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.
Интересный обзор LO от опытного вирпила, поклонника F4 (английский)
Ответить с цитированием