MBot

Wow, I am very pleased with what I read here :) It seems that the Jet Thunder team has very similar ideas how a sim must look like as I have. You guys are building my dream sim :) You are right about Jane's F/A-18 Dante. The little guy realy just stands on the ground with a gun in his hand until the SAR helo arrives. But that is the most I have seen so far in a any sim regarding SAR, so I used it as an example ( and basis ). Btw, like in JF-18 the downed pilot needs to use coloured smoke once the helo arrives :) I am also quite excited that you try to populate the carriers. Something awaited since ages and finaly current computer power seems to make it possible. I hope you succeed with it. I also hope you can add these small peoples on the argentinan airbases. Little guys that remove/applie the brake "thing" ( that "stopper" ), refuel und rearm planes. Also I have a picture in Osprey Combat Aircraft Vol. 28 of a ground crewman that has plugged in earphones on a taxiing Mirage III. These sort of ground procedures would be very cool. Also perhaps the "arming station". I don't know much about fighter ground operations, but I think that on the taxingway, short before the runway, is a station where all planes stop and groundcrews go arming all weapons. This in a flighsim would be so cool :) And now I perhaps get a bit carried away too much, but cheering groundcrews at your parking lot after you return from a particular succesfull mission would be realy atmospheric :)

I agree. I have dreamed of a Falkland Sim since I play flightsims. Keep it up ! And I hope you soon have something new to show :)

Ok, lets generate some action in here :) I would like to know what the plans are for radio comms and how much depth the team plans on them. And of course I have some suggestions myselfe :) First I think that radio comms are one of the most important aspcets of simulations and that the atmosphere of a sim greatly depends on them. If a missions is boring or fun has lot to do how much the player hears. And there can be many many units to make the envoirment alive, the player most likely wont notice them at all if he can't hear them and follow their missions trough their communications. Some things I think that are important: -The player talks himselfe. If I order my wingman something it is nice to actualy hear this and then hear the wingman respond. If I only hear the wingman and his respons is short ( let say just a simple "roger" ), then I haven't much action on the radio at all... This point is also needed for the next point. -I would like to hear other units on the same channel, like Janes F/A-18 or Falcon 4.0 did. In lomac per example, there can be the biggest airwar going around you but the only one talking on the radio is your wingman saying "roger". In order to hear other units comms, the point above is needed. Cause you need to hear the command, not only the acknowledgement. Listening to a nice engagement on radio is nice on those long tranist flights. -ATC that does controll. In many flightsims in the past, ATC didn't controll you, they just said a certain thing when you flew over a certain point. Again here comes Janes F/A-18 and F4.0 in my mind as positiv examples. It is nice if ATC guides you to the ILS interception via multiple legs, creates spacing between traffic, gives you the order to do a go-around, order planes to orbit or calls you names if you didn't do what he wanted. Again LOMAC is a bad example here. There is no controll, just some standart phrases in standart situations. After some tries you stop calling to tower and fly for yourselfe, cause it is exactly the same. -Interaction, lots of interaction. I like to "talk" with the other side. If I report a problem to my controller per example, it would be nice if he asks for specifics. Then I select my problem from a drop down list and get a specific answer. An example: Me: "Red 1 is low on fuel" Controller: "Do you make it for the carrier ?" Me selcting in dropdown list: "positiv" Controller: "Ok, you are Nr.1 priority for landing" Then he guides you down. Etc. or: "negativ" Controller: "Roger Red 1, I have the frigate Arrow 15 miles east of you..:" Etc. I think you get what I mean. This is just a rough example and and I know that it must be extremy difficult to do this. But include dynamic nteraction wherever you can. -Humans on comm. Of course not in the military standart phrases, but it would be nice to have some humanity every now and then. Per example you are in CAP and in contact with the controller on Coventry. Suddently Brilliant pops in on the frequency and reports she is under attack ( with fighting sounds in the background ) and that the Harriers should move their butts over there. Don't knwo if it is realistic, but sounds thrilling. -FAC. An all time favourite :) Would be nice to have. I read somewhere that the Aermacci MB-339 developed FAC-CAS procedures with the argentinian marines. I guess the Harrier were in contact with ground troops aswell on their CAS missions. Erm, thats all I can think of at the moment :) But I guess you already knew this yourselfe :) Btw, as we are on that subject. How deep do you plan to do british and argentinian carrier procedures ? Hope to see a dev. update soon. Keep up the good work.

Hi First I have to say I am very excited by that project and I am waiting for a Falklands sim since I play flightsims. Now I have a little feature suggestion you might like. This feature will very much depend how the dynamic campaign will work and how it is presented to the player. For now I am assuming for simplicity that the campaign progress ( intel ) between the missions is shown to the player in a similar way as Falcon 4.0 does. What I like to see is that the player can report units he see on his missions and that the campagin engine will react on those informations. Lets make an example: The player is in his Skyhawk on his mission to attack british ships. On his way he overflyes a single ship that hasn't been mentioned in the briefing and wasn't on the intel map of the campaign cause it was hidden by the fog of war. Now the player looks at his kneeboard map ( another must have :) ) and klicks on the position where he thinks the ship is and writes a comment to it. The player carries on his normal mission and flyes back. On the debriefing screen now, there is an option to write a reccon report. A map where the player can mark positions of units he discovered. He also can assign an ID to that mark from a dropdown list. This list could include specific ship types ( Type 42, Hermes, ... ), classes ( destroyer, carrier, ... ) or just target type ( ship, tank, SAM, ... ) according to how far the player actualy could ID the unit on his mission. Other options the player could set for his finding are Friendly/Hostile/Neutral/Unknown, degree of certanity ( High/Medium/Low ) and how sure he is of the exact position ( exact, somewhere in the ocean, ... ). Perhaps some know that ID-system from the game Sub Command. Once the player has insert all his discoverys he presses the report button. The infos now are sent to the campaign engine wich will use these datas on further mission. If the player per example was shot upon by a SAM and later reported the position, in the briefings of the next missions there will be a notification and a threat circle on the map. Or if the player reported a destroyer with medium certanity, the campaign engine might run a reccon mission next to confirm the contact. Or if the player reports a carrier with high certanity and gives exact position informations, the campagin engine might imediatly launch a strike group on that target. The key of that report function is that the campaign engine uses these datas additionaly to it's other inputs and calulates reasonable answers. The camgaign engine migh comletly ignore a low certenity ship sighting, or ignore a high certenity Type 42 destroyer if there are more important missions to do. Or the engine just uptades position informations of a known conact. Also the position input of the player is important. An unexact position information of a certain carrier sightning might generate a big search effort while a wrong position report of the player migh let a strike group running into empty space. The whole concept would add much to the missions themselfe, as the player would had to observe his envoirement and try to give exact informations, as wrong reports would result in waste of campagin recources. And of the player doesn't wants to report anything, he just doesn't do it. Also this would make a very impotant type of missions of the Falklands war possible, the armed reccons. The whole concept sound quite complicated and new, but at the end it just adds the player to the eyes of the campagin engine as every other AI unit already is. It is part of a dynamic campaign anyway that AIs "report" their sightings to the engine and that missions are based on this informations. Btw, it would be cool if the AIs don't instantly are they eyes of the camgain engine but only after they landed on their homebase. I don't insist that you have to include exactly what I request here, I just wanted to give you some food for toughts and stimulaty others to write down their ideas.

Shadowcat, this problem can be part of the idea behind that mechanisme. If an AI armed-recon flight sights a ship and reports its position, then moments later the player sees the same ship and reports it too but with wrong position informations, the campaign engine might indeed think there are two ships and act on that basis. That mechanisme prevents the player from making reports without much toughts. As the player is aware that his input has an effect on the bigger planing, he has to take extra care in what he tells on the debriefing ( just like in real life ). Otherwise he makes the campagin harder for himselfe. I had another tough on this subject, but this time on kill reports. Until now, we always had our kills listed in the debriefing in every game. What about if this infos fall into the fog of war aswell and the player even has to tell the campagin engine what kills he had ? Airframes were an important and spare ressource in the Falkland war. Every Sea Harrier the RN lost made their live harder, cause less planes had to do the same dutys. Only few more lost Sea Harrier could have meant that CAPs couldn't be monted or intercepts couldn't be flown. Wouldn't it be possible to utilice that interesting tactical situation in the campagin more intense ? The campagin engine plans missions according to the assets it thinks the enemy has. If the argie "commander" thinks the Sea Harrier force has been reduced enough he might descide to cancel further escort mission and send strikes alone. Or if he thinks all Sea Harrier got destroyed he might attack the fleet head-on. The kill claims the pilots make after a mission would have a direct effect on how strong the campagin engine thinks the enemys squadrons are. So if the player fills in his debriefing after an mission and claims to have shoot down 4 Harriers while in fact he just downed 1, this has an effect on the further campaign. The campagin engine assumes the Sea Harrier force is weaker that it actualy is and plans on this. This could make an nice surprise on a following missions. Anyway, thats just a little idea I had. I don't know if it actualy adds something to the gameplay or if it just would be annoying. I had to test it myselfe to see if it is fun or not. I guess it would most likely something for the most hardcore players and would certanly need to be an difficulty option. After all it is nice to see your success' after your mission.

I just wondered if you plan the let planes land on ships in special cases. Like if you are low on fuel and can't make it to the carrier, you can report that to your controller and he will vector you to a nearby frigate. If I remember correctly, some Sea Harriers landed on the Fearless in San Carlos Water after they run short of fuel on their CAPs. In the book "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" Ward discribes how he discussed "plan B" with the controller of the Fearless while they were chasing a Hercules into the west. Eventualy they had enough fuel after the mission to fly back to the carrier directly, but I think other planes refueled there sometimes. Yet another question btw, do you plan to have extra procedures to enter San Carlos Water ? IIRC every plane was shot upon that entered the landing zone without guidiance or flying tough corridores.