Rhen

If you have Vista32 and an nvidia card, try these drivers: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_101.41.html They should work out for you.

That would be from Cope India '04. USAF used F-15Cs Cope India '05 would be F-16s

Then you're missing out on having your textures reappear. ViperVJG73 is spot on. 101.41 does indeed correct these problems.

War is hell... well not anymore, for some. War is... a police action? Nation building? Arguably - getting back to the premise of this thread, the thing that's the biggest mistake in military aviation history is the removal of guns from fighters and the lack of training in BFM & realistic engagement scenarios. That did more harm than proliferating stealth aircraft or blind reliance on an air force to accomplish the goal of holding territory - which requires boots on the ground. With (no) respect to you armchair quarterbacks who's hindsight is 20:20, all I can say is that the wind that blows from your holes has all the intelligence, odor, and warmth of a fart. You get all your insights on how air combat works from a flawed game. You have no concept of what it's like to take a 30 ton piece of metal, strap it to your ass, to go out and do battle with a similarly equipped individual. If you did, you'd realize how painful it is to look at what you post and assume there's intelligent life behind your thoughts. Fine, flame me. I don't give a damn. Hopefully the political opinions contained in this thread will close it.

:shocking: Oh, yes. :noexpression: Wholeheartedly agree with that. :noexpression: I'd much rather live under the threat of a nuclear holocaust. I'm sure there's loads of people from the former DDR who'd much rather live behind the Berlin wall than in a united Germany. :no_sad: Well that post most've came from the bowels of your mind...

Just some clues. USAF jets, have no MALE, BRITISH, Bitching Bettys. :smilewink: Secondly, in USAF, we don't "EJECT, EJECT, EJECT." The navy does that. We "BAILOUT, BAILOUT, BAILOUT." :thumbup:

Ghost's too fast for me. But we see the effect of this in fast jets too. Anything with a wing or lifting body produces this effect.

It's called ground effect. It's the reduction in drag that occurs about 1/3 the wingspan of the aircraft. Once you're that close to the ground, your wingtip vortices hit the ground instead of spin away, and it increases the efficiency of the wing by decreasing induced drag. To answer your question, I don't really know of any flight sim out there right now that models this. AFAIK, LOMAC is no different. Once your mains hit the runway, you go from a flight model to a truck model. :P If there was some semblance of wing lift/drag effect after touchdown, we'd also be able to aerobrake the jet as well. (You might have seen this as the "wheelie" some fighters do after they land - this is called aerobraking and is used to slow the aircraft without using the brakes. Once the stick is full aft holding the nose off the ground, we pulse the stick, which allows the nose to fly to the ground. At an appropriate speed, we then test the brakes and taxi to the end. Saves wear & tear on the brakes and is built into landing performance data. Also prevents bringing hot breaks to the crew chief who doesn't appreciate exploding tires after the pilot's left the scene:mad: ).

Yeah, but, I've got one of those new-fangled NVidia 8800s and if I have water lower than very high, the textures blink. With Walmis' F-15 the canopy also blinks as well. Perhaps they share some sort of texture. At any rate, I was having problems with one mission - a mission I had changed to have clouds at 9. It crashes LOMAC every time. So, it's blinking water, or clouds less than 8 for me until some new drivers come out, or LOMAC is compliant with....

If you have an 8800 Have you guys with 8800s tried turning up your settings and making sure you use at least 4x AA and 4x aniso? I had blinking water, shimmering mountains, a blinking canopy, and shadow texture problems on the aircraft as well as terrain. Turning water up to max, believe it or not, along with 8x AA and anisotropic filtering solved my shimmering, tiling, shadow, and flashing canopy problems. :thumbup:

Excellent news! Thanks ED for trying to get this out the door with the BS release. While I'm optimistic that this will help, I do realize it's a 2 edged sword, in many ways. If things like this will be added to the release, something which will help EVERYONE flying any/all aircraft, launching any/all missiles, I'm willing to wait longer (not like I've a choice, right? :smilewink: ). Stiff upper lip ED, you've got a history of releasing quality products. Why should BS be any different.

It's a good sentiment & in principle, I agree with you. However... ...The majority of (you pick the country)AF pilots train with missiles having no physics modeling. ACMI doesn't require this. Without getting into the parameters of making a kill or missing your shot, all that's required is for the program to take "a couple of variables into account" and then script the missile hitting or missing the targeted aircraft. Throw in the possibility of hitting a secondary target (i.e. an aircraft flying in front of an AMRAAM that wasn't a designated target) & you save a couple of thousand calculations and a few CPU cycles. Now, having said that, I would much rather have your system with true physics modeling. But as said previously, without proper or at least - how shall I put it "overmodelled(?)" (compared to what's currently in LOMAC :smilewink: ) missiles you still have a nice flying bullet without the brains required to force proper (real world) tactics. We're basically having a discussion about semantics. Like I've said, I agree with you, but within the constraints of current PC technology.:thumbup:

Man, if only I had about $300k for the airframe, $12k for insurance, $6k for the hangar, and about $20k for the fuel - what's that - about $340k for the first year? Not in my ball park - no matter how much I wish.:cry: ... time to fire up the old 'puter and do some flying. :pilotfly:

Great job on the F-15 Walmis! I have absolutely no problems with it, the way it is. You've done great work. It looks almost real when I'm in formation with someone else. It's chilling how much it reminds me of flying in the real thing! Great work man! PS - If you chase every little small tweak everyone wants, you'll spend the same amount of time that McDonnell-Douglas spent engineering it. There's small changes that would make it more realistic, but if you put each and every one of those into this model, you'll soon be sick of it and modeling in general. Hope it's still fun for you despite all our "suggestions." Good luck on your next model!

Looks like you've got shadow/texture issues - try the other download.

Excellent suggestion Ghost! Perhaps we can either put some coloring on that albino LOD2 for other aircraft as well, or do away with LOD2 completely for other aircraft. Would be nice!

When it comes to producing and using real world tactics, overmodeling missiles would acutally help force greater use of this type of tactic. It also would help if there was a more substantial penalty for pressing a tactical situation which would result in death of the player. But getting back to the missiles. Despite all of the flaws in Falcon, the missiles, while I'd say they're a little more optimistic, than their RL counterparts, (by how much, and in what areas, is up to you to guess ;) ) having them modeled in this way forces the pilot who wants to be successful to use -more- realistic tactics and team approaches to attaining mission objectives than they would if the missiles were modeled closer to LOMAC. I have respect for the R-77, and other missiles of their type, regardless of whether they're more or less sophisticated than the Slammer C. The price of not paying a missile respect is the price of a postumous Silver Star or DFC - the going price of which is a lot less than what I think I'm worth. Now, I'm not suggesting that simmers have a draconian penalty to virtual death, perhaps a 10min time out would do, but this also drives tactics. If the worst thing that happens is that you have to respawn into a shiny new fully-loaded aircraft with that "new aircraft smell," then tactics will reflect this as well. But back to your topic D-Scythe, you and others are absolutely right about LOMACs missiles. While I can't speak to Russian missiles, I can tell you that if we train against them as if they are on a continuum somewhere between their RW performance and their advertized performance, then we'll be better prepared to face them. Consequently, if the missiles in LOMAC were modeled somewhere between Falcon's and LOMACs, you'd be moving this game closer to it's title "Modern Air Combat." Well... some of us have. :joystick: :thumbup:

Nice work on the burner flame. One of the things that I'd like to see is increasing visibility for the afterburner flame. If it's dark, you can spot aircraft using their afterburners for MILES! You can see an afterburner flame for more than 20 NM. We even hit the burners to help affect a timely rejoin when we've been split up while fighting, etc. It would be nice to see a very visible afterburner effect that could be seen for at least 10 NM - hell, I'd even be happy with just 5.

:megalol: Why the hell not? Nearly every time I try to tank up on that guy, and a turn comes up, he gets on my 6 faster than I can get on his! :lol: If I could fly a 500,000 pound aircraft that way and still have wings and engine pylons, then Bob Hoover's got nothing on me, that's for damn sure! :P

Trop, You might also consider what your goal will be while online. You can either make your goal to survive (which is a good goal, but kind of funny when you look at the environment you're flying in - it's a game, right), or you can go for the kills. If your goal is to survive, then don't push a tactical situation that you have no skills to win. Reset/disengage and reengage at a time/place better suited for your skills and also that of your aircraft. This is a hard goal to stick with - your fangs are hanging and you're concentrating on that easy kill.... BAM! Hit by the guy you didn't know was there or the heater he fired. The natural urge will be to press a into a situation and bite off on something that may/might/perhaps be a trap. However... this goal will teach you when and where to engage and how to evade/escape and when your exit window is closed. If your goal is to get max kills, then prepare to die regularly and often. Regardless whether it's a spammer's missiles, the sneaky bastard who knifes you in the back, or the missile you didn't see, you will die on a consistent basis. This is not only annoying but kind of hard on the ego initially. But, you'll learn how to increase your situational awareness and defend against missiles - because they're gonna be all over the place! Personally, i agree with you - the missiles make this a pain in the ass. However, where we differ is in the respect we give the missiles in LOMAC. While you don't agree with me and others in this thread when we say the missiles suck and perform poorly - it's also the reason why many people continue to remain engaged in a poor tactical situation. The missiles are easily kinematically defeated and bite off on chaff too easily - IMO. This allows people who have lots of experience in LOMAC move from a BVR position to a WVR position, where the flankers and fulcrums have a decided advantage. Perhaps this is a combination of user error and missile modeling in LOMAC, but most people have very little respect for missiles because they're easily defeated. That's not to say that I don't regularly get shot down, boy that sure does happen! It's to say that if we all had greater respect for missiles, then perhaps the tactics used on the servers might mirror RL more closely. What I'm saying is stick with it, learn what you can, and you too can be a back-talking holier-than-thou fanboi of our respective aircraft like the rest of us.:music_whistling: :smilewink:

:joystick: Ok, so you're having a tough time getting started in the flanker. Well, as a fighter pilot, you've got to remember two things. 1) Know the limitations your own skills and the aircraft you fly. 2) Know the limitations of the aircraft you're flying against and the pilots who fly them. Fighter pilots spend almost as much time studying as they do briefing, flying, and debriefing sorties. So, with regards to the two things above: 1) I can do something about my skills and learn the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft I fly. I can practice and use the strengths given to me in this aircraft. Practice against the AI, then go up with your buds and do some flying. Being good against the AI just means that you know how to use your aircraft, but it's no substitute for going up against humans. Go to Ironhand's website (see his post above), and download some tutorials on missile evasion. You'll find that using your RWR and flying your aircraft appropriately will make you nearly impossible to kill with the slammer (AIM-120) BVR. This allows you to remain in an offensive posture even though a slammer's coming at you (like that's possible IRL at LOMAC distances :megalol: ) Join a squadron who'll teach you how to fly your aircraft and ALSO watch your back on the servers so that you're not doing the "lone wolf" thing. You have a data link. This allows you a level of situational awareness not available to the Eagle drivers out there (even though the F-15 should also have this). This also allows you to rely more on EWR and AWACS than your own radar. You get the element of surprise on YOUR side. Your IR missiles perform way better than they can IRL, use that to your advantage. The only warning an Eagle driver will get is smoke off your rails. You're also flying a frikin' missile truck when you fly the flanker. You've got a bunch of missiles in your arsenal. There's more, but you should do some studying on your own. 2) Know the limitations of the F-15 - your apparent primary adversary and the one you're having such heartburn with. Try flying it around against the flanker. Know it's strengths and weaknesses, as well as the strenghts and weaknesses of its weapons. The radar is easily notched. It tends to drop lock around 20nm if there's a large altitude discrepancy between engaging aircraft, it can't really IFF close in, and that's just the limitations of the radar. With regards to the slammer - well it gets spoofed by chaff way too easy, and is easily kinematically defeated by understanding the missile (as modeled in LOMAC). Let's not talk about the other limitations that arent' RL limitations... you get the picture. Finally, you're flying LOMAC for a reason (as am I, despite all the problems with the F-15), so this is what you currently have to work with. I hate the fact that pilots (of both sides whether they fly the Eagle, Fulcrum, Flanker, whatever) SPAM missiles. It's an annoying tactic, but there's easy counters to it. You can do some research, study and skill set improvement to work within this environment - or you can (how do you British say it?) whinge incessantly about how unfair it is (when it's really not because its all balanced gameplay in a sim that's more a game - arguably - than a sim, because of this fact). I've said this before, Modern Air Combat isn't about fairness, it's about killing the other guy quickly, in a fight of your choosing - preferably - with as much of an advantage as you can get. This is a hell of a lot harder than chess, and requires more skill the more disadvantaged you are and the more advantaged your adversary is. So, start studying, and do some flying to put that new knowledge to use. Good luck. :smartass:

Well... not quite. IRL in US planes the speed brake switch is a three position switch. Forward position: When moved full forward the speed brake is fully retracted. If the speed brake is extended, moving the switch to this forward position causes the speed brake to retract. Middle position: When moved to the middle position, the speed brake can be stopped in any intermediate position from fully open to fully closed. Aft position: When moved to the aft position, the speed brake is opened. Normal operations is like this. I wanna "fan the boards" which means to open the speed brake momentarily and close them again. This is useful when getting into position behind a bandit or to get into formation. The switch is moved from the forward position to the aft position then back to the forward position. If I want to increase drag on the aircraft just a little and "crack the boards" I move the switch from the forward position to the aft position until the desired level of drag is obtained then, move the switch to the middle position. This causes the speed brake to be opened to any intermediate position from fully opened to fully closed. If I then want to cause more drag, i just repeat. If I want less drag I move the switch momentarily to the forward position then back to middle. If I want them down. I move the switch to the forward position. If I want them fully extended I move the switch to the full aft position and let it stay there. In the real F-15 the speed brakes won't come up if the AOA is above 25 units. If the boards are up and the AOA reaches 25 units, the boards automatically retract.

Oh, yeah... that is a chinese model, now isn't it?:D Nice aerodynamics, built in dual air bags, convertible top, nice analog gauge, I like silver. Looks like a nice ride....:P

Are you talking the J-10 - the jet made with Israeli "assistance"? If you are, well, that thing's bigger than the Lavi, less capable than it's smaller "cousin", uses the engine out of a Su-27, not that there's anything wrong with that... The biggest thing wrong with the J-10 is that the only western tech in it is stuff gotten from european countries willing to sell it to the PRC. The Lavi is a much more capable bird, with regards to radar, ECM, sensors, etc. It's not a constest there. I'd much rather fly the Lavi, or the Eurofighter for that matter. Up against the Su-27/33 class of aircraft, well... I'd probably take the Su-33, a good radar & a decent missile and I'd toast that thing. Any multi-role single-engine aircraft (sorry all you virtual viper drivers out there...) is already an emergency. Despite the fact that the engine's been modified for a single engine aircraft and makes it to 1,000 hours -barely before it needs overhauling, well I'd rather not have to BFM in that thing. I'd probably take it over the Fulcrum, because it "supposedly" has a more capable radar in the class of the Su-30 newer gens. First look, first shot, first kill's much more important.

That's the (v)3 radar, which isn't modeled in LOMAC - wish it was... :D The one in LOMAC should be the APG-63(v)2 after the MSIPII multi-stage improvement program, which improved the radar's ability to track targets at a greater distance, made it more resistant to ECM, and allowed it to talk with the AMRAAM. BTW, if you're trying to figure out how many targets the Eagle can track and engage simultaneously, all you have to do is ask yourself "How many AMRAAMs can the Eagle carry?" That should give you an idea of how many targets it can engage SIMULTANEOUSLY. Which, of course, it CAN'T in LOMAC, obviously...:( (i'm merely quoting a reputable website and NOT providing classified information... notice I didn't mention a specific number nor did I confirm or deny that that's the min/max number. :music_whistling: )