Pissing me off ......!!!!!!!!!!

[A.S]

Hi Eagle Dynamics,

What i cant seem to understand is WHY?

Why Lomac will not run on High Scenes with High visibility on low altitude with over 10-15fps?

(Throw a few shilka's in there on a multiplayer game and your looking at a slideshow)

Why did You Eagle dynamics tell us its built for future systems, when this game is over 2 years old and it doesnt run on these settings on monster systems of today?

I Have a monster system and always wondered why you fed us your nonsense about lomac running with high settings on future systems.(Let me guess when you meant future systems, You pictured the lomac community with grey hair and a beard still playing this game)

Having this game on high settings in a multiplayer scenario is impossible, and those who say it can be done, are wrong and argue for the sake of arguing and hinder improvement of this game.

Problem I see here is, what is the point of releasing BlackShark, when we cant get the full immersion factor of lomac? Im sorry but flying a helicopter in BF2 is more immersive than flying BS on low scenes over mountains that look like cardboard cuttings.

Its obvious to me and alot of others that you dont give a damn about fixing or updating this issue of the faulty code in the game, instead you pump out new flyables which will be useless to have if the game base code is just riddled with errors.

My last question to you Eagle dynamics.

WHY wont Lomac run on full visibility and high scenes on ANY computer out there?

Thats right, your code is screwed up.

I guess I answered my own question after all.

Now i wonder if you had some?

 

Translate this Webpage to Russian: http://http://www.humanitas-international.org/newstran/more-trans.htm

[Kuky]

ah well, he has a point here... I feel a bit the same... not quite pissed off but when you think about it a game that has been done in 2003 (it's end of 2006 by the way making it 3 years old product) it still can't be run on best systems even today... not with all the highest settings, mirrors etc. I do also feel a bit it is kind of lame, but I hope BlackShark might improve some of the game code for the sim to run better the now

[Pilotasso]

About black shark, what concerns me is not the graphics but rather what the helicopter will do in a SIM without any AI torwards ground tactics (but those imput in the mission editor manualy) originaly focused on fast jets.

[Hellcat61]

All three of you are right on the money. I have had the same complaint since 1.02. I've dealt with it and continued to support the game, buy the releases, and play it. With the BS release, I cant say the same. I would have to see somthing ground breaking by the ways of AI and tactics to buy it. Also, the whole Russian helo does nothing for me. In my personal opinion, money would be better spent on fixing code, or placing US carrier borne jets in the game. Of course, the Russian bias will never permit that. Im looking into other sims to fill that void. They may not look as good as LOMAC, but if I can get over 35 frames on them, land on a carrier, and they do a semi-decient job of modelling the aircraft, then they've won me over.

[SuperKungFu]

Well flight sims have always pushed the pc, remember when falcon 4.0 first came out, barely anyone could run it on high with a good fps...Actually, come to think of it....its still like that in some cases especially with several addons like FF, OF, SP...etc. Lock on is no difference, and I'm pretty sure future titles will see the same thing like Fighter Ops. I think for flight sims now to fix this "problem," we need the game engine to adapt to duel core or quad core since the game is cpu limited. Too bad we can't see this in the Lock on titles, maybe after black shark, tank killers or whatever will have this feature along with FO. there's no use crying about it now, its just how it is.

[madcat-]

I totally agree with =RvE=--AS--.

 

 

 

 

..

[A.S]

Well flight sims have always pushed the pc, remember when falcon 4.0 first came out, barely anyone could run it on high with a good fps...Actually, come to think of it....its still like that in some cases especially with several addons like FF, OF, SP...etc. .........there's no use crying about it now, its just how it is.

 

 

Falcon has always ran on Max-Setting in all Versions (FF BMS OF ) easily (HUH)? there are games out there which have greater calculations but still give great performance unlike Lock-On ..............

Giving my opinion is not crying and based on what´s going on. I say u why: IT CAN BE IMPORVED BUT IT HASN´T HAPPENED.

Look it this way....we are supporting it ....do they us ??

[Lixma 06]

Isn't there some legal red-tape preventing ED from messing around with code still owned by UBI (or something like that)?

[RvEFuSiOn]

Well id like to believe there is some redtape involving that issue, but then the next question is, if there was how come they came out with FC and now BS?

Since clearly these 2 expansions or addons require you to tamper with the code.

