Kula66

Many of the older F-15E manuals are also available ...

http://steelfury.info/index2.html - Very impressive video. I've got SB Pro and while a great SIM, it's got a fair few limitations - infantry for one!

Despite all the faults, it looks and feels great ... especially low down where others just look c..p

Pilot, I think you are being a little optimistic! The last patch was released when? Ages ago. Development has switched to DCS ... it's never going to happen! We are not going to get a patch that fixes missiles/seekers/chaff/flares/ECM ... ED are not going to make money on it! We'll just have to wait for DCS to get around to doing 2 fighters and hope they do A2A missiles right this time!

Thanks for taking the effort to highlight this guys - I wish you well. I've kinda given up on LO online for now - just too frustrating. There is no fun in screaming at your monitor - too many exploits/cheats/bugs. 112 really broke alot more than it fixed. As for A2G, duffing up the AI is just too easy - feels like being the class bully! Lets hope that when LO A2A Simming emerges from this current dark age in 3-4years it's been fixed!

Nice ... but some of those shadows aren't working yet!

Totally agree GGT! Without a perfect ground system AI and highly detailed ground modelling, A2G ends up like plinking fish in a barrel - boring! It should be an add-in to a ground sim like SB. A2A is ideal for a SIM, in addition to your points it works well 1 v 1 ... which is what many of us end-up playing (even on-line).

Hmmm ... not sure about this. You read accounts of A2A combat and the number that start along the lines of "I caught a reflection of sunlight and quickly spotted ..." Also, we have no peripheral vision to help spot moving targets, plus the visibility in the F-15 is better than in LO, we have significantly worse SA than in LO with poor radio warnings from other sources, plus a/c disappear at about 2-4miles due to LOD change, plus we don't create smoke trails, wing vortex trails etc, plus we don't have the added incentive that we will die if we screw up! So, no I think RL is probably easier.

They are also an absolute pig to disassemble ... loads of screws! Cases are easy to scratch and then look terrible. No mouse nipple, no right click or mouse wheel ... how to those people survive! The OS doesn't suffer the bloat that afflicts MS OSs ... yet, and only has less viruses because few people use them and therefore aren't targetted ... yet. They do look pretty though and has a decent kernel lurking under that GUI. :)

I read somewhere where they describe Sea Harriers v German Mig-29s ... and the Harriers got eaten. They tried to exploit the doppler notch and the Germans were just too good - along the lines of "Yes, I saw you were doing that, countered and there you were ... right where I expected you - bang!"

Unless you're flying a Mirage III/V or a Sky Hawk ...;) Sooner rather than later ... please. Question for all you people that still play Falcon (not something I've done for a few years) ... what is the AAM missile modelling like these days?

Have a look at a program called ROBOCopy (free) - it has a mirror option that can duplicate one directory structure or files onto another. Be warned, it can also delete files - so make sure the source and target are right! It has 1000s of other useful options as well.

So ED are never going to listen to their customers ... great.

Until they fix the missiles its a moot point ... it doesn't matter what you fly!

EB, sorry to contradict, but WAFM is a direct result of the various issues for missiles in LO - its has been discussed as such for a number of years. It may now be part of a different product, but it came from LO. I've done enough programming to know that developers usually carry forward ideas and methods they've spent years developing in one product into the next. I'm sure the 2 products have a lot in common under the hood - even if the all code is new. Its all possible in code! However, I'm sure you know the code better than me! It would just seem like a good way forward - WAFM (and associated seeker updates) could be tested and ED could get paid for doing it. I'm actually surprised with the result of this poll - given the amount of money most of us spend on graphics cards, PCs, pedals, Track IR, HOTAS etc and time, the cost of an updat/ fix would seem small. However, I guess I too have under estamated the level of feeling of the majority of LO simmers here.

Good to see you back SK! Perhaps best not call it a patch then ... rather LO:Ultimate edition - WAFMs! I've bitched about missile FM more than most, however I think ED tried to do a good job in LO, it just got broken when they tried to tweak it. Plus, people found the flaws and use those to their advantage. If we want them to invest time it has to make business sense to ED. How about trialling the WAFM system for DCS in an upgrade to LO in a years time? But I guess the market would be limited to a few hundred copies to a small number of people like us. No mass market appeal - I can't see 'Please buy it daddy, it'll make missiles work realistically!' I just don't feel like waiting 5 years to play A2A NATO v Russia again online!! Stalking dumb AI vehicles with few infantly on a relatively poor terrain model in a helicopter just doesn't do it for me. Hit the first vehcile in a column and the rest are like fish in a barrel! .... IMHO, helicopters fit best into a land sim like SteelBeasts with a rich enviroment, good vehicle AI and uber scenario designer - they are basically land vehicles and you must have a super detailed land environment for them to fly over.

True ... but this whole forum is just chat ... I'm not daft enough to think it'll make any difference!

ED are a business - they will get no revenue from a patch and have commitments elsewere - DCS. So would you pay 20 $/£/Euro for a patch that just fixed A2A missiles, say 4months from now - seekers and WAFM?

In RL if you've let a Mig-29 get to 10miles then you've really screwed up!

Thats what TWS was invented for! It used to work just fine ...

The higher you fly the more you have to look down, the narrower the 'cone' is and manually keeping track of multiple targets becomes impossible. 1 is easy, but TWS is supposed to offer multi-target ability - this is what was borked in the last patch. AMRAAM was supposed to be tweaked in the last patch ... so I'll reserve judgement - if a patch is ever forthcoming.

The real life F-15 was ... the LO one has no real advantage - TWS is totally borked, no answer to the uber-ETs, AMRAAMs are dumb, ECM is screwed and abused, low-flyers are immune, weapon FMs are arcady! Looks like I'll be waiting 6 years for EDs next NATO fighter to play A2A online ...

Fantastic!

O'Reilly do a book 'Physics for Game developers' ... looking at that you need pretty good maths too!

Kuky, I don't see anyone doing a campaign engine like Falcon 4 ... I seem to remember it bankrupted the developers! In some ways I'm quite bouyed by EDs announcement - as you say, it will give us high levels of detail, but for me having to wait 9 months for each of Ka-50, AH-64, A-10, Su-25, Russian fighter1 and finally Western fighter, before I can play A2A again is very frustrating. Assuming 9 months slips to 1 year thats 5-6 YEARS away at the earliest!