LOMAC Criticique

[GGTharos]

This was posted on ubi by Patch_Whiner, but apparently no one had the courage to post it here in fear of a ban.

 

This is a good and reasonable critique (what I've read of it anyway) and should be available to people and devs to help with defining direction in terms of making Lock On even better (or realistically, 'the next product').

 

That people think someone would be BANNED for this is ridiculous, and a rather bad omen, and a rather terrible misconception while at it.

 

Direct link:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/8121012544

 

Lock-On is a brilliant simulation however there are some aspects I think that could be improved upon. These are nothing to do with flight models, physics models, graphics engines or weapons modelling. I can’t criticise them because I don’t know anything about how to improve them although they probably do have room for improvement. Criticising is hard because you won’t help anyone by saying `the game should be improved’. The topics I am going to talk about are the Fast Battle Planner (FBP), the Options configuration, the Mission Editor (ME), AI and lastly the PDF manuals. Everything here relates to offline playing.

 

Criticism of the FBP

 

The FBP is designed to help someone into combat easily without a large learning curve. Enabling them to be blown up in a short time. A big fault presents itself early on. It doesn’t remember previous settings. You set up an F-15C against an Su-27 and going back into the FBP you find a Russian Su-33 has taken the place of your F-15C causing you to re-adjust the settings for each combat. The other 17 settings of angle/fuel etc. are all forgotten also. So the introduction to Lock-On via the FBP is a little rough. For some reason the F-15C defaults not to skill player but to an AI setting of average. This therefore needs to be adjusted given that the player wants to fly in combat rather than observe. Ideally the FBP being an important starting point for many simulation pilots, all data settings and allies/enemies setup should be saved, allowing the user to re-run the application finding their preferred arrangement. An option to save FBP settings and load them would also be useful. In a ME subdirectory there is actually a FBP.ini file that the user can adjust. Having an ini file for this area of the game is a contradiction, the idea being that you are a novice and not the sort of user who would bother with ini files. This file has no instructions. It also doesn’t address the glaring inability to set which plane will be flown by the player and that it in fact will be the player and not an AI on the allies side. It allows you to adjust settings for aircraft/helicopters etc. and provided you realise that these lists are zero based (i.e. default {2} is the third item) you can set all 17 parameters to your liking. This is not very friendly for novices. An option to set all flyables to skill player would be useful as well as remembering this from session to session. The FBP.ini could be replaced by saveable files. The FBP does what it should but not very elegantly for a section of the program that many novice players will spend much time in.

 

Criticism of the Options configuration

Input configuration

 

The input configuration initially frightens people in Lock-On. This is not simple at all and unfortunately it is rather unfriendly. There are a number of small points which when combined make a large headache :

1. If you use the vertical side bar in the actions map frame to select an action and then press clear the side bar jumps back to the top after the operation which is rather annoying as this is quite a common adjustment.

2. The number of possible actions seems too high, the view section is enormous. In the keycommand document there are 4 sections of view commands: View selection, view modifiers, cockpit view control and external view control. Surely some of these actions could be dispensed with. I can’t find an action that makes the HUD fill the screen.

3. Actions, which have a toggle as well as up/down e.g., Landing Gear Up, Landing Gear Down and Toggle Landing Gear are not grouped together. If you set a button on your joystick to a command, which still has keys bound to it, it may not work until you clear the key assignments.

4. Similar to 3. If I set the elevator trim to use my joystick hat and also delete all the keyboard commands for elevator trim when I go to fly if I apply trim up the plane goes vertical (i.e. a lot of trim has been applied) which can be cancelled by trim neutral. Trim down has no effect. It is only when I clear these joystick trim settings and then re-apply them that normal trim function returns. This is a bug.

5. If you change an action to another key which already does something else, then the something else is cleared but the program doesn’t tell you this key is already used or ask if you would like to change it.

6. Finding an action is difficult as there are so many. A pull down menu to filter commands by plane type might be useful.

7. Launching missiles on the F-15C is not assigned to Fire but Release weapon. If you don’t know this then combat with missiles is not possible. These actions aren’t grouped together.

8. You might notice there are 2 default keys. One in the settings area and one down at the bottom right. The one in the settings area is quite safe, it asks if you want to `Apply defaults for the selected device?’ e.g. keyboard, joystick or mouse. If you allow this but then change your mind you can still `Cancel’ at the bottom right. However the default at the bottom right gives no options for correction. Once selected there is no going back and if you have made large numbers of adjustments then these are all lost. If ever an `Are you sure?’ message was needed it was here and not when exiting from the main menu. If you could export/import your key settings then this would not be too problematic.

 

I sometimes think having buttons for each aircraft would be simpler as there aren’t that many flyables. You could then tailor the relevant commands to each aircraft. A facility to copy commands from one plane to another might save all the repetition, although this way might also be difficult. Using the mouse in the cockpit is far too difficult to attain after a fresh install.You must find and edit View.cfg setting MouseCockpit = 0; you then need to edit Cockpit.lua to CockpitMouse = true. You then need to configure the mouse device. This is way too difficult for such a commonly desired function. The game should install with mouse panning enabled and have a switch to enable/disable this. With a game that has so many keys bound to the various tasks I think for Lock-On and IL2 a graphic that appeared at each key press would be useful. If the key or key combination isn’t bound to anything then a cross would appear. If the key is bound then a circle would appear and if the key is bound but this aircraft doesn’t employ the bound control then a circle with a cross would appear. A facility to switch this feature off would be essential, as you wouldn’t want all these symbols flashing. Useful if you’re curious as to whether the key press is having an effect.

 

Difficulty configuration

 

The AI frame in the difficulty section has a few problems. Firstly AI is written so small that you might not notice it is the description for this frame. If you do happen to notice it you also might think that as the frame above is labelled `My Plane’ that this frame only relates to the AI robots. This is wrong. The AI frame really should say the long-winded `Player and AI aircraft missile effectiveness’. Computer software sometimes misses the large communication point with the user by not clearly writing words to explain and by not showing in some way icons or text or graphics to make it obvious to the user what is going on. This is a classic example. Here there should be two sliders: Player missile effectiveness and AI missile effectiveness. A button to make them lock together at the same setting should be provided. Beginners would deselect this button and make the game easy while they learnt the weapons tactics etc. Veterans would set them locked. It would be nice to have a marker for realistic effectiveness which is in the middle as things are set. Desirable for the offliner also is that if the markers are locked the AI’s missiles will have as similar probability of a hit as the players. Clearly the AI’s missiles will not be subject to the huge numbers of calculations and limitations that the long-suffering player’s is, but some probabilistic balance needs to be met. The idea of increasing missile effectiveness above realistic (half way) seems to me wrong and I would prefer no ability to make unrealistically effective missiles. If the design of the missile is poor or you launch in unfavourable conditions usually then a realistic simulation should highlight this, however there is the argument that if you can unrealistically lower this setting why can’t you unrealistically increase it. And after playing the AI in many simulations I know the fondness in the community for unrealistically hard.

[GGTharos]

And the continuation:

 

Criticism of the Mission Editor

 

The Mission Editor of Lock-On is where things get serious in this simulation. Some people never get far into the ME after much use of Lock-On. The first thing I don’t like about the ME is these big docked toolbars for airgroup planning etc. Windows, which are smaller and can be moved about seems preferable. You can then see lots of the map rather than reducing your already limited viewing space. This was how it was previously in Flanker 2.5, options for either form would be ideal. The buttons e.g. ADD, DEL etc. don’t show clearly enough whether they are depressed or not and this leads the user into situations of confusion because he doesn’t realise a button is depressed. The zoom + and – come to mind here. These buttons are too small but are close to the wonderful < and > control the design of which many a professional CAD program could do with emulating.

The coalitions dialogue box is confusing to the beginner, especially if he hasn’t read the manual. I dislike the layout of this box. I would prefer all nations to be in the LIST at the beginning. Then instead of SELECTED at the top, put a red rectangle with SIDE and below that a blue rectangle with SIDE. Delete the RED/BLUE above the <and >. Next to the SIDE description in numerous other dialogue boxes a red or blue rectangle can be added indicating which side the nation is fighting for, rather than saying the side is Ukraine. Doing this would reduce the common occurrence of mysteries when two combatants are both on the same side.

The times for a mission is something that can be confusing for beginners. There are the ETA times set at the first waypoint for all participants and the time set when coalitions are formed or set in the briefing. A facility for all combatants to start together might be useful or even a lazy mission designers time zoom to flyable aircraft.

When setting the route of an aircraft the ALT and SPEED <and> buttons are not very useful as they only increment/decrement the value. Going from an altitude of 1500m to 2000m therefore only requires 500 presses of the ALT > button. Typing in figures for these values is the only practical option.

When you change the type of an aircraft it then has a loadout which is empty. Some indicator of this would be nice especially when there are many aircraft involved. A passive indicator would be preferable as people do want to set missions with guns only.

In the loadout screen a facility when creating your own loadout might be to mirror the pylons that you have set, thereby giving a full symmetrical loadout after only specifying one wing of the aircraft.

Mission goals is an area I find rather confusing. Do AI have mission goals? Why is there a frame for targets which includes a task section and also a frame for tasks? The manual is not very informative on this subject. This area seems to me overly complex, unintuitive and very likely to confuse the mission designer. Perhaps targeting could affect the goals section, which might mean not having to worry about goals at all.

Overall the Mission Editor is very good and most complaints are fairly minor.

 

Criticism of the AI

 

AI is a science that is evolving gradually in combat simulations. There has never been any AI that has been virtually realistic in any game that tries to model the real world. Good AI is difficult to come by because:

1. Humans are so complex and diverse their thought process and actions are hard to determine

2. This like the user interface is something alien to physics/flight modellers – the logic required here is nothing like the logic of programming or of mathematics

Programming AI is like having a rusted in lever in a slot at one end. The programmer pushes and exerts all his will until suddenly the rusted in lever jumps to the other extreme. At one end is AI that are merely targets, at the other AI that reliably perform miracles. The AI in Lock-On is reasonable but there are some aspects I think could be improved on.

If you fight an AI without labels on then it’s very hard. The AI will know where you are and always manoeuvre to get a shot, but you will have great difficulty locating him. This will leave you floundering around while he sizes you up. If the AI didn’t always know where you were then you could dispense with labels – as it is in most games they must be on to have any chance of success. Lock-On is no exception in this case. Once I saved a replay of some combat to analyse what was going on. I moved my view far away and observed what was happening. I saw my aircraft moving like a snail, turning one way and another to locate the AI. The AI robot however seemed much more fleet in this world as he climbed, turned and accelerated, moving across the screen while I was virtually immobile. The AI seems to be too fast and to be able to execute the most sustained high G turns, which makes them truly formidable opponents.

Lock-On illustrates jet combat elegantly. You seek your target, directing your radar you get a lock, you wait for your opponent. Then after the range has reduced a little you get the option to fire, but often you won’t. The missile is at maximum range; the aspect angle is unfavourable, if you fire now you are wasting a missile. You might launch just to make your enemy busy but a hit is very unlikely. So you wait all the while manoeuvring to avoid any shots at you, keeping the lock on until finally you let a shot go when your speed is up, the aspect favourable, range short etc. For the AI this process is far simpler. The AI passes you. 2 seconds later he has somehow locked on to you, and after another few seconds he is launching like mad. Missiles everywhere. This is not very realistic. At the crossover the AI is probably going quickly and pointing away from the target. Other than a miracle with the helmet-mounted sight he won’t have a lock because he can’t focus his radar at the enemy. Even if after some time he can get a lock, he would still have to wait for a while before any chance of a launch that might hit. The AI doesn’t seem to monitor a basic characteristic in all aerial combat: the plan angular difference between the target and me. If this is 200 degrees then it’s not likely that I will get any kind of shot at my target just yet. So things happen too fast as far as the AI is concerned, combat is fast but when the AI arrives in your rear hemisphere its time to eject. To solve this an obscure algorithm or algorithms must generate numbers and create a certain form that reflects the jet pilot’s actions in the form of software. The AI is not only masters with missiles their aerial gunnery is nigh on miraculous. How many times have I played with AI, whose missile supply doesn’t last long, only to be destroyed by shells. But when I use my cannon its very hard to manoeuvre the gunsight over that turning target and reduce the lag line, fire a few bursts that miss and maybe get a hit which damages the opposition.

The AI is just too talented. They need more drag to limit their manoeuvres; they need more blocks when they are trying to reel in a target. They need to lose knowledge of where the target is now and then. They need blocks on launching missiles. They need to miss now and then with their guns. The AI is simulating professional pilots with plenty of ability but even a combat genius would be unable to perform some of the feats of the AI. It is a question of scale. All this makes for excellent on-line training, perhaps that is the intention. The simulation demonstrates clearly how difficult something is, but then allows the AI to do it easily, confounding realism. It is impossible to be wrong on this point.

