A.S

Well, noone opened this topic yet, so i do. As we know, 2.0 has an inbuilt integrity check system, which is great. Problem is, that in the standart installation the defintion of "what has to be checked" between host and client is almost nothing, only one file which is defined in config folder file network.cfg integrity_check = {"Config/Weapons"}, Looking the fact, of open file architecture in 2.0, anyone can easily modify almost anything such as performances of aircraft, weapons etc etc. Easy. Now, i have also noticed that many online servers or amdins haven´t sorted out the "what is crucial" question yet, and what has to be checked and what not. Also, im missing a good documentation on this topic in order to allow server admins what do set in their integrity checks as routines or must have. The file/folder structure of lockon is easy to see, but considering that there will be many mods, it has now become a challange to find out, what to check, and what to allow. The basic idea of TCL in this case will be to implement everything in the integrity check exepct really those things, which should be allowed or which can be conidered legal game settings, or fps improvement etc etc. Furthermore, i want to add, that TCL anti-cheat mod (modman compatible, and easy to de- and activate will include in addition to the inbuilt integrity check further details in order to provide fairness). In progress. Yet, i would love to see a transparent documentation in this issue, at least as transparent as the critical files are, if you get my drift. Other question is, can a cross-cross check can be implemented or achieved, meaning, host checks client, but client also checks host same time? If not, we also have a solution for this in TCL, but im still asking. Thx you ...and opinions and answers welcome.

good stuff...teka teka, the man who cleans up the things others forget :D

that sounds right !! cheers :beer:

yupp, and other question, at what speed is then the critical stall moment including bank which leads to departure in that real manual. You get my point? Whatsoever, that should end up in a minimum radius turn....like that one or this one (he finishes a full turn in 27seconds = 13.33deg/sec) ..but i cant really tell if that is around 134ktas in that vid (i dont know his grossweight either) ...but it looks way way faster then landing speed for me. opinions welcome. but on the other hand, you never know what youtube uploaders understand as "minimun radius turns"....so

@yo-yo: no i haven´t yo-yo, and i know what you mean with it, yet its really extreme limits (14deg/sec @ 132ktas)...hard to believe, but oh well "real manual", so..... @GG: i have read it and you dont have to tell me that. just try to "illuminate" my point. But you know what is cooler? Next time you can actually consider testing and flying the planes as beta tester and suggest making it like your beloved REAL MANUALs :smilewink:. On paper things seem not always to be as a "pilots" input or feedback as we have seen.

better fourty and sporty then twenty and empty :lol:

Thx you all. 37=? :huh: ...rumors rumors :D....im 19 !!! :punk: ... :music_whistling:

error in pic 2 post 131 (above) fixed. Furthermore i want to mention, that the real charts say, that the f-15c can sustain 14deg/s at 0.2mach (=132ktas@SL), and 16,5degs/s at 0.3mach (=198kts@SL), which is VERY optimistic. 14deg/s with 132ktas ==?? this is stall with that pull ! And it is really to question, if in that low regime even the real chart is relyable. First of all, who in the airforce pulls that stunts ??. Morelikely the graph at that low speeds is just a guess-drawing. The AF curves instead have a very reasonable and logic nature in that regime.

As lil Birthday add... The full episodes of Carriers, Battle of x-planes (very nice documentation, but requires youtube account login) and many many more added 'Ultimate Strike Planes' A-10 'Warthog' A-10 Tankbuster AC-130 Anatomy of an F/A 18 Battle of the X-Planes Carrier Full Episodes Desert Storm Rising Dogfights of Desert Storm Dogfights of Israel Dogfights of the Middle East Dogfights of Vietnam Dogfights: Air Ambush Dogfights: Hell Over Hanoi Dogfights: MIG Alley Dogfights: The Last Gun Fighter Extreme Fighter Jets F-111 F-117 Nighthawk F-14 TOMCAT F-15E Eagle - Generation Jet Fighter F-16 Fighting Falcon Documentary F-22 Raptor (Documentary-german) F/A-22 & YF-23 Fighter Pilot Operation Red Flag (HD) FIRE POWER - B-52 Stratofortress Firepower - Mirage Jet Firepower - Strike Fighters Firepower - Wild Weasels Firepower Stealth Jets History Of Russian Fighters Legendary Spitfire Lockheed C-130 Hercules Malvinas /Falklands war: How Close To Defeat Mig 25 Foxbat Mig 29 MiG-15 National Test Pilot School NATO AIR COMBAT EXERCISES Navy Pilots - Fleet Air Arm RAF Firepower Red Flag Russian Aircraft Stories Russian Bombers Russian Fighters Speed and Angels (Full) Sr-71 Blackbird Su 25 FROGFOOT SU-27 Su-30 MKI Su-37 'Terminator' The History of Aviation The Last Generation The Legacy of the P-51 Mustang The Legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen The Mig 23 The Race For Radar And Stealth The Race For The Jet Fighter The Race For The Strategic Bomber The Sukhoi Story The TU-95 The Ultimate Fighter Jet Training to an Eurofighter Pilot (german) U2 Spyplane VTOL Weapon Races - The Jet Fighter Wings over the Gulf Wright Brothers Flying Machine LINK: http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS

btw yo-yo, i enjoy your improvements posted in graphs along this thread and the implications what that means for me ( how to dogfight the birds ) .cool :thumbup:

Here is (just for fun) a quick comparsion with a F-15C (PW-220) in F4AF (same conditions-Clean-GW=37000-SL). The green dots show the instantanious peaks, whereas the red dots reflect the sustain cabability of the F-15C. At 0.2 and 0.3 mach the dots overlap and at mach 0.8 and 0.9 again << here the 9G limit is reached, and the rate drops down again. If you compare with the graph above (quote) which shows the charactestics of Lockon 2.0, you can see where the main differences are. Consequently, this leads to the findings of the errors "somewhere". SELFEXPLANATORY. EDIT: i had to update the pic below, there was a slight error, but this one is correct.

I know this expression is going to provoke scientific minds, but me FEELs, that something is not fully ok with the limitter, trying them on and off and replicating same situations while watching the stick discipline it requires in both cases and the AoA and G relations. Sorry i cant tell more right now, its just my feeling, as it was with to much thrust in certain regimes from the very beginning.

I have full Thrust ...ups Trust in you :D :smilewink: ....

What we just found out in a quick (not full accurate, but good enough) test with ACS failure enabled. ...i thought you might just have a few thoughts on that...

? :huh: beside the warnings you will probably get from the admins here for those wrong claims, propoganda-nonsense and never ending "3Sqn-crybaby vs A.S agenda", i also wanna add a final one here. OK ! :devil_2: ...bring it on ;)

Hi Yo-Yo Good stuff, just one question. In Faclon i used applications ( may it be doghouse or f4chart ) to extract the the data directly from the FM source file to convert it directly to EM-charts. (basically the definition of the performances just plotted out without flight replication errors) http://www.as-private.com/FlightDocs/F-16C-52-Performance-Charts.rar here as reference another one, made by Mav-jp and Raptor one: http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file5.html Would that same procedure be possible in 2.0 ( i havent digged into it yet, just asking somewhat hasty) If that is possible, im willing to help making a detailed book, with different configurations, altitudes, includung G-loads and radius lines etc etc and of course in Mach.

Sorry, im really not going into this :cry_2:.

puuuuuuuuuuuhhhhleeeaase Kuky. :doh: (kuky, dont! i already had a priv pm with him. all good, no worries and stop interpreting everything how you wish)

Where do you read, that i *giggled* about him? Maybe i giggled about 2.0? :smilewink: Just the fact reading "sustain" and 150ktas in one line is always worth a *giggle*, especially with that payload. PS: i already confirmed, that he is right and PS2: dont take everything so personal dudes....;)

KISSES FOR Yo-Yo :love: ... i know i know...that sounds just soo wrong :lookaround:

@ DUBB: Yes you are rigth ! I just made a wild test: 1000ft 50% fuel 8 Missiles Full Pull. 4G constant !!!! my "horn" went crazy (AoA) constant speed at 190 (hud) === eta 19deg/sec THIS IS BOLLOKS !!! but it explains many things....let me go into details: First of all it supports my guess with the thrust errors under certain regimes, which luckily has been noticed meanwhile. Other thing i want to say about this, is, that it has (also had in 1.12) dramatic consequences in terms of dogfighting. You always had that feeling in Lockon, that you cant punish your bandit for his misserable energymanagement in slow speed fights, cuz he always was STILL able to jank or pull up his nose on you. No wonder with that kind of ueber-power TVC like FM error. Furthermore, it shoudnt be easy at all to regain speed so fast once so low. "Getting out of this" should take way more time. In BFM there are for good reasons very special rules, when you attack, how you enter scissors for example, how and when you create or need turningroom, what you should avoid etc etc ...the list goes on, but with this kind of slow-speed performance you cant apply those fundamental things, bascially you can just ignore them. (look test above or replicate it) I remember back in days (1.12) sending a dogfight track to a Navy Dogfight Instructor (with who im still in touch if i wish)...also his first comment was : "No way in the world, you can regain so fast speed back once down low..." I dont wanna compare FalconAF again with Lockon, but those who fly it - may it be just for comparsion reasons - will instantly notice, what it means to be THAT slow at above mentioned speed with that payload. In that condition using the word "sustain" alone is :huh: I hope, they will fix that.

I please you not to throw wild conclussion or accussations on me in lockon.ru forums. And btw, if there was such attitude ever present, then it was a 3Sqn real pilot, talking to me "what do you know, im real"...so ... (dont respond on this and i wont either, im not im mood for such things, especially considering it is not in interest of this post or the forum rules)

With full respect, and this has nothing to do with attitude sir physicist. If the ingame performance matches almost on the dot to the real EM-charts but lacks in precission under 0.4 mach (i use only mach btw for such things) then your result just cant be right. I would expect a curve in your calculations which mirrors the real charts, except the curve would tolerate/differ from the real deal under 0.4 mach, or above 0.9 mach (due to the G/Aoa limiters), but a completly inverted curve like the one you provided is REALLY irritating... ! you should have gotten someting like that this, morelikely... But - allow me a personal line - what really made me *i must admit*- giggle was a 19,5deg/sec rate at eta 165ktas *with 50% fuel, 1000ft, 8 missiles* in your curve *no offense, and im really going to try if i can pull that "stunt" too in 2.0. :detective_2:

obviously Yoda ..... (i asked you that yesterday already i think, if engine performances are depending on AoA, Speed and airdensitly in 2.0, which you confrimed with "yes" as far as i remember ) EDIT: ...over mach .4 its pretty accurate, which is a very good result IMO. The low and high regimes may need a fix...wich is ok... question raises here: what about the other jets in same perspective?

Are you sure about that =? (incorrect BP) Cuz this is what just confirms Fusions and mine "hey guys, this is way to much thrust" feeling.... (remember=?, back in this post http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=51692 thrust/weigh ratio as so on) btw...noticed in scissors aswell....ask Fusion