VapoR

Dumb question, but did you hit F12 to center the view?

Not exactly . . . Each time you fire a weapon and that weapon misses, an assigned number of points would be deducted from your online score. I think the points given for kills would need to increased to balance this, else everyone will be running around with a negative score . . . :D

The diamond on an unmoving target is not bad, think of it this way: the coordinates of the object would be entered into the flight computer and thus the diamond at that spot.

Whoa there, cowboy!! Who's whining about spamming? The example I posted was the first thing I thought of. Having a point value would affect many other things as well, think about it--if it costs you more points for wasting a high value weapon, you might even carry something "cheaper". Like not using FAB-500's when a FAB-250 will do the job well enough. Or using Sparrows instead of just all AMRAAMs.

Ooops!!! I meant blue on red!!!

These are some ideas I've thought of for the scoring system that I think would encourage teamplay and add to the fun of online playing: *A total score for both coalitions (all points scored or lost on that coalition would add here). *AI controlled units (both air and ground) would add their kill points to the total for that coalition. For instance: a blue SAM shoots down a red player, blue side gets those points added to the total. Ground vehicles killing each other would affect this as well. *Plane losses from crashing would deduct from the coalition total . *Ordinance that is fired (or jettisoned) that doesn't hit any targets should take some points from that player (this would help prevent spamming missiles). Different weapons could have different point costs depending on the value of the weapon. *Buildings!! Buildings that are assigned as mission targets in the editor should have a score. So if you are tasked with attacking a bridge or one of the placeable ammo depots you will get points for it. Any buildings that ARE NOT assigned as targets should be considered civilian and given a penalty if destroyed. Anyone like these ideas or have anything to add to it?

I don't think so, they even have a pic of this: http://www.thebattlesim.com/img/about_game/pic16.jpg

YES YES YES YES!!!!!!11!!ONE1!!! Jaguar rocks!!

LMAO!!

Any chance of getting the amphibious vehicles in the game to be able to travel on water for 1.2? It would be very cool if they could cross rivers, lakes and the Black Sea. I envision a mission in particular where amphibious vehicles would make a crossing of the Kerch Straights and you would have to destroy them as they cross. I guess this would be a bit difficult to code, plus there would be some graphic effects to deal with. The vehicles would have to be sitting lower in the water, plus there would need to be small wakes behind them while in motion.

The dual-S25 racks are pretty cool, but this argument about the Su-33 using them is not!! The real question here is: do the Su-25 and Su25T have the capability to carry these IRL? Also the MiG-29 would also be a better choice than the 33, since it would be much more likely to be used for a2g (this is also assuming that the MiG can carry them).

Russia makes the most sense to me. It would be much better for mission design (and especially a potential DC) to have the map more of a square shape. There are a few more airfields that could maybe be added in the Russian area too--Korenovsk, Primorsko, Armivir. Check out the Order of Battle on this site: http://www.scramble.nl/ru.htm

Agreed. That's why I try to find a nice balance.

We run mixed a2a/a2g missions on the 504 server and I am one of the mission designers. From our perspective, I think what we have done so far is really just testing the boundaries of what can and can't be done with this sim in multiplayer. It's been a bit bumpy at times, but we are learning. I have many ideas that I want to try out that will basically incorporate all we've discovered for the best mix of action, realism, immersion and all that good stuff. I have put these ideas on the backburner though until 1.11 is released, as usually there are problems with missions built on different versions. Hopefully these new ideas will be more like what you guys are looking for.

For me, 15 to 25 fps is smooth in Lomac. Other games I've played would be worthless under about 40, but not so with this one. It's only really bad when it drops into the single digits . . .

Not possible? Currently a clickable pit itself is not possible with the current engine, but they going to add the functionality for it. So it seems they could add your idea, which I personally find very creative!!! Easily solves the problem that English-speakers will have with knowing which switch does what.

Something funny just occured to me: I was thinking of how poorly translated the title for 1.1 came out and was thinking how Black Shark sounds much better. Then I thought about how we abbreviate 1.1 as FC--well 1.2 will be BS, which is once again leaving a wide open invitation for abuse!! :D

Not true. Check out the VVS504 Server. The missions in it have 24 clients and over a hundred units. Of course, it's not always perfect but most of the time it will run just fine.

I think that is the default graphics settings, like for when you hit the default button.

Unfortunately the lag IS an issue. With mission designs like what is on the 504 server there are alot of objects and alot of stuff happening at once. But when it is running smoothly, it's great immersion and tons of fun!! I think the 1.11 patch will help alot for missions of this type, they seem to be putting emphasis into network stability.

From the docs folder in your lomac directory.

Vacuum tubes are still the #1 choice in guitar amplifiers!! My Ampeg head has 2 power tubes, 4 preamp tubes, a reverb driver tube, and a phase inverter tube . . . But that is a bit funny that they were used in 80's era Russian aircraft.

Probably will need some new chapters for 1.2 though . . . :D

They may be working on improving the mission editor to a point that it will be much more interesting than it currently is. F/A-18 didn't have a DC from what I understand, but the mission editor with its triggers and such apparently made it compelling enough. And regardless, they may be considering a DC for the successor.

Looks great! Can't wait to give that one a spin (pardon the pun!) As far as the translation of Flaming Cliffs goes, I heard that "Flaming" or "Hot" was supposed to mean more like a tense conflict situation. As in: "The LZ is hot". Something like that. Still translates very poor though!! Everyone I try to tell about the game just laughs at the name. Black Shark sounds infinetely better, but since it will still have all the planes we know and love already I think it will be a kinda wierd name. For example: "I'm leaving work now, going home to fly some Black Shark!" :D Sounds funny if you really intend to fly an F-15 lol.