Leaderboard

Peyoteros doesn't matter who with who or what. Always regrets :D

Шли, конечно! :) lbison dog rambler dot ru

Even though BS doesn't support multicore, having more than one core means you can dedicate one core to the game, and it WILL boost the FPS since all the other niggles (TIR, whatever else you run in the background) won't be sucking CPU cycles off the core LOMAC's running on.

Most of the LOFC missiles are produced under assumption i.e. not based on any performance charts and other technicalia... So noone can really tell you what's accurate AMRAAM peformance, it's still classified!

You're next :) Type 508 V-tail prototype of the scimitar.

It's like paying for watching someone having sex... Hell No!

Вашему вниманию представляется документальны фильм об Украинской пилотажной группе "Украинские соколы". Посмотреть можно здесь:http://www.ukrfalcons.com/index.php?categoryid=11 Фильм был передан лично нам, от М. Лампика. Приятного просмотра.

Thracian Spring 2008 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3166497&postcount=1

RedTiger, The reason for this is that the Russian fighters are homeland defense aircraft - this is their purpose ... it is -not- taking the fight to the enemy, unlike the F-15, which was built explicitly with the idea that it would be fighting a fight not in its own country's borders, but elsewhere, and it had to bring 'all this stuff' with it. The Su-27's reliance on off-board targeting/direction, as Alfa mentioned, is due to the inherent problems of its radar. While capable of performing its own searches, ECM resistance is poor (in LO, you always get a jamming indication .. in RL, you might never know you're being jammed - you just see an empty scope. In addition, the SNP (TWS) mode was susceptible to ECM due to slow processors. The same affliction resulted in spurious contacts showing up, and this and other factors also caused lock-on time to be painfully long (on the order of 7-10 sec). Further, I think you just have to look at how these guys trained to see which aircraft is stronger in BVR ... F-15's: Usually between 25-35k or higher for the fight, limited by engine thrust ... burst to 1.3M to fire missiles, typically always against look-down targets. Su-27's: Trained for combat at a lower altitude block (15-25k) ... imagine, look-up against the high-flying F-15's, but that extra power of their missiles is wasted due to the necessity to climb...also potentially limited by high-altitude engine thrust. (Though admittedly another reason might be that their primary task wasn't really to fight F-15's, but rather, to intercept incoming bombers) Traditionally interceptors have always been built to 'get higher and faster first', and if your interceptor is training to fight lower than the other guy's interceptor, it's probably not a terribly good sign. Basically, the Su-27's and MiG-29's system was built to work well with a locked target and the 'smite' button pushed. Search, as you said, was not so great due to the reasons mentioned. The task of tracking an already locked target and discriminating background clutter, as well as ECCM application is presumably far easier in terms of processing than a search. I think an indication of this is the search notch at long range being somewhere on the order of 350kph, while it's 150kph (or perhaps even less) against a locked target.

"Иди ты!" (с) :D

Согласен. Но модельная тема для ГС всеже актуальней. Глянуть на F-4 без слез не возможно. Скинами трудно что то поправить. Вроде немного лучше, но...

And there will be more quastion of type: "I have 10000000GB RAM processor 1000000000GHz, If BS will run on my computer?" Ohh come on... When game will be out you will see :)

DCS is tentatively scheduled for release some time this year. The reason BS isn't a lock on add-on I think is in the FAQ, but the short of it is: UBI owns LOMAC, and UBI was taking a cut out of the pie while doing little to nothing with every add-on. Putting -all- the LOMAC stuff into DCS creates two problems: 1. Legal. UBI would say 'hey, it's too similar' and sue for a cut of the pie 2. Modeling discrepancy: DCS is all about in-depth modeling, LO isn't, really ... so you'd have these old (codewise) planes flying about that really need to get replaced, mixing it up with the highly developed new modules. I think ED did the right thing by cutting LO off. It's old code that just /needs/ to go. I'm sad because there's no fast-mover for me, but that's life. It will come in time. DCS will rock. Disclaimer: The above is my interpretation of events as I understand them.

Who do you think will believe you ? Dont misunderstand me but i need facts to believe this.

In LOMAC I fly guns only due to the missile modeling. I fly heaters also, but most people only want guns or BVR.

По мне так в этом и есть основное. Все что рядом должно выглядеть реально. Сидя в кабине ты не видишь как выглядит твоя машина, зато вокруг если летают детские игрушки, удовольствия никакого. Для меня окружающая обстановка и кабина имеют высший приоритет.

I did, with a li'l help from Suncom and CH guts (PT and TQ)

LOL. Why are all you guys arguing about real life missile performance? Any of you actually use a real A2A missile? It seem to me we are all arguing about our own opinions since we have no real data, just what we can find in the web, tv, videos or books. :D

Were they more advanced, or was it just that they were using EO systems where the US preferred to use radar? 'Cause I know that the US was using EO-guided bombs before that even ... so I can't see how they could be all that far behind. I can see more advanced in applications, but not actual construction - however, as I have no proof, I concede the point :D

The situation wasn't much different in Vietnam. Heck, the target aircraft didn't even have RWRs. What's the number of opposition have to do with launch-to-hit ratio anyway? There's only one person blasting propaganda here, and that's you.

I dont know but i thougt i read somewhere that BS still wont support multicore,dont shoot me if i read wrong. 8800GT wont be the problem running this game,but as already said,the game is heavy on the processor,my FC uses 60% of one core(i am running Intel 3GHZ dual-core 8mb) My 2 cents....

I think he just means that DCS:BS will be slightly heavier than Lomac:FC. I'm confident that my 4core macpro will run it nicely with its ati 1900[insert 2 letters]. I might get another graphics card though, if I feel I "need" it. So I don't think you should have any problems at all, you have a super duper computer!!! I would'nt worry :D

Consider reading the FAQ. Also you can try launching Flaming Cliffs by right-clicking on the game's shortcut and selecting "Run as administrator".

См. предыдущий ответ to JGr124_MUTbKA

Your graphic card should be good enough for BS, BS is DX9 game but I can't say for sure at least until we get the game and install it, run it and try various settings.

Hi Steve, I'm not from ED nor have anything to do with the beta testing, but from what I have seen on this forum and others from ED and Beta Testers, is that, if your machine can run LOMAC:FC , then it should run DCS:BS also, though perhaps 10% "slower" due to greater computational overhead. We can derive from that, that an 8800GT would certainly run DCS:BS well, as long as the other underlying systems (CPU, Memory, IO speed) were also up to scratch. I, for example, can run LOMAC:FC at a comfortable 25 - 30 FPS on a 7800GTS (2GB RAM, 64x2 4200+ cpu) at 1280 x 1024 on high detail generally. Cheers, Nem

+1 всегда найдутся люди которым нарисованные скины покажутся не полностью достоверными по отношению к оригиналу, или не в той цветовой гамме. Да и фантазировать тож захотят, в той же "цифре" камуфляж сделать :)

Единственной формой боя истребителей в LockOn является онлайн, все остальное - в топку. Из Искусственного Идиотизма ботов делать какие-то выводы - это самому надо быть собратом ИИ, ИМХО.

Будем совершенствовать уже нарисованные. Как тебе такой вариант ? :smilewink:

Tom_catя тоже около 2х лет летаю, ракеты всеравно попадают, так что этот способ оценки ракет очень субъективный.

Hawker Hind.:smartass:

Приятно, что ты так о всех позаботился :) . Но не волнуйся, найдут чем занятся.

I don't think any of us here will ever know the real performance of modern A2A missiles. Not until they retire the R-77, AIM-120, METEOR (AKA BVRAAM), R-73, AIM-9X, Python 4, MICA, AIM-132 ASRAAM (the best acronym by far) Etc.

And I would call that losing the battle for air superiority. Unless it is a 10 minute flight to the enemy base. ;)

There is plenty precedent in the video game design world that a developer sanctions a third party's work. You have a valid point to bring up why ED should make it official or not to, but really thats for them to decide. You can't crush the hopes of any new idea's out there.

I think this is a terrific idea- if you're buying. :thumbup:

I know it's OT & re-hashing old arguments, but I find that such an odd attitude. When ID software went from DOOM to QUAKE (I'm pretty sure they're not putting out patches for the original DOOM any more), or as each itteration or Need For Speed (or GTR etc) came out, did their communities berate and abandon them because they had 'Ended' the series ? No - players embraced the change & improvements it brought with it... Simillarly - When any FPS / MMOLRPG / Racing SIM developer develops a new engine ( & moves on from the last ) the respective communities accept that technology moves on & opens the door for better things. Think of what the present technological complaints are about DCS.BS - (Shadows, lighting, lack of fully detailed player radar modelling, no A/G radar model, seeker issues, worries about frame rates etc) almost exclusively aspects that are limited by the capabilities of the present engine. The LO Engine has reached (past) the end of it's development lifecycle, and for things to move on, it has to be left behind, but that's a good thing... That said - people can keep playing the LO series till a DCS module that interests them comes out, but would you really rather that the community forced ED continue diverting a significant portion of their development resources into what is effectively obsolete technology, or would you rather they focused on bringing the next generation of SIMs to market ASAP ?

I was wondering when this point was going to be made :) There is no clear cut way, in my mind, to look at something and say, "hey look, that is airquake." I also think we can't sit at a round table and lay down parameters to define airquake. Its just not feasible. There are just to many factors to associate with it. To me, its more of a state of mind between the players in a given server than anything else. The careless attitude one takes toward their aircraft and the need to get a kill. It can be a lack of tactical flying, with or without teamwork and communication with my fellow wingmen. There doesn't need to be an objective to make something not airquake, but it certainly helps. I can be a matter of semantics. "I'm going to fly to way-point one and shoot enemies down" "I'm going to provide CAP over waypoint one." They both say the same things, but do they both mean the same things? On the flip-side there are situations I can look at where I believe the game has turned to airquake. When an enemy has pushed to and is within 20 mi of my spawning base. In other words, if I can shoot at people and get shot down by people within 5 minutes of taking off, I call that airquake. I think its completely possible for two different players to be in a single server where one believes he is in an airquake battle, and the other believes they are in a highly skillful and tactical fight.

depends... who with what :music_whistling:

Another clue - front end (Not the dirty gray job in the background, we all know what that is) [ATTACH]16012[/ATTACH]

Это не проблема. "Красных опустили" (тому, что именно опустили, а не иначе, опровержения еще никто не дал) - это другая ветка. А у нас - "Ракеты воздух-воздух". Почему свои рассуждения об эффективности РВВ МД я должен куда-то переносить? Или здесь обсуждаются только "большие" ракеты, а малые - оффтоп? Подробное описание вопроса также не приветствуется?

I don't think this is totally wrong, but IMO there is no single item that encourages that "I fly for stats" attitude than the existence of server messages. This is why you have people hanging out -far away from the front- picking off landing pilots, etc This is -one of- the reasons certain people fill the air with maddog missiles as a RULE- instead of as a defensive measure, or within another legit circumstance. I think the negative connotations surrounding "Airquake" is mostly B.S. You cannot simply leave a server up and expect that you will always have the proper ratio of ground & air. For those of you that are uncomfortable flying air to air, and think that somehow you've been singled out as a victim of things you can't control? Get over yourself. 1. There are servers that have A2G platforms only. 2. If you enter a server that has say 6 enemy pilots- all in fighters, and your side is a. not in communication or flying as a team in any way b. flying mainly A2G (outnumbered) Common sense should kick right about................. now. "hmm my platform of choice is a literal deathtrap here at this time. I fly it at my own risk. " Don't complain. It was your choice.You could become more proficient on other planes if you wanted to. You could be in a squad, join as a team (even if it's only 2 or 3 of you) and accomplish a lot more. In other words- Admins & mission makers. NOTICE: You cannot make everyone happy all the time. There will ALWAYS be complainers about something. Personally- I hate it when people maddog 100% of the time. I hate server messages. I hate it when people land against traffic, sit on the runway, and generally fly as though NO ONE else is even there. But I deal with it. I cuss & fume to myself- but I deal with it. MANY people who moan non-stop about "airquake" are often hiding behind their fear of head to head competition anyway. "Airquake" is a normal, natural circumstance that is the result of the limitations of the product, and the choices of the individuals that fly it. There are ways to reduce it- to change the focus of the battle, but that is up to the people in there. You cannot have a large combo map, a wide selection of planes, an assortment of people with different attitudes & priorities ,and not have some of it. ahhhh-HOO -ah. TRY to have a nice flight, people. LOMAC's problems PISS me off as much as anyone else. I'm no different. But the online experience is what you make of it. I get tired of airquake myself. So- I fly the T-frog somewhere else. And vice versa. There IS plenty of baseline choice available to everyone. (the different servers) The rest is up to you & me.

Actually it's a very good idea if ED will suggest to people time limited BETA software testing. They've free paid workers already why not free paid dozens of testers ;)

I think the major prohibitive factor in MP Lockon is that there are no "trigger events" that can trigger something to happen after something else occurs. There is no goal scenario that can be set that if one side achieves the round/battle will end. Currently mission goals are set in the briefing but there is nothing forcing you to help achieve those goals. I have no idea how the following could actually be implemented but perhaps there could be missions that actually end when set goals are achieved. Once one side wins, the mission rotates to a new map with a new battle and new goal(s) or the mission resets. The point is there has to be a way for the match to end as result of one side achieving a goal(s) and not because of a time limit. That would get people playing as part of the team in a hurry. Having a round end and your team losing will make you want to contribute to your team all the more. Of course the above is geared more towards getting the Lonewolves to do some planning. By having a few friends and joining an open mission server like the 169th or 104th you can always co-ordinate an attack. Here's another idea that rips off the Battlefield games. Again, no idea how it could actually be implemented. In fact I’m sure it’s impossible but might give someone some ideas. -You could make airfields objectives -Each air base is Red or Blue -Once an Airbases' defensive systems are destroyed (SAMS, etc) by the opposing team, the base is now under that opposing team’s control. This team can now spawn at the captured airbase and they receive new defensive systems. The team that lost the airbase is forced to spawn at their next reserved airbase. - A "Round/Battle" ends when all set airbases are under one teams control -This gives a common goal for everyone and different A2A and A2G roles for everyone

My first thought was of a single-seat fighter-variant of the Buccaneer, but it doesn't really look like one. Hard nut, yep, but that makes it all the more fun.

Agree 110% - Personally cannot see the justification behind that - but then again, that's just me.........

Понял. Под нанесение трафаретом я понимаю то что на машину накладывается трафарет, по нему красится камуфляж. После этого края пятен получаются четкими. Если же трафарет не используется то края имеют распыл, то есть края расплывчатые. Вот и все. Не заметил твоего поста где ты сказал о смене гаммы "Озерного"

Yes, he refused to fly it but actually after he was flying it. Otr better said he test flew it but he wanted to stay with his "guys" so he told Galland to let him go. JG44 ( Jagdverband 44 ) were flying the Me-262.

It's not that long if you perform the proper maintenance. The planes have been stored in their regular arc concrete shelters (exactly like the ones we have in LO) with their engines and systems (oil, hudraulic, fuel) fully preserved. This is performed periodically (usualy every six months), depreservation-preservation and once per year engines full ground run. And now when there's a will to keep the planes in service russian specialists from the MiG company have come to make full evaluation of their airframes and components to extend their service life. They have been amazed of the good condition of the planes, some of them after spending 15 years on the ground- no corrosion, no even paint distortion. The weather in Bulgaria also helps this, we have relatively low hummidity. Also the first two planes, subject of the extension contract have been first flown by MiG test pilots, including full burner vertical take-off and climb to 10000m then leveling and acceleration to Mach 2. I read some interviews of these test-pilots- they claim that the planes they've flown have better performance (with overhauled engines) than later produced and active flying 29s. This is something I learnt in my career- there are no new and old aircraft, there are just well and poor maintained aircraft.

testing my signature testing