vanir

I don't know, visually at least if you pull near vertical off the runway at full burner in the Flanker or Eagle, climb a good height and roll inverted to level out on positive g's, roll again to right yourself, cut the burners and vector to a course heading (no idea if I just ordered a pizza with that terminology), well the whole thing in FC2 at least looks pretty much exactly like a video taping I've got of the real thing from the cockpit of an F-15C with a couple of AIM-9. I wouldn't know exact timings and measures, but visually it looks exactly like the real thing to me, compares very well with the genuine footage. No claim for technical realism, but the visual experience and entertainment value of FC2 is great in this regard, it seems or feels pretty accurate, has great immersion.

Is there a way to make helos like the SH60 and Ka27 land on regular cruisers with helipads in FC2, or do we just simulate the air complement by plotting one to fly around near the ship like in vanilla LOMAC? Can one of the helipad objects be somehow attached to the cruisers/frigates equipped with helipads (eg. Neustrashimy)? If the facility doesn't current exist in the ME is there some way a mod could achieve it using the helipad system of FC2?

does anyone use this, how do you use it in conjunction with the nvidia control panel? I'm finding the screen resolutions are more limited when I shut down the nvidia control panel, so the question is if nvidia is running in the background with just global settings, will the nHancer override them when the program is started or do they conflict?

I tried to change cockpit for MiG-23 from F-15 to Su-25 and now I just get Su-27 default cockpit (without even my improvement mod for that cockpit). Am I supposed to change something other than scripts/aircraft/common/custom human ? Also isn't the F-111 and MiG-29K supposed to show up in the game now? They don't. Is there a mod to restore them?

cool, I've got v2.0(b) installed but was thinking the MiG-23 could get an easy cockpit adaptation using textures something like the MiG-25R flyable mod at the Jabog32 site and getting the Fulcrum HUD working on it. The Flogger doesn't have a HDD and the cockpit looks basically the same as a MiG-25R but with single engine controls/guages and I think a 3-position wing sweep control. Radar/navigation information is displayed on the HUD only. So an adaptation like this would look more realistic. It's a bit too weird for me to fly the MiG-23 using the F-15C cockpit/HUD.

I am hoping as well. The Su-33 is a very popular plane to fly but the standard model is so bad compared to the current list of updated models. I had a new question about the MiG-25R and F-111 mods at the Jabog site but I need to get to know FC2 a bit more first, different file structures and I haven't even looked if the F-111 is already restored in there. That Hornet model up there looks excellent by the way.

I read a description of how the F-16 inlet shape allows an effect similar to movable ramps, something about the turbulence created around the upper lip because of its shape making movable ramps/inlet superfluous for Mach 2 flight. Presumably the F-22 is operating on the same system with the design of its inlets, where the F-35 inlet design is optimised for low alt and speeds of up to 1.8 Mach only, mostly a high transonic efficiency. I find it highly unlikely a complicated system of mechanically compressed air injection or sonic traps are used in the F-22, although these conceptualisations might very loosely describe this effect of high speed turbulence in the F-16 style inlet functionality at speeds of around Mach 2.

Good point, that was a bad choice of words. My context is only not to rely on the ILS to land the plane for you unless there's no choice. Certainly I land the plane much better and safer in day/good-vis using my own judgement which will depart the ILS cues. Basically I just land it like a prop beast but at 100IAS faster. I've just watched a dvd called Speed and Angels which is a documentary about two USN Tomcat pilots fresh out of academy, goes through their Top Gun training, carrier qualification and to deployment in the Gulf. During that they showed accident footage of carrier landings to sober their newbie excitement. One after the other Tomcats slamming into the stern, missing the wires and going off the deck, hitting other aircraft, just doing weird things like coming in clean then suddenly cartwheeling to the side and going submarine, A-6's too, off the end and into the drink, every time the crew was killed. They wanted to impress on the new pilots just how dangerous carrier landings are, and just how common fatalities doing it are. The first female Tomcat pilot, killed a couple of years before in a landing attempt. Their instructor said look at five other navy pilots, one of you is going to be dead in a year. The guy Tomcat pilot in this documentary said the same thing about 0/0 carrier landings (I assume you mean night landings under any weather), whoever invented it should be shot. Also mentioned the USN is the only navy in the world which routinely practises night carrier operations.

I'm a beginner too but after some initial mishaps landing on ILS I decided to take a step back and go old school. I love immersion and try to give LOMAC full suspension of disbelief (helped remarkably with FC2). And in military pilot training they don't just sign you up and shove you into a supersonic fighter, you learn trainers, then conversion trainers and finally the front line fighters. So I whipped out my IL2 and gave my prop landings a revision. Pulled LOMAC out again and flew the Su-25 doing visual landings. Then jumped in the MiG-29G for some more visual landings, finally over to the Flankers for visual landings. Basically I ignored ILS for a bit even when the cues are on the HUD and revised basic flight manoeuvres by the seat of the pants. Then after all that I started using the ILS cues but just as an additional guideline to visual landings. If my own judgement departs what the ILS is telling me, I ignore the ILS and have a much easier time landing. It's in poor weather or night that suddenly I'm very thankful for the ILS, and you can land using no other reference (that's what it's designed for), but it's always nail-biting stuff. The mistake I think, was first time I started doing landings in LOMAC being inexperienced, I was treating the ILS as though it would land the plane for me. But the truth is the pilot has to fly the plane and the instruments just help, if the instruments konked out the pilot still has to fly the plane and shouldn't even skip a beat. That's because he's only using the instruments to enhance his own judgement, not replace it. You also sound like you should review the FC2 manual about ILS landings again. If using the mission editor you should make a final waypoint for approach, set at something like 10km from runway at 1200m and a good approach vector. When actually flying the mission and coming into land at something like 4km from the runway you will pass over the ILS antennae for the airfield, all modern military airfields already have them and it's not a waypoint you put in the mission yourself. Your nav mode should switch from enroute or landing (return mode) to ILS automatically when you pass the antennae, a few kilometres from the runway. That's when the cues will appear on the HUD. Just following your waypoints will direct you to it. You can switch to ILS mode manually and that'll direct you to the localiser directly, just like a waypoint but you should already be on a good approach path when you reach it so circle it wide and cross it towards the runway ready for landing if you doing that. When you want to find an airfield to land and you're just flying around the map, switch nav modes from enroute to return and you can cycle through airfields on the HDD and check their distance and location using your instruments. Again review the FC2 manual to learn how to do this. There's a lot of schooling to be a fighter pilot in the real world obviously, and one would expect a bit of genuine schooling involved in any good sim. If you get desperate you can use the theatre view (F11 I think), which will show where you are on the area map. Try to stay in the cockpit and learn to use your instruments and HDD for better immersion though. I haven't looked at your track file but hopefully this answers your questions.

Oh so that's the thing I hit when she tries to send me into the stern of the Admiral Kuznetsov :D

Hi Tom, once again thank you for your work. I have your Jetpack v2.5 because I don't really have a reliable connection for big downloads. The models seem to work fine in FC2 however. I have installed the Su-30 and Su-33 and they are a tremendous improvement over the stock vanilla models (I use 3GO for the Su-27). First I was wondering about the afterburner, it is too low for the engines in your model. Is there a way for me to alter the position of the afterburner to match where the engine nozzles are on the Su-30 and Su-33 only, without affecting the 3GO Su-27? What would I need to edit, how do I do it? Also it does seem to me the EOS is too small and the nose lacks the slight downward angle of Flankers so it looks more like an American model plane. It's quite noticeable on the Su-30 but even the stock vanilla model doesn't seem to have enough downward angle. The Su-33 looks to be using the same tail boom as the Su-27/30 as well, shouldn't it be shorter? The gun on your models seems to be slightly out of position as well, perhaps slightly too far outboard. It is still a great improvement over the stock models though, and I am very pleased to start flying the Su-33 again. I like carrier operations but the standard model is so bad compared to the 3GO one I abandoned it for the Su-27 for some time now. So thank you also for giving me back the Su-33 to fly.

