Free Falcon 5.0

[shemi]

I found this tread. Wat you think mates FreeFalcon 5.0 Preview Thread

[v1per]

I think I cant wait.

[A.S]

Allied Forces is the official release from Lead Pursuit.

 

Right now we have 2 independent developements...

 

one is Open Falcon http://www.f4forums.com/forums/

 

and one is FreeFalcon...(above)

 

yupp that one will be interesting too

[Bearitall]

Don't forget about TCL-Team Combat League

 

Allied Forces is the official release from Lead Pursuit.

 

Right now we have 2 independent developements...

 

one is Open Falcon http://www.f4forums.com/forums/

 

and one is FreeFalcon...(above)

 

yupp that one will be interesting too

 

 

Don't forget TCL-Team Combat League, would love to set up a League/Ladder for Falcon4 or Falcon5 just join up...

 

www.teamcombatleague.ca

[159th_Viper]

I think I can wait for DCS:F-16 :pilotfly:

[Bearitall]

Well we can also set it up

 

I think I can wait for DCS:F-16 :pilotfly:

 

Well, we can also set up a League/Ladder for DCS:F-16 when it is released..:pilotfly::joystick:

[Vekkinho]

Cool!

 

I like Fulcrums in F4, those RD-33 sure smoke a lot! And MiG-29 is one of the most maneuverable jets over there!

[Mustang]

This looks pretty good.......

[Kuky]

For me looks nothing better then what's already been done with any F4 mod... I can and will wait for ED's DCS and Oleg's team BoB.

[HungaroJET]

Originally Posted by 159th_Viper

I think I can wait for DCS:F-16

 

 

Well, we can also set up a League/Ladder for DCS:F-16 when it is released..:pilotfly::joystick:

 

 

Ouch Guys:

 

7th in DCS: F-16 = 7 *9 months = 5 more years...least :mad::cry::noexpression:

[Aeroscout]

Damn that looks nice! Will this be compatible with Allied force? And where can I get Red Viper? I've done some searching an haven found it.

[RedTiger]

Honestly, in my opinion is that they should let that series die. They need to let it die, mourn its passing, play the Falcon versions available now, and wait for someone like Lead-Pursuit to make the next version from a new engine. How much longer are they going to prop up that tired old sim? Yes, it looks nice, but I take one look at that terrain and its clear that its just more make up slathered on an old face.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Falcon. I own it and play it from time to time. I'm just tired of seeing it window-dressed ad nauseum and simultaneously hailed by the fanboys as some sort of religious experience that is superior to all else. All the while, we have little idea how accurate any of it is beyond the F-16, since no one in the Falcon community discusses anything like that and the community doesn't seem to have any active SMEs in any community testing it like ED has for DCS. Outside of the Viper's canopy, it could all be just blue planes painted red. I have my suspicions that this is the case when it comes to avionics and weapon systems (in other words, MiG-29s and R-77s are just F-16Cs and Aim-120s with a different 3D model). I do know that the flight models are different.

[RedTiger]

And where can I get Red Viper? I've done some searching an haven found it.

 

You can't get it from any place specific. I'd tell you how to get it, but I'm not sure what ED's policy on such things is.

[hitman]

Honestly, in my opinion is that they should let that series die. They need to let it die, mourn its passing, play the Falcon versions available now, and wait for someone like Lead-Pursuit to make the next version from a new engine. How much longer are they going to prop up that tired old sim? Yes, it looks nice, but I take one look at that terrain and its clear that its just more make up slathered on an old face.

 

I agree. A clown without their makeup is a greasy McDonalds burger underneath it all, and regardless of how much Olean oil they put on it, you cant cover up the taste of fake beef.

[Kuky]

Honestly, in my opinion is that they should let that series die...

 

Exactly, there were my exact first thoughts also :noexpression:

[RedTiger]

...and regardless of how much Olean oil they put on it, you cant cover up the taste of fake beef.

 

Yep. The attitude about Falcon is like something out of "The Emperor's New Clothing". No one wants to admit how dated it is. People will go almost as far as suggesting you ignore what your eyeballs are telling your brain, which is basically 100% opposite of what humans are hard-wired to do. If I see repeating terrain tiles and have a 2D photograph for a cockpit, no amount of realism elsewhere is going to cover for that. If it did, why would Microsoft keep updating their Flight Simulator series? I'm sure all the buttons would be in the Cessna on a 486, who needs a 3D card? :P

[mvsgas]

Falcon series, from the original to all the add ons, have many flaws. It is very old, etc. But you have to admit, there are very few game groups that will keep a game alive after the company that develop it went death, like the Falcon groups. A lot of this groups add it and add it to the game as community mods, all free of charge. They have change the game to amazing levels of realism. I think it is great for a 10 year old game. No other game can provide the campaign and avionics that Falcon can. If you have only played Allied Force, you can see all the work that so many people have done to improve the game over the years. Find yourself a copy of the original game, play supper pack, bms, free falcon (all versions), OF, etc. Yeah it looks bad, but tell me another F-16 game out there, hell another fighter aircraft game out there that provides the level of avionics and campaign that Falcon series provides. Just my two cent guys, sorry.

[Boberro]

I am happy to see new mods to Falcon. I didn't like it but from some time I liked it a bit, thanks a super realism of avionics how said mvsgas even today isn't beated. I only hope that some company will do sequel of Falcon on new engine, but now thanks mods we have a good avionics realism mixed with prettier & prettier graphics (but it even doesn't close to example FC terrains, objects). Anyway Falcon won't die, thanks all modders who want to do better Falcon ;]

[RedTiger]

Ok, you all make some good points. I 100% agree about the work the community puts into it. Just because I think that its time to let this one go doesn't mean I don't respect all the work done to preserve it.

 

OTOH, when I say the sim is "dated", I'm not just talking about the graphics.

 

First off, I have no trust in the accuracy of the sim beyond what is modeled in the F-16's cockpit. I've played F4AF and Red Viper. I've had 1 vs 1 dogfights with the exact same AI-controlled planes. Guess what? The differences in flight envelopes between versions is quite pronounced. That was a big eye-opener. What data was originally used to determine all the information on all the weapon systems and hardware? Who are we to trust when that data has been changed and updated over the course of 10 years? We don't have answers for this, hence again I say the sim is dated. Further updates will have a totally unknown effect on accuracy. I think we need to have this info gathered again from reputable sources, from scratch.

 

Second, about the dynamic campaign. Does anyone ever consider the fact that it hasn't been "topped" is because the original isn't the miracle people make it out to be? Maybe someone has considered doing a dynamic campaign again, but wants to get it "right" this time. :smartass: There was a post on Frugals not to long ago where someone discovered that pilot rating has a much larger impact on the course of the war on the 2D theatre map than any mission success. Translation: don't fly hard missions because if you fail, your pilot rating will go down and the war will be prolonged. A bunch of succesful milk runs holds the same weight as a bunch of succesful but difficult missions since your pilot rating has such a huge effect on the campaign. Knocking out that SAM site doesn't really keep any future flights in the area safe so much as it increases your rating which makes the AI have an easier time on the 2D map.

 

Pay close attention to the campaign when you play it. Watch what those ground units are doing. You'll see that the campaign in many ways isn't all its cracked up to be.

 

Third, and most importantly, the thing that bothers me is that NO ONE IN THE FALCON COMMUNITY EVER QUESTIONS ANY OF THIS. Here we have discussion after discussion about AMRAAMS and Russian radars while the Falcon guys just swallow whatever they're given. THAT, above all, is what has turned me off to Falcon the most. With ED, LOMAC, and now DCS, you know exactly what you're getting and you have a wonderfully nidpicky community that will make damn sure we know what we're working with.

Edited June 12, 2008 by RedTiger

[RedTiger]

Well I can't say much about that. It's a very complex topic and I don't understand much of it. I can only advise you to take a look at the HFFM manual (F-16) and the manual for OF's Mirage 2000 FMs. Both contain tons of charts and data, and the former has an introduction about how the HFFMs were made, with alot of technical explanations that go way over my head. OF and RV both use the HFFM, which were made by Mav-jp and Raptor1 (who are aerospace engineers afaik) on the base of performance and aerodynamical charts data and some input from people "in the know". IIRC it's not clear if AF uses them too (completely or not) or if AF's FM has been tweaked to imitate HFFMs. Mav said on multiple occasions that while the FMs for the F-16 are way superior than the originals, both data and calculations wise, they're far from perfect, mainly because of the underlying physics calculations that Falcon does. See here for example:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/s...9&postcount=38

 

About the other planes' FMs? I really have no idea. But I couldn`t judge them anyway. So as you say, it comes down to trust, but this is nothing Falcon specific.

 

Thank you for providing this information. I stand corrected for one additional plane besides the F-16. While its good to see knowledgable people handling at least 2 of the FMs, you need to do this for ALL of them, I'm afraid. If all FMs aren't up to snuff, then its just as unrealistic as having none of them up to snuff IMO. My plane may be accurate, but thats no comfort if the bandit I'm fighting has a FM from an arcade game.

 

I exaggerate, of course. However, I really do feel that the bar has been set very high for "the next big thing". Gone are the days where the playable planes have accurate FMs while all the others are scripted.

 

 

I don't think this is something new, everybody knows the DC has a lot of quirks. That's why many people appreciate the micromanagement that's possible in AF.

 

True, and people do bring it up from time to time. I cannot deny that. However, I often see it swept aside pretty quickly and everyone just goes back to talking about it like its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

 

Please do a few searches at Frugals or Global Falcon as this is definately wrong. I remember multiple discussions about FMs and weapons performance for example (mainly AIM-120 vs. R-27), just a few weeks ago there was a very detailed analysis of F-16 vs. Mig-29 performance, as many people suspect that the Mig-29 is totally overrated in Falcon. Honestly, the Falcon community has a lot of faults but being uncritical isn't one of them. Otherwise Falcon wouldn`t have become what it is.

 

You could be right, here, but I don't usually see this. ***EDIT: I'm editing this to specific: you have more dealing with that community than I do. You're a better judge of this than I am. I'm only going on what I have seen. *** With the LOMAC forum where there's usually a discussion about something technical every week, usually more than one. Sometimes people remark about its all being rehashed, but that doesn't stop me from learning something new or at least seeing a good debate each time. Heck, there's a new guy over there right now asking questions about radar, BVR, reality vs. fiction in LOMAC, etc.

 

Oh, and regarding that thread about the MiG-29 vs. the F-16...wasn't Mower's first response something like "the Fulcrum's avionics are barbaric. That is all."? Wow, what a reasonable and well thought-out response! :smartass: I could go on about the elitest vibes I get from that community, but thats not the point of all this.

 

You say that the community is uncritical? Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What are they doing about it? Dividing their efforts into making 3 or 4 illegal versions of the same 10 year old sim? Is anyone communicating with Lead-Pursuit? Hell! Is Lead-Pursuit communicating with them!? Do you see my point?

 

Contrast this to ED where you have ONE official and 100% legal developer, on going communication between that developer and the community, increasing integration of the community with that developer (ED tester, ED partners, etc), and best of all, transparency. When I fly the Ka-50, I will know what I'm getting. If I encounter an enemy Apache and I want to know about the realism of its FM, I have but to come to the forums here and ask and get many community responses as well as a very probably response from Wags or another community manager. ***EDIT: again, I'm going only on what I have experienced. Feel free to point out similar instances of this in the Falcon community.

 

Say what you want about ED's support of LOMAC, but this communication and support as of late has been very meaningful to me.

 

***EDIT***

By all means, if anyone has information that is to the contrary of what I'm saying, please share. I would only be pleased if I saw something different. I can't really read any links at the moment, but I will when I get home from work.

Edited June 12, 2008 by RedTiger

[mvsgas]

RedTiger, I think you are right. The game has all those faults. But I ask again, Do we have any other fighter game that can provide the avionics and campaign that Falcon provides? Managing radios, radars, targeting pods, setting your SMS. Keeping and eye out for the ground troops. Ground troops suffering fatigue, missing supplies. Ground objects getting repair my engineer squadrons, destroyed or capture. Hell no, it is not 100% accurate, it is probably not even 50% accurate . I have being in many discussion about accuracy of the FM and other aspects. I guess as long as the game is fun. I still play Jane's F-18 with TSH mod, outdated graphics, but fun. Wings Over Vietnam, more arcade than anything, it is fun to. Il-2, very hard some times, still fun. I guess as long as people enjoy the game. I still looking forward for FF5, I would like to see what they improve.

[RedTiger]

I don't hold it against anyone liking that sim. And, if they really want to keep improving it who am I to stop them? The problem I have is the attitude and vibes I get from reading the boards at Frugals when, in fact, they're all playing a 10 year old sim thats just getting another coat of paint. When I see that, I'm inclined to wish that the series would die.

 

Btw Acedy, I read the threads on those links you provided. Thats probably the first time I've ever see anyone come right out and say that the Falcon FMs are old/limited/crappy, whatever you wanna call it. In fact, I've seen someone say that the Su-25 FM is better than Falcon (which it is) and I've seen guys at Frugals try to refute that. So, I stand corrected.

Edited June 12, 2008 by RedTiger

[v1per]

The problem I have is the attitude and vibes I get from reading the boards at Frugals when' date=' in fact, they're all playing a 10 year old sim thats just getting another coat of paint. When I see that, I'm inclined to wish that the series would die.[/quote']

 

Sorry to correct you there but Falcon 4:AF was released in 2005. For the year it was released it sure asks itself why the graphics and gameplay isnt better and updated though. If they would have put the thing on a DVD, they may have had a lot more space to mess with and improve greatly. That is what sets Falcon 4 and LOMAC in different ways as for they are both on a single CD....F4AF is the greatest most realistic sim with the most accurate weapons and avionics systems, LOMAC on the other hand is barely close to the advanced standard of Falcons weapons and avionics but the total advantage is the graphics level and multiplayer netcode. So both games have their own advantages that the other doesn't have.

 

LOMAC was originally 1.0, which looked like crap, then here came Flaming Cliffs which improved everything, and then the FC patches came around so "Adding another layer of paint" technically doesn't apply to Just Falcon 4 but rather every game that has had updates. Heck, your Operating system recieves a new coat every month. :D

Edited June 13, 2008 by v1per

[v1per]

My advice to you to have a good feeling of a good FM on a SIm is to get "Condor" than get a good joy and pedals and ofcourse track ir. Enjoy.

 

Are you talking to me?:huh::doh:

 

Flight sims in general, I have been flying them for 10+ years. I've been flying LOMAC for a couple years now and know it completely. I just got Falcon 3 months ago and working my way into it.:joystick::pilotfly:

Edited June 13, 2008 by v1per

[v1per]

You definitely need to take a look at Open Falcon ;)

 

Dude, I've had it for 2.5 months now.:lol::smilewink: