uhoh7

Ok this is just in the quick start mission I turn on the TV, lock the target, start to get in range, but cannot get the anti-tank missile to fire....... help please. yes I've read the manual and I think i'm doin it right.. but must be leaving a step out. ty uhoh7

I will be very happy with the F-16, espcially if we see a quality flight model and AG radar. The Helos are going to be VERY VERY interesting. Haven't flown one since apache havoc, comanche hokum was first released. Online flights with helos will be awesome....I hope! GO ED GO and please check in here once in awhile uhoh7

Coming back to lockon 1.1 after hiatus, I'm impressed so far with the documentation, though of course I wish it was printed. Ce la vie. The grammar is not always perfect but the organization and content seem very good at first glance. S! thank you ED uhoh7

despite some disappointment with the level of communication from ED to western users, which frankly I fear will keep this sim on the sidelines---I hope i'm wrong. i will buy it uhoh7

A few posts from the project manager are worth many dollars in sales and general "buzz" about the product. Oleg Maddox has capitalized on this simple fact. ED needs to work on communication--it ain't that hard. uhoh7

TY for updates uhoh7

Here we have a big long thread of potential customers in various stages of confision...... The whole thing could have been avioded with a bit of customer-developer communication. Obviously there are some guys who know a lot about the issue and alternatives to STARwhatever which has a bad rep. IT never hurts to MAKE FRIENDS WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS, find out their concerns and give them something close to what they want. No you can't spend all day on the forum. BUt a few posts here and there go along way, as Oleg Maddox has proven (he may be driven crazy sometimes but he has made many fans with his interaction) I don't even know who the lead developer is on this game. That's a shame and probably a lost opportunity. But whatever....my real question is....WHERE IS THE GAME....WHO DO I PAY? all the best, uhoh7

a 20 mission campaign is a good start. but will this be like we have now: you run mission 1 over and over till you win, then move to mission 2? A good campaign should have consequences e.g. I survive, but don't inhibit attack, so in mission 2 I have to deal with the problem. This can be done without a DC, if flags to alternate campaign missions are possible. uhoh7

one campaign for the su25t is not enough. I say this with respect. I really think this is one reason why the sim has not caught on as well as it might. Its like having a TV with just a few shows. With f4 you get 3 basic campaigns but they are extremely complex and never play exactly the same. We know a DC is next to impossible in LO. What will keep end users going is new content. I would seriously suggest ED mobilise enthusiasts and get a team togther to start releasing new campaigns frequently as we move towards 1.2 just my 2 cents in advance of my 1.1 purchase uhoh7

Here is what is happening http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370 http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=002323

1) ground object visiblity i don't know what rez most are running, but in il2 this has great effect on object viz. I'm running 1600x1200 and objects blend totally into terrain at very short distances. yes i could run the sim at lower rez, but it's a shame to have to do so. Ground object visiablity needs to be improved to make ground attack without icons more approachable for all. This really seems like a no brainer to me. 2) with the direction ED is going, enhancments like knee maps and the abilty to pad ground objects will make the sim far more accessible and fun. Those who do not like these simple features do not have to use them. Some feel I guess that suggestions like these are whining or in the same vein as asking for a two seat cockpit NOW. But i feel the success of a sim is in some degree related to understanding the basic needs of players. Of course sometimes players make unreasonable demands. This is no reason to discount the realistic requests of others and respond to them. This kind of interaction is one component of 1c's success. I would like to see ED just as successfull. all the best, uhoh7

TY for advice with labels PP "Actually it would be a step backwards if you do that. In real life its difficult to ID ground vehicles anyway. If you find it too difficult then I suggest flying lower is one way. In the A-10 missions alot of the ground targets are already in the HUD. So locating them is very easy. In the Su25 you have to rely on your location on the battlefield as to avoid a friendly fire incident. Its just a fact of life in a fast jet unless you have some advanced optics and a lowlight tv. cheers Subs" The abiltiy to padlock ground objects, enemy or friendly, would simply be an option which a player or server can choose or not. Now the options are labels or near blindness... hehe with respect, uhoh7

what's for? to ask for a flyable F-18? :) no mere customer should ever ask for such a thing, even if he is willing, like thousands of others, to pay for the add on.

very interesting post. Does anyone have details or links on the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System? all the best uhoh7

I would love to see their sales figures!!!! but the screenshots look good to me. Anyone found their user forum?

One simple short term fix which might make a big difference, tell me if it is already possible: ground padlock enemy and frrendly, buth in the cockpit and externallly with padlock next and last options. This feature has been in il2 since the begining. Of course I am not a programer, so I don't know how difficult to add it would be. But if ED is going to give us 2 great ground attack platforms, the new SU and the KA-50 later on, then I really think some tweaks are in order to enhance the experience. Again the icons mar an otherwise beautiful landscape and object enviroment. The visiblitly of ground vehicles is another pretty big issue. Without icons, they blur into the landscape at very short distances. I made a tank battle last night, and from the distance where I turned around for another run, and it was tight, the tanks were almost invisible. I found myself constantly toggling icons on and off. If you zoom you can spot them, but you have to know exactly where to zoom! Please don't get me wrong, I will buy any simulation add-on or stand alone product which ED releases regardless. I have since Flanker2. All the best, and thanks again for your great products, uhoh7

TY for all comments!!! regarding ground vehicle visablity. interesting subject since 1c has been adjusting this in the latest patches in PF. It does seem like it is possible to adjust visibilty, since they are doing it within the space of a few weeks with a pretty big program. ANYTHING is better than icons! I really hope ED takes a hard look at the ID issues in mudmoving in the future. There are lots of ways to go. An inflight kneemap, created by the mission designer, might be simplest and involved the least cpu overhead, though I know it involves adding to the ME. Some sort of radio comms with ground forces or laser targeting from friendlies are other possiblities. It's a pain to add features, I know, but this is a pretty fundamental issue considering the direction the sim is going, and could really help to get more guys interested, and keep them playing! Please don't think I'm not gratefull for all the hard work done by the ED team. all the best, uhoh7

Re: the ground war....... This was often done with captured Russian tanks, so that a T-34 in German service wasn't attacked by other German forces. Otherwise though camouflage was considered more important, and probably still is. Correct target identification is a problem in real life as well, as some unfortunate friendly fire incidents in recent times have shown. But of course the additional restrictions of a computer monitor only make it harder. I agree that additional briefing options like images of the target area would be very nice, but they require additional work when designing a mission and cannot be integrated into the game (at least currently ;)). Thanks so much for your relpies, Actually, thanks to Oleg Maddox, hehe I have many books on the eastern front. There are many many photos of mark3 and mark4 tanks with swastikas painted or draped on the top of the back deck. As you proabbaly know there were quite a few friendly fire incidents. Re the "kneemap" I understand it would take some work to add this feature, but perhaps with the KA-50 addon, some feature like this might be considered. Once you see the armor in this sim in action, well it's pretty awesome. In my last mission i put 4 "mistas" targeted on an advancing column of M1s. They decimated the column untill some bradlleys came up by road from the south and hit them with TOWS. The bradley seem to have a large supply of TOWs hehe

I’ve been getting back into lockon in anticipation of 1.1 and working quite a bit with the mission editor and ground conflict scenerios for the A10 and Su25 I’m very impressed with the active ground conflicts which can be created with the ME. In the long run, I hope ED can take a look at ways to enhance situational awareness in flight and try get get us away from the icons whenever possible. In RL, of course there are extensive briefings and reviews of the terrain and situation. But many simmers just want to get into the air and get to the conflict. Once there finding and identifying targets can be a challenge. There is the Awacs view, but that is an immersion killer. I also notice that at 1600x1200 the awacs view is not always in sync with the map: objects do show their true relations however. Since we are going to be doing a lot of mud moving, I wonder if it might be possible to have a “knee map”. My idea is that the mission designer could make kneemaps for specific flights. This would be a static map, but with the detail we see when flying, like a small screen shot of an area, a crossroads or whatever. The a few simple ways to add arrows and short notes. A toogle could bring up the kneemap to help the pilot identify the target area, maybe partial screen, and the additional information of say which road our spearhead in coming down and where we expect enemy resistence. I also notice vehicles are very hard to spot unless you are right one them, without icons. Vehcile ID is also very difficult at the speeds we are flying. In barbarossa, the germans but flags on the back decks of their vehicles for just this reason. Would such a marking option be a possibility in the future? Thank you so much for all your hard work and attention. uhoh7

Forgive my ignorance the eagle's radar "now works" are there any radar modes of the eagle in 1.02 which will not cause an RWR warning, like the optical mode in the SU? I.E. do I know when the eagle radar is turned on while i'm flying a SU-27? Does the TWS mode show a lock warning on RUS AC? How does the range of the 120c compare with with say, the R27ER? ty in advance uhoh7

Wow I flew alot online in 1.0 and a bit in 1.01 and the eagles were nearly helpless. I'm getting back into lockon now I asume 1.02 boosted eagle capability in some ways. What has changed to make the f-15s so good?

well did some readin and ordered this thing http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=29-102-178&depa=0 will advise if it helps

Well that will work was hoping I could get the whole layout in "keyboard form" like some of the .pdf files are. 7 pages, hehe ty for help uhoh7

I have DLed several nice printable keystroke .pdfs for lock on. None are accurate for 1.02. anybody have a link to a current one?

I have a new abit av8 with onboard sound. will I see better lockon performance with sound card. if so which would be best? ty uhoh7