How could LOMAC have been improved?

[SUBS17]

I tried to get members of my squadron to fly a little more Lock On to take an occasional brake from the IL2 series. A very good friend of mine was one of the testers and technical advisers to Lock On. As an ex-Hornet driver, his dislike for the AIM-120's performace went unheard or ignored by the development team. I also found myself extremey disappointed in the F-15's radar performace in areas such as drop lock and the under-whelming effectiveness of the AIM-120. It seemed no matter how hard I tried, Soviet aircraft were locking and engaging well before I could engage them.

We ended up flying the A-10 more often because of short-commings of the F-15. As a retired S-3 Weapon Sytems operator and a SME in the Maverick program in the Viking community, I found the Maverick, allthoogh very accuratly portrayed system operations wise - was lacking in stand-off capabilities as well.

\/

Your Squadron should try out F4AF or Open Falcon, they both are better for Squadron missions.

[ruggbutt]

The only problem with F4 is having to fly against AI. I prefer real people. ;)

[Vidar 710]

I have F4AF but couldn't get into it. I didn't care for the graphics and I can't get my Track IR to work in it.

Here's what a bunch of Noobs in Lock On look like... The blind leadin' the blind. LOL
http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j163/blacksheepsquad/Lock%20On/

\/

[ruggbutt]

Looking good! If you like ground pounding we have some killer missions on our server. In fact, I added another 30 ground targets to each side for each mission, so there's plenty of stuff for you to blow up. Average is 100 units on each side not counting Iglas, SAM's and SAM sites.

[iamfritz]

I miss the good ole days when nobody really knew what the inside of jets looked like, and the fantasy of being a fighter pilot was all in your boyish mind.

That being said, I hate how Jane's USAF botched the F-15C hud frame, and glad LOMAC fixed it. That really chafed my shorts.

[SUBS17]

The only problem with F4 is having to fly against AI. I prefer real people. ;)

You can fly against people in F4 in either a TE or a dogfight.

[SUBS17]

I have F4AF but couldn't get into it. I didn't care for the graphics and I can't get my Track IR to work in it.

Here's what a bunch of Noobs in Lock On look like... The blind leadin' the blind. LOL
http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j163/blacksheepsquad/Lock%20On/

\/


Trackir works in F4 but only in the 3d pit 2d pit is not so good. The graphics are not so bad in the airbases and the weather is one factor that is better than what you get in LO. When we talk about Squadron missions F4 is much better as the planning is much more straight forward and the mission flight plans are more realistic. Its not the usual LO style ok guys goto waypoint 2 and nuke everything or just takeoff and look for bad guys. In AF you have a set task that is briefed in alot more detail and everyone knows what their job is. You have better SA due to the HSD so you know if someone is straying from the mission and going on a tangent somewhere else. You also have much better intel in the location of threats and tgts on the plus side you can also effect the entire campaign by the outcome of your missions. Now if you look at Open Falcon you have added to this the data cartridge, data link and ingame voice coms plus better graphics with dds skins etc. RV also has better graphics than AF but AF is quite solid for MP and is very good for things such as inflight refuelling as a 4 ship and the AI follow the same procedure as the human pilots. (move to the left wing once topped up and remain in formation-they don't buzz the tanker like they do in LO). LOs still a good sim though but for Squadron missions F4 is the best. And yes Aim120s do better and you can fire multiple 120s at multiple tgts simultaneously in OF.

[195th_Seawolf]

I tried to get members of my squadron to fly a little more Lock On to take an occasional brake from the IL2 series. A very good friend of mine was one of the testers and technical advisers to Lock On. As an ex-Hornet driver, his dislike for the AIM-120's performace went unheard or ignored by the development team. I also found myself extremey disappointed in the F-15's radar performace in areas such as drop lock and the under-whelming effectiveness of the AIM-120. It seemed no matter how hard I tried, Soviet aircraft were locking and engaging well before I could engage them.

We ended up flying the A-10 more often because of short-commings of the F-15. As a retired S-3 Weapon Sytems operator and a SME in the Maverick program in the Viking community, I found the Maverick, allthoogh very accuratly portrayed system operations wise - was lacking in stand-off capabilities as well.

\/

Was his name Mr. Mudd?

[TX-EcoDragon]

For my flying, the two things I was most disappointed in was the lack of clickable cockpits/avionics, and the scripted flight models that aren't so subtle during certain maneuvers. (Scripted aerial refuelling too!!?!?!)

There might be many other things on the list, but my involvement with LockOn was mostly as a member of a formation aerobatic team, and outside of that I never flew it enough to comment on the other aspects (offline play, weapons systems, AI etc)

Jane's F-15 was great fun way back in 1998, Falcon 4.0 too, and both had many things then that LockOn lacks. . .and I tend to think that once a standard has been set, it's best to raise the bar, or at least meet it, especially when you've got 10 years to improve on the prevous title.

[Wad Cutter]

"How could LOMAC have been improved? "
Well for one improvement I would like see an even amount if aircraft for both Russian and USA sides. I would also like to see a confirm date of release for the Black Shark and stick to it. One major improvement would be to have a flyable Apache to battle the Black Shark with and why not add an F-22. But at least I can fly Lock On. It’s not pie in the sky if you know what I mean.

[Deadman]

:lol

[Lawndart]

"How could LOMAC have been improved? "
Well for one improvement I would like see an even amount if aircraft for both Russian and USA sides.

XSI take note; we want Russian birds too! :wink2: ...NOT! :tongue:


I would also like to see a confirm date of release for the Black Shark and stick to it.

XSI good on you for never posting a date! :bigsmile:


One major improvement would be to have a flyable Apache to battle the Black Shark with and why not add an F-22.

I wouldn't trust ED to get the F-22 right. XSI wouldn't surprise me if they did! :thumb:


Sorry, couldn't resist commenting... :smile:

[SUBS17]

XSI take note; we want Russian birds too! :wink2: ...NOT! :tongue:



XSI good on you for never posting a date! :bigsmile:



I wouldn't trust ED to get the F-22 right. XSI wouldn't surprise me if they did! :thumb:


Sorry, couldn't resist commenting... :smile:

Well actually XSI has mentioned an addon with Russian aircraft what would be wrong with that idea? And BTW yes EDs next sim after BS will include an AH64 Apache("Tank Killers") which will most likely be a 2 seater online. I couldn't imagine them getting it wrong since their latest work is used by the USAF.

[Lawndart]

It's all good! Frankly, I look forward to anything new in the combat flight sim community and you're right SUBS17... There's nothing wrong per se, only that LockOn is very biased towards the Russian birds, especially its flight models.

[SUBS17]

Hopefully their next sim will follow the same development as their A-10C sim for the US or Black Shark.

[bflagg]

Hi Subs.. it's been a while...

Don't get your hopes up.. they will leave you hanging....
This is why i haven't been there is a year or two.....

[FighterPilot]

First I want to say Lomac dissapointed me very much. I expected it to be a simulation and not another damn arcadish game. Which it is sorry.:sad: It has only 2 strongpoints and that are detailed graphics and AFMs. I wont go into details because i could write 10 pages about it, but point out critical things which basicly make it unplayable:

- bugs
- AI modelling (tactics, weapon employment, capability, flight models...)
- Systems (mis)modelling (airplanes, radars, tanks, helis, ships)
- unrealistic weapon modelling (missiles FMs, missiles sensors, warheads...)
- F-15 is undermodelled (radar, FM, its weapons...)
- still very bad performance on todays high end PCs on highest settings
- gpu engine issues
- not objective modelling of systems but that based on "my stuff is better than yours" with no arguments, facts, datas, just plain overmodelling of Russian equipment as seen the best with latest patch.
- bugs

The game failed utterly if you consider as what they advertised it. Back on original lo-mac page u can read for yourself what they have promised us and what they delivered.(not talking about DC):rtfm One thing I will never forget are claims for ultra realistic flight models for all flyables (when they cant even get top speeds of aircraft right) or AI vehicles taking advantage off terrain and camouflage.(AI vehicles have no brain whatsoever). If I wasnt familiar with game from day 1 or wouldnt know ED history I would say game is pretty good. Because it has its unique features like very detailed and immersive enviroment, also sensation of flight is great.:thumb: The truth is Ubisoft forced prerelease of unfinished game to the market. As a result game feels unfinished, has tons of bugs, and is unoptimized. That is for ED defense. But then they had all the time they wanted for Lockon 1.1 to fix this things even charge them and still the game is in the worst state since introduction back in 2003. WHY?

Because radar missiles dont work, vehicle ATGMs dont work at all, all SAMs can shoot at incoming missiles, ships dont work, radar modelling is porked, realistic tactics impossible, some old heavy bugs persistent from day 1 and a lot of new introduced in ver. 1.1. Surely , we got a lot of new stuff too like realistic avionics for russian jets, improved FMs and other improvements but what does this help if they ruin everything afterwards? Its like one step forward and two backwards. And ED is going along this path from the Flanker 2.0 times. I serioulsy doubt that ED has enough resources and manpower to make a game so complex as combat flight simulator to work properly. A lot of valued members left the team because of ED unprofessional attitude and arrogance. Their moto is not make things as realisticly as possible but rather make it as they want it too.:nono: Sidewinder anyone?

[liquid_rockface]

Welcome to the forums, FighterPilot. That was a very nice, informative, detailed post, with all your reasons explained in good detail. Keep it up!

I see this is now the 4th most replied to post in the entire fighter ops website! :thumb:

[Lance]

Welcome to the forums, FighterPilot. That was a very nice, informative, detailed post, with all your reasons explained in good detail. Keep it up!

I see this is now the 4th most replied to post in the entire fighter ops website! :thumb:

"FighterPilot" : Welcome to the Fighterops Forums, have a pleasant stay.



........LR, good job! Want a cookie?:tongue:


Flip

[=RvE=Tito]

Well actually XSI has mentioned an addon with Russian aircraft what would be wrong with that idea?

Can you be more specific please? This is the first time I read that and it just lights my fire...

[Woodstock]

"How could LOMAC have been improved?"

By BlackShark.

Bolter!

[SUBS17]

It ain't going to happen, because it doesn't belong there.:wink2:

[=RvE=Tito]

Black Shark doesn't have much to do with Lock On. It's a whole new conception of study sim modules unlike LO. It's based on LO's engine but it's highly modified. Not to mention the new mission editor- plenty of reasons why it's a stand-alone title. Our hopes about LO are based on the eventual 1.13 patch. But even now, thanks to the people from =RvE=, it doesn't stop me to enjoy it with all it's imperfections.

[Gulfstriker]

I was disappointed because of that star block nonsense, I can not run the game!

[Gulfstriker]

hello is everyone reading this?

[Deckerd]

hello is everyone reading this?

Maybe not everyone. The copy protection thing really gave me headaches. That was until i got myself a new router. Now even flying online runs smoother. Unfortunately i said Lomac goodbye at that time and concentrated more on the good old JF-18...:red: What can i say carrier ops rule

[masonator]

One and only one thing could have saved LOMAC from my recycled bin:
Dynamic Campaign

[LeL]

Yay bring back the big Cats...... nothing like doing a night trap when one of two engines is out.:thumb: :thumb: as for LOMAC two words 1 Clickable 2 Cockpit.:nono:

[Ship]

The main problem with lomac is in my view very simple......
Was the game complete or not? In my view no why you ask
The game is called lock on "modern air combat" but you leave out several aircraft as flyable. Also leaving out US carrier ops was a big turn off for me. It is common knowledge that US aircraft carriers are one of the first if not the first units to enter a hot zone and LOMAC complety left that out the least that could have been done was to make the f/a-18 flyable.

The scope of the game is very limited due to the fact that LOMAC is 90% Russian not just in aircraft but also in the effectiveness of US wepons.

LOMAC looks great but its not all looks that make a great game content is just as important if not more important.

I feel that LOMAC was left unfinished.

[ruggbutt]

One and only one thing could have saved LOMAC from my recycled bin:
Dynamic Campaign
The campaign system in JF18 isn't dynamic and it kicks the s**t out of Falcon's.

[Njc242]

Good old Janes. That game rocked. People still fly it?

[T_Flight]

They could've left out the StarForce crapware. If they would've done that, they might've not been boycotted.

That's on the top of the list of the things that killed it.

[Deckerd]

The campaign system in JF18 isn't dynamic and it kicks the s**t out of Falcon's.

+1 :thumb:


Good old Janes. That game rocked. People still fly it?
Yeah sometimes. Check out the teamsuperhornet website. There is a guy working on a F-14d pit. It looks awesome

[ruggbutt]

They could've left out the StarForce crapware.
If there's an upside to SF it's that ED used a version that hasn't caused any problems with users. The version that UBI used with SH3 really caused havoc. Then UBI switched to SecureRom for SH4 and I can't run that software at all. On either of my 2 computers. Meh, I'll take SF anyday.

[T_Flight]

If there's an upside to SF it's that ED used a version that hasn't caused any problems with users. The version that UBI used with SH3 really caused havoc. Then UBI switched to SecureRom for SH4 and I can't run that software at all. On either of my 2 computers. Meh, I'll take SF anyday.


Really? Tell that to my freind. He lost a 300 dollar Pioneer Drive. I got to help him reformat his HDD, and had to give him my drive because I tried some things to get the drive up and working again, and they failed, so I gave him mine. Nothing I did including firmware hacks recovered that drive. It was ruined.

He got the virus from something called "Flaming Cliffs" a download add on for LO that Eagle Dynamics put out through the web.

SF is in court for the damage they caused. Any company that uses these types of damaging software should be held liable for it. If they want that crap on their computers that's their buisness, but it dang sure won't ever go on mine.

They are on a Boycott list for a reason. Also note Gulfstriker's post above.

[ruggbutt]

He lost a 300 dollar Pioneer Drive. I got to help him reformat his HDD, and had to give him my drive because I tried some things to get the drive up and working again, and they failed, so I gave him mine. Nothing I did including firmware hacks recovered that drive. It was ruined. .
Hard drives never fail? I'd like to see some real proof from someone that software is breaking hardware. I've had hard drives die with no indication that they weren't going to work any more. One day the computer booted, next day it didn't. Nothing had changed. In fact, I bought a brand new 500gig Maxtor SATA drive that never worked well in my computer. Sometimes it would get recognized and sometimes no matter what I did the OS just wouldn't see it. This changed sometimes on a daily basis. It had no OS installed on it, I used it for storage. Eventually I replaced it (with a WD Caviar, no issues for a year now) and gave it to my father. It's worked flawlessly in his computer over the past year. Had I had SF installed on that drive, or the computer I had that drive installed into then maybe I could have placed the blame on it. The fact is that SF wasn't installed on that rig, it's a dedicated workgroup and business computer. I've had a brand new h/d die 3 days after it was installed. SF wasn't at fault there as well. I have a hard time believing that SF caused a hard drive to not be able to write/read zeros and ones. More likely the drive failed cuz as we all know mechanical parts fail sometimes.

