Lomac V1.02 Patch Update

[GhostDog 0]

btw: Carl has just posted on the UBI boards that he has just downloaded beta 15 of the patch and that he will be testing all weekend

[zzzspace 2]

For people like us, we learned to do this kind of tweaking and some of us enjoy it, some of us don't You can't change that "Tis Human Nature" ;)

Well, it is in some ways much easier to get the average new game to work today, its not like ten years ago when in order to use some of the best sims around, you had to really mess about and learn esoteric op sys config stuff just to get them to run, plus load up the peripheral drivers it required … in the right order … and also not exceed tight available memory ... and that was all part of the bleeding-edge simming experience, getting the darn thing to even work ... what a relief it was after a month of trying, to finally get it to run first time! Those were the days when detailed installation instructions and readme.txt contents had to be taken very seriously. Much easier now though. :)

[Ruggbutt 45]

Not again over here.  Weasle and Bard are having a civil discussion and ruggbutt has to chime in with jabs.  I realize that you too have your opinions, but IMO you are making this discussion sour.  The discussion is bringing valid points on both sides.  It is also not enlightening anyone on things that aren't already know.  Why can't you just leave well enough alone sometimes?

I'm just rehashing the same old stuff that Bard is. Have a problem w/that? Of course you do cuz he's your squaddie. Why don't you discuss just one of my points? BTW, my response wasn't aimed only at Bard. You might want to read it again.

 

If we're going to discuss things then address what I posted. Unless you don't disagree w/what I said then I was contributing to this conversation wasn't I? The game isn't perfect but it's far from unplayable. The work going into the patch to get it right already has the naysayers commenting on it, and they haven't even patched the game yet!!! And the manual thing is irrelevant. There are those of us who don't wanna pay for something like that, and UBI worked w/Nic to provide one for those of you that do.

 

In a nutshell thats what my post stated. My comment about the crybabies and trolling wasn't directed at anyone in particular, read it again. I offered Bard some help, sue me if it sounded sarcastic but the offer still stands.

 

The continual complaining about the release state of LOMAC doesn't do any good at all, does it? Whats done is done and adults typically move on instead of harping on it. That goes for all the naysayers, again I haven't directed that towards anyone. If my opinion isn't wanted here (evidently Growler thinks my opinion shouldn't be voiced) then pull my account here. I have already requested my account be pulled at Frugals for various reasons, I suppose that bringing it over here from Frugals is what Growler is up to. I won't bite and I will not state my reasons here on these boards. My opinions are diametrically opposed to (most) of Bard's posts, but I'm offended that his squad mate would post that my opinion isn't allowed over here. That is as much of a "perceived" attack as what I was accused of.

 

I came here to discuss LOMAC. If this is a private conversation between Bard and Weasle then maybe this thread should have been locked. Until then my opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.

 

Back OT now: We all need to realize that the myriad of hardware and software combinations can cause unwanted side effects in the programming, whether it be LOMAC or any other piece of software. There are so many variables involved that install and play are becoming a thing of the past. I beta tested FarCry and it came a long way from it's beginnings and even though I knew what to expect on the final release I still had to tweak my rig (AMD64 3200, 9800xt). They weren't big tweaks , they were more like letting the game handle AA and AF. I use 3D Prof to change my settings automatically for each game. I can run LOMAC using 4x AA and 8x AF, but FarCry would grind to a halt w/my rig if I did that. The game will control those for you so I set my card to application preference. So you see, just between 2 games released by the same company you need different settings to run them. This is oversimplified but I found that when I learned how to tweak my rig that it ran better w/all games, not just LOMAC (my old rig I ran LOMAC on was an 1800 athlon).

