Jet Thunder

[VapoR]

Cool interview at SimHQ about Jet Thunder with some nice screens:

 

http://simhq.com/_air5/air_171a.html

 

Really impressive what a 3-man dev team is accomplishing. ED should take some notes!! The inclusion of a dynamic campaign and the ground troups are some of the things that Lomac is falling short of.

[Pilotasso]

It only needs to see how long it will take or if there will be any change of plans. Also their planes are much easier to model because they are alot less complex.

[diveplane]

looks so arcade not funny.....

[Trident]

I disagree. I see a lot of potential and talent in JT. It is realistically not likely to live up to LOMAC in most aspects on initial release (with such a small team, how could it?), but it does look like it will be more than worth while.

 

The campaign system sounds promising, and I agree that ED should watch closely (although the Falklands are a somewhat different type of conflict to the one LOMAC aims to model). Performance is looking good too, inspite of the graphics being pretty competitive, but it's too early to tell how the end result will turn out in this case.

[Kevlon]

Chris: Will the cockpits be 2D or 3D? Will the cockpits be clickable?

 

Dante: Fully 3D with 6DOF, clickable? Not impossible to do, and we've received many requests for that, but as we're very low on resources, we can't promise such advanced feature.

 

 

Isn't that how the Black shark cokpit is moddled? Fully 3D clickable cockpit with 6DOF ?

[Boneski]

Why would ED need to take note?? Ed has a well established code base and a fantastic product. The Lock-On / Flanker Product line is not about the the features you mentioned.

 

This game is about the Jet as a tool of war... not a War with the jet as a tool... These two programs are very different.

 

Ground Troops and Dynamic Campaign engines would not fit into this product line at all. So it's not clear why you think they need to take notice at what a 3 man team is doing? Lock-On can't have fell short on something it never was or even attempted.

 

The fact that they added Figthing ground units was a great feature that no doubt was built in the code that existed in the game since ships could engauge in battles... What Lock ON needs is enhancements to the the mission editor... Again its about tools with this product...

 

hey not picking on your point of view... j and not trying to go against your opinion.

 

:confused:

 

 

 

Cool interview at SimHQ about Jet Thunder with some nice screens:

 

http://simhq.com/_air5/air_171a.html

 

Really impressive what a 3-man dev team is accomplishing. ED should take some notes!! The inclusion of a dynamic campaign and the ground troups are some of the things that Lomac is falling short of.

[VapoR]

Why would a dynamic campaign NOT fit into Lomac? With the selection of flyables it could potentially be the best DC as far as gameplay goes! Who wouldn't want a 24-7 DC running online with the ability to fly from both sides??? The biggest hinderance to a DC for Lomac is not the design philosophy of the series but the map itself--it's kind of an odd shaped map where frontlines wouldn't make sense. Now if they were to expand the map farther into Russia and Georgia . . .

[diveplane]

imo its online multiplayer that counts really these days anyway, i never once played campaigns in any game,

[Jester_159th]

looks so arcade not funny.....

 

 

Explain please. I don't see how anything in that interview can be taken as hinting at "arcade."

[tflash]

It only needs to see how long it will take or if there will be any change of plans. Also their planes are much easier to model because they are alot less complex.

 

O yes, of course, the Harrier must be a LOT less complex than the Su-25!

 

Good you remind us of that, tnx!

[Caretaker]

imo its online multiplayer that counts really these days anyway, i never once played campaigns in any game,

 

That's quite wrong. The majority of people have no interest in multiplayer. And besides, what's wrong with a dynamic multiplayer campaign? It's not that singleplayer and multiplayer modes are in any way exclusive - except for the pure dogfight (read: airquake) modes :p

 

I also don't see why Lock On would not profit immensely from a dynamic campaign, quite the opposite. How well Jet Thunder's campaign will work in the end we will have to see, just as with the rest of the sim. Don't see how it's "looking arcade" though in any way; not as polished yet here and there but it's not a beta version either. I'm certainly looking forward to what it will hopefully become one day.

