F-18E SuperHornet Lock-on 1.2? or 2.0?

Ok. You give me a complete avionics description. Then we will see... ;) And... don't forget about DFCS description.

Don't know about the data available for the Su-27SM, but would be fun to get back the air-ground capabilities of flanker 1.1.:music_whistling:

Hey Olgerd...what about F-4E (or F, J,) and others "old" planes like Mig-21...they are still classified??

 

I love the Phantom, and i think is a perfect chosen for Lomac's scenario!!

 

Tnk's in advance!

 

Bye

Phant

Another Phantom Phan I'd love the Phantom the only question is how modern should the phantoms be or how old school?

I'd love Lock On Aircombat in vietnam. :pilotfly:

Since the F-4E is a USAF plane, I guess there should be unclassified references available to it. I seem to remember that someone from ED once said they could partialy reproduce the HARM employment ( for the F-16C ) from the F-4G manual (?).

Cool so how about the F-4G in an F-4 add on?

:joystick:

Except ED's policy right now appears to be 'realism' and things are slowly being geared to be as realistic as possible. So 'guesses' aren't good if you have to make -too- many. Obviously you can't guess everything. Furthermore, what is the point of ED developing detailed FM and Avionics code if they're just going to guess everything and not make it realistic? Wasted work!

I'd disagree with this, fact how much information can any of us actualy confirm or deney about an AC's avionics? Since ED will be using the same data we'll have I'd prefer to see a best guess fixed latter than to aim for 100% realism and never see a thing.:pilotfly:

Well considering thet the Mig-29S was upgraded with a cloaking device and 2 second warning R-77 proton torpedoes, I dont think you had such a big loss as that. ;)

The MiG-29S is little more than a "MiG-29A" with a jammer and R-77s and doesnt even come close to meassuring up to the MiG-29K....neither in technology nor in versatility :) .

Cheers,

- JJ.

Except ED's policy right now appears to be 'realism' and things are slowly being geared to be as realistic as possible. So 'guesses' aren't good if you have to make -too- many. Obviously you can't guess everything.

 

 

Furthermore, what is the point of ED developing detailed FM and Avionics code if they're just going to guess everything and not make it realistic? Wasted work!

:megalol:

Edit: Sorry GG im laughing with you on this one .... ahem, I mean you were joking right?

:joystick: then make a mig -21 model plz:pilotfly:

:megalol:

 

Edit: Sorry GG im laughing with you on this one .... ahem, I mean you were joking right?

No. My time is limited so I'll try to make this quick and simple:

Currently avionics lack in realism.

However, look where all the efforts are pointed at: Total modelling of avionics and systems (Where possible and applicable anyway), Advanced flight models, etc.

Some things -have- to be guessed, certainly. The real -issue- here is, how much of this stuff are you -willing- to have guessed? ED probably has some internal threshold for this.

For example, they definitely want the data to construct the AFM with, and as much data as possible to construct working avionics with.

This is why old planes aren't being touched right now: Instead of fixing them up, they will (hopefully) be redone in the future, up to the new standards.

TY GG I was waiting for you to say that .... the key word you said was

"as much data as possible". Does ED really think its possible to attain all the classified avionics data for the bug? And furthermore exactly how much tactical data does ED have for the F15C's avionics that they have already modeled in the game?

Sorry I know your time is precious so this is an open question for anyone who might know..... Unofficially.:noexpression:

No, the problem is that some of the data like flight characteristics is classified, whereas the F-15's for example is not ... so they can't even really model the FM, or the FBW system very accurately. A lot of the avionics data is classified along with it, particularely symbology, so they can't really model an authentic look for the various systems, either. naturally -some- of the symbology may well be classified also, but the point is, there's no segregation.

No, the problem is that some of the data like flight characteristics is classified, whereas the F-15's for example is not ... so they can't even really model the FM, or the FBW system very accurately. A lot of the avionics data is classified along with it, particularely symbology, so they can't really model an authentic look for the various systems, either. naturally -some- of the symbology may well be classified also, but the point is, there's no segregation.

There's a quote from Olgerd saying that ED has the symbology for the F/A-18A now - but not the F/A-18C. Also that the TAC manual isn't the only place to get the required information.

It's a step in the right direction - we're definitely not all the way there, but anyway :)

Yep I recall that ... they might be able to get the data they need to model -some- version of the bug at some point.

There's a quote from Olgerd saying that ED has the symbology for the F/A-18A now - but not the F/A-18C. Also that the TAC manual isn't the only place to get the required information.

 

It's a step in the right direction - we're definitely not all the way there, but anyway :)

No, but I'll bet that they are very close here, but I don't think that this will be the next bird to rolled out anyway....

No, but I'll bet that they are very close here, but I don't think that this will be the next bird to rolled out anyway....

You mean after developing Ka50, AFM and avionics upgrades (if we assume three months each) for the A10, the F15, the Su27, the Su33, the MiG29, and adding the F16 and the advanced MiG29. . . . . plus any other aircraft they might in this Tank Killers idea, plus speedtree, plus WAFM . . . . .

It's going to be a long wait even if they DO manage to find all the right information AND decide to do it!

You mean after developing Ka50, AFM and avionics upgrades (if we assume three months each) for the A10, the F15, the Su27, the Su33, the MiG29, and adding the F16 and the advanced MiG29. . . . . plus any other aircraft they might in this Tank Killers idea, plus speedtree, plus WAFM . . . . .

 

 

It's going to be a long wait even if they DO manage to find all the right information AND decide to do it!

As far as Ed getting all of the information thats needed I'm sure that they will...

Only a small amount of information is actually classified from what I've read..

And as far as ED makeing this a flyable in one of there future incarnations, I think I saw a post a while ago that they are seriously considering this opportunity.

IMHO if this is done properly can open up a very large market adding some very interesting possibilities for the Naval Simulation that was put on hold after Flanker 2.5...

As far as that line up that you listed, I honestly don't think that this is cut in stone.

~S~

Blaze

IMHO if this is done properly can open up a very large market adding some very interesting possibilities for the Naval Simulation that was put on hold after Flanker 2.5...

 

As far as that line up that you listed, I honestly don't think that this is cut in stone.

 

 

~S~

 

Blaze

The club of people for the Naval Simulation is growing ;)

The lineup isn't finalised, no - however, at least some of it's a good bet, so IMO it's useful to estimate how long it *could* be before we see any of this stuff.

IMO it's useful to estimate how long it *could* be before we see any of this stuff.

As far as I know ED is actually working very hard on their departure from Lock On to a new platform so to speak.

IMO Black Shark has been finalized and all that is involved is the proverbial show stopper resolutions...

With all of the new systems that are now in place the rollout time for new simulations are estimated to be held down to six month periods.

If this can be done the fight simulator world might begin to grow more quickly which will benifit all of us that consider this our hobby.(LOL)...

~S~

Blaze