New combat jet simulators preferences poll

As we all know long gone are the days when new jet simulators were released around the clock. Just being personally curious what are the preferences for a possible new jet combat simulators out there, hopefully maybe even some developers eye interested in creating a new title would caught the results of this poll

The planes in the poll list are ones considered (subjectively) either not received ever a decent (mainly in terms of realism and graphics) simulation and / or being quite mainstream, popular, and of the best modern combat aviation achievements, planes.

F-16 is represented by the always great and immortal F4 family and the appreciated efforts of Lead Pursuit and the other community creative teams to keep it up to date, and the forthcoming xsi fighterops but i included it for reference and curiosity reasons.

I consider subjectively the F-15 and A-10 decently represented so far by LockOn and hopefully in near future by fighterops as well, so they aren't in the list

I also consider subjectively the best main Russian jet fighters (fulkrum and Flanker families, decently represented by LockOn , although myself as well as others i believe can't wait to see a good simulation of the newer versions, such as Mig-35, Su-35/37 etc). SO subjectively feeling that even as it is theres plenty of red stars to train to fly and fight with, while there are awesome birds like the tomcat or the hornet that havent been represented yet by a good modern simulator, i skipped those for the time being.

Personally what i prioritize in my own preference list, are the Eurofighter, the Mirage 2005, the Tomcat and the Hornet all sharing the number one position, i really would like to see a high quality simulator of all those four aircraft with no exception.


.

Tomcat!

F-22 for sure

F-22 and the F-117 for me.

F-22!

IMO, ultra-modern sims are best left to the developers of the '90s. In 2008 I just don't see a large big-budget development house sitting around a conference room table discussing a new Raptor sim with sophisticated campaign, ACMI and enough game play to fill a 450+ page Strategy Guide.

"Hmm...here's an idea, the night vision demonstration software we developed to get a military training contract, let's use that in out new F-22 sim! And here's another idea, let's develop an AWACS simulation to impress the USAF and then we'll also retrofit that into our new sim!"

No doubt a new F-22 sim could have far better graphics and physics than a '90s sim, and possibly be more realistic (have we learned that much more about the F-22 in the past 10 years?). But how would overall game play compare? I think any ultra-modern sim has the potential of being boring, you need lots of features to keep it fun and interesting, and this would take a serious developer with plenty of resources (not the next JetFighter developer). But what serious developer would even touch the F-22, F-117, F-35 or Eurofighter?

I also think you need to concede some realism for game play (EDIT: even more so than modeling a classified jet), maybe having the scenarios take place in the future as with Total Air War (2010). Then you can take some liberties with how the F-22 will be used and what stores (i.e. Mavericks, Harpoons) and avionics it'll carry (i.e. IRST, HMD). Keeping it as realistic as possible (as we know it to be today) might not be as enjoyable.

I've been playing F-117 (1991) the past couple of days (training mode) and despite how dated it is I'm still having fun with it (such sweet nostalgia ) . How much I would love updated graphics on this one, but would a newer more realistic F-117 sim be as much fun to play?

I dunno, but I don't think we're going to find out...F-117, F-22, F-35, etc. going to stay console only, unless they're in the next JetFighter. For a realistic sim along the same scope as Falcon 4.0, give me a Hornet C please!
--


Mark

superhornet all the way, please. jane's f/a-18 for the 21st century.

F-4 Phantom not sim-lite ala Strike Fighters series.

You forgot the most essential aircraft, the Tornado! Particulary if it includes a mission planner and dynamic campaign like the 1993 sim.

None of the above, where's your F-86 and Mig15? Mig alley is 9 years old and the last and only time we saw these in a sim. I know there's rumours of one using the BOB/SOW engine but Jet combat does'nt have to mean modern, the old Mig alley was a classic, I'll have a new version of that for first pick. Also you have an upcoming Harrier sim already with jet Thunder, well not technically just Harrier as there's Skyhawk, Mirage III and flyable Vulcan as well.
http://www.thunder-works.com/news.htm

I'd also prefer the older jets (F-4, F-14, Tornado), most of all because they get me more excited than the new generation aircraft, but also because they offer more possibilities for historical campaign scenarios. Jet Thunder is definitely something I am looking forward to! I still fly Mig Alley.

For a truly modern jet sim, I'd like to see aircraft that are a) multi-role and b) used by a variety of nations. So this leaves the Eurofighter and F-35, with the Eurofighter my favourite because I think it looks nicer

I am cosmopolitan, so I prefer Eurofighter, Gripen, Mirage, the Chinese f-10, Mig-31...

F-86 and MiG-15/17 due to the simplicity of their avionics could maybe considered marginally covered by the Strike Fighters family, third party theatres and planes that is ofcourse. The Phantom indeed i should had maybe listed it. Its importance in military aviation history alone deserves it a good simulator although marginaly again is partially covered by the Strike Fighters family. Are there enough Classic jets as the phantom fans (and the starfighter? and F-5? and A-7? and F-111? and EA-6?) to shape a potential profitable market group?

Maybe for these fighters its a golden medium solution to potentialy be later addon releases of a decent fidelity simulator that starts off with one or two more mainstream / popular / modern / potent fighters?

Theres always the commerical side in a product like a flight simulation "game", its not only us aviation freaks and fetishists the potential buyers, if the company, that needs profits to survive, sees more potential buyers , will try to alure those too, and they will be alured maybe more by an F-35 on the cover rather than a Tornado

Tornado (together with my other personal favorite, the Jag) could also be nice later release addon-update ideas of the original release. And despite its capabilities and value and technology the tornado also hasnt been as popular or known as other front line high performance fighters

Anyways, to be honest, as people mentioned above, i am not optimistic we will see a new high fidelity simulator (with extensive addon support either for the community or by the developer itself). My best shot would be figherops and i am not very optimistic about that either.

This list is just more wishful thinking and curiosity than anything else

Count me in too....

Well if you look at it that way, the Strike fighters series with "wings over" and First eagles have covered just about every plane since the wright brothers, it's a one man show and all spread too thin that's the problem. I do have hopes for Jet Thunder which looks a lot more than a lite sim and the Korean war thingy which might be an add on for BOB storm of war, although I'd prefer a re-vamped Mig alley2 as per shockwaves BOB2. Persoanlly (and I'm almost certaily in a minority) I'm more interested in the historical period which is totally overlooked in just about every walk of life including movies.

The answer is no

Strangely enough I've recently relived the simple fun of the 90's sims thanks to Ace Combat X on the PSP. I miss proper take-offs and landings (you just get the chance to do it in some odd missions), and it's not even close to the game design genius of Microprose's F117, but the rest is there, including lots of soul.

Good post. Sometimes I think I'm alone

Are you refering to Korea? i really wonder, since WWII action is considered SO commercialy profitable to have all Houses produce one after the other D-Day action (even RTS, strategy, and simulators plus arcade simulators) games, i dont get it really why Korea air war is less attractive ... is there maybe a good market potential and they haven't realized it? Korea air war is a total classic and a turning point in military aviation. And it doesn't even require the amount of resources a modern jets simulator would, and ALL the data is there, from missions (not even have to think of scenarios, its all there in history) to technical information down to the last bolt .... Arent all these people that gather in airshows alone going to buy a product like that? aren't they enough market share?

A dedicated hi-fi Korea simulator ... I would expect btw TK to have released or have in his plan list a "Wings over Korea" release but i have no clue if they do. That would be at least something. I myself love too the vintage jets era.

Korea isn't called "The Forgotten War" for nothing.


I'll go for anything myself.



The Jedi Master

Eurofighter taking the lead. EF2000 V3.0 anyone?...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/EF2K_Bear.jpg
(oops...should have loaded ASRAAMs)

We know what some of the MFDs look like...
http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/cockpit-mfd.htm
--


Mark

Yep thats the one, Korea, as Jedi said the forgotten war in every sense of the word. I mean I've got WWII coming out of my ears, I've always been interested in the Korean conflict, the equipment was basically the same as WWII apart from the sexiest looking jet aircraft ever made, big silvery things with tasty noseart (OK I'm not a techophile) I know Korea was'nt in the least bit glamourous but niether was WWII although it's what we get sold a lot of the time.

And please God not "Wings over Korea"

I didn't have the time to read every post, so I'm sorry if this has already been said.

If you're going to do a poll like this, IMO you shouldn't use Lockon as a reason not to include a plane in the poll. You shouldn't really use -any- survey sim, but especially not Lockon. I would hardley consider any plane in Lockon as "decently represented" except for the Su-25T.

Naturally I included the F-22 and F-35 in my vote, but getting a study sim on these will be impossible. This is also true for any modern MiG or Sukhoi.

As for the others, yes, Western European fighters are very under-represented. I didn't vote for any, but hey I agree with the fact that there's room for them.

The EF2000 V2 was a disgrace ... i really hope i wont see anything like it again. Totaly off project management and perception. The first one though was all the way decent and even better than V2 ... IF a V3.0 will come out i hope it will be a totaly new thing from the ground up

Why you think Lockon lacks SO much (besides SU25T) ? .... It's not Falcon 4 but its the best next thing in detailing and i think the word decent is appropriate in the sense of what is achieved including all those flyables (plus the fun mission editor and AI and graphics). Actually (such sims) is the golden medium for people like me, "weekend simers" that we have so much limited time to devote to hobbies and we also can't be die-hard simulation trained F-16 / Su-25 pilots and we want to taste all the birds but in a way that feels "decently" real, and not Third Wire style ("feels", its a key component i believe, to make the thing "feel" like real and not refering to strict acurate representation of the last detail)

ED i believe have access to a good depth of information regarding the Russian military technology, latest Fulcrum and Flanker variants represented in the level of the rest of Lockon flyables is maybe within their capabilities. A eurofighter, a mirage 2000, a jaguar, a tornado, few harriers, a viggen, a grippen, a hornet, a tomcat, Raptor, F-35, on the lockon level would definitely keep me content, personaly.

monographix, EF2000 V2 (also called Super EF2000) was the final version of the original...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/EF2000_NS.JPG
http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_arc2/ef22-rev.htm

Perhaps you're thinking of Eurofighter Typhoon by Rage (many ex-DID)...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/DID_S.JPG
(right side of pic)

Not really my cup of tea but I enjoy messing with it. Some ideas are interesting like the CNN-type reports (just not in the middle of my flight). But at least they tried to make a game out of it which I find missing in sims sometimes, it just would've been nice to have kept the sim qualities.
--


Mark

All I want is a detailed sim based on a single aircraft, the F-14 Tomcat. Think Microprose's Fleet Defender with updated graphics and avionics. Several campaigns featuring all the variants of the F-14 throughout its service life (from Cold War "Bear" hunting, via patrolling the "line of death" to delivering laser-guided bombs in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan). Oh, and please include a nice, spiral bound manual.

Someone really needs to restart the Jane's Combat Simulations franchise and have a go at it.

Yes you are right sorry, Typhoon is what i was talking about (the EF2000 series was very nice). I personaly dont like the sims to have a game aspect not at least in the Typhoon sense! I think that, in theory that is, the Fighterops scheme is quite in tune with what i'd have in mind regarding the structure. (Janes USAF, Falcon4, Lockon werent bad in that aspect as well) I think there are better fields more suitable for that, like the sci-fi realm, or the console arcade flying like Ace Combat or the WWII arcade flying ones

But i am weird i guess. If one considers (to add my own piece or retrospective here) that i stoped complalning about sims always not having that something i was looking for till i flew the Hornet series (especialy 3.0 / Korea) and the first ED Su-27 ....

Totally +1 ... (just thats not all i want :D)

I want DiD to get back together and make EF2010 - updated avionics and graphics, same DiD magic.

I voted for ALL the planes. You can never have too much hardcore jet sim goodness.

Why do I think it lacks so much? Because it does. This has nothing to do with avionics and switchology. I'm talking about the very basic things a combat sim needs to be believable. There have been over 2 years worth of arguing about Lockon. For a full reference to what I'm talking about, you should read the Lockon.ru english forums. Here's a brief summary of what's wrong:

- Missile performance: The Aim-120 is porked. Flies too slow and can be 100% avoided by unrealistic tactics. R-27Ts act like REs and have mid-course correction, which is not realistic. They can be fired with a launch override when in reality they would still need a "tone" to be fire. They are NOT a BVR missile. All radar missiles are way, way to sensative too sensative to chaff.

- F-15C: I'm not going to ask for unrealistic things here, but really, the plane isn't even up to the specs of the F-15A

In short, Lockon is basically Air Quake. You cannot rely on realistic tactics, particularly concerning BVR. The entire sim is flow far to low to the ground. These planes, paricularly the eagle, are designed to fly high and fast (40k feet, Mach 1+) when engaging in BVR combat. What you have is IL2 with combat jets. Look-down capability is poor and the thrust to weight modelling makes flying high without burner almost impossible.

Lockon is fun and I do play it often, but it is far from being something you should use as a standard on whether or not a particular plane has been properly modeled, IMO.

EDIT: This is all I will say. I'm not trying to hijack the thread and turn it into a bunch of LOMAC bashing. He asked, so I answered. I placed my votes (poles are fun! ) and intend to read the rest of the discussion.

I'm with Arneh. I want an updated DI Tornado - with coop Front and Back seaters, and a dedicated Sim HQ Server/Teamspeak channel :p

Ok, now ignore the F-15C and fly the other 4 planes. That's what I do. It's far more satisfying that way.



The Jedi Master

Ok, then you have 3 dedicated CAS/Ground attack planes, which I don't care for and then 2 fast movers that still cannot maintain a good 400 knots or 800 kph at 40,000 feet without use of burner, let alone pull a 9 G turn at those altitudes. Both of them can field R-27T series of missiles which, again, every sim developer and his mama seem to think are BVR missiles just because they have that big motor (F4 does this too! ). Both of them can fight against planes carrying the T's as well as the messed up F-15.

You were saying? = P

Keep in mind, I bought Lockon because it was basically Flanker 3.0. I don't expect ED to turn the damn thing into an Eagle study sim like some do. I just want BVR where I can rely on realistic tactics working.

I don't have a problem with this post or more of like that. The contrary. My involvement although has been extensive in a very long period of time it isn't proportionaly deep so theres continously plenty of room for information to absorb. I appreciate it especially in this easy form. Keep it coming please. That's why i asked your opinion analyzed. i like information.
Actually i am preparing as we speak a short list of more questions for you, if you like keep to sharing your insights.

Btw, when you say R-27T arent BVR, do you mean in a fire-and-forget capabilities sense or range sense? And i always wondered but never searched, aren't the 27/33 capable of using the R-77?

There are weaknesses / faults / inaccuracies in the game that had found long time ago myself too within my limited expertise, but still considering the game fun (as you said too). (for example the mirage 2000-5 & the Mica EM/ER performances were way lower than what they should be, happening to know a few things about those two systems, plus in some other AI tests i used to like doing, like trying to sink a single us carrier with a synchronised air defense saturation attack from all the available in lockon weapons, that no matter how much i would increase the number of incomings to a point my CPU couldn't render any more, the thing would just shot down everything with sparrows and phalanx ....

I voted for Jas 39, the Viggen and F-117

Considering LOMAC was originally going to be called "Flanker Attack!" (I'm sure it makes more sense in Russian), because ground attack was EXACTLY what they were going after, and the F-15C was the last plane to be added and was responsible for the delays in release because of trouble getting it to work right, is there any question why the ground attack part of the sim is its strong suit?

The R-27T is given far too long a range in the sim, in reality it's still a WVR missile. The difference is while the R-73 is a "dogfight" missile for use in turning combat, the R-27T is designed to be fired at a close jet flying AWAY from you. Normally such a target would outrun an R-73, but the 27T has longer endurance. Its seeker can't see farther, though.

The Su-33 I believe has always been capable of firing the R-77, but the Su-27P (the one in LOMAC) is not. The upgraded Su-27SMT, however, can.



The Jedi Master

This is interesting if this is the case. Its even more like IL2 than I expected if it started off as a ground-attack oriented one airplane sim and them included air to air platforms.

Its funny that no matter the how massive peoples' air to ground fetish is (and it is massive. A recent poll on the DCS forums had like 90 people preferring A/G, 40 or so preferring A/A), air to air combat still ends up being the make or break part of a combat sim. No one complains about the Sturmovic or Frog, people complain about having to figh at low altitudes and Russian bias against Eagles and Mustangs. I'll make sure to cite this in favor of air to air when another discussion comes up.

The similarities are amazing, don't you thing?

Actually you are onto something and yeah, I see the similarities. I love playing IL-2 and Lock On but there is no doubt in my mind that some of the Russian planes in BOTH games have been over-modelled while some of the US planes in both sims (including the F-15 of course) have been nerfed to some degree.

I can give you a first hand account of this too. Jedi Master and I were flying a Lock On mission head to head a long time ago. He was in an F-15 and I was in a MiG-29. He was chasing me and was several thousand feet ABOVE me and yet he still could not catch up to me. We both had burners on of course but his F-15 should have been able to overtake me but he couldn't.

Grippen, Vippen or F-35

I remember reading about that encounter somewhere on this forum. I won't go so far to say that Russian planes are over-modelled, but the Eagle has been under-modelled. The killer that all planes suffer from is the inability to fly at normal operational altitudes and maintain speed without going full burner. The FMs are made to operate best at low and medium altitudes. I've read somewhere that if you were to just "shift the points" up to improve the modelling at high altitude, you'd have severe over-speeding problems at sea level.

Plenty of people complain about ground-attack aircraft. It's just that the arguements aren't as well supported by tangible numbers. You can cite almost any aircraft's maximum speed, cruise altitude, any kind of "hard" numbers, but it's rating survivability is far more nebulous. Ancedotal information is often thrown about, which muddy the waters further. Different design goals, a diversity of applicable tactics, and even the philosophy of aviation forces (comparing 'flying artillery' with 'strategic bombardment') all serve to make arguing air-to-ground nebulous at best.

But honestly, I think a lot of the #%&*$# has to do with something quite a bit more down to Earth. No matter how bad you're attack was, no matter how many times you die, the AAA site that shot you down will never come over chat or TS and say, "LOL. Owned."

In war the "what" (hard numbers, relative merits) is always secondary to the "who" (individuals).

Complain? Yes. Cite numbers, doghouse charts, and anecdotal evidence? Sure. Incite, encourage, and maintain an on-going @#$% fight over it for almost the majority of the time the sim has been available? I'm pretty sure thats unique to ED and the F-15C.

I'll agree with you on your comment about the AAA sight though.

I'm a little fuzzy on the details all these years later, but I know the working name was Flanker Attack! I know the Su-25 was always planned to be included. I know the Su-27 was always going to stay in (as far as evolution from Flanker 2.5) and I'm pretty sure the same for the MiG-29, even though the K from 2.5 was changed to an A/G and S for FA. Then came the idea to put in the A-10 I believe, and it worked fine. The problem was when the decision was made to put the F-15 in and the avionics gave them a lot of issues. It wasn't the FM that I recall was problematic for them, it was the radar, which works very differently from the common one the MiG-29s and Flankers share.
I think I remember Matt saying that a good part of the delay in the game's release was due to working on the F-15 (in other words, if they'd simply cut the F-15 the game would've come out earlier).
I don't know who made those decisions or how they were made, that's just the chronology as I recall it.

Of course, Flanker itself was never a ground attack sim. The AG radar in it was faked just to give people the chance to do some ground pounding, since the Flanker itself is like the F-15C...an interceptor with good dogfighting ability that can carry some meager AG stuff but is pretty much never used for that. I guess the idea for FA was to put a true ground attack side into the sim. The problem is until very recent designs like the Su-30MK and Su-27SMT and MiG-29SMT the Russians never really HAD a true multi-role plane like the West has. They always went single-role. So while Jane's F-15 and F/A-18 let you fly one plane and do both, you need separate planes for the Russian side.



The Jedi Master

@Jedi Master

Funny about the radar, since in the end the F-15C radar is the same one used by the Flanker and MiG, which in turn is just the one they used in Flanker 2.0. All they did was make it look different and tweak a few things.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, as well as put the conversation back on the topic of a new combat sim, and say that I blame head to head multiplayer for a lot of the problems people have with Lockon. I'd also be willing to be that any sim which has head to head multiplayer will risk those same problems. Apocal's remark about the AAA site is wiser than he probably realizes.

Multiplayer in a "vs." environment is about balance. You ***cannot*** have a true multiplayer game without this balance. 40 year old flight simmers who have no other expirience with online multiplayer or e-sports who think otherwise are fooling themselves. The -BEST- online head to head games will always be balanced. Not equal, just balanced. You ever play Starcraft? IIRC it won awards from some science organization because the 3 factions are completely different in feel yet are totally balanced with each other.

Warfare, if done correctly, is about imbalance. Its about catching the guy sleeping and slitting his throat in the dark of the night. Its forcing your enemy to collapse in on himself because you've gotten inside his OODA loop and are adjusting to his changes faster than he can comprehend your changes. Warfare is making a weapon that can "wish" your opponent dead. By definition, warfare is not fair.

The attempt to marry the two together by flight sims is at best very difficult, and at worse, folly. I would argue that it would be far more worth the time to create very good AI and a very good mission editor and campaign system. The natural fog of war can cover up the guts and rough edges of your AI and give you the illusion of a dynamic living battlefield. If you want a true combat simulation, such a scale of action would really be far more realistic than two vSquadrons playing Air Quake on Lockon.

You have to draw a line -- do you want competition against other people or do you want realism? You cannot have both at the same time. In the same sim? Maybe, but not at the same time! You either put up with the imbalances and go for realism or you get rid of realism in favor of balance. In other words, you pick UT2004 or you pick Operation Flashpoint.

I'll both retract and clarify what I said earlier about Lockon. If you play it realisitcally, Lockon is almost 100% ok. Fly the Russian planes, the ones that aren't just after-thoughts. Create realistic scenarios like MiG-29s scrambling to intercept a flight of Tornados using GCI to guide them while Su-27s provide cover against enemy F-15Cs escorting the bombers. Make use of the weather -- AI too easy? Fight them in a snow storm with high winds and turbulance. If you approach it this way, its actually enjoyable, as you said Jedi Master.

Which is the problem I have with Il-2--I NEVER fly adversarial MP, only coop. I care about how my plane performs against others when the AI are flying them. If I see them pull stunts in those planes they shouldn't be able to do, it makes me VERY mad.
For instance, while flying in the Pacific the AI Zeros in Il-2 go far too fast, making B'n'Z almost impossible--and seeing as they out turn every other early war Allied fighter that leaves you with almost no options.

Which is why AI that fly the same planes I do, and therefore face the same advantages and disadvantages I would in their plane, is so important. I know if I'm in a Zero I want a turning battle, and if I get it the fight should be mine. I know in a P-38 I want to avoid a turning battle and stick to high speed passes, and if I can do that the fight should be mine.
Finding AI Wildcats turning with your Zero or AI Zeros catching your P-38 is ruinous.



The Jedi Master

There have been several games (Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter being the most prolific) that have danced around that issue by having essentially seperate single-player and multiplayer games. Granted, all those that I know of were console games, but I wonder why flight sims never took this approach.

Really, thats very interesting. How were they different? Was the ballistics model different or did one have a bigger hit box or something?

There were different animations and a slightly different movement system between the two. The weapons had their stats adjusted and a few were balanced in other ways (ie. a few large magazine "man-eater" type weapons had much more conservative magazine sizes online). In short, it looked and played much less "gamey" in single-player, vice multiplayer.

A smart move by developers, I'd say, since very few people jump online to get figuratively kicked in the stomach.

I want a new Fleet Defender where you can fly all Tomcat versions or a great sim that includes flyable Viggen and Gripen. I don't think FA do Viggen and Gripen justice

Tornado...

For me, a next-gen Raptor sim networkable with the F35, AWAC's and UAV's.

-Surfer

Eurofighter and Do 31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31

Tomcat - once again baby !

Well,

F-22 with F-35 would be great!

I like Eurofighter too..

why people doesn't mention the B2 ? I wish there were 2 version of flysim, one for A-A and another is about A-G, for example: in A-G version there're B2, F117, Su-25, A-10 and so on, the A-A version includes Su-2X,3X, F-XX and other western aircrafts .

Eurofighter - just not only because I'm german, but because it's a true multirole fighter.
Second would be F-35 out of the same matter.

F-22, maybe, but that would turn out as Air to Air only.

F-117, never again, did all the F-117 Campaign/Missions in DIDs TFX back in the mid 90's.
Gameplay in the F-117 was more like a submarine sim: Sneak in, bomb lybian industry compound, sneak out.

A new version of TFX-Tactical Fighter Experiment featuring F-22,EF 2000,F-35A,B,C would be a good arsenal for a 2008-2020 Campaign setting.

Great thread, guys.

Yes, it would be great to have an up to date modern jet STUDY sim, but the chances of that are not even worth discussing. I loved Flanker, and 2.0, but LOMAC went south. You can't even reach 60,000 feet in the F15,(although I think I got there once at full AB doing about 220 knots...) which we all know is not correct, am I right? Can't the Eagle operate at close to 100,000? And the BVR stuff is porked beyond belief.

I have to agree with the guys about Korea. They could do it down to every switch and button, and the gameplay would make it a classic, if it improved upon Mig Alley at all (i.e. navigation). Mig Alley was great..I used tolove seeing a formation in the distance because of the light flashes coming from the bare aluminum. Imagine checklists and start-ups and taxiing out in a realistic Korean War environment. It would be great.

Tomcat please! I get all tingly thinking about a modern version of Fleet Defender... Sigh.

Anything that operates off a carrier. Love takin off from ships. Primarily the F-14, (proper 2 seat control system). I have a friend that flys LOMAC with me atm and we are really looking for a very realistic military simulator that can accomodate 2 seater military aircraft (especially in the fighter-bomber role).
Takin those off a carrier in a beautiful graphics environment in a realistic simulator is the most favourable option for me.

Now that is a good idea. Unfortunately its pretty obvious that newer gonna see the light of the day.

Another nice idea would be remake of AV8B Harrier Assault but this time with F-35B.

"F-35B Lightning Strike" sounds cool

I see a lot of reflexive EF-2000 fans around here. Good work, S!

I've often thought about what I would do if I had a spare couple of million (a la Bill Gates) and could afford to assemble (and bankroll!) a team of programmers for a couple of years. . . . .

. . . what kind of sim would I get them to develop. . . . . mmmmmmmmm. . . .

1. It should model aircraft systems at least as accurate as Falcon 4
2. Full 3D cockpit like Lomac but clickable!!!! + TrackIR support goes without saying!
3. Because of the accuracy required in 1 above, trying to model any ultra modern jet would be too difficult as most of the info is still classified. For this reason I would go with a late eighties/early nineties airframe.
4. One thing missing from virtually all flighsims is a fully dynamic weather system (anyone who has done any real life flying knows how important this is)
5. Complex failures/damage model with cascading failures (so a damaged engine run on max power may catch fire if not nursed etc)
6. OK, now this is purely personal, it should be a carrier based aircraft - F18A or even a C.
This would mean decent/accurate modelling of the sea (varying sea states), pitching & rolling decks, ground crew on deck etc. etc.

So with all of the above and kickass visuals, then it needs decent AI, decent mission planning/campaign execution.

IF the team could manage all that for an F18 sim . . . . then the next year they could release a Vietnam add-on based on maybe the F4 (with several variants) . . . .

Aww I could go on all night! You get the picture!

RBG

Any of the listed jets, but, throw in a decent training package ala Tornado. For those that haven't played this game, the 'missions' took you buy the hand (along with the great tech manual) and led you through basic flight/ aircraft systems training with the 'OCU' operational coversion unit package and then in later missions into the 'TWCU' or Tornado weapons coversion unit package.This included various attack profiles and HUD related symbology including loft, laydown, highlevel LGB and the downright suicidal JP233 airfield attack. These packages were very well done, and iirc gave you a rating, to show you how well you were doing. What a cool game. Then the real fun started with the ACTUAL campaign. Nothing like motoring down a valley, getting a SU-27 on your six, banging the wing sweep to max and plugging in burner whilst swapping to the WSO (nav) cockpit to find an alternate airfield to land at after the attack as fuel was always an issue! This sim made you work in spades, although iirc I only flewit to take off/break missile lock/land. Isn't autopilot great (and ride height)...

Eurofighter!!!!!

I miss my EF2000!!!!

A-10 *C*! With realistic CAS missions and panicked ground-pounders that need my help ASAP.

A good 1980's era USN Sim - F-14, A6, A7, F4S, F-18A

And a good ground pounding dedicated sim. All about the low down, with full ground war, comms, inf etc etc.

We need to be realistic in what we ask for.

We're not going to have F4 with 10 planes...

I want to note that i have the impression that with todays knowledge and capabilities available, maybe its possible (technicaly and theoreticaly) that the first ever relatively high fidelity simulator of open architecture to include almost every jet fighter there is , could be created.

A simulator made from the start this way that could be constantly updated with jet fighter addons (amongst other things) but in a way that would impose even less compromises than F4 or LockOn. There wont be limitations in representing some aircraft's systems based on some other's.

A longer and even more ambitious shot would be Maybe even to be merged in a greater military simulators environment of ground and naval warfare. Three (or more. Tank, infantry, naval, etc) simulators merged in a common global environment.

("dream on Squid"? ...)