zzzspace

Come off it, it's not based on a "virtual perception" of what it should sound like, at all. I hear fast jets taking off and landing and flying over nearby most days. I know exactly what they should sound like, for real. I heard two fighters taking off as I was writing the reply above this one. Some people can discriminate sound in detail, some are skilled at it, many can't, and a smaller number people have 'tin-ear', and are unable to sense even obvious changes to pitch, harmonics, amplitudes and timbre.

hmm, this seems to be yet another one of those areas where people have become so accustomed to what's fake and completely unreal that they become desensitised to it. We don't need a track, I'm not experiencing a bug, this is present in all of the DCS versions, not just within DCS:WORLD. When on external views the jets fly along on dry thrust with not that many problems in the sound balance between sounds (other than that the FrontEngines don't work and the AroundEngine is jacked up a bit too much to compensate for that, making the sound piercing and screechy at times). So a jet then engages afterburners, and suddenly, both in front of, and behind the jet, any jet, any mission, any DCS version, there's this absurd roaring, (Doppler-shifted to higher pitch in front of course) that's many times louder than the natural sound from an afterburning fighter is. It's just way out of balance with the rest of the engine sounds the jet is making. I've heard thousands of afterburning jets in real life, as I'm sure you have, and I pay particular attention to the sounds they make, and none of them sound anything like the afterburning cacophony that's occurring in DCS. Afterburners are loud, rumbly and crackly, indeed, they dominate when lit, but many other contributing sounds are still audible as well. It needs a sonic reality-check. and it's dead-easy to do within the .sdef config files in DCS. This is the standard PlaneAfterburner.sdef contents -- wave = "Effects/Aircrafts/Engines/PlaneAfterburner" inner_radius = 700 outer_radius = 10000 cone_inner_angle = 60 cone_outer_angle = 180 cone_outer_gain = 0.6 direction = {-1, 0, 0} -- Notice the; "cone_outer_gain = 0.6" This means that the gain of the "PlaneAfterburner" file will be fully 60% as loud in front, as it is behind. While the afterburner sound behind is already way too loud, compared even to the BackEngine setting. Now you've seen jets do a straight line high-speed fly over at say 550 to 600 knots right? There's almost no sound heard, except maybe a moan and a ripple, until the jet rushes past you, when you get an almighty roar. Ok? Now look at the top part of the file, it says; "outer_radius = 10000" That's 10,000 meters distance, in every direction, that this Afterburner can be heard. The out come of that setting means that even in front, when that after burner is lit, then 60% of the sound is directed forwards of the jet, out to 10km range, and at any speed below supersonic. Now how does that tally in any way with what you hear at a jet base, or an airshow? It doesn't at all. And that other part above it; "inner_radius = 700" what this does it is sets the sound to 100% out to a radius of 700m, before the amplitude begins to taper off! That means that (doppler-shifted roar you hear in front) this 60% level that you hear in front is fully at 60% amplitude all the way out to 700 m in front of the jet! Bonkers. Now hit F3 key ... are you viewing from less than 700m from the jet? Yes you are! Are you going to tell me you can't tell the difference between this cacophony and what you'd hear in an air display? What that afterburner config file should look like is something more like this. -- wave = "Effects/Aircrafts/Engines/PlaneAfterburner" inner_radius = 500 outer_radius = 25000 cone_inner_angle = 90 cone_outer_angle = 120 cone_outer_gain = -1.0 direction = {-1, 0, 0} -- But even then, the afterburner is still going to be way too loud and out of balance behind the jet, to match with the PlaneBackEngine .sdef sound config and .ogg. And then you're then going to hear the front of the jet all of a sudden, and realise it needs properly tuning too. This DCS sound engine is very good, and the .sdef configs are a terrific improvement over what we had before, with actually massive tuneable potential, but you need to allow your sound devs to systematically tune it. It's been built, but it hasn't been tuned. They need to just use some basic logic of what should and shouldn't be heard from each direction, and to balance the amplitudes in a more realistic fashion. It could be made so much better, with minimal time and effort. Seriously, who would leave a graphics engine, or a flight model in an un-tuned and baulked half-finished state? So why does it keep happening to the sound in Lomac, then FC 1 and 2, and now DCS? This sound engine and the stock sounds have the potential to really cook, and it should right out of the box.

Good, hope we'll get the full repetior of engine go in a DCS fastjet.

Voted superhornet, but kind of amazed almost 2/3 of everyone else did as well. Looks like most want a true fighter and true attack fastjet in one package. You all have impeccable taste!

Data-logging control inputs (it's digital fly-by-wire after all), combined with multi-axis inertial data-logging will give a real clear mirror of how the aircraft actually moved, and responded in common manoeuvres at a range of speeds and loads. If I remember correctly, when FC came out they made a thing out of the flight model being constructed from actual flight data. Not guesstimated. I expect that's the standard each dedicated DCS aircraft must conform to (DCS F-15E will be interesting). But does engine performance in DCS aircraft mirror the real-world change in engine performance as atmospheric conditions, altitude and speed change? Anyone know this?

DCS afterburners are about 15 times louder than necessary? ... and they're also audible forwards in the sdef's sound cone? ... why? Was this some bean-counter, or marketing guru's great contribution to the project, to add to the sonic appeal ... and thus to total sales? "... give it more 'woof' Mr sound dev! ... more WOOF I say!!! ..." Whoever suggested this be done is an audio Philistine. I don't believe for one second the DCS sound devs voluntarily made it sound this way, as I'm sure they didn't. Having the afterburners so loud, even in front of the aircraft's path, means it drowns out every other sound being emitted, and any detailed subtle sound image and atmosphere they've created, is thus totally ruined and wasted. Why would anyone do that? It's not a problem for sound modders, I can totally rearrange the audio to make it work many times better (I already have), but why put out a jet sim to the public in this farcical state of audio debauchery and imbalance? Let the sound devs do their job the way they want to, the results will be much superior and in fact, far more saleable. Marketing gurus stay out of the kitchen.

It's not just the Su-27 FrontEngine, most of the fast jet aircraft have this same problem: (from a post I made at LockOnFiles yesterday) -- I found a significant issue with the sound-engine: I began to suspect a serious problem with the FrontEngine sounds in DCS:WORLD, they didn't seem to be working, no matter how you adjusted the PlaneFrontEngine.sdef file settings. So I went back to all vanilla-standard .sdef config files and to the standard .wav and .ogg files. But I removed all wind and turbulence sounds and Afterburner, AroundEngine and Back Engine sounds, for all aircraft. That left just the FrontEngine sound in place on all aircraft, with which to generate engine sound. I built a mission with lots of different aircraft in it and tested it for sound. Sure enough, no FrontEngine sounds are emitted by most of the aircraft! Some do work, however, and these were; All civil jet aircraft seem to be OK. All propeller driven transports and Tu95 etc., seemed to work OK. All jet transports, tankers, AEW, and B-52 FrontEngine seem to work OK. All other jet bomber FrontEngines do not work. All jet fighter FrontEngines do not work. All jet strike/attack aircraft FrontEngines do not work. There are no engines sounds coming from these aircraft, whatever. The Su-33 is also emitting a strange noise in this state, sort of like a warbling intermittent APU type sound, especially when in the circuit to land. I checked it a second time and it still did it. It seems to be is the airbrake is engaging and disengaging, several times per second (but not long enough to visably open it ), continuously. I found the F-5 did it sometimes too, but not as much as the Su-33 does. The Su-27 and Su-30 didn't seem to do it.

