Manny

Hey Goyyaaaa, be nice lol. Well I broke out the Flaming CLiffs 1.1 manual and commence my depths into agonizing brain cramming ... :(

Alfa, I love you so much buddy hehe. Well right, manual, what is that? LOL seriously I have never read the LO_MAC manual. I am so accustomed to ED's product from the Su-27 Demo and the Flanker 2.0 Manual I only consult the quick start guide or the like for updates to key commands. Ok I need to read the manual .. bummer :icon_frow

No seriously, what manual? Is it on the Flaming Cliffs CD? If so then I shoul dprob read it lol

MAnual? What is a manual? lol I know the Su-25T well I simply did not understand why, if the chute is popin out back end the cover would be open.

Hey notice how when u load the Su-25T Free flight that the bird looks like it has cut-outs for a second seat trainer?

The Su-25T is so graceful, such smooth lines and curves, it is more graceful than the Hog but can be brute too. Ok nuff kiddin round, say what is that tailboom just past the horizontal stab that has a cover which opens. Also, what is the pod built into the vert stab that also ejects chaff and Flares? Thx for ya help.

I am highly offended that an F-16 took out a MiG-29 :icon_frow Poor MiG-29, never had a chance. I wonder if that MiG saw the clouds, and the sun, and dreamed that someday, he would forever be on patrol? I :icon_jook to the destroyed MiG-29. May you rest in pieces, burned out in some junk pile forever!

Wolverine, surely you jest unless the Navy has made a rash decision to toss all their F-14s overboard immediately.

GG, I am keenly aware of this and since ED will not model solely Russian aircraft, perhaps they are willing to be just as innovative as Microprose who modelled the F-14, etc. for example.

Goya, I am not really fixated on this point, I simply want to see LO-MAC become more than these simple-minded F4:AF Pit Trainer fanbois think it is. There is a lot of potential LO-MAC has and it can be harnessed by what ED does in the near future. I also don't wanna move away from ED because another sim provides me more than what Ed could.

Hehe ... Nahh I just don't wanna wait till some title like fighter Ops comes along and does what ED could do. As I wrote, I followed ED through the Su-27 Demo so I am quite pleased with what thay have done thus far. I would like to see more innovation to LO-MAC. The possibility to implement what has not been done before or in a long time.

Lol Yello, only those the US government and Foreign governments had no problem exposing. There is still much classified about the F-16 today that will not be released even under FOI regulations. I just can't wait till the F-14 is scrapped in preference for JSF and weget the damn manuals at last finally.

Negative. Need to know basis pard and I have zero need to know, zilch, nada, niet, no need to know. Other than that, I could not divulge the info to you but could to an authorized third party if I have permission. My Brother can not relate to me anything about the F/A-18 that is not public domain either. That goes for every pilot. Though for some reason I suspect it depends upon what info and how much. Some simes are far to accurate in my opinion to believe the developer is working off Google. Janes had access because Janes has been in the mil business for some time, have operatives in government, and Janes is totally connected. Janes had permission to divulge the info to Electronic Arts. This is not necessarily preferred but hey the F/A-18 E is very nice sim.

Classified to an extent. Also, there is much information known about the F-14D, its' weapons, its' role, its' mission, its' capabilities, present anf past, the radar iw well known as well. There may not be specific information like how wide is the azimuth search and how much can it be slewed but a trip to Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender and you have a lot of information available right there. Come on F-14 is such a nice aircraft and good challenge for the Su-27... all disrespect intended for the F-15 lol

I would like to know, in this thread, why ED is opposed to developing certain aircraft? ED stated they are working on Two-seat code and they have Flight Manuals to several aircraft. I understand they nned TAC manuals but in the absence of this information, is it not possible to work around that, perhaps consult with real world pilots operating the aircraft, etc.? It has been suggested the F/A-18 be modelled as a preferred choice aircraft. I think not. Where is ED's vision, their imagination, their unique approach to developing LO-MAC? I would like ED to chime in. I have followed their progress since the Su-27 Demo and I would really like to see their sim not become another Janues USAF, another Janes F/A-18, another Falcon 4, another copy of something that already exists. What about the F-14, the Mirage 2000, something other then the norm. This is driving me batty :rolleyes:

If it is still classified, negative. Certain parts of the document may be classified as secret and since I no longer have a secret clearance, negative. Besides, it is on a need to know basis and I have no need to know lol cause I don't want to see that aircraft modelled by ED. BTW, the F-16 TAC is still classified as well is it not? If so, well the aircraft is so widely exported, those who have access to it did so by other means, not through the US but likely through other export countries or perhaps through a US fighterpilot who assisted in the design of Falcon 4. Who knows.

Lol Yello that is not what I am stating. They worked around those limitations, brought on consultants, i.e. real pilots, former pilots, etc. did what they had to present a realistic representation of what it is like to operate those military aircraft and not make excuses. You may not want the F/A-18 C/D manuals since the E/F Models are already developed and in operation. Also, Patricks Aviation website contains the F/A-18 manual as well. In my mind, it won't matter what you send to ED. It is up to them to perform the work required to develop the aircraft and I am convinced they would rather take the easy way out and do the F-16 and mod their MiG-29.

