gundelgauk

Not much, assuming you don't have any other programs like peer2peer running. Your ping depends mostly on how fast your internet connection is and on your distance to the server. While you can tweak some settings (MTU etc.) it will most likely not change the ping times significantly. Connect to servers that are physically close to you, shut down any programs that use internet bandwidth and if you can, get a good internet service provider.

I have seen this warping on multiple occasions but I cannot recall if it was mostly on the =RAF= server. Actually I doubt it because these days I play mostly on the =RAF= server and I haven't seen that warping for at least two weeks IIRC. The first few times I saw that behavior, I tried to shoot despite the changing aspect, speed and altitude data and missed every time. Soon I began to just run away when I saw it because I figured that there's no point in wasting missiles. I had read about the supposed PrintScreen cheat as well but I never tried if it worked and so I refrained from accusing people of cheating. You can never know if it's not actually their network connection (or your own!) which is causing the trouble. Still it would be nice to hear from someone who knows the network subsystem of LOMAC comment on this issue. EDIT: GGTharos and Pilotasso confirmed that this was possible while I was typing out my post. But I still think that accusing people of cheating solely because they are warping is wrong because without knowledge of how LOMAC's network stack works, and taking the semi-reliable internet into account, one can never be sure if it's not just an unfortunate network issue.

Thanks to both of you for the information. I was already thinking I'd be going nuts over this.

Oh, so when there's an active jammer in my radar cone, my radar will automatically switch back to SCAN/RWS mode? That would be a reasonable explanation. Thanks for that information! Is this behavior also the case in the F-15 or is it limited to the Russian jets?

Hi everyone! I have a question about the TWS radar mode in russian jets as described on pages 25-27 in lomac_manual_1.1_eng.pdf. According to that, Russian jets have a TWS radar mode which one can switch to with ALT+I. This mode works very well for me in single player but as soon as I join a multiplayer game, I encounter a problem that makes TWS unusable for me. As soon as I press ALT+I in a multiplayer game, the radar switches into TWS mode but switches back into SCAN mode just one second after that. This happens no matter which PRF I use. This renders TWS effectively useless for me in multiplayer games. Am I doing something wrong? I've tried asking in the Hyperlobby chat but noone knew the answer. Hopefully someone here can enlighten me... please? :smartass:

Yes, I realize that the way it's modeled is not at all realistic. My question was only about the jammer behavior in LOMAC, I should have made that more clear. Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know! Now I can always carry that extra 73 without worries. Thanks a bunch! :thumbup:

I don't want to hijack the thread but I've been wondering about something and it fits in here so please forgive me. From what I've seen, jammers in LOMAC generally seem to jam everything around them in a 360° area, no matter how many jets there are. Now on the Su-27 and -33 it's possible to equip either one or two jamming pods. I've read somewhere that only one pod will be a bit less effective but not very noticably and certainly not so much to impair the advantage of being able to carry one more R-73. Has anyone tested if this is true or is the jamming performance significantly reduced (in LOMAC, not in reality)?

Haha, OK! :thumbup: Well here's it anyways. Or rather as far as I got today. I have to leave quickly now so I can't continue to translate. Sorry about that. Maybe tomorrow. Second hand MiG-29? A contemplation from 2006's point of view On Nov 20 2006 the „Salzburger Nachrichten“ reported that the SPÖ (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, Social Democratic Party of Austria) asked around for used MiG-29 among others, hoping for interceptor aircraft for a price of „less than 700 million Euros in any case“. Georg Mader has taken a closer look into the matter for airpower.at: The MiG-29 With its latest variants (-SMT, -M2 and -3 or K/KUB ship based), the Soviet-/Russian front fighter aircraft MiG-29 has been brought very close to western standards of operational efficiency as well as ease of operation and maintainance. However the Russian air force focuses more on the larger Sukhoi-27 and 30 series today and exports of these new MiG-29 series have so far been limited to countries like Sudan, Yemen or Algeria. The base version of the MiG-29 series (9.12, 9.13) (NATO-Code: 'Fulcrum-A, -C') that is being considered by Austria is a relatively small fighter. While it is still larger than the F-16 or the MiG-21 for instance, it is considerably smaller than for example the F-15 or the Su-27. Its maiden flight already took place on Oct 6 1977, the first mass produced jets left the factory in 1982. First readyness for operation was declared in 1983. Performance The MiG-29 is still one of the most capable combat aircraft in the world and it achieved excellent performance values in almost all aspects on its appearance in the 80s. It has well-balanced aerodynamics and an outstanding thrust/weight ratio which amounts to 1.09:1 with normal gross weight. The MiG-29A reaches a maximum speed of 2445 kph (mach 2.3) in an altitude of 10000 m. It can also fly quite fast in lower altitudes. Up to 1500 kph (mach 1.25) are possible. The operational ceiling amounts to 17000 m, the maximum altitude is stated as 20000 m. Thus it outclassed both the F-16 as well as the F/A-18 with its appearance. It was also superior to both jets concerning climbing performance. However those have been enhanced or replaced as well. Composition The jet's fuselage is made completely of metal and is manufactured in semimonocoque construction. Only 7% of the jet's cell's weight consist of composite materials. The landing flaps and roll-ailerons are made of carbon fibers. Most of the airframe is made of aluminium-lithium-alloys and aluminium (65%). Altogether it is rather lightweight with its curb weight of only 10900 kg. Furthermore the airframe is very robust and withstands heavy stress because of g forces and high speeds. While the jet's maximum gross weight of 18480 kg is rather limited, it is sufficient because the plane cannot carry too much fuel and weapons after all. Utilization philosophy The MiG-29 was fundamentally developed for two modes of deployment. If a threat is expected, the MiG-29 will mostly fly a patrol in a small area. If there's a surprise attack, the jet will take off directly to intercept. In both scenarios the jet will be strictly controlled by a ground based GCI-controller (sorry, I can't translate this). The airplane receives information about targets from the earth station via the Lazur data link, which are displayed on the HUD. Thus the pilot receives information about heading of, and distance to the enemy. During the approach to the enemy only the EOS is active while the radar remains in the standby mode in order not to send out telltale emissions while being able to be quickly activated in case of need. The Mig-29 is guided so closely to the target by GCI-controllers that it can basically instantly lock and launch the R-27R guided missiles after activating the radar. Most of the time both guided missiles are being launched together in accordance with Russian military doctrine. Thus not only is the probability of kill increased, but an asymmetrical load is avoided which would impair the jet's maneuverability. Lifespan and maintainance The low lifespan of only 2500 flight hours is considered to be the greatest weak point of the airframe. Airframe and engines have to be maintained very frequently (by western point of view, not by soviet philosophy of use). Hence the availability is only 75%. Altogether the MiG-29 is extremely intensive in maintainance. This is also the reason why its cost of operation is comparatively high. Furthermore the engines' lifespan of 1400 hours is very small. After only 350 hours an intermediate overhaul is needed. Engines The RD-33 features a high reliability as well as a rather low rate of fuel consumption compared to earlier Russian engines. At full military power approximately 0.75 kg of fuel per kg of thrust/per hour are being used, with afterburner the consumption amounts to 2.05 kg/kg/hour. The engines are unsusceptible to changing ratios of flow and continue to flawlessly operate even at high angles of attack and under heavy strain. However they produce very visible grime/smut/soot when using certain fuels and during certain maneuvers. Cockpit The MiG-29's cockpit's instrumentation appears to be rustic and was already obsolete at the time of its introduction. The cockpit holds many analog gauges that have been used in older designs. Compared with today's level of technology which utilizes concise glass cockpits with digital displays and MFDs, a distinct backwardness is evident even to the layman. The goal of this design was the ability to reeducate pilots of older airplanes for the new type as easily as possible. In contrast to other modern fighter jets the controls of the MiG-29 are not based on the HOTAS concept (Hands On Throttle And Stick). While there are several control elements on both thrust controllers that are fit onto a bar on the left hand console and on the control stick in the middle, most of the time important functions that concern aerial combat cannot be controlled that way. Because of that, many combat-relevant functions have to be controlled by the pilot via levers and buttons in the cockpit, which leads to what western pilots call an unacceptably high workload in stressful situations. One of the reasons for this is that there are numerous functions that the pilot has to handle manually. Accommodating that many levers and buttons so that all these functions may be controlled via the HOTAS principle is basically impossible. Avionics By the time the avionics were introduced they were modern and very complex by Russian standards. Today however, the avionics are out-dated. Particularly problematic is the weak integration of systems because the pilot has a very hard time controlling the systems, especially during combat, because of absent automated functions. However altogether the avionics are not much harder to deal with than in western combat aircraft. This is because the Fulcrum's avionics are less flexible and there are less functions as a result.

If there's general interest I'd try and translate the article. Might take some time though, I'm rather busy these days.

Which magazine are you talking about, please? I live in the vicinity and I will purchase that issue for sure. :D

Personally I find the OP rather offensive. =(

Ok, as long as submarines use some kind of propulsion and/or electrical systems, they will always be detectable (I'm not even talking about MAD sensors). You can even shut down the propulsion completely and still get sonar contacts because of the electrical systems on board. In the case of the German 212 this will likely be in the 50Hz range as this is the frequency they use for alternating voltage. So I think talking about any sub being virtually undetectable is a bit misguided. As for nuclear subs being louder than say electrically powered ones - I'm no expert but my guess is that the nuclear reactor and the bigger size of these submarines require more mechanical systems (pumps and the like) and this could be the reason they generate more noise. About the hydrogen cell technology, I personally find that very innovative. True, they have been in use for years but comparing that would be like saying "Why buy a BMW Z4? Otto engines have been in use for many years". AFAIK the Germans are rather big in this hydrogen cell technology. There are German cars available that use this technology if I recall correctly?

Sorry for the small off topic post but I had to laugh because that's exactly what happens when people like me try and play online on Hyperlobby. :lol: Other than that, from what I've read in your posts, one shouldn't take results from such training excercises too seriously. Good way to keep the "plane x is better than plane y" discussions down. ;)

Thanks for your replies and for not outright flaming me. :D Sorry, I did not mean to agitate a debate. While it seemed reasonable to me to conduct excercises against real foreign air forces, I just could not comprehend why anyone would want to train against an inferior enemy in order to improve oneself. After reading your replies however, it makes sense in some circumstances. Thanks for the informative replies. And please do not mind my uneducated guesses. I was just trying to get information as I was a bit confused about the whole scenario.

(I'll skip the quotes for better readability) Ok, first please realize that I'm in no way an expert on anything that goes on here. I'm merely a guy who is enjoying good combat flight simulations and is interested in the technology. It's just beyond my understanding why anyone would limit the capabilities of the technologically inferior adversary in such a training excercise. If you'd want to train your pistol skills against someone armed with only a knife, would you insist on him dropping the knife and use his bare hands only?

Honestly, I can't imagine any fighter pilot doing anything but their best in a combat engagement, be it for training or real. From what I've read, those people have a lot of pride. I can't imagine any reasons why people would want to place any kinds of restrictions on the Tornados in this kind of exercise. Aren't they in the disadvantage as it is? The rest of your questions are (at least in my humble opinion) very valid and deserve answers. I laughed hard at this one. Thx.:megalol:

Good thing nothing more serious happened. It caught my attention that at some point the jet's left wing made contact with the ground and caused the plane to get drawn off the runway, but only after the plane had slowed down considerably. My guess is that the pilot pushed the stick hard to the right as soon as he was on the ground so as to stop the left wing from dragging on the runway as long as possible. But when he slowed down the lift wasn't enough and gravitation pulled the wing down onto the ground. Does that make any sense at all? :lol: Must have been a really rough ride.

Totally awesome. Now if it only where an Apache/Longbow... I'll buy it anyways. =D

I'm a saddened of how things tend to turn out with flight sims. DID used to give us some of the best combat flight sims (EF2000 etc) and guess what, they got bankrupt (afaik). Now there's LOMAC and most of the people are complainaing about its realism. Making a realistic combat flight simulation is a great task compared to other computer games. You have to know a great deal about physics, avionics, tactics (for AI planes) and strategy (for dynamic campaign) to get it somewhat realistic. Imagine programming all that yourself. It's ultra hard. The point I'm going to make is that any 3D first person shooter game is much more simple to develop (=cheaper), will have more buyers because it will not appeal only a specific target group (us) and it might live longer because people won't get frustrated with it (if done right) after some time. The essential problem with (combat) flight simulations is that there is a limited market for it and that it is very, VERY difficult to make. Very many people play Quake, Half Life and so on. But only a fraction of that number would take the time to learn and enjoy a flight sim. If you combine these facts (limited target group + hard to make) it is actually pretty unlikely for any company to attempt to produce a flight simulation. Well, where do I go from there... I've been loving flight (and other) sims from the time I got introduced to EF2000. But it seems that in reality we're not going to see any decent flight simulations EVER because whoever tries to produce them is either going to a) bankrupt b) taking ages and ending up being vaporware c) releasing a somewhat decent product with glitches that still make people complain and maybe make gameplay no fun =(

I just read the last replies and I want to thank you for all the hints and support. I was just reflecting on my playing and it's true, I was kind of flying for the kill without thinking of surviving first. I will definately try to assess the situation more and take a slower approach from now on. I also tried joining teamspeak servers while playing but my problem is that I live in Europe and there don't seem to be too many European players. The only populated server this afternoon was the =RAF= one and its teamspeak server seems to be Russian only. But I will try again from now on. Certainly I won't give up on this because Lock On is the first sim that I really love playing for hours since EF2000. See you online hopefully. :D

Oh really? In that case I'm really sorry about what I said. It seems like it was a really bad combination of events. :(

Quite true, maybe it was just a loss of connection. That did not occur to me at the time, I thought someone was thinking "damn noobs" and just kicked me. Whatever happened, I feel motivated to fly again. Thanks for your support and sorry again for the rant earlier.

Thanks again for the reply. I will definately try to join the teamspeak servers, thank you for that tip. Sadly I broke my headset some time ago so I won't be able to talk (I'd be a little embarressed anyway because I'm not a native English speaker) but maybe it will help me out a bit. And I'm going to buy a new headset some time soon. As for "FORGET about labels, map view & easy radar", I never used them in the first place because I think it's easier to do it the right way from the start than to try and switch later. And believe me, I did read the whole manual (some parts more than once), read on the forum, did tutorials and practice. I'm trying really, really hard not be be one of the "zOMG how do i shot mislis?"-newbies because I know how annoying this can be. ;) I have a good grasp on how the systems and technology work because I have a history in sims (among them EF2000, F22 ADF/TAW, Longbow 1 & 2, etc.). My problem is that I have trouble on using that technology effectively I guess. [EDIT] I was kicked out, I took another peek and the same mission was still running. I'm not sure what server it was, it was one of the A2A servers. That's great, thanks a lot! I hope I'll be able to spot my mistakes more easily with this!

Thanks for your replies and for trying to help me. First off I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I'm not at all disappointed at being shot down by ace players. Like you said it's only natural and I fully expected it too. But I was disappointed because after about two hours of playing I was running out of ideas on how to improve and after an attempt to get information I was virtually slapped in the face with the ban-hammer. As for your hints, I usually wait some more after I get the first "launch"-message because I know very well that it improves my chances. Depending on what the other guy is doing I usually launch a second one some time after that (not only 2 seconds). At that time I usually have to break hard to avoid his first missile (I try to use the method I saw in the "evading the AIM-120 tutorial on flankertraining.com and vary it plus countermeasures). Then I have some time again and usually try to get a third missile going. Now normally one of two things happen: Either I fail to evade his second missile and die (he lives) or it misses me and we're in close range. So now I use either AIM-9 or R-73. Again I wait until I'm fairly close. If I even manage to get a shot off it again is evaded with what seems to be no effort at all. But your advice on the enemy's group tactics is very much appreciated, I will try to take more care! I have been waiting with locking on a jet until I'm almost close enough to launch to deny them the information on who I'm going to attack already. But I guess that's not enough.

Hello! Well I've been playing Lock On singleplayer for some time, did the campaign missions and some mission packs I downloaded (realistic settings), read every text and watched every tutorial I could find and I consider myself an "advanced newbie". Recently I started playing online, at first with UBI's client but most of the prople there seem to be using v1.02 and so I installed HyperLobby. I thought it was great, there were dedicated servers and lots of people. However most of the people on there seem to be aces and I find myself having a very hard time. They seem to evade missile after missile with ease when I launch them. I also manage to evade one or two sometimes but with me being unable to hit them they always get me eventually. Ok, I am somewhat of a newbie and I need practice. After some time I got frustrated because I didn't know what I was doing wrong or what I could do better. So I asked for some hints (politely!) but before getting even one simple reply I was kicked out of the game. They could at least have told me to shut up and leave me be. I didn't want to bother anyone. So at the moment I don't quite know what to do. I enjoyed some hours of multiplayer action when there were people as inexperienced as myself were on and I'd like to play more and get better. To do that I'd need advanced tips and hints to be able to practice and get better but I'm not allowed to ask for advice. Sorry for the rant but I was a little shocked and disappointed by this and had to vent.