ericinexile

Yeah, I plan on running a test on it tonight...if I can get a break from daddy duties long enough. I still hate AWACS. Smokin' Hole

Apparently the E-3 in LO can burn through mountains. The Su25 that I mentioned in the openning thread was very low in some of the most mountainous terrain on the map. He was headed directly towards the AWACS (obviously not notching), but he was also 200 km away. When I saw him after my EOS locked he was at treetop hight. I'm sure he wasn't always at this altitude but AWACS did keep calling him "LOW" during most of the vectors. If most players prefer AWACS then I am obviously in the minority and will shut up about it.

Thanks everyone. I stopped using Teamspeak on Falcon because I kept waking the baby. Looks like she's going to have to learn to get used to it:) . But even with that level of coordination, I ask again why do we need AWACS? Smokin' Hole

True, but we will never get that level of player discipline with LO. F4AF has it because the dynamic campaign builds missions in packages with CAP, CAS, and SEAD all in the same package--human or AI, doesn't matter. This game is very different and I actually prefer those differences. However, the MP missions shouldn't be built around a concept that almost never exists. I'd love to see coordinated escorts for striking aircraft. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. Experience has taught me that if AWACS or F10 view is allowed, then I just won't consider flying anything other than a fighter. And this is ok. But sometimes it would be nice to be a ground pounder who knows fighters are out there but they will need to be at least a slightly smart to get me, so I have some hope of survival. Smokin' Hole

You mean you don't have a problem with CAS aircraft making it through your screen? If so, that's partly my point. Or, Do you mean you don't have a problem as the CAS? If that's the case, do you give lessons? Smokin' hole

Yesterday, I was online on the RAF Server and was getting bored and so decided to try letting AWACS give me vectors to target while I remain in IRST Vertical Scan. I was flying along the mountains and valleys not really caring if I survived or not, but eventually my plane locked on a very low-level SU25 flying through a valley. To his credit, he managed to launch a r73 before getting hit in the face with an r27et. This guy was being spiked by Blue side's E-3 200 km away while flying at less than 50 m through a very mountainous valley. With AWACS taking all the intelligence out of the search, he had zero hope of surviving long enough to launch anything at a blue target. So my question is this: Why do most MP Servers now incorperate AWACS flights into their missions? Doing so makes all their careful placement of convoys and ground targets irrelavant because no CAS/strike aircraft will survive to get to them, unless he flies on the server practically by himself. Excuse the slight rant but the idea of war is to kill people and break things on the ground. All the jousting at 3000m is supposed to be just a fun sideshow to the real fight. Server hosts, please don't take this as a dis. You guys put a lot of time and money into making the game even more enjoyable. For that, thanks. Smokin' Hole

Wild-Bill, Even the Saitek Pedals act as a completely separate controller from the X-52 (they even use different profilers!). I don't think it matters in the least that you are using different brands so long as the throttle matches the stick. Pedals can be whatever you prefer. Smokin' Hole

I've got the Saitek pedals that are paired with my X-52. The pedals work very well and make flying the su25 much easier. Each unpaired weapons-drop creates a yaw/roll moment that forces you to either side-slip or awkwardly trim out the yaw. Better yet, just hold a little rudder until your next pass makes things equal again. You won't regret the purchase. Smokin' Hole

But you can fly it strictly FBW by holding the base of the stick firm with your legs and moving the top of the stick with your wrist. Smokin' Hole

No. Swept wings do not suffer from adverse yaw to nearly the degree that straight wing airplanes do. With sailplanes, the yaw is very high because the roll authority is so low. The rudder serves two purposes: 1) counter-acting the adverse yaw, and 2) creating a roll force that is actually more effective than the ailerons. This is also true of all airplanes at low speeds--in jets, the point where the rudder is more effective is called "crossover speed". So in swept wing designs we have another force called "dutch roll". Unless the jet is very stable and benign, it will control dutch roll with an automated yaw dampening system (you can see this in action by watching the smaller "rudder" on the SU-25). In reallity, swept-wing Jets are "feet-on-the-floor" airplanes. Use the rudder to takeoff, land, and to point your weapons, not to coordinate turns. For some reason in the game, particularly in the SU25 (despite the damper), rudder is needed a lot more than in reality. Smokin' Hole

That's more like it. Don't forget to grossly overcharge the military! We U.S. taxpayers are proving that we will pay for just about anything for the dumbest of reasons. You can use the extra income to make 1.2 really kick ass! Smokin' Hole

As someone who has bounced jets more times than I should admit, bounces are caused by numerous factors: 1) the most common, flaring through the landing. I've watched plenty of Russian videos and they show a tendancy for Su and MiG pilots to really pump the stick those last few feet. 2) Carrying Power through the landing. At high AOA, power creates lift. That CL plus the CL generated by the wing amplify Newton's third law when the wheels hit. 3) Hitting at a high rate of descent--Newton's third again, and 4) Touching down at a speed that results in a touchdown AOA that is considerably lower than the designed Reference AOA. Another factor that is pure conjecture on my part is that perhaps Russian designs are built with very substantial landing gear to accomodate rough landing surfaces. Newton's third law once again. Smokin' Hole

Brewber, This post is going to really piss you off because I had exactly the same problem, but... ...I don't recall how I solved it! I do know that several people offered changes to the client settings on one of the lockon config files and I adopted some of those changes (after a clean reinstall). Whatever the solution, it was in my case within Lockon and not Windows IP or Router settings. Sorry I'm not more help, but at least this might help narrow your search for a solution. Smokin' Hole

The BS "Ramp Start" thread had seriously drifted, so... LockOn is a game; simulator...yes, but still just a game. As such it is impossible to achieve, yet noble to attempt, perfect reality. So there must be a point where the game aspect is designed for maximum enjoyment with a nod towards realism. There is no way that two fighters will ever meet over Crimea for a gunzo battle to the death. But it sure is fun to do so in the game. What sucks is that even though guns-only rules may have been established by the host, some puke can LOPE a r23 (or Aim-54) to the fight. I'm truly sorry that ED has fubar'd the loadouts on the A10. But that doesn't mean the rest of us should pay for it. At the very least implement a lockable loadout list so that the host can enforce a choice of allowed weapons, hardpoints. Who can argue with that!? Smokin' Hole

Why didn't ED hardcode the loadouts for all the flyables?! LOPED loadouts ruin Multiplayer. Smokin' Hole

Still the same. The last MSFS articles posted at HoverControl were written in July, 06. But the articles' stated benefits for using FS9 as a training aid for real Instructors and students hold even truer with FSX. FS9 was great, but at full realism settings it was too difficult to precisely control the helo and took a great deal of concentration to hover it in a confined area with precision. FSX has a more natural feel than FS9. Helicopters are inherently unstable but once you get the hover down they are not difficult to fly. With FSX you can now look wherever you like with TrackIR and not risk losing control. You can now view out the left side to approach an LZ with a slope or down through your feet to gauge drift and sink-rate. I found that with FS9 I had better look straight ahead near the horizon, otherwise my hovers would start to look pretty ugly:cry:. So yeah, for me FSX was well worth it--but then I'm content with anything over 10 FPS...

FSX is a big improvement over FS2004, IMO. I reluctantly bought the upgrade despite knowing that it would struggle on my 4 year old system. With a few tweaks, it has been working surprisingly well at visually respectable low-medium display settings. The most pleasant change was the Bell 206 which now flies more realistically, particularly in hover. For those of us looking forward to Black Shark, this is the obvious first step to learn the basics of rotorcraft flight. To appreciate how realistic even MSFS is as a helicopter training tool, go to Hovercontrol. Smokin' Hole

Before I jump in I'll admit that I am about to make a big apples/oranges comparison. Last night I just finished recurrent training in a very hi fidelity full-motion, 180 3D view, EXPENSIVE simulator--albeit for a 737-800. Although I find the actual airplane to be relatively fun to fly, the simulator is decidedly NOT! Even though the sim is one of the latest CAE designs, the visuals are very poor and far inferior to Lomac or MSFS. The flight modeling is far enough off to be very noticeable--despite millions of dollars of systems modeling. In fact, I think the flight model of the 737-800 in FSX is just about as accurate. Anyway, I think if you were given the opportunity to fly a "real" F15 or A10 Simulator (without a human adversary) you would probably recover from your initial excitement in about 10 minutes at which point you would be highly bored and disappointed. Smokin' Hole

Well...Let's see it! Smokin' Hole

12 people will buy it and 27 million will copy it. StarForce can't stop 'em all.

Over the past few days I've been reading the "...From the Russian Forums" thread which discusses future additions to the Flanker/Lock-On franchise. That thread really hit home for me the massive amount of work involved in getting additions to the market. That further led me to ponder how a product with such a small market but which also requires so many thousands of man-hours to get ready for publication can really be financially worthwhile to the developer. Why do it? I can see it for Halo. I can even see it for IL2. But a super-niche-sim like Lock-on just doesn't make business-sense. I know I'm just an end-user and this stuff really is none of my business but the process of developing and marketing a product has always piqued my curiosity. I must really be missing something because if I were running ED, I think I would have either given up or joined the FPS bandwagon long ago. Smokin' Hole

Back in the 90's, ED introduced Flanker the most amazing sim I had flown to that point. Finally, a combat aircraft that was modeled to actually fly like a jet. As a devotee of the franchise ever since I feel there is only one jet that deserves the next AFM rework: Of course the Su27! Also, someone stated previously on this thread that he had hoped ED would retrograde back to the cold war. I completely agree!!! The modern era, as described to me by friends on the F15C who are contemplating the F22, is not very interesting from a pilot's standpoint. How cool would it be to have a fantasy early '90s Afganistan War with FULL NATO involvement? Hinds, AH1s, Su25s, F16s, Su27s...Could it really get any better!? Smokin' Hole

So....did it work?

They are aneroid and receive pitot and static data directly from their own ports. (Yes, I know, that isn't quite what I previously said, but I lied :megalol:). The standby Airspeed and Altimeter do not need electrical power but the standby attitude indicator and RMI do. None are very accurate and I'd hate to have to rely on standby instruments to get me down in low IFR conditions. Newer designs (which I haven't flown) must still get their data from the same direct feed from the ports but use LCD displays (I assume with internal battery backup). BTW, the best instrument by far is still the little tuft of yarn on the canopy (yaw string). Smokin' Hole

AirTito, Didn't mean to offend you or mis-state your posts. I too like simple, reliable, and redundant systems. The modern airplanes with which I am familiar do not have the basic instrumentation that you describe (other than a wet compass). Everything that I have flown in the last 14 years has been equipped with either round dials or display screens that convey electrically generated information. Until your post, I had no idea the modern eastern fighters and combat helicopters used such simple instrumentation, even as backups. Modern airliners (and by modern, I mean MOST airliners built since 1970) are completely dependent on at least one source of electrical and/or hydraulic power. Loss of both would mean disaster. But wait! Why hasn't this been a problem? Because these systems are so redundant and now so dependable, that almost no one is looking back. Airliners fly 15 hours a day. Most fighters would be considered busy to fly that much in a week...or even a month. But despite the heavy use these systems hold up. And I believe they hold up better than "simpler" systems which are more subject to mechanical wear and tear. Honestly, I love the Su25 in Lock-On. (And if I could get close enough to my targets to destroy them before being destroyed myself, I'd fly it more online.) But I thought even that old crate used more complex inertial and air-data sourced instrumentation. The fact that it is perhaps closer to the Cessnas I once flew astounds me. I'll stand down Tito. BTW, I used to fly in Europe with several Bulgarian pilots--including the president of BULALPA. Great guys. See you online. Smokin' Hole