toonces

Hello all. Gepard proposed an interesting thread in another part of the forum in which he asked if members tended to fly for a specific country in flight sims. A question like this begs a further question to me- if you don't fly for a certain country, why not? So, rather than explore this question in his thread, I'll open it up here. Stiglr has taken the torch with this discussion in the other thread, and it is with him at the tip of the spear that I direct my response here. I posted this at another forum a while back, and I quote here: "Hi all. I'm reading book 3 in Toonces' Book Club ™: Endgame, 1945. I'm about 85 pages in. The book is basically about the end of the European theater in WW2 and its immediate aftermath. I read, last night, about the time towards the end of the war where, as the Russians closed on Berlin from the east, the Nazis began clearing out their concentration camps to prevent the Allies from 'finding out'; or, in many cases, the camps were overrun by the Allies. The author quotes interviews with survivors, soldiers who liberated the camps, journalists, Patton, Eisenhower, and others to graphically describe the horror of the camps like Buchenwald (sp) for example. None of this is exactly a surprise to me- I've read...not alot, but some on the European theater of WW2, and I'm aware of the Holocaust and the horrors of the concentration camps. I had the opportunity to visit Dachau back in 98. But, this really hit me in the gut. The absolute cruelty and inhumanity of the Nazis, it defies my comprehension. I almost feel like I can't continue reading the book. I put the book down last night and I sort of contemplated what I had read. And I started thinking about my gaming. I don't necessarily think one way or the other with respect to which side I game- I enjoy the intellectual challenge of playing both sides of a conflict. I don't game Europe WW2 much, I'm more of a Pacific theater guy. But, for example, I play Aces High and don't really dwell on what it means to fly a Bf-109 or drive a Panzer IV. I push counters on a board, but don't dwell on what the SS means for a particular unit. I find myself questioning that decision today. As wargamers, I think we can all appreciate the thought process of gaming a particular conflict from its tactical or strategic warfare perspective. We're pitting force against force. But how can I, in good conscience, game a conflict from the German side of WW2 with the goal of winning the war? How can I play a GAME that trivializes what 'really' happened to these people? By GAMING as a German, aren't I somehow, in some mental way, ....not advocating exactly, but...by winning, I'm essentially gaming a scenario that would have led to the utterly cruelty inflicted on other humans- or perhaps the extermination of an aspect of civilization. It's hard to put into words exactly. I just don't know if I can continue to game from the German side in this conflict. It just doesn't feel right. But then again, I'm sure this is just a visceral reaction to reading something so horrible, and that I'll get over it eventually. But today I feel kind of bad for having gamed this conflict. It's hard to articulate exactly. I realize it's almost impossible to bring up something like the Holocaust without going right to R and P, but I guess I gave it a try. I'll probably start another thread in R and P that is far more controversial. I just had to get this off my chest this morning. " ***************** Since writing that post about a year ago, I've more or less "recovered" from that feeling. I no longer have some moral objection to flying an Me-109 in Aces High, or taking up a MiG-21 in Falcon 4. My current Il-2 campaign has me flying a Japanese Ki-61. But, on the same note, if my father (a Vietnam era F-4 RIO) had died or become a POW in Vietnam, I might have ALOT of problems with taking up a MiG. If half my family had been exterminated in the holocaust, I might have alot of trouble taking up a German plane today. And if my legs get blown off in Iraq, I might have trouble flying for the Arab nations in an IAF campaign. Having said that, I don't have a problem with YOU flying those planes. And I don't have a problem with sims with those sides available. And...just like I don't condone stealing cars and banging hookers, I think GTA: Vice City is a hoot. I have gaming lines. I'm not precisely sure where they lie. But, from a flight simming perspective, I don't really have alot of limits on who I fly for- I fly the plane I'm in the mood to fly. But, I don't join "German-only" squadrons, and I don't get TOO immersed in that side....there is a line there that I choose not to cross. I DO think it's ok to bring your personal limits into video gaming and flight simming. Yes, they are games, but they simulate an experience, and it's my opinion that it is ok to find some aspects of that experience...not gamable for personal reasons. Stiglr disagrees, and I look forward to his rebuttal; and the rest of your comments. With respect, Toonces

