ericinexile

I don't care if someone blinks. ECM blinking could be considered a rudimentary method of simulating the far more sophisticated pods used in RL. However, for my own improvement I would like to know when others are using it against me. A little flashing "E" in Tacview would be wonderful if such a thing is possible. As for external views--they suck. Map views--they suck worse. AWACS--sucks most of all ;-) Smokin' Hole

He's been asked that before. I've stopped doing SEAD/CAS flights on the 169th. It's just such a waste of limited spare time to ingress with external tanks only to be taken out near target. The map is great but is designed for an unrealistic level of cooperation--at least for those of us who don't belong to a squad. That's ok, the ground war is usually a fictional notion in LOMAC anyway. Smokin' Hole.

There are just two advantages to Imperial use in aviation from my experience: 1) A Nautical Mile conforms to one second of a degree of latitude (or longitude at the equator). This makes quick nav checks and planning relatively easy. 2) 1000 feet seems to be a very adequate vertical separation for planes on the same airway--although wake can still be a problem. With meters, we either lose that nice round number or we are stuck trying to fit all those airplanes into much wider vertical margins. Both of these issues only really apply to civil aviation and have no bearing on this discussion. And I otherwise agree, Imperial is archaic and cumbersome. Metric is unquestionably superior. The only reason we Americans haven't switched is because Reagan had everyone convinced that the Metric system was an instrument of Communists, Liberals, Scientists, and Gays. Smokin' Hole

A new friend of mine who I've begun working fairly closely with in recent weeks was an F-15C pilot until age 55! (Now he's a union chairman, go figure.) One recent afternoon we spent an hour watching his HUD videos from the mid-90's. What I found really surprising was how this guy liked to get low and fast during pratice 2v2 engagements. His HUD videos looked just like something out of LOMAC with the FPV just barely popping over desert mountains at 500 kts as his TWS was announcing occasional pings that the terrain failed to mask. He ended the engagement after his F-16 opponent failed to acknowledge death by slicing the guy with the gun piper on the bottom half of a split-s and thus making further argument impossible. The point is that, for all its faults, LOMAC made that HUD video look amazingly familiar. In the quest to see this game improve one should not lose sight of the fact that it is still very realistic. BTW, I was too embarassed to admit to being a sim geek so I had to sit through eternal explanations of HUD symbology, all of which I knew. Smokin' Hole

I fly the CFM56 for a living and agree that it's a very nice engine. Fortunately for the engine I am unable to fly faster than M.82. Approaching transonic and beyond, all the high-bypass advantages begin to erode. That's why we see comprimises with fighters that have less concern for fuel efficiency and even less for noise footprint. Smokin' Hole

You can also unhide all the hidden units. For fun try to fly--my computer doesn't have the juice to handle it all. It really demonstrates how nice it is to have someones else's server do most of the math for you. Thanks Ice and all you other server hosts. Smokin' Hole

Black Shark will be released--I have very little doubt about that. When it is, it will be the only true heli sim on the market since Janes Longbow (EEAH2 doesn't qualify IMO). There is a big desire within the sim community to get down in the dirt and blow things up. There is also a desire to really experience the feel and complexity of a modern piece of combat hardware. ED knows that Janes fans, EEAH fans, F4:AF fans, along with LO:FC fans will all want to experience Black Shark...unless of course it sucks. Thus the delay. Will it make a bunch of people millionaires like Halo? No way. But will it pay off? Yeah, I think it will. But if I'm wrong and ED does give up, my gaming life (now about 3 hours a week) won't skip a beat. Smokin' Hole (nice sig GG--Now they will have to release the thing or you did all that work for naught)

Yo Yo will have a better answer. In the meantime, I'll take a stab at it: the smaller surface is a yaw-damper. It's job is to prevent dutch-roll and to coordinate turns. Almost all jets have such a system but usually use the rudder without the need for a separate control--so you don't see it. The reason you rightly notice it act in a manner opposite to your inputs is because you are creating a yaw and it is trying to stop it. Because it is a much smaller surface, it isn't doing any harm to your goal of moving the nose. The way it is supposed to work in more intelligent systems is to recognize your intentional control input and then act to allow the yaw but keep it precise. Smokin' Hole

Thought I'd merge my two favorite annoyances (ECM and AWACS) into one simple little test: At what distance will an E-2 spot an inbound Su25t with ECM pods? The answer: At the same distance it would pick up a non-jamming target. And the AWACS isn't supplying just azimuth information. It also relays distance and angels. So my question is this: Is this how jamming works in the real world as well? And if so, is this just due to the far greater power of the AWACS radar or is some other little little law of physics at play? Thanks. Smokin' Hole

Not that I am a model of survivability but I don't even carry ECM on the Su25(t) anymore. I've found that the only hope of surviving on that thing is to be able to drop everything and fly "fast" toward the friendlies. ECM Pod(s) create a huge amount of drag and can't be dumped. BTW, (in case I decide to change strategy) does anyone know at about what distance AWACS achieve "burn through"? Smokin' Hole

I can't claim to stay on centerline but I do manage to stay within a meter or two. One thing that would help would be differential braking with pressure. Currently (and this seems to be true of all sims) braking is either left/right/off/on with no nuance between those four corners. But enough about ground ops--We're here to FLY!!!! Glad to hear that you ran the model by people who've actually qualified on the plane. Thanks Yo-Yo and give me my Black Shark soon! Smokin' Hole

Glad they are working on making a decent sim better. But surprised that the new version is really not much more than a graphical tweak of the original. The latest news on Fighter Ops and EECH2 both make clear that LockOn will continue to be the standard to beat. One more reason why ED need not rush to get Black Shark on the market. Smokin' Hole

I believe this aspect of the flight model is overdone. Short wheel coupling certainly does make ground ops a little tricker. However, on dry pavement a pilot can depend on tire friction to privide very positive directional control. Much of that friction seems to be absent on the Su25. I'm not talking about braking friction here but rather lateral tire friction and the ability to resist skidding. If I am wrong and this really is modeled correctly then I suggest that the Russians switch to a better tire supplier...perhaps Goodyear. Smokin' Hole

I never suffer from the wind... ...But I often suffer from the WINDS! It really depends on what I had for dinner. If it gets bad enough my wife makes me sleep in the other room. What a patient, loving girl! Now...back to flying.... Smokin' Hole

Yo-Yo, Not to be a kiss-ass but Thanks! You guys really got the flying experience right with the Su25. And I agree that the drag quality "feels" correct to me as well. The Su25 cannot really be compared to an F16 in terms of slow speed deceleration. The F16 has two things working for it (or against depending on perspective): Higher wing loading (I'm guessing) and a huge, draggy intake at idle. Take away the high wing loading of a fighter and most jets have excellent glide ratios. Smokin' Hole

Sorry, we crossed again ;). The best way to fly it is to buy rudder pedals if you don't already have them. Using the stick's twist feature is much harder to do with precision. When you apply aileron, also apply some rudder in the same direction. There is a "ball" below the attitude indicator that should be kept fairly close to center. Don't stare at and don't get too wrapped around keeping it perfectly centered--just be aware that it is there as a guide. Again, every time you apply aileron, also apply rudder. Usually the slower the speed, the more rudder that will be required to maintain coordinated flight. When you drop or launch a single bomb, missile, or rocket, you will notice the ball will be well out of center. This will either require a constant rudder application or rudder trim. Just keeping the wings level with aileron and with the ball uncentered will mean that you are flying in a side-slip which does very bad things for both the flying qualities and the stall characteristics of the jet. All of this only applies to the Su25(t). The other jets can be flown "feet-on-the-floor". Hope this helps. Smokin' Hole

Turns require rudder. Jets with swept wings have some natural yaw stability usually aided by a yaw-dampening system which, when combined, allow for feet-on-the-floor flying. For whatever reason, the Su25 (as simulated by LO:FC) needs lots of foot-work to fly properly. Check the "ball" both during turns and after non-symmetrical ordinance drops. If it isn't centered then the plane, just like the real thing, will fly poorly--even dangerously. As for the Vikhr, imagine all the combat jets you've seen. Have you ever seen anything so draggy on a plane before? Of course it's going to slow the jet down. Double the speed, parasite drag QUADRUPLES. Again, I think this is an accurate simulation of a plane that has been tasked to do something it's original designers didn't intend when they first thought it up in the 70's. I'm enjoying the hell out of it! Smokin' Hole

I don't know if the Su25 flys like THE real airplane because I have never flown one. I do know that the Su25 does fly like A real airplane because I have 11,000 hours flying real airplanes and it comes closer than any other sim, including MS and X-Plane in getting the experience about right. There are some faults, wheel friction and yaw stability being the most irritable, but overall its pretty hard to complain. As to knife-edge flight, most high performance jets (the Su25 is not in this category) are able to maintain altitude for a sustained period of time. This is mostly a function of thrust overcoming gravity but the vertical stabilzer(s) do provide lift as well. Same principal as a missile: Give it enough thrust and/or speed and it needs little if any wing. Smokin' Hole

Last I looked, it had ailerons. Flaps too. Smokin' Hole

No question that the two are in two completely different leagues of acceptability. As for launching a 120 and not supporting it 'till it goes active...well, that's just a version of "Mad Dog" and using the capability of your missile to stay alive. (It's also a good way to kill your buddy...) Smokin' Hole

So how do you mount 77s on stations 1 and 7? If LOPE, I'll pass. Thanks

Exactly. When the briefing says "Mt Cougar is WP1 for all flights", what it really is saying is, "All CAS flights that make it that far will die in the vicinity of Mt. Cougar."

Ice, Ig, and others, Thanks for the helpful responses. What had me torqued enough to start this thread was that in the scenario that I is was in a few days ago, I was convinced that the E-3 really was seeing through hills. This wasn't the case but rather my adversary was unfortunate enough to by flying down a valley directly headed towards the distant E-3. As GG surmised, the valley put him line of sight. I'd love to see the realism that the server hosts obviously intend with communication a coordination. I think some of that does exist within squadrons as I know I've been on the receiving end of some pretty well coordinated attacks. Smokin' Hole

I did a little experiment with the E-3. I routed a Su25 very tight along the east coast of the Crimea at 50m. I positioned the blue-side AWACS 100 km away over the flatlands to the west at 7000m. The Su25 remained unseen until he passed a "valley" northeast of Yalta. So, no, the E-3 doesn't burn through mountains but it does ping you pretty quickly through the valleys. Real enough I guess. Smokin' Hole

That's great, but LOMAC is a game. The real world has a myriad of things that the Lock-On world lacks. Part of the enjoyment of Lock-On is to properly use radar/Eos/and position to get a bead on the other guy before he launches at you. AWACS takes one layer of challenge and enjoyment out of the game, IMO. In return it adds nothing but the pleasure of modeling something that exists in a real war. That's ok. The server hosts are spending a bag of money so that I can play online. If they think AWACS/external views/F10 view all enhance the sense of realism and immersion then I will learn to deal with it. Smokin' Hole