my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Site-Related Discussions   » Article Feedback   » Review: Falcon 4.0 SuperPak 3

   
Author Topic: Review: Falcon 4.0 SuperPak 3
Admin
Administrator
Member # 1

posted 01-27-2003 08:27 PM     Profile for Admin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

Falcon 4.0 was published late in 1998, proclaiming itself “The new benchmark in flight sim technology”. It was ambitious, full of promise, and so riddled with bugs that it could barely run for 60 seconds out of the box. Now it’s 2003, and some people are still out there playing Falcon 4.0. Are they a lonely bunch of freaks blindly obsessing over a shattered hope, or do they know something the rest of us don’t?

Review: Falcon 4.0 SuperPak 3


Posts: 2792 | From: COMBATSIM.COM | Registered: Sep 99  |  IP: Logged
swampy11
Member
Member # 1461

posted 01-27-2003 09:28 PM     Profile for swampy11   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good review, but if you want to fly SP3, you had better ditch the antiquated modem and get some broadband, cable or ISDN. Multiplayer is stable as a rock Also, if you follow your install method, you will be lucky you get airborne at all. Although the "endless defrags" are optional, the loading sequence is not if you want an up to date playable version of SP3.

`swamp

--------------------

"Nuke them `till they glow,
shoot them when they shine."


Posts: 94 | From: Houston, TX USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 01-27-2003 10:07 PM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah, my constant refrain to my flying buddy is...

"You need broadband!"

He agrees, but broadband hasn't reached his part of Wyoming yet.


Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
Admin
Administrator
Member # 1

posted 01-27-2003 11:45 PM     Profile for Admin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
We awarded SuperPak 3 a Top Pick award but it somehow became unstuck from the bottom of the article when we published it. The omission has been rectified.

In case you missed it:


F4 Unified Team's SuperPak 3

--------------------

Douglas Helmer
Forum Administrator
[email protected]


Posts: 2792 | From: COMBATSIM.COM | Registered: Sep 99  |  IP: Logged
Mosquito
Junior Member
Member # 9631

posted 01-28-2003 04:50 AM     Profile for Mosquito   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As a veteran of the "Patch Wars" which includes the early versions of of Realism Patch, eFalcon and even F4 Patch itself, SP3 is the most stable version of Falcon so far.

A typical example: me on a broadband connection in Malaysia hosting a TE with 5 other pilots in different parts of Australia (most of whom were on dialup)...absolutely plain sailing! No lag, no stuttering and no breakup in Roger Wilco comms! Since it came out, I have yet to register a CTD for TEs! This compares extremely well to the absolute disaster which was SP2 (which had me casting loving looks at <gasp!> Flanker 2, Janes F/A-18 and <double gasp!> Eurofighter Typhoon!

Yes, Falcon4 has always been bandwidth hungry but with broadband now widely available to go with the rejigged multiplayer code in SP3, multiplayer issues are a thing of the past.

My only gripe is in the in-game comms which clearly needs more work! The bugs in it go beyond the usual bandwidth considerations. If they can be resolved (SP4 maybe?), then realistic radio functions will be well received by the hardcore F4 community, expecially now that 8-12 player TEs are now common place.

Mosquito

PS Swampy, if you think you can avoid me by hiding out in the Combatsim forums, you're wrong!! Your wingman will always track you down!


Posts: 1 | From: Malaysia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
C3PO1
Junior Member
Member # 9583

posted 01-28-2003 12:28 PM     Profile for C3PO1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"My only gripe is in the in-game comms which clearly needs more work! The bugs in it go beyond the usual bandwidth considerations. If they can be resolved (SP4 maybe?), then realistic radio functions will be well received by the hardcore F4 community, expecially now that 8-12 player TEs are now common place."

What problems are you experiencing...I might be able to help.

regards,
c3po


Posts: 17 | From: | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 01-28-2003 09:28 PM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I recently noticed the Freebirds VFW site claims that the first player to hit the second button on the loading screen supposedly hosts all the ground units in the mission.

My 56k buddy usually hits the 2nd button first.

Is this likely a cause of some of our troubles?

(We're using -pf 100, -ip, and -bandwidth, the last one tested via the site you recommend over at Frugal's.)


Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
ace3210
Junior Member
Member # 9633

posted 01-29-2003 01:21 AM     Profile for ace3210     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just to say thanks to all those involved in getting Falcon 4 to all that it is today. May your visions never be shot down. Many thanks for all the years of enjoyment & challenges this game has wrought.

--------------------

JTF


Posts: 1 | From: Alaska | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bismarck
Member
Member # 6757

posted 01-29-2003 09:57 AM     Profile for Bismarck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Great piece. I may get back into this one.
Posts: 1432 | From: Madison, Wisconsin via Missouri | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
C3PO1
Junior Member
Member # 9583

posted 01-30-2003 03:36 PM     Profile for C3PO1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by James Sterrett:
I recently noticed the Freebirds VFW site claims that the first player to hit the second button on the loading screen supposedly hosts all the ground units in the mission.

My 56k buddy usually hits the 2nd button first.

Is this likely a cause of some of our troubles?

(We're using -pf 100, -ip, and -bandwidth, the last one tested via the site you recommend over at Frugal's.)


I haven't heard of this one before...but how are you connecting up....what's the host's upload and is it the greatest upload of you all?

If your 56k buddy is hitting the second button first after committing, it sounds like you need to be a bit more ordered about the way that pilots go into the 3d world.

Here's my advice:

1. The pilot with the greatest bandwidth hosts the mission (remember, the host is the guy who puts up the game, not necessarily the one who puts in 0.0.0.0).

2. When you're all in the mission schedule screen, you should commit to the 3d world like this:

a) Host commits
b) Client 1 waits 3 seconds then commits
c) Client 2 waits 3 seconds after Client 1, then commits...and so on.

The host should always commit first, and pilots follow through with a few seconds of seperation. That way any syncing issues in the code are ironed out and Falcon has a chance to catch up with itself across the network.

The code also prioritises what messages are sent to clients, so in times of bandwidth strangulation, less important updates may not be sent.

My own golden rule is for everyone to set their bandwidth in the command line of the shortcut using -bandwidth xxx ensuring that their tested upload goes in there.

regards,

c3po
F4UT


Posts: 17 | From: | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 01-30-2003 11:07 PM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks! We'll give that a try next time we fly.

I'm the host, and use -bandwidth 110; this is on the conservative side compared to testing. The 56k line uses -bandwidth 24 which is slightly aggressive compared to testing; RW is also in use (I host).

For what it's worth, I have to use an actual IP; 0.0.0.0 failed. I'm guessing this is because I'm behind a router (in the DMZ).


Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
C3PO1
Junior Member
Member # 9583

posted 01-31-2003 01:06 PM     Profile for C3PO1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by James Sterrett:
Thanks! We'll give that a try next time we fly.

I'm the host, and use -bandwidth 110; this is on the conservative side compared to testing. The 56k line uses -bandwidth 24 which is slightly aggressive compared to testing; RW is also in use (I host).

For what it's worth, I have to use an actual IP; 0.0.0.0 failed. I'm guessing this is because I'm behind a router (in the DMZ).


Try using -ip x.x.x.x in the command line...it might help.

regards,
c3po
F4UT


Posts: 17 | From: | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swampy11
Member
Member # 1461

posted 02-01-2003 02:14 PM     Profile for swampy11   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mesquito-
I am caught
`swamp

--------------------

"Nuke them `till they glow,
shoot them when they shine."


Posts: 94 | From: Houston, TX USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 02-03-2003 10:31 AM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tried it, still had trouble with his machine cutting out. 8( Smaller missions ran fine (as before), but larger missions eventually mean he drops out.

[We do use the -ip command; -pf 100 too:

"C:\Program Files\Falcon4\FalconSP.exe" -pf 100 -ip 68.82.136.112 -bandwidth 100

]


Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
C3PO1
Junior Member
Member # 9583

posted 02-05-2003 03:47 PM     Profile for C3PO1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by James Sterrett:
Tried it, still had trouble with his machine cutting out. 8( Smaller missions ran fine (as before), but larger missions eventually mean he drops out.

[We do use the -ip command; -pf 100 too:

"C:\Program Files\Falcon4\FalconSP.exe" -pf 100 -ip 68.82.136.112 -bandwidth 100

]


Okay, can I just check that you are hosting 7 players (8 including yourself) with 100kbps upload? If you are and it is running okay I'm very impressed...the MP code was written to allow 33kbps per client...so with your upload you should only be supporting a maximum of 3 clients (3 x 33kbps).

To be honest, anything higher than eight is a real problem. Friends with uploads of 2000 kbps ( ) report problems with more than 8...although I have a screenshot with 13 in a TE

regards,
c3po
F4UT


Posts: 17 | From: | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 02-05-2003 08:31 PM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
No, I think you read the frowny face 8( as 8 players! It's two of us, total!

The other ugy is on ther 56k modem line, and his upload speed is less than 33k - which we suspect is the source of the trouble.

As I tell him every time we fly: "You need broadband!" (Say it in a parody of AOL's "You have mail!" )


Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
C3PO1
Junior Member
Member # 9583

posted 02-10-2003 01:28 PM     Profile for C3PO1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mmmm...it shouldn't be the problem. Take out the -pf 100 command. You don't need that with SP3.

regards,
c3po
F4UT


Posts: 17 | From: | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James Sterrett
Member
Member # 8431

posted 02-10-2003 02:19 PM     Profile for James Sterrett   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks! We'll remove it.
Posts: 104 | From: Glen Mills, PA, USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved