iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch

Version 3.0 FINAL (US and UK)

README File

July 20, 2000

The iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch is a community-based project that endeavors to improve the gameplay of Falcon 4.0 by enhancing its realism. This Realism Patch is "unofficial", and is not maintained either Hasbro Interactive or Microprose. The iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch is supplied “as-is”. Hasbro, Microprose, and iBeta do not accept responsibility for any adverse affects that are a result of installing this patch.

On-line and telephone support are not offered. Questions, feedback, and ideas can be posted to http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/52592

Localized Versions: If you have a localized version of Falcon 4.0 (German, French, etc) you may attempt to install these files, but you must install 1.08us as part of your upgrade. This may affect Falcon 4.0 adversely – if you choose to install 1.08us and the Realism Patch, you must do this at your own risk. Hasbro and Microprose cannot support localized versions of Falcon 4.0 if they are modified in this way.

Executive Producer’s Notes – Realism Patch Version 3.0

The Realism Patch team keeps plugging away – thank you for all of your support! We continue to make progress in many areas, yet there is still much work to be done. RP3 is the third release of the Realism Patch series, and while it may not contain the plethora of changes the previous two releases had, we are offering this version with a quicker turn-around than before. Our intent from here on out is to release the RPs when we have a good set of changes to offer, and not hold onto it too long. For us this makes the process a bit more manageable, and gets the fixes in the hands of the F4 community sooner.

Here are some of the highlights:

o The AAA has been readjusted. The blast radius values are still based on realistic numbers, and include references to warhead size, warhead type (flak vs. contact), cyclic rate of fire, and guidance. The new values diminish the power of the large-caliber flak guns, while still keeping the deadly nature of the smaller caliber tracer-type guns. Although the new blast values should make it easier to penetrate enemy airspace, there is still no substitute for good planning and combat tactics. Do not even go near the AAA guns if they are still active! You are just asking for it! Read the “AAA Briefing” document in the “iBeta RP Docs” directory after install for additional intel on how to defeat the AAA threat.

o The ground and air-based radars have been improved to allow for more realistic detection performance. More can be read below.

o The “roles” of various aircraft have been adjusted to allow the aircraft to be tasked with more correct missions types. No longer will the A-10 be tasked to fly OCA missions against airbases!

o The sizes of the ground and air units has been adjusted to account for the difference in OPFOR vs. US/ROK size/strength. More can be read below.

o Separated out all of the flight model data for the aircraft – this was done to facilitate future modifications for each individual aircraft.

o Developed a new keyboard command file (ibeta_keystrokes.key) that contains the ability to assign keystrokes to the AUX COMMs commands and to the new CAT I/III switch.

o Improved the A-10’s hardpoints, maximum takeoff weight, and fuel loads. A-10 flight model improvements forthcoming in a future RP version. See below for more details.

o Improved “abort/cowardice” behavior in AI in the statistical (2D) war (user selectable – not selected by default)

o Fixed the vehicle graphics for the 2S19 and SA-9.

o Tested and included many 3rd party EXE hex patches such as the GLOC patch, “Fly and Plane”, BARCAP, interactive airbase relo, CAT I/III switching, and recon window fix.

o Many other “minor” fixes that will improve the overall gameplay and enjoyment.

While we realize the RP2.x may have been a hit to your FPS (due to the many additional functions that were enabled), we feel that RP 3.0 should not be an additional burden. The reason being that we have not added any new functionality (over that of RP2.x) that would affect framerates. Quite the contrary, we have made some modifications that may actually improve the framerates – most notably the ground/air unit resizing. With fewer objects to coordinate and control, the CPU should have an easier time keeping up with the demands of the game engine.

Current “fix list” for future RP versions: individualized flight models for the F-16 and other aircraft, realistic adjustments to loadout carriage of other aircraft, improved skins, more EXE improvements, realistic hit bubble modifications, and much more!

Executive Producer’s Notes – Realism Patch Version 2.1

With the recent release of RP2, we discovered several issues that required a responsive set of fixes. RP2.1 addresses the problems with the D-30 “super gun” and the inability of the Patriots to fire. We also added the capacity for helos to attack ground targets using air-to-ground missiles (ATGMs). RP2.1 (like RP2a) also fixes the problem of copying a duplicate set of files to the Windows/System directory.

We also were able to speak with a former USAF targeter with PACAF at Osan, and as a result, we adjusted the balance of AAA along the FLOT and in mobile AAA battalions. You will now find smaller caliber (57mm and below) around the DMZ because of the mobility required in the forward-deployed units, but you will see the larger caliber AAA (85mm and 100mm) encircling Pyongyang and other fixed strategic targets. Unfortunately, we do not yet have control over the placement of objects in the F4 world, so for the moment all we could do was to adjust the objects within the battalions.

Both the AAA battalion (which contain the KS-12, S-60, M-1939, and KS-19) and the Towed AAA battalion (which contain the S-60, M-1939, ZPU-2) are available for placement in TE missions. The HART battalion, which is not available for placement in TE, now contains only the S-60 and the SA-7 as air defense protection.

We have also discovered how to turn on radar guidance for some of the AAA guns. The FireCan radar now controls the KS-19, KS-12, and S-60. While our tests have not shown that adding a radar to the AAA increases their accuracy, you will see them on your RWR with the “A” symbol. You can also target and destroy these guns with HARMs if you wish.

The addition of large amounts of AAA was no doubt a surprise to many F4 pilots who have become complacent with the lack of a Triple-A threat. North Korea has over 5000 pieces of flak-type AAA, and although much of it is older technology, many of these pieces have fire control radars attached and are be a credible threat. Even though the large numbers of AAA guns can be a danger, you should be able to avoid much of it by proper mission planning. Make sure to fly around, over, or under known AAA sites (HART sites around the DMZ, cities, airbases, etc.). Be especially careful around large cities and other strategic targets, as this is where much of the large caliber AAA resides. You may have to run several anti-AAA sorties before attacking the targets they are protecting. A rapid change in altitude once AAA is encountered also seems to defeat their ability to track and hit you.

The iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Project is an on-going effort, and as new fixes are identified, we will do our best to test them and get them out to you as soon as possible. Falcon 4.0 is a large, complex simulation, and as such, our work will be on going for some time. Thank you for all of your support - Snacko

Executive Producer’s Notes – Realism Patch Version 2.0

The recent release of the Falcon 4.0 source code was cause for concern here at iBeta. We were not quite sure how Hasbro Interactive would view hex editing and the Realism Patch project in light of the source code release. We have now had the opportunity to clarify these issues with Hasbro, and they send not only their approval to continue the iBeta Realism Patch Project, but they fully support users developing their own hex edits that result in an increased enjoyment for their product. Given our confirmation and clarification concerning this hex-editing project, we offer these modifications to the Falcon 4.0 community with “Hasbro Interactive’s blessing”.

-----------

Please be aware, with the bubble changes and other EXE modifications there is likelihood that your in game frames-per-second (FPS) rate will be affected. If you choose to adopt the iBeta F4 RP2 EXE, you will have the ability to NOT install the “airbase relocation fix” (a big frame rate hog), and adjust the in-game bubble, but everyone must understand, the more we turn on, the more it affects the CPU and frames per second.

iBeta is quite concerned about FPS issues, and we do not wish to burden current F4 pilots by turning on so much activity that only owners of 1Ghz CPU processors would appreciate it. Our process will continue to search for the best balance of new functionality vs. system requirements.

Remember, if you choose to install the RP will all options AND keep your F4 graphics settings at maximum, you WILL experience degradation in frame rates, which may also lead to crashes to desktop. iBeta recommends that you try the settings at maximum, and once you have experienced the loss of in-game frame rates, turn down your graphics settings.

If you are using the Bubble Slider EXE fix, the recommended in-game bubble slider setting is “3”. We have adjusted all bubble values to reflect the best balance of AI and FPS when “3” is used.

There has been a wealth of fixes since RP1. RP2 contains all of the fixes in RP1, plus the following:

o All A2A missile kinematics have been adjusted based on realistic performance characteristics (Additional README Information Included) - A2A engagement envelopes have been updated for realistic behavior

o Most SAM missile kinematics have been adjusted based on realistic performance characteristics (Additional README Information Included) - SAM engagement envelopes have been updated for realistic behavior

o Most SAMs and A2A missiles now launch at their maximum effective range; radar “pings” to the RWR also occur at ranges commensurate with their radar distances

o The SA-5 was correctly given a terminal homing active radar seeker head (a la AIM-120 and AA-12). Watch for the “M” to appear in the RWR

o New weapons for the ROK: KSAM (Chun-ma missile) and KFIV-AD (Tracked Vulcan) are now included

o HN-5a MANPAD is now given in quantity to the “elite” forces of the DPRK. Russian forces now have access to the SA-14, as do some NK forces

o Weapon blast and damage values have been improve to allow for a more realistic missile/bomb results

o Ground unit order of battle (OOB) has been improved to simulate realistic grouping of weapons and equipment

o You can now fly any plane in TE (Additional README Information Included)

o The USAF F-16C now has realistic loadout and carry limits; some weapons were removed while some were added (don’t worry – we’ve compromised for those who wish to still use the Mk-77 and LGBs even though these are not realistic on the block 50/52) (Additional README Information Included)

o The CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon has been added - this is THE tank buster cluster munitions to carry (Additional README Information Included)

o We added the KS-19 100mm AAA gun to the HART battalion in Campaign (watch out when flying over the DMZ!). AAA bursts up to 40,000 ft! Also added the KS-12 85mm AAA (bursts may reach up to 26,000 ft), the S-60 (57mm AAA – bursts up to 16,000 ft), and the M-1939 (37mm AAA – bursts up to 8500ft) to AAA battalions that are available in TE. Created an e M-1992 tracked 37mm AAA gun for the DPRK as well as a ZPU-2 14.5mm AAA gun.

o Flight model limiters have been installed into AI aircraft to give them more realistic performance limits (the flight models of the AI aircraft are not individualized, but rather prevent them from behaving unrealistically).

o Nike Hercules, Patriot, and Hawk have now all been enabled with RWR symbology too

o Ground-based search radars and AWACs are now enabled and emitting

o Unit deaggregation distance improvements according the new bubble discoveries; this improves aircraft/SAM AI among other things

o We removed the AIM-120s from the F-14A as this is no longer a legal loadout

o F/A-18A has been renamed to F/A-18C

o An actual AIM-9m Sidewinder “growl” sound has been added – really cool!

o The C-130 and other prop planes now have a prop sound when viewed externally

o Renamed SAM launchers and SAM missiles so it will be easy to distinguish what is what in ACMI and when using labels

o Corrected all the Bradley variants: M2A2, M3A3, and M2A2 BCV (Bradley Command Vehicle): Now they have the proper loadouts. Created the M2A2 BSFV (Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle and M6 BL (Bradley Linebacker): both are mobile Stinger platforms.

o Created the BTR-60: a common DPRK troop transport

o Runways now have a repair time that is more realistic – 6-10 hours for an entire runway

o For many of the above items, we have created an in-depth README section that explains what this means and how it will affect you

Executive Producer’s Notes – Realism Patch Version 1.0

The initial release of the iBeta Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch can best be characterized by calling it a set of base changes that we will use as a jumping off point for further revisions. Many of the modifications employed by this patch address inaccuracies, omissions, and problems with the underlying data. In addition, we have also brought some logical sense to the amour, blast, and damage values – now they are more consistent and (we hope) more accurate. We have also improved the ground unit organization to bring it into a more realistic context.

Things to Watch For:

- F4Gs now carry AGM-45 Shrikes and AGM-88 HARMs
- Ground battles are more realistic – ground units have accurate weapons/loadouts, and are organized according to battle doctrine
- Bomb blasts, penetration, armor, and damage values are now more accurate across the board
- Patriot and Nike SAMs are now "awake" (performance will be address later)
- Formations now work properly
- AWACs "Vector to" message now works
- Mig-19 now has radar and AA-1s
- BLU-27s (napalm) are now designated Mk-77 which is the USAF designation
- SA-7s are more realistic – they are now impact fused and not proximity fused
- AA-10 series of missiles behave more realistically due to correct seeker heads now in place

There is much more to do. Version 1.0 does not address missile performance (A2A, A2G, and SAMs), nor does it modify aircraft performance envelopes. We have also identified ways of allowing more escort flight for the strike missions in campaign, improve AI engagement ranges of enemy aircraft, and correct the “legal” loadouts on all the aircraft. Stay tuned, it will be an enjoyable ride - Snacko

# Table of Contents

Table of Contents. 5

History of Revisions and README Files. 6

Credits. 6

3rd Party Realism Add-ons. 7

Known Issues. 7

Realism Patch Design Philosophy. 8

File Definitions. 9

References and Sources. 10

Designers Notes. 10

Bubble Primer 10

BUBBLE LEXICON v1.1. 12

Background and Philosophy of Ground Unit Changes. 15

How to Fly Other Aircraft in Falcon 4.0. 17

Loadout and Weapons Changes. 18

Effects of Napalm and the Reduction of its Damage Value. 19

COMM File Fixes (from Poogen) 19

New Aircraft Limiters. 20

Addition of the CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon. 20

Abstract Combat 21

Air to Air Changes. 22

SAM and AAA Changes. 23

Air War Tactical Changes. 24

Air War Strategic Changes. 25

Realism Patch Considerations. 25

The Air-to-Air Environment - Missiles. 25

Problems with Missing Missiles. 27

Aircraft AI 28

Illusory “Wall of MiGs” 28

The Surface-to-Air Environment 29

Runway Repair 29

Technical Notes and FAQs For Missile Modeling in Falcon 4. 30

# History of Revisions and README Files

As they were getting too big, we have allowed the HISTORY.TXT and README.TXT files to become separate documents.

HISTORY.TXT – a detailed description of the changes we have included in the iBeta F4 Realism Patch.

FileChanges.TXT – contains a list of the files that have changes as part of the iBeta F4 Realism Patch as well as the patch installation and de-installation procedures.

README.TXT – contains a list of the important documents contained in the Realism Patch.

# Credits

Thanks go out to Joel Bierling for his nifty F4Patch program. With the release of RP2.1, we have moved away from the Code Fusion patcher, and we now allow the user to select their own patches. Thanks Joel for making this easier on all of us!

Sylvain Gagnon and Leif "Poogen" Ljung also get a medal this round for their modifications to the Falcon 4.0 EXE. The addition of many new EXE modifications have definitively opened up F4 like is has never been opened before.

Thanks must go out to Julian Onions for his F4Browse utility, without which many of our changes would not have been possible. Also, much thanks to MadMax, Bengs, Duck Holiday, Paradox, Nemesis, Shawn Agne, Metal, RAD, Alex, and others not mentioned specifically here for their contributions to the F4 hex editing community. Your original discoveries have contributed significantly to this effort.

Many thanks need to be offered to the entire Falcon 4.0 iBeta Public Sector team. Kudos are deserved for their long hours and attention to detail.

This patch would not be possible if it were not for the exemplary efforts of Leonardo Rogic and Jeff Babineau. Both Leo and Jeff bore the brunt of labor on this version, as much work had to be done just to correct the underlying Falcon 4.0 data files to get them in shape for subsequent changes. Thanks to Leo and Jeff for their efforts!

iBeta Team – Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch

President and CEO: Glenn "Sleepdoc" Kletzky

Executive Producer: Eric "Snacko" Marlow

Associate Producer: Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic

AI Coordinator: Paul Stewart

Aircraft Loadout Coordinator: Lloyd “Hunter” Case and Robert "Trakdah" Borjesson

Blast and Damage Coordinators: Jeff "Rhino" Babineau and Eric “Snacko” Marlow

Bubble Mafia Coordinator: Kurt “Froglips” `Giesselman`

Campaign/AI Coordinator: Gary “Ranger” Perry

Command/Menus/UI Coordinator: Kurt “Froglips” `Giesselman and Thomas McCauley`

F-16 Flight Model Coordinator: Tomas “RIK” Eisloe and "Hoola"

Formation Coordinator: Rodrigo "Motor" Lourenco

Ground Unit Coordinator: Jeff "Rhino" Babineau and Eric “Snacko” Marlow

Missile Coordinator: "Hoola", Paul Stewart, and John Simon

Radar/ECM Coordinator: Eric “Snacko” Marlow and Tomas “RIK” Eisloe

Hex Meisters: Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic and Jeff "Rhino" Babineau

Documentation: Eric "Snacko" Marlow, Leonardo "Apollo11" Rogic, and Jeff "Rhino" Babineau

# 3rd Party Realism Add-ons

iBeta has tested a series of additional Falcon 4.0 add-ons that we feel contribute to the added immersion of the Realism Patch. Listed below are additional patches that we recommend:

Paul Wilson’s 1024x768 F-16C Block 50/52 cockpit - http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com:6010/msngamingzone/crazyammo/

Skypat’s and BenHur’s F-16C Block 50/52 cockpit – http://spower.free.fr/falcon4/addons/cockpits/ckptBS/cockpitBS.htm

Byoung-Hoon Moon’s Korea Skyfix – can be found at the iBeta website

If you have a 3rd party add-on for F4 and you would like iBeta to test it for possibly inclusion in our “recommended” list, please let us know.

# Known Issues

To be corrected in later versions:

o The Nike SAM missile does now appear on the RWR, but it shows up as a “U” and not “N”. (there is a fix for this that will be implemented in RP3)

o Once you have created/saved missions in TE using the Realism Patch, your TE missions may be incorrectly rendered if you use the 1.08us Default Zip file set. We have found a workaround – if you must go back to 1.08us after installing the iBeta Realism Patch, you must de-install your Falcon 4.0 game completely and reinstall from the CD, re-apply the 1.08us patch, and re-apply the “i2” EXE.

o An issue exists if you bomb vehicle (aircraft, SAMS, mech, amour) targets on an airbase with cluster bombs – no kills will result. This is a bug going back prior to the RP releases, but we just wanted to mention it. Until we correct this, take GBUs or Mk bombs for vehicle targets at airbases.

o We do not recommend using the –Gx command on your EXE command line. This may increase significantly the number of objects in the F4 world and radically increase CPU loading. You will see very significant decreases in frame rates near high activity areas (FLOT) in a campaign. When the CPU is loaded down so significantly that the frame rate drops below about 10, you will see missiles stop fusing and pass-through targets. This is because the CPU polls them every xxx (?) milliseconds and slows down it's polling when overloaded. The missile is not polled frequently enough to calculate the collision when they are within lethal range. Not "realizing" it's within lethal warhead range, it flies by without detonating. This is virtually non-existent above 10 fps so adjust your bubble and graphics accordingly.

o During our modifications, we have noticed that MPS elected to place certain UNITs in the different campaigns that do not belong (i.e. Chinese battalions like the SA-6 are deployed in several campaigns BEFORE the Chinese actually enter the war – they incorrectly identified as NK units). We feel that MPS elected to do this to enhanced gameplay and variety. Unfortunately, until we better understand how to modify campaign deployments and order of battle we cannot remove these units from the campaign.

o `The MiG-29 will now choose to carry AA-2R's for radar guided missiles in the Dogfight module. Those wishing to practice BVR in dogfight should choose the Su-27 that now carries the AA-12.`

# Realism Patch Design Philosophy

“Hex Editing” started as a grass roots effort – players interested in modifying the files of Falcon 4.0 to get more enjoyment from their gameplay experience. Luckily, the designers of Falcon 4.0 created a scheme that allowed much of the inner workings to be accessed by modifying the text and binary files that came with the game. Now, thanks to the innovative and creative discoveries made by those who explored the depths of Falcon 4.0, we now have the ability to bring additional immersion to the Falcon 4.0 world.

In most cases, F4 Hex Editing started out as a way to have some fun with the weapons by making them bigger and more plentiful than what Falcon allows. However it has become increasingly difficult to sort through the various modifications and collect the ones you would like to include.

For many players, “realism” is what it is all about. Having a set of files that increased the realism, while maintaining the gameplay, would have benefits beyond the scope of what Falcon 4.0 initially delivered. This “realism patch” is the outcome of this philosophy.

During our modifications, we discovered many inaccuracies, oversights, and just plan wrong information in the files. Our realism patch attempts to correct many of these issues. We also wanted to increase the realism by adding objects, weapons and capabilities that would exist in the real world.

We had several guiding principle in developing this patch. They are listed as follows:

o The changes should not add any additional instability to Falcon 4.0

o The changes must reflect “real world values” - real world values must be supported by actual military or civilian documentation

o The changes will not adversely affect gameplay

The “real world” in Falcon 4.0 terms is a hypothetical battlefield in the current or near future timeframe, which involves US, ROK, DPRK, Chinese, and Russian forces. All modifications to the objects and capabilities of Falcon 4.0 will be made with these force capabilities in mind. Although the F-16 has additional capabilities beyond what the USAF employs, we tended to keep to strict USAF specifications, as well as the specifications for the other forces.

One of our most sacred guiding principles is to support our changes with recognized military and civilian sources. While at times difficult to come by, we feel that we need to recognize the need to support our changes. Otherwise, we will enter into lengthy debates about the capabilities and performance characteristics of the items we are attempting to modify. Having a source that we can point to alleviates us from those differing points of view.

As hex editing only allows (for the most part) the changing of tabular values, we cannot affect to a great extreme the logic or artificial intelligence that is built into the source code. Hex editing only can take you so far. However, given the structure of the Falcon 4.0 tables and the wealth of information included in them, much can be addressed.

Our interest is to refine this patch over time. As there are many items that can be “tweaked”, we plan on a series of releases that incorporate additional modifications as they are identified.

# File Definitions

FALCON4 ACD - AI Control (?) Data

FALCON4 CT - Falcon 4 control file?

FALCON4 FCD - Feature Control (?) data

FALCON4 FED - Feature Entity (?) Data

FALCON4 ICD - IRST Control (?) Data

FALCON4 INI - as is

FALCON4 OCD - Objective Control (?) Data

FALCON4 PD - Point Data

FALCON4 PHD - Point Header data (?)

FALCON4 RCD - Radar Control (?) Data

FALCON4 RWD - Radar Warning (?) Data

FALCON4 SSD - Squadron (?) Stores Data

FALCON4 SWD - Sim Weapon Data

FALCON4 UCD - Unit Control (?) Data

FALCON4 VCD - Vehicle Control (?) Data

FALCON4 VSD - Visual Data (?)

FALCON4 WCD - Weapon Control (?) Data

FALCON4 WLD - Weapon List Data

KOREAOBJ HDR - ?

KOREAOBJ LOD - Object's Level Of Detail database (?)

KOREAOBJ TEX - Object's Textures

simdata.zip - zip file of data for flight models, weapon sensors, etc.

# References and Sources

There have been comments about the iBeta F4 Realism Patch that users wish that we would update the F4 Tactical Reference to go along with everything we are changing as part of this project. It may be possible to edit the entries in the Tactical Reference guide. This project is being pursued.

For those of you interested in knowing more about many of changes we are including, you should visit www.fas.org (Federation of American Scientists). This website, while having some inaccuracies, is for the most part the best single-source of military information available to everyone.

Air Forces of the World - Christopher Chant

Federation of American Scientists – http://www.fas.org

FM 100-2-3 The Soviet Army, Troops, Organization and Equipment. US Army CGSC 101-1

FM101-10-1/1 Staff Officers Field Manual Organizational, Technical and Logistical Data

Jane's – Air Launched Weapons

Jane's – All the World’s Aircraft

Jane's - Armor and Artillery – Edited by Christopher Foss

Jane's – Land Based Air Defence

MCIA-2630- NK-016-97 North Korea Country Handbook

OKB- MIG- Jay Miller, Piotr Butowski

OKB- Sukhoi- Jay Miller with Vladmir Yakonov, Vladmir Antonov, 6 others

Organizational and Tactical Reference data for the Army in the field- US- Army

ST 100-3 Battle Book

ST 100-7 OPFOR Battle Book

Weapons and Tactics of Soviet Army third edition- David C. Isby

# Designers Notes

### Bubble Primer

The Incomplete and Unapproved Quick Guide to Bubbles
by Kurt ‘Froglips’ Giesselman
As of today, all owners of Falcon 4.0 are required to go to your nearest novelty store (No, not those kinds of novelties! Get your mind out of the gutter. A kid's novelty store.) to purchase a bottle of soap bubble liquid and a large soap bubble wand for blowing soap bubbles. Go home, sit in front of your computer, start Falcon, enter the simulation, then open the soap bubble liquid and use your bubble wand to blow several dozen bubbles. Now sit back and look. This is what Falcon’s AI is seeing. A world of bubbles moving, breaking apart into smaller bubbles, popping, touching each other, and touching you.
In Falcon, like your soap bubble experience, we can divide the world into two groups. There are bubbles that you are in contact with or have even passed inside, and there are bubbles that you have not contacted. All bubbles, in the Falcon world, have a Cluster at the exact center of the bubble. Some bubbles are in the air and are spherical, some bubbles are on the ground and appear as hemispheres. In Falcon, the soap bubbles never pop when they contact each other. So we can be in contact with and even inside dozen and dozens of bubbles at once.

The Clusters in Falcon, mentioned above, are two types that can exist in two conditions. They are Units or Objectives. Units are Clusters that have actions associated with them. This does not always mean they move, although, it often does. Aircraft, Ground Units, Naval Craft, and SAMs are all Units. Objectives are stationary and do not have an action associated with them that they could perform. Examples of Objectives are Bridges, Factories, Towns, Air Bases, and SAM Sites (note these are not SAMs but the location of the fixed SAM emplacements).

The characteristics of these two types of Clusters aside, Falcon does not treat them any different in its managing of their bubble world. Falcon will treat them as Clusters if you are not in contact with their bubble, or Falcon will DEAGGREGATE them as Entities whenever you contact their bubble and for as long as you remain in contact or within their bubble's sphere.

In Falcon, because the default state of an object is AGGREGATED, a Cluster is not drawn in the Falcon world. Falcon assigns a placeholder to the location of that Cluster but does not draw or manipulate the Cluster's component parts. By parts, we mean the Cluster could be composed of four aircraft in a flight, the forty-eight members of a ground unit, or even the dozens of parts of a factory complex (like Office Buildings and Cooling Towers).

Falcon calculates all battles and damage for Clusters statistically. This means that there is no use of position for the calculation of damage to the components. Falcon calculates that a bomb from an AGGREGATED B-52 flight strikes an AGGREGATED airbase. Falcon calculates that the bomb has an 'X' chance of hitting the runway. If the 'roll of the dice' is favorable, then Falcon reports that the B-52 hit the runway and statistically calculates damage. The reason this is done is to reduce the load on the computer's CPU. If Falcon had to calculate the position of every bomb hit, every missile strike, and every bullet or shell in the simulation to determine where it hit the target, there would not be a powerful enough computer on the planet to run the full Falcon campaign. However, that is exactly what Falcon does for all Entities in its DEAGGREGATED world.

The amazing thing in Falcon is that each Cluster type, from AT-3 to ZU-23 and Airbase to Underground Factory, has a unique ACDD (Aggregated Cluster Deaggregation Distance) value found in it the FALCON4.CT file. A distance from zero to the length of Korea can be assigned to each Cluster type. When we assign a distance for DEAGGREGATION we are saying one of two things is true. The Cluster is close enough either for visual identification or radar identification, or that the Cluster needs to be DEAGGREGATED to function properly. We would not want to see airbases pop into existence five miles in front of us nor see a single blip on our radar that we were targeting suddenly become a four ship at 10 miles. Similarly, we want SAM to 'light-up', search for us, and then fire with a measurable time period between each action.

Setting the ACDD distances requires understanding what the player pilot needs to a) maintain his immersion within the simulation b) what the different Clusters in Falcon need to function in a realistic manner. The trade off is CPU load. As stated before, we could just make every Cluster DEAGGREGATED in Korea and save a lot of people a ton of work. No one's computer could run the program. Every time a Cluster's ACDD is increased (their bubble increases in size) we know that, on average, the CPU load will increase and (sob) our frame rates will go down. Fortunately, the enormous flexibility of Falcon's design allows us to turn up UDD or ODD value for Clusters where it is necessary for them to work properly (SAMs) and turn down UDD or ODD for Clusters where a high number adds no realism, no immersion, or value (airbases).

### BUBBLE LEXICON v1.1

ACDD - The Aggregated Cluster Deaggregation Distance is the distance in feet from the Player Position (PP) or Composite Multiplayer Position (CMP) that an AGGREGATED Cluster will DEAGGREGATE into its component Vehicles (a Unit’s components) or Features (an Objective’s components). The ACDD variables for Units are named UDDs and for Objectives are named ODDs and can be examined and changed in their CT file using F4Browse.
Bubble - An imaginary volume, which surrounds every Cluster or Entity in Falcon 4.0. Its diameter is determined by its ACDD and is set by their UDD and ODD found in the CT file. For ground units at least – and maybe all entities – the shape of the bubble is a cylinder with radius equal to the UDD and height at least 60000 ft and maybe a lot more.
Bubble Combat Types - This section is a work in progress. Better insights, descriptions, and testing are welcome. Much more investigative work needs to be done with the different types of combat. There air two overall type of combat, Air to Air (missiles, SAMs or guns attacking aircraft) and Air to Ground (weapon attacks on Units {AGGREGATED} or Entities {DEAGGREGATED}). The type of weapon being used and the type of target being attacked are the most significant effect on all combat engagements.

Attack Category #1 - AGGREGATED vs. AGGREGATED

This attack is conducted between (AGGREGATED) Clusters. Falcon tracks the composition of any Unit or Objective Cluster when it is AGGREGATED. If combat occurs, Falcon 'rolls the dice' and calculates, based on some yet unknown percentages, how many bombs hit the target. The calculations for damage are not positional (i.e. Falcon does not use individual Entity positions) but damage is ‘awarded’ against a Cluster as a whole then distributed between the components of the Unit or Objective. Falcon picks which components, of the Unit or Objective, are hit. Finally, after Falcon determines how much damage is done and whether each Unit or Objective is damaged or destroyed, Falcon ‘awards’ the kill to an attacker. The attacker awarded the hit is not necessarily the actual attacker that fired the weapon but one that was in the AGGREGATED Unit. If it seems like the sequence of events is peculiar then you understand it as well as anyone.

Attack Category #2 - DEAGGREGATED vs. DEAGGREGATED

This attack is conducted in the DEAGGREGATED world. All calculations are performed based on the positional data of Entities, Vehicles or Features, vs. the impact point and blast radius of the weapon being employed. Falcon must check every DEAGGREGATED entity in the game and compare its position to the weapon impact point with appropriate blast radius. If the Entity is within the blast radius then additional calculations are performed for damage and for the possibility of destruction. Changes in graphics, AI response, and position are possible.

Attack Category #3 - DEAGGREGATED vs. AGGREGATED

Falcon uses Active Targeting weapons (LGBs and Mavericks), much like the player. Active Targeting (AT) weapons are locked onto a target. Passive targeting weapons (dumb bombs, rockets, cluster munitions) are dropped at a particular ground location. They are not targeted. The success or failure of Cat3 attacks is totally controlled by the type of weapon utilized. Active Targeting weapons sometimes hit, with varying success, and passive targeting weapons always miss. This is easy to understand if we remember that Falcon never uses positional data to for AGGREGATED targets. A dumb bomb may impact the ground 10 feet or ten miles from a tank column. If the column is AGGREGATED, it is all the same to Falcon.

Subtype A – AT Weapon vs. Objective

Example is an AI aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of 60,000 when the PP or CMP is 90,000 feet away from the armor column. The aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are firing AGM-65s. Falcon will award hits and sometimes divide them arbitrarily between the aircraft.

Subtype B – Passive (dumb) Weapon vs. Objective

Example is an AI aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking a bridge with an UDD of 50,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the bridge. The aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The bridge is AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are dropping Mk.84s. There is no positional data for the bridge’s Features. Falcon awards no hits against the bridge.

Subtype C – AT Weapon vs. Unit

Example is an AI aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of 60,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the armor column. The aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are firing Mavericks. Falcon will award kills to the aircraft and sometimes divide them arbitrarily between the aircraft.

Subtype D – Passive (dumb) Weapon vs. Unit

Example is an AI aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 is attacking an armor column with an UDD of 60,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s ACDD is 90,000 feet to the armor column. The aircraft are DEAGGREGATED. The armor is AGGREGATED. AI aircraft are dropping Mk.84s. Falcon will not award hits against the Unit.

Attack Category #4 - AGGREGATED vs. DEAGGREGATED

Example is an aircraft with an UDD of 120,000 attacking a SAM with an UDD of 300,000 when the PP’s or CMP’s AEDD is 250,000 feet from the SAM. The SAM is DEAGGREGATED. The aircraft are AGGREGATED. Falcon determines, because the aircraft are AGGREGATED, that it will use Attack Type #2. This is what Dave ‘DewDog’ Wagner reported. It is a new type of attack that exists when a SAM UDD is larger than an aircraft UDD. More research required.

Units such as aircraft and ground forces have no attack AI. The weapon being employed determines when an aircraft will engage. A Unit’s AI controls its movement, defensive actions, and mission actions.
BubbleRebuildTime - Variable in the Falcon.AII file (found in the MicroProse\Falcon4\campaign\saved folder) which determines how often (in seconds) Falcon checks the UDDs and ODDs for Clusters within 300,000 feet of the player. Default is one (1).
Bubble Slider - This is a multiplier for the UDD and ODD values. The multiplier for the standard settings is listed below. Higher settings are accessible with the –g# command line switch may be calculated by following the pattern (+1 on the slider = +0.25 to the factor).

Setting Factor

1 0.50
2 0.75
3 1.00
4 1.25
5 1.50
6 1.75
7 2.00
Cluster - Clusters are Units or Objectives that remain AGGREGATED as long as their ACDD (to the PP or CMP) is greater than a Units’ or Objectives’ UDD or ODD as set by their CT value. Falcon tracks them statistically, as a single item. The Cluster’s component pieces, such as individual Vehicles or a structure’s Features, are not tracked positionally by Falcon for damage. Falcon calculates damage to Clusters statistically. Falcon displays a Cluster’s approximate location, when using long labels. A Cluster’s location may shift dramatically when it is DEAGGREGATED into Entities and visible with near labels.

Cursor Bubble - A player controlled, mobile, ground DEAGGREGATION bubble, one nautical mile in diameter. The center of the Cursor Bubble is moved by the player’s SOI cursors. Anything within a one NM radius of the SOI cursor’s position and on the ground is DEAGGREGATED.
Cluster - Any object in Falcon that has an UDD or ODD is a Cluster. It will be DEAGGREGATED or change its displayed graphics when the player’s ACDD is less than its UDD or ODD.

Composite Multiplayer Position (CMP) - The bubble contacts of all players are shared as long as their aircraft’s ACDD is less than the distance to another player’s aircraft. Therefore, Falcon calculates ACDDs for each player but displays DEAGGREGATED Entities for every player within the ACDD of another player using the CMP.

Deaggregated Entity - Vehicles (airborne, ground, or naval) or Objectives (man-made structures), which are fully drawn (rendered). Tank squads have individual vehicles drawn (the number of Vehicles displayed is controlled by the Object Density slider on the Falcon/Setup/Graphics page). Aircraft flights have all aircraft displayed individually visually or on radar. Objectives are displayed with all Features in place. Vehicles and Objectives may not be displayed at their maximum graphical detail. Level of detail is controlled by a yet unexplored FPRD (Feature Polygon Rendering Distance).

Feature - A structure that is part of an Objective and may be individually damaged. Features may not be selected individually as targets using Recon when viewing the Falcon map screen.
Objective - Clusters that have no 'actions' associated with them. Objectives are predefined Clusters of Features (as Units are predefined Clusters of Vehicles). The key difference between Objectives and Units is the component parts of a Unit (Vehicles) require an independent AI BRAIN when they DEAGREGATE. The component parts of Objectives (Features such as taxi signs and hangers) do NOT require AI brains when they DEAGGREGATE. They may be targeted using Recon and selected when on the Falcon map or mission builder screen.

ODD - The Objective Deaggregation Distance is the distance from the player at which an Objective is DEAGGREGATED. Objectives include such Clusters as Airbases and Bridges and the value is found in the CT file with F4Browse. Their component parts (like taxi signs and bridge ramps) are known as Features.

SimBubbleSize - Variable in the Falcon.AII file (found in the MicroProse\Falcon4\campaign\saved folder), which determines the maximum distance that Clusters will be displayed on radar or are detectable by other sensors and display their names when long labels are selected out to three times the UDD for the entity. Default setting is 300,000 feet (integer numbers only).
Statistical - see Cluster
UDD - The Unit Deaggregation Distance refers to the value of the ‘Bubble Distance’ variable of a Unit found in the CT file using F4Browse. This value, in feet, represents the distance from the PP (or CMP) at which an AGGREGATE Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component parts. Interestingly DEAGGREGATION does NOT appear to mean that it is physically drawn as polygons. It simply means, at the point where the player’s ACDD is less than the Unit’s UDD, the AGGREGATE Unit is now DEAGGREGATED into its individual components such as tanks and trucks. Each of these tanks and trucks, once DEAGGREGATED, receive their own INDIVIDUAL AI brain and start behaving as individual Entities. They are no longer behaving as an AGGREGATE Unit, being controlled by a single, AGGREGATE AI BRAIN. However, their polygons are NOT YET rendered at the UDD. Each vehicle in the Unit is actually first polygon-rendered when the VPRD (Vehicle Polygon Rendering Distance) for that Vehicle is reached.

Unit - These are predefined Clusters of Vehicles. A single, AGGREGATE AI BRAIN controls a Unit, which we call a Cluster, in Falcon. This AGGREGATE AI BRAIN can detect your aircraft and will fire at you. For example, an AGGREGATE SA5 Unit will fire a DEAGGREGATED SA5 missile at you. The missile becomes DEAGGREGATE at the moment it is fired, the Unit remains AGGREGATE until your AEDD is less than the Unit’s UDD. When a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component Vehicles, each Vehicle acquires its own, individual AI BRAIN. We currently believe that the combat behavior of a Unit, as controlled by its AGGREGATE AI BRAIN, is distinctly different from the behavior of a DEAGGREGATED Vehicle. INDIVIDUAL AI BRAINS individually control all the DEAGGREGATED Vehicles. The difference in the behavior of an AGGREGATE Unit and a DEAGGREGATE Vehicle is still not clear, and may be very different for each Unit or Vehicle found in the game.

Vehicle - These are the individual parts of Units. Examples include SA-5 Launchers and Kraz 255 support trucks. Vehicles only exist when a Unit is DEAGGREGATED. When a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component Vehicles, each Vehicle is immediately tracked independently and positionally. A Vehicle is assigned an INDIVIDUAL AI BRAIN. At the moment a Unit is DEAGGREGATED into its component Vehicles, even though the above characteristics are true, that Vehicle is NOT YET polygon-rendered. That may happen later, when the player is closer. So we now make a distinction between DEAGGREGATION (which occurs first as we approach a Unit) and POLYGON-RENDERING, which occurs to the individually DEAGGREGATED vehicles as we approach to within visual distance.

VPRD - The Vehicle Polygon-Rendering Distance is the Bubble Distance value found in the Vehicle’s CT record using F4Browse. Vehicles are the component parts of Units. When a Unit has been DEAGGREGATED into its component parts as a result of its UDD being less than the ACDD of a player, its component parts are tracked individually but may NOT be polygon-rendered. They are essentially individual but INVISIBLE vehicles until their VPRD is reached. So it is appropriate to consider the VPRD as the distance at which a DEAGGREGATED Vehicle, within a Unit, is actually POLYGON RENDERED. The Vehicle of the Unit starts thinking and acting as an individual vehicle at UDD, but is actually polygon-rendered at its VPRD.

### Background and Philosophy of Ground Unit Changes

Squadron Stores:

Merely updated to support new units in the squadron/battalion and new weapons on those aircraft of vehicles.

Unit changes:

Significant work was done here to duplicate battle formations as best as Falcon 4.0 would allow. No unit fights pure. There is always mutual support from other units in the battalion. In all cases this is mission directed. Engineer units are commonly assigned to attacking units to support the breach of obstacles used for defenses and cross bridges. In the defense, engineer units prepare the defense but are then held back as these are mostly lightly armored vehicles if armored at all.

In the case of rocket units (MLRS, BM24) and SAM units, we decided to split up the unit to reflect a deployed battery instead of a deployed battalion. In no case that I can think of is a SAM battalion all placed in one location. In the Falcon 4.0 world that location could be 1 sq km. Now you can take a SAM battery and protect a city and another battery to protect another city. If you look at Patriot deployment to South Korea, you will see that we have one Patriot Battalion for the whole county. Where would you place it? Now we have the option to place a battery around Seoul, Pusan, Chuncheon, etc. In all of these cases supporting vehicles have been assigned. SAM batteries are commonly supported with man portable weapons i.e. SA7, stinger.

Blast and damage:

A formula was used to take into account the weapons warhead size and type in proportion to all similar types. The formula was used to ensure correct relative values between similar types. Some items could perhaps be more researched to say 6kg of C4 is more powerful than 6kg of TNT, but I did not go that far....yet.... ;)

You will find damage values that will look blatantly wrong at first glance. It is then that you need to understand that all damage values have different effects based on their damage type. Air blast is different than GP/ HE blast that is again different from incendiary and armor penetration. Even penetration alone has very different determining values that Falcon may not understand. Armor penetration from tank to tank is very different than armor penetration of bomb to ground. So ultimately we end up with data and values that need to be translated into the falcon world.

In some cases, we are talking pure art, feel, or gameplay. In others it is a cold and hard fact that this tank gun WILL penetrate that tank. Now in tank vs. tank damage, we need to look at the VAST differences in armor types and penetrators. Shaped charge weapons, i.e. AGB65B's, HEAT penetrate much differently than do 120mm APFSDS kinetic rounds. On the other side is the effect that standard hardened steel offers much less protection against HEAT rounds than does composite armor like the M1A1 and reactive armor like the T80's normally carry. However, both of those types of armor do not offer any significant effect to a standard APFSDS round. In only one case in the world that I know of where a composite armor offers both chemical and kinetic protection and that is the depleted uranium (DU) armored M1A2.

Also, the armor on a tanks frontal arc is vastly different than the armor on its roof, sides and rear. Luckily Falcon accounts for this by allowing damage to acquire on the target. A T-55 unit could pound a M1A1 unit all day in the frontal arc and never kill a tank. In Falcon it will end up getting kills. I think this is a good tradeoff to simulate the effects of maneuvering for side and rear aspect shots.

Now in the case of air dropped munitions, we need to understand that although they may be exclusively shaped charge weapons with relatively little penetration (3 to 7 inches) they are tasked with raining down on the most unarmored part of the tank. I say tanks in most of this argument because they are on the far end of the armor spectrum as most APC's and IFV's are so little armored that in most cases troops ride on top of them to get out quickly WHEN they blow up because nearly every weapon in the world can kill an APC.

Now with all this being understood, you will find in some rare cases weapons do not fit into my "formula" for all of these described reasons. And let us also remember that in fact they do offer protection from small arms fire and most artillery fragments. It only takes 1.5 inches of hardened steel to stop the shrapnel of a 500lb bomb at 10 feet from impact. Most APC's have about 1 inch and in the case of almost all OPFOR vehicles, 20mm and LESS. Yes, in fact it is true. A .50 caliber or 12.7mm AP round will penetrate one of these vehicles at close range. Another reason why ZSU 23-4's are nasty house to house weapons as well as AAA terrors.

Addendum: Different weapons have different characteristics and F4 allows different TYPE warheads. GP/HE is calculated based on shear MASS of weapon. AP or armor piercing is calculated on ARMOR PENETRATION value. Bullets are also calculated differently. Each target in F4 has "vulnerability areas' against each weapon type.

EXTREME EXAMPLE: A Durandal has an ANTI-RUNWAY warhead in F4. If the target i.e. BTR-70 has a Vulnerability of 0 against ANTI RUNWAY, the target would receive little if any effects at all.

Some people might get confused as to why a 2000lb bomb has less "blast" than a Maverick. Answer: 2000lbs of C4 is different than 1000mm of High Explosive Anti-Tank. (a shaped charge weapon).

FWIW, the Maverick G is a "penetrator" much like the BLUs. It is a HE round encased in more steel to allow it to get deeper into concrete bunkers and dig in emplacements, but it is not a "shaped charge" explosive.

Blast areas for shaped charges are much smaller due to the fact that the explosion is manipulated to cause overpressures in the millions of pounds per square inch to punch a 20-30mm hole through up to 4 feet of steel and NOT to disperse it's energy over a wide area like an HE round. The shaped charge also needs enough BAE (behind armor effects) to cause damage to equipment and crew. Punching a hole is meaningless unless it ruin a crew's day.

It is also very likely that MPS used its blast radius more for the F-16. There are minimum safe altitudes to drop ordnance. These altitudes are based on less than a 1-10% chance of doing any damage to your aircraft. Those tables are easily found. In the Falcon world this also translated into weapons that equally distributed their damage over that area and thus caused large weapons large damage values) to take out formations of vehicles where in reality they would need a direct hit to destroy the vehicle. This is a speculative assumption. I am guessing that min safe altitude is less now.

### How to Fly Other Aircraft in Falcon 4.0 (Pre RP 3.0 Way to Do It)

Although one could question whether-or-not having the ability to fly any aircraft in the F4 world as being “realistic”, we thought that it would be a fun option to add. We are not really changing any of the realism that is included in the F4 world; we are just adding the opportunity to fly additional airframes.

Modifying F4 to allow players to fly any of the aircraft in the F4 world involved placing wheels on the previously non-flyable aircraft as well as giving them radars. While we understand why a plane would need wheels, we are not sure why the MPS engineers required that flyable aircraft must have radar installed. Possibly this has to do with AI. What this means is that certain aircraft have been given radars to allow players to fly them, but they do not have a radar installed in real life. This is one accommodation to realism we thought it necessary to accommodate.

You will notice when flying other aircraft that you are limited by only having access to the F-16 cockpit. Externally the graphics are of the plane you chose, but obviously since there are no detailed graphics of each and every aircraft’s cockpit, we are currently stuck with the F-16’s cockpit. You will note that you have access to all the weapons you loaded up through the SMS pages of the F-16’s MPD. For DPRK, Russian, and Chinese aircraft, you will also notice that you have access to their specific weapons – Archers, Atolls, etc. These weapons have the same performance characteristics as when the enemy shoots them, which may be quite different from their US counterparts.

1. Create a mission in TE and add a F-16 squadron at an airbase
2. Create an F-16 flight, and give it at least one waypoint to fly to. If you don’t give it any waypoints, the flight disappears before you can make the switch.
3. Add a squadron from the non-F-16 plane-type that you wish to fly
4. Save the TE mission, exit, and then start the TE mission
5. The TE mission will come up showing you in the lead spot of the F-16 flight you created
6. Create another flight with the plane you want to fly - to do this click on the ADD PACKAGE button next to the small map - once the window opens, click on the "NEW" button to add a flight to that package
7. Click on the AIRCRAFT pull down list and choose the plane you wish to fly – if you wish you can change the ROLE and SIZE of the flight
8. Hit OK
9. You will now be placed in the lead position of the new flight that you just created
10. Make sure you check your waypoints to see what time you are going to take off, and adjust accordingly
11. If you wish to check that you have in-fact joined the non-F-16 aircraft, click on the MUNITIONS icon in the main UI (bomb cart). You should have the plane there that you chose with all its weapons available - you could load it up with whatever it can normally carry in F4.
12. Now fly your mission
13. Enjoy!!

### Loadout and Weapons Changes

The CBU-97 was added to the inventory of the USAF.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm

The CBU-97 is a standard weapon that is carried on the F-16, and it pretty mean - meaner than the Mk-20, as the little sub-munitions in the CBU-97 are "smart" and are guided. The CBU-97 has already seen action in Kosovo.

In addition, we are making some changes to the F-16C loadout. We have created a master list of all legal loadouts for the F-16C block 50/52, but some of them are controversial. Addition/removal of certain weapons are easy to support with documentation, but we may not want to start a battle over which items to keep/remove. Below are the changes:

- ALL LGBs - not used in block USAF 50/52 loadouts, but we aren't removing them

- AIM-7 Sparrow – USAF does not use in block 50/52 with APG-68 - removed

- Addition of the CBU-97 - cool weapon

- Ability to carry 1 Maverick on inner hardpoint (4/6) - realistic and will be changed

- Ability to carry only 1 AGM-65G on HP 3/7 because of weight concerns – realistic and will be changed

- Ability to carry 3 Mk-20s on HP 3/7 and 4/6 - realistic and will be changed

- Lau 3/a - ability to carry 2 pods on HP 3/7 - realistic and will be changed

- CBU-52 - can now carry 3 on HP 3/7 and 3 on HP 4/6 (deleted 1 bomb from HP 3/7) - realistic

- CBU-58 - can now carry 3 on HP 3/7 and 3 on HP 4/6 (added 1 bomb to HP 4/6) - realistic

- BLU-109 - can only carry 1 bomb on HP 3/7 - removed ability to carry 1 bomb on HP 4/6 - realistic

- GBU-12 - now you can only carry 2 on HP 3/7 and 1 on HP 4/6 - realistic

- We kept the Mk77, even though it's not realistic

We should also point out that carriage of weapons on certain hardpoints is dependant on what is currently on other HP stations. Unfortunately, F4 does not contain the complex logic needed to validate certain combinations of loadouts. We also recognize that there are usually fuel considerations to take into account, and most F-16C combat sorties usually include two 370gal wing tanks. We generally erred toward being liberal with the ability to place weapons.

There are other weapons we may add when time permits: CBU-71, AGM-65A, others?

We have also address the legal loadouts for the B-52H and the F-5E. Other loadout improvements are forthcoming.

### Effects of Napalm and the Reduction of its Damage Value

Printed from USAF Intelligence targeting guide AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence 1 FEBRUARY 1998

A6.1.5. Flame and Incendiary Effects. Firebombs can be highly effective in close air support. Their short, well-defined range of effects can interrupt enemy operations without endangering friendly forces. They are also effective against supplies stored in light wooden structures or wooden containers.

A6.1.5.1. Flame and incendiary weapons, however, are often misleading as to the actual physical damage they inflict. Even a relatively small firebomb can provide a spectacular display but often does less damage than might be expected. When a large firebomb splashes burning gel over an area the size of a football field, it may boil flames a hundred feet into the air. This effect is impressive to the untrained observer, and experienced troops have broken off attacks and fled when exposed to napalm attack. However, soldiers can be trained against this tendency to panic. They can be taught to take cover, put out the fires, and even to brush burning material off their own clothing.

A6.1.5.2. Near misses with firebombs seldom cause damage to vehicles, and the number of troops actually incapacitated by the attacks is usually rather small. Incendiaries of the type that started great fires in Japanese and German cities in World War II projected nonmetallic fragments. They had little penetrating capability. Today's newer munitions have full fragmentation and penetrating capabilities, as well as incendiary devices. However, both types can penetrate and start fires and are highly effective against fuel storage tanks or stacked drums of flammable material of any sort.

### COMM File Fixes (from Poogen)

After the 1.08 fixes the following four items did not work correctly.

First, the ''Vector to Target" request always resulted in the same response, "bearing 300, no matter where the threat was located. The commFile.bin was changed so that you now get the correct response for the bearing to the threat".

Second, the "Vector to Tanker" request would always result in the response of "Merged FLOT". Both the commFile.bin and the falcon exe files were changed to get the response of the flight bearing to the tanker.

The Airport Identity bug resulted in no base identification in response to requesting tower instructions. All you would get were directions to the airfield but if you had forgotten the briefing or had to go to an alternate landing area, you would not know what TACAN settings to input. This was corrected by changes to the Falcon.exe and the evalFile.bin. The exe now calls the correct Airport ID from the evalFile.bin. Now when you request instructions from the tower, it will first properly identify itself before giving the instruction. For, example if you request an emergency landing you'll receive the something like, this is Haemi Tower, cleared to come straight in on runway ###,notifying the SOF.

As for the last fix, it seems that if you were a flight with an ID number larger than one (example: Cowboy 3-1), the comms call "Say Position" would yield: "Cowboy 3-2, Cowboy 1-3, say position". This has now been corrected.

### New Aircraft Limiters

One of the odd things that always presented itself in Falcon 4 was the flight behavior of the bomber aircraft. While reviewing the data on the flight models, you can see that the F-16 fly-by-wire flight model is using 17 flight model limiters in its data. Understanding that this is information used for the flight model and probably in how the on board FLCS calculates its flight model, what effect would it have on other flight models? The other aircraft in the game were using only four limiters. Nevertheless, we know that ALL these limiters are necessary for an accurate flight model.

In the F-16, these limiters are used to keep the aircraft from departing its flight model. In other aircraft, HUMAN input is the only tool that allows the aircraft to try and stay in its flight envelope. There is not human input in the AI pilots. So, what is the effect? Once I was able to fly other aircraft in Falcon 4, I discovered that as a HUMAN flies the aircraft he is in fact NOT restricted by the same limits that the player in an F-16 has. The A-10, fully laden with MK-82's, was able to pull up and do 360o loops with no noticeable adverse effects. In the A-10 flight model, as all other AI aircraft, there were not drag limiters, CAT I, CAT 3 limiter, no pitch limiter, etc. Once these 17 flight model limiters were in place, the A-10 that I flew could no longer easily perform those maneuvers. Once I set in place these 17 limiters for ALL AI aircraft, I began to see a lessoning of dog fighting barrel rolling bombers. It still does happen and perhaps these values need to be tweaked for each aircraft but as it stands now, the changes at least "limited" the wild flight behavior of the AI bombers.

The 17 limiters in the F16.dat file are used to model the aircraft behavior, but MP is obviously taking a shortcut by using them only for fly-by-wire aircraft, and using simple dampers for other aircraft. However, the other data do play a part in controlling AI plane behavior and maximum allowable G.

If you look under the file, the maximum allowable g will control how much g you can pull. I tried flying an F-15E with it set to 7.33 and that is what I got. The other data such as maximum roll angle will control how much an aircraft rolls, and one of the reason why the Tu-95 and other bombers dogfight with you is because their dat files have this set to 190, which allows them to roll over.

Most of the data inside the dat files are off, like maximum VCAS speed, which is very high, and peak roll rates, which are also way high. The data in the limiter block mirrors the F-16 digital flight controls, but not exactly. Some aspects are off, like the AOA limiter allowing AOA up to 30x. It should have been 25.5x instead, etc.

