Flight or Combat?

[S77th-GOYA]

Which do you want to be given the most attention by ED? For example, would you prefer that all planes be given realistic flight characteristics first or have all weapons/avionics modelled accurately?

 

I realize that both are important, but which is more important to you?

[Swartz (LT)]

I chose Flight. Just because i think flight comes before combat. You need to have everything right before you start going into dogfights. Dynamics, speed. If its wrong then its just not the same.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I chose combat. The flight characteristics are reasonably well modelled, the sensor, avionics, and weapons capabilities are pretty far out of whack.

[hitman]

I vote combat (for this sim) because my weapon of choice is pretty much modelled as close to possible as it is...minus all the avionics and all that were seemingly left out either incidentally or accidentally botched and not fixed. Weapon hardpoints should be accurate enough to IRL situations, and it kind of irks me that this isnt allready the case. Another thing is that gets me is that there are newer vehicles in game (as in D-Sythe has put it) that are just toys for the sandbox, and they are current era, but the a/c arent. Thats just a minor annoyance to me.

[S77th-konkussion]

If you mean from where LOMAC sits right now- I choose combat. This question takes on a whole new meaning if you are starting from a blank page.

[RvETito]

I chose combat. The flight characteristics are reasonably well modelled, the sensor, avionics, and weapons capabilities are pretty far out of whack.

 

Same reason for voting.

[Zuki]

I chose Flight. Just because i think flight comes before combat. You need to have everything right before you start going into dogfights. Dynamics, speed. If its wrong then its just not the same.

 

Ding ding!

[hitman]

I chose Flight. Just because i think flight comes before combat. You need to have everything right before you start going into dogfights. Dynamics, speed. If its wrong then its just not the same.

 

I dont exactly like this statement first off, simply because of this games allready steep learning curve. Granted everyone here took their time to do things right, but how long does it really take to learn the basic fundamentals?? As it is, these aircraft are pretty much hard enough to fly without making yourself a pancake in the Urals. I've YET to learn how to recover from a stall with a failed flap...and if its that realistic for me then I need to employ some more brain cells to function. Too much alcohol from my Marine Corps days kinda limits this...

 

AFM would only make it THAT much more to learn on an all-too-steep learning curve. Avionics and weapons performance should take precedence above the only one thing that comes as close to realism in this sim.

[Piffer]

Combat

[Pilotasso]

this poll makes me somewhat confused. Choosing either option is like choosing wich weel is the most important on a bike.

[Outlaw24]

I would perfer both, but if I had to choose one it would be combat, the flight modelling is reasonable now.

[ViperVJG73]

I'm voting for flight! ;)

[Ukr_Alex]

In any flight sim for me its flight first.

 

As far as LOMAC at FC stage I choose combat.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I vote flight because flying comes first.

[Razi]

Flight as well. I play flight sims for the flying, the combat is an after thought, but still very enjoyable when included in the sim.

[Galaad]

I choose combat too

[VMFA117_Poko]

I won't vote. Both are very important in combat flight simulators.

[Pilotasso]

Makes no sense seperate one from the other, Fligh influences combat manuevers and combat manuevers influences flight.

[Vati]

flight... you cannot have air combat w/o being able to fly ;)

[Laivynas]

Flight for sure. :)

With new Su-25/25T flight model you can not only shoote targets, but fly.

[Spyros]

@Laivinas

Yes I think it's the flight model that got me addicted to the SU-25.:)

 

Break pulling over max AOA and it rolls. Pull too many Gs and the wings are ripped.

You have to trim all the time and be careful, to make it do what you want.

It makes flying missions a lot more challenging and harder to accomplish.

It'd be great to have AFM for all flyables.

 

So even though both are important, I think FM comes first. Then accurate weapons handling, avionics etc, to make a sim close to perfect.

 

I've heard rumours though that weapons will be harder to operate on the 25, so I'm preparing for an extra treat!:)

[Invicta]

I chose flight.

 

If you've ever flown in the 25T then you know that flying the fighters is very much arcade compared to the 25T with it's AFM.

 

I like a challenge when I'm flying and right now this game has, from my point of view, 2 challenges: combat and flying the Rook. However, since I'm flying the SU33 almost exclusively, the flying part provides little challenge to me whatsoever. It's easy to land this bird in almost every condition, with loads of damage, in any weather. So no challenges there. In combat there are still challenges left. Combat is never the same.

 

It's all about challenges. Hardly anyone here can say much about the accuracy of weapons and avionics in lockon, not one of us here has flown all the jets and not one of us knows the specs of all the weapon systems. And the weapon handling like it is now is challenging, and as far as I know, accurate enough. It's playable, it's fun, and it provides a challenge. The flight model however is not. Flying a SU33 is a piece of cake! Landing in 0 visibilty with a 20 m/s crosswind is easy. With an AFM this sim would instantly double the challenges for me as a fighter driver. Not only would I be tested in combat, but also in controling this enormous beauty of an aircraft.

 

In my opion its all about adding stuff. Add an AFM to other aircraft and the sim grows. Changing avionics and weapons handling does just that, it changes the game.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Not true. The basic avionics in the American aircraft don't even come close to the way they are supposed to work, and yes, I know many of those systems first-hand (and it is information that I can talk about on a public forum). The most glaring of which is navigation. The HSI sort of makes me laugh. Weapons availability and nomenclature of the various adapters for hanging them are also all out of whack. The A-10 comes stock with rocket pods that can't even be carried by the hog (LAU-61s can't be carried), when they are loaded with HE FFAR you get 19 per launcher. This is an accurate number for that launcher, but again, the Hog does not carry that launcher. If you select WP FFAR, suddenly the rocket load is reduced to 4 per launcher, as if they have suddenly, magically become LAU-10s. Then, weapons that the A-10 CAN carry aren't even included in the stock loadout availability. The stock loadout allows you to hang AGM-65s on stations that don't even have the datalink to carry video to the TVM. The nomenclature for a HUGE amount of the equipment in LOMAC, even on the Russian side, is also completely screwed up. Since I am able to correct most of these problems on my own, it seems to me that the things I can't correct would be fairly simple for ED to correct. I think they would be MUCH simpler than "correcting" a flight model. I think that calling a flight model inaccurate is even nuttier than comments about weapon inaccuracies...since only a couple of people here have actually flown ANY of the aircraft depicted in the game.

 

Just my two cents. :D

[theGozr]

Flight besure

[Ardillita]

Combat: the FM is pretty good, has somethings to improve of course, but not as many as the weapons systems, sensors, etc used to combat.