Some stuff...

[BATPBC 0]

The F16 is NOT designed for carrier duty nor does it serve in the USN, only USAF, USAFR and ANG. Pretty sure their are no other Armed Forces in the world that use it in naval operations either. So I would not waste anytime trying to make it compatible for that role. Just my two cents.   BTW good work so far, Im sure it will be another must have addon when completed.

P.S. I think some years ago the USN did have a few F16s (land based) that they used for OPFOR but went back to F5s and F18s due to the cost of operations.

[Acecombat 0]

Ok we'll leave it at then

Now coming back to Footmunch , can you please please please make us a Egyptian version and a Israeli too? You might have to modify your model for the IAF though theirs is a bit different with modified tanks

An Egyptian verison would be very nice.

[mads bahrt 0]

Regarding loadouts:

Could you add a "Precision strike" loadout with 2 GBU24's? That would be really nice.

[miles teg 1]

Hahahaha! That's a very funny picture Acecombat!

As for Israeli and Egyptian F-16's, that's basically what his roundel system is for however, if Footmunch doesn't mind I'll see about converting his textures to desert colors. However there are much better texturers then me that I hope can help Footmunch do several cammo patterns including a few desert cammo patterns.

As for the fuel tank configuration that's probably not that big of an issue. But perhaps if Footmunch doesn't mind, I'll make F-16's specifically for the Lost Brothers mod that will include both IAF and Egyptian Airforce F-16's with IAF and Egyptian pilots.

Vipersheart is working hard on finishing up our Egyptian forces so hopefully soon we'll have a nice LoBo demo pack coming out soon.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[havocsquad 0]

I'm sure Footmunch is going to do a Heavy and possibly a light Precision Bomb loadout also.

I forgot, on one of the loadouts, you missed a weapon pylon in the loadout.  I think it was your A2G where it only had 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders.  

The F-16 has Four weapon hardpoints on each wing:

Wingtip, shortly after that near wingtip, then the main hardpoint for weapons, especially ground muntions.

The last one is only Air-to mud capable I believe and is the only one that can fit an external fuel tank on per wing.

So, that gives you room to add either 2 AMRAAM's on the A2G loadout, 2 HARM missiles, or 2 AIM-9 sidewinders.

[Footmunch 0]

Miles -

Sounds fine. I can post some 'early' desert

textures I was playing with last night. Also, the conformal

fuel tanks (the lumpy ones behind the cockpit) could be

added as hidden selections such that scripting could expose

or hide them in the init line. I'll see if I can get that into the

second beta next week.

All the other bits that make up the new F-16I (including

the second cockpit and dorsal avionics module) would

probably need more time.

Mads -

Awww, now you spoiled the surprise There's a good chance

there will be a long-range precision-strike version with fuel

tanks, 2xLGB, 2xAIM120, 2xAIM9 and ECM on the centreline

in the next version.

So, that'll be CAS, CAP, Strike and SEAD covered - any other

loadouts? Recon? Anti-ship? Airshow (TBirds)?

Havoc -

I removed the outer pylons on the A2G because I thought the

6xMav and 6xMk82 was at the heavy end of the spectrum,

and that loadout would not usually be used in a region where

air superiority was not guaranteed - the SW's are for

any helicopters that happen to pop-up  

[ozanzac 0]

Hey, wow, the model is fan-bloody-tastic.

I think we can all say, you've really progressed since your first release, and since you've released so much, I don't remember what it was, but I assure you, I'd still have it.

Nice work FM

As a side note. Mavericks aren't generally loaded on a full three rail launcher system anymore. Safety issues having to do with release malfunctions and snags. It's still possible, but it'd be a rare situation.

edit: Actually, now I think about it, the USAF were considering buying new launchers to retain the three mavericks per A-G weapons pylon capability that the F-16 had, but I'll look into it again.

[havocsquad 0]

It's a waste of gas if you put only one AGM-65D per hardpoint.  Malfunction issues or not, if you're going to use mavericks you carry a full load.  No one said flying combat missions was safe bro.  

I know the F/A-18's can only have one maverick per hardpoint, but most of the time the F/A-18's use the AGM-65G for longer range for more hardened targets.

[ozanzac 0]

I know that, I never said that combat missions were safe, but having an uncaged, live maverick hanging off the end of your flimsey LAU-88 launcher, is a sure fire way of losing an aircraft and it's pilot.

The F/A-18 only has enough space for one maverick per hardpoint. Two or more per hardpoint and the missiles would be 'overlapping' other hardpoints.

The number one priority in modern warfare is not the bombload, it's getting home in one peice. All out warfare would be a different story.    

But wait while I re-trace my references.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Two different launchers are used with Maverick missiles: the LAU-117 single-raillauncher and the LAU-88 triple-rail launcher. The Maverick is not compatible with any otheraircraft suspension equipment, nor can these two launchers be used with any other ordnance. Bothlaunchers have problems that

impact Maverick employability.

Almost all LAU-88 three-rail launchers are in dead storage at this time. A modification toupgrade the launchers to A/A configuration was performed incorrectly by the commercial firmcontracted to do the work, necessitating the demodification of all affected assets (approximately4,000 LAU-88s had been modified originally). The contractor

performed the requisite de-modification (only on some 2700 assets, though, due to the retirement of F-4s); however, the design deficiency that necessitated the modification in the first place remained. Thus, all assets still require modification. ECP 973 was approved to perform the work, but an issue arose over obtaining proprietary launcher technical data in the possession of the contractor. The USG is in theprocess of negotiating procurement of the data.

Some 56 LAU-88s are currently receiving themodification to LAU-88A/A configuration under a special arrangement. When all peripheral issues have been resolved and funding becomes available, the remaining launchers will be modified at OO-ALC. Another problem with LAU-88s involves aircraft loadout. ACC personnel advise that as a result of LAU-88 launcher drag and pilot concerns about maneuverability and combat radius, the standard load for units using the fixed LAU-88 generally will only be two missiles/launcher. Even so, some aircraft (such as F-16s with certain engine configurations) still could not feasibly carrymore than a total of two Mavericks per aircraft on some missions due to drag, making the LAU-88 unusable for them.

Source:www.sdslink.com/SDS_International/PDF_PUB/AGM65.PDF

Edit: Link was working incorrectly.

[havocsquad 0]

Never been a real big fan of Mavericks in RL because with good cluster bombs and the JSOW-A, it seems kind of pointless to use an expensive missile just to kill 1 tank.

I'm a Cluster Bomb, Mk-82 tank plinking pilot when it comes to CAS. Mavericks in most sims take too bloody long to configure and ready for attacking armor and that means wasted time and vulnerability.

I never said I really liked Mavericks, I just see it as a waste of jet fuel if you are going to carry just 1 AGM-65D on a hardpoint. Having a single AGM-65G on a single hardpoint is fine because that type of Maverick is for special purpose use.

[<>Crippler<> 0]

I've only tried the Beagle so far Footmunch and its great Its good to have a biggish bomber ingame Thanks a lot!

[ozanzac 0]

Actually, mavericks are bloody cheap for what they are, that and there's about 6,000 of them in storage which could be upgraded.

Cluster bombs may well be illegal if the undetonnated munitions become a minefield, and Mk-82 bombs need a direct hit to destroy a tank IRL. And with unguided, free fall weapons, that's a hard ask. Even the Mk-82SE with air retardation is still hard to pinpoint the target, and as for the JSOW, for everyone of them used, I could buy a Ferrari and a house to go with it. And that's for the cheap JSOW model!

If you had of said JDAM's or LGB's, I would have agreed.

Anyways, to get back on topic, that's a nice F-16 !

[mads bahrt 0]

So, that'll be CAS, CAP, Strike and SEAD covered - any other

loadouts? Recon? Anti-ship? Airshow (TBirds)?

I know that unguided rockets were previously used for CAS - that might be an idea for a loadout.

I would really like to see a good afterburner implemented. For inspiration i would suggest looking at FDFMOD's F-18. As I understand it afterburner would actually be necessary for takeoff on the short runways in the game - is this correct?

Edit:

Since the JAS-39 Gripen which i a STOL aircraft needs 800 metres I think it is unrealistic for the F-16 to take of in less length without even using it's afterburner. On the other hand; to make the airplane usable at all it should still be able to take off in 900 m using afterburner, but it should only be possible by a narrow margin. The shortest runways on the original islands are around 900 - 1000 m.

[havocsquad 0]

LAU's are a waste of a sortie for most modern fixed wing aircraft bro, it would be better off you using Mk-82's, Mk-83's, Cluster Bombs, JDAM bombs, or dare I say it Mavericks.

Cluster Muntions illegal my ass, people know to stay away from them if they don't detonate and are perfectly fine when used by aircraft.   It's the bloody MRLS cluster muntions that are biggest collateral damage issue, Artillery can't be as accurate or decisive about pinpoint accuracy, even with GPS targeting computers.  It's most likely that the MRLS cluster muntions will have more bomblets that fail because of the massive number of rockets launched at targets.  Thus more opportunity for them to cause collateral damage to non-combatants.

If cluster muntions are illegal, so are the nuclear weapons of the U.S.,NATO, China, and Russia.  Both cause massive collateral damage and leave deadly aftereffects and deadly remaining byproducts.  Damn I'm good....    

Think of that man, if they are going to argue against cluster muntions, they better argue against the nuclear weapons sitting in holding bunkers and in silos at the same time.  They'd lose and lose big in that arguement against nuclear weapons, same will apply for cluster bombs.

[mads bahrt 0]

LAU's are a waste of a sortie for most modern fixed wing aircraft bro, it would be better off you using Mk-82's, Mk-83's, Cluster Bombs, JDAM bombs, or dare I say it Mavericks.

Yes - I know that LAU's won't see use today (unless as a last resort), but I think it was still standard ordnance in the 80's. If there was a CAS version with LAU's mounted that could be used in a 80's mission.

[Koolkid101 0]

Can someone post a pic of the beagle?

[r1c0cH3T 0]

IL-28 Beagle Ilyushin taxiing onto the runway for it's first flight.

August 8, 1948

[Wonder 0]

At last!!! A decent Viper for OFP! Oh, glorious day!

You got there first before I did, but I haven't really had any work done yet :P

[ozanzac 0]

Damn I'm good....    

No your not. You really have no clue what an LAU-88 is, do you. You think LAU-88's are rockets, don't you.

An LAU-88 is the three launcher rack that mavericks are carried on. It's not a weapon!!! It's the munitions dispenser system for mavericks, if it really needs to be that clearly told to you, the LAU-88 is quote.

Quote[/b] ]Two different launchers are used with Maverick missiles: the LAU-117 single-raillauncher and the LAU-88 triple-rail launcher.

Did I ever once say 'rockets' in my argument?

If I bewildered you somewhere, why argue against something your obviously not down pact on?

And for the record. LAU means Launcher Aircraft Unit.

It is the element of a weapons system that carrys and launches a missile! Sidewinders, Phoenixs, Sparrows, AMRAAM's and HARMS as well as maverick's to name a few require LAU's. LAU's are what connect the weapon to the pylon! Without them, you can't carry the weapon. For rockets, LAU describe the pod, not the rockets themselves.

Similarly, BRU's are Bomb Rack Units..........The list can go on and on and on and on.......................

This info is probably not important, but it is important when the accuracy of an addon could be at stake.

I simply offer my knowledge.

Quote[/b] ]people know to stay away from them if they don't detonate

Really, you live or lived in a warzone?

[miles teg 1]

Uh... about the cluster bombs.... these were used over civilian populations in both Kosovo AND ALL OVER IRAQ even over Baghdad.  Yet no investigation has been made of this despite TONS of evidence, much of which I've seen with the little pot-holes and misfired munitions (and remains of exploded CB munitions) littering areas of Baghdad.   In Kosovo one photographer even took pictures of such an attack in which he actually showed them exploding in one town and the showed the bloody aftermath of the dammage they had done to civilians in the town.

Here the pics from:

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/War/PhotoAlbum/photos-war-4.html

The fact is the US Airforce is not too picky about where it drops its cluster bombs or how it uses them.  Apparently civilian populations are fair came for cluster-bomb usage.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[FHP_Intercepter 0]

FHP - I've been thinking about maybe having the red stripe

on the tail as default, and then having some scripting that

allows the user to set the 'name' that goes over the top. We

should be able to set up a list of ANG units and let you select

the correct text.

Thanks, that would be great!

Very Very nice F16s BTW.

[Mr ThunderMakeR 0]

Thundermaker - In Falcon 4.0 (which I believe is correct)

these loadouts are allowed, but are at the 'heavy' end of

the scale. I think maybe it's a little over the top, and may get

adjusted down a little. The AN/AAQ pods are on the drawing

board...

Awesome, thanks for considering my ideas.

I figured that the F-16 could carry that much, but I was thinking more along what the normal loadout would be.  Also as far as how it fits in with OFPs other aircraft, I was thinking the F-16 would be the lighter armed, but most agile and maneuverable fighter in the group.

edited for sp mistake

[toadeater 0]

Uh... about the cluster bombs.... these were used over civilian populations in both Kosovo

One reason why I'm not voting for Wesley Clark.

[Wonder 0]

I'm back from the testing, and I have tho say this F-16 looked better on the screenshots than in the game with me in the cockpit.

-Maneuverability is poor and is equivalent to the A10 if not less.

-Several parts of the aircraft need remodeling and rescaling

-Could use better environmental sounds taken from Falcon 4

-Pitch ladders are the only working instrumentation inthe cockpit and the HUD needs to be reshaped.