Trident

I thought LOMAC modelled the AIM-120B?

So the RAM mode Matt talked about is not related to this doppler sharpening job (i.e. RAID)? How does it work then? Mind you, I'm not positive that 'RAID' is indeed the technique I described but I remember reading that that's what it is.

There's Sort and there's RAID AFAIK. IIRC Sort simply zooms in the display in the cockpit to allow the pilot to better discern closely spaced contacts, but this does not change the limited resolution of the radar - aircraft flying less than a beamwidth apart will still appear as one. RAID (Matt calls it RAM in the F-15 avionics thread) uses doppler beam sharpening to even resolve such contacts, if I'm not mistaken. I might have the terminology wrong though, they may describe the same thing for different radar sets (e.g. what's called RAID on some is called RAM on the APG-70).

We already have the S-300PM/PMU. The S-200 is outdated, while its maximum range is impressive so is its minimum range: several dozen kilometres IIRC. It is (was? It may be phased out already) only really good against its intended target: large bombers. EDIT: Seems I'm as confused over the SA-5 as NATO was, the original (failed) SA-5 appears to be the missile with the outrageous minimum range. Only FAS and Globalsecurity (both pathetic sources when it comes to Russian systems) give 60km as the minimum range for the S-200, Astronautix which is generally more accurate says 7km (still a lot, but substantially less). At the same time the cancelled Dal is credited with 150km minimum! I'm not sure what to believe. I do second the request for bringing back the S-300V from Flanker2, if only because the missile looks way awesome ;) It would however be even cooler if the raison-d'être for the S-300V, SRBMs like ATACMS and SS-21B, could be included too. No ballistic missile is going to turn tail or hide behind a mountain anytime soon :) I don't think the extended range is aimed primarily at cruise missiles and aircraft, more likely it is indended to extend the area that can be defended from ballistic missiles. Additionally, when launched well within its maximum range the S-400 will be that much deadlier due to having more energy compared to shorter range missiles which would be close to the edge of their effective range. Think of it as an expanded no-escape zone, noone forces the site to launch immediately.

It should be IMHO, infact JF/A-18 did it AFAIK. I think SwingKid has it covered as 'finite angular and range resolution' in the F-15C avionics wishlist.

BTW, forgot to say that it looks very impressive for 10000 polys :) You may also want to consider redoing the Hellfires, those in LOMAC would not do your model justice!

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but if you place the camera inside a 3D object when playing LOMAC you will 'see through it'. The polygons are only rendered when viewed from the right side (i.e. from outside the model). Is this what happens when the object uses 'open faces', or could this be due to something else? If 'open faces' are indeed the reason then you should obviously be able to use them, since the models that come with LOMAC do so.

Good news! I hope they make the 3D cockpits completely clickable, 2D pits are an anachronism IMHO.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=006221

Pilot injury not withstanding I would imagine that hung weapons would be the most likely consequence of exceeding g-limits. This could be modelled relatively easily aswell.

Yes, a video demonstrating stalls & spins with the AFM would be very welcome ;)

I just found a near perfect example of what I was talking about with respect to the afterburner-effect. These screenshots are from a third-party project for Wings over Vietnam and look particularly realistic due to the transparent centre of the afterburner-flame, IMHO. http://members.cox.net/mcbelmont/F-18D_InGame-5.jpg http://members.cox.net/mcbelmont/F-18D_InGame-6.jpg However, I think the colours are much too bright, atleast in daylight conditions most aircraft have afterburners that look more like this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/372130/L/ Light orange/pink as shown on the photo would be the best compromise IMHO.

Yep, but then again the 'city' is pretty pathetic compared to what we have in LOMAC. Either the buildings are only drawn out to a few hundred metres (imagine the pop-up!) or there really are only a few 3D houses there, like BGP suggests (see also Falcon4).

I agree with Aldega, as long as he stays within the 50k polygon budget, more power to him (it's a fly-able aircraft afterall)! OTOH I wouldn't want this to compromise the quality of other airframe details, such as the roundness of the nose and canopy or small antennae etc., these are more important to me. One also needs to take into account that the 50000 polygon figure includes the landing gear and damage-model IIRC, so 3D skin panels may turn out to be impossible without breaking this limit. D-Scythe does have a point though: compare the Hornet (15000 polys) model with the Su-25T (52000 polys) and tell me if the latter really looks that much better, as the poly-count would suggest. Now, the Hornet does not have a comparable damage-model by far, but I don't think this can account for three times the geometry complexity (correct me if I'm wrong). It's called the law of diminishing returns, I guess ;) (can also be observed with M$ FS add-on planes, some of which are 1,5 to 2x as complex as even the Su-25T and still look no better or actually worse in some cases). IMHO this has implications for ED's next stand-alone project, having reached the standard in object graphics that the Su-25T and F/A-18 impressively demonstrate, I think they should concentrate on improving the terrain in future. This is where all sims still have a great deal of room for improvement, imagine 3D trees like the solitary ones in Il2 and high-resolution landscape meshes as seen in some FS add-ons combined with ED's texturing excellence - a dream come true! Better expend the additional processing power of next generation PCs on features like that instead of doubling the poly-count on the objects with little to no visual improvement.

While were at it: v) improve the damage-model (listing / breaking apart / taking out individual systems like radars, weapons-launchers, propulsion... ) vi) give the OHP its Harpoons viii) improve the AI I don't think it's that important though, LOMAC is moving further in the CAS-direction with v1.1. Like JJ I'm not really expecting ED to fix the naval aspect until they start a completely new sim.

I'm not entirely sure, but this seems unlikely. AFAIK SwingKid once explained that the R-77s are launched using a new, seperate TWS-mode (SNP-2). If all it did was what you describe, why introduce a special mode for something that the pilot could basically do manually?

You're right, they work fine most of the time, but they do go wild once in a while. Things like loopings after missing the target are most likely to happen when you try shoot down helicopters. Now, this is something the Mav is not really meant to do, so it does not seem like a pressing issue, however it suggests that something is wrong with the missile flightmodels in general. It really shouldn't have the energy (and seeker gimbal limits!) to pull this off. Granted, it's a pretty rare and therefore minor problem. Quite correct, but IMHO it definately hurts immersion very much to have one aircraft modelled to a noticably higher standard than the others. They will always feel 'unfinished' by comparison. I fully realize the scope of such an undertaking, but I think it would pay off. It is safe to say that many other LOMAC players feel the same. Oh, I thought of another one: Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously with R-77s for the MiG-29S. Chizh already mentioned this as a likely candidate for a future patch to v1.1 but I'll put it in here to keep the list complete :)

FWIW, here's my wishlist of improvements for v1.2. Feel free to share your opinions :) - General enhancements Better ATC procedures (holding pattern etc.) Flexible refueling hose to give the player a better idea of how much horizontal/vertical drift is possible Better missile modelling (looping Mavericks, while cool, aren't very convincing ;) ) Fix the navigation problem (I think everyone knows about this one now) Add LOS calculations for EWR/AWACS radars (other interference effects can be omitted IMHO) Cut/Copy/Paste functions for the editor (early LOMAC screenshots show buttons that seem to provide this, BTW) Fix the bug that makes ground vehicles return to a heading of 360° when you change the type of vehicle Make the Altitude Map stay on permanently once selected Enable having several human players as wingmen in the same flight Give rivers and streams the same reflective texture as the sea Create a new particle-based afterburner flame (similar to the missile exhaust), the one from Flanker2.5 is now showing its age ;) Provide an option to increase the resolution of the self-cast shadows for people with powerful systems If possible, an AI F-15E and KC-135R would be nice. They play very important roles in today's USAF and should not be ignored - Improvements specific to player aircraft This one is by far the most important: please update all fly-able aircraft with the AFM! Working Master-Arm switches on the A-10 and F-15 Improved CCRP-mode in the A-10 (trigger needs to be held depressed for release consent) Working fire extinguishers for the A-10 (they seem to be automatic on the other aircraft in RL, otherwise include them for those too) Some form of autopilot-mode indication in the F-15 Matt's suggestions for improving the Eagle, minus the data-link :) Proper modelling of the HDD modes on the MiG-29 and Su-27 (HUD-repeater, tactical/navigation display for the latter) Ability to engage 2 targets simultaneously with R-77s for the MiG-29S I'll add more later if I have additional ideas.

Thanks for the answers everyone. If that's the way things are looking I'd personnally advocate no data-link for the F-15C. Matt's other suggestions sound absolutely mouthwatering though :) About the radar, I can see the reasons for upgrading to a 'proper' APG-70, however this would beg the question of AG-modes, as I asked in my first post. IMHO There's nothing wrong in giving the Eagle un-guided ground-attack capabilities (the MiG-29/Su-27 have/will have that too, afterall) but including the APG-70s mapping modes on an airframe that makes so little use of them seems like *far* more trouble than it's worth. So the next set of questions looks like this: - Did the APG-70 installation on the F-15C include mapping modes? If not I'm all for including dumb AG-capabilities on the Eagle. The USAF may not have trained for it in RL, but simming is alot about what-if?-scenarios. - The AG-modes were removed alltogether through software changes some time ago IIRC. Just when exactly did this happen? If mapping modes were present but removed along with the other ground-attack capabilities WITHIN the timeframe specified above they could simply be omitted in LOMAC. - Does the APG-63v1 feature AG-modes? When was it introduced and are there F-15Cs with this radar, but no data-link? Depending on the answers the -63v1 could be another possible solution. Disregarding things like the missing radar modes, ED's representation of the Eagle (even though it was a really rare variant in reality) seems pretty good if measured against the yard-stick of the actual average equipment & capability levels. Atleast at the time that the other fly-able aircraft versions seem to be stemming from and this is a good, consistent foundation to build on, IMHO.

Just to give me a clear picture of the situation: - What percentage of the F-15C fleet was fitted with JTIDS or FDL in the 1989 - 1994 timeframe? The fly-able aircraft, and that's what counts here, seem to be pretty consistently modelled in accordance with this setting (let's forget about the mysteries of the AI aircraft, they obviously do not follow a consistent scheme in this regard). - Was there ever a C-model Eagle WITH the CRT armament-control display but WITHOUT any form of data-link? The MSIP-upgrade was, as the acronym implies, a multi-stage effort so it seems conceivable that the display (minus some fuctionality) was introduced seperately from and earlier than the data-link. - When were the A/G-modes removed from the APG-70 through software changes? What I'm getting at is this: Is it representative of the 'average' F-15C in USAF service during above mentioned timeframe to portray it as having JTIDS/FDL in LOMAC? IMHO it would give the US side an unrealistic 'advantage' (for lack of a better word, I really mean 'a capability that should not be there') if only a small fraction of all Eagles boasted of such a system back then (compared to the Su-27, where the data-link was standard equipment on every aircraft from day one, AFAIK). IMHO it would be acceptable to model a fairly exotic configuration (or even a hybrid) for the F-15 that was rare in actual service but gives a fairly accurate picture of the systems and capabilities found in the fleet as a whole (again, during the years mentioned). Anyone? :)

I second that.

The pic from the LOMAC site is misleading though, the current Fencer doesn't look all that bad. The screenshot still shows the Flanker2.5 model and textures ;) Still, your skin does a great job of weathering and emphasizing the panel-lines, much better than the stock one :)

The hydraulics for one seem to be very well covered in v1.1, going by the blurb on the site. No idea if other systems are modelled with similar detail, would be very nice. As for false read-outs, the RWR in Flanker2.5 would do that when damaged (not sure about LOMAC). It certainly fooled me more than once, although only for a short time as the bearing would not change no matter what I did. It was a nice little feature though.

Hey, coming from Octav that sentence is as good as any worshipping smilie ;) Just kidding, I for one am glad to have him here (again), knowledge like this about Russian avionics is priceless.

Any general improvements to the sound engine itself or are there just some new sound files? Based on the Vikhr-movie zzzspace commented that he thought the code itself received an update and given his experience due to all that work on his great soundpacks I'm willing to believe him :)