The SIM put in the players perspective: What should it be?

[Pilotasso]

My view of what a SIM, like LOMAC should be, apparently does not coincide with everyones notion of what they want it to be VS what it should be.

 

Before 3D graphics were possible on PC's we were bombarded by our own imagination of what it could be like if we could strap ourselves into a fighter and do what real pilots would do. Then 286's 386's, AMIGAS came along and their improved-- if still limited capabilities--allowed programers to aim at something inspired by military simulations at a smaller scale. The Public wanted more and so the hardware improved. Increasingly sofisticated technology gave the mere mortal the chance that only real military pilots could in giant dome buildings with smoke an mirrors.

 

15 years later I aquire LOMAC and I sense more and more that despite advances we seased to search for realism and return to the most basics of entertaining, just shooting stuff arround, without much care about realism.

 

I say this due to several things:

 

-A)People dont care much that there are obvious exploits if its there as an option thats going to save your neck in an emergency like an incoming missile you wouldnt dodge otherwise

 

-B) People want to do the most things they can think off with a slow moving CAS aircraft like attacking latest GEN destroyer with Iron bombs.

 

-C)people want to stick with the same tactic in AA combat even if its complete sci-fi that would get you killed IRL everytime.

 

-D) people dont like any player with another aircraft to have any decisive advantage in either weapons or radar, or SA even if theres such a difference in real aircraft.

 

 

So what do you want in a SIM?

[Pilotasso]

Updated field please vote :)

[Pilotasso]

I voted last option because I believe we should be faithfull to the original interest we had in the infancy of computers that a SIm should aim as close as possible to a desktop educational trainer.

 

Some people claim that if it was to be realistic as that, then you souldnt be allowed to play it again once you die. Well thats a bit off the point, since then it wouldnt be very educational would it?

 

Would you want your kids to fail schoold at the first failed exam? :D

 

Because if you project a bridge in UNI you know you wont die doing it, though it should be as close as a real job in order to be more efective learning process. Much the same way a pilot trainee wont be sent off the academy after being nailed once in training.

[Kuky]

I'm all for realism and what would happen in real life... or as close as possible to reality... I really dislike fantasy especially in something that's supposedly a simulation. I am well aware there are numerous limitations such as how much data a PC can handle to process which determines the level of detail of FM, balistics, graphics etc... but also how much real life data is available as after all lot of stuff is clasified.

 

Therefore I voted last (bottom) option

[JonTex]

Well the funny thing about this question that we must not forget is that there are no right or wrong answers here. Its just a matter of oppinion. Im more of a take what i can get type of guy because of the fact that we dont always get what we want in life.

Pilotasso you seem pretty persistant in your quest for the perfect simulation that is as close to the real thing as you can get. But I would have to say knowing how dissappointed I would be if I didnt get what I wanted (in regards to realism) I would never be happy with any game. So having said that, if what you say is true , then you and I arent so different after all. Because you can only get as much realism as ED can put out so in reality you accept it. And I will never ask for anymore than they can give because Im accustomed to compromising with what I have.

 

True enough I would like a game that does not allow people to exploit it and ruin the game but some of the exploits that people use are just a test of our own character to see exactly how we might adapt and overcome because when you really analyze real life, which is just as unfair, we must adapt to whatever situation life gives us. So what if somebody straps Aim 54 phoenix missle on an Su-27 and fires it at you. Let the truth be known nothing is impossible. Do you think a real pilot would give up and radio back to HQ complaining that the enemy has an unrealistic loadout? In truth that is a hack but I still dont see this as a cheat. Cheating would be modding his aircraft so that even if you did hit him with a missle it would not damage him, thats cheating.

 

In closing I would have to end with this as this quote is from a previous post that had a different topic but the point I made is still valid here.

 

3.Think about it man this is a GAME and this is what reminds me to be civil. These same jets are the same ones that protect our country and if their secrets can be bought and sold upon a whim or moments notice in the national urgency of Eagle Dynamics' dire necessesity to have TOP SECRET information that Bin Laden, Sadam Hussein, and the whole of China wouldnt mind having access to so that they can accurately model a stinking F14 right down to the last MFD then why dont we just hand our troops over to them as well with all our coordinated attack plans, IFF codes, Transponder codes, missle codes for ICBM's, Top Secret Authentication codes for nukes etc. Because in my oppinion thats where the line in the sand is drawn between reality and video game. And its spelled national security

 

In short you will in most cases never have what you want. There will always be some guess work involved. And some things are just best left a secret for our own good ... and I can live with that. So bring on the guess work and creative thinking, and not so accurate flight models because in the end we are all human beings capable of mistakes ..... and to be honest ive never flown ANY of these fighter aircraft so what am I really missing? And just who am I to say these simulations arent accurate enough? :D

Tex

[SuperKungFu]

i like realism so i voted for that.

