Starlight

Not all the people here are children who have nothing better to do all day long than posting on forums... I have my own life, my girlfriend, my exams to do and some work to do too... so my life is already busy... but I also like LockOn, I play with it, and I am also using some part of my spare time to build skins and other kinds of small addons because I think I can give my own tribute to this community and to this sim. I'm a bit disappointed when I see that the people who I'm supporting behave in this way. BTW, the delay of FC is not gonna cause any damage to anybody. It's just a matter of being serious and respectful towards other people, who also happen to be your customers. Keep in mind you're gonna pay $ 35 for a patch that solves some issues and adds a new aircraft... but that still won't complete that game that was sold incomplete by Ubisoft (no dynamic campaing, stripped down AI plus a lot of copy&paste from Flanker 2)

I agree that a software must be released when it's ready, but I also know that each and every software (even much more complex than FC) has a release date. If you don't want to say a day or month you can always use "year quarters". It gives a rough idea, while still keeping some room for last-minute changes. Well FC should have been released many many many and again many months ago. Keep in mind that, whatever you call it, it is a patch, since the new features added are very few, especially when related to the price, which is quite high for an addon which must be downloaded from the Internet. And also, keep in mind that there was an official statement made about 2 months ago which said that game developers had finished their job and were focussing on 1.2 development. What has happened during all this time? I think it's quite normal to be disappointed by the poor management at ED. I don't like Ubisoft as well as the other big "entertainment" corporates, but now we can guess some of the reasons why Ubisoft dropped ED. So, there shouldn't be any surprise at all to see so many people disappointed here. And, like what happened with StarForce, again ED has failed to maintain proper contact with its community. The official statement came only in the evening after many complaints, while it should have been published some days ago. There are not formal rules here to follow, but people can decide whether to buy it or not, and if other companies behave more seriously than ED, it's quite normal that ED loses potential customers.

There was simply no Israeli skin in LockOn for the F-4. The Israelis always used their own camo on their Phantoms, they never used the USAF camo as did Turkey and Japan, for example. I've made quite a "tradeoff" skin, because each Phantom has a slightly different camo, with differences even among airframes of the same squadron. Even bigger differences were present when switching to different squadrons. Anyway this camo scheme is quite "typical" and can be used for most squadrons without any big loss of realism. Given that dealing with camo over intakes and fuselage of this F-4 model is far from being straighforward, I think it's a good tradeoff. Thanks for your interest, and BTW, comments are welcome!

Upcoming F-4E for IDF

added a similar skin for F-4G, 37th TFW, George AFB, 1985 The skin represents the Wing commander's aircraft, and yes, it's built using the same template of the F-4 from Spangdahlem. Comes both in high and low resolution (high-res doesn't fit in cdds and slows down FPS, low-res is not very good but fits in the cdds, it's your choice). The instructions on how to add the F-4 to the US side can be found in the previous F-4G skin package. as always you can grab them here: http://digilander.libero.it/lockon/download.html#f4g_ww_37

F-4G Wild Weasel skin plus info on how to install it http://digilander.libero.it/lockon/download.html#f4g_ww

These photos are from "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick and from "SR-71 The Secret Missions Exposed" by Paul Crickmore". Displayed here just for instructional purposes, don't want to have problems about copyright issues. The first one is a SA-2 SAM launched against an SR-71 and shot by the Blackbird camera. Huge smoke trail in the boost phase (encircled) The second one is an AIM-7 Sparrow high altitude shot, target and missile contrailing due to condesation trail freezing. But the trail is very large and distinctive Two AIM-9L Sidewinder shots, missile shouldn't be in the boost phase, anyway a good trail is clearly visible. The last is a Magic AAM shot... again huge smoke from missile booster What I want to say is that spotting AAMs and SAMs in LockOn is really hard until you hear a loud "boom" (and unless you use realism-killer labels) Instead in real world you should have larger trails (both due to boost and to contrail) and also much brighter flashes when the weapon was fired. I remember that in the wargame "Air Superiority" by USN pilot J.D. Webster, there were good spotting modifiers on the die roll when checking for missile sighting, and it was explained that most of the older missiles made a huge flash and a huge trail when fired, making spotting quite easy. Those modifiers didn't apply to more modern weapons like the AIM-9M.

I also noticed that missiles are very difficult to spot in Lomac. Instead in many videos I noticed that most AAMs produce a huge smoke/condensation trail that makes them quite easy to spot. I know that modern weapons like AIM-9M, -9X, -120, and a lot of Russian ones have their smoke trail reduced, but still Lomac seems much more about late 80s/ early 90s scenarios, when these modern weapons were not available. Same thing holds true for SAMs. Smoke trails, contrails and such effects IMHO are not accurately reproduced in Lomac, yet in real life they are a quite big factor in air combat, because as the old quote told, "to see is to win".

I also agree that NATO radar AAMs seem a bit "underpowered" in this sim both as range and as performance.

It's a shame that some land textures are out of focus. Some also are "double" (they seem taken by a drunk-sat) anyway it's a good program, and it's really fun to zoom in over secret locations, military bases and other things like that (and, obviously, the classic "this is meeeee!!!"). the 3D view is not accurate and well-scaled, but it's good anyway

about the original topic: I've found in the book "Jane's How to fly and fight in the F-14 Tomcat" by David Rockwell these data when talking about the AWG-9 radar installed aboard the F-14: The AWG-9 radar is quoted to have a power of 10,200 Watts, versus the 5,200 Watts of the APG-63 (I think these figures are about early F-15 radar versions) In the same book there is a quite detailed explanation of F-14's radar modes and also there is an estimate of the range at which the AIM-54 Phoenix goes active: 9-14 nm (14-22 km) for its onboard DSQ-26 radar. I wonder how accurate are these estimates, and how did the author get them. Ok, the Phoenix/Tomcat weapon system is being retired but this book was printed in 1999!

I just saw on the F-15 manual that I own that it runs with 24 1,5 V AAA batteries :) One of the black boxes behind the pilot is said to carry the spares and/or the recharger :)

Firefox (the aircraft, not the browser) could be dangerous! Can you imagine a machine that can understand all your thoughts? It would be immediately bought by all the girlfriends of this world to understand what you really think about them and about other girls! :) Or think of this scenario... You're training in ACM with your buddy, you scream Fox 2, and that damn Firefoxish aircraft kills your mate! ooops! :) This kinda aircraft should have a "just kiddin'" switch close to the "master arm" :)

If this is the reason I agree with you

Just found this from an interview with former Defense Secretary, William Cohen about the acquired Mig-29: -------------- Q: What is the U.S. going to do with these MiG fighters? A: We're going to study them. We're going to analyze them. I'm sure the Air Force may come up with some utilitarian use of them. Q: You said they came over on C-17s. Can they be flown? Will our pilots... A: They had to be partially dismantled in order to fly them here. Obviously, one can reestablish their capability. But our purpose is not to do that, but rather to make an analysis of the capabilities, to study what kind of technology is involved so that we can, should we ever in the future have to come into contact with another country having this capability, would know what protections we would need and how to counter some of their capability. Q: When you said this was the first such purchase, you meant of the C models? The United States has other MiG-29s. A: Right. ------------------ :) I like that answer: "Right" full interview here: http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/11/t11041997_t1104ctr.html

The Redhats flew much older types, years ago. I mean captured Mig-15/17/21/23, Su-17 and so on (most were from Arab-Israeli wars)... I never knew they had modernized their machines The Germans operate some Mig-29 and Phantoms at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. They're there for training purposes, since on the German soil there are strong limitations on training (like over most urban areas). The curious thing is that they fly with USAF markings (even if they're German) because of insurance issues. (to be covered by insurance companies in case of mishaps) But it could be true that the USAF is now operating some Mig-29 as aggressors. Do you remember those 21 MiG-29 acquired from the Republic of Moldova in 1997? They were flown to Wright Patterson AFB aboard C-17 and then there is little known about them. Keep in mind that the USN has dismissed all its F-16N aggressors, there are just a bunch of Hornets painted as aggressors at Fallon (one of the squadrons there was also shut down). The USAF has also dismissed most of its aggressor squadrons. I don't know what has happened to those Mig-29s (maybe they were just scrapped) but I don't think the USAF has missed this chance to get the most accurate aggressor aircraft. The Mig-29 had already been evaluated by USAF pilots during their training with the Luftwaffe pilots, but flying every day against the real thing I think it's the most proficient way of training. Since the Mig-29 is currently flown by a bunch countries which are not exactly US allies, I think that a USAF Mig-29 squadron does definitely make sense! Keep in mind also that even the Mig-23MLD when flown by USAF and Israeli pilots was found to be a good threat for the first line of USAF fighters. This is a pretty good reading for those interested in "acquired" aggressor/test aircraft 8) acquired here means stolen or captured ;) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_371.shtml

I know it takes a much bigger work, but it would be nice to have new airbases AND to have them in NATO style. That is, western runways and TAB-V shelters, and NATO trucks. While you're flying NATO aircraft it's a bit "strange" to take off from Soviet style runways crowded with BTRs, Russian Fuel trucks and UAZ. That is, if LockOn was also inteded as a "Westernized" improvement over Flanker 2.5, the work is a bit incomplete. The airbases today are fantastic, but they are so until you fly with Russian aircraft :) Just to be a bore, there's one more thing to say. Many "spotters" reported that in many Soviet runways (I am mainly referring to those in the former DDR/GDR) there were smaller and older HAS, which were unable to store aircraft like the Mig-29, because they had been designed for Mig-21. So the larger Fulcrum simply didn't fit in! In LockOn instead all the airbases have the standard HAS which are large enough to accomodate even the F-15!

you must donwload a plugin for photoshop or paintshop do a google search for "dds plugin". Once you have them installed in your application (psp or ps) folder, you can save bitmaps as dds (and also view dds files). you could take a look to this site http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nv_texture_tools.html

IL2 has a large community to be a sim. Lomac was supposed to become the new benchmark in flight sim, like it was Falcon 4 years ago. Lomac was also one of the products of Ubi. Now the interest in LockOn is mainly brought out by this community, and I don't think FC will attract many more customers, at least in the western market. But that's my point. Put a protection, but a cheap and simple one.... even the most sophisticated protections after a few weeks are cracked. Those which are not cracked are safe just because they belong to games that no one cares about. So instead of buying expensive (yet flawed) 3rd party protection, if I was ED, I would preserve my money for future developments and leave the game with a simple copy protection, just to avoid people think it's a freely donwloadable addon.

I'm very pleased of this semi-official statement. I'd also like to point out that there weren't "conspiracy" threads, but just threads that said that Starforce has had its own problems, and we're still not sure they've been solved. And also in many posts people (myself included) pointed out that adding starforce in the demo without telling the users hasn't been a good idea. I was disappointed because I felt it couldn't have been a mistake, because there have been months of "checking and doublechecking" and being a programmer too I have to admit I find this one a very strange mistake! I'm glad ED is considering other game protection systems, and I suggest to avoid activation systems, because activation is hated not just by crackers, but also by many legitimate users. Microsoft and other big companies can afford product activation, ED I'm not sure it can. One last note: I understand the need of a basic copy protection for this game, but I also think that it isn't worth investing huge capitals on this issue, since this game is gonna be bought mostly by people within this community, IMHO, and I don't think there are many "crackers" able or willing to hack the executable to save just $ 35. I could be wrong but in my opinion we have already proved to be a faithful community, that appreciates and supports ED's activity. So I don't think "hacking to save money" is the attitude of the typical Lomac fan. This usually happens in other kinds of games, with a larger "audience". This is not to diminish the value of FC, but it's just a fact, ours is a quite small community. Anyway I'm happy of this reply by Wags because there was a lot of confusion in this forum, and as I stated in a previous post, it's in the best interest of ED to clarify things and to keep in touch with its community. cheers, Matteo

Re: Facts & Experiments with 1.1 (demo) protection You're not gonna see anything, now!!!!!! Read my previous post! It's not Starforce that sends data (at least now, with the full game it will check for the key), it's that the driver installed by starforce has a security leak that does allow other malicious software and or/routine to be run on your PC. It makes your PC exposed to attacks. Exposed means that you're not sure to see your PC attacked, but there exists such possibility! This leak has been tested by security experts, it's not a "urban legend" of this forum, as someone still thinks

Somebody said that there is this issue. Since it's something I don't know about, I wanna be sure before buying the game. I think at this point it's in ED's best interest to publish info on the 3rd party software they put into their product. The info on Starforce leaks can be found on the Internet (do a google search or browse security sites). As of November 2004 there was no patch for that leak.

It's good that there are these test results but the point is another. The Starforce protection IS NOT a spyware itself, so it won't send packets or data, maybe for some people it was not so clear in all that confusion. BUT, it has been proved that Starforce has bugs that ALLOW malicious software to do things on some PCs that shouldn't be able to do. In a few words,, it seems Starforce protection causes a security leak. Just to make an example. Sometimes there are new bugs discovered in operating systems (like Windows). The problem is not that the OS sends malicious packets or enstabilishes malicious connections. The problem is that the bug ALLOWS other software to do that. This is the reason why bugs and leaks must be patched. Then, the reasons why I'm a bit upset with it are three: - No one told us of the presence of 3rd party software in a freely downloadable demo. if it was the case of the game it could have been less dramatic, because you can expect a copy protection made by 3rd party. But in this case I feel it being a bad behaviour towards a community who has given TONS of support to ED and has also TONS of patience. (both for LockOn and for 1.1 FC) - I don't want a copy protection to cause any security leak. a copy protection should be a feature capable to protect the software house without affecting the product performance and/or other issues (such as OS security). I don't care how much it does affect the security of my PC. Today Starforce is NOT secure. Will it be tomorrow? maybe, or maybe not, or maybe another leak will be found. I want to buy a game with a secure copy protection. CD checks are the only safe way? ok, go burn those CDs for the western market too and send them by mail! no problem! - It's still unclear the knowledge about the game-key issues after 3 re-installs or 3 major pc hardware changes. It's not a minor issue, even if it was totally smooth (that is, after the key is not valid you request another one and you get it). The reason is very simple. Once I have my key not working anymore, will I be able to get another one? Microsoft uses activation, but Microsoft will hardly be out of the scene within the next 10 years (even if some will hope so!). Instead I don't know if ED ot Starforce will still exist in the next 2-3 years (maybe even one, I really don't know). And even if they were still alive, after my key doesn't work anymore, what will I do? I am from Italy, will I have to call a numer to US or to another country and spend 20 more euros of international call to get another key? I'll more likely dump my FC copy in the trash can and bring back LockOn or any other sim. Today I still play with older games when I have some spare time, such as Falcon 4 and Gunship. I wanna be able to do the same with FC. These are the questions ED must answer before I buy FC I have waited so long to get the demo, I can wait something more after FC is out. Before I must know what I'm really getting from ED for 35 $.

We should wait for somebody who wreak havoc on our PCs to say that this was not a good choice? It's the kind of system I don't like. Ok to copy protection, NO to activation and to similar things. Then ED should have gathered info about this product before buying it for their game. Starforce has plans to correct it. ok, plans... if they manage to do so... maybe they won't be able, or maybe they need another year. The FACT is that the software supplied today IS flawed. Full stop! And the other FACT is that no one told us that this software was being installed and could not be removed at least without using proper tools (not supplied) because it contains a flawed software. and also because in many systems the 1.1 demo has showed bugs that affected earlier versions and that were already corrected with previous patches. And all of this happens after many months of delays and "checking and doublechecking" everything ;) It's a patch, with a new aircraft, but the sim basically it's the same.... you can prove by copying all the texture files from LockOn and you nearly have the full game. I, and many people here, feel cheated by a company which we trusted and supported for many months, even when there was long time to wait.

The first bad thing is that this 3rd party software was installed without any notice. And this should NOT be done. It's a silly and shameful behaviour by ED. It was a freely downloadable demo and no one thought it was copy protected. And no one thought a 3rd party software was to be installed. People at ED cannot think that their customers are fully respectful towards them, while they can cheat their customers. This is what they've done, brit, and this is the point you really missed in your post. The second bad thing is that LockOn doesn't have that huge number of players to justify such complex (yet flawed) copy protection systems. There are a bunch of players who will buy the western version. Trust em and they will buy it. Or change the distribution method. Only CD sent by mail, with cd verifier, and that's all. This in turn makes me think another issue: ED is always complaining about the lack of funds which prevents them to develop another flyable or other new features. Why invest more money on the copy protection instead of investing it in new developments? In my opinion new features equal to new buyers. New copy protection equals less buyers. That's my equation, at least for a sim like this, which is bought just by fans. Then ok, 35 USD are not really much today, but keep in mind you have to download a huge amount of data, from a website which has already shown that it cannot withstand a massive 200 Mb download. With 35 USD you don't get any cd, nor printed manual and not even any box. And, LO:FC it's mainly a patch... most sims get patches for free. Many people bought LockOn because they saw on Ubi website that it had a dynamic campaign... they're still waiting it, and they won't get it even with this PAID patch! Another thing is that this copy protection seems flawed and also seem not really user friendly. Today I can install Falcon 4, Gunship and any other game, even if I changed my hardware config 20 times since I bought them. Will I be able to say this of LO:FC in the next years??? Suppose FC gets this "copy protection", after a while ED or starforce go bankrupt.... and FC doesn't recognize my key anymore because I'd have changed my config 4 times.... what will I do then? And, really the last this one, if one player buys a $ 2,000 rig, with a $ 50 antivirus, why should he spoil all of this for a game patch paid $ 35???? It just makes no sense! I (like other people I think) am not here to attack ED or to promote any boycott againts ED. I'm just here to say ok, we can spend $ 35 for a patch, we can support ED, but ED please don't cheat us. And I'd also say that this issue of the copy protection imho is getting many users away from this already poorly supported game. I've always said that LockOn is a great product and it has an even greater potential. But the behaviour of ED towards its fans is getting worse every day. They depend on their community, yet they listen to less than 1/100 of their issues/requests. Their only strong point is that the last good military jet sim is many years old now, and that no one seem to surface in the close future. - A disappointed LockOn player who just discovered a flawed 3rd party software installed without notice with the demo of a "patch" which will cost 35$ USD and that it's already four months late on its schedule.