anyone play LO:MAC?

M

m4rine

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
369
just curious if anyone out there played it, been played for couple days now and I think i got it down pretty well
 
Originally posted by m4rine
just curious if anyone out there played it, been played for couple days now and I think i got it down pretty well
Click to expand...

I play it or rather I tweak it :)

Got it tweaked pretty well :cool:
 
Originally posted by Drunkin_Master
Haven't played it is it worth getting?
Click to expand...

Well your computer is quite lowend for LOMAC. Almost not kidding.

My setup I have been able to get quite playable at 1280x960 and a bit above medium settings and with 4x aa and no anisotropic.

Yes that is all you can hope for... But that just about never gets below 20 fps though. Generally when going over ground about 28-30 and higher altitude of course better fps.

But it do look extremely good I have to say. It´s a real beauty though I aren´t able to see half of it´s potential :(

It´s a must if you are a hardcore modern flight combat sim enthusiast. This is the game that will stop people playing Falcon 4.
It´s a bit buggy as it´s but it will become a great game that´s for sure.
 
I put it aside until the patch came out. Since the patch is out I haven't had time to play it. NCAA Football 2004 has owned my life.

I loved it at first, but I got frustrated with some of the problems with Aim-120's and the F-15.

What sort of tweaks have you done?
 
Actually, from what I've seen most of the falcon community pans it. Frankly, I don't really like either of those two sims anymore. F4 because of the bullshit from the people around it, and LO-MAC because it's buggy and definitely far from hardcore. Oh, it's pretty, and the flight models work quite nicely, but that's about it.
 
Originally posted by oqvist
Well your computer is quite lowend for LOMAC. Almost not kidding.
Click to expand...

Kind of scary, considering his system is probably faster than 95% of the PCs on the market right now, at least in terms of graphics. If that's really the case, I think I'll pass on trying this game out.
 
If you have a 9700p or faster it runs fine. Most of power for LOMAC is sucked up by the prettiness.
 
Originally posted by Snugglebear
Actually, from what I've seen most of the falcon community pans it. Frankly, I don't really like either of those two sims anymore. F4 because of the bullshit from the people around it, and LO-MAC because it's buggy and definitely far from hardcore. Oh, it's pretty, and the flight models work quite nicely, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

It´s hardcore enough really. It´s FM are definiatly up to Falcon 4 standards. I like LOMAC:s better because it doesn´t feel as artificial as Falcon 4:s flightmodel. That was developed using tech sheets of the F-16 and LOMAC more try to computerize the same thing. There is of course plus and minuses with each way.

But it´s a bit to easy landing in LOMAC so it´s definiatly not perfect just yet.

But for the average flight simmer LOMAC definiatly is hardcore enough.

I think the flight simmers have "painted them self into a corner" so to speak. While demanding hardcore/hardcore/hardcore at the expense of playability. That is why flightsim genre have been loosing a lot of ground. At first flightsims was just about the biggest PC game genre.

IL 2 FB is the perfect example of how to customize a game for both newbies and hardcore fans. LOMAC doesn´t do as well. You can adjust it so it´s super easy or super hard but no in between.
 
Originally posted by Snugglebear
Actually, from what I've seen most of the falcon community pans it. Frankly, I don't really like either of those two sims anymore. F4 because of the bullshit from the people around it, and LO-MAC because it's buggy and definitely far from hardcore. Oh, it's pretty, and the flight models work quite nicely, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Which I find hysterical. Sure you don't individually run through the entire start up checklist on the ramp before engine start up like you do in F4, but someday try and get a radar lock in an F-15 at 5000agl against an incoming Su-33 at 2000agl, 40 miles and with 2000kts closure. Tell me how easy it is!

The problem with LOMAC is, like oqvist alluded to, is that it is far too easy for the hardcore simmers who want explicit control of each engine nossle, yet far too hardcore for the casual gamer who want to just get up there and shoot something.

Where it shines is in CAS (combat air support) missions when you are whipping along at 300 kts and 200 ft.

As an example of how it can be just classic, let me tell you a story...

So I'm in an F-15 with one wingman at 30,000 heading north doing about 600 kts. About 50 miles north of us are 2 Su-27s at 5000 feet, 550 kts heading south to engage us. They have the radar advantage because they are in lookup mode, I'm in lookdown, so I can't get a return from them. I tell my wingman to split left so we might be able to get a bracket on them as I turn a bit right and hit the burners. My rwr (radar warning receiver) starts going bonkers because I've been locked by one of the 27s radar. I'm shining like a beacon up here, so I turn on my jammers and go 30deg nose down to get out of the clear sky. No good. There's a missle launch against me. R-27. I turn hard right to beam the missle and start popping chaff like candy, still descending. I few seconds later I see the white streak of the missle as it can't stick with me and goes flying past. But my rwr is still bitching...another missle. And another behind that. Thankfully, I still have plenty of chaff. 30 seconds later I've defeated my fourth incoming missle, but I'm down to 2000 feet doing 1400kts. I've been defensive so so long I've totally lost my situational awareness. I don't know where the bandit is, my wingman is, or the other bandit that my wingman engaged. Then I hear "bandit down" from my wingie. He's taken care of business. A quick look around tells me that things aren't looking too good. My wingman is 20 miles west, low and slow. He's going to take a bit to get here. Meanwhile, the 27 is 5 miles back right on my six. Shit. Not good. OK, I need help. I tell my wingie to clear my six and make a gentle turn west to help him close the distance. Meanwhile, this Ruskie bastard can't lock on to dirt, so lets see how low this eagle can fly. The ground is rolling hills, so this could get interesting. 1500 feet, no problem. 1000 feet, better. 700 feet, this is getting wild. 400 feet, serious pucker factor kicking in. 100 feet...1400kts. NOW WE'RE TALKIN'! I'm litterally pulling up over houses and powerlines. Go over a hill, roll inverted for a sec to help the nose settle back down, roll upright again. Checking my six, the bandit can't keep up...he's running full out at 1200kts and falling back quickly. I'm too far for IR missles and he's going to lock onto Farmer John's John Deer before he's going to get a lock on me. My wingie calls out "FOX 1!". He had closed to 4 miles and taken a shot...hit! Awacs reports that we are clear. I pull the nose up to 60 degrees, throttle back and bleed off back to subsonic speeds. By the time I'm back down to reasonable speeds, I'm floating along at a comfortable 12,000 feet. Although my wingman did all of the shooting, I can't help but feel that this was one of my most "successful" missions yet. It certainly got my adrenaline flowing!

Yes, it isn't as hardcore as F4, but neither was F4 when it came out!! F4 has had the benefit of many years of tweaking by an incredibly rabit fan base, arguably the most fanacial of any game, which got access to the original source code and was able to patch the game to an incredible extent with absoutely no concerns that a commercial software house has...like marketability, support, or accessibility. What the F4 team has done is remarkable. But you can't take LOMAC and compare it to the latest sp of F4...they are two highly different beasts. Compare it to F4 at release and you'll see that LOMAC is very competitive and in many ways superior.
 
Nice story :) And I am sure Eagle dynamics have big plans for LOMAC or otherwise they wouldn´t have opted for this graphics engine. LOMAC is build to last several years without looking old.

I got a lot to learn though. A complete newbie to modern flight sims. The only experience I had was with F-22 Raptor from Novalogic I think it was. The one with the voxel graphics engine you know??
 
Originally posted by oqvist
It´s hardcore enough really. It´s FM are definiatly up to Falcon 4 standards. I like LOMAC:s better because it doesn´t feel as artificial as Falcon 4:s flightmodel. That was developed using tech sheets of the F-16 and LOMAC more try to computerize the same thing. There is of course plus and minuses with each way.

But it´s a bit to easy landing in LOMAC so it´s definiatly not perfect just yet.
Click to expand...

The main difference between flight models is the FBW systems in place for F4. LOMAC doesn't actually let you fly aircraft that have these systems. Thus you're going to feel all the buffetting and control mistakes from flying with too much stick. The only thing F4 did incorrectly in regards to FDMs is that those FBW constraints are applied to every aircraft you fly. Flankers, A10s, F15s, etc., all will bounce around like they do in LOMAC due to the lack of FBW in reality, but will not in F4 because of the way they structured the program to assume an FBW when the user flies.

Originally posted by TrueBuckeye


Which I find hysterical. Sure you don't individually run through the entire start up checklist on the ramp before engine start up like you do in F4, but someday try and get a radar lock in an F-15 at 5000agl against an incoming Su-33 at 2000agl, 40 miles and with 2000kts closure. Tell me how easy it is!
Click to expand...

I don't need a full ramp startup. What I do need is something aside from several hundred key combos. Clickable cockpits are pretty trivial to implement. So are decent UIs. F4 had both those things when I bought it. LOMAC... still waiting.

And actually, I'm going to say the CAS environment isn't all that enthralling. The ground and terrain look nice at low level, but the environment is still sterile and situations contrived.

Yeah, F4 was a really buggy game. Still is in many regards. For its day the graphics were also top notch. I'm sure LOMAC will improve if someone steals the source code or they open up some of the specs. However, in its present state it's still not as refined or full-featured as F4 was on initial release.
 
glad to see some play it, i run it on lowest settings, and I actually couldnt really care, flight sims to me never have to be top notch graphics to enjoy. i never played F4 though, but im assuming that its alot more complicated, yet LOMAC is complicated enough for me. although i do miss clickable cockpits from other sims =(
 
Flight sims are dealing with entirely different types of environments and have to use a lot more power on managing that environment. With Q3-based games you can deal with small, enclosed environments where you can page parts of the scenegraph in and out rapidly. Using high-poly models, high-res textures, and lots of little effects don't kill your performance when you can keep things small and manageable. With Flight sims you're dealing with dozens of square miles of terrain, having to LOD that terrain into more simplistic meshes, populate said terrain with objects, cull and LOD objects based on distance, then add in a few high-poly, high-res models in the foreground, attach shadows to the above, adjust the sun position and update said shadows and lighting, pop in tons of semi-transparent clouds that kill your fill rate, add the extra render targets for rear-view mirrors in the cockpit, etc. ad infinitum. Trust me, there's a lot of shit happening every frame.

Originally posted by oqvist
I think the flight simmers have "painted them self into a corner" so to speak. While demanding hardcore/hardcore/hardcore at the expense of playability. That is why flightsim genre have been loosing a lot of ground. At first flightsims was just about the biggest PC game genre.
Click to expand...

Most of the problem isn't with flight simmers, it's with the marketers and producers of the software. They still think of flight sims as games, pieces of entertainment software that sell for $40-50 per unit in a niche segment of the gaming market. That mindset needs to be broken. If you drop the game and just call it a flight sim, then you can go and admit you can charge $100-200 per unit in that niche market, things are fine. There's no reason sims couldn't garner that type of unit charge. Look at how much simmers spend on peripherals, it doesn't make any sense given the actual expenditure on the software itself. You could also conceivably run a continuous development project and charge a subscription of perhaps $60 a year, providing updates every 4-6 months.

You might think all that is crazy, but it works. Just look at other strange sims that make it in the world, like RC-helo and RC-plane simulators. They don't pass themselves as games, they're training software for hobbyists. It allows them to fly in cruddy weather and to practice so they can keep from denting their $800+ machines. These hobbyists gladly pay the $200 every couple years. People like myself would as well. It's not like there are a half dozen sims per year, there are only one or two. The problem with those sims that do make it to release is that they're rushed and buggy. For low quality, I won't even pay $30 for a piece of software. But for something that's robust and works properly, the sky's the limit.
 
But that would definiatly put me out of flight sims. I simply can´t afford such deals.

I mean there is always those genre people who only play flight sims. They may be fine with that.

But for the hardcore gamers that play a bit of just about every genre now and then and don´t play a game for more than a couple of weeks before going on to the next one would feel very hesitant to pay 100$ for a game and then perhaps having to pay an annual fee or similar.

Yes flight simmers tend to spend multum on getting a super fast computer since flight sims do require it. And of course gadgets like TRACKIR expensive joystick setups, pedals and what not.

But the problem is that these people are to few to make flight sims as profitable as other game genres that is more accessible and so many more play.

IL 2 FB is about the perfect of a game that actually can help making new people play flight sims. You can start low and increase the difficulty as you improve. Or just play it as an arcade game.

LOMAC try to do something similar. It´s training missions are good. And at easiest settings it´s very easy. The problem is just there is nothing in between.

I don´t think it´s realism and complexism that will make people play flight sims in a larger extent really. But that is what the real hardcore flight sim fans wants and since we demand it no game developer can afford going against that and loosing those people who always get that game.

And also the fact that flight sims do last several years. Just look at games like EECH and Falcon 4 or even FS 98. People still play these games. Doesn´t help making flight sims profitable either.
 
Snuggle, I agree with your comments, most sim enthusiasts spend hundreds on the peripherals alone, and I'd definately pay twice the price for a more refined sim experience in terms of software.
 
Moving to the niche does give the shaft to those that are more mainstream. The current tactic of making sims that appeal to mainstream gamers and hardcore simmers isn't working, it hasn't for years. I'm suggesting companies understand the split and adjust for it. It seems 95% of the people out there only want a flight sim to the extent of Desert Combat. A few more want something like MSFS, LOMAC, or IL2. Very, very few want something on the order of F4 or a military trainer.
 
Originally posted by Snugglebear
Moving to the niche does give the shaft to those that are more mainstream. The current tactic of making sims that appeal to mainstream gamers and hardcore simmers isn't working, it hasn't for years. I'm suggesting companies understand the split and adjust for it. It seems 95% of the people out there only want a flight sim to the extent of Desert Combat. A few more want something like MSFS, LOMAC, or IL2. Very, very few want something on the order of F4 or a military trainer.
Click to expand...

But IL 2 is very easy to get into. It´s really not complicated at all. And I do know many who otherwise don´t play flight sims but play IL 2. And to not having the hardcore sim heads pointing fingers on IL 2 at the same time is quite an achievement.

Could you fly Descent you can fly IL 2.

But if the game developers want flight sims to be more than a niche product they have to go mainstream as anybody else. They have to at least invite new comers to the genre not scare them away.

I still remember the first time I played the LOMAC demo. The one with the Mirage. After playing that I was quite confident I would never buy LOMAC. But I guess I am a fakir. Can´t help torture myself :D
 
It's a lot easier to model, and fly, aircraft without limiters, deadbands, FBW systems, and advanced avionics.
 
Originally posted by Snugglebear
It's a lot easier to model, and fly, aircraft without limiters, deadbands, FBW systems, and advanced avionics.
Click to expand...

And a lot easier to fly and get into ;)
 
That is actually a good point. LOMAC is being compared to either IL2 or F4 and really only F4 is a fair comparison.

There is a vast difference between a2a combat in IL2 and in modern sims. Even if the sim goes so far as to make you micromanage mixture and prop pitch, it is much less complex than any aircraft in lomac other than maybe the SU-25. They really don't compare.

Compare lomac to something like JetFighter5 which just came out, a total arcade flight "sim". It has the super 360 degree radar, perfect missle locks, exactly one radar mode, and a flight model that makes BF1942 look highly advanced.

People who are used to the "yank and bank" action of IL2 or Combat Flight Simulator and have never used a modern jet sim will probably find themselves bored to death by the electronic micromanagement needed in the modern airspace.

I guess it is about what floats your particular boat...for me I've always enjoyed modern sim over WW1 or 2.
 
Originally posted by TrueBuckeye
That is actually a good point. LOMAC is being compared to either IL2 or F4 and really only F4 is a fair comparison.

There is a vast difference between a2a combat in IL2 and in modern sims. Even if the sim goes so far as to make you micromanage mixture and prop pitch, it is much less complex than any aircraft in lomac other than maybe the SU-25. They really don't compare.

Compare lomac to something like JetFighter5 which just came out, a total arcade flight "sim". It has the super 360 degree radar, perfect missle locks, exactly one radar mode, and a flight model that makes BF1942 look highly advanced.

People who are used to the "yank and bank" action of IL2 or Combat Flight Simulator and have never used a modern jet sim will probably find themselves bored to death by the electronic micromanagement needed in the modern airspace.

I guess it is about what floats your particular boat...for me I've always enjoyed modern sim over WW1 or 2.
Click to expand...

Yes IL 2 is back to basics. It´s more about your skill with your plane than your skill with your avionics. In modern flight sims it´s often over before it had really begun.

But LOMAC in easy mode are just as easy as JetFighter 5. But I would have wanted some more difficulty stages to ramp up the difficulty with as you learn about the game and improves.

But I guess those who love modern air combat also love those RTS:s with a lot of micromanagement :)

I do like it though. Both IL 2 FB and LOMAC. IL 2 FB may seem easier for an untrained eye but to become an ace you need as much training as in LOMAC really.
 
I've never seen a flight sim please all sim flyers. There's always issues. Too easy, Too hard, not realistic enough, too many switches and controls, etc, etc.

F4 was a buggy, almost impossible to land sim when it first hit the shelf. Chances are LOMAC will also probably mature well with a little time. It has enough detail in it like being able to control each engine's thrust seperately while still maintaining some degree of simplicity. I've had it about 5 days and are just getting back to where I can do carrier landings again. I can also turn the graphics up enough to bring my system to a crawl (A64,9800XT, 1 gig RAM), but if adjusted right you still get great looks and maintain a good FPS. The bump mapped water looks pretty good too. We'll see how time and the company's patches treat it. :)
 
Making a complex sim with the options available to turn down the realism settings pleases more people than simplistic sims. The only problem is that they're far more expensive to write. And no, I don't consider F16-Quake anymore a sim than DC, JetFighter, etc. They're glorified shooters with million dollar equipment.
 
Originally posted by CIWS
I've never seen a flight sim please all sim flyers. There's always issues. Too easy, Too hard, not realistic enough, too many switches and controls, etc, etc.

F4 was a buggy, almost impossible to land sim when it first hit the shelf. Chances are LOMAC will also probably mature well with a little time. It has enough detail in it like being able to control each engine's thrust seperately while still maintaining some degree of simplicity. I've had it about 5 days and are just getting back to where I can do carrier landings again. I can also turn the graphics up enough to bring my system to a crawl (A64,9800XT, 1 gig RAM), but if adjusted right you still get great looks and maintain a good FPS. The bump mapped water looks pretty good too. We'll see how time and the company's patches treat it. :)
Click to expand...

But the problem with LOMAC is that the bugs aren´t just avionics and FM:s and such it got bugs for sound/video/controllers and you name it.

I think UBI SOFT was a little to hard on ED getting it out on the shelves.

My setup is about the minimum to get good image quality btw. Anything lower than that you have to tweak LOMAC so it actually looks worse than other flight sims like IL 2 FB and FS 2004 where you can run higher settings.

And no I don´t see that nice pixel shaded water. I am currently at low with some fix that make it looks more like medium :) But it sure looked nice at 5 fps :)

If you look at the bright side. It make my current upgrade NV40/R420 more interesting. I maybe will go with the NV40 since the 5900:s is remarkable faster than the 9800 PRO/XT in benchies I have seen WITH antialiasing and anisotropic. But then you don´t know how much nVidia have played with the shaders. But it is justified in games like LOMAC that´s for sure.
 
It seems like most of the good games have system/hardware compatability issues when released. I saw it with BF1942 and C.O.D. With some of these companies getting behind in release dates I think they are pushing it out a little earlier then maybe they should, that's the way it's seemed anyway. Although I'm hoping Doom 3 gets most of it's problems worked through before public release. We can only hope. :)
 
Originally posted by CIWS
It seems like most of the good games have system/hardware compatability issues when released. I saw it with BF1942 and C.O.D. With some of these companies getting behind in release dates I think they are pushing it out a little earlier then maybe they should, that's the way it's seemed anyway. Although I'm hoping Doom 3 gets most of it's problems worked through before public release. We can only hope. :)
Click to expand...

Yes but none really compare to LOMAC. I know it´s quite usual flight sim having tons of bugs but then we have FS 2004 with about 0 bugs so it should be possible do better than that.

And I play lot of games and there has never really been any games except GTA 3 or Vice city that I have had big problems with. Oh and perfect mode in IL 2 FB but now we are at those flight sims again LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top