Flaming Cliffs 3

[71st_Mastiff]

@Yoda thanks.

I still see SU27, MiG29 and SU33 picking up radar contacts much faster than the F15.

 

Oh well.

 

As Far as FC3 I would like to see them release the code so we can make all planes in there flyable. Or at least give us all the planes we have a very talented community and I'm very sure allot of guys can make all the weapons work for all the planes ground radar and A/A planes.

Even if they make it simplistic still would be fun.

 

Just like IL2, would be a much more robust game. and we would see numbers comparable to

IL2 community. :thumbup:

Edited July 12, 2011 by Mastiff

[GGTharos]

@Yoda thanks.

I still see SU27, MiG29 and SU33 picking up radar contacts much faster than the F15.

 

THat's because you're not doing it right . Narrow down the AZ for the F-15 and you'll pick them up just as fast.

 

As Far as FC3 I would like to see them release the code so we can make all planes in there flyable. Or at least give us all the planes we have a very talented community and I'm very sure allot of guys can make all the weapons work for all the planes ground radar and A/A planes.

Even if they make it simplistic still would be fun.

 

No way. Enough UFOs already.

[71st_Mastiff]

THat's because you're not doing it right . Narrow down the AZ for the F-15 and you'll pick them up just as fast.

 

 

 

No way. Enough UFOs already.

 

so your saying your happy with just one plane?

 

lol that's not good enough.

 

I would like to to be able to do in FC3 as I can in IL2 up3.0rc3

very playbale and replayable, it's got legs.

[104th_Crunch]

One Plane to bring them all and in the darkness bind them :)

 

Code release would mean that PvP would never be guaranteed cheat free. That is the difference with FSX I guess.

 

If you enjoy lower fidelity but more choice that is up to you, but I know once a DCS fighter comes out, I won't want to go back to FC personally.

[RIPTIDE]

They all have the same radar. There is no "advantage" to either side with the exception of the F-15's multi-launch. In real code the only difference between them is that the Mig has lower detection/track/burnthrough ranges.

IIRC doesn't the Su birds have less look down detection range and less detection range on a chased target than the F-15C in this sim?

[EtherealN]

IIRC doesn't the Su birds have less look down detection range and less detection range on a chased target than the F-15C in this sim?

 

I can't say with 100% certainty that this is not the case, but I haven't heard of anything like it. I haven't checked it specifically either though, so it's possible. I'll ask.

 

The general point though is that they all have the same radar code, it's just a few variables that are adjusted, and the have different "skins" for how they display data and how you pass commands to them. But I don't know for sure if there's a difference in look-down and chase.

[RIPTIDE]

I can't say with 100% certainty that this is not the case, but I haven't heard of anything like it. I haven't checked it specifically either though, so it's possible. I'll ask.

        ["AN/APG-63"] =
       {
           air_radar = true,
           type = RADAR_AS,
           scan_volume =
           {
               azimuth = {-60.0, 60.0},
               elevation = {-30.0, 30.0}
           },
           centered_scan_volume =
           {
               azimuth_sector =60,
               elevation_sector =60
           },
           max_measuring_distance = 265000.0,
           detection_distance =
           {
               [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 88000.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 44000.0
               },
               [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 88000.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 44200.0
               }
           },
           lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
           velocity_limits =
           {
               radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6,
               relative_radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6,
           },
           scan_period = 5.0,

       },

 

        ["N-001"] =
       {
           air_radar = true,
           type = RADAR_AS,
           scan_volume =
           {
               azimuth = {-30.0, 30.0},
               elevation = {-30.0, 30.0}
           },
           centered_scan_volume =
           {
               azimuth_sector =60,
               elevation_sector =60
           },
           max_measuring_distance = 200000.0,
           detection_distance =
           {
               [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 68400.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 38000.0
               },
               [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 68400.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 26600.0
               }
           },
           lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
           velocity_limits =
           {
               radial_velocity_min = 210.0 / 3.6,
               relative_radial_velocity_min = 150.0 / 3.6,
           },
           scan_period = 2.5,
       },

Thats just whats in the files... maybe its not used...

[EtherealN]

Yeah, I know, the issue is the question of how the radar code itself actually handles those values. It's not necessarily straightforward. Example would be how the SFM profiles for the planes look weird compared to "real data", but the weirdness was adjusted to make things work right with other variables.

 

Not saying you're wrong, just that I need to check how the values are used in conjuction with things that are hardcoded before I can say anything.

[GGTharos]

This table only affects AI.

[RIPTIDE]

This table only affects AI.

I knew it. AI always cheating. :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

That's the definition of AI, isn't it? :D

[RodrigoMF_BR]

I like of the balance with study sims and midcore sims.

 

Midcore sims sells much more than study sims and helps de company to develop news products.

 

The flight model of both sims may be the same, only in the midcore with very much simple and automatized avionic.

 

A new FC2 or a compatibility patch with A10C will increase the sales of all products.

[Viper101]

I got a recommendation for FC3. Bring back the sonic boom, and also fix the sound engine so that jets don't have the loud long whine sound when approaching at transonic speed. It would greatly help for impressive sneak passes. ;)

[swift]

I got a recommendation for FC3. Bring back the sonic boom [...]

 

 

can't wait for this :D

[rattler]

I like of the balance with study sims and midcore sims.

 

Midcore sims sells much more than study sims and helps de company to develop news products.

 

The flight model of both sims may be the same, only in the midcore with very much simple and automatized avionic.

 

A new FC2 or a compatibility patch with A10C will increase the sales of all products.

 

Agree, but how do you get anyone official to listen. Would be nice to here from someone,(Wags maybe). I don't know?:cry:

[EtherealN]

I love how people keep telling ED what will and will not increase sales. They have that data, you don't. Rest assured that they do aim to make money and will be analysing their sales properly to inform their decisions. ;)

[HiJack]

I love how people keep telling ED what will and will not increase sales. They have that data, you don't. Rest assured that they do aim to make money and will be analysing their sales properly to inform their decisions. ;)

Great! Then we can prepare for FC3 :music_whistling:

[VincentLaw]

They have that data, you don't.

 

I don't think other people think they know better than ED, they just hope that what the loud minority says is a factor in that data. After all, if people stopped saying "I think X,Y,Z..." then they would have even less than the (probably negligible) impact they currently have on ED's decisions.

 

And after all, if profit was ED's only objective, they would probably be in a different market.

 

Personally, I would rather have a DCS version of every airplane in flaming cliffs than FC3, then maybe once they have several DCS modules out they can put the old ones that are not selling as much together in aircraft value bundles. (Maybe they will call one of the value bundles "FC3")

[Renato71]

POPCORNS! POPCORNS!

PEANUTS AND LOLLIPOPS!

[Cali]

Got my credit card ready for FC3!

[NRG-Vampire]

Great! Then we can prepare for FC3 :music_whistling:

 

Got my credit card ready for FC3!

 

Certainly :thumbup:

Im pretty sure that FC3 is coming around the corner :P Maybe DCS:EAGLE too :joystick:

[Weltensegler]

I'd play FC again then and like the idea to upgrade the FC environment to the DCS one.

But multiplayer compatibility not so much.

Engines up and go, radar lock and shoot...vs. a pilot that needs to prepare sensors and kick a ton of switches to shoot (next dcs module)???

With A2G aircrafts that's maybe acceptable.

[HiJack]

Certainly :thumbup:

Im pretty sure that FC3 is coming around the corner :P Maybe DCS:EAGLE too :joystick:

And while we are waiting for DCS Dove, why not enjoy Flaming Cliffs 3 :D

[HiJack]

I'd play FC again then and like the idea to upgrade the FC environment to the DCS one.

But multiplayer compatibility not so much.

Engines up and go, radar lock and shoot...vs. a pilot that needs to prepare sensors and kick a ton of switches to shoot (next dcs module)???

With A2G aircrafts that's maybe acceptable.

You need to be prepared for the situation (all switches set up) in DCS fighter as well as in FC2 fighter. I see no difference :huh:

[swift]

Sorry for the late reaction to your post, but I rarely visit here much anymore... :noexpression: At any rate, your retort that in DCS it takes all your concentration to do some task, which shows its "hard-core"ness is still rather short-sighted.

 

I agree 100% that it takes -you- 100% effort to perform some task while trying to fly the jet, etc. However, you fail to realize that REAL pilots don't usually get task saturated by doing things that they've trained for and practiced many times, so as to build those habit patterns and thusly are able to actually fly, chew gum, lock a target, continue visual lookout, and talk on the radio, all without appearing to have a helmet fire going on at the same time.

 

You should also agree, that it takes the generic, well-trained, real life combat pilot, a lot less than 100% effort to perform tasks that take the average simmer to the end of his wits. Granted, it takes 100% effort for any real pilot to do certain tasks AND maintain SA AND wrangle his/her wingmen AND avoid surface-to-air threats AND coordinate on two different radios at the same time. We all get maxed out from time-to-time.

 

However, with proper training, habit patterns, threat study, brevity, experience, etc. that task saturation point becomes something experienced with less frequency for a real pilot than your standard sim pilot.

 

I had SUPT, IFF, F-15 B-course, Continuation training, a couple of Cope Thunders, a few Red Flags, and FWS. My level of task saturation is probably modeled well by a FC2 aircraft and all its simplicity. If you didn't have to flick all those pretty switches and worry about doing all your procedures correctly in your hog, then you'd probably have the same level of task saturation that an experienced hog pilot would have.

 

Hard core is how you fly and fight, and train. It's possible to do hard core even in a simple sim such as FC2. It's made harder by inaccuracies inherent in the design, but it's still possible to approximate MODERN AIR COMBAT, despite these inaccuracies and balanced game play paradigms built into the program.

 

The awesomeness of this post is so great that it sent shockwaves throughout the timestream :thumbup: