tflash
-
Posts
2886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tflash
-
-
It would be particularly strange if a vendor of software came afterwards telling me that one of the features I used and enjoyed most was bogus.
And I am telling you now that it is - do you still think the Kh-25MP should be left on the Su-25 despite this being an unrealistic situation?
Like VapoR said, the question of whether aircraft A or B should be allowed to deploy weapons they in reality cannot support is not a minor point in connection with a simulation.
- JJ.
OK, I think I understand your position clearly now:
- the official version 1.0X distributed by UbiSoft is bogus in an area that is no minor point for a simulation.
- the unofficial patch by ED will offer a correct simulation of this important feature.
Felicitations! I want to make clear that I for my part do NOT support the first claim. I think the Flanker series and the Lockon series where very valuable simulations from the start.
But I understand that for you a very near representation of actual capabilities is what you are looking after in a Sim. I can understand that, but I for my part e.g. find an accurate historic setting of a particular conflict more important. I guess sims come in many tastes; I'll enjoy 1.1 as much as I did 1.02.
-
It's my opinion that a patch or an add-on should never remove features from previous versions.
Not even when those are bogus?
- JJ.
It would be particularly strange if a vendor of software came afterwards telling me that one of the features I used and enjoyed most was bogus.
Since the Su-25T is in my opinion not available in large operational numbers and certainly not with a single specification, I wonder what will be dropped from it in the next release of Lockon :wink:
But lets not make a fuzz about this somewhat minor point: the important thing is we are eager to fly the new features, no doubt about that!
-
Hey, GGTHaros, that of not upgrading was a joke! No, I'm not nuts but always cautious when I upgrade software. I made a LOT of missions involving the Su-25 with KH-25MP.
Of course, I will be happy to update them all to use the Su-25T instead, but I fear this plane will also consume more resources of my PC. As some missions are already on the performance limit and somewhat stuttering, I fear I will end up with a rather slow gaming experience.
It's my opinion that a patch or an add-on should never remove features from previous versions. There are a lot of very bad features in Excel that MS leaves there because millions USE them.
Of course, I'm very, very interested to try out the advanced anti-radar modes. Very, very much so!
-
If I understand the manual right, the Kh-25MP missile will no longer be available on the Su-25, but the Kh-25MPU and Kh-58 will be available on the Su-25T?
Will there be an improved simulation of this missile also?
How about the promising S-25L laser-guided rocket? Will it be available for the standard Su-25?
The Su-25T will have inferior flight performance compared to Su-25 due to less favourable trust-to-weight ratio.
I don't know about you guys, but I do like to fly aircraft that have good performance. So I guess in air-to-ground I will stick with the old Su-25 with the new AFM. To bad I will loose the Kh-25MP missile! Maybe I shouldn't "upgrade" after all?
-
He guys,
We voiced our concerns, ED has responded swiftly and in a professional way. They show an open mind and a willingness to dialogue with the community.
The manual, the training missions, the LUA scripting support, templates: all indications of solid, professional and dedicated work.
I am convinced the Starforce solution they now propose is a good solution. It protects their investment for the commercial lifespan of this version.
The best interest to the customer to protect his investment is a financially valid ED.
So, do what you want, but I will buy this game. In fact, my main concern now is just how to order?
-
As a customer, I would like a better performing Lockon. period.
(The very strange thing is that I get the highest FPS on a Pentium M system (probably the 2 Mb cache does the trick).
To bad for a very, very good game indeed: I truly admire the devs, and certainly the su-25 AFM is really nice.
Ok I got your point now... nonetheless I bet it's not the 2mb cache but the graphic card which makes the difference ;).
I agree that Lock On has a few performance issues. It's not too well optimized (f.ex. the heat blur). I would get angry if Lock On had the same budget as Doom 3 or HL 2, but it hasn't. It's a game for a minority. Either put up with it or don't buy it. IMO you can't blame the devs on this.
I guess you're right: it's more of a suggestion. I'm totally supportive of ED; they've made some magic in this game and I truly enjoy it.
-
BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable.
How many of those games are modelling a complex electronic environment, missile performance etc all of which eats up processor capacity? Lock On is a very complex game and can't be compared to HL2, Doom3 etc all of which are mainly driving eye candy IMHO
What would be good measures to make a comparison? Average polygon counts are one thing: the higher the number of polygons, the heavier, no matter how the code is written. Are there other data that we could use to compare the relative burden a game puts on the system which are independent of optimisation?
Or does anyone know a good way to benchmark? I just think performance is important.
-
You're missing the point completely here, guys. First of all my question was not for a judgment on my PC with X300 card: I am not thrilled by the performance on my higher end systems either.
The question was IF Lockon 1.1 had performance enhancements over previous versions. I guess the answer is no.
BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable.
As a customer, I would like a better performing Lockon. period.
(The very strange thing is that I get the highest FPS on a Pentium M system (probably the 2 Mb cache does the trick).
To bad for a very, very good game indeed: I truly admire the devs, and certainly the su-25 AFM is really nice.
-
There is little to read about eventual performance enhancements in 1.1.
Considering performance issues took most of the posts about the previous versions, I would expect 1.1 to offer some improvements of performance over 1.02.
How about that? To put it straight: will a 2GHz system with 1Mb RAM and 128Mb video card (ATI/NVidia) be sufficient?
I found the previous requirements on the box (Pentium III 800/ 256Mb RAM/32Mb video memory) surprisingly understating. :?
In that sense, the demo did not convince me: on a 2.8 PIV with 1 GB RAM and ATI X300 it is unplayably slow. I had to edit the mission so as to drop a lot of the ground units to be able to fully appreciate the new AFM.
And, as before, this is the only title giving these issues. I can name a lot of 2004 released games that work like a breeze on the same PC, offering the same depth of visual effects like volumetric clouds etc.
-
Hey, I got the impression I missed the point here and want to say a few things in support of Stormin and ED:
1) I see people feel our candid discussion is a reason to uninstall the demo or think it is damaging their system.
--> this is absolute BS: you are not running into any extra risks by having this demo installed. There is no clear and present danger here and the theoretical problem with the StarForce driver is to my opinion a minor threat compared to a wealth of other, more imminent threats to the security of your computer already present. I totally disagree with claims the demo makes your PC unsafe.
2) The fact that a StarForce key could be cracked is in no way a sufficient argument against it: the whole point why StarForce is used in the gaming industry is that it takes relatively longer to crack, and that's the whole and only point of such a protection.
If the protection can help delay massive replication for a few months, that's enough in commercial game terms. The only thing is I think other products should be carefully assessed, because we want a good protection with the least possible discomfort for the customer, and I'm not sure StarForce would be my favourite in this respect.
-
From what I have learned from my contacts at TFC/ED this is all a big nothing. They know what they are doing and have researched this subject in depth. They will make a statement at the appropriate time. I'm not their spokesman and I sure as hell don't miss having to deal with hysteria like this crap. Some of you are really being ignorant. If the shoe fits, wear it. Why not wait for the facts?
The fact is this highly controversial piece of software ended on my PC after installing the demo, from a software vendor I did trust, without an appropriate warning.
I hope you do not refer to that with "They know what they are doing ..." ?
I am very supportive of ED finding a good, viable solution to distribute their software over the internet without being ripped, but I'm having doubts if they are chosing the right partner and I think they missed an opportunity to communicate about that BEFORE I installed the demo.
So, in the future, I would appreciate that their "in-depth subject research" would not take place on MY PC, tnx.
Let's remove our tinfoil hats for a second. Just what did this copy protection routine do to you or your system that is so evil? Please provide some specifics.
The demo installs a StarForce device driver; this is of course no evil as such, but it is good practice to notify the user that this will be installed and give information how to uninstall it. In no way this driver was what the potential customer expected to install: I'm installing a game, not a device. The specific problem is that a device driver always has an impact on your system as a whole, so it goes beyond selling an application to someone, when you install a driver. Furthermore this driver is not necessary for testing the demo.
As this thread shows, the device driver in question is controversial. I wont make a statement on that. Some would argue that such a device driver, if it where to operate at ring 0, constitutes as such a liability and security risk. I don't know. What I do know is that a lot of trouble would have been anticipated if ED had clearly indicated that they distributed the demo together with a StarForce device driver.
I think this whole discussion IS important, but it shouldn't scare you off: if ED is pursuing the road to internet distribution, what I strongly encourage, they have to take these issues into account and get a good communication strategy about it. Now, I won't insist any further: I made my point, I've nothing to add, I just hope ED can take our feedback into account, we all want their product to succeed!
-
From what I have learned from my contacts at TFC/ED this is all a big nothing. They know what they are doing and have researched this subject in depth. They will make a statement at the appropriate time. I'm not their spokesman and I sure as hell don't miss having to deal with hysteria like this crap. Some of you are really being ignorant. If the shoe fits, wear it. Why not wait for the facts?
The fact is this highly controversial piece of software ended on my PC after installing the demo, from a software vendor I did trust, without an appropriate warning.
I hope you do not refer to that with "They know what they are doing ..." ?
I am very supportive of ED finding a good, viable solution to distribute their software over the internet without being ripped, but I'm having doubts if they are chosing the right partner and I think they missed an opportunity to communicate about that BEFORE I installed the demo.
So, in the future, I would appreciate that their "in-depth subject research" would not take place on MY PC, tnx.
-
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001missiles/defabio.pdf
I figured you might enjoy this SK, and it has a 'tenative' picture of what a Link-16 display might look like as well.
Link 16 would definitely be an interesting option. Anything that would bring some life in the now not much used MFD below the radar display would be very welcome!
What would be fine also is integration of the RWR with Chaff/Flare dispensers, so that the TEWS automatically launches Chaff & flare according to a threat.
Kh-25MP
in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2
Posted
I can agree on this one. In fact, I didn't intend to start a negative discussion here: you're right: lets first enjoy to fly these thrilling new features before complaining.
I'm just a interested to fly the Su-25T as you all are. I always get carried away by realism discussions, but I should keep these for philosophy courses :=)