Heh I hated every second of that video, when it was shown at the introductory course. It looked like someone tried to pull a "Behind enemy lines" scene.
Good thing it doesn't show up too often.
Introduction to what?
The Russian response...
Couldn't find the entire ~9 min. video on YouTube, but this is mainly what I wanted to show.
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Man that video is even more Crass than the Typhoon one...
Yeah, they're both awful. I made a couple of annoying EF2000 rock music videos a while back (happy to say they're permanently retired) and while I forget what I was trying to show, I attack a ship while it fires back. No ECM, chaff or flares, no maneuvering, I just let the missile take my wing off and fly into the path a another firing ship, and then I punch out. Duh.
I actually put on my Behind Enemy Lines DVD for background noise today after reading your comment (well, after watching the first ~30 min.). It's an F model, no a C, back to F with a Thrustmaster stick, heh heh...Hollywood has done worse.
Last edited by MarkG; 10/09/1310:39 PM. Reason: SH E to F
LOL yeah, Hollywood did better in regards of flight-related movies. Still I think the intro is the high point of "Behind enemy lines"... And let's not even begin with the sequel...
My job IS interesting BUT can also be pretty repetitive and boring. I'm an IT, maintainer of the EF-Typhoon simulator for the Air Force.
As a side note I logged some hundreds hours of sim-flight. Beats being bothered by costumers all day, behind the counter at my previous job.
Buy it's weird to confess that mil-sims suffer for the same problems of DCS, as I see it...
No dynamic campaign (with the worsening of No Campaign Whatsoever), you make your own missions and it feels a bit... sterile. Multiplayer is a blast though.
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Is itonly me or any joystick I sue tends to roll to the right?
You can always recalibrate in flight with ALT-C when the stick is neutral. It's also handy when you take a hit and loose a wing (poorman's trim - you hit ALT-C when the stick is put in the turn - takes a bit of practice to do it right but it works).
I've always wondered about those who fly/work with the real aircraft, how badly does being in-the-know hurt suspension of disbelief in a flight sim?
I'm working on maps for EF2000, at first I was using an Atlas and Google Earth for reference. I noticed that most towns and cities are located in the correct general vicinity but the game world isn't completely accurate. Even in 1995 I would think DID could have done a better job with accuracy, surly they had an office full of maps to go by.
But then I see the EF2000 world in a different perspective...
..and realize the game world had to be coordinated on a grid, and in some cases locations might have been adjusted for gameplay (i.e. oil and supply towns relative to the airbases they support). Of course, I would never know the difference without following along with a real map anyway, and I certainly never noticed just how grid-like the EF2000 world was structured when playing the game.
So I put away the Atlas, stopped looking at Google Earth (in this area) and as far as I'm concerned, the entire Scandinavian peninsula and a big chunk of Russia is whatever DID designed it to be. THAT is how you suspend disbelief, IMO! Same with the aircraft, I don't care to make comparisons to the real Eurofighter (as I did with TAW, especially with the F-22's HUD display), I just want to play the game (leading to next quote)...
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Buy it's weird to confess that mil-sims suffer for the same problems of DCS, as I see it...
No dynamic campaign (with the worsening of No Campaign Whatsoever), you make your own missions and it feels a bit... sterile. Multiplayer is a blast though.
Never tried MP gaming and with Satellite Internet (high latency) I probably never will, making the SP experience all the more important to me.
EF2000's DC is probably the best I could hope for (scenario, theater, aircraft). "WarGen" lacks many features of the King of DCs and hasn't been developed/refined for years at the source code level, but still...it works! For me, the illusion of flying in an ongoing large active war is strong, while the DC options (including Mission Planner) is simple and straight forward. After map making I'm going to give the DC more "personality". When I finish a campaign I want to feel like I've just read an '80s Tom Clancy novel.
I know the mixed feelings about DCs, some want to fly single highly-polished and detailed (documented) hand-crafted missions, same as the military would want, I assume. I prefer EF2000's DC method (I refer to it as "Falcon lite"), a listing of various auto-generated missions for me to choose from, while the AI flies the rest (or all, if I choose not to fly while the campaign progresses without me). A campaign can last for days (in real and game time) and the FEBA is seldom stagnate. Neutral alliances change, resources run out (mainly aircraft), and I constantly feel the sense of urgency as another NATO base falls to the Russians.
