What it is necessary to make into the LockOn?

[Lemon Lime]

It's not a developer's marketing research. (I think, they were already bothered with discussion of their policy by us. :) )

In Russian part of the forum we argued the question "what west virtual pilots want". Because theories are good but practice is better, I want to ask you about this.

 

So, comments to answers.

 

If you think, that the level of planes which are in LockOn now good, and the main task now is to add new planes (with AFM), please, answer "F-18" or "F-16".

If you think, that the main task now is to do planes better (AFM, more detailed modeling of avionics, etc), please, vote for the plane, that, in your opinion, it is necessary to amend first of all.

If you will answer "other", please comment your position.

 

Thank you!

 

P.S. Is my English very bad? Excuse me, please. :roll:

P.P.S. for Russians. Народ, мне итересно именно зарубёжное мнение, просьба не нарушать чистоту эксперимента и не голосовать здесь. ;)

[BIOLOG]

Ок. Англисский у тебя нормальный (моё мнение)

[olaleier]

Although I'm sure there will be many different opinions, I would be most pleased by seeing the Su-27/33 get the same depth of modelling as the Su-25T - flight, engine, subsystem, damage and ground collision.

 

That being said, I think Lock On desperately needs a campaign engine and I have been whining about that for more than a year. :P :lol:

 

And your English is perfect. :)

[golfsierra2]

Voting: Other

 

IMHO it would be enough for the existing aircrafts to debug the avionics and the weapon / radar systems which for itself will be a hell of work to do.

 

The only additional aircraft that I would ike to see is the MiG21, because it really is wide spreaded over the globe.

 

Or make the Phantom II flyable, prefereable with a two-seater option, so one can be the pilot while the other player takes care of the weapons. :D

[GGTharos]

To answer your question:

 

-I'd like to see current aircraft de-bugged, made better, and given AFM.

Specifically, I want the nav equipment fixed, the TWS bug and fucntionality fixed, and that's about it I think as fasr as aircraft go - oh, and hopefully give the weapons realistic splash damage.

 

-I would like to see the editor and mission/campaign engine made much better than it is now, with triggers and random events, possibly controllable by LUA (can you imagine playing with two commanders on each side re-setting waypoints for their own ground forces and rodering aircraft players to defend them or attack enemy ones?)

 

-I would like to see a SEAD (anti-radar) capable aircraft added to the western side, wether that would be an F-4, F/A-18 or F-16 or Tornado, I don't care, so long as we get one :)

[VapoR]

-I would like to see a SEAD (anti-radar) capable aircraft added to the western side, wether that would be an F-4, F/A-18 or F-16 or Tornado, I don't care, so long as we get one :)

 

I voted Other for the same reason. The west desperately needs some flyable SEAD. Even though I'm from the US, I would love to see a european plane added just for some more variety.

 

The other thing that is long overdue is a dynamic campaign, especially if it was playable online with the possible dedicated server.

[S77th-GOYA]

I began a similar poll on the UBI forums a while ago. See it here

--> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=591105126&p=1

 

I voted other here, because I think what would most benefit the sim in its current state would not be another aircraft. It would be to have the current sim improved with bugfixes, realism fixes, graphical optimizations, dedicated server, etc.

After that is achieved, I would like to see aircraft added that would balance the capabilities of the Russian vs. NATO sides. Naval capabilities and fast jet air to ground capabilities are absent on the NATO side. The F/A-18 would fill both gaps nicely.

 

What was the Russian theory of what the West wants?

[BIOLOG]

golfsierra2 Could you remove the sig plz?

Thanks

[D-Scythe]

To make an add-on more enjoyable for Western virtual pilots, I think that incorporation of a new campaign engine as well as advanced AI would be great. Okay, I understand that an on-the-shelf add-on probably won't sell as well if it did not have a brand new flyable shooting tanks up on the cover (ala Su-25T) but let's face it, the majority of LOMAC buyers probably don't even know Flaming Cliffs exist in the West.

 

Thus, the people that do know about Flaming Cliffs, us, are gonna be the 'serious' simmers from the West who buy it, so although the general opinion on a new flyable, like an F/A-18C, is still important, there are some people, like me, who are indifferent to flying a new plane, and would be more interested in other elements of the simulation, such as more features for existing aircraft, a dynamic campaign engine (of which everyone will enjoy, I'm sure :lol: ) and advanced AI. Honestly, if the AI was good enough, SP would be just as thrilling as MP, even more because we have smarter guys on the ground trying to shoot back. F-16s, MiG-29s and Su-27s that would beam, drag and actually work as a team instead of seperate units in air combat, F-15Cs that would form a 'Wall of Eagles' in front of a ingressing wave of bombers, multiple target engagment for TWS capable aircraft, SAM units that wait for you to get well within range before they ambush you, wingmen that actually cover you, etc. Not bashing anything here, but Falcon 4 for one had a very nice AI system, with 18 (I think) different manuevers that could possibly be performed in a BVR joustle , according to skill level and weapons onboard - and that's only in one particular situation. I'm not saying we should copy F4, or make LOMAC more F4-like, and honestly I don't expect such an update in AI in the next expansion, but it's just an idea.

 

And of course, with better AI, comes a dynamic campaign...

[Alfa]

"Make MiG-29 better".

 

...by adding new carrier capable multirole version 8)

[Lemon Lime]

What was the Russian theory of what the West wants?

Thanks for the link.

