A quest for knowledge

[Manny]

I would like to know, in this thread, why ED is opposed to developing certain aircraft? ED stated they are working on Two-seat code and they have Flight Manuals to several aircraft. I understand they nned TAC manuals but in the absence of this information, is it not possible to work around that, perhaps consult with real world pilots operating the aircraft, etc.?

 

It has been suggested the F/A-18 be modelled as a preferred choice aircraft. I think not. Where is ED's vision, their imagination, their unique approach to developing LO-MAC?

 

I would like ED to chime in. I have followed their progress since the Su-27 Demo and I would really like to see their sim not become another Janues USAF, another Janes F/A-18, another Falcon 4, another copy of something that already exists.

 

What about the F-14, the Mirage 2000, something other then the norm. This is driving me batty :rolleyes:

[Yellonet]

Consultation often results in opinions rather than fact.

And I'm sure that the pilots aren't allowed to reveal anything classified...

 

BTW, is F-14 used that much today?

[504 Wolverine]

BTW, is F-14 used that much today?

 

Only used by Iran now.

[GGTharos]

Maybe you should search the forum.

 

ED does NOT have easy access to said pilots for western aircraft. Simple enough for an answer?

 

And, in keeping with as realistic as possible modelling and ED's new technology, the TAC manual cannot -really- be 'gotten around'.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand?

 

By the way, the Mirage 2000 manual is even harder to obtain than the F-14's, probably.

 

THose manuals also contain flight profile data and aerodynamic data which, again, are important.

 

Weapon delivery parameters are also important.

 

Everyone liked the Kh-31 and would have loved to shoot it from their frog, but there's a problem! That missile need to be launched at pretty high speed to ignite its engine tobegin with!

 

That's the sort of stuff that's needed and is described in those manuals.

[S77th-GOYA]

not become another Janues USAF, another Janes F/A-18, another Falcon 4, another copy of something that already exists.

 

You seem to be fixated on this. Where did you get the idea that ED will produce copies of those games? Your opinion that ED should not model a flyable 16 or 18 is known. As far as the 18 is concerned you are in a minority in the western market. This community has been asking for the 18 for quite a while now. There is a desire for a NATO fast mover A2G/fighter jet capable of carrier ops to add to the mix of already flyable planes in LOMAC.

 

None of those games had flyable Russian planes. Anything ED produces surely will.

[Sleek]

Manny...please don't take this personally..but judging by ur Thread's I don't think u'll ever be happy with what ED developes..just my opinion ;)

[Manny]

Manny...please don't take this personally..but judging by ur Thread's I don't think u'll ever be happy with what ED developes..just my opinion ;)

 

Hehe ... Nahh I just don't wanna wait till some title like fighter Ops comes along and does what ED could do. As I wrote, I followed ED through the Su-27 Demo so I am quite pleased with what thay have done thus far.

 

I would like to see more innovation to LO-MAC. The possibility to implement what has not been done before or in a long time.

[Manny]

You seem to be fixated on this. Where did you get the idea that ED will produce copies of those games? Your opinion that ED should not model a flyable 16 or 18 is known. As far as the 18 is concerned you are in a minority in the western market. This community has been asking for the 18 for quite a while now. There is a desire for a NATO fast mover A2G/fighter jet capable of carrier ops to add to the mix of already flyable planes in LOMAC.

 

None of those games had flyable Russian planes. Anything ED produces surely will.

 

Goya, I am not really fixated on this point, I simply want to see LO-MAC become more than these simple-minded F4:AF Pit Trainer fanbois think it is. There is a lot of potential LO-MAC has and it can be harnessed by what ED does in the near future. I also don't wanna move away from ED because another sim provides me more than what Ed could.

[Manny]

Maybe you should search the forum.

 

ED does NOT have easy access to said pilots for western aircraft. Simple enough for an answer?

 

And, in keeping with as realistic as possible modelling and ED's new technology, the TAC manual cannot -really- be 'gotten around'.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand?

 

By the way, the Mirage 2000 manual is even harder to obtain than the F-14's, probably.

 

THose manuals also contain flight profile data and aerodynamic data which, again, are important.

 

Weapon delivery parameters are also important.

 

Everyone liked the Kh-31 and would have loved to shoot it from their frog, but there's a problem! That missile need to be launched at pretty high speed to ignite its engine tobegin with!

 

That's the sort of stuff that's needed and is described in those manuals.

 

GG, I am keenly aware of this and since ED will not model solely Russian aircraft, perhaps they are willing to be just as innovative as Microprose who modelled the F-14, etc. for example.

[Manny]

Only used by Iran now.

 

Wolverine, surely you jest unless the Navy has made a rash decision to toss all their F-14s overboard immediately.

[SebTom]

Mommm... they're doin' it again... :(

[GGTharos]

GG, I am keenly aware of this and since ED will not model solely Russian aircraft, perhaps they are willing to be just as innovative as Microprose who modelled the F-14, etc. for example.

 

Okay, and in case you haven't gotten the hint yet, the answer, glimpsed for various posts by ED on this and the russian language forum, is no ;)

 

They want to model it like it is. Not like they think it is, which in their experience tends to end up being wrong.

 

Anyway, that's what I glimpsed from their posts anyway. ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

Since Microprose has modeled the 14, it wouldn't really be innovative, would it?

 

Why do you care what F4 fans think?

[Pilotasso]

Hehe ... Nahh I just don't wanna wait till some title like fighter Ops comes along and does what ED could do.

 

I dont think that will ever happen. Even when you have several developer teams working on the same planes, the aproach to them and the final product will be very different. We've seen it through the years. There were lots of F-16 and F-18 SIM's, but they all had the good and bad points, in realism or other areas, in features and such.

 

To be honest I dont know wich of the 2 F-16 SIM's will come out first. Fighter ops is made up by a new team. Mind referring that their DEMO is long behind schedule. ED is more experienced and has made several products, many wich became classics. IMHO I'm counting ED's version to be the most probable of materializing and be something I will like. I only hold alot of questions about fighter ops. Many indeed.

[Cobra360]

Wolverine, surely you jest unless the Navy has made a rash decision to toss all their F-14s overboard immediately.

 

They have only two F-14 squadrons left as of now. Both are operating F-14Ds and are on their last cruise now due to end in 2006.

 

The last two are VF-31, the Tomcatters, and VF-213, the Black Lions.

[DayGlow]

GG, I am keenly aware of this and since ED will not model solely Russian aircraft, perhaps they are willing to be just as innovative as Microprose who modelled the F-14, etc. for example.

 

Well, the level of detail that is expected by the flight-sim community is light-years ahead of what was modelled in Fleet Defender. If ED released a sim that was contemporary to that sim it would be roasted by the community.

 

The level of detail needed to build a sim today is so much more complex from the classics it's not fair to compare them.

[Woodstock]

Well, the level of detail that is expected by the flight-sim community is light-years ahead of what was modelled in Fleet Defender. If ED released a sim that was contemporary to that sim it would be roasted by the community.

 

The level of detail needed to build a sim today is so much more complex from the classics it's not fair to compare them.

 

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

[Bublik]

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 and a few gimmicks more.

Still no need for chopper or Viper...

 

For that I am ready to pay > 200, maybe even British pounds :D

As a matter of fact I have already stated in the Russian forums here, that I would buy LO 1.1x + AFM for Su-27 alone at €100.

 

The question is how many (crazy :)) fans like us out there, that are willing to pay a fair price for a modern sim.

[Woodstock]

The question is how many (crazy :)) fans like us out there, that are willing to pay a fair price for a modern sim.

I don´t know the total number, but I personally know at least 33 of that species...

 

...here´s where they linger and wait to throw their eurones and dollares at anyone with a good sim:

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=piloten&lang=en

 

:icon_excl

[hotray]

now we count at least 53 ;)

http://www.33rd.de/include.php?path=content/content.php&contentid=44

[VapoR]

I would pay $100 for that, and then another $50 for the add-on DC.