iBeta Realism patch...
Roderick Pommier
i have noticed missile performance has definatly changed. i can no
longer fire my AIM-9's head on and get kills... i really have to have good
aspect and tone to get a kill...
rod...
Mike from Seattle
-M
Roderick Pommier <rpom...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:88md2r$o6i$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
Paul
"Mike from Seattle" <mbe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:HDzr4.30331$_G1.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Jerry Morelock
> But some things are easier too. For example, friendly SAMs are now
active, so
> they fire at incoming bandits. Turn on the labels and keep an eye out for
> friendly Nike Hercules, Stingers, Hawk missiles, and more.
Right--lets you use more "realistic" tactics in some cases, too.
Immediately after applying the realism patch I performed "better" and got
higher instant action scores than ever. IMO Paul Wade's WA cockpit is a
must-have, too. Great work, all!
With these upgrades, maybe I'll eventually even get to the point where I
feel like I can remove labeling in order to have half a chance. :-)
Jerry Morelock
Greg Cisko
news:PQCr4.32137$Nv1.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> hehehe. yea. some one made the remark lately that we might be adding
> realism, but we may also be making this game less accesible to the average
> players "fun appeal". (im paraphrasing of course) the hex coders who are
It might have been me who was talking about "playability" and making
the game the GPL of flightsim. I find that while I have GPL and Nascar3,
I play Nascar3 much more because it is more *FUN*!!!
I may check your realism patch once it is done & finalized (I don't
feel like continuing to beta test F4 anymore). I am still holding to
my theory that hex editing won't really be doing much to improve
the game though. Sure it may be realistic (except for napalmed
ground troops that get "damaged") but it may be so realistic that
it just isn't fun anymore. Also, I may actually want to play through
some campaigns without constant patch upgrades. Finally, I
may not be alone :-)
I think it is very interesting what you guys are doing. I will really
be watching to see what results you can get out of it.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
Greg Cisko
news:%JJr4.3133$iA5....@typhoon2.san.rr.com...
> But some things are easier too. For example, friendly SAMs are now
active, so
> they fire at incoming bandits. Turn on the labels and keep an eye out for
> friendly Nike Hercules, Stingers, Hawk missiles, and more.
Well this certainly sounds cool. I may have to check the patch out
sooner than I thought :-)
Chris L.
True, I think they went a little overboard on the amount of action taking
place in the campaigns. When I was in the Marines we'd go out to 29 Palms
for live fire training. Sometimes all the combined forces would do what's
called a "Mini Mad Moment". Essentially, it's when the enemy is about to
over run the FEBA and you throw everything that your side has against the
enemy in a last ditch attempt to stop the over run. Jets fly in and drop all
their ordinance (napalm too! real cool at night), artillery starts non-stop
shelling, machine gun barrels turning red hot, tracers flying all over like
fire flies, etc. That's what the action in the campaigns reminds me of.news:_qNr4.3151$iA5....@typhoon2.san.rr.com...
> In article <38af515a...@news1.sympatico.ca>, se...@eleven.net (Seven)
wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:14:39 GMT, "Sleepdoc"
> ><Slee...@NOSPAMibeta.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>so remember. this is not the final patch. its the first. its the
place
> >>holder for more and more refinements as time goes on. so let us not jump
to
> >>conclusions about the end result. even the guys doing the coding have
no
> >>real idea yet how the final version will "feel" and "play". but what
they
> >>do know is that their work will forever change things. For many, it is
my
> >>personal belief that they will change it for the better. these guys are
> >>very hard to please and they are applying their high standards to this
> >>effort.
> >>
> >
> >Hey, if these guys can do this for F4 then how about a patch to fix
> >the never ending supply of foes in DiD's TAW?
>
>
> Hehe. I still wanna reduce the never ending supply of foes in F4 !!!
Vernon Pellerin
>Sleepdoc <Slee...@NOSPAMibeta.com> wrote in message
>news:PQCr4.32137$Nv1.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> hehehe. yea. some one made the remark lately that we might be adding
>> realism, but we may also be making this game less accesible to the average
>> players "fun appeal". (im paraphrasing of course) the hex coders who are
I know what you mean by wanting fun. To me, the biggest problem with
campaigns in F4 is the hyperactivity of the air war. Whether it's realistic
or not, I don't know. But to me personally, the hyperactivity decreases the
fun factor.
When you have a few hundred aircraft in the sky (friendly and enemy) it
becomes very hard to sort targets on your radar. All those countless blips
make your radar looks like a Christmas snowfall. And calling AWACS is of
little help . . . because AWACS can and will always tell you about the nearest
threat, but will never make a call like "you've got Mig29's coming at you from
3 different directions, so if you want to live, turn around and go home now!"
Therefore, the lack of detailed human like decision making info from AWACS and
the hyperactivity of the air war make it very hard to fly without labels on.
And that makes the campaigns much less enjoyable for Me. I want to dogfight
against some bandits, but I get tired of regularly flying toward a wall of
migs. So realistic or not, I would love to see any HEX edit that could cut
back the air activity a lot.
IMHO, The second biggest problem is the lack of good packages in F4. Strike
packages sometimes get sent out without a proper SEAD flight, a proper ESCORT,
or both. Therefore, I'm keeping my eyes on the HEX edits for anything that
could possibly (or OPTIONALLY) decrease the number of aircraft in the sky,
and/or help build more complete flight packages.
sandman
"For experienced pilots, flying the real F-16 is 99% boredom and 1% adrenaline.
If Falcon 4.0 had the same ratio, nobody would buy the game. Falcon 4.0, like
most games, increases activity levels to keep your interest engaged. The action
that you see in one Falcon 4.0 mission is equivalent to two to five real combat
missions..."
cheers
sand
screamin blue messiahs
sbm.virtualworld.net
"Chris L." <Chris_L.@prod.net> wrote in message
news:88p569$3iu0$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
sandman
> I may check your realism patch once it is done & finalized (I don't
> feel like continuing to beta test F4 anymore).
[snip]
>
> cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
>
You, sir, are missing out on a lot of fun. Online campaigns with a few squaddies
is the most fun I've enjoyed on any sim in a long, long time.
cheers,
Chris L.
True, but I think the quantity of ground forces should've been taken down a
couple of notches
"sandman" <sandm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NEWr4.21809$Zp1.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> It was designed this way. Gilman Louie said it himself:
>
> "For experienced pilots, flying the real F-16 is 99% boredom and 1%
adrenaline.
> If Falcon 4.0 had the same ratio, nobody would buy the game. Falcon 4.0,
like
> most games, increases activity levels to keep your interest engaged. The
action
> that you see in one Falcon 4.0 mission is equivalent to two to five real
combat
> missions..."
>
> cheers
unknown
<snip>
>
> I may check your realism patch once it is done & finalized (I don't
> feel like continuing to beta test F4 anymore). I am still holding to
> my theory that hex editing won't really be doing much to improve
> the game though. Sure it may be realistic (except for napalmed
> ground troops that get "damaged") but it may be so realistic that
> it just isn't fun anymore. Also, I may actually want to play through
> some campaigns without constant patch upgrades. Finally, I
> may not be alone :-)
You might find this patch makes the game more fun for you in
that, from my limited experience thus far, it does make things
quite a bit easier. I don't really know if it's any specific
change that was put in, but I am finding that I am able to
survive much longer in a high threat environment, especially in
A-A situations. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that
AAM's were tweaked in the patch. You'll see this in the
effectiveness of your Sidewinders. Fortunately you also see in it
the effectiveness of the bad guys weapons too.
In the end it looks to me like this patch has addressed some
pretty significant issues insofar as playability is concerned. I
know when I first started into F4 I was fiddling with a campaign
at the "Rookie" level. To get a feel for things this made the
most sense. Nice and easy I figured :).
