Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#1768699 - 04/13/06 10:36 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P Offline
Member
John P  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Anthem:
Well, would it be fair to stick with AF to play on while I learn the system and how to use it? Then upgrade later or at least watch for what FF4 will provide, or I don't know. Maybe graphics are for LOMAC or a modded FS9?
Oh, it's worth getting. Besides, it's dirt cheap too \:\)

It's also worth trying out F4. Fly them both, lots of folks do, myself included \:\)

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#1768700 - 04/13/06 10:43 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P Offline
Member
John P  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Anthem:
Oh yeah, a side question. It is possible to fly other planes in F4? That sounds pretty cool! Obviously the FM wouldn't be as realistic as dedicated sims, but it would be cool regardless. Or so I would think...
Yes, it is. Depends on what version you're using, as to how its done though.

But it's very easy to do in all versions. Also, unless you have an add-on cockpit, the other planes default to the falcon one too.

#1768701 - 04/13/06 10:51 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Hammer3246 Offline
Junior Member
Hammer3246  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Anthem:
Oh yeah, a side question. It is possible to fly other planes in F4? That sounds pretty cool! Obviously the FM wouldn't be as realistic as dedicated sims, but it would be cool regardless. Or so I would think...
There's lots of freeware cockpits out there, all of the avionics are F-16 but the flight models aren't (somewhat, given the limitations of the exe) but it's still nice, trying out other aircraft.

#1768702 - 04/13/06 11:19 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 641
Captain Anthem Offline
Member
Captain Anthem  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 641
oh, I DO use F4AF.


Rather than asking who we’re going to fly the F-22 against, we should ask who’s going to fly against the F-22?
#1768703 - 04/14/06 05:44 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 325
Snowfalcon Offline
Member
Snowfalcon  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 325
Reno, Nevada, USA
Quote:
While the previous version of jdams, etc. may have been unrealistic, it's no more so than having current/future campaigns in AF.......without them
Ahem

Being able to fire a JDAM from 20nm at a target is not realistic. Thats a cruise misssle not a JDAM. Neither is having to get visual on a target to release a GPS weapon. If you need clear visual you might as well use a LGB. GPS munitions give the pilot a "In Range" cue in the HUD. The benifit of GPS weapons is the pilot only has to be in range and on axis. They also have the benifit of working in any weather. They don't work on moving targets and they aren't "super mavericks" The way they exist in current form isn't realistic and allows for an attack profile not available to RL pilots. That allows you to change the way you fly and fight a campaign.


Snowfalcon13 99th-VFS
Shot at and missed S*** at and Hit!

MSI P6N Diamond
Intel Q6600 quad @ 2.4GHz
4 GB OCZ DDR2 800
Win 7 Professional 64bit
WD 150GB RaptorX C drive
WD 74GB/16MB Raptor F4AF/FSX install
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB

#1768704 - 04/14/06 11:56 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Krunk Offline
Junior Member
Krunk  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowfalcon:


Being able to fire a JDAM from 20nm at a target is not realistic. Thats a cruise misssle not a JDAM. Neither is having to get visual on a target to release a GPS weapon. If you need clear visual you might as well use a LGB. GPS munitions give the pilot a "In Range" cue in the HUD. The benifit of GPS weapons is the pilot only has to be in range and on axis. They also have the benifit of working in any weather. They don't work on moving targets and they aren't "super mavericks" The way they exist in current form isn't realistic and allows for an attack profile not available to RL pilots. That allows you to change the way you fly and fight a campaign.
Ahem...I've a seen version where the range is correct, they do not fire like missiles and do not smoke so it's not as unrealistic as some think. But this is another realism merry-go-round, which is not winnable for anyone. The same can be said for the HTS & HARM system. The system simulated in all versions could be considered "arcade" at best, yet we gladly use this and make no comments. At least LP could have added GPS munitions to non-flyable aircraft. They added Tomahawk cruise missiles to naval aircraft which are not simulated correctly, but they left out JDAMs. If we want to be sticklers about realism, AF should have targeted a time period before 1995. It's very hard to imagine flying an F-16 in 2005 or 2010 without GPS munitions. But at least we got LGBs. Cheers.

#1768705 - 04/14/06 02:14 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,703
Blade_RJ Offline
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Blade_RJ  Offline
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Hotshot

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,703
brasil
i'm not enjoying AF at all, the only thing good for me is that the realistic pit isnt such frame killer as in sp4 or the add of trees,but flying buildings and other stuff really get me off.
i have them both installed.

#1768706 - 04/14/06 02:35 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,703
Blade_RJ Offline
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Blade_RJ  Offline
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Hotshot

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,703
brasil
i didnt know the mod community was still developing sp series, didnt they sold their work so what we have in AF is due to them?
that was the only reason i bough AF, to suport the hard work they had to us.

#1768707 - 04/14/06 05:26 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Hammer3246 Offline
Junior Member
Hammer3246  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Blade_RJ:
i didnt know the mod community was still developing sp series, didnt they sold their work so what we have in AF is due to them?
that was the only reason i bough AF, to suport the hard work they had to us.
Pretty sure thay aren't. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure LP is the SP group (atleast what was left of them).

#1768708 - 04/14/06 06:49 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P Offline
Member
John P  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowfalcon:
Quote:
While the previous version of jdams, etc. may have been unrealistic, it's no more so than having current/future campaigns in AF.......without them
Ahem

Being able to fire a JDAM from 20nm at a target is not realistic. Thats a cruise misssle not a JDAM. Neither is having to get visual on a target to release a GPS weapon. If you need clear visual you might as well use a LGB. GPS munitions give the pilot a "In Range" cue in the HUD. The benifit of GPS weapons is the pilot only has to be in range and on axis. They also have the benifit of working in any weather. They don't work on moving targets and they aren't "super mavericks" The way they exist in current form isn't realistic and allows for an attack profile not available to RL pilots. That allows you to change the way you fly and fight a campaign.
I know perfectly well they're not realistic in the various F4 mods. I stated that earlier ;\)

I also stated it's just as unrealistic imo to have campaigns based in the present and future, in AF, without such munitions, as they are/have been used on a regular basis.

Heck, the way even mavs, i.e, are done in the game isn't realistic, if you get down to it.

Sure, the *method* may be correct, but not to many real pilots are having to use a mouse/HOTAS button, instead of their fingers, to click on their mfd screen with either ;\)

And then there's my personal fav, the awacs code.... \:D

#1768709 - 04/14/06 06:50 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P Offline
Member
John P  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Krunk:
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowfalcon:


Being able to fire a JDAM from 20nm at a target is not realistic. Thats a cruise misssle not a JDAM. Neither is having to get visual on a target to release a GPS weapon. If you need clear visual you might as well use a LGB. GPS munitions give the pilot a "In Range" cue in the HUD. The benifit of GPS weapons is the pilot only has to be in range and on axis. They also have the benifit of working in any weather. They don't work on moving targets and they aren't "super mavericks" The way they exist in current form isn't realistic and allows for an attack profile not available to RL pilots. That allows you to change the way you fly and fight a campaign.
Ahem...I've a seen version where the range is correct, they do not fire like missiles and do not smoke so it's not as unrealistic as some think. But this is another realism merry-go-round, which is not winnable for anyone. The same can be said for the HTS & HARM system. The system simulated in all versions could be considered "arcade" at best, yet we gladly use this and make no comments. At least LP could have added GPS munitions to non-flyable aircraft. They added Tomahawk cruise missiles to naval aircraft which are not simulated correctly, but they left out JDAMs. If we want to be sticklers about realism, AF should have targeted a time period before 1995. It's very hard to imagine flying an F-16 in 2005 or 2010 without GPS munitions. But at least we got LGBs. Cheers.
Exactly. Options are a good thing; let *me* decide if I want to use option X or not.

#1768710 - 04/14/06 07:17 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 195
nerves Offline
Member
nerves  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 195
Jacksonville, Fl.
to the post Above. Ssome of the GPS munition can be fire from 20NM. Additionally the majority of the stock munitions of the US inventory has dramatically change since the first Gulf World, to lead with "Smart munitions" at a much reduc cost than the one used in that war.

Moreover GPS munition have a multitude of delivery methods, inclusive to Pre-coord, HASS-OPP, and others.

#1768711 - 04/14/06 07:50 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
IIRC, a GBU31 (Mk83 JDAM) is good for about 15 miles, and that's if it's dropped from 45,000 feet. You're not going to get a significant number of weapons up that high on an F-16.

All JDAM should buy us over precision waypoints and slicks is multiple targets per pass and a _slight_ increase in range.


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#1768712 - 04/15/06 02:48 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Krunk Offline
Junior Member
Krunk  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally posted by Teej:
IIRC, a GBU31 (Mk83 JDAM) is good for about 15 miles, and that's if it's dropped from 45,000 feet. You're not going to get a significant number of weapons up that high on an F-16.

All JDAM should buy us over precision waypoints and slicks is multiple targets per pass and a _slight_ increase in range.
Double the range of dumb bombs in CCRP is a slight increase? \:D

#1768713 - 04/15/06 02:54 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
A: I get 5 mile throw in a lofted attack from ground level.

B: You're not going to get an F-16 up to 45,000 feet with bombs...at least not without running the burner constantly. More like 25,000...at which point the range will be _radically_ less than 15 miles...maybe 7.

C: Assuming you did get to 45,000, your turn radius will be 10 miles anyway, so you're still going to practically overfly the target. \:D


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#1768714 - 04/15/06 03:30 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P Offline
Member
John P  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Teej:
IIRC, a GBU31 (Mk83 JDAM) is good for about 15 miles, and that's if it's dropped from 45,000 feet. You're not going to get a significant number of weapons up that high on an F-16.

All JDAM should buy us over precision waypoints and slicks is multiple targets per pass and a _slight_ increase in range.
Oh, something tells me there's more to it than that, or they wouldn't have become the weapon of choice in recent years \:\)

#1768715 - 04/15/06 04:57 AM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally posted by John P:
Oh, something tells me there's more to it than that, or they wouldn't have become the weapon of choice in recent years \:\) [/QB]
I've said it before...and I'll say it again.

Real world:
- loads of MANPADs
- No credible threat from enemy fighters (the enemy's jets are either worn out, the pilots would rather defect, or both)
- Most of the SAMs that work are low altitude
- Flying low altitude is suicidal

Falcon world
- MANPADs present, but not the dominant threat
- Enemy has arseloads of top notch aircraft flown by...well..if not experts, then at least AI good enough to present a serious threat.
- SAMs don't seem to malfunction.
- Flying low, while not "safe", is _usually_ safer than flying high.

I don't think a realistic threat environment would make for an interesting game. It's one thing when a weapon/tactic saves risk to our troops. It's another matter to "simulate" a weapon that you take off, fly at 40,000 feet for 45 minutes, push a button and turn around and come back home.

Wouldn't matter so much to people who live to dogfight and drop the occasional bomb...but for strike / SEAD types, it just wouldn't be as much _fun_ as a run down the tarmac shedding durandals or wild weasel runs through the hills.

If JDAMs were properly implemented, the only reason to use them is if the threat environment is made more realistic (craploads of manpads and such making low-level flight suicide) and I would probably no longer be interested because it just wouldn't be much fun to fly around at 40,000 where the plane handles like a cargo truck with flat tires.

My $.04


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#1768716 - 04/15/06 02:02 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Krunk Offline
Junior Member
Krunk  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally posted by Teej:
A: I get 5 mile throw in a lofted attack from ground level.

B: You're not going to get an F-16 up to 45,000 feet with bombs...at least not without running the burner constantly. More like 25,000...at which point the range will be _radically_ less than 15 miles...maybe 7.

C: Assuming you did get to 45,000, your turn radius will be 10 miles anyway, so you're still going to practically overfly the target. \:D
Hi. Respectfully I disagree with this. I made a test TE in AF and this is what I did: Attack an airbase that has an SA-3. Fly at 25-30k ft AGL for normal ingress and normal fuel usage. When you get about 17NM from the target, go into afterburner and pull up at 45 deg. When I got to about 40k ft AGL, I lofted my bombs using MAN. I then rolled my plane to the right and pulled into a dive while turning. I was able to turn 180 deg from the target in less than 30 secs. and never got within the SA-3 threat range. Also I was in afterburner less than 1 minute. I have no idea of what actual ranges a JDAM might have, but a relase of 10-12 NM should not be unrealistic if I loft from very high altitudes. And even if I got within the SAM firing range, I had the advantage of altitude and speed to use to run away after release of my bombs. Using jammers helps lower the SAM threat ranges. \:\) Cheers.

#1768717 - 04/15/06 04:24 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Respectfully back...your testing is flawed.

Load up 4 GBU-24s and set 'em to ripple off all at once (since that's what you'd do with JDAMs - take a full load and release 'em at basically the same time) For the purposes of this test, the fact that you'll be too high for the lasing pod to activate is irrelevant. Unless we were to get Longtrack modded JDAMs, the guidance package is substantially similar to the paveway IIIs.

Lock up the target on radar and use at least an area lock on the TGP. We're not actually concerned with hitting the target here, but the distance it lets you release the GBUs would be very, very similar to the range for a JDAM.

What you will find is that even if you use an extended afterburner climb to maintain ~ 280 knots airspeed as you get near 45,000 feet, you still only have about 9 miles of throw. Probably less if you try your popup at altitude since you will scrub off all your speed.

While yes, 9 miles + a jammer will keep you out of threat from a single SA3 emplacement...it's hardly fair to match a brand new weapon system against a 50 year old threat environment. If you want to be fair...put an SA-10 on your target.


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#1768718 - 04/15/06 04:28 PM Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Modification to previous post.

According to F-16.net, USAF F-16s are only set up to carry GBU-31s (Mk84 based) and only 1 pair (on stations 3 and 7).

So simulate with 2 * GBU-24.

Edit: Also try 1 pair of plain Mk84s. The GBU-31 package has much smaller guidance fins than a GBU-24 which will _decrease_ it's glide capability.

GBU-31s are NOT "glide bombs" - they will not have a significantly longer throw than MK84 or GBU24.

The AGM154 might be a bit more interesting if you want standoff range...


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0