Lock-On Sequel . . .

[Dark_Sceptre]

So, even if I consider the dynamic campaign feature as overrated and hyped, there's no doubt it should be high on the list for any successor - if only for marketing purposes. It would certainly increase the popularity a lot.

 

As you can guess I disagree strongly on that point :-)

 

To me the main reason for having a DC, besides the fact that it's the only way you can achieve anything approaching a realistic wartime setting, is that it provides a level of immersion that canned missions simply can't. I'm refering to other aircraft performing missions all around you; flights being prepared for takeoff or taxiing around you. And the sheer pucker-inducing thrill of flying into the FLOT knowing that there is indeed an ARMY waiting for you on the other side and the only way to survive is to perform your mission as planned, fly the waypoints on time and in formation with your escort.

 

But the regrettable fact remains that there are so many performance-related and other issues that would totally ruin such a campaign, that the conclusion is that it must wait.

[Caretaker]

So, even if I consider the dynamic campaign feature as overrated and hyped, there's no doubt it should be high on the list for any successor - if only for marketing purposes. It would certainly increase the popularity a lot.

 

As you can guess I disagree strongly on that point :-)

 

To me the main reason for having a DC, besides the fact that it's the only way you can achieve anything approaching a realistic wartime setting, is that it provides a level of immersion that canned missions simply can't. I'm refering to other aircraft performing missions all around you; flights being prepared for takeoff or taxiing around you. And the sheer pucker-inducing thrill of flying into the FLOT knowing that there is indeed an ARMY waiting for you on the other side and the only way to survive is to perform your mission as planned, fly the waypoints on time and in formation with your escort.

 

But the regrettable fact remains that there are so many performance-related and other issues that would totally ruin such a campaign, that the conclusion is that it must wait.

 

Well, let me rephrase what I said earlier - because quite frankly, it wasn't exactly what I wanted to say ;)

 

In fact I also consider a full dynamic campaign, where you can participate in a fully dynamic conflict that evolves realistically based on the respective order of battle of the opponents the holy grail :)

 

However: there is this widespread claim in flight sim communities, that any dynamic campaign system is inherently better than any non-dynamic system. That's what I mean with "overrated" or "hyped".

 

I have simply seen too many such systems which were either poorly executed, or buggy, or both. MiG Alley, EF2000, EECH - all great up to a certain point when frustration took over... meanwhile excellent "static" campaigns like Flashpoint Korea for Longbow I or Jane's F/A-18 kept me entertained without that frustration, even though the replay value was limited. But that's not different with a dynamic campaign that is too repetetive and/or buggy ;)

 

So yes - give me groundwork for a realistic war environment first: AI, triggers & events, communications, performance ("bubble system" anyone?). Only then does it make sense to put an automated strategic layer on top of that. And if there are import/export options in the sim, then this can even be done by the community.

 

But I've also realized that most people see this differently, and want a dynamic campaign at all cost no matter how well it runs. Game mags also tend to point this out: dynamic campaign good, static campaign bad. Not sure why it's reduced to that simple formula, but that's the impression I got over the years. So it should probably be considered for any eventual Lock On successor... although of course, I personally hope it will simply provide both the realistic AI etc., as well as a dynamic campaign system :)

[SwingKid]

If a dynamic campaign was to be applied to LockOn today, it would be a near disaster.

This is because the AI is absolutely unable to properly execute missions and it has no ability to behave as a trained force. For example, if you issue a strike package of 20 aircraft to attack a target, they will take off separately, they will fly and attack in single ships, slowing down in their attack run. Then, instead of returning to their home airfield, they divert to random airfields. And if the same package is supposed to have a counterair or sead escort... well forget it!

 

And, the second issue is the framerate. Today LockOn is slow on most PCs while displaying half a dozen aircraft above a vehicle column, maybe in a town.... can you imagine having 20-30 aircraft over a 50+ vehicles (plus a real-time AI working for the dynamic campaign)?

And can you imagine LockOn manage the Day One in a Central Europe scenario, with at least a couple of hundred aircraft in flight at any time?

 

My approach to both these issues is to have the DC just make the emptiest possible missions. As the AI is fixed for the main game engine, more complexity is added to the DC's mission generation. It isn't glamourous, but it's a start, and it gives me a lot of time for DC debugging in parallel with others debugging the AI, instead of doing it all in turn. I'd like for ED to get started on something similar. The DC programmer would undoubtedly then put added pressure on the AI programmer to fix certain needed issues. It's been going on like this with Flanker 2.0 massed-AI weirdness for years now, after all. Waiting hasn't worked.

 

A deeper problem IMHO is the map... AI is easy to fix in bits and pieces. Change the map though, and all your DC work goes up in smoke. Whatever are they going to decide about the map...

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Actually, that's not necessarily true..you can write a DC that can adapt to a map so long as you give ti a DB of factories and other points of interest and their coordinates - the DC can then, having a list of routes (already apparently provided in the game AFAIK) decide deployments.

[SwingKid]

Actually, that's not necessarily true..you can write a DC that can adapt to a map so long as you give ti a DB of factories and other points of interest and their coordinates - the DC can then, having a list of routes (already apparently provided in the game AFAIK) decide deployments.

 

Indeed, let me rephrase that... Change the map, and the DB goes up in smoke. Did you know that when ED adds or removes a map object for a patch, the ID #s of all other map objects may become re-ordered? :cry: Changing the AI is much more DC-friendly. The map is also one reason why missions built with older versions of Lock On often don't work with newer patches.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Suuuuckage man! They could just grow the number list, but I suppose they may then end up with sparse lists or something if they also remove objects.

 

Need to redo the map for DC then ...

[SwingKid]

Need to redo the map for DC then ...

 

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Almost a decade of work went into that map and it's quite a prize achievement... Now there are some very tough decisions ahead, that could have been recognized and avoided if ED started work on a DC years ago. Solutions to the map problem can be found but it only gets harder the longer we wait, so I agree with Caretaker - by all means forward, the sooner the better. :?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Well, the solution might actually end up being fairly simple and without requiring redoing everything from scratch (far from it) since it's jsut (from what I udnerstand) the indeces that are a problem - they can be made static, though of course that causes its own evils depending on things.

[SUBS17]

I think more terrain should be added to the current map would be cool. But with regard the DC there needs to be flexibility for when future patches are released so as not to adversely effect the dc if they decide to put one in. It all depends on how they go about the campaigns and what approach is used. You can still have a decent campaign without it being complex or dynamic! The current lockon set up could be modified for a topgun style campaign or list of missions. The only hurdle is the ai and the communications engine. Such a game would still be very popular if you put the appropriate amount of acting and drama to add to the immersion. Maybe an online server which has a DC running in realtime would be the way to go. Current online gaming dabbles in campaign style fighting. Doesn't really go as far as it could with the ai aircraft being used in combination with online players.

[leafer]

Lock On badly needs some atmosphere. Janes F18 has excellent atmosphere.

[jctrnacty]

One thing i'm sure with is we will not get a DC in LockOn.

 

It's sad , you don't have to agree but it's true.

 

Reasons??? ED will after 1.2 work on sequel to Lock on and there's no need to support LO again.

[VapoR]

ED will after 1.2 work on sequel to Lock on and there's no need to support LO again.

 

That's what this thread is about . . .

 

But really, I'm curious about others feelings for timeframe, theatre, and flyables.

[SUBS17]

One thing i'm sure with is we will not get a DC in LockOn.

 

It's sad , you don't have to agree but it's true.

 

Reasons??? ED will after 1.2 work on sequel to Lock on and there's no need to support LO again.

 

Thats not bad news, thats good news. I think that this new Sim will be far better than Lockon when it comes out.

[SwingKid]

That's what this thread is about . . .

 

But really, I'm curious about others feelings for timeframe, theatre, and flyables.

 

For "modern air combat", I find it easiest to go along with stories that are set in the near future, with no specific date attached. I cringe a little every time people say Lock On is set in the "late 90s", because I just don't enjoy playing that way. I never include US Vulcans in a mission and try to avoid using the MiG-23, -25PD, -27 and Su-17. I probably won't fly any more German MiG-29 missions now either, although those were really fun before.

 

The only "realistic" conflict storyline I can make work in the current theater is a ground war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway province of Abkhazia. The map is not suitably laid out for this since it doesn't leave any Georgia airbases that are outside Abkhazia, so my best missions end up being just a ground war between Georgia and Russia over the one airbase at Gudauta, with the entire NATO air forces all packed into Babushara airport. So I would really like to see an expansion of the map something along the lines of red or violet zones shown in the map below:

 

 

with the ground units placed by a dynamic campaign engine into a much smaller part of the map:

 

 

The nature of the air combat would be very different from the "Fulda Gap" Cold-War-turned-hot melee that I think many flight-simmers dream about. I don't think such a scenario is practical anymore for several reasons,

(a) the need for a new map,

(b) the framerate issue of having so many units active at a time,

© modern SAMs and missiles making attrition rates too high,

(d) the current situation in the world being too imbalanced, etc.

 

Modern air combat just isn't about mass destruction anymore. Rather, it's about fly- and no-fly-zones, SEAD, ECM, target lists, minimizing casualties, gathering and maintaining coalitions, logistics, ROE, intelligence, deterrence by "presence," decoys, guerrilla tactics, force protection, minimizing costs, etc. Getting more of these real-world elements into the sim will help make it more believable and immersive. The way I envision is now is to have a big "blue" area of airspace over Georgia and Turkey defended by Patriots and CAP fighters, a big "red" area over Russia defended by S-300 and MiG-31, and a healthy-sized "air combat arena" over Abkhazia where small numbers of CAS aircraft from both sides can somehow sustain continued operations over the land battle in this area.

 

But for all that, the starting point for me is once again the map... What will ED decide about the map? :?

 

-SK

[Trident]

Modern air combat just isn't about mass destruction anymore. Rather, it's about .... logistics, ....

 

IMHO this is a central point to the considerations about a DC. Ressource management should be exclusively about resupply of things like spares, fuel and amunition. There are few conceivable conflicts that would see these (or even more unrealistic, actual assets like aircraft) being manufactured/produced inside the theatre of operations. Especially with a huge country like Russia they would be introduced into the region of conflict from safer, remote areas mainly by air- and sealift aswell as railtransport, the same applies for NATO. This would seem to defuse the problem of assigning buildings a strategic importance somewhat (except things like airfields, bridges and ports, of course).

 

Never the less, I would also like to see a new map for the sequel, just make sure it isn't the Middle East! Personally, this would be my favourite:

 

http://www.x-plane.org/home/Trident/LONA.png

[Caretaker]

I'd still like a EF2000 or Jane's F/A-18 theatre revisited - northern Europe provides interesting landscapes, an ocean for naval operations, and is not nearly as densely populated as a central Europe theatre - I doubt anyone has the resources to model this to even a somewhat accurate degree, let alone let a realistic number of AI planes fly there...

 

Personally I'm not fixed too much on "present day conflicts" - fortunately with the nations involved in Lock On, this is only a really remote possibility anyway. A ficitious "Red Storm Rising"-like campaign, set somewhere between the 80s or 90s would be just fine for me ;) Just don't give me yet another desert war. And yes, Kurile Islands would be an original choice (something we haven't seen since the Marine Fighters addon for USNF I think?) - but may require too much additional units (Japan, China?) to be doable... then again this is also a wishlist, so why not :)

 

Now, knowing how much work it was to build the current map, it may be more sensible to build on it and extend it. In addition to modelling more of Georgia, providing some airbases in Turkey would give more interesting options for missions.

 

I agree with SwingKid that for a somewhat realistic recent/current day conflict, the current map isn't suited too well. Georgia/Abkhasia is a potential hotspot, but not enough of Georgia is on the map. A conflict about the Crimean is also something I could imagine - but just like with Georgia, only a small part of the map would be used for that. Actually I cannot imagine a conflict that would include all of the areas that are modelled in detail at all.