 

UBI forced the release of LOMAC too soon, Carl stated that. Thats how big business is, and the mentality to patch later is typical of UBI (look at Ravenshield). I think we can be thankful that ED is working hard on putting the finishing touches on the patch as they know that this community has a long memory. I believe that Wags and Stormin' care about their product. I believe that once this patch is released that no matter how good it is there will still be the naysayers w/their flip comments. You can't win 'em all but in no way is LOMAC unplayable. You may not like the F-15 being undermodelled or the way the Russian radars burn thru jamming too easily. The fact is that I can get as many online kills w/the 15 as I can w/the 27. It's all about adjusting your tactics and your strategy. I'll be happy when the 15 acts like it should after the next patch, but I'm having a ball w/LOMAC just the same. There are a lot of us out there that are. Just look at all the movies the "fans" have made, I can tell you from experience that they are time consuming to render and clip together. They're all a work of love though and the few people that slam LOMAC are just that, a few. The majority of people that are playing it are loving it.

Edited May 21, 2004 by ruggbutt

[Chaingun 0]

Those were the days when detailed installation instructions and readme.txt contents had to be taken very seriously. Much easier now though.  :)

You mean they actually include readme files in these games, I always used the forums (or just mucked around with the settings) to get'em to run. :D I remember the old archaic Dos settings that had to be gone through to get anything to run. Even installing a CD-rom drive was an exercise in futility. We're just fortunate that "most" settings that work for one game usually are pretty close for another.

[Bard 0]

don't worry about ruggbutt growler - i am not even going to read his posts :)

[Bard 0]

My hope is for eventually a flight sim that everone would embrace and would work right out of the gate.

All that's occurring overtime is a pervasive, ever increasing expectation that developers should increasingly provide unachievable 'reality'.

 

Remember Jet Fighter II, or Microprose F-117A? ... great 'sim' games from 15 years ago (they seemed 'realistic' to my ignorance at the time), I'm sure many do remember them, I played those to death and had lots of fun for very few dollars.

 

No one TOLD me they were poorly coded, poorly modelled or the fight model stank, or the graphics sucked and the sound was pathetic ... I just enjoyed what I bought and there were many 'sims' I bought which really were terrible rubbish (and I forgot most of them), and I didn't need anyone to TELL me that either. Didn't need an expert to give me it broken down into what's 'wrong', or should be done 'better' and patched up.

 

Likewise, I don't need anyone to preach to me the pros and cons of a sim I play now--nobody needs that so please don't bother, I'm not interested. If I keep playing a sim it has to be pretty good to hold my interest, regardless of whatever warts it has, and in 15 years I'll still remember them fondly for what it did, not what was 'wrong'.

 

Unfortunately today, simply enjoying a sim and making the most of what you bought (emphasis on simply), and not just resorting to being a 'smart-guy' critic, is much less popular ... the sim seems to become secondary to expressing dissent and contention.

 

LOL … pretty wierd, whatever!

I completely agree - instead of working on gameplay and quality the focus is on realism and lots of features.

 

I'd be quite happy with eye candy improvements and multiplayer only on top of such old great sims as gunship, f-19 stealth fighter etc.

 

The two biggest differences between then and now:

1) When those sims came out they worked out of the box - i can't even recall downloading a single patch in the old days.

2) Their graphics and sound etc were great for the day - but the magic thing they gave us was gameplay.

 

One thing that seems to be forgotten by some is that it's entertainment software - and as such it should entertain. Having a super realistic sim with a dozen aircraft and dozens of weapons means nothing if you don't have the gameplay, especially STABLE gameplay.

 

One of the biggest problems i think is developers reinventing the wheel each time - JF18 wasn't a completely new product, but built upon JF15 - and we can see the quality of JF18 because resources weren't wasted doing stuff done before. Oleg and IL2 is an excellent example of flight sim development done right. The thing it requires is the devs to create their product properly in the first place.

 

There's two ways of developing software, disciplined and undisciplined - if you follow basic programming and design methods you'll do it the disciplined way and end up with a lot of reusable code, if you just go ahead and spaghetti code you'll find yourself with stuff that takes more effort to decipher than it would for you to write it all over again and hence you lose the lessons and effort you made in the first place. Unfortunately all the less wise see the undisciplined approach as bearing fruit quicker, not realising that they're not building a foundation to expand upon later - but maybe those putting up the capital don't realise this and force the devs into doing it the quick and dirty way.

