Differences in graphics... LOMAC vs. F4:AF

Aviation & Simulation Topics
Post Reply
spaz
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:58 am
Location: Edmond, OK

Differences in graphics... LOMAC vs. F4:AF

Post by spaz » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:56 am

Here is a graphic representation of the differences between the 2, it's not even close...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3224743667

btw...this probably shoulda been a reply to the "competition" thread, since it is a solo routine by that other "virtual thunderbirds" solo #5. Striker might find this interesting...
User avatar
Jonnyb
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:53 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Jonnyb » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Yeah, but don forget that google video allways puts the graphics down when you pay from their host.
[SH]Falcon
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:52 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by [SH]Falcon » Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:26 pm

Ähm, the Thunderbirds have 2 Solo´s, or am i wrong?



See us,
Falcon
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:20 pm

The Thunderbirds have two Solo's, No. 5 and No. 6.

As for graphics, I think all but the die hard Falcon crowd sees the difference...

LD
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Re: Differences in graphics... LOMAC vs. F4:AF

Post by Rhino » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:42 am

spaz wrote:Here is a graphic representation of the differences between the 2, it's not even close...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3224743667

btw...this probably shoulda been a reply to the "competition" thread, since it is a solo routine by that other "virtual thunderbirds" solo #5. Striker might find this interesting...
If you would look at the comments on the video, the film maker has posted his comments on how he made the video.

Happy Flying!
SBugz
User avatar
lqcorsa
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:31 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by lqcorsa » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:10 am

F4 Graphics remind me of FS2004 graphics... I see a huge difference in graphics, multiplayer, and gameplay as well :? .
spaz
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:58 am
Location: Edmond, OK

Re: Differences in graphics... LOMAC vs. F4:AF

Post by spaz » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:36 am

SuperBugz wrote:
spaz wrote:Here is a graphic representation of the differences between the 2, it's not even close...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3224743667

btw...this probably shoulda been a reply to the "competition" thread, since it is a solo routine by that other "virtual thunderbirds" solo #5. Striker might find this interesting...
If you would look at the comments on the video, the film maker has posted his comments on how he made the video.

Happy Flying!
SBugz
i own both LOMAC and F4AF and can honestly say that each sim has its own high and low points, with graphics being F4AF's low point. the only major diff. i can see in his video, is the plane is a little "blocky" compared to the sim's actual gameplay graphics, but not much..

LOMAC = tremendous grahics

F4AF = tremendous campaign engine
User avatar
Frazer
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:47 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Frazer » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:31 pm

Ok......first I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this movie but that was replaced with crying on the end of the movie. Tip for the pilot, first learn to fly THEN start to make movies.........
About the graphics, you can't judge a sim on a video or even a picture, it goes about what flying experience the sim gives you.
I have both sims and yes Lockon looks nicer when you have the graphics on full but you need a heck of a computer to do that. Also not to forget that F4 runs on a way much older terrain engine than Lockon does. I have Hitiles terrain for F4 and I must say that it really looks nice and it doesn't cost you any FPS.
So which one will win?
For older computers Falcon 4, for the newer and more powerful computer lockon.
For me? Lockon.......but that goes about the flight model and the stability online......
About the "pilot" who made this movie, I MEAN IT! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!
Last edited by Frazer on Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FALCON56
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:03 am
Location: Peoria, Arizona

Post by FALCON56 » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:16 pm

Ive got both games as well.. It just depends on what you like and if graphics dont bother you... as long as there not the old Jet fighter game from 1989...LOL but both games are fun to play just depends on your tastes I guess..
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:01 am

Frazer wrote:Ok......first I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this movie but that was replaced with crying on the end of the movie. Tip for the pilot, first learn to fly THEN start to make movies.........
About the graphics, you can't judge a sim on a video or even a picture, it goes about what flying experience the sim gives you.
I have both sims and yes Lockon looks nicer when you have the graphics on full but you need a heck of a computer to do that. Also not to forget that F4 runs on a way much older terrain engine than Lockon does. I have Hitiles terrain for F4 and I must say that it really looks nice and it doesn't cost you any FPS.
So which one will win?
For older computers Falcon 4, for the newer and more powerful computer lockon.
For me? Lockon.......but that goes about the flight model and the stability online......
About the "pilot" who made this movie, I MEAN IT! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!
Last time I checked this wasnt the "bash other pilots forum". Come on, give the guy a break. Certainly we all have better constructive things to do than to bash fellow simmers. Keep in mind, all the external views had to be flown probably from that view, and we all know how difficult it is to fly from an external view. As he says, it was just a test, so let it go.

Happy Flying!
SuperBugz
scapilot
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:05 pm

Post by scapilot » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:33 am

I agree with what your taste is all about. For F4AF, I love the fact that you have to actually follow procedures to get the aircraft to start up, and run the systems, though there's a lot of in-op functions, it's still way ahead of LOMAC as far as avionics goes, and once you learn to implement those avionics, it's like the real Viper drivers say, "You become one with the plane." I've never been much for trying out the combat essence of LOMAC, because it all feels too predictable and scripted, and again, the avionics feel extremely baseline, and sub par. Yes, it looks much better, and for formation flying, nothing holds a torch to LOMAC, simply because it's net coding for MP is outstanding, and the handling characteristics are much more forgiving, but it's not always about looks. It's about what you get out of a sim. It's not uncommonf for me to plug in the yoke and pedals and take a flight from Norfolk to Dallas one day in Flight Sim 9, and then turn the tides in the war against the pesky N. Koreans the next day using F4, only to hurry back to base so I can meet some folks on Ventrillo for a formation hop. It's about what you get out of flying, and what's interesting for you at the time. No matter if it's old, new, or if anyone else likes it. If it makes you happy, then fly it.

Creature
Image
User avatar
Frazer
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:47 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Frazer » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:53 am

SuperBugz wrote:
Frazer wrote:Ok......first I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this movie but that was replaced with crying on the end of the movie. Tip for the pilot, first learn to fly THEN start to make movies.........
About the graphics, you can't judge a sim on a video or even a picture, it goes about what flying experience the sim gives you.
I have both sims and yes Lockon looks nicer when you have the graphics on full but you need a heck of a computer to do that. Also not to forget that F4 runs on a way much older terrain engine than Lockon does. I have Hitiles terrain for F4 and I must say that it really looks nice and it doesn't cost you any FPS.
So which one will win?
For older computers Falcon 4, for the newer and more powerful computer lockon.
For me? Lockon.......but that goes about the flight model and the stability online......
About the "pilot" who made this movie, I MEAN IT! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!
Last time I checked this wasnt the "bash other pilots forum". Come on, give the guy a break. Certainly we all have better constructive things to do than to bash fellow simmers. Keep in mind, all the external views had to be flown probably from that view, and we all know how difficult it is to fly from an external view. As he says, it was just a test, so let it go.

Happy Flying!
SuperBugz
What I said was a bit harsh but I just hate to see those guys copying the VTB. To me it feels like disrespect. They are the best out there and you just don't copy that. Next to that, you ask for comments like that.
About the externals, i don't get your point.....
Stryker
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:37 pm

Post by Stryker » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:47 am

I agree with SuperBugz...let the VTBs monitor, defend and respond in their own forums. No need for you to step in with 'bashing'.
User avatar
Thumper
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Weslaco, TX

<cough>First Amendment<cough>

Post by Thumper » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:16 am

_AH_Stryker wrote:I agree with SuperBugz...let the VTBs monitor, defend and respond in their own forums. No need for you to step in with 'bashing'.
Um...wow...you made a statement and contradicted yourself all in one fell swoop. I dont think anyone would think twice about giving some kind of positive feedback if that F-16 had been in gray paint, or heaven forbid, there had been any hint of an SOP being followed in that vid.

If VTB found anything offensive about Frazer's post Im sure they would have done something about it. If I remember correctly, these forums are moderated and they have seen fit to edit inflammatory posts before. I really dont see whats wrong with Frazer throwing in his two cents, it's just as valid as anybody else's.

As for the graphical quality and the angles from which the movie was "shot", I think it goes a long way to show just exactly HOW challenged F4-AF is for the purpose of making a watchable video. That being said, it begs the question, if formation flying is something to be watched, and is supposed to be visually spectacular for a spectator, why oh why use that platform when there are better platforms available. Personally, when I am at an airshow, its usually sh*t hot flying that seems to excite most of the people in attendance, not the 250 step startup procedure that the pilot goes through.

Of course, thats just my two cents, and I certainly dont mean to bash anyone.

-Thumper
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:46 pm

First of all, there's nothing to defend or prove wrong from our point of view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of speech and as long as it stays within the rules and guidelines of the forums (everyone can read those in the sticky thread), we have no problem hearing what everyone thinks! In fact, that's what we want! If it turns ugly or becomes personal, however, moderators may have to step in if necessary. It's each users own responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen though!

Secondly, this subject has been talked about in the past many times and rightfully so it's being discussed again as it should. Just to bring up what was said the last time around in case anyone is interested, here are some old threads on the topic:

viewtopic.php?t=217&postdays=0&postorde ... n&start=15

viewtopic.php?t=948&highlight=falcon

viewtopic.php?t=589&highlight=falcon

LD
Post Reply