LO:MAC Keyboard Layout - Really...

Gator · Post by **Gator** » 12 Dec 2003, 13:18

I knew some of you were looking for this ... this IS what you were looking for.

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/show ... hp?t=54408

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 12 Dec 2003, 13:57

Bless you oh messenger of the Flight SIMM Gods!

DA

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 12 Dec 2003, 14:04

I'm reading it, reading it, reading it, reading it and yet I can't find the key function to record your flight.

DA

Madrus · Post by **Madrus** » 12 Dec 2003, 14:21

DA, just use Printscreen every second and you will have a slide show of your flight; or put a video camcorder on a tripod behind you and point it at the screen. :lol:

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 12 Dec 2003, 14:39

Well with the way things are going with this SIM maybe they should have waited to put it out. It has been weighed and measured and I found it wanting. See what politics and the bottom line can do to what could be the greatest flight SIMM for awhile.

Of course you know my biggest grip, MUDD movers win wars not those fighter jocks. Come now the only true multirole flyable aircraft in this game is the SU-25. Sorry to all the A-10 humpers I mean hoggers but that aircraft is strictly a tank killer born and breed for nothing but that.
DA

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 12 Dec 2003, 15:46

The simple motto of the Marines applies here: adapt and overcome. The A10 is the epitomy of improvisation. No radar, no problem. We just strap AGM 65 on that bad larry and we go town like drunken cowboys...YAHHOOOO!. The A10 is'nt just a tank killer....it's a killer period. The AV8 Avenger is insurance of that. But, in all fairness, I must agree that there should be more planes in the game. Oh well, can't have everything. Would be nice if the game was simply stable, see my other post. :roll:

Madrus · Post by **Madrus** » 12 Dec 2003, 17:26

right on DA; I agree totally with you on the "MUDD movers win wars not those fighter jocks."

But I can't say I agree that the SU-25 is a true multi-role aircraft. it feels strictly a-g to me. it's a-a abilities are approximately equal to the A-10. neither has a radar, and the 25 doesn't have a hud, and neither has the thrust to weight ratio that the a-a fighters have, so neither has the acceleration or the top speed to go with the f-15 or the 27, 33, or 29 in this game. both the hog and the frog have real good turning and loitering capabilities.

now the f/a-18, that's multi-role. would you like to a-a in a frog versus a hornet? not me.

Please, please give me an F/A-18 with an a-g radar in LOMAC. That is all i want for Christmas.

Gator · Post by **Gator** » 12 Dec 2003, 17:32

I thought the -33 had a A-G radar (guess it would help if i tried flying something other than the A-10) ... wouldn't you consider the -33 or -29 as multirole? Neither is a pure interceptor like the -15C.

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 15 Dec 2003, 08:36

Why must everyone forget that the F-15 started out as A-G and slowly progressed to A-A. I think that its a waist. What other aircraft do you know of that can carry a payload of A-G with that kind of manuverabilty and speed. OH! by the way, when I said multirole I meant I meant multirole A-G capabilities far as tank killing airbase strike etc. If I'm going in to hit a airbases runways then I want something more than the A-10. The hog is a big target when its pointing in a str8 line for an extended amount of time due to its slow speed and awkward shape.

Madrus · Post by **Madrus** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:28

I would consider both the SU-33 and the MiG-29 as multi-role.

Although I thought that the Sukhoi Bureau was traditionally a bomber/strike unit, while the Mikoyan-Gurevitch Bureau were fighter oriented.

IIRC, Lomac itself gives a little history of each plane. and they describe the SU-33 as an evolvement of the SU-27 for it's use as a multirole Naval plane.

And probably with budgets and other factors, few planes are not considered multirole at this time. Look how they have developed the F-16's ground and SEAD capabilities to extend it's life which began as a relatively inexpensive highly maneuverable fighter.

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 15 Dec 2003, 11:05

Lets talk about the F-16 and F/A-18, both of them started out as disposable cheap aircraft but as time has evolved they have evolved and the price stayed pretty much the same, save for the F-15 and the F-14 our skies were protected by low budget wonders and I'm still trying to figure out how that happen. But with the introduction of the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter(can someone please tell me atleast what it looks like) the price for our freedom has skyrocketed almost Ten fold per aircraft and I must ask why?

DA

Now I am lockheed Martin's website and they have link to the JSF and I must say the pic they have posted looks like the F-22 ummmmmm why do we need two?

Madrus · Post by **Madrus** » 15 Dec 2003, 14:10

I say we triple our defense budget and cut our social program spending in half.

Because Big Oil says so.

DA, could we try to use some facts? The F-16 cost is about $20 million dollars. I don't know if that is 1980 dollars or 2003 dollars. The F-22 cost is around 100 million dollars, and that is for a much smaller run of planes, so development costs are spread over fewer planes and that is part of the reason for the increase.

That is five times - NOT TEN TIMES - increase.

At any rate, I don't have the space here to answer your question why, you will have to do the research yourself. The answers are out there.

I suspect that your question is not why has the price skyrocketed but rather why must we spend so much on defense when we could spend the money on other things?

My question is why we spent so much money on the Farm Bill, on the Medicare prescription drug bill, on Welfare, AIDS, and on the Education Bill when we could have spent it on cancer and heart research, and B-1's, B-2's, F-22's, and JSF's and more submarines, aircraft carriers, helicopters, and transport planes and other equipment for our services.

But here we go again - we are discussing politics and liberals and conservatives again.

Why do we need two? Because the F-22 is air superiority and JSF is multirole. And they have not figured out how to combine air superiority into multirole yet. Maybe some day they will just need one plane for air superiority, SEAD, strike, ELINT, transport, cargo, and hover like a chopper, but you might not like the 1 trillion dollar cost per unit.

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 15 Dec 2003, 14:34

Lockheed Martin has the F-22 actually listed as F/A-22 on there website Mad Man, so I must say that it is a Multirole aircraft. Click on the link for confirmation of the designation.

http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/c ... index.html

OH MADRUS! I have to ask. What do you suggest we do with education or AIDS and by the way your government pays farmers not to grow and or sell there crops so people starve inorder to set prices higher than they should be.

DA

Gator · Post by **Gator** » 15 Dec 2003, 14:36

additionally, the JSF is single engine - the f22 is twin engine. JSF is primarily a bomber and the f-22 is primarily an interceptor. They only recently added the F/A-22 designation to make it more politically viable.

Also, there are several versions of the JSF. For the US, there is the USAF version which is most similar to the F-16, the USMC version which is similar to AV-8 and USN version which is like the USAF version but with stronger landing gear and arresting gear for carrier ops.

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 15 Dec 2003, 14:58

All in All its a waist of GOD *#$@ money, and long as there is a unclear and not so ever present danger we will spend the money so we can sleep better at night.

DA

RLGaming.com

RLGaming's Forums

LO:MAC Keyboard Layout - Really...

LO:MAC Keyboard Layout - Really...