FigherOps vs LOMAC

[Eddo36]

What's the difference between this game and Lock-On? Other than the types of jets you use, is there anything gameplay-wise that sets this game apart from Lock-On?

[Buckshot]

Lock on is for a different target audience, nothing against it, a lot of people find it fun, but you won't be able to compare LOMAC to Fighter Ops just the same is it is very different to Falcon.

Both Falcon and Fighter Ops are aimed at the hard core simmer, with all aspects of aircraft avionics fully modelled etc etc. Fighter Ops intends to take the realism of Falcon a step further, Falcon concentrated almost solely on the F16, Fighter Ops intends to take that same level of realism, and not only take it up a notch for the F16, but to bring it to other jets and other aspects of the simulator as well.

[Charlie_VFP]

I can just see this thread turning into a love-hate flame war.... :)

I have been playing Lock On for a long while now, since beta 16 I think it was, and still enjoy the heck out of it. It was very annoying for awhile before the patch came out to fix the TrackIR and a few other minor little things, but you have to take those things in stride. This next patch will really take it up a notch.

I think the problem with Lock On, that I saw, is that from the beginning the powers that be were talking about how realistic the avionics and such were modeled. The community took that as it would be realistic to use all the gear. That is not the case. It was simply that they "work" liek the real deal, but the interface was very dumbed down. Frankly, for me, this got my hopes up and then crushed them when I saw the one page avionics display for the F-15. This was just due to ambigous press releases lacking any solid information.

However, as Buchshot said, different game audiance.

If your asking if you should buy Lock On, I say heck yeah. Its a great game for what it is supposed to do and it is only going to get better. But if you want a great sim, that is what Fighter Ops is supposed to be. No offense devs, but I will wait and see before I remove the 'supposed' and replace it with 'is'. :) Just covering my butt. :)

[Buckshot]

Yeah, well said Terry, I'm sure everyone here can be mature enough to understand what you and I are saying without turning it into a flame fest (which will be quickly hosed down here).

As Terry said, nobody is saying that there is anything wrong with LOMAC, just that it's aimed at a specific audience, and choices were made in the development for budget or whatever reasons to model it to a certain level of fidelity. Some people will prefer that to an "extreme" sim like Falcon or Fighter Ops, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

[Vlerkies]

I for one agree with both of you.
Very well said indeed


:thumbsup:

:drink: :drink: :drink:


:military:


~S~

[Charlie_VFP]

I just try to keep to the logic and common sense approach.

To continue a little bit for the sake of boredom.....

The problem lies in each persons idea of what a game or sim is. Personally, to me a SIM is something that can be FCC certified due to its accuracy. Everything else is just a game. While it is hard to judge if a military title is correct enough to be FCC certified, there comes a point when it just doesnt matter (since were not shooting for FCC certification).

With Lock On, you can tell right away that there is a large step away from "realistic operation" of an aircraft. I am not talking about airframe modeling and performance.... simply in the operation of the aircraft (avionics / ect). I am sure that the radar and missiles and such are modeled as accurate as possible, or are being fixed in the patches to be so. But the operation aspect is just not there.

That is ok though. Lock On is a KICK BUTT game and I love it. Lots of eye candy, good aircraft, and a great deal of fun to fly with my friends. I recommend it to anyone who wants a GREAT fighter jet game.

However, I am also more into the SIM aspect of things. I want every single avionics page to be modeled so I can switch between them. I want a proper ramp procedure to get my engines started and get that puppy off the deck. I want it to be as real as you can possibly get it for running on a home PC, using a TrackIR and a civilian built (unrealistic) HOTAS setup.

Yes, there are limits as to what can be done due to things of that nature. Not all of us have a F-16 mock up in our garage. (I will within 6 months though I hope.... unless I go with the F-15E or something crazy). Even then it will not be realistic on the HOTAS and TrackIR stuff. But closer than a desk top.

So I am babbling on. But it is important to understand the difference between each of our views regarding what is a sim and what is a game. Hence all the flame wars you see on the Lock On forum.

ED/UBI produced a fighter game and they did a dang good job of it. My initial frustration came from the fact that I was under the thought that it was more of a sim than a game. I read the press releases wrong and looked to much into it. Once I realized my mistake (and got my ATI 9800 AIW working correctly with the 4.3 drivers :)), Lomac became a blast.

G2I is producing a fighter sim. If it lives up to what has been said already, then I am going to renew my efforts to win the lottery so I can sit at home 24/7 flying it! :-p

[Katz]

i would love to win the lottery then could invest actual money in fighter ops and not just my time so i need to start buying lotto tickets :D

[Eddo36]

Just wondering, what are the major parts of Lock-On that makes it unrealistic as you claim? Not talking about trivial stuff, I mean the big stuff that takes away verisimilitude. Don't forget that Lock On has scalable realism settings, and I'm talking about Lock-On with realism cranked up all the way in the setting.

[Charlie_VFP]

Regardless of your realism setting, there is only one page per DDI/MPCD. This is for all aircraft. IRL, there are multiple pages for each display and in most cases, the same data can be brought up on any display.

Only 5% of the cockpit (instruments not included) actually has anything readable on it or does anything when you do something. Meaning, all you get is flap indicators, gear light, and some caution / warnings.

ATC is... well... it isn't actually. No radio work what so ever.

I can go on.

It is a great 'game'. Buy it if you havent already and give it a go. Its a great deal of fun. I fly it at least 10 hours a week.

[Eddo36]

I did bought it; my very first flight sim game since TIE Fighter. Along with a refurbished X-45 joystick and the enhanced manual that the cheap bastards at Ubi decided to sell seperately. The reason I bought it was because I knew nothing about fighter planes and air warfare and I wanted to educate myself in a fun way with a modern realistic flight sim game. I read the manual but I'm still waiting for patch 1.02 to come out before I even start the training missions. Now that you guys are telling me that Lock-On isn't realistic... well damnit.

[Buckshot]

Well don't be totally discouraged Eddo, because it may not live up to our standards of realism (bearing in mind that many of us have military flying experience, and/or are just plain nuts ;-) so our expectations are very high) doesn't mean that it isn't fun or worthwhile.

If you want the most realistic sim available to date, grab Falcon 4, but don't be totally put off LOMAC, a lot of guys still have fun with it, to be honest I am one of the really picky guys who just couldn't get into it, but give it a go at least.

[Charlie_VFP]

I had trouble for awhile Buckshot, until I came to my "game vs sim" attitude above. :)

Eddo: UBI is selling the manual. A seperate company is. If it weren't for DA, you wouldnt have a manual at all. While UBI should have provided a manual, they didnt and were not going to. Be happy you have one. :)

[Mower]

My thoughts on LOMAC are (or ought to be) well known by now. I would add that the main bone I have is that LOMAC was marketed and is often still touted by its rabid fanboyz as the new benchmark in simming, which it patently is not. THey are pretending LOMAC is something it is not, nor ever can be relative to the fidelity and depth of Falcon, the only true benchmark to this day for this genre.

[Charlie_VFP]

Which is why I was very let down at first when I first got it. They hyped it up to be something it clearly is not.

I am not a fan boy, but I still think it is a great 'game'. Especially after this next patch is released.... it will be great.

There are mnay short comings of it.... but then thats just a fact of life.

[sgtkoolaid]

I agree that both games offer their own approaches to their respective audiences. However I am a hardcore flight simmer in every respect. Ive had falcon 4.0 for almost 4 years as of now. I must admit I was very upset at outcome of Lame-mac. Only thing it has going for it in my opinion ( remember this is my opinion for all the fan bois) it only has snazzy terrain and good 3d models and cockpits(nonclickable mind u) but as far as being hardcore? it runs the fineline of being almost arcady in nature.I can only hope that G2I's decision to can Falcon OIR is to bring something new and push the envelope of what Falcon 4.0 originally started and succeeded at, which no other sim has yet to excel or supercede F4 in. So in short I wish G2I all the luck in bringing something new and exciting to the table and hope they bring a new breath of fresh air to a dying genre, and hope they dont foul up like ubi-spoof did.

remember this an opinion nothing more.

then again thats just my opinion, I could be wrong -Dennis Miller

SGTKOOLAID

[FlyBoy01]

It seems most who expected LOMAC to be Falcon4.0 for the F15, A10 and Su's were also most let down. I agree with the description of it as a game and not a sim. I think the great graphics are its true claim to fame not FAA FTD accuracy on the avionics etc.
Enjoy it if you choose. If not, play F4 while you await FO for the ultra-realism aspect. Seems straight forward enough to me. 8)

[Buckshot]

Yeah, to be fair I don't think it's right to call the guys who made LOMAC names, they did make it fairly clear that there was no intention to challenge falcon. You also have to consider they have publishers they had to keep happy etc.

That's the biggest advantage of this project, there is no publisher/licence holder telling us to get the game out before it's ready, nobody able to tell us to dumb it down to make it apeal to the console crowd etc etc.

[masterkey66]

Hi guys,

Being for a long time a fan of Falcon 4, Flanker 2 and recently LockOn
I must say each one of them had some strong and weak points.
About the weak points:
Take Lockon for example a lot of people complains about the quality of the product and they gave it back to the store. Myself i was struggling to fine tune the environment for a couple of weeks before getting a decent degree of satisfaction.
Take Falcon now: graphics not so good and to complex for a rookie
still the printed manual is amazing stuff.
What can I say the next product must be developed and marketed in a such a way that the customer get 100% satisfaction.
I wish you success devs.

[france-simulation]

Hi all

Think Lock on was not bad but it's designed to all audience.. and can't be tuning as fine as a FAlcon .. And as said before.. UBISOFT was awaiting many from lock on and seem it's not the deal..

So may be TFC/Eagle Dynamic now can patch more acurately Lock On..

But we are awaiting For Fighter Ops..

I talk for my Website France Simulation and our French Jet Fan readers.. I'm personally more involved in Warbirds.. but enjoy a good Falcon or FA18 trip :)

Hope have information from you project because french have not many info about all projects.. we are only two big site in combat sim..
An no Mirages to fly :-p :-p

Have nice day friends.. and if you have nothing better to do take a look a t our site.. its in french sorry but you can use automatic translation on right corner..
I think it's worse than my english but better than to don't ^pick a word :mrgreen:

[SwingKid]

Regardless of your realism setting, there is only one page per DDI/MPCD. This is for all aircraft. IRL, there are multiple pages for each display and in most cases, the same data can be brought up on any display.

False.

Of the flyable aircraft in Lock On, only the F-15 has the MPCD. The A-10 display is for use with Maverick imagery only. The Su-27 and MiG-29 displays are projected on the HUD and are accurately different for each combat mode. The real Russian CRT display is generally a dumb HUD repeater. The Su-25 has no video display other than its gunsight.

In addition to this, Lock On's US RWRs are multi-mode, and the Russian aircraft have a functional EKRAN diagnostic display. Russian RWRs are planned to become multi-mode in the 1.02 patch.


Only 5% of the cockpit (instruments not included) actually has anything readable on it or does anything when you do something. Meaning, all you get is flap indicators, gear light, and some caution / warnings.

Grossly exaggerated.

Some users accustomed to "clickable" cockpits in a single favorite aircraft have expressed disappointment. This generally depends on the aircraft flown. The F-15, for example, has a large radio and HUD control panel in the middle of the cockpit that is non-functional in Lock On, since these operations are accessed by a unified set of keyboard controls for all flyable aircraft. Other flyable aircraft have arguably more fortuitous arrangements. Air and wheel brakes, fuel gauges, leading edge surface indicators, tail hooks, auto-pilot, altitude- and thrust-hold lamps, and many other cockpit indicators are functional in Lock On. Players have been able to conduct instrument-only carrier traps and other feats of instrument flying in zero-visibility conditions.


ATC is... well... it isn't actually. No radio work what so ever.

False.

Wingman, AWACS and Tower radio controls are all accessed via on-screen menus navigated by the keyboard number keys. A few important radio commands useful in the heat of combat (e.g. "attack my target", "rejoin formation") are duplicated on dedicated keys for easy access.

It's true that as a result of the many different systems modelled, Lock On has some user interface compromises and still has a way to go as an evolving project, but in terms of overall fidelity to actual combat tactics that can be used in real life, this goes way beyond the man-machine cockpit interface and must include considerations of the combat environment: missile range and trajectories, terrain masking, ECM effects, datalink communication with third-party assets, effect of altitude on radar detection range, etc. There are many areas in which Lock On has much higher fidelity than the competition. For example, Su-27s don't carry AA-12s in real life, and they don't in Lock On. IMHO, accuracy like this has a greater effect on overall gameplay than cockpit "switchology", and is of itself one reason why I could never personally suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy competing products.

Regards,

-SK

[Charlie_VFP]

We all have our opinions. But, opinions or not, the facts are still the facts.

Whine all you want about Lock On. Those that dont like it have to realize that it wasnt made for them. As Buckshot said, it was 'dumbed down' to provide a more pleasurable experiance for the MASSES.... not the hardcore.

Whether we like to accept the fact or not, children under the age of 21 are the main buyers of software these days. But, they have mainly turned to consoles for their fix. Some companies are trying to win them back. I guarantee that Fighter Ops WILL NOT convert very many console gamers to PC simmers. Console gamers are not looking for indepth, fully clickable, highly realistic games. They want minimal key press, good graphics, fast action.

So, we can either ignore them, make every sim on the market like Fighter Ops, and have everyone one of the companies go out of business..... or we can let UBI produce the games to keep the market going while G2I makes the more realistic sims.

Either way, dont whine on UBI for making a game that didnt suit your taste. It was obvious not made to suit that.

And I also find it funny when people put in disclaimers about 'fan boys' disagreeing with them... anyone who disagrees with anyone these days MUST be a fan boy... to heck with logic and common sense....

[SwingKid]

Those that dont like it have to realize that it wasnt made for them. As Buckshot said, it was 'dumbed down' to provide a more pleasurable experiance for the MASSES.... not the hardcore.

False.

The precursor of Lock On was Flanker 2. In all aspects, the avionics have been made more realistic. Unrealistic features that were originally there for playability, like air-to-ground radars modes in aircraft that don't have them in real life, were removed and the emphasis was everywhere placed on "smartening up" the product. This trend continues with patches, e.g. the new radar roll limits introduced for Russian radars, "aeronautical" bombing modes, multi-mode RWRS and the list goes on.

-SK

[Charlie_VFP]

Yes and No. You fail to understand where I am coming from. We are engaged in a discussion regarding Fighter Ops and Lock On. While Lock On has significant improvements over the old Flanker series, it is still a GAME geared for the MASSES. It is not targetted to hard core SIM groups.

I say that the avionics is 'dumbed down' compared to the avionics we will see in Fighter Ops. Seeing as how Fighter Ops is the other title we are comparing to, not Flanker, my assessment is correct.

Now, if we bring Falcon and Flanker into the picture, then you will really see what I am talking about. Compared to Falcon, the avionics and cockpit realism are 'dumbed down' in Lock On and Flanker, as I stated.

Lock On is geared at the masses, not sim groups = TRUE

Compared to what Fighter Ops will be, the Avionics in Lock On is dumbed down = TRUE

All of the planned updates and patches for Lock On will still not bring the avionics close to the realism that we see in Falcon and will see in Fighter Ops = TRUE

The user interface for the avionics in Lock On is highly unrealistic = TRUE

I could go on....

[IxianMace]

If you want to be completely sure that you're getting the facts straight instead of just opinions, it might be best to ask real life Mig-29/Su-25/A-10/F-15C/Su-27/Su-33 pilots to try Lock On to assess and verify the authenticity/realism of the avionics in each aircraft. You could also ask the developers of Lock On what type of audience they designed the game to appeal to, although that won't tell you much about the realism of the avionics IMO.

[SwingKid]

You fail to understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I think understanding where you are coming from is the very point I'm trying to make.

The original poster, Eddo36, asked the admirably objective question, "what are the major parts of Lock-On that makes it unrealistic as you claim? Not talking about trivial stuff, I mean the big stuff that takes away verisimilitude."

If you are accustomed to a prior sim with a mouse-clickable cockpit, you're obviously going to notice that change of user interface more acutely than someone who has no such background. From a subjective perspective, it's very easy to make the jump "different" => "worse". On the other hand features of a new product which are absent from the one you're used to can be easily overlooked. That doesn't make a keyboard interface less realistic than a mouse interface. If you're looking for truly hardcore switchology, Lock On is an arguably better choice because of its data export functions, allowing the construction of whatever cockpit interface the user wishes (see http://www.f15sim.com/ for a great example).

For my part, I agree with your "opinions are opinions, facts are facts" comment, but would leave it to Eddo36 to decide for himself which is which, and about what is "trivial" and what is "big". If he also feels mouse-clickability is the key to fidelity or the difference between a "sim" and a "game", that's his prerogative, I just think he should realize that that opinion is where some of the replies in this topic are coming from.

As for the "truths" comparing an existing product to a future one, I would caution you against the same potential disappointment you felt before with getting your expectations too high. With multiple modelled aircraft, you may find Fighter Ops ends up having more in common with Lock On than you anticipate - clickable cockpits for multiple flyable aircraft layouts are a drain on numerous resources that could be spent elsewhere. Somewhere, inevitably, compromises are going to be made, and the "target market" may have nothing to do with it.

Sincerely,

-SK

[Bladehawk]

Regardless of your realism setting, there is only one page per DDI/MPCD. This is for all aircraft. IRL, there are multiple pages for each display and in most cases, the same data can be brought up on any display.

False.

Of the flyable aircraft in Lock On, only the F-15 has the MPCD. The A-10 display is for use with Maverick imagery only. The Su-27 and MiG-29 displays are projected on the HUD and are accurately different for each combat mode. The real Russian CRT display is generally a dumb HUD repeater. The Su-25 has no video display other than its gunsight.

In addition to this, Lock On's US RWRs are multi-mode, and the Russian aircraft have a functional EKRAN diagnostic display. Russian RWRs are planned to become multi-mode in the 1.02 patch.


Only 5% of the cockpit (instruments not included) actually has anything readable on it or does anything when you do something. Meaning, all you get is flap indicators, gear light, and some caution / warnings.

Grossly exaggerated.

Some users accustomed to "clickable" cockpits in a single favorite aircraft have expressed disappointment. This generally depends on the aircraft flown. The F-15, for example, has a large radio and HUD control panel in the middle of the cockpit that is non-functional in Lock On, since these operations are accessed by a unified set of keyboard controls for all flyable aircraft. Other flyable aircraft have arguably more fortuitous arrangements. Air and wheel brakes, fuel gauges, leading edge surface indicators, tail hooks, auto-pilot, altitude- and thrust-hold lamps, and many other cockpit indicators are functional in Lock On. Players have been able to conduct instrument-only carrier traps and other feats of instrument flying in zero-visibility conditions.


ATC is... well... it isn't actually. No radio work what so ever.

False.

Wingman, AWACS and Tower radio controls are all accessed via on-screen menus navigated by the keyboard number keys. A few important radio commands useful in the heat of combat (e.g. "attack my target", "rejoin formation") are duplicated on dedicated keys for easy access.

It's true that as a result of the many different systems modelled, Lock On has some user interface compromises and still has a way to go as an evolving project, but in terms of overall fidelity to actual combat tactics that can be used in real life, this goes way beyond the man-machine cockpit interface and must include considerations of the combat environment: missile range and trajectories, terrain masking, ECM effects, datalink communication with third-party assets, effect of altitude on radar detection range, etc. There are many areas in which Lock On has much higher fidelity than the competition. For example, Su-27s don't carry AA-12s in real life, and they don't in Lock On. IMHO, accuracy like this has a greater effect on overall gameplay than cockpit "switchology", and is of itself one reason why I could never personally suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy competing products.

Regards,

-SK

We can spend all day talking about "Lomac has this... Lomac has that..." but in the end it resumes to something that I said once...

" Lomac is a good comic book about planes... Falcon is a Cyclopedia about planes..."
I might like to read both, were do you learn the most ???
I prefere the second, And I HOPE that FO become a Great and Precise cyclopedia... :thumbsup:

[Charlie_VFP]

The avionics may 'act' correctly as in real life but the user interface, how they are controlled and operate, is NOT what it is like in real life. A perfect example is this; "How many sub menus are there on the various MFD/DDI's in the cockpit?" In Lock On, there is one per screen, non changeable. This is inacurate.

Furthermore, avonics means much more than radar alone. Whether or not the radar 'act' like a real radar would IRL, of which it is off a bit (no need to ask a pilot on that when I have 5 years experiance working on them and the rest of the avionics package), the interface and user option are high dumbed down. Nearly to the point of a console game.

Now I did mis-speak quite a bit when I mentioed mouse clickable cockpits. I did not mean to imply that a specific mouse clickable cockpit meant more realism. When I said that, I was refer to the ability to do a complete ramp up start and operate every peice of gear in the aircraft in the manner it is operated in real life. Meaning, In Lock On, you press the page up key twice to get your engines to come on. In Falcon, you had to go through the entire steps of turning on batteries, APU, then starting the engine, ect.

There is also no need to caution. I understand the fact of comparing a future product to a current one. However, from the amount of information I have seen from the developers and knowing their past history with Falcon, I am running on faith that Fighter Ops will be the prodigy of that background. Besides, the user interface in Lock On is so basic that it wont be all that hard to beat!

I love Lock On, dont get me wrong. It is a fun game. The disappointment came from UBI hyping it up as an ultra realistic sim and it was nothing of the sort. Whether it was their marketting department being stupid or if their definition of 'ultra realistic' is different than mine, not a problem. But LO is not what it was hyped up to be and because of that, many people were let down. Once you come to the realisation that it is a game and not a sim, and things in it are not near as realistic as we hoped.... then it becomes a fun game.

[Vlerkies]

Very well said Terry. :thumbsup:

:military:

~S~

[Bladehawk]

I´m with You Terry !!! :thumbsup:

[Sehm]

I agree with you Terry :military:

[SwingKid]

The avionics may 'act' correctly as in real life but the user interface, how they are controlled and operate, is NOT what it is like in real life. A perfect example is this; "How many sub menus are there on the various MFD/DDI's in the cockpit?" In Lock On, there is one per screen, non changeable. This is inacurate.

I've already rebutted this assertion in my first post.


Furthermore, avonics means much more than radar alone.

