Lock-On Sequel . . .

[SUBS17]

Re: OT Vomit stories

 

My first glider flight was on a winch launch . . . . which I wasn't prepared for at all. Sitting there, fine, bloke waving, fine . . . . . and then all of a sudden you do 0-60 in a couple of seconds and are heading skywards at 45 degrees.

 

The instructor who first showed me a loop was a bit enthusiastic, too - combination of aggressive pullup and me not being ready got me a nice big bruise on the back of my head and a crick in my neck. I made sure I was ready for the next lot :P

 

 

Nothing quite like flying aerobatics in the sunset and dropping down for a drink in the bar.

I love flying :D

 

If I win the lottery, then I promise I'll post about my MiG and Sukhoi flights . . . . :wink:

 

 

 

What? Future ED products? Dynamic campaign?

 

Guess I could be persuaded . . . . . grin.

 

If you go for one of those flights make sure you get some extra time up in a high performance aerobatic aircraft(e.g. one that uses a g-suit) Then you're less likely to throw up.

cheers

Subs

[SwingKid]

Hope you don't mind me editing.. Forces labelled, after shrinking the map to cover approximately the same amount of terrain as current Lock On:

 

 

The mainland Chinese side looks like it has some very long flight times, getting from Quzhou to Taiwan looks like crossing the entire Lock On map, over inhospitable mountain or sea terrain.. Maybe this is why there hasn't been a war for 60 years. Lots of interesting points though IMHO.

 

Thanks for the great topographical map!

 

-SK

[zzzspace]

Remember for a Campaign you can create your own scenario so in the case of Indonesia vs Australia it might be a combination of countries. So you might have Indonesia, Malaysia and China uniting together against Aussie and the US and Singapore just to make things interesting. The goal might be to sieze land or an invasion of a country for resources. In a computer game anything can happen, and any combination is possible. As for Terrain there is no limits in my view its all dependent on the level of detail applied. In the case of a future combat sim, perhaps further terrain could be developed and sold for a price which would extend the current map. In cases such as we have now where there already is a very detailed map perhaps that could be kept on the game anyway for extra gameplay area. So its not wasted and later if further terrain is created that fills the gap between the two then so be it. You could then fly from map to map.

cheers

Subs

 

 

Yes Subs, that sort of thing has much more potential for high-intensity air conflict, particularly in trade, energy flow and motivation areas, plus naval dimensions; nevertheless, you are still left with the vast area to be mapped and the considerable fuel, range and flight time this imposes. If you were going to have a LOMAC style air-war in SEA, flying missions to and from Australian bases it would be too slow for a commercial PC sim (plus lots of mandatory refuelling, to and from target for almost all aircraft in any mission ... noobs will hate it).

 

The Taiwan theatre option largely doesn’t have those sorts of problems, and many of the current naval and air platforms and missiles would slot right into such a regional ORBAT (heck, you could even make the Mirage a multi-role flyable striker in that theatre ... ;) ).

[zzzspace]

Hope you don't mind me editing.. Forces labelled, after shrinking the map to cover approximately the same amount of terrain as current Lock On:

 

The mainland Chinese side looks like it has some very long flight times, getting from Quzhou to Taiwan looks like crossing the entire Lock On map, over inhospitable mountain or sea terrain.. Maybe this is why there hasn't been a war for 60 years. Lots of interesting points though IMHO.

 

Thanks for the great topographical map!

 

-SK

 

 

Looks great SK! (I’ve updated the shading model used in the maps on the previous page)

 

Yes the distances are not short … but we can deploy :) ... and deployments of strike aircraft could be taken as part of the build-up to war etc., so you could have a impromptu chance skirmish turn into a full-blown confrontation, etc. Lots of possibilities. Also, planning comes to the for.

 

The strait is about 250km wide at the narrowest, so a lot of CAP and interception would occur over water, plus long-range SAMs everywhere either side; perfect for coordinated SEAD and strike campaigning. Both sides are highly defendable.

 

Fuel management, flight profiles, drag/weight load-out issues and coordination of flight timings would finally become a vitally important consideration in every mission’s success; at present, much of this is almost a non-issue within the Black Sea theatre (and that’s sure not realistic), due to the shortness of the ranges involved. The Black Sea theatre, while fun, is small, and you have enemy bases within ‘spit-in-your-eye’ distance from each other. i.e. very little real strategic depth is even possible for a detailed lengthy campaign.

[jctrnacty]

Yes, that taiwan theater is really good idea. I think we could get there a good carrier ops.

 

Really interesting. 8)

[Caretaker]

Hey SwingKid,

 

thanks for those links and figures! I was somewhat aware of the dimensions of most theatres discussed here so far, not so much about the timeframes for modelling the current map... and it's always much easier to discuss with hard numbers at hand. So yes a lot of theatres are no option just for their size alone - unfortunately Norway is one of them (which, just to point that out again, is simply my recommended emergency theatre for the "Cold War gone hot" scenario - simply because the landscape is more varied, and the infrastructure a less lot intensive than in central Europe. Neither oil nor fish would fortunately be enough to lead to a war up there nowadays - although I may underestimate the prawns' quality ;)).

 

Apparently, the Taiwan map would be a very, very good choice - small enough to be an option, lots of ocean to allow for naval operations and increase potential engagement ranges, and also a real-life hotspot. It would require more detailed modelling of the naval aspect though, and that includes a lot of Chinese units which aren't present yet, as well as missing US units. I absolutely agree with Alfa here: only when the naval aspect can be modelled with enough detail and options does it make sense to think about a more naval-oriented theatre at all.

 

The only big drawback I see with Taiwan is that Russia would not play a big part there ;) But in general I guess most people would welcome a change in location after flying over the Crimean for so many years.

 

 

There are some aspects about map modelling that haven't been mentioned so far, but may also play a role in a future development:

 

1) more detail

 

I guess in any future Lock On incarnation, we can expect rather more detail on the ground. This would make map making even more time consuming. Although it's not necessary as I find the current detail level high enough, if we're talking about two or three years in the future we may all expect more...

 

2) different levels of detail in different areas

 

Currently ED only models the core area with a high level of detail and the rest with generic flat terrain. It would be worth thinking about modelling areas which would only be used to fly over, but which would not be part of an actual ground war, with less detail/accuracy than the current core areas, and only provide high detail around air bases. Having some terrain in Turkey in the current map would be a nice option.

 

In general there's an obvious tradeoff between accuracy/detail and size of a map. Although I applaud ED's way of modelling the map in Lock On, I'm pretty sure people could live with a slight shift towards more area at the cost of less accuracy.

 

3) 3rd party work

 

I know, a controversial topic. Map making is more work than many people realize, and personally I was never too convinced with what I've often seen with other sims in this regard - although there are some remarkable exceptions. Any it may backfire if ED has more trouble correcting problems with 3rd party work than doing it themselves.

 

Still it's something that should be thought about in my view. The additional work force that ED could acquire in one way or the other should be considerable.

 

 

Interesing discussion... keep it going! ;)

[MBot]

The Taiwan theater looks indeed fascinating. I never spend much tought about that map, but now I see that this area has lots of potential.

I realy like the longer ranges on that map, because that gives the airwar a much more strategical depth ( as zzzspace points out nicely ). I loved Matt's Valhalle campaign for JF-18, that required AA-refuelling on almost every mission.

 

Does anyone knows how the terrain looks like on Taiwan and chinese mainland ? Those height maps indicate mountain ranges, but we aren't talking about chinese Alps, aren't we ?

[VapoR]

Caretaker, the 3 points you list above hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't mind flying over some "bland" areas on the way to my target area. Even so, you look at the "unfinished" areas of Lomac's current map and it's actually not bad looking at all!!

 

The 3rd party idea is a great one, IMO. If they released a map-building tool to selected people they could all be on the same page with it. I am sure there are a few people in the community who would be glad to help out for free (with a mention in the credits :wink: ). This way, the manpower could be doubled at essentially no cost to ED.

[britgliderpilot]

Re: OT Vomit stories

 

If you go for one of those flights make sure you get some extra time up in a high performance aerobatic aircraft(e.g. one that uses a g-suit) Then you're less likely to throw up.

cheers

Subs

 

G-forces aren't something that really worry me - I have some really crazy instructors and the K21 is certified up to 7G's :P

 

What worries me is the uber roll rates . . . . . not something I'm used to.

[zzzspace]

Does anyone knows how the terrain looks like on Taiwan and chinese mainland ? Those height maps indicate mountain ranges, but we aren't talking about chinese Alps, aren't we ?

 

 

Taiwan has uplifted volcanic terrain. The highest peak in Taiwan is Shei mountain at 3,952 m (12,965 ft) and its the highest in North East Asia (~175 m higher than even Mt Fuji). Taiwan has 293 mountains >3,000 m high, so its an extremely mountainous little country.

 

 

The mainland is quite different although also extremely mountainous, they are less elevated over all, and consist of many steep-sided cliffs and domes made of limestone, with countless deeply-incised valleys between them (incredibly good for low-level penetrations and terrain masking). China thus requires a vast number of various ranges of anti-aircraft systems to even begin to defend the interior against bombers or cruise missiles.

[MBot]

Wow, nice :)

[Trident]

As far as maps go, taking a screenshot of the desired region on this site may be less time consuming (it's how I made mine): http://www.demis.nl/mapserver/mapper.asp

[SwingKid]

After some more research, I found there are additional significant Chinese airbases near Taiwan, just waiting for reinforcements:

 

 

Since it's likely Flankers would have to deploy forward in the even of hostilities (do they even have aerial refuelling capability?), how about this, for adjusted map borders? I wanted to reach west a little to include more Chinese bases, but without cutting off too much of the north, so there is still space for Taiwanese attacks on Chinese warships coming from that direction:

 

 

One challenge will be making all those Taiwanese airbases... ED has only ever had to make about a dozen or so at a time before. I chose only the largest fields but they also have a number of "highway airstrips" that could play a role. I tried removing some of the less significant island airports that wouldn't be suitable for fighter jets, but it still yields 25-30 airfields.

 

Thoughts?

 

-SK

[zzzspace]

Looks awesome SK. When you face that many missiles you need a lot of runways to hold the air. I also thought about the use of roadways (and salivated at the prospect...).

 

Tankers? yep.

 

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/h6u.asp

http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinas_new_badgers/new_H6-1.html

http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinas_new_badgers/new_H6-2.html

http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinas_new_badgers/new_H6-3.html

http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinas_new_badgers/new_H6-4.html

 

 

PLAAF ORBAT (2000, projected forward to 2010)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/plaaf-orbat-st.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/plaaf-equip.htm

 

It gives no specifics on tanker numbers, in-service (posited as 12 to 20 airframes).

 

A new fleet of 6 x IL-78 tankers expected very soon.

 

Have a look at this detailed spreadsheet SK:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/plaaftoe.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/plaafproj.xls

 

--

 

There is also the issue that both Taiwan and PLA have numbers of short medium and long-range indigenous A2G, A2A, ASuW, cruise missiles and SAMs.

 

Taiwan:

http://www.taiwansecurity.org/TSR-TMD.htm

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/imp_TAI_94-03.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/skybow-1.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/skybow-2.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/10/taiwan.missile/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/air-defense-over.htm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2001/01/02/0000068075

http://taiwansecurity.org/TT/2001/TT-062701.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-05b.html

 

PLA:

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/missile.htm

 

Reference:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/

[SwingKid]

I was really interested in this question of whether ED should continue using the same map-building methods and technology they have used for Lock On, also for future theaters, or if they should change everything to a tile-based system similar to Falcon 4.0 and other sims, that would allow a greater variety of larger theaters... So this has been a greeat discussion, thanks everyone for replies. When I read this:

 

WOW!! lomac truly has the best terrain

 

thanx ED!

 

I can't stress HOW GOOD THE TERRAIN OF LOMAC IS.

 

ED NEVER NEVER decrease the detail for sake of performance, THIS SIM IS THE BEST with the detail.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2698

 

I thought it would be a little heartbreaking to have to disappoint, that the current terrain system is so restrictive for making future theaters and could cause so many problems. But now that we have found at least one good theater that looks like it could be manageable, I think we've given ourselves a lot of options and breathing room.

 

One major hope of mine is that if ED can somehow continue working with the same map file format and level of detail, time-consuming as it may be, then there's hope that the existing Caucasus theater doesn't need to be discarded - it might be able to serve alongside, together with the Su-25, Su-25T and Ka-50, in some future sim product compatible with different selectable theaters (wow... remember those days?? :) ). This could address Alfa's concern regarding "you can't take the Caucasus with you". I mean, it might not all fit on one CD, Caucasus + new theater, but it's a very good option to have - it takes some of the pressure off of my "what ever will they decide about the map" concern, because adding a few Georgian airbases or starting work on a dynamic campaign engine with Lock On's existing map is then not necessarily throwing away resources on a doomed architecture.

 

Regardless what is finally decided, I think most would agree that any new theater outside the Caucasus would best be chosen for its compatibility with carrier ops, if for no other reason then because water area yields more square kilometers for less map development time. So I think the next logical direction of the discussion should follow the lead of Alfa and Caretaker: what other things does Lock On need, in order to do carrier ops well?

 

In principle, I agree with Alfa and Caretaker that a lot more needs to be done than just thinking about the map. I only mention the map first because from my experience on the beta team, I found that it really was the biggest obstacle. Among other things that I would list as needed:

 

- air-to-surface radar for aiming ASMs

- a more realistic SEAD model with smarter SAMs

- user-controllable ARM targeting avionics for PB, TOO and SP modes

- exchange of surface radar target aiming between different AI platforms

- amphibious ships that can deploy and/or retrieve ground vehicles

- marines, ATGM squads, mobile HQ and other infantry units

- more emphasis on ECM and BVR, instead of terrain masking and WVR

- standoff jamming aircraft

- EMCON (emissions control) tactics

- air-launched decoys and reconnaissance UAVs

- helicopter pilot rescue

- submarine warfare

- more emphasis on sea-launched cruise missiles

- satellite reconnaissance

- mission success/failure criteria for vehicles that reach a destination intact

- forward air controllers for CAS aircraft

- GPS-guided weapons

- improved western air-to-air avionics

- improved default keyboard user interface for all of the above

- map buildings with nationality and "container" attributes, for use in logistics warfare

- dynamic campaign engine

- new units in the order of battle

 

Where I think I disagree with Alfa most strongly is that out of all of the above, I think adding carrier-compatible AI ships into the order of battle (i.e. heavy cruisers and destroyers for a more realistic Kuznetsov task force) is the absolute least of our problems, and should be saved for last. I think every other aspect I have listed can be extensively tested and developed to high perfection within the existing "terrarium" of Lock On's Caucasus theater. I especially like the way that the Russian land-based SAM systems like Osa and S-300, are practically reproduced on navy ships like Udaloy and Kirov. While Alfa argues that there's no reason to wait for a new theater to be created before ED starts building new ship models, I would argue that there's no reason to wait for those ship models to be built before we start improving the AI of their weapon systems.

 

The way I see the question then, is ED ready to accomplish all of the above objectives in the next sequel? Or should we aim for a few chunks at a time, e.g. make an improved CAS or SEAD sim for the next project, and a carrier ops sim with new theater for the one after?

 

The year-long development of Su-25T for v1.1 gives me great pause... ED is IMHO poorly equipped to survive, say, five years of product development with no income. They need to pump out sims more regularly if we're ever going to see our dreams realized.

 

My 2 cents,

 

-SK

[leafer]

Caretaker,

 

The one thing I love about the map is the accuracy, so I would hope ED would keep the current detail level in LO a standard for all their sims. When I fly around in LO I never get the feeling that I'm flying over fictitious world as I do with other combat sim. For some reason, to me that adds to realism. Also, I read that you can actually use a real aviation map to fly to different places. I just love the thought that I can do that in combat sim. If only ED models becon and other navigation stuff for the planes.

 

BUT, how about ED mapping all the strategically important structures, roads and whatnot in the game themselves, so they are exactly where they’re supposed to be. Then let the community place towns and whatnot on the map later.

 

And let ED release their future product in stages. Like the way the guys at 'liveforspeed' do on their racing sim. I don't know if ED has enough customer base to pull this off.

[leafer]

SwingKid and others,

 

I found these at simHQ and thought it might come in handy.

 

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/features.html

 

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,22348,00.asp

 

Swingkid,

 

Ed taking a year to develop the Su-25T, I'm wondering if they have put too much emphasis on eye-candy stuff that we don't really need? And this is from a person who loves eye-candy. I mean do the landing gear struts, missiles and etc. really have to look that good? All that efforts put into making them just to get us excited for few days? When they could put that kind of energy into other areas like avionics and etc. Stuff that will give us flankerheads bragging rights for years?

 

Just my .02 satang.

 

 

 

Or is this ED's attemp to draws in more gamers?

 

:)

[SwingKid]

Ed taking a year to develop the Su-25T, I'm wondering if they have put too much emphasis on eye-candy stuff that we don't really need?

