Hunt the intruder - out-flank him

[BATPBC 0]

@Footmunch - Are you planning on a revamp for the MiG-17 and MiG-21 like you did for the MiG-23 and 27?

Nice work on the Tomcat, next version will be carrier capable?

[theavonlady 2]

Last night I visited FootMunch's web page and downloaded the F16s. What a difference! Easy to fly by mouse! Why can't they all be like this?!

The F16 MIGCAP beat the SFM SU27 about 3 out of 4 times hands down. I also played as the SU27 pilot against the F16. As the player pilot, it was more difficult to knock the F16 out of the sky than vice versa. And the MIGs 23 and 27 are, of course, scrap metal when matched against the F16. Of course, that's the way it should be.

One specific thing about the F16 that annoys me is the bubble canopy. I mean, I feel like I'm riding in an open convertable! Is there anything that can be done to give some sense of a physical canopy, without detracting from the clarity of the outside view?

Now some general comments about all of the planes:

- Please try to improve mouse control. The F16's is great. The F14's is about as difficult as BIS' A10. Pretty much the same with the Russian planes.

- It would be nice to see sharper cockpit and canopy frame textures used. I've just gotten spoiled by other addons incorporating these. But it really makes for a more impressive gameplaying experience.

- If I'm not mistaken, there's no HUD in the F14 but there is in the F16. Is the F14 supposed to be that way?

- How about some working instruments in the cockpit, especially a compass and an artificial horizon indicator (I think that's what it's called).

- If future versions will incorporate working instruments, it's very important that the pilot's default view aspect from within the cockpit is such to the the player can see the instruments and the forward outside view simultaneously. I'm not sure how to best describe what I'm talking about but in some plane models, you start off only seeing very little of the upper instrument panel, as if you're leaning forward to look out of the canopy. In this case, if you want to see more of the instrument panel, you have to look down, which in turn causes the plane to descend.

- The afterburner sound on some of the planes doesn't seem to loop seemlessly.

- The regular engine sounds are rather quiet, especially on the US planes. Are they that silent in the cockpit?

- The impact explosion of the MIG27's LGBs (love the bomb camera!) seems to be very small and almost smokeless. Shouldn't the effects be increased? Also, what guide's the LGBs? Just selecting the target? Or is a Russian ground LTD solider required? Is there one, BTW?

[somebloke 0]

Maybe FM has implemented Fly-By-wire (mouse in this case) technology into the more modern aircraft like the F-16.

[Footmunch 0]

I'll try to answer some more points in here:

Last night I visited FootMunch's web page and downloaded the F16s. What a difference! Easy to fly by mouse! Why can't they all be like this?!

The F16 MIGCAP beat the SFM SU27 about 3 out of 4 times hands down. I also played as the SU27 pilot against the F16. As the player pilot, it was more difficult to knock the F16 out of the sky than vice versa. And the MIGs 23 and 27 are, of course, scrap metal when matched against the F16. Of course, that's the way it should be.

So, I did something right then.

The F-16 is more 'nimble' than the -14 or the -15 (Link for

_beta_ F-15 : http://www.footmunch.org.uk/beta/f15ce.zip ),

and the model is setup to resemble that. The F-14 has

improved a little between betas, but it is _not_ a nimble

dogfighter.

I tried the SFM Flanker - it's very fast, isn't it?

Quote[/b] ]

One specific thing about the F16 that annoys me is the bubble canopy. I mean, I feel like I'm riding in an open convertable!

That high visibility is part of the design of the real plane.

Quote[/b] ]

Is there anything that can be done to give some sense of a physical canopy, without detracting from the clarity of the outside view?

It would be nice to have slightly 'reflective' glass, but that's

impossible in the engine. The other option is to have a 'semi-

transparent' reflection texture overlaid. This is being

considered.

Quote[/b] ]

Now some general comments about all of the planes:

- Please try to improve mouse control. The F16's is great. The F14's is about as difficult as BIS' A10. Pretty much the same with the Russian planes.

And what do I say to those people who find the joystick

control too 'twitchy'? It's a hard thing to balance, believe me.

BTW - when you say mouse control, you are using 'Q' and 'Z'

for the elevator, and the mouse for roll, yep?

Quote[/b] ]

- It would be nice to see sharper cockpit and canopy frame textures used. I've just gotten spoiled by other addons incorporating these. But it really makes for a more impressive gameplaying experience.

Any cockpits in particular? The Jag/Bucc/Flogger/F-5 are all

due for an overhaul. Is there a problem with the more

recent planes -16, A-6, Su-27, Phantom, etc?

Quote[/b] ]

- If I'm not mistaken, there's no HUD in the F14 but there is in the F16. Is the F14 supposed to be that way?

Being added right now.

Quote[/b] ]

- How about some working instruments in the cockpit, especially a compass and an artificial horizon indicator (I think that's what it's called).

I don't usually include height,speed or compass stuff, because

you've already got the info in the top left corner. Horizon's,

engine and dive-climb will be added where necessary.

Quote[/b] ]

- If future versions will incorporate working instruments, it's very important that the pilot's default view aspect from within the cockpit is such to the the player can see the instruments and the forward outside view simultaneously. I'm not sure how to best describe what I'm talking about but in some plane models, you start off only seeing very little of the upper instrument panel, as if you're leaning forward to look out of the canopy. In this case, if you want to see more of the instrument panel, you have to look down, which in turn causes the plane to descend.

Best (ie easiest) way to do this is for me to increase the

initial Field of View. In game, you can use the numpad (2) to

change the view angle, rather than drag the mouse down.

Quote[/b] ]

- The afterburner sound on some of the planes doesn't seem to loop seemlessly.

Tell me about it. It's looped in scripts, rather than natively in

the game engine, so there are sometimes little 'hiccups'. A

solution is being sought, but is not going to be done soon.

Quote[/b] ]

- The regular engine sounds are rather quiet, especially on the US planes. Are they that silent in the cockpit?

It's partly so that you can hear the RWR warnings and so on -

my PC's sound card isn't very spectacular, so sometimes the

sounds aren't great.

Quote[/b] ]

- The impact explosion of the MIG27's LGBs (love the bomb camera!) seems to be very small and almost smokeless. Shouldn't the effects be increased? Also, what guide's the LGBs? Just selecting the target? Or is a Russian ground LTD solider required? Is there one, BTW?

I'll check the KAB-500 damage parameters, they might be a

bit low. This is without any FX package, yep?

The KAB's are 'missiles-without-motors' - they will guide and

hit the designated target if you get 'close' enough to the

correct launch parameters.

The MiG-27 should recognise a lased target. Where your East

soldier finds a laser designator is a task accomplished by the

mission maker  

MiG-21 is in the hands of 'A.N.Other' - expect some news

soon. MiG-17 has been upgraded for a 'Nam pack - expect

some news soon.

PanzerG - The 'released' addons contain a readme. The beta's

come 'as is' - they're more of a check that everything's

textured correctly, and that they fly properly. If I say a beta

is roundel capable it means that the scheme used on the

released addons is being used by the new addons (ie it's

_always_ selection number 0 that is the roundel).

BATPBC - Yep. F-14 gear will work like the A-6 gear in the

released addon.

[nephilim 0]

i dont know the exact emasurements of these planes

bu i know that the su27 i larger then the f15

(cuz i have 1:32 scale models of both on my cupboard)

now

is the f14 bigger or smaller then the f15/su27?? :P

[theavonlady 2]

So, I did something right then.

Finally!  

Quote[/b] ]

The F-16 is more 'nimble' than the -14 or the -15 (Link for

_beta_ F-15 : http://www.footmunch.org.uk/beta/f15ce.zip ),

and the model is setup to resemble that. The F-14 has

improved a little between betas, but it is _not_ a nimble

dogfighter.

Just a little more nimble, perdy please.

Quote[/b] ]I tried the SFM Flanker - it's very fast, isn't it?

It starts off at around 1100KPH, but's that's not unrealistic, is it? And you can always open its airbrake for a fast slown down.

Quote[/b] ]It would be nice to have slightly 'reflective' glass, but that's impossible in the engine. The other option is to have a 'semi-transparent' reflection texture overlaid. This is being

considered.

Thanks.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]- Please try to improve mouse control. The F16's is great. The F14's is about as difficult as BIS' A10. Pretty much the same with the Russian planes.

And what do I say to those people who find the joystick

control too 'twitchy'? It's a hard thing to balance, believe me.

I'm not asking for preference but a bit of balance sounds right.

Quote[/b] ]BTW - when you say mouse control, you are using 'Q' and 'Z' for the elevator, and the mouse for roll, yep?

I have a trackpoint type stick for a mouse. I do everything with it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]- It would be nice to see sharper cockpit and canopy frame textures used. I've just gotten spoiled by other addons incorporating these. But it really makes for a more impressive gameplaying experience.

Any cockpits in particular? The Jag/Bucc/Flogger/F-5 are all

due for an overhaul. Is there a problem with the more

recent planes -16, A-6, Su-27, Phantom, etc?

Compare them to, say, Diesel's recent A10, which has very sharp details in the interior canopy and cockpit textures. Also, look around and down in SFM's SU27.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

- How about some working instruments in the cockpit, especially a compass and an artificial horizon indicator (I think that's what it's called).

I don't usually include height,speed or compass stuff, because you've already got the info in the top left corner.

I find it much more intuitive read the compass in the cockpit. Also, the horizon indicator is extremly usefull for those of use that succumb to vertigo.

Quote[/b] ]Horizon's, engine and dive-climb will be added where necessary.

Yay!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

- If future versions will incorporate working instruments, it's very important that the pilot's default view aspect from within the cockpit is such to the the player can see the instruments and the forward outside view simultaneously. I'm not sure how to best describe what I'm talking about but in some plane models, you start off only seeing very little of the upper instrument panel, as if you're leaning forward to look out of the canopy. In this case, if you want to see more of the instrument panel, you have to look down, which in turn causes the plane to descend.

Best (ie easiest) way to do this is for me to increase the

initial Field of View. In game, you can use the numpad (2) to

change the view angle, rather than drag the mouse down.

I hope that means you will change the IFOV.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]- The regular engine sounds are rather quiet, especially on the US planes. Are they that silent in the cockpit?

It's partly so that you can hear the RWR warnings and so on -

my PC's sound card isn't very spectacular, so sometimes the

sounds aren't great.

It's really whisper quiet in some of those US models. Sometimes I wonder whether they were built by Cadillac.

Quote[/b] ]I'll check the KAB-500 damage parameters, they might be a bit low. This is without any FX package, yep?

Just checked. I was running with the FlashFX mod. If I remove it, will your original effects be more or less potent?

[Footmunch 0]

Neph -

Lengths taken from FAS (in metres):

Su-27 : 21

Eagle : 19.5

Phantom : 19.1

Tomcat : 18.6

Fulcrum : 17.3

Flogger : 16.6

F-16 : 14.8

The F-14 is slightly smaller than the F-15, and the

wingspan 'folded' is about 1 metre smaller. The Fulcrum is

about 1 metre smaller than the F-14. The Flanker is _huge_

and the Falcon is _tiny_.

Avon -

(SFM speed) Well, 'realistic' speeds for OFP planes tend to

make things happen _very_ fast indeed.

You should try the Q and Z keys - it improves mouse flight

a _lot_ imho.

There are no 'special' FX on the KAB, but the FX packages

sometimes do strange things depending on the class of

ammo. The KAB is probably under- powered. I'll correct it in

the release.

[BATPBC 0]

Quote[/b] ]is the f14 bigger or smaller then the f15/su27?? :P

Depends on what you mean by bigger, longer or wider wingspan, see what I mean

F-14

Length 61 feet 9 inches (18.6 meters)

Wingspan 64 feet (19 meters) unswept, 38 feet (11.4 meters) swept

SU-27

Length 69 ft (21 m)

WingSpan 47 ft, 6 in (14.5 m)

Thanks for the quick response Footmunch, look foward to the new releases and the news about the older jets

[nephilim 0]

hmm

hehe well how come then that a su27 can out stear and f14

in close combat? ehehe

i think russian planes have a better avionic

[Footmunch 0]

hmm

hehe well how come then that a su27 can out stear and f14

in close combat? ehehe

i think russian  planes  have a better avionic

Aerodynamics, I think you mean  

It's about thrust to weight ratios, coefficients of lift, flat

plate areas, and all that stuff. The Flanker can 'turn on a

dime' - google for some vids of Pugachev's Kobra - but there's

some debate about how useful that move is...

The F-14 wasn't 'designed' to dogfight. It's primary role is

to stop Russian bombers launching missiles at the ships in a

carrier group - hence the term Fleet Defender. In order to do

this, it travels _very_ quickly from A to B, and launches _very_

long range missiles (AIM-54) at these big old Backfire and

Blackjack bombers. It also carries a _lot_ of fuel in order to

be able to hang around on station for a long time. The biggest

A2A threat at the time was the old MiG-21...

Also, the Flanker is about 15 years 'younger' than the F-14, so

the Tomcat isn't doing too badly for an old bird  

[FerretFangs 0]

There are few Russian aircraft with better avioncs, than their Western counterparts.

[SEAL84 0]

Speaking of avionics, the F-14D cockpit is a little different than that of the -A or -B. I'll consult my big book o' Tomcats and upload a scan later this afternoon

And you may not want to bother with this since it's just eye candy, but what kind of Tomcat would it be without the option to slap on the notorious VF-84 markings?

http://web.quick.cz/iModeller/F14/f14-photo-vf084-02l.jpg

Like I said, just eye candy

[havocsquad 0]

Ack, please no markings for the grayed combat version of the Tomcat except for official USN markings and descriptions.

An artsy version of the Tomcat is fine, just don't expect me to use it during combat.

*Slightly offtopic*

My aircraft library site is updated with these F-14 pics and the link to the addon. I also have the new link for the MiG-23 and MiG-27 up as well. New reviews will be posted soon as possible. (Old reviews go out the window and in the trash)

Link to this site is in my signature

*End of Slight offtopic*

Anyways, keep up the good work Footmunch.

Later,

Havoc.

[Hawkeye 1985 0]

Nice work Footmunch

But can you take a bit sharper Textures for the Cockpit-Panel ?...

And here these F-14 looks very cool: http://www.nme.de/CGI-SHL....09563d2

How stay's the chance that you create one with this special look

greez: Hawkeye 1985

[SEAL84 0]

F-14D front and rear cockpit pics:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/seal84/f14dcockpits.jpg

[miss_cleo 0]

one possible issue:

with the new mig-23 the only cannon sound i get is "bang......................................................bang......................

....................bang"

instead on the nice "brrrraaappp" sound i get w/ the mig-27

the rounds are firing full speed.

any ideas?

[Pappy Boyington 0]

my only quark is the carrier incompatability. i cna touch down and grab the #3 wire with the A6, but no such luck with the tomcat  

very wonderful plane thou i really like it  

edit: oh and a gunners postion would be much better choice. plus the afterburner sound needs to loop better

[Meathead 0]

I like the second seat being a passenger position because you can look all around for bogeys on your six just like the actual rio does besides the co pilot isnt a gunner anyway hes a "radar intercept officer"

[Pappy Boyington 0]

I like the second seat being a passenger position because you can look all around for bogeys on your six just like the actual rio does besides the co pilot isnt a gunner anyway hes a "radar intercept officer"

yes but.... F14's usualy dont leave the flight deck without someone sittin back there    and since it seems a touch odd flying around solo, and a commanders seat will only fruck up the AI and make him fly around in circles...  the only other option would be to script a second pilot in there. only other alternative is a gunners seat.

and speaking of looking around for boogys you gotta iincrease the pilots FOV too  

anyway please im not critisizeing, only suggesting.

[AgentFox2 0]

I agree with Meathead. Having a gunner's seat is hell in multiplayer, since the pilot has absolutely NO ability to fire, and must rely solely on the gunner. With latency issues and the high speed at which these aircraft fly, this makes an already tough situation almost impossible. Not to mention unrealistic (in the real deal, the pilot handles most of the firing since he is in the best position to see the current situation along the weapons firing axis).

No, I think the 2nd seat should stay as it is, so that the main advantage of another person in the cockpit in the game is the same as in real life - another set of eyes.

Just my humble opinion...

[FerretFangs 0]

Back in the day, the main advantage of having the "Bear" in back, was the big-ass radar scope, the controls for the radar, and the AIM-54's. Of course, these days I suppose the RIO is a bombadier, and another set of eyes

[Footmunch 0]

RIO/Gunner/Cargo - I've thought this over _many_ times. The

best reason I can give for the current way of doing things is

to repeat what AgentFox said - without a true radar in the

back seat, the situational awareness for the gunner just from

the visuals is very poor, what with the pilot and his seat

right in front of you. I could add gunner 'optics', but they

only really work in the case of a 'bombardier'.

