View Full Version : How could LOMAC have been improved?
liquid_rockface
02-08-2006, 16:53
I've heard a lot of people in this forum complaining that LOMAC disappointed them, and it wasn't all what it was hyped up to be before the release. My question is, why did LOMAC disappoint you exactly? Where did they go wrong? How can we prevent a similar thing happening with FO? (although everybody is confident it won't)
Thanks
Have you been introduced to Mower yet?
Mower are you still here?
Lomac disappointed me because of the AI which i found to be extremely stupid. After playing during several weeks, when i realised that the wingmen and the other AIs were not woth anything, it was the beginning of the downfall.
I could have accepted the low FPS on my AMD3000+ and 9800 Pro,
I could have accepted the limited default missions (as there is no need to put thousands of planes into the sky to simulate an aerial engagement),
Well in fact i accepted a lot of drawbacks of Lomac because i love flightsims (and Lomac has its advantages too) , but the jellyfish robotic AI was just too much.
Furthermore, I stopped playing online when I realized online games where laggy airquakes sessions-Rambo style.
"Have you been introduced to Mower yet?
Mower are you still here?"
ooooOOOOOHHHH SHIT:eek:
Dirk
Vampire14
02-08-2006, 18:10
I guess it just feels more like an arcade game, as opposed to a 'Sim' like Falcon 4. But I guess we are just spoilt now having such depth in avionics and the actual busy feel of a campaign.
I know I gave the A-10 a good try when it first came out, while fun - for a multitude of reasons the whole thing was just not my cup of tea.
Still like going up in the F-15 and having guns-only fights and a blast around thou - but bottom line it is just no competition for F4:AF at the moment for me...something Fighter Ops is sure to solve :wink2: .
liquid_rockface
02-08-2006, 18:26
Thanks for the replies so far. I don't know mower yet...what is his connection with LOMAC?
LunaNera
02-08-2006, 19:16
Lock-On is the flight-sim I am currently devoting my time to, in particular to the Hog.
The thing that disappointed me the most and still continues to is the sim's performance and how wildly it varies depending on the situation.
Particularly when overflying cities at low altitude I drop to 10 fps which I believe is unacceptable for any kind of game (unless you're playing chess) and especially unacceptable in a military flight sim where one has to fly relatively tight formations.
for reference my specs:
AMD64 3500+
1GB Corsair Twinx 1024 XL PRO
XFX Geforce 6800GS
2xMaxtor 160GB 7.2krpm in RAID0
Before I answer the question asked, I'd like to take a moment to note some of the things I love about Lomac...
1) I have to say that the graphics in Lomac are absolutely stunning with all the options turned on at high resolution. I have a high end PC, so the frame rate thing is not an issue.
2) Also for the most part, it allows us to fly 6 jets and Fat Albert in close formation online - the multi-player code is, with a few exceptions, mostly excellent for our purposes in the Virtual Blue Angels. We fly within 18 inches of each other for certain manoevers.
3) Most of all, Lomac gave us the ability to customize the game for our needs. We could make the F/A-18A and C-130 flyable despite them not being flyable airplanes by design. It allowed us to edit the skins so we can look like the real Blue Angels, both inside and outside the cockpit. There are many other items that we customized for our use too numerous to note here.
So the following is not at all intended to bash Lomac - we spend 4 hours a day with it, but there will always be room for improvement:
1) The joystick logic with the simplified flight model (SFM) is very touchy - even with the in game adjustments in the options screen, the nose will bounce around violently with any more than the most gentle of movements. Having flown jets in the USMC, I know what the stick response should be like, and Lomac is a long way off in this regard.
2) Trim - again for the SFM trim moves the control surfaces too far, and won't properly neutralize.
3) Replays - mostly an excellent replay system, but there is no way to reverse a replay (track) without reloading it. (We use replays all the time to debrief our shows). You can spped it up or slow it down, but can't back it up.
Those are the 3 good things and 3 disappointments from our point of view :smile:
drawninward
02-09-2006, 00:46
lomac got me back into flight sims after a 7 year hiatus..the only thing that dissapointed me was the absence of flyable nato carrier planes like the hornet to ballance the Su-33...it's still a great game tho.
SuperKungFu
02-09-2006, 01:40
Why did LOMAC disappoint you?
It didn't.
ThomasDWeiss
02-09-2006, 07:24
Eagle Dynamics has been improving Lock On ever since it was released : 1.00 , 1.01, 1.02, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and soon 1.2.
They plan to use only advanced FM from now on.
When there is a problem they try to fix it.
Those guys have been doing this for over a decade.
You can't ask for more.
I think it's a fantastic game .. their multiplayer system is something to shoot for. First game I've had that allows for close formation with very few if any hickups ... which I love ! I'm a little less than impressed with the missile performance .. other than that, I think they did a good job, gives us something to do till FO is out !
For me, Lomac still disappoints me on several points:
1)bug they cannot fix (multiplayer refuel, starting a misison on a carrier)
2)lack of communication between AI and players (in fact, no communication at all except your wingmen)
3)FPS over cities
But I can't help playing it. I just love it. Formation flying in multiplayer is really good, Graphics are beautiful, etc ...
I had never played F4 since i bought F4AF. However it wasn't the same. I enjoyed flying in a very well done Viper but I felt it was "too late" for me to fly F4, no matter the version.
Both sim are great. It would be stupid to compare them and conclude something like "this one's good, the other sucks". None of them sucks. They both have their qualities.
If you haven't tried to fly Lock On, give it a chance. It could surprise, especially for multiplayer games :smile:
*Merlin*
02-09-2006, 13:26
For me, Lomac still disappoints me on several points:
1)bug they cannot fix (multiplayer refuel, starting a misison on a carrier)
2)lack of communication between AI and players (in fact, no communication at all except your wingmen)
3)FPS over cities
But I can't help playing it. I just love it. Formation flying in multiplayer is really good, Graphics are beautiful, etc ...
I had never played F4 since i bought F4AF. However it wasn't the same. I enjoyed flying in a very well done Viper but I felt it was "too late" for me to fly F4, no matter the version.
Both sim are great. It would be stupid to compare them and conclude something like "this one's good, the other sucks". None of them sucks. They both have their qualities.
If you haven't tried to fly Lock On, give it a chance. It could surprise, especially for multiplayer games :smile:
That multiplayer refueling bug is one of the few things that get me with Lock On, But we still managed to refuel, you just need you wingman to gide you in :)
I am very happy with LOMAC, the fact that its very easy to MOD is a great point as well as being stunning graphically. However multiplayer is the only way you can really have a good time with it, since the preloaded sorties are a load of arcade rubbish where you take off and are instantly fired at by enemy aircraft. On the other hand its really good for formation, the mission editor is for the most part very good and internet gaming is easy to use for people like me who dont like ubi.com.
I have to agree with the majority of you, in that I have had hours of fun playing lomac.
The things that disappointed me are the little things that aren't quite finished off.
Lack of navigational instruments and ground stations(ie working tacan's/vor's/ndb's/ils's) really takes away from one of the main fundamentals of aviation. I know there are ILS's in the game but one that puts you into a hill when you are on glidepath hardly counts.
Fuel gauges dont work as published.
Small area of operation. (ie a quater of the Black Sea region)
Lack of a dedicated server program.
I'd like to point out that this isn't a lomac bashing thread and thank you guys for your balanced and well written opinions.
Vampire14
02-09-2006, 18:42
1) The joystick logic with the simplified flight model (SFM) is very touchy - even with the in game adjustments in the options screen, the nose will bounce around violently with any more than the most gentle of movements. Having flown jets in the USMC, I know what the stick response should be like, and Lomac is a long way off in this regard.
2) Trim - again for the SFM trim moves the control surfaces too far, and won't properly neutralize.
That was one thing I did wonder about, having never flown a real F-15 I thought maybe you can deflect the surfaces nose up then release the stick and the flight vector is still a little in the original direction so it will bob back down again. But I know in the jets I have flown in that this certainly didn't happen - and it seems very pronounced in LOMAC. I know it makes formation flying a little trickier than it should be so must bug you guys a bit with the nose bouncing around everywhere.
It's just another thing I can't really say I am stoked about in LOMAC...but hey the graphics are pretty swish.
thought maybe you can deflect the surfaces nose up then release the stick and the flight vector is still a little in the original direction so it will bob back down again.
Yes that's how it works, which is fine for going from level flight to a steady climb rate. However, in the VBA we are constantly doing loops and barrel rolls etc, which means the trim is constantly changing. This requires the pull on the joystick to leave the "sweet" spot that the F-15 flight model has with the SFM in level flight.
The theoretical solution is to trim the stick forces out, but each trim input is larger than ideal for close formation flying - so it's really easy to get too much trim. Add to that the fact that the cancel trim control will not accurately put you back in level flight, and it means you're fighting the stick throughout the airshow.
f-18hornet
02-10-2006, 04:11
For me, Lomac still disappoints me on several points:
1)bug they cannot fix (multiplayer refuel, starting a misison on a carrier)
2)lack of communication between AI and players (in fact, no communication at all except your wingmen)
3)FPS over cities
But I can't help playing it. I just love it. Formation flying in multiplayer is really good, Graphics are beautiful, etc ...
I had never played F4 since i bought F4AF. However it wasn't the same. I enjoyed flying in a very well done Viper but I felt it was "too late" for me to fly F4, no matter the version.
Both sim are great. It would be stupid to compare them and conclude something like "this one's good, the other sucks". None of them sucks. They both have their qualities.
If you haven't tried to fly Lock On, give it a chance. It could surprise, especially for multiplayer games :smile:
In this point I must agree too :(
IceManHG
02-10-2006, 06:44
The nose bobbing is annoying me as well. In comparrison the flight controls in Falcon AF are silky smoooooth. The only way I can make my nose bob up and down like in LOMAC is if I enter a deep stall :wink2:
Sundowner
02-10-2006, 09:07
Aside from weird performance:
- Arcadish avionics in F-15
- simplified boom refueling
- RWR work is a laugh (can indicate AIM-120/R-77 launch from 30nm ? ******** !)
- no western carrier a/c
- irresolution in time period (Stryker APC and F-15 with late 80s avionics – WTF?)
- did I mentioned arcadish avionics in Eagle ?
- no atmosphere, no feel
I play it only for on-line dogfights... nothing more.
liquid_rockface
02-10-2006, 11:22
Again, I'd like to point out that this isn't a lomac bashing thread and thank you guys for your balanced and well written opinions.
Hey Cobra! This is my post! Why are you "pointing out" ("again"? You hadn't ever posted here!?) that this isn't a lomac bashing thread!! :guns: What if I had specifically intended this to be a lomac bashing thread? Huh!? :cussing:
Ok the truth is that this was just intended to get an idea of why LOMAC disappointed them (or didn't disappoint them, as is the case for a number of people...and interesting to hear why they weren't disappointed [and I'm not saying they should have been! I've never even played the game!]). It wasn't intended to be a lomac bashing thread, but hey, what if I had wanted it to be? Isn't that my right too? Hehe I'm just messing with you, Cobra, but it does sound rather weird the way you posted as if you started this post! :jester:
[edited]
I too found all the responses very interesting and informative so far, and I would also like to thank you guys for your balanced and well-written opinions :thumb:
Well one issue i dont like about lomac that i noticed after playing falcon is that i dont feel like a virtual pilot playing it. In falcon due to its depth you can get a good feeling of what being a viper pilot is.
So to sum it up lomac in my opinion is a very good flight combat game and falcon is a good flight combat simulator. Just made the comparisson to make my point clearer.
Buckshot
02-10-2006, 17:09
Hehe, Cobra is one of the forum Admins, so if he says it aint a Lomac bashing thread, it won't be a Lomac bashing thread, lol.
Lol liquid grab your ankles and prepare for a shock :bigeyes:
Another thing about lomac (in response to the control forces posts) is at least you could have a damn good go at sorting the problem out; if you assign the trim to an axis on a X45\52 for example you can play with the way it responds (curve etc) which has allowed me to keep in control of the jet with min trouble with gash amounts of stick force in level flight.
Hey Cobra! This is my post!
Got news for you. :wink2:
Why are you "pointing out" ("again"? You hadn't ever posted here!?) that this isn't a lomac bashing thread!!
Thank you for correcting my grammer. I thought i had read someone else mention it and i was saying it "again" as the second person to post.
What if I had specifically intended this to be a lomac bashing thread? Huh!? :cussing:
Simple. I would have delteted it and given you a warning.
It wasn't intended to be a lomac bashing thread, but hey, what if I had wanted it to be? Isn't that my right too? Hehe I'm just messing with you, Cobra, but it does sound rather weird the way you posted as if you started this post! :jester:
No, it isnt your right.
I found all the responses very interesting and informative so far, and I, starter of the thread, would like to thank you guys for your balanced and well-written opinions :thumb:
I'm glad you agree with me. Perhaps you should have put an "again" at the beginning of the sentence as I have already mentioned that.
I'd also suggest you start to show other forum members a little bit more respect. Just because you started the thread doesn't mean you can start tell people how they should and shouldn't post on it.
Cobra, I think he was being sarcastic..
liquid_rockface
02-10-2006, 19:22
Hi Cobra. Yes, I had large doses of sarcasm (I'd prefer to call it "wit" hehe) in my post....
I thought for a moment that you might be an admin or something, but I couldn't work it out just from looking at your forum name.
Still, it seemed kindof weird to me the way that you "pointed out" that it wasn't a LOMAC bashing post! The first time I read it I truly thought that you had mistakenly thought this was your post! Even I started to have doubts as to whether I had started the post or not! That is when my idea for teasing you about it started :red:
You could maybe have said "I am grateful that this hasn't turned into a lomac bashing thread and thank you guys for your balanced and well written opinions." - it just seems somehow more logical to me. Or maybe if you had said that it's not a LOMAC bashing forum (that would be very understandable for you to state). Maybe it's your Australian English that's confusing me :wink2:
You can see quite clearly from my original post that I never intended for it to be a LOMAC bashing post, but just an opinion-gathering post. I have never played LOMAC, so it would be rather silly for me to start to "bash" it!!
Other than that, I would not have been able to prevent it if it had indeed turned into a LOMAC bashing post! I really doubt that would ever happen, judging from the generally objective dynamic that I have observed that prevails over the forums, but it could hardly be my fault if people started to bash it.
Just out of interest though, what would constitute "bashing" according to you and the other moderators? Would it be if people say things like "LOMAC is worse than any arcade game that you can play at the mall. Don't waste your money buying it"? Or could it even be "bashing" if people just list a whole lot of negative points about the game and say that they are sorry they bought it?
Sorry if anybody got offended, and please just take my twisted sense of humour for exactly what it is...I didn't mean any disrespect to anybody.
edit: Hey! What's with my reputation being lowered! :sad: I was hoping that some day my reputation might go up and not down!! Can't I have a sense of humour!?
No worries, missed the sarcasim.
My sig seems to have gone tits up but the other place to look is the title just under someone's nickname on the top left. Of course failing that you could check out this link to Forum Leaders (http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showgroups.php). which can also be found at the bottom of the forums main page.
Point taken re my wording,however i never implied that it was in anyway your fault or that you indeed did intend it to be a lomac bashing. Infact i believe it was the way you worded your first post that assisted to keeping it civil, so thank you. The reason I made that last sentence was I have seen threads like these head south very quickly and it was just a friendly reminder to keep the thread on track the way it had been, and also a thank you to the guys who had done that so far.
As for what i believe bashing to be, well i guess that could be a little subjective on the day, but my take on it is if all you are doing is bad mouthing a product or company without putting up any relevant arguements to back yourself up then i'd call it bashing. If your not sure about a post then i'd say er on the safe side or if you really feel you have to post it, feel free to put your post to a mod or admin first and see what they reckon.
Cheers
:smile:
Vampire14
02-11-2006, 07:44
Oooh don't make Cobra angry...you wouldn't like him when he's angry! :greendude
Lol - jokes :thumb:
Aside from weird performance:
- Arcadish avionics in F-15
- simplified boom refueling
- RWR work is a laugh (can indicate AIM-120/R-77 launch from 30nm ? ******** !)
- no western carrier a/c
- irresolution in time period (Stryker APC and F-15 with late 80s avionics – WTF?)
- did I mentioned arcadish avionics in Eagle ?
- no atmosphere, no feel
I play it only for on-line dogfights... nothing more.
Actually Boom and Basket refuelling in lockon is the smoothest ever modeled for a flight sim. Not forgetting the flexing hose:thumb: . Lockons development and support is very good and the FMs are getting better and better.
Sundowner
02-12-2006, 07:02
I'm talking about this autopilot thing when you connect, you don't have to keep you position manually. That Russian hose and drogue system is also too easy, apart from autopilot engaging when you connect, that basket is not moving at all, you can just set auto throttle for 1 kts faster than tanker and still make the connection, when in reality it will fly of because of the air turbulence around your aircrafts nose - that's why the connection speed is usually 5kts or faster.
