Announcing Flaming Cliffs 2.0

[RedTiger]

I third that :D

 

I don't care about missions too.... don't play single player against stupid AI.

 

Myself.....There is however the OMFGINEVERPLAYONLINEIWANTADYNAMICCAMPAIGNWHATWILLIDOWITHOUTMISSIONSANDCAMPAIGNS Virtual Pilots that have to be catered for at the end of the day....Gotta keep the Customers Happy :D

 

Yes, keeping what potentially is the majority of players happy? Yes, good call.

 

I've played LOMAC. I've played online games head to head and coop. I've gone out and made friends with real people. I can see how combining all of this is probably a blast, but its just not something that interests me.

 

The main appeal to me in multiplayer is the fact that I'm testing myself against a real person. The secondary appeal is that I am accomplishing something satisfying that I couldn't do by myself. Thats IT. I'm not interested in making friends and I really don't care to put a name and face to the guy I'm virtually shooting dead. The only exception I make for this is real-life friends, all of which aren't new; they're people I've known for years. I like to be quickly matched against someone and get on with it, all with the freedom to stop for days at a time if real life calls without any obligation. Frankly, modern big budget multiplayer games trump LOMAC at this, and understandably so.

 

To put it another way: If someone told me that I had a choice between playing against a human OR I could play against a very advanced AI that is 1:1 vs. a human in quality, I'd choose the AI in a heartbeat. AI is available 24 hours a day. It doesn't act like an uncivilized jackass when it proceeds to hand me my ass, and it doesn't cry and whine when it gets beaten by me.

 

In addition, the types of kicks I get from multiplayer games and the types of kicks I get from flight sims are *completely* different. Its like the difference between enjoying a purely entertainment action movie vs. a serious historical documentary. Call of Duty/WoW is the action movie, flight sims are the documentary. I don't care to mix my Pearl Harbor and my Tora! Tora! Tora! ;)

 

I put up with spotty AI to experience the aspect of simulations I enjoy. A lot of the problems with AI can be aided if you use a moderate amount of unit saturation in the mission and discipline yourself to play realistically. I'm not saying you'd be good enough to beat a human, I'm saying that you might actually have enough challenge to have fun.

 

TL: DR version; missions and campaigns matter to ME, and I'm certainly not alone. I'm looking forward to whatever campaign ED is cooking up for the F-15C.

Edited February 6, 2010 by RedTiger

[EvilBivol-1]

in that case I don't think "Early" 2010 can be likely time for the release... February is ongoing... once we get past March first quarter of the 2010 is gone and we are going into mid 2010... like I said, I would gladly pay the amount for the 2.0 without the missions and campaigns and this would only add another option for the customers.

Kuky, even if we said fine, forget the missions and campaigns - it would not be ready to release. There are still other tasks ongoing.

 

Everyone is trying to get there, ED management probably more so than you. ;)

[Kuky]

Yeah I can see... I'll just keep on waiting ;)

[Mugatu]

Kuky, even if we said fine, forget the missions and campaigns - it would not be ready to release. There are still other tasks ongoing.

 

Everyone is trying to get there, ED management probably more so than you. ;)

 

What about the poor developers.

[Grimes]

EvilBivol-1, what I meant by compatibility patch is that what type of product I see this as.

 

I think its not an expansion because it doesn't necessarily add anything new for the player to use. (No new aircraft to fly unless you bought Black Shark). Its sort-of an addon because we are getting new terrain (but removing Ukraine) updated models, sounds, textures, et al. Everything is new, but basically the same.

 

So in the end its compatibility. All of the visuals, AI tweaks, ME, is all being ported to what BS is. We are paying 15 bucks to essencially convert everything in FC1 to what is present in BS. I'm fine with that, its why I'm going to buy it. That alone is a very strong selling point. Thus to me, it is a compatibility pack.

 

The main point I was trying to make, perhaps was a little buried in subtext, so I'm just going to say it.

 

 

Eagle Dynamics needs to get into the habit of releasing patches/content/DLC on a regular interval. Not because something is broken, but because its the right thing to do. And the interval CANNOT be a year between patches. That is way to long. I'm not talking about just LO right now, I'm talking about every product they make in future. Its a good business model. Just adding 4 features to the ME every 3 months would keep people interested and experimenting on what is currently possible. Add in other stuff or fix what actually was broken and you might find that your audience grows.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware in the very real possibility that this will be the last time FC gets touched. I just don't see any sense in that. You are appeasing your audience just to let them down again as soon as DCS:A10 is released. You are giving the game "one last hurrah" 2 years after it should have happened. Releasing FC2 and just leaving it in whatever form it gets released in IS WORSE than 3D Realms never releasing Duke Nukem Forever.

[Renato71]

What about the poor developers.

 

You, over there! No more LUA export for you!

 

[borchi_2b]

so for all the nonbelivers of the capabilities of the r27et, this is something i found from the press, who got a good inside.

 

this is where i got it from.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

 

this is the quote i am reffering too

 

Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

 

this is the only official thing i found so far, which proves the fact, that the r27et has nearly the same range like the r27er and that it can be shoot at override at ranges that are about 5-10% smaler then the range of r27er.

 

so please cool-t and pilotasso and all the other nonbelievers who think of the russians not being able to fire IR at long ranges, overthink the facts and look at it ndependantly, like we do it in europe, so you might see the light of knowledge at the end of the tunnel.

 

unfortunatly this is one of the rare official statements about russian doctrines i could find so far in the inet.

 

this should be eyeopening for every f15 pilot in lomac.

 

i really hope that the range of the r27et will be more realistic so that we can fly the soviet tactics finaly with our soviet fighters.

 

greets

[GGTharos]

Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

 

this is the only official thing i found so far, which proves the fact, that the r27et has nearly the same range like the r27er and that it can be shoot at override at ranges that are about 5-10% smaler then the range of r27er.

 

It doesn't prove anyting. In fact after speaking to an eastern MiG pilot, it turns out that the R-27E series is a relatively poor anti-fighter weapon, but a fairly good anti-bomber weapon. Fighters tasked with dueling other fighters arm up the plain R-27 series ... and the T variant is still dependent on a seeker lock for launch authorization - ED also found out by speaking with an ex-USSR VVS radar technician the radar does not generate a data link signal when an IR missile (any IR missile ... ) is launched.

The ranges those missiles are used at are much, much shorter than those of the E variants, so a solid signal from an afterburning plane showing you its 3-9 is likely a pretty good target for the 27T.

 

The ET is much more likely to be used long-range against a bomber which will probably be flying high, and is a pretty large target and so provides a better signal for an IR missile at longer range.

[monotwix]

So what are the Russian air force tactics then, I know you didn’t write the book they did, they make the planes and missiles and the question is what do they do with it as a unit or a test branch.

[borchi_2b]

first we do not talk about the t version, we talk about the Et, the extended range version, that makes a whole lot of a diffrence!

 

when you look at the flightprofiles of heavy bombers, you will se a similarity to the flightprofiles used by f15c. they are flying high, supported by awacs and wait for prey they can encounter, to gain air superiority, so basically this should also wrok with f15c in lomac and in reallife to some certain extend. it is just a matter how the russian pilot behaves and how he uses the abilities of its weapons.

 

when i would have such missile in lomac, that performes like the r27et, then i would try to encounter the high flyboys with r27et at long ranges, taken in count the closurespeeds and then, what will they do when they do not hear anything commin. nothing!

but this is probably the reason why we do not get a realistic range of the r27et, cause people would whine about it all day long, although it is realistic.

maybe the missile does not get a valid lock on a target at max seakerrange, but well 10km is enough when you have good preaimshoot at the opponent.

 

the art of such a kill is to bring te missile in as precise as possible, which means you have to fly as priseise as possible and predict your opponent very well.

