The LOMAC Love

OMFG… the screens in this “war story” are amaaaaazing…

http://www.lo-mac.com/fighter_sweep_1.php

Oh hell yeah, that is VERY sweet indeed.

While we’re waiting for September now, I did see this today…

http://www.operation-iraqi-freedom.us/

It’s kinda an update to F/A-18 Korea by GraphSim. It’s supposedly an “award-winning” simulation, but I suppose that’s because it’s practically the only sim maker for the Mac, which merits some kind of self-esteem award of some kind. Not as if there’s any competitors out there for them.

I did download the Windows version of the rolling demo. Basically, it’s an unplayable demo of the game in action. Terrain looks rather nice, but the planes still have the polygon look. Cockpit is now fully 3D, rather than 2D art.

But, if I remember correctly from Korea, these are canned missions. No real campaign at all. Plus, the canned missions tend to be really small. Like, take-off, fly 10 miles, bomb target, turn-around.

Am I wrong? I may be so desperate I might pick this up. If anything to hone my skills for LOMAC. I’m having a devil of the time getting Jane’s F/A-18 to work correctly in XP. It installed fine. It played fine. And then there was the week where it refused to load, giving me some kind of heap error message. Then the next week, it worked fine again.[/list]

If you’re waiting for LOMAC you might want to try the oldie USAF. It ain’t bad as a survey sim. Arcadey but fun! And with A-10’s!

etc

I dig the heat exhaust distortion in the landing pics. I wonder how controlling the radar and other electronics works out with keyboard?

Doesn’t run properly in XP. Best I can do is some weird resolution of 700x500 or something like that. It just looks awful.

It’s why I’m partially desperate for any kind of new modern combat flight sim built for XP. Everything we have to date was built well before the Win2K era, and it’s just tough trying to get it to work in XP, and when it does, it’s graphically dated.

aye, thats why I have a dual boot dual hard drive 98/xp config… now if only I can get a 486/66mhz type emulator I’d be set!

etc

I don’t like dual booting, if mainly because your boot sector has to be in FAT in order for Win9x to work, and that pretty much defeats a ton of the security measures for XP. I like to keep it all in NTFS.

Not to mention, I refuse to even touch Win9x with a 20 foot pool now. Ever since I got Win2K in early 2000, I’ve been 100-percent NT-kernel since.

hmm, i have a FAT drive and an NFTS drive working fine together… though they boot up on seperate hard drives.

etc

Doesn’t run properly in XP. Best I can do is some weird resolution of 700x500 or something like that. It just looks awful.

It’s why I’m partially desperate for any kind of new modern combat flight sim built for XP. Everything we have to date was built well before the Win2K era, and it’s just tough trying to get it to work in XP, and when it does, it’s graphically dated.[/quote]

I’ve gotten it to successfully run at 1024x768 using the compatiblity wizard.

yeah, don’t forget about the right click thing in xp, set the shortcut to 98 compatibility! it works most of the time!

etc

Yeah, I tried the compat wizard thing. I suspect it was my vid card driver that was causing problems. A lot of times, a lot of these older games like the older Det drivers. The newer ones give them fits. Unfortunately, I don’t want to have to constantly install different drivers whenever I want to play a different game.

I’ll raise my hand to the LOMAC debut! And Scharmers, good point about the USAF scripted missions…not too many sims have you getting orders from Robin Olds.

SimHq has a new preview of LOMAC up. I know you can never trust previews but Andy Bush (a retired pilot who also flew the A-10) does sound very excited about the game.

There’s also an older preview at CheckSix in French with some nice screens.

Some more fantastic LOMAC screenshots here.

Okay, assuming it doesn’t slip (again), Sept. 23 is going to be a really hellish day on my wallet.

This is what’s expected that day.

  1. LOMAC
  2. Halo (PC)
  3. Raven Shield expansion

Cripes!

And I’m really thinking of bumping up to an ATI 9x00 series videocard. LOMAC uses self-shading to huge extent, and Halo (PC) even uses DX9 graphics features (if you want the maximum graphical effect).

What’s a good (relatively inexpensive) 9x00 series video card? The numbering system is confusing. Is the 9700 faster than the 9800?

9800 Pro > 9800 > 9800SE > 9700 Pro > 9700 > 9500 Pro > 9600 > 9200

Despite its seeming low place on the list, the 9600 is at a good price/performance point.

edit: the above is a performance scale, not price.

Hey Lloyd, is it true I could just get a 9500 and do some kind of weird BIOS trick to turn it into a 9700 or 9800?

And the 9600 has half the pixel pipeline and shader units of the 9700. Won’t that be crippling with DX9 games?

Some of the very early 9500 Pro boards could be tweaked into a 9700. This worked because the difference between a 9700 and 9500 Pro was the chip on the 9500 Pro had some of its pipelines disabled because they didn’t pass validation. Otherwise it would have been sold as a 9700. But people don’t want to hear about that part. :roll:

No No NO! Not the 9500 Pros, Only the 128 MB 9500 NON-Pro. 9500 Pros have all their pixel pipelines active, but half the memory bus width of the 9700. The 9500 non-Pros had half their pipes disables, but some of the 128 MB versions had the full 256 bit memory of a 9700. The software hack turns on the disabled pipelines and Boom! Tuff-actin-9700. But you might get weird artifacting, so it’s a gamble. I got lucky and won’t have to upgrade for a while for a measly $150.

So the answer is yes, but not with the Pro version! It’s a software driver hack, you can do it by replacing a single file when you install the drivers, or their are utilities which can enable the hack automatically.