Got bored and turned to the dark side.

[ericinexile]

Actually F4AF is optimised for dual core which is what I need right now.

 

 

 

 

LMAO.....go read the MLU manuals and then think about what you just stated.

 

Subs,

 

For ramp starts, playing with avionics, and delivering weapons, F4:AF is amazing. For pure flying, which is the main reason I buy a FLIGHT simulator, F4:AF is way off for anything above about 5 degrees AOA. Most people don't notice or don't care and that is probably for the best because it is otherwise a great sim.

 

Regards

[ericinexile]

...Ground units move with impunity through cities and treeless hillsides with no need to regard roads until they cross a river...

 

Smokin'Hole

 

I just realized that this is false is well. Ground units usually stay on or close to roads until you start dropping Mark 20's on them, at which point they scatter for the hills.

 

Smokin'Hole

[SUBS17]

Subs, I don't have F4:AF, but I have F4 SP4.2. Are the FMs in AF comparable to SP4.2? In SP4.2, I thought the flight model for the F-16 was getting pretty damn good.

 

No the FM is unique compared to the rest, IMO its the best yet. Don't know how it compares to OFs FM. Its nice to fly and you can refuel online now which is cool.

[Floyd]

F4 was designed around a 'dynamic battlefield' with the idea to fly the F16 and

other planes/vehicles later (addons). All Tactical Engagements (you fly a mission within

such a TE) are smaller parts from the larger battlefield.

 

And before you start with the DC for Lomac, i would be happy to see my flight path

when joining an online mission; or substitute AI pilots for missing human pilots.

How about that? Or do you want to build a DC on stupid mission concept?

If i think about it ... the reason might be that there is no russian word for "gameplay" :D

IMO, the flanker series had always problems with "gameplay", something that

sims like F/A-18 or F4 implemented with ease.

[Vekkinho]

I also tried F4:AF few months ago!

 

I played Microprose F4 back in '99 but I didn't like the graphics so I stopped and switched to Flanker 2.0-2.5! Way better!

 

Few months ago I bought F4:AF! At fist glance, package seems good,big with printed manual. Installation went fine, and I patched it with 1.07! Graphics are better than back in '99, we got a new theatre (Balkans) but FM is still unreallistic! There's no evidence of wind, turbulence, intertia (you name it) and flying Viper feels like flying a kite!

 

Just try leveling off and letting your hands off the HOTAS and you'll be flying straight and level 'til you run out of fuel!

Yeah right!

 

3D pit is awful! Terrain is not modelled accurately! Some of the major cities in Balkans theater are not modelled at all, runway headings inaccurate!

 

Although Dynamic Campaigns, detailed avionics and weapon systems, clickable cockpit and lots of communication options (possibility of flying FAC, check in & out, changing freq, radio chatter) is something I like a lot - I still stick to LO!

[tflash]

Hey Dark siders, read this thread on SimHQ on F4:AF missile realism:

 

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=004322

 

Feel the force? ;)

[leafer]

Hey Dark siders, read this thread on SimHQ on F4:AF missile realism:

 

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=004322

 

Feel the force? ;)

 

I see Bard is in there defending the missile beavior. Is that what you're talking about when you say feel the force? :D

 

Anyway, bought it, tried it and gave it to my cat. The clickable pit and the 'weaponeering' didn't seem to have any effect on her but then when she flipped the CD over to the shiny side...man... Tore it up! :D

 

Anyway, F4:AF bored me to liquid.

[uhoh7]

Always a flamefest when these 2 sims are in the same thread, which is a travesty. You can't admire one without drawing the ire of those "commited" to the other, and when you talk about what would be nice in one, though you have bought the thing and love it, you are a traitor.

 

Someone up there remarked "the dynamic *campaign* is nothing more than a reasonable game theory calculator"

 

nothing more? The mona-lisa is nothing more than a painting---no that's not right. Imagine the mona was the ONLY painting of a woman (or is it really a guy, hehe). Since the DC is so easy, why doesn't everyone have one?

 

It's no sweat to poke holes in the DC, there are plenty. An it's no sweat to do the same with LO, which has all kinds of them. In fact, respectfull hole poking is totally fine and informative to any one with mind open---it's DISSING---using flaws to insult the whole, and claim that because e.g. the FM is wierd in some way, then the sim is trash, ignoring what ELSE IS THERE, that makes you shake your head in disbelief.

 

If you start with the fact that both sims are damn worthwhile if you like jets and simulated combat, and keep that context the debate is healthy and fun to read. But somebody always has to go personal, "take sides", and tell us all why one or the other of these great sims is garbage.

 

Arrogance begets ingnorance at the speed of sound...

[Jester_159th]

Well said Uhoh7! :thumbup:

 

I fully agree with you and couldn't have said it better myself. I've got both and enjoy both for their strongpoints.

[Frostie]

Ok they both Suck Big time then, I wish I never purchased the bitchin sims anyway always pulling me one way then the other making me pick fights with the other , I cant go on with the in-decision ,fed up of this tiresome debate I cant take this sh****t...., NO, bolloxs let the debate carry on, we cant let them rest easy, keep pushing these sorry sims till one of em gets IT RIGHT.:P

[GGTharos]

Always a flamefest when these 2 sims are in the same thread, which is a travesty. You can't admire one without drawing the ire of those "commited" to the other, and when you talk about what would be nice in one, though you have bought the thing and love it, you are a traitor.

 

Nope, I never said there shouldn't be a DC in LO - I laid down some conditions that are needed to have a good one. It was a technical thing, not a wishy-washy thing.

 

Someone up there remarked "the dynamic *campaign* is nothing more than a reasonable game theory calculator"

 

Yep, I did.

 

nothing more? The mona-lisa is nothing more than a painting---no that's not right.

 

Yes, it is nothing more than a painting. Aside from the historical value of the painting, it is rather overvalued for what it really is.

 

Imagine the mona was the ONLY painting of a woman (or is it really a guy, hehe). Since the DC is so easy, why doesn't everyone have one?

 

Every feature requires development time - so, you have to choose between features. If the issue is timing alone, I'd rather have a very capable AI and ME set and THEN have a DC on top of it.

 

 

In other words, I'd like to end up having a DC like F4's WITHOUT the problems that F4's DC has. They are quite infuriating, and often.

 

Alternatively, if ED does -not- build a DC, I'd like to have access/control over missions such that a DC -can- be written externally as a community addon.

[tflash]

Which brings us to the point: how "open" is Lock-on?

 

I think LUAscript is a very strong point. A DC would be interesting if it where an open, modular architecture allowing third-party logic.

 

But what is more badly needed is multiple window support. You need to be able to send views to several windows and screens. E.g. It would be very helpful to be able to show the F-15C radar screen and TEWS on separate windows. LUAscript is one part of the equation, using windows API's another.

[ViperEagle]

I'd certainly like for LockOn to be more open, but the fact is, having gamers develope their own stuff doesnt stuff the pockets of the companies, they are after profit afterall.

 

Maybe once BlackShark is out, and LockOn is done, and isnt going to be developed any further by the companies, they'll release a SDK or such, and we'll be able to add more, until then..probably not.

 

Lord knows I'd love a modern F-15 :thumbup:

[Prophet]

I just want the nav screen on the MFD.... :D

[Pilotasso]

Never intended to make any flame fest on my topic but rather to discuss 2 aproaches for flight and missile modeling, virtues ad flaws and perhaps get an insight how wrong they compare and how could they be improved.

 

I hope some of the people influent in the falcon world reads the first few posts with an open mind. I posted with an open mind and without any hint for a flame war. Lets keep it that way.

[Prophet]

But Pilotasso.....

 

We are combat simmers, we like firing missiles at each other.

[SUBS17]

Always a flamefest when these 2 sims are in the same thread, which is a travesty. You can't admire one without drawing the ire of those "commited" to the other, and when you talk about what would be nice in one, though you have bought the thing and love it, you are a traitor.

 

Someone up there remarked "the dynamic *campaign* is nothing more than a reasonable game theory calculator"

 

nothing more? The mona-lisa is nothing more than a painting---no that's not right. Imagine the mona was the ONLY painting of a woman (or is it really a guy, hehe). Since the DC is so easy, why doesn't everyone have one?

 

It's no sweat to poke holes in the DC, there are plenty. An it's no sweat to do the same with LO, which has all kinds of them. In fact, respectfull hole poking is totally fine and informative to any one with mind open---it's DISSING---using flaws to insult the whole, and claim that because e.g. the FM is wierd in some way, then the sim is trash, ignoring what ELSE IS THERE, that makes you shake your head in disbelief.

 

If you start with the fact that both sims are damn worthwhile if you like jets and simulated combat, and keep that context the debate is healthy and fun to read. But somebody always has to go personal, "take sides", and tell us all why one or the other of these great sims is garbage.

 

Arrogance begets ingnorance at the speed of sound...

 

Well said Dude:thumbup: , I often find people picking one side or the other where in fact they are both good to use.

[uhoh7]

Never intended to make any flame fest on my topic but rather to discuss 2 aproaches for flight and missile modeling, virtues ad flaws and perhaps get an insight how wrong they compare and how could they be improved.

 

I hope some of the people influent in the falcon world reads the first few posts with an open mind. I posted with an open mind and without any hint for a flame war. Lets keep it that way.

 

I'm a big F4 fan, but I agree with everything you said to start. You feel like you are flying in a vacum. The combo of a simple FM and simple weather is numbing. It's the weakest part of the SIM IMHO. I could handle the graphics if the thing flew right---but not many true F4 guys are willing to admit what is obvious even to me, who has learned all his little knowledge of jets from these sims.

 

I also had alota fun with FF3 around the time of the first cobra exe. Just before AF. I bought a bunch of pits from the dutch guy and raised hell with the f-15 e, which can carry all kinds of stuff.

 

It just kills you with potential, like LO which has so much good stuff, but the weak wingman, and single repetitive missions, and numerous other small stuff wears you down.

 

The tolerable online capablities held my interest for a time. I think I acutally killed Stormin 3 or 4 times, hehe

 

A DC is out of the question for this code base I would guess, but they could make up for it in alot of ways. Does ED plan on advanced FMs for anything past the 25t and ka-50? Everyone is crying for improved ME too.

 

These two sims are the only game in town as far as jets--though I did play with that strike fighters a bit.

 

The flame thing---usually the thread starts reasonably, then one hot head crosses the line and it's head for the bunkers. But sometimes cool heads prevail and defuse. That lawyer guy from FF3 is funny and sensible.

 

That's it! we need more lawyers!