Интересный обзор LO от опытного вирпила, поклонника F4 (английский)

[Dmut]

оригинал здесь http://www.f4community.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=9541

мне обзор показался довольно детальным и обьективным, к сожалению сделанным без учета поправок патча 1.02, которые несомненно улучшают общее мнение о LO.

часть 1.

Right, my LOMAC review is finally finished. First some background: I originally was offered a free copy of LOMAC from Carl back in early December 2003 on this forum on the proviso that I would try it and provide an honest -- if not completely objective -- assessment. That thread is here. (As to the comments I made within that thread, I offer no excuses or rational that would justify them. Make of them what you will but I have made no effort to hide them.) Why did it take this long? Mainly two reasons, Real Life (I have a new house, baby girl and 1 on the way) and OIR beta testing which ramped up in the new year until March as we all know. There was also the patch which altered many initial community concerns and therefore invalidated some of the original issues we all had found. And though there was no explicit time table stipulated for this review to be posted, I none-the-less apologize to Carl herein for the delay. I further apologize for the brevity of this review; IMHO it is too short but RL is a demanding master.

To keep things in perspective, a word about my own biases for those who do not know: I am a dedicated die hard Falconeer going back to 1988 and the original Falcon. But I also have much experience with the original Flanker and some with Flanker 2x. I love maximum complexity that simulates reality so, frankly, LOMAC will never be my preferred sim or even one that I will spend a lot of time with. But that is just me and I TRY (I’m a Falcon snob you see) not to denigrate or frown upon those who would cast aside Falcon 4 and adopt LOMAC as their new “mount”. On a more personal note, I have also occassionally been described by those who know me (including my wife) as an arrogant Sierra disturber. None-the-less, I am striving to present a fair and balanced survey of what I have found with LOMAC.

The problem, though, is this: do I evaluate LOMAC in a vacuum, based solely upon what it is trying to accomplish while striving for maximum objectivity; or do I use another sim as basis for comparison and allow more subjectivity and relatively to enter the equation? Which ever method I choose, any review I make will of course be filtered through the lens of my own Falcon-bias. So why not be honest about that and we'll see what happens...

My system specs:

* P4.2.6C, o/c to 2.9 (hyper-threading enabled);
* 1 Gb DDR 3200 RAM;
* ASUS P4C-800 DX (onboard RAID enabled across 2x60 Gb HDD)
* ATI 9700 Pro AIW/128
* SB Audigy Gamer
* Cougar HOTAS

Ok, here we go, forgive some of the initial points as I know they have been discussed at length but bare recapping. At the time of this posting, the 1.02 patch was unreleased and so this is the 1.01 version.

(1) The release version of LOMAC is obviously unfinished for whatever reasons, most likely though because the publisher, UBI, pushed it out the door in a futile effort to cash in on Christmas sales for a niche product. Not the first or last time a product was tampered with by unlettered short-sighted corporate bean counters. This is an unfortunate industry-wide trend (that would be unjustifiable and unsustainable in most other industries) but it still doesn’t excuse UBI for doing so. GRADE ON RELEASE CANDIDATE STABILITY & COMPLETENESS: C-.

(2) Installation/User Interface: Installation a snap (why shouldn’t it be after all) and the issue I’ve heard whereby you must install the demo after to get the release version to work was absent. Very annoying, however, is the requirement to have the cd in the drive at all times to run LOMAC, some ill-informed hack over at UBI no doubt responsible for that decision. Surely they know you can easily obtain no-cd cracks on the net(?) -- so why bother pissing off legitimate consumers and risk wear and tear on the cd? Didn’t bother with the online registration so I couldn’t say how well it works.

I do like the UI: the music is very cool and the plane pictures are nice. I’m a little less fond of the setup UI, however; I found the key mapping process to be rather awkward which is odd given the relatively moderate number of keystrokes. One thing of course is the keystroke carry-over in LOMAC (e.g., “I” for radar) from Flanker that I have seen some people complain about but merely shows LOMAC’s proud lineage. The mission planning map I find to be unwieldy and short of mission planning options. I like the Encyclopedia, although one thing I miss is the RWR sounds like the Falcon 4 Tactical Reference has. GRADE ON INSTALLATION/UI: A-.

(3) The hardbound manual included in the retail release is wholly inadequate: I don’t care a whit about what the industry is doing as a whole, any flight sim offering any sort of depth MUST come with an adequate hardbound manual to be taken seriously IMHO. Because LOMAC is a AFAIC still a relatively complex niche product, regardless that it was trying to capture a relatively broad audience, the retail price should have been higher: high enough to support shipping with the full hardbound manual. Would that have adversely affected sales? I don’t know because I have no access to LOMAC sales figures, but it's hard to believe that there were a whole lot of "impulse" purchases. My opinion, based upon no hard figures, is that a preponderance of LOMAC sales were from those people who already knew it was coming. Regardless, the trend of no hardbound manuals is NOT irreversible IMHO – flame away on this point but you will not alter my opinion. Even if I’m wrong about that, Carl's idea of a new business model for complex sims is intriguing. As is G2i's for Fighter OPs…and no, JCC, I’m not going to get sidetracked on that. Now, the pdf manual that should have been included, even if in a reduced size to fit the dvd-sized box, is a good piece of work, though the resolution of the original was an issue for printing and deciphering important graphics. (To their credit, UBI was quick to offer a higher resolution one for d/l.) The various aircraft, weapons, deployment, mechanization and sundry features for the sim are explained quite well with various useful tips interspersed. Layout is attractive and easy to follow without an excess of filler/fluff. None-the-less, being a pdf reduces what could have been an “A” to a “D” for making me print it out on my own. One must also note that the initial North American release version lacked a separate keystroke guide, indicative of a lack of attention to detail on behalf of the publisher. GRADE ON INCLUDED MANUAL: D.

(4) There is no Dynamic Campaign and, apparently, no “official” plans to add one. IMHO this is a serious short-coming and handicaps the longevity of the sim in single offline play. It’s an interesting dichotomy since I recall that Carl had said at one time during development that robust online multi-play was not a major design goal given the relatively small number of consumers who indulged in it. In the abstract, that would have left the typical LOMAC player with nowhere to turn once they tired of single-player pre-fabbed missions. As we all realize, pre-fabbed missions are too predictable: you always know something is going to happen and once that “something” occurs it you can re-fly the mission and beat the mission designer rather rely upon effective RL tactics. One post on a LOMAC board a little while back sought help in prevailing in an airborne dual with Flankers. As it turned out, this poster was actually looking for ways to unlock the mission to alter its variables or otherwise defeat the mission itself. I and another poster had offered some BVR tactics and sources to good info but the thread was mainly concerned with how to crack the mission rather than learn RL tactics and prevail. Regardless, a DC is ideal to keep single player interest and can be great for online play as well. How will the absence of a DC impact the relevance of LOMAC down the road...who knows? NO GRADE.

[Dmut]

часть2


(5) The sim is VERY taxing on anything other than cutting-edge pc platforms. It ran fine on mine with little stuttering, averaging ~20 FPS, which isn't bad but not great and to get even that I had to disable the mirrors and crank down the water detail (neither of which are show-stoppers I grant). I also noted big time FPS hits when on the tarmac, no doubt due to the activity modeled at the airbase. As with Flanker, though, I found that if you wait a few seconds before hitting “S” to start the mission, the FPS improve (which is recommended in both sim’s documentation). Fortunately, unlike Falcon 4 which is very CPU intensive and not overly video card centered (at least where DX is concerned), LOMAC (being newer) will obviously scale well and take advantage of robust video cards.

Now on that note, I must allow that when choosing whether to serve the needs of current pc hardware or give a new sim more longevity by coding it to scale well with future hardware, the latter course is preferable IMHO. So I don’t fault the developers here: in a year or two LOMAC will play fine on all systems. (Sadly, hyper-threading came out after LOMAC's code base was set in stone and Carl has said a code rework to use HT is not planned unless in a new product.) Now as for apparently not optimizing/testing it for W9x, again I don’t blame UBI/ED because, really, what serious gamer/simmer is still using W9x? Heck M$ doesn’t even support it any more. If gamers/simmers are using W9x they ought not to be IMHO: the premier pc gaming OS for stability and resource optimization is WXP. If you're still using W9x, for whatever reason, get used to new games not working on this decrepit OS platform. So far as system lock-ups and graphic anomalies go, I haven’t seen much of that, less so since I patched to 1.01. Regardless, for those who disagree with me about the OS issue, I concede that it is usually advantageous to encompass as many OS’s as possible to maximize your consumer base; I therefore factored that into the grade. GRADE ON SYSTEM SPEC REQUIREMENTS: B+.

(6) Graphically, LOMAC is said by many to be gorgeous and, while I agree it looks good, it resembles very much the graphics of Flanker 2x IMHO, which I was never overly found of. I always felt, and feel with LOMAC, that its visual presentation borders on cartoonish in that it appears a little "pastally" and a little too...vibrant. Clouds are well done and inclement weather, such as thunder storms, adds broad tactical challenges. The 3d models, in particular the jets, are very nicely done, with accurately articulating flight controls etc. Dynamic lighting, shadows, heat blurs are very nice touches and definitely add to the suspension of disbelief. Fiddling with the FSAA has provided smooth model lines (though somewhat less detail – always a trade off ya know) which is satisfying for screen shots but of little consequence for a realistic combat flight sim whereby most of your time should be spent in the cockpit flying and fighting the virtual jet. Even so, the sense of speed at low level and NOE is exhilarating. GRADE ON GRAPHICS: A-.
(7) Sound…apparently much of it is sampled from real sources and, while buggy in the initial release, seems okay now after 1.01. 3d sound seems good as I pan my (v) around the pit, as are external fly bys etc, and I even heard a sonic boom as my Eagle ripped past the camera. Really, nothing to complain about and indeed quite well done. GRADE ON SOUND: A+.

(8) Which brings us to the cockpits. First off, I must say I am not overly disappointed by the exclusion of 2d pits. Normally it may have required an adjustment for someone like myself who spends most of his time in one, but given the level of avionics fidelity modeled, there would be little advantage to a 2d pit since the number of switches and buttons to interact with would have been relatively sparse. Besides, my HOTAS is usually mapped to most of the crucial switches. So why spend development resources on a superfluous item? If the level of avionics fidelity was much higher, I would have insisted (oh the arrogance here!) upon a 2d cockpit to manage the switchology. The visual modeling of each pit is of great detail, but I have found some of the gauges hard to read -- an issue that a 2d pit might have resolved. I have to admit also that the relative anarchy of the analog instrument clusters of the F-15 and A-10 pits are difficult to adjust to after being in the “glass” pit of the F16 – different. The options to adjust the (v) seat position (i.e. “zoom”) and peripheral views were good ideas too. I have to admit that I find the mirrors of little tactical value on a 2d monitor so I do not use them, but the option is nice for those who do. A note on the metric versus Imperial measurements: for the Russian jets you have that option of course though I prefer not to use it since all of my “flying” is done in American fighters. Some instruments need a better explanation for the uninitiated, for example the HIS in the F-15. And, frankly, since the Flanker sim days, I’ve never liked the Russian fuel gauges nor the RHAW (Radar Homing And Warning), I find them awkward to read but they are of course realistically modeled AFAIK so not a debatable design point. As a side note, it is curious that the US Armed forces use metric (like the rest of the G7) yet American citizens prefer not to. While on the topic of HUDs I wish there was an override switch for the FPM wind indicator like there is in Falcon 4 since I only really need that distraction when landing or delivering unguided bombs. One nice touch (or annoying depending upon your perspective I suppose) is the plane-dependent language of the VWS between English and Russian. GRADE ON COCKPITS: A.

(9) Flight modeling? Well, I'm no expert and do not speak from RL fighter jet experience -- oh my I've been cheated in life! -- but I was a little surprised. As a long-time Falcon junkie, I've been spoiled by fly-by-wire (FBW) and the very forgiving nature of the flight envelop it provides ... ok "cocoon" is more apt. Older fighter jets like the F-15 and of course the Su-27 (as I recall from Flanker 1/2) which only have a rudimentary FCS (or the Hog which has none), are very light to the touch and can depart controlled flight very easily. From my long prop time with EAW I already knew this, and was aware of it intellectually, but it certainly takes an adjustment when the spaghetti starts to fly. As well, one must pay close attention on the jets to the trim settings, especially the Russian fighters, though the Su-25 handles well and is stable at low airspeeds so far as I’ve seen. My HOTAS setup also needed some tweaking for pitch, roll and rudder control curves and the like, but no big deal here (thanks to George for his settings which work well).

The upside though is an increased feel of responsiveness, especially from the Flanker – though the Crane seems to carry over an inherent “twitchiness” (i.e. propensity to easily depart controlled flight and the nose to bob up) from the Flanker sim days. (And hey, given that some have described LOMAC as Flanker “3”, in a way it’s no surprise, eh?) I was never able to ascertain if that a RL characteristic or a FM design decision or even uncorrected design flaw. As an aircraft that might be expected to be involved in the occasional knife fight using the cannon, a propensity to pourpose like that would be most undesirable for a steady tracking gunshot so I have to think that the RL Flanker does not have this nasty tendency. (At least in LOMAC you can work-around this with the controller sensitivity settings, in Flanker you never really could.) An especially sleek, deadly bird, the Flanker is much like a woman in that it needs a gentle, easy touch to nudge it where you want her to go. With respect to the F-15 I’m not sure if its FCS is properly or completely modeled: it seems a little too easy to depart controlled flight with excessive stick deflection while assaulting another axis – it’s almost as though the elevator or flapperon deflections aren’t being inhibited when they need to be as in the FBW F16 for example. Yaw control and stabilization seems okay though I’ve noticed un-commanded slippage in normal flight regimes. For either jet, but especially the Flanker, it’s almost akin to riding a horse in that you’re really authoritatively “asking” it to go somewhere. But then that could be my Falcon FBW handicap in play too whereby I can just “demand” what the jet has and let the FCS system decide what to give me.

[Dmut]

часть 3


Landing I found to be easy enough with the exception of the Fulcrum and Flanker which have buggy HUD airspeed indicators (a known issue) and, on the Flanker, the IR sensor impedes the forward view of the runway. In addition, slow engine spool rates for these 2 jets mean you got to plan ahead or leave the speed brakes open to keep engine RPMs higher. Make no mistake: the Crane is a big jet and flies like a pig at low speeds. The F-15, while roughly the same size, handled with more finesse and grace at minimum speeds, though to be fair, the Eagle was designed as a BVR/Dogfighter while the Flanker was mainly intended to be an interceptor, so this may be modeled correctly IMHO. All of the jets, of course, have different ideal landing speeds which will fluctuate with weight so I find it best to play the AOA indexer in the HUD where-ever possible, rather than try to figure out what the current ideal dynamic landing speed is given the aircraft’s current weight. One method that George has suggested, which I have tried with success, is to enable the auto throttle and ride the ILS beam down to the threshold and then disengage the auto throttle. It works but you sacrifice realism and bypass the heavy pilot workload that comes with landing a high-performance jet. Now let’s talk carrier ops with the Flanker Delta for a moment: I never really mastered them in JF18 so I didn’t figure I would in LOMAC either without some work. Mind you, it was correctly pointed out to me that the ILS for the carrier is incorrectly set too low which may explain my repeated ramp strikes or stalls short. Just call me “ramp roast” for now…heh…maybe someday I’ll have time to master that. GRADE ON FLIGHT MODELS: A.

(10) The Jets.

Flying the Hog is great because it really puts your head in the flight envelope with some old fashioned stick and rudder work. (I flew the A-10 in OIR too but of course we’ll never see THAT Hog now.) As a Hog fan I am happy to see the Mavericks (D-laser and K-tv guided versions) as well as clusters -- though I would prefer more weapon settings options (e.g., burst altitude and arming delay) to allow for mission profile and delivery options). What are conspicuously absent however are snake-eye high drag demolition bombs for low altitude delivery – just as well I suppose considering the HUD doesn’t seem to have cues for low altitude delivery such that even if low-drag bombs were an option, you’d risk fragging yourself. Rockets are present but largely inaccurate and ineffectual and so a waste of time. Of course the REAL weapon of choice with the Hog though is the GAU 30mm cannon which spews firey death from above upon your foes. A very stable gun platform, it’s been a wicked joy squeezing the trigger and watching a cloud of gun gasses and tracers spew forth, walking the slugs to my deserving victims. One thing that did surprise me though is that despite its renowned armor plating, FCS redundancy and rugged engines sitting high off the fuselage, the Hog seems remarkably vulnerable to ground fire…not quite as robust as I had thought. Mind you the A-10 in another recent sim was very similar in its relative fragility. Anyhow, I was excited to see phosphorus rockets for the Hog (2.75) and Flogger (S-8) -- though you cannot set the salvo # -- for the FAC role. I haaven’t tried it online but it looks very cool…mind you how you actually locate the targets as a FAC is a mystery really since you will have to fly or near them or else weasel out and use labels to spot them (life is rough without A2G radar…heh).

The Su-25 is a real workhorse though relatively simplistic from an avionics perspective…even more so than the Hog, which is saying a lot. Note however that due to its relative simplicity the cockpit is easier to learn and keep a grip on. It’s a no-nonsense platform that will carry just about any CAS mud store in the Russian arsenal. Good solid and steady gun platform too. Of course the downside (as in the Hog) is that you’re basically a low-and-slow airborne target for everybody – much fortitude required. Of particular interest and utility are the Kh-25MP and Kh-58 antiradar missiles for quasi-SEAD tasking, AFAIK the only aircraft in the sim that can carry them and so making the Frogfoot a very valuable asset.

The venerable F-15C is the US “long-arm”, air superiority fighter and is fun to fly top cover with online for an A-10 strike flight. The radar, an earlier model AN/APG-63, is well modeled, surpassed in fidelity by only Falcon/SP3 and Janes F18, has the expected RWS and TWS and ACM auto lock modes. The “flood” mode is handy but dangerous: best used in a free-fire zone where no freindlies are known to be. One engagement option that I’ve missed since Fleet Defender is back: the ability to assign multiple slammers to multiple airborne targets, ripple fire them and data-link support them to activation. Falcon has that in TWS but is limited to supporting 2 slammers at once. HOJ is of course supported as well with the AIM-7 (AKA “The Great White Hope”) and the Slammer, thereby necessitating judicial use of ECM. NCTR and IFF are present and will lower blue-on-blue accidents…I wish Falcon had IFF modeled. The TEWS (Tactical Electronic Warfare System) is big and easy to glean crucial info from quickly.

The Flanker…ahhh the Flanker. Cut my teeth on ED’s Flanker 1 through 2.5…wicked bird she is, if unforgiving of the ham-fisted driver. Big, heavy with a hell of a lot fuel and lots of weapon mounts, it’s a pure-bread interceptor with a close-in sting provided by its excellent low-speed handling and high AOA maneuvering. And its EOS sensor mode (which tracks IR sigs from between 15-50 km (~10-35 miles) depending upon target aspect, Helmet Mounted Site, combined with the deadly off bore-sight R-73 Archer, give it a devastating stealthy first strike capability and lethal close-in engagement abilities. Its long-rifle, the R-27, will give its natural adversary, the F-15, a serious F-Pole equation to resolve at BVR. Though on that note, the sort of “auto IFF” mode of the DVB-Ob3 might also give the Flanker a marked advantage at BVR for getting the targets sorted quicker and missiles off the rails. Something for the Eagle Driver to worry about while trying to avoid fratricide…even with AWACS support, it is too time-consuming to ask for positive id on one target after another. Seconds count at BVR.

The MiG-29 variants are more nimble rough equivalents to the US F-16. Honestly I haven’t spent enough time with this jet to give a fair appraisal so I’m pretty much skipping it.

GRADE ON THE JETS’ MODELLING/WEAPONS COLLECTIVELY: A


(11) GAMEPLAY: One thing I have noticed is that no matter which side or jet you fly, the AI opponents seem to have better AI, they seem to engage earlier or from further away than I think they should be able to, say, track me at BVR. Even close up in proverbial phone booth though, the AI seems to have an uncanny knack at dodging heaters or jinking out of my cannon funnels, or even picking up a tally on me from low six o’clock. My guess, given the consistency of this behavior, is that this is a design decision to help balance things for the single player. Falcon is known to have done something similar at one time, though it’s said to have been modded out by now AFAIK. I am of mixed emotions about this: on the one hand as a Realism purist I hate to see such concessions, but then for those who mainly indulge in single player offline action (which Carl may rightly believe compose a majority of LOMAC fans), this might be necessity for re-playability. The AI isn’t all bad though, it does exhibit realistic and intelligent behaviour: enemy bandits will notch radar missiles, they might crank after themselves launching a radar missile, they may try to pince or flank you on the merge, for example.

After the first few minutes I disabled labels and never turned back. Anytime you have labels on you are missing out on a prime source of anxiety for RL fighter and attack pilots: fratricide…is that a Blue or Red target? Unless you live under the constant fear of committing (v) fratricide, you are getting off easy IMHO. How am I doing without labels? Not too well; spotting ground targets is relatively easy but sorting them is definitely not. Of great help would have been a FLOT/FEBA indicator on the MFD to delineate where the baddies were (or should be). I have heard that there is a way to assign targets in the brief and have them indicated on your HUD with a diamond or such, but haven’t seen or tried that myself I admit and mobile targets move . That seems to me to be an unrealistic work-around for jets that have no A2G radar, roughly simulating the CCRP mode. Regardless, I still find the best A2G CAS method to avoid fratricide is to swing in behind the FLOT from the flank or through a valley and start your run from an IP behind them, egressing over friendly troops and, ideally, heading for home plate – one pass, haul ass. Heh. Speaking of tactics, I was gratified to see that line-of-sight seems to work with respect to weapons: you can dodge missiles by skirting behind intervening terrain etc. Though I have noticed that ground pounders seem to engage in LOS battles with intervening terrain so there are obviously still some kinks there to work out. For their part, SAMs and AAA seem to operate intelligently and the units themselves are well-modeled in that the radars are separate entities from the launchers: knock out a bar lock or straight flush and the launchers are essentially “mission killed” for your sortie. ECM appears to work and, from what I’ve read, does lower the Pk and may move the Doppler tracking gates enough to drop a red radar lock – though I do wish that stand-off jamming had been implemented (as Falcon’s RP5 did) to improve package survivability.

[Dmut]

часть4


One good thing in this respect though is the AWACS data link for Su-27/33 and the F-15 which enables some RL BVR tactics and vastly increases A2A Situational Awareness (SA). The effectiveness of the AWACS also makes it a high value target just as in RL. Ambush and spank that enemy AWACS and you can create a substantial tactical advantage or at the least even up the odds.

Having said that, however, with the nature of non-DC missions, once you fly and Foxtrot one up, you usually know what you need to accomplish the mission and it becomes more a matter of defeating the TE itself –- yawn. No DC hurts the overall grade here, frankly.

Even so, one of LOMAC’s greatest features, solid online multi-play, may somewhat redeem it from this non-DC downside. Now frankly, I simply have no time for online MP with this sim, I’m already in a Falcon 4 virtual squad and my activity there is far too low due to RL issues. But I have read and heard good things about it. For example, the 100th Buddy Boys reported at Frug’s board that they had a virtually flawless combined LAN/WAN session – virtually unheard of for flight simming AFAIK.

With respect to mission creation, someone I know who built a mission or two commented that he wished there was an option to create a randomness of enemies or friendlies appearing based upon configurable criteria – something to consider in a follow-on patch? Still, the Mission Editor itself seems very versatile and easy to use, from what little I’ve seen myself.

OVERALL GRADE ON GAMEPLAY: A-.
CONCLUSION: There are 2 perspectives I can use here, abstractly objective and subjective as a Falconeer -- and I will mix both to keep things in perspective. Whether it’s fair or not, you can’t adequately evaluate a product in a vacuum.

LOMAC is good at what it is trying to accomplish. Not perfect, of course, nor without need of patching and follow-on support to thrive in the longer term, but then nothing of quality in this industry is. It does a good job of simulating flight characteristics of various combat aircraft while presenting a reasonable level of avionics and weapons fidelity. The visual presentation is top-notch (if you have the hardware to support it). 3d models are nicely done and the level of external detail and articulation is pleasing other sims do that as well. The ATC has major issues but then I suspect that can be a difficult feature to iron kinks out in – Falcon 4’s ATC still has issue after multiple patches and community mods. The lack of a DC may hurt LOMAC’s longevity but word is a third party group is working on one.

One thing that LOMAC falls grievously short on though is this: with its relatively simplified fidelity, pilot workload is not adequately simulated. In LOMAC, it is relatively easy to manage flying the aircraft and managing the avionics, radar and weapons. At no time did I feel over-whelmed or flustered in virtual combat – I almost always had more time than I needed to fly and fight the jet. AFAIK this should not be so. Task overload is a constant threat to the pilot in a single-seat combat jet – the irony of the fact is that as designers and engineers have strived to automate and simplify the cockpit interfaces, more sophisticated and capable sensors and weapons have actually increased pilot workload. In a higher fidelity combat sim, like Falcon 4, it occupies my full attention nearly all of the time from start to finish in a mission, to fly and fight the jet. Flying the LOMAC jets is too easy in this respect: it should be more of a challenge to master interfacing with the jet to simulate pilot workload of just DRIVING the jet…as Pete Bonanni has said ”learning to fly the Falcon is just your ticket to the dance”. When the Sierra really starts to fly in Falcon 4, I will often be on the verge of losing control of the fight, with my SA down around my ankles, too many tasks and not enough time to perform them. Sweaty palms whilst I juggle multiple tasks. Effective multi-tasking is the key. With LOMAC, there was usually more then enough time to accomplish all the required tasks, both combat and non-combat. A combat flight sim that does recreate this demanding environment falls short on the “simulation” side IMHO. Flame as you will, but this is my view.

LOMAC will give the novice a good ride and a fair introduction into our niche genre; for the veteran it offers the rare opportunity to fly different combat aircraft in a well-modelled tactical environment. All things considered though, make no mistake LOMAC is NOT a new benchmark for combat flight simming: it doesn’t push the limits in any category except graphics and perhaps online multi-play stability. Where avionics and weaponeering fidelity are concerned, a DC and, above all, recreating the task overloads and resulting stress in an air combat environment, LOMAC falls short. Frankly, all things considered, the ranking IMHO goes like this: number 1: Falcon 4 (as presently modded), number 2: LOMAC (regardless of any foreseeable future patching or modding). But even being second is a major achievement in this niche dominated by the most demanding and hard-to-please consumers. But then, Carl has repeated said that LOMAC was designed from the ground up with a broader commercial appeal than Falcon 4 – a necessary pre-requisate no doubt to (hopefully) ensure strong sales. So LOMAC was in large measure aimed at a different audience than Falcon 4 who, likely, consider LOMAC to be the King for their own reasons.

Frankly, I don’t know how Carl and ED have managed not to go insane from the flack they have taken (some of it the result of UBI’s project mismanagement IMHO) since they began work on LOMAC. And people like myself have not helped either with Falcon 4 snobbery and intolerance to anything not Falcon. The repeated and often heated comparisons of these two high-quality sims are an unfortunate yet, I believe, natural occurrence resulting from two very passionate groups who seek different qualities in their sims and fervently – if jealously and sometimes irrationally -- defend them, myself included. We are a passionate group with far too few simming options. The economics that prevent a Falcon “5” frustrate me to no end and sometimes LOMAC is on the receiving end of it. But this debate has no end and I could go on indefinitely to no good end.

In short, to recap: in the abstract, LOMAC is very good at what it is trying accomplish, even it is was released unfinished and is a work-in-progress.

Overall objective grade (on its own merits): A Hard work pays off.
Overall subjective grade (relative to Falcon 4): B- Intensity of combat pilot workload not adequately simulated.

Check Six.

[Military_upir]

Да , действительно обзор очень интересный, для тех кто хорошо владеет англицким. есть предложение сюда давать только ссылку и перевод на русский...

[Strannic]

Да,да,да Дмут пожалей бедных и убогих,переведи а....%)
PS И ещё ты так уверено говоришь о 1.02 как будто он уже вышел,помоему лучше подождать его выхода,пару дней полетать,а потом уже восторгатся,пока всё таки прежде временно... :rolleyes:

[Dmut]

мне переводить такой объём лень.
если никому не интересно читать на английском - могу текст не постить. путь тогда грузят чужой форум и загружают весь объём постов в триде.

а о пачте я говорю так уверенно потому, что на форумах UBI некий сквад "что-то-там-195" уже неделю летает на нем в инете, в качестве тестеров, и постит восторженные отзывы и скриншоты.

[Strannic]

Желание то у меня есть,а вот возможности прочитать нет:)

мне переводить такой объём лень.
Вот лентяй,приезжай обратно и тебя на перевоспитание на стройку века Беларуси засунут,от тунеядства лечится.%):D:D:D
Ты хоть самое главное скажи,заценили ли ЛО и какие недостаки в нём этот"папа"увидел.
ЗЫ А о 1.02 всё таки рано так говорить,мало что эти "что-то-там-195" пишут.
Выйдет посмотрим.

[Dmut]

как написал автор обзора в конце:
обьективная оценка LO: 5 баллов, за трудоёмкую работу ED.
субьективная, по сравнению с F4: 4-, за то, что не смоделировали работу с "арматурой".

ps: ты про какую стройку века? про домашнуюю библиотеку "батьки"? :D
не баись, я на родине каждые 2-3 месяца появляюсь :D

[Strannic]

ps: ты про какую стройку века? про домашнуюю библиотеку "батьки"?
не баись, я на родине каждые 2-3 месяца появляюсь
Про неё,красивое здание вырисовывается,уже хочу в неё сходить:)
Короче приедешь сам посмотришь.
ЗЫ А может даже и не добровольно(тунеядству бой!%)):D

[Dmut]

хе-хе, ты наверное так с тунеядством активно борешься, что сам эту библиотеку строишь, по утрам, в качестве зарядки :D

всё, завязываем оффтоп, чую на себе пятно от лазерного прицела плюсомета, нужно схорониться :D

[Strannic]

ты наверное так с тунеядством активно борешься
Да,есть немного,но пока тунеядство меня побеждает,впрочем я и не настаиваю%)%)
Если серьёзно проезжал недавно,внушаить.:)


всё, завязываем оффтоп, чую на себе пятно от лазерного прицела плюсомета, нужно схорониться
Да надо бы,а то расстреливать начнут.Потому умолкаю.

[Фагот]

Dmut, ты хоть поведай, что он там про ФМ написал... Для Фалконистов с их "..." ФМ это больной вопрос.

[Dmut]

Dmut, ты хоть поведай, что он там про ФМ написал... Для Фалконистов с их "..." ФМ это больной вопрос.
за ФМ он поставил 5 баллов. он приятно был удивлен "отзывчивостью" ЛА на управление, после фалконовского Fly-By-Wire, по русски - "полет-по-рельсам" :)
впрочем он говорит, что опыта полетов в жизни не имеет, там что всё субьективно.
и ещё "поругал" за излишне легкую посадку.

[Han]

ФМ на 5? Гыыыыыыыыы.... :D :D :D

[Military_upir]

Данил, это 5 после фалькона. Можешь себе представить какая там модель.. :)

[chp]

В чём поинт так тщательно внимать мнению человека который во первых же строках своего повествования о ФМ предпочёл заявить "ФМ? Я не эксперт и тем более не имею реального опыта.." (мульти он тоже не гонял ни разу, но со слов неких сквадов дал отличную оценку)

Хотя как вирпил с большим стажем он конечно прошелся (с рассуждениями) про некоторые аспекты отзывчивости и управляемости, скриптовость и стабильность чего надо (пушек у штурмовиков)...
Чтобы отжать нижнюю челюсть даже не у спецов - тут наверное нужен иной уровень.. или версия (1.3 ;)

Да и большинство обзора он копал не столь глыбако (вмеру), сколь исходя из практичности вещей..

Короший подход, токма можно было поглубже.. тогда может и было бы более интересно/полезно.

Из любопытного - кликабельность, да и вообше работа с "что приборами" его не столь волнует (все одно на хотасе фортепьянить). Но в конце он таки заметил что привык гораздо больше "работать" на всём протяжении полета. Ну ясен пень - раньше будильники то были круглее.. не то что чичас. Сравнил счеты с программируемым куркулятором :)

[Фагот]

2 Dmut:
Да, насчет посадки он прав.

Неужели нельзя сделать нескриптованную посадку? Может, в аддоне вместе с прогнозируемой АФМ, мы получим-таки честную посадку? :)

2 Han: А почему бы и нет? Найдешь лучшую ФМ среди существующих рективных симов?

[Dmut]

Да и большинство обзора он копал не столь глыбако (вмеру), сколь исходя из практичности вещей..

Короший подход, токма можно было поглубже.. тогда может и было бы более интересно/полезно.
так с его стороны такой обзор - уже подвиг :D как говорит он сам - фанатом LO он не стал, остался старым прожееным фалконовцем. а теперь представьте себе картину - вас засадили на 4 месяца за обстоятельный обзор скажем JeFighter V :D вот на какие мучения пошел человек из-за обещания Мэтту написать обзор в обмен на бесплатную коробку LO :D


Да, насчет посадки он прав.Да кто ж спорит? посадка, как кусочек реализма, пока не удалась...

[Фагот]

вас засадили на 4 месяца за обстоятельный обзор скажем JeFighter V
Не поминай, меня щас вырвет :))

[Miguel Gonsalez]

...после фалконовского Fly-By-Wire, по русски - "полет-по-рельсам" :) ...


Fly-By-Wire - Это не "полет по рельсам" ;)

[Dmut]

Fly-By-Wire - Это не "полет по рельсам"
почему бы и нет? я прекрасно понимаю точный русский перевод термина Fly-By-Wire, но его реализацию в F4 я бы назвал именно так ;)

[Freddie]

Fly-By-Wire - Это не "полет по рельсам" ;)
Ага, эт-точно. Причем ооочень далеко не так. Суть тут в том, что челу было немного непривычно "летать" на самолетах с обычной системой управления потому, что на F-16 ты можешь крутить органами управления как хочешь, а ераплан еще подумает, делать то, что ты ему приказываешь или нет. Т.е. управление там проще и требует от летчика меньшей дисциплины.

[Liosha]

за ФМ он поставил 5 баллов. он приятно был удивлен "отзывчивостью" ЛА на управление, после фалконовского Fly-By-Wire, по русски - "полет-по-рельсам" :)
впрочем он говорит, что опыта полетов в жизни не имеет, там что всё субьективно.
и ещё "поругал" за излишне легкую посадку.

Кроме посадки поругал ещё унаследованную из Фланкера (принимая во внимание, то что кое-кто называют игру Фланкер-3 - не удивительную)(это он так написал - не я) тенденцию Су-27 слишком легко болтать носом вверх вниз. Сказал, что не спец и не летал в реале, но уверен, что коль скоро самолёт был спроектирован чтобы иногда стрелять из пушки, то в реале он так легко по тангажу не болтается. МиГ-29 он не тестил. (А потестил бы - посмотрел бы я, чтоб он тогда сказал про болтание по тангажу...)