Jump to content

v1.2 Market Research Poll - Ka-50 or no?


v1.2 Market Research Poll - Ka-50 or no?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. v1.2 Market Research Poll - Ka-50 or no?

    • am happy with the existing list of flyable aircraft. I would rather buy v1.2 if it did NOT include any new flyable aircraft.
    • A new paid-for add-on like v1.2 requires a new flyable aircraft. I would not buy v1.2 unless it had a flyable Ka-50.


Recommended Posts

i voted for the Ka-50 because it would be awesome to fly, and i think that it will probably come with the many improvements in ground AI required to pull off the helicopter's CAS role. other improvements such as bringing the other aircraft's avionics and flight models to a higher standard are important as well, but a new flyable (especially one that is so unique and different from the existing aircraft) would make the game more fun for me. however, i would still buy v1.2 with or without the Ka-50 because im sure ED would make some major improvements/additions if they decided to scrap the Ka-50.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looking at the results of the vote, there are a lot of people who have no desire for a further aircraft as the pre-requisite to buying 1.2. Robustness of the sim is what these people really want (including me) and I suspect that almost ALL of the 54% who state a strong preference for a new aircraft as vital to 1.2 sales, would STILL buy v1.2 even if it had no new aircraft (let’s be honest here, you bloody well would you feckin fibbers! ;) ), of whatever type, as long as the sim was vastly improved upon, particularly net code, server capability and serious work on AI, finally allowing an actual self-consistent DC.

 

If such 1.2 work can them be migrated/ported to the next big new thing from ED, then I can wait 3 years … plus.

 

BUT!

 

If we get the ‘next thing’ from ED, and the AI still blows chunks and there is no DC … then I really may not buy that.

 

(Note to self: never say never you fool!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For V 1.2, I voted for flyable K50.

 

Personally, I feel that adding anything else to lomac at this point is moot. People who doesn't play lomac but still play longbow would jump at a chance to buy a new high fidelity helicopter sim.

 

Anything else I think would be better going into ED new product.

 

just my 2 satang.

ED have been taking my money since 1995. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the results of the vote, there are a lot of people who have no desire for a further aircraft as the pre-requisite to buying 1.2. Robustness of the sim is what these people really want (including me) and I suspect that almost ALL of the 54% who state a strong preference for a new aircraft as vital to 1.2 sales, would STILL buy v1.2 even if it had no new aircraft (let’s be honest here, you bloody well would you feckin fibbers! ), of whatever type, as long as the sim was vastly improved upon, particularly net code, server capability and serious work on AI, finally allowing an actual self-consistent DC.

 

Exactly. Think about it. We're gonna be stuck with Lock On V1.2 for at least a couple of years before ED even starts to estimate a very delayable deadline for its next project. If the Ka-50 is implemented, then chances are that the existing AI will remain (largely unchanged) because of the new flight/combat AI for helicopters and ground vehicles, basically non-existent right now and probably even more prone to bugs and such. There would be no replayability value except in multi-player. Lock On will thus only have a fraction of the longetivity of other sims, like JF/A-18, which have a strong single-player side to it (not everyone plays MP).

 

I rather have improvements to avionics/radar on the F-15C, AFM for the rest of the aircraft and missiles, *much* better fighter/striker/SAM/naval AI, expanded flight comms, and some dynamic options for the campaign/mission builder. If this actually happens, I could play this sim for years and never tire of it.

 

IMO, since ED is going to be publishing such an add-on in a Russian market, why not add an updated version of the Su-27 with R-77/TWS capability? With an updated F-15C and a new Su-27 variant to fly (with R-77 no less), then there would be no problem, since most of the work is already completed anyway. In any case, it falls in line with what ED has been doing before - the Su-25T is not exactly a new aircraft, but a derivative of the vanilla Su-25 already in the game. So if the Su-25T can be passed off as a new flyable, why can't a similarily updated Su-27?

 

And the 'attracting helo sim pilots' argument is pretty weak because all helo pilots likely to purchase Lock On probably also fly Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4 SP4/FF3. And what better way to attract these guys than with increased immersion and a semi-dynamic environment? ;)

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Ka-50 is included because it's easy that's one thing, however it should not keep other improvements from being implemented.

 

Long term Helo's don't interest me, but I'm will commit to support ED for continued development with my money.

 

Unless it turns into a "Wxrbxrds" scenario, where quality is forgotten.

 

Note: Name mod'd on purpose, we all remember how that simulation went.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at this poll from the perspective of "what will generate the most sales?", then I would have to think that giving this sim a DC and good AI and well optimized graphics, etc. is what ED should do. Nobody bought LOMAC and then returned it, or shelved it because there wasn't a chopper.

 

Secondly, I never had any of the Flanker series or any other ED products before LOMAC, so this is an honest question, not a smartassed comment. Has ED ever put out a sim with good AI?

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have to keep a few things in mind here:

- the poll is so close not because half the people are really excited about general improvements to the game, but because they do not like the Ka-50.

- this is a forum with mostly westerners, and i bet you if the Ka-50 in the poll were changed to an F-18 or even AH-64, the poll would lean much more heavily toward the flyable rather than toward other major improvements.

- they have probably already started developing the Ka-50, and i would guess that they have put a lot of time and resources into it so far. changing their minds and getting rid of it now would have made all that work a huge waste of time.

- a Ka-50 add-on would most likely still have lots of little improvements and tweaks to other areas of the game, especially ground warfare (since it is a CAS aircraft).

- the Ka-50 is supposedly easier to model than most other aircraft since it shares a lot of avionics with the Su-25T, and there is more demand for it in the CIS than shown by this poll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

.

 

I rather have improvements to avionics/radar on the F-15C, AFM for the rest of the aircraft and missiles, *much* better fighter/striker/SAM/naval AI, expanded flight comms, and some dynamic options for the campaign/mission builder. If this actually happens, I could play this sim for years and never tire of it.

 

IMO, since ED is going to be publishing such an add-on in a Russian market, why not add an updated version of the Su-27 with R-77/TWS capability? With an updated F-15C and a new Su-27 variant to fly (with R-77 no less), then there would be no problem, since most of the work is already completed anyway. In any case, it falls in line with what ED has been doing before - the Su-25T is not exactly a new aircraft, but a derivative of the vanilla Su-25 already in the game. So if the Su-25T can be passed off as a new flyable, why can't a similarily updated Su-27?

.

.

.

 

 

 

exactly!

 

YES!

 

 

I would only add to that most-excellent list of recommendations --

.

.

.

 

western AWACS

 

 

 

good post

Link to post
Share on other sites

- the poll is so close not because half the people are really excited about general improvements to the game, but because they do not like the Ka-50.

- this is a forum with mostly westerners, and i bet you if the Ka-50 in the poll were changed to an F-18 or even AH-64, the poll would lean much more heavily toward the flyable rather than toward other major improvements.

 

No. I don't see how you drew that conclusion. The general consensus is that we don't care what it is, but if it causes more bugs/issues than there already is, then forget it.

 

- they have probably already started developing the Ka-50, and i would guess that they have put a lot of time and resources into it so far. changing their minds and getting rid of it now would have made all that work a huge waste of time.

 

Nobody told them to stop.

 

- a Ka-50 add-on would most likely still have lots of little improvements and tweaks to other areas of the game, especially ground warfare (since it is a CAS aircraft).

 

'Little' improvements when something bigger is needed. It's not enough. The Lock On single-player environment is no-where near as immersive as it could be, no offense of ED, and will continue to be behind until some major things are done to it. There is virtually no communication between flights, AI executes the same move over and over again (it doesn't matter that it gets smarter doing it, its still the same move over and over again), FM is much too simple for anything but aircraft, etc. Little tweaks aren't going to fix those.

 

- the Ka-50 is supposedly easier to model than most other aircraft since it shares a lot of avionics with the Su-25T, and there is more demand for it in the CIS than shown by this poll.

 

The KA-50 still needs a new flight model. I don't see how that is 'easier' to program than better AI, or an updated Su-27.

 

Thanks Alpha :)

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
- the poll is so close not because half the people are really excited about general improvements to the game, but because they do not like the Ka-50.

 

That's an interesting conclusion. On what do you base it? Reading the past six pages of messages, I perceive quite an opposite sentiment.

 

- this is a forum with mostly westerners, and i bet you if the Ka-50 in the poll were changed to an F-18 or even AH-64, the poll would lean much more heavily toward the flyable rather than toward other major improvements.

 

You mean, vote to cancel v1.2 altogether, and proceed immediately to the next sim? That would indeed be an interesting poll, but I think ED needs some revenue a bit sooner than that strategy would provide. They need to fund those long years of paycheckless future work on the next sim, remember.

 

- they have probably already started developing the Ka-50, and i would guess that they have put a lot of time and resources into it so far. changing their minds and getting rid of it now would have made all that work a huge waste of time.

 

That's a curious development strategy. Why do you think ED would start on v1.2 before v1.1 is released?

 

- a Ka-50 add-on would most likely still have lots of little improvements and tweaks to other areas of the game, especially ground warfare (since it is a CAS aircraft).

 

After the first three CAS aircraft didn't introduce those little improvements, I begin to wonder if this isn't wishful thinking. We have tanks shaking on their suspensions now in v1.1, but I don't think that adds very much to the gameplay, except to eat FPS. Such improvements in v1.2 might be similarly cosmetic.

 

- the Ka-50 is supposedly easier to model than most other aircraft since it shares a lot of avionics with the Su-25T, and there is more demand for it in the CIS than shown by this poll.

 

Perhaps... maybe we should try a poll in the Russian forum?

 

'Little' improvements when something bigger is needed. It's not enough.

 

You have to be careful with this double-edged sword of an argument, because it can actually be taken as an argument for the Ka-50. If Lock On needs truly sweeping changes, then ED's strategy to postpone those changes until they can start with a fresh slate is sound.

 

My own concern is that when ED starts with that fresh slate, they will be starting with almost zero experience programming dynamic campaigns, and will inevitably make design mistakes that will one day require them to start all over again all over again, as they discover what the requirements for an automatic mission generator actually are. I would like to see them start this learning process in v1.2, rather than just going through the motions of doing what they already know how to do (i.e. add a new flyable). The moment ED stops innovating, perishable skills start to be lost.

 

Speaking as a programmer,

 

-SK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's weak but ED still should try to keep us around while bringing in new players be it hardcore or casual simmers. Now, keeping us around is the easy part because the majority of us is going to buy 1.1 and 1.2 regardless.

 

It's going to be tough selling 1.2 which offers a 'semi' dynamic campaign, improved the AI and avionics to F4 players. Stuff they can already do in F4. But a new flyable is always appealing because they get a chance to do something new in 1.2 that F4 doesn't offer. I bet most of us bought so many sim in the past just to see what's the featured aircraft feels like. Well, that's what ED should think about with 1.2. I think.

ED have been taking my money since 1995. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's going to be tough selling 1.2 which offers a 'semi' dynamic campaign, improved the AI and avionics to F4 players. Stuff they can already do in F4.

 

YES!

 

With a serious missile flight model, I think Falcon 4 users would flock to Lock On. They simply do not have accurate BVR tactics in that sim. Lock On could impress them with real lofting tactics, realistic ranges, limitations of HOJ, etc.

 

Unfortunately, AFAIK not in the plans for v1.2. They will have to be attracted by Ka-50 instead.

 

-SK

Link to post
Share on other sites

SwingKid

 

I am at a loss what your poll is trying to say or ask.

 

Let me explain.

 

Your first question:

 

"A new paid-for add-on like v1.2 requires a new flyable aircraft"

 

Dose it? who said so! ....Anyway you go on to say:

 

" I would not buy v1.2 unless it had a flyable Ka-50"

 

Well some people may agree and some may not, its a separate question unrelated to the first part of your question. I am lost in what you are saying because you are mixing a non question with a question in the same sentence.

 

You go on to say:

 

"am happy with the existing list of flyable aircraft"

 

I think you mean 'are you happy with the existing flyables'! Well this is a yes or no is it not!

 

Your next point:

 

"I would rather buy v1.2 if it did NOT include any new flyable aircraft"

 

If you don't mind me asking, what would be the difference between version 1.1 and version 1.2 or indeed the the original version 1.0? What is version 1.2 to include if not new aircraft, its got to include something has it not?

 

Maybe you were trying to say this:

 

1. I would buy a add- on for LOMAC that featured the Ka-50?

 

2. I would prefer ED to concentrate on improving existing features of LOMAC such as DM, AFM and AI before new flyable aircraft were added?

 

3. I would prefer ED to take another poll from the community to see what it wants for version 1.2?

 

Sorry but I didn't understand what you were trying to say or ask in your poll?

 

No offence please.

 

Mizzy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's going to be tough selling 1.2 which offers a 'semi' dynamic campaign, improved the AI and avionics to F4 players. Stuff they can already do in F4.

 

YES!

 

With a serious missile flight model, I think Falcon 4 users would flock to Lock On. They simply do not have accurate BVR tactics in that sim. Lock On could impress them with real lofting tactics, realistic ranges, limitations of HOJ, etc.

 

Unfortunately, AFAIK not in the plans for v1.2. They will have to be attracted by Ka-50 instead.

 

-SK

 

I'd liek to talk about the missile model actually - it seems a little wrong to me. Not very wrong, just ... uhm, but anyway, I guess I should start a different topic for it?

[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 post
Share on other sites

Actually, F4 isn't bad when it comes to missile flight and BVR simulation. The flight model for missile's were certainly better in many key aspects; for example, when launched, an AIM-120 would not automatically jump to a fixed speed limit (as in Lock On). Speed of the launch aircraft was also factored in. Many missiles that should loft lofted. However, this isn't to say that it's perfect - there are many things wrong with it still, despite the best efforts of the F4 community (e.g. higher air density at lower altitudes not modelled at all).

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like the questions and therefor havent voted. If I say NO to KA-50 Addon does that mean No more addons of any kind? Also what will development resouces be pooled into otherwise ?

 

The only Add-On I want to see in the future is a Carrier Based F-18

Link to post
Share on other sites
SwingKid

 

I am at a loss what your poll is trying to say or ask.

 

Let me explain.

 

Your first question:

 

"A new paid-for add-on like v1.2 requires a new flyable aircraft"

 

Dose it? who said so!

 

Sixty-two voters, apparently...

 

....Anyway you go on to say:

 

" I would not buy v1.2 unless it had a flyable Ka-50"

 

Well some people may agree and some may not, its a separate question unrelated to the first part of your question. I am lost in what you are saying because you are mixing a non question with a question in the same sentence.

 

You go on to say:

 

"am happy with the existing list of flyable aircraft"

 

I think you mean 'are you happy with the existing flyables'! Well this is a yes or no is it not!

 

Your next point:

 

"I would rather buy v1.2 if it did NOT include any new flyable aircraft"

 

If you don't mind me asking, what would be the difference between version 1.1 and version 1.2 or indeed the the original version 1.0? What is version 1.2 to include if not new aircraft, its got to include something has it not?

 

Maybe you were trying to say this:

 

1. I would buy a add- on for LOMAC that featured the Ka-50?

 

2. I would prefer ED to concentrate on improving existing features of LOMAC such as DM, AFM and AI before new flyable aircraft were added?

 

3. I would prefer ED to take another poll from the community to see what it wants for version 1.2?

 

:?

 

Sorry but I didn't understand what you were trying to say or ask in your poll?

 

No offence please.

 

None taken, but - you do understand how a poll works?

 

The voter doesn't choose a question, the voter chooses an answer. So I'm not sure why all three of the options you listed in your proposed alternate poll appear to be phrased as sentences, but all have question marks at the end. The answers from which the voter can choose should be expressed as normal sentences.

 

I also don't understand why you would include "let's have a poll" as one of the options for a poll.

 

I am not saying myself that an add-on requires a flyable aircraft. That's just one of the options for the voter to choose.

 

If you read the first message in the discussion, I explain that what I am saying is that ED has limited resources - making the Ka-50 will preclude other features. The question is, what's more important to the voter? Ka-50 or those other features?

 

I had anticipated the storm of "I want an F/A-18!" posts, but I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about people who need to express that wish - we can't simply vote it into reality. Can anyone think of an aircraft that would be more work to do? This is rather a poll about a question I don't already know the answer to. :)

 

I'd liek to talk about the missile model actually - it seems a little wrong to me. Not very wrong, just ... uhm, but anyway, I guess I should start a different topic for it?

 

You don't need my permission. :)

 

I dont like the questions and therefor havent voted. If I say NO to KA-50 Addon does that mean No more addons of any kind? Also what will development resouces be pooled into otherwise ?

 

A perfectly fair approach... If you have no clear preference between Ka-50 or something else that is not a flyable aircraft, then by all means ignore the poll. As stated this is not for any purpose but my own personal interest - I don't make any decisions for ED, but nevertheless like to think I have my finger on the pulse of the community.

 

-SK

 

P.S. Does nobody play JF/A-18 anymore?

Link to post
Share on other sites
With a serious missile flight model, I think Falcon 4 users would flock to Lock On. They simply do not have accurate BVR tactics in that sim. Lock On could impress them with real lofting tactics, realistic ranges, limitations of HOJ, etc.

-SK

The reason why F4 players continue to play F4 is the dynamic full-theatre campaign. Its the game-play not the modeling. They'd arrive for the missile/flight model but they're not likely to stay without something dynamic or at least interactive.

ZoomBoy

My Flight Sims Page

- Link to My Blog - Sims and Things - DCS Stuff++

- Up-to-Speed Guides to the old Lockon A10A and Su-25T

- Some missions [needs update]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is`t more important develope the sim features, a lot of aircraft we can fly actually( 7 different. Why more?), It's more important better EFM for jets like mig29 or su27 than another aircraft, more important develope training suport in internet mode, better navigation system, and a lot of little things. So I vote option B. :wink:

 

ESA_bolichin

bolichin02.jpg

www.cruzdesanandres.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think creating more flyables is a good as it creates interest and promotes new ideas/tactics/etc.

 

I do NOT think the KA-50 is a good idea for a few reasons:

 

1. It is a helicopter. Which means it would appeal to a more niche crowd.

 

2. It is a helicopter. Which means, if done correctly, it would have a much steeper learning curve then your average fixed wing jet and this, in the end, would cause a lot of newer players (or anybody not used to rotary wing flight, be it in game or IRL) a good deal of frustration.

 

3. It is a helicopter. Which means it would have limited use online.....unless flying a helo against a group of F-15s is fun to you. :lol:

 

4. It is a helicopter. Which means a simple joystick won't do. If the systems are modeled accurately then the player would have to find a way to control the normal flying movements AND torque AND the systems modeled. Sure it has been done before in other games but none of those games have the fidelity of Lock-On (nor the enemies).

 

5. The KA-50 is not practical. Nobody ever says, "You know what I would like to fly in a modern jet simulator?? A helicopter!". Sorry, that just doesn't work. Want to create helicopter add-ons? Start with a helicopter simulator.

 

The KA-50 would no doubt be interesting but I just don't see the sense in creating one. Especially since there have been people screaming for F-18s, Harriers, etc.. since thew original release. The KA-50 I'm sure would spark some interest but that interest would not even be close to reaching the level of some other types of aircraft. The missions would be like how they are now on a much slower, harder to fly, scale. A lot of people play online to dogfight with their friends. With a KA-50 I don't think there would be that many people flying it online. The KA-50 is simply not mainstream enough and not multi-roled (is that a word? lmao) for it to considered "sought after" and placed in the "must have add-on" list.

 

Heck, since the dev. team is Russian, why not create some interesting russian jet, or maybe one to flesh out the game? SU-39? Mig-29K? I think both of those would be extrmely popular (probably the Mig-29K more so....don't want Lock-On to be SU heavy :lol:, even though I would LOVE an SU-39). Creating an F-18 or Harrier or something along those lines may be "out of reach" to a Russian dev. team, if so, I say use it to your advantage and create some interesting jets that us winey ass Americans could never put into a game. One of the reasons I like Lock-On is because of the equipment. Although I think an F-18 would certainly sell well, I also think it doens't get much more boring.

 

In the end, it isn't that I think the KA-50 would be a bad add-on, I just think its playability in a game such as this is just too limiting for it to gain widespread acceptance.

 

We will just have to wait and see what transpires. I would just hate to see ED lose money when they are working thier asses off to make Lock-On better for all of us.

 

My .02c

 

:)

Ark

------------------

Windows 10 Pro x64

9900K @ 5ghz

Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390

32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14

EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2

256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive)

1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus

Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU

34" ASUS PG348

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...