Leaderboard

I wont be buying it because i bought Black Shark, and was very disapointed with the DCS engine, I dont want to downgrade from LOMAC engine to DCS Engine. It was uninstalled from my PC a week after i bought it, but i still enjoy LOMAC FC 1.0 much more. What i didnt like: -the monitor resolution switching between menu and sim, this shortens the life of your monitor dramatically. Looks and feels like a Beta product because of this. -the copy protection that has made my DVD player no longer read CDs even though i've uninstalled Black Shark now, and reinstalled windows it still has the problem and not only that, all of my freinds also have the same issue and so none of my freinds are buying another DCS product until the protection is removed. And as its stated here that the copy protection was an amazing success then that clearly will be never again that i buy a DCS sim. It was uninstalled from my PC a week after buying it due to these problems but i still play Lock On as it has a better engine with no major faults. What really amazes me about the decision to use DCS engine for FC 2.0: -The map is smaller and so cannot do long flights with fixed wing aircraft. The DCS Map was made that way as Helicopters took longer to fly places so a larger map was not required. -Who in their right mind would want to fly adversarial online in a Ka50 on a server where there are enemy aircraft that they cant shoot at. They would just get obliterated. Also, why bother with having Ka50s flying around in Coop either if your in a fixed wing. You can get the job done much quicker with a fixed wing, be home at base within an hour and the Ka50 wont have even got half way to target, LOL.:lol: Sure, fix the switching of menus so it wont destroy my monitor, take off the copy protection so that it wont destroy my DVD player, give us the same size map as you get in Lock ON, and then i MIGHT buy it. But to honest, as you dont get anything other than a downgrade to DCS engine, i would much rather carry on with LOMAC FC 1.0 and wait for SOW:BOB.

just in case you guys don't know... the f-22 pawns everything even UFOS and the Enterprise from Star Trek

Только сегодня залез на "крылья" и обнаружил..... http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/284/1/ Когда читал, невольно смотрел на календарик, чтоб лишний раз убедиться, что до 1-го апреля еще далеко:D Потом сразу ломанулся на форум. Это БОМБА!!! Спасибо огромное!:thumbup: PS Хочу коллекционку!)))))))

The only thing future rioters got from this statement of yours is that they have 99% right to hang you on a tree branch if it won't work :D I'll be good now. No more OT.

Most of the FPS in DCS are "eaten away" by Ka-50 advanced flight model. With Simple Flight models of flyables in FC2.0 we can expect better performance. Ka-50 is a NOE flyer. With F-15C you're usually at 20000ft, ground details less visible- better FPS...

I'd like to know where this notion originates, because from what I've been able to gather lattice control surfaces do NOT carry a huge drag penalty (if indeed any at all) at speeds outside the transonic region (where the lattice 'chokes'). Since air-to-air missiles rarely operate in this condition (launch preferably at supersonic speed, endgame velocity for a successful shot also comfortably in excess of Mach 1), the disadvantage is minimal and may well be outweighed by benefits. If the R-77 does have a kinematic problem it is more likely to be caused by other issues, for example inferior propellant performance or a lower fuel fraction due to bulky guidance and seeker electronics. A much more serious drawback of lattice fins is RCS.

Phew!!......For a moment there I thought you were going to be Sticking Around ;) :thumbup:

I make my own missions. You almost always are surprised by the battles. I shoot down Stealth bombers, Apache gunships and all kinds of other enemy including soldagos I've raked down personally. I've seen some wild things in the game and it is nice to be able to operate the gunship fully. I am waiting until tomorrow when one of my Optical Audio cables gets here. Once the cable gets here my audio for the game is goming to be even wilder.

the ch pro pedals are what i use

Триггер на ограничение количества ЛА Вот как выглядит эта система триггеров в случае, если нам надо ограничить "жизнь" группы, состоящей из одного вертолёта, тремя попытками: триггер:правила:действия Один раз (1 боевой вылет):объект мёртв(Ка-50):установить флаг(1) Один раз (2 боевой вылет):время после флага (1,60), объект мёртв(Ка-50):установить флаг(2) Один раз (3 боевой вылет):время после флага (2,60), объект мёртв(Ка-50):установить флаг(3) Эти триггеры "отсчитывают" попытки игрока. Правило "время после флага" нужно для того, чтобы каждая смерть игрока засчитывалась по отдельности. Есть только одно но: если после крушения вертолёта игрок вовремя (в данном случае за 60с) не начнёт новую попытку или не присоединиться к зрителям, то по прошествии некоторого времени после 1 смерти (в данном случае 60с) игроку засчитается 2 смерть. Следующий триггер нужен, чтобы сделать вертолётную группу "мёртвой". Т.к. триггер деактивация работал не совсем так, как я ожидал, мне в начале пришлось сделать достаточно громоздкую и неудобную систему триггеров. Но, вспомнив, что есть такой вид триггеров как "Повторяющийся", я заменил эту громоздкую систему на другую, состоящую всего лишь из одного триггера и основанную на деактивации групп. Выглядит этот триггер так: триггер:правила:действия Повторяющийся(Название триггера):флаг истинен(3):деактивировать группу(Ка-50) В результате, когда игрок будет пытаться зайти за "мёртвую" группу, он будет выбрасываться обратно в меню выбора вертолётов. Естественно, в брифинге необходимо предупредить игрока, что если при попытке зайти за определённый вертолёт его будет выбрасывать обратно в меню выбора вертолётов, то эта группа является "мёртвой" и игроку необходимо выбрать другой вертолёт. В результате применения этой системы триггеров можно сделать более интересными игры по сети, будет повод беречь свой ЛА и стараться уничтожить больше ЛА противника. Надеюсь, миссиоделам этот триггер пригодится.

и народишко некудышный... однозначно.

It bugs me when people suggest it should be like this in Lockon because it is in Falcon, they forget that Falcon is just a game and its actually not real. Yeah the buttons do the right thing but the radar logic is no better if not worse than lockon's.

You're twisted ;)

While I do like Strike Fighters 2, it should be noted that it's pretty arcade and the whole thing with "updated for DX10" only means it now actually runs on Vista. The graphics are still way worse than DCS and with the exception of the aircraft models worse than vanilla LockOn. Not to disparage it - ED is a bit of a niche developer on the entertainment market but these guys are properly indie. So what they've done with their budget is pretty awesome - but it's no eyecandy on the rest of the world. (Though mods may improve that.)

Happy B'day from a fellow Ch'fordian.......

Thanks! You guys are the best! You just made my Christmas knowing 2.0 is coming out soon, because I have loved flying Lockon so much, but seeing BS terrain I had to buy two copies so that will work out well for me since I have two flight pods to outfit. The Warthog is my fave but sometimes you just want to shoot down some birds now and again. Can't wait for the Hawg!

I was Electronic Warfare in the Navy. I controlled the ECM system aboard both an LHD and a CVN. I was also in charge of controlling the EA-6B when they were aloft. Going straight to ECM Active was a great way to fry a high voltage power supply or two. Turning ECM on and off repetatively was going to waste some TWT's. The TXT's were int he final stage before the altered signal was transmitted out the radome. We had to go to ECM Standy to allow the HV PSU's to warm up and to allow the TWT's to warm up. 15 seconds, in my experience, is being generous. When in a hostile enviroment, we would keep the system in standby. Even on the EA-6B Prowler, the AN/ALQ-99 needed a warm up time. The ECM "bumping" that has been used in LockOn, while an effective tactic in the game, is by no means realistic. All that would do in real life is really piss off the ground crew when you landed as well as ticking off your air wing commander at the money you'd be costing them. While LockOn is not totally realistic (no flight sim is, not even the coveted Falcon), this a step in that direction.

should be before chrismas

У 45-х, ЕМНИП, земля в разъеме отпадывает. Можно попробовать одну жилку снаружи пустить и припаять на корпус разъема.

Thanks everyone! :thumbup:

A Top Gun deleted scene that should have made the final cut. Would have made the movie interesting! :D