Wish List

[KTLeth_61]

f-18

 

"TEN".10-120-c , look at that fire power.on the 120-c-5. you lookin at over 50 miles on range. by by f-14. man TEN! 120S :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[KTLeth_61]

FITGHERS

 

when thay retired the f-14 ,do you think thay still have a fighter sq.? our all the f-18s are now AF.S only? looking at the pic., you think not. i can't get over this ,ten 120.s. ps. i did not see any thing on jane.

[EtherealN]

50 miles on a C5? Err... On a zoom-shot at Angels 40 and Mach2 perhaps, if you target is also a zoomer at angels 40, but I sort of doubt you'll even get the pictured F-18 across the transonic. A low and slow shot wouldn't even give you 20nm. Also remember that the ranges are about launch platform and target at launch. The missile won't actually fly that distance because the target is assumed to be front aspect - it will obviously keep flying and get closer. ;)

 

There's a LOT of variables involved in missile range. An AIM-54 would still outrange a C5. (But the 54 doesn't have the maneuverability to be reliable against fighters, it's intended as fleet-defence against bombers.)

 

As for F-18's, most of them are fighter-bombers in the sense that they can do both jobs. I believe the finnish F-18's are an exception - for diplomatic reasons they had the A2G-stuff removed. (Though I think they started a program to re-implement that?) The SuperHornet is multirole.

 

Should be mentioned that the later-version F-14's were not dedicated A2A either - they did get A2G capability.

 

Anyway, the point is that even one of the old C-hornets might be interesting to fly in a DCS simulator. It would be different, but definitely interesting, and there's no risk of necessarily feeling undergunned. (Though I'd personally probably fly with 6 slammers and two heaters, possibly even 2 heaters, 4 slammers and 2 Sparrows as a preferred loadout.)

[KTLeth_61]

120

 

i was looking to see if i can find the range on the 120c-5 cant find. but i see thay have came out with a 120c-6 , 120c-7. and now a 120D.now thats a wish in DCS.

[EtherealN]

The point is, there is no such thing as "the range". It depends on a TONNE of things:

 

1) Launch platform velocity

2) Launch platform altitude

3) Target velocity

4) Target altitude

5) Target aspect

 

...and of course, post-launch:

 

6) Target maneuvering

 

Any time you see anyone say "missile X has a range of Y" they are liars, unless they talk about a specific situation that defines the above variables.

[GGTharos]

Of course you can't find it - it's classified, and we're left with best guess scenarios (Though our guesses tend to be reasonably good. Usually within 10%. Usually - but that's only for a ballistic shot).

 

Now ... could you find some capitalization and proper punctuation before you go looking for 120's again? ;)

[RIPTIDE]

Phil. You causing trouble around these parts? ;)

[KTLeth_61]

parts

 

copy that im out

[ANGST]

The point is, there is no such thing as "the range". It depends on a TONNE of things:

 

1) Launch platform velocity

2) Launch platform altitude

3) Target velocity

4) Target altitude

5) Target aspect

 

...and of course, post-launch:

 

6) Target maneuvering

 

Any time you see anyone say "missile X has a range of Y" they are liars, unless they talk about a specific situation that defines the above variables.

 

 

 

The parameter is "maximum" range , therefore the maximum range a missile can score a hit under optimum conditions .

[GGTharos]

... under what optimum conditions?

 

Exactly.

[joey45]

Good weather and against a drone that doesn't move. ^^.

[ANGST]

... under what optimum conditions?

 

Exactly.

 

The ones that allow for a hit at the furthest range. Therefore at x altitude y sized target moving in manned z . There can never be a kill beyond maximum range.

[GGTharos]

If you don't know what parameters were used for a given claim it's meaningless. So what's the meaning of 'maximum range' under these circumstances?

 

The ones that allow for a hit at the furthest range. Therefore at x altitude y sized target moving in manned z . There can never be a kill beyond maximum range.

[Boberro]

You can probably forget about the Su-25T showing up in DCS. Probably.

 

Su-25TM is more probable:)

DCS with Su-25T\TM would be cherry on a cake. Without T-toad it wouldn't be such delicious.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Boberro

[GGTharos]

The Su-25TM is even less probable.

[ErichVon]

Having a few days to Chillax... Many thoughts run in and egress the brain.

Flight operations are never that far from the frontal lobe though.

 

Flying, landing, pushing buttons, reading maps, seeing and doing things that most people don’t , etc are all the basics that make flying fun.

 

Having such a rich environment translated to the PC is the cornerstone of any good game. Details are key. Especially the small ones that are taken for granted in the real world (not so much when Flying) but when added to a Sim, it can make that sim just that much better.

 

It’s very well known that many Sim heads want Sweet Flight Models, Kickass weapon systems, RADAR systems so real that the IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei may show up at your door wondering “what the heck are you doing Nuke Boy!!?”

 

Most sim developers want the same things regarding the hardcore staples of a combat flight sim. They build the best they can with the resources and knowledge they have. Falcon and Lock ON are long standing testimony to that fact.

 

But as the thread title states... What small stuff is missing if anything?

 

Now before anyone prints out a long list of ills and personal grips about Lock ON... This is NOT what this tread is about.

 

This tread is about the small things that can make a game just that much better.

Total Immersion is the Holy Grail for many of you. You want to feel like you are there. So what should be considered for new games to get you to that point?

 

So THINK past Lock ON. THINK past Falcon... THINK past Vindows Flight Sim... THINK Future... but within the limits of a PC based game.

 

This is not an attempt to tell you how to respond… just a guideline to help keep the thread on track…

 

Looking forward to the replies.

 

-Bones:pilotfly:

 

 

re: "It’s very well known that many Sim heads want Sweet Flight Models, Kickass weapon systems, RADAR systems so real that the IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei may show up at your door wondering “what the heck are you doing Nuke Boy!!?”

 

Not me!

 

I would love to see Korean War F-86 and the comparable Mig of that era in a combat sim as good quality as FC2 or DCS and no missiles.

 

Basically what you got is just faster planes, firing all cannons, like the WWII prop planes.

 

I read McConnel's biography in high school 40 years ago, before he got killed. His account of basic training, being an air crew medic in B-17's (I think B-17's), then eventually getting his dream of flight school after WWII and then jets was why I wanted to enlist, but I went Navy construction battalion.

 

I have read many accounts about combat jets in action in Korea.

 

Erich

:pilotfly:

[EtherealN]

Well, to be fair, if I remember right the Korean War F-86 did have a radar of sorts - used to range things for the gunsight. :)

[ErichVon]

Well, to be fair, if I remember right the Korean War F-86 did have a radar of sorts - used to range things for the gunsight. :)

 

Well, with your superior knowledge of flight stuff, I bet you are correct!

 

You have have helped me more than any other 10 guys in these forums.

 

Are you ever wrong? LOL! (just kidding)

 

Some of the WWII era planes had some kind of lead computer built into the aiming recticles, but I think it was done with optics.

 

I have Chuck Yeager's 2 books, autobiographies. There was an unprecidented loss of many aircraft---and pilots, I think they were F-86. He and his superiors went to the factory where the jets were built. One of the bolts was to be installed upside down as part of the installation directions and design. The worker installing them told them, "heck everybody knows when you install a bolt, the threaded end goes into the hole and the head goes on top!" I think they fired that guy.

 

Erich

Edited August 25, 2011 by ErichVon

[kunkun238_hn]

To me, that picture tells all.

 

Wow, we're the same. Like it :x

[falcon_120]

I would a 3d cockpit for the flyable planes in fc3.0 and of course as much effort as possible into the direction of getting a dynamic campaign or at least a great mission generator.

It wouldn't harm at all if in Fc3.0 we get the same radio realism we've got with wh and bs2

[Drona]

My Wish List

 

I would love if the following were added for FC3:

 

Multi-Targeting capability for Su-27/Su-33/MiG-29S: Enough with the F-15C having the multi-target attack capability advantage in the game. I've heard that the Russian aircrafts basically share the same radar code with the F-15C in the game. So why not add multi-target capability for them. They real life aircrafts have them (recent upgrades I believe). I presume it should not be that hard to incorporate it on the Russian aircrafts (I maybe wrong).:dunno:

 

If above is not possible, please oh pretty please, add the MiG-31 (preferably the MiG-31BM) as a new player flyable with multi-targeting capability. :worthy:

 

It would just be awesome flying 15kms high at Mach 3.

[falcon_120]

I would love if the following were added for FC3:

 

Multi-Targeting capability for Su-27/Su-33/MiG-29S: Enough with the F-15C having the multi-target attack capability advantage in the game. I've heard that the Russian aircrafts basically share the same radar code with the F-15C in the game. So why not add multi-target capability for them. They real life aircrafts have them (recent upgrades I believe). I presume it should not be that hard to incorporate it on the Russian aircrafts (I maybe wrong).:dunno:

 

If above is not possible, please oh pretty please, add the MiG-31 (preferably the MiG-31BM) as a new player flyable with multi-targeting capability. :worthy:

 

It would just be awesome flying 15kms high at Mach 3.

 

Su27 and mig 29 simulated in fc2 don't have multitarget capability,only latest version of those planes have it,and they are only in service in very samll numbers if any with the russian air force(export versions like su30 mki from india really have a multitrack capability)

[adreNALINe]

The ability to scan and simultaneously track multiple aircrafts does exist in MiG29 and Su27. The place where these aircrafts differ are the ability to effectively target multiple aircrafts at same time and the number of aircrafts to track at a time.

 

You can also see that non of Su27 or higher variants of Su27 have thrust vectoring, while it exist in real aircraft. Only that you can do is Cobra maneuver. Su33 gets into spin very easily and is a nightmare to fly at slow speeds, while in real the canards are added to make the place more stable at low speed. So, Su33 is supposed to be more maneuverable at both low and high speeds but its not there so in LOMAC versions

 

I believe this would have been done for sales. LockOn might be selling more with western countries and no one would play LockOn if they are getting beaten by enemy a lot more. Think about it, F15 will not be able to survive Dog Fights if thrust vectoring of Russian aircrafts is allowed.

Edited November 17, 2011 by adreNALINe

[Drona]

Su27 and mig 29 simulated in fc2 don't have multitarget capability,only latest version of those planes have it,and they are only in service in very samll numbers if any with the russian air force

 

I agree Su27 and MiG29S simulated in FC2 don't have multi-target capability. What I'm really asking or wishing rather is for ED to provide them as the real aircrafts have them even if they are in limited quantity.

 

export versions like su30 mki from india really have a multitrack capability)

 

I know mate. I'm from India. ;);)

[GGTharos]

The ability to scan and simultaneously track multiple aircrafts does exist in MiG29 and Su27. The place where these aircrafts differ are the ability to effectively target multiple aircrafts at same time and the number of aircrafts to track at a time.

 

Something along those lines, yep.

 

You can also see that non of Su27 or higher variants of Su27 have thrust vectoring, while it exist in real aircraft. Only that you can do is Cobra maneuver. Su33 gets into spin very easily and is a nightmare to fly at slow speeds, while in real the canards are added to make the place more stable at low speed. So, Su33 is supposed to be more maneuverable at both low and high speeds but its not there so in LOMAC versions

That is incorrect. The canards are there to provide stability during high AoA flight - specifically during landing on a carrier. It doesn't mean it makes the aircraft more maneuverable, nor is a turn and burn the Su-33's main course. That bird is all about shooting down anti-sub helis and planes, ie. protecting the submarine fleet so it can attack a carrier fleet.

 

Finally, I don't care what you have on your plane, high-alpha uncoordinated flight will cause you to spin-out. It's a fixed wing fighter, not a helicopter (and even those can stall ;) )

 

 

I believe this would have been done for sales.

Very untrue.

 

LockOn might be selling more with western countries and no one would play LockOn if they are getting beaten by enemy a lot more. Think about it, F15 will not be able to survive Dog Fights if thrust vectoring of Russian aircrafts is allowed.

Untrue, and already proven so IRL in mock-battles. Add AIM-9X and TVC becomes useless save for specific circumstances. TVC is very nice and all, but it doesn't make an aircraft superior in a dogfight. It all depends on what you're fighting, and importantly, who.