EDIT: "MALM" pictured above (center of pic) is a bridge, the town of MALM is further west (text hidden by STEINKJER TN [tunnel] S)
Generally speaking those screen are quite accurate. There definitely are differences, some quite interesting, but I cannot -obviously- point them out, now can I? I guess it all boils down to software refinement and added/removed needed/unnecessary features.
I'd have never imagined such screen to be available online, honestly...
Originally Posted By: MarkG
I've always wondered about those who fly/work with the real aircraft, how badly does being in-the-know hurt suspension of disbelief in a flight sim?
Eeh, to be honest I had the game you are working on when it came out and I was so amazed I wetted meself several time. Now? Well it's enough to say that I'm quite amused by what's available and what's not. But it's an old veteran of a sim, so it still deserve quite some respect.
Originally Posted By: MarkG
Originally Posted By: komemiute
My job IS interesting BUT can also be pretty repetitive and boring. I'm an IT, maintainer of the EF-Typhoon simulator for the Air Force.
As a side note I logged some hundreds hours of sim-flight.
Generally speaking those screen are quite accurate. There definitely are differences, some quite interesting, but I cannot -obviously- point them out, now can I? I guess it all boils down to software refinement and added/removed - needed/unnecessary features.
I'd have never imagined such screen to be available online, honestly...
Originally Posted By: MarkG
I'm working on maps for EF2000, at first I was using an Atlas and Google Earth for reference. I noticed that most towns and cities are located in the correct general vicinity but the game world isn't completely accurate. Even in 1995 I would think DID could have done a better job with accuracy, surly they had an office full of maps to go by.
But then I see the EF2000 world in a different perspective...
..and realize the game world had to be coordinated on a grid, and in some cases locations might have been adjusted for gameplay (i.e. oil and supply towns relative to the airbases they support). Of course, I would never know the difference without following along with a real map anyway, and I certainly never noticed just how grid-like the EF2000 world was structured when playing the game.
So I put away the Atlas, stopped looking at Google Earth (in this area) and as far as I'm concerned, the entire Scandinavian peninsula and a big chunk of Russia is whatever DID designed it to be. THAT is how you suspend disbelief, IMO! Same with the aircraft, I don't care to make comparisons to the real Eurofighter (as I did with TAW, especially with the F-22's HUD display), I just want to play the game (leading to next quote)...
Oh yes. I prefer to think like this too. It's just enough to give the right feeling. It has to be credible, not necessarily true-to-life... I like to point out as an example the difference between what people believe it's necessary to simulate an Air to Air radar and what would be enough. I don't need (without going into questionable details) all the cycles of the software and an emulation of the Radar proprietary hardware. It's enough to have a model (yes even with tables) that covers about 90% of the possible cases with the remaining 10% to solid guesswork.
Same could be said about lot of other systems (and it's probably done that way) or even DC engines...
Originally Posted By: MarkG
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Buy it's weird to confess that mil-sims suffer for the same problems of DCS, as I see it...
No dynamic campaign (with the worsening of No Campaign Whatsoever), you make your own missions and it feels a bit... sterile. Multiplayer is a blast though.
Never tried MP gaming and with Satellite Internet (high latency) I probably never will, making the SP experience all the more important to me.
EF2000's DC is probably the best I could hope for (scenario, theater, aircraft). "WarGen" lacks many features of the King of DCs and hasn't been developed/refined for years at the source code level, but still...it works! For me, the illusion of flying in an ongoing large active war is strong, while the DC options (including Mission Planner) is simple and straight forward. After map making I'm going to give the DC more "personality". When I finish a campaign I want to feel like I've just read an '80s Tom Clancy novel.
I know the mixed feelings about DCs, some want to fly single highly-polished and detailed (documented) hand-crafted missions, same as the military would want, I assume. I prefer EF2000's DC method (I refer to it as "Falcon lite"), a listing of various auto-generated missions for me to choose from, while the AI flies the rest (or all, if I choose not to fly while the campaign progresses without me). A campaign can last for days (in real and game time) and the FEBA is seldom stagnate. Neutral alliances change, resources run out (mainly aircraft), and I constantly feel the sense of urgency as another NATO base falls to the Russians.
