iBeta Falcon
4.0 Realism Patch
README File
July 20, 2000
The iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch is a
community-based project that endeavors to improve the gameplay of Falcon 4.0 by
enhancing its realism. This Realism
Patch is "unofficial", and is not maintained either Hasbro
Interactive or Microprose. The iBeta
Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch is supplied “as-is”.
Hasbro, Microprose, and iBeta do not accept responsibility for any
adverse affects that are a result of installing this patch.
On-line and telephone
support are not offered. Questions, feedback, and ideas can be posted
to http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/52592
Localized Versions: If you have a localized version of Falcon 4.0 (German,
French, etc) you may attempt to install these files, but you must install
1.08us as part of your upgrade. This
may affect Falcon 4.0 adversely – if you choose to install 1.08us and the
Realism Patch, you must do this at your own risk. Hasbro and Microprose cannot support localized versions of Falcon
4.0 if they are modified in this way.
Executive Producer’s Notes –
Realism Patch Version 3.0
The Realism Patch team keeps
plugging away – thank you for all of your support! We continue to make progress in many areas, yet there is still
much work to be done. RP3 is the third
release of the Realism Patch series, and while it may not contain the plethora
of changes the previous two releases had, we are offering this version with a
quicker turn-around than before. Our
intent from here on out is to release the RPs when we have a good set of
changes to offer, and not hold onto it too long. For us this makes the process a bit more manageable, and gets the
fixes in the hands of the F4 community sooner.
Here are some of the highlights:
o
The AAA has been readjusted. The blast radius values are still based on
realistic numbers, and include references to warhead size, warhead type (flak
vs. contact), cyclic rate of fire, and guidance. The new values diminish the power of the large-caliber flak guns,
while still keeping the deadly nature of the smaller caliber tracer-type
guns. Although the new blast values
should make it easier to penetrate enemy airspace, there is still no substitute
for good planning and combat tactics.
Do not even go near the AAA guns if they are still active! You are just asking for it! Read the “AAA Briefing” document in the
“iBeta RP Docs” directory after install for additional intel on how to defeat
the AAA threat.
o
The ground and air-based radars
have been improved to allow for more realistic detection performance. More can be read below.
o
The “roles” of various aircraft
have been adjusted to allow the aircraft to be tasked with more correct
missions types. No longer will the A-10
be tasked to fly OCA missions against airbases!
o
The sizes of the ground and air
units has been adjusted to account for the difference in OPFOR vs. US/ROK
size/strength. More can be read below.
o
Separated out all of the flight
model data for the aircraft – this was done to facilitate future modifications
for each individual aircraft.
o
Developed a new keyboard command
file (ibeta_keystrokes.key) that contains the ability to assign keystrokes to
the AUX COMMs commands and to the new CAT I/III switch.
o
Improved the A-10’s hardpoints,
maximum takeoff weight, and fuel loads.
A-10 flight model improvements forthcoming in a future RP version. See below for more details.
o
Improved “abort/cowardice”
behavior in AI in the statistical (2D) war (user selectable – not selected by
default)
o
Fixed the vehicle graphics for the
2S19 and SA-9.
o
Tested and included many 3rd
party EXE hex patches such as the GLOC patch, “Fly and Plane”, BARCAP,
interactive airbase relo, CAT I/III switching, and recon window fix.
o
Many other “minor” fixes that will
improve the overall gameplay and enjoyment.
While
we realize the RP2.x may have been a hit to your FPS (due to the many
additional functions that were enabled), we feel that RP 3.0 should not be an
additional burden. The reason being
that we have not added any new functionality (over that of RP2.x) that would
affect framerates. Quite the contrary,
we have made some modifications that may actually improve the framerates – most
notably the ground/air unit resizing.
With fewer objects to coordinate and control, the CPU should have an
easier time keeping up with the demands of the game engine.
Current
“fix list” for future RP versions: individualized flight models for the F-16
and other aircraft, realistic adjustments to loadout carriage of other
aircraft, improved skins, more EXE improvements, realistic hit bubble
modifications, and much more!
Executive Producer’s Notes –
Realism Patch Version 2.1
With the recent release of RP2, we discovered several issues that required a responsive set of fixes. RP2.1 addresses the problems with the D-30 “super gun” and the inability of the Patriots to fire. We also added the capacity for helos to attack ground targets using air-to-ground missiles (ATGMs). RP2.1 (like RP2a) also fixes the problem of copying a duplicate set of files to the Windows/System directory.
We also were able to speak with a former USAF targeter with PACAF at Osan, and as a result, we adjusted the balance of AAA along the FLOT and in mobile AAA battalions. You will now find smaller caliber (57mm and below) around the DMZ because of the mobility required in the forward-deployed units, but you will see the larger caliber AAA (85mm and 100mm) encircling Pyongyang and other fixed strategic targets. Unfortunately, we do not yet have control over the placement of objects in the F4 world, so for the moment all we could do was to adjust the objects within the battalions.
Both the AAA battalion (which contain the KS-12, S-60, M-1939, and KS-19) and the Towed AAA battalion (which contain the S-60, M-1939, ZPU-2) are available for placement in TE missions. The HART battalion, which is not available for placement in TE, now contains only the S-60 and the SA-7 as air defense protection.
We have also discovered how to turn on radar guidance for some of the AAA guns. The FireCan radar now controls the KS-19, KS-12, and S-60. While our tests have not shown that adding a radar to the AAA increases their accuracy, you will see them on your RWR with the “A” symbol. You can also target and destroy these guns with HARMs if you wish.
The addition of large amounts of AAA was no doubt a surprise to many F4 pilots who have become complacent with the lack of a Triple-A threat. North Korea has over 5000 pieces of flak-type AAA, and although much of it is older technology, many of these pieces have fire control radars attached and are be a credible threat. Even though the large numbers of AAA guns can be a danger, you should be able to avoid much of it by proper mission planning. Make sure to fly around, over, or under known AAA sites (HART sites around the DMZ, cities, airbases, etc.). Be especially careful around large cities and other strategic targets, as this is where much of the large caliber AAA resides. You may have to run several anti-AAA sorties before attacking the targets they are protecting. A rapid change in altitude once AAA is encountered also seems to defeat their ability to track and hit you.
The iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Project is an on-going effort, and as new fixes are identified, we will do our best to test them and get them out to you as soon as possible. Falcon 4.0 is a large, complex simulation, and as such, our work will be on going for some time. Thank you for all of your support - Snacko
Executive Producer’s Notes –
Realism Patch Version 2.0
The recent release of the Falcon 4.0 source code was cause for concern here at iBeta. We were not quite sure how Hasbro Interactive would view hex editing and the Realism Patch project in light of the source code release. We have now had the opportunity to clarify these issues with Hasbro, and they send not only their approval to continue the iBeta Realism Patch Project, but they fully support users developing their own hex edits that result in an increased enjoyment for their product. Given our confirmation and clarification concerning this hex-editing project, we offer these modifications to the Falcon 4.0 community with “Hasbro Interactive’s blessing”.
-----------
Please be aware, with the bubble
changes and other EXE modifications there is likelihood that your in game
frames-per-second (FPS) rate will be affected. If you choose to adopt the iBeta F4 RP2 EXE,
you will have the ability to NOT install the “airbase relocation fix” (a big
frame rate hog), and adjust the in-game bubble, but everyone must understand,
the more we turn on, the more it affects the CPU and frames per second.
iBeta is quite concerned about FPS issues, and we do not
wish to burden current F4 pilots by turning on so much activity that only
owners of 1Ghz CPU processors would appreciate it. Our process will continue to search for the best balance of new
functionality vs. system requirements.
Remember, if you choose to install the RP will all options
AND keep your F4 graphics settings at maximum, you WILL experience degradation
in frame rates, which may also lead to crashes to desktop. iBeta recommends
that you try the settings at maximum, and once you have experienced the loss of
in-game frame rates, turn down your graphics settings.
If you are using the Bubble
Slider EXE fix, the recommended in-game bubble slider setting is “3”. We have adjusted all bubble values to
reflect the best balance of AI and FPS when “3” is used.
There has been a wealth of fixes since RP1. RP2 contains all of the fixes in RP1, plus
the following:
o
All A2A missile kinematics have been adjusted based on
realistic performance characteristics (Additional README Information Included)
- A2A engagement envelopes have been updated for realistic behavior
o
Most SAM missile kinematics have been adjusted based on
realistic performance characteristics (Additional README Information Included)
- SAM engagement envelopes have been updated for realistic behavior
o
Most SAMs and A2A missiles now launch at their maximum
effective range; radar “pings” to the RWR also occur at ranges commensurate
with their radar distances
o
The SA-5 was correctly given a terminal homing active radar
seeker head (a la AIM-120 and AA-12).
Watch for the “M” to appear in the RWR
o
New weapons for the ROK: KSAM (Chun-ma missile) and KFIV-AD
(Tracked Vulcan) are now included
o
HN-5a MANPAD is now given in quantity to the “elite” forces
of the DPRK. Russian forces now have
access to the SA-14, as do some NK forces
o
Weapon blast and damage values have been improve to allow for
a more realistic missile/bomb results
o
Ground unit order of battle (OOB) has been improved to
simulate realistic grouping of weapons and equipment
o
You can now fly any plane in TE (Additional README
Information Included)
o
The USAF F-16C now has realistic loadout and carry limits;
some weapons were removed while some were added (don’t worry – we’ve
compromised for those who wish to still use the Mk-77 and LGBs even though
these are not realistic on the block 50/52) (Additional README Information
Included)
o
The CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon has been added - this is THE
tank buster cluster munitions to carry (Additional README Information Included)
o
We added the KS-19 100mm AAA gun to the HART battalion in
Campaign (watch out when flying over the DMZ!). AAA bursts up to 40,000 ft!
Also added the KS-12 85mm AAA (bursts may reach up to 26,000 ft), the
S-60 (57mm AAA – bursts up to 16,000 ft), and the M-1939 (37mm AAA – bursts up
to 8500ft) to AAA battalions that are available in TE. Created an e M-1992 tracked 37mm AAA gun for
the DPRK as well as a ZPU-2 14.5mm AAA gun.
o
Flight model limiters have been installed into AI aircraft
to give them more realistic performance limits (the flight models of the AI
aircraft are not individualized, but rather prevent them from behaving
unrealistically).
o
Nike Hercules, Patriot, and Hawk have now all been enabled
with RWR symbology too
o
Ground-based search radars and AWACs are now enabled and
emitting
o
Unit deaggregation distance improvements according the new
bubble discoveries; this improves aircraft/SAM AI among other things
o
We removed the AIM-120s from the F-14A as this is no longer
a legal loadout
o
F/A-18A has been renamed to F/A-18C
o
An actual AIM-9m Sidewinder “growl” sound has been added –
really cool!
o
The C-130 and other prop planes now have a prop sound when
viewed externally
o
Renamed SAM launchers and SAM missiles so it will be easy to
distinguish what is what in ACMI and when using labels
o
Corrected all the Bradley variants: M2A2, M3A3, and M2A2 BCV
(Bradley Command Vehicle): Now they have the proper loadouts. Created the M2A2 BSFV (Bradley Stinger
Fighting Vehicle and M6 BL (Bradley Linebacker): both are mobile Stinger
platforms.
o
Created the BTR-60: a common DPRK troop transport
o
Runways now have a repair time that is more realistic – 6-10
hours for an entire runway
o
For many of the above items, we have created an in-depth
README section that explains what this means and how it will affect you
Executive Producer’s Notes –
Realism Patch Version 1.0
The initial release of the iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch
can best be characterized by calling it a set of base changes that we will use
as a jumping off point for further revisions.
Many of the modifications employed by this patch address inaccuracies,
omissions, and problems with the underlying data. In addition, we have also brought some logical sense to the
amour, blast, and damage values – now they are more consistent and (we hope)
more accurate. We have also improved
the ground unit organization to bring it into a more realistic context.
Things to Watch For:
There is much more to do.
Version 1.0 does not address missile performance (A2A, A2G, and SAMs),
nor does it modify aircraft performance envelopes. We have also identified ways of allowing more escort flight for
the strike missions in campaign, improve AI engagement ranges of enemy
aircraft, and correct the “legal” loadouts on all the aircraft. Stay tuned, it will be an enjoyable ride -
Snacko
History of
Revisions and README Files
Realism
Patch Design Philosophy
Background and Philosophy of Ground
Unit Changes
How to Fly Other Aircraft in Falcon
4.0
Effects of Napalm and the Reduction
of its Damage Value
Addition of the CBU-97 Sensor Fused
Weapon
The Air-to-Air Environment -
Missiles
Problems with Missing Missiles
The Surface-to-Air Environment
Technical Notes and FAQs For Missile
Modeling in Falcon 4
As they were getting
too big, we have allowed the HISTORY.TXT and README.TXT files to become
separate documents.
HISTORY.TXT – a
detailed description of the changes we have included in the iBeta F4 Realism
Patch.
FileChanges.TXT –
contains a list of the files that have changes as part of the iBeta F4 Realism
Patch as well as the patch installation and de-installation procedures.
README.TXT – contains
a list of the important documents contained in the Realism Patch.
Thanks go out to Joel
Bierling for his nifty F4Patch program.
With the release of RP2.1, we have moved away from the Code Fusion
patcher, and we now allow the user to select their own patches. Thanks Joel for making this easier on all of
us!
Sylvain Gagnon and
Leif "Poogen" Ljung also get a medal this round for their
modifications to the Falcon 4.0 EXE.
The addition of many new EXE modifications have definitively opened up
F4 like is has never been opened before.
Thanks must go out to
Julian Onions for his F4Browse utility, without which many of our changes would
not have been possible. Also, much
thanks to MadMax, Bengs, Duck Holiday, Paradox, Nemesis, Shawn Agne, Metal,
RAD, Alex, and others not mentioned specifically here for their contributions
to the F4 hex editing community. Your
original discoveries have contributed significantly to this effort.
Many thanks need to
be offered to the entire Falcon 4.0 iBeta Public Sector team. Kudos are deserved for their long hours and
attention to detail.
This patch would not
be possible if it were not for the exemplary efforts of Leonardo Rogic and Jeff
Babineau. Both Leo and Jeff bore the
brunt of labor on this version, as much work had to be done just to correct the
underlying Falcon 4.0 data files to get them in shape for subsequent
changes. Thanks to Leo and Jeff for
their efforts!
iBeta Team – Falcon
4.0 Realism Patch
President and CEO:
Glenn "Sleepdoc" Kletzky
Executive Producer:
Eric "Snacko" Marlow
Associate Producer:
Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic
AI Coordinator: Paul
Stewart
Aircraft Loadout
Coordinator: Lloyd “Hunter” Case and Robert "Trakdah" Borjesson
Blast and Damage
Coordinators: Jeff "Rhino" Babineau and Eric “Snacko” Marlow
Bubble Mafia
Coordinator: Kurt “Froglips” Giesselman
Campaign/AI
Coordinator: Gary “Ranger” Perry
Command/Menus/UI
Coordinator: Kurt “Froglips” Giesselman and
Thomas McCauley
F-16 Flight Model
Coordinator: Tomas “RIK” Eisloe and "Hoola"
Formation
Coordinator: Rodrigo "Motor" Lourenco
Ground Unit
Coordinator: Jeff "Rhino" Babineau and Eric “Snacko” Marlow
Missile Coordinator:
"Hoola", Paul Stewart, and John Simon
Radar/ECM
Coordinator: Eric “Snacko” Marlow and Tomas “RIK” Eisloe
Hex Meisters:
Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic and Jeff "Rhino" Babineau
Documentation: Eric
"Snacko" Marlow, Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic, and Jeff
"Rhino" Babineau
iBeta has tested a
series of additional Falcon 4.0 add-ons that we feel contribute to the added
immersion of the Realism Patch. Listed
below are additional patches that we recommend:
Paul Wilson’s
1024x768 F-16C Block 50/52 cockpit - http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com:6010/msngamingzone/crazyammo/
Skypat’s and BenHur’s
F-16C Block 50/52 cockpit – http://spower.free.fr/falcon4/addons/cockpits/ckptBS/cockpitBS.htm
Byoung-Hoon Moon’s
Korea Skyfix – can be found at the iBeta website
If you have a 3rd
party add-on for F4 and you would like iBeta to test it for possibly inclusion
in our “recommended” list, please let us know.
To be corrected in
later versions:
o
The Nike SAM missile
does now appear on the RWR, but it shows up as a “U” and not “N”. (there is a
fix for this that will be implemented in RP3)
o
Once you have
created/saved missions in TE using the Realism Patch, your TE missions may be
incorrectly rendered if you use the 1.08us Default Zip file set. We have found a workaround – if you must go
back to 1.08us after installing the iBeta Realism Patch, you must de-install
your Falcon 4.0 game completely and reinstall from the CD, re-apply the 1.08us
patch, and re-apply the “i2” EXE.
o
An issue exists if
you bomb vehicle (aircraft, SAMS, mech, amour) targets on an airbase with
cluster bombs – no kills will result.
This is a bug going back prior to the RP releases, but we just wanted to
mention it. Until we correct this, take
GBUs or Mk bombs for vehicle targets at airbases.
o
We do not recommend
using the –Gx command on your EXE command line. This may increase
significantly the number of objects in the F4 world and radically increase
CPU loading. You will see very significant decreases in frame rates near
high activity areas (FLOT) in a campaign. When the CPU is loaded down so
significantly that the frame rate drops below about 10, you will see missiles
stop fusing and pass-through targets. This is because the CPU polls them
every xxx (?) milliseconds and slows down it's polling when overloaded.
The missile is not polled frequently enough to calculate the collision when
they are within lethal range. Not "realizing" it's within
lethal warhead range, it flies by without detonating. This is virtually
non-existent above 10 fps so adjust your bubble and graphics accordingly.
o
During our
modifications, we have noticed that MPS elected to place certain UNITs in the
different campaigns that do not belong (i.e. Chinese battalions like the SA-6
are deployed in several campaigns BEFORE the Chinese actually enter the war –
they incorrectly identified as NK units).
We feel that MPS elected to do this to enhanced gameplay and variety. Unfortunately, until we better understand
how to modify campaign deployments and order of battle we cannot remove these
units from the campaign.
o
The MiG-29 will now choose to carry
AA-2R's for radar guided missiles in the Dogfight module. Those wishing to
practice BVR in dogfight should choose the Su-27 that now carries the AA-12.
“Hex Editing” started
as a grass roots effort – players interested in modifying the files of Falcon
4.0 to get more enjoyment from their gameplay experience. Luckily, the designers of Falcon 4.0 created
a scheme that allowed much of the inner workings to be accessed by modifying
the text and binary files that came with the game. Now, thanks to the innovative and creative discoveries made by
those who explored the depths of Falcon 4.0, we now have the ability to bring
additional immersion to the Falcon 4.0 world.
In most cases, F4 Hex
Editing started out as a way to have some fun with the weapons by making them
bigger and more plentiful than what Falcon allows. However it has become increasingly difficult to sort through the
various modifications and collect the ones you would like to include.
For many players,
“realism” is what it is all about.
Having a set of files that increased the realism, while maintaining the
gameplay, would have benefits beyond the scope of what Falcon 4.0 initially
delivered. This “realism patch” is the
outcome of this philosophy.
During our
modifications, we discovered many inaccuracies, oversights, and just plan wrong
information in the files. Our realism
patch attempts to correct many of these issues. We also wanted to increase the realism by adding objects, weapons
and capabilities that would exist in the real world.
We had several guiding principle
in developing this patch. They are
listed as follows:
o
The changes
should not add any additional instability to Falcon 4.0
o
The changes
must reflect “real world values” - real world values must be supported by
actual military or civilian documentation
o
The changes
will not adversely affect gameplay
The “real world” in
Falcon 4.0 terms is a hypothetical battlefield in the current or near future
timeframe, which involves US, ROK, DPRK, Chinese, and Russian forces. All modifications to the objects and
capabilities of Falcon 4.0 will be made with these force capabilities in mind. Although the F-16 has additional
capabilities beyond what the USAF employs, we tended to keep to strict USAF
specifications, as well as the specifications for the other forces.
One of our most
sacred guiding principles is to support our changes with recognized military
and civilian sources. While at times
difficult to come by, we feel that we need to recognize the need to support our
changes. Otherwise, we will enter into
lengthy debates about the capabilities and performance characteristics of the items
we are attempting to modify. Having a
source that we can point to alleviates us from those differing points of view.
As hex editing only
allows (for the most part) the changing of tabular values, we cannot affect to
a great extreme the logic or artificial intelligence that is built into the
source code. Hex editing only can take
you so far. However, given the
structure of the Falcon 4.0 tables and the wealth of information included in
them, much can be addressed.
Our interest is to
refine this patch over time. As there
are many items that can be “tweaked”, we plan on a series of releases that
incorporate additional modifications as they are identified.
FALCON4 ACD -
AI Control (?) Data
FALCON4 CT - Falcon 4 control file?
FALCON4 FCD -
Feature Control (?) data
FALCON4 FED -
Feature Entity (?) Data
FALCON4 ICD - IRST Control (?) Data
FALCON4 INI - as is
FALCON4 OCD -
Objective Control (?) Data
FALCON4 PD - Point Data
FALCON4 PHD -
Point Header data (?)
FALCON4 RCD -
Radar Control (?) Data
FALCON4 RWD -
Radar Warning (?) Data
FALCON4 SSD -
Squadron (?) Stores Data
FALCON4 SWD -
Sim Weapon Data
FALCON4 UCD -
Unit Control (?) Data
FALCON4 VCD -
Vehicle Control (?) Data
FALCON4 VSD -
Visual Data (?)
FALCON4 WCD -
Weapon Control (?) Data
FALCON4 WLD -
Weapon List Data
KOREAOBJ HDR - ?
KOREAOBJ LOD - Object's Level Of Detail database (?)
KOREAOBJ TEX - Object's Textures
simdata.zip - zip file of data for flight models, weapon sensors, etc.
There have been
comments about the iBeta F4 Realism Patch that users wish that we would update
the F4 Tactical Reference to go along with everything we are changing as part
of this project. It may be possible to
edit the entries in the Tactical Reference guide. This project is being pursued.
For those of you
interested in knowing more about many of changes we are including, you should
visit www.fas.org (Federation of American
Scientists). This website, while having
some inaccuracies, is for the most part the best single-source of military
information available to everyone.
Air Forces of the
World - Christopher Chant
Federation of
American Scientists – http://www.fas.org
FM 100-2-3 The Soviet
Army, Troops, Organization and Equipment. US Army CGSC 101-1
FM101-10-1/1 Staff
Officers Field Manual Organizational, Technical and Logistical Data
Jane's – Air Launched
Weapons
Jane's – All the
World’s Aircraft
Jane's - Armor and
Artillery – Edited by Christopher Foss
Jane's – Land Based
Air Defence
MCIA-2630- NK-016-97
North Korea Country Handbook
OKB- MIG- Jay Miller,
Piotr Butowski
OKB- Sukhoi- Jay
Miller with Vladmir Yakonov, Vladmir Antonov, 6 others
Organizational and
Tactical Reference data for the Army in the field- US- Army
ST 100-3 Battle Book
ST 100-7 OPFOR Battle
Book
Weapons and Tactics
of Soviet Army third edition- David C. Isby
The Incomplete and
Unapproved Quick Guide to Bubbles
by Kurt ‘Froglips’ Giesselman
As of today, all owners of Falcon 4.0 are required to go to your nearest
novelty store (No, not those kinds of novelties! Get your mind out of the
gutter. A kid's novelty store.) to purchase a bottle of soap bubble liquid and
a large soap bubble wand for blowing soap bubbles. Go home, sit in front of
your computer, start Falcon, enter the simulation, then open the soap bubble
liquid and use your bubble wand to blow several dozen bubbles. Now sit back and
look. This is what Falcon’s AI is seeing. A world of bubbles moving, breaking
apart into smaller bubbles, popping, touching each other, and touching you.
In Falcon, like your soap bubble experience, we can divide the world into two
groups. There are bubbles that you are in contact with or have even passed
inside, and there are bubbles that you have not contacted. All bubbles, in the
Falcon world, have a Cluster at the
exact center of the bubble. Some bubbles are in the air and are spherical, some
bubbles are on the ground and appear as hemispheres. In Falcon, the soap
bubbles never pop when they contact each other. So we can be in contact with
and even inside dozen and dozens of bubbles at once.
The Clusters in Falcon, mentioned above, are two types that can exist in two
conditions. They are Units or Objectives.
Units are Clusters that have actions associated with them. This does not
always mean they move, although, it often does. Aircraft, Ground Units, Naval
Craft, and SAMs are all Units. Objectives are stationary and do not have an
action associated with them that they could perform. Examples of Objectives are
Bridges, Factories, Towns, Air Bases, and SAM Sites (note these are not SAMs
but the location of the fixed SAM emplacements).
The characteristics
of these two types of Clusters aside, Falcon does not treat them any different
in its managing of their bubble world. Falcon will treat them as Clusters if
you are not in contact with their bubble, or Falcon will DEAGGREGATE them as Entities whenever you contact their bubble and
for as long as you remain in contact or within their bubble's sphere.
In Falcon, because
the default state of an object is AGGREGATED,
a Cluster is not drawn in the Falcon world.
Falcon assigns a placeholder to the location of that Cluster but does
not draw or manipulate the Cluster's component parts. By parts, we mean the
Cluster could be composed of four aircraft in a flight, the forty-eight members
of a ground unit, or even the dozens of parts of a factory complex (like Office
Buildings and Cooling Towers).
Falcon calculates all
battles and damage for Clusters statistically.
This means that there is no use of position for the calculation of
damage to the components. Falcon calculates
that a bomb from an AGGREGATED B-52 flight strikes an AGGREGATED airbase.
Falcon calculates that the bomb has an 'X' chance of hitting the runway. If the
'roll of the dice' is favorable, then Falcon reports that the B-52 hit the
runway and statistically calculates damage. The reason this is done is to
reduce the load on the computer's CPU.
If Falcon had to calculate the position of every bomb hit, every missile
strike, and every bullet or shell in the simulation to determine where it hit
the target, there would not be a powerful enough computer on the planet to run
the full Falcon campaign. However, that is exactly what Falcon does for all
Entities in its DEAGGREGATED world.
The amazing thing in
Falcon is that each Cluster type, from AT-3 to ZU-23 and Airbase to Underground
Factory, has a unique ACDD (Aggregated Cluster Deaggregation Distance) value
found in it the FALCON4.CT file. A
distance from zero to the length of Korea can be assigned to each Cluster type.
When we assign a distance for DEAGGREGATION we are saying one of two things is
true. The Cluster is close enough either for visual identification or radar
identification, or that the Cluster needs to be DEAGGREGATED to function
properly. We would not want to see airbases pop into existence five miles in
front of us nor see a single blip on our radar that we were targeting suddenly
become a four ship at 10 miles. Similarly, we want SAM to 'light-up', search
for us, and then fire with a measurable time period between each action.
Setting the ACDD
distances requires understanding what the player pilot needs to a) maintain his
immersion within the simulation b) what the different Clusters in Falcon need
to function in a realistic manner. The trade off is CPU load. As stated before,
we could just make every Cluster DEAGGREGATED in Korea and save a lot of people
a ton of work. No one's computer could run the program. Every time a Cluster's
ACDD is increased (their bubble increases in size) we know that, on average,
the CPU load will increase and (sob) our frame rates will go down. Fortunately, the enormous flexibility of
Falcon's design allows us to turn up UDD or ODD value for Clusters where it is
necessary for them to work properly (SAMs) and turn down UDD or ODD for
Clusters where a high number adds no realism, no immersion, or value
(airbases).
ACDD - The Aggregated Cluster Deaggregation Distance is the
distance in feet from the Player Position (PP) or Composite Multiplayer
Position (CMP) that an AGGREGATED Cluster will DEAGGREGATE into its component
Vehicles (a Unit’s components) or Features (an Objective’s components). The ACDD variables for Units are named UDDs
and for Objectives are named ODDs and can be examined and changed in their CT
file using F4Browse.
Bubble - An imaginary volume, which surrounds every Cluster or Entity in
Falcon 4.0. Its diameter is determined by its ACDD and is set by their UDD and
ODD found in the CT file. For ground
units at least – and maybe all entities – the shape of the bubble is a cylinder
with radius equal to the UDD and height at least 60000 ft and maybe a lot more.
Bubble Combat Types - This section is a work in progress. Better insights, descriptions, and testing
are welcome. Much more investigative
work needs to be done with the different types of combat. There air two overall type of combat, Air to
Air (missiles, SAMs or guns attacking aircraft) and Air to Ground (weapon
attacks on Units {AGGREGATED} or Entities {DEAGGREGATED}). The type of weapon being used and the type
of target being attacked are the most significant effect on all combat
engagements.
Attack Category #1 - AGGREGATED vs. AGGREGATED
This attack is conducted between (AGGREGATED) Clusters. Falcon tracks the composition of any Unit or
Objective Cluster when it is AGGREGATED.
If combat occurs, Falcon 'rolls the dice' and calculates, based on some
yet unknown percentages, how many bombs hit the target. The calculations for damage are not
positional (i.e. Falcon does not use individual Entity positions) but damage is
‘awarded’ against a Cluster as a whole then distributed between the components
of the Unit or Objective. Falcon picks
which components, of the Unit or Objective, are hit. Finally, after Falcon determines how much damage is done and
whether each Unit or Objective is damaged or destroyed, Falcon ‘awards’ the
kill to an attacker. The attacker
awarded the hit is not necessarily the actual attacker that fired the weapon
but one that was in the AGGREGATED Unit.
If it seems like the sequence of events is peculiar then you understand
it as well as anyone.
Attack Category #2 - DEAGGREGATED vs. DEAGGREGATED
This attack is conducted in the DEAGGREGATED world. All calculations are
performed based on the positional data of Entities, Vehicles or Features, vs.
the impact point and blast radius of the weapon being employed. Falcon must check every DEAGGREGATED entity
in the game and compare its position to the weapon impact point with
appropriate blast radius. If the Entity is within the blast radius then
additional calculations are performed for damage and for the possibility of
destruction. Changes in graphics, AI response, and position are possible.
Attack Category #3 - DEAGGREGATED vs. AGGREGATED
Falcon uses Active
Targeting weapons (LGBs and Mavericks), much like the player. Active Targeting (AT) weapons are locked
onto a target. Passive targeting
weapons (dumb bombs, rockets, cluster munitions) are dropped at a particular
ground location. They are not targeted. The success or failure of Cat3 attacks is
totally controlled by the type of weapon utilized. Active Targeting weapons sometimes hit, with varying success, and
passive targeting weapons always miss.
This is easy to understand if we remember that Falcon never uses
positional data to for AGGREGATED targets.
A dumb bomb may impact the ground 10 feet or ten miles from a tank
column. If the column is AGGREGATED, it
is all the same to Falcon.
Subtype A – AT Weapon
vs. Objective
Example is an AI
aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of
60,000 when the PP or CMP is 90,000 feet away from the armor column. The
aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is
AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are firing
AGM-65s. Falcon will award hits and sometimes divide them arbitrarily between
the aircraft.
Subtype B – Passive (dumb) Weapon vs. Objective
Example is an AI
aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking a bridge with an UDD of 50,000
when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the bridge. The aircraft are
DEAGGREGATED. The bridge is AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are dropping Mk.84s. There is no
positional data for the bridge’s Features.
Falcon awards no hits against the bridge.
Subtype C – AT Weapon
vs. Unit
Example is an AI
aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of
60,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the armor column. The
aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is
AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are firing
Mavericks. Falcon will award kills to the aircraft and sometimes divide them
arbitrarily between the aircraft.
Subtype D – Passive
(dumb) Weapon vs. Unit
Example is an AI
aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of
60,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the armor column. The
aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is
AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are dropping
Mk.84s. Falcon will not award hits
against the Unit.
Attack Category #4 - AGGREGATED vs. DEAGGREGATED
Example is an aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 attacking a SAM with an UDD of
300,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s AEDD is 250,000 feet from the SAM. The SAM is
DEAGGREGATED. The aircraft are
AGGREGATED. Falcon determines, because the aircraft are AGGREGATED, that it
will use Attack Type #2. This is what Dave ‘DewDog’ Wagner reported. It is a
new type of attack that exists when a SAM UDD is larger than an aircraft UDD.
More research required.
Units such as
aircraft and ground forces have no attack AI.
The weapon being employed determines when an aircraft will engage. A Unit’s AI controls its movement, defensive
actions, and mission actions.
BubbleRebuildTime - Variable in the Falcon.AII file (found in the
MicroProse\Falcon4\campaign\saved folder) which determines how often (in
seconds) Falcon checks the UDDs and ODDs for Clusters within 300,000 feet of
the player. Default is one (1).
Bubble Slider - This is a multiplier for the UDD and ODD values. The
multiplier for the standard settings is listed below. Higher settings are
accessible with the –g# command line switch may be calculated by following the
pattern (+1 on the slider = +0.25 to the factor).
Setting Factor
1 0.50
2 0.75
3 1.00
4 1.25
5 1.50
6 1.75
7 2.00
Cluster - Clusters are Units or Objectives that remain AGGREGATED as
long as their ACDD (to the PP or CMP) is greater than a Units’ or Objectives’
UDD or ODD as set by their CT value.
Falcon tracks them statistically, as a single item. The Cluster’s component pieces, such as
individual Vehicles or a structure’s Features, are not tracked positionally by
Falcon for damage. Falcon calculates
damage to Clusters statistically.
Falcon displays a Cluster’s approximate location, when using long
labels. A Cluster’s location may shift
dramatically when it is DEAGGREGATED into Entities and visible with near
labels.
Cursor Bubble - A player controlled, mobile, ground DEAGGREGATION bubble,
one nautical mile in diameter. The
center of the Cursor Bubble is moved by the player’s SOI cursors. Anything within a one NM radius of the SOI
cursor’s position and on the ground is DEAGGREGATED.
Cluster - Any object in Falcon that has an UDD or ODD is a Cluster. It will be DEAGGREGATED or change its
displayed graphics when the player’s ACDD is less than its UDD or ODD.
Composite Multiplayer
Position (CMP) - The bubble
contacts of all players are shared as long as their aircraft’s ACDD is less
than the distance to another player’s aircraft. Therefore, Falcon calculates ACDDs for each player but displays
DEAGGREGATED Entities for every player within the ACDD of another player using
the CMP.
Deaggregated Entity - Vehicles (airborne, ground, or naval) or
Objectives (man-made structures), which are fully drawn (rendered). Tank squads
have individual vehicles drawn (the number of Vehicles displayed is controlled
by the Object Density slider on the Falcon/Setup/Graphics page). Aircraft
flights have all aircraft displayed individually visually or on radar. Objectives are displayed with all Features
in place. Vehicles and Objectives may
not be displayed at their maximum graphical detail. Level of detail is controlled by a yet unexplored FPRD (Feature
Polygon Rendering Distance).
Feature - A structure that is part of an Objective and may be
individually damaged. Features may not be selected individually as targets
using Recon when viewing the Falcon map screen.
Objective - Clusters that have no 'actions' associated with them.
Objectives are predefined Clusters of Features (as Units are predefined
Clusters of Vehicles). The key
difference between Objectives and Units is the component parts of a Unit (Vehicles)
require an independent AI BRAIN when they DEAGREGATE. The component parts of Objectives (Features such as taxi signs
and hangers) do NOT require AI brains when they DEAGGREGATE. They may be
targeted using Recon and selected when on the Falcon map or mission builder
screen.
ODD - The Objective Deaggregation Distance is the distance from the
player at which an Objective is DEAGGREGATED. Objectives include such Clusters
as Airbases and Bridges and the value is found in the CT file with
F4Browse. Their component parts (like
taxi signs and bridge ramps) are known as Features.
SimBubbleSize - Variable in the Falcon.AII file (found in the
MicroProse\Falcon4\campaign\saved folder), which determines the maximum
distance that Clusters will be displayed on radar or are detectable by other
sensors and display their names when long labels are selected out to three
times the UDD for the entity. Default setting is 300,000 feet (integer numbers
only).
Statistical - see Cluster
UDD - The Unit Deaggregation Distance refers to the value of the ‘Bubble
Distance’ variable of a Unit found in the CT file using F4Browse. This value, in feet, represents the distance
from the PP (or CMP) at which an AGGREGATE Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its
component parts. Interestingly
DEAGGREGATION does NOT appear to mean
that it is physically drawn as polygons.
It simply means, at the point where the player’s ACDD is less than the
Unit’s UDD, the AGGREGATE Unit is now DEAGGREGATED into its individual
components such as tanks and trucks.
Each of these tanks and trucks, once DEAGGREGATED, receive their own
INDIVIDUAL AI brain and start behaving as individual Entities. They are no
longer behaving as an AGGREGATE Unit, being controlled by a single, AGGREGATE
AI BRAIN. However, their polygons are NOT YET rendered at the UDD. Each vehicle in the Unit is actually first
polygon-rendered when the VPRD (Vehicle Polygon Rendering Distance) for that
Vehicle is reached.
Unit - These are predefined Clusters of Vehicles. A single, AGGREGATE AI BRAIN controls a
Unit, which we call a Cluster, in Falcon.
