|
|
| Lawsy 2005-08-04, 12:33 am |
| Hey All,
Is anyone still playin lomac? I have only just recently got into it
and I think it's over for everyone else....
Gotta love the flanker and the Mig. It actually flies like you are in
a fighter not a cessna... Even if my pc has most of the detail off...
I would like some more campaigns, if anyone could point me in the right
direction would be much appreciated.
Cheers
James
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-08-04, 12:33 am |
|
Lawsy wrote:
quote:
> Hey All,
>
> Is anyone still playin lomac? I have only just recently got into it
> and I think it's over for everyone else....
I tried the demo again and was finally able to figure out how to get
deadzone for my joystick. In the past, I could not control flight and
gave up on it. Now waiting for delivery in next few days. At least the
price now is cheap. I already dl the 1.02 patch in antic. My machine
barely meets min. requirements for the game but I believe I can play it
with what i have.
quote:
> Gotta love the flanker and the Mig. It actually flies like you are in
> a fighter not a cessna... Even if my pc has most of the detail off...
>
> I would like some more campaigns, if anyone could point me in the right
> direction would be much appreciated.
I believe more is in the works for the game in Russia now- I believe
ubi no longer is supporting the game. Do a seach for lomac and you will
find all sorts of resources on it.
At a min., you should add the patch to bring it current and fix the
reported bugs.
quote:
> Cheers
> James
| |
| Lawsy 2005-08-04, 12:33 am |
| Thanks - I have patched to 1.02 and it runs pretty well - I only have a
P4, 2G with 512 Ram and a 9700 pro.
I run at 1280 x 1024 with most stuff on low and it looks and feels
excellent. I noticed flaming cliffs but I am more of an A to A buff.
It will be a while before I get tired of the Flanker and the Mig. I'm
really over american fighters - I look forward to knocking them down in
multiplayer.... 
Cheers
James
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-04, 3:31 am |
| In article <1123119072.825771.190880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
vedder@transfieldservices.com (Lawsy) wrote:
quote:
> Is anyone still playin lomac?
http://forum.lockon.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=33 is the centre of the
LOMAC universe these days. Spend a few hours trawling through the
posts and you'll be up to speed with the state of play.
Must admit I haven't touched it in quite a while... or any other sim
for that matter. I think I may be ill... or growing up or something.
It's all rather worrying.
Andrew McP
| |
| Simon Robbins 2005-08-04, 8:37 pm |
| "Lawsy" <vedder@transfieldservices.com> wrote in message
news:1123119072.825771.190880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Is anyone still playin lomac? I have only just recently got into it
> and I think it's over for everyone else....
I gave up on it very quickly since it used to run fine then all of a sudden
get really jerky for no apparent reason. If I switched to a view of an AI
aircraft it would run smooth again, but back in the player craft and it'd
freeze. These weren't swap-file disk accesses. Never did solve the problem
so I canned it.
Si
| |
|
| Didn't have the Engine Heat blur and anti-aliasing on did you? Can only have
one or the other with lomac, pity really.
Just a thought
Nate
"Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dcu1md$7o$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> "Lawsy" <vedder@transfieldservices.com> wrote in message
> news:1123119072.825771.190880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I gave up on it very quickly since it used to run fine then all of a
> sudden
> get really jerky for no apparent reason. If I switched to a view of an AI
> aircraft it would run smooth again, but back in the player craft and it'd
> freeze. These weren't swap-file disk accesses. Never did solve the
> problem
> so I canned it.
>
> Si
>
>
| |
|
|
|
|
"Lawsy" <vedder@transfieldservices.com> wrote in message
news:1123119072.825771.190880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Hey All,
>
> Is anyone still playin lomac? I have only just recently got into it
> and I think it's over for everyone else....
>
> Gotta love the flanker and the Mig. It actually flies like you are in
> a fighter not a cessna... Even if my pc has most of the detail off...
>
> I would like some more campaigns, if anyone could point me in the right
> direction would be much appreciated.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
Was Lomac ever alive ? <g>
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-05, 6:40 am |
| In article <M1xIe.3426$R5.679@news.indigo.ie>, ghj.hu@ujgh (Ste)
wrote:
quote:
> Didn't have the Engine Heat blur and anti-aliasing on did you?
> Can only have one or the other with lomac, pity really.
Not sure about that. I ran with both fine with ATI cards. The
jerkiness in question is probably the sim loading more high
detail textures as you move across the landscape.
Andrew McP
| |
|
| RE: Was Lomac ever alive ?
*gasps in horror at statement*
| |
| Saltheart_Foamfollower 2005-08-05, 8:33 pm |
| Yes, Lomac is alive and very well..
Lomac is a terrific sim and Simulates very well. Maybe the peanut gallery
here cant see this fact but MANY true flight simmers can, and do.
The complaints Ive heard are nothing more than excuses not to like Lomac not
valid reasons.
1. It just feels dead. (Thats about as weak as it gets)
2. It doesnt run on my PC. (Get a decent rig)
3. It simulates Russian planes.
Whats really funny is they can rehash a 7yr old title making it BARELY
better than what the mod communtiy has done for free already yet the peanut
gallery here heaps the praises on it despite it being a XXXXing 7 yr old sim
which looks and plays marginally better than it did 7 yrs ago.
Enjoy yourself just as I do with Lomac.
"JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message >
quote:
> Was Lomac ever alive ? <g>
>
>
| |
|
| My, someone is having a bad day I guess.
"Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
news:0kMIe.2042$fJ1.912@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> Yes, Lomac is alive and very well..
>
> Lomac is a terrific sim and Simulates very well. Maybe the peanut gallery
> here cant see this fact but MANY true flight simmers can, and do.
>
> The complaints Ive heard are nothing more than excuses not to like Lomac
not
quote:
> valid reasons.
>
> 1. It just feels dead. (Thats about as weak as it gets)
> 2. It doesnt run on my PC. (Get a decent rig)
> 3. It simulates Russian planes.
>
> Whats really funny is they can rehash a 7yr old title making it BARELY
> better than what the mod communtiy has done for free already yet the
peanut
quote:
> gallery here heaps the praises on it despite it being a XXXXing 7 yr old
sim
quote:
> which looks and plays marginally better than it did 7 yrs ago.
>
> Enjoy yourself just as I do with Lomac.
>
>
>
>
> "JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message >
>
>
| |
|
|
"bioderm" <shavolsky@ladavisky.com> wrote in message
news:11f87tpn86loof5@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
>
> "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
> news:0kMIe.2042$fJ1.912@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> So alive and well it was dumped by its publishers.
>
>
gallery[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It is a pretty good Stunt Island 2004. Great for making movies but
that's
quote:
> about it.
>
>
> not
>
> Outside of the mission designer's planning and scripting, it is pretty
dead
quote:
> Jim.
>
>
> It runs like shit on even the fastest machines available for purchase.
Oh
quote:
> that's right I forgot to read the readme stating we need daisy chained
> Cray's in our basement to 30+ FPS in heavy combat.
>
>
> Umm dickwad, Flanker 1/2 had pretty strong followings.
>
> peanut
> sim
>
> That rehash has probably sold more copies than averageMAC could ever hope
to
quote:
> achieve.
>
What's even more interesting is that since Lomac is basically Flanker 3,
(and the second in the series that was promised to have a dynamic
campaign......) his bitching about F4 AF being a remake of a seven year old
game is heavily ironic.........
| |
| James Calivar 2005-08-06, 3:32 am |
| JP wrote:
quote:
> "bioderm" <shavolsky@ladavisky.com> wrote in message
> news:11f87tpn86loof5@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> gallery
>
>
> that's
>
>
> dead
>
>
> Oh
>
>
> to
>
>
>
>
> What's even more interesting is that since Lomac is basically Flanker 3,
> (and the second in the series that was promised to have a dynamic
> campaign......) his bitching about F4 AF being a remake of a seven year old
> game is heavily ironic.........
>
>
All I know is that I've got both LOMAC and F4, and I've got F4 installed
on my PC, while LOMAC sits on my shelf. It sure is a pretty sim, but
I've never found it compelling like F4. It just seems - barren.
Contrast that to the incredibly diverse campaign system in F4 and
there's just no contest IMNSHO.
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-06, 3:32 am |
| In article <w_VIe.285$aP2.1119@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
(JP) wrote:
quote:
> What's even more interesting is that since Lomac is
> basically Flanker 3
The problem with LOMAC is it wasn't *allowed* to be Flanker3. ED had
to force-feed US aircraft into their engine so folk could spend the
next five years complaining about the AMRAAMs and lack of F/A-18
<yawn>. They should've stuck to what they did best and made it the
sim Flanker2 was supposed to be in the first place.
IMO, obviously. I still think LOMAC's great as a military version of
MSFlightsim though.
Andrew McP
| |
|
|
"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050806063905.1596B@address_disguised.address_disguised...
quote:
> In article <w_VIe.285$aP2.1119@eagle.america.net>, jp@nicetry.com
> (JP) wrote:
>
>
> The problem with LOMAC is it wasn't *allowed* to be Flanker3. ED had
> to force-feed US aircraft into their engine so folk could spend the
> next five years complaining about the AMRAAMs and lack of F/A-18
> <yawn>. They should've stuck to what they did best and made it the
> sim Flanker2 was supposed to be in the first place.
>
> IMO, obviously. I still think LOMAC's great as a military version of
> MSFlightsim though.
>
> Andrew McP
Good point. Myself, I really like the Russian jets, so if Lomac would
have been what F2 should have been.................that would have been
great !
| |
|
|
"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:MIWIe.3862$ns.3136@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
> JP wrote:
Lomac[vbcol=seagreen]
old[vbcol=seagreen]
hope[vbcol=seagreen]
3,[vbcol=seagreen]
old[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> All I know is that I've got both LOMAC and F4, and I've got F4 installed
> on my PC, while LOMAC sits on my shelf. It sure is a pretty sim, but
> I've never found it compelling like F4. It just seems - barren.
> Contrast that to the incredibly diverse campaign system in F4 and
> there's just no contest IMNSHO.
Yep.
| |
| Saltheart_Foamfollower 2005-08-06, 8:32 pm |
| Quit bs'ing yourself. Because they threw in a few US planes it isnt
Flanker? Hardly. If youve spent any time with both then you would see the
obvious relationship. Ignorance isnt an excuse and the 2 and a half minutes
you spent with Lomac doesnt cure that ignorance.
Its quite funny to see you all give such kudo's to a XXXXing 7 year old sim
with minor mods and in the same sentence talk shit about a sim that looks a
plays like a modern flight sim instead of a rehashed POS relic from years
past. I use a TrackIR and its a sad fn joke in F4. 2d pit to actually use
any funtions then back to a nearly unusable 3d pit. SAD SAD SHIT!
No wonder the developers just resell old crap as new. A fool is born every
second and this group proves this over and over. I keep kicking myself for
listening to this bucnh of idiots and buying AF in the first place.
We can see the same exact thing happening in Race Sims. GPL 65 is soooo
great according to the self appointed experts and GTR is soooo bad when
reality doesnt support this argument in the least.
"JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message news:zU1Je.10> Good point. Myself,
I really like the Russian jets, so if Lomac would
quote:
> have been what F2 should have been.................that would have been
> great !
>
>
| |
|
| Lol, whew. You need to remember to take your meds daily. Let me try to
reply to this spittle spraying diatribe;
Who said it wasn't Flanker ?
And since you keep on bringing up the age of F4 et al, you may want to
re-think that argument, seeing as Flanker 3, er Lomac, is based on a game
that is 10 years old. To save you having to take your shoes off, that means
3 years older than F4.
And what, pray tell, are the "major" (since you say the mods done to F4
are minor, you must think Flanker 3 has major changes from F 1) mods done to
the Flanker series, other than graphics ?
"Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
news:bL5Je.1389$Z87.717@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> Quit bs'ing yourself. Because they threw in a few US planes it isnt
> Flanker? Hardly. If youve spent any time with both then you would see
the
quote:
> obvious relationship. Ignorance isnt an excuse and the 2 and a half
minutes
quote:
> you spent with Lomac doesnt cure that ignorance.
>
> Its quite funny to see you all give such kudo's to a XXXXing 7 year old
sim
quote:
> with minor mods and in the same sentence talk shit about a sim that looks
a
quote:
> plays like a modern flight sim instead of a rehashed POS relic from years
> past. I use a TrackIR and its a sad fn joke in F4. 2d pit to actually
use
quote:
> any funtions then back to a nearly unusable 3d pit. SAD SAD SHIT!
>
> No wonder the developers just resell old crap as new. A fool is born
every
quote:
> second and this group proves this over and over. I keep kicking myself
for
quote:
> listening to this bucnh of idiots and buying AF in the first place.
>
> We can see the same exact thing happening in Race Sims. GPL 65 is soooo
> great according to the self appointed experts and GTR is soooo bad when
> reality doesnt support this argument in the least.
>
>
>
>
>
> "JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message news:zU1Je.10> Good point.
Myself,
quote:
> I really like the Russian jets, so if Lomac would
>
>
| |
| Simon Robbins 2005-08-06, 8:32 pm |
| "Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050805083559.3964B@address_disguised.address_disguised...
quote:
> Not sure about that. I ran with both fine with ATI cards. The
> jerkiness in question is probably the sim loading more high
> detail textures as you move across the landscape.
No, I don't think it was, because it would stop and start depending on what
I was looking at. For instance I could close head-on with an F-14 and as
soon as it got within 1/4 mile it would start stuttering. If I then switch
to an external view to look at the F-14 it'd free up again. It seemed more
relation to m foriximity to other aircraft and AI objects. Sometimes it'd
just free up of it's own for a few seconds and then continue. Machine spec
is a P4-3GHz with 1Gb dual-DDR and an ATI 9600 Pro.
To be honest I'm not that bothered. Even when it did run well I found the
mission system so stale that I didn't really want to get really involved in
the game. The gfx and sense of flight are fantastic and it's good for a few
mintes free-flight in a jet (better imho than Falcon for that) but Falcon's
just so much more of an involving experience.
Si
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-06, 8:32 pm |
| In article <bL5Je.1389$Z87.717@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
slaty@salty.net (Saltheart_Foamfollower) wrote:
quote:
> Quit bs'ing yourself.
That's fine coming from someone too ashamed of his own opinions to
have a name.
Andrew McP
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-06, 8:32 pm |
| In article <dd2tsp$nk5$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk>,
simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk (Simon Robbins) wrote:
quote:
> For instance I could close head-on with an F-14 and as
> soon as it got within 1/4 mile it would start stuttering.
I'm familiar with that, but it usually ended fairly quickly. It's
symptomatic of a badly managed (by LOMAC) graphics cache on the vid
card. When you see an aircraft up close for the first time the big
textures involved are sucked onto the card, displacing something
which might be being used as part of the "local" landscape, leading
to a nasty fight.
quote:
> Falcon's just so much more of an involving experience.
Can't argue with that.
Andrew McP
| |
| James Calivar 2005-08-06, 8:32 pm |
| Saltheart_Foamfollower wrote:
quote:
> Quit bs'ing yourself. Because they threw in a few US planes it isnt
> Flanker? Hardly. If youve spent any time with both then you would see the
> obvious relationship. Ignorance isnt an excuse and the 2 and a half minutes
> you spent with Lomac doesnt cure that ignorance.
>
> Its quite funny to see you all give such kudo's to a XXXXing 7 year old sim
> with minor mods and in the same sentence talk shit about a sim that looks a
> plays like a modern flight sim instead of a rehashed POS relic from years
> past. I use a TrackIR and its a sad fn joke in F4. 2d pit to actually use
> any funtions then back to a nearly unusable 3d pit. SAD SAD SHIT!
>
> No wonder the developers just resell old crap as new. A fool is born every
> second and this group proves this over and over. I keep kicking myself for
> listening to this bucnh of idiots and buying AF in the first place.
>
> We can see the same exact thing happening in Race Sims. GPL 65 is soooo
> great according to the self appointed experts and GTR is soooo bad when
> reality doesnt support this argument in the least.
>
Dude - get a life. You don't like F4 - who cares? I don't like LOMAC -
who cares?
Don't make me come over there and step on your toe.
James
| |
| Mr. Sylvestre 2005-08-08, 6:31 am |
| Andrew MacPherson wrote:
quote:
> IMO, obviously. I still think LOMAC's great as a military version of
> MSFlightsim though.
You mean the sim that looks and plays marginally better than it did 22
years ago (OMG!) under the name Sublogic Flight Simulator II for the
Apple II/C64/Atari 800 ? ;)
BTW, the list of features found at
http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/fsii.htm
makes me wonder if I could be inadvertently only half-joking about that.
About LOMAC & FC, IMHO,
- great flight sim
- good russian weapons system sim
- not-so-good combat sim
- poor wargame
Today, most of my sim-time goes to Condor (glider sim) and the Escort
Mod for GTR (now where is that old eight-track tape player when I need
it ?), but I am still glad I bought LOMAC & FC (and if that Ka-52 comes,
the folks at ED will get some more of my money).
Regards,
Mr. Sylvestre
| |
| Greg Cisko 2005-08-09, 3:34 am |
| "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
news:bL5Je.1389$Z87.717@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> We can see the same exact thing happening in Race Sims. GPL 65 is soooo
> great according to the self appointed experts and GTR is soooo bad when
> reality doesnt support this argument in the least.
So who exactly are you and why should we care?
--
gcisko@hotmail.com
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-08-09, 6:31 am |
| In article <dd792o$f8k$1@ikaria.belnet.be>,
MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com (Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:
quote:
> You mean the sim that looks and plays marginally better than
> it did 22 years ago ;)
That's naughty :-) There's a parallel to be drawn between LOMAC and
Flanker 1.5, but I'll resist the temptation.
quote:
> but I am still glad I bought LOMAC & FC
Absolutely. It was a bargain even without the gameplay promised but
never delivered. I fired it up again yesterday and was freshly
seduced by the flying and the landscape. As long as I don't try
designing missions with the frustrating AI I'm fine.
Andrew McP
|
|
|
|