grayghost

The LOMAC community got aroudn the campaign thing the painful way (do'em by hand...with admins and so on...strictly online) and it's not going particularely great, indeed. Unfortunately flying F4 for me takes away from the campaign itself particularely when it comes to CAS/BAI - I simply don't fly those missions ... the graphics kill it. Strikes and OCA strikes ar epretty cool thought ... racing on the deck through a cloud of AA can't be anything -but- cool.

No, LOMAC is pretty much like a rally car with a turbocharger and a pretty chick in it. F4:AF is more like the accountant housewife. I think that's much more accurate Like I said, to each his own - I prefer MP, and to be honest the campaign and coops in F4:AF don't do anything for me, it's pretty meaningless without player opposition for me, basically. And I'm not into WWII sims so ... While the mechanization of the aivionics in LOMAC is lacking, I think 'arcady' is rather undeserving (arcady is F4's AI flight model, rather, and LOMAC's AI in general) As I said, both have some deep flaws, and who enjoys what is really based no personnal preference in the end ... I've seen people accuse LOMAC players of playing a 'game' compared to their 'sim' (which is a hoot when they fail to realize that the graphics are part of the simualted environemtn too,a s is AAA not shooting through mountains ... ahem) I've seen people accude F4 players of being snobby elitists who can't compete and just revel in how many buttons they get to push and go play silly coops. Point is, it's all silly; LOMAC lacks more than F4 does in many ways, but LOMAC also happens to simulate a bunch of things far better than F4 does. So, this whole drawn out post has been pretty much an admission that we've reached consensus FYI, people have been asking ED to improve a number of things. While sadly some things will not be done within LOMAC, it's successor has been slated for the 'hardcore' crowd, featuring an F-16CJ, Mig-29K and/or SMT/2, plus Mi-28 and Ah-64. All the existing LOMAC planes will be backported with AFM, and everything will be equipped with 3D clickable pits with vull TIR vector support. THe biggest thing will be the overhaul of the AI so that a much better mission editor can be made, at least in the spitirs of JF-18 and aiming for F4's DC. Of course, we've heard all this before, but apparently they're already wrking on all this ... so good luck to them.

F4:AF is a great game but it has some issues ... The graphics suck, and we all know this, but it's pretty sad when you can't tell a bridge apart from an apartment building in your FLIP /TGP CAS sucks. LOMAC blows F4:AF out of the water for CAS, period (but! LOMAC has stuff missing too, liek ground units making a proper reaction, not that the F4 ones do -too- well, and there's no flak of 100 guys with ak's trying to shoot you in the eye) Dogfights ... LOMAC blows Falcon away too. Better FMs, better graphics, and that's that. BVR is fairly comparable - F4:AF has better and iMHO more realistic missile guidance but worse countermeasure modelling (which also affects dogfights) LOMAC seems ot have a better radar model (note: I didn't say avionics for the radar) F4:AF has better missile physics (although actually LOMAC and F4:AF agree on missile ranges, believe it or not - and I mean in game shooting ranges, not listed ranges in the so called 'encyclopedias' and tactical references) Of course, F4:AF blows eevryting away with its campaign system and environment of massive air campaigns. LOMAC still kicks ass in MP for the most part. All in all, both are pretty good games, and each one has its strengths and weaknesses - I prefer Falcon for SP, LOMAC for MP, personally. For a good dogfight, there's nothign like LOMAC - F4's FM's simply do -not- compare. F4 Sp42 and FF/Cobra had alleviated the FM issue for th emost part, however F4:AF is sitll old falcon code, so fuel consumption and FM's are both unrealistic (the FM's tolerable, the fuel consumption modelling is just plain simple, period) I fly both quite regularely and like I said, both have their strengths ... anyone calling one a 'better sim' over the other needs to recheck their rethoric, because both have some pretty bad flaws, too

No, not really. A 'basically top of th eline system' would feature an AMD 64 3400+, an an X800XT or 6800U ;) Yours WAS top of the line, until the moment it was sold ;) But ain't that how computers go now?

32fps doesn't have to do with graphics - it's how many 'simulation iterations' the server can run through in a second. Your client maybe *running* at 60fps for graphics, but if the server's running at 7, you'll see it.

I don't think that 'tank' was still in one piece ;) The Javelin's kinetic energy is nothing compared to a sabot - its warhead - not even close to what a maverick, hellfire, or probably even an AT4 can deliver. Tanks really ARE built to take this sort of thing. Look at the old Iraqi T-55's that despite being hit by heavier HEAT warheads were still mostly in one peice - they were a still-mostly-in-one-piece burned out hulk, sure, but nothing liek what you see in that video. The heck did they do, fill that tank with a fuel-air explosive, or a few kils of C4 to make the explosion look more spectacular? I mean, its armor is much thicker and more effective than that of a T-55 anyway. You think you can move 50 tonnes of metal with just a little warhead like that? Well, maybe if you dropped a one thousand pound warhead on it ... The Javelin's warhead DOES NOT have the power to do this. Also, typical ammo compartments in tanks now are designed to blow out so that if they explode the tank doesn't feel it. Yep, this is a designed in safety feature. Tanks aren't made of wet tissue paper (BMPs and M113s are) ... By the way, LOSAT was cancelled.

Well, the server could be hardened to prevent it from being killed like that but ... you can't really prevent people from changing their IDs to valid ones of other people. So now, the cheaters will jsut use other people's IDs instead - especially if yo uwent out and posted'em on some website, impersonation will be a /snap/.

