Starlight

Here's another solution to get an F-15E Strike Eagle working: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/42610647/r/2431036723#2431036723

mmm, I don't know. I've only added some pylons to the F-15, with A2G stores. Issues found: - obviously, 3D model and cockpit are from F-15C, no way to change them, so no 2 seats and no FAST packs ;) - A2G weapons can't be used by human player. - if you add all the pylons the F-15E should have, the aircraft is no longer flyable; only the AI could fly it. If you try to fly it, LockOn doesn't crash, but it hangs and doesn't allow to quit the mission either. So you must kill the application. - when you use all pylons a strange issue happens on the starboard fuselage pylons, with bombs overlapping. don't know what causes this issue since pylon coordinates seem correct, and also they do work in the payload editor. - the modded F-15 can't use Lantirn, because both pods are linked in a single "item" which is tailored to the single F-16 intake and doesn't fit under the F-15 intakes. without Lantirn, AFAIK, LGBs can't be used (although this limitation could be removed) So as you could see it's a very very very and, let me write it once more, very limited mod. The F-15E skin is made by someone else and is downloadable at some lomac site (lockonskins or lomacfiles, can't remember now) Given all these things I don't think this mod can be useful (except to take some screens). But when I'll have some more spare time I'll try to do something more to have a kind of F-15E in lomac. But the best thing would be ED building a 3D model with correct pylons and make it available as an AI aircraft. As I have stated in one post some time ago, IMHO AI planes are very easy to add, particularly if they are "versions" of already existing aircraft (the F-15E can be modded from the F-15C without losing too much in terms of realism, as far as AI planes are concerned). In that post I made the example that an Il-76 modded in the meinit.xml, performed just as an F-111 (or like any other aircraft) in the bomber role. @csmag: I'm glad that you're once again interested in my work. I hope to come out with something working as soon as possible.

The model is very good. yet I don't understand what a Predator should do in a flight simulator. Other 3D models, such F-15E, EF-111, EA-6, should be more suited to this sim. but you are the devs, you do what you like best. I'm looking forward for the Su-25 template, but it's now downloading 140 Mbytes at less than 8 KB/s :( And yes, those shelters seem a bit transparent....

I've played a bit modding the F-15C into an F-15E Strike Eagle. This modding however was very very limited, much more than I thought. Even just adding all the A/G pylons isn't possible if you want to fly it, because LockOn won't recognize the new pylons and won't let you fly this bird. So it just can be used as an AI-controlled aircraft. With all correct A2G pylons added, the starboard pylons behave in a strange way, while in the payload-editing window they show up correctly. Then, if you add the AG stores on already existing pylons, only AI pilots could employ them. The Lantirn pod in Lomac is tailored to the F-16 and when added to the F-15, Lomac refuses it and won't show the F-15 in the simulation. While this was a silly mod, just to play with some things, I think it would add some fun to have a bomb dropping F-15 (no AG radar). The picture below is taken from McDonnel Douglas and shows the F-15A HUD modes. Yes, it appears that the F-15A had A2G capabilities. (and as far as I know some pilots also trained in A2G for a brief time, many years ago) picture is taken from "Modern Fighter Aircraft" by A. Thornborough, but I've also seen it in other books, like "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick.

oh thx man, I didn't deserve that much!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm very sorry you took so seriously my post about the credits. I'm already very glad that my skin is appreciated and used by some Lomac pilots. Now I feel shame that I made you lose so much time for such a silly thing! ;)

thx. I think World Air Power Journal has good info, so the 600 US gal size seems correct for the ferry tanks. 1400 US gal would be enormous!!! keep in mind that the A-10 is not a huge plane compared to other fighters/bombers, so the 600 US gal figure seems to be correct. Also the comparison with the travel pod tells that it's a big fuel tank but not the MOAFT (mother of all fuel tanks) :)

The A-10 can actually carry up to three 600 US gal fuel tanks (2536 litre), for a total of 1800 US gal. They are only used for ferry flights. The other thing near to the fuel tank should be pod to carry the pilot's own luggage. So your photo was probably taken during a ferry flight, like the one above here (my picture is from Squadron Signal "A-10 In Action", tech info from World Air Power Journal, issue no.16 Spring 1994)

good vid, just a bit sad you didn't mention my Desert Falcon skin (as you did with Mitch and Dscythe) in the credits :( sigh sigh!

