Any "real pilot" reviews of FC?

[Tomahawk674]

Hello everyone, I was just wondering if there are any reviews of FC by actual pilots of any of the aircraft. (most probably A-10 or F-15 for USA).

 

I would like to see what someone with experience on any of the modeled aircraft have to say, but more than a "I like it" or "I don't like it".

 

While I can review a civil flight sim from personal experience, the closest I have come to "combat" is chasing a piper warrior on the traffic pattern :D

 

All I know about FC is that the main focus has been put on the combat aspect, and not so much on avionics (all about to change on BS as far as I can see). I'm curious to see what some fighter pilots say about others aspects.

 

Thanks

[Lt.Seahawk]

I bet there are some on here me myself Im a crew chief on a transport plane in the GAF

[RvEPaploo]

catch us in HL ;) and let have a talk

[Pilotasso]

Dont hold your breath waiting for the answer, the only widespread sim to be realistic to some degree in anyhting has been Falcon 4 but then it sucks in everything else, including flightmodels.

 

The benchmark SIM in the actual simulation sense is yet to come.

[ericinexile]

Not much help, I know, since I have no military experience but I do have nearly 11000 hours of flight time, most of which is in swept wing jet transports: B737, A320, DC-10, LR-31 (many years ago). I also have some time in high performance aerobatic planes. Finally, I can add to the mix plenty of friends and coworkers who fly fighters such as the F-16, F-15E, A-10, etc. As far as I am capable I've tried to composite these experiences into what I am relatively sure to be how different combat aircraft fly. After all, a jet is a jet. If this limited capability to judge means anything then I'll say Lockon is better than any other sim I have ever flown to include MSFS and certainly X-plane. I've been a fan of the series since Flanker 1.0 and so long as they hold a realistic flight model to such a high standard, I will continue to do so. Hope this helps.

[SuperKungFu]

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/7121067364

[rlogue]

From what I've gathered, the general thinking from the guys that have flown fighters is that the flight model and feeling of flight is what brings them here. The online environment allows for some very realistic formation / mission flying. The dogfighting is very realistic and has a good feel. Avionics aren't too good nor the weapons / radar. The other things i've heard is that the real guys have pushed enough buttons in their liftime and aren't too concerned with the lack of buttons / switches.

[VMFA117_Poko]

There was thread on the russian forum about comparing flight models of real Su-25 and this in game. Real pilots argue with each other. One believed that Su-25 game AFM is more similar to real Su-22, others said he was wrong and flight model is correct. Quarrel took long time. Then everybody conceded that there are small differences in each aicraft of the same type (ex. MiG-21 nr 2089654 doesn't = MiG-21 nr 23647890) and Su-25 is as real as it gets.

If you look at F-15, Su-27 or Su-33, their FMs as the supersonic fighters are harder to compute so there are bigger differences but even that is OK.

 

"Mathematic is the language of nature. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. If You grab the numbers of any system, pattern emerges. There are patterns everywhere in nature..."

 

So what about flight models? LockOn is build through numbers, not simple scripts. Look http://lockon.co.uk/index.php?end_pos=574&scr=default&lang=en. We are closer and closer, and closer... For real perfection we must wait till real supercomputers. There is too many numbers to calculate even now.

[pho3nix]

Although this may not help, i know of some hornet pilots that had a go at lockon when it first came out and they got hooked! they all loved it!

 

They also added that any decent online pilots would give them a run for their money, neglecting the physicality of flying high performance aircraft!

 

From hornet pilots! We got street cread!

[Tomahawk674]

Hmm, I was curious to see opinions or reviews on the combat systems and procedures that are modeled, as in each plane's flight modes, radar, etc. Wasn't it said that FC added a very accurate representation of the Su-27 radar? I think I read something like that a long time ago.

 

Flight modeling can be very hard to critique, but the modeling of weapon systems is more objective, I presume.

[GGTharos]

No, FC added a 'more accurate' representation of the 27's radar. Avionics are not very realistic in LO - they might look correct to some expent, but a -lot- is missing. Future develpments, starting witht eh Ka-50, aim to rectify this.

[suntrace1]

The topic is '' Any "real pilot" reviews of FC?'' :harhar:

[504MrWolf]

Then everybody conceded that there are small differences in each aicraft of the same type and Su-25 is as real as it gets.

 

Why anybody flys anything but the Frogfoot's in lockon is a mystery to me ;) roll on Tank Killers for AFM Frog's and Hog's its gunna be another nail in my marriages coffin ! :D

[Sleek]

gonna be a loooooong wait..so I think ur marriage is safe for a few years to come :)

[SUBS17]

Actually I'm curious myself what a real SU25T pilot has to say about the FM for the 25T in FC. The feedback of lockon is varied same with the different mods of Falcon there are some who prefer other mods to AF such as FF3 etc. As for FCs FM some people think its exagerated but I myself would like to hear from an actual SU25T pilot the verdict of what they think.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Actually I'm curious myself what a real SU25T pilot has to say about the FM for the 25T in FC. The feedback of lockon is varied same with the different mods of Falcon there are some who prefer other mods to AF such as FF3 etc. As for FCs FM some people think its exagerated but I myself would like to hear from an actual SU25T pilot the verdict of what they think.

