DaveRindner

Once again. I love this sim. Such great work from developers. Trully a good training tool for amateur helo pilots, and wannabe's like myself. Though there are some issues, which, no doubt , are being addressed. Perhaps some of my comments are due to lack of experience. In which case please accept my apologies. Ship landing on Ticonderogas, and OHP's. The helo desends right through flight deck, with no touchdown. But no crash either. Landings on Kirov class (actually its called Admiral Ushakov now, as Sergei Kirov was a Bolshevik a-hole), and Russian frigates, is a great challenge, and great training. Oddly the faster they go, 30knot flank, the easier it is to land. However, the masts around their flight decks, are not in down position. The helicopter goes right through them, decreasing the realism of the sim. As major task of helo flying is dealing with obstructions and confined operations. It would be cool to have Kuznetzov have static objects, (i.e. parked aircraft) on it, to provide a more realistic landing experience. Once again for obstruction and confined area training. It would be cool to be able to set ships as takeoff and landing points, like FARP. For mission start, end, refuel/rearm. NVG/Shkval/fog. For life of me I cannot get Shkval to work right during night with NVG. Regardless of brightness/contrast setting of the screen, I cannot make anything out in Shkval with NVG on. So I cannot target anything. Shkval during fog is unusable. It does not see anything, farther then .7km. Oddly I have bad guys (insurgents)in trucks shooting at me from inside the fog from outside 2km. So they can see me, but I cannot see them. I think KA-50's night/inclement weather fighting systems are lacking. Actually I don't see KA-50 (as it is simulated) as an attack helicopter per-se. To me its more of single seat VTOL/STOL attack aircraft, like Yak-38, or Harrier (pre-night). It needs a CCIP/CCRP for freefall bomb delivery, if there is one in real life.

I have gotten all right in landing. I can land gently on ships, and farps. I still from time to time have unexplained in-flight rotor disintegration, and dynamic roll. I get intermittent dynamic roll when landing on rough terrain. Slow gentle touchdown of main gear, then as soon as nose gear touchdown, the aircraft rolls to the side and rotors disintegrate when they strike the ground. This does not happen, on farps, roads, ships, and tarmac. Why only on terrain such as grass. Second, during maneuvering, with heavy rudder, I sometimes experience rotor intermeshing. Where the lower rotor cones high enough to intermesh and strike top rotors. The whole rotor assembly disintegrates in flight with predictable consequences. I am not certain why this happens. DaveR

Actually. Special Forces Suppourt, is perfect job for KA50. It has high hover ceiling, and thus can suppourt Spetsnaz in the mountains. Recall how Hind-Ds had to fast rolling takeoffs in Afganistan becouse of altitude.Its fast and survivable so it provide close air in close proximity to friendlies. No anti-torque rotor, so it can absorb DsHK hits. Torque rotors as suseptible to DsHK rounds (14.5) and RPG. As Americans found out in Somalia, and more recently in Iraq and Afganistan. Hind and MI28 cockpit tubs can take a 23mm, but torque rotors are most fragile and vulnerable part of helicopter. Strangely the SOP for CASEVAC pickup in nonsecure area, is to land facing backwards to the threat. I guess its harded to hit anything vital from that aspect. I like KA50's ability to act as virtual fixed wing aircraft, carrying freefall ordinance. Its almost a SU-25T/39, and it can land vertically with bringback ordinance. Apache and Cobra don't carry freefall bombs. At least I've never seen them. Normal loadout is Hellfire and 70mm FFARs. MI28 is more suited to conventional attack helicopter roles, specifically maneuver unit CAS, screeining, and anti-armour. As to why MI-28 was chosen. Could be politics, operating costs, training/conversion costs. I recall '93 technical breifing ( Military Power of CIS), KA50 was described as a dedicated anti-helicopter helicopter. It was illustrated carrying R-73 (Archers), and podded SA-18 Strelas. Guess they were off the mark.

Owning The Night Anyone who served in ground US/NATO armed forces, and have gone through advanced training. Gets drilled in to their head, WE OWN THE NIGHT. Just about everything they do, on a tactical level, they do at night. Or mission is started at night. Two items that a soldier prefers to load in place of MRE or pogeybait(unauthorised food items), are batteries for their NVG gear. Everybody carries spare batteries. Every direct fire weapon has an attach point for low light device. Rotary crews especcially train with night gear. I am saying that I've read on threads, and YouTube, how KA50 is superior to AH-64 or AH-1W. On an airframe level. Perhaps, I am not sure. But sensor wise. Apache or AH-1W (NTS), or Mangusta, or Tiger, wil eat it alive, given similar crew skill level. German crews are particulary good with their Tigers. The do crazy crap. Like hide behind a treeline, hovering at 1 meter, and rotors 5 meters away from nearest tree. In pitch dark. Autohovering in ground effect, on reduced power, they are very quiet, and can loiter. NATO crews use this as anti-armour ambush tactic. We would joke how silent black UN helicopters are not an urban myth. Mangusta and Tiger have this mast mounted sight (IR/laser/or mmmRadar). They only expose top half of the sensor sphere, for target aquistion and targeting. They have this advanced auto-hover, where aircraft won't drift more then 6" in any axes. The crews use translational lift from the anti-torque rotor, to crab the aircraft without banking. NATO crews also train for LOAL engagement. Thats where your buddy fires his Hellfire/Brimstone from long range, hidden far from target. The designating crew pops up, and starts laser illuminating the target about 5-10 seconds before the missile starts its terminal dive. BOOM. The designator crew immediately beets feet. Then they setup somewhere else to do it all over again. Tactic is called Shoot'n'scoot. Raytheon makes this doohicky, where IR and lightamp are sensor fused. Advanced fixed wing have synthetic aperture multimm radar fused with IR and lightamp. Checkout F-35 Distributed Aperture System.It is downright scary how good it looks. Its like grey/amber version of the world. DSP's filter out the gain noise. I am saying that the sensors give a slower airframe an advantage. For helicopters, speed and maneuverability is not as important as their sensor suite I suspect that the actual 'block' of KA50 being simulated is late 80's, early '90s. Russian army now has access to the same DSP as NATO. So the actual airframes in service are likely outfitted with latest sensors. In the manual there is a photo of KA50 at '99 airshow with nosemounted sphere sensor. My opinion, that thing belongs on top of the mast. Assuming that the coax rotormast can accomodate the sensor. I am wondering if that was one of the reasons Russian Army chose MI-28 as its standard attack helicopter. I am still learning the sim. But I am up to hovering. So I practice flying (scooting) from treeline to treeline.

Kudos to ED team. By far the best sim I have played. Love it. Rotary dynamics are top notch. I served in US Army, as Artillery Officer in '90s. So I had some experience with AN/PVS binocular goggles, US Army and Marines use. They are a little grainy, but even at high gain, you van make out detail, depth, and moonshadows. I have no doubt that ED modeled night vision accurately, based on Russian NVG googles. Assuming that. Those things are downright dangerous. I can't see crap. Terrain, buildings, and trees, come render barely passable, but looking at TV and targeting , can't make anything out. Very noisy and grainy. Plus the tunnel vision. I tried all sorts combinations of NVG brightness, and brightness/contrast of TV. Way hard to make anything out. If this is how it is in real life, KA-50 needs better, night vision devices. I don't think I'd want to fly this thing in realife with those tools. Is there a trick to NVG use in KA50. Otherwise really great!

I own both LOMAC and F4:Allied Force. Used them for years, and have gone through Shaw's Fighter Combat end to end. Back in the day (llate 60's early '70s), this guy (actually an American jet Ace) Col. John Boyd came up with Energy-maneveuverability theory of fighter design and fighter tactics. Which have been central guidance to US Fighter design. The philosophy basiccally sas "Speed is life". I can't imagine reallife F-16 driver fighting at high AOA at 200 knots. Yet for close combat, slow speed is central to fighting in a Mig-29. I find that in LOMAC if I can survive iniital AMRAAM and long range AIM-9 shots, and get into F16, F-15, and F-18. Then bring the fight close in between 150-180 knots. I can almost always win, even with enemy AI set to ace. In F4:AF if my fight speed goes below 400 knots, MIG eats my lunch. My best chance for visual range victory is head on launch of 120C, 9M or 9X at 8nm with my velocity between 380-420 knots. Little bit below 16's corner velocity.This forces bandit 29/30 to break, which allows me to convert to his (6-9) for a follow on kill shot, if head on missies. I cannot let the fight degenerate into a hollywood style furball. I always loose. Below 350 knots ,in F4 AF, the nose authority is limited. Yet 29's or '30's out turn my F16. Well at least thats sim-reality in F4. However if I keep my elbow long, the F4 AI will break slow down the 29/30 in an attempt for me to overshoots. Thats gets his energy low, and I eat AI's lunch with a gun. OK, so my belated point, is that it seems that Russians have different take on Boyd's E-M theory, as reflected in LOMAC and F4. They beleive that slow speed is life, Americans belive that high speed is life. F16 instructors, teach to fight at 16's corner velocity and it can't be beat. So I see all these cool aerobatics vids on youTube and LiveLeak. Cobras, Kossack turn, and (my fave) SU-37's VT assisted, post stall loop. All of them require entry velocity of 230 kph(180 knots). In a fight with a 16 or a 15 at its corner velocity with long elbow. These guys would be toast. They are at high AOA, nose high, low energy. Easy targets. Reallife 16 or 15 driver is not AI, he would never get himself snookered into a low speed fight. So what is the real reason Russians train these maneuveres? I see the same thing with F/A-22 when it shows off its 80 AOA flight. In a real fight , why would the Raptor slow down to such slow speed as to require 80 AOA? DaveR

I am curious if LockOn developers will include AESA radar modeling for MIG-29, SO-30MKI, and SU-33. As well as for F-15 and F-16. The latest F-16 blocks (50, 52+, 60) all have AESA options. Also F-15 are one of the lead platforms for JHMCS AIM-9X. AMRAMM is up to C-6 (Scorpion) mod. Bringing back MIG-29K would be nice as it the real thing for the Indian Navy along with their new (well really old but rebuilt) Moskva class aviation cruiser (i.e. pocket aircraft carrier). For carrier landing, some actual LSO integration with waveoff. Aside from OVT example, 29 has no flying thrust vectoring models. but SU-30MKI has thrust vectoring. I am curious how that could be implemented into LockOn. I would love to have SU-34 as flyable aircraft. According to Aviation Quarterly it flies like a heavy SU-30. Both R-77 and R-73 are in mod2. Extended range and engagement envelopes. Western ships are using Rolling Airframe for point defense to suplant or replace Phalanx CIWS. Adding some newer types. F-35 (A,B, C), F/A-18E/F, and Typhoon. I am afraid adding F/A-22 would make the sim unwinniable, as neither 29, 30, or 33, can effectively engage the Raptor. It would be interesting to run intercept on TR-2 Dragon lady. Add rain to weather.

I have both Saitek X52 and X52Pro, and have same problems with both of them in LockOn 1.1 and 1.12. Issue is that LockON is always reading the sticks as having buttons pressed, so defining inputs is nearly impossible. LockON always reads buttons 33, 34, 35, and 36 as always on. I can't seem to get it working. Also I run LockOn both XPPro and XP pro64. 1.12 refuses to run on XP64 becouse Starforce says it can't run on that system. However 1.1 runs great on XP64, better then on 32 bit XP. My XP machine is a Intel Dual-Core laptop with Radeon X1400 My XPPro64 box is AMD Opteron QuadCore with 4gb of ram and QuaddroFX 4600 (512mb). DaveR

Dear AWL Its Falklands Islands. Had Argentina won that little lover spat, then we could them Malvinas. To the victor go the spoils. Personnally I think that Argentina still holds a grudge against UK, and even US, for not adhering to Monroe Doctrine, for Malvi... I mean Falklands. So do many of South American nations, which explains bad blood (if unspoken) in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brasil,and Boliva, and US. Which partially accounts for their gradual shift to Leftist Socialist government. DaveR

Its a matter of naming with ModMan Its just a matter of properly renaming the DDS files. Problem is, I don't know what that name the should be, and how to do it in ModMan. ModMan only gives me the option to insert a an idetically named file(s) for exisiting ones. If you know how to use ModMan to do ADD vs. insert maps, PLEASE describe it.

Its there I checked, its is there on Page 10 for ALL aircraft. If you search by aircraft, SU-25T, it comes up, though in this site, which is kind buggy, I sometimes get aq blank page. But its there. http://www.lockonskins.co.uk/index.php?page=skins&offset=0&order=SKID&aid=63

OK. Now how do I upload it here. The skinpack ZIP is 3,822 KB in sze and this forum will not allow more then 1000kb uploads. I need the rule eased or moderator or someone assist me in how to get that skinpack uploaded. Breaking up the ZIP into parts does not work, as the main fuselage DDS map is 1788 KB in size. Preview is here http://forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=3658&d=1134645233 Thanx in advance. DaveR

Version 01 of Peruvian Naval Su-25T/39 is availble I could not upload it here, so I uploaded to http://www.lockonskins.co.uk Use ModMan. The DDS files replace the SU-25T Test Scheme skin. Had to make some compromises. I wanted to make the gear struts, wheels, and gear bay, painted white, but LOMAC FC uses single map for those details for all schemes. Same for pylon underwing portion. Works well with overcast skys, like those found in Southwest Pacific. Also works well over winter terrain. DaveR

Peruvian navy skin is done! Need help to upload it. But I need help uploading it. The ZIP file is almost is 3822 kb in size and this forum will not accept ZIPs over 1000kb, or total combined ZIPs over 1000kb from me. It tells me limit reached. Is there an upload repository that someone can point me to. Or contact my public e-mail at daverindner at yahoo dot com, if you own a repository. The map looks nice. It works pretty well if there is dense overcast with 40km visibility and over land in winter. LOMAC/FC sets the water and sky as dreary gray. I put in fake cockpit glass on bottom of fuselage, and from distance, when aircraft is in steep bank, it is hard to tell which direction it is turning. DaveR

Active Stealth technology: i.e. plasma generator If it could be made to work.No doubt the wizards at Zshukovsky, at LM Skunk Works, and Boeing Phantom Works, have tried. So far it seems failiure or non-practicality is the result. Anyway, US technology tradition, espouses passive techniques. Any kind of active 'stealth' technique is bound to be detectable by alternate sensor or side effect. Hell, even bi-static, or Nnode radr techniques likely gave American stealth gurus the fits. Until they , obviously figred out a way to deal with it. The pundits were saying that China and Iran were upgrading S300 and S300PS systems with Nnode network surveilance radars, and B2 could no longer be counted on to penetrate the airspace. Turned out that, the theory worked in lab, in real world the aspect of primenode (emmitter) to reflector(target) gave different results. So by changing course, and aspect, the B2 effectively created a circular probablity of location, so huge, that by the time the supercomputer spat out the proable position of relfector, it was no longer valid. Now this is for subsonic (600 knots or less) hi profile. It can;t be used for targeting, unless you count in megaton airburst saturation of CPL area. It may be used for vectoring interceptors, but I doubt that in real world, a SU-37 onboard sensor can detect it, much less track it. There was talk of utilizing bistatic or Nnode radars as enhanced weather patern detection, such as ultra-hightech dopplers, to detect wind vortices and air displacement (wake) of the penetrating aircraft. That went nowhere. To complex in real world. For wake detection and tracking, you would need satelites or very hig altitudes assets. All targets in case of conflict. I can't say what is the deal with LADAR surveilance. That went black. So far, it seems to me, that passive stealth approach, by the Americans, is the correct one. If nothing else, everyone knows that it works. Two said days in US Defense policy. JSF greenlighted Comanche canceled.

No roving gnome for uncaged winder There is longitudal aiming mode in F15C and A10 in LOMAC/FC, but thats not true uncaged mode. In uncaged mode you get a wandering designator carret, that represents the seeker gimballing in quasi-random or helical search patern, on its own, independent of radar. In all F15C modes, with exception of longitudal and boresight, the AIM-9 seeker is slaved to radar. Thus it is caged. The nice thing about uncaged mode, is that it allows you to approach and launch, usually from rear, without ever having to use on-board radar. Its aerial assasination.

Nope. It does not work Nope the radio menu does not come up with regardless of what hotkey is assigned to it. Simply does not work. Its a no brainer. Lights. CNTL-L does not turn them off. Neither does SHIFT-L. Actually no button keypress combination works. The function does not even appear in Input section of Options. Are you guys using FC 1.11 version. Perhaps it works fine in FC 1.1. I recall it was working fine for me in LOMAC. Only when I updated to 1.11 did all these problems began. I've tried clean install from CD then update several times. No change. There are other issues which are contrary to what ED is saying about FC 1.11. For example, they claim that with 1.11, Starforce protection only checks the CD once a week. From my experience, that claim is false. My 1.11 checks CD every time I launch the app, and will not work without the CD in the drive every time. Tire shredding. I do flare, and keep nose high during touch down. My touchdown speed is 250, flaps in full deployement, VS -2. Thats pretty consistent. Sence neither the nose gear tire, nor the main gear tire shreds during departure speed of 270-280, why should they shred at recovery speed of 250 or less? Advanced flight model is great, but thats an inconsistency that I beleive is a bug.

Granted, much is classified about F/A-22, still the more I learn about the more scarier it seems, the more irrelevant every other 5th gen platform is seen. I am comparing it to Typhoon, and SU-37(thrust vector). Theres nothing else really to compare it to, including Grippen. In serioua air2air combat given high level of skill, a threat pilot only has any real chance to engage FA-22 in Typhoon or SU-37 VT variant. Eurofighter claims that in CAC Typhoon has advantage in turning and burning. Who are they kidding. A thrust vectoring aircraft would naturally have more nose authority, especcially at lower speeds.F/A-22 is capable of true tailslide and 90+ AOA, I've seen the video. Though honestly I am not fond , at least in flight sim fighting, of tailslide. At the end of that move, you got no energy. Where low speed nose authority would be usefull in 1V1 where in CAC the opponents scissor until stall speed. In which case the, guy that retain more nose control at lower speed and high AOA attitude has the advantage. Now Typhoon's canards give it low speed high AOA nose authority, but not quite as low as F/A-22 with thrust vector. Well thats just CAC. As far as BVR and BVR merge, forget about it. F/A-22 could initiate Scorpion attack before Typhoon or Su-37 would even know about it. TYphoon's Meteor long range BVR missile (EU's AIM-54) is very amazing. But thats assuming that F/A-22 would be targeted at range beyond AIM120-C-5. Same goes for R-27ET and RR-77ER(extended range R-77). In the end, both Typhoon and SU-37 are AMAZING high peformance 5th gen conventional aircraft. While F/A-22 is high performance low observeables aircraft. I think its just as well that its unlikely that any of the three will see combat against each other for the foreseeable future. I like the US Air Force's somewhat 'arrogant' estimation that with F/A-22 they would gain theater wide air dominace not just local air superiority espoused by Typhoon and SU-37. The hutzbah of the Americans makes me proud of being one of them. I mean I look at what Americans are doing as to air dominance in 21st Century. They got F/A-22 for air dominance fighter, B-2 for strategic penetration bomber, B-One and F-15E for regional theater bomber, and entering service YAL-1A Airborne Laser. The only aircraft I don't like is the JSF. What a DOG! What a waste of money. For what the intend JSF to do, I would much rather have US develop F-16 into a super low cost platform. The way I see it, it would have been more effective to take F-16 airframe. Strengthen it to 11g load. Add MultiAxisThrustVector F119 or F110 or similar powerplant. Add conformal tanks and spine for internal ECM/avionics. Hell ,all Americans had to is to Americanise the F-16I Soufa, and save how many billions developing JSF. All JSF has is its low visibility as its defense. In ACM especcially CAC, SU-37, Grippen, Typhoon, Mig-29/35, and 4th/5th gen Chinese airframes will eat it alive. I am surmising of course. But they are implementing a 5th gen airframe without thrust vector, and limited visibility, and limited range.

Is there an UNCAGE command for AIM-9M in F-15C that I missed? I recall in Jane's F-15 and in Falcon4, you could effectively dogfight without radar with just EEGS and uncaged Sidewinder. Sae goes for A-10. this 2 deggree longitudal aiming mode for AIM-9M is not realistic enough. DaveR

I am fairly certain that there are non-functioning command bugs in FC 1.11. All the commands listed below do not work regardless of what hotkey is assigned to it. Radio Commands (mapped to "\") Simply does not work. ScreenCapture (mapped to "SysRq") does not work. External lights. cannot be turned off (SU25T) Drogue shoot (mapped to "P') 60% of time it deployes and releases the chute simutaneously with a single P keypress (SU25T only, no problems with other aircraft) Tire shredding inconsistency(SU25T). During departure fully loaded the rotation speed is 260 Km/h, weight off wheels at 270-280 Km/h. There is no problem with tire shreddng. However during recovery with following touchdown parameters; speed 250 Km/h, VS -2 or -3, dirty config(airbrakes out, flaps in landing pos.), no stores, fuel 50% the tires shred almost immidiatly after touchdown. I do not care what ED sas, that is onconsistent, and is a bug. It needs to be addressed! What happened to fuel dump feature? DaveR

OK. Thanx, great to know you guys like it! OK, good to have + feedback. I do need some assistance. SU-39 map templates are numerous, and I am not certain where the nose and cockpit are mapped. I need to locate the fake underside canopy right below cockpit, but the way UVW map is layed its hard to tell. I wish that map templates would come with layout grid for UVW location.

Hi all. I am relatively recent add-on to Lock ON:FC. I am also a huge military aviation buff(no I am neither fat nor ugly!). I love Air Power Review, Combat Aircraft, and Air Forces Monthly publication. I noticed that Peruvian Air Force have used MIG and SU-25 airframes sence '80s, and more recently, Suchkoi OKB has offered SU-25T/39 to Peru. I can't say if they offered made an offer to Peruvia Air Force or Navy or both. So I figured what would SU-25T/39 would look like in Peruvian Navy livery. I went wth low visibility ocean grey. I've included a preview JPG of half a fuselage, as I would like feedback and ideas. Do you think this is on a right track. There is really no precedent, as Peruvian Navy currently does not have fixed wing strike assets, though they do have Exocet in inventory. Peruvian Air Force uses SU-22 with Elbit electonics to make them compatible with NATO MILSTD stores. This is according to Wikipedia and Air Power Review. DaveR

Thanx for the replies. Good info! Hey gents! Thanx for replies. Good info. I did not realise that sim concentrates on 90's. Then how come there is R-77, KA-50, KA-52,SU-34 in the sim? Thats a 21 Century hardware. Isn't SU-25T (SU-39?) a 5th gen attack aircraft? Only now entering service, or has it been in service for a while? Makes me wish that LOMAC would be more up to date with respect to geopolitical situations, and systems deployed, or about to be deployed. But its still the best. Also explains the Soviet references in campaigns. Good info on parachutes being ripped off on SU-25T. But then my touchdown paramemters are always as follows; 245-255 Km/p, -3 VS sink rate, flaps in landing position, air-brakes out. Very good info on VIKHR employment! Makes sence, short range deployment would result in higher screw radius which impacts PK. So bassically LOMAC went from being a SU-27/33 simulator to being a SU-25/T sim. OK I can live with that! More power to ED. BTW what is the 'real' Russian callname for SU-25T. Please don't tell me that Russian aircrews fighting in Chechnya are calling it Frogfoot. NATO codes are sometimes south of being insulting or just plain stupid. They chosen by a NATO committie in Belgium, so that they are clear when pronouced over UHF/VHF comms in heavy jamming environment, by scarred soldiers. Some are supercool, Backfire being my favorite. I really love how Russians name their equipment, at least in some cases. Now in US/NATO, HARM targeting pod, is called HarmTargetingSystem(HTS). Now would the Russians called their pod plain ETS, nope! :] They gootta comeup with possibly the coolest name for a equipment in defense industry. Phantasmagoria :) YOU CANNOT DO BETTER THEN THAT!! Sounds like latest slasher flick from Hollywood. I think US and Russians are in a cool weapon name race, and Russians are winning. American military has an unhealthy and pathological obsession with acronyms. How come noone ever made a plug-in for extra theater for LOMAC? IMHO, LOMAC has the best graphics engine in the consumer flight sim market. It would make an excellent base for additional theaters and aircraft. Like MS FS2004 and MS Combat FS, where you got all these small developers making aircraft and terrain plug-ins. I'd kill for super realistic HarrierII/GR7/GR9 sim with LOMAC graphics engine!!!! Theres one for FS2004, but its flight only, no combat or weapons employment. Personnally I find that realistic switchology and cockpit procedures add to enjoyment of the flight sim. I want more of it in LOMAC. Thats one of the things I love about F4:AF, though I think its visuals are dates (i.e. kind of lousy). Its not a 'fun' as LOMAC, but its a good cockpit trainer for Block 50/52 F-16. I am prior service (US Army artillery officcer). I recall the reps from LockheedMartin breifing us on real life tactical simulator development. He said that function of simulator is not to simulate reality 100%, but to train. He said that simulators are millions of lines of coded compromises. Just like a combat aircraft is a multitude of compromises flying in close formation. :)

went straight to v1.11 sence I always use the latest, and did not use initial releases of FC. Here are some of my thoughts. I like it, for the most part. There are issues that I am experiencing. SU-25T issues and thoughts. I love the realistic flight model. I wish they would apply AFM to rest of the aircraft, especcially A10 and Mig-29. Landing SU-25T is very difficult and unreliable. -60% of the time the drouge chute FAILS to deploy. The rear chute door is open but there is no chute. I deploy the chute as soon as my main gear touches. -Sadly when that happens the wheelbreak fails to work also. My touchdown parameters are 245-255 kph with -3 sink rate. So what happens is that I am unable to slow the aircraft on the ground, and it shreds the tires. -Also my NWS drags significantly to the left when taxing, taking off, and landing. Its not my rudder (Saitek X45) as it works fine in flight and on other aircraft. Its not rudder centering or rudder trimming issue. Its something in the sim itself. -VIKHR is not a guaranteed hit. 25% of time is just so slightly misses the target, becouse of its corkscrew flight. I guess that kinds of realistic. BTW I find that salvo of 2 VIKHRs takes out a M48 and M60, and 3 takes out Leopard and M1. What is the point of corkscrew flight? -I am assuming that turn rate of 25T is realistic. If thats so, that thing is dog in a fight. It also departs easily when doing rudder/aleron rolls and banks. I feel kind of sorry for real-life SU-25T drivers. Building SA is bitch in that aircraft. Thank God for external views in flight sims! -I miss the Western style localizer and deviation bars from ILS symbology from previous versions. This new circle within a circle ILS HUD symbology is hard for me to understand. Did the Russians try to reinvent the wheel? IMHO, the FC ILS makes carrier recovery much harder. In previous version as long as I kept airspeed at 250-270 kph and kept the low tick mark of localiser/deviation bar about where the #2 wire, I would successfully trap 75% of time, without a bolter. -I really wish that Russian aircraft had Western style CCIP. In visual conditions, there is no need to designate a target then attack. Neither Eos or radar is needed for CCIP attack. Overall I don't like Russian ground attack HUD symbology. I appreciate the realism of ED implementation though. I just wish that Russian deisgners would just realize the superiority of Western HUD symbology and use it. Both in FC and in previus LockON I could on not hit side of the barn with SU-25 rockets and even less with cannon. It felt like the aiming reticle was useless. I would have the target rght in center of reticle with flightpath stabilized and the whole salvo would miss utterly! Bombing with SU-25 (old) is utterly useless, there is no symbology whatsoever! -IMHO when on receiving end of AIM-120, I think there is a no-escape zone if you start the break within 3nm of missile. And thats for Mig-29. I have yet to successfully evade Scorpion attack in SU-25T. It turns way to slow. Nice touch on AIM-120 smokeless motors! -Would it be unrealistic to have somekind of nightvision HUD mode, or Falcon4 night goggle display for night missions. Don't the Russians, in reality, have something like NTS, or NVG for their aircrews. -Both B-52 and B-One need REAL ECM packages. They are way to easy to detect and kill. -Speaking of night. Nights are way to bright! The terrain is clearly visible. I think that whole night display in LockOn needs to be reworked. It does not feel like night. I use the highest quality settings. I am curious does LockOn uses DirectX(i.e. Direct3D) or OpenGL? -Following threat aircraft should be considered to be included in future revs. Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, F-15E (F-15I for Israel), F-15C/D with AESA radar, F/A-18E/F with AESA radar, F/A-18D, Grippen, SuperGaleb, AMX, C-17, C-5A, F-16 MLU, B-2, YAL-1A 747 airborne laser, F-16I Soufa, F/A-22, JSF, TR-1/2, E-8 JSTARTS, Harrier GR7, Harrier GR9, HarrierII (USA), P-3C, Tornado ADV, Jaguar, MI-28 Havok, Lynx helo, Puma helo, Eurocopter Tiger helo, MD500 LOAH helo. -Following weapons should be considered. Meteor BVR missile for Typhoon, Skyflash for Tornado, ASSRAM for EU aircraft, BVRAAM for F-15 and F/A-22, AGM-142 for B-52G/H, Python series and Rafael series for Israeli aircraft, JDAM, MOAB (for C-130), LongShot CBU-97. AIM-54C is no longer in inventory, perhaps it should be removed. I realise that this may be UNPC but I would like to see tactical nukes for all sides where applicable. B-61, and W-80 devices for Americans and British, and equivalent weapons for Russians. -Following vessels. Note: aircraft carriers cannot enter the Black Sea, as they cannot pass through the Bosporus, but anyway.... British carriers and amphib ships, French carrier and Foch and new DeGaule, US Tarrawa and Wasp class LHD, Vidby Island class amphibious vessels, Arleigh Burke class FFG, underway replenishment ships for all nations in sim, LCAC, Lebed class hovercraft. -Following ground units. Infantry(dug in, light, mechanized for all sides). Troops should be a munition for aircraft with transport mission. LeClerc MBT, Challenger II MBT, Warrior IFV, HEMTT truck, towed artillery(deployed and in travel configs), engeneer units. -Following static objects Aluminum airstrips,feild hospitals, troop bivovaucs, underground bunker with airvents. -Following tasks and commands for aircraft Drop/pickup troops for aircraft with transport role. Lase/Designate target Field Land/Take off from any field for helicopters. Loiter(both as a timed task, and command).

Kind of new to this mod thing What do you mean Pack? How? I am kind of new to the mod scene. So exact and detailed instructions please. It tooks me forever to figure out how insert my skin, even then I could only do so by overwriting the Swift livery. I am revisiting the color scheme anyway. I looks OK, as far as color in Photoshop, and in Modman Cdds view, but appears too dark in FC. To much towards dark of US Navy jets of 1950's. I am thinking, what would the optimal scheme for aircraft oprating mainly in upper Northern Pacific lattitudes approaching Arctic circle. Where it would patrol coastal regions(i.e. sealane enforcement and security). P.S. This month's Combat Aircraft profiles MiG-29OVT. Looks like the Russian spies got into F-16 MATV program and had a paper orgy. The OVT has multi-axis thrust vector, coupled with quadruple-reduntant FBW, and 'Western' style HOTAS. Upgraded Zhuk AESA radar, wingtip hardpoints, for total of eight, and arrestor gear for carrier ops. This is what MiG OKB wants to sell to Indian Navy. Remember that Russkies are converting Moskva helo carrier into mini-Kuznetzov for Indies, and proposing same for mothballed Kiev hull. Each converted hull becomes an airdefense/anti-sub heavy cruiser, carrying 20 MiG-29, and 16 Helix airframes. Each hull gets naval version of S300 and some Granit cruise missiles. According to the article, the OVT can do what not even 2-axis SU-37 does. It can fly at 160+ AOA (thats practically backwards), without departure. As well as a new 'Boomerang' maneuver. I have not seen it, but its suppoused by a sideways Kobra. I cannot understand, how they keep the aircraft from departing at such crazy attitutes, not to mention overstressing the airframe. DR