Alpha I got another question

[JonTex]

Alpha ,

I hate to be a pest and since other testers are probably going to respond to this before you I wouldnt be offended but this is still bothering me. I tried to find my previous post but I was unsuccesful. But if I remember correctly I asked why cant the F14 be modeled as a playable aircraft in Lock on. The response I got was overwhelming dude. I never seen so many excuses in my life in one post.

 

1. Its a twin seater. And im guessing that modeling a twin seater aircraft in video game is probably the equivelent of flying to the moon in a Hum-V judging from your responses.

 

2. You dont have the "classified" tac data. Umm ok so I assume we have room for imagination or guess work to make your lock on fans happy correct? I mean have you taken the time to count the endless number of people who would like to fly the tomcat in this game? I havent either but its a lot.

 

Which brings me to my point. I recently read this in another post and it just shows me the big picture for the stuff that is considered to be modeled and the stuff that is not for this game. The question was asked by my former teammate since ED stated Russian HOJ systems were not passive and American F15 HOJ systems are, then why were they knowingly modeled incorrectly. Your fellow ED tester gave a great explanation including a very interesting point he made at the end of his answer that I want to focus on for a moment of your precious time.

 

Swingkid wrote: So, the accuracy of one way or the other of modelling how the ECCM should behave aginst such imaginary ECM equipment is up to the imagination and people's preferences. When it is impossible to model something accurately, such changes are made in response to reasonable requests from the user community. If those requests were not expressed here, then they may have been made in the Russian forum.

 

The main part of that answer that caught my attention was "When it is IMPOSSIBLE to model something accurately, such changes are made in response to reasonable requests from the user community." Oh you mean like when you dont have Tactical data to accurately model an F14 in the game as a playable because its classified? So if the "user community" said something to the affect of I would love to have the Tomcat as a flyable in Lomac within a reasonable request you would do it? I mean its obvious by now that the user community's satisfaction is your goal so whats so unreasonable about my request? Oh thats right its a two seater it wouldnt be modeled accurately.

 

Swingkid: So, the accuracy of one way or the other of modelling how the ECCM should behave aginst such imaginary ECM equipment is up to the imagination and people's preferences

 

OH so since the F14 wouldnt be modeled accurate as a single seater you could improvise by modeling the F14 as a flyable with a human pilot in the front and a AI in the back? Is that what that means? If the real answer to these questions is because you dont want to do it thats fine but I just think you should be straight up with people. Im not mad I just want to understand. Oh and BTW my former teammate S77th-Goya didnt get answer to his question toward the end of his post for ED. :cool:

 

JonTex out

[SwingKid]

Oh and BTW my former teammate S77th-Goya didnt get answer to his question toward the end of his post for ED. :cool:

 

That's a little ironic don't you think - directly quoting the answer I gave, only to then complain that there wasn't an answer?

 

Since my name was mentioned I'll clarify with an example:

 

US aircraft in Lock On currently have two triggers - one for guns, one for missiles. Russian aircraft in Lock On only have one.

 

Of course, anyone who knows Russian fighters can tell you that in the real world, the MiG-29 and Su-27 also have two triggers, one for missiles, one for guns. So why isn't it that way in the sim?

 

Because whoever in the general forums originally requested this feature for US aircraft, neglected to care that Russian aircraft should have it too.

 

The responsibility for why Russian ECCM is one way and US the other lies in a similar place. My answer to your colleague was not intended to encourage ED to continue to model things in an imaginary manner according to popular demand, but rather quite the contrary - to point out the undesirable results that happen when they do. For every user who wants a feature to be "imagined" one way, there is another who would "imagine" it another. The only thing anyone can agree on is realism.

 

As concerns modelling the Tomcat - do you really think somebody requested the Su-25T as their first choice? Or the Ka-50? Who are you trying to over-rule? Everybody would rather have the Tomcat, even ED. You're preaching to the choir.

 

-SK

[JonTex]

Yeah cant say I didnt see that one coming :D just a shame i cant find my original post about this it would clarify if not all , the preaching to the choir bit ... hehe that was a hard one to swallow. But anyway thankyou for your answer it clarifies everything and i apologize for any inconsistency in the logic of my previous post ... umm i think we call that the confusion. The fact that we have to post in forums instead of talking face to face kind of complicates matters in the respect that people can pick apart your statements. But no harm no foul I just wanted to understand. You see had you been able to read my original post to "ALPHA" you would have seen that I made mention of the fact that I knew yall are testers and that you dont make those decisions. Hey man Ill apologize again until you see that im not trying to make this a debate but I dont know your chain of command like I mentioned before in my previous thread I realize im just another faceless registered user on your website, another licensed user attached to a serial key code of an agreement i didnt bother to read because i just want to have fun. Well all i can say is I wish i knew who to preach to, not that they would listen but at least i could state my case to them. Really sucks to have absolutely no say in the addons of flyable aircraft of a game you spend your money on and plan to spend more money on in the future. I think we call that life. But what ever happened to the customer always being right? :cool: Anway thanx again for your courtesy and patience with me. I hope one day the right person will read the many post that are just like mine in regards to the F14 being flyable it really would be nice.

 

JonTex out

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Really sucks to have absolutely no say in the addons of flyable aircraft of a game you spend your money on

 

What type of car/truck do you drive? Did it cost you 500 times more than Lockon did ? How much input to GM or Ford did you have ? Does that really suck too ?

Hey, you like the product - you buy it. You don't like it - don't buy it. That's capitalism and the free market.

 

Not having a dig JonTex, just trying to put in a small reality check. :) It is good that ED have a forum like this which they do seem to read from time to time. I would like more Western flyables, being a Brit my list would include Harrier :icon_syda , Jaguar, Tornado etc. But I understand why they are not, mostly due to a limited appeal to ED's core market of Russia. ED are not complete idiots, they want to stay in business. If they choose to model the Su-25T and Ka-50, they likely have sound business reasons.

 

Never forget it is a Russian company with Russian programmers and access to Russian real life pilots and engineers making a Russian Sim aimed at Russian consumers where you fly over Russian terrain in Russian aircraft firing Russian weapons.

 

I'm a big F-14 fan too (second model I ever built, Spitfire was first) and would like to have it as a flyable, but I can understand the reasons why it is not and live with it.

Hey, if you win the lottery, you can simply buy ED and then have whatever flyables you want ! ;)

[Battle_Rattle]

Never forget it is a Russian company with Russian programmers and access to Russian real life pilots and engineers making a Russian Sim aimed at Russian consumers where you fly over Russian terrain in Russian aircraft firing Russian weapons.

 

Russian pilots and engineers told ED how to model the russian aircraft? That can't be right... :icon_jook

[Tracker]

Hey! when the real ones are decommissioned maybe we can all pitch in and buy one! Erm...anyone have $45,000 for weekend fuel flights? I'm kinda low this year.

[JonTex]

Really sucks to have absolutely no say in the addons of flyable aircraft of a game you spend your money on and plan to spend more money on in the future. I think we call that life.

 

Well first of all dont take this the wrong way but the key word in my previous post is highlighted for you bro so the reality check is recieved in the spirit which it was given but not necessary because I realize one more time that thats life.

 

Second I own a chevy truck and no I didnt have any input into how it would look. And yes that does suck.

 

Now let me ask you some questions.

 

1.Do you like Lomac?

 

2.How long have you been playing flightsims?

 

3.Do they all seem to model the same aircraft?

 

4.If you see over the course of the next 10 years ,hypothetically speaking, that 30 flightsims come out and all of them feature the F15, F18, A10, and F16 as the flyables with no chance of a Harrier or hearing your input would you buy them? Why? or Why not?

 

5.If 30 more flightsim companies be they foreign or domestic are thinking of making a flightsim in the not too distant future and they are all unanamously are thinking of modeling the above aircraft as the flyables would you consider that a good idea? Why? Why not?

 

Now lets hit home. lets say you plan to keep playing lockon.

 

6.Lets say hypothetically ED or whoever decides they are commiting the next 10 years of their services to adding 3 more aircraft to the game and they are the F15E, Su-27(hell i dont know pick a model), and Mig29K as flyables. Would you buy the addons? Why? or Why not?

 

Now let me tell you what I would answer.

 

1. Yes I love it

 

2.5 almost six years

 

3.Yes

 

4.No, Because Ive already played quality flightsims (flightsims with good graphics and realism) that feature these aircraft.

 

5.No, Because the whole point of buying a NEW game is to buy something you havent played or experienced. If all these companies put out the same flyables noone will buy their games and the people who have bought their game will be forced to find a different genre of video games to invest in for the lack of variety in the flight sim genre.

 

6. Hell no and I think everyone knows why. They already have these aircraft, adding "New flyables" that are just different models would kill the whole idea of something new.

 

Again this is hypothetical and I used this as an example. Like I said it sucks to not have any input and thats life but this is the point how much more money are you going to spend on Lomac and how much longer do you think your going to play Lomac if they dont put the Harrier or a different fighter in as a flyable? To be honest for me I think Ill play Lomac another 1 maybe 2 years with the way they are going now and then Ill find something else. I wonder how many others feel the exact same way. And considering the fact that Im not the only one who feels like this dont you think that would be something ED or whoever decides this stuff would want to look into? GM , Ford, Chevy they aint stupid man they know where their pockets are lined. If Ford owners said they wanted the pinto back tommorrow you better believe Ford would be breaking their necks trying to find the blueprints for a 2006 Ford Pinto buddy boy. Bottom line MONEY always has been and always will be with companies. They dont do this for free. So the question is how much more money are you going to spend? :cool:

[Alfa]

6.Lets say hypothetically ED or whoever decides they are commiting the next 10 years of their services to adding 3 more aircraft to the game and they are the F15E, Su-27(hell i dont know pick a model), and Mig29K as flyables. Would you buy the addons? Why? or Why not?

 

Hell yes! :D

 

I am pretty sure that I am more "in love" with the MiG-29K than you could possibly be with the F-14 :icon_eek: .....which I think is what all your arguments really boil down to.

 

That is - you claim that the driving reason for your F-14 wish is all about this aircraft not having being "over exposed" like the F-16 or F-18....ok fair enough, but then you try to give the impression that this is also the case when comparing it with the Su-27 and MiG-29......MiG-29K even :biggrin: .

 

Additionally your; "hell I dont even pick a model" and your earlier comments about the F-14 being modelled accurately and according to its actual nature/role as being less important also makes your reasoning seem extremely superficial to me. If you knew more about the Fulcrum and Flanker "models", you would realise that it makes a world of difference whether we are talking about a MiG-29 or a MiG-29K, an Su-27 or an Su-35 etc.

 

What you percieved as being "exuses for not modelling the F-14" in my previous post, is really a case of us having radically different ideas on what a flight simulation is all about. A flyable F-14 addition that doesnt depict its general nature as interceptor - including the distribution of workload between pilot/RIO nor its relation to the navy and role with this....or even the inter relation between the aircraft/aircraft carrier in terms of deck routines etc, would IMO be completely meaningless and amount to little more than what you can achieve yourself via a simple Lock-on mod.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[JonTex]

lol ... yea to be honest i would like to fly that one too :cool:

[Jester_159th]

It depends on how well modelled the aircaft are and how well modelled their environment is.

 

I think every one of us has a particular favorite aircraft we'd like to see modelled. But to be quite honest I wouldn't buy a sim that had (for example in my case) a Harrier or a Jaguar in it if the plane was modelled badly and the envoronment (both graphically and campaign and/or multiplayer wise) was poor. I'd prefer to fly a well modelled aircraft in a believeable environment. Even if the aircraft modelled wasn't on my personal favorites list.