Sockets. That netcode is just better than the Direct X stuff at least for now, so use it. ;)

Also some servers have a script to change the map filename in order to prevent map-hacks (ie. people locking down their version of the map read-only after having edited it to give themselves tanks, ability to spawn bombs, and who knows what else)

Heh...maybe he shoudl've said it was CTI from the get-go. Yes, in CTI, go ahead and unleash hell. But if you spawncamp on any other map, by goingin there or using mortars or anything, you suck ;) As for cowardly? More like frustrated. If you go in and mortar someone's base within the first 30min of a CTI they get understandably aggravated since they possibly want to build up forces and have a nice bash with the opposition.

I'd kick you too if you were spawncamping. There are rules in war, and there are DEFINTIELY rules in wargames. Don't follow the rules in wargames and you'll find yourself welcome at less and less of them.

Minor correction: The function is deleting your files, not formatting the hard drive (yes, big diff)

Huh. You're depressed about being 13? Dude. ;) Enjoy it while you can ;)

Hinds can't stay in hover very long I hear ... something about the oil heating up too fast because of lack of air-cooling from the motion, or whatever. I dunno. Those wings of theirs also provide a lot of lift, which takes some of the stress off the rotor - in short they have to be in forward motions to avoid overheating the engine. THey hover only long enough to drop off/pick up troops, and they don't do pop up stule attacks. The prescribed method for a HIND attack is actually a strafing run.

What SAM are we talking about? Just about any plane can 'take a SAM to the wing' and surpive, if its a crappy hit. It isn't amatter of armor, and in general a plane hit by an SA-2/11/whatever other flying telephone pole there is out there is dead, dead, DEAD. Anything else is an exception. ;) And yes, I saw the pics of the A-10 you mentioned. I'll say once again: Exception. They're tough, but no matter what the press says, they're /not/ flying tanks. That guy was LUCKY.

Nope, looks like an ARP protocol 'ping' (happens all the time) or a DHCP IP lease, which is also fine. In order ot be able to tell if this is normal or not you'd have to inquire about the DHCP configuration of your ISP. Basically this says that your IP is leased for an interval of 1200 seconds, and its is then re-erequested every 1200 or so seconds to re-lease it.

Yes, I'm well aware what SIGINT is. It is in fact part of my field. ;) I was pointing out that sattelites cannot replace spies. Same goes for blackops. I'm not saying wether they should be included or not in OFP - I'm merely stating that anyone who's thinking that spies can be replaced by sattelites and black ops is dead wrong.

This also happen to be a terrible, wrong assumption. Your 'metal spies in the sky' can be fooled, and they can't read enemy papers particularely well, not listen in to their conversations. In general, they are also not particulacularely useful for intelligence as it relates to small units. (This is why the US has like, you know, other surveillance hardware?) ... Blackops can go in and commit sabotage, but blackops won't really be able to steal plans from secured facilities without pretty much provoking a war. THat's where spies come in. Not to mention blackops aren't well suited to subtly manipulating anything. Again: Spies.

Augh. Jeez man. Don't make people DL and install 22mb of a security hole just for a 44k little utility. Port it to C already!

Milkman: I was on some old (Vietnam I think) ducumentary I saw a /long/ time ago. About the only part I can recall is that a team ofsoldiers went through a dozen LAWs before the tank was rendered immobile.

Sgt. Milkman: Iraqis get the cheap export version of the T-72. Keep in mind that its a Vietnam Era tank and yes, it DID take a dozen LAWs just to immobilize then. I figure the new LAW-80 is better equipped to dela with it (as well as all other new anti-armor weapons, by virtue of being new while the tank is old) Anyway. I think tanks are too weak (in particular, the M1/T80) ... You should be needing the Catl Gustav/AT4 to deal with those ... shouldn't really be very susceptible to LAWs or the RPG.

Short answer: No. Longer answer: In order to play OFP on a 64-bit system you'd need to have OFP2 compiled for it. But this implies your OS would also need to be 64-bit. And you'd need a new GFX card, new sound, new EVERYTHING. And it would be expensive. And people aren't going to to just switch over to 64-bit platforms overnight, so no, it wouldn't be a smart move since people don't need 64-bit windows, 64-bit Microsoft Office, and ... need I go on? As far as OFP2's time frame is concerned, 64-bit platforms are NOT a factor. Not at /all/.

I completely agree...it'd be nice if BIS could provide a separate 'extended armor' control for vehicles (well, in particular aircraft and amored vehicles) so you could set armored vehicles to have extended armor in Vet mode. That would really make Helis with AT's less abusive in the Battlefields 1985 scenarios

Haha. Yes, Depleted Uranium or Tungsten SABOTs are bad for armor. And the US tanks aren't the only ones that have'em - the russian tanks use those as well. But it gets better! The T80 comes with a 125mm (akak more powerful) gun! That's not the end of it though: An M1A2 and a T80 can trade shots at 800m without killing each other off, that's how strong the armor on those things is. And RPGs?... Heh. Last I heard you needed a dozen LAWs just to immobilize a T-72 (and that's with a track hit).

Its the width of the computer bus and the size of the processor registers. Nothing you need to worry about, 64 bit hardware right now is only used on servers (And I do NOT mean game servers. I mean the real thing ... huge databases and so on) Anyway, as I said...you shouldn't even need to think about it - it isn't a factor at this point for consummer computing.