Would You Pay For AFM In All Flyables

[Mizzy]

Yes I would like to fly all of the aircraft in Flaming Cliffs the new helecopter thing Ka 50.

 

Is all the aircraft planned to be flyable ones?

 

Mizzy

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

rgr Caretaker, I know that if a sdk or the source code were released that it would either cause more problems than its worth, by letting people mess with stuff that they know little about and in the process make the game even more bugged up, but what i am on about is what you say, add nice touches here and there but dont really mess or touch the avionics or flight models as that would be very hard for anyone to do.

 

If there was a sdk then i would like to see new terrain maybe, new objects, maybe cockpit upgrades like MFD's etc, but leaving all the hard stuff that is likely to cause major problems if touched or tweaked.

 

If such a thing did become available, then I think a group similar to that flight sim whatever its called that is never gonna be released yet they charge you for tit bits of info that can be had a few months later, the name escapes me, but a group similar to them may spring up of talented ppl who already know a lot about lockon and its code thus making the sdk that touch more viable if it were in knowledgable hands.

 

whatever happens none of us can say that we havent thoroughly enjoyed the few years that lockon has been out.

 

saying that, i will never be happy until I get a seaking and merlin helicopter to fly :p

[Gazehound]

Your sig seems appropriate for this topic. Every vote for one feature is by necessity a vote AGAINST another feature, that could be done instead. That's why I voted no. AFMs are very nice, but not even in the "top three" of what I'm most missing in this sim.

 

-SK

SK, What are your top 3 (im guessing DC is number one :P).

[SuperKungFu]

Is all the aircraft planned to be flyable ones?

 

Unless ED somehow have all the time in the world and have a lot of money on their hands, i suspect the answer is no. Lock On ends with Black Shark then they move onto Tank Killers and the F-16 sim...etc.

[JaBoG32_Prinzartus]

New Graphics? Then I'd need another system.

*NAAH*

.........

New Flyable (Helo)? Only if my system will be able to play it properly.

*YEAH, OK, AT LEAST SMTHNG NEW TO LEARN*

..........

AFM and simulation specific features + better KI, etc.

*BIG YESSSSSSS*

 

 

 

:horseback

[emenance]

whats that got to do with what we speaking bout ?

 

 

 

I would buy afm addon for lomac, but I would rather ED concentrating on the next generation of sims once BS has been released, as if they did concentrate on afm for all birds and weapons then we will be waiting another year+ for that then another 2/3years maybe more for the next gen lomac which in my opinion is far too long to wait considering a few next gen sims may very well be released in that time.

..

 

Man your right !!!!!!!

 

The technicals have to be considered here and thats why I think new AFM is just an over the top request.

 

What is lost with alot of people that want stuff and build stuff is an understanding of how all of the components in any build of anything needs to match to be optimized with everything......think about it.

 

As a mechanic I know this. I cant stick a hot cam in my Harley and not feed it enough fuel. I cant put NOS on a 1936 Harley flathead and expect it to last!

Some might think as I do that I need a new video card in my box !!!!!!!

[SuperKungFu]

i actually want to know who were the 4 people that voted no and why.

[SwingKid]

SK, What are your top 3 (im guessing DC is number one :P).

 

- A theater that supports realistic missions in an immersive storyline (e.g. NATO airbases, startegic object placement),

- Units that support the same realistic missions/storyline (e.g. USAF goes nowhere without F-15E & EA-6B, Georgia goes nowhere without T-72 & UH-1, etc.)

- Mission editor/debriefing bug-fixes to support a DC to be developed (e.g. saved debriefings in multiplayer, map objects that can be set as destroyed from mission start),

- A user interface that's playable without too much specialized hardware (e.g. Caps, Scroll and Num Lock keys work as modifiers like Shift/Ctrl/Alt, more Padlock options for non-TrackIR users),

- To not have Win98 users denied from playing because their systems don't meet minimum requirements of the copy protection,

 

And, the ability to perform the same tactics and be concerned about the same issues as a real combat pilot during the mission, which covers many sub-topics:

- A corrected Su-25 cockpit field of view that lets us see the bombing pipper in a dive,

- Polyline HUD/HDD/RWR fonts that are readable at all zoom levels, rather than just looking cosmetically pretty when zoomed-in,

- A less-scripted FM for AAMs, that exhibits the difference in range between lofted/non-lofted launch tactic,

- Improved ECM model, supporting triangulation method instead of "burn-through,"

- Communication with, and laser illumination by, FAC for CAS aircraft

- HUD repeater on MiG-29 HDD (and removed checkerboard lines on Su-27 HDD)

- The "C" (color) in "MPCD" for F-15

- The AGM-65K to be usable like an AGM-65K - longer lock range, same magnification as AGM-65D, day-only lock, heavier warhead, "Quick Draw", etc.

 

AFM is very nice and impressive, and I think, one of the greatest programming accomplishments in the history of flight sims! But, I might still trade it for any *one* of the above.

 

Maybe if AFM included ground effect... then I'd put something like, "removal of checkerboard lines on Su-27 HDD" as a lower priority... ;)

But seriously, I just happen to like SFM, almost as much as AFM! I don't know what the big deal is about!

 

DC I'm not sure... With some of the above, maybe I could make it myself.

 

Thanks for asking!

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

i actually want to know who were the 4 people that voted no and why.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=135

 

You could probably add my name to that list of "no"s. The limitations of the existing code make me wish that ED would cut bait on LOMAC and immediately go into their next project with new code. However, I'd be all for AFM flyables for everybody.

[D-Scythe]

I get the feeling that LOMAC is mostly geared towards on-line play, which is fine but it doesn't really take full advantage of everything LOMAC can offer. None of the new features since the V1.01 patch was geared specifically toward single player action, IMO. It seems that the only immersion one can get from LOMAC is in multiplay - single player is still basically as sterile as it was before.

 

Personally, I'd easily pay twice as much money for an add-on that improves on stuff like the AI, wingman management or the ME/campaign builder versus an expansion that adds AFM or another flyable.

 

Of course, none of these SP features are enough to justify the creation of such an add-on, but LOMAC can be like being with someone hot but with an absolutely boring personality. A nice body and pretty face are major selling points for sure, and crucial to making others envious. Yet, the underlying problem is still there, but she keeps getting these cosmetic updates, rather gaining some type of personality. Sure, it's fun when you two are alone the first few times, and when she brings friends along for some multiplay it can be downright fantastic, but the novelty will eventually wear off and it's not something you expect to last.

 

So yeah, in short, I'd rather pay for something that increases the longetivity of LOMAC rather than these constant cosmetic improvements that are fine right now but would be outdated 6 months from now. And whichever way you look at it, AFM is simply a cosmetic update, albeit a big one. LOMAC is a combat sim first and foremost - if I wanted to simply fly around and not shoot things, I'd have bought MSFS instead.

[SwingKid]

http://forum.lockon.ru/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=135

 

Whoa! How'd you do that? Isn't this a private poll?

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

I get the feeling that LOMAC is mostly geared towards on-line play...

 

I know this feeling, but I think it's an illusion.

 

On the one hand, from what little I've seen of it, multiplay Lock On has just as many nagging wishlist items as single player. Whichever is your preferred mode, "the grass is always greener.." ;)

 

On the other hand, I've found that any game that supports on-line play will inevitably be "mostly geared toward" on-line play, since single-player is (or should be) by nature just a subset of multiplayer. Supporting any kind of on-line multiplayer at all easily quadruples a project's complexity, from what I've seen, and eventually dominates everything else.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

 

On the one hand, from what little I've seen of it, multiplay Lock On has just as many nagging wishlist items as single player. Whichever is your preferred mode, "the grass is always greener.." ;)

 

True, but it just seems (illusion or not) that LOMAC is designed more for the multiplay because several key elements crucial for an enjoyable single-player experience are missing/incomplete. For example, you have to communicate verbally with other players on-line to provide your own sense of radio communication which is otherwise very incomplete in the game - there is nothing of the sort offline.

 

And of all the features/improvements made to the game, most of them are most prominent/appreciated in multiplayer. The FAC stuff, missile improvements (AI is going to react the same way during missile evasion, so the story's the same since V1.01), advanced AWACs, tweaked FM, etc.

 

In fact, IMO it's safe to say that LOMAC offline is more like training for LOMAC online.

 

There just isn't enough substance in single player mode to benefit in any meaningful way from these improvements. People speak of LOMAC being "a different game" with every patch, but in reality, the offline experience has been much the same as it was since V1.01, and can be summed up in three words: Pretty, but sterile.

[Rhen]

...the ability to perform the same tactics and be concerned about the same issues as a real combat pilot during the mission...

 

Now this tops my list above all things as well. I think this is where the most effort should be concentrated, perhaps moreso in the next product rather than Lock-on, but if it's possible it would be nice in this as well. But as you say, any time taken to provide this for Lock-on, means it's taken away from manpower geared towards getting a fresh product out the window.

 

Time will tell...

[S77th-GOYA]

And of all the features/improvements made to the game, most of them are most prominent/appreciated in multiplayer. The FAC stuff, missile improvements (AI is going to react the same way during missile evasion, so the story's the same since V1.01), advanced AWACs, tweaked FM, etc.

