|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > May 2005 > Jetfighter
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-03, 12:31 am |
| Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-03, 3:31 am |
| "Gerry Davidson" <xiantoo@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jTBde.4716$VL3.246990@news20.bellglobal.com...
quote:
> Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
>
Never heard of it - is it any good?
| |
| FatKat 2005-05-03, 8:32 pm |
| Was anybody ever playing that game? I remember loving it for a short
time back in the early 1990's - it was my first real VGA flight sim.
But the act got tired and quick - it was undemanding and painfully
unchallenging. Some features were just plain inept. I figured it was
born of a philosophy utterly ignorant of ACM, so I just gave up on ever
trying any of the sequels.
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-05-03, 8:32 pm |
| Yes- I liked it so much I bought the whole series of them from JF1- vga
to Jf4. I skipped JF5. I ended up with 2 copies of JF4 due a mistake I
made on ebay.
I don't think I can now play any of them with my ATI card. There is 1
mission in JF4 that I could not win- about id ing things and I could
not complete the campaign because of it. Anyway, there are more
important things to worry about.
The programmers have an opinion that if the closing rate of a missile
to enemy plane is too high the missile will miss. To get a hit you
practically have to slow down to a stall. I tried to point out their
error but to no avail- it was a major part of the sim.
Also if you don't get your wingman out of the way you are sure to shoot
him down- very good hit rate for friendlies. The challenge for many of
the missions is to shoot down hoards of enemy planes- you can get a
heart attack over it. On many of the missions it is impossible to win
them without landing, refueling, and re-ammo- sometimes a few times.
These were made in the days where realism did not play a major role and
they were more a game quality than an excercise in visuals and
accuracy. You came, you kicked butt and won the war- what else is
important?
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-04, 12:31 am |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115126973.847670.284020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Was anybody ever playing that game? I remember loving it for a short
> time back in the early 1990's - it was my first real VGA flight sim.
> But the act got tired and quick - it was undemanding and painfully
> unchallenging. Some features were just plain inept. I figured it was
> born of a philosophy utterly ignorant of ACM, so I just gave up on ever
> trying any of the sequels.
>
JF3 was the best! Until Jane's USNF was released.
| |
| scharmers@hotmail.com 2005-05-05, 8:33 pm |
| JF3 was a good flight-shooter, with great graphics for its time. JF4
was essentially MOTS, just less, and even closer to a pure
console-shooter (a deliberate design decision, the designer literally
said that he was looking for an "Air Quake". This got a nice little
blurb and a picture of dog doo-doo in the Follies at the time.)
JF5 was a joke that wasn't even created by Mission Studios, but rather
some E. European outsource house that has created a couple of other
flight-shooters.
--scharmers
| |
| FatKat 2005-05-05, 8:33 pm |
| The problem is that JF1/2 were so boring - they were not only
repetitive, but repetitive and uneventful. You flew over this flat
thing that was supposed to be the San Francisco area, and nothing
happened. Some jets would get on your case, or maybe they wouldn't.
There were occasional SAM warnings, but no actual SAMS. There were no
real targets - if not for the pre-mission screen messages, there'd be
no reason to think that the odd, cube-shaped building was an enemy HQ
or manufacturing computer parts for the enemy forces. It wasn't like
these strategic targets evinced their value by being ringed with SAMs
or AAA, or being orbited by enemy fighters. There were no tanks, no
C3I sites, nothing to make you think you were flying over enemy
territory. Hadn't these guys seen "F-19"? It had already been
released. The fun of the Microprose games was that you were flying in
this huge virtual world - stuff happened. JF2 was more like Seinfeld -
the sim about nothing...
That doesn't begin to deal with the flight/instrumentation model -
utterly inept. No flight path ladder? Gyros that are useless at
extreme flight attitudes? A top-down radar (I guess the idea of a
threat display) that barely zooms at all, so it's useless for
close-range. How about the weapons selector? First off, it cycled
from low-range to high - even though ACM usually goes in the other
direction. Then, they put all weapons - AA & AG - on the same circuit.
In high speed encounters, in which you've got to go from guns to
sidewinders, you'd also have to go through your bombs and those useless
kinetic energy things, even if you were out of them. Of course, you
lose lock every time you cycled to AG, or just got to the end of the
cycle (there was this idiotic "no weapon" space). And don't get me
started on those kinetic kill things - utterly useless. And how were
you supposed to even dogfight with the crummy HUD cues the game came
with? Bombing ground targets? Faghedaboudit. I just aim and toss of
a sidewinder, and it's like a total smoking hole.
Lastly - this was a survey sim that defeated the purpose of a survey
sim by giving its airplanes extremely similar flight mods. Sure the
F-23 was faster, but so what? The F-14 in the game was as agile as the
F-18, and since it didn't have AG ordinance, but did carry more
missiles, you didn;t have to cycle though as many weapons (incl. bombs,
which were useless anyway).
Yeah, I know you guys were asking about the latter games, but I felt so
burned by the first ones - I mean how inept can you make a flight sim?
| |
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-06, 12:31 am |
| I'm playing Jetfighter 4. Yes, the sim/arcade game has come a long way. It
has the HUD and can track and target with sam's and amram's. Their is the
altitude ladder and a decent radar.
What I like about it is that you don't need a pilot's certificate to ride
this out and can do some pretty good flying and fighting in no time.
There is a mission creator and and a trainer to get you going with voice and
written instructions above your HUD.
I just bought v5 on e-bay, having tried out the demo.
I alo play Flanker 2.5, flying a Russian a Mig, and also just got Lock on,
the latest offering in flight sims and it is AWSOME! 
"Gerry Davidson" <xiantoo@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jTBde.4716$VL3.246990@news20.bellglobal.com...
quote:
> Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
>
| |
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-06, 12:31 am |
| I'm playing Jetfighter 4. Yes, the sim/arcade game has come a long way. It
has the HUD and can track and target with sam's and amram's. Their is the
altitude ladder and a decent radar.
What I like about it is that you don't need a pilot's certificate to ride
this out and can do some pretty good flying and fighting in no time.
There is a mission creator and and a trainer to get you going with voice and
written instructions above your HUD.
I just bought v5 on e-bay, having tried out the demo.
I alo play Flanker 2.5, flying a Russian a Mig, and also just got Lock on,
the latest offering in flight sims and it is AWSOME!
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115329906.588097.99090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The problem is that JF1/2 were so boring - they were not only
> repetitive, but repetitive and uneventful. You flew over this flat
> thing that was supposed to be the San Francisco area, and nothing
> happened. Some jets would get on your case, or maybe they wouldn't.
> There were occasional SAM warnings, but no actual SAMS. There were no
> real targets - if not for the pre-mission screen messages, there'd be
> no reason to think that the odd, cube-shaped building was an enemy HQ
> or manufacturing computer parts for the enemy forces. It wasn't like
> these strategic targets evinced their value by being ringed with SAMs
> or AAA, or being orbited by enemy fighters. There were no tanks, no
> C3I sites, nothing to make you think you were flying over enemy
> territory. Hadn't these guys seen "F-19"? It had already been
> released. The fun of the Microprose games was that you were flying in
> this huge virtual world - stuff happened. JF2 was more like Seinfeld -
> the sim about nothing...
>
> That doesn't begin to deal with the flight/instrumentation model -
> utterly inept. No flight path ladder? Gyros that are useless at
> extreme flight attitudes? A top-down radar (I guess the idea of a
> threat display) that barely zooms at all, so it's useless for
> close-range. How about the weapons selector? First off, it cycled
> from low-range to high - even though ACM usually goes in the other
> direction. Then, they put all weapons - AA & AG - on the same circuit.
> In high speed encounters, in which you've got to go from guns to
> sidewinders, you'd also have to go through your bombs and those useless
> kinetic energy things, even if you were out of them. Of course, you
> lose lock every time you cycled to AG, or just got to the end of the
> cycle (there was this idiotic "no weapon" space). And don't get me
> started on those kinetic kill things - utterly useless. And how were
> you supposed to even dogfight with the crummy HUD cues the game came
> with? Bombing ground targets? Faghedaboudit. I just aim and toss of
> a sidewinder, and it's like a total smoking hole.
>
> Lastly - this was a survey sim that defeated the purpose of a survey
> sim by giving its airplanes extremely similar flight mods. Sure the
> F-23 was faster, but so what? The F-14 in the game was as agile as the
> F-18, and since it didn't have AG ordinance, but did carry more
> missiles, you didn;t have to cycle though as many weapons (incl. bombs,
> which were useless anyway).
>
> Yeah, I know you guys were asking about the latter games, but I felt so
> burned by the first ones - I mean how inept can you make a flight sim?
>
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
| Yes- I liked it so much I bought the whole series of them from JF1- vga
to Jf4. I skipped JF5. I ended up with 2 copies of JF4 due a mistake I
made on ebay.
I don't think I can now play any of them with my ATI card. There is 1
mission in JF4 that I could not win- about id ing things and I could
not complete the campaign because of it. Anyway, there are more
important things to worry about.
The programmers have an opinion that if the closing rate of a missile
to enemy plane is too high the missile will miss. To get a hit you
practically have to slow down to a stall. I tried to point out their
error but to no avail- it was a major part of the sim.
Also if you don't get your wingman out of the way you are sure to shoot
him down- very good hit rate for friendlies. The challenge for many of
the missions is to shoot down hoards of enemy planes- you can get a
heart attack over it. On many of the missions it is impossible to win
them without landing, refueling, and re-ammo- sometimes a few times.
These were made in the days where realism did not play a major role and
they were more a game quality than an excercise in visuals and
accuracy. You came, you kicked butt and won the war- what else is
important?
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115126973.847670.284020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Was anybody ever playing that game? I remember loving it for a short
> time back in the early 1990's - it was my first real VGA flight sim.
> But the act got tired and quick - it was undemanding and painfully
> unchallenging. Some features were just plain inept. I figured it was
> born of a philosophy utterly ignorant of ACM, so I just gave up on ever
> trying any of the sequels.
>
JF3 was the best! Until Jane's USNF was released.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-07, 8:31 pm |
|
"Gerry Davidson" <xiantoo@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jTBde.4716$VL3.246990@news20.bellglobal.com...
quote:
> Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
>
The only decent one was Jetfighter 3. Despite great improvements in
graphics, JF4 and 5 were junk.
| |
| Kasey Chang \(remove EATSPAM to reply\) 2005-05-09, 6:39 am |
|
"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZPadnZ1geu2GSuHfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
quote:
> The only decent one was Jetfighter 3. Despite great improvements in
> graphics, JF4 and 5 were junk.
JF4 has a lot of XP compatibility problems. Now that the pub
is gone and GT seems to refuse to acknowledge its very existence,
getting it to work in XP involves a lot of luck!
JF4 is also WAY too arcadey, IMHO, with WAY too many missiles
needed to kill the bandits, and WAY TOO MANY bandits around.
Bombing is nearly impossible, and you're pretty much reduced to
missiles. And F-14 carrying more bombs than F-18? Hah! No, it's
NOT realistic alright.
--KC
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-09, 8:33 pm |
|
"Gerry Davidson" <xiantoo@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jTBde.4716$VL3.246990@news20.bellglobal.com...
quote:
> Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
>
The only decent one was Jetfighter 3. Despite great improvements in
graphics, JF4 and 5 were junk.
| |
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-10, 8:34 pm |
| I'm playing Jetfighter 4. Yes, the sim/arcade game has come a long way. It
has the HUD and can track and target with sam's and amram's. Their is the
altitude ladder and a decent radar.
What I like about it is that you don't need a pilot's certificate to ride
this out and can do some pretty good flying and fighting in no time.
There is a mission creator and and a trainer to get you going with voice and
written instructions above your HUD.
I just bought v5 on e-bay, having tried out the demo.
I alo play Flanker 2.5, flying a Russian a Mig, and also just got Lock on,
the latest offering in flight sims and it is AWSOME!
"Gerry Davidson" <xiantoo@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jTBde.4716$VL3.246990@news20.bellglobal.com...
quote:
> Is anyone playing jetfighter anymore?
>
| |
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-10, 8:34 pm |
| I'm playing Jetfighter 4. Yes, the sim/arcade game has come a long way. It
has the HUD and can track and target with sam's and amram's. Their is the
altitude ladder and a decent radar.
What I like about it is that you don't need a pilot's certificate to ride
this out and can do some pretty good flying and fighting in no time.
There is a mission creator and and a trainer to get you going with voice and
written instructions above your HUD.
I just bought v5 on e-bay, having tried out the demo.
I alo play Flanker 2.5, flying a Russian a Mig, and also just got Lock on,
the latest offering in flight sims and it is AWSOME!
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115329906.588097.99090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The problem is that JF1/2 were so boring - they were not only
> repetitive, but repetitive and uneventful. You flew over this flat
> thing that was supposed to be the San Francisco area, and nothing
> happened. Some jets would get on your case, or maybe they wouldn't.
