169th_DedCat

I think you've missed the point of the question D-Scythe. We aren't talking about bleeding all your energy off in the Eagle and then wondering why you're being out turned by a Flanker. The point of the question is that people who know what they're doing can use flaps to manoeuvre the Flanker in a sustained turn well below its corner speed, better than the Eagle can at its corner speed. Yes booming an zooming in the Eagle is the proper defence against this, but what we're asking is, what's the trick to the low speed flap turn in the Flanker?

That only demonstrates how these forum polls usually work. Many of the people who participate in forum polls vote at a glance without bothering to read up on the details of what they're voting on. Most people really only see: "Want a new aircraft?" So they answer "YES PLEASE!" Forum polls are good for getting an idea of what the general consensus of readers is, but they should never be relied on as being representative of the whole.

There is still a very active torrent for the 1.1 demo as well. There are about 29 seeds or so right now, so it looks like a lot of people are being kind and keeping their transfer open after they're complete. I've shared/seeded about 2.62 GB worth since yesterday. Click here for the BitTorrent tracker file: http://alluvion.org/download.php?info_hash=07077cddb6617b2f1ee043e7487ce74480776557

I haven't experienced that one. Just an idea and a shot in the dark. Are you guys using some kind of joystick profiling software? I use the Saitek control centre for my X45, and if I don't clear out the default commands LOMAC assigns to my stick in the actual game input menu, they often conflict, and do weird things sorta like what you describe. I could be completely off the mark in your case.

I fly LOMAC for the multiplayer experience, and I don't see the Ka-50 bringing anything wonderful to that arena... unless it was a big chopper coop--which doesn't really interest me either. I would much rather see ED invest their efforts in improving many of the aspects of the current game. Some ideas come to mind, but I won't go into detail as they've all been discussed in this forum already... A dedicated server with plenty of tools. Really, really solid net code. ;) AFM for all aircraft. Improved navigation aids, such as a manually adjustable CDI needle. A fully clickable cockpit. Improved SAM behaviour and logic (e.g. realistic detection-to-launch times). Improved avionic and radar detail (e.g. all the F-15 TWS modes, realistic STT acquisition delays for all aircraft, contacts that don't magically update their aspect/position on the HDD until they're swept with a fresh radar beam, an AWACS that has realistic detection limits, AWACS Dolly link for the F-15 radar). Improved tower AI and things like working glide slope lights. A pitching carrier deck. A flyable F/A-18 Hornet (ya right!). A 3D mission editor. Just some passing thoughts... I'm sure ED has had plenty of good ideas of their own and will ignore all of my own. :lol: I just hope they don't waste ALL of their time on eye candy. IMHO I think the game looks as good as it needs to. LOMAC is already the best looking modern flight-sim out there, however there are plenty of other areas in which it could stand a good deal of improvement.

I've noticed a couple minor ones so far... The frame rate counter does not work even though it is listed in the key commands as Ctrl-Backspace. The Ctrl-F5 view lists all ground objects in the title bar as whatever aircraft you are flying. The bomb release mode in the A-10 seems to default to single release for your first drop after you've RCVRed no matter what you have the dial set to. i.e. I've ejected, RCVRed, set the dial to ripple pairs and the quantity to 4, push the pickle button, and only one bomb comes off the rails. Subsequent drops seem to work properly.

Here's a link to the current BitTorrent tracker for the demo... it came in a lot quicker than any of the HTTP mirrors I tried. http://alluvion.org/download.php?info_hash=07077cddb6617b2f1ee043e7487ce74480776557

I recommend you try eBay. I recently came into possession of a TrackIR 1 thanks to my squad mate and good friend Cougar, and I have absolutely no complaints about its performance. The TR2 and TR3 are supposed to have a higher sensor resolution, but honestly I can't imagine head movement being much smother than it is with my TR1--you practically need to give yourself whiplash to outrun the sensor FPS. Unless you plan to upgrade to the vector expansion software, try finding an old cheap TR1 or TR2 on eBay to save some dough.

That simply isn't true. Other older sims have modeled this kind of detail with less than 1/4 the CPU processing power. Modeling nearly-true-to-life system detail and tactics may require some good coding, but it isn't nearly as demanding on the CPU as say the physical and graphic environments. It's main demand is on game production time.

Rgr that. Thanks guys. Been a long time since I flown the Eagle, I just assumed it wasn't there without actually checking first. :oops:

Just clarification GGTharos. :) By your first statement I wasn't sure if you were simply stating the ASL wasn't intuitive for you, or claiming you had a referenced reason to believe the ASL doesn't exist in the A-10. The ASL doesn't require any system the A-10 does not have. It's just aeronautics. In fact if it can do what ED has modeled, it can do the ASL. It is mealy a matter of depicted symbology. A vertical line instead of a dot for azimuth for reference, and a steady release cue that intercepts your VV rather than a wandering dot that accelerates or decelerates depending on your G load and angle of pitch.

Clarify your statement GGTharos. Isn't what? Isn't intuitive? Isn't reflected? What is your source? Besides ED that is. Lining up a tiny falling dot with a centred HUD line takes more effort and is less accurate than simply placing your VV on a line in space that represents the required bomb fall path to strike your designated target. The ASL also provides a much more intuitive judgement on when your bombs will be released, as represented by the distance between the falling bomb release cue and wherever you choose to place your VV along the ASL.

No it doesn't. The above examples feature the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, but the U.S. tends to keep symbology highly consistent between their aircraft. Pretty well every other feature of the HUD in the above attack aircraft is mirrored in the A-10. I am quite willing to accept that auto bombing mode (CCRP) is mirrored as well. ED only added auto bombing mode (CCRP) to the A-10 in the 1.02 patch, and I suspect not a lot of effort went into making sure it was modeled correctly since it is such a non-intuitive system to use in LOMAC. Having an ASL which you place the VV on until the release cue passes through it makes heaps more sense than trying to line up a moving tiny dot with a centre-fixed bomb fall line. Simply arguing that it's probably correct because, well, ED knows better than we do, doesn't hold much water. This wouldn't be the only system, both pre- and post-patch, that has been shown to fall short of being accurate.

I doubt it is much different from what it outlined above, if it is different at all. I very much doubt it is anything at all like ED has modeled in LOMAC. It seems like a hastily put together guess more than anything.

No TTA you say? Well then the Eagle should have it anyway. Know anywhere to get figures for max range intercept-times for various altitudes and aspects of the R-27ER then?

If this has already been mentioned in this enormous thread, just ignore me. I would really like to see time-to-intercept (TTI) and time-to-active (TTA) countdown cues on the F-15 and Russian HUDs when employing AIMs.

I think all of the above games modeled TPULL loft HUD cues, except for maybe Hornet Korea. Typically it is displayed under/above the TREL countdown cue when loft mode is active, with some sort of flashing "PULL" cue appearing on the lower HUD when the TPULL time is up. This would be great in the Russian birds too. I've got the loft attack down pretty well in the Su-33, but having to estimate TPULL yourself can be tricky depending on your varying speed, distance to target, and altitude. Pulling to early makes you trash your bomb release point, pulling too late makes it hard to unload to 1 G before the release point.

What would be even cooler would be if a loft CCRP mode was modeled, with a correctly calculated time-to-pull (TPULL) countdown displayed on the HUD, but that is probably asking a lot.

Okay so I wasn't able to find that photo of the remote-operated helo getting smacked by a tank HEAT round--which is too bad because it was really cool--but I was able to find this info:

Here are some scans from past game manuals. Sorry for the copyright infringements, but none of these developers produce flight-sims anymore anyway. :? What I was referring to the bomb fall line above is correctly referred to as the azimuth steering line (ASL) in all of the following examples. From Hornet Korea: From Jane's F-15 (probably the best example as it shows the ASL off-centre in the HUD and demonstrates how you must place the VV over the ASL): From Jane's F/A-18: From Falcon 4.0: Sorry for all the pics dial-up dudes, but they are highly compressed.

Anyone else find the CCRP bombing mode HUD symbology in the A-10 confusing? I understand how it is supposed to work in the game, but lining up that little dot with a HUD-centred bomb fall line seems like the reverse of how it should be. Every other U.S. jet sim I've flown places the CCRP bomb fall line over the designated CCRP drop point, and then you line up the flight-path marker (velocity vector) with the bomb fall line, until a descending bomb release cue line (a horizontal line descending the bomb fall line) reaches the flight-path maker. This symbology configuration makes it a lot easier to line up your CCRP drop or loft than what we have in LOMAC. In case my description confuses anyone, I'll post some links to JPEGs of what this looks like a little later...

Decoys and SAM operators entering a silence mode, or just shutting down, when they detect they're under SEAD attack would be a fantastic addition. Right now ARMs are too much of a magic bullet. If you have Kh-25MPs on your Frog, the moment you're lit up by a medium or short range radar, that SAM operator is as good as dead. Jane's FA-18 & F-15 didn't have the decoys, but SAMs did shutdown down when they discovered they were under attack. ARMs would still try to strike their target when the radar beam disappeared, but their pk was greatly reduced. I wouldn't doubt that some of the more advanced ground based radars would be able to at least detect the huge Doppler shift created by a very fast moving ARM heading directly for it. I'd also like to see things like SAMs strobing on and off to confuse RWRs, SAM traps (i.e. SAMs waiting to fire on a target until they're surrounded), and SAMs waiting until targets are within their no escape zone, depending on the situation, before lighting them up continuously. Realistic time between detection and launch would be really sweet too, because, as I mentioned in another post, it is unrealistically fast (see: AI of Ground Units Discussion). Like I said in that other post... have a look through the Falcon 4.0 manual to see some of the tricky tactics that can be employed by SAM operators (I'm sure there are much better reference guides out there too). None of this is modeled in LOMAC. ARMs never miss in LOMAC.

Personally, out of all the AI ground units, I think the SAMs need the most work. You pop-up out of terrain in range of a Hawk, and 0.5 of a second later it has a missile inbound for you. IRL several things have to happen first. The search radar has to detect you, then the tracking radar has to actually pin-point locate you, then a missile battery has to be assigned to target you, then fire. The ex-instructor from the USAF I spoke to about this suggests it could take 40 seconds or more for all this to happen before a missile is inbound for you, even if you are well within range at the initial detection point. In LOMAC it is instant (IRL you can't engage a STT instantly either, from the ground or in an aircraft, but that's another issue entirely). You get the same sort of thing with AI aircraft on occasion. On more than one occasion I've pop-up out of the terrain in front of an AI Su-33 to observe that he had somehow known I was about to clear the terrain and had ALREADY fired an R-73 at me (maybe they were using F5 :lol:). There is a lot more depth to SAM/AAA operations than is modeled in LOMAC. Just have a read through the Falcon 4.0 manual to see some of the tactics that are used in real life. Flashing radars on and off to confuse RWRs, waiting until aircraft are within the no-escape zone before tracking or attacking aircraft, turning radars off when a SEAD strike it detected, etc. The SAMs in LOAMC are lacking any of this. Currently it's like they follow a very simple rule such that: radar on = true && if (jet <= SAM range), then fire.

This option is handy if say you wanted to approach a specific waypoint from due south, but you are in a position south-east of it. You could set the CDI to course 360 for that waypoint, and then fly roughly west until the bearing needle lined up with the CDI on course 360 for that waypoint. This is a very simple example, but the obvious advantage is not having to actively remember the exact bearing to course to turn into your waypoint on during your flight, as the CDI will do it for you.

How about fixing it? Right now the HSI stops updating correct information, like distance to waypoint, when you are in A/A / BVR mode. This is a pretty big bug for those of us who use it to communicate locations to others in our flight.