Tom Cofield looks at the next release in the series.

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_478a.html

Nice review Tom. I have been watching this one since the begining but I still haven't bought it. I do like the Gold Pack idea where they bundle everything together to make the cost a little more manageable.


Wheels

I have been tinkering with the SF series flight models since the game was originally released. The game engine's flight engine has the potential to have higher fidelity than MSFSX and X-plane. The flight model data is written in tables of aerodynamic co-efficients. If someone takes the time to build detailed and accurate tables, the aircraft will behave very closely to the real thing.

A certain someone that created the "1%" accurate FMs for MS FS/CFS was doing the same for Third Wire WW2 mods. He did run into some game engine limitations that kept him from getting the results he wanted, but overall, he found he could get very accurate and detailed FMs for WW2 birds. I think TK eventually fixed some of the problems he found (the posts between TK and the modder can be found at the Third Wire forums).

Third Wire tends to intentionally make the flight models for their stock jets a little easier than reality because of the design goal of being a "lite" sim, but if you have flown the Lightning in the Expansion Pack 2, TK shows off just how authentic he can follow the flight manual. The game engine also accommodates WWI fighters, so saying it doesn't work because it is a jet sim isn't fair or accurate. You would be amazed at how hard the Spad XIII in First Eagles was to fly in the early betas before TK dumbed down the data ini file for that aircraft to comply with his "lite" design goal. At this point, the P-51D is a stock flyable in SF2 Expansion Pack 1. Like the other stock aircraft, the flight model may be somewhat friendly by design... but it will most certainly stall and spin. Someone with sufficient aerodynamics knowledge could easily edit the stock P-51D data ini file to get rid of any extra damping/stability that TK may have put in there to appeal to lite simmers.

If the aircraft feel too "light" and stable in the "Rising Sun" mod, it is because they were written that way by the modders, not because of any inherent game engine limitations. So don't let "Rising Sun" off the hook on flight models due to the game engine. It is almost wholly a lack of work/research on the part of whoever provided the FM data inis for the "Rising Sun" flyables. Of course, the focus on "Rising Sun" is the "story telling" aspect, which means 05 doesn't care too much about the precision of the FMs as long as Zeroes fly rings around US fighters and you can make good screen shots of dive bombing runs. The focus is more on atmosphere than nuts and bolts, which actually fits nicely with TK's sim-lite approach that allows you to focus on performance of the mission rather than things like trim and engine management.

Good review. I've been following the developement of this sim for a while now.
I was planning to buy it but never pulled the trigger. Right now for me, the
graphics aspect and bang for the buck factor are holding me back. 10 Years ago it
would've been a no brainer. Now I'm spoiled with Il2 and RoF graphics. The outlook
of having to spend $100+ and knowing the graphics are going to annoy the crap out
of me make it a no go for me.

Why have the developers of the SF series not updated their game engine? They must know there
would be serious interest in Rising Sun(and their own software) if they just got the water
better looking. I also wonder why Rising Sun attached itself to a more or less orphaned graphics
engine. It's really a shame most of us will not buy it because the outdated graphics engine spoils
the immersion. Had this been a mission pack addon for Il2's Pacific Fighters I would've gladly
paid double what they're asking now.

I whole heardedly agree with Tom that this team should get hired by a developer. If the planned
modular, open setup for Il2 COD ever pans out it could be a perfect platform for the Rising Sun
developers.

Not sure what you are talking about, the SF engine has been continuously updated for years. DX10 effects, bump and specular mapping are all present in the game engine. The water is dated because the developer doesn't have the resources to upgrade it. However, there will be an updated terrain engine in the F-14 game. This is all done by two people, not teams of people with millions of dollars. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'orphaned' graphics engine.

What's funny is that it looks far better than OFF phase 3, yet people still have no problem buying that, and it's DX7. I find it funny that your sole complaint is "water" (and it looks far better than OFFs), like you spend that much time looking at it in a flight sim. Maybe during takeoff and landing? Big deal.
If you're that shallow, no one cares if you like it.



The Jedi Master

It looks dated, that's my opinion. I don't upgrade my computer so I can play 2001 looking graphics on it. You like it, good for you. I think it's a pitty that all the work the Rising Sun guys put in their research was used in a program that looked 10 years old the day it was released. I have no experience with the other SF engines and have no clue what they look like. In Rising Sun however it looks old and the water is an immersion killer for me. I agree with Jedi Master that I'm shallow when it comes to graphics. Graphics get my attention first, then if the gameplay's good I'll bite. If it was the other way around I would be playing turn based strategic board games. Anyone that cares more about reliving the historic battles the way they happend than graphic quality probably will enjoy Rising Sun.

They need to do something about the water in the game,it looks terrible

Rising Sun looks even more dated than stock SF2 does since there doesn't appear to be any specular shading at all. Everything looks really flat and washed out.

I guess RS models are Series 1 compatible, so no specular or normal maps
(I bought SF2-compatible "Phase One" only though)

That's not the point. Even in legacy SF planes and ground objects still have specular lighting bumped up whereas RS much like YAP has this really muted lighting that makes everything look as if there is perpetual overcast. So everything looks washed out.

The A/C skins textures settings, I'll check myself how big is the difference with very glossy ones

As Tom says, he did not play this for the graphics but the missions. If you know the story, your mind will let you accept SF's dated graphics. If you are looking for graphics, then you really aren't our customer anyway so we expect that we won't get you. I have no arguments with the review. But some of the following comments are thoughtful but ill-informed.

Tip O'Neil once said that everyone has a right to their own opinion but not their own facts. The fact is, what we have done cannot be done in some other engine. It sounds easy when you say it but not when you actually have to do it.

Graphics? We can model and texture anything. We can exceed IL-2 COD or drop down to Donkey Kong. We can make cockpits with wiggling feet (even though in 13000 hours of tough flying, I have never seen my feet, look inside as little as possible and find switches by feel.) or churches with slate roofs and lichens growing on their edges. But no matter what we do, we cannot beat every example of computer graphics in existence. Someone will invest more memory in one aspect and push that as a significant advance in the game when it is really not that at all. Playing poker with cards painted by Renoir does not change the game.

Rising Sun was defined by the demands of Pearl Harbor. It's a hard thing to create so it will run smoothly. Look at Pacific Fighters. I know why Oleg did it the way he did. It wasn't ignorance. It was frame rate. We did what had not been done because we are trying to let people experience real history, not a foolish shoot-em-up. Give the player the major viewpoints and let his mind fill in the detail he has read.

We create it then we ask YOUR computer to run it, not ours. Will it? Often, your computer isn't up to the task. "You" is not you. It is a large enough group of people to justify the expense. Hard core flight simmers are a very small group of people playing on desktop computers in an increasingly iPad world. (The same people all the time.) It's not growing like the dumber game genres. Development into cheap thrills in this arena is not paying off. So we picked a different angle, History. We picked a different demographic, men who read books...also a shrinking base. But we continue to reach those men whether we steal any customers from First Person Shooters or not.

Flight Models. Let's get this right. A desk top simulator is nothing like flying an airplane or helicopter. Nothing. Okay? I hold almost every license the FAA issues. A sim is an avenue to experience the essence of something. You cannot make a chair and a laptop into 500 knots at 500 feet pulling 5 G's with a full bladder and an empty stomach. One does not comment on the realism of triple-A when they see it for real. They jink or die. Our stuff is flown by real pilots who like it and the reason they do is that pilots are there to compensate. They accept what they get and fly it...complaining after they land. I can give you scary stories about control reversals, jammed ailerons, loss of control and how I got the plane home. The reason pilots accept it is that is what they do...then they make it work. That's why we can hover our helicopters and players cannot, find refueling realistic and gamers might skip it. We are used to making whatever input is required at whatever rate is required. A customer does not want to do that and I don't blame them. But to ding our FM's and say someone's are better is a bad comparison. The best desktop flight model is not real even if it is the numbers used at Edwards. You are wearing your boxer shorts with a beer beside your mouse and Foo Fighters blaring in your ear!

We are trying to put you into the mind of a young man a long time ago, show you what he saw, assign you his mission, assemble is obstacles and let you experience it. We think we do that quite well. For that, we may have to sacrifice the wiggling toes.

So, unless the few comments and postings I see on forums is representative of 100,000 potential sales, I think we are all in for a disappointment. You in getting the perfect game that keeps you interested for months in both flying and thinking. And us in being rewarded for all those 16-hour days and thousands of dollars.

We will put out Phase Three to our customers...who keep purchasing in spite of our water and flight models. We will update Yankee Air Pirate because it is the only simulation of all the missions flow in Vietnam as told by the men who flew them. We have other irons in the fire, though.

To Tom, good review, all-in-all. Pretty much our opinion, too, with a few variations.

zerocinco

Well stated, zerocinco! I've been gaming with "simulators" since the early '80's, with the original MSFS. Were the graphics photo-realistic? Not even close, but the experience was such a blast.

I realize that that there is a large segment of our community who aren't able to fully enjoy the simulation experience unless their game is running full-out max details and looking picture perfect, and I can accept the fact that it's their thing. But for me, it's never been totally about the graphics. If the game is able to make you feel as if you're in it, you tend to forget about the graphics.

Look at the appeal that such titles still engender today when such classics as Gunship, F-15 Strike Eagle 3, or F-19 Stealth Fighter are brought up. Look at how well such games as EAW, Red Baron and Longbow 2 are still supported by the community! Are the graphics top-of-the line? Not even close. But what they all do have in common is that they have that ability to suck you into the game play despite the graphics. That doesn't stop the supporters from trying to improve on the visuals, but it doesn't stop them from playing them either.

So, if you're not able to fully enjoy a title or mod because of the graphics or modelling, I can understand your issue and I'm not going to fault you for it. Unfortunately for you however, your desire for the perfect photo-realistic experience could be impeding you from enjoying the real beauty and immersion that the game or mod has to offer.