View Full Version : Wish list for Fighter Ops!!!!
_Big_Mac_
10-16-2006, 16:58
Well, there are terrorists which would seem a great "target" for anyone but frankly I'm bored to death with all that war-on-terror propaganda/war.
I say a couple of hypothetical scenarios of local conflicts would be more in order. Either way, USA/West/NATO will always be the good guys as the sim covers American aircaft. OpFor planes won't be flyable (at least in the foreseeable future I think) so there's no way to have the "enemy" nation "on the same page" as NATO forces - unless there'd be a internal western conflict simulated, western a/c vs western a/c like Turkey vs Greece but that's very politically uncorrect...
Flareless
10-17-2006, 12:36
... but is it that hard to create a villian that just seeks trouble at everyone's expense?
Well, there's Lil' Kim but that would put us back in the Korean theater.
Well, there's Lil' Kim but that would put us back in the Korean theater.
Too predictable and already done with Falcon:wink2: , I think for an online war what you do is wait until things are quiet then unleash a new enemy. More advanced weapons and aggressive nature. Make it a challenge not a walk in the park. For example for the Star Wars universe things got too quiet and predictable. The good guys were always winning so the writers brought in the Yuzan Vong who were very difficult to beat. Battletech did a similar thing with the Clan invasion where a superior technology race invaded and was difficult to beat. If the Vong ever show up in future Star Wars games Jedi wanna bees will be in for a shock. As for FOs universe it could be something unexpected such as an enemy with F22s and B2s who was an Ally for the USA but turnned bad.
_Big_Mac_
10-19-2006, 04:05
Remember they're striving for max realism. That scenario with F-22s and B-2s is highly unlikely .
Juggernaut
10-19-2006, 16:03
Remember they're striving for max realism. That scenario with F-22s and B-2s is highly unlikely .
Hello,
Certainly the "stock" training, and scenarios will focus on the utmost realism or conjectures of realism, but don't forget that eventually there will be user created scenarios that can be as realistic or "fantastic" as desired.
The focus is certainly on realism, but there is nothing wrong with breaking from the usual and just having some fun in an otherwise very realistic environment. Even if the user creates a fantasy based setup, they will still be operating in the same realistic Fighter Ops cockpit & proceedural environment for the available flyable aircraft.
Juggernaut
Flareless
10-19-2006, 18:55
Maybe swarms of Tie-Fighters attacking cities that are defended by rocket powered F-16s :rolleyes:
<<Edit>> Rocket powered F-16s with particle beam weapons
And Tomcats! Lots of Tomcats!
Flareless
10-19-2006, 20:10
Rocket powered Tomcats - with particle beam weapons :)
AMVI_Phant
10-19-2006, 21:07
Mp3 player on board...why not? :evils:
...for 2+ hours mission's (like, for example, Los Angeles - New York transfert) :bigsmile:
Bye
Phant
And Tomcats! Lots of Tomcats!
They couldnt quite call it Fighter-Ops without the Tommy, now could they?:evils: All three versions if you please.
Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!
Flareless
10-20-2006, 08:58
I'd like the option to play Space Invaders in my HUD ;)
SpinKick
10-20-2006, 10:01
extra piddle packs...
Crewchiefs with all the hand signals etc! (They don't need to be 10,000 poly DX10 figures or so... ;))
Crewchiefs with all the hand signals etc! (They don't need to be 10,000 poly DX10 figures or so... ;))
AGREED! That would be sooooo cool. It gets kinda lonely playing offline, so I would like there to be at least a pretense of somebody on the ground directing me. No one else has done that yet, I think, except for the Jane's series. (Correct me if I'm wrong...) GROUND CREW NEEDED!!!
AMVI_Cerbero
10-25-2006, 05:37
I guys,
as you know FO simulate real pilots life from basic training to FCR.
as you know one required skill is to reach and maintain 9g for 15s.
I'm quite sure most of us don't have "Centrifuge" at home.
I think:
Could FO implements a kind of test to setup eachone skill about +G force?
I mean something about try reading smaller and smaller letters while image
black-out reaching 9g, then assign pilot to a graduatory that manages his own
career.
Thanx!!
A simple way to edit axis ranges in game. No more screwing with code for joysticks. Also, this allows non-programmable sticks to gain the function. The only reason sticks need all the fancy programming is because the people who make games really do a shitty job when it comes to controlers. If everyone ends up having to do the same step over and over, why not make it a standard function?
A great example would be the cougar detents. You know how much of a pain that can be to get working properly? If you just had a graphical representation of the full range of motion for the axis, let us change % numbers to allow us to easily set where we want what to happen. This allows for easy deadspace and the like.
Also, full realistic button setups. I should be able to plug in a cougar and have each button press the proper counterpart, then allow the pinkie switch extra functions if needed. Having to alter a profile just to make it do what it should do from the start, is annoying.
If half the world is going to be using a cougar, thrustmaster, or saitek... might as well setup some easy default profiles.
Go in, click cougar (with pedal+brake option), track ir and blam instant full realism setup and it works in stock "I am just a joystick mode". Edit your detents, and go!
Its probably already said but here is another count for a kind of "interactive gameplay".
Mission starting with the breefing in one of the buildings at the airbase. After the breefing together with your online friends/pilots you walk outside and the car waiting will drive you to your aircraft. At the arrival you have a quick chat with your aircafts ground crew and you do the preflight inspection by walking around the aircraft. Then you climb into the aircraft (with your name on it) and you start with doing the cockpit checks. Ground crew will be around like in the real world and will give you hand signals and so on. After you have started the engines and gone through all the cockpit checks its time to contact the tower which will divide you to the assigned runway to takeoff.......
I think this will really give you a great sensation of reality and it will give me the feeling of actually being a fighterpilot.
Because at the end, that is what we all are looking for, right?:wink2: :lol
After you have started the engines and gone through all the cockpit checks its time to contact the tower which will divide you to the assigned runway to takeoff.......
Speaking of ATC, howabout some realistic ones eh? Ground freq. for taxi instructions, Tower for takeoff/landing clearence, departure, and arrival freq.?
Its probably already said but here is another count for a kind of "interactive gameplay".
Mission starting with the breefing in one of the buildings at the airbase. After the breefing together with your online friends/pilots you walk outside and the car waiting will drive you to your aircraft. At the arrival you have a quick chat with your aircafts ground crew and you do the preflight inspection by walking around the aircraft. Then you climb into the aircraft (with your name on it) and you start with doing the cockpit checks. Ground crew will be around like in the real world and will give you hand signals and so on. After you have started the engines and gone through all the cockpit checks its time to contact the tower which will divide you to the assigned runway to takeoff.......
I think this will really give you a great sensation of reality and it will give me the feeling of actually being a fighterpilot.
Because at the end, that is what we all are looking for, right?:wink2: :lol
This could be quite entertaining, particularly watching people run back to the hangar to grab their DTC cartridge.:bigsmile:
Maybe swarms of Tie-Fighters attacking cities that are defended by rocket powered F-16s :rolleyes:
<<Edit>> Rocket powered F-16s with particle beam weapons
How about 200mm ultraautocannons:rofl
Speaking of ATC, howabout some realistic ones eh? Ground freq. for taxi instructions, Tower for takeoff/landing clearence, departure, and arrival freq.?
The more real the better :thumb:
Dual Core System Support! Some sims like Lock-On, aren't affected by dual cores :mad:!
In the design...working on it.
I guys,
as you know FO simulate real pilots life from basic training to FCR.
as you know one required skill is to reach and maintain 9g for 15s.
I'm quite sure most of us don't have "Centrifuge" at home.
I think:
Could FO implements a kind of test to setup eachone skill about +G force?
I mean something about try reading smaller and smaller letters while image
black-out reaching 9g, then assign pilot to a graduatory that manages his own
career.
Thanx!!
Hi, Cerbero!
Interesting this yours, but even if reality is a must for us, don't you think that adding this could be perhaps a little too much in a virtual world?
P.S. I use glasses in the real life... :wink2: :smile:
Jackal out.
Could have an improved g tolerance as the pilot advances through his career. So if a pilot just jumps in and flys he has 90% tolerance but if a pilot goes through UPT his g tolerance is better due to his trainning.
Will air-sickness be modeled? :wacko:
Caddie87th
10-28-2006, 19:25
Will air-sickness be modeled? :wacko:
Only if they provide barf bags for free!!!
Could have an improved g tolerance as the pilot advances through his career. So if a pilot just jumps in and flys he has 90% tolerance but if a pilot goes through UPT his g tolerance is better due to his trainning.
I would also like to see gray outs. In sims, I've either seen either only gray outs or black outs (for example there are only blackouts in F4). The first effects should be that color goes away and things start getting hazy and blurry (everything goes gray) and the cones in the eyes don't get enough blood. Only the rods are left, and they only sense in gray tones visual resolution is also much lower, so what you do still see is not only black and white, but also not very clear. Then the black-out starts from the outside of the visual areas and starts moving in towards the center.
I know that wasn't possible in the past, but I'm sure with the current DX shaders, it could be.
AMVI_Cerbero
10-29-2006, 11:35
Hi, Cerbero!
Interesting this yours, but even if reality is a must for us, don't you think that adding this could be perhaps a little too much in a virtual world?
P.S. I use glasses in the real life... :wink2: :smile:
Jackal out.
Hi Jackal,
Ok, let's change the test, FO could have something like GTA Los Santos has to let main actor dance at right tempo or Fahrenheit has to let his own play guitar or simply counting your flight time from career starting point and then assign a g tolerance value (more and more you fly more and more you improve your g skill).
I think set individuals g skill in "combatFlight VR" is necessary to make difference in lots of ways starting from escape maneuvers and finishing with dogFight most of all in MP.
Thanx!!
Malignant
12-04-2006, 10:08
I must have a 2 seater Su-30 Mk1 with individual thrust vectors.
It would be cool if manouvresl ike cobra werent scripted :( that sucks
I want to take the GTA thing further... I want to be able to walk over to a jet, beat up the ground crew, steal their guns and money, before i drag the pilot out of the cockpit, call him a 'Fool', shoot him in the face, before stealing his ride...
Then i'll take it to the panel shop and get them to change the colours and pimp it up a little... No one will ever know the jet is hot!!!
I want to take the GTA thing further... I want to be able to walk over to a jet, beat up the ground crew, steal their guns and money, before i drag the pilot out of the cockpit, call him a 'Fool', shoot him in the face, before stealing his ride...
Then i'll take it to the panel shop and get them to change the colours and pimp it up a little... No one will ever know the jet is hot!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I want to take the GTA thing further... I want to be able to walk over to a jet, beat up the ground crew, steal their guns and money, before i drag the pilot out of the cockpit, call him a 'Fool', shoot him in the face, before stealing his ride...
Then i'll take it to the panel shop and get them to change the colours and pimp it up a little... No one will ever know the jet is hot!!!
LMAO!!!
Flip
Ground Traffic on the base, It has probably been said but having a tow drive past your jet, or the "Bread" Truck droping off pilots and so on
How about PSDs for all the aircraft so we can make skins for them?
Another wish:
War games or Military excersises. That way, there won't be limits on scenarios or "realism" conflicts. A game inside the game. And since it's a game, we could use all the weapons fully. USA could engage Great Britain or India etc, or Vice Versa, for those who can't stand seeing th eUS on the "Loosing" side. But I guess for that you'll need considerably more planes modeled. So make it a loooong term wish.
A loooooong term wish that allready finds it's roots in our designs and current development with a full user mission/ campaign editor.
Once the armed forces are modeled...you can do whatever you want.
Dirk
ok,ok. a more short term one:
People!
Most of the simulators don't have them. Someone else mentioned the idea of including a character directing the aircraft to the taxiway like in real life. And in carrier ops (in the future) the people on the deck.
And obviously the troops on the ground or the terrorists with RPGs. If you don't have time for the animation, I could do it. (After all, that's my real job) But i only know Maya.
Playloud
12-14-2006, 18:37
A loooooong term wish that allready finds it's roots in our designs and current development with a full user mission/ campaign editor.
Once the armed forces are modeled...you can do whatever you want.
DirkAnd of course, a way to save and distribute your campaigns.
I'm pretty sure I've already posted in this topic in the past, but it's been about two months since I've visited these forums (deployed to Iraq and we just got internet in our rooms) and today is our first half day off in a while...I'm bored, so I've decided to spend a while thinking about the things I've seen and liked in flight sims in the past and things I think they could improve upon. Soooo...here goes:
Flight sims didn't grab me right off as being the best or most interesting games on the market. I used to spend my money on games that could more easily divert my attention for an hour or two with simple interfaces and a point a click simplicity that allowed a quick escape from the world of reality. But for some reason I was drawn to flight simulations. I'd always wanted to fly jets, since I was very little, but had been denied that opportunity by a series of circumstances which all added up to keeping my feet firmly planted on the ground. Instead I found myself choosing to serve my country in a different way and joined the Army at eighteen, leaving behind my dreams of the air force forever. I still, however, craved jets, and wanted to fly them, or at least, find a very good simultion that could trick me into thinking I was flying them.
The first simulation games I tried were clumsy affairs with rather simple interfaces and very rudimentary AI. Learning to fly them was rather boring for someone accustomed to the interactive tutorials found in other games. The flight models at the time were similarly stunted. An F/A-18 couldn't really take off, perform a loop, and then land with perfect precision, all by simply holding back on the stick with the afterburner engaged, could it? Things have come a long way since then, and yet there are still holes in the various games out there which serve to disconnect us from the illusion of reality that we crave. Take for instance, the various airports or bases found in most of the leading simulations of today. Where are all the people? Where is the activity? You come home from a mission, then interact with the ATC which seems to have very odd ideas of where you should be flying in order to land. Once you've finally touched down you taxi onto an empty lot, park wherever you feel like it, and once you've shut down whatever weapons platform you happen to be driving that day, you open the canopy to reveal perfect and utterly uninterrupted...silence. No people can be seen, no trucks...You look up to see a perfectly clear sky with not another plane in sight. I find this to be a rather disconcerting way to end an otherwise highly fulfilling flight.
In beginning the mission, you set up your jet for takeoff, again pausing to interface with the zombie-like ATC for clearance, then take off. Once in the air, everything seems fine for the moment, until you notice that as you look up towards the sun, all you see is a hazy ball of yellowish-white. The sun does not glare. It does not blind. Looking at it, you realize that any attempt to "lose your enemy in the sun" will be met by either a missile or a few stray AP rounds up the exhaust. The clouds around you (or above you/below you as the case may be) are either uniformly spaced and sized, nonexistent, or overcast from horizon to horizon. It either rains for the duration of the mission, or it doesn't rain at all. Crosswinds and turbulence may or may not occur depending on whether or not the mission builder was having a good day or not. The trees below you fade slowly in as you close with the ground and appear transparent until right on top of them. In a losing fight, you eject, and instead of being transported out of your doomed fighter at high speeds by the seat, you are redirected to an outside view, creating the illusion that it wasn't really you that went down in flames. It wasn't you that failed to fight the good fight. It was that tiny little figure hanging from the chute, and you decide right then and there that you hate that tiny little figure. It's his fault you've been disillusioned. Cast out of your convenient unreality by a simple external view. If you still had any control over him, you'd pull out his boot knife and sever the cords that keep him from plummeting to his death and then cackle in glee as you listened to his death scream...
But it's not his fault, really, is it? He's dead, or lost BEL because you weren't on top of your game. You need to practice more. Learn the systems better. But simply deciding to go back to basics is not as easy as it may appear. Training for most of the existing flight sims is spotty at best and requires a butt-load of leafing through dry-as-dust manuals while avoiding the hazards of sleep in an effort not to leave slobber all over the keyboard or manual when you pass out from boredom. A few sims have done alright in the training aspect, keeping it all in-game, and interactive. However, I've always felt that when they focused on one aspect, such as an in-game interactive training, they left out or forgot about the other half. Something entertaining to read. Something to absorb into the sponge I call my mind. When they focused on putting out an in-depth manual covering all the aspects of their game, they left out something to do in-game. Or else, they went both ways and failed miserably at it. For those who are new to flight sims, just learning to fly can be a daunting task, filled with minutae that always eludes absorption into memory. This hard task is made more so by the interfaces that clog modern games. Did anyone else have trouble figuring out the mission editor in Lock On? I've always thought that it would be easy to sum up that editor in word: Illogical.
So in conclusion, here is my wishlist -
1) Airports/Bases that exhibit vigorous, even fantic, activity. People running around to service your jet, as well as others that may be coming or going. Trucks driving around, empty fuel trucks being replaced by full ones, ect. ect.
2) A sun that will actually block your vision, to the point of being temporarily sunblinded if you look at it for too long. Perhaps, even a sun visor that you could toggle up or down, depending on the situation.
3) Scenery that's lush and inviting. I realize that not every spot on earth can be mapped photorealisticlly, however, I would ask that special attention be spent on spots such as "Star Wars Canyon" in Oman. And the Gand Canyon in Arizona
4) I'd like to actually eject from the cockpit, or at least, instead of watching it from the outside, I'd like a first person perspective.
5) Training should be two part. One part outside of the game through manuals, and one part in-game training that's interactive with voice-overs. Training should be entertaining, not mind-numbing. You are, after all, making a product for a consumer that wishes to be entertained. I can tolerate a little bore, if it's required to relay the information, but back it up with interesting facts that will help me remember it. People always remember a thing better if they know its background: You don't keep your hands off the stove until you've touched it yourself, no matter that your mother told you not to touch it in the first place.
6) If you're in training with a virtual IP, then the IP should let you know on the spot if you've made a mistake or have forgotten something.
7) ATC I can tolerate please. Sometimes I get annoyed and simply ignore protocol and don't contact ATC before landing because I don't feel like dealing with an idiot.
7) Lastly: If you make this game, and put everything you decided you needed into the game, and then don't absolutely love it, then neither will we. If you make it, then play it, and decide for yourself that it's the best sim ever made, then I guarantee that I'll be right there with you.
Thanks for reading. Even if you can't get everything into that game that I've noted above, I'm sure you're out there doing your best. Hopefully the game will be done and near release by the time I get back to the states in a year.
Until then, stay classy FO.
Since this thread has wishes, I'll post a wish I sometimes have with these war games. Ever so often, I wish for a game that melted the air war with the ground war. The Battlefield series did a nice stab at this goal, but in the end it's still just a 3D shooter on a tiny map. I wonder how much effort it would require to be able to be a soldier on the ground in a game like this, where air support would come from hundreds of miles away, bombs dropped from thousands of feet above, with decimating/widespread destruction and pinpoint accuracy. Where capturing an airfield means capturing a whole base that's at least a few miles large. A full battlefield simulator...
...Maybe guys, you could just leave the code open for the possibility.
:sniper
Buckshot
01-13-2007, 02:22
That's certainly the long-term plan for Fighter Ops.
_Big_Mac_
01-13-2007, 14:17
Something like that has been tried with Battleground Europe/WWII Online
The map was a complete western Europe in 1/2 scale (you could actually *walk* from Berlin to Paris, if you had the time to spare), you could play as infrantry, armour, air or naval force, there was a dynamic front-line etc.
The problem (except many bugs, average graphics and some other technical issues) was lack of gamers to participate. There just ain't enough hardcore simmers (even if we combined ground/air/naval guys) to populate the maps as it happens in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft.
It's still a great long-term goal for FO to become Combat Ops. I'd love to get a bunch of friends that play Op. Flashpoint etc. and perform a realistic air cover in a A-10 (cause air assets in games like OFP, ArmA or BF series are arcadish and very limited). Just don't count on virtual wars with thousands of players connected. There's not enough of them, the gameplay will be limited to tactical operations.
Plus that would obviously require a whole new team of developers to focus on ground ops, so a major growth of the company will be needed prior to even starting planning. Frankly, I can only see it as 'long-term'='maybe my children will live to see it' ;)
You can use AI to fill any gaps in such an enviroment and complete the area where its void on the map. eg battle lines, supply lines etc Could even go as far as random civilians.
Hi There... this is my first post... :smile:
After a tour in the wish list, i have my wish too. I don't remember any great sims modelling the Harrier (Probably the only one was the ancient US Navy Fighters from Jane's). So, maybe asking for a Mirage or a Typhoon is not according with the XSI intentions. If the target is to simulate a real career, the flyable aircrafts must be USAF or US Navy... But the AV-8B is "in target" and, in my opinion, is also versatile and "funny".
There's an hope we could fly it?
Bye!
Malfy
Physics for wing. I notice in most games, when you fly the plane and pull some Gs or hitting some turbulance, the wings just stay the same, it doesnt bend up and down like real life. I think it would be cool to have this feature.
Welcome to the forum Malfy I'm pretty sure the Harrier has been mentioned in the wish list somewhere so you are not alone wanting to fly that aircraft. Good news is a new sim called Jet Thunder will have a flyable seaharrier which is due to be released next year.
samuel150892
04-14-2007, 19:02
my wishlist is to have realistic ground units, wing flex, sunviser, plenty of flyable aircraft, good scenary. Basically just realism.
Welcome to the forum Malfy I'm pretty sure the Harrier has been mentioned in the wish list somewhere so you are not alone wanting to fly that aircraft. Good news is a new sim called Jet Thunder will have a flyable seaharrier which is due to be released next year.
Thanks for this info SUBS17, i'll look for Jet Thunder news on the web :smile:
The matter is that, if FO will be what it wants to be, will be the best and i hope to have the AV-8B right there! :thumb:
Malfy
Since FO will make F16s flyable. I wish FO will feture every airforce who own F16s. And LANTIRN system.
Thats easy thats just skins for those aircraft.
training with an instructor in the back, being able to take control.
As much recon missions as possible =0
being able to be the ATC if on a private server
Have escort missions, ( like how a Cessna gets an escort out of the vicinity of the white house) that kind of stuff.
No it isn't.
There is a whole lot of items that need to be modeled differently.
Including cockpits, weapons, sensorpacks, ECM systems, etc...in several cases it even needs quite some extra modelwork was well.
www.f-16.net (http://www.f-16.net) and you'll be surprised how much difference there can be.
Dirk
Thats correct but you could get away with the standard Blocks for a while until you guys got around to doing accurate vesions for each country. That way you can increase the fan base in countries where the F-16 is used to make FO more popular.
Hehe,
If we present a Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian,... whatever F-16 with the standard equipment to this community...lol.
No way we'll be hammered with threads on what needs to change, and that we claim to be for max realism but that we don't do the effort to get their F-16's done right...Etc...
I think for the beginning it'll indeed have to do with perhaps additional community skins.
Maybe some tools who will help each team/developer to modify the skins and some parts of the plane to be localized as every Country needs. Like standard USAF F-16s don't have a parachute tail, HAF aircrafts have it. So, perhaps a "standard" toolkit adding such "things".. :evils:
Apart from that, i *would* like to see a clever system for dirty aircrafts.. Like a mechanism using x number of transparent skin patern, with only the dirt above the skins. With this way, we could have a clean skin paintscheme on aircrafts, and above it the system could auto select radomly and add the dirt, different on each aircraft.
And finally, one of the major problems of Falcon4, i would like to be able to add 1 (x) squadron(s) to an airport, enter the number of the planes the squadron has, and add the s/n's of every plane.. Maybe the s/n's font should be based on a standard or costomized "template"..
:wink2:
Hehe,
If we present a Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian,... whatever F-16 with the standard equipment to this community...lol.
No way we'll be hammered with threads on what needs to change, and that we claim to be for max realism but that we don't do the effort to get their F-16's done right...Etc...
I think for the beginning it'll indeed have to do with perhaps additional community skins.
People would likely skin them anyway regardless of such detail every sim with the ability for aircraft to be custom skinned is proof of that. Unless of course skinning is not an option for FO?
Nah I definetly see skinning as part of the community input.:wink2:
Will FO have anti-liasing (i spelled right?)?
Buckshot
04-17-2007, 16:36
Will FO have anti-liasing (i spelled right?)?
Nah, we thought it would be cool to go retro and release Fighter Ops with Direct X 4 technology.
wiebenik
05-24-2007, 05:12
hee flight sim friends what is fighter ops? is it a pluging for fs2004, lomac or Falcon? i have al original versions fighter ops sounds great but where to get buy or download it?
Soesterberg_Spotter
05-24-2007, 05:19
http://www.fighterops.com/index.php?page=faq
I guess that answers your questions!
Maybe some tools who will help each team/developer to modify the skins and some parts of the plane to be localized as every Country needs. Like standard USAF F-16s don't have a parachute tail, HAF aircrafts have it. So, perhaps a "standard" toolkit adding such "things".. :evils:
Apart from that, i *would* like to see a clever system for dirty aircrafts.. Like a mechanism using x number of transparent skin patern, with only the dirt above the skins. With this way, we could have a clean skin paintscheme on aircrafts, and above it the system could auto select radomly and add the dirt, different on each aircraft.
And finally, one of the major problems of Falcon4, i would like to be able to add 1 (x) squadron(s) to an airport, enter the number of the planes the squadron has, and add the s/n's of every plane.. Maybe the s/n's font should be based on a standard or costomized "template"..
:wink2:
Anything on that?
Nah, we thought it would be cool to go retro and release Fighter Ops with Direct X 4 technology.
What about the Model 4.0 shaders? Will they all be used?
rjetster
05-24-2007, 12:02
I will leave this to the technical guys, but I believe that Shader model 4.0 is a DirectX 10 shader, and part of the vertex, pixel and geometry family of shaders which is implemented by the model 4.0 shader core. We will certainly be making the conversion to DX 10 at some point and all of its supported attributes.
Have anyone played CFS3?. I think the campaign should be like that, kinda like long, and you kinda chose what mission you want. If this had already been planed out then forget what I've said.
Well to be fairly honest the CFS3 campaign is not a good example. Personal opinion off course.
At the moment the only campaign that would be worth spending time on is a dynamic campaign with the lessons learned from Falcon as an example.
IMO that, including a decent and in depth mission/ campaign editor, will rock everybody's world.
Playloud
05-24-2007, 16:22
At the moment the only campaign that would be worth spending time on is a dynamic campaign with the lessons learned from Falcon as an example.Truer words have never been spoken.:beer:
I will leave this to the technical guys, but I believe that Shader model 4.0 is a DirectX 10 shader, and part of the vertex, pixel and geometry family of shaders which is implemented by the model 4.0 shader core. We will certainly be making the conversion to DX 10 at some point and all of its supported attributes.
Thank you. It is part of DX 10. There are many games, though, that do not/will not use shader model 4.0 to it's full extent
Maybe some tools who will help each team/developer to modify the skins and some parts of the plane to be localized as every Country needs. Like standard USAF F-16s don't have a parachute tail, HAF aircrafts have it. So, perhaps a "standard" toolkit adding such "things".. :evils:
The PLAN is to have an SDK for this stuff available shortly after release, for the area's that we determine are OK for community mods...
Apart from that, i *would* like to see a clever system for dirty aircrafts.. Like a mechanism using x number of transparent skin patern, with only the dirt above the skins. With this way, we could have a clean skin paintscheme on aircrafts, and above it the system could auto select radomly and add the dirt, different on each aircraft.
Was discussed within the team maybe 18months ago. We have a system for this already thought thru in regards to the technical aspects, as well as the 'timeline' for the weathering. Will be something you'll see down the track tho. Sqn level USAF a/c are kept rather clean (esp Training Types), so it is not high on the list of things to do yet...
And finally, one of the major problems of Falcon4, i would like to be able to add 1 (x) squadron(s) to an airport, enter the number of the planes the squadron has, and add the s/n's of every plane.. Maybe the s/n's font should be based on a standard or costomized "template"..
:wink2:
Again, specific airframes, maintenance cycles/flight hours and etc, have all been discussed in detail within the team; about 18 months back IIRC. And as above is on the list, but will probably only show up once we're at a point where we're actively developing the campaign functionality.
Since FO will make F16s flyable. I wish FO will feture every airforce who own F16s. And LANTIRN system.
WOW, thats a pretty big ask... I would hazard a guess that were looking at say 50-60 different variations (Avionics, structure, engines, etc) at least. And that just covers 'CURRENT' configurations... The number would grow exponentially once you started adding 'historical' blocks and configs...
Pretty much every user of the F-16, esp now after the a/c has been around for 25+ years, has added unique functionality to their jets, beyond the baseline 14 Major Blocks (IIRC, there have been 14 MAJOR Blocks, and this doesnt account for MSIP's and Sub-Blocks)... Say the chute, or indigenous ECM/ECCM, different radio's, different weapon integrations, different types of MFD's, IFF, Datalinks, etc...
What youre asking is a BIG!!!
Well to be fairly honest the CFS3 campaign is not a good example. Personal opinion off course.
At the moment the only campaign that would be worth spending time on is a dynamic campaign with the lessons learned from Falcon as an example.
IMO that, including a decent and in depth mission/ campaign editor, will rock everybody's world.
The training lessons in Falcon didn't have written/voice overs in-game. What a pain it was having to refer to a 716 page manual. FO won't be like this, will it?
Buckshot
05-25-2007, 04:30
The training lessons in Falcon didn't have written/voice overs in-game. What a pain it was having to refer to a 716 page manual. FO won't be like this, will it?
lol, I think you need to do a search on training. No sim has ever taken anywhere near the approach to training we have, it's pretty much the whole focus of the first release, there are realms of information out on the forums which should show that it will be nothing like the shallow training featured in Falcon and other sims.
lol, I think you need to do a search on training. No sim has ever taken anywhere near the approach to training we have, it's pretty much the whole focus of the first release, there are realms of information out on the forums which should show that it will be nothing like the shallow training featured in Falcon and other sims.
I didn't mean to be such an inconvenience. :hhmmm
Nah you're not mate.
It is just that the FAQ is about the training release, the first release is all about training, most of the threads on the forums are about the first training release, the pictures are about training aircraft and their airbases, and then you ask that question....
I'm sure you can understand that it raises an eyebrow and a smile on this end :wink2:
Dirk
Nah you're not mate.
It is just that the FAQ is about the training release, the first release is all about training, most of the threads on the forums are about the first training release, the pictures are about training aircraft and their aircrases, and then you ask that question....
I'm sure you can understand that it raises an eyebrow and a smile on this end :wink2:
Dirk
Well I'm aware that the first release of Fighter Ops will be a training module, thats not quite what my question was about though. I was looking for more of a yes or no answer if there would be voice overs in the training lessons, from a willing person who would be more than happy to answer me. I wasn't really going to assume anything, so I thought I'd ask. No flaming taken/intended, & sorry for any mix-ups.
Yeah, what our problem in this case is that we sometimes forget that A51 and the general forums are seperate entities. And the most detailed threads on topics like these are in Area 51. Where our dev's have answered the questions they were allready able to answer.
Off course all in good knowledge that there is competition out there.
Basically the training will be a combination of techniques. Going from vids, to powerpoint type lessons with voice over, decent manuals, etc...
We'll also be breaking new grounds in the way we will present the in the aircraft instructor/ student relationship... more on that later.
Best regards,
Dirk
WOW, thats a pretty big ask... I would hazard a guess that were looking at say 50-60 different variations (Avionics, structure, engines, etc) at least. And that just covers 'CURRENT' configurations... The number would grow exponentially once you started adding 'historical' blocks and configs...
Pretty much every user of the F-16, esp now after the a/c has been around for 25+ years, has added unique functionality to their jets, beyond the baseline 14 Major Blocks (IIRC, there have been 14 MAJOR Blocks, and this doesnt account for MSIP's and Sub-Blocks)... Say the chute, or indigenous ECM/ECCM, different radio's, different weapon integrations, different types of MFD's, IFF, Datalinks, etc...
What youre asking is a BIG!!!
ok I'll make it smaller:bigsmile: Will you feature RTAF F16?
OK when another comes in and asks the RNLAF F-16 and another one the Norwegian, etc...
Do we start a vote? :confused:
Buckshot
05-25-2007, 22:07
Well I'm aware that the first release of Fighter Ops will be a training module, thats not quite what my question was about though. I was looking for more of a yes or no answer if there would be voice overs in the training lessons, from a willing person who would be more than happy to answer me. I wasn't really going to assume anything, so I thought I'd ask. No flaming taken/intended, & sorry for any mix-ups.
wow, a bit sensitive there, nobody flamed you. Your question was answered, as has already been said, with the focus of about every post and feature we've discussed over the last 2 years being training related, and the whole focus of the first release being training related, with many groundbreaking features, asking if it was going to be better than a sim whose training program could at best be described as a cursory afterthought is of course going to raise an eyebrow. Even considering that I did not flame you in any way, I just pointed out that there is more than enough material out there to indicate that the training program would be nothing like the simple falcon 4 style "training" and confirmed that to you.
OK when another comes in and asks the RNLAF F-16 and another one the Norwegian, etc...
Do we start a vote? :confused:
I think it depend on if they want to do it. So I don't know.
lol, I think you need to do a search on training. No sim has ever taken anywhere near the approach to training we have, it's pretty much the whole focus of the first release, there are realms of information out on the forums which should show that it will be nothing like the shallow training featured in Falcon and other sims.
I'd have to say Open Falcons tutorials would be the exception, though I'm looking forward to seeing FOs trainning missions.
wildone_106
07-03-2007, 13:31
Im all about taking sims to the 'next gen' level..so would LOVE to see it done on a high fidelity sim such as this.
-Motion Blur..definitely on fast moving bogeys and/or the environment (subtle stuff no need to turn it all into mush)
-More visual cues to the air around the aircraft body like condensation on the leading edges as you see in the real thing in various conditions. Weather/cloud formations should be realistic as possible too?
-SOUND..realistic engine sounds especially from fly-by or external views. Most sims it sounds like arse..Ef2000 actually did it BEST esp when the plane flew by it sounded fantastic..no one's done it since.
-Lots of views, ability to change FOV, detach the camera and padlock the view to your jet or other vehicles..everything they did in LOMAC was great..especially the 'shaky' cam on external's- it really added alot to the feel..
I know its superficial but I love watching the jets from the outside when nothing much is going on or even when it is, and getting that sense of realism from it. The less 'computery' you can make it the better..dirty it up!
-Better pyrotechnics. Have as many different ways to blow crap up as possible! When a building goes up it should be spectacular (depending on the bomb yield?) but lots of cool secondarys/extraneous random stuff going off.
I've seen lots of great WW2 gun camera footage of strafing runs that shows this off..I like to strafe even in jets so it'd be cool if the gun can do some visible damage to ground objects (within realistic parameters) as most sims dont let you do any damage to ground buildings?
-Holographic HUD- very minor but it'd be cool to simulate that depth the real thing has, which would need some kind of head movement (subtle) when you bank the jet or look around/buffeting.
I think its the little touchs that can add ALOT to the feel of the sim..those are a few of my points anyway:)(who cares right)
wildone_106
07-06-2007, 11:07
New Ace combat 6 shots..whilst this is no 'sim' it does have kick ass visual's which I think could be learned from..great atmosphere and mood..
http://gameinfowire.com/ss.asp?pg=1&gid=2265&pid=16
Is anyone reading this forum!?!?
Caddie87th
07-06-2007, 13:27
Yes I am, but at work now....will check it out, the screenshots are promising though.
Grtz
Not to move this further in the wrong direction, but I hope they made some efforts on realism instead of just arcade style. I'm inclined to think they would considering the joystick.
Greetings all,
My only current wish is for individual keystrokes for each action. In other words, if you lower the gear with G, I would like to be able to raise the gear with SHIFT G. If you extend the flaps with F, you raise them with SHIFT F. And so on.
This may seem like a trivial request, but anyone who is using keyboard emulation along with actual switches and pushbuttons (like myself) could definitely benefit from this feature.
I realize anyone not doing this would not be in favor of this idea, because it would complicate their keyboard use. So there would have to be two separate modes (simple keyboard - complex keyboard) or primary and secondary controls. All of which should be user defineable.
I hope this is something you will consider.
Best of luck with this project, I'll be keeping an eye on it.
PHX
I would like to see single keystrokes as well. If raise the gear by hitting G. Then hitting G again would lower it. Same as for Flaps "F" to lower them "F" to raise them. The problem I have seen with sims they get so complicated with the keys. As many single key strokes you can have the less time you have to look or think "was that shift F, or was that alt shift F.
I believe in the "KISS" Kept it simple stupid.
I agree there completely.
Keystrokes should be simple the moment they are the ones one mostly uses like gear etc... and ones one is less likely to use can be the more complex combinations. But only if the simple ones ran out.
There will be some more complex ones in there, I'm afraid that a simulation like this has heaps of controls.
When using a HOTAS one can off course offload some of them to it. And you can re-program the easy keys as you see fit.
Know thought that for flaps it isn't always possible to use a toggle, as some flaps may have several positions. But yeah in general I agree.
I have noticed allot of suggestions that people would like to see in FO including myself. And suggestions are good to a point. And may I add that some are good suggestions.
That got me to thinking about how realistic a sim do we really want and it be fun to fly. I mean so its injoyable instead of a chore to fly.
If they put everthing in that we have suggested we would never get off the ground because their would be so much material to cover.
I want to fly but I don't want a huge learning curve to the point I or others get frustrated and say this is not for me. That would not be good for the commuity or FO.
When FO is finally out I am sure their will be alot of suggestions on how it can be made better. FO wants to please as many people as they can. But as we all know not everyone will get what they want in the sim.
So keep those suggestion coming you never know what they may not have thought of.
Cougar12dk
07-08-2007, 19:00
That's why there's going to be both a career mode and a free flight mode (so you can get your jollies off)..........PLUS the first module is going to be a training module, so you should have a fair amount of time to learn the keys.
If they put everthing in that we have suggested we would never get off the ground because their would be so much material to cover.
I want to fly but I don't want a huge learning curve to the point I or others get frustrated and say this is not for me. That would not be good for the commuity or FO.
So keep those suggestion coming you never know what they may not have thought of.
We understood this from the beginning, hence our decision to start with a training release. By giving this our full attention and support even newbies will be able to learn everything. It is normal though that they'll need to put in more time then somebody who has a starting experience with simulations.
Cougar DK is right in the sense that it will contain 2 modes being career and "classic" (not the official name yet.)
Although in career mode the user's ability to change realism settings will be very limited. In "classic" mode he has the normal scale of settings that he can control.
Kougar,
Although learning keystrokes comes with it (which get's worse for people without self-build pit, HOTAS, or other peripheral devices) the hardest part to learn will be procedures in general.
Both,
We are very confident that it will be rewarding to be able to join a career mode server with only the people that went through the career syllabus.
Be able to fly with them in a decent structurised manner as they al learned a basic understanding on how to fly and fight safely and efficiëntly with their combat aircraft.
In this way we hope the provide a simulation environment for both hardcore simulation fans and the "fun" simulation fans.
In one thing you are right though...keep it coming.:thumb:
Dirk
I have noticed allot of suggestions that people would like to see in FO including myself. And suggestions are good to a point. And may I add that some are good suggestions.
That got me to thinking about how realistic a sim do we really want and it be fun to fly. I mean so its injoyable instead of a chore to fly.
If they put everthing in that we have suggested we would never get off the ground because their would be so much material to cover.
I want to fly but I don't want a huge learning curve to the point I or others get frustrated and say this is not for me. That would not be good for the commuity or FO.
When FO is finally out I am sure their will be alot of suggestions on how it can be made better. FO wants to please as many people as they can. But as we all know not everyone will get what they want in the sim.
So keep those suggestion coming you never know what they may not have thought of.
You know, flying in real life is quite complex with that bunch of dos and don'ts, flightplanning, law, procedures, weather theory, etc... It's sure fun, though. I'm sure the devs will make the training module pretty cool, so even a steep learning curve will be enjoyable and fun. Besides, knowing the bird after all the "learning" will be much more a satisfactory flying experience
I am glad I posted my reply because I did not know their would be two mods included. This is good to know that you have included everyone :thumb:
_Big_Mac_
07-09-2007, 08:43
I think Falcon is pretty good when it comes to keystrokes. You can either push G to cycle gear up/down or use specific Shift-G and Ctrl-G (IIRC) to issue "gear down"/"gear up". The first option is easier to remember, the second is invaluable when one's building a home cockpit or otherwise wants to map the gear lever to a two way switch.
I just had an opportunity to sample in flight comms in Open Falcon. There's something so satisfying about the clicking of the mic before broadcasting on a frequency. And since wild wishes may be published in here, I wish for voice recognition software. All the user would have to do is say the transition that is normally selected by numbers...
"(schh) Viper 12, inbound for landing... (schhh)"
_Big_Mac_
08-02-2007, 14:06
That's not such a wild wish after all, it's completely doable. I've been using voice recognition software with Falcon Allied Force, a third part program that transmits set keystrokes when it recognizes a given phrase. I would press the selected xmit button, say "two go wedge" and the program would generate "w w w w w w 1".
The program name was Shoot (http://clans.gameclubcentral.com/shoot/).
Here's how it. looks like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/_Big_Mac_/falcon/shoot.jpg
There were only two issues with this solution.
1. No dynamically assigned callsigns - I've set up the phrase "awacs say picture". If I wanted something like "Diamond11, Fury41, say picture", I would have to edit the profile and type that instead. And when the next mission assigned me a new callsign, I would have to edit again.
There was a script that would do it for you - you had to alt-tab from the briefing, open a special program, type mission callsigns and it would automatically set up the profile for Shoot. But it's a bit of a hassle.
2. The method of issuing commands is indirect. It's a kind of workaround: "press 'w' 6 times and then press '1'", instead of a direct software call, you know what I mean?
If at the time of saying the order you already had your wingman menu opened on page 2, you'd get an invalid command. It proved to be not a big deal but it's not the elegant way.
The good news is, both these problems are easily fixable by implementing the code within FO, instead of having a third party program. If it was a piece of Fighter Ops, I believe there would be no problems for it to grab mission callsigns during briefing and issue direct calls.
Shoot itself is very small, the program files take up about 400kb. It's only an interface that supports xml profiles, the whole voice recognizing engine is Microsoft's. Shoot is a game-oriented, profile-using frontend to MS Speech Recognition engine.
I can also say that it's very reliable, I got misheard calls maybe a few times total through my whole flying time. And I do have a bit of a foreign accent.
I'm not sure what's MS' policy on commercial usage of their SR engine, there are few payware programs using it however, like Game Commander and Gamevoice. If FO could utilize this technology, the dream of voice commanding AI could come true.
In FO too will look in this manner and to change the cloud, light and the weather ? Would it be possible to build this into the program possibly? Will HDR use this effect?
http://www.windwardmark.net/index.php
I agree there completely.
Keystrokes should be simple the moment they are the ones one mostly uses like gear etc... and ones one is less likely to use can be the more complex combinations. But only if the simple ones ran out.
There will be some more complex ones in there, I'm afraid that a simulation like this has heaps of controls.
When using a HOTAS one can off course offload some of them to it. And you can re-program the easy keys as you see fit.
Know thought that for flaps it isn't always possible to use a toggle, as some flaps may have several positions. But yeah in general I agree.
Hi,
Are you stating that we won't have the ability to assign distinct actions to different keystrokes?
In other words gear operation (up & down) is limited to one keystroke (g)? Or will there be commands for 'gear up' and 'gear down'?
I agree that the more key commands there are the more complicated it is to learn/manage the sim. I am also hoping that the FO devs will find a way to implement a system that allows for an "easy command file" and a "complex command file".
Would it be possible to develop an option that will allow the user to enable toggling of certain commands? So, in the up/down gear command, it could be set to use one command (toggle) or set to allow two commands (gear up & gear down)? Flaps would have a 'flaps up' and 'flaps down' set of commands.
I guess the only benefit for this is to the guys & gals who have or are building cockpits and want to use FO with it. To be honest, if FO is not extremely flexible with regards to assigning key commands, it would probably reduce the potential for me to buy it. Flying a military jet sim with a keyboard just doesn't cut it for some of us. Don't take my comments wrong, I just want to understand what my expectation should be for customizing the key commands.
Hope the FO team can find the best solution for this. :)
Flyboy77
09-11-2007, 05:49
This has probably been said already but hear it goes anyway.
VOIP so we can talk to are wingman in multiplayer.
For Russian airframes from the Flanker, Fulcrum, Frogfoot and Foxhound families to be added in later.
_Big_Mac_
09-11-2007, 07:36
PHX, the FO team stated on many occasions that they will fully support cockpit builders. You shouldn't worry about those keystrokes, I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution.
Thanks for the info Big Mac! I am very glad to hear that. I don't visit the site/forums much as I have no patience! I just try to stay away until it's released! :smile:
Just another wish, possible easy and quick.. :red:
I am building my home-pit, and i want to build a vibration mechanism in the base of the seat. So, when the aircraft is moving/taxing ther will be small vibrations like real. When on take off or landing with increased speed the vibrations will become bigger. They will stop when the a/c is on the air. I don't know if i can make it work somehow when a/c gets into turbulance or stalls/spins..
I don't know if FOps will have something similar with Falcon's ShareMemory. But if will have something similar I would like to see a code-stuff that through a electronic device (such as we pit-builders have) could control that vibration device.
:evils:
Bogusheadbox
09-19-2007, 09:36
Just another wish, possible easy and quick.. :red:
I am building my home-pit, and i want to build a vibration mechanism in the base of the seat. So, when the aircraft is moving/taxing ther will be small vibrations like real. When on take off or landing with increased speed the vibrations will become bigger. They will stop when the a/c is on the air. I don't know if i can make it work somehow when a/c gets into turbulance or stalls/spins..
I don't know if FOps will have something similar with Falcon's ShareMemory. But if will have something similar I would like to see a code-stuff that through a electronic device (such as we pit-builders have) could control that vibration device.
:evils:
Not sure if you want to make one as a project or if you are unawhere that there is already a product out on the market that does this.
Its called Butkicker
NO idea how good it is. If you are planning on building one, why not get a look at this to see what deficits it has for you to improve on
_Big_Mac_
09-19-2007, 10:02
Buttkicker relies on sound card output. It starts to shake when low frequency noise is generated. It's not real force feedback, like in joysticks.
AWACS-controller
12-17-2007, 01:17
- AWACS module. Allowing for a dedicated operator in MP games. Ofcourse the airpicture he's seeing depends on the available ground (EWR) and air (AWACS) assets. Possibly with some handy tools which would allow auto generated messages like clicking with a mouse and drawing a line would give an automaticall generated vector call to the selected plane.
Has been discussed and agreed that this will be implemented at a stage to be determined later.
- in game comms: I know that TS and such are excellent tools, however you cannot add the bad weather effects to the player to player communication if it goes outside the game. I would like to see TeamSpeak integrated in the game so you can use already exisiting Teamspeak servers.
All fo the FO teammembers are in favor of such a system.
click and drag would be totally unrealistic about AWACS interface. But
* controller positions such as MC(Master Controller)- FA(fighter allocator)-IC(intercept controller) would be very nice. and also
* chat capability, assignments of A/C, and sending signals such as (lines,area borders or points) between them would be much better for them. Also
* identification such as friendly, interceptor,jammer,HVAA(Awacs,tanker etc.), enemy (which can be seen by all controllers as the same).
* plots history so that controller can see where the AC is coming from going to where or exact heading.
* symbolization labels such as altitude, sqwk, callsign.
* bearing range capability is a must.
* bullseye is a must
* coordination system is a must.
