JEFX

Hi! I just got my new conroe system 3 days ago and it is fantastic with FC. I bought a core2duo E 6600 chip on a good ASUS motherboard with 2 Gigs of good memory, 2x250Gig Hdrives in ATA0 mode (making it a great 500 Gig faster HD) and a nVidia 7950x2 card (with ONE GiG of video memory). Flaming cliffs rocks on it (and it is not even the numbers that speak but the fluidity... With everything maxed out, except medium water and visibility range, but with high scenes, textures, etc, with reflections, mirrors with high resolution, and with my card at 8x AA and 8x AF, above Sevastopol, in an SU-25T and some other planes and explosion, it still remains above the 25-30FPS and there are no stutters... Finally, after all those years, fluidity bliss... There is nothing to do, just run Lockon and the system just does it all! JEFX

@ TheGozr Hello I read you have the 7950X2 card? I just ordered one, what do you think of it and with what kind of system are you using it? thanks JEFX

Thanks for sharing JaBoG, those are excellent. This is a very generous community! JEFX

Thanks JJ for your incredible knowledge! I think that many specs in Lockon are close to RL specs. I dont think that the Molnya in Lockon fires the SSMs missiles... I like this thread, because for mission building, it is always invaluable info to know the ranges (not always documented) of artillery. BRD and JJ what are your numbers for ground vehicles in LO? For example, the tanks vs the artillery (medium or long range)? Once I had made some experiments and I had those numbers?? name weapon number range APCs (Armored Personal Carriers) LAV-25 gun 25 mm … 1000 m. LVTP-7 gun 12.7 mm … 1000 m. M113 gun 12.7 mm … 1000 m. BRDM-2 gun 14.5 mm … 1000 m. BTR-D … … … BTR-70 gun 14.5 mm … 1000 m. TANKS M48 gun 105 mm … 2.4 km M60 gun 105 mm … 2.4 km M1 Abr. gun 120 mm … 3 km LEOP. 2 gun 120 mm … 3 km T-80 gun 125 mm … 2.8 km IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) MCV-80 Warrior gun 30 mm … 1000 m. MARDER gun 20 mm … 1000 m. M 2 Bradley gun 25 mm … 1000 m. TOW missiles 7 3 km BMD-1 gun 73 mm. … 1000 m. missiles 3 3 km BMP-1 gun 73 mm. … 1000 m. missiles ATGW 6 3 km BMP-2 gun 30 mm … 1000 m. missiles AT-5 5 4 km BMP-3 gun 100 mm … 1000 m. missiles 9 4 km ARTILLERY M109 rockets 155 mm. 34 25 km MLRS multiple rockets 12 5-30 km SAU Nona mortar 120 mm 25 8 km GRAD multiple rockets 40 10-20 km SAU Msta shell 152 mm. 50 24 km SAU Akatsia shell 152 mm. 24 km SAU Gvozdika shell 122 mm. 40 24 km SAU Bereg (coast) shell 130 mm. 48 10-30 km SMERCH mult. rock.300 mm 12 20-70 km JEFX

I am planning to buy this system, probably in the next few days. I have been waiting all summer and the moment seems right What you guys think of it in order to play LOCKON, FC and eventually BS with great performances? intel core 2 duo E6400 @2.13 G\1066\2M\S775 Mother board Asus P4 S775 P5N32-SLI deluxe NF4 PCIE SLI 2 Gigs of DDR2 800 Mhz OCZ memory one video card Nvidia BFG PCIE GF7 7950GX2 1024M 600W power supply Thermaltake Harddrives, DVD, etc... thanks for your advice JEFX

It is not stated anywhere in the documentation. I have made some experience a while back (I think in 1.11) and I had found that Molnya class would have a range of ship to surface engagement distance of 14 km max and Neustrashimy was about 20 km. The Ticonderoga would also be about 14 km. But this is very approximate. JEFX

Thomas, may I just correct here from my experience: I have had my CH Fighterstick (and Pro Throttle and Pro Pedals) for at least 5 years now and I use them everyday and everything works still very well. Maybe a stick of better quality costs a bit more but lasts also longer? By the way, if you read this, may I take the occasion to thank you very much for all what you do for this community by putting together the greatest and most up-to-date library of files for our SIM.! JEFX

