Ven

I'll clarify once more in regard to my comment about the WIP models not better than the ones in game. Modelers build models with very higher number of polygons than what final version will be. Because it's easier to reduce polygon count than to increase. And will render a few test renders like we're seeing in those WIP. But when its time for those models to be put INTO the game, I will guarantee that the polygon count WILL BE REDUCED! For both technical reasons and practical reasons we've been discussing. So saying those models are better just because they have more polygons is unfair comparison between pre-rendered model and game implemented model. I was comparing the shape of the models. If it's because its WIP like you say, okay, then I'll wait and see.

And by the way, care to explain how one doesn't interfere with the other? Both terrain and aircraft geometry needs to be rendered at the same time. The new terrain let's say has 500K polys which isn't nearly enough. And the SU27 models got upgraded from 20K polys to 100K polys. And I got 3 of them flying off my wing. And I'm barely pushing 30fps. I can already see myself wishing those 240K polys that went into the SU27's were put into the terrain! I have built pretty fast system recently with E6600 with 8800GTX yet I still can't turn up the detail to max setting. Trees for example, I can't set the clipping far enough so I still see them pop in distance. So in this expansion, you're saying we're gonna get quadruple(at least) the polygon count in the aircraft geometry and then also put enough polygons on terrain to make them smooth... yet current systems will be able to handle it? How will that be achieved?

Right, that was because I was looking at the shape of the aircraft rather than polygon count as I know better than not to compare in-game shot vs pre-rendered shot. Those who says polygonal count in that pre-rendered shot is what we're gonna be getting in BS... I'm bookmarking this thread for until BS gets released but I'm willing to put money (up to $100 ;) ) that it wont be.

I'm TD at 3D animation production house. We do not work with games but am familiar with what's practically possible with current technology. We can talk about what's theorhetically possible all day long but I'm saying those shots are not what you're gonna get in BS for practical reasons. Why would I want that many polygons on the aircraft exterior that I'm supposed to sit IN it? For those few making movies I'm sure it matters but for most of us, we don't see the aircraft from outside enough to justify putting that many polygons on exterior. There are few minor tweaks I'd like to see on Su27 but perfectly round fuselage definitely is not one of them. Again, current Mig29 level is what I think is "good enough" for exterior. I'm sure there will be improvement on the scenery and cockpit but improved lighting (HDRI anyone?) is where I want my GPU to work on rather than perfectly smooth exterior. In fact, I'd like to see more polygons put into the terrains to eliminate the pyramid looking mountains than on the aircraft.

Yes and none of them are as smooth as those PRE-RENDERED shots. Like I've said, Mig29's currently in game I think looks great. If they improve the Su's to that level, I'd be happy. But I don't believe those renders are what we'll be getting.

Well, polygon smoothing wise, yea, I'd agree that those WIP pictures do look better. I thought you meant they added more detail objects. And also, those are pre-rendered shot. I doubt that's what you're gonna get in-game in real time. I don't even believe LOMAC engine is capable of that unless BS is based on new graphics engine.

ED's WIP is to be put into BS? I'm just not seeing in what way it is an improvement over the existing Su27 model.

What's difference between this ED's WIP model and the one that's already in LOMAC:FC? All of the current Su models seem to have paper thin edges which makes them look fake. Mig29 model however seems to look much better with rounded edges. This always puzzled me since Mig29 and Su27 are very similar model wise. StrikerMax's model however seems to be much better with slightly rounded edges. But I don't see that in ED's WIP models. What's better in ED's new models?

Love that wallpaper Iguana :)

After couple seconds of that, all I see is flashing sky. I played the track in mission editor and was able to see what you did in F2 view. And I tried it from your attack point and was able to kill it with 100 rounds so thanks for the tip. I think it's more to do with shooting down at it than shooting from rear. Anyway, just wondering what the issue is with the cockpit. I'm using 1600x1200 by the way but same thing at 1280x1024.

I have 1.12b and can't see anything out of cockpit. The tadpole on HUD fills up the entire screen. It has to be some kinda mod you have on your install.

Why do every title needs to be put into a category. Either sim or game. Why can't there be in between. Or why can't LOMAC exist as LOMAC. Why define it as sim or game? I bet the sims that got you all started years back are far from realism. FalconAT with all that pixelated graphics and 10fps frame rate was it for me. You couldn't use real word tactics in those generations of "simulations" But I'm sure you all had fun with them.

Thanks for the track but can't see anything in cockpit. It's like it's zoomed in 100x Why is that?

I just tried again. Slowed down the speed to makes sure every round hit the T80. Fired 150 rounds on the first pass from the front. Didn't kill it. Fired another 150 rounds on second pass from the rear, then it exploded. I'd like to see a track of you killing it with 145 rounds if you don't mind creating one. Maybe the aspect angle is important.

which version?

Maybe I just suck at it but it's not easy killing T80 with A10 cannon in LOMAC either. Usually takes me multiple pass and lots of rounds. Perhaps it's reasonably modeled?

You mean Z axis works fine on other games right? Even tho Z axis works for me too, it's useless in LOMAC (until BS I guess) because it only supports Yaw and Pitch?

Regardless of whether the system will recognize the RAM or not, if you're running 32bit OS, 4GB of RAM will be a waste. All 32bit OS has inherent limitation of 1.4GB per process. That's the ceiling. Doesn't matter if you have 200GB of RAM. It'll only use 1.4GB. 2GB will be plenty for 32bit OS. Let's say your OS is taking up 500MB of the RAM, then you still have 1.5GB of RAM for your application. Sure, you can run 2 or 3 process simultaneously to use up all that 4GB... in theory that is. But your CPU wont be able to handle that many process taking up full 1.4GB each in reality. If you're getting 4GB to upgrade to Vista64 later, then just wait and upgrade later. I've never considered myself as nVidia fan but I've always used nVidia because ATI has always had issues with professional 3D applications. But I'm sure it'll work great for gaming. If you still want to stick with nVidia, go for single card solution rather than lower card in SLI. Get 8x series. Oh, and get 2 smaller drives and set it up as RAID-0. There's absolutely no reason to go single drive.

That's strange too, of course LOMAC only supports yaw and pitch but all 6 axis are available for me. Nothing's greyed out. Didn't know people had these issues with TIR4.

Centering in game works fine for me in Vista64. Have you tried assigning different key or joystick button for center? Make sure you trap it too.

Other than spending about half an hour fine tuning the profile to my preference, the setup was truly a plug and play. Nothing to setup in game as it was recognized right away. If you purchased the track clip pro, ignore the passive sensors that comes with TrackIR4. I tried using both the passive sensors and TrackClipPro together at first thinking that it may yield higher sensitivity which is false. And make sure you specify TrackClipPro in the software which you should download from their web site rather than the one on CD as always. Also, if you have TrackClipPro, put TrackIR4 to the left side of the monitor. Not center. I think that's about it... can't think of anything else. By the way, I didn't have to delete the config file. Just FYI.

I also did enjoy playing EF2000 but wasn't it basically a fictional sim? Because at the time (don't even remember what year EF2K was released) Typhoon was still very very early in development that all avionics and weapon system were based on... I don't even know what it was based on actually but it couldn't have been the actual EF2000. I haven't followed up on current Typhoon's specs and performances but at least in that sim, I thought it was way overpowered.

LOMAC does crash on my Vista 64 only when I exit. Which is not a big deal since I'm exiting anyway and I just end the process in task manager. Problems can exist on one system configuration and not on another. It can be blamed on the hardware or the OS. But after reading your system spec which is almost identical to mine TorwaK, except that I didn't overclock like you did, I'm wondering if its your overclocking that's causing the instability. My system spec: E6600 @2610Mhz (1160 FSB) Asus P5N32-E SLI (680i SLi) eVGA 8800GTX Corsair Dominator TWIN2X2048-8500C5D 2GB Kit (5-5-5-18 ) Antec TruePower TRIO 650 650W Seagate 320GB x2 RAID0 Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit

At the risk of being argumentative... shouldn't that be the developer's responsibility to implement that realism? It's not the consumer's responsibility to play realistically. It is a choice... If ED intended LOMAC only for hardcore sim players, why is there labels, invincible, unlimited weapons, easy radar, and easy flight built into the design? Once you play online on a server, then yea, you are responsible to follow its rules. Again, I think it's possible to disagree but still respect other's way of enjoying this sim/game).

I'd like to comment one thing about this difference in opinion in regard to ECM flashing before it gets out of hand. Even when everyone's playing same game (sim), everyone has different way of enjoying it. Some like to simulate real world as much as possible and some like to adapt and push the limits of the software they're playing on. You can agree or disagree but I believe you have to respect the others way of playing. As long as everyone follows the rules... there shouldn't be a problem? I was just wondering about how ECM was modeled. Don't want to go into what's right or wrong.