Falcon 4.0 Allied Force

Has anyone run this game on Vista x64 and/or an SLI configuration ?

I've played this SIM before but not on an SLI system running an x64 OS. if any1 has or knows how well it will play, drop a post pls....

thanks

 

I have this game and I have a sli notebook with dual 8600m gts. It doesn't seem to take advantage of the sli. but plays pretty smooth with high frame rates. I run windows vista 32 though so I don't know what kind of compatibility issues you'll get with vista 64. back in in the 90s I was so into Falcon 3.0 and the moment I found this at Best Buy I jumped on it just because of the deepness of the simulation, now it seems that this is really complex and will take time to master it so I've just been playing Call of Duty 4. But as far as combat flight sims go this is the real deal.

 

Falcon 4 is strictly CPU limited, but its performance is nearly doubled with a dual core CPU since it is multi-threaded.

I've played Falcon 4 since its release day one. Great sim if you take the time, and invest in decent flight hardware (stick, throttle, rudder) but a simple twist joystick with throttle will do.

I'll try to give it a run with my Vista 64-bit version and see what I can figure out.

 

It's too realistic for me! Too bad they delayed H.A.W.X. till Q1 09'!

 

Yes, F4 takes quite a bit of time investment to really learn how to play. However even after 10 years I keep revisiting it. The re-release as Falcon 4 Allied Force really did improve everything immesely over the original.

 

yeah, i used to mess with falcon 3 back in the day. the machines that were available back then compared to now were dinosaurs.....

i played falcon 4 for some time as well. i remember going thru the practice take-offs, etc....some of the tutorials took like an hour to go thru but it was a refreshing change from playing more mainstream games.

i printed the manual for that game @ kinkos because the **** thing was so big, i had to get it bound or else there's be papers flying all over the place.

 

How would you say it compares to LOMAC? I used to be a fairly hard core flight simmer back in the day waaay before either of these titles. I actually used to use the manual as a deciding factor in purchase. If it looked like I could fly with only reading a few pages I passed..

 

I feel you there. fortunatly , my New desktop should be arriving in Q1

 

LO-MAC is arcade compared with Falcon. LO-MAC is fun though, don't get me wrong, it just isn't nearly as immersive. The dynamic campaign engine in Falcon is bar none the best thing ever to happen to flight simming. It's too bad they don't tune it and license it. It's a large part of what makes Falcon so enjoyable even 10 years after the initial release. I think I still own two original 500+ page binder versions in shrink wrap.

I mastered the game, like three times already. I say that because I really get into it, play it frequently for about a year or so, then quit for a year or so. Then fire it up again, get involved, then lose interest after a year or so, etc ad nauseum. It takes almost a fresh learning curve every time because it is so complex and immersive.

The Allied Force team keeps saying they're working on an add-on or sequel, but nothing has come to fruition yet. They had planned on adding at least two other aircraft besides the F-16. Quite possibly the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and A-10 Warthog (PLEASE!)

 

Back in the 90s when I was playing Falcon 3.0 I was so into it because the 1991 Gulf war I was reading and studying about the history of Falcon series, and if I can remember correctly Falcon was modeled from the same programming that the actual US Airforce F 16 simulator was using albiet scaled back for the computer technology of that time. The Physics model was suppose to mimic the actual physics of a real F 16 and the virtual ****pit and lock on tracking is copied by other flight sims to this day. This is what seperated the PCs from gaming consoles, PC games (adults) from console games (kids), Deep detailed Simulations (virtual reality) from arcade video games (kids), this is what seperated the men from the boys. This is why PC gaming was special but now the developers imposed on society and the market saying consumers want twitch video games and now PC gaming isn't as deep as it once was and we have to settle for shallow ported console games. Still fun but not like it once was.

 

I interviewed the brain child behind Falcon 3 and 4, Gilman Louie, when I was part of the gaming media. He was so intense. He's now a CIA operative. So much development went into Falcon 4, it went way over budget, but it's as close as you can get to a real simulator without using classified information.

The problem these days is that video games have suffered from being too successful. It's all formulaic now. Nobody wants to risk the investment for a real in depth and outside the box game design with the intricacies like Falcon 4 had. There's pretty much no more combat flight simulators in development, at least not by any company with the budget to make it complete. There's third party developers working on various titles, but it takes so long with a rag tag of part time programmers and testers.

