New Screens Friday 9.15.

[Starlight]

10% warning for thread hijacking or for showing unpleasant things? I recall dozens of hijacked threads none of them with warnings inflicted...

 

If you just used the info to correct bugs it would be 10x better ;)

[Pilotasso]

Trident, that was the most beautifuly self-answered set of questions I've ever seen. In other words, you're right. On all counts... :D

 

 

I think I should humbly ask you (and all others involved in BS) not to missinterpret my vents of frustration, I know there were lots of difficulties for ED that reflects what LOMAC is, I know in order to survive and keep on going to be the only braves to develop SIMs like this (the others you thinking I forgot about have yet to prove themselves) ED need to do continuous developing (knowing all developers do but:) being it more obvious with LOMAC in respect dissimilar items getting donne in detriment of others, seems to me LOMAC is changing from what its original theme was, into something else.

 

This is one of my fav hobbies at home, I start feeling the need to evolve past LOMAC already and helicopters have never been my thing. The original content of the game as far as I could undertand will only change by 1 AA weapon and thats it. This is my personal view and of course its just one more in a crowd that is impossible to statisticaly satisfy entirely.

 

Im still awaiting for that drug dealers evil fliable MD-500's . ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

Rep inbound, Starlight. You simply posted the truth.

[Chicote]

Basic summary is that where LOMAC is good its very good, a high level of attention has been paid to certain areas - notably visuals - and they work very well. Other areas have been neglected which lead to continued frustration because they are critical apects of the game that need attention. Would be good to hear from ED or anyone to see if any resource was being freed up to address these issues rather than improving eye candy which further hits our existing fps problem. Areas that still remain clunky in LOMAC are. 1. AI, 2. Mission Editor, 3. FPS, 4. Basic navigation between screens within the game.

 

As someone who's been addicted to this game since Flanker 1 days I still think its the best sim we have but its potential still has'nt been realised and won't until these issues start to be addressed.

[dodger42]

Starlight you brought up a bunch of very valid points, and why not post it in this thread? Each week or so these new screens come out which do look fantastic, but they also sideline the significant issues already inherent in the product. I'm sending rep over because you backed up your points with screens and clear commentary.

 

ED of course are entitled to develop and release as they see fit. Ultimately if the userbase is ignored long enough a new flightsim will become available whose development team listens more to the communities issues. People will switch and likely never return.

 

Is it foolish to think that one day developers might post lists of new features and bug fixes and allow the community to vote? The developer could choose to do with that info what they will, but at least they would know if they are in or out of touch with the community.

[EvilBivol-1]

...seems to me LOMAC is changing from what its original theme was, into something else.

Sure. LOMAC was originally a Ubisoft product which attempted to model a series of contemporary jet combat aircraft, but unlike previous such simulations, provide each with its own appropriate characteristics. Working independently, ED is operating on a very different philosophy. Starting with 1.1 (and much more so with 1.2), they are making a simulation of a single aircraft to the point where you could actually train pilots on it (my personal opinion). Lock On is a platform they're using in developing their next generation flight sim. Its unfortunate if the Ka-50 is not to your liking, but in truth its development history dates further back than most of us even imagine. Much like the development of the next generation sim is further along than most of us even imagine...

 

I, like all other testers who tend to discuss the matter on the boards, sympathize with many points raised here. And, like them, I'd propose that if you enjoy Lock On today you will only enjoy it more with 1.2, regardless of your feelings toward helicopters. ED is not there to answer and explain every decision made in development. If you really believe they do not take user input into account and are simply out to steal your cash, you're not reading the same forum that I am...

[S77th-GOYA]

Working independently, ED is operating on a very different philosophy. Starting with 1.1 (and much more so with 1.2), they are making a simulation of a single aircraft to the point where you could actually train pilots on it (my personal opinion).

But that doesn't mean ED has to cut ties and support of the software that we have already purchased. The problems that exist, (AI, for example) effect the 25T and will effect the Ka-50 as well. ED is putting their hard work into these new projects and placing them in this flawed environment with flawed flyable aircraft and weapons.

 

Lock On is a platform they're using in developing their next generation flight sim. Its unfortunate if the Ka-50 is not to your liking, but in truth its development history dates further back than most of us even imagine. Much like the development of the next generation sim is further along than most of us even imagine...

So they are selling a developmental work in progress?

 

How long the Ka-50 has been in development is completely irrelevant to the problems that are not being fixed.

 

ED is not there to answer and explain every decision made in development. If you really believe they do not take user input into account and are simply out to steal your cash, you're not reading the same forum that I am...

One might think you reading a different forum if you think people want ED to explain themselves. People want the software to simulate the real world, not talk from the developers.

[EvilBivol-1]

So they are selling a developmental work in progress?

How's that? They are selling an add-on to Lock On, which besides a new flyable aircraft modeled to an unprecedented level of realism will add numerous other improvements to the game. I don't how much those improvement may or may not be to your liking though. The fact that work is continued on future products doesn't make this one any less viable.

 

Outside of that, me and you alone have been through this twice already. I'm not here to argue or defent ED's decisions (maybe try to explain to whatever extent possible) and I do understand your point of view. Maybe instead of running in circles every few weeks about the same old thing, it would be better for everyone to simply wait for more details, or the release itself and decide then...

 

But I guess the flight sim community always had a heart of passion. :)

[S77th-GOYA]

So they are selling a developmental work in progress?

 

How's that?

 

Lock On is a platform they're using in developing their next generation flight sim.

 

 

We've already been told that there will be no fixes to the other flyables and the work for 1.2 is concentrated on the helo only. Unless that isn't true, there are people who are upset about the lack of support ED is giving their chosen rides, especially the F-15. Not to mention the myriad other problems with this game as it exists now besides the flyables themselves and the lack of some things that limit what can be accomplished, such as a debrief log so that a dynamic campaign can be implemented. The community is calling for these things and all we hear is, "You're gonna love the shiny new Ka-50".

 

Sit quietly and wait when what we've been told is going to happen is not what we want to happen? Seriously?

 

Now:

 

add numerous other improvements to the game.

 

If by numerous other improvements, you mean shiny new ground vehicles, that is not an improvement where LOMAC needs it. If you mean something else, please elaborate.

[ALDEGA]

... yadda yadda yadda ...

Want some cheese with that whine?

 

You expect ED to eternally release updates and improvements for your personally preferred items until you think they're 100% perfect and hate them it they don't? Get real, Battlefield 2 still crashes today, and that's with the largest software entertainment company behind it, EA.

 

ED has supported their products quite well.

They don't have huge budgets or enourmously large development teams.

That's probably why they develop new technologies in steps:

* 1.1 AFM: Advanced Flight Model

I hope you acknowledge this is a big step forward, not contested by any flightsim today, or tomorrow

* 1.2 AAS: Advanced Aircraft Simulation with "detailed, clickable cockpit"

* + more stuff

 

These technologies will find their way into new products such as Tank Killers.

[ALDEGA]

But don't programmers have to give each of the new units damage models, gunnery modelling, etc? And I really don't know, but are you sure there are no ED employees making 3D models?

Please read:

I said NO PROGRAMMERS are making 3D models.

I'm sure Valery Blazhnov is better in C++ than 3D Studio Max.

 

The damage model and animations are done by the modeller.

Did you really think they have to create thousands of lines of code for each new vehicle? The programmers create code to handle specific types of vehicles, sort of a framework, which allows arbitrary vehicles to be implemented in the framework (cfr. the list of model "arguments").

As long as the vehicle fits in the framework, no additional development is required, besides some parameterization perhaps (to define the type of the guns, skins definition, weapons pylon definition for aircraft).

 

Many of the new models seen in the screenshots are improved versions of existing AI units (helicopters and ground vehicles). It's simply a swap of models.

 

* disclaimer:

Explanation above may not be 100% correct.

[Chicote]

Frustration is probably driven by the fact that flight sims are a niche market and helo sims are a niche market within the flight sim market so unless ED is offering some substantial fixes for LOMAC along with the helo addon it looks like a dead end product with a limited audience until either ED or someone else comes up with the next decent sim. Would be good to know if there are any substantial fixes planned.

[pho3nix]

sometimes LO makes me think of it as a Bubbly but a very beautiful girl

 

apt and a absolute crack up :)

 

Want some cheese with that whine?

 

love it, this fourms on fire, who ever said repeating the same old stuff over and over again is no good for the forum? its whats keaping it alive (sarcasm)

 

Wit is the spice of sim-life :)

 

just wait, Iam gona get some popcorn...

 

P.S. nice model BTW!

[zaelu]

You sound like talking politics :D .

 

 

I see same debates in IL-2 comunity... Almost same issues.

 

We can talk and understand about game limitation but we seem cannot understand limitation of the resources of people that build those programs.

 

After Call of Duty 2 was released and gathered alot of cash the devs retreat in vacation or something and left the game without serious "flaws" patched for more than half of year. Even after the patches people don't feel the game is "OK" but guess what... Call of Duty 3 will not be for PC... thanx a lot...

 

So...here we have a bunch of people that build a far more complex software for less money (as far as I can tell), aparently for a real passion for planes. This people not only that don't give up but, they build new things that raise the bar further and further.

 

Ah... the game has bugs? well... what do you know... I was not counting on a bug free software and especialy not on one build in conditions far worse than DICE had.

 

I gave the example of CoD 2 just as an... example but, there are dosens of other games with big fat budget that ended up in... recycle bin.

 

I agree it could be frustrating to hit the bugs over and over but before throwing rocks we should try to imagine how we would do it better.

 

P.S. Personaly I tend to see more the "visual" bugs, maybe other will see the sound as primary objective for improving and so on. When I see declarations like: The ground units should be just dots waiting to be destroyed I get a feeling that more people are def than I could imagine.

[Weta43]

Does anyone know if the Russian Flanker threads are also full of people whining & asking for patches to that game?

[Starlight]

When I see declarations like: The ground units should be just dots waiting to be destroyed I get a feeling that more people are def than I could imagine.

 

Have you ever tried to watch vehicles from something higher than a house? They're dots.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, highly skilled Apache pilots using hyper-tech vision systems with night capabilities and high magnification, mis-identified some M2 Bradley for Iraqi IFV... and they killed some friendlies. Could you please tell me which Iraqi IFV looks similar to the M2 Bradley? None. Why did this happen? because APCs and vehicles in general look like boxy dots when flying at 200+ mph, even at low level.

In the Kosovo war, NATO aircraft mistakenly bombed a civilian convoy, because (I stand to official declarations, don't want politics here) one of the head tractors was mistakenly identified as an APC.

And I could go ahead for hours...

 

I end the post describing what an A-10 pilot (one the Hog drivers who were trained for the "simple task" to defend the Fulda gap) said in an interview:

I pop up over a ridge line and there's four things out there - an APC, a ZSU, a tank and a truck - 50% of the time I can't tell which is which because in the heat of the battle I'm not going to sit there and say "Okay, which one is the tank?" To hell with that - if I see something, I'm going to put the cross on it, squeeze the trigger and break off. If it's a tank, great. If it's not a tank, great. The longer time you spend on final, straight and level, the greater the chance of you getting shot down.

 

Is that enough? I recall that the A-10 is a Lomac flyable AC. Do you understand now what I mean for "dots"?

 

 

For those interested, the book quoted is USAFE: A primer of Modern Air Combat in Europe by Michael Skinner and George Hall (1988 Edition - there is also a 1983 edition, but I think the 1988 is a bit more "modern") :) I bought it maybe for $ 3,00 or 5,00 USD on ebay ;)

[zaelu]

You are yelling for nothing... they are "dots", as you describe them, curently in the game... proven you are far enough. But that doesn't mean we have to fly "Tacview" like sim.

 

I spend more time just flying than attacking... and many of us here do the same... most probably you too. I like to have the impression I fly in a realistic looking world and not though the pixels. If you want that... you can achieve it by going as low as posible in the graphic settings.

 

And I was refering at the fact that you don't seem to aknoledge that others may feel that other things coud be done first or faster atleast. I didn't say that AI is perfect or FMB is outstanding... I said that apparently they cannot be redone with the current developer logistic or within the current game engine or time frame or whatever. That's because it seems you try to say that they are doing it on purpose like they actualy don't care.

 

If you want so badly those emprovements feel free to try to help.

 

P.S. From a small plane flying around 2K I could recognize a small Ambulance and many other types of cars... like trucks, buses, small cars. Shurely I wasn't in the heat of battle but neither I am an eagle eye. The biggest limitation of a A10 pilot on the mission is not his vision but the overload of his mind... and mistakes like you described are bound to happen.

[Pilotasso]

Does anyone know if the Russian Flanker threads are also full of people whining & asking for patches to that game?

 

You are walking a fine line now. Not because of myself or the 1.2 critics but rather because of your irrelevant but confrontational post.

[Pilotasso]

Sure. LOMAC was originally a Ubisoft product which attempted to model a series of contemporary jet combat aircraft, but unlike previous such simulations, provide each with its own appropriate characteristics. Working independently, ED is operating on a very different philosophy. Starting with 1.1 (and much more so with 1.2), they are making a simulation of a single aircraft to the point where you could actually train pilots on it (my personal opinion). Lock On is a platform they're using in developing their next generation flight sim. Its unfortunate if the Ka-50 is not to your liking, but in truth its development history dates further back than most of us even imagine. Much like the development of the next generation sim is further along than most of us even imagine...

 

I, like all other testers who tend to discuss the matter on the boards, sympathize with many points raised here. And, like them, I'd propose that if you enjoy Lock On today you will only enjoy it more with 1.2, regardless of your feelings toward helicopters. ED is not there to answer and explain every decision made in development. If you really believe they do not take user input into account and are simply out to steal your cash, you're not reading the same forum that I am...

 

well yeah, helicopters have not beeing my thing, not because of teh aircraft itself but rather the SIM its inserted in. Off all helicpters SIM I tryied I got bored. Something entirely new would have to come up and Im not talking about AFM.

 

Anyway, as I said on your quote, thats just my opinion, but when you swich from an AA to a purely AG dedicated SIM you are leaving the AA users (I would rather be multirole but had no other choice with LOMAC) hanging in the air without with such a sudden change of focus of the game.

 

My BS aquisition still depends on my personal life (about to take 180º turn) but if I can I will still buy it, even if it is just ti keep playing online or maybe not (its your fault if you failed to comunicate other non mentioned improvements ;) ).

 

Cheers.

[Starlight]

there seems to be a misunderstanding.... I don't want ED to cancel new 3D models or things like that because

- Every improvement is good

- Those models are really cool

- Even if I wanted I don't have the power to do it ;)

- New 3D models don't have much to deal with my bug list

 

Instead I'm saying that some features which are currently employing programmers a lot, could have been delayed to make some room for some basic and trivial bug hunting. Aircraft not able to take off or to fly in formation IMHO (but I feel it's quite a common thought) are much a nastier problem than having bullets not rebouncing away from the ground....

 

Having said that, LockOn, FC and BS are ED's work, so they do what they want, I'm just giving advices... maybe you're all much more experienced than me so you don't need my thoughts....

 

Today LockOn is a good game, but it could be a lot better with some small improvements. I think that modelling a brand new advanced phyisics flight model for a helo is 1000x harder than solving the whole bunch of bugs visible in my screens.

 

Being a programmer myself anyway I understand that sometimes is much more interesting to model something new and hard instead of doing a boring work of trivial bug-fixes, i.e. it looks better to work "on the edge" than doing a routine job...

 

Anyway one should also consider that today LockOn wins because is THE ONLY modern jet sim. Falcon AF is a good game but has 1998-kinda graphics... FighterOPS is still very very WIP. WoE is much more an arcade....

but who knows tomorrow...

[Starlight]

My BS aquisition still depends on my personal life (about to take 180º turn)

 

are you gonna change the first part of your signature? ;)

[GGTharos]

I'll re-iterate that IT WAS NO SECRET that ED would be concentrating full-on on the Ka-50 for BS. They made this -very- clear.

 

Despite this, there's a bit of improvement or change for nearly everyone, and the Ka-50 lays the foundation of the code needed to build accurate, high-quality simulation of further aircraft. It is a foundation for the future, wether you like helos or not (And I bet once you try it, you will -likely- be interested).

 

ED is not making the new 3D models, nor their animations - third parties are, and yes, it takes a little bit of time for ED to actually add them, but if you think they're not hard at work squashing bugs in the Beta, you're quite sorely mistaken.

 

There is a -huge- load of work to do.

[Glowing_Amraam]

Yeah and besides....don't you think these new 3d models will fit in very nicely in ED's future projects? ;)

 

*speculating*

[Weta43]

Pilotasso said: "You are walking a fine line now. Not because of myself or the 1.2 critics but rather because of your irrelevant but confrontational post."

 

 

Look Pilotasso - You know, I know & every body here knows that as far as ED is concerned, Lockon as a line is - 1: owned by someone else & 2: Finished after 1.2.

 

As far as I can see 1.2 (& 1.1 to an extent) are primarily technology testers, interim revenue streams & a way to keep interest in EDs work up till the next incarnation of 'Flanker' is released.

 

I just don't get where all the heat comes from. Not only did ED not keep secret the direction they were going, they have repeated themselves ad nauseum.

 

LO is done after 1.2 & 1.2 will focus on the chopper.

 

For 1.2 ED will expend the bulk of their energy on improvements that are either directly applicable to the gameplay in 1.2 or can be carried forward into the new series.

 

It's fairly plainly said, easy to understand & it makes sense at a commercial level.

 

Do we really need 50 posts asking for coding changes to things that ED has repeatedly said they feel are secondary to their present direction? (& think about how much work you're asking them to add - re-work the AI? - how long did it take just to get the radar to not see through mountains - & how many pages of complaints there were about the process. Any changes they make risk creating more bugs & weeks of trying to fix them. Better from where they stand to leave well enough alone - even where some think that's not as good as they'd like it)

 

After 1.2 a new product will be released which will be the starting point for a new product line. (though utilising the advances gained in 1.1 & 1.2.)

There will be a fast jet A2A sim at some stage, but 1.2 is not it & we'll all have to put up with the Lock On faults till they do the re-build for the new line. If the demo for that doesn't have all the improvements you're asking for - then I advise you not to buy that game.

 

The point of my first post was that asking for new FM for the F-15 & Su-27, new radar modelling, new AI logic, new seeker modelling & loads of other things that pop up in this & other threads - asking for these for a line that the developers have repeatedly said is ended seems to me as pointless as aking for improvements & patches for the original Flanker series.

 

I expect 1.2 to be a great sim, but I also expect it will be in many ways a HELICOPTER sim that happens to have legacy jets in it. ED made improvements to the legacy elements of the game with 1.1, & I expect they'll make some with 1.2, but they have said 1.2 is about the chopper.

 

I bit my tongue & I bit my tongue before making the first post, but this whole thread is a lot like listening to my 10 year old when we're in the shop & he's told he can't have any chocolate ... "but why??? can't I just have a little bit ??? "

[Sticky]

LOL I remeber a few years back I posted a wish for richochets in the old lo-mac.com wishlist forum. So Im really happy to se that they finally implemented it :thumbup: But I understand your point Starlight, bad AI can ruin a any sim! And lockon has some serious flaws with the AI..