter off. The AOA limiter toggle works fine still, but I can't turn the G-limiter off. Help! -The Doctor ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: Hornet G-limiter, part 2 About my problem with not being able to toggle the G-limiter suddenly: even if I exit the program, and come back in, it still wouldn't work. Finally, I reset my computer, and it was working again... -The Doctor ------------------------------- From: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com (Edward M. Jones) Subject: Random Hornet Observations Hi Neil, Gabe, and all you F3 addicts! :) I've got some points I wanna toss out. So I'm gonna. :) The first I've already mentioned in the list, but they were'nt going directly to Neil... Anyway: There's a Hornet bug that randomly cuts out control of the G-limiter. Pounding the 'O' key, and the G-limiter doesn't toggle. Even after exiting the program, and then coming back in. I had to reset the computer to get it to work again. I was in Red Flag dogfighting a Mig-29, using scroll lock, padlock, and that's about it... I was on approach to the carrier. I just got a wave off, and saw that an F18 was ahead of me in landing. I circled, and was hitting '7' to see what my wingmen were doing. I got to a screen that said 'Allied Aircraft' at 100 feet. But I didn't see the plane. All I saw was water and sky. And the system was hung. My background engine noise was still going. Even Ctrl-Alt-Reset didn't help this time... I was wondering: If, in falcon3's Kurile Islands, we can have 8 F16's fighting up to 8 enemy planes with a CBG underneath us, with said battlegroup launching SAMS's at us, why can't we have the same in Hornet? It's the same number of objects, the sides are just reversed... P.S - thanx for the dedicated F14 CAP, at least! That tiny A-A radar screen is a pain! Guess that's why real F18 pilots wear glasses... :) -The Doctor ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Coolie/Tailhook Jimi, the problems you're encountering with your coolie hat have happened to me also. It takes me two or three tries to get it configured correctly. Be *VERY* careful you have the hat pressed fully to the sides, and centered (i.e., if you're doing 'RIGHT', make sure it's right, not right and up, or right and down.) Continue to hold it for a second or two after you press fire. If you've got Tornado, their config routines show you the values being received from the hat. It's more sensitive than Falcon, and harder to config. I don't think too much of the hat -- it's construction and quality, and the fact that you can't use an analog throttle with the FCS unless you have the WCS Mk. II. The multiple button method employed by CH sounds like a better plan, but I've never used one, so I don't know how well it works. Tailhooks: Yeah, I remember reading that Thuds also have a tailhook that's used on short runways, or if the bird is too fast/damaged/whatever. As with the Viper, it wouldn't be capable of handling a carrier arrest. Greg: I use the gameport off of a multi-I/O board. Haven't had any problems with it. ------------------------------- From: HIETT@caer.uky.edu Subject: Falcon + CDROM a while ago Steve Szymanski wrote: >Subject: Falcon on CD >< >...or will it be like other CD games, and you need to >access the CD? > >This becomes important when you consider the amount of main >memory required to run Falcon. I have to have three different >autoexec and config files around. When I run the PC normally >I have one set. When I want to play games I overlay another >set. When I play falcon, I use the third set. Even with >memmaker, there is no way that I can get to the minimal >required since the CD driver takes up a fair amount of >memory. > >Soooo. Either new cd drivers will have to be written, >or perhaps Falcon will need less memory? :^) I don't think so! >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Steve Szymanski Bell Communications Research >sjs@bae.bellcore.com Phone: (908) 699-5026 >444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 1C-206 >Piscataway, NJ 08854 Steve, it is possible to run Falcon decently with a CDROM active..even playing music. If you are running DOS 6.2 on a typical system you should be able to get 602-629 K free even with the CDROM loaded. With non-typical systems.... Problems that typically occur result from SCSI controllers that are finicky & memory hungry. Or in some cases Video Adapter cards. Naturally if you are using the Ethernet card option, those things can eat hi memory for lunch. Detail your setup to me direct & I can see if a CD will fit. My PC (486-33/256/8meg/ISA/Diamond Speedstar24X/IDE3HD/4floppy/ SBPro/Panasonic2XCDROM/Logitech Scanner/2modems/serial mouse/etc) has everything loaded and running with 602K free using QEMM 6.0. I know 7.0X is better and frees more, but when I use it strange things happen that are as yet unresolved...with 7.0X you get 5-12K more typically. Before I loaded the 24X video card I was getting 629-639 K free. The 24X card grabs a chunk of hi-mem to use for it's bios/VESA and since it does hi-color it's a hog. Many hi-color cards do this,beware. The point is, yes you can run a whole lot of things at once and still have some mem left for Falcon 3.04. I still must multiconfig for things like Comanche (it doesn't like QEMM), and if you like I'll show you a real "clean" way to multiconfig DOS. Camel Pilot about to be attacked by Viper: "what no bullets? who took my bullets!" -=john "sirpo" hiett=- hiett@caer.uky.edu CI$:72724,204 INN:89726 ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 75 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Feb 28 04:42:47 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([199.2.109.17]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06027; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:42:20 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:14 PST Message-Id: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:16 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I76 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 76 Sun Feb 27 12:14:12 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [199.2.109.17] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Falcon 3.04 stores dumping Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( The joy of stx tr@jet.uk Re: FCS hat problem fixed cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Gameport Survey harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com The Snake jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Doublespace/Memory "Brian D. Skinner" ) : I> You missed the point, Gabe. At least with the original way, if you don't I> fly to the last waypoint you don't dump stores and you save that stuff I> for future battles. This new way, it sounds like there is *no* way to I> *avoid* dumping stores. No matter what you do, the bombs are going for I> a swim. That is worse. M> M> Tom, M> When you load your weapons on the plane, if you return home with or without M> those weapons, it's the same thing. your stock (or squadron records) will no M> add the weapons back after you return from a mission; check it out and let m M> know if it's not the case so I can update my notes. M> I> *splash*. Make that 22 AMRAAMs in the stock. You just cut your supply in I> half because of this problem. 24 missiles gone but only 6 launched. You M> M> Like I said above, the Info I have shows that your weapons will not be M> returned to the stock once you loaded them up on the plane. M> M> Gabe. ------------------------------- From: tr@jet.uk Subject: The joy of stx Hi I've seen an interesting exchange latley about doctoring joysticks to act as throttles and rudders. I've just received all the parts I ordered to make a throttle and rudder. Its *VERY* basic with just a couple of pots and a break- out box for the joystick port. My plan is to mount the pots in a small box and wire them on a temporary basis to see what problems I hit. The parts I've bought so far add up to about a tenner (10UK pounds). If it works, I plan to mount the pots in separate boxes and build a more pleasing throttle and a foot control assembly for the rudders. As a result of the recent info on problems with second joysticks being installed, I plan to have a disable switch for the kit as well. If all goes well, I'll post the wiring diagram and a description of the assembly process. I reckon I can put a workable solution together for around 25UKpounds and of course I've the satisfaction of beinmg able to change it when there's something I don't like about it. Has anyone tried anything similar? Has anyone any (clean) suggestions for additional improvements I could add? Weapons control for instance? Regards to you all, and watch out for those SA-7s! :+) Tony "Claymore" Rowan tr@jet.uk ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: FCS hat problem fixed > From: Life is like an analogy > Subject: FCS hat problem fixed > > I found the solution to my TM FCS coolie hat problem, and thought others might > benifit if I shared the fix in this forum. The simple solution was to lower > the speed of my [Kraft] gamecard from 16MHz to 8MHz. The hat now works This is the kind of stuff, that caused me to SH#T-can my kraft game card. And gave me a bad feeling about game cards in general. I had used the SB game port and have had *NO* problems. Now, I am using the CH III auto. The documentation I got with my FCS/WCS II said explicitly that the slow speed of the SB might not be be good enough, on a fast 'puter. I have a DX2 66mhz. So I'm giving the instructions a try first :) > perfectly. The 8MHz value was suggested by my Kraft CSOFT utility that has the > option to automatically set the speed having read the stick's low/right value. > > Both GS2000 and AOTP hat operation was fine at 16MHz. Is the SH/TM calibrate > routine a little more, ah, sensitive? I suspect it may be related to SH/TM It very well could be more sensitive to *PROPER* values. I think your reasoning might be pretty close to correct. > expecting a value of about 82 for centre stick. The card speed will affect > that value. A fellow Falcon flier in my company mailed me he obtained the "82" > figure (as reported by TMSA) at 7MHz card speed, so his results and mine seem > to match. > > Can anyone familiar with joysticks/cards explain the benifits, if any, of > higher or lower card speeds? I didn't notice any less degree of control > (granularity) when running at 8MHz vs. 16MHz. Flight control seemed just as > good. The important thing, is that your game port has to be in sync with your computer. The only game (for me) where this really shows, is IndyCar Racing. If I boot up without "setting" the CH card (using the cold bootup values instead), then music, video will be out of sync. If I setup the CH card then things will be in sync, and everything is fine. In falcon the only difference I've seen is in the stick calib. ie... The icon will not be were you think it should be or go. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: harveyg@meoc02.enet.dec.com Subject: Gameport Survey I haven't seen the note on the survey but I gather you are asking who uses what So here goes...I use a Sound Blaster 2.0. This of course has a joystick port and has proved very stable. The only hitch came when I combined a CH Pro with the WCS II and had to have a 2nd joystick port. So I disabled the joystick port on the I/O card and plug the WCS II into that. I have tried other "standard" IDE ports and even invested in a QuickShot Smart Game card which is now an ornamement in my PC junk box. I once tried a Gravis card and had the same success as with the QS....very poor response. So for now it's SB - 1, garbage - Nil. This carrier deck is short.....but isn't it wiiiiide!!! Gary H. ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: The Snake Here's a neat 'mission' you can run with two-player duel. Re-map the IA theatre to Nellis (using either the KCC utils, or Polymap (polymap.zip on onion.rain.com) for both parties, and start a comm session. You'll start out, heading east/west, maybe 10nm south of the canyon, close to the end (faucet). Both parties (whatever aircraft you're flying, I used both F3-F3, and M29-F3) head north, to the canyon. When both arrive, you enter the canyon, get down in the dirt, and fly full out. We did both races, where we'd set a ceiling of 2,000ft or less, and race the canyon. Score by counting the number of times you have to exceed the ceiling (honour system here ), and who reaches the begining (since you're flying from spiggot to lake) first, or in the case of the crash, who crashes first. Didn't figure out any solid scoring formula, we'd just compare the number of ceiling violations, whether someone crashed, and who made it out first. It was a good time. The other scenario is to fly to the canyon, and dogfight inside of it. Vedy Vedy hard. Heh. We found 'racing' to be more enjoyable; but we didn't put as much thought into the ROE for canyon fighting. If you try this, I'd like to hear from you to see what you used for ROE and how it went. Jay ------------------------------- From: "Brian D. Skinner" Subject: Doublespace/Memory Hi...I'm just starting to get into Falcon3 again and after installing with doublespace I'm having a hard time getting enough conventional memory to run the program. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Please email me at skinner@wam.umd.edu. Thanks in advance. p.s. I have 8 meg on my machine....I just can't get the config.sys and autoexec.bat files right. Thanks again. skinner@wam.umd.edu ------------------------------- From: Rick Lafford Subject: Re: Viper tailhook >That's only for landing emergencies, on a standard runway, that may cause >you >to departe the runway, ie only one main gear down and locked, hard over >rudder, >etc. No way the Viper's spindle gear takes a 5 deg approach. BTW, the F/A-18 >is >much easier to land in real life than the F-16 (at least for me anyway). >Never >tried either on a carrier but I'm sure it would prove the same. Actually the tail-hook is used quite often. Consider that many of the Air Guard units operate their aircraft (F-16, F-14, F-4RC, etc) from civil airports with runways shorter than what they would desire and far more debris on those runways than one would like. The solution is to use arresting gear on one runway to capture the aircraft saving brakes, FOD and general wear and tear on the airframes. I live near two of these type airports. Neat installation, too bad civil aircraft couldn't use them when the runways icy. BTW - drag chutes are great but they raise havoc when deployed and released on a civil airport. Imagine the 747 on short final being told to go around because the F-16 just landing had his chute drift back over the runway. Rick Rick "Ice" Lafford Clinical Diagnostics Eastman Kodak Co. lafford@clpd.kodak.com ------------------------------- From: "Martin J. Smallridge" Subject: Info re: Hornet and availability in UK Well after much email swapped between myself and Spectrum Holobyte and Microprose, I was finally able to get some kind of info regarding the availability of Hornet in the UK. Basically I got absolutely no damn help from the email address at SH, I was told time and time again to phone (510).... to get my answers from their sales department... Ok so perhaps I don't have to give my visa number over an email connection but just trying to get them to tell me how much the software cost so that I could order it seemed too much for these guys. In short I was not impressed at all.. get it together guys!! If you are a brit by the way I would not recommend phoning their sales dept. to get the info, I was stuck on hold listening to elevator music for over 15 minutes before I gave up. If you are desperate I suggest that you fax them at the number given. (Shame I have no fax) Anyway to cut a long story short, apparently microprose will be releasing Hornet here in the UK but without the Bosnia scenario (due to its sensitive nature ie: we have troops there.) so if you do want to obtain that I suggest you try importing a copy from SH or as one person offered, through as friend in the States. I have heard reports that it is possible to import the game through shops here in the UK and that an ad has appeared in the magazine PC Format although i can't confirm this. Well anyway, one question that does beg asking now, having delved into the shareware at Onion.rain.com is that there is a shareware theatre for Falcon3.0 called Bosnia which I gather is available to registered users of the Chad scenario. Wil this be really different from the SH version or just as stated, a non-official version? Well thanks and if there is anyone interested in modem play against me in London UK, please drop me a line at my email address. Thanks... Happy Trails... Martin ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 76 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Mar 1 15:28:25 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([199.2.109.17]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13119; Tue, 1 Mar 94 15:14:56 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:40 PST Message-Id: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:53 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I77 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 77 Mon Feb 28 21:40:26 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [199.2.109.17] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Powerful rudders! MiG-19 antidote! J.Hoppenbrouwers@kub.nl (JeroenHopp DoubleSpace/Falccalc A.Wilson@nirey002.northern.co.uk Re: stores dumping cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Multi-player Falcon Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Re: Info re: Hornet and availabilit Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk falcons clean up again preyj@aol.com Canyon Dueling Ric Testagrossa From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) > Subject: Falcon 3.04 stores dumping > M> Like I said above, the Info I have shows that your weapons will not be > M> returned to the stock once you loaded them up on the plane. > M> Well, I don't know about the rest of you guys. But, this certainly makes my mission/equiptment planning alot easier. I really had thought this was fixed in an earlier patch. But... Maybe not. Gabe should know :) As a matter of fact I'm glad he is participating in the digest. Perhaps this will be fixed in yet another patch. Along with padlocking the carrier during landings and landing on water. (When I screw up & land on water I want to go for a swim.) Try landing on water in AOTP. SPLASH!! :))) Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Multi-player Falcon Is there anyone out there in the south east UK/UK/Europe (!?) who might be interested in some multi-player Falcon play. I have access to a PC LAN with a number of sound-card equipped 486 PC's that might form a useful venue for occasional get togethers. Andrew ------------------------------- From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Re: Info re: Hornet and availability in UK >Anyway to cut a long story short, apparently microprose will be releasing >Hornet here in the UK but without the Bosnia scenario (due to its >sensitive nature ie: we have troops there.) Whaaaaat! What kind of mindless marketing-droid thought this one up. Did they drop Kuwait from Falcon because there were British troops there? B****dy nonsense! What about TFX - doesn't that have a Bosnia scenario? Is it too late to give them a hard time over the 'blower or email about this to persuade them change their minds? Andrew ------------------------------- From: preyj@aol.com Subject: falcons clean up again NATO SHOOTS DOWN FOUR SERB PLANES OVER BOSNIA BRUSSELS (Reuter) - NATO fighters shot down four Serb attack aircraft over Bosnia on Monday after they defied an international ban on flights and apparently bombed a Muslim munitions factory. NATO sources said the aircraft, identified as G-4 Galeb light attack planes, were Bosnian Serb planes. ``They were Serb planes and we think they took off from a base in Bosnia," said one source, who asked not to be identified. The action marked the first Western military intervention in the 22-month-old conflict and NATO's first combat action since it was founded. The alliance, which recently threatened air strikes against Bosnian Serb guns used in the siege of Sarajevo, never fired a shot in anger during the decades of the Cold War. Hours after the downing of the planes, Bosnian Serb forces began heavily bombarding the center of the Muslim stronghold city of Tuzla, according to a Reuter Television crew in the city. NATO said two U.S. F-16 fighters made contact with six G-4 Galeb light attack aircraft close to Banja Luka, the main Serb air base in northern Bosnia. The Serb planes ignored repeated warnings to land. ``The NATO ``Flying Falcons' engaged the planes, shooting down four of them," said an alliance spokesman in Brussels. Other alliance sources and U.N. officials said the remaining two planes apparently landed at Banja Luka, although a Bosnian Serb military spokesman said no planes had flown from the base. U.N. sources in former Yugoslavia said Bosnian Serb planes had apparently attacked a Muslim-controlled ammunition factory in central Bosnia, on the outskirts of Novi Travnik. They said the factory was hit shortly before the four planes were shot out of the sky. Transmitted: 94-02-28 09:36:00 EST ------------------------------- From: Ric Testagrossa Subject: Canyon Dueling I'm responding to Jay Lee's message about setting up a two-player (Comm) duel in the Grand Canyon of the Nellis theater. I haven't done that yet (I've relatively new to head-to-head comms, but I love it), but I used to set up a similar situation in Red Flag. Only difference was that I set an Ace-level enemy fighter about 3 miles back in my six, armed him with guns and heat-seekers, set him up as CAP or INTERCEPT on the same course, then did a run for my life into the Canyon. I found that different techniques worked with different enemy planes, but that I could often run them into a canyon wall or get them to crash into the ground. I tried to keep below 1000 feet, but sometimes went below 500 feet in the sharp turns. Doesn't give you much room to outmanuever a missile, but it's great fun when you do it. Also very "interesting" to see tracers flash by the cockpit when you're in a turn at 600 feet! I also found that some enemy pilots/planes wouldn't spend more than a few seconds in the canyon without climbing out and following me at a much higher altitude. If that happened, they would usually break off their attack after a minute or so. Ric Testagrossa ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Viper tailhook > From: Rick Lafford > To: falcon3@onion.rain.com > Subject: Re: Viper tailhook > > Actually the tail-hook is used quite often. Consider that many of the Air > Guard units operate their aircraft (F-16, F-14, F-4RC, etc) from civil > airports with runways shorter than what they would desire and far more debris > on those runways than one would like. The solution is to use arresting gear > on one runway to capture the aircraft saving brakes, FOD and general wear and > tear on the airframes. > > I live near two of these type airports. Neat installation, too bad civil > aircraft couldn't use them when the runways icy. > > BTW - drag chutes are great but they raise havoc when deployed and released > on a civil airport. Imagine the 747 on short final being told to go around > because the F-16 just landing had his chute drift back over the runway. > > Rick > > Rick "Ice" Lafford > Clinical Diagnostics > Eastman Kodak Co. > lafford@clpd.kodak.com I don't know where you're getting your info Rick, but someone is pulling your leg . The tail hooks for the F-16s and USAF F-4s are only used in emergencies, not everyday ops. I've flown both of these aircraft. ------ Stuart Internet: slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil | When sending messages, slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | please send to both of these GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, Plane #6333 CI$: 71553,356 ------------------------------- From: timd@sparky2.sps.mot.com Subject: forming squadron in PHX I have found about 10 falcon 3 fliers here in PHX AZ. therefore i will be forming a local squadron. if anyone out there is reading this in the 602 area code, report for duty! that is all sparky out ------------------------------- From: "Martin J. Smallridge" Subject: Hornet in UK (update2) Well, just a quick update as far as obtaining Hornet in the UK goes... I discovered today via PC Player, that there is a store that has managed to import the add-on to the UK complete with the Bosnia scenario for #35.99 (vat included). Another firm also offers Hornet over here for #21.99 BUT when I phoned them it turned out that their ad' was based on Microprose saying that they were going to be releasing it here, about a month ago (apparently). In short they don't have it at the moment but they are expecting to know what is going on if and when Microprose tell them, hopefully by Wednesday this week. Just in case I stand a chance of getting sued or something equally as unpleasant I've not given names or addresses of shops but if you are also involved in the search for Hornet then I suggest you look up PC Players April issue (don't ask me why it's available now, it just is), the info is in there. Happy trails, Martin ------------------------------- From: Jeff Gortatowsky Subject: Re: Viper tailhook >Actually the tail-hook is used quite often. Consider that many of the Air >Guard units operate their aircraft (F-16, F-14, F-4RC, etc) from civil >airports with runways shorter than what they would desire and far more debris >on those runways than one would like. The solution is to use arresting gear >on one runway to capture the aircraft saving brakes, FOD and general wear and >tear on the airframes. As an ex F106 and F111 mechanic I can tell you this is a myth. At least for those aircraft that are strictly air force jets. Both the 106 and the 111 (yes I know the 111 was *supposed* to have a naval variant) have tail hooks. I had to work on several of each that had 'taken the barrier'. IT ROYALLY screws up the structure of the aircraft! Panels become impossible to remove(busted nut plates), engine frames that you can't get the mounting pins out of, tens to hundreds of busted rivets....they just weren't designed for the stress. We used to pity the poor crew chief who'd be stuck with the 'pig that took barrier'. Nothing structurally would be easy to take off or put back together again. Anyways this has little to do with falcon 3.0 (unless you tend to overrun the end of the runway alot ). ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 77 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Ukn Mar 3 10:45:23 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([199.2.109.17]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20122; Thu, 3 Mar 94 10:43:28 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Wed, 2 Mar 94 14:00 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 23:53 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I78 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 78 Wed Mar 2 14:00:24 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [199.2.109.17] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: FSX in OFT shtan@acs.ucalgary.ca Hornet availability in the UK James Neill resupply in falcon3 "VOID WORK(TIME,EFFORT)" Subject: Hornet availability in the UK I found a mail order company in the UK which is selling Hornet Strategic Plus Software 28D The Courtyard High Street Hampton Hill Middlesex TW12 1PD England Tel : 081 977 8088 Fax : 081 977 4822 They're selling it for $35.99, which is a bit pricey, so I guess it could be an import (therefore maybe including the Bosnia campaign). Their advert appeared in PC Format issue 30. Also in the same issue Premier Mail Order (Tel : 0268 271172) were selling OFT and Mig-29 for $16.99 (but not Hornet). Hope this helps, especially Martin J. Smallridge. Note : for dollars read pounds. Keep passing the open window ... JAMES ------------------------------- From: "VOID WORK(TIME,EFFORT)" Subject: resupply in falcon3 In the falcon campaigns, does resupply replenish all used stocks, or give a randomn amount of stocks of each given item. Is there a maximum held stock such that any excess will be discarded. The reason I am asking is because I appear to have only 40 of the good aim 9's left after replenishment. Appologies in advance if this information is in the manual. Which planes can you hit with the aim 120's. since each aircraft seems to have an ECM it appears to be impossible to get anything, - and thats in the india warzone! ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: Canyon Combat Rick Testagrossa wrote about flying RF missions in the canyon, with an enemy interceptor a ways behind him. Nice idea! I tried this a little* bit. I had various success. Many times I'd fly the entire canyon, and never be found by the bogey. You mentioned having the bogey follow your exact flight path. I don't set up a very extensive flight path, just the entrance to the canyon, the exit, and somewhere to go from there. How is your flightplan set up? Many waypoints as the canyon 'snakes'? Jay p.s. I posted my IA/RF theatre re-map programme a couple weeks back, but have yet to get any feedback. If you've tried POLYMAP, drop me a note of comments/gripes/suggestions! If not, take a look at it! You can find it on onion.rain.com in /pub/falcon3/programs, 'polymap.zip'. I'm getting ready to release a version that includes hud-de-cluttering, and want to get feedback before I do. ------------------------------- From: "Frank Racis" Subject: Campaign editor for Falcon/MiG Introducing: Falcon Campaign Editor 1.0 I've just uploaded version 1.0, of Falcon Campaign Editor to onion.rain.com. FCE is a squadron/campaign editor for Falcon 3.04 and MiG-29 1.03. It has a basic menu-selection interface in DOS, and a full graphical Windows interface. Features of DOS version: * Supports Falcon 3.04, MiG 1.03 * Make all pilots unfatigued or perfect * Add 20 to inventory of all types of ordnance * Resurrect all dead pilots * Give squadron all 18 planes * Fuel estimates * Command line parameters allow automatic use in batch files. Windows version allows: * All features of DOS version * Edit individual pilots / abilities * Complete control over all ordnance and supplies * Rename squadrons (even create new names) * Much nicer user interface than DOS * Time-on-Target lets you adjust speed to co-ordinate flights Sorry, no support for Hornet just yet. The best part is that it's free - all I ask for is an E-Mail with your opinions. -Frank Racis (fwr100@psuvm.psu.edu) ------------------------------- From: Andrew.Stevens@comlab.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Hornet in Europe - NOT! Well, the news about Hornet just gets worse and worse. A 'phone call to Microprose UK to enquire about the issue of the Bosnia campaign revealed that the Hornet add-on will not be released in Europe. Period. According to the chap I talked to this is basically a marketing decision: not finanically viable, though the Bosnia thing `was a factor'. It looks very much as if you want Hornet in Europe you'll have to whip out a credit card and import. Pretty pathetic really. Although not entirely surprising given the way stores (here in UK at least) seem to be frantically minimising the number of titles they carry. Andrew ------------------------------- From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams Subject: Does anyone else have this bug???? have not really gotten in depth into Falcon3.0 until recently, and I have upgraded to 3.04. Now a problem surfaces that I have never noticed before: Hypothetical situation: Single Mig-29 approaches from the north on intercept from 20 miles. He fires one Alamo. I then pull max G to approximately beam the missle (I like 70-80 degrees). Here is the problem: When I get to about 70 degrees, I let up on the stick. But the plane, as soon as I let go, turns VIOLENTLY (I'd estimate about a 13-15 G turn in real life) for about 80 degrees more! The slower I let up on the stick, the less this effect is, but is still definitely there. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE THIS PROBLEM? You can imagine how inconvenient this can be -- to try to beam a heat-seeker fired from 4 miles away, only to find that you have turned butt on the thing. I use a 486DX2-66, and CH Flightstick, and the SoundblasterPro game port, and flying COMPLEX model. I am trying to figure out if this is a bug in the flight-model, or if my hardeware is faulty. Thanks, Daniel Hyams dgh1@ra.msstate.edu - ------------------------------- From: bgrier@bach.ccinet.ab.ca (Brad Grier) Subject: Newbie questions G'day all! I'm kinda new on the net so I hope you'll bear with me. I think this Mailing list idea is great! I've just installed Falcon 3.0d (purchased a Microprose/Spectrum Holobyte version in Canada - It looks like the European release). I've upgraded with the Falcon 3.04 patchfile. I've used Falcon on the Amiga (and the mission add ons) but have recently switched to the PC. Enough about me...:-) Ok, newbie questions... 1) Will 3rd party patch files (falconer..etc) work with the new 3.04 upgrade? 2) In Red Flag Missions, there are some Allied Aircraft that arn't described anywhere in the documentation, or readme files. They are; Cruise Missile Q5 Fantan J7 Airguard F1 F5 Tiger FSX I have an idea what some of them are, but what are the specs? Is there a .txt file out there with information on this? 3) Wingman commands. I can get most of them to work, but how do you apply Bracket right/left? Is this a strike command only? It won't work during an intercept situation. Thanks... Brad Grier ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Game port survey is OVER!!!! I want to once again thank everyone who participated in my survey. Oh, what the heck, I'll thank you even if you didn't participate. Here are the results: SB TM-ACM CH III GRAVIS PAS GUS IBM-EZ I/O 13 8 6 2 2 1 1 4 Here are the observations: After years of being a solid CH supporter and Thrustmaster basher, I have reconsidered the situation :) When I started this, I had a CH Pro which I ran out of my SB port. Then I started looking into HOTAS. TM prices are dropping, and FCS problems have appeared to be fixed. Finding out that TM is now using the same pots as CH, is what caused me to give TM another look. I ended up with a WCS II, FCS Mk I and a TM ACM game card. The problems I had with my CH III auto card, when I would run indycar racing are gone. (I returned the CH III to the store) The little icon in the falcon stick calib window does indeed go to the edges of the window. All planes in the EBS are very controlable. The problem with the gameports in sound cards, is that they generaly operate at 1 speed. Probably 8 mhz. In a 66 mhz machine like mine this can have mixed results. ie... Different roll rates between left & right can be caused from this. Along with probably just about any other j-stick problem. Anyone with a TM FCS should run TMSA and check the numbers, reguardless of the port they use. I found that my SB port was giving numbers roughly twice as high as ideal. (I look at this, in the same way as an amplifier that is clipping.) These are the same numbers from the stick that the game would actually see. Problems also occur when game MFR's take these numbers, and use their own j-stick routines with them. So, this is the reason these numbers are more critical than one might think. One last reason for me to reccomend the Thrustmaster ACM card... Printed on the front of the box was: "LIFETIME WARRENTEE" One last thing. Buzz said that TMSA can be freely used. Is there a copy of TMSA in the falcon archives? It is a useful tool. Thanks again. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: "Martin J. Smallridge" Subject: Final update re:Hornet Well the final installment as far as Hornet and its availabilty in the UK at last... I found out today that Microprose now has absolutely NO intention of releasing Hornet in the UK.. Admittedly, like everyone else I think it's a little bit daft especially when you consider that every software shop, in England at least, has been recieving way over 50 phonecalls asking if they will be stocking it. That's the bad news... the good news is that a number of software dealers are intending to import it and so if you see it listed then you can be fairly sure that they will eventually get it in. More bad news but not tragic is that it's gonna cost around #35 at least and not be available for about a week (All the available copies have sold out -Go figure eh?!-. Right well I hope that answers everyones questions about that, and if you live in the US or elsewhere, apologies for the amount of space I seem to have taken up on this newsgroup the last few days. Happy Trails... Martin ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 78 ]] From devnull@onion.rain.com Sat Mar 5 14:16:49 1994 Received: from onion.rain.com ([199.2.109.17]) by zeus.uni-duisburg.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00970; Sat, 5 Mar 94 14:16:17 +0100 Received: by onion.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.12) id ; Fri, 4 Mar 94 22:05 PST Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 22:24 PST To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I79 Content-Length: 19523 Status: RO X-Status: Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 79 Fri Mar 4 22:01:16 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [199.2.109.17] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Re: Does anyone else have this bug? cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis IA.MIS jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) errata MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Re: FSX in OFT Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: Hornet and availability in UK Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Re: stores dumping Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net ( Canyon chases Ric Testagrossa H2H Campaign...NOT! Peter PAWELEK From: Daniel Gaiennie Hyams > Subject: Does anyone else have this bug???? > Hypothetical situation: Single Mig-29 approaches from the north on > intercept from 20 miles. He fires one Alamo. I then pull max G > to approximately beam the missle (I like 70-80 degrees). Here is > the problem: When I get to about 70 degrees, I let up on the stick. > But the plane, as soon as I let go, turns VIOLENTLY (I'd estimate about > a 13-15 G turn in real life) for about 80 degrees more! The slower I > let up on the stick, the less this effect is, but is still definitely > there. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE THIS PROBLEM? You can imagine how WHOOPS!!!!! You might have the first confirmed CH pot problem. Or you never know, it could be your SB game port :) Either way, try to get TMSA from onion.rain.com. It might be contained in the zip file in one of the thrustmaster directories. If it isn't I can upload TMSA.EXE later. It should show you the RAW data coming out of your stick. You should tell if the pots are bad, or maybe even find the cause of your problem:) The TMSA text file, explains really well how to interpret the data. Does this happen after you pull back on the stick & quickly release? Or only at 70 degrees? > I use a 486DX2-66, and CH Flightstick, and the SoundblasterPro > game port, and flying COMPLEX model. I am trying to figure out if > this is a bug in the flight-model, or if my hardeware is faulty. Check the hardware. Then you'll be sure. It could also be the Thrustmaster stick routines requiring "proper" TMSA stick numbers. Greg "JAGUAR" Cisko ------------------------------- From: jay.lee@msbbs.mn.org (Jay Lee) Subject: IA.MIS I just stumbled over a cool F3 Factoid! It concerns Red Flag and IA. After you've got your RF mission set up and saved (as a .rfm extension), and go to FLY it, F3 'compiles' the .rfm 'pseudocode/script' into the file REDFLAG.MIS. Yup. Standard .MIS file, t'the best of my meagre knowdge. This isn't terribly exciting on it's own, but.. The fun part comes in when you think about IA. You can write a RF mission, run it (so that REDFLAG.MIS is generated, exit, copy it over to INSTACT.MIS, re-enter..) and then fly it in IA. You've got to place the mission in the same area that IA uses - I haven't figurd out a way to change the starting position of the viper.. It is just to the south of the canyon, near the end, to the east of a portion of the river that flows in a 'U'. On ComEd it looks circular. You can figure out positioning by checking ComEd in IA, and relating it over to your RF mission. I haven't done extensive research, if you start with only a few enemy airplanes and shoot 'em down, the IA engine generates more encounters for you.. I also placed a SAM site, and yup, there she was. I didn't attempt placing any friendlies - Air or Ground. Could get pretty extensive with 'minute missions' so to speak! Jay ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: errata Hi all, Sorry to hear of all the troubles the European list members are having getting Hornet. Not that I know beans about buying American software in Europe, could you get an American list member to buy for you and send over? Maybe (on shakey ground here) *buy* it for you and send it to you all encoded in mail? For my money, Hornet is right now the best of the three, if not only for the fact my coolie hat does not work with the F3 family. Might be associated with Greg C.'s survey as it works with other sims, maybe my game card is hosed? Watchin wings, saw a new video set (The Challenge of Flight). Looks like a gas, plane crashes, gear up landings, carrier misses (morbid I know, but heck, gotta have the bitter with the sweet :) The first video is final approach; about landing accidents. Anyone have this set? Can they recomend it or burn it? Anyone else notice there has been a software drought of late? Seems all the new things are on the horizon (F14, PAW1942, TFX, Alone II). Were it not for DOOM and Falc/Hor I would really be goin nuts looking for a fix ;) AW is great, but those bills keep a comin :) Sorry for the ramblins and non topical subjects. Had a big day and halfway throug the 12 beers :) PLUS! It is snowing cats and dogs AGAIN!! Oh joy!!! ::grumble grumble:: C y'all! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ShadowCapt-=4551=- ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: FSX in OFT S> From: shtan@acs.ucalgary.ca S> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com S> S> Hi! I was just wondering if anybody knows how the S> actual FSX looks like. I installed OFT yesterday S> and didn't see any difference( well, I didn't see S> the "SUN SPOT" on either tip of the wings.) Coz S> it doesn't resemble the one shown in the package.. Are yo in the Kurile Islands theater? it sure shows here like an FSX :) start a campaign mission in the Kurile island and before you take off, use the outside views, you should see the FSK and the red spots. Gabe. ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: Hornet and availability in UK E> From: "Martin J. Smallridge" E> To: Falcon3@onion.rain.com Sorry to hear about your experience with MicroProse UK... I think somebody replied to you and posted where you can get Hornet with the Bosnia theater. E> Well anyway, one question that does beg asking now, having delved into the E> shareware at Onion.rain.com is that there is a shareware theatre for E> Falcon3.0 called Bosnia which I gather is available to registered users of E> the Chad scenario. Wil this be really different from the SH version or E> just as stated, a non-official version? Yes it will be different, and it is a non official version. And I don't know why this program is actually available on the online services since the theater is in the realeased sim. I don't recommend this program as a solution. Gabe Turk. ------------------------------- From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Re: stores dumping C> From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) C> To: falcon3@onion.rain.com C> ... in yet another patch. Along with padlocking the carrier during landings C> and landing on water. (When I screw up & land on water I want to go for C> a swim.) Try landing on water in AOTP. SPLASH!! :))) Look at it this way, AOTP was an actual program from scratch, it was not an add-on to let's say Red Baron , well anyways, I'm not trying to make excuses, that how Hornet will handle the water part of the sim for now... and hey, you can take off again and just dive crash it on the water :) Gabe. ------------------------------- From: Ric Testagrossa Subject: Canyon chases I see that Jay Lee tried my suggestion for RF practice by setting up an enemy fighter chasing you thru the Grand Canyon. Yes, sometimes the enemy pilot does break off the chase - I did mention that in the first posting. I'm not sure why sometimes they follow you and other times they don't, but I'd guess it has to do both with the actual skill level of the enemy pilot and the type of plane he's flying. I say the "actual skill level" because I always set the enemy skill at ACE, but the real skill level seems to vary from engagement to engagement. I think I saw a message one time that said the skill level you set is the upper limit of what the enemy might be, and so at the ACE setting you could get an opponant who's anything from a beginner to an ace. Anyway, I don't set more than an entry and an exit waypoint for both my flight and the enemy flight, but I do try to set the flightpaths on top of each other. If the enemy planes are still breaking off too often, try moving the enemy closer to your tail (makes for a more exciting time anyway *GRIN*). You can also try setting different enemy planes; some types seem to be more willing to follow you into the canyon. About your program, POLYMAP...nope, I haven't had a chance to download it yet, but I plan to soon. PS. Notice that my first name doesn't have a "k" Ric Testagrossa ------------------------------- From: jimc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Falcon violent turn In Falcon3 Digest V5 : I78 Daniel Gaiennie Hyams reports a violent unexpected extra turn when doing a high-G maneuver to escape a missile. I have hardware similar to yours. I've recently upgraded to v3.04 and am "requalifying" on the complex model, so I've been doing a fair amount of chasing bogeys at high G in red flag, but not missile evasion. I haven't noticed any unexpected turns, and it's fairly likely that I would have encountered such a thing, particularly since you indicate that it happens often to you. Here's a speculation: could it be a perverted stall? The flight model is not very perfect in the area of vertical vs. horizontal forces -- see a recent comment that a person rolled 90 degrees (at which point the vertical force should have been zero) and could still fly straight and level. I confirm that observation. When I let my airspeed get too low the plane plows ahead like an old Buick, but if it got too low with the stick all the way back you could pitch enough to stall. Then you ought to just fly with little lift, like a brick, but in reality there seems to be some kind of special case that jerks the velocity vector around, and maybe the rotation matrices are squiggled around so it throws you in the wrong direction. I'll try it when I get home. SH, any comments? James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6221 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90024-1555 Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu BITNET: jimc%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc ------------------------------- From: geraldp@wv.MENTORG.COM (Gerald Page) Subject: FSX in OFT >From: shtan@acs.ucalgary.ca >Subject: FSX in OFT > >Hi! I was just wondering if anybody knows how the >actual FSX looks like. I installed OFT yesterday >and didn't see any difference( well, I didn't see >the "SUN SPOT" on either tip of the wings.) Coz >it doesn't resemble the one shown in the package.. >......... >Any idea?? I have a book called "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes" that gives an indepth look at quite a few fighter planes, including the F16 and F18. The book has some beautiful pictures in it, along with a lot of text about each airplanes development history, propulsion system, avionics, deployment, weapons, etc.. There are a couple of photos of what I believe is the FSX prototype. The plane has a much larger wingspan, and a bigger payload. I'll dig the book out tonight and get more specifics. Jerry ------------------------------- From: jim.fraser@channel1.com (Jim Fraser) Subject: 3.04 - Color on HUD I just upgraded to 3.04, and the HUD changed colors on me. Now it's green - just like all the lush vegetation in Panama. Consequently, I can't read the display... makes it hard when you're bearing down on a bombing target. Is there a way to change the color on the display? Jim Fraser, 02/27/94 at 23:23 jim.fraser@channel1.com ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Re: 3.04 - Color on HUD | Consequently, I can't read the display... makes it hard when you're | bearing down on a bombing target. Is there a way to change the color | on the display? | Jim Fraser, 02/27/94 at 23:23 | jim.fraser@channel1.com I looked. and it wasn't in the manual(at least for the 30 secs. I spent searching) but it is on the quick reference card. Kris. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com The wrong way always seems more reasonable. krismon@hh.sbay.org -- George Moore Prodigy: GRTV13B ------------------------------- From: Peter PAWELEK Subject: H2H Campaign...NOT! My friend and I (after a small amount of effort) were able to hook up via modem in the 2 player duel mode without any problems (the thing we discovered, which only makes sense, is that both of us had to have the same version; so he upgraded, with some arm twisting :), to v 3.04). After some H2H hijinx, we decided to move on to the real meaty stuff and start a 2 player campaign. Now, I have a 486dx33 with 4 megs of RAM and 634k free conventional; he has a 486DLC33 with 4 megs of RAM and 630k free conventional. Looking at that, you may be inclined to say that we both have a _lot_ of free conventional memory to throw around. Why then, on the two occasions we tried to start an Israel campaign (with me being the caller), did the whole thing crash with the following message: 'Fatal Error: Insufficient Memory to Continue', or something like that. I thought it may have been a higher memory problem, so both of us took out SmartDrive and assorted other TSR's, but we _still_ got the same error mes- sage. Is this a bug, or does one of our computers have a legitimate complaint??? Peter ('Padlock') Pawelek, 514 E-Squadron P.S. That's right, anyone in the 514 (Montreal) area code is welcome to join up with the 514 E-squadron whose members now number a whopping two: me and Andre ('Canuck') Costopoulos. Not bad since we only started on Tuesday. :) ------------------------------- From: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Re: Hornet and availability in UK > From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) > Subject: Re: Hornet and availability in UK > To: falcon3@onion.rain.com > > Yes it will be different, and it is a non official version. And I don't know > why this program is actually available on the online services since the > theater is in the realeased sim. I don't recommend this program as a solution. > > Gabe Turk. > Because that guy got his done before you did. - Stuart ====================================================== | Stuart "Mister Ed" Butts | | Internet: slb512@serveru1.naic.wpafb.af.mil | | GEnie: S.BUTTS2, Mister Ed, #6333 | | 1st Fighter Wing "Flying Squirrels" | | CI$: 71553,356 | ====================================================== ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: resupply in falcon3 (or lack there of) > From: "VOID WORK(TIME,EFFORT)" > Subject: resupply in falcon3 > > In the falcon campaigns, does resupply replenish all used stocks, or give > a randomn amount of stocks of each given item. Is there a maximum held stock I vote for the random amount of stocks. Under the request of an European friend, I did a test for each module of the EBS. In each case I recorded the amount of ordnance. I loaded some missles, took off & "ENDED" the mission. Then check the ordnance again... In falcon the missles were added to this BASE value. Actually, more missles were added, than what I had loaded. In hornet & Mig, the missles were indeed subtracted from the BASE number, *BUT* at a value aprox twice what I had loaded. In each case, my plane was the ONLY plane in the mission (so that isn't an issue). Also, no missles were fired. Suprisingly (maybe not) my European friend got different results. At the moment I can say that either the math sucks, or my computer is broken... Or, dare I say possibly a bug? ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Gabriel_Turk@tcenter.jn.tsoft.net (Gabriel Turk) Subject: Falcon 3.04 stores dumping > Tom, M> When you load your weapons on the plane, if you return home with or without M> those weapons, it's the same thing. your stock (or squadron records) will no M> add the weapons back after you return from a mission; check it out and let m M> know if it's not the case so I can update my notes. This may be how the program was written, but it doesn't make sense if true. Actually, if my above experiment is correct, I wonder how well this was looked into anyway? Isn't this something a BETA tester should have found? And once this type of thing is found, what is required to make it right? If you even want to? Besides, I really thought this was fixed anyway. M> Like I said above, the Info I have shows that your weapons will not be M> returned to the stock once you loaded them up on the plane. Yes... It was fixed *SO* good that I cut this next text from --- Falcon Digest V3 Issue 96: ******************************************************* CHANGES FROM FALCON VERSION 3.0 THROUGH 3.0D ******************************************************* The following section outlines the changes that have been made in earlier versions of Falcon 3.0 which affect MiG-29. The changes are arranged by topic, not by version. Missions - Aborting missions will no longer consume supplies or add to the mission count. - Unused stores at the end of a mission are now restored to your inventory. - External fuel tanks added by the user are now loaded correctly. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 3 : Issue 96 ]] HOLY COW Batman, did that really say "Unused stores at the end of a mission are now restored to your inventory"? Yes, by-golly I think it really did. I'm pretty sure the intention was for proper math too. I would go ahead & change your notes. Unless of course, it has changed back to subtracting unused stores from your inventory. At one point though unused stores were intended to be added to the inventory. KC was right in about that!!! Greg Cisko M> M> Gabe. ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 79 ]]