RedTiger

What are you talking about? I think you're misunderstanding me. The USAF, counting the USAAF, has been flying successful sorties, both in actual combat and some of the most realistic training possible, for almost 70 years. It was putting bombs and rounds on target before India was even an independent country. That's the point, isn't it? For an air force, what type of reputation counts for you? The USAF has an established culture that has been developed for all those years. You have years and years worth of knowledge preserved and passed down through the generations of pilots, dating all the way back to WWII. And this says nothing of the USN who also has similar experience. Whatever someone's bias may be this ^^^ counts. A LOT. To say otherwise is foolish. I'd put trust in this any day over an air force who lacks this or cannot measure up. If I'm wrong, oh well. I'll admit I'm wrong, but you can't blame me for where I put my trust. I don't particularly know who to believe in this situation, but if someone wants to believe the USAF guy in this case, I won't hold it against them. BTW, you can take out every single instance of the term "USAF" and put in any air force with this type of culture and tradition. I understand why you personally might find this uncomfortable. :) That is not my intention, at all. It has zero to do with any sort of nationalistic pride or any other hogwash that people like to stir in. Sorry, that has NO place in this discussion. If I was adding that in, I'd have a pretty crappy argument, don't you think? I'd be just as willing trust in any such air force's capabilities. Its about having walked the walk, how long, and how you pass that info down, that's all. :)

I'm not saying anything negative the sim. Actually, I'm flying it more than Black Shark and I'm actually enjoying it for once thanks to FreeFalcon/RedViper. Its amazing what a 3D clickable 6DOF cockpit and a more tolerable FM will do for your enjoyment of the sim. What I am saying is that no matter what plane you model, you're stuck with a great deal of the F-16's avionics.

He never said that, but I will provide the following concepts for you to ponder: 1. Reputation 2. Experience 3. Number of years in existence To turn it around in a more palatable way, here's a hint; if you had to bet money like your life depended on it, who would you believe is more likely to have the 20:1 ratio, the Russian air force or the Indian air force? You have no way of knowing, you just have to go on your gut instinct. I know who I'd bet on. ;)

How...? People have been flying other planes in Falcon 4 for quite some time and the limitation is always the same: you're stuck with the F-16 MFDs. You can move them around and resize them, but you still have the F-16's symbology.

Interesting how the producer's notes were of the most help, isn't it? I wonder what exactly about them seemed better than the training tracks included with the game. The conversational style? I have noticed that some of the training track voice overs are taken directly from the text of the manual. This should be interesting.

I saw this thread at SimHQ: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2638555/The_Good_and_the_Bad.html#Post2638555 The part I'm most interested is the bit about the training materials. I do not recall any discussion about the ease of using these materials since BS was released. So, what do you think? To be honest, I can agree with some of their points. The manual is a wealth of information, but its more of a dictionary or encyclopedia for reference than a "how to" manual. Perhaps this was what ED intended? The manuals for the real thing are often just references to supplement the classroom and hands-on training that teaches you the "how-to". Maybe we need a Ka-50 for Dummies? :) I find this stuff interesting. How people learn new material is a subject near and dear to my heart. There's always room for improvement on making things more intuitive.

Bias is a subjective thing. No where in particular does he say that one Red aircraft is better than one Blue aircraft. Rather, its in the details he chooses to use and/or omit. For example, the bit you provided about the Su-27 engaging two targets simultaneously. I do recall reading that in the book I have. Notice how he's light on the specifics? What radar are we talking about? What year was this particular Flanker developed? Is currently in service? Was it EVER in service? Were they fielded in any meaningful number? If he provided these numbers, it might paint a very different picture. Are we talking about one or two demo models run by Sukhoi in the 90s or several hundred fielded by the USSR? You have to ask why this info is not included, and if its omission is intended to create an inaccurate picture of Russian aerospace capability. The candid pictures in his books make me wonder if he has some direct dealing with the various design bureaus. His comparisons between fighters do not have any opinion from him on which is better so much as they are just simplistic and light on details. To the lay person who doesn't know what types of things to ask, it can present an inaccurate picture. One thing I absolutely have to mention is a strange blurb in one of his books about the MiG-29 where he mentions Alexander Zuyev. Besides having a very low opinion of the guy as a human being (in terms of bias, again, ask "why?"), he mentions that after defecting no one knows what happened to him. Uh...no. We know exactly what happened to him, especially since he wrote a book about his defection. :doh: I'm not trying to down the guy or his books. Everyone has their bias and points of view. Who really cares, right? The photographs probably justify the cost since they are really, really nice. If he really does rub elbows with Sukhoi and friends, whatever credibility is lost is made up for in the candid photos IMO since I can take things with a grain of salt.

He's got several (all of which are probably the same book, from what I have heard :D ). If you've got the money to burn and the ability to digest info and take it with a grain of salt, and want something for the coffee table, go for it.

Finding decent, trustworthy information on the Flanker family is difficult, at least in my experience. It has not had the exposure to the West that the Fulcrum has. For example, there are TWO translated MiG-29 manuals that have been published in book format that you can purchase. One is for the MiG-29G, intended for NATO, the other is a so-so translation of the original Soviet MiG-29G manual. Information of this depth is not readily available for the Flanker. The only books I know of that cover the Flanker family are the ones written by Yefim Gordon. IMO his bias for Russian aircraft is fairly apparent and I've heard more than one person around here say that his bias lapses into misinformation. My biggest gripe with the one book of his I have is how it is organized. It's very confusing and difficult to tell what aircraft are products of the Soviet Union and which are post-cold war. There are also no numbers given, so even a rare prototype is sometimes presented in such a way that it appears to be an aircraft with numerous models in regular service. Mr. Gordon does have some very nice photos though. History, development, and version info is easy to find. Its the doctrine and combat stuff that is difficult to get.

The discrepancy is either very strange or exactly what you would expect, depending on your point of view. Who do you suppose should be believed?

The performance of the F-15 vs. the OpFor equipment it has faced and won against is a double edged sword for/against it in any argument. True, the F-15 has fought a number of the aircraft it was intended to face and did so unscathed. However, an F-15 pilot never faced the Soviet pilot he trained to fight. An F-15 pilot has never had to deal with the entire picture of what a Soviet offensive in Europe would have looked like. OTOH, as I always say, it isn't the ability to fight that makes one dangerous, its the willingness too. Despite the less than perfect threats the F-15 has faced, they were still threats. They still had to face other pilots in machines perfectly capable of killing them. You can take its combat record and try to glean what you can about how it and its pilots would have matched up against its intended foes and just be glad that we never had to find out. Like I said, my opinion on the matter will always be that it cuts both ways.

Sorry gear_monkey, I don't mean to truncate your thought here, but I just wanted to give a big fat "QFT". People who do not develop software (I am count myself among these people, my profession has zero to do with creating software) often do not realize the difficulties and challenges involved in getting a finished product. Something that seems simplistic often is not. Things that are just an "addition" will requires an entire reworking of the code. Even if it is really that simple, it is something that will take time and money away from the budget for other things that are far, far, FAR more important. Economically and efficiency wise, I would always want to leave OUT what I could. It doesn't work the other way around. You don't add features that will have no effect on game play. My opinion is that if ED takes the time for this stuff, they'd better have the next module done 9 months from the day as the last one, since they obviously have time and money to waste. ;) We know they don't, so this is very likely why things like this are not included. For those that want these switches, I'd suggest you put your cursor over the switch, make a little "click" sound with your mouth and pretend you've just turned on the AC because this is just about as meaningful as having ED create an animated switch and sound effect that does nothing. Hell, it worked when I was a kid and drew switches and dials in my cardboard box fighter jet!!! :D

Hehe, actually I did locate some: http://falcon.tomch.com/hitiles/index.html Got this link from the FreeFalcon site. Those are apparently Watli's original tiles which were released as freeware. They aren't quite as good as his pay ones and the install process is more complicated, but I still think they're an improvement over the stock ones. :)

There was a thread a while back about this. I gave it a try then, but it looks like they've improved it since then. I think I'll give it another try.

I have the Saitek ones, you will appreciate the spacing. That being said, I'm kinda looking at my watch waiting for them them to stop working. I have an older build version that is prone to have the pedals slip off the tracks if I put some weight on them the wrong way. I have to unscrew about 20 screws in the bottom to fix this. The newer produced ones have had this flaw fixed IIRC. Mine still work perfectly, I'm just not going to be surprised if they stop working. It will be shame since I probably won't want to buy another set but I prefer the wider spacing.

All is not totally lost. I managed to get Red Viper installed successfully. Took flight around, landed successfully on the first try even after not playing for so much time. :thumbup: I really wanted to try OF, but oh well. At least I don't have to put up with the 3D cockpit I can't click and the bad FM. I might buy some hitiles. Anyone know of some good free ones that are compatible with Red Viper? It looked like there were some nice freeware ones that came with OF when I installed it.

No problem, I totally understand your drive to solve a problem. I'm the same way. Drove my mother crazy growing up, now it drives my wife crazy. :D No harm foul on OF not working. I had my doubts. I kinda decided to give it a try on a whim.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the Falcon doubter will continue to doubt. I couldn't get the damn thing to run. :( It would CTD whenever any 3D graphics would be rendered, meaning it would crash even at the graphics preview. The fact that it has so many patches and tweaks tells me that I could spend hours just trying to figure out what exactly my system doesn't like about it. No thanks, unfortunately I'm not that interested to spend too much time on it.

In Allied Force, TrackIR works in both pits. By "works" in regards to the 2D pit, I mean that if you move your head, it will move the view around. Thats about as much as it "works". It is very cumbersome and difficult to use. Most turn that option off. Glad to hear you're able to stay in the 3D pit. I was hoping all the instruments and MFDs worked properly there. It sounds like they do.

Wow. I read the thread title and immediately thought "WTF, again? Didn't that happen around the time the Soviet Union was there?" Dirty trick. :mad: :P

Yes, it is a strength. For a while I put up with it and saw it as nothing but a plus until I realized that you can do the same thing in LOMAC, but its optional and much simpler. That kinda colored my opinion of Falcon's a bit. Its not the TOT for the package and flights that matter that bothers me, its for all the other stuff that you want in the "back ground". I'll admit, Black Shark has sort of increased my desire to play Falcon. I cannot bring myself to play Allied Force anymore. I can put up with everything but what finally kills it is the separation between the 2D clickable cockpit and the 3D TrackIR-friendly one. Hopefully OF will solve that problem. :) The Ka-50 is excellent, the sim is superb, and ED can really do no wrong in my eyes at this point. However my heart really isn't 100% into flying a helicopter either.

Good to hear! I was afraid this documentation was cloistered away somewhere or I'd be expected to refer to some of the real F-16 manuals -- which I have, btw -- but they tend not to provide any keyboard shortcuts. ;) I'll have to survive with the current mission editor, I suppose. While I understand the goal behind it and the reasons for its complexity, there are things about it that drive me nuts. You can painstakingly set up a package with all the different flights arriving correctly with regards to TOT, which is great, but you have to do this with EVERYTHING. That's what drives me nuts. You can't just plop down an AWACS, set up the race track and say "ok, you fly around in circles and do your job for 4 hours". You have to fiddle with speeds and times for a needless amount of time for the flight to make sense to the sim and act correctly. You can't take any shortcuts, everything must be correctly timed, which is needless in some situations. I'm also not a fan of the fact that you can give only basic commands to ground units and can only put in entire TO&E-level groups. If I want to just set up 3 tanks and tell them to drive down a road, I can't. I use the mission editor as a tool for practice and training just as much as for designing serious missions. At some point I might want something simple like 3 tanks on a road just to practice the basics. I like making my own missions rather than using stock training ones because I can dictate the conditions. In Black Shark right now I have a training mission that I'm adding more elements to as I go. Right now its just a Ka-50 sitting cold on the tarmac with a full combat load. Eventually I'll add waypoints, static targets, bad weather, etc.

I see this error a lot on in these threads. Guess I'm just used to the RPM gauge from flying the Su-27 so much. :P

Hey, I just thought of another question, one that I've always wondered about. Do these community-made Falcon overhauls have documentation provided? I understand that the 4.7 file is an upgrade for the full 4.5 version. If I install 4.5 over Falcon 4.0, is there a full manual included in the finished install? Like the binder one, a manual that covers everything from scratch, not just updates on changes in the version.

Oh well. I'll still probably give it a try.