Rhen

Any possibility of a 3d pit too? Ya know, just in case we can get 6dof for the Eagle too? Just wondering.

You rock! The little red thing near the wing root is actually a light. The Air Mobility Command Patch on the pilot is a bit off - unless he's pulling double duty in the C-17. You still ROCK!!

F-pole Just to slightly correct for terminology, any of the -Poles are distances. F-Pole - The distance from the launching aircraft to the target at missile impact. An F-Pole maneuver is designed to maximize this distance - the theory being that the longer you can keep a foe a arms length, the more you maximize your chances of survival by not entering the weapons envelope of the bandit or more importantly not being inside E-Pole. The other poles are: A-Pole - The distance from the launching aircraft to the target when the missile begins active terminal guidance. This is the point that you have to support your missile - otherwise it becomes a CHEAPSHOT - the brevity code for not supporting your active missile to high PRF. E-Pole - The range from a threat aircraft that a drag must be accomplished to kinematically defeat any missile the bandit could have launched or is launching. Ideally you'd like to be flying an aircraft that can be at A-Pole before E-Pole - something that a small RCS will bring to the table.

By jove! I think... Much better & more patiently said Ghost! I apologize for not being as patient in explaining as Ghost, but when people make puerile comments such as beaming not equaling a characteristic of doppler clutter rejection... Whoops! Did it again....

... yet strangely enough, IRL there's plenty of USAF pilots with "perfect" scores.:smilewink:

That's an apples to oranges comparison that's neither fair to the F-35 nor the F-22. The F-35 was never designed for air superiority. The F-22 was never designed for moving mud (although some would like to shoehorn it into that role for the sake of the critics). Air combat isn't about fairness. It's about messing up the other guy's day in the fastest way possible, at the greatest distance the ROE will alow. You just can't do it as well in the F-35, because of simple physics. Any small aircraft will be great in a dogfight, but it has to get to the point where it can get into a turning fight. That's the advantage an aircraft with a large radar in the nose. If you see me at a longer range, can lock me and 11 - or so of my buddies up, then divvy up the sort with your buddies and plant a long-range missile in our backsides, then you win. The F-35 wasn't designed to do that.

In a look up situation there is no notch = there is no "beaming" = there is no notch. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that. Second, the AN/APG-63 has several modes which diminish the ability of a fighter to effectively notch it's radar. Finally, what do you think beaming is if it has nothing to do with the doppler notch?

You're mistaking LOMAC for real life.:music_whistling: There is no ground clutter in a look up situation. The doppler notch is too wide in LOMAC. I won't even go into what happens in a look down situation - especially in a 4-ship wall of Eagles - IRL.:smilewink:

Correct. It was a go-around attempt in afterburner. Once the gear was up and the aircraft was in afterburner, the full travel of thrust vectoring and max control gains was given to the pilot. This caused the pilot to enter a pilot induced occiliation. The pilot retarded the throttle out of burner and attempted to control the oscillations using stick movement :doh: and throttle changes:no: (he should've frozen the stick in a nose up position). This caused the aircraft to settle and a gear-up landing to occur. NO control valves were failed. The aircraft was very pitch sensitive in this regime - it was well known by test pilots. This pilot didn't deal with it well because it was unexpected.:joystick: Was it the pilots fault? Partially, but it was also the aircraft's fault as well - to be fair. An aircraft that's very prone to pitch sensitivity in a go around situation with afterburner (burners probably aren't required for an F-22 go around unless in a traffic pattern stall), is not a proper software solution (it's the software that unlocks these control gains with the gear up and throttle in MAX afterburner). Regarding the canopy. The canopy failed after a red ball was called in for a canopy unlocked indication during preflight. The canopy was cycled multiple times to try to clear the malfunction, with the last cycle trapping the pilot. This was caused by a single-point failure of screws attaching the canopy to the hydraulic actuator, which backed out. There's three ways to leave the aircraft at this point: 1. Jettison the canopy and have a chance of the canopy falling into the cockpit, killing the pilot or seriously damaging the aircraft if it falls on the aircraft. Let's not talk about the explosive bolts firing and what damage that might do. 2. Eject. Which may cause bodily injury and damage to the aircraft. 3. Wait for the fire department to cut you out of the aircraft. F-22s are refitted with longer screws to prevent this failure in the future. So, name me an aircraft in any military service that didn't undergo multiple modifications and refits after seeing operational readiness due to, wire bundle chafing, poorly thought out engine/hydraulic line placement, structural airframe components, missiles hitting the airframe upon release, the list goes on. Glad to see this thread back on topic, but regarding the PIO incident, this was answered several pages ago.

Actually they're using a language that's been around the Department of Defense for many decades - Ada. ADA 83 & 95 are being used for 90% of the code. This language is well developed and the DOD isn't the only source of programmers. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and many other defense contractors have both programmers and instructors to teach and code in the language. Portions of the code are being updated to Ada 95 since the compilers are available. Look, I'm a pilot and I know this stuff. It's not rocket science, that any new system will have its bugs. However in the over 30 million lines of code, to military specifications, I might add, there's not been a software crash that has caused a mishap resulting in loss of aircraft or human life. The pilot who entered a pilot induced oscillation on takeoff caused the crash of his aircraft, not the F-22, because of lack of understanding of the control gains he was in at the time of takeoff. There's much more reliability than WindowsXP or linux (no offense to Microsoft or Linux developers). There's so much misinformation - on both sides of the F-22 debate that people should really think about researching before jumping in with heresay. It's easy to speculate. It's hard to have facts at hand.

What version of LOMAC are you using? Pick up http://hyperfighter.sk/ hyperlobby. This will tell you what's happening on the servers. It will also tell you what your ping is. You can also find out what your ping is by hitting the key to bring up who's flying on the server once you get in (the ' key on some keyboards). you'll see the heading of ping. It tells you what the latency of your connection is. Basically the higher your ping the slower you get updates from the server and subsequently introduce pausing into the gaming experience for the rest of us. I don't usually join unless my ping is less than 200 - but I'm lucky because I can usually find a server with a ping less than 100. Basically what others will tell you is to: Read the manual :book: Don't fly with your jammer on all the time :doh: Learn to IFF (identify whether the aircraft you're about to shoot at is a friendly or not) before you shoot :eek: Come up on teamspeak for the side you're on.:music_walkman: You can find the teamspeak address in the briefing... oh... Read the briefing and look at the map before hitting the fly button :book: Did I miss anything?

Hmm, perhaps your graphics chip doesn't have enough memory. I play on a laptop as well, but it has 256MB memory. I usually get this type of graphics corruption from task switching or when the chip becomes overheated from diminished air flow. If your laptop is not brand new, have you sprayed the dust bunnies out of it?

Try running in full screen mode instead of in a window. The other thing you can try - at least it works for me whenever this happens - is to task switch out of LOMAC and onto the desktop, then back to LOMAC. You may have to repeat this task switching process several times to get rid of the corrupted graphics. Hope this helps.

Other reasons other than helicopters or friendly fire - although that's a pretty good reason.

:huh: :noexpression: I for one would like to see the things that are already in the sim fixed before things branch out towards your brand of realism.:P It's comments like yours, that make me shake my head.:lol: One of the reasons why I call LOMAC a game is because any semblance of "modern air combat" is purely coincidental and, well, let's just use your term "undermodelled." People who think that the missiles' behavior, radars, flight models, ECM, are realistic and this is how it works in the real world are mistaken. Those of you who realize that significant modifications to real world capabilities have been made in this game are more informed. A simulator allows one to use the tactics of modern air combat without balances in capabilities or modeling (which is possible on a PC platform) that are required to "enhance" gameplay. That said, I nevertheless enjoy flying LOMAC. I just wish they'd fix some things that are already in the game. Allowing this level of end-user modification to the game can only mean (IMO) that ED is looking towards the future with a new product, and putting LOMAC behind them.

Technically false:P . You actually get a distance and airspeed readout. When stationary, the spinning rotors generate a return. When we get an airspeed readout, we know they're airborne. Nope you get range and airspeed from the radar when looking at a helecopter, even one on the ground.

Your buddy must've worked on A-models. The C pressurizes off the landing gear handle. BTW, it's not dumb;) ... when the tanks are pressurized, all fuel is really burned internally and replaced by fuel in the wing externals first then the centerline. So really the F-15's always burning internal fuel, it's just that it constantly gets replaced by the external fuel tanks. The short time we are using strictly internal fuel is for engine start, taxi, and takeoff to gear up. Once the gear's up, the externals are pressurized and they feed and replenish the fuel used in the internal tanks. This lessens the possibility of trapped fuel and possible flameouts from nonfeeding external fuel tanks. Anyway, that's what you get for doubting me... after all, I did fly them. :joystick:

I'll take your bet! What do I win if you're wrong?:P

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was not controllable by the pilot. When using EMCON4 you must turn this off anyway. However, the system is only useful if it's on. If you turn it on when you think a missile is coming at you, then why do you need it? Finally, if it's on, you're detectable. Granted, its not a high power emission, but since the power equivalent of a 40watt bulb is detectable at several million miles, the typhoon will be as well.

Hmm, all I have to do is read the debrief, or exit LOMAC and then reenter. I've not gone into the settings menu for a while, but this still happens. Damn, it's mighty annoying... but that's LOMAC for ya!

Ok, here's the deal. The monitor I use has a 1.6 aspect ratio. I've edited the graphics.cfg file to reflect this instead of the default 1.333333373 - whatever. But lots of times - so many times it's annoying, since it happens even when I exit a server's game to look at the debrief and reenter (not just when I shut down LOMAC and restart) - the aspect changes back to 1.3. I'm sure I just have to live with it, but has there been any fix to this, or workaround with one of the graphics tweaking programs for LOMAC? I'm thinking of writing a .BAT file that takes a saved copy and renames it every time I start LOMAC, but that won't solve the problem from happening in the same game instance. Any ideas? :helpsmilie:

The wing tanks usually transfer first, then the centerline. All external fuel replenishes internal fuel tanks. The external fuel doesn't feed on the ground - you're using internal fuel for start, taxi, and takeoff until gear handle is in the up position. This pressurizes the external tanks and then they feed. But, to answer your question, the wing tanks feed, then the centerline. On a side note, when you air refuel, all tanks should fill, including the wing and centerline tanks. But, of course, not in LOMAC. ;)

Actually, it's true. The DASS on the typhoon (defensive aid sub-system) has forward and aft missile approach warning phased array radar detection systems that warn the pilot of an approaching missile - whether IR, SARH, or ARH. However - and this is a BIG however - it's not a passive system like the UV detection warning systems used by... well whoever :smilewink: . So, this system emits electromagnetic energy making the typhoon much less stealthy and able to be located with the proper detection equipment. The plusses of this system are that it can warn of approach of missiles of any type in any type of phase of the missiles flight - boost, sustainer, or glide. The minus is that it's active and detectable. The UV system on the other hand can detect all types of missiles (IR, etc.) but only in the boost .... phase of the flight. Once gliding, it emits no UV signature to track and is lost by the warning system. BUT it's not a source of electromagnetic energy, so consequently doesn't interfere with detection of the aircraft.

That's true & well said!:thumbup: It seems that ED is moving the sim towards more control by the end user - at least in models. Makes me wonder about their next project even more.

A WHOLE LOT of Hollywood! Even if the missile did all that, the proximity fuse would've damaged his plane. I figured they'd at least stick with "real world" capabilities (not just the typhoon, but the missiles, etc as well) and stay away from the spice of watching fuel become afterburner, etc, since they're trying to sell a real aircraft, instead of a computer game of their aircraft...