no, quote: "ipconfig it says that my ip adress is 192.168.1.102" this is the PC/lomac-server IP 192.168.1.100 is the router's IP address, but the game runs on a PC, not on the router ;)

This is the data of your router: - MAC address is the unique ID of your router, but it's referred to the item, that's not gonna be used by anyone. - IP Address is the unique net address of your router inside your LAN - subnet mask is a kind of filter to understand who's in your LAN - DHCP server has to be disabled. It only gives you dynamic IP addresses inside your LAN, but you'll likely need static ones to allow port forwarding. - Start/End IP addresses are used with DHCP, it just tells the router the range where local IPs can be chosen. Some programs (like hosting games) need a direct connection to Internet. So if you are inside a LAN behind a DSL connection, you're likely to use a NAT (network address translation) protocol, which allows more than one PC to connect to the internet using the same connection and the same IP. Your router manages the fact that all data need to be sent from/to a computer inside your LAN to/from another Internet machine. So you have a public IP address, which is given by your provider, and a private address, which is set up in your LAN, and has to be 192.168.XXX.XXX. When you host a game or a thing like that, other people need your PUBLIC address. that is shared by all PCs on your LAN. Then, on your LAN you need to set up a server and to tell the router that some data packets need to be addressed to that server. in your example 70.111.76.201 is your public address. you must tell other players that address (BTW, it's changed every time you connect/disconnect) then 192.168.1.102 is your Lomac-server's IP. You must tell your router that on some specific ports (such as 8767), traffic has to be routed to 192.168.1.102, which is your game server. this is known as port forwarding, or SUA (single user account) setup. Each entry in the port forwarding menu must also have a reference to the protocol used, TCP or UDP. At this point other people can connect to 70.111.76.201, port XXXX, using protocol XXX and the router will route them to your game-server, which is 192.168.1.102. If you have a firewall installed you must also check that it doesn't block your incoming connections. PS: 127.0.0.1 is just the so-called loopback address, that is your own PC, aka localhost. That address is not visible outside your PC, since each PC has its own 127.0.0.1. You'll better not use this kind of address when configuring a network.

mmmm... you may be right but your example was not that good :) Falcon 4 has a DC, LockOn has not. Falcon 4 can manage a large number of flights/units, LockOn can't. It seems that the F4 approach seems at least better than the one used in Lomac. Today's CPU are maybe 10 times more powerful than the ones we got when F4 came out. But when you're talking about AI, trees and in general about algorithms, a non-optimal approach can lead you to performance which are much more than 10 times worse (sometimes we can increase the computational cost by orders of magnitude, or even with exponential growth rates). I'd also like to remind you that F4 was SLOW on those machines, even on the suggested high-end ones (P2 450Mhz, from F4 manual). Given that a modern sim would have to manage a lot more details (at least about graphics, even if helped by GPUs), I don't see a reason why the bubble model (maybe with some improvements) could be labelled as obsolete due to the new CPUs. Even today we can't afford to waste CPU cycles by using a non-optimized approach. And, just IMHO, tomorrows' sims shouldn't be published without a good AI and a DC. They would just be games, not sims, like those for consolles.

GGTharos is right. No bubble system can be incorporated in Lomac (nor in any other sim) without having to rewrite the game engine from scratch. If this will happen in the future, it would no longer be an addon, it would definitely be a new game. (this is true unless Lomac already includes a skeleton of dynamic campaign, which could have been cut just before release, but I don't think this is the case) Today Lomac is a simple tactical sim for small-scale engagements (air-to-air engagements, attacks against a convoy, against a bridge...). Just putting 2 separate tactical situations in this sim leads to "critical" FPS levels. BTW I'm not talking about graphics issues (which can be solved by LOD patches), I'm talking about game-engine issues. Lomac is unable to handle complex situations. I've read in some posts that in theory a dynamic campaign can be done even with few units. This is true, in theory, but how much will it be appealing when applied to a sim? Take a "small-scale" scenario like the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, and suppose you'd have to plan a typical mission: how many units do you think you'd have to put in? a dozen? I don't think so. even in a such a "small-scale" scenario there would probably be at least a hundred indipendent units (unit = group of 1 or more vehicles/aircraft/ships). And to have a true dynamic campaign you must put them all in the scenario.

