IL2 Forgotten Battles

Anybody working this one yet? I’ve got a real itch to get my hands on it, that’s for sure. Il2 being what it is, I don’t see how this could be anything but (good * 2)

As an aside, without starting a new thread about the subject, LOMAC had to drop their dynamic campaign after someone jumped ship on the team. The latest video (f-15 dogfighting) is solidly the best sim footage I’ve ever seen… just looks uber smooth and has a very realistic feel about it. I’m still hoping for a summer release, but it’s been kicked about that the game might get pushed back into late Q3 or 4. Nothing new there.

non dynamic campaign?!? hmm, that was a major selling point for me… oh well. Hopefully it isn’t as buggy as that last Strategy First sim game (forgot name already).


I’ve got two copies pre-ordered, one for myself and one for a co-worker who just built one of those Shuttle nForce2 XPCs today. They told me March 5th, give or take a day. I actually hope it isn’t a day early, because I scheduled an eye appointment for that afternoon, and it would royally suck to have the game but be unable to play from having my eyes dilated. :cry:

I have both Lock on and Forgotten Battles on pre-order. The lack (or butchering) of a dynamic campaign in Lock On isn’t too much of a factor to me as long as I can still fly the A-10 <drool>.

I’ve got it, reviewing it. Looks sweet, haven’t had a chance to really stress-test the campaign yet. Padlock sucks. <G>

Mark, you getting tested for Lasik? My buddy went to have that done, but they found that his cornea wasn’t thick enough in relation to how wide his pupils dialated - so he wasn’t able to get it done due to his pupil being wider than the surgical area, which leads to halos and other artifacts.

Jeff - Since I started playing Air Warrior way back when, I got so adjusted to using the snap-views in sims that I never really noticed IL2 had a padlock… well, I knew it was there but can’t say why it sucks since I haven’t used it. Ok, so why does it suck? I don’t think I could use it if I wanted to since I play with the cockpit off (gasp! I know that freaks some people out) and even when I have the ironwork as a reference, not manually controlling my head leads to instant disorientation for me.

As for LOMAC… Yes, the A10 is the #1 selling point for me. However, the F15 is starting to look more and more interesting. I couldn’t believe how sweet that video looked.

No, I’m just getting new glasses and contacts. My current prescription is almost four years old. I’m going to look at doing Lasik in a few years maybe. I don’t know if the surgery I had for a minor retinal detachment would disqualify me or not, though my totally uninformed W.A.G. is no. There’s a bit of a fear factor with the whole idea too, but I’ll do obviously have to do some research before deciding.

To make a long story short, the padlock in IL-2 has ADD. If your bogey sits behind part of the canopy frame for a certain amount of time (around 5 seconds), you lose padlock. When scissoring, the view is slow to go from looking over one shoulder to the other, and loses padlock easily. Sometimes when looking over your shoulder, even when the bogey is in view, you will lose padlock. I think that’s because whether or not the lock stays is determined by the angle your head is at, and not by whether or not you actually can see the target.

We discussed this on QT3 here and also in here somewhere.

DennyA started a thread about it on the IL-2 boards here

I think all padlocks suck,since all of them I’ve ever used make it impossible to maintain situational awareness.The worst thing about IL2 is the view system,and unfortunately that alone makes me lukewarm on playing it.The snap views in the game are the most usuable views for me,but they are still of limited usefulness.I wish they had used WB style ‘extra wide’ FOV snap views.As it is now,I feel like I’m wearing blinders while flying.

That said,I did preorder FB,and look forward to receiving it.I’m just not sure how much time I’ll be putting into it.

The issue of padlock breaking when the enemy is not visible is something that was argued long and hard on the IL2 forum when the game was still in development. Basically, the squeaky wheel got the grease in this case - the most vocal contingent of whiners were those bitching that padlock was a terribly unfair advantage because you couldn’t lose track of an opponent under your wing. They bitched long, they bitched hard - and what you have today is a result of that.

The last I heard was that there would still be some form of semi-dynamic campaign in LO:MAC even after the developer disappeared. Maybe I am mistaken.

Well, seen at Evil’s that the latest LO-MAC journal also covers the mission part:

Missions: Work is progressing on the single and training missions and some talented folks within the community are creating these missions. Based on their prior work, I believe you’ll be quite pleased with the quality. In order to ensure that Lock On ships on time and at the highest quality, we will use hand-crafted missions rather than the dynamic system we had first envisioned. These hand-crafted missions will enable the builders to maximize game-play balance, provide a storyline, and create realistic unit compositions. Too often dynamic systems become too repetitive and have unrealistic mission assignments; Eagle will avid this. Additionally, the Lock On campaigns will have random elements and the world-state is saved between missions (if you destroy bridge X in the first mission, it will still be destroyed in the second). We plan to have separate campaigns for the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, and Su-25.

Damn it. Oh well such is life.

I wish they would just be honest and say that it was too hard to implement. A well designed campaign system would certainly help with sales.

Heh, I’ll buy the sim just for the A-10 campaign! ;)

If it’s the difference between shipping and not, I am glad they cut the dynamic campaign. Better to ship the pieces that work, then to try to be everything to everyone. The CFS franchise attempts to do this, and it makes the most sense to me.

I haven’t been following LOMAC too closely because I don’t want to be let down if it gets canned. Are all the planes going to have the fidelity of the Soviet planes being rolled in from Flanker? That’s a lot of work! If it’s a succesful product, they can strap on a dynamic campaign with the next version.


The are being really upfront – moreso than most game producers. They had a staff loss that killed the original LO-MAC dynamic campaign, and the one they were working on to replace it would have pushed the game out even further.

The current solution – a scripted campaign with random elements so that missions won’t replay the same way twice, and persistent damage – is a good compromise, and given the number of missions generated by the Flanker community, should mean the game will be a lot more interesting when a year after you first start playing it. (Those who hold dynamic campaigns up as a Holy Grail worship it in part because of replayability, but there’s a definite sameness and lack of depth/story in dynamic campaign missions after you’ve played a sim for a long time.)

As for IL-2:FB… SUCH a sweet sim, except for the view system. I’m really hoping we can make a concerted effort to get Oleg to roll in a decent padlock on a patch. Even if there were no other changes, FB would be worth getting for the improved AI.

trackIR Denny. :-) I believe tIR is now built-in to FB.

They had a staff loss that killed the original LO-MAC dynamic campaign, and the one they were working on to replace it would have pushed the game out even further.

Because they probably couldn’t hit a milestone with a hand grenade. LOMAC is way too ambitious to support the modern sim market. 3+ years dev time won’t cut it anymore.

Still looking forward to it, however.

Well, I look at it this way…

Flightsims are ART. Therefore I think the national endowment for the arts would be MUCH better put to use supporting the LOMAC team for another year or two rather than putting yet another bullshit knot of rusted metal in front of a government office building. They support other art that cannot make return on investment - why not interactive art?

Better yet, how about if the Air Force ponies up for an ultra-realistic JSF simulator (now that they’ve picked one) and treats it like the America’s Army game? Or the Army calls up Al Delaney and says “we’re gonna line your pocket to put a GO ARMY! banner on the loadup screen for Steel Beasts II”

Just a thought.

I just heard that the next IL Sturmovik game is going mouse-only.

I head it will include torpedoes for heroic aerial deep-sea fishing.