F16 in Lock On still planned?

[Guest ruggbutt]

Theres still the Dynamic Campaign which sets F4 apart from any other flight sim.

LOL, it sets itself apart from LOMAC but it's not that "perfected".

[Wags]

When CJ and I designed F18, we had "unique" access that is simply not going to be available to a Russian developer, much less anyone outside the military / defense industry.

 

Regarding a university, no such S/NF documents will be held outside secure channels.

 

So, as I said before, attaining such documents are far more difficult than many might assume.

 

-Matt

 

Curious, how did Jane's F/A-18 Superhornet development team get information on flight models, weapon systems, ect? I still have that Sim on my hard drive and love it!

 

I would like to see Lockon develop at least the F-18 A,B,C models of the Hornet. As far as the TAC manual? I would think that it could be referenced from an Engineering University that has Aeronatical library materials. Could be on the shelf, but doubt it's in pdf format to be distributed on the internet. At least charts could be found to develop a flight model from. I think we are all guessing potential of the weapon's envelope in any Sim.

 

For anyone's information about Navy manuals and the access to them I do have NATOPS and ACM pdf manuals and are great references for getting a more in depth study into the Flight Simming hobby. I don't need to distribute them, because they can be found with careful research on the internet.

[SUBS17]

LOL, it sets itself apart from LOMAC but it's not that "perfected".

 

Although its not perfect its running pretty sweet at the moment, hopefully one day TK or Destroyer will have such a campaign system.

[meangreen]

I know I will get my share of hate mail for this one but I can’t help myself…..

Why do you guys think we have to have an airplane simulated down to the last little detail? There is ppl out there who want functioning air-conditioning controls! Too far is too far….if you want it that bad, you should have been a military pilot. Most ppl out there enjoy flight sims for what they are….entertaining games with a good portion of realism.

As long as it feels right and is in the same ball park who really cares if the radar is accurate to the third decimal. Talking about realism…..all current flight sims are *way* too easy to land. I used to be a commercial pilot so I’m not making this up…..even on realistic landings are child prove (and that goes for all current sims).

What ever happened to making game play a priority? Mission planning, mission variation, etc. Personally I think LockOn is doing a great job at most of them.

I just get a kick when I read some of the posts about adding a F18 or other platform to the game. I appreciate the fact that ED wants to keep things realistic but isn’t there a limit?

Anyway…..I think that sometimes, some ppl just take realism too far….most of us are no fighter pilots and never will be. We like to sit in front of a computer and play games J Lets not get too carried away with what we want.

[GGTharos]

And for that sort of gameplay, there's the JetFighter series.

 

What about those of us who want something more authentic?

[SwingKid]

When CJ and I designed F18, we had "unique" access that is simply not going to be available to a Russian developer, much less anyone outside the military / defense industry.

 

Out of curiosity, did ED need manuals to build the Su-25 or Su-25T?

 

IMHO, all this emphasis on 100% manuals draws attention and credit away from good design. They are not a substitute for competence and motivation.

 

-SK

[Burner_Tbird2]

Is avionics the most important part of a flight sim? The precision of the F4 avionics makes the F-16 the perfect choice for ED's next jet. What makes a great sim is Avionics-Graphics-Flight Model, ED does the last two superbly and I really don't care if I only have to hit one button to start the engine rather than nine switches and knobs.

 

Also was JF18 a great sim beyond avionics? I thought she flew like a pig, and the pop-up "meatball" glideslope was the best indicator to the lack of useable graphics.

 

Bottom line if ED can't get the best avionics intel I don't think that will preclude them from recreating a good F-16. As a Tbird I very much look forward to ED's next jet.

[SUBS17]

Out of curiosity, did ED need manuals to build the Su-25 or Su-25T?

 

IMHO, all this emphasis on 100% manuals draws attention and credit away from good design. They are not a substitute for competence and motivation.

 

-SK

 

I heard they had access to a test pilot.

[meangreen]

And for that sort of gameplay, there's the JetFighter series.

 

What about those of us who want something more authentic?

 

 

I knew there were gonna be comments...but you seem to miss my point. Don't you think there is a difference between Jet Fighter and a sim like Tornado, Longbow 2 or JF18. All of the latter being a well developed simulation of a weapons platform even considering a large amount of data was/ is classified.

 

All I'm saying is that some people are a bit too extreme when it comes to flight sims. And if the fact that we don't have a military manual for the radar of a F18 is the reason why it will not be added....I think we've gone too far.

 

There are a million reasons why some ppl like total realism and pointing them out would be a lot more constructive than being defensive.

[SUBS17]

I believe its possible to compromise on the design of a hornet sim and still look realistic until more data is available. For example borrowing some of the F-16s features and using that for the hornet, make the pit 100% But make allowances with radar/IFF and stuff.

[Olgerd]

I know I will get my share of hate mail for this one but I can’t help myself…..

Why do you guys think we have to have an airplane simulated down to the last little detail? There is ppl out there who want functioning air-conditioning controls! Too far is too far….if you want it that bad, you should have been a military pilot. Most ppl out there enjoy flight sims for what they are….entertaining games with a good portion of realism.

As long as it feels right and is in the same ball park who really cares if the radar is accurate to the third decimal. Talking about realism…..all current flight sims are *way* too easy to land. I used to be a commercial pilot so I’m not making this up…..even on realistic landings are child prove (and that goes for all current sims).

What ever happened to making game play a priority? Mission planning, mission variation, etc. Personally I think LockOn is doing a great job at most of them.

I just get a kick when I read some of the posts about adding a F18 or other platform to the game. I appreciate the fact that ED wants to keep things realistic but isn’t there a limit?

Anyway…..I think that sometimes, some ppl just take realism too far….most of us are no fighter pilots and never will be. We like to sit in front of a computer and play games J Lets not get too carried away with what we want.

 

Ok, ok. Actually we have description for air conditioning as it is described in flight manual, but... how we can start development having not practically anything regarding weapon systems? What is the motivation for flying fictional aircraft?

Tactics, mission design, planning... all this is from completely different area, and any progress in this area is not dependent on avionics/flight dynamics programmers at all. We are talking about different things.

[SUBS17]

Yeah the hornet is a catch 22 which is a pity, it would probably be out of place in Destroyer if the level of avionics is as high as has been stated in interviews for the F-16. On the other hand the aircraft has alot of similarities to the F-16 in weapons capability.

[Shaman]

it would probably be out of place in Destroyer

Have I missed something? What is Destroyer :confused: Some kind of new title I haven't heard of?

[Pilotasso]

Have I missed something? What is Destroyer :confused: Some kind of new title I haven't heard of?

 

Its the next sim... after "tank killers" , name yet to be aproved. :icon_roll

The F-16 is going to accompained with the mig-29M in the middle east scenario...thats the plan but I wont count on it for the next 4 years.

 

But the next project will feature AG aircraft only, with LOMAC flyables eventualy released in an addon. I would be very cautious to plans. I have already observed that in the last4 years ED's pland had been very fluid.

[SwingKid]

I heard they had access to a test pilot.

 

Well we he seems to have been a real expert about blowing up his tires, breaking apart his aircraft and exploding his own guts over the canopy.

 

Did he ever hear of "ground effect"?

 

Or, they don't teach how to land in test pilot school? ;)

 

-SK

[britgliderpilot]

Have I missed something? What is Destroyer Some kind of new title I haven't heard of?

Its the next sim... after "tank killers" , name yet to be aproved. :icon_roll:

 

There is speculation that it's a bad Babelfish . . . . you can translate the Russian word for fighter (as in jet fighter) to Destroyer ;)

 

So a sim featuring the F16 Fighter would, by Bad Babelfish hence be called "F16: Fighter!"

 

Hmmmn . . . . . :p

[meangreen]

Ok, ok. Actually we have description for air conditioning as it is described in flight manual, but... how we can start development having not practically anything regarding weapon systems? What is the motivation for flying fictional aircraft?

 

I can think of 3 recent F18 flight sims that all did a (what I thought) great job at simulating the F18.

 

I have no idea, so I'm asking.....did they base the flight model and avionics on fictional data? If not, how did they get the information?

 

On a personal note, I much rather see the F16 added than the F18 though.

[Wags]

Correct, this project is not being referred to as "Destroyer" within ED; it was a bad translation. Generally its simply called with "the F-16 project" within the company.

 

-Matt

 

There is speculation that it's a bad Babelfish . . . . you can translate the Russian word for fighter (as in jet fighter) to Destroyer ;)

 

So a sim featuring the F16 Fighter would, by Bad Babelfish hence be called "F16: Fighter!"

 

Hmmmn . . . . . :p

[Doug97]

I still don't understand why they decided to do the F16.

 

How many good quality modern jet sims are there on the market right now? Other than LOMAC I can only think of F4 (as AF in its current incarnation).

 

And what is the ONE plane that is lovingly modelled in that sim? That's right, the F16.

 

My dream aircraft would be the Tornado or Harrier, but I realise these might be deemed too 'niche', so I would definitely prefer the F18 over the F16.

 

BTW I don't want to get into the whole LOMAC vs. AF thing either, they both have different strengths and they both are excellent in their own ways. All I want to see is an aircraft that hasn't been done that recently.

[SUBS17]

From what I understand its the aircraft they have the most information on. BTW is Destroyer part of a sim for the military?

[firesoldier845]

Is the F-16 sim going to include the current group of flyables as well F-15, Su, Mig, A-10 and Frog?

[Pilotasso]

Is the F-16 sim going to include the current group of flyables as well F-15, Su, Mig, A-10 and Frog?

 

If it was, then ED would have said that already wich didnt. The new planes will be modeled with clickable pits and AFM. By comparison LOMAC flyables would have to be donne practicaly from scratch.

 

Maybe in an addon?

[britgliderpilot]

If it was, then ED would have said that already wich didnt. The new planes will be modeled with clickable pits and AFM. By comparison LOMAC flyables would have to be donne practicaly from scratch.

 

Maybe in an addon?

 

Yeah, but the way I understand it it's going to model the F16 and the MiG29M to this level.

 

Oh baby, oh baby . . . . . . . and other enthusiastic noises :p

 

 

Graphics . . . . check.

Clickable cockpit . . . check.

AFM . . . . check.

Dynamic Campaign . . . . . errrr?

 

Everyone cross their fingers :p

[Weta43]

Rather have a Su variant than a Mig ... (if only so I can turn the AB on & still actualy get home without external tanks), but better that than neither.

[firesoldier845]

Okay, so the roadmap is the KA-50 next which will be playable with the current group of planes? as well as some updates to the current group like tweaks and stuff like that.

 

Then the next project is the F-16 which will be a completely new sim and it might include the Mig-29?

 

That would be cool. I sure enjoy online play and would be boring without adversary planes to fight against.

 

I really enjoy online ground pounding best though - going to miss the Frog and Hog. It would be great if the F-16 and new Mig would be included with the current group of planes but I understand that would all have to be done from scratch over again. Needless to say, this is all years away right??? SO we still be playing Lock-ON for a few more years.