A serious discussion

[192nd_Erdem]

I agree with Witchking. Lock-On lacks immersion. The battlefield is way too sterile, but this is due to engine being too clumsy for too many objects.

 

You can fly with 50-60 planes and many ground units in IL-2, yet you cannot exceed 20fps if you're over a city even with a clear mission in Lock-On.

[S77th-GOYA]

The fact that all these flaws and limitations exist is a bad thing.

The fact that ED isn't going to fix them is a worse thing.

The fact that ED is planning on selling new software based on the same flawed code is the worst thing.

[Pilotasso]

I dont blaim ED's aproach despite my, and others disagreement (mostly on the west). CIS custumers want lower and slower. Not everyone of us are going to be satisfyed simultaneously. Thats statisticaly impossible. But indeed the 180º U turn of the games main theme is going to hurt on immertion and needed fixes.

 

The game will sell well because of the Ka-50 but IMHO the memory that will remain of it in the future is that the base of this SIM was never tacticaly oriented towards a helicopter to make it complete, neither was it ever reasonably finished with the original aircraft. It will be something that is not quite defined in both aerial arenas. It wont be an apple but then it wont taste like an orange either.

[Poopskadoop]

I, for one, couldn't think of a better project than a helicopter simulator. Yes, there is much room for improvement in the realm of fixed wing aircraft and AI, but think of the variety that BS will add into the world of LO. Think of it: you will be able to choose from air-to-air combat, ground pounding, and now, if you become bored with the rest, you can fly the Ka-50, which should be a completely new world unto itself.

 

I remember the good old days of EECH, but that game is old now and will pale in comparison to the level of detail incorporated into BS. The Ka-50 was the best choice for two reasons:

 

- It is a single pilot aircraft.

- It shares many of the same weapon systems as the Su-25T.

 

Of course, the only thing I would have wanted more is to see one of the newer multi-role flankers modelled (with AFM). Oh, that would be pure heaven.

[Vekkinho]

Well like I said here:

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=240117#post240117

 

 

the main reason we got these 3d tools from ED is to customize our LO, FC and BS the way we want it. In case that BS fails to deliver all our expectations (like AFM, new flyables etc) we can always implement our own models over existing ones.

 

I said also that I seroiusly doubt that BS will bring anything but Ka-50 and improved LOD for vehcles and other helos, just take a look at screenshots here,

http://lockon.co.uk/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=982&scr=products

 

but we don't really need this I suppose...

 

It just might slow down our computers, overkill already lacking FPS and make game unplayable in single and multiplayer sessions.

 

I'd rather impove present bugs in 1.12a and there's a lot of them. I'd rather optimize LOFC engine to make sure we don't need Space edge computers to enjoy all LOD there is.

 

FPS affects playability and since helos fly close to the terrain we're gonna need all the details there are but also fluent gameplay. It's really hard to achieve both but I'd rather concentrate on making this possible better than making detailed ABRIS feature.

 

This is just my opinion but hey...I'm into LO series because of A2A - Eagles , Flankers and Fulcrums like probably most of you. Having Hogs and Frogs is great thing but flying NOE kills my FPS especially while engaging convoys with CBUs and RBKs while dropping flares. I suppose that same thing is going to happen with Ka-50.

 

Vedran.

[Outlaw24]

Some kind of official/unofficial word from ED would be nice, after all it's be several months since they provided any kind info on BS or LOFC. A little progress report or something, could pay some dividends and stop some of these speculations.

[sumoscouse]

I have to say that what most people are saying is just a frustrated opinion on what they have engaged in to what they THOUGHT they were getting.

 

Flaming Cliffs gave us an AFM and this was a great step into the area of Virtual Flight Sim Technology. Flaming Cliffs also gave us better NET CODE so you die hard MP pilots could battle it out in the skies more evenly.

 

Heck, Flaming Cliffs gave me, AND STILL DOES, hours and hours of serious fun and I WILL NEVER DELETE IT FROM MY HARD DRIVE. :thumbup:

 

I am a FPS (first person shooter) gamer first and foremost when it comes to PC games. However, I have a passion for aircraft and flying. Ever since I was able to draw pictures of planes as a kid.....

 

....and if I get the chance to play a game that resembles the real life interest then I will buy it and play it

 

 

 

Flaming Cliffs is a PC GAME, it is not a MILTARY SIMULATOR and as such you get what you pay for.end of story. If I was spending top notch sterling, then I would expect zero bugs, but monies to the value of approx 20 - 30 quid....well, what can I say

 

I can say this.....I WELL GOT MY MONIES WORTH AND THE ENJOYMENT FACTOR IS STILL GOING STRONG.

 

ED----------Take your time, I can wait for great things and I feel BS will be worth the wait.

 

People, one more thing---time moves on and if you get stuck in the past, well, you won't see the future.

 

 

cheers

 

 

sumoscouse out:)

[Pilotasso]

Agreed there, I have never had so much fun online but LOMAC also represents to me the potentialy so much better sim that it could be but was not quite so at the end.

 

Not that it couldnt be better, if ED had a different aproach, AFM on fighters and not on slow movers where we wont take the full blown efect of that technology anyway. Instead of ricochet modeling and rotor blades gusts we could have gotten WAFM or better AI too, but I guess good things take a long time to arrive and ED was paid to take another dev path, what can we do about that?

[bogusheadbox]

 

Flaming Cliffs is a PC GAME, it is not a MILTARY SIMULATOR and as such you get what you pay for.end of story. If I was spending top notch sterling, then I would expect zero bugs, but monies to the value of approx 20 - 30 quid....well, what can I say

 

I understand what you are saying. But nowhere in the readme, game cover, or producer related advertisements does it list bugs, implemented features that don't work and incorrect required system specification etc as a feature of the game. I don't give a rats testicles if its listed as a game or a sim. Simple fact these days which all consumer, developers and porducers ignore is....... THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT TO PAY MONEY FOR STUFF THAT DON'T WORK.

 

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy flying it. But as you said. It falls short of what it could be, What we were lead to think it was, What we expected from it.

 

So, to have no response on a programme with "issues" that came in a box that was not as advertised...... Well you draw your own conclusions.

 

 

I can say this.....I WELL GOT MY MONIES WORTH AND THE ENJOYMENT FACTOR IS STILL GOING STRONG.

 

I am glad you think so. I think so too. I paid less than ten pounds for this title. + added cash expediture for FC. Not a lot of money i hear you say. Yeah, I agree. But i still don't think i got what was advertised.

 

ED----------Take your time, I can wait for great things and I feel BS will be worth the wait.

 

I agree. I have read through the pages of this thread and listened to a lot of replies from testers who validate the missing or incomplete features due to monetary cash flow.

 

That to me is obvious. But its no excuse. ED are a business first and foremost. They simply did not have a good enough business model to ensure funding to complete the required product as advertised in the given time frame before being released on the public.

 

Whether it was down to Staffing, overheads, time constraints - all all falls under one heading.

 

BAD MANAGEMENT.

 

During the course of deveolpment they should have realised that they are behind schedule and running short on budget.

 

So insted of pushing out a buggy, rushed and still incomplete game. They should have removed some features (which could be expanded on in patches or addons) and concentrated on the main and most important parts of the game.

 

So is it our fault ED could not give us what was promised ? No.

 

Its purely ED's fault.

 

Now before you ED die hard fans jump in and start flaming me. Belive me when i say i am an avid flight sim fan. I encourage those that try to keep this great genre alive.

 

ED do this for a business because they make money off it first and foremost. To think otherwise is an err on logic. They will not fix what they can't make money off. And here is where their logic if flawed.

 

If they bothered to make the game smaller, but polished on first release and expanded on it like IL2. Then they would still be selling large amounts ot titles.

 

The game graphics are still top notch today. The engine supports great flight models, physics and damage models.

 

But no, they botched the release, they still not have fixed many bugs years after and they don't give a rats rectum about the community that supports them. Why..... Because they know that we cannot help ourselves and the market is starved of flight sims/games. Therefore us gullable consumers will still pick it up and play it.

 

 

 

 

The only words that i see from reading this long thread is.

 

IF only.

 

Well, ED if only you'd ........

 

 

 

You know. One day. Someone will pick up a buggy game. Look at the cover. Look at the advertisement, and say.

 

This is not what was promised. One day, that someone will visit a lawyer........

 

"One day" in my mind will happen before "if only".

[Vekkinho]

Well of course I'm gonna be among the first ones who will buy BS when it hits the stores, but I'm not gonna spend too much of my time flying the chopper. I'll give it a spin for sure to see how it works but won't plan my future in any virtual chopper wing.

 

I'm more interested in A2A combat, perhaps I'm corny and I'm missing all the action and excitement that CAS provides but that's the way I am, my area of engagement.

 

Upgrading to Black Shark from FC might look like transfering a fighter pilot to a airliner company (flying buses) and I don't want that!

That's the scepticism we can develop without ED's clarification so I'd really like some explanation or update on features, not only screenshots and chopper movies.

 

Well, now with 3DS plugin we can develop our own Mi-24, BMPs and everything else with large polycount but we are not bestowed with knowledge/ability to fix existing bugs that seem more impotrant than hi-res wheels on trucks and hi-res rotorblades on choppers like displayed in screenshots.

 

I don't wanna lose fighter/interceptor aspect of LO series with Black Shark. I'd rather focus on improving the same.

[ALDEGA]

This is not what was promised. One day, that someone will visit a lawyer........

LMAO.

[GGTharos]

Well of course I'm gonna be among the first ones who will buy BS when it hits the stores, but I'm not gonna spend too much of my time flying the chopper. I'll give it a spin for sure to see how it works but won't plan my future in any virtual chopper wing.

 

I'm more interested in A2A combat, perhaps I'm corny and I'm missing all the action and excitement that CAS provides but that's the way I am, my area of engagement.

 

Upgrading to Black Shark from FC might look like transfering a fighter pilot to a airliner company (flying buses) and I don't want that!

That's the scepticism we can develop without ED's clarification so I'd really like some explanation or update on features, not only screenshots and chopper movies.

 

Well, now with 3DS plugin we can develop our own Mi-24, BMPs and everything else with large polycount but we are not bestowed with knowledge/ability to fix existing bugs that seem more impotrant than hi-res wheels on trucks and hi-res rotorblades on choppers like displayed in screenshots.

 

I don't wanna lose fighter/interceptor aspect of LO series with Black Shark. I'd rather focus on improving the same.

 

It will be improved -later-. However BS will already change some aspects of play in regards to AI behavior, as well as make things pretty neat by including the helo in MP. Not to mention a bunch of 'under the hood' things .

Really, what can be more fun than going online with your heli buddies and flying off to pwn an enemy fighter base? ;) ... if you're brave enough ...

[Jester_159th]

@Bogusheadbox:

 

I can see validity in some of your comments, but most of them apply to the PC software industry as a whole and most stem from the way the developers are forced to operate to stay in business. Most of this has been discussed at length many times, so I won't bother repeating it here.

 

I would like to make a couple of observations though:

 

Firstly, the botched release of a buggy product comment: This must be a referance to the original LOMAC release. If so then ED are blameless and you should be looking at Ubisoft. They were the publisher. ED were under contract. Ubi INSISTED on the pre Christmas release date.

 

Secondly: Lack of communication: I agree in principle here, but take a moment to look at it from ED's point of view. They've been burnt more than once when ESTIMATED release dates for patches were twisted into PROMISED release dates and thrown back at them with a pile of insults to boot by customer's whose primary malfunction appeared to be an inability to read. Not that they're the only one's to be treated in this manner. Oleg used to be a regular on the Il2 forums until he got sick of being constantly insulted by over opinionated, under informed customers. Add to this the language barrier and I think that, although not the ideal situation by any terms, it's somewhat understandable. IMHO the title of "customer" doesn't entitle one to become rude. And thanks to those that were we've this lack of communication. I've told customers to get lost before now for less than I've seen posted on these and the IL2 forums from time to time.

 

We as a community reap what we sow in regard to communication. How many other industries see a forum where discussion of a company's products is an expected feature? If we (or a vocal minority) constantly insult the developers why should we expect them to constantly keep in communication with us when they know all they'll receive is a bucketload of bile? Perhaps if certain sections of our community started to behave in a more polite fashion, we'd see more developer contact. Maybe not. We can but hope.

 

Thirdly: You say you've enjoyed LOMAC. Well in my book if you've enjoyed a product that cost £30 (or whatever the equivalent price in your locality)for a couple of years then you've got your money's worth in spades.

[Flexman_UK]

@Bogusheadbox:

 

Thirdly: You say you've enjoyed LOMAC. Well in my book if you've enjoyed a product that cost £30 (or whatever the equivalent price in your locality)for a couple of years then you've got your money's worth in spades.

 

 

Amen to that brother. Cheap at twice the price.

[Chicote]

This has been a really good thread so far with people providing detailed lists of what they think are the problems with the game (without shouting I want a Harrier, I want an xx and I want it now) and providing reasons for what their asking for. Don't believe anybody think's the issues are going to be fixed for LOMAC or even BS but at least this is feedback to ED on what the community are looking for in the next product. I hope someones taking this info to them since from a marketing perspective its gold dust. Lets avoid finger pointing on what has gone before that we can't change. ED's done their best under difficult circumstances through the birth of LOMAC to where we are now. Their not perfect so all we can do is provide honest feedback for future work and hope for the best. From the previous messages I believe the key areas people are highlighting are.

 

1. AI, need to improve AI behaviour for aircraft both on the ground and in the air. Too many occurances of AI traffic jams on runways and poor attack/defensive strategies in the air particularly around AtoG and SEAD tasks.

 

2. COMM's, better comm's implementation to improve situational awarness as the mission progresses ie updates from wingmen or updates from ground controllers detailing status of other wings and if they have hit targets. Primarily to improve single player immersion.

 

3. Mission ED, probably one of the bigger concerns. Should be looking to implement : scripting of AI to allow them to react to mission events; improved editor to allow us to see placement of real models on real terrain, Flanker did this well; ability to assign probabilities of units appearing within a mission to reduce current repetitive game play in single missions.

 

4. Dynamic campaign, this ones a mile wide and everyone has their own thoughts on what a dynamic campagn is so I wont try to tie this down too much other than say we should start with a broad mission objective (ie prevent AI ground troops entering area), a limited set of resources which with the exception of destroyed/damaged units carry over from one phase to another, AI with ability to pursue their objective and finally a turn based game play to allow player/AI to progress through the campaign. Players would define new missions at each phase determined by "intel feedback after prev phase. Woops not going to tie this down any further .... ;-)

 

5. FPS, need further work on FPS to allow good performance on todays systems, exception performance on +1 yrs. Need to avoid FPS killers ie planes/objects with widely different polygon counts varying FPS dramatically depending on who happens to be in the area, consistancy across models would be good. Ability for engine to cope with built up areas, if Sevastavol kills FPS we don't fly there so why have it in the game...?.

 

6. Flight models, ED's spoiled us with the Su25T and I guess they will do the same with the KA50. Would be good to see consistent flight models in future products flyables (non-flyables?).

 

7. Debrief, ok personal one here. Best addon in months has been the Tacview ACMI which has now replaced the original LOMAC debrief for me. A similar feature in future games would be good to help experienced/new pilots figure out where we're going wrong.

 

Apologies for long entry here and if I've missed anyones pet issue but thought it was important to capture this before we eventually head down the "fanboy v's whiner" path these threads usually end up in.

 

Cheers

[VVanks]

Hey guys, long time no see. Especially to Snake, I mean, SATAN. ;)

 

Anyways, I have to agree with most of the points. Lock On is by no means even close to a game. Game, meaning it has characters, story, interesting things that make it alluring. It's just a big mash up of parts. Good eye candy, mediocre flight dynamics, no campaign. What Lock On needs is a big boost in the campaign system. They should introduce a whole new storyline, interesting characters, more enthusiatic radar operators etc. Make the game alive. Have a co pilot talk to you. Anything to make the game less of a lonely flight in the skies.

 

Adding a black shark helicopter to the game and upgrading the graphics isn't going to do anything to help its user base.

 

Upgrade the airplane models,add new airplanes, add more mood to the game, better interface, faster optimization, a completely interactive campaign map, AI people who like talking and are always backing you up, immerson.

 

Lock On needs imagination.

 

But seriously, I will bet my University tuition that none of what we ask are going to be worked on.

[Flexman_UK]

LockOn is more like a military simulation for getting flight time rather than an entertainment title. I think that's it's background and hence the snapshot mission approach, more like a trainers station.

 

Are there any hooks in the lua script for genertaing and destruction of objects? That could potentially be used to create a more dynamic theater without having too many units active at any one time.

 

Adding a helicopter is the most exciting step forward IMO. Now gamers with an entirely different skillset can participate, and play a vital role too. On the ground eyeballing and elimination of air defenses, creating a corridor for aircraft is best done by the modern attack helicopter. Black Shark will add new roles to multiplayer, new forms of participation and mission execution.

 

LockOn will probably remain 'LockedInto' that military sim theater idea for some time unless it can be scripted via lua, maybe ED could put in the hooks to enable such a thing if they don't exist already.

[warthogmadman987]

I havent been able to read all the posts, and i aint gonna say whether lockon is good or bad, but i am going to say i am not suprised about the time tables. Look how long it took for 1.0 to come out, it was on the back cd cover of IL2 Sturmovik! Said, "comin soon", it was almost anther 2 yrs! I think we cant blame ED about the time issue-it is out of their hands.

[SUBS17]

See, and all this time I figured Satan was actually Mower...

 

LMAO

[SUBS17]

I want to have a serious discussion about the direction ED is going with LOMAC.

 

How much time have they spent on Black Shark while at the same time leaving important gameplay features broken?

 

I am sure some of us would have liked to see some improvements to missiles, radar, EW, AFM for more planes, possibly a dynamic campaign, hell, even a new skin for the SU-27/33. The F-15 gets more porked with each patch

 

None of that was done, instead they decided to put all their efforts towards the development of this helicopter, that to my knowledge, no one wanted.

 

 

LOMAC is eye candy, and eye candy only. There is no exciting gameplay, and when you try to create a semi-realistic mission, the FPS sucks balls.

 

I dont know about the rest of you, but I will take gameplay OVER eye candy anyday, and is one reason I prefer to play IL2 and F4AF over lomac.

 

I think LOMAC is a great START, but it is only a start. It needs to grow, but not in teh direction taken by the developers. It is time ED began listening to us, the customers that actually buy their products.

 

Why don't you wait for Black Shark to be released until jumping to conclusions.

[Guest Cali]

Can you image those 29's flying low and getting :censored:ed up by a copter. I can see it now " what the :censored: just hit me, must have been a igla/stinger. Are you have a bandit on your tail and the copter (who is on your team) says bring him over here"

[GGTharos]

Uhm...I don't see that happening a whole lot ... I mean the vikhr in BS is great and all, but it isn't the all-around AAM replacement it was in FC ;)

[D-Scythe]

...and people think the R-74 isn't modelled in LOFC :)

[emenance]

Its almost impossible to think BS will have a gamer a year from now complaining about an old game engine, but it might happen. Witchking is very right. When you live on the cutting edge BALANCE is the only thing that can save you. Even I know it would be many years before the current game is going to be dropped by players. Timing is everything on the edge isnt it? Hopefully the timing will be right when ED wants it too giving a proper base the next creation. Heres to continued success....cheers.

[bogusheadbox]

@Bogusheadbox:

 

Firstly, the botched release of a buggy product comment: This must be a referance to the original LOMAC release. If so then ED are blameless and you should be looking at Ubisoft. They were the publisher. ED were under contract. Ubi INSISTED on the pre Christmas release date.

 

Actually i was referring to both original and 1.12.

 

Secondly: Lack of communication: I agree in principle here, but take a moment to look at it from ED's point of view. They've been burnt more than once when ESTIMATED release dates for patches were twisted into PROMISED release dates and thrown back at them with a pile of insults to boot by customer's whose primary malfunction appeared to be an inability to read. Not that they're the only one's to be treated in this manner. Oleg used to be a regular on the Il2 forums until he got sick of being constantly insulted by over opinionated, under informed customers. Add to this the language barrier and I think that, although not the ideal situation by any terms, it's somewhat understandable. IMHO the title of "customer" doesn't entitle one to become rude. And thanks to those that were we've this lack of communication. I've told customers to get lost before now for less than I've seen posted on these and the IL2 forums from time to time.

 

Well i disagree to a point. Yes there will always be the individuals who create and argument for no other point than to augue.

 

But if the deveolper wishes (and i beleive they should) to get involved with the community to increase awareness, advertising and grow the support database. Then it should be done on a properly modderated board where rudeness and poor behavior is dealt with by deleted posts and possible bans.

 

One problem with forums these days is that we all too often allow poeple to say what they like and leave it in print even if the poster who created a slanderous post is mis informed.

 

Once you moderate a board, and the public know that you won't take crap. They will post as they should. Informative and polite. Then the developers will have safe environment to work in.

 

Take for example a game i purchased called battlecruiser millenium (one of the most moderated boards ever - outside of china). I joined the forums to enquire about patches, and ingame tips.

 

The moderators took no prisoners here. All posts were with please and thankyous. In actual fact i was banned from these boards as i didn't know how to post my system specs so any questions i asked could be asnwered better. Of course i was informed my account will be reactivated once i updated my profile.

 

But that is my point. Allow poeple to carry on and they will. We are customers and that is no right to be rude. But we are customers and that it no right for us to be ignored on the product we have purchased.

 

 

 

We as a community reap what we sow in regard to communication. How many other industries see a forum where discussion of a company's products is an expected feature? If we (or a vocal minority) constantly insult the developers why should we expect them to constantly keep in communication with us when they know all they'll receive is a bucketload of bile? Perhaps if certain sections of our community started to behave in a more polite fashion, we'd see more developer contact. Maybe not. We can but hope.

 

Agreed as stated before.... I am primarily an IL2 buff which comprises 90% of my flight time with my online squadron. There is a reason why the ubi forums are called UBIZOO. Is it the posters problem. Yes. But its also the moderators forum for not enforcing the guidlines that everyone agrees to when they sign up.

 

Give people and inch and they will take a mile. Knowing that. Its unfortunately a problem that needs to be dealt with the deveolpers that control the forums to which they communicate to their clients / fanbase on.

 

Thirdly: You say you've enjoyed LOMAC. Well in my book if you've enjoyed a product that cost £30 (or whatever the equivalent price in your locality)for a couple of years then you've got your money's worth in spades.

 

Yes i have enjoyed lomac. Have i flown it for years. No. I purchased vanilla lomac, used it for less than a month then it collected dust for about a year.

 

Have i been flying FC for years. No, i have only been flying it about a month now. I enjoy flaming cliffs in the sensation that i enjoy the SU-25 only. The other craft pale in comparison. But why do i enjoy it. It simulates jet flight (IMO) well. And i use it to primarily give me a sense of flying in something other than IL2. I still see it as an unfinished masterpiece. I would like to see this title be all that it can. It has more potential than Christina aguilera naked sitting on the edge of my bed begging for it.

 

However some blame has to still lie with the producer. If ubisoft were imposing a strict release date before the title could be accomplished. then the developer should have gone..... Ok, we need to put on hold, this, that, maybe only have one flyable per side, and inform the public that a later release in patch or paid add on form will include these added bonuses.

 

That way you have a stable game upon release. People rave about it as it works. And you have the potential to make more money because of positive sales and increased revenue due to paid add ons (that poeple will want).

 

The simple fact is. If this game truly rocked, it would be rivaling IL2 in the online stakes on hyperlobby. The fact that it doesn't is testament that it has not achieved anywhere near the potential it deserves.

 

BUT

 

SO ED, keep us in the loop. Keep talking to us and show us the fruits of your labour. Because i am interested.