Jet Thunder

[SUBS17]

looks so arcade not funny.....

 

I think you should read the review, not very arcade at all.

[SUBS17]

Why would ED need to take note?? Ed has a well established code base and a fantastic product. The Lock-On / Flanker Product line is not about the the features you mentioned.

 

This game is about the Jet as a tool of war... not a War with the jet as a tool... These two programs are very different.

 

Ground Troops and Dynamic Campaign engines would not fit into this product line at all. So it's not clear why you think they need to take notice at what a 3 man team is doing? Lock-On can't have fell short on something it never was or even attempted.

 

The fact that they added Figthing ground units was a great feature that no doubt was built in the code that existed in the game since ships could engauge in battles... What Lock ON needs is enhancements to the the mission editor... Again its about tools with this product...

 

hey not picking on your point of view... j and not trying to go against your opinion.

 

:confused:

 

I totally disagree here as ground troops are required for helicopter sims, without them an important feature would be missing. F4AF actually features animated infantry which has a very basic animation. But even static infantry would be good. A dynamic campaign for ground attack aircraft would fit in quite well in lockon as the area is much smaller than multirole aircraft and the packages are much simpler. Likewise interceptors in such a campaign(F15/Su33), in order to build such a campaign certain features would need to be added such as package rotation and removal of client/player switch. The fact that the sun/moon goes over a monthly cycle makes it ideal for a DC.

[SUBS17]

Hi there CT,

 

You are correct it can be fun have very little do with real-life... But again what would the Russian Order of Battle? Or are you saying that should not be the focus... Just as long as something is created for the player to fly regardess of the tasking? Meaning the player flys missions that the computer creates for them so they will not have to plan the mission?

 

Again I think the dynamics need to be in map not in the tasking orders... or even the missions... In real life your missions are scripted... The dynamics come when you fly them and react to changes.

 

Since the idea of a dynamaic world over a dynamic campaign is bring presented.... the action as a result of your actions drive what happens

in the presistant game world... Not a new set of Air Tasking orders...

 

It's really hard to explain without examples... Peoples Idea of Dynamic campaign are old school and hard to build... Lock On is perfect for this new school idea of the dynamic world wrapped around the player.... and the non player...

 

The reaction of AI is not based on player performance in a DC, its influenced more by the performance of all units. Its upto the player to alter AI units missions to get a strategic advantage. The DC does not revolve around the player.

[SUBS17]

imo its online multiplayer that counts really these days anyway, i never once played campaigns in any game,

 

Multiplayer campaign missions rock:icon_supe , if ED removed the client/player option and created automatic player selection of all flyables then you would be able to fly campaigns online. Add to that automatic mission switching upon success of each mission for online play and upon completion of the campaign automatic restart of the campaign.:cool:

(think I'll add this to the wishlist:D )

[Caretaker]

The reaction of AI is not based on player performance in a DC, its influenced more by the performance of all units.

 

Depends on the campaign system... Falcon4 for example artificially adjusts the performance of friendly and enemy units based on the player performance, and gives a penalty for people who don't fly. AI problems are also frequent in many sims and make the player's role exceptional, simply because his plane performs much better than everyone else.

 

Its upto the player to alter AI units missions to get a strategic advantage. The DC does not revolve around the player.

 

An optional feature, although necessary in some DC systems because they produce senseless missions. That can be quite annoying though for people who simply want to fly and not play supreme commander at the same time.

 

There are lots of different DC systems with very different approaches. Not all of them have been great IMHO only because they were dynamic. Still in principle, a DC is the ultimate goal, hopefully for Lock On's successors as well (once the AI is up to the task ;)).

[Boneski]

Hey guys,

It seems that there has been a mis-understanding regarding the point if Lock-On is a good candidate for a Dynamic Campaign or is it a better candidate for a new approach that facilitates a Dynamic environment.

Clearly Lock-On can benefit from something other then a static world. The developers have addressed that with Dynamic elements such as non-combat style ground and rail traffic as well as other map based activity.

This has giving the world that's wrapped around the jet some life.

With the inclusion of fighting ground units... and fighting ships... the world around the jet is even more alive.

The missing link is not a war engine... there is plenty of good fighting in the game. its simulated logic between the environment and the AI that needs tweaking.

Bring the World to life and the other stuff will follow just it does now...

You see the game is pretty dynamic already. Put two opposing forces in front of each other... they go pit pull... this is true with Ground, Sea, and Air.

All that's missing is processing those statistics to help compute the next set of actions and the effect of those stats on the environment.

If the developers can add some tools to the mission editor that allows you to set up control authorities and resource management.. And deference integration much like they have added with the Ground, Air and Ship AI…

You have something much better then a simple game with a Tasking orders based mission generator...

That's the position of this opinion... nothing more...

As for ground troops… Jane’s longbow and EECH did just fine without them…

It’s just a degree of unnecessary complexity… since this battlefield would be

Restricted to the Urban setting... .So using ones “imagination” you can imagine that Troops would be hiding in structures such as buildings and ground vehicles….

Lock-on seems like a great code-base to do many things… Hopefully they try something different and something that fits their development model.

Hope that helps clear up the position a bit.

[Pilotasso]

Unfortunatly the programer behind it paked his bags and said goodbye... :(

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Oops, just bumped it :music_whistling:

 

Nice video with Harrier :)

 

[LawnDart]

Shouldn't this be in another forum?

[Thunderbird]

this sim is released?

[joey45]

no... still in development

[Thunderbird]

the graphic looks nice, but cant judge without much information

[theGozr]

Yeap but this is an other sim with a bad pilot head position.. nice video hopefully all will be good.

[tflash]

Anyone aware there is an "other sims" thread?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

It's a 2006 thread, but I didn't want to create another just for the sake of bumping it.

 

I thought about it too, but blame the creator, not me :P

[joey45]

it should be moved then???

[M31]

Unfortunatly the programer behind it paked his bags and said goodbye... :(

 

Is this true?

 

I'd not be surprised, it seems years and years since I first heard about it, watched some slow drip fed screen-shots on SimHQ and that was years ago, was suspecting back then it was vaporware.

 

Pity if it is, I'd love a Falklands sim with Harriers.

 

Anyone remember Target for Tonight? it went the same way unfortunately ... it was way too ambitious, manned searchlights in multi-play ETC

[Lucas_From_Hell]

M31, the video I just posted is quite new (uploaded on the 24th of march), it's still going strong.

 

Once in a while the devs post an update on their website (and usually spread it at SimHQ).

 

Pilotasso's comment was made in 2006, I don't think 2006 news are more updated than 2010 ones :P

[M31]

Thanks.

 

I've just come back from SimHQ to catch up on what is happening, one of the developers does seem to have went AWOL, but the sim does seem to be ongoing, albeit in skips and jumps while they work on more profitable stuff (is the picture I'm getting) I hope it does come to fruition, that video clip looks fantastic.

[element1108]

I'm not sure I'd say it's going strong...but it's definitely going it seems. Although everything visually to me now appears outdated where as in 2006 it blew my socks off...of course I was a wee lad back in those days ;)

[sobek]

Looks a bit arcadey to me on first glance.

[fragal]

New vid released

[SUBS17]

Awesome:thumbup:

[HiJack]

Looks completly "arcade mode" imo.

[HitchHikingFlatlander]

Yes because its the arcade mode. It will be a scalable sim and would expect something at least comparable to LOMAC.