This AGGREGATE AI BRAIN can detect your aircraft and will fire at
you. For example, an AGGREGATE SA5 Unit
will fire a DEAGGREGATED SA5 missile at you.
The missile becomes DEAGGREGATE at the moment it is fired, the Unit
remains AGGREGATE until your AEDD is less than the Unit’s UDD. When a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its
component Vehicles, each Vehicle acquires its own, individual AI BRAIN. We currently believe that the combat
behavior of a Unit, as controlled by its AGGREGATE AI BRAIN, is distinctly
different from the behavior of a DEAGGREGATED Vehicle. INDIVIDUAL AI BRAINS individually control
all the DEAGGREGATED Vehicles. The
difference in the behavior of an AGGREGATE Unit and a DEAGGREGATE Vehicle is
still not clear, and may be very different for each Unit or Vehicle found in
the game.
Vehicle - These are the individual parts of Units. Examples include SA-5 Launchers and Kraz 255
support trucks. Vehicles only exist when a Unit is DEAGGREGATED. When a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component
Vehicles, each Vehicle is immediately tracked independently and positionally. A
Vehicle is assigned an INDIVIDUAL AI BRAIN.
At the moment a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component Vehicles, even
though the above characteristics are true, that Vehicle is NOT YET
polygon-rendered. That may happen
later, when the player is closer. So we
now make a distinction between DEAGGREGATION (which occurs first as we approach
a Unit) and POLYGON-RENDERING, which occurs to the individually DEAGGREGATED
vehicles as we approach to within visual distance.
VPRD - The Vehicle Polygon-Rendering Distance is the Bubble
Distance value found in the Vehicle’s CT record using F4Browse. Vehicles are the component parts of
Units. When a Unit has been
DEAGGREGATED into its component parts as a result of its UDD being less than
the ACDD of a player, its component parts are tracked individually but may NOT
be polygon-rendered. They are
essentially individual but INVISIBLE vehicles until their VPRD is reached. So it is appropriate to consider the VPRD as
the distance at which a DEAGGREGATED Vehicle, within a Unit, is actually
POLYGON RENDERED. The Vehicle of the
Unit starts thinking and acting as an individual vehicle at UDD, but is actually
polygon-rendered at its VPRD.
Squadron Stores:
Merely updated to
support new units in the squadron/battalion and new weapons on those aircraft
of vehicles.
Unit changes:
Significant work was
done here to duplicate battle formations as best as Falcon 4.0 would allow. No
unit fights pure. There is always mutual support from other units in the
battalion. In all cases this is mission directed. Engineer units are commonly assigned to attacking units to
support the breach of obstacles used for defenses and cross bridges. In the
defense, engineer units prepare the defense but are then held back as these are
mostly lightly armored vehicles if armored at all.
In the case of rocket
units (MLRS, BM24) and SAM units, we decided to split up the unit to reflect a
deployed battery instead of a deployed battalion. In no case that I can think
of is a SAM battalion all placed in one location. In the Falcon 4.0 world that
location could be 1 sq km. Now you can take a SAM battery and protect a city
and another battery to protect another city. If you look at Patriot deployment
to South Korea, you will see that we have one Patriot Battalion for the whole
county. Where would you place it? Now
we have the option to place a battery around Seoul, Pusan, Chuncheon, etc. In
all of these cases supporting vehicles have been assigned. SAM batteries are
commonly supported with man portable weapons i.e. SA7, stinger.
Blast and damage:
A formula was used to
take into account the weapons warhead size and type in proportion to all
similar types. The formula was used to
ensure correct relative values between similar types. Some items could perhaps
be more researched to say 6kg of C4 is more powerful than 6kg of TNT, but I did
not go that far....yet.... ;)
You will find damage
values that will look blatantly wrong at first glance. It is then that you need to understand that
all damage values have different effects based on their damage type. Air blast
is different than GP/ HE blast that is again different from incendiary and
armor penetration. Even penetration alone has very different determining values
that Falcon may not understand. Armor
penetration from tank to tank is very different than armor penetration of bomb
to ground. So ultimately we end up with data and values that need to be
translated into the falcon world.
In some cases, we are
talking pure art, feel, or gameplay. In others it is a cold and hard fact that
this tank gun WILL penetrate that tank.
Now in tank vs. tank damage, we need to look at the VAST differences in
armor types and penetrators. Shaped
charge weapons, i.e. AGB65B's, HEAT penetrate much differently than do 120mm
APFSDS kinetic rounds. On the other side is the effect that standard hardened
steel offers much less protection against HEAT rounds than does composite armor
like the M1A1 and reactive armor like the T80's normally carry. However, both
of those types of armor do not offer any significant effect to a standard
APFSDS round. In only one case in the world that I know of where a composite
armor offers both chemical and kinetic protection and that is the depleted
uranium (DU) armored M1A2.
Also, the armor on a
tanks frontal arc is vastly different than the armor on its roof, sides and
rear. Luckily Falcon accounts for this
by allowing damage to acquire on the target. A T-55 unit could pound a M1A1
unit all day in the frontal arc and never kill a tank. In Falcon it will end up
getting kills. I think this is a good
tradeoff to simulate the effects of maneuvering for side and rear aspect shots.
Now in the case of
air dropped munitions, we need to understand that although they may be
exclusively shaped charge weapons with relatively little penetration (3 to 7
inches) they are tasked with raining down on the most unarmored part of the tank.
I say tanks in most of this argument because they are on the far end of the
armor spectrum as most APC's and IFV's are so little armored that in most cases
troops ride on top of them to get out quickly WHEN they blow up because nearly
every weapon in the world can kill an APC.
Now with all this
being understood, you will find in some rare cases weapons do not fit into my
"formula" for all of these described reasons. And let us also
remember that in fact they do offer protection from small arms fire and most
artillery fragments. It only takes 1.5 inches of hardened steel to stop the
shrapnel of a 500lb bomb at 10 feet from impact. Most APC's have about 1 inch and in the case of almost all OPFOR
vehicles, 20mm and LESS. Yes, in fact it is true. A .50 caliber or 12.7mm AP
round will penetrate one of these vehicles at close range. Another reason why
ZSU 23-4's are nasty house to house weapons as well as AAA terrors.
Addendum: Different
weapons have different characteristics and F4 allows different TYPE warheads.
GP/HE is calculated based on shear MASS of weapon. AP or armor piercing is
calculated on ARMOR PENETRATION value. Bullets are also calculated differently.
Each target in F4 has "vulnerability areas' against each weapon type.
EXTREME EXAMPLE: A Durandal
has an ANTI-RUNWAY warhead in F4. If the target i.e. BTR-70 has a Vulnerability
of 0 against ANTI RUNWAY, the target would receive little if any effects at
all.
Some people might get
confused as to why a 2000lb bomb has less "blast" than a Maverick.
Answer: 2000lbs of C4 is different than 1000mm of High Explosive Anti-Tank. (a
shaped charge weapon).
FWIW, the Maverick G
is a "penetrator" much like the BLUs. It is a HE round encased in more steel to allow it to get deeper
into concrete bunkers and dig in emplacements, but it is not a "shaped
charge" explosive.
Blast areas for
shaped charges are much smaller due to the fact that the explosion is
manipulated to cause overpressures in the millions of pounds per square inch to
punch a 20-30mm hole through up to 4 feet of steel and NOT to disperse it's
energy over a wide area like an HE round. The shaped charge also needs enough
BAE (behind armor effects) to cause damage to equipment and crew. Punching a
hole is meaningless unless it ruin a crew's day.
It is also very
likely that MPS used its blast radius more for the F-16. There are minimum safe
altitudes to drop ordnance. These altitudes are based on less than a 1-10%
chance of doing any damage to your aircraft. Those tables are easily found. In
the Falcon world this also translated into weapons that equally distributed
their damage over that area and thus caused large weapons large damage values)
to take out formations of vehicles where in reality they would need a direct
hit to destroy the vehicle. This is a speculative assumption. I am guessing
that min safe altitude is less now.
Although one could
question whether-or-not having the ability to fly any aircraft in the F4 world
as being “realistic”, we thought that it would be a fun option to add. We are not really changing any of the
realism that is included in the F4 world; we are just adding the opportunity to
fly additional airframes.
Modifying F4 to allow
players to fly any of the aircraft in the F4 world involved placing wheels on
the previously non-flyable aircraft as well as giving them radars. While we understand why a plane would need
wheels, we are not sure why the MPS engineers required that flyable aircraft
must have radar installed. Possibly
this has to do with AI. What this
means is that certain aircraft have been given radars to allow players to fly
them, but they do not have a radar installed in real life. This is one accommodation to realism we
thought it necessary to accommodate.
You will notice when
flying other aircraft that you are limited by only having access to the F-16
cockpit. Externally the graphics are of
the plane you chose, but obviously since there are no detailed graphics of each
and every aircraft’s cockpit, we are currently stuck with the F-16’s
cockpit. You will note that you have
access to all the weapons you loaded up through the SMS pages of the F-16’s
MPD. For DPRK, Russian, and Chinese
aircraft, you will also notice that you have access to their specific weapons –
Archers, Atolls, etc. These weapons
have the same performance characteristics as when the enemy shoots them, which
may be quite different from their US counterparts.
The CBU-97 was added
to the inventory of the USAF.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm
The CBU-97 is a
standard weapon that is carried on the F-16, and it pretty mean - meaner than
the Mk-20, as the little sub-munitions in the CBU-97 are "smart" and
are guided. The CBU-97 has already seen action in Kosovo.
In addition, we are
making some changes to the F-16C loadout. We have created a master list
of all legal loadouts for the F-16C block 50/52, but some of them are
controversial. Addition/removal of certain weapons are easy to support
with documentation, but we may not want to start a battle over which items to
keep/remove. Below are the changes:
- ALL LGBs - not used
in block USAF 50/52 loadouts, but we aren't removing them
- AIM-7 Sparrow –
USAF does not use in block 50/52 with APG-68 - removed
- Addition of the
CBU-97 - cool weapon
- Ability to carry 1
Maverick on inner hardpoint (4/6) - realistic and will be changed
- Ability to carry
only 1 AGM-65G on HP 3/7 because of weight concerns – realistic and will be
changed
- Ability to carry 3
Mk-20s on HP 3/7 and 4/6 - realistic and will be changed
- Lau 3/a - ability
to carry 2 pods on HP 3/7 - realistic and will be changed
- CBU-52 - can now
carry 3 on HP 3/7 and 3 on HP 4/6 (deleted 1 bomb from HP 3/7) - realistic
- CBU-58 - can now
carry 3 on HP 3/7 and 3 on HP 4/6 (added 1 bomb to HP 4/6) - realistic
- BLU-109 - can only
carry 1 bomb on HP 3/7 - removed ability to carry 1 bomb on HP 4/6 - realistic
- GBU-12 - now you
can only carry 2 on HP 3/7 and 1 on HP 4/6 - realistic
- We kept the Mk77,
even though it's not realistic
We should also point
out that carriage of weapons on certain hardpoints is dependant on what is
currently on other HP stations. Unfortunately, F4 does not contain the
complex logic needed to validate certain combinations of loadouts. We also recognize that there are usually
fuel considerations to take into account, and most F-16C combat sorties usually
include two 370gal wing tanks. We generally erred toward being liberal
with the ability to place weapons.
There are other
weapons we may add when time permits: CBU-71, AGM-65A, others?
We have also address
the legal loadouts for the B-52H and the F-5E.
Other loadout improvements are forthcoming.
Printed from USAF
Intelligence targeting guide AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence 1 FEBRUARY
1998
A6.1.5. Flame and
Incendiary Effects. Firebombs can be highly effective in close air support.
Their short, well-defined range of effects can interrupt enemy operations
without endangering friendly forces. They are also effective against supplies
stored in light wooden structures or wooden containers.
A6.1.5.1. Flame and incendiary weapons, however, are
often misleading as to the actual physical damage they inflict. Even a relatively small firebomb can provide
a spectacular display but often does
less damage than might be expected. When a large firebomb splashes burning
gel over an area the size of a football field, it may boil flames a hundred
feet into the air. This effect is impressive to the untrained observer, and
experienced troops have broken off attacks and fled when exposed to napalm
attack. However, soldiers can be trained against this tendency to panic. They
can be taught to take cover, put out the fires, and even to brush burning
material off their own clothing.
A6.1.5.2. Near misses with firebombs seldom cause
damage to vehicles, and the number of troops actually incapacitated by the
attacks is usually rather small.
Incendiaries of the type that started great fires in Japanese and German
cities in World War II projected nonmetallic fragments. They had little
penetrating capability. Today's newer munitions have full fragmentation and
penetrating capabilities, as well as incendiary devices. However, both types can penetrate and start
fires and are highly effective against fuel storage tanks or stacked drums of
flammable material of any sort.
After the 1.08 fixes
the following four items did not work correctly.
First, the ''Vector
to Target" request always resulted in the same response, "bearing
300, no matter where the threat was located.
The commFile.bin was changed so that you now get the correct response
for the bearing to the threat".
Second, the
"Vector to Tanker" request would always result in the response of
"Merged FLOT". Both the
commFile.bin and the falcon exe files were changed to get the response of the
flight bearing to the tanker.
The Airport Identity
bug resulted in no base identification in response to requesting tower
instructions. All you would get were directions to the airfield but if you had
forgotten the briefing or had to go to an alternate landing area, you would not
know what TACAN settings to input. This was corrected by changes to the
Falcon.exe and the evalFile.bin. The exe now calls the correct Airport ID from
the evalFile.bin. Now when you request instructions from the tower, it will
first properly identify itself before giving the instruction. For, example if you request an emergency
landing you'll receive the something like, this is Haemi Tower, cleared to come
straight in on runway ###,notifying the SOF.
As for the last fix,
it seems that if you were a flight with an ID number larger than one (example:
Cowboy 3-1), the comms call "Say Position" would
yield: "Cowboy 3-2, Cowboy 1-3, say position".
This has now been corrected.
One of the odd things
that always presented itself in Falcon 4 was the flight behavior of the bomber
aircraft. While reviewing the data on
the flight models, you can see that the F-16 fly-by-wire flight model is using
17 flight model limiters in its data. Understanding that this is information
used for the flight model and probably in how the on board FLCS calculates its
flight model, what effect would it have on other flight models? The other
aircraft in the game were using only four limiters. Nevertheless, we know that ALL these limiters are necessary for
an accurate flight model.
In the F-16, these
limiters are used to keep the aircraft from departing its flight model. In
other aircraft, HUMAN input is the only tool that allows the aircraft to try
and stay in its flight envelope. There is not human input in the AI
pilots. So, what is the effect? Once I
was able to fly other aircraft in Falcon 4, I discovered that as a HUMAN flies
the aircraft he is in fact NOT restricted by the same limits that the player in
an F-16 has. The A-10, fully laden with MK-82's, was able to pull up and do 360o
loops with no noticeable adverse effects. In the A-10 flight model, as all
other AI aircraft, there were not drag limiters, CAT I, CAT 3 limiter, no pitch
limiter, etc. Once these 17 flight model limiters were in place, the A-10 that
I flew could no longer easily perform those maneuvers. Once I set in place
these 17 limiters for ALL AI aircraft, I began to see a lessoning of dog
fighting barrel rolling bombers. It still does happen and perhaps these values
need to be tweaked for each aircraft but as it stands now, the changes at least
"limited" the wild flight behavior of the AI bombers.
The 17 limiters in
the F16.dat file are used to model the aircraft behavior, but MP is obviously
taking a shortcut by using them only for fly-by-wire aircraft, and using simple
dampers for other aircraft. However,
the other data do play a part in controlling AI plane behavior and maximum
allowable G.
If you look under the
file, the maximum allowable g will control how much g you can pull. I tried
flying an F-15E with it set to 7.33 and that is what I got. The other data such
as maximum roll angle will control how much an aircraft rolls, and one of the
reason why the Tu-95 and other bombers dogfight with you is because their dat
files have this set to 190, which allows them to roll over.
Most of the data
inside the dat files are off, like maximum VCAS speed, which is very high, and
peak roll rates, which are also way high. The data in the limiter block mirrors
the F-16 digital flight controls, but not exactly. Some aspects are off, like the AOA limiter allowing AOA up to
30x. It should have been 25.5x instead, etc.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm
http://www.afa.org/magazine/0398dev.html
From the Air Force Magazine link above: "No one expects each SFW slug to destroy a target. The
goal is to stop the vehicle in its tracks.
Latas noted, "The goal is a mobility kill, not a catastrophic
kill." He added, however, "a mobility kill is just as good as
anything else, when you can cover that kind of area and affect that many
targets per sortie. USAF has postulated
three levels of mobility kill, differentiated by how quickly a target stops
functioning. Latas said the SFW
achieves the highest-level mobility kill currently measured by the Air
Force. The SFW's kill probability is classified, but Latas said,
"We've seen in testing that, with the current threat, this is going to be
a pretty devastating weapon.” The Air
Force has run more than 111 SFW tests so far and, Wise noted, it has exceeded
its requirements.
also of note:
"The CBU-97 is
the first multiple-kills-per-pass smart anti-armor weapon in production, said
Col. Bill Wise, director of the Area Attack Systems Program Office at Eglin.
Wise said it represents a significant capability for combat forces."
and
best of all:
"In more than
100 tests of CBU-97s, each weapon, or dispenser, delivered against a
representative column of armored vehicles and trucks, has damaged, on average,
three to four armored vehicles. Average
spacing between the armored vehicles in these columns has been around 50
meters. Thus, for the eight armored
vehicles that fall within a single weapon's 400-meter "footprint," we
can expect that nearly half of them will be damaged to at least an
"availability kill" (or "A-kill") level. This means that
some component of the vehicle has been damaged to the extent that the vehicle
must be withdrawn from the line of march and repaired before continuing
on."
Therefore, in
F4 terms, we really must consider an "A-kill" to be a destroyed
vehicle. Repair and
reinforcement are not modeled. I would
expect that for one bomb dropped (no other bombs dropped for fear of damage
overlap), I would consider on average 4 T-72 class kills to be
appropriate.
Abstract combat
exists when weapons are used that have no flight model, no collision bubble, no
seeker head with sensors, and yet still have blast areas and damage values and
combat continues to exist in the Falcon world.
We know that combat
exists because in tank vs. tank combat, we can see tanks exploding but no
objects flying through the air. We do see tracers but these are graphic
representations and have no effect on the combat at all. We know this because we can change the
graphic effect to portray a single shot weapon and the combat still resolves
the same. This effect also governs the sound played as you view the object.
Reviewing the CT file
in F4 shows us that all objects that fly through the air are classified as AIR
VEHICLES. These weapons will only fire when they are deaggregated. This is why
you are always seeing this type of activity. If you did not fly in the bubble
of the ground unit, he would execute his abstract combat and results would be
calculated. This type of war has also been called the “statistical war."
However, your
entrance into his bubble triggers the unit into launching his "air
vehicles." Prior to the deaggregation process, they remain in abstract
combat. Every time you break into the
deaggregation bubble, you will see missiles fire. This effect is entirely eye
candy. It is not necessary to resolve the combat. In rocket combat, we have
always seen that rockets will fly through the air and airburst. However what
most people fail to see is that combat is still resolved on the ground at a
cost of lower frame rates, which is arguably less realistic, because the chance
a combat pilot will see a surface-to-surface rocket or missile flying through
the air is quite remote.
We also get some very
unrealistic side effects: 1) in that when the missile flies incorrectly and
burst in the air 2) only fires when
you've deaggregated it, and 3) it will mostly fire directly into any object it
is placed behind (i.e. friendly fire).
In testing this concept we placed all surface-to-surface missiles in an
abstract category like tank guns and found that all combat was resolved and vehicles
received damage and they were removed from play even at extended ranges outside
of current ranges. Frame rates improved
in some cases 100%, rockets no longer destroyed the city they were protecting.
So we decided that we would place most all of the ground weapons in this
abstract category. The surface combat is now nearly 100% "abstract" and happens all the
time in the game, in the bubble, out of the bubble, when it actually happens.
One of our concerns
was the aircraft that launched "abstract" weapons. This cannot
happen. It will crash the game. However, the only aircraft that actually fire
ground based missiles are helicopters. Currently F4 will not allow helicopters
to fire. The immersive feel that we've all come to expect in Falcon4 is still there.
In the future with faster CPU's and continued development of the RP, we can
continue to deploy new individual surface-to-surface missile flight models and
warhead/seeker heads and allow them to be seen in the Falcon world and engage
accurately as their real world counterparts.
The missiles that
were changed to abstract combat are: AT-3, AT-4, AT-5, Dragon, LAAW, 122mm
Rocket, MLRS, 240mm Rocket, and 57mm Rocket.
In the original F4,
all IR Air-to-Air missiles used the same flight model and one of two IR seeker
heads. This has been corrected. Now all IR A/A missiles have their own unique
seeker, with accurately modeled FOV, gimbal limits, sensitivity (range), and
susceptibility to clutter/sun and decoys (Infra Red Counter-Counter Measures).
Each seeker based upon real-world data as far as possible, from publicly
available sources.
In the original F4,
weapons had virtually no drag once fired and highly exaggerated maneuver
capability, gimbal limits, LOS rates and warheads. This has been corrected. AA
missile flight envelopes, blast radius, ranges, maneuverability, thrust, speed
and decoy susceptibility now based on publicly available real-world data for
each missile (i.e. AA11 “Archer” still
deadly, whereas the venerable AA2 Atoll is a poor performer). All missiles also
now have realistic HUD cues for missile launch zones, and the effect of
altitude on missile range and performance is now modeled, with missile range
and maneuverability increasing with altitude.
Changes include:
o
AA-1 radar guided
missile now functioning properly on the MiG-19 and is no longer a “killer”
missile
o
AA-2 Atoll missile
now more accurately resembles AIM-9B missile with rear aspect capabilities and
limited dogfight maneuverability
o
AA2R radar-guided
Atoll now functional on the MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29
o
AA-6 “Silent but
deadly” BVR, command guided/terminal IR homing missile now loaded on the MiG25
Foxbat The RWR will not sound when the missile is fired from BVR.
o
AA-6R radar guided
missile now loaded on the MiG-25, replacing AA-7R. This missile is unique to
the MiG-25.
o
AA7-R APEX now
functional on the MiG-23 Flogger
o
AA-7t IR APEX now
functional on the MiG23 Flogger
o
AA-10C now
realistically modeled as a SARH missile. You will no longer get the
"M" symbol on the RWR. The missile also lofts slightly now compared
to before.
o
AA-11 Archer now has
thrust-vectoring capability with expanded seeker gimbal limits and IRCCM
capabilities
o
AA-12 Adder
(“AMRAAMSKI”) added to Chinese SU-27 Inventory. It's an active missile similar
to the AMRAAM with a RWR symbol of "M"
o
AIM-7 Sparrows no
longer loaded on F-16s. The APG-68 doesn’t have the capability to carry the
Sparrow.
o
AIM-120 no longer
behaves like a FMRAAM (Future Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile). “No Escape”
zone roughly 15nm at high aspect, with Pk still viable but decreasing at longer
ranges
o
AIM-9P now modeled
more closely as a rear aspect missile and can no longer be slaved to full radar
gimbal limits
o
AIM-9M now has
realistic seeker gimbal limits can maneuverability, and can no longer hit
head-on targets from within gun range
o
Ammunition levels and
damage for all A2A guns now accurate
o
MiG-29 now flies with
AA10-series missiles on the inboard pylons only, as is the case with the actual
MiG29.
o
MiG-29 loadout probabilities
altered to increase tasking of MiG-29 for the Air-to-Air role instead of
air-to-ground.
o
Realistic missile WEZ
parameters have also resulted in corresponding expanded AI “awareness zones”
(i.e.; Class A fighters run intercepts to close range on the human player
outside of 10nm much more often than before)
In the original F4,
all IR SAMS used a similar flight model and one of two IR seeker heads. This
has been corrected. Now all IR SAM missiles have their own unique seeker, with
accurately modeled FOV, gimbal limits, sensitivity (range), and susceptibility
to ground clutter and decoys.
Each seeker based
upon real-world data. The kinematics of each missile are also tailored
according to publicly available real world data, with corresponding
maneuverability and engagement range/altitude.
In the original F4,
most control-guided SAMs (both allied and enemy) had extremely exaggerated
blast radiuses, lead pursuit angles and maneuverability. Missile flight envelopes, blast radius,
ranges, maneuverable, thrust, speed and decoy susceptibility now based on
real-world data for each missile. The radar SAMs now ping first before
launching, and give ample warning through the RWR prior to launch, giving time
for avoidance actions. The kinematics against closing and retreating targets
are realistic now.
Changes Include:
o
HAWKS, Patriots,
SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-5s, and SA-6s now have much greater engagement altitudes, but
are less maneuverable. The missiles will also fly out to higher altitudes,
corresponding to their real world counterparts.
o
SA-5 now has
realistic terminal active seeker, and realistic Pk against fighter sized
targets
o
The SA-7 now much
less maneuverable and effective. Real world data indicate the poor performance
of this missile. The sun or ground IR clutter can now decoy the missile easily.
o
SA-8 range now
reduced and is more susceptible to chaff
o
SA-13 now included in
the sim
o
SA-14 now included in
the sim
o
SA-15 now included in
the sim
o
SA-19 now included in
the sim
o
The Stinger now far
more maneuverable and effective, and now rejects flares more consistently.
o
The Patriot made more
effective based upon real-world performance, with increased energy and
engagement range
o
Chun-Ma, an
indigenous ROK, low-altitude command guided SAM in ROK inventory
o
North Korea’s wide
array of 25 to 100mm AAA capabilities now modeled much more realistically.
KS-12 85mm AAA reached maximum engagement altitude of 24,000-27,000 feet, and
the KS-19 100m AAA gun, which is deployed around the DMZ, can reach altitudes
in excess of 40,000 feet.
o
ZSU-57-2 AAA now
reaches realistic engagement ranges of 13,000-15,000 feet.
o
DPRK M-1992 37mm AAA
now in Mechanized battalions with engagement ranges of -8,500 feet
o
2S6 Tunguska now
carries realistic SA19 missile launcher system in addition to 30mm AAA
capability with engagement ranges of 8,000 – 10,000 feet
o
Low altitude
small-arms fire now modeled
o
Range of ZSU-23-4
Shilka adjusted based upon actual performance data
In the original F4,
most air-to-ground sorties were wasted (both Allied and Enemy –see Bubble and
CAT combat definitions) because ground entities were not deaggregated except
for very near the player aircraft. However, since the bubble slider is now
functional, this allows for an even greater expansion of the air and ground
bubble. Aborts are drastically decreased and CAS, STRIKE and BAI missions
performed by AI aircraft are far more successful on both sides when
"inside the bubble."
The aircraft and
long-range SAMs are now more aggressive on both sides (allied and enemy). This
effect is primarily due to an increase in “awareness” zones of aircraft and
SAMS (see Designer’s Notes)
SAMS now require a
more realistic detect and track time prior to actual missile launch. This allows
for greater HARM opportunities.
Rapid Runway Repair
efforts are now based upon real-world data (See Designer’s Notes: Iraqi Gulf
War repair times, Arab-Israeli repair times, and consultation with expert on
Rapid Runway Repair at Arizona State University). Individual runway sections
now take 3-4 hours to repair, resulting in total runway repair times of up to
12-16 hours depending on runway size and the extent of damage.
The Realism Patch by iBeta
represents literally thousands of man-hours of research and editing by hardcore
simulation fans. The goal was principally to enhance the simulation by creating
a more realistic and thus tactically dynamic environment than had existed in
the original and unfinished Falcon 4.0, whose development was discontinued by
Hasbro in December of 1999.
Every single change
included in the patch, from the concrete (ammunition and weapons modeling) to
the abstract (AI “awareness” zones) was performed with the principal goal of
realism in mind. In almost every instance, each change can be traced to
specific, referenced sources including Jane’s Information group, World Air
Power Journal, the United States Naval Institute, and well-researched books
written by military aviators (Yefim Gordon, others). In addition, the missile
modeling was done in strong collaboration with former military pilots and
enlisted men, and engineers with experience in these fields, participating in
the Realism Patch development.
Many, many things
have been addressed, though clearly more remains to be done. Though the goal is
to achieve realism, care was also taken to utilize only publicly available and
unclassified data.
When you enter F4
with Realism Patch 2.0, you will find the tactical environment of F4 is
considerably changed. In some situations, you will find flying in F4 more
survivable than 108us, but in others you will find it more lethal. The goal of
this short piece is to provide a narrative of some of the general changes that
you will experience, and some information that players may need to survive and
succeed in this more realistic environment.
The tactical nature
of the air-to-air aspect of the simulation is perhaps most changed. Many modern
missiles such as the AMRAAM, Archer and AIM-9 are very lethal when employed
properly, while others such as the venerable AA-2 Atoll and the AA-7 APEX are
less maneuverable and lethal than before. No matter what missile you employ, a
single shot will no longer guarantee a single kill. Much will depend on
altitude, target aspect, closure rate and line-of-sight (LOS).
Most players will
notice the change to the AMRAAM right away. In the default F4, the AMRAAM is
nearly 100% capably of hitting and killing any target at any aspect and
airspeed out to a range of about 45-50nm. While published estimates of the
AMRAAMs maximum range do vary from 20 to 45nm, these are typically kinematic ranges at high altitude and
high closure rates against non-maneuvering targets. While the AMRAAM is capable
of reaching 45nm, its energy state at
that stage is so low that the Pk of the missile is very poor.
You may have heard of
the concept of the “no escape zone,’ which is a dynamic zone in front of the
launching aircraft in which no target will escape from the missile. This means
that the missile will reach the target no matter what evasive maneuvers or
escape tactics the target makes. Whether the missile hits or is “spoofed” at
the end game is another question, but generally the Pk in the “no escape zone”
is relatively high.
For the AMRAAM, you
will find a “no escape zone” to be about 6-10nm in a tail-on chase or about
15-17nm for a head-on shot. At longer ranges, the missile may still hit and
kill but the Pk of the missile will be lower owing to the reduced airspeed and
consequently reduced maneuverability. The AI of the defending pilot will also
be a critical factor. Veteran and Rookie pilot exhibit fairly poor BVR defense
tactics, whereas ACE AI shows some very sophisticated “out-range then beam”
tactics and multiple out-of-of-plane jinks to force the AIM-120 to lose energy.
An ACE MiG-29 can be seen in Dogfight mode to occasionally spoof the AIM-120 in
this way.
For all missiles, the
player will also note that head-on high closure rate targets are no longer a
“sure kill”, and all A/A missiles now have a minimum range for firing. This
affects the BVR missiles particularly, and it is no longer to employ AMRAAM and
expect it to perform like the AIM-9 in a dogfight scenario. For IR missiles,
the effect of sun and ground IR clutter is similarly modeled, and players have
to exercise caution when employing missiles such as the AIM-9P and AA-2 to
ensure that the missiles fired away from ground clutter and the sun.
In terms of DPRK,
Chinese, and Russian missiles, you will find that the AA-11 (R-73) Archer is
bar none your most lethal threat, followed close behind by the new and
frightening AA-12 (R-77) Adder Active-Radar-Homing missile developed by the
Vympel corporation. In real life, the AA-12 has been ordered by the Chinese air
force for its SU-27s (Malaysia and India placed orders also). You will see
AA-12s in very limited quantities when the Chinese enter the war. A call-out of
“Adder Inbound” or “Archer Inbound” is a most serious and dangerous threat.
In contrast to these
lethal threats, other missiles will offer a more variable level of threat
depending on the missile type and the range at which it is launched. The AA-10
series (AA10-A, B and C) are a respectable threat but can often (but not
necessarily always) be defeated with good evasion tactics and decoys. The
older, 1970’s-era Soviet missiles (and earlier) such as the AA-1 Alkali, AA-2
and AA-7 series and AA-8 are more spoofable, with or without decoys. The IR and
radar guided versions of the MiG-25 dedicated AA-6 missiles are also modeled,
with their tremendous speed, as well as the frightening ability of the MiG-25
to launch the AA-6 IR missile from beyond visual range, without any RWR
warning.
The net-effect of the
more realistic missile parameters in F4 is that air-to-air engagements will be
far less predictable and much more dynamic. No longer will both sides instantly
obliterate each other with 1 to 1 exchanges of god-like super missiles with
seemingly limitless kinetic energy and physics-defying maneuverability. In
general, you will find that most weapons are no longer "golden bb's"
in that they must be properly employed to obtain a reasonable Pk. Employment
ranges have been reduced somewhat, especially at lower altitudes. Do not expect
these repaired weapons to retain the energy and maneuver capacity of any
previous F4 weapons. It will behoove the shooter to maneuver to the heart of
the firing envelope or risk seriously degrading missile Pk.
As missile gimbals are
now realistically modeled, the shooter will also need to be aware of engagement
geometry so as not to result in the missile exceeding its gimbal limits during
launch. These stands in stark contrast to the original F4, where missiles could
be launched considerably off-boresight and still achieve hits. Missile minimum
range is now modeled to some extent.
Even the blast radius
of each warhead has been altered to realistic values. In the default F4, the
blast radius of most A2A missile was a whopping 225 feet. This blast radius is
more appropriate for a medium-to-large sized SAM and can hardly be considered
accurate for most Air-to-Air missiles. In the real world, the AIM-9M’s and AA11
Archer’s blast radiuses are estimated to be between 30 and 40 feet. The AIM-120
blast radius is somewhere above 55 feet. The blast radius edits also mean that
all missiles and SAMS will have to get closer to the target before detonating.
Since the performance of most modern missiles is most crucial during the
end-game, the realistic blast radiuses will allow the player to experience the
difference between a near-miss and a proximity hit, rather than having all
missiles, no matter how maneuverable or how poor, simply detonate at 200 feet
away and destroy your aircraft.
Tactically, you will
see differences in each A/A missiles’ ability to track its target. Some
missiles will be easier to out maneuver, while others such as the AA-11 will
have the ability to maintain track and re-engage the target if the first hit
opportunity is not successful. The ability to turn into the missile and cause
it to break lock will also depend on the tracking ability of each missile, your
aspect, airspeed, and LOS rate across the missiles FOV. Similarly, the
effectiveness of counter measures will vary, and will depend on timing the
employment of such counter measures properly.
An issue that arose
with the first Realism Patch was that many users reported that their missile Pk
were extremely low, even though the original Realism Patch did not, in fact,
contain any of the new missile modifications except the blast radius edits.
We have now
determined that there is indeed a missile “pass-through” bug that can occur
during period of very heavy CPU demand and high activity levels in the sim
(very low frame rates). The “pass-through” bug simply refers to the fact that
some A2A missiles will literally “pass through” the target and fail to
detonate. This problem occurs because the Falcon 4.0 program must continually
“poll” each missile and perform collision detection. When many missiles and objects are in the air at once, it takes
longer for the F4 program to “strobe through” or “cycle through” all the
missile and objects. When the missile is very fast and the blast radius is small,
the target may pass in and out of the blast radius too quickly for the CPU to
detect the collision. This problem did not exist in the original F4 because all
the missile blast radii were unusually huge, thereby allowing even slow CPUs
enough time to detect a collision even under the most CPU-intensive
circumstances.
To address this
problem in F4, the actual blast radiuses in the sim are slightly higher than
they are in real life to compensate, though far less than they were in the
108us default. In addition, the problem is only occurring with regularity with
users with slower CPUs and/or users who set the bubble and object densities to
very high levels. Because it is caused by intensive CPU demand, it most
regularly occurs over the FLOT, and rarely if ever occurs away from the FLOT.
If you are experiencing what appears to be an unreasonably low Pk, and the
missiles appear to be passing through the target or missing by a distance less
than the blast radius (typically 30-60 feet) without detonating, the following
should fix the problem:
1. Turn down the bubble
2. Turn down object density
3. Get a faster CPU
All three of these
strategies should work. The final option would be either uninstall the Realism
Patch or go back to 108i2 until you get a faster processor. Option #1 and #2
should be sufficient, however. We recommend a bubble setting of “3” as a
starting point if your bubble slider is enabled. Generally speaking, as frame
rate falls below 10, the probability of missile pass-through grows. There is really
no permanent solution to this, since with the bubble slider and –g switch,
anyone can set it high enough to cause these problems.
In general, the
intercept AI of fighter aircraft has been enhanced in the sim beyond the rather
myopic F4 default. In Falcon 4.0, the
ability of any AI aircraft you detect you is unfortunately limited not just by
its radar, but by the WEZ cues on the HUD which indicate the maximum engagement
range of the missiles that it is carrying, or 10nm, whichever is larger. Falcon
4.0 AI aircraft can "see" you only if you have fallen into their
weapons envelope. Because MiG-19s and MiG-21s all carry only short-range IR
homing missiles, they cannot literally perceive or respond to threat outside of
10nm (save defensive maneuvers against missiles).
However, many
missiles in the original F4 had unrealistically small WEZ cues associated with
them . Thus, paradoxically, the missiles themselves were overpowered while the
WEZ cues were undersized. This has been corrected. WEZ cues in the HUD now
match the true kinematic envelopes of each missile. This results not only in
correct weapons envelope feedback to the player and/or launcher aircraft, it
has also expanded the "awareness zones" of many aircraft, permitting
them to detect and respond to other aircraft outside of 10nm far more often
than before.
The net effect of
this is that many times you will encounter enemy (and friendly) AI that is no
longer “flying blind.” They will pick you up on radar and run an intercept on
you from outside of the 10nm “engagement bubble” around the aircraft. This
creates a far more realistic tactical situation, and requires you to be much
more “on your guard”.
Many players of F4
have complained about the “Wall of MiGs” that they feel they have to get
through to reach their target. While it is true that there are a large number
of aircraft in Falcon 4.0 (allied and enemy), most players see this “wall”
because they use labels and see scores and scores of “red” aircraft, each one
looking like a potential threat. Labels may actually make it *harder* for
people to concentrate on their mission and fly F4. Players see these aircraft
everywhere, and tend to go after MiG-21s and such when they get within 15
miles, because they figure that distance is unsafe. And the more they see, the
more they feel threatened and compelled to engage. Suddenly, your senses are
flooded with potential dangers and it’s hard to focus because so many things
are distracting you and causing you to worry. Prioritization becomes difficult
because you are looking at labels and not your radar and not your RWR.
This hyper-defensive
posture can be counter-productive especially when one realizes that the vast
majority of those aircraft are not after them. Most of them are on Strike,
SEAD, CAS, BAI, or other non-AA missions. Aircraft on these sorts of missions
will only attack you if you attack them, or if you fly within 2nm of the
forward hemisphere of their aircraft. Leave them alone and they will leave you
alone. Of those aircraft that are tasked with AA mission, you will only be
“seen” if you fall inside their “engagement zones.” For MiG-19 and MiG-21,
these have a 10nm radius around the MiG. Don’t get that close. For MiG-23s, 29s
and SU-27s, they are potential danger since their engagement zones may be
anywhere form 12-30nm radius depending on your altitude. Take this information
into account and pay attention to AWACS and your RWR. And turn off the labels
(use the force, Luke). You’ll live longer. Once you can start prioritizing your
threats and ignoring non-threats you will find the skies a lot less crowded
than you perceived them to be before.
DPRK (and Allied) air
defense systems will be both more and less lethal than the original 108us,
depending on the defensive system encountered. Unquestionably the most
immediate and salient change is the much greater frequency and range of AAA
guns. North Korea possesses a great quantity and a *wide* array of AAA in its
arsenal, from low altitude 30mm AAA to extremely high altitude 100mm AAA guns.
The higher-caliber AAA guns have practical engagement altitudes of between
24,000 and 45,000 feet AGL. Combined with low (ZSU-23-4) and medium-altitude
AAA, it is possible for the DPRK to poses a AAA threat from as low as 1,000
feet to as high as almost 45,000 feet. The KS-19 100mm AAA gun and the KS-12
85mm AAA gun near the FLOT at the DPRK HART sites will make this clear fairly
quickly. Below 1000 feet there is there is the now present danger of small arms
fire (Ak-47s) and MANPADS on both foot soldiers and soldiers in select
vehicles. As always, it is best to fly above AAA unless there are many
high-altitude SAMS. If forced to fly through AAA, it is best to enter and exit
its envelope quickly, and where possible alter course to throw off the enemy's
firing solution.
SAMS are more
numerous and varied than in the original F4, especially if and when Russia
enters the war. Many SAMS that belong to the DPRK and the Combined Forces were
lying dormant in the F4 code, whereas a few
(such as the Chun-Ma) were added to F4 because they are actually in the
DPRK or ROK inventory. In general, older Soviet-era SAMS such as the SA-2, 3,
5, and 6 have far greater envelopes (altitude and horizontal ranges) and are
capable of engaging at longer ranges rather than waiting until the last
possible moment.
At the same time,
however, the maneuverability of these SAMS are now based upon well researched
kinematic and performance data from a professional aeronautical engineer. This
means that although the SAMS are more numerous and longer-legged, they are also
more easily spoofed. By far the most dangerous SAMS are the low to low-medium
altitude Russian SAM systems such as the 2S6 SA-19 launcher and the SA-14. Some
of these systems have the capability of engaging air targets as high as
9-14,000 feet. All this information again points to the necessity of being wary
as one enters the low altitude arena. When you play with Realism Patch 2.0, you
will understand far better why it was that many aircraft were not allowed below
15,000 ft in the Kosovo Conflict. For medium and high altitude SAMs, you will
also notice a distinct minimum range and altitude where the SAM can be fired at
you, and it will not have the ability to maneuver quickly enough for a kill.
This allows the shooter to employ tactics to close in to bomb at lower
altitudes and out turn the missile during SEAD strikes, the same tactics the
Israelis employed against the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 SAM sites during the Yom
Kippur War.
Runway repair times
in F4 have always varied from one extreme to the other. In the original Falcon
4.0, runways were repaired at an unrealistic rate (in as little as 20 minutes)
following even massive cratering damage. Runway repair times were later
disabled completely in 108us (a bug which the developers later planned to fix
before the project was discontinued), and then set arbitrarily at 12 hours per
section by MPS in the waning days of the Microprose F4 labs.
However, none of
these repair times had a specific basis in any historical records. Research
investigating the runway repair times during the Gulf War [1], the Arab-Israeli
Wars [2] was conducted. In addition, information about the North Korean’s
capabilities was gathered through consultation with an expert [3] in Rapid
Runway Repair (at the Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG) at
Arizona State University). All three
sources of information have revealed that, in real life situations, entire
runways can be restored to at least operational status in 4-12 hours depending
on the amount of damage. The North Koreans may take as long as 12 hours to
repair a runway that has been cratered continually by multiple BLU-107
Durandals across its longitudinal axis [3]. This is possible because organized
airfield-repair teams are typically supplied with fast-setting concrete and
other critical materials that are pre-positioned very close to the runways.
For example,
"Runways are attractive targets for enemy aircraft to take out. A bomb is
dropped on a runway, which creates a large crater putting the runway out of
commission. If aircraft can't get off the ground than they can't fight. Rapid
runway repair is a long, tedious process that is vital to success on the battlefield
and in the skies. The main focus in airfield repair is the Minimum Operating
Strip (MOS), which the United States doctrinally defines as 15 by 1,525 meters
for fighter aircraft and 26 by 2,134 meters for cargo aircraft.
Coalition attacks on
runways complicated Iraqi air base operations, but there is little evidence
that they hampered sortie rates. Iraqi runways were reportedly repaired in as
little as four to six hours [1]. Under ideal conditions with a motivated crew,
the rapid runway repair task would take a minimum of about four hours. If
reasonable allowances are made for the cold weather impacts on both the
soldiers and equipment used for a snowy, windy 20°F day, the time is increased
to about seven hours. In the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, Arab repair
teams typically restored damaged runways in nine to twelve hours. [2]"
[FAS.org].
Runways in Falcon 4.0
have two or three "sections" each. With the Realism Patch, each
runway section now takes
approximately 3-4 hours to repair. This repair time, in addition to the time it
takes for Engineering Battalions to begin repair operations, results in a total
of about 12 hours of repair time for medium (3 section). There is a bit of variability in these times
in that the engineering battalions that must be on site for repair may not be
in the area right after the runway is destroyed.
This is on contrast
to 108i and 108i2, where runway repair times required an unrealistic 2-3 days
or more before sorties could be regenerated. Note that the runway repair times,
in Falcon 4.0 and in real life, are not based upon the time it takes to achieve
pristine runway conditions, but
rather the average time needed to achieve operable
conditions. Former Soviet and Eastern-Bloc aircraft, with their stronger
gear and ability to ingest more debris, are better suited to taking off on
rough runways. An unfortunate thing, which cannot be modeled currently in F4,
is the ability of aircraft to use
alternate highway strips, long taxiways, and selected roads if or when
the runways are destroyed.
SECTION 1: BASICS OF
HOW REAL MISSILES WORK
Before
all the fun can begin, it pays to understand how missiles work. With the basic
understanding of the underlying mechanism of missiles, you will be able to
identify how the changes made to the F4 files will affect the final missile
performance, and identify any anomalies that may arise.
Basic Layout
The
basic layout of the missile consist of 4 sections:
Guidance
section
Warhead
and fusing section
Control
section
Propulsive
section
The
propulsive section may consist of either a turbojet with a fuel tank, like the
AGM-130, and AGM-84, or a solid rocket motor. The weight of the propellant
depends on the missile type, and more often than not, is about 30-50% of the
total missile weight.
Rocket Motor Properties
Most
missiles equipped with solid rocket motors do not have a long burn time due to
the burn characteristics of such motors. Solid rocket motors may have two
different thrust profiles, a pure boost profile which will give a very short
burn time but a very high thrust to accelerate the missile to the maximum
velocity at burnout, and a boost-sustain profile, which is a compromise. The
boost-sustain profile comprise of a short boost phase of high thrust (still
lower boost thrust than a pure boost profile), where the missile is accelerated
to its maximum velocity (Vmax), and a longer sustain phase with lower thrust to
maintain Vmax while the motor is burning.
The
disadvantage of a pure boost motor profile is the quick acceleration. This
often increases aerodynamic heating and drag due to the high Mach, and once the
motor has burnt out, the missile will begin to decelerate rapidly even when not
maneuvering. If the missile maneuvers, the higher drag will slow the missile
down even more. Kinematic range is thus shorter for pure boost rockets. The
upside of a pure boost rocket is that the missile can prosecute the target more
rapidly than a missile with a boost-sustain rocket, while the rocket is still
burning. The maneuvering potential is also higher during rocket firing, though
the disadvantages outweigh the benefits once the rocket has burnt out. Most new
missiles are equipped with boost-sustain rockets these days. Pure boost
profiles are used in missiles like the AIM-9P.
Proportional Navigation
Almost
all modern missiles guide themselves to the target using proportional
navigation. The target line of sight (LOS) is used as an input to the guidance
system, to compute a lead collision course. This involves turning the missile
until a heading is found which stops the target's apparent LOS drift rate. By
maintaining this lead angle, the missile will theoretically fly a straight path
to intercept a non-maneuvering target. The lead required to stop the drift rate
is dependent on target speed and aspect, as well as missile speed, but not range. This mode of guidance is what
results in the characteristic wriggle in the missile as it corrects for the LOS
drift.
Missile Range and Kinematics
Missile
ranges are described in various different definitions. The common definitions
used by the USAF are as follows:
Rmax1 - The maximum range at which the missile may be
launched at a 1g non-maneuvering target, and either achieve a direct hit or
pass within lethal distance of the warhead.
Rmax2 - The maximum range at which the missile may be
launched at a target that performs a constant speed 6g turn to 0° aspect at the
point of launch, and then accelerate at a rate of 1g to an airspeed that is 300
knots above the starting airspeed.
Rmin1 -The minimum range at which the missile may be
launched at a 1g non-maneuvering target, and arm the fuse.
Rmin2 - The minimum range at which the missile may be
launched at a target that performs a constant speed 6g turn to 180° aspect, and
thereafter head directly towards the launch aircraft, and still achieve either
a direct hit or pass within lethal distance of the warhead and result in
warhead detonation.
The
weapon employment envelope encompassed by Rmin2 and Rmax2 is sometimes known as
the no escape zone. In most cases, missiles may be launched between Rmax1 and
Rmax2. The difference between Rmax1 and Rmax2 can be significant, and sometimes
up to 3 times in difference.
The
reason for the difference is primarily due to missile aerodynamics. Missile
drag increases drastically the moment the missile angle of attack is increased
due to maneuvering. Since the missile motor does not burn for long and the
missile is in coast most of the time, any maneuvering will result in energy
loss. The maximum maneuvering potential is thus realized only at the point of
motor burnout, and the more the missile has to correct its trajectory to pursue
the target, the lesser the maneuvering potential during end of its flight.
Missile
kinematics refers to the missile aerodynamic performance, such as acceleration
rate during rocket motor burn, deceleration rate after burnout and during
maneuvers, and g capability with missile speed. It generally refers to the
missile range, without accounting for seeker performance.
IR Guidance System
IR
guided missiles are normally tail chasers during end game. The only information
available to the guidance system is the seeker LOS and drift rate. Thus, end
game is usually tail chase, and the missile is limited in the amount of lead
that it can achieve.
Semi Active Radar Guidance System
Semi active radar
guidance relies on the host aircraft radar to perform the guidance. The radar
seeker will home onto the reflected signals that the missile is tuned to
recognize. Range and drift rate is thus available to the missile, as are target
velocity and direction. The missile can thus potentially pull more lead during
intercept.
Active Radar Guidance System
When active radar
missiles are fired, they are usually guided inertially in the initial stage. At
the point of firing, the missile is usually given a predicted location of the
target based on the target track, and a point in the sky to turn on the onboard
radar. However, since missile flight time can exceed 20-30 seconds, the
possible target location is actually an uncertainty zone. The missile seeker
FOV is usually much smaller than this uncertainty zone, and the probability of
the missile finding the target within its FOV at the point of onboard radar
activation is thus lower.
If the launch
aircraft maintains target track, it is then able to update the missile
periodically with the target information, and the missile will adjust its
inertial flight path accordingly, as well as the activation point. The missile
is usually updated through a datalink, and the effect of the datalink is to
progressively shrink the uncertainty zone. The probability of the missile
finding the target within its seeker FOV at the point of activation is thus
higher, increasing the probability of kill (Pk) of the missile.
This is the same for
active guided radar missiles such as AA-12, AIM-54, and AIM-120. The onboard
missile seeker will obtain range, velocity, LOS, and drift rate for determining
the intercept course. Active missiles are thus able to pull more lead during
the inertial phase as well as the final guidance phase.
Missiles like AA-12
and AIM-120 have a limited close in capability, but the minimum range is
limited by fusing and missile aerodynamics.
Fusing and Arming
All missiles are
armed only after some flight time. The arming of the fuse and warhead is
usually due to onboard gas generator pressure, or inertial switches resulting
from missile axial acceleration. This arming time and distance is one of the
constraints on the minimum range at which the missile can be launched, apart
from the servo lockout time to prevent the missile from maneuvering within
close proximity of the launch aircraft.
Even though the
missile may be able to maneuvers and strike the target at closer range than the
Rmin, the warhead may not be armed. This process is not modeled in Falcon 4,
and missiles can still successfully destroy targets at very close ranges of up
to 1500 ft or so, which is well within gun range.
SECTION 2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why is it that AIM-9P is now so
easy to evade?
The actual AIM-9P
missile has no flare rejection capability. Any flares will decoy the missile
regardless of target aspect. In addition, the seeker is also easily distracted
by ground IR clutter and sun, and the low tracking rate means that the target
need to be positioned correctly within the HUD, with minimal line of sight
movement before a successful launch can be assured.
The AIM-9M missile
seems a lot less effective than before and misses head-on shots more compared
to before.
Head-on shots occur
with very high closure rates. The high closure means that the tracking rate
increases tremendously as the missile closes in, and this often exceeds the
ability of the missile to maintain track. The AIM-9M seeker performance has
also been adjusted to reflect more correctly, what the actual performance
should be. This missile is capable of successfully shooting down targets up to
about 2-3 nm away.
Why isn’t the AA-10A/C (or any
other missile) capable of its published maximum range?
Missile range is dependent
on the missile kinematics and engagement geometry. The published maximum range
is useless to interpret unless the launch conditions and geometry is known.
Missile manufacturers quote different range to different sources, and the
favorite is to quote head-on high closure engagements are extremely high
altitude, such as head-on with Mach 1.6 for both shooter and target at 40,000
feet, co-altitude, at a non maneuvering target. Missile ranges decreases
dramatically at lower altitudes typical of air combat, due to the denser air
and higher drag, and also against maneuvering targets (with anything more than
2-3g).
Does semi active radar homing
missile possess greater effective range than active missiles?
No. Semi-active radar
missiles are constrained by seeker sensitivity. Most seekers are not sensitive
enough to detect reflected radiation from the target at ranges greater than
13-18 nm. Also, SARH missiles do not have true range information, and must rely
on extrapolation from the launch condition, using the target Doppler shift.
SARH missiles are also more easily decoyed by chaff, since it does not possess
onboard radar and the sophistication of onboard radars. Guidance is by homing
on the reflected energy and comparing signal coherency by having rear-facing
receivers to receive the radiated energy from the parent aircraft. The missile
knows the target range at the point of launch, but once it leaves the launcher,
range is derived from extrapolating the initial target range from the Doppler
shift of the reflected radiation sensed by the seeker.
When chaff is
dispensed, the bloom characteristics can flood the target return with a bigger
return than the actual aircraft, making it very difficult for the seeker to
determine the true target return from the chaff target return. Due to the
nature of the seeker, SARH missiles may be kinematically able to hit further
targets, but the effective range is usually constrained by seeker performance
to distances far smaller. When launched outside the seeker sensitivity range,
SARH missiles like the AA-10C rely on inertial updates from the parent
aircraft. However, this form of guidance only allows the missile to begin
searching for the target return at the expected area (known as the uncertainty
zone). The size of this uncertainty zone depends on the track stability of the
parent radar, and any target maneuvers such as beaming, ECM, or chaffing will
reduce the track stability and increase the uncertainty zone. This decreases
missile Pk tremendously, compared to launching at targets inside the seeker
sensitivity range. Inertial target location update occurs at a much lower
frequency compared to the seeker sensing the actual target radar return, and as
such, the Pk decreases dramatically.
Why is it so easy to dodge some
missiles now?
The original Falcon 4
missile-tracking rate is way too high and unrealistic for the missiles
represented. They have been decreased to realistic values. It is now possible
to pull into a missile and force the missile the break lock (provide you
maneuver correctly) by exceeding the missile tracking rate through a rapid pull
across the seeker line of sight.
Why are AA-10B launched so close
to the target when Internet sources stated that they have inertial guidance?
The AA-10B does not
have any inertial guidance. This missile is designed as a “run-down” missile,
having enough energy to pursue a high-speed target from further out in a tail
chase scenario. Short range missiles such as AIM-9M and AA-11 will run out of
energy in such engagements, while the AA-10B have sufficient energy to catch up
with the target. However, this missile needs to lock on to the target before it
can be launched.
Does having an IRST increase the
acquisition range of IR seekers?
No, they do not. Heat
seeking missiles need to detect a heat source above the guidance threshold in
order to initiate a tracking solution. Although an IRST can be used to cue the
missile seeker, an IRST is an imaging IR sensor that forms an image of the IR
scene. The IR air-to-air missiles represented in the game are reticule mirror
seekers and guide using heat sources instead of IR images. A target that
provide an IR contrast to imaging IR sensors may not provide sufficient thermal
radiation to enable a tracking solution, as reticule seekers cannot be overly
sensitive in order to reject ground IR clutter and solar radiation. All that an
IRST does is to cue to seeker in the right direction. The launch criteria is
still the seeker being able to physically lock on to the target.
Why is it that the MiG-29 and
Su-27 are not launching the AA-11 at high off boresight angles ?
The helmet-mounted
sight is not implemented in the AI. As such, the AI is often incapable of
taking full advantage of the AA-11’s wide acquisition gimbal limits to launch.
However, as long as the MiG-29 or Su-27 have a radar lock on the target, the
AA-11 can and will be launched up to the radar gimbal limits (provide the AA-11
has a seeker tone). Launch range is however severely reduced at high off
boresight angles as the missile loses a lot of energy in the initial maneuver.
Can I use real world launch deny
tactics with IR missiles?
This may or may not
work. Flare susceptibility is modeled as a simple probability in Falcon 4. As
such, with an uncaged missile, if the target drops flares, you will not find
the missile going after the flare, but rather, it will simply break lock and go
ballistic. However, rapid changing of target aspect to reduce IR signature do
work, just like real life, if the missile is launched from the edge of the IR
detection envelope, such as turning directly head-on when the missile is
launched from the beam.
The AMRAAM used to hit targets
out to 20 nm with a very high success rate. Why is it so bad now?
The AMRAAM has
smaller no escape zone, mainly constrained by seeker performance and missile
kinematics. It will still hit targets out to 20+ nm, but if the target performs
a substantial maneuver, it may be defeated easily.
I thought the missiles ought to
pull more lead, why is it that the proportional navigation gain is so low now?
The overall missile
kinematic and guidance performance is affected by thrust, aerodynamics, and the
navigation gain. These three factors need to be adjusted in conjunction. The
combination in the missile dat files represent the numbers required to
replicate missile kinematics and guidance performance, such that the missile
envelope is reasonably accurate compared the actual article.
How is the Rmin modeled in the
new missile modeled?
Falcon
4 does not model Rmin properly, the default AIM-120 model can actually be fired
at targets well within 1 nm of range head on, and still obtain a hit. The time
to safe and arm missiles plays a very important role in constraining the Rmin
for missiles. Since the safe and arming time for missiles is not modeled, it
can be somewhat simulated using guidance delay. However, the side effect of
using guidance delay is that the missile will not guide during the delay, and
if it is launched close to the gimbal limits, the delay may result in the
target exiting the limits. The missile behavior is also not like real missiles,
which will usually begin to guide within 0.5 seconds of launch. However, safe
and arming usually occurs within 300-400 meters from the launch aircraft, which
corresponds to about 900-1500 feet.
How do you interpret missile
range and performance from published specifications?
Missile
ranges are often quoted in reputable journals and publications. These ranges
are however often quoted without the firing conditions and geometry. Firing
geometry and target maneuver will influence range considerably. Consider the
AA-10, when fired head-on at a non-maneuvering target, its range is
approximately 3 times more than a maneuvering target in a constant 5g turn. In
the latter case, the AA-10 is barely even BVR. As another example, the AMRAAM
is often quoted with a 50 km range. This is more of a head-on engagement at a
non-maneuvering target than anything else is.
The general rules of
thumb are as follows:
Rmin is smallest when
firing head-on at high closure. The higher the closure, the further Rmin
becomes
Rmin in tail-on
engagements are closer than Rmin in head-on engagements. This is only expected,
since the missile needs to maneuver less. Head-on shots often have high LOS
drift rates, and thus may result in the missile requiring more maneuvering
capability that it is capable of.
Rmax at a
non-maneuvering target is also about 2-3 times more than a maneuvering target.
Head-on engagement
range is greater than tail-on. This is plain kinematics. However, head-on ranges for IR missiles are
limited by the seeker performance. Thus, IR missile head-on ranges are less
than tail-on ranges.
New IR missiles
generally have greater seeker acquisition range in the rear aspect than its
kinematic range. Kinematic range will however exceed seeker acquisition range
in the front aspect.
Anytime the missile
is made to maneuver, it will lose energy rapidly. Prior to motor burnout, the
missile can maneuver without losing much energy. Once the motor has burnt out,
you should expect the missile to lose energy fairly quickly even when not
maneuvering. Missile drag at high supersonic Mach numbers is considerable.
Why is it that AA-10C is fired
only within 20 nm of the target?
Falcon
4.0 can only model SARH missiles effectively when the target and the shooter
are within the air bubble, and the default air bubble is set to 20 nm. SARH
missiles, when fired outside the air bubble, will go ballistic, as the AI does
not gain a radar lock first before shooting. As such, AA-10C can only be fired
inside the bubble, even though kinematically the missile is more capable.
However, human pilots can fired at targets successfully outside the 20 nm air
bubble, and testing have revealed successful shots out to about 30-35 nm range
head-on. If you increase the bubble slider setting, the AA-10C will be fired
further out, depending on the size of the bubble, and may reach a maximum of 45
nm at high altitude with high closure speeds.
Is the Helmet Mounted Sight of
the MiG-29 and Su-27 modeled to take advantage of the AA-11?
No.
The HMS is not modeled in F4, and even though the AA-11 missile model is
capable of off boresight shoots of up to 67°, the AI is not capable of taking
full advantage of this. The AI will still point the nose at the target before
shooting, but in some cases, shots may be taken up to about 30-40° off
boresight if the AI has a radar lock on the target. What will not happen is the
AI shooting across the turn circle, a tactic that is not modeled in F4.
However, the human pilots can either slave the missile through radar or
manually uncage to shoot at targets off boresight, with a high degree of
success. However, off boresight firings will impact the range considerably due
to the need for the missile to maneuver at high incidences, resulting in a
large increase in drag. The thrust vectoring capability of the AA-11 is
modeled.
Is the altitude effect on missile
range modeled?
Yes
and no. A reasonable correct atmosphere model is captured in F4, and this will
give lower air density at high altitudes. As a result, missile drag decreases
with increasing altitude, leading to greater range at higher altitudes than
lower altitudes. However, the effect on the rocket plume pressure pattern and
thrust is not modeled. Real life ratio of high altitude range versus low
altitude range is about 3:1, and this is not achievable in F4 due to the lack
of an accurate missile plume model. The achievable range ratio is closer to
2.5:1 and 2:1. This effect is modeled for the AI as well, and is reflected in
the HUD DLZ scale.
Why is the MiG-25 capable of
launching the IR guided AA-6 from BVR ranges and the missile will still guide?
The
IR AA-6 has a command link to the launch aircraft where the launch aircraft can
update the missile will the target location real time even though the missile
does not have a valid lock. This will guide the missile towards the target, for
it to employ its onboard seeker for terminal guidance. The behavior and
tactical employment is modeled in the game by giving the seeker a very large
acquisition range, as F4 does not model command guidance. The missile will thus
be launched from as far as 15 nm out head-on, though tail-on launch range is
restricted to under 10 nm by the missile range breakpoints.
Why is it that the F-14 chooses
to fire other radar or SARH missiles first before the AIM-54?
The
AI is coded to always fire the missile loaded in the forward fuselage
hardpoints first. As such, if any other missile is loaded at the two forward
fuselage hardpoints, these gets fired first before any other missiles, even
though AIM-54 may be loaded under the wing or on the aft fuselage hardpoints.
To force the F-14 to shoot AIM-54 first, you will need to manually alter the
loadout and load the AIM-54 in the forward fuselage hardpoints.
Why is the hit rate of the SA-7
so bad?
SA-7
is a man portable missile with an uncooled seeker head. As such, its
sensitivity is low and very susceptible to breaking lock when target aspect
changes. In addition, it is also very prone to ground IR clutter, and being
decoyed by clouds and sun. Most of the shots that seem to be launched
ballistically are due to guidance problems, i.e. the missile locks onto
something else like the sun. As with all man portable SAMs, these missiles have
very small control fins, and are limited in maneuverability. Hence, for higher
speed targets, they are usually not able to complete the intercept due to rapid
energy loss. This problem affects all MANPADs such as Stinger, SA-7, SA-14, and
HN-5A.
Why can’t the Daewoo Chun-Ma (K-SAM)
be decoyed by flares or chaff?
The
Daewoo Chun-Ma (Pegasus) SAM system relies on command guidance. The missile has
no onboard seeker, and relies on rear facing antenna to receive guidance
signals from the launch vehicle. Guidance is through the gunner tracking the
target on a FLIR targeting sight, and the fire control system sends out
steering commands to the missile by collimating the missile flight path with
the line of sight to the target. As such, this mode of guidance is impervious
to counter measures such as flares and chaff. However, the command link can be
jammed, though this aspect is not modeled in F4. The only means of defeating
the missile is to out maneuver or out-run it, which should not be too difficult
given the low proportional navigation gain and tracking rate of the missile.
Why is it that the SA-2 is only
marginally effective above 60,000 feet? Did it not shoot down a U-2 from 72,000
feet once?
The
U-2 was shot down at 72,000 feet over Soviet Union. At that time, a total of
approximately 14 SA-2 were fired, and only one struck. The U-2 has a very low
cruise indicated airspeed in the region of 150+ knots, and as such, it does not
require a missile of tremendous energy state to reach it. The SA-2 that stuck
the U-2 only needed to fly slightly faster to complete the intercept. Against
fighter type targets, the SA-2 will stand lesser chance of completing the
intercept due to the higher target speed.
Why do I get an “M” symbol on the
RWR whenever the SA-5 fires?
The
SA-5 is a command guided missile in the initial stage, but is equipped with an
onboard active radar seeker for terminal homing. The seeker is usually
activated close to the target location, and as such, it will trigger off the
RWR system to display the “M” symbol, indicating that the SA-5 launch crew has
activated the missile’s onboard seeker for terminal guidance.
The SAMs in F4 are killing me,
and the kill ratios are much higher than actual combat statistics. Are the SAMs
too maneuverable?
The
SAM kinematic and guidance models have been tested in stock firing profiles to
evaluate the kinematic performance as well as guidance characteristics, against
a variety of different engagement scenarios and profiles. These testing have
allowed the kinematic models to be tuned such that the performance are
commensurate to their design and size, and as such, are as accurate as open
literature can suggest.
Combat
experience and statistics are due to a variety of different reasons, most
importantly an integrated air defense suppression plan, in the form of
stand-off jammers (SOJ) such as EA-6B, EF-111 and EC-130 (the “soft” kill
assets), as well as SEAD strikers such as F-4G and F-16 (the “hard” kill
assets), preceding every strike. The SOJ often employ broad band noise jamming
techniques to deny the SAM radars any chance of detecting and locking onto
targets by flooding the receivers with noise and drowning out the true target
radar returns. This prevents the fire control radars from achieving firing
solutions. In addition, the SEAD strikers equipped with HARMs often launch
preemptively at any SAM radars that actively emit. Such techniques prevents
lock-ons by active emitters, at the same time kills the emitters that are
emitting. This forces the air defenses not to emit to so to deny a HARM shot,
and negates the air defense networks.
Without
the fire control information, SAMs are often fired ballistically or optically
aimed, resulting in reduced effectiveness. In addition, SAMs are often fired in
barrages, aimed or otherwise, to deter strikers from approaching the target
area. All these factors contribute to the low kill statistics of SAMs in actual
conflicts. The defensive ECM suite present on the strike aircraft only serve to
delay and deny lock-ons from SAM radars onto the strikers, but are only a small
part of the integrated electronic warfare plan.
F4
does not model strike packages accurately, in that most strike packages are not
accompanied by stand off jammers, and many packages are similarly not
accompanied by SEAD packages with HARMs. As such, strike packages often face the full wrath of the integrated air
defense system, resulting in the higher SAM kill statistics in F4.
As
for why the defensive jammers are ineffective once SAMs are launched, and also
when the strike aircraft gets closer to the SAM site, this aspect is relatively
accurate in F4. All podded defensive ECM have effective coverage arcs that do
not encompass the entire aircraft, and which the emitter must be within in
order for the jammer to be effective against. Once the aircraft takes evasive
action, the SAM site may not be allowed to stay within the coverage arc for
significant amount of time for the jammer to become effective. In addition, once a valid firing solution is
obtained, any jamming may trigger ECCM modes in the SAM radar, and the radar
will instead zero-in onto the jamming source, thus turning the jammer into a
guidance beacon.
Jammer
effectiveness is also governed by the jamming to signal ratio. This ratio is
higher when the jammer is further away, and progressively decreases with range
reduction. As such, the closer the target is to the SAM radar, the higher the
chance of the SAM radar “burning through”, and this happens when the target
return signal is high enough and exceeds the jammer signal. When this happens,
the jammer loses it effectiveness. This aspect is modeled in F4, though most
radars are not modeled as accurately as they should be, and will be corrected
in due time.
I used to be able to lock-on to
targets from 10-15 nm away using the Maverick, but the Maverick tracking gates
now begin to pulse only at closer ranges. What happened?
Maverick
missiles (TV and IIR) guide using the contrast of the video picture. The
original AGM-65B seeker in F4 was over-modeled, especially against small sized
targets such as ground vehicles. This aspect has been corrected, and the new
lock-on range is an average between small sized targets and larger sized
targets. In addition, due to the limited zoom capability on the AGM-65B, the
lock-on range have been decreased slightly to model its characteristics more
accurately. In addition, the target has to achieve a certain size in the
Maverick video before the tracking solution can be arrived. Currently, this
aspect is similarly over represented in F4.
As
for the IR Mavericks, the IR seeker’s acquisition range is dependent on
humidity, thermal differences, atmospheric particulate count, etc. For the
seeker sensitivity wavelengths in the Maverick, the seeker’s acquisition range
is expected to be lower in the Korean atmosphere. This aspect is similarly
capture by scaling back the seeker range. The video picture over-represents the
imaging capabilities against small targets, and as such, the acquisition range
have been reigned in.
SECTION 3: FACLON
4.0 MISSILE MODELING
Missile Modeling Files
The
files used for modeling the missiles are as follows. The files with extensions
DAT and VEH are ASCII files, while the FALCON4.SWD, FALCON4.ICD and FALCON4.WCD
files are binary files. Descriptions of the binary files are based on Julian
Onions’ F4browse v2.1 beta 16.
.DAT
- In
sim/misdata directory. This contains the missile seeker information, as well as
motor burn time, missile aerodynamic coefficients for flight modeling, and
range information for the AI.
.VEH
- In
sim/vehdef directory. Contains the missile vehicular information, such as
weight, drag factor, name, and weapon type.
FALCON4.SWD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the
simulation weapon data, which contains the missile pointer (indicating which
entry in the mistypes.lst file in the sim/misdata directory), and the type of
weapon. The SWD file is used to point to the correct entry in the mistypes.lst
file, which then refers Falcon 4 to the appropriate missile DAT file.
FALCON4.WCD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the
weapon data, such as weight, blast radius, drag (in counts), guidance type,
damage, and the onboard seeker radar type (if any).
FALCON4.ICD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the
missile IR seeker properties, similar to the .IRS file. The information
includes nominal range, seeker field of regard, seeker field of view, flare
chance, and ground factor. I suspect that the information presented here
supercedes those in the .IRS file.
FALCON4.RWD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the anti
radiation missile seeker properties, in addition to the RWR characteristics.
The information include acquisition sensitivity, field of view in azimuth, and
field of view in elevation.
FALCON4.VSD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the TV
seeker properties, in addition to the visual seeker characteristics (such as
Mk-1 eyeball). The information include acquisition range, field of view in
azimuth, and field of view in elevation.
Missile Flight Modeling
The
missile model in Falcon 4 mimics that of the actual missile range computation
algorithm in the fire control computer of modern aircraft. The missile range
modeling is a three-degree of freedom simulation, mechanized as follows:
When
the missile is fired, the impulse is first used to compute the initial missile
velocity.
Missile
aerodynamics is resolved using trigonometry, through two tables, one containing
the normal force coefficient Cx (perpendicular to the x axis of the missile),
and the axial force Cz (along the missile x axis). The missile lift and drag
force relative to its flight path is resolved based on the angle of attack, as
follows:
Lift = {Cz *
Reference Area x cos (missile AOA)} + {Cx * Reference Area x
sin (missile AOA)}
Drag
= {Cx * Reference Area x cos (missile AOA)} + {Cz * Reference Area x
sin (missile AOA)}
Missile
thrust is computed from the motor time history
Flight
trajectory is computed by resolving the lift, drag, and thrust, as well as the
missile weight
Missile
guidance is affected by proportional gain factor, which controls directly how
much the missile leads the target in the pursuit
Warhead
effectiveness is controlled not by the data files, but by the FALCON4.SWD file,
which contains the simulation weapon data
Interpreting DAT File Data Fields
Final
Time (sec) - This controls the total guidance time of the missile. In actual
fact, this is the life of the thermal battery onboard the missile, which
provide electrical power to the guidance package. In some missiles, they will
self-destruct at this time. Falcon 4 will command a self-destruct for the
missile.
Pk
- The probability of kill, assuming that the missile is fired at a
non-maneuvering target that does not evade nor employ IRCCM/ECM. This may or
may not be one. I have not found any effect of this at all.
Weight
of missile (lbs) - Missile weight at launch, in pounds.
Weight
of propellant (lbs) - Weight of missile rocket motor. This weight is burned off
from the missile weight linearly throughout the life of the missile motor burn
time.
Motor
Impulse (lb-sec) - The missile rocket motor impulse, in lb-sec. This is the
integral of the motor thrust time history. I have not found any part that this
number will play in Falcon 4, other than being there for information. For most
missiles, this number is left unchanged or at some arbitrary figure.
Missile
Reference Area (ft*ft) - The missile reference area in square feet, usually
defined as the cross section of the missile body.
Nozzle
Exit Area (ft*ft) - The missile rocket motor nozzle exit area. This number has
no game function and is usually for reference.
Length
(ft) - Missile length. This number has no game function.
AOA
min, AOA max, Beta min, Beta max (deg) - The maximum allowable angle of attack
and angle of sideslip for the missile, in degrees. For a missile, both angles
are the same since missiles are symmetric about the pitch and yaw axis. The
default values in Falcon 4 are way too high for most missiles, at 25°. The more
appropriate AOA and sideslip for conventionally steered missiles (i.e. non
thrust vectoring missiles) is about 15-19°, with AA-11 going up to maybe about
25-35°. Exceeding this will usually result in the missile stalling and losing
lift, which is not modeled in Falcon 4.
Velocity
min (ft/sec) - The minimum missile velocity. This number has no game function.
Gimbal
Angle Limit (deg) - The missile seeker gimbal angle limit, in degrees, with
reference to the missile x body axis. This is way to high for most missiles.
This number does not control IR seeker gimbals, which is controlled by the
FALCON4.ICD file.
Gimbl
Ang Rate Lim (deg/sec) - The missile seeker gimbal angular rate limit. In
actual missiles, the actual performance is determined by the smaller of either
the gimbal angular rate limit or the tracking rate limit. Since Falcon 4
missile modeling is simple, this figure actually corresponds to the tracking
rate, and defines how fast (in degrees per second) the missile can traverse
across the seeker. The higher the number, the better the missile is at keeping
track of a high crossing rate target. This number is way too high on all the
missiles.
Field
of view (deg) - The missile seeker field of view in degrees. This number does
not control IR missiles, whose seeker data are embedded in the FALCON4.ICD
file.
Guidance
Delay - The time in seconds between missile launch and commence of missile
guidance. The time for most A/A missiles are something like 0.2 to 0.5 seconds,
and about 2-5 seconds for SAMs. It prevents the missile from maneuvering while
in close proximity to the launch aircraft. This is not the safe and arming
time. However, since Falcon 4 does not model safe and arming, the guidance
delay can be used to simulate this to increase Rmin. The downside of using
guidance delay is that if you are shooting close to the gimbal limit, the
guidance delay may result in the target exiting the seeker gimbal limits and
losing lock. This may not necessarily happen with the real missile.
Lofting
bias - This controls how much the missile will loft once fired. The higher the number,
the greater the lofting upon launch.
Proportional
Nav gain - This number controls how much lead the missile guidance will
perform. By lowering the number, the missile end game will usually result in a
tail chase. Raising the number will lead to a shorter intercept time since the
missile will pull a lot of lead to perform the quickest intercept. The number
is also way too high in all the missiles.
Autopilot
Bandwidth - This is the autopilot guidance system bandwidth for active missiles
only. I haven't found the exact effect of changing this.
Time
to go active (sec) - The time that the missile will go active, for an active
radar guided missile. For a passive sensor, this is set to -1.
Seeker
Type, Version - The seeker type and version. Version for IR missiles pertains
to the appropriate entry in the FALCON4.ICD file.
Type
0 Infra-red homing
1 Active radar homing
2 Anti radiation radar homing
3 Optically guided
6 Semi active radar homing
Display
- This number indicate whether the missile displays any picture on the aircraft
MFD (I guess).
0 No picture
1 Optical picture (normal optics)
2. Imaging Infrared picture
4 HARM Targeting Display
Missile
Aerodynamic Data - The data here is presented in an entire block. The data grid
is divided into Mach and Alpha (angle of attack), for the pertinent aerodynamic
coefficients, Cz (normal force) and Cx (axial force).
The
coefficients are presented in a matrix for each Mach number breakpoint, with a
normal or axial multiplier factor. The multiplier allows Microprose to use the
same aerodynamic data for different missiles, and scale them according to the
missile weight.
The
multiplier is applied to all data points within the data grid. All Cx and Cz
data are given as negative, since this is the normal convention is missile or
aircraft aerodynamics. When resolved accordingly, the negative sign will
produce drag accordingly. The data for Cz is not aerodynamically
representative, and I have applied some engineering judgment to re-create a
typical drag data for missiles.
Mach
- This states the number of Mach breakpoints in the data grid
Alpha
- This states the number of angle of attack breakpoints in the data grid
Normal
Multiplier - The multiplier factor used to alter all the data points in the
normal force coefficient matrix.
Axial
Multiplier - The multiplier factor used to alter all the data points in the
axial force coefficient matrix.
Engine
Data - The rocket motor data is given as a thrust profile, with respect to
time, in pounds. The first number under the BRNTIM entry is the number of
breakpoints in the rocket motor burn time history, followed by a data block
with the corresponding time breakpoints.
The
second data block is the motor thrust in pounds, corresponding to the
individual time breakpoints.
Range
Data - This gives the missile engagement range in Rmax2, for the AI. The
descriptions are as follows:
Table
Multiplier - The multiplier factor for the range data
Altitude
Breakpoints - This shows the number of different altitude bands, and breakdown
of each altitude in feet.
Velocity
Breakpoints - This gives the number of velocity breakpoints, and a breakdown of
each velocity. The velocity seems to be in knots, and seem to pertain to launch
aircraft velocity.
Aspect
Breakpoints - This gives the engagement range data for the different target
aspects. Range data is given as a block for all three aspects for each mach and
altitude combination. It is possible to create rear aspect missiles and prevent
the AI from firing it all aspect, by limiting the aspect breakpoints to angles
behind the 3-9 line.
The
range is given in feet, as aspect angle is given in radians (1.57 is pi
radians, and gives 90 degrees).
The
range breakpoints for A/A missiles will determine the range envelope, as well
as the HUD DLZ cues. For example, to determine the firing range against a
target closing at 800 knots, at 16,000 feet, 20 degrees off the nose, you will
need to first interpolate between the range breakpoints for aspect of 0 and
1.5708 for both 15000 and 20000 feet,, for both 0 knots and 1181.49 knots to
obtain the firing range for closure of 0 knots and 1181.49 at 15000 and 20000
feet at 20 degrees angle off. You then interpolate the two closure speeds to
obtain the firing range for a closure speed of 800 knots for both 15000 and
20000 feet, and finally interpolate between the altitude to obtain 16000 feet.
For
SAMs, the range breakpoints in the DAT file are for reference only, and not
actually used. The firing ranges and altitudes are encoded in the FALCON4.SWD
file, in the fields labeled as RANGE, AIR BLAST, and AIR HIT, by Julian Onions’
F4Browse utility. There may be other data fields involved. The relationship
between these data fields are currently not entirely known, though the SAMs
have been tweaked to achieve realistic firing altitudes and ranges.
General Notes
It
is possible to include more breakpoints in modeling the missile aerodynamics.
However, Falcon 4 interpolates linearly between breakpoints, and introduction
of more breakpoints to model more accurately missile performance will only
incur additional CPU cycles and memory for processing.
Modeling Rmin - Falcon 4 does not model Rmin properly, the
default AIM-120 model can actually be fired at targets well within 1 nm of
range head on, and still obtain a hit. The safe and arming time for missiles
play a very important role in constraining the Rmin for missiles. Since the
safe and arming time for missiles are not modeled, it can be somewhat simulated
using guidance delay. However, the side effect of using guidance delay is that
the missile will not guide during the delay, and if it is launched close to the
gimbal limits, the delay may result in the target exiting the limits. The
missile behavior is also not like real missiles, which will usually begin to
guide within 0.5 seconds of launch. However, safe and arming usually occurs
within 300-400 meters from the launch aircraft, which corresponds to about
900-1500 feet.
Interpreting Missile
Range - Before any one screams about
AIM-120 or any other BVR missiles hitting targets when launched at 0.5nm from
the target being totally unrealistic, and BVR missiles not being able to hit
anything beyond 12 nm, you need to consider the firing geometry.
Missile
ranges are often quoted in reputable journals and publications. These ranges
are however often quoted without the firing conditions and geometry. Firing
geometry and target maneuver will influence range considerably. Consider the
AIM-7, when fired head-on at a non-maneuvering target, its range is
approximately 3 times more than a maneuvering target in a constant 5g turn. In
the latter case, the AIM-7 is barely even BVR. As another example, the AMRAAM
is often quoted with a 50 km range. This is more of a head-on engagement at a
non-maneuvering target than anything else is.
The general rules of
thumb are as follows:
Rmin is smallest when
firing head-on at high closure. The higher the closure, the further Rmin
becomes.
Rmin in tail-on
engagements are closer than Rmin in head-on engagements. This is only expected,
since the missile needs to man maneuver less. Head-on shots often have high LOS
drift rates, and thus may result in the missile requiring more maneuvering
capability that it is capable of.
Rmax at a
non-maneuvering target is also about 2-3 times more than a maneuvering target.
Head-on engagement range is greater than tail-on. This is plain
kinematics. However, head-on range for
IR missiles is limited by the seeker performance. Thus, IR missile head-on
ranges are less than tail-on ranges.
New IR missiles
generally have greater seeker acquisition range in the rear aspect than its
kinematic range. Kinematic range will however exceed seeker acquisition range
in the front aspect.
Anytime the missile
is made to maneuver, it will lose energy rapidly. Prior to motor burnout, the
missile can maneuver without losing much energy. Once the motor has burnt out,
you should expect the missile to lose energy fairly quickly even when not
maneuvering. Missile drag at high supersonic Mach numbers is considerable.
Creating an Accurate Missile Model in Falcon 4
The following factors
have the greatest influence over missile performance in Falcon 4. These changes
must be applied together to obtain the correct behavior:
Seeker gimbal limit
Seeker angular rate
Missile Cx (normal
force) and Cz (axial force)
Cx and Cz multiplier
Motor thrust history
Reference area
Missile weight and
propellant weight
Most hex editors only
concern themselves with changing blast distance, warhead damage figures, seeker
characteristics (gimbal limit, angular rate, and seeker range), and missile
mass properties. Some will also change the motor burn time to affect range.
Some have also limited the maximum AOA and sideslip to limit maneuverability.
However, the most important changes of all is the missile aerodynamics, which
many leave unchanged.
Without changing
missile aerodynamics, it is impossible to model properly motor burnout effects,
and vary the missile maneuvering capability with missile speed. The default
Falcon 4 missile model loses energy at an incredibly slow rate after burnout,
and even when maneuvering. This gives the missile impossibly high
maneuverability throughout the entire engagement range.
The Realism Patch
models the missile aerodynamics as follows:
Leave the maximum and
minimum AOA and sideslip at realistically high values such as 15-20°. Make sure
that missile mass properties and reference area are correct.
Adjust normal force
to aerodynamically representative values. This should decrease slightly with
Mach.
Reduce normal force
multiplier slightly to reduce missile maneuverability. The overall effect of
this change, together with (i) and (ii), will make the missile more
maneuverable at higher Mach due to the higher normal force, though missile AOA
required to achieve the g will be less. At lower Mach, the missile has the
ability to use higher AOA to complete the intercept, though normal force will
be lower, and missile g may be lower.
Adjust axial force to
model higher energy loss at higher AOA, and also increase missile drag at 0°
AOA to increase the nominal energy bleed rate. Missile drag increases with
Mach, and this has to be reflected. Hence, the missile energy bleed rate is
higher at higher Mach, and decreases as Mach decreases.
Increase axial force
multiplier to increase missile drag. The overall effect of (iv) and (v) is to
simulate increased missile energy loss rate under g, due to increased missile
drag.
ACMI recordings are
also invaluable for diagnosing missile problems. It is important to determine firing geometry as well as ranges,
and target maneuvering history, in order to interpret the test results
properly. The satellite and isometric view is also good for working out target
G as well as estimating missile speed and g. You should also utilize standard
fixed firing profiles and engagement geometries to tweak the missile. That way,
you will always have a correct baseline for comparison.
Introduction
Changes were made to all vehicle and missile radars. Sylvain
G. discovered the details of how the radars work and affect the AI, though
others before him discovered what the FALCON4.RCD floats represent. The
explanations of how the radar works here are credited to Sylvain.
F4 models the radar in two forms in the game. For the human player, the radar scan volume obeys the bar scan, azimuth coverage and beamwidth stipulated in the FALCON4.RCD file. As such, the entire azimuth and elevation limit is not scanned, which is realistic and is how a real radar behaves. For the AI, the radar scan volume is the entire azimuth and elevation limit. This is something that is coded inside the game, and not easily hex editable as discovered by Sylvain. In actual fact, had the AI been modeled with an accurate radar, the FPS penalty would have been tremendous.
What the RCD Floats Represent
RWR and
RWR LOW Gain:
The RWR gain is used for normal RWR modes, while the RWR LOW
gain is used for the RWR in the LOW mode. When the RWR detects that a target
has spiked it, the slant range between the emitter and the target (the player)
is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of the square of height
difference and longitudinal range difference (Pythagoras Theorem). The value is
then divided by two times the range of the emitter radar. If the resultant
value is less than 0.8, the RWR (or RWR LOW) gain is multiplied by the
difference between 1 and this value. Else, the RWR gain is multiplied by 0.2.
The net value will be a float between 0.2 and 1. The RCD float will control if
the emitter symbol is placed inside the inner or outer ring.
Chaff:
This float controls the chaff susceptibility of the radar to
chaff. The routine for maintaining a radar lock takes into account target range
from the emitter, and the chaff susceptibility. When the target releases chaff,
F4 performs some computation using two hardcoded static arrays that is
dependent on distance. The resultant float is then multiplied by the chaff
susceptibility, to determine if the radar lock is maintained. As such, chaff
susceptibility is also distance dependent. In general, the higher the float,
the easier it will be to break radar lock, and chaff will remain effective even
as the emitter closes in.
ECM, Beam
Distance:
This controls the distance at which ECM or beaming will
become ineffective. For example, if a radar has a range of 32 nm against a
target, and the ECM and beam distance floats are 0.1 and 0.2 respectively, then
ECM will break the radar lock unless the target is within 3.2 nm of the radar.
Similarly, the target can break the radar lock by beaming as long as the
emitter is more than 6.4 nm away.
Range,
Look Down Distance:
Range is the radar range in feet. The detection range for
target are computed as follows:
Detection Range = 1.25 × Radar Cross Section × Radar Range
Look down distance is a radar range multiplier, used when
the target is more than 5 degrees below the emitter. This represents the look
down performance of the radar. For example, for a radar with a range of 32 nm
against the F-16, in a look down situation, if the Look Down Distance float is
0.5, then it will only detect the F-16 at 16 nm.
Sweep
Time:
This is the time interval in milliseconds for the radar to
refresh the target track. For example, for a sweep time of 3000, the radar will
refresh the target track every 3 seconds to check if the target is still
detected and locked.
All the other RCD floats are self explanatory.
Changes Made
Changes were made to all radars, based on public information
available on Jane’s Avionics, Jane’s Radar and Electronic Warfare, and other
sources such as the USN Radar and Electronic Warfare Handbook. Information was
produced using radar equations as far as possible, before being used to modify
the RCD floats. Radar performance are understandably sensitive information and
not publicly available. Hence, ECM performance are deduced by examining the
state of the technology, and whatever information available publicly. F4 does
not model ECCM modes as they should be, and neither does F4 model the full
effects of ECM. ECM in F4 will only result in the radar lock being broken, but
will not result in false targets, etc.
You will find a big difference between different radars now.
For example, you will not be able to pick up targets with the F-5E or the
MiG-19 and MiG-21 in a look down situation, as these aircraft are equipped with
pulse radars that lack a look down capability. In addition, beaming will not be
effective against such aircraft, as it does not utilize the Doppler gate.
Chaff and ECM resistance is also changed, with older radars
being more susceptible to ECM and chaff, and newer radars being more resistant.
Beaming is also more effective now and closer to actual radar performance.
Before this, beaming was ineffective in F4.
If you need to understand electronic warfare and how radars
work, we have used the following information sources. This is not an exhaustive
list that we have used, but only a selection:
1.
Jane’s Avionics 1998-99
2.
Jane’s Radar and Electronic Warfare 1998-99
3.
Jane’s All The World Aircraft 1998-99
4.
Jane’s Aircraft Upgrade 1998-99
5.
USN Electronic Warfare and Radar Engineering Handbook,
available at http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil
6.
Journal of Electronic Defense, http://www.jedonline.com
7.
AFP 51-45: Electronic Combat Principles, September 1987,
available at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/cdpc/pubs/AF/Pamplets/p0051050.pdf
Some minor missile changes were made to SA-2, SA-3, SA-5,
SA-6, SA-9, SA-13, SA-19, and Nike Hercules. The maximum allowable AOA and
sideslip were reduced after a re-evaluation and testing of these missile’s
maneuverability. The SA-5 now has a minimum engagement range of approximately
3-4 nm, and it is now possible to out-maneuver the missiles such as SA-2, SA-3,
and Nike Hercules by executing a hard 6-7g turn into the missile when timed
correctly.
This modification typifies the
spirit of cooperation and sharing of knowledge that exists in the Falcon 4.0
community. Someone on the Delphi falcon4 forum posted a note on how to simply
text edit a file in the campaign folder that would allow you to join any
squadron in a campaign. Unfortunately, we cannot remember that user’s name, as
that user posts rarely - we should thank him for his find and subsequent
sharing of information.
The excitement of the discovery
overwhelmed those involved in exploiting it. Very quickly, this information was
passed on to Marco Formato who discovered how the numbers were related to the
Falcon4 file structure to identify F-16s.
Rhino, then edited the file to include all the aircraft squadrons in the
campaign. Later this was modified by Leo Rogic to include the helicopter
squadrons as well.
Marco then
discovered that he could edit the Falcon 4.0 executable to "skip" the
check for an F-16 before the human flew his aircraft. Hence, one can now jump
into ANY active squadron and await the campaign sortie generator to fly in the
squadrons in campaign OR TE. This now
allows adversarial multiplayer with one team flying for the OPFOR and another
team for NATO. This also created a huge push for players to begin to correct
the flight models, cockpits, and ordnance loads of the other aircraft in the
game.
To fly as
any other aircraft in RP3, one must only start a campaign or TE and look at the
different airbases that are available for tasking in the theatre window in the
upper right-hand corner of the mission wrapper screen. If you click on one of the active airbases,
you will see the squadrons available for tasking at that airbase. Then, if you click on one of the squadrons
that are listed, you will see the different aircraft available to you. If you start the mission at this point, you
will have joined as a member of that squadron, and the planes that squadron
flies will be available to you.
The air units (squadron size) used in F4’s campaign by
default are 24 aircraft in size. Recent research has discovered that Russian
squadron sizes are in-fact smaller. Information gathered from references in the
80's show Russian bomber units of only nine aircraft. Russian fighter and fighter-bomber units are typically between
12-15 aircraft in size. Looking at current force structures of the Hungarian
Air Regiments used in Kosovo confirms these numbers.
In fact, even US squadrons have reduced in size, with the
average USAF fighter squadron now with 18 aircraft and not 24. In some cases,
you can still find larger sized squadrons but in most situations, you will find
smaller unit sizes.
Other aircraft unit sizes are surprisingly small too. It is
a matter of simple math - there are 606 C-130 aircraft in 40 squadrons. This
averages out to be 15 aircraft per squadron and not 24. ROK, DPRK, CHINA and the rest are assumed to
use their allied squadron organizations, which means that they adopt the
squadron sizing constructs of their “big brothers” – the US and Russia.
We also know that Falcon 4.0 does not, and probably could
not, do a Korean War on a 1-for-1 basis. Over 200 J-5 aircraft (Mig15, 17
types) are not even depicted, but since we have now allowed the MIG19 to
perform the same missions as the J-5, we have accommodated and implemented a
lost but vital part of a war in Korea.
Numerical superiority in the DPRK is prevalent in the number of
squadrons available in F4 – it currently does a good job of showing more DPRK
units than NATO. Chopper units in the real world in some cases are actually
much larger than F4 allows. However, the attack helicopter units on both sides
are well represented.
Although maintenance and repair is a critical issue, it was
not used for consideration. Poor
countries sometimes have such a poor military budget that they just cannot keep
their aircraft flying. It is arguable
that of the 60 or so MiG-29s the DPRK has, only about 30-40 are combat capable
at any one time. Most of the DPRK fleet is older, outdated, and near museum
pieces from the 50's and 60's. Although the fleet has been modernized through
the years, and is rumored to actually be licensed builders of the MiG 29, the
DPRK does not throw away any aircraft. An air war in Korea will still consist
of MiG 15s, even today.
The campaign force slider can change the number of aircraft
in a campaign slightly. In building these units, we recommend a middle slider
setting to get the most realistic known squadron size. The force slider is
bugged in that it will not stay where you put it. Move the slider one notch to
the right and it will then move to the center position.
The UCD
(unit) modifications were built with force reductions representing real world
known
aviation unit sizes. Where unknown, we
used “lie” units - the DPRK would use Russian types and ROK would use US
types. Force sliders assumed to be
centered with no more than 25% changes from low to mid or mid to high.
Falcon 4.0 allows a limited number of vehicles to occupy a
battalion (basic unit structure in F4 – also represented as a single UNIT entry
in the UCD). The maximum number of
vehicles an F4 battalion can hold is 48.
There are far more vehicles in a real battalion, but unfortunately we
cannot include every vehicle that a battalion would normally include.
The ratio of non-combat (trucks, etc.) to combat vehicles
(tanks, IFVs) is now quite balanced with RP3.
In addition, different nations organize their battalions differently. We
are lucky that in some cases, eastern forces (DPRK, China) tend to copy the
Russian model. Western units (ROK) in
F4 copy the US model. There is a significant difference in the amount of combat
vehicles included a Russian maneuver unit and a US maneuver unit. Russian units
tend to have 30 combat vehicles while US units would typically have 58. What Falcon allows is a decent representation
of Russian type units, while only allowing about 2/3 of a US style unit.
The modifications incorporated into RP3 are meant to bring
the battalions into a "realistic" representation of their real world
counterparts, and to balance the ratio between the different types of
units.
We have
also found that the force ratio slider has an impact on the amount of these
vehicles when deployed. This could have potentially serious effects, as you
could now inadvertently leave significant vehicles out of the unit by moving
the slider one way or the other.
Imagine a Mech task force with no tanks! We had originally designed these units around how they would
typically deploy, as we knew that F4 moved them in column formations. Now we
must arrange them based on slider settings. Slider 0 would only use vehicles in
UCD slots 0-6. Slider position 6 will use ALL the vehicles resident in the UNIT
UCD record. When you create your campaign difficulty settings, please be aware
that the center setting is based on "most accurate size" for both
ground and air units.
Example: A US Armor battalion has
approximately 58 tanks. In F4 if the unit were totally pure with tanks, it
could only have 82% of its full strength. However it is typical that at least
one company of tanks gets cross attached to a mech battalion and one company
from that mech battalion gets attached to that Armor battalion. Now we have 42
tanks, and 14 IFVs or 12 platoons of tanks and four platoons of IFVs. Also hindering our effort is that Falcon
will not allow you to place more than three vehicles in a UCD entry slot and
the US units deploy in platoons of four. Therefore, we now end up with cutting
the US unit back further as each "slot" in F4 can be called a
platoon. But with all the support
vehicles that are still needed like scouts, mortars, air defense attachments,
trucks, and HUMWVEEs, the US battalion is shrunk in combat power even further.
List of
"Target Types" in "Priorities":
- Aircraft
- Air
Fields
- Air
Defenses
- Radar
- Army
- CCC
-
Infrastructure
-
Logistics
- War
Production
- Naval
Bases
- Armored
Units
- Infantry
Units
-
Artillery Units
- Support
Units
- Naval
Units
List of
"Mission Types" in "Priorities":
- OCA
- SAM
Suppression
-
Interdiction
- CAS
- Strategic
Strike
- Anti
Ship
- DCA
-
Reconnaissance
"Target
Type" - "Mission type" pairings:
OCA
If
"OCA" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no
"Aircraft" or "Air Fields" or "Radar" selected in
"Target Types" the Campaign generator would schedule:
- OCA
strikes (against army bases that house helicopter units)
- OCA
strikes (against airstrips)
- OCA
strikes (against highway airstrips)
If
"Aircraft" or "Air Fields" or "Radar" are
selected then the Campaign generator would additionally schedule:
- Sweeps
(against airborne targets)
- OCA
strikes (against army bases that house helicopter units)
- OCA
strikes (against radar sites - rare)
- OCA
strikes (against airbases)
- OCA
strikes (against airstrips)
- OCA
strikes (against highway airstrips)
Note: If
"Air Fields" are present as "Target Types" both
"OCA" and "Strategic
Strike"
must exist for "Mission Types"
SAM
Suppression
If
"SAM Suppression" is selected as "Mission Type" and there
are no "Air Defenses" selected in "Target Types" the
Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.
- No
missions scheduled
If
"Air Defenses" are selected then the Campaign generator would
schedule:
- SEAD
strikes (against SAM/AAA units)
Interdiction
If
"Interdiction" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no
"Air Defenses" or "Armored Units" or "Infantry
Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" or
"War Productions" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign
generator would not schedule any mission.
- No
missions scheduled
If
"Air Defenses" or "Armored Units" or "Infantry
Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" or
"War Productions" are selected then the Campaign generator would
schedule:
-
Interdiction missions (against SAM/AAA units)
-
Interdiction missions (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)
- BAI
missions against (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)
-
Interdiction missions (against industry)
Note: If
"War Productions" are present as "Target Types" both
"Interdiction" and
"Strategic
Strike" must exist for "Mission Types"
CAS
If
"CAS" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no
"Armored Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery
Units" or "Support Units" selected in "Target Types"
the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.
- No
missions scheduled
If "Armored
Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery Units" or
"Support Units" are selected then the Campaign generator would
schedule:
- CAS
missions (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)
Strategic
Strike
If
"Strategic Strike" is selected as "Mission Type" and there
are no "Air Fields" or "Army" or "CCC" or
"Infrastructure" or "Logistics" or "War
Productions" or "Naval Bases" selected in "Target
Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.
- No
missions scheduled
If
"Air Fields" or "Army" or "CCC" or
"Infrastructure" or "Logistics" or "War
Productions" or "Naval bases" are selected then the Campaign
generator would schedule:
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against airbases)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against army HQ's - rare)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against CCC - rare)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against bridges)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against depots - rare)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against industry)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against naval bases - rare)
-
Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against airbases)
Note: If
"Air Fields" are present as "Target Types" both
"OCA" and "Strategic
Strike"
must exist for "Mission Types" (see #1 OCA for more)
Anti Ship
If
"Anti Ship" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no
"Naval Units" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign
generator would not schedule any mission.
- No
missions scheduled
If
"Naval Units" were selected then the Campaign generator would
schedule:
- Anti
Ship missions (against ships - rare)
DCA
There is
no need for "Target Type" in DCA. When selected the Campaign
generator would automatically schedule:
- CAP
missions (against airborne targets)
-
Intercept missions (against airborne targets - rare)
Reconnaissance
There is
no need for "Target Type" in Reconnaissance. When selected the
Campaign generator would automatically schedule:
-
Reconnaissance missions
Further
Explanations:
#1 User
can only influence "package type missions"
List of
"Mission Types" in "Campaign Priorities":
- OCA
- SAM
Suppression
-
Interdiction
- CAS
-
Strategic Strike
- Anti
Ship
- DCA
-
Reconnaissance
User only
has influence on package type missions (i.e. the main mission on which the
package builds upon and does not influence at all on sub-package flights.
Therefore,
even if you disable "SAM Suppression" in "Mission Types"
but still have "Strategic Strike" enabled you would get strike
packages which still include "SEAD Escort" flights. The only thing
you would not get is the "SEAD Strike" as "Mission Type".
#2 Package
interconnection
Although,
in "Strategic Strike" or "OCA Strike" packages (for
example) itself there are not "SEAD Strike" and "Sweep"
flights - they do EXIST!
The F4
Campaign generator would create those "SEAD Strike" and
"Sweep" flights - but as SEPARATE PACKAGES.
In order
to have "Sweep" missions you need to set "OCA" and
"Aircraft", and to have "SEAD Strike" you need to have
"SAM Suppression" and "Air Defenses" set.
Here is
quick summary of bad things in this approach by F4 Campaign generator.
a) ToT
(Time on Target) problem:
For such
combination of "Sweep" package + "SEAD Strike" package and,
finally, "OCA Strike" package the ToT would be the same.
This is
bad since (IMHO) "SEAD Strike" and "Sweep" packages would
have to be several minutes earlier there to clear up the path.
b)
"Campaign Properties":
Be VERY
careful with setting up those. If you mess up there you would get deep
penetration packages without "Sweep" and "SEAD Strike"
packages to accompany. That way you would end up with virtually suicide
strikes.
#3 PAKs
-------
Note that
selecting PAKs also plays a big role here. In other words, this is important
because in some PAKs some targets might or might not exist at the moment (you
can task F4 Campaign generator NOT to attack certain PAKs at all).
Examples:
#1
OCA = 100%
SAM
Suppression = 0%
Interdiction =
0%
CAS = 0%
Strategic
Strike = 0%
Anti
Ship = 0%
DCA = 0%
Reconnaissance = 0%
------------------------
= 100
100/100 =
1 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 1% of all
missions scheduled.
All
scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA.
In other
words, 100% of all missions would be OCA flights.
#2
OCA = 100%
SAM
Suppression = 0%
Interdiction =
0%
CAS = 0%
Strategic
Strike = 0%
Anti
Ship = 0%
DCA = 100%
Reconnaissance = 0%
------------------------
= 200
100/200 =
0.5 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 0.5% of all
missions scheduled.
All
scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA and DCA.
In other
words, 50% of OCA and 50% DCA flights would be scheduled.
#3
OCA = 100%
SAM
Suppression = 0%
Interdiction =
0%
CAS =
50%
Strategic
Strike = 0%
Anti
Ship = 0%
DCA = 100%
Reconnaissance = 0%
------------------------
= 250
100/250 =
0.4 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 0.4% of all
missions scheduled.
All
scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA, DCA and
CAS.
In other
words, 40% of OCA, 40% DCA and 20% of CAS flights would be scheduled.
The
maximum number of vehicle slots (the number of vehicle in one entry can be 3 at
max) is 16 (0-16) in units.
The
principle of "Force Ratios Slider" is very simple indeed:
Harder Gameplay Easier Gameplay
(MIN)
(MIDDLE) (MAX)
|
| | | |
Player -
used vehicle slots 0-7 0-9 0-11
0-13 0-15
Player -
number of vehicle slots (8) (10)
(12) (14) (16)
Enemy
- used vehicle slots 0-15 0-13 0-11 0-9
0-7
Enemy
- number of vehicle slots (16) (14) (12) (10)
(8)
Note1:
Please use proportional font in order to see the table in right way (use the
copy & paste to some editor if all other options fail)
Note2:
Enemy side is always at "Left" regardless of flag shown (this is
important to know when flying for DPRK/China/Russia)
Note3:
Some slider settings can't be obtained so you have to move slide one notch left/right and re-enter Campaign
"Force Ratios Slider in order to achieve desired settings
Therefore,
please note that iBeta recommends that "Force Ratio Sliders" in
campaign are properly adjusted only when they are in the middle. This is the
only setting where realistic (real world) sizes for ground and air units are
set.
#1 -
"Density Slider" effectively turns OFF the vehicles inside unit from
3D combat. They simply do not exist in our 3D flying world and they can't be
engaged or engage us or other AI vehicles (air/land/sea).
#2 - When
visible vehicles in unit are destroyed the previously invisible vehicle
replaces it's place in our 3D flying world.
#3 - The
"Density Slider" selects percentage of vehicles inside unit that are
shown in 3D world. This number can or can not be "rounded up" with
vehicle slot (i.e. if some vehicle slot holds 3 vehicles certain "Density
Slider" setting can select only 1 or 2 from it).
#4 - The
"Density Slider" percentage varies a lot and I couldn't decipher
exact formula - but overall it looks like triangle.
Please not
that maximum number of vehicles per unit is 48 (16 vehicle slots x 3).
Below is
example of generic unit that has 48 (16x3) vehicles in it:
"Density Slider"
(Combined number of vehicles
for "Density Slider")
Vehicle
Slot 1 2 3 4 5 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
0. (3x)
1 (6) 2
(7) 3
(15) 4
(21) 5
(33) 6
(48)
1. (3x)
1 (6) 2
(7) 3
(15) 4
(21) 5
(33) 6
(48)
2. (3x) 2*(7) 3
(15) 4
(21) 5 (33) 6
(48)
3. (3x) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5
(33) 6
(48)
4. (3x) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5
(33) 6
(48)
5. (3x) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6
(48)
6. (3x) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6
(48)
7. (3x) 5
(33) 6
(48)
8. (3x) 5
(33) 6
(48)
9. (3x) 5 (33) 6 (48)
10.
(3x)
5 (33) 6 (48)
11.
(3x) 6 (48)
12.
(3x) 6 (48)
13.
(3x) 6 (48)
14.
(3x) 6 (48)
15.
(3x) 6 (48)
* = the
vehicles in this slot were not all shown
#5 There
is special variable "Rad Vcl" in unit window (look in "F4
Editor"). This variable holds the
number of radar vehicle slot. This is necessary because F4 must have fully
functional units even at lowest "Density Slider" setting.
In other
words even if radar vehicle of a SAM unit is positioned low in unit slots the
F4 overrides the otherwise triangular "shape" of used slots (see #4
above) and uses the vehicle slot marked by "Rad Vcl" even at
"Density Slider" = 1.
Below is
example of "Nike Hercules ADS" unit in iBeta RP2.1 (Rad Vcl=9):
"Density
Slider"
(Combined number of
vehicles for "Density Slider")
Vehicle
Slot 1 2 3 4 5 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2
(5) 3
(6) 4
(7) 5
(12) 6
(13)
1. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2
(5) 3
(6) 4
(7) 5
(12) 6
(13)
2. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2
(5) 3
(6) 4
(7) 5
(12) 6 (13)
3. Nike ADS (1x) 2
(5) 3
(6) 4
(7) 5
(12) 6
(13)
4. Nike ADS (1x) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5
(12) 6
(13)
5. Nike ADS (1x) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6
(13)
6. Fuel Truck (1x) 5 (12) 6 (13)
7. Jeep (3x) 5
(12) 6
(13)
8. M977 (2x) 5*(12) 6
(13)
9. Nike Radar (1x) 1 (4) 2
(5) 3
(6) 4
(7) 5
(12) 6
(13)
* = the
vehicles in this slot were not all shown
Conclusion
In order
to get all ground/sea units in proper way (i.e. as they are designed to be) the
user MUST play F4 with "Density Slider" at 6.
We know
that this is hard blow for many users who manipulated this "Density
Slider" to get better FPS but that's how the things are... sorry boys...
While we
were testing F4 we noticed that time acceleration plays very, very BIG role in
how statistical fight is resolved in TE and campaign.
Note:
There are essentially 2 kinds of combat in F4. Combat done in our 3D world and
statistical fight (when you, just observe symbols on Korea map).
Our
conclusions are quite shocking:
Even
though having a PIII-600 and 256 MB of RAM, we found the accelerated time
speeds higher than 16x (32 seems to be the "border") to not be
usable.
What this
means is that the AI actions are EXTREMELY limited with such high speed, and
the AI seems NOT to hit much of anything.
Try this
for yourself in simple TE of with Campaign. Watch the statistical fight in map
view with speeds <=16x and observe how suddenly AI starts to score hits in
missions and how the targets get damaged/destroyed.
This is
simply not happening with accelerated times of x32 and x64.
Therefore
our strong suggestion is not to run campaigns at accelerated times faster than
16x.
During the
RP3 process, we were able to obtain access to some excellent material regarding
the A-10. With the new “Fly and Plane”
patch, human pilots are now allowed to jump into the cockpit of the Hog. We realize the importance of further
developing the realism of the A-10.
While there are additional areas that will need to be explored (flight
model has not be modified for RP3), we have addressed many concerns. Below are just a few:
o
The Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) was changed to 51,000 lbs
o
The fuel load was adjusted to 10,700 lbs
o
The “roles” that the A-10 performs (what the campaign ATO
generator schedules the A-10 to execute) were adjusted to include those roles traditionally
performed by the A-10: CAS, Interdiction, BAI, and FAC. No more will the A-10 be scheduled to fly
OCA missions against airbases or anti-shipping sorties.
o
The biggest change is regarding the A-10s is legal
loadouts. The A-10 has 11 hardpoints
(five on each side with one on the centerline). With all these hardpoints loaded, the issue became one of weight
and maneuverability. With a MTOW of
51,000, if all of the 11 hardpoints were loaded up by the campaign
auto-loadmaster, the A-10 would far too often be overloaded – exceeding its
MTOW. In F4, when a plane exceeds it
MTOW, it will not take off – it is just not smart enough to balance the load
accordingly.
o
Our research also recognized that a combat operational A-10
NEVER goes fully loaded on all hardpoints, even if the weight comes in under
the MTOW. The reason is
maneuverability. As most of you already
know, the A-10 is not a very fast plane – it relies on its maneuverability to
perform well at low altitudes. A combat
operationally A-10 typically loads stores on all hardpoints except HPs 2/10 and
5/7. There are other reasons besides
weight for not loading ordnance on those hardpoints: interference with the
wheel wells and missile exhaust blowback.
o
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we have chosen to
remove HPs 2/10 and 5/7 from the A-10.
We think you will find the A-10 now performs in a much better capacity
than it did before, both as an AI plane and when you fly it yourself.
o
Even though we removed several hardpoints, we made it a point
to make sure that the remaining hardpoints could carry all the ordnance that
they could legally carry, including weapon type and numbers. We have even included LGBs, which typically
are not used on the A-10 (due to the roles they perform, and the altitudes they
normally perform those roles from).
o
Typically, on an A-10, two AIM-9s are carried on HP 1 and
one ALQ-119/131 is carried on HP 11.
The AIM-9s are for self-protection and the possible helo that gets in
the way. Unfortunately, the hardpoint
logic included in F4 does not like non-symmetrical loadouts. Even though we have specified that the ONLY
store that can be carried on HP 1 is the AIM-9, the F4 auto-loadmaster will not
load them up, as it selects the ALQ by default FIRST for HP 11. The auto-loadmaster will not load up two
ALQs, but it will not load up the AIM-9s either. It is legal to add the AIM-9s manually, but the loadmaster will
not do it for you. This is a problem we
are still trying to overcome.