Nevada theater elevated to "PMC Theater" status

Post by **Snake Man** » 2007-05-03 21:02:55

Nevada theater was today elevated to "PMC Theater" status, we moved the forum area into the PMC theaters category. Now we share much our love for Nevada, its been long time coming and finally got it done today.

Enjoy

marvin157th · Post by **marvin157th** » 2007-05-04 03:08:17

Snakeman,

Awesome stuff! Can't wait to see the end results of that theater.

Jody

Red Dog · Post by **Red Dog** » 2007-05-09 10:49:07

Me too ...
I take it it's time for me to work on airbases I guess.
let me finish Iran and this one will be next if that's ok with you Snake?

marvin157th · Post by **marvin157th** » 2007-05-09 16:00:42

RD,

I wonder what your thoughts are on realistic airbases VS different airbases but looks better?

What I mean, is forgetting real life data with regards to an airbase heading and inserting an airbase with a random heading but using more complex airbases that look better such as Seoul etc.?

I edited the Nevada theater for our squadron use. And although Las Vegas Int or Mc Carren have runways at a specific heading I used Seoul and Wonsan as they are bigger and more complex runways that look more like civilian int airports rather than the typical Falcon 2 lane airbases.

I'm all for realism, but I think I can do with an airport having a different and non-realistic runway heading but actually look the part more.

Same goes for UHF channels at civi airports. IIRC civi airports only use VHF channels, so I made the stations file only have working VHF channels instead of UHF channels to talk to the tower.

Jody

Red Dog · Post by **Red Dog** » 2007-05-10 09:09:49

Well Marvin,

It's always been a compromise between the reality and what F4 can offer. Since we have a very limited number of airbase type to choose from, my criteria has always been to take the closest runway orientation available.

That is motivated by the fact that if one day I have to do approach charts for that airport, then having the real world procedures rotated by 10 or 20° works fine and allows me to use real IAF and fix names.

Now if we decide to forget the closest rwy orientation and place a larger model airbase instead such as Seoul and Osan - then it will become a nightmare the day a chart set is created.

Now let's be honest, I won't create charts set for all PMC theater airbases, but my plans were to cover all of south Korea (done) main airbases in Balkan (pending) and Nevada for sure. I will also probably work on Europe when the time is right.

So I don't know, whenever possible, I could, but's it is not someting I have been doing in the past because hoenstly, I don't feel that the specific airbases in F4 are any better than the generic ones.

VHF, UHF difference is a great tip we can do. So far, the OF guys have always asked a UHF frequency but I don't mind inplementing the UHF only where it's really implemented.

Now if I start working on NEVADA airbases, you will see the number of airport dramatically decrease
It's a small theater and it doesn't need that many runways...
Better a few well chosen, well documented than a mass of airports close to one another
What would you say?

marvin157th · Post by **marvin157th** » 2007-05-10 09:40:33

RedDog,

I agree on the numbers. I want to do the tower name voices for that theater as long as there are only a few due to the amount of work. So I agree on cutting down the runways as we just don't need them.

That being said, I think we should ignor the realism of the airbases and put in more colourful and complex airbases to try and replicate big civi airports etc. Your NAV charts are cool and all, but they are not a critical part to the theater, not do they have to be accurate. What difference does it make if a runway is facing West when we can have a much more complex similar looking one that is faces North instead? After all, many airbases in other theaters are already not the exact headings due to what Falcon offers.

Jody

Red Dog · Post by **Red Dog** » 2007-05-10 10:03:15

It doesn't do any difference for you. It's a hell of a difference for the guy who has to create the chart (me)

When I can use the real charts to base my work on, it is really a plus. When I can't I have to create the procedure from scratch and it takes a lot longer and a lot more headaches.

I'll keep your AB idea in mind when I work on NEVADA. I confess I never try to replace a specific F4 airbase but i will try whenever I feel it's possible with Nevada.

marvin157th · Post by **marvin157th** » 2007-05-10 18:49:03

RD,

Let me ask you this?? Are your charts that essential to have them in Nevada??

Worse case scenario I can change the ABs myself, it is not hard. But I mean we don't have to have charts for every single theater? Besides it seems as though around here, most real fighter pilots don't even rely on charts. Even in Afghanistan the Dutch and the Canadian pilots said in the military world they never use their charts as they pretty much do what they want.

Don't get me wrong, your charts a nice piece of work for guys who want to use them, but I would much rather want to see a more complex looking theater with different types of ABs then one that has all these standard single and double lane ABs.

Jody

Red Dog · Post by **Red Dog** » 2007-05-11 08:22:09

Marvin,

Well I am in charge of the airbases in the PMC theater.
I read your remarks, I understood them and I said i will take care of it

Wouldn't that be enough?

I understand the need for denser airbases and I will do my best for that in Nevada. but most of the larger airbases there have very long runways, some have 6 or even 8 runways... in the US. In falcon, the maximum we have is 4 runways, 7500ft runway lenght... So compromises WILL be required. So since we have to do compromises, let's make sure the compromise we choose is the best one available to us.

As always I will document my changes here and I always listen to the comments, so stay tuned and be ready to make your comments according to my airbase work.

Post by **Snake Man** » 2007-05-11 14:03:20

And I see Red Dog opened new topic for this discussion at Airbase discussion for Nevada. so please continue there.

marvin157th · Post by **marvin157th** » 2007-05-11 18:49:26

RedDog,

Yes I understand you are in charge of the Airbases for PMC.

I am just giving you feedback from a person who has tonnes of experience with Falcon and have flown it since the beta team 1997. I was pretty sure these forums were for stating our ideas etc. Obviously it sounds like you are not that open to ideas, or more so debating them. Have fun, do as you please.

I already spoke with Bird last year, and with Snakeman before I left Afghanistan about doing the ATC voices for PMC as well.. So I thought I was sort of involved in this project as well, but it appears as though you have everything covered. Go a head and ensure everything is to your liking and works with your charts.

Jody

Red Dog wrote:Marvin,

Well I am in charge of the airbases in the PMC theater.
I read your remarks, I understood them and I said i will take care of it

Wouldn't that be enough?

I understand the need for denser airbases and I will do my best for that in Nevada. but most of the larger airbases there have very long runways, some have 6 or even 8 runways... in the US. In falcon, the maximum we have is 4 runways, 7500ft runway lenght... So compromises WILL be required. So since we have to do compromises, let's make sure the compromise we choose is the best one available to us.

As always I will document my changes here and I always listen to the comments, so stay tuned and be ready to make your comments according to my airbase work.

Red Dog · Post by **Red Dog** » 2007-05-11 19:06:13

Chill out Jody, read my answer again - get a cold beer and you will enventually realize you're totally out of place with your last message.