Patch 1.13 Requested Features/Fixes List (*Merged)

[Pilotasso]

Dont be so shoked about it!!

 

If ED wont release any patches that mean its the END of Lockon!

I guess there are some people that can do some "home made" stuff..

Anyway I hope so..

I dont want to see the end of lockon...

 

 

you may disaprove but your talking about others people property, so...

[GGTharos]

That isn't going to happen. You can pretty much forget about it. And yes, it IS the end of Flanker/Lock On. It's time for DCS.

 

Either way, some people have the right idea about how to go and prod ED about this, and when, most don't ... which is why adding lists (which have been posted before ... in THIS thread, in one way or another) here is not productive. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead.

 

Dont be so shoked about it!!

 

If ED wont release any patches that mean its the END of Lockon!

I guess there are some people that can do some "home made" stuff..

Anyway I hope so..

I dont want to see the end of lockon...

[Kuky]

Dont be so shoked about it!!

 

If ED wont release any patches that mean its the END of Lockon!

I guess there are some people that can do some "home made" stuff..

Anyway I hope so..

I dont want to see the end of lockon...

 

It doesn't matter if the game is few years old now and even if ED decide not to make this patch that still doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use or modify their programming code :music_whistling:

[RvEYoda]

yes, i know that... :smilewink:

 

you can fly with mach 2, this wont affect the missile speed. If you start 10.000m over NN, turn 90 degrees down (vertical) and fire a amraam 10.000m vertical into the ground, it wont reach more than 32xx kmh ;)

 

 

 

Please tell, how i can get a aim-120 or r77 to fly with mach 4 :P

 

if you fly 90 deg down and fire amraam it will 32G-"warp" to it's "max"speed in about 2-3 seconds and then slow down while still burning, hitting the ground around 2900 kph ;)

[Pilotasso]

Yoda... You are probably the best BVR dogfighter out there (even more extraordinary considering you probably have half as much online LOMAC hours compared to others) and it kinda hurts me to see you say things like those you posted on this thread.

 

A lil more hope than that would be better for your and our enjoyment of the SIM.

Dont give up the flying. ok?

[RvEYoda]

Well I didn't mean the game is bad...

It's a good game. It just isn't a 10/10 game in all ways,

maybe 7,5/10.

 

Myself just recently started being more active playing a different

flight game, we are actually going to host an event soon, but

enough advertising.

[159th_Viper]

......

 

Myself just recently started being more active playing a different

flight game.....

 

Succeeded it has the Dark Side to turn you ?

 

:suspect:

[cool_t]

:)

 

It doesn't matter if the game is few years old now and even if ED decide not to make this patch that still doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use or modify their programming code :music_whistling:

 

 

Why cant we modify the code?

 

Its like when you buy a car "ITS YOURS" you can modify cars, turbo, tires, seats, paint, dice in the mirror, and you can re-sell it!

 

Granted you can not distribute a new version for profit on your own but discouragement of and deterring up and comming programmers is just not going to happin.

 

We already see Mods, and cheats on-line, so whats the big deal?

 

Why dont we just do it our selves since ED has "Limited" resources and it would take them months to fix the code.

 

Why dont we just have servers that state what has been fixed insted of some of us pilots just running into High-G moving, planes that need 4 missile hitting them to be destroyed, super-manuvers, invisibility, zero-drag, 0-g, ect.

 

LOCK-On is going to be a thing of the past, DCS will be great and I truly feel that there will be no "One sided" decisions made about weapons physics and or thrust to weaight ratio's. We all have seen how this effected the LOMAC world and how we got into "Pish-Posh" fights about it.

 

Im ready to buy DCS and all of the goods and services it provides also with the good busines plan of "No Porking" missiles just because pilots cant out manuver 120s from 30nm release point. I think we learned our lesson both ED and the consumers and quite frankly im borred with Flaming Cliffs because of the "porking". I would rather do training missions, or go for the A-50s in RAF, fly Moded jets, or do some air to ground. To me I lost the will and the drive to "NOT get shot Down" I dont care anymore. It takes too much time to get set up in the battlefield in a posision where you can ambush bandits and then bring the Jet back to the base safe and sound, I just dont care any more.

 

So lets get the DCS in the store and into our hands already, its going to be fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:thumbup:

[Kuky]

Cool_t, graphical mods are one thing... the game code is something completely different. I mean, just imagine how much shit you would start seeing if people would be able to modify game come themselves... and bottom line is software is not allowed to be modified by anyone other then creator (be it person or company) and you can't compare cars with it.

[S77th-konkussion]

You don't "own" software- you are given a license to use it.

[yar]

So lets get the DCS in the store and into our hands already, its going to be fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i wont buy DCS, because i see what happens to lock on: lots of bugs arent fixed and sometimes i think lock on is more a propaganda game than a real simulation (because they forget lots of things, which western jets have, for example IFF -.-). with BS it will happen same as here...

 

Lock on has the potential to be the greatest simulation, but without fixes it wont be great...

 

 

 

PS. does anyone know if there is a way for a CAC IFF for the F-15?

I know, real F-15 have those... but in lock on there is no way to know if the locked jet is hostile or friendly --> its easy to make a teamkill!

 

for example, is there a way to develop a small external application, which can help you with this?

 

as i said: russion fighters have the "F", F-15 has nothing in lomac...

 

 

 

how much shit you would start seeing if people would be able to modify game come themselves

thats right, but you neednt allow all people to midify it, only some selected modders, and i think here are some who understand programming very well.

If ED has no time/money for a patch (and this can happen very fast), some authorised programmer can do this as good as ED :)

It wont cost them anything, but it would help the pilots and show the commonity, that ED does something for the comsumer and their games ;)

[Kuky]

Well I'd like to post one of my recent findings... it's regarding missile G loading in game... I had conversation in HL and "someone" (I'm not gonna name names as that beside the point) said missiles in LockOn pull only 15G... and that you'd need only 5G to outturn it.

 

And also, I never even noticed this but, same person said in externals you can see G loading of the object viewed... hence the missile.

 

So I went and did 3 quick dummy engagements against MiG-29A armed with R-27R R-73 and R-60... I let him fire at me and ofcourse I go defensive and try to evade (I evaded every missile successfully) and watching in slow motion I notice R-27R pulled just passed 18G, R-60 did something over 16G and R-73 showed pulling as high as 43G.

 

So I don't think any more there's something wrong with G loading modelled in LockOn, but I did find it strange that G "meter" didn't show much G loading at all even when missile was obviously turning but in horizontal (not much vertical) and also there were even negative values which shouldn't really happen as unlike aircraft (actually it's because of a human in it :D ), missiles shouldn't "care" what direction they are facing/turning so any G should always be shown positive, so I think the G"meter" shown in externals for missiles is calculated bit wrong.

 

EDIT: Yup it's definitely wrong... it only calculates (shows) G's in respect to horizont. If the missile is changing flight path upwards G's are positive, if it's going downwards, it's negative... and if it's just turning sideways G's are not represented. So guys don't relly on your info on missile G performance just by looking into externals... oh and by the way 4th quick mission I did just before this edit I got hit by an R-27R and I saw it pulling some 18G. First I sharply turned sideways (to see what extrenals G "meter" will show) then upwards and barrol roled about 1/3 of rull roll... then leveled off... the missile didn't lose me and it's most likely because I turned too soon... but that's beside the point, I did it this way just to test this.

 

Anyway, not to rant on any more, I'd just like to point out that mssiles do not do only little G's as some may think... please test yourself and see.

 

Now about that modding some of you wish... if you say not everyone should be able to change game code but only some... who's to say who's gonna do it right? Who's to say they have the right info to begin with? I think idea of some software developer dropping their hard work and coding into someone elses hands is just stupid... if you were to code something like this and do it for few years... not to mention you do it to earn a living... I am sure you wouldn't do it yourself. And even to forget about legal rights... just how old are you?

 

And by the way Yar, F-15 in game CAN IFF.

[yar]

who's to say who's gonna do it right?

i think here are enough people who know lots of about jets, missiles and etc. shure, we must decide which things should be fixed, and how it should be done.

 

and: they musn't give the whole code to the modders, no, only the parts they need (for example cloud parts, to fix the cloudbug, i think you know what i mean)

and why the cant give it to those authorised programmer? k, it wont be a official patch, but a inofficial is enough...

 

just how old are you?

- thats nonrelevant -

 

And by the way Yar, F-15 in game CAN IFF.

but not a CAC IFF, like the real F-15C ;)

 

if you find a IFF for close air combat, plz tell me where i (and all others) can find it :P

[Kuky]

CAC as in Vertical scan or Boresight or what? I ask because I am not familiar with this anyway. But anyway when you say "we" decide, you're wrong... it's not up to you or anyone else but ED people. It's THEIR code.

[yar]

sorry, i wanted to say: if you lock a target, there is no IFF, to see if he is hostile or not.

 

in BVR (TWS, RWS) you have IFF, but if you lock a target not. and this is very stupid first of all in close air combat (right, vertical can, bore).

 

 

if both sides have same jets, there is no way to find out in a dogfight, if the Su is one of your guys, or the enemy

 

 

i think this should be fixed very fast (with patch or external aplication)

[Kuky]

I see what you mean...

[yar]

good :)

 

 

ps. is the 'warping' cloudshadow and the warping water depending on the sourcecode or the graphic things (modells, textures etc) ?

[Weta43]

i wont buy DCS, because i see what happens to lock on: lots of bugs arent fixed and sometimes i think lock on is more a propaganda game than a real simulation (because they forget lots of things, which western jets have, for example IFF -.-). with BS it will happen same as here...

 

Lock on has the potential to be the greatest simulation, but without fixes it wont be great...

 

See - you've got to love the prejudice that some people bring to the forums with them ...

 

The reason that the 'western' planes don't have radar some modes that they have in real life is not that the evil Russian developers diliberately set out to 'pork' the Western planes, but simply the planes in Flanker were all Russian & didn't have those modes, & LO is simply flanker tarted up to let the Blue side have their favourite flyables. The underlying radar modelling in Flanker/LO didn't allow accurate modelling of US radar, so a 'best approximation' given the limitations of the engine was attempted.

