S77th-ReOrdain

Ryke, you need to increase the size of horizontal dimension to span across both monitors. Resolution should be the overall width of both monitors. Check PM. ["effects"] = 3, ["lights"] = 2, ["haze"] = 1, ["terrPrld"] = "20", ["height"] = 1024, ["resolution"] = "(1280+1280)x1024", ["civTraffic"] = 1, ["width"] = 3840, }, -- end of ["graphics"] } -- end of options

What I've noticed is if you set the trigger to "group dead", only the host gets a consistant effect (group activation, messages,sound(s), etc...). However, if you set a trigger with "unit dead" or "unit damaged", group activation as well as messages will work for all clients. Haven't had a chance to test sound using this technique.

Don't be deterred. Keep up the good work.

You have to change the read only properties of the file first. If using windows explorer, right click the file and select properties. Uncheck the read only box. You should be good to go. Open with notepad or the text editor of your choice.

Well color me uninformed. You learn something new everyday :).

There are 2 jammers in the Su-25T (IR and ECM - just in case there was any confusion there). Of course, you need to carry the jamming pods for ECM jamming. FF has provided a vivid verbal illustration of why ECM jamming is not a good idea without air cover or if there is no immediate surface to air threat. But do the tutorials and learn the autopilot capabilities, as has been suggested. If you're craving more info after that, check out Ironhand's site. http://www.flankertraining.com/ironhand/a2g.htm

Turning on your IR Jammer also helps against heat seeking threats.

Big thanks to 159th-Fudd and all Red Flag 2 organizers (S77th-Goya and 3Sqn-Fudd) and everyone else who participated and contributed.

This is a good idea and will hopefully give each squad a greater stake in Red Flag's success. It's obvious that many of us have become passionate about what Fudd has been able to do to inject increased interest in Lock On. Moderator voting will allow senior members to speak on behalf of their squads and voice concerns. Decisions can be made more quickly and for whatever reason, if there is a stalemate on an issue, Fudd's vote can decide. I think Fudd deserves more credit for the simple fact that this is his brainstorm. As far as being a "dictator", nahhh. Don't think so. Someone's always going to be put in the position of having to make a tough decision. It's just a little tougher if you carry all that weight alone. Good call.

Like I said Rugg, I don't want to argue with you, Cali or anyone else. This is simply a discussion! The thread is about mission planning and dates. I don't believe I've said anything here that is untrue. There has been no crying or whining. When the proposal to have the community consider the LOCERF mod was presented, it was only that - a proposal. True, it was received harshly, but as I've always said, I would be fine with whatever the outcome no matter what (Yes, we've seen the poll and have taken note of the results). The debate only became more spirited on my behalf when I thought it was wrongly interpreted. Not only in what it was, but what the intentions were that motivated Goya to create it. I've also taken note of your arguments against it and respect much of it. Some, I took exception to. Ventrillo, not a problem. As it stands, I'm not on the side that even needs to worry about it. I like you guys in 3Sqn. You present a challange and are a motivating force in the Lock On community. The last thing I want to do is create an atmosphere where we can't get along, and where harsh feelings take priority over us enjoying this game. I'd rather spend more time fighting you guys in the air, than having spirited debates on the forums. When the time comes that we are mixing it up on the same side, I would hope that we could coordinate as a team to achieve a common goal - Kicking Butt. As I believe Fudd solicited us to submit suggestions, this debate continues. Not about the LOCERF mod, but about how we feel about what potentially can enchance our experience. There will come a time when you guys will present an idea and we will hopefully consider it and discuss it with an open mind. There is no end to the discussion of mission improvement or mod inclusion/exclusion. Fudd will continue to decide what comes next based on our offerings. Moving on, yeah, I'll do that, but not because you say so, but because that horse has been run into the ground. Hopefully, I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize and would like to also say "Buck up, young man. It's only a discussion". Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we won't.

I don't want to argue. Just pointing out a blatant hypocrisy.

The decision to go with 6xR-77s on a Mig as well as the use of Shepski's realistic mod is fine. Some of us have always contended that as the organizer of this event, 159th-Fudd would have the final say and we would be OK with whatever decision was made in this regard. Laud's question was a valid one. Because what's interesting here is that the folks that jumped up and down when an earlier proposal was offered regarding "balance" was made, those folks immediately came back with every conceivable argument against using any mods, changing any weapons or altering the current format whatsoever. I guess they have nothing to say now.

That question has already been answered here (scroll down to the 5th post): http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=23482&page=2 In terms of the former Lomac League mod, stability regarding it's use has been testified to here (see last post on the page): http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=23482&page=5 Why you chose to post a link to keep this going about a guy that clearly had problems understanding the use of Loman/Modman is pretty daunting. There are probably a hundred or so posts which express the results about folks that run into problems when they install a mod improperly. Your point is clear. It's a lot easier to just let people vote on an issue without trying to slant the matter. The community is already 2/3 against the use of the LOCERF mod. That should be enough to settle the issue.

Way to lighten things up. Good one.

It's kinda sad the extent some go to to spread garbage and negitivity. No one should put anything on their PC if they don't know what they're doing.

Cool_t, the deadline for flying in Red Flag II has passed. Please contact 159th Fudd via PM to get details for signing up for future events.

Good post Sarge. I like your suggestion, and that may happen someday. Unfortunately we've gotten to the point now that some of our participants don't even want it mentioned in a discussion. As Goya has pointed out, it has been tested thoroughly over time and it works well for those people openminded enough to at least see what it's about. Fudd will ultimately decide what the future holds in terms of mission design and planning in Red Flag. But I do appreciate your receptiveness and presentation of a new idea.

OK Sarge, I respect your opinion. And, it is true that the winner will be determined by good planning and even better execution. The only problem I see is that your remaining comments more support the opposite of what you say you think is best. The more similar the planes, then the more the commanders, wing commanders directives and pilot skill will come into play. But nevermind that. As you stated, the community is already voicing its opinion on the matter of the mod. Personally, I also have a great deal of respect for what the community as a whole would like to see Red Flag evolve into. I have no problem with flying any of the planes in Lock On. I am probably least confident flying the F-15C, but that lack of presumed profiency won't stop me from mounting an effective attack, or defending against whatever enemy I detect on radar in the Eagle. As a reminder, LOCERF Mod was presented for (3) primary reasons: 1. To allow as many pilots as possible to bring their "A" game (with confidence). 2. Give added flexibility (and balance) to mission designers for ground defenses. 3. Minimize the "you guys had this" and "we only had that" excuses that inevitably follow each Red Flag session. We all have a favorite 1 or 2 planes. If anyone refuses to cop to that, then they're just not being honest IMO. That's not to say that everyone should be allowed to fly what they choose each mission. Comprimises must be made, and strategy will be implemented based upon what is made available. So there's no need for anyone to bring up the "the US can't fly MiGs against Iraq" arguments of realism that people want to present at their convenience to support their side of the issue. We all know that, but occasionally we need to be reminded that it is still just a "game". We do want to persue realism as much as possible, but there's a limit to that as well. If the majority of the community is comfortable with the status quo, then that's fine. Again, that's peachy, and it's how it should be. And to be clear, when it's all said and done, I don't expect to be on the losing side. :)

Problems no more, there is a solution. The discussion about realism can go around and around. Everyone has an opinion. We can even discuss whether Lock On is a game, a simulation or training for future pilots. This computer program called "Lock On" will not allow you to pull G's, therefore look at it as you may, but if you don't want to install the mod for whatever reason, than don't install it. Others can install it and it would not affect your game, connection or cause you any worries. The only difference would be that you would be informed that the other side has A,B and C planes to fly and you have A, B and C as well. That fact should ease all the tension about whatever problems we can project that it will cause. Now if it has to be the way someone other than Fudd thinks it should be, than that's a personal issue and it should not limit anyone's decision to participate or not. We all make that choice on our own. It's just a mod, there are no illegal payloads. You put it on, you take it off - just like the 100's of other mods out there. If in the end, Fudd decides that the mod won't be used, than so be it. I for one, fly this game for the enjoyment, adreneline rush and sense of comradarie that it encourages and will continue to do it and participate in Red Flag whichever way the consensus of the community, or Fudd decides to go.

Here's one. http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Pilot-Operation-2-Disc-WMVHD/dp/B000A2XB9K

The simple truth is this. Once you've installed any mod that changes the meinit.xml file, you should not put another meinit.xml modifying file on top of it. If you do, you've just altered the previously edited mod file with the new one without a means to reinstall the originals. This is the true value of Loman/Modman. It allows you to see which files you've installed that modify the originals. If you use any file/mod that changes your original game and haven't backed your originals up, you're already hosed. The creator of Modman (Skypat) does mention the necessity of backing up original files and has a site dedicated to help with the install and in the event of onforeseable situations. The one thing that is probably not stressed enough is why it is necessary to do so. I do understand that Modman is actually designed for multiple games, however, it would be nice if there was a process built into Modman that would allow Lockon users to check a box that not only stored files in the "Lock On\bazar\temp textures" folder and the "loman_backups_dont_remove" folders but also created a compressed backup of your game at time of Modman install that would allow a one click reinstall of everything to the point of when the app was first installed. But in these instances, file space would be the issue.

Just curious here. Rugg, do you use Modman at all? The reason I ask is because you seem more concerned about what others can't successfully do than you are about what it would do to your machine. I'm also curious to here from anyone who says a mod installed through modman screwed up there game after they uninstalled it through modman. In particular those that have had their machines hosed by a LL Mod install (even though this is not Lomac League).

This is a question the organizer(s) will have to ponder. I would imagine that as interest in Red Flag continues to grow, there would be an attempt to include as much of the community as is practical. Whoever flies should make an attempt to participate with their side before the mission kicks off either via TS, email, private forum, PM, morse code or what have you to discuss tactics or strategy in order to get the most out of these exercises. That's one of the reasons there is so much time between sessions. It gives everyone adequate time to prepare. I know that Fudd has asked that pilots that are not members of squads who are interested to PM him. So, Fudd is the man to ultimately address this question. Staggering flight times is exactly what I was suggesting. No single pilot would fly the entire 5 hours (unless you were one of the exceptions that was given the option of continuing due to a pilot/squad not showing or being undermanned). As an example, Redfor/Bluefor fighter group(s) 1 and 2 begin logging into server at 1630 zulu to test connections and get ready for 1700 mission start. Redfor/Blufor Strike flight 1 also logs in. For the sake of argument, let's say each flight has total of 4 planes per wing. All 6 groups begin at the pre-briefed start time to execute objectives. At this point there are a total of 24 pilots flying in the server at mission start. At 1730 Redfor/Bluefor Strikers begin to login to test connections as previously suggested. Their start time is 1800z. At their login time there are 32 pilots in the server. Redfor/Blufor Fighter group 3 logs in at 1830 for a 1900z mission start time. At 1930z the pilots that started at 1700z would be landing and/or concluding their objectives, and would thus free up the server for the next group(s) of joining flights. This way, the server maintains a reasonable amount of people flying at any given time, as well as maintaining performance. Obviously, the size of the wings can also be increased depending on what the server can handle. So on, and so forth. 5 hours was suggested as a way to maximize the potential of the exersize if 60-70 pilots were being considered to participate. The real workload would be on the ATC's or whomever had the responsibility of monitoring what was going on, not the pilots. They'd only being be flying their 2-1/2 hours and pushing on. They could return to TS later for debrief if they don't want to hang around. The ATCs can also be relieved if necessary. As we all become more familiar with the process and logistics, this responsibility can shift to the squad that actually contributes the mission for any given exersize. If 5 hours still seems too long, we can still achieve the goal of maximizing participation through utilizing a similar method. Again, merely food for thought . . .

More LOCERF suggestions . . . Mission start time will be what it will be. Those that would like to participate must do what is necessary to try and be there. I’m confident that the organizers are doing what they can to try to accommodate as many pilots/squads as possible. That being said, to further encourage participation from as many “serious” pilots as possible, I’d like to suggest we consider an overall mission time of approximately 5 hours. I realize this creates an additional workload on whomever monitors the event, but it will allow for larger community participation. A few of the things I’d like to suggest for future events are: • Each pilot or squad would only fly a maximum of 2-1/2 hours with 20-30 minutes being allowed prior to mission take-off time (assigned task/objective) to join the server and work out any connection issues (as suggested by Breakshot or Breadfan, I forget whom, sorry). The only exception to this would occur if a pilot failed to show. In that case, those already flying would be given the option of continuing and fulfilling the role of the assigned task. • Pilot/Squad must take-off or taxi within 5 minutes of assigned task take-off time thus beginning their first sortie. • If for whatever reason pilot/squad can’t taxi/take-off within this 5 minute window, they must withdraw from that day’s competition. • No spectators should be allowed. I suggest this not to be a hard-ass, but instead to maximize the server’s performance for everyone flying by limiting the amount of pilots on the server at any given time. • This would also encourage more “serious” pilots to participate that are not in squads. I’d hope that the intent is to open LOCERF up to as many pilots as possible as a “learning from a shared community” experience, without penalizing those that are not in squads. I suggest “serious pilots” because yahoos that would only join to cause mischief and mayhem is something we definitely do not want. Maybe screening would be necessary and I’m sure Fudd has a good handle on this (although, he may need some help if the number of interested pilots becomes too large). So, potentially, a chart posting join time window, task take-off time, mission completion time and exit from server time could be posted for all scheduled participants, allowing for upwards of 60-75 pilots, but only a max of 40 or so would be in the server at any given time. A matrix can be worked out to better illustrate this suggestion. • An ATC (another 504 suggestion) should also be in place for each side to ensure the above ROEs are followed. Violators will be reprimanded by being dropped from server (or flogged) whichever is more appropriate. • Once the 5 hour mark has arrived, Red Flag concludes and scores are tallied. • Rules on R&R, IMO, should be based upon the mission design and the squads that contribute the mission for that LOCERF session. ROE and Tasks/Objectives should clearly state what is appropriate and be discussed and reviewed by all participating pilots/squads. Everyone needs to take responsibility to know what’s going on. No excuses! You get severely penalized for not properly reviewing the Rules of Engagement regarding Rearming and Refueling. • A severe penalty for Team Kills (-150), great idea. • -5 points instead of -10 for missiles fired that don’t hit a target. -5 because, -10 would almost certainly guarantee a negative score for most participants flying fighters. A plane carrying a payload of 6 would potentially end up with -30 points instead of -60. If that plane scored a kill with the last missile fired, at least that pilot would end up with a score of +5 or +15, instead of -20 or -10. It would potentially end up being an even lower score for fighters carrying a payload of 8, 10 or 12 weapons. And keep in mind, this is just for one sortie. If that fighters role is to perform a CAP and maintain a defensive front he would most certainly be penalized attempting to effectively do so, or if the fighter is merely using his weapons in an attempt to survive. I do agree with the penalty for employing weapons that hit nothing (they cost $ right?), however I think -10 is a bit too severe in light of the score recieved if one of the missiles actually hit the target. Remember, these are only suggestions and obviously open for discussion. Fudd can make the final decisions.

Excellent event! From what was witnessed, it can only get better with what we learned from the first session. Everyone participating conducted themselves with a lot of class and it made it a blast to take part in this. Can't wait to do it again and get some more time in the air (I went to debrief after landing successfully at homeplate). Still fun nonetheless. Congrats Bluefor, and Salute to 159th Fudd for making something like this that was long overdue come to fruition.