92nd-MajorBug

Just like you said, if you give the same mission to A-10As and A-10Cs, I'm confident that the A-10Cs will complete it faster and with fewer losses ;) A 3 minutes gain on rampstart doesn't mean much, in the end it's eyeball mk1 vs Litening, eyeball mk1 vs MWS, eyeball mk1 vs SADL, etc :P

Great stuff for some "warthog trivia" when the datalink messenging system will be patched back in. Thanks ;)

We played it tonight with a bunch of squadron buddies, 4 hours in a row, and we had a great time. Thanks a lot for the mission ;)

Here is an extract from Vimeo's upload rules : So uploading the video there would breach their rules, and we'd like to keep clean ;) I'll upload a low-res version on our ftp asap

Hi everyone, thanks for the comments on the movie :) About posting the video on youtube there are several problems that prevent us from doing it, including their habit to strip the music off every video ... But there's another solution, thaFunkster would it be ok for you if there was a 640*480 version with a weight of ~40mb available for download ?

So basically, using the Su-27P model online (let's say on HL) will require everyone to get the mod, right ? Yes. But is it a realistic payload ? I mean, yes it's possible, but is the russian air force using this option ? On the other hand, they never use combat-ready aircrafts with some of the pylons missing. And aircraft sent to patrol the airspace are not going there with 10 missiles, because a missile's lifespan is short and flying missiles around just for the fun of it costs a lot. So, what is the less unrealistic solution ? :) (there is one, for sure, that works without any glitches online) No one would force you to use the Su-35 model if the cockpit doesn't suit you :) You would see the people who want to do so flying some Su-35s, that's all. Weapon capacity however is a bigger problem ;) That's interesting. You mean that there are 3 other unused Su-27 CLSID that could be used ingame ? If so, aren't all the CLSID linked to the Su-27.cmd/Su-27.lom ? Anyway, whatever we say, looks like you're not going to do more than a polished Su-27 anyway. No problem with that, it's your choice, but soon enough a few other 3d models will come out with all modding options included (for example : a fully editable .skins for all parts of the aircraft, or two-seater version based on skin selection), and I hope you won't have any regrets at this time.

You should definitely go for it :)

Then what if you fly missions that don't require more than a partial loadout such as airspace surveillance and convoying ? You will get "partially clean" aircraft, which is not realistic at all considering that pylons hardly ever get removed on russian aircraft. Erm ... why ? You can very well make it possible to get only the outer wings pylons, or only the wings pylons, or only the fuselage pylons, or none at all, or all of them, or the numbers 3, 7 and 8 only if you like. It's all a matter of how you design the pylons in the model then how you configure them using the .skins. You can make them all independent if you want. That's the way it works with ada-mod anyway. You can even design the pylons in a way that an APU-470 will show with one skin and an AKU-470 will show with another. Unless the russians are changing pylons on every plane all the time, you get true realism this way. Not occasionnaly, they never remove the pylons as they are flying combat-ready aircrafts - on which the russian air force hardly ever remove a single pylon. That's true they don't behave exactly the same. But the Su-27 flight model in LOMAC is not an AFM. Considering, for example, that you get stuck with fixed pitch as soon as you get below 120 km/h, then having a 10% difference in thrust, or a 10% difference in drag coefficients, or a 10% in nose authority because you get better engines or canards on different version won't be noticed this much. On the other hand you get the possibity to fly a few more good looking airplanes such as the Su-30MK without the buggy humancockpit=yes modification. Plus you can have Su-27s and Su-30s in the same flight ... As for the weapons used by the most advanced versions, most of them work perfectly well with the Su-27 (R-77, Kh-29, KAB-500, etc). What I suggest is essentially giving more nice options to people who will want to use them. Basically, just polishing the basic Su-27 while you have the opportunity to do so much more is a waste. By the way about your pylons modification, if it involved any lua edit, did you test it online ? Last time we checked (when trying to make custom racks), the lua was server-side and with non-modded clients we got straight CTDs all the time. Plus there is a chance you will need to put new weapons in the MEinit if you want to avoid side effects like Mig-23 or Mig-29 having Su-27 pylons fitted with their R-73 and R-27, which does not work very well online.

We are not talking about the same thing. What I'm telling you is about making weapons pylons visible or not based on the .skins configuration. That means you would be able to get into the mission with all the pylons empty but present, or with no pylons at all, based only on the skin you choose. For exemple Russian Knights fly with no weapons, but the pylons are not removed on their planes. If you link the pylon to the weapon you won't be able to do so (i.e, with no weapon, you always get no pylon, and you don't have the choice) And by using one single 3d model (thus replacing a single plane in LOMAC, in this case the Su-27) you can model a one seater or two seater cockpit, canards or not, and other less visible modifications between all the diffrent Su-27 versions. Seeing how much the Su-27/30/33/35 share of their structure (+ all the specific versions, for exemple it's possibile to do a Su-30MKI with animated thrust vectoring), it would be a waste IMHO not to try some of this stuff with the argument 70 on the new Su-27 model. By the way (once again) that's how in the ada-mod you would be able to find the Mirage 2000B, 2000C, 2000D, 2000N and 2000-5 with all the structure modifications on one single slot, so when I'm telling this is possible, I know what I'm talking about ;) Cheers

:noexpression: You know that you can make the pylons appear and disappear with one single 3d model, right ? And even make this editable by the end user with one single .skins file, right ? (the same file that would allow anyone to use a thousand skins if they like) You can even make the two-seaters versions share the same 3d model than the single seater versions if you like

Too bad, the french community made an English to French patch :D I guess it won't work backwards though ... sorry :(

Although it would have been nice to ask BEFORE releasing the mod ... :P

Awesome work, keep it coming :) Just a little note : you may consider using the argument 70 to make multiple models use the same plane slot. For exemple you could put the Su-27, the Su-30, the Su-35, etc, on the Su-27 slot, so that people would be able to fly all these planes at once without the buggy humancockpit=yes modification :) As the Su-27/30/33/35/37 share most of their structure (put aside the cockpit), with only slight modifications (cockpit, EOS, canards + wing apex, fins ...), that's definitely something you're able to do :) And for people who don't use the new Su-27 model, everyone would appear to be flying the good old Su-27, so there's no compatibility issue either :) The only limit would be that all the planes would have to have only 10 weapon pylons. Unless you put the Su-35/37 on the Su-33 slot :) Not asking anything there, just giving advice about some cool stuff you could do ;) By the way, that argument 70 trick is how in the ada-mod you will find all the Mirage 2000 versions (B, C, D, N and -5F) with all the structure modifications modelled using only two slots ;)

Thats the way it works indeed, if the Mirage did not get the kill in the few first turns of the fight, there's a fat chance that it will loose in the end. You'll notice that's also the way it works in LOMAC with a Mirage, as most of the time if you don't take care you'll get shot down after the first turn ;)

At the beginning of the fight we're both at 800 km/h but then the AI Mirage bleeds it's energy all the way down to 400 km/h, while I keep the corner speed (650 km/h). If you know a way to tell the AI to keep it's corner speed all the time, well, go on and I'll do the test again :P By the way this behaviour is realistic too, in the way that a real Mirage pilot would choose to bleed most of the available energy quickly, so that he get's the sharpest first turn possible and a big angle advantage early into the fight. That how you can see some footage of Mirages dogfighting at 100 kts ... and they still manoever very well at this speed ;)

And I don't agree :P Either the AI will indeed do a level turn at 30 dps and then it will loose energy quickly, or it will sustain the speed and in this case get a larger turn radius and a worse turn rate than the Su-27. You can do the test, just by turning level and sticking to the corner speed, the Mirage will break off or go vertical after ~720° cause it will be constantly loosing AOT. Equal fuel fraction (empty weight / fuel weight), so if the Mirage gets 100% fuel, the Su-27 gets 70%. The test is done with an Excellent AI, but no G-effect as the AI does not feel them. If by any chance you got to see HUD footage, the t/w is shown at the top center of the HUD. There's even some footage of a solo demo training where the pilots say on the radio "hey, 0.69, it's okay, even better than yesterday ...". And the damn plane is slick, imagine a Mirage 2000-5F with 6 missiles and 3 fuel tanks :P What they usually do with the take off in demo flight is flying level for a few secs just after take off, and then shoot upwards. But at the end of a slow pass, a F-16 always goes vertical, while a Mirage 2000 has to turn around level ;)

Nope, of course not, because with a delta wing you get incredible instant turn rates, but the plane will bleed it's energy very fast. Plus, the engine of the Mirage 2000 was designed for high supersonic (above M1.4) and will produce in the best case a crappy 0.65 t/w ratio at takeoff, which is far below most of it's potential opponents. If you wish to point out that I left aside the word "sustain" in your statement, you may do so, but still I don't get your point with the sustained turn rate. Avoiding a missile by manoevering is about getting the sharpest possible turn against the incoming missile. Being able to make several 360s at 18 to 20 dps won't get you anywhere against a missile. Being able to get 30 dps for 10 to 15 seconds, however, is useful, and the Mirage 2000 is capable of that both in LOMAC and in real life. I don't see the Mirage in the video here doing 360s and using it's (crappy) sustained turn rate at all ... And speaking of the sustained turn rate, if you try to beat the Mirage 2000 in LOMAC by doing a simple nose-to-tail manoever with a Su-27, you may win in the end, because the sustained turn rate of the Mirage 2000 is quite realistic in LOMAC, and it's not this good.

Do you plan to make some Russian/USSR oriented mainscreens with the same awesome quality some day ? :wub:

Sorry for digging this up after a month ;) It's not, if you know the real plane's capabilites. The Mirage 2000 was designed as a lightweight fighter which only purpose is dogfight. The first versions back in the early 80's didn't have a BVR payload at all (only two Super 530-F per plane, which is quite a joke). The F-16 would have been just the same if the USAF didn't turn it into an all weather attack fighter and increased it's weight, just because the F-15 program did cost so much they had to protect it. Greece is using both the F-16 and the Mirage 2000 in their airforce, and pilots for the both planes are trained just the same. The fact is, if a Mirage 2000 dogfights an F-16 , the Mirage will win 9 times out of 10. Now look at the number of aircrafts an F-16 can defeat quite easily in dogfight, and you'll know that the Mirage 2000 performance is indeed way above the standard ;) The only flaw of the plane is it's quite weak engine, which makes it can not sustain an hi-G turn for too long. That's where planes like Sukhoi can gain the advantage, and recent France vs India trainings proved it ;) Now, it's not really what makes the plane very hard to hit in LOMAC, cause as you can see in the vid, the Mirage does not avoid missiles by manoever, they just come right at it and don't fuse for some reason. The reason seems to be the RCS of the plane, which is one of the lowest in LOMAC, and which makes all the missiles, not only radar guided ones, miss most of the time. You will find quite the same behaviour with F-16 and Mig-23, as these two planes have the lowest RCS in the game apart from the F-117 ;) The only way we found to get these ones down without using 10 missiles on each one of them is : - always fire the missiles in lookup radar conditions (in the vid, nearly all the missiles are fired lookdown) - never fire on a target while it's already using flares or chaffs, anyway the AI won't fire at you as long as it's defending, so you have all the time you want to get on it's back and wait for the right moment to shoot. Usually it does the trick ;) My2cents

Yes, it's a brand new cockpit with it's own 3d model ;)

I'm not so sure ;)

Using the MFD and HUD materials/arguments into a .lom cockpit is impossible :) The best we've managed so far using .lom exporter is an alphajet cockpit, considering that an alphajet has (nearly) no HUD and no MFD ;) Thanks to Airone for this screenshot and awesome work : http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1583/screenshot065ne8.jpg

It's near to useless as an evasive maneuver, a human pilot aiming with guns won't miss you if you do this in front of him. But it's very deadly as an offensive maneuver, and if you're in a 2-circles dogfight and the enemy is turning better than you, it may become the only way to score ;) In real life, the time needed to execute the complete lock and launch sequence (a few seconds at least) makes it impossible to use ;)

The pylons are still the ones from the Su-33. And the Rafale is much smaller than the Su-33. The pylons will be fixed soon ;) Nope

This is a Rafale mate, not a Mig-35. :D