homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World Flaming Cliffs / LOMAC FC3 Confirmed.

zzzspace,

You have made your point. Multiple times.

You are now simply repeating yourself, and it's getting tedious. Your complaint has been registered, now it's time to move on with your life.

I'll get counselling and sign up for a Buddhist retreat shall I?

It's a discussion forum, I was discussing something, in suitable detail.

Sorry if it stirred up a cess-pool of a meaningless and irrational consensus.

We wouldn't want to hold ED's feet to the fire or nuffin.

But just do me this one favour SimHQ, next time you do a 'review' of FC, how about a bit more objectivity and honesty about the true shape of ED's product in terms of it as a full-spectrum tactical air-combat simulation, and quite a lot less Pavlov's Dog.

~~~ ENDS ~~~

Wow really?

Thank you for the feedback, zzzspace. We'll be sure to consider your input when we produce our previews/reviews.

Now that's hardly necessary, old friend. What kind of a monster would I be if I denied a man his God-given right to a decent steak?

Actually, in regards to the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor a few years ago, Israeli EW strategy/tactics exploited weaknesses in the Syrian IADS to basically attack the plant without resistance.

Lion,

I agree with you 100%. The whole point is the Israelis did not go in low level. They used EA to defeat the IADS.

Yeah, they pretty much just waltzed in.

I was wandering thru A10C and Blackshark files today, and found a few interresting stuff that may be related to FC3.


In the script/database/I don't remember, i found a desactivated entry for L39 in a script that was related to flyable aircrafts, and also some KA52, AV8B traces in scripts and meshs folders. Did they was any announcment in that way ?

I'm not on my game computer, i'll post some screen tommorow.

The Harrier and Ka-52 have been dormant in the sim for a while now. I think they were both discovered when BS1 was released, but they were never implemented. The Harrier model isn't to bad, its just missing texture files apparently within A-10C. however the Ka-52 is Lockon 1.0 quality.

Perhaps exporting out the AI into some LUA scripts might be the way to go as then the community might work on them if the ED doesn't see that as something worth addressing.

BTW, you could have made the post in this thread perhaps as (IIRC) the producer was asking for some input (unless you were banned there?)?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83426

It's more of a problem with individual flight model responses in the fighter aircraft. The Bombers reveal that the proper terrain masking flight behaviours are actually coded into Lockon. It's just that most of the aircraft aren't using it, or else, aren't using it properly. They are constantly over- and under-reacting to the terrain. However AI behaviour is strongly negatively affected by this, and the closer the AI aircraft are to terrain, the more quirky and problematic becomes behaviour and tactical execution.

One very serious problem is the exorbitant (i.e. ludicrously inefficient) use of fuel, for prosaic manoeuvres. This is because the aircraft are always over-reacting to terrain and man-made obstacles, so they are constantly resorting to afterburners totally unnecessarily, because they shouldn't have overreacted and lost their energy in the first place. Hence missions often fail simply due to fuel starvation, with an RTB or running out and ejecting. It just blows me away that it can still be like this since 2004, tactical f'ing madness.

I've asked for this to be fixed so many times, but they do zip about it, make all the promises in the world, by zero action results. So I don't think it matters what thread you place it in, they will still bring out another version of it with the same broken-a55 idiotic low-level flight behaviours, and failed AI attempts to cope with it.

The best thing the user community can do at this point is just hammer them with it, because ED aren't actually paying attention to what's happening in the sim for the past 7 years, and they don't care to fix it any time soon. But their assorted reps etc., will ALWAYS swear black-and-blue that they're on it and fixing it, and that any such further complaint to this effect is unnecessary and merely vexatious.

You can't win with ED and it's producers. I've come to the conclusion they're only interested in avionics, graphics, and the appearance of a combat flight sim, but are just not interested in making FC work as a tactical combat FLIGHT sim in practice. It's supposed to FLY at low-level, not go into spectacular spasms of concerted FAIL.

And they really squirm it if you're so crass and insensitive as to point out the truth about FC and DCS after they have vacantly promised, for the eleventy-seventh time, that they are on the case, and it is all soon to be fixed.

THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!


Edit: spelling

I am going to make sure this is deliberately even more broken in the next release

Fly Below 1000m and the AI will explode.

Nate

LOL.

Complete with dramatic movie radio dialogue

Nate,

Is there any chance, ANY chance, we could see the simplified avionics from BS2 and A-10C in FC3?

Yeah, I've asked before.

I reckon you can't.

It really isn't my place to comment, but I doubt it - however the new Core design opens up some interesting possibilities - but I have no inside knowledge on how FC3 will interact with that.

Nate

Oh lighten up would ya?

Nate

As in a simplified Black Shark and A-10C? I would like that. At least the A-10C part; I am getting used to the KA-50 even if I do not understand most of the functions.

I would wish that instead they made all of the modules on the same engine (Flaming Cliffs, A-10, KA-50, ect.) and when you buy one plane you get the engine and updates free. This way you can play online with everyone and the community is not broken up. To take control of other aircraft though, you must buy them as well.

Think of it like Rise of Flight's system, accept keeping the community integrated (but not selling maps and theaters as separate content).