Breakshot

OK just to clarify Fudd, didnt we (504) have 3 su-27s?

Wow u are good Ruggbutt, Ill give u that. I guess that line shold make u look like an agel now.. LOL In reality, the way i see it, is the other way around. I didnt even finish editing my first post with suggestions, and u were already smashing everything without even reading it fully.... But no matter, Ill just leave it at that. My offer still stands though, u are always welcome to drop in on our server and have an ecm free engagement if u so desire :) @ Fudd The points rule seems like a fairly good idea! That would make someone think twice before shooting. However, on the other hand that would also make the other side "bait" you to waste points, so it could work both ways....

Anyway, I think the smart thing to do would be to run some sort of poll on what we want to do with the rearms/refuels for the next Flag, since it is pointless arguing as we all have our opininons. So far, it appears we have three options. Leave them Remove them (Best in my opininon) Impose 10-15 minutes guideline (Definitively better than nothing)

What? You make no sense. It simulated real life conditions, by giving pilots realistic enroute time to target. No country would be stupid enough to place their fighters right at the front line! Check out goolgle earth, and look where Russia has all their fighters/bombers, u will be surprised to see most forward bases actually completely empty. 200km to target is really nothing, it barely gives you enough time to sort out coordination and tactics between different flights. The refueling/rearming has nothing to do with it. So, by removing or at least imposing a 15 min rule on rearming/refueling we would actually represent RL conditions, providing we are talking small scale conflict. But I guess some just love to spam and run, only to come back with a full load of a2g/a2a weapons minutes after rearming and refueling on the active in 30 secs.. So much for "simulation"... Oh and about "Us" flying with no ECM, I doubt it would make any difference ;) Your are welcome to pop in our server and test it out yourself, we can drop our ECMs if you are so afraid of them.

Yes, but it would reduce it by a whole lot.....

I guess Ill just quote my point here, because it seems u just replied without actually understanding it fully.

I totaly agree with Frostie and Cali on this one. Think about it, if there is no rearm/refuel we solve three main problems. One: not all flights take off at the start of the mission, thus we have staggered load ins (which solves the lagg). Two: This puts all emphasis on planning and strategy. Planners would have to work out take off times, flight routes (not just direct since we will not have all planes in air), how many planes to commit at a given time to control the airspace throughout the 3 hours etc... Three: We will have to engage smarlty to guarantee a kill, which would stop the spam/ECM fest. I am all in for no refuels/rearms. Its a great idea!

Here is a mapping of hundreds of airbases (Russia and US fully mapped) done by me, (504)X-Man and (504)Sydy. Enjoy! Airbases.zip

Well, thats S-300 for ya. Those things can nail anything!

Well thats great, and i use tacview but, thats still not good enough to produce a mission based on the previous results. Is there a way maybe to convert some part of the tacview file back into the mission or track format? Or perhaps some sort of third party app that could actually save missions in different states?

A really simple question to the lockon crowd that might have been asked before: Is there a way to save a mission file from an MP session in different state than the original version of the mission? For example, after the mission has already been concluded or still in progress (lets say some ground units have been destroyed etc). Basically I want to know how do you save progress like this in MP, because AFAIK it is very much possible to do this in SP, but appears impossible in MP..... After trying to find a way to save a mission in its concluded state in MP, it appears that at least in the lockon UI this is not possible!! This is very frustrating as it means that anytime a mission is saved either by host or client (even when the host is running and user joins when the mission is at its final stages, the client would save the mission like it was from the beginning!). Is there some sort of tool that would allow this outside of lomac? Or is there some other way I am not aware of? Help would be much appreciated!

OK so basically its what I thought then. No special features apart from improved tracking in bad conditions, and just more comfortable. I am guessing is worth the buy for those who have stability problems due to bad lighting. I myself will stay away from it for the moment then.

All sounds good, but one question remains. What exactly is better in terms of tracking perfomance with this new clip. I understand cases with disruptive light conditions etc etc. But supposingly in perfect conditions, I dont seem to see the advantage of this new TIR addon... Am I missing something?

That speed fluctuation is actually a good thing, practice with that to get ur throttle work right (u will have to make constant corrections). I never knew that the AI does this, and I was always practicing with him doin that. So when u are actually flying online with someone, the throttle work just seems soo much easier. But then there is that pitch an roll to worry bout as well :smilewink: Good luck!

Thats not the point, the point is that IT IS POSSIBLE to release them in such a manner, be it for whatever reason it doesnt matter. Thats all I was trying to prove! It seems like u only take in things that u want to hear, and always miss the point. Oh and it was only EvilBivol who ever said anything regarding my translation (not several people that u so mistakenly put it), and the only reason he ever said anything is because he misunderstood my comments based on what I read in the manual. I never traslated it word to word, but that would not be a problem for me as Russian is my first language. So does the capability of 27 carrying RVE AE or whatever that active missile is called.... Those KNAAPO sorurces are mere marketing throwouts. And the other two inner pylons as well (Chinese Photo) but like you said Evil we still dont know if they can be fired from there. But the likely odds seem to be that they can be, at least the pylons could be modified for them to be able to fire from those positions.

GGTharos, please give us links to at least any sources that support your argument regarding the missile. Because atm there is ton of info stacked agaist you, and all ur arguments are just based on your own assumption. Pictures (the most obvious, and those pics were taken from operational AC, not Airshow, also u said u got info from "Russian" forum regarding the planes, since when u read Russian?) Also another pic with a Chinese Su-27SK loaded with an all IR payload!!, what bout that? Su-27SK manual (that I tried to stress on for so long before, which clearly lists ETs as BVR weapon, plus it also confirms that it is actually possible to physically release the missile with ignition without any targeting info) Armament of CCCP & Russia 1945-2000 M. Mikolajczuk, J. Gruszczynski (Thanks to Kusch)

Do u have a source for that info? Would be nice to review

ETs! More ETs! At appears that the plane can also carry them in the back pylon as well!

Does this work with .mp3 format as well? I tried renaming it, but lomac doesnt seem to play em, any ideas?

What is the time that you are normaly up in the air Swine? What is your timezone? Like Grizzly said we have quite a few US members in our squad and our flight times may vary, but I am guessing we fly most somewhere between 1800-2200++ Zulu time.

Well, there is a reason he included the names. Thank god he didnt include the PM messages that these individuals sent.

When u state different measurments, it becomes a "profile" for the flight, so once again u didnt quite get me there. The question at stake was: Was it physically possible to release a missile without a lock. And I answered it, by clearly showing that it was possible. What situation it could be used etc etc is not up to us to judge, its the pilots. Once again u are just twisting my interpretation. U are getting good at that. The only valuable point in ur whole post is from pg 152, which Ill check later. For now I am off.

Rgr, didnt think of that. It seems obvious now :) Exaclty where in the manual did u find this? Cite the page where any such information is given.

Now pardon me, I think you should change that line for sure. Its just like saying to a Portugese that you are speaking spanish. I have been speaking russian since i was born and learnt english only recently. My traslation of the manual is completely correct. Only my opinions derrived from that translaton could be wrong

Indeed, and so far most of the statements on this thread are exactly that I also never tried to prove that there was datalink as I know there is none. After the missile is away there is nothing that can control it. But before launch thats another matter. Anyway if the ET could only be launched when the seeker is locked then why have it at all. Either way the manual states the P73 more effective in rear chase anyway. Oh but wait, the guy who last edited it was probably drunk and messed up the numbers