 

There are artists at ED, and there are programmers, with very little cross-over between talents. So the graphics are developed, to some extent, fairly independently of the rest of the sim, and in general, with far less time and difficulty. They can't release it any more quickly by giving it less eye-candy.

 

What slows things down is when all the campaigns, missions and training trks are finished, and then one problem is found and fixed with the map requiring a bunch of missions to be re-built, then a flight model error is found requiring trks to be re-recorded, then some new info about avionics comes up that is implemented in the sim, requiring those instructions of the manual to be rewritten and translated, then you find out the change works in single-player but there's a bug in multi-player... Those last-minute surprise changes are the wound that never seems to heal - the more your treat it, the wider it opens. A graphics issue, should one ever arise, can usually be fixed without affecting so much other work in the sim.

 

Discussions like this one though, making good, logical plans as far ahead in advance as possible to avoid having to add, remove, or change things later, is IMHO the best solution to ED's biggest problems. Otherwise last-minute "feature creep" goes on forever.

 

-SK

[VapoR]

What slows things down is when all the campaigns, missions and training trks are finished, and then one problem is found and fixed with the map requiring a bunch of missions to be re-built, then a flight model error is found requiring trks to be re-recorded, then some new info about avionics comes up that is implemented in the sim, requiring those instructions of the manual to be rewritten and translated, then you find out the change works in single-player but there's a bug in multi-player... Those last-minute surprise changes are the wound that never seems to heal - the more your treat it, the wider it opens. A graphics issue, should one ever arise, can usually be fixed without affecting so much other work in the sim.

 

This is IMO a very serious problem. ED needs to abandon the way tracks are handled since it slows down their development SOO much. Remember 1.02? We all had to wait much longer just so they could get the bloody training tracks to work right. Maybe do away with the track system alltogether, but I guess alot of people would be upset. I personally have NEVER used it for anything. It's more fun to fly than to watch yourself in a replay . . .

[SUBS17]

You have to have training missions for those who haven't played the game before. If they are going to fully model a multirole aircraft then it will be even more important to have training tracks too teach people how to fly the aircraft. Things like the ramp start procedure or the employment of weapons will be a major hurdle and put people off the game without a good training system.

Ok in my view v1.1 sets the standard in graphics and physics, so the new sim should be the same or better. This stuff is a whole generation ahead of anyone else including FS2004. If from what I've seen in the movies is true. Therefore the graphics and level of detail should also be of a similar level to lockon for the terrain. Actually what ED did as far as lockons terrain detail level is the best way to go. In other words, for those areas with high importance to the player has a priority over areas that aren't(such as the edge of the map). Theres no need to go over the top, just remain at the same level as v1.1 and it would be excellent.

cheers

Subs

[SUBS17]

Regarding the Campaign, who says Russia can't play? I can't see any reason why not. If its set in a future conflict then theres no reason why a couple of Russian Carrier groups can't join the party. So that opens the door for most of whats already in Lockon to be present. They could be there to support Taiwan or there to help China. The one thing that would be good for this is to have an amphibious landing of an invading army. Maybe China invading Taiwan just as the Squadron of F/A-18s arrives for support. And that could be the start of the real war. I was going to suggest a similar concept for the Aussie/Indonesia campaign where you fight a dominating invading army which starts off with an amphibious landing after several surgical strikes which destroy the over the horizon radar and all the awacs. I'm definately keen on the concept of Taiwan, it also leaves open some good MP games using islands and stuff.

cheers

Subs

[zzzspace]

I was really interested in this question of whether ED should continue using the same map-building methods and technology they have used for Lock On, also for future theaters, or if they should change everything to a tile-based system similar to Falcon 4.0 and other sims, that would allow a greater variety of larger theaters... So this has been a greeat discussion, thanks everyone for replies. When I read this:

 

WOW!! lomac truly has the best terrain

 

thanx ED!

 

I can't stress HOW GOOD THE TERRAIN OF LOMAC IS.

 

ED NEVER NEVER decrease the detail for sake of performance, THIS SIM IS THE BEST with the detail.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2698

 

I thought it would be a little heartbreaking to have to disappoint, that the current terrain system is so restrictive for making future theaters and could cause so many problems. But now that we have found at least one good theater that looks like it could be manageable, I think we've given ourselves a lot of options and breathing room.

 

-SK

 

 

I totally agree with both of you.

[zzzspace]

This is IMO a very serious problem. ED needs to abandon the way tracks are handled since it slows down their development SOO much. Remember 1.02? We all had to wait much longer just so they could get the bloody training tracks to work right. Maybe do away with the track system alltogether, but I guess alot of people would be upset. I personally have NEVER used it for anything. It's more fun to fly than to watch yourself in a replay . . .

 

 

I watched Ironhand’s RWR A-10 training track last week, I've had it installed for ages and never watched it, but when I saw it I was amazed how brilliantly produced and slick it is. There is a heck of a lot of great tips and info that can be transmitted quickly through such tracks, that can not easily be written, read or absorbed via any manual, nor via forum discussions.

 

Please don't do away with tracks (there would be very few, and much lower quality videos with out them as well).

[zzzspace]

Regarding the Campaign, who says Russia can't play? I can't see any reason why not. If its set in a future conflict then theres no reason why a couple of Russian Carrier groups can't join the party. So that opens the door for most of whats already in Lockon to be present. They could be there to support Taiwan or there to help China. The one thing that would be good for this is to have an amphibious landing of an invading army. Maybe China invading Taiwan just as the Squadron of F/A-18s arrives for support.

Subs

 

 

Yes, I was thinking the same thing; PLAN Marines in hovercraft landing on Taiwanese Islands in the strait, big amphib force, naval and air battles, then A-10s arrive to pound the invasion force to bits at the beach head, ASuW attacks to take out logistics, SAMs from hell, SEAD across the strait, cruise missiles everywhere and massive BVR high above ... all the gear needed for a truly epic campaign.

[MBot]

Additionaly to discuss the location and the scenario of EDs next project, we should also have a look at the overall scope of it. Together with the map, the scope of the airwar you want to portait should be to first thing to think about. I don't want to open the cann of worms about what planes should be modeled, but lets see what sort of warfare we would like to see ( BVR, CAS, SEAD, strike, 2-seat, naval etc. )

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems of Lock On was that it wanted to be too much, both a CAS and a air-air sim and therefore lacked in both aspects ( A-10 without FAC-CAS or FARPs, F-15 without real AWACS control, MiG-29/Su-27 without GCI; LOMAC modeled only the planes but not their warfare ). I think the successor has to narrow down the scope, but danger is that the scope gets even bigger. Let's think about what part of the Taiwan theater we lined out above would be the center of this sim.

 

First our current planes in Lock On. I don't think that we will see them necessary in the sucessor, at lest not as takeover from Lock On. If the theater needs them, I guess they would have to be made from scratch. The A-10 and F-15 might be fine today, but lets not forget we talk about a sim that has to be state of the art in 3 years. 3D models and cockpit had to be made new for sure. Only Su-25/T has AFM so far, so another 4 planes would need AFM ( with 1 year developement per plane ? ). Avionics; Su-27 /MiG-29 might be allright, but the others would need an avionic upgrade I guess. But perhaps ED envisiones new depths in avionc modeling, so who knows if they wouldn't all have to be made from scratch.

This all leads me to the conclusion that the next sim would be a fresh new start, plane wise. But this isn't necessary a bad thing, as we have much more choice now around what our little "Taiwan experiment" would center about.

 

Choice nr. one seems to be a naval oriented multirole fighter as the center of ED's next. But I have serious concernes if this would work at all. This choice requires about the most work of any options. Making a CAS envoirement alone would be enough to fill a new sim, for a naval oriented multirole fighter this would just be a little part of the spectrum. Just think about AWACS controlled intercepts, coordinated strikes, SEAD envoirement ( meaning IADS ), proper carrier operations... The work to build all this would me monumental. If we select that broad scope for our Tawain sim, we would reach a level of complexity of Falcon 4. And we all know what the broad sope of F4 ultimatly ment for its developers...

 

I think that ED should limit what it wants to model, in order to stay in business and in order to make a better portrait of what it wants to show. A multirole fighter might be the ultimate dream of any modern flight simmer, but that option might have well died together with the golden age of flightsims. At least one thing is clear for me, EDs future sim should center around a single plane. A single plane was more than enough in the golden times, then a single plane is surely enough now.

 

Now the question is, what scope would you like to see, what theater and what plane types would be needed for this ? I think these questions can only be asked together.

 

 

 

I hope I could express myselfe with my limited english. Even in my naitive language it wouldn't have been an easy task to say my view about that subject.