Aside from the periodic release of screencaps that push the saliva glands of all red-blooded pointy-nose sim freaks past the throttle detents and into full afterburner, few details about LO: MAC have been forthcoming. Until now, that is. Strap in for a no-holds-barred interview with Ubi Soft Producer, Matt Wagner, as he answers all our burning questions regarding this highly anticipated jet simulation.

--------------------

Donster

--------------------

Carl Norman is still the quality individual, though, as he called me about those images and asked if I wanted them pulled. I said to not worry about it this time . . . but next time (if there is a next time) I'll take the necessary steps to rectify the situation.

All in all, it was a fantastic interview so it's no wonder there's more than a little griping from the folks who want the world and everything in it handed to them for free.

Lastly, I just want to thank the folks on those forums who stuck their neck out to defend COMBATSIM. There's often little to be gained by speaking out against the prevailing sentiment on a free site, so the effort was appreciated.

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

I think Doug and Gail do a great job with this site.

---

Thanks, Buster. You made our day

--------------------

I paid 2.99 solely for the interview with Matt but I think I'm going to stick around. I do like this place and the people much better now that I made the effort to read the threads.

Now, I'm no angel...

great article.

--------------------

my NEW web-site; a work in progress; if you have the time please check it out.

Welcome back!

Let me know if you need anything, or if any part of the site gives you grief.

--------------------

If so, welcome, well even if not!

Anyhow, been a member since this place went pay, but I don't mind. I can usually find at least one thing a month that interests me and for me that is worth the money! Great site!

--------------------

Stephen

Yup im the only leafer anywhere... I hardly never, ever go to IL2 forum at Ubi.

But if ya mean Ubi/LOMAC im there every day.

I know I need to get a life and a job... heheh

I'm happy to be back, ADMIN.

--------------------

my NEW web-site; a work in progress; if you have the time please check it out.

My sig wouldn't change. That website is olddddd and I have new one. How do I change my signature, ADMIN?

Thanks

quote:

---

{EDIT}OH darn it!

Never mind...It fixed after I made new post. {EDIT}

---

--------------------

my NEW web-site; a work in progress; if you have the time please check it out.

The whole article was so fawning, it was almost sickening. Why couldn't the article have been written in a manner which wasn't so a**licking?

There was a great opportunity for an unbiased view of a future product, but IMO it was spoilt by the total lack of impartiality.

I just feel that journalism is all about impartiality and this was the total opposite.

The word is "objective," not subjective.

At any rate, where in the article do you believe Bob Marks was being too subjective?

The intro was not obsequious, and the conclusion was merely showing excited anticipation (like any good sim journalist would have).

As for the questions themselves, I can only see a potential problem in question 4 where R.M. says "please, oh please, oh please". If you knew Robert (Bob) "Groucho" Marks's style, however, you'd know he was being humurous and not dead serious.

In fact, this interview by Bob is one of the finest interviews I've had the pleasure to edit. All of Bob's questions were first rate and revealed his keen understanding of SSI's past efforts, LO:MAC, and fighter aircraft in general.

Unfortunately, some people just don't like certain other people. Is this the case with you, Chris? I only ask because your comments are completely off base here.

--------------------

First of all, I wonder if somebody who doesn't know when to use the word "objective" can recognize it.

Okay, my mistake...of course it should have been "objective"!

Secondly, no of course I haven't got anything personally against the writer...I know nothing about him. I was just conveying my personal feeling on the tone of the article. So if I caused offence I apologise immediately.

Perhaps I wanted the developer of LO:MAC to be more challenged in terms of delivering a highly-anticipated product to the simulation community.

I know that LO:MAC is a very different simulation to others...but I was hoping that there would be much greater support for things like a Real Time Campaign generator.

From what I've read before, LO:MAC is going to update its campaign engine but it still seems that it will be fairly scripted to me...and that's a shame because IMO many more people would be interested if such a generator was included.

Thanks for the clarification. All opinions and criticisms are welcome here so long as they are delivered with respect. I suppose when I see words like a**licking I get annoyed. Your post above was a vast improvement. Thanks

Now to your latest post.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Perhaps I wanted the developer of LO:MAC to be more challenged in terms of delivering a highly-anticipated product to the simulation community.

---

There's not much challenging we can do in these interviews as they are conducted via email. We send the questions to the developer and they send their answers back. We review the answers, and if we need to ask followup questions, we send it back and the cycle repeats.

As you can see from the interview, Bob did ask about the campaign, although he didn't specifically bring up the real time aspect in his question; Matt, however, did bring it up in his response:

M.W. We plan to include a dynamic campaign system, but many of the details have yet to be implemented. Until the system is solidified and functional, we’ll have to postpone such questions. Stay tuned please.

A "dynamic" campaign is the same thing as a real-time campaign. How dynamic it will be, however, remains to be seen and that is what Matt is getting at when he says "...many of the details have yet to be implemented."

As you can also see from Matt's response, he shuts the door on any further questions, so asking follow-up questions on that subject was not going to bear any fruit.

Bottom line, I feel your pain, Chris. LO:MAC is pretty much the standard bearer of the jet simming community's hopes for a decent product so there's bound to be a lot of emotion swirling around it.

--------------------

Yes, totally agree. And yes my initial post upon reflection lacked respect and was, to put it frankly, out of order.

Having had a couple of more days to think about it though, I do have to congratulate the developers of LO:MAC on keeping the community informed and updated in this manner -- Matt's diary is a great example of developing support among the community.

Anyway, look forward to reading more on this and one or two other hard-core fighter simulations in development.

Regards,