Vati

No, I know what you mean, but to get to that it should be done from scratch and not relying on 3rd party standalone... and that is not feasible until next major ED title... and I added to that, that you have all the power to make it yourself a better way to manage the voice apps. It wont be seamless integration indeed, but still closer to your dream than what is possible now...

Sorry GGTharos, I do not agree with your arguments... First, this is not an ED issue... if you are not satisfied w/ voice app contact its developer. And second, if this is as easy as you think it is, you can do it yourself. All tools are available to you for drawing an overlay in lomac and hooking the keys. Last but not least, organizing online fights does not suffer because of the given situation... In my online flying I never experienced any trouble w/ using ventrilo or ts in multi ch configuration. It's all the metter of RTFM. ;)

It's unrealistic wish... the benefit vs time required to have this renders it waste of time. You already have all functions you need to manipulate ch in voice comm software. For seeing who is in what ch, you can use 3rd party software which is also already available. Ergo, you have it all... Sickboy, visit ventrilo.com and goteamspeak.com to DL and read about the given software. As goes for LOMAC and such tools.. usually it's hosted & used by closed group of poeple (squad). However there may be public servers available, tho I do not know any. Hope it helps you for a starter.

I do not really see why is there so much speculation going on. Manufacture data says GAU8 has 5mils 80% and M61 8mils 80% (however note that this is for fixed system as MikeRocker has already said. The actual dispersion is a bit higher due the recoil force relation to the cg of a/c) Also a tip for the future... Those who were not in army should google how to make easy calculation with mils so no to get lost in the trigonometric functions ;) The 30' and 20' approximations are the same figure. Only difference is in which mile you are trying to represent the dispersion value ;) So GAU8 at statute mile is 5.280 * 5 = 26.4ft; while at nautical mile it is 6.076 * 5 = 30.38ft. As for LOMAC... all guns are too accurate, with GUA8 being the most close to the real figures. To test this, simply create mission either w/ static target on ground or flying and then fly to the range and fire w/ trimmed a/c. You will notice that it is too accurate even w/ wobbling around... ;)

OK here is data from -34-1-1 manual for Mk82 and Mk84: Lethal frag location from impact point after 1 second of detonation (slant range) 82: ~1300ft 84: ~1600ft Safe min alt release flying level at 300kts: 82: 1200ft 84: 1800ft As GGTharos said, the min release alt has safe buffer margin. You can aproximate the margin w/ info on the frags location after 1s.. if i simplify.. 300kts is around 150m/s ... then add, lets say, 100m lag of bomb due drag, this creates horizontal distance of 250m after 1s of explosion, calculate slant range which gives us that we have approx 100ft safe margin. (tho I would say that real margin is prolly greater)

aha.. rgr.. good to see then that it is moving into right direction...

I understand that D-Scythe... my figures are for impact fuze not air burst. But lets not misunderstand eachother. I am not saying that T80 tank could be destroyed by that range. All I was saying that there is something not right with the frag model. For me it seems that dev team did try to model the lethal range vs ground targets like tanks, and buildings, but forgot about softer targets which could be damaged/destroyed by greater ranges. This has direct effect also on the aircraft who is deploying the ordinance (or the one which would fly into the explosion zone). Since Mk82 has lethal range in LOMAC around 20m, the aircraft flying is also damaged/destroyed only inside that range. The easiest solution to the problem would be that dev. team would simply use two spheres. One as it is now, and another for softer targets. Not perfect, but 180deg turn on the better. Bilog, please chk again. I belive you are remembering it wrong...

Whisper, I've already played with this as a test. However as of now there is not much to export and the fact that I lost some of performance I had put it on hold. If you want more information on the techinques how to do it yourself, you will need to google for "dll hooking" and "dll injection". Basic knowlage of D3D and winsock(if you want to connect direcly to the export lockon service) is also required. Good luck! :)

Thx beta guys for responding to this thread. Let me give you more examples why this topic need greater attention. Lets pick Mk82. In game, to damage yourself with the bomb you need to fly around 20m AGL or so. Now lets take a look what is clearance in RL (source is official mil manual). 1000ft is minial relase AGL for level flight at 400kts. Ok, safe release alts have some safe bufferzone. So lets take a look at frag chart and we can read there that in 1s after explosion, the frags will reach around 1300ft in height. The max height the frags can reach is around 2500ft in vertical and radius of around 3000ft. Of course that is max range which is non lethal in most cases. So even if we halve that, the LOMAC is still very off. And that is only frag aspect of explosion without blast shock wave... As said before, dev team already has all this official data, so I am wondering why is it so wrong in sim? I think modelling this aspect would make game better not the other way around. Afterall we are getting new CAS plane in 1.1...

One thing I know for sure is that they do have all the data they need. The question is why is nothing said/done on this topic... as others had said... A damn shame. :?

Guys I understand your POV. I am also dev. ;) Thing is that your argument doesnt really hold ground due the fact that anyone can create God's view anyway if he wants to cheat. :) I think that generally, people are too obsessed with what could cheaters do, which is counter productive, especially in given case. LOMAC is already 'too open' to be a secure. Why limit our creativity when nothing will be gained by it ;) In the end it is your choice what will you do with your project. And I will respect your decision :)

As had others said before. AWACS/GCI module would be worth doing if it would have properties of a real radar -> no God's view. I think eventually to minimize work for ED, the radar modelling (rpm, LOS, speed gates, etc.) could be done in this standalone AWACS/GCI module which would communicate via LUA w/ LOMAC. I think the best way to insure this project will meet its expetations from hardcore simmers is to set it up as an open source, so that the high standard can be maintained. Having proper AWACS/GCI was my long time wish (since I've served as GCI op) for Flanker series... I applaud for starting this project!

Any improvements for the multiplayer?

SK, Sorry for making short reply, but I got frustrated that my initial post was lost due session expairation on the forum :evil: I agree fully with you that there is still a lot missing. I never really meant to sound like it will be easy if you look at given numbers.. 4M vmax, 30NM Raero, etc. My intention was more into the direction that we are prone to get dragged into some hard thinking when the solution could be more simplier that what we wanted to be. Anyways... What I suggest you is to take a new angle from the given attempt to simulate the missile... I would go from your "brute force" trial & error more into writing a genetic algorithm which would be based on generic missile profile for missile type. Then play with weights, etc. to get out the aproximation of the missing data. We both know that getting 100% correct model is impossible.. hell even Raytheon does not have 100% correct simulated model ;) I would say that my suggested approach to the problem might give faster and more accurate solution to the problem we are facing here. Keep up the good work. Cheers, // Vati P.S. The glide logic is way over optimistic... some missile can almost achive orbit (if I am a little sarcastic) ;) Also I suggest you to get interval stop at simulation when the missile reaches the same altitude as is the target. Right now it's almost imposible to get right range out, since simulation does not stop at target altitude.

SK, Ok we know that max speed of missile is 4M, we know that max aero range is ~30nm to get at the same level as it was lauched from and we know that to achive this pilot needs to pitch 40deg up to achive loft. Now following on what we know from this we have an answer your question on "preprogrammed" loft - THERE IS NO FIXED ONE. The AMRAAM flight path is fully dynamic and is based on the situation. What I want to say is that the missile will take what FCC thinks it to be the best to achive interception. It's as simple as that. And to answer your question what will happen if the pilot does not pitch 40deg up... the missile will try to do it itself, however it will use more fuel than needed to achive similar loft profile and the range will be shorter. How does this help us WRT R27R? I would say R27R does something similar since it's also radio corrected/ins and not a beam rider in a AIM7 sanse. Sometimes things are more simple than we try to make them ;) // Vati

Well he does it in very odd way then, since the flight time and avg. speed should be equal, yet it's not. // Vati

ПРИВЕТ Please excuse me for writing in english, since my writing skills in russian are not very good :oops: SwingKid, looking at your graphs on first post, they seem very odd. Could you explain a bit in detail how did you get those numbers out.. it seems that you are not including the launcher speed in the total missile speed. This is why your speed numbers of missiles are so different. // Vati