SR-71

[+Dels 649]

G'Day all,

 

I'm in the middle of a project at the moment, but I was considering doing an SR-71 as my next project.

 

Is anyone interested?

 

Also, if I did make a recon SR-71, would anyone be interested in a fictional strike version with internal weapons bays?

[Atreides 144]

Yes please, I'll take two to go

[Longestpants 1]

Definitely, definitely interested, your projects are always fantastic!

[DWCAce 19]

Sure, I'll take one each of the recon, strike, and interceptor versions. Also, with an additional 3 options! :) Sounds like a great project!

[+ext 52]

That would be some Strike Aircraft! Most likely the only one to outrun a Sam.

[pablo10692 4]

Of course!!! With ketchup at the bottom please!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

For me too and a Y-12 hope it`s the right name for the bird

[Viggen 644]

SR-71 and a YF-12 or A-12? Yes please!

[hide86 0]

GO GO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dsawan 624]

definitely yes.

[triplethr3at 0]

That would be realy cool. Just a heads up there is a sr-71 already in the works. Maybe you can get in touch with NHENGO and work with him on his. All he needs is a fm skin and cockpit. The model and animations are already done

[column5 63]

Dels, great work on the F-22! I think you should make whatever aircraft most interest you, but my vote would be for something other than the SF-71, simply becuase it doesn't offer much utility in this game with no recon features to speak of and relatively small maps. But, like I said, it comes down to what you are going to enjoy building the most. Either way I look forward to the result. ;)

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Much larger maps are possible.

 

We do need 3rd Party dynamic campaign engines that offer new gameplay and air warfare features. All that is needed is a map-wide combat results text file that can be read by the campaign engine, instead of just Player squadron as we have now, and even that is not output to a readable file as far as I know (not sure, but I never found it). Lowengrin's dynamic campaign saved the FB/PF sim for many of Oleg's customers, and could do the same here. But without a map-wide combat recorder, all Lowengrin can do is create "editors" to "edit" the stock dynamic campaign engine

[Outlaw7 0]

I think flying recon/ strike missions at mach 3+ would be great

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I think flying recon/ strike missions at mach 3+ would be great

With well crafted hand made missions, you could look from 80,000 feet and see the larger air warfare unfolding@home far below...

 

 

Flying with FoxMonter's F3H Demon cockpit instrument panel inside Pasko's U-2 external model's pilot compartment, looking down on cirrus clouds and B-52 contrails in the weeds at 40,000 feet. :yes:

Edited February 26, 2008 by Lexx_Luthor

[column5 63]

I think flying recon/ strike missions at mach 3+ would be great

 

Me too, but SF isn't the best way to simulate it, given that flying something like the SR-71 is more about systems management than seat of the pants flying. For example, I was surprised to learn that for the bulk of their missions, the Blackbirds were flown on autopilot. However, we win either way as Del's does great work and any plane he makes for the game should be a beauty.

 

OT but consider a real SR-71 simualtion. Of course you would fly the mission, which would be cool, but equally intriguing would be the opportunity to perform all of the mission planning for such a complex operation taking place over thousands of miles and involving as many as eight aerial refulings, etc., etc. Schedule a tanker wrong and swim home...

[Stick 773]

G'Day all,

 

I'm in the middle of a project at the moment, but I was considering doing an SR-71 as my next project.

 

Is anyone interested?

 

Also, if I did make a recon SR-71, would anyone be interested in a fictional strike version with internal weapons bays?

 

 

Yes by god yes.There was an an A-12 or something that was scrapped if I recollect correctly. But theres nothing like dedicated recon missions. There are exhilirating by themselves. Yesterday in a Su-33 I was jumped by these tomcats d's taking potshots at me with them phoenix's. even at 70000 feet

[+Dels 649]

Once again I have been blown out of the water. The SR-71 etc. is already in the works.

 

But that's good news, because it means it's closer to release than if I were to start one from scratch!

[column5 63]

Once again I have been blown out of the water. The SR-71 etc. is already in the works.

 

But that's good news, because it means it's closer to release than if I were to start one from scratch!

 

 

We could have two! Seriously, make the plane that turns you on.

 

Can you give us a hint on the current project?

[Miya_Sama 0]

YF-12 or A-12 or M-12 has anybody considered these?

[Falcon161 3]

U could do a fictional F-14 with Engines like the raptors and canards

[column5 63]

How about the Fatemobile? See the little canon on the front?

 

[+Spectre_USA 7]

>snicker< @ C5...

[column5 63]

>snicker< @ C5...

 

I wonder how many of the youngsters here know its origin?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

In the original DOS Su-27 Flaker sim from 1995, one of the most fun and challenging missions I made was a deep strike into heavily defended Ukraine territory, far beyond the map edge. The mission editor let you scroll beyond the map, although it was blank terrain it was usable for all aircraft and surface units for long distance missions.

 

I setup maybe 50+ total of long range S-300, medium range and short range SAM sites. You could fly either high or lo, the different SAM types presenting a different challenge to your use of the RWR. Up high, you had to find a path between the longer range SAM sites, taking your time to navigate with the RWR. This took much longer to accomplish the mission since so many SAM sites could see you, and left you vulnerable at low altitude if enemy interceptors appeared.

 

Down lo, you had to fly at 50 meters or so, and most of the time the RWR (and IR missile warning) was silent, but if you did fly into a SAM site, you had to turn HARD to get away -- and you could not gain much altitude in the sudden evasion or alot of long/medium range sites would see you. But evasive manuevers at 100 meters is not easy (although not so bad with the 100% flat featurless sea-level terrain off the map edge).

 

An additonal challenge was randomly appearing enemy intercepts, either with or without randomly appearing GCI radar sites that in the Flaker sim alerted AI fighters to enemy aircraft out to about 60km (for AI set to "intercept" or "GCI").

 

The hardest part was learning the value of minimum afterburner use, since the mission was designed also to challenge fuel management. The neatest thing was taking off into the setting sun at that base in the northern Crimea and arriving in enemy territory as it started to get dark. The best part was surviving with enough fuel to get home, hopefully with enough fuel to allow an afterburning retreat if enemy interceptors followed you home, and an out-going friendly intercept that would cover your return near the Crimea.

 

The high level mission could be similar to what SR-71 and hand crafted missions could allow over the SF series. F-111 or (upcoming) Su-24, or B-52 or B-57, would allow low level stuff. We have the RWR ability in the sim, but as far as I know it does not tell you if the threat is SAM or airborne.