I was amazed at how difficult it was, even at this level. Oddly
enough at higher difficulty levels I didn't notice a huge
difference in many of the factors such as AAM effectiveness. What
did differ was the aggressiveness and capabilities of the AI I
was fighting against. The latter, of course, makes sense. The
prior, however, seemed to really unbalance things on the easier
settings. I got the impression that when in Rookie mode I was
dealing with Ace level missiles but Rookie level fliers.
Obviously a problem for those wanting to enhance the fun-factor
and lessen the realism.
This ibeta patch does seem to, at least in part, put some
semblance of consistency back into the easier and harder
settings. I popped into a Rookie level campaign last night just
to see, and indeed it was considerably more manageable. I wasn't
getting hammered by an influx of uber-Archers, and when I did get
one shot at me it was actually quite easy to counter it. Which is
as it should be at that level methinks. Hehe, I still get my butt
cooked a lot playing in the higher level settings, but I prefer
that route...to each their own, eh :).
So in short I don't really know if it's more or less realistic
now. I just don't have that level of expertise wrt to these
systems and weapons to comment. I do know that the
scaleability/flexibility of the game, insofar as difficulty is
concerned, has increased significantly though. That's a good
thing imo.
Vortex
>
> I think it is very interesting what you guys are doing. I will really
> be watching to see what results you can get out of it.
>
> --
>
> Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
>
Vernon Pellerin
>It was designed this way. Gilman Louie said it himself:
>
>"For experienced pilots, flying the real F-16 is 99% boredom and 1% adrenaline.
>If Falcon 4.0 had the same ratio, nobody would buy the game. Falcon 4.0, like
>most games, increases activity levels to keep your interest engaged. The action
>that you see in one Falcon 4.0 mission is equivalent to two to five real combat
>missions..."
>
>cheers
>sand
>screamin blue messiahs
>sbm.virtualworld.net
I always find this viewpoint amusing. Too little action is boring and
unacceptable, but too much action is perfectly fine.
What ever happened to the idea of balance?
JD
held forth on "Re: iBeta Realism patch..."
>It was designed this way. Gilman Louie said it himself:
>
>"For experienced pilots, flying the real F-16 is 99% boredom and 1% adrenaline.
>If Falcon 4.0 had the same ratio, nobody would buy the game. Falcon 4.0, like
>most games, increases activity levels to keep your interest engaged. The action
>that you see in one Falcon 4.0 mission is equivalent to two to five real combat
>missions..."
Dumb. Dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb. Real dumb... not to leave an option
slider or button or something for those who would like to play the
thing in a realistic environment that is.
Seems like all they would have needed to do is cut back the number
of forces engaged right across the board. Or isn't it as simple as
I'm making it out to be?...
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
R.M.
> When you have a few hundred aircraft in the sky (friendly and enemy) it
> becomes very hard to sort targets on your radar. All those countless
blips
> make your radar looks like a Christmas snowfall. And calling AWACS is of
> little help . . . because AWACS can and will always tell you about the
nearest
> threat, but will never make a call like "you've got Mig29's coming at you
from
> 3 different directions, so if you want to live, turn around and go home
now!"
Why not leave a human on the interface screen, acting as an independent
AWACS controller, communicating to you through Roger Wilco, (or some such
software). This human controller will be able to see all packages on the
screen, and be able to warn you of impending death.
> IMHO, The second biggest problem is the lack of good packages in F4.
Strike
> packages sometimes get sent out without a proper SEAD flight, a proper
ESCORT,
> or both. Therefore, I'm keeping my eyes on the HEX edits for anything
that
> could possibly (or OPTIONALLY) decrease the number of aircraft in the sky,
> and/or help build more complete flight packages.
Make sure you adjuct the campaign slider, to put OCA Strikes, Aircraft, as
top priority, and you'll get an escort with every strike.
Scoob
sandman
> >
> >"For experienced pilots, flying the real F-16 is 99% boredom and 1%
adrenaline.
