Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[Pyroflash]

Indeed the more they can squeeze in the better. :)

 

P.S we're on page 58.. get it right lads.

 

No, the gods came down and gave Nate his own settings for the forums. No one, not even he, can explain it :D

[monotwix]

If I was ED I would make a multiplyer cage to keep everyone inside, not outside.

If all the members who posted today were playing, it would be nice. I want 30 players on every server.

2 Escorts 3 CAPs 5 Muds 2CA 2 Useless for each side.

Edited September 27, 2012 by monotwix

[Witchking]

Got to love feature creep. It always throws a snag in plans, but in the end you do get more.

 

yup! Got to love the suspense though...everyone has their own idea in what features they want in.... I guess we have to wait till the press release to read more.

 

I just hope they take their own time and make it the best it can be. I want the jump we saw from LO to LO FC1. That was a huge jump. I was reading this again:

 

http://lockon.co.uk/flaming_cliffs/

 

Notice the jump and addition of features.

[cichlidfan]

I just hope they take their own time and make it the best it can be. I want the jump we saw from LO to LO FC1. That was a huge jump. I was reading this again:

 

http://lockon.co.uk/flaming_cliffs/

 

Notice the jump and addition of features.

 

ED did not make Lock-On so the comparison is not valid.

[Nate--IRL--]

ED did not make Lock-On so the comparison is not valid.

 

Wut?

 

Nate

[cichlidfan]

Wut?

 

Nate

 

What I meant to say is ED was not in control of Lock On. In the case of FC ED was in full control of what was released and in what state. This allowed for significant improvements with nobody above ED to dictate budget and schedule.

 

In the case of FC3, I feel that since this is the 3rd cut of ED remaking LO and the environment is already dictated by DCS World, there is only so much that can be improved by 'great leaps'.

[Witchking]

Well... They are in the same state as they were when they made FC1...independent. In fact, now they are probably a little better off with their military contracts and stuff. The fact that they are publishing it by themselves means its a lot more flexibility upon how many features they put in and when they release it. DCS world is a great step forward and its time that they re-make some of the flyable code (improve it with Su25 style AFM?) and DCS gen graphics. That way they could altogether let go of the Ubisoft crutch and make DCS: Air Combat. The F-15C is probably mostly remade in FC3. If that treatment was given to the rest of the flyables and the code replaced, I would assume that they wouldn't need Ubisoft's approval or dependency on Lock on 1 anymore.

 

Of course, I am a bit biased and jaded because its hard to see such a beautiful and amazing F-15C while other aircraft (my favs such as the flankers, A-10A, Su25T, 25, Mig 29) are left behind. Its almost a dream to imagine FC3 being produced with AFM for all these jets with new F-15C level graphical upgrades to cockpit and model.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Witchking

[Pyroflash]

Well... They are in the same state as they were when they made FC1...independent. In fact, now they are probably a little better off with their military contracts and stuff. The fact that they are publishing it by themselves means its a lot more flexibility upon how many features they put in and when they release it. DCS world is a great step forward and its time that they re-make some of the flyable code (improve it with Su25 style AFM?) and DCS gen graphics. That way they could altogether let go of the Ubisoft crutch and make DCS: Air Combat. The F-15C is probably mostly remade in FC3. If that treatment was given to the rest of the flyables and the code replaced, I would assume that they wouldn't need Ubisoft's approval or dependency on Lock on 1 anymore.

 

Of course, I am a bit biased and jaded because its hard to see such a beautiful and amazing F-15C while other aircraft (my favs such as the flankers, A-10A, Su25T, 25, Mig 29) are left behind. Its almost a dream to imagine FC3 being produced with AFM for all these jets with new F-15C level graphical upgrades to cockpit and model.

 

ED are hardly independent. They make products for TFC, their publisher, who then publishes these wonderful products. TFC are probably the ones behind the procurement of ED's military business side. Of course I could be wrong about this. Not much information going around about the other end of the stick. For all I know, ED could be working on a new B-2A sim.

 

At any rate, nobody really knows what kind of contractual obligations TFC/ED has with Ubisoft over the Lockon IP, but judging by the fact that a lot of the assets were re-used from lomac when going into DCS, it is likely that the obligations to Ubisoft only extend as far as the package as a whole.

[Frostie]

That brings to my personal complaint about LOMAC and whats remained unchanged. Yes I absolutely love Eagle cockpit upgrade, cause its nice to look at. There is a limited amount of 'functional' changes, you know things that do something or improve gameplay. Missile AFM will offer a lot for the combat experience. The dynamic handling of landing should be a nice touch as well. What irritates me the most is the same flyables, but mostly in respect there only being 2 US flyables and how it effects gameplay and limits mission design for a maximized PvP experience.

 

Depending on how you choose to count 3-5 Russian fighters to choose from compared to 1 US fighter. Of these Russian fighters, some have multi-role ability even if limited, US has none. SU-33 carrier ops, no US equivalent. Further inspection of AG tasks you'll notice there are no US SEAD/DEAD capable craft, compared to SU25T having HARM missiles.

 

Using the 51st server as an example, they seem to favor a Red vs Blue mission design (and obviously favor Red), but will forever be limited by the lack of US flyables. The total flyables 2 US vs 7 Russian, without accounting for DCS inter-operability. Now achieving parity is so obviously easy cause ED could do it with just 1 US jet. One Carrier capable, multi-role fighting, SEAD striking aircraft. You all know which I'm referring to. F/A-18 any variant, but the C would probably be more likely than an E.

 

I think you're missing the location of the theatre in FC, it's hardly Nevada. Plus I wouldn't really call the MiG29A, C and G 3 completely different aircraft, more like a MiG29C and some downgraded versions one German and one Russian. Likewise with the Flanker, virtually identical aircraft. The same can be said for the Frogfoot, you have full T version or a lite version.

Calling for another advanced 21st century aircraft to fight against low tech 20th century Russian hardware is pretty strange. There is already a large tech gulf in class between the F-15C in FC and the Russian fighters, why add to it.

 

Now regarding the server, how in your opinion is there a favouritism towards Red and how would you balance this out?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Frostie

[pyromaniac4002]

Well the reason for this is obvious. It provides two things in combination that DCS won't for who knows how long. The first is PvP, as this a big point in just about any online multiplayer experience. The next is Dissimilar Air Combat. The DCS titles that exist are AG focused with inevitably predictable AI behavior. Yeah I know CA will have some effect on that. The Mustang has no realistic opposition, if it ever does its probably gonna be AI first.

 

That brings to my personal complaint about LOMAC and whats remained unchanged. Yes I absolutely love Eagle cockpit upgrade, cause its nice to look at. There is a limited amount of 'functional' changes, you know things that do something or improve gameplay. Missile AFM will offer a lot for the combat experience. The dynamic handling of landing should be a nice touch as well. What irritates me the most is the same flyables, but mostly in respect there only being 2 US flyables and how it effects gameplay and limits mission design for a maximized PvP experience.

 

Depending on how you choose to count 3-5 Russian fighters to choose from compared to 1 US fighter. Of these Russian fighters, some have multi-role ability even if limited, US has none. SU-33 carrier ops, no US equivalent. Further inspection of AG tasks you'll notice there are no US SEAD/DEAD capable craft, compared to SU25T having HARM missiles.

 

Using the 51st server as an example, they seem to favor a Red vs Blue mission design (and obviously favor Red), but will forever be limited by the lack of US flyables. The total flyables 2 US vs 7 Russian, without accounting for DCS inter-operability. Now achieving parity is so obviously easy cause ED could do it with just 1 US jet. One Carrier capable, multi-role fighting, SEAD striking aircraft. You all know which I'm referring to. F/A-18 any variant, but the C would probably be more likely than an E.

 

+1

 

Whatever we get next though in the DCS series, I'd put my money on it being a SEAD-capable aircraft. And it will be nice to have it modeled to DCS standard instead of the "hit d until you get on the one that shows diamonds, designate, and shoot" nature of Su-25T SEAD mission in FC.

 

Didn't really think before about having both the Mig and Su as air-to-air combatants on the Russian side while the US only had the F-15 (Su-27 and Su-33 are functionally identical up to the point of where you can land, as far as the game is concerned, so I would really only say that RU has 1 aircraft up on US in the A-A realm). I guess it's not easy to include a basic version of an F-16 or F/A-18 in something like Lock On, just by virtue of them having MFDs. Can't very well just throw in a JPEG of some generic systems status page, it beckons a lot more interactivity than a bunch of analog dials. I would like to see a new US plane in FC3, but I can't imagine such a substantial change going unannounced all this time or being tacked on in this impromptu extension of the release date (err... month).

[Exorcet]

I think you're missing the location of the theatre in FC, it's hardly Nevada.

But it's not solely Russia, and it's pretty close to NATO/Western forces. I don't think the theater matters all that much for the balance of aircraft selection though. If the Georgian government blew up and took US citizens hostage or something, you could end up with a situation full of US fighters and virtually no Russian planes.

 

However I do prefer the West/East Cold War split in FC.

 

Plus I wouldn't really call the MiG29A, C and G 3 completely different aircraft, more like a MiG29C and some downgraded versions one German and one Russian. Likewise with the Flanker, virtually identical aircraft. The same can be said for the Frogfoot, you have full T version or a lite version.

What was said still stands as far as carrier, multirole, and SEAD goes.

 

Calling for another advanced 21st century aircraft to fight against low tech 20th century Russian hardware is pretty strange. There is already a large tech gulf in class between the F-15C in FC and the Russian fighters, why add to it.

What about F/A-18A? Even the C could easily be 20th century.

 

Now regarding the server, how in your opinion is there a favouritism towards Red and how would you balance this out?

This I don't get. 51 seem balanced to me. The members of the 51 might prefer Russian planes, but that's not a problem.

[Frostie]

What about F/A-18A? Even the C could easily be 20th century.

Even if an F/A-18 was added to FC it would surely be the C variant, after all why settle for second best.

 

The only aircraft that has ever been added is the Toad, with the main purpose being a breakaway product from Ubi. Lets not forget where Lockon originated, Flanker 2.5, the MiG/Frog and F-15/Hog came with Lockon, some pretty balanced additions.

A new aircraft is probably never going to be added, with the future focus on DCS:World I personally wouldn't want ED wasting resources on such ventures.

[104th_Crunch]

Regarding Red vs. Blue balance, the fact that DCS takes place in Russia/Georgia means that situations are hypothetical anyway. The 51st server has awesome mission design, and keeping a strict plane selection based on East vs. West is great, as it is closer to reality.

 

Saying that, having both East and West jets available to both Red and Blue does not bother a lot of people and gives different options. Personally, I enjoy the realism of flight/combat simulation the most. Hypothetical scenarios don't bother me and have certain advantages.

 

When someday we get more theaters to fly in, we''ll be able to recreate historical senarios much more, but having the same jets on both sides, and jets from different eras will make things interesting as well. I am looking forward to flying the P-51 as an option for ground pounding.

[RagnarDa]

THANK YOU CAPTAIN HINDSIGHT!

[Pyroflash]

THANK YOU CAPTAIN HINDSIGHT!

 

Oh, come on, that's not fair. It's not as if you gave anything up not playing FC3, except for maybe FC3 itself. But that is irrelevant because it isn't out yet.

 

Really when it comes right down to it, the F/A-18C isn't any more likely an aircraft than an F-16C/CJ, F-15C, or even an F/A-18E for that matter. They are all in service, all have comparable levels of classification, and are all equally doable (Yes, even the F/A-18E, which, if you look at it, really isn't any more advanced than the newer F-16C's or F-15C's. If you can't get enough reliable data, move down a lot number until you can.). Just because you are making an F/A-18E sim, it doesn't mean it has to be an F/A-18E blk III lot 30 sim (although it is probably true that people wouldn't appreciate some of the lower lot numbers, which, lets face it, are OLD).

Edited September 28, 2012 by Pyroflash

[Azrayen]

Another plane in FC? Come on, please try to read again the Philosophy Behind the Release of FC3, you'll avoid raising hopes that are only to be disappointed. ;)

 

Given that "DCS: Fighter" is still a ways off, we hope that FC3 will serve as a good bridge while we continue to flesh out the stable of DCS aircraft (both 1st and 3rd party).

 

FC3 is the way to bring LO planes into DCS World. Did you notice that the original FC(1) plane (Su-25T) isn't part of FC3, but directly in DCS World now, as the default aircraft?

 

Any (new) plane that ED will make will be IMO a separated module. Be it a "DCS quality", a "LO quality" or anywhere in between. :book:

 

Cheers

Az'

[almonds]

THANK YOU CAPTAIN HINDSIGHT!

 

Unfortunately that is the nature of the beast with computer software

[MadTommy]

What I meant to say is ED was not in control of Lock On. In the case of FC ED was in full control of what was released and in what state. This allowed for significant improvements with nobody above ED to dictate budget and schedule.

 

In the case of FC3, I feel that since this is the 3rd cut of ED remaking LO and the environment is already dictated by DCS World, there is only so much that can be improved by 'great leaps'.

 

If i understand correctly nothing has really changed, comparison is valid.

 

LockOn was developed by ED and published by Ubisoft... the follow Flaming Cliffs were developed be ED and published by TFC. (not sure if that is world wide though) But the structure is the same.. but i'm sure the relationship is different now between publisher & developer. :)

[MadTommy]

Umm, having owned a farm with beef cattle I had always assumed that a heffer was a castrated male bovine....

 

:D

 

Oh dear.. i think you mean a bullock.

 

Glad it wasn't a dairy farm.. :music_whistling:

[Mohamengina]

Unfortunately that is the nature of the beast with computer software

 

The hype feels declining and uncertain.

[Sn8ke]

I think they started too many software projects at the same time, now we got a bunch of apprehensive customers. I think they should go step by step...finish the Nevada scenery, put it out as an add-on package and charge $ for it, then move on to DCS World, finish it, release it, the finish all their beta packages and get them to release status before announcing additional projects. I am now skeptical on the quality and stability of recently released projects.

[Kenan]

I'm embarassed to say but..my hype went kinda fluffy..I don't know what to do now. Any suggestions are welcome.

[Pilotasso]

Hit the head with a wooden bat to induce temporary amnesia and then read the annoucement again. :)

[Ramstein]

............ but seriously I'm starting to feel "milked". 40$ is a steep price just for DCS World compatibility.

 

I agree.. my tits are starting to sag...

:huh:

[Raven68]

I'm embarassed to say but..my hype went kinda fluffy..I don't know what to do now. Any suggestions are welcome.

 

I with you on that comment Kenan. There is a bit of uncertainty now that takes some enthusiasm away from looking forward to this release. I will get it for sure, but I am not as anxious. Does the fact of missing 2 target schedules take some of the energy away from the community? Just curious to some of the thoughts out there.:unsure: