Lock-On Sequel . . .

[Trident]

SwingKid and others,

 

I found these at simHQ and thought it might come in handy.

 

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/features.html

 

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,22348,00.asp

 

Wow, that NASA app is excellent, no other word for it! Thanks for sharing, leafer :shock: Well worth the large download. OTOH, it only makes me want the Kurils even more, the landscape is just unreal 8)

[SUBS17]

You could retain some or all of the current aircraft as flyable for MP use but the Multirole aircraft would be the only one fully modeled. You could also retain the Lockon map as well for MP as well as the new map. It may well mean using a dvd instead of a cd. The big problem with just having the one aircraft is that it would not be as fun as it is now with the range of aircraft available. If the F-16 or F/A-18 were added tommorrow as flyable it would enhance the game alot especially online.

[Caretaker]

ED needs to abandon the way tracks are handled since it slows down their development SOO much. Remember 1.02? We all had to wait much longer just so they could get the bloody training tracks to work right. Maybe do away with the track system alltogether, but I guess alot of people would be upset. I personally have NEVER used it for anything. It's more fun to fly than to watch yourself in a replay . . .

 

Indeed the track feature has the problem of getting more complex (increasing the chances of bugs) the more complex the rest of the game gets. You are right though that people would be upset - they actually were when no new training tracks were provided with 1.01, thus the longer wait for 1.02. I'm not sure what to prefer here... personally I love watching tracks from time to time, and I also found them very useful during beta testing to hunt down problems, as they provide reproducable events. But yes it's a potential minefield for development...

[emenance]

This is IMO a very serious problem. ED needs to abandon the way tracks are handled since it slows down their development SOO much. Remember 1.02? We all had to wait much longer just so they could get the bloody training tracks to work right. Maybe do away with the track system alltogether, but I guess alot of people would be upset. I personally have NEVER used it for anything. It's more fun to fly than to watch yourself in a replay . . .

 

 

I watched Ironhand’s RWR A-10 training track last week, I've had it installed for ages and never watched it, but when I saw it I was amazed how brilliantly produced and slick it is. There is a heck of a lot of great tips and info that can be transmitted quickly through such tracks, that can not easily be written, read or absorbed via any manual, nor via forum discussions.

 

Please don't do away with tracks (there would be very few, and much lower quality videos with out them as well).

 

 

I absolutly aggree , I would be willing to pay 20 bucks for a cd that shows these kinda traing videos, i dont need to take control at that moment but would rather see these videos in divx so i aint gota worry about the version and patch changes!!!!!!!!!!!!

[112th_Rossi]

Sorry I've stumbled late into this thread.

 

I would like to see a sim where you get say 6 flyables in one package, each with accurate FM and Avionics but also the ability to have a supply and demand system for multiplayer and single player campaigns. Supplies between bases would be handled by the game. Convoys and transport flights would be dynamically generated allowing for supplies to be shipped to and from bases. If your supplies don't get through the ability for the base to operate properly would diminish, so protecting/attacking these convoys would be essential. It would make for a perpetual war in multiplayer, and if one side wins control of all the bases, the map ends and a new one loads.

 

Also, additional 'pay-for' flyables. One way for ED to make money is to have new flyables released for download. You pay for these and you would be able to fly them in game and in multiplayer. If you don't have the flyable aircraft, you would just see a world model. Basically you would be purchasing a cockpit and avionics for the plane you want to fly. Maybe you could 'buy' an IL76 transport and fly supplies from one base to another while your buddies escort you in their purchased Mig29K's.

 

An open ended architecture would allow Lock On to stay upto date and allow the community to make its own mind up about what it wants to see in game. I'd say ED should aim for the Operation Flashpoint of the skies, in terms of mission building and addon's.

 

Just my 2p.

[MBot]

I give a BUMP for this fine topic.

[Klopsik206]

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems of Lock On was that it wanted to be too much, both a CAS and a air-air sim and therefore lacked in both aspects ( A-10 without FAC-CAS or FARPs, F-15 without real AWACS control, MiG-29/Su-27 without GCI; LOMAC modeled only the planes but not their warfare ). I think the successor has to narrow down the scope, but danger is that the scope gets even bigger. Let's think about what part of the Taiwan theater we lined out above would be the center of this sim.

