SwingKid

I mean about dropping their tails... never seen an iguana do that. That's a huge, muscly tail! Very cool animals, though. -SK

Are you sure you're not confusing iguanas with geckos? -SK

beta7 of the v1.11 patch appears to have fixed the distance-to-next-waypoint bug in the HUD block, at least. Thanks to all who helped. -SK

Don't believe everything you read. Their A-10 manual is also advertised "includes the full performance section". I bought it and there was no such section. I e-mailed them and got the reply, "you're right! Sorry, we'll send that out to you." I never received anything after that, or any more e-mail replies, despite e-mailing them over and over to remind them. In addition, their manuals are very old, there are much newer manual versions out there for many of the same jets, just harder to find. -SK

What JonTex is trying to say is... What IS JonTex trying to say? Anyway back to Mizzy's idea, I'm not an ED programmer but I've studied the terrain engine, and I don't think it would be very easy to adapt to another sim - it hasn't even been easy for ED themselves to create new theaters with it, so we've been sort of stuck flying around mostly the same old Crimean airbases for the past six years. The level of detail is nice but it comes at a cost of massive development time, this would surely give Maddox a reason to think twice and maybe prefer a terrain engine that can be finished more quickly. -SK

I don't need SDK. Please make the mission debriefing results save to the file. -SK

That's a little ironic don't you think - directly quoting the answer I gave, only to then complain that there wasn't an answer? Since my name was mentioned I'll clarify with an example: US aircraft in Lock On currently have two triggers - one for guns, one for missiles. Russian aircraft in Lock On only have one. Of course, anyone who knows Russian fighters can tell you that in the real world, the MiG-29 and Su-27 also have two triggers, one for missiles, one for guns. So why isn't it that way in the sim? Because whoever in the general forums originally requested this feature for US aircraft, neglected to care that Russian aircraft should have it too. The responsibility for why Russian ECCM is one way and US the other lies in a similar place. My answer to your colleague was not intended to encourage ED to continue to model things in an imaginary manner according to popular demand, but rather quite the contrary - to point out the undesirable results that happen when they do. For every user who wants a feature to be "imagined" one way, there is another who would "imagine" it another. The only thing anyone can agree on is realism. As concerns modelling the Tomcat - do you really think somebody requested the Su-25T as their first choice? Or the Ka-50? Who are you trying to over-rule? Everybody would rather have the Tomcat, even ED. You're preaching to the choir. -SK

According to my rough calculation, for this case that you describe, the jammer should be within 4 km. Note however that the 1 kW in the problem is typical for a standoff jammer. -SK

-SK

By this logic, a cloud of chaff illuminated by your wingman should show up on your RWR? I don't think this happens in real life - the receiver directivity of an RWR is far lower than that of a radar antenna. RWR should pick up high-powered transmitters only, DECM is low-power. -SK

No offense, but the subject you are asking about was already discussed in great detail in the very same UbiSoft discussion to which you provided a link. The only new information you presented in your first post to justify further question or discussion is Raptorman's article. That is, "F4 models it this way, therefore F4 is correct." This is a circular argument that totally ignores all of the real-world research that went into the discussion to which you provided a link, and replaced it with F4 research in the article by Raptorman. I don't see why I or anyone else should repeat themselves to convince you. The knowledge presented in the discussion that you linked is not based on F4 or Lock On but rather on real documentation, including the recently declassified Russian Gardeniya jammer manual. If you believe Raptorman more than those sources, then you should direct your question to Raptorman, regarding whether he did any research on real-world ECM and ECCM at all, or if rather his article is confined strictly on how to play F4 according to its own rules. As a counter-example, I also recently posted a question in an F4 forum, asking for an explanation of one of its "as realistic as in real world as possible" features: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=94591 As you can see, there were no replies. The truth is that even F4AF is no better than Lock On in the radar realism department, and is in many ways worse. F4 just has a larger community of enthusiasts who "want to believe," that's all. As for discussing accurate ECCM without having an accurate ECM model to react to - that just doesn't make any reasonable sense to me at all. -SK

Raptorman's article applies only to avionics in F4, not the real world. Falcon's ECM model is equally as comical as Lock On's - or any other sim that models "burn-through". ;) -SK

"Will the Russian avionics be upgraded to the same standard as the Western planes?" :rolleyes: -SK

