169th_DedCat
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 169th_DedCat
-
-
I am experiencing this same or a similarly frustrating problem.
I have a Saitek X45 and I have been using the Rotary 1 on the throttle for the zoom view pretty well since the dawn of LOMAC without error. Now any time I fly the Su-33 things get FUBAR.
I can fly any other get in LOMAC 1.12A without trouble, but the moment I fly the Su-33 the joystick axis gets shifted forward... i.e. the neutral position becomes the near fully zoomed position. Rotating back the view will zoom fully out and then zoom partway back in by the time the rotator is moved to the full back position. At all times the view is intolerably spiky.
When I quit the game and check the joystick control panel the error is now reflected in the joystick calibration and I generally need to reinstall the stick to fix the error.
This problem ONLY occurs after flying the Su-33 in LOMAC 1.12A. I can fly the Su-27 or any other jet to my hearts content without any sign of this bug, so long as I haven't flown the Su-33 beforehand. The moment I fly the Su-33 things are FUBAR until I reinstall the stick or move it to another USB port.
I am using the Web version of LOMAC: Flaming Cliffs. I am not using cam2pan or anyother such software. I am using TrackIR and have been since well before 1.1.
-
Thanks for that worthless reply chennuts.
The default connection speed not only causes problems for faster servers and clients, but most new players don't even realize that it causes a problem, or that they have the option of changing it to something much more stable until someone else guides them through it online.
The real responsibility is to the developer to either make the the option clearly accessible to the user when he enters a multiplayer game, or to predict appropriately the best speed for that particular user.
33.6 is not an appropriate connection speed for fast connections--it causes stability problems, it's proven--changing your default connection speed involves hunting through furtive submenus and dropping your connection to the server and then starting it back up again. Any sense of responsiblity to be forced through all this rigamarole is lost on the average newbie, they just want to get in the air and shoot some real people. A lot of regulars no doubt forget to reset it on occasion after a reinstall.
Changing the default speed should be either obvious to the user, or else it should be something simple for the developers to fix in only one language version of the patch.
-
1
-
-
Great community - I ask for proof showing missile effectiveness is wrong at default and I'm told to stay away?
I never whined at all.
You need to review the tone of what you've said. You're just plain rude.
You demand charts and referenced research in order to validate an opinion and judge a server worthy of your presence? Get over yourself. :D
-
Stating a reason based on 'personal experience' rather than showing facts, charts, etc... is poor taste. You show me the numbers and prove it, then it is 'correct' - until then I might as well play Crimson Skies on these servers.
Do us a favour and don't play at all. The last thing HL needs is another self-declared expert demanding attention.
The servers you find in HL are generally financed by the hosts out of their very own pocket, and are provided to you purely out of generosity. Contrary to what your predictable tone continues to suggest, they don't owe you a thing buddy. ;)
Play or don't play, you choose... just save us all from your whining.
-
But so all SARH missiles are like the FLOOD mode of AIM-7?
After the launched R-40T catch its target with IR seeker,you may fire R-40R.
Flood mode is a little different. In Flood mode there is no STT, all the launching aircraft's radar energy is simply directed straight forward, and whatever has the tastiest radar reflection within that forward field of view is what the missile will chase after.
All SARH missiles compute their own intercept--it would be a lot more difficult for the aircraft to do all the work as it would have to know precisely where the target and the missile is in relation to itself the whole time the missile is in the air. SARH missiles actually only rely on the aircraft's transmitting radar to light up the target and then use those reflections to compute their own intercept. The aircraft doesn't have to do anything other than keep the target illuminated for the missile to find. SARH = Semi-Active Radar Homing, meaning there is a radar dish in the missile seeker cone actively receiving radar reflections, it simply lacks its own radar transmitter.
Some modern SARH missiles apparently do use command guidance in the initial stage of a long flight, but they all do their own work for the intercept. Even in this case, I think it would be a simple matter to have more than one in flight at the same time.
-
I fly around with it on most of the time because it denies range info to my opponent ...
And broadcasts your position to everyone on the map. :D
-
I read your post just fine. As I said, it's a very poor substitute for actually having a true flyable F/A-18C.
-
It should be fixed. Watching someone do slow predictable laps around an airfield while a Gepard fires a constant stream of tracers way behind him the whole way really irks me.