> >If Falcon 4.0 had the same ratio, nobody would buy the game. Falcon 4.0, like
> >most games, increases activity levels to keep your interest engaged. The
action
> >that you see in one Falcon 4.0 mission is equivalent to two to five real
combat
> >missions..."
> >
> >sand
> >screamin blue messiahs
> >sbm.virtualworld.net
>
> I always find this viewpoint amusing. Too little action is boring and
> unacceptable, but too much action is perfectly fine.
>
> What ever happened to the idea of balance?
You'll have to take that up with the designers. :-)
cheers
sand
hedgeh...@my-deja.com
Now, I am certainly convinced that flight simmers will never be
satisfied. We pay less than $50 US dollars for a flight simulation
that in all fairness should have sold for much, much more, have the
iBeta team fix it up for us for free, basically have arguably the
finest overall flight simulation yet written for the PC, and people
still manage to find a way to complain!
We are truly spoiled.
=Hedgehog
=Screamin' Blue Messiahs
http://sbm.warbirds.org
==========================
> Dumb. Dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb. Real dumb... not to leave an option
> slider or button or something for those who would like to play the
> thing in a realistic environment that is.
>
> Seems like all they would have needed to do is cut back the number
> of forces engaged right across the board. Or isn't it as simple as
> I'm making it out to be?...
>
> Regards, JD
> jdk...@optonline.net
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Some guy
My only problem with that is the fact you take great pains to model all
aspects of the F16 to the cutting edge of realism, and then you stick it in
a non-realistic situation. Of course there will be playability issues. I
don't mind having a moderately higher amount of activity (lets face it, the
ground fireworks are great to see!) but I want to be able to ingress and not
have 8 Fulcrums, 4 Flankers, a couple more 23's, 21's etc. enroute to the
target.
"sandman" <sandm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NEWr4.21809$Zp1.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Nigel Stutt
what a great game F4 really is now - no-one wants it spoiled. And everyone
wants a new reason to keep playing it. I personally think the realism patch
is great work - not becuase of what it does but because anyone is willing to
give up their free time to making the enjoyment of all of us so much more.
Its nice to see these days.
Now if only the developers of the game could realise what a quality game it
is and start work on a new campaign setting...! I easily believe that they
could update the game, add all the tweaks, add a new campaign and some new
planes to fly, and add a proper campaign war management system and they
could sell it widely for a lot of money - just like Tactcom did for EF2000.
Id buy it for one.
I personally love games like F4 - it stops me buying loads of other rubbish
games that I would only play for a week. Ive been playing F4 for ages now
and have no intention to stop. Maybe thats what the developers are afraid
of!! The stupid thing is that I wouldnt buy the bugged game when it came
out - I bought it for half the price when the new patches came out. The
state the game is in now I would easily pay the full amount for it. Now if
they had just done that to start with how much more money would they have
got? They could recoup a lot of money easily now by releasing add-ons.
Nats
<hedgeh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88rupd$dof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
JD
forth on "Re: iBeta Realism patch..."
>Just when you think you heard it all...
<snip>
>We are truly spoiled.
If you were truly replying to my post, you might want to go back
and reread what I wrote. Nothing to do with ibeta at all. But
thanks for playing...
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Medusa
hyperactivity in the Campaign. Just shut down DPRK airbases by bombing their
runways early in the war. They usually stay closed with no enemy air
activity well into day 3 and sometime day 4. Once an airbase gets fixed you,
of course, bomb them again. To keep some cannon fodder MiGs in the air leave
one or two airbases in operation. Preferably those with older planes
stationed there.
--
medusa -nospam- [at] USAF [dot] org
remove -you-know-what- to reply
"Some guy" <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xdds4.11905$O43.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Number 9
notice that the enemies are too and now they can dodge them and the SAMS on
YOUR side now work.
And if these little things are still annoying....
enter falcon:
goto: setup
select weapons
click exaggerated.
all is well now correct?
<hedgeh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88rupd$dof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Just when you think you heard it all...
>
Bard
I just keep above 10'000 feet and run away in the best monty python
tradition..
CCRP is my best friend.
