Mizzy Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 I don't see too many hi-fi combat flight sims in development right now ;) so GOOD LUCK ED, hope things work out ok for you all, FC certainly looks like it worked out really well for the hi fi combat sim Guys. I will buy my copy of FC when I get paid this month. best wishes. Mizzy
Mizzy Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 *cough* Fighter Ops *cough* :D Don't make me laugh :D
Witchking Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 lol! * LOCK ON SEQUEL * :icon_supe :icon_supe :icon_supe :icon_supe fighter ops :icon_pai: :icon_pai: :icon_pai: WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro | |A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|
Sardukar Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 ohh man, go to these links please http://www.thunder-works.com/news.htm http://www.fighterops.com/index.htm enjoy
JG27_Arklight Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Those are renders on the Fighter Ops page. It looks great but those are still only renders, which can be quite a bit different then what you would actually see in-game. We'll just have to wait and see. Jet Thunder is based on the Strike Fighters engine, IIRC (I could be wrong). Which isn't bad, but isn't exactly the most up to date in the graphics department. Either way, I really enjoy Strike Fighters and WOV. Ark ------------------ Windows 10 Pro x64 9900K @ 5ghz Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390 32GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB CAS 14 EVGA RTX 2080 Ti Ultra XC2 256gb Samsung 869 Pro (Boot Drive) 1TB - Samsung 970 EVO Plus Seasoninc 1000w Titanium Ultra PSU 34" ASUS PG348
Mizzy Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 Nopey dopey Fighter ops is VAPOURWARE in the extreme, just as OIR Falcon whatever and Falcon V (LMTsO) Big pile of Shite. Doesn't exist and never will..... errr....emmm..... ......So as I was saying, thank you ED for keeping the torch burning for such a small and sometimes unappreciative audience ;) From loverble Mizzy. 1
Merlin Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Nopey dopey Fighter ops is VAPOURWARE in the extreme, just as OIR Falcon whatever and Falcon V (LMTsO) Big pile of Shite. Doesn't exist and never will..... errr....emmm..... ......So as I was saying, thank you ED for keeping the torch burning for such a small and sometimes unappreciative audience ;) From loverble Mizzy. :rolleyes:
MBT Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Jet Thunder is based on the Strike Fighters engine, IIRC (I could be wrong). Which isn't bad, but isn't exactly the most up to date in the graphics department. Either way, I really enjoy Strike Fighters and WOV. I think they are writing their own engine from scratch actually.
Sardukar Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Your right, thunderworks have written the code from scratch on their own engine. So far they even have a working harrier! (vertical lift). And if you are serious in saying FO is never going to exist, you need a head check. They have the xplane engine and even tho they are all "renders" they are what will be in the final product.
Allochtoon Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Your right, thunderworks have written the code from scratch on their own engine. So far they even have a working harrier! (vertical lift). And if you are serious in saying FO is never going to exist, you need a head check. They have the xplane engine and even tho they are all "renders" they are what will be in the final product. Not entirely true. Those renders are just to give the public an impression of what it might look like 4/5 years from now, mind you, that is a long time. So those renders might even look worse than the final product.
Caretaker Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Nope, Thunderworks have no connection to Strike Fighters. From the few things that were reveiled so far it's already obvious that their low-level terrain is way better than the one in Strike Fighters. How good the overall sim will be remains to be seen of course. This is even more the case with Fighter Ops, where I still don't have an idea about what state it's in and how much progress they're making. Nevertheless I don't doubt that they have a dedicated team trying to achieve something unique. So ED is indeed not the only developer left, fortunately... there are too many planes after all, to rely only on ED to model them some day ;) Caretaker ED Beta Test Team
Sardukar Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Your joking if you think FO is gunna take 4-5 years, what source do you have for you to believe that? They would have released a demo early this year if they hadn't have run into the legal problem end of last year with that publisher. Say you are correct, and that FO will be released in 4-5 years, the graphics will be way BETTER than those renders my friend. Those are models that will be used in the game.
Raven68 Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 I'm mostly interested in deliverables. That ultimately being the game itself. It's hard to put a lot of stock into something that you are not able to try for yourself. It would also be nice to see some video capture of a work in progress from time to time. The "FO Team" has a lot of nice ideas but their site is limited on the progress of their development. I guess you can get more information if you register and to get into the 'Area 51' portion of their site. I have my reservation about paying for information that, I guess, is supposed to be used for promoting a product. Maybe I'm off a bit in my thinking. Someone comment on this please, but no flaming if you dont mind. ;) Intel i5-9600K @ 3.7GHz; Gigabyte Z370XP SLI Mobo; G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 64GB (4 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4080 16GB 256-Bit GDDR6; Thermaltake Water 3.0 Certified Liquid Cooling System Windows 11 Professional HP Reverb G2 /TrackIR 5 in case VR dies; Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog w/ Thrustmaster T-Flight Rudder Pedals
Sardukar Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Yeah, its a bit annoying that they dont release stuff to the public right away. But AREA51 is merely a way of funding the project seeming they dont have alot of money.
VapoR Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Yeah, its a bit annoying that they dont release stuff to the public right away. But AREA51 is merely a way of funding the project seeming they dont have alot of money. I don't think the Area 51 is meant to fund FO. I think there are roughly 300-400 Area 51 members, at $25 a piece, that's $7,500-10,000. Not really enough to do much with, don't you think?
GI_Jew Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 From what i can tell, Area 51 came about because people like me with no useful skills wanted to contribute to the project. Financially is about the only way that is possible. The good FO team said they didnt want to accept donations and give nothing in return so they made the Area 51 section. It is definitely not something that was started by them to help fund the project, it was the community wanting to help out.
Sardukar Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 I'm sure $10,000 a year would help towards anything they need. Such as web hosting, new hardware etc. Just to keep in reserve.
aceflier Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Your joking if you think FO is gunna take 4-5 years, what source do you have for you to believe that? They would have released a demo early this year if they hadn't have run into the legal problem end of last year with that publisher. Say you are correct, and that FO will be released in 4-5 years, the graphics will be way BETTER than those renders my friend. Those are models that will be used in the game. You are crazy if you think the game is going to look "BETTER" than the high polly 3dmax renders. They will likely be 2,000 to 3,000 polly those renders have got to be in the 10,000 polly range. Would be unplayable with those kinda polly on models. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
SUBS17 Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 How many polys do you think the Su25T has in FC ;) The future looks good either way with FO, Lockon sequel and ThunderWorks. Theres more than enough room on my hard drive for these 3. :icon_supe [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
Caretaker Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 You are crazy if you think the game is going to look "BETTER" than the high polly 3dmax renders. They will likely be 2,000 to 3,000 polly those renders have got to be in the 10,000 polly range. Would be unplayable with those kinda polly on models. Multiply with 10 please... ;) The Su-25T in Lock On already has >50.000 polygons. Those FO 3D models have 100.000+, see here: http://www.meshfactory.com/main.htm So this is "only" twice the amount of what can be found in Lock On 1.1 - not quite in a league of its own anymore and very possible to use in a flight sim, although maybe a bit on the overkill side. Of course those models still need lots of modification (LOD models, damage, etc.) before they can be used in a combat flight sim. I also don't know how the current X-Plane 3D engine handles high-polygon objects. And of course there are other features of non-realtime rendering that increase the image quality considerably (Phong shading, shadows, radiosity, extreme anti-aliasing etc.). So even if the models are used as such, that doesn't mean they will look like those renders in the final game. Caretaker ED Beta Test Team
Pilotasso Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 It would be a nice thing to make dynamic damage for example a missile hits directly a plane and the program dynamicaly drills a hole through the hull. It would be nice. ;) .
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 *cough* Fighter Ops *cough*:D From what I know, Fighter Ops will not have Russian airplanes? And will not have helicopters either? While it is fun to shoot at the AI, there is nothing better then a real person on the other side of a globe flying different kind of an airplane against you! Also, dynimaic campaing (http://www.lockoncampaign.com) is comming along. We might see something very close to a dynamic campaign generator for Flaming Cliffs in the near future. With current level of realism, variety of aircraft to fly, possible dynamic campaign generator and add ons in the future, it will be tough to beat ED! So, at this time, I vote for ED and Flanker series. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
arraamis Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 unfortnately, a lot of so-called flight sim developers, haven't learned that you cannot skimp during dev. Its all or nothing, either you're going to commit to the full process or just stay out of the market. Look at the past year of fake helo and fake flight sims that have come and gone. After jane's series and falcon4, very few have even come close to the standards set by those guys. ED is definately a dev of flight sims [nothing fake about what these guys are developing]. ED has become a worthy successor to the throne and it was lomac that had me finally put Falcon4 to rest. The rest are just attempting to cash in on the market. With fighter ops ...... I would like to see actual ingame shots. I can create a few screenies with X-Plane 8.10 right now. So, I haven't really seen any thing concrete from them. And I'm not willing to pay to see progress reports, so I will just have to wait and see just how serious they are. So for me its all [iC Maddox, X-Plane & ED] for flight sims. After these three .......................... we'll have to see.
Recommended Posts