INSANE

[Program2]

Can't people play games because they are fun? Do they need to be realistic down to every little detail? I mean, that's why the flight sim community is so small isn't it? Because the average 12 year old and his play station have no idea which versions of the Su-27 can fire R-77's and from which pylons, they just want to fly around in cool fighter jets and shoot missiles at stuff. I have lots of fun play Ace Combat 0 on a 56 inch TV, its just a different experience than LOMAC or another flight "sim."

 

Good point pod22. It's a different game and just because it's not realistic does not mean it can't be fun. I guess there are wanna-be pilots (who must have everything as realistic as possible) and some who are gamers.

 

I consider myself a gamer. Whether it's a console game or PC game as long as it's fun I will play it :).

[Aeroscout]

Thats more your speed anyway:megalol:

 

 

Blaze

 

my speed? :huh:

[Aeroscout]

Good point pod22. It's a different game and just because it's not realistic does not mean it can't be fun. I guess there are wanna-be pilots (who must have everything as realistic as possible) and some who are gamers.

 

I consider myself a gamer. Whether it's a console game or PC game as long as it's fun I will play it :).

 

Good aditude, but i still prefer the sims. (What's wrong with a preference? :D)

 

Sorry for the double post. :wallbash:

[ViperEagle]

When I want to sim-it-up, I pop in Lock-On or Falcon 4.0 with the associated add-ons.

 

But when I want to unwind a bit and lay in bed, and just blow stuff up and watch the jet go zoom..I pop in Over-G Fighters.

 

Different things for different moods.

[Program2]

Good aditude, but i still prefer the sims. (What's wrong with a preference? :D)

 

Sorry for the double post. :wallbash:

 

Nothing wrong with preference :) .

 

Just the fact that some people thinks the game is not a sim. It will not be worth playing at all because it's not realistic.

 

It's a quick pickup game. Hit start and you are in the sky blowing things up. Of course it will not have the longevity Lock On has but the point here is this game can be fun.

[Aeroscout]

Nothing wrong with preference :) .

 

Just the fact that some people thinks the game is not a sim. It will not be worth playing at all because it's not realistic.

 

It's a quick pickup game. Hit start and you are in the sky blowing things up. Of course it will not have the longevity Lock On has but the point here is this game can be fun.

 

Nothing wrong with opinion. I see your point and of corse, that's why games and sims there. to have fun. so, pick what you want and run with it. again, it's your decision what you play, not mine.

[Dudikoff]

Hmm.. I don't see anything revolutionary in these screenshots, just hi-res textures and good use of shaders and filthers.

 

For instance, if you look closer at the city screenshot, you would notice that besides big buildings and trees, the smaller buildings and everything else is just a texture. Big buildings just have nice textures, nothing more, and the trees don't look that better than these in Lock On. Add higher res textures to Lock On plus the use of shaders and advanced filthers and I think it would have much more detail than this.

 

I'm no expert so all this is just IMHO.

[VMFA-Blaze]

Nothing wrong with preference :) .

 

Just the fact that some people thinks the game is not a sim. It will not be worth playing at all because it's not realistic.

 

It's a quick pickup game. Hit start and you are in the sky blowing things up. Of course it will not have the longevity Lock On has but the point here is this game can be fun.

 

This is sort of the way that Strike Fighters is to me... Its a lot of fun and doesn't take that much concentration...

 

But where Strike Fighters shines is in the fact that you can actually create your own sim...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[BSR-SARGE]

Rave

 

I have to agree with Rugg on this one, because we need to be challenged to keep it interesting. Looking good, pretty graphics, easy shootem up simulations will only collect dust in about 2 days. Too be challenged stimulates curiosity and the desire to conquer which as you progress you will get a real good feeling( a self-confidence builder).

 

Now console games are alright for some, and I'm not saying anything negitive to those that find it fun, but for myself, I have found, that this Lock-on flight simulator, is very challenging, fun, and as a Private Pilot, a very good thing for me.

[Aeroscout]

I have to agree with Rugg on this one, because we need to be challenged to keep it interesting. Looking good, pretty graphics, easy shootem up simulations will only collect dust in about 2 days. Too be challenged stimulates curiosity and the desire to conquer which as you progress you will get a real good feeling( a self-confidence builder).

 

Now console games are alright for some, and I'm not saying anything negitive to those that find it fun, but for myself, I have found, that this Lock-on flight simulator, is very challenging, fun, and as a Private Pilot, a very good thing for me.

 

Again, I totaly agree. And like you said, if it doesn't get interesting, what's the point. Fun is not the same thing over and over. That's what makes lockon fun, you can theroeticaly have an infenit amount of missions you can create in the editor. your only limitation is your imagination. (Oh, god... now i sould like some demented sales man :huh:) I'v played BF2, and have a friend who rants and raves over it, thinks it's the best thing in the world. Well, It's just not interesting. it's just the same, you go out, kill some guys, you get killed, you respawn, repeat. When you have to apply intelegence and some actual thought, then it gets interesting. Other than flight sims, the only games that i can see that would fall unger this category are... wow, there arn't that many that come to mind.... maybe Zelda... maybe... it depends on what your doing.

 

If you like theose BF2 games, go ahead, play them, it's your life. I just like to: :pilotfly:

[dodger42]

10 times more budget, audience and 10 times less care for realism all helps to bring that to life in less time ;)

 

Sure, but how many dollars would it take to license the terrain and visuals so a company like ED or XSI could then add realism? These guys should license the graphics.

 

Would be nice to see flighstim companies focus on the realism components: AI, flight models, weapons, weather etc. Visuals could then be left to the companies who develop for the mass markets like the one in this thread.

[Kuky]

Hmm.. I don't see anything revolutionary in these screenshots, just hi-res textures and good use of shaders and filthers.

 

For instance, if you look closer at the city screenshot, you would notice that besides big buildings and trees, the smaller buildings and everything else is just a texture. Big buildings just have nice textures, nothing more, and the trees don't look that better than these in Lock On. Add higher res textures to Lock On plus the use of shaders and advanced filthers and I think it would have much more detail than this.

 

I'm no expert so all this is just IMHO.

 

I fully agree :thumbup:

[Hellcat61]

Let’s not forget that this game will probably be played on an HD TV at best. I have seen the "latest and greatest" console games played, and while the do look good, they are still fuzzy. This coupled with the lack of realistic game play and a Xbox controller will definitely cut back the desire for such a game. For the console players: congrats on a decent flight game.

[chrno120]

Forget being an Elitist for a while, sometimes.. plain and simple can be fun~

[Glowing_Amraam]

Which is also why i love to play BF 2, just so i can kick some ass in a firefight now and then :P

[Pilotasso]

Forget being an Elitist for a while, sometimes.. plain and simple can be fun~

 

Im not an elitist, If I was I would still be stuck with falcon 4.

 

But over all the realistic mission planning and conduct, I still preffer the feel of flight over anything else. I seriously doubt that Ace combat can provide this to me. Im very picky with flight models.

[tflash]

This is sort of the way that Strike Fighters is to me... Its a lot of fun and doesn't take that much concentration...

 

But where Strike Fighters shines is in the fact that you can actually create your own sim...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

 

Fully agree on Strike Fighters: it's incredibly fun. Did you try the F-15 in WOE already? Truly superb dogfights in the clouds with Mig-17's etc.

 

AND Strike Fighters has a pretty good FM too! The Sparrow is a little to ueberdone, but the sidewinders are brilliantly modelled with even the AIM-9P if you want it hard.

 

I would play Ace Combat for sure if I had it. For me, the forums are for realism and the game is for fun. I want to discuss for realism, and play for fun. It's as simple as that!

[Trident]

Let’s not forget that this game will probably be played on an HD TV at best. I have seen the "latest and greatest" console games played, and while the do look good, they are still fuzzy.

 

My thoughts exactly. They have combined a cleverly selected colour palette with typical overuse of HDR lighting to create graphics that look cinematic, but unrealistic. It isn't nearly as crisp and sharp as LOMAC (in other words, I disagree totally that the AC6 textures are better in any way!), and the 3D models aren't up to the best ED has to offer either. More importantly visible range and the size of the map are likely to be far smaller. All of this translates into graphics that look nice on screenshots but are far too blurry for practical use a sim like LOMAC.

 

What AC6 does do exceedingly well is that everything is of the same, consistent quality, there aren't any eye-sores like LOMAC's F-14 that will look out of place next to newer models such as the Su-25T and F/A-18. If nothing else, that is something ED should take note of - compared to other PC sims they are already doing very well in this regard, but there's no reason not to get even better ;) IMHO that doesn't necessarily mean modelling every vehicle with 50000 polygons either, I personally found the Hornet with its 15000 polys completely adequate (it looks far better than some MSFS models with nearly 10 times the amount of polygons!).

[S77th-konkussion]

Yes it will be interesting to hear what the flight model will be like... You might not even be able to use a joystick for control....

 

~S~

 

Blaze

 

I think this is a felony in my state... :joystick:

[Aeroscout]

My thoughts exactly. They have combined a cleverly selected colour palette with typical overuse of HDR lighting to create graphics that look cinematic, but unrealistic. It isn't nearly as crisp and sharp as LOMAC (in other words, I disagree totally that the AC6 textures are better in any way!), and the 3D models aren't up to the best ED has to offer either. More importantly visible range and the size of the map are likely to be far smaller. All of this translates into graphics that look nice on screenshots but are far too blurry for practical use a sim like LOMAC.

 

What AC6 does do exceedingly well is that everything is of the same, consistent quality, there aren't any eye-sores like LOMAC's F-14 that will look out of place next to newer models such as the Su-25T and F/A-18. If nothing else, that is something ED should take note of - compared to other PC sims they are already doing very well in this regard, but there's no reason not to get even better ;) IMHO that doesn't necessarily mean modelling every vehicle with 50000 polygons either, I personally found the Hornet with its 15000 polys completely adequate (it looks far better than some MSFS models with nearly 10 times the amount of polygons!).

 

I agree with all of your points.

[Force_Feedback]

Which is also why i love to play BF 2, just so i can kick some ass in a firefight now and then :P

 

Heh, I brought it back to the store after I tried controlling the Blackhawk with a joystick :/ I got a bit mad b/c it had no joystick support, I was all like 'Well, how the f*** am I going to fly all aircraft?' (said it in the shop quite loudly :P). The funs 'felt' plastic too, like CS guns feel.

Now America's Army, well, it rules realism wise, it's no sim, but now some 'run around use healthpacks frag other 9yr olds with some rocket launcher (the nightmare called UT). It's my twisted opinion, and believe me, I'm no die hard sim buff that flies with HOTAS, trackir or oxygen mask, but having such games makes me think the devs were just too lazy to actually deliver something plausible :/

I don't care if a game is buggy or unoptimized like lomac, but it has something of a 'Wow, the programmers did their best' feel to it, while BF and especially UT is like 'Heh, they've upped the number, raised sys specs, and brushed up the textures, still the same point & click'.

[Aeroscout]

Heh, I brought it back to the store after I tried controlling the Blackhawk with a joystick :/ I got a bit mad b/c it had no joystick support, I was all like 'Well, how the f*** am I going to fly all aircraft?' (said it in the shop quite loudly :P). The funs 'felt' plastic too, like CS guns feel.

Now America's Army, well, it rules realism wise, it's no sim, but now some 'run around use healthpacks frag other 9yr olds with some rocket launcher (the nightmare called UT). It's my twisted opinion, and believe me, I'm no die hard sim buff that flies with HOTAS, trackir or oxygen mask, but having such games makes me think the devs were just too lazy to actually deliver something plausible :/

I don't care if a game is buggy or unoptimized like lomac, but it has something of a 'Wow, the programmers did their best' feel to it, while BF and especially UT is like 'Heh, they've upped the number, raised sys specs, and brushed up the textures, still the same point & click'.

 

that's BF2 in a nutshell. The Helicopters are especially bad, Impossible to control if your used to someting close to the real thing. there not nearly responsive enough. :joystick:

[tflash]

Come on, guys, BF 2 is a fantastic game! I find it very fun. Indeed, flying the planes and choppers is a totally weird experience, completely different than in a flight sim. I just can't do it, but my son has no problems at all with it.

[Aeroscout]

Well, if you've been flying sims for 3+ years, it actually becomes difficult. And in a real war, you do not win by capturing spawn points. you win by defeating the enemy. What more, every battle that you win or lose does not translate to some other bigger part of the war. it's just that battle and that's it. In StarWars battlefront, at least theres the conquest mode whenre you move on to other planets, and you lose or gain planets depending on how well you do in a battle. If I see that in BF3 or what ever, them i'll get it, but untill then, most likely not.

[Rodgerdat]

I hate to interject I am a long time BF2 player. I have to say it is a completely different sim. It is meant to be more arcade like to enable all the ground movement. It is based on capturing point to make it more of a squad based game. It is not a lone wolf game and was never meant to be. Lockon is a far better flight sim. You cant even compare the both. They are both enjoyable games.

this is the new mod for BF2 http://desert-conflict.org/

It goes straight to the core of BF1942 Desert Combat mod. Which was the best mod I have ever played.

 

Aeroscout I laugh every time I look under your sig and see.

 

Computer: Crap

 

LOL