@ Stiglr, I understand your point. However, let me propose some of my own thoughts. I've been a very long-time flight simmer. And, I've never had any problem flying any aircraft in any sim. But, a few months ago I read a very, very powerful book about Nazi Germany. After reading that book, I took some time to examine my own wargaming practices, and where exactly I felt I stood intellectually flying German planes, driving German tanks, etc. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that, yes indeed, these are games. By playing the German side in a wargame I'm not condoning what the Nazi's did. By flying a German plane, I'm not pretending in some weird way that I'm now a German pilot. I'm playing a game. But, having said that, there are some sims I fly, for example Aces High, where there are squads that only fly German planes. For some reason, that's just too...something...that just crosses a personal line for me. So, I hope you can appreciate that while I enjoy simming a great deal, it is possible to be introspective and perhaps have some personal reason to have lines within our gaming. And finally, in 'real life' I'm a Navy Orion pilot, and I've hunted real Russian submarines a number of times. But, I don't have any qualms about firing up an Akula in Dangerous Waters, or taking up a Foxbat in Falcon 4. See ya, Toonces

Just my .02. I went the Navy OCS route. My story is long, but suffice it to say that my Marine PLC flying slot suddenly disappeared right before I reported to PLC jr, and NROTC was leading right to a ship. Since you appear to be set on doing ROTC, here's my advice: skip that aero engineering stuff and find a major that 1) provides a decent fall-back and 2) you can get as close to a 4.0 in as possible. NROTC for me was a long time ago, but I doubt it has changed significantly. ROTC (and the Academies I think) rank you based upon your GRADES. The highest ranked guys get their first choice on down until that choice isn't available anymore. Then you get what's left. You can probably imagine that things like pilot, NFO, and special forces go pretty quick. By all means go engineering and load up your courses if that's what you have burning inside of you. But if you get an aero engineering degree with a 3.2 GPA, and some other guy has a Political Science degree with a 3.3, the Poly Sci guy is going to get his choice before you. I had a 3.0 my first year of college. I talked to my NROTC advisor. He said "What do you want to do in the Navy?" I said, "Fly jets." He said, "Well, with your grades, you're going to be driving ships." Last thought: it is good to strive for what you want to fly. But the needs of the service come first. I aced flight school, but got Orions because the Navy simply wasn't hiring jet pilots the week I selected. It could have been worse- a month later the Navy was only hiring helo pilots and even Orions were gone. So, keep in mind that you can control some things, like what you major in and what your GPA is, but ultimately alot of things will be beyond your control.

Yeah, I just watched 'Threads' last week. Be careful with that one. It's a great movie, but it is awfully graphic. I mean, it doesn't pull any punches with respect to the horror of a nuclear war. A good movie, but it's not something to watch if you expect to be in a good mood afterwards.

I had an experience once...I don't really talk about it too often but I suppose this thread is about as appropriate place as any for it. I was on a tactical check flight. I was flying the right seat as PPC with a 3P in the left seat and the CO watching. I was totally spanking this 'sub' we were chasing, just totally smothering him in buoys. We were down at 200' and the skipper decided he wanted to get in the left seat so I took the controls and climbed up to 1000' for the seat swap. Usually in a flight like this the guy in the left flies and the guy on the right works the tactical panel in the center console, recentering the display, selecting buoys to watch, etc. Since we were in the middle of the seat swap, I was flying from the right and I had to re-center the display to keep track of what was going on. The Flight Engineer in the seat was talking with the off-duty FE and they were discussing something on the circuit breaker panel behind me, not really looking out the front of the plane. I didn't think anything of it...I considered interrupting them to have the in-seat FE correct the display but I just didn't for some reason. I looked down and started pushing buttons and selecting a buoy to mark on top, the CO is on the left strapping in and fiddling around and all of a sudden I hear...not screaming but a sort of, "Ahhhh!..." Of course I look up and all I see out front of the cockpit is water. See, the P-3 isn't really very stable even trimmed up and while I was looking down the plane just sort of rolled left and nose down. The plane is so big that nobody felt the plane changing attitude. So now I'm passing through...low...extremely nose low with nothing but water in front. So, I just put that yoke in my crotch and I hear from the back, "Whooooaaaa!!!" as I put some G's on the plane. I leveled out...low...and then climbed back up to 1000' for the rest of the seat swap. It's wierd. I've thought about that flight alot after it happened. Ultimately, there was alot of things I should have done differently. I should have told the FE's to focus on the plane during the seat swap. I should have interrupted them to work the center panel. But the bottom line is that everthing was going so well, and I was so focused on kicking the s**t out of that sub that I just sort of...forgot to fly for a few seconds there. If the CO hadn't said something, if the 3P had been going to the head for example...I probably would have put the plane into the water. I wasn't done what I was doing on the panel when I looked up and 10 more seconds would have been it. I continued to fly after this experience. It goes without saying that it was a big learning experience for me. I think, sometimes, you just have to make a big mistake to hammer home the basics once and for all. Wow, I hadn't thought about that flight in a long time.

Wow, those guys must have been freaking. There's a few inconsistencies though. Shutting down an engine for a NATOPS check and an FCF are totally different things. It could be that they were going to do an FCF and sign it off 'in flight' then proceed for the NATOPS check. If the engine was shut down during the FCF, then it was probably E-handled and truly shut down. In that case, when they had the problems on #2, depending on the severity, they probably elected to bag #2, then re-start #1. The only cases I can think of where they would bag 2 before restarting 1 would be in the event of an engine fire or a vibrating prop. If I remember correctly, a vibrating prop 'could' mean an impending propeller blade separation and warrants an immediate shut down. Having said all that, if they were shutting down an engine as a precaution, then they should have restarted the loitered engine first. There's probably some factors here we're not seeing yet. Either way, we train for two engine flying so shutting down two engines at the same time on the same side, while not typical, isn't something that in and of itself should be the emergency this turned into. It sounds like they sort of...forgot to fly...during the emergency and once the plane departed, oh boy.

As far as I know, only the F-16 pits specifically made for AF work in AF. Most of them say which version of Falcon they are for. Supposedly only the F-16 is supported in AF, so there aren't any payware Aeyes pits for other aircraft in AF. But like I said before, you can install Red Viper over an AF install, and then use the payware pits in your Red Viper installation. In fact, there's a free MiG-21 pit that comes with the RV install.

Hi racinglad. I'm not aware of any mods for F4:AF specifically. I am aware of a hi-tiles payware download for other versions of Falcon. It would be worth googling to see what turns up and if they are available for Allied Force. From what I've heard (not an owner) they are worth the purchase price. On another note, I am a Red Viper user and I have to say that this mod has revolutionized my flight simming experience. I simply cannot speak highly enough of it. It can be found at www.freefalcon.com, in the forums, under the install guide thread. It really is as easy as installing as per the instructions. I've heard varying degrees of success installing over F4: AF, my recommendation would be to have two installations, one normal, and one modded with Red Viper. I think if you get RV working, you will not want to go back to plain Allied Force. There are some interesting campaigns in varying stages of completion, as well as some great payware cockpits by Aeyes. I picked up the F-15E and F-14 right away, and they are by far some of the best simming dollars I have ever spent. I realize this won't be for everyone, they run about $17 per cockpit, but for me, they were truly worth the money and I see myself getting my money's worth easily. For an example of what they've been doing with Red Viper (which is synonymous with FreeFalcon 4), you can check a video I made here: http://www.vimeo.com/970072 This is a beta version of the Nevada Red Flag theater, with the payware F-14 cockpit in 3-D using TrackIR. This is probably the worst terrain I've seen, and I think it is still quite good. Best of luck, Toonces

Julhelm, I would agree with you in principle that what I want is a simulator, not a 'game'. I think the two don't necessarily have to be different, a great sim can also be a great game, but I don't want to nitpick semantics. In my own nirvana, we would have a sim like Falcon 4, but with more options...more campaigns, more flyable planes....and not just patched up add-ons. My nirvana is a sim with the moddability, and the number of aircraft of SF1 and WOV, but with the fidelity of Falcon 4. That's MY vision for a great, holy grail sim. I'd love, absolutely love, to play a full-on study sim F-4 Phantom set in Vietnam, with a campaign engine like Falcon 4. What is sad is that the technology and know how exists to create my holy-grail sim. But as streakeagle pointed out so eloquently, who's going to pay to make it and will it make money? And, why take the risk on that when you can pump out another Madden game and make a few million? At any rate, variety is great, and I await Fighter Ops with anticipation. I'm skeptical that they can go the distance with their vision, but I remain hopeful. I suppose the one thing I can do to help is buy the game when they release it, enjoy flying my T-38 around, and hopefully do my part to show support for these folks by buying their product so they can continue with the dream. But, back to my original question....how many other folks are willing to do that? How many people are going to pay $50, $70, $100 for a sim that does what FSX does already...with tons more planes?

Hi all. I've been an on again/off again player of WOV and SFG for a few years. Most recently I played much of a WOV campaign using the Aces of North Vietnam mod. I've played some of several campaigns in stock WOV a few times from the US side, but I always seem to stop mid-way in for some reason. For example, I started one campaign flying the A-6 but got so turned off from the lack of any bombing modes that I couldn't stick with it. I certainly appreciate the 'lite' aspect of this series, and I can accept that there will be considerable realism trade-offs. Having said that, in coming from Falcon 4, I can't get enjoyment from taking up an F-16 or something in this series...the 'lite-ness' of the sim just doesn't work for me in that type of jet. So, my question is: what do you recommend in the WOV series as the best tradeoff between realism and immersion? What plane and campaign within WOV will offer me the best experience? I've seen the thread about what mods are best for WOV, but 'all of them' is just a bit too much for someone with none of them...is there any must haves? Finally, I'm aware of the YAP series...I'm not interested in that route right now. Thanks alot for your help and advice. Toonces

It wouldn't surprise me if you knew him, I imagine the flying community in Beaufort was fairly tight. His callsign was "Iron" as in "Iron Mike". When I go back to my mom's house, if I remember this thread, I can check his logbook and see who he flew with...the only guys I really remember anymore is a pilot named John Beery (sp), and another guy callsign "Coot" for Coutier I think. I also remember a Lt. Col. Braun that he was friends with. After 333, he went to 101 as an instructor RIO in Yuma. Probably one of my oldest memories is when he took me to the simulator and let me ride in the back while one of his students did cats and traps off the boat (CV-59). "Hey dad, what does this button do?" "Uhh, son, just don't press any buttons, ok?" LOL. It goes without saying that he had a huge influence on me. Somewhere, buried in my basement at my mom's house, I have a picture of myself in front of an F-4 with Bear Lassiter. He always encouraged me to go Air Force with their better planes and golf courses, but I was prejudice and joined the Navy instead. Unfortunately, I selected during a bad week and got P-3s instead of jets, but I've come to love the Orion and hunting subs is pretty cool. Just about the only simming I remember doing with him was way back in the Falcon 3 era. I was playing the Hornet 3 add-on, trying to strike a ground target, but everytime I approached the coast I got engaged by a SAM site. So, finally after a half dozen unsuccessful tries I asked him to come over and he talked me through the engagement. Great stuff. I can't help but imagine what he would make of our sim world now- and how cool it would have been to be able to wing up in a pair of F-4s with him over the internet. I really think he would get a kick out of all this. It's great to hear about your real-life experiences, and it's certainly appreciated by me at least to hear a real-deal F-4 pilot's thoughts on the simming experience, and how it stacks up to the real experience. Anyway, didn't mean to derail your thread....it's hard for me to up a Phantom without thinking about my dad, and your interview and this thread sort of got to me. See ya in the air, Toonces

Great job Batilka! That looks amazingly like the real-deal from what I remember. You need to be careful about what season you are modeling though. In winter the country is almost completely white in the interior. In summer the country is quite green except at altitude and on the interior. The pictures on the first page like this one: http://forum.combatace.com/uploads/post-16...80164_thumb.jpg I would make the tiles whiter. There shouldn't be quite so much rock showing imo. But, even as is, the terrain really looks great. (Edit: well, if you got the tiles from google earth...I can't really argue with that! I guess that really IS what it looks like!)

I really enjoyed your first post way up there streakeagle. I really like the 'idea' behind Fighter Ops. However, I have much of the same thoughts as you regarding it (I think). Upon reading what the initial release would be, my gut reaction is, 'this is all great, but how many folks are going to buy it?' I can boot up a T-38 or a Texan in FSX and play fighter pilot trainee. So can everyone else. Having said that, there just aren't that many hardcore flight sims out there, and I make enough money to be able to buy a game like Fighter Ops in the hopes that it is entertaining. But how many other folks will do that? Will it be enough to sustain development? Fighter Ops sounds like a 'holy grail' sim, but I keep feeling that these folks have bit off way more than they can chew. Will there be any money/stamina left after the initial release to go the distance? I hope for the best. It is a shame that Falcon is still the bar by which all combat flight sims are judged. But then again, given the legs that Falcon has shown, perhaps the Fighter Ops guys are right looking at the long goal rather than the short goal. I mean, heck, I just dropped $40 on some payware pits for Falcon last month...I'm spending as much money as the sim originally cost me 10 years later to upgrade it. That says alot about longetivity. Great discussion guys.

Great post wagsled. My dad was an F-4 RIO with VMFA-333 right around the time you were in Beaufort. He deployed with the Nimitz in '76. He has, unfortunately, passed away, but he would have gotten such a kick out of these sims. Anyway, I love taking the F-4 up, obviously the coolest plane ever built. I'll have to try out your mods and give WOV a go tonight. Thanks for posting! Toonces out.

way way cool. Looking forward to that new terrain too. Nice job and thanks for your hard work!

I sort of lost where we are going with this thread. It started as a 'study sim' of the F-4. It has morphed into a multiplayer version of Strike Fighters it seems. It doesn't sound like you're looking to build an in-depth sim of an aircraft or two, but rather build upon the game you already have, but add some features that are missing or wanting (or whatever). No offense, but I don't think you are going to go far with a project like this. Not that it isn't a good idea, but I don't think you're going to attract the amount of paying customers you'd need to make it profitable. The whole point of a 'study sim' is that it is hard. Strike Fighters already appeals to the casual gamer. Are you making a game that appeals to the masses, or a game that appeals to the hardcore flight simmer?

Great thread. A few ideas I had. First, with respect to 'pledging' to finance the game. I'm sure many of you already know this, but alot of board wargame companies use a similar method for producing new wargames (eg. GMT, MMP, etc.). Essentially it is a pre-order system. The designers come up with an idea, sketch out the basics of the game and some preliminary graphics, and then the game goes up for pre-order. Usually it's 500, but some are 750 or more depending on the cost of developing the game. A buyer logs on, pledges to buy with his order info and credit card info, and when the game reaches the number of required pledges it goes into production. It can take years for the whole process to complete. If you were going to pursue this, I don't think it would be unreasonable to do, but getting 5000 'pledges' would be near impossible IMO. Speaking for myself, I'd pay $100 or more for a really good study sim with Falcon's fidelity of the F-4 (or any number of other planes actually). You're still talking about 2500 pledges for what would truly be a niche sim. Not likely. Second, what would a study sim of the F-4 offer that Lock-On doesn't offer, or Falcon 4 Red Viper with some of the add-ons? I haven't played Lock-On, but my understanding is that it is a higher fidelity version of Strike Fighters. How much more fidelity can you actually offer? Third, I like the idea of having two aircraft modeled initially (but to make this worthwhile, they'd both need to be 'study' caliber). BUT, more importantly is the campaign engine build around the planes. IMO, what keeps games like Falcon so playable is the dynamic campaign engine built around the game. Having a great flight model and fidelity is great, but the immersion comes even more from the campaign in which you're flying. I often wonder why there's been such a horrible lack of study sims since Falcon 4. I wonder if the market simply isn't truly there. There's always some of us that will buy a product like this, almost regardless of cost. I don't know how much I would pay for a truly Falcon'ish Phantom sim- but it would be in the hundreds. But from a marketing standpoint, I don't know how many of us are out there compared to folks who just want the latest Call of Duty release at Best Buy.

Hi all. I have managed to install and get this campaign working. However, I do not have any surface to air missles or AAA. I found the Strike Fighters 1 object mod that someone mentioned might fix this, but it did not work for me. Thanks in advance for your help. Toonces

Disregard. It took me a while, but I realized I didn't install the weapons pack between the 1984 install and the upgrade version.

Hi gents. I've installed the mod as per the directions, and then gone in and copied each of the objects into my objects folder in the WOV install. However, I'm not showing any weapons in the loadout screen. Can anyone provide some advice on fixing this? I've tried copying the objects and weapons folders into the WOV install, and I've patched up with the SP and other patch. I used the Vietnam 1984 quick update as well. Sorry, this is my first time modding WOV and I'm having a difficult time figuring out what is wrong.