Jump to content

Lock-On's limitations and the "Bubble" system


Recommended Posts

LOMAC is a brilliant tactical sim. It has the best terrain engine out there, some very good atmospherics, fantastic physics engines, good avionics and seeker modelling, great effects, great 3D models etc..

 

That makes for some awesome small-scale operations. Terrorist hunting, border clashes, small naval engagements (naval aspect of the sim BTW could use some attention), that kind of stuff. With the Ka-50 perfectly suited to that role, all we need is some infantry modelled and the game is set.

 

LOMAC however has equally high potential in going the more strategic route, a potential that is currently hampered by the game's engine's limitations. Simply put, and before we go into an F4-type module where you can watch your campaing (or mission) unfold in realtime via the map display and task or create flights/packages/battalions etc., there is one thing missing: SCALE.

 

By generating every 3D object present in the game no matter where the player is, the engine definitely has a set limit of how many entities can be present at any one time. Giving it a bubble system would do the trick. Keep a bubble around the player and do the rest in 2D tables. If done right, this could be the start of 1000 a/c missions into Sevastopol (like some of F4s massive TE/campaigns!)

 

Your thoughts on this...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts on this...?

 

I think everyone agreed a long time ago that if you want that kind of experience, Falcon4 is the place to go. LOMAC is superb at what it does. But creating large scale experiences is certainly not on that list.... and I doubt it ever will be; ED's style and approach is different.

 

Personally I prefered EECH's "medium scale" approach to warfare (which makes it all the more annoying that Razorworks went AWOL from flight sims). In F4 I always feel like my efforts don't really matter... the scale of the operations is *too* great.

 

At the other end of the scale, in LOMAC I feel like I'm the *only* thing that matters... because I can't rely the AI to do what they're tasked with. One ping on their radar and they're off in headless chicken mode.

 

I'd be happy with LOMAC's small scale approach if you could rely on the AI more to stick to their main mission goals.

 

Andrew McP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure but one problem can have multiple solutions and the F4 camapign kind is one of them.

 

More seriously.

 

What I call a dynamic campaign is the fact if I bomb the bridge and I'm successful on that mission I want it in next mission to be destroyed as well. Mission generator in next should then generate next mission with ground units moving around taht bridge or not crossing the river at all.

 

That kind of thing could be done in background during mission generation process.

 

On the other hand what you ask for it's allready there. Each unit in Lockon has its own AI.

Try puting M1A1 and T-80 close one to another while they are not in same coalition. They'll start shotting at each other and you didn't issue any kind of order in editor, you just drop them on the map and hit fly.

 

F4 campaign dosent have that. Each unit has a scripted behaviour which gicves you an illusion of AI.

 

 

To keep this short :

 

If ED could keep track on what objects are destroyed in previous mission which units where lost and how many units each side had at the begining of the campaign then the mission generator should be able to gnereate next mission which is "realistic" in campaign world. That means that we should not have necessary Kursk reproduced for every mission. It should be rather something like engaging an armored column or suply lines.

 

 

But I think that this requires a complet code change and that this thing will not be implemented for Lockon but for their next title when they will be able to sel that game without any restriction to the western countries in game shops.

 

As for now only a piece of advice. Enjoy the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOMAC is a brilliant tactical sim. It has the best terrain engine out there, some very good atmospherics, fantastic physics engines, good avionics and seeker modelling, great effects, great 3D models etc..

 

That makes for some awesome small-scale operations. Terrorist hunting, border clashes, small naval engagements (naval aspect of the sim BTW could use some attention), that kind of stuff. With the Ka-50 perfectly suited to that role, all we need is some infantry modelled and the game is set.

 

LOMAC however has equally high potential in going the more strategic route, a potential that is currently hampered by the game's engine's limitations. Simply put, and before we go into an F4-type module where you can watch your campaing (or mission) unfold in realtime via the map display and task or create flights/packages/battalions etc., there is one thing missing: SCALE.

 

By generating every 3D object present in the game no matter where the player is, the engine definitely has a set limit of how many entities can be present at any one time. Giving it a bubble system would do the trick. Keep a bubble around the player and do the rest in 2D tables. If done right, this could be the start of 1000 a/c missions into Sevastopol (like some of F4s massive TE/campaigns!)

 

Your thoughts on this...?

 

Yeah, you're right a bubble system would allow for more players online as well as much more units involved.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have to make compromises when making a sim and LOMACs compromises where made to favour this more graphically intense, detail oriented "tactical" flavour. That will never change.

 

My biggest gripe with F4s dyunaic campaign is the unrealistic tasking, bundling of packages and mission profiles. However, the campaign UI is WHERE THE MONEY IS. The fact that you can make a template with all forces inside and run a continuous, real-time war for 48 days! That UI would amazing in LOMAC, even with less units.

 

LOMAC will NEVER be the 1000-plane sim-I realize that. BUT, what the bubble system offers is MANY more units (hence more activity and immersion) WITHOUT sacrificing any of LOMACs current features.

 

If we were to have such a system, allowing for an acceptable number of active entities AND have that real-time UI (that would allow for endless tasking as long as the mission clock was running) you could see some pretty amazing "scripted" campaigns crop up! LIke this one for F4: (Check out its briefing, hasn't yet been released due to some features waiting to be implemented in F4)

 

http://rapidshare.de/files/1621319/ABLE_BROTHER-ABLE_TIGER.zip.html

 

Thread:

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=87721

 

We'd be talking about a brand new sim if it were to happen in LOMAC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually you are wrong. Lomac will be more scalable in the future as we would have faster machines and more memory. Look at janes f-18, no matter what specs you throw at it it still runs like a dog because it was programmed that way. The way lomac is coded means it was perform better was computers and peripherals get faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you might know something that I don't but all that is relative. By relative I mean to the industry standards. SUre, in 2 years' time LOMAC will be able to handle *more* stuff-Where will Falcon 4 be though if its development takes off with Lead Pursuit? Where will FighterOps be?

 

Again, what I am suggesting sacrifices nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong - it requires them to rewrite the engine. Therefore, it will NOT happen in LOMAC. Are we pretty clear on this? ;)

 

That means no 'bubble system' in 1.1, or 1.2 ... there is -sort of- a bubble system with the LOD fix now, but it's not what you mean.

 

The NEXT product, ie. LOMAC SUCCESSOR, may well feature a bubble system. We're not going to seeany of this in LOMAC AFAIK.

[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

Because it's all been said before, clearly and concicely and you can find most of the discussions relating to these things using the search function AFAIK, including planned features etc - you suggested something, I gave you an answer. You pushed, I told you it's not happening ... what's the problem?

 

You're not the only one who has asked fro these things; on this forum, and potentnially on a forum which you can't see, I have asked for more LUA exports/imports to allow us to script missions better - will it happen? I don't know. THe bubble system sure won't ... anything that requires an engine rewrite, IMHO, will not happen. Commands to force sections MAY be possible for IMHO not from within the game - if they are implemented they will be on an off-server console made by the community using the export.import functions ;)

 

All IMHO, of course.

[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

GGTharos is right. No bubble system can be incorporated in Lomac (nor in any other sim) without having to rewrite the game engine from scratch. If this will happen in the future, it would no longer be an addon, it would definitely be a new game.

(this is true unless Lomac already includes a skeleton of dynamic campaign, which could have been cut just before release, but I don't think this is the case)

 

Today Lomac is a simple tactical sim for small-scale engagements (air-to-air engagements, attacks against a convoy, against a bridge...). Just putting 2 separate tactical situations in this sim leads to "critical" FPS levels. BTW I'm not talking about graphics issues (which can be solved by LOD patches), I'm talking about game-engine issues. Lomac is unable to handle complex situations.

 

I've read in some posts that in theory a dynamic campaign can be done even with few units. This is true, in theory, but how much will it be appealing when applied to a sim?

Take a "small-scale" scenario like the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, and suppose you'd have to plan a typical mission: how many units do you think you'd have to put in? a dozen? I don't think so. even in a such a "small-scale" scenario there would probably be at least a hundred indipendent units (unit = group of 1 or more vehicles/aircraft/ships). And to have a true dynamic campaign you must put them all in the scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually you are wrong. Lomac will be more scalable in the future as we would have faster machines and more memory. Look at janes f-18, no matter what specs you throw at it it still runs like a dog because it was programmed that way. The way lomac is coded means it was perform better was computers and peripherals get faster.

Actually that's not correct. Given the way Lomac currently processes all AI objects as equal (whether they are close to the player, or on the other side of the virtual world), it will not get much faster on newer PC's. The reason for certain performance issues in applications (in general) is due to a concept that simply doesn't allow high performance nor scalability. In order to actually increase performance optimizations must be incorporated. The "AI bubble" system could be one of them. Without changing the concept the application will not become much faster on newer hardware. Just as Janes F-18.

 

No bubble system can be incorporated in Lomac (nor in any other sim) without having to rewrite the game engine from scratch.

What do you mean by engine in this case? Depending on the way the application was designed, it may take signficantly more or less work to implement new concepts in the existing code.

 

It is clear though that "major" new features such as ground radar, multi-seat aircraft and other possible features will not appear in a Lockon addon but in a sequel, as GG said. ED's plan for now appears to be to release one more addon (1.2) for Lockon and then focus on a new project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not improve on what LOMAC is already good at? On the tactical scale, immersion and re-playability can be greatly increased by additional randomization factors and a more elaborate AI system - both of which are doable without rewriting the entire code.

 

Currently, I wouldn't even say LOMAC (in terms of immersion) matches F4 even in a smaller, tactical scale, because F4's AI, flight comms and replayability is just *that* much better, simply because it underwent YEARS of development/modification. LOMAC did not have this advantage of time, plus with Ubisoft's continued disinterest, there really is no point in expanding the LOMAC code to the point of an entire overhaul/rewrite.

 

That being said, I can list dozens of relatively minor improvements to the AI system to make Lock On far more immersive than it currently is. Right now, the AI is just too two-dimensional and scripted for me to enjoy fully.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not improve on what LOMAC is already good at? On the tactical scale, immersion and re-playability can be greatly increased by additional randomization factors and a more elaborate AI system - both of which are doable without rewriting the entire code.

That being said, I can list dozens of relatively minor improvements to the AI system to make Lock On far more immersive than it currently is. Right now, the AI is just too two-dimensional and scripted for me to enjoy fully.

At some point it's not interesting to keep buliding on old code and concepts and it is better to design it again, from scratch. As always, virtually everything is possible, but it takes time ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Currently, I wouldn't even say LOMAC (in terms of immersion) matches F4 even in a smaller, tactical scale, because F4's AI, flight comms and replayability is just *that* much better, simply because it underwent YEARS of development/modification. LOMAC did not have this advantage of time, plus with Ubisoft's continued disinterest, there really is no point in expanding the LOMAC code to the point of an entire overhaul/rewrite.

 

That being said, I can list dozens of relatively minor improvements to the AI system to make Lock On far more immersive than it currently is. Right now, the AI is just too two-dimensional and scripted for me to enjoy fully.

 

Oh comme on. F4 AI are you kidding ???? Where did you see in real life an A/G mission being ended with 4 kills for a plane heavy loaded with A/G ordonance ???

 

Air defense system is much beter in Lockon than it is in F4. F4 AI isnt a real AI. It will always react same no matter the situation wheras AI from Lockon wouldn't.

 

If you call an immersion the fact that the AI plane should rush on air defenses then I suggest you to study a litle bit better ROE for every army in the world.

In Lockon the AI trys to preserve its "life" and in "F4" the AI is a terminator.

 

Can you telle me what makes you think that the AI in F4 is much better ???

 

 

For Note :

 

I have a copy of F4 patched at SP4 and I'm playing Balkans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh comme on. F4 AI are you kidding ???? Where did you see in real life an A/G mission being ended with 4 kills for a plane heavy loaded with A/G ordonance ???

 

Don't know what your SP4 install is on, but last time I played F4, the AI wasn't that smart ;)

 

Air defense system is much beter in Lockon than it is in F4. F4 AI isnt a real AI. It will always react same no matter the situation wheras AI from Lockon wouldn't.

 

Have you played Lock On? How can you even say the AI won't react the same? Lock On's AI *ALWAYS* react the same.

 

If you call an immersion the fact that the AI plane should rush on air defenses then I suggest you to study a litle bit better ROE for every army in the world.

 

Both Lock On and F4 AI in SEAD mode 'rush' SAM sites. So your point is...?

 

In Lockon the AI trys to preserve its "life" and in "F4" the AI is a terminator.

 

Lock On AI tries to preserve life? Since when is chasing an enemy aircraft hundreds of kilometres away 'preserving' life? Or using so much AB that they're bingo and then decide to land at an enemy airfield? Come on, gimme a break. If you are going to disagree with me, at least have something to back it up.

 

Can you telle me what makes you think that the AI in F4 is much better ???

 

Umm, let's see...AI with active radar missiles actually engage multiple targets, unlike LOMAC; F4's jets have smaller reaction ranges so they don't go chasing distant aircraft around at full AB; AI conserve their fuel by moderating AB usage; SAM sites turn their radars on or off; wingmen actually stay alive rather than plunging into something; AI do not have uber-SA...shall I continue?

 

Don't get me wrong, LOMAC has its strong points, but in terms of AI, F4 beats it hands down. This has been widely acknowledged by most people who have played both sims, so I don't see the reason for your post. If you're saying that LOMAC has better AI, please back up your post rather than attacking mine.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wll, the AI uses its own generic fm - formation flight is scripted which is mde easy by said FM.

 

In other words, the AI cheats.

 

Why does the AI cheat?

The actual computation power required for an AI to 'fly' like a person would is potentially overwhelming - you can make it close, but not the same. THe problme here is that you hae to simulate a lot of these little buggers, which in turn implies that you want to shave as many CPU cycles as possible off of each AI calculation, which means simplifying how they work. That's the reason. The problem with AI si that it's a compromize between computing power required (per AI), the complexity of the controlled entity, the 'feel' you want to get out of it, and the numebr of the AI's that you need to run.

 

Oh, and programmer sanity should be tucked in there somewhere.

[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

Excellent AI or excellent advanced flight model. I think the developers of lock on made the right choice. Lockon shines in multiplayer, spending too much time on AI is a waste of time. As long as AI does what you tell it to do it's good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent AI or excellent advanced flight model. I think the developers of lock on made the right choice. Lockon shines in multiplayer, spending too much time on AI is a waste of time. As long as AI does what you tell it to do it's good enough for me.

 

Firstly, the point is that the AI *doesn't* do what it's supposed to do. Secondly, as Dayglow mentioned, not everyone plays multiplayer, for various reasons. I wanted a good multiplayer experience, so I went out and bought a Gamecube with Super Smash Melee. I bought Lock On because it's a sim.

 

It's not simplifying what the AI does or reducing the CPU cycles - it's a matter of randomization and having the AI do exactly what it's supposed to. Having an AI jet do the same thing time after time again kills it for me. Having my escorting Fulcrums go after some useless cruise missiles while I get picked apart by F-15s also kills it for me. I can't help but think this whole AI issue can be solved by just doing 2 things: add some more tactics to the AI's repertoire and reducing its engagement range and the targets they engage.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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