|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > August 2006 > Flight Simulation Genre Seems To Be Dead
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 |
Flight Simulation Genre Seems To Be Dead
|
|
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:45 am |
| Boy I just went to Game Spot and found they don't even have
"simulations" as one of the choices on the PC page. Seems that there are too
few games to warrant a full section. I don't even know what simulations are
coming out. I remember hearing that the new Janes was coming out with a
simulation but that seems to have not happened. The only sims it seems are
naval simulations. I want a new flight simulator! They could be great with
all this great hardware we have available but seems nobody is interested in
sims any more.
John
| |
|
|
"John Slade" wrote in message
news:hse7g.2517$fb2.46@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
quote:
> Boy I just went to Game Spot and found they don't even have
> "simulations" as one of the choices on the PC page. Seems that there are
> too few games to warrant a full section. I don't even know what
> simulations are coming out. I remember hearing that the new Janes was
> coming out with a simulation but that seems to have not happened. The only
> sims it seems are naval simulations. I want a new flight simulator! They
> could be great with all this great hardware we have available but seems
> nobody is interested in sims any more.
Well theres 5 flight sims in the works at the moment off the top of my head.
To be honest I dont care if there is only one or two released a year because
they are the type of games that need months of time put into them to learn
all the ins and outs. They're not some shooter which gets put back on the
shelf after a week and never touched again.
Plus how many of the old sims were actually any good? If you weed out all
the crap things probably weren't much better back in the 'good ole days'
| |
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:45 am |
|
"rob" <roball@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e3jtmv$b0b$1@emma.aioe.org...
quote:
>
> "John Slade" wrote in message
> news:hse7g.2517$fb2.46@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Well theres 5 flight sims in the works at the moment off the top of my
> head.
> To be honest I dont care if there is only one or two released a year
> because they are the type of games that need months of time put into them
> to learn all the ins and outs. They're not some shooter which gets put
> back on the shelf after a week and never touched again.
>
I hear you. But there are some good FPS games out there and have
longevity but they are few.
quote:
> Plus how many of the old sims were actually any good? If you weed out all
> the crap things probably weren't much better back in the 'good ole days'
Well seeing as I was playing sims since the C-64 days, to me there are
quite a few good ones. The Falcon games were all good. Then there were the
Flight Simulator games and the sims from Microprose. The F-15 series was
pretty good and so were both Gunship games. F-117 Nighthawk and Stealth
Fighter are both great games that provide challenge.
I still think some of those old games despite their graphics, are just
as good or better than many new games. I hope these new sims are worth a
look. I also hope most of them feature current and future aircraft. I'm just
about sick of WW2 sims. I wand to fly jets. I hope they come up with a good
helicopter sim. Haven't seen one of those since Comanche vs. Havoc.
John
| |
|
| I think flight simulations are seeing something of a resurgence. The
key is to continue to meet demand for ever greater levels of
expectation from people. You only have to look at the quality of
production in Battlefield 2 and the forthcoming Battlefield 2142 to see
how far the bar is being raised. Flight sims are difficult because they
are niche genres and less likely to appeal widely. But from our own
experience there is still considerable demand. One thing of would be
slightly critical of in the flight sim development generally is the
relative lack of interaction developers in the industry have with their
customers. It's vital that link is maintained after the sale and
continue to make people feel attached to the product. That -- coupled
with great customer support and a stable, reliable product -- should
reap dividends.
Here's a little pic from last year taken shortly after release. It
speaks for itself:
http://lead-pursuit.com/amazon.jpg
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2006-08-03, 3:45 am |
| C3PO@forums.simradar.com (C3PO) wrote:
quote:
> I think flight simulations are seeing something of a resurgence
The key word there being "something". ;-)
Flight sims lost their way as a genre a long time ago. They went down
the pure, "reproducing warfare" route and nobody took the increasingly
realistic graphics, flight models, and systems modelling, and put them
into something with a little imagination rather than pure, dry
simulation which can generally only be brought to life in multiplayer.
I still want to fly a multi-role Herc sim, an updated "Strike
Commander", or anything with a real story to get my teeth into. It's
stuff like that which could crossover into the mainstream while the rest
of us quietly get our rocks off learning how to turn on the engines in
an F-16 or Su-25T. :-)
Andrew McP
| |
|
| I agree. Sims should be as much about giving a narrative as they are
about pushing buttons.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
|
|
"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:hse7g.2517$fb2.46@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
quote:
> Boy I just went to Game Spot and found they don't even have
> "simulations" as one of the choices on the PC page. Seems that there are
too
quote:
> few games to warrant a full section. I don't even know what simulations
are
quote:
> coming out. I remember hearing that the new Janes was coming out with a
> simulation but that seems to have not happened. The only sims it seems are
> naval simulations. I want a new flight simulator! They could be great with
> all this great hardware we have available but seems nobody is interested
in
quote:
> sims any more.