### Addition of the CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm

http://www.afa.org/magazine/0398dev.html

From the Air Force Magazine link above: "No one expects each SFW slug to destroy a target. The goal is to stop the vehicle in its tracks. Latas noted, "The goal is a mobility kill, not a catastrophic kill." He added, however, "a mobility kill is just as good as anything else, when you can cover that kind of area and affect that many targets per sortie. USAF has postulated three levels of mobility kill, differentiated by how quickly a target stops functioning. Latas said the SFW achieves the highest-level mobility kill currently measured by the Air Force. The SFW's kill probability is classified, but Latas said, "We've seen in testing that, with the current threat, this is going to be a pretty devastating weapon.” The Air Force has run more than 111 SFW tests so far and, Wise noted, it has exceeded its requirements.

also of note:

"The CBU-97 is the first multiple-kills-per-pass smart anti-armor weapon in production, said Col. Bill Wise, director of the Area Attack Systems Program Office at Eglin. Wise said it represents a significant capability for combat forces."

and best of all:

"In more than 100 tests of CBU-97s, each weapon, or dispenser, delivered against a representative column of armored vehicles and trucks, has damaged, on average, three to four armored vehicles. Average spacing between the armored vehicles in these columns has been around 50 meters. Thus, for the eight armored vehicles that fall within a single weapon's 400-meter "footprint," we can expect that nearly half of them will be damaged to at least an "availability kill" (or "A-kill") level. This means that some component of the vehicle has been damaged to the extent that the vehicle must be withdrawn from the line of march and repaired before continuing on."

Therefore, in F4 terms, we really must consider an "A-kill" to be a destroyed vehicle. Repair and reinforcement are not modeled. I would expect that for one bomb dropped (no other bombs dropped for fear of damage overlap), I would consider on average 4 T-72 class kills to be appropriate.

### Abstract Combat

Abstract combat exists when weapons are used that have no flight model, no collision bubble, no seeker head with sensors, and yet still have blast areas and damage values and combat continues to exist in the Falcon world.

We know that combat exists because in tank vs. tank combat, we can see tanks exploding but no objects flying through the air. We do see tracers but these are graphic representations and have no effect on the combat at all. We know this because we can change the graphic effect to portray a single shot weapon and the combat still resolves the same. This effect also governs the sound played as you view the object.

Reviewing the CT file in F4 shows us that all objects that fly through the air are classified as AIR VEHICLES. These weapons will only fire when they are deaggregated. This is why you are always seeing this type of activity. If you did not fly in the bubble of the ground unit, he would execute his abstract combat and results would be calculated. This type of war has also been called the “statistical war."

However, your entrance into his bubble triggers the unit into launching his "air vehicles." Prior to the deaggregation process, they remain in abstract combat. Every time you break into the deaggregation bubble, you will see missiles fire. This effect is entirely eye candy. It is not necessary to resolve the combat. In rocket combat, we have always seen that rockets will fly through the air and airburst. However what most people fail to see is that combat is still resolved on the ground at a cost of lower frame rates, which is arguably less realistic, because the chance a combat pilot will see a surface-to-surface rocket or missile flying through the air is quite remote.

We also get some very unrealistic side effects: 1) in that when the missile flies incorrectly and burst in the air 2) only fires when you've deaggregated it, and 3) it will mostly fire directly into any object it is placed behind (i.e. friendly fire). In testing this concept we placed all surface-to-surface missiles in an abstract category like tank guns and found that all combat was resolved and vehicles received damage and they were removed from play even at extended ranges outside of current ranges. Frame rates improved in some cases 100%, rockets no longer destroyed the city they were protecting. So we decided that we would place most all of the ground weapons in this abstract category. The surface combat is now nearly 100% "abstract" and happens all the time in the game, in the bubble, out of the bubble, when it actually happens.

One of our concerns was the aircraft that launched "abstract" weapons. This cannot happen. It will crash the game. However, the only aircraft that actually fire ground based missiles are helicopters. Currently F4 will not allow helicopters to fire. The immersive feel that we've all come to expect in Falcon4 is still there. In the future with faster CPU's and continued development of the RP, we can continue to deploy new individual surface-to-surface missile flight models and warhead/seeker heads and allow them to be seen in the Falcon world and engage accurately as their real world counterparts.

The missiles that were changed to abstract combat are: AT-3, AT-4, AT-5, Dragon, LAAW, 122mm Rocket, MLRS, 240mm Rocket, and 57mm Rocket.

### Air to Air Changes

In the original F4, all IR Air-to-Air missiles used the same flight model and one of two IR seeker heads. This has been corrected. Now all IR A/A missiles have their own unique seeker, with accurately modeled FOV, gimbal limits, sensitivity (range), and susceptibility to clutter/sun and decoys (Infra Red Counter-Counter Measures). Each seeker based upon real-world data as far as possible, from publicly available sources.

In the original F4, weapons had virtually no drag once fired and highly exaggerated maneuver capability, gimbal limits, LOS rates and warheads. This has been corrected. AA missile flight envelopes, blast radius, ranges, maneuverability, thrust, speed and decoy susceptibility now based on publicly available real-world data for each missile (i.e. AA11 “Archer” still deadly, whereas the venerable AA2 Atoll is a poor performer). All missiles also now have realistic HUD cues for missile launch zones, and the effect of altitude on missile range and performance is now modeled, with missile range and maneuverability increasing with altitude.

Changes include:

o AA-1 radar guided missile now functioning properly on the MiG-19 and is no longer a “killer” missile

o AA-2 Atoll missile now more accurately resembles AIM-9B missile with rear aspect capabilities and limited dogfight maneuverability

o AA2R radar-guided Atoll now functional on the MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29

o AA-6 “Silent but deadly” BVR, command guided/terminal IR homing missile now loaded on the MiG25 Foxbat The RWR will not sound when the missile is fired from BVR.

o AA-6R radar guided missile now loaded on the MiG-25, replacing AA-7R. This missile is unique to the MiG-25.

o AA7-R APEX now functional on the MiG-23 Flogger

o AA-7t IR APEX now functional on the MiG23 Flogger

o AA-10C now realistically modeled as a SARH missile. You will no longer get the "M" symbol on the RWR. The missile also lofts slightly now compared to before.

o AA-11 Archer now has thrust-vectoring capability with expanded seeker gimbal limits and IRCCM capabilities

o AA-12 Adder (“AMRAAMSKI”) added to Chinese SU-27 Inventory. It's an active missile similar to the AMRAAM with a RWR symbol of "M"

o AIM-7 Sparrows no longer loaded on F-16s. The APG-68 doesn’t have the capability to carry the Sparrow.

o AIM-120 no longer behaves like a FMRAAM (Future Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile). “No Escape” zone roughly 15nm at high aspect, with Pk still viable but decreasing at longer ranges

o AIM-9P now modeled more closely as a rear aspect missile and can no longer be slaved to full radar gimbal limits

o AIM-9M now has realistic seeker gimbal limits can maneuverability, and can no longer hit head-on targets from within gun range

o Ammunition levels and damage for all A2A guns now accurate

o MiG-29 now flies with AA10-series missiles on the inboard pylons only, as is the case with the actual MiG29.

o MiG-29 loadout probabilities altered to increase tasking of MiG-29 for the Air-to-Air role instead of air-to-ground.

o Realistic missile WEZ parameters have also resulted in corresponding expanded AI “awareness zones” (i.e.; Class A fighters run intercepts to close range on the human player outside of 10nm much more often than before)

### SAM and AAA Changes

In the original F4, all IR SAMS used a similar flight model and one of two IR seeker heads. This has been corrected. Now all IR SAM missiles have their own unique seeker, with accurately modeled FOV, gimbal limits, sensitivity (range), and susceptibility to ground clutter and decoys.

Each seeker based upon real-world data. The kinematics of each missile are also tailored according to publicly available real world data, with corresponding maneuverability and engagement range/altitude.

In the original F4, most control-guided SAMs (both allied and enemy) had extremely exaggerated blast radiuses, lead pursuit angles and maneuverability. Missile flight envelopes, blast radius, ranges, maneuverable, thrust, speed and decoy susceptibility now based on real-world data for each missile. The radar SAMs now ping first before launching, and give ample warning through the RWR prior to launch, giving time for avoidance actions. The kinematics against closing and retreating targets are realistic now.

Changes Include:

o HAWKS, Patriots, SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-5s, and SA-6s now have much greater engagement altitudes, but are less maneuverable. The missiles will also fly out to higher altitudes, corresponding to their real world counterparts.

o SA-5 now has realistic terminal active seeker, and realistic Pk against fighter sized targets

o The SA-7 now much less maneuverable and effective. Real world data indicate the poor performance of this missile. The sun or ground IR clutter can now decoy the missile easily.

o SA-8 range now reduced and is more susceptible to chaff

o SA-13 now included in the sim

o SA-14 now included in the sim

o SA-15 now included in the sim

o SA-19 now included in the sim

o The Stinger now far more maneuverable and effective, and now rejects flares more consistently.

o The Patriot made more effective based upon real-world performance, with increased energy and engagement range

o Chun-Ma, an indigenous ROK, low-altitude command guided SAM in ROK inventory

o North Korea’s wide array of 25 to 100mm AAA capabilities now modeled much more realistically. KS-12 85mm AAA reached maximum engagement altitude of 24,000-27,000 feet, and the KS-19 100m AAA gun, which is deployed around the DMZ, can reach altitudes in excess of 40,000 feet.

o ZSU-57-2 AAA now reaches realistic engagement ranges of 13,000-15,000 feet.

o DPRK M-1992 37mm AAA now in Mechanized battalions with engagement ranges of -8,500 feet

o 2S6 Tunguska now carries realistic SA19 missile launcher system in addition to 30mm AAA capability with engagement ranges of 8,000 – 10,000 feet

o Low altitude small-arms fire now modeled

o Range of ZSU-23-4 Shilka adjusted based upon actual performance data

### Air War Tactical Changes

In the original F4, most air-to-ground sorties were wasted (both Allied and Enemy –see Bubble and CAT combat definitions) because ground entities were not deaggregated except for very near the player aircraft. However, since the bubble slider is now functional, this allows for an even greater expansion of the air and ground bubble. Aborts are drastically decreased and CAS, STRIKE and BAI missions performed by AI aircraft are far more successful on both sides when "inside the bubble."

The aircraft and long-range SAMs are now more aggressive on both sides (allied and enemy). This effect is primarily due to an increase in “awareness” zones of aircraft and SAMS (see Designer’s Notes)

SAMS now require a more realistic detect and track time prior to actual missile launch. This allows for greater HARM opportunities.

### Air War Strategic Changes

Rapid Runway Repair efforts are now based upon real-world data (See Designer’s Notes: Iraqi Gulf War repair times, Arab-Israeli repair times, and consultation with expert on Rapid Runway Repair at Arizona State University). Individual runway sections now take 3-4 hours to repair, resulting in total runway repair times of up to 12-16 hours depending on runway size and the extent of damage.

### Realism Patch Considerations

The Realism Patch by iBeta represents literally thousands of man-hours of research and editing by hardcore simulation fans. The goal was principally to enhance the simulation by creating a more realistic and thus tactically dynamic environment than had existed in the original and unfinished Falcon 4.0, whose development was discontinued by Hasbro in December of 1999.

Every single change included in the patch, from the concrete (ammunition and weapons modeling) to the abstract (AI “awareness” zones) was performed with the principal goal of realism in mind. In almost every instance, each change can be traced to specific, referenced sources including Jane’s Information group, World Air Power Journal, the United States Naval Institute, and well-researched books written by military aviators (Yefim Gordon, others). In addition, the missile modeling was done in strong collaboration with former military pilots and enlisted men, and engineers with experience in these fields, participating in the Realism Patch development.

Many, many things have been addressed, though clearly more remains to be done. Though the goal is to achieve realism, care was also taken to utilize only publicly available and unclassified data.

When you enter F4 with Realism Patch 2.0, you will find the tactical environment of F4 is considerably changed. In some situations, you will find flying in F4 more survivable than 108us, but in others you will find it more lethal. The goal of this short piece is to provide a narrative of some of the general changes that you will experience, and some information that players may need to survive and succeed in this more realistic environment.

### The Air-to-Air Environment - Missiles

The tactical nature of the air-to-air aspect of the simulation is perhaps most changed. Many modern missiles such as the AMRAAM, Archer and AIM-9 are very lethal when employed properly, while others such as the venerable AA-2 Atoll and the AA-7 APEX are less maneuverable and lethal than before. No matter what missile you employ, a single shot will no longer guarantee a single kill. Much will depend on altitude, target aspect, closure rate and line-of-sight (LOS).

Most players will notice the change to the AMRAAM right away. In the default F4, the AMRAAM is nearly 100% capably of hitting and killing any target at any aspect and airspeed out to a range of about 45-50nm. While published estimates of the AMRAAMs maximum range do vary from 20 to 45nm, these are typically kinematic ranges at high altitude and high closure rates against non-maneuvering targets. While the AMRAAM is capable of reaching 45nm, its energy state at that stage is so low that the Pk of the missile is very poor.

You may have heard of the concept of the “no escape zone,’ which is a dynamic zone in front of the launching aircraft in which no target will escape from the missile. This means that the missile will reach the target no matter what evasive maneuvers or escape tactics the target makes. Whether the missile hits or is “spoofed” at the end game is another question, but generally the Pk in the “no escape zone” is relatively high.

For the AMRAAM, you will find a “no escape zone” to be about 6-10nm in a tail-on chase or about 15-17nm for a head-on shot. At longer ranges, the missile may still hit and kill but the Pk of the missile will be lower owing to the reduced airspeed and consequently reduced maneuverability. The AI of the defending pilot will also be a critical factor. Veteran and Rookie pilot exhibit fairly poor BVR defense tactics, whereas ACE AI shows some very sophisticated “out-range then beam” tactics and multiple out-of-of-plane jinks to force the AIM-120 to lose energy. An ACE MiG-29 can be seen in Dogfight mode to occasionally spoof the AIM-120 in this way.

For all missiles, the player will also note that head-on high closure rate targets are no longer a “sure kill”, and all A/A missiles now have a minimum range for firing. This affects the BVR missiles particularly, and it is no longer to employ AMRAAM and expect it to perform like the AIM-9 in a dogfight scenario. For IR missiles, the effect of sun and ground IR clutter is similarly modeled, and players have to exercise caution when employing missiles such as the AIM-9P and AA-2 to ensure that the missiles fired away from ground clutter and the sun.

In terms of DPRK, Chinese, and Russian missiles, you will find that the AA-11 (R-73) Archer is bar none your most lethal threat, followed close behind by the new and frightening AA-12 (R-77) Adder Active-Radar-Homing missile developed by the Vympel corporation. In real life, the AA-12 has been ordered by the Chinese air force for its SU-27s (Malaysia and India placed orders also). You will see AA-12s in very limited quantities when the Chinese enter the war. A call-out of “Adder Inbound” or “Archer Inbound” is a most serious and dangerous threat.

In contrast to these lethal threats, other missiles will offer a more variable level of threat depending on the missile type and the range at which it is launched. The AA-10 series (AA10-A, B and C) are a respectable threat but can often (but not necessarily always) be defeated with good evasion tactics and decoys. The older, 1970’s-era Soviet missiles (and earlier) such as the AA-1 Alkali, AA-2 and AA-7 series and AA-8 are more spoofable, with or without decoys. The IR and radar guided versions of the MiG-25 dedicated AA-6 missiles are also modeled, with their tremendous speed, as well as the frightening ability of the MiG-25 to launch the AA-6 IR missile from beyond visual range, without any RWR warning.

The net-effect of the more realistic missile parameters in F4 is that air-to-air engagements will be far less predictable and much more dynamic. No longer will both sides instantly obliterate each other with 1 to 1 exchanges of god-like super missiles with seemingly limitless kinetic energy and physics-defying maneuverability. In general, you will find that most weapons are no longer "golden bb's" in that they must be properly employed to obtain a reasonable Pk. Employment ranges have been reduced somewhat, especially at lower altitudes. Do not expect these repaired weapons to retain the energy and maneuver capacity of any previous F4 weapons. It will behoove the shooter to maneuver to the heart of the firing envelope or risk seriously degrading missile Pk.

As missile gimbals are now realistically modeled, the shooter will also need to be aware of engagement geometry so as not to result in the missile exceeding its gimbal limits during launch. These stands in stark contrast to the original F4, where missiles could be launched considerably off-boresight and still achieve hits. Missile minimum range is now modeled to some extent.

Even the blast radius of each warhead has been altered to realistic values. In the default F4, the blast radius of most A2A missile was a whopping 225 feet. This blast radius is more appropriate for a medium-to-large sized SAM and can hardly be considered accurate for most Air-to-Air missiles. In the real world, the AIM-9M’s and AA11 Archer’s blast radiuses are estimated to be between 30 and 40 feet. The AIM-120 blast radius is somewhere above 55 feet. The blast radius edits also mean that all missiles and SAMS will have to get closer to the target before detonating. Since the performance of most modern missiles is most crucial during the end-game, the realistic blast radiuses will allow the player to experience the difference between a near-miss and a proximity hit, rather than having all missiles, no matter how maneuverable or how poor, simply detonate at 200 feet away and destroy your aircraft.

Tactically, you will see differences in each A/A missiles’ ability to track its target. Some missiles will be easier to out maneuver, while others such as the AA-11 will have the ability to maintain track and re-engage the target if the first hit opportunity is not successful. The ability to turn into the missile and cause it to break lock will also depend on the tracking ability of each missile, your aspect, airspeed, and LOS rate across the missiles FOV. Similarly, the effectiveness of counter measures will vary, and will depend on timing the employment of such counter measures properly.

### Problems with Missing Missiles

An issue that arose with the first Realism Patch was that many users reported that their missile Pk were extremely low, even though the original Realism Patch did not, in fact, contain any of the new missile modifications except the blast radius edits.

We have now determined that there is indeed a missile “pass-through” bug that can occur during period of very heavy CPU demand and high activity levels in the sim (very low frame rates). The “pass-through” bug simply refers to the fact that some A2A missiles will literally “pass through” the target and fail to detonate. This problem occurs because the Falcon 4.0 program must continually “poll” each missile and perform collision detection. When many missiles and objects are in the air at once, it takes longer for the F4 program to “strobe through” or “cycle through” all the missile and objects. When the missile is very fast and the blast radius is small, the target may pass in and out of the blast radius too quickly for the CPU to detect the collision. This problem did not exist in the original F4 because all the missile blast radii were unusually huge, thereby allowing even slow CPUs enough time to detect a collision even under the most CPU-intensive circumstances.