I was just reading an excellent book on the Eagle the other day (F-15C in combat, from Osprey aviation books), mainly on the use of the Eagles in Desert Storm, and I was surprised to read again (as in many other accounts) about missiles failures, missiles missing, missiles engines not firing up or missiles not exploding... One pilot recalls sending 3 sparrows before getting one to have the engine work! and another tells about sending 2 AIM-9 before realising there was no tone... There is also a range thing : pilots accounts of MiG kills tell their story and they shoot their missiles quite close to the targets because of the ROE (most of the time, they need to visually identify their targets before shooting...) Not surprising that everybody in the USAF tell you eagerly that they are called miss-iles because they do miss a lot... (SAMs too, as a matter of fact, and for that topic, one should just read Rosenkranz book about F-16s in Iraq called 'Vipers in the storm' where the jets are litterally surrounded by SAMs, AAAs and Flack of various type, enough that the pilot compare it to fireworks). My point is : I believe that in our favorite SIM the missiles work too well and too predictably compared to the reality. I started experimenting with the missile slider and I found that a little bit (not much) off center to the left (say 4), one will get sometimes a SAM or missile to miss (yours or your ennemie's equally) and it adds to the excitement! What do you guys think? just a tought. JEFX

For those interested in cockpits, design, layout, etc., this is a fantastic collection of famous planes' cockpits. From the Blackbird to the Flancker, going through the TU-22 and the B1-B to the Osprey and the Galaxy, with cockpits cramped and almost claustrophobic such as the MiG-21 to a 6 MFD helicopter cockpit, etc. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=5915&thumbnails=noinfo&page_limit=90&album_name=Cockpits&album_creator=Spotter21&disp_order=desc enjoy! JEFX

thanks Thanks a lot! Your work is VERY appreciated! JEFX

thanks!

Great Satan I am in the wait now to buy very soon and I am very interested. I just dont know what to do: buy AMD 5000+ or FX-62 or wait Conroe? Can you give us some examples : resolution? in-game settings? AA, AF? FPS flying over Sevastopol? FPS flying over one or two MSB 1990 battalions of hundreds of vehicles? FPS shooting lots of rockets or bombs? FPS when there are, say, 40 aircraft (or static ones) parked in the view? thanks JEFX

Thanks! amazing job! and SO generous! JEFX

Thanks WhiskeyRomeo I dont want to go much over 2500$ (US) for the machine itself. I dont need anything else. I am craving for fluid flight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I do have a great flat viewsonic 22'', great sound system, CH stick, throttle and pedals, G15 keyboard, TrackIRpro4, etc.) JEFX

thanks NEODARK for all those wise advice. I am a bit confused about all the possibilities! JEFX

NEW VERSION Now, just for the sake of discussion (or maybe for real?) How about this possible system? would that be better? speed wise, upgradability wise? compatibility with LOFC? CPU : AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Dual-Core 1MB Per Core 90nm (Socket AM2) (Retail Box-w-Fan) 1031US$ http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120987&Category_Code=AM2 Main Board : Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI Audio/GB-LAN/IEEE-1394a/PCI-E/SATA3G/DDR2/ATX 64 (Socket AM2) 234 US$ http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=110829 Graphix card : (1 or 2?) Asus GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB DDR3/PCI-E/HDTV-Out/Dual-DVI (Retail Box) 487 US$ (each) http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=190279 RAM : 2 GB (2 pcs 1GB) DDR2 (800) PC2-6400 Corsair w/LED (TWIN2X2048-6400PRO) 230 US$ http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=140669 Power Supply : OCZ GameXStream OCZ600GXSSLI 600W ATX 2.2/EPS/SLI Power Supply 128 US$ http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=101207 HD : (1 or 2) Western Digital 150 GB 16 MB Cache SATA 10K Raptor (WD1500ADFD) 261 US$ (each) http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=150351 Tower : Antec Performance One P180 ATX Mid-Tower w/No Power Supply 129 US$ http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=100998 thanks a million again JEFX

