ericinexile

WRT IIRC IMHO I hope I wasn't a PITA for asking the question. Big help. Thanks.

Simple question: I see the abreiviation IIRC often on this forum and am stumped. Any help on this and other common forum/message board/Teamspeak/etc. abbreviations would be appreciated. Regards, Smokin'Hole

Actually, I bought LockOn:FC in anticipation of Black Shark. I was once a avid Flanker 1/1.5/2/2.5 fan but lost interest to other things. Now that I am reaquainted with the Sukois and the MiG I no longer feel a burning interest in the helo portion of the add-on but rather the improvements to aspects of the game we are already familiar with--particularly the application of real physics to AI aircraft. With or without the anticipated improvements I love the game as it is and checking for release updates is no longer on my to-do list. Smokin'Hole

You can approximate an optimum altitude by climbing at something close to corner speed to an altitude that does not require full non-AB thrust to maintain level flight at a reasonable cruise speed (M.80-.85). (if full power does not yeild a climb of 2-3 m/s, you are probably too high.) Maintain that altitude until you are at a distance from your destination where a descent can be made at idle power without the use of speedbrakes. (A very rough approximation for RU a/c is altitude in meters divided by 100.--i.e., 10000M = 100km. For US a/c use Altitude divided by 1000 and multiply by two--i.e., 30000FT = 60 NM.) Smokin'Hole

I'm with Tompax but apparently we don't reflect the desires of most LOMAC fans. I long for the golden era of jet combat--one that ends with the last generation (F16A/C, F/A 18A, F15C etc). ED can model the equipment Tompax listed above, perfectly! Volumes of material is available. Real airplanes modeled realistically is why we are here, isn't it?

I like what we have now and would prefer hifi flight models for each. Oh, and a Hind with a smart gunner and an '80s Afghanistan map! I like the Vietnam idea too.

I think we have reached the cut-off point in history for enjoyable and realistic jet combat sims. Next generation fighters like the F22 fight BVR with an adversary that probably finds himself in a hopeless SA environment. Hardly a kick-ass good time on HyperLobby. Also, avionics will be guess-work for many years to come. That's why, IMO, a game designer bent on realism as ED has been needs to keep improving realism with the older, established models they know about. ED seems to know quite a bit about Russia's stable of aircraft--they should stay with what they know. The Helo (I would rather have seen the Hind) is a much better addition because it brings a very important aspect of the air war to the game. The F/A 18 brings nothing new to the game other than a carrier born western design. Smokin'Hole

Lock-On is to Air Combat what Jousting was to Medieval Battle Tactics. I understand the desires of the above posters to correct errors in missile/doppler physics, but let's not overlook the most important thing: ED has created the most realistic PC flight sim most of us will ever see (And I get checked once a year in a $15M sim). X-plane, MSFM, Janes, F4AF--none of them simulate the feel of flying a jet like Lock-On does. So, strive for excellence certainly; but don't let the little stuff take away from the experience. Time to fly!...

According to the Lock-On Encyclopedia (by link on the game's menu page), the EM is capable of manuevering at 20g compared with the -r and -er at 17g. This may be compensation for the missle's slightly higher speed. Incidentaly, the r77 can manuever at 30g--too bad it doesn't fit on my plane of choice.

It is when I'm running to home plate with my tail between my legs and two Eagles locked on my tail.:cry: (happens to me alot)

Thanks Pilotasso, What I meant with the question above about the "r27" was actually about how the plane-jane r27 compares at shorter ranges to the "em" or "er" models. Anyway, you've helped me (and others I'm sure) enough so don't feel obligated to reply further. I really wish the SUs could carry r77s as it sure is nice to have the HOJ/semi-active capability. The MiG's legs are too short and the Eagle just doesn't push my buttons. Thanks again all! "Smokin'Hole"

Thanks All! So another question: Does anyone find the r27 superior at shorter ranges (<30 km)? To phrase it another way, are the "er" and "em" modeled as less maneuverable and therefore inferior if range isn't an issue? "Smokin'Hole"

A question for the pros out there with the time and compunction to test weaponry: Other than superior range, is there a difference in maneuverability or guidance logic of the "er" and "em" models over the standard r27? For my own experience I seem to have better luck with the "em" but that impression is far from scientific. Thanks for the help. Eric "Smokin'Hole"

It certainly is the server's right to set the rules. If one choses to allow the map with enemy icons then he might as well place AWACS as well. Part of the fun of fighting is the proper use of radar. With the map, you don't need it. Just head towards the icon of your liking. Personally, I hate the map more than I hate external views. (However, I do wish the mini-hud were allowed in MP games because I think it compensates for the lack of SA one get's flying from a desk instead of a real world cockpit and it's rich environment that no sim can provide.)

A little more eye candy to get us pumped for "Black Shark". TBS Videos The top video, "TBS Naval" is new (to me anyway) and very impressive. TBS is NOT LockOn but it definately demonstrates where ED is headed. Plus it shows a Ka-50 landing on a ship which is a feature I hadn't thought of with BS. Another great production by Glowing Amraam.

For alignment, I use the shkval (sp?). Without it, my submunition runs always fall at an unlethal angle to the convoy.

LockOn is beautiful enough. For once I'd like to settle into at least a year or two of decent frame-rates and playability before being saddled by next version that makes my once raging fast PC, a pc probably capable of simulating thermonuclear detonations, come grinding to a halt.

No question that the F16 is easy to fly. Most fighters are--even those without fly-by-wire FCS. This is because fighters and attack aircraft need to be stable weapons platforms. The problem with F4:AF in my opinion is that it makes a very precise airplane feel sluggish and unsure at low speeds (at high speed it's fine...which is why for most people the game is more than acceptable). At high AOA, all airplanes are naturally sluggish but F4AF makes the F16 so much so that you must begin flaring at 75 feet. Even the DC-10 at 450,000 lbs was very precise during low speed pitch changes. Had it responded as sluggishly as the F16 in F4:AF, the DC-10 would have killed tens of thousands (as opposed to the hundreds who actually have died in the type ;-). The F16 in F4:AF takes huge AOA changes to effect small flight path changes. Just two weeks ago I described the characteristics of the game to a current F16 driver and he stated what I already knew--that the airplane responds very quickly to small pitch changes even at low speed. OF COURSE! It's an F-16! No such concern with LOMAC's SU27 or MiG29--They fly in my mind just as I would imagine they should (can't speak for the F15C in LOMAC...I never fly it).

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800. I feel very close to home in the thing. 2) I hope for the sake of real SU-25 pilots that the brakes are NOT properly modeled. 3) Same for the tires, particularly the nose-wheel. Small stuff, really. They just make it a litte more satisfying and challenging. If you want to really appreciate what ED have done with flight modeling, try Falcon 4:AF. It too is a phenominal simulation but the flight model is dreadfull. For awhile I switched to F4:AF because I wanted the avionics and total battlefield immersion. But the modeling was so off that it became a distraction and I couldn't stand it anymore. To fly that game with the intent of seeing how a F16 flys is like playing Asteroids to see how a space ship may someday fly.

Not much help, I know, since I have no military experience but I do have nearly 11000 hours of flight time, most of which is in swept wing jet transports: B737, A320, DC-10, LR-31 (many years ago). I also have some time in high performance aerobatic planes. Finally, I can add to the mix plenty of friends and coworkers who fly fighters such as the F-16, F-15E, A-10, etc. As far as I am capable I've tried to composite these experiences into what I am relatively sure to be how different combat aircraft fly. After all, a jet is a jet. If this limited capability to judge means anything then I'll say Lockon is better than any other sim I have ever flown to include MSFS and certainly X-plane. I've been a fan of the series since Flanker 1.0 and so long as they hold a realistic flight model to such a high standard, I will continue to do so. Hope this helps.

It's a sim... ...and a game. I have to get a sim-check once a year and when I do, it is in a big $20 million box suspended on huge hydraulic jacks. That monster is definately a sim. However, even with all windows in the "box" projecting an image with detail and depth, I don't feel that the sense of immersion is any greater than what I can get from LOMAC with my new TrackIr. The game aspect of LOMAC comes from the lack of a real battlefield. One doesn't "vulch" in real life. F4:AF fans will say that's where their sim really is a sim. But the dynamic campaign, while a big improvement is no more real. I flew recently (in F4:AF) with a guy who said he had 54 kills so far on DAY THREE of the MV Korea Campaign. Does that sound real to anyone? But heres the clincher: The sims that are used at every large Air Force Base don't have dynamic campaigns either. The do set pieces much like we do. So in my opinion, LOMAC models the way jets fly like nothing I have ever flown with my computer. It's beautiful. And it's been that was since Flanker 1.0.

Worked perfectly. Thanks! (Anyway, the only external noise you will ever hear from the inside of a moving jet or helicopter is the sound of lightning, bombs, and other jets at VERY close range.)

This may well be a problem with my hardware but maybe others can benefit from this simple problem as well. I noticed that flying low over moving ground units would sometimes slow my frame-rate down to less than 1 FPS (!) until I passed the units. I thought perhaps the video card was loaded down by the moving textures, but twelve tanks?--Big Deal! I further noticed that by flying a little higher and zooming in very close (ie, seeing just as much detail of the vehicles), the frame-rate would be fine. Back down low and fast to overfly and as soon as I could HEAR the engines of the vehicles the fram-rate practicaly froze until I passed completely. Thinking this was maybe a sound issue I disabled "Sounds" under Options and got liquid smooth frame-rates under the same scenario. The reason I think this is MY problem is because I am plugged into the sound hardware on my motherboard (Realtek AC97). I'll by a sound card and see if that solves it. PS-Upgrading the AC97 drivers didn't help. Any suggestions on a relatively cheap sound card that won't bog down gameplay? I don't care so much about sound quality, 5.1, etc.

So far, after LOTS of MP, no problems. I've notice with F4:AF as well that every router is different and not all solutions work for each router.

Thanks, Mine says the same. I changed it anyway but haven't been on a server that allows chat so can't guage the results.