S77th-GOYA

LOMAC track link: http://rapidshare.com/files/45605409/LOCERF_III.zip TACVIEW Mirror: http://www.the159th.com/files/RedFlag_3.txt.rar

Where in the world did you get that idea? All I REALLY want is to be able to fight in our jets and not be smacked in the face with how incredibly poor the missiles perform. ED can develop a hot-air balloon sim, for all I care. But fixing what they've already sold has got to be the priority. If ED truely cannot afford to fix these flaws, then so be it. But that establishes a mindset for its customer base that ED might not be able to afford either. These threads get SO repetitive and tiresome. In my opinion, these complaints only get repeated so much because there are some people here that always feel the need to refute that there is something real to complain about. So, since it seems to be falling on deaf ears, it gets repeated. And so on, and so on. It's a shame. We could be spending this energy much more constructively.

I see proxy-rugg has joined us. :music_whistling:

Welcome, Senior Member. S!

That's crazy talk. It's the F/A-18 that everyone wants. :thumbup: I have a cool trendy nickname for the fast-jet whiners... ED's customers Seriously, who here bought LOMAC and FC so that they could fly helos?

There were 9 total F-15s in RFIII. One disconnected and 7 were destroyed.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what many people are saying. Everyone realizes writing code takes time. The main propblem is that ED has announced that the major problems with the existing code will NOT BE ADDRESSED in the next add-on. Time will not make any difference if problems are not addressed. Those that are upset about this have one real way of making ED understand the importance of supporting its products. And I don't mean writing posts in forums.

They ALWAYS are. S!

The winner of LOCERF 07-3 is BlueFor. Blue won every scoring category: RedFor was penalized for destroying a non-targeted building. (Orphanage) Blue had a 13% hit percentage. Red had a 7% hit percentage. The teamkill looked very odd but had to be scored as such.

A note to all LOCERF 07-3 participants: Mission planning is happening in the 159th forums. http://www.the159th.com/forum/ Final intel is due shortly.

The F-15 radar is not modelled to be very strong at picking up aircraft in certain aspects and/or elevations. To test how well it is working, turn on labels, get a good fix on the bandit, and adjust range and elevation so that it should be showing up. Of course, realize that if the bandit is beaming and lower than you, you shouldn't see them.

You're probably not adjusting your radar scan vertically. You must point the scan up and down to get a good view of what is in front of you. If you have a spare rotary/slider on your stick, this function is very useful to have there.

And no, there is no night vision. The closest thing you'll get to NVGs is looking through the Mav-D infrared seeker.

Yep, thx. I was just looking through some pics and answered myself:

Just a thought: you don't have to be flying in RedFlag to be part of this testing.

Is that stick correct? I've only seen 15 sticks with two hats. A castle and coolie for TDC and trim. Looks more like an A-10 stick here.

MiG thrust? Anyone have some data to compare to LOMAC's?

:clap_2:

...or just close the forums. That would free up some time. But it wouldn't be the best way to handle the situation.

Sig length is not an issue, I don't think. Unless it busts the margins of someone using a low resolution. They just don't want the sigs to take up too much space on the scroll height. It could be 150 x 800 and be within regs as long as it's not over 50Kb. (God, I hope no one is using 640 x 480) The difference between the 19.5Kb and 50Kb sig rules is that ED would be hosting the 19.5Kb limit sigs. That's different from hosting your sig yourself. A mod might confirm or clarify.

First page bump.

Careful, foul language will get you a warning. :smilewink: Either I don't have a good grasp of what the problem really is (and if that is true, someone please speak up) or that long post really doesn't address the problem. When you say the ED site going and staying down for as long as it was is no big deal ignores the fact that for those that needed a Starforce activation the software was unusable. ED had no back-up plan to support its customers in the event of that forseeable possibility. That's was why people were angry/frustrated and said so. Do you think that was uncalled for? The second prong of this current situation is what is viewed by some as heavy handed modding. It appears that Alfa has banned Hitman over a signature file that he saw as oversized. Or maybe it was oversized, I don't have a time machine to prove it. But I will tell you this: I recently made my sig and had it removed by a mod too. When I made it I chose the compression for the jpg in PS. It told me that it would be under the filesize limit. So I attached it without checking the size. It turns out that PS was wrong and my sig WAS oversized. I redid it, checked it, put it up in Photobucket and attached it again. This turned out to be the same sig I had before that was oversized. It must have been a cache issue or something. (I used the same filename) Eventually, I got it to be undersized. The point of all this is that at no point did I knowingly put up an oversized sig. Was I close to getting banned for it? Maybe, I don't know. That was something that any mod may have viewed as repeated disrespect for a very clear rule. But it was not in any way. Also, anyone policing sig sizes should know that the stated limit is 51200 bytes. It appears that that may have been a problem in a case or two, but not my case. Based on what I've read about this, the real problem seems to be a lack of communication and civility. Both necessary traits for a forum, IMO. But I will readily admit I have only heard one side of the banning story. If Hitman called Alfa a &$^(&%^%ucker for deleting his sig, then that's another story. And I miss your point about mods being beta testers. Both are by choice. Neither excuses anything. One thing is for sure, tensions and frustrations are high. I suggest we all blow the heads off some zombies. :thumbup:

http://lockon.co.uk/index.php?end_pos=3&scr=newslist&lang=en Certainly you can. Given the nature of how PC software is usually sold (sell it broken and then fix it with patches), it is only natural that people let the devs know what they want fixed and that they are not happy with the broken software they bought. And it was from this forum that the 1.12 RWR ghosting bug was spotted and quickly fixed. Most people don't like the idea of being a beta tester and paying for the privilege. But ED did the right thing in that case and rectified that problem. Some people are the type that would order a steak rare and what they get is a steak well-done but just sit there and eat it quietly. Some are not. No, only some people are stupid. Some are not. It is true that complaints in here get repetitious. That is because the problems that get the most complaints are not fixed in a timely manner. So, when you get your well-done steak, just smile and eat it. Or "smash up the place" and ask that it be prepared properly.

Not centering on the primary.

So if Ubi had nothing to do with 1.1 FC, why would it have anything to do with 1.2 BS? Returning missiles to 1.02 would be better than what we have now but they would still be bad. The FOV of the seekers was way too big and some didn't fall for chaff AT ALL. The things that were changed needed to be changed but the changes needed adjustments before they were released. For me, the F-15 TWS bug needs to be fixed as much as the missiles.