D-Scythe

Those capitalist vampires up to no good again eh? To be so arrogant to send their jet fighters to intercept our glorious Bear bombers approaching their airspace. How dare they! No matter, soon, a revitalized Russia will crush the western devils with our heaven-sent military, like a bear trapping a helpless rabbit under its powerful paw. For the restoration of Russia to its rightful place on top of capitalist scum - long live the Motherland! Go out and do something fun, Hadjuk. Toss back a beer or two. I have a feeling you sit in front of your computer too much for your own good.

Nice. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed that.

Actually, I'd prefer if the environment was more like Ace Combat 6. Loved the whole environment - the sky marred with contrails and explosions, the constant AAA, abundant radio chatter...Not flight sim material at all, but there are things ED can definitely take note of in terms of generating the atmosphere of an actual battlefield. Sterility can be a major buzzkill. In fact, the whole single-player aspect in Lock On replicates a series of training scenarios at best, IMO. The sense that you're alone in the Lock On world, as the only sentient being, is overwhelming. On the other hand, the sense of being on a battlefield is done very, very well in AC 6, from what the trailer and released game footage indicate so far.

Is the AI set on "Precision Strike" or some other A/G mode? Also, try going to the menu on the bottom right and set the AI to "Attack with Missiles."

Yes, that's very nice. Any more pics of bushes and shrubbery?

Wow, never thought I'd see the day where a couple pages are dedicated on discussing how stupid it is of the Soviets for developing lots of missiles...on a thread that was SUPPOSED to be about the R-27EM no less...Honestly, who cares? Missile development is missile development...so what if they turn out more missiles just to confuse us simpletons? Do people question Roger Federer's pre-game before Wimbledon? No. Should a F-16 pilot b!tch about why there are so many different Russian missiles when he's getting shot at? No. In the end, all missiles go "boom" - you think the the guy on the receiving end is gonna care? Really? Yeah, I can just picture it now, the final thoughts of a pilot trapped in his cockpit as his bird goes down in flames is "Thank god for the Americans and their uncomplicated missile programs, it was probably an AIM-9," or even better, "Noooo, now I can never rest in peace because that missile could've been an R-77, or a -27ER, or a plain -27, or a R-40, oh the horror of never finding out!" Honestly, the next topic of discussion would probably be someone complaining about how pissed off he is cause he saw someone use too much toilet paper wiping his ass. Come on, these guys build missiles for a living - if they keep popping out new missile products, that are ALL being bought, who (as a civilian) even have a right to question the thinking behind their decisions?

Actually, an ARH missile has the added benefit in that it doesn't have use inverse processing of doppler shift from a bistatic transmitter/receiver set. On the other hand, ARH missiles are monostatic, and can process doppler shift info as is. Anyone miss Swingkid? He'd probably be calling me on my b/s right now.

Just an idea, but I'm pretty sure FF didn't mean for people to take that *literally*.

Well, in my defense, SUBS17 was talking about static cigarette packs. I'm saying that such a static target on a firing range would be a joke for a sniper at 500 m, and would probably be a more challenging target for the designated marksman with his ACOG scope and M4/16.

Um, you sorta proved my point - what you quoted states that only special individuals are exempt from the "keep both eyes open" rule. Anyway, we're arguing over details here - I think it can be agreed on that in the majority of cases the practice is to keep both eyes open.

Five hundred metres is child's play for a fully trained sniper - those guys can place a bullet through your eye at far greater ranges. You might be thinking of a designated marksmen, perhaps? The effective range of a soldier trained with ironsights is at least 300 m - therefore, it's not inconceivable that someone with a good scope (like ACOG) can put a bullet through a cigarette pack at 500 m, especially in the rather benign conditions of a shooting range (no cover, high contrast target, range known). Though obviously it would still be rather difficult, and would require a good marksman. Though SUBS17 point still stands, from what I've been told. Don't know about snipers (I'm sure each has their own unique way of shooting), but soldiers looking through scopes/iron sights do shoot with both eyes open, with your brain "focusing" on the master image generated by the eye looking through the scope.

Fine, be pedantic. The fact is, nobody have accomplished the implementation of thermals yet, in years, despite some people maintaining that it can be done with (heavy) scripting. Interesting video.

The question isn't a matter of how it' can be done, but more a matter of has anyone done it yet in the 7-8 years the OFP engine has been around? You can go ask this in the BI forums and prove me right ;)

Nope. If it could be done, it would've been done already. The only way thermals are making it into this game is if BI implements it as hard code. Then that would be a misunderstanding. However, the point still stands that realism in night combat is going no where until thermals come along. It doesn't matter if you're playing infantry or flying a gunship.

Considering how important thermals have been to infantry, tank and aircraft since the late-80s, yeah, it's pretty significant. That was like 20 years ago. Say, wasn't thermal vision also one of those war-winning technological advantages that decimated the Iraqi Army in Desert Storm? But here's me going all OT again. I mean, hey, I guess it's okay - not like the brand new, 2000-era units in the game would be equipped with thermals anyway. Oh $hit, they would :doh: It's great that you're able to overlook such "trivialities" though.

Too bad the ArmA engine doesn't even have thermals yet.

The F/A-18 was the most agile low speed fighter in the U.S. inventory, prior to the introduction of the F-22, so I'd like to see proof of anything that criticizes the low speed characteristics of the Hornet. The F-16 was obviously the most agile US fighter at higher speeds (>350kts), while the F-15 performed well across both speed regimes. Well, maybe that's a Navy thing - the F-22 and F-15 are still around ;) Haha, that's an excellent way to describe it.

Um, read what I wrote. Chaff is ineffective against doppler missiles because it has no doppler - if the target has no doppler (i.e. it's beaming the radar), then obviously the missile would find itself in a bit of a doozy. And last time I checked, "doppler missiles" was NOT the same as "only the AIM-120," so I have no idea why you're going on with this "you only want the AMRAAM fixed!" nonsense. Please, let's not prove FF right and have this degenerate into a flame war. If I show you the courtesy of fully reading your posts, the least you can do is do the same for me.

I'm lookin', but I don't see a flamewar. Strange.

Except that commercial PC combat simulations never aim to achieve that affect - that is, having the user be able to cold start a jet fighter and take off. This is not and never was how "realism" is defined. That's a weak argument. Nothing constructive to base it on? I'm pretty sure there has been PLENTY of evidence to suggest that all doppler radar missiles should be immune to chaff, because chaff produces no doppler. Furthermore, as this isn't a million dollar military sim, realism doesn't have to be black and white - it's not a question if something is absolutely realistic, or not. What happened to degrees of realism? A commercial PC sim should never aim to achieve anything more than being realistic enough so that the user can play the experience of air combat in a realistic fashion. This can be achieved without being perfectly realistic. Your point of "stuff being an ongoing story of never being realistic" is irrelevant because a PC sim like Lock On never aimed to achieve realism in the first place, but rather to portray the air combat experience in a realistic manner. PC sims are never a 1:1 replica of reality, and why should they be? F-15s never fight against Su-27s IRL, the Cold War ended without a single shot being fired in anger, S300s have never fired a shot against U.S. aircraft IRL...how boring would a perfectly realistic combat simulation be if there was never any combat?

It's not possible to achieve a spec item for ANYTHING that's modelled in Lock On. Why attempt to be realistic at all then? Why even develop "simulations"? Hell, Lock On and Falcon 4.0 are just big wastes of money, everyone should just buy Ace Combat. Wait, not even, let's all buy Battlefield 2 and have a huge battle with their infantry and tanks and aircraft and never complain about realism at all.

It doesn't.

Hahaha :thumbup:

That Su-30MKN display just about owned everything else. Anyone wanna know why the F-15 even showed up? :surrender:

MiG-23s with Apexes have had plenty of opportunities to prove their worth in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately, they were butchered by F-15s and F-16s (which only had AIM-9L/Python 3s at the time), so take from that what you will. Furthermore, it is unfair to compare the early Sparrows with the Apex. The Sparrows of Vietnam were over a generation older. By the time Apex entered the fray, the contemporary -7F proved to be a far superior weapon in combat.