gherring

In the mission editor, you can set time and date as described above. I've noted in 1.02 (and confirmed in 1.1) that sunrise and sunset occur four minutes earlier each day every day. This ultimately causes day and night to be reversed in missions set on days around 150 or 200. I doubt the original problem was caused by being set on a day in that range or anywhere near it, as I think all the default missions are set on day 001 as are all the campaigns; if the latter are multiday, they'd probably go no later than day 015. So set the time to 1300, the day to 001, and hit okay.

It's not stealth attributes that preclude the F-22 and F-35, it's just that these planes are too new and too classified to get enough data. I basically feel there should be a NATO carrier aircraft if there is a Russian carrier aircraft, so that would opt for the F-18 over the F-16 unless the Su-33 was dropped (and let's not do that). But if we're going to do real carrier air battles, let's get a better theater. Maybe the Norwegian Sea or how about the Indian Ocean, adding India as one of the countries (oh, but then you'd have to model those Indian missiles with their uber-ranged boosters :p ).

I haven't had a chance to test this yet, but I'd imagine turning off ECM within range of a launched HOJ missile will result in radar lock and the missile will convert accordingly and still target you. There is a line in the readme that implies that if you then turn ECM back on before burn through range, the missile will go ballistic.

I have good reason to beleive BritGliderPilot did not climb at a pitch of more than 30 degrees, so at least 86% of his TAS would go towards closing the horizontal separation between the planes. In addition, his target was almost certainly flying towards him. No way could the separation be increasing. So why does he do better with lock if he doesn't cliimb?

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: I win!!!

And then get to enjoy cleaning an M-16. :D

If I am flying an F-15 due north, and get locked by a Sue that is dead ahead, flying south. I can break the lock by turning east. This puts the Sue at 9 oclock on my TEWS. If I continue east, the Sue (assuming it remains north of the original lock point and keeps flying south) will drift to 8 oclock on the TEWS. I will reappear on the Sue's radar long before I fly out of its scan zone. But if I gradually turn so that the Sue remains at 9 oclock, I will eventually fly out of the scan cone at a course of 60 degrees (assuming the Sue keeps scanning straight ahead) and not reappear.

My understanding is beaming is putting the threat at your three or nine oclock position; the threat could be enemy radar or an incoming missile (RH or IR, much of the reasons remain the same). Notching a doppler radar means eliminating the doppler shift or your radar return. This just happens to be done by beaming. In LOMAC, notching seems much more effective if one is lower than the radiating aircraft.

Is this 1200 - 1400 IAS? This is Mach 1 at low altitude only. At high altitude, Mach is a much lower speed IAS (and I think TAS as well) so this would be Mach 2.5 at very high altitudes.

So if an F-15 is engaged head-on with an Su-27, and the Sue fires first and F-poles, rather than placing the Sue at 3 oclock on the TEWS, the F-15 should turn so that the Sue flies left to right on his radar screen, and get lower. The Sue should notice the F-15 start to turn and alter his F-pole to put the F-15 on the other edge. Might the Sue want to fly a course so that the notching course keeps it out of the F-15's radar?

I tend not to like the idea of naming a multi-platform simulation after one of them, and understand there are complex legal issues with "Lock On." So... Tactical Fighters

Sounds like it's possible in real life, but not practical in LOMAC until the Ka-50 or ground units with lazing ability are added.

DedCat, next time you're in the F-15, look in the lower left of your HUD. When you fire a radar missile, a new line will appear counting time down. If you fired an AMRAAM, an "M" will precede the countdown, and there will be two countdowns; one till activation and one till impact. An AIM-7 will have one countdown, preceded by "T".

That'll work! Thanks. :prayer: But I still think there should be an unknown color, and editable range at which labels change color from unknown to red or blue.

It's deja-vu all over again! Please see reply in my "versitile labels" thread.

That's why I have the HP 345587612 Holodeck as my #1 Christmas wish. After all, it just ain't realistic if "the World" is solely on this big monitor square in front of you; the world is all around you and it is far more realistic to use that neck attatchment for that Mk1 Eyeball than keys or a hat or, since I want full realism in my use of neck, even TrackIR. The bottom line is as long as we are limited to monitors, viewing will always be different, and if one limits monitor views to "realistic capabilities", then viewing in sims will be more difficult than real life. Nobody is telling you to use labels; it's great that you can enjoy LOMAC without them. I can understand how this can be an issue in multiplayer, after all, you want your oppent's view capabilities to be the same as yours, but given all the differences in monitors, computers, and graphics cards, that won't happen if one has a new 21" monitor and the other an old 17" one. As for me, I just don't think the most distant planes stand out enough in LOMAC, so I use labels, with LabelFormat"%*". I just get an asterisk, and since I also put identical values for ColorAliesSide and ColorEnemiesSide, that asterisk doesn't even tell me friend or foe. The thing is, yes, once I find an object, I can zoom in and get more detail, and when the zoom and range are right I'll see the detail I need. But zooming the view in and out is really no more realistic than labels; it is just a compromise to get that real world view with all its size and detail onto that monitor screen in front of me. Why not have the labels perform more realisticly and save me the time and effort of manipulating zoom so I can use it to more realisticly operate avionics, flight controls, communications and weapons?

That is what I'm noting. However, the effect of making the view distance zero is to effectively eliminate the info. That is better done via LabelFormat. Why have the command in LabelFormat and a line that prevents that data from displaying when you can simply delete the command in LabelFormat and then delete what will probably be four (and possibly eight) distance attribute lines that refer to the unused attribute. If you feel you'd do a good job estimating distance at a range of 3km or less, but you don't feel that carries over to LOMAC's graphics, certainly there should be support for the command: LabelMaxDistanceAirDistance = 3000 But if you don't want distance displayed at all, it is better to edit LabelFormat and remove the "%D". You can do this now and this will still be the better way if this proposed addition is implemented.

Gee GGTharos, I've noticed something similiar in SP. I made a mission where I flew a CAP. I had two enemy MiG-29S's launch when I did from the closest air base to my patrol zone, and two more launch a half hour later. I also had two Su-25's launch ten minutes into the mission from a more distant airbase on a strike mission agaginst the target my CAP was defending. The Su-25's would arrive in my CAP zone before the second pair of MiG's launched, but for much of their flight, they are more distant than the airbase where the MiG's come from. So once I handle the first MiGs, if I ask AWACs about the nearest bandit, I get vectors to the MiG airbase, even though the Su's launched and I got the corrosponding pop-up alerts.

Colors are currently defined for two sides in the labels.lua file at the very bottom, and can, if so desired, be changed (most likely to make them identical; this would keep what for many is the label's main purpose: an aid to spotting distant aircraft, while still keeping visual identification absolutely realistic). Also, neutral is not the same as unknown. Should ED add neutral units to LOMAC, I would support a fourth color that is displayed by the same parameters as allied or enemy. This is currently better done via the LabelFormat command. Just omit the tags that display those lines. BTW, my line reads: LabelFormat = "%*", so all I get for any label is an asterisk, no range, no pilot name, no distance, no A/C type.

Currently, if labels are used, a whole lot of info is given about an object once the label appears. I would like some of the text detail to change with range. For example, in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, there is a certain range where a pilot can see there's another plane flying, a closer range at which he can identify the type of plane, and an even closer range where he can see the insignia on the plane. To an extent, this can be done realisticly with labels off, but there will always be differences between real world visual performance and manipulating views on a computer monitor. I feel it would be an improvement if the info displayed by a label if labels are used, corrosponded better with real visual performance. I think LOMAC should support more commands in its Config\View\labels.lua file. First, there should be a third color supported for aircraft that really are too far away for their insignia to be identified. I propose: ColorUnknownSide = { 0, 0, 0 } Second, there should be a bit of a difference between when a label appears for a large aircraft as opposed to a small aircraft., and I propose two more commands: LabelMaxDistanceAirLarge (distance large aircraft are labeled) LabelMaxDistanceAirSmall (distance small aiircraft are labeled) As the distance closes, more info can be determined visually, so I propose two more commands: LabelMaxDistanceAirType (distance A/C type is displayed) LabelMaxDistanceAirSide (distance lable color changes from unknown to enemies or allies) The default labels.lua might read as follows: ... LabelMinDistanceAir = 100 LabelMaxDistanceAirLarge = 30000 LabelMaxDistanceAirSmall = 25000 LabelMaxDistanceAirType = 20000 LabelMaxDistanceAirSide = 10000 ... ... labelFormat = "%*%n%N%n%D%n%P" ... ... ColorAliesSide = {200, 0, 0} ColorEnemiesSide = {0, 0, 200} ColorUnknownSide = { 0, 0, 0 } In this example, as the player flies towards an Il-76 escorted by a Su-27, the following occurs: At a range to the Il-76 of 30000m, it gets the following label: * 30km Pilot1 At 25000m to the two planes, the Su-27 is labeled: * 25km pilot1 * 25km pilot1 At 20000m, the labels add the aircraft: * Il-76 20km pilot1 * Su-27 20km pilot1 Finally, at 10000m the colors change: * Il-76 10km pilot1 * Su-27 10km pilot1 The labels disappear when the aircraft pass within 100m. A similiar modification could be added to the ground, naval, and missile labels.

Re: Jan 15 Dates provided by merchants are more likely than not merely guesstimates, often based on either wishful or overly pessimistic thinking and rarely accurate.

Uh, landing and getting instant repairs is real ground operation? ':snakeman:' Of course, it would be reasonable to expect a carrier to function like an airport in matters such as this. I agree a bit more consistency would be nice.