Trident

AFAIK the reason is that the active radar seeker is of Russian origin (Belorussian? I've never quite figured out where Agat belongs), and those same Russians could think better than to support a competitor for their own R-77 :)

Wags and SK have hinted that the real PACS/MPCD screen is capable of displaying several distinct colours.

Well, what do we have here: a clickable cockpit, improved missile dynamics and AI FMs on the same level as the player's. Sounds great!

Well, anyone expecting to see a DC in 1.2 is setting himself up for disappointment IMHO. ED has made it pretty clear that a DC is something they are only planning on for their next stand-alone sim (well, FC and Black Shark are stand-alone in the CIS, but you get the idea).

Thanks!

Wow, scanned like that they look absolutely photorealistic! Any info on the navigation MFD? Thanks for sharing :)

I second that, it looks funny when you see a river and the sea side by side in LOMAC.

I have just one question: where are the WIP pictures? ;) Great news indeed, this is the one aircraft that was really missing in the LOMAC USAF. Now, all we need is someone who re-does the MiG-31 (I think terrificfool started one, but I haven't seen him post any updates since sometime last year :( ).

The pods on the E-3D are ESM IIRC. As for the E-3F, their ESM systems are a relatively recent addition, so depending on ED's plans for the timeline in future products it might be a good idea to save oneself that effort :) This is actually a case where ED could speed things up by releasing their existing model. Alternately, they could ask the modeller to provide an E-3A/C variant of his work too (it mostly just the engine nacelles anyway).

*shakeshead* no, no, that wouldn't have happened on a Su-34 ;)

Yes, big thumbs up for the RN and a swift and rational response to the situation by the Russians :)

Hmm... Do I smell good news for the E/A-6B-model here? ;)

Outstanding! Any word from ED on whether they'll make it available (and when)?

I'll just add that it ran well on my Athlon 900, haven't tried on my current computer though :)

The implementation in LOMAC is not 100% accurate, but it's not completely off the mark either. I do hope ED get around to developing more accurate MFD symbology and functionality in future though.

Wow, a big thank you to ED for finally resolving this problem! I wouldn't have expected it to happen in the patch, but that's excellent news of course. Thanks to you too Wags, for sharing this tidbit :)

I fail to see how LOMAC's implementation of the F100-PW100 is depriving the player of any performance - as Britgliderpilot remarked this version is actually more powerful than the newer -220 (if marginally so). Since the sim doesn't really model flame-outs (which would be a good idea for a future AFM Eagle though, IMHO even the -220 should not keep running if you ever attempted something like a tail-slide in the F-15C) that plagued the former I'm at a loss where you're perceiving a disadvantage here. OTOH, while I'm not qualified to judge whether the top speeds of the respective aircraft are incorrect, I do think that ED should model these realistically - if one is slower than the other IRL according to the best available data then that's how it should be in the game. I also agree about the radar needing improvements however, preferrably by modelling a full-up APG-70 (sans the mapping modes), IFF interogation (not just for the F-15 in this case) and a more detailed TACAN instrumentation would be nice too.

And Flanker2 was supposed to be part of the 'Digital Combat Series'. Somehow I remain sceptical if a true digital battlefield with integration between air-, land- and seaforces is possible in the near future. Look at the development of Falcon4 and LOMAC, both had their share of problems without even attempting such a thing. Modern flightsims are so complex that one development team alone cannot possibly branch out to include tactical FPS elements without sacrificing elsewhere. The only way I can see this happen is through cooperation among several development studios and with A LOT of funding to back them up. The new title would have to be started from scratch afterall, it is very unlikely that existing code could readily be made to interface with a different completely unrelated game.

Alternately, just call the bloody thing AIM-120B in the sim :D Apparently that's what already is, capability-wise.

I've no idea on the transfer rate, I don't even know if that is how it's done, but as I said it is certainly possible. Like D-Scythe remarked however the range info to be sent would have to be collected by a second laser range finder. Unfortunately the site where I originally found the pic (Overscan's page) is not available right now.

Coded pulsing by the laser probably. This is nothing special, most designation lasers are coded anyway for deconfliction, so the technology is already there.

There are infact pictures of a Vikhr being tested against a Tu-16 drone ;) The aircraft was slow though (landing gear extended). I haven't encountered this problem in LOMAC yet, but if it's anything like what you describe the performance probably needs to be toned down a bit (not to mention the known AI problems, using Vikhrs when you still have Archers is indeed a bit weird). As it's not a purpose built AA missile the PK should be pretty low, even though it designed to be used for this task as a secondary role. This is likely a similar issue to the problem with MBTs using their mainguns against aerial targets with exaggerated success.

That Switzerland scenery shows precisely what I keep harping on about the terrain mesh. Mountains and terrain in general look a lot less triangular than in LOMAC (which is great otherwise, beats the *default* FS2004 scenery hands down). It's all in the resolution of the elevation data, that FS addon is 19m while LOMAC is 30 IIRC. 19m or better should be the reference point for ED (not for 1.2 but for the next big project), their textures are already pretty much as good as they'll ever need to be. Add dynamic terrain shadows (also found in FS2004 I think, need to check with regards to LOMAC) and 3D trees like in Il2 and you'll get eyewatering results :D

Get it. But why make the effort to model new weapons systems at all when there is so much room for improvement left in the existing ones? It's not like ED has all the time and resources in the world. And who'll guarantee that the MP server you're playing on 'gets it' about a consistent timeline in his mission? Get it? ;) It's a matter of fact, the early 90's were probably the last years where Russia and the US were on equal terms with respect to their operationally deployed weapons systems. The economic crisis which followed the collapse of the USSR meant that new developments that were competitive with their American counterparts did not enter service on a large scale (or atleast not with Russia, see the Su-30MKI and Talwar-class frigates) from this point on. So either the whole thing becomes unbalanced or you need to model speculative systems which are not operational. That's what makes this setting so exciting IMHO, asymmetric warfare is for pansies :D

Just a few more pics, I guess the second and third pictures need no introduction :) The first shows the elegant lines of the Rafale, the last one is the Boeing 777-200LR, a very nice looking aircraft in Dreamliner colours. Unfortunately it did not fly, but atleast this meant that it kept providing some precious shade which we were very grateful for. Those GE90s are HUGE!