zzzspace version 3.0 - Complete Soundpack for Lock On FC2.1 (FINAL VERSION for FC2.1) Released: June 1st 2012 === Want to hear it before downloading it? I made an audio-sampler file (in .ogg format) containing several different flybys, at various speeds, distances, manoeuvring, approach/landing/taxiing, etc. Plus some mechanical sounds and ground-war battle-sounds (namely, two armoured columns going at it with arty and missiles). Example audio: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?t9wdbk2x0qa2cc4 Downloaded file: "Example FC2.1 zzzspace 3.0 Sounds.ogg" (approx 10.7 meg) === DESCRIPTION OF SOUNDPACK: Much processing, experimentation and testing went into making this sound pack which is the most sophisticated 'real' sounding soundpack available for FC2.1. This version deals almost entirely with the sounds within the /Sounds/Effects/ folder. The sounds are now more distinct or else less over-printed by a wash from other sounds. I've expanded the dynamic range as far as it will go which is critical for creating a life-like sound-image in Flamming Cliffs 2.1. The innovative engine 'moans' ('fore'-sounds) and the ripping and rippling ('pre'-sounds), that I initially introduced with v2.0, have also been refined, EQed and better level balanced for V3.0. It takes FC2.1 to a new level of sound realism, that has not been achieved in a previous or current modern-combat flight simulation or sound pack. Experimentation used to create V3.0 has satisfied me that further yieldable improvements would be fairly minor, so this will be the final soundpack for this version of FC. I'm pleased with what could (eventually) be teased-out of the constraints of FC2.1's sound-imaging engine. VERSION 3.0 CONTAINS THESE FEATURES: FRONT ENGINE and AROUND ENGINE : As per v2.0, but optimised and balanced (pitch and volume matched). BACK ENGINE : Although v2.0 was particularly good in this area, I needed to create a completely new sound for v3.0 to get a better sound image balance and effects. NOTE: all of the engine and external flight sounds are carefully constructed and fine-tuned to operate together. If you elect to swap or replace any of the engine sounds, the sound-image and effects will be degraded. AFTERBURNER : Same as v2.0, but volume re-balanced so it's now more distinct and 'fits' better into the sound image. EXPLOSIONS : I've never been satisfied with explosions in my previous sound packs--now I am. They're quite realistic and the ground battles, air-strikes and artillery barrages sound epic. Extensive use of stereo effects. There are small improvements and tweaks, too numerous to mention. I made an effort to address all lingering 'niggles'. The Intro-screen sound-track I included with v2.0 has been removed to reduce the size of v3.0. SOUNDPACK HOSTED BY: "LockOnFiles" - downloadable at this page: http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2229-zzzspace-v30-complete-soundpack-for-lock-on-fc21/ enjoy -- A special thank you to Tom Weiss for his kind assistance and hosting of the soundpack up at "LockOnFiles" - very much appreciated Tom.

I'm angry ... I went on a Buddhist retreat ... but it didn't help.

zzzspace v2.0 Complete Soundpack for Lock On FC2.1 Released: Feb 10 2012 Hosted at Lock On Files: (thank you Tom for all the assistance) http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2168-zzzspace-v20-complete-soundpack-for-fc2/ Description: This soundpack was created with one thing in mind, to make FC's jets sound like the actual jets. It is the most authentic soundpack available for Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2.1. IT CONTAINS THESE FEATURES: (1) EXTERNAL SOUNDS: The FrontEngine and AroundEngine sounds have been 100% replaced for the fighters in this new version, and a more realistic new afterburner sound has been added and re-balanced with the BackEngine sounds. All engine and external flight sounds are very carefully constructed to present the most realistic sound environment ever heard in Lock On. The missile and explosion sounds have been further replaced or renovated. (2) COCKPIT SOUNDS: I've listened carefully to actual audio of fighter cockpits of manoeuvring aircraft and tried to re-create the overall environment, character and effects. What is in this soundpack is very close, with some necessary concessions. Subdued pilot breathing and air-combat radio-chatter are incorporated. I've also provided more 'stressed-breathing' effects for higher angles of attack during more aggressive manoeuvring. I've re-balanced the relative avionics warning-tone volumes for this far more realistic sound environment. (3) RADIO SOUND: 'Betty' and 'Almaz' have been edited to highlight the most important and relevant warnings while de-emphasising ancillary alerts. All warnings are made shorter via removing unnecessarily long gaps between words, plus I've mildly increased the pitch to speed-up their playback. This approach provides the earliest, clearest and loudest verbal missile launch and o'clock directional alerts, plus damage reports and recommendations occur more quickly, allowing you to understand and respond significantly faster. (4) INTRO SCREEN: Replaced the FC2.1 background audio with real-world high-intensity air-to-air and ground-to-air combat audio sequences. (5) EXTRAS: Included an alternative file called; "CockpitSystems ALTERNATIVE NO RADIO CHATTER OR PILOT BREATHING.ogg" This file's name is self-explanatory. If you wish to use this alternative file instead of the one with the breathing and radio chatter that comes standard with this soundpack, then rename this file to, "CockpitSystems.ogg" (after having manually deleted the existing CockpitSystems.ogg file that's already provided). This soundpack is not intended to work with other versions of Lockon. enjoy.

Glad you're enjoying it- cheers

Hi Sov that 'crackle' is a part of the explosion dynamics, so I don't really perceive it as a problem, mainly because in the game you can rarely hear it. This 'ExplodeAir' sound comes from an 84mm Carl Gustaf recoil-less rifle test, using a laser-guided fused airburst munition so this 'crackle' is probably residual supersonic shrapnel hitting. 84mm Carl Gustaf recoil-less rifle fused airburst: Thanks for the feedback. I like it when people hear stuff which I haven't been focusing on.

ZZZSPACE SOUND PACK FOR FC2.1 This is a zip package created using ModMan 7.3.0.0 Utility - required for its installation. MediaFire link to file: http://www.mediafire.com/?lfxp0mvg1jdt0dc zzzspace v1.0 Complete Soundpack for Lock On FC2.1 Released: 6th Jan 2012 This soundpack was created with one thing in mind, to make FC jets sound like real jets. If you heard a real fighter fly overhead today that is what this soundpack sounds like. It is the most realistic, dynamic and sophisticated Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2.1 soundpack available. It takes FC2.1 to a higher standard of modern air combat audio imagery. IT CONTAINS THESE FEATURES: (1) EXTERNAL SOUNDS: Engine and external flight sounds were very carefully constructed to present the most realistic sound environment ever in Lock On. One that closely approaches to the real sound character of high performance fighter jets. Explosions and missile sounds are new and carefully selected from live fire exercises and combat. (2) COCKPIT SOUND: I listened to audio of recorded fighter cockpit sound environments and tried to re-create that sound environment. It's close in overall character with some necessary concessions. I selected an F/A-18E cockpit as the generic sound within this soundpack, as it provides the best quality and characteristics I could find. I also added subdued pilot breathing in the background and air-combat radio-chatter. Plus I provided more stressed breathing effects for higher angles of attack and more aggressive manoeuvring. I balanced the avionics warning-tones so that they fit better with the overall cockpit atmospherics. (3) RADIO SOUND: 'Betty' and 'Almaz' have both been edited to highlight the most important and relevant warnings, while de-emphasising ancillary or otherwise monotonous alerts. All warnings are made shorter via removing unnecessary long gaps between each word, plus mildly increasing pitch to speed-up playback (especially for Almaz) without reducing the clarity or degrading the diction. This approach also provides the earliest, clearest and loudest verbal missile launch and o'clock directional alerts plus damage reports and recommendations playback more quickly, allowing you to understand and respond faster. (4) INTRO SCREEN: Replaced the FC2.1 background audio with two real-world high intensity air-to-air, and ground-to-air combat audio sequences. (5) EXTRAS: Included an alternative file called; "CockpitSystems ALTERNATIVE NO RADIO CHATTER OR PILOT BREATHING.ogg" The name of the file is self-explanatory. If you wish to use this alternative file instead of the one with the breathing and radio chatter that comes standard with this soundpack, then rename this file to, "CockpitSystems.ogg" - after having manually deleted the existing CockpitSystems.ogg file that's already provided - of course. This soundpack is not intended to work with other versions of Lockon. enjoy

Well thank you Nate for viewing those tracks and undertaking to formally report it. Two things: (1) I think selling a sim this fundamentally broken in low-level flight demands it be patched, and users should demand this of ED. (2) A buyer and user like me should not have had to be the one to point out an issue that's so dramatically obvious, as to how blatantly dysfunctional low-level flight is within these sims. I've wasted almost $200 dollars AUD buying these ED titles, and little prospect of patching it. Not impressed. I don't intend to repeat the mistake via buying FC3.0, nor DCS v2.0

Nate, have you any comment yet regarding the Track 5 link that I posted of the B1-B actually flying Low-level (at about 270ft), properly, with respect to the situation of al the other aircraft? See : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1351262&postcount=115 For your info, I have determined that ALL of the bombers in FC2.1 and in DCS, can fly low-level, but only *IF* you can mess around long enough to convince the LOW LEVEL alt settings for each waypoint to actually lock-in the low alt setting you want at each waypoint within FC2.1's mission editor I also found that the S3 is likewise able fly low-level terrain-following mode with no problems. But if you then take a properly functioning mission and set of waypoints, and substitute an S3 with a fighter or multirole attack aircraft, the plan then ceases to execute as planned, and the low-level flight becomes unworkable - a useless nonsense within both FC2.1 and DCS. People who have actually watched those tracks will want an explanation as to what ED intends to do to put an end to this mess. May I suggest a patch, in the very near future, to actually repair it. I say repair, not just a debug, because as the tracks I supplied show, a vital and very large portion of ED's sim(s) simply don't work, as a result to it. Tell me your company is not contemplating just leaving FC2.1 in this untenable state, and selling more of it to people like me in the interim.

Eureka Nate! A very promising breakthrough / discovery. I found an aircraft that does fly low-level in terrain-following mode, as planned, and it does it very well. The B1-B TRACK 5 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?j7ar0c8a570foae I set the B1-B to PINPOINT STRIKE with EXCELLENT AI (although I suspect the role and Ai level does not alter the low-level flight behaviour, but need to check). It all works for the B1-B, flies just like I want, as planned, and as I expected it could, and should. I discovered this with FC2.1, and then tried it also in DCS and it works equally well in both sims. I suspect it may even work for all of the heavy bombers in each but have to check that. It may even work in LOMAC 1.02, but I've yet to try that. This demonstrates that there is fully-functional low-level flight code in FC2.1, already, but the other aircraft are not using it. Or rather, they are not using it properly. I then studied the F/A-18C, using the exact same mission, and waypoints, and determined that these also are in fact using a terrane following code, but they're massively over reacting to the terrain. i.e. the terrain sensing parameter and reaction trigger is simply set way to sensitively for fighters and attack aircraft. The next track #6 shows that they are in fact trying to do the same thing as the B1-B, but they are just constantly over and under reacting to the terrain map. They react much too late, and when they finally do react, they massively over-react with pitch and power, then are much slower to cut power and nose over, like the B1-B does. That's what's going wrong with it all Nate. If this is fixed it will solve most of the problems, then it is a matter of refining the way the AI addresses the targets, with attack and egress tactics that are realistic, and it may all work. You need to get your guy to isolate the code for the B1-B's terrain avoidance then macro apply it to the other aircraft, and there's a good chance this will be the necessary solution to this low-level flight disaster. F/A-18C TRACK 6 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?c7yq5cp3qumwh6d

Gross dysfunction of low-level flights in LOMAC, FC2.1 and DCS A-10C These DCS A-10C v1.1.0 low-level flight experiments were kept deliberately simple and prosaic. Nothing complicated was attempted and basically the AI takes-off then flies over a coastal plain, over a few small hills, up a steep valley and over a dam wall and lake, then over a few ridge lines connecting classic deep glacial valleys, at a suitably low-level to avoid early detection and warnings by medium range GBAD radar. All waypoints in the flight are thus set to 65m AGL (~200 feet AGL). This is a very low level of flight, but strike pilots are typically trained extensively to do this consistently. I of course realise the Ai in this program, nor any human or aircraft can fixate rigidly on maintaining that sort of height, in practice (though pending death would help). But what I do expect and what should occur is that the Ai will try to smoothly and efficiently attempt to approximate a 65m AGL within the smoother valley floors, and also to not exceed 65m AGL by much as it noses over any high ridgeline, and to be back well below it again within a few seconds. I wanted to see if the Ai would again begin to fly over the dam lake at a steady 65m AGL, and it did, but as soon as it reached the end of the lake and met terrain again any semblance of low-level flight became a debacle, leading to crashes into terrain, and the ludicrous 'heavy-metal yo-yo' behaviour as the AI repeatedly over and under reacts to the changing contours of rising and falling terrain. The flight plan follows the valley WNW for about 150 km and the flight emerges from terrain masking, back toward the edge of the coastal plain near the SAM site, thus unmasking from cover at waypoint 16, and either attacking, or else RECON of the SAM site, then a rapid dash back into steep terrain. I tried this exact same rout and SAM placements for SEAD, CAS and RECON modes with Western and Russian types, to see the effect of weapons on the Ai. All the aircraft in these tracks were set to EXCELLENT AI setting, and the opposing SAMs are set to AVERAGE AI level. The tests were done with a Tornado (1 & 2), Su25T (3) and Su34 (4). TRACK NOTES: TRACK 1 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?325zlbv6mj8m0cd The first track shows a 4-ship Tornado EXCELLENT SEAD flight armed with ALARM and Sidewinders, that takes off then completely ignores the mission flight plan's waypoints and instead flew almost directly on a track to the nearest (Buk) emitter and attacked it from about 2,000 feet up (despite being set to 65m), where upon all 4 aircraft were systematically destroyed. Some of the SAM units were destroyed. There were no tactical 'pop-ups' of pincer manoeuvres used by the Ai, to find it's targets and fire, then dive back towards radar degrading clutter, and terrain-masking. The Ai RWR should sense the emitter type and thus fly an appropriate arc to avoid a direct pass over or too close approach to the SAM (Buk, with TORs and Tunguskas nearby). Instead the SEAD aircraft simply flew straight in at about 1,800 feet AGL toward and over multiple active SAM systems, in full and continuous radar view. Naturally all aircraft got wasted. Thus tactical target 'addressing' was a complete FAIL also, and thus egress and RTB observations were not applicable. FAIL TRACK 2 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?815j26xrrxhp2oa This attempt worked only slightly better -- i.e. extremely badly. It is exactly the same scenario as Track 1, except this time I removed the ALARMS and other weapons and set the Tornado to EXCELLENT RECON role. So a 4-ship RECON flight takes off and does attempt to follow the mission waypoint plan this time. The usual absurd yo-yo routine as aircraft leap vertically up to 5,000 feet AGL soon develops. But it's worse than what you see in LOMAC and FC1 and 2, because the DCS aircraft fly an open formation in transit, so only the lead aircraft flies down the actual path plotted through the valley, so it the only one able to meet the time speed and alt requirements. The rest are all over the shop and the flight becomes very disorderly, disconnected and uncoordinated. Thus it can not reach the waypoints as planned and tactical surprise and coordinated time-compressed attacks are also completely out of the question with such a chaotic nonsense of yo-yo-ing aircraft. They are highly visible to any EW or AEW or even fighter radars, much of the time, thus completely defeating the point of planning a low-level undetected approach. And keeping ultra low most of the time is the only way you're going to minimise detection and break tracking by AEW and vectored fighters. The manic yo-yo-ing finally stopped only when one crashed and the others finally ran low on fuel while still about 120 kms short of their closest approach to the recon 'target' area. Yeah, that's right, they got about 50 kms along the flight path before they ran out of fuel, caused by a combination of the aircraft not having the flight performance envelope necessary to reach the next turnpoint, due to the ridiculous afterburning climbs to avoid a ridge line that is soon >2,000 meters below! Pure FAIL insanity - DCS - digital COMBAT simulation The mission planner provides no feedback of the intended flight path's consequences regarding topographical profile changes directly along the planned flight path transect, and it does not calculate the turn radius arc and pitch radius arc sizes required to pass smoothly at about 65m (instead of >2,000m) above the ridgelines. The mission planning system itself needs to be forward-looking, even as the plan is being manually created, in order to anticipate and calculate to and inform the mission builder something like; "This aircraft type at that height and temp, with that load-out, at that speed, in that flight formation, can not make the turn radius requirement to the next waypoint, or else it can not pitch sufficiently to nose-over the next ridgeline. Please manually move the waypoint further away until it can, or else allow auto adjustment to speed, load-out or waypoint location (in that order) so the aircraft can make that turn. Do you want to auto adjust now? [Yes] [No], etc. The mission planner should simultaneously recalculate if the aircraft is going to have sufficient fuel to complete the planned waypoint route for the attack and RTB. If no, the fuel should be increased, or waypoints edited, or else speed reduced, until it can achieve RTB at the planned base, with a sufficient fuel reserve buffer for emergency evasion needs. I personally think an emergency evasion from actual direct attack by fighters or SAMs, or from mechanical failure and damage are the only valid reasons for ANY aircraft to autonomously disregard flight plan waypoint details. In which case a low level flight SHOULD STILL KEEP FLYING AT LOW LEVEL, and the aircraft should RTB as a soft 'mission kill'. You should be informed of its failure to achieve its planned task. TRACK 3 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?9fyu1bah2n6p1b6 With this track I took exactly the same scenario as the first two and simply replaced the Tornado with the Su25T, and swapped the Russian SAMs for NATO medium and short range Hawk, Avenger and Chaparral units in unchanged locations. I gave the Su25T EXCELLENT CAS role, with no weapons. The track developed in much the same way as Track 2, except the combination of the Su25's lower performance and the open formation within a narrow valley led to it being more prone to collide with high terrain. But the three surviving aircraft eventually simply gave up on terrain-following yo-yo-ing altogether the moment they flew high enough (thousands of feet above a ridgekine) to be detected by the Hawk SAM radar once in range of it. Thus once an aircraft is detected by the Hawk SAM radar it then flies level at about 2,000 feet AGL! The completely wrong tactical response! But the aircraft that are disordered and have fallen behind due to the open formation keep on yo-yo-ing until they also are individually detected, then they too fly level at about 2000 feet AGL in view of the SAM system. Now common sense would tell a pilot this is a particularly dumb thing to be doing right in front of a Hawk battery, especially when there's a deep valley right below you. But the DCS AI is indeed depressed, at it's general inability to fly low-level, so is ready to end it all. Thus the remaining aircraft fly toward the SAM in lower mid-level flight, totally ignoring their 65m AGL mission planning waypoint alt level, plus they're now strung-out over a 6 to 7 km distance, due to the yo-yo nonsense. So they independently trundle towards their dooms, with the airbase's SAM defences whereupon they are one after the other blown out of the sky without further ado. Good riddance. But if there were AEW and fighters around, they would not have made it even that far anyway. Turkey shoot = SYSTEMATIC Ai FAILURE TRACK 4 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?82y8dw9uy29rl8j Exactly the same as Track 3, except I replaced the Su25s with Su34 in EXCELLENT RUNWAY ATTACK role, with iron bombs to see if they could fly any more sanely, but they were even worse than the others, with three of them crashing into terrain, and the fourth did so many afterburning yo-yo's that it simply ran out of fuel, aborted to the nearest runway. This is an aircraft with a loaded combat range of several thousand kilometres!!! But it could not make a 200km low-level attack because of the staggering inefficiency of the way the aircraft attempt to fly at low-levels. Another sad and pathetic EPIC FAIL of low-level attack flight tactics. I considered making another track with the A-10C, but what's the point, the whole thing is the mother of all cluster effs. -- What I'm most appalled by is to see a supposedly dedicated low-level flight attack combat sim, in this ludicrous state of terrain following and target addressing dysfunction. This is actually supposed to be a Hi-Fi simuilation of low-level ground-attack! -- See also ED thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1316213&postcount=21 And recent discussion of these issues at SimHQ http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3468087/Re_FC3_Confirmed.html#Post3468087

Is good, mix n' match, fine by me.

'PC Aviator' in Melbourne are a good buch Cobra, they were quite happy to import Nic Cole's printed manual for Oz lock On flyers, and may be willing to obtain Lock On 1.1 boxes from NaturalPoint USA, for redistribution in Oz. Might be worth giving them a call.

G'day GOYA, that is on of these which I mentioned above; "...(and yes, the sound engine works a bit differently now, and thus other issues emerge in 1.1 but at least the close-formation wingmen won't deafen you any longer (…well, once you start the take-off roll anyway), but you’ll run into issues with external sounds and then back to the pit, and particularly if jumping to other flyable cockpits (which is a real pain in the…errr…ruggbutt… ). ..." Basically the respawn sound problem is much the same as the jumping into another 'pit problem. Its a sound engine glitch, it has a few of them, and altering sound levels won't do anything to prevent those.

cheers *merlin*

Hi Ice, did you backup your original fresh install and activated copy? If you have you could perhaps just copy it over the top and that should be as good as a freshly activated install?

LOL sorry GGT and RuggButt, been a wittle bit naughty playing the freckle out of Dangerous Waters since it arrived (haven't even got around to installing SH III yet ... which I hear is pretty sh!t-hot as well :) ). I made a soundpack to use with the demo (and yes, the sound engine works a bit differently now, and thus other issues emerge in 1.1 but at least the close-formation wingmen won't deafen you any longer (…well, once you start the take-off roll anyway), but you’ll run into issues with external sounds and then back to the pit, and particularly if jumping to other flyable cockpits (which is a real pain in the…errr…ruggbutt… :D ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NOTE: THIS IS A MANUAL, NON-LOMAN MOD INSTALLATION *** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This first version contains just sound effects and Sound.cfg files. You *MUST* use the new Sound.cfg within this pack with FC 1.1 - make sure you change it as well. I've made a more complex pack version but will need time to go over it but this pack will work fine ‘til then. -- Download (40 meg): http://ado.qgl.org/zzzspace_v1_for_lomac_flaming_cliffs_manual_install.zip Mirror sites are of course welcome. (NOTE: this sound effects pack does not work correctly with LOMAC 1.02; no further versions will be produced for 1.02) -- INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Manually BACKUP the original Flamming Cliffs ‘Sound’ folders, then MANUALLY DELETE EVERY FILE within both the ‘SOUNDS’ and the ‘EFFECTS’ folders - you must remove those files or else the .wav replacements will not work. (Note: wav files are used rather than .ogg for better in-game fps performance) 2. Download and MANUALLY EXTRACT the downloaded zip file’s contents: zzzspace_v1_for_lomac_flaming_cliffs_manual_install.zip This will create the full folder structure path containing all of the relevant files of this sound mod. 3. Copy and paste the new soundpack’s files into these folders as indicated by their locations by the unzipped folders. When you are done all of the files within both the ‘Sounds’ and the ‘Effects’ folders will have been 100% replaced. 4. Now place the extracted files into their relevant folders in Flaming Cliffs, 5. Lastly, make sure that you set your in-game ‘Audio options’ precisely like this (or else you will get other than the intended result – these are not the same as in previous sound packs): MASTER VOLUME = 100% (or a setting to balance with multiplay voice comms) MUSIC = 25% RADIO = 50% ENGINES = 100% MECHANICALS = 100% EFFECTS = 100% WIND = 100% WARNING = 50% COCKPIT = 90% -- It’s basically much of the previous version but with a few tweaks and improvements here and there. toodle-pip! (not sure of derivation either :D ) zzzspace 10th Aprill 2005

Hi Biolog, closeness to water in regard to a naval missile's fusing will matter not at all, for a wavelength would be selected which water absorbs and does not reflect significantly, some radar wavelengths can see into the water column and are simply absorbed (same for laser fuses), yet the metallic missile presents a comparatively hard wave bounce obstacle for differentiation from water. The fusing will work fine, the main complication I perceive will be if incoming missiles are using chaff, plus the multiple radar blooms from showers of debris from previous kills, which might muddy the radar picture and the SPY-1 radar’s ability to resolve which are the actual targets, i.e. if all incoming missiles arrived down approx the same bearing corridor then as little as a quarter of the radar overal resolving power could be available to sort out target from decoys or debris (but all CPU power will be available to the filtering).

SM-6: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NL_SM6_110404-P1,00.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-6.htm