In cases where the gunner is in the front seat, eg Kegety's

Hawk, then it's a good idea to have a gunner.

It _is_ a pain to have to add a second pilot as cargo, and I

could script an automatic RIO, but that could conflict with

mission makers.

Hawkeye - No plans for a 'Bunny' 14A, at least not in the

initial release.

Seal84 - Thanks for those.

Pappy - The gear in the released Tomcat will work in the same

way as the A-6.

Cleo - That's odd. I'll check the addon - I may have added

the wrong sound.

[Pappy Boyington 0]

Pappy - The gear in the released Tomcat will work in the same

way as the A-6.

first off scripting an automatic pilot in the back would be cake.... and if hte mission maker wanted both seats empty he could simple put in an empty F14. note Col Klink Inc's PT boats... you want a fully maned boat.. u put one in.. u want all the guns empty u put in an empty boat. all guns are maned automaticly by script and if u want it empty then the guns are placed but the peole are not... so you could place the plane with or without the RIO... plus with simple editor commands you could edit the script to function base don the editor command IE: rio = 0 in the F14's init line in the editor

about the gear... ive figured out the carrier problem with the 14... shes not carrier compatable at all.. if u place her on the carrier with set pos 19 (hight of the carrier deck) the gear goes up and refuses.. i repeat..REFUSES to come back out/down by this i determined that when landing on the carrier.. the gear suddenly feels the urge to retract since it thinks im not on solid ground, thus turning the plane into a raging fireball killing all around.

i belive you that its the same script as for the A6, but im tellin you.. the A6 can be placed on.. or landed on teh carrier deck and the tomcat cannot

its still fun to fly

oh and i have a suggestion. @ speed 40 or less you have the wings retract or else add the option once landed to retract the wings... this will make for carrier placement much better and much more realistic. @ 40 or less your taxiing the plane... above 45 you have no ground steering whatsoever, and you wouldnt be flying @ speeds of less then 150.. even for landing. so that should work just fine

[Footmunch 0]

Pappy - The gear in the released Tomcat will work in the same

way as the A-6.

first off scripting an automatic pilot in the back would be cake.... and if hte mission maker wanted both seats empty he could simple put in an empty F14. note Col Klink Inc's PT boats... you want a fully maned boat.. u put one in.. u want all the guns empty u put in an empty boat. all guns are maned automaticly by script and if u want it empty then the guns are placed but the peole are not... so you could place the plane with or without the RIO... plus with simple editor commands you could edit the script to function base don the editor command IE: rio = 0  in the F14's init line in the editor  

Well, Klink's boats are a _bit_ different.

If I auto-add a RIO, should he be the same rank/skill as the

pilot? Personally, I find that a RIO who out-ranks the pilot is

a good idea, as you then 'control' the AI pilot.

Quote[/b] ]

about the gear... ive figured out the carrier problem with the 14... shes not carrier compatable at all.. if u place her on the carrier with set pos 19 (hight of the carrier deck) the gear goes up and refuses.. i repeat..REFUSES to come back out/down  by this i determined that when landing on the carrier.. the gear suddenly feels the urge to retract since it thinks im not on solid ground, thus turning the plane into a raging fireball killing all around.

That's the built-in gear behaviour. The BIS A-10 does

exactly the same thing.

Quote[/b] ]

i belive you that its the same script as for the A6, but im tellin you.. the A6 can be placed on.. or landed on teh carrier deck and the tomcat cannot  

Sorry, my bad. When I said the _released_ Tomcat, I meant

the one _after_ the beta links posted here. It needs a bit of

model fiddling, and scripting that I didn't put into the beta's

here.

Quote[/b] ]

its still fun to fly  

oh and i have a suggestion. @ speed 40 or less you have the wings retract or else add the option once landed to retract the wings... this will make for carrier placement much better and much more realistic.  @ 40 or less your taxiing the plane... above 45 you have no ground steering whatsoever, and you wouldnt be flying @ speeds of less then 150.. even for landing. so that should work just fine

The 'stowage' folding is being put in. It'll be activated either

at low speed, or switch with the engine on/off state.

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

Cool Footmunch, Thanks for the Vidcam and the Bomcat, and the new paint scheme, can't wait for V1.0!!!!