--
Bard
http://www3.telus.net/bard/1VVFSC
Vancouver Flight Sim Club
Vernon Pellerin <vpel...@FlareandChaffsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%JJr4.3133$iA5....@typhoon2.san.rr.com...
> In article <HDzr4.30331$_G1.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Mike from
Seattle" <mbe...@home.com> wrote:
> >Yeah, I lay awake nights thinking, 'Gee, I wish Falcon 4 was harder'.
> >
> >-M
> >
>
> ROTFL. So true, aye?
Dolle Dolf
wrote:
>You don't have to put up with that. Player can fix himself this
>hyperactivity in the Campaign. Just shut down DPRK airbases by bombing their
>runways early in the war. They usually stay closed with no enemy air
>activity well into day 3 and sometime day 4. Once an airbase gets fixed you,
In the Fortress campaign those sturdy Communist members of the
Workers' Paradise manage to fix them in 24 hours!!
>of course, bomb them again. To keep some cannon fodder MiGs in the air leave
>one or two airbases in operation. Preferably those with older planes
>stationed there.
>
True hehe, it was getting a bit boring without anything to blow out of
the sky. But then suddenly they all came back 24 hours after I shut
them all down ;-/
Dolle Dolf
hedgeh...@my-deja.com
About what you wrote below - that's easy. Just develop your strategy
a bit more. When you start a campaign, make sure that you first
establish air superiority. Give priority to SEAD strikes and offensive
counter air and sweeps. Hit those SAMs and airbases! If you take out
the airbases, you won't have all those scrambling bandit fighters on
you. That's the real deal.
=Hedgehog
> ground fireworks are great to see!) but I want to be able to ingress
and not
> have 8 Fulcrums, 4 Flankers, a couple more 23's, 21's etc. enroute to
the
> target.
Some guy
strategy, but also of settingup the initial sliders to give my side the edge
in aircraft, for example. I find it difficult to hit a runway,however, when
my flight can't get past the FLOT due to unrealistically high levels of
enemy air activit
Ron Hunt
that closed down the big Mig 29 base at Mirim. The hord of Migs over the
base never caught me on the way out....... was a thing of bueaty!
Ron
"Some guy" <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z7Ds4.1836$vm5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steph
"Some guy" <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z7Ds4.1836$vm5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> True enough, believe me I am fully aware of not only these aspects of
> strategy, but also of settingup the initial sliders to give my side the
edge
> in aircraft, for example. I find it difficult to hit a runway,however,
when
> my flight can't get past the FLOT due to unrealistically high levels of
> enemy air activit
>
Go in at 200 feet, Grasshopper.
sandman
okay..." while you ingress.
Works for me.
sand
screamin blue messiahs
sbm.virtualworld.net
<hedgeh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:88th2f$hck$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Some guy
Ok, that must be what I was missing. "I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, I go
to the lav - a - treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
"sandman" <sandm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4pKs4.2872$vm5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Some guy
Been there, done that, ate archers......
"Steph" <St...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:3rHs4.25172$_d.11...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
Steph
I too eat archers sometimes, but I shut down a lot of air bases.
Chris Mixon
Chris Mixon
Some guy <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eKYs4.311$ND4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark J. Cintala
wrote:
>
>Ok, that must be what I was missing. "I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, I go
>to the lav - a - treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
>
"On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones fer teeeeeeeee!"
-----------------------
Mark J. Cintala
Pull the .pins from my address to e-mail me.
Dave
<clm...@bellsouth.net> writes
>" I fly real low, I get grass stains, I miss the damn IpEEEEEEE..."
>
>Chris Mixon
"I pop up when I get near, and get a SAM right up my rear...."
--
Dave
Part Time Poster
Full Time Lurker
DETRITUS THE TROLL - "Aagragaah. It mean lit'rally der time when you see dem
little pebbles and you jus' know dere's gonna be a big landslide on toppa you
and it's already too late to run. Dat moment, dat's aagragaah."
Terry Pratchet - 'Jingo'