chennuts

aaaaahahahaha

It's great to have a map available when you end up jumping into a mission where you don't know the area by heart. While the map in the game is limited in size and a lot of you fly in the same area and have come to know it quite well, it would be a nice addition for some. Think of when people ask your position and you say "i'm X west of sochi-adler", and they say "wtf mate?". Also, while they guys who fly the russian birds can get vector themselves to any airfield they like, the us guys are only able to get a heading to home plate. In a sense, this would even the score. In the end, it's up to the server and doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other. I take it you've never seen a map? :D

The 128/128 setting people talk about is for the clients. The server bandwidth should be set according to what bandwidth you have available (with some overhead, of course). Those that host dedicated servers may have a magic setting (akin to 128/128) they prefer regardless of available bandwidth, so I'd check with them should you have problems after using a custom setting like 4096/4096.

Actually, it is. You won't really notice a "stutter" dropping from 100 FPS to 40 FPS, but you will when you drop from 30 FPS to 15 FPS or less. Edit: Completely misread your statement. That being said, a constant 24 FPS in a flight sim is easily perceived as stutter free. A first person shooter isn't going to seem as fluid at 24 fps, obviously, but a flight sim? So long as the rate does not drop below 24 at any time, you'll remain essentially stutter free. :)

Hell, let him LOPE the EA onto his planes all he wants and play online. Doesn't anyone remember what happened to the EA? :D

Congrats on the successful integration, StrikeMax. I know there's still work to be done, but I bet it's nice finally seeing that model in game!

I can't believe no one else sees this, but that's quite obviously a photoshop! Yes, I'm kidding

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've seen a frog (T/TM) with Vikhrs loaded on the middle wing pylon, as opposed to the 2nd innermost wing pylon (which is all that is allowed by default in Lock On). Can anyone clarify as to where the Vikhr is normally carried and also where it can be carried and fired from?

:laugh: You don't seem to understand the concept of citing your sources. I didn't have any sources to cite, cool_t. As someone who says people shouldn't make things personal, you certainly have a funny way of going about it. Under different circumstances, I might be offended. Sadly, I just can't take you seriously. "intelegent"? :laugh: Try citing wikipedia.org in any research paper. You'll be laughed at. I know a lot of researchers that will refer to the site for some things if they need a quick bit of information on something for personal use. Why? It's convenient. You won't be seeing it in their list of works cited on any project, however. It was stated quite clearly. Also, one of your sources is list of "just about every USSR EW system there is." Even if the sources for that page and list are credible, they're not properly cited. The other "source" is not available. When you're going to site a massive list or even a website, it helps to be very specific in the information you're citing. To the paragraph if necessary. Bullshit. You can't spell and half of your posts are borderline incoherent. What does this have to do with anything, cool_t?

cool_t: ECM "Strobing" as referred to in this thread (and on this message board in general) is a specific technique in a very obvious and narrow context. Your earlier comment was out of that context. Electronic countermeasures are a form of electronic warfare, which is what you're referring to when you say that [information and/or electronic warfare] has been around in one form or another since WWI (paraphrased for clarity). Your latest comment referred to the evolution of electronic warfare, which is a step in the right direction, though throwing up random website URLs with no context or explanation and talking out of your ass isn't helping your case. What's wrong with valid research, dude? Nothing. You have yet to do any, however. Wikipedia is not a good source for numerous reasons, the most important of which is that anyone can post on a topic. No expertise or credibility is involved, and validation methods on information currently available from wikipedia.org are laughable at best. That being said, it's convenient. Does that make it a good source? Nope.

You can log in to http://www.lockon.ru and retrieve your serial number at any time if I recall correctly. That's where you copied it from in the first place, isn't it?

It's not the high g loading so much as the rate of change of the g load. If you gradually increase the g load on the wings, you can exceed 7g without risking the loss of one (or both). However, if you increase the load from 1g to 7g+ in a fraction of a second, you're looking at some serious damage. Regardless, sustained high g loads aren't going to be great for an airframe!

For the record, your PhysX card isn't creating these effects out of thin air. These effects can be rendered with a conventional CPU/GPU setup. Yes, adding very complex physics calculations to the CPU's workload could potentially lower performance to unplayable levels. Is this necessarily the case? No. Disclaimer: the following dialogue is simply an arguement against the need for additional and expensive dedicated hardware. It is not intended to refute the potential benefits of a dedicated physics processing card. As for these effects only being available in the game by installing a physics prosessing unit, that's silly. That's based on the assumption that a CPU cannot handle these calculations...any cpu. Past, present, future. That means when I install the game again a few years down the road on a more powerful machine, I have to play without the extra eye-candy while my CPU/GPU are barely breaking a sweat. Not allowing the user to enable additional effects regardless of the presense of a PhysX card is wasteful to say the least, and hopefully will not be the path game developers take. Now, the games could have code only processable by a PhysX card. Then you're out of luck if you want to have additional effects rendered by the CPU. Or, as is the more likely case (and the one on which I've based my dialogue), the game has extra code that will be utilized only upon the detection of and processed by a PhysX card. My opinions on the matter aside, congrats on the new hardware and hopefully you'll be able to make the most of it.

"Lost Puppy"

juan_mol, will you be overclocking your new processor? If you're not an overclocker (most users aren't), there's nothing wrong with your processor selection. If you're willing to overclock your processor, you can save some money at the expense of some risk, albeit relatively small, and go the Opteron route, most likely achieving the same performance as with your original choice as a result.

Don't fret over whether both slots run at x8 or x16 speeds. There's no bandwidth bottleneck in either case and, as such, there will be no difference in performance if you ended up going the SLI route down the road.

Email or PM Chizh. He should be able to get that information to you.

Do not get the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. It has very bad pots, and no amount of cleaning will ever fix them. Once it starts going bad, you can clean them a few times and fix your issues, but each time you clean them, they work for shorter and shorter amounts of time before requiring a re-clean (minutes). Also keep in mind that cleaning the pots requires you to half-disassemble the stick. It's just not worth it in the end (though when it did work, it wasn't too shabby). *If you're absolutely stuck on getting a USB device, please disregard the rest of this post. I toughed it out with the Extreme 3D Pro and watched Ebay until I found a gameport CH Combatstick (about $25) and a gameport CH Pro Throttle (also about $25), which were soon followed with gameport CH Pro Pedals (Somewhere around $25-35, I don't recall). Never had a single issue aside form programming the controller initially (programming the gameport gear requires Windows 98, which I didn't have an installation of at the time. A quick 98SE install on a spare drive, a brief Speedkeys installation, five minutes of button assignment and voila, custom setup). This is what I recommend to my friends who want to get a nice setup on the "cheap" (it's still almost a hundred, but you get a complete, quality setup). If you don't mind a throttle wheel, the gameport Combatstick (and Fighterstick, I think) has one. If you have Windows 98 available in some way shape or form, you can customize the buttons in minutes. $25-30 and you're ready to roll. FYI, if you don't program the stick, you're left with a fancy looking 2-button joystick.

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black? :D (In case there was a misunderstanding, my previous post in which I bolded the "dough" part of "dought" was, in fact, a joke.)

Hungry? :D

OT, but that picture in your signature is really, really big. It's dwarfing your posts...

Ok, since I'm apparently having comprehension problems, let's do a little summary: zaGURU shares the modification of a configuration file regarding the number of discrete points between Xmin and Xmax, and Ymin and Ymax respectively. Lots of people are grateful for the insight and test it for themselves. Some people notice a significant difference, some do not. -You join the forum and call zaGURU an asshole because you asked him not to tell anyone. zaGURU shares how to perform what he called a "tailslide" (which turned out to be a different maneuver, but sparked a good discussion and sharing of screenshots of the maneuvers. -You accuse zaGURU is trying to take credit for something that you've come up with, claiming it as his own. Instead of asking him to credit you as the one who taught him the maneuver, you state that it's actually your maneuver, say something constructive, then imply that you're better than him because you figured out how to do the maneuver on your own. I point out that even if you were the one to teach him, you weren't the first person to perform the maneuver in reality or in Lock On. I then imply that you're being an ass, and respond in kind, asking if you'd like a cookie. -You then imply that I lack reading and/or comprehension skills, after which you imply that zaGURU is trying to take away your honor. Unfortunately, you've done quite a good job of this yourself. Frazer, I challenge you to add something constructive to this forum. If you can't do that, please leave or refrain from posting. //edit: You edited your post while I was writing mine. When he said "my maneuver," zaGURU was distinguishing the maneuver he had performed from the one they were talking about. If you think he implied ownership to the maneuver, that's fine. Are you saying that you want this to be known as your maneuver, Frazer? Or are you simply upset that you feel he's claimed it as his own?

Pretty sure you aren't the one who invented the manuver, Frazer. Or the first to figure out how to perform it in Lock On. If you cut out the first two sentences of your post, along with the last, it's actually constructive. As for the rest...did you want a cookie or something?

See this thread: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=12971

You cannot, under any circumstances, exceed the "native" resolution of an LCD monitor. The native resolution represents the actual number of pixels present on the panel. On an LCD panel with a native resolution of 1280x1024, there are 1310720 actual pixels. You can select a resolution lower than the native resolution, but you're not giving the monitor a complete picture. It literally has to fill in the gaps by guessing what should be there. Example: You have a panel with a native resolution of 1280x1024, but you're running it at a resolution of 1024x768. Your monitor is only receiving information for 786432 pixels, but must display 1310720 pixels. Your monitor is using an algorithm to fill in the remaining 524288 pixels based on what you've given it to work with. Sometimes it works out ok. Sometimes it fails miserably. This is why things don't look as good when you run an LCD below it's native resolution. Tends to look blurry, things aren't "crisp," etc.