Jump to content

Carrier Based F18


Ice
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still have hopes that one day the F18 Hornet will be an official Add-On aircraft to LO-MAC, Flaming Cliffs or whatever name this great sim will be in the future. LO-MAC needs this aircraft. To me and im sure many others the Hornet is the missing link to make this the perfect online Combat flight Simulator.

 

I have seen it said that it is not possible to acurately recreate all of the Multi Function Displays and this is why it will never be added.

 

I would like this thread to focus on this point in particular, maybe the developers would like to discuss this in more depth.

 

I just find it impossible to believe that such a great simulator with such brilliant people behind are saying "It can't be done"

 

There is an old saying: "If you think you can, you will" and I believe this to be true.

 

Another point. if you dont have anything constructive to say, please dont say anything at all. I would like this thread to stay in a positive and constructive light as to me this is the most important issue for lomac. The 169th Panthers have their roots in the F18 as a carrier based squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple facts:

 

LOMAC doesn't model AG radar

LOMAC doesn't model MFDs

LOMAC doesn't model two seats

 

Any aircraft exhibiting these traits will not be modelled as a flyable aircraft in LOMAC.

 

This is a fact. It is also a fact that 1.2 is intended to be the last of LOMAC, after which work on LOMAC's successor will begin, for which the devs have expressed their wishes to model 3D clickable pits (yes, with MFDs) and in general, the works, which means you may get your F-18, but NOT in LOMAC.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that an F/A-18 can't be done - it's just that the return ED is going to get from the huge investment in time, work and effort is just not worth it, especially when Ubisoft owns the rights to the Flanker/Lock On engine.

 

An F/A-18 is a *Western* add-on. Ubisoft is the *Western* publisher - they 'own' Lock On in the West. And Ubisoft does NOT, and will not, invest in an Lock On expansion. Thus, with the main market cut off, what's the point in making an F/A-18 add-on? Especially when it would take so much resources, and for so little return.

 

That's why after V1.2, ED's going to start from scratch on a completely new game. So I've heard, anyway.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple facts:

 

LOMAC doesn't model AG radar

LOMAC doesn't model MFDs

LOMAC doesn't model two seats

 

Any aircraft exhibiting these traits will not be modelled as a flyable aircraft in LOMAC.

 

This is a fact. It is also a fact that 1.2 is intended to be the last of LOMAC, after which work on LOMAC's successor will begin, for which the devs have expressed their wishes to model 3D clickable pits (yes, with MFDs) and in general, the works, which means you may get your F-18, but NOT in LOMAC.

 

Well firstly, F18 is a single seater

Secondly Lo-mac is but name and I covered that point in my first paragraph.

 

LO-MAC is the third or 4th stage of a sim that started as Flanker. Devolopment (improvements, additions) is what its all about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that it can't be done - it's just that the return ED is going to get from the huge investment in time, work and effort is just not worth it, especially when Ubisoft owns the rights to the Flanker/Lock On engine.

 

That's why after V1.2, ED's going to start from scratch on a completely new game. So I've heard, anyway.

 

Great place to start. The return for effort. This point I STRONGLY Disagree.

 

I believe the F18 would make this sim appealing to a huge market. Now UBI might own the name of LO-MAC but they dont own the Code. That still belongs to Eagle Dynamics (at least that's how I understand it). A new name, lets for arguments sake use "Flanker Vs Hornet" or "FvH" along with the development of the code to a new Study Sim of the F18 would be completely legitimate and viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the F18 would make this sim appealing to a huge market. Now UBI might own the name of LO-MAC but they dont own the Code. That still belongs to Eagle Dynamics (at least that's how I understand it). A new name, lets for arguments sake use "Flanker Vs Hornet" or "FvH" along with the development of the code to a new Study Sim of the F18 would be completely legitimate and viable.

 

You're missing the point: Ubisoft, NOT ED, owns the rights to the distribution of Lock On in North America. If Ubisoft does not want Lock On V1.2 published in the West, they can legally *stop* ED from doing so. And they will.

 

The only reason *we* can get V1.1 and V1.2 is because there's an agreement in the contract between ED and Ubisoft that says ED is allowed to publish up to two add-ons independently of Ubisoft. But still, *only* Ubisoft is allowed to distribute Lock On and any of its expansions to the various stores and stuff in North America, and they *won't* do so. That's why we have to get it through the Internet.

 

Now, backtrack a bit. Ubisoft is preventing ED from selling Lock On expansions in the West. As you said yourself, an F/A-18 would be huge in the Western market. But...there *is* no Western market. Because Ubisoft says so. And since they own the rights, they have the final say.

 

An F/A-18 add-on may appeal to the significant number of simmers in the West, but it will never get to them in a way it should to generate enough profit to offset the huge investment of resources and money from ED.

 

That's why ED is planning on ending the Flanker/Lock On series after V1.2 - then they'd have control over their code.

 

I'm not in the know, but this is what I think is happening. If anything, *Ubisoft* basically owns the Lock On code in North America, not ED.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true, why is it not possible to distribute an F18 Study sim in the same manner as Flaming cliffs and make a profit?. I would have thought that if this system of online purchasing works, then it would also be more cost efficient and therefore MORE profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another important point I think is before LO-MAC was even released The F18 was allways intended to be a flyable in this sim. It was only because of time contraints and budget that it was never completed. So that being the case what right does UBI have in saying it cant be "finished"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hint: Nobody outside of us - a few selected, hard-core flight simmers - would know about this F/A-18 add on. And because Ubisoft owns the Lock On code, and will not waste another dollar investing into Lock On (ads, etc.) - nobody else would know. And ED is not going to make a profit from simply selling an add-on to hard-core flight simmers who actively participate on the net. Hhow many of us are there? Even with the JF/A-18 and F4 guys factored in, there is not enough us - certainly not the 'huge' market you were preaching before.

 

Being their own publisher of a new code they own would allow ED to take advantage of the 'huge' market an F/A-18 add-on would appeal to as they wish. But again, I'm not in the know - maybe someone from ED can chime in here.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... well with more and more people getting broadband paying for and downloading software instead of buying it off a shelf inevitably becomes a viable option for devopers as well as consumers. I find it hard to believe that the market is as small as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside application

 

Furthermore to what my CO said, I think that the code and mathematical innovation shown in programs like lomac have application and interest outside an online gaming environment as im sure there is a lot of interest in other areas for the academic advancements made in a game like this. Like an active squad memeber of the 169th said recently who is also an active trainee in the Australian RAAF program, NO flight sim he has been tested on or seen used by the military looks as good or has the immersiveness of LOMAC bar the cockpit peripherals utilised by the air force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look, if there was money in it EA would have found a bunch of developers to improve the source code to janes f-18 which they happen to have locked in a vault somewhere. Maybe you are not fresh on your flight sim history but

 

Falcon4 by Microprose. Died and went under after this sim was made

Janes F18 by Janes combat sims. Died and went under after it was made

 

Two of the biggest and best survery sims went under because the ROI was laughable. Even Novalogic stopped making arcade flight sims. Hell razorworks (creator of apache/havoc commanche/hokum) seems have given up flight sims. You can download the source to commanche/hokum on their webpage. Graphsim just keeps rehashing the same old crap from 5 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not make sense, LO-MAC is here, Eagle Dynamics believe in Combat Flight Simulators as a financially viable product. What other Developers have failed at is irrelevant. Remember none of those products are as good either. the better the product is and the bigger the market is the better the chance of survival. Its just a matter of time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it irrelevant? That statement boggles the mind. The lessons from the past show if you bite off more than you can chew your company might go under. If the flight sim market was so good why didnt UBI sign on to it? ED's approach makes a lot of sense. Guarded improvements that is sold for money. A su25t addon, a ka-52 addon, they can make enough money to fund future projects. That's the way to go imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flight Sim community is bigger now. Flight sims themselves are better now. Multiplayer code thanks to LO-MAC is Excelent (a first). What UBI see as profitable is not important. I think, as I'm sure ED do, they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to F-18 (or F-16). I understand that those aircrafts are very popular. But there are many simulators of F-18/16. I love Flanker/LOMAC family for their different approach. They create simulations of aircrafts which no one other company ever modelled.

It's not maybe best bussines approach but...If all sim companies create modern simulations with the best world market potential only, there wouldn't be any other simulation than F-16 and F-18! It's almost true except Eagle Dynamics. You can say that none existing simulation of F-16 or F-18 is "definitive" and that you want to better sims of those aircrafts. But it always can be better, there are always ways for improvement.

I want to anything but F-16/18. There are so many interesting aircrafts - russian, european even american which was never simulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do remember the advancements to the FA/18 graphics with the all of the succesion of screen shots/videos that existed prior to the release of Lock On.......

 

I do beleive that there must have been considerable work done to this model, and I'm totally convinced it was planned to be released......

 

There were discussions about this on SimHQ about 2 years ago that were initiated by Carl Norman who was involved in development of Lock On at that time .....

 

He had mentioned at that there were plans to release the FA/18 as the next Lock On endevor if the release was finacially succesfull, which as we all know wasn't quite the case.......

 

In fact I think that one of the reasons Carl actually hired Matt was I believe because of his past experiences with the FA/18 flight sim......

 

Honestly though I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that the Western community most likley only numbers maybe 5,000 at the moment...

 

I can't really see how this figure calculates as profitable payback....

 

Sure the FA/18 work is most likely still in existance in ED's system, and yes it's most likely in very advanced state but there are allso other factors that come in to play here besides this.......

 

Its the map itself, it's not really large enough to depict a Naval operation of this magnitude realistically, and there are also existing problems with the naval weapon systems that have to be addressed.....

 

Thats going to take lots of time and large amounts of money to get this part of battle tuned up and ready to sell.....

 

Then there has to be a marketing campaign here in the west prior to release.....

 

There truly are a lot of issues here on this plate to deal with.......

 

And also Ed really feels that their future for now anyway lies in the ground war aspect of combat and like it or not are going in that direction .......

 

Yes I think that once they finally start generating capital, and if they continue on this path it might finally be a reality for this company then well see that naval sim ......

 

The Flanker engine is huge and existes in all combat aspects/ air, ground and sea.......

 

To sum it all up I'm betting that the FA/18 will eventually see the light of day but it will be long time comeing......

 

Oh and one other thing guys the United States Marines and the US Navy also use the FA/18 ( LOL)

 

~S~

 

Blaze

intel Cor i7-6700K

ASUS ROG MAX VIII Extreme

G.Skill TridentZ Series 32 GB

Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SATA II

ASUS GTX 1080/DIRECTX 12

Windows 10 PRO

Thrustmaster Warthog

Oculus Rift VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is Lockons code does not support the features required for an F/A-18. It would take alot of work and time wasted for them to put such features to get a working Hornet. Thats why they still have to build the sequel from the ground up! Hopefully the lockon sequel will feature a network code compatible with other types of sims to expand the current market and draw in much bigger sim types. eg tanks, ships and what they're already looking at HELICOPTERS. The market is actually much bigger than 5000 believe me, much bigger. Expanding into another sim type doubles the current audience which is what the Ka50 will do. So rather ask for a Hornet for lockon, instead look toward the sequel. A/G radar, MFDs, clickable pit, ramp starts etc. BTW Janes F/A-18 is not dead, there is still a large dedicated audience that still play it. And Falcon 4, the most IMMERSIVE flight sim ever made has still got the biggest audience. Yes bigger than lockon at this stage.:cool:

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Falcon 4, the most IMMERSIVE flight sim ever made has still got the biggest audience. Yes bigger than lockon at this stage.:cool:

Yes bigger, and I myself find Falcon way more immersive than all other sims at this stage... but how many incarnations of Falcon are there? Can you find a multy game any time you want?... No infact you must all have the Excact install as the one you are playing with. While I find single player fun(and this is all I can do at this time... due to lack of decent net connect), nothing beats flying with real people, who think outside the circle.

Me being one who knows nothing about coding .. I can't really comment on what avionics can or can't be modeled, it would be nice to have a Hornet.. it is an awesome plane.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"Zuki" Resident mud mover

CH HOTAS untill it breaks(for life)!

Not affiliated with any "squad":thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...