Сравните ли Раздольное против Кировское? -SK

Fighter jets are not homing devices and so they don't perform "HOJ". Fighter radars can perform angle-on-jam (AOJ) tracking or "Sniff" mode. The "HOJ" cue on the HUD refers to the firing mode of the weapon - a non-lofted, pure-PN flight profile with target range unknown. The problem in Lock On is not the ECCM but rather the ECM. Accurate ECCM against deception jammers is a moot point because there is no deception jamming ECM behaviour modeled in the game, only simple noise jammers. A noise jamming target cannot detect an enemy lock regardless it is active or passive, because it is never "listening" - the lock is drowned out by the ECM's own noise. So, the accuracy of one way or the other of modelling how the ECCM should behave aginst such imaginary ECM equipment is up to the imagination and people's preferences. When it is impossible to model something accurately, such changes are made in response to reasonable requests from the user community. If those requests were not expressed here, then they may have been made in the Russian forum. AFAIK the ECM model is not changed. It continues to be an imaginary noise jammer with burn-through susceptibility, just as before. I'm not sure what you mean by "why not" - is it not already this way? -SK

Self-protection ECM systems don't transmit unless they have been illuminated by radar, and detected that illumination. Thus contrary to popular belief, "Sniff" and HOJ are not purely passive modes and can be detected by ESM. The reason for the change is not towards realism but rather towards playability, since the ECCM must be modelled in accordance with the existing model of ECM in the game - which in Lock On is considered to be an abstraction. -SK

The SA-6 in the first post looks like an SA-11. I hear you. I wanted to make "the web page to end all web pages" about my own flight too, and then discovered (a) that being a good writer actually takes a lot of skill, that (b) I don't seem to have... :) Concur. How was the rearward view from the mirrors? For my flight, they were folded away, and I was too chicken to move them for fear of breaking something else, after they told me "don't touch anything!" I never got to experience this, nor going supersonic. Details welcome. Was the dominant sound still the cabin air pressure system? Did you hear the engines through the aircraft body at all? What I would have given for a 30sec breather! My instructor and I could only communicate with "I'm fine give me more!" or "Sick! stop please, back to base" - we didn't agree on how to communicate the need for a breather with the translator on the ground before the flight. I was in very rough shape by the end as a result. Did you have an oxygen mask on? Where did the "water" go? :) Did you actually notice this working? I didn't at all, but they insisted on the ground afterwards that it must have been. I noticed a powerful discomfort threshold at 2-2.5 Gs, after which it didn't make much difference any further all the way up to 4.5. The oxygen mask gave me the most grief, closely followed by equilibrium. It also seemed to me that I could move my head to look around at 4.5 Gs without any problem - my G-related issues seemed restricted to arms, legs and stomach, and were actually pretty fun to experience. Like being weightless in space, in reverse. Did you try moving your head at 5.5G? Did the plane vibrate past around 3 G? Looks like an unusual equipment fit, non-standard for a MiG-29UB. I had a HUD repeater (that seemed quite laggy) but wasn't allowed to take my camera into the air, and despite earlier promises, it didn't look like the RWR was turned on. Did you have an RWR? Did you monitor the fuel load? How long was the flight? I'm interested how much time you spent in afterburner, and how much fuel it consumed. My flight was about 30 minutes and burned most of the fuel load without any AB. Lucky you.. :) Did you perform a vertical loop? -SK

What variant of MiG-29? Is that an MFD just visible in the upper right? -SK

This was your FIRST POST?!? Speechless... -SK

The horizon line in Lock On is often an illusion. Lock On can only draw the terrain to a limited distance. Beyond this distance, the drawn earth will resemble the white haze of the sky, so that it blends smoothly. So, the true horizon is at the transition between "white" and "blue", not between "green" and "white". If the flight path marker is in the "white haze" area when the aircraft is flying at high altitude, then it appears as if the flight path marker is above the horizon, but in fact - it is below the horizon. -SK

I remember that after initial release of Lock On, many Windows 98/ME customers were angry that the program would not run on their system as advertised. An ED programmer once said that the problem was hitting an unexpected software "memory limit," how much could be loaded into Win98/ME as a maximum. Maybe this is how the problem was fixed, by maxing out the memory use to 512 MB? -SK

I still remeber the days before Lock On F-15C development even started, let alone released... and they were already demanding that Russian aircraft avionics be "upgraded" to the same standard... :rolleyes: -SK

Probably one of the upgraded aircraft with new RWR. I guess this should be the first mission for the new Russian Super Scorpios? -SK

Mach 0.8 @ 40,000' gives optimal ~0.5 km/kg fuel for MiG-29. AFAIK there is no "ground effect" in Lock On. :( -SK

Турецкая база "Мерзифон" уже давно сделана как модификация для "LoMan 2.1", даже и с объектами. Посмотрите сообщ. #10 в овой теми, и ссылку: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7097 А эта база и есть в новой версии, я не понимаю зачем вам не получилос. Вы переместили всё оригинальных файли из-за их оригинальных фольдеры? -SK