 

Furthermore to kungfuguy Voicing an oppinion is not crying, seems to me from your comment that you are more concerned about -AS-'s feelings rather than the game. TOUCHÉ

This still doesnt validate the massive screw up on ED's part.

[MiGMadness]

Isn't there some legal red-tape preventing ED from messing around with code still owned by UBI (or something like that)?

 

No.

 

Ubisoft only own the rights to the name "Lock On - Modern Air Combat". Everything else belongs to ED.

[Frazer]

Hahaha yea that is certainly true AS. Finally someone who speaks it out loud :thumbup:

Maybe BlackShark is taking so long because you guys are trying to fix this.....but it probably will be to late.....FighterOps is going to whipe lockon away.

But.....I also love lockon, its netcode is wonderful and it made tight formation flying possible. Though I have to run lockon on its lowest possible settings together with all possible FPS tweaks out there to get a acceptable frame rate for formation flying.

[Vampyre Master]

slow game?

 

Hi guys

just tried out what you were saying, took these sceenshots, everything on high and 27fps

 

VM

[Frazer]

Ok try this, go external, fly over the city and drop a few flares.......

[madcat-]

lol Frazer..

I hate it when it happens.

[MiGMadness]

Also instead of a A-10........ try it in a Su-25T.

[aceflier]

Try flying over kraznador on all high in any aircraft with 25,000 objects showing and post your fps anyone? That is without any AI or ground units even. Not playable with view distance on high scenes medium/water medium on my rig. :(

 

Thinking about conroe and g80 but i doubt it will help a whole lot in a city of this size with ground units/flares and 4X50,000 poly su25T's in the air. And how many poly is the ka50?

 

Basicly a 200% improvement in hardware from 3 years ago to today results in a 10-20% improvement in lockon. Not sufficient for the "Tomorrow's Hardware" we heard back then.

 

Then again no one has a g80/conroe rig to test this but I'd say my calculations will be fairly accurate. We will find out next month I guess.

 

And, Vamp you're only rendering about 150 trees in that screenshot a p4 2.8 with 9800pro can prolly pull those fps in that pic.

 

*Rant*And another thing after my conroe/g80 rig i will have exhausted my last activation for FC cause of upgrading my hardware so much for this damn sim. So will I have to pay again to play this sim on "Tomorrow's hardware"? *End Rant*

[RvEFuSiOn]

Very nice screenshots, now fly over a city and paste your fps back here.

[Pilotasso]

Hahaha yea that is certainly true AS. Finally someone who speaks it out loud :thumbup:

Its not the fist time this has been said and sure enough it will not be the last. Theses forums are full of observations like these.

 

Very nice screenshots, now fly over a city and paste your fps back here.

 

 

Thats not the real problem. The real problem is that the game uses old shaders that are much harder to process, and that far away objects are still processed even when they are not visible, and that the acumulation of debris kills the playability over time.

 

I run the game at lower settings than those I would like just because of the FPS drop.

[zaelu]

Saying that a such a old game doesn't play well on todays super computers shows a little void in information. Any game developer can build today a game engine that would crush a 5 year later PC, optimising that can take time and big money.

 

I think Lock on resembles in complexity todays games very much. It just dont uses a super amount of super optimized shaders to make everything shine but, ground AI, view distance a the multitude of "crapy low poly objects" that are rendered at one moment and smokes and fires can stress a PC a lot.

 

Another aspect is the drivers support. If you think at the fact that ID Software got the privilege to actualy influence the development of the NV40 chip and when playing a game with D00M3 engine the card boils and realy uses things that no other game uses you can wonder how Lock On engine pulls it off. We have some graphical bugs that could be solved if nVidia (for example) would optimize its drivers a little towards Lock On. You see that happening? I don't.

When BF 2 came out it required new drivers from nVidia and got them at the launch on the DVD of the game. Those drivers screw for us IL-2 and Lock On... Talking about the power and resources... How much you think ED could let time and resources go away just to make or try optimizing continously a game from which money don't come anymore?

 

And as a joke... shure BF 2 choppers could be imersive if you wouldn't be called traitor that fast ;) .

 

Sorry if I sound all the time as a fan boy (I am actualy a fan of the game in the end) but for me the playability of the game improved a little every time I upgraded my PC and it isn't a super PC.

 

Worst case scenario would be this: 'ED produced a rather good modern flight sim but they are unable to make it better in some of the areas due to lack of time, resources or due to incompetence'. OK. Who can do it better? No...

Go buy ED. Go get hired by ED. Work for free for ED.

 

I personaly can live with it.

 

Its realy anoying that most of the guys that go fast for the "ranting" way they don't say: "Could we help?".

[Laivynas]

Hi guys

just tried out what you were saying, took these sceenshots, everything on high and 27fps

 

VM

Shadows not full. ;)

[Kuky]

ah well, I just tried running a few times quick missions and I took all graphics possible to absolute max (6xAA 16xAF Mirrors on, Very High Water etc... everything... with exception of Scene Files are LOW) and the game runs just fine... so it's not the graphics...it's all about the CPU here:cry:

[A.S]

 

I personaly can live with it.

 

Its realy anoying that most of the guys that go fast for the "ranting" way they don't say: "Could we help?".

 

I dont pull a post like this without having knowledge deep into backgrounds. Believe me that i know what is possible and what not.

 

And if u can live with it, why u waste my nerves with a unconstructive bible of thoughts.

 

Dont u think i was not able to mail this directly to DEVs? This is a try to show that i am not the only "non-easy customer".

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

I can kind of understand your frustration, but only up to a point due to my background in Software Development.

 

Maybe I am missing the point but where have the Devs ever said that "Future system" means 2 years after release, or 3 years after release. Why not 5 years after release?

 

When did they ever promise that in late 2006 there would be PC systems capable of running Lockon with everything maxed out? What crystal ball are they supposed to have used back in 2003 to predict this? Where can I buy such a crystal ball to help with next weeks horse racing results? ;)

 

They designed Lockon so that it has a bunch of options - you can pick and choose which eye candy you want to switch on / off, users choice.

 

Is Lockon perfect, bug free and 100% optimised? No, of course it isn't, no Software ever is. I know - I worked on Software development for real-life Radar and ATC systems for over 20 years, from 1 man-year projects to 500 man-year projects.

 

Will Eagle Dynamics spend time and money on releasing free patches to make it so? Of course not, that would be commercial and financial suicide just as it would have been for any of the companies I worked for in the last 20 years. They only did work that some new customer was paying for (and we are talking millions of dollars), why should Eagle be any different? They're working on Black Shark because a Publisher is fronting them the money to do so.

 

There may be folks in the Lockon Community who would wish that they were working on other aircraft (I'd like a Harrier for example) but until I or anyone else wins the lottery and gives it to them, it won't happen....

[zaelu]

...And if u can live with it, why u waste my nerves with a unconstructive bible of thoughts...

 

Because the title of the thread is kinda "unconstructive".

 

I dont pull a post like this without having knowledge deep into backgrounds. Believe me that i know what is possible and what not.

 

Nobody is stoping you to help ED to improve.

 

My intention was not to piss you off even more but, if you continue on this path I will let you go by your self. I have enough of my own.

 

 

S!

[Guest IguanaKing]

I respect the views of both sides of the argument, but I can't honestly say that I am pleased with the direction things are going. I agree that it is a totally unreasonable expectation that a software company should upgrade and patch a piece of software indefinitely. But, I also must say that I have a problem with LockOn not running well on the best systems available to the average guy at its release, and then being given the excuse "Oh...its designed to run on systems of the future." Well...here it is, three years later, CPU, memory, and GPU technologies have advanced by leaps and bounds, and it still gives my Conroe X6800 a bit of trouble in heavily object-populated maps...enough to the point of being quite noticeable to the eye (not just an FPS logger ;)). One day we are told Black Shark will support dual-core CPUs, then...recently...we are told that it doesn't. I'm sorry, but at what point does ignoring an existing technology become part of the business? Dual-core CPUs have been a reality for a while now. In my technological corner of the world, its like building an aircraft that can fly at 40,000' and then installing air data systems that aren't RVSM qualified. So, in the end, you end up with a s**t-hot high-flier of an aircraft that can only go to 28,000' because it lacks one small, but significant, detail. It doesn't make sense!

 

As for suggesting that the "bitchers" should volunteer to help. I couldn't agree more, and I'm sure there are lots of coders out there who would love to help with mods and tweaks to the game engine. Unfortunately, they have no power to do so, due to the closed architecture of the game. Would Falcon 4.0 be the awesome sim it is today, as opposed to the buggy mess it was as supported by MicroProse, if it had had closed code? I don't happen to believe it would have.