Starlight

I'd say (sorry for my bad english): Someone wanted to impress somebody else and instead he was impressed himself :) Anyway, I'm quite convinced that the Tornado F-3 was a better interceptor than the EF2000. Not a better fighter, just a better interceptor... http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonLaunchesOperationallyForTheFirstTime.htm

Olgerd is right, I remember there was a device which was employed on One-Elevens (f-111) which was called IR-warning receiver or MAWS (something like "missile approach warning system"). It detected the IR energy of the missile motor, but I think it was of little use since it was deceived by many things that could be found on a typical battlefield (flares, burning things...) I don't know if there are more modern versions employed on modern aircraft. Today there are warning receivers for (apart usual radar missiles) laser systems which are quite used for anti-tank and anti-helicopter uses. To fool IR missiles, apart the usual flares, helicopters usually employ IR-wavelenght jammers, those little cones covered with "mirrors" ;) BTW, chaff and flares are usually managed with ready-made programs, which are activated automatically by RWR or ECM systems (for chaff) or manually (for flares)

I thought you could find it interesting: http://walkarounds.airforce.ru/avia/rus/kamov/ka-50/index.htm

You would be right if BS wasn't LockOn. But in fact BS is just an improved LockOn, based on the same engine, new AFM for a new helo, new 3D models, improved and larger terrain. Sure these are good new features, but the basic game engine remains the same. And the AI code AFAIK is not far from a copy&paste from Lomac code (since it wasn't addressed in FC either) IMHO the fact that BS would be a more unbalanced sim is that you can't improve a single set of aspects (where Lomac is already good compared to other sims) and leave "as is" some features where Lomac is clearly behind its few competitors.

the problem with LockOn AI is old and is not likely to be addressed in Black Shark. I raised the same questions many times but I had no answers, I was just given some "warnings" because in a screenshot thread I said "c'mon instead of doing perfect 3D models let's make AI behave as it should"... ok I know that 3D models are 3rd-party-made, but that creates an unbalanced sim... the list of problems is long and is not just limited to "wingman" AI. All AI units suffer from clear bugs which make the game highly un-enjoyable in single player. SEAD units most of the times don't work, attack aircraft do their attack runs at low speed letting AD work at their best, wingmen do what they want... It's not a matter of planning, it's just that AI doesn't use resources as it should. And, I say it again, making detailed FM for aircraft and adding detailed 3D models for ground units is ok, but in a military sim realism means also good AI. otherwise it would just be another Flight Simulator... Black Shark will likely be a good but very unbalanced sim...

It's just the camo scheme to make them look like either Mig-29 or su-27... the same thing applies also to the top of the fins, they are painted to look like the russian ones... and also notice the fake air inlets on the top of the LERX (leading edge root extension)... they're just like the ones on the Fulcrum... notice that it happens with many aggressor aircraft, also on the tomcat there was a similar scheme: the white paint on the edges is just to shape the aircraft like a Flanker I once made a skin for lomac: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=10939

yet, I don't understand why other apps/games (still limited *also* by CPU) use 100% of the resources. More, Lomac sometimes goes down to about 60% of rersource use while in full 3D rendering and it seems it never reaches more than 80-90% while others reach 100%. BTW, ok it's cpu-limited, but less than 60-70% of power means that also CPU is not fully exploited, because @ full CPU my PC runs at about 75% of power consumption. I'll make more tests when switching to the DualCore system, removing some CPU-bottlenecks (maybe)

sure man, it's my superclocked San Diego ;) 110% vcore, that is about 1.40-1.44, 3200 Mhz (320 x 10), Patriot DDR-600 @ 320 Mhz 2.5-4-3-6, and 7900GTO@GTX, plus some huge thermaltake fans (120mm, 90 CFM and *a lot* of noise each) it makes SuperPI 1MB in about 26'', just as fast as a Dual Core E6400 @ default frequencies the ram at such frequencies and timings have a read value of about 9.8 GB/s in Everest 4 Ultimate. DDR2-800 @ 4-4-4-12 barely reach 7.5 GB/s on my E4300. But the E4300 is still in the works ;) about Lomac. ok, it's not a last generation game, but I thought it was still using 100% of the vid card power. we all know is more cpu-limited rather than gpu-limited, but I thought it used all the available resources. New cards mean more advanced architecture and libraries, but I thought that resources were library indipendent.

I recently made some tests about power consumption. My current Lomac rig is a superclocked SanDiego 4000@5200, with a 7900 GTO video card. With such overclock, at full power it can reach 300+ watts. On 3dmark06 and R6Vegas it reaches quite often such peaks, and never drops below 260-280 watt In Lomac it rarely reaches peaks of more than 280 watts, and usually works well below, in the range of 250 watts, with lower and frequent peaks at 170 watts. I didn't make scientific tests, I was just watching the watt'o'meter :) but that was definitely the trend... It just looks that Lomac either is energy-friendly (a kinda eco-Lomac) or that it doesn't use all the power it has available, for some unknown reasons... I was having about 50 FPS with a 4-ship F-15 formation over a town, max detail and full shadows, 1280x1024 res, 4xAA 8xAF My next rig however is gonna be more energy-saving, given that the OC'ed E4300 that I have in the works runs at much lower energy levels... ;)

Also 162.15. After I installed them I had a halt in my FPS.

new 162.18 (beta) has been released

After a better testing, I can say the issue is definitely *not solved* here, 7900GTO card... with full shadows it's still a mess, and in the end I still got some texture corruption (the bar on outside views, the one that goes away with YY)

it looks it still got some problems, but it also look to have solved some issues... my overall graphics quality is better, and I haven't spotted any corruption yet except this one with full shadows

thx for sharing... I thought it was my system... glad it wasn't! I was already thinkin' about switchin' back to ATI, now I won't, at least for a while...

true. I just RMA'ed a couple sticks, they always passed memtest but they were quite unable to boot to OS, they shut down the PC every time!

great job, are the terrain and the Tornando skins also available?

hehe I had a good laugh today when I watched the "flyboys" promo (it still has to go on theaters here in Italy)... well at least in the promo you can see WWI Fokkers zoom climbin' as Raptors :D LOL!!! anyone has already seen that movie?

OMG that's my X-36 painted in the worst scheme ever seen on this planet! and those colored buttons just don't seem designed for really smart people!

eh ehm, that's copyrighted ;) LOL

nice find, I'd give you a rep, but the forum doesn't allow me to give you another one... :)

thx but I was really curious to know about Aggressor aircraft... I thought that marine and navy units were now using only F/A-18 as aggressor...

it looks as a 3D demo though.... not actual sim.... I was always impressed by ace combat vids and screens, but when I watched it on PS2 in my local store, it was not even 50%... I mean those graphics look photoshopped, or at least not in-game footage. anyway, overall graphics seem better than lomac, but gameplay isn't even one tenth... it's just a flying FPS ;)

http://www.combatedgeproductions.com/photos/photos.htm most are "coming soon", but there is a good page about NAS Fallon, with a handful of aggressors too check it out: http://www.combatedgeproductions.com/photos/fallon_may2007/fallon_may2007.htm BTW, are they still flying F-5s and F-16Ns? I thought they had been scrapped...

Well, I have an AMD San Diego 4000 processor, socket 939, 1MB cache (not 1 Gig!!! ;) ) running at 2400 MHz stock speed. (200 Mhz x 12) I clocked it up to 3.2 Ghz (320 Mhz x 10) and it performs as an AMD 5200+. But to reach such speeds you must have a suitable CPU (they do not all perform the same) and the right motherboard (I use a DFI Nforce4 Ultra) and if you want to run it sync you must also have the right RAM. basically to overclock a -939 processor you must - lower the Hyperthread link multiplier (default is 1000 Mhz, given from 200 Mhz x 5). The result should not exceed the Ghz, so if you overclock your FSB to 300 Mhz you must lower the multiplier to 3x, so you have 900 Mhz - rise the CPU voltage from stock to a higher value, usually around 10% higher, I brought mine from 1.37v to about 1.44v - rise the CPU frequency and/or multiplier (in small steps, you check stability at each step and then if it's ok you can try a bit more) but you must be careful and know what you're doing. If you play with those things without knowing anything, you're likely to fry everything at you very first try... no second chances here ;)