Similarly, "realism" (which the original poster was asking about) means much more than avionics alone. A program which models the AA-10A Alamo as having a 35 nm launch range at 30,000' altitude, Mach 2 closure, is a game. You can't model real-world air combat tactics with this model, no matter what user interface you use.


Whether or not the radar 'act' like a real radar would IRL, of which it is off a bit (no need to ask a pilot on that when I have 5 years experiance working on them and the rest of the avionics package),

I'd be delighted to talk with someone knowledgeable about radar and compare Lock On against any other project. Are you able to answer questions? The last time I asked an Eagle pilot if it was correct that the APG-63 had a monopulse radar antenna, he said he couldn't remember.


Now I did mis-speak quite a bit when I mentioed mouse clickable cockpits. I did not mean to imply that a specific mouse clickable cockpit meant more realism. When I said that, I was refer to the ability to do a complete ramp up start and operate every peice of gear in the aircraft in the manner it is operated in real life. Meaning, In Lock On, you press the page up key twice to get your engines to come on. In Falcon, you had to go through the entire steps of turning on batteries, APU, then starting the engine, ect.

This is still an important topic about which to emphasize to Eddo36 where you're coming from.

I was there when the ramp start procedures were introduced as a third-party patch to Falcon 4, and I remember the debate about it before the release. Many people, who still considered themselves very "hardcore", were downright enraged that they would be forced to learn full start-up procedures that had no relevance to air combat, before being able to just get their jet into the air, and it took several forum threads to calm people down by assuring them that this would be a selectable option. Some people reading this topic may wholeheartedly agree with your analysis, but there are many others, including myself, who would consider ramp-start features to be in the "trivial stuff" category for a combat sim.

Further, you clearly aren't talking about Falcon 4 in its original form, but rather a specific third-party after-market add-on. By the criteria you're using it could be argued that no realistic commercial PC combat flight "simulator" has ever been developed, and that it's only been possible to create them via add-ons to existing products. This is not consistent with the "from-scratch" development path that Fighter Ops is reportedly pursuing.

Lock On's support for home cockpit builders allows them to create user interfaces of whatever complexity they wish. But now I'm repeating myself.


There is also no need to caution. I understand the fact of comparing a future product to a current one. However, from the amount of information I have seen from the developers and knowing their past history with Falcon, I am running on faith that Fighter Ops will be the prodigy of that background.

Well, I know better than to argue with faith. :) But I have to wonder - do you really believe that a resume based on modding an existing flight sim can translate, however smoothly, into building one from scratch? One of Lock On's greatest successes, IMHO, is that it manages to build on the previous Flanker 2, proving that this concept of adding features to an existing project, instead of starting over from scratch, can also work in professional development. Hardcore sims are so unfathomably complex, this is really the only hope they have for the future. The success of all Falcon 4 third-party add-ons was firmly rooted in this concept, with people dedicating their talents to favorite minutiae without having to worry about making the skeleton hold together. Fighter Ops is different. I don't doubt that there is a vast pool of people prepared to make excellent lists of feature demands, without which they will never conscience the release to see the light of day, but who are the programmers who will actually succeed to implement them, when the original Falcon 4 team, with far greater resources at their disposal, could not? Why does this presumed coding powerhouse need anyone else to tell them what to do? And especially, what kind of talents do you believe have been professionally developing other sims until now? Do you really believe what you say, that it's simply a matter of having the right intentions? That any flight sim developer in their right mind really believes for a moment they are targeting for a "mass market"?


Besides, the user interface in Lock On is so basic that it wont be all that hard to beat!

I'll tell you what. You and I both have a background in flight sims and our own established preferences. Let's leave it up to Eddo36, who is as close as this forum is likely to get to an impartial arbitrator. If you can convince him by a description of the missing MPCD pages in Lock On's F-15C that they are more important than, say, fidelity in the missile modelling, which as I understand is what ED is currently improving, and which is already demonstrably problematic in Falcon 4, then you'll have convinced me too, simple as that. Interested? The only question - is Eddo36 even still reading this?


I love Lock On, dont get me wrong. It is a fun game. The disappointment came from UBI hyping it up as an ultra realistic sim and it was nothing of the sort.

I dunno... This bears a quite uncanny resemblance to my feelings about your flight sims of choice. You seem to have very high expectations for Fighter Ops, and I was seriously let down by the hype surrounding some Falcon 4 add-ons...

-SK

[FlyBoy01]

Once again this issue comes down to expectations and interests. I do not think the diversity of this community allows for a simple definition of what is most important to include to make a sim versus what makes a great game. What I wish for is enough of whatever is needed to make the outcome a financial success and thereby engender others to create more sims/games that have combat flight in jets as a theme.
Who knows, with the ability to scale complexity, maybe one product can be both a great game and a great sim. 8)

[Charlie_VFP]

You take me out of context way too much.

You specified missile realism. Lock On doesnt have that. Even after this patch, we will see how realistic it is. They havent got it right yet. This will remain to be seen. Seems you are running on faith in that aspect.

Trivial? Who is to decide what is trivial and what isnt? Do we draw the line at ramp up procedures alone? Or do we extend that to in flight operational modes of the avionics? Do we stop there or do we continue to dumb down the entire thing? Who is to decide what is trivial and what isnt? How about put everything possible in there and then make it user defined?

If someone wants the most realistic sim on the market, but doesnt want the 'trivial' stuff with it, they they do not want the most realistic sim on the market. They want a semi dumbed down sim on the market. Again, who is to decide what is trivial? (This is a rhetorical question)

Fighter Ops is not a from scratch projects. We (other posters) have already gone over this in other threads. :)

Who is to saaqy FO will not have the ports in place for cockpit builders?

Furthermore, basing a project off the past means that nothing new is done. Sometimes a completely new approach is needed to make the jump in technology. For instance.... we continue to press the silicon technology for processors. This is why we are slowly creaping up in speed. Yet research in other technologies have shown HUGE advances in speed and ability and it is not silicon based. It just takes time for them to get it figured out and on the market.

If you continue to add on to old things, you will sacrifice a lot in the long run. Sure, you got a cool new addon or a new title that is a bit better than the old.... but you will not get a 'jump' as mentioned before. Heck, DX9.0b was out long prior to Lock On and LO is DX8. Go figure.

Time. The original F4 team did their work years before the add-on teams began their work. Time, technology, and new ideas. Not only that, but hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. 'Should of, could of, would of' does not work for the first guy doing it. But once he has done it, 'should have, could have, and would have' does come into play.

The 'dumbed down' features in Lock On are more than a avionics menu issue with the aircraft featured in the game. It is simply the most obvious and easiest for example. You claim missile modeling... it is wrong as well. Especially on the initial release version (shudder).

We each have our likes and dislikes. This is a fine thing. But, again, the facts are the facts. I have presented them and we have debated them. It is now an issue that we will obviously not come to an agreement on. Therefore, I am done debating it.

As you said, each person must use the facts to make up their own mind.

[FlyBoy01]

Terry,

Very well thought out answer and reply. I agree with your outlook. With the hard work of those involved, FO may provide the new approach to get us the SIM we want with enough GAME to attract newbies. Unfortunately, the development cycle provides a considerable amount of time for speculation and sadly enough denigration of the overall effort and its outcome.
Patience is going to be needed by all of us who wait for FO's final release....

[jhook]

Lomac, It's like eye candy with a purpose. But Falcon 4 is an evolution, I think of her as Pinocio. Falcon 4 is a wonderful lady that has grone up to become an awe enspiring sim that will create the next generation of fighter sims (Fighter Ops). Lomac has a following too, but leaves soo much out of realizim. Falcon 4 aspires to be real. Swingkid, if you don't like the real motions of being a fighter pilot, then turn off the "Ramp Start" option of Falcon 4. As for the rest of us. As real as it gets please, as I like to think Pinocio is growing up fast. :thumbsup: 8)

[Vlerkies]

Very nice post Terry
have a few on me :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink:

And i agree with Flyboy01 and jhook

After all good things come to those who are patient, not those who criticise





:military:

~S~

[Mower]

This is an old but still valid debate.

Bottom line: LOMAC is lighter fair releative to Falcon 4. Period.

Bottom line: LOMAC fans who deny it are in a fantasy world. Period.


My LOMAC review is here:

http://www.f4community.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=9541&s=5e393662bf8fc1546bba 47a7e9f9ccb0

[Pacman]

Gentlemen,

This is a very old discussion that has been on almost all the boards, during development of LOMAC, during it's release and after the patches.

The answer is VERY simple, LOMAC was never meant to be or become a studysim like Falcon.
LOMAC was meant for the more broad public with all the differences that come with it.

Those guy's worked their butts off to make that sim as good as it could get for the market they aimed at.
And one fact will always remain....you cannot please everybody.

This isn't a shooter where you have only one kind of public.
The flightsims DO have 2 types of customers: The ones that want to get in that pit and fly the heck out of it, and those that want to study for 2 days for a qualificationflight they need to do for their online squadron on navigation and emergencyprocedures.

LOMAC supplies the people in that first part, and Falcon and FO will support that second part of the market.

Now let's all enjoy the sims we like to fly, and accept that there are people out there that have different things they look for when buying a flightsimproduct.

Best regards,

[Mower]

those that want to study for 2 days for a qualificationflight they need to do for their online squadron on navigation and emergencyprocedures.

Only 2 days to properly prep? Aiming a little on the low-fidelity side arent you? :lol:

[Pacman]

Hehe that time is for experienced Falcon pilots like you and I, wasn't talking about rookies :mrgreen:

Nah it is for the hardcore public with enough features in it to dumb down the simulation for the casual pilot to enjoy flying it.

But the goal is to make it attractive for the casual pilot to try and learn the hardcore part of it.

And one thing very important to improve the learning curve will be all kinds of idea's to make learning to fly "realistic" interresting, challenging and in a way that they enjoy doing it.

Best regards,

[Viper_Man]

But the goal is to make it attractive for the casual pilot to try and learn the hardcore part of it.



Is this possible??


Isn't this what LOMAC tried to do and possibly failed because off. The casual pilot was satisfied but the hardcore pilot was not overly satisfied.


I think if you're going to build a sim concentrate on one end or the other of the spectrum. Design it and make it hardcore.

[Pacman]

The sim is directed at the hardcore people and in the first stage will be for only hardcore people.
This doesn't say that we can't build features in that make it easier for "newbies" to enjoy the sim.
If you don't want those "easy" features you don't turn em on. 8)

Regarding to the newbies learning the hardcore part is making the trainingflights, lessons and other introductionclasses "understandable" for them.
That doesn't mean "dumbing down" the classes and trainingflights, no, that means explaining them in such a way that even a newbie can understand what the "instructor" is talking about.

I think we can all appreciate the fact that we have new people interrested in learning this and that won't work if we keep the learning curve as steep as it is now.

Best regards,

[Buckshot]

Yep, Pacman is dead on. There are many features you can include (eg the front seat/back seat feature, structured, interactive training etc etc) that not only increase the realism of the sim, but also make it easier for the novice to learn and get into the high fidelity side of things.

There are also the obvious options of dumming things down, enhanced avionics, labels, etc etc, which is not hard at all to include. My honest personal opinion though is you don't learn anything from using these things and that this path is actually a harder way to learn than just starting with everything on full realism.