I've had the same thing happen with optical drives. All of a sudden they die but those that have SF installed place the blame on the software. I'd like to see some bona fide proof that SF (especially the version that FC uses) has broken hardware. I've had it installed in 3 different rigs and the 19 members of my squad have had it installed in several computers and not one of us has had an SF related problem. I've had 3 issues with other types of copy protection. I've had to fix 2 rigs that belonged to my family cuz Norton Antivirus fuxored the OS. Both were fixed after I cleaned the registry of any fragments that belonged to that program. Software cannot change hardware properties. A 7200 rpm h/d won't spin at 15000 rpm no matter what kind of software you're running. Neither will it slow the drive down to 200 rpm. If a reformat didn't work on that h/d then there was a problem with the hardware.

That being said, I'm not a fan of copy protection that's intrusive for the user who inadvertantly gets punished for paying for his software.

[T_Flight]

HDD's fail all the time. I know precisely how they fail. I've taken classes in hardware, and I do work on alot of machines. There are only 3 ways a HDD can fail. It can fail electrically which is easily diagnosed with a multimeter and patch cable. It can fail mechanically which is obvious from the bearing noise, or the crash, or the failure of the motor. They can fail magnetically with age which can be diagnosed with disk scanning utilities that find the bad sectors. It is a Magnetic Electromechanical device. Those are the only failure modes, as there is nothing else in the drive phusically that can cause a failure. HDD's may have compatibilty issues, but those are no failures. They can have issue with certain mobo's or other associated Hardware. That goes with computers...it just goes with the territory. SF does not.

This wasn't a HDD that failed. It was a 300 dollar Pioneer DVD Drive. It was dumbed down to the point where it would no longer write. This drive was in perfect working order before that that "so called" update he did, and nothing else on the machine was chnaged...nothing. This goes along with what every person that has had these issues has said. Again, there is a reason SF and associated titles were boycotted. People don't go that far out of their way to make stuff like like up, nor do I. I know precisely what caused these issues becasue I spent the hours to research it, and saw the lies posted by SF themselves, and then later saw them change their story to the complete oppositte and admit that it was causing issues. I also saw the users that had these issues have their post deleted by SF on their forums in an attempt to cover themsleves.

These people have had legal action taken against them for the damage they have caused. The evidence is out there. Even Sony's illegal rootkit didn't cause this kind of damage. If you want to see a piece of software that causes damage go onto Google and look up Chernobyl. It is a virus that will rflash your BIOS for you, crank your vCore up, and fry your hardware. It's actually quite simple to write software that will kill hardware. All you have to do is reflash the hardware with parameters that are outside it's specs.

Software can most *definitely* change hardware properties. In fact, that's exactly what drivers do. That's what an OS does. There are more thna few types of viruses that do wih Chernobyl being one of the most infamous. It was on the news some years back. If I wanted to write a program that would kill a harddrive, all I'd have to do is write a BIOS flashing program that would OC the ports to a over high level thereby detroying the port and HDD. Very evil, but very effective.

Every piece of of hardware in a computer is vulnerable to software attacks like SF. I have nothing against copy protection. The only thing I have anything agsint is illegal malware, and destructive programs, and I will get correct info out there everytime the subject is brought up. Alot of people like me an my freind spend long long hours on these machines just assembling them. We pay top dollar for bleeding edge stuff when it comes out, and put these things together, benchmark them, OC them, and spent countless speepless nights gaming, flying, and keeping them in top shape. I won't ever load anything that was even questionable, much less widely boycotted onto one of my drives. I've already seen the results.

[Ship]

Good old Janes. That game rocked. People still fly it?

I still play US Navy Fighters and Fighters Anthology :thumb:

[SUBS17]

If there's an upside to SF it's that ED used a version that hasn't caused any problems with users. The version that UBI used with SH3 really caused havoc. Then UBI switched to SecureRom for SH4 and I can't run that software at all. On either of my 2 computers. Meh, I'll take SF anyday.

SF is a problem for older cd drives I've found that it makes them unusable if you have more than one drive on your PC. I also know of someone who had 4 PCs and each PC had 2 cd drives and all 4 PCs lost 1 cd drive after FC was installed. And thats why I no longer use FC.

[SUBS17]

HDD's fail all the time. I know precisely how they fail. I've taken classes in hardware, and I do work on alot of machines. There are only 3 ways a HDD can fail. It can fail electrically which is easily diagnosed with a multimeter and patch cable. It can fail mechanically which is obvious from the bearing noise, or the crash, or the failure of the motor. They can fail magnetically with age which can be diagnosed with disk scanning utilities that find the bad sectors. It is a Magnetic Electromechanical device. Those are the only failure modes, as there is nothing else in the drive phusically that can cause a failure. HDD's may have compatibilty issues, but those are no failures. They can have issue with certain mobo's or other associated Hardware. That goes with computers...it just goes with the territory. SF does not.





A hard drive can also be rendered useless if the boot sector is deleted.

[greenlee]

The main problem with lomac is in my view very simple......
Was the game complete or not? In my view no why you ask
The game is called lock on "modern air combat" but you leave out several aircraft as flyable. Also leaving out US carrier ops was a big turn off for me. It is common knowledge that US aircraft carriers are one of the first if not the first units to enter a hot zone and LOMAC complety left that out the least that could have been done was to make the f/a-18 flyable.

The scope of the game is very limited due to the fact that LOMAC is 90% Russian not just in aircraft but also in the effectiveness of US wepons.

LOMAC looks great but its not all looks that make a great game content is just as important if not more important.

I feel that LOMAC was left unfinished.

Good overview! Let's not make this mistake again... make both US & Russia Carrier Ops, (50/50%) you will attract more FANS, no doubt in my mind. :)

[ruggbutt]

A hard drive can also be rendered useless if the boot sector is deleted.
At the most a reformat fixes that. I've done that on accident. ;)

[T_Flight]

SF is a problem for older cd drives I've found that it makes them unusable if you have more than one drive on your PC. I also know of someone who had 4 PCs and each PC had 2 cd drives and all 4 PCs lost 1 cd drive after FC was installed. And thats why I no longer use FC.


This is a new pattern. One that I did not know. My freinds PC had the DVD Burner, and an older CD RW. I believe it was a HP, but will have to call him.

I'm going to do some more research on this and find out why this is. With that many computers exhibiting the same results, this is a pattern that cannot be ignored.

Thanks for that info. It's a disturbing trend, but at least we can learn from it. Sorry about your freind that lost all of that hardware. This company has to be in for Millions if not Billions of dollars worth of damage to people's equipment. :sad:

[ruggbutt]

I have an old Athlon 1300 rig. Both optical drives worked when it was running ME. When I installed XP they quit working. I never could get them to work again.

[SUBS17]

The PCs were using XP at the time and were working fine before SF was installed. If you search the lomac forums I think you'll find alot of people had problems with SF and 2nd drives. Hopefully ED will see the light with DCS and not use SF fingers crossed they don't go down that path or use a version that doesn't destroy components or prevent normal use of the users PC.

[ruggbutt]

I'd just like to see someone post proof rather than guess that SF broke something. Did the Pioneer drive die immediately after SF was installed? A week later?

[T_Flight]

Yes, my freind said he installed that Flaming Cliff's or whatever they called it, he fgot an Orange Screen with some scary stuff that he grudgingly agreed to, went in there and tested for a bit, then started to burn some files to a CD and got nothing but errors from then on out.

All attempts to get the drive functioning after that failed. Even after the system was formatted, attempts to get the drive to burn failed. Attempts to flash the drive with the correct firmware failed. After that we tried firmware hacks and those failed. The drive never worked again.

There are literally thousands of these examples all over the net. There is no "Version" of SF that does not cause damage. Any company telling people that is merely covering for them and covering their own tails. They are in deep trouble because they know the damage they have caused.

Again, Starforce themselves have admitted that it does indeed cause issues.

[SUBS17]

I'd just like to see someone post proof rather than guess that SF broke something. Did the Pioneer drive die immediately after SF was installed? A week later?

