Moa

I think a Trademark is what you want. Now, go sell it to ED and EA :)

Yes, but only if a TacView is generated while you fly - which of course is banned on most servers. Also, the TacView generated on the replay isn't accurate to what occurred during the flight, and this inaccuracy gets worse if you accelerate track replay. This problem isn't the fault of TacView though, it is the track replay itself that provides an inaccurate rendition of events.

Ever since Java 1.6.0_u10 all Java2D operations are hardware/shader accelerated. You can't draw a non-hardware accelerated line using the Java API anymore. That said, as you've found before, that still may not meet your requirements. If you use Java2D then you'd also be better off using Swing (and the lovely Nimbus Look&Feel) rather than AWT, since Swing also uses Java2D and you have fewer resource synchronization overhead under the hood. JoGL will not work on iPad/iPhone because Apple refuses to allow Java on that platform. It is the only platform aside from the XBoxes that don't run Java (it runs *everywhere* else). This is a policy limitation imposed by Apple, the hardware is designed for OpenGL ES (and things like gcj would compile/run Java on iPad if Apple allowed it). JoGL will work perfectly well on an Android or similar phone as its OpenGL ES chips are open for use and Java is supported (in fact, Android uses Java with some customized libraries). So, now you know which phone will do what *you* want when you are next in the market :)

Well, I've been looking closely at doing a clickable 3D pit for either the F-16 or F-18. Using OpenGL since it supports 'picking' (which D3D9 doesn't), plus it's portable. Have some brilliant F-16 textures from http://www.xflight.de/pe_org_doc.htm which is all I need. Was gonna do it in Java rather than C++ since development is faster, it's more portable, and multi-threading is much easier (gotta do something with cores 3 & 4 that LockOn doesn't use). However, I can't see the point in investing a few hundred hours to make it work since so many things are borked with flight models, fuel consumption etc (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=55028). I'm hoping DCS:Warthog might fix some of these problems.

REX2 is available for X-plane - that makes the sky look as good as FSX (and better than stock FSX). The payware aircraft on x-plane are at least as good as FSX. The terrain on x-plane is worse than FSX screenshots but FSX is actually unusable with terrain set to the level shown in the screenshots. There is some payware terrain for x-plane that is good, but there is more out there for FSX. Fortunately, x-plane has an equiavalent of TileProxy called G2XPL, check out this x-plane+g2xpl slideshow (terrain over Switzerland) x-plane has better scenery than LockOn. The flight model of x-plane is better than FSX IMHO (and better than LockOn) but all of them suck badly for low-speed/post-stall modeling. The helicopter flight model beats everything except BlackShark. x-plane runs on Windows, Mac and Linux - and better on lower spec hardware than FSX. The best thing about x-plane is it is still in development. The FlightSimulator series is currently in limbo. There have been some vapourware press releases from Cascade Game Foundry http://www.cascadegamefoundry.com/ about keeping the Flight Sim series alive. It would be great if they do, but I know if they own the rights and trademark and sorting that out might take a while (just look at Eagle Dynamics and Ubisoft for an example of a complicated divorce). So in the meantime, "diss"-ing x-plane doesn't make much sense to me as that is the most likely future direction of civilian flight sims.

Thanks for your comments guys. Wraith: yeah I peeked at sfm_engine.lua and was tempted to put reasonable values in. Looks like it'd be pushing manure uphill though - which is a shame. From a developer point of view I hate seeing mathematical quantities used instead of real names (dpdm_f could be either be something like SpecificThrust or FuelRateOfChange for example rather than the less meaningful symbolic derivative). Brit_Radar_Dude: Just because something hasn't been tried doesn't mean it is impossible if an aircraft has a light load. I mean, who would think a C-130 could land on a carrier - although I take the counter-point you could make that just because it isn't impossible doesn't mean it would actually be done. [C-130 carrier landing!] Thanks for the "helicoptercarrier" tip.

Sorry to reply to my own post. I have an answer to question 5 at least. Looking at the file for the E-2C I see extra values to set the allowed landing and takeoff runways: LandRWCategories = { [1] = { CLSID = "{05708AED-329E-41c3-9C51-9CCE4AA09380}", Name = "Carrier", }, -- end of [1] }, -- end of LandRWCategories TakeOffRWCategories = { [1] = { CLSID = "{A899CB38-FECC-46ef-9F85-165779669F56}", Name = "AircraftCarrier With Catapult", }, -- end of [1] }, -- end of TakeOffRWCategories I think all carrier-capable aircraft should be modified to be able to land and takeoff on either the Kuznetsov, or Carl Vinson. Plus, all helicopters can land on carriers, and many of the ships, and oil rigs. Edit: Harrier already has this setting. Will try and track down the fault.

I'm using the EFA mod 2.0 Basic. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52783 I noticed that Harrier has very little fuel, and consequently, endurance. I looked in Scripts\Database\planes\BAE_Harrier.lua and noticed the fuel parameter (in kg) is: MaxFuelWeight = "4853" This is the correct value according to published sources. In the mission editor I set the maximum fuel level as 100% but get around 800 kg in-game. When I fly the Harrier it also uses around 2 kg (4 lb)/second so the flight time is very short and range is terrible. Making a calculation as to the reasonableness of the fuel consumption rate: The AV-8B's combat radius is quoted as 556 km, so double that is 1112 km. Max speed is 1070 at sea level which means if we guess at a cruise speed of 80% (for max range) then the flight time should be 1112/(1070*0.8) = 1.3 hours [4676 seconds] and fuel burn rate is 4853 kg / 4676 s = 1.04 kg/ second which is half the rate I was seeing. So I have two questions related to this, and three unrelated questions. I'm grateful for help anyone can give: 1) Any idea why the mission editor doesn't use the MaxFuelWeight parameter? Possibly it could be that the name "BAE_Harrier" is used in some files and "AV-8B" is used elsewhere it could be a simple mismatch that wasn't picked up (since the slack Lua compiler can't help!). Maybe not, has anyone else seen this problem as well? 2) Which parameter controls the fuel consumption rate? 3) What is Rate parameter in the aircraft file? Is this fuel burn rate? is it ground turning radius? what are the units? 4) Is there any documentation on the aircraft parameters in the Scripts\Database\planes\*.lua files ? (and any of the related files ?). 5) I would like to put the harrier on the CVN-70 Carl Vinson carrier for a mission on the stallturn server. The Harrier refuses to be started (Takeoff from ramp) on the carrier and instead wants the closest airfield. Does anyone know how to change this? I'd also like Ka-50 to start on the carrier as well but they don't seem to be able to either (although the S-3 etc can start from the carrier - perhaps I'll dig into their files). Thanks for your help.

Hi JimMack. This morning I was wondering how this was going, great job for ED/Fighter Collection for completing it. I'm going to order two (already convinced by the quality) but you might want to either to any/all of the following: * post a low-res version in this forum so people know what its about * post a low-res picture of the actual map in the Fighter Collection store so people there can see what they are about to purchase (the store picture in the has arrows on the map, which I presume is packaging and is a bit misleading and I would hope is not on the purchased map). Otherwise people will be trying to make a purchasing decision somewhat 'blind'. * post a link to the development threads, so they can see the amount of hard work of Igormk and the production team and get a better idea of the product. Here, did it for you (I'm hoping this still reflects the final product): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=50869 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=51163 Also, I'm very pleased to hear that the map will be made as a download. I've plans for putting it in a program I'm working on so appreciate this very much (I wrote a program that stitched the FC2 terrain together but it didn't have cities on it, so Igormk's map is far superior).

He's something I do to save ammo - get closer. If you are spraying targets from long range you're just wasting rounds, since small angular aiming errors get projected as large distance deviations at long range. I only fire from long range if I think there are MANPADs in the target area and I don't want to overfly the target, otherwise I simply get close. Just because the GAU-8 can kill stuff at long range doesn't mean you open up as soon as you can. I get to 0.6 to 0.5 nm before firing a short burst and that is enough to get the job done (although the heaviest Main Battle Tanks can sometimes take several bursts). The insane (that is, bullsh!t) accuracy of fire from BTR-80 and BMPs make this more hazardous in FC2 than in FC1. In fact, I worry far less about the radar-assisted Shilka than the iron sighted and slot visioned BTR-80, so something is very wrong there, but that's a topic for another thread.

The British SeaWolf missile was tested and hit 4.5 inch naval shells in flight in the 1980's IIRC. Hitting fast moving targets is not that big a deal, especially if your radar is "looking up" while doing it (good background contrast). The Rolling Airframe Missile has similar capabilities. Mortar shells have also been destroyed in missile tests (eg. Arrow) but it is generally not economical to do so for most battlefield situations. The poor performance of the Patriot in the First Gulf War was traced to clock drift resulting from a limitation in the number of bits used for the wall-clock chips (nb. this is not the system clock frequency chips). This clock was much more accurate than the clock in your PC but still not enough to keep systems synchronized for extended periods without drift. In missile interception, microseconds count. I believe this has now been fixed.

I have some Java code that can read and write FC2 options files and will finish my code to do the same for missions files in a week or two. I'm prepared to donate it, but don't have time to work on a utility such as this at the moment as I'm working on stats at the moment.

Stats are more difficult in FC2 because the information you need is now spread between three files (debrief log, network log, and the mission file) rather than the two files in FC1 (mp_log and network log, although only the former was used by most). The upside of the FC2 stats is there is a lot more information available about what went on in a mission. For example, the missiles, shells and bombs fired are now recorded. This allows tracking player loadouts more accurately (cheaters with illegal loadouts can be detected) and the player's accuracy can be calculated eg. players making (legitimate) kills by spamming missiles will have a far worse efficiency than the sniper pilots out there who use one or two missiles per kill. This is just one of the statistics that can be used to distinguish the great pilots among us, and represents objective skill measurement which allows us to strive for more. There are several stats efforts going on at the moment (myself and 3Sqn are working on them AFAIK, perhaps Case is also?). I am trying to finish testing the port of my own FC1 stats system to FC2 by early July. It will operate substantially as the FC1 version does at http://stallturn.com/scores/ but with the addition of scoring for the Ka-50. My scoring software and its (platform-independent, Java) source code will be made available to all squadrons that want to use it. I also hope to get it to output a simpler FC1-like format which allows re-use of existing scoring systems (for example, the 51sts excellent inter-squadron Common Stats system). Accurately aggregating three sources of data (all with completely different structure) is quite an effort so is taking a while.

Excellent! Clickable?

Well done landing your crippled Hog. There is no fire extinguisher in LockOn FC2. The upcoming DCS:A-10 will almost certainly have them (I'm not affiliated with ED in any way, but since the engine extinguisher controls are so prominent it would be a real surprise if they didn't work in the DCS version of the A-10).

The Russian tactic of firing salvos refers to firing dissimilar types IIRC. While you're busy flying the aircraft and dealing with the incoming radar-guided missile (for which you'll have an alert in the cockpit screaming at you) a silent ET is streaking toward you. It's an easy way to kill n00bs to do this. On the receiving side, you must always assume an ET is inbound if you are within (or even just outside) launch range from the enemy. A turn away and flares helps here. One thing I've learned to do to survive is before you go defensive you should be putting an active homer towards your attacker. If you defend only your attacker gets closer and closer before getting you. You must force your own attacker to go defensive before you go defensive (and it's one-on-one). If you have a wingman then this changes (you can save your ammo) since he can force your attacker defensive and give you time to set up again - this is why flying alone is suicidal compared to a Loose Deuce fighting pair.

Nice quote. From the Latin, "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - our ancestors were not dummies. For details of the plugin required see the following thread (and the link therein). http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=31052 It is a shame we can't do this stuff in the Open Source Blender :( I'd rather use slightly less capable tools (more manual work) than break copyright (clearly I must be bonkers, as this is definitely a minority view).

Ok, I'm gonna be a mathematical pedant here, but just so someone told you at least once ... Kill Probability is Pk (or P_k, read as "P sub k"). P(k) is read as "P as a function of k", and is not actually considered the same thing by folk with an engineering bent. Just so you know :) Apologies for the digression ... I'll let others who are better than me in the Flanker give the tips.

I have a copy of LockOn for each of the major mods I use (104th compatibility, VNAO, EFA). I simply rename the directory of the one I want to use to the default LockOn directory name (I could use multiple icons on my desktop with different paths but I don't want to do that). All it takes is some extra disk space and I don't need to keep re-installing, plus I know that I pass all the required Integrity Checks for each server (well, my LockOn install does anyway).

Besides saving fuel and being more realistic, at slightly lower speeds you are close to your corner speed if you get bounced or need to dodge an IR SAM you just spotted. The only thing you lose is time - very precious for some of us - but then, "This is not AirQuake" .

Yes, for DCS (BlackShark, FC2, Warthog if the format isn't changed too much). Unfortunately it is a large effort so is taking a while. But I am steadily working on it. It's a bit like a Pantene hair shampoo ad on TV, "It won't happen overnight, but it will happen".

FYI: I'm working on a dynamic campaign generator (in Java). Will take a few months to complete. Currently modifying my FC1 post-battle analysis (which will be used for stats on the 104th server).

Most people fly around with an unrealistically high throttle setting. Have you tried the endurance/distance with a 90% throttle? It will surprise you how much longer your fuel lasts.

That is why the A-10 was designed as it is (straight wings and long-lasting turbofans). It can go very slowly for a jet which gives you more time to spot targets of opportunity. Its armour lets you get low enough to do so. The Frogfoot isn't designed to operate like this. It makes fast slashing runs from medium altitude.

The Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) of the radar should be altered to look for targets that are closing or opening from you. Sometimes you won't see a far target depending on what their aspect is unless you change the PRF. I usually operate the radar in 40 nm mode and occasionally go longer for a battlespace picture, but mostly if they're not within 40nm they're not yet a threat. Remember also to scan the beam up and down vertically. The closer a bandit gets the further away from your scan zone they're likely to be (take a look at the diagram Crunch posted) unless you point it up and down. Far targets crossing you won't be found as their relative motion is zero. The Doppler radar determines that that object has zero closing velocity and is therefore likely to be terrain. It applies a signal processing 'notch' to remove such terrain - including the aircraft contact - otherwise terrain would clutter your display. So crossing targets get dropped from radar. The further the target is the less perfect their crossing angle needs to 'stay in the notch' (be invisible to your radar) in this way. Good pilots know how to use the notch so they can close on you and get a sneaky R-27ET shot off at you. The F-15 radar is by far the best in the game. It takes a while to grok how it works and its limitations (scan zone etc), but in combination with the excellent RWR you can quickly get a decent picture of your surrounds. In the F-15 you don't want to let the bandits get too close. Fire your missile, support it until it activates its terminal radar and get the hell out of there. If you let the MiGs and Flankers get close you are in trouble so try keep your distance. You might need to take a few shots to get a kill but at least your own aircraft will survive and you'll deny the enemy the area you are in (in real life you have one life and only the very lucky take a missile hit and fly again, so surviving is more important that getting the next kill).