 

I'm not going to say I represent the whole online community, but I can tell you there are plenty who share this opinion: the things you want for SP are many of the things I want for MP. There are some things we can do for ourselves online, such as comms, and having a wingman who isn't an idiot. I don't envy the SP crowd who is limited to only AI in the air with him. I definitely don't think the grass is greener over there. But I promise you the grass isn't exactly lush over here either.

 

What FAC stuff?

 

The US AWACS is a pain in the ass. She just won't shut up, so you tune her out. Then you miss something important. For example, a squadmate and I were testing a mission. The only plane on the other coalition that was in flight was the enemy AWACS. Both AWACS at 26,000 feet flying loops toward and away from each other. I couldn't tell you how many times we heard "pop-up group" called in a 1 hour flight. All it was was the AWACS losing the enemy AWACS and the reacquiring it. How does an AWACS lose a big A-50 at 26,000 feet 120-150 miles away? Now imagine if there were enemy fighters.

[Caretaker]

The issue for me is, Lock On's flight models are already the best out there for modern air combat even without the AFM features (some weak parts like the landing not withstanding). It is one of the areas where the game shines, and I'm more or less with SwingKid here that concentrating on the weaker parts would be the more sensible thing to do ;)

 

AFM for all would be great to have, but not even close to leaping the game to a new level as features like AI scripting and automatic mission generation capabilities would.

[Kula66]

Caretaker, A2A missiles could do with work ... hence for me the disappointment of learning that the WAFM will not be in 1.2 - even for just AAMs. The advantages of high-low shots are not modelled well - IMHO.

[Andrew_McP]

AFM for all would be great to have, but not even close to leaping the game to a new level as features like AI scripting and automatic mission generation capabilities would.

 

Obviously you're right, I'd pay for those too, particulary the AI stuff. Heck, I'll pay for anything... where do I sign? Are you sure that's London Bridge?

 

But ever since I first flew the Su-27 1.0 DOS demo I've been in love with the Flanker. I didn't really know anything about the real aircraft itself before that, but that demo taught me to care. And ever since then I've been waiting for the chance to just fly around and push that airframe to its limits without meeting holes in the flight model. The 25T is little more than a fluffer for the real deal, and it's frustrating as hell to be so near and yet so far.

 

Of course the biggest problem may not be ED's finances or willpower, but the incredible problems presented by the 27's high AoA performance... particularly the kobra. Without a genuine kobra, the Su-27 will Su-ck. And modelling the flight dynamics well enough to allow that in non-canned form is going to require a whole *heap* of brainpower, and possible a spare processor. The 25 & 25T are far simpler to tackle, which is no doubt why ED started there.

 

And of course if ED do the 27 they'd have to do the F-15 as well or half the folk in Hyperlobby will cry. So that's two big reasons why we might be waiting a very long time. And then a bit longer.

 

Andrew McP

[Caretaker]

Caretaker, A2A missiles could do with work ... hence for me the disappointment of learning that the WAFM will not be in 1.2 - even for just AAMs. The advantages of high-low shots are not modelled well - IMHO.

 

Hey sure, certainly another important feature with (at least for AA engagements) very direct impact on gameplay. At least it's already on the list! :)

[Caretaker]

But ever since I first flew the Su-27 1.0 DOS demo I've been in love with the Flanker.

 

Same here... but as you're saying, can't have an updated Flanker FM in Lock On now without updating the F-15 as well... and then in turn the MiG drivers would complain, so the Fulcrum needs an update too. Which would leave the A-10 the only plane with a standard flight model, with understandable complaints coming from that direction then :)

[Pilotasso]

Hey sure, certainly another important feature with (at least for AA engagements) very direct impact on gameplay. At least it's already on the list! :)

 

gah! I hate contradictions. Someone else aready said the WAFM will be only on Vikhr missiles and wont be included on any other in LOBS. Someone else in the team had said previously that all weapon AFM was due probably to a patch...what gives? o_O

[Kula66]

Pilot, I remember a post from Han that it was too complex for 1.2 ... not enough time available ... something about having to do it for all weapons. I'd be happy if it was just for the 7/9/120/27/73/77s ...

[wasserfall]

What i really like to hear, is what ED itself is planning for the near future!!

 

We all are giving our opinions here( i voted yes), together we are speculating about what we like to see developed, but only once i like to hear a official representative of ED what they are up to!!!

 

Thanks

[SuperKungFu]

ED did say they planned on Tank Killers and the F-16 sim but those are plans and could be changed.

[Animalmother]

no dont change them, me want the f16! :)

 

and they will be expected to make it just as good if not better than the su25!! :)

 

goodbye F4AF and your 8 yr old engine!