 

It was not one theory. :)

Some people (and me too) thought that West wants are:

- De-bugging of the game;

- Improvement of current aircrafts and then

- Adding a new NATO plane.

 

Other point of view (slam1 and some other) was:

- Adding a new NATO plane;

- De-bugging of the game and only then

- Improvement of current aircrafts.

 

And your English is perfect.

 

Thanks, but that text I wrote with dictionaries and machine translators within 20 minutes. :oops:

[4c E x p e r t]

hi

 

1 - F-18 (because of carrier and ground targets support)

2 - Mirage 2000 (make game more intersting for Europe)

3 - Eurofighter or JAS39 (make game more intersting for Europe)

4 - Tornado

5 - F-16

 

 

 

1 - Make clouds like in Microsoft Flight Simulator with ability to set them just over certain area!

2 - Advanced sea (at least as in Pacific Fighters)

3 - Make TWO SITS plane!

4 - Linux dedicated server aplication!

5 - Update feature

6 - Show IP of clients and ability to BAN by IP address!

7 - Revision of reality in close air combat (GUNZO) :roll:

[Chisha]

Although I'm sure there will be many different opinions, I would be most pleased by seeing the Su-27/33 get the same depth of modelling as the Su-25T - flight, engine, subsystem, damage and ground collision.

 

That being said, I think Lock On desperately needs a campaign engine and I have been whining about that for more than a year. :P :lol:

 

That was like right out of my mouth.

 

I dont think adding new planes at this stage is necessary. This sim already has more than any serious combat flights simulator ever had. Eagle should concentrate on polishing the engine with dynamic campaigns, improved multiplayer, improved modelling of existing planes, improved mission editor and stuff.

 

When the game engine is ready and running stable, then new flyables could be considered.

[britgliderpilot]

Re: hi

 

3 - Make TWO SITS plane!

 

. . . . To some extent at least, this is already possible.

 

With suitable tweaking, use of the LAN Instructor function, shape-model swapping, and editing of the files that control seat position within the 3d model, you can have a pseudo-two-seater . . . .

 

 

It wasn't intended, it's a bit buggy, and it's not perfect . . . . but you can do it. The implications for training are very nice indeed . . . . . but as it is, you can't do it with more than two people.

 

(If you want a look, then go to http://www.lockonskins.co.uk, then Downloads, and then Mods . . . . look for the Su27UB)

 

 

However, the words "Internet Instructor Feature" have been whispered gently in corners . . . . so it might be that we'll get some improved fun stuff with v1.1 :)

[britgliderpilot]

Although I'm sure there will be many different opinions, I would be most pleased by seeing the Su-27/33 get the same depth of modelling as the Su-25T - flight, engine, subsystem, damage and ground collision.

 

That being said, I think Lock On desperately needs a campaign engine and I have been whining about that for more than a year. :P :lol:

 

. . . . . What Ola said.

 

Oh . . . . an Su33 at the same standard as the Su25T. I think I would wet myself upon flying it . . . . .

 

 

Looks like a campaign engine is getting a little more possible with the tweaks being made or considered. Mmmmn . . . . . you can keep your Falcon 4 :P

[169th_Cobra]

for what is it worth, my vote was for the F18.

 

i think it would be great to give the West carrier ops and also have a fast jet capable of moving mud, and sead.

 

also being Australian it is a favourite of mine.

 

:wink:

[SUBS17]

I voted for the F/A-18 because of the benefits of developing a multirole fighter. It would open the door for multirole aircraft add-ons such as F-16, Su30. Theres alot that can be gained by developing such an aircraft as you can use it as a template to create some of the more modern aircraft and aircraft types that are available today.

cheers

Subs

[SAM-Smasher]

I voted for the SU-27/33 for the simple fact I dont think they are as capable as they should be. ( turn rates) ( speed loss in turns ) ( radar ) blah blah. I might be wrong, but I swear the SU-27 performed better in "Flanker" :wink:

[Beowulf]

You're not that far off Smasher.

 

Anyway, Su27/33... Amongst other things.

[Lemon Lime]

For F-16 I have voted. Because it lonely. :)

[Avimimus]

Don't be too U.S. centric, the west is bigger you know (even Canada is bigger, land wise anyway ;) )

 

The Panavia Tornado would be a good pick!

It could reach players in:

England

Germany

Italy

 

And Canadian have been after it for years as well!

 

After that I would go for the Mig-31, Su-24 etc.

Though it might be easier to implement a Su-35 as it has only one seat!

[SwingKid]

For F-16 I have voted. Because it lonely. :)

 

So I'm not alone!

 

I think the theater is not yet appropriate for carrier F/A-18. We should make Turkish airbases and F-16 sooner, to attract "new" people. :wink:

 

-SK

[prov]

I have voted Other because :

 

I wish a realistic NAV Mod for Russian part and for Nato part.

I wish a GCI guidance for russian Planes with comms.

I wish a more developped editor with capacity to make trigger and flags, and to include conditional events and vocals messages during mission.

I wish ability to put airfields everywhere on the map.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

An F-18 add on would make Lock On HOT!

[Drakkhen]

Barely off topic but similar enough subject:

Without necessarily adding new planes for them (recycle existing ones), could it be possible to add some more nations? I was thinking about Egypt (A-10, F-16, MiGs,...) and Iraq so it could be possible to recreate some post-YomKippur battles or Osirak raid and some others tactically interesting situations, India and Pakistan (Mrg2000, F5/F16s, MiGs,...) for pieces of scary anticipation.

It's merely some textures... :wink: