Leaderboard

Hi all I had nothing to do this weekend, so i decided to make my first LockOn movie, which is also my first movie at all. I hope you like it. High quality (recommended): http://jonas.irczone.ch/lofc-ar.wmv (40 MB) Low quality (youtube):

Действительно, для чего? Почему несколько крайних тем закрыто с подобной ремаркой?

I expect it to be fixed sometime after BS ... just because it can't be fixed right away doesn't mean you should let it go - you 'live with it' with the expectation that it WILL be fixed in the future.

Nobody's asking for a perfect representation of real life - you'll need a Tray to run that sim. But Lock On should be coded in a way to force players to use realistic tactics rather than these artificial ones. You don't need a perfect sim to do that. If someone decides to fly below 10 m, punish them by coding random damage that "simulates" ingestion of foreign objects into the engines, etc. You don't have to code for every single pebble on the ground and bird in the air. Or better yet, just let radar missiles track aircraft down to zero - in the end, it's more realistic that way anyway, because the newest missiles track the target's doppler signature. And even a truck going at 70 mph would generate enough doppler for the F-15 to detect with its radar. Then practice on your own time. Fly for the virtual Thunderbirds or Blue Angels. For those that want to play realistically, nothing is a bigger buzz-kill than having that one guy come in at 10 m to take out that friendly Ticonderoga cruiser when in reality anything within 20 nm of that ship would be dead upon detection. Since when has competition been an acceptable replacement for realism? Hell, if that's the case, I wonder why doesn't everyone just play Counter Strike? Or Battlefield 2? Lock On is a *simulation*. If you cannot use tactics from the textbook, then you're playing a game, not a sim. What? Nobody has ever "hacked" the great Jane's sims: LB2, F-15 and F/A-18.

IT'S A GAME! Those people who understand reality and it's differences with lomac will always classify this as a game & not a sim when it pertains to air combat. Keep telling the kids that there's nothing wrong with lomac, it's your tactics that need adjustment. Poor missile logic, and radar modeling that's a mere shadow of proper function will skew tactics far distant from real life. Any argument that says in one breath that "lomac gets it right" then ends with "WTF are you complaining about, just fly this way instead & you'll still get the same result" just reinforces that this simulates nothing. Learning tactics that only the stupid (IRL) would try and then translating that to RL or a SIM that models RL closer than lomac will get you virtually killed. If the game forced us to utilize RL tactics, then it wouldn't be a game, now would it?

Maybe it has to do with our enjoyment of combat. No matter what you compare it to, FC and 1.12a hurt rather than helped several facets of LOMAC. e.g. uber-chaff and missiles shooting down missiles.

It was an inquiry into the game mechanics and the realism thereof. And ... some of us would like to see missiles become more realistic.

Err....so now we got Ice vs GG here. Very interesting indeed ;) My question is really about IRL performance. Weather the game models this or not is somewhat secondary here for me, believe it or not. On the other hand, if we are to model airplanes as invincible to radar missiles below 10m meters, we might as well throw some water into the intakes of the aircraft when they are closer than 2-3 m to the ground. Would create some interesting situations! (long term effects not recommended! - also how come the aircraft radar so perfectly has no problems with the water then :)) hmm....If we look at radar wavelengths perhaps we could create some nice interference patterns with the water, who knows, might be very confusing, for BOTH missile and attacking aircraft.

Могут. Но не будут. :)

From my point of view, the all aspect chaff is the biggest problem right now. It effectively renders radar missiles useless when flying agains a skilled opponent. Right now BVR shots don't even make the opposing fighter defensive. They'll just turn slightly to either side and pump chaff. I sure hope the problem will be fixed, because right now, heaters are way better than any radar missile due this problem. And that's really far away from realistic. Not so long ago we had a squadmatch against a well known and experienced squadron, and most of the kills were done with IR missiles. Radar missiles were pretty much useless. As far as i know, IRL when IFF is not a problem and ROE allows, the fights stay pretty much BVR with radar missiles.

I think it's been mentioned before, but stealth does not an invisisble plane make. The key to actually using it effectively is using it in a combined force op with SEAD/DEAD aircraft flying as shotgun cover for it. Also something that is needed is not being predictable or consistant with your approach routes. As was mentioned, if you fly the same routes, same speed, same altitude night after night, eventually you'll get caught. Also, from what I heard from a F-117 pilot turned F-15 pilot, the F-117 in question was bagged by the very NVA tactic of spamming the skies with active radar and semi-active radar missiles, one just got lucky enough to bag the -117. And think about this, the military in all chances did request permission to take out the crash site and any location holding the debris. Because it was a war waged from 20,000 feet, and it had to be ass-kissed all the way because the politicians kept a hammer lock on targets, the politicians likely didnt want to appear to be "dirty" and destroy the remains and kill anyone stupid enough to dance around it.