SwingKid

IIRC, Steel Beasts Pro PE has a post-battle analysis feature that lets you see what hit you, exactly where on your tank, at what angle, speed and with how much penetration, how much armor you had in that spot, and what part of your vehicle was behind that penetration spot, that is now damaged or destroyed. All the armor and warhead values are researched and debated in depth by the community at http://www.tank-net.org , if you think something shouldn't have been able to hit you, that's where to go to complain. ;) -SK

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=14112 -SK

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to change the topic. GG was correct, I was being "snide" to express doubts about IFF capability in an ECM environment, and it turned out in very poor taste. Not good style. My apologies, especially to Rhen. Someone should decrease my rep for this.. -SK

I wish that Lock On will one day be like that. Imagine enemy aircraft not being able to see through clouds, or being able to lock Maverick targets at different ranges depending on the wether, time of day, and their size. Then the Lock On graphics would be functional, instead of cosmetic. That's Steel Beasts. The tactics you use in Steel Beasts are designed to reproduce the tactics of real tankers. The weapon and system capabilities are designed to support those tactics, and end up being more realistic as a result. In Lock On, it's more about getting the performance numbers as close as possible, and letting the sim's own tactics evolve from what the planes and weapons are capable of in the sim - i.e. function follows form. Not bad, but a slightly less reliable way to achieve tactical accuracy, IMHO, since tactical accuracy is then somewhat expected to appear naturally instead of by design. Did I mention that Steel Beasts is PERFECT?! :) -SK

Oh D-Scythe.. Do you not know about Steel Beasts? Start with the sound. It's perfect. You can almost smell the tank around you. Crewmates shouting, turret hatch slamming, lead-computing sights clanking, diesels running... The whole sim is just, perfect. It represents all that is good and bright, hoped-for and fun in simming, against the forces of darkness, boredom, begging, waiting, dropped features and time & budget constraints. Look at the tank wheels in the FLIR scope. Perfect. -SK

More bunnies? :) -SK

I have found my people. :) Rep all around. Hey Bublik, what version of C++ is that? I still use v6.0. Are you the same young man who took Lock On 1.0 photos of Su-27 at a northern base? Do you know what "Bublik" sounds like it means in English? -SK

Well, the real F-15C can accelerate straight up like a rocket with full internal fuel load, the one in Lock On cannot... That much at least should be easy to confirm, no? -SK

Ok fair enough, let's discuss the physics then. IFF frequency is about 1 GHz, radar frequency is about 10 GHz. For the same antenna size, therefore, IFF has about 1/10 the angular resolution of the radar beam. So, if the friendly and enemy aircraft are close enough together, and there are ECM signals mixed together with IFF signals, then the IFF interrogator can't physically resolve them as separate, up to about 1/10th the distance that the radar can resolve them as separate. So, how does the IFF interrogator filter out one, but not the other? (i.e. determine which target the ECMs and IFF replies are coming from) -SK

This from the same guys who shot down two Blackhawks? -SK

bflagg?!?!? Who gave HIM rep?!? :p -SK

My opinion: We need to know what kind of a rig "Beef" was playing on. Most of you guys are probably hooked up with HOTAS, TrackIR, rudder pedals and heaven only knows what else. If I'm going to test the waters in a new flight sim, I'm going to want to learn a little more about it before I invest in that kind of gear. I'll try it out with an analog joystick and that's it, and then if I like it, maybe consider something more after I get deep into it. But I have to get deep into it first. Lock On is a sim for people who are already committed simmers. Falcon 3.0, IMHO, is the kind of sim that gets people to become committed simmers. (Maybe substitute with "Ace Combat" for "Beef") Everything on the HUD and RWR - I can read it clearly without zooming, even without TrackIR. Want to look past the restricted monitor screen for bandits? Magic one-key padlock, no fumbling around. Tired of building new missions? The dynamic campaign will assign you one in seconds. I spent my time flying combat in Falcon 3.0, not doing this: I mean, we'll get there.. Eventually... But for now - what's to disagree? ;) -SK

Согласен, но - насколько я знаю, Израиль получил только MIM-72E? http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/USAid.htm -SK

AFAIK the dongle is not publisher-specific, it's just a data storage device that can contain multiple decryption keys. The one Steel Beasts uses is called "CodeMeter" by Wibu: http://wibu.com/start.php?lang=en -SK

GK: А баки топливо можно броситись перед боевых действиях? -SK

From curiosity: Why would the same missiles be useful on an F-16, but "almost useless" on Chaparral? -SK

Челавек в страны, где пользуется Чапаррал. Респекта нет: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=177162#post177162 -SK

One viable alternative might be to use a hardware dongle, like Steel Beasts uses. The problem with this approach is that the dongle costs (I was told) about $40 US, on top of the price of the game. However once you've bought it, you can download and store decryption codes from multiple games (e.g. Steel Beasts) into the same dongle. An interesting poll might ask how many users would prefer to pay a one-time $40 extra for a "StarForce-free" version of the software, that comes with a hardware dongle instead. versus buying the "StarForce version" and saving $40. -SK

Не согласен - Чапарраль пользовал модификацию "AIM-9P" - т.е. только в заднем полусфере, после того, что цель его уже бомбардировал. ;) А без двух-диапазонный ГСН Стингера - всегда летал за ловушек. Сам танк лучше стреляет вертолёта! http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15003 -SK

I don't know about the issues you're talking about, but I have confirmation from StarForce that their latest version will not run on Windows 98 or ME, while I also know that except for StarForce, Lock On does. So - StarForce boycotts ME!! not the other way around. ;) :confused: Tragic, because other than that, the rest of BS is starting to really impress me. :( -SK

2 GK: репутация. :icon_supe :icon_pray :icon_pidu Про "Chaparral": "Based on a December 1994 decision, Chaparral is being deactivated and removed from the US Army National Guard inventory. This action was completed by the end of FY 1997." http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/chaparral.htm польностью изменен с "Avenger": http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/avenger.htm Про Израил: В Кавказе?! Я думал что, Израиль только интересует за его F-15, как совершенным балансированным противником F-15 США для мульти-плейер. Но если интересуют даже и другие техники этой страны, не забудьте пожал. F-15E! http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/109/documentid/247/history/3,2359,947,653,109,247 http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-15i/F-15I.html ;) -SK

Интересно, зачем особенно такой ЗРК интересует, что в США уже нет? -SK

If you Google "aerodynamic drag", the first link gives you this equation: "Aerodynamic drag = 1/2 D x A x Vsquared In this equation, D is the density of the air, A is the frontal area of the moving shape, and V is its velocity relative to the air." http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/tech102drag.htm So, the drag force on the aircraft is proportional to the square of the aircraft's velocity. i.e. the faster it goes - the more the airbrakes will slow it down. The slower it goes, the less effect will the airbrakes have. Where does the "capacity" arrive in the equation? :confused: -SK

Source? -SK

I don't think that's very clear at all. Why 700 km/h? What happens above 700 km/h? The aircraft accelerates? That doesn't make any sense, since the air brakes are more effective at higher speeds, than at lower speeds. So, why mention 700 km/h at all? Also - 700 km/h, at what altitude? Is it 700 km/h airspeed or ground speed? Are the flaps lowered? What is the weight of the aircraft? Why does it say that "it does not accelerate", rather than saying clearly that it should slow down? I'm not saying that the airbrake in Lock On is correct, but there were some cases where the AFM programmer had more precise information, than we were able to provide from such books. -SK