bogusheadbox

Now i didn't even know that you could dump fuel !!!!

Actually rockwelder, On viewing the site, i could not find pictures of what IT is. I didn't register, but i thought they would have had some description ready to hand to let the casual browser in on what they are planning to achieve. Unless i have missed something REALLY REALLY obvious (knowing me thats probable the reason), than i really don't know. Is it a simulated pit - or USB instrument panel??????

For 10,000 bucks, i would come to your home and do it myself. And here is what i can offer the other one doesn't 1. shake your chair to simulate turbulance, taxiing, g-forces 2. Hold a fan in your face to simulate when you accidently open the canopy in flight. 3. Waft a gentle fart in your direction to simulate spawning in (canopy open) a rural airfield 4. Urninate hard on your glasses or screen to simulate torential downpours (yes it really is that big - but simulated showers rarely last longer than a minute.... sorry) 5. Set the back of your chair on fire to simulate the all important engine fire. 6. Cricket bat in hand, i can swiftly and precisely deliver the impact damage caused by that missile or shell hit - (and you will have something at the end of the day to show your mates as spoils of war) 7. Extra sounds incorporated with the package, such as whhhiiiiiirrrrrrr and Whooosh. Not to mention the all time favourite sound file which should be played whenever you are destroyed by enemy aircraft......................... "OMFG NOOB F15 AIM120 SPAMMASTER HAXOR - UNBALLANCED IMBA IMBA hax0r NOOB MOFO" All that for a small 10,000 and a couple of beers..... >>> Yeah you know you want it <<<<< :pilotfly:

Zag is correct. All rights to images and usages of those images should be detailed in the EULA (End User Licence Agreement) that you agree to before you can install the game (that none of us bothers to read). I would suggest you email ED to cover your back and make sure you have permission to run this website. You should not have any problem if the two main general criterias are met. 1.That you do not receive monetary gain from the website by exploitation of the intellectual property (to which ED may have a right to some of the profits). 2. You do not discredit the intellectual propperty. Provided you adhere to those simple rules, i think you will find that you will most likely be given permission. As this only promotes the propperty and can increase public awareness and sales and will be of benefit to ED.

No one mention Fighter ops. It might be an eye opener :music_whistling: P.s. Good for you Weta.

You know it cracks me up. Everyone going - I need 6 gazillion gigs of Ram, 200 core cpu running at 20 ghz and 6 dx10 graphics cards running in SLI. Then i take a look at the minimum specs written on the FSX cover.........:megalol: Crikeys Micro$oft must be thinking we are all stupid !!!!! FSX has problems.... Big problems. It should not need the amount of tweaks it does to get it running on computers that make the minimum specs requirements look like a commodore c64 Nice one M$. Too bad you didn't release it in april. Would have been a great April fools joke !!!! Buuuwahahahahahahahaha ! Pricks !!! :mad:

Ok i fixed the problem and it has nothing to do with the hardware fix on my comp. It seems that the game keeps by default the last information entered in the IP address section of network play, regardless of trying to connect through hyperlobby or not. Let me explain. I had been connecting directly through IP on a friends computer. (where you enter in your IP address and connection speed). But when connecting through hyperlobby - Lock on will default to the IP address i had last used and would try to connect to that server (which was not active). So to fix this. I simply went into the network play section, deleted the IP address, press connect so it would remember that no IP address was entered. The joined through hyperlobby. Worked perfectly.

Hi there. I have just installed a new chipset fan on my computer which meant that a lot of hardware was disconnected from the mobo. Before the repair hyperlobby and Lockon worked perfectly. However now when i try to join a server, the following happens. Hyperlobby will load lock on. Lock on splashscreen comes up (Flaming cliffs) I am then taken to the map page (no coalition page) After about 30 seconds on the map page the settings change to IP connect and nothing comes up. Any help appreciated.

I never knew it took time to warm up. I always activated it when i thought i was in a hot zone or saw a missile launch. I will activate it from engine start now i think and leave it on. See if i survive better. Those damned manpads are my worse nightmare !!!

Never tried to use one of these against another aircraft. Though thinking about it. I don't get a lot of time to do anything when a fighter has a bead on me.

Yeah i saw that on the fighterops forums. At the end of the movie it cuts out just before touchdown. You think he bottled the landing ?

This sim is absolutely brilliant. Great community. And has a seemless transition from ground to space. If you ever wondered how hard it is to get your little shuttle into space, then give this a go. It has real newtonian physics. Big thumbs up. fantastic project and its free. Definitely worth a look :thumbup:

Maybe the spiral is a design feature of the missile>??? Perhaps it is to help avoidance of the missile being shot down whilst in flight ?

I want one

And if i may hijack. What is the reasoning behind throwing out two at a time. If i understand correctly. A short contiuous burst is more effective than a single release. So why are there not 4 ejections ports to pop our 4 flares at the same time and hence increasing the amount of decoys you can deploy in the same time frame? Is it due to room contraints on the airframe ?

So here is a question for you. We know the relationship between IAS and TAS and the part that altitude plays on it.. But lets have a look at the shaking and modelling behind the shaking. As the airpressure is less and therefore less dense at altitude. Then as a hypothesis (without surpassing the sound barrier) shouldn't a plane flying at IAS 400 at ground level have the same flight characteristics as a plane flying IAS 400 at FL300 ? (withrespects to buffeting, roll, pitch and yaw). For surely as the aircraft sensors are detecting the same force of wind acting on the airframe. Should it then have the same performance characteristics? So why is it that in game my plane flying at high altitude will suffer buffeting when its reading the same airpressure / forces as flying at IAS 400 at ground level. When at ground level buffeting won't occur until a much higher IAS is reached?

Or you could use touchbuddy :thumbup:

Sorry I haven't read through all the pages of this thread. But if you are a sim head. Then steel beasts (SB Pro PE) is the way to go. And before you ask. I think it is worth the money. Arguably THE most realistic ground warfare sim available. Its also used as a training tool for various mechanised armed forces.

No Rumour, it was a ficticious scenario to judge the opinions over how the pubilc refer to each respective developer. Ie. Do you think ED would look after the product and customer base better then LP ? WETA if you want to try and put words into my mouth, then please take you opinions elsewhere. Whatever your fanatacism / blind devotion / misguided judggement / illconceived notions (choose the most applicable). I did not state that i prefer AF over ED nor am i baiting. The only baiting i see being done is you by trying to sway others to your point of view by misqouting my words. I don't even own AF. I have researched AF as i am interested in buying it and i used it purely as an option in the above scenario as the two games are often pitted against each other. Both Developers also seem to share a different business approach to their product which is evedent in the support and forums. And that was the relevance in the topic's debate. I have been polite, couteous and i expect the same.

Actually there are quite a few in the pipeline and there will be a few more. For starters. BOB:Sow RRG are making a serperate simulation based on the BOB engine (Rumored to be an early era combat jet sim) Fighter ops. continuation of f4 just to name a few. The market is healtier than it was some time ago. And it will only get more prolific as deveolpers realise (through the fanfare that M$X and X plane 8.4) are producing. There is a huge market out there for sims, and there is a growing host of deveolpers trying to cash in on it. Its not a time where a deveolper would want to get a bad name for poor performance in view of upcoming competition. I will ask you one question based on what is a hot topic at moment (F4:AF vs LOMAC) IF the F4:AF team said that on january 1st they will release an all new flight sim with all the bells and whistles that curently is possilbe. And then. IF ED team said that on january 1st they will release an all new flight sim with all the bells and whistles that currently is possible. Based on their past performance of supporting their product, community involvement, and features that work. Which one would you be more inclined to try / buy first.

Ok guys, lets keep this civil lest we actually get some moderation here. GG, you seem like a good bloke. So i am definitely not trying to push buttons. But the poster above has a point. 35 a year, 20 cents a year. Who cares. I would still be upset, becuase i can see that ED have the wrong business plan and are now stuck in a rut where they have to abandon fixing what never worked or broke in the patch. In order to circumvent additional funding by getting he general consumer to pay ontop of what a privat firm wanted created. I wouldn't mind if ED were commited to the title. That they are not and you have mentioned that yourself. Whether they want to or just because of monetary issues. Plane (excuse the pun) and simple they have abandoned this game "Warts and all" because its far simpler to take the money from a gift horse than to create a masterpiece.

Ok then

Ohhh you gave me a great laugh there. You are correct. But personal preferences aside. That is an idea of how well policed a forum can be. I see derek's reputation proceeds him well. LOL I didn't get a chance too. Though i was graced with a kind PM (kind for him) i did vow never to buy another of his games ;-) Not sure i quite understand. Sorry. I thought they have been particularly tight lipped over the possiblility of fixing existing bugs since release, bugs introduced since 1.12a in contrary to the information divulged on the new content. I am not out to see heads rolling down the alley. I just don't understand the common business model of release errors and let the public deal with it. But they have released a partial SDK and that is good to see. Good work on that one ED

Actually i was referring to both original and 1.12. Well i disagree to a point. Yes there will always be the individuals who create and argument for no other point than to augue. But if the deveolper wishes (and i beleive they should) to get involved with the community to increase awareness, advertising and grow the support database. Then it should be done on a properly modderated board where rudeness and poor behavior is dealt with by deleted posts and possible bans. One problem with forums these days is that we all too often allow poeple to say what they like and leave it in print even if the poster who created a slanderous post is mis informed. Once you moderate a board, and the public know that you won't take crap. They will post as they should. Informative and polite. Then the developers will have safe environment to work in. Take for example a game i purchased called battlecruiser millenium (one of the most moderated boards ever - outside of china). I joined the forums to enquire about patches, and ingame tips. The moderators took no prisoners here. All posts were with please and thankyous. In actual fact i was banned from these boards as i didn't know how to post my system specs so any questions i asked could be asnwered better. Of course i was informed my account will be reactivated once i updated my profile. But that is my point. Allow poeple to carry on and they will. We are customers and that is no right to be rude. But we are customers and that it no right for us to be ignored on the product we have purchased. Agreed as stated before.... I am primarily an IL2 buff which comprises 90% of my flight time with my online squadron. There is a reason why the ubi forums are called UBIZOO. Is it the posters problem. Yes. But its also the moderators forum for not enforcing the guidlines that everyone agrees to when they sign up. Give people and inch and they will take a mile. Knowing that. Its unfortunately a problem that needs to be dealt with the deveolpers that control the forums to which they communicate to their clients / fanbase on. Yes i have enjoyed lomac. Have i flown it for years. No. I purchased vanilla lomac, used it for less than a month then it collected dust for about a year. Have i been flying FC for years. No, i have only been flying it about a month now. I enjoy flaming cliffs in the sensation that i enjoy the SU-25 only. The other craft pale in comparison. But why do i enjoy it. It simulates jet flight (IMO) well. And i use it to primarily give me a sense of flying in something other than IL2. I still see it as an unfinished masterpiece. I would like to see this title be all that it can. It has more potential than Christina aguilera naked sitting on the edge of my bed begging for it. However some blame has to still lie with the producer. If ubisoft were imposing a strict release date before the title could be accomplished. then the developer should have gone..... Ok, we need to put on hold, this, that, maybe only have one flyable per side, and inform the public that a later release in patch or paid add on form will include these added bonuses. That way you have a stable game upon release. People rave about it as it works. And you have the potential to make more money because of positive sales and increased revenue due to paid add ons (that poeple will want). The simple fact is. If this game truly rocked, it would be rivaling IL2 in the online stakes on hyperlobby. The fact that it doesn't is testament that it has not achieved anywhere near the potential it deserves. BUT SO ED, keep us in the loop. Keep talking to us and show us the fruits of your labour. Because i am interested.

I understand what you are saying. But nowhere in the readme, game cover, or producer related advertisements does it list bugs, implemented features that don't work and incorrect required system specification etc as a feature of the game. I don't give a rats testicles if its listed as a game or a sim. Simple fact these days which all consumer, developers and porducers ignore is....... THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT TO PAY MONEY FOR STUFF THAT DON'T WORK. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy flying it. But as you said. It falls short of what it could be, What we were lead to think it was, What we expected from it. So, to have no response on a programme with "issues" that came in a box that was not as advertised...... Well you draw your own conclusions. I am glad you think so. I think so too. I paid less than ten pounds for this title. + added cash expediture for FC. Not a lot of money i hear you say. Yeah, I agree. But i still don't think i got what was advertised. I agree. I have read through the pages of this thread and listened to a lot of replies from testers who validate the missing or incomplete features due to monetary cash flow. That to me is obvious. But its no excuse. ED are a business first and foremost. They simply did not have a good enough business model to ensure funding to complete the required product as advertised in the given time frame before being released on the public. Whether it was down to Staffing, overheads, time constraints - all all falls under one heading. BAD MANAGEMENT. During the course of deveolpment they should have realised that they are behind schedule and running short on budget. So insted of pushing out a buggy, rushed and still incomplete game. They should have removed some features (which could be expanded on in patches or addons) and concentrated on the main and most important parts of the game. So is it our fault ED could not give us what was promised ? No. Its purely ED's fault. Now before you ED die hard fans jump in and start flaming me. Belive me when i say i am an avid flight sim fan. I encourage those that try to keep this great genre alive. ED do this for a business because they make money off it first and foremost. To think otherwise is an err on logic. They will not fix what they can't make money off. And here is where their logic if flawed. If they bothered to make the game smaller, but polished on first release and expanded on it like IL2. Then they would still be selling large amounts ot titles. The game graphics are still top notch today. The engine supports great flight models, physics and damage models. But no, they botched the release, they still not have fixed many bugs years after and they don't give a rats rectum about the community that supports them. Why..... Because they know that we cannot help ourselves and the market is starved of flight sims/games. Therefore us gullable consumers will still pick it up and play it. The only words that i see from reading this long thread is. IF only. Well, ED if only you'd ........ You know. One day. Someone will pick up a buggy game. Look at the cover. Look at the advertisement, and say. This is not what was promised. One day, that someone will visit a lawyer........ "One day" in my mind will happen before "if only".