TPN_Bard

I think it is simply this way: UBI puts x number of $ to the developers to develop and produce a product by a certain deadline - and by the looks of what carl said, will allow fixing of major bugs. We saw with IL2 that generally it was in good shape upon release, and we saw with LOMAC that it generally wasn't. I'd say part of the problem was the developer, and part the publisher, if the developer can't get it done in time and the publisher forces it out then the consumer loses. There's a lot of little polishing that could be done to LOMAC (adding a phone book like the one in falcon, netgraph to help troubleshoot, adding alternative graphics for those who have graphics cards that can't deal with method the effects were done with, use the workaround for sounds i mentioned to reduce the effects of the problematic sound engine), and some bigger stuff like redoing the mission creation system and loadouts systems that would have generally improved the sim's functionality and made it outstanding. 5 Months later and we're still seeing what is essentially development work being done - and without money coming in to pay to fix any bugs that appear due to this continuing development there's a good chance we're going to get stuck with problems - I just hope these problems aren't going to be the kind that breaks gameplay.

thats the problems with hosting a site. i think this site is going to have to go less "graphical" in the not too distant future as it becomes more popular.

A-10 in LOMAC is going to blow away SP3's A-10. Lots of complaints by hog drivers will be resolved with SP4, but without more exe modification we are stuck with what we have. Aeyes has nice pits, haven't checked lately but the 2d pits are ALWAYS crisper than 3d (lot less strain on a system). Aeyes made a great new 3d pit for the f-16 (high res) that matches his 2d one.

not sure if you've played F4's matchplay, but it's hardly one step up from a furball ;) it would just be a set of meeting engagements between air superiority fighters - without the 20 minutes flying time or 60 minutes on CAP and with the guarantee of engaging the enemy :D engagements on the otherhand are the whole package - that is what I am trying to put together for an online miniwar.

depends on what happens with LOMAC say, in 2-3 years.

Hmm ..suxs to be you! my wife and I have an understanding, im the infamous panty burglar in my home... Bow chicka bow bowwww..... bump bump......Bow chika bow bow..... wifey KNOWS better ;)

hehe.. it was the avatar huh

exactly, a set dogfight isn't airquake - that would be an engagement. stuff like IL2FB's dogfight servers are airquake. I hope there is something like Falcon4's matchplay - You choose sides then do your merge and fight until one team is wiped out then it restarts.

no, it was said that the demo would be released this week - MAYBE. It's like having your wife strut around in front of you in lingerie, lead you to the bedroom, then turn the lights off and go to sleep. At no time did she say anything was going to happen for sure - but you'd still be somewhat pissed ;)

actually, i think the petition WILL serve a purpose - free advertising ;)

hmm.. doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I think sims NEED more time to have the word of mouth pass around - simply because less people play them than your average shooter. I think UBI's making a mistake with this.

I don't agree with no dynamic campaign not mattering :) For people who aren't going to be able to play online, it's going to make a HUGE difference to them.

I've been simming since F-15 strike eagle from microprose, i'd guess about 1984 or so. Online simming tends to be one of two things - airquake - proper missions. the airquake variety are the easiest to come across - and to tell you the truth airquaking in a prop sim is usually much better than in a jet sim - it requires more skill to do it in a prop as there is more to the flying. proper missions on the other hand are usually somewhat different ;) I've participated in VEF, Iron Skies and a couple of other online wars and i've seen a problem with all of them - trying to do TOO much. What i am hoping to put together is an engagement style online war - where a set of missions are created that are played much in the same style as say, a counterstrike mission. Squads will play against each other in these. Think of it as more of a "hand crafted" set of engagements than a full blown war. This will allow squads to train on these missions, come up with their tactics, and then execute the mission against a live enemy. I need to wait to get my hands on LOMAC before I can really figure out if it will be suitable for this sort of thing, and what KINDS of missions i can create in it but i am very hopeful. One thing i REALLY want to do is test the capacity of the multiplayer code - I want to ensure that every engagement is enjoyable for everyone - i am so sick to death of playing online sims where planes do crazy stuff.

wifey... programming hotas... wifey... programming hotas. ah well, i'll see how much i can get done ;)

it's all about having class. release it early and you get labelled as crapware shovellers, release it late and you get labeled as people with integrity that don't shovel crap.

I'm very interested to see what the bandwidth usage is for a multiplayer session. I can point you out to utilites that will help you measure this (a VERY simple process, look at some numbers displayed and scribble them down). This will give us an idea of what the code can support now, ie a worst case scenario.

*sigh* ok, let's see if i can settle this. I've asked for a preview that isn't fantasy like we've seen in the past, Read the above CAREFULLY. Madjeff has understood EXACTLY what i mean. I did NOT say "I've asked for a preview that isn't a fantasy like some of the other LOMAC previews we've seen". In fact, i can't remember even saying ONCE that previous LOMAC previews have been biased or dishonest. I think you guys better take a step back and read what i'm writing and think about it instead of assuming that everyone on the internet is an asshat.

Bard How many previews have you written for the flight sim community? Here's a tip. Previews by their very nature are typically positive. Why? Because good things in a beta are seldom changed to bad...whereas poor performance in a beta is often remedied by the time the gold release comes around. Previews are meant to be "teasers", not in-depth critiques of a game's good and not-so-good points. BTW...try not to use the term "fanboi" from now on. Those of us that do this stuff for real may take offense. How many I'VE written is irrelevant, i think you might want to read what i posted again. If you want me to clarify any of my comments because you've misunderstood them i'd be happy to. fanboi = someone who BLINDLY cheers on their game of choice, ignores problems and generally is incapable of an objective view. I'll continue to use it to describe those sort of people. Nothing wrong with being a fan because a sim has great features, but that is different to being a fanboi. How many fanboi gunship! previews did we see? TOO MANY. What was even better was that hasbro didn't hand over the gold version for review. The previewers were told that issues that were in the beta were going to be fixed - the previewers then talked about those features as if they had been implemented.... and they were not. MANY people went and bought gunship! based on those very faulty previews. We all KNOW a preview is just that - that's not the issue. The issue is bias and dishonesty in these previews, mentioning stuff that doesn't exist as if it does. All comes down to integrity.

LOMAC will not include the complex flightmodels that have been in development as they are too time consuming to debug.

sure they can, but it depends on what is being discussed. It does NOT take first hand knowledge to know if a flight model is wrong - that's where physics comes in ;) The only advantage someone who has flown the plane before has is that they can say it "feels" right. Everything else comes down to scientific data.

so what does this all mean anyway? I know one of the big blurbs was that LOMAC was going to have a fully dynamic flight model and how it would be superior to table based stuff (that people keep saying is how falcon4sp3 does it). I'm not a flight model guy and don't know much about the f2.5 fm's, but are there other sims out there that use the same approach that lomac will? I see people refer to "tabled" flight models because they use data, and have said that they are inferior - i can't see HOW you'd make a flight model without a data table. Obviously i must be missing something :) Can anyone give me a quick rundown on the common approaches to FM?

you're exactly right, i don't know you from anyone else ;) haven't read any other stuff you may have done.

Please don't be making claims about how things are GOING to be, we had too much of that when gunship! was being made, all the previews were tainted with what the devs said was going to be in the sim, and all the problems that the beta had were going to be fixed. Neither the features nor the fixing occured, and it would have saved me money and a LOT of effort that it took for me to get a refund if a "fantasy" preview isn't made. In other words, try not to make it a fanboi preview :)

thats why i think it is a little bad news. the f2 flight models didn't feel too bad. My only remaining question is if the a-10, su-25 and f-15 are going to have simplified models of their own. simplified models should have one good effect - less CPU processing needed which can be shunted to other stuff.

looks like its purely "magic" illumination. someone or something is doing the illumination for you, not anything in particular. Wouldn't be hard to "fake" what you're saying by placing a laser capable aircraft nearby... unless it gets shotdown ;)