First sight of Lock On 1.2: Black Shark !

[Maverick-90]

I think it would be a better idea to add a multirole helicopter like the Ka-27 Helix, and expand the naval aviation element by adding anti-submarine warfare.

KA-27 wouldn't be such a good idea:

- no defensive AAMs

- only unguided rockets (exept Switchblade SSM)

- 2 Seater (ED won't do this)

- requires development of Torpedos and diving subs, which would require a new dimension to add

[GGTharos]

I'm sure it'll be a fun platform to fly, but I would rather have seen ED do a number of things before adding a new plane, like fixing the wretched sound engine and improving the training missions. As for the possibility of a clickable cockpit, the idea of trying to frantically click one of 600 buttons with a mouse while ground units are firing at me doesn't exactly sound fun. Great for civil aviation sims, bad for combat sims.

 

For those of you who still haven't figured it out, a number of functions will still be easily accessible via the KB, and will be mappable to your stick and throttle for easy operation during such situations - so right in the middle of combat you shouldn't need to be pushing buttons in the pit - you SHOULD set up your pit BEFORE combat begins. All of this 'I don't wanna have to push one of those buttons while being shot at' whining is silly and not well thought through, and either way this is all part of the cockpit workload experience, anyway.

 

 

Insofar as adding a helo is a problem, helos are anti-armor platforms, not anti-personnel platforms (though they'll serve in that role in a pinch) so it'll all work just fine in the game. As for the helo 'surviving more than ten minutes', see debate on helo's ability to take evasive action elsewhere. Use the search function.

As far as keymapping goes, I wonder how different the keys will be between the rotor craft and fixed wing crafts. I have my joystick buttons programmed exactly the way I want right now for the fixed wing. I'm wondering if the rotor craft will require different button mappings; this would cause all sorts of problem for me. The solution might be to have a different executable for flying the rotor craft and another executable for the fixed wing craft. This way, my joystick mappings can automatically be optimized for either the rotorcraft or the fixed wing. Since I'm not beta testing, I have no idea what to expect. I hope ED takes this into consideration.

[akdavis]

Insofar as adding a helo is a problem, helos are anti-armor platforms, not anti-personnel platforms (though they'll serve in that role in a pinch) so it'll all work just fine in the game.

 

This is so incredibly wrong. The Ka-50 is, in fact, a daylight close-support helicopter. A dedicated anti-armor helo in the post-Cold War world would obviously have to be fully night-attack capable, with significant all-weather capabilities. If helicopters are not providing the first line of close support to ground forces, what pray tell is?

[GGTharos]

Did you notice what happened to that 40-apache flight in that most recent gulf war?

 

They didn't do so well against the typed of defenses that would be deployed at the front line ...

[akdavis]

Did you notice what happened to that 40-apache flight in that most recent gulf war?

 

They didn't do so well against the typed of defenses that would be deployed at the front line ...

 

The U.S. Army disagrees:

 

The Apache Longbow has continued to demonstrate its warfighting capabilities during Operation Iraqi Freedom, logging thousands of combat hours in support of allied troops while maintaining high readiness rates. In all, more than 200 Apaches have served in Iraq . Many Apache units remain in Iraq in support of allied forces, and more Apache units will rotate into theater as long as American soldiers are present.

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/ah64d_back.htm

 

also:

 

Seven AH-64As provided life-saving firepower for Americans in the fierce firefight around the Shah-e-Kot valley during Operation Anaconda last year. Four of the helicopters received heavy battle damage, including hits from rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The damaged aircraft still completed their missions and brought their crews home, and most were repaired quickly to return to the fight. When combat flared again in 2003, Apaches flew close air support on Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants. One AH-64 was shot down in June but the crew escaped. Apaches provided fire support for combat operations in August and continue to be frontline assets in the war on terrorism.

 

Likewise, AH-64As and Longbow AH-64Ds were powerful assets in the fast moving "major combat" phase of Iraqi Freedom, with an estimated 140 Apaches in the theater of operations. Combat units were pleased with the Longbow’s operational effectiveness and survivability in an environment noted for sandstorms, brownouts, and ground fire. Boeing reports the AH-64Ds in Iraqi Freedom maintained a 95 percent operational readiness rate.

 

...

 

AH-64s in Operation Iraqi Freedom nevertheless fought a different kind of battle than they did in Desert Storm. Rather than mass in Soviet-style armored formations in open desert, Iraqi tanks in 2003 generally dispersed, with air defenses hidden in cities or amid civilians. During the battle for Baghdad, three Apache squadrons destroyed 40—50 vehicles and artillery pieces.

 

With tanks as bait, air defenders set ambushes with RPGs, mortars and other infantry weapons. The much-publicized deep strike near Karbala in March left 31 Apaches damaged by RPGs and gunfire and gave Iraq a very public victory. Two Americans were captured and a sophisticated U.S. Army helicopter in Iraqi hands had to be chased down and ultimately bombed by a U.S. Air Force fighter. With the Army slow to quantify Apache successes, the press seized on the loss. One British newspaper quickly claimed that the fragmentary reports of the action totally discredited the British Army’s purchase of the RTM-322 powered Apache AH Mk.1 (WAH 64 Apache Longbow).

 

The headlines ignored the repeated message that the Apache could take punishment and return to the fight. One AH-64A from the 2nd Sqdn., 6th Cavalry Regiment took multiple hits during the push for the Iraqi capital. The pilot withdrew to an aid station to get his wounded co-pilot/gunner bandaged, patched up the aircraft with tape and epoxy and rejoined the battle.

 

Apache crews adapted to use more flexible tactics in the changing fight. The 1st of the 3rd transitioned from massed deep strike tactics to continuous close combat, launching teams of Apaches. While lead crews attacked targets from standoff ranges, wingmen protected the shooters from close-in threats. Shoot-on-the-move tactics also got the Apache out of its vulnerable tank-killing hover. Battalion commanders also provided added security for attack companies in combat.

 

According to the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, the Army is still gathering observations from Iraq to revise its attack helicopter field manuals and training. The service is taking a hard look at how to use the AH-64 in close combat while maintaining the lethality and shock effects it needs for deep attacks. But whatever the scenario, the Apache continues to evolve for the Objective Force.

 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0104&file=0104apache.htm

[SUBS17]

Did you notice what happened to that 40-apache flight in that most recent gulf war?

 

They didn't do so well against the typed of defenses that would be deployed at the front line ...

 

They were ambushed by heavy AAA and SAM units.

[BlackEagle]

Insofar as adding a helo is a problem, helos are anti-armor platforms, not anti-personnel platforms (though they'll serve in that role in a pinch) so it'll all work just fine in the game.

 

This is so incredibly wrong. The Ka-50 is, in fact, a daylight close-support helicopter. A dedicated anti-armor helo in the post-Cold War world would obviously have to be fully night-attack capable, with significant all-weather capabilities. If helicopters are not providing the first line of close support to ground forces, what pray tell is?

 

Exactly. The dedicated anti-armor role already belongs to the A-10 and Su-25. And I never said that attack helos are primarily anti-personnel. I said they primarily provide supporting fires against hard targets, which can be anything from technicals (e.g. a pickup with a heavy machine gun mounted on top) to bunkers and other fortified emplacements, in other words, things that your average squad of riflemen can't take out without heavy weaponry. At any rate, you're hardly likely to encounter massed mechanized infantry formations in today's assymetric and urban warfare environment. Even on an open battlefield, no country would be foolish enough to place it's mechanized infantry in the open when attacking an enemy with capable air assets, in the absence of the type of air defense support that would neutralize the effectiveness of an attack helicopter. That's just begging for death from above.

 

I think realism is more than accurate cockpits. It also involves realistic tactics and doctrine. I just don't see how an army aviation unit can play a primary role in a modern air combat simulation without significantly modifying the role, appearance and tactics of the game's ground units.

[BlackEagle]

Perhaps

 

KA-27 wouldn't be such a good idea:

- no defensive AAMs

- only unguided rockets (exept Switchblade SSM)

- 2 Seater (ED won't do this)

- requires development of Torpedos and diving subs, which would require a new dimension to add

 

AAMs or no AAMs, I still don't think a helo stands a chance against a modern fourth generation fighter. As far as torpedos and diving subs, I don't think it would take much work to add those. The game already has subs, you would just have to modify their capabilities. Torpedos are just another type of missile. The most difficult part would probably be the water animations, but that's something the developer's will be working on enhancing anyway. At any rate, if you're going to add helos, you're going have to expand either the naval combat element or the ground combat element, because helos are NOT air superiority platforms. Of the two, I think naval combat is more complementary to the game's geographic setting and existing units than ground combat is, and can be integrated much more realistically and effectively into the current game design. That's why I suggested the Ka-27 if you have to have a helo.

 

Edit: Or how about an American helo? The SH60R Seahawk has the best of all worlds. It comes armed with Hellfire anti-armor missles, penguin anti-shipping missles, and torpedos. Now I could get excited about that. Of course, it requires a crew of three (pilot, sensor operator, and airborne tactical officer) but I don't think that has to be a problem. Maybe Sikorsky would be just as eager to give it's new product some publicity as Kamov was.

[BlackEagle]

All of this 'I don't wanna have to push one of those buttons while being shot at' whining is silly and not well thought through, and either way this is all part of the cockpit workload experience, anyway.

 

Calling a company's customers silly thoughtless whiners is bad form, and not particularly good for business. Stick to debating the facts.

[Whisper]

I think realism is more than accurate cockpits. It also involves realistic tactics and doctrine. I just don't see how an army aviation unit can play a primary role in a modern air combat simulation without significantly modifying the role, appearance and tactics of the game's ground units.

 

And, apart from infantry soldiers, what would you require to be put in 1.2 to enhance ground aspect?

[BlackEagle]

Oof. Adding soldiers would be a mammoth enough job without adding other requirements. At that point, you would have much more than a point release, you would have an entirely new game. To keep the gameplay immersive, in addition to creating character models, those soldiers have to be outfitted with weapons, you have to create AI to control their actions, terrain objects have to be redesigned to appear realistic at ground level (which is something you'll have to do even if you just add a helicopter, if you don 't want everything to look like 640x480 crud while you're flying your bird in between buildings and hovering over treetops), you have to calculate area of effect against personnel for A2G weapons, work out command and control (do they call in airstrikes? how do you distinguish friend from foe?), create new vehicle animations (ever notice that the wheels on the trucks don't turn?) and much much more. That would be an awesome game to play if the developers could pull it off, but Lock-On isn't that game. Again, I think the developers should concentrate on enhancing the immersiveness and gameplay of the existing game before they tack on a new platform.

[Trident]

Let's not forget that there have been some fine helo-sims in the past without most of those features though. Especially graphicswise there really isn't any existing helo title that comes even close to LOMAC as it is now (and who knows what ED will include for v1.2), so I don't see any problems in this particular area.

[Weta43]

Originally Posted by GGTharos

" All of this 'I don't wanna have to push one of those buttons while being shot at' whining is silly and not well thought through, and either way this is all part of the cockpit workload experience, anyway. "

 

While I agree that pushing up the cockpit workload probably:

 

a/ increases realism, & through this

b/ increases immersion,

 

my own feeling from using clickable cockpits is that at first glance a clickable cockpit offers the promise of greater realism, but that actually a well thought out KB layout with an animated cockpit is in some ways more realistic...

 

I guess it's personal prefference but for me it's a question of is it more realistic to have all the buttons in the wrong places (the KB), but where I can reach them with my hands, or to have them all in the right place (in the cockpit on the screen ), but make me pick up a stick (the mouse) to poke them all

[GGTharos]

See, you have to read the rest of my post now.

 

As I said, these functions will be assignable - this means that you'll be able to carry out necessary functions with your HOTAS. THings like switching complex MFD modes, inputting nav coords etcetc you'll probably have to do with the mouse, and it isn't likely you'd be doing those in the middle of a fight anyway.

[Solidburn]

What's wrong with a Clickable cockpit?....had to do that in Falcon 4.0 and I still fly that on occasion. I agree with Weta43

[Groove]

I think it would be cool to have animated pilot arms which push the buttons and switch the switches. So for example if i would pull up the Gear with the "G" butto the virtual pilots hand would pull the lever for gear.

[SUBS17]

That might be ok in VR with VR gloves in a proper pit.

[Groove]

No i think it would be a nice "feeling" without VR stuff at all. Having a buddy sitting on your side in the Hokum in Comanche vs Hokum was also a big add to the "realism" :)

[Haegar]

This might be a funny thing the first hours we try out the shark, but after a while, especially when in battle, you wil simply oversee the animation, in some cases it even might be disturbing because of blocking the sight on important gauges. But the mean thing: It will lower the all-over-system performance and probably decrease the fps.

 

I'd rather see a good framerate than a pair of hands, and believe me - especially in a helicopter you will be very thankfull for every additional frame per second.

 

I flew EEAH and EECH since it came out and I still do. I know the animations in the EECH cockpits well and I like it - but not at the cost of systemperformance please.

[Doug97]

Oof. Adding soldiers would be a mammoth enough job without adding other requirements. At that point, you would have much more than a point release, you would have an entirely new game. To keep the gameplay immersive, in addition to creating character models, those soldiers have to be outfitted with weapons, you have to create AI to control their actions, terrain objects have to be redesigned to appear realistic at ground level (which is something you'll have to do even if you just add a helicopter, if you don 't want everything to look like 640x480 crud while you're flying your bird in between buildings and hovering over treetops), you have to calculate area of effect against personnel for A2G weapons, work out command and control (do they call in airstrikes? how do you distinguish friend from foe?), create new vehicle animations (ever notice that the wheels on the trucks don't turn?) and much much more.

 

This is very true.

 

Do we have any indications as to how much of this ED is going to try?

[Ice]

A bird. A little bird. Very small one.

 

Maybe a Small Eagle even :cool:

[Ice]

Allthought that Helicopter is sure nice and that Eagle is more a russian company, so sure has more inside into russian aircrafts for a add on i would finally wish that you get the ability to fly more aircrafts of those that are already in the game. Lock On gives you so many free things in what you can do, yet it limits you very much on what aircrafts you can fly.

 

While i worked on a map i wished so many times that i could go and fly that Tornado i added, or that F-14, or that F-16, or that F-5, or even that Hercules :), etc. Thats the thing i really miss in Lock On, that you have to replace flyable aircrafts if you just tired for a while of those that you can fly.

I would prefer that over any helicopter addition, but i guess that will stay a wish.

 

Btw nice that you havent abandon the game like Ubisoft did, this game is awesome, wish more flight sims would be that detail fanatic.

 

Something needs to be remembered here: Lock-On Flaming Cliffs has the widest range flyable aircraft of any "Study Sim"

[The Gigler]

Flying Helicopters

 

Anyone know how easy this will be to fly?

 

Everyone knows that flying a helicopter is a b*tch compared to modern jets (stick-wise).

 

(Don't know about you but I hope it's hard! Give my rudder pedals a workout ...)

 

Practice in Microsoft FS 2004. Take flight lessons for helicopters. Learn to hover then your rewady. You will definately want to be familiar with small stick movement.

[The Gigler]

QUESTION FOR YOU?

 

This might be a funny thing the first hours we try out the shark, but after a while, especially when in battle, you wil simply oversee the animation, in some cases it even might be disturbing because of blocking the sight on important gauges. But the mean thing: It will lower the all-over-system performance and probably decrease the fps.

 

I'd rather see a good framerate than a pair of hands, and believe me - especially in a helicopter you will be very thankfull for every additional frame per second.

 

I flew EEAH and EECH since it came out and I still do. I know the animations in the EECH cockpits well and I like it - but not at the cost of systemperformance please.

 

 

What is EEAH and EECH?