[Solidburn]

Likewise. I mean, there's room for "just for fun" aspects. but leave that as an option for people who aren't into the 'hard-core' realm of simming. Bear in mind though that high fidelity will ultimately lead to higher costs and longer development time. Also too, is the simple undeniable fact that Some information needed to base the simulation on, ie ballistics, range, etc may not Yet be...Declassified. So in short, I think it can be said a balance is acceptable. However, a lean to more realism would definately be prefered.

[JonTex]

Dude if you want to fly the X-wing and be Darth Vader buy the game. Its not my fault you cant dodge a phoenix missle.

 

Maybe you should use the force Luke ....:megalol:

 

Tex out:D

[D-Scythe]

Jane's F/A-18 and F-15 struck pretty close to my ideal balance of realism and gameplay. The only thing that fell short was the AI actually, but nothing I've ever installed on my computers have ever met my expectations for AI programming.

 

Or you could take LOFC/LOBS, put the campaign engine from Jane's F/A-18 into it, up the AI, fix all things radar (APG-70, radar missiles, etc.), and add more terrain detail, and I could probably play that till I'm six feet under ;)

[christopher m]

Opinion

 

I think a PC sim will be what ever the Producer of the product intends it to be.

Not to take any wind from some people's sails but I don't think any false claims have been made by the producer of LOMAC about it's product.

 

That said of course we can all request, suggest, and make unofficial_addons

to our hearts content.

 

And I have enjoied many of these addons.

 

I think you cannot be too real with PC sims since they are limited by the fact not everyone has the some equipment. Many, most pepole don't have all the equipment they would like for upgrading their immursion in the SIM.

 

I know I would love to get a touch buddy, some nice foot peddles, and of course I really need a Track IR for the upcomming BS.

 

I think PC SIM's are really limited by the sensory devices available.

 

I don't knw how many times I have dreamed the dream of flying a SIM in a real cockpit with a real canopy that shows 360degree/6 DOF view.

 

That would be a sensory device worthy of a 100% accurate SIM.

 

Otherwise the limitations of the LCD screen and the other sensory inputs for the user really limit the degree of accuracy as far as SITUATION AWARENESS goes so you cannot have completely accurate, real world simulation. I think it would not be fun.

 

And I do want to have fun.

[tflash]

I agree with Christopher_m. SA is difficult to simulate and not equal for all players (some use track-ir, others hotas, ...)

 

I didn't vote yet since the poll misses the essential point between "realism" and "simulation". First of all, a "simulation", as the word states, isn't "real". It is meant to *simulate* possible scenario's. What you count as "realism" depends totally on what you want to simulate. E.g. WOV/Yap wants to simulate the specific *experience* of flying over Vietnam. In this sense it is "realistic".

 

If Lockon wants to simulate A2A *combat*, then realism means that you use ANY trick available to win. That's what a REAL pilot also would do. So, you will use the weapons of Lockon to your best advantage whatever. In combat, you win or die, there are no rules. Even if the game differs substantially from real-life conditions, you can really learn from it how to fight.

 

If you want to simulate real-life tactics, then you need something totally different. For this, unfortunately, Lockon sucks. You cannot use the real advantages of an F-15 e.g., since its look-down capabilities are porked.

 

But even when you would opt for a strict simulator of RL tactics, good simulators provide in a learning path, adapting to the students skills to be able to get on board in the first place.

[A.S]

sim is not arcade mainstream - arcade mainstream is not sim

 

a fusion will fail, there is a decission to made as dev.

 

if u will catch the most customers, the market will be hard, but if u make the decission for the hardcoresimmers maybe u take a open place with customers over years. (F4, FS ......)

 

or u make it two modules like in 1 futurs sim for example.

gamers module and "go hardcore or go home" module with own servers.

 

So the vote is well placed here cuz it show what kind of community we are.

 

i voted for last

[Laud]

I think the point is not how accurate an onboard (i.e. avionic-) system is featured as long as it IS featured. Surely no one of us can say if the behaviour of some types of radars are correct but trying to give it the most possible depth and number of functions should be the aim (looking to F4AF...). I mean the MFD (MULTI! functional display) of the F-15C is a kind of a SFD (SINGLE! function display) in LOMAC, just to give an example of whats the point I'm talking about.

 

Finally I have to agree with Tex that I try to be happy with what I got and maybe do my part by suggestions and support of the community to improve things.

[Ice]

Be happy with what you have. Its the best there is. ED are allways trying to improve this sim and make it as realistic as is possible for current technology and available resources.

 

Enjoying what you have and making the most of it is much more fun and challenging. Which is exactly what real fighter pilots do.

[SVK_Fox]

"realistic" simulator is simulator for mee, so If every aircraft in Lockon will have properities as Su-25 T - (AFM, difficulty during landing and so), than I will be happy and it is enough for mee. BUT - If it will be more real like impoving radar modes, missiles and ..... I will be happier. I know that it is not good choice make simulator more real because many users dont want to searching in manuals how to take off and so, they want fly for fun. But everybody is defferent. Thanks to Lockon developers and ED for Lockon as it is now and I hope it will be better and better game in future :) :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

This voting is taking an unexpected evolution to me. Either not enough of the right people are voting or someone is not being very coherent. I urge you all to choose your honest preferrence and not what looks better for you.

[Cosmonaut]

Realism is state of mind when talking about flightsims. One mans realism is another mans arcade game. I know a few die hard M$FS fans that routinely fly 8 to 10 + hour flights on VATSIM where you cant leave your PC for more than 30 mins or you could have your flight cancelled and they think all combat flightsims are toys.

 

For me it’s “realism with in reason” I don’t want four hour flights, I just don’t have the time nor motivation for that and realism is as important to me as it is to anyone else. What I do want is as real as you can get in terms of avionics, FM’s and missile accuracy but I understand that all of those things are classified so like it or not the devs will have to make some educated guesses with hopefully some input from the community. I also appreciated that with amount of flyables in lockon, it will take time to get everything modeled and fixed to a level that most of us would like so for me I see lockon in the same way I see most other sims and that is as a work in progress.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Results of this poll were predictable. Participants of this forum are about the ultimate reality in combat flight simulation.

 

Good thing about Flaming Cliffs (and most other PC flight sim’s) is that it provides enough options to make it arcade for the most inexperienced player as well as most realistic for advanced users.

[tflash]

Maybe there are different levels to consider. At the core, there is the physics modelling. I think we all want the highest fidelity in physics modelling.

This means AFM is on top of the list. Lockon really has to move ahead in physics modelling for missiles, rockets and bullets also. At the moment, the efforts to do some scripted *functional* modelling on missile performance have mixed and counterproductive results. Functions without physics are doomed to fail.

 

Second, there is switchology/procedure modelling. I like that very much, but it is not a priority for me. As an MSFS flyer, I'ld say MSFS would only be half the fun without, but I do not feel it as important for Lockon. E.g. I really do not have more fun in F4:AF because I have to push a few more buttons. What's the point if you can script them anyway into one or two buttons on your stick?

 

I find Lockon has the right mix here: you can have correct startup/landing procedures without to much overhead.

 

And to be honest: if I have to choose between the current Flanker, as it is modelled, and the Su-25T, I would go for the Flanker no doubt for even a split second. If tomorrow they had the perfect Opel Astra simulator, I still would prefer Lockon to fly a magnificent aircraft. A dull car I can drive anyday.

[Kula66]

Be happy with what you have. Its the best there is. ED are allways trying to improve this sim and make it as realistic as is possible for current technology and available resources.

 

The key theing in your statement being 'available resources' - ED have a finite and limited budget and have chosen to invest that in adding a helicopter, believing that will get a good return on the money invested.

 

For me that isn't what I want from a flight sim, I love A2A and wished the investment had been made there AFM/WAFM etc ... but hey, I will probably buy it anyway! I think that flying around in a helicopter blowing up dumb AI pretty looking vehicles on a faily simple landscape will lose its appeal very quickly.

[Kula66]

Results of this poll were predictable. Participants of this forum are about the ultimate reality in combat flight simulation.

 

Agreed ... I'm guessing, but I would expect the people on this forum only represent a tiny percentage of LO sales. The vocal minority.

[Flexman_UK]

Well for balance I love flying around in helicopters blowing up dumb blondes and leave all that A2A stuff to those who like that sort of thing :)

[Floyd]

The key theing in your statement being 'available resources' - ED have a finite and limited budget and have chosen to invest that in adding a helicopter, believing that will get a good return on the money invested.

 

They did BS by contract (for a Russian publisher IIRC).

The good return on the money invested is a hope of the contractor,

but maybe ED can participate in the receipts - depends on the contract.

[Frostie]

For added Realism when I crash I get my missus to come and smack me around the head with a piece of turf at the moment of impact.

[firesoldier845]

A big problem is that I don't think a lot of people realize how much work goes into making simulations. They want a realistic sim, but their expectations need to be realistic too.

 

I'm about a hard core simmer as they come and have practically every title out there but I think people like myself as well as others like me are a big problem with the genre. Trust me I want everything as close to reality as possible in physics, modeling and systems management. But the true "reality" is the development costs need to be taken into consideration as well as the economics or business aspect of designing flight sims. The majority of potential customers don't want to click through 10 buttons or wait 10 minutes on the runway to start up a plane before flying a mission. Maybe that's fine for a lot of us here but we represent a small niche of the overall potential sales.

 

The fact is that combat flight sims are not highly profitable or very lucrative to software publishers. Anyone who isn't blind and can look down the game aisle of any store that sells computer software knows this. When people slam ED they truely are biteing the hand that feeds cause I tell you we are all lucky that ED is making flight sims instead of cutting their losses and designing the next fps game or shoot'em up title.