Can LO FC Su-33 have these ?

[Alfa]

Come on guys,you can't say it's nonsense to add an ordinance because it's rarely used.If it's the case IRL,it should be in game.

 

Seeing an aircraft posing with a particular weapon at an airshow, doesnt necessarily mean that it is operationally used - the Su-33 has also been displayed with the Moskit missile despite the aircraft not having the systems support to deploy it and the missile itself never being fully developed :) .

 

I don't ever use R-60,should we take it out? :)

 

I think there is a difference between what the individual Lock-on player chooses to use in the game, and what the actual airforces use in real life for a particular aircraft ;) .

 

Besides, there is a difference between "taking things out" and spending development time "puttting things in" ;) .......especially if you consider whether those things are to be considered "curiosities" or are things which would enhance the representation of the RL aircraft :) . So they could "take out" the "Kh-41" for all I care :p

 

Anyway, I dont have anything particular against giving the Su-33 twin racks for the S-25 - I am just saying that there are lots of other things which would be more appropriate to concentrate on in connection with the representation of this aircraft....and the ship(+ escort) from which it is operated (caugh).

 

E.g. there is another thread on the the UPAZ refuelling pack for the Su-33 - this is IMHO a much more interesting suggestion, as this is an actual operational feature of the aircraft - but of course also more complicated to introduce.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Trident]

Speaking of AA refueling, don't Flankers with refueling probes have extendable spot-lights on the fuselage side to assist in night refueling operations? That would be a nice thing to model too :)

[Alfa]

Speaking of AA refueling, don't Flankers with refueling probes have extendable spot-lights on the fuselage side to assist in night refueling operations? That would be a nice thing to model too :)

 

Yes they do(air-refuelable MiG-29s have them too) - and its already there mate! :D

 

Ok the actual lamp doors/lamps arent animated, but the light source is - try it :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Trident]

LOL, that's what I get for being too much of a coward to try a night refueling ;)

[suntrace1]

The Su-33 was developed as a dedicated airdefence asset and is operated as such onboard the Kuznetsov - not for carrying out surface strike missions. Its ability to carry unguided a2g ordinance is something of a curiosity almost along the lines of the bit about the F-15C being able to carry iron bombs.

 

 

Isn't the Su-33 more like russian version of the F-18, than F-15. Besides, giving the Su-33 double rack shouldn't be such a big deal. If they modeled all the other a2g ordinance, i don't see why it couldn't/shouldn't be added. They're just unguided rockets, not some super-futuristic weapons like KH-41 is.

 

Besides, why did ED take out the posibilty to fire AGM-88/45 from F-16 (MiG-29 in 1.02). I had a few SEAD missions that were really fun and can't play them anymore. I don't care if F-16 it's not ''modeled correctly'' - i still had to use some real life tactics to engage SAM sites and it was fun-fun-fun. ED should really give us at least opportunity to fly and fight those half modeled AI planes even if they are not 100% correct. I want my HARMs back and at least some way to fire Mavricks. Am i really asking too much?

[GGTharos]

Because it takes time that is better used doing other things.

 

And no, it's not like a Russian version of the F-18. The MiG-29K is that equivalent. The Su-33 is closer to the F-14A/B as a dedicated interceptor than it is to the F-18. Much closer.

 

And yes, you are asking too much. ED develops flyables, flying the AI planes is a hack and is not supported.

[VapoR]

The dual-S25 racks are pretty cool, but this argument about the Su-33 using them is not!! The real question here is: do the Su-25 and Su25T have the capability to carry these IRL? Also the MiG-29 would also be a better choice than the 33, since it would be much more likely to be used for a2g (this is also assuming that the MiG can carry them).

[Cobra360]

 

 

Besides, why did ED take out the posibilty to fire AGM-88/45 from F-16 (MiG-29 in 1.02). I had a few SEAD missions that were really fun and can't play them anymore. I don't care if F-16 it's not ''modeled correctly'' - i still had to use some real life tactics to engage SAM sites and it was fun-fun-fun. ED should really give us at least opportunity to fly and fight those half modeled AI planes even if they are not 100% correct. I want my HARMs back and at least some way to fire Mavricks. Am i really asking too much?

 

Because the F-16s currently in Lomac are Aviano base Block 40s. They can be armed with LANTIRN pods for LGBs which was their main mission. The Block 50s are tasked with dealing out AGM-88s and has the HTS pod to do along with it.

In saying that Block 40s can fire AGM-88s blind but not target them like a HTS Block 50 can

[Alfa]

LOL, that's what I get for being too much of a coward to try a night refueling ;)

 

Hehe....yeah it is a little intimidating :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Isn't the Su-33 more like russian version of the F-18, than F-15.

 

No it is definately not - the closest equivalent would actually be something like a navalised F-15(size and nature), but as such a thing doesnt exist the closest thing would be the F-14 due to its similar airsuperiority/interceptor role.

 

As GG said, a Russian equivalent to the F/A-18 would be the MiG-29K - similar in size multirole fighter with a2g capable radar and support for the full range of anti-ship- and anti-radar missiles + guided a2g ordinace(missiles/bombs).

 

Besides, giving the Su-33 double rack shouldn't be such a big deal. If they modeled all the other a2g ordinance, i don't see why it couldn't/shouldn't be added.

 

No it wouldnt be hard to add - the question is whether to concentrate on things which would be more in line with what the real aircraft would opertionally use.

 

They're just unguided rockets, not some super-futuristic weapons like KH-41 is.

 

Well the "Kh-41" is not really a "super-futuristic" weapon - it was a proposed airlaunched variant of the P-270 "Moskit" (3M80E) SSM, which has been deployed onboard Russian destroyers since the early 1980´ies. As a matter of fact if such a weapon was to be considered for the Su-33 in the future, the Moskit would be an unlikely candidate.....because it is old technology by now :) . An airlaunched variant of the P-800 "Yakhont" would be a better bet.

 

Besides, why did ED take out the posibilty to fire AGM-88/45 from F-16 (MiG-29 in 1.02).

 

This was not "taken out" as such. For FC the entire code for deployment of anti-radar missiles was radically changed and so far only assigned for the Su-25T....try a SEAD mission with this and you will see what I mean.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[504MrWolf]

OK ive managed to make 50% of the weapon mod :D

 

Made it from the MER*2 Mk82 from the A-10 and iv managed to make it show in the Payload editor but not in game......HELP ?

 

Check the screenie

 

Ive nearly added it in game but i got a error saying there was a white space missing on line 11487, could see why so i could do with some MEINT.xml code help to finish it.

 

Wolfie

[coldcrew]

Pilotasso - why would the Su-33 fly around with unguided rockets in the middle of the ocean? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

to take out suicide alqueda boats of course :)

[Force_Feedback]

You need an already exhisting clsid to making a weapon work, a way to bypass this is to change the weapon pylon points (adding 2 weapon pylons on each side and making the s-25 the only load you can choose) but then the problem will arise when you have more than 12 pylons: the HUD will disappear :(

There is no way to give an aircraft more than 12 weapon pylons and make the HUD work. The missiles will be there, when you, or example, added 6 pylons, making a total of 18 hardpoints, all loaded up with R-73s, they will show up in game, but you will lose the hud and radar screen displays.

[Alfa]

OK ive managed to make 50% of the weapon mod :D

 

Made it from the MER*2 Mk82 from the A-10 and iv managed to make it show in the Payload editor but not in game......HELP ?

 

Check the screenie

 

Ive nearly added it in game but i got a error saying there was a white space missing on line 11487, could see why so i could do with some MEINT.xml code help to finish it.

 

Wolfie

 

You cannot make this mod only in the Meinit - you also need to edit some lua files to get it working in-game.

 

I will give it a look :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[504MrWolf]

Here is the code i came up with.

 

Im not sure what world ID should be either.

			
<Launcher CLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}" Name="MER*2 S-25" Picture="" Weight="995" WorldID="19">
	<Element ShapeName="MER2">
		<Position X="0" Y="0" Z="0"/>
	</Element>
	<Element ShapeName="C-25+PU">
		<Position X="0.132" Y="-0.161" Z="0.298"/>
		<DrawArg Key="1" Value="1"/>
		<DrawArg Key="2" Value="1"/>
	</Element>
	<Element ShapeName="C-25+PU">
		<Position X="0.132" Y="-0.161" Z="-0.298"/>
		<DrawArg Key="1" Value="1"/>
		<DrawArg Key="2" Value="1"/>
	</Element>
</Launcher>

 

This part is the error line asking for white space when i run lope.

<Payload CLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}" ID="27 "Name="MER*2 S-25">
<Pylon LauncherCLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}"/>3</Pylon>
<Pylon LauncherCLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}"/>3</Pylon>
</Payload>

[Alfa]

The first bit concerning the composition of the MER rack with 2x S-25 looks good(where did the CLSID come from - did you generate a new one?).

 

The second bit concerning a payload composition with the above new rack doesnt work for several reasons.

 

1). because you are trying to assign two MER racks to the same pylon(#3) ;) .

 

2). the "launcherName" is missing(there is just a "/" instead) - the "LauncherName" would be the name you stated when composing the MER rack. So the payload composition should look something like this(changes indicated in red):

 

<Payload CLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}" ID="27 "Name="MER*2 S-25">
  <Pylon LauncherCLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}" [color=Red]LauncherName="MER*2 S-25"[/color]>3</Pylon>
  <Pylon LauncherCLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-96AF-97A714E72697}" [color=Red]LauncherName="MER*2 S-25"[/color]>[color=Red]10[/color]</Pylon>
</Payload>

 

Try that :)

 

However, I think it will take a lot of extra editing to actually get it to show up and work in-game.

 

Edit * - new problem spotted:

 

3). you used the same CLSID for the Payload as you used for the launcher. The Payload CLSID must not(!) be = LauncherCLSID - these need to be unique, so you will have to generate a new CLSID for your payload :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SUBS17]

I hope no one thinks the Su-33 "quick start" mission in Lock-on is such..... :biggrin:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

I think that the Quick start mission is an example of what a 33 could be used for. It may well be that the 33 is primarily used as an interceptor but its capabilities for A/G work might be used in real life more likely than an F-15 dropping bombs because its the only aircraft on the Carrier unless the 29K comes into service.

[GGTharos]

F-15C's in Israel are already dropping bombs. I think you're more likely to see an F-15C dropping bombs in real life than a Su-33 ;)

The Su-33's bomb-truck capability is pretty darn useless in the combat environment it is meant for, and next to suicidal in just about any other case. You don't risk an aircraft you've got very few numbers of to make it do something it was never really intended to do.

[KILSEK]

UH-UH, NOPE, NOT ME, NO WAY.

 

Hi all and Alfa.

 

I hope no one thinks the Su-33 "quick start" mission in Lock-on is such..... :biggrin:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

:redface: :icon_redf Nope, I never thought that at all.

 

-KILSEK

[KILSEK]

Hi all and GGTharos.

 

F-15C's in Israel are already dropping bombs. I think you're more likely to see an F-15C dropping bombs in real life than a Su-33 ;)

 

:icon_wink So what are you saying, huh, huh, huh. :icon_wink Yeah I know. No bomb dropping F-15C.

 

The Su-33's bomb-truck capability is pretty darn useless in the combat environment it is meant for, and next to suicidal in just about any other case. You don't risk an aircraft you've got very few numbers of to make it do something it was never really intended to do.

 

On a serious note, thats the thing isn't it? IRL you are right, no military would consider it an option. But in the game it's there, and you have unlimited aircraft in a game. There is a line and it gets blurred alot with what is real and what you would like it to do. It all comes down to playability.

 

I set-up a mission a few nights ago where I took a Su-33 and "LOPED" it so that it could carry all the rockets and bombs it normally does, on all the pylons. I then had 20 hummers move around Sevastopol at 50MPH. It was a great time.

 

I suppose the question everyone should ask themselves is: How real do I want to play? For me the answer is, as long as the AC, WEAPS, vehicles, and equipment are simulated as close as possible, I am happy. After that. having the option (LOPE) to do more increases the overall playability. More options and I can restrict myself, less options and I feel restricted.

 

Anyway, I am glad to be here Sir. -KILSEK

[504MrWolf]

The first bit concerning the composition of the MER rack with 2x S-25 looks good(where did the CLSID come from - did you generate a new one?).

 

The CLSID is the same one as the MER*2 would this have to be unique too ?

[504MrWolf]

This is the edited code today. added letters PL to Launcher CLSID (96AF = 96APL) Also changed some letters in the payload CLSID hope that makes them unique :)

 

<Launcher CLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-4702-[color=DarkRed]96APL[/color]-97A714E72697}" Guided="no" Name="MER*2 S-25" Picture="" Weight="995" WorldID="11">
			<Element ShapeName="MER2">
				<Position X="0" Y="0" Z="0"/>
			</Element>
			<Element ShapeName="C-25+PU">
				<Position X="0.132" Y="-0.161" Z="0.298"/>
				<DrawArg Key="1" Value="1"/>
				<DrawArg Key="2" Value="1"/>
			</Element>
			<Element ShapeName="C-25+PU">
				<Position X="0.132" Y="-0.161" Z="-0.298"/>
				<DrawArg Key="1" Value="1"/>
				<DrawArg Key="2" Value="1"/>
			</Element>
		</Launcher>

[504MrWolf]

OK Ive added the changes and ran LOPE to see if it found any errors in the MEINIT file, it did :( same error....

 

Required white space missing.

Line: 11487

<Payload CLSID="{D5D51E24-348C-470.

 

I cant see or dont claim to know what or where it is or goes :D

 

But if i run Lockon it will crash with a C++ runtime error.

[Alfa]

I think that the Quick start mission is an example of what a 33 could be used for. It may well be that the 33 is primarily used as an interceptor but its capabilities for A/G work might be used in real life more likely than an F-15 dropping bombs because its the only aircraft on the Carrier unless the 29K comes into service.

 

I think that the Quick start mission is exactly an example of the "misconduct" I mentioned earlier. Namely to think up a scenario that would appear down right ridiculous to anyone with a clue about naval warfare - for the purpose of providing the Su-33 with an unlikely mission task.

 

Great!

 

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Wolfie - no offense mate, but you seem to be fumbling a bit in the dark :D

 

Everything you "construct" in the MEinit.xml needs to be done in exactly the same way and order as an existing entry and you need to be VERY careful when doing it - even a single extra space, a missing quotation mark, ">" or comma will cause the sim to crash!

 

The CLSIDs are the ones that identifies each item in the MEinit - i.e it is essential that they unique and valid. So you need a new CLSID for the new "MER*2 S-25" in order for the sim to be able to distinguish this from the other weapons entries, and a new CLSID for each new payload you create :) .

 

Also you need to fully understand the system and order of how things are defined to get it to work - and there are many steps to take :) .

 

Basically the order is:

 

1). construct the MER rack under weapons section(with a unique CLSID)

 

2). in the "pylons" part of the Su-33 entry, you need to assign the MER rack as a compatible weapon entry for each pylon of the Su-33 you want it available for - using the CLSID and launcher name you stated in 1)..

 

3). in the "payloads" part of the Su-33 entry, compose a new payload(using a unique CLSID) to include this new weapon - assigning it to the same pylons and using the same launcher name and CLSID that you stated in 2).

 

4). in the "tasks" part of the Su-33 entry, you can distribute your new payload to be available under varies tasks - here you use the payload name and CLSID you stated in 3).

 

For each step, you should look at what is already there and "imitate" the structure and composition for each line you need to add.

 

And thats just the bit which concerns the MEinit modifications - as I mentioned earlier, you will almost certainly also have to modify some lua files in order for the rack to actually show up and work in-game.

 

I dont have time to work on this right now, but if you like I can take a look at it this evening.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.