Alfa
-
Posts
4989 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alfa
-
-
Okay, we all know the Russian aircraft aren't capable of simultaneously engaging multiple targets using TWS mode like the Eagle can..
No not the flyable versions modelled in Lock-on, but there are more advanced multirole versions of both the Fulcrum(MiG-29M and MiG-29K) and Flanker(Su-35, Su-34) with new multifunctional radars capable of multi-engagement with ARH missiles(R-77). Additionally there are upgraded versions such as the MiG-29SMT and Su-27SM, for which the original N019 and N001 radars respectively were upgraded with this capability.
..but today I was wondering why the Russian aircraft cannot engage multiple targets by using a SARH missile and then, while the SARH is outbound, locking a different target using an IR missile. It seems like it should be possible, but it isn't; the SARH will lose lock if you try using any other targeting mode. Such an option would very helpful when you're up against impossible odds in the flanker. I was wondering if this feature is a true technological limitation or something that simply wasn't implemented in LO.Because the firecontrol system is set up in such a way that it can only engage one target at a time - it can do this either by radar alone, by EOS alone or use a combination of the two. But it cannot engage one target with one sensor and another target with another sensor.
To clarify: why, for example, can you not track one target with the radar and then use your helmet mounted sight to fire an R-27ET at the next target before the 27ER has reached the previous target?A lock by the helmet mounted sighting device alone is not enough for a missile launch - the device is merely for designating the target for the missile seekerhead.....i.e. telling the seekerhead where to look for the target, but the seeker must see it by itself and lock on to it before the missile can be launched.
By the way, what was the first model of flanker and fulcrum that featured true multi-target engagement?MiG-29M/MiG-29K and Su-27M(Su-35). These were fitted with new radar designs(NIIR-N010 "Zhuk" for MiG-29M/MiG-29K and NIIP-N011 for Su-35) that were "built around" the R-77 missile.
It should be mentioned that the initial version of the N011 radar was a planar slotted array, while only the later N011M version is a electronically steered phased array.
Also many people think that the MiG-29S(9-13S) was the first Fulcrum version to be compatible with the R-77 missile - this is not the case. This ability was a case of "back-fitting" the missile to a "baseline" MiG-29 version by modifying the N019 radar to recognise it.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
The MiG-31 could guide those missiles easily, actually. It was one of the first aircraft with an electronically-scanned array, so its radiation patterns could be directed quickly enough to guide early SARH missiles to multiple targets.
Bingo! :) .
This is the reason why the MiG-31 can engage more than one target at a time with R-33 SARH missiles. But it isn't really a case of "guiding" the missiles, but rather that the instantaneous beam pointing allows for a CW-like illumination of more than one target at a time required by the SARH seekers of the missiles to home on the targets at terminal stage. Russian SARH missiles such as the R-27R/RE and R-33 employ a datalink for midcourse guidance and thus could be guided towards target from TWS mode in the same way as an R-77 or AIM-120 - the reason this isn't the case for the R-27R/RE is simply because TWS mode of the N019 and N001 radars doesn't provide the necessary CW illumination for the SARH seeker at terminal stage.
These radars(N019 and N001) - require the antenna to physically move to move the beam and since it is mechanically actuated, it cannot do this quickly enough to provide CW illumination for more than one target at a time.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Just make sure your Alpha channel for the texture file is NOT black.
Your alpha channel should be White.
His texture is a bitmap StrikeMax ;)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Hi all,
i work on a new Airportterminal Model in 3DSMax8 with .bmp's as Textures. I export the model from max to lom file and import it to Lockon as airport.lom in the Bazar\TempTextures Folder. I put the Textures in the TempTextures Folder but i do not see the model however in Lockon and the original airporthouse is also not to be seen! Can anyone pls explain me on what coordinates i must put the Model in Max to see it in the Lockon World? I Put it to coordinates Point 0. Is this right? Thanks for assistance and sorry for my bad english ;). Will hope you understand me.
Try this folder for your model instead:
...Bazar\world\shapes\ ;)
For the texture you did it correctly - put textures in bitmap or targa format into:
...Bazar\Temptextures\
Textures in *.dds format do not work when put into the above folder, but must be inserted into CDDS archieves.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Please keep your discussions civilised whatever your disagreements.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Will blackshark use starforce
Yes.
But I don't want starforce on my computer.Then you won't be playing Black Shark.
- JJ.
-
Does somebody know why there is no 13 available as aircraft number ?
Of course - bad luck you know ;) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Hi Roger,
I fully appreciate your conditions :) .
However, unfortunately I am not a seasoned modeller and thus not qualified for mapping your model or making animations of movable parts.
So my offer only concerns integrating a finished model into Lock-on, so that it appears in the best possible way in the game.
Sorry for the confusion :)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Roger,
As mentioned already the Zubr is a very good candidate for Lock-on as there is a vacant "ship-slot" left over from Flanker(title) that would suit it perfectly.
If the model is finished(or when it is), I would be happy to help you integrate it if you like :) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Is this true of Russian Doppler radars also - they are able to track helicopters without difficulty? Or, western fighter radars have some special capability to allow this? Alex Zuyev referred to the AA-12 as having a "new anti-helicopter" capability, partly from which I had inferred that earlier air defenses lacked it.
-SK
Don't know anything about this subject, but I have noticed that the ability to track a "hovering helicopter" is often being listed as a seperate feature item in fighter radar documentation - specifically I remember (in connection with the above R-77 quote) this being the case for the Zhuk-M airborne radar.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
I seem to run into a problem when I try exchanging the fuel tank model of the F-15. The file including the model is located in Bazar\World\Shapes and named "F15-PTB.cmd". However I can only export models into .lom files. Is it possible to generate a cmd file based on a lom file or is it impossible to exchange .cmd files with new models? Or did I completeley miss something here?
Edit: Alright, nevermind - I solved the "problem". If anyone is interested: I Just put the .lom file into the shapes directory, named it accordingly "F15-PTB.lom" and it was replaced instantly.
Yes *.lom versus .*cmd is not a problem - both formats are used by the game.
If both a .lom and a .cmd version of a file are present, then the *.lom version will always be the one loaded by the game(i.e. not necessary to delete the old .cmd version) :) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Yes, it is, but in the end, it's going to remain just another pseudo-flyable model with no wing folding, hook and Flanker's FM (yes, it handles like a Flanker, not the least bit as maneuverable as a Fulcrum) - something that would make an otherwise perfect upgrade to the MiGs in LOMAC just another HumanCockpit="yes" plane, which really doesn't do the plane justice. :noexpression:
So what is it that you expect - that ED releases the source code so we can fiddle with FMs and the like?. My approach to this, as a modder( ;) ), is to take what ever oppotunity I come across - whether it be as a result of digging around in game files and discovering possibilities or whether it comes in the form of tools released by ED - to make the mod as good as I can......instead of just sitting back and say that it isn't worth the while or waiting for someone to come along and present me with a manual on how to do things :) .
Something that always baffled me - why the hell isn't there something in the plane to prevent that? I remember the first time I sat in the Super Frog and accidentally brushed my fingers across the "G" key - whoops, down you go along with the gear. Seriously, what's with that? :huh:It is per design - apparently Russian aircraft designers considered this risk to be the lesser of two evils - i.e. that a device to prevent it could cause the gear to get stuck in the down position after take-off, which in turn would be more dangerous than raising it by accident while on the ground....that's the explanation anyway :hmm: .
Now that's just mean and nitpicky. :PHardly....the Ka-52 is quite different from the Ka-50 :)
Think about it. In a sense, a helicopter works similar to thurst vector control - not completely, but in a sense. Translate the behavior of a Ka-50 onto a jet and you might get an effect akin to VTOL - one way or the other you'd get at least part of the behavior of a Harrier or Yak-38.I know what he meant, but it is a little far fetched to say that helicopter dynamics should be used for the development of VSTOL fighters.
As far as I know, there's about 4 Yak-141s still operational. While they may not be in active service (i.e. being used as testbeds)IIRC there were only two prototypes + two static testbed airframes used for engine tests while being suspended in a test rig(i.e. not "real" aircraft). AFAIK the two airframes that actually flew spend their time as static display items at museums :) .
...why would that stop the modding community from adding them?. I mean, if we want to go by the way of what's active and what's not, the F-4 should be in the US inventory of LO, yet it isn't - the thing's only been retired from USAF for five years!It wouldn't. Please read Vekkinho's post again - he was the one saying that the MiG-29K wouldn't be a good item for modding into Lock-on because it isn't in service.....then went straight on to suggest:
...they should introduce a Harrier or a Yak-38/141 in some future addon..
....I was merely replying that if the "in-service" aspect is an important factor for him then the Yak-38 or Yak-141 certainly aren't better options than the MiG-29K.....quite the contrary :) .
Come, now, if there were late nineties the models in there could've been more modern. Or at the very least we wouldn't get loads of people yelling at someone online for firing an R-77 off a Su-27. :PGee - let's see:
a). can you have a realistic environment with entities that haven't yet been developed flown by countries that don't yet exist.
b). can you have a realistic environment without entities that have been developed and not being flown by the countries that would otherwise operate them.
I can easily imagine a scenario in which the USAF is involved without using its F-15Es.....just to take an example :) . But I have a hard time imagining a "mid-80´ies" scenario in which a country calld "Ukraine"(then an integrated part of the Soviet Union) is operating aircraft types that weren't developed until 10 years later :) .
Just my opinion of course :) .
Well, if that's the case, can we please get some sort of more solid guidance in the matter? The explanation to some of the CLSIDs in MEinit.xml? A list of what belongs where? I'm pretty sure at least somebody compiled a list of it. As much as I appreciate your work specifically (I've been a Navy Supermod player for a while now), just saying "figure it out yourself" borders on bad manners.
I think it "borders to bad manners" to say that you cannot be bothered to figure out how to make mods by yourself and instead expect someone else(whether it be other modders or ED) to come along and present you with a "manual" on how to do it :).
Especially in a place that wants to kickstart modding, but without a manual. :noexpression:Do you think I had some sort of manual for making my mods?.... :D . There is no "manual" - figuring out what can and cannot be done is a lot of work and what modding is all about. I think it is a great idea for the community to exchange ideas and experiences on modding and that's what the "Mods" section of the forum is for - but if you don't do your own research, you can never do anything that hasn't been done before by someone else......and to expect ED to come along and present you with some sort of "mod manual" to end the need for this is just... :idiot:
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
It would be more productive if we had some documentation.
I was refering to modding in general - i.e. editing in the Meinit....
Playing around may be fun for a while, but in the end you're spending time which could be put to better use.You are wrong Aldega :) - "playing around" is how you figure out how the game is configured, come up with ideas for mods and find out how to get them to work......there is no manual :) .
I welcome any initiatives to create structured documentation. (the 3dsmax LomUtil and all of its options, how to work with the arguments etcSome information can already be found on page X of thread Y in forum Z.
Not exactly handy.
If you want to share any tutorials (txt, pdf, video, etc.) just PM me and I will upload it to LockonSkins.
Like Knell said - this is what he created his Lockon-models.com site for ;)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
I hoped we'd have MiG-29K since it's code is already within the game...
I made a mod long ago importing it back into Lock-on. It works very well as AI-entry, but the main snag at the time was the low detail level of the MiG-29K model from Flanker - with the release of the plug-in for 3DS Max there is a host of new possibilities ;)
Russia gave up on MiG-29K developement, they use Su-33 as their Carrier based Fighter and Fast Mover and only India (country that 's not featured in LO:FC) operates Naval Fulcrum. MiG-29K used to fall apart while snaggin' the wire, it's airframe doesn't satisfy for Carrier Ops.Vekkinho.....that is just complete nonsense! :D .
No MiG-29K prototype has ever "fallen apart while snaggin' the wire" - there were only two MiG-29K prototypes ever(bort # 311 and # 312) and both of them are still around:
Bort # 311:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0658020/L/
photo by Riabsev - taken at Zhukovsky in 2004
Bort # 312:
http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2003/maks2003d3175.jpg
photo from Sukhoi.ru - taken at Zhukovsky in 2003(MAKS-03)
The MiG-29K did in fact pass its state acceptance trials along with the Su-33 and was ordered for production in 1991(!). However, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that funding for its induction ceased up and the production order was suspended. However, RSK MIG continiued the MiG-29K development, which is why they are able to offer the type to the Indian navy.....and no they don't operate it yet. They have ordered 12 units of the MiG-29K(9-41) + 4 units of the MiG-29KUB(9-47) which are scheduled for delivery next year(2007).
The only accident involving a MiG-29K prototype(# 311) was due to something entirely different(and stupid) ;) - namely that the test pilot accidently raised the gear while the aircraft was on the deck of the carrier.....causing the aircraft to fall flat on its belly and damage the gear in the process. But, as you can see from the above photo link, it was repaired :) .
So, my conclusion is that BS will provide us with nothing but a helo with a lot of eye-candy (LOD). It just might burden our CPUs, GPUs and RAM.[headshake]
But there's another thing, though!- For modelling a helo, ED needed to work extensively on VTOL. I'd be a shame to use it just for a Ka-52, they should introduce a Harrier or a Yak-38/141 in some future addon (e.g. BS 1.21) or make a flyable adversary (Apache or Commanche). Remember Enemy Engaged series? We also had Georgian theatre there!
a). the helicopter in question for Black Shark is the Ka-50 single-seater version.
b). how in gods name do the development of helicopter flight dynamics/flight controls relate to VSTOL fighters?
c). unlike the MiG-29K, the development of the Yak-141 never reached anyway near production stage - the development was suspended during early flight testing and never resumed. The Yak-38 has long since been retired from service(late eighties IIRC), so none of those two entities would qualify for your earlier in-service or time-frame arguments.
We all feel that LO inventory needs a modernization:- Our current inventory belongs to mid eightees (introduction of Su-27, Black Sea trials with Su-27K and trials with MiG-29S). In FC we still have flyable Su-27 that's basic model of Flanker series.
There is no specific time frame in Lock-on, but to the extend you could derrive one, it would be mid- to late nineties.....apart from the fact that countries like Georgia, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist as independant entities prior to 1991, there are several units in Lock-on that didn't exist prior to that either.
Upgrading to a Su-27SK is blood, sweat and tears..The Su-27 version in Lock-on(V1.1) is the Su-27S - "Su-27SK" is the export designation for it, and therefore it is all but identical to what we have now.
...as it has 3 MFD with terrain following radar that has to be hard coded and severely tested before introduced. I seriously doubt any chance of it with BS....again the Su-27SK has neither terrain following a2g radar modes nor 3 MFDs - you are thinking of the Su-27SM upgrade.....and no there is no chance of seeing that in Black Shark :) .
Knell made a great models of Mirage F1 and IV. He's also working on a Rafale! Alfa imported new submarines. I'd like to know (ED read this please) how can I unlock models present in LO/FC but not visible in game (MiG-29K, F-111, all those ships you're talking about).You can download the mods I made:
* MiG-29K mod for V1.02: http://www.279kiap.dk/installers/279_KIAP.exe
* F-111 mod for V1.1: http://www.279kiap.dk/installers/F-111_V1.1.exe
......and see for yourself :) .
Now, why I ask?- I thought of replacing Pyotr Velki with some French aircraft carrier and MiG-29K with Rafale Navale. This way we'd have fully operational Rafale capable of Carrier Ops that's similar in size to MiG-29K. And it's fully operational compared to MiG-29K. The other thing is how can we create new slots in France (one for Carrier,other for Rafale) without replacing existing ones?
I remember Poland mod used to steal away MiG-29A slots from Russia. I don't wanna do that! I want new slots for modifications!
You *cannot* add new aircraft entries - whatever your mod, you need to use existing entries for it. Only static objects can be added .
So I kindly suggest ED to grant us with new slots in BS..."new slots" as you call it for active units would mean having to code FMs for them - it is not something you can just "add" :) . Static objects do not require any "behaviour" code, which is why you can add new ones of those.
...or to describe how can we free up hidden models in order to redesignate them with new models without installing Navy Supermod or such mods?!Figure it out yourself - we did......that's what "modding" is all about ;) .
If ED guys and girls can prove me wrong and release something beside a helo, something like optimized engine capable of 50 FPS on mediocre computers or new or modernized airplane I'd be glad.LOL...
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
i didn't know Lock on could take these sick ammounds of poly's
What do you consider a "sick amount poly's"? ;) . I have managed a convoy of 3 ships - each at 360.000 polygons! :shocking: .
Ok my system was struggling a bit, but really not much more than in some other situations :) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
About using other people's 3D models...
If you are using other people's work - freeware or payware, then please make sure you have their permission first before sending them flying all over the internet(!).
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
LOL....
That's alright Strikemax - it takes longer but it is a nice sense of achievement when you manage to figure things out by yourself :) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
Not being a model builder I may have missed the point of the latest tool released (http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.ph...586#post238586). but it seems to me that there was a couple of attempts at getting a sub in at the begining of this thread & the size & orientation was all wrong - this was discussed in the forum & a tool to help with this was released
Yeah Weta you did miss something :D .
I could put the subs into the game because of the released 3DS Max plug-in.....i.e the ability to convert a .max model to .lom format. The fact that it showed up (extremely) over sized and with wrong orientation etc, was due to my lack of knowledge in scaling and orientating the model in 3DS Max before converting it to .lom format :)
There were no tools to fix this......I just got a little wiser along the line as I fiddled with it :book:. The latest "Lo-viewer" tool is for checking animations(i.e functionality of moving parts) :)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
I agree with LP - no need for the nazi-attitude :) .
I agree with Pilotasso, this plugin is only good for replacing old models..:no:....If you guys have done any modding for Lock-on, you would see the potential for top-notch game additions this plug-in provides for. You have your opinions on what you consider worth while and important, but please don't try to impose it on others.
Besides, as far as adding new units goes - this still has to go through ED, but with the plug-in, third party 3D artists can do a lot more work on their own to prepare the model before sending it to ED....and I believe be in a better position to make whatever required adjustments to the model that ED may require.
- JJ.
-
There must be a simple way to do it.
Yes download the above mentioned "CDDSstudio" tool ;) .
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
@Alfa : As you may see, the plug in works well :) .
Yes it is extremely cool! :)
But i have few questions- Whats about animations ? Mine dont works. More things to do ?
Ay I have no idea about this Knell....I am a complete "noob" when it comes to modelling :) . For trying out the plug-in, I deliberately chose the submarines because there is no functionality or moving parts what so ever modelled for them in Lock-on - i.e. they were the most simple active objects for the purpose :) .
- I experience some probleme wih my texture. A color change when there is other aircraftclose to the Mirage Any idea ?Hmm - yeah I noticed that. I think the first thing I would do would be to try another aircraft entry for swapping in your Mirage.....which leads me on to your next question..
- And least, it s easy to change a model in Lom format. But there is only the F18 who is available. Any chance to change the file in .cmd ?No need at all Knell - *.cmd and *.lom files are inter changable ;) . If you name your Mirage F1.lom file to the name used for the Mirage 2000 in Lock-on and "dump" it into the shapes folder, then it will be loaded instead of the original Mirage 2000 shape :)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
For SuperKungFu...
Hehe...
Sharks taking advantage of an overcast day to come to the surface..
I was still struggling a little with the scaling....but I got it right in the end.
The Typhoon model came with missile launch in progress and one of the front stabalizer wings extended.....for the surface-only operations in lock-on, the missile hatch should be closed and the stabalizer retracted.
But that would be a simple fix :) .
P.S.
I disagree with you on the notion that a Typhoon class would be more interesting for Lock-on than the Akula. Large submarines are not very likely(to say the least) to show up in the Black Sea.....but least of all a Typhoon class(!) :) . The Akula class is an SSN and could be tasked with escort of large surface vessels such as the Kuz, but the Typhoon is sort of a "dooms-day" machine that you would hide under the Polar cap for a nuclear show-down.
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
1
-
-
so technicaly we can make an mig-29k model for carrier operations? and a new f-111 model ?
Given the required modelling skills.....yes! :)
Cheers,
- JJ.
-
LOL.....yeah you most certainly did GG :D .
http://gunpoint-3d.com/license.php?subj=membership.php
As you can see the license agreement prohibits any form of redistribution of a model's 3D geometry.....but then goes on to say a model purchased from them can be used for game purposes under the strict condition that it *CANNOT* be accessed or recompiled by third party users.
The first part would exclude their models from being used for Lock-on mod purposes, while the latter part apparently is an exception to that rule which the *.lom format would seem to qualify for.....i.e. once converted to this, you cannot access the model again.
Hence my hesitation - I think it would be necessary to get clarification on this subject instead of just going ahead and interpreting it in the, for us, most convienent way :D .
Cheers,
- JJ.
Well, what I mean is: They want the model to be availabelf or modification right?Since the LOM is not modifiable, when you create the mod, include the 3d model you converted to LOM with the LOM (in the same zip), and the LOM converter.
That should satisfy their requirement to make sure its editable, unless I misunderstood something?
Edit: I do think I missed something :D
Su-27 model from sds
in 3D Modeling for DCS World
Posted
Maximus_G,
Yes that model is very impressive, but...
a). it is some 260.000 polygons, which is quite excessive for Lock-on purposes and about five times the limit ED is operating with(~ 50.000).
b). $1695,00 is excessive too - in my opinion the general price level Digimation.com is operating with is just way over the top. You can find very nice Su-27 models elsewhere, which are both much cheaper and much closer to an acceptable polygon count.
c). StrikeMax is already working on the Su-27, and I think he is fully up to the job of creating a super model for the Lock-on community :) .
d). I also believe ED's own artists are working on a new Su-27 model - ok we don't know when we can expect to see that, but with StrikeMax's project and another future one from ED, I don't think we really need more efforts directed towards the Su-27......there are many other aircraft in Lock-on for which a new model is equally desirable.
Just my 2 cents worth :) .
Cheers,
- JJ.