LOMAC demo


Apparently here too, but I don’t know if that’s legit:

Drat, beat me to it.

Downloading now. First Bittorrent download. I’m not sure I like this Bittorrent thing – no real docs, no user interface. When I’m done downloading, is Bittorrent still going to be feeding the file to others? I like the idea of BT, but I want to know what it’s doing on my system…

BitTorrent will use you as a server until you close the prog.

Yeah. You really should be using the “experimental” bit torrent client. This version lets you set bandwidth limits. If you use the standard client, it will use all your available upload bandwidth. That’s less than optimal for several reasons.

Install the experimental client from here:

You can quit your current .torrent and start it up again after you install the new bittorrent client. Just be sure to specify the same target file or directory when it prompts you at the torrent start. It will pick up where the previous client left off.

Okay. I need a keyboard template.

OTH, my buddy (ex-A10 and F15 pilot) says:

Countermeasure (09:31 PM) :
this game sucks

Countermeasure (09:39 PM) :
the flight model is all wrong…


Bittorrent too. Mighty fast.

Here we go again :roll: …


Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 140

Tried the demo and it runs good on my P4 2.53 GFFX 5800, at high detail 1280x1024

But what a disapointing overhyped flight physics, it is even worse than Falcon the sudden stops at boundary conditions are all over the place, the whole flight model feels scripted and doesn’t feel like a full non cheating force model.

I cannot accept this for an FBW aircraft and certainly not for non FBW aircraft that Lomac tries to simulate, I also didn’t notice any angular momentum coupling, man this is so depressing.

Try using rudder and then release it and see how hilarous that looks.
This is 2003 for god sake. A-10 cuba from mid 90’s did way better than this, arcade sims even did better.

Sorry that I sound so negative but I simply cannot tolerate this kind of phsycis these days anymore

I may be wrong but I did not think the developers were claiming this would be a hardcore ultra-realistic simulation ? It’s supposed to be more of a survey sim.


I downloaded it. I’ll try it later tonight. Bittorrent is good.

This one doesn’t like the fact that the sound is muted in the cockpit …


posted 09-28-2003 17:49

it may be realistic but it sucks. I want to hear the engines and the weapons releases, after all it’s a game and sitting there in a cockpit with no sound at all is pretty boring. This was one of my major gripes with flanker as well, and as i remember ALOT of other people hated it too, i dunno why they insisted on doing it yet again.

We’ve got 2 types of feedback in games, visual and audio, to completely neuter one in favor of “realism” is plain silly. Even with cockpit volume cranked it still leaves alot lacking.

I think LOMAC may give flight simulation whiners new levels of whining pleasure.

A-10 Cuba? Hear that spinning sound? That’s the poster’s credibility heading down the toilet. And then the reference to arcade sims…

FWIW, feels pretty good to me, but my F-15 stick time was brief and nine years ago…

Denny, you didn’t care for A-10 Cuba? I just loved that old game, even with it’s blocky graphics and lack of a campaign.

scharmers! We need you to get on top of the whiners ASAP.

I downloaded this last night and spent about an hour with it this afternoon. From what I can tell so far, it’s a great sim. The mission they have for the A-10 involves taking out a couple of ground vehicles. One is a Shika, which is pretty deadly. I jumped outside my A-10 to take a look around when the Shika opened fire and took off a good bit of my right wing. My A-10 didn’t like that and started to veer toward the right. After a few attempts, I learned to take out the Shika and BMP from a distance with rockets. Then it was time to pick off the tanks and other support vehicles with the gun. It’s just a heck of a lot of fun to take those long slopping passes, bearing down on your target. The secondaries when the tanks explode looks great. I saw some moving ground vehicles in the demo, but the majority were stationary. Mission/campaign design is going to be an important part of this sim. As for flight dynamics, it met my expectations. The A-10 is just a huge slow pig. I wish they had allowed you to try out more weapons in the sim, but so far it’s just a couple of rockeyes, some rockets, and the gun. It needs a pretty impressive box to get decent framerates, but that just gives me something to aspire to. On my 2Ghz Anthlon /1G ram/ Gf4200 I had to turn it down to medium to get a smooth ride. Even medium detail isn’t too bad, though. I can’t wait to check out the F-15, but it looks like I’ll have to wait for the release. This one has the A-10 and the Mig 29, I think.

No, I loved A-10 Cuba. But its physics were extremely simplistic and exaggerated. To credit it as a flight model to emulate in a realistic sim is just wack.

A-10 Cuba had some touches that made it “feel” real. And IMHO that’s what really counts in a sim. But it was hardly truly realistic.

Damnit, if I get the job I’m waiting word for, I’m gonna upgrade for LOMAC just as much for HL2. I just downloaded the demo, but it sounds like that my AthlonXP 2100+ and GeForce4 Ti 4400 are gonna not be up to the task. Sure, I could tone it down graphically, but I want to experience it all. I’ll let you guys know how it runs on my (now midrange) system. sob

Tim, btw, what’s your Athlon rated at? Is it an actual 2GHz+ model, or is it something like a 2100+ that’s actually at 1.7Ghz.

And does anyone know what’s more important for LOAMC? Would giving Tim a high-end ATI 9x00 board crank his detail and frame rate to high? Or is CPU critical as well? Cause right now, the highest I can upgrade to without a motherboard replacement is the AthlonXP 3200+. Does LOMAC need something even more powerful to run butta smooth at high detail?

Wool, I’ve got the 2400+ with a 266 FSB. I’m curious what others have to say, but I suspect CPU would be more important for LOMAC. I’m sorta in the same boat you are, but I will probably try to make myself hold off a bit more. I like to at least double my processing power before I upgrade. Either that, or I like to max out the motherboard’s specs with the beefiest processor it can handle, but not until said processor comes off the bleeding edge. Like I said earlier, the new games give me something to aspire to.

No, I loved A-10 Cuba. But its physics were extremely simplistic and exaggerated. To credit it as a flight model to emulate in a realistic sim is just wack.

A-10 Cuba had some touches that made it “feel” real. And IMHO that’s what really counts in a sim. But it was hardly truly realistic.[/quote]

Huh. It’s been so long since I played it nostalgia must be clouding my brain. Maybe I am just remembering the hype. Or maybe A-10 Cuba predated whiny flight sim wankers. :)

Okay, been playing it at 1024x768 with most of the details turned up high. It’s been relatively smooth, but it does chug at times, especially with lots of smoke FX on the screen. And if a system could sweat, mine would certainly be straining heavily. Gotta upgrade soon ;)

Graphics are gorgeous, though. Flight model, well, I’m not an expert, but I got into a horrible death spin in the 29 when I departed controlled flight. Heh. But I tried the “snap roll” test, and it wasn’t “snappy.” At least, not at the level most of the hard core of the hard core would like, so I expect much bitching.

It’s kinda hilarious. Flight simmers are like the guy stranded on a desert island starving to death. And when, miraciously, a crate of sirloin washes up on shore, they bitch and moan that it isn’t top sirloin, then refuse to eat out of “principle.” Hell, they’d send it back if they could.

I’m just happy that we have a flight sim built to 2003 graphics standards. The difference between this and Falcon4 is night and day.

How is this done? I’m just curious.