SUBS17 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 And think about some of the terrain fixes and adjustments they'll be doing for the chopper addon. Maybe low LOD's for more objects, which (hopefully) would help w/better framerates. Don't forget colimation with Track ir [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diveplane Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 i was really hoping for addons for the f16 and mig for flamming cliffs,is this going to be a complete new game engine? for these 2 jets and the 1s we already know? https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Yes, that will be a completely new engine ... there will be no other jets added to LOMAC AFAIK. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cali Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Yes, that will be a completely new engine ... there will be no other jets added to LOMAC AFAIK. Well that sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Not really :) A new game engine with campaign and events and scripting is needed, and the AI needs some major brain surgery ... so it would suck more to just add those to LOMAC than to do the next project. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 The next project could take several years, ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf8218 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 or decades... seeing as the transfer from Flanker 2.0 to Lock on took around 5 years. (i think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'd at a guess say around 2-3 years since ED already has achieved alot so far and everything can be used to build on(like a template) to create a much better sim. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'd at a guess say around 2-3 years since ED already has achieved alot so far and everything can be used to build on(like a template) to create a much better sim. Except the aforementioned (and badly needed) changes to the AI, campaign, mission editor . . . . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Crazy as it may sound I actually prefer lockons mission editor over any other flight sim. You're right about the ai though, dc would be cool I wouldn't be surprised if it had one as dcs fit best with multirole aircraft. F4s proof of that. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
214th_Silverfox Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 Matt I sent you a message via PM. Silverfox VMF-214 http://patuxent-rugby.com/blacksheep/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 New Unclassified Manuals Hello All Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?. Blaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Hello All Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?. Blaze It certainly helps with gathering information :) As to whether we'll get a Hornet in the end . . . . there are more factors at play than just whether there's the info available, of course. More info never hurts, but the future projects list is always either secret, incredibly murky, or a combination of the two. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Or they just dont wanna do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 This thread should definitely become so long that ED has no other option than making a flyable Hornet! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMFA-Blaze Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Or they just dont wanna do it. As far as I know, Ed has quite a lot of data available at the present.. But I don't think that they've actually reached a decision as to whether they will add this bird into the lineup... As we've discussed this in several other threads I think... The naval aspect of this simulation has been moved to the back burner for now... ~S~ Blaze intel Cor i7-6700K ASUS ROG MAX VIII Extreme G.Skill TridentZ Series 32 GB Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SATA II ASUS GTX 1080/DIRECTX 12 Windows 10 PRO Thrustmaster Warthog Oculus Rift VR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Fingers crossed some time in the future ED decide to pursue a Hornet sim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phant Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 ...Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's... Hi Blaze1 Can you link an official/unofficial source about that? Thank's in advance! :smilewink: Bye Phant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 On the other hand, you could just look the manuals up on eflightmanuals.com and buy them ... ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Mmm... may be some parts of the manual? Even some pictures scans would be very usefull. Still a no go, it's still considered S/NF even copies. Most manuals have a warning about copying, reproducing classified material. Maybe somebody in the FSB? :) LOMAC Section| | Gaming Resume (PDF) | Gallery | Flanker2.51 Storage Site | Also known as Flanker562 back in the day... Steam ID EricJ562 | DCS: A-10A/C Pilot | DCS: Su-25T Pilot | Texture Artist "...parade ground soldiers always felt that way (contempt) about killers in uniform." -Counting The Cost, Hammer's Slammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Hi Blaze1 Can you link an official/unofficial source about that? Thank's in advance! :smilewink: Bye Phant Sure: https://airworthiness.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=FAQ.home&faqid=6&btn=NATIP Here are some of the topics you can expect to find in the unclassified Harrier AV-8B NATIP (NTRP 3-22.4) 1. Section 2.1.2 Air-to-Surface RADAR Modes and Operation 2. Section 2.4 Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) 3. Section 2.5 Stores Management Control Set (SMCS) 4. Section 4.1 Suspension / Carriage Equipment 5. Section 4.2 Air-to-Ground Stores 6. Section 4.5 Fuzing 7. Section 5.1 Weapon System Theory 8. Section 5.2 Controls & Displays 9. Section 5.3 Target Designation 10. Section 5.4 Delivery Modes 11. Section 5.5 Reversion Modes 12. Section 5.6 RADAR Attack Considerations 13. Section 5.7 Weapon Jettison 14. Section 5.8 Bombing 15. Section 5.9 Rocketry 16. Section 5.10 Gun Theory 17. Chapter 8 Weaponeering Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Olgerd Posted May 23, 2007 ED Team Share Posted May 23, 2007 Hello All Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?. Blaze This definitely helps. But this does not mean automatically that we will get the information in some near future. Actually we got very usefull set of F/A-18A/B tech manuals. So Alpha/Bravo models are an option to implement. Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] К чему стадам дары свободы? Их должно резать или стричь. Наследство их из рода в роды Ярмо с гремушками да бич. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Still a no go, it's still considered S/NF even copies. Most manuals have a warning about copying, reproducing classified material. Maybe somebody in the FSB? :) High Eric :) I have seen documents on the net in which the author refered to classified manuals. My understanding is that even though a manual may be classified (SECRET) it may have many sections within that are infact unclassified. So if one sentence in a 500 page document is secret (assuming all other sentences are unclassified) the entire document is labelled (SECRET)? In the case I mentioned above the author used unclassified sections of the USAF MCM 3-1 (now AFTTP 3-1) to write the document. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 This definitely helps. But this does not mean automatically that we will get the information in some near future. Actually we got very usefull set of F/A-18A/B tech manuals. So Alpha/Bravo models are an option to implement. Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology. Hello Olgerd:) Yes unfortuately it will probably be a number of years before the unclass NATIP manuals find their way into the public domain. Regarding the technical manuals, I don't know much about these. I assume they don't contain operational procedure from the pilots/WSOs perspective? Or is the NATOPS/NATIP developed from the tech manuals in which case it could be information overload:book: :thumbup: ? I any case I'm happy yourself and the team are finding the tech manuals useful. It looks like you've been shopping at CHQ:smilewink: Blaze1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phant Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 ...Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology. Olgerd, is this interesting? Look from page 106. Bye Phant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts