Here's an idea: research your planes first!

[Camelhammer 0]

First we had a hawk that could outmaneuver an F-22. Now we've got AMX's with a roll rate that makes them impossible to control. Now we've got a huey that does 300 knots, and turns on a dime at full speed.

Maybe it's just me, but some research into the performance of these planes would make a world of difference towards their playability.

[Eviscerator 0]

well the chinook can reach 600 so i think they are just trying to keep them competitive

[peeps 0]

its only a game, the addons r cool leave them alone or don't download them. The tank speed in the game isn't all that realistic either u no

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ May 21 2002,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well the chinook can reach 600 so i think they are just trying to keep them competitive<span id='postcolor'>

They fixed the CH-47´s speed with 1.46, it only goes about 320 km/h max level speed now.

However it´s still submergeable though, as all helicopters.

[nolips71 0]

ppl who make these addons obvoilosusly dont have a joystick cous there unflyable

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Camelhammer @ May 21 2002,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First we had a hawk that could outmaneuver an F-22.<span id='postcolor'>

And where is the F22 addon? ;P

But anyway, dont like it, dont use it. Go make a better one if you know so much about things and know how to reproduce the real life paramters in OFP.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ May 21 2002,14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Camelhammer @ May 21 2002,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First we had a hawk that could outmaneuver an F-22.<span id='postcolor'>

And where is the F22 addon? ;P

But anyway, dont like it, dont use it. Go make a better one if you know so much about things and know how to reproduce the real life paramters in OFP.<span id='postcolor'>

It's true. People always moan about stuff, like when we had the debate about putting modern harware into the game, but they seem to forget that downloading isn't an automatic function. it's not like if it's there thou shalt use it. Use your brains people.

[Darkhawk 0]

Camelhammer Have you ever flown in a hawk or F-22 before

you know that an A-10 can out turn a F-16 easy so what makes you think that an F-22 can out turn a Hawk; The hawk is smaller and lighter then the F-22 so I think it might be able to out turn it

[Stag 0]

I think a Hawk probably could out-turn an F22; It just doesn't have half a Tandy superstore bolted on.

For myself, I would like to have the OFP performances as close to real life as possible, but I'm certainly NOT going to criticise any mods which have been created. Perhaps you could make the relevant adjustments, Camelhammer? Though when you did, I doubt you would get 100 percent agreement on them.

[Evilnames 0]

I really think it would be kinda diffcult to fully Realisticly get an aircraft into flashpoint.

For one, the max of someones research is how A)It performs in other simulators. B)INfomation of Websites.

Very few people probley have been in the planes and actully have flown them there self.

[LordZach 0]

if OFP's aircraft performances were as realistic as possible you would all be crashing and burning very early in the mission i'm sure

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you know that an A-10 can out turn a F-16 easy <span id='postcolor'>

Ãou know, smoking crack is bad for your health.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a Hawk probably could out-turn an F22<span id='postcolor'>

Same as above. C'mon, do you seriously believe an anti tank aircraft and a light strike/trainer aircraft can out turn a lightweight fighter like the f-16, or an extremely advanced fighter with thrust vectoring engines (f-22)??

[miles teg 1]

I agree with the original poster on this thread. While certainly it is not possible to get prefectly realistic aircraft, A LOT can be done to improve the exhisting models. I also noticed that the Huey's fly really fast. What I have to is set their speed to "limited" on their waypoints. This controls the problem more or less. However addons such as the AMX fighter bomber are fatally flawed quite literally. If you've ever tried to fly it, the role rate is absurd. Even using the keyboard to fly it, it spins out of control extremely easily and crashes. Also I wasn't able to get the AI pilot to land the plane when I tried using various scripts that had worked on the Hawk addon (although the Hawk AI pilots sometimes don't land on the runway). So right now the AMX aircraft only seems good for use with AI pilots which is a shame. Also Martin sticking a 30mm cannon as a door gun on his Huey was a bit disappointing. I thought he was going to use the minigun from the Kegetys "Kiowa Warrior" addon instead. With a little remodelling of the .50 cal gun and some retexturing it could even be made to look like a real minigun.

For all of you who say, "Well go do it yourself" I have indeed tried messing with Milkshape doing some screwing around with the black hawk "blocks" and it's hard as hell which is why I have great respect for guys like Martin and Eviscerator who have infinite patience. However I do not have the time nor the skill to do this type of modelling at least not yet. In the mean time I think there is nothing wrong with giving MOD makers some constructive criticism especially on those MODs where I have first-hand experience with the real equipment/units or where I have a lot of literature and knowledge on that equipment/units (U.S. Army manuals, Jane's Defense Weekly publications, ect...).

So hopefully any mod makers will take this as constructive criticism and indeed do a little bit of research on their mods. If the goal of the mod is to be realistic, I recommend getting in touch with military or ex-military people who are familiar with or who have direct experience with the vehicles, weapons, and/or units that you are modding. I've been giving a bit of constructive criticism myself that I think has helped things quite a bit. For example I let Christoph know that his RPK's gas tube was too far out and that only the barrel section needed stretching. He also realized this at the last moment but I think my feedback (written in a friendly manner) encouraged him to fix the problem which he did...and the result is a very nice looking RPK light machine gun that looks fairly close to the real thing.

So to all the modders here, keep up the great work, but also don't settle for mediocre addons when slight adjustments can make it a much better and more realistic addon.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Paratrooper 0]

The Hawk is a first rate trainer because it is one of the most manuverable planes available. That is why it is the plane of the Red Arrows. Which one of you want's to have a go at the Red Arrow's plane then?

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Hawk is a first rate trainer because it is one of the most manuverable planes available. That is why it is the plane of the Red Arrows. Which one of you want's to have a go at the Red Arrow's plane then?<span id='postcolor'>

I know. The Falcon is a first rate dogfighter because it's one of the most maneuverable planes around, that's why it is the plane of the Thunderbirds and one of the planes used as agressor to train navy f-14 pilots in the Fighter Weapons School (aka Top Gun)

Planes like the f/a-18, f-16, mig-29, su-27, etc can outperform the hawk in almost everything. Extremely advanced planes like the f-22, the f-35 jsf, the eurofighter or the su-37... well, you surely can figure it out yourself.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 20 2002,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with the original poster on this thread.  While certainly it is not possible to get prefectly realistic aircraft, A LOT can be done to improve the exhisting models.  I also noticed that the Huey's fly really fast.  What I have to is set their speed to "limited" on their waypoints.  This controls the problem more or less.  However addons such as the AMX fighter bomber are fatally flawed quite literally.  If you've ever tried to fly it, the role rate is absurd.  Even using the keyboard to fly it, it spins out of control extremely easily and crashes.  Also I wasn't able to get the AI pilot to land the plane when I tried using various scripts that had worked on the Hawk addon (although the Hawk AI pilots sometimes don't land on the runway).   So right now the AMX aircraft only seems good for use with AI pilots which is a shame.  Also Martin sticking a 30mm cannon as a door gun on his Huey was a bit disappointing.  I thought he was going to use the minigun from the Kegetys "Kiowa Warrior" addon instead.  With a little remodelling of the .50 cal gun and some retexturing it could even be made to look like a real minigun.  

For all of you who say, "Well go do it yourself" I have indeed tried messing with Milkshape doing some screwing around with the black hawk "blocks" and it's hard as hell which is why I have great respect for guys like Martin and Eviscerator who have infinite patience.  However I do not have the time nor the skill to do this type of modelling at least not yet.  In the mean time I think there is nothing wrong with giving MOD makers some constructive criticism especially on those MODs where I have first-hand experience with the real equipment/units or where I have a lot of literature and knowledge on that equipment/units  (U.S. Army manuals, Jane's Defense Weekly publications, ect...).

So hopefully any mod makers will take this as constructive criticism and indeed do a little bit of research on their mods.  If the goal of the mod is to be realistic, I recommend getting in touch with military or ex-military people who are familiar with or who have direct experience with the vehicles, weapons, and/or units that you are modding.  I've been giving a bit of constructive criticism myself that I think has helped things quite a bit.  For example I let Christoph know that his RPK's gas tube was too far out and that only the barrel section needed stretching.  He also realized this at the last moment but I think my feedback (written in a friendly manner) encouraged him to fix the problem which he did...and the result is a very nice looking RPK light machine gun that looks fairly close to the real thing.  

So to all the modders here, keep up the great work, but also don't settle for mediocre addons when slight adjustments can make it a much better and more realistic addon.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Miles, the model is not the problem. You could model a brick, give it the data of a Blackhawk, and it would perform quite nicely, thankyou very much. The information which tells the aircraft to miss the ground in a particular way (or not, depending on pilot skill) is kept in a seperate file. You don't need to be a modeller to change this info, just patience, and possibly a degree in maths. It's an aspect of the job I've not looked into yet, but I know other people have.

I fly CFS2, Falcon4, and a couple of other sims (I did a few models for CFS2, but never got as far as publishing).

CFS2 has a group called the One Percent Group. What they

do is publish flight models for different aircraft which are alledged to be within one percent of the performance of the particular aircraft. It would be really cool if something similar could be done with OFP models, but it would require the agreement of the various people which edit these files.

As for the F22/hawk thingmie; doesn't matter if you can turn the bird ass over tit in a microsecond, the human body can only take so many Gees, even with assistance. But until a Hawk and a Raptor get into a knife fight, or the US Airforce releases some highly classified documents. nobody can say with certainty. I said the Hawk probably can out turn a Raptor. but I wouldn't put money on it.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the F22/hawk thingmie; doesn't matter if you can turn the bird ass over tit in a microsecond, the human body can only take so many Gees, even with assistance. But until a Hawk and a Raptor get into a knife fight, or the US Airforce releases some highly classified documents. nobody can say with certainty.<span id='postcolor'>

The hawk's g limits are +8 and -4.

http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/equip/equip1p_e.htm

The f-16 can do in excess of 9g, and the f-22 with thrust vectoring surely can do even more. No need of classified documents, the f-22 is designed to outperform in everything the f-15 and it's russian counterparts (su-27, su-33, su-35), and everybody who has seen a sukhoi in an airshow knows they can pull maneuvers that other planes can't even dream of. Search some reports of the performance of the su-37 in the Farnborough airshow in 1996, for example.

[MDRZulu 0]

Sadico, the g's increase with speed in the turn and with increasing speed in a turn the wider the turn is. I'd put my money down that a hawk can outurn an F-22, you gotta take into consideration too that an aircraft with a lower max speed is gonna handle better within its speed range than an F-22 which can go much faster. If a hawk could go that fast maybe it couldnt out turn it. Keep in mind that most fighter trainers are more agile than fighters within their speed range ie. a T-38 (F-5), and a hawk is a trainer in many countries. Another problem people are making is assuming that the speed is in mph or nautical mph, its not its in kilometers per hour thats why the numbers are so much larger. I dont know for sure but I bet none of you took the time to convert those speed figures into knots, mph or whatever you said.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ May 21 2002,18:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, Miles, the model is not the problem. You could model a brick, give it the data of a Blackhawk, and it would perform quite nicely, thankyou very much. The information which tells the aircraft to miss the ground in a particular way (or not, depending on pilot skill) is kept in a seperate file. You don't need to be a modeller to change this info, just patience, and possibly a degree in maths. It's an aspect of the job I've not looked into yet, but I know other people have.

I fly CFS2, Falcon4, and a couple of other sims (I did a few models for CFS2, but never got as far as publishing).

CFS2 has a group called the One Percent Group. What they

do is publish flight models for different aircraft which are alledged to be within one percent of the performance of the particular aircraft. It would be really cool if something similar could be done with OFP models, but it would require the agreement of the various people which edit these files.

As for the F22/hawk thingmie; doesn't matter if you can turn the bird ass over tit in a microsecond, the human body can only take so many Gees, even with assistance. But until a Hawk and a Raptor get into a knife fight, or the US Airforce releases some highly classified documents. nobody can say with certainty. I said the Hawk probably can out turn a Raptor. but I wouldn't put money on it.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I know it's not the model itself. When I say model I mean the entire addon as a whole. Tinkering with it, as they did with the AMX fighter just leads to an almost impossible aircraft to fly. Honestly I don't care much about how realistically the plane handles. I just want the damn thing to be reasonably easy to fly as I'm not a "Super Realism" flight simulator buff. I mean I like flight simulators but if they require a masters degree in advanced avionics and flight control systems then I skip those flight simulators. BIS had done a fairly good job with making the A-10 and Su-25 flyable and did a good job with the auto-landing capability for those of us who suck at flying and don't have a nice flight-simulator joystick, with throttle control, ect...

For example I know a lot of flight sim buffs who HATE the helicopter flight control system. Personally I think that it's one of the best I've ever used in any helicopter flight simulation as it's easy to fly the helicopters in OFP and I can do all kinds of high risk, daring maneuvers without crashing 2 seconds into the flight like I do with something like Apache vs Havoc. (I love flying down streets in between buildings in the Cobra gunship).

At any rate that's just personal opinion and I respect yours because I know how dearly a lot of flight simulator fans love accurate flight controls. But if the AMX is that difficult to control in real life then I have new respect for those Italian pilots.

Same goes for the soldiering part. I served in the Army and I know that OFP is not entirely realistic in the ground combat part. For example there are no gun jams, you don't have to change barrels on MG's, you can run forever, ect.. ect.. but if they added some of those things it might make the game a lot more frustrating and less fun, not to mention that the extra stuff might slow down the frame rates some more on missions using a lot of units.

For me more important then a realistic flight control system on a OFP aircraft are relatively realistic weapons, realistic textures and models (refueling probes on some MH-60s would be nice), realistic crew/passenger load, and a easy to fly flight control system that makes the aircraft a joy to fly and not a horrendously frustrating experience for those of us who are not hardcore flight sim fans and who don't have all the flight sim hardware.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[MHSJROTTCADET 0]

Actually an A-10 can and will Outturn a F-16, it can also outturn a Mig-29. There is a documented story that A-10's were patrolling the NFZ in northern Irag, when they had a Mig-29 pop up behind them, the A-10's were turned around so fast the Iraqi Pilot ejected before he had even begun to engage.

I also have a real life A-10 pilot with 2,000 hours in the A-10, 500 of them over the NFZ who will validate the claim.

[Darkhawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MHSJROTTCADET @ May 22 2002,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually an A-10 can and will Outturn a F-16, it can also outturn a Mig-29. There is a documented story that A-10's were patrolling the NFZ in northern Irag, when they had a Mig-29 pop up behind them, the A-10's were turned around so fast the Iraqi Pilot ejected before he had even begun to engage.

I also have a real life A-10 pilot with 2,000 hours in the A-10, 500 of them over the NFZ who will validate the claim.<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you

for a second there I thought I was going insane

[LordZach 0]

jeez the Iraqis sure are jumpy when it comes to combat

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ May 21 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you know that an A-10 can out turn a F-16 easy <span id='postcolor'>

Ãou know, smoking crack is bad for your health.

<span id='postcolor'>

A-10's can outturn F-16 easily....if the F-16 pilot is stupid enough not to use his speed advantage. Thing is, the A-10 can turn on a dime at low speeds, the F-16 is designed for high maneuverability at higher speeds.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh I know it's not the model itself.  When I say model I mean the entire addon as a whole. <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry for sounding condescending; I misunderstood what you were getting at.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I say model I mean the entire addon as a whole.   Tinkering with it, as they did with the AMX fighter just leads to an almost impossible aircraft to fly. Honestly I don't care much about how realistically the plane handles.<span id='postcolor'>

Not tried the AMX yet. my downloaded files recently underwent gravitational collapse and produced a quantum black hole which ate a sizeable portion of my drivespace. I cleaned house, and am being more carful with my downloads. If I ever need the AMX, I know where it is , but I digress. Given that what you say is true, then clearly there is a problem with the aircraft's flight model. This has been edited once, There's no reason why it could not be edited again, using guidance from a data source which can produce consistantly accurate values for all aircraft. performance problem sorted, and we get to find out if a Hawk really can outturn a Raptor .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just want the damn thing to be reasonably easy to fly as I'm not a "Super Realism" flight simulator buff.  I mean I like flight simulators but if they require a masters degree in advanced avionics and flight control systems then I skip those flight simulators. <span id='postcolor'>

You'll note that I said as closely as possible. OFP as it is at present couldn't really cope with that degree of realism. But As I mentioned, I play Falcon4. The F16 is incredibly easy to fly. It's only when you try to use its fighting systems that you need two asprin. Most of these systems are not in OFP, and I doubt ever will be; When all is said and done, OFP is still closer to its roots, a First-Person Shooter, than it is to a virtual battlefield system. The size of the islands limit the scope of air operations, for one thing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BIS had done a fairly good job with making the A-10 and Su-25 flyable and did a good job with the auto-landing capability for those of us who suck at flying and don't have a nice flight-simulator joystick, with throttle control, ect... <span id='postcolor'>

I agree. Why change a winner?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example I know a lot of flight sim buffs who HATE the helicopter flight control system.  Personally I think that it's one of the best I've ever used in any helicopter flight simulation as it's easy to fly the helicopters in OFP and I can do all kinds of high risk, daring maneuvers without crashing 2 seconds into the flight like I do with something like Apache vs Havoc. (I love flying down streets in between buildings in the Cobra gunship). <span id='postcolor'>

AvH? I actually bought a set of rudder pedals especially to play that.

Still crashed. I'm with you on the Helo flight model.:)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  At any rate that's just personal opinion and I respect yours because I know how dearly a lot of flight simulator fans love accurate flight controls.  But if the AMX is that difficult to control in real life then I have new respect for those Italian pilots.  

Same goes for the soldiering part.  I served in the Army and I know that OFP is not entirely realistic in the ground combat part.  For example there are no gun jams, you don't have to change barrels on MG's, you can run forever, ect.. ect.. but if they added some of those things it might make the game a lot more frustrating and less fun, not to mention that the extra stuff might slow down the frame rates some more on missions using a lot of units. <span id='postcolor'>

But as far as the ground war goes, why not have all the whistles and bells? Everybody seems to forget that the game difficulty level can be adjusted. Sure, there is the boost to the ego from being able to say "Hell, I play on Full Realism all the time." How about we call the new level "Boringly Realistic" to keep the average gamer happy?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> For me more important then a realistic flight control system on a OFP aircraft are relatively realistic weapons, realistic textures and models (refueling probes on some MH-60s would be nice), realistic crew/passenger load, and a easy to fly flight control system that makes the aircraft a joy to fly and not a horrendously frustrating experience for those of us who are not hardcore flight sim fans and who don't have all the flight sim hardware.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe the two aims are mutually exclusive, at least with ground weapons. but when you start lobbing daisy cutters, or just plain 1000kg bombs around, things may start getting a tad uncomfortable. Then, I guess its down to the mission designers to be careful.

Yeah, the drogues on thwe MH60s. surely a mod could take one of the present models, scrounge 4 polygons from somewhere and make one? who needs undercarriage struts, anyway? Just hover!  

[Camelhammer 0]

Seems some people were angered by my suggestion. Oh, well.

I don't advocate super-realism in OFP planes, or any unit. But believability is an important factor for a game like this. If an AMX starts rolling at a million-degrees-a-minute, I'm going to be startled back into my bedroom, where I'd rather be flying an AMX. Personally, I like the flight model for the PDB SU-25K. It's got a more fluid high-speed feel without an excessive roll rate. Basically, it just FEELS right for the game.

Believe me, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the authors of these addons, since I haven't released as much as an arctic barrel. But constructive criticism can only lead to a better realization of an idea.