Jump to content

EvilBivol-1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6499

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by EvilBivol-1

    Schlem IRL

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    You have to keep it over the target for as long as it takes the computer to attain a lock while you hold down the LOCK button on the throttle, which may be some seconds. Once a system/missile lock is achieved, you are good to fire and enjoy the scenery.

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    or only the server can see the basket and the rest of pilots don´t...

    Last time I tried it, the clients could see it, they just had to get real close first.

     

    Ardillita, I'm sorry, but I've spent more time than I should've in this discussion as it is. In whatever small way I represent ED as a tester, I'm sorry you feel you were unsupported in your purchase and I hope next time works out better for you.

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    So what are they then? Features?

    As far as online refueling... yes. It is a feature that, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be in the game at all. But they must've felt that its a worthwhile thing to do even if it has problems because we might enjoy it... what a mistake that was, huh?

     

    If you disagree, call them technological limitations. Design flaws. Poorly implemented design concepts.

     

    Not bugs.

     

    P.S. I'm not defending Lock On. That is a separate conversation. I'm well aware of its substantial flaws and various bugs. I am defending the developers against what I feel are unfounded or undeserved accusations. Even if they would like to, they do not choose which planes to model based on national bias or personal preference (that is a privilege only we - the consumers - can afford). They *actively* participate in the forums, both providing and receiving information. Much of their work is based on user input.

     

    Obviously, that doesn't mean they work for us. While our *collective* contribution to their work is considerable, it isn't defining. You'd be disillusioned to think otherwise.

    New vid from Tigrou

    in Screenshots and Videos

    Posted

    Haha! That was top notch entertainment... I'm still grinning! :D

     

    The day I can fly like that guy, I will retire from flight simming due to over-confidence.

     

    The day I can make movies like that guy... I will ask for a contract with Eagle Dynamics!

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    To echo GG, even though I agreed earlier that Lock On is 'dead', I think "evolving" is a better name for it. AFAIK, Lock On's code may live on in one form or another for quite some time. But it will be gradually "phased out" as replacement code is developed. This process has already started with FC's AFM, expanded in Black Shark, and will continue growing thereafter.

     

    Cobra360, for what we know, the F-15 is just as much a part or EDs future plans as any other aircraft, except the F-16 and (*maybe*) an advanced MiG-29, which have been mentioned numerous times as the more likely candidates for the next project.

     

    "no promises".

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    GOYA,

     

    "OUR" means our collective hobby of flight simming. Your contribution to it, as well as your voice in it, is no smaller or greater than the next guy's. I'm sorry that you can't see past your subjective desires in deciding what is, in your view, good decision-making for the company, which, in turn, would ensure your future enjoyment of their products.

     

    My personal conclusion:

    Having flown with the Virtual Blue Angels, spent countless hours in multiplayer coop and head to head missions, designed some of my own missions and subsequently flown them in both singleplayer and multiplayer, Lock On has provided me with 3 years of supreme entertainment and, in at least certain limited respects, some insight into that fantastic world of Cold War jet fighter combat. I would be ashamed to throw accusations at the Devs (or even the publishers for that matter, without whom we might not have had a Lock On in the first place), who, despite the community’s continual inability to understand or accept the realities of flight sim development, continue to find new ways to keep serving OUR need for more fun, more realism, and more flyable aircraft - all, mind you, practically mutually-exclusive goals. More power to them in whatever route they feel is best suited for it.

     

    P.S. My flight time in LO is fairly evenly distributed between all of the flyables (except the vanilla Su-25). I would love to see any and all of them improved. But I understand that from a developer's point of view, it makes more sense to invest in your future, than in your past. IMHO, any accusations of 'failure to deliver', 'lack of support', 'not listening', are plainly untrue and are fueled by personal disappoinment rather than reality.

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Are you serious? Somebody had to say it... okay... let's look at F4 then. Half a decade of development time that results in an incredibly wide and deep air combat simulation, but which can barely boot without crashing and soon after gets the development company disbanded. Nice!

     

    Oh wait, you probably mean the *community* support that followed the source code leak. Another half a decade and hundreds of community developers later, sure, we have something. Well, sorry, but that is not the same cup of tea as a 12-20 member development team trying to stay in business for OUR pleasure.

    ED Please correct these bugs?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    LockON is done. kaput.. nowhere'sville.. fini....stick a fork in it....

     

    Which is exactly why it makes sense to deploy as much effort and time as possible on the creation of its replacement, instead of continually patching the dying beast. You could never patch LO enough to make it into something it isn't.

     

    I understand you want it to be better. Who doesn't? But please, stop the marketing accusations. IMO, as I've said in another thread of similar fashion, we're ALL paying customers. We ALL payed for LO. We all GOT LO. Beyond that - everything is a bonus (and ED hasn't been stingy with providing it, either). Don't confuse BUGS with FEATURES, limited as they may be. The sim was designed with certain limitations (read: realism compromises). That's what happens when you try to arrange a serious (hardcore was the word of the day) representation of 5 totally different aircraft in ONE product, coupled with a sophisticated sattelite terrain system. Not each one gets a clickable pit and an absolutely accurate avionics set. But you get enough to model certain aspects of flying dissamilar air combat and employ realistic tactics to a certain (yes, very limited) degree. Which is far beyond what any other modern jet flight sim has to offer (with a single exception, of course).

     

    Anyway, I'm ranting...

    RWR in Hokum, again

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Ka-50N. Night-attack version w/ FLIR turret.

     

    Ka-50Sh actually.

     

    As for the above pictures, as was said, those are not RWR antennae, but warning/jamming system for protection from IR SAMs (presumably the MANPAD threat). Supposed to work by detecting and analyzing rocket ignition, which identifies the particular missile and (semi?)automatically take defensive measures, which would include maneuvering, flare despensing, and missile seeker jamming. This is way beyond 'Mak'.

     

    AFAIK, neither of these versions has reached service with the military, although the latter aircraft did participate in a training excercise in central asia, I believe.

    mission editor delay takeoff of bandits

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    'm looking for how to set up a mission where one can get the AI on both sides to behave in a somewhat realistic manner when taking each other on.

    Controlling AI actions after the engagement starts is practically impossible. The best you can do is try to set up the circumstances which ultimately lead to the result you're after. Playing with tasks is one example. Setting the units up as a single group or seperate goups is another. The surrounding terrain is another. Ingress/IP heading and range is another... etc. But ultimately, ground unit AI is currently very limitied and uninteresting in their response to airborne attack. Maybe this will change soon...? ;)

    Why is the Ka-50 being simulated?

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    What's the name of the show and on which channel I can watch that?

     

    Its was actually a movie, not a show. "Black Shark" was the name and it isn't worth looking for, except all the helicopter footage. Funny thing, when me and my dad saw it many years a go (back in Russia, I think), when they showed footage of the Shkval targeting display, he said that they probably recorded the graphic from some cheapo video camera view finder. Turned out it was real!

×
×
  • Create New...