Drakkhen

Way too low for someone who keeps flying over defenses too long, in a normal strike mission, you don't make ten passes so the number of decoys seems normal. I prefer ED keeps using the real number of ammos and decoys.

I was trying to figure out why my FPS rate was really messed up on some trips and not on others and why above some big cities, I had a better image frequency than above small industrial ones. Well, it seems the factories smoke trails are to blame. Each trail takes out more than 5fps... just imagine what remains when 5 factories are in my field of view. It's just a slide show. I tried to turn them off, but switching scenery, lowering detail levels, etc... just make the image ugly while those damn smokes keep killing the FPS. I did a search on the forum for a tip about hiding these without turning off all other effects and I don't find any. Is it possible to turn these off and if not, to link them to one of the existing switches like scenery in one of the next versions?

Is they can review the path system to have the 1attackWP/1pass we discussed earlier, it could be possible... but I understood it probably wouldn't be developped for the 1.1.

Re: Too few may notice (?)... This kind of logic makes every year's available games less interesting and with fewer variety... soon, we'll just have an RTS, an FPS with very good graphics, yes, but just air behind... or is it void? :evil: Why does CSP exists if not because of this? Game creation is NOT lucrative, just like real Cinema is NOT lucrative... Game production has its blockbusters makers and its innovators, just like Cinema has. Just don't think what is best is what sells best, it's just the opposite.

Low price is not really a problem if it doesn't come too soon: the flight sims addicts will get the full price one as soon as it gets on the market then the ones who are not usually interested but are curious enough can be tempted to have a try with it when it comes to a lower price. Here in France, it seems the price fell too soon for I've heard a guy say to the merchant "Oh? comes at 15€ in two weeks? cool... see ya soon then..." Beside, in some shops, the full price game didn't last long on counters since it was also distributed in restricted numbers.

Another strange one, with ILS this time: the glide bar is displayed too high and the alignment vertical bar sticks to the left of the HUD while the plane is perfectly in the only runway axis. Seems to happen when cycling navigation modes to nop (pathline pointing to the center of diamond/runway approach line) then ask for landing clearance: the diamond and line disappear and only the square surrounding the runway remains and the ILS goes mad. (I have the track somewhere if it can help figure out what happened exactly -PM me-. I zoomed out and in the MFD to check if it wasn't another base ILS I was tracking but there is none miles from the one I use)

Hmmm, I don't wanna rain on your parade but I've seen brighter ones in real life, particularily one night landing on Paris-Roissy airport after a durable coldand dry north wind day without a single cloud that clarified the air so much we could see almost all stars from Paris!!! Most of the time, I agree that visual range is a bit shorter but who can do more can do less, using fog for example.

Except on "New Moon" nights, if the sky is clear, you see something at night, and with eye habituation to darkness, the Moon light can be sufficient to see pretty far and pretty well. That was a problem on OFP where nights were full dark while in real world, by a "Full Moon", you can see very precise shadows of objects.

Ok, not really a bug now, merely some adjustment to do on planes balance: I was wondering why I had so much difficulties with downing an F4: while the F14 went down in 4mn, it took me 12mn and all my kero to get rid of the Phantom, so I had an F14 and the F4 face to face with guns only and the F4 ripped out the Tomcat in 2mn. I may be wrong but it seems the Phantom is too light or has to much thrust and turn rate (it took a vertical climbing at the same rate as my M29A). Another point I can understand on-line but less in solo (it lightens packets) is the fact the sight of AI planes is lined up with velocity vector (except for landing). Is there a particular reason to this?

110 degrees? :shock: If it was really a projection problem, the limit would be under 90... Maybe someone will be able to tell us why such a limitation. :)

It seems to be in BVR mode only... but since we consider a common case where a plane in the detection cone remains in antenna's mechanical limits when the tracker's upside-down, the result displayed varies on some radars according to the projection method but not the fact the radar has an echo (which remains independant of roll angle)... or I have to go back to see my old aerospace collegues to get familiar with recently developped inabilities... thanx to M$?... "critical radar error: InvertedFlight32.dll not found. Have a good crash." :shock: ...I'll stick to my shoes ...modern transports aren't safe any more. :wink:

Is it normal to loose a lock and remain unable to lock again when flying inverted? I hardly imagine a radar/IR tracking device loosing its target when its antenna's upside down... missiles wouldn't hit! :wink:

@Subs17: Nice landing... remembers me this one with a piece of MiG29. extract from this track (funny to see how the second IR missile misses my engine-out plane!!!)

Kick arse...!!! :D

Juste like EWRs... check for 1.1 improvements.

Still no R-27T? Hmmm... strange. :shock:

Count three...

Barely off topic but similar enough subject: Without necessarily adding new planes for them (recycle existing ones), could it be possible to add some more nations? I was thinking about Egypt (A-10, F-16, MiGs,...) and Iraq so it could be possible to recreate some post-YomKippur battles or Osirak raid and some others tactically interesting situations, India and Pakistan (Mrg2000, F5/F16s, MiGs,...) for pieces of scary anticipation. It's merely some textures... :wink:

Fine, cause it's a good one... a damn good one. :twisted:

:?: :!: You really have Lock On? :wink: Hmm... try to put 27T on a russian 29A. The S takes them but not the A, don't know why but it's so.

I just wanted to say I don't use padlock and restrict my [F5] use to steady situations. Why steady situations? Because I guess that's the moment I would use to look around from a cockpit. In the game, the screen resolution makes spots finding harder (sometime it's only a blinking pixel visible 20% of the time) so, it's a good way to find enemies... to bad it also shows the ones below/behind. When engaged, I use the forward-up view (with the hud at the bottom of the screen) for in the real world, a pilot won't break with the head turned 80 degrees except if he wants to also break his neck with Gs. If I loose my target, two solutions: I try to guess where it will reappear according to its last relative attitude and speed, otherwise, I go back to slight turn/steady and use F5 again. In this precise case, if F5 didn't lock below/behind, I should alternate thight turns, steady flights, attitude changes to scan the maximum possible space. Would be more realistic I guess. Anyway, in the game, even if you don't lock below/behind threats, the FOV will allow you to see more than you would. The forward-up view allows good scissors maneuvers even out of the plane (barrelled ones) while not having to care to changing view since you got your own nose sight in the bottom of the screen. Playing with FOV raising the view can show a lot, the target being in gunrange of course... IMaHO, it'll be hard to find the perfect padlock system. IL2 padlock is great regarding the loss of visual contact but neither for "finding" nor for own attitude awareness. Falcon3.0 had a better finding while weak on the two other points. The points are: - Finding new target to track - Visual contact loss (IL2 does great allowing to keep tracking a [two seconds out of sight] prey) - Allowing a good own attitude awareness Finding something that covers these three points wouldn't be perfect but a great padlock system. A fourth point would be a quick way to check missile threats when RWR shouts, since in padlock, we hear it but don't have the possibility to "turn eyes" in half a second to check the box. :? Edit: When I say "to bad it also shows the ones below/behind", I think about russian planes IR tactics in multiplayer, where the enemies can find where the threat comes from while the whole point of using IR only on modern russian planes is to bracket the target and stick to its back undetected.

Beside... the german 29A can take the awesome 27T while the russian doesn't. :wink:

I managed to do some quite realistic on OFP with a relatively simple system (the most complicated on OFP being to get fDt and orientation matrix necessary to get AOA): high speed vortex trails (~650km/h) low speed vortex trails (150km/h) The system just plays with the particle lifetime (_t in seconds) the other values are constants drop ["cl_basic","","Billboard",1,_t,[-4.06,-3.65,2.35],[0,0,0],0,1.275,1,0.1,_siz,_col,[0,1],0.2,0.2,"","",_me]with _t=AOA(deg)^2/speed(km/h) and with a minimum limit speed at 60km/h... This is not accurate, but what in OFP is? :wink: anyway, it's still a great game. Often, the most important for the gamer is more the presence of the detail than its total accuracy... differs from real simmer. :wink: The main problem is maybe the way the trail is modelised. Currently it seems to be a textured tape rather than a particle line (like flare trails do)... and what is the most visible is the cut on both ends of the trail.

Never presume of a victory on a simple stupid smoke trail clue. ...this Sukkhoi will not live long enough to remember any lesson...

In fact the reflex comes quick: when it buzzes, dive, drop some chaffs and turn music on if available... when it turns to the "bip-bip" thing, just pet the grass with the wings, if no hill to hide with, tighten turns and try some pray :cry: otherwise, look at the counter ring to know when to break.