Dmut Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 you know, "when" is restricted question for every developer :) "There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]
Cobra360 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 A games developer favourite comment ''done when it's done'' applies here. A great comment that both covers their ass and takes the heat off them for a while from loyal followers such as ourselves.
Kusch Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 A games developer favourite comment ''done when it's done'' applies here. Thanks God! no "be sure,two weaks" Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
airea Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I hope 1.2 does not turn out to be the new Duke Nukem 4ever or S.T.A.L.K.E.R :) When duke nukem was first announced, pentium MMX class processors were newly introduced, we were very young, there was janes combat sims, etc etc... Very old days:)
Pilotasso Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 nah! old days were those of F-19, F-22 retaliator, F-15 strike eagle and wing commander. Those were the days...kid. .
VapoR Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 nah! old days were those of F-19, F-22 retaliator, F-15 strike eagle and wing commander. Those were the days...kid. F-19 rocked!! That was my second sim ever, first was Gunship.
KILSEK Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Hi all. I do not care for clickable cockpits. ;) I believe in a clickable keyboard :) . I can program each key and then, as I have done, used alt+key to give dual commands. I still have the shift+key and the ctrl+key available for more commands That being said I am not against clickable cockpits either. What I am for is the option to chose how easy or how difficult I want to make my sim. Question: Would clickable cockpits allow for more commands than we already have? -KILSEK
355th_Thomp Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 KILSEK, I would assume so. Just imagine having three MFD's with push buttons all around the screens. -thomp
Mig-Mag Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 aw.. i would love AFM for the flankers.. but 1.2 sounds sweet :D Sorry for that stupid question, but what is AFM? Mig-Mag's Lock On Section
SUBS17 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Hi all. I do not care for clickable cockpits. ;) I believe in a clickable keyboard :) . I can program each key and then, as I have done, used alt+key to give dual commands. I still have the shift+key and the ctrl+key available for more commands That being said I am not against clickable cockpits either. What I am for is the option to chose how easy or how difficult I want to make my sim. Question: Would clickable cockpits allow for more commands than we already have? -KILSEK So do you play F4 with just keyboard? Its possible to do that but its much much harder. The reason being that operating the MFDs is best done using either a mouse or MFD plugged in. Likewise putting all those into your hotas takes away from the realism since as the properly mapped functions on the real thing don't work like that. The other point of having hands and feet moving and clicking switches would actually slow the operation of the aircraft, particularly if they added g modelling to it. Imagine pulling 7g and then pushing a button on the mfd. Not going to happen. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
ALDEGA Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 The best way to operate an MFD with about a dozen buttons around it is probably ... using the mouse ;) And since you operate the MFD (or other controls in the aircraft), you get a broader, more realistic experience. The other point of having hands and feet moving and clicking switches would actually slow the operation of the aircraft, particularly if they added g modelling to it. Imagine pulling 7g and then pushing a button on the mfd. Not going to happen.Good point.
ALDEGA Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 KILSEK, I would assume so. Just imagine having three MFD's with push buttons all around the screens. Like so? Or did you mean something more like this? ;)
Cobra360 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Oh yeah. F-15E, bring it on. Oh the possibilities. One day, maybe one day we will be able to fly it in all it's destructive glory.
355th_Thomp Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Like so? Or did you mean something more like this? ;) Now thats a fantastic illustration! hehehe.. precisely what i meant! or even better would be something like this or this ;) -thomp
KILSEK Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Hi all. No I actually do not play F4, although it was one of the first sims I bought and played when I got my first PC. For me, using the keyboard simulates the buttons in a cockpit. Although with the following quote I can see that I will be using every regular key, shift+key, alt+key, and ctrl+key command out there to have all those commands mapped. So maybe, possibly ;) , a clickable pit would be useful. Now thats a fantastic illustration! hehehe.. precisely what i meant! or even better would be something like this or this ;) -thomp Yeah, now I'm down with that. Alot more buttons=alot more commands=alot more cool!!! The other point of having hands and feet moving and clicking switches would actually slow the operation of the aircraft, particularly if they added g modelling to it. Imagine pulling 7g and then pushing a button on the mfd. Not going to happen. That is absolutely true, and just as long as the A.I. cannot do it then I am good with that. You know this brings up a thought that should be a whole other topic. I am not going to hijack this thread but will start another about realism. You have to appreciate the efforts that all dev's(F4, LOMAC, Jane's) are putting forth trying to program something that folks will appreciate and want to buy. I want to say that I appreciate hardcore simmers efforts and feedback to get sims as real as possible. I just hope that dev's always keep it in mind to make it scalable so that folks can choose how easy/difficult thay want to play. -KILSEK
coldcrew Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 forget 1.2.. where is the 1.1 patch? I heard it was supposed to be june but looking at the posts noone is even asking about it anymore.
GGTharos Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Probably because everyone knows that 'it will be ready when it's ready'. The devs are putting in major work, and they're already said they found and squashed some major issues - you may not notice them, but they're there ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Ogami Musashi Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 AFM are physical models. Instead of modelising whole plane performance, you modelise several subsystems specifications (like flight control systems, air probes, landing gear etc..) AFM require far more information about a plane but offer far more flexibility and real time coherence throught the entire enveloppe of the plane. With AFM you can modelise properly post stall aeros. As i said, the more complex the plane (for example unstable fighters like SU-27 and F-16), the harder and longer the AFM. In my humble opinion afm don't bring closer-to-reality specifications (values) but instead bring far more realistic behaviors. However it is possible to make AFM having correct numbers but then that's the big question: what do you prefer? realistic behaviors? or real numbers?(I.e: this radar has the same range than in real). For example Falcon 4 High fidelity Flight Models has pretty accurate curves (really accurate!) but some of the behaviors like for example coupled input commands (like roll+pitch, pitch+yaw, Roll+yaw) are missing in the code. I personnaly prefer AFM style FM, make the plane feel like really flying. Core I7 4770K-16Gb DDR3 1800- SLI MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2Gb-Win 7 64 bit - TM Cougar
ED Team Olgerd Posted July 12, 2005 ED Team Posted July 12, 2005 AFM are physical models. Instead of modelising whole plane performance, you modelise several subsystems specifications (like flight control systems, air probes, landing gear etc..) AFM require far more information about a plane but offer far more flexibility and real time coherence throught the entire enveloppe of the plane. With AFM you can modelise properly post stall aeros. As i said, the more complex the plane (for example unstable fighters like SU-27 and F-16), the harder and longer the AFM. In my humble opinion afm don't bring closer-to-reality specifications (values) but instead bring far more realistic behaviors. However it is possible to make AFM having correct numbers but then that's the big question: what do you prefer? realistic behaviors? or real numbers?(I.e: this radar has the same range than in real). For example Falcon 4 High fidelity Flight Models has pretty accurate curves (really accurate!) but some of the behaviors like for example coupled input commands (like roll+pitch, pitch+yaw, Roll+yaw) are missing in the code. I personnaly prefer AFM style FM, make the plane feel like really flying. Hi there Ogami! So nice to see you here. :) BTW. This is not the way ot impletentation. This is presence or absence of particular flight dynamics/controll system behavior. And nothing else. Actually Su-25 AFM is very close to "real numbers" in aerodymanics sence. But it also introduces very good (and proper) aproach to dynamics moments modelling (body moments + aerodynamics + control system). If you will modell F-16 FLCS as it actually works, you will feel the difference with Falcon 4.0. Anybody is able to produce ideal controll system. Even General Dynamics. :cool: Any controll system has some 'lags' in particular conditions. ...The tuning of such model will be just nightmare I think. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] К чему стадам дары свободы? Их должно резать или стричь. Наследство их из рода в роды Ярмо с гремушками да бич.
Ogami Musashi Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 hi olgerd, Well don't you think AFM by their structure permit more dynamics behaviors? I mean, for example, in Microsoft's Combat fligth simulator 2 landing gear were modelised separately from the rest of the plane. If something was going good in this simulator that was the landing/take off phases. The rest, modelised with tables, didn't render much but more negated the specificities of each plane. About aerodynamics well since control surface are modelised separately they really help to get the accurate aeros but as i recall the tuning necessary for SU-25 AFM ( for different altitude) you still need solid numbers to compare with the results of the AFM. I mean well if we dream of future simulation 20 years ahead, maybe we will use real time flow simulation that will accurately predict the flow behaviors thus specifications. But for now this is to demanding on CPU. That's why i think AFM are not necessary (i mean structuraly) a better way to accurates performance. But well i can be wrong, the AFM structure is quite complex...and i'm soooooooo unaware of many details. Well anyway, AFM are the way to go...especially SU-27 AFM^__^ (want it, want it!) Core I7 4770K-16Gb DDR3 1800- SLI MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2Gb-Win 7 64 bit - TM Cougar
Roman G Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I just want to throw my vote for clickable cockpit here ... I would like to have it becuase I have far better "visual memory" than memory for the keystrokes. For example after running training track I (almost) perfectly remember what cockpit button I am supposed to push to for example change ripple quantity and such. But I cannot tell the same about key-stroke commands - running training track once is not enough for remembering them - I usually have to memorise the keystrokes by looking a couple of times into the Key doc file. And after about week or two of not playing LOCKON I forget a lot of keystrokes - but still remember locations of the cockpit buttons ...
Cobra360 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Like Falcon4. If you want to eject you can look down and pull the eject handle with your mouse instead of CTRL+E,E,E. It's brilliant. Having the option of both is the best solution. Clickable cockpit and key strokes. That way everyone is happy. I'm with Roman on the memory thing. I have the whole keyboard command list printed out and keep it beside me at all times when I play FC.
SUBS17 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I just want to throw my vote for clickable cockpit here ... I would like to have it becuase I have far better "visual memory" than memory for the keystrokes. For example after running training track I (almost) perfectly remember what cockpit button I am supposed to push to for example change ripple quantity and such. But I cannot tell the same about key-stroke commands - running training track once is not enough for remembering them - I usually have to memorise the keystrokes by looking a couple of times into the Key doc file. And after about week or two of not playing LOCKON I forget a lot of keystrokes - but still remember locations of the cockpit buttons ... Actually the good thing about F4SP4.2 is that you get a ramp start training programme which helps nicely to get a person trained to start the F-16. How it works is it shows you what button to press next and where its located in the pit. You can turn off the highlight mode when you feel confidant and after a while it all comes naturally. I can ramp start F4 with out the checklist because of this. AF might be a different story but I'll wait and see when it arrives.{note its a separate programme so I don't need to start F4 up to practice} [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts