ZoomBoy27

Hmmmm..... non-specific airplane. Trickier Bad Planes! Bad Planes!: Watcha Gonna Do Airplane! Free to Be, You and Me: Airplanes Flight Into Danger Non-specific Combined Arms The Compleat Sim The Ronco Sim-omatic More Serious: I think we seen a lot of generic Men of Valour Honour Duty etc. from the FPS sims We have to think Tech, Information, Detail, Mastery. metal, Electronic, AIr, combined You can swap out sections Sharp Edge: Air Onslaught Designated Target: Assault from Above Launch Flash: Target Acquired Target Acquired: Air Onslaught Air Dominance: Full Force Air Conflict: High Voltage (hehe) PK: Launch Now I like Launch Flash: Air Onslaught It gives you the Nodern, technical, Mastery aspects

There's a lot of voices in the community wanting to add a western flight model. But I think that won't occur until the engine generation after LOMAC - I don't see it happening in an add-on. So, we have a successor to name and now is our chance to name it. F18 seems to be a popular choice but you should substitute your own choice(I hear you Mirage + Harrier + F16 + ad nauseum fans). Think of the great resource it will be for ED: F-18: Roar to Danger F-18: XXX Extreme F-18 F-18: Cold Soar Hello F-18 Kitty Resident Evil: F-18 F-18 vs. Godzilla F-18 with Angry Manga Eyebrows F-18 of the Dead Carry-on F-18 Wes Craven Presents: F-18 F-18 2 Jason vs. F-18 Regis Philbin Presents: F-18

F/A-18 for the LOMAC Successor I don't think it's in the code base and the publishing details that the F/A-18 is profitable and workable for an add-on. Better off with a new engine and a new publishing deal withe the successor of LOMAC :idea: Wait a sec! I haven't named the successor yet. I'll leave it to another thread.

LongBow2 was not a niche crowd and had a larger crowd than LOMAC. I used a simple joystick with twist handle with the very complex LongBow2 so there are no control problems. Your other points do have weight to them. I see Ka-50 is a way to extract the work done on Su-25T and re-use it. To go into other models, especially AFM, would be as complex as a helicopter FM but then you'd have to model new avionics and weapon suites as well. Other models should be saved for the LOMAC successor.

The reason why F4 players continue to play F4 is the dynamic full-theatre campaign. Its the game-play not the modeling. They'd arrive for the missile/flight model but they're not likely to stay without something dynamic or at least interactive.

Learn something nerw every day. Is there a American version of this?

The F5 view gives you an external view and allows you to see your closest threat including orientation. This F5 view is considered a cheating view and servers blocked ALL external views to prevent cheating. But if disabled on a server, then servers can have those pretty external views without too much worry about view-cheating.

The COntents page is clickable and if you click on Bookmarks on the Left side - you've got detailed access.

I had to re-register - no biggy I think forum and product registration are 2 different things

I voted for B, Other improvements, because at least 1 of them would be a major improvement. A dynamic campaign or a dedicated server with base-to-base air wars or a large quantity of contents(campaigns+AI improvements.) A major feature is required for a expansion pack or a large accumulation of content+improvements. Otherwise it's merely a patch. I do have another choice - wait until I see that actual features ED does add and then decide if I want to pay or Not. Canadian joke: With a question that complex, the PQ has a job for you.

And this includes scanning the radar up and down with the SHIFT-COLON and SHIFT-PERIOD keys?

"has to work in the CIS financial system" I don't think people will buy it on the internet in the CIS. But if ED tries to set up an direct-payment system for Western customers to a CIS bank, it is not too swift - that's the speed of banks here in my country. Lots of paperwork.

But if you are downloading it, authorization for the 1st time should not be onerous. I bought PowerArchiver like that and haven't paid attention to it except for the pop-up reminders for free updates which is cool. Buy it from a box and I can see the problem.

A-10 Alushta Heights Allied Forces must get to the coast with supplies to secure the coast. Destroy the enemy in the heights above Alushta. Download Mission here

I want the destroyed ground units to be re-spawned for online play. It's more likely for 1.2 than anything else but with the A-10/Su-25T crowd, you'll get a bigger on-line group. At first I thought that maybe having all the ground units destroyed would work but what about SAMs doing basic guard duty. But then I remembered the Mission Goals and thought it'd be better if the Re-spawning would occur when those 'DESTROY' goals have been reached. The mission designer would designate the Mission Targets with the 'DESTROY' and if all the targets are destroyed on one side, the Re-spawning would occur. In the code: Each time a ground target was destroyed, you'd check the status of all the Mission Targets. If all the Mission Targets are destroyed for one side: - Award points to one side - Reset the Mission Targets back to original condition and places - restore everyone back to base (re-armed & refueled) You could have base on base wars or, if applied to air objects, AWACS/Tanker Wars It does take advantage of the current Editor but the big question would be the CPU and memory Cost of the Re-spawn Might want to include it in the dedicated server.

It's excellent for looking around but the Vector version that does the zooming is not fully functional in LOMAC. Looking and padlocking - excellent Zooming in and out - not

From my limited knowledge as an accountant, I'd say the distribution is something that ED is testing right now. This is something that Ubisoft used to do for them. And a further guess is the distribution, especially the download system and the new VISA option, has to be rock-solid, has to work in the CIS financial system, has to have error recovery methods, and has to be tested. No one wants to be chasing after ED for compensation if there are errors.

Finally had a chance to play it. I had to spend some time in training to get back my Su-25 skills and procedures. It's a simple but interesting night mission. I candle-bombed the area correctly but failed to wipe out the Artillery. I'll be back at it again. In the briefing you should let people know that they're going to have to follow a guide jeep out to the runway at the beginning of the mission. That was fun.

How much of the F4 development effort was spent on the campaign engine? Do you know? How much did F4 cost to develop? Do you know? How rude and unpleasant you are. I know it cost 4 years and millions of dollars estimated at least 2 million. I've heard other higher numbers. It was the last big-budget flight-sim that took 4 years to complete. I know a great portion of the development was spent on the AI - that includes the individual object AI(radar, SAMs, AWACS and the dynamic portion of F4). And from all the patching that was done by the community afterwards, it was not done well. And that community patching - hundreds of free hours - how many $$$ is that worth to get a truly polished product? But how does knowing these things change the fact that there are more resources(money and time) needed for the full theatre DC. A single programmer can create a simpler mission-based DC as was done for IL2(with DCG). But the full theatre DC would require more people due to having to test all the various combinations that come up. At both Tactical(A2A AI and Wingman Responses) and Strategic levels(supplies, Troop quality and planning) and tied together with a functional interactive Map. When it comes to Age of Empires and the like, how much time is spent in the testing and polishing stage? With a full theatre DC, you are adding an RTS to a flight sim with plane(s!) that has to model all its sub-systems correctly. While it might be difficult for you to get past my tough 1st few sentences, I did present a reasonable destination that would keep LOMAC afloat and might give us a pathway to a reasonable DC product - maybe even a full theatre in the long term(the project after LOMAC). Stronger AI - both air and ground - are good building blocks for your desired full theater DC. And even a DC at the level of the DCG would keep a community(off-line) interested.

Labels on or off? NOTE: I recently play-tested a Mission that had a helicopter fly in front of the Player taking off. Its name was not the usual 'Pilot1' but 'Please turn off the labels' It was a cool reminder

I tested head to head both the F15 and the MiG29 against the Su-17. Nothing showed up on the TEWS or the MiG RWR. What systems did the Su-17 have? Isn't it a CAS plane like the Su-25?

If you've got more than 1 object hidden, there is something called the Hide List. Click on the Map Option button Flip the MapMode switch to Satellite from Geophysics In the panel below all the highlighted buttons is a single button that says "LIST OF HIDE OBJECTS" Click on that and you have a full list of Hideable objects with different categories. I use this just before I issue a mission.

But the creators of F4 are dead. Tell us about the resources and money required to create your Dream Full Theatre DC. How long did it take and how many millions of dollars to get a version of F4 to a trust-worthy state? The LOMAC engine, under the current marketing arrangements, can't tap a Western Market to pay for the work for a Full Theatre DC. I would prefer ED to lock up a good missions-based dynamic campaign(Like DCG) before possibly bankrupting themselves for your idle pleasure. So the Priorities for the current LOMAC engine should be: Robust Wingman AI - including Element AI Stronger Ground AI a good missions-based dynamic campaignFulfilling the above would give us a long-term sim worthy of being a long-term gem like LongBow2 which had a limited DC campaign.

They are different types of generated campaigns. The closest likely for the current LOMAC engine is the following: A map of the front is held on the hard-drive as well as the Squadron Info. It's loaded, a mission is generated and along the path is arrayed the usual front line activities in a narrow sector. After the mission is completed, the damage to the enemy and the squadron is calculated and the map of the front is adjusted for: *Percentage of Effectiveness *percentage of Supply needed to advance *Territorial gains by land troops(If in a mission the ground forces were to arrive) *and the stategic control of various choke-points - Weakness/Strength For the current LOMAC a non-bubble, off-line mission generator is all we can expect. The model to examine would be the DCG from IL2. It appears to be the most currently successful DC being done. It has it's faults but it is doable even with all the eye-candy Oleg could put up.

Someone wanted a deeper description Description: Star Wars - Death-Star - Trench. Have you not perceived the task before you? Trained, you are, yes, uhh-hmmmm but not aware. Awareness, you achieve yet slowly, uhh-hmmmm.