Alpha I got a question.

[JonTex]

Hey Alpha,

I noticed your a tester (pretty sharp Huh?). Anyhow Im frustrated and i know im preaching to the choir on this one but I know your not the only one who will hear what i have to say on this one if you know what i mean. I can tell you right now that this game is awesome bugs and all I think this game is great its frustrating with the bugs but I can live with it because I know the amount of dedication and hard work it takes to put out a game of this caliber. With that said I would warn ED to not make the same mistake that many other developers have made in the past by force feeding their consumers the same old meat loaf they have eaten for years. ED strikes me as the kind of company that thinks outside the box. A company that is prepared to go to great lengths to give a mal nourished and in this day in age of "popular games" overlooked community the chance to thrive. The flight sim community. Ive said this before and ill keep saying it till i get heard because I know there has to be at least one damn person out there who still has the gumption to give this old soldier his last wish before I give up on the gaming community all together.

Yeah I hate to be the turd in the punch bowl today but I have to tell it like it is. The flight sim community is getting so repetitive is sickening. We have had the same stinking aircraft modeled year after year in game after game so many years that now game makers face a diminishing market from a consumer that wants to buy but wont buy their flight sims because they have already flown your stinking F18's and F15's and F16's so many times that they dont even need the manual for anything more than remapping the keys to their joysticks because they already have working knowledge of the systems on board. (to a certain degree of coarse but i think you get my point).

I really wish they would make the F14 and the Mig31 as flyables. Im a die hard tomcat fan and its just sad when you look at the history of sims over the years that have modeled aircraft up to and around the tomcat as if it had the black plague. Its just a damn shame because that aircraft was literally the work horse of naval aviation in its day as an active fighter. And if you dont believe me I dare you to do some research on its capabilities and design. Not only that it has seen just as much action as its airforce counterparts and is so formidable and lethal it was sold to only one other country without its BVR capabilities of the Aim 54 phoenix because it was so lethal and even Iran tried to find some way to jerry rig their 14s to use make shift Hawk missles AKA a surface to air missle to utilize the 14s BVR capabilities to their fullest potential.

 

Now The next excuse that ill get for not modeling the tomcat in a flight sim from here on out besides it being a two seater will be "sorry man the tomcat isnt an active fighter" and then they will slap me in the face with a F18 super hornet flight sim the two seater version or single seat dont matter to me. I realize im preaching to the choir or talking to the wrong person. I know that my one vote doesnt count but at least im making my vote. I know ED has what it takes to do it but will they? And I know they would not have spent all those years after making flanker improving this game and putting more flyables in like the 15 and the Hog if they werent trying to make a flight sim that would not only raise the bar but make an attempt at giving a dying flight sim community the jolt that it needed and starved for all those years in between. So if ED is listening and just by chance your still scratching your head saying gee I wonder what it was in all that hard work we did that jolted the flight sim community. Why are our numbers so high and why are these consumers so interested in our product? Why were we so succesful? Didnt we work just as hard on flanker and flanker 2.5? Well heres your answer these consumers see something different in your product they havent seen in years past and thats a chance to see something different and experience something they havent experienced in a flight sim. It might be a lot of work but It will be worth it to make the 31 and the 14 flyables. I say the 31 because it would only be fair to the Russian side of the fence in this game. Hell if you need my help I will do anything to make it possible. I realize im just another faceless name on your website. Another serial number attached to a license agreement that i didnt bother to read like all the other gamers because we just want to have fun who needs legality right? But i caution you to take me lightly because im sure others feel the same. You put a helicopter in thats a start but soon people will want to see fighters that they have never been able to fly modeled as flyables in your sim. The ball is in your court and the question is what will you do?

[GGTharos]

First, your data is ... wrong. The F-14 was sold to Iran WITH AIM-54s.

 

Second, the 'excuse' you'll get now is that there isn't enough data available to model the F-14. If you can find the devs some F-14 tacbooks (I somehow doubt they're unclassified yet) then they might consider it I think, esp. if they can overcome the two-seater issue.

 

The MiG-31 probably has even more classified data than the F-14.

[Olgerd]

First, your data is ... wrong. The F-14 was sold to Iran WITH AIM-54s.

 

Second, the 'excuse' you'll get now is that there isn't enough data available to model the F-14. If you can find the devs some F-14 tacbooks (I somehow doubt they're unclassified yet) then they might consider it I think, esp. if they can overcome the two-seater issue.

 

The MiG-31 probably has even more classified data than the F-14.

 

Unfortunately all US NAVY/USMC aircrafts tactical manuals are still classified. Even for F-14A model. So... right now we have plans only for USAF and US ARMY aircrafts/helicopters as well as for some advanced versions of Russian AF fighters. I hope something will change in the future.

[GGTharos]

So do I, I'm also a Tomcat fan :)

[Olgerd]

So do I, I'm also a Tomcat fan :)

 

He-he... And I am. :)

[JonTex]

oh ... i still want to see it as a flyable. :D not interested in getting into a debate just want to see it as a flyable.

[GGTharos]

Hehe, you can be my wingman any time! ;)

[JonTex]

BS you can be mine :cool:

[504MrWolf]

I have a modeller friend who has made a F-14 for MSFS. He also works as a team with 2 other guys one being the maker of the Fighter Fling movies !

 

I have a sample movie of the F-14D model in flight in MSFS :) its a beautifull sight swaying left to right.............straight outta TopGun expect Viper to be hot on its tail ! lol

[Alfa]

Hello JonTex,

 

Wow that was some effort! :D

 

I am really not the one to ask this question and I see you already got the answer from Olgerd. But since your post was addressed to me, I would like to comment on it anyway.

 

Apart from the bit about lack of detailed documentation being available for it, I think another reason why the F-14 hasn't been modelled as much as other US fighters(especially F-16 and F-18) despite being a very popular design, has to do with it being a twin seater. To properly simulate such a configuration would require a very smart AI routine for the RIO in single player games and, to be really interesting, a rather complex multiplayer code which would allow two players to crew the aircraft over the internet and operate all its systems with a clear division of work load between the pilot and radar operator - thus provide the proper representation of how the aircraft is operated.

 

The latter would certainly add a new dimension to online flight simming and be an interesting prospect, but I think also make it a rather development heavy one.

 

I sympathise with your wishes and I also think that your F-14 - MiG-31 idea makes a lot of sense in terms of their general nature and purpose - but might be a little harder to realise when it comes to their respective "habitats" ;) .

 

A pet issue of mine that I continuously point out is that to make a good simulation of a particular aircraft, it is necessary also to take into consideration the environment in which it was meant to operate - I do not believe in the notion that "adding" a flyable naval fighter is a mere matter of modelling this aircraft type and then just "dump" it into the sim. For a flyable naval fighter to make any sense and be interesting, it will be necessary to also properly depict naval warfare in general and aircraft carrier operations(including deck routines) in particular.....in other words naval fighters will require a lot of extra development on associated areas to become an interesting prospect - I believe it would be well worth the effort, but so far I am having little success in persuading other people about this :)

 

I fully agree with you on the point about going for aircraft types which are a little outside the "mainstream", but I feel that Flanker and now Lock-on has done very well in this respect - e.g. the F-14 has been done before(although not often), while most of the Lock-on aircraft have not :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[JonTex]

Well Alpha,

Gee man I just dont know what to say to all that well thought out technical excuse. :D But I will say this where there is a will there is a way and i know it aint impossible. BTW I mentioned in my first post that I think ED is a company that thinks outside the box. Key phrase there. All im saying and you can take this and run with it or you can keep yourself in the box here figuretively speaking, But none of us and I do mean none of us have ever flown a F-14(those who have posted in this post anyway). And Im willing to bet that even a far greater number of the gaming and simming community have never flown the tomcat or the 31. Hell Ive never flown the Su-27 , the Su33, never flown the Su25T, Su25, never flown the A10 warthog, never flown the F-15C , the F15E ..... hehe i think your starting to get the point. But let me drive it home here. The developers (God Bless their hearts) will sacrifice long nights in the office life and limb and even their company taking a nose dive into bankruptcy to model a flyable aircraft that none of the flight sim community has ever set foot in with all the tech and tac data that left them scratching their heads and cutting corners to make the codes work. in an online and single player gaming community that couldnt have told you the difference between breaking the sound barrier and a wet fart. But you try and thats commendable thats what makes you a cut above the rest but i know it can be done. You know I never even knew you used a tactical data book to model these aircraft and to be honest after flying all the flight sims that ive flown I cant tell you the difference and could care less. To be honest your Su's are modeled to be so challenging for the average arm chair pilot that I almost put the game down and never touched it again it was just that frustrating. Im not saying dont model the aircraft as closely to its real life counterpart as possible ..... never saying that. Im just saying since you dont have the tac data take what you do know about the tomcat and model it close to something you already have like the F15. Im sure the F15 and the F14 are so close in flight characteristics you will laugh when you get the tac data. Look bottom line all im saying is no one would fault you for at least trying to model it as closely as you can. In your case Im sure your best guess is as close as the tac data could ever come to modeling the F14 anway. Thanks for responding though Alpha it opens my eyes a bit more each time someone of your caliber takes the time to teach someone like me a little more than i knew before. But I still think its possible maybe one day ill try it myself only problem is I dont know where to start. Im sure everyone will laugh at first but we will see who is laughing when your all playing my game. lol :cool:

 

P.S. And i know everyone says that since the tomcat is a twin seater that two people should be able to operate it. You know one in the front flyin and the other in the back operating the weapon systems but who said that has to happen. Why cant you just stick an AI back there and slave him to your every command in the front seat if im not mistaken since i worked on them thats how it happens anyway.

[GGTharos]

Err actually no, they're quite different. I believe the F-14 has better AoA handling, and probably better acceleration and top speed in some flight profiles, but is overall underpowered compared to the F-15...so they'd fight each other using different tactics because of this.

 

Sorry, had to nitpick on that one, hehe ;)

[JonTex]

lol ......... yea i give up im gonna go play some lockon and pretend the Su33 is a F14 ... sad its the closest i can get to real carrier ops. :cool:

[SuperKungFu]

i guess wait for about 5 years then we should get to fly the F-14 in FighterOps or something. The original release will not consist of the F-14 but a naval addon will. But that will take a really long time lol.

[SUBS17]

In its current form, lockon could have an F-14 at the same level of detail as the F-15C. But its taking a huge step backwards considering that ED is moving forwards into clickable pits and MFDs so such a flyable would definately require alot of information. As for 2 seater issue, its not an obstacle is my belief as it can be accomplished in several ways including pit switching, AI RIO and player RIO(its been done before in lockon 1.02, don't deny it). I'm a big fan of the F-14, especially the D model, its an awesome machine. And I also think the cold war is the best time period for Air combat, it was when pilots were doing the fighting not computers.

[MBot]

Not only that it has seen just as much action as its airforce counterparts and is so formidable and lethal it was sold to only one other country without its BVR capabilities of the Aim 54 phoenix because it was so lethal and even Iran tried to find some way to jerry rig their 14s to use make shift Hawk missles AKA a surface to air missle to utilize the 14s BVR capabilities to their fullest potential.

 

I fear you have some wrong informations about iranian Tomacats here. The iranian F-14A were delivered with full combat capabilitys against soviet fighters, including the AIM-54A and the highly sensitiv "Combat Tree" IFF system. The only differences comparing to USN F-14A were downgraded ECCM capabilitys against US ECM systems ( but not against soviet ), otherwise the planes were identical.

The F-14A was used by iran with great effect in the first gulf war and racked up 159 confirmed kills against iraqi aircraft versus 3 losses in aircombat. The AIM-54A was used in many occasions and scored 58 confirmed kills in the process, mostly against fighter targets. Including several double kills, where the Phoenix huge warhead had taken out two close flying targets at once, and one known tripple kill ( perhaps even quadruple, a forth MiG-23 was seen heavily damaged and possibly crashed later, altough this remains unconfirmed ).

You see that the iranian Tomcats played a important role in the Iraq-Iran war that was underestimated for a long time by the west. I suggest you look at the book "Osprey Combat Aircraft 49: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Comat", wich is very well writen and a real eyeopener for the subject.

 

 

I realy like your idea for a F-14 Tomcat sim. This is one of my favourite fighters and I would love to see it simulated. Especially the F-14A, as I love 70s technology. Glasscockpits are for sissys :)

It is a shame that the tac manuals of USN aircraft are classified, especially for such old aircraft as the F-14A that has already been put out of service. Unfortunatly this will reduce chances for a well simulated Tomact to zero.

[Groove]

I bet there would be enough flamethreads that the F-14 or MIG-31 are imbalanced in a fight against other jets. Afaik at least the MIG31 is no close fight jet but a long range interceptor.

 

I love BVR fights. But i think most of the people want gunzo with f-14s?

[SUBS17]

lol ......... yea i give up im gonna go play some lockon and pretend the Su33 is a F14 ... sad its the closest i can get to real carrier ops. :cool:

 

 

Theres always Janes F/A-18 with TSH.

[SUBS17]

lol ......... yea i give up im gonna go play some lockon and pretend the Su33 is a F14 ... sad its the closest i can get to real carrier ops. :cool:

 

I'm definately looking forward to that one when it gets made.

[Shaman]

The entire fleet of F-14 is going to be retired, right? From fighter fling movies I got the idea that for sure some F-14 pilots will be retired as well. I'm sure they could be great knowledge base of aircraft's performance and it's systems/avionics etc.

 

MrWolf. Talk to your friend if there are going to release DVD version of fighter fling movies. I'd love to have them this way and watch on panoramic tv :)

[Tracker]

As a programmer I understand the hundreds of manhours required to integrate real time objects with all the complexity the TomCat deserves. Deck Ops being as important as a Nav Officer. When I fly the TomCat in LOMAC I want ALL the bells and whistles. I flew the MSFS version and was disapointed with the cockpit. I trust that ED will do as best as it can be done when the time arrives. ( I just hope it'll happen while my eyes are still working :D) Oh, and we may need an AI Nav Officer as well as the ability to place MP into second seat :wink:

[Starlight]

Unfortunately all US NAVY/USMC aircrafts tactical manuals are still classified. Even for F-14A model. So... right now we have plans only for USAF and US ARMY aircrafts/helicopters as well as for some advanced versions of Russian AF fighters. I hope something will change in the future.

 

Are you sure?

http://www.eflightmanuals.com/detail/itemList.asp?page=3&CategoryGroupID=4

 

NAVAIR/NATOPS manuals should have all what you need to make a good simulation (unless you really are a pilot or WSO). I found somewhere the F-18E/F NATOPS manual and it has tons of info. I don't care that much because I don't like that aircraft, but that's another matter. The NATOPS manual rocks!

 

I also have some F-16 MLU manuals (with HUDs and radars screens and info), and operator's manuals for some US helos.

[Starlight]

.... and for less detailed yet useful info on USN/USMC aircraft

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/

 

each pdf file you find in that directory is a "standard aircraft characteristics" sheet. you may want to take a look at them ;)

[JonTex]

:cool: thanks for that info star .... but i think ill keep my mouth closed on this one and see what tester is the first to answer this one. :icon_roll

[Olgerd]

Are you sure?

http://www.eflightmanuals.com/detail/itemList.asp?page=3&CategoryGroupID=4

 

NAVAIR/NATOPS manuals should have all what you need to make a good simulation (unless you really are a pilot or WSO). I found somewhere the F-18E/F NATOPS manual and it has tons of info. I don't care that much because I don't like that aircraft, but that's another matter. The NATOPS manual rocks!

 

I also have some F-16 MLU manuals (with HUDs and radars screens and info), and operator's manuals for some US helos.

 

Yep I am sure. I am speaking about the tactical series such as A1-F18AE-TAC-010 (NWP 5-55-F/A-18C/D Vol. II). This one is classified as SECRET/NO FOREIGN wich is clearly stated in the flight manual. Same for USMC AV-8B aircraft. Wihout them it is not possible to get enough information for just visually close to reality weapons systems implementation. We have both A1-F18AC-NFM-000 and A1-F18EA-NFM-000 flight manuals.

 

Thanks, but we have both MLU pilot descriptions already.

Regarding to helos. For wich of them exactly you have manuals? Do you have any maintenance manuals for AH-64A?