Moa

The IP:port for the 104th Dedicated is 64.182.113.193:10308 Please double-check make sure your LockOn client is set to connect to Internet servers and not LAN servers.

Hi Mikoyan/raimjob. I have Windows 7 32-bit on my MacBook Pro with Bootcamp. Make sure you get the latest Bootcamp update as it has extra stuff for Windows 7. LockOn 2 runs fine on the MacBook (although I usually use my desktop as it has a brand new Radeon 5970 :)). If you have any Mac/Bootcamp specific issues please let me know (after you've tried direct IP connection).

Pag 27 of the LockOn 2 GUI manual lists aircraft switching as: Aircraft Switching. This features allows you to occupy the seat of a human-flyable aircraft and is currently being flown by the AI. This aircraft though must be on the same side as you. To perform this, cycle to the desired aircraft using F2 and then press Right Alt + J.

Apologies Matt, missed that.

Thanks once again Wags for updating us. The pictures are great. I hope your surgery went well.

A Steam version would be fantastic. You'd be able to: * run the games on all your computers (just one at a time though) * no StarForce :) * make backups of games (easy to copy to your other computers) * no piracy either (we want ED to make money and keep making DCS stuff). Looks like an all-round win.

Hi herig2. Do you have TacView installed? Are th TacView files installed in your LockOn installation at? : C:\Program Files (x86)Eagle Dynamics\LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2\Config\Export Are you sure the following mission was selected C:\Program Files (x86)Eagle Dynamics\LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2\Temp\client-20100710 or was this only the part of the filename that was visible. lottu should only select files with the filename extension ".trk".

Nope they wouldn't. That's because there are so many other factors involved, and the better old-style games tried to account for most of them. Industrial output does not usually enter into conflicts until they've been going for a few months. Plus, the terrain of Greece is very favorable for defense and doesn't suit heavily mechanized forces much. Then there is a the human-run wargames that the military run. Apparently the US Navy correctly predicted all the major features of WWII in the Pacific (before it happened) through wargames in the 1930s with the sole exception of the kamikaze attack, which no one foresaw (since it was not particularly effective nor rational). In more recent times the US military formally wargames and uses computer simulations of all wars (and many hypothetical scenarios) before it does anything. For example, the US Navy ran a wargame where the Navy commander of the opposing forces uses the multitude of dhows in the Persian Gulf in suicide attacks. The Blue force commander could not sink all the dhows due to political considerations so this lead to the problem getting solved in the real-world. The Phalanx has had a software change where it can now engage small boats. I took part in such a wargame/simulation while training in the military. The flow of events are unpredictable and interesting. If you are interesting in simulating modern combat using historical data then this book is a handy start http://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318 Also see the following for a quick overview of the field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation My point was, if you can kill an M1 with a pistol in the un-modded game then it is broken. The flight model in Arma 2 is at least as broken (check out some of the YouTube vids of ridiculous things being done). Arma 2 is a great 'game' but not a great simulation.

See the video in the first post of leavu2 release thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53464&highlight=leavu2 Two 7" displays fronted by the Thrustmaster MFD. Works pretty sweet in LockOn2 and will come in handy in DCS:Warthog

Personally, I don't think it this is cool. Arma 2 is certainly more game than sim. No worries if you prefer games, you are well catered for with the likes of Battlefield 2 Bad Company where the game is everything and realism is not intended. However, there of some of us who derive as much enjoyment when things work as real - even if it is against us/our avatars. It is just a matter of taste, and what makes DCS so special for those of us who do enjoy realism over fast, furious and fun cartoon-ish antics.

In the Central Front of a hypothetical WWIII it was unlikely that the Warsaw Pact would achieve air superiority. In fact, as re-inforcements flew in from the US it is likely that NATO would achieve air superiority in about a month (despite huge losses on both sides). The same goes for naval forces on the seas. On the ground the opposite is true, with the Warsaw Pact having massive numbers of tanks - even if many were elderly. It would still be hard given the large number of ATGMs NATO have. I have wargamed this extensively (Game Designer Workshop's Third World War series being one of the better ways of exploring the units and reinforcement timings of battles in the 1980s from Norway to the Persian Gulf). The real variable is the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which the Warsaw Pact planned to use immediately and in large numbers (contrary to their public statements). I personally knew someone training as a Fallschirmjager whose base was targeted by 3 nukes by the Russians on the outbreak of war (yes, I'm getting on in years). However, given the density of armoured units in the Warsaw Pact and the fact they are advancing rather than on the defensive would mean the impact of nuclear weapons would probably be greater on those forces. The first echelon of the Warsaw Pact would have horrific casualties (I felt sorry for the conscripts in that wave). Sorry for digressing from tanks, but this subject was brought up discussing the tactical which presents something different from the likely strategic picture. Incidentally, IMHO the Warsaw Pact would have won WWIII (providing strategic nukes weren't used) but only if they could win quickly. If the defenders could hold out more than a month then the Warsaw Pact would have disintegrated quickly after that (they couldn't cope with a protracted war, but they weren't designed to either). Back to the topic: An RPG has not defeated any M1 frontal armour yet. The ceramics in Chobham armour are particularly effective against HEAT warheads and it is really only kinetic penetrators that can get through (if they hit the same blocks multiple times). A low velocity RPG with a HEAT warhead would have to get very lucky to get through an M1s front armour (eg. nearly fired from underneath).

You could try and learn?

That would be fantastic. If they don't end up writing a plugin I would likely write one next year since I know C & C++. I already know someone who would use it besides myself. ED don't need to write the plugin - we know you are very busy - all we require is decent documentation of the model file format. This is a great opportunity for ED to get the efforts of modders dispirited with FSX.

Thanks for the work. How can we help? Here's some information for New Zealand (links to good pictures of medals).. New Zealand (RNZAF) is pretty much the same as the UK (RAF) and Australia (RAAF). New Zealand Defence Badges of Ranks: http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/corporate/badges-of-rank/default.htm New Zealand medals: http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz/category/index.html

Yes.

Yeah, would be a nice feature if server could show externals and map but clients can't, but LockOn cannot do this. However, if the players can see externals on the BIG screen what would be the point in disabling externals on their own machines? When doing a demo it is worth enabling externals to get the "oooh factor" from the crowd - probably worth more than having a strict tournament. One thing you could do as an alternative, put TacView from the server on the big screen although this might be a bit too abstract for the crowd (and is also still problematic if the players can see it). If you have a display KVM you could switch between TacView and live externals. That would be pretty impressive. Edit: Does anyone know whether the viewer/camera view position can be scripted? That way you could script the server's F11 view to follow an aircraft using data export since an aircraft's position is well known (although players could also cheat by using this).

Main difference between the BlackShark's cannon and the A-10's is the warhead of each round. Here we're concerned about the point-of-impact and not the range (affected by amount of propellant, strength and cooling of barrel). The A-10 has depleted uranium rounds, which are very, very dense so have a lot of momentum (mass * velocity, if you provide enough propellant) and consequently kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity). The funny thing about depleted uranium is that it is a waste product of the nuclear fuel cycle and the US government will pay you to take it away if you have the facilities to handle it. You then shape it into penetrators for 30 mm and 120 mm cannon and sell it back to them for a high price. Tungsten armour piercing rounds are not as good (and are expensive) but are still better than hardened shaped steel. Sub-caliber rounds with full-caliber sabot ('shoes') fit around them also change the penetrating power of a round. IIRC the A-10 doesn't use a sabot round but the 120 mm Rheinmetal-Borsig of the M1A2 does. Hitting a target with a shaped charge (HEAT) or High Explosive (HE) won't do much to a MBT unless you get lucky and hit a track, road wheel, or sensor. The Shark doesn't have the stopping power of the A-10 when comparing cannons (nothing does), and similarly the Vikhr is not as powerful as the armour-piercing variants of the Maverick (or the Hellfire, or the mighty TOW). However, you can carry more Vikhr since they're lighter.

Nope. In jets you are usually strapped in tight at multiple points. Your body can hunch, but your core is usually tight - otherwise you would die on ejection. A negative-G bunt would not make you move from your seat at all. Pilots helmets can touch the canopy sides under the most severe maneuvers but its bad for the canopy - so designs try to avoid it. I've flown inverted for an extended period in an RNZAF CT4B trainer. Did not move from my seat (although your arms 'drop' above your head unless you make an effort).

Thanks. I mention both passive and active reactive armour in my first post I think. Maybe I was unclear.

luza, next time could you please post on the existing Maverick seeker bug thread - you'll need to do a search before posting a bug. This issue is well known, but by opening a different thread we get lots of easily lost individual experiences rather than reinforcing the main thread that shows it as a large problem experienced by many players (probably all A-10A pilots in fact). The relevant thread is "AGM slew gates are misbehaving": http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53930

Why does LEAVU2 use Java? Because it is portable. Why does that matter? Please read the following article interviewing Austin Meyer (creator of X-Plane). By choosing the portable technology OpenGL instead of the platform-limited DirectX used by his rivals he was able to increase his sales from 100000 to 600000 on the advent of the iPhone's release. This gave him $3.5 million in revenue in two weeks. A very good strategic and financially-rewarding choice to choose portable technology. http://techhaze.com/2010/03/interview-with-x-plane-creator-austin-meyer/

Wags94: Yes, I was (indirectly) saying it was a bug by giving a description of the systems in use. slug88: Thanks your comment about Drozd since I ommitted it in my original post. I was aware of this since the Russian use of reactive armour is far more extensive than Western use. The Western tank designers prefer to rely more on the replaceable Chobham blocks instead - since they can be replaced in the field much more easily than the laminated steel of the Warsaw Pact tanks and are non-lethal to nearby infantry.

Here's a post I made on the 104th forums (http://www.104thphoenix.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2259&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75) regarding Vikhr vs tanks and why US tanks were hard to kill. Chobham armour is a British invention that uses laminated ceramics and air gaps (to defeat HEAT warheads and many dense projectiles such as tungsten alloys). A Kevlar liner is placed on the interior side to prevent spallation, where a non-penetrating round imparts sufficient kinetic energy to the armour to break pieces off the inside which when then richochet around the hull. The crew does not feel the result of this as tickling. The Challenger, Centurion has this kind of armour. More modern tanks, such as the M1, add depleted uranium into Chobham type armour. This is designed to defeat even more dense sub-calibre (fast!) penetrators, such as the APFSDSDU round (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium). In the second Gulf War a disabled M1 could not be recoved so a second M1 fired a depleted uranium round into the front of the disabled tank from close range. The round did not penetrate. A lowly Vikhr is not going to destroy an M1, but could disable the tracks or engine if the hit from the sides or rear. In addition to these types there are three other types of armoured defences in use: a) slat armour - used by Strykers which cause the molten copper jet of HEAT rounds from an RPG to detonate before the main armour instead of on it. This provides extra armour without as much extra weight as a full layer of flat armour. b) reactive armour (eg. Blazer Reactive Armour). Explosive blocks that detonate outward and counter the energy of an incoming HEAT or kinetic round. Used most extensively by Russians and the Israelis. Bad for several reasons; a second shot to the same place and the BRA doesn't work; infantry nearby (and you want them near to a tank, especially in urban areas) are at grave risk of injury; and, dual-warhead rounds utilise a mechanism where the first will trigger the reactive armour while the second continues to the target. c) active armour. This uses radar and small rockets that intercept incoming projectiles. US and Israel activiely working on this. Also dangerous for nearby infantry. So, it is no surprise the Vikhr has a hard time against Western tanks. A couple of extra notes: * Many missiles are more effective than the Vikhr (eg. Javelin, newer versions of the mighty TOW) because they 'pop-up' to attack tanks from their less-armoured tops. * Rather than destroying tanks, some cluster munitions are designed to home on the infra-red signature of the tank's engine and disable it instead. Clever. * If you ever get a chance to visit the Israeli Defence Forces Armoured Corps museum at Latroun (Israel) it is worth doing so. They have a lot of armoured vehicles from the 1940's to today including German Panzers, US and Warsaw Pact models they have captured or used (or both!) and their own excellent Merkava series. --- There are some other things to note regarding tank actions: * Western tanks have an additional edge in their fire-control systems that allow high probabilities of first shot hits while the tank is moving. Most 'Warsaw Pact' tanks can't do this (apart from miniscule numbers of newer models). * Western tanks (and forces in general) have better night-vision and thermal sights than their Warsaw Pact equivalent. Therefore, the M1A2 will often hit you at night when you are mostly helpless. * Western armies get a lot more training time. Plus, they have more professionals (far fewer short-term conscripts). * The Javelin was battle tested in Northen Iraq in 2003. US forces (Rangers with Peshmerga I think) were attacked by a regiment of Iraqi armour and all the Rangers had were the not yet battle tested Javelin. They knew if it didn't work they would be toast. Fortunately (for them) it did work and the armoured attack was repulsed. * In the 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah did not bother attacking the Merkavas (plural: Merkavim?) directly. Instead they fired Iranian-supplied-via-Syria Kornet missiles at the tank commander from range while they stood in the hatch. Tank commanders killed or maimed in this way were a significant proportion of Israeli casualties.

Not many people know it but it also appears the server also keeps tracks in the same folder as the mission IIRC. The track has the name of the mission and gets overwritten each time the mission is started - well, it appears this way although I haven't yet tried replaying the track to test this. Don't forget that lottu or Case's script can help get external views on your track: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53348 [lottu] http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53270 [Case's script]

Lottu 1.3.1 is released http://www.stallturn.com/wiki/upload/2010/4/lottu-1.3.1/lottu-1.3.1.exe This fixes a bug where the options checkboxes are not set correctly if a track is selected at startup.