Sim v Game

[S77th-Paralyzer]

I play on a laptop & haven't had that kind of experience. Besides GGT's thoughts, does this happen with other games or programs? Have you cleaned your Windows install recently? Is heat an issue with your setup? When's the last time you cleaned your case and fans? Are you overclocking?

 

Good luck troubleshooting. Hope you can get back in the air on a regular basis.

 

Hello,

 

To answer your questions:

 

1- No overclocking (It's not worth the glitches and headaches just to gain 2 fps :)).

2- No heat issue

3- Like I said I tried flying LOMAC again. I recently reformatted a week ago due to FC w/1.12a putting my system to a halt after 15 mins of play (this happened while playing multi). Couldn't reboot to normal or even safe mode.

4- Fans and PC case is clean. Trust me I'm all for keeping my PC cool :).

 

To GrayGhost:

Graphics card = ATI radeon 9800 pro. Tried every single driver up to 6.5

Sound Card = Creative Audigy ZS

 

I do not think it's drivers or hardware. I have been using the same system since Lock On 1.02. Never had problems with LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs or any patches before 1.12a.

 

Flaming Cliffs runs fine on any patch till 1.12a. I have literally installed Lock On over 5 times because of this problem. Very frustrating!!

 

Thanks for your answers.

[GGTharos]

I believe it saves an error report in the lockon/temp dir.

 

I'll try and get some details as to which file it may be, there's a bunch in here.

 

This is definitely well out of the norm for FC.

[Cosmonaut]

If a sim was 100% realistic, then you'd be strapping yourself into the real jet and flying a real mission.:P

 

I can tell you from experience, even on long boring deployments, I've still had fun, despite the boring parts. Yes you will be bored during portions of the flight, but OVERALL it will still be a fun experience.

 

And, if you happened to engage some enemy aircraft while flying in that 100% realistic sim, I guarantee that you'd be thinking about that pretty cloud of blood, guts, and brains you'd make if you made a mistake. Boring? No way in hell - IF it's 100% realistic. :thumbup:

 

Oh, yeh... I voted - Game. If it was a sim, then I'd be able to use the same tactics I used IRL with the same results. Not in LOMAC. Nevertheless, I still have fun and enjoy the things I can enjoy without getting too frustrated with the things that - if fixed - would make this a tremendous SIM.

 

Now you’re talking!! Hehe toobad sims like that wont be available to Joe public in our lifetime :( although I think I’d still want an accelerated flight button .. spending 4 hours in the saddle sounds painful ;)

[Rhen]

Just 4 hours?? If you think that's bad, try 16 hours!:pilotfly:

[Cosmonaut]

Just 4 hours?? If you think that's bad, try 16 hours!:pilotfly:

 

EeeeeK!!! “Whipes tear from eye.” :cry:

[Rhen]

I believe it saves an error report in the lockon/temp dir.

 

I'll try and get some details as to which file it may be, there's a bunch in here.

 

This is definitely well out of the norm for FC.

 

It's error.txt or errors.txt, I believe. MPlog.txt may also be helpful.

 

They're in the C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Eagle Dynamics\Lock On\Temp if you installed in the default directory.

 

Good luck & hope you fix the problem

[bflagg]

it's definately a game. but being called a sim..

[Kula66]

I voted game - in a Sim real world tactics work, as missiles are currently modelled, they don't. Still a great piece of code all the same and excellent value for money!

[emenance]

What made me laugh is when a friend of mine a marine said I should try playing some of the console games and have some FUN!!!!!! AS if Ghost Recon or the Tom Clancy games were not fun :)

[AndyHill]

The definition I use when speaking of games is "a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" (Salen & Zimmerman: Rules of Play (2004)). Note that this applies to practically every single simulator system out there. Another very important issue about games is that they need to create their own pleasure and keep the player motivated through proper game design. Because that's clearly the case with Lock on it is definitely a game in more than one sence. Since "game" can be a very broad definition and vehicle simulators in themselves can be a subset of "game" it may not be the correct answer to the question. In fact Lock on offers very little in terms of "gameplay", relying mostly on the users' willingness to experience a realistic representation of flying planes. That's why it's mostly a simulator as far as I'm concerned. Lock on would benefit greatly from a more balanced approach and the best way to achieve it would be to include a proper dynamic campaign.

 

SSSSWWWWWWIIIIIINNNNGGGGGGKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDD WEEEEEE NEEEEEEEEED YOUUUUUUUU!!! YOUUUUUU DOOOOON'T NEEEEEEED SLEEEEEEEEP SO KEEEEEEEEEEEP COOOODINNNGGGGGGGG!!!

 

______________________________________________________________

Lock on MUST have a dynamic campaign engine with multiplayer capability!

[Rhen]

:huh:

... balanced game play....

 

:hmm: :argue:

 

That's at least the second time i've heard it. Any "sim" with "balanced game play" is not a sim, but a game/console port/arcade game. Any coding to "balance" the sides takes away from realism - hence - becomes a game.

 

Air combat is not about balanced game play. It's about shooting aircraft down/high explosive landscaping/redecorating, and not about balancing the sides. Each side, EU, US, Russia... all strive to UNBALANCE the engagement. A simulator simulates something about reality - (modern air combat :P perhaps?) To do this, the missiles, radar, aircraft flight dynamics/performance should approximate reality so that "real" tactics and procedures can be used to fight. Switchology is not the most important thing here if what the program's trying to do is SIMULATE modern air combat. I could care less about landing lights, or fire bottles, or the ejection seat modeling. After all this isn't LockOn, Modern Ejection Seat Firing, its about air combat. For air combat to be SIMulated, we need a simulated radar, missiles, guns, damage model, flight model, IFF, IRSTS, HMTS, etc. If those things don't allow us to fly the way we would IF we were flying as a Flanker pilot vs an Eagle driver, then it's a game. Balancing the game play by modeling one thing for one aircraft, and leaving out the same thing in another aircraft just so they can face each other cranium to cranium and (with pilots of equal skill) both pilots have a fighting chance of winning is PURE Black Shark!:doh: Tactics are what balance game play. Not shortcomings in SIMulating the things that are needed to employ tactics and win.

 

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

 

I fly LOMAC because it's still a fun game.

[TucksonSonny]

:huh:

... balanced game play....

 

:hmm: :argue:

 

That's at least the second time i've heard it. Any "sim" with "balanced game play" is not a sim, but a game/console port/arcade game. Any coding to "balance" the sides takes away from realism - hence - becomes a game.

 

Air combat is not about balanced game play. It's about shooting aircraft down/high explosive landscaping/redecorating, and not about balancing the sides. Each side, EU, US, Russia... all strive to UNBALANCE the engagement. A simulator simulates something about reality - (modern air combat :P perhaps?) To do this, the missiles, radar, aircraft flight dynamics/performance should approximate reality so that "real" tactics and procedures can be used to fight. Switchology is not the most important thing here if what the program's trying to do is SIMULATE modern air combat. I could care less about landing lights, or fire bottles, or the ejection seat modeling. After all this isn't LockOn, Modern Ejection Seat Firing, its about air combat. For air combat to be SIMulated, we need a simulated radar, missiles, guns, damage model, flight model, IFF, IRSTS, HMTS, etc. If those things don't allow us to fly the way we would IF we were flying as a Flanker pilot vs an Eagle driver, then it's a game. Balancing the game play by modeling one thing for one aircraft, and leaving out the same thing in another aircraft just so they can face each other cranium to cranium and (with pilots of equal skill) both pilots have a fighting chance of winning is PURE Black Shark!:doh: Tactics are what balance game play. Not shortcomings in SIMulating the things that are needed to employ tactics and win.

 

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

 

I fly LOMAC because it's still a fun game.

 

I am glad that finally someone understood my hidden criticism:

 

Modifications made for getting more balanced (online) game play :

 

1) Top speed F-15C was downgraded (normal Mach 2.5 with clean jet at 35k).

2) Range R-77 was downgraded (first shoot capability versus aim-120C).

