Pretty Big News for the Future

[Stratos]

We neeeeed that Hind!!

[nunsuch]

Thank you very much indeed Chizh and Olgerd! It surprises me that more info isn't available about the Mirage 2000C as it is older and in service with a bunch of airforces I hope something shows up.

[Olgerd]

Thank you very much indeed Chizh and Olgerd! It surprises me that more info isn't available about the Mirage 2000C as it is older and in service with a bunch of airforces I hope something shows up.

 

Only time helps here. For example. Some really good original manuals for Su-27 and MiG-29 we got during last 2 years. As you know it was the time for 1.0 release. Su-27 flight manual we got about a couple monthes ago. And we are still expecting some problems with info on Su-27 aerodynamics.

[DamonSchumi]

PLease make tomcat in the future the other planes can playing in other games :icon_roll a have real chance in the future for a tomcat ?:icon_redf

[McCallaway]

Clickable cockpits ? Sweeet !

[VMFA-Blaze]

Only time helps here. For example. Some really good original manuals for Su-27 and MiG-29 we got during last 2 years. As you know it was the time for 1.0 release. Su-27 flight manual we got about a couple monthes ago. And we are still expecting some problems with info on Su-27 aerodynamics.

 

This sounds like the SU-27 is the next candidate for the AFM ........

 

~S~

 

 

Blaze

[SUBS17]

The Su27 would be a good match for the F-15 with an AFM. Hopefully they'll take a look at Falcon 4 while developing this Sim and maybe enhance the comms engine. Falcon 4 still has more immersion on this side of flight sims, the requirement for the player to taxi in sequence, the tower being more active by asking why you are taking so long after startup. More aircraft and packages departing and arriving. Things like this make the player get more involved. Other things that enhance a flight sim are greater mission involvement for the player and a deeper sense of achievement after succeeding in a mission. Things that can spice up a combat flightsim are also short movies during a campaign(after 5-10 missions) these have featured in past flight sims such as Topgun and the x-wing series. You don't necessarily need actors for this approach, simple animated characters work just as good. Also the requirement for the player to use his call sign and get medals and promotions. If such a flight sim concentrates on Internet play it would be very popular.

 

Olgred- Just one thought on this flight manuals business, in taking things up to that level of detail(such as Falcon 4 SP4.2BMS) you may well have to use work arounds as alot of that stuff is still secret.

[Battle_Rattle]

Super

 

Guys I hear many making an appeal for the F-18...and I agree with that!!!

 

However, lets all be clear that it should the Super Hornet (F/A-18E/F)

 

ED From a marketing perspective it makes complete sense to include the super hornet at the expense of a F-16! Here's some reasons why.

 

-The Falcon 4 series should indicate that many of your target audience has already experience with the Falcon. Yes Janes F-18 did exist but not in the same depth and it wasnt a Super Hornet. In short, people want a plane that has likely never been in their sim library or been played alot.

 

- The F-18 Super Hornet has the features most would want. Here's a list, pay special attention to the bold items.

 

One M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon; External payload: AIM-9X, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); Data Link Pod; Paveway Laser Guided Bomb; various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets.

 

* The Aim-9x I consider to be one of the most needed upgrades!! Those R-73's are nasty!

 

- My last point is that most of your market countries already have F-18's. Yes it is widely notable that the F-16 has been exported to more countries than the F-18 but I seriously doubt a country like Oman is on your high list of LOMAC buyers. In essence, you have to capture the minds of the most buyers... and if it's between the F-16 and the F-18 (U.S., Canada, Australia, Spain, etc... I can't tell you how many people from these countries I meet on Hyperlobby...it's so many!!) I would say the F-18 would be a better bet.

 

One can see by the responses in this thread alone, F-16 isn't capturing the imagination of the player base. It's been experienced in the Falcon series already and the last variant (F-16C/D BLOCK 60) was started back in the early 1990's.

 

Go with the Super Hornet...

[Caretaker]

-The Falcon 4 series should indicate that many of your target audience has already experience with the Falcon. Yes Janes F-18 did exist but not in the same depth and it wasnt a Super Hornet.

 

Jane's F/A-18 did feature the Superhornet, and its depth exceeded the one of Falcon4 in some areas.

 

My last point is that most of your market countries already have F-18's.

 

But none of them, except the US, has the Superhornet. And even there it's of questionable popularity ;)

 

I'd also say that a Hornet should be the more interesting choice compared to an F-16, but not by much. But a standard A or C model please, no Superhornet for me.

[MrIch]

I fully agree SUBS17 and Battle_Rattle....

 

In falcon4 you think you are in the middle of an operation... many other flights are in the air und you think you are a small part of a big operation... that was very cool.

 

Also falcon4 had very cool mission like deepstrikes with a mixed loadout you first shoot down migs near the airbase and than destroy the runway... That was only possible with a multi-role fighter like a f16 oder f18.

 

So please give as an nato multi-role fighter, I would spend another 35EUR without asking.

[Battle_Rattle]

Jane's F/A-18 did feature the Superhornet, and its depth exceeded the one of Falcon4 in some areas.

 

But none of them, except the US, has the Superhornet. And even there it's of questionable popularity ;)

 

I'd also say that a Hornet should be the more interesting choice compared to an F-16, but not by much. But a standard A or C model please, no Superhornet for me.

 

 

LOL Caretaker!! I obviously never played JF-18 (and i meant market penetration depth not game play depth...and how is the Super Hornet of questionable popularity to the US Navy? It has major improvements over the F-18a/c and we can't even begin to talk about the Navy F-35 in the context of this game...ED will not be touching stealth yet.) and I was hoping to let the point about the Super Hornet nations slip "under the radar" :icon_wink

 

However...it still doesn't diminish the point that there is a need for a modern western aircraft that fit a marketable role. The F-16 is possibly played out, the F-22 and F-35 stealth attributes (among other things) preclude themselves, the older F-18's have performace deficiets, and the Gripen and Rafael are too narrow in market scope. I would say go for a Super Hornet or Eurofighter (no ones been shouting for the EuroFighter though)....or? whatelse people? A chinese J-10? :icon_excl :p

 

I think ED probably will choose the F-16 because it can "turn and burn" better with the russian aircraft (that and they can skip more AtoG radar stuff)...

 

It's an interesting choice for them. Whatever they choose might be relegated to an Su-33's status... It's interesting that no one has brought up that a F-16/F-18/Eurofighter might turn into a western su-33 in term of how much people use it...... I.E. It can't carry the neat AtoG stuff that a SU-25 or A-10 carries so why bother with it when it doesn't have air to ground radar and the F-15 or a Su-27 is sitting there. I dont ever see people running to SU-33's.

 

Maybe thats the real crux of my exuberance over this... I'm sitting here thinking a multi-role fighter will actually have full radar/weapons attributes when it possibly wont in LOMACx.

 

Whatever......Choose the F-18 super hornet because it's more powerful than the old and can operate on carriers...and whatever you do....have a helmet mounted Aim-9x :icon_jook

 

By the way.... ED I LOVE your work...I really do.

[gherring]

However...it still doesn't diminish the point that there is a need for a modern western aircraft that fit a marketable role. The F-16 is possibly played out, the F-22 and F-35 stealth attributes (among other things) preclude themselves, the older F-18's have performace deficiets, and the Gripen and Rafael are too narrow in market scope. I would say go for a Super Hornet or Eurofighter (no ones been shouting for the EuroFighter though)....or? whatelse people? A chinese J-10? :icon_excl :p

 

 

It's not stealth attributes that preclude the F-22 and F-35, it's just that these planes are too new and too classified to get enough data.

 

I basically feel there should be a NATO carrier aircraft if there is a Russian carrier aircraft, so that would opt for the F-18 over the F-16 unless the Su-33 was dropped (and let's not do that). But if we're going to do real carrier air battles, let's get a better theater. Maybe the Norwegian Sea or how about the Indian Ocean, adding India as one of the countries (oh, but then you'd have to model those Indian missiles with their uber-ranged boosters :p ).

[SUBS17]

You actually have a better chance with older aircraft than you do with the newer ones as information is very difficult to find. The other problem is if one aircraft is fully modeled then the player will be at a disadvantage compared to other aircraft that aren't modeled as much. The INS in the F-16 alone takes 8 minutes to align in Falcon, ramping can take up to 12minutes to be ready to taxi. You might have a better chance finding info for F/A-18C than you would Superhornet but why not have both. There are some dedicated aircraft websites where its likely you might find a pilot for aircraft like the F-16, F-15E and Tornado. Pilots input is vital if you want a realistic performance, preferably one pilot per aircraft type. The more flyables the better.

[Stangpilot]

I like the F/A-18(I am Canadian) better than the F-16 for many reasons and I like the idea of Carrier ops but only Russian carriers sail in the black sea so why bother with other carriers untill we get more areas.

 

 

I prefer the F/A-18 over the F-16 myself. I would love to see a well done flyable.

[112th_Rossi]

Its really good to see the dev team communicating like this.

 

On the sounds note, I have a friend who is an RAF engineer, perhaps he can be persuaded to take a microphone the next time he's testing aircraft engines ;)

[SUBS17]

Thats a good idea, nothing beats the real mcoy. I'm surprised they haven't got zzzspace doing that, he makes some pretty good sound packs.

[leafer]

The Su27 would be a good match for the F-15 with an AFM. Hopefully they'll take a look at Falcon 4 while developing this Sim and maybe enhance the comms engine. Falcon 4 still has more immersion on this side of flight sims, the requirement for the player to taxi in sequence, the tower being more active by asking why you are taking so long after startup. More aircraft and packages departing and arriving. Things like this make the player get more involved. Other things that enhance a flight sim are greater mission involvement for the player and a deeper sense of achievement after succeeding in a mission. Things that can spice up a combat flightsim are also short movies during a campaign(after 5-10 missions) these have featured in past flight sims such as Topgun and the x-wing series. You don't necessarily need actors for this approach, simple animated characters work just as good. Also the requirement for the player to use his call sign and get medals and promotions. If such a flight sim concentrates on Internet play it would be very popular.

 

I don't think having a virtual ATC asking me why am I taking so long is going to get my brain more involved. I'd like for them to just be more active in general. But once they start asking me about my day...it'll kill the imersion for me.

 

Animation. For me. I never, ever watch them in any games. I usually turn them off if I can. Boring! The only in-game animation that wowed me is in Warhammer! BUt I prefer ED putting effort into other things. I love flying that's why I play flight sim.

 

 

Olgred- Just one thought on this flight manuals business, in taking things up to that level of detail(such as Falcon 4 SP4.2BMS) you may well have to use work arounds as alot of that stuff is still secret.

 

I would be extremely upset with ED if they didn't already figure this bit out.

 

:wink:

 

==========================================================

 

F16? No, man! Please no! If you don't model Harrier then please do an F18. And I don't want Super Hornet either just cuz the info would be even harder to come by.

[Slamelov]

It will be interesting to see how they make thigns like the ah-64 and mi-28 since those require a pilot and gunner. I wonder if we will be able to be in both positions and maybe even have 2 people in one online. That would be pretty sweet having one person concentrating on flying as low as possible and evading missiles while the other person is working on getting the hellfires ready to shoot and controlling the gun.

 

That could be great, like Longbow 2...

[HungaroJET]

ED team members..PLZ tell us about the Mi-28...

 

& what about loadable skins ? ...would B nice-->Add limitless selectable skins like in IL2...(possibility to load in Mission Editor)

 

THX

[phant]

... questionable popularity ;)

Hi,

what do you think about the F-4 Phantom II ?

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/f45000.htm :D

 

Bye

Phant

[SUBS17]

I don't think having a virtual ATC asking me why am I taking so long is going to get my brain more involved. I'd like for them to just be more active in general. But once they start asking me about my day...it'll kill the imersion for me.

 

Animation. For me. I never, ever watch them in any games. I usually turn them off if I can. Boring! The only in-game animation that wowed me is in Warhammer! BUt I prefer ED putting effort into other things. I love flying that's why I play flight sim.

 

 

 

 

I would be extremely upset with ED if they didn't already figure this bit out.

 

:wink:

 

==========================================================

 

F16? No, man! Please no! If you don't model Harrier then please do an F18. And I don't want Super Hornet either just cuz the info would be even harder to come by.

 

 

What I mean't was taking too long and missing your launch window, and then getting a prompt by the tower send reason for delay. Look at F4:

 

1/ I read the brief and pick from a list of sorties

2/ I ramp up the F-16 and report ready to the tower all while other flights from that list are taxiing and taking off.

3/ I recieve from the tower to taxi 7th in order. If I screw up and take too long or take off without permission the tower lets me know. "coyboy 1-2 next time wait your turn"

4/ On take off I join up with the rest of my flight and follow the DED to hit the target at precisely the correct time 1330hrs not a second late or early.

 

As for animations, true not always necessary but what is required is a sense of achievement. Thats whats missing with lockon.

[Caretaker]

LOL Caretaker!! I obviously never played JF-18 (and i meant market penetration depth not game play depth...and how is the Super Hornet of questionable popularity to the US Navy? It has major improvements over the F-18a/c and we can't even begin to talk about the Navy F-35 in the context of this game...ED will not be touching stealth yet.) and I was hoping to let the point about the Super Hornet nations slip "under the radar" :icon_wink

 

Hehe ok ;)

 

With "dubious popularity" I'm referring to the fact that the Super Hornet is replacing the F-14 at the moment... more and more squadrons are phasing out the Tomcat. And there are few planes as popular as the Tomcat! :)

 

And in that context you can read lots of doubtful remarks about the Superhornet's performance, some people claiming it's overweight and even less agile than an F/A-18C.

 

Still enjoyed flying it a lot in Jane's F/A-18E - so I guess I could live with the Superhornet in Lock On as well ;)

[Caretaker]

Hi,

what do you think about the F-4 Phantom II ?

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/f45000.htm :D

 

Bye

Phant

 

I love the Phantom! :)

 

It's still in service here in Germany, although most airframes are about to fall apart. In fact with the MiG-29 gone and the Eurofighter still not in widespread service, the F-4, upgraded with the APG-63 (I think) and the AIM-120, is our only fighter aircraft at the moment... ;)

 

However it's been phased out long ago in the US, and so I doubt it's sensible for ED to concentrate on it. The Wild Weasel variant would still be interesting for a late 80s theatre, but otherwise it's simply too old to be featured - unfortunately.

[Kevlon]

Caretaker:

 

Will this also acure in the late 80's or more recent time?

Any plans for a new map or expantion of the current map?

 

when do you think we will start to see screens and such of this awsome game? ;)

 

PS: u do take good care of us :D

[Olgerd]

Olgred- Just one thought on this flight manuals business, in taking things up to that level of detail(such as Falcon 4 SP4.2BMS) you may well have to use work arounds as alot of that stuff is still secret.

 

We have really good info sources for F-16C. At least many if not all you can see in F4+BMS is described in the docs we have. Some minor problems there with HTS employment sequence and AN/ALR-56M azimuth indicator symbology though...