 

BTW, note the part in the interview about the clickable cockpit in the interview, pretty much the same situation as with Lock On (which doesn't exactly have a huge development team either).

[23rd_Drago]

O yes, of course, the Harrier must be a LOT less complex than the Su-25!

 

Good you remind us of that, tnx!

 

Right... didn't know that Su-25 is the primary plane in Lock-On...

[Boneski]

Hi Vapor...

 

Well the reason a Dynamic campaign would not fit in Lock-ON is that not many people know what the Russian Order of Battle is... Clearly they have a defense strategy... but what would it be for the Area of conflict...

 

So let’s say you have a factional / fictional war with Russia Vs NATO then the Area of Battle would have to span the globe to the United States... Since Russia would no doubt Attack Blue with Missiles and Bomber strike packages on the US main land... That's way too big the model.

 

So let’s say its Russia vs Factional base Force X...Terrorist mixed with a small government with very little air assets... A Small regional war like they have over there now... NATO would not be part of that conflict... so what you would have is a war with no true Air power element... maybe a flight of Su-25 hitting a town here or there... that's all grown based conflict mainly.

 

So it’s not clear what a Dynamic Campaign engine would do for this product.. the only way it would work is if you make a game like you have on the playstation... A Fighter Ace style air war with jets and stuff from all over the place doing all sorts of stuff...

 

A big world war with many factions... So an old NATO vs. The Warsaw Pac... What Lock-On needs is a few simple tweaks to unlock the missing elements. Things that happen is a way that make the player believe they happend dynamically... All of this done through user defined mission and parameter setup in the mission builder...

 

 

Persistent state maps... Resources Management... Persistent state Hardware... Dynamic Weather and defense asset and control authority

setup Again this is all done on the mission editor just like we build missions now... the only true change is that the builder will take these elements

and assign units based on the given task. So mission have more life to them. This games doens not need a dynamic campaign... It needs a dymanic map...

 

 

I will post some example later

 

Why would a dynamic campaign NOT fit into Lomac? With the selection of flyables it could potentially be the best DC as far as gameplay goes! Who wouldn't want a 24-7 DC running online with the ability to fly from both sides??? The biggest hinderance to a DC for Lomac is not the design philosophy of the series but the map itself--it's kind of an odd shaped map where frontlines wouldn't make sense. Now if they were to expand the map farther into Russia and Georgia . . .

[Caretaker]

Have some imagination... the classic WWIII theatre is by no means the only possible scenario. And who says a conflict without any NATO involvement can't be enjoyable as well?

 

Remember Jane's F-15E, which had a totally fictional storyline derived in a very plausible way from the real situation, and added another conflict into the storyline to make it plausible that only a limited asset of US forces was present in the Gulf region - a clever trick to provide more challenging gameplay. It is absolutely possible to have such fictional but still believable scenarioes for Lock On's theatre, even if it's indeed not the most suited map setup overall.

 

Or take Longbow II's campaign: questionable in some ways (basically the whole US air force appeared only in the form of the occasional A-10 or F-16 flying by), but that didn't keep people from enjoying it. And Falcon4's campaign and mission setups don't always have much to do with real life either - but ask people which sim has the best campaign system, and I guarantee you that one will come out on top. And even though I don't quite share the enthusiasm about that one, I'd definitely trade it for our linear static missions any day ;)

[Boneski]

Hi there CT,

 

You are correct it can be fun have very little do with real-life... But again what would the Russian Order of Battle? Or are you saying that should not be the focus... Just as long as something is created for the player to fly regardess of the tasking? Meaning the player flys missions that the computer creates for them so they will not have to plan the mission?

 

Again I think the dynamics need to be in map not in the tasking orders... or even the missions... In real life your missions are scripted... The dynamics come when you fly them and react to changes.

 

Since the idea of a dynamaic world over a dynamic campaign is bring presented.... the action as a result of your actions drive what happens

in the presistant game world... Not a new set of Air Tasking orders...

