1.1 Release Date

[Dmut]

Hello Starlight.

Seriously, I don't know a release date, but we can see a lot of activity in closed betatesters forum (btw, I'm not a betatester). So, I think, release is very very close. one more thought about release date - ED is not interested in delaying it, nor they interested in releasing a buggy version. IMHO, they will release it as soon, as all reported bugs will be fixed.

[Mimes]

Yes, I know, Starlight. We all are inpatiently waiting for flaming rocky Cliffs to get our teeth (joysticks) into. It probably will be like with all the other releases: late but awesome! My guess before X-mas. I remember FLanker 1.0 did not even have an ecyclopaedia in it. (You know, all those spinning 3D models of thingies spinning around.) Despite all the bugs, I played first session till 7:30 am the next morning when I had to leave for work!

[VapoR]

The fact that ED has not not commited to a release date is good IMHO. That way, no one will get their hopes up and then crushed when the date isn't met. This happened over and over with 1.02.

 

Now the one thing i would like to know is the price for the download. This will give me important intel in preparation for the war with my wife over this purchase!!

[Caretaker]

I agree that giving release dates only makes sense when they are certain. We've already had too many such discussions with previous Lock On releases (and also with other sims).

 

Development updates would also be somewhat underwhelming currently, as the current focus is to finish the addon, not to introduce and test new exciting features.

[Starlight]

I agree that giving release dates only makes sense when they are certain. We've already had too many such discussions with previous Lock On releases (and also with other sims).

 

Development updates would also be somewhat underwhelming currently, as the current focus is to finish the addon, not to introduce and test new exciting features.

 

Hi,

if you're in the Beta team can you please tell us if 1.1 will be released before the end of November?

ED said that 1.1 was planned for release in November. In my post I just said that maybe "Q4-2004" was a more adequate extimate of the release date, so I think we're pretty much saying the same thing ;)

[Chizh]

Before December do not wait. Now we eliminate the various bugs and persistently we work for a training tutorial. As soon as we shall fix the most obvious bugs which prevent to play, at once we shall let release.

Understand, we do not wish to name exact date because it can move because of suddenly revealed bug or still any trouble.

But I can tell, that release very close.

Thanks you for patience.

[GGTharos]

Chizh, are you guys considering fixing the TWS bug in the F-15's radar? (THe radar goes to STT if you select a target that is jamming, even after burn-through)

 

Also, has anything been done about missiles not tracking below 20m? (or 15 for the russian ones ... ) this affects all missiles, including heat-seekers like R-73 and AIM-9.

 

How about the firneldy SAM fire bug in MP? :)

[Chizh]

Chizh, are you guys considering fixing the TWS bug in the F-15's radar? (THe radar goes to STT if you select a target that is jamming, even after burn-through)

Why you think, that is it a bug? In electronic counter-measures environment, the radar cannot correctly track the targets in TWS mode, therefore at once goes in STT.

 

Also, has anything been done about missiles not tracking below 20m? (or 15 for the russian ones ... ) this affects all missiles, including heat-seekers like R-73 and AIM-9.

We considered specifications of missiles. For all missiles the minimal altitude of application is specified. What here it is not correct?

 

How about the firneldy SAM fire bug in MP? :)

Our testers did not complain any more of it. ;)

[GGTharos]

Hmm, okay, I'll address this point by point. :) Here are my thoughts:

 

1. It is a bug. Once you have a contact on TWS, you are -already- tracking it. The only thing that the designation does is 'mark it for death', as in, it tells the computer to send information about -this- target to the HUD, and to the missile that you will launch on it. But you are tracking it the -moment- you have burn-through, not when you 'lock' it. It should have no reason at all to go into STT - of course that's only my opinion, based on how TWS is supposed to work. By having it go to STT on jamming targets after burn-through, you pretty much take away any usefulness that TWS has. Now -only- does it update contacts slowly while only giving one more piece of information more than the curent russian radars (which update motion in realtime!) but TWS is also now useless.

 

I would suggest that TWS is remodelled eventually to work like it is supposed to - ie. targets that are being tracked can be tracked outside the radar cone (example: Target appears on TWS. It then changes altitude so it is below radar cone, but antenna was not moved. This target continues to be tracked in TWS up to radar gimbals, but outside the radar cone it may be able to break lock more easily by tricky maneuvering. Ie. if this target now notches, the TWS will not reacquire it unless it quickly returns to original course.. Example2: A target does not enter the radar cone, so it is never detected. TWS obviously does not track it, since it never saw it). All of this is why TWS updates so slowly. My next suggestion is that, TWS contacts that have been designated no longer have positions updated i nral-time, but just faster than 'regular' TWS contacts. The current implmentation of TWS does not appear completely proper - it looks like the targets are being tracked in an 'STT' like mode, which is not correct.

If any of this is confusing please tell me and I will attempt to clarify :) Shepski or Wags, jump in here any time, since you guys know better, too :)

 

2. Heat seeking missiles currently will not track aircraft down to zero altitude, and they should, shouldn't they? Or at least, down to fuze radius. I haven't seen minimum altitude for missile employment listed anywhere; the problem here is that there is no danger in flying at 20m (where no NATO missile will track at all) or a little below, and making yourself invulnerable to return fire. Is there perhaps a better way to represent missiles losing accuracy at such low altitudes instead of just making them not track at all? There are documented incidents, on the western side at least, where, while missiles engaging very low-flying targets (landing MiG-25s specifically in Gulf War 1) did not impact them, they hit very very close. Those were AIM-7's. They hit apparently within 3m of one plane and a little farther from the other, so tracking them is indeed not impossible, but accuracy suffers instead, it seems. (To boot, AIM-7's don't have a good PK, but this is not really modelled in LOMAC I think ... SARH missiles are far more accurate than they should be, but I'm not complaining about this).

Could you perhaps consider implementing very low-altitude turbulence so that people aren't quite as tempted to abuse this? Believe me, it does get abused, and I don't think real pilots 'fly low and look up for dots in the sky'. It is a problem.

 

3. Excellent, I love you guys ;)

[GGTharos]

Another question, before I forget:

 

Previously, in LOMAC 1.02, when you add a radar-guided SAM (for example, an SA-15) into the mission but set it to appear say, 30 minutes into the game, its radar would not initialize and this unit acted as if it was either compeltely out of missiles, or as if everyone was friendly or perhaps its radar is damaged. Ie. it would never turn on its radar or attack anyone. Has this been fixed?

 

Also, there exists a problem with SAMs interfering with each other, which causes every Air Defense unit n that side (if not the whole game) to stop engaging enemies. This happens in multiplay battles, specifically when SAM coverage areas overlap. This affects mostly radar-guided air defenses. It's like they can't decide who's going to shoot the enemy and somehow this propagates through allt eh SAMs and they stop engaging.

[169th_Cobra]

 

2. Heat seeking missiles currently will not track aircraft down to zero altitude, and they should, shouldn't they?

 

I guess the specs Chizh has say they wouldn't be able to track a target down that low.

 

That aside, it is still a game and if people are exploiting that fact and ruining game play then perhaps they could make some changes to stop this.

 

Personally i haven't seen it happen much, if at all, in a multiplayer game. I guess a factor in our games is they tend to take place over the more mountainous areas making terrain following at that altitude a little difficult.

 

:wink:

[GGTharos]

You'd be surprised. if you fly low (not ridiculously low) you can jsut yak your stick back and forth while flying in the mountains, the missile will dive to the intercept point, lose lock when it crosses 20m, and plow into the ground. Basically, even chaff and flares aren't a 100% way to evade missiles, and going low shouldn't be a 100% effective measure against missiles, either.

[Greenies]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that November is moving towards December? There are only 6 days left... Will we receive a gift for Christmas or not?

[Whisper]

GGTharos, I've never seen the TWS mode described like what you said :shock: (things like the ability to track outside of TWS scan zone :shock: :? ). Where did you get your informations from?

The simple higher frequence updates can imho explain the need of STT during the burn-through process.

[GGTharos]

Nothing explains going to STT.

 

As for TWS working this way, I'm fairly certain I heard this from a credible source, I just have to find it again :P

[enigma6584]

Before December do not wait. Now we eliminate the various bugs and persistently we work for a training tutorial. As soon as we shall fix the most obvious bugs which prevent to play, at once we shall let release.

Understand, we do not wish to name exact date because it can move because of suddenly revealed bug or still any trouble.

But I can tell, that release very close.

Thanks you for patience.

 

Now that is teasing! :D Thanks for the great work and committment on your team's part.

[ALDEGA]

It'll be available when the time comes. Have some patience. :oops:

[Paux]

:D the people of lomac and simus in general is people with a great patience

sorry my english

thanks to chizh for the info

And alfa for your mod

[Starlight]

Before December do not wait. Now we eliminate the various bugs and persistently we work for a training tutorial. As soon as we shall fix the most obvious bugs which prevent to play, at once we shall let release.

Understand, we do not wish to name exact date because it can move because of suddenly revealed bug or still any trouble.

But I can tell, that release very close.

Thanks you for patience.

 

Thanks for your reply and for your info.

[Chizh]

Hmm, okay, I'll address this point by point. :) Here are my thoughts:

 

1. It is a bug. Once you have a contact on TWS, you are -already- tracking it. The only thing that the designation does is 'mark it for death', as in, it tells the computer to send information about -this- target to the HUD, and to the missile that you will launch on it. But you are tracking it the -moment- you have burn-through, not when you 'lock' it. It should have no reason at all to go into STT - of course that's only my opinion, based on how TWS is supposed to work. By having it go to STT on jamming targets after burn-through, you pretty much take away any usefulness that TWS has. Now -only- does it update contacts slowly while only giving one more piece of information more than the curent russian radars (which update motion in realtime!) but TWS is also now useless.

 

I would suggest that TWS is remodelled eventually to work like it is supposed to - ie. targets that are being tracked can be tracked outside the radar cone (example: Target appears on TWS. It then changes altitude so it is below radar cone, but antenna was not moved. This target continues to be tracked in TWS up to radar gimbals, but outside the radar cone it may be able to break lock more easily by tricky maneuvering. Ie. if this target now notches, the TWS will not reacquire it unless it quickly returns to original course.. Example2: A target does not enter the radar cone, so it is never detected. TWS obviously does not track it, since it never saw it). All of this is why TWS updates so slowly. My next suggestion is that, TWS contacts that have been designated no longer have positions updated i nral-time, but just faster than 'regular' TWS contacts. The current implmentation of TWS does not appear completely proper - it looks like the targets are being tracked in an 'STT' like mode, which is not correct.

If any of this is confusing please tell me and I will attempt to clarify :) Shepski or Wags, jump in here any time, since you guys know better, too :)

I know that the Russian fighters are not capable to operate correctly with TWS in case of active radio-electronic countermeasures. We need to find authentic information about F-15 in technical orders. I shall try to discuss this question with Matt and Shepski.

 

2. Heat seeking missiles currently will not track aircraft down to zero altitude, and they should, shouldn't they? Or at least, down to fuze radius. I haven't seen minimum altitude for missile employment listed anywhere; the problem here is that there is no danger in flying at 20m (where no NATO missile will track at all) or a little below, and making yourself invulnerable to return fire. Is there perhaps a better way to represent missiles losing accuracy at such low altitudes instead of just making them not track at all? There are documented incidents, on the western side at least, where, while missiles engaging very low-flying targets (landing MiG-25s specifically in Gulf War 1) did not impact them, they hit very very close. Those were AIM-7's. They hit apparently within 3m of one plane and a little farther from the other, so tracking them is indeed not impossible, but accuracy suffers instead, it seems. (To boot, AIM-7's don't have a good PK, but this is not really modelled in LOMAC I think ... SARH missiles are far more accurate than they should be, but I'm not complaining about this).

Could you perhaps consider implementing very low-altitude turbulence so that people aren't quite as tempted to abuse this? Believe me, it does get abused, and I don't think real pilots 'fly low and look up for dots in the sky'. It is a problem.

Yes, this is a problem. We shall enable infra-red AA missiles will hit the target at 3 m altitude. This is a makeshift. You agree?

 

3. Excellent, I love you guys ;)

Thanks :)

[GGTharos]

I agree. :) 3m would be about fuze-radius so if they get that close to ground they should expolde. What do you think? :)

I also have an idea about missile tracking that would enable you to reduce accuracy of missiles with altitude, if you'd like to see it, I will PM you with it :) It might not be possible to implement, but it's an idea :)

 

And thank you for looking into the radar :)

[Chizh]

Yes :)

I already had similar idea too how to reduce efficiency of AA missiles with altitude fall. It smoothly to reduce efficiency for SARH from 1000 meters, and IR from 100 meters will be necessary it may be.

 

And I think about low-altitude turbulence also. But it for 1.2 only.

[GGTharos]

I understand. All in good time. Thanks very much! :D

[GGTharos]

Hmm, Chizh, I just had a thought ...

 

This very same system that reduces accuracy could be used to decrease/increase accuracy of weapons in an ECM environment, allowing the modelling of different jammer types and properties! :)

 

Also, have you considered having missiles expode when passing decoys within fuze radius? :)

 

Also, I do not know if y ou have implemented this yet, but I have a suggestion for missile logic for the future ...

 

A missile (SARH or ARH) fired at high altitude, above target, will either loft or continue at same altitude until it reaches a point where it will be able to dive onto the target - this will greatly change the game as it will be very useful to fire weapons from high altitude now :)

 

ARH missile should dive towards intercept point at 'wake up time' or if the datalink is lost (eg. because lock is lost, launching aircraft is destroyed, etc)

 

I just have too many ideas ... :shock:

 

As always, thanks for listening! :D

[Chizh]

Hmm, Chizh, I just had a thought ...

 

This very same system that reduces accuracy could be used to decrease/increase accuracy of weapons in an ECM environment, allowing the modelling of different jammer types and properties! :)

Different jammer types to leave for next project. The correct modeling that a complex device is not easy. We are at first to evolve a physics theory intending for game.

 

Also, have you considered having missiles expode when passing decoys within fuze radius? :)

Yes, it’s a thing that we are thinking now. In the future we’ll implement the new physics for all missiles and will model different type of fuze (radio, laser) devices with specific events.

 

Also, I do not know if y ou have implemented this yet, but I have a suggestion for missile logic for the future ...

 

A missile (SARH or ARH) fired at high altitude, above target, will either loft or continue at same altitude until it reaches a point where it will be able to dive onto the target - this will greatly change the game as it will be very useful to fire weapons from high altitude now :)

In 1.1 version we are implemented more complicated loft trajectory for long range missile. At first the missile climbing with 15-20 degree pith relatively at the “missile-target” sight line, at “wake-up-time” (10-20 nm) the missile go to the proportional navigation homing.

In the future we’ll implement a few complicated trajectories for ARH missiles depending at target’s range, altitude, aspect etc.