Jump to content

Please don't say it is so...


Manny
 Share

Recommended Posts

Even the release date of Black Shark seems so far...

I cannot imagine the days of a F-16 sim, released by ED, most of would probably be dead or playing with grandchildren:)

It might be on the other side of 2010.

i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wsoul2k,

 

I think you would have to ask Olgerd about this, but I would say that in order to properly model the combat systems of an aircraft you would need the TAC manual :) .

 

However, I dont think you can set up concrete criteria like that - there is more to this than just the combat systems - e.g. you would also need quite a lot of detailed data for designing an AFM. It must be a case of evaluating whether the overall level of information available is sufficient for depicting a particular aircraft to the desired level of accuracy.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Just to compare Alfa...do you know what they have from the F-15 i mean what info are considered a NO GO and a GO kind information :)

 

but i wanna know only the real info not the guess one something like

 

F-15

1-Radar Modes Have it GO

2-TAC Manual Have it GO

3-ETC ETC ETC

 

 

Mirage 2000-5

1-Radar Modes Have it GO

2-TAC Manual Dont Have it NO GO

3-ETC ETC ETC

 

 

 

 

Even if the Radar is the RDY ?

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wsoul2k,

 

I think you would have to ask Olgerd about this, but I would say that in order to properly model the combat systems of an aircraft you would need the TAC manual :) .

 

However, I dont think you can set up concrete criteria like that - there is more to this than just the combat systems - e.g. you would also need quite a lot of detailed data for designing an AFM. It must be a case of evaluating whether the overall level of information available is sufficient for depicting a particular aircraft to the desired level of accuracy.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

 

Agree....maybe he is reading this post :cool:

 

But im not worried about the AFM...because the GUESS about this is in some way how more LOGICAL :rolleyes: ( ie Aerodinamics )

 

Im just trying to understand the criteria to choose one flyable.....because if we have to wait to the TAC manuals be avaliable...well the sim comunity dont have a brigth future:) ...this kind of information will be always rare...

 

We will not see any new aircraft in the next 10 or more years....or you think Rafale, JAS, F-15E, Tornado, MK2-c , MK2-5, etc etc will be avalible any time soon :(

 

I know Olerg wanna do flyables more realistic as possible.....but ...if some GUESS work have to be done to make a M2k-5 or a Tornado flyable...well....so let it be......if this is all we can have .....ok lets do it and try guess the best possible ( Janes F-18 ;) )

 

 

This is why i wanna know what is NO GO condition...i really beliave the F-15 have a lot of guess work...but i can be wrong....i dont expect to Olerg gimme this kind of info here because a FLAME WAR will start :cool:

 

But one simple question ED have the TAC manual to all flyables in lock on ;)

 

sorry for the poor english

 

and Alfa you can call me Rodrigo...

Rodrigo Monteiro

LOCKON 1.12

AMD 3.8 X2 64 2G DDR ATI X1800XT 512

SAITEK X-36

AND VERY SOON TRACKIR-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree....maybe he is reading this post :cool:

 

But im not worried about the AFM...because the GUESS about this is in some way how more LOGICAL :rolleyes: ( ie Aerodinamics )

 

Im just trying to understand the criteria to choose one flyable.....because if we have to wait to the TAC manuals be avaliable...well the sim comunity dont have a brigth future:) ...this kind of information will be always rare...

 

We will not see any new aircraft in the next 10 or more years....or you think Rafale, JAS, F-15E, Tornado, MK2-c , MK2-5, etc etc will be avalible any time soon :(

 

I know Olerg wanna do flyables more realistic as possible.....but ...if some GUESS work have to be done to make a M2k-5 or a Tornado flyable...well....so let it be......if this is all we can have .....ok lets do it and try guess the best possible ( Janes F-18 ;) )

 

 

This is why i wanna know what is NO GO condition...i really beliave the F-15 have a lot of guess work...but i can be wrong....i dont expect to Olerg gimme this kind of info here because a FLAME WAR will start :cool:

 

But one simple question ED have the TAC manual to all flyables in lock on ;)

 

sorry for the poor english

 

and Alfa you can call me Rodrigo...

 

 

There's plenty of truth and reasoning in that . . . . but I'd like to point something out.

 

 

You can't really have an aircraft for which you have the TAC manual modelled as an opponent for an aircraft for which you do NOT have the TAC manual. That's a big realism-spoiler.

 

You can guess, and that's fine if the aircraft you're modelling is the only flyable - but if it's going up against other aircraft and you don't know exactly how well it works or is likely to perform, guesswork isn't really good enough for a realistic sim.

 

 

I believe I've seen it quoted that the TAC manual is absolutely critical for modelling the avionics - this reason has been used for not modelling the Hornet. Will be happy to see that clarified, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally wrong, alot can be gained by a DC in any flight sim most especially one that has a multirole fighter;) . Janes Longbow 2 has a DC that would work well with TK, mostly mud moving and a ground war in action. As for Destroyer of course a DC of strategic level must be incorporated to make game play work at the best level. Currently the Airquake situation in lockon is essentially just that scoring kills. Same for ground attack missions, just point scoring mainly with the objective being to doing mainly CAS. In a DC there are clear objectives, failure results in the enemy gaining an advantage and success leaves opportunities to exploit weaknesses. The DC action isn't in mission, its actually in between missions where the true calculations are carried out. The DC in F4 is the work of genius in how it functions particularly now that LP has got most of it to work.

 

Well.. I was actually being sarcastic there ;)

 

I've long been of the opinion that a combat flight simulator without a good mission / campaign engine is just a highly advanced form of quake. And while I enjoy the great visuals and highly advanced flight model in the game as much as the next guy, to me they are the icing on the cake but not its filling.

 

I suspect that by now, most those who are still regulars on this forum really couldn't care less what type of mission generator or campaign engine the next gen sim has. I've seen too many people argue that it doesn't matter - multiplayer air quake is where the action is - so I guess Eagle will be releasing a product that suits their customer base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HArriers are old and obsolete, and they suck, but that's my personnal opinion and as such it doesn't count when it comes to selecting an aircraft. ;)

 

However, the harrier is nowhere NEAR as widespread as the F-16.

 

OT: How about the AV-8B Harrier II+ ? APG-65 multimode radar, AMRAAM capable, operational on carriers of the Spanish Navy, Italian Navy and the US Navy. Of course not nearly as widespread as the F-16, but still not bad and quite capable :)

 

 

Back on topic. Since we are talking about a new simulation here, it isn't a question of 2-seaters or air-ground radar modeling etc. All these things are possible to do, since this will be a new start. It is just a question of available resources.

The realy big criteria are references, and most of the pet planes fall straight away because of it.

As far as I know, cancel every product by Dassault, British Aerospace or operated plane by the USN. This leaves the pool of selectable flyable planes considerable smaller.

 

I am not very happy by the F-16 myselfe ( if it should actualy be featured by a ED sim in the future ). With Fighter Ops and the future sim line of Leadpersuit we have already two simulated high fidelty F-16 in the future. But as it seems, ED might not have such a big choice as we think they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's plenty of truth and reasoning in that . . . . but I'd like to point something out.

 

 

You can't really have an aircraft for which you have the TAC manual modelled as an opponent for an aircraft for which you do NOT have the TAC manual. That's a big realism-spoiler.

 

You can guess, and that's fine if the aircraft you're modelling is the only flyable - but if it's going up against other aircraft and you don't know exactly how well it works or is likely to perform, guesswork isn't really good enough for a realistic sim.

 

 

I believe I've seen it quoted that the TAC manual is absolutely critical for modelling the avionics - this reason has been used for not modelling the Hornet. Will be happy to see that clarified, though.

 

Strictly speaking you make a very good point of course, but ED doesn't seem to have any qualms about modelling SFM aircraft alongside AFM aircraft. Not to mention the obvious differences in avionics fidelity (where the Su-25T surpasses all others) we see in LOMAC today. I somehow fail to see how a non-TAC-manual aircraft which is never the less thoroughly well-designed would be that much 'worse', so to speak.

 

My favourites for future LOMAC fly-ables would be, in order of priority, the F/A-18C (with the APG-65), MiG-29K (the original version) the Mirage2000C (with the RDI radar) and the HarrierII (with FLIR but no radar). In other words, I agree with D-Scythe :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking you make a very good point of course, but ED doesn't seem to have any qualms about modelling SFM aircraft alongside AFM aircraft. Not to mention the obvious differences in avionics fidelity (where the Su-25T surpasses all others) we see in LOMAC today. I somehow fail to see how a non-TAC-manual aircraft which is never the less thoroughly well-designed would be that much 'worse', so to speak.

 

I see your point, but the AFM/SFM aircraft aren't particularly helped or hindered by being AFM or SFM. And the performance characteristics (according to the charts on the lockon.ru website) are based on known data . . . . it's just the feel which is different.

 

If data on the performance was being fabricated because ED didn't have access to it, that would put it in a similar position to something modelled without a TAC manual . . . . . but I don't think AFM as opposed to SFM does that.

 

Put it this way - a Hog with AFM will have the same essential performance characteristics as a Hog with SFM.

 

A Hornet with made up avionics systems could be a long way from accurate.

 

 

The avionics workload is an excellent point - but at the moment i don't think it's a major issue. If one day we get an Su27 with clickable cockpit and the F15 remains at this level, it'll definitely be an issue . . . .

 

 

 

Point I'm making is that I don't think the differences in realism are important except where the differences concern aircraft that are likely to meet in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT: How about the AV-8B Harrier II+ ? APG-65 multimode radar, AMRAAM capable, operational on carriers of the Spanish Navy, Italian Navy and the US Navy. Of course not nearly as widespread as the F-16, but still not bad and quite capable :)

 

Shhhh ;)

 

There's the Sea Harrier as well, but that was based on the original Harrier airframe. My personal favourite, as it happens . . . . . but then IIRC the AMRAAM-capable version was only operated by us.

 

 

Watch out for Jet Thunder for a flyable Harrier :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point I'm making is that I don't think the differences in realism are important except where the differences concern aircraft that are likely to meet in combat.

 

Agree, as it stands now 90% of all LOMAC BFM will be among SFM aircraft, as only the Frogfeet have an AFM. Hence my comment about it mostly affecting immersion (which is also a function of realism in this case) in that other thread.

 

The thing to keep in mind is that there's a lot of middle ground between made-up avionics and some educated guesses regarding a few classified systems ;) With the TAC-manuals of several (?) USAF aircraft available and quite a few human sources (like Matt) to fall back on the latter should be a distinct possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shhhh ;)

 

There's the Sea Harrier as well, but that was based on the original Harrier airframe. My personal favourite, as it happens . . . . . but then IIRC the AMRAAM-capable version was only operated by us.

 

 

Watch out for Jet Thunder for a flyable Harrier :)

 

Actualy I saw Spanish Harriers carrying AMRAAM's on 4 racks.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actualy I saw Spanish Harriers carrying AMRAAM's on 4 racks.

 

Yeah, it's a aircraft type argument ;)

 

 

The Spanish Harriers aren't Sea Harriers - the Sea Harrier was based on the original Harrier airframe, with an A2A radar.

 

The Spanish Harriers are the Harrier II/AV8B.

 

 

I just prefer the Sea Harriers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the Sea Harrier FRS.1 with blue fox radar could only deploy the Aim-9 but didn't the FRS.2 get spamraam support when they installed the blue vixen radar?

 

This man knows his stuff!

 

 

Yes.

It was the only AMRAAM capable version of the original Harrier airframe - could ripple-fire four AMRAAMs, on a British airframe, with a British(ish) radar.

 

(Beats chest, runs around muttering about world wars and world cups, posts picture of Bulldog and Churchill)

 

/patriotism

 

 

:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err....Olerg are you there ? :icon_wink just a litle BUMP!

 

 

wsoul2k,

 

I think you would have to ask Olgerd about this, but I would say that in order to properly model the combat systems of an aircraft you would need the TAC manual :) .

 

However, I dont think you can set up concrete criteria like that - there is more to this than just the combat systems - e.g. you would also need quite a lot of detailed data for designing an AFM. It must be a case of evaluating whether the overall level of information available is sufficient for depicting a particular aircraft to the desired level of accuracy.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

 

Agree....maybe he is reading this post :cool:

 

But im not worried about the AFM...because the GUESS about this is in some way how more LOGICAL :rolleyes: ( ie Aerodinamics )

 

Im just trying to understand the criteria to choose one flyable.....because if we have to wait to the TAC manuals be avaliable...well the sim comunity dont have a brigth future:) ...this kind of information will be always rare...

 

We will not see any new aircraft in the next 10 or more years....or you think Rafale, JAS, F-15E, Tornado, MK2-c , MK2-5, etc etc will be avalible any time soon :(

 

I know Olerg wanna do flyables more realistic as possible.....but ...if some GUESS work have to be done to make a M2k-5 or a Tornado flyable...well....so let it be......if this is all we can have .....ok lets do it and try guess the best possible ( Janes F-18 ;) )

 

 

This is why i wanna know what is NO GO condition...i really beliave the F-15 have a lot of guess work...but i can be wrong....i dont expect to Olerg gimme this kind of info here because a FLAME WAR will start :cool:

 

But one simple question ED have the TAC manual to all flyables in lock on ;)

 

sorry for the poor english

 

and Alfa you can call me Rodrigo...

Rodrigo Monteiro

LOCKON 1.12

AMD 3.8 X2 64 2G DDR ATI X1800XT 512

SAITEK X-36

AND VERY SOON TRACKIR-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...