ericinexile

I think you are making the mistake of seeing a mechanical device, say for instance an airspeed indicator, and you are claiming that the gearing, pointers, and other "clockwork" within are somehow more reliable than a screen displaying the same data. Remember, both types of instruments (analog or LCD/CRT) are receiving the data from the same source. And that source is usually dependent on electrical power. I can't speak for Russian fighters, but I can speak for Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, and Embraer designs because I've flown planes built by all four. And their sourcing for speed, altitude, attitude, and heading are all electrically generated. These machines (unlike 172s, Cherokees, and sailplanes) don't have simple pressure sensors from the pitot and static systems to expand belows and turn gears within the instrument. They use Laser Ring Gyros, and Airdata Computers to process the raw data. There is no path for this raw data to reach an instrument in the cockpit without the associated electrical processor--with a couple of exceptions. So a loss of all power, including batteries, on a complex modern plane means you are sh!t out of luck--i.e., you are now an occupant of a big lawn dart with a nice window with which to watch the last show you will ever see. With that knowledge, I want the most dependable display to convey data that is already computerized and electronic anyway. That dependable display is an LCD, not a steam gauge. Smokin' Hole

Regarding MFD (glass) vs. Analogue Glass displays have proven far more reliable than "steam guages". This is one reason why modern airliners use glass. In fact, LCD displays are now so reliable that the B777 uses a small LCD as the single standby instrument in case of a total electrical failure. Prior to this, even "Glass" cockpits used analogue for standby attitude, altitude, and airspeed. Don't get me wrong, I love steam guages and when I finally buy my own plane it will use strictly round dials if they are still available--(I fly glass for work, I don't want to do so for play). But the assertion that LCD multifunction displays are somehow less reliable is simply untrue. I've flown nothing but glass cockpits since 1995 and have only had one failure. That was on one of the older A320s and the failure was not the CRT itself but rather a symbol generator (SG). And even then it was no biggy because all glass cockpits (certainly including the one in this thread) have display switching capabilities. An impossible feature with "steam guages". Smokin' Hole

Well, I'm guilty of that one...particularly in the Su25. I know of know other way to survive more than a few minutes without the willingness to take it to the weeds. It's an outrageous technique that should make us all the more anxious to get Black Shark.

Thanks again, all. I live on Guam so not much chance of finding a close server. I don't know what a ping is (and don't care to know). But I do know that mine always show higher than most others but not above 400. Funny, because my ISP is otherwise slow and temperamental. GG-Tell your friends at ED to hurry up and set BS free. I don't care if it's broke and buggy--they can fix it later with the money I'm very willing to cough up for the upgrade. Seriously man! I no longer care if the rotors flap or if the shells ricochet. I want to hover under a bridge and kill some tanks... Regards all, Smokin' Hole

Oh and another thing. I've had some people complain about my pings (which I always shou below 400). What can I do to bring that value down?

Thanks for the replys, everyone. My suspicion began when I saw a stable plane do utterly impossible things once the missiles started flying. But I understand now that those very same flying missiles also load the network so the timing of the warp isn't really a certain indication of cheating. I feel better...but I'm still recording every fight (for educational purposes of course). Smokin' Hole

A couple of questions but first the scenario: Yesterday I was a blue Su33 on RAF. While heading towards the action on the Red side of the Crimea a F15 joined on my wing. Ahead of us were a couple of bandits and I asked which he wished to engage. As it turned out, one of us was confused (namely me) and we both engaged the same bandit. I locked initially with radar and saw a very stable "blip" as indicated by the little "aspect" arrow on the bottom left of the hud. However, as soon as I launched the arrow "flipped" 90 degrees left, right, up, down, constantly. My spaced r27er's missed. My "wing's" 120(s) missed. I switched to EOS and launched two ETs and they both missed. I'm sure the F15 was throwing more metal at the guy also but I don't know that. We both gave up (I was winchester). But then the F15 accused the bandit of hitting "print scrn" several times to avoid getting hit. Thus my questions... 1) Can a pilot really spoof a missile by asinine techniques like this?, and 2) If so, is there anything that can be done to stop it?, and 3) If a server admin is given a track file indicating a possibility of this behavior, is there a way to tell whether the warping is a network issue or really an intentional act on the part of the pilot and can the pilot be kicked? In other words, Is this worth fighting or am I just being an asshole and stop judging other people's "techniques"? Sorry for all the questions :) Smokin' Hole

