NightTrain

Thank you for your reply. Forgot to include that I saved my profile before I started adding more inputs to my joystick. Re-load them and still have the same problem of not being able to re-arm and refuel. Still able to make the request in both cases and see the re-arm and refuel panel but nothing happens after. Oh well. Maybe I need to re-install again and isolate the problem as to which inputs I can't have on my joystick. Flying VR is just that good. vr1.diff.lua ptrovichvr.diff.lua

Have an Oculus Quest 3. Have to put in as many joystick inputs to make the modules flyable in VR. Have reinstalled a couple of times. After re-arm and re-fuel works then start to put in more joystick inputs or load a profile it stops working. Enjoy the experience very much. Don't think I will ever go back to regular on-screen flying.

Noticed after re-arming the 30mm cannon is not reloaded. Looking into the control settings and found you can assign a key or joy button to re-load it. Pushed it while on I was on the ground before, during, and after re-arming. No re-loading.

NS430. I use it. The way points will show up in NS430. You can put in a waypoint while in the helicopter with one of the waypoint pages in NS430.

Again thanks for your tool. It's been a big help. Looks like I have to learn more about scripting.

First of all thank you for creating your tool/spreadsheet for menus. I'm currently using it and it has provided me with the bones for my menus. Now I am trying to remove commands and menus. Have succeeded in getting commands removed but at the expense of removing the whole menu! The menu I'm creating gives out GPS positions/coordinates by contacting ground units and then inputting them into the NS430. At mission start there are no positions given and the menu reads with the command "no positions". The ground unit then enters the trigger zone and then gives a coordinate of a sighted enemy. The "no positions" command is removed and replaced with a coordinate. The script is this: local M1 = missionCommands.addSubMenu('Mark Positions(GPS)',nil) root menu local M5 = missionCommands.addSubMenu('CombatCommand1',M1) ground unit missionCommands.addCommand('No positions', M5,function() trigger.action.setUserFlag(0,0) end, nil) ground unit-CombatCommand1-status at mission start After ground unit enters trigger zone missionCommands.removeItem('No positions', M5,end, nil) succeeds in removing command but removes whole menu but replaced with one menu: missionCommands.addCommand('coordinate', M5,function() trigger.action.setUserFlag(0,0) end, nil) I realize your spreadsheet tool wasn't designed for this so if you can't give me an answer it's completely understandable.

Thanks. Don't want to be away from the sim too long. Got to refresh and practice.

Reinstalled Hind. Remember bringing up a countermeasures assist or panel for the pilot that allows you change countermeasure settings from the pilot position. I think it was brought up with the "A" key plus another. Any help is appreciated. Pulling my hair out and obsessing over this.

IMO the next logical step would be the 1M upgrade for the P model. Looks awesome with a lot of added capability. That's provided they get permission from the manufacture. Could be a selling point to any country you are trying to sell it to. It's an export version on top of that. I don't think the Russian government is buying any.

Thanks. The guidance details I got wrong. It's part of the AT-6 "family" of missiles.

The Hinds were equipped with them in the mid to late 80's. They have more range and hitting power than the AT-6 and are radar guided. Can't get out of range fast enough of the mobile SAM systems like the Avenger and portable SAMS like the Stinger. It presents a challenge but one you stand a good chance at losing with the AT-6's effective range and the AI simulating a human operating it and providing guidance which means the success of hitting is even less. Accurately modeled though and no real complaints about it. It gives you the level of technology that was being used at the time. My understanding is the late 70's.

On the money!!!! Thanks. Pounding my head on this all day.

They are not static objects. They are ground vehicles. Do I need to assign a waypoint first? Where? A short distance from each vehicle or in the general area I want them to target?

I have done a search on the forum and read how to set up a SAM site. In the ME I have a launcher, search radar, track radar, Command vehicle, and a power ground unit vehicle. I have an enemy airplane flying in circles a good distance away. The only thing that seems to work is the tracking radar(it turns and starts to track slowly). How do I get this system to work so it can start popping off missiles? What am I missing? What additional steps do I need to take in the ME?

This sim has awakened me from a long sleep. Nothing in the whole PC game genre has kept my interest(and my thinking!!!! It's screwing up my focus at work and my girlfriend is complaining!!!) as buying and playing this sim. I'm still in training and have about 90% of the accelerated start-up down. I'm playing on my nephew's computer because mine can't handle the overwhelming awesomeness of this masterly designed software!!!! I'm buying a new one!!!!

To ED: Don't be discouraged. LOMAC is still a great sim. My idea would be open development(with approval) for the sim once certian issues are corrected. I'm happy you are still improving upon LOMAC. I think in time we will get a DC(and hopfully a map of the middle east) we will just have to wait. PS: I have not been here in a while(and don't post much) but I can see one of the threads I started shows up at the end of some threads as being related to threads that are funny.Cool.:thumbup: I hope I have entertained you like you have entertained me with your software. I can't say when but in the future I plan to go to Russia for some WWII battelfield tours. I'm funnier in person and I hope to visit with the developers one day.

Things take time. LOMAC is a work in progress and I'm glad ED did not abandon it all together. It was bugy when first released plus I did not really have the computer or the graphics card to run it. I can't remeber when it was first released that's when I bought and played it(A-10 kickass) for a month and a half(the mission editor needed a little more work) and it was only last month I purchased LO gold. There was an improvment. I will wait patently for the next releases

I will give you this: when it comes to aviation you know a hell of a lot more than I do, but you don't know everthing(no one does), When it comes to your previous posts you have not put together an effective argument(with things like commandos running amuck) against mine. How is something overwhelmed? Usually it's with numbers is it not? You want to back to your previous post and tell me how Serbia was not able put an effective defense because they were 'outnumbered' like you said they were. If it's completely useless argument then why did use it? Like I said how is something overwhelmed? Part of the NATO strategy was to use numbers to overwhelm the air defenses of Serbia was it not ? In the case of weather then different form of signal would be utilized.(a plane can be equipped with different types)Weather may interfere with communcations but can not stop it all together. A reciver/transponder can be equipped with two methods of cummunication(laser, radio) Instead of the plane connecting to the transponder(s)/reciever(s), the transponder(s)/reciever(s) connects to the plane and tracks it. With this method a stronger signal(or more powerful laser) can be used being there would be a continuous more powerful supply(for the signal) than would be on the plane. Yes it would be vulnerable. But lets say you have a network of 12 airplanes spread out into 3 groups. A group of four fighters goes up against the network. It's going to be difficult to engage in countermeasures(or jamming) when you don't know which plane(s) are controling the ground based weapon systems and when each group is equiped with a plane devoted to ECM, plus havimg these planes shoting missiles at them(as well as ground based weapon systems) Just use more planes? Networks can support other networks with planes equiped with long range missiles or use their control over ground based weapons for support.

I don't think it just a case of them not being properly deployed. It's a case of them being overwhelmed. Does ground based weapons systems like a SAM have an infantry support role like shooting a missile at enemy occupied hill so the friendly troops can take it? If it did something like that it would'nt be a dedicated SAM would it? It's job is to protect the infantry not support it, that's why they have artillery and different rocket/missile systems for ground use If does have that capability sounds like a waste of money to me, when the navy could have bought more cruise missiles that would have probably done a better job. Anti-tank weapons especially guided ones are very effective. In Iraq we are seeing new methods in anti-tank warefare involving IED's. The IED's are becoming more effect because more of them are becoming improvised shape charges. If a tank has no infantry supporting it, it as good as dead. You don't think infantry or some other security force will be guarding that ground based defence system or air force base? Commandos are not the magic bullet in disrupting longistical support of a system.You don't think they would have fuel in other places would you?So you would have your commandos running around blowing up fuel tanks everywhere? I think your commando force would be spread kind of thin between blowing up fuel tanks within a given radius of a few air bases and trying to take out ground based defense systems. In 1989 Panama invasion a few Navy Seals got killed just assualting a regular airport. You mean you can't do something like aim a laser and at a certain point to something like a reciever and transmit data from a distance? I guess all these wireless networks that incorporate lasers in the civilian market place must not be working. The ground based system does not have be wirless either. It can be fiber optic with only part being wireless being the connection between the plane and the reciever. The ground based systems can be equiped with a certain length of cable and can simply plug into the network. In my concept I have each plane performing one or two mission/tasks? How much equipment will I need? Will I need to have a mainframe computer in each one of these? AWACS/JSTARS serve in a surveillence capacity where they identify, track, vehicles and aircraft. My concept is not about surveillence. It's air defense. AWACS/JSTARS do not have an offense capacity.And my reponse to you about the longistics of the system is logical. It's low tech plane utilizing high tech equipment. Did I say anything different? As far as cost what about using existing weapon systems?(save money on RD) Of course any high tech gear is expensive that excludes many countries from buying it but does it stop everyone from buying a certain plane? Who says they are just going to launched into the air and be destroyed? These are planes equiped with an offense capacity and they won't be going up into the air as the first wave is comming in. They will already be airborne. The enemy starts to engauge the system. You don't think that will give some time for other aircraft to get into the air? Right with ya. So what if a few allied pilots get blown ta bits. Who cares if the god dam thing dosen't do what's supposed to do. (You think that maybe the Patroit has the abilitity to lock on to the correct target and shoot at with other friendlies in the area? Maybe they where not operating this system the correct way? Maybe when they turn it on friendly aircraft should not be in 100 km radius of system or remain on the ground?If it dosen't have the previous capabilities we have wasted our money. It's identified X number of planes correctly, but when used has fired on an F-16?/F-15(can't remember) and blown a Tornado out off the sky.

