Starlight

and there's still simware selling FC at about 30 euros (about $ 37 USD, plus $ 10 USD shipping)!!!! Where can I get now my FC copy? I live in Italy and naturalpoint was my last chance to get it at about $ 20 USD. Any other ideas?

A DC need HUGE CPU efforts. Today Lomac simply can't handle this (see one of my previous posts which shows that adding some dozen units kills framerate down to 1-2 FPS in the Theater Map View http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6595 ), so its engine should be totally rewritten to manage a wartime scenario. A DC to work must be integrated in the sim engine. outsource DC will make the same effect as programs which run in virtual machines, such as Java programs, which are far slower than usual programs. What could be outsourced is more something like today's LMR, which is NOT a dynamic campaign, a DC is a whole another thing. That is a cheaper shortcut.

Uh? I played F4's DC since it came out and it was definitely playable already with patch 1.08. It had no more bugs than any other game/flight sim. At least there were no HUGE bugs like aircraft crashing into each other while landing or taking off (like lomac 1.02 does). There were more CTD, but it was also playing over a worse overall system (windows 95/98 and DirectX 5/6 if I remember correctly) Good DC means also that there is a good AI making decisions... what lacks Lomac, is not the AI in close combat, but the AI to make decisions at strategic/tactical level. And a dynamic campaing is basically an AI engine which decides what to do at strategic level.

A DC is not really needed. The point is that if the developers want to make a "Falcon4 killer" as they said, they should build one, for at least two reasons: - F4 does have one, which apart some bugs, works well. (but which complex programs doesn't have any?). A F4 killer without a DC, won't be an F4 killer ;) - A complex project like the one that is being planned for the future will cry for a DC. A super-iper-mega realistic F16 simulation with the same AI and same mission system used today in LockOn, would plainly suck... as I stated in one of my previous post, that would be a waste of resources... imagine, you would have a 1:1 working copy of the APG-68 radar, yet tracking stupid AI bandits. That wouldn't make sense. There are however "cheaper" ways to get to a better system than the one used today in Lomac. An event-driven mission system would be a good starting point. Another thing that would be useful are missions that "remember" previous events (buildings and units crushed and so on). And better AI than today is badly needed in Lomac. Coordinating missions with other flights/packages is close to impossible in Lomac, and that's light-years away from RL. Yet the dynamic campaign IS what a serious sim should have. With all my respect to those who consider it useless, I think they don't appreciate it because they've not played enough (if nothing at all). I once used to play Falcon4 on my K6-200 Mhz with Voodoo2 accelerated graphics, that is with all graphics turned off. No hotas, nothing. Yet immersion was far greater than any campaign/mission in Lomac, on a X800XT+Hotas equipped Athlon XP 3.2. I remember some F4 missions like I really did them in RL! (I know I'm exaggerating a lot... it's just to give an idea!). Aircraft popping up from nowhere, enemy flights taking off for the FLOAT (or FEBA, call it as you like it), allied aircraft coming back home after a mission.... that was great! Today Lomac developers have focused on details. Yet very important details, because an advanced flight model is another thing if compared to a scripted flight model. Would you trade a high fidelity FM for a simpler one? No. Same goes for the mission engine. The DC is like the advanced flight model compared to "lomac mission engine" which is like a totally scripted FM. If in the future ED projects will have better flight models with today's mission engine, they would be VERY unbalanced sims.

Monselice (Padova), siamo anche vicini :)

ah non avevo neanche visto che eri italiano ciaooo :)

As you can see, it's not the Italian Army, not even its Aviation ;) It's a University, using FlightGear. It's basically an expansion.

This is an ambitous project. A very very very very ambitious project! ;) Yet there are some things that leave me a bit puzzled. - First the expected release date. Even 2 years seem a too short time to develop such a project. ED took many years to develop LockOn, which is basically a Flanker 2 with a very upgraded graphics and game engine. Many things like some models, CLSID-structures, skins and other things are simple copy&paste from that sim. ED also took many months to develop game patches and about one year to develop FC, which is LockOn with some patches and with a new aircraft modelled. A brand new project in 2 years seem exaggerated if they continue to work at the current pace. - Second, a "Falcon4 killer" as far as realism.... Today LockOn is surely light-years ahead with graphics, cockpits and so on, but F4 has a clickable cockpit and a dynamic campaign, which are two features that are not so easy to implement. And we all know that the dynamic campaign is what killed the F4 project, which made the costs rise and so on.... LockOn is already a detailed sim, maybe a bit less than F4, but is more than enough for most people. Build a more detailed sim but without a dynamic campaign would be a huge waste of resources, IMHO. Falcon 4 was (and for many still "is") great not just because of aircraft detail, but because there are campaigns and clever AI. - Third, again, it amazes me the attention payed by ED to details (grass moved by helos, 3D-trees and so on) and the total blindness towards more serious issues when speaking about military sims. I mean, today the AI in lockon is ludicrous when talking about strategy&tactics. AI aircraft are mostly unable to fulfill any of the assigned tasks (SEAD, escort, attack), so the game itself after a while becomes a wonderful scripted 3D demo, or an excellent movie engine. Again, Falcon4 (even without SP, RP5, or AF) was years beyond Lomac as far as immersion. In LockOn 1.02 AI aircraft sometimes were even unable to taxi or land carefully, crashing one into the other.... BTW I don't want to launch yet another super-boring F4 vs Lomac thread, but IMHO ED should move to solve issues like Dynamic Campaign and AI. Even if we had 1,000 aircraft implemented each with 1,000 skins and all detailed cockpits but with today's dumb AI and scripted mission system, mission immersion won't get any benefit at all! just IMHO. cheers! Matt

A great video! But the one that made me buy LockOn was the video with the two A-10s against Russian APCs and Mi-24s with the soundtrack of "The Rock". That was astonishing when it came out. Like most of the other official videos. It's more than one month that I don't play Lomac (still 1.02) because I'm a bit busy. This video makes me wanna play it again. It's just a shame that the immersion factor after a while drops down in single player. When it comes down to setting up and playing a single player mission the game shows all of its limits. And it's a real shame, because the graphics are still amazing, the detail of aircraft, skins, FMs, weapons systems and cockpits is astonishing. It's just that after I try to play a serious mission, not just a simple engagement, the realism seem to collapse and all those wonderful features seem useless. I'd love to see Lomac with at least an event-driven mission system and a better AI at strategic/tactical level.

What's included in 1.2? Hi everybody! Is 1.2 supposed to include FC (su-25t and season pack)? and @ ED: will it still have starforce protection?

OMG, it's one of the worst videos I've ever seen... it has a lot of cut & paste from different videos, and IMHO associate a crash with some training maneuvers is not a good thing. The Mig-29 crash took place at Le Bourget, 1989. The jet was making a demo of low, slow and high AOA pass, piloted by Anatoly Kvotchur, one of the greatest Russian test pilots. At some point of this slow pass, the aircraft was at less the 500 feet, when one of the engines stalled, didn't recover and maybe got a flame out. So the aircraft rolled on one side and then plunged into the ground. Kvotchur was able to bail out a few hundred feet from the ground, with the aircraft inverted, demonstrating the great ejection capabilities of the K-36. There were some good photos on that Aviation Week issue, I still got it somewhere, I'll search a bit.

The crews of the Blackhawks downed over Iraq by two F-15 some years ago wouldn't agree very much here. They had IFF transponders turned off and they were ID'd as hostile choppers.... I don't know if those Eagles were still to receive MSIP II, but it was after 1991, so it seems a bit strange :( or maybe NCTR works better with fixed wing jet aircraft, not with choppers..

Note also the fake fin tops, like those on the Flanker. Recent aggressor-painted aircraft (F-16, F-18 and F-14) have shown similar features to reproduce the new generation of Russian aircraft. I also remember some strange-painted radomes to simulate the one of the Flanker. Yeah, that's true, aggressor camos are very cool. They're not always done to be realistic, they're very often fictional, maybe with exaggerated camos. I also read in an aviation magazine that there seems to be even a reverse-camo, that is early flankers seem to be painted like earlier aggressor F-5E, which were already carrying blue-grey camos with dark radomes. but maybe it was just the article author who was drunk. Anyway this is one of the coolest F-18 camos, together with the grey "tigermeet" F-18.

I've never flown Su-27 in gunzo, but flying the '15 against F-5 and Mirage is quite hard, IMHO. And I turn at corner speeds, use vertical movements, barrel rolls and so on... I'm not an ace in BFM, but I know something about them. BTW, I always fly 2 vs 2 engagements, with my wingman shot down very soon pretty much every time, so it quickly becomes 2 on 1. Try that, maybe you find more interesting to hunt while being hunted. If I had to fix something in close combat (gunzo) I'd say: - friendly AI being much more stupid than enemy AI - enemy aircraft shooting at very short distances, regardless of FOD risks. In this screen you see a mirage finishing my crippled F-15 flying straight and level. I don't think a sane fighter pilot would fire its gun at that distance. Debris would be as much deadly as his own bullets.

I suppose you're already flying with all realistic features turned on... if not try to do that if you already do so, I think you're a bit exaggerated. Mirage2000 and F-5E Tiger are very hard to shoot down in gunzo, and I'd say that if there's a place where LockOn AI doesn't need much improvements that is close-combat/gunzo.

Does NaturalPoint sell also in Europe? I already contacted the Italian dealer, they told me they won't import FC.... And I don't want to pay 48 euros for FC at simware (39.95+8 for shipping)...

No I was talking about the warhead. A study at the US DoD stated that newer Amraam versions needed more warhead to inflict heavier damage on newer (and larger) aircraft. It was an info leaked in the early '90s, when the Slammers were first employed in the Gulf, over the no-fly zones. Some Israeli missiles for example use much larger warhead than standard NATO/US missiles, to cause complete destruction of the aircraft in the case of a direct hit. BTW "direct" does not necessarily mean collision between A/C and AAM, just a very closely fuzed detonation. Kinetic killers are not so common. Watching the image I see that the missile seems to go past the target. But to reach that positition I think it should had been in a legitimate position to detonate. But I'm not sure since I should see the whole footage to express a better judgement.

I'm not a fighter pilot but I think that missile should've detonated. Early versions of Amraam suffered from poor kill capability - even a direct hit often could not inflict a critical damage on larger fighter aircraft. But anyway at that distance missiles should detonate to try to achieve a proximity hit. Even a little shrapnel damage could cause a fuel/oil leak and therefore achieve a tactical result against the enemy. just IMHO.

I partially agree with you, but the point with google-earth is that some of the textures have such a high resolution that they are realistic until you are REALLY close to the terrain (200-800 feet). And if you enable the buildings, you see that 3D buildings pop up from the textures (even if some are a bit misplaced, there seem to be an error-offset) Anyway, apart the lack of 3D buildings, the land textures are definitely good. This is an approach at Aviano AB, less than 200 ft. The runway is still really good (apart those 2D-postcard-style F-16s ;) ). This is the countryside around former Hahn airbase, Germany And this is the airbase Even if the downloads have been stopped for a while, you can still enjoy the same textures on http://www.google.com/maps -> satellite. You won't have the 3D view but the textures are exactly the same. Yes it is something like Nasa World Wind, but the 3D view is overall better, some of the textures have a much higher resolution and the hills/mountains are much more accurate (in NASA World Wind terrains were a bit distorted even if their ratio was x1.0)

I didn't know the Israelis were training at Nellis... and from the camo scheme it's clear that they're F-15I http://www.tribulation.com/images/f15i.jpg In the same Nellis "overflight" you could notice tons of aircraft parked on its tarmac. There are Tornados, F-111s (Australian), aggressors... it's amazing you could notice not only the aircraft type, but also its camo scheme. another good example it's here, at Fallon NAS (home of the Naval Fighter Weapons School, aka Top Gun) and here you see how the same camos of F-15 look different due to weathering I love these things!

At least as far as theaters and terrain realism: http://earth.google.com/ I'm not a fan of the satellite-photo-textured terrains (like fighterops, F4) but this one is really amazing... this is an overflight of Aviano AB, Italy, and its surrounding mountains (where I also went to ski some years ago)... I find them just breathtaking! The amazing thing about these textures is that they're so high-res that they're realistic until you drop at about 200 feet (just do "Eye altitude" - "elevation" and you'll find your height above terrain). And it's all in 3D. If you fly over some American cities you'll also find the 3D bodies of most buildings... These jpegs also don't do justice to the feeling you get while "flying" above GoogleEarth's terrain. And also, Googleearth is not optimized like a sim (you still have to download from the Internet all the imagery and also the textures don't show up at their highest detail at some distance). Anyway I think such technology could bring good news in the near future for the flight sim environment. I've already seen similar textures for a FS2004 expansion representing the Alaskan terrain. However, check these out:

Hi, to remove the numbers you must edit the nomera.tga file. to remove the US markings (star roundel) you must edit the USA-Znak-Lightgrey.tga and USA-Znak-darkgrey.tga. You should work on the alpha channel of the tga file. For further info PM me.

thanks for the link. It's actually the same thing... only put in pdf format. Is it a good source of info about the mig-29? Given the high amount of aircraft publications available in Polish, Czech and Russian I think I'm gonna learn some of these languages in the near future ;)

Hi, it would be interesting if some people who understand Russian could translate this: ed2k://|file|[Aviation]%20-%20[book]%20Real%20MiG-29%20Combat%20Manual%20(Russian%20Text).pdf|11428483|9F52F2485EA4349B7A278A81AD423317|h=QWJYNTF2X6X74GMDLEUMSGOHWUPPYADW|/ it's an emule resource, so you must have an emule.compatible software to download it. I don't think it's copyrighted material (I don't understand Russian but it does appear to be an official manual). If it is copyrighted material please disregard the link. I'm not even sure it's the Mig-29 combat manual. given my understanding of Russian language it could even be a russian cookbook ;)

BUMP, any news?