To: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Sender: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@falcon3.k9.com Return-Path: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V8 : I24 Falcon3 Digest Volume 8 : Issue 24 Fri Sep 1 07:13:56 PDT 1995 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@falcon3.k9.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@falcon3.k9.com" Archives are available via ftp from cactus.org Today's Topics: Airvars - a controversial view michaelb@tenmail.mincom.oz.au (Mich Utilties Bill White <74650.746@compuserve.co ------------------------------------------------------------ From: michaelb@tenmail.mincom.oz.au (Michael Barnes) Subject: Airvars - a controversial view There have been a number of post recently about the FTP-modified Airvars files. I have seen two customised versions of Airvars; one from the Internet and one that came with an updated version of FTP. They have raised some concerns in my mind: How are we to judge the accuracy of these customised flight models? Who created these flight models, and what qualifications did they have? Were they experienced jet pilots? aeronautical engineers? or enthusiastic amateurs with a copy of Jane's? I noticed with the two sets of flight models I have tried is that many planes fly more like F16s - and I don't think this is a good thing; it is not unreasonable to slightly exaggerate the differences between aircraft in order to make them more apparent. For example, the standard F14 in Falcon is an absolute truck - you can't dogfight with it, and you shouldn't try. I also noticed that both sets significantly increased the damage resistance of all of the aircraft. Why? I discussed this with several airforce personnel in my Falcon club, and their opinion was that it was not realistic. What I am trying to say here is that, just because we can change the flight flight models doesn't mean that the flight models necessarily need changing. Certainly one or two need a little tweek - At the 62nd Fighting Falcons we use a modified B52, a modified AH64 and a modified Cruise Missile. However, we haven't found a need yet to modify anything else, and no need to touch the damage resistances. We fly almost exclusively campaigns using Strategic Falcon and mixed squadrons of aircraft, with very few F16's. So what is the story? Is everyone blindly grabbing a new set of flight models because they are 'new' and therefore by definition 'better'? Or have these models all been carefully tuned and tested by experts to ensure the maximum realism within the limits of the Falcon flight algorithms? Does anyone know? Regards Michael "Caution" Barnes --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Barnes Internet: michaelb@mincom.oz.au Mincom Pty Ltd Ph. +61 7 303-3148 Fax +61 7 303-3232 ------------------------------- From: Bill White <74650.746@compuserve.com> Subject: Utilties Re: Subject: Utilities John Mathieu wrote: >> where can I purchase Falcon Test Pilot? Contact Gregory Pierson at 72520.1775@compuserve.com. >> Also, I had purchased the Falcon & Mig Commander utilities >> (The KCC package) for 3.02 from Keyboard Commander Corps and >> would like to upgrade them to work with 3.05 - but I've heard >> nasty things about them cashing checks and disappearing. Is >> there any place else I can get the upgrades? Since KCC went under the authors made them shareware and released them as "The Gold Falcon Utilities." FCU/MCU/HCU owners get free registration. You can download them as GFUTIL.ZIP from cactus.org or the Flying Muffin homepage at http://www.cris.com/~Flymuff . -Bill White ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 8 : Issue 24 ]]