To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V3 : I95 Falcon3 Digest Volume 3 : Issue 95 Fri Jul 30 07:13:46 PDT 1993 Compilation copyright (C) 1993 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] Today's Topics: Invisible power plants in India... John Asa Price Falcon 4.0 (more suggestions) masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast F4.0 Suggestions "Pete Williams" Falcon 3.02 & MiG-29 Kris Ong Nuked Mail :( :( :( yamato.tardis7.sai.com.\u\m\t!ejone ------------------------------------------------------------ From: John Asa Price Subject: Invisible power plants in India... > Mike sez: > Has anyone attempted to bomb the power plant in India, (which from the icon > should be nuclear?). I was setting up a flight in RFM and when I went to > target it zoomed in and swung around a big brown piece of dirt. When I flew > the mission it still wasn't there. There are supposed to be 3 different > sites, and when selecting each of the three, I got three different patches > of sand. There are some buildings in the area, but none look anything like > power plants, and are not identified as targets. Is this a bug? No, the historical background is that the Soviet Union has invaded India. The Power plant was part of the previous 5 year plan, and according to all Soviet documents was completed according to schedule... :-) :-) :-) -John ------------------------------- From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) Subject: Falcon 4.0 (more suggestions) Gary (still not the dead one) Copper suggested: >We should kick around what we do and don't wan't in F4, and I'll send it >to the SH rep on AOL who, he swears, will Speedy Gonzales it to the F4 >team. Good idea. My numero uno harp (sorry for all you tired of it) is: The "complex" (and I use that term loosely) models that the computer planes fly in. While I love F3's air combat in general, it blows the simulation for me knowing that all the enemy planes, and my wingies, have far different flight behavior than they do in reality, or that I have if I'm in "hifi" (which I still don't like the roll pitch sensitivity and overshoot of...harp numero two-o). Don't you guys hate your wingie zooming off while you slog along at hifi's more realistic accel? Or following a plane with a lower thrust/weight in a climb, and you run out of zoom, while he continues on? Or going into that hard brake and blacking out while he continues his 9G's forever? Doesn't matter much for missile combat, but I love to do guns. So, fix the computer plane flight models. And heck, improve the F16's to account for weight effects, etc. Check out Tornado's, or Air Warrior's, or... Coop, you may want to edit this for the rep :-) I've already passed on my F4 suggestions, including the above. But I'd love it if you guys (and gals??) concurred and really pushed on the above. >One of my wishes is a fixed cockpit/reference in padlock mode - no more >"standing on the seat with your head shoved between the HUD and canopy >" views. And don't forget some realistic load/handling >characteristics... Yes. Actually, I recommended scrapping the Padlock in its current form and using something like in Strike Commander. But add some more cues like markings on the top of the canopy, so you still know where it is pointed. And perhaps taking away some of the info like "range" of the enemy SAMs. SC's works pretty well (on a 486/66) with me calling up padlock, which pans to the position. If I lose track of my position, I disable padlock, which scrolls you back to forward. Usually that is enough to clue me in to the bogey's position once more. I found the mouse control of the free viewing system to be a bit hard to control. If I had the coolie hat, I think that could've been terrific. F3's padlock just gives you too much info (if you can figure it out, that is). >I agree with the others, less eye candy, more details... Remember, they still have to sell it to more than us. :-( Dave ------------------------------- From: "Pete Williams" Subject: F4.0 Suggestions Quick list: 1. air refuel 2. do SOMETHING about the damn 'look-down' problem in padlock - I kinda like Jim's idea with the fisheye view. 3. timed waypoints 4. at least minimal control over other flights (return to base, return to previous waypoint, skip next waypoint, leave for next waypoint now!) 5. MiG 19's that don't outperform me 6. how about programmable joystick control - then I can fly hi-fi and be happy and Dave can fly hi-fi and be happy - similar to AW. 7. smooth out 300knt transition to hifi 8. no forward quarter lock-on with rear aspect heaters 9. maybe scrap the damn funnel and go back to snake and pipper 10. fix runway 'sweet spot' bombing problem (maybe done in Mig29?) 11. if my wingie gets locked up by SAM radar, my RWR ought to go off 12. AWAC's, FAC's If SH gets all these, I'll come up with a new list. Wouldn't be any fun if we didn't have something to bitch about...... Pete ------------------------------- From: bprescot@sirius.UVic.CA (Blair Prescott) Subject: Re: Falcon 4.0 I think the two things at the top of my wish list for Falcon 4.0 would have to be: 1. In-flight communication with other flights and ground units. (AWACS bogey reports, requests for CAP support, and forward air control info would be great!) 2. Weapon loading effects on flight characteristics. Maybe this should be an option, for those of us who like to slap on a few CBU's for CAP missions. :-) Blair Prescott bprescot@Engr.UVic.CA ------------------------------- From: wonge@sfu.ca Subject: Re: Vanishing Planes > From: "Joe "Boomer" Wohrstein" > Subject: Vanishing planes > > I was playing around in Red Flag shortly before I saw the first post > about this. At the time I wrote it off as a bug. But I Think it might > be the plane reaching the end of its flight path. I haven't had time to > test this out yet. But will as soon as I get back from vacation. > Any one else have any ideas? > Same here. I was making this small mission, in which me and two other wingmen would be flying through the canyon. After a bit, it got a bit boring, so I tried to see if I can really screw up the wingman by calling them to break left/right and all over the place. Somehow, I felt they weren't impressed with my useless orders, because after four-five orders later, they completely DISAPPEARED! This also happened when I was going for a test-mission in the Kurile Islands, with one Wingman. And also, after a few commands later, the Wingman totally disappears... !! Wierd. ------------------------------- From: wonge@sfu.ca Subject: Re: More game vs. sim stuff > From: hoppie@kub.nl (JeroenHoppenbrouwers) > Subject: More game vs. sim stuff > > Alright then, > > In short: if we could get a better sim by dropping graphics&music, should > we do it? > > I am *not* opposed to including animations and background music in *any* > program, as long as A) I can turn it off if I want that and B) it is not > in the way of the program development. I agree with you. It's pretty useless having AWESOME music running when the whole screen blows up in your face,so to speak. > [wild speculation mode on] > > Imagine the following: > > We have a Falcon 4.0 (3.1 NT? [g]) that after startup produces a nice icon > in the center of a gray screen with a menu bar on top. Choices: > File, Edit, Config, Campaign, Report, Comm, Instant Action, Help etc. > Not too much, probably less than these choices. I choose a squadron through [stuff deleted] > world around me coming to life. After being blown to bits, the screen swaps > back into the technical environment and I can retrace things, look at the VCR > (probably another low-res screen swap), get a new mission etc. > > [wild speculation mode off] > I take it you're quite into Windows, no? I personally feel that the current layout is ok, although it does need abit of touching up, but I can live with it. However, being a Windows-hater, if Falcon 4.0 came out with that kind of Windows-type interface, I rather not upgrade. > > Although I would oppose bringing out a Falcon for Windows, it might not be such > a bad idea to borrow some user interface primitives from e.g. OS/2 Presentation > Manager. Since the config system is separated from the simulation system, > they could even be two separate programs, communicating through disk files. > (ow... imagine communicating through ASCII disk files that we can even > edit ourselves... :-) Then even a native OS/2 version is very easily > made: the config under PM (or Windows, for that matter), the simulation > under DOS in full-screen mode (or, even better, OS/2 full screen mode). The only part that I won't mind having a pseudo-windows display would be the mission planning. Otherwise, the rest would be great as they are right now. > Look to programs like Tracon II; they are quite in the direction I would Tracon II doesn't require that much stuff ANYWAY. All it is, is just a screen that has a the radar sweep and small airplane icons moving around. > love to see Falcon heading for. Or FS4, for that matter. Get rid of the Falcon? In what way? > fancy setup screens that eat up programming time without adding anything > to the simulation, program them in the easiest way (using TurboVision??) So basically, from what you're saying, Falcon 4.0 would more likely be a DOWNGRADE than an upgrade.. ------------------------------- From: cooper@grebyn.com (Gary Cooper) Subject: Falcon 4.0 > Why don't you just convince the SH rep to subscribe to the list? > wouldn't that be a better way to go at it? > Definately - but AOL frowns on their gateway being used for mailing lists (don't know why, shouldn't make THAT much of a difference since 99.999% of AOL users have never heard of the Internet) - I'll check and see if maybe he can get an exemption since he's an "Industry Rep". coop ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: It's HERE! It's HERE!!!, and boy am I happy. got it at Software Etc. for $46.99, I know it's a LOT more than mail order, but hey I'm not dissapointed. One thing tho, the Mig is HARD to fly, maybe I got user to fly-by-wire. Cool poster too. - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the kris.ong@rose.com whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- From: Kris Ong Subject: Falcon 3.02 & MiG-29 Now that I've logged an hour or so in each, here's what i noticed. 3.02, quicker red-out doing negative-G's Controls in hi-fi seem more stable, but that might just be new pots. Coolie hat support, for views, up+scroll lock, left=left, right=right, back=padlock. Comms support my modem now! yay! everything else looks the same, I think, I haven't been through all of it yet. MiG-29, trims are giving me problems, controls are VERY responsive, maybe too responsive, looks nice, Interface is the same except it's an annoying color red, a strain to look at. Coolie hat support for trim and view. I'm eager to try the new comms. ihhd? jim? rob? You get the option of just installing the patch to 3.02 and not installing MiG-29, or install all. patch wipes out all squad data, instant action isn't affected. As expected, none of the utilities work now, falcnr, f3maps, falcalc. That's all I have now. Kris - -- krismon@quack.kfu.com An eye for an eye will make the kris.ong@rose.com whole world blind. Prodigy: GRTV13B -MLK Jr. ------------------------------- From: yamato.tardis7.sai.com.\u\m\t!ejones@mv.MV.COM (D:\utility\misc\turbo) Subject: Nuked Mail :( :( :( Hi. The place I got my e-mail from had problems from Monday - Thurdsay, so they disabled the phone lines. The problem was - their HDD went bad! All the Falcon3 newsletters that I recieved during that time got nuked, and I wasn't able to call in and retrieve them before hand! :( :( RIGHT after I asked a couple questions. To the people who answered me: If you could, could you summerise what your originally sent to me? If you want to do it privately, my *NEW* internet address is: ejones@yamato.tardis7.sai.com.... Thanx a lot. Summary of the 2 things I asked: 1) Who is in Air Combat Electronic Squadrons, and is it worth the $25/year fee? It seems great, but is there substance to it? 2) Over the Cannon debate, how is this for a compromise: Put weapon effiectiveness to Medium (middle option), and have scale at 4x? Someone posted that things in real life are at 8x, but you can only hit things with weapon effitveness at Low at scale 1x, so... Jeff (I think the controller of this newsletter has that name), is your private email address jeff@onion.rain.com? Gotta ask you somethin'. [ Yup, that's it. -Jeff ] Thanx to all! -Eddie ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 3 : Issue 95 ]]