Pilotasso Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 yeah...with 10 years after the release of the base code one would expect to see more than just cosmetics and hex edits. No one has even came close to actualy program a new flyable plane like the original authors did. .
A.S Posted December 30, 2008 Author Posted December 30, 2008 as much it might be underestimated ..its still THE benchmark (talking bout AF) compared to anything else......there are other proofs to bring forward ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 It may be the benchmark fo flightsim, but aided by the fact that not much else has been released ever since! I dont intend to put down the modders work, but this is the state of business the flight simming universe is in... .
RedTiger Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 as much it might be underestimated ..its still THE benchmark (talking bout AF) compared to anything else......there are other proofs to bring forward ! 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.
mvsgas Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 AFAIK, one of the reasons some thing have not change in Falcon (most versions) is because the change may require .exe change, and there is the problem. Limited people have access to the .exe and AFAIK, is a very complex engine. Some thing stay the same or can only be improve on because if this. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Slayer Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Can't get this running on my machine...guess my hardware is too new. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] System Specs Intel I7-3930K, Asrock EXTREME9, EVGA TITAN, Mushkin Chronos SSD, 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z series 2133, TM Warthog and MFD's, Saitek Proflight Combat pedals, TrackIR 5 + TrackClip PRO, Windows 7 x64, 3-Asus VS2248H-P monitors, Thermaltake Level 10 GT, Obutto cockpit
Teapot Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 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. My thoughts exactly :) ! Cheers! "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
mvsgas Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Ok Not sure where to post this (As always I know, sorry) I figure it is related being a OF video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNjfHoa8kVA To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
A.S Posted January 1, 2009 Author Posted January 1, 2009 It may be the benchmark fo flightsim, but aided by the fact that not much else has been released ever since! I dont intend to put down the modders work, but this is the state of business the flight simming universe is in... Benchmark because of its relyability, conistency and stabiltiy Pilotasso (btw HNY dude). OF is a amazing attempt to bring things forward and i like it myself....but there are besides the new feature still some uggly bugs (what can be used to exploit things) ....... If there would be anyone who could combine accuracy of AF with facelift of OF....oh my........man .....then it would be THE sim to fly ..definitly.. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Well, as a long time flyer of F4:AF, I tried OpenFalcon and RedViper. On OpenFalcon, I must have missed something since it gave me an overall arcane look & feel; I really couldn't see why I should consider this instead of F4:AF. Did I do something wrong with the install maybe? What advancements should I expect? I liked RedViper: look & feel just seems to fit, flight experience seems right. I can do the same as in AF, but it is still less polished to me. Can someone quickly point out what is really new in OF and RedViper that I might have overlooked in my quick tryout? (I thought I'ld better ask it here, so to speak, on "neutral ground"?) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mvsgas Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Well, as a long time flyer of F4:AF, I tried OpenFalcon and RedViper. On OpenFalcon, I must have missed something since it gave me an overall arcane look & feel; I really couldn't see why I should consider this instead of F4:AF. Did I do something wrong with the install maybe? What advancements should I expect? I liked RedViper: look & feel just seems to fit, flight experience seems right. I can do the same as in AF, but it is still less polished to me. Can someone quickly point out what is really new in OF and RedViper that I might have overlooked in my quick tryout? (I thought I'ld better ask it here, so to speak, on "neutral ground"?) The main differences between AF, OF and RV in my opinion: AF is bit more stable and easier to installed, to some people it easier ti fly online. OF have the best avionics, allowing you to use the DTC, actual Radio management and in game communications. You can use the 3D pit with all you weapons unlike AF and some other stuff and sure I am forgetting. RV is mostly eye candy, The do have a better working HUD with a actual working 6DOF cockpit, JDAMS are a lot better implemented, most benefits of RV are graphically. JaNKo I just posted a video of OF, and there are several you tube videos about both Red Viper (A.K.A. FF4 or RV), FF5 and OF To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
RedTiger Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Well, as a long time flyer of F4:AF, I tried OpenFalcon and RedViper. On OpenFalcon, I must have missed something since it gave me an overall arcane look & feel; I really couldn't see why I should consider this instead of F4:AF. Did I do something wrong with the install maybe? What advancements should I expect? I liked RedViper: look & feel just seems to fit, flight experience seems right. I can do the same as in AF, but it is still less polished to me. Can someone quickly point out what is really new in OF and RedViper that I might have overlooked in my quick tryout? (I thought I'ld better ask it here, so to speak, on "neutral ground"?) As mvsgas said, Red Viper is known as the eye candy version of Falcon. The reason why I'm willing to fly Red Viper aka Free Falcon but cannot stand Allied Force has less to do with the graphics (although it helps :thumbup: ) and more to do with the FM and 3D cockpit with working MFDs and instruments. Having to stay in the 2D pit to do A to G SUCKED. Literally...it sucked all the fun out of it. lining up an attack and keeping the bomb fall line in the center of the FP marker in the 2D pit felt almost claustrophobic and didn't only made the whole "flying on rails" feeling worse. Being able to do this all in a 6DOF 3D cockpit makes it much better. Also, the FM is better, mostly in the thrust to weight department. The default RV model is supposed to be more realistic too. I don't see too much difference between in and AF other than the thrust. It is much easier to fly when the natural tendency of your jet is to accelerate rather than decelerate. It makes everything you do much more enjoyable.
A.S Posted January 1, 2009 Author Posted January 1, 2009 Also, the FM is better, mostly in the thrust to weight department. :ermm::blink: any datas on that and if, why different? Mind you OF and AF also "seems" to feel different but the datas are the same. Its the GfXs and Sound what sets you off. But still interesting, would love to know more about; why RV felt the need (if so) to change it. (F-16 only i mean) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RedTiger Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 No, just the feeling. It could be the same as OF and AF for all I know. In AF, it felt like a crippled pig all the time. In RV, it feels nice and zippy. For example, in dogfight mode, which I'm assuming models a clean jet with full fuel, Staying at corner is much easier. My tendency is to glance down at the HUD and see that my speed is at 480....490.....500....whoa there boy! I usually just pull a bit more G to get it back down. In AF, it was the other way around. I bled energy quite a bit so I had to consistently unload and unload often to gain speed. I also notice it when loaded with stores. In a full burner take off with 4 CBUs and 4 mavericks, I can take off, get in a 4 G turn for my departure heading, then a 4 G turn for my next steerpoint, all the while climbing at 10 degrees and accelerating. I can do an oblique vertical turn with this load too, as long as I'm around 400 knots+ Hell, it could be the graphics for all I know, all the shakes and shudders they added in. If so, that should tell you something, shouldn't it? They DO matter. We're not really sitting in these hunks of metal, so we lose a lot of the sensations. When guys say that this stuff shouldn't matter in a flight sim, to me its like saying having sex while blindfolded and wearing a 2-inch thick rubber shouldn't matter. Sorry, it does. :D
A.S Posted January 1, 2009 Author Posted January 1, 2009 Joystick sensibility or/and response? (different behaviour maybe?) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RedTiger Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Joystick sensibility or/and response? (different behaviour maybe?) I don't think so. Maybe I should reinstall AF to make a side by side comparison.
tflash Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 I also have the impression the F-16 "flies" better in RV. But I think this has mainly to do with the graphics/sound environment. Anyway I like the graphics in RV very much, not in the least the Belgian AF F-16A MLU of course! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mvsgas Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 SO hold on this 4.7 is not for Red Viper? Nope, is an add to Open Falcon 4.5/4.6 which in term is an add to the original Falcon 4.0 from 1998 :D and still going :thumbup: To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Teapot Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Can someone quickly point out what is really new in OF and RedViper that I might have overlooked in my quick tryout? (I thought I'ld better ask it here, so to speak, on "neutral ground"?) I'm not really qualified to talk in depth about a comparison of the avionics fidelity between the respective Falcons, for two reasons. a/. I've mostly flown OF 4.5 (and now 4.7) as my Falcon of choice - I tried AF and RV but with the former I (like Red Tiger) hated having to switch between 2D & 3 D to 'do' things ... and the 3D pit in AF is down-right BHUGGLY ... hasn't changed from the original AFAIK. In Open Falcon I can do most of it in the 3D cockpit; maybe even all of it :book:. With the latter, I could never get RV working to my satisfaction. b/. I'm still a noob when it comes to expertise with the OF avionics suite - (but I love it!) Knowing these limitations are mine, I feel free to say that my Open Falcon experience was in the order of a flight-sim epiphany! :D I am particularly impressed with the level of detail in the avionics suite; the research involved to do things 'by the book' has me researching far beyond the impressively complete sim-ware documentation, into how the Viper pilot thinks in terms of procedure to ensure that he is in the right parameter bracket at the required time ... pre-flight, ramp-start, weapons prep, taxi, take-off ... but even before that we are able to prep and individualise our mission beyond my other sim experience. In Open Falcon there is modeled in flight dynamic setting of waypoint of interest and I can do things with data-link (see b/.), with my flight that is not modeled in any other sim AFAIK ... maybe BS approaches that ... I don't know yet. I am in agreement with Red Tiger, in that the 'feel' of flight (however it is achieved), is a vital element in the flight sim experience. It is 'vital' in producing the suspension of disbelief; producing a higher quality experience of immersion. Personally, I dislike flying other jets in a sim that set out design the F16 flight experience; call me old fashioned :noexpression:; even so I would like to express my un-qualified admiration to those who find ways to extend the experience in this area! Happy New Year everyone! Cheers! P.S. For those who would feed their curiosity, may I suggest that the people of the 338th (who I think run the Open Falcon site) are extremely helpful when it comes to the intricacies of Open Falcon and the F16. It has been my experience thus far (I'm twopots on the OF site ... unfortunately; and to my disbelief Teapot was already taken!). Edited January 2, 2009 by Teapot "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
mvsgas Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Here is a little site for you guys, most of the Falcon version right here http://falcon4.0files.googlepages.com/falcon4.0files As you guys can see, there has been several versions in the last 10 years :) To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Kaptein_Damli Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Install order: * Falcon 4 Microspose * HiTiles (not the one for Allied Forces) * Open Falcon 4.5 Full * Patch 4.7 then go config editor and set your game up then understand the Hotas concept of a F-16 (dont create own wild settings) then forget the first impressions and "fast food" thinking and digg deeper. then fall in love...and have fun.... :pilotfly: (personally i fly OF here and then...but my priority -even more fuggly- is AF, cuz i like 1v1 meetings via HL, but for internal squad events or flying with friends, OF should be - no, is - a nice entertainer) I have F 4.0 AF with HiTiles. You are saying the HiTiles wouldn´t work for OF 4.7? I am downloading 4.5 and 4.7 now to try it, but was disapointed that I cannot use HiTiles with it? Why not? Is there two versions of HiTiles? And what about stability? Wasn´t AF made to make F4.0 stable? I thought OF 4.5/4.7 was made based on the old F4.0 engine? How stable is OF compared to AF? Be honest! :) If it´s just as stable, I want to try it out and buy another version of HiTiles for OF. Oh, one more thing, in AF we have 16:10 1920X1200 res 2D pits, what about widescreen users in OF? Do you need to buy Ayes pits for OF, or do you guys just use your 3D clickable pit all the time? What I don´t like with AF is the constant switching between 2D MDF work and 3D all the time... Edited January 2, 2009 by Kaptein_Damli Spelling My moviemaking channel at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/RobertDamli
A.S Posted January 2, 2009 Author Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) http://www.hitiles.com/news.htm (HiTiles for Falcon 4 (RV,OF) or AF(yes HiTilesAF is NOT HiTiles)) http://www.cockpits.nl/ (Widescreen 3D pits) http://www.cockpits.net/website/movieF16AM_widescreenAF.html Stabilty: well it runs well on singleplayer but i really really really doubt it has abiltiy to provide such a server as http://www.multiviper.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2409 (AF) does. Edited January 2, 2009 by A.S [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Oh, one more thing, in AF we have 16:10 1920X1200 res 2D pits, what about widescreen users in OF? Do you need to buy Ayes pits for OF, or do you guys just use your 3D clickable pit all the time? What I don´t like with AF is the constant switching between 2D MDF work and 3D all the time... He, I didn't know about these widescreen pits? How do you setup these? Just through the menu? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts