1. When USAF was released it started getting flamed by the “hard-core” crowd on everything from weapons loadouts to flight models. Most of what I saw was no big deal to me; I was still going to buy the game. In the last couple of days things have changed. I’ve start seeing problems with the game that DO concern me! The mission editor is weak, lack of a “sense of speed” at low level, and the AIs are not up to par. Like I said before, I do not have the game so if I’m wrong on some of this, please, let me know! It looks like a major patch or other fix will be needed to bring this game up to…say… an improved version of FA/IAF, which I think I was expecting from this game. This leads me to my first major concern…. Am I being guided mostly by the “hard-core” simmers? Are you “survey” simmers that have been playing the game, voicing your opinions? If so, how is USAF in your eyes? Are the problems that bad? I think this title is headed down in a ball of flames and I’m wounding if it’s getting a fair review from the people that it was designed for, the “soft-core/survey” gamers! If you didn’t notice already I used the term “game” in this post because, I feel it has been used as a derogatory term a lot in the last few days. Implying that we survey players, and our “games”, should not be taken as serious as the “Hard-core players and their Combat Simulation”. I’m sorry but they are all games! This brings me to my second and maybe most serious point…..

2. USAF has been purchased and reviewed by the “hard-core” simmers but, will we as survey simmers, buy and review F-18, or flanker 2? Will we complain that they are to complicated, only model one aircraft, or they are just too hard to learn? I don’t think so. We already know that they are not our “cup of tea”. Do you see the problem here? Both sides are reviewing USAF, and the other titles will only get one side! I have seen posts that some hard-core players think the days of “study” sims may be in danger because sim developers have put some of their resources into producing “Survey” sims. If the reviews of USAF continue as they are, I think it might be the other way around, the survey sim days may be numbered! If the sim producers see USAF flamed and then F-18/flanker 2 do well in the market, what will they think? Maybe that the Hard-core sim is the way to go? Think about it! Am I saying to buy USAF just so the companies will continue to make survey sims? No! What I am saying is, we need to voice our opinions, and voice them loudly. Let them know what it will take for us to be happy with USAF! Not the nit-picking things but fixes that will make this a “must buy” for us survey players. I’m going out this weekend to buy the game and start playing it so I can do just that! Some of you will ask, “why buy a broke game?” well, I figure it this way…. I could spend my money on a party (which would costs more… or put the money into saving something I love…..Flying “SERVEY” Combat Sims!! This is NOT a shot at the hard-core players but, a view on how titles get reviewed in the message boards and its affect on the future of different kinds of Sims/games.

That’s my two cents…. Well maybe that was more like four cents. I know this will get more missiles fired at it than a B-52 flying over the Kremlin but, I don’t wont to see my survey sims go the way of the dinosaur!

If you enjoyed IAF you will enjoy USAF as well. Very similar in many ways ... yet also greatly improved.

I find it very easy to look past this games shortcomings and am really enjoying it. I consider myself a 'study' simmer (Falcon 4 is what Im usually playing) .. but am having a lot of fun with this survey. Its no Falcon 4 ... was NEVER advertised as such ... but as Jon said above it blows Novalogic away.

If you take this sim at face value ... it does EVERYTHING it promised to do. It does not do it all 100% ... but what sim ever has???

Unfortunatley, sacrifices will always have to be made when creating something as complicated as a flight sim. If you can look beyond that you wont have any problems. There are problems with Falcon, there will be problems with Flanker, there will always be something about a sim that somebody doesnt like. My fear ... Flight sims stop selling so game producers stop producing. Thats the trend that I see now ... we are killing our own hobby.

You hit it on the head. Variety is the spice of life! And right now ... if things continue on the way they seem ... its going to be a bland year next year.

With the canceling A10, the demise of EF2k ver 3, Desert Fighters ... all of these being so close to going into full production, can we even be sure the ones coming down the pipline will make it out?

The constant pushing back of delivery dates does not bolster my confidence. The longer they stay in development the more development costs rise and that directly effects the profit the company makes off of the product. Games are ripped to shreds before the general public has the opportunity to try them ... face it demo's will never cut it for a flight sim ... and Im curious as to the effect that has on sales.

Im not saying we should all buy every sim out there just to support the industry. I doubt I will be purchasing Flaker ... that A/C just doesnt interest me ... but you wont see me flaming it either. I buy to enjoy ... enjoy what the game offers, the online play, offline play, etc. Do i want it as real as it can be ... heck ya! But I also understand that sacrifices must be made based on equipment, network/internet speed, programmng choices(survey vs study), etc. Since most of us have never or will ever fly in these A/C, is it really important to have it modeled 100% accurately ... or would you be willing to give up the cpu cycles that are used to calculate the effects of wind speed on a given manuever for a few extra FPS?

Until we can all afford to buy a military quality sim and have it installed in our homes I think we will have to settle for the 'as close as we could get it' option. Some just get closer in some ways than others.

Im willing to accept some of those sacrifeces to enjoy the game. Heck ... If I couldnt look past half the imperfections in the people I deal with everyday (myself included), I'd live a lonely existance. Maybe we all just need to look at it a little differently.

Does USAF have flaws ... absolutley. If they are to much for you to handle then by all means take it back or dont buy it. I can look past it and enjoy the game for what it does give. The sense of speed bothers me the most ... ther just isnt a visual diffenece between 200 knts and 500knts at 50' AGL.

I can look past that and am looking forward to JWW where we can have F16's flying escorts for A10's, F15C's performing sweeps, F15E's or F16's handling SEAD over the target ... all real people ... all focused in on one mission ... now that, to me, is FUN!!! Id prefer to do that with a survey sim ... but is there anything out there to date that can handle the complexities of the AC as well as 200+ AC in an arena? Nothing to my knowledge.

USAF is a good start (not great ... but not bad either). Im looking forward to the future of JWW ... and if it get canceled, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

What I think is that there is not enough profit for them to make a detailed sim anymore, and since the game industry made almost as much as the movie industry last year, all the snakes and carpetbaggers are here and now controlling this industry. I bet you there are more MBA's working for EA than programmers! Profit boys, that's what they want, profit.

But the irony is they (the suits) don't have a clue what sells. They wouldn't know a quality title if it bit 'em in the privates. Case in point, Sierra kills a 2 year Babylon5 space sim development almost ready to ship, but keeps a Rodeo game (they call it a sim) because one fits their profit formula and one doesn't! Now that's clueless.

Sorry, I'm dis-illusioned. Good thing I still like all the sims I have. God forbid I'd be bass fishin and bronco buckin' otherwise!!!

http://headline.gamespot.com/news/99_10/20_pc_crimson/index.html

What I think is that there is not enough profit for them to make a detailed sim anymore, and since the game industry made almost as much as the movie industry last year, all the snakes and carpetbaggers are here and now controlling this industry. I bet you there are more MBA's working for EA than programmers! Profit boys, that's what they want, profit.

But the irony is they (the suits) don't have a clue what sells. They wouldn't know a quality title if it bit 'em in the privates. Case in point, Sierra kills a 2 year Babylon5 space sim development almost ready to ship, but keeps a Rodeo game (they call it a sim) because one fits their profit formula and one doesn't! Now that's clueless.

Sorry, I'm dis-illusioned. Good thing I still like all the sims I have. God forbid I'd be bass fishin and bronco buckin' otherwise!!!

I mean I was checking out F/A-18 Super Hornet from I dunno what company, and their game will even have crew member on deck of carrier working with you and guiding you, there is even catapult steam, etc, which Janes F/A-18 will not feature. Which things makes a game great for "survey" and "hardcore" simmers.

I mean I was checking out F/A-18 Super Hornet from I dunno what company, and their game will even have crew member on deck of carrier working with you and guiding you, there is even catapult steam, etc, which Janes F/A-18 will not feature. Which things makes a game great for "survey" and "hardcore" simmers.

That was a good post.

I would like to comment on your remarks concerning pitch and power.

If I read you right, you suggest controlling airspeed with pitch and glide slope position/descent rate with power. Here's my view of that technique.

First, as always, there are few absolute rules in flying...and so there will be times when power can be used (or should be used) to control the descent...and correspondingly, pitch can be used to control airspeed.

But, as a rule, that is not the best approach in a high performance jet...in real life or in the USAF sim. I would recommend the more traditional throttle for airspeed/back stick for glide slope philosophy. The aircraft in USAF are hard to slow down when coming in for a landing...very unlike real life...but once slowed, they fly more or less correctly.

Your technique is taught in some light aircraft schools. In a Cessna 152, it may have some merit. But not, generally speaking, in a fighter.

As an aside, in my final interview with TWA, prior to being hired, I was questioned by two very senior Captains. They only asked me one question..."If you are low on the glide slope, how do you correct?" I answered and we went on to chit-chat about my career in fighters. At the end of the interview, they asked if I had any questions. I only had one. I wanted to know if the question asked of me was intended to find out if I subscribed to the 'pitch controls airspeed/power controls altitude' philosophy of flying. They said, "Yes". I then said,"That won't work". They then said, "We agree. Anyone thinking that way doesn't get hired here".

Sorta sums it up for me.

I think the preference in sims for pitch/speed-throttle/altitude comes from the original USNF sim in '94 which instructed the method in its tutorial & has been widely reproduced on all the sim fourms & BBS's.

I have also read in other places that the Navy preferes the throttle/altitude method for carrier landings because the plane needs to be held at a specific angle for the hook to engage the wires. To steep an angle & it will hit the deck & bounce over the wires & to shallow & it will not reach down to the wire.

They also went on to say this was just the opposite of the correct land based proceedue of power/speed-pitch/atlitude that you talked about with TWA

Maybe someone with carrier experence can comment on this.

It don't take no stinking Navy guy to comment on this!!

(ggg)

What you say is true of carrier landings...and will be true anytime a pilot wants to touch down on an exact spot regardless of where that 'spot' is.

The Navy pilot wants to get established at his desired approach angle of attack (AOA) as soon as he gets on final. With his AOA set, he then can concentrate on glide path and line up. USAF pilots (and even former USAF pilots, now airline pukes) do the same thing. When we all roll out on final, we let our speed slow as we configure the jet. If speed brakes are used,it is to get a higher RPM out of the engines for a given airspeed (this allows a more rapid engine acceleration in the event of a go around in some aircraft). Once slowed to final approach airspeed (or AOA if that is the primary speed reference in a particular airplane), then we aim our jet at a specific point on the runway. The carrier pilot aims at the location of the arresting wires...the land pilot aims at a point just past the end of the runway (varies with type of jet).

Then we fly down final, trying to maintain a constant speed and constant aim point.

Many, if not most jets, fly at a nose high attitude. The 'nose' is not pointed at the aim point...it is somewhat above that due to the plane's AOA. The 'nose' represents the longitudinal axis and the approximate thrust line. That means the engines are pointed slightly 'up' also and, as a result, the thrust line of the engines has both a rearward vector as well as a 'downward' vector. The down vector of this thrust line 'pushes the plane up' and can be thought of as a component of the total lift vector.

Because of this thrust component to the total lift vector, any time we add power and increase thrust, we also tend to increase total lift...so the plane tends to 'climb'. If a pilot were slightly low on glide path, this slight 'climb' will move him back to the desired glide path. This ability to control descent rate or glide path position is more pronounced in some aircraft...by design. In the F-4, for example, we flew final strictly on AOA. The F-4 had a definite nose high attitude and power changes had an immediate effect on descent rate. Makes sense since the jet was designed as a shipboard fighter.

In the F-104, however, we flew final only on airspeed. The nose was not nearly so high since the full flap position gave us a nose low attitude. We basically aimed the 104 at the end of the runway and flew a flatter than normal approach. Descent rate was controlled with pitch. We were not trying for a spot landing, but rather a touchdown at the proper attitude (which translated into proper touchdown speed) in the 1000' long landing zone.

The same is true of the airliner I now fly. We control airspeed with throttle and descent with stick...

BUT...and here's the bottom line...pitch and power are inter-related. Under most conditions, they cannot be separated. Change one and a corresponding change must be made with the other.

Going back to my earlier post, I think most simmers will be more successful if they correct airspeed with throttle and descent rate with pitch. In a survey sim such as USAF with a wide variety of aircraft types (A-10 to F-105 is about as wide as you can get!!), I think this is the best technique to begin with. As the pilot builds time and experience, he can experiment a bit with pitch and power to control his final approach attitude.

I am well aware that the USAF manual contradicts what I have just said. As I mentioned in the beginning of my earlier post, there are few absolutes in flying. If I were trying to teach a person to land in USAF, I would not recommend the chapter on landing. Not at least without adding a number of "yeah but's" and "here's what they really mean's".

The 'intuitive' response of 'add power to gain airspeed' is not a misconception. Nor is it wrong. Nor is it unique only to student pilots.

The issue here is the performance envelope and the changes to this envelope that flight control inputs make.

In a light aircraft, the airspeed envelope may be less than 100 knots wide from takeoff to max limiting airspeed. The max climb rate for a typical gross weight and temperature may be only 1000-2000 feet per minute. With performance margins this narrow, changes in pitch or throttle result in flight attitude changes that are not representative of what will be experienced in larger, faster aircraft.

In a light aircraft such as a Piper Cub, if the pitch is increased by a couple of degrees, the result is a very small increase in climb rate...but the effect on speed will be much more noticeable. Conversely, if power is added, the indicated speed will increase marginally (since the airspeed range is so narrow to begin with), and with that speed increase will come an increase in lift. This lift increase will cause the Piper Cub to climb out of proportion to the airspeed gain. It is this perceived mis-match of resultant power and pitch inputs that led to the 'pitch is for airspeed/power is for altitude' theory in light aircraft instruction.

It is an aberration, applicable only to aircraft such as a Piper Cub, and then only when explained by a competent instructor as being unique to this class of aircraft.

Andy

Yep agree 100% especially with the last your paragraph. It seems like the manual writters at Janes are afflicted with 'wordprocessorites' & find it easy to just lift sections from prior manuals. I took a scan through all of them & they are using the same proceedures (almost the exact same words)in all, even F-15E, that they did in USNF.

I think, especially in the case of Janes F-15 that is why the guys are having so much trouble sticking the landings.

As for the other posters comments on the brakes I find in simland that I get my best results in Janes F-15 & Flanker 2 deploying the speed brakes about 3 NM out & running with higher engine RPM's on final.

In Falcon 4 I leave them closed. The engine in the F-16 seems to spool up much faster then in the other two sims.

BTW the AI in Flanker2 makes the whole approach with the airbrake deployed.

Haven't seen you in a while...good to hear from you!

No doubt regarding the 130 comment.

The problem isn't that the technique won't 'work'...the technique of using power to control altitude has its application in specific instances.

My interest in this 'debate' is to ensure that our non-pilot simmers do not get misled by the technique and inadvertantly think that the technique is how an aircraft is flown across the board. Pitch and power relationships is a subject that takes much explaining...much more so than a sim manual can ever hope to accomplish.

Thanks for your good info...that is exactly how it is in real life when dealing with the FAA!! It's no different in an airliner!

I agree with you with regard to real life flying. My point in all of this is that this is a flight sim forum where the vast majority of our readers have not had the benefit of any pertinent academic schooling in flight theory...so they most likely could not explain the 'behind the power curve part of the flight envelope' if they had to. Because of this, I tend to want to keep it simple...and trying to explain how to control the glide slope with power is not simple!

After 32+ years and nearly 12000 hours of flying, I still find it hard to accept the technique we are discussing. I got my ATP in a Seneca. I spent four years teaching USAF student pilots in a T-37...a 6000# aircraft that is by no means a high performance jet. We soloed out in the C-172 in pilot training and I don't remember our civilian instructors teaching us this technique.

I understand the hows and whys of this technique. My primary concern is that it will create more problems for our flight sim pilots than it will solve...and, the truth be known, I feel exactly the same way about low time pilots in real life general aviation flying.

Here's the ultimate question. If the addition of throttle is used to make an aircraft climb on final approach, then why does the pilot pull back on the stick to take off...according to the technique, that should only make him slow down. Pose this question to a sample of our simmers and see if they can explain it.

I finally opened up USAF tonight. I characterize myself as a sim lover, mid to hard core. I never did play IAF, but used to enjoy USNF before it. Enjoyed Longbow II very much, played F4 for a long while until I was too busy to keep up my skills.

I have a feeling that USAF is a keeper for me. It will allow me to enjoy a variety of aircraft without having to spend quite so much time keeping my skills up. It will also allow me to introduce some good friends to combat sims who are too intimidated by the Flanker 2s and Falcon 4s.

USAF has quite a wealth of features. Yep, it also needs a patch, but is playable as is too.

You're right to be careful not to throw out a survey sim like this because some of the hard core crowd don't like it. This middle core market is really really important and that's why we are committed to supporting these sims here at combatsim.com.

The aerodynamic forces that permit a takeoff in a taildragger in the manner that you described act upon a tricycle geared aircraft in exactly the same way. The position of the gear has nothing to do with the production of the lift required for takeoff.

By definition, once an aircraft has reached takeoff speed and is trimmed for that speed, any increase in speed from that point will result in a climb.

You see this in your taildragger...I see it in the airliner I fly. If trimmed properly, both aircraft will fly off the runway without pilot input.

I'm responding to HOG's original post.

I consider myself a serious sim player. I have a fortune invested in my equipment. I am a stickler for realism, generally. I don't use cheats or simplified modes when they are available. F4 is STILL on my hard drive

BUT... I like USAF.

It seems that there are some simmers (a real potboiler there) who are hard core and ONLY hardcore, then there are others of us who enjoy the mid core as well. Heck, I even enjoyed Comanche 3

USAF has a lot going for it. These days I find myself too busy to keep my skills to the level to allow me to enjoy F4. What's a guy gonna do? PLay something that doesn't require constantly reading a manual and spending 15 hours a week in the air to stay current, of course!

Further.. USAF allows me to introduce my friends, who are as busy as I am and generally intimidated by Falcon 4, to the sim world. THAT is a good thing for our hobby, gentlemen!

I want to push the hardcore crowd on this. THe hardcore guys should buy the best of the mid core sims as a way of supporting the hobby. And quit complaining so much.

I'm very much a sim fan and love nothing more than working at learning a game but there are limits I have (mainly due to time) and flight sims fall into a category for me where I just don't have the time. I've played a ton of the old soft core 'sims' in the past from the old MPS titles like f-117 to Longbow 2 to Falcon 4. Although I must admit in F4 I usually end up as a greasy spot on the runway when I try playing at full sim levels because I just don't have enough experience as a flight simmer to pick it up as easily as many of you hard core types out there. Thankfully there are games like EAW, USAF, Comanche 3 etc that allow me a minimal learning curve and easy enough settings to where I can get into a game and play quickly enough to enjoy it and as I progress and learn I can turn more features to more of a sim mode.

When it comes to the genre's I love like shooters, tank and NASCAR sims, I'd hate to have only arcade type games like Quake et al (fun, yet totally unrealistic) but each level of play has its place. It's because of shooters like Quake that many people have gotten into the Rainbow series and because of games like Comanche and USAF gamers will get into the more high end sims like F4. Playing F4 from a limited flight background such as myself can be a lesson in frustration if there's no help in the learning curve, something it sounds like USAF may have. (not sure, don't have it yet)

Games like USAF are perfect 'first steps' into a larger world for new virtual aviators. Perfect because they are easy enough to pick up and scalable enough to help you grow in your abilities as a pilot. After becoming confident in a game like USAF one may even move on to an F4 or Flanker sim or maybe not.

I see your point. And agree. There are always exceptions to anything in aviation, generally speaking.

:-)

Help me with this question. Remember the old Piper Tri-Pacer? I think it was a tricycle geared version of a Piper tail dragger...don't remember which. Let's load them up equally, same field, same day. Put them on the end of the runway. Add full power (don't remember if they had the same engine), stick full aft. Which one breaks ground first? I don't know. I suspect there may be more in play here than main gear position...such as elevator effectiveness.

What I do know is that you and I are in a pissing contest over the minimum AOA needed to generate enough lift to get airborne. Inasmuch as many taildraggers are rotated to a two point attitude during the takeoff roll, the difference is moot. And as you point out, some trike geared a/c do not rotate at all..they 'levitate!!