 

[...cut...]

 

I think that ED should limit what it wants to model, in order to stay in business and in order to make a better portrait of what it wants to show. A multirole fighter might be the ultimate dream of any modern flight simmer, but that option might have well died together with the golden age of flightsims. At least one thing is clear for me, EDs future sim should center around a single plane. A single plane was more than enough in the golden times, then a single plane is surely enough now.

 

Now the question is, what scope would you like to see, what theater and what plane types would be needed for this ? I think these questions can only be asked together.

 

Mboy - you're reading my mind, pal ;-).

Those are exactly my thoughts .

[Trident]

Sorry for resurrecting this ancient topic, but I've finally revised my Kurils theatre. It's still very large at about 500000 sq. km but has lost very little of its advantages inspite of being shrunk dramatically compared to the initial version. Note that this map shows basically every airfield except dirt strips and general aviation aerodromes. Infact, some of them may not be suitable for jets, so their number may decline. The small chunk of mainland Russia could be smaller, for example by rendering the western portions in low detail. Other map borders are negotiable too, so feel free to make suggestions :)

 

 

I still think it would be a very interesting area to model, with some important advantages even compared to the Taiwan Straits scenario.

 

Namely, inspite of being far smaller, the Chinese theatre of operations is *much* more densely populated, Hokkaido not withstanding. To illustrate this issue: Taiwan alone has 22 million inhabitants, while the population of Kamchatka, the Kurils, Sakhalin and the strip of mainland Russia in my proposal combined is smaller than that of the Crimean peninsula (2,5 million) in size! Also, a large percentage (at least one third) of this population is concentrated in just a few cities like Petropavlovsk and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. To be honest, it actually surprised me aswell to learn just how remote these regions are ;) Even adding Hokkaido with 5,7 million inhabitants does little to change this massive difference.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, assuming the bottleneck in ED's map-building abilities lies with things like settlements and roads, that the Taiwan Straits area may require a lot more effort per square kilometre of land modelled.

 

Also, the probable lack of Russian participation in the Chinese conflict would mean that many of the existing units in LOMAC would need to be replaced, including player aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-25. A large amount of indigenous PRC equipment, with very little data available on it, would in turn have to be created basically from scratch.

 

I'm not sure how much of a problem this would present for ED, but it certainly is a lot less critical with the Kurils. Japan has fewer indigenous platforms, and many of those that they do have are for all intents and purposes of a flightsim identical to their US counterparts in all but external shape (this is particularly true for the navy). All in all, I stand by my earlier statement that Japan would not require significantly more non-US/Russian units than there currently are in LOMAC for several European countries. With the PRC the ratio of existing platforms to new ones would be practically reversed, on the other hand.

 

In the end, I guess I must also confess that the amateur geographer in me has a very hard time letting go of a theatre that looks this phenomenal:

 

 

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1153.jpg

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1151.jpg

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1157.jpg

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1152.jpg

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1156.jpg

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/mvey/images/big/mvey1155.jpg

http://home.t-online.de/home/lkirchner/onekotan/onekotan/onekotan.html

 

 

http://phoeto.gotdns.com/hokkaido/new/kamui/large/photo01.jpg

http://www1.hokkaido-ricoh.com/hp2/hrs03/images/200302_xga.jpg

 

 

http://home.t-online.de/home/lkirchner/kamchatka/kamchatka.html

http://www.mountain.ru/eng/adventure/2004/Kamchatka/

http://www.mountain.ru/eng/adventure/2004/Kamchatka/index1.shtml

 

http://www.sakhalin.ru/Photosketches/foto01.htm

http://www.geocities.com/iatur/sekhalin.htm

 

;)

[MBot]

Thank you for your research effort, Trident. Those landscapes realy look fantastic. If that map is technicaly and economical doable, it resides high on my list, certantly above Taiwan. Altough Taiwan seems to be a good choice for many reasons, that theater just doesn't seem turn me on that much.

 

 

Anyone willing to make a similar portofolio for the cold war germany theater ( best size, what to include, airbase locations etc. ) ? Altough I know it is an almost imossible choice for certain reasons, but I can't help it :) Somehow I hope that ED makes a breaktrough in their mapbuilding technologys...

[Trident]

I was really interested in this question of whether ED should continue using the same map-building methods and technology they have used for Lock On, also for future theaters, or if they should change everything to a tile-based system similar to Falcon 4.0 and other sims, that would allow a greater variety of larger theaters... So this has been a greeat discussion, thanks everyone for replies.

 

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that a tiled implementation may not be so bad afterall. I suppose many people who reject the idea are having a knee-jerk reaction, because the mere mention of the word 'tiles' conjures up visions of Falcon4's unbearably repetitive terrain. However FS2004 does a pretty good job with it's tile system, mainly due to the fact that it manages to avoid tell-tale rectangular/hexagonal texture-borderlines. I've also noticed that LOMAC (shock horror!) seems to use a form of tiles in many areas, at least for the low altitude textures. The fact that this works so well that many haven't even noticed, while the rest (like me) doesn't care because it's so subtle, shows that such a system can be workable if done correctly.

 

One major hope of mine is that if ED can somehow continue working with the same map file format and level of detail, time-consuming as it may be, then there's hope that the existing Caucasus theater doesn't need to be discarded - it might be able to serve alongside, together with the Su-25, Su-25T and Ka-50, in some future sim product compatible with different selectable theaters (wow... remember those days?? :) ). This could address Alfa's concern regarding "you can't take the Caucasus with you". I mean, it might not all fit on one CD, Caucasus + new theater, but it's a very good option to have - it takes some of the pressure off of my "what ever will they decide about the map" concern, because adding a few Georgian airbases or starting work on a dynamic campaign engine with Lock On's existing map is then not necessarily throwing away resources on a doomed architecture.

 

Great idea about keeping the Black Sea area! IMHO a new theatre could be relegated to a payware add-on similar to what we are seeing with v1.1 now. I know I'd be prepared to pay a handsome amount of money for the Kurils ;) Regarding ED's terrain system, depending on how restrictive it is it could be a good idea to thoroughly analyse the possibility of replacing it - if it's that 'bad' such a move will have to come sooner or later anyway.

 

Regardless what is finally decided, I think most would agree that any new theater outside the Caucasus would best be chosen for its compatibility with carrier ops, if for no other reason then because water area yields more square kilometers for less map development time. So I think the next logical direction of the discussion should follow the lead of Alfa and Caretaker: what other things does Lock On need, in order to do carrier ops well?

 

- air-to-surface radar for aiming ASMs

- a more realistic SEAD model with smarter SAMs

- user-controllable ARM targeting avionics for PB, TOO and SP modes

- amphibious ships that can deploy and/or retrieve ground vehicles

- EMCON (emissions control) tactics

- more emphasis on sea-launched cruise missiles

- forward air controllers for CAS aircraft

- improved western air-to-air avionics

- improved default keyboard user interface for all of the above

- map buildings with nationality and "container" attributes, for use in logistics warfare

- dynamic campaign engine

- new units in the order of battle

 

The way I see the question then, is ED ready to accomplish all of the above objectives in the next sequel? Or should we aim for a few chunks at a time, e.g. make an improved CAS or SEAD sim for the next project, and a carrier ops sim with new theater for the one after?

 

IMHO good carrier sim is possible without some of those capabilities, I've only left those in the quote that I'd consider important (though not necessarily mandatory). IMHO some features don't have the impact to warrant the effort their inclusion would require.

 

Let's take submarine operations as an example, definately something that would play a vital role in a real life naval confrontation. To do this correctly however (it's the player's carrier at stacke afterall) would require a lot of effort, all for a feature that provides little tangible gamplay value. The player is not involved directly (the closest he could come is intercepting or escorting patrol aircraft) and the results are very vague (the sub that was just sunk due to the players indirect intervention may or may not have sunk the SSGN which now may or may not attack the enemy carrier in future) and mostly invisible. Amphibious operations provide far more possibilities in this regard.

 

The year-long development of Su-25T for v1.1 gives me great pause... ED is IMHO poorly equipped to survive, say, five years of product development with no income. They need to pump out sims more regularly if we're ever going to see our dreams realized.

 

Very good point. This ties into the interesting topic of what business-model ED is to use for their next big project. I personally think the ideal method would be something like a 'customizable' sim: the basic release would include, say, the Black Sea area of operations and a limited number of player aircraft such as for example the Su-27, Su-25(T), F-15 and A-10. Other aircraft would be available as expansion packs like MiG-29K/F/A-18C, AV-8B etc., the same goes for new theatres. The big disadvantage is that this scheme would require the sim to be flexible enough to deal with different configurations during multiplay, where one player uses a particular aircraft add-on while the others use (a) different one(s).

 

EDIT: I see 112th_Rossi had already suggested the above business model, hadn't read the thread in ages before I posted, lol. Thanks for all the support for the Kurile Islands theatre too, somehow I knew the landscape would work its magic (it certainly did with me!) ;)

[Groove]

Some of the scenarios you discuss here are really nice and i would like to play them in a future ED project.

 

What i would like to see in the next or one of the next ED sims is a F15E simulation.

 

How about a Iraq scenario ?

 

The scenario im thinking about is a hypothetical full scale war between USA and Iran with USA Airforce based in the Iraq. As most of Iraq isnt forest it would be not the big problem with performance.

 

In the scenario Iran would buy the latest russian equipment and rush over the border while the US Forces starting leaving Iraq after the situation in Iraq is save and the new elected governement got the situation under control.

 

So with the rushing Iranians the F15E would have enough strike targets.

 

This would be a nice scenario i really would like to play. Okay F15E is my all time fav :>

[Caretaker]

I'd enjoy a Strike Eagle as well, but to be honest, "yet another desert theatre" would not really get me excited.

 

Now as for Trident's proposal, I have to say it sounds and looks excellent. Some good points regarding population density and the units used!

[Groove]

As long as there is the Strike Eagle with all the stuff it can drop i will buy & fly even on a moon scenario :)

[SwingKid]

I had to make a better study of Lock On's terrain system in order to make the "NATO airbase" mod.

 

The bad news is that the more I learn how Lock On's terrain system works, the less I can convince myself that ED will ever be inclined to create a new theater. As complicated and time-consuming as it may be, I think it is actually a pretty good and flexible system that they have now. When ED speaks of developing a "new map technology" for the next product after v1.2, I think they are talking about modest but practical changes, not dramatic ones.

 

The good news is that I think it is conceptually possible for modders with good programming skills to create their own theaters. The theaters that are created will probably be decided not by ED, but rather by whoever who has the skills, patience and desire strong enough to actually do such work themselves. Having seen a glimpse of the size of the task, I would be happy to just keep modding the current theater, thanks. :wink:

 

Terrain is nice, but we have nice terrain in Caucasus. What are the contested terrain and strategic objects?

 

-SK

[Trident]

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to hear you call their system restrictive, to be honest. From their tech description on the main page it sounded like they had developed it to a very high standard. Any system would be time-consuming to a certain degree if it was used to create such a detailed world, I suppose (or rather, if it was that bad, LOMAC likely wouldn't look the way it does). Is this why you think it's unlikely that they will embark on a new theatre, because there actually is little room for improvement in their tools/structure?

 

If true, this could mean that the terrain is an aspect where Caretaker's third point, 3rd party developments, could come into play. I guess, depending on how userfriendly the tools are, that ED could reap a lot of benefits from encouraging user created theatres by releasing them. This would of course mean that the opportunity to make money by publishing new ones themselves would be lost, but new terrain is probably less of a selling point to the average user than a new aircraft for example. They could also charge for the terrain editing software if it's their own, I would imagine.

 

As for contested terrain in the Kurils, that (mainly) concerns the southern islands of the chain, Kunashir and Iturup. Not sure how they are strategically relevant, they seem to offer little in the way of natural resources (Fishing rights? The area has all the makings for rich fishing grounds), for example. They could also be important for sea control of the entry to the the Sea of Japan and the la Perouse Strait. There's got to be some reason why the Japanese want them back, that's for sure.

 

If you wanted Japan to become really audacious, one could also count in Sakhalin, the southern part of which was Japanese territory for quite some time IIRC. This is particularly interesting, as the rest with its rich oil reserves in the north was also under Japanese rule for a short period after WW1, a very enticing proposition for a country so dependent on foreign energy resources. There's a strategic object for you (not sure what exactly you mean by that, but I'm sure this qualifies) ;)

 

I do agree that the Caucasian region is nice, but this is also about finding a 'carrier-compatible' theatre, right?

[SwingKid]

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to hear you call their system restrictive, to be honest. From their tech description on the main page it sounded like they had developed it to a very high standard. Any system would be time-consuming to a certain degree if it was used to create such a detailed world, I suppose (or rather, if it was that bad, LOMAC likely wouldn't look the way it does). Is this why you think it's unlikely that they will embark on a new theatre, because there actually is little room for improvement in their tools/structure?

 

Well, there is the recurring pop-up issue, far more little roads than we really need for vehicles to get from point A to B, the use of 4-byte float values instead of 8-byte doubles to store positions when the "center co-ordinate" is still in one corner of the map, limited use of aerial photography, an imbalance of monuments and accurately-placed buildings in Crimea compared to Caucasus, the "non-rectangular" map with airbases located only in Russian-friendly territories, fixed-width rivers, and very limited "parametrization" of airbases. The existing map technology, where pop-up or fade-in strategic building targets sometimes don't match well with the multicolored city tiles on which they are placed, make aiming at buildings through a Su-25 gunsight at a distance and lining up at sufficient range for loft bombing very difficult. The map technology seems to be better optimized for FPS and graphical appearance and performance, rather than for actual combat operations.

 

I do agree that the Caucasian region is nice, but this is also about finding a 'carrier-compatible' theatre, right?

 

True, but carrier or no carrier, I think it's important to have a strong basis for a playable and interesting campaign. There is not very much infrastructure on the Kurils to provide targets for a sustained air campaign, very limited economy to impact with a blockade, and little room for a dynamic "front line" - A Kuril Island is lucky if it has one road.

 

I think Taiwan's biggest problem is not the population - buildings are (AFAIK) easy to place - but rather the large number of airbases. Trying to move Razdolnoye around has opened my eyes a little more to how much work really goes into creating each one. It would be nice if ED had a "parametrized" system, where an airbase could be constructed on the fly from such data as runway length and direction and a few taxiway variables, rather than the current highly customized system of actually defining every airbase as its own collection of polygons and taxi AI. I'm not sure if this is "the bottleneck" to map creation, but it is sure more work than I originally realized, and yet another variable to consider.

 

-SK

[Kula66]

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that a tiled implementation may not be so bad afterall.

Got to disagree Trident, I've just bought FS2004, thought it looked very poor at low-level compared to LO, then bought a couple of terrain mods, mesh and photo terrain, and it still looks c..p .... And in F4, repetitive tiles just spoilt it, especially low down ...

 

LO terrain is just beautiful, a work of art ... I think moving to a more interesting theatre (Kurils/Barents Sea) would be great (especially with carrier ops F-18/29K)... but would just mean throwing away too much work (10years) ... so either we need an automated way of generating terrain from Sat data for a future location (hey, easy! NOT) or accept LO 2.0 will be an evolution of the current map.

 

From an actual game play point of view does the location really matter?

 

James

[Trident]

True, but carrier or no carrier, I think it's important to have a strong basis for a playable and interesting campaign. There is not very much infrastructure on the Kurils to provide targets for a sustained air campaign, very limited economy to impact with a blockade, and little room for a dynamic "front line" - A Kuril Island is lucky if it has one road.

 

LOL, correct. This is why amphibious operations factor heavily in my vision of this theatre. They provide a link between expanded naval operations and CAS warfare and create targets in their own right. I would also argue that things like a blockade of the economy are outside the scope of a sim - it may affect the economy and politics, but it has very little impact on the actual fighting in the short term, IMHO. Logistics for ammunition, spares and fuel are far more important and supply-lines that are waiting to be interrupted/protected can be found in every theatre (mainly in form of sea-lift in this case). Military infrastructure certainly is in no short supply in this region either, although admittedly none of it is located on the islands themselves (enter Sakhalin again). What I think makes the Kurils so attractive is the fact that Japan and the US are practically forced to use carriers, while Russia with only a single one at its disposal can rely on landbases a lot.

 

In the end, the really interesting question right now is perhaps not what theatre to model in future but whether ED able and willing to encourage 3rd party terrain design. One thing is for sure, if your experience is anything to go by the number of potential modders is drastically reduced without a SDK of some sort. Has ED somehow hinted what their position is in this regard? Do you think it's even possible for them to release tools for terrain design to the public (do they own the rights to the software they use, would the tools need any modification)?

 

Is this worthy of a new topic?

[SwingKid]

I would also argue that things like a blockade of the economy are outside the scope of a sim - it may affect the economy and politics, but it has very little impact on the actual fighting in the short term, IMHO.

 

The "storyline" plays an important role for many people. If a certain ship needs to patrol a certain route for a certain time, people like to know why, and feel there is a reason for what is going on in the mission. The prize of the campaign needs to be worth more to the country's interests economically than any military hardware they stand to lose.

 

In the end, the really interesting question right now is perhaps not what theatre to model in future but whether ED able and willing to encourage 3rd party terrain design. One thing is for sure, if your experience is anything to go by the number of potential modders is drastically reduced without a SDK of some sort. Has ED somehow hinted what their position is in this regard? Do you think it's even possible for them to release tools for terrain design to the public (do they own the rights to the software they use, would the tools need any modification)?

 

It was said that most probably only a set of specs would be released, like those for 3D models, so that designers could submit their terrain models to ED for consideration. From what I've seen though the airbases and object placement would require some very specialized software to create, so I don't know how practical this would be. 3rd-party terrain designers might be better off writing that software themselves.

 

Is this worthy of a new topic?

 

I started a topic in the Russian forum if you have a good translator, for proposing terrain-building technology:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=3065

 

-SK

[Trident]

The "storyline" plays an important role for many people. If a certain ship needs to patrol a certain route for a certain time, people like to know why, and feel there is a reason for what is going on in the mission. The prize of the campaign needs to be worth more to the country's interests economically than any military hardware they stand to lose.

 

Good point, I think I was thinking too much in terms of a dynamic campaign system - you'd have a pretty hard time implementing such factors realistically in one of those. For ED's current system it probably is an important consideration though. There are examples where financial matters did not prevent a war from happening against better judgement however, Falklands anyone? ;)

 

It was said that most probably only a set of specs would be released, like those for 3D models, so that designers could submit their terrain models to ED for consideration. From what I've seen though the airbases and object placement would require some very specialized software to create, so I don't know how practical this would be. 3rd-party terrain designers might be better off writing that software themselves.

 

Thanks for the info. Probably better than nothing, but especially in a small community like this one you can't really afford to reduce the accessibility of such modding features IMHO. I guess the opportunity to take a theatre (any theatre, no questions asked) from the very start right to actually seeing it in the sim without any outside involvement would also be a tremendous boost to motivation.

 

I started a topic in the Russian forum if you have a good translator, for proposing terrain-building technology:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=3065

 

I'll make sure to watch that one, thanks.

[VMFA-Blaze]

[Good point, I think I was thinking too much in terms of a dynamic campaign system - you'd have a pretty hard time implementing such factors realistically in one of those. For ED's current system it probably is an important consideration though. There are examples where financial matters did not prevent a war from happening against better judgement however, Falklands anyone? ;)

 

 

This might be a good idea except Jet Thunder has allready done extensive work on this map and I don't think that ED will go in this direction.......

 

It just would be too redundant and therefore I believe not financialy pratical for them......

[MBot]

This might be a good idea except Jet Thunder has allready done extensive work on this map and I don't think that ED will go in this direction.......

 

It just would be too redundant and therefore I believe not financialy pratical for them......

 

 

I wouldn't call it redundat if ED would make a Falkland sim. With all my honest respect for the hard work of the Jet Thunder team, but I don't think their sim will be comparable to a traditional "full scale" simulation. With only a partial time 2-man core team ( of wich only one is a programmer ) and a very limited budget, even compared to ED , they just can't pull it off in that scale. I am looking forward very much to Jet Thunder, because they will introduce some very inovative features and have some excellent design ideas. But I would nevertheless be very pleased if ED would make a full blow Falklands sims on their own.

 

The theater offers some very good presets from the developers point of view. The theater is very large and makes use of in flight refuelling. The landmass itselfe is limited tough ( depends on how much of Patagonia you want to include ). The Falklands themselve are populated only very lightly, featuring few roads and settlements. The argentine mainland is populated a bit more dense, but still small compared to other theaters.

As it is a historical war, you don't have to search for a plausible storyline, as there already is one.

The amount of participating aircraft and ground units is limited, saving development time ( tough there were quite a few ship classes ).

 

The conflict would be THE theater for a dynamic campaign, as it featured only few units, most of very high value ( ships, planes etc. ). You have several strategic goals trough the campagin ( attrit island defenses/the british fleet, support/stop an amphibious landing, win the ground war ) The campaign was quite balanced where both sides had a real chance to win the conflict. The results of a single pilot could have altered the course or even the outcome of the war ( the loss of a carrier or another supply ship would have ended the war for GB, every loss of a plane had a pronounced impact ).

 

And of course the planeset is very interesting, with some all time favourites ( Sea Harrier and Mirage III ). You have carrier ops for both sides. Planes like the Harier GR.3 or Pucara would offer the possibility for CAS dedicated expansions.

 

 

Of course I understand that the Falkland theater has almost no chance of beeing ED's next choice. Most likely because it doesn't follow the latest and greates philosophy that is so prominent in the modern flightsim community and because it doesn't has US participation. And because it is somehow limited to be the basis for a whole series of products. Altough you have 7+ core planes to model, +helicopters, wich should be enough for several addons.

[VMFA-Blaze]

I guess for your sake this would be ideal....

 

But again personally I don't think that this will happen and for reasons that you yourself have stated.....

 

 

I myself would like to see a map created that would allow a US Naval Operations theature to unfold properly but I dought if I'll see this one as well, at least for quite some time anyway......

 

As far as the community creating its own maps? I don't know, its taken Vladimir and Marina years to produce all of the maps that we have now and they've painstakenly done all this by hand, without the use of graphic replicators.....

 

For the community to take on this task I believe that you would have to treat this as a full time job and not get paid for your services.....

 

Are there any takers????

 

Of course I'm just guessing here but from my observations, this is most likley very close to reality.....

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Trident]

I was just trying to provide an example to show that national prestige and pride will sometimes override economic considerations. Given that practically none of the units modelled in LOMAC participated in the Falklands campaign I do not think that this theatre would be particularly well suited for a sequel.

[MBot]

Given that practically none of the units modelled in LOMAC participated in the Falklands campaign I do not think that this theatre would be particularly well suited for a sequel.

 

I agree that Falklands are very unlikely, but not for that reason.

I don't think that any content from Lock On will be carried over to the sequel, I am expecting a complete fresh start.

We have to remember that it will probably take several years until we will see ED's next generation sim. And until then, the 3d models and cockpits will be outdated ( clickable cockpit technology, 6DOF etc. ). Except the Su-25, all the flightmodels have to be redone from scratch anyway. Except the Su-25/27/MiG-29 the avionics are not fit for the future and it is questionable if even these will still meet ED's standart in few years.

 

With Lock On 1.2 I expect the complete end of this line. Everything after that will by from scratch. All in my uneducated opinion of course.