Absolutely agree with dooom, I'm still a beginner myself and have never actually done proper missions, campaigns or even quick starts. I use the mission editor to just put an Su-27 on the runway and teach myself basic flight manoeuvres. Especially landings. With FC2 you definitely want to just pick one airframe, because each one can be key mapped differently to suit the best style for it. I put all my radar modes on numpad and map the HOTAS for all the essential stuff, experimenting as I go so that I can get to a point where I can fly the plane, perform all its functions and maintain situational awareness. After that point it's just a matter of practise. There are always little things one will have to learn by discovery, for example I'm very curious about the Ekran on Flankers, I think any piece of equipment must be placed in the cockpit for a reason, this one is a working item and yet I have no reference of how to read it and what it does. I assume it is part of the datalink system.

My votes are for the Su-27S with an SM option, the Su-35(ovt), or an Su-33 with an Su-35(terminator) option, maybe you could DCS an option for all these variants on one install. That'd be pretty trick. Also I think a MiG-25PD/RB/BM version of DCS would be a best seller. I'd snap that up even quicker than a Flanker one, the Foxbat is a legend and I can't think of anyone into simming who would say no to "flying" one. Information about this model is a lot more complete these days than it ever used to be, from combat encounter and pilot reports to official data. This would mostly be for a bit of fun though, mostly regular simmers like the multiroles I think. For that reason I think the Viper or Hornet are the surest bet, but myself I'd like the Su-27SM or Su-35. MiG-29S is too handicapped by range but is probably the best all rounder for player-selectables in LOMAC. Basically I respect American planes but much prefer to fly Russian ones.

Hang on, I bought the cd version, is that the latest, it had one patch included afaik.

Hungarian Fulcrum would be most likely featuring the Romanian sniper NATO-compatability package, changes the transponder, radio sets, navigational system and RWR iirc. GG's explanation then sounds very likely. (edit. I just thought about that, you're prob talking about ex-soviet era spec jobs, nevermind me I don't know what they had) Also it would appear the published claims for multiple target engagements in APG-63/68/etc. are more a figurative expression of data processing ability than routine combat capability? Perhaps it relates to certain methods of ECCM? I know the ancient Smerch radar was notable for ECCM or ECM burn through not only for its signal strength but as described by Russian engineers it piggybacked multiple frequencies in lock mode specifically for enhanced ECCM. Perhaps this is what is actually being discussed when the multiple target engagement claim is made, it is really inferring multiple frequency transmissions piggybacked in lock mode specifically for the purposes of ECCM, and thus is a measure of how hard a lock is to defeat by a single target rather than how many squadrons each warbird can take out per volley of missiles? Just a thought.

stupid question, where are ricardo's hi res cockpits? I couldn't seem to find them at lockon files site.

Thanks Peter, having strange trouble with the DXTweak (can't save any modifications I make without crashing the program), but the explanation on how to use the recalibration tool properly helped. I thought it was for cleaning out old drivers before installing updates (like the ATI Cat-cleaner tool), but actually it was just what I was looking for. I just had to unplug the stick from the usb before using it, which reset the calibration on the z-axis back to zero which is what I needed. I understand what you're saying Dr Arrow and yes there is an issue with the pots (the stick is about three years old now), the z-axis and y-axis have a little flicker but so long as they're centred it can be dealt with by as little as 5-15% deadzone, which is necessary anyway along with a little curve for good flight control. I put 10% on the x and y axis and 15% on the z axis is good, along with some curve and I find I don't crash into the runway when a slight breeze blows on the controller, neutral settings are sensitive in the extreme. The whole thing is I'm dissatisfied by the disparity in price for generally unimpressive alternatives. I've looked around at plenty of flight controllers and frankly I'm happier with the Ex3dPro than I am with anything else short of the Saitek X65(?). Even the X45 I had a look at in a shop and I didn't really like it that much, to be honest I simply felt it was flimsy and cheaply made for the ridiculous price disparity between this and the $60 logitech (which I got on sale for $30), which has 12 buttons, a hat and throttle, it feels comfortable and is the best I've seen for cost-benefit ratio. I do want to get the new Saitek but I'll need a new computer desk first to set up a proper simulator station, and hell I need a new multicore computer while I'm at it, my old single core has problems running FC2. And before I go spending this couple of thousand dollars I kind of need a car, an elec guitar, basically I'm going to do the budget route for now unless somebody wants to give me a grant. ;)

I use a simple logitech extreme 3d pro flight stick and the dumb software from logitech for it doesn't include a calibration facility for "zeroing" the various axis. In particular my twist axis zeroes to about +40% right rudder. Other flight sticks I've had in the past you could calibrate to "zero" the axis. This one you can't, it's just got a profiler as software (you can alter curves and deadzones, just not calibrate the thing properly). Surely someone else has run across this problem using this stick, is there some third party calibration software available anywhere on the net for this? Or some tool I can't find?

Also, I don't know if it's implemented in LOMAC/FC but the main difference afaik between rail launch and ejector launch is the conditions of the launch and clearance for the mounting. Certain manoeuvres may prohibit ejection launch where a rail launch would be fine. There is an issue about clearance for the missile in an ejection launch, for that split second delay before it accelerates ahead but I don't think it makes for a significant difference in maximum range or missile speed, say if firing an AIM-120 from a rail or ejector. I suspect if you're pulling a high-G turn however you might be better off launching from a rail if you've got the choice.

holy canoli, 200meg... man I only got a wireless broadband connection, would have to go to an internet cafe with a flash drive for this one

I believe the actual shipping only takes a couple of days, add one for sorting the order and packaging, another for the bank transfer. Most of the time is spent waiting for the cool off period on credit/debit card purchases to expire. Whenever you buy something online some banks put a hold on the amount spent and waits something like 3-8 days before releasing the funds, called a "cooling off period" to help prevent credit card fraud. Our banks do that, but also have policies and legislation about how they must operate and recompense victims of fraud (where their own security methods are negligent) so I don't know how universal these rules are. Mine took about 10 days to arrive, but I noticed for some of this the payment for it was being reserved and held in my account by the bank.

I've had that problem several times before. Usually fixed by a computer restart, but if not then uninstall the mod in Modman and reinstall it. Try that. I noticed when installing mods after the 3GO Flanker sometimes the fuselage turns invisible, and I have to uninstall it and reinstall with Modman, then it's back. I used to have that canopy problem in 1.02 with the Walmis F-15 but a restart always fixed it, sometimes I'd use a registry tool first, clean the hdd and defrag. Then it didn't happen again for a while.

Here are a couple of screens You can see they've got like a tiger stripe thing going on there, it's to do with the shadows functionality, it doesn't do it in shadowed areas of the airframe, only in light and it's some kind of bug. It does the same thing with the Gys F-15C but not any of the stock models. Both these models are the FC2 specified versions and installed with the latest version of Modman.

@rattler, power supply is 850watt in a pretty trick gaming case, being single core amd (3.2g equivalent but actual clock speed is 2.0-2.4g with overclocking, it'll run anything a P4 3.2g will), it's pretty okay among single core systems a few years old. This is why it should run anything not specifically meant for dual core setups and tandem vid cards, even those it runs fine at medium settings like WH40K DoW2, whilst anything that came out around 2003-4 I can max out and it runs smooth as (IL2 1946, LOMAC 1.02, Kotor2). At the moment I've fiddled around with Nhancer settings and managed playable FPS at least with single aircraft like the training missions or a simple mission edit with one aircraft and a couple of waypoints. There's a noticeable drop in external view but inside the cockpit is okay and I can mouse around the view smoothly and manoeuvre without lags. The problem I'm having at the moment seems related to the FC2 3GO Flanker and Gys F-15C I've installed in Modman 7.3 because it doesn't happen to the stock aircraft. On the skins the shadows are weird and there are black lines all over the plane on both these models. The stock aircraft are fine. @slayer, yes I've observed the FPS gains in the threads for tweaking FC2/DCS:BS, the water is set to normal and shadows are maxed I have a small 19" widescreen so 1440x900 works best but apparently this isn't supported by Nhancer so I've got 1360x768 at 16:9 going. I figured it's probably not a very good idea to run both the Nvidia control panel and Nhancer at the same time, otherwise I'd stick with 1440x900 at 16:10 which is better.

Sorry Dragunov, I'm still sorting the graphics on my new FC2 to get it playable so I can't playtest for you yet. I thought all the Russian ships had SA-N-15, 19, 10 and 6 plus the AK-630 and DP guns, being the navalised versions of their land based counterparts.