LOMAC like MS Flight Simulator?

[airea]

Even the graphic quality and realism (at least for su25t) of LOMAC beats MS Flight Simulator 2004 and all of its addons, LOMAC is not as popular as FS2004. Thousands of people play FS online but there are only a few in LOMAC.

 

I guess, the successor of LOMAC should have to be as flexible as FS2004, that is to say, there should be flyable non-combat aircrafts, 3rd party city and terrain addons, etc. There is a civilian traffic option in LOMAC but we are not able to fly any of them. If there were flyable transport and airliner aircrafts in LOMAC like in FS2004, there would be more people playing LOMAC. With AFM of non-combat aircrafts, LOMAC should definitely beat FS2004 because of its advantage in graphics and immersive gameplay. Especially in online gaming, it would be a great pleasure to be part of a campaign with a transport aircarft. Some people will be fighting with fighters, some will go for SEAD and you will be transporting necessary stuff thru warzones, etc. Maybe, there should be search and rescue missions with rescue helicopters. (I remember that in Longbow2, you were able to insert combat seals, or go for recon missions).

[Pilotasso]

I think the reason for FS popularity its shear logistic and marketing support capability. Microsoft has unlimited global reach for its software not to mention development funds. Wich is a lot more than I can say for ED, take no offense and despite having developed a nice SIM, but its much smaller and faces far more financial and marketing limitations than Microsoft.

[Groove]

You should try X-Plane 8 !

[Kevlon]

Even the graphic quality and realism (at least for su25t) of LOMAC beats MS Flight Simulator 2004 and all of its addons, LOMAC is not as popular as FS2004. Thousands of people play FS online but there are only a few in LOMAC.

 

I guess, the successor of LOMAC should have to be as flexible as FS2004, that is to say, there should be flyable non-combat aircrafts, 3rd party city and terrain addons, etc. There is a civilian traffic option in LOMAC but we are not able to fly any of them. If there were flyable transport and airliner aircrafts in LOMAC like in FS2004, there would be more people playing LOMAC. With AFM of non-combat aircrafts, LOMAC should definitely beat FS2004 because of its advantage in graphics and immersive gameplay. Especially in online gaming, it would be a great pleasure to be part of a campaign with a transport aircarft. Some people will be fighting with fighters, some will go for SEAD and you will be transporting necessary stuff thru warzones, etc. Maybe, there should be search and rescue missions with rescue helicopters. (I remember that in Longbow2, you were able to insert combat seals, or go for recon missions).

 

 

Yeah, nice ideea , dont think we are going to see that tough.. ;(

[BOPrey]

You will get a better shot at "combatize" FS2004 than making LockOn with open architecture.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

There is a civilian traffic option in LOMAC but we are not able to fly any of them.

 

Actually the civ traffic option switches on the road and rail traffic (not airliners), so you should really say "we are not able to drive any of them" ;-)

[Roman G]

The difference between MS Flight Simulator and LOMAC is that MS FS has SDK (software development kit) and LOMAC has not. The SDK allow third party developers to provide FS add-ons - while LOMAC modding is much more limited. So for FS there is a lot of developers outside of Microsoft - while with LOMAC we are limited to ED's resources.

 

There were a couple of threads suggesting that LOMAC should provide SDK but as far I remember the official word about that possibility (I guess it was Stormin - not sure whether he was still in ED that time) was that ED is unlikely to release one because of fears of competition "reusing" their code .

 

I read those threads and it seems to me that there was big confusion between open-source code and SDK. Most people thought that it was one and the same. IT IS NOT. Releasing SDK does not mean you you have to disclose your source code. Perhaps a biggest example of this is MS Windows Win32 SDK - which is SDK for Windows operating system. Microsoft realeased this SDK a long time ago and in that time it was (and still it is) one of the best documented SDK compared to competition. Lot of developers started to make applications for Windows because it was easy to do - and guess what - everybody who is using those applications must buy MS Windows - that's why MS makes tons of money. They did the same thing for Flight Simulator - they made it like operating system (well in less scale) for flight simulators.

 

I think ED not releasing SDK and not wanting it - is bad business strategy. They could make money on each third party add-on - because users for these addons would have to buy original LOMAC ("OS") in order to run them. LOMAC terrain engine is wastly superior to nearest competition - this make for a LOT of eye-candy, and their aircraft models are at least the same quality or better than competition. If they provided SDK then a lot of people would be interested. An example of sucessfull SDK for games might be Operation Flashpoint. Even if it is about five years old game people are still releasing addons for it DAILY (!) - take a look at http://ofp.gamezone.cz.

[SUBS17]

I think theres a big difference between MS2004 and lockon. Lockon models in much more detail in alot of areas particularly the flight model of the 25 which is not really possible with 2004. Also not forgetting the weapons modelling a/a, a/g and radar/ECM modelling. MS doesn't model those nor do they model a proper damage model. You're right SDKs are what makes a game much better but I think they have made a compromise by allowing community 3-d models to be considered. The best approach for something like the lockon successor is to make the ability for addon aircraft, 3d models and terrain. Then after the initial release the terrain got further addons to expand the arena then there would be alot of possibilities for online and offline gaming.