aimmaverick

If you look graphics quality of terrain&buildings they look the most beautiful on first Lomac 1.0 sreenshots but in 1.1 the objects are transparent?! They had lost that solidness, 3D immersion when looking the newest sreens. Infact the newest sreenshots with Ka-50 look crapy as hell! Is there anyway to turn this off and have the old ones back? If you set visibility range to high is this still a case, or are the good old buildings and trees back? I know that have vis. set to high kills your FPS but someday i will have pc with everything maxed out.

I dont have a bank card which is supported by ED system. How can I order Flaming Cliffs? Help!

First let me say that feedback from others users and ED team is very appreciated. This thread is intended for comparing realistic weapons usage (ATGM) in different weather conditions vs.that in Lockon 1.1 Lockon has very detailed weather moddeling which is without any true function other than graphics immersion. I will point out Mavericks as example. You have two models: K and D. The K model is suitable for day usage in good visibility conditions. The D model is good at all conditions but extremely useful in cold weather and at night. Thats how it is IRL. But in Lockon its completely different story. At night and in cold weather the D model has reduced performance compared to day, you hardly see targets on TV display despite the hot engine and exaust temparatures are much more visible to campare them against cool enviroment than day conditions. You should detect ( on TV screen) targets at much bigger distances in such case and also lock on sooner. The fact is, there is no weather influence on detection and lock-on ranges. This is scripted. It doesnt matter if its fog or hot temparatures or rain you will always get it at 8 NM. Every weapon should be used accordingly for type of weather. If its hot take K model since IR would have decreased performance comparing hot surface with vehicles. At night use D Maverick. And so on... As for laser guided weapons, they dont function if its rain or claudy. Thats how it is IRL. But lockon doesnt give a shit for it. I want to point out that weapons behaviour in Lockon is completely scripted. The same goes also for IR air-air missiles. You cannot always use all weapons avaible. You should choose weapons that are suitable for given conditions. This is how it is in reality. But in Lockon it doesnt matter. PS: I dont know why they didnt implement laser maverick into game. F-18 can carry it. It is even presented in encyclopedia.

Mig Mag! You are one of the best if not the best 3d modeller i have ever seen. Great work you have back there. Keep on doing it! If you have time and will please remake some ugly looking AI aircraft in Lockon. (f-14,tornado,e-2c,c-17,mig-31 to name the few...) Its sad that fans must do the unfinished work for ED team. It is something you very rarely see in games at all.

This had been brought up before but is really annoying. When you get past 36000 (aprox.) feet, your Rmax zone stops calculating increased missile range due to higher alltitude. It shows the same range on 50000 feet which is obviously much higher. It is possible to take head on shot from 40-50 nm with Amraam, as GGTharos said but the hud will show you 28nm as max. range. Why is that? Is it going to be fixed?

I have seen in 1.1 that if an enemy plane fires missile at you in TWS mode you get no launch warning even if it is a semi-active missile??!. To spice this up you get launch warning just before missile hits you. I understand this is the case for active missiles only. And this wasnt the case in 1.02 it is just a "feature" of 1.1. What you guys think of that? Is this realistic or just another bug? Because in F-15 training track(1.02) it says that to launch a Sparrow you have to designate target twice to bring it to STT mode from TWS. Or is this a feature for just Russian fighters to fire semi-active missiles in TWS? Also I wonder why you cant simeultanously attack two targets in Mig-29S with R-77. In flight manual it is stated that it can or am i missing something here? Does patch adresses anything of that?

Is that normal that RWR on F-15C wont be able to tell the difference between Su-27/33 and Mig-29? Is that how it is in real life? Did you ask f-15 pilots about that?

I am talking of couse of f-16c and you are wrong, A-10 can carry LGB but it cant lase the targets by itself, other platform must do it.

What a hell are you talking about??? Go get some weapon loadouts for F-16 and you will see that it CAN I repeat it CAN carry 6 GBU-12 plus other weapons as well. Do you think that Im talking this without any knowledge about it or what? I do know something about aviation stuff so stop messing with me and give me a clear answer why this isnt implemented. If the payloads are not commonly used IRL because of performance related issues it doesnt mean that then they cant cary them. (talking about all planes) Look A-10 for example. It has very big avaible payload but Air Force very rarely equips them with anything more than 2 Agm-65 and couple of bombs.That doesnt mean it cant cary 4(6) Mavericks or 10 mk-82 right? Speaking of A-10, was there any special reason why it cant carry LGB like it does IRL?

I was just wondering if you guys can put into patch 1.11 realistic payload configuration for all aircraft not just flyables. I mean esspecialy ability to carry GBUs on triple ejection racks like ordinary bombs would be much appreciated. The F-16 for example can cary a total of 6 GBU-12 that is 3 on each pylon for example. That way you get much more firepower for each aircraft and so you dont need so many aircraft to complete the mission. I know that IRL air forces rarely equip fighers with all avaible weapons since it makes them very unagile and schrinks performance but do you remember F-4 in Vietnam when it carryed 12 Mk-82 on a regular basis? Anyway I hope this will get addressed in upcoming patch.

100% AGREE

The new experiance I was talking about would be in introducing ship warfare. F-18 is navy fighter so this could create some very in depth campaigns together with air-air and air-ground warfare already existing. Thats all. As for F-18 addon goes I mentioned it because it was on the original plan and it has all the 3D model work finished. Of course it needs resarch in weapons, avionics, etc. but the point is, it is a much better solution than helicopter addon and I think it would meen less work to implement than Ka-50 given it had work already put in for but than cancelled.

Looks like 90% of people would like to see more graphics improvements and flyables instead to bring up wasty improved AI and bugfixes and unfinished work from the past( SHIPS ESPECIALLY). That would bring the game back playability and make whole thing completely different expiriance. I dont know why they dont make F-18 flyable. The 3D model is one of the most beautiful, it only needs now a cockpit. F-18 was on list of flyables in original plan but wasnt implemented bacause of time restrictions. Instead of making KA-50 from scrap they should add almost finished F-18. This would bring whole new dimention in game. And would bring in western customers as well. Lots of them. The game would then sell like hell. ED if you read this, it is far more profitable to you to add F-18 instead of other flyables. It would also save much time spent for working on completely new enviroment to suit for heli simulation.

There is NO such thing as realistic missile effectivness in game. This "feature" is the most arcadic thing you can imagine in a flightsim. Every missile has its own charachteristics like Pk and flightdynamics. You cant say that now every missile in game has 50% or 100% pk. That would mean that Hawk and SA-10 would have each same Pk, which is tottaly insane to speak. Sa-10 is much more modern and accurate it has Pk between 0.8-0.9.!!! So if you can set in game that old and the most modern missiles have same effectivness that is the most arcadic thing to imagine. But this supposed to be a SIMULATION. Remember?

In Lomac version 1.02 you can only achieve mach 2.3 despite the fact that Eagle is the best known for its top speed of mach 2.5. Was this deliberately implemented because its a "western jet" and developers are from Russia or what? Because all of ruskies aircraft have performance which match with published fact sheets just F-15C doesnt. Dont tell me now because of increased fuel capacity it is slower than F-15A. Both aircraft have the same top speed according to existing data. In all fact sheets i saw so far it is claimed to be mach 2.5+ just in Lomac its different!!!!! I would like to hear explination from ED development team what they think about that. And a question about thrust to weight for all planes in Lomac. Why do planes lose speed vhen flying verticaly up despite fact that flying let say a clean F-15 with 50% fuel which engine thrust alone is significantly higher that takeoff weight but it still cant accelerate into vertical? Acording to common sense and to what i know about aeronautics the plane which total weight is less than the thrust engines produce should accelerate into vertical to certain alltitude where because of thinner air engines wouldnt be able to produce so many thrust and the plane would start bleeding speed.