What's happening?

I'm still flying the odd bit of Hornet Korea, but it gets harder to do every day. The graphics, without a 3DFX card, really, REALLY suck. We're talking almost 256 colours here (in fact, it might actually be 256 colours ). I've tried a Glide Wrapper, no joy there, graphics get all trashed and discoloured .

This is the only jet sim I have with carrier ops. I missed the boat on the others, I'm thinking of resorting to eBay. I still like HK, but when the graphics are so lousy it's very hard to stay with it.

How are you guys going with HK / PSF / OIF? Not many posts lately.

Cheers

Mr B

One piece of good news I forgot to mention though:
It's a real joy to use with my new Afterburner II joystick! Being able to slam open the throttle when doing bolters on a carrier is great fun .

Cheers

Mr B

Easier (and less expensive) than buying a Voodoo card would be to buy a new sim. I thourougly recommend Janes F/A 18 for carrier operations and excellent avionics! Although it has outdated graphics, they're on par with Hornet Korea or better and there's a slight chance EA might release the source code to the community. If so, a Falcon 4 like phenomenom might happen...

Mr B, I'm pretty sure right now that PSF is NEVER going to leave my hard drive, EVER!

I've been playing lighter sims lately, from F-22 Lightning 3 to USAF, but I also continue playing PSF for a few reasons...

1. The avionics are more in-depth than USAF and I love the Carrier Ops. This is what I call a true mid-level flight sim and I like the complexity sometimes. Not really interested in learning the really hard core sims just yet.

2. The mission recorder. It's less robust than the one in USAF but playback is always available upon ending a mission (keep forgetting to push the Record button in USAF) and seems to play back at a higher resolution than USAF (although PSF can't touch USAF's graphics).

3. The ALT-N key-in. I love being able to change dawn/day/dusk/night on the fly. Nighttime in Hawaii still looks gorgeous to me.

4. The extremely small install, especially after deleting the ...\Textures folders except HRO. I know I'll never need to remove this game to make space.

5. Runs well in XP, although I usually play it under ME with my other flight sims.

6. The training videos and Korea Manual (not the Manual included with PSF). I still love reading this VERY well written documentation, and I feel I as if I'm really learning something about this plane and air combat in general vs. just playing a game.

PSF is still a very cool game IMO, and although the graphics are seriously dated, they still look pretty to me. Now if only Pretzel could add some more clouds.

There's a new add-on for USAF called Super Pro 9.2 (by Slikk) that I've been messing around with lately. It adds so much stuff to USAF that it'll make your head spin! You can fly helos, vertical a/c, reconnaissance and cargo planes, and even drive a freggin' tank! There's an F/A-18C included (with 2D pit based off of Aeyes' work and beautiful 3D model) that can even land on a Carrier!

But it has limitations. It's still nice to have a dedicated and more detailed F/A-18C sim in PSF, plus having a meatball and LSO adds greatly to immersion (simply not possible with USAF).

I also play F-22 Lighting 3 because it's fast and easy and I love the weather and nuke effects.

But again, I have no intentions of ever retiring PSF and I hope Graphsim continues the Hornet series or at least makes a substantial patch for OIF as I'd like to enjoy that one as well. I'm not holding my breath for either.
--


Mark

Perhaps one of the better manuals ever written for a flight sim.

Hey B, what did you decide to do?
--


Mark

Keep flying HK. Ebay and all that stuff is too much of a pain, and HK is nice and simple and easy. And if I fly at night, it doesn't look to bad, and also makes it more challenging. So, I guess I'll just stop whinging and put up with it . Perhaps if I run into PSF I'll grab that.

Oh, and I've also started using a little program that really helps improve immersion in HK's rather silent world. It's called BackTrax, and FNG2K pointed it out on the Helo Sims board. I've had it for a while but forgot about it. Anyway, it plays a bunch of random aircraft noises, communications chatter, and other sounds. If you turn it down low, it sounds good.

Here's a link if you'd like to check it out:
http://www.simwarrior.com/sfp1/BackTrax.html

Cheers

Mr B

LOL! You and I discussed this sweet piece of freeware almost a year ago...
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=003033

Wow how time does fly!

