Rhen

I have a laptop and have gone through 13 of the keys already...

Now this tops my list above all things as well. I think this is where the most effort should be concentrated, perhaps moreso in the next product rather than Lock-on, but if it's possible it would be nice in this as well. But as you say, any time taken to provide this for Lock-on, means it's taken away from manpower geared towards getting a fresh product out the window. Time will tell...

HAHA!... wait, was he serious? :icon_excl :o Thanks for a great game Valery:icon_jook

The gauge, which is correct in the LOMAC F-15 cockpit displays fuel flow in pounds per Hour x 1000. The gauge is more than adequate to display fuel flow at afterburner. It would be quite illogical for it not to display fuel flow - even at afterburner. The fuel going to the engine is monitored after the engine fuel radiator and the fuel shutoff valve, but just before the boost pump, so it's going to read TOTAL fuel going to the main engine fuel control and the afterburner fuel control. IIRC, 5th stage AB fuel flow at 25,000ft was somewhere between 60-72000PPH. But I think that was for the PW-100. Lotsa gas huh? ;)

Apparently you've not read the first post in this thread... You babble as soothingly as a running stream ... of Guinness! Time for another beer and possibly you'll make more sense to me. Despite posting the smiley faces, I see that you're irritated. Perhaps you should reread D-Scythe's and rlogue's posts before formulating your research as well.

Very astute argument! But can you please expound with all your knowledge. I remain unconvinced of your logic... :icon_jook At any rate, back to the argument at hand... So, the facts are that a good lawyer... er pilot... can outfly an F-15 equipped with slammers and heaters as long as he stays low, & just has to notch "a little" (like being a little pregnant, neh?) to defeat the F-15 pilot. Oh yeah, if the Froggy is flown by some pilots, then 2 Eagles don't stand a chance. So is that the argument for the reality of the situation?

Ok you got me... I don't do my homework. I play lomac instead and stay up late on school nights when i should be in bed.:p I guess if you were king of the world, I'd be flying around in an F-4G using HARMs to take out B-52s by locking onto their AN/ASG-21 target tracking radar because it's happened IRL. Hey, I'll have to try that in LOMAC tonight. :D

Not skilled - they just know where to take advantage of those things in LOMAC that aren't modeled well - Just like a lawyer looking for a loophole in a contract, we have a pilot playing LAWYER not fighter pilot. I reiterate: Where's the skill in that?:confused:

How can you hang on to those things that make lomac a fair game and eschew the reality that would make it a great game. If you conclude that flying below 100ft is a viable tactic IRL that makes you immune from missiles, well... then... let me buy you a Guinnes and we can discuss politics and religion, where we might agree more....:icon_jook

Rhen to SU-25T pilot: Did you really have to use any of that pilot shit or just a fluke in the game?:confused: Where's the realism in that??? Fighter skill?

No, you shouldn't shut up. Voice your opinion! :horseback Reality is that in the last several conflicts, Air-to-Air kills were strictly by missiles. SO, why izzit that missiles are porked in lomac. If all i need to outwit a missile is stay below 100ft and slow, and nothing except cannon rounds can touch me, then why call it a sim. Let's call it .... a GAME about how someone THINKS it should be because that's the way it's coded. No offense and I don't mean to disparage ED or it's wonderful product, I still love it... It's just that I'd like some reality please. (please don't ask me to post my proof that it's not modeling real life, just think about what rlogue is asking you to think about).

Now THAT'S a helpful comment! :p

Well that's still good news. While i have no desire to fly slower than 200kts except to land, I'll be there in March for my copy of Black Shark. It's more than just the kinematic aspect that appears problematic. It's also related to how the AIM-120 radar, guidance package, and ECCM software algorhythms are modeled. While this is true for such things as what western air forces know about the easts weps, and vice versa, along with the proper methods to trash a slammer, sparrow, or sidewinder, there are still much unclassified material, both written and videos where you can infer tactics, ranges, and ability. Just look at the conflicts which have been fought in the past decades - they contain a wealth of knowledge about the capabilities and tactics used for the various weapons systems modeled in LOMAC. These same methods, tactics, ranges should produce a similar result in LOMAC (within a margin of error). I agree the kinematics are off, but the effects of scintillation regarding the F-15 as well as the slammer radar with respect to high-to-low, as you put it are quite off the mark, the susceptibility of the radar to ECM and it's ECCM abilities are not perfect either. Much more than that, the radar receiver, datalink antenna, actuators, gimbals limits, microwave power output, wavelength hopping capability (AIM-120) all make a contribution to Pk, along with altitude, airspeed, aspect, and bearing. Missile performance can be determined from the record of kills made in recent air battles, along with a study of the current literature. Comparing these two things should give you an idea of where the weapons envelope lies +/- a percentage in altitude/airspeed/aspect/angle off/maneuver, etc. Oh, i'm not but i'll need my inhailer for a while until the fixes come out.:p

No, i said vaporware - not vapoRWear... you're doing that new line of polyester jumpsuits right? :p Excellent thread BTW. Thank you ED for being so forthcoming with your plans. While some of us may not completely agree with your priorities, I think i speak for all when i say that the way you've answered our questions speaks volumes about your care and feeding of us fans. We appreciate very much all you've done to keep us informed! Thanks! :icon_supe

That's good to hear, although I've been told conflicting information regarding this - I"m hoping you're correct, although you would be in the know since you're betatesting this & 1.2 hopefully :D . At any rate, I've been quite disappointed in the LOMAC version of reality vs the real F-15 and its capabilities with regard to radar and weps. Surely they can't believe that "balanced play" is a good thing. It negates real-world tactics and weapons employment doctrine, which is the real test of any GOOD combat flight sim. Do the real world tactics and weapons employment methods work in the sim? I enjoy portions of the flight models for all aircraft but would like the AFM for all aircraft & weapons - so long as they conform to what's real and verifiable.

I'm with you there. I'd like to see those things sooner, rather than later. But I think ED would be remiss if they only focused their attention on flight reality without improving the "visual reality" as well. This sim is rapidly becoming the proving ground for their next simulator, which we all hope will be the next great combat flight sim - eclipsing even Falcon and quite possibly another current vaporware product that holds great promise - Fighter Ops. Time will tell.

For the better or worse? Current direction seems to point to the latter. A very interesting thread with a lot of interesting information. Thanks Eagle and D-Scythe. I've found the same thing that the Slammer is about as effective as a fart in a hurricaine. That plus the fact that the Sparrow is a better missile makes me think that the reality modeled in LOMAC is a reality enhanced with :icon_jook . I still enjoy the sim and hope these shortcomings - including the R-77 ineffectiveness can be addressed to fit reality. Goya, I apologise for derailing your thread slightly. :redface:

Which brings up the question: Will the F-15 be worth flying after this patch? Will the F-15 even have a radar or has it been modified with a door on the instrument panel to microwave sandwitches? Will the slammer be essentially an unguided rocket with no ability to hit even a Bear Bomber at Rmaneuver? :confused: :( :mad:

Thanks Rich, Hopefully this won't be your last foray into the Eagle. Your hands conditioned from much Russian aircraft experience might actually enjoy the Eagle's handling characteristics and possibly (hopefully) come up with even more tutorials in that aircraft.:D

Well, you got me there! I'm overwhelmed by the logic of your post. I shall now enjoy the refueling process with my 42 waypoints to keep the tanker flying at the airspeed I want. Thanks! :icon_jook Oh, I could care less what's the default airspeed for any of the aircraft. For all I care you can fly the Black Shark with a default airspeed of 900kph. :p I'm talking about what's done IRL vs what's done in the land of the KC-10 that can pull a 45degree banked turn at "500kph".:icon_toil

All tankers can fly that fast - with the exception of the KC-130 (but we receptacle equipped types don't care about them). The KC-10, KC-135 can fly 315Kts at altitudes greater than 22,000ft. IMN (indicated mach number) is the limiting factor. However, i've never seen a tanker or a tanker pilot willing to do a 45-60 degree bank level turn at 220 kts. Now that's a recipe for an accelerated stall. Rapid roll rates and roll reversals are also ways to make the engine pods depart the aircraft-a 4-engine KC-135 becomes a 2-engine aircraft quite quickly.

So why do you think that the F-15 has a waiver to fly 300Kts below 10,000ft? The aircraft - any pointy aircraft (F-16, F-18, IDS Tornado, T-38 even) has limited ability to turn hard at slow airspeeds. There's not enough G available to move out of the way of something at slow speed. Oh, BTW, have you ever seen someone refueling in an F-15 behind a tanker going 220Kts? The tanker (especially a KC-10) would have it's flaps down to maintain that airspeed, and the F-15 would have a nose up attitude of 7-9 degrees just to maintain level flight. There's no way to maneuver effectively in an aircraft with small wings at 220Kts. Oh, one more thing - when a tanker refuels any aircraft, there's a set airspeed for that type of fighter. The refueling airspeed for an F-15 is 315Kts, overrun 335Kts (overrun airspeed is used for a point parallel rendezvous done by the tanker). IRL the tanker usually flys an anchor and fighters rejoin by "fighter-turn-on" rendezvous.

The other thing you should consider is the amount of viewable space a TFT display will give you. With an aspect ratio of 16:9, and at 1680x1050, i see more of the sides than a 19" CRT display at 1600x1200, and by far MORE than a guy flying at 1280x1024. I can make out your aircraft well before you probably can see me because of the resolution. I play on a laptop (believe it or not) at 1680x1050 with almost all eye candy turned up. My friend used to be limited by his CRT display at 1280x1024 and I could see him and keep eyes on him throughout the merge. Consider this when making a purchase.

Oh yeah, i know... but after placing 42 or so waypoints for refueling instead of using the "Begin Loop" & "End Loop" waypoints and trying to calculate the turn radius of the KC-10 at 315KIAS at 20,000 ft, and placing the turn points, etc, it's still porked... :icon_evil Once i've got that sorted, then it's dealing with an AI pilot who flys the tanker like a fighter pilot. Oh, i hate it when the autopilot engages and you cruise through the contact position and right into the tanker, or the tanker goes into a turn and your autopilot keeps you straight & level. :mad: I still like LOMAC above all because it's still the closest thing to experiencing the real thing that i've found. :D

Gentlemen - and Ladies, Please, let's get this thread on track and discuss the F/A-22. Leave the political stuff at home - or in the appropriate political forum. This has been an excellent topic & I'd rather not see it locked.