Is this gonna be another Falcon 3

[Pilotasso]

LOL! I've never heard so many people say Falcon 3.0 was better. I'm not arguing, please don't get me wrong. Its just funny! I showed my wife that youtube video and her reactions was "Damn, I'd hate to see what Falcon 1.0 and Falcon 2.0 looked like!"

 

my kids will say the same from LOMAC 20 years from now... :puke:

[stealthtemplates]

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

[sobek]

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

Decisions, decisions...

[RedTiger]

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

Decisions, decisions...

 

Indeed. "Realism" means many different things to many different people.

[Kosmo]

Damn. I knew from the beggining I should have never come to these forums. I know I shouldn't bother with this. But damnit it is so childishly annoying that I can't. Well here goes.

 

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Pilotasso]

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

There is no realistic SIM to date. F4 is good avionics SIM but the capabilities of russian aircraft and all Fm's are off. LOMAC has many bugs that plage missiles and ECM that prevents it from being realistic a BFM SIM. It isnt an avionics SIM either. So we are left with a future SIM, maybe DCS or Fighter ops.

[SUBS17]

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

I think everyone has their own idea of what they prefer in a sim I find Falcon 4s mods to be quite good particularly Allied Forces. To judge realism you have to weigh up alot of factors such as avionics, FM, weapons etc. On the surface it may seem quite dated with its graphics etc but its actually ahead of lockon in quite a few areas in that I mean its more detailed. In order to appreciate the realistic aspects of Allied Forces you have to spend a bit of time flying the campaigns both single player and online. Same applys to lockon as there are aspects where it is ahead if you combined them both you would almost have the ultimate sim.:thumbup:

[Glowing_Amraam]

So i guess the DCS series is here to fill the gap then ;)

[SUBS17]

There is no realistic SIM to date. F4 is good avionics SIM but the capabilities of russian aircraft and all Fm's are off. LOMAC has many bugs that plage missiles and ECM that prevents it from being realistic a BFM SIM. It isnt an avionics SIM either. So we are left with a future SIM, maybe DCS or Fighter ops.

 

I think regarding FMs they are actually quite good the difference between Falcon and lockon is lockons have more detail with the effects. If you look at AFs refuelling and ground handling its actually quite good and refuelling works well in MP which is a bonus. :thumbup:

BTW would you regard the lockon F15s performance as realistic?

Edited July 26, 2008 by SUBS17

[Doug97]

I think I should point out here that the F-16 addon will likely be made after the current engine is replaced with a dx10 version with multicore support.

 

So BS won't have multicore support? Then spending money on a new processor will be pointless.

[Pilotasso]

BTW would you regard the lockon F15s performance as realistic?

 

 

No, although energy management at altitude does a good idea what tricks a pilot could apply IRL with an yet undetermined plane that matches the perfomance of F-15's in LOMAC.

 

The engines are underpowered but so is drag at AOA (undermodeled), stores drag is in turn overmodeled.

[Yellonet]

So BS won't have multicore support? Then spending money on a new processor will be pointless.

BS will get multicore support with the implementation of the new game engine. And no, getting a new processor is not pointless unless the new processor is slower than the old one.

[brewber19]

So very wrong. As Yellonet said, provided the core is faster = benefit in LOMAC/DCS (same engine) as its more CPU limited than anything else.

 

Give you an example, all on LOFC 1.12, using ProCaff to assign LOFC to core 2:

 

P4 3.2Ghz = average FPS of 16-20

 

AMD X2 2.2Ghz dual-core = average FPS of 25-35

 

Intel E6600 2.4Ghz dual core overclocked to 3.0Ghz = average FPS of 40-60

 

An upgrade of a CPU will give benefit, no question, you just need to do your homework that what you're about to buy is actually an upgrade over what you have currently (and that's no guarantee when you just buy based on the naming scheme of the supplier...for CPUs you need to check clock speed, FSB and L1 & L2 cache).

 

Depends on what mobo etc you currently have but for me the best buy/upgrade is still the Intel Q6600 2.4Ghz which is easily overclocked to a stable 3.0-3.2Ghz on air.

 

 

So BS won't have multicore support? Then spending money on a new processor will be pointless.

[superdunkaroos]

No, although energy management at altitude does a good idea what tricks a pilot could apply IRL with an yet undetermined plane that matches the perfomance of F-15's in LOMAC.

 

The engines are underpowered but so is drag at AOA (undermodeled), stores drag is in turn overmodeled.

 

no need to even get started on weapons and radar :)

[Cosmonaut]

Damn. I knew from the beggining I should have never come to these forums. I know I shouldn't bother with this. But damnit it is so childishly annoying that I can't. Well here goes.

 

Heaps of people are saying Falcon 4.0 is better then LockOn,

I tried it out and its no where near LockOn realism, it feels too unrealistic. Nothing beats LockOn for fighter jet realism

 

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

What kind of attitude is that?

 

Realism is a state of mind in flightsims and in terms FM and the general atmosphere of flight, Lockon is better than F3/4. F3 was a good sim but it could never hold my attention becasue I need to feel like I'm flying an aircraft .. but that's just me some are more satisfied with avionics and campaigns both of which were excellent in F3 but for me I preferred Flanker and then Lockon.

 

One thing I'm happy about is that there are no more F3 loons coming here demanding we see flight flightsiming in their terms;... So Lockon is good sim, maybe not for everyone and Falcon was a good sim also not for everyone but there's room for both.. Just not on my hard drive ;)

Edited August 1, 2008 by Cosmonaut

[Groove]

Please calm down and stay on topic.

 

Any further indicators for some flamefest between any Falcon version and Lock On will lead this thread to be closed.

 

Thanks!

[RedTiger]

Kosmo, I hope you aren't planning on abandoning these forums after 3 posts! :( You and I have had lengthy and constructive discussions about this at simhq! This is a good online community, I hope you'll stick around.

 

@brewber19

 

Your numbers are interesting. In my experience and my gut feeling, they looked skewed UP a bit. 25-35 seems reasonable for a dual-core at 3.0 Ghz and is, in fact, what I'm getting on a stock-clocked E6850. I wouldn't expect that out of a 2.2 Ghz processor, but its hard to say since there are so many variables. Also, while I agree with you about clock speed, FSB, etc, can you explain what direct benefit does a program not optimized for multiple cores get from a dual core? I ask because I don't know.

 

I would certainly say that getting a multi-core processor is preferable in just about every case. I wouldn't equate a dual core with a single core of the same speed.

Edited August 1, 2008 by RedTiger

[SUBS17]

no need to even get started on weapons and radar :)

 

Thats going to be interesting to see how the F-15, A10 and F-16s performance compare with DCS and FighterOps especially the avionics although I wouldn't be surprised if both were nearly identical.

[sure]

Yes, gonna be another Falcon. Now when is it coming?

[Glowing_Amraam]

Yes, gonna be another Falcon. Now when is it coming?

 

I see you constantly asking about this. It's coming in 2008.

[RedTiger]

Yes, gonna be another Falcon. Now when is it coming?

 

You ever played any Blizzard games?

 

They had a bad habit of inserting these little "coming soon!" things in the CD jewel cases of their games with totally unrealistic dates. I still chuckle when I see the insert in my copy of Starcraft saying "Coming in 1998: Diablo II!" and then my Brood War expansion says "Coming in 1999: Diablo II!" I even remember a copy of one that went so far as to say it would come out in '97 IIRC.

 

The damn thing didn't come out until 2nd quarter 2000!

 

Moral of the story: Black Shark is not the first nor the last game you will wait years for. :P

[superdunkaroos]

if they are able to model a multirole fighter close to reality(like the f16 for the us and 29 for russia) it will be one of the best things that will happen to the sim world, i mean with blackshark graphics and all those avionics and features in the cockpit i could be flying for hours without having to turn the other way and turn on my tv ocassionally.

 

to tell u the truth i have wet dreams of delivering precision munitions with the f16 and watching it on the in cockpit tv display :D

 

imagine carrier missions with an f18, if they decide to build one :joystick:

 

damnit ed! get working on that 16 right now!

[Buren]

damnit ed! get working on that 16 right now!

 

That would be the best thing to do, because there are many fans of the F-16, there's a whole catalog of home-pits, replica HOTAS etc., PLUS it's THE multirole fighter which made falconeers busy for at least 10 years. :D

 

But, ED has apparently decided to follow this release structure: ground pounders (attack helicopters, CAS aircraft), air-superiority fighters and finally the multirole machines... So my guess that a Viper sim from ED is going to be realized in 2011. (if they follow the aforementioned order)

Edited August 2, 2008 by Buren

[sobek]

But, ED has apparently decided to follow this release structure: ground pounders (attack helicopters, CAS aircraft), air-superiority fighters and finally the multirole machines

 

Seems to be the most obvious choice, as multirole aircraft are the most complex with AA and AG radar modes.

[Vekkinho]

Why do people always compare all flight sims to Falcon?!

 

And why Falcon3?!! Why not Falcon 4, or some of it's latest flavors like RV or OF or AF?!

 

To tell you straight it ain't gonna be another F3, just look some of the DCS teaser videos and judge for yourself!