EDIT: "MALM" pictured above (center of pic) is a bridge, the town of MALM is further west (text hidden by STEINKJER TN [tunnel] S)
[/quote]
You see... I think the big deal with DCS is that it SCREAMS aloud the need for a stable, massively manned multiplayer environment. As of now I feel like it's more or less too limited.
I can imagine that with time it can only improve. Too many aficionados of the genre are coming together forming virtual schools and wings. The sheer amount of knowledge now available to anyone just barely interested is overwhelming, and sometimes also contradictory which doesn't make it any easier on newbies.
But, again, I believe this is just the infancy of something absolutely dreamlike for any of the old guard like us. What I found a bit disheartening is the amount of young folks with little respect, no direction and too much self esteem that are thrashing about, all over the (hardcore-sim) place.
But I don't want to turn this (too much) into a rant. It's amazing the passion you're putting into this and I can never cease to be amazed by what people can achieve with willpower and reverse engineering.
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
The website with EF MFD displays has been around for at least 5 years, also includes HUD pics among other interesting features. If it turns out we can update some of the avionic displays, I'd want to do it but I'm not going to dwell on it. Maybe one day we can up the resolution a notch.
EDIT: Actually some of those files reflect a campaign fast-forwarded to day 2 (takes a few seconds to advance by 8 hours, map display in motion).
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Almost 20 years old and still has a hi-tech feel to it ...
The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it’s day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run
The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it’s day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run
Definition in above video is terrible, I'm experimenting with balance of resolution and file size.
It's great IMO that you can watch an entire campaign play out without ever flying a mission. When I was playing TAW I would sometimes be away on my laptop without a stick, yet I could still play the game from the War Room and AWACS. Other times I just wanted a break from flying, with TAW you never need to enter the cockpit to play.
The problem with EF2000 is that you're only an observer to the DC, the idea is to develop an interactive experience. Even if it's not as sophisticated as TAW's interaction in real-time, I want to at least be able to setup my own complete "game plan" for each 8-hour mission cycle (turn). In some ways I'd prefer it, letting the AI play out my overall strategy vs. TAW's micro-managing. But to make this work we need to get away from a Player Rating influencing the progress of the campaign.
Fortunately the game gives you this option as the Strategy Guide puts it on p.272...
========== "In addition, you can also select if the player's performance (yes, this means you!) should influence the course of the campaign. If you select no, you will just take part in a very complicated game of chance and your best efforts may be wasted because your PC's random number generator has had a bad day." ==========
I'm using the Player Rating (score) now as I'm getting back into campaign play, but eventually I want to disable it. As you know the Player Rating determines who has the opportunity to take an airbase at each 8-hour turn, while actual base captures are determined by base strength. I want to have more influence with overall planning than by averaging my mission scores, and this should be possible by a campaign editor (i.e. cutting the supply routes to a base weakens the base, something I thought was already modeled but maybe not?). I assume this is a feature of Strategic Command.
The first phase is to develop a comprehensive campaign viewer to see exactly what the game is doing as it plays out the campaign, a project I've started with VB6, pics coming soon.
Absolutely Wonderful. From tiem to Time (every 4 missions I have some crash. I cant recreate the issues. ) the experience is still quite good and accepatable though
Hi there, your assumption is wrong . I have now for quite a while searched for a digital version (pdf or doc) of the original strategy guide for ef2000 without luck. Help! Could someone aid in a direct link to it? Does it even exist?
hello:) i just downloaded the EF2000 reloaded but i really have no idea how to define all the parameters :\ i downloaded the original EF2000 for dos and EF2000 special edition ( i dont know where i can find the EF2000 v2.0 or EF2000 with 3dfx patch) the special edition is ,of what i think, is EF2000 + tactcom for dos i downloaded a 3dfx patch called "gfxplus.rar" with the file "tactpat.exe" in it but i have no idea what to do with it ....so i would apriciate if anyone can help me out with this:)
i have Super EF2000 in the original box and the memories wont let go...i would rather wish for someone have the source code for Super EF2000 and make it runable in win7 64 with just high resolution but that reloaded version is not bad at all
