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

Can someone clarify the possible discrepancy about US planes AOA indexer and SU-33 AOA indexer? When landing with the A-10, the lower arrow (pointing up) says 'augment you angle of attack' which would translate by: reduce throttle and point your nose up some more, right? When landing with the SU-33 on an airfield the indexer does not work? When landing on the carrier, the indexer seems to be reverse? When going really slow and the nose way up (with an imppossible 20 degrees of AOA on the dial) the lower arrow (red) is flashing! Which seems to indicate the contrary: put MORE throttle to REDUCE your AOA ??? And what does mean a solid arrow and a flashing arrow? Along time ago, I used to be pretty good at F4 and landing was all about keeping a good AOA but in LOMAC I am not sure it is modeled propery enough to use it as a main tool to land? thanks JEFX

Does anyone knows what is the problem? I just got TIR4 a couple of weeks ago and, straight out of the box, it was amazing, despite a little fast.. I played around with it, edited it a bit, and everything was fine until two days ago: Shittttt does not work anymore... I even tried another TIR4 enhanced game (falcon4AF) and it worked just fine... In Lockon, the blue light is there just fine but ingame, it stopped working altogether... does anyone know the cause?????????????? thanks JEFX

Olgerd, can we have a printable flight plan? Firstly, Olgerd (and all the team) thank you very much for all your support, communications and relations with us, it is amazing. (not to forget the incredible software that is our favorite subject of concern, awe, play and creativity!). I read all the suggestions and I believe that one (simple) thing that is dearly missing in this simulator, is the ability to print a detailed flight plan with steerpoint info, etc. Of course, I do write them down myself, and I consider it is a lot of work and especially a lot of time not flying. I button that pops a window with a flight plan that includes your loadout, the weather and wind info, the precise steerpoint info (and maybe a sreenshot of the objective, no , I am asking too much). Do you think it is possible to implement that feature for 1.2? thanks for your answer JEFX

Does LMR work under 1.1.1? and do you know if LOMU does by any chance? JEFX

Thanks Kaifolom I made some experimentation and the length of day changes and reflects pretty much exactly the real astronomical values for the date! But I am pretty sure I read in some thread answered by one of the devs (maybe Chizh?) in the anticipation of FC that it would be possible to set this to follow the seasons (maybe he was just referring to the possibility of manually changing it like I just did). Maybe someone with good programming skills can make a little mod that adjust that date automatically to say 4 predefined dates for the seasons (ex.: June 21, Sept. 21, Dec. 21 and March 21) ? Teka Teka ?? sounds like his type of mod (moon phases and all). I love those little details that make this sim such an immersive world. cheers JEFX

Thanks You are right. I changed the date in World.lua to december and it is still dark at 7:00 in the morning and it is already night (totally black) at 20:00. It is a great start. But I am looking for a way to make this automatic (when you choose a season, it does the change) ?? Thanks anyway JEFX

bump

HI! I remember reading somwhere (a long while ago) that the way Lockon is configured now the lenght of the day is always the same in all seasons (to get more daylight in all missions) but it would be possible to change a setting to make it realistic (shorter in winter, etc.) to follow the calendar? For immersion purposes, I would be very interested if anyone knows what to do or change in order to get that? thanks JEFX