-
In flaming cliffs you can fly every aircraft
Sure, you can edit the LUA and fly the 3D frame around, but you're not actually flying a Hornet. It's a very poor substitute for actually having a true flyable F/A-18C.
-
Where can we find this mod?
It's not a mod, that's just the way the AI Hornet looks in LOMAC. It's a shame you can't fly it. :(
-
It seems to me that the AAA systems in LOMAC should be a little better at aiming than they are. Even the more advanced Gepard and Tunguska have as much a hard a time as the Shilka and Vulcan in hitting anything that isn't in level flight and heading directly away or towards it. Shouldn't these systems be able to compute for beaming targets or targets in subtle predictable banks at very close ranges?
-
-
Holding short and looking both ways is a good way to avoid take-off and landing crashes too. Having an intelligent ATC would be nice, but it isn't that big a deal.
IMHO what needs to be implemented the most is line of sight, range, and update limitations to the datalink (and of course no more detecting parked or taxiing aircraft). I think it is silly the way the datalink displays every twitch and turn a contact makes in real-time. The real update period for a EWR datalink would be closer to 10 seconds. I don't know what rate the Russian Mainstay can detect contacts and provide datalink updates, but I'm sure isn't real-time either. I almost never use either in my missions, because it seems kind of arcade-ish as it is now.
As far as the NATO datalink not fitting the general LOMAC time period, there are plenty of other aspects of the current game that are too modern to fit the assumed time period (the R-77 Adder for one). Implementing the NATO datalink would compensate for the god-awful AWACS coms logic. One, or both, should be fixed.
-
...realistic radar behaviour with terrain masking etc. would likely require a completely new algorithm based on raytracing. This is difficult to develop and would be CPU intensive
I agree that this kind of radar modeling would be time consuming to design, but JF/A-18 pulled it off years ago, and CPUs were quite a bit slower back then.
I'm sure many of the real-world limitations of these systems could be modeled well without having to totally redesign the EW theatre.
-
Bump...
I'd love to see realistic refresh rate, range, and line of sight limitations implemented for the AWACS and EWR datalinks in any upcoming patches or upgrades.
-
Those ETs can be nasty ... I normally fire, turn and run dumping chaff
Chaff isn't any use against a R-27ET at all; it's an IRH missile.
-
Hehe... I went 11 to 0 in that server that night before I finally let my guard down and caught an R-27ET in the face.
There's nothing wrong with the Eagle, too many people just want the missiles to do all the work for them. My 4 AIM-120s and 4 AIM-7s worked well enough for me that game.
-
Check out the fine detail on this beauty. Someone in ED wanted the Hornet to be flown. :)
F/A-18C Hornet screenshots c/o 169th_Mustang.
-
Actually, I'd rather have a 3rd coalition all together; as
Yes, it would be better if there were three, but it's not a real option for the moment. So long as there isn't open war in CAW between Russia and NATO, it makes sense to have them on one side, and the ULM on the other.
-
Ya thanks for hosting it JaBoG32. Your server ran very smooth once we got over the initial disconnect issues.
S!
-
The FF incident was the fault of the pilot who was shot down. He was flying in an avenue and at an altitude he wasn't supposed to be in. He didn't respond to interrogation, and oh... he was drunk. The enemy fighters were strangely using the same IFF frequencies as us, so it was bound to happen.
-
Great to hear it's at least being looked into. I know it has been mentioned a few times before (I've mentioned it a few times before :rolleyes: ), but I haven't heard anything about it for a while--this seemed like a good time.
-
Any chance of this being addressed in the upcoming patch for 1.1? Having to rely on NCTR alone in STT makes using the AACQ modes in the Eagle a real pain in any mission where the same aircraft are on both sides.
From what I understand from my past sim experience, the PDT or STT contact should "mipple" or flash between a star and a circle on the radar when you have a friendly locked. I'm sure there should be some indication of a friendly IFF squak displayed on the HUD too. We have STT IFF in all the Russian birds, but not the Eagle.
-
I'm sorry I didn't specify clear enough. When I said 20-30KM from each other I meant units (with one radar and eight launchers per unit). The launchers can be 1-2 KM apart from the radar.
Cool, thanks... I was a bit confused on that part.
view problem with v 1.12
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
Similar problem here... but only if I fly the Su-33, afterwards the bug applies to everything.
http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=189151&postcount=59