Lock-On Sequel . . .

[leafer]

Yes, he does sound like that in real life. :lol:

 

He's a very small guy with tons of energy. I actually met him about a year before that flight but he probably didn't remember me. I wasn't very fond of him when I met him then.

 

Cool about visiting the officers. I guess they don't get to fly a lot these days?

 

Anyways, I'm running up my phonebill using the net. I'll come back again tomorrow.

 

Cheers

[SUBS17]

OT Vomit stories

 

Nice story there Swingkid. I remember my first flight when I was learning to fly gliders. We got towed up by a Cessna, did a circuit and landed with room to spare without pushing back. It was hot inside that cockpit, the instructor goes to me Great stuff we'll go up again. After the takeoff we hit some turbulence:

"Sir I feel sick"

"you what?!!"

In a moment of panic I had only one place to put the vomit so I threw up in my flying overalls. Suddenly the Blanik glider dropped out of the sky, upon touching the ground the instructor popped the canopy and jumped out rolling clear while the glider carried on until finally stopping. It never stopped me though, the next day I went up again and later the next week I soloed. But since then I've always carried a bag with me in my flying jacket, just in case.

cheers

Subs

[SUBS17]

Ok back on topic, well heres a good idea for a conflict AUSTRALIA vs INDONESIA. Its got a combination of terrain types jungle/desert/forrests etc. And the campaign could be either Aussie invade Indonesia or Indonesia invade Aussie. That way you've got the sea dividing the two countrys, lots of Islands. Add to that a chinese carrier and a US carrier group and you've got the makings of a good campaign.

cheers

Subs

[jctrnacty]

Why all of you think we get a DC in next project????

 

We didn't get it in Su-27......Flanker....Lock ON

 

The reason why Falcon has a DC is that during development first thing they began with was DC.

 

First thing the ED is doing is engine and then they don't have time and money for DC.

 

I don't expect it even later in next project.

 

MAybe i'll be nicely surprised.

[DarkStar]

 

(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?

 

-SK

 

1) Oil.... the perimiters of the northern sea is not yet decided and Russia makes a sudden agressive move to take over a vast area of the sea :)

2) We have some pretty long and narrow fjords up there :P

 

My 2 cents anyway :)

[kam]

Why all of you think we get a DC in next project????

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2305&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

 

We are beginning to develop a dynamic campaign for the next project.

 

"next project" being the next lock on, and not any addon for lockon, iirc.

[britgliderpilot]

Re: OT Vomit stories

 

Nice story there Swingkid. I remember my first flight when I was learning to fly gliders. We got towed up by a Cessna, did a circuit and landed with room to spare without pushing back. It was hot inside that cockpit, the instructor goes to me Great stuff we'll go up again. After the takeoff we hit some turbulence:

"Sir I feel sick"

"you what?!!"

In a moment of panic I had only one place to put the vomit so I threw up in my flying overalls. Suddenly the Blanik glider dropped out of the sky, upon touching the ground the instructor popped the canopy and jumped out rolling clear while the glider carried on until finally stopping. It never stopped me though, the next day I went up again and later the next week I soloed. But since then I've always carried a bag with me in my flying jacket, just in case.

cheers

Subs

 

Never been airsick, thank god.

 

My first glider flight was on a winch launch . . . . which I wasn't prepared for at all. Sitting there, fine, bloke waving, fine . . . . . and then all of a sudden you do 0-60 in a couple of seconds and are heading skywards at 45 degrees.

 

The instructor who first showed me a loop was a bit enthusiastic, too - combination of aggressive pullup and me not being ready got me a nice big bruise on the back of my head and a crick in my neck. I made sure I was ready for the next lot :P

 

 

Nothing quite like flying aerobatics in the sunset and dropping down for a drink in the bar.

I love flying :D

 

If I win the lottery, then I promise I'll post about my MiG and Sukhoi flights . . . . :wink:

 

 

 

What? Future ED products? Dynamic campaign?

 

Guess I could be persuaded . . . . . grin.

[Trident]

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?

 

Admittedly it's vast - about 2000 by 2500km. Landmass is significantly less though, a reasonable estimate would be about a third of the total area (~ 1.600.000km², in other words). It's also very remote at least where Russia is concerned, so there are few human settlements to model. There's also the possibility of recreating the extreme western/northern regions with less detail, similar to what LOMAC does in the eastern Caucasus.

 

The main advantage I see with this theatre is that it contains what can only be described as a truckload of strategically significant bases and sites - large Pacific Fleet bases like Petropavlovsk and a multitude of important airbases in both Russia and Japan. There are also many 'cool-factor' features such as the KnAAPO plant :) the absolutely spectacular Kamchatka landscape (volcanoes) and one or two ABM radars. It also provides for a second F-15 operator (Japan) without any justification problems.

 

My vision for the conflict to be simulated focuses heavily on amphibious operations which would be a very good way to combine a greater focus on naval warfare with the CAS environment developed in LOMAC. The prospects for the Su-25 and A-10 are somewhat limited, however both would probably be put to good use once forward bases on the islands were secured, I'd imagine. The Ka-50 would really come into its own though, operating from the Kuznetsov or the Ivan Rogov class amphibious vessels. No S300s there either to disturb such operations, I suppose. Nonetheless, my suggestions for new flyable aircraft would be the F/A-18C (APG-65) and the MiG-29K initially aswell as the AV-8B (ideally the variant with FLIR but no radar, a good counterpart for the Su-25T and the Ka-50) for the first add-on.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, timeline 1989-1994. China is not on the map (just! ;) ) and I do not envision them taking part in the war. The point about additional units is good, but at least as far as aircraft are concerned Japan mainly uses existing US equipment (F-4E, F-15, C-130, CH-47), although some special ground units and particularly ships would be required. However not significantly more than there are currently in LOMAC for Germany and other European countries.

[SwingKid]

Admittedly it's vast - about 2000 by 2500km. Landmass is significantly less though, a reasonable estimate would be about a third of the total area (~ 1.600.000km², in other words).

 

Ouch.

 

Ok, IMHO it's good that when talking about a follow-on, we begin by talking about the map. Maybe all our efforts can converge.

 

When researching prospective theaters, I make use of two main web sites:

 

City Population - http://www.citypopulation.de/cities.html

This site provides a nice world map, some information about land areas, and of course demographic population data.

 

Scramble - http://scramble.nl/airforces.htm

It shows the location of a country's airbases, and what types of aircraft are based at each one. It helps to decide, if you are going to model only a partial mass of land, which parts are needed to include the desired airbases.

 

To put the question into perspective:

 

Crimea - 27,000 sq. km - required ~2 years to develop for Flanker 2.0

 

"Caucasus" - additional ~70,000 sq. km - required ~2 years to be added for Lock On. The territory was divided into three separate areas of responsibility and work continued right up until the release date, severely complicating the task of creating missions and campaigns for the release product. Within the last two weeks of the project, there were still only three railway stations placed in all of the Caucasus. Simply not enough time.

 

Abkhazia - ~8,000 sq. km. Mostly included in Lock On.

 

"Western Georgia" - ~10,000 sq. km. This is the "red zone" in the map I drew for a previous post, including 6 Georgian airbases ouside Abkhazia and 3 major population centers. I pleaded at an early stage for this zone, or at least one of these airbases (requiring ~2000 additional sq. km), to be included in Lock On to dramatically improve mission and campaign design, and was answered "no way. There is absolutely no way we can add more terrain now than is already being added." And in the end, they were proven correct - Lock On's Caucasus map wasn't finished development until right around the final release date, even with an extra year of unplanned delays.

 

Falcon 4.0's North + South Korea - about 220,000 sq. km. Even with 6 million dollars and 5 years of development time at their disposal, MicroProse needed to use a tile-based system to model this quantity of terrain.

 

So if we are talking about the Kurils, places like Khabarovsk or Komsomolsk are probably not on the negotiating table. If 70,000 sq. km of land pushes the limits of what ED could accomplish for a follow-on product, then 500,000 sq. km is unlikely, using tiles or no tiles. The Kurils map would have to be constructed to intentionally minimize the amount of land modelled to the barest minumum, to include at least the Kuril Islands themselves, one Japanese airbase, one Russian airbase, and anything else that happens to be in between.

 

Unfortunately, Scramble shows that the nearest Japanese airbase is on the opposite corner of Hokkaido Island, meaning that to properly include US or Japanese Eagles, pretty much the entire island of Hokkaido would be needed - 83,000 sq. km with a population over 5 million. Starting from there, you could extend the map limits north to include a Russian airbase on Sakhalin, east to include the Kurils and some ocean, and that's already stretching ED's map-building capabilities to the limit.

 

Indonesia - ~2 million sq. km. Unlikely.

 

Taiwan. The island itself is 36,000 sq. km, and extending the map north could include the Su-30MKK base at Quzhou with another 40,000 sq. km or so of mainland China. This map could then be extended east to include the USAF F-15C island airbase at Kadena, and south to the northern coast of the Philippines. Taiwanese terrain also provides greater return on investment than Hokkaido terrain because it the ownership is actually "disputed".

 

Scandinavia - to include the F-16 base at Bodo for NATO as well as the Murmansk area for Russia would require about 300,000 sq. km. The idea of Russia claiming a piece of Norway's off-shore oil is a stretch for technical and political reasons - Russia has almost no infrastructure capability to drill for the little fraction of it that is located in the Barents Sea. ( http://www.tradepartners.gov.uk/oilandgas/norway/profile/overview.shtml ) It would be more believable for these countries to war over fishing rights.

 

Hope this helps,

 

-SK

[Alfa]

Fishing rights it is then!

 

A full scale naval engagement between carrier groups over the rights to fish prawns :lol:

 

....but then they(the prawns) are very good in that area, so it would be quite realistic :P

[SwingKid]

:)

 

Spratly islands is another interesting one, that I haven't yet analyzed for landmass or airbases yet. Anyone like to try?

 

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/spratlymdv1997

 

-SK

[Trident]

That doesn't look good then, I'll see if the map can be shrunk without sacrificing too many of the advantages. The sites you mention should help, thanks.

[MBot]

I understand that the work on EDs next generation sim will base on their current engine. But the big question is: Are they going to carry over actual content like planes, vehicles or the terrain from Lock On? Or will they enhance the engine and build new content into it, as the current stuff would then be outdated, incompatible or legaly forbidden ?

This descision will have major influence on the selection of the new scenario.

Per example: Falkland would be an unlikely choice if the new project would include Flankers and Eagles from Lock On ( this is just theoretical, I am aware that the chances Falkland will be EDs next project are near zero ). The set of given content will narrow down the possible scenarions considerably.

But if the new sim will be a clean new start, unusual and new scenarios would be much more possible.

 

 

SwingKids calculations are very interesting but also a bit discouraging. What map will still be possible with such strict limits in map size? Most of the popular terrains get ruled out by this. I can't think of many maps that would meet the criterias and still allow good gameplay.

 

A logical consequence of the size and workload problem would be that ED enlarges the current map as SwingKid suggests. But that isn't attracting me very much. I would love to see EDs sims leave the black sea region for a better scenario.

 

Btw, first class discussion, I am enjoying reading this treat very much.

 

P.S.

I can't resist ;) Bring on the Falklands. Limited theater for maximum detail :)

[VapoR]

I would love to see EDs sims leave the black sea region for a better scenario.

 

This is my thinking exactly!! Not that the current area is bad, it's just that there are many other better areas for a war.

[SwingKid]

I understand that the work on EDs next generation sim will base on their current engine. But the big question is: Are they going to carry over actual content like planes, vehicles or the terrain from Lock On? Or will they enhance the engine and build new content into it, as the current stuff would then be outdated, incompatible or legaly forbidden ?

This descision will have major influence on the selection of the new scenario.

 

It's a good question.

 

The nature of ED's flight simulators have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary products. Flanker 2.0 had the same Crimean theater as Flanker 1, Lock On featured the flyable Su-33 as Flanker 2.0, and so on. To some extent, every successful flight simulator is like this - Falcon 4.0 had the F-16 and Korean theater just like Falcon 3.0. These projects are simply too large and complex to successfully start "from scratch", if one hopes to end up with something better than what existed before.

 

SwingKids calculations are very interesting but also a bit discouraging. What map will still be possible with such strict limits in map size? Most of the popular terrains get ruled out by this. I can't think of many maps that would meet the criterias and still allow good gameplay.

 

Thanks for your interest! It needn't be all discouraging. Yes, the theater is a lot of work, but it has always been this way for every sim, and ED has expressed interest in our thoughts. I look at it as an "economic" matter: for choosing theater A, we get X amount of gameplay value for the investment of Y amount of additional work. The "best" theater to choose then becomes the one that maximizes the ratio X/Y.

 

A logical consequence of the size and workload problem would be that ED enlarges the current map as SwingKid suggests. But that isn't attracting me very much. I would love to see EDs sims leave the black sea region for a better scenario.

 

Enlarging the current map helps to maximize the X/Y ratio by keeping workload Y to a minimum, but this is only part of the equation because we also have to look at the added gameplay value X that it offers us in return. For example, carrier ops will never really be playable in the Black Sea theater for more than one or two missions, but would work fantastically better in any of the other theaters. So, as soon as ED is ready to make a serious carrier ops sim, the "bang for your buck" becomes more attractive for other theaters, than it does for continuing to expand the Caucasus.

 

So in considering what do do with the map, I think that one important question is "are we talking about a carrier ops sim?" If yes, then the theater discussion becomes more interesting and open to possibilities, but we also open a Pandora's Box of other questions about the "additional work" variable Y. If no, then we should seriously consider expanding the existing Caucasus for now.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

For example, carrier ops will never really be playable in the Black Sea theater for more than one or two missions, but would work fantastically better in any of the other theaters. So, as soon as ED is ready to make a serious carrier ops sim, the "bang for your buck" becomes more attractive for other theaters, than it does for continuing to expand the Caucasus.

 

So in considering what do do with the map, I think that one important question is "are we talking about a carrier ops sim?" If yes, then the theater discussion becomes more interesting and open to possibilities, but we also open a Pandora's Box of other questions about the "additional work" variable Y. If no, then we should seriously consider expanding the existing Caucasus for now.

 

Carrier ops being unplayable? The only reason why carrier ops is unplayable right now is because ED has modelled combat ships very flatly. I agree, a confrontation between U.S. and Russian naval forces is unrealistic, but that does not mean it would not be fun nor unplayable. In fact, very much the opposite.

 

There are many things that are 'unrealistic' yet fun. For example, the ATO would never task a single, unsupported A-10 flight to take out a S300PMU battery or the Kuznetzov, but we do it anyway, because it's fun. And it's not like Lock On is a navy sim, so such doubtss placed on how realistic a major naval battle in the Black Sea would be are unfounded, IMO.

 

Sims should not only be realistic, but also fun ;)

[jctrnacty]

well , the best theater would be Operation desert storm , maybe there not so much a-a action but it's perfect for a-g missions and you don't need so much detailed and resources demanding theater like crimean. You know that dessert is desert :lol: and there is not so much trees :lol: and buildings. It's flat and easy to model.

 

It's my 2 cents.

 

Wish good luck to ED

[SwingKid]

Carrier ops being unplayable?

 

Sorry, I should've put a big "IMHO" there. I believe you're right that I'm in the minority to have that strong negative feelings about it. One reason why it's probably very good that Alfa is a beta tester, so that we balance out. :wink:

 

-SK

[Alfa]

Hi Andrew,

 

Hehe....ok time to balance out :D

 

I agree that in order for such a discussion to make sense, it would be necessary to know what "theme" a sequel would have. But then if we are talking about a "carrier ops sim" as you call it, then there are other factors apart from your cost/benefit terrain expansion questions to count in.

 

For a sim centered around carrier ops, far more important than the exact geographical location - carrier groups are per definition "nomads" - is the question of the naval aspect itself - the aircraft carrier, its deck modelling, escort and auxillary ships, naval radar- and weapons systems etc.

 

Of course I realise that the question of land mass is important in order to retain full benefit of all the work already done for land warfare/"CAS ops", but I honestly feel that whenever the subject of a naval oriented sequel is brought up, it always ends up becoming a discussion of land mass and the geographical location of this :?: ...while the question of naval units/groups....

 

a). from which the majority of missions would start and end.

 

b). a good part of the missions would have as primary target.

 

.....is being totally ignored!

 

The naval aspect is virtually unaltered from Flanker 2.5 - it was beefed up a little with new 3D models for a few ships, but at the expense of only a third of them making it into Lock-on - for what it is worth I think it was the right decision, both in terms of the upgrading and the types "making it through", but they wont cut it for a naval oriented sequel. I am not suggeting to reinstate the Flanker ships left behind - neither in number nor in types, but a few new ship types will be required, and the 3D and systems modelling of those as well as for the existing types will require some resources.

 

Then of course there is the question of the type of aircraft around which such a sim would be centered if it is to make any sense.....namely the multirole fighter. You know as well as I how much goes into the modelling of the current flyable aircraft - now add the increased systems complexity of a true multirole fighter...

 

I believe it is doable - and desirable(!), but it worries me that the aspect which should take third place in discussions for such a sim, somehow always winds up on top. If development resources were unlimited, then no problem, but since we know they arent, it is important to focus on the varies aspects in the right order......in the case of a naval sequel, the naval aspect should obviously have priority over land terrain.

 

As far as the cost/benefit goes - apart from the fact that carrier ops with a multirole fighter would provide a massive increase in mission variety and the fact that the naval aspect quite frankly needs a boost anyway, the modelling of carrier groups is just about the best value for money you can find - it is "future proof"....whatever new theater ED will decide upon in the future, the naval groups can migrate to as long as there is a shoreline attached to it, whereas your idea about expanding the Caucasus further provides the least "bang for the buck" I can imagine......where is the big novelty in being able to fly 100 miles further east? - what happens when/if a new theatre is decided upon in the future?......you cannot bring the "extra Caucasus" along :)

 

I am afraid I hate your expanded Caucasus idea even more than you hate my carrier groups in the Black Sea :lol: - besides, and this is one thing which puzzles me, how is your expanded Caucasus suggestion going to solve that question? ......by removing the aircraft carriers, Su-33, F/A-18C, E2C Hawkeye, S-3 Viking etc from the sim?.....remember that we are not talking about introducing aircraft carriers to the Black Sea in Lock-on.....they are already there :) .

 

What I propose is in fact to "up" the realism level by fixing up the naval aspect as such, add a few ship types necessary for the creation of - small - but realistic looking carrier groups - the Black Sea might not be the perfect setting for these, but at least the carriers already there will appear in a much more realistic way, provide the proper basis for flyable carrier based multirole fighters with all the gameplay extension they bring.....and then have the option of re-using the whole thing for a new region in the future :) .

 

I rest my case 8)

 

Cheers,

- Jens.

[Drakkhen]

well , the best theater would be Operation desert storm , maybe there not so much a-a action but it's perfect for a-g missions and you don't need so much detailed and resources demanding theater like crimean. You know that dessert is desert :lol: and there is not so much trees :lol: and buildings. It's flat and easy to model.

I think there are lots of areas bare enough not to require a complex vegetation modelling and tormented enough not to be boring to patrol, Afghanistan is a good example. :wink:

[zzzspace]

Ok back on topic, well heres a good idea for a conflict AUSTRALIA vs INDONESIA. Its got a combination of terrain types jungle/desert/forrests etc. And the campaign could be either Aussie invade Indonesia or Indonesia invade Aussie. That way you've got the sea dividing the two countrys, lots of Islands. Add to that a chinese carrier and a US carrier group and you've got the makings of a good campaign.

cheers

Subs

 

 

But there's this big, actually, really HUGE wet bit in the middle called “the Air-Sea Gap” (i.e. lots of LONG distance flying over nothing but open ocean), plus neither country has the ability, nor desire to invade or interfere with the other (both are democratic now).

 

Also, recently, at the present, and for the projected next 20 years, there’s no contest for A2A or A2G; Indonesia has one of the weakest air forces in the SEA region, and the RAAF is easily the largest and most capable in the region. (plus everything is being done to improve relations and regional stability – only persistent low-level TNI interference in East Timor’s stability could be a point of potential conflict – and airpower use would be extremely unlikely to occur even then)

 

Personally, for a future Lock On theatre, I think Taiwan v mainland is much more flight-sim theatre and scenario ‘friendly’, in terms of the hardware in service, and the naval and missile dimension, plus, not too much flying over the wet stuff, plus a real sense of specific territories and motivations, and a 'frontline' to defend, and a drawn out battle potential (which was/is so vitally important within all the best of previous sim titles).

 

[SwingKid]

Rats. I just wrote a reply to Alfa, and it was deleted. So, Alfa wins. :cry:

 

But never mind that. zzzspace, where did you get that map?! Can you make another one stretching east to Okinawa, north to Quzhou, and south to the northern coast of the Philippines?

 

-SK

[zzzspace]

Rats. I just wrote a reply to Alfa, and it was deleted. So, Alfa wins. :cry:

 

But never mind that. zzzspace, where did you get that map?! Can you make another one stretching east to Okinawa, north to Quzhou, and south to the northern coast of the Philippines?

 

-SK

 

 

I made that using 30 second-arc DEM data.

 

EDIT:

 

~18 N to ~29 N Lat

~12.5 E to ~129 E Long

 

 

Light from the right plus a different shading render:

[SUBS17]

Remember for a Campaign you can create your own scenario so in the case of Indonesia vs Australia it might be a combination of countries. So you might have Indonesia, Malaysia and China uniting together against Aussie and the US and Singapore just to make things interesting. The goal might be to sieze land or an invasion of a country for resources. In a computer game anything can happen, and any combination is possible. As for Terrain there is no limits in my view its all dependent on the level of detail applied. In the case of a future combat sim, perhaps further terrain could be developed and sold for a price which would extend the current map. In cases such as we have now where there already is a very detailed map perhaps that could be kept on the game anyway for extra gameplay area. So its not wasted and later if further terrain is created that fills the gap between the two then so be it. You could then fly from map to map.

cheers

Subs

[SUBS17]

Hey JJ Alpha,

Just a few thoughts on this Naval Multirole Fighter discussion. My opinion is that its the way to go. There isn't too much that would be a hurdle for such a flight sim as there would if it were a land based fighter. Most of the fleet aircraft are already modeled for a start. The ships might be a hurdle in modeling an entire carrier group, as there are only a couple of different types of ships available in Lockon. An F/A-18s avionics are very similar to the F-16s, theres just the launchbar and the hook(yeah I know the F-16 has one too). As for the Carrier itself there is enough detail there already but you would want extra spawn points etc And a working cat with steam rendered. Either way F-16 or F/A-18 it will definately be good, but the Hornet has that little bit extra in game play plus the challenge of Carrier landings, and inflight refuelling etc

cheers

Subs