zzzspace

Nope, they would have detected them and blown both Exocets away ... and the Iraqi F1 Mirage which launched them. The OHP should have shot down at least one, but the operators did not even detect them inbound (but the CIWS would have ... if it were actually functioning at the time).

Your alluding to USS Stark, right? That OHP used SM-1s and much older and less capable radars, and the Stark's CIWS was not even functional when it left port (which fact came out during the inquiry into why the Iraqi's two exocets struck home without being fired upon by the CIWS).

Not at all, even SM-1 has a max range around 70 km. The SM-2MR max range is >160 km, but its effective range is 70 km, from zero alt to 82,000 ft (i.e at 70 km an SPY-1 direct SM-2 MR produces highly probability kills against supersonic missiles and aircraft).

The Tricon has 127 cells and the A/B 122 cells - 90 is a normal SM-2 load-out, with the remaining cells allocated to Tomahawks and SUBROCs. Yes, they are scary ships, you would have to be ... unwell ... to wish to challenge the current USN. EDIT: BTW I think you made a typo, SM-3 rather than SM-6, the SPY radars are perpetually getting upgraded.

For Lock On 1.2 ;)

A current AAW A/Burke with multiple VLS should knock down 24 missiles with SM-2MR Block 4, with little difficulty ... now, if you used >50 very fast ASW missiles it might have a problem killing all of them in time, but the system can effectively engage 100+ targets simultaneously. Coordinated multi-axis attack should also not offer any significant advantages against an A/Burke DDG (in fact it maybe better to use just a single axis of attack). The two VLS launcher packs can launch 90 SM-2MR missiles (normal load-out - 122 max load), at a rate of 2 per second (1 per sec from each launcher). You need a large airforce and some luck to sink just one of these ships, and the USN will have 57 in service by 2008 (was suppose to be by 2004 but was delayed by the US congress). There were 27 Triconderogas in service in 1994, 22 with Mk41 VLS, and 5 original vessels with high launch surge Mk26 VLS system. If they were modelled correctly you would practically never sink one of these in a Lock On mission.

And mission editors/planners will finally work ... well, ... almost as well as they did ten years ago. :)

I played 688(I) to death, so if you loved 688(I) then Sonalyst's Dangerous Waters is 688(I) x 10.

BattleFront.com, it's worth waiting for, the manual is excellent and the cost is well in proportion I reckon. ASW is a very absorbing art, and DW gets you right into the nitty-gritty of it.

Kula, I haven't heard of others having a similar problem occur. I tried the demo myself a couple of times before getting the full version and it worked without a hitch. It’s odd that a PC that can play Lock On is having a problem running the DW demo. For me I find single play is solid, it does not crash, but multiplay is prone to crashes. I've crashed twice and locked-up once in multiplay, but others I have played with regularly are crashing more often. We’ve also found some missions crash while others don’t seem to and that as with Lock On, the amount of stuff in the mission makes a big difference to it’s smooth in-game performance and data correspondence. Having said that though, I played a four hour multiplay mission last night (big map with few units). I figure the quickest way to get this mp instability fixed is to support multiplay testing effort so the pros can isolate what is causing this selective instability.

:shock: really? I guess they had a bit of trouble de-bugging it ... :P (sorry, couldn't resist hehe)

Err yeah, that was the point I was making.

Skywall23, the F-15C also had its roll rate increased in 1.1 ... and it doesn't have a tendency to stall or get out of trim at all ;) I don't have a favourite aircraft or 'side', I fly them all, and they all kick butt ... in different ways.

Re: zzzspace heh, thanks for asking, I received SCS Dangerous Waters last week (which btw has no disk copy protection scheme or activation of any kind :shock: a very brave move for a net-centric distribution … but the awesome PRINTED 565 PAGE MANUAL is the real selling point which makes you want to pay for DW from BattleFront.com) and have been playing multiplayer ever since. It's brilliant, but with a few bugs to be patched (of course) and some annoying instability issues in multiplay. Steep learning curve but has very good novice modes. When multiplay works there is nothing better out there.

Yeah, it's also corner management, i.e. getting used to the low-energy fighting and not turning any more than you need to. It's not going to be easy if you try fighting a guy doing the same thing, but you can get on even terms with them.

Re: Patch for 1.1 Demo released! Just finished the D/L but need to go sleep, can someone post to let us know if StarForce is still in the patched demo? Thanks.

Firstly, as for reporting large downloads, it wont work, people will simply use archiving and break ISOs into smaller file fragments which will be separately downloaded and reassembled by a zip utility. Piece of cake to get around that one. Second, I did some testing concerning the reports that SF disables the Nero burning software. This claim bothered me a little because I bought a combined CD-R burner and DVD reader (LG) and Nero is the software sold with it to control the CD burning process, a process which all intelligent people regularly use for backing up their important and valued files. As I have Nero it was easy to test, put in a CD and burn a disk. Yep, it still worked ok, no problem. However, I then read that it doesn’t prevent burning per-se, it disables the ISO burning capability. So I tested this further claim, and found that indeed, Nero data burning still works but opening an ISO of one of your CDs causes Nero’s window to flicker for about 10 seconds, then the program CTDs! NOT IMPRESSED! And it can’t be removed by removing the SF driver, or by removing FC, or by removing Nero and reinstalling, nor by re-setting to a restore-point prior to the installation of the FC demo! If I want to back up my very expensive CD programs, which are legitimate, I now can’t, unless I reinstall my operating system, and don’t use any SF protected game, or else get some other ISO CD burning software that SF does not feck up. Sorry, StarForce have zero right to make service denial attacks upon my private and legally owned and used PC hardware and software. Totally unacceptable behaviour SF, and by association, ED. :twisted:

Personally, I'm having a blast in the 1.1 demo (with all flyables), it doesn't have m/p or the mission editor but other that that it's much the same as what the full 1.1 version will be in actual simulated flight/fight terms. What’s the problem with waiting for the full package to be ready? You can build any mission with 1.02 and insert it into the 1.1 demo in seconds, and don't tell me you’ve mastered the manual and new avionics. I can't believe people are 'bored' with the demo already! BTW Lock On 1.0 was a couple of YEARS late, a few months?! … phft! ;)

Yes, I checked this, SF games have been cracked however, it’s also true that cracking them is involved and problematic. The latest SF version has been upgraded to prevent the approaches to cracking SF protected new games. Simply saying cracks are possible and being d/l ignores the complexity involved. SF has made it much more difficult, and the latest SF version has not been cracked. FC with SF will eventually be cracked but it may take many months, and even then, it will occur in comparatively small numbers due to the difficulty. Mission accomplished, investment protected (...mostly). The new SF upgrade is free for all SF's clients so FC should come with this newer level of protection, in which case, there will most likely be no almost immediate downloading of a crack. ;) As regards security concerns, I doubt the people at ED would want their own systems undermined either, so if there were significant security risks to ED itself from using SF in 1.1 … do you really think they'd use it?

yep, it's also a matter of high mountains and cool air doing wonderful things for MANPADS performance envelope and seeker effectiveness.

As with all things, its a combination of training, tactics and the luck you make. "...Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles [early Stingers], 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged. ..." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htm ... suggests a slight higher practical PK. ;)

TR1 GX here and it works better than ever. :)

leafer, that may be reading too much into what was said, i.e. : "At the moment we consider an opportunity of application of other protection for English version 1.1. I shall not answer questions while we shall not define precisely." – Chizh http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?p=44878#44878 -- The point with StarForce is that there are numerous developer or publisher configurable levels of anti-pirate protection possible. I'd be surprised if ED intends to ditch SF protection. It may be that they'll only consider adjusting the SF implementation options (if they end up doing anything else) in order to be less objectionable for legal users. We shouldn't presume what Chizh meant here, and thus get the wrong idea about it.

Well, good night, and I agree, at longer range it is going to be much easier to maintain a Doppler notch geometry.

Yes, thank you GGT, that's precisely what I was referring to when I said it was practically impossible to fly it, one may manage it for a moment, but I don't think (yes, this is an OPINION ... for those who can't tell the difference) the situational awareness and correct timing will be available to fly it consistently. Perhaps an advanced autopilot married to direct passive sensors could fly it consistently (and perhaps the F-35 advanced auto-pilot may be able to fly it routinely to maximise survivability) but I seriously doubt a human pilot can do it very consistently, or consistently enough to utilise it. However, they will beam anyway for other energy sapping, FOV and tactical maneuver reasons, and this may (yes, NOTE, this is also an OPINION) also allow ECM to become more effective in conjunction with the beaming. aspect