you may want to read this: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6595

Chapparal (ground launched AIM-9), Humraam (Hummer+Amraam), Spada (ground-launched Aspide AAM)... definitely not a new concept

This western CD version requires standard Starforce activation or has just a CD-check? Please, no guesses, I'd like to hear some words from those who really know this thing.

Yes, it is possible, but only for AI-controlled aircraft. BTW, every AI-controlled aircraft can drop bombs (at least it was so for LockOn 1.02). You can't drop bombs with the F-15 if you are flying it. You can only if the AI is flying it. You must add the A2G weapons to the aircraft (edit meinit.xml or use any utility) you must add the payload and the appropriate roles (Ground Attack). Then you can setup a bomb run with your AI aircraft. I had even an IL-76 dropping two iron bombs with 100% accuracy. At least in 1.02 ground attack isn't really well-modelled, at least for AI aircraft. That was why I was asking to get the F-15E as a non-flyable aircraft. The AI aircraft have real loose requirements as they are superficially modelled as far as the avionics are concerned. For example the Tornado is included in the game, but no AG radar is implented, let alone the complex TF radar that it uses for ultra-low penetrations. In Lomac, AI aircraft behave quite all the same way, it seems like their performance are based on parameters fed to a generic FM. For example at low level, the Eagle and the Tornado have the same kind of ride. Ask their pilots, and you'll know that's not true. Wing loading and gust effects seem not to be modelled here. That's why I'm asking to add more non-flyables, as soon as we have a good 3D model and a good skin. But I'm goin' far from the initial scope of this thread.

What ED IMHO missed to understand is that i) every copy protection is gonna be cracked, sooner or later, so it will happen also to starforce (I've read that has already happened for games like SH3). And sooner or later also FC will appear as a "freeware" somewhere. ii) this kind of community could give great support to any ED product and most of us would be glad to buy an addon to support future developments. That holds true IMHO even without a copy protection. iii) starforce is a very invasive protection. it simply does things that are at the edge of legal software. Installing itself as a spyware, as a system driver so it's extremely difficult to be removed and/or disabled, and causing problems to other parts of the OS/hardware system. It's still not clear what it really does, and since it's tightly closed source, there'll be no way to know this. iv) ED could have allowed an official English CD distribution which made use of just a cd-check copy protection, much cheaper and which causes less trouble v) with starforce causing so much trouble in the community this prevents many people to buy the game, increases the cost of customer support (more troubles to deal with), and decreases the overall feelings towards this game. vi) starforce is not freeware. so when you pay your $ 35, I suppose a bit of them goes to SF. I'm not a marketing expert, but I'm convinced that good product + cheaper price = more copies sold. Copy protections and other things like that are made for companies with HUGE markets (microsoft, symantec, or maybe pop stars on their audio CDs: how many folk singers have released copy-protected CDs?) I'd love to fly with FC for several reasons, but I don't think I'm gonna buy it until I know very clearly what SF does to my PC. I simply don't want to be hijacked by a copy protection system. When a crack for this system will be out we'll know for sure that it'll have caused much more troubles to legitimate users than to unlegitimate ones. Given that SF had also slowed down the release of this game, I think it has caused enough damage to FC. BTW, SF people are not responsible for this. responsibility lies in ED choices. ED had been warned about it but it simply ignored those warnings.

thanks man. my thoughts were mainly about the EW environment and radar missiles. I've read that some parts of that code are gonna be rewritten sometime. I wondered if such patches would be included in a 1.1.01 patch :) like the RWR was rewritten in 1.02 or if they're gonna be part of the 1.2 package.

a little bump

- LockOn is a tactical game, theater weapons are not well suited... - Being a tactical game, its typical scenario is a small engagement, on a small tactical scale (also because if you add more than a dozen units the game is very close to freeze) - What's interesting in dropping a nuke? Precision, tactics and other things like that count very little. - The nukes have always been infamous weapons, the world is striving since 60 years to avoid a nuclear war and/or a nuclear attack. Why would you be so pleased to drop one? I don't think nukes are even weapons... they look like annihilitation systems to me... The only pilots who really dropped nukes in wartime after a while got mentally ill or at least had psychological problems... there must be a reason for that.

Hi, I still have to buy FC for 2 reasons, one of them being that I've seen there are some small problems with FC (I'm not talking about activation/payment, I mean issues about HOJ, ECM, and AIM-120 and other things like that) which weren't present in 1.02. This is a serious question, I don't want to begin a flame... in the near future could there be a patch for possible 1.1 bugs or in any case we'd have to wait until 1.2 (if it'll ever come out)? Again, this is an request for info, it's not meant to be a polemical post.

I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm just saying it's not realistic. When I first started this thread it was some time that I didn't land with Lomac, and I applied the Falcon 4 technique, which AFAIK is one of the most realistic. And I crashed several times, until I understood it wasn't my fault, it was just the landing speed that was too low for Lomac standards. Landing at 150-160 knots with the A-10 is simply as realistic as flying with unlimited weapons. Just as an hystorical note, the most difficult sim to land with IMHO was F-16 Combat Pilot, for Amiga. You had to be very careful, and often there was "undercarriage damage" or the personnel reporting "heavy landing". But maybe it was just because I was a kid, and instead of a Hotas I had a simple joystick, which was more suited to arcade games...

I always land with brakes and flaps fully deployed as it happens in real world, due to the high thrust of the F100 engines (PS: the eagle should have more brake positions instead of just "on" and "off") This was an old thread, since then I re-learned to land in LockOn, but after a few tests, it seems that this problem still exists, at least IMHO. The problem is that to land without problems with the F-15 you must fly the final approach at more than 150 knots and land at about 135-140, depending on load (fuel+stores). As far as I know the real Eagle lands between 120 and 130 knots, and it's also considered a fast landing aircraft, like the F-117 for example (this is why early F-117 pilots took a ride on the F-15). Even the A-10 in LockOn lands at 120-130 knots. So basically the landing speed in LockOn seems quite exaggerated at least for US aircraft. The further problem is that below these speeds the FPM seems not to work properly. It's not just a matter of goin' out of the HUD, that happens also if you fly with the "front view without cockpit". Simply put the FPM, which basically plots a virtual line where your aircraft should go, behaves in a strange way and also your aircraft (the F-15) at about 125 knots calls the "minimum speed warning" and then falls towards the ground. But if you watch outside views, you'll see that AI F-15s fly the very final leg at 126 knots, that AFAIK is the correct speed. Try this with your own Eagle and if you're lucky you'll cut the fence at the end of the runway. Now I have managed to land with all aircraft in LockOn, I also landed with a crippled A-10, but the problem is that IMHO the final approach is not very realistic if compared to other sims, Falcon 4 for example.

Uploaded new skin for Israeli F-4E Phantom II (Kurnass 2000), 201st Squadron, Tel Nof AB, Israel. http://digilander.libero.it/lockon/download.html#f4e_2000_201

ok guys, please calm down. Maybe I was misunderstood, but my point was just that from playing the 1.1 Demo I didn't notice very big changes to the game. At least I didn't notice so many changes to understand why there has been about one year of development and many months of delay of the release. And so I understand why there are many supporters who have lost their patience and bought other things with the money the were reserving for FC. I've already read that page, JJ, I find there are interesting things about FC, but still I cannot find the solution of the two most terrific Lomac deficiencies: the DC and the AI. Lomac is absolutely beautiful and stunning when talking about details, but when it comes down to single player missions, it's quite frustrating since it's unplayable. but this is not the place to talk about that. My comment was that if ED had problems to release the english version of FC, it could have aired that statement a bit earlier... not always to wait for complaints and then react. And also the continuous delay of the release date has not contributed to make it appear a serious thing. I hope to have been polite enough, because the last thing I want is to start a flame. As I already mentioned, FC is not gonna change major things of my own life, so that I generally agree that if it's released ok, if it is not, ok anyway.