As I described in an earlier post a guy had 4 PCs each with 2 cd drives after installing FC one drive in each PC was unusable. My own experience my PC had 2 drives after installing FC 2nd drive no longer works. I now have 2 cd drives but won't install FC again due to SF. Can't get any more certain than that.

[ruggbutt]

I guess Karma bit you in the behind. I've had SF on 3 different rigs with a total of 7 different optical drives. I've had optical drives killed by installing XP. Therefore, XP is malware. And Microshaft knows that sometimes this happens.

[Deckerd]

...Therefore, XP is malware. And Microshaft knows that sometimes this happens.

Lol, yeah but that's kinda official

[Bogusheadbox]

<Your friendly temporary Forum Moderator>

I am using my new found Temporary Forum Monitor status via artcle 6 pargraph 4,2,a and request a back on topic change of tact before we end up in another SF debate.

Now how do i temporary lock a thread ;-)

Hehehehe

[SUBS17]

It is on topic as it is one of the reasons why LOMAC is not as good as it could be.

[T_Flight]

Yes, it's a serious problem, because serious flight simmers like me cannot even give it a try. That, and it's just a lowlife thing to do to include "damageware".

I wasn't born yesterday. These companies know what they are putting in there. They might play "dumb" for legal reasons, but this is widely known, and was known by devs before the users were able to figure out what was causing it.

It's unethical. I took basic programming in college years ago, and we were taught the ethics of how they do things. Sometimes bugs slip through the cracks, but this is not like that. This is deliberate on the part of SF, and that is why they are in court. I sincerely hope the courts do the right thing like they did with Sony's rootkit. This company deserves a much greater fine, and trhey should be made to pay for every burner they have damaged.

[Cobra]

ok .. the point has been made about SF being a negative for some people when considering Allied Force.

if you wish to debate StarForce itself, then i suggest another thread.

:smile:

[xhaos]

but SF is one of the greater problems of lomac, so its only fair we talk about it.
and since this can of worms is already open, is there any thought from FO side regarding what protection will be used?

I feel a very strong need to say that i hope we will not see any spyware included or any SF like crap.


and to add one more idea on that when wrong with lomac (though i still play it), on the time it got launched it was going against IL2FB and bellum online war system. hundreds of people were in sqns fighting in bellum and just didnt wish to drop the war. in my opinion it was bad timing on one hand and that it didnt offer such a service. hopefully after vsqns and 2 sides can be formed with different aircraft in FO we will be able to see some longterm online war.

[Buckshot]

Yep, as Cobra said, you and others have raised the point that you feel SF is a problem in lomac, so to keep on the subject of this thread, nothing more needs to be said. To debate SF it's best to create a seperate thread.

Re copy protection for FO, much more detail has been discussed in other threads already, however we will certainly not be using SF or anything remotely similar. We firmly believe that the strongest copy protection is value added material and good support from the developer. I go into a fair bit of detail on this subject in one of the developer diaries.

[Thisdale]

I like online activation, like what Valve did with the Half-Life series... yes its a bit annoying, but lets be honest... anyone who's got a computer strong enough to run a modern FlightSim's got internet... and well, if the game needs to be authenticitated everytime the user wants to run the game online is added value as well. Furthermore, like MMOs, its interesting to manage the serial numbers "purchased", as you can add a registration process that authenticates the person who actually bought the game to its serial number. That way, there's the possibility of asking valid questions set by the program and the production team to make sure the copy is still used by the right person.

[Bogusheadbox]

The only problem I don't like with Steam and Half life is that you have to be connected to the internet in order to play offline.

There should be a work around for that. Like 7 day activiation so you only have to verify your account once a week / fortnight etc.

[Thisdale]

Well... what are the chances you will not be connected to the internet? Also, you don't need to be connected to the internet to play halflife, if you've previously synced with Steam (to get/download/buy the game). I've played HL2 while my computer was disconnected from my network.

[T_Flight]

That is kinda silly. Since offline means...well, OFFline what's the point? :smile: