|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > May 2005 > Falcon 4.0 Allied Force?
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]
| Author |
Falcon 4.0 Allied Force?
|
|
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-06, 12:31 am |
| So when did this come about? This is awesome! Hopefully it will be the best
of SP4 and FF3 combined with some of the other great add-ons. The screenies
look awesome! I guess I better practice up again! Can't believe that this
sim has legs this long. If it were a woman I'd be in extasy! 
http://www.lead-pursuit.com/products.asp
| |
| G. Patricks 2005-05-06, 3:31 am |
| I don't know if I would go that far but it will be interesting to see
exactly what it does have in it. What it may well be is a base
installation that people can do without the fear of add-ons and
patches that make it a nightmare to install. I (pre) purchased it
because it would be nice to have the *same* version as the next guy
and they have supposedly tweaked the MP code to be more efficient. I
highly doubt the new boxed release will cause me to delete my SP4 and
FF3.1 installs as, from what I have read, the new version is F16 only.
I currently have seperate campaigns going in an A10, F18, F15, and the
F16. All these ships have their own high-res cockpits (by Aeyes) and
capabilities, making it a lot more interesting to me. My guess is that
soon after this version comes out the "F4Patch wizards" will start
their stuff again and away we go, but until then the phrase "one click
uniform install" comes to mind.
Icer
quote:
><Matthew Baker [carbaker@comcast.netOn Mon, 2 May 2005 05:54:43 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>So when did this come about? This is awesome! Hopefully it will be the best
>of SP4 and FF3 combined with some of the other great add-ons. The screenies
>look awesome! I guess I better practice up again! Can't believe that this
>sim has legs this long. If it were a woman I'd be in extasy!
>
>http://www.lead-pursuit.com/products.asp
>
>
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-05-06, 3:31 am |
| In article <RfSdndb7U7VPZejfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
magma@killspam.comcast.net (HockeyTownUSA) wrote:
quote:
> So when did this come about?
At the moment I'm reserving the right to buy it but be unimpressed. Looks
like F4, smells like F4, oh, hang on... it *is* F4! :-)
Not entirely sure what it'll be giving us that we haven't got already in
the various user addons. And that landscape is looking very dated from
altitude, which was ok for free, but paying for it might hurt a little.
But then I guess IL2 still looks pretty poor from altitude, and I keep
buying that in its various incarnations.
Andrew McP
| |
|
|
"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RfSdndb7U7VPZejfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
quote:
> So when did this come about? This is awesome! Hopefully it will be the
> best of SP4 and FF3 combined with some of the other great add-ons. The
> screenies look awesome! I guess I better practice up again! Can't believe
> that this sim has legs this long. If it were a woman I'd be in extasy!
>
> http://www.lead-pursuit.com/products.asp
>
>
>
My summer spare-time will be taken up by this, Silent Hunter 3 and Dangerous
Waters. Not to mention GTA San Andreas!
And if this means a 'standardised' base-line install that becomes the
default F4, then im all for it.
Dan
| |
|
| On Mon, 2 May 2005 05:54:43 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> If it were a woman I'd be in extasy!
If you like sleeping with 50 year old hookers I guess. ;-)
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-06, 6:42 am |
|
"tomcervo" <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115135251.314814.71470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> It would even nicer if they sent a copy to places like SimHq, Frugal's
> and CombatSim for a prerelease review by experts. Nothing says
> "coaster" more than a stealth release.
>
Good point. Just because they have poor PR doesn't mean it won't be a good
product. Have SimHQ, Frugals, and CombatSim requested a copy?
| |
| tomcervo 2005-05-06, 6:42 am |
| "Not entirely sure what it'll be giving us that we haven't got already
in
the various user addons."
A single, simple installation?
| |
| Mr. Sylvestre 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
| Codex wrote:
quote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 05:54:43 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
> <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you like sleeping with 50 year old hookers I guess. ;-)
And there goes my coffee...
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
| "Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050502145705.3564A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
quote:
> In article <RfSdndb7U7VPZejfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
> magma@killspam.comcast.net (HockeyTownUSA) wrote:
>
>
> At the moment I'm reserving the right to buy it but be unimpressed. Looks
> like F4, smells like F4, oh, hang on... it *is* F4! :-)
>
> Not entirely sure what it'll be giving us that we haven't got already in
> the various user addons. And that landscape is looking very dated from
> altitude, which was ok for free, but paying for it might hurt a little.
> But then I guess IL2 still looks pretty poor from altitude, and I keep
> buying that in its various incarnations.
>
> Andrew McP
I dunno, the whole thing looks pretty good from my vantage point. It
certainly is a hell of a lot nicer looking than an SP4 installation.
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
| In article <t6Ade.2825$pe3.499@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au (James Calivar) wrote:
quote:
> It certainly is a hell of a lot nicer looking
> than an SP4 installation.
I'm quite happy to be pleasantly surprised. :-)
Andrew McP
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lgcj71lhpuoo028cr7s2hslrm0itnbugbc@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:49:51 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
>
>
> Try it. From *any* other page - you get a "The page cannot be found"
> error.
>
Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
quote:
>
> Are you serious?? 99.99% of sites out there use a CGI or perl script
> to process the input and send on the content *server-side*.
>
> So what would you do if you were accessing the site from an Internet
> cafe - that couldn't fire up an e-mail client, because it hasn't got
> one?
>
>
I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
quote:
>
> Smiley noted, but why's that? Is it because I'm probably the oldest
> one her? Aarrgh. Kill this thread NOW!
>
> Adamski.
No XXXXing way. You started it, y0u Gh3Y lo0sAr!
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
|
"G. Patricks" <GPatricks@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:vr5c71hku3o4ks0tlc6bpconoanrvbjmcv@4ax.com...
quote:
>I don't know if I would go that far but it will be interesting to see
> exactly what it does have in it. What it may well be is a base
> installation that people can do without the fear of add-ons and
> patches that make it a nightmare to install. I (pre) purchased it
> because it would be nice to have the *same* version as the next guy
> and they have supposedly tweaked the MP code to be more efficient. I
> highly doubt the new boxed release will cause me to delete my SP4 and
> FF3.1 installs as, from what I have read, the new version is F16 only.
> I currently have seperate campaigns going in an A10, F18, F15, and the
> F16. All these ships have their own high-res cockpits (by Aeyes) and
> capabilities, making it a lot more interesting to me. My guess is that
> soon after this version comes out the "F4Patch wizards" will start
> their stuff again and away we go, but until then the phrase "one click
> uniform install" comes to mind.
>
> Icer
>
>
Well, at least it will make it easier for installation, and for multiplayer
gaming. All these expansions and updates are why I got away from Falcon 4.
Not to mention the multiplayer sessions that I used to play with a buddy of
mine, but quit due to its quirkiness, and later because trying to connect
with each of us having different add-ons was a nightmare.
With this release I will at least give it another go and see if it is truly
a one-install and play setup. I would hope that with this release, most of
the common add-ons won't be required. It would be nice if they also offered
an aircraft add-on pack as well to include the F/A-18 and A-10. But one step
at a time.
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-06, 8:35 pm |
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 06:04:08 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
I'm on Firefox. I've worked out what the problem is: if you happen to
enter the site *not* via the home page (as I did, because I was given
a link - http://www.lead-pursuit.com/contactus.htm) then the
navigation doesn't work. So anyone that gets there [to a sub-page] via
a search engine can't navigate fully.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
Adamski.
| |
| 4-Example 2005-05-07, 8:31 pm |
|
"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050503072440.1940A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
quote:
> In article <t6Ade.2825$pe3.499@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au (James Calivar) wrote:
>
>
> I'm quite happy to be pleasantly surprised. :-)
>
> Andrew McP
>
If multiplayer is improved, I'll be sold. Hopefully it'll still have
"options" for novice pilots.
| |
|
| On Tue, 3 May 2005 06:43:30 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
<magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>Well, six year old at least. I'll leave that to whacko Jack-o!
>
Yea, but in computer years F4.0 is at least 50 years old. Computer
years are like dog years.
| |
|
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote
quote:
>
> It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
> an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
I hope so, gives the big boys more time to do the real work
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-10, 6:41 am |
| Is this "add-on/re-working" from the same crew that attempted to get
F4 OIR out?
My initial response - to the website at least - is disappointing. The
"Home" link doesn't work, and the e-mail contact form is a simple
"mailto:" link that fires up your local e-mail client.
This just doesn't look professional to me. I have a distinct sense of
"deja-vu" about this ...
Adamski.
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-10, 6:41 am |
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 06:04:08 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
I'm on Firefox. I've worked out what the problem is: if you happen to
enter the site *not* via the home page (as I did, because I was given
a link - http://www.lead-pursuit.com/contactus.htm) then the
navigation doesn't work. So anyone that gets there [to a sub-page] via
a search engine can't navigate fully.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
Adamski.
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-10, 8:34 pm |
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:r7ij71dmfs0knf6fn6jip6q9pg92q8sbed@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 06:04:08 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm on Firefox. I've worked out what the problem is: if you happen to
> enter the site *not* via the home page (as I did, because I was given
> a link - http://www.lead-pursuit.com/contactus.htm) then the
> navigation doesn't work. So anyone that gets there [to a sub-page] via
> a search engine can't navigate fully.
>
It must be a local issue to you, because I just went to the link you
provided with both Mozilla and IE, and it works fine. I can get to their
Home page from there.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
> It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
> an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
>
Why, you looking for a job? :-o
Anyway, regardless of what you think of their website, the game still looks
pretty good to me.
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-10, 8:34 pm |
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:49:43 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
quote:
>
>Why, you looking for a job? :-o
Hehe. Well ... it *is* my line of work ... but these days, anything FS
related I prefer to *fly* :-)
quote:
>Anyway, regardless of what you think of their website, the game still looks
>pretty good to me.
OK - back on-topic then - anyone know which planes are flyable?
No matter how cynical I appear to be, I'm still a sucker for these
things and will, of course, buy the damn thing when it comes out <gg>.
Adamski.
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-10, 8:34 pm |
| "G. Patricks" <GPatricks@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:u18k711mq310d1f99j1mgd929u49o9pb5r@4ax.com...
quote:
>
>
> I believe they state that the F16 is flyable in several variants, I
> would assume the Block 40, Block 52, and ?..
>
> That's it.
>
> Icer
Good enough for me.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-11, 8:34 pm |
| It appears this new Falcon 4.0 includes improved AI, network code, and a
bumch of GUI improvements.
I was never able to get FF3 up and running properly on my system either.
Random crashes still. Not to say Allied Force will be any better,but as a
retail product, I hope it will be much more stable. It sounds as if they
really worked hard on stabalizing it too.
"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ofWdnWLsPIbBLOTfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RfSdndb7U7VPZejfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>
> Yeah exactly. I am not sure this is any better than FF3. And judging from
> the replies you have gotten to this point, I do not think I need to change
> that thinking.
>
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
| |
| Simon Robbins 2005-05-15, 6:32 am |
| "Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:72af71dne1h2d8mj0sglphdbcl2e6210e4@4ax.com...
quote:
> Yea, but in computer years F4.0 is at least 50 years old. Computer
> years are like dog years.
I think it's more complicated than that. Moore's Law would make "computer
years" exponential. But it's a Sunday morning, I'm hungover, and I'm not
about to attempt even moderately simple arithmatic..
Si
| |
|
| Im really looking forward to this game. I lost interest in Falcon 4 due
mainly to the repetitive airfield attack missions with limited wingmen
attack AI but this game has revised all that. Now planes can be alotted
separate targets by the leader and will attack from different directions
etc. There are loads of other items they have revised. Reminds me of the
airfield attacks I experienced in Tornado so Im very enthusiastic about the
possibilities. Its due for release on June 28th.
Nats
"Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d672rc$bf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> "Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> news:72af71dne1h2d8mj0sglphdbcl2e6210e4@4ax.com...
>
> I think it's more complicated than that. Moore's Law would make "computer
> years" exponential. But it's a Sunday morning, I'm hungover, and I'm not
> about to attempt even moderately simple arithmatic..
>
> Si
>
>
| |
| Simon Robbins 2005-05-18, 12:33 am |
| "Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:72af71dne1h2d8mj0sglphdbcl2e6210e4@4ax.com...
quote:
> Yea, but in computer years F4.0 is at least 50 years old. Computer
> years are like dog years.
I think it's more complicated than that. Moore's Law would make "computer
years" exponential. But it's a Sunday morning, I'm hungover, and I'm not
about to attempt even moderately simple arithmatic..
Si
| |
|
| Im really looking forward to this game. I lost interest in Falcon 4 due
mainly to the repetitive airfield attack missions with limited wingmen
attack AI but this game has revised all that. Now planes can be alotted
separate targets by the leader and will attack from different directions
etc. There are loads of other items they have revised. Reminds me of the
airfield attacks I experienced in Tornado so Im very enthusiastic about the
possibilities. Its due for release on June 28th.
Nats
"Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d672rc$bf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> "Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> news:72af71dne1h2d8mj0sglphdbcl2e6210e4@4ax.com...
>
> I think it's more complicated than that. Moore's Law would make "computer
> years" exponential. But it's a Sunday morning, I'm hungover, and I'm not
> about to attempt even moderately simple arithmatic..
>
> Si
>
>
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:49:51 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
quote:
>"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:4h6j711higulk9qqbd2r3nnfkssh07l6q0@4ax.com...
>
>It does if you're not on the Home page already, genius. :-) See how link
>to the page you're already on has a grey colour? I think I heard it called
>"greyed out" once way back when they invented Windows 3.1...
Try it. From *any* other page - you get a "The page cannot be found"
error.
quote:
>
>What's the alternative?
Are you serious?? 99.99% of sites out there use a CGI or perl script
to process the input and send on the content *server-side*.
So what would you do if you were accessing the site from an Internet
cafe - that couldn't fire up an e-mail client, because it hasn't got
one?
quote:
>
>I'm getting a feeling that you might suffer from this malady quite a bit.
>;-)
Smiley noted, but why's that? Is it because I'm probably the oldest
one her? Aarrgh. Kill this thread NOW!
Adamski.
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lgcj71lhpuoo028cr7s2hslrm0itnbugbc@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:49:51 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
>
>
> Try it. From *any* other page - you get a "The page cannot be found"
> error.
>
Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
quote:
>
> Are you serious?? 99.99% of sites out there use a CGI or perl script
> to process the input and send on the content *server-side*.
>
> So what would you do if you were accessing the site from an Internet
> cafe - that couldn't fire up an e-mail client, because it hasn't got
> one?
>
>
I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
quote:
>
> Smiley noted, but why's that? Is it because I'm probably the oldest
> one her? Aarrgh. Kill this thread NOW!
>
> Adamski.
No XXXXing way. You started it, y0u Gh3Y lo0sAr!
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:r7ij71dmfs0knf6fn6jip6q9pg92q8sbed@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 06:04:08 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm on Firefox. I've worked out what the problem is: if you happen to
> enter the site *not* via the home page (as I did, because I was given
> a link - http://www.lead-pursuit.com/contactus.htm) then the
> navigation doesn't work. So anyone that gets there [to a sub-page] via
> a search engine can't navigate fully.
>
It must be a local issue to you, because I just went to the link you
provided with both Mozilla and IE, and it works fine. I can get to their
Home page from there.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
> It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
> an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
>
Why, you looking for a job? :-o
Anyway, regardless of what you think of their website, the game still looks
pretty good to me.
| |
| Adamski 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 06:04:08 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
I'm on Firefox. I've worked out what the problem is: if you happen to
enter the site *not* via the home page (as I did, because I was given
a link - http://www.lead-pursuit.com/contactus.htm) then the
navigation doesn't work. So anyone that gets there [to a sub-page] via
a search engine can't navigate fully.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
It's still pretty unprofessional - it should *not* depend on opening
an e-mail client. Are they hiring 12yr olds to do their website?
Adamski.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| It appears this new Falcon 4.0 includes improved AI, network code, and a
bumch of GUI improvements.
I was never able to get FF3 up and running properly on my system either.
Random crashes still. Not to say Allied Force will be any better,but as a
retail product, I hope it will be much more stable. It sounds as if they
really worked hard on stabalizing it too.
"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ofWdnWLsPIbBLOTfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RfSdndb7U7VPZejfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>
> Yeah exactly. I am not sure this is any better than FF3. And judging from
> the replies you have gotten to this point, I do not think I need to change
> that thinking.
>
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| Im really looking forward to this game. I lost interest in Falcon 4 due
mainly to the repetitive airfield attack missions with limited wingmen
attack AI but this game has revised all that. Now planes can be alotted
separate targets by the leader and will attack from different directions
etc. There are loads of other items they have revised. Reminds me of the
airfield attacks I experienced in Tornado so Im very enthusiastic about the
possibilities. Its due for release on June 28th.
Nats
"Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d672rc$bf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> "Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
> news:72af71dne1h2d8mj0sglphdbcl2e6210e4@4ax.com...
>
> I think it's more complicated than that. Moore's Law would make "computer
> years" exponential. But it's a Sunday morning, I'm hungover, and I'm not
> about to attempt even moderately simple arithmatic..
>
> Si
>
>
| |
| James Calivar 2005-05-30, 7:00 am |
|
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lgcj71lhpuoo028cr7s2hslrm0itnbugbc@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:49:51 GMT, James Calivar wrote:
>
>
> Try it. From *any* other page - you get a "The page cannot be found"
> error.
>
Just tried it. It works fine for me. I'm using Mozilla.
quote:
>
> Are you serious?? 99.99% of sites out there use a CGI or perl script
> to process the input and send on the content *server-side*.
>
> So what would you do if you were accessing the site from an Internet
> cafe - that couldn't fire up an e-mail client, because it hasn't got
> one?
>
>
I sent them an email and was contaced back within 4 hours. Seems OK to me.
quote:
>
> Smiley noted, but why's that? Is it because I'm probably the oldest
> one her? Aarrgh. Kill this thread NOW!
>
> Adamski.
No XXXXing way. You started it, y0u Gh3Y lo0sAr!
|
| |
|
|