Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

F4 AF: what's the consensus?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:06:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On a scale of 1 to 10?

More about : consensus

Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:11:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Sigh. Want a really, really stable (esp. in multiplayer) SP3 + some
other extra goodies that don't break the sim? Get AF. Damn, not
rocket science here.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:06:24 -0700, Tim Hall <fakeaddress@fake.net>
wrote:

>On a scale of 1 to 10?


On a scale of 1 to 10, how old MJ's boyfriend?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 3:14:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Tim Hall" <fakeaddress@fake.net> wrote in message
news:v9r5d11o0qtb793jghushm9994j9ltsh5c@4ax.com...
> On a scale of 1 to 10?

I have found the game to be completely cool now. Also most
of the same controls for radar and such still work in my TM
F-22 profile so it is even better yet. The graphics surprised me.
In some ways I thought they are worse, but in reality I think they
are much better. I did not see a "bubble" parameter, and the
sky and horizon looked superb. Also the "star" effect from the
missiles is amazing. All in all I would give it a 10 actually as I
have not found anything wrong. So no reason to ding it.


--

gcisko@hotmail.com
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:20:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Tim Hall wrote:
> On a scale of 1 to 10?

"It depends."

What are you looking for? Stability? 9/10. Flashy graphics? 6/10.
Deep and involving campaign? 10/10. Ease of learning? 2/10.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:20:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Y0EAe.21378$eM6.8276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Tim Hall wrote:
>> On a scale of 1 to 10?
>
> "It depends."
>
> What are you looking for? Stability? 9/10. Flashy graphics? 6/10. Deep
> and involving campaign? 10/10. Ease of learning? 2/10.

Can't you write a script to take care of the 2/10 ?

:-)



--

gcisko@hotmail.com
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:11:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

10 out of 10 - no question.

Had it for a week and have suffered no crashes or lockups. Graphics
are improved over the original, AI is much better.

I am playing the first Balkans campaign and am finding the the game
seems much more balanced than the orignal Korean campaigns. What I
mean is that in the original I always seemed to end up flying under 500
feet to avoid SAMs and bogeys. With F4AF I am able to fly higher
without getting destroyed. SAMs are easier to defeat - with the
original it seemed that when a SAM was launched at you - you died...
With F4AF you have a fighting chance of spoofing a SAM - in fact in a
number of missions I have read the event list afterwards and only then
realised that a number of SAMs had been thrown at me. I'm not saying
F4AF is easy, just that everything works as it should.

Did I say 10 out of 10? ;-)

ETV
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hJOdnUk62Zlb307fRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Y0EAe.21378$eM6.8276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Tim Hall wrote:
>>> On a scale of 1 to 10?
>>
>> "It depends."
>>
>> What are you looking for? Stability? 9/10. Flashy graphics? 6/10.
>> Deep and involving campaign? 10/10. Ease of learning? 2/10.
>
> Can't you write a script to take care of the 2/10 ?
>
> :-)

Or use simplified options makes it 7/10.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Eric The Viking" <stickyerfekkinspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121170308.814239.185500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 10 out of 10 - no question.
>
> Had it for a week and have suffered no crashes or lockups. Graphics
> are improved over the original, AI is much better.
>
> I am playing the first Balkans campaign and am finding the the game
> seems much more balanced than the orignal Korean campaigns. What I
> mean is that in the original I always seemed to end up flying under 500
> feet to avoid SAMs and bogeys. With F4AF I am able to fly higher
> without getting destroyed. SAMs are easier to defeat - with the
> original it seemed that when a SAM was launched at you - you died...
> With F4AF you have a fighting chance of spoofing a SAM - in fact in a
> number of missions I have read the event list afterwards and only then
> realised that a number of SAMs had been thrown at me. I'm not saying
> F4AF is easy, just that everything works as it should.
>
> Did I say 10 out of 10? ;-)
>
> ETV
>

My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the labels
and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my HUD
directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
level, or even on GMT.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:12:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Hockey, what mode is your AGM-65 in? I haven't tried F4AF yet but I
assume it hasn't changed in the fact that you need to Slave it to
radar in order for it to do what you want (I think). If radar is in
Steerpoint mode and your target is at the steerpoint it should be
close when you get there. Guess I better dive into this again...

Not sure if I am on the same page as you though, so sorry if I am off
base.

Icer

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the labels
>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my HUD
>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>level, or even on GMT.
>
July 13, 2005 2:13:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

>
> My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
> using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
labels
> and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
HUD
> directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
> level, or even on GMT.
>
>

Have you been using the "Shift F3" button to darken the radar screen? I find
that the targets are too bright to see if you don't do that.

Thanks
Gus
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:34:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Can't say I've noticed the problem with the AG radar.

