| Previous |

Page 5

Weapons & Countermeasures Modeling in Falcon 4.0:
Interview with Realism Patch Group's "Hoola"
by Paul Stewart

F16 Fighting Falcons

[Paul] Many of us in the F4 community typically assume that a real pilot's opinion on systems modeling is "gold." You have commented to me in the past that consultation with actual pilots can be valuable, but that there are also limits. Are pilots always the best source of information for things like seeker properties and missile kinematics, etc? Why or why not?

[Hoola] Yes and no. It can be very valuable to know things like how well it tracks, particularly for IR missiles, engagement ranges, etc. However, pilot comments must be supported by a lot of information that will allow the modeling to be done. It is quite useless to have a comment like "I think its range should be more" and then leave out the details on engagement geometry, speeds, etc., as it does not allow the problem to be pinpointed. Comments that include the relevant information such as "it should pull more lead under such circumstances" is useful to identify where the model can be improved. They fly with these missiles in their work, so they should know how it works. The problem comes when they do not supply enough information, or when they do not have first hand experience and knowledge of the system, but comment off the cuff.

[Paul] Which is why we have a very experienced pilot in the RP Group that you designed these missiles with. You yourself once told me that "there are sheeps and there are goats" when it comes to pilots. John Simon is a former US Navy pilot and BFM Instructor, who you have worked extensively with for many months, as he collaborated with you on the missile modeling. You clearly think of him, and I quote, as "test pilot material." What is it that distinguishes collaborating with someone like him from what you would consider "a sheep"? :)

[Hoola] Mr. Simon has an eye for details, and he has a very good understanding of the engineering fundamentals of aircraft and system performance. His comments are always backed up by some engineering rationale and explanation. There are others who will just comment on a specific area and then not give any details, and when questioned, they stone wall and get defensive. John is able to state his case and put across a defense on why it should be so.

[Paul] So would it be safe to say that the missile modeling in RP4 represents a synthesis of engineering and pilot expertise?

[Hoola] Yes, you can say this.

[Paul] What has been your biggest challenge in getting all this to work in F4?

[Hoola] The compromises that are required to shoe-horn many variables into one that is represented by F4. Missiles are fairly easy, other than not being able to control Rmin properly. The biggest headache was with the radars. I had quite a lot of difficulty making all of it fit into the confines of F4, and particularly the jamming and ECCM part. There are so many techniques of ECM and ECCM, and all these have to be condensed into one "ECM float" in F4, so I had to somehow all fit it in and make some assumptions, and decide where and what to trade off. All said, ECM model in F4 is modeled more after noise jamming than deception, and I had to assume that the effect is similar, which isn't too bad.

Of course, there can be a lot of things to be improved, the question is when to stop. F4 has a lot of other stuff to it, and if we make everything totally accurate, the fps will be down to the single digits.

[Paul] In your view, how much closer is F4 to "the real deal" than before? What do you think some of the key features of the RP that have improved the sim?

[Hoola] F4 is definitely a lot closer to real deal than before. Of course there can be improvements, but as it is, my personal opinion is that it already replicates the experience of a fighter pilot fairly well, as I find that I have to consider more aspects in the game, such as my own IR signature, throttle management, intercept geometry, etc., and have to really pay attention to the engagement. With 1.08us, missiles almost never missed, and I can take no heed of limits and still get kills. With RP, especially in RP4, I have to be a lot more careful, and these are the same considerations pilots have. The key features are the AAA, better AI, and better models of avionics and weapons, and the better model of the air and ground war. The key thing is to model the experience of an F-16 pilot, and that I think RP captures pretty well.

[Paul] Given that you seem to work on this sim 24/7, do you actually play F4 yourself anymore? When you stop all this, do you think you will be able to go back and play it?

I haven't really played F4 for a long time without having part of my brain sub-consciously observing and seeing test results. I do fire up a mission or two once in a while and forget about testing, but really, all the free time is taken up on improving F4, not playing it. I should be able to get back and enjoy playing the game when I'm done with it. The game is a lot more realistic now, IMHO, and more enjoyable for me.

Click to join a discussion about this article.

 

| Previous |

Click Here for Printer Version

© 1997 - 2000 COMBATSIM.COM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.