Complaining

[Jetfire]

Yeah that's cool Thomas. I had some buddies who flew Janes F-18, and they all had very fond memories of it. I never had it though.

[Jetfire]

I don't see or recall where I said the pre 1.1 was more realistic, I just said I felt, in my opinion, it was too easy to fly. So, bringing in an AFM might give us more things to worry about when flying, it might give us less. For example, the su25 was a joke to fly before the AFM, now you need to pay attention a bit more, not much.

 

So, to me, I can't even make a guess at which of the two FMs are more realistic (pre 1.1 or post 1.1) but I can say, if we had an AFM, it would probably be more realistic than both, and I feel it would be, to some degree, harder to fly, but more maneuverable than 1.1.

 

Jeez, even the su25T can do some stuff the su27 can't, with the way flight models are at the moment.

[Jetfire]

I mean, how much would you pay to do a real cobra, not a scripted one?

[Hawg11]

Pilotasso, if there was an issue about F15 A2A missiles here, I wouldn't question what you have to say. BUT, while you're flying F15s, I'm usually doing guns in an Su27, since the first day Lock On came out. So, I saw how the su27 evolved, and I think most would agree that in 1.1 the Su27 became much easier to fly. Realistic? Neither I nor you are an su27 pilot, so which of us can say? All I can say is, if the Su27 flies so realistic, why the need for AFM if it's so "realistic" now?

 

[EDIT]So, I actually enjoyed flying a plane that was harder to fly.

 

***Complaint mode on***

 

This always frustrated me since the Flanker series. ED has a penchant for tweaking the FM with every single patch.

 

I remember before Flanker 2.5 became 2.51 there were like 5 release candidates available to the public. Each one had a vastly different FM (especially the MiG29, which was new at the time).

 

Very frustrating. If I were the dev's I would use my time programming AFM's for all the flyables, instead of perfoming FM tweaks.

 

This is the main reason why it's impossible for a player to use, say, lockon vers. 1.02 online against/with a player using 1.11.

 

If ED stopped this practice there wouldn't be such a rift in the online community.

 

All IMO, of course.

 

***Complaint mode off***

[Caretaker]

There is no practical way to sustain online compatibility between different versions. Any change to the flight model, avionics, weapons and especially network code will lead to compatibility issues; while some of these could be solved in theory it would require a big pile of additional work and testing that could not be spent on further development. I think it's clear that this is not an option.

 

As for the flight model changes themselves, I understand they can be irritating but to be honest, I find them relatively mild compared to what happened with some planes in Il2-FB for example... just like the respective discussions/complaints here ;)

 

And no, the complaints wouldn't stop except if all planes would be upgraded with AFM & 6DOF cockpits; there will always be enough things left to complain about (personally, I still don't see the FMs as the most pressing issue anyway). I also have my doubts that such an update would be something that could be sold in big scale, unfortunately.

[Fudd]

And no, the complaints wouldn't stop except if all planes would be upgraded with AFM & 6DOF cockpits; there will always be enough things left to complain about (personally, I still don't see the FMs as the most pressing issue anyway). I also have my doubts that such an update would be something that could be sold in big scale, unfortunately.

 

What do you think is the most pressing issue??

 

Don't you think a re-release, if they did do further updates (i.e Lock-on Gold) could be sold on a large scale?

[Fudd]

The could name it Lock-On Platinum.... The one to rule them all! :horseback

[Caretaker]

What do you think is the most pressing issue??

 

The mission editor/AI area (which are closely related in my view). People have mentioned Jane's F/A-18 above; if we could have the amount of fine-control from that mission system in Lock On then we could build incredibly more complex, interesting and realistic missions.

 

Add a better format for importing/exporting mission data and events on top, and we would get a dynamic campaign.

 

Then we can get back to the flight models :)

 

 

Don't you think a re-release, if they did do further updates (i.e Lock-on Gold) could be sold on a large scale?

 

Hard to say. But in general you will not get publisher support for re-releasing the same game again in a more polished state (i.e. no major funding for those updates to start with). Traditionally Gold releases are collections of all previous developments, but not a big leap ahead in any area compared to what has already been done.

 

There is also a large part of the community which would consider flight model updates a "fix" that should be released for free anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure that overall, without at least a new flyable plane as a prominent feature, it's hard to sell "the same game" again (even if effectively, it's received major upgrades that may very well be more work than adding a single plane). Not that I like that situation ;)

[Fudd]

People will cry and complain whatever ED does. We will always want a little more.

 

I agree, and I think the statement "people would complain if thier ice cream was cold," generally applies to most things. I think that if ED handed each of us a real SU or Mig that people would still complain.

 

WHAAAAA :( I crahsed it and broke it, or WHAAAAA :( it was just too much immersion and too realistic.

 

My main point of this thread is that I would be a little upset if 1.2 was the end to Lock On. (There is my WHAAAAA for the day :()