SwingKid

Why much lesser speeds? I think you understood the book wrongly. In such aircraft specifications, "speeds less than 700 km/h" = "speeds 698 km/h and higher". e.g. the technical requirement was that the brakes must work as slow as 700 km/h, and the engineers say, "ok, we satisfied this minimum requirement, and then some extra - the brakes will work, even if the speed is 698 km/h!" It doesn't mean that the brakes will now work at ALL airspeeds lower than 700 km/h! On the contrary, brakes are more effective at higher speeds. That's why the technical requirements are only concerned about the performance at the slow end of the scale, which in this case is not higher than 700 km/h. At slower speeds, the brakes will be less effective. -SK

One Russian MiG-29 manual warns that the fighter's radar may interfere with the RWR, but actual MiG-29 pilots insist that this was written from exaggerrated paranoia of the designer, and is actually never a problem in practice. The pilots do say that the fighter's onboard active ECM interferes with the RWR in the forward hemisphere, however, so for this reason the ECM can be restricted for use in the fighter's rear hemisphere only. Plenty of room there for an honest translation mix-up there, somewhere along the line.. -SK

"Rpi" = Range, Probable Intercept. Rpi assumes a non-maneuvering target. "Rtr" = Range, Turn-and-Run target Rtr is the one that includes consideration of target maneuvers. It assumes a "worst-case" of the target turning and running away immediately after missile launch. -SK

Unless it's Falcon AF.. Doo-ho-ho-ho! ;) -SK

Define "inpatient." How many years of waiting, and seeing other*, (IMHO) less-critically-required 3D models worked on instead, would you call, "patient?" *not speaking here of Linebacker -SK

My sand-box needs some hens! -SK

In case someone is interested to practice on a model, that doesn't demand exact precision in measurements - ED has requested models of churches. Here's a nice Novy Afon monastery waiting to be made: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=176436#post176436 ;) Even easier, BMEWS radar at Sevastopol: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/sevastopol.htm -SK

К сожалению, не художник. :( Только предлагатель. -SK

Мой любимый ;) http://www.apsny.ru/photogal/photogal.php?page=content/newaphon/newaphon.htm -SK

Me too. After my last big attempt at making missions by hand, I thought, "Never again!" Can I interest you in a DC? :) -SK

GOYA has sent me one to look at, but it looks like it was just from a furball, I can't tell - when it records that a building was destroyed, does it record which building? It apparently doesn't say whether it was a mission goal. Do you have an mp_log from an a2g mission? -SK

Past experience is a useful guide, but sometimes ED's beta testers try to drop you guys hints without violating their NDAs, that nobody seems to pick up on. Do you really think that BSO would be cancelled, if the BSO testers didn't see any changes in v1.2? The question is, whether the changes are for better, or worse... Count how many non-beta-testers who didn't yet see v1.2 are here, asking for changes, and how many beta testers who did see it (e.g. me, BSO team) are screaming about cancelled projects. ;) :( Trust who you will... Do you remember those guys before Lock On's release, who were screaming that "Russian avionics must be upgraded to Western aircraft avionics standards", before they saw what the standard of the Western avionics was? And today, we have an "F-15 avionics wishlist" Who was correct? Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it... ;) -SK

I'm programming a dynamic campaign for Lock On: Only, it doesn't work very well right now, because Lock On doesn't save mission debriefings. :( So, I think a dynamic campaign would be very easy to have, at least from ED's point of view: they don't even have to program it! All they need to do is copy the code for saving .cmp file debriefings (that already exists) to also record .mis file debriefings. I think it's not much more difficult to transfer this Lock On code, than to draw static objects in the mission editor with Flanker code. The nice thing about a dynamic campaign is that it can run separately from Lock On, so - I can make it. The refuel basket, nobody can do it except ED. I don't think the other issues are more simple to fix, I think the mission debriefing save is both the simplest and the most important, and yes I'm very sure that I'll make a dynamic campaign if they do it. Well, I can make a dynamic campaign, but I don't know how to do what you're asking, so I think the dynamic campaign is easier at least for me. -SK

No, that's not my issue, criticism is okay with me, I do it all the time. ;) My problem is one of democracy and triage. i.e., what we have in this discussion is a family of twelve coming into the hospital all screaming to have the doctor immediately see their little girl who has a boo-boo on her finger, while a dying patient is lying outside and can't get in the doors because of the crowd. The family doesn't care that the other patient is dying and needs to see the doctor first, because that patient isn't their own little girl. Without saved debriefings, any DC project is dead. D-E-A-D. Never never never never never never never never never never. Meanwhile, most of the other suggestions are just demanding more accessibility to things we already have. Call it ego or whatever you want, I feel duty-bound to defend the dynamic campaign against those who would see it dead, by intention or by accident. -SK

What do you mean? Can you post an example mp_log for us? What's wrong with it? Does it require using .lua scripts? IMHO no, I can write my own automatic mission generator. What I'm powerless to do, without ED's help, is to extract debriefing results. Hmm, did you notice something wrong with the map display in ME? I don't think the "Scenes" setting would have any effect on positioning of static objects... only fixed map buildings and trees. -SK

Lixma: :D Thomas, MBot: I can set up a random start time with third-party LMR. I cannot save the debriefing result of a mission. Without this, no third-party DC can exist. Can we agree on the above? -SK

Guys, A flight simulator is a very complex project. The only way to complete it is to divide it up into separate tasks for separate people. If you haven't seen any changes to the mission editor since 2003, then it's a good bet that the programmer who created the mission editor left the company around 2003. No amount of crying can bring him back. There is the possibility of getting someone else at ED, or someone entirely new, to pick up his work where it left off, but this has its own problems. Anyone with Falcon 4 AF experience knows that when you are modifying someone else's code, there are big limits to what you can and cannot do. It's an inefficient process because first you have to spend time to learn how that code works, before you can actually start to change it. This is less efficient than, say, spending your time creating your own all-new flyable helicopter with its own independent code. Another problem is the possibility that while trying to improve one part of the old code, you'll somehow break another part. We saw this when some Flanker 1.5 features were absent from Flanker 2.0, and again when some Flanker 2.0 features were missing from Lock On. If you're going to take the risk of making changes and breaking working functions that somebody else wrote who is not there to fix, then you had better be sure it's worth the effort and risk. Now, seriously. Does anyone here believe that if static objects are visible in the Mission Editor, then suddenly we will be able to make any mission, that we weren't able to make before? Nonsense. You guys just like making pretty arrangements of static objects, that's all. It's about making screenshots, not about making missions. IMHO, the BSO fiasco is further proof that making missions by hand is a dead end anyway. Where is T-Bone in this discussion? Is he complaining about static objects? No. Why not ask him what the real obstacle was, interfering with his mission completion, before distracting ED from their work? He already told us: "changes" And here you all are, asking for more changes. I agree that there are problems with the Mission Editor that need to be discussed and addressed, but I don't agree that this discussion is helping. It seems to be creating even more noise, heat and confusion about what needs to be done, in which real needs will get drowned out. Separate your "wishes" from your "needs", and it will be more worth ED's time to respond. -SK

I don't understand, I observe the opposite. I can create that position in the ME, but I can't get any human players to fly it. -SK

Hmm, how do you do that? If I assign "Client" skill to the lead of flight #2 within a group, that aircraft isn't listed from the aircraft-selection screen when players are choosing their aircraft. Create the group and assign all their vehicle types before moving any of them into their individual positions. Then password-lock the mission after positioning. -SK

The debriefings could also be saved in Flanker 2, so I'm not sure what this comment adds. Who is asking for a drastic change or new implementation? I agree with your suggestion, I just think we can do a better job of prioritizing it in queue, considering other Mission Editor problems that do not yet have work-arounds. -SK

Well, one thing you might see is all BSO mission work getting canned... :icon_roll -SK

The ME issues in this discussion are mere annoyances. They all have work-arounds, however inconvenient they may be. I wish it was all like that. Try developing a dynamic campaign, when the debriefing results can't be saved. Or, viewing the mission goals before the start of a multi-player mission. Or, choosing to fly the client-skill lead jet from flight #2 of a group. Or, telling from the mission debriefing, whether you destroyed a runway or not. All - impossible. Explore a little further, beyond the first annoyance you find! There are bigger problems here. -SK

например: Пойск по автору "SwingKid", во форуме "LockOn Ru", ни по слова "interesting" ни по "analogy" не найдет это сообшение: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=164452#post164452 -SK

Aren't you part of both groups? You're Glowing_AMRAAM, you're part of everything! ;) ..which reminds me, what's the difference between "ED Partner" and "Tester"? Can I complain to you about bugs? -SK

Well, that was helpful. (Anybody seen a little smiley holding up a board that says "NOT"?) ;) -SK