 

Hey, that's definetely not truth. Do you know what these guys have made a real A-10C desktop sim for US Airforce?
SU-25T advanced flight model is amazing and i've talked with real pilots of that bird, it is really close to the reality.
After KA-50 (which will be a true hardcore, check this video for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEAnF2NYqC8) they announced A-10A based on REAL sim (for A-10C they didn't recieve permission) and AH-64A (two seats multiplayer!).

 

I didn't mean literally arcade. I just meant that if you've flown Falcon, the dynamic campaign and AI are top notch compared to LO-MAC. I love flying the A-10 in LO-MAC. The flight model and weapons delivery system is well developed, but the avionics are simplified, and it doesn't have a clickable c.ockpit either.

Black Shark has been in development for some time, and not sure if/when it will see reality as a consumer product. I sure hope it makes it though. I miss the study sims of past like the Jane's stuff: Longbow 1 and 2, F-15, F/A-18.

 

I agree, clickable ****pit and dynamic campaign were an advantage of Falcon. I hope KA-50 will be reliased till the end of this year.
Developers announced following addons:

1- A-10A Suite 2
2- A-10C Suite 3
3- AH-64A Blk. 49A
4- Su-27
5- F-15C
6- Mi-24V
7- F-16C
8- MiG-29A

Generally, documentation was opened for all this crafts, so no problem with realistic charachteristics.

latest update from developers, KA-50 flight manual is already 533 pages
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=422862&postcount=1

 

Hopefully they make the manual downloadable before the game ships so we can start reading up and printing out. It would be great if they offered a bound manual that you can buy separately if you choose. The Falcon manual was awesome.

 

the falcon manual is huge.

i have not yet installed it on my machine....i'm still poking around for an alternative for a flight controller. i used to have the saitek joystick and throttle and it worked fantastic, but i'm looking for something smaller with analog controls so i can tuck it away in my bag and go or something.

 

Look for a Logitech Rumblepad - an original one not Rumblepad 2. Probably have to go through eBay. It has a throttle axis and two analog sticks with a handful of buttons. Granted it isn't a full HOTAS or twist stick, but it gets the job done.

 

i was eyeballing saitek's cyborg rumble pad...the left analog stick + directional pad can be flipped, pretty cool. it also has 2 analog triggers, so that's 4 analog controls, the buttons, etc.

might work out well when used with the keyboard controls.

 

man, i remember janes f/a-18. that game was so intense and in-depth, you would swear you could fly the real thing afterwards.

 

Tornado, Gunship 2000, Mig-29 add on for Falcon 3. All Classic. But now they need to make a modern sim as detailed physics and campaign wise as those with the F 22 Raptor that can run max graphic settings on a 8600m gt. I'll definitely buy it. And opposing forces need to upgrade their flagship fighter plane in real life cause Mig 29s are getting dated.

 

It's impossible to create a sim with Raptor, because information about it is classified.

 

There was a lot classified about the Comanche too, but there was a sim or two made with it. If they can know basics about the avionics and flight model it should be enough for a consumer sim.

 

Another diehard player of Falcon 3 and 4 here (I still have my The Art of The Kill video somewhere). How I wish my f16 + TQS + RCS pedals still worked....

Years ago I had some hours in a f16 military simulator. It was weird how the commands felt naturally, and how I got oriented immediately in the ****pit. Falcon 4 is really the pinnacle of realism in modern flight sims.

But what I really wanted would be a re-release of Jane's Apache Longbow 2.... How I loved that sim...

 

Yeah, Longbow 2, awesome.

There was some dude at Frugals Forums located somewhere in Europe (netherlands?) that actually got a chance to fly an F-16. He was an expert F4 user, and said it all felt natural.

 

i'm an engineer and i worked on the comanche program. what a pile of junk that aircraft was.

 

Probably why it was cancelled What did you work on with it?

In theory it looked awesome. But in reality it was a disaster. What was it, like $1 Billion tax payer dollars wasted?

 

more like $ 3 billion. mechanical design and systems/structure support. the ship was pretty hi-tech, CFRP everywhere you looked, but the mentality of it's creators (Sik___ and US Gover____) is what brought it down.

that and that it was designed using the older version of CATIA (v4) which I have logged 10's of thousands of hours on, it was a very labor intensive software when compared to v5 or v6.

anyway, the real demise came when the Arm_ canned the program due to it's 15 year development + they kept changing requirements on Sik___.....

i never really liked Sik___ in general, the moral and attitude in that company was (still is) nasty.

but f-16 and JSF programs were really sweet to work on ! I walked on top of f-16s on the assembly line. I'll tell you something, that aircraft, when it's all buttoned up and skinned looks very lightweight. but when the skin panels aren't on, you'll see that almost every cubic inch of real estate is being used for something. insane. wing is really thin at the root too, i'd say about 8-10 inches max....

i wonder what was going thru general dynamic's head when they gave it up to LM.

 

Yeah, that F-16 is a marvel. The plane is much smaller when you see one up close, except it is very capable of delivering a large amount of ordnance. I would love to be able to get inside the guts of one of those things though.

LOL @ CATIA v4. I use that too, but as an auto engineer, only for minor tasks - screen dumps, cutting sections, packaging reviews, etc. I leave all the 3D, solid modeling and surfacing to our highly skilled designers. All our new car programs are v5, and I like what I see so far. I haven't seen v6 yet though, and TBH didn't know it exsited.

 

now we are off-topic....but tell me more about which modules you use at your company with v5 ?
i'm familiar with all the basic workbenches as well as some advanced workbenches like FTA and Tubing.
although i've used v5 for only 3-4 years, i can tell you there are things about v5 which i still have not learned. massive software. if i could only tap dassault on the shoulder and make them sell me an academic version so i can mess with it @ home....but then again why would i want that when i use the dam thing every day.....retract that thought.

 

might i also add that i touched an f-16 cannon with my bare hands....

anyway, back on topic - is there any hope for a new version of falcon any time soon ?

 

The team that made Allied Force are supposedly working on an add-on for F4AF and also a completely new game. But I think Black Shark will be to market well before that one.

 

2 questions:

has anyone tried Allied force without using the game disc, does it still play ?

anyone tried a gamepad controller like the xbox360 or saitek's cyborg or logitech rumblepad....does the game pick the controller up properly ?

 

Yes, it works without the disk in the drive.

IMO, this game really needs to be played on a full HOTAS setup.

 

thanks for verifying that

i used to use a saitek HOTAS setup with this game, but i'm mobile sometimes, so a gamepad controller is a better idea. HOTAS is too big to keep on the table all the time anyway

 

Lets not get away here... Falcon 4 is an arcade *flight sim*. It has silly physics modeling vs lomac which is a real flight sim. If you are interested in learning how a plane behaves in the air Falcon 4 is pretty much an arcade game while lomac offers the about the most realistic flight model you can get.

Now the other points are true. Falcon 4 is far more complete environment with superb dynamic campaign and great feel. LOMAC is far superior to Falcon 4 as a detailed battle simulator: physics, flight models, enemy ai, unit modeling are all better in LOMAC. But lomac doesn't simulate a war like Falcon 4. So LOMAC is closer to MS Flightsim and X-Plane then Falcon 4 which is more of war progression simulator rather then something focused on planes itself.

 

what you said is contrary to what a lot of reviews think, but anyway....

the game offers campaigns/action which is what ppl look for with a combat flight simulator.

 

Reviews always credit Falcon 4 highly for the many things it does well. And it deserves it's praise. But it's physics engine isn't one of those things that deserves praise. In Falcon 4 the flight model is no where as advanced as lomac's flight model.

 

I never compared flight models. Falcon 4 isn't that bad though. It's quite good actually. I'd bargain the difference between Lo-Mac and Falcon 4 is so marginal that if you put an F-16 in Lo-Mac it wouldn't feel remarkably different.

I used the word "arcade" as a descriptive metaphor relatively speaking, not intended as it actually being an arcade game. Ace Combat series is arcade. My point was that Lo-Mac pales in comparison when you look at the whole package.

I must have logged hundreds of hours in F4 and always found a challenge every time I flew. With Lo-Mac I probably logged dozens if not close to a hundred hours, but it became boring after that. So both have their strong points, and even getting 100 hours in a game is good too, so Lo-Mac is still a great PC sim.

Lo-Mac also lets you fly the A-10. Something I LOVE.

 

oh the memories...

but then i wanted a real ****pit... and thats when i realized i was losing my mind...

learning curve on this was stiff tho... but it was fun...


LMAO... it replaced c o c k p i t to ****pit... ha ha ha
ease up NBR... lol

 

Yeah, I noticed that. They should at least allow c.ockpit as a single word.

 

My point was that lomac is a different kind of a sim. The word arcade is an insult especially when compared to Falcon 4 which is far more arcade as far as airplane modeling itself is concerned. Falcon 4 is more about war logistics and airplane management then the airplane itself. And it's impressive at that. LOMAC is more about airplanes and the immediate combat with a superb mission editor that Falcon 4 doesn't come close to. In Falcon 4 you play the game as it provides you a dynamic war to participate in. In LOMAC you meticulously setup a tactic scenario yourself and execute it. They're very different simulators. LOMAC is more of a tool closer to X-Plane then say falcon 4 which is more a provide a war for you to participate in.

 

all in all, it's just a game games are meant to be played, win or lose.

i guess in the next decade maybe the military will allow retired f-16's to be sold to civilians....or if you have enough money, i'm pretty sure LM Aero would be happy to build you one (less all the military equip.)

 

Again, I retract my statement about Lo-Mac being "arcade" poor choice of words. I have been a supporter of flight sims for at least the last 15 years. I enjoyed both Lo-Mac and Falcon 4.

I'm not going to get into details about flight models seeing as how neither of us has ever flown an F-16 for real (assuming). I have a private pilots license and have flown Cessna's mainly, but a couple times, combat prop airplanes (marchetti). All of which was exciting. If I could fly a real F-16 I probably would never bother with Falcon 4.

 

My personal preference is the accuracy of the flight model, avionics, weapon systems, etc. So, i like more the eagle dynamics conception. That's why they chose only plains with open characteristics. Of course, it's nice to fly new birds like raptor or su-35, but this destroys the conception of realistic flight sim.

Off top: it's interesting, i've never expected that F-16 so tiny in reality. Even russian airfield track has the same size

 

I agree on the size. I knew the general dimensions, but until you see one, its surprising how small they really are. Especially sitting next to a P-51 Mustang - a prop aircraft - relatively similar size. F-16 a little longer naturally, but surprising. The F-16 is a very capable bird for its size. If you get a chance to go to an airshow take a look.

To rank my aircraft favorites though:

(1) F/A-18 E/F
(2) F-15
(3) A-10
(4) F-16
(5) Longbow D

 

BTW, any modern sim (Maybe LOMAC has it, I don't know) have an acceptable A-10 to fly? I think we don't have a really good A-10 simulator since the venerable A-10 Cuba!

 

Since Eagle Dynamics made real sim for Pentagon, the next thing after KA-50 will be A-10 addon. I suspect it should be good))). And original Lock On has A-10, but with normal, not advanced flight model.

 

Actually I'm making my master degree in Germany (Tornado’s flies above city quite often ). But my home town is Zhukovsky - the center of aviation industry in Russia. There is a huge airshow every two year on russian flight research institute airfield in this town. Photo above is from this airshow. Last time I was in 2005. US air force was presented by pair of B-1B, F-15E, F-16, KC-135, KC-10 and C-130. Unfortunately, only Lancer flew during show.
New versions of SU-27 and MiG-29 with thrust-vectoring are just outstanding, something incredible in case of maneuverability. I’ve asked American pilots about these plains, they told: “Ok, Russian plains are great for the show, but ours better for the war” … It sounds a little bit jealous… Probably you saw video of that in youtube. During flight tests I saw from my balcony SU-30MK “standing” on the tail for 30 seconds without altitude loss.
Of course, I saw Super Hornet’s performance on video, it’s also looks good, IMHO better than F-22.
I also was impressed by Mirage 2000, it can change direction of flight extremely fast. And it is unbelievably loud, much more than basic 27 and 29.
KA-50 performance is also not bad. It can fly tail back, has good acceleration and climb rate. Mi-28 is not so impressive, compare to KA.

 

Yes, thrust vectoring allows for some pretty phenomenal maneuvers. The JSF has this as well. The Cobra maneuver clearly demonstrates the maneuverability, but that maneuver is not very effective for combat. You'd be a sitting duck so to speak.

But the Su-35 and MiG-29 are awesome aircraft as well. I'm sure they'd be a fair matchup between an F/A-18 E/F

 

I was under impression that JSF only has TVC for vertical take off and unable to use it in normal flight.