All that is true. Does that make them more effective? They still will be vulnerable from the air the second they turn on guidence system no matter what the numbers, the ease of deployment, disperse etc. (Further on down your post you talk about numbers of airplanes) Really? I thought that was the ground forces job(infantry,armor). Ground based weapon systems need land yes, but I think there main assignment would be to protect the air space and provide protection for ground forces. Taking and holding land would be the ground forces job. Providing portection for those forces would be some mobile or long range system. I have never heard of a SAM being used in a ground role(surface to surface). AAA yes. I admit it's a borderline thing. That's why I used the Patriot as an example When it comes to tanks you don't think a defending countries infantry will be armed with some type of anti-tank system? As far as commandos what are going to do devote them to taking out ground based weapon systems when an effective air defense is mounted? You had better train a lot more commandos in addtion to the ones you got given a country could have nummerous ground based weapon systems and then on top of that have those systems being guarded by infantry.(you would also be taking them away from one of their primary missions which is to provide reconnaissance for our ground forces) When talking about cruise missiles there is no effective defense. The defense system I propose is theoretical. But if it was implemented and it worked(the technology does exist to make it work) what do you do then? Further down your post you also talk about economics in addition to longistics. Longistics: Let's say a country has 60 IL-102's. During a certain defence condition less than half these planes take off. They can not stay in the air forever. They can loiter in given areas for 12 hours in the air with mid-air refueling.The other planes go up to relieve them so you have continuous surveillance. Are you saying something like this is logistically impossible? Economics:The IL-102 would be cost less because it is as low tech as it gets. Maybe the weapon systems(high tech) all together on one plane would cost more than the plane itself. These planes would not be up in the air 24/7. Say a country like Serbia had these planes. Serbia is no longer under attack. Serbia would only use these planes(in good numbers) when it's beginning to look like an attack is emanate. How long has it been since Serbia has been under emanate attack? There ground assests suffered no damage because they hardly used them because the NATO forces achieved a degree of air superiority. The Serbain ground forces in Kosavo had no sizable NATO ground force to oppose them. A lot of times these forces(Serbian) were in contact/close proximity to civilians That's why I use numbers to counter numbers in my concept. When planes integrate with ground based systems they gain numbers. The Serbs did shot some planes down, but sorties flown versus the number of kills for the ground based systems what do think the kill ratio is on that? A sucessful air defense was not achieved, because like you said it was overwhelmed with numbers. In end dealing with a tank maybe it's a good idea to check and see if there is some type of anti-tank weapon that's around before you call on a plane when the tank could of just as eaily been killed by that weapon. Nope. But I have not see a patriot that's been able to distguish between friend or foe once it's fired

Why the case for airborne control over ground based systems? A few hundred years ago regular infantry could not withstand a charge of heavy calvary. It wasn't until the way of thinking was changed that infantry in some way were able to negate the effects of calvary with incorporating the idea of something like pike men for defense. With technology aircraft have gained the upper hand in today's battlefield. Ground based weapons systems border on obsolesce. There was a time ground based weapon systems had the upper hand. During the 1973 Arab- Israeli war Syria and Egypt used their ground based weapon systems to great effect. This was the zenith of ground based weapon systems. The technology to effectively counter these systems was still in a developing stage with a just a few missile types having the technology(Shrike). As time went on the technology was improved and the tables turned. Just like infantry was vulnerable to a charge of heavy calvary a few hundred years ago so are ground based weapon systems. On todays battlefield EWR and ground based weapon systems can only emit or broadcast a signal that says: HERE I AM. KILL ME. There may be some improvements with something like the Patriot but that will be eventually countered with technology that is under development. You don't have to look to the 1991 Gulf war for examples. Countries that used Soviet developed air defense systems were easily penetrated/overwhelmed/destroyed. Serbia was brought into submission because they could not mount an effective air defense. Planes were being shot down shortly after they had taken off. In the middle east Israel bombed supposed terror training camps around Damascus. The Syrian crews who were manning the ground based weapon systems were afraid to even turn their radars on. Soviet designed/modeled ground based weapon systems cannot mount an effective defense against an onslaught of American/NATO air power. Air based control of ground based weapon systems is not without flaws. First of all it has to be airborne to work. The only way it could work is if some country reaches a certain defense condition then the planes would take to the air expecting an attack will be coming at any moment. The crews are going to have to pull some shifts and give up eating spicy foods. Such a system could put up a effective defense that will allow for other assets to get into the air so an even more effective defense can be mounted. Such a system may deter a potential aggressor from attacking. If thinking remains the same on ground based weapon systems the same results can be expected(Iraq,Balkans,Syria) for many years to come.

Instead of more stories how about some questions that in an indirect way relates to my idea? Is the B-52 less capable in it's role because of the age of it's design? Is the A-10 less capable in it's role because it's design/shape has been described as ugly?

Nope. Not suggesting the SIMULATOR(or LOMAC) be changed into a fantasy but taking an idea or theory and placing it into a controled environment. Never stated that this should be part of the sim. Something like this could be developed privately. Go back and re-read my post. Yes aircraft are a part of a defense. In my scenario control of ground based weapon systems could also have control over themselves if they chose so. Where did I say in my post all the command gear is shoved into one airplane? Each plane performs a task ,not many tasks. One plane would have the command role or task for the network. Other planes would be tasked with managing or controling ground based weapon systems. How is that putting your eggs in one basket? As far as comms or a link goes they must be in a formation/position where they can support/protect each other. The planes would be in somewhat close proximity to each and more than likely the signal(radio, laser,etc) they use to link to each other will be that much stronger. Not to say it could never be broken. I'm sure it's done with AWACS and EWR. Do AWACS and EWR have the capability to relay information and provide something like a firing solution to a AAA system so a cruise missile can be intercepted?(Yes, no system has that capability, it's theoretical) Again you think one plane is overloaded and performing 50 million tasks. It is one plane in a network of any given number of airplanes performing one or maybe two tasks/missions(for example a plane has two tasks: cruise missile interception and short range defense for the network. Do you think that these tasks or missions are impossible to perform especially when you have a crew of two where each can be doing one of them?) By reading this you would think I had one IL-102 performing a role of an AWACS plane. No way a few or one small plane could have command over a large battlefield and no where in my previous posts do I state that or state that one plane is commanding a large battlfield and hunting cruise missiles. Each network of planes would be assigned to an area not the entire country or large battlfield That's why when it comes to cummunication with ground based weapon systems a different approach will be taken. The plane connects to one of maybe of hundreds of tranponders/recievers(in case one is destroyed you have another one to connect to. That may be hard if their disguised like one of the surrounding trees) for a wireless network in one area. How is stability achieved? Your in contact with multiple recievers. If interference happens on one connection the information is redirected to another connection with a reciever.The plane is in contact with assets in one area not the entire country.

Well, I can see my idea went over like a led zeppelin with some of the members here. Good ideas that are ahead of there time get ridiculed. That has been the case throughout history. Something like this could be accomplished with existing technology. Here is another capability of my ugly Frankenstein monster. It has to do with control over AAA systems. The plane is equipped with some type of radar or tv/optics system that is designed to scan for and target/lock on to a cruise missile. Once a lock is made on the cruise missile local AAA units that are along path are searched for. It would be hard for a AAA system to fire at something that's 50-150 ft. off the ground doing between 300-500 mph. The plane links with the AAA system though the wireless network or directly with something like a laser beam. A computer on the plane calculates a solution for a firing point plus other solutions in case the cruise missile changes it's path for the AAA system. Once the cruise missile reaches a certain point the AAA systems fire. The cruise missile is basically ambushed.

I purchased LOMAC gold a few weeks ago and I'm impressed with it's improvement over the first/release version. I also posses a better computer and graphics card than I did when the first version came out. Version 1.1 is very enjoyable. I like aircraft like the SU-25T that have multi-role capability. On one of the LOMAC fan sites they had posted a new product that is in development: The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine. I visited the web site and read a line about a feature in the software: Custom Data Capability TFCSE will accommodate the ability for the client to enter specific parameters and performance variables permitting input of classified and sensitive data in a controlled environment. The LUA code base is exceptionally adaptable and flexible for optimum customisation. That really got me going. With LOMAC(in the future) a developer can maybe take an idea(like a new aircraft) and place into a controlled environment. I came up with my own ideas. What kind aircraft or weapons system would I develop? I could not imagine what role the aircraft would have or what it would look like. That's until I thought of an existing aircraft. For me taking a dead vehicle(in this case an aircraft) reanimating into something deadly(like the Frankenstein monster) has an appeal. The aircraft I have in mind: IL-102 Sturmovik. Not to be confused with the WWII ground attack aircraft. This one lost out to the SU-25. http://legion.wplus.net/img.shtml?img=/guide/air/s/il102-1.jpg&alt=Штурмовик%20Ил-102 I would start my reanimation/modification process by moving back the nose/forward landing gear like it is on the SU-25. The nose and the tail would be modified so pods/turrets can fit in them. One single bomb bay that either can be used for bombs or an ammunition drum for 30mm rounds like in the A-10(it seems the fuselage looks big enough). The airplane will not be designed for performance. It will be designed to destroy. The plane would be multi-role(tank killing, SEAD, ground attack, and a concept I call Air Based Defense) In the tank killing role it would only differ from the SU-25T by it's cannon. My idea would be a bigger version(30 mm) of the Gatling style gun that is in the Hind. Like the Hind the cannon will be in a pod/turret and linked to some guidance system that can lock on to a target. The same weapon system could also be mounted in the tail for short range air to air defense .It would use the same weapon systems as the SU-25T in the anti-tank role and some new ones in the ground attack role. The new concept or role would be some type of air based defense. The idea is that once a group of IL-102's become airborne they form a network by each plane linking to each other electronically. Each airplane supports/protects each other. Each airplane within the network has a certain task. The IL-102 would be good for this role because of it's rear facing gunner position could be converted to a weapons officer position. The pilot would also take part in operating the weapon systems. In the 1991 Gulf war ground based anti-aircraft defenses were easily overcome and destroyed. Why would any country want to invest in any ground based anti-aircraft system that will be destroyed the second it starts emitting some type of signal? In an air based anti-aircraft defense the concept of each plane supporting/protecting each other is a concept that may work. Planes performing tasks like: Electronic counter measures. Able to engage multiple targets and jam them simultaneously with a powerful emitter. The missile defense: Planes with rear firing as well as forward firing air to air missiles. One plane will be equipped with BVR missiles and long range missiles, one plane equipped with medium range AAM, another with short range AAM and cannon pod(s) Anti AAM- going into the theoretical but into the realm of possibility. A plane equipped with a weapon system thats able to lock on to a AAM(or SAM) shot an electro magnetic pulse at it(via dish inside a pod/turret in the nose or tail) and destroy it. My understanding is the Russians lead the way in EMP technology. The issue would be power supply. A good size power unit would have to be strapped on the belly of the airplane. This weapon system can also be used in an offense capacity in penetrating/destroying enemy air defenses. Air based control of ground based anti-aircraft systems- The weapons officer would take control of SAMS, AAA, and ground based systems by connecting to a receiver that is part of a ground based dedicated wireless network. The ground based systems would be in a network hot zones. A guidance system in the plane would provide information and a target/lock to the ground based weapon systems. The ground based systems would now be an extension of the airplane. I think the advantage of such a system would be is that there is a greater chance of a ground based systems to remain hidden because it won't be emitting a signal and the plane controlling the ground based weapon systems will be protected by the network. I think such an idea put into a controlled environment(such as LOMAC) may work.