Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[wasserfall]

I have to admit I'd love a DCS Su-27

 

Nate

 

Me too,

 

Just wondering how many percent would love to see a DCS Su27 Flanker, and why it isn't already announced

Either by ED or 3th party developers.

 

Wasserfall

[Pedro1606688246]

Me too,

 

Just wondering how many percent would love to see a DCS Su27 Flanker, and why it isn't already announced

Either by ED or 3th party developers.

 

Wasserfall

100% :)

[Maraudeur]

+1 makes 101% ;-)

[karambiatos]

+2, DCS su-27 or mig29 would be a dream come true even more so if they were the versions with MFCDs and other nicknacks.

 

i guess eventually theyll run out of western aircraft xD

[Exorcet]

Well, if by arcade you mean a 1980s Atari plane game, FC3 is of course better. But you get my point, right?

The thing is ED made it very clear what level of physics the sim would have. It's not supposed to be DCS level. It's also a fair bit better than something from the 80's.

 

We all want AFM fighters, but ED has stated that is something that is down the line. FC3 was released as an interim solution to allow for human controlled fighters in DCS. The flight modeling, while not DCS level, does promote realistic flying.

 

 

 

Just from the first seconds: a DCS module would slightly roll and bounce while each weapon/tank is loaded in each wing, you would see the effect of the weight in the shocks. You can see this differences and the F-15 is no even taxing. Not to mention the Eagle was started in a few seconds and touching two buttons (well, I cant see the last one ). After there it will take me pages to describe what looks obvious to me.

Nice flying.

Yes, the fine details would be different, or else no would ask for AFM. But the overall picture would be 95% identical. If you were watching that on a radar scope or just from a plane a few hundred feet back, you would not be able to tell if that was DCS or FC.

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

Yes, we use AI aircrafts sometimes. We don’t use external views and usually only see them close enough while taxing or air refueling. I'm certain I couldn't tell if the tanker had AFM while its flying in a straight line.

 

 

I gues that open servers slots for FC3 will be up to each server seriousness/tolerability.

 

Very much so, however I wouldn't say that FC3 is not meant for serious servers, but the opposite. As you said, human pilots are better than AI. When you have serious human pilots, as you tend to in flight sims, it becomes hard to tell the difference between DCS and FC unless you look very closely.

 

I bought this week two keys for FC3 and after testing it resulted to be the exact opposite kind of product I would like to support. My error.

I think you just need to think about as something that is increasing your options in DCSW. It was never intended to be a DCS level module and given that it contains half a dozen planes, that's not really a realistic expectation. But it's up to you to like it or not.

[F l a n k e r]

I think (like GGTharos said well better than me) that someone confuses the feeling whit the fidelity. I've tryed an MD-80 training fligth simulator (of the eighties!) and than an A321 training fligth simulator (a recent aquisition of the same big airline company). Let me say that the feeling of flying an airplane was much more intense on the MD-80! This because the original airplanes aerodynamics and systems are, of course, different!

[tempusmurphy]

Quick question.. does anybody have a rough idea how far from finished the FC3 beta is .. ie what features are implemented and which are still to come ?

 

cheers all

[upupandaway]

Me too,

 

Just wondering how many percent would love to see a DCS Su27 Flanker, and why it isn't already announced

Either by ED or 3th party developers.

 

Wasserfall

 

Another +1% here

[GGTharos]

Yes, but we're not telling ... sorry about that. Information will be released officially when the powers that be deem the time is right.

 

Quick question.. does anybody have a rough idea how far from finished the FC3 beta is .. ie what features are implemented and which are still to come ?

 

cheers all

[Squid]

count me too

[Teknetinium]

The forums would overload if they would announce DCS F-15 and Su-27.

[Python]

FC3 is my first venture into the series since the original lock on... personally I like it, its nice sometimes to just bomb around in the F-15 instead of having to worry about all the systems etc. Its a good way to kill a spare 10 mins imo..

[Exorcet]

The forums would overload if they would announce DCS F-15 and Su-27.

 

And then the forums would collapse into anarchy as each side argued with the other over something lol. Still, I'd look forward to it. I'd hope for a more modern Flanker too as I just can't get used to the HUD's the Russian FC planes currently have, but I'd take any Flanker offered.

 

FC3 is my first venture into the series since the original lock on... personally I like it, its nice sometimes to just bomb around in the F-15 instead of having to worry about all the systems etc. Its a good way to kill a spare 10 mins imo..

In all honestly, a week of DCS A-10 made me as comfortable with the plane systems wise as I am with FC planes. I have an easier time starting the A-10 cold than the Su-25T because I can't remember the key command for the battery.

 

And if you select runway or air start, you'll be in the fight as quickly as you would with a FC jet (though even from a cold start, the DCS plane won't necessarily fall behind).

[Wolf One]

Unfortunately, the extraordinary skill it took to produce something like the DCS:A-10C, which is without doubt the finest rendering of flight simulation available to the regular consumer, it leaves one wanting, and contributes heavily to the "expectation factor". So while there was a significant bump going from LOFC1 to LOFC2, with the intervening release of the A-10C, one involuntarily ends up expecting an even bigger step up from LOFC2 to LOFC3.

[MaverickF22]

It's been very clear that they have simplified flight model, wich is the same as Lomac

 

Are you ****ing kidding us?

 

Then why does the Eagle turn so much better now and also has it's drag coefficient even more increased than it has already been in FC2? Not to talk about the Flanker's shitty high roll rate:P

 

This won't compare at any point with LOMAC or FC1..., those ROCKED, period!

 

You have only increased realism in other parts (AAA, SAM, missile dynamics, graphics, effects) which is the only reason why some buy FC3..., but these two birds..., the Eagle and the Flanker..., you have been ****ing up since FC2 came up!

 

JUST TURN BACK TO THE SAME DAMN FC1 SFM (Simplified Flight Model) for F-15 and Su-27 until you'll get better results, and everyone would be happier, than doing crap with your own calculations and whatever you do using polar graph descriptions in the wrong way, or maybe those polars, CL vs AoA and CD vs AOA graphs that you use aren't good, or for whatever reason these two birds just don't fly like the real ones..., but even worse than in FC1 (which gave the best SFM's so far) like i've said, and i'm not probably the only one who's saying the same thing!

 

If you ask a real F-15 pilot let's say..., what's the DPS his Eagle would do in a constant/sustained turn (because that gives more accurate measurements over an ITR) at a given altitude, a given IAS (indicated airspeed), a given engine thrust and aircraft weight (% of fuel left, loadout, etc.), and he'd tell you, if he knows and has already done that, what would that value be..., it should be compared to the graphs in the manual, and normally they should match, otherwise there's a gap somewhere...! But this would be an accurate info ONLY if he has done that or knows for sure..., and less accurate, but normally not more than a 10% error he should get in the case of trying to compare what he's got used to by many years, in terms of accelerations, turn rates and roll rates of the real Eagle and compare then with the "sim"!

 

I only hope that this would still remain a beta until all the dumb things in it would be corrected..., otherwise this would be a bigger failure than FC2, except for the graphics and missile dynamics, but these have a rather lower impact than the messed up FM's or the erratic blackout simulation, which is an effect taken from a nightmare, not due to the way this effect looks, but by how fast it comes up and it's not from a real pilot, period...!

 

 

Let's hope things will be sorted out..., in time, but be sorted and fixed!

 

Cheers!

Edited November 13, 2012 by MaverickF22

[MaverickF22]

I will personally work on the CL (at least) and CD coefficients for both the Eagle and the Flanker and obtain their derivatives vs alpha between Mach = 0 to Mach = 2.5 also including the transonic region for simulation, with my own CFD program..., and i'll reply back with some more accurate values than you already have used for these 2 planes, cause i've gotten sick of this!

 

 

See you by then!

 

Cheers,

Maverick!

[Pedro1606688246]

check this out lads :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZESIsgZBl3Q

[Ramstein]

What's with the nitpicking about coefficients and drag worries,, if you strap on externals, all that stuff is out the window.. turn or no turn..

 

FC2 was not a failure, most everyone enjoyed it very much...

 

IMHO

 

:joystick:

[Steel Jaw]

I dont ever recall FC making claims as to realism...FC is sim lite, lower your expectations. ;-)

[GGTharos]

Ok, sure, I'll make them for you right here then:

 

- FM accurate enough to enable reasonable, realistic DAC (within FM limitations)

- Missile capability accurate enough to reasonably represent BVR basics, within missile FM/Seeker limitation

 

This is the air to air part. The A2G part isn't terribad either.

Are there things missing? Yes, there are things missing, but by and large they won't necessarily stop you from learning and employing realistic tactics.

 

I dont ever recall FC making claims as to realism...FC is sim lite, lower your expectations. ;-)

[112th_Rossi]

I suppose when you've tasted a good steak, its hard to go back to burger. As tasty as that could be.

[Steel Jaw]

I never said FC was terrible...I plan to buy FC3 soon for a lite Fast Mover fix in DCSW. I also own and have logged hundreds of online hours in FC2.

 

And I will continue to whole heartedly support ED/DCS.

[112th_Rossi]

I'm picking it up on Friday.

[MaverickF22]

 

Well, be my guest, i'd do the same, but only that i don't feel like it deserves in areas like aerodynamics where even in a SFM they could've done some better i guess!

 

I'd first of all want to correct some remarks in my earlier posts about the aerodynamics realism in FC3, because this is my biggest concern of all!

 

I've done some small tests in the game using both the Eagle and the Flanker, from which i used the true airspeed, weight, g load and altitude (50m MSL) at full AB (afterburner), afterwards i've made some short and easy formulas using Mathcad (mathematical tool) in order to determine the CL and STR (sustained turn rate) or ITR (instantaneous turn rate) of any aircraft quickly, by knowing the key factors needed (weight [N] and G load, air density (i used 1.223 as i was just above the water when i've made the tests), airspeed [m/s] and projected wing area) in the known lift formula and found this:

 

The Su-27's CL is 1.95 at Mach = 0.3 with flaps (in our "sim") and it should be around 1.6-1.65 in reality with no flaps (i've made a mistake in my previous posts when i've said 1.45, that was for Mach = 0.05 with no flaps, my bad:(), but i've NEVER seen any real footage or video of any Flanker in reality and i've seen it at enough airshows..., where it would ever use flaps in any demonstration, not even at the low speed pass..., not to talk about having them lowering automatic..., so there might be something unrealistic in the sim for having them lowering automatically like that from about 700km/h while gradually lowering as airspeed drops and having no authority on them!

 

With lowered flaps, this value (1.95) seems quite realistic according to the idea that it would have about 1.65 with no flaps at that speed..., so the CL would be correct, but the drag should be immense in those conditions too and should increase with at least 30% let's say, although in our game the drag remains the same as for not using flaps, while having an almost 20% more lift force at the same drag..., which seems a mistake (now i'm not blaming anyone, but it doesn't seem normal at all) and that's why the Flanker turns so tight and continuously well "around it's tail", so i really want to know what's going on with that flaps anyway, because you could fly at 350km/h or 190 kts TAS (true airspeed) with full aft stick and at full AB no matter if you rise or lower the flaps..., the airspeed would remain almost the same and vary for not more than 3-4kts which is a nothing if compared to 188kts in the case of the Su-33 (on Su-27 you can't modify them anyway), but also for the MIG-29 a lowered flaps will create more lift than drag and again there's something wrong i'd say!

 

So for short, the F-15 Eagle now has an increased CL of maximum 1.42 at Mach = 0.3 with no flaps and seems quite realistic, my CFD attains for a 1.34 at 25 AoA (so the error is of about 5.9% which is quite reasonable), but it has a huge CD (a lot higher), the Flanker's CD vs AoA has been increased for higher subsonic speeds and it is definitely more realistic than in FC2 or FC1 or LOMAC..., but the use of flaps which is completely automatic and you have no control over them (just partial control on the Su-33) and don't create drag at all or create an amount which is like 10% (i'm just giving a value) of what it should create..., so the plane turns much better at no cost for airspeed, and that's bad!

 

Take the A-10C or the P-51D (yet this is a prop and the difference might be quite big for T/D ratio) for example..., don't you see a huge difference in airspeed drop and maximum attainable airspeed when they are fully lowered? I know that i can't compare the T/D (Thrust to Drag) ratios of an A-10C with that of a Su-27, but still, there should be some similarity, yet there isn't almost at all!

 

FM accurate enough to enable reasonable, realistic DAC (within FM limitations)

- Missile capability accurate enough to reasonably represent BVR basics, within missile FM/Seeker limitation

 

I want to agree with GGTharos, because he seems a reasonable man who tries to explain what happens and has the patience for telling it..., and at the same time i'm trying to understand some things which are completely out of logic or out of the "polar"(graph), and yet there might be something i'm missing, but still, the difference seems huge enough in some areas to make me think just once...!

 

What's with the nitpicking about coefficients and drag worries,, if you strap on externals, all that stuff is out the window.. turn or no turn..

 

Well, the nitpicking is about the huge impact that these aero coeffs have on any flying object's performance..., and for anyone who doesn't understand what they are, because those are the crucial elements of any dogfight (they won't count very much in BVR though), next to the engine's performance..., could simply start learning what they are and it isn't very complicated, so don't make the assumption that "if you strap on externals", these things would go off the window, cause they won't!

 

 

Sorry for the big long talking again..., but i only wish for the best!

 

Cheers,

Maverick!

Edited November 14, 2012 by MaverickF22
Made a comparison with the DCS's airspeed limitation upon fully lowering the flaps and claiming for the F-15's maximum CL!

[GGTharos]

There is only one way for you to show that things are wrong, and that is to compare performance against the real aircraft manuals.

 

There are also some things, IIRC, that teh SFM is simply not able to reconcile, but they should not affect DAC as far as I know.

 

Calculations of CD/CL are not really valuable unless you can show that the aircraft are deviating from their (RL) tested flight characteristics - in that case, such calculations may be required to explain deficiencies.

 

I want to agree with GGTharos, because he seems a reasonable man who tries to explain what happens and has the patience for telling it..., and at the same time i'm trying to understand some things which are completely out of logic or out of the "polar"(graph), and yet there might be something i'm missing, but still, the difference seems huge enough in some areas to make me think just once...!