Jump to content

Got bored and turned to the dark side.


Recommended Posts

Okay, I'll put it this way: what's the defference between "depth of the game" and "depth of a particular plane modelling"? Because for me it's all the same. Isn't it any sim all about one(or more) planes that you virtualy fly? And wheter it is(or not) modelled properly is the criteria how realistic the sim is.

 

Anyway, I won't go any further in this direction since it went to much OT. No one can convince me that the F-16 in F4 has accurate FM. I'm not saying that LO is better than F4 in all aspects but when it comes to flight dynamics implementation LO is a few steps ahead, especially with the FM of Su-25. I have always wanted an AFM for the fighters and the fact that ED made the most accurate FM ever(although for ground pounder) and now is doing the same for totaly different type of aircraft is a very good sign that someday we may have a fighter AFM.

 

"Depth of the game" consists of many aspects where "depth of a particular plane modeling" is one of them. It's a pity you don't see you're flying jet with most sophisticated FM... in a fish tank. Look at LO missions - it's typicall you end up with 3 aircrafts in the air at the end of the mission!

 

And who's trying to convience you that F-4 has accurate FM?:)

 

You said all that. ED only adds to what exists. They don't even scratch crucial, non existent areas of flight simulation.

 

And it's not OT because it shows why more and more people get borred with Lock On.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually ED is trying to better their product a good deal.

 

The path to enlightenment is unfortunately slow, as much needs to be done.

 

You can stop the sermon now, we're all aware how long it took for F4 to become stable enough so that you could enjoy all of its features ... not to mention the fact that a lot of avionics and other realism enhancements were added well after the last official release. Eh? ;)

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of the sim as it is now - I disagree with your whole blind path theory though.

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It LOOKS like ED is afraid of even mentioning "immersion aspects" such as dynamic campaign, so don't be suprised with my opinion. And I see what's happening with the next LO addon. What I've been shown ofcourse.

 

Yes, it takes time... So have you started testing DC or even minor equivalent? Because if not it's going to take next couple of years.

 

The other thing is simulation structure wich would allow use of DC engine and other features. Am I right?

 

Speaking of which. I played the first Falcon 4.0 release and it was prietty stable although buggy. The question is - would we have this great sim as it is now if Falcon developerst started with structure and functionality similar to LO's? I personally doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill let you know a few things more.

 

I used to edit FM's for falcon in the realism SP packs. The FM files contained drag coefficient break points, engine power break points, lift coeficcient breakpoints all of wich corresponds to the F-16's wing profile. Every chart they got refer to static phisycs, not dynamics, ask them that. Can they simulate dynamics accuratly? that'll get them somewhat baffled, because they wont understand the idea at first but when they do, they will realise they have been looking at charts describing experimental results obtained under constant static conditions. All those lines are consecutive dots in well defined conditions. I.e. obtained with a model glued on a pole in the wind tunnel.

There are no charts to describe what hapens when it does sudden snap manuevers. They dont have the equations that describes the equilibrium of inertial moments VS the aerodynamic effects of the boundary layer at any given point in time. They wont understand how the boundary layer affects the wings differently than the stabilizers. Thats why the drag causes the plane to never quite match RL and thats why the engines are underpowered to prevent it from goin at mach 3 at a straight line in order to counter a ficticious drag thats much lower than RL because they do not count with adverse pressure gradients and divergent boundary layer conditions in hard turns. (speed drop with full power in a pitch angle of 60º at sea level is bullcrap).

 

And theyll keep on coming with the excuse FBW makes the plane feel like on rails.

FBW is there to keep the plane out of uncontrolled flight thats all, not to bend the laws of phisycs.

 

So did you add these features to the SP packs? This is quite interesting how you described the above information did you guys have any F-16 pilot input when you were working on this? I've been following F4AFs progress since it was released, the FM improvements were quite noticeable in some of the patches. In one of the earlier patches they improved the FM for the F-16 and added weight and momentum(similar to the SU25T when loaded) and this affected the landings if you were fully loaded and also when taxiing on the ground. Later they adjusted the FM for the FBW when inflight refuelling but this sort of wasn't entirely 100% until 1.08 a month or so ago when they fixed it to make refuelling online possible and also the AI aircraft to refuel in sequence:notworthy: . The improvements are pretty good now but I think maybe they are not aware of the above information that you described its possible that they are doing a new sim in dx9 so hopefully that would have some better FMs or maybe something new.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How deep in your game(campaign or whatever) can you go without proper FM? What you say is quiet subjective. Some people(like you obviously) are satisfied with the F4 DC where they can interact with multiple virtual objects but other people(like me) prefer first of all to interact with their own virtual plane and it's systems. The rest I get it in the HyperLobby.

I would easily define F4 as a "blind path"(kinda liked that expression :D) as you did with LO and us, it's supporters, and I can post my arguments but I don't see a good reason I would do that. Just being sarcastic is never a good behaviour.

 

The Blind path is one where a simmer doesn't try out other flightsims, both LO and AF are good sims.:joystick:

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said all that. ED only adds to what exists. They don't even scratch crucial, non existent areas of flight simulation.

 

And it's not OT because it shows why more and more people get borred with Lock On.

 

Opinions differ on what it crucial for flight simulation. The features you mention like dynamic campaign, battle enviroment engine has allot to do with gameplay, ie you won't find them in a sim used by the airforce.

Not saying lockon shouldn't improve those areas to, one step would be to extend the mission editor to handle randomness, logic expressions (triggers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It LOOKS like ED is afraid of even mentioning "immersion aspects" such as dynamic campaign, so don't be suprised with my opinion. And I see what's happening with the next LO addon. What I've been shown ofcourse.

 

They're not afraid of it, they flat out said they can't do it for BS.

 

Yes, it takes time... So have you started testing DC or even minor equivalent? Because if not it's going to take next couple of years.

 

That's right.

 

The other thing is simulation structure wich would allow use of DC engine and other features. Am I right?

 

Which has to come first, and which is part of what's being worked on to allow for the eventuality of adding a DC. Much work to be done, much.

 

Speaking of which. I played the first Falcon 4.0 release and it was prietty stable although buggy. The question is - would we have this great sim as it is now if Falcon developerst started with structure and functionality similar to LO's? I personally doubt it.

 

Yeah, ok. ;) First release of F4 was pretty darned bad, don't even try to skirt around it ;)

And even now, the DC has problems. Yes, it is there...but it ain't panacea either.

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of the earlier patches they improved the FM for the F-16 and added weight and momentum(similar to the SU25T when loaded) and this affected the landings if you were fully loaded and also when taxiing on the ground.

 

The way it was donne feels that they did the momentum simply by calculating the effects of mass hung on different distances from the CG (not enough), speaking of wich, thats the point where the aircraft always rotates wich is false. I would have to ask them if their model calculates force per area centroids (aftects the realistic AOA calculation, and consequent drag). Furthermore the thing that I described about their ignorance about the stabilizers aerodynamic authority (nof aftected by the wings AOA) agravates the question further and the symptom we observe is that the F4's landing aproaches are much more dangerous because the planes resposiveness is close to zero. Gives that sensation to be flying molasses. You cant imput small corrections fast enough at all wich is unrealistic. Instead it will tend to rotate so slow that any corrections will have to estimated by the pilot defeating the purpose of the whole FBW concept.

 

Ground handling is totaly scripted. At least it feels like. theres no dynamic dampening modeling on the planes landing gear.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange how superior graphics are suddenly called "eye-candy", as if graphics do not matter. I have the same discussion with my students about styling of spreadsheet and graphs. If you think lay-out is not important, you simply do not know what a spreadsheet or graph is about. Same for a sim. The graphics of Lockon are better and this is simply an advantage.

 

I enjoyed the so-called silly Lockon movies more than some of the comments in this thread.

 

I also play F4:AF and do not use the DC. Should I say the DC is not important? That would be rather silly. Of course the DC is an important advantage.

 

Everyone comes to a sim from his own point of view. Some are interested in skinning & modding, like the SFP1/WOE crowd; others are movie-makers or virtual air-to-air photographers. Still other are on-line sportsmen.

Others like a strict simulation. Others are physics freaks that like everything about dynamics and electro-mechanics. Then there are the many Kenans (or is there only one?)

 

The whole idea that F4:AF is a more "serious" sim because of its switchology and avionics rendering totally escapes me. I find dive bombing with a simple pipper in an SFP1 Phantom without CCIP a way bigger challenge than doing GPS-coordinated CCRP bombing in the latest Falcon patch.

 

A sim is as serious as the goals you set out for yourself, in any sim. If I where to beat Pilotasso on-line instead of with cynical forum posts, I would have a very hard time ahead, Falcon or no Falcon ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Depth of the game" consists of many aspects where "depth of a particular plane modeling" is one of them. It's a pity you don't see you're flying jet with most sophisticated FM... in a fish tank. Look at LO missions - it's typicall you end up with 3 aircrafts in the air at the end of the mission!

 

I've never been in such situation because I fly mostly online. See...

 

You said all that. ED only adds to what exists. They don't even scratch crucial, non existent areas of flight simulation.

 

Hmmm... not quiet. Su-25's FM in FC has nothing to do with the one from 1.02 i.e. it has been written from scratch. Should I mention the Ka-50's AFM? I dont' recall a earlier helicopter sim by ED. I don't work for ED I'm neither their attorney, I just follow their products for more than 10 years and I see that they have done many non-existant so far areas.

 

And it's not OT because it shows why more and more people get borred with Lock On.

 

Don't be so sure about that.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Blind path is one where a simmer doesn't try out other flightsims, both LO and AF are good sims.:joystick:

 

Couldn't agree more. I have currently installed LO 1.12a, F4:AF, Flanker 2.51 and Pacific Fighters ;););)

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange how superior graphics are suddenly called "eye-candy", as if graphics do not matter. I have the same discussion with my students about styling of spreadsheet and graphs. If you think lay-out is not important, you simply do not know what a spreadsheet or graph is about. Same for a sim. The graphics of Lockon are better and this is simply an advantage.

 

I enjoyed the so-called silly Lockon movies more than some of the comments in this thread.

 

I also play F4:AF and do not use the DC. Should I say the DC is not important? That would be rather silly. Of course the DC is an important advantage.

 

Everyone comes to a sim from his own point of view. Some are interested in skinning & modding, like the SFP1/WOE crowd; others are movie-makers or virtual air-to-air photographers. Still other are on-line sportsmen.

Others like a strict simulation. Others are physics freaks that like everything about dynamics and electro-mechanics. Then there are the many Kenans (or is there only one?)

 

The whole idea that F4:AF is a more "serious" sim because of its switchology and avionics rendering totally escapes me. I find dive bombing with a simple pipper in an SFP1 Phantom without CCIP a way bigger challenge than doing GPS-coordinated CCRP bombing in the latest Falcon patch.

 

A sim is as serious as the goals you set out for yourself, in any sim. If I where to beat Pilotasso on-line instead of with cynical forum posts, I would have a very hard time ahead, Falcon or no Falcon ;)

 

I think the DC is one of the best features of Falcon after having beaten a couple myself. I find that it is a matter of planning and executing missions to deny the enemy Air supeiority and counter their armour with CAS missions. There is also the fact that you can fly the DC missions online so its brilliant for Squadron missions if you are in one. In the DC missions you have extra radio traffic from other packages and also AI aircraft inbound and outbound from airfields. The missions for all Squadrons are auto generating even as far as logistics flights for supplys.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I’m saying is nothing much has changed in Lock On since old simulators such as Flanker 2 and even Su-27 Flanker. Except AFM, damage modeling, avionics tweaks and manga-like graphics.

Judging from the rest of your posts, what you actually mean to say is that, even though much has changed since Su-27 Flanker, one very important aspect of the simulation has not - and that is the lack of a large-scale campaign engine in which the player is part of a larger environment, rather than the reverse situation we have now. With that, I would agree. We'll see what the future holds...

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say if your going to put a notch higher in the SIm making benchmark you need to start by the basic building blocks where all others will settle: the flight model. After all the first thing that defines a SIm is...flight! (tadaaaa!) :D

 

Flight models have always sucked or been highly unrealistic. If you just add a dynamic campaign youll be only making just another dynamic campaign. Yes I know AFM is planned but it should be made the first priority, that and weapon modeling as well.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the online dynamic campaign it would be awesome. But I tell you can get the same enjoyment from LO. I was in a LO squad for a short time and we had nightly missions against the AI. The squad leader would create missions and even ask us the day before what we wanted to fly and we'd all meet at 9 p.m for a massive mission against the AI. I tell u it was the most fun ever playing LO. I have F4 too and really it's good, but I just like LO so much better. To each his own though. I wouldn't criticize anyone who plays other sims that they enjoy better. I mean who are any of us, myself included to tell others what sim they should like? We all have our favorites. I buy and own them all pretty much with the exception of some of the more recent WWI sims I haven't bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^but off topic BTW. :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions differ on what it crucial for flight simulation. The features you mention like dynamic campaign, battle enviroment engine has allot to do with gameplay, ie you won't find them in a sim used by the airforce.

Not saying lockon shouldn't improve those areas to, one step would be to extend the mission editor to handle randomness, logic expressions (triggers)

 

The purpose of real military simulator is quite different. It’s mostly for training pilots in various but single tasks such as typical “firing range” mission. In this case Lock On is unbeatable. But there’s always something waiting for military pilots after simulator training which we hadn’t been given the opportunity to experience. And this is making the use of mastered single tasks in much more complex environment. Extreme example is creating environment even most military pilots won’t explore – a modern military conflict.

 

They're not afraid of it, they flat out said they can't do it for BS.

 

Wow, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a piece of information like this. I appreciate. But don’ get fired for being to talkative ;)

 

That's right.

 

What I meant was It’s going to take eternity if you don’t start it at all :D

 

Yeah, ok. First release of F4 was pretty darned bad, don't even try to skirt around it And even now, the DC has problems. Yes, it is there...but it ain't panacea either.

 

I’m not doing this deliberately. It was the time when I couldn't find my way back home! In Falcon 4 ofcourse ;)

 

Those problems are hardly noticeable. Unlike non existence :music_whistling:

 

You’re right. I think I should jump into Allied Force developer’s forum and make their lives harder too :D criticizing flight and damage model. And this awul smoke! C’mon, Free Falcon’s smoke trails are there! J

 

Furthermore the thing that I described about their ignorance about the stabilizers aerodynamic authority (nof aftected by the wings AOA) (…)

 

There IS a main wing influence on air flow along stabilizers. Although limited and dependent on flight conditions but still. That’s why stabilizers’ location in relation to main wing is so important in fighter’s airframe design. That doesn’t change fact that F4 AF developers could medel it wrong.

 

Pilotasso, I’m afraid that changing only some of the FM aspects in procedural structure based FM can reveal many limits of it’s limits even causing unaxeptable abnormal behaviour. Don’t you agree?

 

I still say if your going to put a notch higher in the SIm making benchmark you need to start by the basic building blocks where all others will settle: the flight model. After all the first thing that defines a SIm is...flight! (tadaaaa!) :D

 

Flight models have always sucked or been highly unrealistic. If you just add a dynamic campaign youll be only making just another dynamic campaign. Yes I know AFM is planned but it should be made the first priority, that and weapon modeling as well.

 

Have I ever put Dynamic Campaign higher than flight model?

I’m as much disappointed in lack of DC in LO as lack of better flight model in Falcon 4 Allied Force.

 

Strange how superior graphics are suddenly called "eye-candy", as if graphics do not matter.

 

They do matter. Graphics engine optimization also does. Making graphics look “nice” (mentioned manga-like) rather than “more realistic” is another issue. Now someone will pop up with “realistic graphic is the matter of taste”, am I right? :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say if your going to put a notch higher in the SIm making benchmark you need to start by the basic building blocks where all others will settle: the flight model. After all the first thing that defines a SIm is...flight! (tadaaaa!) :D

 

And that is why I follow ED's products- because nothing gets even close in bringing the feeling of flight on my desktop.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something missing from this thread . . . .

 

A mysterious and mighty presence, not seen since days of old . . . .

 

A faint sense of nostalgia is coming over me . . . and I think I've just put my finger on what it is . . . .

 

 

We need to shine a red and gold Marine Corps flag onto the clouds - where's Stormin? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do matter. Graphics engine optimization also does. Making graphics look “nice” (mentioned manga-like) rather than “more realistic” is another issue. Now someone will pop up with “realistic graphic is the matter of taste”, am I right? :devil:

 

Nope, we all know about the bloody pastel color ... :P

[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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There IS a main wing influence on air flow along stabilizers. Although limited and dependent on flight conditions but still. That’s why stabilizers’ location in relation to main wing is so important in fighter’s airframe design. That doesn’t change fact that F4 AF developers could medel it wrong.

 

Pilotasso, I’m afraid that changing only some of the FM aspects in procedural structure based FM can reveal many limits of it’s limits even causing unaxeptable abnormal behaviour. Don’t you agree?

 

Its a limmitation of building a "new" SIM thats heavily based on another. AF still resembles too much like the original Falcon 4 to make them appart including the code. It would require a major overhaul to make a more complete flight model, and yes it would cause many aspects of the base game to become broken and need extensive fixing. IMHO they wanted to make faster money than jus starting from scratch. A good idea was to just use the dynamic campaign engine and redesign everything else from the ground up.

 

There's something missing from this thread . . . .

 

A mysterious and mighty presence, not seen since days of old . . . .

 

A faint sense of nostalgia is coming over me . . . and I think I've just put my finger on what it is . . . .

 

 

We need to shine a red and gold Marine Corps flag onto the clouds - where's Stormin? :P

 

He ran out of bohooo'ing flatulent manateens? :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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