Ahhh, the laughing spouse--How humiliating. She finally stopped snickering at my TrackIR. But one night she did catch me speaking softly and very seriously on Teamspeak as I was planning an OCA strike with several other "pilots". Seen from her perspective, I could not have looked more like a lifeless nerd. Smokin'Hole

Padlock Off--Too much advantage to HMS directed engagements. But that's too my favor so no hard-on against it. I do like the idea of padlocking an inbound missile. It's a crutch I became to used to in previous games--Without it, I just panic and die. Mini-Hud On--I've never understood why this is not implemented in MP. Pilots IRL have far more SA than we do. The mini-hud helps bring the sim pilot up to a more realistic state of awareness of his machine's energy state and attitude. Map Off. Print a map from Lockonfiles. Too many use the map to shoot down well planned attacks that would otherwise have been undetected. External views Off. Why would anyone want external views anyway??? You want to see what your plane looks like from the outside? Eject!!! Smokin'Hole

That video show us only one thing...that some people still don't get along. Other than that, we have no idea what the engagement conditions were nor in which country's airspace the engagements occurred. For all we know, the Greek pilots may have been ordered to allow their sixes to get jumped in order to build just this very body of evidence on "Turkish aggression". The other thing we know is that a handful of Americans are making a lot of money fueling this relationship by supplying both parties with planes and equipment. (btw, it was pretty cool to be able recognize every single bit of data from the HUDs including the DED display option...guess I learned something from all this sim time) Smokin'Hole

I've read that it features a reinforced wing-box and canopy to increase survivability when ramming US Navy P-3s.:pilotfly: Smokin' Hole

Or maybe not so worthless... The "pit trainer" made by a third party for Falcon4:AF was really helpful for learning a complex cockpit quickly. The Ka-50 pit is arguably far more complex, particularly for those of us who don't read Russian. For what it's worth, my request is that the fine folks at ED consider packing a simple "pit trainer" along with the other goodies in the BS add-on. It wouldn't need to be very comprehensive--no moving switches, no ABRIS, targeting, or HUD functions--just a short explanation for each functioning switch or button touched by the mouse cursor. Furthermore, this "pit trainer" (like the F4:AF version) should be independent of the Lock-on program so that it can be quickly accessed and used along with the manual. Start-up and Shut-down "flows" would be helpful as well. Thanks for listening. Smokin' Hole

Chinese pilots sure are proficient at formation walking. Impressive! Smokin' Hole

Man, that is the ugliest fighter ever made. Sex is dead in aviation! Smokin' Hole

Gozer, I fly jets about 83 hours a month and it is only on occasion that I experience turbulence that has a visual effect (visual responses are all we can get with a fixed base monitor). Otherwise, you really need a full motion simulator to experience turbulence in a meaningful way. Fighters have a very high wing loading and therefore are not as "upset" by atmospheric shear forces as are lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading. That's not to say that a Su-27 pilot isn't a very busy guy landing in a thunderstorm--he's moving the stick all over the place to stay on a proper glide-path. But these situations are the exception, not the norm. I've found that sims like FSX and X-Plane which attempt to simulate turbulence do so in a manner that one doesn't experience in real life anyway. As it is, I'm very happy with the flight model realism of Lock-On (RU models only). But as for your desire to have an AFM for all planes both human and AI driven--I'm with you all the way. 6 DOF too... Smokin' Hole

I just realized that this is false is well. Ground units usually stay on or close to roads until you start dropping Mark 20's on them, at which point they scatter for the hills. Smokin'Hole

Subs, For ramp starts, playing with avionics, and delivering weapons, F4:AF is amazing. For pure flying, which is the main reason I buy a FLIGHT simulator, F4:AF is way off for anything above about 5 degrees AOA. Most people don't notice or don't care and that is probably for the best because it is otherwise a great sim. Regards

Well Pilotasso, Far be it from me to question your greater experience with the sim. To be honest, I was guessing anyway. But in my experience when I build little scenarios for the Su-25, ground units which are told to remain on a road result in slightly slower framerates than when I allow the same number of units to travel waypoint to waypoint. I multiplied that observation by hundreds of battalions in a DC, and figured that would be a CPU killer. As far as the question of an obsolete graphics engine is concerned...I don't know such is the case but I don't doubt it. Lomac is obviously VERY CPU demanding, F4 is not. And here is what I do know: The FM in lomac is as good as any sim available to an amature with limited funds. F4:AF is to jets what Mario Kart Racer is to cars. Enjoy your time on the dark on the dark side. Master Arm On... Smokin'Hole :pilotfly:

Part of the reason that F4:AF's DC is successful is due to the sim's marginal graphics. Ground units move with impunity through cities and treeless hillsides with no need to regard roads until they cross a river. This allows hundreds of ground units to maneuver simultaneously with little draw on the processor. Units in Lomac are very detailed and generally use roads. My low-end pc simply cannot handle more than a dozen or so ground units at once. F4:AF on the other hand is pretty smooth regardless of the bevy of activity around me. Much that we have become used to in Lomac would need to be compromised in order for a DC to be possible on an average pc. Smokin'Hole

Pilotasso, My thoughts are very much in line with yours. I lack the aerodynamic engineering background but I do have 11000+ hours, most of which is in big jets (unfortunately no fighters in my past). If the real Viper flew anything like the plane modeled in F4:AF, we'd be losing about two a week...in peacetime! Still, it is a marvelous sim just for the dynamic capaign alone. I've loved the LOMAC family for well over a decade now. But every once in a while the Hyperlobby-R27s-at-30km duels get old. That's when I head to the "dark side" (really dark if on a night mission) and enjoy the satisfaction of a well planned and executed OCA strike. Smokin'Hole

I use the slider on my throttle for FOV and have the "zoom" feature of the trakIR disabled.

I see that I misread the purpose of the thread. I'm so used to us all requesting this or that to be added to the sim that I thought we were embarking on the same sort of topic here. I talked at length a couple of years ago with a friend who was transitioning from the cat to the Hornet (don't recall if it was the SH or not--what do they fly on the Carl Vincent(sp?)). He missed the 'Cat but loved the new ride. Obviously, the Navy needed the SH. The question I guess is did they really still need the 'Cat as well. Someone back in the first Bush Administration must have thought they did because they went through the effort of turning the 'Cat into a semi-capable A2G platform with a lantirn pod and other toys. I guess that philosophy changed with Don Rumsfeld's smaller more advanced Net-Centric Military. Seems to be working great so far...

If we look at the game as an attempt at a balance of power between Red and Blue, then the addition of either plane will skew it greatly. The Tomcat had the Phoenix which would only be countered by the R-33. But that's a limitation most could live with because they could probably figure out ways to escape the Phoenix. The F-18E/F is another story. It is so superior to the older generation SUs and MiGs that it would totally screw up the sim. That is unless Red gets the SU-30 and a navalized version to regain the balance. Personally, because I believe the last generation is where the fun began to stop, I think the Tomcat/MiG 25 would be much better additions. The best advice I could give ED (and they certainly don't need it) is to stick with what you know--or at least with what you can find out with reasonable effort. Smokin'Hole

Hey! I had the competing Atari 1200! Flanker/Lomac has been the exception to the above norm since my first experience with the series in '95. ED will sort this out this year or next...it doesn't really matter so long as the sim continues to improve and we continue to buy it. It's a hell of a lot of work for such a small return on investment. The guys at ED could probably easily clean off their desks and work for Blizzard for more money and less headache. I'm just grateful that they have stuck with the franchise, and it's small core of whiney fans, for as long as they have.

What's this?! A leak from beta testing? :joystick: