I am new, Few questions

[GGTharos]

You mean, respect this?

 

2nd: The argument not to model an aircraft because you don´t know everything about it is lame and does not count.

 

And I really doubt that the AFM for a new aircraft won't require data that is NOT AVAILABLE.

 

Either way, to put it simply I disagree with you.

[Woodstock]

You mean, respect this?

Quote:

2nd: The argument not to model an aircraft because you don´t know everything about it is lame and does not count.

 

And I really doubt that the AFM for a new aircraft won't require data that is NOT AVAILABLE.

 

Either way, to put it simply I disagree with you.

 

Yes, mate, respect exactly this. The content of this quote is thoroughly and logically explained in the sentences that follow it, no need to repeat that again.

By the way, I was talking to Olgerd and I´m shure he is able to speak for himself even without you jumping at me.

 

As for AFM, you are mixing up two things:

- AFM for existing aircraft which, as I said, should be less a research than a programming issue...

- new aircraft that you don´t have the aerodynamic data for.

Are you telling me and everyone here that the F-15 and A-10 are featured in LockOn because they were the western aircraft with the most information available about? You´ve got to be kidding! I´m shure you can easily come up with as much aerodynamic data about the Viper and Hornet as you could for Eagle and Hog. So it can´t be that what stops you from making a flight model for them equal to the existing standard flight models.

And to convert a standard flight model into an AFM, well, we had that already...

 

Finally, it is absolutely your good right to disagree with me in every respect. This is a discussion forum and no pot-smoking-hand-holding-globe-spanning-peace-love-unity-event. I am criticizing argumentations I consider somewhat foul and I am giving my opinion on certain topics. You can react to that as you wish. As long as you keep it civilized, we can keep our respects for each other.

[Olgerd]

@ Olgerd:

 

1st: Thankx for doing anything at all to support the genre.

 

2nd: The argument not to model an aircraft because you don´t know everything about it is lame and does not count.

According to this argumentation ED could have never released any Su-27 or LO simulation because there was always new information to be discovered and incorporated into patches or new versions.

You still don´t know all details about the Su´s and the Mig but you still model them.

I appreciate that you raise the quality standards for yourself but do not hide cowardly behind them. Step forward and admit: "This is the best we could do. It´s not perfect, but it´s the best we could do. And we did it."

Everyone will respect you for trying and further information, hints and input will flow that you can incorporate in patches.

Why should anyone share his knowledge with you when you announce not to use it and not to try right from the start?

I am very shure that there is absolutely enough information on the internet, in older games and in the forums of the reallife and simpilots communities to model any western 1960s-1980s combat aircraft to a level of detail that makes everybody happy.

And those who are still not happy will tell you why and share their information and you can further improve your product.

 

Please keep at least trying and everything will keep getting better and better!

 

An F-16 or F-18 in LockOn with 80% correct flight model, 60% correct avionics and only 50% correct radar and weapon systems would still be more fun to fly than the actual F-15 and A-10 because of the new and wider range of capabilities and possibilities Viper and Hornet offer. Those aircraft would enhance LockOn as a whole and attract new users.

 

I am sorry. It is absolutely not enough information in the internet.

And I am not sure that we are able now to make even 30% correct weapons systems for F/A-18. If you know "secret places" with any info which could be usefull for avionics implementation so just let me know about them.

 

There is not so much people who provides to us something a really usefull and unique regarding avionics and/or weapons systems. Even if it would be possible to get all the needed info after the initial release of the game, it would be very strange (and risky - near to suicide for us as we still to be a commercial company) to implement most of cockpit features in a following patches. We are trying now to bring more fidelity to avionics which are in current development.

[pudknocker]

Originally Posted by Manny

I just can't wait till the F-14 is scrapped in preference for JSF and weget the damn manuals at last finally.

 

:icon_evil

YOU SOULD BE SHOT. for saying they need to scrap it

LOOK WHAT THEY DOING TO MY BIRD, :icon_cry: http://http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_119a.html

THEY TURN THIS LOVLY LOOKING DREAM MASHINE IN TO JSF.

 

 

 

 

 

>>> sorry<<<

 

lee harvey oswald got away with giving th ussr top secret info ...

[Bungle_uk]

Pudknocker, please dont post such pictures, I find them offensive and they give me nightmares :)

[Manny]

@ Olgerd:

 

1st: Thankx for doing anything at all to support the genre.

 

2nd: The argument not to model an aircraft because you don´t know everything about it is lame and does not count.

According to this argumentation ED could have never released any Su-27 or LO simulation because there was always new information to be discovered and incorporated into patches or new versions.

You still don´t know all details about the Su´s and the Mig but you still model them.

I appreciate that you raise the quality standards for yourself but do not hide cowardly behind them. Step forward and admit: "This is the best we could do. It´s not perfect, but it´s the best we could do. And we did it."

Everyone will respect you for trying and further information, hints and input will flow that you can incorporate in patches.

Why should anyone share his knowledge with you when you announce not to use it and not to try right from the start?

I am very shure that there is absolutely enough information on the internet, in older games and in the forums of the reallife and simpilots communities to model any western 1960s-1980s combat aircraft to a level of detail that makes everybody happy.

And those who are still not happy will tell you why and share their information and you can further improve your product.

 

Please keep at least trying and everything will keep getting better and better!

 

An F-16 or F-18 in LockOn with 80% correct flight model, 60% correct avionics and only 50% correct radar and weapon systems would still be more fun to fly than the actual F-15 and A-10 because of the new and wider range of capabilities and possibilities Viper and Hornet offer. Those aircraft would enhance LockOn as a whole and attract new users.

 

Eggsfrigginzachly. There are still classified items Sukhoi wil lnot release to Eagle Dynamics. Never stopped em from modelling the Flanker? Did the manufacturer of the R-77 give ED their classified operating docs on th emissile? No! But ED still managed to make it's operation realistic.

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Manny

I just can't wait till the F-14 is scrapped in preference for JSF and weget the damn manuals at last finally.

 

:icon_evil

YOU SOULD BE SHOT. for saying they need to scrap it

LOOK WHAT THEY DOING TO MY BIRD, :icon_cry: http://http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_119a.html

THEY TURN THIS LOVLY LOOKING DREAM MASHINE IN TO JSF.

 

 

 

 

 

>>> sorry<<<

 

lee harvey oswald got away with giving th ussr top secret info ...

 

Nooooo!!! My Tomcat ... Hey maybe ED can go buy it and build the F-14 from it?

 

I apologize Pudknocker I do not want to see the F-14 scrapped hehe.

Perhaps you and I can go rescue that bird and rebuild it? :p

[Olgerd]

Eggsfrigginzachly. There are still classified items Sukhoi wil lnot release to Eagle Dynamics. Never stopped em from modelling the Flanker? Did the manufacturer of the R-77 give ED their classified operating docs on th emissile? No! But ED still managed to make it's operation realistic.

 

I mean the unavaliability of an information for making of the clickable cockpit. Much more detailed information about avionics is needed for this. Do you see the difference?

 

P.S.

Even doing current implementation of Su-27 we had much more information on weapon systems than we have now for F-18.

[Woodstock]

Hi Olgerd!

I see the difference and I see your point.

I think the issue is purely philosophical:

You say, you cannot do something because you do not have enough information about a system or a weapon to simulate it near 100% real. That´s why you do not simulate it at all.

I say, you are game developers and not government contractors tasked to build a Sim for RussianAirforce pilots to train systems and procedures.

In my opinion, you have the right to take the available information and fill the gaps with your imagination. I would love to see you just use pictures of an aircraft cockpit and go through every switch trying to understand what it does. If you have info about it - great, if not, try to logically imagine. A starter switch spools up an engine, a fuel pump switch builds up fuel pressure, a fuel cutoff switch ignites an engine when opened at the right time during spool. It also shuts off the engine after the flight.

I absolutely wouldn´t mind if the hydraulic pressure value was wrong, if the engine EGT/TIT peaks during startup was right, if Sochi-Adler had the correct ILS frequency to dial into NAV1 or if the real INS had 10 or 12 waypoint storages, as long as I had those systems AT ALL to PLAY with.

 

You know from time to time I play a little F4AF, I admit it... (Yes, come on, everyone throw their cups at me, I can hear you booooing...;))

And I love all those switches, functions, systems etc. because they show me the knowledge, training and workload capabilities it really takes to be a fighter pilot. I still don´t care if Falcon modells any system correctly. I will never get to fly a real viper unless Independence Day arrives and alcoholized Vietnam vets are out of stock..., so why bother?

But I enjoy beeing challenged with all those systems in a complex environment.

And when I return to LockOn because of all the better and good things it has and because it´s where my heart and squadmates are, I am still a little down because I think: if this (LO) is how it is to operate (not fight) a fighter jet, then my mom could be a jet pilot...

 

This is the point where I think you are philosophically wrong because LockOn would be so much deeper, more immersive and more FUN if you would dare modelling something that is only correct to the known point.

At least there would be SOMETHING instead of NOTHING.

Who would blame you for not knowing classified information?

 

God, I wish you guys would dare being imperfect!

 

I hope nobody regards me as notoriously critical. My complaints are an expression of my utmost dedication to the genre for 13 years now and of my suffering from the desolate state in which it currently is. Cheers!:icon_jook

[wsoul2k]

Flight manual isn't the only thing that is needed. A manual for the tactical instruments are very important.

 

I have posted an question some time ago...

 

 

ED have TAC manual to all flyables in Lockon ? :cool:

[Olgerd]

I have posted an question some time ago...

 

 

ED have TAC manual to all flyables in Lockon ? :cool:

 

Now for all except of Su-25T.

[Olgerd]

Hi Olgerd!

I see the difference and I see your point.

I think the issue is purely philosophical:

You say, you cannot do something because you do not have enough information about a system or a weapon to simulate it near 100% real. That´s why you do not simulate it at all.

I say, you are game developers and not government contractors tasked to build a Sim for RussianAirforce pilots to train systems and procedures.

In my opinion, you have the right to take the available information and fill the gaps with your imagination. I would love to see you just use pictures of an aircraft cockpit and go through every switch trying to understand what it does. If you have info about it - great, if not, try to logically imagine. A starter switch spools up an engine, a fuel pump switch builds up fuel pressure, a fuel cutoff switch ignites an engine when opened at the right time during spool. It also shuts off the engine after the flight.

I absolutely wouldn´t mind if the hydraulic pressure value was wrong, if the engine EGT/TIT peaks during startup was right, if Sochi-Adler had the correct ILS frequency to dial into NAV1 or if the real INS had 10 or 12 waypoint storages, as long as I had those systems AT ALL to PLAY with.

 

You know from time to time I play a little F4AF, I admit it... (Yes, come on, everyone throw their cups at me, I can hear you booooing...;))

And I love all those switches, functions, systems etc. because they show me the knowledge, training and workload capabilities it really takes to be a fighter pilot. I still don´t care if Falcon modells any system correctly. I will never get to fly a real viper unless Independence Day arrives and alcoholized Vietnam vets are out of stock..., so why bother?

But I enjoy beeing challenged with all those systems in a complex environment.

And when I return to LockOn because of all the better and good things it has and because it´s where my heart and squadmates are, I am still a little down because I think: if this (LO) is how it is to operate (not fight) a fighter jet, then my mom could be a jet pilot...

 

This is the point where I think you are philosophically wrong because LockOn would be so much deeper, more immersive and more FUN if you would dare modelling something that is only correct to the known point.

At least there would be SOMETHING instead of NOTHING.

Who would blame you for not knowing classified information?

 

God, I wish you guys would dare being imperfect!

 

I hope nobody regards me as notoriously critical. My complaints are an expression of my utmost dedication to the genre for 13 years now and of my suffering from the desolate state in which it currently is. Cheers!:icon_jook

 

How we can guess MFD options and/or visual appearance of it's indication (accounting all it's modes)? Usually there are many details that never will be known without apropriate data. This also must be accounted, as MFD would be implemented as clickable at first. I only trying to say that the lack of such info is a big problem. You want to get F-18 in any level of implementation, but we want to do it better that we done it before.

In any case I am only can say about avionics. I am sorry, I am not making final desicions - there could be may other reasons for doing, not doing or doing but later of any new aircraft.

Of course we are trying to obtain something about avionics. Sooner or later we will get what we need I think.

[wsoul2k]

Thank you for yor fast reply Olerg :D

 

How we can guess MFD options and/or visual appearance of it's indication (accounting all it's modes)?

 

F-15 in lock on have all the MFD modes modeled ??

 

Usually there are many details that never will be known without apropriate data. This also must be accounted, as MFD would be implemented as clickable at first.

 

Well even if the MFD is not clicable the functions of it have to be mapped to the keyboard rigth ?? :cool: ...this is not the diferential factor here

 

I only trying to say that the lack of such info is a big problem. You want to get F-18 in any level of implementation, but we want to do it better that we done it before.

 

Ok ...now i get the point....a new standart of realism is needed rigth now to be classified as a flyable.

 

this mean if the F-15 was not in Lock On as a flyable yet and it have to be done with the info ED have on its FIRST version of Lock On maybe it could be left out of Lock On ??

 

I mean from the first version of Lock On the Actual Info for the F-18 is Ok but for the new ED standart is is not enougth ?

 

Im Rigth ??

 

Of course we are trying to obtain something about avionics. Sooner or later we will get what we need I think.

 

Can you tell me how you will get this info as they are classified ?? or you have to kill me after that ?? :D

[britgliderpilot]

Ok ...now i get the point....a new standart of realism is needed rigth now to be classified as a flyable.

 

this mean if the F-15 was not in Lock On as a flyable yet and it have to be done with the info ED have on its FIRST version of Lock On maybe it could be left out of Lock On ??

 

I mean from the first version of Lock On the Actual Info for the F-18 is Ok but for the new ED standart is is not enougth ?

 

Im Rigth ??

 

Reading down, I see quotes saying that ED have the TAC manuals for all aircraft in Lomac except the Su25T, and that the information they have on the Hornet is "much less" than the information used to model the Su27 avionics. That's the originally modelled Su27 avionics, before any potential realism upgrades.

 

 

 

Can you tell me how you will get this info as they are classified ?? or you have to kill me after that ?? :D

 

On this - as I understand it, all the USN manuals are classified because they contain weapons data.

 

What I'm wondering is whether any of the other countries with the Hornet have a flight manual which is unclassified.

 

Just a thought.

[Olgerd]

Can you tell me how you will get this info as they are classified?

 

I am sorry. I am slightly bored to answer third time on the same question. Just try to use forum search and you will find my explanations why it is possible to obtain some manuals and some not. I hope I don't need to explain same for russian planes. It is a different story.

 

And answering to the rest... No. We never had enough info on F-18 yet. JaBoG32_Woodstock just offered to me to guess cockpit switches and buttons functions. This was my attempt to answer him.

Regarding to F-15. Presuming following questions I will answer that it would be pleasure for us to remake this aircraft, but... not right now.

[Woodstock]

Olgerd wrote:

How we can guess MFD options and/or visual appearance of it's indication (accounting all it's modes)? Usually there are many details that never will be known without apropriate data. This also must be accounted, as MFD would be implemented as clickable at first. I only trying to say that the lack of such info is a big problem. You want to get F-18 in any level of implementation, but we want to do it better that we done it before.

In any case I am only can say about avionics. I am sorry, I am not making final desicions - there could be may other reasons for doing, not doing or doing but later of any new aircraft.

Of course we are trying to obtain something about avionics. Sooner or later we will get what we need I think.

Thanks Olgerd for your reply. It is not that much a new flyable like an F-18 I am talking about. I can live with the existing inventory.

I am much more talking about upgrading and enhancing what is already there. Deeper and better systems simulation of Su-27/33/25(T), Mig, F-15C and A-10, that´s what I am talking about.

I quote myself from a different thread:

The point is not comparing old to new sims. The point that absolutely drives me nuts is that good, immersive features that were there once and that made a sim good, are left out again in the next generation. Everybody tries to re-invent the wheel without sticking to things that worked before. There is no real evolution, just different approaches with new highlights.:(

 

If we compared LockOn to Microproses Fleet Defender (and F-15E SE III), which we don´t...;)

...I would immediately recall the following features where the oldies beat LockOn:

- working MasterArm switch

- (partly) clickable cockpit

- formation lights with multiple dim stages

- two human players as front- and backseater in one aircraft (F-15E SE III, e.g via PCtoPC, zero-modem-cable)

 

What I´m trying to say is that it´s the small things that count. The small details that are just "right". Let me give you one example:

I do a lot of instruction at vJaBoG32 and from time to time a recruit asks:

"Why do I have to switch on nav lights during ramp start, I know from FS2004 that those are for night/bad weather only?"

And I have to reply "It´s because there are no beacon light, anticollision lights or formation lights to do their jobs in LO so we use navlights for compensation."

And I innerly curse and swear about LO because those little features were there before, some of them more than a decade ago. They were right and now they are gone.

I regularly sob everytime I visit the LO options menu and see things like "Altimeter Pressure Increase/Decrease" sitting there and doing... - nothing!:icon_frow ;)

 

I don´t need no fancy helicopter, I don´t need another F-16. What I really would love to see is credible improvement and overhaul of what is already there, paying attention to details that greatly enhance immersion.

Here´s my wishlist:

- clickable cockpit for all existing aircraft

- in-depth system simulation: (fuel, engines, electricity, hydraulic, lighting, communication)

- navigation systems (TACAN receivers, functional HSI, INS/IRS with Lat/Long)

- a LockOn world that supports radio navigation (TACAN stations or whatever the russian counterpart is, ILS frequencies)

- 6DOF head (view) movement in all aircraft

- AFM for all aircraft

 

I am willing to pay > €100.- for an addon delivering just the abovementioned items.

And I would be willing to pay even more for a LockOn 2.0 with reworked code, same graphics quality but better performance, dedicated server software, multiclient-multicrew-cockpits, advanced damage models for all and a few gimmicks more.

Still no need for chopper or Viper...

...If you really need to add more flyables, then make it contemporary allweather fighter-bombers with ground radar and SEAD capabilities.

Something like Tornado vs. Su-24 Fencer comes to mind...:D

 

My two cents.

 

S! @ll

[SUBS17]

NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1 US Navy F-14D flight manual (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1, dated February 1st, 1997). http://www.patricksaviation.com/files.php

 

Olgerd, please point your browser accordingly. I think an F-14 would make a fine addition to LO-MAC particularly since that aircraft is the least modeled in the flight simulation genre. The F/A-18, like the F-16, is modeled to death and would certainly bore me.

 

Of course the F-14 is a two-seater and that would , of course, encourage you to incorporate cooperative play ...

 

Theres no mention of weapons operation in this manual. TAC manuals are not likely to ever be made declasified until the Navy decides it no longer requires it. Keep an eye out though, maybe one day it might appear on the net.

[SUBS17]

Hi, I am 14yr, and new to this sim. i really have enjoyed it. But I have a few questions

 

1. is there any hope of an official F-14 addon insted of the F-16?

 

2. in the top_gun_v3 is there any way to swing the wings in mid-flight?

 

3. is there a way to fix the AfterBurners?

 

4. Is there a better more F-14 "like" flight model ?

 

5. should i just stop mesing with this mod ?

 

If you like the F14 then there are two quite good flight sims to get. F14 Fleet Defender is ok but Topgun Fire at will is much better, you'll have alot of fun if you've never played it before. And yes the RIO talks:D

[pudknocker]

Topgun Fire is that an arcade sim

[SUBS17]

Topgun Fire at will is a good sim, probably better than alot of Sims because of the way it runs.(best background chatter of any flight sim)