Leaderboard

Well - I finished my MiG-29. Now it´s available for LockOn FC.1.12 and BS . I hope that I can test it in FC2.0 in future... It have arround 30.000 triangles and the latest LOD have arround 15.000triangles. It works online My best wishes, TOM

The defence: For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless). Several commenters on Twitter and You Tube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video. What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer. WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience. Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable. At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error. (note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.) I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed. (nte: The above is based on the number of times footage from a UAV under my unit’s control produced visual evidence that showed a lesser threat level than that reported as possible by either attack aviation or troops on the ground. Such footage may not have been available during this incident, and as such if the camera was thought to be an RPG the engagement of the personnel was well within any ROE I have ever seen. By making the call, I mean that I have quite literally been the voice heard over the radio clearing an engagement. It is important to note that while I was a position to influence the decision, the actual decision was not mine to make – that falls to the officer-in-charge, not the non-commissioned officer-in-charge.) The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not. All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned. Not the poster's words, copied from somewhere else - I'm not sure of who it is though! Sorry that isn't clearer!!

1. With you 1vs1 anytime 2. My sig mean for you just like that 3. im saw your sig on the sky before few days near Sukhumi. You write with flares but... pooooff MoGas :music_whistling: 4. if you are f15c aces, why you are so quiet and save secret about IFF if you are REAL TESTER 5. ... 6. ... Please, without sarcasm...

ERs speed saves Su-27, I guise the Russian missile engineers were not that bad;) Brakeshot has a point that the ETs should have longer legs. F-15 can distinguish friendly jammers where is the prove that Su-27 cant? countdown on impact for Russian birds. That F-15 turns better at low speeds then Su-27 is confirmed to be fixed in next patch. I hope some of this things that are mentioned will be considered on till we are undergoing more testing. I would like to point out the biggest success whit 2.0. Fair Game!!! Its not possible anymore for individuals to exploit the game while others are not aware of what they are doing. A big thank you to ED for the possibility of integrity check, I hope soon enough majority of squads will reach a consensus over what files are not allowed to get tweaked. So lets have a cup of tea for that Su-27 fanboys, F-15 fanboys, almost forgot MIG-29 Ramboboys :)

Well, I flew against u and youre friends in the last couple days on the 104th server. The only thing what I can say is u guys need alot training with team tactics, even 3 vs.1 is not working for u. I tell u if I would to that with the 51st, it would not working that way. U guys keep close formation, head-on, on a F-15 with TWS function, where the F-15 is on the crank! I never saw one guy from youre formation comeing up with a F-Pole, Crank, or at least to split off from the tight formation, be honest I would expect a bit more from a "highscorer"! So finally stop blame ED or anybody else, u guys need BVR training that's all! cheers

Lets see.. F-15's that have the exact same radar model as every other aircraft in the game, that launch Aim-120s that require guidance all the way to pitbull because inertial guidance isnt modeled vs SU-27s with a datalink, IRST, an SPO that tells you EXACTLY when to jink, and the same exact radar as the F-15, launching R-27ER's that are faster but need to be guided for an extra 10 seconds or less. So whats not fair? Both aircraft are fairly gimped by modern standards. Both are still fun to fly, just different.

You misunderstood me. I meant that you dig up a lot of interesting photos and videos. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

Correct. The only reason it took so long is that even the mighty TopolM has to sleep sometime, huh... :thumbup:

anyone knows why isn't the ArgBased Position appear under the motion tab in this case and why when another object is selected it appears?

Okay, thank you all very much. Here I have a link for downloading: site 3 as I said: It isn`t tested for FC2.0. Make Safty copy from your "Shapes" folder first please before insert the `lom`s. (LockOn/Bazar/World/Shapes) The texture copy into LockOn/Bazar/TempTextures Thats all- Have fun, TOM

Here is what i posted on the RU forums exactly on the same subject... I hope that helps with some of the critical files that need to be checked... Cheers!

Sorry I made a mistake by having hope, around these forum we could behave like grown up people, and handle this with given respect. I learned my lesson today. Sad McDan out

Sorry Falcon, but I guess youre signature doesen't work for u :) :smilewink:

Yes it is possible, Currently I am making Su-25T payloads (maybe for all planes but I am not sure about this), I show you how to do on my example. The first you have to locate and open these files: \Scripts\Input\WingmenCommandPlane.lua \FUI\Resources\RC-Rearming-su-25T.res \Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Rearm.lua Open each of them. First I edited WingmenCommandPlane.lua. In this file are stored "layers" for "\" menu. I am interested only payload layer so I find this. This section contains variables for payloads for dedicated plane. We see ten entries (4501-4510). It means there are ten payloads to choose from menu. I decided to enlarge this list up to 30 payload packs. So I edited oryginal section: WC['RearmingPlanes'] = { keyCommands = { {combos = {{key = 'F1'}}, down = 4501}, {combos = {{key = 'F2'}}, down = 4502}, {combos = {{key = 'F3'}}, down = 4503}, {combos = {{key = 'F4'}}, down = 4504}, {combos = {{key = 'F5'}}, down = 4505}, {combos = {{key = 'F6'}}, down = 4506}, {combos = {{key = 'F7'}}, down = 4507}, {combos = {{key = 'F8'}}, down = 4508}, {combos = {{key = 'F9'}}, down = 4509}, {combos = {{key = 'F10'}}, down = 4510}, {combos = {{key = 'F11'}}, down = wsRepHumanBack}, {combos = {{key = 'F12'}}, down = wsRepHumanAbort}} } and added new 20 entries. After this it looks like this: WC['RearmingPlanes'] = { keyCommands = { {combos = {{key = 'F1'}}, down = 4501}, {combos = {{key = 'F2'}}, down = 4502}, {combos = {{key = 'F3'}}, down = 4503}, {combos = {{key = 'F4'}}, down = 4504}, {combos = {{key = 'F5'}}, down = 4505}, {combos = {{key = 'F6'}}, down = 4506}, {combos = {{key = 'F7'}}, down = 4507}, {combos = {{key = 'F8'}}, down = 4508}, {combos = {{key = 'F9'}}, down = 4509}, {combos = {{key = 'F10'}}, down = 4510}, {combos = {{key = '1'}}, down = 4511}, {combos = {{key = '2'}}, down = 4512}, {combos = {{key = '3'}}, down = 4513}, {combos = {{key = '4'}}, down = 4514}, {combos = {{key = '5'}}, down = 4515}, {combos = {{key = '6'}}, down = 4516}, {combos = {{key = '7'}}, down = 4517}, {combos = {{key = '8'}}, down = 4518}, {combos = {{key = '9'}}, down = 4519}, {combos = {{key = '-'}}, down = 4520}, {combos = {{key = '='}}, down = 4521}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4522}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4523}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4524}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4525}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4526}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4527}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4528}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4529}, {combos = {{key = 'klawisz'}}, down = 4530}, {combos = {{key = 'F11'}}, down = wsRepHumanBack}, {combos = {{key = 'F12'}}, down = wsRepHumanAbort}} } Every entry has key command for payload choose: {combos = {{key = '[b][u]F1[/u][/b]'}}, down = 4501}, I marked is as an bold word. You can assign various keys, probably also multi keys too. Next thing is ediction of the Rearm.lua. As I am interested of Su-25T I am looking for section of this plane: rearm_payloads[su_25T] = { [GUN_ONLY] = {}, [4501] = --sekcja SEAD (pierwsza na liście do wyboru 4501-4506)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { { Pylon = 1, LauncherCLSID = "{44EE8698-89F9-48EE-AF36-5FD31896A82D}",-- MPS-410 LauncherCategory = "8", }, { Pylon = 2, LauncherCLSID = "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}",-- R-73 APU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 3, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 4, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 5, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 6, LauncherCLSID = "{0519A264-0AB6-11d6-9193-00A0249B6F00}",-- L-081 Fantasmagoria ELINT pod LauncherCategory = "9", }, { Pylon = 7, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 8, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 9, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 10, LauncherCLSID = "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}",-- R-73 APU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 11, LauncherCLSID = "{44EE8698-89F9-48EE-AF36-5FD31896A82D}",-- MPS-410 LauncherCategory = "8", }, }, [4502] = { { Pylon = 1, LauncherCLSID = "{44EE8698-89F9-48EE-AF36-5FD31896A82D}",-- MPS-410 LauncherCategory = "8", }, { Pylon = 2, LauncherCLSID = "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}",-- R-73 APU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 3, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 4, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 5, LauncherCLSID = "{B5CA9846-776E-4230-B4FD-8BCC9BFB1676}",-- Kh-58U AKU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 6, LauncherCLSID = "{0519A264-0AB6-11d6-9193-00A0249B6F00}",-- L-081 Fantasmagoria ELINT pod LauncherCategory = "9", }, { Pylon = 7, LauncherCLSID = "{B5CA9846-776E-4230-B4FD-8BCC9BFB1676}",-- Kh-58U AKU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 8, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 9, LauncherCLSID = "{752AF1D2-EBCC-4bd7-A1E7-2357F5601C70}",-- Kh-25MPU APU-68 LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 10, LauncherCLSID = "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}",-- R-73 APU LauncherCategory = "5", }, { Pylon = 11, LauncherCLSID = "{44EE8698-89F9-48EE-AF36-5FD31896A82D}",-- MPS-410 LauncherCategory = "8", }, }, [4503] = [...next entries] Next step is to create new entries up to 4530 - simply enlarge it the amount of your enlarged entries in wingmancommands.lua As I said I decided to make new 30 payloads, so I create entries up to 4530. Creating new payloads setup is a bit boring... you have to find CLSIDs of weapons you wish to add and paste it in new payload configuration. it is easy, however boring. The last thing you have to do is create text representation of payload. Open RC-Rearming-su-25T.res. \dialog \begin \tag{-1} \upright \coord{-468,5,-5,420} --whole layer dimensions \caption{Select preset...} -- text.... nothing to say :D \musthavecursor{0} \drawitself{1} \color{0, 0, 0, 50} \layer{100} --opacity I guess \end \static \begin \[b][color="Red"]tag{50}[/color][/b] \font{2} -font used in text \coord{12, 5,468, 25} \fontcolor{0, 219, 111, 255} \caption{Select preset...} \end \static \begin [color="Red"][b]\tag{2}[/b][/color] -increased tag by +1 \font{2} \coord{12,25,468,45} \caption{F1-ECM;2xS-25L;4xKh-25MPU;2xKh-58U;L-081} \end [... next entries] Notice that there are TAGS (marked as red bold text. After you add your payloads these tage must go up. Simply as increase tag number by 1 as it is in this file. You have to glance on it. I created sub sections for it to have better visibility of payloads. Unfortunetely I noticed there can't be done new subpages (example new sub pages SEAD, CAS, Antitank, Antiship ect.) because I couldn't find any connection between subpage's consts. Here below I created new 2 payloads text representation for Su-25T for antitank mission. \static \begin \tag{16} \font{2} \coord{12,305,468,325} \caption{---------- Lekkie pojazdy i czolgi ----------} \end \static \begin \tag{17} \font{2} \coord{12,325,468,345} \caption{3 --- 2x ECM; 2x S-25L; 1x Kh-25ML; 1x Kh-25MPU, 16x Wichr; 2x SPPU-22; Fantasmagoria} \end \static \begin \tag{18} \font{2} \coord{12,345,468,365} \caption{4 --- 2x ECM,2x R-73 1x Kh-25ML,1x Kh-25MPU,16x Wichr,2x SPPU-22,Fantasmagoria} \end I need to glance on it again because I have just found some texts are not displayed properly on payload layer. Later I check it out. Hope you understand this little tutorial. I am trying to find how to make sub pages if I don't find how to do this, I will use one big layer for payloads.

Wow, so I feel as if I have a bit to say about this simulator... First off, it is the most impressive sim I have had the chance to play ever. I just got a brand spanking new gaming rig almost solely so I could play Black Shark. My 1200 dollar investment was not too bad in my opinion. This is an awesome game. I was really intimidated by these forums at first. So many people had HUGE issues flying this beast. I put in my study time though, studying these forums up and down and reading through that BEAST of a .pdf manual to become as knowledgeable as I could before I jumped into the cockpit. (Plus I had a week of anxious waiting for my computer to arrive.) My study time paid off... I was able to fly Parabellum;s tutorial mission all by myself. Including a cold start that I did from memory. (I could NOT believe I could remember all of that procedure, and I wonder if I could do it again.) Flying the helicopter was not AS bad as I thought. I still have major issues with proficiency as far as handling her like a feather. I seem to feel like I'm fighting the Auto Pilot Channels a bit... I fly better in Flight Director Mode... But I do not think that real Black Shark pilots are allowed to fly in FD mode all the time... So I try to stay away. The tanks blew my poor butt away on my first flight. But after I figured out where they were, they met the business end of my Vikhers on my second flight. Then I made my way to make fodder of infantry with no issues. Then... To my EXTREME surprise, I made a successful hover landing when I made it back to base. Simply awesome. I do have a few disappointments though. Mainly with the graphics engine. I have a Quad AMD running at 3.8ghz, an ATI Radeon 5830 with 1g, 4g DDR3 running at 1600, Win 7 64, and it seems to me that I still can't pull AMAZING frame rates from the game. When I shot those rockets at those infantry... I saw a nasty creep in frame rate. This was AFTER doing EVERY tweak to the LUA files and such. It's also odd that I need to get D3DOveride for Vsync and Triple Buffering. This game almost desperately needs an overhaul for multiple cores and newer graphics cards I think. Maybe I am doing something a bit wrong. I'll turn down my AA and AF a notch or so and see if that helps tremendously. I guess I'll make sure I have up to date Directx drivers too. Plus the sound... I'm not going to go on about the sound because it will be updated soon. So there's no point. Also..... And this is going to sound COMPLETELY stupid... When I shot those infantry with my 30mm cannon... I REALLY wanted to see them fly... Or maybe just a pink spray... But they just fell over... I was such a sad goat. And FINALLY... Thank ALL of you so much for your countless useful posts that I have been studying almost every free moment I have had for the past week. If it wasn't for you... This game would have been A LOT more of a frustrating experience. I simply CANNOT wait to fly with some of you guys online. I really feel as if I need to complete a few REAL missions before I jump into a game with some of you. I'm working on it though. I REALLY want to join a cool squad some day. I've been studying almost all of your squads... And they all seem COMPLETELY awesome. So it is going to be a tough decision. I'm leaning a tad towards the 104th Phoenix because it seems they have an awesome cadet program. We'll see though. And that's all... Goat. :joystick:

Thank you guys- very much. Yes- MiG´s tires are big. I followed the prints. I believe they uses so big tires to have not a lot of weight pressures on the ground. The MiG was constructed as frontline fighter and able to use highways and fields for take offs and landings. That should be the reason why tires of the 29 are relative big. I looking forward to the MiG29 module of DCS in a far far future. I hope that MiG29 will have the same deepness of simulation just like the Ka50 have nowadays- That would be great. My very best wishes, TOM

Interesting discussoin going on here. I myself used to work for one of the biggest helicopter schools in the US, and here is my opinion. I had a lot of experience with flight sim before I started flying helicopters and it really did help me IRL. Mostly because I didn't have to think about how the controls work etc. The problem with RL is that it takes time to build up the feel/response of the controls and this differs from every helicopter type. You can watch an experinced pilot with a lot of hours flying a new helicopter type and the first few hours you can usually see him struggle a little in the beginning, not being able to hold a steady hover and especially on pick up and set down to/from the ground. When you start out with helicopters you start out with the ones that are most difficult to fly. Most likley the R22 which is small, basic and sensitive helicopter. Astar (350), Bell 207 etc are much easier to fly. One of the guys at the school used to fly Apache and Cobra and he said they are much easier to fly than the R22. At the school I used to work for the goal was for a student to be able to hover within 10 hours, solo before 30 hours and get the PPL(private) at around 65 hours. This was with the R22. I first did my trainning in Australia and there we used the Schweizer and there the normal was more hover within 5 hours, solo around 15 and PPL around 55 hours. Since I have some hours under my belt, I find it more difficult to fly helicopters in a sim than IRL. Reason for that is that I have no sense of movement and limited vision in a sim. IRL you can feel in you pants and on the controls what the helicopter is doing and because of the lag in the controls you make corrections based on feel. In forward flight it's not so bad but it's not so easy feeling sideways movement, a little up and down etc in a sim. In a sim you kinda have to see the movement before you can react, and since there is a little lag in the controls you are always chasing it a little. Just to give a short example. Any of you guys and girls in here with around 40 hours RL in a helicopter, should be able to stay in a stable hover above the ground. Look at another point on the ground say 10 feet away. IRL it's easy quickly going to that spot and stop in a stable hover in any direction you like. In a sim I find these things really hard. Got a little carried away here, sorry for messy post. Cheers

And the Ingame shots: Best wishes, TOM

The fact about the seeker being a limit is true... but still, the missile should have almost the same range as an ER. This means a few km more when chasing someone, and in a crowded sky, this could be the difference between getting a nice kill, or getting splashed by someone else's missile. I'm hoping, ED didn't reduce the range in an effort to make the ET less of the 'uber-missile' it was in FC 1.12. A better tweaked and changed seeker could have done the job, While retaining it's main advantage - the long burn motor.

159th Respect your opinion but this is a discussion thread and is in the wider media so why not? If it needs to be moved or merged to a 'technically' more apt destination then no problem but I can't see the harm otherwise. To clarify that is not my opinion - god I wish I had enough time to write that - I had italliced after copying to show that, sorry I don't want to pass it off as my own. IMHO I do agree with the main slant of the defence, but I would add that the gung-ho rhetoric you hear is not going to help the coalition, fair enough these guys are in a war and may have lost buddies but a certain amount of professionalism wouldn't go amiss. I'm going to be a bugger now and suggest that I would hope that UK forces would have maintained a more apt discipline in their communications. Save the verbal high fives for the mess room. [ducks under a table] :smilewink:

Привет народ! Я соглашаюсь что ето очень важная тема... и поделюсь с опытом на <51>Dedicated In network.cfg мы проверяем папки/файлы таким способом: server = { integrity_check = {"Config/Weapons", "Config/Export/export.lua", "Bazar/Modellod.txt", "Scripts/Aircrafts/_Common", "Sounds/Sound.cfg"}, disable_events = true, Config/Weapons - Self explanatory to prevent weapon parameters cheating (defaulted by ED) Config/Export/export.lua - to prevent custom made scripts such as LEAVU datalinks, unfair F15 Radar mods, and other potentially harmful export tools (such as live ACMI/ATC, etc etc), or other not yet known export cheating possibilities Bazar/Modellod.txt - to stop people from changing visual properties for aircraft by tweaking LODs to give them better visibility Scripts/Aircrafts/_Common - this folder is checked to prevent perfomance/aircraft speed hacks, which are btw easily possible!! Also stops altering peoples "Rearm" payloads Sounds/Sound.cfg - to stop people from changing sound settings to "hear" aircraft and missiles from long range (known cheating possibility) Мы тоже используем ServMan! Cheers!

Don't want to comment on situation cause it's war... shaman said what I think about it very well... Link to report: Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6

Test outside the sim first if they work there

Ну вот, хоть кому то понравилось. Спасибо за отзыв. :)

Самой сильной неожиданностью для меня оказалась доводка триммирования на истребителях. Мягенько так и точно. Чувствуется, что с душой. Даже мысли шаг его куда то двинуть не возникло. А всего то попросил вывести их в конфигурационный файл. Спасибо Иглам и тестерам. Вчера времени хватило только настроить управление да пару кругов нарезать.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton coming to Finland. http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/04/secretary_of_state_hillary_clinton_coming_to_finland_1590711.html ZOMG! Where's my Russian passport! :fear:

И что толку, это же не индивидуальный файлик для каждого отдельного пользователя, а что-то общее для всех. Было бы что-то индивидуальное - можно было бы сделть все снаружи: сваять внешнюю программу, получающую cpuID и все такого плана (по сути, копию информации, используемую для активации), которая шифровала бы эту информацию с помошью индивидуального ключа и слала бы серверной части, которая бы вела список игроков, приславших всю эту инфу и кикала бы тех, кто не прислал, а также тех, чья идентификационная информация имеется в черном списке. А может, можно обойтись и без проверки ключа, генерируя SSL-сертификат, например... Можно попробовать было бы это сделать, если кому-то интересно, но держателям сервера это все выльется в приличный геморрой - а именно, создание сайта, на котором надо было бы регистрироваться, получать ключи и все такое. Ага, ничего умнее пароля на сервер не придумали пока что.

So, you accuse ED of thinking their customers are stupid and then you call a section of their customers whiners. You do know there are way of expressing you opinion with out abuse? I am amazed you are allowed on this forum at all.

О! У меня возник вопрос, в файле network.cfg можно для проверки указать что угодно? Или только какие-то определенные(*lua,*cfg) Он уже писал поконкретнее:) Надо кому-то начать копать, а ЕД поддержат, подскажут. Поэтому дерзайте!:smilewink: Если б это для меня было очень важно я бы этим занялся. Но это куда важнее админам сервера и я готов оказать моральную поддержку:cheer3nc: и всякое содействие в тестировании. Дело очень важное, дело очень нужное. З.Ы. edwardpashkov кстати уже предложил вариант. Ну как McSim, работает?

You should really take my advice.

This made me lol. I felt the same way!

Forum Rules: "1.10. - Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed."

I asked this question with the old Lock On as well. :) It's useful to know when creating missions. However, we've got some new roles here... Rather than having to rummage through the GUI manual, I'll post this here for anyone curious about this. ^_^ Hope you find this useful! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nothing: By default, each new aircraft added to a mission is devoid of any specific task. Correspondingly, it will not have any weapons loaded except perhaps an internal cannon. Such an aircraft does not take part in any active actions against enemy forces and just follows its route. Under the threat of an enemy attack the aircraft will try to evade it or attack it if within close proximity. AFAC: The Airborne Forward Air Controller (AFAC) Task will set the assigned aircraft to mark assigned targets with smoke rockets or illumination flares. For night missions, this can be a useful Task to assign an airplane to support a player flying a Close Air Support (CAS) mission. Anti-ship Strike: This task consists of having the aircraft actively search for enemy surface ships in a given area and then attacking and destroying them with appropriate weapons. When assigning such a task, it is best to arm the aircraft with anti-ship guided missiles. Additionally, the aircraft will have to have a sensor onboard that can acquire naval targets at long range to target such weapons. AWACS: (Airborne Warning and Control System). The AWACS aircraft flies according to a planned straight or circular route using looped waypoints, and it alerts allied aircraft, SAM sites, and ships when it detects enemy aircraft. Certain SAM systems can receive targeting data directly from the AWACS even when their own acquisition radar systems have been destroyed. Note that AWACS detection can be limited by range, very low target altitudes, and terrain masking. CAP: (Combat Air Patrol) The CAP mission implies flying a large race-track pattern using looped waypoints around a defined route to defend an area from enemy aircraft incursion. This type of task does not involve spotting and destroying enemy ground targets or a significant deviation from the planned route to intercept aircraft. Be aware that a high altitude CAP will make life for low level interdiction easier for your aircraft. A combination of a high/low CAP sandwich is the most balanced deployment. The crucial factor while patrolling will be the fuel load limiting the distance and duration of the CAP. All AI aircraft will stop patrolling and return to base in a straight route as soon as their fuel falls to the guaranteed minimum required for the return flight (Bingo fuel state). CAS: (Close Air Support). CAS involves actively searching for enemy ground targets on the battlefield and destroying them. Here absolute precision in delivering strikes is not of crucial importance. The Su-25, Su-25T and A-10A ground attack airplanes are best suited to CAS, though such planes as the Su-27, MiG-29, MiG-27, and F-16, F/A-18 can successfully handle this task. This is also the best-suited task for attack helicopters like the Ka-50 and Apache. This Task is also best used for attacking air defense systems. When attacking mobile ground units (even if they are stationary), CAS is the best Task to use (not Ground Attack). Use the Targeting tool to assign the area that the CAS aircraft will search for and attack valid targets. Escort: This task is allocated to fighters and attack helicopters and involves escorting allied aircraft (transport aircraft, bombers, or attack aircraft) and defending them along the route from possible attacks of enemy aircraft and air defense systems. In doing so, the escorts should not engage in fights with the enemy if they do not pose a threat or are significantly off the course line. Fighter Sweep: The fighter sweep mission is a combat task that involves penetrating enemy air space to attack enemy fighters or other types of aircraft. The main objective of a fighter sweep is winning air superiority and to ensure unimpeded use of the air space by friendly aircraft. Since the aircraft taking part in a fighter sweep may find themselves at a considerable distance from their airfields and take part in prolonged dogfights, their fuel load will be a crucial factor. GAI: (Ground Alert Intercept). When taking part in a GAI mission, an aircraft is on alert duty on the runway with warmed-up engines. On receiving AWACS or other targeting data of in-bound enemy aircraft, the aircraft takes off and attempts an intercept. Multiple GAI aircraft will take-off one after another to intercept enemy aircraft. When planning this type of mission you don‟t need to create waypoints. All you have to do is set the takeoff point at an airfield and declare it as a GAI Task. Note that when planning a GAI mission, the aircraft on alert don‟t appear on the runway until the target data becomes available. For best results, place early warning radars such as the 1L13 and 55G6 at the airbase. Ground Attack: This task is used to search for stationary enemy ground targets (plants, railroad stations, airfields, etc.) in a given area and then attacking and destroying them with general purpose bombs or rockets. This type of mission usually involves unguided bombs weighing from 250 to 1,500 kg. In addition, the aircraft can destroy targets with the aid of unguided rockets. When setting up such a Task, it is best to set the Targeting area over a general area that you wish attacked. Intercept: This is a defensive Task whereby the aircraft must carry out an active search of incoming enemy aircraft and/or receive targeting data from ground based or airborne radar. This type of combat task is reserved for large scale defense and active patrolling and you should not use it while defending a small area or a local installation. While chasing the enemy, the interceptor may deviate far from its planned route and the area that is to be defended will be left undefended. Pinpoint Strike: The Pinpoint strike mission involves active search for surface targets in a very small Targeting area and attacking and destroying them using precision-guided weapons. In addition to the above weapons, to deliver a pinpoint strike, the aircraft can carry a wide range of laser-guided bombs. When setting up such a task, you will want to set the Targeting area only over the specific target (small targeting circle). For example, if you Task an aircraft to destroy a bridge, set the targeting circle such that it only covers the bridge. Transport: An aircraft assigned to a Transport Task does not take part in any active actions against enemy forces and just follows its route. Under the threat of an enemy attack the aircraft will try to evade it. Reconnaissance: The aircraft will fly directly over the assigned Reconnaissance Task waypoint to best acquire intelligence. Refueling: This task is reserved for aerial tankers. An aircraft assigned this mission will refuel any thirsty allied aircraft during its flight. The use of looped waypoints is recommended for this task. Runway Attack: This is a specialized form of ground attack that will allow the aircraft to automatically align the axis of its attack along the length of the targeted runway. This is most useful when deploying runway denial weapons. To do so, set the Targeting area over the airfield to attack and select Airfields from the Target Categories. SEAD: (Suppression Of Enemy Air Defenses). Similar to the CAS Task, this Task allows you to define a Targeting area and have the AI focus on air defense weapons in the area. From the Target Categories list, you must select Ground Vehicles. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

not only the su27 needs corrections. the r27er needs some too. there was a state from GGtharos that the ballistics of the weapons have not bean touched. LOL, very very big LOL. sorry, but now further down the testing phase, i really get the impression that Ed wants to make a foul of us costumers. you guys might ban me for that, but for me it gets more and more obvious that all was done in favour for the eagle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it was stated that the ballistics of the russian missiles were not touched right! why for gods sake was the flgithtime andthe speed of the r27er touched then? to match the aim120c-5 ? and beeing able to maybe be smart and fire at greater ranges then even the aim120c-5? is that the f.... uped reason. sorry for the next, but i am really pissed off. just some smart advise for ED. get a complete new testerteam, cause these guys probably know nothing then complaining and messing up a game, or a semi sim. if you really want to make it serious, you might want to get a hold on people who have the knowledge and the smart brains of modern warfare and a2a warfare. i could tell you some names of real guys who know what they talk about, cause theare in the bussiness of this sim, way more deep then any other guy in this forum i know!!! sorry, but ED do you really think to make a fool of us? ranges of the r27er are the same and the missile was tweaked to be that way! in fc1.12 i had even longer legs, do to the fact that my missile fley 2min 3 sec to reach the same speed it reaches now in about 1min 10sec. then there is the r27et, no tweak there besides, itdoes not even see anything on 10km when it is even launched head on and aimed right. sorry, but there needs to be a patch fc2.1, thats for sure. the russian guys never complained about anything in specific, only the eagle guys did all the time, like wohaha, my missiles are to weak, bla bla bla. the missile do even track targets like before, same unrealistic way, even when there is no datalink radar causethe guy was blown to peaces. these f.... up missile come down like an eagle and although they are ballistic without guidence, they track me 15km ahead, 5000m belowthem, which summs up to an angle , damn greater then 25° of azimuth, which would be the most an aim120 can do, do to the fact, that the radar cannot scan further in azimuth, limited by tech. it is so hilerious to see what was done and what was not done. to be honest. now i will teach my dog to push buttons on command. i stear the plane, move the coursor, but then the next 4 steps will do my dog. and giess what. the way this semi sim is presented, my dog will even make kills with the new f15c aim120c-5 combination. nothing to it. you do not need to be a good pilot at all to make kills with such an disadvantage on the red side. guys, please wake up. there is more you guys have to do on that fc2.0. any words to that? if you guys want, i can post everything here in a seperate threat. all the outcome from the tests and also the testresults from fc1.12. so everybody can compare what happend to us who are bored of the whining f15c community in the lomac world!!! my mind is set up the way. every burning f15 is a good one, although i need at least 2 missile hits, untill itis not able to fight anymore. one of the most powerfull missiles, with continuous rod is not able to kill a plane with one hit, lol, but aim120c with normal fragmentation are :-), sorry, guys, but this is some bullshit, lol, i have never ever heard of such stupied stuff. fool others or fix this, but do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! otherwise i see for the future, les russian planes flying around then there are allready. nearly all guys fly f15 out there. did you notice that? why didn´´t you call the fc2.0 F15C ? there is the F in the beginning and the C in the end! arrrgggg, i am really upset, for what i see there in the bare numbers of the tests. cheers

Well, I do that every morning..

Я тут забавный баг обнаружил, даже трек есть. Решил оживить мою тренировачно-тестовую миссию, пустил по аэродрому технику (АПА и топливозаправщик). В результате проезжавший поблизости от моего стоящего на стоянке Су-33, АПА сносит моему ЛА штангу ПВД в носовом обтекателе, РЛС, ОЛС. За что без моего участия автоматом расстреливается из ГШ-30. БК не нажимал. :music_whistling: Слыхивал, что на аэродроме водителями часто служат набранные из горных селений люди, но не знал, что ED так скрупулезно моделирует нюансы. :megalol::thumbup: Думал боты могут объехать препятствия, а еще ботам заборы фиалетовы. killAPA-80.trk

well im asking others to follow only my rule ..(ie first post) not ur..rules... about it..

I thought you were intelligent enough not to use a generalized and false statement like this. Since when did pilot skill and pilot error drop out of the equation predicting the outcome of a head to head engagement? Both are as important if not more important than what plane one flies or weapons one brings. Even you make mistakes, as you showed only a couple of days ago.

It's very simple: the Su-27 is not equipped with the R-77 in real life, unlike the F-15C, which has been equipped with the AIM-120 since the early 1990s. That's it, really.

I just love F-15s killing each other... its a lot of fun to watch. :thumbup:

Before the westerners chime in with their supremacy statements. Yes, the majority of the Russian Air Force would indeed field SU-27S (as in game) with R-27R as main weapon against fighters. Of course with close GCI control, AWACS and MiG-31s and of course C-300 and 400 SAM sites. However, there are two regiments of SU-27SMs that are on active service along with other "more advanced" toys (including SU-35s) that are sprinkled across the Russian Federation. Nobody here, whoever they are can tell you for a fact how many PBB-AE missiles the Russian Air Force has, it is certainly not abundant but I am sure it isn't extinct either. All these "My sources" or other "experts" is a never ending game. And you are right in terms of availability of information. There are millions more F-15 pilots that will tell you and share everything with you while there are only so many SU-27 pilots that live on a miserable salary, trained in a country that seized to exist 19 years ago and went through more turmoil than any other. However, last time I checked FC2 is not an economic simulator... especially since DCS:Black Shark is modelled after a helicopter that only has 12 or even less flying ships in real life. So yes, things are grim economically and Russia does not have anywhere near as much UBERness as USAF... that is why we aren't going around the world dictating what we like and don't like. Also remember that the doctrine of Russia has primarily been containment/defensive rather than offensive, as such a lot of weapon systems rely on home advantage. Flight sim, not economic sim.

Повторяю ПОСЛЕДНИЙ РАЗ. Правила форума, пункт 2.2. Делайте что угодно, обсуждайте в привате что угодно - это ваше личное дело. Но на открытых форумах.. извините.

A few Flamming Cliffs 2.0 Screenshots. (Pic 1) Love the new cluster bomb physics (Pic 2)But would not recommend them in a dive attack because you can catch up with them! (Pic 3) nothing better than seeing a shot up enemy helicopter from your 6dof cockpit! (Pic 4) The Damage model is as good as every for su25t (Pic 5) the ground vehicles are soooo much more detailed (If you haven't played Blackshark you are in for a treat) (Pic 6) HE FELL OVER! (Pic 7) Missiles, close shave, I thought stingers had proximity fuses? (Pic 9) Missiles (Pic 9) More Missiles (Pic 10) Rockets! (Pic 11) Can't wait for Apache one day (Pic 12) wow lots of buttons (Pic 13) Hell Fires are going to rule!

У меня "шторы" появляются и без мода, например в ГС2. Но возможно он усиливает эффект.

It is called a sabot round, its the APFSDS-T ( Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Deiscarding Sabot ). I had loaded them when I was a loader on an M1A1, in 1.4 sec. They are about 37 pounds if memory serves me right. And yes its called that because of the "shoes" that guide it out of the gun tube. Falling down to the ground up to a Km away from position fired. We use to have to go collect them to be recycled at gunnery, But, those were training rounds with training projectiles that were not (classified material). In the battlefield those same shoes are radioactive.

Dear John, yout model looks very good. But basecally I`m not able to help nowadays. Maintainly my problem is that I renew my complete hard- and software. Thistime I use a PC with about 1.8GHz and 1.5GB-Ram and a 256Mb graphic card. But now I have to buy new hardware and software just like new windows and so on. Think it will cost a lot of time to make my system stabil and useable to me. However: Your model looks very fine so finish it please (I mean wraping and animations) . My very best wishes, TOM PS: Use ED-textures so I`m pretty sure that a lot of members will use your fighter in future :smilewink:

DCS: Sopwith-Camel :thumbup:

We have an excellent cartographer in the community! Thanks for sharing. It is excellent work. Here is my thought on adding more visual references like towers etc. If a organized flight is using a common area as a Bullseye, like many squads do, there is no need for these extra references. You just call out a Bearing Range and Altitude from the common Bullseye. Again. Very cool for you to share. edit: may I also add that a version that is readable on a monitor when in full screen would be sweet if you can. Thanks again.