Drakkhen

Yes. Nope... except if you're okay for giving us some check :wink:

Well, I imagine the trees collisions were disabled for low performance machines: since when you play at low detail level you don't have trees while a performant computer shows them all, on a HvsH on-line match, the one without trees can't collide what he can't see, so they prefered to make them immaterial for the one who sees them. Just a hunch, but it would be a reasonable compromise. Activating these collisions will make HvsH balance harder to set in accordance with machine performances.

Reasonable AI taxiing speed The current AIs don't allow efficient/realist GAI use. For example, when you attack an airfield, the closest planes to the runway should head for it as soon as you're suspected by radars and not at grand'ma's pace if possible... They're so slow you'd better make them start takeoff procedure as soon as you do, you still can reach objective before they switch gear-up. And it's almost impossible to miss them if you strafe the taxiways once air-defenses are down... :lol: They don't allow the player to make a grouped take-off without waiting for minutes on runway either. Ah... almost forgot... when you're waiting for them, you have to do it "behind" taxiway to runway point otherwise, they wait for you to take off before "entering" runway, even when they're your own wingmen. Possibility to set a pilot as wingman not only leader. Human can be just as good as AIs do. :wink: Most other requests I had in mind have already been discussed.

Soooo funny and so usefull... :|

In EECH, I noticed they vertex-colored the sea grid to make the surface blue show some hue variations making it less uniform at higher altitudes, Maybe could it be enough of a clue for distance.

The problem only appears when you modify F1 view angle in video edition mode. All angles set during the recording are correctly reproduced in replay. It seems to be linked neither to time-rate nor to FPS... Mouse view is disabled so it shouldn't be involved.

Hate to bring this back but I didn't find any other thread regarding this: When you set the cockpit-view angle in the video edition mode, you quite never have the same angle reproduced in the replay/demo modes. Quite annoying when you have a nice shoot situation in a replay... :cry:

In this cheating case, could it be possible for clients to quickly receive some kind of "weapon map (some kind of binary signature)" from server and if client's available weapons doesn't fit to this "map" it is reported or just warned and kicked? ...I mean, a way to have everyone with the same game (thus allowing a modded client to connect on a modded server if they both made the same modifications). :wink:

Could it be possible to simply simulate radar contact loss with a probability proportionnal to ground altitude when under 30m?

Two good ideas. In fact, there should also be some ground-effect for very-very-low flying ones... didn't feel it neither while landing nor while dogfighting with exhaust burning grass. Beside, I'm not for equality between missiles, they are not. Correcting some weapon behaviours is just fine as long as it brings the game closer to real situation feeling, IMHO.

Anyway, to have such HUD result, the engine has to allow additive light rendering, which is not really complicated but still requires some more code lines if it doesn't. :wink:

Ah, good example: Scary_Pigeon did it right on his JetThunder sim... this guy kicks some!

Did neither say you need a magnificient card, nor it will be in the add-on (my suggestion comes a bit late I guess). I just meant that with relatively recent Direct and GL libraries, you can display faces with additive properties (quite like flares should also be) rather than simple render with full brightness. The simple render method applies the bitmap color in replacement of pixel current one (for full opacity pixel) while the additive will combine a red background with a green additive texture to give a yellow pixel. In the first case, the green light really appears green while additive one could loose part of it teint (see its hue changed), than can be seen on the exemple I did, but after some settings on the way to render the effects (lower opacity to reduce saturation, etc...), the result is more realistic. For example, (for those who tried the game) the tear-gas smokes in RavenShield are additive alpha textures (while they shouldn't! they should be simple full bright renders): the more you have overlapping smoke faces, the more it brightens what's behind. That's what the HUD's data should work like. In Raven, the smoke should more work like current LO HUD does instead. :wink:

Hi, the realism of HUD display has been discussed on C6 forum and I just emitted a remark that concerns EVERY flight sim I played as far as I remember (Cobalt Interceptor, ZX-Spectrum). The error could have disappear on recent video cards since they now can display additive light alpha images (often used for flames etc...). It seems LO uses a full-bright alpha face to display HUD data while a real one is a light projection on a reflective support. The difference is this: (first is LO mid-bright, second is a mid-bright as it should appear if you use additive properties of GCs) From what I've seen on some pictures from guncams, the second would be far more realistic and easy to read, especially on contrasted/faded backgrounds. Keep up with this engine, it's awesome... :wink:

...not completely when it's turned +-90 degrees... :twisted: Anyway, I agree with the fact AA missiles can help "finish" a transport column of trucks and soft armored vehicles when the specific payload has been dropped on harder elements.

Ah ah ah... :lol:

I read about an Argentine puma chopper "blown down" by a VIFFing SeaHarrier. I doubt a pilot would have taken such risks instead of simply shooting it down but... why not? :?

Funny to see that most airframes we can see today are all copies of german paper prototypes from the WWII... even the (top view only) shape of the F-117 looks like a german draw of late 44 (send you a pic as soon as I find a scanner). Based on Blohm und Voss Ae603 Edit: Have a look here, you'll "recognize" some present aircraft designs... though they have only a small number of the known draws.

The original idea comes from a french inventor. He tried to sell his idea to Breguet but it was (stupidly :? ) rejected as an utopic concept. So, disappointed, he crossed the Channel and tried with BAe who accepted it. The french constructors then tried to make some VTOL aircrafts (like Gerfault) but they were all too unstable to be used further than as simple prototypes. Years later, Yak developped the 38 Forger, then the US bought parts of brit rights to make the AV-8B... but the Harrier is formerly british, on a french idea. French constructors are too suspicious with "new ideas" to take profit of them, quite like with the "monospace" vehicles inventor who had to try three constructors before one (Renault) accepted and did fortune with it, the "Espace". Openminded, that's the point. Edit: SeaHarriers were massively and successfully used during Falklands conflict against american/french warfare (Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages, Etendards,Pumas,...), I guess that's from this point the US started to look at the brit VTOL aircraft.

I guess the problem can be seen another way... how much Colt would pay for Valve to keep one of their products in the game? Since it's quite an advertisement, Colt should pay for it... same for aircraft manufacturers, car constructors,... :roll: Game developpers can EASILY just model planes of more conciliating constructors. Maybe would it even be more interesting to fly.

Thanks to Dusty Rhode's wav site, I did this replacement for <LockOn>\Sounds\Effects\CockpitSystems.wav file (4.94Mo). If someone is kind enough to make it a Loman zip, that would be great. ...and if someone can let me know where I could find russian and german radio traffic of the same kind, it would be even greater. :wink: Edit: You'll notice CockpitSystems play speed changes according to thrust and you'll have some weird voices pitching high or low, maybe mixing radio sounds with a more "stable" wav would be better.

Same problem here combined to a doubtful postal service. :x

Not really a bug but a real AI weakness: fuel consumption management seems to be really hard for it, close combat seems to mean "full after-burner" and wingmen trying to join the formation when left behind (even if not far and not so fast) use it too. A real problem on MiG-29 for example, it's practically impossible to fly reasonably far from base without having them flying back short on petrol while you still have 75%!!! The result is: you just have to avoid enemy shots long enough without using your AB to see them flee and shoot them in the back... :wink: Another example is with putting interception groups (GAI), they simply take off and fly all the way to target with full AB while military thrust at an optimal altitude would be real better... Sometimes, even with fuel tanks, they have to fly back before being able to engage. How to shoot down an excellent AI flying F-15 with a Su-25.

Depends on plane and payload.

A shoot while flaring... and an overshoot on an RTB F-15