thanks! Good morning you all. Thanks for all the answers! (it is morning here in Montreal) Some people say 'wait' and some say 'it depends if your system is old' ... to Nate Dogg What I have now is : ASUS montherboard with P4 2.4 Gherz (2 years old) ATI X800XT (AGP 8x) (upgraded last year from my old Radeon9800pro) 1.5 G RAM and it is very slow (average 15-20 FPS in the air but 6-12 on the airbase and above cities..) It is even slower with SU-25T, it looks like a slide show and sometimes, when I fire a pair of rockets, I go down to 1 FPS for a few seconds and slam into the ground while in pseudo-pause mode...) I am definitely ready to change and I have been frustrated all year playing FC with a slide show. My question is: are those mentionned above specs going to give me a smooth gameplay? to DrCR 'you can't get a better single-core than the FX60' Single core? it IS a dual core no? but I guess you mean if I am to be using only half of it, because Lockon is not dualcore optimised, it is still the fastest in single core mode? Am I getting right? ‘I'd also recommend a Seasonic S12 for your PSU’ Thanks for the recommandation, but I want to know why? ‘Case wise, if you're still choosing, I would recommend the Antec P180, the SPCR version’ I was just thinking about that : I hate computers with lots of noise (I am a musician) and I take your suggestion very seriously. Is that the best solution for balance between good cooling and little noise? ‘Skip WindowsXP-64. Just get a copy of OEM WinXP 32bit and wait for Longhorn’ I dont understand fully : some people say that Lockon will not work under XP64, and the guy at the computer store tells me that in order to use that motherboard (or CPU I am not sure?) it needed XP64 ???. What is OEM WinXP 32bit ? And pardon me again what is Longhorn? to GROOVE ‘the game will get low fps on your PC, if you fly low for example.’ What do you mean, even with the superfast FX-60 chip and big graphix card and RAM? What is low for you? and will it be noticeable (slide show)? to Dutch60 ‘Remember you could go for an SLI system and get a second 7900GTX.’ What do you mean, this is not an SLI setup? ( ASUS SKT. 939 NFORCE4 SLI X16 with FX-60 AMD)? And I thought that Lockon did not need the 2 graphic cards? what would it bring me to get a second one? (forgive my ignorance…) ‘1280x1024 (8xAA 16xAF) for normal Game play and an average of 30 FPS’ By average do you mean, in general? will you still get 10 FPS around airports like I do now with my 2 year old CPU? to TucksonSonny ‘At this moment the FX-62 and Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is out!’ ‘AMD moves to DDR2 while bumping up the clock rates of its top tier CPUs. The new dual-core Socket AM2 chips put one more nail in the coffin of single-core desktop processors.’ Would FX-62 be MUCH better than FX-60? and will it work with Lockon? When you say that it is out you mean announced but not yet for sale, no? (I read the article you quote, thanks). Or is it for sale somewhere? Also, do you think that a 5000+ is enough (because it is half the price of the FX-62) to NOEDARK What is Conroe? thanks again you guys for all your advice, this community is incredible! JEFX

Thanks for your answer I agree, my question was not good. Lets say, is this one of the best systems to play lockon now? (lets hope BS will be about the same) thanks JEFX

I am almost ready to buy this new system. I was wondering what you guys techno-gurus thought? Will this be really fast enough to play BS at full settings? Will there be a problem with windows x64 and lockon? ASUS SKT. 939 NFORCE4 SLI X16 MS WINDOWS XP PRO X64 SPI 550W EPS 24/8PINS W/ SLI AMD A64 FX-60 BOX 939 90NM 2 x CRUCIAL DDRII 128X64-400 1GB 2 x WD 250GB 3.5 SATA II 7200RPM 1x NVIDIA 7900GTX/2DHT/512M DDR3 thanks for your kind answer JEFX

Great Teka-Teka! especially that we will see again more version changes and perhaps future patches coming up! thanks JEFX

2 YO-YO I just made a quick test and the result is very interesting: The test was made like my previous ones with: a fully loaded AA SU-33 with 43% of fuel (approx 4000 kg). at 9000m. in these conditions fuel consumption varies this way: 1000 km/h (TAS) too fast, need to go into AB often to keep the speed ( it almost doubles the consumption) 900 km/h ; 430 kg per 100 km 800 km/h : 385 700 km/h : 385 600 km/h : 430 therefore, at this config and altitude, the best speed range for fuel consumption is between 800 and 700 km/h JEFX

Thanks Yo-Yo I will give it a try if I have time this week-end. JEFX

Hi everybody! I have been fiddling around with fuel management recently and I want to share my experiments. This is going to be a long post, excuse me. I really did those experiments quite scientifically and they should reflect the way things are IN THIS GAME and not in real life... It would be great to hear reactions from the DEVS, just to make shure I got things right. It would be great also to hear reactions from real life pilots, just to compare and to fine tune the procedures... JEFX ---------------- SU-33 FUEL MANAGEMENT (NAVIGATION AND COMBAT) Fuel consumption and management under the various flight and combat modes is rather under-documented in Lockon. I made a lot of experiments and here are my observations and conclusions. This is not real world data but rather data derived from what the devs of our simulation have programmed in the game (version 1.12a). In the following text, distances are in km, altitude in meters, speed either in IAS (indicated air speed, as seen on the HUD, which varies with altitude) and TAS (true air speed, or ground speed, essential for navigation purposes and wind in m/s. Wind effect, which should be taken into account, is described at the end. All experiments where done with an SU-33 with around 4000 kg of fuel (42% of max fuel load) since a full aircraft is much less manoeuverable in combat. It is also worth taking into account that given our relatively small theatre, flying around carrying 9000 kg of fuel is irrelevant for a normal mission. As an example derived from what I will expose lower, that much fuel would be enough for a fully loaded AA combat flanker (10 missiles and ECM pods) to perform the following : an afterburner take-off, a full military power (100% RPM) climb to cruise altitude of 9000m , travel a distance of 200 km to CAP (combat air patrol) station area, patrol at 900 km/h (TAS) for one hour, (therefore covering 900 km of territory), cruise 200 km back to base, descend to the IAF and make a long approach, land, and that still gives you a good 5 minutes of full combat after-burner fuel… That is a too long mission…(especially given the fact that the modelled area of land in our map from the westernmost tip of Crimea to the last mountain in the south-east Caucasus is only diagonally about 900 km wide…). Since this will not be the typical Lockon mission, I thought that giving ourselves a well calculated limited amount of fuel is not only in accordance with real life flying but is also fun and challenging. (One of those rare things we can program to make our life more real in the lockon world). I have studied 4 different altitude profiles : 100 m (sea level, or NOE, nap of the earth), 2000 m (ground attack, terrain hiding possible altitude), 6000 m and 9000 m (cruising altitudes). Together, they give a good portrait of the fuel consumption variables. I have experimented with 2 easy airspeeds : 600 km/h and 900 km/h (TAS). At 600 km/h TAS, (a relatively slow speed for a fighter), your AC travels 10 km in one minute and at 900 TAS, (a very normal speed for the flanker), your AC travels 15 km in one minute, handy for mental navigation. At higher altitude than 10000m, it is almost impossible to maintain a higher speed without going into afterburner. This is why I thought that 900 km/h of ground speed (TAS) at 9000m altitude was a good cruising compromise to still save fuel, (since, theoretically, the higher you go, the less fuel it takes). I have results for three configurations : clean (only 40% Fuel, no weapons), full AA load (2xR-73, 2xR-27R, 6xR-27ER, ECM pods, 40% Fuel) and a very heavy full AG load (6xFAB-500 bombs, 2xR-73 and 2xR27R, ECM pods, 40% fuel). Here are the results of my observations (Fuel consumption is in kg of fuel/100 km of ground travel). CRUISING FUEL CONSUMPTION CONDITIONS FUEL CONSUMPTION (kg/100km) ALT TAS (IAS) CLEAN FULL AA FULL AG 9000m 900 km/h (550) 220 430 480 9000m 600 km/h (360) 270 430 500 6000m 900 km/h (650) 290 530 620 6000m 600 km/h (430) 270 460 520 2000m 900 km/h (810) 430 800 930 2000m 600 km/h (540) 360 560 660 100m 900 km/h (890) 480 960 1130 100m 600 km/h (590) 420 660 750 To calculate fuel consumption for a given distance at a given altitude, divide the distance to travel (in km) by 100 and multiply that number by the basic fuel consumption for that altitude given here. Then compensate for wind. TAKE-OFF AND CLIMB FUEL CONSUMPTION (full AA load and 40% Fuel SU-33, no wind) NORMAL TAKEOFF PROFILE T-off with afterburner Climb 7° nose up cut afterburner when 900 (TAS) is reached (approx 1000m) continue climb with 100% military thrust until 9000m keeping a constant % of mach stabilize at 9000m and 900 TAS (550 km/h IAS), it takes approximately 1500 kg of fuel, 7 minutes and you travel 100 km. If you takeoff and climb without any afterburner, you will eventually reach 9000m travelling a much greater distance, you will end up at a much slower speed but you will have burned only 1000 kg of fuel. If the travel distance is relatively short, you may not have to climb so high. T-off with afterburner Climb 7° nose up cut afterburner when 900 km/h (TAS) is reached continue climb with enough thrust to reach 6000m at 900 km/h TAS, (650 km/h IAS) It will take you 1100 kg of fuel, 4 minutes and yoy will have travelled 50 km COMBAT EMERGENCY TAKEOFF PROFILE T-off with afterburner, Climb with sustained afterburner, 20° nose up To reach 6000m, you will use 1100 kg of fuel, in 2 minutes, travelling 17 km To reach 9000m, you will use 1400 kg of fuel, in 2 min. 30 sec., travelling 26 km. CAP (combat air patrol) FUEL CONSUMPTION In order to stay a certain pre-defined time on station in a patrol, you can calculate thus : Flying CAP at 6000m, 900 km/h TAS, (650 km/h IAS), you will burn 80 kg of fuel for each minute of CAP. Flying CAP at 9000m, 900 km/h TAS, (550 km/h IAS), you will burn 65 kg of fuel for each minute of CAP. COMBAT (AFTERBURNER) FUEL CONSUMPTION In a fight, you will use afterburner to keep yourself in a good firing position or to defend yourself. (Always remember that the SU-33’s corner velocity, the one achieving the best turn rates without loosing too much energy, is 590 km/h IAS, it is a good idea in a fight to stay around and stlightly above that speed to be ready to react quickly). With a full AA missile load and 40% fuel each minute of full afterburner will cost you at high altitude (9000m) : 460 kg at medium atlitude (6000m) : 640 kg at low altitude (100m) : 1125 kg In AA combat missions, one should always have some spare fuel for unexpected opposition. DESCENT AND LANDING FUEL CONSUMPTION Descent is done gradually from a given cruising altitude and airspeed, with a 3° nose down slope, throttle at idle, with air brakes to help slow down, usually with no more weapons than a couple of AA missiles left (AG weapons should be expanded ir jettisonned), and less than 30% of fuel left. The goal is to arrive close to the IAF (initial approach fix of the airbase, 18 km out) at around 1000m AGL and a little above 300 km/h IAS. To descend from 6000m and 900 km/h TAS to pre-IAF conditions, it will take 3 minutes and 50 seconds, travelling a bit more than 30 km and using almost no gas (100 kg). To descend from 9000m and 900 km/h TAS to pre-IAF conditions, it will take 5 minutes and 25 seconds, travelling a bit more than 45 km and using almost no gas (150 kg). One should always keep some spare fuel for unpredicted wait in orbit, or bolter and try again (carrier landing) WIND EFFECT ON FUEL CONSUMPTION In Lockon, winds seem to have the following effect : direct head wind of 1 meter per second augments fuel consumption by 0.5%. One could say that the real life wind conditions would normally range from : Calm 3.6 km/h (1 m/s) gentle 18 km/h (5 m/s) normal 36 km/h (10 m/s) windy 54 km/h (15 m/s) strong 72 km/h (20 m/s) strorm 90 km/h (25 m/s) One would only have to multiply the number of m/s by 0.5 and that will give the % of fuel consumption one has to substract (for a tail wind) of add (for a head wind). TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION CALCULATION Add the required amount for Take-off, climb, cruise, fight or attack, cruise back, descend and land, keeping some spare fuel for emergency (10% might be good), and apply the correction for the wind speed in each of these phases. To calculate accurately the desired amount of fuel for the mission, one should first check the winds and calculate the correction for each phase of the flight according to the vector of the wind that is head-on (more fuel consumption) or tail-on (less consumption) to that particular path. --------------------- JEFX