>
> John
>
<yawn> Time, once again, for the annual(at least) "sky is falling/death
of flight sims" bit.
Been hearing it since the '80's.
p.s. Agree with Andrew. That, and the over-emphasis on rivet counting,
instead of fun, hasn't helped. You can have an authentic sim, and it can
still be fun too. The two are not mutually exclusive, though the rivet
counters would disagree.
| |
|
| Are you suggesting BF2 is a flight sim in any way shape or form? The jets
pretty much ruin the game imo. The groundwar/squad aspect is the strength
of BF2. Choppers are ok/fun but the jets are a joke.
Mitch
"C3PO" <C3PO@forums.simradar.com> wrote in message
news:1146993371.22895@forums.simradar.com...
quote:
>You only have to look at the quality of
> production in Battlefield 2 and the forthcoming Battlefield 2142 to see
> how far the bar is being raised. Flight sims are difficult because they
> are niche genres and less likely to appeal
| |
|
| Of course not. I was referring to the quality of the production of the
game per se.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
|
|
"John Slade" wrote in message
news:KVf7g.82547$dW3.25676@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> Well seeing as I was playing sims since the C-64 days, to me there are
> quite a few good ones. The Falcon games were all good. Then there were the
> Flight Simulator games and the sims from Microprose. The F-15 series was
> pretty good and so were both Gunship games. F-117 Nighthawk and Stealth
> Fighter are both great games that provide challenge.
Well you've just listed 20 odd sims from the last 20 odd years. I'd add a
few more to that list but my point is proven I think.
| |
|
|
"Andrew MacPherson" wrote
quote:
> Flight sims lost their way as a genre a long time ago. They went down
> the pure, "reproducing warfare" route and nobody took the increasingly
> realistic graphics, flight models, and systems modelling, and put them
> into something with a little imagination rather than pure, dry
> simulation which can generally only be brought to life in multiplayer.
>
> I still want to fly a multi-role Herc sim, an updated "Strike
> Commander", or anything with a real story to get my teeth into. It's
> stuff like that which could crossover into the mainstream while the rest
> of us quietly get our rocks off learning how to turn on the engines in
> an F-16 or Su-25T. :-)
>
> Andrew McP
Wings on the Amiga, I wish somebody would do an update of that <sigh>
| |
| tomcervo 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
| >I agree. Sims should be as much about giving a narrative as they are about pushing buttons.
Like the old Origin space and air sims, the Dynamix Aces series and the
Microprose lite study sims? No, obviously more detailed sims which take
more time planning than flying, which have done so much to make the
hobby popular, are the answer. (Sarcasm mode OFF).
Warren Spector ( who did a great narrative sim, Wings of Glory) has
been pretty eloquent on the lack of imagination in all sims across the
board. Every new thing now seems to have a number or a subtitle by the
name, to tell it apart from the same thing from last year. PC Gamer
reviews are subdivided into sports, shooters and everything else.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
John Slade wrote:
quote:
> Boy I just went to Game Spot and found they don't even have
> "simulations" as one of the choices on the PC page. Seems that there are too
> few games to warrant a full section. I don't even know what simulations are
> coming out. I remember hearing that the new Janes was coming out with a
> simulation but that seems to have not happened. The only sims it seems are
> naval simulations. I want a new flight simulator! They could be great with
> all this great hardware we have available but seems nobody is interested in
> sims any more.
>
Nobody seems interested? Well, there's a gulf between "seems" and "is"
and it can't be measured by the copy that GameSpot will devote to it.
The OP needs to know that there's a difference between the market for
flightsims and the interest for them. The market is down because
"simmers'" needs have been too well satisfied by the sims of the past 8
or so years. Instead of looking at the market for new games, why not
try guaging the time that users will spend on sims already available -
there are too few games to mention because any one of those games is
too intense and requires too much time and attention for the audience
of simmers to support very many of them. These games aren't disposable
like FPS games. I'm wondering just what the OP wants from a new
"flight simulator" that existing games lack.
| |
|
| If it's wishlist stuff thats being asked for, here is mine: Gunship 2000 to
be redone. But I am patiently waiting for Black Shark, this will keep me
happy for a good while!
| |
|
| I would love to see something along the lines of Gunship. I guess it
has been
done before, with that and Hind etc.
But you have the Afghanistan and Middle East conflicts to provide some
good
scenarios.
Did anyone ever do multi player within the aircraft, i.e being able to
have 2 people
controlling, one for pilot one for gunner or weapons systems.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
Carl wrote:
quote:
> If it's wishlist stuff thats being asked for, here is mine: Gunship 2000 to
> be redone. But I am patiently waiting for Black Shark, this will keep me
> happy for a good while!
Never got to Gunship 2000, so I couldn't say. I'd love for somebody to
re-do Hind, where you shoot and carry at the same time. I think the
real problem is advancing hardware technology to enhance existing
software - especially anything that will emancipate us from the
flat-screen. We already have POV technology like Track IR - we need
something like low-cost/weight goggles to complete the link between the
two. I'd settle for graphics ala Graphsim's Hornet 3.0 if it meant
VR-all around POV.
| |
|
| On 8 May 2006 06:27:22 -0700, "Genki" <dtushingham@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>Did anyone ever do multi player within the aircraft, i.e being able to
>have 2 people
>controlling, one for pilot one for gunner or weapons systems.
Yes, Longbow2 has that.
| |
|
|
What an idea- TrackIR emulating the cannon operating on an AH64! I could
have hours of fun with that alone.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
Carl wrote:
quote:
> What an idea- TrackIR emulating the cannon operating on an AH64! I could
> have hours of fun with that alone.
Just like "Blue Thunder".
| |
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147054690.058186.180800@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> John Slade wrote:
> Nobody seems interested? Well, there's a gulf between "seems" and "is"
> and it can't be measured by the copy that GameSpot will devote to it.
> The OP needs to know that there's a difference between the market for
> flightsims and the interest for them. The market is down because
> "simmers'" needs have been too well satisfied by the sims of the past 8
> or so years. Instead of looking at the market for new games, why not
> try guaging the time that users will spend on sims already available -
> there are too few games to mention because any one of those games is
> too intense and requires too much time and attention for the audience
> of simmers to support very many of them. These games aren't disposable
> like FPS games. I'm wondering just what the OP wants from a new
> "flight simulator" that existing games lack.
>
More flight sims that simulate modern and future aircraft. Joint
Strike Fighter was a good game that did this. It had a nice multiplayer
element too. I want more games like the Apache Longbow series. Lots of
missions and a mission generator. I still think on of the best sims of all
times is Fighters Anthology by Janes. It had great multiplayer capabilities.
For what it lacked in graphics and flight models, it made up in game play.
There are a lot of sims that I didn't mention before like iF-22, The
Comanche Series and the F-22 series. F-22 Lightning 3 was probably the first
game to ever have tactical nuclear weapons even though it was arcadish in
it's gameplay. Lots of good sims over the years didn't just appeal to those
who wanted to read a four-inch think manual to play the game well. There is
a middle ground and that's what I feel is lacking.
John
| |
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147112461.505964.227960@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> Never got to Gunship 2000, so I couldn't say. I'd love for somebody to
> re-do Hind, where you shoot and carry at the same time.
Gunship 2000 on the Amiga was great. The AGA version was great. As it's
"Abandonware" you might want to try it out with an Amiga emulator. I won't
tell you how to get that stuff illegally. But it can be had for a reasonable
price if you look hard enough.
John
| |
| ef29@drexel.edu 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
| You guys seem to be reminiscing about older sims...................
Guess I wouldn't mind a few of the oldies redone either...............
Meanwhile, I'm flying FF3+3.1 and flying dynamic campaigns in the
Balkans,
Korea, Vietnam, DesertStorm, and Israel. I'm flying several different
F-16's,
F-15's, F-22's, F-18's, Tornados, B52's, B-1's, A-10's, EF2000's, and
more, all with
their own pits and FM's..........Might get a CTD once every 12-15 hours
of sim time.
STILL spend more time learning weapons system, radar, etc., so
definitely not for the
shoot-em-up crowd. Heard AF is the best for online, (As they start to
advance with their
own 'dance' on the "dance" crowd.) but I mainly fly F4 offline.
(Online, I am solely an EAW man! ANOTHER great sim that won't die! Now,
using OAW,
You can fly every plane imaginable, make any scenario, terrains and
skins galore,......
I could go on and on......Havn't flown IL-2 yet........well, I FLEW an
IL-2 last night, great guns!
but I don't have IL-2 the sim yet.)
Roller
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
John Slade wrote:
quote:
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1147054690.058186.180800@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> More flight sims that simulate modern and future aircraft. Joint
> Strike Fighter was a good game that did this. It had a nice multiplayer
> element too. I want more games like the Apache Longbow series. Lots of
> missions and a mission generator. I still think on of the best sims of all
> times is Fighters Anthology by Janes. It had great multiplayer capabilities.
> For what it lacked in graphics and flight models, it made up in game play.
> There are a lot of sims that I didn't mention before like iF-22, The
> Comanche Series and the F-22 series. F-22 Lightning 3 was probably the first
> game to ever have tactical nuclear weapons even though it was arcadish in
> it's gameplay. Lots of good sims over the years didn't just appeal to those
> who wanted to read a four-inch think manual to play the game well. There is
> a middle ground and that's what I feel is lacking.
>
> John
This is what I don't understand - you say you want new stuff (and truth
be told, who would turn down the prospect of something new?), but from
the looks of things, you've already got what you want. I didn't like
the Novalogic F-22 series because they were basically re-packaging the
same sim again & again - I figured that I got about as much of that
game as I could when I downloaded the demo in the summer of '97. (Now
those were the days - the Mars probe, the internet, the Bull Market;
when I got an internet connection, I made a list of all the demos I
wanted to DL, forgetting that 1) since I didn't have a CD burner, I'd
have no way to archive all that stuff and 2) that some of those demo
files could be a bit bigger than my dial-up connection could move
within a reasonable amount of time). It just sounds like you're more
satisfied with stuff from the late 1990's than I was, yet you're also
more impatient for newer software than I am. (BTW, Hornet Korea also
had nukes, though I don't remember when that game came out). For a guy
who thinks that flightsim peaked with "Fighters Anthology" it's weird
to hear you bang the drum for anything new. A lot of people loved the
"Fighters" games, but I couldn't stand them - banging away on an F-15
should feel different than doing as much in an F-5 or a Mirage F.1, and
scooting along in any of those planes should connote more velocity than
motoring around Chicago in the MSFS Cessna.
Ironically, I think your middle ground was covered quite well - if not
for the Jane's Fighters games, there was always EF2000. I found that
game engrossing, with great gameplay, convincing flight dynamics,
lovely graphics and a game interface that wasn't all that
counterintuitive. You had the choice between instant action, MP and a
campaign. Pre-flight brief could have been more versatile, but it was
still an awesome game and (to what you mentioned earlier) didn't
require you read through a 40 page manual, and it wasn't all that
taxing on my system either. While NATO fighters required a 90Mhz
Pentium, EF2000's minimum was a 486. It was gorgeous and smooth.
EF2000 also made me consider a possible explanation for the lack of new
games: Though I always respected the game, I never grew to love playing
it that much until I'd had it for a few years - by then I'd accumulated
a stable of flightsims, unable to commit much time to any of them. It
was a struggle to stay interested in missions where I'd routinely get
zapped by Flankers firing missiles at max range. I stuck with it, then
flew some more sophisticated missions (mostly against airfields,
bridges and hyrdr-electirc dams) that required more in the way of
tactics and precise use of sophisticated weaponry than just the
haphazard maneuvering of a dogfight. Once I shut down a Russian
airfield using Durandals, LGB's and CBU's I was hooked. In short,
whether it's new or old, and no matter when it's set, you'll never
enjoy a sim any more than the time and effort you put into it.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:46 am |
|
ef29@drexel.edu wrote:
quote:
> but I don't have IL-2 the sim yet.)
I've got it - haven't spent much time with it yet, though the
sky-effects (cloud, lighting) are spectacular. (my WWII sim experience
never went past the first 2 CFS games or Janes WW2F).
| |
|
|
"FatKat" wrote in message
news:1147401379.046066.297740@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> ef29@drexel.edu wrote:
>
> I've got it - haven't spent much time with it yet, though the
> sky-effects (cloud, lighting) are spectacular. (my WWII sim experience
> never went past the first 2 CFS games or Janes WW2F).
>
Its the water with the late model vid cards that impresses the hell outta me
http://www.kiwisim.net.nz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1860
And the mapmakers with way too much time
http://www.kiwisim.net.nz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1295
| |
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:47 am |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147401220.236852.271420@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> John Slade wrote:
>
> This is what I don't understand - you say you want new stuff (and truth
> be told, who would turn down the prospect of something new?), but from
> the looks of things, you've already got what you want.
We all have games we like but we still want something new. I feel
that the more fight sims that get made, the more competition. That means
companies would strive to make a better project.
quote:
> I didn't like
> the Novalogic F-22 series because they were basically re-packaging the
> same sim again & again - I figured that I got about as much of that
> game as I could when I downloaded the demo in the summer of '97. (Now
> those were the days - the Mars probe, the internet, the Bull Market;
> when I got an internet connection, I made a list of all the demos I
> wanted to DL, forgetting that 1) since I didn't have a CD burner, I'd
> have no way to archive all that stuff and 2) that some of those demo
> files could be a bit bigger than my dial-up connection could move
> within a reasonable amount of time). It just sounds like you're more
> satisfied with stuff from the late 1990's than I was, yet you're also
> more impatient for newer software than I am.
I liked some of the games from the late 90s. The F-22 series was fun
but those games were arcade type games. It had nice graphics but not much
depth.
quote:
> (BTW, Hornet Korea also
> had nukes, though I don't remember when that game came out).
I tried Hornet on a Mac and a PC. Never got into Hornet.
quote:
> For a guy
> who thinks that flightsim peaked with "Fighters Anthology" it's weird
> to hear you bang the drum for anything new.
Who said that the genere peaked with FA? I never said that. Where did
you get that from? I said it was one of the best ever because it had great
multiplayer and single player gameplay. In fact I don't think the genre will
"peak". When it comes to game gneres I don't think there are peaks, just
good games and bad games.
quote:
> A lot of people loved the
> "Fighters" games, but I couldn't stand them - banging away on an F-15
> should feel different than doing as much in an F-5 or a Mirage F.1, and
> scooting along in any of those planes should connote more velocity than
> motoring around Chicago in the MSFS Cessna.
Sure it lacked accurate flight models but it was fun. I like military
sims that simulate a lot of different aircraft. One of my favorites was
Birds of Prey on Amiga. You could choose from a wide variety of aircraft
from the US and Russia.
quote:
>
> Ironically, I think your middle ground was covered quite well - if not
> for the Jane's Fighters games, there was always EF2000. I found that
> game engrossing, with great gameplay, convincing flight dynamics,
> lovely graphics and a game interface that wasn't all that
> counterintuitive. You had the choice between instant action, MP and a
> campaign. Pre-flight brief could have been more versatile, but it was
> still an awesome game and (to what you mentioned earlier) didn't
> require you read through a 40 page manual, and it wasn't all that
> taxing on my system either. While NATO fighters required a 90Mhz
> Pentium, EF2000's minimum was a 486. It was gorgeous and smooth.
>
I liked DID's games a lot. EF2000 2.0 is one of my favorites.
quote:
> EF2000 also made me consider a possible explanation for the lack of new
> games: Though I always respected the game, I never grew to love playing
> it that much until I'd had it for a few years - by then I'd accumulated
> a stable of flightsims, unable to commit much time to any of them. It
> was a struggle to stay interested in missions where I'd routinely get
> zapped by Flankers firing missiles at max range. I stuck with it, then
> flew some more sophisticated missions (mostly against airfields,
> bridges and hyrdr-electirc dams) that required more in the way of
> tactics and precise use of sophisticated weaponry than just the
> haphazard maneuvering of a dogfight. Once I shut down a Russian
> airfield using Durandals, LGB's and CBU's I was hooked. In short,
> whether it's new or old, and no matter when it's set, you'll never
> enjoy a sim any more than the time and effort you put into it.
>
True. However my job allows me a lot of free time and I can mess around
with flight sims of every type. I just think if there are more out there,
the chances of a great sim emerging is increased.
John
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:47 am |
|
John Slade wrote:
quote:
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1147401220.236852.271420@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> We all have games we like but we still want something new. I feel
> that the more fight sims that get made, the more competition. That means
> companies would strive to make a better project.
That would be important if there was soemthing lacking in sims
themselves - but I don't think there is. Sims have in fact gotten so
sophisticated, they've exceeded the need to replace them on a yearly
basis as earlier sims had. Therefore there's no need for competition -
new sims would be just newer sims, not really better. It would be a
return to those late 1990's dyas when there was always a new F-22 sim
around the corner, but not really something worth waiting for. Again,
the only real problem is that people aren't putting enough focus on
sims that they already have. Why add another title to gather dust on
your hard drive, competing for a narrowing chunk of our available time?
quote:
>
>
> I liked some of the games from the late 90s. The F-22 series was fun
> but those games were arcade type games. It had nice graphics but not much
> depth.
They weren't sims to me. The canned dialog that came with the Raptor
demo proved that Hollywood was where these guys were coming from.
DiD's Raptor sim was my fave, nevertheless, it never suceeded their
EF2000 sim.
quote:
>
>
> I tried Hornet on a Mac and a PC. Never got into Hornet.
Neither could I. It was a sim that demanded above average situational
awareness. One moment nothing, then a missile warning light, then
suddenly all the power was gone - no jolt of an explosion or anything.
