Jump to content

A serious discussion


23rd_SATAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you need so many words to "defend" this sim it speeks for itself.

 

 

Look at how many words are used in F4's defense and how much strife it causes.

 

Nothing new there IMHO.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its quite amusing reading some of these posts. Threads like these are worth saving on your hard drive for prosperity and a dern good giggle a a few years down the track.

 

The pioneering features that ED are integrating into this little chopper are going to raise the bar for all future Addons to a level of reality never imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

Well...the avionics and comms-modelling bar was set 8 years ago. I'm honestly hoping this new offering exceeds that. The avionics and systems management environment look good in the movies we are getting, but are the comms any good? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its quite amusing reading some of these posts. Threads like these are worth saving on your hard drive for prosperity and a dern good giggle a a few years down the track.

 

The pioneering features that ED are integrating into this little chopper are going to raise the bar for all future Addons to a level of reality never imagined.

 

LOMAC was going to raise the bar on what was achieved with Flanker to levels never imagined and its still not there. Maybe we need some better info on whats planned before we hype up this sim again. Losing faith in ED's ability to deliver since BS is not of interest if there's no LOMAC improvements and the next flight SIM's still somewhere over the horizon (well beyond BVR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, and LOMAC failed. But it did give us something relatively rare: The ability to fly both sides of the conflict.

 

As for BS? It's taking time. There are hurdles and there are problems, but it -is- progressing. This isn't like WMD's in Iraq, and I'm not trying to forge proof of any sort.

 

BS is moving ahead - the time required for its completion was underestimated for -many- reasons, undoubtedly including those contracts for battlesim sneaking up on them - but what exactly are you complaining about?

 

That it's taking too long? Well, yeah, it is, and those are some of the reasons - that's all I can really say.

 

You think that it won't deliver anything? What, are you nuts? What do you think they're doing all this time? What do you think we're testing? :)

 

And actually, the next flight sim is BVR, but it's high-aspect ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pioneering features that ED are integrating into this little chopper are going to raise the bar for all future Addons to a level of reality never imagined.

 

From what I read are most people not concerned about what was put *into* this little chopper(-part of the sim), but about the outer world and the aircrafts (i.e. F-15)...

 

But as said, there are no other sims to compete at that level, so I will buy it for sure, and be it for the Ka-50 alone (without any changes to the rest of the LockOn-world).

And sure was the 25T a *huge* step towards serious simulation :thumbup: .. the more it hurts to see the engine suffer from the old problems/limitations.

 

But nevermind, I'll wait and see :)

basic

for translators ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You think that it won't deliver anything? What, are you nuts? What do you think they're doing all this time? What do you think we're testing? "

 

 

Guess we expect BS to deliver a Helo since fixing anything else in LOMAC ie mission editor, AI is "working on old code" and won't get done. So if you're not interested on Helo's not much more to expect from BS. Hence we wait for the next SIM. Unless anyone wants to let us know if there's anything else in BS to keep fixed wing fans engaged. This is'nt underestimating or not appreciating the work ED and the testers are doing on BS but the helo's not where I guess most of us see the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

Very good points, Chicote. If future buyers aren't interested in a helicopter sim, what improvements DOES Black Shark offer for the other aircraft? Don't give me 3D models either, since those are really only useful in movies. How about those virtually non-existent single player COMs, eh? What about those? Any improvements there, or will we still be COMs-isolated from the outside world? Decent AI for ATC would be a great place to start, and I haven't seen that yet either. A certain 8-year-old sim won't be telling me to land on a flight of C-130s, but LOMAC still does. Sorry to be so critical, but if we don't bitch, then nobody will know what we want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess we expect BS to deliver a Helo since fixing anything else in LOMAC ie mission editor ...

What specific problems do you see with the mission editor?

Is it the ME itself or the lack of features? (e.g. triggers, scripting etc, perhaps more like OFP's mission features)

The latter isn't an ME deficiency, it's a deficiency in the game engine. You can't have triggers in the ME if the game engine doesn't support them. The ME is a GUI for creating content for the game engine, nothing more.

 

Please indicate which one you mean.

