Mizzy Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 Well, there I was,... just getting back into playing games and stuff when I saw a wonderful sight in Lock on (my fav flight simulator), all those really lovely graghics when aircraft fly about in virtual space. Ok here is my point, why did not Oleg rent the graghics engine from Eagle (Fighter Collection, Nick Grey) Dynamics for his up coming Battle of Britain!!! Ok, many of you may know that I don't know very much about technical things that come with hi fidelity flight simulators, such as avionics and all this clartyfarty stuff, but I do know that Lock On has much better hi altitude graphics and a sense of being really high up, something that IL2 never had! Well, since BoB is high altitude (relatively speaking), why did not Oleg rent EDs masterpiece Lock On graphics engine for BoB?? Or..... why can't ED do a WWII sim based on the Lock On game?? I mean we have the advanced flight model thingy already done. I am sure WWII aircraft could be manipulated (nay remodelled) into Lock On and sell it, Surely that is what the Fighter Collection is all about..... restoration of WWII airframes!! ??? I know... I am rambling on as usual but I can have my say like everyone else about their thoughts on this subject!! Can anyone offer a suggestion because I really think Lock On could be the best WWII flight sim as well as being the best flight sim. Mizzy.
JonTex Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 dude Im not trying to be funny but you made history with this post man. I mean I read your whole post and was certain that I was like maybe the 1000th person to read it and was ready to see someone elses thoughts on your idea but noooobody replied. I mean Im like the second person to read this other than you Im sure thats history right there you deserve a prize or something. Again im not trying to be funny but Ive never seen that happen in my forum experience. :cool: 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
SwingKid Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 What JonTex is trying to say is... What IS JonTex trying to say? Anyway back to Mizzy's idea, I'm not an ED programmer but I've studied the terrain engine, and I don't think it would be very easy to adapt to another sim - it hasn't even been easy for ED themselves to create new theaters with it, so we've been sort of stuck flying around mostly the same old Crimean airbases for the past six years. The level of detail is nice but it comes at a cost of massive development time, this would surely give Maddox a reason to think twice and maybe prefer a terrain engine that can be finished more quickly. -SK 1
Weta43 Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Except that all the cities were there circa WWII, so really all they needed to do was change the actual models for the newer buildings to something a bit more contemoprary, same for the cars/trains/boats & let them all sit in exactly the same places as the present buildings etc. Crimea circa 1943. No terrain building required. Cheers.
Ice Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Im not an expert but unless protocols were laid down from day one for both sims there is absolutlely no way they could be merged. It would be far simpler to just put the lot in the recycle bin and start again.
Weta43 Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Mizzy said rent the graphics & terrain engines to Oleg for Battle of Britain. SK was just saying that to build a new WWII sim on LO's terrain engine / graphics engine would require an extensive rework of the terrain. True if you do it for Britain. If you took all the flyables out & replaced them with WWII models & appropriate flight models etc. you could do a WWII flight sim in the Crimea without any trouble. Same cities, different buildings. I wasn't suggesting that Oleg could "port" his sim into Lomac. Cheers.
britgliderpilot Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Question is . . . . . why would you need the Lomac graphics engine in Battle of Britain? PF is looking pretty good, IIRC BoB is bringing plenty in the way of new graphics. Changing over to the Lomac graphics engine would be hugely time-consuming, and wouldn't gain you that much . . . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Jester_159th Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 If you take Mizzy's idea another step or two though, you could have avery interesting situation. Suppose you start with a base terrain graphics engine (not necessarilly LOMAC's current one) and then add plane sets to it as payware add ons. You then have the basic sim with it's original plane set, but the add ons could then draw in enthusiasts of other periods of air combat history. For example a Pacific/Asia terrain could handle WW2 (US/ Japanese etc prop planes and ships), Korea (MiG-15's/ Sabres etc and could integrate late WW2 models P-51D's flew in Korea for example) and modern day scenarios. European Terrain could realistically handle plane sets from WW1 through the cold war period to the present day. Same for Middle Eastern/ African terrain. In the end you'd have a single simulation you could taylor to suit your own tastes, and depending on how uniform the coding could be it could set up some very interesting MP possibilities as well. I'll be the first to admit though, I'm not a computer programmer and there could well be practical limitations to this type of idea. There would also be some major problems to overcome. Designing a campaign engine that would be scaleable enough to handle the different time periods is one that comes to mind.
PE_Tigar Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Question is . . . . . why would you need the Lomac graphics engine in Battle of Britain? PF is looking pretty good, IIRC BoB is bringing plenty in the way of new graphics. Changing over to the Lomac graphics engine would be hugely time-consuming, and wouldn't gain you that much . . . . . Not to mention that with 8 or 24 pipelines you still get 30 FPS average with LOMAC :-|. Truly amazing feat for a graphics engine I must say...
Mizzy Posted October 14, 2005 Author Posted October 14, 2005 dude Im not trying to be funny but you made history with this post man. I mean I read your whole post and was certain that I was like maybe the 1000th person to read it and was ready to see someone elses thoughts on your idea but noooobody replied. I mean Im like the second person to read this other than you Im sure thats history right there you deserve a prize or something. Again im not trying to be funny but Ive never seen that happen in my forum experience. :cool: Err... well em yeah I suppose you have a point, I think! somewhere in all that dialog is the main issue, well I think therefore I am... sort of if you know what I mean. I mean Im right there with you Dude! Can I have a go of what your smoking please, it sound fun :D Mizzy.
Jester_159th Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 F15 vs. Zero anyone? LOL. Not exactly what I had in mind, but you got the idea!!
Mizzy Posted October 14, 2005 Author Posted October 14, 2005 I don't know about you lot but don't you think spitfires and Me 109s would look cool in LOMAC graphics engine? especially the hi alt fights (I don't hit much in IL2 I must add) I was just flying around the other night and what an environment LOMAC has!!!! Strange that I never noticed it as much before.... maybe other things were on my mind!! ;) Mizzy
TucksonSonny Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 F15 vs. Zero anyone? Anyway, I would prefer F-14 vs. Zero :icon_weed DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |
MBot Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Anyway, I would prefer F-14 vs. Zero :icon_weed Yeah Baby :cool:
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Me too...gotta love those A2A sequences in "Final Countdown". :icon_supe
TucksonSonny Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Me too...gotta love those A2A sequences in "Final Countdown". :icon_supe f-14 pilot: “Pearl Tower, Tomcat two-zero-zero. requesting clearance for departure runway zero-nine. Over.” Pearl Harbor Tower: “Two-zero-zero, Pearl Harbor Tower. You are cleared runway oh-niner. Winds zero-four-five at eight. SH-three approaching from the right. Have a nice day.” :biggrin: DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |
Force_Feedback Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Another nice crackpot thread, love them :D Seriousely, I think the Zero would pose a major FOD hazzard in a dogfight Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest IguanaKing Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Nah...little chunks of wood probably wouldn't do too much damage. ;) "Alert one, this is Eagle one, what have you got?" "Two Japanese Zeros, sir." "Two what?!!!" :icon_jook
Recommended Posts