Strangely, for an uncompromising sim, Hornet had the easiest
carrier-trapping of my virtual career. "Jet Fighter" & "Flight of the
Intruder" - it took me forever to get trapping right on those games.
On Hornet, I could grease that puppy onto a psotage stamp.
quote:
>
>
> Who said that the genere peaked with FA? I never said that. Where did
> you get that from? I said it was one of the best ever because it had great
> multiplayer and single player gameplay. In fact I don't think the genre will
> "peak". When it comes to game gneres I don't think there are peaks, just
> good games and bad games.
Sorry for the miscommunication, but it really sounds like there's no
difference between the two...
quote:
>
>
> Sure it lacked accurate flight models but it was fun. I like military
> sims that simulate a lot of different aircraft. One of my favorites was
> Birds of Prey on Amiga. You could choose from a wide variety of aircraft
> from the US and Russia.
I couldn't get into the fighter's games because I never felt like I was
simulating many different airplanes - there were several groups of
airplanes that were distinct, and everything within that group looked
the same. Turn off the panel, refrain from spot view, and five minutes
later, I don't know what I'm flying. A Sukhoi Fencer or a Grumman
Intruder? Backfire or B-1? F-15 or Su-27? Even when I remember, I
can't quite remember why I cose one over another. Early on, I wanted
to simulate something of the situation of Iraqi pilots in the 8-year
war of Iraq, so I chose a Mirage F-1, only to find out that the
conflict was set in the early days of the 21st century. It's like
going to a shmorgasboard - you know you want pretty much everything,
but you also know that you'll get back to your seat and see what other
people got and think "why did get..whatever I got? What was I thinking
of?". An F-5? Why did I go for that? No matter what the respective
aircraft chosen were, I'd find that the end result was pretty much the
same.
quote:
>
>
> I liked DID's games a lot. EF2000 2.0 is one of my favorites.
Ditto - they don't make them like that anymore. Nosiree.
quote:
>
>
> True. However my job allows me a lot of free time and I can mess around
> with flight sims of every type. I just think if there are more out there,
> the chances of a great sim emerging is increased.
Myu op - the more out there, the more likely we'd miss a good one, or
the more likely that - desperate to try as man as possible - we'd fail
to give at least one of them the time they'd need. Also, if getting
new stuff out becomes a paramount importance, publishers will have
little incentive to put out anything with any shelf-life to it - we'd
just get slightly better versions of available sims, and that will get
old fast.
| |
| John Slade 2006-08-03, 3:47 am |
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1147752829.684826.292450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> John Slade wrote:
>
> That would be important if there was soemthing lacking in sims
> themselves - but I don't think there is.
To some there is a lot lacking. This is a matter of opinion.
quote:
> Sims have in fact gotten so
> sophisticated, they've exceeded the need to replace them on a yearly
> basis as earlier sims had.
To some they are oversophisticated. Way more than they need to be. A few
very sophisticated flight sims coming out every few year just doesn't cut
it. Some people would like games with an easy learning curve. They would
want more modern story lines. Many are tired of the WW2 sims that keep
coming out. They want sims that allow them to fly future and past aircraft.
Sure we had those in the past but the futuristic aircraft that were
simulated are not futuristic any more. In fact, some are in service.
quote:
> Therefore there's no need for competition -
> new sims would be just newer sims, not really better. It would be a
> return to those late 1990's dyas when there was always a new F-22 sim
> around the corner, but not really something worth waiting for. Again,
> the only real problem is that people aren't putting enough focus on
> sims that they already have.
I think many people have already played the sims they have and want to
play something else. I'm sure there will be a killer sim that simulates a
lot of aircraft well. A new version of Fighters Anthology or Birds of Prey.
There is a market out there for them. Most flight sim players would welcome
a game that is accesible to everyone, not just the people who want to spend
hours and hours just to learn the basics. A game like Falcon 4.0 would not
really appeal to these people. Falcon 4.0 appealed to the types that have a
lot of time on their hands and want to pay attention to every little detail.
A lot of simmers just want to jump in and have fun.
quote:
>
> Neither could I. It was a sim that demanded above average situational
> awareness. One moment nothing, then a missile warning light, then
> suddenly all the power was gone - no jolt of an explosion or anything.
> Strangely, for an uncompromising sim, Hornet had the easiest
> carrier-trapping of my virtual career. "Jet Fighter" & "Flight of the
> Intruder" - it took me forever to get trapping right on those games.
> On Hornet, I could grease that puppy onto a psotage stamp.
Flight of the Intruder was pretty good, never played Jet Fighter 1.
Flight of the Intruder was a bad movie but a good game.
quote:
>
> Sorry for the miscommunication, but it really sounds like there's no
> difference between the two...
>
> I couldn't get into the fighter's games because I never felt like I was
> simulating many different airplanes - there were several groups of
> airplanes that were distinct, and everything within that group looked
> the same. Turn off the panel, refrain from spot view, and five minutes
> later, I don't know what I'm flying. A Sukhoi Fencer or a Grumman
> Intruder? Backfire or B-1? F-15 or Su-27? Even when I remember, I
> can't quite remember why I cose one over another. Early on, I wanted
> to simulate something of the situation of Iraqi pilots in the 8-year
> war of Iraq, so I chose a Mirage F-1, only to find out that the
> conflict was set in the early days of the 21st century. It's like
> going to a shmorgasboard - you know you want pretty much everything,
> but you also know that you'll get back to your seat and see what other
> people got and think "why did get..whatever I got? What was I thinking
> of?". An F-5? Why did I go for that? No matter what the respective
> aircraft chosen were, I'd find that the end result was pretty much the
> same.
In Birds of Prey. I used the F-111 most of the time. That plane could
handle just about any mission except for close air support. Through it's
shortcomings, I still had a blast while playing it. I think the flight
models were more accurate than in FA. It had good gameplay and it kept me
coming back.
quote:
>
> Ditto - they don't make them like that anymore. Nosiree.
>
> Myu op - the more out there, the more likely we'd miss a good one, or
> the more likely that - desperate to try as man as possible - we'd fail
> to give at least one of them the time they'd need. Also, if getting
> new stuff out becomes a paramount importance, publishers will have
> little incentive to put out anything with any shelf-life to it - we'd
> just get slightly better versions of available sims, and that will get
> old fast.
>
Maybe, I just wish that more people would buy flight sims then we
would be assured that more would come. It seems that now only a few are
popular and those few are more complex than most players want. I think there
could be a middle ground.
John
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:47 am |
|
John Slade wrote:
quote:
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1147752829.684826.292450@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> To some there is a lot lacking. This is a matter of opinion.
Yeah, but what? It seems like no matter what you're looking for in
sims, there's about a decade's worth of software to find it in.
Arcadey sims, hardcore sims, survey sims, study sims - you want it, you
can E*Bay it.
quote:
>
>
> To some they are oversophisticated. Way more than they need to be. A few
> very sophisticated flight sims coming out every few year just doesn't cut
> it.
Cut it for whom? It's more than enough for the hardcore simmers -
those guys who load up Free Falcon or SuperPak can't have that much
free time that they're waiting on baited breath for a new sim. But
even those looking for arcadish sims have enough to keep them busy.
Just get them a Jane's fighters or Novalogic game. If they want WWII,
they can get anything they want and just turn the options off.
quote:
> Some people would like games with an easy learning curve.
Modern: EF2000
WWII: CFS 1/2; Janes WW2F
Helicopter: Commanche; Enemy Engaged (all options set to automatic)
quote:
> They would want more modern story lines.
CFS2 had a running story of sorts. Of course there's just so much
story you can inject before the thing turns into a RPG.
quote:
> Many are tired of the WW2 sims that keep coming out. They want sims that allow
> them to fly future and past aircraft.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that many people are tired of
WWII sims, yet want sims tha allow them to fly future AND past
aircraft. Anyway, there are plenty of sims that allow you to fly the
F-22 and have a flat learning curve. A JSF sim was released years ago
and had great graphics. Unfortunately these sims ran into a sort of
wall of skepticism - since these planes hadn't really entered service,
it was hard to believe that the sim was realistic - what was its
performance based on?
quote:
> Sure we had those in the past but the futuristic aircraft that were
> simulated are not futuristic any more. In fact, some are in service.
F-22? JSF? Rafale? Typhoon?
The real world of aviation doesn't revolve any faster than that for
flight sims.
quote:
>
>
> I think many people have already played the sims they have and want to
> play something else.
But if they're only offered more of the same thing they've already
grown tired of, I doubt they'll buy it.
quote:
> I'm sure there will be a killer sim that simulates a lot of aircraft well.
You can get that with either FF or SP add-ons for Falcon. Using SP, I
got to fly F-16's, J-11's, Mirage 2000, EF2000 and even the J-8II
(which isn't so much new as a really old plane in aviation's version of
"development hell"). Wanna fly a bunch of different airplanes? You
got it. Wanna fly with unlimited fuel and weapons? Done deal. Want
invulnerability? You bet. Falcon is a powerhouse because it can be
configured in so many ways. Besides the campaign and instant action,
you can also customize missions, and there's no question that you can
modify difficulty. There's enough in Falcon 4 to satisfy just about
anybody, whether they read the manual or not, whether they want to
enlist in WWIII or just jump into the action. I just don't see why a
company would or should put any effort into software that won't add to
what we already have today - either in sims as released or as modded by
3rd party users.
quote:
>
> Flight of the Intruder was pretty good, never played Jet Fighter 1.
> Flight of the Intruder was a bad movie but a good game.
The book rocked.
quote:
>
> Maybe, I just wish that more people would buy flight sims then we
> would be assured that more would come.
I think that that's the big question - do we need more sims to come
along? I just don't think that we do. With today's sims offering
360-degree panning/90 degree elevation in padlock, we're well into
implementing the dream/nightmare of VR. Hardware like TrackIR supports
such technology, so new sims aren't needed on that front. Your point
is ironic for this reason - you want more people to like sims because
if they did, companies would be more likely to work towards replacing
them.
quote:
> It seems that now only a few are popular and those few are more complex than most
> players want. I think there could be a middle ground.
Complex sims with settings set to "simple".
| |
| R.D.S. 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| Remember when is was about GAMEPLAY and not graphics?
C'mon Tornado............
Oh yea and for some online Air Warrior.........................
| |
| Seadog 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| Hey, just what I was thinking, too. You're absolutely right. Time to
move on to something else. Catch you there. Later.
-Seadog
R.D.S. wrote:
quote:
> Remember when is was about GAMEPLAY and not graphics?
>
> C'mon Tornado............
>
> Oh yea and for some online Air Warrior.........................
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
R.D.S. wrote:
quote:
> Remember when is was about GAMEPLAY and not graphics?
Well yeah, bit it wasn't like we had much of a choice. With pre-SVGA,
gameplay was pretty much all we had. I mean, when you think of the
early 1990's, what comes to mind?
quote:
>
> C'mon Tornado............
There ya go - the game was graphically intense to me, but that was
mostly because by that time I was still stuck with a 286.
| |
| Canuck 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| If memory serves I struggled to get Tornado running on my PC which was a DX2
50 Mhz with a stunning 8 Mb RAM and a 1Mb Video card. HDD was 40Mb, CDRW -
what's that then?
Hours were spent in the config.sys and autoexec.bat trying to free up enough
base memory.
A lost art doing all that stuff. You youngsters on here have no idea!! LOL
quote:
>
> There ya go - the game was graphically intense to me, but that was
> mostly because by that time I was still stuck with a 286.
>
| |
| Surfer 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| Roger that.
And that said, Tornado was in many respects never equalled in many ways.
While F4's camp engine is impressive, Tornado's mission planning and
camp experience was in a league of it's own.
You earned every, single success in that sim and you knew it.
-Surfer
In article <LECyg.258617$iF6.168333@pd7tw2no>,
RichardChaney@secretgovernmentconspiracy.com says...
quote:
> If memory serves I struggled to get Tornado running on my PC which was a DX2
> 50 Mhz with a stunning 8 Mb RAM and a 1Mb Video card. HDD was 40Mb, CDRW -
> what's that then?
> Hours were spent in the config.sys and autoexec.bat trying to free up enough
> base memory.
> A lost art doing all that stuff. You youngsters on here have no idea!! LOL
>
>
>
>
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Surfer wrote:
quote:
> Roger that.
>
> And that said, Tornado was in many respects never equalled in many ways.
Didn't the same company do a Super Hornet sim? How did that compare?
quote:
>
> While F4's camp engine is impressive, Tornado's mission planning and
> camp experience was in a league of it's own.
I see it had a multi-stage training module - basic training and then
weapons conversion. If it's as sophisticated as it sounds then it's
definately worth building a legacy system to play.
[vbcol=seagreen]
That's a lot of hardware, though it would make sense if it came out in
'93, about the time that the first Pentium chips arrived. However, I
have this memory of seeing it around in "Software Etc." about a year or
so earlier. Evcen though I had a lackluster system, I still hung
around there for the bargain bin, picking up all sorts of FS4 add-ons
for nothing.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Well, to give the youngsters the benefit of the doubt, tweaking those
files was still a problem a few years later when owners of Win95 or
Win98 systems wanted to check these games out and had to jump a few
hoops of their own to make these games run.
| |
| Canuck 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| >> While F4's camp engine is impressive,
Ooooh thtop it ir I'll thcratch your eyeth out you beatht. LOL
|
| |
|
|