Trident

LOL! ED needs to get rid of that missile effectiveness slider IMHO - I don't think it ever worked as advertised and caused many a bug headache.

Looks good to me, you've captured the curvature of the warhead casing much better than before.

Exactly. I think a hammerhead would only work properly on aircraft that are either prop driven or have thrust-vectoring engines. As you have already pointed out correctly your control surfaces lose their effectiveness once the airstream flowing over them slows beyond a certain speed - this can only be countered by a prop continuing to blow air over them or TVC engines that don't care about airspeed. So, you will not be able to pull this off without certain tricks in any of the aircraft in LOMAC.

Nope, it means rear-aspect engagement is mandatory for the new AIM-9P (atleast I hope so) :) Good work MBot! EDIT: Do I see the new AH-1W model that someone on the Russian forum was developing in the background on the first screen? Awesome! We absolutely need to find somebody to finish Joao's Apache *now*!

So what? The existing model looks extremely dated by now, especially compared with ED's new models and those contributed by fans. I'm sure they'd gladly accept a good Mirage2000 model (how about a Mirage2000D?), if they aren't already making one themselves.

Yes, we definately need a wall of lead when strafing convoys :) That would also somewhat make up for the lack of proper evasive action. I agree with the comments about LODs, I'm still surprised ED didn't have a LOD system for ground vehicles in place until the hotfix for FC was released. Makes you wonder how much more easily available optimization is left in LOMAC ;)

[RANT] IMHO the community needs to seriously reconsider how they deal with StarForce. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I've actually heard people use the fact that you can't remove StarForce permanently if you continue to use the game it was protecting as proof of SF's evil intentions. Now, it was definately legitimate to complain about *older* SF versions not uninstalling when you removed the game itself (this infact being the raison d'être for the removal tool), but it's not hard to see that the above is pretty rediculous. Not to mention the double standards regarding other protection systems which use drivers too, do not ask for permission upon installation either and yet don't get nearly as much flak. I mean, there are plenty of perfectly valid issues with SF even now, you'd think people could stick to factual information to make their point. As I said, there are important issues with StarForce that need to be discussed and resolved, but the above behaviour makes it all too easy for SF not to take their critics seriously. [/RANT]

I second that.

According to the article the aircraft taking this picture wasn't. Everyone gets caught with their pants down once in a while, this was obviously one of those occasions ;)

http://www.forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=13109 Tell someone with modelling skills and help make this a reality!

*faints* Sounds awsome!

Cyprus is a pretty good choice, one that I personally never thought of. OTOH it faces some of the same difficulties that a Taiwan scenario has, namely no Russian involvement (would be about as hard to justify as US carriers in the Black Sea, IMHO), indeed preciously little Russian hardware at all (only some naval units and SAMs used by Greece). That not only takes away one of the primary attractions of ED's sims to some, it might also be hard to convince a Russian developer with a large CIS market of its merrits. It is also not a very "charismatic" theatre, less so than Taiwan, being not as widely known and less spectacular terrain-wise (this is something I thought of as a real drawback in Flanker2.0, inspite of its incredible terrain graphics, for the time). A fly-able Mirage2000 would be sublime though, it would probably become my favourite aircraft :cool: If the requisite info is ever declassified (big if, it seems) we could have that in a Taiwan theatre too though. Syria sounds pretty good however, as for other Middle East countries Iran would also be acceptable to me. Forget the rest though, it's practically as flat as a billard table, very boring to look at :( Nonetheless, I still know what my all-time-favourite theatre would be (I know, I should come to grips with the fact that it's too large, but one can dream... ;) ). BTW, check out my post in that old thread, some time ago I updated the map with ALL (seriously!) airfields I could spot in WorldWind/GoogleEarth. Those marked with a "+" are large enough to be used by combat aircraft (the runway length of Khersonnes was used as the yardstick here, it feels pretty short in a heavily ladden aircraft in LOMAC), a "-" indicates a small strip that may only be suitable for helos. You might be surprised to find several "+"es on the Kurils themselves! Also, this: http://www.theoceanadventure.com/KIIE/KI8.html Anyway, back to reality...

That's because they are :) That video is a compilation of several (all of which can be found on patricksaviation.com) and one of them contains footage of the pilots driving to the base. The latter is included and conveniently sped up some in the movie posted here ;) So, that video is cheating a bit, not that the pilots would need to though.

Words of wisdom ;) I wouldn't complain about the original -K either, if a definitive production standard for that version ever existed.

Outstanding!!! Bodes well for the future :) My wishlist would look like this: 1. Ability to create flights with several human controlled aircraft instead of having to duplicate the original flight for each of them 2. Cut/copy/paste functions for the editor 3. Manual inflight-refueling for NATO aircraft and a flexible refueling hose for the Russians 4. Accurate HDD symbology/functionality for the Flankers 5. Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously using R-77s on the MiG-29S (if this capability indeed exists) 6. Better explosion effects (see my previous posts on this ;) ) 7. Smoky engines for the appropriate aircraft and condensation effects during high-AoA flight 8. Better afterburner effect :D

Nevermind Yellonet, there ARE new ones up now ;)

I disagree. I see a lot of potential and talent in JT. It is realistically not likely to live up to LOMAC in most aspects on initial release (with such a small team, how could it?), but it does look like it will be more than worth while. The campaign system sounds promising, and I agree that ED should watch closely (although the Falklands are a somewhat different type of conflict to the one LOMAC aims to model). Performance is looking good too, inspite of the graphics being pretty competitive, but it's too early to tell how the end result will turn out in this case.

Still, it would be a nice thing to try once in a while. Nice, but not essential.

I would if I had the skills and time. Have you tried posting this over at simhq.com, to gain some additional exposure? It's really sad how the most desperately needed models for LOMAC seem to attract zero attention at all, while many people start working on their personal favourite plane which doesn't quite fit into the sim however :( Maybe ED should publish a list of models that would be most welcome to them, perhaps that would focus the community's talents a bit more.

Yes, the -P is a bit of an enigma. I've heard knowledgeable people imply that it never entered service, OTOH designation-systems.net is usually very dependable. The jury is still out on this one, anybody care to research?

AFAIK the problem is not the mathematics of round geometry, the issue is that current graphics accelerators are designed to handle polygonal shapes only. This means that if ED were to use actual curved surfaces they would be forced to run their engine in software mode (everything handeled by the CPU). Is this correct?

Oh hell yes! But it's an AFM thing for now, so this behaviour is indeed lacking on the fast movers (the MiG-29 for instance).

Impressive graphics-wise, kind of puts those console titles into perspective, doesn't it ;) I wonder what their solution to the pop-up/drawdistance issue is, LOMAC could use some inspiration here. Still no 3D trees though.

I would think that there is no difference in the emission characteristics of the STT mode when either AMRAAM or Sparrow are used. The AIM-120 may use tracking data from the radar fed to it via datalink instead of homing in on the reflected signal itself, but STT is STT IMHO. Since the AMRAAM was introduced at a later stage I would imagine that it was simply integrated with the radar's existing STT mode. I suppose it would be called differently (SST-ARH or something like that) if it was a new mode? Just my 0,02€ ;)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/981375/L/ :) The terrain, in particular the forrestation looks spot on in LOMAC IMHO.