In your opinion (hypothetical) what would make LOMAC more realistic?

I did not expect the path my previous poll took, so I decided to make this poll to complement the previous one given that the vast majority want the game to be as close as a desktop trainer can be.

However despite over 2/3 of the people had voted for such a level of realism one must specify, without any ambiguosities his/her defenition of realism in this SIM.

Im sure that within the 70 people or so that constitutes those 2/3 of votes have very different views of what realism is depending of his nationality or virtual hardware they preffer to use.

So lets hear it:

Here's my wish list.

AFM for all A/C and weapons.

Realistic Avionics for the F-15C.

Comms

Comms

Comms

- greatly overlooked: more realistic weather scenarios and the effect of wind on the Planes.

- more realistic aircraft behaviour (aerodynamically)

- 3d Pit and AFM for all planes

- Impoved ground Objects and textures (especially cities)

Thats the most important to my experience of realism

S!

Brati

all of the above and "more atmosphere"

Better Mission Editor (or a dynamic campaign) that would allow for more immersive scenarios

Better AI to make above possible

Comms + ATC

AFM + clickable pits for current ALL flyables

WAFM

That should about cover it!! :thumbup:

- Impoved ground Objects and textures (especially cities)

Like so?

It's a matter of prioritizing the systems you want modelled and how in depth you want to see them. The two reasons I voted realism "lite" was that current and foreseeable future technology simply can't recreate the complexity involved in flight, avionics, weaponry, etc. Secondly, the LOMAC community is small enough without making it tougher for a newcomer to get a foothold on the learning curve.

My first priorities would be realistic weaponry and then AFM. It's a long list after that. I would love to see the F-15's MFD actually be an MFD. ATC and AWACS need a lot of work. Avionics in general could be greatly improved as far as complexity/reality. Although I don't see a need for general improvement in graphics, there are a couple of "glitches" that I would like to see addressed. Namely, burning ground objects and fog. But those are way down the list for me.

Like so...

Fix the missile accuracy, "ESPECIALLY" the american missiles.

NAV modes for all TACAN capable aircraft.

Comms.

Wingmen that arent stupid.

More realistic scenarios.

Field updated, let the voting start But Ill post some explanations for each option. SOme people will wonder what they may mean.

Option nº 3 has often been mentioned in these boards as the right counter to AMRAAM so I included it.

Option nº 4 may reffer to improvements you will want such such as WFM but without changing seeker properties because thats not possible right now.

- IFF

- AFM for aircraft, missiles, bombs and rockets (including drift etc.)

- more modern 3D sound engine (I feel I cannot hear the engine and wind flow good enough)

- more finished 3D models for F-15/Flanker

- more comms

- FAC/FAC(A) scenario's (ability to place ground assets that paint targets

etc.; buddy lasing, sharing target coordinates, ... )

euuuhhh I'm kinda difficult customer it seems ;)

- IFF

This will be requared radically modification of planes, SAMs and ships AI if you don't want your friendly units automatically identificate your as enemy when your IFF-system off.

- if you get shot down you get a heartattack, fall off your chair and die.

- if you get shot down you get a heartattack, fall from your chair and die.

That's not realistic. You need guys with sledgehammers and gasoline standing by.

Dont forget a 30mm chain gun or something that makes similar damage...

That's not realistic. You need guys with sledgehammers and gasoline standing by.

Well, that's only if you're badly hurt, going down in flames etc.

Hey!!

Better AI. Especially during BVR combat.

Choices in the poll are ... strange. Cannot vote :)

Way too much to list, but in no particular order- some of my biggest peeves & wishes..

Performance. This game does not look soooo good that it should run as badly as it does on some pretty nice systems. Some aspects are breathtaking- a lot of it is not.

A.F.M. on everything.

Avionics vastly improved in complexity, accuracy, procedures modeling & realism.

lots of smaller stuff- like the GAU STILL acting like a reverse thruster on the A-10. The ability to retract the gear on the 39 whilst on the ground. (if this is real behavior.. heh...:megalol: ...)

No toe brake axis, roll trim axis does NOT work at all (it centers itself), the weapons mistakes,

FM of older planes when landing, crashing ect..

Weather move, mass air etc..

Turbulences online.

better individual aircraft FM , right now it's too much scripted teh spin are basicly all identical etc..

The recoil on the GAU-8A is fairly inaccurate accurate, konny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger states that the recoil is at 10,000 lbs. Engine thrust is around 80,000 lbs.

Choices in the poll are ... strange. Cannot vote :)

Definitely odd. I'm not picking one either.

The ability to retract the gear on the 39 whilst on the ground. (if this is real behavior.. heh... ...)

It is.

It is.

That is both incredibly sad & funny at the same time. Thanks for the info. :smartass:

Certainly unsual. The idea is to prevent accidents like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hi3NfLS8Ms

...where the pilot fails to realize that his gear lever is up (perhaps after a careless ground crew) and finds out the hard way - rolling at over 100 mp/h down the runway.

Choices in the poll are ... strange. Cannot vote :)

Definitely odd. I'm not picking one either.

If you consider all the threads complaining about the missiles, coments online and my last poll, these are the most relevant choices for 90% of the people. Listing them all would be phisicaly impossible.

I have explained why I opened this poll. Its made after conflicting opinions about what this game should be about. Everything else that needs be fixing is pretty much unanimous and that is not relevant here, this is a debate not an agreeing party.