... and everyone of them will say something different 'cause they flew different su-25t (same type but not the same aircraft). Also may wait looong time for answer here. There is not so many Su-25T pilots even in Russia - regular Su-25 you'll find for sure but You need to ask this question on russian forum or http://forum.sukhoi.ru but language is the problem...

[nscode]

heh... found a topic there from 2003 where Chizh talkes about what he's gonna fix in the 25 model... :D things we've got now :)

[Alfa]

Actually I'm curious myself what a real SU25T pilot has to say about the FM for the 25T in FC. The feedback of lockon is varied same with the different mods of Falcon there are some who prefer other mods to AF such as FF3 etc. As for FCs FM some people think its exagerated but I myself would like to hear from an actual SU25T pilot the verdict of what they think.

 

Well for what it is worth I can tell you that, during the development of FC, there was some debate between testers and the AFM designer/programmer on varies issues concerning the AFM for the Su-25/Su-25T - some real Su-25 pilots were consulted and they gave it their tumbs-up.....so :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Hmm, I was curious to see opinions or reviews on the combat systems and procedures that are modeled, as in each plane's flight modes, radar, etc. Wasn't it said that FC added a very accurate representation of the Su-27 radar? I think I read something like that a long time ago.

 

Well FC took a great leap forward in regards to the representation of the N019 and N001 radars. More specifically the following main areas:

 

* Scan area being divided into 3 seperate search zones(left, center, right) and accurate indication of antenna elevation.

 

* Introduction of PRF(Pulse Repetition Frequencies) search modes: "Encounter", "Pursuit" and "Automatic" and their characteristics correctly represented.

 

* Introduction of SNP(Track-While-Scan) mode with automatic determination and selection of "most dangerous contact" for engagement.

 

On the whole, the functionality of these radars is accurately represented in FC. But there are still areas in need of attention - such as data-linking functionality between individual aircraft, lead aircraft, GCI/AWACS - for which it may be necessary to seperate the functionality of SUV-29 and SUV-27 firecontrol systems for displaying differences between these. Also the HDD representation needs an overhaul.....e.g. removal of "background grid" and introduction of "HUD repeater" function.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[S77th-konkussion]

* Introduction of SNP(Track-While-Scan) mode with automatic determination and selection of "most dangerous contact" for engagement.

 

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

So does the real life version auto- lock a known friendly in this mode too?

[ericinexile]

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800. I feel very close to home in the thing. 2) I hope for the sake of real SU-25 pilots that the brakes are NOT properly modeled. 3) Same for the tires, particularly the nose-wheel. Small stuff, really. They just make it a litte more satisfying and challenging. If you want to really appreciate what ED have done with flight modeling, try Falcon 4:AF. It too is a phenominal simulation but the flight model is dreadfull. For awhile I switched to F4:AF because I wanted the avionics and total battlefield immersion. But the modeling was so off that it became a distraction and I couldn't stand it anymore. To fly that game with the intent of seeing how a F16 flys is like playing Asteroids to see how a space ship may someday fly.

[pschelchshorn]

The F-16 is very easy to fly, i can speak of personal experience from a real simulator :) Havent tried Falcon 4 AF yet though

 

 

Flip

[Force_Feedback]

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800. I feel very close to home in the thing. 2) I hope for the sake of real SU-25 pilots that the brakes are NOT properly modeled. 3) Same for the tires, particularly the nose-wheel. Small stuff, really. They just make it a litte more satisfying and challenging. If you want to really appreciate what ED have done with flight modeling, try Falcon 4:AF. It too is a phenominal simulation but the flight model is dreadfull. For awhile I switched to F4:AF because I wanted the avionics and total battlefield immersion. But the modeling was so off that it became a distraction and I couldn't stand it anymore. To fly that game with the intent of seeing how a F16 flys is like playing Asteroids to see how a space ship may someday fly.

 

I hope that too about the wheels and the brakes, as the thing was designed to take off from unprepared (metal mats) runways.

[Maximus_G]

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800.

:D :D

[ericinexile]

The F-16 is very easy to fly, i can speak of personal experience from a real simulator :) Havent tried Falcon 4 AF yet though

 

 

Flip

 

No question that the F16 is easy to fly. Most fighters are--even those without fly-by-wire FCS. This is because fighters and attack aircraft need to be stable weapons platforms. The problem with F4:AF in my opinion is that it makes a very precise airplane feel sluggish and unsure at low speeds (at high speed it's fine...which is why for most people the game is more than acceptable). At high AOA, all airplanes are naturally sluggish but F4AF makes the F16 so much so that you must begin flaring at 75 feet. Even the DC-10 at 450,000 lbs was very precise during low speed pitch changes. Had it responded as sluggishly as the F16 in F4:AF, the DC-10 would have killed tens of thousands (as opposed to the hundreds who actually have died in the type ;-). The F16 in F4:AF takes huge AOA changes to effect small flight path changes. Just two weeks ago I described the characteristics of the game to a current F16 driver and he stated what I already knew--that the airplane responds very quickly to small pitch changes even at low speed. OF COURSE! It's an F-16! No such concern with LOMAC's SU27 or MiG29--They fly in my mind just as I would imagine they should (can't speak for the F15C in LOMAC...I never fly it).