PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions/questions thread



IxianMace
03-03-2004, 08:11
Ok, I've finally compiled my list of suggestions for ACC FO.

Flyable aircraft:

At the moment, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-15 C&E Eagle & F-16 C&D Falcon are the main aircraft that are apparently going to be featured (and I presume they will all be flyable), in the game. I don't know why these aircraft are so popular in flight-sims (less so in the case of the F-16), but perhaps other types of aircraft could be considered to add more variety to what flight simmers have already seen?

Some aircraft that would be nice to also be featured besides the previously mentioned aircraft (in no particular order):

Su-27 Flanker
F-117 Stealth Fighter
F-22 Raptor
F-14 Tomcat
Mig-29 Fulcrum
AV-8 Harrier
V-22 Osprey (not sure what purpose this would have, but it would be very interesting to try flying one)
U-2 Spy Plane (for infiltration missions, where the goal is to stay undetected while retrieving information)

Maybe some helicopters could also be flyable by the player?

AH-64A/D
KA-50
AH-1W

Give the player the option to fly an E-3 AWACS aircraft in multiplayer. The player could search the skies for enemy aircraft beyond the normal range/scope of the normal combat aircraft in the area, and provide them with real time updates of the situation.

Two seat aircraft (like the F-14 and the F-16D), would be very interesting if two players could fly in the same aircraft.

Carrier operations:

Carrier operations would make flying missions much more interesting. I think it would be more challenging to attempt a landing on a moving aircraft carrier at night, in poor weather, than line up on the good old glideslope to the same old runway at home plate. Aircraft should be able to take off and land on the aircraft carrier, starting and ending their mission(s) on it.

Views:

How about a view that allows the player to see what the seeker head of a missile that they've launched, or a LGB that they've dropped, is seeing? From launch/release to impact. :)

Mission replays could be saved for each mission flown (if the replay is not saved manually by the user after a mission is completed, the next mission that the player flys will overwrite the replay file). Good for mission evaluation to see how well you did, or how well you screwed up. :)

Damage effects:

Instead of the common 'one hit, one kill' scenario that most flight-sims display in their damage effects, how about changing all that? Missiles do not need to score a direct hit to score a kill/inflict damage. Depending on the blast radius/warhead of the missile, a 'near miss', could result in light collateral damage to the aircraft, if there wasn't enough seperation between the target aircraft and the incoming hostile missile.

This could result in some things like:

- Damaged (and therefore leaking) fuel tanks.
- Engine fires/flameouts
- Damage to certain components of the aircraft (ailerons, rudders, flaps, etc)
- Radar failure
- Hydraulics/avionics/ECM/AP/MFD failure
- Damaged weapon stores (inability to fire a weapon due to damaged pylon, etc)
- Plus anything else that could happen to the aircraft as a result of shrapnel damage.

Bullets that score hits on aircraft could damage the aircraft in different ways depending on where they hit the aircraft. Perhaps it could be possible to score a 'clean kill' by shooting the cockpit of the aircraft and killing the pilot? (Not sure how realistic that would be, but it's just an idea.)

Finally, instead of just exploding into little bits and pieces (the aircraft may or may not do this, depending on the situation) upon receiving fatal damage, the aircraft could lose power, then begin to disintegrate randomly, parts can start falling off, etc etc. The amount of damage required to take down a particular aircraft would depend on the aircraft itself. The A-10 is designed to kill and survive (it has heavy armour), while the F-16 is relatively thin skinned in comparison.

Missions:

Out of all the flight-sims that I've tried in the past, I've never had to fly really far to reach my target. In fact, I liked it that way, the faster I could get back home, the safer I felt. It may be boring to some people, but perhaps missions could be made longer, with extended flight time between countries, not just limited to the borders of a particular country or area of operations. This would make mid-air refueling a vital skill to learn, not just something that's there for display and that no one ever uses (because they don't need to). If we want this to be realistic, then people shouldn't expect to be able to complete a mission in 30 mins or so. Time compression may be worth considering here, so people don't get bored just flying.

Saving a mission then reloading it and resuming the flight would be a nice feature to implement, especially for those that don't have the time to sit in front of their comp for a few hours at a time for an extended range mission.

Compatability issues:

The more platforms/systems/hardware that the game supports, the more potential customers you have. Not everyone has the money to upgrade their computer to a state of the art machine, or buy a new one altogether. Hopefully, the simulation will still look good with low graphics settings, but will have the option to turn the eye candy up for the people that have the power to burn.

Unless this project is only aimed at the hard core flight-simmer, it should not be assumed that everyone has a joystick. Maybe you should allow the aircraft to be flown with the mouse and/or keyboard, or a combination of both. Pushing the mouse forward is like pushing the joystick forward (and pushing the nose down), pulling the mouse back is like pulling the joystick back (and pulling the nose back up), etc etc. If this is implemented, settings to adjust mouse sensitivity should be considered.

EDIT:

Support for community made addons:

It would promote more interest in the game and vastly expand the lifetime of the game if support was implemented into the game which allowed people to create, customize, and add things like their own aircraft skins, and custom made campaign theatres that they could create.

Gixxer_USMC
03-03-2004, 10:25
One of my suggestions is to develop the DEDICATED SERVER option to allow someone to HOST a DEDICATED SERVER on one computer and play from another within a HOME NETWORK ( via router ) but will also allow others to join from the internet ( TCP/IP ).

The problem with Flacon was, I could set-up an DEDICATED SERVER on one of my computers and everyone was able to join via TCP/IP but I was not able to join from my other computer because it was on the same network as the SERVER.

I hope I made this clear enough to understand .. :P

Sehm
03-03-2004, 14:09
I'm just wondering how they are going to modell the two seaters...

Moses
03-03-2004, 15:09
I know from past discussions that CC wants and likes the 2 people in the same cockpit idea that was one of the things he was wanting to do with Falcon V if i remember correctly. Also if you want carrier operations try Jane's F-18 that will satisfy you in that area. The AH-1w is a bit old lets go with the AH-1Z instead.
The view thing i like alot cause we can do movies like in LOMAC and can show the from what that bomb sees and watch it into the window or air shaft of a bunker.

Have you tried the ODS 512? i flew a mission last night with it took 2 1/2 hrs to target and back i was beat after i got back and landed but i agree i love the long missions

Add one thing MP refueling and rearming be it from the Air or on the ground this is another important "fun" part of simming it

simulacra
03-03-2004, 15:41
Having all those aircraft in the sim is just gonna make another lo-mac out of FO.
How can you realistically model so many a/c's? its gonna take years to model the radars, autopilot, navigation, start-up sequence etc.
Please DON'T turn FO into "lo-mac with a F16 in it" lo-mac is beautiful but shallow.
It would be one thing if FO would be like x-plane where its quite easy to model new a/c's, modelling apachez would be something for the fans to do.

On another note: I would like to see a complete ground crew that would be essential to the flightops, fueling, arming etc.
It would also be cool to have realistic shadowing in the cockpit.

WOPPA
03-04-2004, 01:14
I'd like to see a EA6a backseat and be able to interact with the kit and tune in and freak out enemy RADAR for your buddies in a strike package..

just for that little extra fidelity..

or a B1b WSO or a AC-130 gunner and spotter with full FLIR

Maybe even GCI officer stations and proper AWACS stuff for those who like all that as well as Air traffic control like with MSFS which sounds like more doable.

but if it's an open ended sim it should be worth having these types of things in mind not just fighter backseaters.

Regards

WOPPA

Jaker
03-04-2004, 04:14
:shock: WOW... good list IxianMace

IxianMace
03-04-2004, 07:26
Having all those aircraft in the sim is just gonna make another lo-mac out of FO.
How can you realistically model so many a/c's? its gonna take years to model the radars, autopilot, navigation, start-up sequence etc.
Please DON'T turn FO into "lo-mac with a F16 in it" lo-mac is beautiful but shallow.

I don't see why the addition of those aircraft to be flyable by the player would 'make another LOMAC' out of ACC: FO. IMHO, the FMs should be modelled as accurately as possible, otherwise they shoudn't be included as flyable, if they are included at all. If it takes too long to include them, then I could handle them being left out, I wouldn't have a choice anyway. I just thought the game would do well to have more variety, rather than going with the flow and featuring aircraft that have mostly already been featured in previous flight-sims (I wonder what makes those aircraft so popular). If they're not included in the Q4 2004 release, then maybe the community could start their own addons. :thumbsup:


On another note: I would like to see a complete ground crew that would be essential to the flightops, fueling, arming etc.
It would also be cool to have realistic shadowing in the cockpit.

As long as the ground crews and shadows don't come down too hard on the FPS, then that would be nice. But I'm guessing that aircraft are already checked, maintained, and pre-loading/fueled long before a mission is due to start, so maybe aircraft would simply start in a hanger and taxi to the runway. :mrgreen:

Anyway, my list was purely suggestions, it's up to the people working on the project to decide whether they like the idea or not.

Cheers. :punk:


:shock: WOW... good list IxianMace

Thanks Jaker. :drink:

Jaker
03-04-2004, 07:55
This sentence is most important than we think


...then maybe the community could start their own addons

Is very difficult that a development team can afford all the planes at same time, but is very easy that differents "community" groups develop one concrete aircraft: one little group making the Hornet, other little group making the Fulcrum, ...

Something similar to MS Flight Simulator :roll:

Sehm
03-04-2004, 09:36
I think Lo-MAC is a great game. It models the "flying" very good imho. I'm not sure if the avionics is so realistic though :|

One qustion: Is the graphics in the game planned to be more detailed and look more beautiful than Lo-MAC's?

Spitfire
03-05-2004, 12:17
My wants in a fighter simulator are as follows:

It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that any future development work with Network Address Translation which was discussed above in regards to routers, home networks, shared internet connections, firewalls, etc. Most games out there today work fine with these things but not Falcon. :cry:

Keyboards don't look like any cockpit I ever saw. :? So ALL, repeat ALL, instrumentation data MUST be accessible in order to be relayed to an EPIC card or similar device so that ALL instrumentation data can be translated into digital, analog, or video signals which would allow for the building of a truly functional cockpit. :thumbsup: I have been waiting for this for years. I want to be able to display MFDs, (HUD can just be on main video display), analog & digital instruments, lights, RWR, DED, etc...(repeat ALL). A further request along this line that may not be possible would be to "read" the position of all switches inside my cockpit so that when the simulation started it knew how the cockpit was configured....that could be a tall order though because that would probably depend on having digital switches in my cockpit.

I like the idea of a truly spherical world :D rather than a theatre made from limited "conical" portion of the globe. That sounds like a lot of work. It is a good idea to include real world nav-aids, airports, possibly real-time downloadable weather as in MS Flight Simulator.

I would personally be happy with graphics quality equal to LO-MAC ( I realize that is a cuss word :wink: ).

As I am not acutely aware of how Falcon is coded with regards to multiplayer, I think that bandwidth requirements could be reduced if only essential information were transmitted/received. For instance with regards to one aircraft the information that would need to be transmitted would be: Heading, Altitude, Airspeed, Turn Rate, Turn Radius, Flight Control Positions, Aircraft Model, Latitude, Longitude, Pitch Angle, Yaw Angle, Roll Angle, etc., etc. It does add up to a bit of information but I wonder if it couldn't be simplified in the matter which it is relayed thereby enabling more people to connect to a single host/server.

While I understand that it is inteded to model the A-10, F-15 C&D, and F-16 C&D in Fighter Ops I think it should be of greatest concern to get the program functional and released as soon as possible :thumbsup: This would probably be easiest by starting with a single aircraft, and I would suggest the F-16 C&D with which the community ahs the most experience. Concerning the addition of additional aircraft why not release tham as add-ons? I remember Falcon 3.0 in which the main program was released, and then MiG-29 was released, and then Hornet was released. This seemed like a good route to go. It also seemed like the add-ons integrated flawlessly which should be the goal of any Fighter Ops developments.

From my own perspective it would be better to develop Fighter Ops with just the F-16 C&D to get it released, then develop an adversarial aircraft add-on (most likely the MiG-29) for the simple reason that on-line campaign play could be played from two sides. I think it is important to consider other aircraft. Carrier operations are a facet to seriously consider implementing.

If I were to rank aircraft importance to this simulation it would be as follows:

F-16 C&D
MiG-29 C&S
F/A-18 C&D
F-15 C&E

...beyond that I could care less.

Sehm
03-05-2004, 14:29
Multiplayer is indeed a very important factor. If the devs can make it work good it could result in many more players buying the game. I'm getting bored by flying alone with AI's all around me. Then I turn to multiplay where I can use my skills to fight with other people, and not only the computer...

Sehm
03-06-2004, 15:28
Why not throw the F/A-18 Super Hornet in? (or does that come in under "naval ops"?)

Pappie
03-06-2004, 23:46
Like falcon, over time one plane after anther will be added. Over time we'll get more and more will get more real.

Maestro209
03-10-2004, 22:47
Do we all remember the boys over at EA/ Jane’s trying this very thing? I do... In any case the idea of a whole worlds on that hard to do now a days. In fact you can kill several of the above ideas in one fell swoop.

Try thinking about the game in a MMOG and Single user/server perspective. If the game allows a stand-alone server that can be internet facing then you give is a piece of the world to serve. The more servers on line the more of the world can be shown all at once. This idea can work on your protected LAN too. Or you could simply down load the whole world worth of graphics to your machine and try a trans world flight. There is no reason it can't be hosted locally. With the size and speed of the average hard drive there is no reason why they can't produce a whole world full of graphics. Remember 7/10ths of the world is water!

Second if you start the game in a location on the planet to fly to another location on the planet how much low level flying do you realistically think you'll be doing? Very little if you follow realistic flight profiles thus the graphic demand can me reduced and or shared. The idea that you could break out the graphic files like that is a great relief of load. The MMOG model is how the military does some of their training.

In closing Everquest this is not and the idea that you could host a world on line is still a heavy network load. I'm not suggesting that this new sim head in that direction, but if you blend technologies you can solve a good portion of these network and world related issues. Finding the balance is going to be the real trick.

IxianMace
03-15-2004, 18:51
I went through the FAQ again, and I have a question about the modular addons (Naval Ops, Army Ops, Fighter Ops, etc).

Will the modular addons be stand-alone, or will they require any previous modular addons to be installed in order to work with the game?

i.e. Would someone still be able to play Naval Ops, or Army Ops, if they didn't have any of the other addons installed?

jhook
03-16-2004, 14:59
Fantastic thread Iaxian Mace!!! :thumbsup: A great wish list to be sure. As for Naval Ops, Army Ops, ect. being stand alone, I'm not sure, but I think they will be companions to Fighter Ops.

I wish to take this oportunity to give the next stage of my wish list. Now that a hint of the graphics engine ie out there, I would like to discuss mission creation. When pilots are handed out missions or "tasking orders", they are assinged a pimary target (and possibly secondary targets). Usually topical photos are used to survey the area and assess the best approach to a target. How about a detailed mission planner that alows you to set all way points by time/altitude/package assingment (others in your package could peel off to cunduct there own missions that coinside with yours) and threat assesment. Think of planning a mission that takes you through some major radar instalations. You aircraft isn't stealth, but you can make it invisible by terrain masking! Plus a good threat assesment, such as radar elevations and ranges (which direction the radar is serching as some radars are "pointed").

A well planned package means that the package has a better chance at survival. I will chime in later with something about PRE-flight and arming. Constructive critisisum is always encuraged! :drink: Down the Hatch!!

Juggernaut
03-16-2004, 15:43
Ok, I've finally compiled my list of

Missions:



Saving a mission then reloading it and resuming the flight would be a nice feature to implement, especially for those that don't have the time to sit in front of their comp for a few hours at a time for an extended range mission.
or]

Hi,

What a great idea.

I can't tell you how many times I have had to restart a long mission half-way through because of the "honey I'm home" effect.

Hopefully it can be implemented.

Juggernaut

Top Gunner
03-21-2004, 20:59
Seeing that there will be other addon modules for Air Combat Command such as Naval Ops, can I safely assume that carrier-based aircraft, STOVL, and helicopters will be released in modules that they belong to (Naval Ops, Army Ops, Marines Ops, etc.) ?

I am wondering if they will be able to join the same multiplayer game. For example, for a mission that has both an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault ship, will "navy pilots" and "marine aviators" be able to play this mission together?

jhook
03-23-2004, 13:13
Top Gunner, I think the whole point of these mods is to play them together! :thumbsup: I think that is what will eventually come from this. :D

Vlerkies
03-24-2004, 01:26
I agree jhook, i also think that is what eventually will happen all the various modules become one big theatre of operations :drink:

:military:

~S~

VCVW-11ViperBite
03-31-2004, 16:43
Flying Janes F/A-18 we get some of the things that the Lt. mentioned like instant (fatel) damage or light damage depending on were things hit. Unfortunatley the plane doesn't fall apart well and that would be great to see. A more realistic approach to this would be great. Carrier OPS is also good and it durprises me to see that considering Falcon 4 and janes F/A-18 are still widely used and probaly the more popu;ar sims that the F-18 isnt one of the first to be put in action. Of course we expect the F-16 because it's probably the most popular fighter in the world (real and virtual). To bad a group of retired FP from the services don't band together to help model these palnes as close to perfect as national security would allow.

Vlerkies
04-01-2004, 01:13
Well said bud
:drink:


:military:


~S~

spyro23
04-05-2004, 14:14
This is again me :D
I don't know were put this and I don't want start new topic (I surley already started to many topics) so I write this topic here.
During dogfight (Jane’s F-15) at low altitude versus Mig-19 my AIM-9P decide hit some facility funnel not my opponent :mrgreen: :thumbsup: I didn't notice this in any other sim. (I never played Jane’s F-18 ) Some close range AA missiles are also designated to attack high IR contrast ground/sea targets (R-60MK, R-73). If this will be implemented in FO we will be able to attack target with sun!! (IR guided SAM's, IR AAmissiles will be much more inaccurate!)
I never notice in any sim that some SAM or Missile explode at low altitude because radio fuse take signal reflect from ground.
Sometimes when I drop bombs (I think that this bug is in everyone sim) and shortly after relase I push stick (start dive) I descent faster then bombs. Those bombs should hit my wings (not necessarily destroy it) but they only permeate wings and nothing happen!!
There only examples but "Beauty is in details". Maybe you noticed more that kind bugs? I really would like to know so please write.
Good fly/avionics models, awesome graphics, dynamic campaign is not enough to make "best sim ever" Everything should be the best.

poseur
04-08-2004, 22:39
The feature I would most like to see is support for epic -- ESPECIALLY a graphics engine that can support working MFDs.