Yellonet, if you believe that statement, then I have some beach-front property for you in Oaklahoma. To begin, it is doubtful my Brother has a Secret Clearance to access that information so mute point, I would not ask my brother anyway since he has no access to F-14 information. He is at NAS Lemoor in California instructing on F/A-18s. I had a secret clearance once but I am sure I cannot access that info anyway. Besides, since when does classification have anything to do with modelling an aircraft? It hasn't stooped developers who don't use that as an excuse to develop still classified systems. Look at Janes EA, they modelled the Longbow, Strike Eagle, hell that stuff is still classified.

Ok Yellonet, have any idea where it is? I will perform a search for it or ask my brother who is an F/A-18 pilot if he can get me one. If you or I can locate it, then the smoking gun is in ED's pocket. Either blaze away with it or drop the proverbial ball but it would be clear then that ED has no excuse not to model the F-14D.

Olgerd, yes you should run faster, toward the development of the F-14 using the Flight Manual available at Patrick's Aviation Website and the Two Seater technology from BritGlider. http://www.patricksaviation.com/files.php Well done, good job, I look forward to it. :icon_jook

KungFu I disagree with you. If anything, it would encourage ED to be innovative, creative, and not simply "follow the crowd". This is an opportunity ED should jump on. The F-14 is not highly simulated like the F-16 or F/A-18 and even being a two-seat aircraft would encourage ED to use Brit's Cooperative play code. These are simply excuses, not legitimate reasons to avoid developeing the F-14. Also, the Flight Manual is freely available at Patrick's Aviation Website, files section. Who cares if some areas are still classified. That didn't stop Microprose from developing F-14 Fleet Defender, still considered the de-facto standard for the F-14 on the PC.

NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1 US Navy F-14D flight manual (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1, dated February 1st, 1997). http://www.patricksaviation.com/files.php Olgerd, please point your browser accordingly. I think an F-14 would make a fine addition to LO-MAC particularly since that aircraft is the least modeled in the flight simulation genre. The F/A-18, like the F-16, is modeled to death and would certainly bore me. Of course the F-14 is a two-seater and that would , of course, encourage you to incorporate cooperative play ...

Hi Pudknocker, welcome to the LO-MAC forums. I will make an attempt to answer your questions. Hi, I am 14yr, and new to this sim. i really have enjoyed it. But I have a few questions 1. is there any hope of an official F-14 addon insted of the F-16? Highly unlikely. I would have preferred the F-14 myself. There is available the NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1 US Navy F-14D flight manual (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1, dated February 1st, 1997) at Patrick's Aviation Website, http://www.patricksaviation.com/files.php I glanced through this Pudknocker and it is highly detailed. However, I am certain ED took the easy way out and decided on the F-16 because it is highly exported and details of even classified information is available. 2. in the top_gun_v3 is there any way to swing the wings in mid-flight? If you are referring to a modification to LO-MAC to add a flyable F-14, I am not certain. When LO-MAC was Flanker 1.0, at the time a patch was released to make it 1.02, a mod was developed called ANYAC (Fly Any Aircraft). The F-14's wings were swept back using the command CTRL-P (Fold wings) but that was only possible on the ground sionce Flanker 2.0 implemented wing folding on it's Su-33 and MiG-29K. This may still be possible. 3. is there a way to fix the AfterBurners? Are you referring to the F-14 again? Technically that is an AI aircrfat made flyable. I highly doubt it. 4. Is there a better more F-14 "like" flight model ? Again, that is an AI aircraft made flyable. You may be able to update the model through further modification in the form of downloads. 5. should i just stop mesing with this mod ? That would be up to you. I have not mod'd my copy of LO-MAC. I would most enjoy the ability to operate other aircraft. I do not believe ED will focus on other aircraft except what is common to their flight line, i.e. MiG-29K and what everyone everyone else has already done, i.e. F-16. I own Falcon 4: Allied Force and I do not think ED will ever come close to modelling the F-16 in Falcon 4. I would like to see them put effort, in a new simulation, into unique approaches then cookie-cutter stuff already developed to death. Oh well perhaps in an entirely new sim unrelated to ED. Jet Thunder and Fighter Ops look promising.

Hehe Evil, sound slike the X52 is for you :D or perhaps the CH products that I continue to read are stable, reliable platforms though I do not like their throttle.

Was your sarcasm meter running when you made that statement? If not, then the Ka-50 is still flown as if there is an anti-torque rotor at the tail-end of the plane. Even though tourque is countered by the addition of a second main rotor, any changes in collective will still induce torque effect and will have to countered by applying collective (via the anti-torque pedals) in the opposite direction to counter rotation in order to maintain heading. If you ever had an opportunity to use Enemy Engaged: Comanche Vs. Hokum, you would understand the Hokum does still operate like a traditional helo. The difference is changes in collective do not have that pronounced an effect as compared to a very small tail rotor. I like the Ka-50 design and I am sure it will be fun and easier to fly than traditional helos. Of course I would like to see the Ka-52 and the cooperative cockpit introduced to the sim as well. Perhaps ED can take Brit's coop cockpit code and reintroduce it into the sim.