advise for buying Falcon 4

[Arbitrator]

how do you guys feel about F4 comparing to LOMAC, from what i heard, the flight modeling and the realism are similar to LOMAC, some even said it's more complicated than LOMAC. from the Ads, they said the graphics are good too, but i don't see that in the screen shots. the screen shots compare to LOMAC are realy not very pleasant. do you guys think if i enjoy LOMAC, i will find the same pleasure in F4 or otherwise? can some one tell me some advantages and disadvanges (besides i can fly the F16) of F4 compare to LOMAC so i can decide whether i want to go through the trouble or not.

thx! :pilotfly:

[Pilotasso]

In F4 the F-16 apears not to have moments of inertia. You pitch and the AOA recovers linearly without any wobling. Rate of roll is also totaly linear.

Landing touchdown is scripted as is in LOMAC. Though in F4 your landing gear will act as made of glass.

Missiles may have better seeker properties in F4 but they are far too deadly kineticaly and an AMRAAM will kill you under 25 miles 99% of the times. The only way to escape from it is to fly low behind hills or break lock while its still on datalink, wich you wont notice because all ARH missile are shot in TWS mode (even on migs)

 

Falcon 4 is better for Dynamic campaign and tactical bombing, and be prepared to commit several days in 1 campaign alone. AA combat for me is just not rewarding enough. Shoot missile before the enemy does no matter what and then run. Sure kill, or death.

 

Falcon 4 beats the hell out of LOMAC in avionics modeling thats for sure. Its so neat to manage your targeting in the TWS radar mode. But its not possible to engage more than 1 target for most F4 Versions. You cant do it with the original F4, nor F4AF, but you can with one of the realism MOD's out there, not sure wich. In all MOD's and F4AF you can start your F-16 using complete check list wich is cool. Online playing is not very friendly though.

[britgliderpilot]

Just to address the concerns about momentum being modelled in F4 - somewhere I have an article which infers that the FCS on the F-16 is set up in such a way to provide a totally linear response.

 

Example given was that once you centre the stick from a roll, the FCS will actually deflect the ailerons in the opposite direction to stop the roll instantly . . . .

 

 

I don't enjoy the feel of flight in F4, but I have a feeling the FBW system means we're not quite comparing like with like.

 

 

In other respects . . . . . Falcon 4 is really rather good, and you should buy it. Perfect it isn't - but the way the theatre is tied together and the way the dynamic campaigns work is absolutey superb.

 

They're not kidding - having to start your jet on the ramp, make the right taxi time, make your waypoints on time, and co-ordinate with a whole heap of other packages in every single mission in a dynamic campaign, with AWACS chattering to all packages all the time . . . . it's just something else entirely.

 

If only Lomac could crack that atmosphere . . . . . the immersion is fantastic, it really is.

 

Pity it looks so old, really, otherwise I'd be playing it far more.

[Dmut]

you should buy F4, Arbitrator. it's a great sim and you can learn much from it. we do.

[britgliderpilot]

you should buy F4, Arbitrator. it's a great sim and you can learn much from it. we do.

 

 

. . . . . I don't think you can get a more glowing recommendation than that! ^^

[Arbitrator]

thank you guys for all your helpful advices, i think i will give it a try.

[bengo]

Landing touchdown is scripted as is in LOMAC. Though in F4 your landing gear will act as made of glass.

Very much not so, I'm afraid. You've got to have your sh!t very much together on the landing part, because it is not scripted at all.

Missiles may have better seeker properties in F4 but they are far too deadly kineticaly and an AMRAAM will kill you under 25 miles 99% of the times. The only way to escape from it is to fly low behind hills or break lock while its still on datalink, wich you wont notice because all ARH missile are shot in TWS mode (even on migs).

Falcon 4 is better for Dynamic campaign and tactical bombing, and be prepared to commit several days in 1 campaign alone. AA combat for me is just not rewarding enough. Shoot missile before the enemy does no matter what and then run. Sure kill, or death..

Mebbe the data LP has on the AMRAAM differs from what ED has. It is known that the AMRAAM in LOMAC is seriously handicapped.

Falcon 4 beats the hell out of LOMAC in avionics modeling thats for sure. Its so neat to manage your targeting in the TWS radar mode. But its not possible to engage more than 1 target for most F4 Versions. You cant do it with the original F4, nor F4AF, but you can with one of the realism MOD's out there, not sure wich. In all MOD's and F4AF you can start your F-16 using complete check list wich is cool.

Mmm, I think in real life the F-16 is not capable of engaging multiple targets at once with A-to-A weapons. The ramp start feature is great, and adds to the imersion. BTW, you don't have to do the rampstart every mission you fly. You can choose how to start your mission : rampstart/Taxi/takeoff.

Online playing is not very friendly though.

I totally disagrea with you here. AF is very MP friendly, and combined with comms (Ventrilo, Teamspeak...) flying AF in a squad is the best out there. In the old days there were a lot of problems connecting to eachother, but ever since AF our squad hardly had any (if any at all) problems with connections.

 

The fact that the graphics are a bit dated is caused by the fact that the core of this sim (not game) is in fact 8 years old. LP picked up F4 and updated it to AF, but there's limitiations in such a process. They took it as far as it would let them. Adding HiTiles and DrStops pit (about 12$ each IIRC) takes AF to a different level.This 'old tecnology' also acts to the fact that "you don't need a Cray" to run it. ;)

Also, the way you can do recon before you actually fly a mission is very good.

BTW britgliderpilot, the AWACS chattering to all packages-thingy can be bypassed by switching your radio to the appropriate channel.

All in all both sims are good in their own way. My personal favorit is F4 because I prefer to fly something that mimics the real thing as close as possible, over graphics. But I do like to take the A-10 in LOMAC for a spin and rain destruction on a few tanks, trucks and buildings.

Sorry Pilotasso, but I had to correct a few wrongs in your post there so Arbitrator could have a proper view on the situation.

[Pilotasso]

Just to address the concerns about momentum being modelled in F4 - somewhere I have an article which infers that the FCS on the F-16 is set up in such a way to provide a totally linear response.

 

But it never is, it tries to aproximate to do so but its impossible to remove phisical properties by Software entirely. If you watch a good F-16 aerobatics footage from the HUD you will see that it behaves quite differently from that of the F4 in terms of inertia.

 

Example given was that once you centre the stick from a roll, the FCS will actually deflect the ailerons in the opposite direction to stop the roll instantly . . . .

 

If so Acceleration would tend to go very high into the infinite and the airplane would break up. Its very fast indeed but the feel of flight and inertia of rototation is still noticeable.

[Pilotasso]

Mmm, I think in real life the F-16 is not capable of engaging multiple targets at once with A-to-A weapons.

 

Yes it is. Block 52 with APG-68 can engage and fire at 4 targets silmultaneously with AMRAAM. F-16 MLU with APG-66 V2 con do 2 at the same time. I know this for a fact and I have my brother who recently gained falcon wings and a joyride to celebrate. ;)

 

 

I totally disagrea with you here. AF is very MP friendly, and combined with comms (Ventrilo, Teamspeak...) flying AF in a squad is the best out there. In the old days there were a lot of problems connecting to eachother, but ever since AF our squad hardly had any (if any at all) problems with connections.

 

From what I get in the portuguese simulation forums, is that there are very few servers arround and sometimes you find none. I get alot of complaints from F4AF users who cannot connect successfully to servers because of port settings.

[bflagg]

for better graphics... there are a few must haves..

 

Tom's Hitiles (for either version of F4)

and BaZT.

[Arbitrator]

Ok, couple questions:

 

"your landing gear will act as made of glass" by Pilotasso

what's that mean? they are very easy to break?

 

99% kill under 25km? Mmm, is that mean if i can dodge AMRAAM in F4, my missile evading skill will improve tremendously in LOMAC.

 

and avionics, is it way better bc the modeling or bc F16 is more advance in avionic than the Fighters in LOMAC.

 

so as a conclusion: if some how we can get LOMAC and F4 combine, LOMAC's graphic, aerodynamic modeling, F4's avionic modeling, dynamic campaign, and plus F16 flyable. then we got a hell of a sim, right?

[Pilotasso]

Ok, couple questions:

 

"your landing gear will act as made of glass" by Pilotasso

what's that mean? they are very easy to break?

 

yes. You have to fly a very shalow gligeslope or else you risk seeing your landing gear popup between your legs in the cockpit. :D

 

Ok, couple questions:

99% kill under 25km? Mmm, is that mean if i can dodge AMRAAM in F4, my missile evading skill will improve tremendously in LOMAC.

 

Not exactly, if you dodge missiles in LOMAC like you do in F4 you will loose the intitiative because you will be doing too much than that is necessary and youll give away too much space for the enemy to keep pressing on you.

 

so as a conclusion: if some how we can get LOMAC and F4 combine, LOMAC's graphic, aerodynamic modeling, F4's avionic modeling, dynamic campaign, and plus F16 flyable. then we got a hell of a sim, right?

 

The ideal SIM would have the sense of flight LOMAc has, and missile perfomance in between what both games show. Its overdonne in F4 and undermodelled in LOMAC. That ideal Simulation IMHO would also have multirole aircraft like the F-16 is. ;)

[bengo]

Yes it is. Block 52 with APG-68 can engage and fire at 4 targets silmultaneously with AMRAAM. F-16 MLU with APG-66 V2 con do 2 at the same time. I know this for a fact and I have my brother who recently gained falcon wings and a joyride to celebrate. ;).

Ok, seems you are well informed in that area. Thanks for the update.

From what I get in the portuguese simulation forums, is that there are very few servers arround and sometimes you find none. I get alot of complaints from F4AF users who cannot connect successfully to servers because of port settings.

Users who are behind a router do have to take some simple additional steps to connect, but from what I've heard it's not all that difficult. I'm on a cable-connection and MP-connection works flawless, without any extra steps.

There are indeed very few severs around, because AF in multiplayer is mostly flown by virtual squadrons. There's one campaignserver up all the time at Multiviper, which you can compare more or less with the Lomac-Hyperlobby-experience. But the true force of a sim (be it LOMAC or F4AF) lies in multiplayer with comms. Planning, flying and bringing a mission to a good end with a couple of other guys over the internet can't be beat. Remember, in real life a fighter isn't fighting a one-man-war. Each flight has a purpose and at least two pilots flying it. Different flights, each with their own task (SEAD, CAP, AG...), make up a package, and it is that package that will work together to achieve the missiongoal of one of the flights. Comms are crucial in this way of flying.

[britgliderpilot]

BTW britgliderpilot, the AWACS chattering to all packages-thingy can be bypassed by switching your radio to the appropriate channel.

 

. . . . I haven't progressed far enough in my F4 life to realise you could do that. Entirely logical and consistent with the depth of modelling, though.

 

 

I was actually putting it as a bonus - the comms in Lomac are strictly for your package only, makes the skies seem a little emptier to me . . . .

 

 

As a further note, Lomac isn't exactly friendly to those on routers either . . . . and there are still plenty of threads about people struggling with the timeout settings.

[bengo]

"your landing gear will act as made of glass" by Pilotasso

what's that mean? they are very easy to break?

That used to be true in a past version of F4, but not with AF. I'd say the gear nowadays can take some serious punishment before it breaks.

and avionics, is it way better bc the modeling or bc F16 is more advance in avionic than the Fighters in LOMAC.?

Both I think. In the 2D-pit in F4 you can literally click every button in the cockpit with your mouse, so it actually simulates a real F-16 cockpit. The F-16 avionics are in fact more advanced because it has to be able to handle all the different weapons systems A-A and A-G (laser guided bombs, mavericks, cluster bombs, dumb bombs, HARM's)

So you see, with F4 you can do what you can't do with the American airplanes in LOMAC.

[bengo]

Incidently found this for anyone having troubles getting through their router in F4.

http://portforward.com/english/routers/port_forwarding/BT/Voyager2000/Falcon_4.htm

[SuperKungFu]

I didn't really like AF that much because i got use to FF3. This one you need the original F4 (not AF). IMHO it had better graphics, better campaigns, skins, flight model...etc. The only thing AF had a great advantage of was the stable multiplayer.

[Rastus]

Well I tried AF soon after it came out & was dissapointed, to me it looked & felt like an 8 year old sim.

 

To me the main factor was the crappy 3D (Virtual) pit. Having to switch to the 2D pit to see your instruments is a bit sus nowdays, & the Track IR implimentaion in the 2D pit was awfull. Shame cos it is a nice looking & interactive pit. Now I am sure there are probably mods out there that fix this but couldnt find any at the time. And apart from those who have been flying this sim for a long time (I believe there are many) Who wants to go searching for mods, just to make it flyable

 

Too many times, the graphics remind you that this is an old game, & the flight model feels like you are in a "easy flight model" (training) mode, with no feel whatsoever.

 

I guess we have been spoilt with Lockon graphics & flight modeling which add more immersion that a clickable pit could ever do, which makes it very hard to compare the two, Lockon is in a whole different class.

 

I understand those who have been flying this sim (F4) for a long time would have an attachment to it, much like I have an attachment to Longbow2 & Janes FA18, they all have their good points which are not reproduced in lockon, but that doesnt make them better, just different. I dont fly them any more for the same reason I didnt like AF. You can mod the hell out of an old sim, but its still an old sim

 

My own immpression is that F4 is a avionics sim with a great DC, while Lockon is more a flight sim.

[britgliderpilot]

My own immpression is that F4 is a avionics sim with a great DC, while Lockon is more a flight sim.

 

Ahh, but which of those is more realistic? ;)

 

. . . . . and that's basically the crux of the discussion!

 

 

I'd say neither's entirely complete, so you should have both. But of course, inevitably people will suggest otherwise . . . .

[SuperKungFu]

yea i agree with brit, when it comes to avionics i will give that to falcon. But when it comes to flight model that goes to Lock On hands down. It makes you "feel" like you are in the plane and i like that. But when Falcon combines with Lock On...you get Fighter ops (i hope). THey just need to add some russian planes into the mix.

[Frostie]

Its an absoloute must to have both, F4 is fantastic for immersion and atmosphere no doubt, it makes you feel like a pilot in war which doesnt just revolve around you.

But those landings suck compared to LO it feels so arcadey ,how much info is being chomped to move that plane through the air, not much IMO.

I hate the lack of IFF as well.

But it makes a great alternative when LO makes you feel empty.:thumbup:

Its definately more of a ground pounder, A/G procedures are far more realistic than LO.

[Shepski]

Ahh, but which of those is more realistic? ;)

 

. . . . . and that's basically the crux of the discussion!

 

I'd say F4 has the better avionics modeling of an F-16 and Flaming Cliffs does a much better job at avionics modeling of an Su-25T. Come to think of it... F4 doesn't do a very good job at all of modeling the avionics of the Flanker, Fulcrum, Eagle, and the Hog.

 

For modeling a Ka-50, Black Shark, willl blow F4 and all its variations out of the water. ;) :pilotfly:

 

2 completely different sims and each have their strengths and weaknesses and each should be owned at some point.

[Frazer]

LOMAC and F4 are both great sims, LOMAC more "game like" and F4 more "sim like". LOMAC is better online, but F4 is more real. So what game to choose? I would say, wait for FighterOps! That will be like LOMAC and F4 in one :) That would make the perfect sim right? Now imagine, there is a great chance that FO will even be BETTER as F4 and LOMAC combined! That makes me SMILE :D

[SUBS17]

I use both FC and F4AF, F4AFs FM has been improved in patches since its release. Its no longer easy to just land fully loaded the weight and momentum are also modeled. So its now even more important to aerobrake as soon as you touch down. Another thing about landing in F4AF is the AoA, if its too high you can damage the aircraft so paying attention to such details is important on finals. The Squadron I fly with uses F4AF quite often and I find the missions better suited for Squadron ops online. You follow procedure from startup to holding short of the runway. Timings are also important and you have a kneeboard to ensure that you arrive ontime and at the correct altitude. The good thing is to work together to destroy the target so having people fly as SEAD escort is cool but the SAM ai is now more aggressive they now fire upto 3 missiles per aircraft. They also sometimes shut their radar down and wait until you are in a position for them to nail you. Another thing is if there aren't enough pilots the AI will automatically fill in the empty slots.:thumbup: . The DC is very good to play and its nice to see the effect on the enemy of the loss of airfields and other assets. Compared to FC a successful mission effects your pilots logbook(which everyone online can view in the lobby) where as FCs logbook begins and ends with your first loss and can't be viewed online:( . People who like jet combat have both F4AF and FC on their computers.

[ericinexile]

The real world immersion, particularly in MP, of F4:AF is amazing. I'm at a loss to understand how so many units can be operating independently without bogging the game down. However, at slow speed/High AOA the flight modeling is very weak. Although I have no time in fighters, I do have over 11000 hrs in jets and I compare notes with fighter guys all the time. F4:AF does not fly like the real thing. A DC-10 is downright sprightly compare to F4 in the low speed range. If anyone built an airplane that was that hard to land, they'd be banned from any more military contracts. The F16 is supposed to be the worlds easiest airplane to land, not the hardest. LOMAC feels real. For me that makes it better.