 

It's really hard to explain without examples... Peoples Idea of Dynamic campaign are old school and hard to build... Lock On is perfect for this new school idea of the dynamic world wrapped around the player.... and the non player...

 

 

 

 

Have some imagination... the classic WWIII theatre is by no means the only possible scenario. And who says a conflict without any NATO involvement can't be enjoyable as well?

 

Remember Jane's F-15E, which had a totally fictional storyline derived in a very plausible way from the real situation, and added another conflict into the storyline to make it plausible that only a limited asset of US forces was present in the Gulf region - a clever trick to provide more challenging gameplay. It is absolutely possible to have such fictional but still believable scenarioes for Lock On's theatre, even if it's indeed not the most suited map setup overall.

 

Or take Longbow II's campaign: questionable in some ways (basically the whole US air force appeared only in the form of the occasional A-10 or F-16 flying by), but that didn't keep people from enjoying it. And Falcon4's campaign and mission setups don't always have much to do with real life either - but ask people which sim has the best campaign system, and I guarantee you that one will come out on top. And even though I don't quite share the enthusiasm about that one, I'd definitely trade it for our linear static missions any day ;)

[D-Scythe]

You are correct it can be fun have very little do with real-life... But again what would the Russian Order of Battle? Or are you saying that should not be the focus... Just as long as something is created for the player to fly regardess of the tasking? Meaning the player flys missions that the computer creates for them so they will not have to plan the mission?

 

You're completely missing the point of a dynamic campaign.

 

Again I think the dynamics need to be in map not in the tasking orders... or even the missions... In real life your missions are scripted... The dynamics come when you fly them and react to changes.

 

How are missions scripted in real life? Does God come in from the skies and tell pilots exactly when to appear and when, then go back in time again and again until He thinks it's perfect?

 

It's really hard to explain without examples... Peoples Idea of Dynamic campaign are old school and hard to build... Lock On is perfect for this new school idea of the dynamic world wrapped around the player.... and the non player...

 

Well, this new school of idea IMO is boring. I don't really care if the grass blows differently depending on the time of day and type of grass.

 

As for the Order of Battle...use your imagination ;)

[Boneski]

I will let you think a little longer and a little harder on your question about missions... with a little more thought you will get it... and be able to answer your own questons...

 

As for Order of Battle... Well if you are saying that it does not matter then go for it... But please remember the people that are going to be using this system... these are the same people that get upset that a Boat or a missile is panited the wrong colour.... or that a wheel on a jet is not really round.... You want these people to except... a war engine that just makes missions so the does not have too... Good luck having that past the smell test..>!!

 

 

You want the old school approach of build you missions that have nothing to do with anything outside of giving the player something to do... The new school methodology has nothing to do with grass growing... It's all about being able to build something that makes sense for the resources you are working with.... for example making something that will add value to the existing code base without costing a mint to build...

 

Trust me newschool is better ;) You see some of you only know dynamic campaigns from the player's point of view... while others know how they work and how to make them work better....

 

Lock -On is perfect for this new school method.....:rolleyes: ;)

 

You're completely missing the point of a dynamic campaign.

 

 

 

How are missions scripted in real life? Does God come in from the skies and tell pilots exactly when to appear and when, then go back in time again and again until He thinks it's perfect?

 

 

 

Well, this new school of idea IMO is boring. I don't really care if the grass blows differently depending on the time of day and type of grass.

 

As for the Order of Battle...use your imagination ;)

[Andrew_McP]

Is it too early to start pestering them for a flyable Vulcan? ;-)

 

Andrew McP

[Starlight]

IMHO this sim looks great and has a great potential. seems very interesting and I'm looking forward to its release.

 

And this shot IMHO shows a truly great landscape, with wonderful clouds. I think they should improve contrast and shadows on aircraft, but the rest of the image looks really great!

http://simhq.com/_air5/air_171h.html

[D-Scythe]

I will let you think a little longer and a little harder on your question about missions... with a little more thought you will get it... and be able to answer your own questons...