 

The reason there will be no player usable radar in the first couple of DCS releases is - at least in part - because ED haven't finished building a new radar model that will allow accurate representation of the radar modes to the user.

 

copying wholesale an old post I made before DCS was announced (because I'm too lazy to write it again) ...

 

As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.

To the best of my knowledge - ( & this was never contradicted by ED reps and note also ignoring the AFM Su-25 & T):

In LO there is one SFM flight model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one (Fighter borne) radar systems model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each plane.

In LO there is one passive radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one active radar seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

In LO there is one infra-red seeker AAM model (carried forward from FLanker), tweaked to suit each missile.

Whatever systemic faults one has so do the others to some degree.

Which is why asking for some fixes is impossible without a re-write of the code (of course some fixes don't require this, just a qualitatively smaller allocation of man-hours)

& which is why we should encourage ED fix the easy stuff for LO/FC in a patch (if there can be such a thing in software development) to begin the next series (the Flanker/LO successor) that won't have these limitations, rather than hoping for the present series to 'morph' into something it can never be.

Don't get me wrong - I love LO (ask my girlfriend :-), but there are limitations built into it that need a fresh start to overcome.

regarding this:

 

i mean all the others missiles arnt complained about much so they must be Decent. and if the other missles were modelled Ok then why was the AMRAAM ****ed up so bad?

 

It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal

 

 

then -

but you neednt allow all people to midify it, only some selected modders

 

Which ones would you suggest ? Ones who mod it to the way You think it should be, or ones who mod it to the way people on the Russian speaking forums think it should be ?

Having released it to - what do you think is a good number of 'selected' modders ? 20 ?

Having released it to 20 modders, how long till one of them packs a sad & either goes off on their own to have a version that matches how they think things should be not how the rest of the group thinks it should be, or just releases the code in a moment of pique, & then you have 30 versions of LO in hyperlobby, none of which are compatible ?

[yar]

wow, you know lot of things of lock on.

 

- missiles

 

the missiles in lock on are slower than they are in RL. As i can see in your post the missiles are from flanker, but modified for lock on? hmm.. is there a way to change some of those edits? or do you need to rewrite the whole code only for increase missile speed?

 

- Radar

 

But to add an IFF shouldnt be so hard.

 

if locked plane = hostile -> do nothing

if locked plane = friendly -> paint a cross on the hud

maybe you can take the code of the russian fighters for this (only exchange the F to the cross)

 

the radarmodes of the F-15 arent so important, because you have something for BVR, for close air combats and something for more or less 'stealthattacks'

 

- mod

 

i cant figure what the russian speaking forum think, because i dont understand russian language and the cyrillic script. but im shure they want fixes too. so we need to agree on fixes.

the number of modders depends on the things, which are to do, like on every mod ;)

[Eagle Driver]

I would laugh SO hard if I found out that the Russian-speaking forums were full of "R-27ER is porked-ski!" argument. What do they talk about in there anyway?

[GGTharos]

There's that, and other things also. People wondering why Su-27 doesn't always out-turn an F-15 ... and so on and so forth.

[Eagle Driver]

Really?

I think they must be flying with full tanks because at least for me, that thing makes my lovely Eagle look sad, although I don't like the smushy feel it has to it, but that's another story. Actually maybe it's not, because I think it might actually not be smushy enough. I read an article by an F/A-18 pilot or similar who said that when you took it to the max rollrate and centered the stick, it would continue to roll 180-270 degrees (can't remember) before it stopped, unless you applied full opposite stick. Then compare to a Strike Eagle article that said one second at one-inch opposite stick would make it "pop" out of the roll. Whatever, I'm rambling now, continue arguing for improvments everyone.

[GGTharos]

Stop fighting on the deck. It's not where the Eagle likes to fight ;)

 

Really?

I think they must be flying with full tanks because at least for me, that thing makes my lovely Eagle look sad

[tflash]

As far as modelling active radar missiles goes the AMRAAM in LO is the same as the R-77, with a couple of figures adjusted.

 

Indeed. Making the Amraam a little faster off the rail would already solve many issues.

 

It's not that the AMRAAM is So Much Worse, than other missiles, it's just that the people who use it have higher expectations of it & are more vocal

 

It's not about expectations, but mainly about playability. Since the Amraam flies slower it is decoyed more easily and - seems - to go bananas. The shooter has the impression that he cannot anticipate the success of his shot. With the R-77 and R-27ER, I do have this anticipation.

 

This is simply a parametrisation and requires no recoding. The failure to have done so years ago, has caused this tsunami of frustrations.

[RvEYoda]

If it comes to a merge and nobody is hit on the first head-on,

the su-27 SHOULD win, unless the F-15 is significantly lower on fuel

or the sukhoi is not carrying missiles. The advantage of the 27

IN THIS CASE (past merge with missiles) also increases with higher altitude

if you were wondering ;). No complaints here, this is probably as it should be.

 

In an "even matched" head-on situation the eagle driver would be making a serious

mistake waiting until after the merge to fire.