Hey ED! Your Momma!

[BuzzU]

I do have both of them on my HD. I still have a strong opinion on which one is more fun to fly.

[phantom_fly85]

Well said Enigma!

[Rummy]

I don't think the issue is with the F4/Lomac comparison as much as the folks who make the comparison. At some point folks get tired of defending their preferences. Those who prefer one over the other are either labeled as "fanboys", button pushers, or even as far as arcaders. We all have our prefrences for many reasons.

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

Good after reading this post that I find very appropriate to maintain in good state the "health" of our sim I would like you to implement the following points to improve the performance of the sim:

 

1 Possibility to take off in multiplayer from the Kuznetsov with the SU 33.

 

2 Incorporation of a truly effective airplane in AA/AG. for example SU 35 and FA 18 or F 15E, to give to both sides a good multirrol airplane .

 

3 To be able to assign different nationalities to all the types of objects that there is in the editor of missions to enlarge the possibilities or otherwise to continue maintaining the reality, to implement for example but ships, airplanes etc of different nationalities.

Example: Tornado ADV and the Sea Harrier airplanes, Carriers class Invincible, Frigates type 42 and 22 for England, and this way for the other participant countries in the Editor of Missions.

 

4 More Operative Theaters, for example Europe and the North Sea, the Balkans, Africa etc.

 

Of course you that this type of measures demands very valuable time on the part of the developers but I find appropriate that they are implemented if we wants to maintain our sim to the height of the circumstances.

 

Greetings to all.

Pls sorry for my bad English

[britgliderpilot]

Good after reading this post that I find very appropriate to maintain in good state the "health" of our sim I would like you to implement the following points to improve the performance of the sim:

 

Problem is that everyone has their own ideas to improve Lomac - some believe that all Lomac has to do is add more aircraft and area to fly over, some (including myself) believe that more is necessary first.

 

 

The features you list would be fantastic - but in the end it'd still be Lomac.

 

Just two BIG changes, that would convince the other flightsimming communities to start paying attention, would be things like:

 

 

- DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN! OMFG! teh W00Tz0r5!!1!one!

 

Generating missions one after the other is apparently the height of cool ;)

And not easy to do.

 

 

- More immersive theatre.

 

I think this is a HUGE deal. What Falcon 4 excels at isn't generating one mission after another . . . . it's generating missions full of aircraft, most of which you are aware of through AWACS calls and so forth. Lomac can't duplicate that . . . . and to do so it requires a simply massive rewrite of the AI and mission editor, not to mention the addition of a new mission generator.

And in order to make it practical, you need to make sure you can let an average PC run it. The famous "bubble" from Falcon, or other situations . . . . but we know Lomac collapses with a few units flying, even on high-end rigs.

 

 

These two things on their own would probably take (at a guess) in the order of years of hard work. Once that's done . . . . . then new aircraft, AFM, etc. But right now, Lomac's big problems (especially with sales and introducing new people . . . . which is after all what it's all about in the end) need to be addressed first.

 

Even with shiny new aircraft and more multiplayer options, you still have the problem of having to build the missions yourself, flying in that slightly sterile and empty environment and so forth.

 

Come on . . . . don't you wish that every now and again the AWACS would tell you something about the other fights going on in the battle?

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

Hello Brit

 

It is correct what you mark with regard to that each one of us has our own ideas to improve Lomac, I understand and I put in my post previous that this would take a lot of time but I believe that they are good points to keep in mind, with regard to the dynamic campaign to my I don't find so necessary, however concerning the opinion of the other ones, as you well says this sim it is already of for if VERY demanding at level hardware, the use of a motor for a dynamic campaign (it is my opinion too to request for the hardware that we can buy today and provided we have the necessary money and that our wives don't kill us in the intent........ this last it is not joke....), I prefer a lineal campaign or in last case the editor's use.

To today's day apart from improving that said before, I find very good to tune the best thing possible the code multiplayer, I believe that there was a positive change from the 1.02 until the current FC 1.1, I don't have doubts that that is to be in the good direction.

 

On the other hand the inclusion of new theaters follows me seeming an interesting option, the theater of which we prepare well as you says is BIG, that is certain, but we continue without being able to take off the Kusnetsov in the way multiplayer cooperative that is as me I fly for the most part, that doesn't allow that whole sea that we have to our disposition, to take advantage at least like to my I would like it, that is a take off from the Kusnetsov and to enter to the contiente very low and speedy hehehe, lastly the aviónica, basically if we refer to Falcon 4 we have to consider that it takes us A LOT OF advantage, the fact that the code of Falcon 4 on the hands of the community made of Falcon something of another world in this field so particular that it is the aviónics....... if LOMAC can alone a little but to increase the grade of complexity in the same one would be another step in the correct address, a principle is the outburst of the electric system in the 25T, possibility to correct in QHN etc.

A little but working in this address it is another step in the correct address.

 

Anyway I repeat that you that they are changes that take A LOT, but A LOT OF work, we are us the responsible ones of warning to ED when the road is not the correct one.

 

Greetings!!!!

NOTE im use a translator excuse pls if the gramatical is not correct.

[SUBS17]

Have a look in some of the threads and you'll see that after the KA50 ED is considering on modelling the F-16. Now those who are playing AF at the moment, if they come across any cool features such as FAC/oncall CAS/ AWACs etc. Should be mentioning them on a lockon successor thread so that ED might consider putting it in. Theres no point in comparing AF too lockon, they are both completely different aspects of flight sim and technology.

[Ice]

Is this going to be a 5 minute argument or a 10 minute argument ?

[britgliderpilot]

Is this going to be a 5 minute argument or a 10 minute argument ?

 

Well at some point someone dared to breathe the word "Falcon" . . . . . grin.

 

I think that tells you all you need to know ;)

[Sulman]

I think one of the problems is, we're spoilt for choice. I haven't played Falcon since SP3, but I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I also liked really Flanker 2.51, but I personally found the missile modelling a little on the tough side and got a bit frustrated with having such poor survivability in all but very basic missions. What put this into perspective was that I actually found Flanker 1.5 easier. Some people just amazed me with their ability to handle various threats in the game, but I never got that good.

 

Thus, when Lomac came along, I was really pleased to see that it continued the detailed flight and unit modelling of the series, but the increased complexity of the radar modelling actually introduced some fallibility to the weapon systems - and for this reason I really like it, it's pretty much everything I want. Sure I'd like better, more logical AI, but frankly, it does the job. Lomac/Flanker's strength has always been the look and feel of flying experience, and to me it 'feels' terrific.

 

I hope for that reason that ED continue to focus on the series' strengths.