SwingKid

A puzzler indeed... It's almost as if the "proof" isn't talking about shooting down missiles at all... -SK

"minutes," i.e. 1/60 degrees -SK

Page 17, second column, second paragraph. -SK

Note that the ability to shoot using optical guidance instead of radar is what they chose to name, "defense against Shrike and Standard ARM". -SK

That's not a link. http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=134143&postcount=124 That's a link. Hmm, handsome fellow... I wonder if he read the article. -SK

Link? -SK

Sorry Olgred........ (thanks for the correction subs..) RRRGH!!! Must... not... tell... joke!!! -SK

Is there a Dog Ear radar somewhere in the Strela group, to improve its reaction time? -SK

Sorry Erdem - it was surely my mistake. Despite my sarcastic comments, I'm not opposed to the idea, but I understand ED hesitation about it. If you're not afraid of disagreeing result (like my own always end up with), maybe you'd like to start a poll? :) -SK

Outstanding! Bravo! Music to my ears - as if it was Mozart's own birthday! :) Can you help me to convince these fellows, to model Georgian vehicles for Su-25T/Ka-50 to encounter? http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=156316&postcount=50 Or, ED has already own plans, for T-72/T-55/UH-1/Mi-24/Su-17/missile boat/Stinger? So many great new mission ideas!! Really wonderful news, many thanks. :) :) :) -SK

Именно так. Я спорю этим мнении: http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=149632&postcount=10 и соглашаюсь этим: http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=117384&postcount=21 У нас уже есть пример танков и российских (Т-80У), и украинских (Т-80У), и американских (M1), и турских (M60, M48), и немецких (Leopard 2), а от грузинских и сирийских нет. Создание моделя Т-72Б не может этой ситуации помогать, но создание моделя Т-72М может. Вот, по-моему, цели для россиского Су-25Т и Ка-50. -SK

Т-80У против M1 - M1 выиграет, потому-что дальше ночью видит, и бистрее поворачивает башенку. Т-80У ночью видит так далеко, как и грузинский Т-72А, не? Потому, нам наиболее нужних грузинских танков, чтобы быть конкуренция, не только разрушение. По-моему. ;) -SK

Umm... WHAT? :icon_eek: :icon_pray That's AMAZING! How useful would THAT be, when writing the Lock On manual?! We could tell people exactly what are the best turn rates, climb speeds... And not just pulling numbers from websites about the real jets, but actually useful information about how to fly the plane in the sim! How long have you been using that little gem? :) -SK

А нам в симе не надо более грузинских танков? Что будут российские Т-80У и Т-72Б стрелять - M1? Не надо который рас и россиями выграть? ;) -SK

Ok you showed me, that was pretty impressive by any standard, nicely done! All the AI however are of "Random" skill, and this appears to make a difference, since some of the AI are foolishly trying to climb away from the missiles (thus critically slowing down), instead of correctly dive and beam. Beaming and pulling up seems to also require being at supersonic speed to make it work. After the initial encounter, most of the AI are also shooting downwards, while the player is then shooting upwards - good offensive tactics by the player, but debatable whether it could be called "equal starting point" for evaluating AI missile evasion. Even so, the AI manages to evade every third missile (in the "Joust" trk). So, while dazzling fun to watch, I'm not sure what concrete tips it's pointing out to future AIs, besides "ask D-Scythe to make you Excellent". ;) Does an AIM-120 Pk against Random AI of ~70% seem unreasonably high? Thanks! -SK

2 ijozic, I understand and actually rather agree, I was only kidding around. In fact we might agree about everything except Georgia. After all the history with Abkhazia, Chechnya, Caspian Sea oil, etc.. I thought this was the most obvious location in the world for a story about conflict between US and Russian interests. In my mind, Crimea is already occupied by Russian ships, SAMs, aircraft and troops, and thus unsuitable for basing NATO forces. Svaki svojemu. ;) 2 MBot, As soon as I'm ruling the world, you can be second in command. I really think you wrote that better than I could have myself! What a resonance, to be so well understood... :) As a campaign-maker, I'm concerned about airbases being too close together too, but I think this may not be so bad as it seems. The 130 km between the military bases at Paphos and Lefkoniko compares well IMO to the 120 km of coastline separating the civil airports we have now at Sochi and Sukhumi, that are still fairly popular with mission designers (e.g. "Black Sea Operations" is set in this part of the theater). I was surprised that when I tried starting users off from Lock On airbases that were farther apart in my "SkyWars" dynamic campaign project, I received user complaints that the player's flight times were too long. It may be that unless there's some aerial refueling to do enroute, 5-10 minutes from the action is where users would like to start. The main question, I think, is to be able to land and take-off outside of the enemy's missile threat radius, and I think this is addressed pretty well in Cyprus. Mount Olympus's position between the enemy bases provides better radar masking than in Lock On, where the airports are on the same side of the Caucasus range, and the long range S-300 wasn't deployed on the island. That's not to say the size of Cyprus is ideal, but if the island terrain were finished and developer resources are left over for a larger theater before release, then it's possible to correct over-conservative planning by expanding north to include a Turkish mainland base, or way out west over the sea to include a Greek one on Crete, and nothing else in the game design (e.g. OOB, 3D unit models, storyline, etc.) needs to suffer. On the contrary, if a larger theater is planned for from the beginning, but it turns out to be too much work so that time and money run out, then we'd be in a worse position. When Lock On's map was finally released in its (IMHO) non-ideal state, many missions and campaigns had to be discarded and done over as a rush job at the last minute before release, because targets and features that the mission builders were expecting on the map never made it. Better a smaller theater that's over-completed than a larger one that's under-done... The former can be solved by future add-ons, the latter might retain its deficiencies for as long as Lock On's map has retained its own. Anyway it really is just my opinion, don't fear from my "tester team" tag that it represents ED's. But with others (and often myself) often pulling for more avionics, more flyables, more terrain, etc. I feel there's a place for an organized "less, but better" lobby in the other direction, for the precise reasons you've insightfully pointed out, and the Cyprus theater crystallizes that philosophy for me in many ways. I began this poll to see if there was room for a compromise with those who would add a flyable helicopter, to solve a jet sim's problems - "ok, let's consider a flyable MiG too, but can it at least be a really easy one to develop?" but judging from the poll, that seems to have flown about as far as a dead hippo. So, two can play at that game, I'm taking an equal and opposite stand - with a theater and game concept of NO compromise, no MiG at all! Cyprus: less is more. -SK

For anyone who answered "yes": Show us how. Let's see a trk of YOU evading a launched missile, from an equal starting point, "better" than an Excellent AI. -SK

Ah yes, the Lock On plan of quality terrain development: -SK

Yes, that was the reason given, there's still "hope" for some kind of Ka-product in Turkish army. ;) Unfortunately the message is lost somewhere in the Russian forum, and now I can't find it, sorry. -SK

Agreed on all points, especially the politics-driven, "curse of Russian flyables" - can't make it with them, can't make it without them. :( In this regard, though: "7/17 A report in Russia's Ruskiy Telegraf states that Russia has decided to transport the S-300PMU-1 system to Cyprus escorted by a Russian navy fleet sailing from the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Gibraltar en route to exercises in the Indian Ocean. The missile frigate Peter the Great and aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov will form part of the fleet, which is scheduled to remain in Cyprus temporarily to perform protective duties while the S-300PMU-1 system is deployed." http://cns.miis.edu/research/cyprus/chr98.htm Cyprus also employs T-80s, BMPs and Hind helicopters. Note that ED recently announced plans to include Ka-50 as a flyable "Turkish" aircraft in v1.2. I guess that's to go with that other iconic representative of NATO airpower, MiG-29, flying now from the vast array of NATO airbases in... Russia..? Sorry, until I have an F-15E thrown at me, I have NO worries about ED needing my help with Russian hardware anywhere. In this regard of imagination, I bow to their superior abilities. "Who could have predicted Russia buying F-16s?" ;) -SK

To be clear, I never discussed the Cyprus idea with ED, it's just my own opinion. Like the first post says, this poll (and other topics) is just to help me formulate for myself, where everybody stands, so I can say "I told you so" later when nobody listened to me. ;) -SK

Compared to what? Abkhazia, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights are all about the same size, or smaller. I myself once asked, "how hard could it be, to relocate the Razdolnoye airbase to Merzifon?" Someone from ED told me that it could not be done. So, I went and did it myself. This would suggest that as far as map-building goes, even things that are possible for you and me, are not possible for ED. Because of the time constraints they work under and I don't, I really believe that. The team is capable of many things, but I truly believe I could build a better assortment of airbases and map objects myself, than what is currently available in Lock On's Caucasus. So, for any future theater, I think ED should stick to the minimum possible area, required to support the campaign. Of course I'd like to see as much terrain as possible too, but Israeli territory is IMO simply not a requirement (for a Cyprus campaign). It can be added in a later module, together with an Israeli campaign that adds an Israeli flyable, AI and ground vehicles. Any attempt to sell two campaigns for the price of one, when you could have sold them as separate modules, is IMHO flushing income down the toilet, and doing more work at a slower rate for free. The programmers at ED will all quit for more profitable jobs, and we'll be left with nothing. I think we come to opposite conclusions for similar reasons. I agree that Cyprus is small and less popular. That's why I want to do it as the first module. User who are flying the F-16 in a Cyprus game will happily buy an Israel add-on. User flying the F-16 in an Israel game will NOT buy a Cyprus add-on. That's the whole point, to make people hunger for the add-ons. ;) There would be no MiGs in the Cyprus campaign. That's the other whole point of the Cyprus campaign - it can be played from both sides with the same jet, F-16. It allows all coding resources to be focused on one subject per development stage, and the maximum amount of money to be extracted from users for each new flyable aircraft. I agree that Cyprus is more "boring" than other parts of Middle East, I just think we need to swallow this pill first, and early, to make things better later. Otherwise I predict that the "future sim" is doomed to resemble Lock On, just like Lock On resembled Flanker 2.0 - too much attempted, too little achieved. Just my opinion, -SK

YES -SK

What do you need Israel for in a Cyprus campaign? Save Israel for its own add-on and make it properly, IMHO. As the limiting step in ED's sim development, map-building is a zero-sum game. The more you add area, the more you lose quality. Just compare Sevastopol to Sukhumi for proof. -SK

I don't know how "decided", but it was mentioned in the Russian forum that this was a favored possibility. You mean that entire map, from initial release? Hmm, maybe you weren't here earlier for the discussion: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6290 It was pointed out that map development is by far the slowest process at ED, so the less terrain at a time, the better, IMHO. Break it up into small, manageable chunks, of which Cyprus is IMHO the best small chunk to start with. Otherwise both the terrain remains unfinished, and the sim is delayed and released with fewer missions. If they could, why didn't they? Do you think the current Lock On map is well-arranged? We need to find something smaller than that, then we know it can be done. -SK