Il2 1946 and FSX killing LO/FC....

[theGozr]

SO great ED Testers Team Tharos, yes it is a language barrier this is sure.

"BE HELPFUL instead of making demands that mean little to anyone"

 

Well that is very very sad, i guess you will have to stay with a quake game a bit longer.

You has a team tester you have to check all stalls specifications and also yes well lets say for now just Turbulences and just this will be a big forward step.

 

Ok now i'll say what you should say as a team tester :

yes GOZR what you say it is very interesting and because we love technology and we try to give the best experiences to anyone that love flying and combat with modern jets , i will try my best to talk to the ED dev team on that matter because like you i would like to have a simulator that respect as much as it can the real flights aspect of an aircraft evoluting in a world.

 

Thank you to remind us what is our goal.

 

Please don't make your ego come in between but serve the community, they need a voice out..

 

Now Tharos this is the second time i'm listening at you and i'm not very happy with the antousiasm you have toward to make the sim better. Don't be a brown noise, instead fight to get some things done for your peoples.

 

You can always find me on comms.

[GGTharos]

Then I suggest you expound on what you want simulated.

[RvETito]

Gozr, like most people in this thread I think you're making an elephant from a fly. And moreover you talk about this turbulence like you're the only one to find it out. Be sure that ED is more informed about what is correct and what isn't in LO than everybody here, including you. So please stop treating the rest of us like blind children. There might be some other real pilots around here...

[theGozr]

Tito like i said before they know it very well and they concider this as not important.. because there is no demand for realy but if only if we ( many ) ask for. Maybe they will think that after all we are not that nooby!!

 

Make no mistake with what i say here, it may be raw but it's for the good of the sim and the love for it as many here love this sim.

 

They know but they are not concidering as a priority wicth i say it's wrong pure and simple.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Gozr, you said it right there in that last post. You mentioned demand...and quite frankly, YOU are the only vocal member who wants ED to concentrate on on-line turbulence. Are they going to drop everything and listen to one guy, who BTW keeps insulting other members and even beta testers by bragging about how much more he knows about flying than them? Probably not. Add it to a wish list or something, but don't be-little other members simply because they don't agree with you. On the flying subject, I'll bet Tito and myself get MUCH more time in the air, IRL, than you do...but we won't lord that over you like you have done to others. You have already made your opinions and desires known...STOP insulting other people here just because they don't happen to share your assessment. Is that clear enough for you? :doh:

[theGozr]

Well if i did insulting others this wasn't my attention far from it in the orther you didn't stop to do so.

I would like to know what kind of planes you flew and maybe i know peoples that you know or maybe even of our aircraft factory in nevada. Maybe we can share some good stories of testing WW2 fighters as well as early jets, I hope so.

 

And if i'm the only person trying to push this and thinking how important some rediculous small things like those are, well lets it be and enjoy the Game.

[Guest IguanaKing]

No, not at all, your desires for the game aren't ridiculous. They are just one of a long list of things that are broken, that's all. ;) Just stick to voicing your gripe (and do so frequently while you're here), but stay away from flaming others who don't have the same priorities. I know its difficult, because a couple of people here have flamed you unnecessarily, but GG wasn't one of those guys.

 

I know some people here were kinda dicks to you, but don't take it out on everybody. :) What have I flown? I'll give you a small list. AT-6, P-51, SeaFury, A-1, A-37, OV-1, MiG-17, Su-26, Su-29, L-39, Norde, Bell 206LR, Bell 407, Bell 412, AS-350, AS-355, Beech B58TC. Cessna 152, Cessna 172, Cessna 505, Pilatus PC-12, Pilatus PC-7...and the list goes on. I've spent so much time in the air in the PC-12 that the MSFS depiction of it seriously pisses me off!!! Nothing in the pit works like it does IRL! :mad:

 

:D

[hitman]

I once drove a Porche, a Dodge SuperBee with a 460 6 pack, and a '69 Vette Stingray...but thats only cuz I had to work on em.

[Ukr_Alex]

 

I know some people here were kinda dicks to you, but don't take it out on everybody. :) What have I flown? I'll give you a small list. AT-6, P-51, SeaFury, A-1, A-37, OV-1, MiG-17, Su-26, Su-29, L-39, Norde, Bell 206LR, Bell 407, Bell 412, AS-350, AS-355, Beech B58TC. Cessna 152, Cessna 172, Cessna 505, Pilatus PC-12, Pilatus PC-7...and the list goes on. I've spent so much time in the air in the PC-12 that the MSFS depiction of it seriously pisses me off!!! Nothing in the pit works like it does IRL! :mad:

 

:D

 

Holy shi+, great list.

 

Nice to see real pilots in the sim scene, always brings a smile to my face :)

 

 

Now I bet this question is like picking the favourite child but which flight left the biggest grin on your face?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Holy shi+, great list.

 

Nice to see real pilots in the sim scene, always brings a smile to my face :)

 

 

Now I bet this question is like picking the favourite child but which flight left the biggest grin on your face?

 

 

Oh...the P-51...no question about it. You feel that power deep in your chest. I'm not sure anything could give me that feeling again...although the SeaFury was close. The Bell 206LR ain't bad either, so many windows, its the closest you can come to being a bird...aside from a jump of course. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

What about that Mig? That musta been cool.

[Guest IguanaKing]

The MiG-17 was definitely fun...but you sit so far back and down in the damn thing that its almost like being a passenger on an airliner. Not much first-person flying experience at all with that one. The engine needing slow throttle inputs was enough to keep it exciting though. :D

[theGozr]

Ok here some of mine out of my head.. tested almost all yak9U-M's yak3-m, yak9U real, Mig 15 and Mig 17 wich are extremly different to each other but the hot road is the Mig15 not as docile and smooth and gummy as the 17 at first is quite surprising of the dead stick at inverted position but doing the job we basicly made the Migs popular in the as well as the Yak's 9 and 50's, small experimentals racers, jets soko galeb's, Biplane waco to Bücker's jugman, gliders and small planes that don't count , ww2 Dornier's and more moderns. well many others ..

(By testing it mean real test pushed to the limits)

Never an helico..

 

But here my advice for you guys if you want to enjoy flying.. learning in those cessna is cool but not fun.. really, it's basic and like being in a flying car, the others when you fly them you always worry about engine and looking around to see if there is somewhere that you can land in case of emergency and they are extremly expensive to maintain and fly, it's becoming very hard to have fun with and time consuming.. my advice is to get into an ULM ( ultra light or Gliders ) those are extremly fun and not expensive and you learn the flying technics and world effects 100 %.

 

For the Mig i found my self very well positioned, you have to lift the seat very high ofcourse in the front seat, if it's a dual seats the rear is well yes a bit deep. This is what you want to have always in any aircraft make your seat high to have teh best visibility you can get.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Gozr, just out of curiosity, what country are you from?

[theGozr]

France

[ericinexile]

Tharos it should be reallyteh most priority, the first thing you notice when you flight the Mig15 for example or any other jet or crafts it's how the weather is and condition then you look at the ground and then maybe with gun you think about what you will do if you have guns or missiles and tactics... The SIM pilot should know how such things is important and not making believe that turbulences is just not important... Every pilots are becoming weather man experts it's seems that you forgot this..

Right now it's like flying on perfect road witch do not exist .

 

Gozer,

 

I fly jets about 83 hours a month and it is only on occasion that I experience turbulence that has a visual effect (visual responses are all we can get with a fixed base monitor). Otherwise, you really need a full motion simulator to experience turbulence in a meaningful way. Fighters have a very high wing loading and therefore are not as "upset" by atmospheric shear forces as are lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading. That's not to say that a Su-27 pilot isn't a very busy guy landing in a thunderstorm--he's moving the stick all over the place to stay on a proper glide-path. But these situations are the exception, not the norm. I've found that sims like FSX and X-Plane which attempt to simulate turbulence do so in a manner that one doesn't experience in real life anyway. As it is, I'm very happy with the flight model realism of Lock-On (RU models only).

 

But as for your desire to have an AFM for all planes both human and AI driven--I'm with you all the way. 6 DOF too...

 

Smokin' Hole

[theGozr]

Well depend what kind of plane size weight etc.. really, Flying above a desert in good heat it's also interesting i like bad weather at list you have some good air mass ;) . Anyway just to make clear just get Offline fly a mission with your turbulences and some winds set it to 3 for example now fly and go above montains etc.. do the same thing ONLINE you will Understand real quick.

 

ED do a resonable good job on the Offline flight if only we could bring at list this to the Online flights. Take an example of FSX ( my own tweak FM air file ) and Il2 they have it online. SO all this to say bring the Offline to the Online cituation and maybe fix the predectible same math stalls.. just the basics..

 

Voila i say what i wanted to say .. make some test on your own, have fun and see what the new addon will bring. but maybe... just maybe if i made enough noise in the past here at the russian's side , I got flagged and everything but if they do something as small as it can be for the Online FM.. well .... that will be fun!

[deathcoffin]

To theGozr:

 

www.fighterops.com is for you they have every possible shit being worked on right now that you totally demand of. Its also a new project so they are filling up all sorts of demands/request/ideas/whatever you call it from simmers like you into one hell of a project in very updating progression. And as for simulating that so called turbulence to such a degree that affects all sorts of factors i doubt ED would even look into it because by doing so, it needs a total revamp of the entire engine to begin working with. Basically starting all over so its a no go for lockon. Period. Maybe they will in their future projects. So hope to see it 10 years down. Besides a sim is just a sim. It could simulate flying for example only to a certain degree but it will never ever be as close to what you experience in real life. Can you feel gravity from a sim? no.. if you could, what are you?

[tflash]

theGozr,

 

I think your main point is right: meteorological conditions are important in a flight sim. This involves, depending on where you are on the map:

 

- gravity

- humidity

- wind

- turbulence

- temperature

- air pressure

- clouds

- fog

- ...

 

All of this should impact flight, not only of an aircraft but also of weapons.

 

I think Lockon does a very good job already, but of course you can only set general conditions (also on on-line servers), but you cannot adapt them to the map. The ideal is to have met conditions that are localized to the environment; different in the mountains than in the valleys e.g.

 

There are limiting factors:

 

- Lockon simulates not some propcraft but high performance fighters that have such wingload (as mentioned already) and excess power that these effects have less impact as on your FSX Beechcraft for one thing;

 

- Taking all these factors into account involves huge processing power; I must confess if I put enhanced weather effects on in FSX my PC just crashes.

 

- ED is considering to put a lot of high poly objects on the ground for LO:BS; having both these and advanced weather will make even the most powerfull PC's crawl.

 

But that is ED's choice; if you ask me I would not have taken this BS road an instead made a real Lockon 2.0 for online A2A. In that case your proposals are right on the spot.

[rockwelder]

Well Lockon is not getting popular at the moment!! Like i said before, ED mist the train by not listening some advices from members and They realy have to do some work into the online problems example the none existing turbulences ONLINE and more... the 6 DOF on FSX and addons weather, clouds, real planes routes etc..... It's just fantastic ... If only Lockon would have little bit of that...

 

Well what is your opinion ?

 

Alas I didn't touch Lockon/FC since FSX just because of turbulences that make you feel flying.. Many are looking for realism as well .

I need to come back into Lockon but those Online no turbulences just drive me nuts..

 

 

My opinion? I believe ED did not miss any TRAIN - The ' I told you so' slant to your post is pretty apparent but what is not very apparent is the fact that ED has extremely good reasons for their decisions .

 

Each product is fine in it's own right . When Black Shark is released you will probably be doing the 'my game can beat up your game' routine over on the 1946 and FSX forums.

[rockwelder]

Trains pretty much gone for Lockon, not enough gameplay or potential for community addons to keep the interest going until ED release the next sim. Suspect this is mostly down to poor S/W architecture which only allowed ED to change things and even then with difficulty, hence slow and buggy patches/addons. A pity because it had a lot of promise.

 

I get a real kick out of posts like this.... Blah bla blah ED is dead cause' they did not listen Blah Blah...

 

Just plain silly.

[theGozr]

rockwelder, well.. listen , i would, because this is not the first time posts like those were made.. it take patience .

How many cockpits will have 6 dof beside the copter or are they going to maintain fisheye track ir effect a pure example is on the Su25's? i'm curious ( subject apart ) i love the Mig-29 what will be done to it for example?

 

Like il2 for example the game look reasonable good very sharp not as good as lockon for sure, it's different anyway teh clouds ,land and smocke desapear way to early that make very hard just to navigate visualy, anyway all sim wich do not use track ir vector 6 dof look antique now.. i understand that some graphics gliches may accured but this is very easy to limitate and control movements. 20 % of 6dof wouldn't deteriorate the graphics and rejuvenate the game even running a 6 or 7 year old engine like il2... now in lockon many panel are 2 d's on a much newer engine... why ? Can they or could they work on that ? to me Hell yes!!!

[GGTharos]

ED said FLAT OUT at the very beginning: The focus of BS is the Ka-50, the other aircraft will not be touched.

 

(They said the same for FC)

[rockwelder]

ED said FLAT OUT at the very beginning: The focus of BS is the Ka-50, the other aircraft will not be touched.

 

(They said the same for FC)

 

AMEN.. some need to find a way to deal with it...

[theGozr]

Well yes some do..

 

;)