ED, take notes, please...

[Shepski]

As far as I know Fighter Ops is the next Falcon5 and its based on that X-engine

and as per developers it will see the light in 4Q 2006. It will have dynamic campaign in the future, and more AC will be added as time passes. Developers even said that cockpits will look even better then Black Shark 6DOF (it was on forum). So lets hope it will be a Lokcon killer.

Todays representation of radar in Lockon is unmatched, but I bet those developers have their copies of this game and learn their lessons. ED is falling behind with this silly Black Shark addon which most likely will not cut it.

Time will show.

 

So in Q4 2006 we will see the release of a training only simulator from what I understand, training aircraft including the Turbo-Texan, and the T-38. No actual combat unless it's blue on blue in a training scenario in the Nevada desert.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong and we don't need any "killers", we need dedicated developers that produce quality.

[DarkStar]

 

And wouldn't your former argument that Falcon4 had a dynamic campaign already in 1998 apply to Fighter Ops as well then...? ;)

 

Hi.

 

The difference here is that Micropose had a contract with a publisher, XSI don't so they won't get any money untill they release a product, and then they can include a dynamic campaign later on.

 

Shepski you are basicly right, the first module consists of the training package with the Nevada in focus. Combat aircraft will be added later, the general idea is that you will go through a training program (like the real one) and then qualify for the combat aircrafts.

[Caretaker]

Hi.

 

The difference here is that Micropose had a contract with a publisher, XSI don't so they won't get any money untill they release a product, and then they can include a dynamic campaign later on.

 

I know :) I was only commenting on SHTOPOR's previous remark that Lock On should have a dynamic campaign because Falcon4 already had one in 1998. If it was that easy, then consequently the same could be demanded from XSI. Neither ED nor XSI can however compete with the manpower that Microprose could throw at the Falcon4 development, and even then did the campaign leave a lot to be desired initially, and required additional years of community development to work as intended.

[DarkStar]

lol, sry my bad then :)

[Guest 609_SHTOPOR]

I didn't mean they had to have Dynamic campaign in, they should have Lockon the way that it could be implemented at a later stage. If such possibi.ity existed, I doubt ED would have to start making a new sim now as LOMAC doesn't look old by any means, its just unability to implement dynamic campaign into existing code that puts ED to square one again (though some chunks of code will most likely go to new project). As far as this discussion is

about request to ED to take notes, then why not now to follow the same path, which would be create new sim with default fighters, and then make unflyable AC/helos flyable addons for those who are interested, then add dynamic campaign or vise versa. This approach seems logical to me and all

I want is to share it with you, so developers can read our discussion AND

TAKE NOTES which is the original intention of this thread.

[504 Wolverine]

You seem pretty hung up on 1.2 (or an unwanted helo/silly black shark addon as you call it) Well browsing the russian part of the forums tells me that the vast majority are looking foward to it, 1C are also looking forward to it and a hell of a lot of people here are looking forward to it. Its far from unwanted.

[Bublik]

You seem pretty hung up on 1.2 (or an unwanted helo/silly black shark addon as you call it) Well browsing the russian part of the forums tells me that the vast majority are looking foward to it, 1C are also looking forward to it and a hell of a lot of people here are looking forward to it. Its far from unwanted.

 

I'd say the majority of the russian part of the forum is waiting for possible improvements in fixed-wings area of the sim in 1.2, considering the chopper as an added bonus :)

[504 Wolverine]

I'd say the majority of the russian part of the forum is waiting for possible improvements in fixed-wings area of the sim in 1.2, considering the chopper as an added bonus :)

 

As I said, they are looking forward to 1.2. :)

[mjolner]

I for one am fully confident in ED. They offer the most advanced combat flight sim on the market that keeps us all coming back.

 

The Su25T is the model of what a combat sim should be with current technology. They dont need to take notes, they have set the standard.

 

With my hard earned cash I want the best I can buy that is currently on the market, and that my friends is LOMAC.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

So lets hope it will be a Lokcon killer.

Flaming Cliffs is currently the best combat flight simulator on the market. We should not waste our time discussing Fighter Ops until it is released. I will never buy a combat flight sim that does not offer competing technologies such as, F-15, Su-27. So if Fighter Ops want my money, they will have to come up with more than just F-15 as flyable. Maybe Mirage or even Sukhoi, why not!

[GGTharos]

Hajduk hits the nail on the head ... no other sim really offers you this sort of east v. west competition.

 

We have it all. COmplete with the 'my stuff's better than your stuff', 'that side gets more attention than this side' and 'I don't care about the other side, give this to my side' threads ;)

[SuperKungFu]

i say ED should give AFM to the Su-27 and the F-15. That way both sides gets an improvement and every1 is happy. I chose these 2 planes because they are sorta the backbone of the game.

[Woodstock]

i say ED should give AFM to the Su-27 and the F-15. That way both sides gets an improvement and every1 is happy. I chose these 2 planes because they are sorta the backbone of the game.

"Boooooooooooooooooo!" <- Me has to say, being a hog :icon_syda driver...:horseback :icon_supe

[Goob]

I've been flying xplane since version 5. The scenery is cool but is actually not as refined as lomac. I mean you can land the space shuttle from outerspace for chrissakes. They just don't have the little details likes trees and water as nice as lomac. They do however have carriers and ships that bob/weave in the water. Trying to land a V-22 on the back of a small freighter at night in a lightning storm is freeeeeaaaky.

 

They both have their specialties, x-plane is very open and general, lomac has a more closed environment but planes and objects are more refined.

 

They're both fun,

 

169th_g00b

[Pilotasso]

Flaming Cliffs is currently the best combat flight simulator on the market. We should not waste our time discussing Fighter Ops until it is released. I will never buy a combat flight sim that does not offer competing technologies such as, F-15, Su-27. So if Fighter Ops want my money, they will have to come up with more than just F-15 as flyable. Maybe Mirage or even Sukhoi, why not!

 

Not wanting to hijack this thread but I just flown the Su-33, and being an F-15 driver I was pretty successfull. Regarding the other thread you were complaining abou the russian birds, watch this kill score. ;)

[Roman G]

Agree with opinion that x-plane is missing low-level detail like trees and so on. That is what is actually most important to me (regarding graphics)- I am usually flying below 3000 feet. High altitute mountains mesh however seems better than the one in LoMac. Despite x-plane's defficiencies - it is pretty amazing achievement considering that x-plane is one-person-team project.

 

Here is interesting article on Popular Science about the X-Plane's developer:

 

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/78ec5b4a1db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not wanting to hijack this thread but I just flown the Su-33, and being an F-15 driver I was pretty successfull. Regarding the other thread you were complaining abou the russian birds, watch this kill score. ;)

Hmm, let us see. You are not experienced Su-33 driver, yet you were better then F-15’s. Well, I’ll not really comment here.

 

Next, I did not complain about the Russian birds on that “other” thread. I was complaining about mission builders not including GCI/AWACS on their on line maps, although that is how Su-27 is designed to work in real life. Thus, Su-27 and Su-33 are not the airplanes of choice in on line games any more.

 

And third and final! I said on that other thread and will say it again here. I am done with that other thread and will not comment on it any more.

 

Regards,

[jabog32_zillion]

well... writing my **** off talking about dynamic campaigns in another thread i haven't even seen this thread or discussion yet...

 

Well I think we do have an outstanding sim here, maybe on of the best comabat sims around... and I am very fortunate it will continue to be that way...

Someone please guide with a link of this mysterious project that looked so much like ED i saw in this forum 6 months ago or more. Something about a war sim with simulation of ships, planes helicopters and tanks, forward air controllers and so on.... really can't find it anymore...

 

And x-plane is just another league, and i dont mean the gfx. It just not a comabt sim. X-Planes has even been used for airplane protoyping and has a completly different market share compared to lockon, focusing on real sim-nerds in more civil rather than military fashion. Starting from satellite imagery for textures to full reallife navigation systems support and probaby most exciting the ability to import your own airplanes and have the engine calculate a flight model by approximating an airfoil according to the 3d shape. Really and honestly if thats what we wanted, at least i, would play x-plane and MS FS instead of lockon and maybe falcon.

 

So lets wait what ED will offer to us... I'm optimistic

[Reticuli]

I find it odd that Fighter Ops is using the X-Plane programming interface, but replacing the flight modeling. Actually, I find it odd that they'd use X-Plane at all.

 

The core of X-Plane's realism comes from its derived realtime flight modeling. As jabog said above, it's capable of being used to test a prototype airframe design. Mentions by XSI that it's not very good at high speed aircraft modeling are erroneous. It's excellent. The best jet flight model elsewhere is probably Janes F-15 (minus some hidden glitches). The primary issues with X-Plane and high speed jets are 1) the aircraft design itself, and 2) X-Plane's simple feedback-based fly by wire flight control system.

 

If the aircraft is not extremely painstakingly modeled and test flown to ensure you got it right, it will perform more and more inaccurately the higher speeds you fly at and the more extreme stuff you attempt to do. Austin's F-4 is excellent. Barry's FA-18's are awful (a mach 4 superplane). Yet if you compare the designs within Planemaker they seem o.k. The attention to detail required is huge, but the F-4, F-15's, B-1's, and a few others are proof it's possible

 

Next, the X-Plane fly by wire sytem is mostly positive feedback based. There is some limiting available, but it it is in the form of very coarse, large limits & corrections. Most real flight limiting is done with a combination of large, infrequent alterations of inputs, combined with frequent, small alterations. The feedback system in X-Plane can do this, but not the limiting system. As if this wasn't basic enough, flight laws are even more simplistic: which control surfaces do what at a given speed/AoA/alt. So in X-Plane (assuming your FPS is high enough) you can keep the aircraft reasonably stable, prevent yaw/pitch/roll over a certain amount (albeit in sudden constraints), and similar simple methods of artificial stability. But it will never allow an F-16 to fly like an F-16 with its full computer control system. It can feel like an F-16 with a more basic fly by wire, or an F-15 E with something resembling the real aircraft, or better yet, an F-4 with no FBW FCS at all...assuming the designs are to a high enough fidelity.

 

Now, it thus makes sense for fly by wire aircraft you might want to not use the X-Plane flight modeling system. But for the trainers, you'll have a better flight experience in the actual X-Plane. I have a payware Texan, and it flies fabulously. O.k., but as stated above, I can see why you might not want it. But if you did use it for combat, guess what...it wouldn't even work in the first place. The CPU speed/cycles required to do the X-Plane flight dynamics are enormous. It's so taxing, in fact, that with version 8 scenary running (the new global stuff is no more no less taxing than standard v8) you can't even have impact caclulations for all the buildings and objects, including other aircraft. They're all ghosts you can fly through in v8 because of this. X-Plane cannot be converted into a combat sim unless our computers becoming many times faster than they already are. There is one dog fighting patch for X-Plane and all it boils down to is a sort of Top Gun type laser tag system where you don't even shoot anything at the other guy. It keeps track of when hypothetically he would be hit if you were shooting...but of course you're not.

 

So why have I explained all this? Because, so what's the point of Fighter Ops using the X-Plane programming interface, advertising that fact, but not even using the flight modeling system...which is impossible at this point with the current power of computers in the first place. What's the benefit to the user? Sure there's great modeling for tire friction and lots of other non-aerodynamic stuff, but the primary reason X-Plane beats the hell out of other sims (flight modeling) must be eliminated from it for conversion to a combat sim, let alone one with radar modeling, AI, and enemy vehicals, too. It may be that X-Plane has enough stuff going for it that even without the flight modeling it still beats the pants off of other code foundations they could be using. Their FAQ, though, with all the talk about the FAA and such seems kind of dishonest. Just because they're using X-Plane's interface doesn't mean the project will inherently be superior, and the fact that the real X-Plane flight modeling must be removed for you to even run it on your computer (they attribute it erroneously to deficiencies in it) means it's still in the same boat as nearly every sim ever made. Lomac, Falcon, and Janes/EA had real pilots and weapons/avionics experts contributing to their products and said the same thing about getting it as close to realistic as possible. And yet there's still a big variation in all those products.

[emenance]

great thoughts, maybe we will be flying in cars by the time we can have real life graphics in any combat game.

[Kula66]

i say ED should give AFM to the Su-27 and the F-15. That way both sides gets an improvement and every1 is happy. I chose these 2 planes because they are sorta the backbone of the game.

 

Agreed, hope they both see improvement ... the Ka-50 looks great, but for me, of the features so far announced, the missile AFM will be the reason I buy 1.2 ...

 

This sim is getting alot of development in the gound attack line ... lets hope A2A gets it's share ...

 

Any other leaks of 1.2 features for A2A junkies?