 

btw, check this post regarding IL-2's FMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this code will be used for future aircraft - the reason why they are not tweaking the existing flyables is that they do not want to spend time on all code. It is my impression that ED would prefer to eventually just port everything to the new system they have developed.

 

I really don't know (obviously) what there's under the code of LOMAC, anyway i suspect that place an IFF cue i.e. would not be so time consuming. Also, trimming the missiles capabilities with the current model would not solve the problems on its roots but at least (IMHO) improve the situation. Then we would have a nice time waiting BS. Thats the point. All the gizmos that will come will BS will be surely welcome: i've said that i'm not very interested in the KA-50, but i must agree with you that under the helo there are many improvements that will be at the base of the future addons too.

 

Also an official word on what will be and what will not be in BS (also outside the helo) from ED will be welcome... :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, trimming the missiles capabilities with the current model would not solve the problems on its roots but at least (IMHO) improve the situation.
Obviously, implementation of the KA-50 and related code is taking up a lot of resources. Also there was the notion of the WAFM (advanced weapon "flight model" and simulation) which would/will improve these things. So if ED invest time in tweaking the old missile simulation, that work would/will be undone when they eventually introduce WAFM (Tank Killers ???). It's sort of double work, and they probably don't have enough time to do it, as a temporary improvement.

 

Also an official word on what will be and what will not be in BS (also outside the helo) from ED will be welcome... :music_whistling:
The official features are listed on the website. Perhaps there will be more features in BS when it goes RTM, but ED probably won't announce them until they know for sure that these features won't be dropped.

 

We all know what happens when a feature is announced and then dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its interesting to see this thread here....so I guess I'll post my say before it is closed..

 

I already gave up on lomac in the aspect of "HAVING FUN". My 100$ saitek is collecting dust at home. For FUN I play IL2: PF once in while trying to do a mission and then land.

 

Ever since LOMaC came...one thing was for sure...NO BALANCE. I don't wanna make this a hate mail... and nothing is going to change by what I say..anyways.....but.... Flanker 2.5 was actually BETTER in some aspects.

 

I HATE...I FREAKIN DESPISE the mission editor in llomac. It doesn't allow to EVEN make missions the way I want them to look...if I wanted to make a movie or so....NOT EVEN PLAY...since Fps is soo low for good scenarios. For god;s sake...I tried making movies 3 times....everytime giving up due to the mission editor....never being able to properly place objects as needed.

 

If I was to give ED a direction...I would say BALANCE. Do not include a 10 poly aircraft with a 1000000 poly aircraft. That is what spoils the immersion inn a game. If the game has 90% of 100 poly entities...keep them that way. Atleast it is equal and time can be spent to improve gameplay and gameplay editing. Il2 is a perfect example of a sim done right. It is probably one of the most successful and most fun air combat sims out there.

 

For graphics...I would ask them to look at SH3. Amazing. Not overboard...but fitting. the human model in it is probably 10 polys....but that is good enough.

 

For dC look again at SH3 or falcon 4.

 

Anyways....I probably may not get bs...but..I guess I'l keep a watch on how things are going.

 

cheers,

 

witchking

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HATE...I FREAKIN DESPISE the mission editor in llomac. It doesn't allow to EVEN make missions the way I want them to look *snip* everytime giving up due to the mission editor....never being able to properly place objects as needed.
Sounds fair, but can you be more specific to "not being able to position objects the way you want to place them"?

 

If I was to give ED a direction...I would say BALANCE. Do not include a 10 poly aircraft with a 1000000 poly aircraft. That is what spoils the immersion inn a game. If the game has 90% of 100 poly entities...keep them that way. Atleast it is equal and time can be spent to improve gameplay and gameplay editing. Il2 is a perfect example of a sim done right. It is probably one of the most successful and most fun air combat sims out there.
By "balance" you mean consistency in graphics? As in "relative realism" by keeping all graphics at the same level to create a sense of realism, even if the graphics "in se" aren't that great?

Just trying to understand you correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a saddened of how things tend to turn out with flight sims.

 

DID used to give us some of the best combat flight sims (EF2000 etc) and guess what, they got bankrupt (afaik).

 

Now there's LOMAC and most of the people are complainaing about its realism.

 

Making a realistic combat flight simulation is a great task compared to other computer games. You have to know a great deal about physics, avionics, tactics (for AI planes) and strategy (for dynamic campaign) to get it somewhat realistic. Imagine programming all that yourself. It's ultra hard.

 

The point I'm going to make is that any 3D first person shooter game is much more simple to develop (=cheaper), will have more buyers because it will not appeal only a specific target group (us) and it might live longer because people won't get frustrated with it (if done right) after some time.

 

The essential problem with (combat) flight simulations is that there is a limited market for it and that it is very, VERY difficult to make. Very many people play Quake, Half Life and so on. But only a fraction of that number would take the time to learn and enjoy a flight sim.

 

If you combine these facts (limited target group + hard to make) it is actually pretty unlikely for any company to attempt to produce a flight simulation.

 

Well, where do I go from there... I've been loving flight (and other) sims from the time I got introduced to EF2000. But it seems that in reality we're not going to see any decent flight simulations EVER because whoever tries to produce them is either going to

 

a) bankrupt

b) taking ages and ending up being vaporware

c) releasing a somewhat decent product with glitches that still make people complain and maybe make gameplay no fun

 

=(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I was to give ED a direction...I would say BALANCE. Do not include a 10 poly aircraft with a 1000000 poly aircraft. That is what spoils the immersion inn a game. If the game has 90% of 100 poly entities...keep them that way. Atleast it is equal and time can be spent to improve gameplay and gameplay editing. Il2 is a perfect example of a sim done right. It is probably one of the most successful and most fun air combat sims out there.

 

 

Exactly. Just look at F-14 and F-18 for example. Both are AI aircraft, yet one has ultra detailed model and one has it from 8 years ago? How is this? They should make all AI aircraft modelled at same level. Ofcourse there is nothing wrong with high detailed AI aircraft either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this on the first page:

 

"In addition to the new level of realism applied to the Ka-50, an equal amount of attention has been paid to weapons and artificial intelligence (AI) controlled aircraft. All AI aircraft will use the same flight dynamics as player-controlled aircraft. The AI has also been improved to showcase attack helicopter operations."

 

Maybe all the AI will have a little improvement because of that. The AI coliding on the ground I think is due to the fact that its movement is quite scripted. If what is on the first page is true then a IL-76 "set" to bomb something maybe will fail some how to get the job done "perfectly".

 

Anyway... many people around here tend to accept that building a "perfect sim" is due to end in bankrupcy. The reasons are well known.. kinda.

 

Some gave examples in F4 team and EF2000... I don't know exactely their financial status but I know that building airsims is not a gold mine. Wouldn't be actualy a smart move from a developer to actualy assure himself of the revenue first, before the actual building or release of the sim? That would be smart given the examples we have.

 

So if ED build SU-25T and now KA-50 on some external "sponsor" order meanwhile reducing the number of bugs in the game, iemproving different aspects and gathering imformation and technology for a "next sim" that is bound to come is a good way of continuing to stay in "the game" while not risking your neck.

 

Shure they have to accept the battles in the boards where many people will rather want all beating their legs to the ground.

 

I am realy intrigued... is there any other sim in which you can actualy fly F15 online better than here? Or A10? Or the other flyable? Or all of them at once? I think not... I mean, I would have heard at least.

 

So if it isn't any game like this one (as I maybe wrongly presume) ... as bad as this one if you wish but, with all the features... Wouldn't be normaly to put a question first before this "I WANT"? - Is it posible?

 

Shure the ultimate argument will be: "I payed my dollars on it... It says it has F15... is broken... I want to be fixed ASAP" etc. Well, I didn't bother to read the EULA of this game but... ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, its extremely rare for me to post in the this kind of thread but....like the rest of you I guess...I just can't stop myself!

 

#1 Gundelgauk - sensible post and I agree.

 

#2 IMHO no matter how loud the whining....no matter how many (endless) threads etc etc, ppl will buy BS when it comes out...."just in case"...even if they have no interest in the chopper...in the same way ppl bought FC when they had no interest in the Frog...or perhaps they spent £30/$50 on FC for bug-fixes! :helpsmilie:

 

These discussions are fairly pointless because the development path is set, ED know what they're trying to achieve and it takes as long as it takes for them to feel happy with a product they want to release. I'm sure they can't help but know "our" opinions on what are bugs/not strong enough features/functionality etc - so discussions like these are merely for people to vent.

 

Now, I don't see any other sim with the combined fidelity (of gfx, flight model, avionics etc) either currently available or on the horizon (vapor-ware not included). Whilst the product is not perfect (are any?) and things like the ME drive me nuts (as a server mission builder/training mission builder), I WILL support ED via my cash and exercise a little restraint on the forums.

 

Who knows, one day they (ED) might say "screw it, we'll just make sims for the military market, who needs the incessant whining (sorry, valid complaints) of the public when we can do better business with the military".....I'm already amazed that ED can support a sim business when massive publishers can't? Is it sustainable?

 

I welcome any developments to the flight sim genre to drive realism/immersiveness forward...else I wouldn't invest in all the HW I've got....I could just as easily play "aces of the pacific" or whatever the hell its called on the xbox.

 

Ultimately it will be "out when its out" and the vast majority of us will buy, just like we did FC...FC was a massive improvement over 1.02...and may be BS will be as big a leap forward as well...even if the helo isn't your star attraction.

 

Ok, rant over, I'm off to crash my T into a hill some more, or get spanked by a strela (thats how I usually end up in a parachute.....except when Wolverine can't resist his urges!).

 

EDIT: Zaelu....nice post, seems we were writing ours at the same time....and in the same vein! Quite, where else can you fly this variety of A/C at this fidelity? that'll be nowhere then!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

487th Helicopter Attack Regiment, of the

VVS504 Red Hammers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds fair, but can you be more specific to "not being able to position objects the way you want to place them"?

 

By "balance" you mean consistency in graphics? As in "relative realism" by keeping all graphics at the same level to create a sense of realism, even if the graphics "in se" aren't that great?

Just trying to understand you correctly.

 

 

By balance I mean this in comparision with IL2:

 

-- If all the polys of the aircrafts in game are similar withot imbalances....atleast in my humble knowledge....I don't think that the system will be hogged my 4 Su-25T's in view.

-- However, I also mean immersion is missing....I can't actually explain this properly....but play IL2.....use the quick mission builder to create a mission...FLY.....it feels soo atmospheric.....the gfx look amazingly good enough....theobjects placed via ME are randomly in strategic locations near big cities....They are surrounded via air defenses as a real convoy or something would be.

-- In terms of the gfx of IL2.....look at all the explosions...the trees, the water....They are actually functional.....drive a plane into water....its not just a ripple as in lomac.....the damage models are all concise and important in giving the feeling of "flaps damaged".

-- I guess that in those terms....lock on's sterility is due to the missing of a DC...or even a semi DC.

 

- Now look at the mission editor.

- Try making a mission in between a valley for the mud movers out there. I place a object on a mountain side...and I view it ingame to be semi sticking out of the mountain.

-place a stop post on the road.....all u can see is an icon. No representation by the real model to know the direction its facing in.

- Now if u want to place igla's KINDA within those SLOTS behind the sandbags in the structure....u notice that u are always off in placement.

- It takes atleast 10 times in and out to figure out how well it is placed.

 

I understand that I ask for graphics in many cases as well....but I ask for equal graphics....do not give us a chance to say "the F18 is soo amazingly detailed....why have the rest of the planes not been developed"..keep them all at flanker 2 modelsif u want....but add more IMMERSION....give me the feeling of a warzone. ARMIES or troops are central to a battlefield....There is not a single troop thing in lomac.

 

The reason I loved apache longbow assault...a arcade sim from activision value is the immmersion.....there were tiny terrorists on ground shooting AK's at me. :p . Even the old and gold comanche 4. This is indeed the very very best of flying games...inspite of being arcadish. Soo much fun.....stealth missions.....recon missions......the battlefield FEELS and looks like it is supposed to be......stingers hiding in trucks behind the trees....etc. Now that is what I would want in a future lomac sim...balance...immersion....SIMULATION....and a DC.

 

I guess I ranted enough. :) Some ppl will know what I mean by lomac as a "sterile world"....so fanboy's will be busy trying to write hate stuff and give warnings + bad rep. I guess I don't care...I just got my point across...and it is to remember that "This is just a game. Ed are working on it. From 1.12 they have shown a great deal of improvement. But if I had a say...I would say scrap the clunky stupid gfx engine...its too demanding. Use something like oleg's new engine from BOB2...give us a game that looks good...but also plays good at all levels....i.e., no 2 fps at city rooftops."

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What specific problems do you see with the mission editor?

Is it the ME itself or the lack of features? (e.g. triggers, scripting etc, perhaps more like OFP's mission features)

The latter isn't an ME deficiency, it's a deficiency in the game engine. You can't have triggers in the ME if the game engine doesn't support them. The ME is a GUI for creating content for the game engine, nothing more.

 

Please indicate which one you mean.

 

btw, check this post regarding IL-2's FMB

 

ME and lack of features is the honest answer. The ME has been implemented with virtually no features other than place N units at X,Y at time T, fly to point X1, Y1 and thats it. You can't even see where X,Y is since you can only see icon placement and so have to start the game up to find out where you placed them which is ridiculous. Even Flanker would allow you to look at real models acuurately positioned on a detailed map during editing. Regarding scripting triggers etc as a user not really concerned with why the game was designed to make scripting impossible just concerned with lack of foresight that allowed it to occur since its reasonable to expect customers to ask for it. At a minimum and I don't think this should be impossible it would be good if the editor had a feature to say if a unit was declared in the game you could assign a %age probability of it appearing in the mission. At least this would help the single player guys design some variation into missions. Not sure if it was another SIM but Flanker may have had that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

When the most glaring inadequacy in the manual is "How to use the ME"...that indicates a problem. The ME should be the easiest part of the game to deal with, but its actually the most difficult. The ME should take as little time to master as the manual devotes to its use. Maybe the designers of the ME should take a few hints from companies like Garmin International. Their systems have ALWAYS been intuitive, and require very little reading of the manual to operate sucessfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even see where X,Y is since you can only see icon placement and so have to start the game up to find out where you placed them.
I don't really understand what you mean.

 

I attached a screen of a vehicle going from X to Y using the roads.

Can you explain what you mean using this example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what you mean.

 

I attached a screen of a vehicle going from X to Y using the roads.

Can you explain what you mean using this example?

 

 

If I understand him correctly, it is about detailed placement.

This starts with buildings (various sizes, but always just the same icon), and goes on with vehicle-placement. If one wants to place some vehicles (or waypoints) offroad, it becomes difficult to adjust the waypoint/vehicle with added structure.

 

 

Personal: while this can be overcome with multiple starts ("Fly!") and externals on (in case of waypoint-checks: put in a placeholder), some things can not be overcome that easily (i.e. scripting, dependencies, timings (for win/loose-conditions), more detailed win/loose (not just DESTROY/SURVIVE), etc.pp.).

basic

for translators ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank's Weasel spot on.

 

Current method of placing object is terrible. The developers have taken the choice of making us do the iterative work of moving back and forward from editor to running the mission just to get the postioning correct rather than provide the tools to do it from the editor as we had prev in Flanker. This adds to the clunky feeling throughout LOMAC where it feels as if ME, game screen navigation etc was thrown together at the last minute rather than as a completed product. What I suspect happened (guess) is that ED had probably progressed some way towards a better dynamic campagn/mission editor but were caught by release schedules so rather than release a buggy editor they chopped it and released the minimum they could. I've done it myself many times in software projects so this is not getting at ED. The frustration here is they never went back and fixed it. Scripting, probability of units appearing etc are basic tools that should have been included. These would pretty much have cleared up most of the sterile environment issues we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand now. Your original post seemed to relate to placing vehicles "as is" and creating waypoints, not placing static objects and combination with non-static objects.

 

OFP has a similar system, with icons. You have to preview the mission to see if everything is positioned correctly. IIRC, it is possible to change the size of the icon (through configuration files) so the icon in the OFP ME is representative of the object you're placing, thus making it easier to position objects next to each other. Still this system is not ideal. It does have copy/paste support which is handy if you want to replicate object groups.

 

In IL-2's FMB, you can switch to 3D view and place objects (if I'm not mistaken).

I've barely touched the FMB in all those years so I don't know if it works well or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...