Lock-on 2

[Zakatak]

I think Ubisoft still owns the rights to that title, but I have no idea what goes on in the politics of the game industry, so don't yell at me. But anyway, would anybody like a direct sequel to Lock-on as oppose to another add-on? I know I would.

 

I think it should focus less on quantity and more on quality. Port all the DCS aircraft (A-10C and Black Shark) to the game, upgrade the engine (for DX11/A-10C standard + new water tessellation), and apply the "Advanced Flight Model" to all vehicles. A mix of 1 fighter, 1 attack, and 1 chopper for each side would be nice.

 

USA: A-10C, F-15C, AH-64D

RU: SU-25, MiG-29K, KA-50

 

This would offer basically the biggest possible mix of gameplay possible, as well as adding the MiG-29K and AH-64D (the latter hugely requested). We got choppers, high speed interceptors, carrier based tactical fighters, modern and aged CAS aircraft, tandem seats. In addition to the above upgrades, I think carrier ops should be a little... alot more developed. Include all the ideas that have been thrown around on the forums, like push-backs, an actual crew for refueling and rearming, and for the love of God, a DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN. Just spitballing ideas, hate away.

 

Throwing everything in that made DCS and Lock-on great, aswell as the things people are suggesting. I think all this combined would make for one of the best sims... ever. Lock-On 2, who likes it?

Edited July 5, 2011 by Zakatak

[Nate--IRL--]

It mightn't happen as fast you would like, and it certainly won't be in 1 product, but you have described the overall ambition of the DCS series rather well.

 

Nate

[BKLronin]

Hm Yes

 

but the problem is that it will at least take another 10 (min) years to get all that finished. :)

 

EDIT:*sniped*

[Frostiken]

I'm not sure what the point would be of inclusion of the A-10C and KA-50, that would really just imply that the product would compete against itself.

 

Since LockOn is really quite simplified and fairly arcady (not a whole lot different from, say, Over-G fighters), I think it would be neat to have it a little more advanced, sort of a 'game mode' for the respective weapons platforms.

 

Your strange choice of airframes aside, would be sweet. ED just needs to hire a new division, maybe using the oodles of money they got from DCS: A-10 :D

[FLANKERATOR]

Developing a whole new sequel with brand new aircrafts would be more time and resource consuming, further delaying DCS development significantly.

 

I would rather prefer patching FC to A10C standards and get DCS: F-X asap.

[Zakatak]

Developing a whole new sequel with brand new aircrafts would be more time and resource consuming, further delaying DCS development significantly.

 

I would rather prefer patching FC to A10C standards and get DCS: F-X asap.

 

I am suggesting we make Lock-on 2 to DCS quality, and then each new aircraft added unto that would be, say, a 20-25$ addon. So let's assume the next one is F/A-18C.

 

USA: A-10C, F/A-18C, (upgraded Lock-on plane of choice)

RU: Black Shark, SU-25T, (upgraded Lock-on plane of choice)

 

Then each DCS module would be an addon or DLC to the game. Kind of like Rise of Flight, with a store where you can order aircraft online. The actual process of making these aircraft would actually be shorter, since you are making DLC and not a new game. See what I am getting at? As for the landscape, we can just pour Georgia, Nevada, and the Crimean all into 1 game.

 

What is more time consuming, really. Look, at the process I describe above, then tell me how this goes any faster: Flaming Cliffs, Black Shark, Flaming Cliffs 2, A-10C, Flaming Cliffs 3, DCS F-X

Edited July 5, 2011 by Zakatak

[Nate--IRL--]

You are again describing DCS (Albeit in a roundabout way) :)

 

DCS will have a continually upgraded core engine that will be available to all modules. Black Shark will get this patch sometime after 1.1.0.9 is released.

 

The Development of the Aircraft and Simulation Engine actually doesn't interfere with each other too much. But the DCS model as opposed to yours will have a continuously upgraded core engine, regardless of the modules.

 

Most of the development time for an aircraft is actually the research of the aircraft. Stopping work on the core engine would not improve the development process of the aircraft too much at all.

 

If you want DCS quality aircraft, you will have to wait for them to be produced, they are not a small undertaking at all. EDIT:- and they won't cost $20-25 either.

 

Nate

Edited July 6, 2011 by Nate--IRL--

[FLANKERATOR]

I am suggesting we make Lock-on 2 to DCS quality, and then each new aircraft added unto that would be, say, a 20-25$ addon. So let's assume the next one is F/A-18C.

 

USA: A-10C, F/A-18C, (upgraded Lock-on plane of choice)

RU: Black Shark, SU-25T, (upgraded Lock-on plane of choice)

 

Then each DCS module would be an addon or DLC to the game. Kind of like Rise of Flight, with a store where you can order aircraft online. The actual process of making these aircraft would actually be shorter, since you are making DLC and not a new game. See what I am getting at? As for the landscape, we can just pour Georgia, Nevada, and the Crimean all into 1 game.

 

What is more time consuming, really. Look, at the process I describe above, then tell me how this goes any faster: Flaming Cliffs, Black Shark, Flaming Cliffs 2, A-10C, Flaming Cliffs 3, DCS F-X

 

While I understand better your suggestion, I am not sure which way is better.

 

Basically you are suggesting to upgrade the whole Lock on to DCS standards, instead of patching it several times. it makes sense, but on the other hand, it also means developing LO "favorite" aircrafts from scratch, the simulation engine has also to be upgraded and so on...at the end of the day, it might just need more time and efforts to build this up, without even talking about abandoning the valuable Marketing stages already reached by the brand: DCS. I don't know, maybe am not getting it even though it looks audacious.

[Nate--IRL--]

If DCS wants to follow their own standarts, i think it will be inevitable to build a new engine from scratch to build new aircrafts upon. Probably -the logic following- they might be already there.

 

I wouldn't agree, if the engine is modular, different pieces of the whole engine can be upgraded as the series progresses. To throw out everything and start from scratch would be a MASSIVE undertaking. To Illustrate how difficult that would be, take a look at the development time taken for Cliffs of Dover.

 

As you'll see with the upcoming Black shark upgrade, the Aircraft are modular and Slot in (Kinda) to the Core engine. So you'll be still flying the KA-50 in whatever new engine(s) ED produces in the future.

 

Nate

Edited July 6, 2011 by Nate--IRL--

[Nate--IRL--]

Yes I see what you mean. It is just that rather than attempt everything at once, bits and pieces are added/upgraded all the time.

 

Once example would be the new EDM model format. Compared to the LOM format and the even older CMD format, the EDM Format supports many many more graphical features of the Directx feature set. (Specular maps, shadow maps etc.)

 

Things like this get added all the time, even though they don't jump out at you, the technologies of the core engine are being kept up to date, along side the legacy technologies.

 

Nate

[Frostiken]

Hell the map can't even handle the addition of the Crimean region...

[Nate--IRL--]

Hell the map can't even handle the addition of the Crimean region...

 

That's right the 32bit engine couldn't handle it - one of the reasons for the migration to 64bit -> Bigger maps.

 

Nate

[Frostiken]

So you're saying the next DCS module will have all of East Asia? Heard it here first :D

[213]

what's wrong with dcs? would be my response to this suggestion

[Pyroflash]

Nothing, this is purely a discussion on how to improve the development cycle.