Jump to content

BlackEagle

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  1. :megalol: If you're still working with a card that only has 64mb, sounds like you need a new computer period, if you want to play lockon anyway.
  2. Well, after perusing the messages on this and related threads, I assume that the upcoming 1.13 patch will include the following: Radar and Missile Fixes ECM Fixes Chaff and Flares Fix Full Shadows Fix Payload Fixes IFF Fix Fuel Consumption Rate Fix Air to Air Refueling Fix Sound Fixes Tweaks to the aircraft flight models Multiplayer Fixes If ED really wants to show us some love, they'll also throw in the following: BS Ground Object Sets BS Mission Editor BS Tower Control and Radio Commands I think that's about the most that we can realistically expect, and that will be it for FC. Of course, in a perfect world, they would include the BS terrain map as well. Hey, a man can dream.
  3. Weirdest. Fanbase. Ever. Why everyone talks as if it's a privilege to sit around and wait years for features and patches that never materialize, I'll never understand. There should be a massive revolt, and instead everyone talks excitedly about the imaginary game they have yet to be able to play. In fact, there's so much enthusiasm here for imaginary gameplay that lockon may have great potential as a tabletop role-playing game.
  4. You could try Gmax. http://www.turbosquid.com/GameTools It's sort of like 3ds Max lite.
  5. After I installed the 1.12b patch for FC, I got no throttle response in-game with my Saitek ST290 flight stick. When I test the throttle response in the settings, the indicator shows that the throttle input is working. When I reverted back to 1.12a, there was no problem. Any idea why this is happening?
  6. http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6515 Feb. 2005: Feb. 2007: Irony. :glare:
  7. This may be a silly newbie question, but does anyone know how to get the doors on the revetments to open when you're parking your plane? Tks.
  8. I'm not buying it. If you're going to serially disappoint your fan base, the least you could do is release some new content for the existing game. How about some new ground object models, or some terrain textures, anything. How much would it cost you to at least throw us a bone?
  9. Oof. Adding soldiers would be a mammoth enough job without adding other requirements. At that point, you would have much more than a point release, you would have an entirely new game. To keep the gameplay immersive, in addition to creating character models, those soldiers have to be outfitted with weapons, you have to create AI to control their actions, terrain objects have to be redesigned to appear realistic at ground level (which is something you'll have to do even if you just add a helicopter, if you don 't want everything to look like 640x480 crud while you're flying your bird in between buildings and hovering over treetops), you have to calculate area of effect against personnel for A2G weapons, work out command and control (do they call in airstrikes? how do you distinguish friend from foe?), create new vehicle animations (ever notice that the wheels on the trucks don't turn?) and much much more. That would be an awesome game to play if the developers could pull it off, but Lock-On isn't that game. Again, I think the developers should concentrate on enhancing the immersiveness and gameplay of the existing game before they tack on a new platform.
  10. Calling a company's customers silly thoughtless whiners is bad form, and not particularly good for business. Stick to debating the facts.
  11. Perhaps AAMs or no AAMs, I still don't think a helo stands a chance against a modern fourth generation fighter. As far as torpedos and diving subs, I don't think it would take much work to add those. The game already has subs, you would just have to modify their capabilities. Torpedos are just another type of missile. The most difficult part would probably be the water animations, but that's something the developer's will be working on enhancing anyway. At any rate, if you're going to add helos, you're going have to expand either the naval combat element or the ground combat element, because helos are NOT air superiority platforms. Of the two, I think naval combat is more complementary to the game's geographic setting and existing units than ground combat is, and can be integrated much more realistically and effectively into the current game design. That's why I suggested the Ka-27 if you have to have a helo. Edit: Or how about an American helo? The SH60R Seahawk has the best of all worlds. It comes armed with Hellfire anti-armor missles, penguin anti-shipping missles, and torpedos. Now I could get excited about that. Of course, it requires a crew of three (pilot, sensor operator, and airborne tactical officer) but I don't think that has to be a problem. Maybe Sikorsky would be just as eager to give it's new product some publicity as Kamov was.
  12. Exactly. The dedicated anti-armor role already belongs to the A-10 and Su-25. And I never said that attack helos are primarily anti-personnel. I said they primarily provide supporting fires against hard targets, which can be anything from technicals (e.g. a pickup with a heavy machine gun mounted on top) to bunkers and other fortified emplacements, in other words, things that your average squad of riflemen can't take out without heavy weaponry. At any rate, you're hardly likely to encounter massed mechanized infantry formations in today's assymetric and urban warfare environment. Even on an open battlefield, no country would be foolish enough to place it's mechanized infantry in the open when attacking an enemy with capable air assets, in the absence of the type of air defense support that would neutralize the effectiveness of an attack helicopter. That's just begging for death from above. I think realism is more than accurate cockpits. It also involves realistic tactics and doctrine. I just don't see how an army aviation unit can play a primary role in a modern air combat simulation without significantly modifying the role, appearance and tactics of the game's ground units.
  13. Ahead of ourselves I'm sure it'll be a fun platform to fly, but I would rather have seen ED do a number of things before adding a new plane, like fixing the wretched sound engine and improving the training missions. As for the possibility of a clickable cockpit, the idea of trying to frantically click one of 600 buttons with a mouse while ground units are firing at me doesn't exactly sound fun. Great for civil aviation sims, bad for combat sims. Moreover, the game already has two A2G platforms. Adding another doesn't really add a new tactical dimension to the game. Also, adding an army aviation platform places a strong emphasis on ground tactics. Attack helicopters are typically elements of combined arms infantry units. Their job is to provide supporting fires against hard targets during ground missions. I don't see how you can effectively and realistically integrate infantry tactics into the game as it's currently designed. Are there going to be little sims running around with shoulder fired stinger missiles? And no way an attack helo survives more than 10 minutes unless air superiority is first established. All a fighter has to do is lock and fire from several kilometers away, and you're toast. If you're going to add a helicopter, I think it would be a better idea to add a multirole helicopter like the Ka-27 Helix, and expand the naval aviation element by adding anti-submarine warfare.
×
×
  • Create New...