Wish List

[Pilotasso]

vapor efects are difficult to make in convincing way in terms of aestetics. Its also graphicaly demanding.

[Teknetinium]

It should not be more graphic demanding then gun smoke.

 

ED why ? :(

Edited May 12, 2010 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

it is because it cant be simplified with round 2D textures like the gun smoke and even that is somewhat lacking. Good thing it is small and subtile.

[HiJack]

Nice to have effect but would most lightly be disabled on almost all installations. Un less everyone upgraded to 12 core CPU's :P

[Blaze]

Couldn't you LUA base it? Such as. At a certain AoA with the right QFE ( Pressure ) Settings you would get wingtip vapor.

 

Just an idea

Nice idea, where have I heard that one before?

 

;)

[jdbecks]

F16 and Tornado :joystick:

[Ghostrida9]

FC 2 Mission Editor Satellite View PLEASE

 

Ok, I've started to change the whole Landscape by adding Trees to Airbases, Buildings and so on, but I managed it to finish 2 bases and it gets very boring without a Satelitte View where you can see the Static Objects that you've placed on the Map. Its almost impossible and very annoying and you can not create descent missions which includes a lot of Traffic and more realistic looking Airbases. LC FC 2 looks kinda death to me its just like flying shooting going home...:sleep:...Anyway please ED we need a satelitte View for the Map that also shows the Static Objects.

[Vecko]

Anyway please ED we need a satelitte View for the Map that also shows the Static Objects.

I think something like that is anounced for DCS:A-10.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Vecko

[crazyeddie]

That's interesting, I had read somewhere that they could not do it with either BS or LFC2. Hope you are right.

 

It was such a useful tool in Lomac, makes adding eye candy so much easier, I really miss it.

[Outlaw24]

I also miss this great tool, it would be outstanding to use when placing static items on airbases and particular on FARPs in BS.

[sereupin]

1- a new sound engine, for example with many triggers...

 

2- realtime weather system, like in FSX ...

 

3- Eurofighter :D

[BrumTx]

1 = Satelitte View for Static Objects

2 = Someway we can actually see what the skins look like on aircraft as we could with Lockon and FC

[davebert]

Apache

 

Apache AH64 would be nice. :joystick:

 

F14 Tomcat would be nice too.

[HansRoaming]

For me to round out Lockon would be at least one more flyable non Russian multi role plane. Having a pure CAS plane and an Air Superiority fighter as the only western style aircraft is a bit limiting for choice. Having a multi-role aircraft would round out the selection on both sides I think.

 

F-16 - Lots of countries in the area fly these aircraft and also there is cross over attraction for pilots of other sims i.e Falcon 4 series and FSX such as Aerosoft F-16.

 

F-18 - Multirole and carrier ops for the west. Has been modelled before and on other sims i.e. VRS F-18 Superbug on FSX so has attraction factor too.

 

Lots of data available for these as well.

 

The other Wish I would have is that the series has different map areas to fight in.

 

If a plane + map pack were released together as download content then would buy this for sure.

[bengo]

Please put hi-priority radio communications in the controls menu. Things like "AWACS-Declare", and "AWACS vector to nearest bandit" are crucial and need to be at the pilots' fingertips. In combat situations, I don't have the time to go press 3 functions keys to find out where the enemy fighters are.

So please, replace (or add) the radio comms for vector to tanker and homeplate with declare and nearest bandit.

[astrospud]

I understand it may require a lot of work, but a clickable cockpit for all FC2 a/c would be nice.

[nomdeplume]

• Satellite view or 3D "object placement" mode so placing static objects and stationary groups in good locations isn't so mind-numbingly tedious.
  
• "Any member of group in zone" condition so triggering an action when a group which may have suffered losses reaches a particular point isn't so mind-numbingly tedious.
  
• Proper "radio message" action with a combined subtitle+audio which is queued by the game engine, so ensuring important communications don't trample each other in missions where there may be more than one thing going on isn't so mind-numbingly tedious.
  
• Custom per-mission entries in radio comms menu so players can interact with the mission in some other way than "move your plane here" or "blow this thing up". Even just "Radio affirmative" and "Radio negative" keybindings would open up a lot of possibilities.
  

[Blindspot]

That we could add more than just 1 CLIENT per Flight Group.

 

Now, if you add planes to the group, can only be AVERAGE, EXCELLET, etc... but not CLIENT.

 

That´s a shame for creating flight groups consisting in humans.

You now should be able to simply create copies of your 1st group.

This MOD should work for FC2 too.

[Tucano_uy]

I still have problems to view units from certain distance, both air and ground units, but especially ground units. Probably high anti aliasing values are the culprit here, scenery looks great but units are invisible. I believe that in real life I should at least be able to see that there's a tank at 1,5 miles but in FC or Black Shark I can't. I don't want to use labels, that spoils the game big time. I don't want to have the unit identified or know the distance. A possible solution would be something like an abreviated label. Maybe only a small black or grey dot or indicator that there's a unit, but without revealing the coalition, type and range. That indicator should appear at a distance where in real life it would be assumed that the unit would be visible by most people. Large units/planes/ships, would display the indicator further away and smaller ones only very close to them.