 

Aren't you going to call me a padawan or something too?

 

As for Order of Battle... Well if you are saying that it does not matter then go for it... But please remember the people that are going to be using this system... these are the same people that get upset that a Boat or a missile is panited the wrong colour.... or that a wheel on a jet is not really round.... You want these people to except... a war engine that just makes missions so the does not have too... Good luck having that past the smell test..>!!

 

You seem to forget that any campaign will likely be FICTIONAL, as NATO and Russia have never actually fought over the Crimea. Thus, the order of battles will also be FICTIONAL.

 

 

You want the old school approach of build you missions that have nothing to do with anything outside of giving the player something to do... The new school methodology has nothing to do with grass growing... It's all about being able to build something that makes sense for the resources you are working with.... for example making something that will add value to the existing code base without costing a mint to build...

 

Trust me newschool is better ;) You see some of you only know dynamic campaigns from the player's point of view... while others know how they work and how to make them work better....

 

Lock -On is perfect for this new school method.....:rolleyes: ;)

 

Okay, I realize there are some good reasons against building a dynamic campaign for Lock On, but your reasons aren't them. I'm obviously not going to convince you, or else you'll ask me to "look within for the answers I seek," so let's just agree to disagree okay?

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Well I just found a cool Argentinian soccer shirt Internet site and am seriously tempted by a River Plate shirt. It would help to get my mind into the Pucara or the A-4......

[Jester_159th]

I *suspect* the clouds in the Jet Thunder screenshots are similar to SFP1, in that they are a billboard set on a 2D sky, not actual 3D clouds.

 

This (hopefully) will change. If you check out the posts on SimHQ's forums I'm sure they mentioned that the current state of devbelopment hasn't reached the point of adding any advanced shader effects etc. Don't forget they still consider the project to be be at a pre-alpha stage.

[Dudikoff]

Why would ED need to take note?? Ed has a well established code base and a fantastic product. The Lock-On / Flanker Product line is not about the the features you mentioned.

This game is about the Jet as a tool of war... not a War with the jet as a tool... These two programs are very different.

 

Jesus..

 

Ground Troops and Dynamic Campaign engines would not fit into this product line at all. So it's not clear why you think they need to take notice at what a 3 man team is doing? Lock-On can't have fell short on something it never was or even attempted.

 

WTF are you talking about? And how come infantry wouldn't fit well in this game? Black Shark simply screams for infantry.

 

The fact that they added Figthing ground units was a great feature that no doubt was built in the code that existed in the game since ships could engauge in battles... What Lock ON needs is enhancements to the the mission editor... Again its about tools with this product...

 

Wov. Fighting ground units. No other sim ever had that. With fighting air units also, who are we to ask for more?

 

I will let you think a little longer and a little harder on your question about missions... with a little more thought you will get it... and be able to answer your own questons...You want the old school approach of build you missions that have nothing to do with anything outside of giving the player something to do... The new school methodology has nothing to do with grass growing... It's all about being able to build something that makes sense for the resources you are working with.... for example making something that will add value to the existing code base without costing a mint to build...

 

Don't smoke that stuff so much before you come here and post..

[Starlight]

I *suspect* the clouds in the Jet Thunder screenshots are similar to SFP1, in that they are a billboard set on a 2D sky, not actual 3D clouds.

 

yes the clouds in that screenshot are just painted (and suck!)... but the ones in the screenshot that I mentioned looked a bit different. That overcast was extremely realistic.

 

Anyway I've also read that they're gonna change them

[Dudikoff]

Anyway I've also read that they're gonna change them

 

Yes, "but these need a revamp, as the code is a bit old now". I'm very impressed by the work they have done til now, though. I've been following the development ever since the first news about it and it really advanced beyond my best expectations. I just hope that they can do it in the planned timeframe since they only have one programmer.