S77th-GOYA
-
Posts
2031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by S77th-GOYA
-
-
I know this is a dead forum but it's the right forum for my question. Is the LOMAC 1.02 patch available anywhere?
-
Perhaps its to do with the so many F-15 sucks balls campaigns banded over the years that turn so many future and past US pilots away.
That's very doubtful. Eagle drivers weren't the majority of the people flying in HL during the GMT 00:00 - 05:00 time period. Plus, IMO, the problems with the F-15 that are most serious are problems for all fighter a/c. (De-rating of the AMRAAM notwithstanding)
And I would find it more likely that the actual problems with the modeling had more negative effect than any campaign to have them corrected.
The bottom line here for me is that flying 1.02 was a blast even with the bugs that were later corrected. Flying FC just isn't as much fun. The frustration with firing a 120 in someone's face from 4-6 nm and not hitting the target is a frustration I don't need. But it has already been talked into the ground. I just thought I'd answer the guy's question.
-
I popped on HL last night to see 8 people flying. At the same time of night prior to the release of 1.1, I don't remember one single night that had so few flying. Perhaps other old-timers could post their memories of HL participation back when 1.02 was the current release. Since Ice has accused me of not posting the truth, maybe some other folks could refresh his memory.
-
1
-
-
What do you mean by "Bollocks"?
-
Flaming Cliffs introduces several serious problems that aren't present in 1.02. It also fixes some problems that are in 1.02. Personally, I prefer 1.02 and the online activity when 1.02 was the latest release was much stronger than after Flaming Cliffs was released.
If you fly A2G, 1.12b is probably the better choice. For A2A, 1.02 is better.
-
Howdy fellas.
Don't mind me. I'm just posting to see what my warning level is up to now. ;-)
-
1
-
-
No one had a ping over 400 in LOCERF 08-3 but there were a few over 400 in LOCERF 08-2. 08-2 was more stable. Go figure.
-
1
-
-
The F-15 TEWS has the same limitation. Alexrey, if you hear a solid tone from the TEWS, you are locked. If you are only in the scan cone of another plane, you will hear a lazy "chirp". (one for each scan cone you are inside) If you are launched on, you hear an attention getting " beep beep beep...".
-
Works for me. :)
-
IL2 is no where near as complex as DCS, or even Lock On. There's no way to play either of the latter with a console game pad. I don't see why ED would make a console game, they would essentially be going backwards.
So, no. :smilewink:
Even IL2 is too complex for a console, so obviously it has been "dumbed down" quite a bit. And ED could do the same thing. I don't know if multi-millions of rubles in income would be considered going backwards.
-
I do believe the 'extensive delays' have already been explained: Contracts outside of the gaming industry.
So you are saying that ED is doing no work toward a console release? Contracts outside the gaming industry explain delays but they may not fully explain the delays.
Please don't take this as anything other than pointing out a realistic possibility. I do not have any real reason to think ED is going this direction but I also have no real reason to think they are not.
-
http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/19288
Oleg's IL-2 on x-box.
Although there is no evidence to support ED currently doing this, it would certainly explain the extensive delays.
-
That would have a fairly sharp break upward going from lead to pure but if it stayed pure after that, the pivot downward should be gradual.
It would make more sense to think of the opposite happening: The bandit turned ECM off and pusuit went from pure to lead. That would create a sharp down turn.
-
The missile will fly lead pursuit a short while after launch, it but can't quite make that sharp turn down in time to catch the bandit. All the bandit has to do is keep flying straight ahead.
Something occurred to me. This doesn't sound like HOJ pure pursuit at all. In pure pursuit, there would be no sharp turn at all.
-
At high altitude you get less g for the same amount of deflection. I don't think that's modeled either though, so you get a double-whammie for low-flying missiles in LO.
And correspondingly, less drag.
-
Insofar as energy is concerned - missiles need to deflect their surfaces a lot when turning, especially at higher altitudes, higher g, or both - and that creates tremendous drag.
This would seem to make sense for a very tight turn but not a more gentle tracking turn. Granted, not all of the drag force is applied to the missile in the direction of the desired turn but it seems that at the speeds that missiles generally travel, a small deflection would create a strong pivot force.
To the OP, LO's missiles need a lot of work. Many of us are frustrated by the types of things that you describe. An advantage in altitude of 10k feet should actually be an advantage.
-
Best ever or best now?
-
Because enabling LUA export on the server opens it up to those that would use that data to cheat. Don't ever accuse those providing servers to you free of charge of being selfish. Just record a track, use LOTU to open the views and then record a tacview. And don't just study the tacview, study the track as well. It will show you things the tacview can't show you.
-
3
-
-
Because we're still waiting for better.
-
2
-
-
yes but whats different is that now its a formalized plan for DCS, before it was just a hypothesis for some future SIM project. Theres a difference between Tank killers and the F-16 SIM and the DCS module of F-16 since it reduces the ammount of time because you dont have to wait for one SIm project to be abandoned in order to start the next.
I fail to see any real meaning behind your words.
more interestigly, I point this out:
the following aircraft are also now planned for DCS in development at one stage or another:
5- F-15C
For all of these aircraft, we now have all the needed data to model them properly to DCS standards
ED is invited to announce how it has come to understand what is necessary to model the AIM-120 to a high fidelity standard. Or will the planes be high fidelity and the ordnance be a best guess?
-
There was talk of modelling an F-16 months ago. This is nothing new and I'm still not impressed. I might be when I see the jet products but not now.
-
Since you have 1.02:
1 Get 1.1b (the current version of FC)
2 If you wish to be completely up to date and HL server compatible, download the 1.12b patch.
Make SURE you get the right patch for the version of FC you buy. There is a different patch for the CD version and the download version. This is because StarForce is different on those two versions.
-
A2A combat is much less frustrating in 1.02. Added errors in missile modelling, specifically lack of chaff rejection, can make what are very high PK shots miss repeatedly. On the other hand, the FM of the Su-25T is probably the best flight model in the history of flight sims. As far as stability, FC is a step up from 1.02.
-
They successfully used the lowflight and close range maneuvers with IR missiles against the outnumbered NATO fighters.
How are you defining success?
Dinosaur needs help - 1.02 Patch
in Lock On v.1.0x and Flaming Cliffs v.1.1x
Posted
I got those from googling too. The first is malware. The second is very likely malware. It looks shady anyway. A couple of others from Google were no joy as well. I hadn't tried the third one because I figured it would be the German patch if it was real. But it turns out that the German site has the real (English) McCoy. So thank you to you, Rudel_chw and danke to the site owners.