 

It may simply be that developing a flight sim properly these days is beyond many dev's houses financial abilities - and when they spread whatever resources they have too thinly in an attempt to add lots of functionality you end up with lots of mediocre stuff that may in the end reduce a product to crummy status, rather than to have less stuff that is done well.

 

Here's the thing - if you can craft a fantastic sim that only has one aircraft featured and its weapons, you are more likely to have people who are going to want to buy follow on products that build upon what you've done because A) you produce QUALITY products and B) there's more features to give.

 

heh - long post but it led from here to there ;)

[GhostDog 0]

....  If my opinion isn't wanted here {EDIT} then pull my account here. 

 

I came here to discuss LOMAC.  If this is a private conversation between Bard and Weasle then maybe this thread should have been locked.  Until then my opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.....

Your oppinion is wanted and valued here, as is everybody elses, as long as we get all can get along and keep the tone and content constructive and within the few rules of this board.

 

I'm not pulling anything! ;)

[GhostDog 0]

....

 

One of the biggest problems i think is developers reinventing the wheel each time - JF18 wasn't a completely new product, but built upon JF15 - and we can see the quality of JF18 because resources weren't wasted doing stuff done before. Oleg and IL2 is an excellent example of flight sim development done right. The thing it requires is the devs to create their product properly in the first place.

 

....

... and LO:MAC is built upon flanker 2.5

 

Even then i guess you have to start from scratch from time to time. Even though i loved it at the time i'm not sure you could have patched and upgraded and expanded this ZX spectrum pearl all the way up to IL2 or LO:MAC quality

[GhostDog 0]

.. i cant help it... and now back on track

[zzzspace 2]

...The two biggest differences between then and now:

1) When those sims came out they worked out of the box - i can't even recall downloading a single patch in the old days.

2) Their graphics and sound etc were great for the day - but the magic thing they gave us was gameplay.

 

One thing that seems to be forgotten by some is that it's entertainment software - and as such it should entertain. Having a super realistic sim with a dozen aircraft and dozens of weapons means nothing if you don't have the gameplay, especially STABLE gameplay.

 

...There's two ways of developing software, disciplined and undisciplined - if you follow basic programming and design methods you'll do it the disciplined way and end up with a lot of reusable code, if you just go ahead and spaghetti code you'll find yourself with stuff that takes more effort to decipher than it would for you to write it all over again and hence you lose the lessons and effort you made in the first place. Unfortunately all the less wise see the undisciplined approach as bearing fruit quicker, not realising that they're not building a foundation to expand upon later - but maybe those putting up the capital don't realise this and force the devs into doing it the quick and dirty way.

Yeah, a lot of merit in those points Bard, the one thing F-117A and Tornado 1 and 2 and TFX-EF2000 series had, was fantastic game play. You could play them for a month and love every moment.

 

It goes without saying, I love Lock On’s good points, but the A.I. behaviour when it comes to actually planning and executing a mission plan, DESTROYS my enjoyment of Lock On game play ... game play? ... what game play? There seems to be a pronounced and generally unacknowledged lack of it.

 

The missions and 'campaigns' seem to inevitably degenerate in to a mish-mash of ad-hoc chaos, and that is very disappointing to someone who has played many fine sims where not only did things work, and detailed game planning was possible, but it also operated beautifully in practice. If it were not for that major snafu I'd be rapt with Lock On (because I know the other serious bugs and issues are being fixed, so I don't mind waiting as I can see its going to get there, in those areas), but as it stands, I border on disappointment and disillusionment with Lock On in almost every planned mission I attempt to fly to plan. Makes you feel like pulling your hair out to see the state of the A.I.’s behaviours, and no one seems to want to bite the bullet and say it will be remedied either, even partially.

 

So this is a stand out example of what not to do. We have a very good mission planner and editor, which allows you great precision construction of very detailed missions in time and space, plus full tactical development ( and potentially stragegic development in a campaign); it's all IN THERE, just waiting to work properly--they got that part right--but I don't know what they were envisioning in constructing the A.I. logics to actually NOT fly the missions planned! … Unbelievable. :(

 

That is what I hope no following sim developer ever considers repeating.

 

So what's the most important thing in planner and editor? ...

 

THE ACTUAL PLANNED GAMEPLAY ITSELF.

 

 

--

 

Disclaimer: Bard, please don't take this to mean I agree with other various views, nor tenacity of continually expressing them--I'm sure you realise I generally don't concur.

[sambo 0]

UNLOADED BOTH BARRELS ! Im pissed to, but when and if the patch is ever released it had better be right or I'll even more pissed. Ill NEVER buy A Ubisoft game agian. Lie and steal is all your going to get from them money grub'in rip of artist. Im sure they rushed the devs. and that why the game is so screwed up. its A real shame to becuase the game had so much going for it.

[zzzspace 2]

UNLOADED  BOTH  BARRELS !  Im  pissed  to,  but  when ... its a real  shame  to  becuase  the  game  had  so much going  for  it.

Little correction; *HAS* "... so much going for it. ..."

[Bard 0]

yeah no worries zzzspace - learned an important lesson - the truth only matters if you can prove it.

 

I see that LOMAC has a lot of potential beyond airquake - problem is so much simply does not work at the moment to make anything but that pointless.

 

Our squad tried to do a hand crafted campaign but we just started noticing how much didn't work and we just couldn't do what we wanted.

 

we're all waiting for 1.02 - HOPING there will be no major bugs left that will limit the type of gameplay (ie realistic package level co-op missions) so we can have fun :)

Edited May 22, 2004 by Bard

[Yojimbo 0]

looks like 15 was a dud - roll on 16 :)

[GhostDog 0]

Right... this is the latest from Stormin:

 

posted 22/05/2004 23:23

 

Friends,

 

Unfortunately Beta 15 is not going to be the release candidate.

 

This past week the Eagle Dynamics studio was plaugued by a series of power failures that really slowed down progress and prevented the team from being able to test the version prior to releasing it to the Beta Team.

 

We had hoped to have had Beta 15 earlier last week but because of the power failures we did not receive it until Friday.

 

We started testing immediately and we found two very serious problems that make Beta 15 a "no go".

 

First problem is that the new padlock system does not allow the user to break a padlock once established. The new system allows the user to cycle through multiple targets both before a lock is established and after the lock. Unfortunately the lock cannot be broken once established. This needs to be fixed.

 

Second, in multiplayer a new bug has appeared in the end mission debrief. When a player quits a session the program creates a debrief listing all the events that occurred during play. In Beta 15 the program records multiple entries that are duplications which makes the debrief very long. It takes many minutes for the debrief to appear which and seems like the game is locked up. This is unacceptable for a release candidate and it needs to be fixed.

 

The good news is that the other problems found with Beta 14 appear to have been addressed.

 

I realize this is frustrating to all of you as it is to us. I know that most of you have been very patient and supportive and for that all of us at Eagle are grateful for your continued loyalty and support.

 

I also know some of you are fed up and angry. Trust me when I say that we certainly have not delayed this patch on purpose.

 

I wish I had better news but I don't and I felt that I should give you the status, good or bad, as soon as possible.

 

We hope to have Beta 16 early next week so we can start testing again.

 

Carl

[lexicon 0]

It's good it's also the best modern military sim ever made. But it needed better programmers and also better attention to detail. There are a lot of details missing out of this game. The programming is really s**tty.... maybe some of the worse I have seen in a big retail seen. They are actually using cin> commands or graphical configurations and things… ;( things like this show bad programming habits. The only hope is for a lock on 2. Or an add-on that fixes the game so it's up to par with people’s expectations. People demand quality and I think they should have it because of all the money they spend on hardware and also because of the standards that other game makers set.

[Ruggbutt 45]

I think that ED realizes that for any kind of addon's they need to get this patch correct. I for one would buy an addon as IMHO this is the only sim out there right now thats worth anything (F4 included). At least the damn thing is current and is being supported.