 

when you can manage that. i am 100% sure, you wil make a kill on a fighter at such long ranges.

 

but how i said, when we would have realitic ranges, alot of people would complain again, that the f15 is too weak and the russian fighters, especially the r27et is waaaaaayyyyyyy to strong, compared to reallife, although it isn´t.

 

and GG, imagine, at high alts, it does not matter if a bomber or a fighter, both have a very solid and strong heatsignature agains the blue cold sky, so the r27et will see something, maybe a little later then it sees a bomber, but for sure when it is done right, the seaker will get the fighter locked, no doupt about it.

 

maybe the seaker limitation in azimuth is a bit strong in lomac, but thats all.

but Ed has cut the range of the missle by 1/3, so that equals it out again.

 

i would prefer a better range, more realitic, instead of having such an overprowered seaker in regards to azimuth, although it could be calculated by simple optics math and also by vectormath, how big the seakercone really is in which target can be seen.

 

just as simple as that, and when people would be smart, then you would figure how to avoide being killed at ranges like 60km or at a alt of 25000feet being killed at ranges of aproximatly 40km+.

 

@monotwix:

at whom is your post aimed?

GG?

Edited February 6, 2010 by borchi_2b

[monotwix]

Air force makes a strategy and orders for it’s needs.

And I don't know how it works.

[GGTharos]

first we do not talk about the t version, we talk about the Et, the extended range version, that makes a whole lot of a diffrence!

 

First off we talk about all the weapons, because the stuff you're making up isn't relevant to reality.

 

when you look at the flightprofiles of heavy bombers, you will se a similarity to the flightprofiles used by f15c. they are flying high, supported by awacs and wait for prey they can encounter, to gain air superiority, so basically this should also wrok with f15c in lomac and in reallife to some certain extend. it is just a matter how the russian pilot behaves and how he uses the abilities of its weapons.

 

It doesn't matter. F-15's are very tiny heat targets head on - far far smaller than a bomber. Even the IRST, with its much larger eye can't pick them up farther than some 20-25km head-on, if that.

 

when i would have such missile in lomac, that performes like the r27et, then i would try to encounter the high flyboys with r27et at long ranges, taken in count the closurespeeds and then, what will they do when they do not hear anything commin. nothing!

but this is probably the reason why we do not get a realistic range of the r27et, cause people would whine about it all day long, although it is realistic.

maybe the missile does not get a valid lock on a target at max seakerrange, but well 10km is enough when you have good preaimshoot at the opponent.

 

It doesn't actually matter what you'd use the missile for, or how you would use it. What matters is what real life pilots are telling us about the employment of those weapons. Not what you think 'probably' would happen or what 'probably' is the reason. And what is 'preaimshoot'? At 10km you should have a seeker lock. If you launch the missile without one, it'll most likely miss, no matter how good your 'pre-aimshoot' is.

 

the art of such a kill is to bring te missile in as precise as possible, which means you have to fly as priseise as possible and predict your opponent very well.

 

when you can manage that. i am 100% sure, you wil make a kill on a fighter at such long ranges.

 

No, you will not. The missile will be seduced away by other heat sources long before it EVER gets to that fighter.

 

but how i said, when we would have realitic ranges, alot of people would complain again, that the f15 is too weak and the russian fighters, especially the r27et is waaaaaayyyyyyy to strong, compared to reallife, although it isn´t.

 

No, I would just say you don't know what you're talking about :)

 

and GG, imagine, at high alts, it does not matter if a bomber or a fighter, both have a very solid and strong heatsignature agains the blue cold sky, so the r27et will see something, maybe a little later then it sees a bomber, but for sure when it is done right, the seaker will get the fighter locked, no doupt about it.

 

I don't have to imagine - in fact, neither should you, because you are wrong. See above regarding heat signatures.

 

maybe the seaker limitation in azimuth is a bit strong in lomac, but thats all.

but Ed has cut the range of the missle by 1/3, so that equals it out again.

