Shepski

Hi guys, There were many occasions during testing of the AFM that I myself said to the AFM developers, "I can't belive that the RUAF would accept such a pig of an attack jet". :) They confirmed via real Su-25 pilot's words that the Su-25T, especially due to having the same engines as the older Su-25, was in fact a "pig". The reasons that were given to us after commenting on various characteristics... Taxi and lack of nosewheel grip... the Su-25 has very little weight on the nosewheel compared to the mains which is why it seems to skid so much. Su-25 pilots told them that they must take turns at slow speeds. The skidding and poor steering authority was much worse in earlier builds and we were very persistant in ensuring that it was improved in the final build and they did find an error in a CofG calculation which was corrected. On landing, especially a Xwind, make sure the nosewheel is centered before it touches down and always try to land as soflty as possible in order to not blow tires. On take off... add some nose up trim prior to the take off run and the nose will gently lift off and will be easy to hold at the take off attitude. Maneuverability... Su-25 pilots extend a long way out prior to turning back in in order to be set up on a stable and fast approach... you can't fly this thing like the A-10 when it comes to multiple close range attack passes. Gain a lot of speed before course reversals... like 650-700 km/h if pulling up into a loop in a loaded jet. The Su-25T has an aft CofG compared to most attack jets which is why it seems to reach the buffet so easily... the bloody thing needs more thrust but it unfortunately it uses the same engines as the previous Frogs. I'm sure there will be further tweaking on the AFM as time goes on but don't expect too much. Remember to think of it as a pig or like you're flying a waterbed around the sky. :)

I agree completely!! Fantastic work TekTeka!

Hi Andrew, I guess you missed this thread I posted... http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=8018 If the nurse, on an empty leg is ok with it, we like to have fun. :) I was flying the King Air the pics were taken from since the nurse on my plane was the only one of us that had a camera. We switched lead as you can see from the pics and we each did a figher pilot break turn... too much fun! I really hope that VFTC makes the public aware... I had no idea it was going on till well after the fact. Cheers, Mark

Hey Andrew, Thanks for offering up the track!!! What an incredible display of formation flying!!! I wish I could have made it to the live broadcast. What was really cool too was seeing all their pilots heads turning and looking in real time. Cheers to Andrey, Daniel, Konstantin, and Alexander!!! Have a :icon_jook on me!

Excellent work TekaTeka!!!

Hi guys, Since I'm away so much I thought I'd share some pics of the fun I have while at work. While I was up working in the arctic myself and another crew managed to get together for some formation and wannbe fighter pilot flying. The King Air is a great machine for wing overs! :) The plane looks dirty in the first 2 pics but that's due to the photo being taken through the prop. Enjoy!!

I brought this rusty skin up in testing but it wasn't changed... there is a great replacement skin on some website that is much better then the one in 1.1 IMO. I'm not at home and am on dial up so I can't search for the better skin... sorry.

Glad to hear that you finally got it working Jared!!! Thanks to you for remaining so patient and polite during this frustrating time. Cheers

70!!! I think we have just found your problem. :)

Holy crap Jared!!! I have 9 items checked in my services list and 11 in my start up list. Your system is massively bogged down!! When you access the task manager(CTRL-ALT-DEL), how many proccess are running? I have 33 running at this time and that's with my anti-virus and anti-spyware running which accounts for 5. When I run Lock On I usually am down to only 24 proccess running.

If you just install Lock On v1.0 does it load correctly?

Have you tried newer graphics card drivers? 5.4 are out now and I would also try older ones like 4.1 to see if that makes a difference. Good luck!

Sounds to me like you had a player or two with an incorrect connection setting. Did everyone change the default client speed of 33.6 to a faster speed? Was the server speed also adjusted too?

Hi everyone, Since the realistic A-10 weapon mod I made for v1.1 didn't make it into the game I'm offering it up for download and hope to get it on this website too? The file is here: http://www.mts.net/~shepski/A-10A-Realistic-Weapon-Payload-Modification-v1.1.zip The description is as follows: Lock On 1.1: Flaming Cliffs A-10A Realistic Weapon Payload Modification This modification for Flaming Cliffs will allow the player to use the weapons and correct station loading that is closest to what the real A-10A can carry within the confines of the simulation. This modification is LoMan 2.1 compatible. The main changes are as follows: 1. Stations 3 and 9 are the only stations that can carry the AGM-65 Maverick either as singles or in pairs on the outboard and bottom racks of TER(Triple Ejector Racks). 2. Stations 1 and 11 can carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder, ALQ-131 ECM pods, Mk-20, and Mk-82 iron bombs. 3. Stations 4 and 8 can carry Mk-82's on TER's. 4. Stations 4 and 8 can carry LAU-61 Hydra launchers on TER's. 5. Stations 3 and 9 can carry SUU-25 illumination flares. 6. All stations can now carry single CBU-97 Cluster bombs. Mr. Wolf has released a great new skin for the CBU-97 found here: http://www.lockonskins.co.uk/index.php?page=downloads 7. The ability to carry Mk-20 Rockeye's on TER's has been removed. Also included in the MEInit.xml file are several custom payloads using the new station modifications. **Note: This modification will not alter any existing custom payloads or any payloads in any existing missions or campaigns. If a custom payload, such as those provided by Eagle Dynamics, has 3 Mk-20 or 3 AGM-65's on TER's then they will be useable. This modification only affects using the custom payload editor. There will be duplicate playloads listed because of the ones from the MECustom file of the first version of this mod as this one only replaces the MEInit file. A BIG thanks to Jens "Alpha" for importing all the new payloads into the MEInit.xml file... it was a very big job! Thanks to everyone at Check 6 for the wonderful LOMAN tool and to the fine man who provided me with the official weapon and station information. I hope the realism this modification brings will be useful and enjoyable to everyone. Feel free to mirror it! Cheers, Mark

1. Yes... to what extend in in what particular ways... I don't know. 2. This is a very subjective question because what might be fine for me might not be for you. I'm fine with 20 FPS but others demand 40 or 60 FPS. I'm fine without heat blur, aircraft self shadowing, and water reflections but others aren't. IMO, to run it well with great looking graphics(not maxed out) and decent framerates(according to me)... you need a P4 3.0(or equivalent), 1 GB RAM, and a 128MB video card. I have a P4 3.0, 1 Gig RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro... definitely not a fast computer by todays standards as I put it together about 2.5 years ago.

This thread is done guys... take the bickering private please.

Good point... I don't think we had that option when this board first started.

Hi, First off, I know nothing of thier business or sales model but... I believe they will price v1.1 in a way that it's cost to the consumer will be at the current market value for whatever country it is sold in. In the east, $5 or $10 is probably all they can expect to sell it for but in the west, including Canada, Europe, South America, and Australia where consumers will pay $35 or more for a single MSFS aircraft, virtual co-pilot, or flight planning utility, I think Eagle should charge what the market will allow. When comparing v1.1 to a single MSFS Beach Baron or Cessna Caravan payware aircraft/panel for example, that sells for $35... what is the best value?

Read post #332 in this thread: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=5731&page=17&pp=20 It was made very clear.

The easiest thing to do is to remap the command... I use "X" for radar PRF modes for example. The Windows keys are fine for things like engine start but not for combat commands IMO.

Words from the loader himself: "When external fuel tanks are loaded (on 4/8) and TERs, (on 5/7) then the TER side facing the tank can't be loaded. Yes, even if the pilot it planning to jettison the tank, this is just standard safety practices. Also if you load a tank on station 6 then you can't load anything station 5 and 7, this is because these three stations are so close together. On a normal combat mission requiring tanks we load one 600 on station 6."

Thanks for passing the kind words of Nic's mother to the rest of us. As one who has spoken and worked with Nic on the Lock On manual I'd like to thank his mother for her message to our community. Regards, Mark

That's the new dual Maverick station load in 1.1 and the TER's with Mk-82's are from my mod. 1.1 also allows 3 Mavs on a TER but my mod does not. The twin MER is no longer used on the A-10A in v1.1.

The TER is used for the Mav... on the TER, for transport purposes only, all three racks can be loaded but for combat purposes, only the outer and bottom rack of the TER is loaded. Here's an example:

Ya, the CBU-89 gator can be loaded on the same stations as the Mk-20 as can the CBU-87 and CBU-97.