Jester_159th

I dread to think which one of those I'm supposed to be!! BTW you forgot :yay: :bounce: :beer: and most importantly :pirate:

Considering how long ago LOMAC was released, if Fighter Ops DOESN'T do what you suggest then it's going to be a failure. In the meantime the new projects are underway. THOSE are likely to be the projects Fighter Ops will have to compete with.

Well it's an ambitious project, and I sincerely hope they pull it off successfully........ But I'll believe it when I see it. It's been in the works for so long now it's hard to be optimistic about it. Also, considering the timescale Fighter Ops development has covered already, the "modular" design is a bit of a concern. I doubt I'd be the only one to say I'd definately buy it..... but only after module two or three becomes available. I certianly won't buy into it until the combat aircraft are available and some indication as to the quality of the campaign has been published (ie: independant reviews etc). I'll keep my fingers crossed....... but I won't be holding my breath.

Dammit!!!! Disco strikes back!!!! :helpsmilie:

My mistake. That'll teach me to reply to posts when my brain's in neutral!!!! :cry:

It's a Spad. But don't worry. I can guarentee you that those WWI planes are replicas and not actual aircraft of the period. Glad to hear the pilot's doing ok. Hope he's back in the air soon. My Grandfather was a pilot in the RFC during WWI. He told my Father a few stories about amazing escapes, including one of his fellow trainee pilots who stalled and crashed into some trees (supposedly splitting a tree in two) and walked away with a broken nose and a few cuts and bruises. In another incident he saw a plane hit a small ditch while taxiing back after landing. The plane (travelling at less than 10mp/h) nosed over and the pilot died of a broken neck. Apart from the prop the plane was virtually undamaged and was back in service the next day.

Don't you inderstand the concept of SPAM even after getting a ban for it once? :megalol: You could have quite easilly asked this in the thread you started on just about the same subject. http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=18660

@Bogusheadbox: I can see validity in some of your comments, but most of them apply to the PC software industry as a whole and most stem from the way the developers are forced to operate to stay in business. Most of this has been discussed at length many times, so I won't bother repeating it here. I would like to make a couple of observations though: Firstly, the botched release of a buggy product comment: This must be a referance to the original LOMAC release. If so then ED are blameless and you should be looking at Ubisoft. They were the publisher. ED were under contract. Ubi INSISTED on the pre Christmas release date. Secondly: Lack of communication: I agree in principle here, but take a moment to look at it from ED's point of view. They've been burnt more than once when ESTIMATED release dates for patches were twisted into PROMISED release dates and thrown back at them with a pile of insults to boot by customer's whose primary malfunction appeared to be an inability to read. Not that they're the only one's to be treated in this manner. Oleg used to be a regular on the Il2 forums until he got sick of being constantly insulted by over opinionated, under informed customers. Add to this the language barrier and I think that, although not the ideal situation by any terms, it's somewhat understandable. IMHO the title of "customer" doesn't entitle one to become rude. And thanks to those that were we've this lack of communication. I've told customers to get lost before now for less than I've seen posted on these and the IL2 forums from time to time. We as a community reap what we sow in regard to communication. How many other industries see a forum where discussion of a company's products is an expected feature? If we (or a vocal minority) constantly insult the developers why should we expect them to constantly keep in communication with us when they know all they'll receive is a bucketload of bile? Perhaps if certain sections of our community started to behave in a more polite fashion, we'd see more developer contact. Maybe not. We can but hope. Thirdly: You say you've enjoyed LOMAC. Well in my book if you've enjoyed a product that cost £30 (or whatever the equivalent price in your locality)for a couple of years then you've got your money's worth in spades.

I have to say that I admire the designers for what they've acomplished with the F-22...... But I don't like it. It looks like roadkill. I mean, you know what an animal looks like when it's been run over by a truck..... Well the F-22 looks like the result of that happening to an F-15 to me, especially from the front. :music_whistling:

No IFF with EOS at all. It works purely on the target's IR immisions (ie engine heat). If you're not sure of what your target is, you must either visually ID it or use radar to get an overall picture of the situation.

GG, would you mind posting your system specs and (if allowed to by the NDA I assume you're tied to) a rough ballpark figure for the sort of FPS ranges you're seeing at what GFX settings? I've also got an old PC and no possibility of upgrading at the moment, and I must admit this is something that's been worrying me since the forst screenshots starte to appear.

Star, best bet is nip over to SimHQ and post this in their Steel Beasts forum section. There's some interesting offers here though........:lol:

If he claimed he doubled his FPS either: a) He's comparing FPS before over a city with FPS after over open water with nothing in sight. b) He had all GFX settings on MAX before and had all settings on LOW afterwards c) He was pulling your chain. Don't believe claims like that unless the guy making the claim can back it up with proof.

Thanks for sharing Shaman. I don't think he could have asked for a better obituary.

I've not really wanted to get into this debate, but I have to point something out here. Those of you assuming that the technological excellence of the Raptor will automatically result in total air dominance are overlooking one MAJOR fact here. We are not the only ones that read websites and aviation journals. You can bet your last penny that ANY nation who's political situation involves possible conflict with either the US or NATO will have been evaluating the Raptors potential capabilities and will be drawing up contingency plans and tactics to suit (assuming they have an air force any way comprable to any NATO country). Sure, the tactics may not work, but they're going to try. I fervently hope that we never find out if their tactics do work or not, since that will probably entail a major world conflict. Technological excellence alone has never won a war, and it never will. No matter how great the Raptor's abilities are in reality, it is going to have weaknesses and no doubt any weakness will be the cause of major tactical planning on the part of the USAF to minimise it's effects on the Raptor's performance, but that won't stop any potential enemy from trying to exploit it ruthlessly should conflict occur. To assume the enemy will fight the war your way is a good way to lose the war. Better to overestimate their ability to respond first, then relax should you find they're not as capable in dealing with the Raptor as you expected, than assume the Raptor will be near invunerable and have to rethink drastically should it be found that it's not. None of this detracts from the fact that the Raptor is a work of engineering genius of the highest standard. We should admire it as just that..... And no more.

Judging from the radiator configuration etc, I think it's a MkIX. Definately not a Griffon engined later version. Engine cowling looks more like a Merlin engined version.

Get it patched up to 1.07 and that's about it. They made some changes to the auto installer in the last patch, so if you're patching from the oringinal install you might need to run the auto installer twice (1st time goes to 1.06, 2nd time get's you up to date). There are no free add on downloads availabe for F4:AF that I know of. There are two payware addon s though, Hi Tiles and Stopworks pits (new custom 2D pits for the Block 42 and 52 Vipers). You'll find links to their websites on the Lead Pursuit site. IIRC, you'll find links to some handy training tools there as well. If not also check the F4:AF forum at SimHQ. There used to be loads of useful links over there.

Ah so it's not a fee but simply regular payware add ons? That's good. But what happens to online players? For example, if someone doesn't want to buy a particular add on (eg if they are not interested in a particular aircraft)? Will they (as with most sims at the moment) be forced to buy the add on anyway if they want to keep compatibility with others, or are you going to try and build in a work around? If it's practical to follow the workaround course, you may find you win a lot of friends, but not being a programmer I don't know if something like that would be possible. Another question I'd love to see answered, is what type of campaign system will Fighter Ops use? Are they planning something along the lines of the F4 campaign engine, or something more simplified? I'll most likely get Fighter Ops when it's released provided my PC can run it (not intended as a snide comment about the software, but purely at the moment I can't even think about PC upgrades..... Well I can think about them, but I'd have to starve to death to afford them!!:doh: ).

I just get a blank page. No error message. Nothing.

Good point Dmut. Dunno if it was yourself or Buzzard (aka Crossbow in the squad) who changed the title, but thanks to whoever it was. I would like to point out though, that Crossbow is a new, and very enthusiastic member of our squad, and such enthusiasm is what keeps the community fresh and vibrant. I think the title was simply intended as something that would catch the eye. On a side note, I'd also like to correct one inaccuracy in the original post. We aren't soley based in the UK and Europe. We have a growing and very valuable number of members in Canada and the US.

I can't help you much, and could be totally wrong here, but I didn't think HL used Lua scripts at all. It may be a problem with your LOMAC installation. Are you using LOMAC 1.02 or Flaming Cliffs (patched up to 1.12a)? It may be an idea to try connecting to someone acting as a server via a direct IP connection and see if that works ok. At the very least this post will bump the thread up the forum and someone from one of the squads that regularly host servers on HL may see it and be able to help. Hope you manage to get it sorted out.

Don't panic. Read page 2. Apparently Jiri pulled a miricle and fixed it in hours not days! Way to go Jiri!! :thumbup: Sorry I wasn't more informative in my original post. Hope no-one had a heart attack!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5891062444 Just saw this thread on the Il2 forums. Anyone know about this?

Geography has nothing to do with it. Air current s etc do. I don't think this "theory" has disappeared at all. It's just more convenient for governments and industries to ingnore it. Besides a theory is something that's unproven. The proof of the damage done to the environment by industry is all around us. It's just easier to ignore it (especially now that there have been major improvements in the ammount of polution caused by industry compared to 50-100 years ago). (but we're going off at a tangent from the original subject now)

Not many that have steel mills, oil refineries and various other industrial installations running 24/7. :music_whistling: