Slow lane?

[EricJ]

Is it me or the F-16XL slow as hell? I took it through the Northwest map and it just seemed like it was lethargic. Took the ZA-9 out and had fun. I know it's not frame rates... but is the speed correct on the F-16XL?

[Fubar512]

Is it me or the F-16XL slow as hell? I took it through the Northwest map and it just seemed like it was lethargic. Took the ZA-9 out and had fun. I know it's not frame rates... but is the speed correct on the F-16XL?

 

The F-16XL's top speed, its near sea-level acceleration from 350 KIAS to Mach 1, and its Vmax at altitude (1.95-2.0) are accurate, as is its abilty to supercruise at altitude (with the F100-PW-229 powerplant).

[EricJ]

Okay, thanks!

[mikeed]

My F-105's seem lethargic in that terrain also.

[Fubar512]

My F-105's seem lethargic in that terrain also.

 

If by "lethargic", you mean in as far as excessive takeoff rolls, that's an issue with the original terrain data file for that particular terrain. You cannot have an airfield as the first entry in a terrain's data file, as it otherwise causes aircraft to behave as though someone had coated the runways with molasses

 

Also, all of the runways in that terrain are well above sea level. You might be starting at 5K to 7K altitude.

[EricJ]

Yeah... it must fly into the engines as well. But still cool to fly though. But it should still move a little bit faster than that, due to the higher altitude.

[sparkomatic]

if you are just trying to be a speed freak through the mountains...try the magic time compression key (like "T" by default)...then it can go significantly faster

[+Spectre_USA]

Also, if you load the "Strike Falcon," F-16XL up, it does seem sluggish, even in the desert campaign I added it to.

 

Once the munitions are expended, it goes great guns!

 

The Strike Eagle it is not, as the single engine is sufficient to get it aloft, but transit fully loaded is a bit tougher.