F16 in Lock On still planned?

[VapoR]

Dynamic Campaign . . . . . errrr?

 

Everyone cross their fingers :p

 

Lock-on: Dynamic Campaign

 

I like the sound of it!! Screw the Ka-50, F-16, etc--Give us AFM for all flyables, some great new AI, and the DC to go with it and basically you have a WHOLE new experience!! Especially if the DC was multiplayer compatible running on a dedicated server . . .

[PhilipsCDRW]

No, no, "Lock-On: Dynamic Campaign" has no flyables - you get to see a pretty map with lots of red and blue lines, and watch the AI fight from external view, then watch the red and blue lines move until one side has won. Then you start again. That's "Lock-On: Dynamic Campaign"!

[firesoldier845]

Thats good too. I wish the DEVS could see how much a dedicated server app would just take the online experience over the top. Even a simple thing similar to the IL2 server would be awesome. Something so we could have simple mission goals so that RED or BLUE could win.

 

I like IL2 server, I wonder if something could be done 3rd party?

[LawnDart]

I mean why would a company waste there time modeling the F16 as a flyable in Lockon or F4 if like say for example say 6 or 7 other companies have already done it over the past 10 years. That would kill the idea of being a new game right? How could it be new if everyone else has done it?

 

The Viper has to be one of the most liked airplanes and also used worldwide, which is why I think it never disappears from the radar of those who've flown other F-16 sims. I'm one of those guys who grew up flying Falcon, since it's original release and (regardless that it may seem as if I'm biased because of our Virtual Squad using Vipers) I'd rather see ED make a F-16 sim than any other plane! It's simply my favorite fighter! Lock-On has the best feel and flight modeling for any sim, hands down and whether their non-Russian product line ends up being 100% accurate or not with all its modes and avionics, it would still be a smart business move on ED's part since the Viper has so many fans around the world! Besides, to answer your last question. This would be a new game! Putting a beloved plane in an already proven "sim-engine" could put ED out on a bigger market for sales than say another Russian airplane?! Assuming they give the F-16 their trademark AFM, I don't see how they can go wrong with an F-16 project! Good for business and great for all the F-16 wannabe drivers!

[Cobra360]

The only thing is the Russian market is ED's first target. Thats why the Su-25T addon came along instead of the F/A-18 addon although the fact of Ubi pulling out of the deal was also part of the reason and now the Ka-50 is on the way. It has already been said the F-16 has been done so many times but only Falcon has got it close. Then you have Fighter Ops coming up with an F-16 in it along with other flyables. I'm not against the F-16 idea but I wouldn't be complaning if was not made either.

 

If had to pick a new pair of fighters for EDs next sim it would be the Su-30MK and the F-15E. But what ever the next sim eventually turns out to be I'll be looking foward to it and hopefully we won't have to wait too long, (< 5 years) maybe....

[Pilotasso]

 

If had to pick a new pair of fighters for EDs next sim it would be the Su-30MK and the F-15E. But what ever the next sim eventually turns out to be I'll be looking foward to it and hopefully we won't have to wait too long, (< 5 years) maybe....

 

I assume you know thats better said than donne. I would like to see those also.

I would LOVE to get the harrier, Su-30MKI and Gripen ingame but everyone knows without proper documentation we cant yet model those without a bit of "imagination".

[JonTex]

Im happy for you Lawn Dart

 

Dude I think the F16 is a wonderful plane and I wouldnt mind flying it ..................... AGAIN. Hell I hope the next five or six add ons are all F16s if thats all I can get from ED. But heres the kicker and this doesnt just apply to me because Id rather see another flyable that has never been modeled in a flight sim i.e. tomcat, mig-31, harrier. If another company releases a flightsim of this type caliber with aircraft you yourself as a "F16 fan" havent flown would you buy it? Hell yeah you would, You and the rest of this "originality stripped" , "Copy cat" flight sim community would too.

And at the same time ive realized, by reading matt wagner's post that if he could he would include these aircraft that noone has ever flown before, why you might ask? Because he aint dumb he knows that people want variety. He knows that all the F16 and F15 fans, and hell even the Su27 and Su33 fans are satisfied. You know what, they say they cant properly model the F14 in Lomac because its a 2 seater and they dont have tactical manuals from the Navy because they are all classified. And they wont release them to a russian company. But its like a slap in the face because if I were a F18 fan all I would have to do is buy any one of the F18 sims on the shelf or on Ebay and boom problem solved but im not I would love to see the F14 as a flyable in a game of this caliber. So it just sucks to be me until some ambitious young AMERICAN company decides not to play copy cat and develope yet another Janes USAF with a different title. Look dude my point is this if your a huge fan of any of the aircraft that are modeled in these games then thank your lucky stars because it sucks being on the other end of the spectrum man. Im tired of getting the same old christmas presents wrapped in different paper every year. Anyone of us would do what ever we could to have the flyables we want in this game if we could but the fact is you cant always fix your own problems and you dont always get what you want. I mean do you hear me? or do you just hear me? Do you understand or are you still blinded by the luster of your 6 or 7th sim that has your favoritest little airplane in it once AGAIN. Im tired of supposed NEW flightsims that feature the SAME aircraft. If you buy a game from me and I modeled the same monsters that you see in super mario brothers but I enhanced the graphics and made King Koopa with more details and gave it a different name would it be NEW? Think for a second man.

 

Im happy for you Lawn Dart you got what you want but will I? Will the rest of us? I hope the answer to that question is yes even if it does take another 10 years.

[Cobra360]

Yeah, we all have our favourites and everybody has there own suggestions. My thoughts on it are, ED said they are strongly thinking on an advanced MiG-29, most possibly the MiG-29SMT. As far as I know, a lot of imagination will be needed there. The Su-30MK and not the MKI is in the same situation of the SMT. Yes a bit of imagination will be needed but it's a new Flanker and far more combat cabable than a SMT. Maybe ED are thinking the MiG-29SMT will be a more ''equal'' partner to the F-16 in combat ability.

 

The Su-30MK is not as advanced as the MKI and there are a handful, maybe 7 or less in Russian service. Keep in mind there only 5 Su-30s in service in Russia yet it is still included in the game. I would say there would be just enough documentation to model them and only a very very slight change in the flight model will be needed due to slightly extra drag. Plus it's a heavily armed multi-role fighter with long range and mid-air refueling ability. Sounds better than a MiG-29SMT IMO.

[Alfa]

Guys,

 

Reading through the last few pages, one gets the impression that the question of which new flyables will be added and the nature of a future title is all set and a done deal......I dont think thats the case at all.

 

So far what I have seen has been varies candidates for new flyables being mentioned based on the feasibility of modelling them, but without mentioning the context in which this would occur - i.e. no specific plans being finalised :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Yeah, we all have our favourites and everybody has there own suggestions. My thoughts on it are, ED said they are strongly thinking on an advanced MiG-29, most possibly the MiG-29SMT.

 

There are several options concerning "an advanced MiG-29 version".....doesnt necessarily have to be an SMT.

 

As far as I know, a lot of imagination will be needed there.

 

I think it should be pretty clear to everyone by now, that ED isnt going to pursue a particular fighter design for a future project unless they can obtain the necessary documentation on it ;) .

 

The Su-30MK and not the MKI is in the same situation of the SMT. Yes a bit of imagination will be needed but it's a new Flanker and far more combat cabable than a SMT.

 

How is the Su-30MK "in the same situation" as the SMT? - the Su-30MK is a dedicated export effort, while the -SMT essentially is an upgrade package for the "baseline" MiG-29".....and as such is "in the same situation" as the Su-27SM.

 

And how is the Su-30MK far more combat capable" than a MiG-29SMT - aside from being bigger that is?. System wise "the" Su-30MK is something of variable label which can cover all sorts of configurations and has been known to range from something closely resembling the MiG-29SMT to the Su-30MKI variant.....the most radical so far and pursued only by India.

 

Maybe ED are thinking the MiG-29SMT will be a more ''equal'' partner to the F-16 in combat ability.

 

It certainly would be a better match to an F-16 than any Su-27/Su-30 version - an Su-30MK would be more comparable to an F-15E :)

 

The Su-30MK is not as advanced as the MKI and there are a handful, maybe 7 or less in Russian service.

 

There are and never were any Su-30MKs in Russian service - dont know where you got that idea?. The designation itself is evidence of that.....the "K" in "Su-30MK" is denoting that it is an export design ;)

 

Keep in mind there only 5 Su-30s in service in Russia yet it is still included in the game.

 

There are no Su-30s in service with the Russian airforce - the handful of Su-30s(initial interceptor version) you mention were operationally tested in the 1990ies, but in the end werent adopted for actual service and Sukhoi used the reclaimed airframes as basis for the further developed Su-30MK multirole prototypes aimed exclusively at the export markets....hence the designation :)

 

I would say there would be just enough documentation to model them and only a very very slight change in the flight model will be needed due to slightly extra drag.

 

Where would that documentation come from? - even the most "basic" Su-30MK incarnation has utterly different cockpit instrumentation and layout compared with the Flanker versions currently realised in Lock-on.

 

Plus it's a heavily armed multi-role fighter with long range and mid-air refueling ability. Sounds better than a MiG-29SMT IMO.

 

So is the MiG-29SMT and other advanced MiG-29 derrivatives....and they all have in-flight refuelling capability as well BTW :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[MBot]

So far what I have seen has been varies candidates for new flyables being mentioned based on the feasibility of modelling them, but without mentioning the context in which this would occur - i.e. no specific plans being finalised :)

 

Hey Alfa, I am not exactly sure wich planes have been mentioned for as potential candidates for the new project. Perhaps you have some more insight than we have ( perhaps even only the russian forum ) ? As far as I know they were a MiG-29 derivat for the eastern side ( K or SMT ) and F-16 for NATO. I am not aware of other candiates for the "destroyer" project beeing mentioned by ED personell ( wich doesn't mean there aren't of course ! ).

 

The F-16 beeing one of the few possible NATO choices so far seems plausible because of the difficult situation on documentation. Olgerd already mentioned that any USN aircraft falls away due to lack of information, aswell as any made by Dassault or the Tornado ( = most likely every type by British Aerospace ). This doesn't leave many options left for NATO side, expect mostly USAF ( F-15, F-16, A-10, F-4 ) or perhaps SAAB ( how is the reference situation on these ? ).

 

 

Personaly I am not too keen on the F-16, altough gameplay wise it is sure a good choice. I have seen my share of F-16 sims and would love to see a different plane modeled in depth. I foresee the marked beeing flooded with ( high quality ) F-16's again with Fighter Ops on the horizon, Leadpersuit in the process of bringing AF to current standarts and ED's project after Tank Killers. But I also see the difficult situation when it comes to references and accept that ED perhaps doesn't have too much of a choice when it comes to flyable selection. And there is still the MiG-29K/SMT :)

[Pilotasso]

 

Personaly I am not too keen on the F-16, altough gameplay wise it is sure a good choice. I have seen my share of F-16 sims and would love to see a different plane modeled in depth. I foresee the marked beeing flooded with ( high quality ) F-16's again with Fighter Ops on the horizon, Leadpersuit in the process of bringing AF to current standarts and ED's project after Tank Killers. But I also see the difficult situation when it comes to references and accept that ED perhaps doesn't have too much of a choice when it comes to flyable selection. And there is still the MiG-29K/SMT :)

 

You may or may not figured out that all those projects are spread around through the years, in such a way that we are all going to be old men by the time we seen them all come to light.:biggrin:

[Alfa]

Hello Mbot,

 

Hey Alfa, I am not exactly sure wich planes have been mentioned for as potential candidates for the new project. Perhaps you have some more insight than we have ( perhaps even only the russian forum ) ?

 

Nope I dont know any more about this than you mate :)

 

As far as I know they were a MiG-29 derivat for the eastern side ( K or SMT ) and F-16 for NATO. I am not aware of other candiates for the "destroyer" project beeing mentioned by ED personell ( wich doesn't mean there aren't of course ! ).

 

Yup thats my impression as well - what I meant was that while these candidates have been mentioned, there seems to be little in the way of information as to the context in which they are being considered - i.e. whether such a project would involve both an F-16 and an advanced MiG-29 derrivative or whether these are being considered for two seperate projects etc.

 

The F-16 beeing one of the few possible NATO choices so far seems plausible because of the difficult situation on documentation. Olgerd already mentioned that any USN aircraft falls away due to lack of information, aswell as any made by Dassault or the Tornado ( = most likely every type by British Aerospace ). This doesn't leave many options left for NATO side, expect mostly USAF ( F-15, F-16, A-10, F-4 ) or perhaps SAAB ( how is the reference situation on these ? ).

 

Yes that is my impression of the situation as well :)

 

Personaly I am not too keen on the F-16, altough gameplay wise it is sure a good choice. I have seen my share of F-16 sims and would love to see a different plane modeled in depth. I foresee the marked beeing flooded with ( high quality ) F-16's again with Fighter Ops on the horizon, Leadpersuit in the process of bringing AF to current standarts and ED's project after Tank Killers. But I also see the difficult situation when it comes to references and accept that ED perhaps doesn't have too much of a choice when it comes to flyable selection.

 

LOL....for a second I thought I had written the above myself - I agree 110% Mbot :D

 

And there is still the MiG-29K/SMT :)

 

Indeed and you know which I prefer ;) . As far as I am concerned it is a choice between the beauty or the beast(humpback of Notre Dame :p )

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Yellonet]

I want a flyable JAS-39! :cool:

[Cobra360]

''Indeed and you know which I prefer . As far as I am concerned it is a choice between the beauty or the beast(humpback of Notre Dame )''

 

The MiG-29K would be better gameplay wise, I agree but the MiG-29SMT can be based on either the 9-12 or 9-13 hunchback. It's the customer's decision much the same as the Su-30MK can be customised but to a far lesser extent, but if they do go for the 9-12 airframe they are missing out on the extra fuel and jammer.

 

On another point if the MiG-29K was flyable, to keep things realistic that would mean flying in Indian Navy markings. Unless ED just go ahead and have MiG-29Ks flying from the Kuz along with the Su-33. I perssonally would like the choice of have two Navy fighters so long as at least one Flanker variant is carried over or introduced in ED's next sim.

[TucksonSonny]

 

There are no Su-30s in service with the Russian airforce - the handful of Su-30s(initial interceptor version) you mention were operationally tested in the 1990ies, but in the end werent adopted for actual service and Sukhoi used the reclaimed airframes as basis for the further developed Su-30MK multirole prototypes aimed exclusively at the export markets....hence the designation :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

And which are these? I guess Russian Su-30’s ? ;)

 

[Cobra360]

They are the test airframes that Alfa was on about. I was wrong.

 

 

In the photo notice this Su-30MK has the tall tailfins they hold extra fuel and were developed for the Su-35. These are options that the customer buying can choose from along with the choice of canards or TV engines.

[britgliderpilot]

In the photo notice this Su-30MK has the tall tailfins they hold extra fuel and were developed for the Su-35. These are options that the customer buying can choose from along with the choice of canards or TV engines.

 

Not strictly true.

 

The Su30 needs bigger tailfins to maintain directional stability - not to hold extra fuel. The extra fuel is a bonus, sure, but it's not the primary reason they're there.

I'm not certain if the Su35 had the enlarged vertical tail, but it'd be interesting to find out why if it did.

 

 

 

And now, for ten bonus points . . . . . why are some advanced Sukhoi variant tailfins flat-topped, and some slanting down?

 

;)

[Cobra360]

What happened is the T-10S has normal size tail fins with flat tops. They were latter cropped on the production models. All two seaters have the tail fins increased by around two feet in height and are still cropped. When the Su-35 came along with it's fully digital controlled canards the designers felt taller tail fins were needed to compensate for them. These new tall tail fins have flat tops and have internal tanks.

 

In the Su-30MK the tail fins are now changeable. The Su-30MKK for China has tall tail fins and canards, but no TV. The Su-30MKI have TV and canards from the latter delivery batches which will be retrofitted to earlier deliveries and standard size two seat tail fins.

[Alfa]

The MiG-29K would be better gameplay wise, I agree but the MiG-29SMT can be based on either the 9-12 or 9-13 hunchback. It's the customer's decision much the same as the Su-30MK can be customised but to a far lesser extent, but if they do go for the 9-12 airframe they are missing out on the extra fuel and jammer.

