|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > April 2005 > LOMAC 1.1 = Tornado 2 ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
LOMAC 1.1 = Tornado 2 ?
|
|
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-04-24, 6:39 am |
|
Ok, don't get over-excited. I know I'm pushing the limits of credibility
here, but bear with me a little.
First the disclaimer. Even after all these bl**dy years Tornado's
gameplay engine has more to offer (me) than LOMAC's. This week I've
spent about 20 hours trying to design some interesting missions for a
LOMAC campaign with a difference, but the severe limitations of the AI
and the limited design tools have me as frustrated as ever. For me LOMAC
remains a collection of *great* ingredients without a decent plate to
serve them on.
Maybe I should get into A2A combat, then I'd be too busy measuring
AMRAAM effectiveness to worry about anything happening on the ground.
Where was I? Oh, the Tornado thing.
Tornado: slow-ish, not very manoeuvrable, heavily armed, ground-hugging
radar autopilot mode, SEAD capability, LGB capability, ability to sit in
cockpit pretending to be Biggles.
Su-25T: see above, only without the Biggles bit. But you do get to
listen to nagging Nadia instead, which is always a bonus. Be stern with
me Mistress! I'm sorry I broke your plane, I've been a very, *very* bad boy!
Ok, the Tornado's appeal is broadened by fun with the variable wing and
extra speed options and AI assistance that doesn't get scared off by the
first ping on its RWR, but the 25-T has the most amazing flight
modelling in a military sim ever (IMO). Drop a heavy missile and you
feel the plane react immediately until you drop another to balance
things up (or mess about with trimming or the autopilot, but that's for
girls ;-). And landing is as much fun as it ever was in Tornado.
Crawling back to base with a damaged aircraft for a tense landing does
add something to a mission.
With the 25-T you also get "combat steering mode" for the autopilot,
which is very useful indeed. Lock onto a point somewhere roughly in the
right area for your target (with the onboard targeting system rather
than visual padlock), engage the autopilot, and it steers towards the
selected point, freeing you to refine your targeting point for a
missile... or just drive around the landscape, if you're a bit on the
sad side.
Of course there is another problem with LOMAC 1.1... ED still haven't
worked out how to sell it to you. I think this is what they call
"shooting yourself in the foot". Some things never change :-)
Andrew McP
| |
| Mr. Sylvestre 2005-04-24, 6:39 am |
| I'd rather have it as something along the lines of
LOMAC 1.1 = Flanker 3.1 (Su-25T, vastly improved physics)
LOMAC 1.2 = Flanker 3.11 for workgroups (Ka-52, mission editor
improvements, bug fixes)
LOMAC 1.3 = DI's frontline fighters II (Apache, Hind, third-party
dynamic campaign engine)
LOMAC 1.4 = Tornado 1.9 (including swept wing, Loft bombing, ALARMS)
LOMAC 1.5 = TORNADO II (bug fixes and JP-233's)
What ? Wishful thinking, me ?
OK, I admit I failed to complete the Dr. McP's 12-step program.
Andrew MacPherson wrote:
quote:
> Su-25T: see above, only without the Biggles bit. But you do get to
> listen to nagging Nadia instead, which is always a bonus. Be stern with
> me Mistress! I'm sorry I broke your plane, I've been a very, *very* bad
> boy!
Mmmh. Makes you wonder how the voice warning system sounds like in a
French Mirage.
quote:
> Of course there is another problem with LOMAC 1.1... ED still haven't
> worked out how to sell it to you. I think this is what they call
> "shooting yourself in the foot".
Yup. I had the great displeasure of encountering a StarForce issue
(didn't like one of my drives, apparently), but I suppose I should
consider myself as lucky because at least I got FC before the Paypal
debacle.
Maybe ED could learn something from the good people at
www.condorsoaring.com : no-nonsense license system and an e-commerce
solution that works. BTW, Condor is also a great product with excellent
physics modelling that you can check against the real thing at the local
airclub... for about the same cost as the sim.
Regards,
Mr. Sylvestre
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-04-24, 6:39 am |
| In article <d4adf4$k7g$1@ikaria.belnet.be>, MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com
(Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:
quote:
> What ? Wishful thinking, me ?
Wash your mouth out! We'll have no wishful thinking in my threads, thanks.
quote:
> Makes you wonder how the voice warning system sounds
> like in a French Mirage.
"Pardonez mois, mais vous avez oublie votre champagne et truffles pour
votre petit dejeuner."
"Zut alors, les fuselage est dirty! C'est un eyesore! Retreatez-vous
maintenant!"
"Les engines est fooked! Un deux-chevaux avec une wheel avais plus
puissance!"
We'll never know for sure I guess. It'd never sell to the F/A-18 fans
who seem to pour out of the woodwork every time anyone mentions a patch
or new version. I'd sell my soul just for a major update to the AI so we
create some more involving missions. I'd even put it as a higher
priority than the AFM for the Flanker, it's that important. And I want
that Flanker AFM very much indeed <dribble>.
quote:
> Condor is also a great product with excellent physics modelling
It does look very good, and I was quite inspired by gliders for a while
after I saw an aerobatic routine by a pair at an airshow a few years
ago... takes some guts to do that without an engine! But overall the
last thing I need right now is another sim. I'm too busy trying to make
a LOMAC AI transport aircraft land without going for a ten km detour
cross-country. I need the timing to be right or my trick for making the
next stage of the campaign depend upon it won't work.
As I sit here there are people out there in the world trying to discover
a cure for cancer, writing great works of fiction, caring for the sick,
and pushing back the boundaries of knowledge & technology. If only they
knew what real work was!
Andrew McP
| |
| G. Patricks 2005-04-24, 8:45 pm |
| >On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:08:38 -0500, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Agreed. It's to bad really; such potential for a classic series,
>consistently wasted on releasing pretty much the same thing, with just
>different graphics. Personally, I've given up on ED et al, after hearing
>for the third time, "Sorry, I know we promised a dynamic campaign in this
>release, but we promise it'll be in the next".
>
If they did I would buy everything they made, but I just can't get
into it with the current system of scripted play.
Icer
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-04-27, 12:37 am |
| > I must confess, I still play Tornado on and off!
I can only get the instant action mission to work, so I'm a little
limited. But I do regularly start it up and check I can still remember
some of the right keys. It's surprising how quickly it all comes back
once you're flying.
quote:
> If an antiquated VGA game like Dynamix's original Red Baron
> can be modded and enhanced, why not more work/mods on Tornado
I've suggested before here that it really ought to be possible to
persuade Tornado to run in a window which can be anti-aliased, to at
least smooth out the low-res jaggies. That would help a lot, because
Tornado was never about pretty graphics, it was about detailed weapons
systems and the tension involved in using them.
I think it's a bit much to expect anything else to be done with the code
without a serious amount of talent and perseverance. As for the source
code, I don't even know if DI exist any more, let alone whether they'd
be happy to give away their old code... if they can still find it :-)
quote:
> There names are listed at the back of the Tornado manual.
Some of those people went on to form Razorworks (EECH etc), and I think
that's one reason why EECH was so promising and why they released the
EECH source code. They're flight sim enthusiasts. Though sadly they've
gone on to more lucrative, console-based racing games. If Tornado2 was
ever going to happen it would have been through them, via evolution of
the EECH engine. DI lost the plot somewhere after Hind.
Who knows, maybe if one of us wins the lottery we can pay them to
develop another flight sim? ;-)
In the mean time, LOMAC 1.1 does have some hardcore thrills to offer the
A2G enthusiast. Just remember you have to hold a shotgun to the AI's
head in order to persuade it not to run away from radar threats, unlike
our brave (but rather foolish!) Tornado pilots.
Andrew McP
| |
| G. Patricks 2005-04-27, 12:37 am |
| >On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:08:38 -0500, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Agreed. It's to bad really; such potential for a classic series,
>consistently wasted on releasing pretty much the same thing, with just
>different graphics. Personally, I've given up on ED et al, after hearing
>for the third time, "Sorry, I know we promised a dynamic campaign in this
>release, but we promise it'll be in the next".
>
If they did I would buy everything they made, but I just can't get
into it with the current system of scripted play.
Icer
|
| |
|
|