MonkeyIsland

Ya, I live in Canada and Amazon.ca doesn't offer electronics yet. I can get my hands on a Logitech Freedom stick, I'll give that a bash, see if I like the feel. From what I've read, it doesn't seem to have the problems of the 3D. Medium to med high settings only? I wonder what rigs the Dev's are using to capture the videos?

Hello all, I'll be investing in a copy of LoMac soon, and will have to get a joystick. There is very little to choose from, and I'm not that hard core that I need a HOTAS. Basically there are two models suitable to Flight Simming and readily available where I live, the Saitek Cyborg Evo and the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. I hate the feel of the Saitek. It has a strange socket that houses a plate which in turn presses up on a spring, and this is what centers the joystick. It's hard to overcome the initial movement of the stick, and then it moves easily, but the plate continues to scrape along the housing. It feels awful compared to the Logitech. The Logitech, feels good and has a consistent and smooth feel to it's movement. Problem with this stick is, many of the reports I have read say it only lasts 2 months, at which point it starts to drift, and no amount of recalibrating will help. From what I've read, it is apparently a servo problem or something, and some WD40 lubricant to the servo's may or may not fix the problem. My question is, is anyone out there using the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, and how long have you had it? How is it performing? Any advice would be appreciated. Also, will the following machine run LoMac OK? Intel P4 3.0Ghz 1024KB Cache 800Mhz FSB, 1GB DDR @ 400Mhz, and a ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128 at 1280x1024 or possibly 1600x1200? I read here that this is a demanding game. Thanks.

Why is the plane floating?

Thanks for the input. Glad you like the poll. MonkeyBoy.....hmmm...I like it. I might use that. Thanks. :)

Gentleman, (and Ladies). The poll in no way actually effects the release date of 1.1. I just thought it would be interesting to ask a question that will help in clarrifying the thought process of the community. In essence the poll is really a "quality vs. quantity" issue. Quality being stability, and quantity being time. I am actually quite surprised at the results so far. The fact that the majority of us (so far) have voted for "When it's running silky smooth, even if it takes another 6 months", is not surprising. It shows that stability and a smoothly running game is top priority for most simmers. Also, it shows that interest in the Lock On series is a deep interest. People are willing to wait, and are confident their interest levels will be as high in 6 months time, as they are now. This is good, it seems like ED will have a solid support base for years to come. What did surprise me was the relatively few people (so far) that voted for 2 months. Most people either want this before Christmas, or, want it when it's "ready", even if it takes 6 months. It seems people view either quality, or quantity as being important, and few will compromise. Interesting. At least I thought it was. Anyway, this poll is essentially for entertainment purposes, and to see how people are thinking. If you find it pointless or a waste of your time, please feel free to abstain from voting and move onto the next thread. If you found it interesting/amusing, or if it helped to distract you from your 1.1 craving for a few minutes then I am pleased, and regard it as being worthwhile.

I have no doubt it will be released when it's ready. That would be a good time for it's release. :wink: Still, it'll be interesting to see what people are thinking.

Thought we'd see what LOMAC enthusiaists think about release dates. Have a vote :!:

Interesting. Maybe one of the Devs's can clarrify for us. Also I have another question. If 1.1 is a new game, as stated in the Flaming Cliffs website, will ED continue to release patches and fixes for LoMAC? I mean small patches to download that will fix bugs with LoMAC after 1.02. If it will not be possible to get a copy of Flaming Cliffs in Canada, then at least I will buy LoMAC if I know it will be supported with patches and fixes into the future, without me having to download the 700MB Flaming Cliffs game.

Hello, I'm new to this. Is Flaming Cliffs a completey new game. I noticed on the webpage it said it was. But it is also refferred to as 1.1. Which makes me think it's kind of an add-on/patch for Lock On:MAC. Question is, do I have to buy Modern Air Combat and then add Flaming Cliffs? or can I just start with Flaming Cliffs? Also, does anyone know if ED accepts Paypal? I assume that I will have to download this from Canada as the website only talks of a publishing company for within Russia. I don't really want to give my credit card details. Thanks.

Looking at your screenshots, there is nothing there, graphics wise, that warrants a 7 FPS display rate. 7 FPS with that amount of detail and your PC with a clean ugraded ver of LoMac from 1.00 to 1.02 should deliver all the FPS you need. 7 FPS is not normal, despite what many LoMac users have come to accept as "normal". There is something wrong with the software. These problems need to be brought to the fore so that ED can get to the bottom of these issues, and improve the game, sell more copies, and make more money, provide us with improved sims and LoMac add on's well into the future. I thank Starlight for helping ED to improve the game by submitting the results of his testing. I hope that by some chance ED will read what has been submitted here. FPS issues are the top priority in the list of fixes, add on's and modifications that need to be made to this game.

Thank you for your truly insightful response, and your opinion. In the free world, we are all entitled to an opinion. In the free market economy, the survival of a corporation depends on it's abilities to deliver what it's customers want, not what the corporation wants. LoMac has a lot of potential, that's why some people have the courage to bring the issues to the fore, to help improve the sim. Saying it's perfect, isn't going to make an improvement. I would like to see ED become successful, so that they can have the money and resources to improve the sim. Expanding sales to West will increase their profit. But in order to do that, they must design a game that caters to a Western mindset. I am trying to help them understand what westerners want, and though I don't speak for everyone, I think a flyable F/A-18 would have have increased the games appeal in the West, where people have more expendable income than in Russia. This is hardly a recipe for success in building a successful corporation. I'm sure that ED wants to sell as many copies throughout the world as possible. It is not a matter of them "allowing" us to buy there game, it's a matter of them providing a product in a niche market that consumers want to have, and are ready to pay hard earned cash for. How successful would MicroSoft or Electronic Arts be today if they had an attitude of "allowing" us the great priviledge of buying their games? The world doesn't work that way. Competition will weed out the inferior from the superior. LoMac has no competition right now, and that's what keeps it going. If there were other companies developing similar products, LoMac would be a better probuct than it is right now, or it would have dissappeared altogether. Such is free market competition. I didn't make the rules, I just know what they are. LoMac's a great game, but it can be better, there is always room for improvement, and the more improvement there is, the more sales they'll have, and then they can build the infrastructure to continuously make the game better, hire the best programmers and artists, and of course, the best AI experts. The attitude of them "allowing" us the priviledge of buying the game, will result in very little for LockOn, because this is not a successful business strategy. If there are going to be distribution issues in the West, maybe they can just be put those on a FAQ page. If this is truly a big issue, and if ED is not selling to a Western market, as you stated, then there shouldn't be an English website for this game. It would be nice to hear from the DEV's regarding Starlight's comments on AI.

Starlight, doesn't look like you're going to get new AI any time soon. On the other hand, maybe the AI is real.....I mean maybe this is just the way they operate in Russia? The DEV's probably haven't responded because they don't understand what you're on about. You mean planes aren't supposed to crash into each other on take off? Personally I think the DEV's are interested in making this came appeal to the Russian market. They could have made a lot more money by including an F-18 as there new plane, instead of a SU-25. That way they would have a bigger budget, and more resources to improve the game, and build there company. I wish I could read Russian so that I could look at the Russian forum and see if they are happy with the came and the AI the way it is. Maybe they view it as being accurate. As for the AI being designed into the game from the very start, I think you are right, and as for the FPS problems, with your PC, and the level of graphics in LoMac, you would not have any problems if the code was optimized and efficient. It's kind of like driving a car around with the hand-brake on all the time. Sure, you can put a bigger engine in your car (new CPU, RAM etc) but if you really want to go faster, and have the car operate as intended, let go the hand-brake (optimize the code, or make a new graphics/AI engine altogether). I'd like to hear what the DEV's say about your concerns. I think your concerns are valid, and will determine if LoMac will be around for years to come, or if it's days are already numbered. All the eye candy in the world won't help is the game doesn't start to make some sense. We need playability, and a story, in the form of a dynamic campaign. When you play the game, you must feel like you have a part to play in a greater cause. The DEV's will have to be more creative aand come up with a story about why you're fighting in the first place. Falcon 4 had this, it was a simulation of a campaign against North Korea, and the movies, news reports etc at the beginning of the game made you understand your role in the campaign. An F-16 pilot involved in a major real time battlefield simulation. In LoMac it's more of a case of fly and blow stuff up, and watch other planes crash themselves and into each other. That's fun for a while, but where's the challenge in that? A modern game/simulation must hold your attention for weeks at a time, you must have an end goal in mind that you are trying to achieve. I was talking to an executive at Electronic Arts, and he confirmed this for me, the story is everything, even more important than graphics.

Hmmm...Thanks for the info. Looks like there's useful stuff at BioHazard. I didn't know about it. Cheers.

I know it ain't a huge deal. I'd prefer a stable game with efficient code above alll else. I just always notice those huge glaring nav lights. It just doesn't happen in the day. I don't think it will increase overhead, might decrease it since transparency is more intensive on CPU. I'd just like ED to experiment, and see if these small changes make things look better. But, I know they're busy campers right now.

(I tried to email this to the ED team, but it got bounced, so this is the only way to communicate) Hello, I've been enthusiastically watching the progress of Lock On: Modern Air Combat, and Lock On : Flaming Cliffs. I have seen the video's and screenshots of Lock On : Flaming Cliffs, and am looking forward to it's release. I think you guys are doing very good work on the project. I have noticed a few inaccuracies in the screenshots of Modern Air Combat, and Flaming Cliffs. The physical modelling of the aircraft is excellent though, as are ground objects. The inaccuracies I have noticed are as followes: 1. The lights on aircraft, specifically navigation lights have an unrealistic halo around the light during the day. The first picture below gives an example of this. The halo is huge. This is something that cannot occur during daylight, becasue the ambient light of the sun simply removes the halo. The second picture has been modified by myself, and shows a more accurate version of what a navigation light will look like during the day. There is only a very small halo. I have included photographs of fighters during daytime, showing an accurate picture of what lights look like during the day. One is of an F-15 and one of an F-16. 2. I notice in the screenshots that explosions are also somtimes shown as being transparent. I've included a few pictures to show that there is no transparency in flames or smoke. In some rare circumstances there may be, but I'm sure you will agree that no transparency looks more realistic, and dramatic. Obviously there is some transparency in smoke as it spreads, and smoke is modelled very well, but maybe experiment with making fire less transparent. Also, trees have no transparency. 3. I'm glad to see there will be more campaigns in Flaming Cliffs. After all, it is a good story that makes a simulation enjoyable. If you don't really know what you're fighting for, there is little point in fighting. If you made campaigns involving a western country, such as USA and Korea, or Even USA and Russia, or USA and China, with a story around it that included some real world events, I think that westerners would find the game even more appealing, and this would result in more sales, more money for you, and the ability to give us future improved releases of fighter simulators to enjoy. Including a flyable F-18 would certainly help as well. Keep up the good work, and I hope my comments and examples are helpful. I look forward to the release of Flaming Cliffs in Canada. Regards, Kryote. This image shows the unrealistic halo. This image shows my modified version, with the small halo. Unrealistic lights on F-16. Good aircraft modelling though. Photo. Notice the small halo. Photo - small halo. Picture from Flaming Cliffs website. Nice modelling, but flames are too transparent. Real world example. No transparency. Picture from Flaming Cliffs website. Flames are too transparent. Real world example. No transparency.