Jump to content

This is not a poll...fantasy addon....

lerxster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Andrew_McP

Andrew_McP

Posted
Posted

1) Tornado, obviously. But then I'm never happier than when flying 50m off the ground into big trouble.

 

2) Hercules.

 

Incredibly flexible aircraft. Load it lightly and it can be thrown around the skies amazingly (didn't believe it until I saw it at an airshow... massive power to weight ratio when unloaded).

 

Very varied mission potential in a more developed gameplay engine. Imagine being able to load it up with an APC or a tank and go take over an enemy airfield. Heck, I'd settle for telling the AI to do that while I escort!

 

3) Harrier. Imagine the AFM applied to that airframe. Mastering that aircraft would be a really satisfying challenge. I'd probably never fight in it, just enjoy the flying. And imagine the formation flying that would be possible without the fear of imminent death.

 

4) Jaguar would be nice as a real change from the mainstrain, and I do like the Swedish jets... a Gripen or Viggen would be very nice.

 

5) Anything else except a furking F-16 or F/A-18. Been there, done that, read the book, saw the movie, bought the T-shirt, etc etc etc.

 

Andrew McP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew_McP

Andrew_McP

Posted
Posted
True enough... but then again, I don't remember anyone from ED ever claiming that "it can't be done" either ;)

 

Personally I've never seen what the big deal is about a second seat. I mean, it's only another view with some different instrumentation. It can't be *that* much of a problem.

 

Mind you, I've never seen LOMAC's source code. I suspect that after all this time it's not very pretty, and no doubt much of the uncommented code will have been written by people who left long ago. So maybe we just have to be grateful for whatever features they shoehorn in. :-)

 

I reckon they should just create an aircraft with the second seat cockpit that can fly "inside" the main aircraft without any collision detection. Then you can just use shift J (or whatever it is) to swap between the aircraft.

 

There you go, problem solved! ;-)

 

Andrew McP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lerxster

lerxster

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Lockheed-Martin F-104 Starfighter

 

canada16.jpg

 

Don't know if I would want the dubious job of flying the Witwenmacher ("widowmaker"), fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin") or Erdnagel ("ground nail", the official military term for a tent peg)...Doesnt sound that safe!

 

Looks great but not that safe to fly!:o

 

From here:

 

"In Luftwaffe service, the F-104G got a bad reputation because of the large number of accidents, many of them resulting in fatalities. Intensive flying operations with the Starfighter did not start in Germany until 1961, when only two crashes took place. There were seven crashes in 1962, 12 in 1964, and 28 in 1965, or more than two a month. By mid-1966, 61 German Starfighters had crashed, with a loss of 35 pilots. At the height of the crisis, the Starfighter accident rate peaked at 139 per 100,000 flying hours. As a result, the German press went into a feeding frenzy and the F-104G was given derogatory nicknames such as the "Flying Coffin" or the "Widowmaker", which brings to mind all of the flak that surrounded the Martin B-26 Marauder during World War 2. One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it. The press left many people with the impression that there was something intrinsically wrong with the F-104G, that it was just too difficult an airplane to fly for the new and relatively inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots. The high loss rate generated a flurry of criticism of the Bonn government, some critics claiming that the entire Starfighter program had been politically-motivated and should be cancelled outright."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MBot

MBot

Posted
Posted
Personally I've never seen what the big deal is about a second seat. I mean, it's only another view with some different instrumentation. It can't be *that* much of a problem.

 

Well, in real life there is a second seat in some aircraft because there is so much work to do. WSO/RIO is a full time job and the aircraft designers wouldn't have taken the penaltys of adding a crewman if he was only joyriding.

So in a sim you have to programm the very complex AI for a WSO that does a job equivalent as complex as the playes own job ( plus the AI for piloting/commanding the aircraft if the player wishes to be the WSO ). Then there is the difficult subject of interaction between the player and his WSO/pilot. Flying a 2-seater is team work and the creation of an interface for the player to interact with his WSO on a realistic level must be incredible complex.

I have the impression that the creation of the second cockpit 3d model/avionics and even the ability for dual controll in multiplayer, while being very much work, is the smallest problem in the creation of a 2-seater flyable compared to the AI subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caretaker

Caretaker

Posted
Posted
Well, in real life there is a second seat in some aircraft because there is so much work to do. WSO/RIO is a full time job and the aircraft designers wouldn't have taken the penaltys of adding a crewman if he was only joyriding.

 

Sure, but hey, Tornado, Longbow or Jane's F-15 managed this for a single player without feeling too dumbed down. Granted they didn't have quite the complex systems modeling that we're aiming at these days, but still... I could live with that if it means I get my Tornado back one day ;)

 

(But, and that's the other side, sticking to single seaters means the devs will never have to think about those issues at all.)

Caretaker

 

ED Beta Test Team

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew_McP

Andrew_McP

Posted
Posted
I have the impression that the creation of the second cockpit 3d model/avionics and even the ability for dual controll in multiplayer, while being very much work, is the smallest problem in the creation of a 2-seater flyable compared to the AI subject.

 

You might be right. But I honestly don't think the workload thing is a problem. That's why sim-god invented autopilot modes. Mind you, if they turned out to be anything like the modes in the 25T I wouldn't be trusting them much. :-)

 

In Tornado (has to be a benchmark for any 2-seat sim) the multiple autopilot modes meant you could fly whole missions from the back seat if you wanted. Obviously not all aircraft would have such advanced modes, but there should always be room in any sim for a little creativity. If an extra mode or two sneaked onto an aircraft that didnlt have them IRL, then it's a fair swap for not having two heads.

 

Multiplayer two-seat flying is a different kettle of fish though. That'd be tricky.

 

Andrew McP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dynamocl

dynamocl

Posted
Posted

Actually, I imagine it would be quite easy. Each plane is allocated two users, one in the front one in the back. Different cockpits, but very "do-able", infact thinking about it, the concept has already been in many games:

 

Operation flashpoint (gunner and pilot for the cobra and Apache)

Battlefield 2 (I know its an arcade game), same thing.

IL2 - one the pilot, one the back seat gunner.

 

If the game was solely multiplayer then there would be no problem (as long as people were willing to sit in both either seat). As statd before, its the problem in single player mode when you have to control both seats, or get the PC to do something - then us humans would always question the ability of the silicon pilot/WSOp/Navigator.

 

But there is always the Gr7 Harrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MBot

MBot

Posted
Posted

I agree, I think that the multiplayer part of a 2-seater is the smallest problem there is. It has already been done before.

 

I don't think that the "fly a 2-seater like a 1-seater" approach still works with the new realism approach ED is taking with the Ka-50. Since we are still talking about computer software, we can consider the WSO in sp as sort of part of the planes avionic suit, like a radar or FLIR. With that approach in mind, the WSO should be modeled with the same depth as the other aspects of the avionics ( wich will be extremly high in the Ka-50 as we hear ). Otherwise it would feel to me like the FM would model airflow over rivets and g-forces on screws but leave out modelisation of the wings.

 

With these thougts in mind it becomes clear that simulation of a single seater is preferable, altough 2-seaters would be technicaly doable, only with a much higher development effort. Personaly I think it is a pitty, because my most favourite A-G and A-A flyables would be 2-seaters ( Tornado IDS and F-14A respectivly ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperKungFu

SuperKungFu

Posted
Posted
Su-27 (updated model)

Su-33 (updated model)

MiG-29 (updated model)

MiG-29K

+

B747 (VC-25A) - US president

IL-96-300, IL-62M, Tu-154, Yak-40 - RU president

 

words from a true genius. Add one more to that list F-15 (updated model)...man this game would be awesome. I remember a classic mission from Jane's USAF where you protect air force one. Would love to see something similar like that again.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawg11

Hawg11

Posted
Posted
The MiG from Firefox.

 

Ah yes, the MiG-31 Firefox is capable of maintaining speeds of up to Mach-6. (Such a speed in a fighter would likely qualify the aircraft as an Interceptor. Similar to the MIG-25, built to catch the XB-70 Valkyrie)

 

The Firefox's most remarkable system is a weapons console controlled by the pilot's thoughts. Sensors in the pilot's helmet detect his neural impulses, and relay the commands to the fighter. Thus the pilot can launch his missiles without pressing a button. The moment he detects an enemy, he is already sending a missile toward it.

 

The Firefox is also a stealth fighter. Undetectable by radar, the Firefox can only be targeted by the heat of its enormous engines. To counter this, the Firefox carries a number of rear-firing explosives to neutralize pursuing missiles. (Much more effective then flares and chaffe used in most aircraft to fool infrared and radar guided missiles respectively.) Firefox's armament is rounded out by a pair of 30mm cannons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)#The_MIG-31_Firefox

05.jpg

Dave "Hawg11" St. Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...