Reality Vs Playability and the effect in Multiplay

[Case]

How was the participation in that 80's weekend, case? I'd be interested in those same kind of stats for that one if it's possible to view anything else than full months.

 

The attendence was very good, and in general people seemed to like it and gave good comments.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Case

[shu77]

The beauty of this image is that it never gets old

[EtherealN]

Even better if you fly with someone and use teamwork to bring down numerically or technologically superior adversaries!

 

That is another thing: my experience in FC2 is that the russian birds are at a severe disadvantage in the "airquake" setting, but when you get some pilots in there that know how to use them and how to co-operate, things change a lot. They'll still be "inferior", of course, but it stops being a shooting gallery and myself as an Eagle pilot suddenly has to really think about my SA to avoid sneaky MiG tactics. As my profile "location" might show - I tend to suffer a bit when the MiG and Su pilots know their planes. :P

[Grimes]

All the fun threads get started while I'm asleep.

 

Only so much can be done from a mission design perspective, there needs to be some willingness of the players to participate. For instance game balance is determined by 3 factors:

 

1. The aircrafts capabilities (ED developers)

2. The scenario (mission designers)

3. Who is flying what (the players)

 

Aircraft capabilities cannot easily be changed, yet each has their own pros and cons. With most fighter aircraft you have to change the tactics that you use to adapt to said aircrafts advantages and disadvantages.

 

The scenario is a huge factor in determining balance. In a way its a mix of RTS-like factions where each country is limited to specific aircraft, ships, and land assets. However we can mix-and match countries however we please. One of the most common combination is Israel, Russia vs USA, Ukraine, Georgia as that allows for the most equal aircraft selection. The other common combo is "East vs West." So really the mission designer has to make a choice to make the mission as fair as possible in terms of aircraft for both sides. Or they can choose to make knowing the advantages and disadvantages more important as aircraft are limited.

 

Possible aircraft is just one part of the mission designers role, what players have to do in the scenario is the other important bit. Maybe I haven't played enough missions online lately, but last time I checked there ain't alot of missions out there that give A2A fighters something to do other than airquake.

 

 

Finally the players need to realize what sort of mission they are playing and what is considered "balanced." Honestly if F-15s are on one side only, then that side should have less fighter aircraft. Period. I'm not saying it should be a pure 2 to 1 ratio, but the F-15 ought to be outnumbered. Think of it as "always out numbered, never outgunned" from the F-15 pilots perspective.

 

F-15s on both sides kinda breaks that whole theory, as players will gravitate to what is mostly easier and more straight forward to be successful in, so it becomes a battle made up of mostly F-15s. With all aircraft available for both sides it tends to bring the thinking closer to a class based FPS where virtually no class limits exist and balance equates to even teams numbers.

 

One of the major flaws of multiplayer in all recent ED titles is the interface. I could go on and on about it, but I'll just point out one major issue. There is no player count... anywhere. We've gotta open the scores table and count 1 by 1 how many aircraft are on each side and take note of what they are flying.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Grimes

[Pilotasso]

what made LOMAC special is DACT. Without it you got nothing more than clones with different 3D shapes, just like HAWX.

[Udat]

The attendence was very good' date=' and in general people seemed to like it and gave good comments.[/quote']

Great! Maybe there will be even more of it in the future then..?

 

@Etheral: Yep definitely. The eagle is still a beast to bring down, but it just gets so much more interesting and fun for both sides!

[MoGas]

What I see over 4 pages is that the lack of skill from a small number of player (who always come up with some sort of topic) is related to the mission designer lol, who put F-15's for example on both sides. It is not unusual that maybe the same type of aircraft flys against each other, Greece vs. Turkey F-16 vs. F-16, F-4 vs. F-4, there are many examples.

 

I tell you that i prefer a F-15 as enemy, when I fly my MiG-29G more then a russian bird, the fact that you can sneak on him is much better then on any other plane, F-15 needs radar on to see something, a russian plane can use the EOS as well, so there is maybe not a radar nail on youre RWR where he is coming from and you can use youre advantage to be silent on him. This fact, and the fact that u need some F-15 radar skill especially when you operate it from 40.000ft+, otherwise you just sneak up even for a gun kill, makes it easier for me at least. And I like to say, the better MiG-29 pilot is a ex or current F-15 pilot ;)

 

This small number of players who struggle since Lockon, should start to open there eyes, and they should ask themself why some other people are so effective with some aircraft's (Russian or US planes), and they not, it is always easier to blame the sim or game first, this is the same behavior since the first video game was released. And this is the reason why they are not getting better, the lack of understanding, the lack of adjusting the tactics on the changed scenario's and so on, the list would be long. The scream for balance, shows you, that the future DCS titles are not the right titles for them maybe, and that the will of learning is just not there to operate a more complex system where you need more then one or two keys to fly the aircraft. And the end of the story is, that those people just give up finally, and this is still FC2.0 and not a DCS module.

 

cheers

Edited December 4, 2010 by MoGas

[Cali]

Learn how to use your jet and it's weapons. The problem is that people go charging head first into a TWSed 120 headshot and cry about it. I and many other have flown Russian jets against F-15's and have done very good. Learn tactics, learn your weapons and your enemies weapons. If servers change too much, all they are going to do is make players go elsewhere. The 51st server is a good example of how to set up missions, they have a good mix for everything.

 

Look at what Case has done with the missile stats, you can see who spams missiles and who fires them in the better situations. It all boils down to tactics and how you play. Some play just to have fun, while others play to be good.

 

Every jet has it's good and bad points, learn them, learn them all, that will only make u better. If you keep getting shot down by F-15's, maybe you should try and fly them.

 

The rest of the message is the same as we seen before from people who cant fly.

But this excerpt, sorry to say is deviated from the truth from any point of view even biased ones. Last time I saw you on any server was just before you started this thread, after I had shot you down. you were aaaaall alone my friend, and you flew straight into my sights. Obviously you cannot be any objective by flying the wrong tactics and above all this you still make incorrect statements. Worse, all evidence fails to point any dominace about f-15. In this particular mission I was being followed by EWR most of the time and promptly snipped at.

 

I advise you join any squad, the 51 probably fits you very good because they train heavily in anti F-15 tactics. Try it and you should change your mind.

 

What I see over 4 pages is that the lack of skill from a small number of player (who always come up with some sort of topic) is related to the mission designer lol, who put F-15's for example on both sides. It is not unusual that maybe the same type of aircraft flys against each other, Greece vs. Turkey F-16 vs. F-16, F-4 vs. F-4, there are many examples.

 

I tell you that i prefer a F-15 as enemy, when I fly my MiG-29G more then a russian bird, the fact that you can sneak on him is much better then on any other plane, F-15 needs radar on to see something, a russian plane can use the EOS as well, so there is maybe not a radar nail on youre RWR where he is coming from and you can use youre advantage to be silent on him. This fact, and the fact that u need some F-15 radar skill especially when you operate it from 40.000ft+, otherwise you just sneak up even for a gun kill, makes it easier for me at least. And I like to say, the better MiG-29 pilot is a ex or current F-15 pilot ;)

 

This small number of players who struggle since Lockon, should start to open there eyes, and they should ask themself why some other people are so effective with some aircraft's (Russian or US planes), and they not, it is always easier to blame the sim or game first, this is the same behavior since the first video game was released. And this is the reason why they are not getting better, the lack of understanding, the lack of adjusting the tactics on the changed scenario's and so on, the list would be long. The scream for balance, shows you, that the future DCS titles are not the right titles for them maybe, and that the will of learning is just not there to operate a more complex system where you need more then one or two keys to fly the aircraft. And the end of the story is, that those people just give up finally, and this is still FC2.0 and not a DCS module.

 

cheers

 

 

I hope people read this post over and over and over again. Yes the F-15 is good, but so are the other jets.....learn them and tactics.

[Boberro]

What I see over 4 pages is that the lack of skill from a small number of player (who always come up with some sort of topic) is related to the mission designer lol, who put F-15's for example on both sides. It is not unusual that maybe the same type of aircraft flys against each other, Greece vs. Turkey F-16 vs. F-16, F-4 vs. F-4, there are many examples.

 

I tell you that i prefer a F-15 as enemy, when I fly my MiG-29G more then a russian bird, the fact that you can sneak on him is much better then on any other plane, F-15 needs radar on to see something, a russian plane can use the EOS as well, so there is maybe not a radar nail on youre RWR where he is coming from and you can use youre advantage to be silent on him. This fact, and the fact that u need some F-15 radar skill especially when you operate it from 40.000ft+, otherwise you just sneak up even for a gun kill, makes it easier for me at least. And I like to say, the better MiG-29 pilot is a ex or current F-15 pilot ;)

 

This small number of players who struggle since Lockon, should start to open there eyes, and they should ask themself why some other people are so effective with some aircraft's (Russian or US planes), and they not, it is always easier to blame the sim or game first, this is the same behavior since the first video game was released. And this is the reason why they are not getting better, the lack of understanding, the lack of adjusting the tactics on the changed scenario's and so on, the list would be long. The scream for balance, shows you, that the future DCS titles are not the right titles for them maybe, and that the will of learning is just not there to operate a more complex system where you need more then one or two keys to fly the aircraft. And the end of the story is, that those people just give up finally, and this is still FC2.0 and not a DCS module.

 

cheers

 

Yeah sure untill poor R-27R gets your target AIM-120 would hit you and come back to F-15 :]

[Pilotasso]

Dont fly on F-15's terms then, or use squad mates.

[sweinhart3]

One problem I can see that I struggle with, is no matter how well you get know the systems, I have yet to see a single interactive tactics training lesson. Real fighter pilots and people that have read books and had a lot of experience will always win. On my part, Ive read about tactics but I have never been able to see it work or how its done. What is needed perhaps is some kind of scripted mission where AI performs various sets of scripted manuevers and the player is taught basically simple Top Gun training. Im starting to get a decent grip on A-10C avionics and basic flight but if you ask me how to push the flight envelope in manner that put myself at an advantage to the enemy, I wouldn't be able to demonstrate a single thing.

[Boneski]

Great post!!

 

It's pretty simple. These So called attempt by users to build their personal ideas of systems "realism" into a consumer grade software title are nothing but pure junk. It's not meant to be harsh, but a simple statement of facts.

 

The developers of the game wanted it to be fun and as representative of basic air combat is possible giving budgets and development time.

 

Giving each user an interface (in this case simulated airframes) with some advantages in areas such as speeds, turn rates, sensors, and fuel consumption rates allowing the users to exploit the other users weakness while building systems and weapons that help balance the game and simulate air combat on a users PC.

 

FACT: Most users will not fly and fight to win. Most user will fly suicide missions in an effort to win. And that's fine, because that's why people play games to offset the issues of reality.

 

Most guys in game life will not turn around and egress the fight if the odds of living to fight another day are slim. That's not the case when you are sitting in a real cockpit with people throwing stuff at you that will distribute your body parts over larger areas.

 

 

 

SO WHY ARE USER MISSILE and SYSTEM MODS JUNK?

 

Because most of the users including the self proclaimed hardcore users that claim they have advanced knowledge of war fighting\air combat are truly clueless. You just can't make stuff up and call it realism.

 

Most of these realism servers have even taken away certain view points from the users. No external views. No map views, No other ship view... some have even considered banning padlock view.

 

You cannot just make the basic equivalence that in real life because the pilot is in the cockpit and can't see 3rd person views that the game player should not have all the Situational Awareness tools that the developers has made available.

 

The truth is, in the real cockpit you have tools that give you way more SA than any 3rd person view could. When you limit the POV to just the cockpit view. You take way tools that offset the games limitations... making it much harder than real life.

 

Looking at a PC screen is way harder than looking out of bubble wind screen. That's fact people.

 

Example of making it harder for the user.

 

In real life we have radio assistance/handlers for night operation. We have lights (even during high THREATCON/Combat Operations ) we have ways of seeing where to drive the aircraft to get it from parking to Hot and then to runway.

 

Playing on one of these so called hardcore "realism" servers with the game time simulating night operations is beyond realistic, its really too hard to play.

 

Its not realistic at all. Trying to drive from the shed to the runway is almost impossible. Which way do your turn? Having the external views provided by the developers offsets the many of the issues stated above.

 

No one with any sense expects a consumer grade software title costing 2 or 3 million US dollars to develop by one of the most talented teams doing this type of work and costing the user under $100 US to have every detail that is present in real life simulated. It's just not possible to model all the consequences.

 

So the developers gives the gamer tools to use to help balance the player experience. The views, the missiles, the exploits are all there for a reason. To enhance the user experience.

 

To have some gamer sitting in his or her room coming up with realism standards based on ZERO knowledge of real combat systems , ZERO flight time or training and ZERO understanding of the life and death decision making / logic of the combat aviator does nothing to enhance the developer's work. It's just that simple. It's just dumb. ( not the people behind the mods. They are not dumb... their work is not dumb. The goal is dumb because they lack real knowledge. It's a noble attempt and the contributions to their community should be applauded. )

 

The best player mods for this title have been the amazing graphic work developed by this community. Terrain mods, Airbase mods, and 3D models and many other things that add to the title in a fun way.

 

The system mods and missile mods are pure junk. And based on the thread starters post. Have killed his fun in the online arena.

Clearly this was not the developers intentions.

 

 

These so called REALISM mods and SERVERS that run them have no idea what realism is. They have no idea how missiles work or how they are employed in combat. They have no idea about combat aviation as well as no understanding of the F-15.

 

When debriefing training evolutions between ANG Vipers and USAF F-15's, you don't get very many details from the Eagle community. So some dude changing scripts in his basement has no idea about detail combat capabilities of the F-15.

 

The good is that they are trying. Maybe some day they will get it.

 

Good Luck!!!

 

 

I have chewed the fat over this for the last couple of years and I simply have to put the case for modified or reduced reality when your server is seeking to provide a adverserial multiplayer service....

 

The need to put this view has been brought about by the developments that have ensued as a result of the "improved" missle performance as vigerously campaigned for by the fans of the F15 and now represented in Flaming Cliffs2. There is little doubt that changes to the perfomance of all the Air to Air missiles has left a single aircraft type with complete dominance of the virtual airspace in FC2. Further there is no doubt that these "improvements" are more representative of REALITY.

 

REALITY SUCKS

That said, lets consider what effect this has had on multiplayer gameplay, back in the days of LOFC-1.1 I recall that it was quite common for air battle events to be staged where literally more that 100 pilots would fly and compete in the same virtual airspace in simulated West Vs East air combat.

 

This could no longer happen because a single Aircraft type dominates the Air to Air arena making competative play nearly impossible without placing an equal number of that aicraft on each side. Even if that was to happen those people who are dedicated fans of other Aircraft types now no longer have any realistic expectation of competing against that single aircraft. The end result ..... where there was once a lively community enjoying immersive gameplay for all Air to Air combatants there is now a "monoculture". Many very capable Virtual pilots have left the public community of LOFC because in order to satisfy a demand for reality at any cost.... they must die frquently or fly an aircraft that for them has absolutely NO APPEAL.

 

I conclude that the goal of pure reality, is only beneficial to the gaming experience when all players are on the same side or the balance of potency is identical ie "monoculture".

Q- Who would play a game of chess where only the black player has a full set of pieces?

Furtermore I conclude that the move to "reality mod in FC1.12a" and the FC2 have not served to promote community but instead driven us all apart to our more fractured and reduced gameplay.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Boneski

[Pilotasso]

Playing on one of these so called hardcore "realism" servers with the game time simulating night operations is beyond realistic, its dumb.

 

 

So the developers give the gamer tools to use to help balance the player experience. The views, the missiles, the exploits are all there for a reason.

enhancing the user experience.

 

 

That's real truth.

 

The truth is simpler than your tendentious post lends gullible people to believe. The truth is that the game is made to support virtual cockpits and there are flaws just as there are bugs that can be exploited by those who want to win at any cost. Human nature. Its simple as that and no way any romantic the way you put it.

 

Its a game and get over it.

 

BTW you should respect those who put servers up for you to play for free. Dismissing their work like this is JUNK in your own words.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

The truth is that your statements are quite useless, unhelpful, and discouraging to anyone who wants to enhance a simulation - and thus the reason you are ignored.

 

Statements such as "the exploits are all there for a reason" are rubbish. Yes, they are there for a reason: They are present due to gaps in either knowledge or design of the physics engine. Those exploits that some of us did try to patch up we did on advice from RL combat pilots and other sources which were double and some times triple checked and agreed to be correct by several people. The next step was to decide if they were implementable. You claim people have no clue - I think you lack a clue as to what people may or may not know - in fact, it doesn't even look like you even know what's happening on servers. There are no 'missile mods' ... the missiles are as they were from the patch release.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the developers are adding more 'so called REALISM' to the simulation.

 

So once more, thanks for the useless drivel, even though you tried to wrap it in some thin layer of sugar ;)

 

These so called REALISM mods and SERVERS that run them have no idea what realism is.

 

They have no idea how missiles work. The have no idea about combat aviation.

 

That's real truth.

Edited December 4, 2010 by GGTharos

[104th_Crunch]

Great post!!

 

These so called REALISM mods and SERVERS that run them have no idea what realism is.

They have no idea how missiles work or employed in combat. They have no idea about combat aviation.

The good is that they are trying. Maybe some day the will get it

 

 

That's real truth.

 

Do you even fly online in FC2 DCS:BS? I can't think of one server currently running ANY "realism mods".

 

To say that no one has any idea about real combat is pure rubbish. Many of us are former pilots, know former pilots, have read tonnes of material etc. No, we are not here thinking we are know it alls, but we have some knowledge.

[159th_Viper]

Great post!!..<>...Good Luck!!!

 

:megalol:

 

Bet you wish you could have the 15 min of your life back that it took to create that aah, ermm ....post ;)

[Frostie]

It's pretty simple. These So called attempt by users to build their personal ideas of systems "realism" into a consumer grade software title are nothing but pure junk. It's not meant to be harsh, but a simple statement of facts.

 

The developers of the game wanted it to be fun and as representative of basic air combat is possible giving budgets and development time.

 

Giving each user an interface (in this case simulated airframes) with some advantages in areas such as speeds, turn rates, sensors, and fuel consumption rates allowing the users to exploit the other users weakness while building systems and weapons that help balance the game and simulate air combat on a users PC.

Have you actually flown on an FC2 server or are you still stuck on 1.12? There are, to my knowledge, no popular servers with any mods as such.

FACT: Most users will not fly and fight to win. Most user will fly suicide missions in an effort to win. And that's fine, because that's why people play games to offset the issues of reality.

 

Most guys in game life will not turn around and egress the fight if the odds of living to fight another day are slim. That's not the case when you are sitting in a real cockpit with people throwing stuff at you that will distribute your body parts over larger areas.

Truth is those that have lived in RL get to tell the story those that didn't obviously can't tell of their suicide mission.

When you end up in a no win situation its a mistake, not everyone makes the right choices 100% of the time.

 

Most of these realism servers have even taken away certain view points from the users. No external views. No map views, No other ship view... some have even considered banning padlock view.

 

You cannot just make the basic equivalence that in real life because the pilot is in the cockpit and can't see 3rd person views that the game player should not have all the Situational Awareness tools that the developers has made available.

 

The truth is, in the real cockpit you have tools that give you way more SA than any 3rd person view could. When you limit the POV to just the cockpit view. You take way tools that offset the games limitations... making it much harder than real life.

 

Looking at a PC screen is way harder than looking out of bubble wind screen. That's fact people.

ED has given you the option to pan be it with TrackIR, coolie, mouse or any other way its there for you to scan visually WVR.

To use a button to padlock on something you haven't spotted with your own eyes is ludricous.

The limitations of the game restrict clarity but you certainly shouldn't be given a magic button to compensate.

Example of making it harder for the user.

 

In real life we have radio assistance/handlers for night operation. We have lights (even during high THREATCON/Combat Operations ) we have ways of seeing where to drive the aircraft to get it from parking to Hot and then to runway.

 

Playing on one of these so called hardcore "realism" servers with the game time simulating night operations is beyond realistic, its really too hard to play.

 

Its not realistic at all. Trying to drive from the shed to the runway is almost impossible. Which way do your turn? Having the external views provided by the developers offsets the many of the issues stated above.

This is a weak argument for external views, not only would this allow to see all around your plane as well as external padlock in a merge, it would also allow you to locate where exactly bandits may be by terrain spotting, which makes notching and flying low pointless if your already seen with F2 not to mention a selection of other reasons as to why there are no externals in a serious server.

 

If you can use your systems competently and know your airbase layout (which you should if you cared), then navigating in a night scenario should be easy. Having externals just for this sake is lazy and backward thinking not to mention all the above reasons.

 

So the developers gives the gamer tools to use to help balance the player experience. The views, the missiles, the exploits are all there for a reason. To enhance the user experience.

To make it easy for casual flyers, maybe like yourself. An idea might be for yourself to go to the lengths of creating a server designed specifically for the slow learners who need aids to help them navigate, fight and maybe put on easy avionics and easy flight combined with invulnerability, im sure you'll be on to a popular server.

To have some gamer sitting in his or her room coming up with realism standards based on ZERO knowledge of real combat systems , ZERO flight time or training and ZERO understanding of the life and death decision making / logic of the combat aviator does nothing to enhance the developer's work. It's just that simple. It's just dumb. ( not the people behind the mods. They are not dumb... their work is not dumb. The goal is dumb because they lack real knowledge. It's a noble attempt and the contributions to their community should be applauded. )

If you haven't understood yet, there are no modded servers in FC2 with what you state. It would be dumb to carry on believing there is.

 

 

So in your post what irks you in so called realistic servers is the fact they don't have padlock and externals.

Please, make a server like this and then I can come and post at what a junk of a server it is.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Frostie

[S77th-konkussion]

Yeah. Look I'm an American that flies The SU33 & t-frog almost exclusively. The modeled domination of the F15 isn't even CLOSE to the reality. It's way WAY undercooked.

 

That said- If I'm going up against one in LOMAC- my experience and practiced skills within the confines of LOMAC are going to determine the winner a lot more than the the modeling.

 

If I'm one on one against someone who :

 

noob-- I win.

 

has a clue-- I might win, he might get lucky with a spam-ram.

 

is on my level or better-- I will usually lose unless I am able to acheive a significant tactical advantage early on.

 

 

The guy who spams ARH's at TEWS hits? Yeah- that pisses me off too at times, but that's the way it is. That's why I try to be on comms with my squadron mates, and not fly alone. Many of these guys will tell you- a pair or team of SU33's can be pretty damn effective- a lot of it depends on numbers. If you are a lone F15- you got problems..

 

Bottom line- if you are looking for arcadey features or parameters to be set in the MP servers- you are almost completely alone. Join a squadron. Set up your own server. Set it up any way you like it, and see how many people fly in it. See what kind of problems come up as a result.

 

If you aren't getting the kills you want or otherwise underperforming, the reasons are staring at you- in the mirror.

[Cali]

Well said Kon, I have gone up against 2 51st pilots and either of us came away with a kill. Comms play a huge role, so does having a squad. Flying alone is almost a death wish, unless you are really good or get lucky a few times.

[combatace]

R-27ER, capable of capable of killing targets at 8Gs(i.e. missile is cutting a shorter radius , more Gs) can't make a 4G turn and miss with complete and steady lock. Launched at 50Kms head-on t at 8000mtrs will be evaded easily even my an AI target, humans are far better.

 

I have seen AIM-120C gaining speed when it is following target below its flight level, strange. I think law of aerodynamics and g=9.8m/s^2 does not act on it. AIM-120C launched at even more than Rmax by AI can reach me.

 

P.S. I'm whining as I can evade AIM-120s 9 of 10 and I fly Su-27 all time for whatever it takes.

Edited December 4, 2010 by combatace

[159th_Jojo]

As someone who flies the Su33, to me the sim is not about winning, it about learning tactics and pitting yourself against another human. Yes the F15C has more capability, but it's not the F15 I'm fighting, it's the person controlling that F15. My 33 can't fire R77s so unless I can get within 20kms I have to keep my target locked when I fire a missile in BVR. So it makes me a better tactician if I down a Mig29 or F15. I often get my ass kicked, but that makes every kill I do get the sweeter. Being the underdog is half the fun. But I would like R77s one day!:joystick:

Edited December 4, 2010 by 159th_Jojo

[Exorcet]

I didn't bother reading the whole thread (except for the image that never gets old), but realism >>>> balance.

 

I admit, that IMO, the Eagle is the best fighter in FC2. That does not at all persude me from flying Flankers and MiG's. This game isn't Ace Combat. It supposed to let player feel like they're in combat because let's face it, you can't have a part time job as a fighter ace. If you want realism, sims are the best place you can reasonably look.

 

However, I am not against the idea of balancing multiplayer, which can be done without making the planes even [which should never be done]. The problem with FC2 online is not the physics or aircraft models. It's the missions. It is difficult to create a real world situation on a public server with people coming and going all the time. I assume that most people like to jump into a room and fly instead of waiting for the player slots to fill up, have everyone go through a breifing, and then make a coordinate flight. I'd love the latter, but it's not easy to manage.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Exorcet

[combatace]

Your's dream is a quixotic one as there can't be a 100 players on servers like RAF or 141st or 159th to fill them.

[FLANKERATOR]

I have not had the chance yet to start flying in multiplayer, only few tests offline few months ago when I still had my gaming rig.

I noticed that the 120 has significant range advantage over the R77(almost the same as the R27ER), so its quite hard to apply pressure from the 1st shot...more work is needed against the eagle now and the correct mindset would be to stay alive and comeback to fight another day than trying to have a kill at all costs... which is in all cases the perfect example of what NOT to do...

I have also noticed a slight change in the refreshment rate of the mig radar as it seemed much slower in displaying contacts even when scaning at the correct elevation and the correct mode. Tested with all submodes(HI, ILV and MED) all are much slower to refresh. This could have a huge impact on geting a decent SA specially knowing that there is much less room for mistake because of the larger 120 enveloppe.

Good news is that altough with a better tracking system now, the 120 stills dodgable using well timed defensive maneuvers even at close range even if it's always better to avoid confronting a missile at close range.

Overall, it's more challenging for eastern fighters now but surely far away from being hopeless specially with wingies and comms.

This personal analysis is based on a flat terrain scenario of course and am not talking about the mountains engagement special case...

Another crucial parameter is ECM, and how far an eagle can burntrough it...but I did'nt have the chance to see how the new datalink system is working and whether it can ID/IFF jamming bogeys from outside the burntrough range or not.

Can't wait to join the party and see what would happen.

[Pilotasso]

The BVR weel works well against f-15, but you need people to fly with. Shooting at max range rarely gets the other guy too alarmed as he has plenty time to escape. Its a low PK shot too, no matter the missile used.