Hope it still works for you. It used to be a feature in WDP, but it’s since been taken out.
Latest posts made by iceman223
-
RE: HUD Color
-
RE: Monster Terrain tool
I’m also getting the Runtime Error 53, file not found problem. Anyone have any ideas? I’m running Windows 10. BMS is installed on my D drive here: “D:\Falcon BMS 4.33 U1”. The Terrain Editor is installed here: “D:\Program Files (x86)\TerrainEditor” and my original Falcon 4 is installed here : “D:\GOG Games\Falcon 4.0”.
EDIT: I got it working. Monster has a FAQ section addressing this very thing. The 3rd method worked for me.
-
RE: How do I disable my own radio calls?
lol jeeze, idk how I missed that. Thanks guys
-
How do I disable my own radio calls?
I’m talking about when your pilot says, “Fox 3” over the radio or when you hear your pilot making the actual radio calls to AWACS, tower, etc. I’ve seen some videos where people have those disabled and AWACS, for example, responds to your radio command without you ever having to listen to yourself. I can’t figure out where to disable it. Any ideas?
-
RE: Military climbing procedure
Instead of maximizing excess thrust for each chunk of altitude, maximize climb rates (ft/min). If you look for best excess thrust, like you did, you’ll get slow, steep climbs that make it to the required altitude using the least amount of fuel, but like Frederf said, it’ll end up costing more fuel by the time you get to the target because of the increased cruise length. If you try to maximize your climb rate and therefore minimize time spent at each altitude, then the answers that pop out are shallower, faster climbs that are a lot closer to the IRL falcon climb schedule. Now, idk if this is the absolute minimum or not, but it certainly results in less fuel being burned by the time you reach the target area (climb and cruise combined).
-
F-18C fuel consumption and ceiling
I noticed that the F/A-18C fuel efficiency is way too good and the ceiling’s too high as well. I don’t know exactly how many PPH it should be sucking down at certain conditions, but I figure roughly 30-40%ish more than the F-16C. As it currently stands in the game right now, the Hornet is only consuming 50-70% of what the Falcon would be under the same condistions. Couple that with an ingame ceiling of 70k feet and the Hornet can go twice as far as it should be able to.
Some numbers I came up with in testing:
Clean, at 40k feet, and full mil power: F-16C - Mach 0.97 & 3870 PPH F/A-18C - Mach 0.95 & 2860 PPH
Clean, at 200 feet, and full mil power: F-16C - Mach 0.98 & 16900 PPH F/A-18C - Mach 0.96 & 10310 PPHThe Hornet can sustain 70k feet clean at mach 1.85 and only consumes 4900 PPH doing it. You can fly for a couple thousand miles at 1,100 knots (GS).
Anyways, keep up the good work. 4.33 is an absolute blast to fly.
-
RE: Carrier with Mission Commander?
Have you figured it out ipmasq? The same thing is happening to me. I ended up just moving the already existing carrier instead of adding a new one.
-
RE: R-73 performance in game
Rocket engine still ignited or not ?
Yeah, the motor was still firing.
Badly, like most missiles…. but I wouldnt trust ACMI on accurate flight parameters at the time scale of a missile flight
I trust it. When I fired the missile in game I did a double take because I thought the missile was flying through the air sideways. Sure enough Tacview said 70 deg aoa.
-
R-73 performance in game
Does anyone know how accurately the R-73 is simulated in game? Here’s an ACMI track from some testing I was doing in dogfight mode. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97148259/nuts%20r73%20shot.zip
As you can see, the missile flies off the rail, maintains ~250Kts, spikes up to 77 deg AOA, and peaks with a turn rate of 70 deg/sec. I know it’s a nasty little missile with thrust vectoring, but that just seems insane to me.