Mizzy Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Well I really do like realism and all that but why cannot the Mig 23 and Su17 be made flyable?? I ask this, Su17 does not have fancy avionics and F-5 does not either, so why cannot we have a cockpit for them and make FM ? surely this could be cheap add-on is this not so? In other words, any aircraft that does not have lots of avionics thingy displays and loads of TVs to watch, can they not have a working cockpit like Su25?? Alternatively, could we not have the ability to use the Su25 cockpit and shove it in the Su17 and ED make a good FM.........da da... its another flyable :) Su17 real cockpit is not so different to the Su25 anyway and I love the Su17 cos its a wonderful looking brute. Sorry to waffle on but some of us I am sure here are not always bothered about "Hi Tec" avionics stuff, just nice aircraft/simple authentic cockpit with working guages and loads of bombs to drop on things ;) Anyone else like to see the Su17 flyable even if using Su25 cockpit? Mizzy
169th_Jaws Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 New flyables would be nice but then the development of the existing aircraft would suffer. I'd rather see the ones we already have getting more attention. Just when you thought it was safe to go back over the water... Flight Lieutenant "Jaws" 169th Panthers
flanker760 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 good point, concentrate on the exixting. new high res skins for the mig23/27 would be nice. is there any ressource to do that out there? anybody known who can do it or maybe has it done for the communty? a new skin for the mig 31 would also be very, very, very nice! :D
Mizzy Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 I was thinking more on the "Strike Fighters" theme of aircraft development for Lock On with aircraft that had only basic AtoA and AtoG avionics and of course the Mig23/27 Su17 and F5 falls into this category. All it really needs is a cockpit a basic HUD and ED to do the FM and implementation (weapons etc) and we have three new flyable aircraft :) If I am not mistaken, none of these aircraft had Ato G radar! Emm I think but then again I am pretty thick on the technical side! Mizzy
britgliderpilot Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 All it really needs is a cockpit a basic HUD and ED to do the FM and implementation (weapons etc) and we have three new flyable aircraft :) Well yes - but that's rather like me saying that *all* it needs for me to be strongest man in the world is to work out enough and spend a lot of time at it. It's not nearly so easy, straightforward, or fast as you make it sound . . . . :wink: If I am not mistaken, none of these aircraft had Ato G radar! Emm I think but then again I am pretty thick on the technical side! Mizzy I think the MiG-27 might have done . . . . but yeah, the others should be free of the A2G radar problem. However, that's not the only concern. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Guest DeathAngelBR Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 As for the F-5, I'll go with this one
Mizzy Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 But its much easier to implement basic cockpits, you know, no flashy LCD radars and radar modeling etc than have to model a AtoG for example! The code is there for altimeter, stablizer...all the basic stuff like in the Su25, therefore it has to be simple artwork and modelling (yes this is a large exercise admitted) 3D cockpit :) Simply put, it must be alot easier to implement F-5/Su17 cockpit than the F16 block 50/52! Look at the amount of flyables in IL2 :) all have basic cockpits... maybe ED will allow third party cockpits to be developed and use their models! Just an idea. Mizzy
GGTharos Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 It's more than just cockpits - the FM's must be modelled as well, plus class IDs must be added for each new aircraft which is probably a problem in and of itself, and who-knows-what else. It may -sound- simple, but -simple- isn't the problem - the problem is the time it takes to do all this. Research must be made to get teh FM correctly, the FM must then be tested, tweaked, retested, etc. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Mizzy Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 It's more than just cockpits - the FM's must be modelled as well, plus class IDs must be added for each new aircraft which is probably a problem in and of itself, and who-knows-what else. It may -sound- simple, but -simple- isn't the problem - the problem is the time it takes to do all this. Research must be made to get teh FM correctly, the FM must then be tested, tweaked, retested, etc. Yes indeed which is why I mentioned FM programming etc in my above posts ;) No its not simple as I have already stated! My point was it is SIMPLER than doing Hi Tec complicated avionics aircraft like the F/A 18 and F16 ;) All the code is programmed already to do a F-5, Mig 23 and Su17 cockpit, its only (yes I know its complicated) doing a cockpit and FM in the main. I take it we DO all want a few more flyables in Lock on do we not ;) and surely this philosophy of doing less complicated (that does not mean it NOT complicated) already coded option is one way to see more flyables :) Cheers Mizzy
Recommended Posts