Trident

I like the Mirage idea too :) While the MiG-21 isn't exactly the most crucial aircraft to add to LOMAC it is, and always will be, a true classic. Alochtoon, the model looks very good, you may want to give the intake and the pitot tube 'stub wing' sharp leading edges though. They seem to be razor sharp in real life. As for missiles, the MiG-21Bis (the model is a Bis, isn't it?) should be able to use the R-60, AFAIK. Ah, tomcat1974 beat me to it ;)

I think it's a data-link antenna. BTW, I second the request for an AI Strike Eagle, or at least a thorough rework for the legacy F-111 model from Flanker2.5 (which would be easier to add to the game).

Another masterpiece, those camera angles are just amazing! Seriously, by using some unique sequences you manage to turn a rather plain plot into an exciting movie time and again :) Sync or Swim is still my favourite though ;)

Nice one SK :) Just curious, how close is the lay-out of Razdolnoye to the real base at Merzifon?

I know what you mean, but IMHO the best missile smoke-trails LOMAC ever had can be seen in this movie: ftp://ftp.ubisoft.com/games/lomac/media/mig-cas.zip The way the smoke breaks up and dissolves (watch the scene with the Ka-50!) is a feast for the eyes :) I also think that the CBU effect from this video (in other words, the one from the release version of LOMAC) is more realistic than the one we seem to be getting in v1.1 (too much Hollywood, IMHO): ftp://ftp.ubisoft.com/games/lomac/media/lockon_movie20.zip Sorry for going OT!

I was just trying to provide an example to show that national prestige and pride will sometimes override economic considerations. Given that practically none of the units modelled in LOMAC participated in the Falklands campaign I do not think that this theatre would be particularly well suited for a sequel.

Given the 'there's no limit' part it sounds like there is no connection between registering and installing the game - in other words: registration does not seem to be a requirement to play. Correct?

AFAIK there's a grain of truth in this rumour: the N001 on the Su-27 was originally supposed to have a phased array antenna like the Zaslon and it was intended to use the R-33. However development of the antenna stalled and the Su-27 ended up with the radar and armament we know today. Would have been scary though, that's for sure (a MiG-31 equivalent that can dogfight with the best of them!) :)

I wholeheartedly agree on the new FM, it's the reason why I've been playing the v1.1 demo more than the full version of 1.02 lately. The Su-25 pure joy to fly and (crash-) land, it has removed practically all unconvincing limitations that the old version used to have :D I can only repeat myself, I want the other aircraft to get a similar model more than ever now, having had a taste of the possibilities makes flying them feel very arkward. Just a few minutes ago I had the following experience: My wingman, having exhausted his ammo was landing infront of me and I was planning to come in close behind to repair my jet and take off again. The bloody Avenger had managed to damage my hydraulics as its parting shot and although the jet continued to fly pretty well for a while I lost almost all aileron authority after a few minutes. Just as I was fighting to line up for touchdown (ailerons are far more important than they seem!) my wingy got whacked by a tank shell from one of the M60's which were approaching the base, barely a few hundred metres infront of me! The wreck of his aircraft of course came to an abrupt stop, forcing me to stamp on the rudder to evade practically moments after touchdown. Somehow I managed to get around the scrap metal (on one mainwheel) but lost control trying to keep the wallowing Frogfoot on the runway. My right wing hit the ground hard and broke off and although the aircraft righted itself afterwards I was in big trouble: the steep bank of the stream on the other side of the airfield was approaching rapidly! The aircraft sailed into the air, soared across the river (at which point I ejected) and crashed down hard on the other side, shedding bits and pieces as it spun to a halt. Priceless!

Good point, I think I was thinking too much in terms of a dynamic campaign system - you'd have a pretty hard time implementing such factors realistically in one of those. For ED's current system it probably is an important consideration though. There are examples where financial matters did not prevent a war from happening against better judgement however, Falklands anyone? ;) Thanks for the info. Probably better than nothing, but especially in a small community like this one you can't really afford to reduce the accessibility of such modding features IMHO. I guess the opportunity to take a theatre (any theatre, no questions asked) from the very start right to actually seeing it in the sim without any outside involvement would also be a tremendous boost to motivation. I'll make sure to watch that one, thanks.

LOL, correct. This is why amphibious operations factor heavily in my vision of this theatre. They provide a link between expanded naval operations and CAS warfare and create targets in their own right. I would also argue that things like a blockade of the economy are outside the scope of a sim - it may affect the economy and politics, but it has very little impact on the actual fighting in the short term, IMHO. Logistics for ammunition, spares and fuel are far more important and supply-lines that are waiting to be interrupted/protected can be found in every theatre (mainly in form of sea-lift in this case). Military infrastructure certainly is in no short supply in this region either, although admittedly none of it is located on the islands themselves (enter Sakhalin again). What I think makes the Kurils so attractive is the fact that Japan and the US are practically forced to use carriers, while Russia with only a single one at its disposal can rely on landbases a lot. In the end, the really interesting question right now is perhaps not what theatre to model in future but whether ED able and willing to encourage 3rd party terrain design. One thing is for sure, if your experience is anything to go by the number of potential modders is drastically reduced without a SDK of some sort. Has ED somehow hinted what their position is in this regard? Do you think it's even possible for them to release tools for terrain design to the public (do they own the rights to the software they use, would the tools need any modification)? Is this worthy of a new topic?

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to hear you call their system restrictive, to be honest. From their tech description on the main page it sounded like they had developed it to a very high standard. Any system would be time-consuming to a certain degree if it was used to create such a detailed world, I suppose (or rather, if it was that bad, LOMAC likely wouldn't look the way it does). Is this why you think it's unlikely that they will embark on a new theatre, because there actually is little room for improvement in their tools/structure? If true, this could mean that the terrain is an aspect where Caretaker's third point, 3rd party developments, could come into play. I guess, depending on how userfriendly the tools are, that ED could reap a lot of benefits from encouraging user created theatres by releasing them. This would of course mean that the opportunity to make money by publishing new ones themselves would be lost, but new terrain is probably less of a selling point to the average user than a new aircraft for example. They could also charge for the terrain editing software if it's their own, I would imagine. As for contested terrain in the Kurils, that (mainly) concerns the southern islands of the chain, Kunashir and Iturup. Not sure how they are strategically relevant, they seem to offer little in the way of natural resources (Fishing rights? The area has all the makings for rich fishing grounds), for example. They could also be important for sea control of the entry to the the Sea of Japan and the la Perouse Strait. There's got to be some reason why the Japanese want them back, that's for sure. If you wanted Japan to become really audacious, one could also count in Sakhalin, the southern part of which was Japanese territory for quite some time IIRC. This is particularly interesting, as the rest with its rich oil reserves in the north was also under Japanese rule for a short period after WW1, a very enticing proposition for a country so dependent on foreign energy resources. There's a strategic object for you (not sure what exactly you mean by that, but I'm sure this qualifies) ;) I do agree that the Caucasian region is nice, but this is also about finding a 'carrier-compatible' theatre, right?

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that a tiled implementation may not be so bad afterall. I suppose many people who reject the idea are having a knee-jerk reaction, because the mere mention of the word 'tiles' conjures up visions of Falcon4's unbearably repetitive terrain. However FS2004 does a pretty good job with it's tile system, mainly due to the fact that it manages to avoid tell-tale rectangular/hexagonal texture-borderlines. I've also noticed that LOMAC (shock horror!) seems to use a form of tiles in many areas, at least for the low altitude textures. The fact that this works so well that many haven't even noticed, while the rest (like me) doesn't care because it's so subtle, shows that such a system can be workable if done correctly. Great idea about keeping the Black Sea area! IMHO a new theatre could be relegated to a payware add-on similar to what we are seeing with v1.1 now. I know I'd be prepared to pay a handsome amount of money for the Kurils ;) Regarding ED's terrain system, depending on how restrictive it is it could be a good idea to thoroughly analyse the possibility of replacing it - if it's that 'bad' such a move will have to come sooner or later anyway. IMHO good carrier sim is possible without some of those capabilities, I've only left those in the quote that I'd consider important (though not necessarily mandatory). IMHO some features don't have the impact to warrant the effort their inclusion would require. Let's take submarine operations as an example, definately something that would play a vital role in a real life naval confrontation. To do this correctly however (it's the player's carrier at stacke afterall) would require a lot of effort, all for a feature that provides little tangible gamplay value. The player is not involved directly (the closest he could come is intercepting or escorting patrol aircraft) and the results are very vague (the sub that was just sunk due to the players indirect intervention may or may not have sunk the SSGN which now may or may not attack the enemy carrier in future) and mostly invisible. Amphibious operations provide far more possibilities in this regard. Very good point. This ties into the interesting topic of what business-model ED is to use for their next big project. I personally think the ideal method would be something like a 'customizable' sim: the basic release would include, say, the Black Sea area of operations and a limited number of player aircraft such as for example the Su-27, Su-25(T), F-15 and A-10. Other aircraft would be available as expansion packs like MiG-29K/F/A-18C, AV-8B etc., the same goes for new theatres. The big disadvantage is that this scheme would require the sim to be flexible enough to deal with different configurations during multiplay, where one player uses a particular aircraft add-on while the others use (a) different one(s). EDIT: I see 112th_Rossi had already suggested the above business model, hadn't read the thread in ages before I posted, lol. Thanks for all the support for the Kurile Islands theatre too, somehow I knew the landscape would work its magic (it certainly did with me!) ;)

Now we're getting somewhere :D That's a real breakthrough SK!

Sorry for resurrecting this ancient topic, but I've finally revised my Kurils theatre. It's still very large at about 500000 sq. km but has lost very little of its advantages inspite of being shrunk dramatically compared to the initial version. Note that this map shows basically every airfield except dirt strips and general aviation aerodromes. Infact, some of them may not be suitable for jets, so their number may decline. The small chunk of mainland Russia could be smaller, for example by rendering the western portions in low detail. Other map borders are negotiable too, so feel free to make suggestions :) I still think it would be a very interesting area to model, with some important advantages even compared to the Taiwan Straits scenario. Namely, inspite of being far smaller, the Chinese theatre of operations is *much* more densely populated, Hokkaido not withstanding. To illustrate this issue: Taiwan alone has 22 million inhabitants, while the population of Kamchatka, the Kurils, Sakhalin and the strip of mainland Russia in my proposal combined is smaller than that of the Crimean peninsula (2,5 million) in size! Also, a large percentage (at least one third) of this population is concentrated in just a few cities like Petropavlovsk and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. To be honest, it actually surprised me aswell to learn just how remote these regions are ;) Even adding Hokkaido with 5,7 million inhabitants does little to change this massive difference. The point I'm trying to make is, assuming the bottleneck in ED's map-building abilities lies with things like settlements and roads, that the Taiwan Straits area may require a lot more effort per square kilometre of land modelled. Also, the probable lack of Russian participation in the Chinese conflict would mean that many of the existing units in LOMAC would need to be replaced, including player aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-25. A large amount of indigenous PRC equipment, with very little data available on it, would in turn have to be created basically from scratch. I'm not sure how much of a problem this would present for ED, but it certainly is a lot less critical with the Kurils. Japan has fewer indigenous platforms, and many of those that they do have are for all intents and purposes of a flightsim identical to their US counterparts in all but external shape (this is particularly true for the navy). All in all, I stand by my earlier statement that Japan would not require significantly more non-US/Russian units than there currently are in LOMAC for several European countries. With the PRC the ratio of existing platforms to new ones would be practically reversed, on the other hand. In the end, I guess I must also confess that the amateur geographer in me has a very hard time letting go of a theatre that looks this phenomenal: http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1153.jpg http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1151.jpg http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1157.jpg http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1152.jpg http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1156.jpg http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1155.jpg http://home.t-online.de/home/lkirchner/onekotan/onekotan/onekotan.html http://phoeto.gotdns.com/hokkaido/new/kamui/large/photo01.jpg http://www1.hokkaido-ricoh.com/hp2/hrs03/images/200302_xga.jpg http://home.t-online.de/home/lkirchner/kamchatka/kamchatka.html http://www.mountain.ru/eng/adventure/2004/Kamchatka/ http://www.mountain.ru/eng/adventure/2004/Kamchatka/index1.shtml http://www.sakhalin.ru/Photosketches/foto01.htm http://www.geocities.com/iatur/sekhalin.htm ;)

Jesus, that Kh-22 is a brute :shock: I'm going to love watching those :)

Market research. What hardware do you have? Do you run emule? What do you share? How much do you play the game? The main interest would be the relation between those results. Ok this is paranoid. But it's not like an internet user is of no interest for the business. And again, some would say this is ok and some not. Point taken, in that case I'd of course want to know that I'm being used for a survey. OTOH, as far as I can see the sole mistake in this case is that ED somehow managed to ommit the unistaller for Starforce. From where we are now that doesn't look like something that would justify 15 pages of panic and partially offensive rethoric, doesn't it? ;)

At the risk of repeating myself: Because otherwise pirates could use files/infomation from the demo to crack the full version's protection later. Sensible, since encrypting the demo files for instance will deny them info that could help get around the protection on the full release. This is from the FiringSquad interview. From what I've read in the FiringSquad interview there is no legal requirement for such a notice, and I can't remember getting one from other copy protection software either. That said, I agree that a heads-up in the EULA or readme would have been painless to include and could have defused some of the hysteria. Because ED obviously used an older version of Starforce or forgot to include the SFcleaner in the demo uninstaller. A simple mistake (and with hindsight the only one) that slipped by for no particular reason I guess. Do you really think Starforce or ED are trying to spy on us or something? What on earth would they find so fascinating about you or me? I don't think any of the involved parties has any dark intentions. The only valid points against Starforce I can see are potential conflicts with hard- or software and the key validation scheme (depending on what the latter actually looks like). I have seen zero factual info about these regarding the Starforce version that ED wants to use (remember that, from what I could see, the problems with Starforce are now half a year old, there's no telling if newer versions are that bad) so I'll wait for official info there. I'm beginning to think that Starforce may be better than its reputation.

As for protecting demos, this is supposed to prevent pirates from using open files/info in an unprotected demo to crack the full version later on. Makes sense IMHO, although admittedly I was sceptical about this issue at first.

I've taken the time to read the interview that contains the comments about the security issue which are quoted in this thread. Believe me, all here should take a deep breath and read it *completely* through. Just about all the valid and invalid points that are being brought up in here are covered. This includes the perculiar question of why the demo was protected, for example. http://www.firingsquad.com/features/starforce_interview/default.asp I must say that I'm feeling alot better about Starforce than before. Also please note that the article is now 6 months old, so it's very probable that the backdoor is a non-issue with the demo today (nevertheless, a statement from ED would of course still be appropriate). As for trouble being caused such as internet slowdowns, this may be due to any number of reasons and thus hardly constitutes incriminating evidence. For example, I recently did experience connection problems, but can still confidently say (as I did earlier in the thread) that the demo is not to blame - I know for FACT that they were caused by my ISP! I encourage anyone to take a good hard look at such issues and make a honest assesment. All I personally need to know now is whether I may be required to re-purchase FC due to whatever reasons - that's something I'd certainly not accept.

I agree for the most part (except the finacial aspect, to be exact ;) ). However there are a lot of people who won't snap out of it no matter what you do - and those same people have a sizeable percentage of the money that ED needs to survive. Word of mouth and the inevitable skewing of reality in the process only complicate the situation. Like it or not, sometimes it's not reality that matters, but how people perceive it. I've seen it time and again on a small scale (everyday conversations and interaction between individuals) and in fields like politics. I know plenty of people for whom things like this (be it out of sheer inconvenience) would indeed make the difference between a purchase and not buying it. ED needs to look at this closely prior to deciding whether to proceed, and most importantly communicate before things get out of hand. Yeah, and the demo admittedly also has me puzzled. I've not noticed any ill effects from it though.

Good site, sounds legit. I have an open mind regarding this issue, so no worries. The chinese example just struck me as a 'dangerous' one to use :) The size comparison is indeed very interesting, although the caption on the image seems to say something about improved transmitter components being at least partially responsible (well, as far as I could understand). It's also worth noting that the AIM-120, as per posts in this thread, also uses a significantly more compact guidance section in the C-version. Me thinks the primary reason for AGAT to use US chips was economic - COTS products are probably cheaper and more reliable (even with the Russian cost advantage).

On the chinese thing, I'm certainly no expert there but I'm not aware of them developing an ARH based on the R-77. They are developing their own missiles (which may amount to the same thing given the context we're talking about here ;) ) however. I'm just not sure if your source is trustworthy.

I must confess that I don't like the sounds of this either. I can definately live with having to reactivate or reinstall my software when I upgrade or reinstall Windows, but having to re-purchase an application somewhere down the road (for whatever reason and no matter the time limit) is just as certainly inacceptable IMHO. I'll sit back and wait to see which of the above is the case, right now everything is just plain speculation. If it's the former, all is good from my perspective. EDIT: this sums it up nicely:

Question is - is it there in the real F-15C? That's not a given, although it may simply be called differently.