Please don't say it is so...

[GGTharos]

 

The "Destroyer" (thanks bablefish) "F16-project" is, in my understanding of the situation, the 4th generation sim from ED. i.e. from the ground up build of a completely new sim. Featuring an F-16 and a Mig29. Ditching old code, a complete re write. This will not see the light of day for a few years to come, and plans most definitely will change.

 

Nate

 

 

I /highly/ doubt that it will be anything close to a 'complete rewrite'. They developped the AFM and the new 'pit technology in order to make a more realistic sim - I sincerely doubt they'll just ditch all that. All the future things are -extremely- likely to be heavily based upon what you have right now -LOMAC. It dies -only- in name, because IIRC, the name is all that Ubi owns.

[wsoul2k]

I /highly/ doubt that it will be anything close to a 'complete rewrite'. They developped the AFM and the new 'pit technology in order to make a more realistic sim - I sincerely doubt they'll just ditch all that. All the future things are -extremely- likely to be heavily based upon what you have right now -LOMAC. It dies -only- in name, because IIRC, the name is all that Ubi owns.

 

I agree...They put a lot of work in this features and will not make all of it from scratch

 

But i have a few questions about the called new projects

 

They will have onlythe f-16 and the mig-29 ??

 

or

 

Only this two with AFM added ?? because i dont think they will let the others flyables out ( They are already done ) even it will not have the AFM

 

But about including new ones....today the info ED have about the F-15 is enougth to BE REALISTIC ?? i mean all the radar modes ..all performace data...

 

Because i really wanna see something complete new like Mirage2000-5

 

it is a fantastic figther the information ED have about the RDY radar is much lower compared with the information ED have about F-15 when they start Lomac ?/

 

cya and sorry for the poor english

[JonTex]

I think most know my position on ANOTHER flight sim with a F-16 in it I wont tell you how thrilled I am because im just busting out of my boots over here in Texas. But I will say this before anyone else does and you can take this to the bank.

 

The very first company to endeavour as to go so far and model the F14A/B/D as a flyable with graphics of this caliber in LO and a dynamic campaign and a vision to model other flyables such as the mirage, harrier, and aircraft like the british tornado will completely revoulutionize the flight sim community with or without your STINKING TAC DATA.

 

Now you can bash me all you want and the way things are going I may never live to see the day that it happens but when it does someone will dig this old forum up and quote my words once again and when they do please dont be suprised. Because the thing we all really want here is something NEW .... no matter how we get it. The thing some people forget is that none of us have ever set foot in any of these aircraft except real life combat pilots and gee that just might be where some young endeavouring , think outside the box type, American company may decide to make it happen. Because nobody ever revoulutionized the world or accomplished anything that changed our world by giving excuses why they couldnt do it ........ THEY JUST DID IT.

 

TEX OUT

[Olgerd]

I /highly/ doubt that it will be anything close to a 'complete rewrite'. They developped the AFM and the new 'pit technology in order to make a more realistic sim - I sincerely doubt they'll just ditch all that. All the future things are -extremely- likely to be heavily based upon what you have right now -LOMAC. It dies -only- in name, because IIRC, the name is all that Ubi owns.

 

New cockpits are 'complete rewrite'. There is nothing to get from existing cockpits.

[GGTharos]

I know Oleg, I mean that the game is not a complete rewrite - I mentioned that the new cockpits were not developped just to be rewritten in such a short time. :)

[Olgerd]

I know Oleg, I mean that the game is not a complete rewrite - I mentioned that the new cockpits were not developped just to be rewritten in such a short time. :)

 

Ahh. I am sorry. Just misunderstood.

[GGTharos]

It's okay. My english is not always so good - I will say things which are full of unstated assumptions. Very bad way of communicating unfortunately. ;)

[Doug97]

Considering the wealth of alternatives out there, for ED to chose the F16 of all things, is depressing.

 

I'm not saying they had to choose a Russian plane, just not the plane that's featured in the only other jet flight sim that's around right now.

[GGTharos]

What would you have them choose that isn't classified?

[Manny]

I think most know my position on ANOTHER flight sim with a F-16 in it I wont tell you how thrilled I am because im just busting out of my boots over here in Texas. But I will say this before anyone else does and you can take this to the bank.

 

The very first company to endeavour as to go so far and model the F14A/B/D as a flyable with graphics of this caliber in LO and a dynamic campaign and a vision to model other flyables such as the mirage, harrier, and aircraft like the british tornado will completely revoulutionize the flight sim community with or without your STINKING TAC DATA.

 

Now you can bash me all you want and the way things are going I may never live to see the day that it happens but when it does someone will dig this old forum up and quote my words once again and when they do please dont be suprised. Because the thing we all really want here is something NEW .... no matter how we get it. The thing some people forget is that none of us have ever set foot in any of these aircraft except real life combat pilots and gee that just might be where some young endeavouring , think outside the box type, American company may decide to make it happen. Because nobody ever revoulutionized the world or accomplished anything that changed our world by giving excuses why they couldnt do it ........ THEY JUST DID IT.

 

TEX OUT

 

You mentione Harrier. With the Black Shark model, would it not be possible to make a transitionable model from helo, to transition, to aircraft?

 

F-14 did you say? Whoever does it, they have my undying support. I have wanted an F-14 for such a long time now.

[GGTharos]

F-14s are classified.

 

HArriers are old and obsolete, and they suck, but that's my personnal opinion and as such it doesn't count when it comes to selecting an aircraft. ;)

 

However, the harrier is nowhere NEAR as widespread as the F-16.

 

I think you're all stuck on the F-16 'not being a new thing' and missing the fact that the sim as a whole -is-.

[JonTex]

Dude the only reason i bought Lomac or Flanker was because if you take the time to look on the shelves in any store that you buy PC games NONE and I mean NONE feature these eastern bloc aircraft as flyables ... thats called SOMETHING NEW. And the games were IMO smash hits NOW they have a fan base or community of people who expect a solid flight sim that will take them in a direction that no one else has ever gone before continueing with their NEW idea of thinking outside the box of our already over simulated counterparts. Thats why people are asking for these NEW aircraft to be modeled not because they are ungrateful but because they want to fly something different. If they wanted another F16 they can either fly it in F4 or they can wait till fighter ops comes out. Hell they could find any flightsim on the shelf and fly it ...... case and point. Thats the reason Lomac or Flanker for that matter IS a NEW THING. If you put the F16 in this sim your just re-wrapping old christmas gifts and handing them out at christmas time ... merry christmas tiny tim. :D

 

TEX OUT

[GGTharos]

See, now that's thinking inside the box.

[JonTex]

Well lets look at that statement that could mean one thing in particular. You think that having the F16 in this game is a good idea because you have the data to accurately model it and its weapon systems .... i get your point plus the fact that it is so widely used by several different countries it IS the obvious choice for a NATO fighter no dispute there but here is the kicker IF we only model aircraft that we only have sufficient data for exactly what BOX am I thinking inside of when the BOX represents boundaries that limit our choices(i.e. TAC DATA) as a community in this case. If anyone decides to think past these TACTICAL DATA boundaries to make a flight sim that I mentioned you will be flying your F16 against a world of AI in single player mode because I will be flying my Tomcat :cool:

 

cheers :icon_jook

 

I hope you have a lot of friends Tiny Tim

[Towely]

Well its not like they are saying they are going to model the F-16 and then NOTHING ELSE. There will be planes after it. But for many when you say fighter jet they think 'F16!' I hate to say its essential to a flight sim but any flight sim that has NATO as a playable side almost needs it since its so widespread in NATO.

[wsoul2k]

What would you have them choose that isn't classified?

 

That is the point GG lets see

 

F-15 Still classified

A-10 Still classified

 

So ...i think even with all the data ED have....still having a lot of GUESS work here....

 

And i think this guess work was much bigger in the first release of lomac...just see the changes in radar...ECM Missiles...RWR TWS modes etc etc

 

So why not try an Mirage 2000-5 a complete new figther also operated by NATO forces

 

My point is the info avaliable today for the M2K-5 is so poor..to justfy not modeling it ?? the info is so much lower compared to the Initial F-15version modeled in the first version of Lomac ??

[S77th-GOYA]

Jane's WWII Fighters did a great job on the Me-109, Fw-190, Spit, Mustang, Jug, and P-38. You think Oleg should have ignored them?

[Alfa]

That is the point GG lets see

 

F-15 Still classified

A-10 Still classified

 

So ...i think even with all the data ED have....still having a lot of GUESS work here....

 

There is a lot more unclassifed information available for these than you seem to think :) .

 

So why not try an Mirage 2000-5 a complete new figther also operated by NATO forces

 

Good luck trying to find information on that - Dassault is notoriously tight-lipped about their products.

 

My point is the info avaliable today for the M2K-5 is so poor..to justfy not modeling it ?? the info is so much lower compared to the Initial F-15version modeled in the first version of Lomac ??

 

Bet on it! :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[wsoul2k]

There is a lot more unclassifed information available for these than you seem to think :) .

 

Just to compare Alfa...do you know what they have from the F-15 i mean what info are considered a NO GO and a GO kind information :)

 

but i wanna know only the real info not the guess one something like

 

F-15

1-Radar Modes Have it GO

2-TAC Manual Have it GO

3-ETC ETC ETC

 

 

Mirage 2000-5

1-Radar Modes Have it GO

2-TAC Manual Dont Have it NO GO

3-ETC ETC ETC

 

 

Good luck trying to find information on that - Dassault is notoriously tight-lipped about their products.

- JJ.

 

Even if the Radar is the RDY ?

[SUBS17]

Considering the wealth of alternatives out there, for ED to chose the F16 of all things, is depressing.

 

I'm not saying they had to choose a Russian plane, just not the plane that's featured in the only other jet flight sim that's around right now.

 

For one thing people are looking too far ahead as far as the F-16 flight sim is concerned. There is two flight sims between now and Destroyer, Black Shark and Tank Killers. The F-16 is essentially two generations from now!:icon_roll The way I see it this F-16 is a whole new type of Flight sim incorporating features not modeled in lockon currently from what I've read so far. If they can model this aircraft and the Mig29 to this level of detail then anything is possible as more information is made available.

[SUBS17]

I know of them and I tried the F4 demo but I really didn't like the feeling after I was spoiled by Flanker 2.5 / LockOn. And as I said I've never really had a sim with that plane.

 

Don't judge it by the demo, try AF you will be surprised F-16 kinda grows on ya :D

[Yellonet]

Don't judge it by the demo, try AF you will be surprised F-16 kinda grows on ya :D

I'm not sure I want to spend the money... is there a demo for AF?

[SUBS17]

The consensus reality seems to be that campaigns are not necessary at all.. after all, it's a well-known fact that aerial warfare is mostly about the hunt for something to shoot down. So obviously a campaign with lots of ground units fighting their silly wars over who controls which strategic areas is just a silly distraction from the main part of ANY decent combat sim: The fragging bit. Duh!

 

PS: :D

 

 

Totally wrong, alot can be gained by a DC in any flight sim most especially one that has a multirole fighter;) . Janes Longbow 2 has a DC that would work well with TK, mostly mud moving and a ground war in action. As for Destroyer of course a DC of strategic level must be incorporated to make game play work at the best level. Currently the Airquake situation in lockon is essentially just that scoring kills. Same for ground attack missions, just point scoring mainly with the objective being to doing mainly CAS. In a DC there are clear objectives, failure results in the enemy gaining an advantage and success leaves opportunities to exploit weaknesses. The DC action isn't in mission, its actually in between missions where the true calculations are carried out. The DC in F4 is the work of genius in how it functions particularly now that LP has got most of it to work.

[SUBS17]

I'm not sure I want to spend the money... is there a demo for AF?

 

There is no demo but it is fairly cheap to buy.

[wsoul2k]

Plz ...lets get back to the topic :)