 

Yup thats right Cobra, but to be honest I dont think the bit about already having the 9-12/9-13 airframes is much of an issue in connection with a future ED title - that is - I think we would all expect any new flyable addition to have AFM and damage modelling fidelity along the lines of the Su-25T, in which case these current MiG-29 airframes would need extensive re-doing in order to support it - i.e. with all the extra "damage parts" etc :) .

 

On another point if the MiG-29K was flyable, to keep things realistic that would mean flying in Indian Navy markings. Unless ED just go ahead and have MiG-29Ks flying from the Kuz along with the Su-33. I perssonally would like the choice of have two Navy fighters so long as at least one Flanker variant is carried over or introduced in ED's next sim.

 

Whole heartedly agree Cobra - for me the ultimate situation would be a high-fidelity MiG-29K addition along with an Su-33 entry upgraded to the same(fidelity) level. Despite both being Russian naval fighters, they are very adverse in nature and the combination of the two would inevitably lead to both being used for their intended purposes - simply because their characteristics and advantages for a given task would become apparent when you have the choice between them.....drool! :D

 

P.S....the Su-30 version in the photo you posted above, is a prototype for the Chinese Su-30MKK(they dont have canards ;) )

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

And which are these? I guess Russian Su-30’s ? ;)

 

Guess again mate :biggrin: .

 

The Russian star being painted on a prototype does not necessarily mean that it is in Russian service ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Yellonet]

So, if we assume that ED will want to have access to info for avionics, performance and all other aspects to make as realistic aircrafts as possible, which aircraft could be possible in future games/addons?

 

As I understand it many american planes are out of the question, which is sad as it would be nice if both blocks could have flyable carrier based aircraft.

[Alfa]

So, if we assume that ED will want to have access to info for avionics, performance and all other aspects to make as realistic aircrafts as possible, which aircraft could be possible in future games/addons?

 

As far as I understand it, European designs(French and British at least) and fighters operated by the USN are problematic in terms of acquiring the necessary level of documentation, whereas for some weird reason it appears to be easier to get information on USAF operated aircraft :icon_conf .....logics dont always apply.

 

As I understand it many american planes are out of the question, which is sad as it would be nice if both blocks could have flyable carrier based aircraft.

 

Yeah it would - I would also much rather see an F/A-18C than an F-16(which ever version).

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[EvilBivol-1]

In relation to the MiG, Olgerd mentioned somewhere that it would be "a circa-90s SMT." I'm not sure what "circa-90s" means exactly, but the point is that they happened to have the most literature on a particular "package" of the SMT, which, as you know, can come in a variety of packages. The situation was much the same for the Ka-50, which can also come in a variety of packages. They just chose the most advanced one that they could pull off with high fidelity. Having the manual for the ABRIS system was probably the decisive point.

 

Information is also very difficult to obtain on Russian equipment. This has changed somewhat over the last couple of years, with the release of flight manuals for the MiG-29 and Su-27, as well as through the higher interaction with current and former Air Force personel via the internet, but it is still very problematic when it comes to sensitive technology (missile, radar, etc), which is, of course, the stuff we most desperately need to model correctly.

[Yellonet]

In relation to the MiG, Olgerd mentioned somewhere that it would be "a circa-90s SMT." I'm not sure what "circa-90s" means exactly, but the point is that they happened to have the most literature on a particular "package" of the SMT, which, as you know, can come in a variety of packages. The situation was much the same for the Ka-50, which can also come in a variety of packages. They just chose the most advanced one that they could pull off with high fidelity. Having the manual for the ABRIS system was probably the decisive point.

 

Information is also very difficult to obtain on Russian equipment. This has changed somewhat over the last couple of years, with the release of flight manuals for the MiG-29 and Su-27, as well as through the higher interaction with current and former Air Force personel via the internet, but it is still very problematic when it comes to sensitive technology (missile, radar, etc), which is, of course, the stuff we most desperately need to model correctly.

True true... I guess we can get some really realistic 90's simulation in 50 years or so :icon_cry: