Pretty Big News for the Future

[SUBS17]

You could try asking here http://www.f-16.net/. I'm sure that someone could answer that, maybe you could even find an F-16 pilot to help with testing.

cheers

Subs

[SUBS17]

BTW what block F-16 are you guys doing?

These guys might know about the RWR http://www.pcaonline.net/PCA_1024x768/Products/AN_ALR-56M.shtml

[Olgerd]

You could try asking here http://www.f-16.net/. I'm sure that someone could answer that, maybe you could even find an F-16 pilot to help with testing.

cheers

Subs

 

Thanks we know about the site. I saw there one thread were someone asked to help him with dash-34 and other such documents. Guess what had been asked to him? :)

[Olgerd]

BTW what block F-16 are you guys doing?

These guys might know about the RWR http://www.pcaonline.net/PCA_1024x768/Products/AN_ALR-56M.shtml

 

May be, may be...

[Battle_Rattle]

We have really good info sources for F-16C. At least many if not all you can see in F4+BMS is described in the docs we have. Some minor problems there with HTS employment sequence and AN/ALR-56M azimuth indicator symbology though...

 

Ok guys! It's obvious that ED is going to be making an F-16c model so me thinks we should get off of our F-18 C-E-F rants! lol :rolleyes: Thats fine with me actually!

 

Just some words for the wise game developer though!! Make it at least Block 40/50 and follow the guidelines set out below!

 

"Block 40/50 F-16s are being upgraded under the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP). The first phase of the program (first aircraft completed in January 2002) provides core computer and colour cockpit modifications. The second, which began in September 2002, involves fitting the advanced AN/APX-113 interrogator/transponder and Lockheed Martin Sniper XR advanced FLIR targeting pod. The third, which started in July 2003, adds Link 16 datalink, the Boeing Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and an electronic horizontal situation indicator.

 

The export version of the Sniper XR pod, the PANTERA, has been ordered by the Royal Norwegian Air Force. The first was delivered in November 2003."

 

As you can see...these mods are US and Export mods.

 

also, the JHMCS implies the Aim-9x right? :tongue: It better! lol

 

Ok....Model Model Model away!!! I know there are needs to model CLOSELY all systems involved with LOMAC but remember, data "corners" have been necessarily cut before! Do it with this plane if you must... Because there is no need to introduce a watered down F-16c into the game. :D ... I say that because your intention is to introduce a multi-role aircraft yes? Well make it something that is way more interesting than the Su-33 please!

 

 

PS....good job ED!

 

Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/02_jhm.html

 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/

[SUBS17]

Man that JSF helmet looks weird. With regard the RWR you could get away with the same setup as that on the Lockon F-15. But make it able to be modified with a patch later on if you find out more information. HTS employment would be very similar to the 25Ts sequence. Detect SAM radar on RWR, a/g mode, select HARM, lockon to the SAMs Radar(in the MFD), good lock-FIRE. Its virtually the same in F4.

[MBot]

also, the JHMCS implies the Aim-9x right?

 

It is interesting how different tastes are. I would prefer the sim went into the direction of the Aim-9P and it's accompanying rechnological level/time frame.

[OVMorat]

Personally I'd love to see the Eurofighter in the game. It seems to have been built light and agile, which would be real fun to fly. Then again, I guess that the documentation probably hasn't been writted yet, so it might be a bit hard to get hold of ;)

[Manx]

I'd rather see a dynamic campaign with one flyable, than 20 aircraft and what we have now.

[Olgerd]

Personally I'd love to see the Eurofighter in the game. It seems to have been built light and agile, which would be real fun to fly. Then again, I guess that the documentation probably hasn't been writted yet, so it might be a bit hard to get hold of ;)

 

Exactly. :D

[nunsuch]

It is interesting how different tastes are. I would prefer the sim went into the direction of the Aim-9P and it's accompanying rechnological level/time frame.

 

I fully agree my preferance is around 1985. All those snazy bells and whistles wouldn't fit in with the other excellent flyables very well (besides still being classified).

 

How much info would it be possible to get on the Mig-31?

[Olgerd]

I fully agree my preferance is around 1985. All those snazy bells and whistles wouldn't fit in with the other excellent flyables very well (besides still being classified).

 

How much info would it be possible to get on the Mig-31?

 

Still hard to obtain something really usefull. Weapons employment part is still classified.

[nunsuch]

Still hard to obtain something really usefull. Weapons employment part is still classified.

 

Thanks Olgerd, I suppose weapons employment being classified means that it is impossible to get information on RADAR/HUD modes/symbology(possibly excepting navigation) as you say the "usefull" stuff which is unfortunate. I suspect that the HUD is probably along same lines as the Mig-23MLD and perhaps some of the RADAR modes as well but if guesswork is all that can be done....

[SwingKid]

I'd rather see a dynamic campaign with one flyable, than 20 aircraft and what we have now.

 

Have you seen?

 

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/

 

I suppose weapons employment being classified means that it is impossible to get information on RADAR/HUD modes/symbology

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=50115

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=50116

 

-SK

[nunsuch]

Thanks SwingKid you have no idea how much you just made my day I have been looking for info like that for years! Not enough information to model a flyable Mig-31 in a sim perhaps but fantastic nonetheless, now to figure out what it all means(I plan on studying these shots for hours). Things like this make me wish I had television.

 

Thanks again!

[Olgerd]

Have you seen?

 

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/

 

 

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=50115

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=50116

 

-SK

 

Thanks Andrew. We have the movie from wich the screens was taken. But it is not enough to make the aircraft. ;) We need documents.

[Olgerd]

Thanks Olgerd, I suppose weapons employment being classified means that it is impossible to get information on RADAR/HUD modes/symbology(possibly excepting navigation) as you say the "usefull" stuff which is unfortunate. I suspect that the HUD is probably along same lines as the Mig-23MLD and perhaps some of the RADAR modes as well but if guesswork is all that can be done....

 

As you seen on caps made by Andrew there is nothing common. Theese two aircrafts have absolutely different radars and weapons employment procedures.

[Cosmonaut]

How did we get so far from the F-18 and so close to the F-16?? I had always thought that the DEV’s considered the Hornet as the natural choice if they could ever get the budget to develop a new Flyable in Lockon. I mean just have a look at the model as it stands right now Pic 1, Pic 2… the visual model already looks better than every other aircraft in lockon expect the Su25T and Mig29 .. all that’s left for the DEV’s to do is to just Duck tape a panel to it and let us fly it lol.

 

I would say though that ED is moving in the right direction in terms of developing as many flyable aircraft as they can… I think that’s going to be a real winner for them in the future. The most popular flightsims right now FS9 and PFm both have a considerable number of aircraft for the simmer to choose from so I think it’s a wise decision for lomac to follow the same develop plan that seems to be so successful for other sims. Which makes me think why leave out the F-18.. could it be that ED really want to release their next sim, say Lockon Future air combat, with the announcement that you will be able to fly the Hornet? Hmm if so then its good business plan and to be honest I can’t say I would do it any different.

[MBot]

Hey Olgerd, you might want to take a look at that incredible cockpit video showing an F-16 engine startup with excellent sound quality:

 

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=151

 

Most likely you can't use the sounds because of copyright reasons, but it might give your sound engineer a good idea if he has to make the sounds himselfe.

[Olgerd]

to MBot:

 

Thanks. We have this video. Really usefull source. :)

[hbxov]

What about the Tornado or even a Jaguar!?How cool would that be? ;) :)

We need some other aircraft rather than just the usual American planes,no offense but its been awhile since we had other flyable NATO aircraft.With the jaguar going out of service in the RAF im sure the documents needed will flood the market pretty soon,if not already.

[VapoR]

Jaguar is my #1 choice for a new flyable in Lomac. It would give the NATO side a fast-mover attack platform capable of SEAD. Plus it fits into the formula for Lomac flyables: single-seater, no mfd's, no a2g radar (I think anyway).

[Pilotasso]

Speaking of videos,in case you missed it, heres another with f-16 HUD simbology during a mock engagement:

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=99

 

Its not quite like in falcon 4, its close but I think the one on the videos is more stylish ;) specialy with the gun funnel with all those converging dots arround it.

[MBot]

My dream would be the Tornado. There is nothing better in sims than low level penetration missions and the Tornado is the king in that regard. I already loved that in JF-18. Altough low level flying would have to be revised a bit, as it is a walk in the park right now ( low level turbulences, plane depenable low level characteristics, hitable vegetations, smoother terrain mesh etc. ). But I will take what I can get...

 

Olgerd, just out of curiosity, how much references do you have for the Tornado ?

[Olgerd]

Olgerd, just out of curiosity, how much references do you have for the Tornado ?

 

Nothing. :icon_roll I mean official documents...