> There were occasional SAM warnings, but no actual SAMS. There were no
> real targets - if not for the pre-mission screen messages, there'd be
> no reason to think that the odd, cube-shaped building was an enemy HQ
> or manufacturing computer parts for the enemy forces. It wasn't like
> these strategic targets evinced their value by being ringed with SAMs
> or AAA, or being orbited by enemy fighters. There were no tanks, no
> C3I sites, nothing to make you think you were flying over enemy
> territory. Hadn't these guys seen "F-19"? It had already been
> released. The fun of the Microprose games was that you were flying in
> this huge virtual world - stuff happened. JF2 was more like Seinfeld -
> the sim about nothing...
>
> That doesn't begin to deal with the flight/instrumentation model -
> utterly inept. No flight path ladder? Gyros that are useless at
> extreme flight attitudes? A top-down radar (I guess the idea of a
> threat display) that barely zooms at all, so it's useless for
> close-range. How about the weapons selector? First off, it cycled
> from low-range to high - even though ACM usually goes in the other
> direction. Then, they put all weapons - AA & AG - on the same circuit.
> In high speed encounters, in which you've got to go from guns to
> sidewinders, you'd also have to go through your bombs and those useless
> kinetic energy things, even if you were out of them. Of course, you
> lose lock every time you cycled to AG, or just got to the end of the
> cycle (there was this idiotic "no weapon" space). And don't get me
> started on those kinetic kill things - utterly useless. And how were
> you supposed to even dogfight with the crummy HUD cues the game came
> with? Bombing ground targets? Faghedaboudit. I just aim and toss of
> a sidewinder, and it's like a total smoking hole.
>
> Lastly - this was a survey sim that defeated the purpose of a survey
> sim by giving its airplanes extremely similar flight mods. Sure the
> F-23 was faster, but so what? The F-14 in the game was as agile as the
> F-18, and since it didn't have AG ordinance, but did carry more
> missiles, you didn;t have to cycle though as many weapons (incl. bombs,
> which were useless anyway).
>
> Yeah, I know you guys were asking about the latter games, but I felt so
> burned by the first ones - I mean how inept can you make a flight sim?
>
| |
| Kasey Chang \(remove EATSPAM to reply\) 2005-05-11, 6:42 am |
|
"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZPadnZ1geu2GSuHfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
quote:
> The only decent one was Jetfighter 3. Despite great improvements in
> graphics, JF4 and 5 were junk.
JF4 has a lot of XP compatibility problems. Now that the pub
is gone and GT seems to refuse to acknowledge its very existence,
getting it to work in XP involves a lot of luck!
JF4 is also WAY too arcadey, IMHO, with WAY too many missiles
needed to kill the bandits, and WAY TOO MANY bandits around.
Bombing is nearly impossible, and you're pretty much reduced to
missiles. And F-14 carrying more bombs than F-18? Hah! No, it's
NOT realistic alright.
--KC
| |
| scharmers@hotmail.com 2005-05-11, 8:34 pm |
| JF3 was a good flight-shooter, with great graphics for its time. JF4
was essentially MOTS, just less, and even closer to a pure
console-shooter (a deliberate design decision, the designer literally
said that he was looking for an "Air Quake". This got a nice little
blurb and a picture of dog doo-doo in the Follies at the time.)
JF5 was a joke that wasn't even created by Mission Studios, but rather
some E. European outsource house that has created a couple of other
flight-shooters.
--scharmers
| |
| Gerry Davidson 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| I'm playing Jetfighter 4. Yes, the sim/arcade game has come a long way. It
has the HUD and can track and target with sam's and amram's. Their is the
altitude ladder and a decent radar.
What I like about it is that you don't need a pilot's certificate to ride
this out and can do some pretty good flying and fighting in no time.
There is a mission creator and and a trainer to get you going with voice and
written instructions above your HUD.
I just bought v5 on e-bay, having tried out the demo.
I alo play Flanker 2.5, flying a Russian a Mig, and also just got Lock on,
the latest offering in flight sims and it is AWSOME!
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115329906.588097.99090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The problem is that JF1/2 were so boring - they were not only
> repetitive, but repetitive and uneventful. You flew over this flat
> thing that was supposed to be the San Francisco area, and nothing
> happened. Some jets would get on your case, or maybe they wouldn't.
> There were occasional SAM warnings, but no actual SAMS. There were no
> real targets - if not for the pre-mission screen messages, there'd be
> no reason to think that the odd, cube-shaped building was an enemy HQ
> or manufacturing computer parts for the enemy forces. It wasn't like
> these strategic targets evinced their value by being ringed with SAMs
> or AAA, or being orbited by enemy fighters. There were no tanks, no
> C3I sites, nothing to make you think you were flying over enemy
> territory. Hadn't these guys seen "F-19"? It had already been
> released. The fun of the Microprose games was that you were flying in
> this huge virtual world - stuff happened. JF2 was more like Seinfeld -
> the sim about nothing...
>
> That doesn't begin to deal with the flight/instrumentation model -
> utterly inept. No flight path ladder? Gyros that are useless at
> extreme flight attitudes? A top-down radar (I guess the idea of a
> threat display) that barely zooms at all, so it's useless for
> close-range. How about the weapons selector? First off, it cycled
> from low-range to high - even though ACM usually goes in the other
> direction. Then, they put all weapons - AA & AG - on the same circuit.
> In high speed encounters, in which you've got to go from guns to
> sidewinders, you'd also have to go through your bombs and those useless
> kinetic energy things, even if you were out of them. Of course, you
> lose lock every time you cycled to AG, or just got to the end of the
> cycle (there was this idiotic "no weapon" space). And don't get me
> started on those kinetic kill things - utterly useless. And how were
> you supposed to even dogfight with the crummy HUD cues the game came
> with? Bombing ground targets? Faghedaboudit. I just aim and toss of
> a sidewinder, and it's like a total smoking hole.
>
> Lastly - this was a survey sim that defeated the purpose of a survey
> sim by giving its airplanes extremely similar flight mods. Sure the
> F-23 was faster, but so what? The F-14 in the game was as agile as the
> F-18, and since it didn't have AG ordinance, but did carry more
> missiles, you didn;t have to cycle though as many weapons (incl. bombs,
> which were useless anyway).
>
> Yeah, I know you guys were asking about the latter games, but I felt so
> burned by the first ones - I mean how inept can you make a flight sim?
>
| |
| FatKat 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| The problem is that JF1/2 were so boring - they were not only
repetitive, but repetitive and uneventful. You flew over this flat
thing that was supposed to be the San Francisco area, and nothing
happened. Some jets would get on your case, or maybe they wouldn't.
There were occasional SAM warnings, but no actual SAMS. There were no
real targets - if not for the pre-mission screen messages, there'd be
no reason to think that the odd, cube-shaped building was an enemy HQ
or manufacturing computer parts for the enemy forces. It wasn't like
these strategic targets evinced their value by being ringed with SAMs
or AAA, or being orbited by enemy fighters. There were no tanks, no
C3I sites, nothing to make you think you were flying over enemy
territory. Hadn't these guys seen "F-19"? It had already been
released. The fun of the Microprose games was that you were flying in
this huge virtual world - stuff happened. JF2 was more like Seinfeld -
the sim about nothing...
That doesn't begin to deal with the flight/instrumentation model -
utterly inept. No flight path ladder? Gyros that are useless at
extreme flight attitudes? A top-down radar (I guess the idea of a
threat display) that barely zooms at all, so it's useless for
close-range. How about the weapons selector? First off, it cycled
from low-range to high - even though ACM usually goes in the other
direction. Then, they put all weapons - AA & AG - on the same circuit.
In high speed encounters, in which you've got to go from guns to
sidewinders, you'd also have to go through your bombs and those useless
kinetic energy things, even if you were out of them. Of course, you
lose lock every time you cycled to AG, or just got to the end of the
cycle (there was this idiotic "no weapon" space). And don't get me
started on those kinetic kill things - utterly useless. And how were
you supposed to even dogfight with the crummy HUD cues the game came
with? Bombing ground targets? Faghedaboudit. I just aim and toss of
a sidewinder, and it's like a total smoking hole.
Lastly - this was a survey sim that defeated the purpose of a survey
sim by giving its airplanes extremely similar flight mods. Sure the
F-23 was faster, but so what? The F-14 in the game was as agile as the
F-18, and since it didn't have AG ordinance, but did carry more
missiles, you didn;t have to cycle though as many weapons (incl. bombs,
which were useless anyway).
Yeah, I know you guys were asking about the latter games, but I felt so
burned by the first ones - I mean how inept can you make a flight sim?
|
| |
|
|