From: opus@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (robin.g.kim)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Falcon 3.0 Bugs (was Re: Flight sim news from CGW)
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:02:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1992Aug14.210249.16262
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug14.141414.6534@newshost.lanl.gov> masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
>   
>Here is my list of F3 problems, many of which you're probably tired of
>seeing.  I listed them where I saw them or where they have their most
>obvious effect.  Doesn't mean that's the only place they appear.  Has
>anyone got some others?
>
> IFF tone still rarely remains on (very minor).

I've never seen this.

> Sound disabled after returning from mid-flight replay (ditto).

Annoying, but escape-escape fixes it.

> Performance not very load dependent (31500+ vs empty weight):
>  Same cruise speed (mil power) with high load/drag as in empty (hifi)
>  Approx same climb rate with high load/drag as in empty (complex, hifi).
>  Rated G loads are ignored (8+ G at any load).

Agreed.

> Hifi stick much too sensitive.  Should only have this high roll/pitch
> rate at full stick pressure/deflection.  I don't use hifi mode because of
> this.

Since this was the first game I got for my PC, I didn't think this was
a problem.  A few days ago, I tried playing it after having played
AOTP for a while (so I could see the more detailed objects using loadhi/link),
and couldn't control the plane at all!  Guess it just takes getting used to...

> Nose wheel steering (and rudder?) is flakey.  Sometimes doesn't respond,
> sometimes over-responds (not talking dependence on airspeed).  Seem
> better now that I use pedals.

I just got my pedals, and haven't figured out how to get Falcon 3.0 to
recognize them.  What did you have to do?  I didn't see an entry for it on
the configuration screen.

> Hifi radar altitude coverage doesn't always increase with range setting
> (would expect a cone to widen with range).

The altitude band does not increase AUTOMATICALLY when you bump the range,
but the maximum coverage is increased, and can be achieved by hitting F10
a few time.  This could be considered a feature or an annoyance or both!

> Hifi radar will let you see any object within altitude coverage even if
> it is right next to you (again in narrow part of cone).

They do cheat here, allowing you to see planes you should not be able to,
if you have your range set high enough, so that your altitude coverage
is greater.  The volume looks more like a pie slice than a cone.  At least
it does not allow you to lock on these blips, as it automatically adjusts
the range (decreasing your altitude coverage) to prevent you from doing this.

> Hifi radar often loses target when attempting to go from AIR to SAM mode
> (due to target no longer in altitude band when SAM switches range??).

See above.

> Air-ground weapons give incorrect target range in HUD.

I've never noticed this, since I'm almost always close enough to fire anway.
A bug is a bug, though...

>  Dogfight rating overflows(?) to a low value if a highly rated pilot
>  completes a dogfight mission succesfully.

This is annoying.  How hard is it to do a simple range check?

>  Many planes seem to turn and climb too well: SU24, SU25, AN12...

Perhaps, but I do know that SU-24s and SU-25s are much less agile than
MiG-21s and MiG-29s, for example.  An interesting note from Shaw's
"Fighter Combat" is that instantaneous G limits are not that important,
as a pilot will do whatever seems necessary.  Some popped rivets and
wrinkled skin (and metal fatigue) are a small price to pay for getting
a killed or preventing someone from killing you.  Still, this does not
mean that sustain G limits can be violated (engineering limits are
much easier to exceed than physical limits).

>  Acceleration is better with autopilot (says Mil power) than manually
>  controlled at full Mil *or* AB5!  I think this manifests when your
>  wingmen seem to be able to accelerate faster than you.
>  Again, investigated this in the above RF missions.

I've noticed that my plane becomes much faster when the fuel level gets
down to 2000-3000 lbs.  Seems like the computer controlled planes fly like
this ALL the time, if not better.

>  Has anyone ever gotten the "bracket" or "drag" commands to work?  All I
>  get is "unable".  Yes I'm following the manual's procedures.

I've never tried the drag, but I use the bracket all the time.  I've found
three things that seem to be important in making it work.

1)  Your wingman has to be near you, and facing the same direction.
2)  Your wingman has to see the bandit(s).  This is VERY important.  If your
    current waypoint is set to NOTHING, your wingman won't see squat.  He'll
    open his eyes if you set it to CAP or INTERCEPT instead.
3)  The bandit has to be heading almost directly towards you.

>Post-mission:
>
>  Medals given to pilots who did NOTHING.

Also, no medal for ME when I do almost EVERYTHING!  :^(

>  May say BVR kill for a 1 mile missile shot.

It seems like if you shoot an AMRAAM at somebody and miss, any other way
you kill him will result in a BVR kill.

>  No assesment of non-F16 flights (RF or campaign).

This would be really nice to have.

>  You need to kill seven targets in ground strike missions for a success.
>  I had one where my ground forces killed them all before I got there.
>  End result...failure.

So that's why I've seen a line of smoking hulks near the target area!  I
just assumed that the friendly ground forces didn't actually DO anything.

>ACMI
>
>  Using FFwd often results in a hang or other ACMI screwup.

I've had my plane crash into the ground while fast forwarding, when I didn't
actually do so in real flight!  And I stay dead even if I exit ACMI!

>Campaign
>
>  Too many damn enemies.  Won't argue whether this is realistic or not (I
>  think not) but I would *strongly* like to see this made adjustable.

This is the single biggest area for improvement, in my opinion.  If they just
fixed this, I would be happy.

>  Doesn't always tell you what other allies are in the area, or even
>  flying with you.  Don't you think this would be part of a brief?

This would be a lot more convenient than starting a mission, looking around,
then aborting it and recofiguring your flights based on what you discovered
your escorts to be.  You always get a pair of escorts on ground attack
missions, but it makes a big difference if they're A-4s or F/A-18s!

>  As another mentioned, there always seem to be AN12's hanging around your
>  base.  Wouldn't other flights scramble?

This does seem pretty silly.  I'm less bothered when I see surprise
attacks by SU-24s or SU-25s.

>More nits:
>  Mission recap doesn't list what non-F16 flights accomplish.

This would be really nice.

>Yep the game does a lot, and is probably still the best sim.  But SH is
>full of it with their flight model hype.  C'mon folks, you don't really
>buy into it do you?  The fuel management and load affects, identical (and
>inaccurate) modelling of enemies, and discrepancies between autopilot and
>manual performance detract from gameplay.  The many campaign nits, headed
>by bogey count, comprise my next major beef.  Red Flag could be great, but
>it takes me so many iterations to get it right (due to bugs) that I often
>lose interest.

Falcon 3.0 is, IMO, a very good game.  It has a large scope, and unbelievable
depth.  It's failings are in the details.  With such a large game, I'm sure
it's hard to nail them all down.  I'd much rather play something that aims
high but falters a little than something that aims for the middle and gets
a bullseye, but this is certainly just a personal preference.  I guess I'll
be satisfied if they keep improving it through scenario sets and additional
planes.  They'll get most of the bugs and minor deficiencies out eventually
(I hope), then it will be nearly perfect.  Note that I started with patch D,
and did not have to help beta-test the program as many others did.  If I
had, my opinions might be quite different today.

Rob
ihlpy!opus@att.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games