Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Hmmm...using inert munitions in a simluation...interesting. :music_whistling:

 

I have no desire for simulated weapons myself ... but i do understand where the original poster is coming from and I found it pretty interesting that a bunch of people laughed it off ... even hinted that he lacked intelligence .. when it seems to me that his thinking is much , much deeper than some others here. He wants to simulate training in a fighter jet ... hmmmm in what others think of as a video game. I think it was a smart post but probably not going to happen.

Posted

The desire to simulate training with inert weapons in a jet simualtor is not in itself laughable.

 

Suggesting that E.D. divert effort from improvements to the realism, accuracy and usability of the avionics/radar/flight models/AI/campaign editor/GUI etc.etc. when they're already delaying the release of LOBS is only understandable if the poster hasn't read the endless threads asking for these to be improved (Even better models of the Flanker & Eagle would have to come before this)

Cheers.

Posted

And I'll point out that there's a 'simulate' switch on these aircraft ... what is it ... 'safe', 'sim', 'arm'? ;)

 

Something like that. All in all not so hard to accomplish i think.

 

As for CATMs, I'm on the fence. They're doable. Is there a real point? It may be better to just use 'impotent' weapons, ie. they are unlimited, they do no damage, but you can always watch the battle in ACMI etc.

[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

Posted

The reality is though that in real life they only turn on 'sim' because they can't do what we can - fire "live" weapons at each other & not kill their budies

We can already turn on invulnerability & replay the battle - & no-one has to write any more code.

(And again - Do you think they should implement 'sim' before auto tracking of pdt in TWS for the eagle or after that but before WAFM ?)

Cheers.

Posted

'SIM' is but a part of the avionics suite. A Small one. I think they should implement it if they were updating avionics, as part of the weapons/fire control system, preriod ;)

 

It's not about modelling the switch, it's about modelling the system itself, which may in fact have additional functions (IIRC in F4 the SIM position is also used to jetisson stores)

 

I'm not going to argue with the logic you've laid out - I don't disagree. However as I said, this is about modelling a system of which SIM is just a part of, and as long as you're modelling the rest of the system, throwing that in isn't that much of a hassle.

[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

Guest Cali
Posted
The desire to simulate training with inert weapons in a jet simualtor is not in itself laughable.

 

Suggesting that E.D. divert effort from improvements to the realism, accuracy and usability of the avionics/radar/flight models/AI/campaign editor/GUI etc.etc. when they're already delaying the release of LOBS is only understandable if the poster hasn't read the endless threads asking for these to be improved (Even better models of the Flanker & Eagle would have to come before this)

 

 

BINGO some people do have a brain in these forums. I wasn't making fun of his post. ED has a lot on it's plate <---- (hmmmm where did I here that from) then to try to add this in.

Posted

Quote

"SIM' is but a part of the avionics suite. A Small one. I think they should implement it if they were updating avionics, as part of the weapons/fire control system, preriod

 

It's not about modelling the switch, it's about modelling the system itself, which may in fact have additional functions (IIRC in F4 the SIM position is also used to jetisson stores)

 

I'm not going to argue with the logic you've laid out - I don't disagree. However as I said, this is about modelling a system of which SIM is just a part of, and as long as you're modelling the rest of the system, throwing that in isn't that much of a hassle."

 

Agreed

Cheers.

Guest Cali
Posted

I'm not going to argue with the logic you've laid out - I don't disagree. However as I said, this is about modelling a system of which SIM is just a part of, and as long as you're modelling the rest of the system, throwing that in isn't that much of a hassle.

 

That would be a waste of time and money...maybe not much time, but that time could be used for something else useful. Like better color, weather, AFM and a ton of other stuff.

Posted

Training Weapon

 

non harm weapons for me its to make misions not aganst enemy but wid frendly

i can give him comands ,

i can lock him wid missile pods or guns

like "task" in the game : awacs,recon,refuling,ground attack...

we can ad line "Training"

when i bilding missions i'm make a long one :

in real world new pilots fli night flights

in the orly morning the take off in the dark and landing after sun up

or in groud strike i'm landing and refule/add ammo [it's hard to flight wid a same weapons}and going back in action

this is like in real-life

Posted

lol. I think its simple enough to just use Invuneribilty(damn did I spell that right?)

 

You can then train with the missile/s, and your buddy can train dodging that missile with or without countermeasures.

 

Hit 2 birds with one stone.

My 2c worth.

dredd4hd0.jpg

---= 169th Panthers -Flt Lt.- =---

http://www.169thpanthers.com.au

 

tbdreddey7.png

AMD64 S939 3700 | 2GB Corsair DDR500 | 21" CRT

ATI Radeon X800Pro | 2x36GB WD Raptors | SB Audigy

TIR3 | TM-868 | X52 | CH Pedals | Creative 5.1 Spkrs

Posted
That would be a waste of time and money...maybe not much time, but that time could be used for something else useful. Like better color, weather, AFM and a ton of other stuff.

 

The amount of time it would take to put the SIM switch in as part of the FCS would be quite insignificant compared to adding an AFM, or changing the weather itself. ;)

 

If you were to make efforts -just- to model the sim switch itself I agree. But as part of the FCS that -will- be modelled?

[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

Guest Cali
Posted
The amount of time it would take to put the SIM switch in as part of the FCS would be quite insignificant compared to adding an AFM, or changing the weather itself. ;)

 

If you were to make efforts -just- to model the sim switch itself I agree. But as part of the FCS that -will- be modelled?

 

I was just saying they could use the time for other things.

Guest Cali
Posted
Now we are getting into a debate of opinions (which no one ever wins). What one considers important, the other may not.

 

Personally, I would like to see the aircraft in lockon have avionics functionality comparable to Falcon4 SP4 above anything else. So, if the real plane has a SIM switch, then lockon should as well.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Make a poll and see what the user's want?

Guest Cali
Posted
I find that online polls aren't as comprehensive as ED's marketing research. I find it difficult to believe that if the majority of ALL players wanted an F-18 (as the poll below indicates that they would just ignore it). No company would do that. No, online posters are a niche crowd.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6704

 

Maybe some of these people that play off line only need to speak up then. Cause ever since LO came out we have been asking for a F-18. Since there are only 2 US/NATO jets and 7 going to be 8 other jets/heli. Don't get me wrong I love flying the Russian birds, but that would kinda even out the game. The US/NATO has 1 A2A jet and 1 A2G jet, while the Russian jets are capable of both.

 

"online posters are a niche crowd" true, but 100's of polls have been made asking for a A2A/A2G US/NATO jet. How many polls have you seen asking this?

Guest Cali
Posted
That's just my point. What we read here is a small segment (in one way or another) of the world's views. Are you finding these polls on the Russian language side?

 

I don't speak Russian, I understand we are a small part but we have been asking for YEARS about a F-18/16 in game. Like I said before US has 1 A2A and 1 A2G, no multirole fighter, but all of the Russian jets are multirole? Why don't we have one?

Posted
I don't speak Russian, I understand we are a small part but we have been asking for YEARS about a F-18/16 in game. Like I said before US has 1 A2A and 1 A2G, no multirole fighter, but all of the Russian jets are multirole? Why don't we have one?

 

Read the Russian forum, and the more serious requests aimed at nalal ops in an F-18. Don't think everyone from Russia/CIS hates American planes, they know they have electronic superiority and admire the tech. And I've seen many requests for an F-18. In which case ED replies with "But we don't have the data, and are doing this flying fish thingie". Come on, even I have a detailed development manual for the F-18's FCS (you can make your own VB code program afterwards, ok, with C++). ;)

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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