I'm just hardcore to the bone :bigsmile:
actually Sundowner, after 1.1 the basket is moving and you are in full control of the refueling of russian AC's, during the whole process. The boom is a differerent story though..
Sundowner
02-12-2006, 10:49
yeah, I forgot about that control thing since Flaming Cliffs, but the baskets are still stationary, they are not moving before the contact is made.
you are right, they are not affected by airspeed and turbulence, like you mentioned.. which kinda sucks.. but is not a big deal for me atleast :smile:
cheers
Dusty Rhodes
02-12-2006, 13:30
LOMAC did NOT disappoint me. I think it did what the designers and makers intended.
What disappoints me about LOMAC is the lack of replayability. Swingkid is working on that, thankfully, but it should not be the responsibility of the community to add replayability (make campaigns and missions that the maker chose to do to a minimum) to the sim. HOWEVER, as I understand it, future ED products SHOULD have some sort of campaign generator to give that sorely missing replayability. I would bet a dollar to a donut that if LOMAC had a Dynamic Campaign, then it would rival Falcon easily. Atmosphere and replayability is key, and LOMAC thru 1.12 lacks it sorely.
*Merlin*
02-12-2006, 15:36
You said it Dusty, The developers have stated that they are working on a dynamic campaign, hopefully it will be ready when the F16 is ready.
liquid_rockface
02-12-2006, 17:52
Wow this is really a great thread! Thanks again for all the wonderful replies. I was just wondering, about refueling, how do F-16 pilots line the hose up perfectly with the refuelling port when they can't see where it goes in!? Surely it is quite likely to miss a few times and bang into the airplane and things like that? I know that there is an officer guiding him, but if you can't see where it's going, it must be impossible!
I think there are lights on the underside of the tanker, like aproach lights. The pilot keeps the greens ones in sight and the dude puts the hose in the hole and sprays the juice in. thats the laymans view on things anyway.
Vampire14
02-12-2006, 18:40
Yea Dukey is right, there are two rows of lights on the tankers belly for FWD-AFT and UP-DWN. So the pilot just follows the light prompts, and the boom dude 'flies' the boom into the refuel port.
But I do believe we have a tanker chap in here somewhere (All-Fired-Up), so he would be able to answer this perfectly.:thumb:
liquid_rockface
02-13-2006, 10:28
Wow that's cool, never knew that....they didn't have anything like that in Janes' USAF haha. Can the tanker chap manoeuver the hose into the hole? Or does the pilot have to do all the manoeuvering?
The pilot does all the manouvering.
The boom operator can move the boom within certain limitations to the refuel hatch from the refueling aircraft.
Best regards,
Dirk
Buckshot
02-13-2006, 17:07
The pilot does all the manouvering.
No in the case of boom refueling, the pilot puts his aircraft in position, and the boom operator "flies" the boom into the receptacle.
Shepherd
02-13-2006, 17:55
Aside from weird performance:
- Arcadish avionics in F-15
- simplified boom refueling
- RWR work is a laugh (can indicate AIM-120/R-77 launch from 30nm ? ******** !)
- no western carrier a/c
- irresolution in time period (Stryker APC and F-15 with late 80s avionics – WTF?)
- did I mentioned arcadish avionics in Eagle ?
- no atmosphere, no feel
I play it only for on-line dogfights... nothing more.
Humm not true your RWR statement is totaly false! RWR doenst show active missiles untill they go active around 6-7nm. I does how ever show the radar platform that has guided it untill it goes active.
Western carrier in the Black Sea LOL...I dont think thats anythng will see in the reals world either.
Sundowner
02-14-2006, 08:41
Read it carefully, I’m talking about indicating missile launch from range where its on board radar isn't active yet. Real world high effectiveness of those missiles is caused by lack of any warning of launching such a missile, you know about it only second before it hits you - when it turns on its radar for terminal guidance. In LockOn you got tone of launching missile and you can start performing break maneuver way earlier than you could have in real life.
No in the case of boom refueling, the pilot puts his aircraft in position, and the boom operator "flies" the boom into the receptacle.
I'm refering to whats modeled in lockon FC, it moves only a little bit.
Woodstock
02-20-2006, 07:10
Read it carefully, I’m talking about indicating missile launch from range where its on board radar isn't active yet. Real world high effectiveness of those missiles is caused by lack of any warning of launching such a missile, you know about it only second before it hits you - when it turns on its radar for terminal guidance. In LockOn you got tone of launching missile and you can start performing break maneuver way earlier than you could have in real life.As far as I know, you´re both right and wrong on that.
RWRs/MLWS give missile launch warnings when they detect the enemy´s radar emitting missile guidance signals. These emissions always start automatically when a missile is fired in STT mode, no matter if it´s an AMRAAM/R77 or an AIM7/R27. Only in TWS radar mode can an active missile be launched unnoticed.
The russian aircraft in LockOn can not launch in TWS mode so you will always get an R77 launch warning from the platform´s STT lock.
At least this is how it is modelled in LOMAC:
F-15 launches AIM120
- in STT mode: you receive launch warning
- in TWS mode: no launch warning
Mig-29S launches R77
- in STT mode: you receive launch warning
- in TWS mode: no launch/guidance possible
STRIKER#5
03-15-2006, 13:15
One word that always gets everyone's blood boiling...Starforce
Other than that I thinkLOMAC is mainly a great sim comparibly speaking.
Flying the Friendly
Richard_H
03-16-2006, 16:40
Really interesting discussion. I also have lomac but i haven't really gotten into it. The thing i dislike strongly with the modern flightsims (modern airplanes) is the countless key combinations to activate the radar, radar modes, which weapon to use , ripple (a10) and so on. There's so much key combos, when in the real world, turning on the radar is a matter of like pushing on a button or so (im not really familiar with how they do it, but i assume they dont have to push 50 different buttons in a sequence just to activate the radar) Thats why i tend to stay with ww2 sims, no fancy radars, rwr, auto trim and so on. by the time i've activated the essential systems in an aircraft in lomac im already dead lol
Richard_H
03-16-2006, 16:41
i just hope that Figher Ops dont turn out to be a "do 14 key combos to turn the "master arm" on" game
Buckshot
03-16-2006, 16:51
The reason for key combos are that there just are not enough key's on a keyboard to make a realistic simulation of cockpit systems. There are a couple of ways around this, the most obvious being a clickable pit. The items which are used most often can be assigned single keystrokes, whereas the items used less often can have the complex keystrokes and you'd be more likely to use the real switch or button in the cockpit. An accurately set up HOTAS controller takes the need away from having to remember key presses or click items in the pit during combat etc, and increases realism. If you really want, programmable keyboards, further increase realism and mean that you can get all functions on to single keys.
Really interesting discussion. I also have lomac but i haven't really gotten into it. The thing i dislike strongly with the modern flightsims (modern airplanes) is the countless key combinations to activate the radar, radar modes, which weapon to use , ripple (a10) and so on. There's so much key combos, when in the real world, turning on the radar is a matter of like pushing on a button or so (im not really familiar with how they do it, but i assume they dont have to push 50 different buttons in a sequence just to activate the radar) Thats why i tend to stay with ww2 sims, no fancy radars, rwr, auto trim and so on. by the time i've activated the essential systems in an aircraft in lomac im already dead lol
Its not very difficult to learn those radar and weapons modes in lockon. It takes 2 keystrokes to fire an A/A missile in Close mode. Probably 4-5 for BVR. Its not hard at all and you'll learn radar scan modes, ECM effects and the basics that will get you ready for FO or AF if you decide to get that first. Heres some examples of a simple A/A engagement for patch 1.02
push 2 (BVR mode)
push I (radar on)
use SHIFT and ,./; to slew the TDC cursor onto the rectangular radar contact(map these to the hat on your joystick)
push TAB to lock
To fire missile when in range the F-15s HUD will tell you when in range, lights on the canopy will also light up. Push joystick button 2 to launch.
In a Russian jet the missile won't launch unless you are in range. To fire the missile use the trigger button to fire.
Simple as that, other notes you need to maintain the lock after launch until either the missile impacts(AIM7 or R27ER) or until the missile goes active homing (AIM120 or R77). Infra red missiles are fire and forget(Aim 9, R27ET, R73, R60). Another point to locate the target sometimes you must raise or lower the dish, you can also point the beam left and right and you can increase or decrease the radar range with - + keys.
Easy as that, F4AF is very similar to this as well.:thumb:
Vampire14
03-17-2006, 00:09
This is actually one of the reasons why I don't really use Lomac for much combat flying - only guns DF'ing. HOTAS are really good for the more commonly used commands like radar usage in particular, but I also like working through the MFD's and ICP pages with the actual buttons in the cockpit in F4 as well.
You need a very high end computer and graphics card to take advantage of Lock-on. I don't buy a game to play at it's lowest settings and not everyone has a computer capable of getting the full value out of this sim. I can fly F4Af maxed out on all setting no problem. Fps around 45 and 38 around busy airports and the first two days of a campaign, then fps goes higher. Yes in deed lock-on as great graphics but if you have to turn them down to play, whats the point. I know some will strongly disagree with what I have said but it's the truth, I have flown it. It is part of my collection. Used it for a week and have never had it out since. Yes I have the 1.2 patch. Same problem I like to fly with setting full, that is what it is all about, at least for me and lock-on just needs too big a computer to do this. Fact.
f-18hornet
04-10-2006, 13:17
You need a very high end computer and graphics card to take advantage of Lock-on. I don't buy a game to play at it's lowest settings and not everyone has a computer capable of getting the full value out of this sim. I can fly F4Af maxed out on all setting no problem. Fps around 45 and 38 around busy airports and the first two days of a campaign, then fps goes higher. Yes in deed lock-on as great graphics but if you have to turn them down to play, whats the point. I know some will strongly disagree with what I have said but it's the truth, I have flown it. It is part of my collection. Used it for a week and have never had it out since. Yes I have the 1.2 patch. Same problem I like to fly with setting full, that is what it is all about, at least for me and lock-on just needs too big a computer to do this. Fact.
Yes, you've right that FC is not for everyone.
Richard_H
04-10-2006, 14:59
I've decided to buy the Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS setup, the one that looks almost , if not identical to the F16 Block 52 stick IIRC.
But i wont buy it before fighterops is released though as there really isn't any good flight sims (except for MS Flight Sim, but i want some combat too) out there. Hopefully FO is released before 2007.. :P:thumb:
Jex =TE=
04-13-2006, 13:23
Lomac is great for formation flying and it has a great sense of height (plus stunning graphics). The other Sim I fly is F4:AF which does not compare with what is good about lomac.
Lomac falls down with the number of AI units you can have (severe FPS drop), No dynamic campaign (need it be said at all that these days, ALL flight sims require a DC?) and a very basic cockpit with no ramp start ability.
I want the graphics of lomac but the realism of F4. However, F4 still needs cascading/damage modelling greatly improved. In all - once we have a flight sim that mirrors real life we'll all be happy ;)
diveplane
04-17-2006, 21:17
having talked to a real su30 pilot in hyper lobby,
i shot the question at him ,= real visual experience he had v lockon sim....
his words where lockon is about 80% there in terms off visual and
flight controls ......,stated the other 20% is the actual feeling you get
flying in a combat jet high gs your body gets ...which lockon cant create...
so am gonna take this guys word for it ..........
imo cant ask a beter person....for feed back....
lockon is fantastic..........great simulator....and the addition off black shark
will be great as well......well done ed .....:thumb:
Sundowner
04-17-2006, 21:30
Well the Polish comunity is trying to convince one MiG-29 pilot to play the game... so far he is resisting, telling his computer can't handle this sim :bigsmile:
But we will force him to try it :evils:
Brickbat
04-18-2006, 09:38
As mentioned above, they should have included NATO carrier launched planes,(F-14, F-18, EA-6, etc.). However, the mission editor is easy to work with, and I have numerous co-op missions that I have made over the past 2 years, and found I can create pretty much any type scenario my "buds" and I can think of.
As mentioned above, they should have included NATO carrier launched planes,(F-14, F-18, EA-6, etc.). However, the mission editor is easy to work with, and I have numerous co-op missions that I have made over the past 2 years, and found I can create pretty much any type scenario my "buds" and I can think of.
NATO carrier launched aircraft? Woot? F-14 is included, F-18 is included. EA-6B isnt, but what makes them that much NATO? They are USN (F-18 and Prowler are also USMC) Aircraft that are part of NATO. You want them as flyables then? well..i wish we had that gorgious looking F-18 as a flyable! hehe!
Flip:thumb:
Brickbat
04-18-2006, 11:35
Yeah, I should have said "out-of-the-box" USN. Although I do love the F-15 and I'm proud to be able to choose an Eglin AFB skin(even though the "Proud Lions" have disbanded). And you're right, F-18 would be a beautiful thing!
eutoposWildcat
04-18-2006, 11:38
Well, in solo I think that Falcon 4.0 is really much better, because flying with the AI just lets you feel alone, really alone, in Lock On. I can never forget that my wingmen and the pilots I fight against are AI, unlike in Falcon 4.0.
Before playing Lock On, I thought that the AI in Falcon 4.0 was sometimes stupid and boring, but now I like it because of its 200-point IQ:tongue: .
However, driving the Su-25T in multiplayer, making very low rocket passes on moving tank columns is just great!:smile:
I havent played Falcon 4.0 or 4.0 AF online before, but Lock On does give a good online experience, with small itches here and there as in FPS drop, consulting a higher ping and LAG LAG LAG.
Flip
AF is good online, actually a bit better than lockon in some areas.
AF is good online, actually a bit better than lockon in some areas.
The 1.6 mod should make it even better i hope :bigsmile:
In the start of LOMAC it was mainly my computer holding me back, now it's the attitude of 'well known "protection" company. And playing F4 makes you want to be able to adjust any little knob there is, not just switch modes.
I still really like the feeling of jetflight and the AB-sound and the graphics etc etc, But LOMAC don't make me feel as much a part of a living battle field as falcon does.
so what is a Falcon 4.0 AF Online flight like? can someone describe like in detail what you can do what type of missions etc, communication ?
Flip
so what is a Falcon 4.0 AF Online flight like? can someone describe like in detail what you can do what type of missions etc, communication ?
Flip
I have yet to try.. But I've been bloody ready for quite a while with my AF.
You can play the lovely campaign at least in MP. No internal 'Realtime' talk as far as I've found.
Us online virgins should get togehter and try a campaign.. or at least a few missions. :tongue:
so what is a Falcon 4.0 AF Online flight like? can someone describe like in detail what you can do what type of missions etc, communication ?
Flip
Well for campaign missions its quite cool, normally the host selects the mission and loadout. You then do a reccon of the target and work out a plan. From there its either taxi start or ramp. When taxiing to the runway you takeoff in sequence and fly out to do the mission. Along the way you can end up bumped by bandits and having to take them out. For bigger flights you can also have people fly as escort and SEAD escort. The campaign ensures there is plenty of surprises and you can also accidentally fly into SAMbush or Ambush CAPs. Alot can happen and depending on the experience level of the other pilots you can wind up losing a whole flight:evils: or successful missions. The real fun is wiping out the primary target and successfully RTB. For TEs you can also have other pilots fly against your flight in which case its hunting and hiding. Theres a few tricks that can set people up for an intercept or miss the intercept completely:rofl if your flight lead adjusts your Steerpoints to avoid an obvious trap. CAS can also be fun and quite realistic especially if you have a good FAC:bigsmile: .(don't forget to bring WP)
sounds cool! i might have to buy that mofo!
Flip
drawninward
04-19-2006, 18:54
it does sound cool...it sounds awesome, but it looks horrible...especially if you've got a trackIR and are used to using it with lomac....it feels like about a 8 year step backwards in the visuals department and lead pursuit seems to have no interest in bettering the appearance of the cockpit...which is what I'm inferring from this post in the falcon forum.
it wd have been great to have had a fully functional 3D pit for Allied Force. But that would have taken significant -- and from our point of view extremely important -- resources away from other issues in the simulation.
In my opinion, this killed the sim for me cause I've been so used to using TrackIR, and it's worthless in AF. For those that haven't gotten into trackIR, I'd totally recommend AF, for those that have, try it before you buy it instead of getting suckered like me.
Don't worry, I don't use trakir with AF but I'm sure one day LP will probably fix that. You can use them but it dosn't work the same as in lockon. They aren't that necessary anyway as I only use the 2dpit.
I've only owned LOMAC for about 2 days now - got it for the A-10 only. So far a few things glare out at me:
1. Very limited Hog loadout. I mean, seriously. Where are all the CBUs? High Drag bombs? LGBs? It looks like there are only about 8 AG munitions to choose from...
2. Extremely simplified avionics. Ie "lock the Maverick on to an area and it will automatically target the closest vehicle." You gotta be kidding me... (and that one is really freakin' annoying). Doesn't even look like you can uncage Sidewinders, either. No changing CBU burst heights.
3. I'm not overly impressed by the FM. Still tinkering with axis settings to get smooth response (especially to use that gun) without being twitchy or feeling like a mac truck.
Then of course there's the lack of clicky pits, lack of dynamic (or semi-dynamic, or branching or something) campaign, and Starforce (preventing me from getting FC and probably Black Shark). But I won't count those on the list since I knew about them going in.
Of course, there are the high spots though:
-Purtiful graphics
-Love the 3D 'pits with TrackIR
-Great sensation of low alt flying with all the trees and objects (one of the best I've seen)
-It's much kinder to those of us who prefer mud-moving/CAS; much, much easier to pick out targets and etc than in F4
drawninward
04-26-2006, 23:38
and Starforce (preventing me from getting FC and probably Black Shark). But I won't count those on the list since I knew about them going in.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147655.html
FC is published directly by ED, not by Ubi - presumably they'll do the same with Black Shark. Hopefully all the backlash against Starforce will convince ED to drop it, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Black Shark will most likely have SF, BTW the realistic loadout mod for the A-10 by Shepski is highly reccomended although it is only for the FC version(includes the cbu97).
Check this out!
Delta wing jet with flaps!?
Lack of words right now to comment this:bigeyes:
edit: this shot is taken from FC 1.12a
Hell Sqn Protos
05-17-2006, 00:22
Small area of operation. (ie a quater of the Black Sea region)
Lack of a dedicated server program.
Dedicated Server is critical imho as is a top flight dynamic campaign engine to be intergrated for online play as well as offline.
should at least have SLATS dude
Flip
I'm quite late with reading this topic but like some others said, the bad thing with Lock On is the pitch bouncing thing. Real airplanes, especially planes without fly by wire, do indeed bounce but not so dramaticly as in Lock On. I have been looking for the best curve for formation flying for like one year and I found out that there isn't really a reallistic setting at all. If you have a stable curve around the center, you will bounce around when pulling G's into a loop. If you have a stable curve when pulling G's, you will bounce around when flying straight and level......
Conclusion, the pitch in lockon is really "game" like and doesn't even come close to reallity.
On the other hand, Lock On is the first military "sim" which made close formation flying possible and I extremely enjoy(ed) playing Lock On.
For now I'm waiting for FighterOps which, I'm sure, will overcome all the bad and even the good things of Lock On and make a real SIMULATOR, instead of a game.
I see it like this; take Lock On and Falcon 4, improve and combine them, and there you go "FighterOps". :thumb:
Oh man, I can't wait!
SuperKungFu
05-28-2006, 14:25
Conclusion, the pitch in lockon is really "game" like and doesn't even come close to reallity.
Actually it is if they don't trim their aircraft. If you trim, then the bouncing doesn't really happen.
Brickbat
06-21-2006, 09:30
I still enjoy Lock-On, even with some of the flaws it seems to have. The mission editor is easy for me to work with, I can create any scenario you can think of and I have many custom-made co-op missions. It seems though the patch(s) did away with being able to add a train, and also when you record a Track, you can no longer choose AVI format which allows you to view the track from an external viewer,(you have to view them through the LOMAC game since it stays a TRK file). Then again, I could be missing something. Any advice would be appreciated.
Well as far as I know we were never able to add a train in the mission editor. I think you had to go find them yourself. And concerning the AVI files, you first need to save a track file of your mission. When it's done you open that trk in the mission editor then you choose the option to "Record AVI" and it will create the video from the track file.
Brickbat
06-22-2006, 09:04
Ok, I will try to change the track format that way(never really thought about that). As far as the train, yes, I was able to use it before the patch(s), I even put one running around an airport just for laughs. Thank you for the reply, another reason I like the Fighter Ops forum, this site is full of informative and just plain friendly people.
Wad Cutter
06-24-2006, 12:41
I don't feel that Lock-On with Flaming Cliffs plus patch 1.12a has disappointed me. The graphics are much better then when Lock-On first came out. With the Black Shark add on coming soon(I hope) , I think it will even be better and harder. I think flying with the right people makes all the difference. I enjoy every mimute of flight with the 44th Watchers. I am looking foward as is every one else to Fighter OPS. I am always up for something new and better, but it MUST[[be better
liquid_rockface
06-24-2006, 20:38
Yay! This is now the most replied to, and the second most viewed thread in the LOMAC forum :D
Bogusheadbox
06-26-2006, 13:47
I had purchased lock on fairly recently (as a precursor to this sim really). After going through the tutorials, trying my hand at playing. Here are a few things that bugged me. (I am playing vanilla lock on. It has not inspired me to purchase any add ons)
I am running an AMD 4000+ Asus 6800 ultra PCI-e Asus 8AN sli delux mobo, 1 gig ram.
The tutorials...... F15c as a mention.
How many times did i have to play this stupid scenario becuase the some of the text instructions on the weapons training scrolled in about 0.25 of a second. Even using pause to try and capture the text, i had to redo the training module 3 times.
Landing. - I am astounded that when i cross the threshhold for a smooth landing, the plane will go onto autoland and i can go hands off stick.....> Is this normal. I have searched all over the difficulty settings in order to see if this can be removed... But alas no.... Surely this is not a real life feature is it ? I wanted a sim not a game.
For a game this old, and on a what is a half decent rig i am running it on.....The bugs are nothing short of disgraceful. It has CTD'd many many times. Graphics glitches, stutters that would make a rapper jealous. How did people back on release date get to play it on any visual settings is beyond me.
Now i know, you will be saying...... There is X patch, Y patch and then you have the Upgrade patch called Flaming Cliffs and soon an edition called Black shark. With all the bugs, i have absolutely no inclination to purchase any of the add ons due to the fact that i see a poor development upon release.
Games producers (especially lately) seem to think that releasing a buggy host of code and still expect full price is now the norm. We the consumer should be thankful for what they have done to date. Well not me. Sure it has pretty graphics. But that alone will not capture the spirit i have for aviation and simulated combat aviation.
Now don't get me wrong. I know the game has a lot going for it. It also has a lot of updates and an upcoming add on. But it just doesn't feel realistic. More akin to a pretty parcel wrapped in nice paper with a hollow inside. And for this alone i will at present time not invest my money into further editions of this game.
Production values goes a long way. Perhaps i would have been better off going for F4:AF. But the lack of graphics does not appeal to me, however the indepth of the sim does.
Therefore i will stick with my propellor fun (FB) waiting for 1c's BOB to be released and maybe a Korean air war era sim or two and see what this project comes up like
SuperKungFu
06-26-2006, 13:56
What kind of fps are you getting with that rig? One of the main problems that may be your problem is due to duo core since Lock On has not adapted to it yet. This was mentioned on the other forum (i don't have duo core myself so i'm not sure if it works but others say it does) http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781
Anyway if you don't want to get FC (which you should because its great) at least patch up to 1.02 (free).
And no i never expereinced an F-15 landing by itself, maybe it was just in the tutorial. Set up a mission and try landing because the Flight Model in lock on is the best in any sim out there.
Brickbat
06-26-2006, 14:27
Wow Bogusheadbox, sorry it's giving you fits. When I first started playing Lock-On, my system was a: Pentium 3 996mhtz(not even a gig of process),384 RAM, Nvidia XFX 5200 video card. Had some "hic-ups". I now have Pentium 4 3.2 dual core, 2 gigs RAM, Nvidia 5950 ultra. I still got "blue screen of death" and sometimes the "boot to desk top". SOLUTION: for me was, go to device manager, up date AUDIO drivers, and while you're there, check your video drivers(date should be 3/9/2006). Also, in BIOs, I disabled cacheing(sp?). I find it works flawlessly if I crank the game up, do a couple of things, shut it down, then fire it up again. It really is a cool sim, just got to kick it sometimes to get the rotors spinnin'.
What kind of fps are you getting with that rig? One of the main problems that may be your problem is due to duo core since Lock On has not adapted to it yet. This was mentioned on the other forum (i don't have duo core myself so i'm not sure if it works but others say it does) http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781
An AMD 4000+ is a single core cpu.
:wink2:
Bogusheadbox
06-27-2006, 07:33
And no i never expereinced an F-15 landing by itself, maybe it was just in the tutorial. Set up a mission and try landing because the Flight Model in lock on is the best in any sim out there.
I noticed it when playing the f-15 campaigne. Always on landing just as the wheels touch sometimes before. I can let go of the stick and it will nose pitch up, touch rear gear, give more nose up to slow and then slowly drop nose for a nice smooth nose gear touch. All of this hands off.
Ahh maybe its me? Dunno.
SuperKungFu
06-27-2006, 13:35
An AMD 4000+ is a single core cpu.
Oh sorry i thought he said 4400+ my bad.
I noticed it when playing the f-15 campaigne. Always on landing just as the wheels touch sometimes before. I can let go of the stick and it will nose pitch up, touch rear gear, give more nose up to slow and then slowly drop nose for a nice smooth nose gear touch. All of this hands off.
Ahh maybe its me? Dunno.
lol maybe you are just an awesome pilot. But the F-15 is one of the easiest plane to land, try landing the Su-25T, now that's fun. Then try to land it on the Krutz lol and then in crosswinds.
Bogusheadbox
07-07-2006, 07:23
Ok, Well, call me a sucker.
After some of you suggesting that my lomac experience could be improved with the inclusion of Flaming Cliffs. And indeed on some forums, people do really seem to enjoy it. I went against my better judgement and decided to order the online add on.
Well, the title of this thread is "Why did Lomac disapoint?". And here it goes again. Another dissapointment saga.
Process for purchasing online version o Flaming Cliffs.
1. Them taking your money...... Very quick, very easy.......... bing bang bosh, you wallet is soon a little smaller.
2. Getting what you paid for..... WTF !!!
<part 2 explained>
Two sites to choose from. USA and Russia. So i decide to choose USA (just in case there is a language download issue as the lock on forums are divided into language communites).
Start download.
Download falls to a crawl.... not a little slow, but diabolically, reversed geared, mind numbingly slow. (but i am not phased). OK I said. Once i have it that is it.
So i let it chug away in the back ground.
** 5 hours later **
I have my installer. I click the right buttons, it chooses automatically the right folder and it starts the installation.
5 seconds in, i get error message "3" and it won't install.
After installing and uninstalling vanilla lomac and trying to reinstall the update, i still get the same message. Search the forums and a thread hints out that the dowload may have gone bung.
So i delete it and start the US download again.
** 5 hours later **
I have my installer. I click the right buttons, it chooses automatically the right folder and it starts the installation.
5 seconds in, i get error message "3" and it won't install.
My heart now begins its plummet to the bottom of my stomache, while my brain is telling my heart " You bloody Wayne-Ker, you should have realised from the original you will be rodgerd through back door."
After more perusing through the forums, i came accross a little thread saying that the US download is corrupt and they switched to the russian version and it worked. Well there is no bloody official mention of this anywhere on the website and the link is still valid to a possible corrupt, and if it is corrupt, KNOWN issue that should not be available.
So i unistalled the installer and started download of russian version.
My computer was left downloading through the night as this site seemed about as fast as a slug moving through engine oil.
I will check to see if the russian installer will work tonight.
So basically, why am i dissapointed?.
Well, and if the post is true about the US download. I spent 15 fricken hours of my time downloading software that i paid MY money for off a site that is supposedly known as corrupt but still shown as an option for download.
LIKE I SAID. PRODUCTION VALUES GO A LONG WAY. AND FROM MY EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT HAVING FUN YET.
Lomac has a lot of making up to do.
Ops .. didn't we tell you NOT to get the download version lol.
You only get 15 installs and then SF locks you out, at which point you need to apply to ED to get some more keys. (which they may or may not do depending on the histroy and if they think you pirated it out.)
The cd version only requires the cd in the drive and you get unlimited installs.
:sad:
Thats not quite accurate Cobra, you get 15 activations. You can install it as many times as you like as long as you use the registry file backup utility and dont do any major hardware changes. Honestly, if you dont do anything silly you'll be busy flying FO well before you use up all your activations.
Your quite right GI, "activations" was the word I was looking for.
Having said that I have wasted an activation because the registry file backup utility didn't work. (nfi why but i wasn't too fussed as I have a lot left.)
It was just a word of caution to those thinking of getting the d/l version and not meant to deter anyone from getting the cd, as for the life of me, I cant see why you would get the d/l version unless you were left with absolutely no way of getting the cd.
I imagine that like me, you bought FC when there was no hint of a cd version for the western market. When the CD version came out i was recommending people get that instead of the DL version but lately i have changed my mind. Mainly because there are far less problems with the download version (pretty much none besides the limited activations) but there seems to be many people who have various problems with the CD version. The other big reason is you can get the download version heaps quicker than the CD (at least here in Oz).
I see lomac as a temporary solution until FO arrives so personally im not worried about not being able to install FC in 5 years time. (even then id prolly still have enough activations up my sleeve).
Bogusheadbox
07-07-2006, 13:31
Followup.
A slightly more happy monkey this afternoon.
I can understand the 15 activation rule. And to be honest. I doubt i will reinstall it that many times. The reason i bought it was because Flaming cliffs is hard to find in shops over here. I can see the gold version available. But i already have Original, so it made sense just to go for the download.
Anyway,
I would like to confirm that the US download of Flaming cliffs is corrupt. The russian site worked flawlessly first time. (I have not activated the game yet as i am now getting patched up, from the russian site).
I am absolutely dumfounded as to why there is still a valid link to a corrupted download.
If they are that careless..... My mind boggles. Its not like it hasn't been pointed out to them :nono:
But anyway, i am sure i will give this thing a decent bash over the weekend. (provided i don't run into more invisible walls)
If there is a lesson to be learned from all of this.......... XSI, please make life a little easier for your customers. I was almost ready to sharpen the disc, fly to the production company and carve my name in their forheads with their own product......
I am vented :red:
SuperKungFu
07-07-2006, 13:37
Personally i believe having a cd is the best. If you already have the original you can get the FC cd from natural point. If you need both get Lock On gold.
SumoScouse
07-17-2006, 07:04
BOGUSHEADBOX - there are many isues with LOCK ON, follow up patches, add ons etc etc and the issue with the F-15 is probably due to the SFM (simple flight model) that it uses.
Some aspects of the flying is scripted so no matter what you try to do - it makes no difference. For example if you are flying one of the Russian Fighters around 350 knots and press K on your keyboard, the aircraft will perform a COBRA manoeuvre, which you have no control over, its a scripted piece of code in the game.
HOWEVER - Lock On FLAMING CLIFFS uses AFM (advanced flight model) for the SU-25T.
Even if you do not like this type of aircraft, I suggest you play around with it because its the closest you will get to experiencing real flight dynamics in a Sim.
Its Fantastic.
Cheers
SumoScouse Out :smile:
Bogusheadbox
07-17-2006, 10:21
Thanks SUMO.
I found that out. So I dedicated most of this weekend to trying out the SU-25 and -t
And here is what i found.
Flight model is more demanding. As to comment on its validity of accuracy. I don't have any idea. Though the craft (in its AFM) does seem to me to have two following drawbacks.
1. Very poor ground handling. (though this may be quite accurately modelled)
2. For a ground strike aricraft it has poor pitch control at any speed under 500 metric. (it will go to buffet / edge of departure on very small changes in attitude at low speed)
Best performance is 600+ metric but that requires a lot of work from the engine and not a lot of manouvers. It seems to have a very high energy depletion rate. Quite rightly so seeing the size of the ordanance it can carry. (again this may be accurate).
But after flying this aircraft in the AFM - i really don't want to fly anything else.
OK, now this thread was about the issues the dissapoint you. I must admit, i did have fun with this over the weekend and flew quite a few successful sorties under barage of enemy fire. (online) I also tested the aircraft in damage modelling. However, here are some game items that i thought were a let down and may be of interest in FO.
1. First and formost. I don't understand how they can have an indepth damage model and Flight model for one aircraft (and variant) only. And have all the rest as very very simple and hardly changed. (I say hardly changed as i can see some sections in the patch and update notes about fixes to flight models)
On taxiing, i can dip a wing on the ground and rip the wingtip light off. I can pop a tyre. And can damage a strut etc. etc etc. But here i am taxiing normally, watching 33's, 27's 29's Racing around the runways and taking off in what could be described as questionable circumstances.
Basically i am forced a disadvantage because my aircraft requires far more attention than all others. Why release an AFM if no other aircraft lives by the same rules. (in their respective flight envelopes)
2. Maps. deplorable really.
Now i know its the golden age of technology in LOMAC, where your planes have preset co-ordinates that you can easily follow the HUD or WP indicator. And if by chance you do find a server which allows maps, you will quickly find that the map is a big coloured blob whose only details is aerodromes and cities.
This poses a few problems.
(A). I don't know where i am. I know how far i am in relation to the set waypoint. but i don't know what bridge, valley, city i am flying over.
(B). This does not allow for co-ordinated strikes. I cannot advise of targets or rendezvous points anywhere on the map except from saying 12.5 klms to waypoint 4. Depending on how well they have kept the WP tracks, this could mean a huge difference in position between multiple aircraft, and increases human error and lack of situational awareness.
(C) Unless the fighter wing and ground pounders have the same waypoints, there is almost no chance of a co-ordinated strike or regroup after one or the other are pulled off track for engagement or defensive reasons.
On the server i flew on. Fighters had different waypoints to the strike aircraft. Therefore the only way to meet up would be to rendezvous at each airport or an easily identifiable and KNOWN area. There is almost no way if i was en-route in a solo strike and encountered dificulty. That i would be able to call out a precise location for support.
Pacific fighters has a great map system that shows, towns, cities, roads, railway lines, airfields, forests, topographical elevation and so forth all handily placed on a grid reference.
The Pacific Fighters option, allows me to alter my planned course to target. Allows me to use propper VFR navigation and increases my situational awareness. I can also call a rendezvous, course deviation, recon or stike to any target anywhere at any time.
Makes better sense than just stumbling around blindly following waypoints until something shoots at you. This way you can actually plan a propper and most co-ordinated flight path to target.
But the game is interesting and i will spend a bit more time on it. Though i did notice quite a few bugs. Many times i flew out to target only to pop up suddenly back at the airbase. There was nothing on the RWR, no guns flying past my plane and when viewing the debrief, it mentions nothing that shot me down. All it says is "<time> Bogusheadbox crashed WTF! I was at 500 FT AGL and in controlled flight. Quite lame really (maybe i was hit by a lightning bolt or had a heart attack in the cockpit. But i doubt that is a part of the AFM)
SuperKungFu
07-17-2006, 15:02
btw you would get better response over at lockon.ru
but here is my 2 cents
1. First and formost. I don't understand how they can have an indepth damage model and Flight model for one aircraft (and variant) only. And have all the rest as very very simple and hardly changed. (I say hardly changed as i can see some sections in the patch and update notes about fixes to flight models)
On taxiing, i can dip a wing on the ground and rip the wingtip light off. I can pop a tyre. And can damage a strut etc. etc etc. But here i am taxiing normally, watching 33's, 27's 29's Racing around the runways and taking off in what could be described as questionable circumstances.
Basically i am forced a disadvantage because my aircraft requires far more attention than all others. Why release an AFM if no other aircraft lives by the same rules. (in their respective flight envelopes)
That's because the Su-25/T was given the AFM in the Flaming Cliffs addon. It takes a lot of work to model the AFM (6 months) since ED is kinda a small team. That is why Black shark is also taking a while. Even though i would love to see my precious flanker get afm, its just not going to happen now.
the taxiing issue can also be related to afm since russian airfields are not well-kept. They have grass growing everywhere and the conditions are rough. the flankers move by fast because they dont have afm.
And yes using the Su-25/t is a disadvantage but its fun! And again, no time to give all the aircraft afm.
2. Maps. deplorable really.
Now i know its the golden age of technology in LOMAC, where your planes have preset co-ordinates that you can easily follow the HUD or WP indicator. And if by chance you do find a server which allows maps, you will quickly find that the map is a big coloured blob whose only details is aerodromes and cities.
This poses a few problems.
(A). I don't know where i am. I know how far i am in relation to the set waypoint. but i don't know what bridge, valley, city i am flying over.
(B). This does not allow for co-ordinated strikes. I cannot advise of targets or rendezvous points anywhere on the map except from saying 12.5 klms to waypoint 4. Depending on how well they have kept the WP tracks, this could mean a huge difference in position between multiple aircraft, and increases human error and lack of situational awareness.
(C) Unless the fighter wing and ground pounders have the same waypoints, there is almost no chance of a co-ordinated strike or regroup after one or the other are pulled off track for engagement or defensive reasons.
On the server i flew on. Fighters had different waypoints to the strike aircraft. Therefore the only way to meet up would be to rendezvous at each airport or an easily identifiable and KNOWN area. There is almost no way if i was en-route in a solo strike and encountered dificulty. That i would be able to call out a precise location for support.
Pacific fighters has a great map system that shows, towns, cities, roads, railway lines, airfields, forests, topographical elevation and so forth all handily placed on a grid reference.
The Pacific Fighters option, allows me to alter my planned course to target. Allows me to use propper VFR navigation and increases my situational awareness. I can also call a rendezvous, course deviation, recon or stike to any target anywhere at any time.
Makes better sense than just stumbling around blindly following waypoints until something shoots at you. This way you can actually plan a propper and most co-ordinated flight path to target.
yea the map system kinda sucks, i can't help you there except give my advice of looking at the briefing mission first before venturing off on your mission. Plus looking at real photos of the area wouldn't hurt either from google earth :bigsmile: . Seriously they mapped it pretty detail, right down to a soccer field. But i can tell you the map system got improved in the new avionics in the ka-50 for black shark.
But the game is interesting and i will spend a bit more time on it. Though i did notice quite a few bugs. Many times i flew out to target only to pop up suddenly back at the airbase. There was nothing on the RWR, no guns flying past my plane and when viewing the debrief, it mentions nothing that shot me down. All it says is "<time> Bogusheadbox crashed WTF! I was at 500 FT AGL and in controlled flight. Quite lame really (maybe i was hit by a lightning bolt or had a heart attack in the cockpit. But i doubt that is a part of the AFM)
whoa can't say anything about that because i never saw that before. Probably you expereinced a huge lag that made you crash or shot down and you ended up back at your base?
Hell Sqn Protos
07-17-2006, 17:10
S~!
Some more constructive criticism.
Directory structure errr well it sucks ..... No central ini to adjust settings, no sound ini, no skins folder ect... ect...
Inability to 'push' content down. Example skins, textures, maps ect.......
GUI while moderately powerful, is overly complex and confusing even for veteran users. Mission editor is WAY too complicated.
and my biggest compaint. Lack of Dynamic Campaign generator. An absolute must for online fun/war/havock. You take your pick.
A decent effort, however it falls short........ in many areas and the devs have pretty much made it clear that they don't plan on fixing any of it. The 1 English forum leaves me more than a bit cold as well. Not the greatest of public relations exercises.
SuperKungFu
07-17-2006, 23:54
Directory structure errr well it sucks ..... No central ini to adjust settings, no sound ini, no skins folder ect... ect...
Actually there is. Settings will usually fall under C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Eagle Dynamics\Lock On\Config folder. Such as the graphics.cfg file
Skins would usually end up in temptexture folder in your bazar folder.
Inability to 'push' content down. Example skins, textures, maps ect.......
You could push some of those in the options menu. As for skins you can manually do it, for example the skins are in your temptexture folder, some have really hires like 2048x2048 which is not really needed. So you can use adobe or something to shrink it down to 1024x1024. You need to do this for 2 files per skin.
GUI while moderately powerful, is overly complex and confusing even for veteran users. Mission editor is WAY too complicated.
I find it very easy to use. As for the GUI, you can download one from lockonfiles same with another utility called LoCFG which are both very straight forward and easy to use.
and my biggest compaint. Lack of Dynamic Campaign generator. An absolute must for online fun/war/havock. You take your pick.
A decent effort, however it falls short........ in many areas and the devs have pretty much made it clear that they don't plan on fixing any of it. The 1 English forum leaves me more than a bit cold as well. Not the greatest of public relations exercises.
yea the lack of dynamic campaign generator is lacking. Well on the bright side once black shark comes out, the group who was working on the massize black sea operation campaign can continue their work and release that. The devs are pretty quiet on their work but same with most companies because they dont want to release info and later find out they can't do it and dissapoint their fans. Which english forum seems cold to you, the one on lockon.ru and ubi, simhq all seem friendly. I would say its a bit nicer than the treatment on the falcon forums i visit everyday.
Hell Sqn Protos
07-18-2006, 02:51
S~!
Well Kungfu ...... not going to engage in debate, for me the title of the thread was not why lockon was great (if it was, I would not have posted as I don't believe that personally) but why it "dissappointed you".
I put in my responses and feedback accordingly in the hopes that they will be noticed by the devs and acted upon. I view that as my duty, here and in any other sim I fly. To be an instigating force for change, to not accept the status quo or rhetoric thrown at me. Kind of like the way Democracy works.
You only get it if you WORK FOR IT.
What I love about F.O. is that they are constantly working WITH the community. It really is quite amazing to me. I have been very active in other sims and nothing has come close to the professionalism I see here. Its been a long time since I have been hyped about a sim. I wish I could have found out about it earlier. I would very much liked to have contributed.
I am well aware of what Lock On does well. But also painfully aware of the many areas it falls short and the fact that devs have no plans to fix them. I was never a fan of the 'take it or leave it school of coding' personally speaking.
Flight sims by the nature of their design 'Require Input' from the community. When you continually ignore/downgrade/belittle that feedback then - That speaks volumes to me personally about how you feel about your customer. You can tell your base to stfu when your the only game in town, but your customers will remember well when some competition shows up.
My Sqn and I prefer a different kind of management style/Customer Interface. We are happy with what we found here. We voted with our pocket books too and ALL of my guys who fly jets are Area 51 members. I hope to transition the rest soon.
See you in the skies.
Bogusheadbox
07-18-2006, 06:12
Thanks protos. My sentiments exactly.
SumoScouse
07-18-2006, 06:53
Some excellent comments have been posted with regards to this discussion and I personally feel that the conduct has been admirable.
I wish to add a few things however, the original post 'why does Lock On Dissappoint you' does not mean that you cannot say what you feel is good about it because to me Lock On stands out ahead of the rest in many aspects. A constructive discussion equates to the collectives pros and cons of individuals POV - and from this we conclude.
I would also like to point out that Lock On infuriates me some times with its bugs and whatever else, but to me the enjoyment I get from this game eradicates the nagative aspects.
Lock On still is a developing game and getting better all the time. Hopefully Black Shark will rock when released and will reap many rewards for the devs and all their hard work over the years.
But we must remember 1 very important point - the cost of the game and what you are getting for your money. We should not expect a faultless product because at the end of the day, that is an impossibilty. Fighter Ops will probably be a ground breaking product when released - will it be bug free? - I doubt it.
Will it be value for money? - most probably, will I buy it? - :thumb:
At the end of the day, there is only so much elctronic software devs can do for a particular niche in the market and with regards to realism - Military Simulators (that train Fighter Pilots) have downfalls as well. Don't think I have ever heard of any Military Sim that represents a roll like IRL, or pulling 4-8 G's and they cost MILLIONS
Cheers
SumoScouse Out :wink2:
Bosniaguy
07-18-2006, 07:22
Some excellent comments have been posted with regards to this discussion and I personally feel that the conduct has been admirable.
I wish to add a few things however, the original post 'why does Lock On Dissappoint you' does not mean that you cannot say what you feel is good about it because to me Lock On stands out ahead of the rest in many aspects. A constructive discussion equates to the collectives pros and cons of individuals POV - and from this we conclude.
I would also like to point out that Lock On infuriates me some times with its bugs and whatever else, but to me the enjoyment I get from this game eradicates the nagative aspects.
Lock On still is a developing game and getting better all the time. Hopefully Black Shark will rock when released and will reap many rewards for the devs and all their hard work over the years.
But we must remember 1 very important point - the cost of the game and what you are getting for your money. We should not expect a faultless product because at the end of the day, that is an impossibilty. Fighter Ops will probably be a ground breaking product when released - will it be bug free? - I doubt it.
Will it be value for money? - most probably, will I buy it? - :thumb:
At the end of the day, there is only so much elctronic software devs can do for a particular niche in the market and with regards to realism - Military Simulators (that train Fighter Pilots) have downfalls as well. Don't think I have ever heard of any Military Sim that represents a roll like IRL, or pulling 4-8 G's and they cost MILLIONS
Cheers
SumoScouse Out :wink2:
nice post Sumo! Rep inbound! :wink2:
SumoScouse
07-18-2006, 07:31
Many Thanks
Cheers
Sumoscouse Out :shades:
Bogusheadbox
07-18-2006, 09:40
Some excellent comments have been posted with regards to this discussion and I personally feel that the conduct has been admirable.
I wish to add a few things however, the original post 'why does Lock On Dissappoint you' does not mean that you cannot say what you feel is good about it because to me Lock On stands out ahead of the rest in many aspects. A constructive discussion equates to the collectives pros and cons of individuals POV - and from this we conclude.
I would also like to point out that Lock On infuriates me some times with its bugs and whatever else, but to me the enjoyment I get from this game eradicates the nagative aspects.
Lock On still is a developing game and getting better all the time. Hopefully Black Shark will rock when released and will reap many rewards for the devs and all their hard work over the years.
But we must remember 1 very important point - the cost of the game and what you are getting for your money. We should not expect a faultless product because at the end of the day, that is an impossibilty. Fighter Ops will probably be a ground breaking product when released - will it be bug free? - I doubt it.
Will it be value for money? - most probably, will I buy it? - :thumb:
At the end of the day, there is only so much elctronic software devs can do for a particular niche in the market and with regards to realism - Military Simulators (that train Fighter Pilots) have downfalls as well. Don't think I have ever heard of any Military Sim that represents a roll like IRL, or pulling 4-8 G's and they cost MILLIONS
Cheers
SumoScouse Out :wink2:
Agreed. So just to point out.
I did enjoy my time playing it, through the frustration and elation. I played it most of the weekend and if i thought there was no merit to it at all i would not have done so. I will go online with it again, i can see the enjoyment side to it. But i really doubt it will be my sim of choice.
In response for your 5th paragraph, i perhaps share a different view. Sure the game is cheap as chips now. But how many years (and tears) has it taken for it to become in some peoples eyes, a justifiable purchase.
Perhaps your view of affordability may be differed if you were one of the people who payed full price at time of release to find that the required specs fall well below what is actually required to run the game. Not to mention the show stopping bugs that proliferated this title upon release.
There is something missing / wrong with this game. And that is blatantly evident. If it was close to perfect it would sit on many more people's shelves and be pulling more than 40pax on hyperlobby over the weekend.
-------------
I am a consumer. I am not a programmer. I am however, fairly dedicated to computers, software and simulators as i am a learner pilot. I have spent time as a beta tester on various projects and know full well the involvment to ensure that the game is stable and playable. It is very hard work, especially with the new and varied technology available in market.
But i still expect perfection or as close as you can get to it.
I frown upon cut corners. I frown upon poor quality, and very importantly, i frown upon poor customer services. Of course i always pass off gratittude for the opposite.
I don't care if they are a small team. They produced an AFM for one aircraft and variant. Have they any intention to roll that out to any other craft? I don't think so.
They are producing a player controlled helo with AFM, damage model, clickable cockpit and other OOH AAhs. Will they roll that out to other helo's? Will they roll the clickable technology out to existing playable aircraft????? I don't think so.
What would you prefer. One flyable helo or an AFM and maybe a clickable cockpit rolled out to all existing flyable aircraft?
6DOF. fantastic. Looks great for the Helo. However will this be rolled out to all the other aircraft? It would be very usefull.
It appears to me that with every expansion they put onto this sim. They also expand the gaps between reality of each item within the sim. Okay, you may have one crack hot helo at the end of the day. But after everyone has flown it. What enjoyment will they derive from flying the f-15 as what may now seem as an arcade flyable?
After flying the SU-25 i don't want to fly other aircraft. To me they offer little. The SU-25 (which i think was a great achievement) now makes me belittle what the rest of the sim offers. Others say the same. But yet, the basic FM's are still in game and untouched.... ANd far below the par of the SU-25
So at the end of the Balck shark expansion and assuming that no updates like AFM, DM, 6dof, clickable cockpits are rolled out to other craft. What is left for the hard core simmer to look fondly at? One helo, one G-A aircraft and its variant.
In its current state. I don't think lock on and Flaming cliffs are a bargain. Its rates to me as an OK purchase. A title that you can enjoy but will have about 50% great time mixed with 50% hair pulling frustration time.
The expansion of course, as mentioned earlier, would be very interesting to play. However, it would only show the lapse of deveolpment strategy in ensuring the longevity of this title.
Pure and simple, the advances they make in the game needs to be put to all areas of the game and not limited to sections of code.
Hell Sqn Protos
07-18-2006, 15:21
S~! Bogusheadbox
A concise and precise, OUTSTANDING POST - Reputation off the rail and inbound !
EvilBivol-1
07-18-2006, 17:55
Nice to see level-headed criticism.
To begin on-topic, my biggest disappointment with LO is its utter inability to simulate - ironically enough - modern air combat in any serious scope. On the other hand, it does provide a great selection of flyable aircraft, which makes for some interesting flying, especially in multiplayer. But the lack of a decent single-player campaign system, or of an immersive environment, has been EDs short-fall from the beginning.
I wanted to address some points made by Bogusheadbox. I agree that having flown the 'AFM' Su-25/T, the other flyables tend to faint in appeal. But this is a consequence of evolving technology, not Developer's disinterest in those aircraft.
AFM is individually made for every aircraft. You can't just "roll it" onto the other jets by changing some values, like you could with the SFM models. Consider how long it took to develop Flaming Cliffs, and that was without a fully-functional cockpit and high-fidelity avionics. Consider how long its taking to develop the Ka-50. How long are you prepared to wait for them to make all the Lock On flyables AFMed, fully "clickable" and maximally realistic? Unfortunately, that wouldn't be practical... it would take years and by the time it was finished, you'd still be stuck flying in the Lock On universe, with all of its problems and limitations.
ED is taking an evolutionary approach, where new technologies are being integrated into the old engine as they become ready, while a new engine is under development. Once it is complete, the technology can be applied to it as well. This allows them to maintain progress without years of zero-return development time. The same problem was faced by FO developers, who didn't have the luxury of an existing engine to begin with and thus had to take a different approach to financing development.
You can't magically have everything... 8 flyable aircraft, all with fully dynamic and individual flight models, individual fully functional cockpits, individual fully realistic avionics. That would be a study sim x8 in one project. Impossible.
The older flyables in LO are not broken. They are simply a generation behind the latest flyables. If the opportunity presents itself, they will be remade from scratch using today's technology, one aircraft at a time.
As for the myriad of technical problems - your experience is not unique. This is a complex program and some would say not well optimized. It is also ED's first independent release. But I would propose that the lion's share of them are beginner's troubles and given some sound instructions and a little bit of time, gameplay becomes fairly painless.
Hell Sqn Protos
07-18-2006, 19:00
S~! EvilBevol
Interesting first post welcome to the forum.
Hope you will be active here at Fighter Ops.
See you in the sky.
ED is taking a more sound approach, one of evolution, where new technologies are being integrated into the old engine as they are developed, while a new engine is under development. Once it is ready, the technology can be applied to it as well.
What is sound about concentrating all your coding energies into producing a chopper for a jet sim at the expense of 90% of your fleet of current flyables and weapons systems? New engine you say? whispers, rumors ...........
You can't magically have everything... 8 flyable aircraft, all with fully dynamic and individual flight models, individual fully functional cockpits, individual fully realistic avionics. That would be a study sim x8 in one project. Impossible.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You certainly won't have squat if you focus on a chopper when your market is made up of fighter jocks. But that won't sell an new copies will it. Silly me. ED choices have left a lot to be desired by many many vpilots. As a customer I am not interested in justifications. Only results.
The older flyables in LO are not broken. They are simply a generation behind the latest flyables. If the opportunity presents itself, they will be remade from scratch using today's technology, one aircraft at a time.
A great many pilots would disagree with you - as would the online numbers - or more correctly - lack of them. The older flyables are indeed not functioning properly - especially in relation to one another, so then one can reasonably say that they are broken.
"If the opportunity presents itself" Doublespeak, ED has clearly said they have no plans to do any such thing. One of the reasons more and more people are becoming excited by other sims. Like this one.
As for the myriad of technical problems - your experience is not unique. This is a huge program and some would say not well optimized.
A tremendous understatement! Even its biggest supporters, I know several beta team testers for 1.2 say that the old code is shite.
But I would propose that the lion's share of them are beginner's troubles and given some sound instructions and a little bit of time, gameplay becomes fairly painless.
And the coup de grace - Its the customers fault. ~~ No offense EvilBevol but that fanboy dog won't hunt anymore.
this thread is degrading into a slinging match which i wont tolerate. i let it go as it was fairly constructive about some of the short falls in lomac that some people would like fixed. i have no doubt that everyone has a lot of respect for the work ED has done in lock on as it is no small feat intself.
please consider it in the constructive way it was started, remembering that each persons feelings on the same subject can vary greatly and arguing with each other over them will be the same as banging your head against a wall.
EvilBivol-1
07-19-2006, 00:04
Hmm, you're right. Sometimes my dedication gets the better of me. Removing my follow up posts.
EDITED
Hell Sqn Protos
07-19-2006, 00:19
S~!
What could there possibly be to be wary of EvilBivol-1 ??? Fear of a better product? Thats about all I can think of. I personally cant see any other reason why the Lofc devs would deride this project.
As for the no bashing part, its clear that contrary to your statements they indeed did take shots at this project. Bad Form. :nono:
Something I have never seen the F.O. devs do ever.
Indeed they stamp on anything like that instantly.
Bogusheadbox
07-19-2006, 06:52
Nice to see level-headed criticism.
AFM is individually made for every aircraft. You can't just "roll it" onto the other jets by changing some values,
This part caught my eye. Again, i am not sure that i can share your view.
Now i would like to be corrected if someone has better knowledge as i think the above is a reasonable assumption.
The AFM has been coded into the engine. Surely the SU-25 has a set of variables which constrains its limitations under the guidelines set by this new AFM coding. By this token surely (with quite a bit of effort) you could "roll out" an AFM for other aircraft. Just change the parameters of the flight envenlope for various aircraft, change wieght ratio...... etc. The hardest part to this surely would be be in evaluating the true performance of the specific aircraft and associating that into a numerical value in the variable in which will best provide the required perfomance statistics.
Now i know i have EXTREMELY simplified the mechanics behind it. But i can't help but feel that it is NOT a monumental undertaking. ED has proven that the engine can support more realistic flight physics. Therefore i can't help feel that the majority of the deveolpment time would have been taken on Aircraft and cockpit modelling. Weapons modelling, Weapons systems integration plus the host of Bug fixes and performace enhancers over the AFM. I think there were more ground objects included with FC as well.
So under this guise, i can ondly deduce that for all the effort black shark will produce, they could have brought all the rest of the craft up to standard. You may well still be stuck in the LOMAC world. But the world would have changed.
I woult like to make reference to IL2 / Pacific fighters.
Do you know how many flyable aircraft there are in this game. Not one, not 10, I have not counted them all nor have i flown them all, but i think there are more than 30. 1c:Maddox rolled out an AFM for all these aircraft. It was rolled out as a free patch to the consumers. This AFM has been tweeked and changed in every subsequent patch (and just lately - paid add ons).
Now i do know that 1c is a large development company. But in the same token they have undertaken a much larger major game change. AFM accross all 30+ flyable planes, plus brand new planes added. And all of that as a free-bee to the consumer for IL2. Knowing that, i just can't share the view that an AFM can't be rolled out.
Now here is where you sparked my mind. IL2 has rolled out all its new AFM's as a tester to its upcomming BOB. Is this what ED is doing. Are they producing one off works (that show great merit) in order to be picked up or commissioned by a larger production company?
It seems strange that they are delving into new territory with far more detail but limited to one very small item that won't (in the big scheme of things) flesh out the true potential of this sim. Its like they are producing one off works of art waiting for an art dealer to pick them up.
They could so easily bring life into this title. It is apparent that the engine can do a lot more than what is currently expected of it. But for some reason, they seem happy with the premise that painting one side of the house is fine. Because that is the side that faces the street.
Maybe that is the source of my frustration. I can see the potential for this old title. But yet, in the back of my mind i know it won't be completed.
SumoScouse
07-19-2006, 09:09
Bogusheadbox - please please please do not take this the wrong way and if you feel insulted then I need to work on my people skills, and I apologise now sincerely. :bheart:
You have masses to say about this product and its flaws and its potential. I respect your POV as you have respected others who have posted about the original thread.
But nagging me at the back of my mind is one little thing - your apparent expertise on how the AFM could be carpeted across all planes within the product. You make an assumption about how you feel it works and how it should be done.
You write ' Now i would like to be corrected if someone has better knowledge as i think the above is a reasonable assumption.
The AFM has been coded into the engine. Surely the SU-25 has a set of variables which constrains its limitations under the guidelines set by this new AFM coding. By this token surely (with quite a bit of effort) you could "roll out" an AFM for other aircraft. Just change the parameters of the flight envenlope for various aircraft, change wieght ratio...... etc. The hardest part to this surely would be be in evaluating the true performance of the specific aircraft and associating that into a numerical value in the variable in which will best provide the required perfomance statistics.
I'm having trouble following this - yes I get the point to a degree but even though you 'have EXTREMELY simplified the mechanics behind it' its way over my head.
Maybe, just maybe you should think about developing a business plan and undertake a similar project to that encompassed by XSI and ED.
Maybe offer your services to similar companies developing similar products - I don't know but you sound to me like you know what you are talking about
Now, this is not me being cynical or anything else like that. I feel that individuals with a particular skill or expertise should bare fruit.
O/T slightly -------I have a friend who is a civilian air line pilot, he is a busy man as you can imagine but every now and again requests are made from the passengers to want to come to the cock-pit to see what its like. He has no problem with this and loves the opportunity. Kids ask questions, adults look at all the buttons and mini screens, again asking questions and he loves it. He even lets some people (generally small children) sit in the pilots chair.
One thing HE CAN'T stand though is when he gets an individual who arrives in the cock-pit, asks a few questions (everthing going well so far) looks generally interested (again, everything going well) then suddenly THE COMMENT is made "well this looks nothing like the flying sim I got on ma PC at home" At that exact point the pilot (my mate) asks the air stewardess to take the passenger back to their seat. It is the one thing that bugs him more than anything. I understand why - he is flying a £30-40 Million aircraft there is NO COMPARISON.
At the end of the day developers can do what they want (I swalllowed that bitter pill some time ago) and they are the ones who put the work in, dedicate their time to it, have the last say and do generally listen to the concerns of the consumers.
Thread has reached OAP status
SumoScouse Out :smile:
ah the days when passengers were aloud in the cockpit inflight.
now my wife isn't even aloud. ever.
:sad:
Bogusheadbox
07-19-2006, 11:01
No problems sumo. No offence taken. Always welcome constructive criticism.
Message boards can sometimes be a dubious place to post, due to the way it can be interpreted differently from the writers intentions. So i am sorry for any misgivings in my posts as they are surely unintentional.
I suppose i could sum it down to. I like and value what advances are being made to this sim. I can see its merit. I just whish they had the time and money to make out of it what i am sure they would like to make out of it. For then i am sure it will be a big hit with the fans. They have the ability, that is evident.
Apologies for beating OAP's (this thread) with a stick. But some call it a sport ;-)
O/t - I just wish i wasn't too embarrassed as a grown man to ask the stewardess if i can visit the cockpit. LOL
isnt that grounds for an instant tazing in the US lol
:lol
This part caught my eye. Again, i am not sure that i can share your view.
Now i would like to be corrected if someone has better knowledge as i think the above is a reasonable assumption.
The AFM has been coded into the engine. Surely the SU-25 has a set of variables which constrains its limitations under the guidelines set by this new AFM coding. By this token surely (with quite a bit of effort) you could "roll out" an AFM for other aircraft. Just change the parameters of the flight envenlope for various aircraft, change wieght ratio...... etc. The hardest part to this surely would be be in evaluating the true performance of the specific aircraft and associating that into a numerical value in the variable in which will best provide the required perfomance statistics.
Now i know i have EXTREMELY simplified the mechanics behind it. But i can't help but feel that it is NOT a monumental undertaking. ED has proven that the engine can support more realistic flight physics. Therefore i can't help feel that the majority of the deveolpment time would have been taken on Aircraft and cockpit modelling. Weapons modelling, Weapons systems integration plus the host of Bug fixes and performace enhancers over the AFM. I think there were more ground objects included with FC as well.
So under this guise, i can ondly deduce that for all the effort black shark will produce, they could have brought all the rest of the craft up to standard. You may well still be stuck in the LOMAC world. But the world would have changed.
I woult like to make reference to IL2 / Pacific fighters.
Do you know how many flyable aircraft there are in this game. Not one, not 10, I have not counted them all nor have i flown them all, but i think there are more than 30. 1c:Maddox rolled out an AFM for all these aircraft. It was rolled out as a free patch to the consumers. This AFM has been tweeked and changed in every subsequent patch (and just lately - paid add ons).
As far as FM is concerned don't even try to compare FC to PF. The AFM for the 25 is completely different from any other aircraft, you can't copy it onto a Mig29 or F15s file as it would wind up with 25s drag characteristics and all the other things that only apply to the SU25. PF is a good game but the FMs suck as they are carbon copys of each other. You can't expect the same to work on jet combat sim particularly if the aircraft modeled is a subsonic aircraft and place it on a supersonic interceptor. It just doesn't take into account all the characteristics. Even if they made an AFM for the Mig29 you could never use it for an F16 for example as it has only one engine compared to two in the 29 and thats the sort of detail that sets the AFM apart from all other aircraft in lockon. Just fly it and you'll see its quite unique.
Hell Sqn Protos
07-19-2006, 16:13
S~!
Subs I don't believe that was the point Bogusboxhead was trying to make.
If I understood his post correctly, what he is saying is that once you have the capability to insert an "advanced flight model" into an engine, then it should not be that hard to then just change the variables for another plane. The basic structure that codes those 'advanced' variables into the game engine is already there. It should be a relatively easy process then to input the known characteristics. Its the first one thats always hard, the rest are always easier. Like most things in life.
Apologies to Bogus if I got that wrong.
SpinKick
07-19-2006, 17:30
this thread appears to be in a flat spin and headed out to sea. eject! eject! :evils:
ok ... some people are upset that only 1 aircraft has AFM.
point made.
if you wish to debate why that is and why they don't change the other flyables to AFM standards then the lockon boards are for you.
:smile:
Bogusheadbox
07-20-2006, 06:20
ok ... some people are upset that only 1 aircraft has AFM.
point made.
if you wish to debate why that is and why they don't change the other flyables to AFM standards then the lockon boards are for you.
:smile:
OK. I am not intentionally trying to start a flame war as it appears people feel very strongly about this. For me this thread has been intersting and insiteful. Just the fact that it can stir cush emotion shows how important some topics are. Maybe this can be helpful to the FO guys maybe not.
However, in view of the recent replies.
Perhaps we should rename the title of this thread to....
Don't tell me what dissapoints you about lock on, becuase we will encourage you to not post.
------------
Its a shame when an interesting discussion is discouraged and has to continue via PM's :nono:
May as well lock the thread then
You may now rejoice, my last post on the subject
this thread appears to be in a flat spin and headed out to sea. eject! eject! :evils:
i was replying to this post which i tend to agree with.
the whole arguement seems to be going around in circles.
thank you for the great posts on both sides but the only people who can answer the question you are debating over is ED. i didn't mean to completely stop the discussion but more to point out that fact.
has anyone tried to get an answer as to WHY it is not possible to use the AFM engine and input the new data (.dat file) for a different aircraft?? otherwise i just see you guys wasting your time going back and forth when no-one here has the answer you seek.
apologies if my post was a little short. i hope that clears up where i was coming from.
:smile:
Hell Sqn Protos
07-20-2006, 16:18
this thread appears to be in a flat spin and headed out to sea. eject! eject! :evils:
S~!
I couldn't disagree more.
Great thread with a lot of VERY well thought out posts. I am of Hellenic decent and there is nothing more invigorating or rewarding for me than a heated yet civilized debate. We are after 'only' all talking about the merits/deficiencies of a video game. Its not like we are discussing the merits/deficiencies of killing people for oil.
I have seen real flame wars (heck even started a few myself :bigsmile: ) This thread bears no resemblance to any of those. That is mostly due to the evenhanded moderation. If this is as bad as it gets here, the mods won't have much to do.
For those of you who may have heard of Socrates,
you will be familiar with the benefits of debate. Which is why we are still discussing his contributions, millenia later. There is nothing wrong with becoming emotionally involved in the debate. Indeed it will often help spark the formation of those golden little nuggets known as 'truths' or 'facts'
For those of you who haven't heard of Socrates or debate in a forum, - well there is still the old fallback. comment spam.
I have enjoyed this thread immensely. Gets the blood pumping and the ideas flowing.
i was replying to this post which i tend to agree with.
the whole arguement seems to be going around in circles.
thank you for the great posts on both sides but the only people who can answer the question you are debating over is ED. i didn't mean to completely stop the discussion but more to point out that fact.
has anyone tried to get an answer as to WHY it is not possible to use the AFM engine and input the new data (.dat file) for a different aircraft?? otherwise i just see you guys wasting your time going back and forth when no-one here has the answer you seek.
apologies if my post was a little short. i hope that clears up where i was coming from.
:smile:
EDs Devs have mentioned already the reasons why on the lockon forums, its far more complex than PF which is one of the main reasons. Also the FCS has alot to do with it as well eg FBW and Electrically actuated hydralics etc.
SumoScouse
07-27-2006, 08:53
S~!
I couldn't disagree more.
Great thread with a lot of VERY well thought out posts. I am of Hellenic decent and there is nothing more invigorating or rewarding for me than a heated yet civilized debate. We are after 'only' all talking about the merits/deficiencies of a video game. Its not like we are discussing the merits/deficiencies of killing people for oil.
I have seen real flame wars (heck even started a few myself :bigsmile: ) This thread bears no resemblance to any of those. That is mostly due to the evenhanded moderation. If this is as bad as it gets here, the mods won't have much to do.
For those of you who may have heard of Socrates,
you will be familiar with the benefits of debate. Which is why we are still discussing his contributions, millenia later. There is nothing wrong with becoming emotionally involved in the debate. Indeed it will often help spark the formation of those golden little nuggets known as 'truths' or 'facts'
For those of you who haven't heard of Socrates or debate in a forum, - well there is still the old fallback. comment spam.
I have enjoyed this thread immensely. Gets the blood pumping and the ideas flowing.
HERE HERE my good man
cheers
sumoscouse out :thumb:
liquid_rockface
07-27-2006, 10:31
Please! It's "Hear hear", not "here here"!
I know that, residing on the moon of Ion (as your profile states) you possibly aren't so familiar with English, but the idea is that you are commanding us to hear what he has to say.
Sorry about criticizing English but I have seen this repeatedly on this forum and it drives me nutty! :geek:
drawninward
07-27-2006, 12:33
Please! It's "Hear hear", not "here here"!
I know that, residing on the moon of Ion (as your profile states) you possibly aren't so familiar with English, but the idea is that you are commanding us to hear what he has to say.
Sorry about criticizing English but I have seen this repeatedly on this forum and it drives me nutty! :geek:
I think you mean Io of Jupiter...Ion isn't a moon....hey, if you're gonna be a grammar perfectionist, I'll be a fact perfectionist...or nerd...I forget which one......yea I think it's nerd...:p
what the hell are you guys on about?! No one is perfect and everyone needs to learn someday. Cut the kid some slack, ive cut slack for you two a bunch of times, i could start bitching right here!
All the best,
Flip
drawninward
07-27-2006, 16:18
Cut the kid some slack
That was my point.
liquid_rockface
07-28-2006, 08:30
Ha you're correct, Ion isn't a moon...it's Io.
As I said, I wasn't criticizing his grammar, just trying to educate him as to the correct way of writing it! As you said, everyone needs to learn some day, and so now he's learnt! And now I've learnt that Ion is not a moon of Jupiter, it's Io.
I appreciate it when people correct me, that's the best way to learn. I doubt I'll ever make the Ion/Io mistake again, and I'd be happy if people would write "hear hear" on the forum, not "here here", as I see written repeatedly!
No need to take this all so seriously!
drawninward
07-28-2006, 11:58
ive cut slack for you two a bunch of times, i could start bitching right here!
http://www.festivalfoto.no/images/orly.jpg
SumoScouse
07-29-2006, 09:28
Ha you're correct, Ion isn't a moon...it's Io.
As I said, I wasn't criticizing his grammar, just trying to educate him as to the correct way of writing it! As you said, everyone needs to learn some day, and so now he's learnt! And now I've learnt that Ion is not a moon of Jupiter, it's Io.
I appreciate it when people correct me, that's the best way to learn. I doubt I'll ever make the Ion/Io mistake again, and I'd be happy if people would write "hear hear" on the forum, not "here here", as I see written repeatedly!
No need to take this all so seriously!
Just to inform you for future reference my good man, my grammatical skills are pretty adequate.
I'm srue u konw taht ym vreiosn of 'haer haer' was besad uopn the fcat taht waht Hell Sqn Protos had ot sya wuold hvae bean elctaxy wehre I wulod be coinmg form.
Oh BTW Liquid_rockface see if you can spot the speeling mistake
clue = look for the word that is in itclias !!
cheers
sumoscouse out :tongue:
ps I think I spelt spelling wrong could u confirm please mon ami
Buckshot
07-29-2006, 09:54
Ok guys, I think we've had enough lessons in spelling and grammer. If this thread continues in this tone it will be closed.
SumoScouse
07-29-2006, 10:08
hear here Buckshot.
few things nagging me at the mo, maybe you could answer them for me please - any ideas how long left until release of FO, any chance of some up-to-date screenies for the general public and when will the latest dev diary be released to general public
Thanks
cheers
sumoscouse out :thumb:
Ok guys, I think we've had enough lessons in spelling and grammer. If this thread continues in this tone it will be closed.
Buckshot, its so tempting to correct your spelling but i wont
Haven't read most of this thread but in an attempt to get it back on topic, the thing that diappointed me about LOMAC is the lack of immersion. Its very hard to make it feel like you're really part of a combat sortie. I dont know whether that is because of the lack of comms or what but it constantly reminds me that its just a game. Also i constantly find myself getting into a game, following the waypoints, killing a few things and then asking myself what my actual objective was. There isnt any real need to know what you're supposed to do, you can just go kill shit. Although if someone puts in some effort to do a good briefing and assign things properly then its not a big issue
Having said that, lomac is my sim of choice at the moment.
169th Ross
07-29-2006, 12:01
I think that was the question?, wasn't it?? Why did LOMAC disappoint you?
My opinion, it doesn't..:smile:
Grt.....Ross.....
ruggbutt
07-29-2006, 13:39
LMR (LockOn Mission Randomizer) in context with good missions made with it provide alot of replayability and immersion. I made a 10 mission pack for A10 s/p, A10 m/p and Su25T s/p. The missions are replayable because the only thing that remains the same is the primary target. I've played a mission where the ingress to target was uneventful and the A/A and SAM cover was light. Next time around I got smoked by patrolling Migs as I was dodging MANPADS.
It's a step ahead in replayability, and I can't wait for Swingkid to come out with his dynamic generator. I've beta tested several versions and it looks promising.
Hell Sqn Protos
07-29-2006, 16:44
S~!
Let me get this correct Rugg, your saying someone is working on a dynamic campaign generator for LOFC? Thats not something I have heard before. If true that would be very interesting news.
ruggbutt
07-30-2006, 13:22
Swingkid is. He pops in over at the lockon.ru forums once in a while and comments about it.
but SK says.. due to ED not fixing certain things.. it's not going to work...
shit I"ve been saying the same thing 30days after it released...
(this may have changed in the last few months since I haven't really been closely following the lockon forums..)
ruggbutt
07-31-2006, 20:21
Isn't SK on the testers team now?
Hell Sqn Protos
07-31-2006, 20:30
S~!
I looked into this..................Dont expect anything till the end of 2007 if at all -- Fighter Ops will be out long before then and as usual for that sim it will be too little too late.
Isn't SK on the testers team now?
yes.. but if the Dev's don't want to fix things to help with SK dynamic campaign... ....:rolleyes:
f-18hornet
08-02-2006, 04:38
One thing in LOFC did disappoint me very and it's Starforce.
Read here:http://www.glop.org/starforce/
I don't want it in BS.
Lawndart
08-10-2006, 17:24
Before I answer the question asked, I'd like to take a moment to note some of the things I love about Lomac...
1) I have to say that the graphics in Lomac are absolutely stunning with all the options turned on at high resolution. I have a high end PC, so the frame rate thing is not an issue.
2) Also for the most part, it allows us to fly 6 jets and Fat Albert in close formation online - the multi-player code is, with a few exceptions, mostly excellent for our purposes in the Virtual Blue Angels. We fly within 18 inches of each other for certain manoevers.
3) Most of all, Lomac gave us the ability to customize the game for our needs. We could make the F/A-18A and C-130 flyable despite them not being flyable airplanes by design. It allowed us to edit the skins so we can look like the real Blue Angels, both inside and outside the cockpit. There are many other items that we customized for our use too numerous to note here.
So the following is not at all intended to bash Lomac - we spend 4 hours a day with it, but there will always be room for improvement:
1) The joystick logic with the simplified flight model (SFM) is very touchy - even with the in game adjustments in the options screen, the nose will bounce around violently with any more than the most gentle of movements. Having flown jets in the USMC, I know what the stick response should be like, and Lomac is a long way off in this regard.
2) Trim - again for the SFM trim moves the control surfaces too far, and won't properly neutralize.
3) Replays - mostly an excellent replay system, but there is no way to reverse a replay (track) without reloading it. (We use replays all the time to debrief our shows). You can spped it up or slow it down, but can't back it up.
Those are the 3 good things and 3 disappointments from our point of view :smile:
Second what Kato said! Good points!
Love the netcode in Lock-On, flight modeling and graphics (albeit somewhat cartoonish). Don't like the trim, lack of rewind function (for review) and the lack of community SDK's for third party add-on's. While there are many add-on's, they all involve altering the original file structure and/or replacing existing textures. Hence, you cannot add to the product, but just modify it! For everyone to see the same thing, they need to run the same mods...
LD
Why did LOMAC disappoint you?
Cuz it´s not FO :clown:
ok i know my jokes are hard :red:
Hhmm...
I was almost to tell my opinion about Lock-On, but after I've read all these comments before, I thought I'd better to give it one more try...
... only a little one, though :lol
Jackal out.
1 - the product was in various stages of alpha and beta (netcode, AI)
2 - the mission editor was unacceptable
3 - buggy
it simply didn't work for what i purchased it for, online flight simming with friends.
things have improved to the point where it's in acceptable 1.0 version condition - except that god awful mission editor.
The thing that disappoints me the most, is the ground AI, and the limitations it has.
It is just NOT possible for a large scale battle to take place.
There is no immersion like Falcon.
Though, beta testing 1.2, the Black Shark is unreal. And if you like the switch-ology of Falcon...... just wait.
I wish it wasnt so CPU dependant too, its just a limitation of the old engine they are using. I hope their next project is better in that regard, and the ground AI.
Though time will tell, it should be nice to see FO and ED's next project.
Hurry with FO please.... but dont hurry too much lol.
*edit* Oh, and not having cross-client download-able skins.... And the MFD not working like it should in the F15C.... The Mig MFD switches displays, why cant the F15C's? I just dont get that... And there is a much more powerful Input editor in 1.2... (I hope I dont violate NDA by saying that)
One thing in LOFC did disappoint me very and it's Starforce.
Read here:http://www.glop.org/starforce/
I don't want it in BS.
Sorry to say, SF isnt going anywhere.
No problems sumo. No offence taken. Always welcome constructive criticism.
Message boards can sometimes be a dubious place to post, due to the way it can be interpreted differently from the writers intentions. So i am sorry for any misgivings in my posts as they are surely unintentional.
I suppose i could sum it down to. I like and value what advances are being made to this sim. I can see its merit. I just whish they had the time and money to make out of it what i am sure they would like to make out of it. For then i am sure it will be a big hit with the fans. They have the ability, that is evident.
Apologies for beating OAP's (this thread) with a stick. But some call it a sport ;-)
O/t - I just wish i wasn't too embarrassed as a grown man to ask the stewardess if i can visit the cockpit. LOL
One thing to consider also, and I make assumptions here.
UBI still has some rights to the code. And they dont want to put a vast amount of effort into it, instead putting more effort into the next project.
The BS is a proof on concept for their AFM. From what I surmise from them, is that with the current code, it takes a lot of work to make an AFM for the aircraft, and this will be resolved in the next project.
Hell Sqn Protos
08-25-2006, 14:33
The BS is a proof on concept for their AFM. From what I surmise from them, is that with the current code, it takes a lot of work to make an AFM for the aircraft, and this will be resolved in the next project.
S~!
You surmise incorrectly........... there is no will to bring that sim up to standard. Like most military hardware/software - the next change will be generational as opposed to incremental. That is the biggest challenge they face and it is something they have clearly said they are not willing to do.
The online numbers speak for themselves. In the end thats the final proof.
S~!
You surmise incorrectly........... there is no will to bring that sim up to standard. Like most military hardware/software - the next change will be generational as opposed to incremental. That is the biggest challenge they face and it is something they have clearly said they are not willing to do.
The online numbers speak for themselves. In the end thats the final proof.
True, they have no intent of doing much with the current LOMAC code. But from my understanding, they are working very hard on their next project.
I think its Tank Killers? I forget what planes they plan, but I know the A-10 will be in there, with AFM. And I would assume the Su25/Su25T and the Ka-50. I just hope they add 2 seaters, so we can have the Mi-28 and Apache.
I think their next project will have the same relation of F4 to FO. From the coding experience, will the next project be better. Yet very different. The problem is the core of the code. Its just takes too much work to make add-ons of planes and map and such.
Ideally I wish ED and the FO team would work together, and have ED do the russian stuff, and XSI with the western stuff, now that will be a SIM!!!! Yet that will never happen I know.
XSI seems to have a very good plan on how to handle add-ons, which I sorely wish LOMAC had. Being that all clients can fly together, regardless of add-ons, which is awsome. Because I know a lot of people have no interest in the BS, yet wont be able to fly with others that do have it, unless they have it. Its not really an add-on, but an update.
Oh well though, its fun for what it does bring and I hope them all the best for their next project, as much as I hope XSI the best with FO.
I hope they can fix the color so that it looks more real, but maybe it's just my montior.....
42SF-Dodger
08-31-2006, 02:50
My biggest gripe is that ED dont seem to support the community. I've asked several questions to help complete the dynamic campaign engine I wrote. They were very basic questions, but they just didnt answer. It sometimes makes me wonder whether ED have lost/replaced so many of the original developers that they dont understand a lot of how LO works.
Also frustrating is the slow as hell release of LUA functionality. It was great that they included it, but 50% of the functions I have used have bugs which require some subsequent maths to fix up.
If only they would allow export of all local LUA data.
42SF-Dodger
08-31-2006, 02:54
S~!
Let me get this correct Rugg, your saying someone is working on a dynamic campaign generator for LOFC? Thats not something I have heard before. If true that would be very interesting news.
I completed a dynamic campaign engine for lockon called LODC. Its for online multiplayer. Its as dynamic as you can get with Lockon. Unfortunately the OLE2 compound header found in mission files requires cracking to make it anymore dynamic, and I can just imagine how ED or Ubi would respond to that.
On the other hand if everybody pressured ED, maybe they could provide a DLL for writing mission files, though from past experiences thats highly unlikely!!
Bogusheadbox
08-31-2006, 09:17
On the other hand if everybody pressured ED, maybe they could provide a DLL for writing mission files, though from past experiences thats highly unlikely!!
But that would require a response from ED to the general public. Just by that prerequisite alone, it aint gonna happen.
My main gripe is the lack of a patch for the main game as is...
How buggy does it get,
Never would i be forced into buying a mission disk just to upgrade the already main release,
and jeez wept BUGGY it is :bigeyes:
Why not release a seperate patch for the original product instead of making us grovel for a mission disk that updates what should have been updated YEARS AGO..:smile:
And where may i ask is this great and beholding SO called DYNAMIC campaign they bullshitted about when they released lock on at first :nono:
Nowhere to be seen even today ,
MORE SELL IT TO EM BS at its best :rofl
They have let the whole flight sim community down in more ways than one and not a penny nor a second of my time or hard earned cash will yhey get.
PERIOD...
Uhm, i see they use STARFORCE as well...:bigeyes:
BAH the list goes on and on and on...
SHAME ON THEM...:mad:
Hell Sqn Protos
09-05-2006, 20:21
My main gripe is the lack of a patch for the main game as is...
Why not release a seperate patch for the original product instead of making us grovel for a mission disk that updates what should have been updated YEARS AGO..:smile:
Thats something they learned from 1c. For now the Russians are the only game in town. They know it. They abuse it.
Thats something they learned from 1c. For now the Russians are the only game in town. They know it. They abuse it.
Looks like a fan base that is ready to jump ship, eh?
Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!
Thats something they learned from 1c. For now the Russians are the only game in town. They know it. They abuse it.
Not really, would you call their next sim abuse? We're talking about a sim even more complex than Falcon! 6DOF in a 3d pit and advanced flight model for a helicopter.
My main gripe is the lack of a patch for the main game as is...
How buggy does it get,
Never would i be forced into buying a mission disk just to upgrade the already main release,
and jeez wept BUGGY it is :bigeyes:
Why not release a seperate patch for the original product instead of making us grovel for a mission disk that updates what should have been updated YEARS AGO..:smile:
And where may i ask is this great and beholding SO called DYNAMIC campaign they bullshitted about when they released lock on at first :nono:
Nowhere to be seen even today ,
MORE SELL IT TO EM BS at its best :rofl
They have let the whole flight sim community down in more ways than one and not a penny nor a second of my time or hard earned cash will yhey get.
PERIOD...
Uhm, i see they use STARFORCE as well...:bigeyes:
BAH the list goes on and on and on...
SHAME ON THEM...:mad:
1.02 is playable, sure there are bugs but the sim has changed alot since the first release.
EvilBivol-1
09-06-2006, 03:28
There are still people who believe that flight sim developers actually make a profit?
Hell Sqn Protos
09-06-2006, 07:26
Not really, would you call their next sim abuse? We're talking about a sim even more complex than Falcon! 6DOF in a 3d pit and advanced flight model for a helicopter.
I would call it abject stupidity.
Not sure I would agree with the more complex than Falcon either, but we will see I guess. Should they ever release that is. I have no desire to fly the Black Shark, IF I buy it, it will be to get the fixes and new missile code. Something which other users have pointed out should have been given regardless.
Hell Sqn Protos
09-06-2006, 07:27
There are still people who believe that flight sim developers actually make a profit?
Yeah they do it out of the goodness of thier hearts.......................(insert sarcasm) rolls eyes......:nono:
My biggest desapointment with lock-on, or any of it's iterations, isn't the game itself,... but that littlle inofensive, ....cd checking, ....anti-whatever thingy that terminated my LG DVD COMBO! :mad: (and I did buy LOMAC and LOFC).
As such I will not put any $cents in software that carries that "protect me at all costs :smash , even at the cost of those who support me!", ...superbly engineered :whistling , application!
I would call it abject stupidity.
Not sure I would agree with the more complex than Falcon either, but we will see I guess. Should they ever release that is. I have no desire to fly the Black Shark, IF I buy it, it will be to get the fixes and new missile code. Something which other users have pointed out should have been given regardless.
The movies speak for themselves
http://www.thebattlesim.com/index.php?end_pos=133&scr=products&lang=en
It will be the most complex sim released so far when it is released.
Hell Sqn Protos
09-06-2006, 15:53
S~!
Right. Thats how to judge a sim --- by the promotional movies............ not missile code, fm, dm, ect......... What was I thinking.
It will be the most quickly dropped when F.O comes out is what it will be.
Woodstock
09-06-2006, 17:11
LockOn focuses somehow on the flying and weapon system experience.
No navigation, no procedures etc. but regarding the "feel" of flight and radar operation it´s the best there is.
The LockOn community is there because it cherishes the aspects where the game excels.
I guess some LockOn players will not be too fond of having to study so many basics as will be neccessary for FO, and of not really having anything to shoot at.
So there´s no way the LO community is ready to switch completely. The game is way too different from FO.
Many will see FighterOps as complementary if at all, as long as it doesn´t feature a fully modelled combat aircraft.
I can tell from the history of my squad, the vJaBoG32: the more we move from only playing LockOn towards simulating fighter pilot business as realistic as possible by adding more to our training flights than neccessary for the game itself, the more people we lose along the way and the higher the percentage of recruit drop-outs.
We achieved LOMAC-League Team Fightersweep Championship 2004 plus many single pilot titles at that time, when we focused on what is needed to fight and win in LockOn. Back then we had more than 40 members with rarely less than 20 present simultaneously for training dates. Using brevity code while fighting was the top of what we had concerning realism. We decided to take it to a higher level to keep the hard core interested in the game and in the squad.
So we added everything to our flying that we could get our hands on: radiotelephony procedures for departures and arrivals, checklists, tanker procedures, AWACS and GCI. We installed control zones around the airbases with visual entry- and exit-procedures, initial points, close patterns, run-in-and-break maneuvres and human ATC.
We improved our basic flying skills and trained things like dead reckoning navigation.
Tactics and combat skills were fine-tuned and re-tested.
We wrapped it all up and wrote it down. In many abovementioned fields we are far from finished yet, but the whole package we offer is constantly improving and growing and very slowly nearing completion.
This huge programme that we imposed upon ourselves required a structured training system, in order to give new members a chance to get up to speed within an acceptable timeframe. We divided the training into 3 stages, Basic Jet Training, Final Jet Training and Weapon Training, each of which has to be passed by our recruits before obtaining combat-ready status.
Along the way we lost some great people: members that didn´t want or couldn´t bear with us on our way and recruits that didn´t make it through the training.
Today, we´re down to a number of around only 20 total, combat pilots, recruits and reservists all together.
The farther you go towards realism in LockOn the thinner the air and the fewer the number of pilots willing to dedicate the time and effort.
That´s what we learned from our own history, so don´t expect a near 100% acceptance of FO by the LockOn-playing community...
Lawndart
09-06-2006, 17:32
Sounds like you (and the JaBoG structure) will fit the FO profile like a hand in a glove Woody!
Woodstock
09-06-2006, 17:55
Thanks, I regard this as a huge compliment!
And I wish you were right...
But we are despite all too much of a bunch of aerial warriors to be satisfied solely by FO 1st release for a year or more.
Best I can imagine is a co-existance of LOMAC and Fighter-Ops. But still, once FO´s American fighters are out, we have some Su- and MiG-lovers amongst us that I would never want to miss - they´re friends!
So, as much as I have hopes for FO, the future of the genre doesn´t look too bright for my squad...
We will see.
Up next is LO 1.2 Black Shark, and we are organisationally fully prepared to open up a chopper squadron within our wing.
We´re focusing on near-future things right now like organizing sponsors (we got Saitek Germany and a german flightsim hardware shop so far), presenting the new Saitek rudder pedals at the Lowland Tigermeet next week and co-organizing this year´s VFAT.
So, we´ve got our hands full of work we love and the farther future remains to be seen and will be dealt with when arrived...
Sorry for slightly off-topic insights into my squad but I regard this thread to be somewhat philosophical about what LOMAC is and what not.
It´s always comforting and delighting for me to exchange opinions with milflightsimmers from all over the world.
Good nite @ll!
Lawndart
09-06-2006, 19:23
I fully understand your view and "dilemma", but it's a pleasant one. In time I'm sure the organizational aspects of JaBoG will work nicely with products such as FO... In time...
We´re focusing on near-future things right now like organizing sponsors (we got Saitek Germany and a german flightsim hardware shop so far), presenting the new Saitek rudder pedals at the Lowland Tigermeet next week and co-organizing this year´s VFAT.
Sound like you stole our agenda too for the near future. LOL! As you know we're working with Thrustmaster... LLTM is right around the corner, maybe we'll see you there...? Co-hosting VFAT, right with ya! :thumb:
Interesting post Woodstock! Personally I can't wait for the organized and structured sim FO will bring, but I'm not under any delusion that it will happen over night, nor when the first module is released. In time, when FO has enough modules and aircraft, scenery, campaign etc it will be tough to look away... In time...
In the mean time, I'm looking forward to other new titles as well such as Black Shark and who knows, The Battle Sim... Definitely some interesting times ahead for hardcore simulator freaks, that's for sure.
Sorry for the OT. Another big gripe about LOMAC is of course the sim being biased towards Russian fighters. Not so much that they simulate Russian planes, but that the American fighters in comparison are so weak...
Hell Sqn Protos
09-06-2006, 20:19
Very impressive gentlemen. I just downloaded the Jabog checklists and I will steal gleefully from anyone else. Wonderful to see other dedicated Vpilots.
S~!
Woodstock
09-06-2006, 20:59
Protos, if you liked the checklists, try the flightlog as well.
The navigation calculators that JaBoG32_Pjotr integrated into the Excel file work so well that they are nearly too good to be used for training student pilots, since they take away all the thinking workload from them...:bigsmile:
And it´s a fun challenge as well! Try to set up a flight course of let´s say 300 NM with around 10-15 course and altitude changes, do not set any waypoints for your nav computer, add some wind to the mission, calculate your WCAs, headings and leg times and then fly the course with your compass and stopwatch only. You will be amazed how precise it is and how close to your planned destination you can get if you don´t f**k up under way!
If...:evils:
PS.: In case someone wonders what checklists Protos is talking about, check this thread:
http://forum.lockon.ru//showthread.php?t=18176
Hell Sqn Protos
09-06-2006, 23:26
S~!
If indeed.... :evils:
That part we should do pretty good at, we did A LOT of manual navigation in IL2 - great practise.
LockOn focuses somehow on the flying and weapon system experience......
alternatively it could be said that since LO doesn't carry a solid sense of realism, people have no time pretending in something that doesn't exist within the game itself.
alternatively it could be said that since LO doesn't carry a solid sense of realism, people have no time pretending in something that doesn't exist within the game itself.
I thought they were saying the Su-25T with AFM was the most advanced flight model ever seen? Are you saying the AFM isnt really there????
:tongue:
:rofl
Cause its crap..
Period :lol
Hell Sqn Protos
09-16-2006, 23:40
S~!
Here come da.....
Here come da..........
Here come DA FanBoys !!!
LOL @ Protos :bigsmile:
That's a good one m8, but you should spell fanbois with an "I". :lol
Echo0311
10-05-2006, 14:06
Why LOMAC disappointed me?
Well, It did not! Can't wait for the BS to be released!
Why LOMAC disappointed me?
Well, It did not! Can't wait for the BS to be released!
LoL, I know BS stands for Black Shark but I just cant help but read it a different way.:rofl
Tomcats Rule! Anytime Baby!
LOL Vampyre! Boooooooooooooooo....
Hell Sqn Protos
11-08-2006, 04:03
Cause they cant even keep their forum software up to speed never mind their sim.
Wow, they have the organization of a bunch of fat kids around a smarty! :nono:
Lets not let this degenerate into a name calling thread or bagging of ED. Please take that to lockon.ru forums where they have a right of reply.
Keep it constructive on the aspects of the sim that (as the thread title says) disappointed you.
LOMAC can be very frustrating at times.
-I have a medium spec PC and the frame rate when flying over the clouds is absurd.
-Missions get boring after a while since they're not progressive.
-It would have been nice to have a clickable cockpit instead of memorizing all those shortcuts than I can easily mix up with F4 or FS9.
-the AI plain sucks. I can't listen to the stupid control tower anymore, I just land the damn thing.
-The terrain is very nice, but gets very plain after a while. Maybe it's got something to do with the haze efectv
On the other hand, it's got awesome damage models and dynamics.
I stopped playing it until FOps comes out, or at least freefalcon 4. I needed the disk space for other things.
Why LOMAC DOES and DOESN'T dissapoint me.
Why is does:
- non-clickable cockpits
- not enough flyable planes
- only allowed to fly in russia
- joystick usage is very poor
- non-dual core support
- Single Player Campaign is poor
- Most of the software coding is deep into the sim, making it hard for modders to do very much.
Why is doesn't:
- Very stable multiplayer :thumb:
- Great graphics with friendly FPS
- Cool Gameplay
- Easy to use multiplayer
- Somewhat realistic system modeling
USSR_Scart
12-11-2006, 13:58
LOMAC haven't dissapointed me really yet. For nowadays i think it's the best sim of the modern warbirds, although there are something unmodelled yet, ED is always in continious progress with it.
Hell Sqn Protos
12-15-2006, 00:34
S~!
Tws/radar capabilities ............when asked why actual documented malfuntions of mig 29 radar and SST lock capability that the dev openly acknowledges exists would be correctly modelled.
They respond with "Are you Joking"
Follow up posts were asked and when pressed, the dev reponded with "realism would hurt balance" Not sure how realism hurts ANY simulation.
....................... politics has no place in ANY simulation. Fidelity in avionics is every bit as important as fm/dm/wfm ect..... balance as a consideration is more appropriate for arcade games...
liquid_rockface
01-16-2007, 10:16
Yay! My thread is the most largest and most viewed thread in the LOMAC forum! :king
lomac disapointed me cause: 1. the laser guided munitions was completely absent with us planes (the GBU family, etc) 2. no dynamic campaign, 3. low flight model of the aircraft (except SU 25/T):wink2:
liquid_rockface
01-16-2007, 10:35
Hataulf, are you serious? No GBU bombs?? No laser guided muntions AT ALL? So what were there? (I haven't seen the game yet)
As i´ve said: with the us planes, for a-g missions, You can use infra/TV mavericks, rockeye-cluster bombs, standard gravitation bombs and rocket louncher..
There are laser guided munition (missiles only) with SU 25/T onnly.:red:
159th_Lonewolf
01-16-2007, 13:57
You do get guided bombs, just not laser guided. The Su-25T can carry two Kr500 TV guided bombs. Handy for taking out static objects at high altitude. Particularly fun bombing bridges :D. ED are making LOMAC better with every expansion they make for it. Theres talk of a new mission editor with Black Shark, with its clickable 6DOF pit I can't wait to get it! I agree that there are some points of LO that people might not like not been as deep as F4 etc, but its a good sim none the less...I still enjoy playing it for hours. Theres a lot of extra missions and campaigns for it from LOfiles.com, so the amount of default missions doesn't really bother me.
Bogusheadbox
01-17-2007, 06:36
Don't forget that the SU-25 Has the brilliant level bombing ability for unguided bombs. makes ground pounding rather easy !!! (when you are not being shot at :thumb:
The only plane worth a damn in Lock-on is the SU25 on version 1.12. Lock-on disapointed me because of ALL THE OTHER generic, ultra cheesy FM. I didnt buy lomac to fly a damned SU or a freakin helo. I wanted FIGHTERS with as close to the real thing as a PC can produce.
Thank GOD FO is stepping up, Because ED sure dropped that ball!
195th_Blade
02-28-2007, 14:19
After playing Jane's FA/18 online with the squad since the JCN days before mirc and hyper-lobby. I was hoping for a falcon 4 feel but way better graphics, well the graphics look real nice but without a campaign or a (my personal pref.) a clickable cockpit it lost my interest in a month after buying it. I guess i was to use to Jane's FA/18. Then i decided to buy Flaming Cliffs and right out of the box had issues with star force.
SuperKungFu
02-28-2007, 15:42
did you buy lock on gold?
195th_Blade
02-28-2007, 16:20
did you buy lock on gold?
Yes from walmart and after installing it i kept getting you need to enter cd key but with the disk version there was no cd key after about 3 times of uninstall and re install i finally got it to work, then after the patch was installed the process started all over again. Now i understand there was a issue with the early release of lock on gold but i believe that issue was cd2 wasn't installing correctly but i might be wrong it's been awhile.
besides he sucks anyway so dont worry
SuperKungFu
02-28-2007, 18:17
Yes from walmart and after installing it i kept getting you need to enter cd key but with the disk version there was no cd key after about 3 times of uninstall and re install i finally got it to work, then after the patch was installed the process started all over again. Now i understand there was a issue with the early release of lock on gold but i believe that issue was cd2 wasn't installing correctly but i might be wrong it's been awhile.
yea you have a bad cd, like most people who bought lock on gold, we had to get the replacement. Its a bit strange you still got the problem now, evolved games actually took off the information to get the replacement cd. You have 2 choices, one- return your current lock on gold for another and see if that has a bad cd, or contact evolved games and wait about a week to get a new one. btw, its not starforce's fault, this is a problem with the publisher (evolved games)
195th_Blade
02-28-2007, 18:38
besides he sucks anyway so dont worry
Thats ok Mo you can be my wingman anytime. lol
Wow I didn't know the requirments to be a Beta tester were so low were can i join?
Not, because we don't get THAT low :wink2:
195th_Seawolf
03-02-2007, 19:23
Just my opinion, but I think for a sim to succeed it has to have a solid and deep multiplayer element. Lomac fell short in this area.
But at least, it is very stable online :smile:
apart from stability issues on release, which where fixed and replaced by others in subsequent patch releases the game didnt dissapoint me at all.
It gave me somewhat of a serious flight sim, with a medium learning curve compared to F4, which i coulndt spend the time to learn due to RL stuff...
Thats changed somewhat now and im in a position where i can devote some time to getting into F4:AF. Any tips for a noob?
The only thing that did dissapoint me with lomac is that not enough people play it.
:bigeyes: Ye same here, ive only just started playing it, and im looking for a british squad to join but there are only a handfull of people that play, and almost all are american :bigeyes:
by only having 2 US jets, but it's all good.
:bigeyes: Ye same here, ive only just started playing it, and im looking for a british squad to join but there are only a handfull of people that play, and almost all are american :bigeyes:
Try these guys out. They're quite good and they are in the UK.
http://www.vvs504.co.uk/ They're closing down their fighter wing, but their bomber wing is very active.
169th_Ross
03-27-2007, 14:38
Momently my favorite, FO can or could change it ;)
Grtz....Ross....
Hey Ross ... thanks for dropping by.
:smile:
42SF-Dodger
03-28-2007, 03:21
Lockon is an enjoyable sim. Take it for what it is. It is old; but it still is arguably the best performer from a combined realism/visuals viewpoint. Sure it could be improved and it has shortfalls, but the same goes for every game (particularly flight sims).
And what gives with the negative thread title? Why not: "What could have been better in Lockon?". Its unnecessarily negative, in what is otherwise, a very positive forum.
Lockon is an enjoyable sim. Take it for what it is. It is old; but it still is arguably the best performer from a combined realism/visuals viewpoint. Sure it could be improved and it has shortfalls, but the same goes for every game (particularly flight sims).
And what gives with the negative thread title? Why not: "What could have been better in Lockon?". Its unnecessarily negative, in what is otherwise, a very positive forum.
Well said.
I like to keep things positive as well so have taken your suggestion and changed the thread title. I hope the original poster doesn't mind.
:smile:
Lawndart
03-28-2007, 04:36
Good call!
I think usually people don't bother complaining unless there's a tangible amount to complain about. If there's too much, no one really bothers and the title is short lived... Granted Lock-On is far from perfect, but still manages to prevail with many positives!
42SF-Dodger
03-28-2007, 06:10
Now that's probably one of the finest piece of forum moderation I have seen to date! Kudos Cobra!!
169th_Ross
03-28-2007, 16:18
Hey Ross ... thanks for dropping by.
:smile:
Where have i seen that name??? :red: :rofl :rofl :thumb:
Grtz....Ross....
liquid_rockface
03-28-2007, 20:00
Ahemmmmmmm Aheeeeeeeeemmmm :tongue:
Ok I did kinda get a shock to see the title had changed. The reason for the original title was really a result of many threads where people were stating that they were "disappointed" by Lock-On. Therefore I thought it would be appropriate to start a thread named "Why did LOMAC disappoint you?" I wasn't trying to be negative or anything, just trying ask all those people who said it "disappointed" them, "why?"
Seeing as the post has turned in a million other directions (amazing it was never locked, but I'm happy to have the highest viewed and replied post in the LOMAC forum and one of the highest in the entire forum!) it doesn't bother me that Cobra changed the name.
However I would prefer it to be called "How could LOMAC have been improved?" or "How could LOMAC have been better?" I prefer the first of those two options. It is just more in my own style of writing and seeing as I started the thread I don't think it's too much to ask just to reword the post (from a grammatical viewpoint only really).
Either way, this thread remained very civilized throughout, so I don't see why anybody should have found the original title to be "negative" really. People get disappointed, it happens, they move on...
Title changed for the last time lol.
"How could LOMAC have been improved?"
the highest viewed and replied post in the LOMAC forum and one of the highest in the entire forum!
is there a hidden message in there somewhere????
*runs and hides*
:rofl
Lomcevac
03-28-2007, 21:00
I have lots of problems with LOMAC/LO-FC, whatever you wanna call it. But with all it's shortcomings, LOMAC gives the best feeling of flight, the best visuals, and the best multiplay when it comes to close formation. I can fly fingertip with my buds without worrying about warping (happens, but not much), or that caffeine jitter of another aircraft in F4.
The things I'd like to see improved are things that make the sim a "Modern Air Combat" sim:
Better radars with realistic functions. TWS in the F-15 that can track 8 at least, and show more on the radar, with better look-down performance than it has now. The Flanker that can TWS as well.
Better missile logic and AFM for all projectiles and aircraft. Missiles in LOMAC are truly MISSiles. I prefer overmodeling than undermodeling & have heard from real fighterpilots that things are closer to F4 rather than LOMAC.
Better high AOA flight modeling with appropriate airframe buffet through the continuum of energy sustaining manoevers, to hard/break turns.
Modeling of the variable inlet for appropriate aircraft to improve high altitude engine performance.
Better AWACS modeling with real information given rather than "High" or "Hot" or "Flanking" which the aircraft may or may not be really doing. (at least these calls don't conform to brevity)
Better Tanker modeling with appropriate flight model so it doesn't skid/slide in turns, bank (30 degrees is normal tanker bank) and bank rate, and the ability to fly the refueling without autopilot for US aircraft. Also, I'd like to see the ability to call the tanker so that it can turn towards you and rendezvous with you without having to chase the tanker down.
Better ATC AI with the ability to call traffic in the pattern, sequence, and give realistic and appropriate vectors to initial/final/FAF, depending upon weather.
Better ground vehicle AI that react to ground attacks appropriately - i'm not a ground pounder in LOMAC until the NATO side receives a dual-role aircraft.
Give us a dual-role aircraft. Since the F-15 is already modeled, the strike eagle seems logical. Either that or the super hornet so we can do carrier ops, air-to-air, and air-to-ground.
Give us the ability in the mission editor to change loadouts after recovering, the ability to fly lots more waypoints, and functions that make it more user friendly instead of a morass of difficult mission planning, especially for long missions.
Give us bases in Turkey so we can plan longer missions with realistic (for the time period and AOB) scenarios, with the ability to define ROE for victory conditions, like VID first before firing, etc.
Fix the terrain so that water doesn't have to be at sea level even on land, objects like trees that can damage aircraft (instead of being inconsequential ghosts) and be damaged.
Give us tools for the server that allow us to control the scenarios better with better player tracking and cheat controls.
I guess that's enough, and in the spirit of this thread I say this: LOMAC is still my sim of choice because I don't care about how to load data into the FMS, or how to start the engines in a realistic fashion. I do that IRL. I'd rather have a sim of "Modern Air Combat" and go up with my friends, and train, fly, & fight. If I wanted a course in switchology, I'd fly F4. But I'm interested in the things that make the eagle the eagle. With it's ability to lock up a fulcrum at range, send a slammer at it and support it to high PRF and exit the fight. There's a reason why it can carry 8 slammers, and routinely flies at 25-35,000 ft. There's a reason why it doesn't like to get into knife fights too. That's where the Russian aircraft should excel with their high alpha capabilities.
I wish LOMAC would go back to "modern air combat."
42SF-Dodger
03-30-2007, 00:29
...so I don't see why anybody should have found the original title to be "negative" really. People get disappointed, it happens, they move on...
Hey Liquid, your intentions were clearly good in naming the original title. My comments certainly weren't a dig in that respect. However, the original thread title wasn't: "Did Lomac disappoint you, and if so, how?"; instead, it implied that Lockon was, on the whole, disappointing. Does a single disappointing moment in a day constitute a disappointing day? As with every day, it's expected to have disappointments in every game. But, consider also, that flightsim developers work there butts off, for what is typically, a very small return. It's in our best interests to encourage them. If I posted: "Why does the FO project disappoint you?" in these forums, it wouldn't encourage the developers, and would probably be considered negative by most. I was disappointed that I didn't have a flyable FO for Christmas :) But, that expectation wasn't realistic (unfortunately, lol).
The devs at ED went through a lot of misery with UBI etc. They could have just packed it in, to the detriment of the flightsim community. Instead, they worked on continued development, which is by no means perfect, but which is enjoyed by a lot of people. Lockon is a technologically competitive and for many, an enjoyable SIM, not a disappointment.
Congrats, though on having the longest Lockon thread on these forums :)
Consistency in missile programming. Lomac is imo aimed towards competitive MP, and succeeds mostly except for missile programming which is just ridiculous :)
NawlinzVoodoo
03-31-2007, 10:50
WOW! 11 pages on this topic! I agree with the Joystick Issues mostly. Flying was horrible, it was easier flying a WW2 with NO trim control. Everytime I went up, I would get to altitude ASAP and hit the 'Alt+2' key. Phew,level flight. Although the things that I enjoy about LO out weight the things I dislike about it. IMO, the graphics are great, better then F4. I would have loved a 'Dynamic' Campaign (Like we all wouldn't! DAH!) in the sim, but that is why I have F4:AF.
I flew LOMAC nearly everyday, the main reason why I liked the lockon, they've got impressive graphics. of course, my computer is high end. of course a MP guru.
beside there is few bugs that we can get around with it such as Sinple Player AI, Joystick issues. etc.
I want to remind few things the Eagle Dynamics development team used the REAL russian operator manual to make it near realistic as possible. that what it has impressed me with the flight sim of Lock On.
Oh, Don't forget BlackShark will also have a clickable cockpit.
also I strongly believe Fighters Ops will need to have a high end PC with all of stunning 3D models graphics works that they have done. So be prepare to invest for a new high end pc when it comes out.
just in my own opinion.
eagle1tfw
04-14-2007, 08:02
I flew LOMAC nearly everyday, the main reason why I liked the lockon, they've got impressive graphics. of course, my computer is high end. of course a MP guru.
beside there is few bugs that we can get around with it such as Sinple Player AI, Joystick issues. etc.
I want to remind few things the Eagle Dynamics development team used the REAL russian operator manual to make it near realistic as possible. that what it has impressed me with the flight sim of Lock On.
Oh, Don't forget BlackShark will also have a clickable cockpit.
also I strongly believe Fighters Ops will need to have a high end PC with all of stunning 3D models graphics works that they have done. So be prepare to invest for a new high end pc when it comes out.
just in my own opinion.
No flame, just my 2 cents:
I have a high-end PC (at the time when I try LOMAC - last year, now its not really high-end: A64 4600+, 2GB DDR2 667, 7900GTX OC) and I cant even get a decent fps (~30 or so @ level flight) I can even get better fps with Supereme Commander.
I CRASHED a lot, every 30 mins or so. It pissed me of. Then I did some research about LOMAC, I found out that LOMAC is a bad coded game due to Ubi pushed ED to release it early. That explains why few years after it was released, even high-end system cant run it smoothly (I know there are some mods to optimize the graphic or something like that but it doesnt matter to me anymore), and thats why it crashes a lot.
=> That's it. No more LOMAC for me after 18 hours playing around.
ED uses the REAL Russian operator manual, so how about American operator manual? For people who love the US fighter?
About BlackShark, what is the point of putting a Helo in a Jet sim while the other jet like F-15 is not really well modeled and there are still a lot of things need to be fixed?
I think I will stick with F4 until FO comes out.
No flame, just my 2 cents:
I have a high-end PC (at the time when I try LOMAC - last year, now its not really high-end: A64 4600+, 2GB DDR2 667, 7900GTX OC) and I cant even get a decent fps (~30 or so @ level flight) I can even get better fps with Supereme Commander.
I CRASHED a lot, every 30 mins or so. It pissed me of. Then I did some research about LOMAC, I found out that LOMAC is a bad coded game due to Ubi pushed ED to release it early. That explains why few years after it was released, even high-end system cant run it smoothly (I know there are some mods to optimize the graphic or something like that but it doesnt matter to me anymore), and thats why it crashes a lot.
=> That's it. No more LOMAC for me after 18 hours playing around.
ED uses the REAL Russian operator manual, so how about American operator manual? For people who love the US fighter?
About BlackShark, what is the point of putting a Helo in a Jet sim while the other jet like F-15 is not really well modeled and there are still a lot of things need to be fixed?
I think I will stick with F4 until FO comes out.
I don't think it's because of UBI. Sure they pushed ED to go quicker, but I believe if there wasn't Ubi behind, ED would have released the 1.02 version as their first version.
I also read that the lomac is quite bad coded because they took Flanker2 code which they improved. I'm not a coder though so I can't say the limitations you can have it you take a too old code in which you insert new fonctions ...
For the planes ... well ED is a Russian company. And they model russian birds.
US aircrafts are just here to attract western simmers who want to kill some migs.
About the black shark, I'm pretty excited with the idea of piloting a helicopter with AFM. To be honest, that's the only thing that makes me keeping the sim installed.
I was really mad when I read on their forum "we stopped the developpment of BS because we had other stuff to do, now we continue to work on BS"
After more than 3 year of lomac (I fly it since it came out), I stopped playing it some months ago when I installed Open Falcon which I enjoy very much.
I'll buy BS, but I don't know if I will ever enjoy it again.
169th_Ross
04-14-2007, 10:03
I CRASHED a lot, every 30 mins or so. It pissed me of. Then I did some research about LOMAC, I found out that LOMAC is a bad coded game due to Ubi pushed ED to release it early. That explains why few years after it was released, even high-end system cant run it smoothly (I know there are some mods to optimize the graphic or something like that but it doesnt matter to me anymore), and thats why it crashes a lot.
My system never crashed, i don't using any mod.. And i enjoy every "minute" i fly lockon ;)
I'm talking about Flaming Cliffs, so not version 1.0 or 1.02
Grtz...Ross....
WCKBones
04-22-2007, 04:49
I hadn't been into flight sims for a good number of years, life happens :wink2: But when a friend gave me his old logitech stick --(now I have an X52 :) but I'll wait until FighterOps for the trackIR)-- I thought I'd give Lock On a whirl. We all know about all the bugs it had/has but there are some things that should have been fixed, or rather not coded that way from the start. For example, I like flying the A-10 and when I'm taking off with a wingman, just as I get airborn, my wingman shoots past me going mach 2...wtf??? How could that have slipped by the coders? I realise the bs that ED had to do with Ubi and all, and the graphics are really nice. But getting 10-12 fps over a city with a pretty good rig means something went wrong...
So how could Lomac could have been improved? It would've been nice to have the bugs fixed, either fewer at release or shortly thereafter. (Pay for a patch? And its still got bugs??) A less than retarded AI would've been nice too. More american planes too, but it is a Russian game, so... Perhaps some better control over graphics or whatever to make it more configurable...not saying that the bottom of the barrel comp should run it smooth or anything. And lately I'm getting tired of turning my sounds hardware acceleration off everytime I go to play. Jeeze :nono:
End of rant. :bigsmile:
pbourgeois
06-08-2007, 00:42
LOMAC is most certainly my favorite game of all time!
To make it better, it needs the features of FSX;
1, Clickable cockpit
2, Realistic Navigation with VOR stations, tuneable nav radio OBS,& ILS are all excellent in FS.
3. FPS for me are bad in LOMAC (but I will buy a new rig to run flight sims as they become more demanding on hardware).
4. I find the 1980's theme to be restrictive. For example we can't have a Garmin GPS unit in an aircraft because that aircraft didn't use it in the 1980's time frame! Future sims shouldn't paint themselves into this corner.
5. I cant play with a lot of ground vehicles on screen because of FPS drop! This bothers me. (Will get new computer if this happens with FOps)
6. LOMAC is magnificent but it is just the beginning for 'real' jet combat flightsims.
AMD 1.7ghz-1.2gig RAM, TIR4,
also I strongly believe Fighters Ops will need to have a high end PC with all of stunning 3D models graphics works that they have done. So be prepare to invest for a new high end pc when it comes out.
Yeah I hear you on that. I can already smell another FS-X crisis on it's way.
"Where's the FighterOps.cfg file?" :wink2:
Eagle Driver
06-14-2007, 01:01
Lol.
Anyway, despite all the bugs and errors, Lockon is BY FAR my favorite game... no, my favorite ANYTHING of all time (so far). It's really annoying that I have to deal with an out-of-date Eagle, lacking the new stuff which puts it beyond the Flankers by far. And the obvious Russian bias in the game is annoying, like yelling "Over-G" when the gauge reads 7.5 in the Eagle but at 9 for anything Russian, and giving the Flanker and Fulcrum supercruise (didn't notice that, I bet). And the fact that Gs are either "10g sustained FOREVER" or "6g sustained for... four seconds". Even with all this, and with the underpowered Eagle, it still has the Eagle, and that's why I love it. I can't wait for BS, and I hope from the bottom of my soul that they improve the missiles and the Eagle, that should hold me over 'till FO.
Yeah I hear you on that. I can already smell another FS-X crisis on it's way.
"Where's the FighterOps.cfg file?" :wink2:
This is where scalability comes into play. Less eyecandy but still good playability...ooopss:blank: ...flyability:evils: .
.....The STARFORCE PROTECTION DRIVER, is what really ruins LOCK-ON
Lawndart
06-17-2007, 01:59
Never had any issues with Starforce on three different rigs. Maybe I've just been lucky?! :confused:
All the little idiosyncrasies with LOMAC drives me nuts, such as having to manually edit cfg or lua files when using widescreen and repeat the process, even when other options are changed in-game. If using TIR, any time the options are changed in-game, you need to delete the .ini files in the config folder etc, otherwise TIR won't work (all of a sudden)...
All that gets old real fast! Lack of SDKs and support too... but then again, it is Russian and low budget, but quite good still! :red: :smile:
195th_Seawolf
07-24-2007, 01:34
It would have been better if the old EA Baltimore team designed it. lol
Never had any issues with Starforce on three different rigs. Maybe I've just been lucky?! :confused:
All the little idiosyncrasies with LOMAC drives me nuts, such as having to manually edit cfg or lua files when using widescreen and repeat the process, even when other options are changed in-game. If using TIR, any time the options are changed in-game, you need to delete the .ini files in the config folder etc, otherwise TIR won't work (all of a sudden)...
All that gets old real fast! Lack of SDKs and support too... but then again, it is Russian and low budget, but quite good still! :red: :smile:
Nice post, you said everything that I had in mind.
lack of correct F-15 abilities , and I've always found it amazing that a mig17 or 21 can out accelerate a F-15 and out turn it. and last but not least...starfarce...
169th_Ross
07-29-2007, 06:33
Never had any issues with Starforce on three different rigs. Maybe I've just been lucky?! :confused:
Same for me :red:
Grtz....Ross.....
Work more on the aircraft we now and fix whats wrong, stop worrying about the tire thread on the hummers, oh and get rid of a few beta testers
Wad Cutter
08-08-2007, 00:21
I still enjoy Lock-On. At least it's a sim I can use.
Vidar 710
09-05-2007, 14:14
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.
\/
ruggbutt
09-05-2007, 14:31
Good post Vidar. Eagle has Oleg (IL2) syndrome when it has to do with western equipment. ;) For those that don't know what Oleg syndrome is: It's when the russian equipment is portrayed w/better capabilities than it really had.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.