Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Caretaker

  1. If I got that right (I don't have any more information here), the only difference will be that the Su-25T will not be flyable if you don't have FC installed - that's all. Network compatibility should not be an issue. As I already commented in a similar thread, that is actually one of many reasons why it's not practical to pick out individual improvements that came with 1.1 and not apply them in 1.2 as long as FC isn't installed.
  2. Oh, right now, they are still very slim :D As I said, this is more of an abstract discussion. Any "mission-based" DC would have to include automatic mission generation, which is far from trivial, but still possible already now. This would then be relatively easy to adjust to a new version, unlike the mission files themselves. The Falcon4 campaign has two additional features: the bubble system and the real-time approach. The former is a nightmare to get right, so I personally won't expect this for a while still in any Lock On successor; the latter is a luxury that isn't quite as important in my opinion, but it's also easier to include from a development perspective. That is certainly a reasonable approach... ;)
  3. Sure, but hey, Tornado, Longbow or Jane's F-15 managed this for a single player without feeling too dumbed down. Granted they didn't have quite the complex systems modeling that we're aiming at these days, but still... I could live with that if it means I get my Tornado back one day ;) (But, and that's the other side, sticking to single seaters means the devs will never have to think about those issues at all.)
  4. Yup, that's quite often my impression as well... not that this approach doesn't have a charm of it's own ;) Even a very basic random mission generator has the advantage of unpredictable encounters though. That's also an important factor, even though I prefer missions with a "purpose" myself. Only if Falcon4 is your only idea of a dynamic campaign. As I said, there are alternatives :)
  5. Indeed, and with these triggers and other options it was possible to change the way the same mission played out each time it was flown. Branches were mostly used for different paths after a major campaign milestone was fulfilled or missed. I think the outcome of several previous missions could also be taken into account at these points, to determine which way the campaign would take next. Creating mission dynamics with branches alone is quite tiresome though. As I said, I'm not against it, but I really doubt it's a major improvement in the end.
  6. Thomas, well this is a somewhat abstract discussion ;) If you'd ask me whether I think a dynamic campaign is be the most important possible improvement for Lock On's gameplay right now, I would clearly say no. Better control over AI units and their sometimes not-so-intelligent behaviour would be far more important. As you're saying, more tools for mission building, and no question that performance improvements would also always be welcome. Nevertheless I think a dynamic campaign would be possible, within certain limits, already now. A branching campaign in turn is not really the solution to the current system's shortcomings - especially with the version compatibility problems.
  7. There was another Jane's title that shared some limitations with Lock On and still had a superb campaign system - Longbow II. Lower overall unit number (compared to other DC systems like Falcon4 or even EECH), only max. 16 flying units per mission (normally less), ground units mostly static or only advancing a short distance per mission, and no real-time campaign progress. Of course that system worked better for a chopper sim than it would for a plane sim, but then again we're getting a chopper with 1.2 :p The various AI issues are still a problem, no question here, but it would still be entirely possible for the current Lock On engine to support a similar system. Certainly nothing Falcon4-like, but within that scope, it should work well.
  8. Cool video! :) I'd really like to have something like that (I hate clicking around with the mouse in the cockpit). I'm just worried about how the screen will look after a few days (covered with fingerprints... ;))!
  9. What D-Scythe was getting at was the approach to reuse missions at various parts of the campaign tree structure. Obviously this would decrease the required mission building workload. It's also possible to tweak only a few parameters of missions here or there depending on where in the campaign tree you are (like, less opposition on success branch compared to failure branch, but otherwise the same missions). However the "logistical overhead" is still a nightmare. Starting at campaign step 4 or 5 you start to lose track of which mission file belongs to which branch, even if you don't have a complete binary mission tree for each step. Trust me, I tried it - and gave up for a reason. I'm with SwingKid here: the additional workload is heavy, the benefit not that satisfactory in the end (even though it's still better than completely linear campaigns, no question here). And, as has been pointed out, you run into compatibility problems with the next patch. Should I ever have time again to dig into the mission compiling/decompiling area again, I'll rather invest in other features (in fact I'm full of ideas, but completely out of time ;)).
  10. Well, coding difficulty would also be a problem (two seaters are more complicated than single-seaters after all, no matter how the 2nd position handled ;)), but at least one that can be solved by the developers :p Anyway, I am still waiting for a decent Tomcat & Tornado sim myself...
  11. True enough... but then again, I don't remember anyone from ED ever claiming that "it can't be done" either ;)
  12. Same here... but as you're saying, can't have an updated Flanker FM in Lock On now without updating the F-15 as well... and then in turn the MiG drivers would complain, so the Fulcrum needs an update too. Which would leave the A-10 the only plane with a standard flight model, with understandable complaints coming from that direction then :)
  13. Hey sure, certainly another important feature with (at least for AA engagements) very direct impact on gameplay. At least it's already on the list! :)
  14. The issue for me is, Lock On's flight models are already the best out there for modern air combat even without the AFM features (some weak parts like the landing not withstanding). It is one of the areas where the game shines, and I'm more or less with SwingKid here that concentrating on the weaker parts would be the more sensible thing to do ;) AFM for all would be great to have, but not even close to leaping the game to a new level as features like AI scripting and automatic mission generation capabilities would.
  15. As long as the theater doesn't involve fighting Zeros, I'm with you! ;) Too bad the US Navy was never really present at any European airshows... now the Tomcat is retiring, and I never had a chance to see one live :(
  16. There is no SDK. It would have to be developed first... taking more precious development time away before anything could be released again by ED themselves. Falcon4 did not have an SDK either, but the whole sourcecode available, and although a whole bunch of talented people were involved with it, it took 7+ years to finally get a mostly stable release out of that - and still only for the F-16. I'm all for community involvement in various areas, I'm happy to already see the first inclusion of 3rd party 3D models as a start. But having people create flight or even avionics models is just not an option.
  17. I wasn't as enthusiastic about the Ka-50 as I am now... still not my personal #1 choice, but hey, everyone has his personal preferences. Anyway, not sure why threads like this always heat up... "some like it, some don't" isn't such a complicated concept, right? ;) I understand the online community would rather have seen updates in the AA area; the Ka-50 itself won't add much to that for sure, but some of the other features may still.
  18. I doubt you can market such an addon successfully. Sure the core audience will embrace it, but that's it - good luck finding a publisher for something that many will consider only a tweak anyway. It's also not as easy to trade features against each others, as in "AFM updates for the current flyables instead of a flyable helicopter". Development doesn't work like that.
  19. It's the flight model technique used for the Su-25 and Su-25T since 1.1, known as "advanced flight models" unlike the "standard flight models" (aka SFM) that the other planes are still using.
  20. Not a dev here, but I can assure you that removing such parts from the current codebase would be a logistical nightmare, also from the terster's point of view. Including or excluding the possibility to fly the Su-25T is one thing, but it isn't practical (and not sensible either) with changes to radar or missile logic. That would also make multiplayer incompatible depending on what upgrade path you took.
  21. Unfortunately it's only for the Ka-50, the first cockpit that was built with this technology in mind. The other cockpits are made for one camera position only, and shifting the view would reveal gaps and texture distortions, as well as HUD misalignments. They would have to be redone for the most part to be 6DOF compatible, which isn't an option due to time constraints.
  22. As always my head is spinning between all these view.lua, view.cfg, server.lua etc. scripts hard to keep the overview, maybe you were confused as well? ;) I also have these values in the view.lua after all, with 1.12 - if you don't, it sounds like something's wrong with the installation...
  23. Complex scripting capabilities to trigger and influence AI behaviour (and play sound files as a secondary use) is what I dream to get some day...
  24. I guess "cat" as in "catapult" is more probable with carrier planes ;) Quite a long list after all, goes to show it's still a risky business in the end. I doubt many of them can be used as funny anecdotes like the "shot itself" incident... :icon_neut
  25. Apparently the "missing shadows" problem is an issue with ATI cards indeed. Personally I only noticed it with the F/A-18 model (it lost the self-shadowing at some point, but I don't know when :(), and that mode shares some characteristics with various US weapon models so it seems logical it happens there as well.
  • Create New...