RedTiger

Thanks Vekkinho, I'll give it a try! Thanks for the video too. I have just glanced at it, but I'm looking forward to watching it. I'd rep you but I have to "spread it around". ;) Here's what I was talking about earlier. This is from the book I have and its (poor) translation: "Before the "Zoom" command is applied, the manually selected target stepup (stepdown) separation is maintained. After the "Zoom" command is applied, the aircraft gain the target altitude. Once the target is looked on firmly, it is recommended to set AH,e a 0 wich ensures smooth flying to the target altitude before the "Zoom" command is applied: The moment the "Zoom" command is applied, the symbol is displayed and the aiming circle suddenly move upward or downward. For the headup display, refer to Fig. 11" (it is referring to a picture similar to the one Esac posted) also: "When attacking the lowaltitude target (Htgt is less than 500 m) while flying along the aiming circle, the flight is executed along the variable profile. After locking on the target, arrive at an altitude of 2000 m and in response to the "Zoom" command, descend the aircraft to the flight altitude with the 500m elevation over the target" There are also three different pictures for the HUD, one for "'Scan' radar mode during instrument guidance", "Encounter (Scan) radar mode during guidanceby voice and indepedent search, and "Pursuit (scan-while-flyby) radar mode". The first one is for GCI control of the HUD symbology. The other two are obvious. :) The translation is terrible, this is EXACTLY how the book reads, but you can get an idea of what its talking about. I have no idea what "AH,E a 0" means or what the "variable profile" is...maybe DLZ parameters? Maybe we'll see in DCS: Fulcrum? :)

Yep, thats what I was talking about! It's been awhile since I've looked over my translation, but I seem to remember there being some description of how this system would be used which seemed to suggest that the pilot might be given an order to zoom climb or dive from his set altitude just before launching his missiles. That's a cool idea. Can you point me somewhere that tells me how to do this?

Yes, this is right from the Russian manual. The pilot can be guided by voice or by symbology displayed on the HUD that is controlled by GCI. IIRC, there are signals to climb, dive and shoot, maybe others. If you search around, I think someone posted the picture from the manual that shows the HUD symbols and what they mean.

Yes, but those symbols on the HUD sent from GCI for direction are commonly referred to as a "data link". Since the LOMAC MiG-29 doesn't have those, the closest thing is the AWACS/EWS data link the MiG-29S and Su-27 have. I want to know if there's a way to enable in that in the 'A'.

Actually, it was that droning sort of sound in the very beginning that gave it away as being that particular song. That particular sound is very, very NIN. If you've ever played the original Quake (which Renzor did all the music and sound effects for), you'd hear that type of sound very often. Every time I hear that song, it reminds me of Quake! Yes, it does look awesome. I'm going to have my wife watch the first 3 Terminator movies to get her up to speed before watching that one! :)

Yep, totally "The Day the World Went Away". Very fitting for that move too.

Nice!

The screenshot thread kicks ass. I'm so going to have my wife make me an animated GIF of this! :punk:

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to give the MiG-29A the data link it should have. I'm not sure why the Su-27 and MiG-29S are the only ones ED modeled with that capability. The datalink is unrealistic, but it should still have it! Anyone know if there's something in the meinit file or some other switch I can flip to give it this capability?

I've been playing a bit with this model this weekend. It is outstanding. I've been trying to find the right screenshots to share, but none seem to do it justice. To the creators of the model: bravo! :clap:

My gut that's about to bust hopes you are right! :lol:

Call me skeptical, but I would pass judgement on how well that all works when I see the AI. The Battle of Britain was huge in scope, and if the sim is to be anything other than a massive, historially accurate dynamic team-based Quake game, the AI is going to have to be absolutely DEAD ON. Nearly flawless. If we get IL2 AI, then SoW just be a really complex version of CoD 4 for me, except I actually played the single player campaign and tried FFA multiplayer in that one. ;)

I was looking through the Free Falcon 5 manual this evening and I read this: 'Do not hard-lock or STT when a missile in TWS mode is in flight. The TWS ID is lost, and the missile will go “maddog”.' Can anyone in the know confirm if this is how the real thing works? A TWS bug, as simulated in LOMAC and Falcon, can be a tenuous and precious thing that you can lose if you aren't careful. It would majorly suck if they're anything like this in real life and you couldn't hard-lock something to preserve your lock until pitbull.

Its now next week. When you gonna release it? :)

I have to be the bearer of the TL: DR notice, but...TL: DR. Please realize that LOMAC is a 6 year-old survey sim. It looks like your complaint is about the Foxbat. The flyable planes aren't nearly as realistic as they could be, let alone one that is AI-only. I'm not even sure those even have proper flight models. The "arcade factor" of LOMAC has been discussed for years. I realize that it might be new to you, but being disapointed now is a little after the fact, IMO. The product reached the end of its life cycle a while back, I'm afraid.

I own BoB II but unfortunately have never found the time to play it much. Beyond a quick 1 vs 1 dogfight with the AI, I can't speak from experience. What people say about the AI in BoB II is that the flaws in the AI are more like they are built-in to make them more human rather than just being flaws in crappy AI. They make mistakes, but ones that make sense for a human to make. I know that BoB II's AI is probably proprietary, but you have a flight sim with no multiplayer, game play propped up by nothing but AI that some people really seem to enjoy. Yet other than its fans, no one pays any lip service to it. Why aren't more trying to copy it? I have felt for a long time that there's a tendency to not give a crap about AI and just let competitive multiplayer provide all the replay value and longevity. I fully understand why a great deal of people prefer it that way, but there's just only so much that can be done when every unit has to be player-controlled. I'm not even talking about the scale (although that's a big part of it too) and number of units, its also practicality. How many players would want to sit in the Zulu barn for hours and hours for a scramble that may never come? This is where good AI and scripting has its strong points. The AI doesn't care if my flight never satisfies the conditions to trip the trigger to spawn an interceptor scramble. And if it does intercept me, it would be great if it weren't totally predictable and easily dispatched.

Is anyone here familiar with Battle of Britain II?: http://www.a2asimulations.com/bob/ People rave about the AI in that sim being very human-like. On the rookie settings the pilots are more timid and easier to sneak up on. On advanced levels, they are very aggressive. On all settings however, they remain "human". They don't have super situational awareness. They are blinded by the sun and cannot see through parts of their plane that would block the pilots vision. You can actually sneak up on them or bounce them from above. I've always wondered how that AI was created and if something like that could be applied to DCS.

In LOMAC you don't have a choice but to fly low when you're actually attacking. I can't see worth beans what exactly I'm targeting with a maverick unless I'm low and very close. That stuff gets dangerous the 4th time you make a pass straining to see that last Tunguska. After the mavericks are gone, its all visual targeting. Even in the Su-25T I have trouble. I've tried locating a tank while flying fairly high, but its impossible with the way the view distance is in LOMAC. In Black Shark I've never been that high in the air, so I don't know if it has been improved. In the A-10C, you shouldn't have to worry about all this, hopefully! :)

OR the Russian aircraft are missing those parts that are hard to weather proof, which by a gross process of elimination, might be the "sophisticated" parts. You put it well; its not so much information as more of a logic. If the NATO plane can do X, Y, Z but it can't sit outside in freezing weather and still do them, but the Russian fighter can, you have to ask, can it still do X, Y, and Z? Can it do them as effectively as the NATO plane? If it can, then you probably have a better designed plane or possibly one using some technology the other one does not. However, if it can't, then you MIGHT logically assume that its missing the ability to do X, Y, or Z. If this is the case, then the designers either were incapable of designing it to do this or they decided to sacrifice something for the ability to sit outside in freezing weather OR a combination of both. My point was that I'd rather just have it do X, Y, and Z if all it meant was that I had to take a modicum of care and attention towards maintaining it, i.e. heated hangars. ;)

Heh, I was gonna say. It looks sorta Yom Kippur War-ish.

I don't even do multiplayer and I hope you're kidding about this one! :doh: Helicopters in missions with fighters will work the way it does in real life. It won't be much different than LOMAC's mud movers, probably. How will you handle players in fighters? You won't, YOUR side's fighters will. Now someone tell me again about how the mud movers make history because fighters allow them to. :P

What sim is that from?

ALL WEATHER FIGHTER! :D

That flight sim has some of the most believable looking flight I've ever seen. BTW, the cloud link doesn't work. :(

The MiG-29A is one of the planes I'm looking forward to the most, actually. See my little list in my signature? Its the only plane that briefly move the F-15C out of the top spot. Part of the enjoyment of DCS is flying aircraft that are a living part of history. Complaining about the avionics in the Fulcrum is like complaining about having to crank start a Ford Model-T. If cranking the damn thing is such a bother to you, you probably don't own a Model-T in the first place. :D Its all part of flying these aircraft the way they were meant to be flown, which is something I try to do in LOMAC presently, albeit more of an exercise in purposeful limitations. ;) The sad thing is, I foresee most people just sticking some of the stuff on their HOTAS. It won't solve everything, but it will be an unrealistic improvement over what the real Fulcrum pilot has to put up with! In anticipation of having the DCS module one day, I bought two manuals online for the Fulcrum. I found it interesting that two (imagine that! Not just one, TWO) manuals had been published for the general public. Not just PDF files mind you, actual books: http://www.amazon.com/Mikoyan-Mig-29-Fulcrum-Operating-English/dp/1430313498/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235901923&sr=8-4 http://www.amazon.com/MIG-29-Flight-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0764313894/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235901923&sr=8-2 The first is for the German MiG-29G and reads as a basic operation manual. "This is how you fly this plane safely and not get killed" type of thing. There is no mention of how to operate the radar, IRST, etc. It was still interesting to read, especially since I'm hoping to be able to use it as a direct reference to operating the MiG in the DCS module. Despite the lack of info on weapon systems, there is a table for the MiG-29UB training program built into the aircraft that gives a list of simulated target speeds, altitudes, and aircraft behaviors. These simulated radar contacts are projected on the HUD in the front seat as a training tool for the pilot. They give some idea of the capability the designers expected for the FCR. The second manual looks like a translation or partial translation of the Russian MiG-29A manual I have. The translation is rough and imperfect but it gives a fairly clear description of what the pilot can expect out of the FCR. Two things that are of interest to me are the altitude and look-down performance. The manual states that the normal operating altitude is 12,000m, IIRC. It says that this is the regular operational altitude for the Fulcrum. It also states that the look-down range of the radar is "practically the same" as an aircraft that is co-altitude. This directly contradicts some of what others have claimed on these boards. To be fair, the ranges listed also contradict (as in they are much more optimistic) things I've read elsewhere that were attributed to the German Fulcrum drivers. Maybe the manual just doesn't reflect reality? Perhaps the designers' specifications were a bit too optimistic for reality? On the other hand, it does seem to jive with other things; the Fulcrum's radar is primarily meant to display radar contacts on the HUD for the pilot and to guide missiles to those contacts, not search for them. What I'm looking forward to DCS is seeing what ED's take on this seeing as how they're trying to get very close to reality.