[olaleier]

Terry, you say "You specified missile realism. Lock On doesnt have that."

Could you embellish a little on that? (that isn't bugs)

What will Fighter Ops do different in missile physics (not switchology)?

[Pacman]

Don't compare appels and oranges, it's no use. :wink:

[Charlie_VFP]

Could you embellish a little on that? (that isn't bugs)


Sorry, I am done with this topic. See Pacman's above post. :)

[olaleier]

Could you embellish a little on that? (that isn't bugs)


Sorry, I am done with this topic. See Pacman's above post. :)

Sounds like dodging to me.

You said:


You specified missile realism. Lock On doesnt have that. Even after this patch, we will see how realistic it is. They havent got it right yet. This will remain to be seen. Seems you are running on faith in that aspect.

It is not a matter of "apples or oranges", physics are physics.

Missile sensor capability data is in many cases classified data so developers will have to approximate or fill in the gaps of what they do not know.

Is it this you mean?

Will Fighter Ops development have access to more data than, say, Eagle Dynamics?

Falcon 4 sure had some magic missiles, how will these be rectified/different?

[jhook]

Olaleier,
It would appear that you are not satisfied with the answers givin to you. You wrote
Will Fighter Ops development have access to more data than, say, Eagle Dynamics?


The answer to that questions is a probible "yes"! :thumbsup: :mrgreen: G2I/Gen Av has found information on many sensitive materials that will be used in "Fighter Ops". The hole point of this sim is to create a realistic simulation that even experienced fighter pilots can use to hone there skills. Pilots can't fly all the time, and simulators are on a "schedualed" basis for use, so pilots do use computer simulations to keep there minds on the task of flying and arial combat close to them at all times. They eat, sleep, day dream about flying and conduting misions every minute of the day! :shock: 8) This sim is realy fr them. They can create a mission that they might be flying in, and test out the many different angles of a sortie. Real weapons data will be implimented as much as the sim will need, and nothing more!!! :shock: :wink: I wouldn't be worried about weapon realizum, as "Fighter Ops" has access to good info for the construction of a "High Fidelity" sim! :mrgreen: :thumbsup:

[Raptorman]

Real weapons data will be implimented as much as the sim will need, and nothing more!!! :shock: :wink: I wouldn't be worried about weapon realizum, as "Fighter Ops" has access to good info for the construction of a "High Fidelity" sim! :mrgreen: :thumbsup:

Let's take for example the AIM-120B, how will you know if it's more realistic then the SP3, SP4 or Lomac one? You'll need performance charts (to judge the flightmodel) and AMSAA data (to judge the damage model), and as far as I know these data is classified. You can also ask Haole or another fighter pilot to comment on this, but I guess he can't do that due to classified status.

[Buckshot]

That is correct Raptorman, obviously no sensitive or classified data can be or will be used. We can only go by what is in the public domain and best guess for the rest. What I can say though is that with no demands of a publisher to get the sim out by such and such a date, and no need to limit the manhours in research and tweaking missile models for example, we have a very good chance of getting it as accurate as possible. I really can't comment too much on LOMAC because I just haven't flown it all that much. From what I have seen of it, and read about it, it seems that corners were cut in realism (or to be a bit fairer certain realism areas were prioritised as lower priority or as tasks that took too long to get perfect for what they saw as little game with their average consumer) due to the fact that the sim was already way past it's release date, and the Eagle Dynamics were obviously under a lot of pressure from UbiSoft to get the sim out ASAP. ED to their credit seem to be doing everything they can to get the sim into a much more complete package.

I also want to state again that these comments are not a slur on LOMAC, I support any simulation project, anybody producing a sim is helping our hobby (if only certain people would wake up and realise that). LOMAC is a great sim for it's target audience, as others have rightly pointed out you can't compare Falcon to LOMAC, it's like apples to oranges, and LOMAC was never meant to compete with Falcon.

[jhook]

Just an accertion, how would Olaleier know what "Physiscs" of the AIM 120B be anyway? Dude doesn't sound like he holds a class G-4 clearence to me. For what I do, I have clearences (even gun permits/use of, on sight as my job demands it) but still, how would he know? The info G2I/Gen Av will use as much info as the game requires, and nothing more! :shock:
Sounds like an echo in here! :mrgreen:

[olaleier]

Just an accertion, how would Olaleier know what "Physiscs" of the AIM 120B be anyway? Dude doesn't sound like he holds a class G-4 clearence to me. For what I do, I have clearences (even gun permits/use of, on sight as my job demands it) but still, how would he know? The info G2I/Gen Av will use as much info as the game requires, and nothing more! :shock:
Sounds like an echo in here! :mrgreen:

Which bring me nicely back to my first questions.

How are Lock On's missiles unrealistic (in terms of their physics, not the switchology to launch them)?

What needs fixing?

How will Fighter Ops be better?

[jhook]

Olaleier,
A lot of missle info isn't classified. What we gain fron the de-classified info, can certanly draw conclusions to what would be more/less accurate for the sim. In reality, all sims are a joke, in some instances, it is laughable :lol: , but this sim will attempt to get closer than previous sims due to the fact that they do poses some better info than other sim biulders. 8) :wink: I would love to discuss kinetic energy release points and directional guidence v's turn ratios with you all day, but then, I got to kill you afterwards! :lol: But realy, this team is a good team, with good info, and I know they woun't abuse any privelages given them. :mrgreen:

[Sehm]

Hey Olaleier. Good to see you around :drink:

[Charlie_VFP]

How are Lock On's missiles unrealistic (in terms of their physics, not the switchology to launch them)?

Not dodging you. Simply tired of debating this with people who enter a debate with their minds already locked up solid and refuse to see the facts of a given situation.

Time. Everyday new things are declassified. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act. Maybe someone will use it on certain equipment that data is not readibly available on.

If you do not know something is wrong with the AIM-120 in Lock On, then you have not done two things. 1> Play the game. 2> Read the list of fixes for the patch.

As Buckshot said, I am trying to make sure that I do not come across as a Lock On 'hater'. I really like Lock On. It is a great game and I enjoy it. However, I refuse to be a 'fan boy' like many you find who defend it to the very end and ignore the short comings for fear of admiting they are wrong.

[Stang]

Hi Guys,

Just wanted to input my .02 worth.

Falcon and LOMAC are great simulations, both having superb HIGHS and distinct LOWS. Fighter Ops is neither Falcon or LOMAC, it aims much higher.

What we need to make that happen is your help. If you have information that would be beneficial to Fighter Ops, please contact myself stang@g2interactive.com or Dirk at pacman@g2interactive.com

Our goals is to be the best hyper realistic combat flight simulator on the planet and to do that we need all the help we can get. This is not gong to happen over night and it also cannot happen without the loyalty and commitment from this community.

Instead or worrying about who had what or who didn't ...lets focus on how we as a community get what we want in Fighter Ops...and make it the best it can be.

We all want a platform that consistently grows and gets better without any limitations, legal or otherwise. Fighter Ops is it!

Lets make it great !!

If you'd like to help out send me an email.

Later guys

[Charlie_VFP]

A few points were brought up to me in private and I did want to make a general clean up of some of the words I used. Not for any reason other than to ensure that I did speak clearly and no one has taken me out of context.

When I say dumbed down, I do not mean "Taking away from realism". I should have said Simplfied. Avionics can be simplified and yet still be modeled correctly in an operational sense. As for multiple DDI/MPCD pages, I really would have liked to see more. I bet ED wanted to see more too. More on this in a minute.

All bugs aside, I think the F-15 radar itself is modeled pretty accurately. I have a great deal of experiance on the APG-65 and APG-73 radar packages. I beleive the F-15 modeled in Lock On has the APG-63. Either way, they are 'close' to each other in a realistic sense and the radar does reflect that in Lock On. I have never flown an F-15 so I cannot give exact comparisons, but from my experiance I beleive it to be dang close.

To go further, the missile realism is slightly screwy due to bugs, in my opinion. I have seen the AIM-120 operational characteristics on the bug fix list for each patch so far. This tells me that it is a bug issue, not anything else. When 1.02 comes out, we will see. If it is still incorrect, I bet it will go on the 1.03 patch (if there is going to be one - no I have no inside information and it is completely speculative on my part in saying that.)

As for my arguments, I still stick by what I was saying. However, I was probably a little to lax on my mentioning that ED probably had nothing to do with the short cuts that were taken. With as many missed deadlines as there were, I bet UBISoft put a great deal of pressure on those guys to get the thing on the market. Meaning, things they WANTED to put in the game were not because of that reason. When you have a producer and investors, they want return on their investment NOW. Not later; NOW. And since it is their money you're playing with, you have to give them what they want.

To finish off one last time (and try not to keep coming back :shock: ), I will say again that Lock On and Fighter Ops are two different monsters that are targetting two completely different audiences. Because of this, they really cannot be compared. To go even further, there IS no Fighter Ops yet. Until there is a feature complete beta, no one knows what Fighter Ops will have in it. We all have 'ideas'.... but how can you compared ideas to something that is already there?

Therefore, we can look at this thread in a theoretical sense..... but when it comes down to fact, since I so like to say PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS!!!!!, the fact is Lock On is on the market and Fighter Ops is still pre-alpha stage. Once FO is a feature complete beta and is shaping up to gold, we can then begin to compare them.... but only on a feature level. As I said, they were meant for two completely different end users.

Lock On is awesome. I love the thing to death and plan on jumping into the cockpit here in the next few minutes for a long night of multiplayer kill all.

The idea of Fighter Ops is absolutly awesome and tomorrow I am going to get back to work on helping G2I make it what we all hope it will be.

THERE CAN BE TWO! In fact, it is better that there are more than just one. Not only is competition between the companies good, but multiple REAL sims (Homeland defender V DOES NOT COUNT!!!) on the market is nothing but good for our hobby.

We can coexist peacefully.

end_soapbox();
}

[Sehm]

Well said :thumbsup:

[VMF-Blaze]

Terry:

Now this post I must say really makes me respect your endevor...

This kind of attitude can only benifit the fight sim community.....

Yes and with this positive type of attitude there is most likley enough room in our minds to again to have a number of new jet flight simulators that we can experience, not just one or the other....

We all need to allow this community to grow and stop trying to destroy it with words...

It seems to me that if we as a commuinity have enough intelligence to be able to controll these virtual aircraft in very extreme conditions and understand all the complicated avionics then we should be able to understand how to preserve the community as well...

Anyway thats how I see it...

~S~

Blaze

[Charlie_VFP]

Well, we just have to remember that it is human nature to be destructive. Because of this, we all tend to choose our respective sides and begin to fire shells back and forth.

But you really have to take a step back and look at the situation. How would it look if someone came on the boards and flamed Lock On for being this or that and then logges off the forum just to go spend hours flying it because its fun? It would look pretty bad.

Now, the civil war can end and we can put pressure on developers together to end the reign of the FPS or we can continue to drive our market lower and lower until there is nothing but 'Homeland Defender V'. I think we know the right course of action there.

However, it will never happen. Human nature. We can only hope to keep it at bay long enough.

Now, since I sound like a complete hippy, tree hugging, peace freak.... I am going to start up Lock On and blow the hell out of some bad guys to make myself feel more at peace with my own human nature.