To address this problem in F4, the actual blast radiuses in the sim are slightly higher than they are in real life to compensate, though far less than they were in the 108us default. In addition, the problem is only occurring with regularity with users with slower CPUs and/or users who set the bubble and object densities to very high levels. Because it is caused by intensive CPU demand, it most regularly occurs over the FLOT, and rarely if ever occurs away from the FLOT. If you are experiencing what appears to be an unreasonably low Pk, and the missiles appear to be passing through the target or missing by a distance less than the blast radius (typically 30-60 feet) without detonating, the following should fix the problem:

1. Turn down the bubble

2. Turn down object density

3. Get a faster CPU

All three of these strategies should work. The final option would be either uninstall the Realism Patch or go back to 108i2 until you get a faster processor. Option #1 and #2 should be sufficient, however. We recommend a bubble setting of “3” as a starting point if your bubble slider is enabled. Generally speaking, as frame rate falls below 10, the probability of missile pass-through grows. There is really no permanent solution to this, since with the bubble slider and –g switch, anyone can set it high enough to cause these problems.

### Aircraft AI

In general, the intercept AI of fighter aircraft has been enhanced in the sim beyond the rather myopic F4 default. In Falcon 4.0, the ability of any AI aircraft you detect you is unfortunately limited not just by its radar, but by the WEZ cues on the HUD which indicate the maximum engagement range of the missiles that it is carrying, or 10nm, whichever is larger. Falcon 4.0 AI aircraft can "see" you only if you have fallen into their weapons envelope. Because MiG-19s and MiG-21s all carry only short-range IR homing missiles, they cannot literally perceive or respond to threat outside of 10nm (save defensive maneuvers against missiles).

However, many missiles in the original F4 had unrealistically small WEZ cues associated with them . Thus, paradoxically, the missiles themselves were overpowered while the WEZ cues were undersized. This has been corrected. WEZ cues in the HUD now match the true kinematic envelopes of each missile. This results not only in correct weapons envelope feedback to the player and/or launcher aircraft, it has also expanded the "awareness zones" of many aircraft, permitting them to detect and respond to other aircraft outside of 10nm far more often than before.

The net effect of this is that many times you will encounter enemy (and friendly) AI that is no longer “flying blind.” They will pick you up on radar and run an intercept on you from outside of the 10nm “engagement bubble” around the aircraft. This creates a far more realistic tactical situation, and requires you to be much more “on your guard”.

### Illusory “Wall of MiGs”

Many players of F4 have complained about the “Wall of MiGs” that they feel they have to get through to reach their target. While it is true that there are a large number of aircraft in Falcon 4.0 (allied and enemy), most players see this “wall” because they use labels and see scores and scores of “red” aircraft, each one looking like a potential threat. Labels may actually make it *harder* for people to concentrate on their mission and fly F4. Players see these aircraft everywhere, and tend to go after MiG-21s and such when they get within 15 miles, because they figure that distance is unsafe. And the more they see, the more they feel threatened and compelled to engage. Suddenly, your senses are flooded with potential dangers and it’s hard to focus because so many things are distracting you and causing you to worry. Prioritization becomes difficult because you are looking at labels and not your radar and not your RWR.

This hyper-defensive posture can be counter-productive especially when one realizes that the vast majority of those aircraft are not after them. Most of them are on Strike, SEAD, CAS, BAI, or other non-AA missions. Aircraft on these sorts of missions will only attack you if you attack them, or if you fly within 2nm of the forward hemisphere of their aircraft. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. Of those aircraft that are tasked with AA mission, you will only be “seen” if you fall inside their “engagement zones.” For MiG-19 and MiG-21, these have a 10nm radius around the MiG. Don’t get that close. For MiG-23s, 29s and SU-27s, they are potential danger since their engagement zones may be anywhere form 12-30nm radius depending on your altitude. Take this information into account and pay attention to AWACS and your RWR. And turn off the labels (use the force, Luke). You’ll live longer. Once you can start prioritizing your threats and ignoring non-threats you will find the skies a lot less crowded than you perceived them to be before.

### The Surface-to-Air Environment

DPRK (and Allied) air defense systems will be both more and less lethal than the original 108us, depending on the defensive system encountered. Unquestionably the most immediate and salient change is the much greater frequency and range of AAA guns. North Korea possesses a great quantity and a *wide* array of AAA in its arsenal, from low altitude 30mm AAA to extremely high altitude 100mm AAA guns. The higher-caliber AAA guns have practical engagement altitudes of between 24,000 and 45,000 feet AGL. Combined with low (ZSU-23-4) and medium-altitude AAA, it is possible for the DPRK to poses a AAA threat from as low as 1,000 feet to as high as almost 45,000 feet. The KS-19 100mm AAA gun and the KS-12 85mm AAA gun near the FLOT at the DPRK HART sites will make this clear fairly quickly. Below 1000 feet there is there is the now present danger of small arms fire (Ak-47s) and MANPADS on both foot soldiers and soldiers in select vehicles. As always, it is best to fly above AAA unless there are many high-altitude SAMS. If forced to fly through AAA, it is best to enter and exit its envelope quickly, and where possible alter course to throw off the enemy's firing solution.

SAMS are more numerous and varied than in the original F4, especially if and when Russia enters the war. Many SAMS that belong to the DPRK and the Combined Forces were lying dormant in the F4 code, whereas a few (such as the Chun-Ma) were added to F4 because they are actually in the DPRK or ROK inventory. In general, older Soviet-era SAMS such as the SA-2, 3, 5, and 6 have far greater envelopes (altitude and horizontal ranges) and are capable of engaging at longer ranges rather than waiting until the last possible moment.

At the same time, however, the maneuverability of these SAMS are now based upon well researched kinematic and performance data from a professional aeronautical engineer. This means that although the SAMS are more numerous and longer-legged, they are also more easily spoofed. By far the most dangerous SAMS are the low to low-medium altitude Russian SAM systems such as the 2S6 SA-19 launcher and the SA-14. Some of these systems have the capability of engaging air targets as high as 9-14,000 feet. All this information again points to the necessity of being wary as one enters the low altitude arena. When you play with Realism Patch 2.0, you will understand far better why it was that many aircraft were not allowed below 15,000 ft in the Kosovo Conflict. For medium and high altitude SAMs, you will also notice a distinct minimum range and altitude where the SAM can be fired at you, and it will not have the ability to maneuver quickly enough for a kill. This allows the shooter to employ tactics to close in to bomb at lower altitudes and out turn the missile during SEAD strikes, the same tactics the Israelis employed against the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 SAM sites during the Yom Kippur War.

### Runway Repair

Runway repair times in F4 have always varied from one extreme to the other. In the original Falcon 4.0, runways were repaired at an unrealistic rate (in as little as 20 minutes) following even massive cratering damage. Runway repair times were later disabled completely in 108us (a bug which the developers later planned to fix before the project was discontinued), and then set arbitrarily at 12 hours per section by MPS in the waning days of the Microprose F4 labs.

However, none of these repair times had a specific basis in any historical records. Research investigating the runway repair times during the Gulf War [1], the Arab-Israeli Wars [2] was conducted. In addition, information about the North Korean’s capabilities was gathered through consultation with an expert [3] in Rapid Runway Repair (at the Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG) at Arizona State University). All three sources of information have revealed that, in real life situations, entire runways can be restored to at least operational status in 4-12 hours depending on the amount of damage. The North Koreans may take as long as 12 hours to repair a runway that has been cratered continually by multiple BLU-107 Durandals across its longitudinal axis [3]. This is possible because organized airfield-repair teams are typically supplied with fast-setting concrete and other critical materials that are pre-positioned very close to the runways.

For example, "Runways are attractive targets for enemy aircraft to take out. A bomb is dropped on a runway, which creates a large crater putting the runway out of commission. If aircraft can't get off the ground than they can't fight. Rapid runway repair is a long, tedious process that is vital to success on the battlefield and in the skies. The main focus in airfield repair is the Minimum Operating Strip (MOS), which the United States doctrinally defines as 15 by 1,525 meters for fighter aircraft and 26 by 2,134 meters for cargo aircraft.

Coalition attacks on runways complicated Iraqi air base operations, but there is little evidence that they hampered sortie rates. Iraqi runways were reportedly repaired in as little as four to six hours [1]. Under ideal conditions with a motivated crew, the rapid runway repair task would take a minimum of about four hours. If reasonable allowances are made for the cold weather impacts on both the soldiers and equipment used for a snowy, windy 20°F day, the time is increased to about seven hours. In the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, Arab repair teams typically restored damaged runways in nine to twelve hours. [2]" [FAS.org].

1. Air Attack Short of Goal; Husssein's Force Intact, Defense Aides Say Privately," Newsday, 24 January 1991, 5

2. V. K. Babich, Aviation in Local Wars (Moscow: Voyenizdat Publishing House, 1988), in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) Report--Soviet Union, JPRS-UMA-89-010-L, 2 October 1990, 51.

3. Communication: Dean T. Kashiwagi, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor Director of the Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG) at Arizona State University.

Runways in Falcon 4.0 have two or three "sections" each. With the Realism Patch, each runway section now takes approximately 3-4 hours to repair. This repair time, in addition to the time it takes for Engineering Battalions to begin repair operations, results in a total of about 12 hours of repair time for medium (3 section). There is a bit of variability in these times in that the engineering battalions that must be on site for repair may not be in the area right after the runway is destroyed.

This is on contrast to 108i and 108i2, where runway repair times required an unrealistic 2-3 days or more before sorties could be regenerated. Note that the runway repair times, in Falcon 4.0 and in real life, are not based upon the time it takes to achieve pristine runway conditions, but rather the average time needed to achieve operable conditions. Former Soviet and Eastern-Bloc aircraft, with their stronger gear and ability to ingest more debris, are better suited to taking off on rough runways. An unfortunate thing, which cannot be modeled currently in F4, is the ability of aircraft to use alternate highway strips, long taxiways, and selected roads if or when the runways are destroyed.

### Technical Notes and FAQs For Missile Modeling in Falcon 4

SECTION 1: BASICS OF HOW REAL MISSILES WORK

Before all the fun can begin, it pays to understand how missiles work. With the basic understanding of the underlying mechanism of missiles, you will be able to identify how the changes made to the F4 files will affect the final missile performance, and identify any anomalies that may arise.

Basic Layout

The basic layout of the missile consist of 4 sections:

Guidance section

Warhead and fusing section

Control section

Propulsive section

The propulsive section may consist of either a turbojet with a fuel tank, like the AGM-130, and AGM-84, or a solid rocket motor. The weight of the propellant depends on the missile type, and more often than not, is about 30-50% of the total missile weight.

Rocket Motor Properties

Most missiles equipped with solid rocket motors do not have a long burn time due to the burn characteristics of such motors. Solid rocket motors may have two different thrust profiles, a pure boost profile which will give a very short burn time but a very high thrust to accelerate the missile to the maximum velocity at burnout, and a boost-sustain profile, which is a compromise. The boost-sustain profile comprise of a short boost phase of high thrust (still lower boost thrust than a pure boost profile), where the missile is accelerated to its maximum velocity (Vmax), and a longer sustain phase with lower thrust to maintain Vmax while the motor is burning.

The disadvantage of a pure boost motor profile is the quick acceleration. This often increases aerodynamic heating and drag due to the high Mach, and once the motor has burnt out, the missile will begin to decelerate rapidly even when not maneuvering. If the missile maneuvers, the higher drag will slow the missile down even more. Kinematic range is thus shorter for pure boost rockets. The upside of a pure boost rocket is that the missile can prosecute the target more rapidly than a missile with a boost-sustain rocket, while the rocket is still burning. The maneuvering potential is also higher during rocket firing, though the disadvantages outweigh the benefits once the rocket has burnt out. Most new missiles are equipped with boost-sustain rockets these days. Pure boost profiles are used in missiles like the AIM-9P.

Proportional Navigation

Almost all modern missiles guide themselves to the target using proportional navigation. The target line of sight (LOS) is used as an input to the guidance system, to compute a lead collision course. This involves turning the missile until a heading is found which stops the target's apparent LOS drift rate. By maintaining this lead angle, the missile will theoretically fly a straight path to intercept a non-maneuvering target. The lead required to stop the drift rate is dependent on target speed and aspect, as well as missile speed, but not range. This mode of guidance is what results in the characteristic wriggle in the missile as it corrects for the LOS drift.

Missile Range and Kinematics

Missile ranges are described in various different definitions. The common definitions used by the USAF are as follows:

Rmax1 - The maximum range at which the missile may be launched at a 1g non-maneuvering target, and either achieve a direct hit or pass within lethal distance of the warhead.

Rmax2 - The maximum range at which the missile may be launched at a target that performs a constant speed 6g turn to 0° aspect at the point of launch, and then accelerate at a rate of 1g to an airspeed that is 300 knots above the starting airspeed.

Rmin1 -The minimum range at which the missile may be launched at a 1g non-maneuvering target, and arm the fuse.

Rmin2 - The minimum range at which the missile may be launched at a target that performs a constant speed 6g turn to 180° aspect, and thereafter head directly towards the launch aircraft, and still achieve either a direct hit or pass within lethal distance of the warhead and result in warhead detonation.

The weapon employment envelope encompassed by Rmin2 and Rmax2 is sometimes known as the no escape zone. In most cases, missiles may be launched between Rmax1 and Rmax2. The difference between Rmax1 and Rmax2 can be significant, and sometimes up to 3 times in difference.

The reason for the difference is primarily due to missile aerodynamics. Missile drag increases drastically the moment the missile angle of attack is increased due to maneuvering. Since the missile motor does not burn for long and the missile is in coast most of the time, any maneuvering will result in energy loss. The maximum maneuvering potential is thus realized only at the point of motor burnout, and the more the missile has to correct its trajectory to pursue the target, the lesser the maneuvering potential during end of its flight.

Missile kinematics refers to the missile aerodynamic performance, such as acceleration rate during rocket motor burn, deceleration rate after burnout and during maneuvers, and g capability with missile speed. It generally refers to the missile range, without accounting for seeker performance.

IR Guidance System

IR guided missiles are normally tail chasers during end game. The only information available to the guidance system is the seeker LOS and drift rate. Thus, end game is usually tail chase, and the missile is limited in the amount of lead that it can achieve.

Semi Active Radar Guidance System

Semi active radar guidance relies on the host aircraft radar to perform the guidance. The radar seeker will home onto the reflected signals that the missile is tuned to recognize. Range and drift rate is thus available to the missile, as are target velocity and direction. The missile can thus potentially pull more lead during intercept.

Active Radar Guidance System

When active radar missiles are fired, they are usually guided inertially in the initial stage. At the point of firing, the missile is usually given a predicted location of the target based on the target track, and a point in the sky to turn on the onboard radar. However, since missile flight time can exceed 20-30 seconds, the possible target location is actually an uncertainty zone. The missile seeker FOV is usually much smaller than this uncertainty zone, and the probability of the missile finding the target within its FOV at the point of onboard radar activation is thus lower.

If the launch aircraft maintains target track, it is then able to update the missile periodically with the target information, and the missile will adjust its inertial flight path accordingly, as well as the activation point. The missile is usually updated through a datalink, and the effect of the datalink is to progressively shrink the uncertainty zone. The probability of the missile finding the target within its seeker FOV at the point of activation is thus higher, increasing the probability of kill (Pk) of the missile.

This is the same for active guided radar missiles such as AA-12, AIM-54, and AIM-120. The onboard missile seeker will obtain range, velocity, LOS, and drift rate for determining the intercept course. Active missiles are thus able to pull more lead during the inertial phase as well as the final guidance phase.

Missiles like AA-12 and AIM-120 have a limited close in capability, but the minimum range is limited by fusing and missile aerodynamics.

Fusing and Arming

All missiles are armed only after some flight time. The arming of the fuse and warhead is usually due to onboard gas generator pressure, or inertial switches resulting from missile axial acceleration. This arming time and distance is one of the constraints on the minimum range at which the missile can be launched, apart from the servo lockout time to prevent the missile from maneuvering within close proximity of the launch aircraft.

Even though the missile may be able to maneuvers and strike the target at closer range than the Rmin, the warhead may not be armed. This process is not modeled in Falcon 4, and missiles can still successfully destroy targets at very close ranges of up to 1500 ft or so, which is well within gun range.

SECTION 2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Why is it that AIM-9P is now so easy to evade?

The actual AIM-9P missile has no flare rejection capability. Any flares will decoy the missile regardless of target aspect. In addition, the seeker is also easily distracted by ground IR clutter and sun, and the low tracking rate means that the target need to be positioned correctly within the HUD, with minimal line of sight movement before a successful launch can be assured.

The AIM-9M missile seems a lot less effective than before and misses head-on shots more compared to before.

Head-on shots occur with very high closure rates. The high closure means that the tracking rate increases tremendously as the missile closes in, and this often exceeds the ability of the missile to maintain track. The AIM-9M seeker performance has also been adjusted to reflect more correctly, what the actual performance should be. This missile is capable of successfully shooting down targets up to about 2-3 nm away.

Why isn’t the AA-10A/C (or any other missile) capable of its published maximum range?

Missile range is dependent on the missile kinematics and engagement geometry. The published maximum range is useless to interpret unless the launch conditions and geometry is known. Missile manufacturers quote different range to different sources, and the favorite is to quote head-on high closure engagements are extremely high altitude, such as head-on with Mach 1.6 for both shooter and target at 40,000 feet, co-altitude, at a non maneuvering target. Missile ranges decreases dramatically at lower altitudes typical of air combat, due to the denser air and higher drag, and also against maneuvering targets (with anything more than 2-3g).

Does semi active radar homing missile possess greater effective range than active missiles?

No. Semi-active radar missiles are constrained by seeker sensitivity. Most seekers are not sensitive enough to detect reflected radiation from the target at ranges greater than 13-18 nm. Also, SARH missiles do not have true range information, and must rely on extrapolation from the launch condition, using the target Doppler shift. SARH missiles are also more easily decoyed by chaff, since it does not possess onboard radar and the sophistication of onboard radars. Guidance is by homing on the reflected energy and comparing signal coherency by having rear-facing receivers to receive the radiated energy from the parent aircraft. The missile knows the target range at the point of launch, but once it leaves the launcher, range is derived from extrapolating the initial target range from the Doppler shift of the reflected radiation sensed by the seeker.

When chaff is dispensed, the bloom characteristics can flood the target return with a bigger return than the actual aircraft, making it very difficult for the seeker to determine the true target return from the chaff target return. Due to the nature of the seeker, SARH missiles may be kinematically able to hit further targets, but the effective range is usually constrained by seeker performance to distances far smaller. When launched outside the seeker sensitivity range, SARH missiles like the AA-10C rely on inertial updates from the parent aircraft. However, this form of guidance only allows the missile to begin searching for the target return at the expected area (known as the uncertainty zone). The size of this uncertainty zone depends on the track stability of the parent radar, and any target maneuvers such as beaming, ECM, or chaffing will reduce the track stability and increase the uncertainty zone. This decreases missile Pk tremendously, compared to launching at targets inside the seeker sensitivity range. Inertial target location update occurs at a much lower frequency compared to the seeker sensing the actual target radar return, and as such, the Pk decreases dramatically.

Why is it so easy to dodge some missiles now?

The original Falcon 4 missile-tracking rate is way too high and unrealistic for the missiles represented. They have been decreased to realistic values. It is now possible to pull into a missile and force the missile the break lock (provide you maneuver correctly) by exceeding the missile tracking rate through a rapid pull across the seeker line of sight.

Why are AA-10B launched so close to the target when Internet sources stated that they have inertial guidance?

The AA-10B does not have any inertial guidance. This missile is designed as a “run-down” missile, having enough energy to pursue a high-speed target from further out in a tail chase scenario. Short range missiles such as AIM-9M and AA-11 will run out of energy in such engagements, while the AA-10B have sufficient energy to catch up with the target. However, this missile needs to lock on to the target before it can be launched.

Does having an IRST increase the acquisition range of IR seekers?

No, they do not. Heat seeking missiles need to detect a heat source above the guidance threshold in order to initiate a tracking solution. Although an IRST can be used to cue the missile seeker, an IRST is an imaging IR sensor that forms an image of the IR scene. The IR air-to-air missiles represented in the game are reticule mirror seekers and guide using heat sources instead of IR images. A target that provide an IR contrast to imaging IR sensors may not provide sufficient thermal radiation to enable a tracking solution, as reticule seekers cannot be overly sensitive in order to reject ground IR clutter and solar radiation. All that an IRST does is to cue to seeker in the right direction. The launch criteria is still the seeker being able to physically lock on to the target.

Why is it that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are not launching the AA-11 at high off boresight angles ?

The helmet-mounted sight is not implemented in the AI. As such, the AI is often incapable of taking full advantage of the AA-11’s wide acquisition gimbal limits to launch. However, as long as the MiG-29 or Su-27 have a radar lock on the target, the AA-11 can and will be launched up to the radar gimbal limits (provide the AA-11 has a seeker tone). Launch range is however severely reduced at high off boresight angles as the missile loses a lot of energy in the initial maneuver.

Can I use real world launch deny tactics with IR missiles?

This may or may not work. Flare susceptibility is modeled as a simple probability in Falcon 4. As such, with an uncaged missile, if the target drops flares, you will not find the missile going after the flare, but rather, it will simply break lock and go ballistic. However, rapid changing of target aspect to reduce IR signature do work, just like real life, if the missile is launched from the edge of the IR detection envelope, such as turning directly head-on when the missile is launched from the beam.

The AMRAAM used to hit targets out to 20 nm with a very high success rate. Why is it so bad now?

The AMRAAM has smaller no escape zone, mainly constrained by seeker performance and missile kinematics. It will still hit targets out to 20+ nm, but if the target performs a substantial maneuver, it may be defeated easily.

I thought the missiles ought to pull more lead, why is it that the proportional navigation gain is so low now?

The overall missile kinematic and guidance performance is affected by thrust, aerodynamics, and the navigation gain. These three factors need to be adjusted in conjunction. The combination in the missile dat files represent the numbers required to replicate missile kinematics and guidance performance, such that the missile envelope is reasonably accurate compared the actual article.

How is the Rmin modeled in the new missile modeled?

Falcon 4 does not model Rmin properly, the default AIM-120 model can actually be fired at targets well within 1 nm of range head on, and still obtain a hit. The time to safe and arm missiles plays a very important role in constraining the Rmin for missiles. Since the safe and arming time for missiles is not modeled, it can be somewhat simulated using guidance delay. However, the side effect of using guidance delay is that the missile will not guide during the delay, and if it is launched close to the gimbal limits, the delay may result in the target exiting the limits. The missile behavior is also not like real missiles, which will usually begin to guide within 0.5 seconds of launch. However, safe and arming usually occurs within 300-400 meters from the launch aircraft, which corresponds to about 900-1500 feet.

How do you interpret missile range and performance from published specifications?

Missile ranges are often quoted in reputable journals and publications. These ranges are however often quoted without the firing conditions and geometry. Firing geometry and target maneuver will influence range considerably. Consider the AA-10, when fired head-on at a non-maneuvering target, its range is approximately 3 times more than a maneuvering target in a constant 5g turn. In the latter case, the AA-10 is barely even BVR. As another example, the AMRAAM is often quoted with a 50 km range. This is more of a head-on engagement at a non-maneuvering target than anything else is.

The general rules of thumb are as follows:

Rmin is smallest when firing head-on at high closure. The higher the closure, the further Rmin becomes

Rmin in tail-on engagements are closer than Rmin in head-on engagements. This is only expected, since the missile needs to maneuver less. Head-on shots often have high LOS drift rates, and thus may result in the missile requiring more maneuvering capability that it is capable of.

Rmax at a non-maneuvering target is also about 2-3 times more than a maneuvering target.

Head-on engagement range is greater than tail-on. This is plain kinematics. However, head-on ranges for IR missiles are limited by the seeker performance. Thus, IR missile head-on ranges are less than tail-on ranges.

New IR missiles generally have greater seeker acquisition range in the rear aspect than its kinematic range. Kinematic range will however exceed seeker acquisition range in the front aspect.

Anytime the missile is made to maneuver, it will lose energy rapidly. Prior to motor burnout, the missile can maneuver without losing much energy. Once the motor has burnt out, you should expect the missile to lose energy fairly quickly even when not maneuvering. Missile drag at high supersonic Mach numbers is considerable.

Why is it that AA-10C is fired only within 20 nm of the target?

Falcon 4.0 can only model SARH missiles effectively when the target and the shooter are within the air bubble, and the default air bubble is set to 20 nm. SARH missiles, when fired outside the air bubble, will go ballistic, as the AI does not gain a radar lock first before shooting. As such, AA-10C can only be fired inside the bubble, even though kinematically the missile is more capable. However, human pilots can fired at targets successfully outside the 20 nm air bubble, and testing have revealed successful shots out to about 30-35 nm range head-on. If you increase the bubble slider setting, the AA-10C will be fired further out, depending on the size of the bubble, and may reach a maximum of 45 nm at high altitude with high closure speeds.

Is the Helmet Mounted Sight of the MiG-29 and Su-27 modeled to take advantage of the AA-11?

No. The HMS is not modeled in F4, and even though the AA-11 missile model is capable of off boresight shoots of up to 67°, the AI is not capable of taking full advantage of this. The AI will still point the nose at the target before shooting, but in some cases, shots may be taken up to about 30-40° off boresight if the AI has a radar lock on the target. What will not happen is the AI shooting across the turn circle, a tactic that is not modeled in F4. However, the human pilots can either slave the missile through radar or manually uncage to shoot at targets off boresight, with a high degree of success. However, off boresight firings will impact the range considerably due to the need for the missile to maneuver at high incidences, resulting in a large increase in drag. The thrust vectoring capability of the AA-11 is modeled.

Is the altitude effect on missile range modeled?

Yes and no. A reasonable correct atmosphere model is captured in F4, and this will give lower air density at high altitudes. As a result, missile drag decreases with increasing altitude, leading to greater range at higher altitudes than lower altitudes. However, the effect on the rocket plume pressure pattern and thrust is not modeled. Real life ratio of high altitude range versus low altitude range is about 3:1, and this is not achievable in F4 due to the lack of an accurate missile plume model. The achievable range ratio is closer to 2.5:1 and 2:1. This effect is modeled for the AI as well, and is reflected in the HUD DLZ scale.

Why is the MiG-25 capable of launching the IR guided AA-6 from BVR ranges and the missile will still guide?

The IR AA-6 has a command link to the launch aircraft where the launch aircraft can update the missile will the target location real time even though the missile does not have a valid lock. This will guide the missile towards the target, for it to employ its onboard seeker for terminal guidance. The behavior and tactical employment is modeled in the game by giving the seeker a very large acquisition range, as F4 does not model command guidance. The missile will thus be launched from as far as 15 nm out head-on, though tail-on launch range is restricted to under 10 nm by the missile range breakpoints.

Why is it that the F-14 chooses to fire other radar or SARH missiles first before the AIM-54?

The AI is coded to always fire the missile loaded in the forward fuselage hardpoints first. As such, if any other missile is loaded at the two forward fuselage hardpoints, these gets fired first before any other missiles, even though AIM-54 may be loaded under the wing or on the aft fuselage hardpoints. To force the F-14 to shoot AIM-54 first, you will need to manually alter the loadout and load the AIM-54 in the forward fuselage hardpoints.

Why is the hit rate of the SA-7 so bad?

SA-7 is a man portable missile with an uncooled seeker head. As such, its sensitivity is low and very susceptible to breaking lock when target aspect changes. In addition, it is also very prone to ground IR clutter, and being decoyed by clouds and sun. Most of the shots that seem to be launched ballistically are due to guidance problems, i.e. the missile locks onto something else like the sun. As with all man portable SAMs, these missiles have very small control fins, and are limited in maneuverability. Hence, for higher speed targets, they are usually not able to complete the intercept due to rapid energy loss. This problem affects all MANPADs such as Stinger, SA-7, SA-14, and HN-5A.

Why can’t the Daewoo Chun-Ma (K-SAM) be decoyed by flares or chaff?

The Daewoo Chun-Ma (Pegasus) SAM system relies on command guidance. The missile has no onboard seeker, and relies on rear facing antenna to receive guidance signals from the launch vehicle. Guidance is through the gunner tracking the target on a FLIR targeting sight, and the fire control system sends out steering commands to the missile by collimating the missile flight path with the line of sight to the target. As such, this mode of guidance is impervious to counter measures such as flares and chaff. However, the command link can be jammed, though this aspect is not modeled in F4. The only means of defeating the missile is to out maneuver or out-run it, which should not be too difficult given the low proportional navigation gain and tracking rate of the missile.

Why is it that the SA-2 is only marginally effective above 60,000 feet? Did it not shoot down a U-2 from 72,000 feet once?

The U-2 was shot down at 72,000 feet over Soviet Union. At that time, a total of approximately 14 SA-2 were fired, and only one struck. The U-2 has a very low cruise indicated airspeed in the region of 150+ knots, and as such, it does not require a missile of tremendous energy state to reach it. The SA-2 that stuck the U-2 only needed to fly slightly faster to complete the intercept. Against fighter type targets, the SA-2 will stand lesser chance of completing the intercept due to the higher target speed.

Why do I get an “M” symbol on the RWR whenever the SA-5 fires?

The SA-5 is a command guided missile in the initial stage, but is equipped with an onboard active radar seeker for terminal homing. The seeker is usually activated close to the target location, and as such, it will trigger off the RWR system to display the “M” symbol, indicating that the SA-5 launch crew has activated the missile’s onboard seeker for terminal guidance.

The SAMs in F4 are killing me, and the kill ratios are much higher than actual combat statistics. Are the SAMs too maneuverable?

The SAM kinematic and guidance models have been tested in stock firing profiles to evaluate the kinematic performance as well as guidance characteristics, against a variety of different engagement scenarios and profiles. These testing have allowed the kinematic models to be tuned such that the performance are commensurate to their design and size, and as such, are as accurate as open literature can suggest.

Combat experience and statistics are due to a variety of different reasons, most importantly an integrated air defense suppression plan, in the form of stand-off jammers (SOJ) such as EA-6B, EF-111 and EC-130 (the “soft” kill assets), as well as SEAD strikers such as F-4G and F-16 (the “hard” kill assets), preceding every strike. The SOJ often employ broad band noise jamming techniques to deny the SAM radars any chance of detecting and locking onto targets by flooding the receivers with noise and drowning out the true target radar returns. This prevents the fire control radars from achieving firing solutions. In addition, the SEAD strikers equipped with HARMs often launch preemptively at any SAM radars that actively emit. Such techniques prevents lock-ons by active emitters, at the same time kills the emitters that are emitting. This forces the air defenses not to emit to so to deny a HARM shot, and negates the air defense networks.

Without the fire control information, SAMs are often fired ballistically or optically aimed, resulting in reduced effectiveness. In addition, SAMs are often fired in barrages, aimed or otherwise, to deter strikers from approaching the target area. All these factors contribute to the low kill statistics of SAMs in actual conflicts. The defensive ECM suite present on the strike aircraft only serve to delay and deny lock-ons from SAM radars onto the strikers, but are only a small part of the integrated electronic warfare plan.

F4 does not model strike packages accurately, in that most strike packages are not accompanied by stand off jammers, and many packages are similarly not accompanied by SEAD packages with HARMs. As such, strike packages often face the full wrath of the integrated air defense system, resulting in the higher SAM kill statistics in F4.

As for why the defensive jammers are ineffective once SAMs are launched, and also when the strike aircraft gets closer to the SAM site, this aspect is relatively accurate in F4. All podded defensive ECM have effective coverage arcs that do not encompass the entire aircraft, and which the emitter must be within in order for the jammer to be effective against. Once the aircraft takes evasive action, the SAM site may not be allowed to stay within the coverage arc for significant amount of time for the jammer to become effective. In addition, once a valid firing solution is obtained, any jamming may trigger ECCM modes in the SAM radar, and the radar will instead zero-in onto the jamming source, thus turning the jammer into a guidance beacon.

Jammer effectiveness is also governed by the jamming to signal ratio. This ratio is higher when the jammer is further away, and progressively decreases with range reduction. As such, the closer the target is to the SAM radar, the higher the chance of the SAM radar “burning through”, and this happens when the target return signal is high enough and exceeds the jammer signal. When this happens, the jammer loses it effectiveness. This aspect is modeled in F4, though most radars are not modeled as accurately as they should be, and will be corrected in due time.

I used to be able to lock-on to targets from 10-15 nm away using the Maverick, but the Maverick tracking gates now begin to pulse only at closer ranges. What happened?

Maverick missiles (TV and IIR) guide using the contrast of the video picture. The original AGM-65B seeker in F4 was over-modeled, especially against small sized targets such as ground vehicles. This aspect has been corrected, and the new lock-on range is an average between small sized targets and larger sized targets. In addition, due to the limited zoom capability on the AGM-65B, the lock-on range have been decreased slightly to model its characteristics more accurately. In addition, the target has to achieve a certain size in the Maverick video before the tracking solution can be arrived. Currently, this aspect is similarly over represented in F4.

As for the IR Mavericks, the IR seeker’s acquisition range is dependent on humidity, thermal differences, atmospheric particulate count, etc. For the seeker sensitivity wavelengths in the Maverick, the seeker’s acquisition range is expected to be lower in the Korean atmosphere. This aspect is similarly capture by scaling back the seeker range. The video picture over-represents the imaging capabilities against small targets, and as such, the acquisition range have been reigned in.

SECTION 3: FACLON 4.0 MISSILE MODELING

Missile Modeling Files

The files used for modeling the missiles are as follows. The files with extensions DAT and VEH are ASCII files, while the FALCON4.SWD, FALCON4.ICD and FALCON4.WCD files are binary files. Descriptions of the binary files are based on Julian Onions’ F4browse v2.1 beta 16.

.DAT - In sim/misdata directory. This contains the missile seeker information, as well as motor burn time, missile aerodynamic coefficients for flight modeling, and range information for the AI.

.VEH - In sim/vehdef directory. Contains the missile vehicular information, such as weight, drag factor, name, and weapon type.

FALCON4.SWD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the simulation weapon data, which contains the missile pointer (indicating which entry in the mistypes.lst file in the sim/misdata directory), and the type of weapon. The SWD file is used to point to the correct entry in the mistypes.lst file, which then refers Falcon 4 to the appropriate missile DAT file.

FALCON4.WCD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the weapon data, such as weight, blast radius, drag (in counts), guidance type, damage, and the onboard seeker radar type (if any).

FALCON4.ICD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the missile IR seeker properties, similar to the .IRS file. The information includes nominal range, seeker field of regard, seeker field of view, flare chance, and ground factor. I suspect that the information presented here supercedes those in the .IRS file.

FALCON4.RWD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the anti radiation missile seeker properties, in addition to the RWR characteristics. The information include acquisition sensitivity, field of view in azimuth, and field of view in elevation.

FALCON4.VSD - In terrdata/objects directory. Contains the TV seeker properties, in addition to the visual seeker characteristics (such as Mk-1 eyeball). The information include acquisition range, field of view in azimuth, and field of view in elevation.

Missile Flight Modeling

The missile model in Falcon 4 mimics that of the actual missile range computation algorithm in the fire control computer of modern aircraft. The missile range modeling is a three-degree of freedom simulation, mechanized as follows:

When the missile is fired, the impulse is first used to compute the initial missile velocity.

Missile aerodynamics is resolved using trigonometry, through two tables, one containing the normal force coefficient Cx (perpendicular to the x axis of the missile), and the axial force Cz (along the missile x axis). The missile lift and drag force relative to its flight path is resolved based on the angle of attack, as follows:

Lift = {Cz * Reference Area x cos (missile AOA)} + {Cx * Reference Area x sin (missile AOA)}

Drag = {Cx * Reference Area x cos (missile AOA)} + {Cz * Reference Area x sin (missile AOA)}

Missile thrust is computed from the motor time history

Flight trajectory is computed by resolving the lift, drag, and thrust, as well as the missile weight

Missile guidance is affected by proportional gain factor, which controls directly how much the missile leads the target in the pursuit

Warhead effectiveness is controlled not by the data files, but by the FALCON4.SWD file, which contains the simulation weapon data

Interpreting DAT File Data Fields

Final Time (sec) - This controls the total guidance time of the missile. In actual fact, this is the life of the thermal battery onboard the missile, which provide electrical power to the guidance package. In some missiles, they will self-destruct at this time. Falcon 4 will command a self-destruct for the missile.

Pk - The probability of kill, assuming that the missile is fired at a non-maneuvering target that does not evade nor employ IRCCM/ECM. This may or may not be one. I have not found any effect of this at all.

Weight of missile (lbs) - Missile weight at launch, in pounds.

Weight of propellant (lbs) - Weight of missile rocket motor. This weight is burned off from the missile weight linearly throughout the life of the missile motor burn time.

Motor Impulse (lb-sec) - The missile rocket motor impulse, in lb-sec. This is the integral of the motor thrust time history. I have not found any part that this number will play in Falcon 4, other than being there for information. For most missiles, this number is left unchanged or at some arbitrary figure.

Missile Reference Area (ft*ft) - The missile reference area in square feet, usually defined as the cross section of the missile body.

Nozzle Exit Area (ft*ft) - The missile rocket motor nozzle exit area. This number has no game function and is usually for reference.

Length (ft) - Missile length. This number has no game function.

AOA min, AOA max, Beta min, Beta max (deg) - The maximum allowable angle of attack and angle of sideslip for the missile, in degrees. For a missile, both angles are the same since missiles are symmetric about the pitch and yaw axis. The default values in Falcon 4 are way too high for most missiles, at 25°. The more appropriate AOA and sideslip for conventionally steered missiles (i.e. non thrust vectoring missiles) is about 15-19°, with AA-11 going up to maybe about 25-35°. Exceeding this will usually result in the missile stalling and losing lift, which is not modeled in Falcon 4.

Velocity min (ft/sec) - The minimum missile velocity. This number has no game function.

Gimbal Angle Limit (deg) - The missile seeker gimbal angle limit, in degrees, with reference to the missile x body axis. This is way to high for most missiles. This number does not control IR seeker gimbals, which is controlled by the FALCON4.ICD file.

Gimbl Ang Rate Lim (deg/sec) - The missile seeker gimbal angular rate limit. In actual missiles, the actual performance is determined by the smaller of either the gimbal angular rate limit or the tracking rate limit. Since Falcon 4 missile modeling is simple, this figure actually corresponds to the tracking rate, and defines how fast (in degrees per second) the missile can traverse across the seeker. The higher the number, the better the missile is at keeping track of a high crossing rate target. This number is way too high on all the missiles.

Field of view (deg) - The missile seeker field of view in degrees. This number does not control IR missiles, whose seeker data are embedded in the FALCON4.ICD file.

Guidance Delay - The time in seconds between missile launch and commence of missile guidance. The time for most A/A missiles are something like 0.2 to 0.5 seconds, and about 2-5 seconds for SAMs. It prevents the missile from maneuvering while in close proximity to the launch aircraft. This is not the safe and arming time. However, since Falcon 4 does not model safe and arming, the guidance delay can be used to simulate this to increase Rmin. The downside of using guidance delay is that if you are shooting close to the gimbal limit, the guidance delay may result in the target exiting the seeker gimbal limits and losing lock. This may not necessarily happen with the real missile.

Lofting bias - This controls how much the missile will loft once fired. The higher the number, the greater the lofting upon launch.

Proportional Nav gain - This number controls how much lead the missile guidance will perform. By lowering the number, the missile end game will usually result in a tail chase. Raising the number will lead to a shorter intercept time since the missile will pull a lot of lead to perform the quickest intercept. The number is also way too high in all the missiles.

Autopilot Bandwidth - This is the autopilot guidance system bandwidth for active missiles only. I haven't found the exact effect of changing this.

Time to go active (sec) - The time that the missile will go active, for an active radar guided missile. For a passive sensor, this is set to -1.

Seeker Type, Version - The seeker type and version. Version for IR missiles pertains to the appropriate entry in the FALCON4.ICD file.

Type

0 Infra-red homing

1 Active radar homing

2 Anti radiation radar homing

3 Optically guided

6 Semi active radar homing

Display - This number indicate whether the missile displays any picture on the aircraft MFD (I guess).

0 No picture

1 Optical picture (normal optics)

2. Imaging Infrared picture

4 HARM Targeting Display

Missile Aerodynamic Data - The data here is presented in an entire block. The data grid is divided into Mach and Alpha (angle of attack), for the pertinent aerodynamic coefficients, Cz (normal force) and Cx (axial force).

The coefficients are presented in a matrix for each Mach number breakpoint, with a normal or axial multiplier factor. The multiplier allows Microprose to use the same aerodynamic data for different missiles, and scale them according to the missile weight.

The multiplier is applied to all data points within the data grid. All Cx and Cz data are given as negative, since this is the normal convention is missile or aircraft aerodynamics. When resolved accordingly, the negative sign will produce drag accordingly. The data for Cz is not aerodynamically representative, and I have applied some engineering judgment to re-create a typical drag data for missiles.

Mach - This states the number of Mach breakpoints in the data grid

Alpha - This states the number of angle of attack breakpoints in the data grid

Normal Multiplier - The multiplier factor used to alter all the data points in the normal force coefficient matrix.

Axial Multiplier - The multiplier factor used to alter all the data points in the axial force coefficient matrix.

Engine Data - The rocket motor data is given as a thrust profile, with respect to time, in pounds. The first number under the BRNTIM entry is the number of breakpoints in the rocket motor burn time history, followed by a data block with the corresponding time breakpoints.

The second data block is the motor thrust in pounds, corresponding to the individual time breakpoints.

Range Data - This gives the missile engagement range in Rmax2, for the AI. The descriptions are as follows:

Table Multiplier - The multiplier factor for the range data

Altitude Breakpoints - This shows the number of different altitude bands, and breakdown of each altitude in feet.

Velocity Breakpoints - This gives the number of velocity breakpoints, and a breakdown of each velocity. The velocity seems to be in knots, and seem to pertain to launch aircraft velocity.

Aspect Breakpoints - This gives the engagement range data for the different target aspects. Range data is given as a block for all three aspects for each mach and altitude combination. It is possible to create rear aspect missiles and prevent the AI from firing it all aspect, by limiting the aspect breakpoints to angles behind the 3-9 line.

The range is given in feet, as aspect angle is given in radians (1.57 is pi radians, and gives 90 degrees).

The range breakpoints for A/A missiles will determine the range envelope, as well as the HUD DLZ cues. For example, to determine the firing range against a target closing at 800 knots, at 16,000 feet, 20 degrees off the nose, you will need to first interpolate between the range breakpoints for aspect of 0 and 1.5708 for both 15000 and 20000 feet,, for both 0 knots and 1181.49 knots to obtain the firing range for closure of 0 knots and 1181.49 at 15000 and 20000 feet at 20 degrees angle off. You then interpolate the two closure speeds to obtain the firing range for a closure speed of 800 knots for both 15000 and 20000 feet, and finally interpolate between the altitude to obtain 16000 feet.

For SAMs, the range breakpoints in the DAT file are for reference only, and not actually used. The firing ranges and altitudes are encoded in the FALCON4.SWD file, in the fields labeled as RANGE, AIR BLAST, and AIR HIT, by Julian Onions’ F4Browse utility. There may be other data fields involved. The relationship between these data fields are currently not entirely known, though the SAMs have been tweaked to achieve realistic firing altitudes and ranges.

General Notes

It is possible to include more breakpoints in modeling the missile aerodynamics. However, Falcon 4 interpolates linearly between breakpoints, and introduction of more breakpoints to model more accurately missile performance will only incur additional CPU cycles and memory for processing.

Modeling Rmin - Falcon 4 does not model Rmin properly, the default AIM-120 model can actually be fired at targets well within 1 nm of range head on, and still obtain a hit. The safe and arming time for missiles play a very important role in constraining the Rmin for missiles. Since the safe and arming time for missiles are not modeled, it can be somewhat simulated using guidance delay. However, the side effect of using guidance delay is that the missile will not guide during the delay, and if it is launched close to the gimbal limits, the delay may result in the target exiting the limits. The missile behavior is also not like real missiles, which will usually begin to guide within 0.5 seconds of launch. However, safe and arming usually occurs within 300-400 meters from the launch aircraft, which corresponds to about 900-1500 feet.

Interpreting Missile Range - Before any one screams about AIM-120 or any other BVR missiles hitting targets when launched at 0.5nm from the target being totally unrealistic, and BVR missiles not being able to hit anything beyond 12 nm, you need to consider the firing geometry.

Missile ranges are often quoted in reputable journals and publications. These ranges are however often quoted without the firing conditions and geometry. Firing geometry and target maneuver will influence range considerably. Consider the AIM-7, when fired head-on at a non-maneuvering target, its range is approximately 3 times more than a maneuvering target in a constant 5g turn. In the latter case, the AIM-7 is barely even BVR. As another example, the AMRAAM is often quoted with a 50 km range. This is more of a head-on engagement at a non-maneuvering target than anything else is.

The general rules of thumb are as follows:

Rmin is smallest when firing head-on at high closure. The higher the closure, the further Rmin becomes.

Rmin in tail-on engagements are closer than Rmin in head-on engagements. This is only expected, since the missile needs to man maneuver less. Head-on shots often have high LOS drift rates, and thus may result in the missile requiring more maneuvering capability that it is capable of.

Rmax at a non-maneuvering target is also about 2-3 times more than a maneuvering target. Head-on engagement range is greater than tail-on. This is plain kinematics. However, head-on range for IR missiles is limited by the seeker performance. Thus, IR missile head-on ranges are less than tail-on ranges.

New IR missiles generally have greater seeker acquisition range in the rear aspect than its kinematic range. Kinematic range will however exceed seeker acquisition range in the front aspect.

Anytime the missile is made to maneuver, it will lose energy rapidly. Prior to motor burnout, the missile can maneuver without losing much energy. Once the motor has burnt out, you should expect the missile to lose energy fairly quickly even when not maneuvering. Missile drag at high supersonic Mach numbers is considerable.

Creating an Accurate Missile Model in Falcon 4

The following factors have the greatest influence over missile performance in Falcon 4. These changes must be applied together to obtain the correct behavior:

Seeker gimbal limit

Seeker angular rate

Missile Cx (normal force) and Cz (axial force)

Cx and Cz multiplier

Motor thrust history

Reference area

Missile weight and propellant weight

Most hex editors only concern themselves with changing blast distance, warhead damage figures, seeker characteristics (gimbal limit, angular rate, and seeker range), and missile mass properties. Some will also change the motor burn time to affect range. Some have also limited the maximum AOA and sideslip to limit maneuverability. However, the most important changes of all is the missile aerodynamics, which many leave unchanged.

Without changing missile aerodynamics, it is impossible to model properly motor burnout effects, and vary the missile maneuvering capability with missile speed. The default Falcon 4 missile model loses energy at an incredibly slow rate after burnout, and even when maneuvering. This gives the missile impossibly high maneuverability throughout the entire engagement range.

The Realism Patch models the missile aerodynamics as follows:

Leave the maximum and minimum AOA and sideslip at realistically high values such as 15-20°. Make sure that missile mass properties and reference area are correct.

Adjust normal force to aerodynamically representative values. This should decrease slightly with Mach.

Reduce normal force multiplier slightly to reduce missile maneuverability. The overall effect of this change, together with (i) and (ii), will make the missile more maneuverable at higher Mach due to the higher normal force, though missile AOA required to achieve the g will be less. At lower Mach, the missile has the ability to use higher AOA to complete the intercept, though normal force will be lower, and missile g may be lower.

Adjust axial force to model higher energy loss at higher AOA, and also increase missile drag at 0° AOA to increase the nominal energy bleed rate. Missile drag increases with Mach, and this has to be reflected. Hence, the missile energy bleed rate is higher at higher Mach, and decreases as Mach decreases.

Increase axial force multiplier to increase missile drag. The overall effect of (iv) and (v) is to simulate increased missile energy loss rate under g, due to increased missile drag.

ACMI recordings are also invaluable for diagnosing missile problems. It is important to determine firing geometry as well as ranges, and target maneuvering history, in order to interpret the test results properly. The satellite and isometric view is also good for working out target G as well as estimating missile speed and g. You should also utilize standard fixed firing profiles and engagement geometries to tweak the missile. That way, you will always have a correct baseline for comparison.

### Radar Changes (RP3)

Introduction

Changes were made to all vehicle and missile radars. Sylvain G. discovered the details of how the radars work and affect the AI, though others before him discovered what the FALCON4.RCD floats represent. The explanations of how the radar works here are credited to Sylvain.

F4 models the radar in two forms in the game. For the human player, the radar scan volume obeys the bar scan, azimuth coverage and beamwidth stipulated in the FALCON4.RCD file. As such, the entire azimuth and elevation limit is not scanned, which is realistic and is how a real radar behaves. For the AI, the radar scan volume is the entire azimuth and elevation limit. This is something that is coded inside the game, and not easily hex editable as discovered by Sylvain. In actual fact, had the AI been modeled with an accurate radar, the FPS penalty would have been tremendous.

What the RCD Floats Represent

RWR and RWR LOW Gain:

The RWR gain is used for normal RWR modes, while the RWR LOW gain is used for the RWR in the LOW mode. When the RWR detects that a target has spiked it, the slant range between the emitter and the target (the player) is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of the square of height difference and longitudinal range difference (Pythagoras Theorem). The value is then divided by two times the range of the emitter radar. If the resultant value is less than 0.8, the RWR (or RWR LOW) gain is multiplied by the difference between 1 and this value. Else, the RWR gain is multiplied by 0.2. The net value will be a float between 0.2 and 1. The RCD float will control if the emitter symbol is placed inside the inner or outer ring.

Chaff:

This float controls the chaff susceptibility of the radar to chaff. The routine for maintaining a radar lock takes into account target range from the emitter, and the chaff susceptibility. When the target releases chaff, F4 performs some computation using two hardcoded static arrays that is dependent on distance. The resultant float is then multiplied by the chaff susceptibility, to determine if the radar lock is maintained. As such, chaff susceptibility is also distance dependent. In general, the higher the float, the easier it will be to break radar lock, and chaff will remain effective even as the emitter closes in.

ECM, Beam Distance:

This controls the distance at which ECM or beaming will become ineffective. For example, if a radar has a range of 32 nm against a target, and the ECM and beam distance floats are 0.1 and 0.2 respectively, then ECM will break the radar lock unless the target is within 3.2 nm of the radar. Similarly, the target can break the radar lock by beaming as long as the emitter is more than 6.4 nm away.

Range, Look Down Distance:

Range is the radar range in feet. The detection range for target are computed as follows:

Detection Range = 1.25 × Radar Cross Section × Radar Range

Look down distance is a radar range multiplier, used when the target is more than 5 degrees below the emitter. This represents the look down performance of the radar. For example, for a radar with a range of 32 nm against the F-16, in a look down situation, if the Look Down Distance float is 0.5, then it will only detect the F-16 at 16 nm.

Sweep Time:

This is the time interval in milliseconds for the radar to refresh the target track. For example, for a sweep time of 3000, the radar will refresh the target track every 3 seconds to check if the target is still detected and locked.

All the other RCD floats are self explanatory.

Changes Made

Changes were made to all radars, based on public information available on Jane’s Avionics, Jane’s Radar and Electronic Warfare, and other sources such as the USN Radar and Electronic Warfare Handbook. Information was produced using radar equations as far as possible, before being used to modify the RCD floats. Radar performance are understandably sensitive information and not publicly available. Hence, ECM performance are deduced by examining the state of the technology, and whatever information available publicly. F4 does not model ECCM modes as they should be, and neither does F4 model the full effects of ECM. ECM in F4 will only result in the radar lock being broken, but will not result in false targets, etc.

You will find a big difference between different radars now. For example, you will not be able to pick up targets with the F-5E or the MiG-19 and MiG-21 in a look down situation, as these aircraft are equipped with pulse radars that lack a look down capability. In addition, beaming will not be effective against such aircraft, as it does not utilize the Doppler gate.

Chaff and ECM resistance is also changed, with older radars being more susceptible to ECM and chaff, and newer radars being more resistant. Beaming is also more effective now and closer to actual radar performance. Before this, beaming was ineffective in F4.

If you need to understand electronic warfare and how radars work, we have used the following information sources. This is not an exhaustive list that we have used, but only a selection:

1. Jane’s Avionics 1998-99

2. Jane’s Radar and Electronic Warfare 1998-99

3. Jane’s All The World Aircraft 1998-99

4. Jane’s Aircraft Upgrade 1998-99

5. USN Electronic Warfare and Radar Engineering Handbook, available at http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil

6. Journal of Electronic Defense, http://www.jedonline.com

7. AFP 51-45: Electronic Combat Principles, September 1987, available at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/cdpc/pubs/AF/Pamplets/p0051050.pdf

### Missile Changes (RP3)

Some minor missile changes were made to SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, SA-9, SA-13, SA-19, and Nike Hercules. The maximum allowable AOA and sideslip were reduced after a re-evaluation and testing of these missile’s maneuverability. The SA-5 now has a minimum engagement range of approximately 3-4 nm, and it is now possible to out-maneuver the missiles such as SA-2, SA-3, and Nike Hercules by executing a hard 6-7g turn into the missile when timed correctly.

### The “Fly Any Plane” Fix (RP3)

This modification typifies the spirit of cooperation and sharing of knowledge that exists in the Falcon 4.0 community. Someone on the Delphi falcon4 forum posted a note on how to simply text edit a file in the campaign folder that would allow you to join any squadron in a campaign. Unfortunately, we cannot remember that user’s name, as that user posts rarely - we should thank him for his find and subsequent sharing of information.

The excitement of the discovery overwhelmed those involved in exploiting it. Very quickly, this information was passed on to Marco Formato who discovered how the numbers were related to the Falcon4 file structure to identify F-16s. Rhino, then edited the file to include all the aircraft squadrons in the campaign. Later this was modified by Leo Rogic to include the helicopter squadrons as well.

Marco then discovered that he could edit the Falcon 4.0 executable to "skip" the check for an F-16 before the human flew his aircraft. Hence, one can now jump into ANY active squadron and await the campaign sortie generator to fly in the squadrons in campaign OR TE. This now allows adversarial multiplayer with one team flying for the OPFOR and another team for NATO. This also created a huge push for players to begin to correct the flight models, cockpits, and ordnance loads of the other aircraft in the game.

To fly as any other aircraft in RP3, one must only start a campaign or TE and look at the different airbases that are available for tasking in the theatre window in the upper right-hand corner of the mission wrapper screen. If you click on one of the active airbases, you will see the squadrons available for tasking at that airbase. Then, if you click on one of the squadrons that are listed, you will see the different aircraft available to you. If you start the mission at this point, you will have joined as a member of that squadron, and the planes that squadron flies will be available to you.

### Changes to Air Units (RP3)

The air units (squadron size) used in F4’s campaign by default are 24 aircraft in size. Recent research has discovered that Russian squadron sizes are in-fact smaller. Information gathered from references in the 80's show Russian bomber units of only nine aircraft. Russian fighter and fighter-bomber units are typically between 12-15 aircraft in size. Looking at current force structures of the Hungarian Air Regiments used in Kosovo confirms these numbers.

In fact, even US squadrons have reduced in size, with the average USAF fighter squadron now with 18 aircraft and not 24. In some cases, you can still find larger sized squadrons but in most situations, you will find smaller unit sizes.

Other aircraft unit sizes are surprisingly small too. It is a matter of simple math - there are 606 C-130 aircraft in 40 squadrons. This averages out to be 15 aircraft per squadron and not 24. ROK, DPRK, CHINA and the rest are assumed to use their allied squadron organizations, which means that they adopt the squadron sizing constructs of their “big brothers” – the US and Russia.

We also know that Falcon 4.0 does not, and probably could not, do a Korean War on a 1-for-1 basis. Over 200 J-5 aircraft (Mig15, 17 types) are not even depicted, but since we have now allowed the MIG19 to perform the same missions as the J-5, we have accommodated and implemented a lost but vital part of a war in Korea. Numerical superiority in the DPRK is prevalent in the number of squadrons available in F4 – it currently does a good job of showing more DPRK units than NATO. Chopper units in the real world in some cases are actually much larger than F4 allows. However, the attack helicopter units on both sides are well represented.

Although maintenance and repair is a critical issue, it was not used for consideration. Poor countries sometimes have such a poor military budget that they just cannot keep their aircraft flying. It is arguable that of the 60 or so MiG-29s the DPRK has, only about 30-40 are combat capable at any one time. Most of the DPRK fleet is older, outdated, and near museum pieces from the 50's and 60's. Although the fleet has been modernized through the years, and is rumored to actually be licensed builders of the MiG 29, the DPRK does not throw away any aircraft. An air war in Korea will still consist of MiG 15s, even today.

The campaign force slider can change the number of aircraft in a campaign slightly. In building these units, we recommend a middle slider setting to get the most realistic known squadron size. The force slider is bugged in that it will not stay where you put it. Move the slider one notch to the right and it will then move to the center position.

The UCD (unit) modifications were built with force reductions representing real world known
aviation unit sizes. Where unknown, we used “lie” units - the DPRK would use Russian types and ROK would use US types. Force sliders assumed to be centered with no more than 25% changes from low to mid or mid to high.

### Changes to Ground Units (RP3)

Falcon 4.0 allows a limited number of vehicles to occupy a battalion (basic unit structure in F4 – also represented as a single UNIT entry in the UCD). The maximum number of vehicles an F4 battalion can hold is 48. There are far more vehicles in a real battalion, but unfortunately we cannot include every vehicle that a battalion would normally include.

The ratio of non-combat (trucks, etc.) to combat vehicles (tanks, IFVs) is now quite balanced with RP3. In addition, different nations organize their battalions differently. We are lucky that in some cases, eastern forces (DPRK, China) tend to copy the Russian model. Western units (ROK) in F4 copy the US model. There is a significant difference in the amount of combat vehicles included a Russian maneuver unit and a US maneuver unit. Russian units tend to have 30 combat vehicles while US units would typically have 58. What Falcon allows is a decent representation of Russian type units, while only allowing about 2/3 of a US style unit.

The modifications incorporated into RP3 are meant to bring the battalions into a "realistic" representation of their real world counterparts, and to balance the ratio between the different types of units.

We have also found that the force ratio slider has an impact on the amount of these vehicles when deployed. This could have potentially serious effects, as you could now inadvertently leave significant vehicles out of the unit by moving the slider one way or the other. Imagine a Mech task force with no tanks! We had originally designed these units around how they would typically deploy, as we knew that F4 moved them in column formations. Now we must arrange them based on slider settings. Slider 0 would only use vehicles in UCD slots 0-6. Slider position 6 will use ALL the vehicles resident in the UNIT UCD record. When you create your campaign difficulty settings, please be aware that the center setting is based on "most accurate size" for both ground and air units.

Example: A US Armor battalion has approximately 58 tanks. In F4 if the unit were totally pure with tanks, it could only have 82% of its full strength. However it is typical that at least one company of tanks gets cross attached to a mech battalion and one company from that mech battalion gets attached to that Armor battalion. Now we have 42 tanks, and 14 IFVs or 12 platoons of tanks and four platoons of IFVs. Also hindering our effort is that Falcon will not allow you to place more than three vehicles in a UCD entry slot and the US units deploy in platoons of four. Therefore, we now end up with cutting the US unit back further as each "slot" in F4 can be called a platoon. But with all the support vehicles that are still needed like scouts, mortars, air defense attachments, trucks, and HUMWVEEs, the US battalion is shrunk in combat power even further.

### Falcon4 "Campaign Priorities”

List of "Target Types" in "Priorities":

- Aircraft

- Air Fields

- Air Defenses

- Radar

- Army

- CCC

- Infrastructure

- Logistics

- War Production

- Naval Bases

- Armored Units

- Infantry Units

- Artillery Units

- Support Units

- Naval Units

List of "Mission Types" in "Priorities":

- OCA

- SAM Suppression

- Interdiction

- CAS

- Strategic Strike

- Anti Ship

- DCA

- Reconnaissance

"Target Type" - "Mission type" pairings:

OCA

If "OCA" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Aircraft" or "Air Fields" or "Radar" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would schedule:

- OCA strikes (against army bases that house helicopter units)

- OCA strikes (against airstrips)

- OCA strikes (against highway airstrips)

If "Aircraft" or "Air Fields" or "Radar" are selected then the Campaign generator would additionally schedule:

- Sweeps (against airborne targets)

- OCA strikes (against army bases that house helicopter units)

- OCA strikes (against radar sites - rare)

- OCA strikes (against airbases)

- OCA strikes (against airstrips)

- OCA strikes (against highway airstrips)

Note: If "Air Fields" are present as "Target Types" both "OCA" and "Strategic

Strike" must exist for "Mission Types"

SAM Suppression

If "SAM Suppression" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Air Defenses" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.

- No missions scheduled

If "Air Defenses" are selected then the Campaign generator would schedule:

- SEAD strikes (against SAM/AAA units)

Interdiction

If "Interdiction" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Air Defenses" or "Armored Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" or "War Productions" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.

- No missions scheduled

If "Air Defenses" or "Armored Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" or "War Productions" are selected then the Campaign generator would schedule:

- Interdiction missions (against SAM/AAA units)

- Interdiction missions (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)

- BAI missions against (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)

- Interdiction missions (against industry)

Note: If "War Productions" are present as "Target Types" both "Interdiction" and

"Strategic Strike" must exist for "Mission Types"

CAS

If "CAS" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Armored Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.

- No missions scheduled

If "Armored Units" or "Infantry Units" or "Artillery Units" or "Support Units" are selected then the Campaign generator would schedule:

- CAS missions (against Armored/Infantry/Artillery/Support units)

Strategic Strike

If "Strategic Strike" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Air Fields" or "Army" or "CCC" or "Infrastructure" or "Logistics" or "War Productions" or "Naval Bases" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.

- No missions scheduled

If "Air Fields" or "Army" or "CCC" or "Infrastructure" or "Logistics" or "War Productions" or "Naval bases" are selected then the Campaign generator would schedule:

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against airbases)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against army HQ's - rare)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against CCC - rare)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against bridges)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against depots - rare)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against industry)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against naval bases - rare)

- Strike/Deep Strike/Bombing missions (against airbases)

Note: If "Air Fields" are present as "Target Types" both "OCA" and "Strategic

Strike" must exist for "Mission Types" (see #1 OCA for more)

Anti Ship

If "Anti Ship" is selected as "Mission Type" and there are no "Naval Units" selected in "Target Types" the Campaign generator would not schedule any mission.

- No missions scheduled

If "Naval Units" were selected then the Campaign generator would schedule:

- Anti Ship missions (against ships - rare)

DCA

There is no need for "Target Type" in DCA. When selected the Campaign generator would automatically schedule:

- CAP missions (against airborne targets)

- Intercept missions (against airborne targets - rare)

Reconnaissance

There is no need for "Target Type" in Reconnaissance. When selected the Campaign generator would automatically schedule:

- Reconnaissance missions

Further Explanations:

#1 User can only influence "package type missions"

List of "Mission Types" in "Campaign Priorities":

- OCA

- SAM Suppression

- Interdiction

- CAS

- Strategic Strike

- Anti Ship

- DCA

- Reconnaissance

User only has influence on package type missions (i.e. the main mission on which the package builds upon and does not influence at all on sub-package flights.

Therefore, even if you disable "SAM Suppression" in "Mission Types" but still have "Strategic Strike" enabled you would get strike packages which still include "SEAD Escort" flights. The only thing you would not get is the "SEAD Strike" as "Mission Type".

#2 Package interconnection

Although, in "Strategic Strike" or "OCA Strike" packages (for example) itself there are not "SEAD Strike" and "Sweep" flights - they do EXIST!

The F4 Campaign generator would create those "SEAD Strike" and "Sweep" flights - but as SEPARATE PACKAGES.

In order to have "Sweep" missions you need to set "OCA" and "Aircraft", and to have "SEAD Strike" you need to have "SAM Suppression" and "Air Defenses" set.

Here is quick summary of bad things in this approach by F4 Campaign generator.

a) ToT (Time on Target) problem:

For such combination of "Sweep" package + "SEAD Strike" package and, finally, "OCA Strike" package the ToT would be the same.

This is bad since (IMHO) "SEAD Strike" and "Sweep" packages would have to be several minutes earlier there to clear up the path.

b) "Campaign Properties":

Be VERY careful with setting up those. If you mess up there you would get deep penetration packages without "Sweep" and "SEAD Strike" packages to accompany. That way you would end up with virtually suicide strikes.

#3 PAKs

-------

Note that selecting PAKs also plays a big role here. In other words, this is important because in some PAKs some targets might or might not exist at the moment (you can task F4 Campaign generator NOT to attack certain PAKs at all).

Examples:

#1

OCA = 100%

SAM Suppression = 0%

Interdiction = 0%

CAS = 0%

Strategic Strike = 0%

Anti Ship = 0%

DCA = 0%

Reconnaissance = 0%

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

= 100

100/100 = 1 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 1% of all missions scheduled.

All scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA.

In other words, 100% of all missions would be OCA flights.

#2

OCA = 100%

SAM Suppression = 0%

Interdiction = 0%

CAS = 0%

Strategic Strike = 0%

Anti Ship = 0%

DCA = 100%

Reconnaissance = 0%

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

= 200

100/200 = 0.5 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 0.5% of all missions scheduled.

All scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA and DCA.

In other words, 50% of OCA and 50% DCA flights would be scheduled.

#3

OCA = 100%

SAM Suppression = 0%

Interdiction = 0%

CAS = 50%

Strategic Strike = 0%

Anti Ship = 0%

DCA = 100%

Reconnaissance = 0%

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

= 250

100/250 = 0.4 => each percentage point in "Mission Types" carry 0.4% of all missions scheduled.

All scheduled missions that F4 Campaign generator would do will be OCA, DCA and CAS.

In other words, 40% of OCA, 40% DCA and 20% of CAS flights would be scheduled.

### Campaign "Force Ratios Slider"

The maximum number of vehicle slots (the number of vehicle in one entry can be 3 at max) is 16 (0-16) in units.

The principle of "Force Ratios Slider" is very simple indeed:

Harder Gameplay Easier Gameplay

(MIN) (MIDDLE) (MAX)

| | | | |

Player - used vehicle slots 0-7 0-9 0-11 0-13 0-15

Player - number of vehicle slots (8) (10) (12) (14) (16)

Enemy - used vehicle slots 0-15 0-13 0-11 0-9 0-7

Enemy - number of vehicle slots (16) (14) (12) (10) (8)

Note1: Please use proportional font in order to see the table in right way (use the copy & paste to some editor if all other options fail)

Note2: Enemy side is always at "Left" regardless of flag shown (this is important to know when flying for DPRK/China/Russia)

Note3: Some slider settings can't be obtained so you have to move slide one notch left/right and re-enter Campaign "Force Ratios Slider in order to achieve desired settings

Therefore, please note that iBeta recommends that "Force Ratio Sliders" in campaign are properly adjusted only when they are in the middle. This is the only setting where realistic (real world) sizes for ground and air units are set.

### Density Slider

#1 - "Density Slider" effectively turns OFF the vehicles inside unit from 3D combat. They simply do not exist in our 3D flying world and they can't be engaged or engage us or other AI vehicles (air/land/sea).

#2 - When visible vehicles in unit are destroyed the previously invisible vehicle replaces it's place in our 3D flying world.

#3 - The "Density Slider" selects percentage of vehicles inside unit that are shown in 3D world. This number can or can not be "rounded up" with vehicle slot (i.e. if some vehicle slot holds 3 vehicles certain "Density Slider" setting can select only 1 or 2 from it).

#4 - The "Density Slider" percentage varies a lot and I couldn't decipher exact formula - but overall it looks like triangle.

Please not that maximum number of vehicles per unit is 48 (16 vehicle slots x 3).

Below is example of generic unit that has 48 (16x3) vehicles in it:

"Density Slider"

(Combined number of vehicles for "Density Slider")

Vehicle Slot 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

0. (3x) 1 (6) 2 (7) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

1. (3x) 1 (6) 2 (7) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

2. (3x) 2*(7) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

3. (3x) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

4. (3x) 3 (15) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

5. (3x) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

6. (3x) 4 (21) 5 (33) 6 (48)

7. (3x) 5 (33) 6 (48)

8. (3x) 5 (33) 6 (48)

9. (3x) 5 (33) 6 (48)

10. (3x) 5 (33) 6 (48)

11. (3x) 6 (48)

12. (3x) 6 (48)

13. (3x) 6 (48)

14. (3x) 6 (48)

15. (3x) 6 (48)

* = the vehicles in this slot were not all shown

#5 There is special variable "Rad Vcl" in unit window (look in "F4 Editor"). This variable holds the number of radar vehicle slot. This is necessary because F4 must have fully functional units even at lowest "Density Slider" setting.

In other words even if radar vehicle of a SAM unit is positioned low in unit slots the F4 overrides the otherwise triangular "shape" of used slots (see #4 above) and uses the vehicle slot marked by "Rad Vcl" even at "Density Slider" = 1.

Below is example of "Nike Hercules ADS" unit in iBeta RP2.1 (Rad Vcl=9):

"Density Slider"

(Combined number of vehicles for "Density Slider")

Vehicle Slot 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

0. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2 (5) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

1. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2 (5) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

2. Nike ADS (1x) 1 (4) 2 (5) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

3. Nike ADS (1x) 2 (5) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

4. Nike ADS (1x) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

5. Nike ADS (1x) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

6. Fuel Truck (1x) 5 (12) 6 (13)

7. Jeep (3x) 5 (12) 6 (13)

8. M977 (2x) 5*(12) 6 (13)

9. Nike Radar (1x) 1 (4) 2 (5) 3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (12) 6 (13)

* = the vehicles in this slot were not all shown

Conclusion

In order to get all ground/sea units in proper way (i.e. as they are designed to be) the user MUST play F4 with "Density Slider" at 6.

We know that this is hard blow for many users who manipulated this "Density Slider" to get better FPS but that's how the things are... sorry boys...

### Time Acceleration Findings in TE and Campaign

While we were testing F4 we noticed that time acceleration plays very, very BIG role in how statistical fight is resolved in TE and campaign.

Note: There are essentially 2 kinds of combat in F4. Combat done in our 3D world and statistical fight (when you, just observe symbols on Korea map).

Our conclusions are quite shocking:

Even though having a PIII-600 and 256 MB of RAM, we found the accelerated time speeds higher than 16x (32 seems to be the "border") to not be usable.

What this means is that the AI actions are EXTREMELY limited with such high speed, and the AI seems NOT to hit much of anything.

Try this for yourself in simple TE of with Campaign. Watch the statistical fight in map view with speeds <=16x and observe how suddenly AI starts to score hits in missions and how the targets get damaged/destroyed.

This is simply not happening with accelerated times of x32 and x64.

Therefore our strong suggestion is not to run campaigns at accelerated times faster than 16x.

### A-10 Modifications (RP3)

During the RP3 process, we were able to obtain access to some excellent material regarding the A-10. With the new “Fly and Plane” patch, human pilots are now allowed to jump into the cockpit of the Hog. We realize the importance of further developing the realism of the A-10. While there are additional areas that will need to be explored (flight model has not be modified for RP3), we have addressed many concerns. Below are just a few:

o The Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) was changed to 51,000 lbs

o The fuel load was adjusted to 10,700 lbs

o The “roles” that the A-10 performs (what the campaign ATO generator schedules the A-10 to execute) were adjusted to include those roles traditionally performed by the A-10: CAS, Interdiction, BAI, and FAC. No more will the A-10 be scheduled to fly OCA missions against airbases or anti-shipping sorties.

o The biggest change is regarding the A-10s is legal loadouts. The A-10 has 11 hardpoints (five on each side with one on the centerline). With all these hardpoints loaded, the issue became one of weight and maneuverability. With a MTOW of 51,000, if all of the 11 hardpoints were loaded up by the campaign auto-loadmaster, the A-10 would far too often be overloaded – exceeding its MTOW. In F4, when a plane exceeds it MTOW, it will not take off – it is just not smart enough to balance the load accordingly.

o Our research also recognized that a combat operational A-10 NEVER goes fully loaded on all hardpoints, even if the weight comes in under the MTOW. The reason is maneuverability. As most of you already know, the A-10 is not a very fast plane – it relies on its maneuverability to perform well at low altitudes. A combat operationally A-10 typically loads stores on all hardpoints except HPs 2/10 and 5/7. There are other reasons besides weight for not loading ordnance on those hardpoints: interference with the wheel wells and missile exhaust blowback.

o Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we have chosen to remove HPs 2/10 and 5/7 from the A-10. We think you will find the A-10 now performs in a much better capacity than it did before, both as an AI plane and when you fly it yourself.

o Even though we removed several hardpoints, we made it a point to make sure that the remaining hardpoints could carry all the ordnance that they could legally carry, including weapon type and numbers. We have even included LGBs, which typically are not used on the A-10 (due to the roles they perform, and the altitudes they normally perform those roles from).

o Typically, on an A-10, two AIM-9s are carried on HP 1 and one ALQ-119/131 is carried on HP 11. The AIM-9s are for self-protection and the possible helo that gets in the way. Unfortunately, the hardpoint logic included in F4 does not like non-symmetrical loadouts. Even though we have specified that the ONLY store that can be carried on HP 1 is the AIM-9, the F4 auto-loadmaster will not load them up, as it selects the ALQ by default FIRST for HP 11. The auto-loadmaster will not load up two ALQs, but it will not load up the AIM-9s either. It is legal to add the AIM-9s manually, but the loadmaster will not do it for you. This is a problem we are still trying to overcome.