ik twijfel echter aan de sim aspecten van deze sim. hij wordt namelijk niet echt gedetailleerd. deze menig heb ik al een breed uitgemeten op
www.frugalsworld.com: als jullie niet al te bang zijn voor een beetje Dunglish (dat staat voor dutch english) heb ik hier nog ff de 2 stukjes:
de eerste recatie staat op pag 5 bij 40 pagina's per page
deel 1:
when breaking down the promisises/design statements/wheatever esle we (think) we know of Flanker 3 (LOMAC) against the Falcon 4.x lineup (sp3 and/or OIR) you can split it in 5 catagories:
Gfx; Sound; FM; mission environment/AI and avionics/UI
I'll be comparing them from the standpoint of the modern battlefield. (meaning mostly long range warfare in the air, and bombing with either guided ordnance or dumb bombs)
GFx: Flanker 3 (no explanation necessary I presume?) GFX are only necessary for things close in. some aspects of the Gfx are very important for immersion, but it isn't the all defining criterium for me. falcons current grapics will so in most circumstances.
Sound: little is known about Flanker 3's sounds, but Flanker 1.x and 2.x were bad at it. Falcon on the other hand has a very lively sound environment with the ATC and the area chatter. Falcon wins in higher realism because IRL you need permission to land. Previous flanker versions were not good at this and there's also little to indicate this has changed so Falcon wins, albeit with lots of question marks because little is known about the sounds in flanker 3. IMO sound helps more with immersion than Gfx
FM: Flanker has a known reputation here. Falcon is infamous in this area. Indeed the stall modelling of flanker is way better, but then consider this question: do you really need a top of the line CPU eating FM when doing BVR? nope. neither do you need it for bombing. only for DF, which in a BVR environment means you're not a very good pilot since you screwed your BVR fight. Still I think that falcon needs to be bettered in this area so flanker wins in the realism, but for me the FM after getting to a certain fidelity level, matters less. I am very curious as to how OIR will behave in this sector though
Mission environment: with mission modelling I mean the OOB modelling aand the way your actions influence the camapign. this is te strongest point in favour of Falcon, and previous versions of Flanker were notorious for the feeling of beeing the onblt one up there. this is all going to change woth flanker 3. I hope this is going to be a tie, as it would mean that both sims would be equally thrilling in their immersion factor. th're will be a whole gorund war and an air war (and in hope there will actually be some sea action also!) all this action around you makes the experiance much more intense. this si a bigger factor in realism than GFX. sound and to a lesser extent, FM. those aid in the experiance, this part makes things happen, and thus is of bigger importance for me.
avoinics/UI: do you click it? or do you put it in with your keyboard (or keyboard emulator a.k.a. programmable hotas) that is not much of a question to me, the clickable cockpit is nice, but not an absolute necessity as long as there are enough keys. This is becoming more and more of a problem these days, so in the end clicking it ,ight be the only way. already I click most of the bottons when not in combat, in combat clicking is not very practical, as the time it takes to hit that miniscule button takes me way too long. so that concludes the UI, now we switch to the avionics: htis is actually my number 2 in importance, as it defines the way you interface with the battlefield. Nice automated easy avionics are not my thing. in the ind I would like to see every button being modelled, because it is that way IRL. Falcon wins in this area, and for now, flanker isn't very good in the UI and in the avionics dept, do falcon wins, and it seems that the flanker team doesn't even want to go this way. hmm, falcon wins.
with the addition of a dynamic campaign to flanker, I'm hopefull flanker 3 (oh wait they call it LOMAC right?) will be something better than Flanker 2.x, and it probably will be much better. howecer, it looks falcon will still sit on the throne as the benchmark sim throne for the forseeable future
deel 2
just like with lomac, thingshave been said and there's a history of previous products. this makes it possible to make an (IMO fairly accurate) educated guess on what we'll get.
why don't i I like LOMAC? because flanker 2 and the promises of lomac pale in comparison with SP3 in what I find the defining parts of a sim. I want LOMAC to be better, but I'm already seeing the fist signs of a let down for me.
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/9104/kennysig.jpg?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/23145/dr.jpg?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/32877/AvatarSelene.jpg?f=community){kind=avatar}
:strip_exif()/u/42578/koffie.gif?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/6101/214283.gif?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/29804/236794.gif?f=community)
/u/30640/oog3.JPG?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/5116/jsr.gif?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/11015/djk.jpg?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/5722/ocf81_avatar_3.gif?f=community){kind=avatar}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/47770/avatar.jpg?f=community){kind=avatar}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/24568/tn_tux179.jpg?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/26289/ahxp68H.gif?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/12885/crop5873ed880ecc8_cropped.jpeg?f=community)
).
.:strip_exif()/u/44765/icon2.gif?f=community)
Dit topic is gesloten.
![[afbeelding]](http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/f16_dusk.jpg){kind=link}
