Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Whisper

  1. Seems it is not uploaded yet, something like 23K downloaded... Guess we must wait
  2. How would PF affect ED? I don't see ... EDIT : I was not aware of the news behind... Now I may see (sry, slow brain) :) Forget about my comment.
  3. Hello, We've had a discussion on Check-Six forums about how to try creating and using a bullseye system in Lock-On. The first easy solution is to use a waypoint as bullseye and HSI to get our bullseye position and use it during online flights. Problem is, it is irrelevant when several packages, with different waypoints, are playing, cause there is no more common reference point (which is the whole point of a bullseye system ;) ). Well there are workarounds (like additionnal Waypoints for all packages), but that made me think about something completely different. We'll have many LUA scripting commands, some of which can easily give us, let's say, players aircraft position. Also, there are some application around that can add to a 3D renderer additionnal rendering, like text or textures. As an example, check TeamSpeak Overlay which shows you, in-game, who is speaking on Teamspeak at the moment, by writing the name somewhere on the screen, "above" the game render. Check also GameCam, a free in-game video capture utility, who adds some overlay to keep player informed on gameCam status (recording, paused, etc...), and intercept keyboards input to start recording, etc... I bet FRAPS use the same kind of technics (as it has a rendering of FPS) Other things seem to be feasible, like Kegetys & Feersum did for Operation Flashpoint by tweaking a DirectX DLL to add graphical effects to OFP (water reflections, etc...) Well, if we can get positionnal information through LUA scripting, make some calculation to get Bullseye coordinates positions, and give this information back to the player in-game through such overlay, we could built a correct bullseye system, something approaching what Falcon 4 did for F-16. In fact, the bullseye application would be far from the only possible application. Problem is : I don't have a clue on how to make such overlay application :? And I'm searching for information about it. I don't know if it is the correct place to ask for it, but as it concerns Lock-On, I post here. Whis'
  4. I re-launched JFA-18 last night. I had forgotten how immersive the radio environnement was! :shock: Awesome. Each part of a flight is commented like IRL ("arcing" at the end of the carrier take-off pattern, sequencing of ground attacks "target in sight, in hot!", etc...). Background chatter is great, but a poor replacement. In LO, your wingmen do not talk enough, the tower knows like 6 sentences, AWACS is perhaps the more voicy, and your pilot never say a thing :shock: Side effect, more AI commands should be created, meaning there is probably more than just comms to tweak, ie a bigger task than what we think about
  5. Comms is one of the very weak point of Lock-On, IMHO. There is plenty of room for improvement there.
  6. Have to bump this thread for a little question : Since, and it's quite understandable, you seem to not have enough time at hand to model everything you'd like, like in this case terrain, couldn't you rely on the community to help expand this area? I reckon it must be a huge, time consuming task, but probably, with the right tool, not technically impossible for community members. Provided separate terrain files and file format descriptions, tools could be build to create new areas. If a terrain selection feature is added to editor and in-game options, all the best, but that's not even a requirement. This is probably a topic where the community can help without hurting the product nor ED.
  7. Re: the ground war....... Yeah, a bit too much. Same remark for BMPs.
  8. It doesn't affect FPS that much. Main FPS hit for me comes from water quality and scenes. I usually play over land, so I max "scene" and put water to low. My last session strangely had a big hit when facing Su-25, though :( Don't know why. System 2700+, 1Go RAM and ATI 9500 Pro. This mission (no air opposition, strike on hidden artillery vehicles with AAA cover in various valleys) runs very smooth, 30 FPS (what I consider smooth ;) ) Edit : Screens a very little bit edited with "The Gimp" : all resized from 1280x1024 to 900xXXX, first one is sharpened a bit, and I raised contrast while lowering brightness on the second to make it feel more like late evening and deep blue sky.
  9. Not sure it'll be on par quality-wise : Su-25 evasive, but already hit : Going high
  10. GGTharos, I've never seen the TWS mode described like what you said :shock: (things like the ability to track outside of TWS scan zone :shock: :? ). Where did you get your informations from? The simple higher frequence updates can imho explain the need of STT during the burn-through process.
  11. OMG some1 dare say r0xx0r US canon cannot blow up every tank on a battlefield! Kill the infidel! Guys, chill out, try to see his PoV : A-10 canon won't make tank explode the way it does in LO when firing at the tank without particular care or rule of engagement. According to the report he produced, it should be able to disable tanks when used in the correct way, ie rear/sides/grid shots disabling targets, not making them explode in a frontal pass. You're too sensitive each time your M1 enter the equation. Unlike some1, badly interpreting his post, stated, he didn't suggest that only A-10 should have difficulties exploding T-80 while M1 will be destroyed by Su-25, he just suggested that AG guns should be less effective against tanks, regardless of their origin, and keeping real differences between guns, ie A-10 > Su-25.
  12. I've finally made my mind and voted for FA-18. In a market perspective, new content should be the seller. So definitely it should be a new plane, and a bi-engines is better imho ;) BUT, in parrallel, in order to improve the product, existing elements HAVE to be improved, things like comms, EM environement, flight models, etc... In fact, check things in Prov's list. This won't be the selling point, but what will keep the community on product. It's a 2-branches process : sell more with new content, keep community by reinforcing the existing one. I wouldn't mind buying another addon containing new planes, if the level of implementation is on par with what FC seems to offer (will have to see it before ;), AND if overall product continues to be made better by improving existing element. Comms is a perfect example of what could be definitely improved in LOMAC. EDIT : in other word, I think that putting one as the "main" task and everything else as "optionnal" is not a good option.
  13. From what I read in your first post, you're asking if a list of bug/missing features are present in the patch. IMHO the listing of available changes in 1.1 has already been published, and should answer your question. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover the points you raised. Perhaps in future patches, but I don't see it (apart from better AI behavior) come into FC directly. If devs did something, they would have put it in the feature list.
  14. Re: Feedback (bug report) Known (and big) issue, navigation information is not kept on instrument when in any combat mode. Listed 1st in the "US avionnics enhancement wishlist" ;)
  • Create New...