DPS Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Dear Eagle Dynamics, Please, please, please could we get a new map area in the future so that we can get more out of the Su-33 naval fighter. A region bounded by 15 deg - 40 deg West and 45 deg - 60 deg North would be ideal. DPS.
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Yeah ... along with some submarines to protect ... Sounds like you need a completely different theater for it all ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SuperKungFu Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 We are getting some Georgian territory in Black Shark...but that doesn't really affect the Su-33. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I would like a sim were we could fly the Flanker as well as the Fulcrum. ED could model both the -27 and -33, as well as the MiG-29A (German and Russian) and the Mig-29C. Of course I would not mind an Eagle and a Hog either. All this set in some place not done before – like the Crimea region. Maybe later ED could model the Su-25T. With realistic Awacs and radar/AAM as well as a challenging sam/flak environment this would make quite a good sim. I believe this would be quite a good project for ED to do.
WhiskeyRomeo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 DPS; You sure you got your Geo-Coordinates right? A region bounded by 15 deg - 40 deg West and 45 deg - 60 deg North would be ideal.
GGTharos Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 He did ... that's pretty much a reasonable region for the kuz to operate in. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
WhiskeyRomeo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I just dont see the need to add a ocean only map 2000 NM from the Lock On theater of operations. Not even any Littoral areas to exercise Su-33s A2G capability in that suggested region. Sorry - I'd just as soon ED not waste any resources with that type of limited map.
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I beg to differ. Operating there would be akin to Yamato’s last cruise.
GGTharos Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Actually the Su-33 isn't supposed to be exercising any A2G capability. It's supposed to be quite exclusively bloowing things out of the sky, high and low. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
DPS Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 I suppose the region could be extended east for the 'ground pounders' to take in Stornoway (former F-4 base) and Shannon (former Russian refuelling stop), but how many man hours would be required to produce all that beautiful celtic terrain scenery?
Alfa Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Hi, I just dont see the need to add a ocean only map 2000 NM from the Lock On theater of operations. Not even any Littoral areas to exercise Su-33s A2G capability in that suggested region. What GG said :) . That region would pretty much constitute the Kuznetsov´s normal area of operation......which in turn should tell you something about the relevance of the Su-33's A2G capability ;) . Sorry - I'd just as soon ED not waste any resources with that type of limited map. Hmm - I dont think Eagle would consider an ocean-only map, but what "waste of resources"?. What makes a map extension resource demanding is the terrain surface, coast lines, roads and rivers, trees and buildings etc. The area DPS suggested is all sea and doesnt even have any coast lines, so as far as I can see the resources required would be limited to a new GUI option to load it as an alternative to the Black Sea map. Cheers, - JJ. JJ
WhiskeyRomeo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 What "waste of resources"? Making a new GUI option for a map that supports 1 aircraft type (Sorry; one-half aircraft = A2A only). So GG doesnt want any "submarines to protect" besides a non-submerging / non-attacking Kilo after all? No tweaks to the naval AIs? Or ASW mission for the Ka-27s? Hmmmmm... no Nato subs in the Atlantic? How Uber-Realistic is that? Maybe A2G for the -33 is wishful thinking. But so is the idea that the Kuz could traverse south of the Barents/Greenland/Norwegian Seas in any type of belligerent role. After all the hard work by ED on Flaming Cliffs & Black Shark and now you want them to build a map that doesnt support those 2 upgrades? I'm sorry but I hope ED looks takes a pass on a Su-33 only map and looks elsewhere to enhance the FC/BS experiance. Thats my opinion.
Alfa Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 What "waste of resources"? Making a new GUI option for a map that supports 1 aircraft type... Like I said I dont think something like that would be considered for that very reason, but as far as resources go there wouldnt be much to waste.....if I am not mistaking the current Black Sea map actually has sea below all the terrain surface as it is now. I fail to see how the introduction of a "region switch" option could be a waste of resources - in my opinion any new region for Lock-on/sequel, regardless of which, should come with such an option anyway......otherwise you could really talk about a waste of resources as it would mean discarding the years of development that went into the current region. ...(Sorry; one-half aircraft = A2A only). I guess that makes the F-15C only half an aircraft - or the A-10, or the Su-25, or the Su-25T....or the Ka-50? So GG doesnt want any "submarines to protect" besides a non-submerging / non-attacking Kilo after all? No tweaks to the naval AIs? Or ASW mission for the Ka-27s? Hmmmmm... no Nato subs in the Atlantic? How Uber-Realistic is that? Whats that got to do with anything?. I dont think you could accuse me of being indifferent about the issues with the naval aspect of Lock-on, but these would require quite a lot of development resources of their own and if we are talking about an actual naval sequel that would involve the things you mentioned, the resources would indeed be "wasted" if they were directed towards building an entirely new map with large landmass and complex terrain instead of the areas where they would really be needed. Maybe A2G for the -33 is wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking, but rather with what the Su-33 was intended to do for the Soviet/Russian navy - which does not involve air-to-ground missions. What you said was that the type of environment in which the Su-33 would normally operate, would be a bad option.....because it doesnt allow it to do missions it wouldnt do IRL for that very reason :rolleyes: But so is the idea that the Kuz could traverse south of the Barents/Greenland/Norwegian Seas in any type of belligerent role. Really? After all the hard work by ED on Flaming Cliffs & Black Shark and now you want them to build a map that doesnt support those 2 upgrades? No I dont. Firstly, as far as I am concerned the Black Sea region is fine even for naval operations......but other people seem to feel that it is some sort of major obstacle for doing anything at all about the naval side of the sim. Secondly, I only commented about the "resources" bit in connection with an "all-ocean" map - it would provide a very limited gameplay scope, but as far as I can see it would also require next to nothing to do.....i.e. not really a case of "building a map" or "wasting resources". Cheers, - JJ. JJ
WhiskeyRomeo Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I guess that makes the F-15C only half an aircraft - or the A-10, or the Su-25, or the Su-25T....or the Ka-50?In the Lock On World the Su-33 does have a fun and interesting A2G ability in the game. An ocean only map where half it's ability can't be exercised doesn't advance the state of the game in my opinion. So GG doesnt want any "submarines to protect" besides a non-submerging / non-attacking Kilo after all? No tweaks to the naval AIs? Or ASW mission for the Ka-27s? Hmmmmm... no Nato subs in the Atlantic? How Uber-Realistic is that? Whats that got to do with anything?.Misson Creep. DPS wants an ocean only map. GG wants submarines to protect. I want at least some more A2G options. If ED lets it be known they're thinking about DPS's map request a lot more people are going to want something added/changed/tweaked. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking, but rather with what the Su-33 was intended to do for the Soviet/Russian navy - which does not involve air-to-ground missions. What you said was that the type of environment in which the Su-33 would normally operate, would be a bad option.....because it doesnt allow it to do missions it wouldnt do IRL for that very reason :rolleyes: I said nothing of the sort. I said there wasnt any place on DPS's map to exercise the Su-33s A2G capability. If it's in the game - and increases the games "fun factor" - lets use it. Im not as concerned with any "IRL" issues. Really? Yeah, Really!
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Was I the only one who thought DPS was just having a laugh by asking for a new map of ALL ocean? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
Witchking Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 IMHO....ED should stick to finishing up the tweaks with the A2G stuff they are doing now. Get good AI for ground vehicles....etc....good WAFM, speedtrees etc.... naval sim wise....lockon is pretty basic....and very limited...I would rather let them finish one thing at a time before they start adding more stuff. MAINLY....REMEMBER ED....the dynamic campaign. Trust me....that will open doors to lock on. atleast as people mentioned....a small text file that outputs info from happenings in a mission...so swingkid's DC can go further. if not...triggers to simulate a DC..... Face it...the ME is becoming LOCK ON's weakest link. Its like ED does everything...then realises that they are too far in the code to change the campaign system. WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro | |A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|
DPS Posted April 3, 2006 Author Posted April 3, 2006 Water, water everywhere.....no, not having a laugh. Lock On is only equalled in the carrier ops department by PF and it would be nice to get more out of the Su-33. The naval side of the sim might be a bit weak, but if the opposing fleets are hundreds of miles apart I can live with that. A US and Russian carrier task force at opposite end of the Black Sea doesn't make good campaign/mission material.
Recommended Posts