Fighter OPS screens.....

[GGTharos]

Fighter Ops will be at least $100 as described on their forums. Keep in mind this isn't a game like lock-on is, its a full simulator designed by retired AF pilots, targeted for specific people, thats been in the making for a long time now.

 

It's a game.

If it has 'playability features' it's a game. Period. ;)

[Romik]

Fighter Ops will be at least $100 as described on their forums. Keep in mind this isn't a game like lock-on is, its a full simulator designed by retired AF pilots, targeted for specific people, thats been in the making for a long time now.

 

http://avia.transas.com/eng/avia_trainers_transas.mpg - that's what a "full simulator", and actually it's one of the cheapest, for arround a $100^3.

 

And here is a quote from a constructor of a full scale trainer in a Moscow Aviation Institute: "actually, opinion of a real pilot is very personal and can not be fully taken into account while building a trainer. The only pilots eligible to make such consultations regarding the "simulation" are test pilots only; prime source of data regarding flight dynamics and systems of an AC are provided by the constructor bureau itself and that information is not likely to be publicly available or free to be distributed"

[brewber19]

Fighter Ops will be at least $100 as described on their forums. Keep in mind this isn't a game like lock-on is, its a full simulator designed by retired AF pilots, targeted for specific people, thats been in the making for a long time now.

 

LMFAO...I haven't read bulls**t like that in quite some time.....do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounds?

 

I mean come ON, and without dragging up the "game or sim" thread, LOMAC, FO, JT etc etc etc are games that simulate elements of real-life...they are NOT simulators.

 

Sorry, but I just can't believe you wrote that in all seriousness :lol:

[leafer]

Fighter Ops will be at least $100 as described on their forums. Keep in mind this isn't a game like lock-on is, its a full simulator designed by retired AF pilots, targeted for specific people, thats been in the making for a long time now.

 

I'm guessing you didn't know Flanker was initially a program to train AF pilots and later ported to PC? :D

[SuperKungFu]

Cmon guys, paying around $100 for FO (if they include all they have promised us) then it would be worth it. This has been debated before on their forums and its pretty reasonable. Take a look at this chart

 

And the quote that came with it

The thing that shits me most about people complaining about the cost of FO is how they dont seem to factor in the cost of the rest of the gear. Im definitely not the first to say this but i might just be the first to provide a CHART to better comprehend it.

These are just a couple of examples using prices I got from websites such as Dell, Amazon and Alienware. You get the idea though.

 

So my question to these people is, how can you spend all that money on computers and accessories and then whinge about the cost of the software? Ok sure you most likely will use all this gear for other things as well but the FO software is such a tiny, insignificant cost in the scheme of things and the entertainment factor will be incredible.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hehe...be careful about showing Alienware as a high-end system. :smilewink:

 

Also, considering the "package labeling error" with the original Lock On, that game cost Windows 98 users about $250.00. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

http://avia.transas.com/eng/avia_trainers_transas.mpg - that's what a "full simulator", and actually it's one of the cheapest, for arround a $100^3.

 

Well besides pilot feedback I dont see how its any different or superior to LOMAC and SFX or FS9.

 

And by feedback I mean all the hydro they have on the seats, pedals, stick and visual feedback because of all the screens.

 

 

And nothing can be a full simulator.

 

A full simulator would mean it will simulate the effect of the methane coming out of a farting cows ass and and the fart's effect on the jet performance because I just so happend to fly 5 meters above the ground above the hungry cow who happend to fart just when I passed. Because on a micro molecular level that fart did have an effect on me burning jet engines.

 

Just how a peice of gum on a runway does have an effect on my landing gear if I just happen to roll over it.

 

 

The defition of simulation is very subjective.

 

Even crimson skies can be used to teach basic flight, you pull the stick here and the plane goes there, you pull the stick there and the plane goes everywhere weee.

[leafer]

Not true, to my knowledge. The Su-27 pilotage trainer (can still be found on the net) was intednded as a pilot training device. Bits of its code and a few developers later went on to Eagle Dynamics.

 

It's true!!!! :D

 

I posted something similiar to this at simhq many, many years ago and was confirmed to be true by someone involved; I don't remember his name but I think he's with TFC. ED was at an airshow showing the stuff and was approached by TFC to do a simulation for commercial market.

[SUBS17]

I like the idea of Global map for FO thats going to be cool:thumbup: .

[Kula66]

Quesion for FO people in the know ...

Forget the pretty pictures, what will the radar/IR/visual modelling be like in FO? Also, will missiles and AC have FMs that allow actual real world tactics to work in BVR combat?

 

If the whole world is modelled, will there be any details ... as good as the beautiful LO world?

[SUBS17]

Have a look in the FO forums, all your questions would be answered already. As for details I think the world might be highly detailed in the trainning area in the USA and in the campaign area.(and probably the ferry route to the campaign area hopefully[17 hours and 10 refuelings :pilotfly: would be cool for those hard core simmers, yeah I've been reading Vipers in the Storm:D ]) As for weapons and radar realism most likely yes. At the moment I think they are focusing on the UPT for first release.

[leafer]

What stuff?

 

 

Hamberger and boobs?

 

'Stuff' is the simulation. Like I said, this person from TFC (The Fighter Collection) backed what I had written on my website many years ago. I couldn't remember his name and it's not Nick Grey. I doubt he'd lied to me or anyone about this. It's not top secret 'stuff'.

 

I just visited those links. One is a link to downloads and another is where a guy posted a link to the downloads. Did I miss where someone from ED or TFC stated other than what I have said?

[Romik]

Ukr_Alex, since our further discussion will hijack the thread, and as you insisted I wrote the difference between $1m sim vs $50 sim but in PM.

Greatings

[Pilotasso]

be my guest to hijack, its always fun and sometimes breaths new life to threads. :)

[Dudikoff]

I wrote the difference between $1m sim vs $50 sim

 

$999950?

[Ukr_Alex]

Well here is my reply to his PM

 

 

 

Well not everything is modeled based on publicaly availible data. Certain sims, not sure in case of lomac, but for example certain race car sims have deals and non disclosure agreements with tire manufacturers and race teams to see telemetry files, tire slip curve data etc.

 

Physics are just that physics. A set of mathematical equations and in some cases set scripts (cause y=x 99% of the itme, hence to need for an equation, or in some cases scripts due to the fact that little data is availible to do a full model)

 

however if you have a proper physics engine it should be enough to simply enter the parameters and surface qualities of a plane in question and the engine |should| simulate it properly.

 

 

Many of the plaens and systems are far from top secret. There are Mi-8s everywhere. Go to Russia or Ukraine, give a mechic 100$ and he'll give you the whole low down on the systems, and throw in the manual aswel.

 

 

What I am trying to say that many thigns can be modeled very accuretly withough having the cad files and research data from the moment design of the real thing took place to its first full flight.

 

Military pays millions of dollars for the simple fact that the sticks and monitors and cockpits cost a lot of money to make. They are of industrial strength. They are for the military, hence anything for the military will cost 10X the price. There are licensing and support issues, there are other business ends which simply blow up the price.

 

 

This however does not mean you cant have a good sim on your desktop.

 

In a full scale cockpit a better thing? F*ck yea it is, but as far as the software goes I do not agree that the sh*te the military has is tons better.

 

Ask pilots about FS9, many will say that the "payware" models that are availble online feel damn real. Planes behave exactly how they should.

 

 

Have you seen some of the military simulators? That thing has flight physics of crimson skies. However its not what they are desgined for.

 

MIlitary trainers are there to give teh basics, to learn tactics etc, where the switches are, learning formations etc etc etc. They are not there to portray the aero effects of cross wind during a high AoA manuver, but this is something that more common desktop software attempts to do.

 

I've seen soviet mig-29 sims. Man all those things are good for are weapon release switch sequnce study and stuff like that.

 

 

 

10 000 have the real sticks, the hydrolycs, and visuals, however it means jack d00d00 as far as flight physics go.

 

Get a payware FS9 cesna and every single system onboard is modeled and it flies like the real thing. I have a friend whose a pilot who agrees, and whose father is a veteran airline pilot in South Africa.

 

 

Not trying to start a lame argument, just sharing my thoughts.

 

To me desktop sims and military sims simply have different purposes. Desktop sims try to recreate the feel of flight, the physics of flight, where military are there to teach avionics and the flight basic things that could be taught in Crimson skies. For example: when you pull the stick there it goes there, the harder you pull the harder it goes...

 

 

Look at Black Shark. We will not only get individual blade physics modeled, but the avionics are modeled inside out too. Now tell me how a some military chopper is superior?

 

 

All the miltiary ones have, and those 10000$ dollar ones are industiral sticks and hydrolycs and 360 visuals to give the person a better recreation of the world around them. It does not mean that the software behind that 10 000$ runs in supercomputers and calculates the effects of methane coming out of the previously mentioned cow's arse on the me burning jet lumps.

 

 

I am more concerned with how the plane behaves and responds to my inputs, and I want that to be as close to the real thing as possible.

I am more concerned with how the missle flies and how its seaker head finds the target.

 

I dont care much about the engine start sequence. What switches you need to hit to get the radar in Air to Air BVR mode.

 

And thats the difference between the military trainers and the desktop sofotware.

[Romik]

We decided to bring it to public. So here we go the reply to above:

"

Well not everything is modeled based on publicaly availible data. Certain sims, cant be certain in case of lomac, but for example certain race car sims have deals and non disclosure agreements with tire manufacturers and race teams to see telemetry files, tire slip curve data etc.

 

- true, but ED still couldn't implement two channel firing on MIG-29, or datalink on Su-27. They say it's because of a lack of info...

 

however if you have a proper physics engine it should be enough to simply enter the parameters and surface qualities of a plane in question and the engine |should| simulate it properly.

 

- at some extent. I personaly spoke with one of the constructors in a Moscow Aviation Institute regarding what data is used. Well, there is much and much more information about flight dynamics than just simple aerodynamical parameters. FBW system, even the analog one (as on Su-27, 33) is kept in secrecy. On forum there was even a discussino about how the canards on Su-33 really work, as it is now, it only a guess. Search Russian forum for that.

 

 

Many of the plaens and systems are far from top secret. There are Mi-8s everywhere. Go to Russia or Ukraine, give a mechic 100$ and he'll give you the whole low down on the systems, and throw in the manual aswel.

 

- again, for Mi-8 or cessna - yes, still a simple mechanic doesn't know the principles and algorithms, he doesn't have to know it.

 

What I am trying to say that many thigns can be modeled very accuretly withough having the cad files and research data from the moment design of the real thing took place to its first full flight.

 

- at some extent.

 

Military pays millions of dollars for the simple fact that the sticks and monitors and cockpits cost a lot of money to make. They are of industrial strength. They are for the military, hence anything for the military will cost 10X the price. There are licensing and support issues, there are other business ends which simply blow up the price.

 

- agree, and well, that we can discuss for ages :-)

 

This however does not mean you cant have a good sim on your desktop.

 

- Lockon is a great sim! so is FS9

 

In a full scale cockpit a better thing? F*ck yea it is, but as far as the software goes I do not agree that the shit the military has is tons better.

 

- I do not know, since I didn't see the sourcecode of any. I just think, it should be much more accurate... but hence, you never know...

 

Ask pilots about FS9, many will say that the "payware" models that are availble online feel damn real. Planes behave exactly how they should.

 

- that's the problem, that opinion of a real pilot is a very subjective thing as any other opinion of any person.

 

Have you seen some of the military simulators?

-Yes, had a pleasure to try one.

 

They are not there to portray the aero effects of cross wind during a high AoA manuver

 

-well... I just disagree. Atleast the thing I tried had many options, from a simple workload training, to landing in a difficult weather practice.

 

 

Get a payware FS9 cesna and every single system onboard is modeled and it flies like the real thing. I have a friend whose a pilot who agrees, and his dad a veteran airline pilot in South Africa.

 

-I think for a cessna would be easier to find information about its systems than a Su-27 ones or F-15

 

Not trying to start a lame argument, just sharing my thoughts.

 

-same here, And the most important, the argument on the forum was, that a FO will not be something "out of this world", it will be no much better than other desktop sim as some gentelmen mentioned

 

greetings!"

[Romik]

$999950?

 

Precise as much as it can be! ;-)

[SUBS17]

New Screenshots are up in the FO website, nice shots there of the Texan:thumbup: .

[SUBS17]

Now about pit building,

F-16

Plans

http://www.viperpit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1949

Working RWR and DED

http://www.betainnovations.com/

Working Gauges

http://www.flightillusion.com/F16.htm

Now there is also available online quite a few manuals for the F-16 which is why it is one of the best aircraft for a sim and for pit building.

Future F-16 sims

FighterOps

Allied Forces 2

EDs Fighter(probably a few years from now)

 

I'd build a Hornet pit if I had enough info but there is not enough and it might be a while before the next Hornet sim gets made. Probably one good thing though about the SuperHornet is its possible to make the Horrnets ICP as its a touch screen which is now also possible.

[SUBS17]

LMAO ok who moved this cool thread here:megalol: