Wish list for Fighter Ops!!!!

[Rocketeer]

Dear everyone,

the last few years I've played a lot of Fightersimulations like Falcon4.0 ,F-18 Hornet, Lock On and so on.... but no one could really impressed me.

Here is a wish list for Fighter Ops, and I hope it could be reality.

- to have the options to start your career at the USAF or US NAVY.

- first of all to make some flight lessons with a Pilot instructor like the real rookie pilots do, before they get the chance fly a real Combat Plane.

- to fly with your friend over PC in double seater planes like F-16D or F-18.

:mrgreen: - to fly a AWACS plane with its crew and to have the chance to communikate with other Fighterpilots over the web to give them the information they needed!!

- more accurate looking Planes and realistic scenery like Lago F-16 and FS2004 Scenery!!

:mrgreen: - more active Planes on the bases, maybe you see some C-130 taxing to the runway,and more driving vehicle. At all, MORE ACTION ON THE AIRBASE, so that you have the feeling it's real!!!!!!

- to having campains all over the world!!

- to have emergency or Alarmstarts in Multiplayer missions


Ok, that's all for now

Greetings

Rocketeer

[Katz]

Welcome Rocketeer to the forums and i definitely like your idea of two seaters

[[16th]Dingo]

my wish list

- as many views as possible : Snap , Pan , Padlock

- two seaters ( to have " Katz " on the back seat :lol: )

- ability to touch down , re-load weapons / fuel and contiune the mission ( like in Flanker )

- working in-game comms , 2 channels comm1 for the package and comms2 broadcast

- more supported axis like in FS , as axis for Ant. Elev , RDR Gain , Flaps etc.

- for the graphic engine - > Motion Blur , I like this since I`ve seen it in Need for speed underground. Its a real " feel" of speed :thumbsup:

- a realistic horizon , hey our planet is a ball and I wanna see this from higher angels

[IxianMace]

Maybe an official 'wish list/suggestions/questions' thread can be made sticky on the forums somewhere so that all the ideas can collect in one place. I posted a similar topic in the FO Discussion forum area. :)

[Golf33]

Short-term wish: the mission-planning maps should show heights above sea level in feet or metres, like a real flight map.

Medium-term wish: CAS sorties should include proper FAC contact and targeting procedures.

Long term wish for the campaign module: varying levels and roles of player involvement in both ground and air spheres (maybe naval too if you're getting into that later).

So, at the highest level, you set objectives (including priority), boundaries and force groupings for your ground and air components. For a small campaign this might involve grouping brigades together to form divisional task forces, allocating air superiority sectors to fighter wings, allocating close air support links between fighter wings and division task forces (or even just setting a number of CAS/Air Superiority/Interdiction/Deep Strike sorties for each fighter wing to generate per day, which get divided between divisions according to the priority of their objectives), and setting objectives, boundaries and allocating fighter wings for interdiction and deep strike.

At the next level down, you act as a Division/Fighter Group commander. You receive ground and air objectives, a ground force grouping (e.g. "101st Arm Bde, 102nd Inf Bde, 103rd Inf Bde, 12 Artillery Group, 5 Engineer Group"), and either an air force grouping ("123 TFW and 124 TFW") or a certain number of sorties per day from a variety of wings. You are responsible for setting detailed objectives for your ground units. You are also responsible for allocating the number of sorties to different air tasks (ie to CAS, Interdiction, and Air Superiority in your area) either as a proportion of your allocated sorties from all squadrons, or as a proportion of sorties from your squadrons under command. At this level you should probably actually see sorties by squadron/aircraft type and allocate them to tasks on that basis.

At the next level down you are a Brigade/Fighter Wing commander. You set waypoints and actions for your battalions and attached units. You get tasked to provide x sorties of various types and you set up packages, designate routes, targets and waypoints, and set loadouts.

Anything the player isn't responsible for should be handled by AI; the player should also be able to pass tasks he is responsible for to the AI to deal with.

Given time I could probably knock up some ideas on how an interface for this might work too.

Regards
33

[BS]

Here is what i'd like to see.

Accurate engine start and spool up, check lists and ground traffic control.
Working AFB vehicles so that it looks like an AFB from the ground as well as 2000ft.

[PHX]

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

[BigBoy01]

I'd like to see a sim that operates bug free out of the box and whose developer supports expansion/add-ons/improvements, (at additional cost), going forward.

[Xyberwolf_388th]

Salute, Everyone... :D Ok, first post here, so here it goes...

As long as we're 'wishing'... (and GAWD I hope 'they' hear me and listen!!)

For this to really be successful - the 'eye' candy can wait - if it's going to be multiplayer, you're gonna need:

o A dedicated server base code - no in flight graphics, but perhaps a 'sat view', so that Virutal Fighter Wings can setup and run thier own campaign and engagment servers. It may well be best to base it off of Linux OS or perhaps both Linux and Windows OS. (Don't start the flame wars over the OS' - to me both have pro/cons! :) ) It's nice to play the game single, or with a buddy - but....

o Multiplayer MUST work!! Without it, you're like a fighter jock that's winchester - you're just another airline! (or in this case, another flight sim)
With many users now owning cable and DSL, they should be able to host AT LEAST 4!, and if you want to make a Virtual Wing's Day? Get 8 pilots in the game at the same time without stuttering and lag, and you'll win easy!!

o Modular design - If you do this right, (and I figger you already know this), you'll be able to make it so you can add AC as you go, and other objects can be added as well.

o The # of aircraft/objects isn't THAT important vs the QUALITY of the ones you will have available! Flying the F16XL is kewl, but not worth holding the code up for a few months! Having 200+ diff buildings is nice too - but wouldn't 50 or so do to start ??

o REALISM!! - THAT above all else, IMHO is what made Falcon the ultimate sim! It's fine to have 'Enhanced, Easy, Realistic' settings - just make sure you give the individual pilot the choice, don't force it on them.
Falcon did many things right - learn from it and other games - one comes to mind, "Fighter Wing" - yeah, it was pretty bad, but they had the right idea in several places! If you have all the buttons and switches and knobs laid out in the cockpit - you might as well make them all do SOMETHING! <G>

o Being able to fly Backseat or AWACS would be nice, like the previous post said. If you want to fly an F-111 or other 'dualies' - ya gotta have it.

o Doing the whole world is a bit ambitious, IMHO, but then again MSFS does it, so why not... But like they do it, concentrate on areas of major interest - or better yet, make it 'modular' enough that the community can create and build and add areas!! (In FS5 - I created Hill AFB and it's surrounding area, took me 2 years, but it was worth it!!!)

o MMORPG - BEWARE!! Many, Many projects have died recently!! Matrix Online, URU Live, etc.. and a host more have all met 'untimely deaths' because the creators had big dreams, but didn't know hardware and networking limitations!!! If you don't have one, get a network/server engineer on the team quick!! Not someone that "Oh, I've setup 2 servers before", or "I've setup a whole office building with 100 desktops and 5 servers". You're gonna need someone that knows his IP packet from a SYN flag! That one concept, IMHO, was what killed each and everyone of the latest fatalities in the MMORPG realm. They had great game/graphics/idea, but they couldn't get it to run with out a horrible amount of lag and frustration.

o and finally, please, please PLEASE!!! Don't make it so we have to do the 'Falcon dance' everytime there's an upgrade ?? Please? <G>

OK, I've had my piece, I'm ready and braced for the flames and 'your an idiot' posts... Shield ready, battle blade in hand, eye's winced... :D

If there's anything I, personally, can do to help - all ya got's ta do is 'whistle'.

Thanks, Good luck, and "May the wind beneath thy wings...."

[macman]

Please,

Make this sim as 'open' as possible.
The fact that you want to build it together with us is great, but to reach this you have to create an 'open' solid base so every member in the community can build planes, cockpits, scenery, new weapons and, most important, hardware to completely control the sim from a homebuild cockpit. With an open structure and a realism driven approach you will reach the same longlife status as MsFs has.

Macman

[Skyfire76]

Yep, agreement with macman here :)

Especially, though I don't know if this is really possible, the graphics engine part should be well separated from the rest of the code, so that it can be easily upgraded over time.

Regards.

[LtDale]

The ability, like in MSFS, to use addon hardware and software -- goflight controls, simkits, fglasss, wideview, multiple monitors, keyboard emulators for homebuilt cockpits, etc.

modeling the whole Earth with navaids and airports is cool. Was thinking, why reinvent the wheel, maybe you could reach an agreement with MS to use their data or something?

will probably think of much more...

[Pappie]

I was wondering if they have a MSFS developer license somewhere to start a new fighter sim. It's one way they could pull off such a quick appearence of a new sim. That or a military sim package but would you call MSFS "high fidelity?" My money is still on military sim code.

[macman]

NavAid data for the whole world is simple to obtain... Companies like Jeppessen sell it to you. Also satelite images for the whole world are freely available, so there's no need to make an agreement with MS. You come with generic texturemaps and let the communicty create detailed scenery. Look at X-Plane for example... The big problem for a new military sim is the AI logic behind airial combat and the modelling of all weaponsystems. This takes the long time in developement, like it did with Falcon, Lomac, and all serious wargame sims. So some sort of military partner would shorten those times...

Macman

[Golf33]

* Some kind of robust MP connection that makes sure of the following:

- all players are using the same simulation-critical data, like flight models, weapon data, hitboxes and so on;

- all players are using the same mods where different mods would cause a problem.

* Accurate flight instrumentation like navaids etc. - this should be optional, with an easy version providing the player with a moving map display and the location of targets/waypoints etc.

Regards
33

[Hotdog]

~ Modular Avionic Systems Design

Provide a framework that will allow one to model the systems of any aircraft. Using OO techniques and apt design patterns, it could be possible for 3rd parties to design say a Lantirn pod. Should a new version of the pod be introduced, it could call upon the existing interface of the aircraft avionics, or require a system update for the aircraft.

Not sure how much overhead this will add, but it will be possible to model different blocks of Vipers with different systems much more realistically.

This will put a lot of emphasis on good systems design for aircraft, and will surely have an effect on how pods, weapons and other attachments will be modelled.

~ Two Seaters. Nirvana.

~ 3D Cockpit Only, clickable. I know that 2D cockpits are beautiful and IMHO takes a lot of time and effort to complete. Rather have a 3D cockpit, where modules can be swapped with avionics changes (referring to my first paragraph) etc. Jane's F/A-18 paved the way, and the system worked well.

~ Maybe use DAFIF nav cycles to keep an updated NAVDATA system much like what X-Plane does. X-Plane also has a great system on how the globe is modelled. A database is kept, where sections can be modified and replaced, available to all. Only dl the parts of the world you would require etc.

X-Plane has a great system where a new major version comes out say every 2 years. Buy the latest version, and all your updates are free for that version. Could this be the way of the future? Will all depend of how this simulation project will be packaged.

[Balu]

In the last years I´ve played different flight simulations like Janes F/A-18, Falcon 4.0 and at last Lock ON. What I really wish for a very good flight simulation is the cockpit of Janes F/A-18 where you can click on the buttons, the realisim of Falcon 4.0 and the graphics form Lock ON.
What I´ve missed in alle of these simulations was the flyable F15-E and it would be absolute genial if there is a chance to fly this F15-E with someone together, everyone with his own PC. :mrgreen:

with regards
Balu

[Juggernaut]

HI Golf33! How are you?

Are you still working on project phoenix?

Remember our conversation about the mission design - I have not forgotten it.

Please contact me via email:
paul_sterman@yahoo.com

Thanks,
Paul/Juggernaut



Short-term wish: the mission-planning maps should show heights above sea level in feet or metres, like a real flight map.

Medium-term wish: CAS sorties should include proper FAC contact and targeting procedures.

Long term wish for the campaign module: varying levels and roles of player involvement in both ground and air spheres (maybe naval too if you're getting into that later).

So, at the highest level, you set objectives (including priority), boundaries and force groupings for your ground and air components. For a small campaign this might involve grouping brigades together to form divisional task forces, allocating air superiority sectors to fighter wings, allocating close air support links between fighter wings and division task forces (or even just setting a number of CAS/Air Superiority/Interdiction/Deep Strike sorties for each fighter wing to generate per day, which get divided between divisions according to the priority of their objectives), and setting objectives, boundaries and allocating fighter wings for interdiction and deep strike.

At the next level down, you act as a Division/Fighter Group commander. You receive ground and air objectives, a ground force grouping (e.g. "101st Arm Bde, 102nd Inf Bde, 103rd Inf Bde, 12 Artillery Group, 5 Engineer Group"), and either an air force grouping ("123 TFW and 124 TFW") or a certain number of sorties per day from a variety of wings. You are responsible for setting detailed objectives for your ground units. You are also responsible for allocating the number of sorties to different air tasks (ie to CAS, Interdiction, and Air Superiority in your area) either as a proportion of your allocated sorties from all squadrons, or as a proportion of sorties from your squadrons under command. At this level you should probably actually see sorties by squadron/aircraft type and allocate them to tasks on that basis.

At the next level down you are a Brigade/Fighter Wing commander. You set waypoints and actions for your battalions and attached units. You get tasked to provide x sorties of various types and you set up packages, designate routes, targets and waypoints, and set loadouts.

Anything the player isn't responsible for should be handled by AI; the player should also be able to pass tasks he is responsible for to the AI to deal with.

Given time I could probably knock up some ideas on how an interface for this might work too.

Regards
33

[Charlie_VFP]

I have a few things to add....

Two seaters would be awesome. But, the F/A-18D/F wouldn't be needed. The joy of the F/A-18 is that you get to do carrier ops. The D/F models are hardly ever on carriers. I would say definitly to the F-14, F-16, F-15, and bomber multi-seat aircraft.

Forget in game comms. Reserve that for talking with AI. Teamspeak can already emulate specific channels and guard channel. You just have to know how to setup the channels and whispers right. Adding this into the game will take up too many resources and would degrade performance in the end.

Make it an open sim, but either allow the host to determine what "aircraft add-ons" are allowed on his server or have all created aircraft go to the developers for addition in a patch. This will ensure no "super man" aircraft as we have seen in CFS series and MSFS series.

There has to be support for a "war" environment. Something like Iron Skies was for IL2. The mission editor needs to be indepth and provide the tools needed to make in-depth and realistic battlefield environments. Many things need to be incorperated here.

Server based network realism settings. Meaning: If you can have an entire ramp up procedure.... and also a hotkey to just start engines and get online..... then the host needs to control this. Would suck greatly for those wishing to have a realistic battle be plagued by those who can be in the air in 30 seconds and taking a huge advantage of this aspect.

Dedicated server is a must. Many recent flight sims have failed in having one and some raced to get one included in a patch after they realized their mistake.

Quick, easy to understand, menu systems. No more cryptic, time consuming, menu systems that take forever to figure out.

Full TrackIR2 support - with the ability to pan and slide. Meaning, normal TrackIR operation is panning your head about the cockpit. Then you hold a game hotkey down, and now your panning movement becomes sliding movement. Meaning, it will allow you to "lean" side to side in the cockpit to see around struts. This will need to be contained to a realistic fashion though as if you were strapped into a harness.

Mutliple gaming device support. Nothing more annoying than having to combined game devices because a sim doesnt support multiple inputs.

OK, enough for now. :)

[195th_Seawolf]

Here is my wish list.

Graphics of Lomac

Avionics of Janes F18

Realism of Falcon4

Multiplayer of IL2FB
(that means not just head to head or coop missions but a real mission builder and a online dynamic campaign)

And finally at least 10 flyable aircraft with NATO and RED forces equally represented. At least two of the Nato must be Naval variants with full carrier ops (deck crew and an accurate flight deck experience would be a huge plus)

Thats all I want so it shouldnt take too long. LOL :wink:

[Charlie_VFP]

While the graphics of Lock On are nice, they are too combersome. Even top of the line cards struggle with the graphics, and its not because they are so advanced.

But your right, they are beutiful, if a bit FPS killers.

[195th_Seawolf]

Well Terry, it's a give and take deal. People want top of the line graphics but they want 100fps as well and it just isnt going to happen. I for one dont want a new flight sim that looks like an old flight sim just so I can have a few extra fps.
Like it or not graphics sell games and if a flight sim today wants to succeed it has to push the envelope with graphics.
The trick is to get the realism the hardcore crowd desires along with the graphics the rookies want.
It can be done, but it takes time.

[Charlie_VFP]

I do not think graphics sells games. X-Plane is a perfect example of this.

I want nice graphics that make playability possible. Running an ATI 9800 Pro All In Wonder, I cannot get decent graphics from Lock On above 20 FPS. Anything below 12 FPS begins to stutter and makes multiplayer flying impossible.

So, Lock On graphics are nice... but it is unplayable when you have it set that high.

[Stuntie]

The three things I'd most like to see are:

1) Twin seaters with AI front/back depending on where you are (like in Fleet Defender). F-14, F-15E hhhmmmm.

2) Carrier landings (with the Jane's F/A-18 meatball) and take offs with the deck hands running around (like in DI's Super Hornet).

3) Training tracks you can view as an observer and change view in. So that you can see how ACM/BFM manouvers work.

[jogil]

my wish is only one..

keep it playable on averaged PCs.
1.4 - 2 Gigs 256 - 512Mbs DX8.1 - 9

as i imagined it as huge scaled game, so it may needs super lot resources eater machine too. SO KEEP IT PLAYABLE.

no need to be super realistic if it not playable, just realistic enough.

[Sehm]

CARRIER OPERATIONS!
In that case the Super Hornet is my favorite :D

[195th_Seawolf]

Well sorry to hear that Terry. I have a Radeon 9700 Pro and get anywhere from 38-40fps in multiplayer with only a few settings turned down or off that are non essential to gameplay.
Every system is different and its up to the client to make sure they are running at peak performance.

IMO if you build a new sim and use 4 year old grphics then you are setting yourself up for failure. The sim has to mature and grow which means it takes time for hardware to catch up. Not too many people could run Falcon when it first came out but hardware caught up.
I want the graphics to look as real as possible to the real thing and have good performance at the same time. This I think we can agree on, but I dont want a new sim that looks 5 years old graphics wise.


I do not think graphics sells games. X-Plane is a perfect example of this.

I want nice graphics that make playability possible. Running an ATI 9800 Pro All In Wonder, I cannot get decent graphics from Lock On above 20 FPS. Anything below 12 FPS begins to stutter and makes multiplayer flying impossible.

So, Lock On graphics are nice... but it is unplayable when you have it set that high.

[Charlie_VFP]

Well hey, put it that way I agree with you.

Anything less than a DX9 based engine would be pointless for a new sim in development.

Dont mis-qoute me here, I do not know much about graphic engines... but seems that anything not on a DX9 level or above is old school. The way this business works, I wouldnt be surprised to see DX10 sometime soon. (Anyone got info?) :)

The bad thing about Lock On is the Drivers for ATI. Between 3.7, 3.9, and 4.1; I have all sorts of different responses. But I cannot keep a 3.X driver for Lock On when I have 4.1 running to make other things better. Shrug.

[Maestro]

Terry,

DX10 probably won't be out until Longhorn, the next Window's version, 2006. So DX 9 would be the way to go with a new graphics engine.

[Charlie_VFP]

I was thinking along the same lines but was leaving it open to hope. :lol:

[cssc]

all i want to have is to have a decent hard copy printed manual like the one in falcon 4 shipped with the game. :D

[smangs]

All I wish for is an extensive ai communication system for all kinds of possible situations. Esp. flight control comms. Also intellegent wingman that will call out targets when they appear on the scope or visually. Well, I ask for the best communication system possible :-). Without it, sims just feel empty.

Conan

[BlackAce]

I want dogfights and dynamic campaign depth of Total Air War (nothing can surpass this, I have played nearly all of the sims since 1990) this game lacks graphics and simulation detail

I want mission planning of Tornado

[Vlerkies]

I also want all of the above, but being hardcore simmers like we are, even once we have all that we ask for it will never be enough, we will always want more :thumbsup:


:military:
~S~

[jhook]

I thought I would share a horror story with you (if you even care) about ATI and there wonderful support team (I know some of you love ATI so don't take it too personal). I was running Falcon 4SP3 when I decited to up to grachic soup to an ATI 9700pro. Once installed, there was no FSAA support at all! Only a hand full of games were supported. I called my freinds in Canada to ask if they could help me. I told them I had the latest drivers and had the bios updated. After 6 phones calls, I finnaly got ahold of a driver designer, and what he said shocked me. He said that each driver upgrade recognizes more and more arcitecture and more games are regestered through the driver. He told me I would have to wait until Falcon was registered. Yikes!!!, so I went out and bought my FX 5600 Ultra and right out of the box, it went boom!

[cssc]

jhook i had the same trouble with ati couldn't get card to work properly and dumped it and bought a geforce 5700 best thing i ever done

[Vlerkies]

I'll be a loyal Nvidia user for life, been using them ever since the TNT2, and that is years ago, damn i'm getting old :shock:
:lol:

:military:
~S~

[jhook]

I guess it is good to see others having some problems with ATI, but this is my point obout the data platform and graphical interface of Fighter Ops. If the platform can accept new graphical codes as technology upgades, this sim will truly be a new benchmark. Everything else is just stacking the data on top of it! To build a house, you must first have a strong foundation! P.S. I think Nvidia is planning a new card with 16 bit pipeline by Q4 as well.

[merchant]

The wish list for the home built sim builder is easy make it so that it is capable of handing the data off to the pit builder. Make it so that the cockpit view may be turned off. Make the sim so that displays such as radar can be relocated to a seperate crt. HUD may be turned on or redirected to a seperate crt. Make the buttons work with a single keystroke. Contact Simpits.org for information on how we may help you early in the design of the simulator, if you are not a member of simpits already you are missing out on some of the best help available see http://www.simpits.org

[felcas]

Here is my wishes.

-Multi monitor support and I don´t mean only two, I mean several displays, like FS2004, I would love to have a full screen MFD and a external vision to see all the action happening.

-Support to VR googles. Maybe if FO start to show off some use for this marvelous equipament they start to heat up this market niche and the technology evolves quickly.

-All around the globe theater with capability to make certain areas more or less detailed like in FS2004. This open the possibility to make small areas with huge details and develop veicles to use those areas like AH-64 Longbow :D (hooo man how I loved those from Janes) Blackhawk, Cobra, several tanks (I like them too), jeeps, AAA and SAMs, and why not on foot too.

-Ground 3d details like houses, buildings and specialy TREES, I liked very much to play JSF because I could fly near the top of the trees this gave me such a fly sensation that should not be forgot on FO expecially because we are going to fly the A-10.

-Animation on Airbases from the ground and on the air and also on special militar operation sites like AAA and SAM sites, so we can have the felling of something happening on that place instead of a ghost base. This also open possibility to help develop smaller area simulators like I already wrote above.

-The Idea of being able to go up on rank and use diferent aircraft is a very nice idea, but some people simply does not have the time necessary to evolve on this real time carreer. I what to have the option to go straith to the airplane I want to fly. Expecially because sometimes I am in the mud to hunt down other pilots and on other days I prefer to bomb some runways.

-A suggestion: the software code could be made in such a way that it could be possible to make high fidelity strategy simulators like Harpoon4 (that unfortunatelly had a similar history like Falcon 4 but had be discontinued). In a matter of fact if the develop team find that it is possible I think you should interact with the develop team of Harpoon 4 and maka a strategy simulator inside the fighter simulator this would be just GREAT.

I think that is all. And I wish you my best wishes on your project.

Felipe

[Juggernaut]

-A suggestion: the software code could be made in such a way that it could be possible to make high fidelity strategy simulators like Harpoon4 (that unfortunatelly had a similar history like Falcon 4 but had be discontinued). In a matter of fact if the develop team find that it is possible I think you should interact with the develop team of Harpoon 4 and maka a strategy simulator inside the fighter simulator this would be just GREAT.

I think that is all. And I wish you my best wishes on your project.

Felipe

Hi Felipe,

What exactly is a high fidelity strategy simulator?

Can I please have some details about what you mean as I have never seen anything from the Harpoon series.

Thanks,
Juggernaut

[felcas]

It is hard to explain because I did not played lots of strategic games.
I could compare the Harpoon series with games like Command and Conquer or War Carft but they are just that games.

I think it is more apropriate (because you maybe be used to) to give you an idea if I compare it with the own Flacon4´s campaing mode or the Awacs mode from TAW (DID).

Others War or strategy simulators that you can have a look to get a better idea are: Airbone Assault, MS Close Combat, Point of Attack. Note that I am being not specific.

What Harpoon4 have above all of them is that it was a hard core strategy/war simulator, the Version3 had 2 manuals of about 350 pages each, one for the system itself and another to teach the many facet of REAL NAVAL war. Yes Harpoon Serie was a Naval Sim, but even being only on this it was extreme well detailed. You could control almost all aspects of the resources at your disposal. On version 3 we had some multimedia efects to make it more imersive, in H4 they was planing to make a full 3D enviroment then you could make your decisions and see them happen on the "real world".

I thought that it would be nice to have the same level of control and information I had on Harpoon series on FO. A hard core strategy/war simulator inside a flight simulator. In a matter of fact I think bigger. It would be a fighter simulator inside a strategy simulator. Imagine that you plan your attack with several resources and on some cases you could just jump in and do it yourself. I know I know this is huge. But could start on a small scale like leaving open possibilities on the code to be able to converge to other modules latter. We could have a simple (compared to a full warfare simulator) but much more rich and complex campaing mode (compared to what we had on F4) within FO or other "action" operation simulator. Latter a full strategy/war sim could take over this simpler campaing modes that comes with FO.

I am sorry if I was a little confusing on my explanation, but like F4 you had to play H3 to know what is it really about and how it work.

[felcas]

Just to add.
After I made my last post, I have been on www.harpoon3.com and I discovered that they are developing a better H3 since H4 has been discontinued. Interesting that it is being stated on this site that H3Pro is being used by Australian Department of Defense. If that is true I really don´t know, but they state.

[Falcon]

WSO IN MP
GOOD MP CODE
REALISM
ACTION
STORRY
GOOD GRAFICS

There is nothing else what you need to build up! :D

[Juggernaut]

It

What Harpoon4 have above all of them is that it was a hard core strategy/war simulator, the Version3 had 2 manuals of about 350 pages each, one for the system itself and another to teach the many facet of REAL NAVAL war. Yes Harpoon Serie was a Naval Sim, but even being only on this it was extreme well detailed. You could control almost all aspects of the resources at your disposal. On version 3 we had some multimedia efects to make it more imersive, in H4 they was planing to make a full 3D enviroment then you could make your decisions and see them happen on the "real world".

I thought that it would be nice to have the same level of control and information I had on Harpoon series on FO. A hard core strategy/war simulator inside a flight simulator. In a matter of fact I think bigger. It would be a fighter simulator inside a strategy simulator. Imagine that you plan your attack with several resources and on some cases you could just jump in and do it yourself. I know I know this is huge. But could start on a small scale like leaving open possibilities on the code to be able to converge to other modules latter. We could have a simple (compared to a full warfare simulator) but much more rich and complex campaing mode (compared to what we had on F4) within FO or other "action" operation simulator. Latter a full strategy/war sim could take over this simpler campaing modes that comes with FO.
.

Hi,

So essentially you are asking for a campaign module where you can control almost every aspect of the war - from determining which troops get sent to which location, to which missions are created and executed, to how and where the appropriate supplies are sent?

Does that sound about right?

Anything else?

Thanks,
Juggernaut

[felcas]

Hi,

So essentially you are asking for a campaign module where you can control almost every aspect of the war - from determining which troops get sent to which location, to which missions are created and executed, to how and where the appropriate supplies are sent?

Does that sound about right?

Anything else?

Thanks,
Juggernaut

Yes but not for the start, since what I whant is just my F16 simulator, but ...
For the start I would like to have jujst more deeph and complexity just for the module I am playing, for example, if I get FO I would have a campaing mode with full control on that area. If I have the Land Operations for let say the simulation of an M1A1 then I have the campaing control for that kind of area (land army). If I have Sea Ops then I have a Naval capaing module.
But then for the future I could buy the Control Ops that could give me this full campaing that you talked about. This one would disable the campaing module of all other Operation modules and let you control everithing from one place: the central command. Third paarty companies could make their own units to be added to this enviromment.

[KC]

Multiple input device detection. I have a HOTAS Cougar an USB Pedals and both at the same time wont work in some games. So please count that piont in, and make multiple devices work at the same time.

[Lowblow]

The following are a few features I would like to see in this project,

One: As some one has allready sudjested the abillity to RTB then re arm,
re fuel and get back in the fight.

Two: The abillity to evade incoming missile atacks on your aircraft by employing chaff, flares and manouvering which apeared to me not to be present in falcon 4.0.

Three: realistic ground activity at airbases.

Four: I think downed aircrew present scope for missions that has not been exploited enough in past sims.

Five: Finaly and most importantly as I am ex Royal Air Force air crew I would like to see the RAF and RN Fleet Air Arm included in this forthcoming simulation.

Regards Lowblow

[Lowblow]

I read an article in a uk computer mag this month that implied that DX10 is not as far away as some of you think will post more as soon as I dig up the article
Lowblow

[Slasher16]

dynamic weather, an option to start a pilot career where you have to complete training(america's army approach) where you can go through the rankings and not always be flight lead and so on. CARRIER OPS!!! (sorry i love the f-18)...I'll think of more.

[Slasher16]

Hmm..i thought of more. In a MS FS style to be able to start a campaign and have the option to choose real or my way(i dont care wat its called) but real would be how everyone expects it to be. you do goals, get missions yadda yadda yadda. I dont know if this idea will grow but in my way mode...you get the enemy, you see where everything is like a breifing. but you choose evrything else. basically instead of scripted missions, you plan you waypoints, your wingmen(hopefully wingmen that have their own personality not like any other games) your load out, what you mission goal is for that particular mission(its the whole campaign just you decide what to do) and so on.

getting to the ai pilots, I woul like to start off every campaign with a bunch of wingmen, every one had their own style, skills, and stats. like a sports game. if one gets shhot down or killed, they dont fly again and are eliminated.

But i think the MY WAY idea could grow, where you finish the campaign your way. Not as realistic but it adds depth and creativity. And you can do something and then discuss it here at the forums and people will be like, I never tought of sarting the campaign that way, and taking out those targets first! I hope this idea grows. I dont know if its to late to be put in but it seems cool.

lol im thinking of this idea as im typing so bear with me. as unrealistic as it is, you can take normal hops in my way mode and decide what base to take off from, your plane your loadout, everything and this is different from what I said above. this is just no planning, you can just fly, or do some damage to the enemy. you pick the dates, not the weather that should be random, you cant go back in time, and while you atre laying you have a news bullitin telling you of enemy activity. planned attacks by the enemy, or where they are moving, enemy convoys and their times, and in MY WAY you can decide to do something about the convoy? or take out one of their key roles in an attack before it happens. s in MY WAY the possiblities for YOUR war are endless, and the outcome is endless also. So basically my way is a very in depth, your in control dynamic campaign. And the original style dynamic campaing has to be included also.

TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK

p.s i just thought of this idea like 20minutes ago, I think its cool, do you guys?

[fredm2002]

Now I am not trying to start a flame war here............I would like to see something that actually gets published and is affordable to the average consumer.

I like the high hardware requirements but try to keep it reasonable.....look at Lock On. Even with a Radeon 9800 Pro, 3.2 HT proc and 2 gb of memory it is just.........ok!!!

weather similar to MSFS04 would be nice........

Naval ops should be priority as we already have lots of Air FOrce sims on the market. I would like to fly an F-14 or the JSF.

Well, just my opinion. :drink:

[Dangerman]

Multiple monitor support for multiple view angles and lots of monitors
CRT info that can be displayed on seperate monitors
HUD that can be displayed on seperate monitor.
Realism of avionics
option to downgrade avionics realism for arcade fight

[Vlerkies]

I like the multiple monitor support idea :thumbsup:

:drink: :drink:


:military:


~S~

[spyro23]

At all, MORE ACTION ON THE AIRBASE, so that you have the feeling it's real!!!!!!

Ihave occasion to spent few weeks in airbase. There are over 90 fighter jets (exercises). There are some times when NO ONE plane (including transport planes ect.) were in the air and base looks abandoned! But almost whole time there are some ground personel who try to prepare this jets to flight! So
You can request high denisity ground traffic but some times air base looks like dead. In Lomac forum somtines somebdy wrote f.e. that AMRAAM is too inaccurate (only 7 kill at 10 shoots) but in real live is realy that. You can imagine how f.e. ground traffic in Air base looks but in real live could be totally different. The best sim should present virtual reality like in real live not like imagine players!! :military:

[Vlerkies]

Well said Spyro and it is true, bases are sometimes as busy as heck and other times it looks like one of these abandoned western movie towns, with the little dry bush rolling across the road.

:drink: :drink:


:military:


~S~

[Lowblow]

In Fighter Ops I would like to be able to have the sims MFD image's running on seperate moniters and also on the real MFD's I am installing in my Simpit. Is there anyone else out there who agrees with me

Regards James McDine London/ England

[catchlov]

Hi all.
Just wanted to add that I would like to see civilian air traffic in the game. If I am going to take off from Italy on a bombing run to Iraq (or where ever I might be going) I would like to be able to see/pass airliner traffic coming from Isreal etc.. on the way to Iraq. What do you guys think?

[Jammer164]

Just wanted to throw my own 'I want it all, and I want it yesterday!' opinion in :wink:

I'm sure it's already been said, but without question FO should have the most stable and effciant MP code in exsistance. As a side note, the campaign/MP code should be used and tested to determine the validity of the MP code. Not TE/MP. If you get it right under 'worst case' senarios, lower requirements should work just that much better.

As good as it gets AI in all areas of operations, air, ground, naval, C-n-C.

MUCH more user control and manipulation of the ATO, if they disire. Or, if the user does not prefer to manipulate it, a MUCH more rational and logical AI ran ATO.

Individual wingmen targeting.

Squadron comander mode, AWACS comander mode.

A TRUE 'hardcore' campaign mode. I.E., you only fly one or two missions a day, refueling is a must on most missions, attrition/resupply is realistic. And for the love of God, NO HYPER-ACTIVITY (o.k. maybe an OPTION to enable hyper-activity :wink: )

And now for my own personal 'must-have':

THE F-15E!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (with the ability to fly either seat, and do so in MP naturaly :mrgreen: :mrgreen: )

Thanks for the ability to chime in on such an important subject in flightsim development.

Andy 'Jammer' Simmons.

[spyro23]

Well said Jammer :thumbsup:
I agree 100% with you - no hyper activity. No one side can do this. How many pilots in the world can say that shoot down more then 2-3 enemy aircraft, how many pilots fly combat missions 2-3 time a day/night ect.
Very good issue :thumbsup:

[Stang]

Keep em coming guys...this is great information.

[16thLoyalty]

Real! Real! Real! I want to be frustrated, I want to spend 2 days just reading how to start the aircraft. I want to go as far as the Airforce will let F.O. go without being classified.

You have my pledge I will by as many copies as I can afford, and send them back to you unopened so they can be sold again.

A nice realistic radio communication system would be nice. A radio system that sounded and operated like a real radio in a F-16. Whatever that sounds like. lol

Make every button and switch thats in the real aircraft operationable, even if they don't do anything, make it all work.

There is no reason why this Sim could/should not be sold for a $100.00 or more. When you buy High-End Audio gear for home, I'm talking esoteric audio, like this F.O. sim, it is high priced stuff, but it's tailor made to what the Hard Core Audiophiles want. Same with F.O.

I think one feature that everyone will probably hate (only because it can cause performance probs.)that needs to be employed, Is a high quality copyright code so it is next to impossible to pirate. Not saying that ANYONE here would ever do such a thing, but there are those that will do anything to crack a code. Maybe a close look at the way steam is doing things would be a great way to cut down on production costs, and help insure against pirating.

[Gee]

I'd like to see random failures to the aircraft systems being introduced. Not like LOMAC or Flanker where you can select what and when the failures will occur. Ideally the failures could be linked to the operational flight time of the aircraft, especially in the campaign mode. This would also be dependent on the settings level for the player.
What about the idea of random birdstrikes as well ??

[Vlerkies]

Very good ideas Loyalty and Gee. I like'em :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Slacker]

This was post back in March and did not get much conversation around it. Here are my thoughts:

With the Spherical World being modeled, it should take advantage of any dedicated server. Within the dedicated server client, there should be an option to connect to master servers in order to assist with processing of the Persistant World, or allow a stand alone server. The end result could have hundreds of dedicated servers within the Persistant World, allowing for hundreds of aircraft in the world at one time.

This Persistant World should allow such things as training, free flying, waging battles, and campaigns.

Here are some of my thoughts on the PW and training within that persistant world. I am still processing ideas for the client interface, battles and campaigns.

Persistent World (PW)
• 24/7 Operations – Server available 24 hours a day/7 days a week with correct time zone modeling.
• Global Operations – War can be waged anywhere in the spherical PW.
• Master Database – All world entities should be stored in a database that is updated by any dedicated servers.
• Master World Servers – G2i operated servers that control master zones of the world. As more users start Child Zone servers, work is offloaded to them. All world information is stored and updated in the backend database.
• Child Zone Servers – A dedicated server application (x86 and linux) that will start and stop at specific times and throttle bandwidth as needed. This client connects to the master servers and controls certain zones. The Master World server should dynamically be able to move child servers where more bandwidth and server processing is needed.
• Real Time Operations – Air tasking orders should be dynamically generated and can also be generated by ranking officers.
• Squadron/Wing Deployments – The persistent server should be able to accommodate small squads and large wings. Including ranking order, promotions, medals, squadron insignias, and tail art.
• Hot Zone Deployments – Instant action type of deployment.
• In Game Voice Communications – In-Game communications appropriate to real ac operations. If broadcasts are sent over open channels then the world should hear it.
• Airbase Operations – Aircraft operations including civilian traffic should be modeled. This includes flight pattern operations, handoffs, ground patterns, etc
• Damage/Repair Modeling – Attacked targets should rebuild over a time depending on the number of deployed troops in the vicinity. Targets with large number of troops should rebuild faster than one with less.
• Airbase Ownership/Deployment – Airbase should be able to be taken over and ownership changed. Once rebuilt, units should be able to deploy troops and aircraft.
• User information stored online – All flights in the PW are tracked. Airmen are tracked by hours, deaths, kills, points, targets destroyed. Rank will be assigned as a combination of the previous. Squadron Rankings will override online rankings. (Most online Wings police themselves quite well)
• Training/Check ride/Aircraft Certification – The persistent world should accommodate a check rides. This includes UPT to Specialization to Instructor. See next post on Training. Training should be done offline and only check rides or demonstration flights should be done online.

Training Outline
• Real world Instructor Pilots – IP should perform check rides to certify airman’s qualifications in AC. IP should have the ability to control the AC, menu for simulating AC failures, and be able to limit the pilot’s visibility.
• Aircraft Qualifications – All airmen will have to qualify in AC before entering combat.
• Undergraduate Pilot Training – Airman qualify in a trainer type aircraft (t-37, t-38) in the following areas: Basic Flight, Communications, Navigation, Instruments, IFR, Flight Departures, Emergency Procedures.
• Aircraft Specialization – Once the UPT check ride is complete airmen can qualify in aircraft of their choosing. The check ride will test the airmen’s knowledge in the following areas: Basic Flight, Communications, Navigation, Instruments, IFR, Refueling, Emergency Procedures, A-A Engagements, and A-G Engagements.
• Instructor Qualifications – After aircraft specialization airmen can obtain instructor wings by demonstrating via the rank point system and a check ride from another instructor. They should be proficiency in the following areas: Precision Flight, Communications, Navigation, Instrumentation, Emergency procedures. Squad/Wing commanders can appoint IP to override the inherit system.
• Training Operations – TO should take place in real world locations within the PW. It would be possible to have many check rides happening at once.

[Flareless]

I haven't read through this whole thread so I'm not sure if I'm repeating (sorry if I am) but how about a nice programmer's interface. Maybe the Fighter Ops SDK so developers in VB, C or whatever can easily talk to FO.

I'd also like to see the ability to shunt off different processes to different computers. That way, if you have a few networked PCs idling away one could handle weather, one could handle campaign data, one could handle the left/right side out the window display, one could handle comms or something like that. I guess the point would be to free up the FO PC so it could render the best picture and process the in-cockpit info.

Can you imagine 4 PCs processing front, back, left and right out the window displays simultaneously, each one connected to a projector?

With a slick engine and nice SDK the developers could possibly do this and make talking to the apps easier for developers.

[FlyBoy01]

Flareless,
Your idea here is tremendous! This would facilitate multiple dlp's projecting the images on multiple screens and give a real 3d simulator experience. Wow! Sierra Hotel Flareless!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Vlerkies]

Great stuff flareless, that would e great :thumbsup:

[Bladehawk]

I'd like to see random failures to the aircraft systems being introduced. Not like LOMAC or Flanker where you can select what and when the failures will occur. Ideally the failures could be linked to the operational flight time of the aircraft, especially in the campaign mode. This would also be dependent on the settings level for the player.
What about the idea of random birdstrikes as well ??

RANDOM FAILURES ?

CAREFUL...it´s beter to make a serious study about the frequency of failures before the "thing" become unrealistic...

Ask Capt. Haole in all is time in the viper, how many systems have failed?

And statisticly the Viper as more or less failures than the Eagle, and will be the back up systems be modeled too ?

[Vlerkies]

Well said bud

[BignChunky]

Arabic cockpit, a cockpit with arabic signs and letters and arabic skins for the russian planes, a syrian MiG skin would be nice :thumbsup: .

[a.m.i]

I wish this...
http://www.habu2.net/vipers/viperpits/Usaf_utd.jpg

[BignChunky]

It would be great if you could start out in the briefing room and walk to the runway/hangar. Once you´re there you take a final look at at the base and climb up the ladder to the aircraft. And when you´re back you park the aircraft, open the canopy and climb down and back to the briefing/debriefing room. Wouldn´t that be cool? :thumbsup:

[Charlie_VFP]

It would be great if you could start out in the briefing room and walk to the runway/hangar. Once you´re there you take a final look at at the base and climb up the ladder to the aircraft. And when you´re back you park the aircraft, open the canopy and climb down and back to the briefing/debriefing room. Wouldn´t that be cool? :thumbsup:

It would be a waste of time.

[jhook]

BigNChunky,
Every mission starts out with a "briefing" so 'Fighter Ops" should be no different. As for walking out to the plane, maby a quick video or something to show that you were climbing up and jumping into the cotpit. But I tend to agree with Terry, as this would be a lot of time to create. As for walking around and checking panels on your aircraft, that's a complete waist of time. I do like the idea of "plane captains" during a turn up of your aircraft, as well as ground crew checking out the jet, then pulling the chauks as the plane captain guides/salutes you during a launch!!! :thumbsup: 8) :military:

[Vlerkies]

Extra programming, i would have to agree with Terry as well, although it is a good idea and sounds great, it would be a waste of time

[BignChunky]

Well I agree with you Vlerkies and Terry that it means extra programing and I respect that you may disslike the idea, not like I mind. But reallife pilots do check out their planes firmly before takeoff, you know to see if there´s any srews loose or objects in the intake. Well in any case it was just a suggestion. :drink:

[BignChunky]

By the way I think your idea of ground crews is a good one Jhook. It would be great if you could have a crew to refuel your aircraft, or to fix it or wathever.
Also the crew should be in 3d and be able to move themselves, not some paperlike figures just standing still you know. And the guy saluting you before takeoff would really give that military feeling. (Ever seen JAG? they do alot of saluting there) :military:

[Vlerkies]

I never check my aircraft in such detail before takeoff, the ground crew does that, i just check that the weapons are secure, and for free play of aileron, elevator and rudder, and do a last check for FOD in the engine intakes :thumbsup:

[BignChunky]

It woul be good if you could begin at the bottom and fly with the squadron and take orders instead of begining right at the top and issuing orders. You would have to fly with the squadron in formation and adjusting to the leader and learn from him.The whole concept of beginning from the bottom and working yourself upwards as a pilot is very interesting .......... :thumbsup:

[BignChunky]

Ok, I know the devs won´t do this but wouldn´t it be cool if you could have a goodlooking newsreporter telling how the campaign developed. She would speak about seeing you the player flying over her and dropping a fat bomb on a tank or something and really get scared.

[jhook]

BigNChunky,
I think a news cast or theater reporter is a great idea! :thumbsup: Iv'e mentioned this in another thread as if "Fighter Ops" and the other mods create a "world of events" situation, then a news cast or theater
reporter('s) would be a great imersion factor as all of these events would be happening simultaniusly! :shock: As new situations arrise, and old situations are delt with, the news should reflect the events! 8) This would have to be an add on later as the world senarios would have to be moddled first! :thumbsup:

[Charlie_VFP]

But reallife pilots do check out their planes firmly before takeoff, you know to see if there´s any srews loose or objects in the intake.

No they do not. A 'quick' walkaround is all that happens and they are mostly looking at the weapons and SMS computers.

If they did a good walk around, then we can fire all the plane captains and crew cheifs and save us some tax dollars.

[Charlie_VFP]

News cast in the theator is easy. You just setup a quick set, film a bunch of news reports, compress the hell out of them, and stick them on the CD. From a coding aspect, its easy. A single call to a certain video file at certain times in the campaign.

The tricky part is this..... a FULLY DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN GENERATOR.

That means that your missions will be based after results from other missions. This makes each and every campaign unique and randomly different from other campaigns. While some missions will be close, others will be completely different.

So, the amount of 'stock' news videos you can make in advanced just diminished greatly.

[Kevler]

News cast!
cut scenes!

do I smell Typhoon? :mrgreen:
won't be bad :drink:

[Charlie_VFP]

How about a view for 'face view'.

After you fire the missile, you can switch to 'missile view' to watch the missile or bomb travel to the target.

With 5 seconds to imapct, it switches to face view so you can see the look on the face of the sorry bugger thats about to eat a few thousand pounds of JDAM. :)

[Jammer164]

I was flying a mission in F4 this morrning and yet another little pet-peave that I want to see corrected came to me. That being the abbility to padlock your target to the exception of everything eles. Let's face it, once a pilot rolls in on their target generaly speaking I'm sure they are totaly fixated on it till release.

It is annoying in the extreme that one has to cycle through EVERY single object near them and still 9 time out of 10 NOT be able to accquire the very thing they flew all that way to blow up in the first place.

Simply put a 'Padlock target' command.

Now why didn't I just say that in the first place :?

Andy 'Jammer' Simmons.

[jhook]

I know, this "Padlock" idea was listed in another thread, but what about a "Quick Look" feature. This feature could quickly look at a targeted object, then return back to the HUD. It would only be for a second. This would please both sides I think. 8)

[Vlerkies]

Sounds like a good idea C/O. :thumbsup:
:drink: :drink:

[Playloud]

My list...


1. Accurate Flight Models. To the level of SP4 or better.

2. Accurate avionics to each aircraft (I want every RADAR mode present, and every switch working).

3. Accurate RADAR modelling (F-15's have more powerful RADARs than F-16's... Stealth aircraft are harder to detect... Beaming to break a lock... etc...)

4. A fully dynamic campaign, equal to or greater than Falcon 4.0

5. A real sense of speed. I want to feel I am watching video on the "Discovery Wings" channel of real cockpit footage

6. Realistic fuel flows. I should have to refuel on long missions (remember, people will compare this to SP4, so please do your homework and get it right :wink: )

7. Carrier Ops.

8. Good MP code

9. Backseater support in MP

10. DX9 graphics

11. Multithreaded to take advantage of Hyper-Threading cpu's

12. VR glasses support

13. A real willingness to work with the community, to make changes (after the sim is released) that further improve realism. As you have noticed, the crowd you are selling to is rather picky :military: )


Ok, so the last one is actually the most important. This is my list. Please don't skimp on anything. This game should be better than SP4 in every way. I will be more than happy to pay a higher price for it, if it can deliver.

[Sehm]

Great list Playload :thumbsup:

[Xanix]

I haven't read all the posts so, I don't know if someone has already posted the same, but, here it goes.

I wold like to see some veycles trafic on the airbase. Like jeeps and trucks moving. Fuell trucks and ammo suport veycles moving to the parked aircrafts and refueling and arming them. Maybe some tanks moving of some cargo airplanes.

I wold like also to see people moving. Like if whe could start the mission in the airbase hq in a first person view. whe could go out the building wit the instructor, take some jeep, move to the parked airplane, get in, start the airplane and take off.

If/when hellicopters wold be added. I wold like to fly a Jolly Green. Take off the airbase, fly to the dawned pilot location, find him, take him up to the helly and return to base.

Xanix out

[BignChunky]

Why not adding civilans, during missions you would have to be careful not to bomb the wrong house etc, this would add an extra dimension to the game. It would feel much more realistic since the modern battlefield includes civilans as well.
The game would feel more "alive" if the civilans would have a "life", like adding traffic in and around the cities, people walking around in the cities as well.

The game wouldnt feel completely around you anymore, but instead you would be one in the masses, got me?

Let me know if this is a decent idea or a waste of energy.

[jhook]

Gentelman (and Ladies),
This has been discussed before in great lengths, and ussually brings about alot of nays as the community thinks this would be a waist of time. I think this very thing adds a lot to the immersion factor! I am all for it, a plane captain launching you from the pad, support crew pulling the chalks from your wheels, ect. But many in the community doesn't like the idea, as they offten feel that this kind of realizum would take too much time and slow the game down. I think it would be a great idea, and it wouldn't slow the game down if they encode it right. Moving objects on an airbase (carrier) is what goes on all the time. On a carrier, this is much more so. In fact, the pilot can't move his jet unless he/she is directed by a plane captain! On slower machiens, I can see this will be a problem. As with everything, it should be scaleable. Ground crew is essentual to flight operations on any airfield/carrier in the world, it would be a good idea to model them!

[Ghost Dog]

I too think if would be neat to have direction on the tarmack.... just like in RL. Turn it on or off, your preference.

[chaikr]

i have one wish.
to see the game in stores with all/allmost all the features that were promised.

[ruprecht]

Regarding addons:
- F4 had longevity because it was open, but lost publisher support because it stopped making money.
- LOMAC addons may keep the sim making money, but it will never have the market penetration unless it is opened up.

Solution:
- Make the sim open for modification, but similar to the way Valve are planning to do things for Half Life 2, make the mods available at a price.

So you release an SDK etc. developers can make their mods, add aircraft/cockpits/campaigns/scenery/skins/whatever. They have a choice: 1) release the mod for free to the community. All very honourable, but it doesn't help the longevity of the sim. Or they can 2) submit the mod to the publisher.

The publisher does a quality control (rejecting poor or buggy mods) and puts the mod for sale on high-bandwidth servers. 50% of sales go to the developer, 50% to the publisher. In exchange for their percentage, the developer commits to supporting and bug-fixing their mod. The publisher commits that funds from the sale of third-party mods will be 100% used to fund further development and official add-ons.

Developer gets a payday and some encouragement to continue developing high-quality mods. Publisher gets a payday to fund further development, keeping them at the pointy end of the market. We the simmers get high-quality addons, the potential for an income stream should we desire it, and have only to pay a low price to keep the sim at the cutting edge with committed developer and publisher support.

Sounds like win-win-win to me.

[ruprecht]

Oh, and two things:
1) dynamic campaign
2) full support for pitbuilders including MFD/RWR output

[ruprecht]

So, the amount of 'stock' news videos you can make in advanced just diminished greatly.

Why not, with newscasts, use an "Ananova" approach where the newscasts are simply text-to-speech processed and read by an animated character. Limitless and expandable. Could even have "instant replay" recorded footage directly from the just-completed sortie for added immersion?

[Buckshot]

Your model for community development is pretty much exactly what we are doing.

[ruprecht]

great minds eh...

[KRZ]

true dynamic campaign usually means something like scorced earth for il2fb. its a strategy-game to lay out the targets from a commander-view and play the missions in pilot-view. electronic battlefield would be another name;)

i cant wait to play the scorched earth to get a better image about things that might cause problems with such a complex layout.

[SUBS17]

Heres a few things that have probably already been mentioned before but I'd like to add.
1/ Fighter Ops as described in the announcement. That will rock! But with the ability to accept add-ons. Also for the basic FO game to have patches so that basic FO users can interact with users that have add-ons online.
2/ US Carrier Ops add-on F14, F/A18, A7, A6, S3 etc
3/ Ruski Ops SU33, Mig 29 etc
4/ European Aircraft Tornado, Viggen, Mirage, Harrier etc
5/ downloadable terrain enhancements for blocks of area. eg countries or specific cities. High detail for areas of interest.
6/ Helicopter Operations, this will make the game more interesting as downed pilots could be picked up by online recovery teams.
7/ Bomber Operatioins, F111, B2, B1B, Blinder, Backfire, Blackjack etc
8/ An Online WAR! A battle involving 2 or more sides using online virtual squadrons. Both sides are evenly equipt with Ships, tanks, infantry, factories.etc And can be either humans coop vs computer or humans coop vs humans coop.
9/ Flight support addon Tankers, Awacs etc Maybe even a Harpoon style ground/ sea forces controller to tell those ships and tanks where to go.
10/ no limits, no unauthentic add-ons e.g MS2004 style add-ons
I dont mind upgrading, when LOMAC came out I had to upgrade my video card, if the games worth it I dont mind upgrading again especially with the new hardware coming out, so make use of it.
One last thing, for two seater aircraft to have an AI RIO when not in multiplayer mode. E.g for the ai RIO to do his job but also for the player to be able to switch cockpit views to control things. Also for the AI RIO to assist in a dog fight with target descriptions e.g we gotta fulcrum 6 o'clock etc Also maybe a bit of banter as I'm sure it does get boring on Cap sometimes. Maybe banter between Ai rio and pilot as well as wingmen for offline campaign.

[Bladehawk]

With all the wish lists put together the FO Team will have work for the next 10 years or so... :thumb: good luck G2I&GenAV ! :bounce:

[Penz]

I wish the controls will not be too different from the ones in Falcon 4.

I have invested a lot of time gaining proficiency with them.

On the other hand I wish everything in FO to be better than Falcon 4! :wink2:

[SUBS17]

With all the wish lists put together the FO Team will have work for the next 10 years or so... :thumb: good luck G2I&GenAV ! :bounce:

Thats what I would like to happen, where the original game evolves with the addition of add-ons to keep up with technology at the same time. So we don't end up with the same situation that happened to lock on. A great game that could of gone places if there were add-ons created. Look at FS2004, great graphics and a pretty good game and thats from years of evolving into what it is today. But its not combat with jets, you certainly can't have an online war using it. As more add-ons are created authentically the game will just out grow anything else. Also by evolving in such a way you'd be able expand into other elements of the operational theatre such as ships, submarines, tanks and helicopters you could even in todays technology go as far as first person. Of course the detail of the graphics would be different depending on the area you're operating eg Max for first person and less detail for the terrain if you're flying. But starting off with a decent flight Sim that is authentic and models the aircraft properly would be the first step.

[Napalmski]

My $0.02:

- 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.

- 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.

- A TE module like in Falcon 4 which would allow for force on force MP games with on the fly adding of flights and packages by the commanders. With resource management (limited number of weapons or planes).

- Ability to define an opponent in a TE which does it's own planning. You give him planes and ground forces and tell him objects to defend or to attack and the AI figures out the sorties and ground force movements.

- Built in conferencing tools like (voice) chat, shared blackboard, abilty to draw with a (colored) marker onto the mission planning map. Those markings should be visible to all pilots in the same briefing. Ability to make notes in the briefing room which are transported to the clipboard in the cockpit. Video conferencing for those with webcams?


Nap

[Pacman]

My $0.02:

- 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.

- A TE module like in Falcon 4 which would allow for force on force MP games with on the fly adding of flights and packages by the commanders. With resource management (limited number of weapons or planes).

There will be a wide variation of MP choices. And the mission editor will be as detailed as we can possibly make it.
We listened a lot to certain threads that discussed this subject and we found that an enormous amount of idea's were very interresting.
And we will apply them where we can.
- Ability to define an opponent in a TE which does it's own planning. You give him planes and ground forces and tell him objects to defend or to attack and the AI figures out the sorties and ground force movements.

- Built in conferencing tools like (voice) chat, shared blackboard, abilty to draw with a (colored) marker onto the mission planning map. Those markings should be visible to all pilots in the same briefing. Ability to make notes in the briefing room which are transported to the clipboard in the cockpit. Video conferencing for those with webcams?

Interresting idea, we'll look into this.



Nap

Thank you for your input, and enjoy your stay on the boards.

Best regards,

Dirk

[Napalmski]

Pacman wrote:

"There will be a wide variation of MP choices. And the mission editor will be as detailed as we can possibly make it.We listened a lot to certain threads that discussed this subject and we found that an enormous amount of idea's were very interresting.And we will apply them where we can."

I think the mission editor in Falcon 4 is "o.k." it could use a few fixes and improvements but it is workable. I am more concerned with the possiblities after the TE is already running.

Nap

[shamandgg]

My wish list as follows:

- Serious ATC control and procedures

- Release of SDK kit for addon developers before the finished program is ever released (this will allow them to work on new planes before the fighterops release)

- Super two-seater plane wish for FighterOps developers or Addon developers:
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. Include this aircraft in the game. It will be a great tribute to this plane, which still is an amazing fighter-bomber.
Suggested versions:
* EF-111A Raven (electronical warfare)
* F-111C
* F-111G (adopted to F-111C when bought by Australia)
* RF-111C (tactical reconnaissance version)
* F-111F (Desert Storm veterans :) )
* FB-111H (never entered service, but could carry 12! cruise missiles)

http://www.f-111.net/art/F-111F-140-will-peters.jpg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f111/f111afterbur1.jpg

- Dynamic damage modeling. That means, hitting ground at shallow angles doesn't make you go just "puff", but you rather bounce of the ground with heavy damage, what leads to a crash. Smoke and flames come out from the damaged areas of the plane, not from it's mathematical center (check LockOn). but at some speeds and angles ,you can bounce of the ground, .. something like math-physical engine ala Karma Engine. Cockpit damage! Melted plastic, holes, flames, burns.. By Dynamic! I mean it is supposed to be dynamic!

- In-game radio for multiplayer, VoIP, using radio in the plane (switching channels, frequencies etc.). There are many technologies that can be bought, and implemented into the game.

- Electronical warfare

- fully HW accelerated, 3d sound engine, with EAX support (maybe even with THX certification :P ) --- Lock On:MAC sound engine is a mess!

- ability to customize all settings and rules on the server side (in multiplayer game)

- dedicated w32 and linux server application.

- Skin support, and Wing emblema support - distributed between players automatically using client->server->client file distribution. (like automatical download of maps, mutators etc. in Unreal Tournamet 2004 for example)

- Don't be so selfish as Eagle Dynamics is! Just work on the EXEs, the most important of the codes.. leave the rest open for the mod communities like you promised. They'll help you too make this sim better. Then new patches can include some of the community made addons.

- This sim must have super long life span, new versions and everything. Like MS FlightSimulator series. Don't let the project die! Don't sell your rights to the title, distrubution etc. Big companies always kill ambitious projects! Don't let yourself fooled. You must do it on your own. We have the money for you. You can always distribute game over the internet, by selling just CDKEYs via secure webpage, and distrubuting game via Torrent networks, saving lots of costs!!! And then you won't have to share your money with distributor! So distrubute the game builds by yourself!

[Charlie_VFP]

I wouldnt say it has anything to do with ED being selfish.

It has to do with keeping the sim on the level that it is supposed to be at. We saw what 'community mods' did with the CFS series, MS2002/2004, ect. Some are good, others are crap.

Now, if all mods have to go through G2I before being released in an official mod pack, then I would say good idea. As long as someone's QA department has a say in it....

[MuadDib]

My humble request for Fighter Ops is a Built-in, anti-cheat program for multiplayer. Something that will confirm that all pilots are flying with the same flight model, settings, etc. That way online competitions can exist without having to depend upon third party developers to write anti-cheat programs.

Thanks a million!!

Eric "Muad'Dib" Fether

[GSG_9_LIGHTNING]

As a very new member to this forum i read all the wish list postings here and found one thing that has to be mentioned .. hope you agree to that

The dedicated servers should be able to communicate with the clients in an full automatic way to find out the best connection speed settings for the client.

Those slow connection clients ( 56K Modem ) and high ping clients ( pings higher than 100 ms ) should not be given acces to highspeed xDsl servers.
If someone wants to get in the virtual world of flight simulation ... he must invest into a fast Internet speed connection... ( I dont want to start a war but heEEY all of you 56 K modem users ! wake up ! we are living in year 2004 ! Fast xDsl lines are available almost everywhere in the world .. and those who cannot get this service ... move to a place where you can get it ..or just connect to servers which only allow 56 K Modem users acces !

Lets compare it this way : If you had an old VW Beetle, you would not try to race with Porsches ... would you ?

As you all know from Lock On : only one new connecting client that has the wrong Internet Multiplayer speed settings or just a high ping can cause a lot of warp and lag to the rest of the clients that have been playing for several hours without problems so far. :nono: :nono: :nono:

The Multiplayer code is the most important thing in my opinion... if you encounter warps or even lags it messes up the whole game and this will lead to frustration of players.

so my biggest wish is : please hire the BEST and most experienced Multiplayer Netcode programmers in the world, to get this game running in the internet ! you wont regret it ! :smile:
The Multiplayer Internet netcode is the Backbone of the sim and will always be !

( well this is just my opinion )

[Stuntie]

Lets compare it this way : If you had an old VW Beetle, you would not try to race with Porsches ... would you ?

Yes, but with multiplayer you don't race, you just want to drive on the same highway.

And what if a keen member of a squadron want's to fly with their squadron but is on 56k - do you say sorry go away?

A better solution is to code the server so that clients are isolated connection wise, that way a 56k user wont affect the cable users. Being reliant on the slowest client for communication rates is a sign of a bad server program not a bad connection speed.

[Sun Stealer]

And what if a keen member of a squadron want's to fly with their squadron but is on 56k - do you say sorry go away?

Indeed. There are many many areas of the world that don't have access to broadband. We have to compromise instead of being selfish.

[galevsky]

- Skin support, and Wing emblema support - distributed between players automatically using client->server->client file distribution. (like automatical download of maps, mutators etc. in Unreal Tournamet 2004 for example)

I will insist on the ability to add new skins as much as people want. It's very important for skinners.... :smile:



- Don't be so selfish as Eagle Dynamics is! Just work on the EXEs, the most important of the codes.. leave the rest open for the mod communities like you promised. They'll help you too make this sim better. Then new patches can include some of the community made addons.

:thumb:

But I am not sure that SDK is the best solution .... I imagine a kind of tutored development made by the community, but original developers keeping all the time the keys to insert new parts in the game..... The SDK brings important drawbacks : the efforts are not optimised, a management by one team for the whole dev. is better, I think.

[Buckshot]

The one thing we are going to avoid is the situation that exists in Falcon right now. You have several different groups making patches, each patch having it's good points and bad points. The end user has to then choose one patch, making a compromise on the bad points of that patch. This is before you even get into the problems of stable multiplayer connections when you have wide open community modding, and everyone joining the server with different patches etc. This is the main reason we are looking at the SDK model. Any community work will have to be vetted and approved for it to be included in the next version and officially supported for multiplayer use. This results in all of the best work being included with no compromises. If someone wants to make a skin or something and distribute it on their own, that's fine, but it won't be guaranteed to work in future versions, and also when that person joins in the multiplayer enviroment, other players will be warned that he/she has a non-standard install and warned that if they choose to allow that person to fly with them that an unstable enviroment is possible.

[SUBS17]

Yes, but with multiplayer you don't race, you just want to drive on the same highway.

And what if a keen member of a squadron want's to fly with their squadron but is on 56k - do you say sorry go away?

A better solution is to code the server so that clients are isolated connection wise, that way a 56k user wont affect the cable users. Being reliant on the slowest client for communication rates is a sign of a bad server program not a bad connection speed.
Hyper lobby seems to work ok for both 56k and broadband on LockOn, not sure about Falcon but I intend to get Falcon later this year and try it out.
cheers
Subs

[galevsky]

Ok, so the SDK will be at disposal for everyone, but non-official developments will warn the host when a client is using one, that's it ?
Sounds good :smile:, really !!

[sweinhart3]

I just thought of a interesting idea that you could take or leave.

I have yet seen a combat simulation that you could drop tactical nuclear weapons in. Most likely this would be because the destruction is too great that you wouldnt want to play the game just dropping nukes because it would take all the fun out. But what if especially in a multiplayer environment, bases and countries were run by online players in a government style setting at the top level and the ability to drop nukes were given in EXTREMELY LIMITED QUANTITIES. The idea being that if a country was being overriden and all else was failing, a last ditch effort of dropping a nuke on the opponent might give them time to rebuild their forces. The damage of a nuke could take out a city or base for like a week before being operational again if you exclude the whole radiation bit of it.

This could possibly create like a risk (board game) setting where the governments controlled by online players were trying to conquer territory and become a hitler(lol) while other countries see what they are doing and kick their ass. Peace treaties and alliances would be cool too.

[sweinhart3]

Someone earlier mentioned the idea of strategizing the sim. If you were to have nukes in the game it could be made into a resource situation where only certain planes can deliver nukes and only those planes as well as the bombs are available to you if you control certain key major cities. Everyone would fight for recources and control of territory in a realistic global environment.
Certain cities could provide key territorial advantages and disadvantages i.e. factories for manufacturing war vehicles (advanced planes or equipment become available) or powerplants for special weapons, etc.

Maybe Im just daydreaming of the possibilites. lol. :wink2:

[man-hi]

Finally read the whole thread so I can avoid restating common wishes. Of course I want everything listed except nukes. First one to go off in my vicinity will blow my Klipsch 5.1s.

My experience comes mainly from prop sims such as Warbirds, Targetware and WWII Online and the need for a better over the nose view for taildraggers.

Model the over-the-nose-view-in-landing-configuration or head-cocked-sideways for the appropriate type of aircraft and landing perspective. Basicly view is only available at or below landing gear deployed speed. The view should give the pilot a frame of reference from a portion of the fuselage and the ability to make quick, efficient cross reference to primary guages used in visual approach and landing.

:bounce:

[LaWMaN]

Finally read the whole thread so I can avoid restating common wishes. Of course I want everything listed except nukes. First one to go off in my vicinity will blow my Klipsch 5.1s.

My experience comes mainly from prop sims such as Warbirds, Targetware and WWII Online and the need for a better over the nose view for taildraggers.

Model the over-the-nose-view-in-landing-configuration or head-cocked-sideways for the appropriate type of aircraft and landing perspective. Basicly view is only available at or below landing gear deployed speed. The view should give the pilot a frame of reference from a portion of the fuselage and the ability to make quick, efficient cross reference to primary guages used in visual approach and landing.

:bounce:Nice idea

[Phantom]

After reading the want list that people have I have 2 suggestions.

1st. Completely modular, and object oriented, framework so that aftermarket companies and coders can enhance almost everything. This will solve almost any deficiency that people think exists.

2nd Multiple sound card support. I would like to see 2 cards supported at minimum. 1 for 5.1 (or greater) and the second for comms. This will greatly add to the realism of the sim.

- Darroll

:thumb:

[GSG_9_LIGHTNING]

This is what i wish for FO :

http://www.projectmagenta.com/


in my opinion these project magenta guys did a fantastic job.. :thumb:
but its only for airliner instruments. :sad:

I know that complex Instrument panels and MFD screens are only hardcore Flightsimmers ( and cockpit builders ) wish.. but i am sure that most of the FO customers would like to have the possibility to have detailed instruments panels that are working like the real world panels ... may be the development team can programm it in a way that everybody can decide if he wants to have a complex or a simple cockpit... just some stuff to think about ...

[kodak]

@ GSG_9_LIGHTNING

No - ProjectMagenta is not just developping stuff for the airliner cockpit!

Have a look at these pages, and you might be surprised: :tongue:


http://www.schiratti.com/bel/index.html

http://www.projectmagenta.com/products/fightermfd.html

http://www.projectmagenta.com/screenshots/index.html

http://members.aol.com/wietlpachm/howto/mfdfunc.htm


I have FighterMFD and it works very nice - though I didn't play alot with it yet, as I first need to finish my pit.

As long as g2i allows us to read all the necessary data out of the sim software, it won't be a problem for some community members to write a software that simulates the different blocks' avionics. I know that there are some guys just waiting to start with developing this!
:bigsmile:

[Sun Stealer]

I see X-Plane has a 'sunglassess on/off' option. A 'visor up/down' option would be nice in FO. I've yet to see a sim that accurately (as far as monitors can go) displays the brightness of the sun and the high contrast you get in the cockpit when flying towards the sun. Not to mention glare on the canopy/windows!

Yet another high priority suggestion from myself. :smile:

.

[Viper39]

I posted this in a different topic back in May. I figure it belongs here, too.


I'd like some clarification on the multiple monitors option, as it's very important to me. It's an option I would most DEFINITELY be using.

How many monitors?

There's a thread at Frugals concerning the visual scenery generator used in some real Lockheed F16 simulators that use dome-type projection. I read it with some interest. The software's made by MetaVR and it's quite a stunning scenery generator in its own right. When I looked at their site I saw a screenshot of their multiple view setup screen, in fact, here it is:


http://www.metavr.com/images/vrsg-surfer.jpg


That seems to be a VERY intelligent approach to setting up multiple monitor fields of view. One worth taking cues from, I wager.


Also, I refer to the FOV variable in F4, BMS version 2.0. It's assigned to the mouse wheel by default, or at least it is on my system. The point is, it allows for a wide range in the field of view, and it also functions as a zoom feature of sorts. Having adjustable fields of view would be virtually mandatory for multiple monitor or projector setups, don't you think?

Aspect ratios: Each monitor or projector's signal should be adjustable for both common and custom aspect ratios.

This may be getting a bit far out here, but if you want to go hot and heavy into the multiple monitor setup with a lot of tweaking possible, it would also be a good idea to incorporate a masking feature for each display channel, which allows the display to show only the appropriate part of the image. As an example, if one were to use an expensive rear projection system using pentagonal panels, it'd be ideal if the projector input signals were masked so that they only display a pentagonal area. Define the masking with the mouse and snap lines.

Here, an instructional view:

http://www.metavr.com/images/ngaus2003-293.jpg

Note the near-triangular panel over the user's head, with clipped corners. The projector would only get a feed that's of that shape, with no overlapping output to have to try to mask off.

I know, this is really far into professional simulation territory. Maybe it's not very practical for Fighter Ops. But any ideas that do get implemented would certainly be appreciated by at least the most hardcore users.

The last picture shown, above, is of a system using only four displays. I've already got two projectors and can arrange to borrow two more, if not more than that, on a day's notice. I'd have to take over the living room to test out such a multiple display system as that, but if I had the hardware and software to drive them all in a simulator, I WOULD.


Another suggestion: Presuming that the FO scenery isn't in the Micrsoft Flight Simulator format, how about making a scenery converter that allows Microsoft FS scenery to be converted for use in FO? Presumably there will be some enhanced FS scenery packages that are more detailed and accurate than some locations in the FO scenery. I mean, who'd bother to make a high resolution scenery package for Nebraska unless someone lived there? But some flight sim enthusiast probably does, and made a high resolution package for parts of Nebraska, and it'd be nice to be able to use it in FO, assuming of course that it's better than FO's default Nebraska scenery, which could very well be a blank screen considering how many people are interested in that state! (I lived there....actually, a blank screen is a pretty good indication of what it looks like there!)

FO shouldn't be designed to cater to the low end PC user. It should be a simulator that has NO weaknesses. It should be the best in EVERY category.
It should have the best and most accurate flight models, dynamic campaigns, cockpit, aircraft, and scenery models, and it should offer the absolute best visuals of any simulator ever made for the consumer market. Of course, complexity levels should be highly adjustable so that it can be run on a low end system, but it should be designed from the ground up to keep even the meanest multiprocessor systems hopping, and use that available horsepower to deliver levels of detail and realism that have never been seen before on a PC.

I would suggest that the visuals team take a good look at a lot of photographs of aircraft and scenery in real world lighting conditions, from heavy overcast to the clearest, brightest sunny days. Try to duplicate the look and feel of those conditions as well as possible. Make it so good that there will be times when you're not sure that you're looking at a screenshot. Is it a real photo instead? If you have to even ask, you're getting the right idea about the visual capability I'm hoping to see!

Don't kid yourself. Eye candy most CERTAINLY sells simulations! So make sure you can give us as much of it as you can, and it'll pay off.

Another issue is integration capability with cockpit hardware. EPIC support should be included by default, as should other provisions in the software to allow the interfacing of other accessories and add-ons, both hardware and software.


Viper39

[Afterburner]

FO shouldn't be designed to cater to the low end PC user. It should be a simulator that has NO weaknesses. It should be the best in EVERY category.
It should have the best and most accurate flight models, dynamic campaigns, cockpit, aircraft, and scenery models, and it should offer the absolute best visuals of any simulator ever made for the consumer market. Of course, complexity levels should be highly adjustable so that it can be run on a low end system, but it should be designed from the ground up to keep even the meanest multiprocessor systems hopping, and use that available horsepower to deliver levels of detail and realism that have never been seen before on a PC.

I would suggest that the visuals team take a good look at a lot of photographs of aircraft and scenery in real world lighting conditions, from heavy overcast to the clearest, brightest sunny days. Try to duplicate the look and feel of those conditions as well as possible. Make it so good that there will be times when you're not sure that you're looking at a screenshot. Is it a real photo instead? If you have to even ask, you're getting the right idea about the visual capability I'm hoping to see!

Don't kid yourself. Eye candy most CERTAINLY sells simulations! So make sure you can give us as much of it as you can, and it'll pay off.


Viper39 I couldnt agree more :thumb:

Crucial plus points...... :smile:

--> a true sense of speed esp when flying low
--> genuine engine start and spool scenarios
--> support for Hyper Threading for P4 owners

[Juggernaut]

This may be getting a bit far out here, but if you want to go hot and heavy into the multiple monitor setup with a lot of tweaking possible, it would also be a good idea to incorporate a masking feature for each display channel, which allows the display to show only the appropriate part of the image. As an example, if one were to use an expensive rear projection system using pentagonal panels, it'd be ideal if the projector input signals were masked so that they only display a pentagonal area. Define the masking with the mouse and snap lines.

Here, an instructional view:

http://www.metavr.com/images/ngaus2003-293.jpg

Note the near-triangular panel over the user's head, with clipped corners. The projector would only get a feed that's of that shape, with no overlapping output to have to try to mask off.

I know, this is really far into professional simulation territory. Maybe it's not very practical for Fighter Ops. But any ideas that do get implemented would certainly be appreciated by at least the most hardcore users.

The last picture shown, above, is of a system using only four displays. I've already got two projectors and can arrange to borrow two more, if not more than that, on a day's notice. I'd have to take over the living room to test out such a multiple display system as that, but if I had the hardware and software to drive them all in a simulator, I WOULD.


Hi,

With regards to the idea of "masking" - is it possible to program a sim with say 8 "monitor views" as the standard "single" view, that are all hidden and uncalculated except for one? Then when the player gets an additional monitor, they just unmask the one that is in the correct location and voila they have multimonitor using only one computer and only one graphics card.

Is this possible?

Would this be to demanding on a single computer/graphics card?

Just investigating some possibilities.

Thanks,
Juggernaut

[Kaveman]

I would like to see:

1. The helmet visor to be able to come up or down ( I think this has been mentioned already).

2. (VERY important) I can't emphasize this enough: To be able to move switches, buttons, levers, etc.... in the cockpit. Much like FS2004 or better. This is one of the main resons why I never liked LOMAC, you have 100 diffrent controls that don't even fit on your keyboard and you end up pressing something like......Alt+Ctl+C when you're flying at >1000Ft and getting shot at.

3. A big glossary on what all those prefixes mean, I'm coming from FS2004 and we don't have that over there, it gets very confusing when you start to see all those "short for:"s flyng around.

4. Good ground textures & taxiways/runways.
I don't think FS2004 even came close to having some decent taxiways.....we all see them at the airport, why make something diffrent to that?

5. Realistic cockpit instruments, i.e: fluctuating fuel/oil pressure, temperature and quantity, etc...

6. I'm going too far with this one, but something that would be really nice is to be able to walk around the airfield. Or to just have some fixed cameras that you can switch from that would look like you're walking. A great example of this is Silent Hunter III, WW2 submarine game-just released. Of course, the walking would be like a bonus after all the major things are completed.

[Red Gold and Green]

I would like to be able to :

1) Blow stuff up.

2) Set things on fire

3) Use a piddle pack

4) Throw it at the bad guys

5) Blow them up


Cant wait! :bounce:

[Luis Javier]

Yeah!!! ...and ground crew like Penthouse babes!.

Cheers

[Nikolas_A]

SDK's like M$ gives for FS2004 (link (http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2004_downloads_sdk.asp) )

[Pacman]

SDK's will become available.

For what specific area's of the sim needs to be decided, but you can be sure that anything that may endanger MP stability will be off limits to 3rd party dev's.

Anything doubtfull, that may endanger MP stability, will have to go through the FO team for testing and editing to guarantee MP stability for the WHOLE FighterOps community.

Best,

[bflagg]

It's been posted here that training is going to be pretty good...

how about a type of play back where one can (like ACMI in falcon) view their
performance and critic themselves? and possible a "what if" senario for teaching...

imagine this.
your in a 15c and below you and behind you is a mig29. He is pulling into you from your 5 o'clock position.

Do I yo-yo, turn and burn, bank hard left and head for deck... etc..etc..
the play back would allow a visual representation of these potential senarios so a person can see the posiblities of "what if.." ...

[Red Gold and Green]

Yeah ACMI is great but IMHO only in wireframe mode.
This way you can really see whats going on.

My wish is that the whole game would function in the 'Campaign mode'. What i mean is - Training flights, weapons tests, etc etc, is all done while the world carries on with its buisiness- civi flights or Neutral country flights going on all at the same time. I always play campaigns in F4, TE's are good, but to have the whole world going on around you- thats what makes it so absorbing and fun. :smile:
My Dolla Fitty.

[eutoposWildcat]

As a Falcon4 flier, here are the most important things I would like to see in any combat jet simulation:

*First and foremost, a stable MP code, enabling to fly without lag and in close formation
*Then, clickable and as comprehensive cockpits as possible with realistic avionics and weapons
*Accurate flight models, at least as good as HFFM in Falcon4

I am ready to pay a lot of money to get a simulation fulfilling these three points, and I am pretty sure that most of the Falcon4 community (at least the French one, no doubt:wink2: ) thinks like me.

Now, I can also think of nice-to-have second-priority bonuses:
*In-game communications
*Weather: that would really be nice to have good weather modeling, it really adds to immersion
*Absurd campaigns: I hate to see one thousand aircraft flying at the same time over North Korea, or foes being infinitely supplied with new aircraft! Sure, trigger-lovers may fell this is fun, but this is very disappointing for simmers like me who would like to experience something more realistic. I suggest some setting enabling to choose between a "realistic" campaign and a "killing-machine" campaign, so that everybody would get what he/she looks for.

If these three more things were reached, I would be ready to pay even more! :thumb:

[3rdELTy]

Hi all,

I would be very happy if there was something like traning, from basic to advanced. Also I would like to have fully active cockpit, ie. manual radio frequency changes for approach, tower and so on. Another cool thing would be to choose any military air base on the world. The communiaction between the pilots should look like never stopping chatter (I don't know if all of you heard radio chatters from Red/Green Flag) There are also many minor things that I have in my mind now

[SUBS17]

I think you'll be surprised at the training involved in FO, revoltionary is what I'd call it from what I've read.

[3rdELTy]

One more thing that could be interesting is that you won't be always leader of formation, it would be to keep up with the leader...

[Buckshot]

Absolutely, just like in real life, you have to "earn your stripes" before you can fly as a flight lead.

[Red Gold and Green]

Absolutely, just like in real life, you have to "earn your stripes" before you can fly as a flight lead.

Thats really great Buckshot!
I remember this really old game made about the Red Arrows, you had to fly in formation and do aerobatic maneuvers with the rest of the flight. It was hard man!
But great fun.

[SUBS17]

We're all going to need a decent hotas for more precise engine adjustments to maintain a good formation. Its actually a good approach similar to the x-wing series and wing commander. You start off on the very bottom and work your way up.

[Snackjack]

Hi all, My wish list would be an aprox release date. Appart from what everyone else has said about Lomac Graphics and F4 immersion, I'd like to see another plane that's not North American. Mig? Mirage? Europhighter? The whole idea of a game with stars and stripes all over it looses my interest. Unless is really a dream come true.

[Estocade]

Yup diversity is good, but I think they're starting with these 3 aircrafts to give them a super realistic feel. Then when the sim's out and everything runs OK, they'll implement other aircrafts. :wink2:

[jhook]

Yup diversity is good, but I think they're starting with these 3 aircrafts to give them a super realistic feel. Then when the sim's out and everything runs OK, they'll implement other aircrafts. :wink2:

:thumb:

[Suds]

As a Falcon4 simmer I'd be happy if FO is similar to Falcon, but modernized and improved in "all" areas; multiplay, in game comms from traffic, ILS, VORs, weather, training, fully functional cockpits with popup checklist or on the knee, better ATC, improved mission creator, a build up to war campaign like the old Falcon 3. Basically, I'm greedy and I want it all! I don't mind paying to get it.

Cheers,

Suds

[Juggernaut]

As a Falcon4 simmer I'd be happy if FO is similar to Falcon, but modernized and improved in "all" areas; multiplay, in game comms from traffic, ILS, VORs, weather, training, fully functional cockpits with popup checklist or on the knee, better ATC, improved mission creator, a build up to war campaign like the old Falcon 3. Basically, I'm greedy and I want it all! I don't mind paying to get it.

Cheers,

Suds

Hi,

I have never flown Falcon 3. What is the "build up to war campaign"?

How does it work?

Over what period of time does it take place?

Thanks,
Juggernaut

[Suds]

Hi,

I have never flown Falcon 3. What is the "build up to war campaign"?

How does it work?

Over what period of time does it take place?

Thanks,
Juggernaut

It has been a while, but if I recall correctly at the begining of the campaign you flew BARCAP missions in which you could taunt hostile aircraft, lock up, and try to get them to divert back over the border. ROE was not to fire unless fired upon. Sometimes they would fire...taunt you back...sometimes your wingman would lose his cool and egress the mix up.

The build up could be reduced somewhat in an effort to keep the sim fun, so I am thinking between 1-2 days. However, it should be an option so those who don't want a buid up can jump into the fray.

I think a build up would be cool. Units positioning themselve along the border... AD intrusion flights....recon flights Allied and Hostile...that sort of thing.

The other thing that is missing in Flight Sims is EW Spectrum control. He who controls the EW Spectrum will win the war. It would be realistic to be able to comm jam and to experience comm jamming. Also to have different types of jamming such as spot, barrage, repeater, sync and non sync, chaff target generation. More realistic ECM/ECCM employment. I always found the "X" in Falcon funny.

Cheers,

Suds

[Buckshot]

Yep, good suggestions Suds, that is definately something that is already in the design document, and something I think does definately add to the atmosphere of the campaign.

[Redstormer]

In the long run it would be nice when it could be possible to eavesdrop the conversations of enemy pilots by a kind of military intelligence, or on the ground with a kind of artillery tracking radar, like the XM5 GBCS-H, to find the enemy and to destroy him while he is moving or when he fired a few shots on your line.

And something from nature: trees! a lot of trees!

[PiF]

To complete the Wishes of Redstormer, I would like the possiblilty to have realistic tank combat system, for Example the T-55 MBT is poor in precision and power of fire and the M1A1 MBT have got a good precision, the T-90 MBT have got a system who is jamming lasers and few T-90's can destruct ATGM inbound with a system who is lauching an explosive.The Leclerc MBT can firing in move on moving targets.

[SEADEMON]

I would like to see that the cockpit controls are switched on and off by an animated pilots hands that moves with the designated controls via created animation for those controls instead of just the tacky mouse.

We also need in training a radio control training course so that people learn to use the radio as in real life communications and possibly have structured course for the human air boss to take that would be qualified world wide, like ms fs has. to have the capability to use a human airboss co-ordinator.

Another big wish is to have the program open in such a way that in future it could be interoperable with say a ground infantry, armoured or naval game so that one or two or three other games can link into it successfully in an overall battle field approach. Especially naval game so that carrier ops can be done as well as use the ships as well.

therefore you could have a total battlefield commander on the ship controlling the fleet and also having a cag to operate figheterops off the carrier (s).

VFA35
http://seawolves.org/aw

[Nikolas_A]

I would like to see that the cockpit controls are switched on and off by an animated pilots hands that moves with the designated controls via created animation for those controls instead of just the tacky mouse.

I don't think it would be worth the FPS hit.


Another big wish is to have the program open in such a way that in future it could be interoperable with say a ground infantry, armoured or naval game so that one or two or three other games can link into it successfully in an overall battle field approach. Especially naval game so that carrier ops can be done as well as use the ships as well.


Amen! I've brought up the issue before. I think the better way to do this if you make a standalone program that handles the communication between the different sims. That of course if documentation on each sim is available.

[Redstormer]

I don't think it would be worth the FPS hit.



Amen! I've brought up the issue before. I think the better way to do this if you make a standalone program that handles the communication between the different sims. That of course if documentation on each sim is available.

Just look at the other threads and you can understand what the future plans are! :wink2:

[SUBS17]

Yeah I'm definately hoping FO will introduce Ship and fleet control to the Battlefield. One day hopefully that may happen, even simple waypoint control for the carriers waypoints would do for a start.


The problem with animated pilots hands will slow your reactions and delay the effectiveness of weapons. Also the g-loc modelling may well prevent some pilots from activating some switches whilst in heavy g(:doh: oops, I should not have said that). Another point is that some guys are making home cockpits which also may give them an advantage if such an effect is not switched on because of it. FPS probably wouldn't be too much of a factor IMO with the next generation of PCs.

[Buckshot]

It's not so much the FPS hit, it's the fact that they would only serve to get in the way, and would be pretty much useless. Remember we are talking about fully functional clickable cockpits here, so you need to see what is behind the "hands" also you go to click a switch, then the hand starts moving to click it? or even worse the hand follows your mouse around the pit, what happens if you use a keystroke instead of a mouseclick? Unfortunately this idea may sound cool in theory but for a sim of this nature it is not practical.

The complete battlefield idea however with humans controlling all of the elements is certainly possible, and is definately in the long term plans for the Fighter Ops series.

[Juggernaut]

It's not so much the FPS hit, it's the fact that they would only serve to get in the way, and would be pretty much useless. Remember we are talking about fully functional clickable cockpits here, so you need to see what is behind the "hands" also you go to click a switch, then the hand starts moving to click it? or even worse the hand follows your mouse around the pit, what happens if you use a keystroke instead of a mouseclick? Unfortunately this idea may sound cool in theory but for a sim of this nature it is not practical.

The complete battlefield idea however with humans controlling all of the elements is certainly possible, and is definately in the long term plans for the Fighter Ops series.

Hi Buckshot,

How about legs?

Would be nice to have them...otherwise it does not feel like you are in the cockpit.

Perhaps they could even be animated to move when the rudder and brakes are pressed?

Juggernaut

[SUBS17]

Don't get me wrong, having hands on the Hotas with legs that move according to joystick movement and Throttle movements is very cool. Same with rudder pedals and leg movements, how about animated fingers on the HOTAS eg just Hotas buttons show animated finger movements for the TDC, trigger etc. That could be animated.

[Furyan]

My Wish list for Fighter Ops

Definately a Naval-add on in the very near future after the FO release. With the choice of Carriers. Carriers with realistic landing operations to include LSO. Active flight Deck. All models of the F-14 and F/A-18.

[jhook]

Don't get me wrong, having hands on the Hotas with legs that move according to joystick movement and Throttle movements is very cool. Same with rudder pedals and leg movements, how about animated fingers on the HOTAS eg just Hotas buttons show animated finger movements for the TDC, trigger etc. That could be animated.

One such comprimise could be to have the arms/hands "see through". The arms/hands don't move, they stay on the HOTAS. To see through them would allow the pilot to see the console behind it. I'm with Buckshot on this one, as I mentioned this in a thread last year. If it were to slow down rection time, I think it would be pretty usless. A pilot isn't going to be looking at his/her arm while in combat. Just my 2 cents.

[jhook]

My Wish list for Fighter Ops

Definately a Naval-add on in the very near future after the FO release. With the choice of Carriers. Carriers with realistic landing operations to include LSO. Active flight Deck. All models of the F-14.

:thumb:

[Suds]

I wish the controls will not be too different from the ones in Falcon 4.

I have invested a lot of time gaining proficiency with them.

On the other hand I wish everything in FO to be better than Falcon 4! :wink2:


Excellent point Penz!

[GI Jew]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but my wish for the naval addon is to have realistic ocean swell and chop. Has there been any flight sim where a big storm causes a carrier to pitch and roll? My ultimate goal is to land a tomcat on a carrier in a big ass storm

[Afterburner]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but my wish for the naval addon is to have realistic ocean swell and chop. Has there been any flight sim where a big storm causes a carrier to pitch and roll? My ultimate goal is to land a tomcat on a carrier in a big ass storm
Ahhhh.......same here :smile:

[Redstormer]

In the long run it would be nice when it could be possible to eavesdrop the conversations of enemy pilots by a kind of military intelligence, or on the ground with a kind of artillery tracking radar, like the XM5 GBCS-H, to find the enemy and to destroy him while he is moving or when he fired a few shots on your line.

And something from nature: trees! a lot of trees!

Trees something like this only more, more!!!! :bounce:

[SUBS17]

Yeah Crouching Maverick Hidden Vihkr lol, ya just gotta laugh watching those vihkrs spiral to their targets.

[Nikolas_A]

Just look at the other threads and you can understand what the future plans are! :wink2:

I do read the other threads and know what the future plans are. You just don't get how far my twisted mind goes... I want to be able to connect a Special Forces FPS to FO, get dropped by a a FO user flying a Herc to a DZ, paint some targets with a laser for other FO users flying vipers etc. Or even fire AAA against them. Now THAT would be a virtual battlespace.

[Juggernaut]

I do read the other threads and know what the future plans are. You just don't get how far my twisted mind goes... I want to be able to connect a Special Forces FPS to FO, get dropped by a a FO user flying a Herc to a DZ, paint some targets with a laser for other FO users flying vipers etc. Or even fire AAA against them. Now THAT would be a virtual battlespace.

Hi,

That would be very cool, indeed.

I suppose that since the FO project is basically "never ending" that in time such options would be available.

hehe...I suppose the more support the earlier versions have, the more resources there will be to hire new coders who could add such "non-aviation" options at a faster pace.
:wink2:

Juggernaut

[SUBS17]

Yeah, I'd say if that were to happen you would want to add an FPS, Ship and tank development departments. Its a awesome concept, and one which I hope happens.

[Buckshot]

It's only a matter of time. If/When it is done it will be done with the same attention to detail as Fighterops is being built, with experts in the respective fields playing a very large role to ensure that accuracy and realism are foremost.


For now though we have a flight simulator to concentrate on.

[Nikolas_A]

It's only a matter of time. If/When it is done it will be done with the same attention to detail as Fighterops is being built, with experts in the respective fields playing a very large role to ensure that accuracy and realism are foremost.


For now though we have a flight simulator to concentrate on.

Just another idea for when/if something like this is done:

If a FO pilot has to bail out over enemy territory, he continues the game in FPS style and has to evade captivity untill CSAR comes...

[Redstormer]

Just another idea for when/if something like this is done:

If a FO pilot has to bail out over enemy territory, he continues the game in FPS style and has to evade captivity untill CSAR comes...

This idea has been mentioned before. Is it still a good idea although!!!! :bigsmile: :thumb:

[Charlie]

Hi guys I stumbled upon FO today and have spent the last 3 hours or so looking over the site, and what can i say???....impressive!!!! also the fact that the FO team take an active interest in the forums blows me away, it just shows me how dedicated the team is.

Anyway my little wish, as an aircraft maintainer in the military we find that sometimes malfunctions with equipment either in the air or on the ground often cancels or delays sorties to some degree it would be nice to see this realism in a simulator like this.

Plus (looking at it from a maintainers point of view) have ground personal on engine startup and shut down. Have the pilot (via an icon or something) give the signal for APU and Engine start and shut down and the ground crew reply with the appropriate signal.

Finally incorporate a before flight walkaround, things like removing chocks and removing "remove before flight" tags, ejection seat pins etc

Thats it for me I wish the best for the team, if they are anything like what i've seen so far i'm confident this will be the best combat flight sim ever to grace the PC

[SUBS17]

Thats an idea in one of the other threads about doing a walkaround etc. I think ground crew is a cool idea as is the walkaround. Maybe when they've got the aircraft sorted they might look into that.

[jhook]

Thats an idea in one of the other threads about doing a walkaround etc. I think ground crew is a cool idea as is the walkaround. Maybe when they've got the aircraft sorted they might look into that.

I hope so too. I started a thread on this and I too would think this sort of thing would add tons to the imersion factor. But I caution the CPU loads and the graphics app. I think this sort of thing should be switchable. Thoughs with big CPU's or multiple CPU's could take advantage of this. It all comes down to our coders and what they think is feasable. Last I heard, it will make it into the sim at a future date. :thumb:

[Afterburner]

I have a humble wish.......I hope this SIM will be be scalable in terms of PC performance all the way up to Dual-Core (which I will be gettin) and will take advantage of up to 2GB of RAM (which I already have)........... :smile:

[JollyRoger919]

How about the ability to fly F-22. Or even some Navy jets like the F-14 and F/A-18.

[Buckshot]

Naval aircraft answered in your other post. F22 there is nowhere near enough data on the aircraft to model it accurately at this point.

[Estocade]

*Realism in all aspects (obvious :red: )

*Stable MP

*Persistent MP world

*Transferable skins

*Ability to "create" new nations in ME (providing there a least one "unit" it can use) Ex.: country A is in a civil war. It splits into country B and C, each one having its airforce. Possibility to "create" airforce B and C.

*Good AI

*Future flyable expansion packs.

[Jimbo51]

I'd like to see stealth missions, having to avoid radar detection at all costs, destroying your high priority targets right in the heart of the lion's den. It would be a completely different experience from the usual sorties, more like Splinter Cell than HL2 (i'm a big fan of Splinter Cell for exactly this "hold your breath tension" that immersive stealth games excel in). This could be at the very beginning of a campaign, preferably in the F-117 (like in Iraq), delivering the initial blow.

I'm very excited by FO, a very ambitious game by a seemingly very dedicated and talented team of enthusiasts, best of luck.

[Lohne]

my wish is only one..

keep it playable on averaged PCs.
1.4 - 2 Gigs 256 - 512Mbs DX8.1 - 9

as i imagined it as huge scaled game, so it may needs super lot resources eater machine too. SO KEEP IT PLAYABLE.

no need to be super realistic if it not playable, just realistic enough.


Have to disagree.

In fact, my entry into the wish list is the exact opposite. Aim for the upper middle and upper high end pcs when you build it. I'm tired of game developers aiming for the lowest common demoninator and ending up leaving feature after feature out of a product just so the final version can run on some POS from the mid 90's.

Balls to the walls, FO. Make the best game there is. If it IS, people will upgrade for it. I dont buy up to date graphics cards and load 2+ gigs of ram for another flight sim that looks like Gunship 2000.

Push the bar.

[Lohne]

*Realism in all aspects (obvious :red: )

*Stable MP

*Persistent MP world

*Transferable skins

*Ability to "create" new nations in ME (providing there a least one "unit" it can use) Ex.: country A is in a civil war. It splits into country B and C, each one having its airforce. Possibility to "create" airforce B and C.

*Good AI

*Future flyable expansion packs.

Just read that post.

Yeah. We need ALL that.

(Persistant MP world...consider that with an in depth in DEPTH FO kinda sim, and you'd know why I love Planetside so much)


Iwould like to see that the cockpit controls are switched on and off by an animated pilots hands that moves with the designated controls via created animation for those controls instead of just the tacky mouse.

We also need in training a radio control training course so that people learn to use the radio as in real life communications and possibly have structured course for the human air boss to take that would be qualified world wide, like ms fs has. to have the capability to use a human airboss co-ordinator.

Another big wish is to have the program open in such a way that in future it could be interoperable with say a ground infantry, armoured or naval game so that one or two or three other games can link into it successfully in an overall battle field approach. Especially naval game so that carrier ops can be done as well as use the ships as well.

therefore you could have a total battlefield commander on the ship controlling the fleet and also having a cag to operate figheterops off the carrier (s).

That, my friends, is the top of the montain. Basiclly, planetside, but with utter and total realism. i would never leave the computer, and would bequeith half of my lifes income to FO.


Oh, and just so it's clear?

For a game that looks like the Doom 3 of flight sims, has utter AND scaleable realism, a persitant, mp capable campgain, and the modularityu required to perhaps eventually be a ground and naval sim as well?

FO, I hope you guys know I'm not paying 20 bucks for that. I'd lay down a HUNDRED, easy.

Just so you know.

----

There's been alot of love shown the desire to have realisticly moddeld equipment faliures, but no love shown to the other half ot that equation....

The people that have to FIX such a problem, and the ones that supposedly work their rears off to ensure they happen as little as possible. Why yes, I refer to mechanics. Ya have to model such funness, which invovles things like the Cheif mechanic deciding how much of his limited man hours of labor goes to fixing what and where. The avaliblity, and thus, chance at delicus interdection, of his precius spare parts and repair tools. Things like that. Heck, if you could model the game such that a person can exist in glorius 3d inside it, perhaps just for room for future addons, I wouldnt mind BEING such a mechanic. I've allways had a soft spot for the support role.

[natedogg]

Hi,
One thing i would like for fighter ops which may not be very important to most is having a native widescreen resolution, that doesn't strech or crop the normal image. I.e adds more to the sides, like widescreen is suposed to.
I see many games that have widescreen resolutions but all they do is strech the image out, looks rather silly in most games.
I believe having proper widescreen format will add to the imersion imensly.
Just my thoughts,
cheers

[Magnus]

My wish list may not be too different but here are my major selling points...

1) Online MMP ability like IL-2. You can pack as much realistic stuff and gimmicks in the solo function of the game but solitaire is for cards...IL-2 has hundreds of people online at any given time.

2) Naval Ops. I realize this won't be in the first release but I think that having a naval component is important especially in Middle East and Mediterranean maps.

3) Equal representation. Both the quantity and quality of the NATO vs non-NATO birds should be equal.

4) Details....I won't belabor the point, but things like weather and ground textures are eye-candy that keeps us amazed.

5) Comprehensive school. I know that a lot of training function is planned for this sim....and I think that's important. Some of us are not real world pilots so the more teaching available the better. Don't make it skeletal like a manual to a television that isn't even written in proper English. :sad:

6) No bugs. Any good game or sim is worth waiting for. Nothing is more annoying than a premature release....ahem....we won't mention any names.

7) Helicopters. I know this is "Fighter Ops" but some flyable helos would be nice to support the action. Not all of us are going to be fighter jocks in the "Fighter Ops" world.

The last part really sums it up. This sim is so exciting from what we've seen in development stages that it's developing a "community" or "world" of its' own. It would be nice to extend that as far as possible. Sky's the limit gentlemen.....Thanks for reading.:thumb:

[Afterburner]

#7) Helo OPS is planned at some point of time in the future..... :smile:

[Napalmski]

To throw my $0.02 cents in on the training subject. I think most of us have a lot of experience just flying sim aircraft but there are few if no sims that actually feature combat tactics training with wingmen. What combat training tutorials there are, are usually limited to the dogfighting manoeuvers.

Example for training that would be a real added value for me:

- BVR tactics
- CAS tactics
- strike package tactics (deconflicting, ECM/EMCON planning, tankers AWACS support etc. etc.)
- SEAD tactics

And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give us AWACS operators which actually have some common sense. Not like those braindead idiots who pass for AWACS operators in Falcon 4 or Falcon AF.

Nap

[Dukey]

As far as the training goes I am sure you have it all covered but:

•Good pre flight briefings are good

•Flight planning with charts, calculating headings, getting good fix points, heights, airspace to avoid (class A in the early stages), times, safety Altitude, Diversions, frequencies, fuels, NOTAMS, late warnings, Royal flights or whatever they call them in the USA; and having all this plotted on the chart in standard format, then being able to print that part of the chart off for in flight reference would be great.

•Emergency frequency that works

•Other aircraft that fly around (puddle jumpers)

•Aircraft having faults it does happen more frequently than people seem to think, I don’t mean wings coming off I mean slight engine trouble instruments going U\S etc.

That’s all I can think of at the moment :thumb:

Cheers

[Magnus]

Would HELO ops be a standalone or could it add on to fighter ops?

[Buckshot]

It will be one of the major releases which will be a part of the whole "Fighterops" package

[f-18hornet]

It will be one of the major releases which will be a part of the whole "Fighterops" package

Will be that free like FreeFalcon or pay like LO:FC/Black Shark.

[PiF]

Each Major release will be payware.

[Richard_H]

I only have one long term wish: Make a USMC & USN Version of it from the Vietnam War with F8 Crusaders, F4 Phantoms, A6 Intruders, Skywarrior's , A4 Skyhawks, A7 Corsair 1, A1 Skyraider etc (purely stationed on carriers)

thats my wish. Dunno why i have a fetish on that period exactly, i just like to "fly" the airplanes.

[Suds]

This may have been mentioned before but I would also like to see other countries represented; i.e. Aussie and Canadian F18s, Dutch and Norge, Turkish etc F16s, Israeli F15s etc.

It would be a nice change if FO had a NATO or multi-national feel to it rather than a US only feel. Nothing against my American friends but I am sure other non-US users feel the same.

Cheers,

BD

[Buckshot]

Yes, it has, given that the development team for Fighter Ops is very much a multinational affair, you can be certain that this is something the whole team is interested in doing.

[Grandpa]

I have been waiting for FO with great anticipation. I check this forum almost every day to see what's new and so forth. One of the things I have enjoyed in a flight sim and it has only been done twice, to my recollection anyway, is the use of real actors. The one I remember the most is in Jetfighter 2 or was it 3. Anyway, they used the actors in the briefing/debriefing scenes and you could have them interact with one another at times befor their sorties. I thought it made the immersion better.

[Richard_H]

This may have been mentioned before but I would also like to see other countries represented; i.e. Aussie and Canadian F18s, Dutch and Norge, Turkish etc F16s, Israeli F15s etc.

It would be a nice change if FO had a NATO or multi-national feel to it rather than a US only feel. Nothing against my American friends but I am sure other non-US users feel the same.

Cheers,

BD

true, im a norwegian myself and it would be cool to fly a F16 in well, really difficult conditions up in northern norway. (ah, the scenery drool)

[Giebs]

i want to see a Dassault Rafale (flyable, if thats not implied) in future releases.

and in the first release i would like a fully capable demo recording mode, every possible camera angle. even sum customizable camera positions. fully progressive playback speed control and oh yea, one that will let me REWIND

[Cougar12dk]

I have been waiting for FO with great anticipation. I check this forum almost every day to see what's new and so forth. One of the things I have enjoyed in a flight sim and it has only been done twice, to my recollection anyway, is the use of real actors. The one I remember the most is in Jetfighter 2 or was it 3. Anyway, they used the actors in the briefing/debriefing scenes and you could have them interact with one another at times befor their sorties. I thought it made the immersion better.


Wasn't that Strike Commander?

Nah...sorry :P hehe, those were "drawn" characters ......... whoops Sorry

[Nikolas_A]

Well, I have a wishlist entry that may sound a bit strange:

Would it be posible when we have MFD and HUD output to have the HUD data in vector form? I mean instead of outputting the HUD picture to a spare VGA out, have the grapchics output as data, kind of like the share memory in F4. The sm already has enought data to create most of the HUD graphics, all that would be needed are the reticles, FPM, funnel etc.

It could be in a format like LINE X1Y1 X2Y2, ARC etc.

Any chance ?

Nikolas

[Buckshot]

Would have to be looked at later in the development process, there would have to be a significant benefit to a number of users to be weighed up against how much work was involved

[Zaggy]

What would be the point of the vector out? I can understand the desire to have raster output to a VGA out (as then you could actually build your own 'reflector' type HUD), but hoiw would the vector format be useful?

[Zaggy]

Have to disagree.

In fact, my entry into the wish list is the exact opposite. Aim for the upper middle and upper high end pcs when you build it. I'm tired of game developers aiming for the lowest common demoninator and ending up leaving feature after feature out of a product just so the final version can run on some POS from the mid 90's.

Balls to the walls, FO. Make the best game there is. If it IS, people will upgrade for it. I dont buy up to date graphics cards and load 2+ gigs of ram for another flight sim that looks like Gunship 2000.

Push the bar.


Im with this guy... But within the team, my views on targetted performance, software and hardware purchase cycles and what drives development are known... ;)

[sewillis]

How about flying escort for Air Force One as President X or some other high profile VIP flies to some hot spot for peace talks and get pounced by bad buys from country Z? I don't think that has been done yet.

[A.S]

Maybe someone posted this b4 but one of the most important things i wish to see in FO is that the Jets dont feel like "pulled on a strip" like in Falcon.

I mean no turbulences no pitch boucing or similar ....

It feels like flying a starship in an arcade-spacegame compared to LockOn.

[Nikolas_A]

What would be the point of the vector out? I can understand the desire to have raster output to a VGA out (as then you could actually build your own 'reflector' type HUD), but hoiw would the vector format be useful?

I want to build a HUD using an electrostatic CRT (like the real thing). This has several benefits, some of which are:
-Form factor. Easier to fit in a HUD enclosure than a monitor
-Refresh rate. Electrostatic CRTs are faster than electromagnetic.
-Cost. Definately cheaper than a TFT+controller, probably cheaper than a small CRT because they are really few and far between

I'm planing on using a PIC driven electrostatic CRT. The PIC will be send data (e.g. altitude, airspeed etc) and have harcoded info on how to format them (draw the pich ladder etc). This way it will be usable with any sim that provides data output. But it would be worthless in a combat sim if you can't lock a target...

Nikolas

[Totty]

How about flying escort for Air Force One as President X or some other high profile VIP flies to some hot spot for peace talks and get pounced by bad buys from country Z? I don't think that has been done yet.

Great idea mate, I like it:smile:

[Juggernaut]

How about flying escort for Air Force One as President X or some other high profile VIP flies to some hot spot for peace talks and get pounced by bad buys from country Z? I don't think that has been done yet.

Hi,

http://www.geocities.com/paul_sterman/superpak.html

Check out the 3rd mission. :wink2:
Date is from 2002 & I made those for Falcon 4.

Juggernaut

[raptor]

My "wish list" for this sim..:


Realistic Mission Planning (a bit like the FalconView mission-planning program)

Common Global Time, set differently to every nation according to their GMT time (helpfull for "international" global missions)

Realistic chart maps (Jeppessen)

Very flexible and user-friendly "speak" engine for programmimg and adding standard voice commands (like tower or approach) in each user's language

Multi-monitor capabilities, either on same pc (2 vga/dvi outputs) or through a (or x) networked pc's. Ability of viewing the 3D pit in the main monitor, while viewing on other monitor(s) the HUD-only, main instruments, C4I/awacs/radar map etc (helpful for cockpit builders)

Realistic Gun/MFD recordings "on tape" in order for debriefing

Application for displaying the major instruments AND MFD's of planes to another networked computer (like FalconGauges or F4Glass for Falcon4)

Ability to exist 2 human pilots in one 2-seater plane (like F-16D), via 2 networked computers. Much easier training or real missions because each human will be "sitting" to his cockpit and have pre-planned actions. Plus both-inputs from their HOTAS, like the real.

Ability-help for Cockpit Builders for exporting ALL possible data from the software to built the apropriate working cockpit hardware

Human figure models moving next to the planes (eg 2 crew chif members) on startup/startdown procedures

Possibbility for communications between the Human pilot and the ground crew chief on startup/startdown procedures

Airbase realistic traffic

Airbase realistic aircraft parking positions (and into shelters)

Real weather (like Flight Simulator has) updated online every xx minutes, and real earth movement and position of the sun as seeing from earth

Realistic cruise flights of political/cargo planes and ships between major (if not many) international airbases and harbors

Possibility of a smart engine creating those flights and movements in the 3D world accordingly to real-world data

Moving bird paths according to the international maps (realistic forbitten/dangerous areas)

Very flexible and user-friendly engine for creating with realistic numbers each squadron, its number of planes and their unique s/n's

Tools for the end-users and national virtual squadrons for creating and modifying the different versions of their planes

Realistic UHF/VHF frequenses and usage simulation in order for a complete Human-controlled action "theater of operations"

Human C4I controllers (plus approp displays of ALL available data: Air, Sea, Land movements) (like F4Awacs application of Falcon4)

Human Awacs controllers (plus approp displays)

Possibility for Human SAM site controllers (plus approp displays)

Possibility for Human-controlled UAV planes, plus pre-sceduled auto flights (and real time video back to C4I)

Realistic Datalink modems (like Link 16) for all the available platforms that have it

Clever and "flexible" AI controlled items (planes, ships etc) in order for following new un-Scheduled Human orders while on action

Possibility for adding somehow controlable crusual units for mission success like special forces and attack helicopters


That's for start..:bigsmile:

:thumb:

[liquid_rockface]

Ok, I just have two requests:

1. I want Fighter Ops to be 100% realistic, with every single thing that exists in the real world modelled 100% accurately.

2. I want Fighter Ops released tomorrow.

Ok, that's all...:owned:

[Red Gold and Green]

My wish for FighterOps is;


To have no political overtones. Ie, every country is on the same page.



Fictious scenario = Every country is in a position to field decent airforces.

[Bogusheadbox]

Hmmmm Wish list.

Realism is everything for a sim. No stones left unturned, no corners cut. the face of sims are changing and what the consumer wants out of a sim is a lot more than a lot of companies generally put into a sim these days.


**What I want**
Clickable pits,
allied force style campaigne,
Il2 capability of online play.
Excellent damage model,
REALISTIC flyight dynamics (some peoples version of realistic is more akin to simplistic),
correct weapons systems and implementation.
Propper ATC / ATO,
real engine management including failures,
Realistic 3D terrain (moutains valleys),
various aricraft from various nations,
Indepth mission editor / creator (like Il2)
Dynamic weather patterns.
systems failures.
6dof
and the ability to scale turn off features so that the product will reach a wider audience while catering for the directed market which is the Hard core simmer.

If i could sum it up. It would be Flight simulator, F4 and IL2 combined into one hell of a sim for moddern day craft.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - Graphics come second to all the features above. (with exception for ground terrain - we need realistic ground terrain).

Though if FO is to flesh out with many expansions over a number of years. Then i could understand a lot of development time being incorporated into graphics so they will be of an acceptable standard a the end of the products development.

[Zaggy]

**What I want**
Clickable pits,
allied force style campaigne,
Il2 capability of online play.
Excellent damage model,
REALISTIC flyight dynamics (some peoples version of realistic is more akin to simplistic),
correct weapons systems and implementation.
Propper ATC / ATO,
real engine management including failures,
Realistic 3D terrain (moutains valleys),
various aricraft from various nations,
Indepth mission editor / creator (like Il2)
Dynamic weather patterns.
systems failures.
6dof
and the ability to scale turn off features so that the product will reach a wider audience while catering for the directed market which is the Hard core simmer.



Clickable pits - Yes - Been in the spec for a LONG time...
allied force style campaigne - Not in Training release, no use... later on, yes.
Il2 capability of online play - Yes - MP is very high on the list
Excellent damage model - Yes - you wouldnt beleive the detail that has been discussed!
REALISTIC flyight dynamics (some peoples version of realistic is more akin to simplistic) - Yes - again, you wouldnt beleive how much detail ppl are going into modelling...
correct weapons systems and implementation. - yes, see above answers.
Propper ATC / ATO, - Yes - see above...
real engine management including failures, - Yes - see above...
Realistic 3D terrain (moutains valleys), - Yes - using some faily cutting edge stuff here...
various aricraft from various nations, - not really - first release is UPT so some foreign a/c will be present, (in the area) but not in great numbers.
Indepth mission editor / creator (like Il2) - Yes - on the cards...
Dynamic weather patterns. - Yes - Again we go back to the detail-a-holic fanatics that are working on those apsects.
systems failures. - Yes - but probably in some manner of scalable fashion...
6dof - Yes - Isnt everything?
and the ability to scale turn off features so that the product will reach a wider audience while catering for the directed market which is the Hard core simmer. - Probably Not - go hard or go home... at least in my view... Whats the point of working hard on ultra accuracy?? and dumbing things down will typically cause LOTS of problems!


Just my angle...

Anyway, a lot of these requests you will find already posted and discussed (some have even been detailed) on the forums... Needless to say tho, you must consider the bulk of the team are fanatics. Not trying to put anyone down here or denegrate the suggestions being posted, but if it puts ppl's minds at ease, i will say, the guys on the team are probably more fanatical in general, about realism and etc, than any of the posts here so far... So dont sweat it about the 'accuracy' stuff... ;)

[Bogusheadbox]

Thanks Zaggy.

[Pacman]

"and the ability to scale turn off features so that the product will reach a wider audience while catering for the directed market which is the Hard core simmer. "

There will be 2 modules:

1. Carreer: our main module and focus = hardcore = we decide the settings for anything that influences "realism".
2. Game: scalable = not able to get into carreer servers. More like Falcon and other popular sims.

Dirk

[Bogusheadbox]

"and the ability to scale turn off features so that the product will reach a wider audience while catering for the directed market which is the Hard core simmer. "

There will be 2 modules:

1. Carreer: our main module and focus = hardcore = we decide the settings for anything that influences "realism".
2. Game: scalable = not able to get into carreer servers. More like Falcon and other popular sims.

Dirk

Thanks. I prefer the full realism. But sometimes when you are learning some sytems or anything in particular it is sometimes good to turn off other features.

sounds great!

[SpinKick]

Here's one I don't remember seeing listed... Maybe some downloadable video clips for the more common tasks. For example, I tried to learn to land the Viper from F4AF manual and never could quite get it right. Then, I found another third party tutorial that showed how to line up and use the ILS brackets and how to watch them. I seldom missed landings after that (except for coming out of a loop and landing :evils:).

Anyway, short media-based tutorials would be cool. Don't slap to hard if someone beat me to that one please. :bigeyes:

[Deckerd]

Nice idea. (same with me and carrier approaches in JF-18. Damn way to the marshall pattern was never described in the handbook...)
Though, the guys who make the training missions have really good ideas about how to make certain procedures clear and understandable.

[lowwing_99]

Nice idea. (same with me and carrier approaches in JF-18. Damn way to the marshall pattern was never described in the handbook...)
Though, the guys who make the training missions have really good ideas about how to make certain procedures clear and understandable.

I had problems with Janes F/A 18 in the hold/marshall stack below is my post with some replies on Frugals World.


http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=99898

[Deckerd]

Try this one http://www.fortunecity.com/underworld/straif/85/id85_tol.htm.
Pay attention to the femal voice(Marshall controller), she will give you your altitude radial and distance. Everything else (entry, calculating the turning points...)is just the same as with usual holding patterns.

[lowwing_99]

Try this one http://www.fortunecity.com/underworld/straif/85/id85_tol.htm.
Pay attention to the femal voice(Marshall controller), she will give you your altitude radial and distance. Everything else (entry, calculating the turning points...)is just the same as with usual holding patterns.

I know how to go into a hold. Below is procedure for a hold in real life. I just don't know how long to go outbound so I know when to turn inbound & is there a specfic bank angle in the turn like standard rate in a civillian airplane or do you just hammer the stick over & get to the radial?

When I go into the hold in real life I can tell where I am. Lets say if you hit the MAP, the plate would say something like climb to 3500' on the established radial "that you where flying for the approach inbound" RT. turn direct to XXX VOR & hold. Every time in the approach you do 6 T's whenever you make a turn which are turn, time, twist, throttle, talk, & track. It is a self checklist so you don't miss anything. The Twist means turn the OBS on the VOR to the selected radial. A HSI is just a DG with a VOR superimposed on it. As you are getting ready to go into the hold you compute WCA (but that angle should already be known because you have been flying up to this point), & time depending which way the wind is blowing because the object is to get the hold down to 1 MIN inbound, more time out in a headwind, & less in a tail wind. You know which way you are going to enter the hold by the direction that you came from. You watch the CDI on the VOR & when it is centered you are on the radial selected. For this discussion lets say it is a direct entry to the hold. I cross the fix & go into a standard rate turn wing on index mark, & inclinometer centered on TC. You turn to the recipical heading with the correct WCA wings level abeam the fix you start your time adj. for wind. At the end of you time you go into a standard rate turn until the CDI on the VOR is centered & you are on the inbound radial on the way to the hold. Start your time & if you did it right you will hit the fix at 1 MIN. With this fix I know where I am in the hold. I don't understand how you know where you are in the hold. You start at 21 miles, & 6000'. If you are using a DME of 21 as the fix how long do you go out to know when to come back, & when you turn is there a specific bank angle or just hammer it over to the heading?

[Deckerd]

Actually it doesn't really matter in the game. In RL the controller would vector you near to your hold position. Marshall Controller will say sth. like BlaBla mother's weather.. Marshall on mother's 180(which is the outbound course) 35 angels 20(in RL first two digits of assigned altitude + 15 is distance) and your estimated pushtime. Without vectoring you have to estimate a proper course to your holding point. Most the time in game you will be inbound mother diametrical to her course, so you have to enter the pattern parallel or teardrop. fly the pattern at 250 kias. Inbound leg is the usual 1 minute(which is about 4nm) outbound legs and turns(which I normally fly at 30 degrees bank) will copmpensate for winds aloft etc. so that you will (almost) reach your fix at your push time. Marshall controller will order you to "commence now" and you answer "blabla, commencing". Then descent, call clara and catch the 3rd one :)

[lowwing_99]

Actually it doesn't really matter in the game. In RL the controller would vector you near to your hold position. Marshall Controller will say sth. like BlaBla mother's weather.. Marshall on mother's 180(which is the outbound course) 35 angels 20(in RL first two digits of assigned altitude + 15 is distance) and your estimated pushtime. Without vectoring you have to estimate a proper course to your holding point. Most the time in game you will be inbound mother diametrical to her course, so you have to enter the pattern parallel or teardrop. fly the pattern at 250 kias. Inbound leg is the usual 1 minute(which is about 4nm) outbound legs and turns(which I normally fly at 30 degrees bank) will copmpensate for winds aloft etc. so that you will (almost) reach your fix at your push time. Marshall controller will order you to "commence now" and you answer "blabla, commencing". Then descent, call clara and catch the 3rd one :)

Thanks for the info. I'm going to fly my pit later on today, & I'm going to use this procedure now that I have a datum to go on. The manual just wasn't very specific on any detail, that is my biggest beef with Janes.:smile:

[WingedWolf]

Hi guys I' m new here. That I would like to see in the F.O is all the things you say above and also a detailed pilot. What about a unique helmets everyone can make his own helmet or can write his name on the plane like IL-2 PF where you can put your own paint in the plane I hope understand what I mean... Also I would like to see a very easy to add mods game like MSFS where the only thing you have to do is to add the file in the right folder.

P.S This sim is too good to be true... GREAT JOB!!!!!:thumb: :thumb:

[Playloud]

In order to avoid F4 style patching (the dance), I would like to see an online patch center, such as you would find in an MMORPG, which will scan your files, and make sure you have the most up to date software.

[Pacman]

A decent system will be setup.

Certainly in carreer mode where your install will be checked for the latest version.
For carreer mode everybody will be obligated to have the latest patch.
Just to make sure that everybody flies the same install.

Dirk

[Adder]

So...will this be able to be run on a normal person's PC, or will this take an FX-55, 50 gigs of RAM, and a huge bottle of Clearasil to run? By now I hope developers have figured out to ignore the supernerd crowd for the sake of actually having a community instead of 50 people under 5000 aliases in the online rooms, but I may be wrong.

I don't expect this to run on a P3. What I do expect is the ability to SMOOTHLY, CONSISTENTLY run the game with all of it's essential features (meaning I see everything that has any impact whatsoever on gameplay just as well as people with freakin' graphics workstations) on a standard P4 3.2 with a gig or two of RAM and a decent graphics card.

Just let me know so I can decide whether or not to cross this game off my list of hopefuls nice and early.

[Pacman]

Hi Adder,

If you use the search function you will be able to find the following statement on this topic.

"It is our goal to have the simulation run smoothly on a PC that is mediocre at the time of release".

Now off course you can understand that this "mediocre pc", will never be able to run FighterOps with all bells and whistles.

Best regards,

Dirk

[Playloud]

Let's just hope your definition of mediocre is similar to mine =)

[PiF]

Lets just hope your definition of mediocre similar to mine =)

:bigeyes: :rofl

[Vampyre]

A decent system will be setup.

Certainly in carreer mode where your install will be checked for the latest version.
For carreer mode everybody will be obligated to have the latest patch.
Just to make sure that everybody flies the same install.

Dirk

In Steel Beasts, there is a feature to auto install (on the spot) downloadable scenerios that are not in your files upon entering the multiplayer server. If there was some way to impliment this and the downloading of patches in the same way it would avoid a lot of the multiplayer incompatability problems that arose from doing the Falcon dance. It would be really handy to have a feature such as this.

Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!

[Bogusheadbox]

MMmmm steel beasts. Does a lot of things right

[Pacman]

In Steel Beasts, there is a feature to auto install (on the spot) downloadable scenerios that are not in your files upon entering the multiplayer server. If there was some way to impliment this and the downloading of patches in the same way it would avoid a lot of the multiplayer incompatability problems that arose from doing the Falcon dance. It would be really handy to have a feature such as this.

Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!

Indeed something we will implement.

Same happens with IL2, where when you join a "scenario server", the client downloads the scenario and you go fly it.
The only disadvantage in IL2 is that the scenario should be left on the pc, instead of having to "load" it again every time you are joining that server, or it is starting up that scenario.

Dirk

[Bogusheadbox]

How much space would that take up when online you would inevitably dowload a cornucopia of scenarios ?

It would be a teeth grinding task, say after a week, going into your cache folder (or wherever your scenarios are stored) and trolling though and trying to ascertain the keepers and deleters.

Thats why i like Il2. It doesn't take long downloading even a highly populated map.

Or would it not work like that ?

[SilverWrath047]

I would like to see a flyable f-14 in it. I don't give a darn if it is retired, it is one of the best aircraft out!

[Vampyre]

I would like to see a flyable f-14 in it. I don't give a darn if it is retired, it is one of the best aircraft out!

Welcome to the forums bro. I couldn't have said it better myself. :wink2:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a63/phantomwsl11/Picture1010.jpg

Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!

[Bogusheadbox]

One thing i was thinking about that a lot of sims don't have ability to have differential trhottle for use with a throttle quadrant. And also differential braking to co-incide with the new pedals that are coming out to handle it.

I think the new saitek pedals have differential breaking.

[Jackal]

I would like to see a flyable f-14 in it. I don't give a darn if it is retired, it is one of the best aircraft out!

:thumb: RGR on that and agree... I too wish to fly a Tornado - if this will be in the Admins' plan, of course - retired or not.

Jackal out.

[Rhino4]

One thing that frequently bugs me about lomac: The friggin' sun is just a pale white-ish circle in the sky. It is not bright. It won't blind you from staring at it for even long periods of time. It doesn't seem like it's actually part of the environment. More like just a picture of the sun, than the actual sun. IL2 got it right! I wanna take my attacker for a ride into the sun and lose him in it. That's something you just can't do in lomac.

[Suds]

I wish it success!

[lqcorsa]

Training has a pilot in the cockpit like the actual training, and communicates through headset.
In game voice comms with realistic sounding static/mic clicks.
Lots and lots of multiplayer cooperative campaigns.
Ability to ADD planes to Fighter Ops, without having to replace them, similar to how easy it is in FS2004, and not lock-on.
Multiplayer mid-air refuel capability.
Ground equipment that rolls out to your plane for maintenance.
Lots of damage effects.
Very good dynamic campaign, as opose to looking at a list of missions with either a check, or no check.
Ability to do a walkaround of your plane, and climb in/out of cockpit (probably won't happen :lol ).
Many external/internal lights (nav, beacon, strobe, taxi, landing, panel, flood ect.)
Great quality cockpits, that are all clickable.
Head-latency effects, so when you do a roll for example, the view sort of stays behind, like Active Camera on FS2004 does, and shaking in the cockpit while rolling on the runway/touchdown.
Already mentioned, but realistic control inputs (just a little input on the stick causes a little input in the simulator. Un-like lock-on where all the inputs are halfway through the stick movement.)
Realistic heatblur.
Medium-high system supportevness.
Awesome, loud sounds, including multiplayer sounds and AI.
Backseat capability, including on multiplayer.
For the Naval Module Plans:


All of the above!
Lots of aircraft carrier traffic (so that way you always have to look around you for ground equipment, and wings folded!)
Realistic carrier ops (call the ball!)
Good carrier textures.
Allow multiple catapult usage.

[Vampyre]

Lots of aircraft carrier traffic (so that way you always have to look around you for ground equipment, and wings folded!

As a pilot you do not have to look around to ensure you have enough clearance. The Yellow shirt ABH has command of your jet on deck. You follow his hand signals to ensure you don't crunch anything.

Good hand signals are a must for naval ops.

Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!

[Rhino4]

Then I would request little yellow-shirts ABH's running around on the deck and telling me where to go with hand signals and at night they would use those glow-stick-looking flashlights to direct us...Pretty please...

And perhaps even small personnel on the normal airforce runways directing us to parking and such (I'm not sure of the protocol)...

[KING_RICHARD]

how about an eor, where you arm and dearm your jet.

[Vampyre]

how about an eor, where you arm and dearm your jet.

How about a CALA and a Hot Line. Or we could just launch from a boat where it doesn't really matter.:evils:

Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!

[AMVI_Rebel]

I have already search but i have not found a confirmation:
do birdstrike will be implemented in Fighter Ops? I really wish for this threath in BBQ navigation

[Rhino4]

Ahem....


Yeah, ejections will of course be fully modelled, bird strikes are planned to be modelled and have a good chance of making the first release.

[AMVI_Rebel]

i noly use the search for birdstrike...doh! sorry!

[Top Gunner]

My wish for FighterOps is;

To have no political overtones. Ie, every country is on the same page.
I'm with you on that.

Just watched the Independence Day (again) and was deeply moved by the worldwide assault scene (again)......

No, I'm not saying that Fighter Ops should pit players against aliens, but is it that hard to create a villian that just seeks trouble at everyone's expense?