Sulman

I doubt it's possible anywhere, these days.

John Farley (Harrier test pilot) tries the MiG-29 in 1990 and reports in this, An old Flight International article; use the thumbnails on the left (the pertinent ones are toward the bottom) to navigate.

I've been trying long range shots from high altitude, and it does help the balance of the fight - a little, if for nothing more than putting the AI on the defensive. Wingmen seem terribly vulnerable to ARH armed opponents however, and seem good for little other than distracting enemy aircraft; they're simply unable to make a SARH attack stick, and are only successful in SRAAM engagements where they can use the R73. F-16's are still horrible up close though, as they use the 120 as a dogfight missile. I also noticed that some of the stock SU27 campaign missions are slightly broken, i.e. missing loadouts; awacs not tasked as briefed etc. I fixed these and it improved the balance of play as certain tasks (SEAD) were not being fulfilled in mission 4, which meant my interception efforts were continually hampered by harassment from a Hawk SAM site.

Playing through the stock SU-27 campaign again, and trying to stick to realistic methods has been a good learning exercise. I've realised a couple of things: Missile Defence: 1) Shaw et al recommend getting a visual on missiles. In my experience in-game, this is almost impossible for long range A2A shots, without smoke trails. It is the presence of a smoke trail that makes it possible for certain SAMs and short-range shots. I've stuck with either beaming, dragging, or medium-g reversals, which do seem to work very well, using the RWR for bearing information. If I've got time, I'll take a look out the window. I approach BVR and missiles in general with a my own little Taoist approach. I.e., less effort, the better. I'd summarise it as follows: My best way to defeat missile is for it to be not launched at all. The next best way is to defeat it kinematically, i.e. stop it reaching me. The worst way is last-ditch maneuver. With that in mind, the orthoganol-roll-on-penultimate-beryoza-light does work perfectly, but feels extremely risky to me, so I'm trying not to use it. What do F-15 drivers do against the R-77? Serious question - there is no equivalent to the range-finding beryoza RWR on the F-15. 3) F-16's with ECM are bastards. In fact, anything with ECM & ARH is a bastard, because they deny you your range advantage, and they are remarkably adept at killing your wingie. I struggle to beat an ARH armed opponent with ECM because I won't ignore an AMRAAM launched at 25km, it's just too dangerous; again the gimbal-crank & g-pull method taught by Ironhand is great, but again relys on the beryoza, without that it is difficult (in fact beyond me, mentally) to time it right. Maybe this is realistic? Maybe an ARH opponent with a good jammer should be a tough day out? I have used ET's, but I am trying not to rely on them as they seem a bit too..efficient. Likewise overriding launch parameters does work (I launch a 27RE with 2-3 lights remaining on the Beryoza), but the AI does his normal left beam and defeats it every time. He then turns around and we're back to square one. The trouble I have with dragging or beaming is the loss of SA. Most of the time I get killed, it's at what I call the 'blend' - the switch between BVR & WVR. AI always employs ARH at this range, and they have high smash. Split S-dumping chaff while beaming is pretty good, but this becomes the crucial part of the fight. After the 2nd Missile, they're usually WVR, or certainly under 10Km. I have a hell of a time seeing them; usually I switch to CAC mode and point at the last known bearing either from memory or the RWR, and cross fingers. If it works, I can get a heater off and merge aggressively; if not they normally ARH at close range and it's goodnight Irene. Any tips for improving this? What I'm trying to learn here are sound, more or less realistic techniques. Then I want to try some online stuff.

9th

An interesting old thread. I've not tried MP in LOFC, but the story sounds familiar from other sims. Sub Command and Steel Beasts of old used to degenerate into unrealistic territory, if tasks and missions were not clearly defined. Basically, if a game makes this possible, it's going to happen. Online play tends to homogenise players into a very particular style. I used to play Jane's FA18 and the online games were a real hoot, but they were miles from realistic. Basically two teams going at each other with a mix of heaters, then merge to gun range, rinse and repeat. I was never that great at it, and preferred coop to be honest. It doesn't surprise me that you get similar things in FC. James

It is very difficult, and you need a slice of luck. If you've come to within visual range; the good news is that the AI will launch as soon as they have valid parameters; i.e. they will not wait for the optimal moment. This is good - it means they will not consider how you're trending in range, g, or aspect. The best method is to avoid it, as the gent above says, but failing that, be as aggressive as possible; and close, close, close - get into RMin, pull around, control the fight and kill him. Losing SA is the biggest problem for me. Often I'll maneuver and evade any smoke trails; but then I lose sight and more often than not the AI will do a Max G pull and then you've got to get visual again before he can get into launch parameters. Been killed more often by this than any other way. Extension feels unintuitive, but is often the smart thing to do, i.e. unload the wing; point down and accelerate away - better that than flail around trying to spot the bad guy while he methodically pumps heaters at you.

I don't quite understand this argument about the flight model. Even the 'non-afm' flight models do an excellent job of conveying feel; it's pretty much what the series has sold on since Flanker 1.0. The AFM is of course great for the SU25; but I don't find the SU27 or '29 deficient; in fact they're really enjoyable to haul around, and are not that easy to fly precisely and smoothly. FSX/FS9 aircraft by contrast can feel like they're on rails, even if the numbers are correct. In terms of fidelity, I still find Lomac a considerable challenge; survivability - until you have invested the time to train yourself - isn't easy. The AI may not be brilliant but it is relentless, and will punish mistakes.

Czech Mi24 at Fairford: Avro Vulcan, Farnborough: F-16C demo (Troy Pennington) Farnborough: RNLAF Demo F-16, Fairford 2007:

Hi all, Recorded a track the otherday of a simple 1v1 BVR - WVR engagement to review performance. My goal was to merge to WVR with a SARH armed opponent, so I set up a MiG-23 with a basic loadout and had my SU-27 on the ground 30km away. As luck would have it, on my first recorded attempt I won, and landed. Playback however - and I had to laugh at this - had a different result. He toasted me with an R-60 shot in the merge. The R-73 (which swatted him in 'reality') that I fired wasn't even recorded leaving the rail. I didn't tally the R-60 shot first time out - but logically I must have very closely evaded it. Can proximity fusing give different results in playback? James

Some stuff from Farnborough '08: Cheers James

I don't believe it was a matter of permission, more mutual consent. The Typhoon's also had cold noses for the exercise. If you think about it from an operational security standpoint, both parties benefit from it. I'm sure the IAF doesn't want the RAF gaining vital intel on that radar set; likewise the crabs won't be happy if the Russians learn about the Typhoon kit prematurely. I saw one of those MKI's at Fairford. They really are bloody enormous!

Hi all, Playing some guns only engagements for fun, I noticed that the AI will usually withdraw from a fight when one engine is damaged or set fire to. They seem to perform as if it's not modelled - an F-14 ran away at 1100 K/Ph, and I neared Vne trying to catch a MiG-25 that had one engine on fire and one damaged (he later landed and taxied happily burning away). Not a particular beef as it wasn't as if they tried to engage me, but is this a regular thing? I have noticed AI aircraft not being able to use burners after cannon-shell strikes, but with no noticeable effect on their flight envelope. Cheers James

I was really excited about getting to see this aircraft at FFD. I've never seen a Mig-29 with my own eyes before, let alone this version. It is a Mig 29 (it's badged as the Mig-35 for export apparently) fitted with fully automatic thrust-vectoring nozzles; the pilot simply flicks a switch on the throttle to switch the system on; the fly-by-wire does the rest: It's difficult to describe, but the result is very agile low-speed performance. The aircraft is put into high-alpha maneuvers (very much standard fare at airshows) and the thrust-vectoring then shoves the aircraft around into all sorts of contortions, including a backflip. The most interesting for me is a maneuver that starts a bit like a tailslide, but at the top at 0 IAS the aircraft is put on her back (using the nozzles, remember there's no control surface authority at this speed) and freefalls inverted - it's quite beautiful. James

I like this tiger SU-22: Also, in line with Britgliderpilot's 'exaggurated' theme, this F-18 aggressor scheme is fantastic: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/779159/L/ Cheers James

Tell me about it. Those I-16's put years on me. 'F-16' more like.

The version is either 1.0 or 1.5. Gameplay was awesome, although the AI wasn't terribly effective, however that was more a function of the lethality of weapons - SAM's were quite formidable. The payload system is pretty similar to what we have now, but in drop-down form. You'd be able to find your way around Flanker 1.5's mission editor if you've used Lomac, no problem. It used a lovely clean windows GUI, in fact it was one of the first games to exploit the windows interface, and initially was released as Win95 only, although a DOS version followed. You could taxi around to your heart's content, but you only ever started missions on the runway or in the air. Awacs support worked exactly the same way - targets would be visible on the fishtank screen in passive BVR mode. BVR mode itself was totally different. No HUD targetting overlay - It was all done on the MFD. In 1.5 the SU27 also had a huge A2G suite, bombs, GBU's, Napalm, KH29, Rockets, ASM missiles, ARM missiles etc. A2G radar gave you a plan view of the 3d world ahead of you, dependant on your antenna orientation, sort of like a crude ground-mapping simulation. It was a great game.

The Mirage 2000 at Fairford this year (piloted by Yannick Vallet) put on a beautiful display, the guy really gave it one, but with such precision.

No. I've reworked a mission from the very first ED title and I'm just comparing differences in the different generations of the series.

I've nearly finished reworking one of the original Flanker missions now, I've been having a blast playtesting it. The survivability of the AI aircraft is alot better, some are routinely accomplishing their missions; when I made the same mission in 2.51, they'd make the first line of SAM defences and get killed, every time. Airborne opposition consists of small, but well-armed groups of GAI aircraft, and interestingly, they consistently underperform. Due to the all-seeing EWR, they're all scrambling immediately (at mission start), and seem to get 'locked in' to the first detected EWR contact, which for this scenario is an A-50 on the eastern edge of the peninsula, consequently it's very easy to bounce them if you're playing as the escort group; they are rather slow at recognising you're the main threat. That being said, one has sneaked through (at very high speed, low level) a couple of times and actually knocked the A-50 down, which impressed me. SAMS are a lot less dominant. In 2.51, if you met engagement paramaters, you'd be shot at immediately,and repeatedly. Doesn't seem to be the case now - a Tor system at one airfield let me fly right over it, then promptly blew me up at point-blank range. On another occasion it took a shot at max range. It's really positive, getting alot of fun out of it, and I haven't even tried mud-moving yet!

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I find this topic interesting. I thought the missile modelling in Flanker 2.0 and 2.5 was manifestly the toughest I've encountered in any sim, easily. Falcon, JF18, and Even Flanker 1.0 & 1.5 weren't as difficult. It was one thing that really upset me about a sequel I was so looking forward to. I really like where it's at in 1.1; feels just right to me, hard enough in that you have to do some work, but not so harsh they take the fun out of it.

These are great, that MiG in particular looks spectacular! Not easy to get airborne shots at these shows, nice job. I've got a Fairford gallery here if you want a look.

Install Loman - you can find it there in the textures category. There's about three available, choose one that works best for you. Cheers James

The whole system requirements thing is quite misleading with Lomac. Even the Ubi forum's FAQ makes some daft assertions. I run an AMD 1700 XP, with a Radeon 9600SE and 768mb DDR - a very modest rig. At medium settings the game is absolutely fine, the only mod I use is the fast overcast fix, as the clouds were hurting my frames. It's a great sim - you'll have hours of fun with it.

The obsession with a dynamic campaign is worriesome, to me at least. F4's campaign is the benchmark, undoubtedly. F4:AF seems to have got the title where it should be, at long last. Think about this though: Thousands of man hours, seven years of work, and a cast of many, many tweakers and coders were involved in making that happen. Even now, other playables have been dropped and the focus is solely the F-16. I think it is quite simply unrealistic to expect a similar product in the Lomac line, without inviting very unfavourable comparisons. What we have now is a superb sim. It looks great, the flight-modelling is (I think) the best out there - even on the non-AFM aircraft, and the avionics modelling is sufficient to give the player a detailed experience of operating the respective aircraft. Best of all, each surface unit, be it a SAM system or ship, is lovingly modelled and accurate. ED has gone to alot of trouble to model radar theory, I'm not referring to specific avionics suites but the whole lot, theatre wide, and whilst it isn't perfect it's very good. The Crimea is a good theatre; small enough to be very detailed, big enough to be geographically interesting and to provide some variety. Whilst the mission editor is a bit rough around the edges, the limit is basically your imagination. Want a storyline? Write one. Do what you like. Anything's possible. I can live without a dynamic campaign, as long as the simulation is well-rounded, and fun. Lomac is. Cheers James