 

Criticism of the PDF manuals

 

The PDF manual is substantial. One thing I find irritating is when something is described on a HUD or HDD display as say an `acquisition symbol’ then the text refers to this as a `target designation cursor (TDC)’. Every element described should have one reference and that reference needs to be used throughout. In situations where the novice has little knowledge about the subject, different references to the same item will only confuse him further.

The key commands should be surrounded by rectangles, multiple key presses being blocked together. This saves the confusion of Ctrl+-, Ctrl-+ and Ctrl&- as well as making these artefacts stand out. Key commands relating to the game needs to be near to the text. In describing the weapon system control panel for the Su-25T in the Flaming Cliffs manual there is no mention that the V key is used to adjust the release mode rotary switch. Chapter 8 on radio communications and messages goes into great detail about what the different function keys do but doesn’t mention the # key is used to initiate the list of commands. This means that the player has to search through the many commands in the options or know the location of a certain key command text file. Other than these minor issues the Flaming Cliffs manual is certainly a big improvement on the original that came with Lock-On.

 

Overall then this program is a polished article although obviously I still think it could be made better. These comments are clearly not a complete criticism of every aspect of this program but merely things I have observed and thought about. This code is like the wonderful combat jets it portrays so beautifully.

 

Patch_whiner

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

S~!

 

Good post, as to why people think they could be banned for publishing such an article here?

 

Well a good russian friend of mine who is rather high up in another sim explained it to me once. "Western people believe in fairness - Russians know there is no such thing in life and act accordingly"

 

It really helped me figure out a lot about Russian Sim Developers and their mindset. It strictly at take it or leave it affair. That does not go over well with Westerners. Just my .02 cents.

 

P.S.

 

All my sqn has ordered the Lock On Gold series along with the manuals - CD 2 100% defective across the board. Not good. :mad:

[GGTharos]

Very sad :( Evolved Games really screwed up that distribution :(

[britgliderpilot]

P.S.

 

All my sqn has ordered the Lock On Gold series along with the manuals - CD 2 100% defective across the board. Not good. :mad:

 

 

The Lock On Gold saga is regrettable, but ultimately the drawbacks are more down to Evolved and Ubi than Eagle.

 

 

Ubi told Evolved they were getting something Ubi didn't have the right to sell - Flaming Cliffs as opposed to Lomac v1.02.

 

Eagle ended up giving Evolved the rights to sell it very shortly before it went on sale, and borked the installation for some reason.

 

Evolved did not recall the disks, it only put a warning out on it's website.

 

 

It's a great shame, but (perhaps ironically), the blame for it does not lie with the people who actually created the game.

 

Weird the way that works, huh?

 

 

 

Legitimate comments on the original critique, think it's a good example of what could do with improvement.

 

Comms would be nice, too . . . . . hearing other packages report and so forth. Although with Lomac at current, that'd probably mostly consist of hearing them getting shot down :P

[Guest IguanaKing]

Thanks for pasting his comments, GG. I'm just going to sit back and watch what unfolds...while eating popcorn. It'll be interesting.

 

BTW, as I understood it, 13th, Russians were even LESS tolerant of f-ups than Westerners. My fiancee once scolded me for being "too friendly" with our landlord when our kitchen sink had drainage problems in St. Pete. Evgeniy and I BSd for a while and had a few beers in days that followed, but the problem got fixed, and my fiancee couldn't believe how quickly he fixed the problem. I said "Sweety, in order to catch flies you have to use sugar rather than vinegar." She, on that same day scolded me for being "friendly"...after it was all said and done...I said "I think SOMEbody owes me an apology. Look at how well our kitchen sink works!" It still doesn't mean you can't speak your mind and take the time to work out misunderstandings.

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

S~!

 

..... I would like to tell you very interesting story that has some relationship to my post......... but I can't. :music_whistling:

[Guest IguanaKing]

S!

 

You wouldn't happen to be an F4 player, would you? I'm not an avid one myself, really, but F4 is a lot of fun, as is LOMAC.

[Kula66]

The Lock On Gold saga is regrettable, but ultimately the drawbacks are more down to Evolved and Ubi than Eagle.

 

But in the eyes of most purchasers the blame lands on ED!

 

Interesting read GGT ... I have to say I've never used the FBP!

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

S~!

 

<Begin critique>

 

I have a moderately strong business background, I don't buy any of the crap, you have serious contracts when you make these kinds of distribution deals. If there is a breach of contract or failure to fullfill the terms of agreement, there are serious penalties. That is standard proceedure. And just common sense:music_whistling: - thats why we make contracts to begin with.

 

Anyway whatever........................were in F.C to fly till F.O comes out, but I will I throw another .02 cents in, I have learned threw 5 years with another russian sim that ------ no matter what the mistake the devs say its always someone elses fault. The spin.

 

Terms like regretable and ironic are used as some kind of panacea, like that is supposed to make the situation tolerable, but really your just telling your base to stfu. You can do that when your the only game in town, but your customers will remember well when some competition shows up.

 

<end critique>

 

Regards,

[britgliderpilot]

Terms like regretable and ironic are used as some kind of panacea, like that is supposed to make the situation tolerable, but really your just telling your base to stfu. You can do that when your the only game in town, but your customers will remember well when some competition shows up.

 

<end critique>

 

Regards,

 

All true . . . . . but ED don't have control over Evolved.

 

. . . . . . I don't know they could have done to make that situation better.

Evolved's a Western company, and they were the ones who didn't do a full recall when they discovered the disks were faulty.

 

I don't think it's a case of passing the blame here - the distribution of Lock On Gold had very little to do with ED in the first place. The situation with Gold may not be tolerable, but ED genuinely aren't the ones at fault there.

 

 

The PayPal saga, now, that's an entirely different matter . . . . .

 

I can feel another common ranting issue about to be mentioned here . . . . .

[Alfa]

This was posted on ubi by Patch_Whiner, but apparently no one had the courage to post it here in fear of a ban.

 

Why in god's name would we ban him for that? :rolleyes: .

 

- JJ.

[dodger42]

I'd really like to see Tank Killers distributed on something like Steam. I just bought and downloaded dangerous waters in 30 mins.

[Maverick-90]

I'd really like to see Tank Killers distributed on something like Steam. I just bought and downloaded dangerous waters in 30 mins.

Well Steam.. *cough* well it has the advantage of not having to look for your CD's, but....Lockon Engine is a Hardware Eater, combined with sth like steam it would blow every System

[dodger42]

Lockon Engine is a Hardware Eater

a) Tank Killers wont be the lockon-engine

2) half-life 2 and the source derivatives aren't exactly light on hardware requirements either.

 

combined with sth like steam it would blow every System

Many would disagree, but your entitled to your opinion. :smartass:

[Stealth_HR]

I'd really like to see Tank Killers distributed on something like Steam. I just bought and downloaded dangerous waters in 30 mins.

 

That would be a good idea provided there was an optical-media version as well. I wouldn't want to rely on my ISP to give me a stable connection. :mad:

[GGTharos]

a) Tank Killers wont be the lockon-engine

 

 

Ah ... no? :music_whistling:

[S77th-GOYA]

...but ED genuinely aren't the ones at fault there.

 

How do you know?

 

Ultimately, Evolved should have tested the software that they were going to sell, but who is to say that they weren't given the wrong software by ED?

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

The 2nd CD with FC was added without the knowledge of ED, that it why it did not work - it was a bootleg disk.

 

ED then had to provide a fix for the problem and the rest is history.

[S77th-GOYA]

The 2nd CD with FC was added without the knowledge of ED, that it why it did not work - it was a bootleg disk.

 

ED then had to provide a fix for the problem and the rest is history.

 

That's not how I remember hearing it. ED was advised of Evolved's announcements that Gold would include FC well before Evolved released their CDs. There are many possibilities of who got what from whom and when, but it boils down to the knowledge needed to point a finger at ED, UBI or SF has not been made public. Neither can one exclude any of those three companies from blame.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

Evolved released regardless of not having the rights - forcing ED to give them a license to sell FC.

 

The one to be blamed is Evolved.

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

Evolved released regardless of not having the rights - forcing ED to give them a license to sell FC.

 

The one to be blamed is Evolved.

 

S~!

 

If there is even a shred of truth to that, then the lawsuits would be flying

 

- truly a lot of what I see posted in ED's defense has absolutely no correlation to logic or common business practises. :doh:

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

Trust me, I would not post it if I did not believe that it is true.

[Shaman]

a) Tank Killers wont be the lockon-engine(...)

It will be 200% more fat Lockonski engine ;) Trust me on that

Direct successor of LockOn engine, that's for sure.

What for do we need Steam if FTP download + serial key is much better solution and doesn't require installing and running in background additional application.

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

S~!

 

So then make the details of the settlement agreement public.

 

- but the apologists wouldn't like that would they?

 

Have the courage to put out the truth - but then it usually hurts doesn't it?. :smilewink:

 

.

.