PDA

View Full Version : LOMAC Graphics vs IL2 Graphics



essemm
03-25-2004, 05:00 AM
Hey guys. Check this out. Somebody posted shots of the same place in both IL2 and LOMAC. LOMAC's graphics are better, but what you don't see is that the guy in LOMAC is getting 2.2 frames per second on an uber machine, while flying his 10-mission campaign for the A-10. 10 WHOLE MISSIONS!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=529106003

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/141103-warloch_small.jpg

essemm
03-25-2004, 05:00 AM
Hey guys. Check this out. Somebody posted shots of the same place in both IL2 and LOMAC. LOMAC's graphics are better, but what you don't see is that the guy in LOMAC is getting 2.2 frames per second on an uber machine, while flying his 10-mission campaign for the A-10. 10 WHOLE MISSIONS!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=529106003

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/141103-warloch_small.jpg

glottis77
03-25-2004, 05:33 AM
wow! i have lock-on but i rarely fly it. i was aware of the difference but this is amazing. i only wonder if the il2 shots are on perfect setting.
lock-on has the most amazing grafics i have ever seen, it looks so real. and come on, it is not soooooooo slow. on my p4 2.8c 9800pro it runs quite well, on 1024x768 though

ELEM
03-25-2004, 05:40 AM
Not suprising really is it? When you consider how long IL-2 has been around. And BoB, when it arrives, will probably be better than LOMAC.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-25-2004, 05:45 AM
Actually IL2 does quite well compared to Lomac (though Lomac wins). It`s also interesting to see the accuracy of the maps in both and how one has a dense city (Lomac), wheras IL2 has yet to develop a large city. Nice.

Cossack_UA
03-25-2004, 06:33 AM
I also love cockpit reflections in Lockon. Really gives you feeling of immersion.

Dnmy
03-25-2004, 06:41 AM
The IL2 shots look exactly what i see on my system.

And i can definitely not run it on perfect settings. In fact i have to turn all the graphic options down.

LOMAC may look more detailed but good graphics alone do not make a popular aircombat sim. Fortunately there's a lot more to it than just that.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
03-25-2004, 06:55 AM
The accuracy is startling close actually...especially considering its one of the least detailed maps in FB/IL2 and one of the originals thats pretty good!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

The_Red_Spoon
03-25-2004, 07:25 AM
Of course LOMAC looks better, but It makes my system (which copes well with IL2 @ 1024x768 No AA/Anso with max-everything-except-perfect-landscapes) keel over and die.

Until I overhaul my system (XP2000+, R9000Pro, 1GB PC2100), LOMAC is off limits for me (and probably lots of other people)

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2004, 09:09 AM
DUUH!! Population growth with civil construction and planting of trees since WW2 is why LOMAC grafix has "more" stuff.

There, I made myself feel better about the FB now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Spinne_3.-JG51
03-25-2004, 11:53 AM
LOMAC sucks at low alts. When you're flying between cliffs or something. FB has better terrain graphics at ground-level alts.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

El Turo
03-25-2004, 12:03 PM
Someone should go to the same airport/location and take some comparative shots from down low.

Make it so!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, süsse träume.

Luftkillier
03-25-2004, 06:01 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTZ_Bonehead
03-26-2004, 01:42 AM
I have LOMAC too, it looks great there is no doubt, however its buggier than a buggy thing. A total waste of money until they get it fixed. Stick with IL2 a while longer if you havent already got LOMAC.

"Lock on? more like Lock Up" Bert B-F admin

Dedicated gaming www.battle-fields.com (http://www.battle-fields.com) home of UK-DEDICATED, why not make it your home too?
http://www.battle-fields.com/staff/bone/ubisig.jpg

'Bobi@ isnt a bloke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://www.battle-fields.com/downloads/bobi/2.jpg

Mirtma
03-26-2004, 03:01 AM
Yes, LoMac is nice. But what good it is if I can't play it. Probs with joystick, when aplaying patch even worse. With IL-2 had never such probs. And I've been playing it from demo....

