S77th-GOYA

Here, I'll save them the trouble: "ED would like to release a patch for LO:FC but we are concentrating on other projects. We might make a patch after the release of Black Shark, but there are no promises."

Old, old news. It has all been talked about so many times it became monotonous. After nearly two years, I have lost any hope that ED will fix their code.

Is there anything else the LO community owes you? Maybe we should buy you a new video card out of respect? Last advice: Stop whining and start practicing without externals and labels

Soaring Eagle, debate it all you want but the ones who pay the money to make those servers available for you to play on are going to run settings that they want, not settings that you want. I can assure you that most of the folks you see in HL would not find it more appealing to have externals and/or labels. In fact, if I remember correctly, the 169th server ran for quite a while with externals but changed after repeated requests to turn them off.

Nevermind, Viper beat me to it. :-)

That doesn't sound like it will be DX8. On what do you base your statement?

BS will be DX9 while LOFC is DX8. The problem may not exist in BS because of different shaders.

Is that different from the default RCAF skins?

It should likely be a combination of both rudder and aileron trim. Applying that trim can be made easier by using the stick and rudder to obtain level flight and engaging auto-pilot. Release of auto-pilot should give you a perfectly trimmed plane. There are exceptions, though.

It's not a bug. It appears that nvidia has dropped support of Lock On in its drivers. Using older drivers should allow anti-aliasing. Maybe when BS is finally released nvidia will support it again in its newer drivers. At least everyone should hope so, especially ED.

You have to switch to satellite view.

Pressing "1" cycles through the nav modes while "~" cycles through the waypoints in the main nav mode. Assuming you start from a mode other than one of the nav modes: 1. First press of 1 gets you in main nav mode 2. Next press puts you into return mode. (Pointing you to the initial ILS point, also called the IAF or Initial Approach Fix) 3. Next press puts you into ILS mode Beware that going to return mode from the main nav mode shows a waypoint of "2" on the HUD.

Edwards

:thumbup: Thanks for your work.

Not that I can see. but here are some additional docs: http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/atp56bwarning.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/6ABC82AC_1143_EC82_2EACE684C8BBDEA2.pdf

Sure, I was just borrowing it. Here you go guys, have it back. Thanks, Rhen.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I'm not sure of SAMs but artillery will have increased range with an AWACS present.

You might want to try this mod: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=23981&highlight=coastline

I tried to overlay one graph on the other and the gridlines didn't match up in places. That may account for some discrepancies.

Just one part: Why does the ops limit line for the 102% graph change PRIOR to reaching the cross hatched, time limited portion of the envelope? If it changed AT the threshold of the time limited portion, it would make perfect sense. Please just tell me it is because of sloppy graph making so I can shut up about this. :D And not to start a whole new process but since this graph only deals with max thrust, would I be correct in assuming that the 102% F-15 might eliminate its time-limit penalty by lowering burner to 2nd or 3rd stage instead of 5th stage and still match (or better) the performance of the 95% F-15? And what is the difference between the time-limits at the threshold and ops limit? Meaning, for example, do I have 10 minutes if I'm barely into the time-limt portion of the envelope and only 1 minute at the ops limit?

Ummm.... maybe? :smilewink: If I'm being dense here, I apologize. Even taking into account a factor of the time-limited-pursuit giving an advantage to the 95% trimmed F-15, there still exists differences. And you are still saying I am extrapolating data when I am not. I am using data from the graphs. Perhaps you see a problem in using the STD -10C data and if so, please explain why. For the purposes of demonstration, please refer to this blow up from the charts: Highlighted is an altitude of 36K and a speed of M2.3, the speed at which the time-pursuit-limited portion of both graphs begins. A. The graph shows that that speed/altitude is within the flight envelope of the 95% trimmed plane on a STD -10C day. B. The graph shows that that speed/altitude is NOT within the flight envelope of the 102% trimmed plane on a STD -10C day because of ops limit. C. The time-pursuit-limited portion of the 102% graph never comes into play at that speed/altitude because it is outside the flight envelope. The difference is small but it is plainly there. If anyone sees any errors in any of that, please point them out.

http://rapidshare.com/files/76837054/locerf075.zip.html I have not played this all the way through. Hopefully, it plays well through to the end. For those that want a TACVIEW file, set tacview to record, and play this all the way to the end. The track can be played back at a fast speed and still record the tacview normally.

For 95% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - M2.375 For 102% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - less than M2.35 No extrapolations, those figures are straight from the charts. The 95% figure is limited by thrust AND ops limt while the 102% figure is limited only by ops limit. I'm certainly not arguing with you but I'm curious as to why the charts show that the ops limits ARE different. It doesn't make sense to me to see them different on the two graphs. The only thing even remotely feasible that I can come up with is that the intake ramps aren't as efficient for engines at higher trim settings, but I really doubt that.

Probably the same reason +20 and -30 and +30, etc are not. It would become very cluttered. But it makes me think the 15s flying out of Nellis in the summertime are probably putting around at not much more than M1 in full reheat.