Boneski

D... On the 120 v 7 missile issue... Real world facts kick design's butt every time. On the Doppler issue... that's a natural effect. The game on your desktop pc is not trying to simulate Nature... just the jet. It's fair to say that if then logic is in play to simulate the tactics that can defeat / degrade doppler returns... All you need to know is that if then logic works on paper with a fair amount of certainty... this is not so true real life... Since the game is not really able to model all of the variables that exist in nature... you have to deal with some concessions. The idea is that the AI / Ownship can do things that will effect the simulated missiles PK... It's not clear what people are expecting... On of the biggest issues is that most people don't fly like pilots in real life... so talk of real life happenings is sort of a moot point. Please do not derive from this post that your opinion is being dissed... you have an opinion... you want XYZ fix. That fact is respected. The cool thing about this Lock On team and the work they are doing is that they have and are developing a very impressive software program... simulating the best they can the jets and hardware used by the jets. It truly is amazing the high level of fidelity of this program.

? If IRL means In Real Life... then you know something that a lot of people don't know. It's a major mistake to even try to compare game dynamics to real world dynamics. The 120 is a good stick... but the 7 is far better... as it should be.

The Man in the Tent I love the Supply guy in the tent doing the paper work for the Cobra. Sir... thanks for bring it back in one peice this time! Great work guys... amazing detail...;)

Unpopular Point of View Either one would be good.... The team can put whatever they like in the sim..mix and match time lines... it does not matter... It would be nice If they build some heavies like the IL-76 and or orther transports types like the C-17 or even c-130... or heavy lift Helos. Any craft ED wants to build will work...

Hey guys, It seems that there has been a mis-understanding regarding the point if Lock-On is a good candidate for a Dynamic Campaign or is it a better candidate for a new approach that facilitates a Dynamic environment. Clearly Lock-On can benefit from something other then a static world. The developers have addressed that with Dynamic elements such as non-combat style ground and rail traffic as well as other map based activity. This has giving the world that's wrapped around the jet some life. With the inclusion of fighting ground units... and fighting ships... the world around the jet is even more alive. The missing link is not a war engine... there is plenty of good fighting in the game. its simulated logic between the environment and the AI that needs tweaking. Bring the World to life and the other stuff will follow just it does now... You see the game is pretty dynamic already. Put two opposing forces in front of each other... they go pit pull... this is true with Ground, Sea, and Air. All that's missing is processing those statistics to help compute the next set of actions and the effect of those stats on the environment. If the developers can add some tools to the mission editor that allows you to set up control authorities and resource management.. And deference integration much like they have added with the Ground, Air and Ship AI… You have something much better then a simple game with a Tasking orders based mission generator... That's the position of this opinion... nothing more... As for ground troops… Jane’s longbow and EECH did just fine without them… It’s just a degree of unnecessary complexity… since this battlefield would be Restricted to the Urban setting... .So using ones “imagination” you can imagine that Troops would be hiding in structures such as buildings and ground vehicles…. Lock-on seems like a great code-base to do many things… Hopefully they try something different and something that fits their development model. Hope that helps clear up the position a bit.

I will let you think a little longer and a little harder on your question about missions... with a little more thought you will get it... and be able to answer your own questons... As for Order of Battle... Well if you are saying that it does not matter then go for it... But please remember the people that are going to be using this system... these are the same people that get upset that a Boat or a missile is panited the wrong colour.... or that a wheel on a jet is not really round.... You want these people to except... a war engine that just makes missions so the does not have too... Good luck having that past the smell test..>!! You want the old school approach of build you missions that have nothing to do with anything outside of giving the player something to do... The new school methodology has nothing to do with grass growing... It's all about being able to build something that makes sense for the resources you are working with.... for example making something that will add value to the existing code base without costing a mint to build... Trust me newschool is better ;) You see some of you only know dynamic campaigns from the player's point of view... while others know how they work and how to make them work better.... Lock -On is perfect for this new school method.....:rolleyes: ;)

Hi there CT, You are correct it can be fun have very little do with real-life... But again what would the Russian Order of Battle? Or are you saying that should not be the focus... Just as long as something is created for the player to fly regardess of the tasking? Meaning the player flys missions that the computer creates for them so they will not have to plan the mission? Again I think the dynamics need to be in map not in the tasking orders... or even the missions... In real life your missions are scripted... The dynamics come when you fly them and react to changes. Since the idea of a dynamaic world over a dynamic campaign is bring presented.... the action as a result of your actions drive what happens in the presistant game world... Not a new set of Air Tasking orders... It's really hard to explain without examples... Peoples Idea of Dynamic campaign are old school and hard to build... Lock On is perfect for this new school idea of the dynamic world wrapped around the player.... and the non player...

Hi Vapor... Well the reason a Dynamic campaign would not fit in Lock-ON is that not many people know what the Russian Order of Battle is... Clearly they have a defense strategy... but what would it be for the Area of conflict... So let’s say you have a factional / fictional war with Russia Vs NATO then the Area of Battle would have to span the globe to the United States... Since Russia would no doubt Attack Blue with Missiles and Bomber strike packages on the US main land... That's way too big the model. So let’s say its Russia vs Factional base Force X...Terrorist mixed with a small government with very little air assets... A Small regional war like they have over there now... NATO would not be part of that conflict... so what you would have is a war with no true Air power element... maybe a flight of Su-25 hitting a town here or there... that's all grown based conflict mainly. So it’s not clear what a Dynamic Campaign engine would do for this product.. the only way it would work is if you make a game like you have on the playstation... A Fighter Ace style air war with jets and stuff from all over the place doing all sorts of stuff... A big world war with many factions... So an old NATO vs. The Warsaw Pac... What Lock-On needs is a few simple tweaks to unlock the missing elements. Things that happen is a way that make the player believe they happend dynamically... All of this done through user defined mission and parameter setup in the mission builder... Persistent state maps... Resources Management... Persistent state Hardware... Dynamic Weather and defense asset and control authority setup Again this is all done on the mission editor just like we build missions now... the only true change is that the builder will take these elements and assign units based on the given task. So mission have more life to them. This games doens not need a dynamic campaign... It needs a dymanic map... I will post some example later

Why would ED need to take note?? Ed has a well established code base and a fantastic product. The Lock-On / Flanker Product line is not about the the features you mentioned. This game is about the Jet as a tool of war... not a War with the jet as a tool... These two programs are very different. Ground Troops and Dynamic Campaign engines would not fit into this product line at all. So it's not clear why you think they need to take notice at what a 3 man team is doing? Lock-On can't have fell short on something it never was or even attempted. The fact that they added Figthing ground units was a great feature that no doubt was built in the code that existed in the game since ships could engauge in battles... What Lock ON needs is enhancements to the the mission editor... Again its about tools with this product... hey not picking on your point of view... j and not trying to go against your opinion. :confused:

That's Hot! I may have to start a squadron just to be represented on that map!! ;)

Guys thanks so much!!! Happy New Years!!

James Many Thanks!! I will give that A try... I will have to read up on the Force Macro option that my first time seeing that in use.. and I will try <SHF .> All I have in mine is SHF . If you have your profile postes some where I would love to download it.. Again thanks very much!!

:confused: I am having the hardest time building a good joystick file for 1.11 My focus is the Russian Fighters... It seems like I can't get the Radar stuff to work on the HOTAS in the places it should work... For Example changing the RDR Elevation... I can't stuff to work on the Range knob... stuff like that... I know it has something to do with the way I have programmed the stick... Also I don't know how to set the game up to use the slider 0 etc... stuff... Don't get me wrong... I have the Rudder and the Throttle on and the flight control using the right axis... But I had to hard program the microstick... It works but not very well... when I push the microstick up it goes up and to the right... so it makes it very hard to have fun when My Hotas is Notas... LOL!! I would be greatful for any commands, files or ideas.... Thanks! Gang... Happy 2006 :rolleyes: ;)

New A10 Upgrade The A-10 Upgrades that are coming are going to make an already capable jet even more so... and user friendly!

Spare Me! Suntrace1... dude please... you don't know what I have had problems with.... So to type some junk about not caring is just you running your gib son. I don't need to hear that noise... People don't like this software because it puts limits on what they can do with it. It stops you from sharing the program with people that did not buy the program. If you jack up your activations thats on you.. You call the tech support peeps and get them to help you.... NOW before you go running to old boys side... maybe the kids at tech support have records showing that he has done this far too many times... THIS IS THEIR PROGAM TO PROTECT fellas... why is that so hard to understand...?? Yes you spent our money on it... but it was made very clear what the rules were... To help you they even created a tool to help save your activations.... So whats the problem? Some of you are saying they need to add 15 or 20 more and do XYZ just because you paid for the program... SO PLEASE SOMEONE Tell the forum this.... When will it be okay for them to say NO MORE.. you have reached the extended limit???? Sorry you need to get another copy??? Based on what some of you have said.. there should be no limit... you the buyer should be trusted since you paid!! You should have unlimited activations... Thats crazy.... That is the ground work for of abuse of the system... Just maybe old boy that statred this thread has been doing soemthing he should not have been doing... we just don't know... Users will expolit any opening they can... The program is locked down for a reason people... So again Deal with it... It has nothingto do with caring about him...developers should protect what is theirs....

Starforce is fine Users just need to deal with it... use the tool and make the best of it. So what if you "paid" for the product... you are not the problem... its the fools out there that are stealing the game that make it tuff for the rest of you. Ed and others have to do whatever it takes to protect what's theirs... You may have paid for the product... But you did not pay to own the product You paid to use the product based on the EULA... It's just that simple... That's just the facts... good luck to the thread starter... IF fear you are doing something very wrong if you ran out of activations bro!

That's the Viper D "BM" a true classic!

I did not see your track but what was the ownship’s speed? Did it increase while loading the plane with G? There are flat spots in the Max performance curves in most jets that you have to watch out for.. games hit these flat spots really well. Pulling the stick back to make a min radius circle is not really a good test of the g model. What was your air temp set to? Was there any wind? Remember in the game you can pull g in a vacuum…sorta

I did not see your track but what was speed? Did it increase while loading the plane with G? There are flat spots in the Max performance curves in most jets that you have to watch out for.. Pulling the stick back to make a min radius circle is don't really a good test of the g model. Use G only when you have to...

12 to 14 sec in a 9g fight is done all the time... if you have built up your G tolerance. After about 14 secs at 9gs you are spent after that... Trust me... it's hard to drag your butt out of the jet after work like that.. 6gs over time can have the same effect... its all about building up your limits in real life The issue here is not ED's G model... which if you ask me is spot on.... it's the users out there that pull the stick to the stops with every single pull... From take off to landing!! you would not last long in a real BMF fight... Guys it's simple... and some one has already stated this... watch how you fly in this game... I bet if stats could be pulled from the game on the users stick movements the folks that think the game's g-model is over done are the ones with one eyebrow and hairy ham fist. In a real jet you pull hard only when you need to pull hard... In most cases in BFM when you are behind a bandit you turn into his turn window... this is the place in the sky where the lead guy just went... its a neutral posit until you can get the advantage in the fight and make the kill.. Also proper use of lift vectors, nose pointing and radial G well help you not waste your time burning up gas... and G tolerance as you make a b-line to GLOC. Most people fly wrong.... that's a fact... that’s what makes online flying so hard... people are doing things that you just would not do in real life due to many constrants... These bad gamers might win the fight... but that does not mean they are flying right.. The only Issue I have with any sim is the AI... is the AI limited by this same accounting system as the ownship pilot? If so then all is good and right in the sim world even if the "numbers" are off... if not then the user is forced to fly creatively! In the real world of air combat... you can assume things... like I am feeling pain when I put all this G on the jet... I bet he is too... can I out last him in this turn... I hope those extra leg presses I did in the gym this week help me outlast this guy in this turn.... As for fight speeds... F-16 V F-15... speeds can get as slow as 90 kts... that's the point in the viper that you have to start resetting stuff... :) SO it's not really the game... it's the player I'm willing to bet! When you get shot down in BFM training.... it's rare that you can blame the jet for getting you killed... same can be said for the sim LOL!!