#1768700 - 04/13/06 10:43 PM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
|
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
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
|
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.
|
|
#1768703 - 04/14/06 05:44 AM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 325
Snowfalcon
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 325
Reno, Nevada, USA
|
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
|
|
#1768707 - 04/14/06 05:26 PM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Hammer3246
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 40
|
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
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
|
Originally posted by Snowfalcon: 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....
|
|
#1768709 - 04/14/06 06:50 PM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
John P
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,299
MN, USA
|
Originally posted by Krunk: 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.
|
|
#1768713 - 04/15/06 02:54 AM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej
Member
|
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.
|
|
#1768715 - 04/15/06 04:57 AM
Re: Falcon 4 VS Falcon 4/AF
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
|
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
|
|
|
|