[GGTharos]

If it is sporting appropriate camo, fat chance :)

 

I believe that in real life I should at least be able to see that there's a tank at 1,5 miles but in FC or Black Shark I can't. I don't want to use labels, that spoils the game big time.

[Tucano_uy]

fair enough. But what I mention happens everywhere, even in open terrain, roads, or with aircraft in the air. As I said it probably depends on AA, AF settings, video options and hardware. I can detect a convoy on a road with the shkval, see that it is maybe at 2 miles and it is impossible to visually acquire it. Next thing... tracers coming my way, chopper down, etc etc.

It was mentioned somewhere in other thread that the difficulty to spot units may be related to anti aliasing, in my opinion it would be interesting to exclude units from antialiasing but i doubt it would be technically possible and the results may not be great. The workaround that I suggest is a step between absolute realism (as ggtharos mentioned, appropiate camo. Or maybe even harder to see units in FC, BS than in real life) and using a big spoiler as current labers are. I say again, i would like to see that there is "something" ahead at 3 miles but I don't want to know that there's an enemy fighter coming my way at 45 miles. Just something in between the 2 extremes we have today.

Just my 50 cents...

[GGTharos]

Your convoy is moving and on the road? In that case you should have fairly good visibility against it in most cases. Some things to try first is to increase your view distance in the settings.

 

Also, once you know where the convoy is, stop advancing on it! Launch your weapons from where you are - you can prosecute a rocket attack just fine against the Shkval marker on your HUD.

[Tucano_uy]

Your convoy is moving and on the road? In that case you should have fairly good visibility against it in most cases. Some things to try first is to increase your view distance in the settings.

 

Visibility is set to high, AF 16x, AA 8x Multisampling, gamma correction on, on a GeForce 9800GTX+

 

Also, once you know where the convoy is, stop advancing on it! Launch your weapons from where you are - you can prosecute a rocket attack just fine against the Shkval marker on your HUD.

 

Thanks for the game tip, but the fact that I'm a poor, unskilled pilot (but getting better :joystick:) doesn't change the fact of the (imho) poor visibility.

 

Please don't shoot down my idea of an intermediate level of help, realism, or you call it whatever name, too early :cry:. Some people may like it and it probably not a hell of a task to implement it.

 

 

PS: I just did a quick test. I set up a mission with my SU33 15Nm at 3 o'clock to an E3 awacs. I could only start to see it at about 6 miles and spot the shape and identify it at less than 3 miles. I know little about tanks, weapons and camouflage, but I am an air traffic controller in real life and I do know that if fair weather a B707 can be seen and clearly identified a lot further away.

By the way, I am at ED's service if there's anything I can help with related to ATC (civilian ICAO).

Edited June 29, 2010 by Tucano_uy

[nomdeplume]

Are you using the game's zoom functionality at all?

 

If you have labels on and find some ground targets for example, then turn them off, are you able to see them at all now that you know their location? If you zoom in does it make any difference?

 

You can adjust the labels to be more to your liking, by editing Config\View\Labels.lua in your FC2 directory. Make a backup first, and I think you might need to use a cleverer editor than Notepad (but definitely not Word/Write etc.). Something like Textpad should be fine.

 

Things to consider are changing the formatting strings to just a dot at all ranges or similar, and possibly adjusting the colours at the bottom so friendly and enemy units are shown with the same colour.

 

Also, maybe take and post a screenshot along with the description. I'm not sure if your system is rendering things in a way that it makes it unusually hard to spot things, or if you're just expecting too much from a video game. :)

[GGTharos]

Thanks for the game tip, but the fact that I'm a poor, unskilled pilot (but getting better :joystick:) doesn't change the fact of the (imho) poor visibility.

 

It isn't a game tip, it is what you should do. See stuff that can shoot you? Don't go near it ;)

 

Please don't shoot down my idea of an intermediate level of help, realism, or you call it whatever name, too early :cry:. Some people may like it and it probably not a hell of a task to implement it.

 

This and that are two different things. You need a graphical fix of some sort, not labels. IMHO.

 

PS: I just did a quick test. I set up a mission with my SU33 15Nm at 3 o'clock to an E3 awacs. I could only start to see it at about 6 miles and spot the shape and identify it at less than 3 miles. I know little about tanks, weapons and camouflage, but I am an air traffic controller in real life and I do know that if fair weather a B707 can be seen and clearly identified a lot further away.

By the way, I am at ED's service if there's anything I can help with related to ATC (civilian ICAO).

 

The visual signature of the Su-33 is about correct in accordance with the study charts that we have on the subjects. Fighters have a MUCH lower visual signature than airliners.

 

Not only do they present a much, much smaller profile, but they are also painted with camouflage which also serves to prevent glint and attempts to blend in shadows.