Trident Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 FWIW, here's my wishlist of improvements for v1.2. Feel free to share your opinions :) - General enhancements Better ATC procedures (holding pattern etc.) Flexible refueling hose to give the player a better idea of how much horizontal/vertical drift is possible Better missile modelling (looping Mavericks, while cool, aren't very convincing ;) ) Fix the navigation problem (I think everyone knows about this one now) Add LOS calculations for EWR/AWACS radars (other interference effects can be omitted IMHO) Cut/Copy/Paste functions for the editor (early LOMAC screenshots show buttons that seem to provide this, BTW) Fix the bug that makes ground vehicles return to a heading of 360° when you change the type of vehicle Make the Altitude Map stay on permanently once selected Enable having several human players as wingmen in the same flight Give rivers and streams the same reflective texture as the sea Create a new particle-based afterburner flame (similar to the missile exhaust), the one from Flanker2.5 is now showing its age ;) Provide an option to increase the resolution of the self-cast shadows for people with powerful systems If possible, an AI F-15E and KC-135R would be nice. They play very important roles in today's USAF and should not be ignored - Improvements specific to player aircraft This one is by far the most important: please update all fly-able aircraft with the AFM! Working Master-Arm switches on the A-10 and F-15 Improved CCRP-mode in the A-10 (trigger needs to be held depressed for release consent) Working fire extinguishers for the A-10 (they seem to be automatic on the other aircraft in RL, otherwise include them for those too) Some form of autopilot-mode indication in the F-15 Matt's suggestions for improving the Eagle, minus the data-link :) Proper modelling of the HDD modes on the MiG-29 and Su-27 (HUD-repeater, tactical/navigation display for the latter) Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously with R-77s for the MiG-29S I'll add more later if I have additional ideas.
Dmut Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Hello Trident Some suggestions are clear and resonable, but I'll ask you about few of other: Better missile modelling (looping Mavericks, while cool, aren't very convincing ) What's exactly wrong with Mav's? Seems to me they're modelled quite precisely. This one is by far the most important: please update all fly-able aircraft with the AFM! AFM is not just a checkbox near aircraft name - every AFM is a piece of art, that took a lot of time of specific people in ED Improved CCRP-mode in the A-10 (trigger needs to be held depressed for release consent) Could you provide a doc's describing this process? AFAIK, ED already has consult a A-10 real pilots on CCRP-mode bombing. "There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]
olaleier Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Could you provide a doc's describing this process? AFAIK, ED already has consult a A-10 real pilots on CCRP-mode bombing. IIRC, Matt Wagner mentioned this was something they had to settle with in one of the big 1.0.2 update threads. Don't think he mentioned exactly why, but I think it would be easier for him to explain than for Fairchild to explain to the USAF why bombs were falling off the plane even if the pilot had his thumb off the pickle button. :wink: Many good suggestions btw, the flexible refueling hose and copy/paste/clone features in ME are my favs.
Trident Posted December 2, 2004 Author Posted December 2, 2004 What's exactly wrong with Mav's? Seems to me they're modelled quite precisely. You're right, they work fine most of the time, but they do go wild once in a while. Things like loopings after missing the target are most likely to happen when you try shoot down helicopters. Now, this is something the Mav is not really meant to do, so it does not seem like a pressing issue, however it suggests that something is wrong with the missile flightmodels in general. It really shouldn't have the energy (and seeker gimbal limits!) to pull this off. Granted, it's a pretty rare and therefore minor problem. AFM is not just a checkbox near aircraft name - every AFM is a piece of art, that took a lot of time of specific people in ED Quite correct, but IMHO it definately hurts immersion very much to have one aircraft modelled to a noticably higher standard than the others. They will always feel 'unfinished' by comparison. I fully realize the scope of such an undertaking, but I think it would pay off. It is safe to say that many other LOMAC players feel the same. Oh, I thought of another one: Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously with R-77s for the MiG-29S. Chizh already mentioned this as a likely candidate for a future patch to v1.1 but I'll put it in here to keep the list complete :)
britgliderpilot Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Oh, I thought of another one: Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously with R-77s for the MiG-29S. Chizh already mentioned this as a likely candidate for a future patch to v1.1 but I'll put it in here to keep the list complete :) Nice list you've got here - I'd just like to enquire about the two-target engagement on the MiG29S. Last time I heard about this, I was told that the two-target engagement wasn't all it was cracked up to be. You just fired an R77, broke lock, and let INS fly it to the "wakeup point". The second one got mid-course updates. Was that correct, or will the new TWS modes provide enough information to enage multiple targets with the R77? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Trident Posted December 4, 2004 Author Posted December 4, 2004 I'm not entirely sure, but this seems unlikely. AFAIK SwingKid once explained that the R-77s are launched using a new, seperate TWS-mode (SNP-2). If all it did was what you describe, why introduce a special mode for something that the pilot could basically do manually?
Trident Posted December 8, 2004 Author Posted December 8, 2004 I just found a near perfect example of what I was talking about with respect to the afterburner-effect. These screenshots are from a third-party project for Wings over Vietnam and look particularly realistic due to the transparent centre of the afterburner-flame, IMHO. http://members.cox.net/mcbelmont/F-18D_InGame-5.jpg http://members.cox.net/mcbelmont/F-18D_InGame-6.jpg However, I think the colours are much too bright, atleast in daylight conditions most aircraft have afterburners that look more like this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/372130/L/ Light orange/pink as shown on the photo would be the best compromise IMHO.
SUBS17 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 No the colour varies from night to day, you're right for daytime flight but for night its very bright white. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
SUBS17 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Opps, didn't see those pics before I posted. I think both colour types, one for day merging into the night white colour. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts