ALDEGA

Half of the 3D models in Lockon come straight from Flanker 2.x... I would call that literally dated. Moreover the water effect is ... basic, the terrain mesh is ... basic. Lighting on the trees is ... sometimes simply wrong.. Some smoke effects are visible ... through clouds. The framerate ... could be better. (better not drop any flares ... near a town, or look in the direction where other units are, even if they're not visible) Let's be honest, Lockon is 3 years old. The three best looking things in Lockon are the Ka-50, Su-25T and F/A-18 models ;) Don't get me wrong, the graphics are satisfactory overall (and not the main issue), so don't start flaming me.

*yawn*

I don't get what you mean. Intel has been selling x64 desktop CPU's for quite a while, after AMD started selling their AMD64 x64 CPU's. The 64-bit Itanium (high-end server platform) is not the same platform as x64 (which is basically the 32-bit x86 platform with 64-bit extensions).

Humour level: 0

Sadly this argument is always ignored in such threads.

OpFor doesn't have razor blades in the field ;)

50$ for LOBS or a fancy Su-27 model ... ;)

Works on a 6600GT when FSAA is disabled.

A number of the arguments can be easily researched by opening existing models. Kabina-Su-27.cmd has a few interesting ones. It may be possible to replace any of the existing cockpits with more detailed ones, but more research (or an official argument list) is required.

LMAO.

LockOn was released in 2003. There were *no* multi-core CPU's at that time. At best there were multi-CPU (single-cores) in workstations and servers. How many people, playing LockOn, had an SMP setup, in 2003, or even today?

Ok, I understand now. Your original post seemed to relate to placing vehicles "as is" and creating waypoints, not placing static objects and combination with non-static objects. OFP has a similar system, with icons. You have to preview the mission to see if everything is positioned correctly. IIRC, it is possible to change the size of the icon (through configuration files) so the icon in the OFP ME is representative of the object you're placing, thus making it easier to position objects next to each other. Still this system is not ideal. It does have copy/paste support which is handy if you want to replicate object groups. In IL-2's FMB, you can switch to 3D view and place objects (if I'm not mistaken). I've barely touched the FMB in all those years so I don't know if it works well or not.

Actually, it has 12 threads in the main menu, and 13 in-game. Doesn't mean multi-core will help much as most of these threads may be very unactive. You can verify this using the Windows Task Manager (select View \ Select Columns ... and check the Thread Count option). Flanker 2.51 has 9 threads in the main menu, 10 in-game.

I don't really understand what you mean. I attached a screen of a vehicle going from X to Y using the roads. Can you explain what you mean using this example?

- No new flyables will be offered in patches. - LockOn 1.2 "Black Shark" is the second and last addon for LockOn. - After LockOn 1.2 there will be "Tank Killers" and after this perhaps an F-16 sim. * Text above may include incorrect information.

Argument 77 (main wheels rotation ~= rear wheels for most aircraft) does work for most aircraft, but not the Su-25T.LOM model. Maybe it's related to AFM??? Did you replace Su-25T.LOM?

The F-16 only has one engine and is present in LockOn.

Sounds fair, but can you be more specific to "not being able to position objects the way you want to place them"? By "balance" you mean consistency in graphics? As in "relative realism" by keeping all graphics at the same level to create a sense of realism, even if the graphics "in se" aren't that great? Just trying to understand you correctly.

Obviously, implementation of the KA-50 and related code is taking up a lot of resources. Also there was the notion of the WAFM (advanced weapon "flight model" and simulation) which would/will improve these things. So if ED invest time in tweaking the old missile simulation, that work would/will be undone when they eventually introduce WAFM (Tank Killers ???). It's sort of double work, and they probably don't have enough time to do it, as a temporary improvement. The official features are listed on the website. Perhaps there will be more features in BS when it goes RTM, but ED probably won't announce them until they know for sure that these features won't be dropped. We all know what happens when a feature is announced and then dropped.

What specific problems do you see with the mission editor? Is it the ME itself or the lack of features? (e.g. triggers, scripting etc, perhaps more like OFP's mission features) The latter isn't an ME deficiency, it's a deficiency in the game engine. You can't have triggers in the ME if the game engine doesn't support them. The ME is a GUI for creating content for the game engine, nothing more. Please indicate which one you mean. btw, check this post regarding IL-2's FMB

Same reason why many American buildings don't have a 13th floor.

If you don't have FC then "it will not include the Su-25T and Flaming Cliffs missions and campaigns.". If you mean "upgrades" like improvements of the Russian aircraft in FC, the new smoke pods etc., then I'm quite sure that these will be present in "BS w/o FC". The biggest difference is that the Su-25T won't be flyable.

Please read: I said NO PROGRAMMERS are making 3D models. I'm sure Valery Blazhnov is better in C++ than 3D Studio Max. The damage model and animations are done by the modeller. Did you really think they have to create thousands of lines of code for each new vehicle? The programmers create code to handle specific types of vehicles, sort of a framework, which allows arbitrary vehicles to be implemented in the framework (cfr. the list of model "arguments"). As long as the vehicle fits in the framework, no additional development is required, besides some parameterization perhaps (to define the type of the guns, skins definition, weapons pylon definition for aircraft). Many of the new models seen in the screenshots are improved versions of existing AI units (helicopters and ground vehicles). It's simply a swap of models. * disclaimer: Explanation above may not be 100% correct.

Want some cheese with that whine? You expect ED to eternally release updates and improvements for your personally preferred items until you think they're 100% perfect and hate them it they don't? Get real, Battlefield 2 still crashes today, and that's with the largest software entertainment company behind it, EA. ED has supported their products quite well. They don't have huge budgets or enourmously large development teams. That's probably why they develop new technologies in steps: * 1.1 AFM: Advanced Flight Model I hope you acknowledge this is a big step forward, not contested by any flightsim today, or tomorrow * 1.2 AAS: Advanced Aircraft Simulation with "detailed, clickable cockpit" * + more stuff These technologies will find their way into new products such as Tank Killers.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but we've been over this a dozen times. The people who create these models are not the programmers, who write code which handles AI, FM, etc., which is what you're complaining about.