FC3 Aerial Refueling scripted?

[Kenan]

^^To be honest, I tried the one wheel landing right after the initial (public) beta release..and what happened is, the both wheels touched the tarmac instantenously (just like in FC2). Or have I missed something?

 

I'm gonna give it a shot right now..

[Wags]

The landings are improved as much as they can possibly be with SFM. To improve further would require AFM, and that would take YEARS to implement for all the remaining FC3 aircraft. If that is unacceptable, don't hurt anyone on your way down. :)

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wags

[USAFMTL]

E

 

You aren't going to convince Kenan of anything. His entire simming experience depends on the landing physics.. So while we are dodging SAMS and dogfighting he'll be landing three or four hundred times seeing if the landing Physics are right.

Edited December 10, 2012 by USAFMTL

[Cali]

If that is unacceptable, don't hurt anyone on your way down.

 

I think I may have to go to the hospital now :megalol: I'm just glad that they ported over FC into DCS. Not much fun when there i only single player or co-op missions. E and Dave, get back to work fixing things.

[EtherealN]

Well Kenan, you're the one that introduced the concept of jumping from balconies. That is quite offensive on it's own.

 

Anyhow, on the topic, how's that test going?

I'll try to make a video to show you later, but I'd have to lift FC2 from an old hard drive so I don't know if it'll happen tonight. If you've got the test done yourself, as you said you would, let me know.

 

Cali, I fix lots of things. But that all happens on the main screen, the forum is on the second screen. ;)

Though right now it's "me time", so main screen shows NASL grand finals.

[Kenan]

^^I did the test. Pretty much same old. The only difference, it takes a moment or so for the wheels to get glued on the runway and in fc2 it happened right away. I guess I havent noticed that detail when I first tested it but thats prolly because I had higher expectations...

[USAFMTL]

With all due respect, you guys were the ones who decided to announce it as one of the selling features and you should have really tried to deliver on that department. If you knew it was impossible to do so, you shouldn't have put it on the selling points list.

 

What really offends me though is your "..don't hurt anyone on your way down.." comment.

 

Coming from a company producer to a paying customer?

 

I guess I learned quite an important lesson today. Thanks for clearing things up.

 

Your problem is that you need to get off the landing issue. I mean really an AIR COMBAT SIM and you are worried about landings. LANDINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really? You have been harping on that for so long that it is nauseating. I'll make you a deal, I will send you your $40 back if you just quit boring us about the "landing issue". Send me your PayPal info in a PM. If you do not want it back, then fly the sim and have fun. Deal?

Edited December 10, 2012 by USAFMTL

[Megagoth1702]

Kenan, sorry bro but you HAVE TO LOWER your expectations. Flaming Cliffs was always and will always be about air to air combat. It has been said that the simple flight model has been maxed out when it comes to landings.

 

There is nothing more they can do and nothing more you can do. The way I understood it they were not announcing a change of the flight model but improved landing dynamics. The way you described a change there is pretty much proof enough right now that they are working on it.

[EtherealN]

The way I understood it they were not announcing a change of the flight model but improved landing dynamics.

 

Exactly.

It was requested, it was implemented, and then announced.

 

End of story.

Let's now leave this topic in this thread, since this is a massive derail. We can discuss this, if necessary, in a dedicated thread. Thankyou.

[lunaticfringe]

Considering the fact that the current implementation of the KC's directional lamps are in Bizzaro World (thereby giving no discernible method of making and holding proper formation within the refueling "box" area that the boom can reach), versus having a drogue smack dab in your face to cue off of, autopilot override on the Eagle is the only thing making refueling possible. Otherwise, there's no immediate method to visualize deviation, meaning you're taking a hundred or so pounds, then having to go back to contact clearance.

 

So for the time being, I accept a compromise situation in which taking the bad with the broken is the only available option.

 

Now, on the matter of of scripting: does "K" still work for Red Air? Because if so, that bias complaint can be tossed out wholesale. :P

[Steel Jaw]

I'll make you a deal, I will send you your $40 back if you just quit boring us about the "landing issue". Send me your PayPal info in a PM.

 

Forget him: I am having trouble finding the spare change to buy FC3 as yet, send me a license key. ;-)

 

(I already own FC2.)

[Megagoth1702]

Let's now leave this topic in this thread, since this is a massive derail.

 

Yep, I'm out as well... Dreaded "new posts" button took me here anyway, hehe.

[Steel Jaw]

Let's now leave this topic in this thread, since this is a massive derail.

 

F15C aerial refueling, still scripted? ;)

[blkspade]

The landings are improved as much as they can possibly be with SFM. To improve further would require AFM, and that would take YEARS to implement for all the remaining FC3 aircraft. If that is unacceptable, don't hurt anyone on your way down. :)

 

Every time AFM is mentioned we are told of the years it would take to complete. This completely neglects the fact that it has been years, since FC1 where this was done with the inclusion of the SU-25. This represented to the consumer an improvement that basically went nowhere as far as the FC series is concerned. If they cared to work on the AFM in FC aircraft it could have been in the A2A craft by now. Now it just so happens to be apart of DCS aircraft feature set, and they've cleaned up the scenario by making the Su25T no longer technically an FC aircraft. Those new to the series wouldn't know the difference. Those of us that go back Lo:mac, might feel jaded by this approach. Especially if they are likely to be the overwhelming majority of your repeat business.

 

I honestly skipped FC1 because I saw nothing in it that indicated an improvement in bugs or features, from lo:mcac. I didn't care about SU25 at the time, there weren't any other new flyables included that I would have been interested in. It lacked built-in internet multiplayer capability, and included classic starforce which I immediately had direct issues with.

 

What made FC2 immediately appealing was in part due to my extended break from the genre I once loved to most, modern Combat flight sims. Support for current OSs and hardware, assumed improved performance. Included multiplayer, fixed bugs, removal of classic starforce. These things outweighed what annoyed me in what remained to be the exact same flyables since lo:mac, and also not being tremendously improved graphically.

 

There are some obvious flaws about whats being offered in FC3 compared to FC2, especially at its $40 price point. While yes its still beta and some things might be added, there are a number of things we can safely assume aren't going to change. After all this time perhaps someone official should just say "We don't care about offering these specific things".

[Steel Jaw]

I think FC3 is this: a stop-gap DCSW offering for Fast Mover seekers, offered pretty much "as is", beta or not, until the next DCS hardcore Fast Mover arrives.

 

Beta though FC3 may currently be, I cannot foresee it changing much from where it is now, not in any substantive way at least.

[159th_Viper]

 

Beta though FC3 may currently be, I cannot foresee it changing much from where it is now, not in any substantive way at least.

 

Regarding Flight Dynamics, maybe. There is however a lot of other very tasty morsels in the offering.......You only need to have a look at the bug thread to get a general idea as quite a few of those items are not bug reports but actually feature requests. In any event, comments regarding the substantive content of FC3 are probably best left till release as it's not worth commenting on a Beta.

Edited December 10, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[GGTharos]

This is a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

 

The Su-25T was an AFM prototype. It wasn't part of official LOMAC, so it can actually be separated AFAIK.

The AFM does take a long time to produce for each aircraft.

It is true that AFM is a feature of DCS planes, but not for the reasons you think (ie. to differenciate DCS from FC). The reason is that AFM does take a long time to produce, there are many planes to do this for in FC, and ED has other projects to work on. It's just not efficient to attempt to AFM-ify all these planes.

 

Every time AFM is mentioned we are told of the years it would take to complete. This completely neglects the fact that it has been years, since FC1 where this was done with the inclusion of the SU-25. This represented to the consumer an improvement that basically went nowhere as far as the FC series is concerned. If they cared to work on the AFM in FC aircraft it could have been in the A2A craft by now. Now it just so happens to be apart of DCS aircraft feature set, and they've cleaned up the scenario by making the Su25T no longer technically an FC aircraft. Those new to the series wouldn't know the difference. Those of us that go back Lo:mac, might feel jaded by this approach. Especially if they are likely to be the overwhelming majority of your repeat business.

 

But they do say that. They don't tell you 'we don't care', they do care, but they just can't offer certain features and usually if you ask you'll be given an answer. It might not be an answer you like.

 

There are some obvious flaws about whats being offered in FC3 compared to FC2, especially at its $40 price point. While yes its still beta and some things might be added, there are a number of things we can safely assume aren't going to change. After all this time perhaps someone official should just say "We don't care about offering these specific things".

[GGTharos]

It is a stop-gap for some, but this is not its intent. The intent is to continue having all products play together.

 

The offer of a low/med-fi aircraft set is pretty important in order to help promote DAC, as well as to get people into the hobby more easily, and thus seeing more people buying copies of ED's works.

 

These 'easy to play' sims are a huge deal - they sell much better than hard core sims, and they make hard core simmers happy because companies are able to afford to keep making hard core sims.

 

Stop hating the survey sims, they're your friends :)

 

I think FC3 is this: a stop-gap DCSW offering for Fast Mover seekers, offered pretty much "as is", beta or not, until the next DCS hardcore Fast Mover arrives.

 

Beta though FC3 may currently be, I cannot foresee it changing much from where it is now, not in any substantive way at least.

[Steel Jaw]

Stop hating the survey sims, they're your friends :)

 

I dont hate them, I played FC2 online extensively while awaiting the DCS A10C and FBMS.

 

I will be getting FC3 shortly as well and flying it in DCSW.

 

:-)

Edited December 10, 2012 by Mower

[GGTharos]

Cool, see you out there! :)

[blkspade]

I'm not so much questioning the fact that it would take time, but the amount of said time that passed since this AFM prototype. Whether or not Su25 could be separated seems more to do with the whole ubisoft thing, which also not a factor of my argument. Unless there are some significant changes between A-10A and A-10C, beyond the avionics, that ones out of the way. I've seen it mentioned a number of times that C was originally gonna be A, so that work was just shelved I guess. Now the FC3 F-15C shows there isn't a problem with disparity in what they choose to offer in the flyables. So what if they had made the choice to only work on AFM in 2-3 out of the 5 fighters. Its probably only the most requested change to the series next to a new flyable. One of these is likely to be less work than the other, either would resemble significant improvement on previous products.

 

I mostly fly the F-15 so I appreciate the cockpit upgrade on some level, but I personally care more for function over aesthetics. I never got to enjoy the A-10 in LO:Mac as much as I would have liked due to bugs, so my neglect of it transferred over to FC2 somewhat. There only being one flyable for SEAD and one for carrier ops in all this time also depressing. I'd trade in a pretty cockpit for being able to actually do more stuff.

 

This is a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

 

The Su-25T was an AFM prototype. It wasn't part of official LOMAC, so it can actually be separated AFAIK.

The AFM does take a long time to produce for each aircraft.

It is true that AFM is a feature of DCS planes, but not for the reasons you think (ie. to differenciate DCS from FC). The reason is that AFM does take a long time to produce, there are many planes to do this for in FC, and ED has other projects to work on. It's just not efficient to attempt to AFM-ify all these planes.

 

 

 

But they do say that. They don't tell you 'we don't care', they do care, but they just can't offer certain features and usually if you ask you'll be given an answer. It might not be an answer you like.

[Steel Jaw]

I'd trade in a pretty cockpit for being able to actually do more stuff.

 

Then DCS A10C or FBMS await you.

[GGTharos]

What Mower said, or wait for a DCS version of the F-15C. Who knows, maybe it'll be the next flyable! But there are already two F-15E's on the way as well.

 

In any case, don't expect AFM on FC aircraft. It's just not going to happen.

 

I mostly fly the F-15 so I appreciate the cockpit upgrade on some level, but I personally care more for function over aesthetics. I never got to enjoy the A-10 in LO:Mac as much as I would have liked due to bugs, so my neglect of it transferred over to FC2 somewhat. There only being one flyable for SEAD and one for carrier ops in all this time also depressing. I'd trade in a pretty cockpit for being able to actually do more stuff.

[Steel Jaw]

or wait for a DCS version of the F-15C.

 

Aha! That will be all over the net by sundown here. :D

[Frostie]

Then DCS A10C or FBMS await you.

Personally, if anyone's played DCS:A10C first then I wouldn't advise them to try FBMS it would hurt their eyes aswell as being a let down as a poor second place in the avionic simulation, unless ofcourse you've got a lot of spare time on your hands that you're willing to waste learning an older concept and are well prepared for that feeling of 'if only I could do it like I do in DCSA10'.

With that said the dynamic campaign can be fun even if a bit Hollywood.