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/McMatt/sig_LP.jpg
---------------------------
Athlon 2000 XP+
1024 Mb DDram

SB Live! 1024 Player
Saitek Cyborg Evo
---------------------------

Spinne_3.-JG51
03-26-2004, 05:45 AM
LOMAC is a pretty decent game if you spend some time setting your system up. It's a pain, but it's worth it. I can't play LOMAC at high settings, but I find LOMAC's aircraft skins just a bit too glossy, and under-detailed for my liking. AA doesn't work as well as it does in FB either. The ground textures are poor at ground-hugging altitudes, particularly when the terrain level changes rapidly, like on the sides of a steep hillside or cliff. The view options in LOMAC are beautifuly implemented though. I miss the free-pan mode that I'm used to in AEP, but LOMAC's system has advantages once you get accustomed to it. What i really dislike about LOMAC is it's lack of personality during a fight. While the AI routines in AEP are easy to get used to, the fact that combat occurs at very-close range makes the AI pilots seem like regimented real pilots who are too green to combat to think outside the book. In LOMAC, due to the inherent long-range at which combat occurs, you loose that feeling of fighting something with a personality. It's more of knowing exactly what short-commings your enemy has, and exploiting them before he can strike against you. The Allies have superior avionics, but the Russians have longer-range, highly manuverable missiles. Depending on what side I choose to fly for, it's relatively easy to exploit the enemy's weakness by knowing exactly what attack plan works best in the given situation. For example, in the first Russian campaign mission, your airfield is attacked by Turkish F-16s and F-4s. The Falcons carry AAMRAMs with a slightly shorter range than your R-27s. So you close in to firing range, loosen off two missiles, and then turn away and let your squad mates take the brunt of the AAMRAMs that the 16s carry. When they're out, you turn back in to get in a few easy kills to add to the F-16 you downed with your previous R-27s. I didn't intend for this to turn into a rant, but that it what it's quickly becomming. So I'll stop now.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

maxim26
03-26-2004, 08:23 AM
I think that at low alt Lomac looks better then FB too. Terai textures are great. There are grass and fields with crops. We cant see fields in FB, wich is unrealistic. Then graphics is much more intence. High detailed cities with buildings, hotels, traffic. Airports with partking lots and therea are cars actualy parced on thet lots, high voltage electric lines, planty of trees.

What i dont like is the water. Water in lomac looks good only at high alt and only if the sun light reflects in it. At low alt and without ligh reflection you cant see the waves.

In FB water looks great on any alt, and especially at low alt. Waves are actually moving and they are visible even without light reflections. Plust coas line is modeled better. You can see the water color changes close to the shore.

Cossack_UA
03-26-2004, 08:33 AM
The fact is that Il2 and Lockon are different types of sim, both achieved THE BEST RESULTS so far trying to give a virtual pilot a feeling of what the air combat must have looked like in 40s and what the air combat looks now.

I dont sea why whould we be so black and white? "Il 2 rules, Lomac sucks." "Lomack rules, Il2 sucks" Both of these attitudes are stupid. Lomack is a great MODERN air combat sim. Il2 is a great WWII sim. Period.

Your feeling that Lomack is not personal,blah-blah ,does not change the fact that this is how air combat is done today.

Stalker58
03-26-2004, 08:35 AM
LOMAC has also much more flater and clearer horizon with better visibility.

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

adlabs6
03-26-2004, 09:19 AM
LOMAC has not been buggy at all on my system. Just a normal installation, and I'm running fine. A nice piece of software, I'm very happy that I bought it.

With a game having advanced graphics like LOMAC, I can't expect my PC to run it as well as 2 year old software like IL2/FB, so I set the graphics lower. Still amazing, and the cockpit views are fabulously immersive for me.

Just to compare, I can't run FB on perfect mode and average more than 10-15 fps. LOMAC is the same way. The only way to solve these problems is to buy new hardware.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

S77th-Chek6
03-26-2004, 09:36 AM
I'm fortunate enough to be able to play FB on perfect and Lock-On at, for the most part, High settings (minus heatblur).


I think the coasts allowing view of the shelf of land just offshore around the beaches and the breaking waves in FB OWNs over Lock-On's coastline model.


Both games are sweet, but if LOMAC could incorporate FB's coast qualities it couldn't get much better for me.


Oh, Yeah...and UNNERF the F15!!



A far too frequent member of the Martin-Baker Fanclub...


http://members.cox.net/chek6/sigs/F15-Chek6-Sig.gif

Arrrra
03-26-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalker58:
LOMAC has also much more flater and clearer horizon with better visibility.

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I agree, LOMAC definately has issues. Untill they [ED] fix\patch it, I won't be using it much. I got tired of the constant configuration changes {IT BECAME A REAL CHORE\ PAIN IN THE ARRZZ].http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

IL2.FB.AEB has been pure enjoyment out of the box http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif even with running it maxxed out.

1C MADDOX SHOULD VISIT ED, AND GIVE THEM SOME POINTERS ABOUT IN-GAME-SIMULATION BALANCE. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IL2.FB.AEB = Usable NOW http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LOMAC = Usable in the future http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

***BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID***

http://www.imageshack.us/img2/5517/LA-Arra.jpg