 

The missile is fine.

 

i would prefer a better range, more realitic, instead of having such an overprowered seaker in regards to azimuth, although it could be calculated by simple optics math and also by vectormath, how big the seakercone really is in which target can be seen.

 

Yeah, and guess what - it's already done.

 

just as simple as that, and when people would be smart, then you would figure how to avoide being killed at ranges like 60km or at a alt of 25000feet being killed at ranges of aproximatly 40km+.

 

This already happens ... so what's going to be the difference now? ;)

[GGTharos]

Like I said, at the ranges they're likely to use their R-27's at, a follow up with an R-27T against an afterburning target is not unlikely.

 

Air force makes a strategy and orders for it’s needs.

And I don't know how it works.

[monotwix]

That’s not what I had in mind though.

I’ll give you an example shell I?

You know what B-2 and F-117 are for, we all know that right? The rest can be done with Tornado and A-10 here and there having F-15ns and AWACS in range for all air traffic. It’s the historical fact that I know, lets call it a strategy yey?

What is the point of building a plant if it has no strategy yey?

You can’t fight AIM120 with R-27 alone (and not in doubles bubbles) there has to be more to it, and you’d think that air superiority fighter wouldn’t carry active missiles.

[Teknetinium]

If Heatseeking missile is fired whit no lock and spots after 2 sec Mig-25 burner it will change directory for the hottest spot. As it dose when you applying flers. Its therefor a pilot never fire a heat-seeking missile when having a friendly nearby, You never know it can switch target. Im not saying that this tactic is used in Russian airforce, But its naive to say GG that its absolutely worthless, if it was, flers would not work.

 

Dont worry Comrades ETs will hit as much in 2.0 and in 2.5, because they dont get a warning before get hit in their face.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

There isn't anything more to it. It's simply the way it is.

 

That’s not what I had in mind though.

I’ll give you an example shell I?

You know what B-2 and F-117 are for, we all know that right? The rest can be done with Tornado and A-10 here and there having F-15ns and AWACS in range for all air traffic. It’s the historical fact that I know, lets call it a strategy yey?

What is the point of building a plant if it has no strategy yey?

You can’t fight AIM120 with R-27 alone (and not in doubles bubbles) there has to be more to it, and you’d think that air superiority fighter wouldn’t carry active missiles.

[GGTharos]

If a heat seeker it launched without a lock it will most likely not spot anything that you actually wanted it to spot. It's most likely point of termination is the ground; not your wingman, not a flare - the ground.

Flares work when you already have the heater looking there. If you happen to have a serendipitous one in a hundred launch where your un-locked missile can see the target, and the target is applying flares pre-emptively, you 'target' will never be a target for the missile. The only *switching* here is in your mind, the missile will simply go for the biggest heat source it first sees. This is why it's procedure in USAF jets to uncage a sidewinder and check the track before launching.

 

You can't just say 'it can switch targets so the tactic must be possible'. Sorry, that's like saying that you could fall from 30000' and survive because a person did so at one time, but your odds of that are what? Pretty close to nil. So sure, it is possible, but so utterly unlikely that attempting to do it this way is a waste of a missile.

 

If Heatseeking missile is fired whit no lock and spots after 2 sec Mig-25 burner it will change directory for the hottest spot. As it dose when you applying flers. Its therefor a pilot never fire a heat-seeking missile when having a friendly nearby, You never know it can switch target. Im not saying that this tactic is used in Russian airforce, But its naive to say GG that its absolutely worthless, if it was, flers would not work.

[Teknetinium]

why would The heatseeking missile go for the ground if u activated the seeker, the missile will go for anything it finds hot enough,It is what I assume. Until a get some better profe. What Might hapend is that the missile get crazy and fly in any crazy direction where there is some heat. I dont believe that the missile would fly straight due to distortion by surrounding heatsources.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Teknetinium

[monotwix]

There isn't anything more to it. It's simply the way it is.

 

 

How do you know that?

Are you confident being on equals with 70 years of experience with: shell I say (former bight my tongue) super power? Or that didn’t exist?

[GGTharos]

why would The heatseeking missile go for the ground if u activated the seeker, the missile will go for anything it finds hot enough,It is what I assume.

 

Yes, you assume correctly. What you do not assume correctly is that this 'hot enough thing' will be the object you'd like the missile to go after.

 

Until a get some better profe. What Might hapend is that the missile get crazy and fly in any crazy direction where there is some heat. I dont believe that the missile would fly straight due to distortion by surrounding heatsources.

No, it wouldn't. It would pick a reflection of the sun from a lake, cloud, snow, or any other bright IR source - including a glint off someone's car windshield. There's a lot of sources that could attract the seeker, including the very ground itself. Further, the seeker doesn't necessarily look straight ahead - it has a scan pattern (which may or may not be initiated after missile launch - it may in fact an on-the-rail-only seeker mode) and there's no guarantee it will encounter what you want it to see before seeing something else, first. This isn't an imagine seeker like that of the AIM-9X or ASRAAM or IRIS-T, and even those probably won't function without a lock. It can't really discriminate without telling it first where you want it to go - thus the requirement to have a seeker lock before launch.

 

You say that without proof you won't think otherwise - fine, I guess you think my sources are baloney - ED's, too. Fair enough. Then I'll ask you this: What proof do you have that missiles act in the way you want them to? 'Logically' isn't a good enough answer, and this has been shown again and again - that we essentially lack knowledge about this systems and thus out logic misleads us. There exist limitations, physical and deliberate, which we keep finding out every now and then.

Edited February 6, 2010 by GGTharos

[monotwix]

You know that submarine sunk, no offence, how much info did they wona leak.

That UAV and the rest was in complete denial.

The question is how much do they wont to let you know.

[GGTharos]

What are you talking about? Can you please start making sense?

Then I could also try to answer your questions better as well ... complete thoughts and sentences as much as possible, please.

[TRZ06]

Maybe it has been answered before, but will all flyable airplanes have the high fidelity flight characteristics like the SU25T?

 

Also, will all aircraft have tires that will blowup if you apply the brakes too long and slip and slide across the runway?

 

I tried the SU25T today for the first time since having CF, and I had the brakes on when landing and I started to slide, and I was like WTF, so I went to outside view and saw that the tires had blown and I was sliding on the rims WAY COOL!!!, I was seriously LOL.

 

I also noticed that the SU25T handles more like a real airplane, in that if you try to turn with just ailerons without rudder input you get adverse yaw. The stall/spin characteristics were also more realistic.

 

Please tell me all aircraft will behave in more of this high fidelity manner on FC 2.0???

[RedTiger]

You can have whatever opinion you like about GGTharos, but this is just kinda goofy now. He's an ED tester. Guys, Eagle Dynamics doesn't ask people to become testers because of their roguish good looks. Are you arguing because you're trying to learn something or because you want R-27TEs to stay the way they are.

[GGTharos]

Nope, they will be the same as they are in FC - the flight models are slightly tweaks (parameter changes, not physics changes).

 

Maybe it has been answered before, but will all flyable airplanes have the high fidelity flight characteristics like the SU25T?

 

Also, will all aircraft have tires that will blowup if you apply the brakes too long and slip and slide across the runway?

 

I tried the SU25T today for the first time since having CF, and I had the brakes on when landing and I started to slide, and I was like WTF, so I went to outside view and saw that the tires had blown and I was sliding on the rims WAY COOL!!!, I was seriously LOL.

 

I also noticed that the SU25T handles more like a real airplane, in that if you try to turn with just ailerons without rudder input you get adverse yaw. The stall/spin characteristics were also more realistic.

 

Please tell me all aircraft will behave in more of this high fidelity manner on FC 2.0???