* capability to use multipla radios should be so that without creating radio chatter can control multiple flights on their private freqs.
* In msfs online such as IVAO or VACC networks they can use TS such like real radio. pilot can set his own radio to a specific freq (ie :356.650 and ts connects to that freq).
Eagle Driver
12-17-2007, 04:50
Speaking of radios, here's something I just came up with (seriously, we're talking nine seconds ago) that would really help the radio-thingies-ness. We all know that fiddling with de knobs is easier IRL, because you just reach for it rather than looking, holding TrackIR steady, click correct side of knob, hold for too long, go back, etc. This would be something outside FO but someone should come up with a device (oh joy if someone already has) that's like a few knobs that can be programmed to do radios or some similar. This would help a lot for realistic comms as well as using things like the ABRIS in DCS.
Bogusheadbox
12-18-2007, 06:43
Speaking of radios, here's something I just came up with (seriously, we're talking nine seconds ago) that would really help the radio-thingies-ness. We all know that fiddling with de knobs is easier IRL, because you just reach for it rather than looking, holding TrackIR steady, click correct side of knob, hold for too long, go back, etc. This would be something outside FO but someone should come up with a device (oh joy if someone already has) that's like a few knobs that can be programmed to do radios or some similar. This would help a lot for realistic comms as well as using things like the ABRIS in DCS.
I don't know about military spec hardware. But Civie hardware usually has at least one standby frequency selector per radio and a lot have dual radios which will give you a choice of 4 preselected frequencies. Again the same with nav aids. On commecial airlines IIRC you can input requencies (both radio and nav) into your waypoints which will autotune / or tune on prompt, on route through each leg.
it basically comes down to good flight planning. If you know all the frequencies you need, as well as all the nav aids you need. Then you preselect each as you go and use the "flip flop" (yeah thats my technical name for a toggle switch !!! ) to select the required one. When you have a little time on your hand, pre select the next ones you need.
You need to fly ahead of you plane and never the let plane fly ahead of you !
AWACS-controller
12-18-2007, 08:38
I don't know about military spec hardware. But Civie hardware usually has at least one standby frequency selector per radio and a lot have dual radios which will give you a choice of 4 preselected frequencies. Again the same with nav aids. On commecial airlines IIRC you can input requencies (both radio and nav) into your waypoints which will autotune / or tune on prompt, on route through each leg.
it basically comes down to good flight planning. If you know all the frequencies you need, as well as all the nav aids you need. Then you preselect each as you go and use the "flip flop" (yeah thats my technical name for a toggle switch !!! ) to select the required one. When you have a little time on your hand, pre select the next ones you need.
You need to fly ahead of you plane and never the let plane fly ahead of you !
In military system pilot generally has two freqs at once(1 UHF & 1 VHF) and guard freq on listen mode. Just like OF (Open falcon) on the other hand controllers has many freqs and radio systems. So that a controller can control more than one flight any time. Depending on the intensity of the mission other controller get other scope systems and hands on the freqs removing the work load of the busy controller. a controller is limited only by the number of the systems on his/her installation or AWACS. and generally radio systems in military are multi freq system that can switch to another freq in 2-3 secs.
When we think about a controller radio system for Fighter Ops it should be able to monitor at least two freqs but 4 would be perfect.
_Big_Mac_
12-18-2007, 10:22
Speaking of radios, here's something I just came up with (seriously, we're talking nine seconds ago) that would really help the radio-thingies-ness. We all know that fiddling with de knobs is easier IRL, because you just reach for it rather than looking, holding TrackIR steady, click correct side of knob, hold for too long, go back, etc. This would be something outside FO but someone should come up with a device (oh joy if someone already has) that's like a few knobs that can be programmed to do radios or some similar. This would help a lot for realistic comms as well as using things like the ABRIS in DCS.
If you're talking about the hardware, as in a controller that has rotary knobs that send keystrokes, than it can be (and is) made even without any special cooperation from the software dev. I'm not aware of any particular hardware manufacturer that builds this in bulk and has small prices but it can be made at home if you have some soldering skills and can drill a hole or two ;)
Alright, my 2 cents on COD planes.
We all want realism, yet to much realism may not be a good thing so I am not completely sure on this.
The C-2 Greyhound, the workhorse of fleet (transportation wise) if you do not know, this Gets its feet dry than wet, taking people to the boat and from the boat. Now if your not seeing where I am going with this than read on.
So your squad just got the notice that its going on deployment, or you are a FNG that just got winged and are being sent out to the boat. Well why not board the C-2 and go for a little trip with all of the other guys in the back, have someone fly you to the boat, land, and continue the cycle. Maybe not a lot of people are into this stuff so this will most likely not happen, but for some people it may be a nice thing to get away from combat for a little bit and just have a nice relaxing (might I add) slow flight for once, actually being able to see and enjoy the view :-)
_Big_Mac_
01-22-2008, 18:09
I can just imagine what would happen if that one pilot ditched during approach in a MP campaign ;)
I can just imagine what would happen if that one pilot ditched during approach in a MP campaign ;)
Erm...Bro...you're not a commercial pilot, are you? :sos
:wink2:
Fighter Weapons School (USAF & USN)
masonator
02-02-2008, 00:00
No question: Dynamic campaign. I would fly pretty much anything if the campaign was fun and engaging. I loved LOMAC....for about a day. Then I was bored with it. And yet, I still have Falcon 4 (with Red Viper installed) on my harddrive, and love it. Why? Dynamic Campaign.
There are several things i wish to see but the most importants are. A) highly optimised and tested netcode. B) carriers to land and takeoff from. C) same sort of after fiight tactical analisys. I saw this before on one old f22 sim and it helped me to understand that i did wrong. Ideas ab it u might get from movie sky fighters. D) real airial refueling and online formation flying. finaly might i say that i realy wish to see some eu fighters like mirage 2000. Apresiate ur time to read.
No question: Dynamic campaign. I would fly pretty much anything if the campaign was fun and engaging. I loved LOMAC....for about a day. Then I was bored with it. And yet, I still have Falcon 4 (with Red Viper installed) on my harddrive, and love it. Why? Dynamic Campaign.
a good multiplayer code and stuff is more important to me than a dynamic campaign.. Ever since i got the taste of flying alone Ive never come back to flying alone!
Flip
_Big_Mac_
02-04-2008, 11:24
I've just read this in Condor review
Force feedback until now was never really done with a realism in mind. Most simulators used it as a 'movie' effect. This however changes with Condor , as it was designed with force feedback joysticks in mind for the ultimate experience. Condor simulates forces on the stick directly from its advanced flight dynamic model and controlling trimmer actually moves your stick like in real life!
I want this!:thumb:
Wether the trim actually moves the stick depends on the way the controls have been setup. And this is different on a lot of aircraft types.
So "Condor" can be like real for some aircraft, and completely off for other aircraft.
Cougar12dk
02-04-2008, 12:51
It does in a Scweizer 300CBi :)
I remember when setting the trim before lifting off, the stick would usually be "tight" before trimming, which could be interpretted as the stick moving.
Meaning....... the stick might have had a bit of forward pressure trim (from landing), so you would want to get rid of that before lifting to avoid moving forward.... this is if you're weight is appropriate and well balanced (if you've landed at a higher altitude, you might have to run the with the skids on the ground a bit to get a bit of extra lift for the lift off).
But as PacMan wrote, it might differ from one plane to another.
Before learning to fly heli's in New Zealand, I flew gliders here in Denmark and prior to being launched, during each cockpit check, I would reset the trim. Then when we got airborne (and released the winch wire) I'd set the trim for the conditions along the route.
Aircarft turnaround, I've only seen this in F-22 ADF and Jane's Longbow
Killa_Joe69
02-06-2008, 01:40
I have played lock on an other sims and have enjoyed them. But from what i have gained from all u guys is that Fighter Ops has the potiential to become #1
Here is what i like and my prefences:
Dynamic Campaign which change if u stuff up a mission like CFS-3
Variety of aircraft not just limited to a few.
Better graphic engine(considering the games that are out now i think fighter ops can beat that)
And Finally working up the ranks as a pilot just like IL-2 u more kills u get more medals and the quicker the commendations come.
P.S To the Game Developers i dont really mind if it doesn't have everything but from what i've heard its bound to be :thumb:.
Good and fluid flight model all from low speed high alpha to supersonic, something no sim so far does.
Weapon systems that people respect, (aka not Lo style where 5 point blank amraam is needed for one kill )
Beyond OF avionics (tough one).
The rest are cosmetics that can be done later ;)
verana_ss
02-06-2008, 22:09
2 seats playable for multiplay
two clients uses one plane like F-16D 18D 15D/E ...etc
Phoenix711
05-28-2008, 05:04
I want to add my list. I fly Falcon OF 4.6 and MSFS 2004 now. I've a good simulation experience from the good old days of C64 to Amiga, then PC. I hope I can write something that is not in the list already. I couldn't read all the posts. Sorry.
1. Realistic taxi spring effects while on the ground. Can be seen almost on all real HUD videos. Gives the feeling of reality. Not just when you hit brakes. It springs while taxi / takeoff roll. Ground ops are important too IMO.
2. Training materials (not just the documents but training flight text-overs / voice overs too) should be made translatable/open. I want to translate them to my own language, so my wing (and other pilots in the Turkish virtual community) can use them.
3. Realistic communication systems (Radio). Like IVC in Open Falcon, but quality close to real, good or bad. Quality should change from situation to situation like in RL.
4. Hand signals should be usable for online flight. It requires another training workload tough. But would give superb realism feeling.
5. Head movements sent over MP code? If one online pilot looks left, others see him looking left. So you know and make the above hand signal when they look at you. America's army is doing that well. You can use hand signals. Everybody can see them.
6. Ground Ops 2: Pre - After TakeOff Check / Safety Zones should be simulated to some extent at least.
7. For the addition modules (F-16, A-10 etc) in carreer mode, targets we hit, should be marked on the plane like in RL.
8. Realistic Random failures. Possibly already in there.
9. Random maint crew misakes? Like some switches are in the wrong position when we enter the pit? That should be selectable tough.
J/K:
9991. After our first single, a hose should come out from our monitor and make us wet from top to bottom.
9992. Female pilots look like female? Ok nevermind theres no female virtual pilot anyway.
Regards.
I haven't seen this commented, so here it goes (if it has, please forgive me):
In order to ease cockpit building and realistic HOTAS configuration, each aircraft that is simulated should declare each button in the cockpit as something that can be assigned to a keyboard shortcut (not necessarily preassigned out of the box). And I think it would be beneficial to have independent mappings per aircraft model.
So for the HOTAS system, for example, what I whould like to see is the real aircraft buttons listed so I can assign the buttons available in my HOTAS joystick to them. I think Falcon4 had this feature, at least for the HOTAS. This allows the simulation to change button meanings according to aircraft internal modes (gear down, in flight, etc). In LOMAC for example, this effect is very difficult to achieve.
And another little request. As we all know, the list of keyboard strokes in a military flight sim gets quite large, so: Give them comprehensive and consistent names, and please, provide a SEARCH box!!!
~S~
Anton
paul07628
06-02-2008, 09:42
I play F4:AF and in the manual, they breakdown the stick and throttle buttons. I like to have a level of realism too so i try to assign each switch according to the real thing with a few exceptions of course (pan view is used while trim is not- when have I ever trimmed?)
Some of my all time wishes for a great flight sim:
* Only Clickable 3D-Cockpit
* API to extract information for Cockpit Builders
* Multiplayer Support for multi-seated planes.
* Feature of intercommunicating multiple game servers.
* Almost realistic Flight Operations/Controls.
* Multi Monitor and various display mode support.
* Game Track Recording Option. ( Like IL2 & LockOn )
* AWACS mode.
* Option to Rearm/Refuel/Repair the Plane on the Ground more realistically.
* Available for multiple OS : Windows, Linux and Mac OSX ( X-Plane can do it.... )
Some of my all time wishes for a great flight sim:
* Only Clickable 3D-Cockpit
* API to extract information for Cockpit Builders
* Multiplayer Support for multi-seated planes.
* Feature of intercommunicating multiple game servers.
* Almost realistic Flight Operations/Controls.
* Multi Monitor and various display mode support.
* Game Track Recording Option. ( Like IL2 & LockOn )
* AWACS mode.
* Option to Rearm/Refuel/Repair the Plane on the Ground more realistically.
* Available for multiple OS : Windows, Linux and Mac OSX ( X-Plane can do it.... )
All of those except the AWACS mode and Multi OS are certainly in the making as of right now..
Funky
T_Flight
06-04-2008, 05:14
I wanna see the enemy running on the ground and bodies flying when we hit 'em.
I wanna see the fear in their eyes when I release a CBU. I wanna see debris cartwheeling accross the ground kicking up dirt. I wanna see the glass flying out of the tower when I put a Mk on it!
I wanna see smoke and fire, and actually smell the bodies burning!
War Pigs! We Have The Power! :rofl
Yes, I'm addicted...and I like it. :evils:
Wad Cutter
06-06-2008, 18:23
I wish this sim would come out in my life time.
I wish this sim would come out in my life time.
Anything dark on the horizon? :wink2:
greenlee
06-06-2008, 23:56
Anything dark on the horizon? :wink2:
I think he's trying to send the Developers a big message! ")
AWACS-controller
06-07-2008, 06:23
I just wish and guess
wrong also AWACS mode is being prepeared :thumb:
I knew it was in the distant future but I didn't know it was being worked on...
Sooo... Are you working with XSI on that module?
If so, can you tell us about it a little? :wink2:
Preperations for the module are in the works.
Simply because we are very busy with the ATC/ comms system now from which AWACS is an integral part.
We are ensuring ourselves that we know what will be needed at a later stage, this to avoid any surprises development wise.
Phoenix711
06-08-2008, 02:18
Blast radiuses, debris fly height/time/visuals for bombs should be simulated close to reality to ensure proper tactics / parameter usage are needed to make two-ship bombing runs (echelon/split etc).
Of course this is for the add-on releases later, I know.
AngryDispatcher
06-08-2008, 03:16
If you're not already familiar with the acronyms LST, CM, and TMLT, you should start studying and practicing your Safe Escape Maneuvers now.
Proper weapon/fuzing selections, and a thorough knowledge of Safe Separation and Safe Escape procedures will be...beneficial.
Mwuhahaha! :evils:
Thisdale
06-09-2008, 10:45
a bit on the side, but a good series of controller (hotas and others) configuration presets would be nice. Basically, have a "how the "dev team" thinks a CH Hotas should be configured"... and so on. Since Windows can easily detect which controllers are connected, it'd be easy for the game to know as well.
T_Flight
06-09-2008, 10:51
I have been doing alot of reading int he training manual lately. Those are not in my vocabulary yet, but they will be.
A safe escape for me right now is not target fixating and flying into the BA of my Rockeye's! That really hurts when I do that. :sad:
I feel like I should start my own topic, but this here is really where it would fit the most. If this gets too lengthly or veers to much could a moderator please split?
I love that a lot of people are hoping for improved/superior communication.
I also love that there is a demand for realism on the ramp. I too wouldn't want to be alone during a start.
Both of these alone would put it over the top of other sims...moreso the latter. I think that visual as well as verbal interaction with the plane crew, ground, departure/arrival comm would make more want to do ramp starts & "true" completions than instant action. Any fool can flip switches in a respective order, but the interaction...the feel of not being alone when you do puts emphasis on more than just going through the motions. Many would be motivated to do ramp starts more if it weren't so virtually stagnant. Make us believe we're actual pilots of that particular aircraft.
This, along with a strong training base will attract a massive realism-junkie crowd.
The modular approach of your business model is obviously brilliant. I'll touch on this more (relating to the wishlist) after my next comment.
The naval portion is a very well founded one. I'm not saying that because I prefer the F/A-18 (well, ok part of it is that), but more importantly the military as a whole has shifted to a more Joint focus than ever before. I'm very pleased to see that as part of future additions.
I've failed to find the answer to a question asked in a few places. Maybe I'm blind or just showing my stupid today, but the question really caught my interest. Will the initial release include the whole of the world or just a specific region?
The reason why I raise the question is if it's included, awesome. If it's not included, it's not really that big of a deal because of the design you're laying out for the whole.
Modules (payware additions) could be comprised of...
New aircraft (friend as well as foe) New Theaters (if the whole of the world is included in the initial release, this could be a building up of specific regions) New campaigns (bridge from "home" to the new region)
My wish would be to see that. A progressive approach while building up/improving on the base you establish. I don't care if the initial release only includes Northern America & 1 hostile region if I know what the enstate would be.
------
When I read realism, I don't think about just the characteristics of the aircraft as well as the interaction, but of the missions/campaigns as well. Now there's no doubt that VFWs based on FO will spawn all over the net, so a lot of the emphasis would be wing affiliation, but if at all possible, resident campaigns should include scenarios that a fighter pilot could experience. I'm not just talking about being shot down, rather missions they may be called to do.
In Desert Storm, F-16s were used for CAS with ammunition not suited for the role. In Iraqi Freedom, a F-14 was used too for CAS (believe it or not). Having some type of random interaction where a mission could change in an instant.
Also, another option would be an opt-in configuration in the mission planner that may or may not add additional elements (e.g. mission calls for 4 adversary aircraft, the system spits out another..or two...or none!).
Make intelligence wrong
Make me think
Stress me out
Scare me with sounds and shouting from other pilots when SAMs are launched, or from ground forces in desperate calls for CAS are heard when I flip the freq.
Make me pay for the mistakes I make & reward me for the good I do.
That is realism.
----
When you do work on the Naval additions, (and if you decide to integrate CAR into the software) let me know. I can help with the realism of a Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP) mission. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/rmd.htm)
Capt Scott O'Grady's rescue (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/OGrady.htm#The%20Scott%20O'Grady%20Rescue,) was a TRAP.
Buckshot
06-11-2008, 05:16
Hey Booger, agree on all of your points, to answer the question, yes the entire world will be included, you will be able to fly to any airstrip in the world, however only the focus area will be fully detailed where other parts of the world will have a generic terrain. (the screenshots you have seen so far are early versions of the generic terrain)
Id like to see a dedicated server release of the flight sim. Lomac lacks this and is a resource hog from HELL if you start adding sufficent ground units. Its said they will fix this with DCS but there product is still based on ANCIENT code that is designed to do one thing ...suck completly!
I also would hope to see an intuitive mission creator. Again, for anyone has created a map in LOMAC, you know exactly what type of nightmare im talking about.
Hey Booger, agree on all of your points, to answer the question, yes the entire world will be included, you will be able to fly to any airstrip in the world, however only the focus area will be fully detailed where other parts of the world will have a generic terrain. (the screenshots you have seen so far are early versions of the generic terrain)
Do you guys have an estimate on how much the game will impact the harddrive? X-Plane have SEVEN DVD's with the world scenery so I guess they really go into detail. Will FighterOps be just as detailed when it comes to the world scenery or will it be somewhat like Google Earth? Crystal clear images for some big cities and a crappy resolution where they just dont give a darn? Will the generic terrain somehow reflect some realistic characteristics in respect to ground level? And, how would I be able to add new airports and such? As I mentioned in another thread I would love a Norwegian scenery even though the missions would be kind of dull. How would I be able to i.e. add detail to the airports in Norway holding F-16 squadrons?
T_Flight
06-11-2008, 15:00
I'd like to see something like 100 CD's! :thumb: Space is not an issue since I will get as much storage as I need specifficly for this title. If it requires it's own 150 GB HDD, that would be awesome. Whatever they decide to do I'm sure it will be outstanding.
I'm ready to hop into the T6 II and the F5, and get the training done, so I can climb back into my 16.
T_Flight
06-11-2008, 15:06
Id like to see a dedicated server release of the flight sim. Lomac lacks this and is a resource hog from HELL if you start adding sufficent ground units. Its said they will fix this with DCS but there product is still based on ANCIENT code that is designed to do one thing ...suck completly!
I also would hope to see an intuitive mission creator. Again, for anyone has created a map in LOMAC, you know exactly what type of nightmare im talking about.
Since LOMAC includes malware, we cannot compare it to ethical development like FO. I sincerely hope we all sent that message loud and clear with LOMAC, because if they didn't read us 5x5 on that, they will suffer the same loss of sales with DCS, and being blacklisted like they was when they unloaded that crap on us. The standard of ethics is definitely lower there, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Buckshot
06-11-2008, 17:21
Final size is of course way too early to tell. One big difference between X-Plane and FO is the type of terrain, we believe that ours will be much more efficient in disk space, photographic type terrain not only takes up way more disk space, but it also does not look good down low. For a civilian flight sim however it is more than adequate.
Re the generic textures, well as I said you are seeing the early versions in the screenshots, they will improve some from what they are now, along with the addition of vegetation etc, the terrain will be accurate around the world both in elevation and based on land use data.
As for adding detail for airports etc, again it is way too early to be able to discuss anything of that nature.
I'd like to see something like 100 CD's!
10 DVD's.... 100 CD's.... hell, why not release FighterOps on Floppy's...
"Installation 9% done... Please insert Disk #79" :thumb:
Re the generic textures, well as I said you are seeing the early versions in the screenshots, they will improve some from what they are now, along with the addition of vegetation etc, the terrain will be accurate around the world both in elevation and based on land use data.
Sounds good. Somewhat realistic landscape always count when you want to fly in mountains near home :smile:
As for adding detail for airports etc, again it is way too early to be able to discuss anything of that nature.
Well, I cope you guys can throw it in... Rjetster already promised we even would get a kitchen sink, but since ive already got one software for creating and/or manipulating in-game features / places would be much appreciated!:heart:
10 DVD's.... 100 CD's.... hell, why not release FighterOps on Floppy's...
"Installation 9% done... Please insert Disk #79" :thumb:
Sounds good. Somewhat realistic landscape always count when you want to fly in mountains near home :smile:
Well, I cope you guys can throw it in... Rjetster already promised we even would get a kitchen sink, but since ive already got one software for creating and/or manipulating in-game features / places would be much appreciated!:heart:
Oh man that reminds me of Strike Commander
Since LOMAC includes malware, we cannot compare it to ethical development like FO. I sincerely hope we all sent that message loud and clear with LOMAC, because if they didn't read us 5x5 on that, they will suffer the same loss of sales with DCS, and being blacklisted like they was when they unloaded that crap on us. The standard of ethics is definitely lower there, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Here Here!!
Many of us are forced to deal with it at this time because...well what other combat simulator (Fighter Jet Based) are out there? I dont think FO has any idea of how many people are waiting for the release of this product. It hasnt release yet and im in love with it and all of its potential!
T_Flight
06-12-2008, 15:10
Falcon 4.0...the current Gold Standard by which all others are judged. It really is.
FO is not released yet, but I too am anxious for it's release. They have done a beautiful job with it so far, and the things I have read on these forums, and the dev notes are great. They really are developing a quality sim. First class all the way.
I dont think FO has any idea of how many people are waiting for the release of this product.
I think they have a pretty good clue ;) On the other hand... I dont think they know how many of us wants to hold the developers cat's hostage as a motivation to get it done soon :whistling
The drawback for XSI is that they have been open about the development for a LONG time. I just hope that not too many have lost faith in the process of creating it! It will be an awesome game, from what I can tell from the forum posts, but most gamers/simmers dont have a clue about how much effort has to be put in to actually MAKING a game/sim. I guess most of them things development starts one month prior to announcing the game :sad:
T_Flight
06-12-2008, 16:06
It takes a huge amount of work to make a sim like this. This is not a game with story line that ends like many of the "games" we see. This is a study sim and it has a development cycle that I couldn't even begin to plan. It would take an entire Team to just polan and outline of where it was going and where to start.
Then you have to get into teams within the Teams, and specialization Teams before you can do anything. Then you have to lay out and outline, and get everybody on the same page, then yiou have to incorporate all these projects into a cohesive sim, then make it work, then get the artists in, and...and...and...
These guys are doing this, and they have a pre-alpha video. I have not lost faith, becasue I have faith in the people doing it. The end product will come when you have a Team like this. Those non-belivers? Even if they have given up, they'll be back.
For the biggest news in the Fighter Combat Flight Simulator World? Are you guys kidding? Nobody that is serious will be able to stay away from this title. That pre-alpha video qwelled the "I wanna see in game video" crowd. Actually they didn't see in game video...becasue FO is not a game. I'm one of those purists. I play games, and call them what they are, but when it comes to simulations, they are something completely different.
I fire up my Xbox when I just wanna shoot some stuff, but when I want to fly tactics, formations, fly with human beings, and use SOP's, I fly a simulation. A game doesn't cost me 2 grand. LOL When you put that much into something it's no game, and I'm not in there to "play". I'm in there to destroy an enemy and do it as real as possible. I study and learn to get better and better. It's not a game that I learn and it has an end. It's always evolving, and there is always something to learn. That's why I got into simulations, and it's why I will doing them ther rest of my life or until I'm to feeble to hold a stick.
That's why I love Fighter Ops already, becasue these guys are for real. They are pros, they've been around this stuff, and they know what is real, and what isn't, and they are making it as real as technology is allowing, and is actaully developing new twechnology that has never been seen before. I know of no other sim in development that comes close to what these guys are doing. It's incredible. :thumb: I really mean that too.
Don't know if it is mentioned before.. I would like to have the possibility somehow to interact flight data with Google Earth. To see in GE all the flight as debriefing, steerpoints, height, possible traffic etc. Moreover, to create a flight within FOps, and to be able to check prior of flying the path, coordinates, make microudjustements etc..
I've just came back from a very very interesting day using OPERA and not only and i am lets say.. full of new ideas!.. :evils:
OMG......:smile:
_Big_Mac_
06-14-2008, 07:56
Why? I think a good ACMI recorder would do the work just as well or better.
Why? I think a good ACMI recorder would do the work just as well or better.
Because if you see the debriefing from OPERA, moreover the mission planning, you will see the world with a new way..! :bigsmile: Sorry i cannot say much more at this point..
Ultimate sensation
Realism
- Realistic live weather around the globe, including turbulance and thermals.
- Photorealistic terrain with high detail on low level
- Photorealistic clickable cockpits
- (really) Realistic flightmodels and damage models
- Realistic sounds (a part where many sims flaw at)
Aerobatic features
- Netcode at least as good as in Lockon.
- Different smoke colors (possible to switch in flight) and realistic smoke development in the air and ground.
- Possibility to record and (live) replay features, such as "Phantom Control" made for LockOn.
- Voice recognision by the computer Tower/Awacs.
- Hand signals
Interactive gameplay:
As Example,
Mission starting with a breefing in one of the buildings at the airbase. After the breefing together with your online friends/pilots you walk outside and the "pilot van" waiting will drive you to your aircraft. At the arrival you have a quick chat with your aircafts ground crew and you do the preflight inspection by walking around the aircraft. Then you climb into the aircraft (with your name on it ofcourse) and you start with doing the cockpit checks. Ground crew will be around like in the real world and will give you hand signals and so on. After you have started the engines and gone through all the cockpit checks its time to contact the tower which will guide you to the assigned runway to takeoff.......
This will give the virtual pilot a great sensation of reality and the feeling of actually being a fighterpilot.
Because at the end, that is what we all are looking for. :wink2:
Flyable Aircraft:
(The flyable aircraft covers the worlds community wishes US/Russia/Europe/Asia. NOTE: Outside of the US, FO is not very known yet.)
Trainers
T6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-6_Texan_II)
T38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_Talon) - Yak130 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130)/L39 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39)
A2A
F16 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon) - Mig29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29)
F15 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle) - Su27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27)
Naval
F14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat)/F18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18) - Su33 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33)
A2G
A10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II) - Su25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25)
And only after this "basic" lineup I would start thinking of the newer aircraft types like F22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor) and Su37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37). And maybe some other trainer aircraft used by aerobatic teams around the world.
Overall, take the best features of LockOn, Falcon, Xplane and make it even better. This would bring the whole combat flight sim world together. :thumb:
I'll be honest. I want pretty much everything thats been stated throughout this threat which is not a realistic request but the devs are clearly invested in this sim and the more realistic it is, the longer it will last. Just look at Falcon 4.0. It is still around and popular because of it's realism. That's what attracted its audience and they in turn helped keep it alive. If the devs can give us a new aircraft every year or so, fighterops will may never get old. The graphics have gotten to the point in PCs that they're so good its getting hard to top. I see this one going the distance. I guess my be wish for this one is that it does last a long long time and refuses to get old. Needless to say, my hopes are high.
Respectfully,
~Azazel
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.