Fudd Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 How many of you think that the crying and complaining would never end if ED implemented AFM, AWM, high polygon model and 6DOF only for the SU-33 and SU-27 as the last Lock-On project? :( The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Its not worth complaining IMHO. You cant ask for anything your minds comes up with for each individual and demand that to be donne in usefull time even if it need unnatural man hours to be donne. ED made some mistakes in their choices but now its too late to complain. All we can do is to provide guidelines and suggestions to material we want to have based on what we missed the most with current products. .
Fudd Posted January 27, 2006 Author Posted January 27, 2006 Do you think that part of the reason why Lock-On will be finished after 1.2 is because if ED implements advanced features for aircraft originally flyable in 1.0, that people will cry if it isnt done for all the flyable aircraft? The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Bungle_uk Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 People will cry and complain whatever ED does. We will always want a little more.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Do you think that part of the reason why Lock-On will be finished after 1.2 is because if ED implements advanced features for aircraft originally flyable in 1.0, that people will cry if it isnt done for all the flyable aircraft? No. ED planned too much for LOMAC. It only became worse when they piked up Flanker 2.5 and then changed plans for a new seperate product wich has cut lots of usefull time if there was no temptation to prolong an old products life in the first place. Based on what has been acomplished with the resourses they have they can plan better the future product. Theres no point for cryin FM for all aircraft in 1.2 or any futher xpansion because it will delay new SIM's wich might bring the exact same features were crying over. We can only tell them what we prefer to see, and if many poeple want the same thing well get it, as long as its feasible. .
Fudd Posted January 27, 2006 Author Posted January 27, 2006 No. ED planned too much for LOMAC. It only became worse when they piked up Flanker 2.5 and then changed plans for a new seperate product wich has cut lots of usefull time if there was no temptation to prolong an old products life in the first place. Based on what has been acomplished with the resourses they have they can plan better the future product. Theres no point for cryin FM for all aircraft in 1.2 or any futher xpansion because it will delay new SIM's wich might bring the exact same features were crying over. We can only tell them what we prefer to see, and if many poeple want the same thing well get it, as long as its feasible. So you think that asking for AFM and AWM for the rest of the aircraft is either unfeasible or not lucrative? Personally, I would pay up to $60 usd for just the SU's to have AFM and 6DOF The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 So you think that asking for AFM and AWM for the rest of the aircraft is either unfeasible or not lucrative? Personally, I would pay up to $60 usd for just the SU's to have AFM and 6DOF AFM will become ED's basic feature in future SIM according to what they said. I think it makes sense, we need real simulation technology progress. Through time We've been stuck with the same limitations and glitches for over 10 years in every simulation out there. You could give ED a million dollars for each aircrat you would like to see with AFM, without efectively getting them because its not humainly possible. Only 2 aircraft and a smaller Map but with DC and AFM each plane makes sense to me. Theres no point demanding more if theres no resourses for it. I feel that pain because I have had a crusade to find a SIM wich satisfies me in FM feeling and world immersion. Its been a wait most of my life and I have a feeling it could be a decade or more before that happens. .
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 I do feel the su27 has been "nerfed" in the 1.1. Now you can never stall the plane, and I actually miss that. You could do some cool moves by stalling the plane. And the landings just don't seem right for a flight sim. Also, that shaking thing it does when you go nose straight up at slow speed and it loses speed, is that realistic? I always thought that, since all of this started with the Flanker series, that the Su27/33 would get some attention. Now, it seems the focus is far from the su27. The Su27 has even one of the oldest 3d models. I agree with Fudd, I would pay serious money for something I really wanted, rather than pay a bit for something I won't really use. I mean, there are many who bought 1.1 for other things besides the Su25T.
S77th-GOYA Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 If only the Su's got AFM it would cause considerable damage to the online community, which is already weak. In trying to implement an A2G ladder for LomacLeague, it quickly became apparent that the 25 and 25T are at a disadvantage against the Hog because of their AFM. The Su's are already percieved as at a disadvantage in A2A servers by many, and that would undoubtedly magnify.
S77th-GOYA Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 The Su27 has even one of the oldest 3d models. http://www.cgtalk.ru/exc.php?id=sds
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Well, I always believed the su27 had high maneuverability, and I think the Su27 could take advantage of it more, and flying the 27 would feel more natural, if the 27 and 33 had the AFM. I never thought of the F15c doing cobras, or flying slow doing slow speed maneuvers, so giving the F15 an AFM wouldn't change the way it flew that much, besides landings. I think some people fly Lockon for certain planes, many of which fly for the 27 and 33.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 I do feel the su27 has been "nerfed" in the 1.1. Now you can never stall the plane, and I actually miss that. . "nerfed"? Its been boosted up. It flies and feels better, its more controllable, it turns better and it outperfoms the F-15 in a guns fight. I have been trying out the flanker ALOT in pure dogfights these past days, and I have news for you, you CAN still stall the flanker and perform amazing manuevers to force overshoots. Its still there but you have to use it differently. I always thought that, since all of this started with the Flanker series, that the Su27/33 would get some attention. Now, it seems the focus is far from the su27. The Su27 has even one of the oldest 3d models. Its realy funny to observe poeple complain about the flanker and then some days later someone complains the F-15 has been defanged in 1.1. In my view they both got more difficult to fly and they both got more realistic to fly even if there are some serious issues with the low speed envelope. This hapens because people get specialized in 1 plane and then they complain if it gets harder to master and get kills as you used to. 1.11 theres a QUATUM leap over 1.02 in terms of aircraft realism IMHO. I say NEVER again to funky chicken like flight models (1.02) .
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Goya, last I read on that was, ED didn't confirm whether they were using it. [EDIT]Did they confirm?
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Pilotasso, did you fly the Su27 before 1.1? It was harder to fly, but if you could fly it well, it was fun. What I meant by "nerfed" is, it's TOO easy to fly now. Sorry, guess I should have picked another word ;)
192nd_Erdem Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Pilotasso, did you fly the Su27 before 1.1? It was harder to fly, but if you could fly it well, it was fun. What I meant by "nerfed" is, it's TOO easy to fly now. Sorry, guess I should have picked another word ;) "Easy" as it should be. Su-27 and especially Su-33 felt like a truck before 1.1.It's much more realistic now.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Pilotasso, did you fly the Su27 before 1.1? It was harder to fly, but if you could fly it well, it was fun. What I meant by "nerfed" is, it's TOO easy to fly now. Sorry, guess I should have picked another word ;) Yeah I used to fly the flankers and MIG's alot. The real flanker was made to be highly controlable. In 1.02 it had a funky chicken feeling in roll, if you did certain moves with a high roll angle you would loose controll even if you havent pushed it particulary hard. Pull a few angles of AOA you could actualy visualise the flight models "seps", it almost felt the game was about to go off the valid domain of aircraft flight into something else. I have never been as god in guns as now. An frankly I want to try out all those amazing manuevers I see in the videos and not sopwith cammel like behaviour. .
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Pilotasso, if there was an issue about F15 A2A missiles here, I wouldn't question what you have to say. BUT, while you're flying F15s, I'm usually doing guns in an Su27, since the first day Lock On came out. So, I saw how the su27 evolved, and I think most would agree that in 1.1 the Su27 became much easier to fly. Realistic? Neither I nor you are an su27 pilot, so which of us can say? All I can say is, if the Su27 flies so realistic, why the need for AFM if it's so "realistic" now? [EDIT]So, I actually enjoyed flying a plane that was harder to fly.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 Pilotasso, if there was an issue about F15 A2A missiles here, I wouldn't question what you have to say. BUT, while you're flying F15s, I'm usually doing guns in an Su27, since the first day Lock On came out. So, I saw how the su27 evolved, and I think most would agree that in 1.1 the Su27 became much easier to fly. Realistic? Neither I nor you are an su27 pilot, so which of us can say? All I can say is, if the Su27 flies so realistic, why the need for AFM if it's so "realistic" now? I have a documentary on Su-27's development and in it the pilots stress the easiness and smoothness of the flankers flight. I am confused with the missconception people have "if-it-flies-like-crap-it-must-be-realistic". People underestimate modern jet perfomance capabilities, not even designers escaped such mental factors and some SIM's have them behave like propeler planes. I dont say 1.11 Su-27 FM is yet a good representation of the real thing but I do know its CLOSER that it was in 1.02. It used to fly like a kite and drop out of the sky for the sissiest of the things, at the same time I saw real aircraft perform only what I could only dream reproducing in 1.02. .
Jetfire Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 I have a documentary on Su-27's development ... This is good proof? Sure it can change your opinion, but that's about it. not even designers escaped such mental factors How do you know this? Proof please. but I do know its CLOSER that it was in 1.02... Funny how you know this too, without having a method to measure. Ok we digressed from the topic of complaining (or DID WE? haha j/k). Pilot, you have opinions, but proof would convince me. I guess Pilot I should have asked for good, solid proof, and a documentary doesn't apply, IMO.
192nd_Erdem Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 He may not have a good "measure" for your opinion,but he stated "your measure" well I think. I am confused with the missconception people have "if-it-flies-like-crap-it-must-be-realistic".
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 I have very fond memories of the months prior to LO 1.00 release - SimHQ forums were so much fun, at that time I was deep into Jane's F/A-18 and did not mind the wait. I miss those days.
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 I tried Janes F/a-18 and it flew like a giant airbrake. Unvariably so did all the other aircraft. You would never see any aircraft fly vertical manuvers, usualy you would stall seconds later. When I see airshows depicting aircraft flying verticaly for ages departing from car like speeds I wonder why I dont have a SIM (back then) that could replicate this. Even when I was carefull enough to try it with clean configuration. .
Pilotasso Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 This is good proof? Sure it can change your opinion, but that's about it. How do you know this? Proof please. Theres inside the cockpit footage and it is corroborated with outside footage. You can clearly see how smooth and precise the high perfomance flying is without loosing controll. Theres a ton of Videos like this. browse Patrick aviation site. Then try to duplicate those low speed and high roll, AOA angles. Youll stall and crash into the ground weel before realistic limits are met. I would like know how you got the idea the flanker is more realistic with such poor aerodynamic perfomance as in 1.02. I would also like to know if your preception of realism is either because how accurate it is with RL or how badly you like it to handle. .
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted January 27, 2006 Posted January 27, 2006 But it was fun - I flew it from 1999 until 2003 and learned a lot about it, then I started LO and slowly but surely it replaced F/A-18. I never got into Falcon - I found dogfighting with it stale. If I didn't start mission making with LO I guess I would have also looked elsewhere for novelty, but I found it challenging enough, of course there are things I don't like and many features I would like to see - but I set my mind upon enjoying LO and not about finding things I don't like. I guess that is the key - to have a positive mindset.
Recommended Posts