Wish List

[Tucano_uy]

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.:)

 

 

This may be exactly what I need!!! Thanks

[Tucano_uy]

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

I was flying the Su33, trying to spot the E-3.

[GGTharos]

Ah, that's a whole different can of worms ... for one you're missing the engine smoke, though I don't recall just how smokey the E-3's engines are.

It's also camouflaged, but should probably be visible a little farther than a Su-33.

[HAE5904]

I miss off base operations..... The Su-25 were designed for off base operations, pity we can't build FOL's based on a piece of road/highway. That would make campaigns really interesting....especially during an attack....:D

 

Cheers

[onehitxzibit]

My wish - flyable F-16 or F-18 in some future FC version. :D

[Ramstein]

I made a mistake making a poll.. but I had a reason..

 

I didn't want to have a discussion about all the aircraft that could be added flyable.. I only wanted to know:

 

If given the choice between only the F-16 and F-18, which one would you want? I chose the F-18, because we need a multirole fighter on the Allied side. Plus, the F-18 can fly from Carriers.

 

I am also an F-16 pilot from Falcon4, and love the F-16. But, I can live with the F-16 if for some reason we could not get the F-18. But F-18 is my first choice.

 

:joystick:

[yufighter]

My wish flyable

 

1. Mirage 2000

2. F 16

3. F 18

4. MiG 21 BIS

5. Phantom II F4

6. SU 24

7. Miraga F1

8. Tornado

9. Harrier

10. Jaguar

11. Orao J22

12. Galeb G4

13. Lasta

14. B1

15. TU 160

[nomdeplume]

A small one: AI planes should take longer to start up. Not sure about the AFM planes, but the SFM ones if you put them in as "ramp start" start their engines and immediately start moving as soon as they enter the game.

 

The player can't start up that fast which makes it a bit annoying if you want them to be able to take off with other AI flights.

 

Helicopters are the opposite: they start the APU, then the left engine, then the right engine, then shut down the APU, then think for a bit, and then start taxiing. It takes several minutes. Fixed-wing aircraft should follow a similar procedure. At the very least, they should start the engines separately and actually have to wait for them to spool up before taxiing.

[Presing]

Is this forum topic are saw from guy's from ED, or is just posted here for guy's like me to say (somewhere anyway) what we like to see in this game but we will never have it.

 

Anyway I know it's a big deal but i think it's ok for me to ask, what about MiG-29c TWS or maybe what of this models are simulated in lock on?

This one: Fulcrum A: MiG-29SD (Variant 4, Product 9-12S)

or

This one: Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S)

or

This one: Fulcrum A: MiG-29SE (Variant 6, Product 9-12SE)

or

This one: Fulcrum C: MiG-29S

 

Why I am asking this question? I read on this site:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29.htm

On the second part this:

Originally Posted on ByEasy Tartar

... Fulcrum A: MiG-29SD (Variant 4, Product 9-12S) with "fatback" modification to the basic "A" model incorporating avionics modules for the Gardenyia-1 system. Total internal fuel continues to be 7384 lbs. (3200 kg, 1136 US Gal, or 4300 liters) which includes a 2610 lbs. (1184 kg, 402 US Gal, or 1520 liter) Centerline tank while most of the Variant 3 fleet have been made capable of 2 x 1130 liter Tanks (3949 lbs, 1792 kg, or 608 US Gal) external wing tanks. It has been rumored that this mod for the Variant 4 actually started the 20 US gallon more internal fuel argument due to the redesign of the number one fuel cell and reduced gun ammo from 150 to 120 rounds. This variant continues with the same basic NO-193A weapon system with minor improvements that included an improved new sighting system (IRST) combined with a better imbedded training system that allows for IR and radar target simulation. More built-in-test (BIT) functions, especially for the radar, was included in the EKRAN to reduce dependence on ground support equipment.

Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S) that continued with production "fat-back" fuselage, small internal fuel increase of 20 US Gal. (76 liters) to 4376 liters (7514 lbs, 3408 kg, or 1156 US Gal) and provisions for two 1150 liter (304 US Gal or 1975 lbs) wing tanks. Total max fuel capacity of 8196 liters (2165 US Gal or 14,074 lbs) with centerline tank included. Possible 4,000 kg. (8,020 lbs.) of stores. Max Takeoff Weight increased to 19,700 kg. (43,340 lbs.). Published max range of 1,565 nm (2862 km). Configured with the improved N-019M "Slot Back" Radar capable of ten TWS target files with two simultaneous engagement tracks the AVV-AE (R-77) "Adder" missile. The first prototype was flown on 3Dec80 by V.M. Gorbunov. The four-section leading edge flap was changed to a five section construction. The improved N-019M "TOPAZ" radar enabled the R-27ER radar and the R-27ET IR missiles which are larger varieties of the R-27R and R-27T original design.

...

Edited August 6, 2010 by Presing

[dsobbe]

My top two "get it right" things:

1. Correct traffic pattern. Takeoffs and landings in the "same" direction would prevent Teneriffe syndrome.

2. Be able to request takeoff clearance "before" entering the runway. Fewer surprises that way. :eek:

Both of those would allow the player to more realistically interact with airport traffic flow when landing and taking off.

[GGTharos]

It is supposedly the 9.13C.

 

Is this forum topic are saw from guy's from ED, or is just posted here for guy's like me to say (somewhere anyway) what we like to see in this game but we will never have it.

 

Anyway I know it's a big deal but i think it's ok for me to ask, what about MiG-29c TWS or maybe what of this models are simulated in lock on?

[Presing]

It is supposedly the 9.13C.

 

Ok 9.13C (C is for Cyrilic S or for latin C) and one more question, why Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S) older ver. then 9.13 (i presumed) have improved N-019M "TOPAZ" radar but 9.13c do not have (at least in lock on)?

[GGTharos]

Because at that time the information for modeling it was not available, and at that time AFAIK not all 9.13C had it anyway.

And now it is too late to deal with it.

[astrospud]

Here's another that may have been brought up:

 

Different voice comms channels in an MP environment.

he ability to switch between KA50 flight, and supporting fighter cover.

Maybe even just one voice channel ingame, allowing the ability to switch between TS/Vent/Mumble through PTT and ingame KA50 wing. :)

[CVFSGoran_VU]

Are you still taking new ideas for Lock On? I mine, are you going to make some patch or something in near future?

 

Any way, I would like to see following ... in multiplay briefing menu (after I have connect to server, chose side and plain) I would like to have some configuration menu where I can do:

 

- air plain armament (select missiles, bombs, chaff, flares, fuel ... everything like in mission editor ... where will be witch missiles etc.). In mission editor can bi disabled some armament witch is forbidden for that mission.

- check navigation way-points and edit them if I would like to have other approach if situation in mission is changed or any other reason

 

ok...i don't have any other idea for now :)

[Presing]

Because at that time the information for modeling it was not available, and at that time AFAIK not all 9.13C had it anyway.

And now it is too late to deal with it.

 

Thank you for answering GG. I will wait DCS MiG-29 in what ever version when ever he will be out.

[GGTharos]

If DCS does a (Russian) Mig-29, I would expect SMT1, so you'd probably get all kinds of bells and whistles :)

My prediction can be very easily wrong though.

 

Thank you for answering GG. I will wait DCS MiG-29 in what ever version when ever he will be out.

[Havok]

Bridges that you can set the damage level on so you your missions dont get screwed up by a single bridge being out...or maybe etting river levels to allow the vehicles that are amphibious to circumvent these show stoppers.

[guitarwiz1]

Improvement I'd like to see

 

A lot of us are tweakers and I find it very frustrating to have to quit a mission, because I want to change a button on my joystick. I would like to see a patch to let you configure your joystick in game. This being said on a personal note. I think this game is awesome. I had to give up Black Shark for a while, because of the difficulty. "Airplanes are so much easier to fly." Not that this game is any easier, so far it's a little less frustrating.

[HiJack]

A possibility to some degree of balance when team against team on server. Like for instance a message saying "to many fighters on red, please join blue fighters" and the same for ground pounders. But for god sake don't add automatic to this, that’s messy (remembering BF2).

 

(HJ)

[LaRata]

Hi :

 

Remove old Planes for Future Sim ... Some Air Combat Planes are Out of Service or To old in Technology or NO longer in Active Service .

 

Planes to Remove and Save Resources :

 

_ Mig-23

_ Mig-27

_ Mig-25 / R

_ Mig-29A ... Leaves only the C Model.

_ Su-25

_ KA-50 ... Replaces in Some Future for the KA-52. ( As Player Controler )

 

_ Su-27 ... The Su-27 are near their end in this Series. The AIM-120C , Make the Su-27 Near Obsolete by Now. Badly the game Su-27 need Upgrade to more Avance Su- Series. By now need to be removed and leave as only AI Controller Aircraf . Focus more on the Su-33...

 

_ F/A-18 A/C " Remove the " A " ; " C ", From US Carrier and Replace using F/A-18E

_ S-3 Viking remove from the US Carrier .

 

Is Time for New Air Combat and New WarPlanes . Leaves the 80`s Technology for now.

 

Sorry for My poor Eng. :(

 

LaRata

Edited September 7, 2010 by LaRata
coorect some gramar

[athurart09]

Hello,

 

Since ED shared plugins and infos to implement 3D new models, it can be seen more and more talented 3D artists creating new models for all Lockon enthousiast.

I won't talk about those who updates existing models (as A-10 or F-15), but new planes "flying" on existing slots.

 

But today, we reached the limit of this system, cause to introduce a new 3D model, we need to sacrifice a existing one, espacialy on flyable aircraft.

[joey45]

Add more slots to planes.. I like the tiffy but it replaces the F-15c..

 

 

same for the Mirage.

[59th_Buncsi]

Hi :

 

 

_ Mig-29A ... Leaves only the C Model.

 

 

LaRata

 

If DCS make the 29C thats easy to make the A too (not so much different between the 2 planes). So a 29 series (A/C/SMT) would be the best in 1 bunch of DCS :) (DCS: Fulcrums :D)

[Pilotasso]

By current standards the Mig-29S is not much better than Mig-29A.

 

Both these and standard Su-27S are still flown by the hundreds in many countries in Europe and Asia. It makes perfect sense to include them as are the F-18A/C. The F-18E is too new to be accurately modeled.

 

Parity=boring.