Skywall23

GGTharos this may be a stupid question but....do you have 1.1? :P :o

Ahhhh, I dont play LOMAC for so many time now, I think ill skip this one.

I guess you mean the SM 3.0 water that requires a GF6xxx (lomac's water works on cards that are almost three years old) and is said to be quite slow (on GF6800GT). IL-2 "supports" more triangles? Lomac has a signficantly higher triangle count than IL-2. IL-2 has "texture forests" and simple towns. The aircraft detail is also much lower. Have you checked how much "3D" that I-185 cockpit is? IL-2 does not simulate radar, missiles, laser guided weapons etc. You have guns/cannons, bombs, rockets, that's it. They chose to go with a high number of flyables that have a table-FM with generic landing gear physics. I loved IL-2, FB. AEP felt a bit "milked out". PF simply didn't appeal. I'm looking forward to Oleg's BoB. Lol you misunderstanded me. I said that the LOMAC cockpits pwned the IL2 ones, and LOMAC supported more triangles. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ok then, but it still simulates. It doesnt simulate more because theres nothign more to simulate. (Ok maybe some ground crew would help? :D)

Hardly comparable in some areas, because LOMAC effect really "suck". Except for the heat blur, explosions and flares. The water in PF is better than the LOMAC one. LOMAC beats in the terrain although IL2 textures are more softer , it also beats in the polygon area because its engine supports more triangles...ok the cockpit in LOMAC pwn the ones of IL2 but those are 2D. (along with other things) And thats a fairly pro-LOMAC comparison BIOLOG. IL2 is a proper SIMULATOR and in some areas it beats the LOMAC gameplay. We have grids on the map, coordinates, reallistic flight model, and good modeling of the planes. The physics are nice, though FC one are better. Saying that IL2 isnt a proper simulator is heart killing, because that NOT true.

F-16 flyable? Oh yeah, looks like ill be returning to the USAF (in game of course :P) then! :twisted: (I love that plane)

Thats not the problem ALDEGA, I dont want to run my LOMAC at max graphics. I just DONT understand how the hell, can I play IL2 with medium high graphics with few "brakes". The IL2 did cool things like not making a huge map, they didnt make real forests, but simulated them, so the performance was not affected. With my system in medium graphic settings LOMAC has still low FPS, like having 20~30 FPS. What the hell is that? 20 or 30 FPS is low. I want +30, thats all. Yes I dont want 50 FPS just 30~35 always (except when there too many objects/action going on) but noooooo. No, I have to get more 512 MB for RAM more 600 MHz CPU power etc. *sigh* Well least its playble isnt it?I guess I will have to keep that in mind. :?

Good news. :) But when i get that sim I will probably be serving in the Rangers. :P

Thats a roger SimFan, lets hope then. :)

Re: 1.1 memory leaks ???? Mate what I reported was from LOMAC not FC. Im not a beta tester. My conclusions came from the lockonskins mini-preview, which indicated that the game didnt change much in terms of performance. Of the 3 users only 1 reported considerable changes on the performance....which is bad.

You make a good point jammer. My GFTi4200 is enough to run lomac, sincerly. There are guys that say this isnt truth, that graphic cards push lomac performance, a false statement. In fact lomac uses the old DirectX8.1, and those new graphic cards like the FX 6600 GT bring the cavalary with them, most notably DirectX9 support, that when used in games that use such technology, like Far Cry or Doom 3, really push the game foward performance. The fact is that, in lock on, the CPU is most required pc component. Its it that makes the game run faster or slower. The Memory RAM, as the name says, loads the textures, and LO also uses many RAM, which is understandble due to the big map of Crimea and Caucusus. I have noticed the lack of optimisations of the lock on engine many times, like the labels that consume many FPS, well... even the FPS counter consumes FPS. The overcast, flares, objects and explosions are the itens that require more optimisation. Requests to the devs in order to get better optimisations resulted in nothing in practice. Eagle Dynamics must be thinking that waiting for better hardware is the best solution, which i strongly disagree, if thats the reason for such lacking of optimisations. Having a game with good graphics is good, but when the graphics cant be pushed to maximum in the best systems out there without maintaning at 30 FPS in overall and when even in medium settings it still consumes much, is one of the reasons why this game as been returned to the retailers by some people. With Flaming Cliffs things havent notably changed in this area, which is a clear disapoitment at least for me. If you have a top machine you will like it for sure, but those that dont will continue noticing the "memory leak" problem. (I dont know if it is a memory leak, but hell, the game doesnt unload the textures and models after a mission and then s*** happens.)

Maybe a LUA script could correct the issue?

Beta testers get an answer on this asap! :P We all know that Lock On wasnt made for carrier born operations but make this possible ok devs? Thanks in advance.

Better format or change hard disk :o

No. The model of the Su-27 is the same, but a community member is currently working on a Su-27 model. That model may appear in 1.2 ... lets hope. :D

Thats a roger Alfa, ill send them asap.

2x

Thats a roger, omw.

Alfa I have the portuguese medals so if you wish to add portugal, ill send them to you. :)

:twisted:

So I must register at http://www.paypal.com ? Which types of credit cards are accepted? VISA?

2x

2x

^^

OT means Off Topic.