Trident

I'd definately like to see this capability implemented. Thankfully Chizh has hinted that it is indeed a possibility in a future patch.

I can only second the positive comments about the AFM, it's just sublime :) It really feels like a rugged aircraft now (not that I'd know what that feels like). The new damage model is absolutely fantastic too, can't wait to do some better testing with it. The downside is that I now want the remaining aircraft to get an AFM even more, lol. On the other hand, the fact that collisions with other objects are still somewhat unrealistic was a slight disappointment. You can still drive half-way into a vehicle on the ground before the sim notices that something's wrong. Would be cool if you could actually bump into them, that is they actually stop/deflect your aircraft instead of only causing damage but otherwise being of no hindrance at all.

Well, your green is ok for grass, but the change seems to have affected other landscape features aswell. Vadifons images show pretty well that the terrain will look better if the colours show some variety (the default on the right looks far to green by comparison aswell).

A tad overdone (really, not much) IMHO, the sharpness is starting to look almost grainy on that picture. Also, I'm starting to think that the textures are a bit 'too green', even the exposed earth (somewhere in the background) and the wheat fields have aquired a green tinge. The brightness seems to be good though, any darker and you'd get FS2004-style black blotches on the ground. Moving in the right direction :)

Re: v1.2 Market Research Poll - Ka-50 or no? You're taking the words out of my mouth! IMHO improving what's already there to a consistent, high standard would do wonders for my longterm enjoyment of LOMAC. The AFM and avionics enhancements for existing aircraft would top my list in that respect. There are several areas in the sim where disparities in fidelity between certain entities/features are evident - this starts with the graphics (3D models and performance) and now ends much more significantly with the AFM and the new damage model. Removing these inconsistencies would improve immersion a great deal. Giving LOMAC a thorough polishing would enable ED to concentrate on developing real gameplay enhancements such as a new campaign system, a new theatre or new multirole aircraft (or any combination of these) in future projects. No more dealing with the legacies of projects as old as Flanker2 and loosing some small but great features in the process! In other words, ED could create the best possible foundation for their next big sim, a well-rounded and stable basis to build on. That said, I do realize that hardcore fans like us cannot expect casual gamers to spend 35$ on an add-on that, superficially, offers little in the way of 'tangible' innovations, such as a new player aircraft. I also like the Ka-50 very much and would in all honesty have preferred it to the Su-25T for v1.1. In the end I guess that ED, having hard sales data at their disposal, are much better suited to judge the economic implications of such a desicion.

Looks good! Mind posting screenshots of other areas (mountains) if/when they are ready?

At least? lol. Now I don't want to be harsh, but this claim just sounds ridiculous to me. Besides... the size of a market usually depends very little on the location of the development team. Not as outlandish as it may seem. Didn't Il2, also developed in Russia and featuring mainly Russian aircraft, sell almost as many copies in Russia alone as it did in the rest of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)? If the situation is similar (I could well imagine it being even clearer in favour of the Russian market, since sales seem to have been soso otherwise) with LOMAC that would be more than enough to make Russia / the CIS ED's single largest market.

LOL, Antonov's proposal for a fighter maybe? ;)

Yes it's a must-have mod IMHO, I've been using it for a while now. Even though some lighting conditions look a bit off it's still much better compared to the original dawn/dusk lighting.

I agree, I see no harm in adding *unguided* A/G-munitions to the Eagle. It's fine on the Su-27, so why not :) EDIT: found this nice example of FAST packs used on an operational F-15C: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/766781/L/

FAST packs are an excellent idea and are a real world option for all F-15Cs, including the USAF (I've seen pictures, but they're rarely used, it seems). I'm not so sure about LANTIRN though, this is the first time I've heard of it in conjunction with the C-version, even with respect to the IAF. Can you provide a source (testbeds don't count ;) )? Anyway, I suppose it would be a pretty large addition to the game for ED, and while very beneficial to gameplay I think it should be of secondary importance compared to Air-to-Air avionics enhancements. Only implement new features after the existing ones are working right ;)

I second this request. Interestingly, pre-release screenshots of the mission editor interface in LOMAC showed cut/copy/paste buttons.

I'm cross-posting an old post of mine from the Ubi forum here. It's from the debate about tanks engaging airborne targets with their main gun (something that was discussed over here aswell). While this is not strictly AI-related, it does touch on the subject and adds to what olaleier says about behaviour when under aerial attack. "There are several solutions that would contribute to eleminating this problem. One would certainly be to improve the helo AI and make them use pop-up/shoot-and-scoot tactics, at least when engaging with missiles. Another would be to drastically reduce the accuracy of main gun rounds fired at airborne targets and bring it more in line with the effectiveness against ground targets. However, the most important one IMHO is to enable tanks (and other AFVs beside the BTR-70) to use their machine guns, which they don't seem to do currently (with the exception of said BTR-70). The machine gun should also be made their primary choice of weapon when targetting aircraft and helos. The question whether tanks should engage helos and if they should do it with the main gun is a bit moot IMHO: they should most certainly shoot back, but they should do so preferentially with the machine gun (that's what it's there for, afterall)! I don't know what exactly ED's reasoning for omitting the machine guns is, so I have no idea what potential problems may arise. I heard they wanted to include them only for remotely operated, unmanned turrets (such as on the BTR-70) to avoid having to animate a gunner, but I personnally couldn't care less about that. I wouldn't notice the lack of a machine gunner from my cockpit in the heat of combat."

Still, HUMRAAM does not really fit the timeline in LOMAC very well. NASAMS is also a stationary system dedicated to the defense of Oslo AFAIK, so it would be a bit hard to justify its inclusion in LOMAC. I'd love to see the Chaparral though, I've always wondered why Flanker/LOMAC didn't model it.

Re: Q for Alfa and the Flankerheads - Su33 roles? Protecting the Kuznetsov and other assets guarding the SSBN patrol zones from aerial attack, like Kula said. Whatever NATO threw its way: P-3's, S-3's, Hornets, Tomcats, F-16's (Norway), Harpoons, Tomahawks... Considering that a Cold War scenario would most likely see the Kuz patroling in the Arctic there are however some encouters that are pretty unlikely for geographical reasons (Italian Tornados, or something like that ;) ) Probably CAP, although this is not a given, since the Soviet navy did not have carrier-borne AEW aircraft. Yes to both, AFAIK :) The large phased arrays on the carrier were obviously intended to function as GCI radars. I think they aren't used nowadays due to (software?) problems, but as the Ka-31 AEW helo was only developed later and for export the Soviets would have had to press them into service back in the day. Most ships are available with the mod installed, however the very important Udaloy ASW and Sovremenny ASuW destroyers are absent.

Wow, that NASA app is excellent, no other word for it! Thanks for sharing, leafer :shock: Well worth the large download. OTOH, it only makes me want the Kurils even more, the landscape is just unreal 8)

As far as maps go, taking a screenshot of the desired region on this site may be less time consuming (it's how I made mine): http://www.demis.nl/mapserver/mapper.asp

That doesn't look good then, I'll see if the map can be shrunk without sacrificing too many of the advantages. The sites you mention should help, thanks.

Admittedly it's vast - about 2000 by 2500km. Landmass is significantly less though, a reasonable estimate would be about a third of the total area (~ 1.600.000km², in other words). It's also very remote at least where Russia is concerned, so there are few human settlements to model. There's also the possibility of recreating the extreme western/northern regions with less detail, similar to what LOMAC does in the eastern Caucasus. The main advantage I see with this theatre is that it contains what can only be described as a truckload of strategically significant bases and sites - large Pacific Fleet bases like Petropavlovsk and a multitude of important airbases in both Russia and Japan. There are also many 'cool-factor' features such as the KnAAPO plant :) the absolutely spectacular Kamchatka landscape (volcanoes) and one or two ABM radars. It also provides for a second F-15 operator (Japan) without any justification problems. My vision for the conflict to be simulated focuses heavily on amphibious operations which would be a very good way to combine a greater focus on naval warfare with the CAS environment developed in LOMAC. The prospects for the Su-25 and A-10 are somewhat limited, however both would probably be put to good use once forward bases on the islands were secured, I'd imagine. The Ka-50 would really come into its own though, operating from the Kuznetsov or the Ivan Rogov class amphibious vessels. No S300s there either to disturb such operations, I suppose. Nonetheless, my suggestions for new flyable aircraft would be the F/A-18C (APG-65) and the MiG-29K initially aswell as the AV-8B (ideally the variant with FLIR but no radar, a good counterpart for the Su-25T and the Ka-50) for the first add-on. EDIT: Oh yeah, timeline 1989-1994. China is not on the map (just! ;) ) and I do not envision them taking part in the war. The point about additional units is good, but at least as far as aircraft are concerned Japan mainly uses existing US equipment (F-4E, F-15, C-130, CH-47), although some special ground units and particularly ships would be required. However not significantly more than there are currently in LOMAC for Germany and other European countries.

IMHO this is a central point to the considerations about a DC. Ressource management should be exclusively about resupply of things like spares, fuel and amunition. There are few conceivable conflicts that would see these (or even more unrealistic, actual assets like aircraft) being manufactured/produced inside the theatre of operations. Especially with a huge country like Russia they would be introduced into the region of conflict from safer, remote areas mainly by air- and sealift aswell as railtransport, the same applies for NATO. This would seem to defuse the problem of assigning buildings a strategic importance somewhat (except things like airfields, bridges and ports, of course). Never the less, I would also like to see a new map for the sequel, just make sure it isn't the Middle East! Personally, this would be my favourite: http://www.x-plane.org/home/Trident/LONA.png

Thanks Matt! The list, Russlish or not, was very impressive and far too long to have even the most basic overview of mentally (which is why I asked) ;)

Since ED will be introducing a fly-able Ka-50 with v1.2 I suppose that the aircraft poly limit should apply to helos too. Let's face it, the earliest we are going to see user made models in LOMAC will be 1.2 anyway.

If ED manages to make their next full project TrackIR Vector compatible Jeroen's suggestion shouldn't be that hard to implement. It would offer a simple method of giving Players without TIR some of the same benefits. Given that the cockpits may have to be redesigned for this to work I wouldn't expect this to happen soon though.

Until about two weeks ago there was a very comprehensive list of fixes and improvements in 1.1 posted in the Flaming Cliffs section of the site. However it's nowhere to be found now (I'm not talking about the 'Distinctions from v1.02' section). Could the list perhaps be re-uploaded? Thanks in advance!

Good call, I liked that in EECH. However I don't think a 50 to 70 ton MBT will move much even with a 2000lb bomb. It should knock over trucks and blow jeeps away though :) I also second the request for retarded bombs on the A-10. As far as CBUs go, I'm not sure if it's realistic to have sensor-fused submunitions on the early 90s A-10 in LOMAC (or are they independent from the carrier aircraft?), the same goes for adjustable burst-height or airburst (I think these were once mentioned as not being available on the Hog). I'd sure love the latter two though! IMHO http://www.designation-systems.net is the best source for weapons data, the text seems more continous and doesn't repeat itself. EDIT: anyone know what happened to the bug-fix list on the mainpage? I just remembered that some hit-effects on ground vehicles were mentioned but I can't find the list anymore.