To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Sender: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I49 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 ]]