Lock-On Sequel . . .

I guess it's kinda early to talk about this, but maybe it will help ED make decisions . . .

What would you like to see in a sucessor to Lomac? This is what I think would be really cool:

Scenario:

--Hypothetical "cold war gone bad" set in the 80's. Warsaw Pact vs. Nato. This could open up HUGE possibilities of war on a grand scale. A side benefit would be that weapons systems wouldn't be quite as complex as would a scenario set in today's time.

Possible Theatres:

--Kola Peninsula

--Bering Straits (portions of USSR, US and maybe Canada in there)

--Eastern Europe

--This one's a little far-out, but it could be lots of fun: West Coast, US (invasion of US by USSR, sort of like Red Dawn lol)

Possible Flyables:

--MiG-29

--Su-25

--MiG-23/27

--F-15A or C

--A-10

--Jaguar

. . . and maybe some others :P

So what do you guys think? Any other interesting ideas?

Vapor thats the kind of list that I call the following:

- More quantity and less quality.

And if you want more quality heh, you will have to wait 4 or 5 years for that sequel. A couple of flyables or only one would be good, as well as other features that ill reveal when the proper time comes.

I'd probably ask for more terrain. S.E. Asia but I doubt that would happen.

Of course, AFM and the better avionics for all the planes. Not that I know what's wrong with the current radar modeling, but I'm sure everything could use more tweaking.

Eyecandy! More eyecandy and realistic looking eyecandy.

Support addictive light alpha thingy so we can have realistic HUD display. Check out Jet Thunder!

The sun glare.

The water (I hate the water in LOMAC!)

Bump up the colors in the lomac world a bit.

PITCHING AND ROLLING SEA/CARRIER DECK!

Hold off on the FLYABLE jets and make attack copters flyable! Cobra and Apache.

More eyecandy! Lil' detail that would make proper white boy yells 'diz is da shiznitz!'

My ultimate dream for this game is to be able to play lomac like warbirds! :D

Well my ultimate dream is to have a TOTAL combat simulation air/sea/ground.

Get in an Helicopter, destroy tanks, RTB, get out heli, kill bad guys with an MP-5 blá blá blá... :wink: :twisted:

Just kidding... :wink:

we need a new graphic engine with HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE RENDERING!!!! :D

explosions where PIECES FALL OFF...not just a single ball of fire.

A DYNAMIC DAMAGE MODEL LIKE SU 25 t for all models (inc buildings and vehicles) :twisted:

AND OF ALL

GLARE FROM EXPLOSIONS!!!!

To be honest, I would be ten times happier with LO-MAC if it ran as is generally expected on my system.

I think the Lockon engine itself is flawless. But if they decide to build a new one from scratch that would be ok by me. Maybe the ability to be more flexible with add-on aircraft and pits. For starters a multirole aircraft is what should be made in order to set up a complex avionics suite that covers everything. The AFM is next on the list along with a clickable pit and scalable avionics realism. Full Ramp start for all aircraft should be for the highest setting of the realism. Along with the first release should be a second one which is the rival to the first release.e.g. F/A-18 then match that with Mig 29K or Su33. And this is just a few features that would create an awesome game.

Hei VapoR, I'm totaly with you!

(Can I add the Su-15 to your list?)

I realy like the 80s cold war scenario. That aera gives some great possibility for a realistic campagin that is well ballanced. Also the aircombat isn't as excessive BVR oriented, as not every fighter mounted BVR weapons and these were SARH only. I don't like the "allways thebest and newest" approach that much, I'd rather see some more historical elements in modern jetsims ;) And of course the real playground for the A-10.

But my ultimate wish would be, if ED would make a Falkland sim. Limited war means limited work on units and terrain. A great selection of participating airplanes including all time favourites like the Sea Harrier and Mirage III.

Cool weather envoirment with a very unice atmosphere to fight at the end of the world. Naval ops. Close combat with only rear spect heaters and guns ( plus some slimm BVR action for the Mirage III ) And of course the ultimate scenario for a dynamic campaign, where actions of a single pilot can change the whole war. Bring on the Falklands :)

P.S.: I know of Jet Thunder, but the more te better :)

Cold war senario is definately a good setting for a flight sim and yes it would be fairly well balanced. As for the Falklands, you could create a mod out of already developed aircraft for something like that. I think the late 80s, early 90s would be the best time setting as then you have the older generation aircraft still in service with the newer types that already feature in Lockon.

I think the introduction of more terrain would be welcome - not just more areas, but specifically larger maps where you could create missions that DO require air refuelling etc.

As for cold war, fear my F-14 mig lovers.

I personally prefer more modern aircaft, I find them interesting. I'd like to see F-15E for example, and Su30MK.

The cold war could always be a mod from a bigger program. So you could create a mod which excludes all the later models and weapons. Larger terrain is a good idea, hopefully adding onto whats already been created.

I want a Sopwith Camel flyable, armed with AIM-54 and Python 4 and fitted with an APG-79.

I'd like it to go one of two ways.

Naval Combat - carriers 'n stuff, lots of sea.

Central Europe - Red Storm Rising towards the end of the cold war.

Both have their challenges. Mapping central Europe would be a mammoth task, but oh so worth it . . . . .

larger maps where you could create missions that DO require air refuelling

Anyone said Falklands ? ;)

I agree with britgliderpilot, building a central Europe map would be a monumental task. But oh boy, it would be worth it.

Well, I'd vote Barents Sea ... F-18s (flyable of course) and F-14s v Tu-26s escorted by Flankers! BIG map, lots of sea ... fjords, bad weather, pitching flight decks, monster seas ...

James

Central Europe, late 80s, would definitely be THE SCENARIO.

But to model its complexity will be really hard, and would probably need a mammoth effort as well as a mammoth budget. If any software house can afford both of them it would surely be worth it!

The reason for this scenario is THE CHOICE is very simple, and it's that 90% of the weapon systems designed in the last 60 years have been done thinkin about such a hypothetical conflict.

But I also think that the main field where LockOn needs improvement is that of AI and dynamic campaign/missions. Without an effective AI, really capable of executing missions, tasks and orders even a new wonderful scenario would be pointless. And a dynamic campaign would also be needed.

But can you imagine to manage a dynamic campaign in a Central European scenario? Just to give a rough estimate, there would have been about 2500-3000 NATO aircraft and 7000-9000 Warsaw Pact aircraft. Plus ground troops and at least their SAMs and AD to "interact" with air forces. And, at least a couple of hundred airbases, EWR, GCI and various military installations.

Given these facts I don't think today we can ask ED to build such a scenario. So my wish list to ED is "just" about a better AI and a dynamic campaign.

If talking about scenarios maybe a desert terrain would be easier to implement. even if today we can see some real fighting in "desert terrain" just watching tv :(

If you are familiar with Falcon 4 there is a project in progress:

Europe Theater homepage

I don't think that the cold war senario is too complex to model compared to anything else. You wouldn't model all of those weapons and aircraft for such a map. You would make it as close as possible without overdoing it by losing FPS. The beauty of the cold war is that the campaign would probably start in an aggressive stance by both sides and then move into multiple tit for tat skirmishes, before an all out war. Not forgetting that both sides shared alot of humour also during these times in reality(Nato/US pilots sharing penthouse centre folds with their Russian counterparts at 20 000ft over the Atlantic) :D . But for such a campaign alot of the weapons are already modeled in Lockon. The other way to go is to build a map that fits to Lockons map South of the bottom expanding into Turkey and parts of the middle east. I think adding to the current map is the way to go so it doesn't go to waste.

I think that the best thing would be if ED would buy a license from Atari for Dynamic campaign that is in Falcon4.

It would save them a lot of money and time and they could make a better grafics engine around it all.

And then we could have a unbeatable sim forever with dynamic campaign.

I think people talk about things they know nothing of too often. The DC isn't hard to make in a programmatic sense (not ridiculouslyhard, anyway - you can apply game theory algos for decision making and resuplying etc)

on the other hand, mating the 'F4' DC to LOMAC would be monstrously difficult as the two programs share zip in terms of code. LOMAC needs to have its own DC, tailored to its own region and AI. F4's DC ain't perfect, either.

I'd rather see ME enhancements and AI enhancements than a DC right now, as a DC is sort of useless without having reasonably good AI and good Mission Editor features such as alternate paths, random events, goal areas/goals/mission goals/triggers and better air refuelling/awacs/bomber/everything AI as well as IADS simulation and more realistic AWACS/EWR interface for the player.

Once and ONLY once all this is done, then we can have a reasonable DC running on top of it.

I think people talk about things they know nothing of too often. The DC isn't hard to make in a programmatic sense (not ridiculouslyhard, anyway - you can apply game theory algos for decision making and resuplying etc)

True enough. The campaign is actually very similar to the code of a strategy game, making AI decisions on a strategic level and using statistics and a certain level of randomness to wage the war on a 2D map much like wargames do. You could get a pretty good dynamic campaign simply by modifying one of the old board games actually. The main idea is that all this stuff going on in a statistical 2D universe carries into the 3D world when you launch your plane and continues in the background, influencing what you can see and being influenced by your actions.

I'd rather see ME enhancements and AI enhancements than a DC right now, as a DC is sort of useless without having reasonably good AI and good Mission Editor features such as alternate paths, random events, goal areas/goals/mission goals/triggers and better air refuelling/awacs/bomber/everything AI as well as IADS simulation and more realistic AWACS/EWR interface for the player.

Actually a DC would be worse than useless, it would be a complete disaster. If the AI can't take care of itself worth damn then the war would quickly degenerate into total chaos, with airplanes doing anything BUT their tasked mission. So I guess you are correct that the DC will have to wait until the AI is reasonably competent.

I agree on the importance of the AI for a dynamic campaign (surprise, surprise... ;)). However the AI in EF2000 wasn't exactly better, but still the dynamic campaign was nice. LongbowII's AI units didn't act perfectly either all the time and it was closer in scope to what would be possible with Lock On - and it's still remembered as a great sim (rightfully so).

So, even if I consider the dynamic campaign feature as overrated and hyped, there's no doubt it should be high on the list for any successor - if only for marketing purposes. It would certainly increase the popularity a lot.

As for retrofitting the Falcon4 campaign to Lock On, that wouldn't be practical (legal/financial issues aside) - better to do it from scratch.

If a dynamic campaign was to be applied to LockOn today, it would be a near disaster.

This is because the AI is absolutely unable to properly execute missions and it has no ability to behave as a trained force. For example, if you issue a strike package of 20 aircraft to attack a target, they will take off separately, they will fly and attack in single ships, slowing down in their attack run. Then, instead of returning to their home airfield, they divert to random airfields. And if the same package is supposed to have a counterair or sead escort... well forget it!

And, the second issue is the framerate. Today LockOn is slow on most PCs while displaying half a dozen aircraft above a vehicle column, maybe in a town.... can you imagine having 20-30 aircraft over a 50+ vehicles (plus a real-time AI working for the dynamic campaign)?

And can you imagine LockOn manage the Day One in a Central Europe scenario, with at least a couple of hundred aircraft in flight at any time?

I'd say they would certainly have to do something about the FPS for such an enviroment or wait until the PCs catch up in speed! The dynamic Campaign built from scratch plus a near copy of the communications engine of Falcon 4 and enhanced AI is what is necessary in my view. As for the aircraft, I suggest the F/A-18 as its unique and very useful in multirole plus its carrier role would make it alot of fun. A communication engine that handles in a more realistic way with less monotone and more drama during engagements. I also agree with Starlight regarding the AI, needs to be much smarter.