Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[JABO2009]

Aye - just goes to show, eh......

 

Ta for the link :thumbup:

 

Is this the only response you have for MaverickF22's observations?

 

hopefully not, hm?

[159th_Viper]

Is this the only response you have for MaverickF22's observations?

 

My opinions are just that......my opinion. In this instance it is however worthy to note how opinions, however well-intentioned, might be found wanting in the face of learned observation, in this instance from Mr John Farley.

 

Be that as it may and returning to the SIM, mere observations will do very little to further anybody's cause, as is the case in this instance that the Flanker's Flight Modelling is somehow deficient. If you wish to call into question any perceived behavioral flaws and wish said perceived flaws to be investigated, you'd better be prepared to back it up with a helluva lot more than mere 'observation' by virtue of the very reason that the SIM is modeled on facts and figures as opposed to observations.

[Sov13t]

MaverickF22's findings and observations are flawed and not to mention he is a bit "late" to the party. Also, it appears he hasn't spent enough time in FC2 and came under prepared as comparisons of videos and ambiguous in game tests are as precise as measurements of RCS through pictures *hint: not precise at all*. ED flight models for both aircraft have displayed time and time again that they are as precise as the current engine and flight model allows when compared to flight performance charts, plots, equations.

 

e: damn, Viper beat me to it )

[sobek]

What you should realize is that unless you present better documentation than what the devs have already, they won't be making changes to any FM. This is not out of spite or what they think the plane should be able to do, it is simply about what can be prooved with science. Everything else is just personal opinion.

 

You can't build a proper FM upon storytelling, you need to adhere to scientific procedures or you needn't bother to start at all.

[Witchking]

yup! People complain about the Su and eagle not being balanced. As a sim, we would rather they model the planes in their own individuality rather than make them into one FM with a different external shell. I am excited to see the aFM landing models in the new FC3 release.

 

A question which has been asked....if Wags can respond....or any testers....will deck landings benefit from the new ground take off and landing modelling?

[JABO2009]

ok I have no charts or graphs for that, just observations but:

 

pls ED stop that shot down AI F18s sometimes move on climbing to 40.000ft after pilot ejected at 4.000ft :D

[falcon_120]

Maverick,if you want to complain about some uncorrected flight model behaviour,you should not come with claims like ,i'm sure that plane A makes a 360 turn in more/less than x seconds.

Instead ,it would be more helpful and constructive to dig a bit and find some performance charts of the plane you try to complain about.

A youtube video is proof of nothing,unless you know for a fact that the plane has been taken to his structural limit in that airshow,which is obviusly not the case in almost every airshow.

[GGTharos]

Airplanes at airshows don't usually do absolute max performance for certain things as it's dangerous.

[Cedaway]

After a short 'googlization', I just found this, it's from the site LockOn.ru but I don't know to which version of LockOn or FC it does apply:

 

And some references are missing: At which altitude, air pressure, humidity, temperature...

Or is that ISO condition?

 

EDIT:

Also found this:

 

 

Edited November 7, 2012 by Cedaway

[GGTharos]

The main reason why i've ever liked to play Lock On was exactly for this epic battle between the Eagle and the Flanker, and i know the performances of both even if i didn't fly them...

 

I don't think you really know their performance.

 

i don't need to fly them to know exactly where one excells and the other doesn't and vice-versa, so don't doubt my knowledge about that...,

I doubt your knowledge, since I haven't seen proof that you have any.

 

and if the devs or ED whoever does the flight modelling of the aircrafts don't want to take this into account, i won't buy FC3 at all, and probably others wouldn't do it either due to the same fact!

Charts or it didn't happen. Prefferably ones that officially disprove the official operator's manuals that these aircraft are modeled from.

 

That isn't to say that the FM may suffer at extreme edges, or some parts (like atmosphere modeling) may be wrong, but you're really not making any useful arguments whatsoever. If you aren't willing to provide charts and show where the FM differs from reality, then there's no reason to take what you're saying into account.

[GGTharos]

Standard day parameters, for original lock-on. Both aircraft would have a particular weight and stores selected, at this point it isn't important which; point is the FM has changed and become even more accurate since then.

 

After a short 'googlization', I just found this, it's from the site LockOn.ru but I don't know to which version of LockOn or FC it does apply:

 

 

And some references are missing: At which altitude, air pressure, humidity, temperature...

Or is that ISO condition?

[Cedaway]

Standard day parameters, for original lock-on. Both aircraft would have a particular weight and stores selected, at this point it isn't important which; point is the FM has changed and become even more accurate since then.

 

As we can see in my edited post (just now), there is comparition between Vanilla LockOn and real F-15 Perf Charts and the room between the 2 lines is very little. We can so consider the accuracy was already not bad at all!

And now you say that the FM will be even more accurate.

 

Conclusion: :pilotfly: NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED! :smilewink:

Conclusion #2: @ MaverickF22: anything else to add?

[GGTharos]

Keep in mind that the chart you saw was good for a specific configuration. The engine thrust has been vastly improved for all playable aircraft in FC2 as well as some stores drag. In DCSW the atmospheric modeling is improved, and some other improvements for accuracy will happen also, but keep in mind that the FM model itself is not changing - just the parameters for each aircraft and their stores.

[Raven68]

As we can see in my edited post (just now), there is comparition between Vanilla LockOn and real F-15 Perf Charts and the room between the 2 lines is very little. We can so consider the accuracy was already not bad at all!

And now you say that the FM will be even more accurate.

 

Conclusion: :pilotfly: NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED! :smilewink:

Conclusion #2: @ MaverickF22: anything else to add?

 

Nice post Ceddypoo! :thumbup:

[ExGreyFox]

Here you go.

 

http://en.wingstv.ru/

 

http://shop.wingstv.ru/product/su-27-the-best-fighter-in-the-world/

 

 

they also have amazing ones like this:

 

Full boxed set

 

Took like 3 weeks to get here...but totally worth it. Amazing documentaries. THere is info about the cockpit...a nice close look on the HOTAS. For instance...did u know these planes have two triggers? One for canon, the other for missiles. damn!! :) Imagine if thrustmaster made this stick for the warthog base. DAMN!!!

 

Not to mention HUD symbology is sooo much better than current Lo version. I think it makes sense....its probably classified..but damn..the HUD would be a nice lift compared to the current version if ED can implement it or get its hand on HUD info.

 

Wow, thanks for this WitchKing. I just ordered the 18 dvd box set as a christmas gift for my dad. Can't wait to get these in.

[Steel Jaw]

...Flanker: excellent platform, hideous avionics.

[Sov13t]

...Flanker: excellent platform, hideous avionics.

 

forgot the IMO or IMHO in there :thumbup: Oh wait... Mower... right.

[Witchking]

Wow, thanks for this WitchKing. I just ordered the 18 dvd box set as a christmas gift for my dad. Can't wait to get these in.

 

watch out though.... the mig 29 one and the flanker one ... I don't know if they are included in that kit. I didn't read its description carefully for contents. That kit was released before these other two documentaries. So u may have to buy the seperate boxes. :)

 

But glad to hear. :)

Edited November 7, 2012 by Witchking

[Call911]

Found this in it's entirety, not to take away from person who post just did'nt want to wait 8)-

[Toxe]

Here is an ingame video of the new FC3 planes. Notice the improved graphics and flight model. :pilotfly:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lEOqRniy1A

[tflash]

The Ka-27 seems quite a challenge to fly!

[ExGreyFox]

watch out though.... the mig 29 one and the flanker one ... I don't know if they are included in that kit. I didn't read its description carefully for contents. That kit was released before these other two documentaries. So u may have to buy the seperate boxes. :)

 

But glad to hear. :)

 

I made sure I added those two to the order along with a SU-30 coffee mug =]

[MaverickF22]

John Farley doesn't agree with that.

 

Wow, thank you for the link with John Farley, it really deserved to learn some more about the aircraft (yet not very much), but when it comes to the saying that it did it in 10 seconds..., i didn't see an actual footage of that:P to agree with him, nor with anyone else until i actually see it...! He also stated that the plane had 36 deg/s turn rate, yeah, 360/10 = 36, but those 36 were the average if it were to be like that, so the instantaneous should've been more than 45deg/s for 2-3 seconds before starting to get lower as the speed was bled, and those kind of values are completely outside any aircraft's capability nomatter what type, so his statement is completely unsolid! Who knows if that guy just started looking at his watch a few seconds after the plane had already started turning and said: "OMG, it took almost 10 seconds", of course he was so excited of what he had seen and made him say that, yet he didn't mention exactly WHEN he started looking at his timer, so more ambiguous is what he said than what i've tested!

 

Now i've been playing LOMAC for quite a while, FC1 and finally FC2, and i've tested almost every aspect of everything you might think in these games , more than playing..., cause i'm a fanatic for realism if you might call me that way, so i've tested and tested stuff in it, mainly for the Su-27 and F-15's performance characteristics in many aspects like, turn rates, roll rates, longitudinal accelerations or decelerations and done comparisons with actual real videos, it wasn't a hard thing, but i just thought about this despite anyone else playing it! I don't put my money on speculatios and blah blah of other people..., i simply look into the real thing... and that's what i trust the most!

 

Now i don't know how the devs have done this and that, using RCS for what Sov13t was saying about..., but it simply doesn't mix with the real thing! Now i told that i had a chronometer for a 360 degree looping of the Flanker and did it just like in the video that i've linked, and did it many times just to make sure, at 30% fuel state (i definitely had more fuel than the real one), starting from 650km/h and 500m MSL..., and took me merely 11.6 - 11.8 seconds to end with the nose just in the same position i was when i started it and i've also tried this test at speeds 100km/h lower and higher than 650, just to make sure, yet the timing didn't finish at more than 1 second further! So from just this..., now i know it doesn't simulate it accurately at all, leaving a gap of 27-30% of turning capability between the real Flanker, which was an airshow one and i also doubt it had a radar..., being lighter again than my aircraft in the game! Now i agree with Sov13t that there might be ambiguity between game tests and real footages as compared, yet the differences are too high and can't be logically explained!

 

Now when DCS will bring me an F-15C or a Su-27 Flanker with advanced flight model, i'd trust that! They don't have to make it simulate the supersonic flight envelope, just the subsonic - compressible one, something similar to what the Su-25's can already simulate, if it simulates compressibility factors for airflow, but i don't care...! Just someone..., make the devs have a small break for one day and try to simulate an advanced flight model for the Su-27 only for the subsonic region as i've said (not a complete flight envelope), and there you should see the difference in flight performances between FC2 and DCS, if done well...!

 

In FC1, the Flanker was way closer to real than it became in FC2..., in FC2 the Flanker was intentionally cheated i believe...!

 

For instance..., i'm not making any commercial here..., and i'll always love DCS for what it did and still does, maybe more than whatever will ever come on the market from now on..., but let me tell you about some other fighter jet simulators that i've been trying, and again, tested to the their bone..., and one very accurate, but i mean..., very accurate, is the Falcon BMS simulator for the F-16...! Now i don't care if is it free or not, i'd just pay for everything that deserves it..., and even if it had a rough and twisted history from those who have initially created it..., the Falcon remained one of my favorite! Now the F-16 with an advanced flight model simulated in BMS, yet i could personally find some small issues about the Ix and Iz moments of inertia of the plane, so there might be some equations of motion problems in it or simply bad values for when the plane tail slides and reaches -90 AoA for achieving a too high yawing acceleration in that region if you apply a full rudder (but they'll fix that as they're still working on it, so it's just a matter of time)..., the rest of the flight performances and flight envelope, including transonic and supersonic regions, have very, if not perfectly accurate CL, Cm, CD vs alpha and engine thrust polars of the real plane..., again, from Mach = 0 until Mach = 2+! The F-16A through F-16C Block 50-52 and F-16C with CFT (conformal fuel tanks) behave and perform with astonishing respect of the real aircraft's capabilities!

 

So having this said..., i only wish for the best, as i'm not here to waste my time or to talk much for no reason..., i just can't wait to see it better, and to be able to forget of the things that i see and aren't right...!

 

 

Respectfully yours,

Maverick!

[MaverickF22]

 

Well done, great saying..., so i gave some "scientific procedures" too in order to show that things aren't right!:P

[MaverickF22]

 

It's not the talk about being balanced..., cause we're not playing chess here...! Each plane should perform individually as it really should in reality also..., whoever makes the comparison on this meaning is an idiot! Balance is for World of Warcraft..., this should be simulating and respecting the real thing, not equalizing the airplanes for fun!