Why no F15E?

I noticed in the last developers notes that you are planning to to the F15C, A10 and various other aircraft that have already been covered in a good amount of detail in Lock-On.

Are you not simply covering old ground again when you have the opportunity to produce exciting aircraft that have been either overlooked in simming in the past or have had substandard models made.

Don't get me wrong , I am severely excited about the KA50 but I cant help feeling a little underwhelmed.

Why not, for example, produce a model of the F15E Strike Eagle, it would be great to have a quialty ground pounder in the list, or even an old favorite like the Tornado or Harrier?

Please dont take this as a criticism as i really isn't meant like that.:smilewink:

All the best.

The A-10 isn't a quality ground pounder? If you think this or any other aircraft has been covered in 'great detail' in LOFC, you haven't been paying close attention to DCS :)

Besides which, what answer do you expect beyond what's already been said on the forums and in the FAQ? :)

LockOn is settled in the early and mid 80s. There was no F-15E in service at that time. :smilewink:

Besides that, the goal was to simulate planes where data to do that on a realistically basis is available. Both, the Harrier and the Tornado are still in service and largely classified.

LockOn is settled in the early and mid 80s. There was no F-15E in service at that time. :smilewink:

 

Besides that, the goal was to simulate planes where data to do that on a realistically basis is available. Both, the Harrier and the Tornado are still in service and largely classified.

The timeframe answer is a bad one - the Ka50 and Su34, for example, still haven't entered service . . . .

Lock On's timeframe is pretty much fictional. There's a bit of 80's, but there's also some stuff before, after, and yet to come.

Information isn't freely available for a lot of these aircraft, so that's a factor.

There are an awful lot of factors in choosing which aircraft to have as a flyable, though.

The timeframe answer is a bad one - the Ka50 and Su34, for example, still haven't entered service . . . .

 

Lock On's timeframe is pretty much fictional. There's a bit of 80's, but there's also some stuff before, after, and yet to come.

 

 

Information isn't freely available for a lot of these aircraft, so that's a factor.

There are an awful lot of factors in choosing which aircraft to have as a flyable, though.

Fair play, it probably is difficult to decide on the flyables and as I said it was a question not a criticism, this project still has unbeliveable potential and I will be supporting it by buying the KA50 when it is released.

All the best

UK

The timeframe answer is a bad one - the Ka50 and Su34, for example, still haven't entered service . . . .

 

Lock On's timeframe is pretty much fictional. There's a bit of 80's, but there's also some stuff before, after, and yet to come.

 

 

Information isn't freely available for a lot of these aircraft, so that's a factor.

There are an awful lot of factors in choosing which aircraft to have as a flyable, though.

True, but we (as speaking for the general crowd here) don't have a KA-50 flyable and we also don't have the Su-34 flyable AFAIK. That was also, why I didn't say FlamingCliffs or DCS :smartass:

I doubt on the other hand, that he asking for a non-flyable F15E, Tornado or Harrier.

And the Su-34 may not have entered service, yet, but it is a pretty old concept and was used in a lot of other games and simulations before.

Theoretically, the publisher is an English company: http://www.fighter-collection.com . So I wonder they would have a lot of troubles if they decided to go for a British airplane?

Regards!!

LockOn is settled in the early and mid 80s. There was no F-15E in service at that time. :smilewink:

 

quote]

 

 

Ask another question, why no KC-135 or any EC, RC, VC models, C5, C141 and the list goes on all were being used in the " 80's"

Why do you ask me?

I didn't say "All planes that ever flew in the 80s were modelled", but that the basis for the theater of war was set to the early 80s.

So neither of these questions is an argument against my post? :huh: