Coming from Falcon...Will I be disappointed?

[robmypro]

Hey guys, long time Falcon fan deciding to give LOMAC a shot. I've purchased LOMAC and FC 2. Can anyone tell me the biggest differences between the two? Falcon is so focused on procedures, and doing the right thing at the right time. It really simulates being in the world of an F-16 pilot well.

 

Can anyone contrast this with LOMAC and FC 2? What will I be gaining and losing?

 

Thanks.

[EtherealN]

With LOMAC you will be losing detail in avionics and flight models (although the Su-25A/T FM is really good) but "regain" that through having a wide selection of aircraft to fly.

 

The Ka-50... Well, there you are losing your supersonic capability, but the tradeoff is the most realistic simulation ever to have been made available to the public. :P

[Boberro]

You loose realism. You might be disappointed well when you find out that you can use planes' avionics by only few keys.

You might be disappointed when you find out you can open your gear at 500 km\h and fly faster with it opened and nothing happens.

 

If you are looking for realism on Falcon level go away as fast as you can :D

 

Anyway besides of avionics lacks, ATC, procedures ect you gain very high playability and nice graphics where played hours won't be wasted. That's all ;]

Edited April 16, 2010 by Boberro

[coder1024]

an obvious big one is the dynamic campaign engine in Falcon.

[Distiler]

Lockon Flaming Cliffs 2 is a very nice simulator, but it lacks the knobs, switches and panels of a clickable cockpit you probably like, tho flying feeling in FC2 is better than Falcon (I mean, physics, terrain, etc). Su-25 and Su-25T fly model will blow your mind.

 

You really need to compare Falcon to DCS:Ka-50. It lacks the incredible dynamic campaign, but DCS (also FC2) mission editor is awesome and it lets you create more complex scenarios.

 

BTW, you still have two more days to buy DCS:Ka-50 at a discout price of 10€/15$ at http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7938/product/Buy-DCS:-Black-Shark-Download

Edited April 16, 2010 by Distiler

[theGozr]

Well hold on.. In Falcon compare to SU-25's in FC 2.0 .. Falcon is great in procedures witch make it a great systems simulator but regarding Flight model well it's prehistoric almost like the SFM..

 

Wanted to clarified a point here. ;)

 

Enjoy !! and read the forum for tricks and goodies

[Vekkinho]

With LOMAC you will be losing detail in avionics and flight models (although the Su-25A/T FM is really good) but "regain" that through having a wide selection of aircraft to fly.

:P

 

Well, perhaps not...I've been playing various Falcon 4 flavors and that HFFM F-16 still flies on rails...even with roll inertia enabled F4 planes feel funny!

 

Sensation of speed in FC is better than any FlightSim I played, ground details play great tribute although I haven't played BoB:SOW.

 

I find SFM planes in LOFC fly much better and realistic than Falcons in F4!

 

AFM Frogs rule, man that AFM is great with LOFC and FC2

[danny777]

im one of those guys coming from falcon....now im an fc 2.0 guy :) For ultimate cockpit details and realism i just spend time on dcs blackshark, but the mp battles on fc 2.0 are too exciting and offer the best range of gameplay thats not scripted.. after these 2 sims i left falcon aside to collect dust as it feels ancient compared with dcs and fc2.

[Total]

If you're looking for a Falcon Replacement - this isn't it.

 

Just like Falcon, nor any of the multitude of variants, would not be a replacement for Flaming Cliffs.

 

Each are their own game with their own ups and downs. Where one falters in realism, the other picks up and vice versa.

 

Instead looking to replace Falcon, consider Flaming Cliffs and addition to your flight time :)

[RvEYoda]

Hmm, I play both AF and Fc2 for different reasons. Below is just my personal preference:

Fc2 for force on force

Falcon for coop/single player (I play an AF version I edited a bit myself to make the missiles behave what I believe is more realistic)

[theGozr]

consider Flaming Cliffs and addition to your flight time..

 

So true, each simulator are just two clicks away from your desktop... ;)

[DetroitDieseL]

I bought Falcon years ago- installed it- ran it- was disgusted- uninstalled it- snapped the cd in 2- threw it away.

[robmypro]

Thanks a lot for the feedback guys. Maybe "Total" is right in that it isn't a Falcon replacement but an addition. I've pumped to try this out!

[robmypro]

I bought Falcon years ago- installed it- ran it- was disgusted- uninstalled it- snapped the cd in 2- threw it away.

 

Seriously? If so, you missed one hell of a simulator.

[DetroitDieseL]

Seriously? If so, you missed one hell of a simulator.

 

Neg. I've been here. I got Falcon after getting LOMAC, and compare everything to it, IMHO F4 doesn't cut it compared to LOMAC.

[tflash]

Well, play F4:AF for F-16 and play FC2 for Su-25, Flanker, A-10, Mig-29 etc.

 

I also play TW Strike Fighters for Phantom.

 

So for me, I just want to fly particular aircraft, not a particular game.

 

Su-25 in FC2 is an incredible flight experience.

[robmypro]

Neg. I've been here. I got Falcon after getting LOMAC, and compare everything to it, IMHO F4 doesn't cut it compared to LOMAC.

 

Actually I probably installed Falcon 3 or 4 times before I found a group of guys that showed me the ropes. There is no way you are going to read a manual and fly a real F-16. You need an instructor. I had two guys that painfully brought me up to speed, and they both flew by the book. Our communication was strictly by the book, and we always tried to bring the planes back in one piece.

 

But before meeting them Falcon was basically install, then uninstall.

 

These guys also created special TE's for me that introduced me to weapons systems, avionics, etc. We flew for maybe 6 months and I was barely coming up to speed on some of the systems. I just got Black Shark, so I am curious how much of a simulator it is. I've heard good things, but IMO Falcon is the flight simulator benchmark.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean other sims with less detail aren't a blast. And I think LOMAC may just be that type sim.

[Avimimus]

Falconites ...some things never change eh?

 

I've always been happiest with an R-27, or much better yet, a Su-25...

[Total]

You'll like DCS Blackshark as well then :)

 

I can always tell in online play those who haven't worked at it. They side slip constantly, hover into the side of a cliff, spin at take off, collide with parked vehicles, suffer blade collision, fry their laser, etc etc

 

And, with the upcoming compatibility patch making DCS online compatible with Flaming Cliffs 2, then you'll basically have a 3-in-1 addition to your flight time :D

[DetroitDieseL]

Actually I probably installed Falcon 3 or 4 times before I found a group of guys that showed me the ropes. There is no way you are going to read a manual and fly a real F-16. You need an instructor. I had two guys that painfully brought me up to speed, and they both flew by the book. Our communication was strictly by the book, and we always tried to bring the planes back in one piece.

 

But before meeting them Falcon was basically install, then uninstall.

 

These guys also created special TE's for me that introduced me to weapons systems, avionics, etc. We flew for maybe 6 months and I was barely coming up to speed on some of the systems. I just got Black Shark, so I am curious how much of a simulator it is. I've heard good things, but IMO Falcon is the flight simulator benchmark.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean other sims with less detail aren't a blast. And I think LOMAC may just be that type sim.

 

What I didn't like was the graphics, the realism may have been there, but not as far as seeing it. I want detail that I can see.

 

Post some screenshots of f4. aIt all looked flat and plain to me, no detail no sense of 3d at all imo.

[Mercury]

I just got Black Shark, so I am curious how much of a simulator it is. I've heard good things, but IMO Falcon is the flight simulator benchmark.

 

You won't be disappointed with DCS: Black shark. In a few months time DCS:A-10C will be around the corner too. Until then enjoy Falcon as much as you can because you'll never want to execute it again after DCS: A-10C.

[Panzertard]

Rob, lot's of good advice here - I'll chime in.

I came with the same questions in my mind when I first started up with DCS again.

 

DCS series offer quite a excellent "cockpit" simulation as well as the battlefield around you.

FC2 may not provide the same experience cockpit wise - but as for a battlefield experience I say you may get a positive supprise.

As you have noticed, there are no dynamic campaigns (and there have been like 6252354 requests for it, including myself chiming in on that as well) ;)

 

But - .... *but* ... the online experience makes up for the "flaws" (as many of the F4 pilots may call it).

Both FC2 and DCS shines when you fly online, with friends and voicecom. Thats where I fell in love with the series.

 

o7. Hope to see you in the skies one day. :)

[Distiler]

. I've heard good things, but IMO Falcon is the flight simulator benchmark.

 

I feel like Falcon, being very old, is still a very good "emulator" when compared to DCS:Ka-50, that one being a very good simulator. It's like comparing a precise emulation of reactor thrust via numbering tables or numerology to a complex and realistic termodinamics, pressure, etc. system simulating the real Kamov engine/rotors.

 

Just take a look how everything not just works, but it works because all systems in themselves is simulated to pieces. An example with the engine:

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default

 

"For the first time in flight simulation history, the engine model is based on detailed physics model of turbo-shaft engine as a system of separate components of the engine gas-dynamics system: engine inlet, compressor, combustion chamber, high-pressure turbine and power-turbine with engine exhaust."

 

It's mind blowing!

Edited April 16, 2010 by Distiler

[robmypro]

Falconites ...some things never change eh?

 

What can I say. Falcon is just another level above anything else I've tried. People are die hards because in their opinion nothing else comes close. If you ask anyone that really knows flight sims, and you ask them to name their top 3 sims of all time, I guarantee you Falcon will make that list 9 out of 10 times, and in many cases top the list. That says a lot, especially considering it's been a decade since it was released. But BS sounds great, so I'll dig in and check it out! And FC 2 should be a blast. The A-10 sounds sweet too.

 

But the existence of these sims doesn't negate the fact that we've had Falcon for a decade, and most sims are still playing catch up. Falcon is just in a league all its own, but I welcome anything that can match or exceed it. Do you really think us "Falconites" enjoy flying a 10 year old sim? What a pain in the ass! But we do it for a reason. It's the best of the best if you want the ultimate in an F-16 simulator.

 

Honestly, I bet if we took 10 BS/LOMAC users and put them in Falcon (with training) within a couple days we'd have 7 or 8 more Falconites. You just cannot beat it for realism, and once you get up to speed it is pretty insane.

 

But I will be very happy to have an A-10 sim, and a fighter, so I can FINALLY retire Falcon. If something better comes along in the ultra sim category, I am all for it. One other thing about Falcon. It runs great on my 4 year old PC, and with HiTiles and Aeyes cockpits, it looks pretty darn good. Nothing that deters from the overall experience.

 

But I really want to try something new, and it sounds like LOMAC and BS are 2 great alternatives. Looking forward to both!

[robmypro]

I feel like Falcon, being very old, is still a very good "emulator" when compared to DCS:Ka-50, that one being a very good simulator. It's like comparing a precise emulation of reactor thrust via numbering tables or numerology to a complex and realistic termodinamics, pressure, etc. system simulating the real Kamov engine/rotors.

 

Just take a look how everything not just works, but it works because all systems in themselves is simulated to pieces. An example with the engine:

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default

 

"For the first time in flight simulation history, the engine model is based on detailed physics model of turbo-shaft engine as a system of separate components of the engine gas-dynamics system: engine inlet, compressor, combustion chamber, high-pressure turbine and power-turbine with engine exhaust."

 

It's mind blowing!

 

That is sweet! Thanks for sharing that.