SoaringEagle74

The A-10 is equipped with 1350 30mm cannon rounds? Are you absolutely sure about this? SU-25/T and every russian plane, as far as I know, is only equipped with 200-300 rounds per load, unless you choose unlimited weapons in which case plane is automatically reloaded! Approximately how long did it take you to get those 30 kills by cannon? In real life the cannon is mostly used for non armored to lightely armored parked vechicles/aircraft and thats assuming your completly dry on all other a2g weapons. Anway, good work...it never hurts to practice the basics!:thumbup:

Ok. Thats what I initially suspected. Thanks for clarifying!

Hi. I have been trying to load long range missiles with any flyable aircraft but I don't think they are available. Are these missiles designed to be used only by interceptors or did the developers forget to include them in the payload availability? The manual certainly mentions them in the A2A section!

That is almost an understatement! It's not that stealth planes are completly stealth, however, their greatly reduced RCS, near zero heat signature, low acoustical emissions and god knows what else make them near stealth. Thats really bad news if your on the receiving end! For example, if they can be detected at 15 kms or less(speculating as actual figures are deeply classified) then any missiles fired from the "stealth" platform from long range will have destroyed the target/s well before the planes are picked up on radar and defensive measures can be taken. Thats like getting hit by tomahawk cruise missiles from 200-300 miles offshore....even if you know they are cruising there isn't much to do!

Due to current computer limitations and abundance of classified material on "cutting edge" stuff there are limits to what realistically can be improved in this game and future simulations. My P4 3.0Ghz laptop with 128MB Ati graphics card and 1GB ram is already pressed to the limit and all my graphical settings are set to medium...just imagine lower end systems! What I would really like to see in future sims is more multirole aircraft, more infantry units(currently there NONE), and perhaps one or more additional theatre of wars. IMO these areas are severly lacking! As far as improving this particular game I don't think anything can be done without risking overkill with the obvious exception of fixing any potential undiscovered bugs in follow up patches. This should NOT be taken lightely as customers paid money and rightfuly demand the best! Just my two cents.

I am currently trying to learn to fly the SU-25T and it seems quite tough to maneuver...easily prone to side stalls...heavy and irresponsive...tendency to fly at high AOA...etc! On the other hand, I really like the hud layout and weapons capability. It does everything the "vanilla" version does with the vast addition in smart weapons. All in all I think its a great plane to fly but kinda tough to learn!

Ok. I understand your logic. This game is based on third and fourth generation aircraft while the above mentioned are fifth. Hopefully in the near future we get a flt simulator with fifth generation aircraft(cross fingers)!

If you play the tuturial it clearly states in the beginning that landings should be done at 230-240 km/h and at a descent rate of 3-5 m/s. Why are you disputing these facts? Also, I don't recall it mentioning anything about weight and how it influences landings. The developers may have taken these "details" for granted but they should understand that beginers need all the help they can get! As far as the rest of the tuturial I already agreed that imo its probably accurate!

The F-117A and B-2 planes are no longer classified! As such I don't see why they can't be accurately modeled in a simulation. Indeed they would be a great addition to the game from every aspect but there seems to be a lack of interest from the gaming community and developers. Other nice additions would be F-22 raptor, JSF, harriers, and heck maybe even an Aurora! Now that we are talking high tech why not model gps guided bombs like those used in Iraq and Afghanistan? The list is endless!

Thanks for the heap of information and tips. You helped me confirm what I already knew or at least suspected. In other words the tutorial on Su-33 carrier landings in Flaming Cliffs was misleading in some aspects especially in regards to airspeed and vertical velocity. The biggest problem was that it did not take into account weight which makes all the difference in the world! I managed to land the plane many times at 260-270 km/h with about 5-8 m/s decent and no cable broke with a medium load, in other words a few missiles and half full tank. As some people already mentioned its probably conceivable that slower landings are possible but thats assuming an ultra light load. The rest of the tuturial is accurate in every regard; Combat flaps until final then switch to full down, 300-350 km/h going to final then 270 km/h on hud(but falsely stated at 230/240 during briefing), tail hook and gear down, airbrake deployed, full afterburner over carrier threshold. Yeah I agree. Takes lots and lots of practice and then when your done practice some more! :thumbup: Conclusion: Tuturial failed to take into account weight which can/is very confusing when your trying to learn the basics. I almost broke the computer after 20-30 failed attempts(stalling into the sea, bolting, carrier deck explosions, etc!) :joystick::D

Yeah ok. The best analogy is when the plane is in a landing configuration over the threshold at near stall speed. The plane pitches up thereby increasing AOA but due to low airspeed/loss of lift it settles or "sits" on tarmac. My question is then could the SU-25T be overloaded with weapons therebye increasing stall speed? I am going to play around a bit with the weight factor and try different weapon and fuel configurations to see what happens. I also noticed the plane is tough to maneuver and easily vunerable to horizontal/side stalls! Try using some rudder and you will see. Thanks for the help!

Exactly true! AOA and airspeed are the most critical aspects of any carrier landing! On a fully loaded SU-33(fuel and weapons) I tend to come in fast and skim over the cables resulting in a go around. Trying to keep the airspeed near 230 km/h while heavy results in a fatal stall or hiting the carrier belly with a large AOA. In other words the margin for error is near zero. Thats the reason I mentioned jettisoning all weapons/fuel tanks prior to landing!

Ok. My mistake! The digital readout with the arrow on the right side of the hud next to the pitch scale is the vertical velocity indicator which I confused for a pitch index. Still I think it is unusual that the aircraft datumn is always above the artificial horizon when the plane first loads during a mission. Is this normal due to the planes slow initial speed and high angle of attack? Slow speed= high AOA=negative vertical velocity???

Hi. Does anybody else have a hard time trying to land the SU-33 on a carrier? It seems that 80% of the time I must abort and go around. Either I come in too hard or too soft! I tried the tuturial but it hardly helps. For example it says keep 230-240 km/h and 3-4 m/s decent rate. How is it possible to land so slow and not stall out of the sky? Should we always jettison weapons to lower the stall speed or what? In contrast, the other planes seem easy to land at 260-280 km/h and 5 m/s decent!

What about the Su-25T? No mention in the polls so I voted for the "vanilla" version. Honestly I think it combines the best ground attack qualities while not using an overcomplicated hud. Generally I prefer the russian planes for this reason. The american F-15E(if not mistaken) is a also a good attack plane but not modeled at all in LOMAC. I don't particulary care for the A10. The russian SU-30 is also a good attack plane but its a 2 seater and probably tough to fly and simulate. I agree with the original poster that stealth aircraft would be a nice addition to the mix including russian stealth planes if there are any. I would really like to see how stealthy they really are in regards to radar detection both from air and ground platforms! I have shot down several F111's using the SU-27 so either they are not as stealthy as some would think or LOMAC is mispresenting them.

Hi. I recently patched Lock On Flaming Cliffs to version 1.12a and I noticed the Sukhoi 25T pitch scale misaligned in the hud by -6 to -7 degrees. In other words 0 degrees shows a digital display of -6/-7 and a +6/+7 reads as 0. This problem also occurred in the unpatched version! If anybody understands what I mean what is the solution if any?

I have noticed the same applies to the Russian aircraft. When I give them commands nothing happens. Maybe giving commands only applies to network play. This is with the unpatched version Lock-On 1.1 Flaming Cliffs. I don't know if this applies with version 1.12 because I haven't tried it there yet but I noticed even 1.12 still has some bugs!

I think its the cpu fan but I am not absolutely sure. This also happens when I play Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 and other cpu intensive games so I guess its normal. Anyway, I thought I should ask to be sure. Thanks!:thumbup:

What is the highest rank achievable in Flaming Cliffs assuming you don't get killed? Also, is there any way to cheat the ranking system and create a new player with highest rank?

Hi. I recently upgraded to Flaming Cliffs from the basic version from a CD install. I usually start the game without the CD in the tray but recently I got a message stating that my verification code has expired and I must enter the CD! When I enter the CD the code gets verified and the game starts, however, I prefer playing without it! If I register my game online will this be possible? I read on the official uk page that registration is not necessary for CD version but CD should always be in the tray prior to starting the game.

Hi. When I play Lock-On my system fan seems to work continously! Is this normal or a serious problem? My computer is a Pentium 4 3.0Ghz laptop with 1GB ram and 128 MB ATI graphics card. Thanks for any help!