Announcing Flaming Cliffs 2.0

[Kuky]

I think the missile is most manouverable at stage where it burned all its fuel and engine stops... then it has most energy and ability to pull G's... and has least inertia due to lost fuel mass.

[volk]

GG when did this polish pilot said the R27R was better than AMRAAM? Before or after they aquired the F-16's?.

 

Because my bro says the AMRAAM C version beats the livind daylights of the Alamo whatever version, to the point to even use it as a close range missile making the sidwinder almost redundant.

 

I guess even pilots might have their own bias, because they look at their gun the closest (hence the bigger it looks :D ).

 

There might be a degree of uncertainty before this bias, but Im inclined to say that both pilots may be just valuing different aspects of the missiles.

 

Alamos might have been regarded to have superior end game manuverability while AMRAAM has been praised fire and forget ability by its pilots. but neigther get to use both to compare so...

ED give AMRAAM unrealistic maneuverability in FC. See this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=33554&d=1258611777

With small fins and low speed it makes start maneuver like thrust-vectoring missile.

 

And this: pic1 - missile begins to turn, pic2 - end of turn.

It turns with max corner speed 29,5 deg/sec and pull 16,5g and do it without speed loss (1657 km/h at start and 1634 km/h at end of turn).

[GGTharos]

How is this different than any other missile in the game?

ED didn't 'give' AMRAAM anything. The missile model is fairly simple and uniform; there's no speed based maneuvering limitation for any of the missiles. The AMRAAM is in fact limited to max 22 or so g in FC/FC2, whereas the real thing is a 60g airframe. Same goes for a number of other missiles in the game as well - limited to small g but in reality they can do better. This is for missiles on both sides. Only the R-73 is 'cranked up' to 45g.

 

Further, tail-control missiles are more maneuverable than mid-body control missiles in general.

 

Finally, it is or should be well known that missiles that drop off stations in LO are most maneuverable and best way to launch a missile in a dogfight in LO. Not realistic, but an artifact of the game...again, for both sides missiles. ;)

Edited February 10, 2010 by GGTharos

[RvEYoda]

I think the missile is most manouverable at stage where it burned all its fuel and engine stops... then it has most energy and ability to pull G's... and has least inertia due to lost fuel mass.

 

This is also confirmed by the "Art of the kill" video.

[Vecko]

I always forget to ask this: what about condesation trail between 8000 and 12000 m?I mean,now on 7999m of altitude it is all clear but climbe just 1m+ and here it is, trail in his full strenght.Is it possible to fix that?

[GGTharos]

Unfortunately not right now (it has been asked a lot of times).

[A.S]

This is also confirmed by the "Art of the kill" video.

 

consequently ... speed/fuel

[Vecko]

Unfortunately not right now (it has been asked a lot of times).

Very fast reply ,ty...

So, it is going to be fixed but "not right now",my conclusion is that FC2.1 is in prepare or FC3.0 maybe ?:)

[Griffin]

FC3.0 = DCS ;)

[Xjikz]

True, no FC2.1 or FC3.0 unless they find major bugs at the release of FC2.0, which I think will not happen, and that's why the release will be "when it's done".

 

Now the future is FC2.0 then DCS-A10C then DCS something with updated game engine.

[tflash]

We dont have a single rocket scientist in this group of computer nerds??

 

I met a one or two at Berkeley... one thing is for sure, they weren't out partying with women on a Saturday night!

 

:D

 

Hé, Fudd, how did you know about my saturday night activities AND that I'm not a rocket scientist???? These boards are scary :cry:

 

I think the missile is most manouverable at stage where it burned all its fuel and engine stops... then it has most energy and ability to pull G's... and has least inertia due to lost fuel mass.

 

I find some merit in this idea ...

[golfsierra2]

[Boberro]

AHHAHA :D

[Ramstein]

 

Our immediate priority at this time is the finalizing of the Flaming Cliffs 2.0 upgrade for Lock On. The project is currently undergoing final testing...

 

Wooot!:doh:

 

I resemble that remark..

[Pilotasso]

If theres a bug with my beloved AMRAAM beacause of the haste I will never forgive ED. :D

 

So lets wait till it gets fully tested. ;)

[Grimes]

That would be a nice addition, I mean they already have trains that follow set schedules and the constellations in the night sky are supposed to be accurate no matter the day or season.

[VMFA117_Poko]

In the FAQ I read:

- Limited 6 DOF cockpits that move up, down and sideways according to maneuvering

What does it mean? Will it be a 6DOF cockpit without ability to switch/press anything in cockpit or does it mean it's 3DOF with TrackIR and sideways, up, down move of the head are made only by G forces? Couldn't it be fully 6DOF without clickable cockpit? It would help much in formation flying to eliminate blind spots (windshield)? Edited February 11, 2010 by Poko24

[jony10]

Can we please at least have a clickable cockpit this time??? :D

[coolts]

Q: Will the Flaming Cliffs 2.0 aircraft receive the same level of detail regarding navigation systems, lights, and radios as the Ka-50 in DCS: Black Shark?

A: No, that level of detail is reserved for the DCS series. Except for when indicted in this FAQ, Flaming Cliffs 2.0 aircraft will be as they are in Flaming Cliffs.

 

 

i would say no clickable cockpits but better 6dof. side to side at least (but no head-roll i think they mean)

[joey45]

then it'll be 5DOF then.

[Aeroscout]

i would say no clickable cockpits but better 6dof. side to side at least (but no head-roll i think they mean)

 

Roll is enabled. There are videos showing this. It's the side to side and up and down movements that have been changed (X and Y). These are the movements that will give the player some really bad parallax effects when viewing the not-so-3d cockpit. Thus I assume these will be limited. Otherwise, I imagine yaw, pitch and zoom will be unaffected, and if we're lucky, we'll even be able to control roll with TrackIR.

 

Aero

[EtherealN]

Note that 6DOF means "6 degrees of freedom", and is completely unrelated to whether the cockpit is clickable. That's completely separate features.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Note that 6DOF means "6 degrees of freedom", and is completely unrelated to whether the cockpit is clickable. That's completely separate features.

Ofcourse. I wanted to know what does mean "limited 6DOF". What is the limitation. Does it mean your trackIR moves only in 3DOF (X,Y, Zoom) and there will be also tiny 6DOF moves as an effect of g-forces?

If FC2 will be on DCS engine then 6DOF is possible. Only issue that limits this option to be turn on in FC2.0 is lack of fully 3D cockpit as Aeroscout pointed. Couldn't we get simply 3D cockpit (not clickable ofcourse cuz it's time consumming preparation) without many "polys" and 3d details - only well textured. It would help in eliminating blind spots (windshield)

[DarkWanderer]

Ofcourse. I wanted to know what does mean "limited 6DOF". What is the limitation. Does it mean your trackIR moves only in 3DOF (X,Y, Zoom) and there will be also tiny 6DOF moves as an effect of g-forces?

The movements would be strongly limited in range.

[sobek]

Couldn't we get simply 3D cockpit (not clickable ofcourse cuz it's time consumming preparation) without many "polys" and 3d details - only well textured. It would help in eliminating blind spots (windshield)

 

I think this process is much more complex than you envision it to be. IIRC, the FC2 FAQ says that full 6DOF support will be limited to the DCS series. I'm thinking that it would just be too much of a hassle (lots of cockpits).