MikeRocker

I dont' know for sure what that feature is on the F-15C. But I believe that the F-15E has its ADF antenna in just that location as a flush skin antenna. So maybe its the same.

It just ocurred to me that with these six degrees of freedom, the zoom function could be redundant. If it can be set up so that moving closer to the screen zooms the view sufficiently, that could replace the zoom wheel on my X45. How about that! :-)

I disagree. A full implementation of the advanced flight physics engine across all featured aircraft would appeal most to the hardcore flightsim enthusiasts (like me :p ). The problem is, that there aren't very many of these people and most of them should have Lock:On already. UBI tried to pitch the first release of Lock:On at a more mainstream market, which failed to get the kind of sales they were hoping for (largely due to forgetting to market the product properly, misunderstandings about what the program was really about, etc.) I don't believe that there are large numbers of potential customers for Lock:On out there that don't know about it yet. So expanding the customer base is out, what now? Eagle have gone over to creating a sequence of product updates taylored to the flightsim fan that keeps a stream of entusiasts coming back for more at every update. Thus they don't need to increase their customer-base so much as create a base of repeat-customers. And since those customers are raving nutters about everything flight simulation related ;) Eagle can charge much more for the product (i.e what it is really worth IMO). I really hope this business model works out for them and I for one WILL keep coming back for more!

My mistake! GBU-10 and -24 differ in guidance section, but share the Mk-84 (or BLU-109) warhead. Even bigger bang then! :D

Nope, sorry. The 2000 pounder is the -24. The GBU-10 is 1000 lb. That was one hell of a bang nonetheless, though. A part of me would have liked to have seen that.

That F-15E kill by Capt. Richard Bennet and Capt. Dan Bakke was actually a GBU-10 (1000 lb). They cleanly guided it to impact and it "vaporised" the chopper. Technically that would be described as PWNED, yes. Also during patrols in the no-fly-zones Strike Eagle crews made high-speed passes close to Iraqi helicopters, on more than one occasion causing them to emergency land or crash.

Guys, in order to produce a 'super-giga-photo-realistic' movie output, all the textures, shaders and geometry in the game would need to support a level of detail 10x higher than anything that could ever be run 'in-game' in realtime. Does spending the man-hours (years?) to create all this make sense? I thought not... Better spend the time on performance tweaking and content.

Keep in mind though, that realistic radar behaviour with terrain masking etc. would likely require a completely new algorithm based on raytracing. This is difficult to develop and would be CPU intensive (imagine dozens of radar systems in theater at the same time). What might help as a first step for ground based units is defining fixed detection volumes in the simulation space, based on earth curvature and range. And maybe one could introduce a detection and a tracking probability variable that scales with range,altitude,jamming,etc. This ought to eliminate some of the most glaring EWR inaccuracies.

That fixed it. Thanks Nate! :horseback

I have a small issue with the cockpit view (tested on SU-25t). It is the same that existed with v1.0, where geometry within the FOV is clipped. When looking out the side window one will see missiles or the ground clipped in half, depending on the zoom level. Also, looking through the front window, I see the two pitot tubes floating in thin air, without the nosecone.

I guess this will change with the newest 'A-10C' mod that gives the Hog a targeting pod (Litening II). With the laser range-finder in the pod, it should be possible to get the precise slant range to the spot under the pipper, making use of the Rad-Alt unnecessary. How does that sound?

Yeah, I had my wing shot off once and switched jets with the wingman. He kept on flying my broken bird and even pressed the attack on ground units!! :P

I use a Saitek X45 and the associated software to send key presses to LockOn. To do this I have to remove any functions assigned to the X45 WITHIN Lockon (only buttons, axes remain assigned from withing Lockon). Could you please add a button 'Clear all button associations' since it is exeedingly tedious clicking through four menus of keypresses and clearing every one separately. An alternative would be to enable more than one entry selectable via SHIFT+click like in windows explorer. Thanks for your time and effort ED!!

One really annoying AI behavior I often come across is the way AI wingmen change formation. When I am going head to head with some bogies I would tell my wingbecile to go line abreast and widen the formation, or tell him explicitly to bracket right. He then goes and does a big break maneouver where he ends up MILES behind me instead of just sliding outward gradually. Also I had the impression that on receiving the bracket command, AI will revert to the altitude entered in the flightplan. I can tell you that its quite annoying when you enter BVR at 20k and your 'best friend' suddenly dives for the ground just when he's supposed to be supporting you.. My pet peeves...

I'm cool with PayPal!

Since UBI-soft dropped Lock On, the only 'publisher' supporting it is 1C. They can only publish in the Russian market. AFAIK Lock On 1.1 'Flaming Cliffs' will therefore be marketed as a complete install package only in the Russian market. The 'add-on' will be available on-line as a download to the rest of the world but will require the original 1.0 CD to run. This is as far as I know!!

GG, the TWS going to STT on jamming targets has been discussed at length in the F-15 avionics and 1.1 features threads, as you know. About the AOA indicator, the USAF uses a system of 'AOA units' that do not correspond to AOA in degrees (°). I always get confused myself, so this is maybe what you are seeing. Correct indication of autopilot modes would we welcome!

I read the closure from the way the gun pipper's range guage is moving. I find that adequate, don't you?

Rough cronology of the F-15 radar(s) as far as I know: -APG-63(v)0 -- First set, installed in F-15A/B, much improved during MSIP -APG-70 -- Developed for F-15E, with ground modes, new electronics, fitted to last batch of F-15Cs -APG-63(v)1 -- based off APG-70 tech, improved signal processing, fewer parts, lighter, but still mech. scanned -APG-63(v)2 -- first-generation AESA radar, only installed on a dozen Alaska Eagles -APG-63(v)3 -- projected 2nd gen AESA system. Is being considered for complete refit of the F-15E fleet (here's hoping!!) Please feel free to comment and discuss! :-)

Hi Ola Yup, that's the one. Just watched it again and, even taking the perspective and camera lens effects into account, it is pretty horrible spread in that case. But we all must remember that these measured degrees of dispersion apply only to stationary guns. The aircraft forward motion and any maneouvers strongly affect the bullets' flightpath and dispersion.

Well, I have a vid on myHD that clearly shows the A-10's GAU-8 cannon dispersing visibly. And this gun is described as a 'laser' -like weapon in the manual. So would assume that the M61A1 should have noticable dispersion as well. But nothing like a 'shotgun effect' of course!

Well, everyone seems to have a different opinion on this issue, but I feel that there is a fundamental problem with simulating a two-seat aircraft as flyable. The Strike Eagle is a highly advanced and integrated weapons system, designed from the ground up to be operated by TWO PEOPLE! Now of course the pilot can assume control over almost any function in the jet, but that is hardly the point, is it? I think most of the problems cited so far are technical issues or simulation details that can be approximated to a satisfactory extent (well, some are never satisfied :roll: ) But the basic problem remains: how to solve the two-seat issue. Now for multi-player, it's not such a problem (apart from stopping network lag between partners etc.) but would you want to fly with an AI WSO or pilot, given the AI performance in LOMAC to date?

If slowing right down after launching your missile works, then turning away after launch should work as well. As you know, the essence of an F-pole maneouver is to minimise your closure speed to the enemy after launching, thereby forcing his missile to fly further to hit you while yours gets to him faster. Now the point is that by turning away after launch (maintain lock, though!!), you keep the energy needed to evade the missile coming for you. For more detailed training, try Ironhand's excellent tutorials: http://flankertraining.com/lomac/A2A.html

Is there anyone interested/able to do an F-111? It was just reminded that the old F-111 3D model from Flanker is still hidden in LOMAC. If this could be replaced with a better model with a complete UV-map it could be 'reactivated' and finally give NATO another deep striker ála SU-24. KnellKnell: Rockin' Mirage dude!!

Here we go... Most people here probably followed the discussion pro-contra the F/A-18 for LOMAC that went on over at the UBI forums earlier this year. I think SwingKid was at the center of it. One of the central points was the fact that no US carrier would EVER enter the Black Sea (and neither the Kuznetsov,for that matter), especially not with a shooting war going on. Apart from the fact that there is an international treaty banning it, it would be a stupid waste of a perfectly good carrier. So in that context, which strike aircraft would be more likely involved in US/NATO action over Crimea: the F-15E or the Hornet? Figure it out yourself. For people that don't care about historic context and tactical realism, the Hornet will seem an enticing proposition. But in my opinion, carrier aviation is not viable in the theater of operation that we have. So before there is a new location featuring open seas, I am in favour of developing land-based aviation to a more complete force structure.