britgliderpilot

The F-Pole is the maximising of your own missile range before launch (by flying high and fast), and the subsequent minimising of your enemy's launch range (once your missile is in the air) by slowing down and turning away. It's the name of the tactic. You bank into the AMRAAM to ensure that you're moving in another dimension, makes it harder still for it to follow you. And if you're up against 10 F-16s . . . . you Just Can't Win. Run Away :P

You should be able to defeat the AIM-7 BVR through use of the F-Pole - you have a range advantage if you're flying high enough and fast enough. Fly in high and fast, fire, turn away and slow down . . . . if possible descend below your target so he can't notch you . . . . and that should be it, he should be dead. The reason for going slowly is so you travel into his missile envelope at lower speeds - if your initial kinetic advantage is great enough, this approach means he may never even get a shot off ;) However, if he's already launched then you're probably better off dragging the missile - continue out to the side of the engagement, still at high speed, keeping the radar within gimbal limits. You'll maintain your lock and your missile will keep homing - however, your enemy's missile won't have the energy to chase you down. Try and fire first - the AI will go defensive, lose lock, and lose their missile. Your first shot might not miss, but a second shot fired shortly afterwards can arrive as he's wallowing from evading the first and he can't evade that. As regards evading the AMRAAM, the basic principle is to have as much speed as possible, put the missile at right angles to you, and then to watch the RWR carefully. When the missile goes active, the signal strength indicator will begin climbing rapidly - when it reaches 2-3 bars from max strength, pull up and bank into the missile. You can pop chaff if you like, but if you're going fast enough the missile just won't be able to follow you. If your wingman is keeping the enemy occupied then that helps, if you know where the second enemy is then that helps as well . . . . otherwise you're down to the oh-shit-light-the-burners-dive-figure-out-where-the-missile-is-dodge-go-find-the-baddie-with-schlem-and-R73 routine. This isn't really technical help, btw - it's tactics ;) Oh - and practice, practice, practice :)

I stand corrected :)

Lomac is still a single-threaded program, and is likely to remain so just because of the immense amounts of work that would be required to go through the code changing it to run as multiple threads. As such (unless there's something clever I'm unaware of), unless your dual-core chip can split a single thread between it's two cores, you still won't see much of an improvement - sorry. One suggested improvement is to set all your system threads to run on one CPU and run ONLY Lomac on the other - use all the performance you can on it :) Regarding SLI . . . . . suggest you have a browse in the tech forum, will probably be able to answer that better. Last I heard, it was working pretty well and did provide a boost - however, Lomac is still pretty much CPU limited at the top end. Regardless of whether Lomac can make the most of your hardware, you've now got the hardware that will make the most of Lomac ;) And you got it for free . . . . .

In someone's service, yep. I believe the Indian Su30s do, and the Russians are upgrading their Su27s to more complex avionics (while keeping the same airframe) which will allow multiple-target engagement. However, that's only just happening now. Regarding the Su35 as a combat aircraft . . . . well, it's a tricky point. I think what Pilotasso means is that there was no fixed spec for a combat-capable fighter for series production - the Su35 as displayed and publicised was effectively a tech demonstrator.

Isn't one of the simplest defences against visually laid (or even laser-guided) weapons just a smoke screen?

No ;) The set of aircraft range both sides of that date - aircraft like the Ka50, Su25T and Su34 haven't fully entered service in real life even today. Similarly, some aircraft in Lomac have been retired for some time. However, where aircraft are modelled that are fighting against one another, they usually are modelled at the same age - the F-15C, Su27, and A10 are all at late-eighties, early-nineties spec. It really is a fictional timeframe :P

Hmmn. Would require separating the weapons systems, allowing the computer to have two locks at the same time from different sensors. If the EOS is designed to pick up a lock that the radar loses . . . . I'd presume they're slaved together at the moment. I don't believe the real aircraft could cope with it, but I can't be certain - can only speculate about the design decisions that would have led to it. Think it requires someone who can read the Russian manual to have a look ;)

From what I hear, the multiple-target engagement on the MiG29C was as a result of the ARH missile capability rather than modifications to the weapons system. The MiG29C in Lomac CAN have two missiles in the air simultaneously if you break lock, re-lock, and then fire the second after the first has gone active . . . . some report that that's the way the real thing works. Alfa should have more accurate details on that. As regards use of the helmet-mounted sight separately to the radar . . . . don't know. I'd suggest that if you're firing WVR missiles (which effectively the -ET is) at the same time as BVR missiles, you're in trouble anyway . . . . grin. And when the Flanker was conceived surely it was supposed to be built in numbers?

Accuracy will always be a relative term in a flight sim - for reasons that should be obvious. Should it have been better . . . . . hmmn. I guess that depends on how you define "better". May seem like splitting hairs, but it seems to me that Lomac was in very nearly every respect a step forward from Flanker. Some may argue they concentrated in the wrong places - this is going to be the graphics/simulation argument All Over Again . . . . . Some may argue they should have spent more time and money developing key features - something that wasn't up to ED. Yeah, I would have liked more. I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't. The possibility of getting more revolves around ED's competency and how well they're supported financially in getting there. Shrug.

. . . . but which failed to show understanding of the commercial realities. The vision of the perfect flightsim is something a lot of us share, and it isn't Lomac - but you have to realise that "The Perfect Flightsim" isn't something that is necessarily the goal of everyone. Falcon 4 is damn good, certainly - but remember that IT BANKRUPTED the people who made it, and release it just didn't work. Losing your livelihood in search of the ultimate is a daft way to do things. Feel free to disagree with me when I say that ED want to create the perfect sim as much as we want to see it, but I do believe that - the difference is that whereas we can just describe a feature we want to see, they have to spend the time to figure out how to do it, program it, test it, fix it, and most important of all, PAY for all the time that this takes. I've seen the estimated figure for the cost of adding a new aircraft to a detailed level - search hard enough and you can find it as well. It'll put the cost of development into perspective. Lomac's far from perfect. You can either complain, leave, or maintain hope and put up the funds for continued development while enjoying what you can. Because after all . . . . who else is there at the moment?

A quote that is rolled out often but heeded far too little: I don't believe that modern technology - in any of it's forms - will ever completely remove the need for close combat. Taking the gun out of the British Typhoon to save money is, IMO, a foolish mistake - I guess only time will tell how that turns out. In the end, though, the aircraft was designed for a gun. The space is still there for it (currently filled with concrete ballast), I presume it hasn't been removed from the weapons computer, and it should be possible to obtain the weapons if someone in a position of power decides it's a good idea. So it's not as bad as it could have been ;)

. . . . . and that's about it. Regardless of what we'd all like, we have to pay attention to commercial realities. Whatever your personal wishlist is, ED have to follow the course of action which will keep them in business. Black Shark is going to be a spectacularly accurate simulation of the Ka50 - it's going to be the best helicopter simulation I've ever heard of by some margin. Regardless of how much of a fighter buff you are, it is going to be WELL worth a look - should be less of a step for the mudmovers and very well received on that front, I'll be amazed if the 504th don't accept the Ka50 with open arms . . . . . Yes, there are things that should be improved for Lomac on the fast-jet air combat front. No, it isn't perfect. Yes, a dynamic campaign would make things better. Two points here: 1. Someone's got to PAY for all this, up-front, before development begins. 2. You're all here, so presumably it's not bad enough to drive you away entirely ;)

I arrived on the scene at Flanker 2.5, so I missed the days of Su27 Flanker . . . . remember 2.0 and 2.5 with fondness and STILL regret not buying the boxed set of Su27 Flanker Commander's Edition for £4.99 when I found it . . . . Sometimes I miss the days when we actually used Flanker for pure fun. Challenges, Low Bridge Club, 1v1 S300 Gunzo . . . . . Anyone else think we need a Challenge forum? ;) Oh, and I can slalom in and out of every single one of those bridge supports . . . . . . . . . in a Ka50 . . . .

Not that I've noticed. Would be interesting to see, though, might go do some back-to-back tests . . . . All that's really noticable is the English/Imperial HUD and the lack of bombs/rockets.

I don't know the details of speedtree, but if it requires more CPU cycles to run than the normal trees then I'm all for waiting until the system specs catch up! I wouldn't worry about low level detail, it's fine as is :) Watch the Black Helicopters vid for demonstration of more combat in BS - 'tis a good piece of movie-making.

The F1's about average size for a fighter - the Flanker is enormous ;) The model's looking good, I like it!

The hero worship is strong in this thread! :D

That's probably because the MiG radar and weapons are identical to the Su27 radar and weapons ;)

Hardcoded, I'm afraid . . . . . sorry.

Yes, it's buried deep within the .exe file and as such is not modifiable by the community - only Eagle Dynamics. IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. You RC = You Recall Correctly.

AFAIK it is indeed green in real life, yes. It could be nostalgia hard at work - Flanker 2 had a yellow HUD for the flyable aircraft, but for what reason I'm not entirely sure.

You do indeed RC.

Or it's a HumanCockpit="yes", which is arguably even less accurate.