S77th-GOYA

I posted a thread in the mods forum with no response so I'm trying here because the modelers need to deal with animations. Could the tankers be locked into the ready to refuel positions so that clients online see the probe/drogues in the correct refueling positions?

Search is broken, so no can do. I remember they were missing one important manual and one of the devs posted that they finally got their hands on one. Or maybe I was dreaming? Can anyone confirm? GG? Ooops, my bad. Search isn't broken. :doh: Looking now. re-edit: here's one but I was mistaken about the C model. Olgerd said that the A or B could be implemented. http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=333172&postcount=49

What in the world made you think you pissed me off? :thumbup: It's cool, brother. (Maybe I should type lighter) :D And I'm not telling you you were right or wrong because when it comes down to it, we don't really know what Ubi told ED. But it doesn't make much sense for Ubi to tell ED to specifically leave out the Hornet. But in telling ED that the product must be delivered by a certain date, that may have been the result.

There are no broken missiles in DCS. :smartass:

Aeroscout, what are you basing your understanding on? I don't think it has every been made public exactly what Ubi told ED regarding the release of LOMAC. I would guess it was simply that ED had run out of dev time and they must deliver the product by a certain date. That would certainly explain the state of LOMAC 1.00. It would also explain at least part of ED's wish to cut ties with Ubi. So that they could run on their own schedule and never be forced to release an unfinished product. But as I said, it has never been made public information and it probably never will. We are left to fill in the blanks as best as we can. But I do seem to remember the above events discussed on the old Ubi forum.

To what did Ubi say "no"?

Which would you prefer to see ED develop for DCS first?

F/A-18C would be a half educated guess. We know they obtained the necessary manuals. But there is no telling which fighter would be released first. MiG-29 seems to be a likely candidate too. Since ED is currently working on the A-10 and Apache, they might keep up the 9 month schedule at first. But after that, it seems very unlikely.

That fits Fighter Ops more than LockOn. But yes, we've been waiting for a patch for quite a while. But on the other hand, we actually have a sim to fly.

Fixed now. And I had left out the best one: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59c_1186880898 Check out the second guy

I told you we'd seen it before. :smartass: I'll fix it, thanks for letting me know.

Some good vids with rapid onset 9G loads. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=065_1186880070 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b66_1192295403 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59c_1186880898 And this one we've seen before, but it's still good. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87d_1186879266

Wags posted this on the DCS site:"As has been stated several times now, we'll do a patch once we have some folks we can dedicate towards it. Despite what some incorrectly think though, to do it right will take a lot more than a single programmer and a few hours..." I can't help but notice that there no longer is an "if" in that statement. Is it now definite that a patch will be made for FC?

I'm guessing that you need to upload the file to the forum, not link to an off-site image file. So, the 19.5 Kb/19,500 byte limit applies. Also note that 19,500 bytes is NOT 19.5 Kb. I'm not sure what the real limit is.

Would it be possible to lock the tankers in refueling position so that clients can see to refuel?

You left out the IF.

I'm sorry, when did Wags say that?

My point is that at the time of that post, a long time ago, you assured us that the devs would fix the missile problems because they knew it was important. Now, obviously things are different and you've changed your tune to one of "if they become deadlier people will complain that they cannot dodge them." So really, what was your point? There's no sense in fixing the missiles because even if they are more accurate there will always be complaining?

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=180847&postcount=49

"Loyal customers" was not meant to represent only the online community. Poor missiles effect everyone who uses LOMAC for A2A combat simulation. I don't, for one second, think that ED's projects will come to a halt if someone is assigned to patch the missiles. Having heard from insiders with ED about how they work, I would imagine only one coder would be assigned the task. It would delay whatever this coder was already assigned to do but would not bring the entire company or individual projects to a halt. But if I'm wrong and it would take the entire crew of coders to do it, then that is what should be done. Support for a product simply cannot be dropped when it is in such a sorry state. Obviously we disagree on that. You may even consider it unreasonable. And conversely, I consider it unreasonable for a niche software maker to let this unintended result of a patch go unaddressed and then offer a new product to the same niche. It should be plainly apparent that some customers are feeling burnt by ED. It is ED's choice as to whether they remedy that. In the end, all I want is to be able to enjoy LO like I used to. So call me selfish. I can guarantee I'm not the only one who is frustrated by the state of LO's missiles. I can name names but I won't because now is the time for each of them to stand up themselves and be heard. And if they don't, at least I did.

The software doesn't work as designed. ED didn't intend for Strelas to attempt to shoot down incoming A2G missiles and ED didn't intend for missiles to bite so hard for chaff. I very much doubt that ED intended for TWS mode to not be locked on the primary. They may have intended for the 120 to top out at M3.2 but as I've said earlier, I sure would like to see some hard data that backs up that detuning of the AMRAAM and boost to the R27s. Regarding the adjustments we'd like to see, there has been topic after topic on the subject but I'll agree that there has been no consensus. I'm trying to be as forgiving and realistic as possible, trying to not ask for too much. The number one priority is an increase in chaff resistance so that missiles launched in a high PK situation actually have a high PK. (I can't say if chaff resistance is the only problem induced by patches because I can only test them as a complete package, but chaff is the obvious problem) And unless ED can show data to back up why they limited the speed of the 120 and Winder so much, I'd like to see that addressed. I can live without the TWS fix and FM adjustments. It's all about bad missile modelling to me.

GG, you've never shied away from stating how poorly modelled the missiles are in 1.12. Yet you now consider it acceptable for ED to ignore it because it doesn't fit your definition of a bug?

Nobody likes the situation. Calm down. I have little doubt that his thread was locked because there was another thread just like it, right next to it.

EB, I hate to direct this question at you because it's not your decision and you may not be in a position to answer, but... Do you think ED realizes that it will likely lose loyal customers if these major problems with its product aren't addressed? As was mentioned previously, people don't generally go back to a brand of product if the maker has failed to support its product to the satisfaction of its customers in the past. And I do realize that that statement can be countered with stating that patches have been made for LOMAC and FC and so it was supported. And with this type of product, the customers always want more. Be it better graphics or higher fidelity avionics or whatever. But the missiles are part of what defines a modern combat sim. We've been waiting about a year and a half since the last patch hoping to hear something from ED saying that a fix is coming. Hearing that ED may not have time to fix the missiles because they are too busy building a new product that they want us to buy is a bit ironic. I understand that it's the company line and it's all you can say unless ED says different. I have very much enjoyed ED's products and have seen how talented they can be at creating flight sims. I would really, really hate to be faced with the decision to continue to support them because they have decided not to support LO at it's final stage.

I don't think we have the slightest chance of getting WAFM for LO. Paid or free, it makes no difference. But we don't need WAFM. All we really need is a patch to correct the problems that were introduced in previous patches. And that's all we can realistically hope for. ED is NOT going to put the time necessary into making missiles completely realistic for LockOn.