ARM505

Oh, Shepski, I was meaning to ask how the 737 flying was going. As I recall, we started at about the same time. I know I certainly feel a bit more useful up front now than in the beginning!

Yeah, now that we have computers that can run it....until BS that is ;-)

Right, er, I knew that, just testing you guys.......cough cough. Thanks for that!

Darker nights, and IL2-like skinning (ie no limits per plane, with easy installation). Better ejection sequence, can 'ride the chute' in first person view with suitable impression of wind etc. Maybe I spend too much time in the chute.....

Despite having played LO since the beginning, and otherwise being generally clued up (ha ha!) , I have no idea where one would find this smoothing option. I looked in LO and in the Cougar controls, but no joy. Any enlightenment?

Well, it looks like it was more than twenty minutes, but hey, you called it! :)

HDR in the Half Life 2 Lost Coast demo allowed a greater range of light intensity to be displayed, as opposed to the "I'm permanently wearing normalising sunglasses" look, so reflections could get quite bright, giving some impression of the reflected glare of the sun. Thats not to be confused with the other feature it introduced, namely the simulated reaction of human eyes to this brightness, darker areas, and the transition between the two. It works very well, and anyone with HL2 should check out the Lost Coast demo. From the moment I saw it I could only think of it's application for sims - real flying is really bright, thats why pilots wear sunglasses the whole time! I do it for a living, and I have a permanent inverse-racoon tan from my Oakleys! In fact, the first thing I thought of when seeing the fabulous new screen shots for Black Shark was "well, they've got the detail down perfectly, now they just need the glare and brightness of a real day." Without that, those screenshots look exactly like what they are - computer renders. HL2 manages to create a very good impression of real daylight. So come on sim-makers!

'Sabot up!' 'Gunner, sabot, tank!' 'Identified!' 'Fire!' 'On the way' BOOOOM 'Target!' Etc, etc. Steel Beasts is a dam, dam fine sim. To not play this, despite its ancient gfx (but FANTASTIC sound) is a crime against yourself as a simmer. Tactics, AI...all really great stuff. Enough said. Just my opinion, but anyway.

Yours for only...what was it? 125 USD? But yes, SB is THE armour simulation, by several light years.

I wouldn't say it the reflections that attract my eye to other aircraft in real life - it's more their relative motion across the background. In real life planes seem to stand out from the background in ways that sims just dont do. Perhaps its a haze thing, the background is more 'washed out' or maybe there is just *more* background IRL. Its difficult to say, but its not totally the reflections. Its also the way the eye works. I can be flying, and looking at what I think is empty sky. I would swear there's nothing there - meanwhile, my fellow crew member is saying 'Look, look, it's right there!!', and once I see the other plane, it's obvious and I wonder how I missed it! Wonderful thing TCAS is.....

Yes the F22 will pwn everything EXCEPT the threats it now needs to: the spread of religious fundamentalism and its result - the man with the gun on the ground. I think some of you need to get over the cold war pissing contest. An F22 doesn't win any 'hearts and minds!' You could use a WW2 era FW190 to bomb the guy - it doesn't need to be all stealthy! In fact the FW190 might be better at CAS ;-) (That was said tongue in cheek BTW)

He's right about the night thing, and yes, I fly quite often at night! Just did a night flight last night btw. Lock On is waaaay too light at night (a failing of many other sims as well.) Normally you can only see lights. It takes quite a bright moon to see any horizon whatsoever, and night can easily end up being conditions fit only for instrument flight rated pilots.

...and undoubtably the warning would come slightly before the actual limitation as most warnings tend to do, ie. warn you of impending problems! IRL, pulling 9G all the time would suck for airframe life I would imagine. Here in Lock On, as in all other sims, we get an out-of-the-box new plane each flight....pulling 9G the whole time might not get you, but it could catch your buddy out on the next flight.

Terrain Terrain, Pull Up! Terrain Terrain, Pull Up!

I believe he means more of the 'home movie' type stuff, the not so official things the pilots make with possibly only psuedo-official sanction. 'Le Mirage du Tchad', 'Fou', Apache's vs Iraqi's etc. Or maybe I'm just reading between the lines with too high-powered a magnifying glass....and lets not all get our panties in a knot about froggy comments....

Forgive me for asking what may be a dumb question, but how intertwined are the external and internal sounds? I ask because while ZZZspace's external sounds are great, the internal sounds also keep some of that typical 'thundering' noise of no-bypass turbojets, whereas my experience of being in them is more of a 'whining' noise in the background. I have no experience of being in a jet in afterburner though, I can only imagine it would be a seat of the pants kind of rumbling. So, is this sound pack more 'whine' inside than 'thunder'? I feel far more immersion with the quiet whining than the rumbling.

I was somewhere in Africa, starting my B1900D next to an Mi26 only doing an engine run for a systems check. With just a small amount of power he blew every piece of paper/sand/garbage all over the show, and also blew the train of baggage carts at me. Luckily our ground handler managed to stop them before they hit us (difficult, as they were quite heavy), but we ingested some plastic bags etc. Its a big and powerful machine. The Russkies there quoted some huge figures for max sling loads, and each engine has a huge power rating. He could have waited for me to leave before running that beast up!

Yes. I've seen a video of one specific compartmentalised design being tested, and it is an impressive bang. But, not every hit would induce this. And there are no engulfing flames covering the entire vehicle. Doesn't a killed tank look pretty tank-like still? I believe that occasionally hits should just result in the tank/AFV stopping dead, and maybe smoking a bit. It's killed, but without the silly column of temporary black smoke that we currently have. Maybe they should just use the effect they use currently just before the tank blows up, where it trundles to a stop smoking a bit, with a little flame. Just skip the ensuing explosion. Just a thought, use it, don't use it.....

Even if a warhead hits an AFV and starts a raging inferno inside the vehicle, that fire can only be visible if it gets outside the actual vehicle, ie a fire burning inside a tank is not visible from the outside. It's results quite possibly are, of course - smoke etc, and possibly small flames coming from openings made by the warhead, or hatches blown out by internal overpressure. So, the current effect is not realistic. Whats burning - the tanks paint?!? I'm aware that some metals can burn, but thats not whats happening here. Turrets can be blown off, with a fire coming out of the hull, or smoke can come out out hatches, something like that. I believe the shots of the Vikhr hitting the APC were relatively true to reality. Lots of dust and some small flames, but essentially the vehicle is still intact and not a raging bonfire.

Well, I know the AI needs work, but I was also commenting on the systems modelling, ie if a tank lases you, you should get the warning - hence the requirement for a simulated model of the tanks lasers. On another note, I'm not quite sure how we're supposed to survive in a missile or fighter environment with no RWR. And therefore, how they expected the real Ka-50 to survive if it has no RWR. Are you supposed to use the 'see and avoid' principle?!? Even then, the Ka-50 doesn't have the best visibility out the cockpit judging by the photo's I've seen, especially for a chopper. I'd be feeling quite vulnerable - no way to run, and all you can do is try to hide, and that from an undetectable threat!

I take it then the tanks lasing their targets must also be modelled now if it wasn't already? I was quite amused to set up 3 A-10's vs about 30 T-80's to watch the AI and weapons modelling, only to have the tanks absolutely pummel the A-10's from the sky with their main guns! I then set up a couple of fling-wings against the tanks, who also got totally owned, in fact it was over even more quickly - the choppers barely got a shot off! No need for those silly Tanguska's around targets for close in defence when a couple of T-80's will do!

Yup, did mine about 2 weeks ago! I'm way down in sunny South Africa, Nationwide Airlines. Pretty much the other side of the world! Congrats to you too. http://www.flynationwide.co.za/

Ahahahaha - just moved from a BE1900 (C&D) to the B732, so I know your pain! Quite an adjustment, quite a workload, esp for the FO sometimes.

A publicly available Mig 29A manual in electronic format.....mmmmmmm. (Warm fuzzy feeling...)

A stupidly simple polygon model of the troops would be better than no troops at all...I'd even suggest a simple sprite, ala Steel Beasts if it weren't for the fact that we could fly over head them. We really do need troops, IMHO.