Jump to content

Flyables vs. improvements (all of you read!!!)


Recommended Posts

Looks like 90% of people would like to see more graphics improvements and flyables instead to bring up wasty improved AI and bugfixes and unfinished work from the past( SHIPS ESPECIALLY). That would bring the game back playability and make whole thing completely different expiriance. I dont know why they dont make F-18 flyable. The 3D model is one of the most beautiful, it only needs now a cockpit. F-18 was on list of flyables in original plan but wasnt implemented bacause of time restrictions. Instead of making KA-50 from scrap they should add almost finished F-18. This would bring whole new dimention in game. And would bring in western customers as well. Lots of them. The game would then sell like hell. ED if you read this, it is far more profitable to you to add F-18 instead of other flyables. It would also save much time spent for working on completely new enviroment to suit for heli simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of people are wrong.

 

Another aeroplane will not massively change the experience of the game - surely v1.1 has proved this?

 

 

And you "only" need a cockpit to make the Hornet flyable?

 

Errrrr . . . . NO!

 

Try avionics, flight model (and you KNOW they wouldn't get away with it without AFM these days), weapons modelling, Air-to-ground radar (would have to be programmed from scratch), American carrier landing systems (would probably have to include meatball) . . . . . .

 

Yeah. "Only".

 

 

 

You've badly misunderstood how complicated it is to add a new aircraft. The Ka50 is coming because it uses the same weapons system as the Su25T . . . . the Vikr. It's easier to re-use that than write a new weapons sytem.

 

 

(edit - I also notice you're using the word "profitable".

They *might* get more sales. But in order for it to be profitable, they need to make more money than they spent on adding it . . . . see above.

 

The reasons people aren't buying Lomac can't be solved by adding a Hornet . . . . if sales would leap as much as you suggest with the addition of a western aircraft, why aren't they stratospheric with the Mighty F15 and the Tough Warthog?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
90% of people are wrong.

 

Another aeroplane will not massively change the experience of the game - surely v1.1 has proved this?

 

 

And you "only" need a cockpit to make the Hornet flyable?

 

Errrrr . . . . NO!

 

Try avionics, flight model (and you KNOW they wouldn't get away with it without AFM these days), weapons modelling, Air-to-ground radar (would have to be programmed from scratch), American carrier landing systems (would probably have to include meatball) . . . . . .

 

Yeah. "Only".

 

 

 

You've badly misunderstood how complicated it is to add a new aircraft. The Ka50 is coming because it uses the same weapons system as the Su25T . . . . the Vikr. It's easier to re-use that than write a new weapons sytem.

 

 

(edit - I also notice you're using the word "profitable".

They *might* get more sales. But in order for it to be profitable, they need to make more money than they spent on adding it . . . . see above.

 

The reasons people aren't buying Lomac can't be solved by adding a Hornet . . . . if sales would leap as much as you suggest with the addition of a western aircraft, why aren't they stratospheric with the Mighty F15 and the Tough Warthog?)

The new experiance I was talking about would be in introducing ship warfare. F-18 is navy fighter so this could create some very in depth campaigns together with air-air and air-ground warfare already existing. Thats all. As for F-18 addon goes I mentioned it because it was on the original plan and it has all the 3D model work finished. Of course it needs resarch in weapons, avionics, etc. but the point is, it is a much better solution than helicopter addon and I think it would meen less work to implement than Ka-50 given it had work already put in for but than cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with britgliderpilot. The F/A-18 sports a myriad of complex weapons systems and a lot of A/G radar modes that simply aren't modelled yet. ED also doesn't have privileged access to usable data on the F/A-18, so would be in a disadvantageous position.

 

On the other hand, ED is very, very strong in flight physics modelling. I gues they see this as their main strength over the competition and of course they would be tempted to try the very, very complex physics of Rotorcraft.

 

If the Ka-50 models helo flight as well as Su-25T models aircraft flight dynamics, it would be a strong addition to the sim market.

 

Delevopers have to do what they are good at. This way competence in the industry grows. It's up to the sales people to sell the thing afterwards. I agree that I'm not waiting for a helo sim, but if the Ka-50 is good, I might be tempted!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

the other problem with the f-18 is the publishing deal, as in they simply cant do it in the west due to the deal with ubisoft. So adding a western fighter probably doesnt make sense until the next project. Adding the KA50 is probably a better option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The new experiance I was talking about would be in introducing ship warfare. F-18 is navy fighter so this could create some very in depth campaigns together with air-air and air-ground warfare already existing. Thats all. As for F-18 addon goes I mentioned it because it was on the original plan and it has all the 3D model work finished. Of course it needs resarch in weapons, avionics, etc. but the point is, it is a much better solution than helicopter addon and I think it would meen less work to implement than Ka-50 given it had work already put in for but than cancelled.

 

Introducing a greater Naval aspect to the sim would indeed rock - but bear in mind JJ_Alfa has been campaigning for this since the days of Flanker 2 . . . . ;)

 

 

You're missing the point - the 3D model is absolutely the simplest part of building an aircraft. In any case, there's a 3D model for the Ka50 as well.

 

I just can't see how adding A2G radar, attempting to source a Hornet TAC manual that is largely classified, and programming MFD's and radar modes is easier than copying the Su25T's A2G system and placing it in a new aircraft - even if it is a helicopter.

 

The Su25T and Ka50 share so much of their avionics that it's pretty much a developer's dream . . . .

 

 

 

Despite all of the above - to include a major western aircraft now would invite comparisons to other sims that have things Lomac can't hope to copy.

 

Yes folks . . . . Ye Olde Dynamic Campigne.

If you really, truly want to attract customers in the west with a Hornet, do it with a product that can begin to rival Falcon 4's theatre and campaign. It's not worth doing otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i think what youre saying about how the F/A-18's systems are too complex and wont be able to be modelled correctly is wrong. I mean look at the rest of the US planes... They dont accomplish much authenticity either. Even so, most of the F-15's avionics (or similar ones) are used in the F/A-18 so modules can be easily ported to the F/A-18. (codewise, not so sure about graphics though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
personally, i think what youre saying about how the F/A-18's systems are too complex and wont be able to be modelled correctly is wrong. I mean look at the rest of the US planes... They dont accomplish much authenticity either. Even so, most of the F-15's avionics (or similar ones) are used in the F/A-18 so modules can be easily ported to the F/A-18. (codewise, not so sure about graphics though).

 

I'm not saying it's not possible - I'm saying it's much, much more difficult than moving the Su25T's avionics to the Ka50.

 

 

The avionics in the rest of the US aircraft - well discount the A10, it doesn't have any ( ;) ) . . . . so the F15. It has . . . what? Two A2A radar modes and a non-functional MFD.

 

The Hornet has three MFD's, all of which need to work, and A2G radar modes in addition to the A2A radar modes which are NOT the same as in the F15.

That's a Big Deal.

 

In order to model anything, you need information on it. ED have found information on the Su25T and Ka50 . . . . the available information on the Hornet is limited. Go check the last thread discussing information on the Hornet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd be happy if they just copied the Janes FA18 avionics implementation.....

Really I just want a fast strike aircraft whose cockpit and HUD I can understand, where I dont have to constantly convert KMH to MPH or KTS!

Cheers,

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like 90% of people would like to see more graphics improvements and flyables instead to bring up wasty improved AI and bugfixes and unfinished work from the past( SHIPS ESPECIALLY). That would bring the game back playability and make whole thing completely different expiriance. I dont know why they dont make F-18 flyable. The 3D model is one of the most beautiful, it only needs now a cockpit. F-18 was on list of flyables in original plan but wasnt implemented bacause of time restrictions. Instead of making KA-50 from scrap they should add almost finished F-18. This would bring whole new dimention in game. And would bring in western customers as well. Lots of them. The game would then sell like hell. ED if you read this, it is far more profitable to you to add F-18 instead of other flyables. It would also save much time spent for working on completely new enviroment to suit for heli simulation.

 

Gimme a break. An F/A-18 would be both one, more easily implemented in a LOMAC successor and two, more profitable then. You think just because the F/A-18 has a nice 3d model that it can be easily added into the sim? Think again.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
include a major western aircraft now would invite comparisons to other sims that have things Lomac can't hope to copy.

 

Those comparisons are going to happen anyway. This sim screams for the F/A-18, in my opinion. Yes, it's too difficult to implement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thinking that "90% of all people want new flyables and graphics" is illogical and just plain arrogant anyway. Do you really think that in the long run, people play sims because of flyables? Witness F4:AF, where the player can only fly the Viper with probably the ugliest (oldest) graphics ever, yet lot's of people still play and enjoy it. To me, F4:AF is no more then a huge patch with some new terrain and stuff, yet many people still spent their money to buy it.

 

Ninety percent? Spare me.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for 'stop adding flyables and fix the bugs', hust what did you think ED is doing? Quit shouting like you know what's best (you don't).

 

ED has been squashing a number of bugs reported by this community, and a lot peopel are acting like the game isn't being supported. Cut it out, you've been proven wrong before, you're being proven wrong NOW, and you'll eb proven wrong again in the future.

 

As for the F/A-18, wether it will happen or not is a toss up, but what is CERTAIN is that it will not happen in LOMAC - if it happens, it will be in the successor. That is the plan.

 

Those screaming about the 'western market', I'll set you straight -again-. This is made fo the -RUSSIAN- market, it's being commissioned by a Russian publisher primarily, adn it is -very- successful there.

[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

Another point is I think the market isn't big enough already to start doing what others do just to have it. In RTS games, you can do both: investing in core developement to stay innovative on the one hand, and on the other just copy the functionalities every other game has to be market-conformant. This essentially means having two development teams: a bread & butter one, and a core one. ED is still to small to do such things. OK, they could quickly add a totally mediocre F-16 or F/A-18 without proper avionics just to have a complete product. They would do so if large resellers like UBISOFT want them to, and are prepared to pay. They obviously don't. So ED has no choice and has to capitalise on making the difference. Technical depth and innovation is what's going to keep ED viable the next couple of years, not the big consumer market for "your average sim".

 

Can you imagine Lockon with an F-16 inferior to the one in F4:AF or an F/A-18 that can do less than the old Jane's one? This makes no sense at all.

 

Come on guys, Lockon enables you to really pit an F-15C against a Mig-29 or Flanker, and even choose sides. It really has a place of its own.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt ED will invest the time or energy that it took Gilman Louie 5+ years to develop in Falcon 4 in terms of the F-16 modeling. LOMAC is a survey-study sim. It's approach is serious but I doubt ED is going to bend over backwards for one aircraft when the sim focuses on several. It is aiming for a well rounded experience so I would have no problem with an "inferior" F-16 or F/A-18 as long as their capabilities are modeled well enough to represent their abilities in real life. This would make multiplayer realistic enough to be enjoyable.

 

What ED should really focus on is either designing a good campaign or making a dynamic one.

 

 

 

T-Bone

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Asus G72GX | CPU: Core 2 Duo Overclocked @ 2.9Ghz | Memory 6GB DDR2 | Graphics Card: nVidia GTX 260m 1GB | OS: Windows 7 Home Premium | Monitor: Samsung 32" LCD

LOMAC 1.0 to FC 1.12 System RIP (2003-2010) | AMD Athlon 64 3000+ overclocked to 2565MHz | NVidia Geforce 7800 GS AGP 256 MB | 1GB Kingston PC2700 DDR DRAM | Windows 2000 with SP4

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are already working on the Ka50 so don't expect ED to stop and start on a Hornet. After the Ka 50 Ed might be doing a new flight sim with a fully modeled F-16, if you want a Hornet then ED needs the F/A-18 Tac manual. The lockon successor will hopefully be F4 level avionics, it would be good if a Hornet pilot were to look closely at F4s avionics and adjust them to be like a Hornets and to include the weapons that the Hornet uses. It would be one way around the problem as the MFDs, HUD and DED/ICP modes are the big question.(hornetised F16 mfds) You could also look at some of Janes F/A-18s modes as well.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aimmaverick, for what its worth, I agree with you. I think an F/A-18A or even an F-16A would beat the living crap out of a Ka-50. I personally dont think the ground textures support helos in this game. While they look excellent for a fixed wing sim, they dont cut it when you bring in helo's IMHO. The US needs a decent multi-role platform, which I think it is robbed of currently. Adding ANOTHER RUSSIAN aircraft doesnt stur up much excitement in me, and probably some others.

 

On the contrary, I would rather have a well modeled helo, than a poorly modeled F16 or '18. So it would really depend on how badly ED wanted to make it, which probably isnt very badly (being a Russian company and all ;) ).

 

My best advice is wait for Fighter Ops or the Lock On sucessor if you want western, because the boys at ED arnt gonna budge with the Russian birds.

"When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!"

helk.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... look at it this way: the Vikhr is fun, right? Now, we're stuck with the world's only falling brick with an Ambitious Flight Model to fire it (I tried to kiss its humpback hoping it would transform into Su-30, the Prince of Flankers but it didn't work out!).

 

With the Ka-50, which is capable of hovering flight, I guess Vikhr will be lots more fun, don't you?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact of the matter is that 90% of the Western Audience will not give a hoot about the Ka-50. We all know this. However, adding a flyable western plane seems like the logical choice, hence you see the F-16 in LOMAC 2. This is fine and I personally would love to see a flyable Viper in the LOMAC-verse, but in between the point is there needs to be major gameplay changes in order to have the product last. You need more stable multiplayer and a good IMMERSIVE campaign (I am not even asking for a dynamic one) before anything else.

 

 

 

T-Bone

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Asus G72GX | CPU: Core 2 Duo Overclocked @ 2.9Ghz | Memory 6GB DDR2 | Graphics Card: nVidia GTX 260m 1GB | OS: Windows 7 Home Premium | Monitor: Samsung 32" LCD

LOMAC 1.0 to FC 1.12 System RIP (2003-2010) | AMD Athlon 64 3000+ overclocked to 2565MHz | NVidia Geforce 7800 GS AGP 256 MB | 1GB Kingston PC2700 DDR DRAM | Windows 2000 with SP4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact of the matter is that 90% of the Russian Audience doesn't gvie a hoot about what 90% of the Wstern Audience gives a hoot about. Guess which Audience the addon's really being developped for. ;)

[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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...