Lanzfeld

After reading BeachAV8R's Training AAR's I had to get this game. I was lucky to find LockOn Gold near where I live for $10 USD new! Anyways....it comes as two disks. I have a question about the order of install. I know I install LOMAC first then the FC but do I add any patches to LOMAC (ver 1.01) before I install FC (ver 1.1)? I guess that after I install FC I should patch to 1.12b? Just not too sure if I need to patch LOMAC before I install FC. Thanks!

No. In a real simulator...even the tests can fail. You do it in the sim to learn proceedures (like you said) AND to see if it is working. I am not saying it was a waste of time, I am saying how much better it would be if there was a chance all your tests pay off. Right now most guys skip all this because there is no point. Make the failures optional and everyone is happy! As a PT. Fine. But we are missing out on even more realism.

Good post AlphaOneSix, However I think that you are overthinking the random failures I am talking about. All they have to do is put a very small % chance that a light or other system will break during the mission and at what time it will break. Most things will have .1 % chance (1 in 1000). It doesnt matter if that number is accurate as all we care about is that it CAN fail. The rivit counters can bitch about the % later. I fly for a living and things do, indeed, fail randomly. All the time actually. And things do break when they are new as you probably know about the "U" shaped curve (things break when they are new or old but not so much in between). As I said. All the work the devs did in testing ability with no fail chance is like building that 10,000 foot concrete runway and then using it for just a cessna 152.

This was my original point. Knowing that nothing is broken at startup then there is NO point in testing anything. With all that great programming already in there the devs should add random failures as an option.

I think it would be fun to dispatch after finding a minor problem and just "making do" with what you have for the war effort. And again...make it an option. All the work that went into the systems testing and have no random failures is like constructing a 10,000 foot concrete runway in your backyard and then buying a cessna 152 to fly off of it.

Make it an option then for the people who dont want it.

Ahhh... got you now. The testing was in there for military application and they just didnt remove it. Makes sense. Still....a small and realistic chance of random failure in each system would be so great it makes my head spin as to why they didnt put it in there. All the ground work is already there!!!!

Anyone know what kind of system was used in the Frazer Demo video? I am getting a new system soon and I want frames like he had! AMD Phenom II X 4 965 with an ATI 5850 okay? Anyone get frames like that and if so what system do you use?

Thanks for your response. Well I was worried that there was no random failures built in there. The devs work would have been so much more usefull if they would have a random failure built in to each system. I mean that was quite a bit of programming to put all those tests in there. Like you said, a good PT but most guys skip it after doing it once.

Getting a new system soon and DCS BS is one of the things I am going to enjoy to the hilt! I do have a few questions though for those that are into this sim. I have watched all the training videos on starting the helo and it seems very realistic. I see how you can test almost all the systems before you use them and I like this however I was wondering if the program ever simulates a broken system at startup? The devs seemed to have put ALOT of work into making the startup and testing as real as possible so it would seem a waste of all that programming if there is never anything wrong with the aircraft on the ramp. I fly jets for a living and I test to see if all the systems work every flight but if there was a 0% chance of a system not working then I would not waste the time testing so I imagine that is what would happen in the game if there are no random failures. More questions to follow.