F4 AF: what's the consensus?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

ALT-TAB is a definate no-no in F4, always has been for me.

Icer

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:40:15 +0100, Sean Black <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dbego4$vcf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nats
><nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
>>out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
>>obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
>>This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
>>rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
>>particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
>>despite the quibbles.
>
>I've had several CTD, mostly it has to be said, when alt-tabbing between
>the game and the PDF manual, but on other occasions too, can't remember
>what I did at the time, but when I started it up again the next time I
>let it send it's little bug report thing back to them, so hopefully it
>may get sorted soon.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <iuend19qbqmq0e5te38a5vak3kujql9m4f@4ax.com>, Adamski
<anon@nowhere.com> writes
>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:40:15 +0100, Sean Black wrote:
>
>>In article <dbego4$vcf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nats
>><nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
>>>out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
>>>obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
>>>This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
>>>rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
>>>particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
>>>despite the quibbles.
>>
>>I've had several CTD, mostly it has to be said, when alt-tabbing between
>>the game and the PDF manual, but on other occasions too, can't remember
>>what I did at the time, but when I started it up again the next time I
>>let it send it's little bug report thing back to them, so hopefully it
>>may get sorted soon.
>
>I *occasionally* get CTDs after switching theatres. My workaround is
>to switch theatre then restart AF. Same thing after a failed
>multiplayer connection. ALT_TABbing has always been dodgy for me.
>Sometimes it works ... sometimes not - so I generally *don't*.
>
Another reason we really need a printed manual :-(
--
Sean Black

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

As for the topic mentioned recently about not having any ground targets on
the GMT radar in F4AF I have definitely got GMT on my radar so I dont know
what all the fuss was about!

I personally think that there are a few quirks and niggles with the game and
it certainly isnt quite as good as the hype on the website but when all is
said and done I think that its good to support the F4 game development and
it is actually quite a good game. Certainly the Balkans makes a nice change,
the graphics arent bad and the AI/dynamic campaign seem pretty good - better
than ever.

The one big problem with the game as mentioned on the Frugal forum is that
we are now paying for a game that is professionally developed and as such
are limited to what the development team want to do with it, as opposed to
playing a game that is being developed by fans of the game. We have a more
stable game (supposedly) but we are paying for that with possibly
limitations in future development. It will be interesting to see whether the
fanbase take on F4AF or stay with F4+FF3 etc in the coming months/years. And
that choice will largely depend on how well the developers release patches
and respond to the players requirements for addons etc.

Nats

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Sean Black" <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rjW5nb6UA82CFwFt@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk...
> Another reason we really need a printed manual :-(

We did get a printed manual and a CD. No?


--

gcisko@hotmail.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:40:15 +0100, Sean Black wrote:

>In article <dbego4$vcf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nats
><nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I also got a bloody CTD last night as well when I was trying in vain to find
>>out what CFD button I pressed to mess up my instruments and the game
>>obviously didnt like me messing around with the cockpit and the game CTDd.
>>This isnt a good sign as the whole sales pitch for this game is that it is
>>rock solid stable - which it obviously isnt. And neither has it been
>>particularly well tested either. Still it is nice to be playing F4 again
>>despite the quibbles.
>
>I've had several CTD, mostly it has to be said, when alt-tabbing between
>the game and the PDF manual, but on other occasions too, can't remember
>what I did at the time, but when I started it up again the next time I
>let it send it's little bug report thing back to them, so hopefully it
>may get sorted soon.

I *occasionally* get CTDs after switching theatres. My workaround is
to switch theatre then restart AF. Same thing after a failed
multiplayer connection. ALT_TABbing has always been dodgy for me.
Sometimes it works ... sometimes not - so I generally *don't*.

I've found it very stable - but then my FF3/CobraOne install was very
stable too. I wish I knew what the voodoo was!

Adamski.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <uZmdnW2yZchypEHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, Greg Cisko
<gcisko@hotmail.com> writes
>"Sean Black" <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:rjW5nb6UA82CFwFt@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk...
>> Another reason we really need a printed manual :-(
>
>We did get a printed manual and a CD. No?
>
>
Only the little manual, I meant the 700 page one.

Managing to get by, printing off various sections at work as and when I
need them, but I wouldn't have minded the option to have paid a bit
extra and got a properly printed manual.

On another note, if anyone in the UK is interested, according to PC Zone
it is due for release here on the 28th.
--
Sean Black

 

[CCCC]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:19:46 GMT, "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island>
wrote:

>
><cccc@home.net> wrote in message
>news:qvijd1l528poer7lpg2ph1et02nda2a1vi@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:12:08 GMT, "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:dbc1nj$19s$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:dbbmcj$h0t$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>> My comments after playing a few instant missions and a couple of
>>>>> campaign
>>>>> missions are:
>>>>>
>>>>> In flight graphics are hardly distinguishable from FF3 and in fact have
>>>>> bugs like blown up planes appearing as square blocks. Also frame rates
>>>>> whilst near loads of planes like before take off are very slow as with
>>>>> FF3. No change there then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some keyboard commands have been switched around (the HSD range being
>>>>> one
>>>>> of them) which doesnt seem to be logical but its easy enough to put
>>>>> them
>>>>> back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chaff/flare program default to setting 1 as per FF3 which is daft
>>>>> considering it only releases flares. I always have to reset it before
>>>>> my
>>>>> flight to program 4. No change there then.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Balkans campaign is good fun and there are plenty of campaigns to
>>>>> choose from. But the cown side is you can fly anything but F16s ie no
>>>>> Typhoons :-( this is a step bcak IMO but may be for stability reasons.
>>>>> Still annoying to go backwards a step compared to FF3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flight dynamics and weapons seem identical to FF3 except that the
>>>>> ground
>>>>> targets GMT radar doesnt work at all. Cant believe this slipped through
>>>>> the testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some good test missions like 1x1 airfield attacks etc but not
>>>>> much to write home about.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are clouds but theyre not brilliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> As theres no F4patch you cant configure things like the near label
>>>>> range
>>>>> setting, padlock box size, etc which is annoying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cant say much about the changes under the hood like wingman AI etc as
>>>>> havent got that far yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far from what Ive seen the game provide a new campaign but is a step
>>>>> backwards from FF3 in many ways. Still it is enjoyable as ever and Im
>>>>> sure the bugs will be solved shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main reason to get it is to get rid of the need for all the addons
>>>>> and patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nats
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes and the much talked about landing/take off commos are a little
>>>> bugged as well - I have waited on the taxi way for ages waiting for a
>>>> cue
>>>> to take off and nothing happens. And when I ask for landing clearance
>>>> and
>>>> am over the runway the controller tries to give me immediate landing
>>>> clearance not realising I'm 2000 ft up in the air - so naturally I get
>>>> an
>>>> aborted landing. Not sure whether this last one was in FF3 but I
>>>> certainly
>>>> cant remember waiting around for years to take off in FF3. Seems this
>>>> new
>>>> incarnation has introduced some new bugs of its own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This problem seems to occur because you stop the aircraft short of the
>>>hold
>>>line. Put your nose wheel on the line and they will always give you t/o
>>>clearance unless there is traffic
>>>
>> Where is "the line" and why do I always have to taxi?
>> I select "takeoff" but I still have to taxi to the runways.
>
>Got me there.I was assuming you were taxiing
>
I am even though I select take off. I tried taxi an all it does is
make you taxi farther.
I think I found "the line" but why aren't I on the runway if I select
take off?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Sean Black wrote:
> In article <uZmdnW2yZchypEHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, Greg Cisko
> <gcisko@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> "Sean Black" <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:rjW5nb6UA82CFwFt@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> Another reason we really need a printed manual :-(
>>
>>
>> We did get a printed manual and a CD. No?
>>
>>
> Only the little manual, I meant the 700 page one.
>
> Managing to get by, printing off various sections at work as and when I
> need them, but I wouldn't have minded the option to have paid a bit
> extra and got a properly printed manual.
>
> On another note, if anyone in the UK is interested, according to PC Zone
> it is due for release here on the 28th.

Actually, I found the "little" manual (110pp) to be pretty good. Not
exhaustive by any means, but a good distillation of what is involed in
flying the F-16.


I'm doing like you and printing out the sections as I need them. I've
also been falling back to my old original F4 manual for quick reference
(less bulky while actually engaged with the PC).

James

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <vO5De.5859$oZ.2865@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, James
Calivar <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> writes
>Sean Black wrote:
>> In article <uZmdnW2yZchypEHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, Greg Cisko
>><gcisko@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> "Sean Black" <sean@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:rjW5nb6UA82CFwFt@bucks-aggs.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> Another reason we really need a printed manual :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> We did get a printed manual and a CD. No?
>>>
>>>
>> Only the little manual, I meant the 700 page one.
>> Managing to get by, printing off various sections at work as and
>>when I need them, but I wouldn't have minded the option to have paid a
>>bit extra and got a properly printed manual.
>> On another note, if anyone in the UK is interested, according to PC
>>Zone it is due for release here on the 28th.
>
>Actually, I found the "little" manual (110pp) to be pretty good. Not
>exhaustive by any means, but a good distillation of what is involed in
>flying the F-16.
>
>
It is quite good, but as I haven't flown F4 for years, I wanted to go
through all the training missions to re-acquaint myself with it. The
little manual is good for the radar and weapons stuff, but not the
basics (takeoff/landing etc...)

I guess I've been spoilt with the flying lessons in FS2004, with the
instructor talking you through each step, with no need to refer to the
manual.

>I'm doing like you and printing out the sections as I need them. I've
>also been falling back to my old original F4 manual for quick reference
>(less bulky while actually engaged with the PC).
>
Has much changed since the original manual? I've still got mine laying
around somewhere, I'll try and find it, if it's still pretty relevant.
--
Sean Black

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Sean Black wrote:
>>
> Has much changed since the original manual? I've still got mine laying
> around somewhere, I'll try and find it, if it's still pretty relevant.

Practically nothing, as far as I can see. I'm no veteran of the
original F4, but I think of it this way: Original Falcon 4.0 is supposed
to simulate as closely as possible the F-16. So is F4:AF. Since the
F-16 still has the same avionics, weapons systems, navigational systems,
flight characteristics, etc. there really shouldn't be huge differences
between the two games, and therefore the manuals cover pretty much the
same thing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Agree, but the missing key card is a pain. I mean the list of keys and
functions, organized by topic, rather than the keyboard map file or the
text file that lists keys in alphabetical order.
As it is, you have to stop and consult the keychart, scanning for the
black function that lists the most important keys. Or create your own
list of keys in order or topic and importance. I have no doubt that
someone will create a better one than my scratch effort, but Graphsim
did this with their various Hornet sims, so they can't pretend they
don't know how.
I'm thinking now of the newbie who sees the attractive box on the shelf
and takes it home to be frustrated. I know there's a recruit/cadet
mode, but Falcon4 actually had a minimanual for that mode--and Jane's
had cadet mode/quickstart keycharts for F/A-18 and F-15 that allowed
you get in the air and blast stuff w/o spending two days reading the
manual.
I just want EVERYONE who buys this to be happy with it, and I'm afraid
there'll be more disappointed newbies than those of us who can just
pull out our FF3 charts and pencil in a few notes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <v3iDe.1629$6f.1244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, James
Calivar <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> writes
>Sean Black wrote:
>>>
>> Has much changed since the original manual? I've still got mine
>>laying around somewhere, I'll try and find it, if it's still pretty
>>relevant.
>
>Practically nothing, as far as I can see. I'm no veteran of the
>original F4, but I think of it this way: Original Falcon 4.0 is
>supposed to simulate as closely as possible the F-16. So is F4:AF.
>Since the F-16 still has the same avionics, weapons systems,
>navigational systems, flight characteristics, etc. there really
>shouldn't be huge differences between the two games, and therefore the
>manuals cover pretty much the same thing.

Thanks, I shall have to dig my original manual out then.

--
Sean Black

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Tim Hall" <fakeaddress@fake.net> wrote in message
news:v9r5d11o0qtb793jghushm9994j9ltsh5c@4ax.com...
> On a scale of 1 to 10?

5 or so. Sticking to 4.2, with bms myself.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"tomcervo" <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121868773.279364.77610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Agree, but the missing key card is a pain. I mean the list of keys and
> functions, organized by topic, rather than the keyboard map file or the
> text file that lists keys in alphabetical order.
> As it is, you have to stop and consult the keychart, scanning for the
> black function that lists the most important keys. Or create your own
> list of keys in order or topic and importance. I have no doubt that
> someone will create a better one than my scratch effort, but Graphsim
> did this with their various Hornet sims, so they can't pretend they
> don't know how.
> I'm thinking now of the newbie who sees the attractive box on the shelf
> and takes it home to be frustrated. I know there's a recruit/cadet
> mode, but Falcon4 actually had a minimanual for that mode--and Jane's
> had cadet mode/quickstart keycharts for F/A-18 and F-15 that allowed
> you get in the air and blast stuff w/o spending two days reading the
> manual.
> I just want EVERYONE who buys this to be happy with it, and I'm afraid
> there'll be more disappointed newbies than those of us who can just
> pull out our FF3 charts and pencil in a few notes.
>

Yes this game is very rookie unfriendly which is a great shame because we
all know that it is the best jet flight sim currently around and its dynamic
campaign is the best ever campaign period. Im using my FF3 key commands
layout but there are loads of people out there buying this who wont have
this available. It would have been so easy to include one in the box
considering how nice the box and manual are in terms of presentation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Actually having got more into the Falcon 4.0 : Allied Force game I am
starting to realise its strenghts over FreeFalcon3 and the other various
incarnations of Falcon 4.0.

By far the best reason for getting this game must be the fact that you can
add your own packages in the campaign. This new revelation for me pushes the
game into EF2000 territory (my favourite sim) in that I can now choose any
target I want to attack and configure a flight for it. Great - now I can hit
all of those airfields and radar stations that I loved taking out in EF2000!
Also the fact that you can revise the ground war by tasking individual
troops to hit specific targets or capture areas etc also adds more user
control over the campaign - and theres got to be loads of fun there on its
own!

And finally I just sat back and watched a ground battle yesterday after
having been shot down. Amazing is all I can say! I saw a few Challenger
tanks being attacked by loads of T80s and BMPs. The shells were exploding
all around and the BMPMs were firing their machine guns and main guns (you
could clearly see the difference). What a battle. Made me realise just how
much depth is in this game. Even the individual infantry run around the
battlefield now.

Brilliant.

Nats

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Nats wrote:
>
> And finally I just sat back and watched a ground battle yesterday after
> having been shot down. Amazing is all I can say! I saw a few Challenger
> tanks being attacked by loads of T80s and BMPs. The shells were exploding
> all around and the BMPMs were firing their machine guns and main guns (you
> could clearly see the difference). What a battle. Made me realise just how
> much depth is in this game. Even the individual infantry run around the
> battlefield now.
>
> Brilliant.
>
> Nats
>
>


REALLY? How does one see this kind of action? I could not care less
about fighting, I would like to see some action! (serious here...)

James

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Locate some mech. battalions along the FLOT in the map view and set a
waypoint (from the base closest to them) to that area. Arm yourself
with heavy A-G to help them out.. Ingress low and look around. Its
especially wild at night... 😎

Oh, and bring lots of flares and a rescue beacon... LOL

Icer

>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:08:22 GMT, James Calivar <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Nats wrote:
>>
>> And finally I just sat back and watched a ground battle yesterday after
>> having been shot down. Amazing is all I can say! I saw a few Challenger
>> tanks being attacked by loads of T80s and BMPs. The shells were exploding
>> all around and the BMPMs were firing their machine guns and main guns (you
>> could clearly see the difference). What a battle. Made me realise just how
>> much depth is in this game. Even the individual infantry run around the
>> battlefield now.
>>
>> Brilliant.
>>
>> Nats
>>
>>
>
>
>REALLY? How does one see this kind of action? I could not care less
>about fighting, I would like to see some action! (serious here...)
>
>James

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

When you get shot down if you select continue mission rather than exit the
mission you can then look around at all of the goings on around you. You can
only see units and planes for a few miles around your parachute I think
although Im not sure but perhaps if you use Action View you can see actions
over the whole arena.

Anyway the way you do it is to press Shift and ` button (top left under the
esc key) to get to action view. Every time you press it you move to a new
unit (sometimes takes a few presses). If you leave the game to run you
should get to see all of the exciting moments like missiles being fired,
bombs being dropped etc. You can then press the 0 key to be able to look
around the units (view orbit).

But an even better way to look around is by pressing Shift and the , or .
keys which are 'view previous aircraft ' and ' view next aircraft' but they
also let you see ground units as well. If you are lucky enough to be near
the FLOT at the time you got shot you will probably be able to witness a
huge battle raging between ground units. Can be really fun to watch. Reminds
me a little bit of Tornado where one of the best bits of the entire game was
watching all of the trains and trucks going about their business.

Developers need to pay heed to these kinds of things - little things like
this can really add to a games depth and gameplay. They are often forgotten
about in lieu of graphics and multiple planes to fly etc.

Nats

"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:WcFDe.14674$aY6.6131@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Nats wrote:
>>
>> And finally I just sat back and watched a ground battle yesterday after
>> having been shot down. Amazing is all I can say! I saw a few Challenger
>> tanks being attacked by loads of T80s and BMPs. The shells were exploding
>> all around and the BMPMs were firing their machine guns and main guns
>> (you could clearly see the difference). What a battle. Made me realise
>> just how much depth is in this game. Even the individual infantry run
>> around the battlefield now.
>>
>> Brilliant.
>>
>> Nats
>
>
> REALLY? How does one see this kind of action? I could not care less
> about fighting, I would like to see some action! (serious here...)
>
> James