 

For any dynamic campaign, it is much easier to have a theatre where a clearly defined frontline can move back and forth - see Korea with MiG Alley/Falcon4, or - which brings me back to northern Europe - Norway in EF2000. Not a necessity, but it makes things easier. Maybe an aspect to consider for a Lock On sequel.

 

Finally, about the planes: I do hope most of what we're flying currently can be ported over to the next incarnation of Lock On - would be a pity to lose any of these. Otherwise, everyone knows it's time for a flyable Tornado again :p

 

Okay enough text for now... I'm pretty sure all of that won't be decided in the near future. And there are more factors and options that will come into play...

[GGTharos]

Flyable Tornado my foot. :)

 

F-15E and Su-30MKX :)

 

I also liked the choice of location for JF-18 - but there could also be the possibility of a middle-east conflict (The US is not the only one with problems there AFAIK) and just as well some sort of made-up conflict in Africa.

 

Most of these places I think haven't been modelled particularely well, with perhaps some exception in terms of LB2 and JF15. not that I want to see another desert war either, though I won't mind if the desert is part of the landscape! ;)

[Arizona]

How about a map of Cuba and southern Florida?

[SwingKid]

You guys are awesome. Thank you for talking about the map!

 

I like the Kurils idea for a naval follow-on, but indeed, it doesn't seem to have much for the Su-25 or A-10 to do in it, we'd need a different cast of characters. How big is that theater in km, and how many square km of ground would be needed?

 

Scandinavia could be a scenic place to fly, I would like to agree but I have a couple of nagging concerns about it:

 

(1) No offense to anyone, but what would Norway and Russia be fighting for up there, that's worth the loss of their jets? I always thought the value of that theater was measured in the strategic access it provides to other theaters - i.e. to be fought over only as part of world war 3.

(2) Are the mountains and fjords really as big as we think they are to make a radar masking difference to the gameplay, like the Caucasus range in Lock On, or are they more like the little mountains in Crimea that just look pretty to fly over?

 

I have to admit though many sims that modelled that area seemed to do ok.

 

Cuba would be fun as a third-party theater but IMHO would be very hard to do well as a balanced game. The combined power of the world's only superpower, versus 3 flyable MiG-29As... :?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

(2) They aren't very tall, except perhaps in specific places, butthey can indeed help you mask on ingress if you go right down the fjord, at least from SAMs.

[leafer]

Hey, just remembered! Really off topic.

 

SwingKid,

 

You rode a Mig-29 few years ago, right? I remember seeing photos some where. If you don't mind me asking about your personal life then do you mind telling us what it was like?

 

cheers

[SwingKid]

It hurt my butt.

 

:)

 

Seriously. I once read a Russian-language photo-reportage of something like this, some guy had pictures of himself climbing into the back seat of a Su-27UB, grinning the whole time, strapped in with a helmet on while the canopy was closing, grinning the whole time...

 

...and then the "after" photos, where he looked a lot more serious. I was laughing pretty hard at those photos, boy did I ever understand! The combined sensations of the ejection seat, the Gs, the equilibrium, and especially breathing through a rubber hose that only ever seems to contain your own exhalations can be a lot of unpleasant surprises at once for a fighter jet newbie. The best preparation would have been to ride a roller coaster a few times with a snorkel in my mouth. Then all you have to worry about are the Gs. I would describe the sensation like watching movies of astronauts floating around in space - the same sense of wonder at the miracles of human technological accomplishment that make this experience possible - only in reverse. Sort of like how hell is the opposite reverse of heaven. And real, "really happening right now". No, that's not a pencil floating by in weightlessness... that's the flesh of my own hand, hanging off my finger bones like a marshmallow on a stick, seemingly held in place only by the fact I am wearing a glove. And that funny squishing sound I hear, with the helmet and the air conditioning? Those are my internal organs.

 

The day before, the instructor described our flight plan on a piece of paper - a 2 G turn to the left, just to make sure everything's working, then a 4 G turn to the right, then a 4 G turn to the left, then a climb, then an inverted dive, then a spiral... I didn't speak Russian at the time and wouldn't be able to tell the pilot to slow down or anything, if there was a problem I was supposed to say "ploha" and that would be the end of the flight. Sure, whatever. I memorized everything, I was psyched, I was healthy, I knew exactly what was coming.

 

When we finished the first "warm-up" 2 G turn to the left, I thought, "...I am in serious trouble."

 

It's not all physical, though, there is an interesting psychological aspect too. Towards the end the instructor, surely believeing I was having the time of my life back there, offered me the controls. I could see the stick wiggling in front of me. It felt like someone was asking me to pull myself out of the mud and pick up my rifle after I had just been run over by a tank. I was seriously struggling just to hold myself together, and here he is asking me to take control. And the feeling of having this jet under your control? It's like sitting on top of a bull at a rodeo, and having a battle of wills, who is the boss? Will you ride this bull, or will it ride you - into the ground. Except the bull you are sitting on is ten tons of steel, runs as fast as sound, and has no psychological weaknesses for you to take advantage. I could feel it in my mind, jumping back and forth from "I'm going to be sick if this jet does anything but fly straight and level from now on and I never want to make another turn in my life," to "no, I'm a tough guy, if other men can control this thing then so can I." Of course I could only manage that for a few seconds. After one more barrel roll (by the instructor), I let out that "ploha" that I had been holding back for the past thirty minutes, and we began the long, painful approach back to the base, me not even thinking of looking out the canopy, just staring at the instruments trying to hold together, like a drunk man staring desperately into a barroom toilet. Every single degree of gentle bank on the way home felt like it was 4 Gs all over again. I didn't even know what to think about anymore, I just wanted to get out and breathe normal air again. One of the base officers said of our taxi, "I was worried about you. We looked into the cockpit and it was like a stoplight - one face red, the other green!"

 

Very educational. In the armchair before and after, I spent a lot of time with my books, comparing different fighters, different radars and missiles, different tactics... Now I think the biggest difference is really between the fighter pilot's world, and the one the rest of us live in. :)

 

Thanks for interest,

 

-SK

[leafer]

LOL :D

 

I know exactly how you felt that day. However, my experience was in a few hundred pounds fiberglass canard called LongEZ. Nothing like that beast you were in. :) The owner David Orr, an ex military pilot in Nam offered me a ride in his LongEZ when I lived in Los Angeles. Yeah, I smiled the whole time while reading your post because I know exactly how you felt that day.

 

I laughed so hard at the part you saw the wiggling stick...and the "no, I'm a tough guy, if other men can control this thing then so can I." I went throught the same thing. It's like crap, I'm not up for this but I better do this or I'll regret it for the rest of my life that I was a coward. heheh

 

This is the plane I flew in.

 

http://www.ez.org/

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Orr crashed his EZ a while back. You can read it here.

 

http://www.ez.org/orr20050110.htm

 

Would you do it again if you were given an opportunity? I'd love to ride one before I leave this world. If not then I wish to be able to own a LongEZ someday.

 

Cheers[/url]

[Dmut]

Hey Andrew, thanks for sharing it with us. That's what I called The Story! :)

 

I have an experince of about 300 hours of flying, as a passenger :D , but hadn't a chance to ride an aircraft by myself. also, I noticed a strange thing: more I know about aircraft and flying process - more I afraid of flying commercial airlines :D

[SwingKid]

Unfortunately, Mr. Orr crashed his EZ a while back. You can read it here.

 

http://www.ez.org/orr20050110.htm

 

Glad to hear he's all right. Does he sound like that in person? :)

 

Would you do it again if you were given an opportunity? I'd love to ride one before I leave this world. If not then I wish to be able to own a LongEZ someday.

 

For free? Probably, but I'd rather try a Western jet now for comparison, or just pay the officers another visit. Talking to them was as interesting as riding in the plane. You can learn a lot from books, too. :wink:

 

-SK