Lock on: modern air combat

[edc 0]

It would be nice if it had clickable cockpits though, especially for things like engine-fire handles, which you seldom use, but when you do want to use them, you need to do it ASAP, not have to spend time flipping through a manual(if it even comes w/ one, these days, you never know).

[Homer Johnston 0]

@ Sep. 29 2003,19:33)]As for clickable cockpits- meh. If I have to take my hand off the joystick, then I'm pissed, much less having to move my mouse around. I got a HOTAS for a reason: so that I would never have to touch my mouse or keyboard (much) again  

thats my kinda thinking ;) better for dogfights too, dont need to get out of padlock or what not

not to mention that I find pressing keyboard keys more comfortable than using a mouse... I'm not sure if airforce pilots get a mouse to click on switches with or not  

I wish I had the money to get an X-45 and TrackIR.. if I knew some people with X-45's that gave good feedback I'd probably be.. more inspired to get one  

[Badgerboy 0]

I'll say it again. It's a 'shoot em up'. It's not a jet simulation.

Personally, no. I haven't had any time on A-10's or MiG-29's, but I have had over 60 hours on aerobatic aircraft, and a couple of hours of jet stick time, (GR4), and I can tell you the controls don't feel crisp enough. They seem to wallow too much, and the rudder effects are off, (Check out the nose snap). Hell, check out A-10 Cuba if you want a A-10 FM. That sim was out years ago, and still manages better than this.

I know its a demo, but they have got a lot of work left to do to get it right. Sorting the FM's first, and then programming a decent avionics system. Like it or not, but flying a modern jet aircraft consists of pushing lots of buttons, so if you want a simulator, I'd steer clear of this.

I know Falcon 4.0 was broken, but Microprose were getting shafted by Hasbro at the time. (I'll never forgive them for that. Microprose were legends). Thankfully the SP's turned it into what it was supposed to be. The flight models might be a bit iffy, but it still a reasonable representation of a jet aircraft.

The reason I'm pissed, is that Lomac had been hyped way to much for me, so when I did get my hands on the demo, I was pretty much gutted. Now with G2i screwing around with Falcon V (They want to release it on consoles as well! ), the outlook is bleak. The bastards could at least hand the F4 code back over to the community, they aren't doing anything with it.

Grrr!

[edc 0]

Didn't somebody "leak" the source code for F4?

[Badgerboy 0]

Yes, and the game was completely reworked by the community thanks to that.

Everything was great, until G2i stepped in, bought the rights to Falcon 4 (Which had been forgotten about), and then stopped all exe edits without their permission.

And all they have to show for their work? Two naff looking 3d models, and a A-10 pit which is outclassed by most community ones. There was talk of everyone donating to buy the sourcecode for the community, but G2i gave us the finger.

[edc 0]

Bastards...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I agree on A10 cuba being the best flight sim ever, bar none.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Heres a new link you can download Lomac from.

http://www.pcgameworld.com/downloa....emo.exe

Really fast servers.

[Homer Johnston 0]

Badgerboy, to have a true simulator we'd have to have a simpit with hundreds upon hundreds of switches and buttons, along with a motion simulator, along with Cougar HOTAS's. No computer simulation, including F4, will ever be able to emulate as much as is possible in a real fighter cockpit. I'm not going to bother debating much, but unfortunately every game must be simplified in some matter or another. Falcon requires you to press buttons over buttons. Flanker (and lock on) have a better flight model and decent avionics. They don't require you to press the right buttons to activate stuff, but nonetheless, the BVR has working RADAR and electro-optical scan modes with good accuracy, ex. height scan bars, symbology for closing/receding, then all the other available modes, etc. It displays a good amount of data... you just don't have to go through a lot to access it... I don't know if you ever got into Flanker 2.5, but it honestly wasn't that bad in BVR and BVR was its weak suite! You had to employ maneuvers such as F-Poles and every plane combo required different actions... the MiG required you to keep them on the edge of your radar scan zone to reduce their launch range as much as possible until you could launch yourself.. stuff like that ... these games are not arcade shooters, Novalogic still holds that title with pride.

Also, I've read accounts of american pilots flying in russian 'craft (I think in Su's) and noting how incredibly mushy they thought the controls were. The A-10 (and F-15 in the full) I've honestly no idea about, but I see no reason to doubt the MiG... I wouldn't exactly expect an A-10 to behave really crisply either.

Any and every debate on this sort of topic I've read ends with something akin to: play Falcon 4 if you want to click buttons to fight, or play Lock On (Flanker 2.5) if you want to fly to fight. I love missile evasion in Flanker, hard as it is, so I don't feel compelled to give excessive button pressing a try

P.S. I'm really annoyed that they didn't include the Su-27 in the demo instead... that thing's much nicer to fly than the MiG... and I agree that A-10 cuba is the best A-10 sim, at least physics/technology wise... shame it didn't have more gameplay (and Lock On's graphics )

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

How do you activate electro-optical scan?Is it suppose to turn the box at the top right from waypoins/targets, to a camera view?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I agree on A10 cuba being the best flight sim ever, bar none.

Agreed. Best physics ever. Anyone know where I can get my paws on a copy? I lost mine a few years back.

[edc 0]

http://search.ebay.com/search....10+Cuba

I might have to install my old copy. Though, I'd be shocked if it worked on XP.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I'll say it again. It's a 'shoot em up'. It's not a jet simulation.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it- there's a lot there, you just have to dig to find it. This demo doesn't really give one a fair chance to utilize the more advanced avionics- it mostly is just proof that yes, Lomac is playable, and yes, it is fun even for sim-pletons (HAHA!!! Damn- I apologize for that) to play around with. But just a quick stroll through the key command list the devs released prior to the demo demonstrates that a large amount of time has been invested in implementing a wide array of avionics, especially on the Russian side.

Quote[/b] ]I know its a demo, but they have got a lot of work left to do to get it right. Sorting the FM's first, and then programming a decent avionics system. Like it or not, but flying a modern jet aircraft consists of pushing lots of buttons, so if you want a simulator, I'd steer clear of this.

Remember that games are, at some level, supposed to be fun. I know where you're coming from- I have a certain streak of masochism in me when it comes to games as well: I want it to be hard to learn, harder to master, and with lots of depth, because ultimately the payoff is that much more rewarding in the end. I've been in MS Flight Sim on more than one occasion, flying IFR routes in a puddle jumper cross-country in driving rain, and I ask myself, "Is this really fun for you??" and then I say, "Yes, yes it is". Still though, button pushing is something that I want to limit, for some reason. I don't mind hunting around my keyboard or HOTAS for a button, but something about 'clicking' virtual buttons in a sim strikes me as incredibly idiotic. I don't know why, it just does.

Quote[/b] ]I know Falcon 4.0 was broken, but Microprose were getting shafted by Hasbro at the time. (I'll never forgive them for that. Microprose were legends). Thankfully the SP's turned it into what it was supposed to be. The flight models might be a bit iffy, but it still a reasonable representation of a jet aircraft.

That doesn't change the fact that you're invariably comparing beta code (Lomac) to code that has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb for nearly a decade (when you count original dev time), and didn't even work correctly for the first year and a half of its commercial life. I don't even know why I'm trying to change your opinion on this sort of thing, because I hate it when people try to change mine, but still: I think Lomac deserves a bit more than a once over on the demo before being dismissed.

Quote[/b] ]The reason I'm pissed, is that Lomac had been hyped way to much for me, so when I did get my hands on the demo, I was pretty much gutted.

I wasn't liking some things about it at first, namely the FMs, but now that I've taken the time to really tighten up my joystick's axes and whatnot, I can really see a gem of a jet FM emerging. Nice and responsive, but not so crisp as to make you feel like you're flying God's own fighter jet. It's very subtle in the way it handles the dynamics of flight, but if you take the time to optimize your setup, it can really impress you.

Quote[/b] ]Now with G2i screwing around with Falcon V (They want to release it on consoles as well! ), the outlook is bleak. The bastards could at least hand the F4 code back over to the community, they aren't doing anything with it.

Grrr!

I didn't even know they were going ahead with a Falcon V  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Okay, so there I was... ;)

Flying along at a little under Mach 2 at 20,000 feet in my beautiful Fulcrum- enjoying the serenity, being at one with the world, and all that. Suddenly, my master warning light blinks on, and that old familiar tone starts blasting in my ear. Naturally I think, "What the hell?"- things are perfect, what could possibly be the matter? Then I remembered two things: how fast I was going, and what jet I was flying. I checked the fuel guage-

Shit.

Reflecting back, I was sort of surprised that I had lasted that long on afterburner- the MiG is not the most fuel-efficient bird. But anyways: there I was, out of gas, 5 miles off the Crimean coast, and a good 30 miles East of Sevastopol's old military airfield. So, what's a pilot to do but try a deadstick landing? I picked my glideslope, made turns to line up with the one long runway, and proceeded to sweat. As I lined up for final, a good 10 miles out, I could tell I was too high. So, I steepened my glide, deployed the airbrake, and watched the ground slide towards me slowly, but not slowly enough. Apparently I was a little too hesitant to apply the speedbrake (sitting in several tons of metal with no propulsion force to speak of will do that to you), and I found myself a scant kilometer from the ramp's edge, still going well over 500 km/h. All I could do was throw the brakes, watch the airspeed indicator, and wait for the right moment to...

*Click*

Rumble

I would have breathed a sigh of relief as the gear folded down into position and the gear lamps went from red to green, but the approaching runway occupied all of my available concentration.

300...

200...

100...

As my tires protested the sudden contact with terra firma, I went into a frenzy: I popped my drogue chute, applied the wheel brakes, and double checked both my flaps and speed brake. For 45 seconds, I was a wind tunnel's worst nightmare. When the Fulcrum finally ground to a halt (a stone's throw from the runway's terminus), I popped the canopy, loosened my harness, and sighed. A crackling sound interrupted my reverie.

"Ford 1-1, this is Tower."

"Tower, 1. Go ahead."

"Ford, if you would be so kind as to ask next time, we'd be more than happy to let you use our facility."

"Sorry Tower."

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

Ripped from the headlines, so to speak

[killswitch 19]

Excellent writeup, Tex. Reminds me of some of my deadstick landings in Falcon 4. You get this sinking feeling (in more than one way ) in the stomach when the heater behind you gotes out...

Then it's minutes of sweating while descending...

"Cowboy 1, Mandumi tower. Next time, get clearance before landing"

[kueppcera 0]

My first impression: demo runs stable & looks amazing. After some time i thought that demo has too few targets / missions...but as one can see in official forums, there are already enough guys tweaking the original demo mission file - and any of you might remember how much was created based on OFP-Demo!

Personally i like the demo very much... and it's only beta05!

i don't care about flightmodels being not 100% accurate - as long as it runs stable, brings fun and has few bugs it's ok....

There are just two things i hope for LOMAC:

1. community does not change to what the IL2-community is now: a group of simmers whining about flightmodels only, totally forgeting how much fun this sim is

2. Eagle Dynamics develops a real dedicated server that does not only work via ubi (like the IL2-FB DS does)

just my 2 cents

;-)

[Tovarish 0]

I'll say it again. It's a 'shoot em up'. It's not a jet simulation.

Personally, no. I haven't had any time on A-10's or MiG-29's, but I have had over 60 hours on aerobatic aircraft, and a couple of hours of jet stick time, (GR4), and I can tell you the controls don't feel crisp enough.

Not having played this myself, I can only express my deep skeptisism that ED has messed up the FM's for Lo-Mac, when even most die-hard Falcon 4 fans agree that Flanker 2.5 has the better FM's, and Lo-Mac being based on a heavily modified Flanker 2.5 engine. I myself can say that the FM's were wonderful as far back as Flanker 1.5, and after all, it was first designed as a low-cost training solution for the RuAF. As for the controls not feeling crisp enough, I 've read a quote from an F-16 pilot speaking about his experience in a German MiG-29, where he basically said the same thing. source - Janes "How to fly and fight in the Mikoyan MiG-29". You've also mentioned the rudder effects being off. Is that compared to Falcon 4? because I know the ones in Falcon 4 are off as well, the aircraft don't roll when rudder is applied - there should be some rudder induced roll.

[Badgerboy 0]

I'll say it again. It's a 'shoot em up'. It's not a jet simulation.

Personally, no. I haven't had any time on A-10's or MiG-29's, but I have had over 60 hours on aerobatic aircraft, and a couple of hours of jet stick time, (GR4), and I can tell you the controls don't feel crisp enough.

