Carrier Based F18

[firesoldier845]

Trying to stay positive but why so much whiners over F/A-18 constantly since the day this sim came out? ED will model whatever aircraft they want to PERIOD. What do you people honestly think your going to achieve by non-stop crying over F/A-18? There is probably hundreds of threads or more over this topic from the same few people. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see F/A-18, but I just don't think it's necessary to start a new thread on it every 2 or 3 days for the last two years. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! cheers

[Ice]

I'd hate to see your replies when you actually want to flame a thread :icon_roll

[Skywall23]

I'd hate to see your replies when you actually want to flame a thread :icon_roll

Ice Im tired of seeing this threads of the Hornet. Sincerely. Just because your country has an F/A-18 does it mean it has to be made flyable? If thats your point then the F-16 (which is in service of my country air force) would have to be made flyable because there are more countries with F-16s than with F/A-18s. More units were sold also.

 

Apart from that, Eagle Dynamics focuses more on Air to Air and Air to Ground combat than the naval operations. This area is so incomplete and you want a flyable for it? The Su-33 is flyable because its the same thing as the Su-27, just some minor diferences.

 

You may well cry pal, but you wont get an F/A-18 on the next ED add-on. That I can assure you. But if you are talking about the next sim of ED, then just ignore my post.

[Ice]

Two things.

 

I never said the next addon. I said "one day" and I, as do some others believe that's very possible.

 

Second thing. I am not you pal.

[SUBS17]

Yes bigger, and I myself find Falcon way more immersive than all other sims at this stage... but how many incarnations of Falcon are there? Can you find a multy game any time you want?... No infact you must all have the Excact install as the one you are playing with. While I find single player fun(and this is all I can do at this time... due to lack of decent net connect), nothing beats flying with real people, who think outside the circle.

Me being one who knows nothing about coding .. I can't really comment on what avionics can or can't be modeled, it would be nice to have a Hornet.. it is an awesome plane.

 

 

Thats exactly right, the biggest drawback of F4 is the number of versions out there. There simply is no standardisation among the groups and its MP code is out of date. Lockon so far has the best MP code since FC with the best stability. If the lockon successor is an F-16 then a Hornet wouldn't be far off. I think the biggest hurdle for the Hornet is that they need more information to model its avionics at the moment theres alot more information on the F-16s avionics than there is on the Hornet since Falcon 4 was developed.

[SUBS17]

Hey Ice, take a look here

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=57577#post57577

[Ice]

Well thats positive :-)

 

I am happy to see an F16 also. Even before an F18. All this thread is for is to keep the dream alive. If an F16 can be made as a future aircraft on a Flanker based Sim. Then the F18 is one step closer to becoming a "flyable" also.

[Skywall23]

Two things.

 

I never said the next addon. I said "one day" and I, as do some others believe that's very possible.

 

Second thing. I am not you pal.

 

You are pretty bad at ignoring...lol...and at reading as well...

 

You may well cry pal, but you wont get an F/A-18 on the next ED add-on. That I can assure you. But if you are talking about the next sim of ED, then just ignore my post.

[Dmut]

This thread went into wrong direction. closed.

 

ps: attention to Ice and Skywall23 - don't make it personal ;)

[Dmut]

Hopefully everybody are chilled out :)

 

thread is open now, for discussion, not for flamewars ;)

[Kula66]

If we can't get an F-18 (due to complexity of new code required for A2G ... which I can fully understand - although I'm sure it would recoup its investment) ... then a Harrier AV-8B or Sea Harrier FRS1 gets my vote ... simply systems, new AFM ... would allow NATO carrier ops BUT ... without large amounts of work on the naval side, I guess this is just a pipe dream ... :(

[Andrew_McP]

If we can't get an F-18 (due to complexity of new code required for A2G ... which I can fully understand - although I'm sure it would recoup its investment) ... then a Harrier AV-8B or Sea Harrier FRS1 gets my vote

 

Mine too, or maybe a Viggen ("Thunderbolt").

 

But one thing that tends to get forgotten in these (very regular :-) discussions is that what matters most is not what we want. If ED are to spend months and years of their lives working on something at the core of a new game engine, it has to be something that *they* are excited by. If ED are motivated and inspired then we all reap the benefits in the code they write, whether they create aircraft we *think* we like or not.

 

I wasn't that impressed by the Tornado as an aircraft (I was a Vulcan fan :-)until I read a review of DI's Tornado sim... and bought a PC to fly it on. I knew little or nothing about the Su-27 until I flew the Flanker 1.0 demo and fell in love immediately. I was only vaguely aware that the AH-64 existed until DI's Apache and Longbow 1 came along and taught me to be excited. The same goes for many other aircraft and their systems which I didn't appreciate until I flew them in software.

 

Sure, I've enjoyed some more than others, but if a developer cares enough to spend time working on an aircraft, the least I can do is hand over a little cash and see what it's like. I try to be broad-minded!

 

Anyway, as long as "LOMAC 2" addresses the longstanding issue afflicting the Flanker2/LOMAC engine -- namely the lack of a dynamic environment we care about enough to keep coming back to -- then it doesn't matter what aircraft they settle on. Well, as long as it's not the Wright Brothers' aircraft. A campaign stretching from one side of a small field to the other might not capture my imagination ;-)

 

Gameplay first this time please, not trying to please as many aircraft fans as possible. That's a game ED will always lose, because we're a fussy bunch even at the best of times :-)

 

Andrew McP

[britgliderpilot]

If we can't get an F-18 (due to complexity of new code required for A2G ... which I can fully understand - although I'm sure it would recoup its investment) ... then a Harrier AV-8B or Sea Harrier FRS1 gets my vote ... simply systems, new AFM ... would allow NATO carrier ops BUT ... without large amounts of work on the naval side, I guess this is just a pipe dream ... :(

 

On the other hand, Jet Thunder is working on the Harrier as a primary flyable . . . . . don't flood the market with Harriers, let them do that while ED work on their stuff ;)

 

 

ED's plans for the future (Future According to Igor Tishin, Book 1, verse 1, yea verily . . . ) include an F16 and a MiG29K - both multirole aircraft.

 

I think this means that the F/A-18 is a much more likely bet in the long term . . . . . a lot more of the necessary code will have to be inserted for the two proposed additions.

[Cosmonaut]

According to this thread http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7322 an F-16 is planned so it cant be the complex avionics that is preventing the DEV’s from developing an F-18. I think it’s more a question of economics.. with the distribution restrictions placed on ED by their previous relationship with UBI I think they would much rather wait until they have full control over a sim before releasing an Aircraft that will undoubtedly increase sales more than any other flyable would.

 

I’ll quote myself from that thread ;)

 

 

How did we get so far from the F-18 and so close to the F-16?? I had always thought that the DEV’s considered the Hornet as the natural choice if they could ever get the budget to develop a new Flyable in Lockon. I mean just have a look at the model as it stands right now Pic 1, Pic 2… the visual model already looks better than every other aircraft in lockon expect the Su25T and Mig29 .. all that’s left for the DEV’s to do is to just Duck tape a panel to it and let us fly it lol.

 

I would say though that ED is moving in the right direction in terms of developing as many flyable aircraft as they can… I think that’s going to be a real winner for them in the future. The most popular flightsims right now FS9 and PFm both have a considerable number of aircraft for the simmer to choose from so I think it’s a wise decision for lomac to follow the same develop plan that seems to be so successful for other sims. Which makes me think why leave out the F-18.. could it be that ED really want to release their next sim, say Lockon Future air combat, with the announcement that you will be able to fly the Hornet? Hmm if so then its good business plan and to be honest I can’t say I would do it any different.

[Andrew_McP]

According to this thread http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7322 an F-16 is planned so it cant be the complex avionics that is preventing the DEV’s from developing an F-18.

 

Remember the F16 comes in many flavours... some of them without A2G capability. That (IMO) is why ED have it on their maybe list. Borrow the A2A modes from the F15, tweak a new flight model, build a new cockpit and there's your extra aircraft. All you get is a variation on the F-15 we already have, adding nothing to the gameplay.

 

Andrew McP

[Caretaker]

According to this thread http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7322 an F-16 is planned so it cant be the complex avionics that is preventing the DEV’s from developing an F-18. I think it’s more a question of economics.. with the distribution restrictions placed on ED by their previous relationship with UBI I think they would much rather wait until they have full control over a sim before releasing an Aircraft that will undoubtedly increase sales more than any other flyable would.

 

All of these planes discussed currently will be featured in a sim that ED has full control over. No difference here.

 

The F-16 and F/A-18 are pretty much equivalent in their roles, avionics complexity and distribution around the world. The only apparent difference is the area of naval operations that do not have to be modelled with a Falcon. I could also imagine that ED already has more information on the F-16. That is of course pure speculation, but still a possible reason ;)

[Cosmonaut]

All of these planes discussed currently will be featured in a sim that ED has full control over. No difference here.

 

Damn ..then its really going to be a while before we see an F-18 in Lockon :(

[SUBS17]

Remember the F16 comes in many flavours... some of them without A2G capability. That (IMO) is why ED have it on their maybe list. Borrow the A2A modes from the F15, tweak a new flight model, build a new cockpit and there's your extra aircraft. All you get is a variation on the F-15 we already have, adding nothing to the gameplay.

 

Andrew McP

 

Highly unlikely that they'll take that short cut, its more likely that they'll create a flyby wire AFM for the F-16. As well as a whole new radar since as they are aiming for Falcon 4 level for the avionics. There are some major differences in the radar modes for Falcon 4 SP4.2 and lockons F-15C. Due to the MFDs and the number of pages used for the F-16s radar you'll need a clickable pit to work it.(completely different to lockons set up. Also the a/g radar is also a major difference complete with 3 scaning modes).

[Alfa]

Remember the F16 comes in many flavours... some of them without A2G capability. That (IMO) is why ED have it on their maybe list. Borrow the A2A modes from the F15, tweak a new flight model, build a new cockpit and there's your extra aircraft. All you get is a variation on the F-15 we already have, adding nothing to the gameplay.

 

Andrew McP,

 

Thats just silly - and a case of jumping to conclusions if I ever saw one :icon_roll .

 

Olgerd explained in this thread: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7322 ..that they have good information on the F-16C, but not quite the same level on the F-18C....and virtually nothing on European fighters like the Mirage 2000 or Tornado.

 

- JJ.

[Prophet_169th]

The F15 has much more functionality in the MFD's than we have now, yet we have the F15.

 

Also, I think ED plans on giving us the F18 as a surprise, and you all are just ruining it =D

[Andrew_McP]

Thats just silly

 

This whole thread is silly. We should be flying what we have, not debating what we may or may not have in the future.

 

> Olgerd explained...that they have good information on the F-16C

 

I enjoy Olgerd's contributions. But having good information and high hopes is not the same as delivering working code, especially given the LOMAC engine's A2G limitations.

 

Based on what I see in the evolving LOMAC code I can imagine an F-16 with A2A and dumb iron bomb capability being added any time ED like. But that's not the same as delivering a fully modelled aircraft to compete with F4. That's a few years off.

 

I may well be wrong. But following ED's work since the start has taught me to be cautious and to appreciate what I have on my hard disk. Others may prefer to dream a little. There's no law against that :-)

 

Andrew McP

[MBot]

. But that's not the same as delivering a fully modelled aircraft to compete with F4. That's a few years off.

 

Thats exactly what we are talking about. ED's next sim project that is still several years away.

[Ice]

 

Beautiful aint she?

[Alfa]

This whole thread is silly. We should be flying what we have, not debating what we may or may not have in the future.

 

> Olgerd explained...that they have good information on the F-16C

 

I enjoy Olgerd's contributions. But having good information and high hopes is not the same as delivering working code, especially given the LOMAC engine's A2G limitations.

 

Based on what I see in the evolving LOMAC code I can imagine an F-16 with A2A and dumb iron bomb capability being added any time ED like. But that's not the same as delivering a fully modelled aircraft to compete with F4. That's a few years off.

 

I may well be wrong. But following ED's work since the start has taught me to be cautious and to appreciate what I have on my hard disk. Others may prefer to dream a little. There's no law against that :-)

 

Andrew McP

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Well if you look at the degree of accuracy being introduced for the avionics of the Su-25T, I think it is safe to say that an F-16 addition wouldnt have the nature you expect(or fear) .....I dont believe ED would take a step back from the new high fidelity modelling introduced with the Su-25T in Lock-on 1.1.

 

My personal philosophy is that, while it is defendable to "approximate" minor details(if there isnt enough information available) of a featured aircraft, it is essential to provide a proper depiction of its overall nature.

 

So, IMHO, there would be little point in pursuing an F-16 addition, if it didnt provide all the multirole capabilities associated with it....including air-to-ground radar modes.

 

I dont believe that there is anything particulary "limitating" about the Lock-on code in regards to the development of radar air-to-surface modes - even Flanker had such a feature, so the challenge would have to do with the "fidelity" of such a feature - i.e. modelling it to the same degree of accuracy as was done with the Shkval system for the Su-25T in 1.1

 

- JJ.

[104th_Crunch]

Holy dead thread resurrection batman! Oh well, go F18 go! :cheer3nc: