Dusty Rhodes

Objects appear in the mission even though they are set to start minutes after the mission begins. They do not do anything until their start time, but they still are shown in the mission, at the start of the mission.

In MP, A-10, if you load up 1 WP Rocket pod, then you cannot toggle BACK to the rocket pod using the weapon select, unless you go out of AG mode and then back into AG mode. If you load 2 WP Rocket pods, then you can toggle back to WP Rocket Pod.

Be sure that someone else would, because if he got the AFM into all the aircraft, I would pay more also. If they would expand the current terrain, I would pay for that too.

Isn't trolling at all. Some will wait, others are impatient and gotta have it now. It is your money and there is nothing wrong with saying when you are going to spend it.

Just flat out Hilarious!!

Ensure your video card drivers are up to date.

I used PayPal and went straight to download, no problems. Don't know why others had to wait.

Confirmed, working well. Patriot STR only covers a 110 degree arc. Engaging multiple targets too. Just checked out the Patriot, HAWK, Vulcan, Avenger, and Stinger and all are working well. Going thru the other western AAA and SAMS and then will go thru the Eastern one again.

Make sure the Patriot Track Radar is pointed in the general direction of the threat. It is not a 360 degree radar. I will be testing SAMS and such in a while, but thought I would see if you took this into consideration.

Thanks Matt. Might want to lock this thread so it doesn't get hijacked.

Don't sell the D-Backs short. I hope the Giants clobber em, but they are a young team with a lot of upside and could surprise some people. I think the National League West may be the toughest division in baseball this year. I plan on making a few trips to SBC park this year with my son.

I am glad it didn't come out today!!! Giants Dodgers Opening Day. Giants win 4-2 in front of the largest crowd ever at SBC!!!!!!!! Life is goooooooooooooooooooood!

Way too many of you are so short sited, it amazes me. I want I want I want. You don't take into consideration that ED is trying something new to them and trying a new business format. They need to iron out the bugs and get it right so in the future products, we don't have the bumps and potholes that we are seeing now. They get it right now, it proves the business model and makes distribution of future products go smoother. Let them get it right because we can benefit in the future from their experience they are getting with this release. This has nothing to do with us owing ED, or us being grateful to ED, it has to do with a new business model for ED (who is one of the last bastions of flight simming). They need to iron out the problems and get it right and we will benefit in the future. Or they could just release it with the problems there are and watch the bitchers and whiners lambaste them for releasing without the infastructure being ready. No win situation, but the good people iron out the problems first. That appears to be what they are doing. So stop the short sighted stuff. Have there been mistakes? Sure there have. Should they announce release dates, IMHO, no they shouldn't. But the bumps in the road now, should be smooth pavement with follow on products, if there are to be any. ED doesn't owe us anything, and we don't owe ED anything until we purchase the product.

Don't you think that calling them clowns may have accomplished what you didn't want to do? All over a computer game.

I find the "disappointment" rather amusing. FC wasn't even intended to be released to the west, but we are whining to high heaven that it isn't released yet. For those who want the add-on, we are lucky to be getting it. For those who don't, no lose. Stop the griping. A week after it is released you won't even think about that you had to wait X amount of time for it to be released. Let them get it right.

WOW, this certainly adds a new realm for mission and campaign creation! Thanks Fella's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO :shock: :D :D :D Might be a slag on LOMAC (Don't know) in which case I give a hearty :evil: , but that was funny stuff.

Very Impressed with it muhself :shock: :D

And each one is wildly popular with several thousand playing on line at any one time. And the addition of flyables made them even more popular. ED is starting with flight and adding ground and I think will be the same result. So saying there is enough of that around, I counter with, follow the money, and those are money makers. Put all of that together and you have an amazing sim that appeals to all gamers and simmers, which equals lots of money and a better product. You make the argument for doing it, with a totality of circumstances that you laid out, yet you say won't do anything for Lock On or the series.

I think they are expanding the gaming experience and also trying to expand their customer base. Like it or not, flight simming is not a huge money making machine. If they can integrate some of these things and maintain the integrity and fidelity of the flight sim part, I say Git-r-dun and make a bazillion!

Well, to me, the standard is Falcon 4's DC. So if Falcon 4 can do it, with the DC it has which is less than perfect but certainly the standard, and you ran it on such a low end machine, why couldn't LOMAC make the same decisions on the machines we have now which are 6-7 times the machines of yesteryear? Granted it used the bubble method, but I think it is quite doable once hardware catches up to LOMAC. EECH has a really good campaign generator. MIG Alley is really good. All came out several years ago. Maybe if things were optimized on the graphics to maximize FPS, without taking away the beauty, then an engine like that can be done. I think once hardware starts catching up to LOMAC then a DC of some sort and scale would completely be possible, though I think there would have to be more terrain added to make it worthwhile.

I would think that placing all these missions as part of a Campaign engine would be more efficient then doint it as you did. I don't know that for fact, but just thinking out loud.

A work around would be to put each section of the map into it's own map area and make it so you pick your map area. This way they stay within the outlined area, but make it so additions are not part of the current map but stand alone maps. Does that make sense? Any way you put it, they have to make a new map, might as well stay in the same area and section the area off with stand alone maps. Then you have a campaign area selection when building campaigns or missions. Does that make sense?

I would like to see a DC or Dynamic World, or something like I talked about in the post previous. Another thing is, I don't think we need a new campaign area per se. I say expand on the map they have now until it is filled up. To me, these two things are the most important features (even more then add-on aircraft, though I would like to see an Apache added after the KA-50) that could be added to LOMAC to give it longevity and replayability, which is honestly a shortcoming it has now.

I have been talking with some friends about a DC or a LIVE World campaign generator lately, myself. I think what I would like to see is a editable campaign generator that works on Cause and Effect. You set the front lines and the initial units. Then you have a matrix of how much equipment a unit has, a Russian Rifle Battalion, for instance has X number of ARmored personnel carriers. A MRBrigade, so many, and a MRDivision so many. You place them on the front line or in the tactical position you want them. If they get destroyed, or suffer loses, a convoy from an assigned base automatically sends replacement, via convoy, to replace them, until that unit is out of APC's. Or you set a CAP over a specified area (Using something like Janes F-18 did with maximum reaction ranges, which regardless, needs to be implemented into LOMAC anyways). If that CAP is destroyed or one of two planes is lost, the generator automatically sends a replacement AC to finish the CAP, or a fresh CAP flight for that area, scrambled from the assigned airfield of the CAP flight. Or if a mission goal is a factory, then the generator assigns a bomber flight with escort and SEAD to destroy it. If that flight is successful, then no more flights go after it. If it is destroyed, then another mission is generated to destroy it. I think that all makes sense. This would work well for mission building if you could have the same dynamics for mission building as the mission could last for a long time till the goal(s) are reached or a short time if you are successful the first time. This would give the world life, also, and not just have units and AC that have to do with the mission only, in the mission. This way it would require mission builders to only set the initial units and goals and the generator would take care of the rest. Or the campaign builder to set the initial tactical situation with many goals to beat the campaign.