Not having played this myself, I can only express my deep skeptisism that ED has messed up the FM's for Lo-Mac, when even  most die-hard Falcon 4 fans agree that Flanker 2.5 has the better FM's, and Lo-Mac being based on a heavily modified Flanker 2.5 engine. I myself can say that the FM's were wonderful as far back as Flanker 1.5, and after all, it was first designed as a low-cost training solution for the RuAF. As for the controls not feeling crisp enough, I 've read a quote from an F-16 pilot speaking about his experience in a German MiG-29, where he basically said the same thing. source - Janes "How to fly and fight in the Mikoyan MiG-29". You've also mentioned the rudder effects being off. Is that compared to Falcon 4? because I know the ones in Falcon 4 are off as well, the aircraft don't roll when rudder is applied - there should be some rudder induced roll.

The rudder feels dodgy in both sims, but for differing reasons. I imagine thats because there is no tactile feedback, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[hellfish6 7]

Well I've finally got this sucker to work right. I like it a lot. I, however, am not a hardcore plane sim fan. I couldn't tell you if the MiG-29 flies like a stork or a MiG-29, but the demo IS fun. I'll be buying the full game and hopefully I'll have one of those fancy Athlon 64's when I do.

My one regret about the whole project is, though, that there aren't enough planes to fly. I know that having six (right?) is plenty, but this project SCREAMS "FLY EVERYTHING!". I'd love to be able to fly the F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, Mirage 2000 in this... maybe someone will mod one later.

[shadow 6]

I'd rather it let me fly one of the essential helo's

Like the AH-64A, AH-64D, AH-1, UH-60, CH-47 mmmmm better start up OFP again. I can feel the abstinence already

[S_Z 0]

I just read a post by Stormin over at the official forum. It seems that the demo use “easy landings†as default (and you cant change it) so hopefully landings will be more realistic in the retail version. That’s really good news to me

[shadow 6]

I just read a post by Stormin over at the official forum. It seems that the demo use “easy landings” as default (and you cant change it) so hopefully landings will be more realistic in the retail version. That’s really good news to me  

Nope, you can disable 'easy landing'

[S_Z 0]

I just read a post by Stormin over at the official forum. It seems that the demo use “easy landings” as default (and you cant change it) so hopefully landings will be more realistic in the retail version. That’s really good news to me  

Nope, you can disable 'easy landing'

Not according to Stormin. How do you do it? I know there is some thing like “advanced flight model†in the mission file or something that you can set to “1†but it didn’t make any difference to me.

[Homer Johnston 0]

just thought I'd point out some interesting features I remember from the flanker series:

- Ground clutter for radar-- you couldn't lock onto really low targets with the radar, only with IR

- Radar terrain masking-- very useful against SAM sites and/or using fire-and-forget missiles

- IR missile's success somewhat dependant on engine temps; full afterburner was more likely to get you knocked out!

- helmet mounted IR system (worked nice with padlock)

- Lock On will supposedly reintroduce the radar doppler notch which was missing in Flanker 2.x; if the target flies perpindicular to the radar waves, it will have an apparent ground speed of 0 and the radar will not display it, thinking it is just stationary ground. Very interesting!

there are of course many interesting features to look forward to, but I personally found the modelling of the above the most interesting.

Tex [uSMC]; feel free to PM me about A-10 Cuba. I currently lack the time to search for it but send me a reminder and I will see what I can 'do' later tonight or tommorrow

BTW, the Electro-Optical scan mode is for BVR (#2); in BVR you can either use radar scan (i) or electro-optical (o) which is a short range, small area infra-red scanner. Barely BVR, but it's passive (they don't know about it) detection and a good aid to the mk.1 eyeball ;)

another thing I liked about Flanker was the neccessity of spotting incoming missiles and dodging them... hehe to heck with missile padlocks!

Hellfish, I agree that 6 planes can seem rather minor initially... but if you play the game more, and get into the more 'hardcore' play, 6 planes will seem like a lot to handle, trust me

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Well know the official website shows the demo as being 'released'. ;)

It says on the webpage the system specs you need to have, "Hard Drive Space 1.1 GB".There must be a lot of stuff in this game when it comes out!