Growler67

The Apache shown in the screenshots is a "D" Longbow model. If it is actually going to be/remain an "A" model, the rotodome and targeting-integrated gyro sensors need to be removed and portrayed correctly. Classified data or not, if realism is what the goal is than accurate depiction should be the road to travel, wouldn't you say?

Speaking on the rush of Battle: "I love it. God help me.........I love it so." Part of the Opening speech: "No soldier ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did so by making some other poor bas***d die for his."

That's fine, but the original question was in regards to the payload editor not providing the loadout requested. No debates on the IRL things as I've had corespondence with Diceman before myself. You mentioned that it was not possible due to "drag" and I totally disagree. Yes they do use the configuration IRL to "ferry", but the reason they don't fire that inboard Mav is because of the newer rocket motors on the currently inventoried Mavs will damage the exposed portion of the tire on the landing gear.....NOT "drag" as you stated. Damage to the exposed wheel is NOT modeled in LOMAC and so debating it with someone who posted a question wasn't in order, IMO, and it wasn't cited as the fact as to why it isn't done IRL. "Drag" was and that is incorrect. Your preference to flying with loads that match IRL situations is your personal choice. The person asking the original question didn't seem, IMO, to be asking about IRL applications. The picture I posted was to show that "drag" was not a completely valid arguement in your reply. The airframe is capable. Any airframe will trade manuverability with increased drag regardless of what it is. F-16, F-15, F-14, Toronado, Jaguar and so on. Even the next generations of airframes including but not limited to SU-33, F-22, F-35, or Rafale. Yes the A-10 is exceptionally manuverable and all without the advantages of carbon fiber and thrust vectoring. It's "forte" is actually it's lower speed handling and loiter capabilities whereas aircraft like the F-16 and such can DO the mission of CAS, the best aircraft for the job currently in the USAF inventory is the A-10.

Google image search resulted in: 2003: http://www.beertownusa.com/prodimages/St%2...rl%202004lg.jpg

Anyone find any other kewl music videos that are aviation related? I uploaded the first two from my personal collection. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...mp;q=swiss+push

My guess would be likely not. ED has stopped supporting v1-1.02. If it will not run on Vista via an emulator, you are just screwed.

No it's not. The problem IRL is with the most inboard Mav flaming the exposed tire on the landing gear when it comes off the rail, thus making the eventual landing much more risky than it needs to be. Ever see this picture of the YA-10 with the then less powerful engines than are modelled in game? Just how much drag might this configuration have compared to 6 Mavs? That's 18 Mk82's. Are we gonna debate RL loads with those the airframe is capable of? Juxtaposed with fictional missions created by users that present fictional unit configurations and deployment? The facts are that in game, the landing gear is not at risk when configured with the triple rack is loaded next to it. If ED chose to model those aspects of the game, they would've done it a long time ago. Drag

Check. VFR on top, Growler's in.

Thanks.

Will there be fixes for the problem that weren't fixed after v1.02? Or will those still be "pay for FC to get those fixes"?

If you've manually removed anything recently, you may have deleted a .dll file or two. A DLL (Dynamically Linked Library) requires everything to be uninstalled properly, otherwise you can end up with errors. If thisa is in fact what has happened, you will have to reinstall Windows to get it corrected the right way. You can't just delete files and folders like you did with Windows 3.0 or even 98. After ME the DLL linked the OS to everything that was put into the computer. You HAVE to do it the way it's supposed to be done or you bone yourself and make the system unstable.

Get a CRAY. My P4 2.4GHz, 2GB Kingston HyperX RAM, ATi 9800Pro, Creative Audigy LS got slide show frame rates. THe code script uses a lot of CPU cycles.

Those are flyable only if you by the "Flaming Cliffs" add-on. No other official flyable are available. Some change the skins of the aircraft to make it look like you are flying an F-14 or whatever, but the cockpit and flight models are for the aircraft that has been reskinned (F-15 or whatever). You are not likely to get anymore flyables as ED has stopped supporting this product in lieu of other projects.

The cockpit is not clickable in LOMAC. Those are merely for decoration. You cannot activate the "extinguishers" in any aircraft in LOMAC because that function was never modelled (coded) in. You are gonna have to "bail".

The A-10 never did nor does it currently have A/G Radar. As far as LGB's, in the past (and as modelled in the game) it is merely a truck. It can bring LGB's into the target area, and drop them (within parameters), but someone or something has to provide the "illumination" of the target. Ground unit, helicopter or some other aircraft capable of "laser designating" the target for the bomb to hit it. If those other elements are available, the target symbology will appear in the HUD when the LGB is the weapon selected. Don't hold your breath for NVG's or other stuff for LOMAC. As far as I can tell, ED has stopped supporting this product "in favor of newer projects".

The coding in LOMAC is done in LUA script, and it wasn't the best job of it either (IMO). This could be presenting a whole new set of problems for your on-board video. My advice is to get a seperate video card. That would give you the best chance, though even with the patches (up to 1.02) there will still be bugs. Some of the rest of the fixes are available, but to get them you have to purchase "Flaming Cliffs". Even then it's not all fixed. I wish you luck, and enjoyment if you get it running.

Old footage. Compressor stall. Did you see that the pilot landed on the aircraft?

I too have had some of the issuses with SF that are commonly mentioned in various forums. I do not want it on my machine anymore in any incarnation. I have had no personal misgivings with CD checks or dongles or many of the other forms of verification. I didn't even try to figure out how to mod files to attempt to make my LOMAC experience marginally better. I don't pirate nor do I have any inclination to learn how. I don't even have BitTorrent on my system. I do wish at the very least that the industry would require labelling on the package to inform consumers of what (if any) CP is used. On the package before it is bought and taken home to find later a covert install was done without knowledge or permission. That is one of the biggest failings of SF. It just seems so underhanded.

Inclusive with StarForce? If so, no sale......and the sentiment is growing.

Summer releases, very kewl.

From a Hornet pilot. "The Slammer also has an astonishing record in both flight tests (once proper sofware was perfected) and in combat. For example, in one test over White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, one F-15C Eagle ripple-fired four AIM-120A's at 4 QF-100 drones. The drones were performing evasive maneovers, releasing chaff, and were also equipped with jammers. All 4 AIM-120's hit the targets dead-on. This and other tests earned the nickname Slammer (One F-15 driver compared firing the AMRAAM at targets to being like clubbing baby seals), as well as other nicknames such as "The World War III Shot". Some people have even taken to calling the AMRAAM the "Go Get'em Fido" Missile. The Slammer has been fired in combat on 3 occasions. On the first, which took place on 27 December 1992, an F-16C patrolling the No-Fly Zone over Iraq destroyed an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat head-on at medium range. Later on 17 January 1993 another F-16C shot down an Iraqi MiG-23 at closer range, at the limit of the AMRAAM's no-escape zone. The third kill in AMRAAM history took place over Bosnia when a Serbian tactical fighter, flying in a terrain-hugging profile, was hit by a U.S. Slammer. " "You may not like the 70% failure rate of the AIM-120 versus chaff, but that does not make it incorrect." Perhaps not, but everything (unclassified or declassified) I've read to date would suggest very much otherwise.

Got an Eclipse keyboard already, and a Logitech MX510 Mouse. Curious when they will update their website with these new products. Information on pricing would be nice too.

Can a man-pad still survive a Mk84 within 15 feet and still shoot you down? Can the Aim-120 still get spoofed by chaff more than 70% of the time with the 'Missile Effectivness' selector in the middle?

Most sevices allow for 'correctable to 20/20' withing certain limits. Obviously if you require the bottoms of soda bottles for optical correction you will likely fall outside the acceptable limits.