New idea (Mad) controllable SAM

[Stealth_HR]

Screw that Im goin RAMBO. Got my 100lb bow with explosive tipped arrows, and if I have to Ill bring the bro's the Dukes of Hazzard in wid me and well all go nuts and stuff. A-Team aint got SHIAT on me!!! Be like some old redneck sitting in a lawn chair down at the end of a runway sipping beer in his lounge chair and shooting birds that might cause birdstrikes.

 

Get off the weed before I aim that 4x23mm battery at you. :noexpression:

[Force_Feedback]

Get off the weed before I aim that 4x23mm battery at you. :noexpression:

 

My skull is bulletproof :lol:

[GGTharos]

Those are shells, not bullets, bub.

[Kindred]

Modern Air, Ground & sea combat simulation. That would be awesome. That would totally rock my world. Reckon that would need a huge budget ;). Wishfull thinking on my part ;)

[SUBS17]

I still think it would be pointless

 

Having just 1 SAM site would be pointless but having a network of them would be very interesting. Players could setup an ambush for aircraft and also act as GCI against enemy aircraft.

[SUBS17]

Those are shells, not bullets, bub.

 

Projectiles if ya wanna get technical:D

[D-Scythe]

Programming smarter AI will be a much, much better alternative IMO. Relying on multiplayer to make a game interesting is definitely not the way to go IMO. The vast majority of players do *not* multiplay.

 

TBS, A-10 FAC and other projects ED is working on are NOT commercial products of entertaining - they are programs designed to familiarize members of armed forces to basic military operations.

 

Again, Lock On Modern Air combat.

[hitman]

Get off the weed before I aim that 4x23mm battery at you. :noexpression:

 

Ill hide in the mud with my big bowie knife and induce pwnage your 4x23mm. Yeah...I'm that hard.

[D-Scythe]

There are games which have had tremendous and rely solely on multiplayer to even play, such as America's Army (47,000 new players just for this month alone with 2183 servers), And War Birds.

 

Again, Lockon Modern Air Combat ends with Black Shark.

 

Do you have proof to back up that statement? AFAIK, there is absolutely no evidence whatsover to support your position that "Again, Lockon Modern Air Combat ends with Black Shark." I heard of Tank killers and F-16vs.MiG-29, but absolutely no plans to incorporate any other forms of warfare other than AIR combat into any future ED products of public entertainment.

 

And FYI, this thread *is* talking about Lock On, it's expansions, and possible future updates to its lineage, *not* a new ED product. So not only does your position that air combat ends with V1.2 LOBS have absolutely no support whatsover, it is also completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

[D-Scythe]

It's been said time and again that the title lockon will end with Black Shark on this board. As a tester, I would figure you have heard this by now.

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=157881&postcount=16

 

Firstly, just because some future product is acquiring a new name doesn't mean it is not of the same lineage, and vice versa. Lock On acquired a new name after Flanker 2.5, despite retaining a large part of its predecessor's engine, while Falcon 4.0 was a completely new game that shared the same name as previous versions of Falcon.

 

Furthermore, even if the entire game engine was re-written and was branded with a new title, it still doesn't mean that ED has suddenly acquired a new focus and would be shifting towards ground/sea combat for its commerial entertainment products. Thus, even if Lock On ends completely with LOBS, it still does not support your position of expansion into other forms of combat.

 

Lockon Modern Air Combat's predecessor was called Flanker.

Thank god ED didn't listen to the people who said they should never incorporate Western planes...

 

...and yet you still have not provided any proof that ED is looking into incorporating other forms of warfare besides air combat into any future public product. It's okay, take your time - it takes a while to find proof when it's non-existent.

[D-Scythe]

It seems some want the sim to progress to a point beyond air combat. You appear not to.

 

And where, again, have I said that? You seem to have a knack for drawing conclusions from statements completely drawn out of context. I'm all for a air/sea/land simulation, but I don't believe it's going to happen for a while. And Lock On, and it's follow ons like Tank Killers and Falcon vs. Fulcrum (whether they are completely new games or not), simply would not benefit too much if ED tries to make it into something that it's not (in fact, I firmly believe its detrimental).

 

I'm simply being realistic here - this TBS-like game you guys are all raving about is NOT going to happen anytime soon (at least, not unless it was half-as$ed). The current generation of games and those projected in the near future would benefit much more from establishing a firm foundation (such as features that are important in the *single* play aspect) from which a battle-simulator can be built - until then, you might as well play BF2. Heard that was a fun multiplayer game and you could drive/fly/do anything you want.

[D-Scythe]

And where, again, have I said that?

 

...what are you talking about? The quote you pulled are *my* words, not yours. Unless you agree with me, your reply makes no sense.

 

I was referring to you saying how I wanted ED to stick to air combat (which I don't, only for current games to establish a firm basis first), and how you defended the idea of a air/land/sea sim by ED for the public based on the recent military projects (like TBS) they've been working on.

 

So yeah, I think the statement that "you have a knack for drawing conclusions from statements/facts taken out of context" has some truth to it.

 

Uhh, in the same paragraph. Unless the definition for "detrimental" has recently been changed to mean "good."

 

Again, where do I say that I don't want the sim to expand into other types of warfare? I think it's pretty clear I don't want to see it happening too soon, and because Tank killers and 16vs29 have made no mention of such an expansion, it is my opinion that it would be better to work out the kinks first.

 

Unless you think 16vs.29 is the final game ED is ever gonna release?

[Anytime]

Reminds me of the good old warbirds day, motoring across the country in a tank to sit on an airfield and pummel it. Always plenty of players online when there were a few different options than just flying.

 

 

Programming smarter AI will be a much, much better alternative IMO. Relying on multiplayer to make a game interesting is definitely not the way to go IMO. The vast majority of players do *not* multiplay.

 

TBS, A-10 FAC and other projects ED is working on are NOT commercial products of entertaining - they are programs designed to familiarize members of armed forces to basic military operations.

 

Again, Lock On Modern Air combat.

[D-Scythe]

Reminds me of the good old warbirds day, motoring across the country in a tank to sit on an airfield and pummel it. Always plenty of players online when there were a few different options than just flying.

 

If that's all you're looking for, try BF2. It's right up your alley.

[LazerPotatoe]

I agree with some people here, that are worried that we will soon be seeing people using mods that don't honor the realism of the rest of the sim.

 

But I also think that "undermodelled" does not mean "unrealistic".

 

So if the community were to create some addons that were undermoddelled, but opened up a whole new way to play the game, IMHO it would be acceptable.

 

For example, if players were able to drive around in a tank, and it had realistic range, and damage -- how does that make it like Battlefield 2?

 

Regards,

LP

[D-Scythe]

For example, if players were able to drive around in a tank, and it had realistic range, and damage -- how does that make it like Battlefield 2?

 

How is that different from BF2? According to your statement, there would be no difference between Steel Beasts Pro PE and BF2. I'm sure BF2 has "realistic range, and damage" as well. But what you seem to be missing is that Steel Beasts is so much more than that.

 

For example, take tank gunnery. According to your words, it has no significance - just zoom the optics, aim and shoot, just like in BF2 and OFP. You think *any* sim trying to pass off even as a semi-realistic tank combat would have such a primitive gunnery system?

 

Some things, you just can't "undermodel" to whatever extent that you please. There are only so many shortcuts you can take; e.g. bullet ballistics - you have to factor in muzzle velocity, velocity drop off of the bullet(s) and gravity at the very least (AFAIK). And in terms of tanks, guided missile cruisers, etc. there are a LOT of basics that *must* be factored in lest the effort be passed off as "arcadish". Again, if "undermodelled" features are all some of you care about, then pick up OFP or BF2 and knock yourself out. I actually recommend OFP over BF2, but realism and fidelity doesn't seem to matter anyway, so whatever.

[Rhen]

...the realism of the rest of the sim.

 

But I also think that "undermodelled" does not mean "unrealistic".

 

:huh:

 

:noexpression:

 

I for one would like to see the things that are already in the sim fixed before things branch out towards your brand of realism.:P

 

It's comments like yours, that make me shake my head.:lol: One of the reasons why I call LOMAC a game is because any semblance of "modern air combat" is purely coincidental and, well, let's just use your term "undermodelled." People who think that the missiles' behavior, radars, flight models, ECM, are realistic and this is how it works in the real world are mistaken. Those of you who realize that significant modifications to real world capabilities have been made in this game are more informed.

 

A simulator allows one to use the tactics of modern air combat without balances in capabilities or modeling (which is possible on a PC platform) that are required to "enhance" gameplay.

 

That said, I nevertheless enjoy flying LOMAC. I just wish they'd fix some things that are already in the game.

 

Allowing this level of end-user modification to the game can only mean (IMO) that ED is looking towards the future with a new product, and putting LOMAC behind them.

[SUBS17]

If that's all you're looking for, try BF2. It's right up your alley.

 

BF2 is not the answer, my belief is that its possible to use the lockon engine for a Ship, tank, helo and jet sim. If they were to add ASW, Submarines and FPS then it would be the ultimate. But the most likely I'd expect is Ship, Tank Helo and jet sim. Its cool to have the option, BTW BF2 will be absolutely obsolete when Armed Assault is released. Theres is just no comparison to OFP, even now OFP is generations ahead of BF2 in most aspects. Another thing to remember is that you can fill empty slots with AI players.

[LazerPotatoe]

Some things, you just can't "undermodel" to whatever extent that you please. There are only so many shortcuts you can take;

Ya, you're right -- there's definately differing levels of realism involved, and it is hard to define what level is good enough for a whole community.

 

It's more of a personal acceptance level.

 

I've never played Steel Beasts Pro, so I'd likely satisfied with tanks on par with OFP. But, as soon as I know something is unrealistic, it bugs me, and I want to see it fixed. For example, when I was playing LOMAC 1.02, I didn't know that the Vikhr had a spiralling flight path, so it didn't bother me. Now that I know EECH is modelling it wrong, I want to fix it.

 

But if ED does open things up more to modding, were all going to see some strange stuff.

 

Why is it not enough for people to just not download those unrealistic mods, or not play on the servers that use them?

 

Are you worried that the entire BF2 fanbase will switch over and start playing LOMAC? LOL - just j/k

 

But seriously, is that your concern -- that new users will wrongly assume that everything is realistic? Or that we're giving more ammunition to the Falcon 4 crowd?

 

LP

[hitman]

This is where Falcon 4 belongs.

[D-Scythe]

Ya, you're right -- there's definately differing levels of realism involved, and it is hard to define what level is good enough for a whole community.

 

It's more of a personal acceptance level.

 

I've never played Steel Beasts Pro, so I'd likely satisfied with tanks on par with OFP. But, as soon as I know something is unrealistic, it bugs me, and I want to see it fixed. For example, when I was playing LOMAC 1.02, I didn't know that the Vikhr had a spiralling flight path, so it didn't bother me. Now that I know EECH is modelling it wrong, I want to fix it.

 

But if ED does open things up more to modding, were all going to see some strange stuff.

 

Why is it not enough for people to just not download those unrealistic mods, or not play on the servers that use them?

 

Are you worried that the entire BF2 fanbase will switch over and start playing LOMAC? LOL - just j/k

 

But seriously, is that your concern -- that new users will wrongly assume that everything is realistic? Or that we're giving more ammunition to the Falcon 4 crowd?

 

Haha, no. I was under the impression that people wanted ED to prematurely integrate sea/land combat into the LOMAC and it's successors. I had no idea you were talking about third party mods. Besides, ED has so far only allowed us to replace 3D models - the source code (or any code, for that matter) is still being kept under wraps. I don't think there are any plans to release the info or the tools necessary to modify LOMAC to such an extent - if a air/land/sea sim does happen, it's gonna be by ED, not by third parties.

[Starlight]

What do you think about controllable SAM in Lock-On? Really, really mad idea :devil_2:

 

 

You asked for it, well, you got it!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/USB-MISSILE-ROCKET-LAUNCHER-AIR-DARTS-OFFICE-TOY_W0QQitemZ150032994033QQihZ005QQcategoryZ50197QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

:D

 

 

btw, this is no commercial, I just picked the first thing that came up on the search results

[edward1976]

http://www.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2006.28.48

What is?

[Ardillita]

You asked for it, well, you got it!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/USB-MISSILE-ROCKET-LAUNCHER-AIR-DARTS-OFFICE-TOY_W0QQitemZ150032994033QQihZ005QQcategoryZ50197QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

 

 

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: