quote:

---

>Can anyone tell me if it's worth getting Allied Force if you already
>own the original Falcon 4? There are a lot of mods and realism patches
>for Falcon 4 so is it worth installing one of these instead of going
>out and buying Allied Force which, as there are no upgrade deals for
>existing Falcon 4 owners, I don't really want to have to do.
>Also, which of these mods and realism patches should I go for? There
>are so many and I understand that you need to go for one over another.
>But which one?
>I bought Falcon 4 when it first came out but only now do I have enough
>free time to finally get into it and give it the time it deserves. Is
>the original patched version so full of bugs as to make it unplayable
>or should I try getting into this before trying one of the realism
>patches?
>Thanks.

quote:

---

>On 7 Mar 2006 19:42:34 -0800, "Wadeyboy" <wade4816@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>

quote:

---

> While I don't think F4AF is perfect it is IMO the deepest most
> realistic sim out there today.

quote:

---

>Oh right. I had got the impression that AF is just a more stable
>version of the old Falcon 4 with some extra graphical tweaks to the
>existing graphics engine and with the notorious bugs removed No?
>Because if that is the case, then in my opinion it's just an update
>rather than a completly new product.

quote:

---

>me@home.net wrote:
>
>
>

quote:

---

>
>Please qualify that comment.

quote:

---

> Oh right. I had got the impression that AF is just a more stable
> version of the old Falcon 4 with some extra graphical tweaks to the
> existing graphics engine and with the notorious bugs removed No?

quote:

---

> Thanks for the offer C3PO and it's very generous of you but I've
> already paid for this game once. I don't really want to have to pay
> again. It's just a shame that there isn't an upgrade deal for existing
> owners. What I really want to know is what realism patch should I go
> for? SP4, Free Falcon, BMS, etc, etc. It's really difficult to find out
> which one should I go for and confusing too!
>

quote:

---

>
> "Wadeyboy" <wade4816@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1141854466.450011.248740@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...Yes. I bought Allied Force and played it 'a bit' but it was too close
> to the original for me. Yes its more stable but FF3 is far better
> overall - better graphics, better plane choice (EF2000!) just as accurate
> etc. I personally cant recommend it unless its in the bargain bin.
>
> Nats
>

quote:

---

>
>"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:duq3ju$nac$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>"A bit too close to the original". I thought the same, until I decided to
>install the original Falcon 4 updated to patch 1.08. Played it and then
>played Falcon 4 Allied Force. HUGE difference, above and beyond the CTD's.
>
>Yes, the graphics are older technology, but better in F4AF, avionics work,
>the ground war works, the flight model works, and despite some refueling
>issues, it works in medium realism right now.
>
>It offers anyone excited about the original but could never play it due to
>its substatial issues, a chance to finally play it the way it was meant to
>be developed. Not to mention working online capability.
>

quote:

---

>
> "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:duq3ju$nac$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
accurate[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "A bit too close to the original". I thought the same, until I decided to
> install the original Falcon 4 updated to patch 1.08. Played it and then
> played Falcon 4 Allied Force. HUGE difference, above and beyond the CTD's.

quote:

---

>Hehe, another rather ill-informed post. Your assumption that
>development on our next product and producing patches are mutually
>exclusive. They're not -- by a long stretch.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

> Interesting post from someone who has not used Allied Force. It may be
> interested to know that we have a third party modification agreement in
> which we have already enlisted the considerable talents of Tom Waelti
> who has produced a hi-resolution terrain upgrade and Scott "Dr Stop"
> Purdy who has produced a new set of F-16 aircraft cockpits. No
> disrespect, but you might want to try a product before comparing it to
> others.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>and all I said was none of that is in there NOW. No disrespect, but you
>seem to forget that us old-head F4er's ALREADY have Waelti tiles and
>Stops' pits. (AND Aeyes pits too!)

quote:

---

> Time to crawl out of the woodwork! No matter what C3PO says (and we
> should be glad he reads/posts here) I think that *to the end user* it
> still looks more like an upgrade than a new product. Knowing that 99%
> of the code behind it all has changed doesn't mean much if it still
> looks like an old game - and still retains bugs from the original. If
> it looks like F4 smells like F4 feels like F4 .. then it must *be* F4!

quote:

---

> Not knockin AF thou. I believe that, if work manages to continue
> unabated, can eventually surpass the current patches and upgrades alot
> of us are using now. And for new simmers, who never experienced the
> original, you will certainly go thru alot less madness than we did back
> in 98. Right now, us originals, sit back and laugh a little at the
> "new" guys as you learn to "dance" with AF. (Am I correct that it has
> already been patched 3 times?) We have BEEN to the mountaintop, and we
> have seen the groups rip apart, we have seen the arguements, we have
> seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. But behind our laughter, is the
> hope that this new single group, will be different than what history
> has shown us, and manage to beat the odds and make the benchmark of all
> sims!
> The simple answer? Just try em both!
> E-Man

quote:

---

>Adamski wrote:
>
>If it really were a brand new product, then they should have called it
>Falcon 5.0. As they didn't, what can you say? It's an update.
>
>Still, worth every penny in my opinion.

quote:

---

>Oh right. I had got the impression that AF is just a more stable
>version of the old Falcon 4 with some extra graphical tweaks to the
>existing graphics engine and with the notorious bugs removed No?
>Because if that is the case, then in my opinion it's just an update
>rather than a completly new product.

quote:

---

>I think what AF really needs now is a KILLER expansion that will make Allied
>Force II 'the' game to own in 2006.

quote:

---

>The possibilities I can immediately think of are:

quote:

---

>A full detailed Tornado expansion that allows accurate nap of earth flying
>at night etc with tracer fire etc all as the original Tornado game in Desert
>Storm or similar!

quote:

---

> As long as you are devoting
>resources to trying to fix obvious areas needing major attention and
>patching, it reduces resources devoted to that effort, unless you have
>unlimited resources.

quote:

---

>But again I will reiterate that AF, if quality work continues unabated,
>could end up being the best sim out there

quote:

---

>We'll be making an announcement at the approrpriate time ;)
>
>You rather "polarised" opinion is misplaced and incorrect. It's pretty
>clear to see.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>They are sitting back and laughing on the top of the mountain and
>dancing.

quote:

---

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:13:16 GMT, WyleCoyote@cactus.com wrote:
>
>
>This is some STUPID logic. Why do they need "unlimited resources" to
>be doing two things at once. Seems to me they only need enough
>resources to do two different things.

quote:

---

> Can anyone tell me if it's worth getting Allied Force if you already
> own the original Falcon 4? There are a lot of mods and realism patches
> for Falcon 4 so is it worth installing one of these instead of going
> out and buying Allied Force which, as there are no upgrade deals for
> existing Falcon 4 owners, I don't really want to have to do.
> Also, which of these mods and realism patches should I go for? There
> are so many and I understand that you need to go for one over another.
> But which one?
> I bought Falcon 4 when it first came out but only now do I have enough
> free time to finally get into it and give it the time it deserves. Is
> the original patched version so full of bugs as to make it unplayable
> or should I try getting into this before trying one of the realism
> patches?
> Thanks.
>

quote:

---

> On 10 Mar 2006 05:12:23 -0800, ef29@drexel.edu wrote:
>
>
> that's a point ... I haven't trawled the fanboi sites for a while ...
> what happened to Aeyes and F4AF? Was there a big falling out
> somewhere?
>
> Personally I've always preferred Eric's pits to the somewhat clinical
> (IMHO) from Dr Stops - though I expect that's just a matter of taste.
> I'm just a tad concerned that someone [Aeyes] who has contributed so
> much to F4 over the years has "jumped ship". Or have I been herding
> sheep in the NZ plains for too long?
>
> Adamski.

quote:

---

>
>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:3i4312l2tdhgv2lg35kg9j1gj025bj0n4v@4ax.com...
>
>Aeyes pits ARE the F4AF pits...

quote:

---

>
> Nurse!!!!! Where are my pills? H-e-l-p!
>
> And ... you forgot to mention the Tornado mission planner :-((
> Nurse, you can untie me now ...

quote:

---

>
>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:h0a412p7c7k6liilg90j172acet0drk1ss@4ax.com...
>
>Or LGBing the moving trains, or dive bombing a target from 20000 feet, or
>hitting the target from differnet directions all at once, or releasing those
>airfield cluster bomblets. All were brilliantly done in Tornado.

quote:

---

>Aaaaaaarrrrrgh. Stop it!!!!
>
>I think being able to virtually *program* your AI wingmen to arrive at
>a target from different directions (with split second precision) was
>just incredible. C3PO take note :-)
>
>Adamski.

quote:

---

>On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:53:07 -0600, C3PO <C3PO@forums.simradar.com> wrote:
>Yes, you can do just that with Allied Force. You can create new
>packages manually within the Air Tasking Order too to prosecute an
>attack more effectively. Add a flight of F-15s in a TARCAP, or perhaps
>bring in and additional SEAD Strike comprising BLK 50s or Super Hornets
>with additional ordnance. Those packages can be specifically times to
>reach the target whenever you wish, under this manual arrangement. And,
>of course, these changes work just as well in MP.
>
>Talking of MP -- we believe the enhancements in 1.0.6 will be the most
>significant improvements to Falcon since the original release.
>Smoothness of play over the internet is now on a par with single player
>and refuelling is reworked too. We're extremely impressed with 1.0.6
>and so too will be AF pilots. We're still testing the release hard
>though so no timeframe for release. Check out SimHQ AF forum and FW AF
>forum for further details.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>Yes, you can do just that with Allied Force. You can create new
>packages manually within the Air Tasking Order too to prosecute an
>attack more effectively. Add a flight of F-15s in a TARCAP, or perhaps
>bring in and additional SEAD Strike comprising BLK 50s or Super Hornets
>with additional ordnance. Those packages can be specifically times to
>reach the target whenever you wish, under this manual arrangement.

quote:

---

>You can direct your wingman to split / breakoff or whatever ... and
>also the second element of the flight, if you are the flight lead.

quote:

---

> I appreciate programming AI in a battlefield simulation must
> be a nightmare

quote:

---

>Yes, it can appear sometimes that they do some rather unexpected
>things. But, it's easy to forget that the AI is influenced by a whole
>multitude of different things, for example spikes from unseen enemy
>aircraft, lock ups from SAM sites on the ground (which may prevent it
>from engaging the enemy) ... tons of things which you simply don't see.
>In the past the silliest thing we've seen is running out of fuel and
>not ejecting (d'oh!) but we believe we have this fixed. On top of all
>that, creating the AI for a human is pretty difficult.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:28:04 -0600, C3PO <C3PO@forums.simradar.com>
>wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>That's crap ..... again ....... but nice try. Why don't you just quit
>making shit up?

quote:

---

>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:49:45 GMT, WyleCoyote@cactus.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Hey, c'mon - I'm no self-appointed moderator, but you really don't
>want to be pissing this guy [C3PO] off with stuff like that.
>
>We all have our P.O.V. - hell, I don't agree with some of the things
>he says either, but can't you put things a bit less "graphically"?
>
>I appreciate C3PO's job is PR - so he's going to put his product in
>the best possible light - we all take that into account. It'd be nice
>to keep a *dialogue* going - or he'll just take his ball and play
>somewhere else (and *we'll* be the losers).
>
>One of the reasons I stuck with this newsgroup is because of trhe
>foul-mouthed and peurile discussions going on in the BBSs - Frugal's
>or whatever.
>
>Daft thing is, I kind of agree with where you're coming from - F4/AF
>certainly has its faults - but then name me one current jet sim that
>hasn't?
>
>I'm no fanboi either - I've done my time beta-testing sims and all
>that. I just don't think being so colourful is very constructive.
>
>Flame suit ON.
>
>Adamski.

quote:

---

>I think active dialogue with a development team is pretty rare these
>days ... butI understand the immature and ignorant rantings of a few.
>But they won't stop me from keep you guys informed on the very latest
>with Allied Force
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>I hope you're not calling me a liar.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:49:45 GMT, WyleCoyote@cactus.com wrote:
>That's crap ..... again ....... but nice try. Why don't you just quit
>making shit up?
>
>Certainly it's difficult to program ... that's why it doesn't work
>well.
>
>It is also why it's necessary to have direct commands over-ride
>inaccurately performing or poor programming.
>
>It is the kludge way to insure you aren't fighting a a campaign alone.
>
>Playability is important .... you know .... the bigger picture?
>
>Following orders even if you die is part of the military. It isn't
>optional dufus.

quote:

---

> It takes a lot for me to put someone on my auto-delete but the
> succession of garbage you continuosly spew every time C3PO (or anyone
> else with positive things to say about F4AF) has reached my bullshit
> limit..
>
> Don't bother responding as I'll never see it, unless of course you
> just want to hear yourself speak... again.
>
> GR
>
>

quote:

---

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:19:56 -0600, "Jay Williams" <voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote:
>I agree...
>
>Wyle is just demonstrating again the self destructiveness of the average
>flight simmer... It isn't enough to simply decide not to buy a game (or
>express dissapointment, warn off other potential buyers, etc.) You have to
>harp on it so much that it discourages the developers from ever wasting
>their time again...

quote:

---

> I agree...
>
> Wyle is just demonstrating again the self destructiveness of the average
> flight simmer... It isn't enough to simply decide not to buy a game (or
> express dissapointment, warn off other potential buyers, etc.) You have

quote:

---

> harp on it so much that it discourages the developers from ever wasting
> their time again...
>
>
> "GaryR" <GaryR@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:d39h12lmrhipnlcnf7pjka0ntpa4nmdknr@4ax.com...
>
>

quote:

---

>I was here when the same type of stupidity drove Andy Hollis away, now
> THAT dates me...
>
> GR.
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Oh please. All one has to do is killfile someone if they're that
> bothered. I'd rather see that, than the mentality that treats developers
> like they're doing their customers, favors by making games, patches,
> posting
> on forums, etc.
>
> Tell me, do you have the same thoughts about who made your car, tv,
> toaster, or whatever ?
>
>
> "Jay Williams" <voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote in message
> news:mmfSf.31645$2c4.8743@dukeread11...
> to
>
>

quote:

---

> Hell yes, I'd prefer to upgrade my older Caravan to have "stow and go" by
> paying a nominal fee and downloading a patch...

quote:

---

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:41:49 -0600, "Jay Williams" <voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote:
>Hell yes, I'd prefer to upgrade my older Caravan to have "stow and go" by
>paying a nominal fee and downloading a patch...
>
>How about upgrading my coax input TV to RCA without buying new one (hows
>that for dating it?) or better yet, can I just download a patch and change
>it to widescreen HD??? I'd have loved to pay about what it cost originally
>for that one (instead of the 2 grand I paid for the large screen HD TV I
>bought about 6 months ago)
>
>I was around when Falcon 3.0 was going through the update dance... as long
>as the patches keep coming, I'm ok... Have you ever tried programming
>something? It's not that uncommon to have a fix to one subroutine screw
>something else up.
>
>Can you send a quick email to your car manufactuer and have him consider
>that as a new option you can pick up for free and install in six months?
>
>Thanks for an analogy that proves my point.

quote:

---

> Hell yes, I'd prefer to upgrade my older Caravan to have "stow and go" by
> paying a nominal fee and downloading a patch...
>
> How about upgrading my coax input TV to RCA without buying new one (hows
> that for dating it?) or better yet, can I just download a patch and

quote:

---

> it to widescreen HD??? I'd have loved to pay about what it cost

quote:

---

> for that one (instead of the 2 grand I paid for the large screen HD TV I
> bought about 6 months ago)
>
> I was around when Falcon 3.0 was going through the update dance... as

quote:

---

> as the patches keep coming, I'm ok... Have you ever tried programming
> something? It's not that uncommon to have a fix to one subroutine screw
> something else up.
>
> Can you send a quick email to your car manufactuer and have him consider
> that as a new option you can pick up for free and install in six months?
>
> Thanks for an analogy that proves my point.
>
> "JP" <nicetry@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IigSf.390$6v3.1251@eagle.america.net...
developers[vbcol=seagreen]
average[vbcol=seagreen]
(or[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
quit[vbcol=seagreen]
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

quote:

---

> Now that I have the hang of using my killfilter again i'm starting to
> really enjoy it!!
>
> Have a good life Mitch and JP, say hi to Coyote man for me!
> LOL
>
<voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
change[vbcol=seagreen]
originally[vbcol=seagreen]
long[vbcol=seagreen]
>

quote:

---

>I agree...
>
>Wyle is just demonstrating again the self destructiveness of the average
>flight simmer... It isn't enough to simply decide not to buy a game (or
>express dissapointment,

quote:

---

>harp on it so much that it discourages the developers from ever wasting
>their time again...
>
>
>"GaryR" <GaryR@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
>news:d39h12lmrhipnlcnf7pjka0ntpa4nmdknr@4ax.com...
>

quote:

---

> Ah, another loser who somehow makes himself feel better by *telling*
>someone he's killfiled them, expecting them to somehow be bothered by it.
>
> Gee Gary, sniff, I'm shattered. <best Scarlet O'Hara voice> "But Gary,
>what will I do, where will I go ?"
>
>
>"GaryR" <GaryR@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
>news:2thj12h3m1f7dehdumna4e58htdcn4c8m8@4ax.com...
><voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote:
>change
>originally
>long
>

quote:

---

>I think the 99.99% are generally very supportive and want the best for
>the industry. There is a vocal gross minority who feel obliged to
>continually condemn and criticise for the sake of it and also for
>reasons unconnected with the actual product -- and only know know what
>they are. I'm here for the 99.99% and will continue to work to provide
>as much info as possible about Allied Force, forthcoming updates and,
>when applicable, the next commercial release.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
>Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

> Youre not a very bright Lawyer are you Jay?
>
> Lets make this so simple even you might comprhehend....
>
> Lets say that when you purchased that Caravan it had a broken piston. It
> still runs, just not very well. Ford promises a fix but that fix may or
> may not ever come due to the workfoce moving onto Caravan2s. Now a Ford
> rep comes around your neighborhood telling everyone how great the Caravans
> are yet when you try and tell everyone Ford is conning them your neighbors
> throw eggs and TP at your house instead of the Ford Reps. All the while
> screaming at you about how its not really Fords fault and that at least
> the Ford rep is coming around and trying to fix what was broken.
> Self-congratulations and ranting about how great a Caravan is doesnt fix
> the XXXXing piston does it?
>
> Mitch
>
> "Jay Williams" <voodoo141bugoff@spamcox.net> wrote in message
> news:lrhSf.31662$2c4.29849@dukeread11...
>
>

quote:

---

>I think the 99.99% are generally very supportive and want the best for
> the industry. There is a vocal gross minority who feel obliged to
> continually condemn and criticise for the sake of it and also for
> reasons unconnected with the actual product -- and only know know what
> they are. I'm here for the 99.99% and will continue to work to provide
> as much info as possible about Allied Force, forthcoming updates and,
> when applicable, the next commercial release.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>I think the issue about negativity can affect developers -- but it
> doesn't and won't affect us. In fact, it makes me more determined to
> help those who appreciate the advice and presence. I'll be keeping you
> guys very much up to date
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

quote:

---

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:54:03 -0600, C3PO <C3PO@forums.simradar.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Here's a little taste of what 1.0.6 is offering avionics and weapons
>wise -- it's about one fifth of the total changes for the comprehensive
>update.
>
>Fixed HSD showing wingmen in Dogfight after they have been destroyed.
>
>Fixed static ground vehicles not showing up in GM radar mode.
>
>ALOW and MSLFloor warnings are now played whether the HUD is visible on
>screen or not.
>
>Fixed TGP going