vanir

Yeah I've tried the BS tweakguide thread and been playing around with Nhancer settings but can't seem to get my fps up to something workable, especially exterior view is really killed on clear day. What's weird is absolutely nothing I do seems to have any noticeable effect one way or another, game options medium or high doesn't change anything. Plus my cpu is at 100% everytime it switches to a loading screen, I think it could be the cpu here. I know it's only a single core amd3200 but other people seem to have no better cpu and get it working okay.

I finally managed to update my driver and installed Nhancer. What sort of settings are you using, I've still got the black lines and shadows problem and my fps has actually gone down to virtually unplayable. I'm using pretty conservative settings at 8x combined ss and 4x anisotropy; game options at medium. cpu amd3200 single core 4gig ram geforce 7600gs 512 it should run okay with workable frame rates for this sim unless I max everything out, so something's definitely up.

I'm having a strange problem. Getting dark black lines on the aircraft skin, some shadows problem. Nvidia card (7600GS 512). Played with settings, figured I should update driver and download Nhancer for xp32. First 100+meg download was broken. Tried just the driver, 80 meg and that continually says "non 7-zip archive" every time I try to run the installer. I downloaded winrar (I used 7-zip) and get the same message. So I can't update my driver (standing one is like v170-something, old), Nhancer current version needs at least v186 or something, so I can't install that and I've got this dumb problem with the shadows on the FC2 aircraft skins. Everything else runs fine, fps is a little slow but I've got 8x/8x supersampling and high settings in options, it does run okay. Really annoying about the driver thing, any ideas?

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced about the Aegis/SM-2 ability to fast track modern supersonic missiles once they get within say 10km and start the acquisition/manoeuvring phase. Even the manufacturer recognises it's not quite as desirable as CLOS for point defence on small very fast moving targets (where the outgoing missile and its target are both within the beam), although it has range benefits over that. This would be why both the main air defence systems on the Russian carrier are limited to around 12km. Don't get me wrong, you probably know more about it than me, this is simply the impression I have thus far, I hope it doesn't seem arrogant.

Based upon what I've been reading... The Kitchen is a supersonic cruise missile, it's not an easy target for older systems like the SM-2, hence point defence systems (CIWS). The SM-2 is basically a 70s missile system rebuilt around the Aegis phased radar-intercept system and pioneered this kind of fleet air defence for the USN. It's not as fast tracking or predictive as a CLOS/CIWS like the Phalanx or some short range European naval missiles and really works better against transonic missiles or aircraft than fast supersonic missiles at medium range. In game the Russians have actually the newer weapons fits on their ships. Most of the weapons in the American ships are early-80s weapons (Sea Sparrow, SM-2, Harpoon, Tomahawk), whilst most of the Russian fit are fairly new weapons (Rastrub/Silex, Bazalt, Granit, Kashtan, Kynshal). These are all brand new refits made during the late 80s-early 90s where the USN fits are from the early 80s and based on older development programs (that being said the American mid course guidence system for long range weapons is more autonomous and higher tech in theory). There's no real comparison between the SM-2 and the Kashtan (which isn't really a CIWS but a short range point defence system, ships with Kashtan also have AK-630 CIWS). The Kashtan is a navalised version of the Tunguska mounting, the long barrel 30mm cannon have an effective range of just over 3km while the SA-N-19 is a boosted version of the SA-19 optimised for high speed missile interceptions, nominal range would be out to around 10km although it is better suited to fast tracking (CLOS, or command to line of sight fire control system) at closer range. The idea would be to start firing at about 5km and follow up with a barrage of supporting cannon shells so the whole lot intercepts the incoming missile roughly the same time, this is independent of the AK-630 CIWS point defence which wouldn't start offering firing solutions until within 3km. By comparison the SM-2 is a 70s weapon built around the 80s Aegis system. The Kashtan wasn't even heard of in the 80s, the Russian Navy was refitted by 1992 and this was perhaps one of the elements contributing to the economic collapse of the USSR. The Russian Navy is a very powerful and modern surface action battlefleet, where the USN is designed more with force projection in mind, not so much surface action warfare (it was always assumed a major conflict with the Soviets would go nuclear, and the SM-2 is nuclear capable). The USN is only recently being refit with newer weapons upgrades, including the SM-3 which is an improvement on the old SM-2, more suited to intercepting supersonic anti-shipping warheads conventionally. The older weapon would be good for transonic cruise missiles at medium range, but these passed out of service in favour of a whole new shipboard weapons fit throughout the Russian Navy starting in the late-80s, even their corvettes carry newer fast supersonic anti-shipping missiles (Moskit, it caused quite a stir for NATO when first identified). The Kashtan and Kynshal (SA-N-15) mounted to the newer Russian supercruisers (Admiral Kuznetsov and their battlecruisers), is an extremely effective and very new, dedicated anti-missile screen extending around 12km from the motherships. Then after passing through that you've still got the AK-630 to deal with (not so good against nukes though, they're primed within a few km of the target and will go off if hit). The Russian Navy in the 90s is about a generation ahead of the 90s USN weapons fit, it just sorta worked out that way. If you backtracked to about 1986 then it would be the USN weapons fits which are about a generation ahead of the Soviets. The whole thing about the Arms Race was that it fluxed and waned, advantages shifting as industry continually fought to compete with the other side's latest developments. Then in the 90s of course the Russians stopped dead, but had just performed their most recent full scale military upgrade. The US was due for one. That's coming though now.

I didn't want to clutter up the boards with a whole thread but having just got FC2 in the mail and installed I have to pass on a big thanks to ED for their brilliant work, I'm more than impressed so far. Still sorting and getting started but it's a blatantly fantastic job I can see you've done with this. Well done and thanks.

Yeah I thought so when you quoted Hatsumisoke (he does have some insightfully brilliant quotes, particularly his esteem for humility and good humour as much as skill). The thing with the kobudo however is much as what was mentioned as an angle on Sun Tzu, sure in a philosophical sense timeless but for specific combat strategy it should be little more than inspiration to rational thinking. Kobudo, or historically accurate mediaeval martial traditions have a very important distinction about them for which modern martial arts are largely exempt. Where a school-franchise of Aikido for example might advocate Buddhism and celebrate the religion in practise, the Kobudo are based directly, physically in mediaeval science-philosophy, it takes religion to the extreme level of pseudoscientific establishment. That's a really important distinction so I'm going to repeat it for prosperity. The systems kobudo rely upon are scientifically inaccurate, but they believed them to be accurate back in the 12th century and so naturally assumed that any fighting system and other martial arts based on these "scientific truths" would inherently be divine in nature (hence the names of all the schools are things like Immovable Gods, Jewel Tigers, Hidden Doors, etc.). Strictly speaking their comprehensive nature and apparent effectiveness are probably more related to a very elaborate, largely mechanical system being used as a base (shugenja mikkyo, the nature of which varies between ryu), rather than being the "correct" or "most effective" or "superior" system. Just being a very elaborate system, one evolved on centuries of battlefield experience gives it great kudos, but doesn't make the basic premise hold water. You could judge the kobudo in exactly the same light you do religious extremists, biblical literalists, folks like that dumbo westborough church, it basically asserts the same kind of things. The statements of belief however are muted by their representation in a physical system of training and application. Contemporary franchise in the martial arts community is certainly not practised in the religious sense, most practitioners would hardly be aware of it and think about their belt ranks and so on. The other side is more about ninpo, or the surviving spirit of ages, the strategum, where the kobudo are taken out of the academic martial arts dojo to form the basis of life philosophies and complete militant evolution are inevitably based on these mediaeval religious views of how the universe works physically. The gogyo setsu, gotonpo, inyodo and so on are the rudimentary application of what originated in ancient Greece, suspended in time and substituted for modern theoretical astrophysics. A pseudoscience. And I should mention as such it can walk some questionable lines in terms of clarity and rationale if adopted in the modern environment. What they should do, what they are designed to do is to inspire rational modern thought. What you might do is try to apply physics to combat, the same way kobudo applies ancient science-philosophy thought to be real physics at the time, to combat. Modernising, updating, correcting it along the way. And an excellent natural example of this by default, is the way air combat doctrines have evolved, using hard, actual physics in combination with combat action and materiel to provide an effective tactical superiority. Bringing air combat doctrines back to Sun Tzu might very well be more devolution than evolution. Chances are any insights have already been explored and practised, even if the wheel did get reinvented through the process over the last century.

Hatsumi is kobudosoke at the head of a number of surviving mediaeval ryuha, soke = father of tradition (roughly, grandmaster), kobudo = old martial art (traditional, unchanged, historically sound); in addition he is the figurehead of a number of commercial franchises within the scope of those traditions (bujinkan dojos and budo taijutsu), and hold an honourary degree in sociology I think, from the department of history University of Japan. I've trained with a number of these franchises (wound up with Takamatsu Ryuha offshoot because of internal politics between the operators and practitioners, it's like the warring states all over again up in there, half the shidoeshi call all the other ones fakes, very competitive, a lot of jerks involved). However the context of his statements referenced are for historical perspective understanding the cultural and political environment in which the historical families not directly aligned with daimyo or the shogunate lived throughout the mediaeval period in Japan. How they got by, the kind of thinking they had. It's not really relevant to air combat doctrine or tactical training directly. Generalised as these statements are they may have some resemblence to strategic planning but again it isn't really the case within context. It's about historical perspectives on a personal level, given in sweeping generalisations. Like I said I trained with these schools at length and I'd still take everything I could find published by experienced combat aviators over all of it, in a plane. My training will mostly help me with breathing exercises and other meditative techniques in the pit for increasing SA and G-resistance wherever possible using psychological methods, but where tactical applications are concerned I'll be dead if I try to get too creative by disregarding subject specific combat training for ambiguous mediaeval philosophies. You might argue a discipline involving deep historical studies of warfare, such as kobudo traditions (which include elements of shugenja mikkyo or mediaeval religion, which is noteworthy if applying to reality today), may increase the scope of the contemporary mind to become innovative and instinctive in both strategic and tactical terms. Might provide some good foundations. But it is not at all like picking up a book and trying to put a line on a page into practise. That's not how martial arts training works. Like sciences the conclusions are amorphous and falsifiable, statements made by soke are commentary of events transpired, they're a record. They're not meant to be a doctrine and are predictive only in terms of possible insights regarding likelihoods. For example if Hatsumisoke says one should give in to gain the advantage, this only means something if you're familiar with gogyo budo taijutsu as far as generic training goes, here one may apply it as a simple observation of the water element forms. It is to be represented both psychologically and physically to be effective, an important distinction since budo taijutsu seeks only to enhance the inherent combat capability of any primate. A whole lot of it is about tactical roleplay. See, not entirely relevant to aviation combat. Specifically Hatsumisoke is probably referring to some of the philosophy of the Shinden Fudo Ryu (of which he is the current grandmaster among other traditions), the founder of Judo studied with this school once, and many combat techniques begin from a natural posture and work with movement efficiency so that attackers would wear themselves more than you do trying to be impressive and intimidating. The core philosophy is "the immovable spirit" Let me put it this way, I'm still a beginner in LOMAC and I get much more survivability finding out how to beam and notch and that doppler radars can be fooled like that than I do trying to anthropomorphise jetfighter combat. I'm more familiar with IL2 say, and here again there is much more value learning the smart thing to do is turn into a diving enemy attack if you want to survive because he can't pull the same turning circle you can due to relative speeds, and that's an advantage you can us. That's much more valuable to a pilot than a very ambiguous parable about letting the enemy think he's winning and tiger extends its claw to reveal the vulnerable elbow or whatever else. Y'know if you catch my drift, I think that's a reasonable point. Also being fairly well trained in various kobudo I can tell you the couple of times I've flicked through Sun Tzu I'd basically discount everything written for actual application. Like I said it doesn't work that way, it's just an observation of what already happened, a possible insight under specific conditions, but never a dictum, where dicta can work for you in technological environments because physics is quite absolute. ie. Jeet Kune Do or a more complete martial arts philosophy/tradition can't make you beat any opponent under any given circumstances, but correctly using basic air combat doctrines can under given circumstances and it becomes a game of who makes the first, and their last mistake. This is because the capabilities of aircraft and the laws of physics they rely upon for motion are quite finite. Aircraft are like a predictable physical opponent, who actually tries to let your techniques work on him, hence the psychological aspect to physical combat, you don't need this in aircraft because there's nothing the plane can do either way but what its physics demands of the moment, it can't flinch or be only partially commited, or feint or use subterfuge masking. Agree that you might anthropomorphise some aspects of aerial combat though A.S. and for this much I applaud you. But that's a level largely irrelevant for most pilots, really just an academic exercise.

Very cool Tomcatz. I have been wondering about the Su-33 and Su-30 models however, I've got your JetPack but haven't installed it because I only have 1.02 until I get FC2 in the mail. The thing is I like the 3GO Flanker, the Gys Eagle and I guess Simmod A-10, I have your F-4/Harrier pack on disc waiting install. So I'm mostly concerned now with the Su-33 and Su-30 models which are quite poor by comparison (and hoping somebody does a MiG-31 because I use it a lot for UN Coalition versus VVS-PVO mission building). I'm going to try extracting these two models from the Jetpack and installing them into FC2 (I think the Meinit file is incompatable with 1.02), but I wanted to ask since it seems fairly logical this would be a common preference for LOMAC users because the 3GO, Gys and Simmod are so popular and very accurate and detailed; is there a chance you would be offering a Su-30/Su-33 pack for FC2 in Modman format? I think there would be a lot of demand for these if you were interested in repackaging those two models as a standalone pack like the F-4 and Harrier you did.

Certainly it's a reasonable exercise to apply the comments of kobudosoke although they are a little out of context, and convention suggests more relevant references remain Boelcke's Dictum and the comments and observations of the various aces since. Col Robin Olds (later BrigGen) used his WW2 ace experience flying the P-38 over German airspace, when he was called to turn around the air war for the USAF in Vietnam and devised Operation Bolo, and led the mission in his F-4(C I think), and then continued a successful combat record. He clearly draws on his combat experience flying piston fighters in the 3rd gen jet fighter combat characterised by Vietnam, and was one of the major advocates for reintroduction of dogfight skills into jetfighter pilot training.

I tried a forum search but got a lot of hits not specifically what I was looking for. This maybe very old news as far as most LOMAC enthusiasts go. I'm wondering how to use the GAI feature in the mission editor, is there a walk through for using GAI as a type of mission? This is the LOMAC terms for GCI doctrines, isn't it? I found already using 1.02 (I'm awaiting arrival of my FC2 order and haven't played FC1.1x), I can only setup GAI as a mission when I have enemy aircraft units on the field. Also when I ran through a GAI mission using all AI assignments to explore the feature, the interceptors seemed to sit on the runway longer than when I set the "intercept" mission type. I placed EWR and a SAM site for the side using GAI (2 Fulcrum-C) but am I correct to assume the GAI uses the home airfield's intercept radar that's hardcoded to the airfield? Would it be true to say the GAI issues the take off order to interceptors once e/a have been acquired by the home airfield's radar? How does the GAI system work in LOMAC and what will be the difference I should know going from 1.02 to FC2?

Quite true, ARM505 and also I rarely see the genuine disparity between early centreline mounting and later revision. The early "conformal" centreline EFT mount on MiG 9-12 was poorly mounted and interfered with case ejection (gun cannot be fired) and was severely G-restricted. There has been some discussion about this with German and central European operators at the public forum. All 9-12 have this problem and the wing pylons aren't wet piped so it can't carry underwing EFT. The Germans modified their ex-East German MiG-29A by fitment of their own developed hot area engine kit and derating (improved engine life), plus remounting the centreline "conformal" EFT so that it didn't interfere with firing the gun with the tank mounted. The tank is still G-restricted but not as bad as before. I believe they also wet piped the inboard wing pylons. There are two Russian improvements of the 9-12, being of course the 9-13 production series and an improvement program to the existing 9-12 in service (for operation in mixed squadrons). One of those improvements is the mounting of the centreline EFT so that it no longer interferes with gun firing and afaik has no discernable G-restriction in the later version, although a 9G rating on the airframe itself is overly generous. The CFT won't fly off, but the base of the vertical stabilisers crack. Also like ARM505 says a G-restriction in any case doesn't mean the object suddenly desintegrates in a mushroom cloud at the specified rating, it is simply the rating beyond which structural integrity cannot be guaranteed. That would be roughly 4G on the CFT with the Fulcrum-A, roughly 5G on the MiG-29G, and roughly 8G on the overall airframe for all models and the CFT for the Fulcrum-C or Fulcrum-A in Russian service with the update (which means basically the Fulcrum-A's still in front line mixed squadrons but not those in training squadrons, will use Fulcrum-C avionics/radar/weapons capability and wet piping of the wing pylons and other "9-13 standards", but keep the older small spine airframe, lesser internal fuel and lack the jammer; 9-12 models operated by export customers and ex-satellite nations will all be the old version but some like the Germans and other central European operators like Romania, Bulgaria have certain NATO-compatable or other upgrades...I think the Poles had the German improved-CFT kit fitted to all theirs as well as of course received all the German Fulcrums). I know the USAF has some 9-13 it uses at Fighter Weapons and Naval Top Gun schools lately, which they bought from Moldova (formerly Ukrainie SSR) so these days there is opportunity if someone at the boards has USAF contacts to deterimine the real world restrictions and comparative differences between the 9-12 and 9-13 models soundly and precisely. Admitedly most of what I have written here is anecdotal or heresay (although sources include Janes and a Fulcrum mechanic I've spoken with online from Romania iirc, might've been Czech).

The Sidewinder has a lot of variants, some go ballistic in high G, have a narrow acquisition cone, track slowly, some are too sensitive all-aspect and chase clouds, more or less easily distracted by sudden heat flares, some of these things are related to seeker sensitivity and thus acquisition range, there are also different types of charges and fuses. The A-10 probably started off with the AIM-9J then got the AIM-9L in the 80s and AIM-9M in the 90s or might use surplus AIM-9L (since afaik these weren't converted to the new standard but just replaced on the production line). I remember the 80s and seeing the grey/black AIM-9L on US warbirds instead of the familiar white Sidewinder, even on something like an F-16 was a bit of a novelty. FC2 would model AIM-9M for all Sidewinders I'm guessing? The AIM-9M is basically an improved L with less smokey engine and doesn't get distracted by sudden heat flares (like countermeasures) as easily. It's not as good as something like a Python-4 or an R-73. The AIM-9L it came from was the big jump forwards in the 80s being the first all-aspect (but likes to chase clouds and flares), it is fast tracking and very manoeuvrable, it's combat proven and does work with dramatic improvement in reliability and performance to all earlier Sidewinder versions. Understanding the progression of Sidewinder development seems important to realising that sim modelling of its faults would appear to be pretty realistic. Versions on USAF Phantoms (9B-D) couldn't track a target in a sustained turn or sudden directional changes at close quarters (narrow field, slow track rate, poor G-capabilities), and also had a problem with seeker cooling, which had to be switched on just before the fight (they'd crack the seeker if left on too long), so they were no good if you got bounced or weren't expecting a dogfight, or it dragged on too long. Essentially they were best used against an enemy flying in a straight line, at very close range, pointed directly at his tailpipe. The improved 9E had sustained cooling and better track rate but kept the other problems and that was the model used into the mid-70s. In the 70s the 9J came along optimised as an "AI dogfighter" with a long burn motor and much improved G capabilities, but was essentially a conversion of the earlier types. Then the USAF and USN jointly developed the 9L which was a leap ahead, but by this time it wasn't a big enough leap not to be overtaken by other nations SRAAM development, so that by the 9M the US was a generation behind. So when talking about the fantastic performance of the AIM-9M you see it is really a relative thing among earlier versions, I wouldn't expect one to perform as well in game as just about any other SRAAM (probably same as Magic2 and worse than R-73). And using an A-10 versus Su-25 we're talking about manoeuvres which really take the ability of a SRAAM to track to its very limits, at least with air superiority fighters the speeds involved in dogfight make manoeuvres much more sweeping, despite the high G involved. If the AIM-9M was going to fall down in performance, particularly in tracking I'd expect it to happen on a slow moving launch aircraft in a turn fight at close quarters, this is its biggest sore point compared to the high off-boresight Archer. Sounds like accurate modelling to me.

I just purchased the CD version waiting for delivery, looking forward to it. One question, does it install next to a modded version of 1.02 into a new folder so that I can play either? Do I have to have a virgin 1.02 before install or can I leave the mods in?

The hi/lo mix is really a logistical doctrine at the deployment level, not a technological one on the battlefield. In a mixed group the F-16 would perform the same functions as the F-15, and moreso nowadays the Eagle will perform many of the same functions as a Viper. The hi/lo distinction is really about forward deployment, high turnaround and low cost maintenance where the Eagle requires significant logistical support and solid bases. Well that was the theory anyways. The last F-15C block built wound up with F-15E upgrades (AN/APG-70, etc.) which I guess was probably retrofitted to others during the 90s, blurring distinction between their capabilities. The hi/lo mix was never the intention of the VVS with the Fulcrum and Flanker. The Flanker was equipped to the PVO (strategic defence) mostly, the Fulcrum to VVS (air force) with only the AV-MF (naval aviation) getting a significant mix. The VVS got some Flankers for escort use with long range aviation, something like four understrength units, they're comparatively expensive and difficult to produce against the MiG (which uses a modified Flogger radar set, is made in a refrigerator factory, etc.). Far from being low maintenance the Fulcrum wears quickly and is a very short range defensive fighter, although it can operate from rough fields and was designed for forward deployment...but only within Soviet territories. It does best within an EWR network of ground control stations at the fringes of the Iron Curtain and everywhere else you need a handy squadron of interceptors. As such whilst its performance is designed to compete with the F-16 it is not an effective export comparison with the type for example, being a different animal really and not strictly parallel with any western type by design requirement. The Flanker is a better comparison with western contemporaries. In the Cold War conflaguration along the Iron Curtain scenario the two aircraft types and their contemporaries were designed to combat, very few Flankers would be operating anywhere near Fulcrums. They have different commands that would rarely coordinate. Very recently the CIS/VVS has become far more centralised.

I looks good, I mean it's like flying Firefox or something, the aircraft interacting. A great mod would be having EKRAN print in English despite a Russian language setting for the HUD and rest of the cockpit (because they're easy to figure out and cyrillic writing looks awesome). If just the EKRAN was in English it would make it useful. I do want to know if my datalink is up, or whatever else it wants to tell me since there is very little in the way of glass-cockpit features in these birds.

Been looking forward to the box release, now I'll have to drop into the bank and get a debit-visa. I'm guessing this'll cost something like AU$60 but that's still cheaper than the ca.$80 likely to be charged if any game stores stock it (I recall a couple did the old LockOn Gold pack). They may wait to the Platinum release though, in which case asking price will be in the order of $120 Okay so question: is the patch included, is this a current/latest version on the disc? My service is very limited and I have to make large downloads at cafes to flashdrive. Since I only have v1.02 the upgrade to FC 2.0 will be huge.

All I know about it is beng tied to the warning panel in some way? What does this little AKRAN screen do for me? What kind of information is displayed, I've noticed there is some colour coding, for text. I originally thought it might have something to do with the datalinking functions of the Flanker. Can anybody tell me about this little Flanker feature?

Thanks very much for the concise and fast reply jalebru! I'll definitely give it a try out, afaik most of the Tomcat fleet by the 90's featured the newer engines anyway and the nozzles on the vanilla model are really terrible. So visually they'd be the same as a the D, and I've got some weird artefact bug around the gun port of a white rectangle on any/every skin for the F-14A I've tried, which is really annoying. Those two things make screen shot closeups limited.

Hi I'm not sure if it's the same thing but I just used LOPE.exe to change my Flanker series loadouts (private use) to reflect airframe capabilities according to this site: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_weapons.htm though keep in mind the guided weapons require software upgrades/kits (rack piping and target pods, etc.), so most can't be loaded in service for a realism mod. Kh-59M requires a target pod and is only on Su-30M and Su-34. These two also have other tv-guided load capabilities and R-77 because improved radar and the pod's payload management function. The Su-33 I believe can use the Kh-31 (Russian Navy claims anti-shipping capability current for the type). This is probably linked to the navalised fire-control system which is used to provide mid-course guidence for fleet SLCM. I think the radar set has to be upgraded to use R-77 and this is planned future update. The Su-27SM is the current upgrade for VVS/PVO with R-77 and newer radar (and MFD cockpit). Personally I don't see why the laser rangefinder on the EOS can't be used for laser guided weapons like Su-25, this ought be possible with fire control system upgrade, but laser guided weapons aren't listed as Flanker capable. It's probably because Flankers are too expensive for CAS duties where you loiter at low speed and low alt in a high threat environment. I think it's ground attack capability is meant for penetration small strike or low threat environments and upgrades for stand off capability more than precision.

I want to adapt VNAO F-14D model to my 1.02 install (stock F-14A is horrible), this will be a good exercise for when I get FC2 anyway when it comes on disc since I'll have to adapt it to that anyway. Is the only real difference with mod installs that specify "FC1.12 only" the Meinit file? So I could just do it manually with edits? (I realise installing manually means I'll have to point to the new skins in the graphics.config) Or is there some magical difference which will break my game and make it call the FBI on me? Also all I want to do is change the stock F-14A with better F-14D model, not change the flyable Su33 at all, so I'm just renaming Su-33.lom to F-14.lom (and deleting F-14-collision.lom from directory), I dunno I'll trial and error stuff like that because I've no idea wtf lom means. I just don't want to mess up the Su-33 I just want to change the F-14 model to something I pretty much don't like using atm it's so horrible. Is anything going to blow up?

That's actually a really good point. One of the things which weirds me out in mission building is AI interceptions with a short range fighter (MiG-23 or 29), is the way they're so heavy handed with burners climbing/accelerating even if you set an interception speed that's attainable dry, if the target is any proportion of their normal combat radius they start running out of fuel and RTB well before interception. With AI and short range fighters they're only usable if the target is timed to be pretty much right over their base when they're launched. It'd be fantastic if there was a selection of whether or not AI planes were free to use afterburners at each waypoint in the mission builder, so you set a waypoint and select action, and tick a box whether their afterburner is free. That'd do it, if it were possible.

Also, The VVS used to be broken up into Frontal Aviation, Long Range Aviation and Military Transport Aviation commands, which have been reorganised so that all are under centralised command in the smaller Russian Federation (the USSR was huge), but individual Air Regiments still consider themselves Frontal, Long Range or Transport in organisation. It means basically you have Fighter regiments (IAP), short range Assault Air regiments (ShAP), Bomber regiments (BAP) and Transport regiments (VTAP). The terms are still frequently used but for example Flankers blur the lines between several mission capabilities because of their phenomenal range, versatility, performance and load bearing. And as mentioned the commands are no longer distinct and independent. The primary fighter is the MiG-29 (9-13 is current, some 9-12 but most have been updated to 9-13 standard), with small numbers of Su-27S (upgrade to SM standard is underway) for long range duties (they're made almost completely of titanium and are quite expensive). I think there's like 3 Frontal Aviation fighter regiments of Su-27 (Lodeynoye, Besovets and somewhere too weird to find on google earth), two based around Leningrad for northern operations and the rest are MiG-29. Some Russian forumites probably have more detailed information on deployment equipment but this is what I've been able to find. All other Flankers are assigned to PVO regiments but these have become blurred in their role too with the VVS since 1991. The VVS does have small units for CAS duties (there aren't very many ShAP formations, but IAP fighters can do this role if required as well as small strike and light attack, otherwise BAP heavy hitters will be used) but this is secondary as the Russian Army has its own Independent Helicopter Regiments and helicopters in Russia are used like fixed wing aircraft elsewhere, capable of performing similar functions (ground attack, LCV, light-heavy transport, limited counter-air was added back when they were toying with the Ka50 and Mil-28 prototypes). Generally the way it works is that an army support requirement will have a mixed division organised into a temporary air corps from common military district stocks (air army), which will be attached to the ground forces at an army command level for coordinated action. The army regiments will have attachments of their own Independent Helicopter regiments. It's fairly similar to the way the US tactical air command works with some minor cultural differences. Also Frontal Aviation fighters did not initially have GCI datalink hardware installed, but are designed to work under direction from ground controllers (MiG-29S and Su-27 has datalink facility but this is used with Russian AWACS, I don't know if MiG-29A had this and older types didn't). Naval Aviation (AV-MF) is the independent detachment of the Russian Naval commands, whose primary missions are coastal defence, fleet air coverage, long range reconnaissance, generally land based and fairly recently providing small units to the fleet carriers (Yak-38, Su-33). The most conspicuous of their types are the Bear (Tu-144), Fencer (Su-24) and Backfire (Tu-22M). Regular fighter groups of Naval Aviation use normal Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29, most recently some Su-34 production is allocated. These are attached to the four fleet commands. Finally PVO is a completely separate military organisation outside the command structure of the VVS, KoV (regular army) and Russian Navy. It is organised into Strategic District commands (as opposed to Military District commands), and comprises the strategic defence systems of Russia. Strategic districts have their own army and air detachments, the most famous being the IAP-PVO (home defence air regiments). These guys have the Su-27P (currently being upgraded to SM standard), Su-30 and MiG-31 (also under current upgrade program), as well as smaller numbers of MiG-29. Naturally their fighters are equipped with GCI/datalink hardware, and they use Su-30 and MiG-31 the same way the USAF uses AWACS. A typical PVO interception will involve a couple of Su-30 or MiG-31 (depending on region) flying command/control to be joined by up to six regular Fulcrum/Flankers en route to the target. These are used in a wide (ca.250km) pincer formation to widen cooperative signal reception on three facings and allow any aircraft sensor data to be used to direct any other aircraft weapon release. It's a pretty formiddable tactic without the vulnerabilities of AWACS near the combat zone.

keep in mind though attaining altitude burns fuel you'll have to factor into the flight plan for best overall consumption on the mission. Again I'm no expert or even that experienced in LOMAC but the impression I have is that less is more where fuel consumption/altitude are concerned in objective terms. just anecdotally I was in LOMAC in the Su-27 with a full A2A loadout and found 8000m and 0.8M just felt really nice and was good on fuel, for whatever that's worth.

Okay I'm confused, why is the maximum effective range of the ET listed in publications as around 70km? (50km for the 27T) Is that for like, firing at a large scrubfire or an exploding fireball? Does that happen often in RFA? Or do they mean like drop it from an 70km height and if you stand directly below it, it should hit you? So what's the range on the ER (120km is typical publication, 27R is 70km), is it like 25km? so all that extra size compared to say an AIM7 or 120, what is it doing exactly? with such poor success rates and overstated range capabilities, how exactly are these an improvement over 60's era missiles like the R23/60? how does an AIM54 reach targets 180km away when an R27ER can do what, no better than a Sparrow? The ET no better than an Archer? I don't get it. Is this like a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, yeah Russian missiles are so bad and american phallics large and powerful propaganda kind of thing, like petting a moron on the head? Or is the long burn motor of the ET/ER/EM is an allegory for "just kidding"?