Jump to content

Dark_Sceptre

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dark_Sceptre

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. On a completely tangential note.... While watching you use the mouse to interact with the avionics (really looking forward to that clickable pit btw) I realized that having a mouse cursor linked to coordinates on the screen may not be the optimal scheme when trying to hit buttons in a 3D cockpit wearing a head tracker. As a longtime TrackIR user myself I know that it can be very tiring to hold your head completely still. And I imagine that you need to do exactly that while manipulating the buttons in the cockpit - since the mouse cursor is linked to your screen, any head movements will
  2. Well.. I was actually being sarcastic there ;) I've long been of the opinion that a combat flight simulator without a good mission / campaign engine is just a highly advanced form of quake. And while I enjoy the great visuals and highly advanced flight model in the game as much as the next guy, to me they are the icing on the cake but not its filling. I suspect that by now, most those who are still regulars on this forum really couldn't care less what type of mission generator or campaign engine the next gen sim has. I've seen too many people argue that it doesn't matter - multiplayer a
  3. The consensus reality seems to be that campaigns are not necessary at all.. after all, it's a well-known fact that aerial warfare is mostly about the hunt for something to shoot down. So obviously a campaign with lots of ground units fighting their silly wars over who controls which strategic areas is just a silly distraction from the main part of ANY decent combat sim: The fragging bit. Duh! PS: :D
  4. Get both, definitely. Lomac is a fantastic simulator which will bring you hours of enjoyment, and Falcon4:AF is without a doubt the most complex simulator ever made (well some BMS fans might disagree hehe). Since the sims are so different in terms of scope and what is modeled well, you really should aim to keep playing both. There's no question that dogfights and combat air support missions are a lot more fun in Lomac than in Falcon4 due to both the higher degree of FM fidelity and the higher detail in the visuals. And on the opposite side of the coin, flying a campaign mission in Falcon4 w
  5. One issue with 3D clickable cockpits which I didn't really notice until Janes FA18 got TrackIR support (YAY, Kudos to the gang!) is that it's really hard to use the MFDs when the mouse cursor uses your screen coordinates whereas the actual positioning of the instruments is linked to your head movement. With head tracking you are constantly looking around your instruments and outside, but since the mouse cursor moves with your PoV you have to hold your head still in order to use any instruments. This can be a bit tiring and you often wind up losing time in the heat of the moment. A better s
  6. Yes do ignore everything I said and keep ranting. It seems to be what you're proficient at. I think I'll go away now and leave you sad lot to plot how best to take over the world. Most of the people who had some perspective and the ability to think in a rational fashion seem to have gone on to greener pastures already. Hmm. Is that a grassy meadow I see? Yep. Maybe I should just .. yes.. I think I will head over there instead. Byeee...
  7. If you lot & Eagle wanted an immersive environment, you'd be flying in one today. What you have now is what you asked for - a visually stunning flight simulator. The fact that so few of you are capable of looking beyond the immediate visuals (which btw are far from bad in F4:AF), really says it all. I could tell you that once you take off in a fully simulated war, you don't have the TIME nor the inclination to pay any attention to the visuals, because you are too busy sorting out radar returns and trying to make your assigned target on time and in one piece. But clearly that holds absol
  8. Well, it's probably a combination of many factors, including the season. However there's also the fact that Lock On never was particularily tailored towards multiplayer and this shows in the lack of online games. Most of those who do fly online regularly seem to be doing dogfights, player vs player, and that's the only online game that works particularily well. Those of us who want to fly cooperatively need to constantly make new missions (or refly the same stale old ones) and after a while you just get fed up with the whole thing. It's been said so many times but I'll say it again: Lo
  9. Hang on a minute ... people actually fly team deathmatch in the 25T?? Seems pretty pointless to buy an addon featuring a ground attack plane.. and then using it to shoot down other people..
  10. Unfortunately, with VAT & taxes I wound up paying about 2000 NOK for my TIR1 when I bought mine 2 years ago. Pricey indeed, but still cheaper than buying from the only norwegian importer who demanded 2500 plus transportation.. damn monopolists :( Even with the low resolution I must say that the TIR1 has to be *the* best single hardware purchase I ever made. I frankly can't imagine flying any combat sim without trackir - which unfortunately means that my copy of Janes F/A 18 is now officially shelved.
  11. Yes we're all amazed at your incredible memorizing skills, Enigma. Now the rest of us however would find it useful if one could check or change keymappings without exiting a flight. Yes I know, we are all weak untermenschen who do not deserve to play Lock On, but there you have it - most of us simply aren't perfect like you.
  12. Lol! Is that a cigarette lighter I see? You must have had a blast building that desk ;)
  13. Okay just to clear a few things up here. I should probably have stated in my first post that I wasn't really trying to say that the actual Moore's law was in jeopardy - ie, that complexity has come to a standstill. However, in popular press the law has been extended to also include processor speeds, memory capacities, and mass storage. The reason I started the thread was to point out the fact that we may be in for a disappointment in regard to Lock On's performace on future systems. There is still room for growth on the graphics side and the game does seem mostly GPU limited, however there
  14. Multiprocessor systems never made much sense for gaming purposes. Hardly any games ever have been written with multithreading in mind, and the only benefit you gain by having extra CPUs is that the game can run on a dedicated CPU. If you run many apps in the background that consume CPU, you may notice improvements in speed but if not then buy an FX-55. Your socket 949 mainboard will support dual-core CPUs too, so when there are more games out that benefit from multiprocessing you can get one.
  15. Yes, and new motherboards & HDDs will support command queue reordering which futher improves multi-tasking performance (todays IDE HDDs are abysmal once you get more than one active task requesting data from mass storage); clearly, our systems will keep getting faster one way or another. The whole industy is geared towards growth through obsolescence rather than through spare parts replacement, and as long as it can be done they will keep making systems that are better. The big challenge here is that writing parallel code is exponentially more complex than writing serial code. Any task
×
×
  • Create New...