Caretaker

As has been pointed out already, the way the current tracksystem has been implemented means that whenever a variable in the sim engine changes that influences what is happening in a flight (be it flight, weapons or avionics modeling), the tracks will be incompatible. No way around that. Now before you conclude that therefore this is a bad system, keep in mind that Maddox used the same principle initially with Il2, and had the exact same issues (version incompatibility and occasional bugs where the track's content departed from what really happened from time to time). Both sims were designed in a time when sending around megabyte-sized emails was still a problem, and this kind of track system keeps the datasize much lower. An alternative track system that would be independent of the core engine could simply record the position and state of every single object at a certain rate and interpolate during playback; but it wouldn't provide the same flexibility and at the same time greatly increase the track size. Which is probably less and less of an issue these days, but still something you shouldn't underestimate. Especially as the tracks get much bigger the more objects are in a mission. And of course such a system would have to be developed first, just like any other new feature. Which has actually been done by Maddox for Forgotten Battles; that alternative track system is independent of the version, but doesn't have the same precision and doesn't record all object attributes (some control surface positions missing I think, and probably some other things). I agree that the incompatibility issues are annoying, especially with the training tracks, but there's no easy and obvious way around them currently. And as for the actual question at hand, sorry I can't give you a reliable timeframe either - but if you're really considering to produce 30 minute tracks (quite some work), I would rather wait for the next version before taking that risk. For sure some things would have to go really wrong if it still takes until March :)

My extremely limited simming time this year has been dedicated nearly exclusively to Lock On. But sometimes you have to expand your horizon a bit, and fortunately I had some opportunities to check out a different kind of flying earlier this year... As you can see from my look, I was a bit sceptical at first (probably heard too many "most realistic ever" claims already...). The two-seater instructor mode proved pretty helpful I have to say; the start already was quite rough and turbulent. Graphics were incredible; yeah I know some people say "graphics don't matter" but this was really breathtaking. Incredible ground detail here (cockpit reflections may be a bit overdone though). View system was very intuitive, but somewhat limited - this is about the max angle I achieved when turning the head. Damage model was also pretty detailed - note the canopy crack in the lower area. Some AI planes chasing each other here (four of them actually, have fun spotting them all ;)). Nice detail level around the airport - this is already the descent for the landing approach: Keeping the airport in view (padlock mode): ...and just a few moments before touchdown (landing perpendicularly to the runway on the grass; forunately no instant explosion here ;)): Overall a damn fun ride - actually had three of them this day, the first two with this pilot (who was a priest BTW, can't hurt I thought ;)) and the last with a much younger guy who had a slightly more "dramatic" style of flying :) I know I'm not the first armchair pilot to finally finds his way into a real cockpit, but I can only repeat what other people have already said many times: it's more than worth it, great by itself but also quite revealing when you compare your standard flight sim experience with it. This was, apparently, a glider and as such not totally comparable to neither jet nor WW2 sims, but still finally gave me some insight into what "flying with your butt" really means :) Especially the start was really a rollercoaster ride; even though I had expected exactly that, I was still looking frantically for something to grab and hold tight (not that easy btw: the stick, the flaps lever, the canopy handles and for sure the towline release lever are off-limits for obvious reasons). Later on I took over control for a few turns, and I don't think I ever handled a plane in any sim with such concentration and patience ;) Earlier that year I was already invited for a glider flight by a close friend's father; unfortunately there were just no proper thermals that day so it was a pretty short flight. We had a winch launch there though (I prefer to think of that rather as a "catapult launch" ;)) which was also quite an experience... Finally, a few weeks later on a local airshow, I took a ride in this beauty: We had a US Black Hawk pilot on board for this flight, who took over for some minutes... hmm a Russian plane in Germany being piloted by an American helicopter pilot, interesting combination :) So in short, for the people here who have not had a similar experience yet: if you get the opportunity, do it, you owe it to you! Now where can I book those MiG-31 flights again...? :p Cheers,

A short look back into flight sim history... Secret Weapons for the Luftwaffe Each "Tour of Duty" addon contained one aircraft (Do-335, Me-163, P-80, P-38). No changes to the game engine otherwise. Suffice to say the detail level was ridiculous compared to current sims. Falcon 3 Addons were available that featured the F/A-18 and MiG-29 respectively and some new terrain. No major changes to the game itself besides some bugfixes (and some new bugs). Tornado The Desert Storm addon provided new terrain to fly over. The terrain was completely fictional however and the main difference to the original was the yellow-brown colour. No new flyables or other changes. EF2000 The "TACTCOM" addon introduced a simple interface for the user to change his flight plan, which wasn't possible with the standard version (you had to rely on the auto-generated flight plans which were often pretty senseless). It also fixed some crippling multiplayer bugs and was required for the 3DFX patch that came later. F-22 ADF & TAW TAW was the same game as ADF with a dynamic campaign (as it had already been in EF2000, only it worked better there) instead of a limited number of static missions, re-released as a full standalone product. Jane's Longbow "Flashpoint Korea" provided one static campaign over new terrain and some new AI objects, as well as updates to the AI and the Apache cockpit (adding a 2nd cockpit seat that the player could switch to). No new flyable though. I'm wondering which of these qualify as "addons" and which as "patches" according to some people's definition? ;) FC delivers more than any of those with the possible exception of Flashpoint Korea, which was an excellent upgrade to the whole sim. But so is FC, and it adds a new flyable on top of that.

Maybe try sending an email directly to Chizh - he seems to be the one to contact regarding 3rd party models.

Hehe indeed! ;) Of course this begs the question, how was the framerate...? :p

It is. For some time now the removal of such copy protection systems is forbidden in various European countries (not sure if it's actually an EU law, or how the situation is in the US - but I think those regulations were actually tailored after some US laws). This results in the somewhat paradox situation that having backup copies is perfectly legal, but producing them may not. Deactivating the installation limit also means effectively removing the copy protection from the download version. No matter what you think of the whole Starforce issue or copy protection in general: the reasoning behind the activation system of the download version has not been changed by the release of an English CD version.

Search -> "trees" -> entry #2 ;) Here you go: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7709&highlight=trees

All of these planes discussed currently will be featured in a sim that ED has full control over. No difference here. The F-16 and F/A-18 are pretty much equivalent in their roles, avionics complexity and distribution around the world. The only apparent difference is the area of naval operations that do not have to be modelled with a Falcon. I could also imagine that ED already has more information on the F-16. That is of course pure speculation, but still a possible reason ;)

The "Haze" setting changes the way the landscape is rendered. "Shading" would be the better expression here I guess, as both the advanced haze and the various light effects on the ground require a more advanced shader.

Multiply with 10 please... ;) The Su-25T in Lock On already has >50.000 polygons. Those FO 3D models have 100.000+, see here: http://www.meshfactory.com/main.htm So this is "only" twice the amount of what can be found in Lock On 1.1 - not quite in a league of its own anymore and very possible to use in a flight sim, although maybe a bit on the overkill side. Of course those models still need lots of modification (LOD models, damage, etc.) before they can be used in a combat flight sim. I also don't know how the current X-Plane 3D engine handles high-polygon objects. And of course there are other features of non-realtime rendering that increase the image quality considerably (Phong shading, shadows, radiosity, extreme anti-aliasing etc.). So even if the models are used as such, that doesn't mean they will look like those renders in the final game.

Nope, Thunderworks have no connection to Strike Fighters. From the few things that were reveiled so far it's already obvious that their low-level terrain is way better than the one in Strike Fighters. How good the overall sim will be remains to be seen of course. This is even more the case with Fighter Ops, where I still don't have an idea about what state it's in and how much progress they're making. Nevertheless I don't doubt that they have a dedicated team trying to achieve something unique. So ED is indeed not the only developer left, fortunately... there are too many planes after all, to rely only on ED to model them some day ;)

800x600 is not officially supported anymore, but you can still use it if you set it in the config\graphics.cfg file.

Nope, it's not possible. The F-15C was developed with only AA in mind, basic AG capability was added later on (most planes can be used to drop unguided bombs after all). However the US Air Force does has never used it in that role, and doesn't train pilots in that role either. Some reports even say the respective software has been removed from the planes. This is probably different for other air forces that use the F-15C (like Israel or Saudi Arabia), but even those would probably only use their Eagles in that role in a desperate situation these days, as they have more specialized planes for AG attacks.

I love the Phantom! :) It's still in service here in Germany, although most airframes are about to fall apart. In fact with the MiG-29 gone and the Eurofighter still not in widespread service, the F-4, upgraded with the APG-63 (I think) and the AIM-120, is our only fighter aircraft at the moment... ;) However it's been phased out long ago in the US, and so I doubt it's sensible for ED to concentrate on it. The Wild Weasel variant would still be interesting for a late 80s theatre, but otherwise it's simply too old to be featured - unfortunately.

Hehe ok ;) With "dubious popularity" I'm referring to the fact that the Super Hornet is replacing the F-14 at the moment... more and more squadrons are phasing out the Tomcat. And there are few planes as popular as the Tomcat! :) And in that context you can read lots of doubtful remarks about the Superhornet's performance, some people claiming it's overweight and even less agile than an F/A-18C. Still enjoyed flying it a lot in Jane's F/A-18E - so I guess I could live with the Superhornet in Lock On as well ;)

Yes, bombs and other ordnance are much easier to model - which is probably why people are starting with these ;) I also hope to see your F1 one day in Lock On. I hope you get an answer soon, but I also think the devs have all hands full currently with the FC release, so it may take a little longer at the moment until you get an answer.

...although, as we all should have learned by now, such plans are always subject to change, right? ;)

Hehe sorry, my bad - somehow I took "C-H" as an acronym for "Comanche Hokum" instead of "Combat Helo"... ;) Speaking of which, it's a pity that Flexman's project apparently stalled. He made some nice progress for such an independent project... hope to see your model instead in Lock On some day!

Very nice indeed! However I assume the current EE:CH Apache model is still copyright protected, so using it as an LOD model could be a bad idea should this model make it into Lock On...? Then again, the current Lock On Apache model could also be used as the next LOD model... it's quite a bit simpler :)

I'd also model it completely. Should ED ever decide to implement some more varied ship sinking animations (Silent Hunter III anyone? ;)), that could come in handy.

Jane's F/A-18 did feature the Superhornet, and its depth exceeded the one of Falcon4 in some areas. But none of them, except the US, has the Superhornet. And even there it's of questionable popularity ;) I'd also say that a Hornet should be the more interesting choice compared to an F-16, but not by much. But a standard A or C model please, no Superhornet for me.

It's not a bug, it's a feature :) The Kh-25ML and Kh-58 can indeed not lock on to the Vulcan radar. The same is true for some other short-range air defense units (like the Gepard).

Someone reported this was caused by a corrupted download: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7354 So try downloading the file again if you can't get it to work.

Well I could start with the usual disclaimers about software never being "complete" etc., or point out the flaws in that post... but as that thread was closed anyway, and rightfully so, I don't think it's worth it. 1.02 definitely had issues left, but I think the consensus was that it was ok, which of course not everyone agreed to. 1.1 is quite a step forward, but nobody should be surprised to find it's still not perfect.

It would certainly be great for people in the US if they could buy a CD with "standard protection" (just like the Russian version, or Silent Hunter III) instead of the activation system for the download version. I guess we'll have to see if that's the case with the "NaturalPoint version" - just like with the one from SimWare (which is probably more interesting for us Europeans ;)).