Jump to content

Dusty Rhodes

Members
  • Posts

    1467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dusty Rhodes

  1. WOW, this certainly adds a new realm for mission and campaign creation! Thanks Fella's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. ROTFLMAO :shock: :D :D :D Might be a slag on LOMAC (Don't know) in which case I give a hearty :evil: , but that was funny stuff.
  3. And each one is wildly popular with several thousand playing on line at any one time. And the addition of flyables made them even more popular. ED is starting with flight and adding ground and I think will be the same result. So saying there is enough of that around, I counter with, follow the money, and those are money makers. Put all of that together and you have an amazing sim that appeals to all gamers and simmers, which equals lots of money and a better product. You make the argument for doing it, with a totality of circumstances that you laid out, yet you say won't do anything for Lock On or the series.
  4. I think they are expanding the gaming experience and also trying to expand their customer base. Like it or not, flight simming is not a huge money making machine. If they can integrate some of these things and maintain the integrity and fidelity of the flight sim part, I say Git-r-dun and make a bazillion!
  5. Well, to me, the standard is Falcon 4's DC. So if Falcon 4 can do it, with the DC it has which is less than perfect but certainly the standard, and you ran it on such a low end machine, why couldn't LOMAC make the same decisions on the machines we have now which are 6-7 times the machines of yesteryear? Granted it used the bubble method, but I think it is quite doable once hardware catches up to LOMAC. EECH has a really good campaign generator. MIG Alley is really good. All came out several years ago. Maybe if things were optimized on the graphics to maximize FPS, without taking away the beauty, then an engine like that can be done. I think once hardware starts catching up to LOMAC then a DC of some sort and scale would completely be possible, though I think there would have to be more terrain added to make it worthwhile.
  6. I would think that placing all these missions as part of a Campaign engine would be more efficient then doint it as you did. I don't know that for fact, but just thinking out loud.
  7. A work around would be to put each section of the map into it's own map area and make it so you pick your map area. This way they stay within the outlined area, but make it so additions are not part of the current map but stand alone maps. Does that make sense? Any way you put it, they have to make a new map, might as well stay in the same area and section the area off with stand alone maps. Then you have a campaign area selection when building campaigns or missions. Does that make sense?
  8. I would like to see a DC or Dynamic World, or something like I talked about in the post previous. Another thing is, I don't think we need a new campaign area per se. I say expand on the map they have now until it is filled up. To me, these two things are the most important features (even more then add-on aircraft, though I would like to see an Apache added after the KA-50) that could be added to LOMAC to give it longevity and replayability, which is honestly a shortcoming it has now.
  9. I have been talking with some friends about a DC or a LIVE World campaign generator lately, myself. I think what I would like to see is a editable campaign generator that works on Cause and Effect. You set the front lines and the initial units. Then you have a matrix of how much equipment a unit has, a Russian Rifle Battalion, for instance has X number of ARmored personnel carriers. A MRBrigade, so many, and a MRDivision so many. You place them on the front line or in the tactical position you want them. If they get destroyed, or suffer loses, a convoy from an assigned base automatically sends replacement, via convoy, to replace them, until that unit is out of APC's. Or you set a CAP over a specified area (Using something like Janes F-18 did with maximum reaction ranges, which regardless, needs to be implemented into LOMAC anyways). If that CAP is destroyed or one of two planes is lost, the generator automatically sends a replacement AC to finish the CAP, or a fresh CAP flight for that area, scrambled from the assigned airfield of the CAP flight. Or if a mission goal is a factory, then the generator assigns a bomber flight with escort and SEAD to destroy it. If that flight is successful, then no more flights go after it. If it is destroyed, then another mission is generated to destroy it. I think that all makes sense. This would work well for mission building if you could have the same dynamics for mission building as the mission could last for a long time till the goal(s) are reached or a short time if you are successful the first time. This would give the world life, also, and not just have units and AC that have to do with the mission only, in the mission. This way it would require mission builders to only set the initial units and goals and the generator would take care of the rest. Or the campaign builder to set the initial tactical situation with many goals to beat the campaign.
  10. We are in total agreeance. We should request away. Nothing like an active community to drive the Devs to higher levels. :D
  11. Truce GG, Truce. Neither Falcon 4 nor JF-18 modelled them true to life. As virtual pilots we like to think of ourselves as really shit hot and playing in a virtual world close to life. Simple fact is, it is simplified, even with JF-18 and Falcon 4. Neither shut down their radars nor frequency hop when under or to avoid ARM attack. Falcon 4 had no Jammer aircraft. JF-18, the jammer aircraft had minimal effect if any. No, neither of these sims, and no others model true to life systems and tactics. Very simplified. There is no such thing as 100% realism as, again, there is no hardware out there that could crunch those kind of numbers. You would have a frame rate of 1 FPD (Frame per Day). The Devs have to draw the line someplace of how far to go in realism and still be able to sell there product and make money (Afterall, that is what they are in business to do, make money). Would it be nice to have those things in the sim. ABSOLUTELY. But then everyone has suggestions of what we would like to see in a sim. Can they put them all in? Hardly. They draw a line in the sand, though they frequently cross it god bless them, and have to say in their design plans, this is what we are going to go, and this is how far we are going to model things. Add to this the classified stuff that we all think we know about, but truly know nothing about. Some nice feature idea's, but are they practical? And if they are, are they any more important then someone elses idea? Where do you draw the line? How far do you go in the realism department considering we are talking a 19 inch monitor and making the sim marketable to a wide enough range of audience to sell to a profitable amount of people? Don't say make it a choice, then you have the problem of modelling the with and without, twice the work which will not produce twice the profit. A business doesn't stay in business if it is not profitable and taking care of the share holders. I am sure that as we push through the 10 Gig and 20 Gig CPU speeds in the future, we will see minute detail such as effective Jamming and SAMS channel hopping, hoping not to swallow an ARM. But Devs MUST draw the line in the realism department.
  12. Not to start a fight, but please do name a sim that modelled in detail all of the tactics and technical uses for every weapon present. And done correctly. There isn't one.
  13. If Lock On simulated everything about every weapons system from every country, AND tactics, we wouldn't have a CPU fast enough to run Lock On for, oh, 20 years. And you can't make the argument that you aren't worried about other features, just this one...........what makes that feature any more important then other features and real world modelling. This is a simulation, not the real world. Computers aren't fast enough to handle all the number crunching that would have to be done. I am not saying this to doubt or put down your idea, it is just there is no such thing as absolute realism. Devs must draw the line somewhere.
  14. Having been a part of an armored task force of M1 tanks and Bradley's and other armored vehicles, I can positively say, you are a dead man if you fire that main gun at a helo. Tactically, you are an idiot to do it. Having experienced the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, 3 times, in offensive and defensive, as well as movement to contact, passage of lines, the works, you do not shoot your main gun at a helo! I am not sure what about the reasons I have cited are not convincing. I am not talking out of, I heard, or I read somewhere, I am talking about having been in that situation in the most real training you can get, without actually taking part in an armored assault across the desert in real life, facing attack helo's. And as far as I know, US armored forces have never faced Hinds or other attack helo's in combat. So that training at the NTC in Fort Irwin is about as close as any one has been (to my knowledge). Now in the case of "this is all I got", I agree, let her rip. But expect the wingie of that helo, or the enemy ground forces in front of you to paint a big bullseye on you. I am strictly talking, does this happen normally and regularily? No, it doesn't. I am sure there are isolated instances when this has happened, but it is NOT part of every day combat and should be taken out of LOMAC, when time permits.
  15. I don't mean for this to sound rude, but I know this is going to and it is not meant to be rude...........here goes :) ...............do any of you who claim that this is what happens in real life, have any evidence that this happens. I am not saying it can't happen, I am saying it doesn't happen. There might be instances of this happening in the past, but certainly not normal in the least bit and certainly quite isolated instances. Yes there are rounds that can take out Helo's but is it doctrine? Are they actually in service, part of the combat load of a tank, and trained with? Please provide some proof other then I read somewhere, or a friend told me. Just on the pure tactical level, you would be an absolute fool to fire your main gun at a helo and give your position away to his wingmen. Fire the gun like that and you better be butt cheeks and elbows running away from your tank because you are going to get a Hellfire or Swatter (which ever side you are on) in your lap. The report from your main gun WILL NOT be missed by the other side. Not to mention if you miss, where did that round land, and who did it kill. Tanks are not AAA and don't run around with these "helo killing rounds" in their tubes. They are out there to kill enemy ground forces. The time to unload that HE or Sabot round, load a "Helo killing round", and then load back to that HE or Sabot round and find an enemy ground unit to kill...............you are already dead, because that helo you took a pot shot at is going to kill you, or if you got lucky, his wingman WILL kill you, or enemy ground units will have seen that nice smoke puff (report) from your main gun. Sorry folks, this is not realistic. Of course there is no such thing as total realism in a sim, but this one is an obvious one. Please don't take this as a slam on ED, it is far from it. My argument is with those of you who think this really happens in RL. It doesn't and I hope ED gets some time to address it in the future, as I know it isn't a priority now.
  16. "...people were insisting (if you remember what some posters were insisting about T-80 crews wanting to keep fighting after being hit by GAU- that these things should be firing every available clip, round, pebble or laser pointer at any passing aircraft, without regard for combat effectiveness or their own survival, because that's what "real" soldiers "do" in war." You could only hope your enemy would act like this. They would not be your enemy for long as they would be dead. :? I hope ED can address this, if they chose to. Again, this wouldn't be a priority this late in the game, but it is a known thing, and i hope it is addressed in later products.
  17. I killed many a HIND D mock up at Fort Irwin, National Training Center with the TOW missile using the MILES system. But that doesn't mean it is doctrine or even smart to do. Show me where this has been done in real life, on a regular basis. This falls under the........yes it is possible but it doesn't happen in RL..........category. Have them fire a real Main gun round at a chopper and see if it really happens. I am sure they were using the MILES system also.
  18. Um, where in the world do you get that it is real world that a tank uses it's main gun to shoot down a Helo? Care to cite any examples? They said we could do it with TOW missiles from Improved Tow Vehicles, but it was pure theory. I could see a lucky shot or two, sure, but for it to happen on a regular basis? I think not. Not like LOMAC has it modelled. This conversation is also going on at the UBI LOMAC boards http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=2071080262&r=4981001262#4981001262
  19. I do wish they would fix the cloud slider. That would be the bomb.
  20. First time I flew LOMAC with the trees I was amazed on what they did for the atmosphere. Then I flew without the trees and was appalled at the green Moonscape. I will not fly without trees again.
  21. Flew the F-15 missions today. Man I suck at it. Need to go back to my HOG. Those would be awesome MP missions.
  22. Try what I did. It will increase the immersion a lot and add some life to the sim.
  23. Check THIS thread out for details. Works great and gives life to LOMAC.
  24. I do this at every store I go to that carries LOMAC :D
×
×
  • Create New...