Caretaker

Uhm pardon me, but since when could you get a refund on software products because you're not happy with them? I know some retailers in the US used to trade your games in in that case, but apparently this isn't possible too often anymore - the usual case is, if you don't have a broken CD, but are just unhappy with the software, you're stuck with it. Always has been the normal way, and I don't see how it should be different here now. Of course there is a certain risk involved like with any kind of software. You have to decide whether it's worth taking this risk or not.

Aaah the good old 80s... (sorry but I needed some senseless creative relief today ;))

Indeed the track feature has the problem of getting more complex (increasing the chances of bugs) the more complex the rest of the game gets. You are right though that people would be upset - they actually were when no new training tracks were provided with 1.01, thus the longer wait for 1.02. I'm not sure what to prefer here... personally I love watching tracks from time to time, and I also found them very useful during beta testing to hunt down problems, as they provide reproducable events. But yes it's a potential minefield for development...

Yup. And in addition, building a distribution infrastructure independent of a big publisher is extremely expensive. And many retailers in the US will ask for money to put a game on a shelf.

Hey SwingKid, thanks for those links and figures! I was somewhat aware of the dimensions of most theatres discussed here so far, not so much about the timeframes for modelling the current map... and it's always much easier to discuss with hard numbers at hand. So yes a lot of theatres are no option just for their size alone - unfortunately Norway is one of them (which, just to point that out again, is simply my recommended emergency theatre for the "Cold War gone hot" scenario - simply because the landscape is more varied, and the infrastructure a less lot intensive than in central Europe. Neither oil nor fish would fortunately be enough to lead to a war up there nowadays - although I may underestimate the prawns' quality ;)). Apparently, the Taiwan map would be a very, very good choice - small enough to be an option, lots of ocean to allow for naval operations and increase potential engagement ranges, and also a real-life hotspot. It would require more detailed modelling of the naval aspect though, and that includes a lot of Chinese units which aren't present yet, as well as missing US units. I absolutely agree with Alfa here: only when the naval aspect can be modelled with enough detail and options does it make sense to think about a more naval-oriented theatre at all. The only big drawback I see with Taiwan is that Russia would not play a big part there ;) But in general I guess most people would welcome a change in location after flying over the Crimean for so many years. There are some aspects about map modelling that haven't been mentioned so far, but may also play a role in a future development: 1) more detail I guess in any future Lock On incarnation, we can expect rather more detail on the ground. This would make map making even more time consuming. Although it's not necessary as I find the current detail level high enough, if we're talking about two or three years in the future we may all expect more... 2) different levels of detail in different areas Currently ED only models the core area with a high level of detail and the rest with generic flat terrain. It would be worth thinking about modelling areas which would only be used to fly over, but which would not be part of an actual ground war, with less detail/accuracy than the current core areas, and only provide high detail around air bases. Having some terrain in Turkey in the current map would be a nice option. In general there's an obvious tradeoff between accuracy/detail and size of a map. Although I applaud ED's way of modelling the map in Lock On, I'm pretty sure people could live with a slight shift towards more area at the cost of less accuracy. 3) 3rd party work I know, a controversial topic. Map making is more work than many people realize, and personally I was never too convinced with what I've often seen with other sims in this regard - although there are some remarkable exceptions. Any it may backfire if ED has more trouble correcting problems with 3rd party work than doing it themselves. Still it's something that should be thought about in my view. The additional work force that ED could acquire in one way or the other should be considerable. Interesing discussion... keep it going! ;)

I'd still like a EF2000 or Jane's F/A-18 theatre revisited - northern Europe provides interesting landscapes, an ocean for naval operations, and is not nearly as densely populated as a central Europe theatre - I doubt anyone has the resources to model this to even a somewhat accurate degree, let alone let a realistic number of AI planes fly there... Personally I'm not fixed too much on "present day conflicts" - fortunately with the nations involved in Lock On, this is only a really remote possibility anyway. A ficitious "Red Storm Rising"-like campaign, set somewhere between the 80s or 90s would be just fine for me ;) Just don't give me yet another desert war. And yes, Kurile Islands would be an original choice (something we haven't seen since the Marine Fighters addon for USNF I think?) - but may require too much additional units (Japan, China?) to be doable... then again this is also a wishlist, so why not :) Now, knowing how much work it was to build the current map, it may be more sensible to build on it and extend it. In addition to modelling more of Georgia, providing some airbases in Turkey would give more interesting options for missions. I agree with SwingKid that for a somewhat realistic recent/current day conflict, the current map isn't suited too well. Georgia/Abkhasia is a potential hotspot, but not enough of Georgia is on the map. A conflict about the Crimean is also something I could imagine - but just like with Georgia, only a small part of the map would be used for that. Actually I cannot imagine a conflict that would include all of the areas that are modelled in detail at all. For any dynamic campaign, it is much easier to have a theatre where a clearly defined frontline can move back and forth - see Korea with MiG Alley/Falcon4, or - which brings me back to northern Europe - Norway in EF2000. Not a necessity, but it makes things easier. Maybe an aspect to consider for a Lock On sequel. Finally, about the planes: I do hope most of what we're flying currently can be ported over to the next incarnation of Lock On - would be a pity to lose any of these. Otherwise, everyone knows it's time for a flyable Tornado again :p Okay enough text for now... I'm pretty sure all of that won't be decided in the near future. And there are more factors and options that will come into play...

So adding a second extremely expensive high-end video card doesn't slow down the game? Hmm sounds like quite a deal... the miracles of modern technology... ;)

...hmmm and now I stumbled over this: http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=2265 "No performance difference with the game Lock On Modern Air Combat when SLI mode is enabled." - is this supposed to be good or bad news...? :shock: ...good thing this whole SLI technology is too expensive for my taste anyway, because for sure it's also too complicated still ;)

Indeed it's something that Nvidia has to provide. However there's this post in the German forum which claims it does now: http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59010161&f=254106073&m=8331004562 (even if you don't understand the text, you may find the system specs mentioned there interesting, as well as the framerate ;))

As you can guess I disagree strongly on that point :-) To me the main reason for having a DC, besides the fact that it's the only way you can achieve anything approaching a realistic wartime setting, is that it provides a level of immersion that canned missions simply can't. I'm refering to other aircraft performing missions all around you; flights being prepared for takeoff or taxiing around you. And the sheer pucker-inducing thrill of flying into the FLOT knowing that there is indeed an ARMY waiting for you on the other side and the only way to survive is to perform your mission as planned, fly the waypoints on time and in formation with your escort. But the regrettable fact remains that there are so many performance-related and other issues that would totally ruin such a campaign, that the conclusion is that it must wait. Well, let me rephrase what I said earlier - because quite frankly, it wasn't exactly what I wanted to say ;) In fact I also consider a full dynamic campaign, where you can participate in a fully dynamic conflict that evolves realistically based on the respective order of battle of the opponents the holy grail :) However: there is this widespread claim in flight sim communities, that any dynamic campaign system is inherently better than any non-dynamic system. That's what I mean with "overrated" or "hyped". I have simply seen too many such systems which were either poorly executed, or buggy, or both. MiG Alley, EF2000, EECH - all great up to a certain point when frustration took over... meanwhile excellent "static" campaigns like Flashpoint Korea for Longbow I or Jane's F/A-18 kept me entertained without that frustration, even though the replay value was limited. But that's not different with a dynamic campaign that is too repetetive and/or buggy ;) So yes - give me groundwork for a realistic war environment first: AI, triggers & events, communications, performance ("bubble system" anyone?). Only then does it make sense to put an automated strategic layer on top of that. And if there are import/export options in the sim, then this can even be done by the community. But I've also realized that most people see this differently, and want a dynamic campaign at all cost no matter how well it runs. Game mags also tend to point this out: dynamic campaign good, static campaign bad. Not sure why it's reduced to that simple formula, but that's the impression I got over the years. So it should probably be considered for any eventual Lock On successor... although of course, I personally hope it will simply provide both the realistic AI etc., as well as a dynamic campaign system :)

Re: DC Sounds nice, but what is it supposed to mean? AI behaviour is linked closely with flight models, weapon modelling, avionics etc. - you cannot license that. Just doesn't work :) Well their DC didn't work back in 1998, it took about two more years until I considered it playable ;) Anyway, the whole Falcon4 project resulted in Microprose going bankrupt, partially because it was somewhat over-ambitious. Producing a dynamic campaign in 2005 wouldn't be much less work than in 1998 - and apparently, it was too much work back then. And that with a budget that was incredibly higher than the one of Lock On - remember that was the climax of flight sim development. If you find someone to hand over as much cash as was spent for Falcon4's campaign environment, I have no doubt ED could come up with something similar.

dazlives, you are probably talking about SimWare: http://www.simw.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product_details&pid=1338 To be honest I don't know what kind of deal they are offering. It might be a solution for those who don't want to use PayPal. But I simply have no clue what version they are selling, and in which way ;) The release date they had on their site was an estimate and has been changed meanwhile. I don't know when FC will be finished, but I think I can honestly say that it is "close" :)

I agree on the importance of the AI for a dynamic campaign (surprise, surprise... ;)). However the AI in EF2000 wasn't exactly better, but still the dynamic campaign was nice. LongbowII's AI units didn't act perfectly either all the time and it was closer in scope to what would be possible with Lock On - and it's still remembered as a great sim (rightfully so). So, even if I consider the dynamic campaign feature as overrated and hyped, there's no doubt it should be high on the list for any successor - if only for marketing purposes. It would certainly increase the popularity a lot. As for retrofitting the Falcon4 campaign to Lock On, that wouldn't be practical (legal/financial issues aside) - better to do it from scratch.

I see three major aspects for AI behaviour: 1) controllabilty 2) efficiency 3) realism Let's start with 1) - when designing missions, it's important for me to have the AI do what I want them to do. How to react to threats from both air and ground, which targets they attack or ignore, and when to abandon a mission. Ideally a complex trigger system is in place that enables me to react to any kind of event that happens - enemy fighters scramble somewhere, a SAM site locks onto the plane, a wingman gets damaged - whatever, the more, the better. Jane's F/A-18 is a good example of this. Such triggers have to be planned from the start for a sim, but are not too complicated to implement - often it's rather simple binary logic. Controllability is also an issue for AI wingmen of course - there has to be a reasonable amount of commands that can be given, and the AI should be able to execute them as ordered. Now for 2): this is a more complicated area - to be efficient, AI has to be able to fly sensible maneuvers within a 6DOF environment, manage target priorisation and make "judgements" that humans do more intuitively, so that they are hard to put into rules. Choosing the right weapon, at the right distance and aspect to an enemy plane, together with the fitting attack profile, is as much an art as a technique:) Also, rfficiency relates to such basic (but not trivial) things like evading mountains. Point 3) means that the AI behaviour has to stay within believable limits - both for the physical bounds that human players have to live with, SA (like losing tracks of targets in clouds or behind the plane, or simply when there are too many enemies around) and also human behaviour like panic or target fixation. Those aspects do of course influence each other. With a complex trigger system, it's possible to have planes react realistically to a situation, even if it may need a lot of scripting for that. This can also produce the diversity in behaviour that makes AI less predictable and thus, more interesting. For Lock On we won't see a complete redesign of the AI part to allow for all this. I think controllability is the biggest problem with the AI, along with some other issues. It's still possible to get it to a good level as long as work on that area continues. And in some regards, Lock On's AI is also quite good already - I'm not totally happy with it, but I've also seen worse. A much neglected topic in many sims unfortunately.

Nah. Just a different way of operating the avionics. I'm with Kula66 here :) But it's a controverse topic really, when it still all comes down to personal preference. I understand why people want it even though I personally don't. In the end something that will make many people happy and the sim more popular, so it's reasonable to consider it.

I am pretty sure the devs don't want to give comments already which will be taken as promises in some years when the sim this is about will finally be released ;) They are certainly considering all options though. But the beta of 1.1 is in its final phase, the development of 1.2 hasn't really begun, so starting on the design phase of Lock On 2 seems a bit premature to me.

There are intelligent solutions for key functions management in various modes. You don't need all the keys for all functions all the time. And I managed Jane's F/A-18 without the mouse fine :) As for the two-seat issues, I'd say there has to be a solution anyway for the eventual Tornado addon :D Seriously, sims like Jane's F-15E, Longbow II or Tornado managed two people in single player nicely, and Longbow II had a perfect multiplayer mode in addition. It isn't easy, but doable - and we're not talking about Lock On anymore here after all ;)

I don't like using the mouse in the cockpit. In fact I hate it because it's so clumsy compared to the keyboard. But I realize a sizeable part of the flight sim community sees this in a different way, and if it's not too much work it can't hurt to include this to increase the general appeal. As for which planes will or should be simulated in any eventual Lock On successor, my humble opinion is that this is far too early to lobby for F-16's or Hornets :) Although indeed some kind of multirole fighter would be a good choice eventually. Speaking of which, a Strike Eagle is also multirole, and doesn't draw in the flak as much from the Falcon4 or Jane's F/A-18 communities :p As for moving pilot models, again this is something that would draw resources off from other areas, no way around that. However remembering EE:CH, it can be done in a nice and convincing way. Very cool feature of that sim!

I suggested this some time ago to the devs; this is how it could look like: I totally agree that this would not be a performance issue anymore, and give a much better representation (although it is still impossible to catch the true 3D-projection effect on a 2D-monitor). From a programming POV the only difference is that the individual HUD components cannot be rendered independently, because they could overlay each other when transparency is used. This wouldn't be a major problem, but is no trivial change either. Still hoping to see this in 1.2 :)

Re: Few questions for 1.1 UpDate While missions should load and may even run, chances are something's going wrong. This can be anything from strange behaviour of objects to system crashes. So older missions/campaigns should definitely be considered incompatible. Some reported stability problems with 1.02 are most probably also due to people using pre-1.02 missions/campaigns. Hmm not sure what you expect :) The MiG-31 can be pretty efficient with its missiles, and Flanker2 was well-known for deadly missiles... Setting the missile slider to 100% in Lock On will give you similar results, but of course with other planes too. 1.1 will introduce lofting missile trajectories, which should improve their range a bit - but still a fighter plane should be able to outmaneuver an R-33 that is fired at max range. Not really. I understand this part is pretty much as it should be anyway. The Su-27 has also received AG capability though, just like the Su-33.

Nope. None of the featured planes have a ground radar in real life. Accordingly they don't have one in Lock On either.

Well Il2/FB has some annoying messages from time to time. Sometimes you couldn't determine who the guy was supposed to be who was speaking. And when your flight leader keeps calling you to get back into formation while you're fighting for your life, it also doesn't take too long until you hope he'd finally shut up ;) I agree the best option would be to have everything integrated, but a 3rd party effort could be a nice alternative as long as ED has their hands full with other things, and already collect voice samples that might be used by ED in the future. Could make a nice project :)

I have this hope of seeing the LUA exports extended to provide information about mission events in the future... not only would this provide possibilities for mission evaluation, but could also be used to trigger 3rd party voice samples independent of Lock On's sound engine with an external application.

Basically, no. They are much more controllable now in this regard.

Well there has to be slightly more than rumour about it. The F-104 has been taken out of Strike Fighters Gold for example, apparently on direct request of Lockheed-Martin. And I couldn't think of any other reasons why Oleg rules out the inclusion of any more US planes from a certain manufacturer into PF independent of the model status, so legal issues seem the most "rational" explanation. With other genres like racing games, similar issues have already occured long ago. I agree though that we still don't know enough hard facts to draw conclusions here, and I'd hate to see a similar panic break out here like on other boards. This may be an irritating trend, but not necessarily someting that cannot be handled.