Unbalancing the simulation through inconsistent realism levels

[Yellonet]

Feels like this sim is getting more and more unbalanced when it comes to realism, first only AFM for two planes and soon 6DOF for only a helicopter.

 

Ka-50 - AFM and 6DOF, ADM (Advanced Damage Model)

Su-25T - AFM, ADM

Su-25 - AFM

Su-27 - Nothing

Su-33 - Nothing

MiG-29 - Nothing

A-10 - Nothing

F-15 - Nothing

 

The fun level is at max at the top of the list and falling as you go down :(

Not to mention that MP games easily becomes sim vs not-as-sim...

 

And yes, I know there are a lot of work to make all aircraft have AFM, ADM and 6DOF.... still, I think this imbalance hurts the breadth of the game as, at least I, will be less likely to use the "nothing" planes as it feels a bit like playing another, less realistic, sim when you go from the Su-25's to one of these aircraft.. it's just not the same. And when we get the Ka-50 with 6DOF the difference in immersion will be even greater I think.

I guess nothing can be done though, I guess I'll just have to take it as it is, and will be.

[airea]

+1 Yellonet

 

I quit playing all the aitcraft after su25t, as others feel like arcade after the AFM of 25t...

[Gazehound]

Hehe, so youre saying that if they hadnt introduced AFM with 1.1, and they werent going to add 6DOF to the helo, you'd be happier and ariea you would be flying all the planes instead of 1?

[Yellonet]

Hehe, so youre saying that if they hadnt introduced AFM with 1.1, and they werent going to add 6DOF to the helo, you'd be happier and ariea you would be flying all the planes instead of 1?

No, that's not what I'm saying. But it might be true though, because I wouldn't know what I was missing, now that I do know on the other hand...

[airea]

Hehe, so youre saying that if they hadnt introduced AFM with 1.1, and they werent going to add 6DOF to the helo, you'd be happier and ariea you would be flying all the planes instead of 1?

 

Yes you are absolutely right, if they didnt show us a better option, then I would be happy with su-27 and a-10:)

[WhiskeyRomeo]

I guess nothing can be done though, I guess I'll just have to take it as it is, and will be.

Perhaps the ONLY alternative is that NOTHING new will come out of ED, no Black Shark 1.2, no follow-on to LockOn.

(OK, maybe a NEW alternative will pop-up if the ED team finds a fan or "sugar daddy" with really deep pockets.)

 

Maybe then the upgrade path doesnt really seem all that bad after all - considering the alternative.

I prefer to hope that ver 1.2 is an early preview of the follow on to Lock On: Modern Air Combat.

[GGTharos]

As I understand the SFM aircraft fly correctly in a large portion of their envelope, and you only 'really feel' the difference in OOC modes or asymmetric payloads (and of course, fuel consumption).

 

Insofar as fighters go, right now, it isn't a huge deal.

 

What's being kept level is the weapons simulation, which is quite important.

[Yellonet]

Perhaps the ONLY alternative is that NOTHING new will come out of ED, no Black Shark 1.2, no follow-on to LockOn.

(OK, maybe a NEW alternative will pop-up if the ED team finds a fan or "sugar daddy" with really deep pockets.)

 

Maybe then the upgrade path doesnt really seem all that bad after all - considering the alternative.

I prefer to hope that ver 1.2 is an early preview of the follow on to Lock On: Modern Air Combat.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that any upgrades are bad, I just feel that it's unfortunately shifting the sim towards focus on only one or two flyables instead of seven or eight.

But again, I can understand this as ED isn't the biggest developer around they might be unable to maintain such a broad focus as LockOn has, or rather, had.

[Yellonet]

As I understand the SFM aircraft fly correctly in a large portion of their envelope, and you only 'really feel' the difference in OOC modes or asymmetric payloads (and of course, fuel consumption).

 

Insofar as fighters go, right now, it isn't a huge deal.

 

What's being kept level is the weapons simulation, which is quite important.

Yeah, that's really nice, but also a must as anything else would have been unaccaptable, otherwise we would have things like - You only killed me because of your arcade/realistic missiles! :icon_evil

[airea]

As I understand the SFM aircraft fly correctly in a large portion of their envelope, and you only 'really feel' the difference in OOC modes or asymmetric payloads (and of course, fuel consumption).

 

Insofar as fighters go, right now, it isn't a huge deal.

 

What's being kept level is the weapons simulation, which is quite important.

 

I dont think that the only difference between the SFM and AFM is only asymetric payloads or OOC modes (I dont know what OOC is by the way). Even the rudder feels a great difference btw the two. Continiously apply right and left rudders in the 25t and su 27, and see the reactions. You should know these issius more then I do.

[WhiskeyRomeo]

I just feel that it's unfortunately shifting the sim towards focus on only one or two flyables instead of seven or eight.

I don't believe ED has the same world view of combat sims that you do Yellonet. I'm sure they believe that ED's future needs BOTH east and west aircraft models with advanced features. But without the financial support of a major publishing house ED is taking incremental development steps to fund the work necessary to get a LO follow-on to market.

[Yellonet]

I'm sure they believe that ED's future needs BOTH east and west aircraft models with advanced features.

Yeah, and that's exactly what I belive.

[Manny]

6DOF is related only to TrackIR and their new Vector Expansion. I do not understand how the ability to move your head up, down, side to side, and zoom in provides any more realism to the Ka-50 or for that matter how panning your head provides any more realism.

 

Do recall this is a helo. Do recall this is not going to be equivalent to operating an aircraft. Using TrackIR may be more disorienting and should be if ED builds a helo and not a plane with infinite thrust up/down and ability to move the stick forward to drive it.

 

I have used helo sims before like EECH and I will tell you it is not easy to orient yourself while maneuvering using the default pan in the sim.

 

As for all remaining birds, I seriously doubt ED will finish LO without providing AFMs for all aircraft.

[Yellonet]

6DOF is related only to TrackIR and their new Vector Expansion. I do not understand how the ability to move your head up, down, side to side, and zoom in provides any more realism to the Ka-50 or for that matter how panning your head provides any more realism.

 

Do recall this is a helo. Do recall this is not going to be equivalent to operating an aircraft. Using TrackIR may be more disorienting and should be if ED builds a helo and not a plane with infinite thrust up/down and ability to move the stick forward to drive it.

 

I have used helo sims before like EECH and I will tell you it is not easy to orient yourself while maneuvering using the default pan in the sim.

 

As for all remaining birds, I seriously doubt ED will finish LO without providing AFMs for all aircraft.

Well, 6DOF isn't as much a realism enhancer as it is an immersion enhancer. AFM however is a pretty big realism divider.

BTW, I was under the impression that the Ka-50 was controlled more like an airplane than a traditional helo, I might be wrong though.

[S77th-GOYA]

Are you sure 6DoF will only be available in the Ka-50 pit?

[Yellonet]

Are you sure 6DoF will only be available in the Ka-50 pit?

Hmm... no, but I think I've heard it somewhere.

But I'd rather get AFM than 6DoF cockpit...

[Trident]

As I understand the SFM aircraft fly correctly in a large portion of their envelope, and you only 'really feel' the difference in OOC modes or asymmetric payloads (and of course, fuel consumption).

 

Insofar as fighters go, right now, it isn't a huge deal.

 

What's being kept level is the weapons simulation, which is quite important.

 

I agree that the difference between SFM and AFM aircraft is such that it will not appreciably affect comparative performance and thus multiplayer results. It is true that the discrepancy will severely cut down on suspension of disbelief, however.

[Manny]

I was under the impression that the Ka-50 was controlled more like an airplane than a traditional helo, I might be wrong though.

 

Was your sarcasm meter running when you made that statement?

 

If not, then the Ka-50 is still flown as if there is an anti-torque rotor at the tail-end of the plane. Even though tourque is countered by the addition of a second main rotor, any changes in collective will still induce torque effect and will have to countered by applying collective (via the anti-torque pedals) in the opposite direction to counter rotation in order to maintain heading.

 

If you ever had an opportunity to use Enemy Engaged: Comanche Vs. Hokum, you would understand the Hokum does still operate like a traditional helo. The difference is changes in collective do not have that pronounced an effect as compared to a very small tail rotor.

 

I like the Ka-50 design and I am sure it will be fun and easier to fly than traditional helos. Of course I would like to see the Ka-52 and the cooperative cockpit introduced to the sim as well. Perhaps ED can take Brit's coop cockpit code and reintroduce it into the sim.

[Yellonet]

Was your sarcasm meter running when you made that statement?

 

If not, then the Ka-50 is still flown as if there is an anti-torque rotor at the tail-end of the plane. Even though tourque is countered by the addition of a second main rotor, any changes in collective will still induce torque effect and will have to countered by applying collective (via the anti-torque pedals) in the opposite direction to counter rotation in order to maintain heading.

 

If you ever had an opportunity to use Enemy Engaged: Comanche Vs. Hokum, you would understand the Hokum does still operate like a traditional helo. The difference is changes in collective do not have that pronounced an effect as compared to a very small tail rotor.

 

I like the Ka-50 design and I am sure it will be fun and easier to fly than traditional helos. Of course I would like to see the Ka-52 and the cooperative cockpit introduced to the sim as well. Perhaps ED can take Brit's coop cockpit code and reintroduce it into the sim.

No. My assumption was made based on the fact that the Ka-50 uses only one stick

instead of two like in a regular helicopter, from that I concluded that the control method was

more like a plane than a helo.

 

I never said that it flew like a plane, only that the control scheme might be more plane-like.

I don't know, I'm just guessing.

[britgliderpilot]

No. My assumption was made based on the fact that the Ka-50 uses only one stick

instead of two like in a regular helicopter, from that I concluded that the control method was

more like a plane than a helo.

 

I never said that it flew like a plane, only that the control scheme might be more plane-like.

I don't know, I'm just guessing.

 

 

Errr . . . . . . what?

 

IIRC the normal control method for a helicopter is one cyclic (normal stick), and a combined collective/throttle controller to one side.

 

What's the Ka50 done away with?

[britgliderpilot]

Of course I would like to see the Ka-52 and the cooperative cockpit introduced to the sim as well. Perhaps ED can take Brit's coop cockpit code and reintroduce it into the sim.

 

Ah, about that - all I did was write a mod to capitalise on the code that was already present in Lomac, I didn't write any code myself.

 

The dual-control code was part of the LAN network code, which was binned completely between v1.02 and Flaming Cliffs. As such . . . . they'd have to write the dual-control code from scratch.

 

That doesn't particularly bother me - they've done it once and they can do it again if they absolutely have to.

 

 

A rather bigger deal is dealing with the second cockpit in terms of selecting one of the two cockpits, and accurately modelling the 3D space and so forth. You need a whole second 3D cockpit, a whole new set of dials, and a variety of new interfaces.

Designing that to fit into the standard Lomac network GUI would probably be relatively easy - making it work with other people over the net might be more tricky.

 

A niggling problem is that axis input is still sluggish over the net. Until that can be solved (IF it can be solved considering some of today's high pings), it would be advisable to stick to discrete inputs (single key/button presses) for the player not controlling the aircraft.

[Kenan]

SU27 and Mig29 flight models are pretty close to real and all of u who are trying to compare Frogfoot with Flanker, should remmeber that we're talking about two completely different types of aircraft: one heavy sluggish bomber and the other one slick fighter jet.

 

What do you want? To struggle while flying Fulcrum? I don't think of it as AFM, rather a LTFM (Looney Tunes Flight Model).

[Yellonet]

Errr . . . . . . what?

 

IIRC the normal control method for a helicopter is one cyclic (normal stick), and a combined collective/throttle controller to one side.

 

What's the Ka50 done away with?

Well, I haven't seen an image where you can see the throttle stick. But maybe it's there somewhere...

[EvilBivol-1]

It is.

[504 Wolverine]

SU27 and Mig29 flight models are pretty close to real and all of u who are trying to compare Frogfoot with Flanker, should remmeber that we're talking about two completely different types of aircraft: one heavy sluggish bomber and the other one slick fighter jet.

 

What do you want? To struggle while flying Fulcrum? I don't think of it as AFM, rather a LTFM (Looney Tunes Flight Model).

Although breadfan knows that the 25T can do miracles in the proper hands. ;) :D