Have you tried putting the radar in snow-plough mode?

ETV
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:02:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

It's the most difficult game I've ever owned. That being said, I'm
gonna have to give up the notion of jumping into this game 'hard-core'
and soften up the difficulty tabs. Other than, the game is amazing.
Folks making the jump from a prop sim to this thing are in for a bitter
sweet pill.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 10:44:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:

>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the labels
>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my HUD
>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>level, or even on GMT.

I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.

I set up a simple TE with two naval targets (2 task forces) - it took
a few missions to sink all the targets. The first mission I ran, the
A2G (in SEA mode) worked fine. After that, there was no way I could
get the ships to show - even when they were in visual contact. No
amount of cycling through radar modes or A2G stores could get them to
appear again.

At first, we thought it was a problem restricted to naval targets, but
then others started reporting it happening with land-based units.

It's quite a problem, as you're often faced with asking your flight or
wingman to attack a specified (radar locked) target. With no lock, we
all cruise around sight-seeing <g>.

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 10:44:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9kd9d19ijlcr6ik79ogkrtepg32lq55d0f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>
>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>labels
>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>HUD
>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>level, or even on GMT.
>
> I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
> others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.

You know this is quite disapointing. I would have figured by this time
that all of this would be sorted out. I assume there were beta testers
checking this out! So far IA is cool, but I was hoping to get into the
game more. Now I am thinking about letting it sit again.

Bummer. I guess I have no tolerance for this type of thing anymore
compared to console games.

--

gcisko@hotmail.com

> I set up a simple TE with two naval targets (2 task forces) - it took
> a few missions to sink all the targets. The first mission I ran, the
> A2G (in SEA mode) worked fine. After that, there was no way I could
> get the ships to show - even when they were in visual contact. No
> amount of cycling through radar modes or A2G stores could get them to
> appear again.
>
> At first, we thought it was a problem restricted to naval targets, but
> then others started reporting it happening with land-based units.
>
> It's quite a problem, as you're often faced with asking your flight or
> wingman to attack a specified (radar locked) target. With no lock, we
> all cruise around sight-seeing <g>.
>
> Adamski.
July 13, 2005 10:44:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:13:12 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:9kd9d19ijlcr6ik79ogkrtepg32lq55d0f@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>>
>>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>>labels
>>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>>HUD
>>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>>level, or even on GMT.
>>
>> I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
>> others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.
>
>You know this is quite disapointing. I would have figured by this time
>that all of this would be sorted out. I assume there were beta testers
>checking this out! So far IA is cool, but I was hoping to get into the
>game more. Now I am thinking about letting it sit again.
>
>Bummer. I guess I have no tolerance for this type of thing anymore
>compared to console games.

Use CCIP and eyeball it ;) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 2:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

It's not to do with the AGM-65. It's the A/G radar. Even though I can *see*
a target with my Maverick, with labels, or just visually, it doesn't show up
on radar.

I can target all day long with my Maverick, but locking targets with the A/G
radar is impossible as they don't show up on radar.


"G. Patricks" <GPatricks@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:fst8d1lchegfcejeqiaksel6rn08bku4f6@4ax.com...
> Hockey, what mode is your AGM-65 in? I haven't tried F4AF yet but I
> assume it hasn't changed in the fact that you need to Slave it to
> radar in order for it to do what you want (I think). If radar is in
> Steerpoint mode and your target is at the steerpoint it should be
> close when you get there. Guess I better dive into this again...
>
> Not sure if I am on the same page as you though, so sorry if I am off
> base.
>
> Icer
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
>><magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>labels
>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>HUD
>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>level, or even on GMT.
>>
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 2:36:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Eric The Viking" <stickyerfekkinspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121272441.886379.202950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Can't say I've noticed the problem with the AG radar.
>
> Have you tried putting the radar in snow-plough mode?
>
> ETV
>

Doesn't matter. Snowplow, Steerpoint, EXP, DSB1, DSB2. They AREN'T THERE!

I sit there in freeze mode looking right at them, TD box centered over them,
text label above them, but no radar return. I do it without freeze mode as I
approach very carefully, still same result.

It's been indicated many times at Frugalsworld forums. Hopefully it makes
the "must-fix list" in the first patch.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 2:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yMWdnUaoh5CHU0jfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Doesn't matter. Snowplow, Steerpoint, EXP, DSB1, DSB2. They AREN'T THERE!
>
> I sit there in freeze mode looking right at them, TD box centered over
> them, text label above them, but no radar return. I do it without freeze
> mode as I approach very carefully, still same result.
>
> It's been indicated many times at Frugalsworld forums. Hopefully it makes
> the "must-fix list" in the first patch.

Patch? What the hell are you talking about with "patch"? This is
the patch. All this stuff should have been sorted out. What you
describe seems like basic stuff that hoses up the A/G portion
of the game. How could it have possibly been missed?

--

gcisko@hotmail.com
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:47:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:21:14 -0400, cccc@home.net wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:13:12 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:9kd9d19ijlcr6ik79ogkrtepg32lq55d0f@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>>>
>>>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>>>labels
>>>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>>>HUD
>>>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>>>level, or even on GMT.
>>>
>>> I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
>>> others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.
>>
>>You know this is quite disapointing. I would have figured by this time
>>that all of this would be sorted out. I assume there were beta testers
>>checking this out! So far IA is cool, but I was hoping to get into the
>>game more. Now I am thinking about letting it sit again.
>>
>>Bummer. I guess I have no tolerance for this type of thing anymore
>>compared to console games.
>
>Use CCIP and eyeball it ;) 

Sure - that works fine - except when you're attacking a group of 6
ships, all firing SAMS & cannon at you and your wingmen can't take the
heat off you because you can't give them the "attack my target"
command <ggg>.

Don't get me wrong though - AF is still a *great* improvement and I
think it's a good foundation for Falcon's future.

Adamski.
July 14, 2005 3:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:21 +1200, Adamski <anon@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:21:14 -0400, cccc@home.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:13:12 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9kd9d19ijlcr6ik79ogkrtepg32lq55d0f@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>>>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>>>>labels
>>>>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>>>>HUD
>>>>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>>>>level, or even on GMT.
>>>>
>>>> I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
>>>> others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.
>>>
>>>You know this is quite disapointing. I would have figured by this time
>>>that all of this would be sorted out. I assume there were beta testers
>>>checking this out! So far IA is cool, but I was hoping to get into the
>>>game more. Now I am thinking about letting it sit again.
>>>
>>>Bummer. I guess I have no tolerance for this type of thing anymore
>>>compared to console games.
>>
>>Use CCIP and eyeball it ;) 
>
>Sure - that works fine - except when you're attacking a group of 6
>ships, all firing SAMS & cannon at you and your wingmen can't take the
>heat off you because you can't give them the "attack my target"
>command <ggg>.

I haven't gotten that far but most of my missions are suicide missions
any ways.
>
>Don't get me wrong though - AF is still a *great* improvement and I
>think it's a good foundation for Falcon's future.
>
>Adamski.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 7:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

What was that supposed to mean Greg?

ETV
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 7:18:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:33:20 -0400, cccc@home.net wrote:

>I haven't gotten that far but most of my missions are suicide missions
>any ways.

Hehehe ... now *that* sounds familiar <g> .. "Archer inb----- BLAM!"

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:57 -0500, Greg Cisko wrote:

>"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:yMWdnUaoh5CHU0jfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> Doesn't matter. Snowplow, Steerpoint, EXP, DSB1, DSB2. They AREN'T THERE!
>>
>> I sit there in freeze mode looking right at them, TD box centered over
>> them, text label above them, but no radar return. I do it without freeze
>> mode as I approach very carefully, still same result.
>>
>> It's been indicated many times at Frugalsworld forums. Hopefully it makes
>> the "must-fix list" in the first patch.
>
>Patch? What the hell are you talking about with "patch"? This is
>the patch. All this stuff should have been sorted out. What you
>describe seems like basic stuff that hoses up the A/G portion
>of the game. How could it have possibly been missed?

Hey, go have a beer (or two) <g>. I'd call AF not so much a "patch" as
a "tidy up" or "reworking" of old Falcon4 code. It's suddenly had a
few hundred new "beta-testers" added to the mix, so it's hardly
surprising that new (or even old) bugs are being reported.

I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't
appear to be *1,000's* of people out there confirming it - so it may
just be some wierd combination of circumstances.

On a few other issues, LP have already recognised bugs at Frugal's and
have promised fixes.

If AF were a brand new product - published at full price, then I think
I'd be far more critical - but, let's face it, no-one these days is
going to start a hard-core jet sim - so I'm grateful we have AF, even
if it's inherited some of F4's shortcomings.

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qjobd15ab7vj8ki9pfpvvmjd7h29g18gvm@4ax.com...
> Hey, go have a beer (or two) <g>. I'd call AF not so much a "patch" as
> a "tidy up" or "reworking" of old Falcon4 code. It's suddenly had a
> few hundred new "beta-testers" added to the mix, so it's hardly
> surprising that new (or even old) bugs are being reported.
>
> I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
> feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't

But this is something that apparently has been spotted immediately.
So the beta testers did not do their job, or something else is hosed.

--

gcisko@hotmail.com
July 14, 2005 11:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

And I thought it was me doing something stupid.


"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9kd9d19ijlcr6ik79ogkrtepg32lq55d0f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:09 -0400, HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>
>>My biggest gripe so far, however, is that I can never find ground targets
>>using the A/G radar. I can see them through the Maverick TV, with the
>>labels
>>and visually, or with the padlocking option. I can have my TD box on my
>>HUD
>>directly over a SAM, and it doesn't show up on GM radar under any zoom
>>level, or even on GMT.
>
> I've logged this as a bug at Frugal's - and it's been confirmed by
> others. There's *definitely* a problem with A2G radar.
>
> I set up a simple TE with two naval targets (2 task forces) - it took
> a few missions to sink all the targets. The first mission I ran, the
> A2G (in SEA mode) worked fine. After that, there was no way I could
> get the ships to show - even when they were in visual contact. No
> amount of cycling through radar modes or A2G stores could get them to
> appear again.
>
> At first, we thought it was a problem restricted to naval targets, but
> then others started reporting it happening with land-based units.
>
> It's quite a problem, as you're often faced with asking your flight or
> wingman to attack a specified (radar locked) target. With no lock, we
> all cruise around sight-seeing <g>.
>
> Adamski.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 11:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:12:47 -0500, Greg Cisko wrote:

>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:qjobd15ab7vj8ki9pfpvvmjd7h29g18gvm@4ax.com...

>> I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
>> feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't
>
>But this is something that apparently has been spotted immediately.
>So the beta testers did not do their job, or something else is hosed.

I've beta-tested a few products over the years. I wish it were that
simple! So much depends on the number (and quality) of the testers and
time contraints as well as the sometimes elusive nature of certain
bugs.

I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 11:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:t13cd1l3mknjp1u775mjgc92b05qkun6qk@4ax.com...
>
> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.


OK so now you are saying that everything works fine and perhaps the
problem is you need a beer or two?

--

gcisko@hotmail.com
July 14, 2005 11:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:t13cd1l3mknjp1u775mjgc92b05qkun6qk@4ax.com...

>
> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>
> Adamski.


Ok, now you are scaring me here. Intermittent problems are the worst.
Oh well, I am still into a Campaign with FF3 and so far not doing too
well......... not at all.............

























Allan


--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:23:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Well even the most experienced of us dont play on complete realism. Youll
almost definitely want to soften up the air to air refuelling option as its
very difficult and you have to do it quite a lot. Youll also be best turning
on near labels becuase you just cant tell which nearby planes are enemies or
friends in the game - due to graphical limitations - but you would in real
life. Labels help a lot. Also I tend to turn off the more difficult padlock
option where you lose lock if the target goes under your plane - too much
like hard work IMO. Other than that you should try and learn the realistic
avionics/radar but youll probably only use 50% of the functionality like I
do. Similarly I can never remember how to mnaually select communications
channels and the like but you never need it as a rule. So although it looks
difficult you really only need to learn to land/ takeoff, manage the radar,
and use the weapons modes. Most of the other stuff is incidental to the
game.

<jamesarlene@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1121281332.407226.106510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> It's the most difficult game I've ever owned. That being said, I'm
> gonna have to give up the notion of jumping into this game 'hard-core'
> and soften up the difficulty tabs. Other than, the game is amazing.
> Folks making the jump from a prop sim to this thing are in for a bitter
> sweet pill.
>
July 15, 2005 1:15:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:18:44 +1200, Adamski <anon@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:33:20 -0400, cccc@home.net wrote:
>
>>I haven't gotten that far but most of my missions are suicide missions
>>any ways.
>
>Hehehe ... now *that* sounds familiar <g> .. "Archer inb----- BLAM!"
>
>Adamski.
I like to bail out and watch the plane get hit. The funny thing is
the Air Force doesn't even seem to care they just give me another and
another and........
July 15, 2005 1:19:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:57 -0500, "Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:yMWdnUaoh5CHU0jfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> Doesn't matter. Snowplow, Steerpoint, EXP, DSB1, DSB2. They AREN'T THERE!
>>
>> I sit there in freeze mode looking right at them, TD box centered over
>> them, text label above them, but no radar return. I do it without freeze
>> mode as I approach very carefully, still same result.
>>
>> It's been indicated many times at Frugalsworld forums. Hopefully it makes
>> the "must-fix list" in the first patch.
>
>Patch? What the hell are you talking about with "patch"? This is
>the patch. All this stuff should have been sorted out. What you
>describe seems like basic stuff that hoses up the A/G portion
>of the game. How could it have possibly been missed?

Everything's laser and IR now screw that radar.
Eyeball it ;) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:57:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

What was what supposed to mean? Try including the text your
post is addressing next time. I am not a mind reader.

--

gcisko@hotmail.com


"Eric The Viking" <stickyerfekkinspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121379029.688057.319220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What was that supposed to mean Greg?
>
> ETV
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 6:23:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Adamski wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:12:47 -0500, Greg Cisko wrote:
>
>
>>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:qjobd15ab7vj8ki9pfpvvmjd7h29g18gvm@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
>>>feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't
>>
>>But this is something that apparently has been spotted immediately.
>>So the beta testers did not do their job, or something else is hosed.
>
>
> I've beta-tested a few products over the years. I wish it were that
> simple! So much depends on the number (and quality) of the testers and
> time contraints as well as the sometimes elusive nature of certain
> bugs.
>
> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>
> Adamski.

Perhaps that was the problem in the first place? <glug glug glug>

James
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Greg Cisko wrote:
> What was what supposed to mean? Try including the text your
> post is addressing next time. I am not a mind reader.
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
> "Eric The Viking" <stickyerfekkinspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121379029.688057.319220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > What was that supposed to mean Greg?
> >
> > ETV
> >

Whatever.

ETV
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:20:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I play it with complete realism on, but then again I have had Falcon since
the original came out in 1997 (wont be long till its 10th anniversary!).
That said, I'm very rusty and I'm having to pick up old skills, like the
ability to furball properly with just guns. Played 2 campaign missions, lots
of dogfights and one or two of the training missions. The lighting and
clouds in its graphics engine seem to make a huge difference to the overall
look and the various falcon models have well realized cockpits.

On my first landing I aimed right for the end of the runway and was on AOA.
However I noticed that the fence around the airbase was very close to the
runway and it looked like my wheels might clip it. I thought, 'there's no
way they put collision detection on the fence(!?)'. How wrong I was! Now I
just aim at the tire marks further down the runway.

The Italian campaign is a relief for me as I had done Korea to death in the
original. A lot of the place names seem a lot more familiar which makes me
feel more at home their. I didn't see any walls of Migs (like the old one -
this is good), and managed to pick up a raid building up on my radar. My
wingman and I went in and I claimed a Mig21 but got shot down by an IR
missile. I survived by parachuting, but realized that my missile avoidance
techniques for IR missiles had been almost completely forgotten. (I used to
use padlock on the missile and keep it beamed, but had forgotten how to
padlock items!)

ATC seems much more detailed. I got a bollocking for not requesting take
off(!) Plus in the mission debrief it tells you all the occasions that you
hacked off ATC. I had done it on no less than three occasions! Not sure what
they all were, but I think one of them was not using the vectors assigned to
me to clear the airfield. I like this aspect as it brings much more
immersion to airfield ops.

Performance wise the game is a little slower than the original in some
places (I suspect the clouds have a lot to do with this), but I was playing
it on my laptop with a Radeon 9600 which isn't exactly optimum. (My G/F
plays World of Warcraft on the main machine!)

I really like this version. I hope some more new theatres get released
covering some current topical areas. I also look forward to some different
aircraft to fly that have been properly coded with the correct avionics now
that there is a commercial development team behind it.

FlashPan is Back! :-)


"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D b6e33$fqs$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Well even the most experienced of us dont play on complete realism. Youll
> almost definitely want to soften up the air to air refuelling option as
> its very difficult and you have to do it quite a lot. Youll also be best
> turning on near labels becuase you just cant tell which nearby planes are
> enemies or friends in the game - due to graphical limitations - but you
> would in real life. Labels help a lot. Also I tend to turn off the more
> difficult padlock option where you lose lock if the target goes under your
> plane - too much like hard work IMO. Other than that you should try and
> learn the realistic avionics/radar but youll probably only use 50% of the
> functionality like I do. Similarly I can never remember how to mnaually
> select communications channels and the like but you never need it as a
> rule. So although it looks difficult you really only need to learn to
> land/ takeoff, manage the radar, and use the weapons modes. Most of the
> other stuff is incidental to the game.
>
> <jamesarlene@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1121281332.407226.106510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> It's the most difficult game I've ever owned. That being said, I'm
>> gonna have to give up the notion of jumping into this game 'hard-core'
>> and soften up the difficulty tabs. Other than, the game is amazing.
>> Folks making the jump from a prop sim to this thing are in for a bitter
>> sweet pill.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 6:54:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:23:47 GMT, James Calivar wrote:

>Adamski wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:12:47 -0500, Greg Cisko wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:qjobd15ab7vj8ki9pfpvvmjd7h29g18gvm@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>>I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
>>>>feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't
>>>
>>>But this is something that apparently has been spotted immediately.
>>>So the beta testers did not do their job, or something else is hosed.
>>
>>
>> I've beta-tested a few products over the years. I wish it were that
>> simple! So much depends on the number (and quality) of the testers and
>> time contraints as well as the sometimes elusive nature of certain
>> bugs.
>>
>> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
>> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
>> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>>
>> Adamski.
>
>Perhaps that was the problem in the first place? <glug glug glug>
>
>James

Hehe. I have no problem with drinking *at all*. Glass connects with
mouth every time. This is my "in-flight re-fueling" fix/workaround for
every known bug in every known sim <gg>.

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 2:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:t13cd1l3mknjp1u775mjgc92b05qkun6qk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:12:47 -0500, Greg Cisko wrote:
>
>>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:qjobd15ab7vj8ki9pfpvvmjd7h29g18gvm@4ax.com...
>
>>> I'm prepared to cut LP a little slack and give them as much useful
>>> feedback as possible. Though I've seen this bug myself, there don't
>>
>>But this is something that apparently has been spotted immediately.
>>So the beta testers did not do their job, or something else is hosed.
>
> I've beta-tested a few products over the years. I wish it were that
> simple! So much depends on the number (and quality) of the testers and
> time contraints as well as the sometimes elusive nature of certain
> bugs.
>
> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>
> Adamski.

I get this issue during the campaign. Haven't tried it with a TE yet, so
can't speak to that. Things like bridges and buildings show up just fine.
It's just the temporary or mobile ground units. I put my TD on it visually
in my HUD, I see the label for it, and even slew my Maverick head over it.
But A/G shows no radar return. I think I will do a FRAPS video to show what
I mean. It happens pretty much every mission during the campaign that I am
tasked to take out mobile units or temporary emplacements.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 2:16:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uPqdnZXob9LeiETfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
>> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
>> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>>
>> Adamski.
>
> I get this issue during the campaign. Haven't tried it with a TE yet, so
> can't speak to that. Things like bridges and buildings show up just fine.
> It's just the temporary or mobile ground units. I put my TD on it visually
> in my HUD, I see the label for it, and even slew my Maverick head over it.
> But A/G shows no radar return. I think I will do a FRAPS video to show
> what I mean. It happens pretty much every mission during the campaign that
> I am tasked to take out mobile units or temporary emplacements.

So I guess you cannot complete the mission successfully.

--

gcisko@hotmail.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:23:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aJednV6nlLjvgkTfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uPqdnZXob9LeiETfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>> I've tried (just now) to recreate this particular bug - and blow me, I
>>> can't. Yet I'm following the exact same steps I did before - *with the
>>> same TE*. It's enough to drive you to drink! <gg>.
>>>
>>> Adamski.
>>
>> I get this issue during the campaign. Haven't tried it with a TE yet, so
>> can't speak to that. Things like bridges and buildings show up just fine.
>> It's just the temporary or mobile ground units. I put my TD on it
>> visually in my HUD, I see the label for it, and even slew my Maverick
>> head over it. But A/G shows no radar return. I think I will do a FRAPS
>> video to show what I mean. It happens pretty much every mission during
>> the campaign that I am tasked to take out mobile units or temporary
>> emplacements.
>
> So I guess you cannot complete the mission successfully.
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
>

Nope, not unless I go CCRP, but usually I don't carry enough bombs on the
single aircraft to be successful on my own, thats why I need my wingies. Or
I carry a Maverick to target to let my wingies know wtf to do. I found too
that I can padlock the ground targets but at times, it can take forever to
cycle through all of them and find the right one. That's a stupid way to do
it though.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:15:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of campaign
missions are:

In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have bugs
like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates whilst
near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with FF3. No
change there then.

Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being one of
them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put them back.

Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before my
flight to program 4. No change there then.

The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to choose
from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no Typhoons
:-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons. Still annoying
to go backwards a step compared to FF3.

Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the ground
targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through the
testing.

There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not much
to write home about.

There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.

As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label range
setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.

Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as havent
got that far yet.

So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im sure
the bugs will be solved shortly.

The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons and
patches.

Nats
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:29:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of campaign
> missions are:
>
> In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have
> bugs like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates
> whilst near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with
> FF3. No change there then.
>
> Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being one
> of them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put them
> back.
>
> Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
> considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before my
> flight to program 4. No change there then.
>
> The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to
> choose from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no
> Typhoons :-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons.
> Still annoying to go backwards a step compared to FF3.
>
> Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the ground
> targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through
> the testing.
>
> There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not
> much to write home about.
>
> There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.
>
> As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label range
> setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.
>
> Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as
> havent got that far yet.
>
> So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
> backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im sure
> the bugs will be solved shortly.
>
> The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons and
> patches.
>
> Nats

Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little bugged
as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue to take
off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and am over
the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing clearance not
realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an aborted landing.
Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I certainly cant remember
waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this new incarnation has
introduced some new bugs of its own.

Mind you I did experience a Tornado coming in for an emergency landing
whilst I was again waiting to take off - it bounced down the grass near the
runway which was nice to see and the controller even warned me of an
emergency landing enroute. Never experienced that in FF3! So on the whole
some new bugs, some old ones, but alos some intersting additions, and it
seems stable though so far. Anything that gets me playing F4 again cant be
all that bad after all these years being devoid of a good flight sim.

Nats
July 17, 2005 4:12:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D bc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of campaign
>> missions are:
>>
>> In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have
>> bugs like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates
>> whilst near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with
>> FF3. No change there then.
>>
>> Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being one
>> of them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put them
>> back.
>>
>> Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
>> considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before my
>> flight to program 4. No change there then.
>>
>> The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to
>> choose from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no
>> Typhoons :-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons.
>> Still annoying to go backwards a step compared to FF3.
>>
>> Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the ground
>> targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through
>> the testing.
>>
>> There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not
>> much to write home about.
>>
>> There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.
>>
>> As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label range
>> setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.
>>
>> Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as
>> havent got that far yet.
>>
>> So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
>> backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im
>> sure the bugs will be solved shortly.
>>
>> The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons
>> and patches.
>>
>> Nats
>
> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue
> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and
> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an
> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I certainly
> cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this new
> incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>

This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the hold
line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you t/o
clearance unless there is traffic
July 17, 2005 4:12:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:12:08 GMT, "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island>
wrote:

>
>"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D bc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of campaign
>>> missions are:
>>>
>>> In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have
>>> bugs like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates
>>> whilst near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with
>>> FF3. No change there then.
>>>
>>> Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being one
>>> of them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put them
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
>>> considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before my
>>> flight to program 4. No change there then.
>>>
>>> The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to
>>> choose from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no
>>> Typhoons :-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons.
>>> Still annoying to go backwards a step compared to FF3.
>>>
>>> Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the ground
>>> targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through
>>> the testing.
>>>
>>> There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not
>>> much to write home about.
>>>
>>> There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.
>>>
>>> As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label range
>>> setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.
>>>
>>> Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as
>>> havent got that far yet.
>>>
>>> So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
>>> backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im
>>> sure the bugs will be solved shortly.
>>>
>>> The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons
>>> and patches.
>>>
>>> Nats
>>
>> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
>> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue
>> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and
>> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
>> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an
>> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I certainly
>> cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this new
>> incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>>
>
>This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the hold
>line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you t/o
>clearance unless there is traffic
>
Where is "the line" and why do I always have to taxi?
I select "takeoff" but I still have to taxi to the runways.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:31:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

You did request take off clearance first? :-)
RobP

> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue
> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and
> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an
> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I certainly
> cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this new
> incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>
> Mind you I did experience a Tornado coming in for an emergency landing
> whilst I was again waiting to take off - it bounced down the grass near
> the runway which was nice to see and the controller even warned me of an
> emergency landing enroute. Never experienced that in FF3! So on the whole
> some new bugs, some old ones, but alos some intersting additions, and it
> seems stable though so far. Anything that gets me playing F4 again cant be
> all that bad after all these years being devoid of a good flight sim.
>
> Nats
>
July 17, 2005 7:19:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

<cccc@home.net> wrote in message
news:qvijd1l528poer7lpg2ph1et02nda2a1vi@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:12:08 GMT, "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:D bc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of
>>>> campaign
>>>> missions are:
>>>>
>>>> In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have
>>>> bugs like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates
>>>> whilst near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with
>>>> FF3. No change there then.
>>>>
>>>> Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being
>>>> one
>>>> of them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put
>>>> them
>>>> back.
>>>>
>>>> Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
>>>> considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before
>>>> my
>>>> flight to program 4. No change there then.
>>>>
>>>> The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to
>>>> choose from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no
>>>> Typhoons :-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons.
>>>> Still annoying to go backwards a step compared to FF3.
>>>>
>>>> Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the
>>>> ground
>>>> targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through
>>>> the testing.
>>>>
>>>> There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not
>>>> much to write home about.
>>>>
>>>> There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.
>>>>
>>>> As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label
>>>> range
>>>> setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.
>>>>
>>>> Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as
>>>> havent got that far yet.
>>>>
>>>> So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
>>>> backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im
>>>> sure the bugs will be solved shortly.
>>>>
>>>> The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons
>>>> and patches.
>>>>
>>>> Nats
>>>
>>> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
>>> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a
>>> cue
>>> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance
>>> and
>>> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
>>> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get
>>> an
>>> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I
>>> certainly
>>> cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this
>>> new
>>> incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>>>
>>
>>This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the
>>hold
>>line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you t/o
>>clearance unless there is traffic
>>
> Where is "the line" and why do I always have to taxi?
> I select "takeoff" but I still have to taxi to the runways.

Got me there.I was assuming you were taxiing
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:57:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:snhCe.1968000$6l.1731608@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D bc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
>> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue
>> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and
>> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
>> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an
>> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I
>> certainly cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3.
>> Seems this new incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>>
>
> This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the
> hold line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you
> t/o clearance unless there is traffic

Sorry actually this is my mistake in not reading the manual! Terrible I know
but thats what you get when you have a PDF thing instead of a 'real one'.
Anyway I heard the controller say Taxi to runway and hold short which I did.
Then I asked for take off and the controller said 'runway position and hold'
which I assumed was another way of saying hold short. But it was actually
telling me to get onto the runway and stop. So it was my fault all along
that I wasnt taking off correctly. Seems this isnt a bug after all. The
flying blocks in the sky when you shoot planes are definitely a bug though
unless the Borg have suddenly invaded 2005 earth and I never noticed!

I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
despite the quibbles.

And also very nice to get the game in a box with a manual etc! Shame there
isnt a keycard but you can just use the FF3 one which is very similar.

My final comment is that if anyone wants the game you cant beat Simware for
ordering. I ordered online from the UK and received the order from Brussels
in two days! Mind you the box was crushed and the case was smashed up but
hey you cant expect everything!

Nats
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 4:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:57:42 +0100, "Nats"
<nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


Actually, after a pilot has received his ground clearance to taxi to a
runway and he has contacted tower to state "ready for takeoff", the
common ATC clearance in civil aviation for taxi onto an active runway
and hold is "position and hold" for takeoff clearance unless military
uses different terminology. If there are no traffic conflicts one can
get a cleared for takeoff after reporting ready for takeoff. You will
rarely get that at larger airports though.

Hold short is used in connection with clearances for ground
taxi across an active runway or another taxiway. Hold short
lines where no part of the aircraft can be beyond without a
clearance are painted on the surfaces.

After receiving a ground taxi clearance you are never authorized
to taxi onto any active runway or to takeoff without a clearance from
tower.

If you screw that stuff up .... if you don't get killed first you'll
get your license jerked second.

The whole ATC stuff in F4 is very simplified and not very accurate
but it really doesn't have to be. What is there adds quite a bit to
the immersion and it's working a lot better in F4AF. I suspect there
may be some further improvements as this thing evolves.


>"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
>news:snhCe.1968000$6l.1731608@pd7tw2no...
>>
>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:D bc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:D bbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
>>> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a cue
>>> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance and
>>> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
>>> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get an
>>> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I
>>> certainly cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3.
>>> Seems this new incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>>>
>>
>> This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the
>> hold line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you
>> t/o clearance unless there is traffic
>
>Sorry actually this is my mistake in not reading the manual! Terrible I know
>but thats what you get when you have a PDF thing instead of a 'real one'.
>Anyway I heard the controller say Taxi to runway and hold short which I did.
>Then I asked for take off and the controller said 'runway position and hold'
>which I assumed was another way of saying hold short. But it was actually
>telling me to get onto the runway and stop. So it was my fault all along
>that I wasnt taking off correctly. Seems this isnt a bug after all. The
>flying blocks in the sky when you shoot planes are definitely a bug though
>unless the Borg have suddenly invaded 2005 earth and I never noticed!
>
>I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
>out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
>obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
>This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
>rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
>particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
>despite the quibbles.
>
>And also very nice to get the game in a box with a manual etc! Shame there
>isnt a keycard but you can just use the FF3 one which is very similar.
>
>My final comment is that if anyone wants the game you cant beat Simware for
>ordering. I ordered online from the UK and received the order from Brussels
>in two days! Mind you the box was crushed and the case was smashed up but
>hey you cant expect everything!
>
>Nats
>
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:05:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:11:16 -0400, cccc@home.net wrote:

>Where is "the line" and why do I always have to taxi?
>I select "takeoff" but I still have to taxi to the runways.

Yep - me too. "Old" Falcon4 actually places you on the runway. I'm
beginning to think the beta-testing period may have been a wee bit on
the short side.

That said, I still think AF is a success. It has sold well, and gives
LP financial muscle to carry on - with no copyright squabbles (with
Atari at least) - and keep improving or debugging the code.

As far as I'm concerned - it's a step in the right direction. Provided
we all remain *constructive* then I think we stand a good chance of
getting something like the Falcon we'd all love to have.

Adamski.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 2:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <dbego4$vcf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nats
<nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
>out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
>obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
>This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
>rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
>particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
>despite the quibbles.

I've had several CTD, mostly it has to be said, when alt-tabbing between
the game and the PDF manual, but on other occasions too, can't remember
what I did at the time, but when I started it up again the next time I
let it send it's little bug report thing back to them, so hopefully it
may get sorted soon.
>

--
Sean Black
!