Another LOMAC movie from the man who keep saying no more b..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050324041752.512A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
>
> http://www.andrew.mcp.dsl.pipex.com/lomac.htm 45Mb
>
> Just my quick attempt (ok, quick compared to my usual anal-retentive
> standards) at making the Su-25 seem like an interesting ride. Maybe
> it'll help generate a little interest in 1.1... if it's ever released ;-)
>
> I'd still rather have an enhanced Flanker <pout> but the Su-25 beats the
> A10 hands down for A2G speed and bang per buckle-up.
>
> Andrew McP


I'd rather have a dynamic campaign. Love the Flanker too, but after being
told that the last two releases would have one, and then they don't, passing
on Su-25 myself.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:58:07 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:


> I'd rather have a dynamic campaign. Love the Flanker too, but after being
>told that the last two releases would have one, and then they don't, passing
>on Su-25 myself.
>
>

Yea, really, who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
decent dynamic campaign system. I don't even play the game anymore
because it is a snore.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news a9641pkbbrf7srkl060isvrgm04ahlo01@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:58:07 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'd rather have a dynamic campaign. Love the Flanker too, but after
being
> >told that the last two releases would have one, and then they don't,
passing
> >on Su-25 myself.
> >
> >
>
> Yea, really, who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
> decent dynamic campaign system. I don't even play the game anymore
> because it is a snore.


Likewise. Sold mine after a couple weeks.

Btw, very good movie Andrew, nice work.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

rob wrote:
> "Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
> news a9641pkbbrf7srkl060isvrgm04ahlo01@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:58:07 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'd rather have a dynamic campaign. Love the Flanker too, but
after
> >> being
> >>told that the last two releases would have one, and then they
don't,
> >>passing
> >>on Su-25 myself.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yea, really, who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
> > decent dynamic campaign system. I don't even play the game anymore
> > because it is a snore.
>
> LOMAC, a great sim but piss poor game without a soul.

I find some of these comments humorous, considering the flame wars
between falcon4 and LOMAC when it first came out.%^)
Falcon is STILL buggy as hell, but I persist with my patch-dancing,
still trying to get the "one" that does it for me. Although I never
purchased LOMAC, the videos and screenshots have just been
gorgeous.....I always wanted to ask if LOMAC has ATC and AWACS and
radio comms? A very big part of the immersion for me with falcon4.
Man.....if falcons plane models had the clarity and moving surfaces of
LOMAC, I'd faint.......and some of the views I have seen in videos have
been awesome. Anyone know if there is a "free" camera view in LOMAC? In
falcon, the only way to examine a ground object is to fly-by it and
look at it out the window! (Mighta quit flying EAW if it didn't have a
free-camera view! And of course, EAW is in the same dilemma with IL2.
One looks better, one flies better, one sounds better, etc.)
So, the beauty and clean look of LOMAC, the campaign of F4, and?

E-Man

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <pa9641pkbbrf7srkl060isvrgm04ahlo01@4ax.com>,
connected@somewhere.here (Connected) wrote:

> who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
> decent dynamic campaign system.

We all know the 25T add-on isn't *really* a new plane, it's something
which looks enough like a new plane to justify paying for a patch. And I'm
ok with that, because it's not as if it's expensive to keep supporting the
few people still working on flight sims.

However some kind of dynamic elements to LOMAC gameplay are long, long
overdue. Personally I don't think it'll ever happen, but hope's cheap and
so's 1.1, so in the mean time I'll take the flight modelling improvements
and keep looking forward to having a machine I can turn the LOMAC viewing
distance up to full on. At current hardware development rates that might
take almost as long as ED's dynamic gameplay!

Andrew McP

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:


>We all know the 25T add-on isn't *really* a new plane, it's something
>which looks enough like a new plane to justify paying for a patch. And I'm
>ok with that, because it's not as if it's expensive to keep supporting the
>few people still working on flight sims.
>
>However some kind of dynamic elements to LOMAC gameplay are long, long
>overdue. Personally I don't think it'll ever happen, but hope's cheap and
>so's 1.1, so in the mean time I'll take the flight modelling improvements
>and keep looking forward to having a machine I can turn the LOMAC viewing
>distance up to full on. At current hardware development rates that might
>take almost as long as ED's dynamic gameplay!
>
>Andrew McP

Well, each to their own but I won't be wasting my money on the patch -
er, add-on.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <1111705567.873343.43050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
ef29@drexel.edu () wrote:

> I always wanted to ask if LOMAC has ATC and AWACS
> and radio comms?

Sadly there is nothing like the kind of immersive background chatter
present in F4.

> Anyone know if there is a "free" camera view in LOMAC?

<CTRL><F11> frees up the camera from wherever you are at the time. You can
put the camera wherever you want, which is where much of the cinematic
potential came from. I'm sure this works in the demo, though I haven't
checked it.

> So, the beauty and clean look of LOMAC, the campaign of F4, and?

Stop dreaming ;-)

As I said, when I buy LOMAC 1.1 I'll be buying the hope of something
better as much as the actual updated LOMAC code. It's such a shame so much
past potential in so many sims has evaporated on the console-driven winds
of loose change. Such is life.

Andrew McP

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news a9641pkbbrf7srkl060isvrgm04ahlo01@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:58:07 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I'd rather have a dynamic campaign. Love the Flanker too, but after
>> being
>>told that the last two releases would have one, and then they don't,
>>passing
>>on Su-25 myself.
>>
>>
>
> Yea, really, who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
> decent dynamic campaign system. I don't even play the game anymore
> because it is a snore.

LOMAC, a great sim but piss poor game without a soul.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
> connected@somewhere.here (Connected) wrote:
>
>>who needs another plane in LOMAC? What we need is a
>>decent dynamic campaign system.
>
> We all know the 25T add-on isn't *really* a new plane, it's something
> which looks enough like a new plane to justify paying for a patch. And I'm
> ok with that, because it's not as if it's expensive to keep supporting the
> few people still working on flight sims.

I am OK with that too. The mind trick is to consider Lock-On as some
kind of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 with added functionality to blow
things up. Speaking of which, LockOn blows MSFS out of the water as far
as my VFR needs are concerned: more realistic scenery, more believable
(or should that be enjoyable) flight model...

> However some kind of dynamic elements to LOMAC gameplay are long, long
> overdue. Personally I don't think it'll ever happen, but hope's cheap and
> so's 1.1, (...)

It might never happen, but I get the impression that at least some kind
of interface to a separate, external (campaign ?) engine is being
programmed into LockOn. Have a look at

http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=567&scr=default&...

and

http://www.lua.org/about.html

Of course I could be reading too much into this. The LUA interface could
be too limited and would only allow to code things such as replay
analysers or telemetry applications. Or maybe it was just implemented by
the developers for debugging purposes. Or to confuse clueless usenet
dwellers.  

BTW, nice movie (again), Andrew.

Regards,
Mr. Sylvestre

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

That was a great movie. Is there someplace I can find the oher one that was
mentioned? Thanks

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <d21974$v7g$1@ikaria.belnet.be>, MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com
(Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:

> LockOn blows MSFS out of the water as far
> as my VFR needs are concerned

I loaded up FS2004 again recently and was reminded just how poor it looks.
The clouds are great, but the landscape is dire. Still, the flexibility to
enhance terrain on a global scale is very impressive. If only LOMAC had
something similar.

> I get the impression that at least some kind of interface
> to a separate, external (campaign ?) engine is being programmed
> into LockOn.

I'm not sure how active the various projects are, but you have to admire
the people making the effort. As for the lua stuff, it seems very
impressive, but I have yet to see any examples of it being used to enhance
the sim. No harm in hoping though.

Andrew McP

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <memo.20050324041752.512A@address_disguised.address_disguised>,
andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

> http://www.andrew.mcp.dsl.pipex.com/lomac.htm 45Mb

Now tweaked to 38Mb to make room for a 10Mb version for those of you
trapped in low-bandwidth land.

Andrew McP