since you say Lock On is the better option (i.e. not as lacking as MSFS), but somehow it's easy to fly Lock On and hard to fly MSFS and that makes it more realistic? As I have said before, is it easy to fly LOMAC in formation? No. Is it easier than FSX? Yes. That in itself doesn't make it realistic...

I think netcode and higher fidelity flight models are the two most legitimate reasons we have for choosing Lock On. Higher fidelity FM's doesn't seem right to me. Unless you've figured out a way to edit your F-15 flight model, I can't see how it comes all that close to matching an F-16 or an F/A-18...

I've seen "it" done before I can see that your idea of 'it' is different to mine. Formation itself has been done before, no question, but has the Blues and TBirds version of 'close' been done as a 'team' before? Certainly not successfully. No, our idea of 'it' is the ability to create a formation f...

MSFS is not better for formation flying, LOMAC is certainly the better option there, we all know that. But to say that MSFS has little or no formation capability is incorrect. You may ask 'Why would you go for MSFS when LOMAC has better formation capabilities?'. The reason we have chosen MSFS is not...

Very true, but "unnecessarily difficult" is probably not correct. Yes, it is harder than Lockon in my experience, but, as you say, that skill does eventually come out through practice. Formation in FSX wasn't even meant to be, FSX is for commercial aviation and general aviation (something I find utt...

I realize that posting here right now is utterly utterly hopeless given the amount of people here who stand by LOMAC to the last drop of blood, however, I thought I might join in on the action a little. FSX's Flight Modelling varies quite considerably, depending on the aircraft, and developing team,...