3) ECM Su-27 was downgraded (superior of Russian ECM: lack of earlier burn through)

4) R-27EM (Su-33) was downgraded (R-27EM=R-27ER?)

5) Datalink for su-27 was downgraded

6) Kill ratio in the NEZ for AIM-120C downgraded

(This is a nice one for an Su pilot like me :D )

 

 

:bash:

 

Just a minute, I am getting my popcorn … :D

[AndyHill]

A more balanced approach in this case refers to resources allocated towards campaign, AI and other game aspects of the sim/game. Some "game" aspects such as for example dynamic campaigns are even necessary for simulating air combat, because quick tactical decisions and a certain amount of uncertainty are vital element of fighter combat.

 

______________________________________________________________

Lock on MUST have a dynamic campaign engine with multiplayer capability!

[GGTharos]

I am glad that finally someone understood my hidden criticism:

 

Modifications made for getting more balanced (online) game play :

 

1) Top speed F-15C was downgraded (normal Mach 2.5 with clean jet at 35k).

 

No, it's the 15C's engine power that's got a problem there ... a little anemic - but close enough

 

2) Range R-77 was downgraded (first shoot capability versus aim-120C).

 

Pure myth. The 120's range and praricularely is so out of touch with anything resembling the real thing it's not funny. The 77 -well- outranges the 120 in LOMAC. Of course, at low altitudes where the ranges are 1/3 to 1/4 of those they are high up, you might not notice as much ... check minizap (did you DL it? I think SK posted it) ... comparing R77 to AIM120 is not a humongous difference in range there, IIRC.

 

3) ECM Su-27 was downgraded (superior of Russian ECM: lack of earlier burn trough)

 

Myth. Whoever proved it was in any way superior to anything? It's different, but neither its capabilities nor western capabilities are really well known. If anything, from what I've heard 'burn through' should never have been a factor to begin with (burn through range might be a couple km at best in reality, but the problme is that we don't have realistic counter-jammer mechanisms implemented, so burn-through is the compromize), and the jammers should never be kept on all the time like people like to do in LOMAC right now.

 

4) R-27EM (Su-33) was downgraded (R-27EM=R-27ER?)

 

R-27EM and ER use the -same- rocket body. They have the -same- range, same velocities, and so on. What is different is a seeker optimized to reject low-altitude sea-borne radar clutter, and a fuze (and warhead) optimized to destroy small sea-skimming targets ... like the harpoon missile. So I'm not sure what sort of a 'downgrade' you're talking about here ... the difference in sensor capability on this level of detail simply doesn't exist in LOMAC at this point in time.

 

5) Datalink for su-27 was downgraded

It was never implemented properly ... neither was AWACS for the west, or western FDLs. And? ;)

 

Put your popcorn down, you haven't started anything. This is all old news and well-known by most players.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I agree with Andy's definition of balanced gameplay. Right now, the LOMAC world is pretty sterile and the off-line missions all seem to follow a predictable pattern. Oh...and the friendly AI is not very smart.

 

As for the other definition, everything should at least attempt to mimic its real-world equivalent. Learning strengths and weaknesses, along with developing tactics to deal with them should be part of the fun. Nothing should ever be dumbed down or handicapped.

[Invicta]

I would vote for the 'both' option if it existed.

 

Lockon has got to be both. Ofcourse it is a game. We all play it for fun. We go head to head and at the end there is a winner and loser. A game it is. I don't think anyone would disagree.

 

However it is a sim as well. It tries to simulate flying as good as it can, with all the restrictions it has.

 

You can't say 'Its a game because it doesn't do this-and-that'. Like many before me said, a sim is only a sim because it can't do everything the real thing can. So ofcourse there are limitations to what a sim can do. If a sim could do everything then we would all be flying real sukhoi's and F15's. You just have to keep in mind that a simulator can be relatively simple like Lockon and very complex like the ones the military uses, and there's a whole lot of room in between. All sims are equal, but some are more equal then others.

 

Ofcourse you can't use Lockon to properly train yourself to fly a real Su-27 into combat. However there are a ton of other things that you can teach yourself by flying lock-on. Maybe not the combat part, but how about flight basics.. instrument reading..

[kirk7312]

game

 

I vote to game. no reason , just feel.

[Pilotasso]

I am glad that finally someone understood my hidden criticism:

 

Modifications made for getting more balanced (online) game play :

 

1) Top speed F-15C was downgraded (normal Mach 2.5 with clean jet at 35k).

2) Range R-77 was downgraded (first shoot capability versus aim-120C).

3) ECM Su-27 was downgraded (superior of Russian ECM: lack of earlier burn through)

4) R-27EM (Su-33) was downgraded (R-27EM=R-27ER?)

5) Datalink for su-27 was downgraded

6) Kill ratio in the NEZ for AIM-120C downgraded

(This is a nice one for an Su pilot like me :D )

 

 

:bash:

 

Just a minute, I am getting my popcorn … :D

 

1) True but not that critical compared to other deficiencies on other areas.

2) your a bit missguided here. I hope you noticed the R-77 in 80% of the occasions is shot from low altitude VS often the high flying F-15. Theres a reason why eagle drivers like to do that. The only way the R-77 is going to outshoot an AMRAAM is for the mig to take the fight up high where it will be heavily outdetected. If you think the Adder should outshoot the AMRAAM in any scenario then your kidding yourself. Better LOPE your mig to take the Phoenix intead for science fiction solo missions.

3)Theres no real world declassifyed data avaiable to have realistic hopes of this affirmation being true. You just cant tell.

The reality is that usualy US aircraft have their ECM systems based on better ELINT. Further more, unlike GGTharos said dedicated ECM aircraft provide standoff jamming capability, while airborne ECM pods do not. Otherwhise current tactics for 3rg gen aircraft wouldnt justify the use of dedicated jammers at all.

Chances are that both aircraft get burn through earlier than 15 miles in this game wich is so under the missiles max range that its absurd. SOmetimes I get tally on bogey before burn through.

 

4)That was taken out of thin air... show me evidence how much better the EM should be.

People often associate more powerfull rocket motor with absolute PK wich is one of those mind self tricks that I have never understood.

 

5) Consider yourself happy with that present on the flanker because the eagle doesnt have one at all like it should be.

 

6) yes it is, when fired in a look down scenario. This is suposed to be fixed in 1.2 wich I predict will make alot of angry people who like to fly low to get their heat seekers on the enemies face.

[Guest Cali]

1) Better LOPE your mig to take the Phoenix intead for science fiction solo missions.

 

LOL, I seen a guy do that 2 days ago in the IA server.

[ericinexile]

It's a sim...

 

...and a game. I have to get a sim-check once a year and when I do, it is in a big $20 million box suspended on huge hydraulic jacks. That monster is definately a sim. However, even with all windows in the "box" projecting an image with detail and depth, I don't feel that the sense of immersion is any greater than what I can get from LOMAC with my new TrackIr. The game aspect of LOMAC comes from the lack of a real battlefield. One doesn't "vulch" in real life. F4:AF fans will say that's where their sim really is a sim. But the dynamic campaign, while a big improvement is no more real. I flew recently (in F4:AF) with a guy who said he had 54 kills so far on DAY THREE of the MV Korea Campaign. Does that sound real to anyone?

 

But heres the clincher: The sims that are used at every large Air Force Base don't have dynamic campaigns either. The do set pieces much like we do. So in my opinion, LOMAC models the way jets fly like nothing I have ever flown with my computer. It's beautiful. And it's been that was since Flanker 1.0.

[GGTharos]

One doesn't "vulch" in real life.

 

Are you aware that the most successful air campaigns were largely so -because- of 'vulching'? ... ie. aircraft destroyed on the groundbefore they could ever be put to use ....

[Kula66]

And mounting CAP over enemy airfields was just about the only way of downing Me262s in Big-W!

[192nd_Erdem]

One doesn't "vulch" in real life.

 

Sorry, Germans already did the "lamest" vulching with the opening of Barbarossa :D

[GhostRiderLSOV]

Some people should have sent a letter of complaint to the enemy forces about base raping. ;)

[alert_]

In a sim you can use real world tactics, in a game you can have some fun...