Andrew great post! (tu es en feu!) I agree with you totally and you said the magic word : imagination! I love all the avionics and details, I love to see any of those details, but it all comes down to imagination, immersion and dream. As you said it is a game, and as such, it is much better than the actual deadly and fearful battlefield... Thanks to ED the game is definitly the most beautiful jet sim ever, but it is a bit sterile and lifeless and mission planning is very much, as you said, finding a way around to make things happen correctly. Anyway, I love the sim and quite a few times, I do come back home (late at night) and find myself looking forward to taking off towards those distant mountains in search of the ennemy... but I always know ahead what will happen... JEFX

Thanks for your reply Britgliderpilot I read you. But one must admit that the Docs in lomac dont state that difference between aircrafts... If one reads the 1.1 manual (page 205) it clearly says (in a chapter called ground school, not related to an AC in particular): 'The landing approach is performed at a defined angle-of-attack. Your current AoA can be viewed on the AoA indicator in the cockpit. If the aircraft is equipped with an AoA indexer, you can perform landing approaches while keeping an eye on this indexer. If the upper index is lit it means that the aircraft is flying at too high of an AoA or the airspeed is too low. If the lower index is lit it means that the aircraft is flying at too low an AoA or the flight speed is too high. If the middle indicator is lit it means that all landing approach parameters are met'. That seems to be true of the A-10 (and is true of the F-16), but the SU-33 is the contrary... What is the apropriate landing AOA? it seems to be around 10 degrees in the SU-33? JEFX