bucket man 2 Posted February 8, 2004 Great planes Footmunch! Few questions though. I am having troubles with Beagle. It bombs very rarely. Most of the time it just uses its guns. Any hints on how to get Beagle to do what its meant to do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted February 8, 2004 It bombs just fine for me. If you want it to bomb, put more tanks. Otherwise for lightly armored or unarmored vehicles (like trucks) it will usually use cannon fire to destroy them. But when I put tanks as targets it usually almost exclusively uses bombs to destroy them. Put a mix of vehicles and it'll bomb and strafe the targets. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted February 8, 2004 HOLY CRAP ! What a nice ¨little¨ F-16. Best F-16 ever on OPF. PS: This is a Beagle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted February 8, 2004 I belive u know this already but I have to say it. *Gear is down when you start in ¨Flying¨ *Turning around is very hard Thats all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nathanz 0 Posted February 8, 2004 (colossus @ Feb. 08 2004,19:54) said: I belive u know this already but I have to say it.*Gear is down when you start in ¨Flying¨ *Turning around is very hard Thats all Some times i find the landing gear is down when i start the mission flying but sometimes its up ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sniperuk02 0 Posted February 8, 2004 most of the times when im flying the gear is up unless i have 5 or more f 16s havent tried with the beagle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted February 8, 2004 (Nathanz @ Feb. 08 2004,21:46) said: (colossus @ Feb. 08 2004,19:54) said: I belive u know this already but I have to say it.*Gear is down when you start in ¨Flying¨ *Turning around is very hard Thats all Some times i find the landing gear is down when i start the mission flying but sometimes its up ? Yes. I don't want that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bucket man 2 Posted February 8, 2004 Thanks Miles I will try that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted February 9, 2004 (colossus @ Feb. 08 2004,19:54) said: *Turning around is very hard Only with mouse, but my best guess is that footmunch might only be using joystick since he hasn't noticed. Edit: It might be a tradeoff though - it seems that his F-16 handles better with joystick than many other planes - he might just have optimized it for joystick.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted February 9, 2004 Hey that picture of the beagle (the dog) gives me an idea... it would be cool to have a picture of a beagle (maybe Snoopy) on the Il-28. It'll be amazing if Footmunch somehow figures out how to make a working tail gun. It would make this plane one of the best... well especially if he figures out how to make it handle better because right now the Beagle is a little difficult to fly. It may be realistic, but I like planes that are fun and comfortable to fly with the mouse and keyboard. Still it's a great addon based on a great aircraft. The Russians really know how to make some very cool aircraft. I've been reading about some of the combat experiences of Beagle aircrews in Afghanistan. Apparently the tail gun suppress fire from Mujahadin AA missile and gun crews as well as to strafe targets after they dropped their bombs. It also saw lots of action in Nigeria as well. Now to find a picture of a cute cuddly beagle to stick on the plane. (I used to have a pet Beagle by the way. They're good dogs!). Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted February 9, 2004 (Miles Teg @ Feb. 09 2004,02:12) said: It also saw lots of action in Nigeria as well. bombing spammers...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Footmunch 0 Posted February 9, 2004 Gear problems - The gear up/down issue is being looked at - it seems to be some sort of timing issue when the mission starts. I do know that it can also depend on what version of OFP is installed (I'm currently running 1.95 beta, IIRC). I'm still working on getting the F-16 gear working with Hawk's Nimitz (I noticed that the BIS A-10 has the same problem with gear up and down), but it seems to be a game engine thing. Turning wheels may be in... Flight Model - I usually optimise the Flight model for joysticks, so mouse users may feel a bit left out. The newer beta turns much better, and the afterburner helps as well. F-16 Ground attack - This seems to be a consequence of the plane flying too fast for the AI (the AI seems to be tuned to A-10 speeds). I'm trying to fix this without imposing speed limits on the plane. Weapon appearance - The weapons will be drawn whatever the ammunition is set at right now. It's a problem with the pseudo proxies that I'll try and fix. Skyraider - The re-textured Sandy is currently undergoing some testing (lots of new weapon systems), and should be released soon... Beagle - I've not spent much time on this one yet. I'll make it a bit more maneuvarable, but it _is_ a big bomber - you shouldn't be able to throw it around too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bucket man 2 Posted February 9, 2004 Any change to see some mirages or PLA fighters? Also waiting to see your Su-27 updated. Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonko the sane 2 Posted February 9, 2004 woot! updated skyraider!!! My favorite OFP plane...sniff... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonko the sane 2 Posted February 12, 2004 speaking of updates: i remember u released a very nice SeaFury (that had no cockpit textures) , will u ever release a more updated version? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
havocsquad 0 Posted February 12, 2004 Seriously footmuch, just for cutting down on problem solving and for realism, don't bother making the F-16 where the gear will stay down on a carrier. Â The F-16 cannot launch from a carrier because: 1. Â The aircraft frame is not made to take the stress of CAT launches and traps. 2. Â The aircraft design doesn't allow to sucessfully approach a carrier at maximum trap airspeed allowed. Â (It can't stay airborne well at that speed.) 3. Â The F-16 landing gear isn't made for Carrier Trap and launch stress. Â In addition, the front leg isn't designed for allowing CAT launches. 4. Â It has no tailhook, so you can forget a carrier landing except maybe in an emergency and that would require use of the crash net and the carrier going at flank speed. Anyways, can't wait for the updated release, is the weapon harpoints LOD issue fixed? Get back to me on that when you can. Later, Havoc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted February 12, 2004 (havocsquad @ Feb. 11 2004,18:37) said: 4. Â It has no tailhook, so you can forget a carrier landing except maybe in an emergency and that would require use of the crash net and the carrier going at flank speed. F-16's do have a tailhook used for catching the barrier wires in case of emergency at landbases. I have yet to see a F-16 without one. Most landbased fighters have one. It hasnt been strengthened for frequent use bit it will sure stop you quick when used in an emergency. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
havocsquad 0 Posted February 12, 2004 Sure, but that's a Non-hydraulic tailhook which is not made for the high stress landings of carrier landings. Â The F-15C or E could probably land on a carrier because of it's wingspan design but the F-16 has too high of a minimum flight velocity for it to approach a carrier. If you tried to land an F-16 on a carrier with full flaps and gear down, the aircraft would have to step down it's altitude and velocity in a stair type approach. Â It would constantly have to increase speed to maintain the proper approach, while gutting it's ability to maintain a stable descent. Â As it got closer, within 1 mile of the carrier, it would HAVE to approach at or below stall speed in order for the landing gear to survive touchdown. Â (If the sink rate hasn't doomed the approach already.) Â That would mean a dangerously high AoA (Angle of Attack) and the F-16 would most definately either have to bolter, or it's gear would fail on landing and would tumble on the deck, or it would lose height so quickly that the aircraft couldn't maintain minimum altitude and would have to eject before crashing into the back of the carrier. That's why the F-14 and the F/A-18 are designed the way they are, to provide a very LOW flight velocity required for sustained flight and landing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
One 0 Posted February 12, 2004 well i think its still a good idea that footmunch tries to fix the carrier/gear issue anyways, whether or not the f16c is used on carriers or not. the solution to this problem can be used to fix other addons, or future planes that people might make that are used on carriers *hint hint* its the same BS with footmunch's f4 phantom. landing gear gets a f*cked up on the carrier...a plane irl that is designed for carrier usage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted February 12, 2004 The F-16 is simply too slow and too sluggish, ppl complain about Islands being too small but then they obviously aren't very good pilots, the whole point of the F-16 is speed and agility. The model is beautiful although the HARMs don't seem to lock on at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted February 13, 2004 (havocsquad @ Feb. 11 2004,19:17) said: Sure, but that's a Non-hydraulic tailhook which is not made for the high stress landings of carrier landings. Â The F-15C or E could probably land on a carrier because of it's wingspan design but the F-16 has too high of a minimum flight velocity for it to approach a carrier.If you tried to land an F-16 on a carrier with full flaps and gear down, the aircraft would have to step down it's altitude and velocity in a stair type approach. Â It would constantly have to increase speed to maintain the proper approach, while gutting it's ability to maintain a stable descent. Â As it got closer, within 1 mile of the carrier, it would HAVE to approach at or below stall speed in order for the landing gear to survive touchdown. Â (If the sink rate hasn't doomed the approach already.) Â That would mean a dangerously high AoA (Angle of Attack) and the F-16 would most definately either have to bolter, or it's gear would fail on landing and would tumble on the deck, or it would lose height so quickly that the aircraft couldn't maintain minimum altitude and would have to eject before crashing into the back of the carrier. That's why the F-14 and the F/A-18 are designed the way they are, to provide a very LOW flight velocity required for sustained flight and landing. Airspeed wise an F-16A could land on a carrier. it would tax its airframe life to the max but it could do it. You may remember that the falcon and hornet were both candidates for the same airforce contract. The falcon made it but the hornet didnt. Then the navy was looking for a strike fighter and the falcon lost out. Both were contenders though I believe the F16 XL actually did some touch and go's on carriers for trials Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imshi-Yallah 0 Posted February 13, 2004 There was stock footage of that used in this awful old TV series called super carrier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Footmunch 0 Posted February 13, 2004 The carrier problems are buried in the OFP engine at the moment - note that the A-10 does the same thing. I'd have to go to a whole new custom gear to get it working right now. Having said that, I am working on some carrier-capable F-4's, so when I solve the problem in the future, I'll retro-fit the fix onto the F-16 in a 1.1 version for those who want it. LOD issues fixed. Burner working nicely. More agility. Ammo level fixed. Some fixes on AI bomb release (still not great). Lantirn pods added on GBU version. Hud and cockpit updated. Decals added. Layered (PSP) skin files ready. One more weekend to fix up the custom tail decals, and I should have a 'final' beta on Monday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted February 13, 2004 Great news! can I ask you to spend a little more time on your NH-90? I made this thread a while ago if you need scale blueprints of the NH-90. Your last beta was very promising I thought. Thankx for all your hard work footmunch... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mads bahrt 0 Posted February 13, 2004 footmunch I just got around to trying the WW version. The HARM is OK, but it seems to lock onto any armored vehicle (and it should only lock on to shilkas and vulcans) I really like the MK-20 Rockeye, but it seems a little misplaced on the WW version. Wouldn't it be more natural for the MK-20 to be on a CAS version? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites