Got bored and turned to the dark side.

[Pilotasso]

Thats right I bought Falcon 4 AF. My enterview for a new job at the local aeronautics industry (where they have MLU's going on) spurred my interest to the F-16 world again.

 

Being practicing BVR fights against the AI (wich is very good on F4) using current LOckOn tactics I actualy use online. I would like to make a few coments regarding flight model and missile modeling.

 

1) Missile modeling:

 

No fancy tricks here. Knowing I couldnt just fly torwards the 120 and dodge it, I used another tactic I fancy in Lomac. Turn the missile into my 3 or 9 O' clock and do a Split S downwords dumping chaff. I found out that it spoofes the AMRAAM but only if your beaming facing the ground is absolutely perfect. It will kill you otherwise. Anyone can try this. You will know youll have dodged it successfuly when either the missile suddenly shuts up or you hear a muffed explosion sound (missile self destroying nearby without effect).

Its No escape zone IMHO is just too large but you can still run away if you do so at least 15 miles away low and fast.

I havent yet outmanuevered a fast missile going by but thats related to item 2)

 

2) Flight modeling:

 

F-16 data sheet modeling taken from the manuals just dont work. HOw do I know? Try going vertical after take off. At 60º pitch the speed starts droping, curiously just like LOMAC does. Also like LOMAC you can sustain 9G past mach 1 wich is highly unrealistic. It bleeds off energy like mad just like the real falcon but it becomes too sluggish at low speeds. I found out that controlling pitch in a sustained turn I could only sustain 6 G's at 450 kts (corner speed) when the real plane does so at 9. In LoMAC you can actualy do better in the F-15.

looking at HUD tapes from airshows F4's manueverability is a very poor representation. The real falcon beats it real hard. As a consequence virtualy all other AI fighter can practicaly make circles arround you at low speeds. It manuevers like a bus. when the speeds drops to about 350-250 kts the F-16 no longer loses speed in a closed turn at low altitude. F4's F-16 will crawl to its nees untill you have to level or stop to a stanstill in mid air and sink to the ground. The F-15 In LOMAC does better, even though IRL the F-16 beats the eagle in that scenario.

 

Another glitch that hapens in F4 LOMAC and all other SIM's. AOA and slow speed aerodynamic effects are locked to all controll surfaces. IRL after a hard turn at 200-300kts and then leveling still allows the F-16 to roll fast enough to make your head spin. In F4 its a painfull exercise for 2 reasons:

a)After a turn it takes ages for the direction vector indicator to recover from the bottom of the HUD, and doing a pure roll will result in a dragging barrel roll.

b)AOA affects your horizontal stabilizers just as much as it does for the wing and makes rolling authority unrealisticaly slow.

 

Wich Simply is NOT true because your horizontal stabilizers aligns with the direction of the airflow and thus its boudary layer is never divergent nor creates any wake and consequent extra drag and authority sluggishness. Horizontal stabilizers are only affected by speed not AOA, and their aerodynamic autority tends not to be lost as fast as the wings do.

 

Theres absolutely no Inertia modeling in F4 and In LOMAC its scripted for the fighters. The end result is that LOMAC despite the relaxed flight model, it beats falcon table based FM.

 

This is why you cant out manuever AMRAAM's ever in F4 because youll drag the plane into a crawl in a horizontal turn. You need to resort to the supersonic overmodeling of the F-16 to beat the AMRAAM in the downwards split S I described above because you can do a full 9 G turn for several seconds while your still supersonic (incredibly youll still bleed speed like mad going straight down).

 

I also dont get it why all SIM makers are happy with anemic engines modeling. Perhaps they are afraid to give the plane an arcadish feel but the real thing does go vertical. Its time to end this "it-must-fly-like-crap-to-be-realistic" nonsense.

 

IMHO ED still has a clear path to model the F-16 the right way for the first time in SIMming history.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well...did you at least get your free cookie?

 

http://flydamnit.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/1150312932600.jpg

[jonnyB3]

WOW just for a cookie im doing it!lol

[RvETito]

I'll sit and watch how the F4 freaks will start curse you :D

 

But seriously, from my short experience with F4 the arcadish flight model was the reason I dropped it. And a friend of mine, a mad supporter of F4(and F-16) started to convince me that it's normal for the plane to behave like this because of the ultra-hyper-mega realistic modelling of the FBW control system. Sorry the F-16's FM in F4 is waaaaaaay off the real thing. I agree with all your points, so I'm not gonna to repeat after you.

 

Good luck with the incomming Falcon fans attacks

[Frostie]

Totally agree with your assumption ,but I still love to fly the DC in F4 now and then.

[tflash]

I agree the Falcon F4:AF FM is totally inept. You never even have the feeling you are flying at all. I think if you let the stick alone it will fly straight ahead untill it falls of the earth ;)

 

You could also try the Mirage Factory's free add-on Viper (a block 10 F-16A) for Wings Over Europe. WOE's engine is very good kinematically. The Mirage Factory's FM has some flaws (compared with the excellent stock Phantom FM's) , but at least it has inertia modelling and you can feel your plane. unfortunately, WOE has no BVR value: it is a light sim built for dogfights with cannon and winders.

[VMFA-Blaze]

Yeah...

 

I went to that side about 3 months ago....

 

The avionics for the F-16 are modeled a lot better then there flight model and of course the graphics aren't to good...

 

I added the high tiles mod as well as DrStops pits Block 50, MLF...

 

The mods do help a little, and I enjoy the the avionics, its actually fun once you get the hang of it....

 

Still Lock On IMHO is better, but until the F-15 radar is fixed and ED brings out the F-16 I'll fly both of them..

 

The graphics in Falcon are really holding it back from being any true competition here, even though I do like it...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[SUBS17]

I'll sit and watch how the F4 freaks will start curse you :D

 

But seriously, from my short experience with F4 the arcadish flight model was the reason I dropped it. And a friend of mine, a mad supporter of F4(and F-16) started to convince me that it's normal for the plane to behave like this because of the ultra-hyper-mega realistic modelling of the FBW control system. Sorry the F-16's FM in F4 is waaaaaaay off the real thing. I agree with all your points, so I'm not gonna to repeat after you.

 

Good luck with the incomming Falcon fans attacks

 

If you watch some HUD tapes you'll see some similarities between Falcon AF and the way the F-16 behaves in the tapes. I find the FM to be quite good for the F-16 in F4AF and it does model weights and inertia to a degree which is noticeable when you try to land with a full load. Can't really knock it as it is a much older sim compared to lockon but its improvements have made it quite an enjoyable sim for online flying.

[Pilotasso]

I'll sit and watch how the F4 freaks will start curse you :D

 

Good luck with the incomming Falcon fans attacks

 

Let them. I have a BIG gun wayting for them. :D

[Pilotasso]

I find the FM to be quite good for the F-16 in F4AF and it does model weights and inertia to a degree which is noticeable when you try to land with a full load. Can't really knock it as it is a much older sim compared to lockon but its improvements have made it quite an enjoyable sim for online flying.

 

 

You may want to read my first post again... Would you care to explain 9G's at mach 1.3 like I saw? And man I have the F-16 manual.

BTW the inertia you feel is only calculated as a downforce and rotation penalty factor. There are no Inertia moments whatsoever thats why it doesnt feel right.

 

Speaking about HUD tapes. Do a sudden pitch imput and realease the stick, then compare it to the tape. F4 vector indicator comes back as if over molasses while the real falcon wobles...so much for "the-plane-on-rails-because-of-the-FBW" theory. Its a poor excuse for a dated FM.

 

PS: dont anyone send me PM's for the manual because albeit being declassified, the cover is as far as I go and even that is sensored.

[SUBS17]

You may want to read my first post again... Would you care to explain 9G's at mach 1.3 like I saw? And man I have the F-16 manual.

BTW the inertia you feel is only calculated as a downforce and rotation penalty factor. There are no Inertia moments whatsoever thats why it doesnt feel right.

 

Speaking about HUD tapes. Do a sudden pitch imput and realease the stick, then compare it to the tape. F4 vector indicator comes back as if over molasses while the real falcon wobles...so much for "the-plane-on-rails-because-of-the-FBW" theory. Its a poor excuse for a dated FM.

 

PS: dont anyone send me PM's for the manual because albeit being declassified, the cover is as far as I go and even that is sensored.

 

Well perhaps you should talk to the guys who did the HFFMs and also LP for that matter. Have a look at this thread here

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=004282

 

For me as far as the F-16 is concerned though I have yet to see a better F-16 sim than F4AF. And as far as I think the FM is concerned well it has some characteristics which are close enough to follow whats in the manuals. In that I am refering to the other F-16 manuals in particular the A/A combat and tactics. You also have to realise that F4 is quite an old sim and eventhough F4AF is an updated version its probably limited in alot of this stuff. Now talking of FM have you seen the FO developers diarys? This one here sounds quite promising for any future F-16 sim.

http://fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6141

Definately a very different way at looking at FMs.:thumbup:

 

BTW Pilotasso what patch are you using as FMs changed in one of the later patches. Latest patch is 1.09.

[Pilotasso]

Ill let you know a few things more.

 

I used to edit FM's for falcon in the realism SP packs. The FM files contained drag coefficient break points, engine power break points, lift coeficcient breakpoints all of wich corresponds to the F-16's wing profile. Every chart they got refer to static phisycs, not dynamics, ask them that. Can they simulate dynamics accuratly? that'll get them somewhat baffled, because they wont understand the idea at first but when they do, they will realise they have been looking at charts describing experimental results obtained under constant static conditions. All those lines are consecutive dots in well defined conditions. I.e. obtained with a model glued on a pole in the wind tunnel.

There are no charts to describe what hapens when it does sudden snap manuevers. They dont have the equations that describes the equilibrium of inertial moments VS the aerodynamic effects of the boundary layer at any given point in time. They wont understand how the boundary layer affects the wings differently than the stabilizers. Thats why the drag causes the plane to never quite match RL and thats why the engines are underpowered to prevent it from goin at mach 3 at a straight line in order to counter a ficticious drag thats much lower than RL because they do not count with adverse pressure gradients and divergent boundary layer conditions in hard turns. (speed drop with full power in a pitch angle of 60º at sea level is bullcrap).

 

And theyll keep on coming with the excuse FBW makes the plane feel like on rails.

FBW is there to keep the plane out of uncontrolled flight thats all, not to bend the laws of phisycs.

[uhoh7]

Ill let you know a few things more.

 

I used to edit FM's for falcon in the realism SP packs. The FM files contained drag coefficient break points, engine power break points, lift coeficcient breakpoints all of wich corresponds to the F-16's wing profile. Every chart they got refer to static phisycs, not dynamics, ask them that. Can they simulate dynamics accuratly? that'll get them somewhat baffled, because they wont understand the idea at first but when they do, they will realise they have been looking at charts describing experimental results obtained under constant static conditions. All those lines are consecutive dots in well defined conditions.

There are no charts to describe what hapens when it does sudden snap manuevers. They dont have the equations that describes the equilibrium of inertial moments VS the aerodynamic effects of the boundary layer at any given point in time. They wont understand how the boundary layer affects the wings differently than the stabilizers. Thats why the drag causes the plane to never quite match RL and thats why the engines are underpowered to prevent it from goin at mach 3 at a straight line in order to counter a ficticious drag thats much lower than RL because they do not count with adverse pressure gradients and divergent boundary layer conditions in hard turns.

 

And theyll keep on coming with the excuse FBW makes the plane feel like on rails.

FBW is there to keep the plane out of uncontrolled flight thats all, not to bend the laws of phisycs.

 

No need to work up a sweat when you tell the truth. The FM is not the F4 strong suit nor are the graphics, though many swear the FM is dead on. You don't need to know nothing about an F-16 to tell something is missing. I never could figure out the denial on the subject---counter productive since it sorta discourages working on it.

 

But F4 has more work in it than any sim we fly, and it teaches you the most too. It has warts all over, but it's a monster. Nothing even remotely in the ball park of the F4 Campaign exists in any sim I've seen. And there's a ton of little BIG things in there too---jeez look at your choice of wingman commands.

 

Can you point out a million problems with the DC? Sure, but show me another.

[Bucic]

How can I put this..?

Give the Counter Strike proper physics and part of realism and you get something of equal sim-value to Lock On. It's like DEMO of newly emrged flight sim developer group. And they keep going this blind path (Black Shark) of adding more "eye candy" details to graphics (based on one of the most unoptimized graphics engine) making it nothing more than future platform for meaningless show off movies with Hans Zimmer's music in background.

 

I had the same feeling - I got bored! Bored with flight model and damage modeling (later in Flaming Cliffs) and having nothing more to explore:joystick:

 

Sure there are issues with Falcon 4 Allied Force. A little bit outdated graphics, no external damage effects and flight model. Although the F4 AF flight model is not THAT bad, like someone said before, if you can follow real life procedures and tactics in vast majority of cases.

 

And what do you think, whast kind of simulator is this, if along poor graphics, flight model and other stuff it still gives you THE FEEEELL...?

[RvETito]

Give the Counter Strike proper physics and part of realism and you get something of equal sim-value to Lock On. It's like DEMO of newly emrged flight sim developer group. And they keep going this blind path (Black Shark) of adding more "eye candy" details to graphics (based on one of the most unoptimized graphics engine) making it nothing more than future platform for meaningless show off movies with Hans Zimmer's music in background.

 

I won't even comment your "great findings" about LO. Just one simple question- have you tried the Su-25T? Do you have any idea about it's avionics, systems and FM modelling? If you think this is a "blind path" think again.

 

Although the F4 AF flight model is not THAT bad, like someone said before, if you can follow real life procedures and tactics in vast majority of cases.

 

Which cases exactly? And would you be so kind to define "THAT bad"? Pilotasso shared exact arguments taken from the theory, not his "feelings" while flying the F-16 in F4AF.

 

And what do you think, whast kind of simulator is this, if along poor graphics, flight model and other stuff it still gives you THE FEEEELL...?

 

Good for you! But this sounds to me pretty much like "blind path".

[Dudikoff]

I won't even comment your "great findings" about LO. Just one simple question- have you tried the Su-25T? Do you have any idea about it's avionics, systems and FM modelling? If you think this is a "blind path" think again.

 

He's talking about the lack of depth in the game, not the lack in individual planes' modelling. You haven't actually said anything in your post instead of raising inflammatory questions. Oh, wait, my post is the same. Damn.

[britgliderpilot]

Mmmmn.

 

 

Heard most of it before. Pilotasso, that rant on the F4 aerodynamics was quite informative, thanks :)

 

 

Still want F4's environment and DC in Lomac, though.

 

The perfect sim's always been one that combines elements of both . . . the sooner everyone realises that the better :P

 

 

Black Shark's getting better, so I guess all we can really do is wait for the development to run it's course. Shrug.

[RvETito]

He's talking about the lack of depth in the game, not the lack in individual planes' modelling. You haven't actually said anything in your post instead of raising inflammatory questions. Oh, wait, my post is the same. Damn.

 

Your post is nothing but a self contradiction. Here's another "inflammatory question" for ya: what deference do you see between "depth in the game" and "individual plane's modelling"?

[yamangman]

Your post is nothing but a self contradiction. Here's another "inflammatory question" for ya: what deference do you see between "depth in the game" and "individual plane's modelling"?

 

Don't deride him, he is making a good point. So your Su-25T gets shot to pieces on a mission forcing you to struggle to get it home and land safely... Phew - done that, that was good - oh crap - mission failed, i'll have repeat the whole thing again anyway, why'd I even bother.

[ericinexile]

Pilotasso, My thoughts are very much in line with yours. I lack the aerodynamic engineering background but I do have 11000+ hours, most of which is in big jets (unfortunately no fighters in my past). If the real Viper flew anything like the plane modeled in F4:AF, we'd be losing about two a week...in peacetime! Still, it is a marvelous sim just for the dynamic capaign alone. I've loved the LOMAC family for well over a decade now. But every once in a while the Hyperlobby-R27s-at-30km duels get old. That's when I head to the "dark side" (really dark if on a night mission) and enjoy the satisfaction of a well planned and executed OCA strike. Smokin'Hole

[Pilotasso]

Bear in mind that Im not dissing the SIM ( was a falconeer for over half a decade). Even less the dynamic campaign. Just saying theres room for improvment and made a list of things.

 

BTW Pilotasso what patch are you using as FMs changed in one of the later patches. Latest patch is 1.09.

I have it. :) But the difference is very subtile. all the major issues are still present and they will always be.

 

IF they say the FM is as good as it gets they will be limminting themselves and prevent the product from having an evolution in this area. Its counterproductive, and thats the main reason Im wayting to see what comes out from ED's F-16/Mig-29 SIM as well as Fighter ops.

[Dudikoff]

Here's another "inflammatory question" for ya: what deference do you see between "depth in the game" and "individual plane's modelling"?

 

Sorry, that's a constructive question. But it only reveals a few basic misconceptions that you might have since the two don't have much in common.

[Bucic]

I won't even comment your "great findings" about LO.

 

You should not even hesitate.

 

Just one simple question- have you tried the Su-25T? Do you have any idea about it's avionics, systems and FM modelling? If you think this is a "blind path" think again.

 

I’ve tried. I've mastered it’s (modeled) avionics. There’s not much of it but it’s neither anyones fault nor sim disadvantage. In fact it’s the best PC simulation for basic flight training in my opinion.

 

Back to “blind path”. All I’m saying is nothing much has changed in Lock On since old simulators such as Flanker 2 and even Su-27 Flanker. Except AFM, damage modeling, avionics tweaks and manga-like graphics.

 

He's talking about the lack of depth in the game, not the lack in individual planes' modelling.

 

That’s all I’m saying.

 

Which cases exactly? And would you be so kind to define "THAT bad"?

 

Corner speed, flameout landing and more performance related examples. Still it’s a “procedural flight model” I think, which means that most of aircraft limits are forced by “manual procedures” rather than being a result of … calculation results. It’s only my guess based on experience in F4.

 

“not THAT bad” means 7 out of 10 while “not that bad” means 8 out of 10……in my country ;)

 

what deference do you see between "depth in the game" and "individual plane's modelling"?

 

It’s simple. Depth in game means campaign/batlle environment engine which gives “player” possibility to interact with OTHER objects. Individual plane’s modeling – flight model, damage model, avionics&systems etc. Independent from other objects.

 

Bear in mind that Im not dissing the SIM ( was a falconeer for over half a decade). Even less the dynamic campaign. Just saying theres room for improvment and made a list of things.

 

IF they say the FM is as good as it gets they will be limminting themselves and prevent the product from having an evolution in this area. Its counterproductive(…)

 

Simple as crank. Not for everyone though. And it applies to every sim. Well, good luck with Lock On series. Keep supporting the “blind path”. And pay for it…

[RvETito]

Sorry, that's a constructive question. But it only reveals a few basic misconceptions that you might have since the two don't have much in common.

 

Okay, I'll put it this way: what's the defference between "depth of the game" and "depth of a particular plane modelling"? Because for me it's all the same. Isn't it any sim all about one(or more) planes that you virtualy fly? And wheter it is(or not) modelled properly is the criteria how realistic the sim is.

 

Anyway, I won't go any further in this direction since it went to much OT. No one can convince me that the F-16 in F4 has accurate FM. I'm not saying that LO is better than F4 in all aspects but when it comes to flight dynamics implementation LO is a few steps ahead, especially with the FM of Su-25. I have always wanted an AFM for the fighters and the fact that ED made the most accurate FM ever(although for ground pounder) and now is doing the same for totaly different type of aircraft is a very good sign that someday we may have a fighter AFM.

[RvETito]

It’s simple. Depth in game means campaign/batlle environment engine which gives “player” possibility to interact with OTHER objects. Individual plane’s modeling – flight model, damage model, avionics&systems etc. Independent from other objects.

 

How deep in your game(campaign or whatever) can you go without proper FM? What you say is quiet subjective. Some people(like you obviously) are satisfied with the F4 DC where they can interact with multiple virtual objects but other people(like me) prefer first of all to interact with their own virtual plane and it's systems. The rest I get it in the HyperLobby.

I would easily define F4 as a "blind path"(kinda liked that expression :D) as you did with LO and us, it's supporters, and I can post my arguments but I don't see a good reason I would do that. Just being sarcastic is never a good behaviour.