I've fine tuned my sound files for Hawaii (lots of commercial traffic) and Korea (military action comms). I've also added a LOT of silent (blank) sound files so that my comms are much better spaced apart and more random. However, I got lazy and stopped using this some time back.

I REALLY miss AWACS giving me information as in Jane's USAF and Nova's F-22 L3. Both of those sims also have a lot of comm chatter from other flights around you which is great for immersion. Well, the "Yahoos!" in USAF can be a little irritating, but F-22 L3 sounds GREAT, and comms even includes radio static.

This is just another area where I wish Graphsim would have put time into vs. a satellite-based terrain. All of HK's sound files need to be re-sampled(?) IMO, and to stop using the same sounds for different things (i.e. flaps and gear). And if possible, match the sound with the situation (i.e. on playback it sounds like you're still in the cockpit even if you're using Tower View to watch a fly-by).

BTW, did you see my PSF screenshots? The Hornet Korea demo (which does support OpenGL) doesn't look quite as good to me as PSF. It's really close, but PSF's glistening water effect (vs. HK's fake wave effect) and more trees and stuff wins the comparison.

It's hard to say why I even still play PSF when I've had a taste of newer sims. Just something about how complex, yet accessible it is I guess. I figure if someone like Pretzel, who appears to own every flight sim, still feels this game is worth playing and even modifying, then there must be something to it.

Check out his collection halfway down this thread...
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=003151

I saw the Korea boxes before I noticed who posted the pic and I had an idea who wrote the post before I confirmed it.
--


Mark

*slaps head*

I knew I'd discussed Backtrax with someone before .

I agree with you about the radio communications. The USNF series, in it's later versions, also had a large amount of radio chatter, which was very enjoyable. I haven't played either USAF or F22 L3, but I have heard good things about them. If USAF's chatter is anything like that in the other Jane's sims it must be very good.

I did check out your screenshots, they definately look nice. PSF does have much more to offer graphically. I'd like to post some screenies of HK, but I can't get anything to take screenshots properly.

And Pretzel's collection sure is nice, isn't it?

Cheers

Mr B

Do you mean that you can't find a good looking scene in HK to take a picture of or that you don't have the software to do it?

Here's how I did it...

1. Flew around until I found a nice shot to take
2. Pressed CTRL-G to take screen shot (puts .BMP in main folder)
3. Opened BMP in MS Image Composer (came with FrontPage 2000)
4. Saved as JPG (without any editing)
5. Uploaded to website

I'm guessing that picture quality was slightly degraded converting from BMP to JPG.


Ok, what happened to the edit date stamp when I edit a post?
--


Mark

Thanks for that Mark! I tried using the PrintScreen key and FRAPS but neither of those would produce anything other than a black page. I'm going to go take some snaps right now.

Oh, and the date stamp got taken away. I miss it too .

Cheers

Mr B

OK, here's what Hornet Korea looks like:

Waiting for Takeoff:


Final Approach to the Enterprise, slightly low and right:


Nowhere near as nice as your PSF shots . HK on PC doesn't support OpenGL, only the Mac version does. I might post some more pics later when I get a chance.

Cheers

Mr B

These Graphsims don't seem to like my 9800 Pro. They (PSF and OIF) ran fine on my GF 4 ti4200 but run crappy on this card. Everything else runs much better though.

Mr. B, please send me an e-mail at markgonzales at comcast.net (regarding Jane's USAF).
--


Mark

Email sent .

Cheers

Mr B

Mr B, if there ever was a testament to PSF's (Hornet Korea's) playability, that would be you, still playing this game with no textures! Yuck!

I have all of the GSC demos beginning with Hornet 3.0 which also doesn't support textures (OpenGL) on my PC. It's fun to fly around to see how things use to look a long long time ago. But I wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

Amazing how good the cockpit has always looked though.
--


Mark

That's too bad. Both my Rage 128 Ultra and 9600 SE cards work fine. I wonder why that is?
--


Mark

Hey Mr. B, did you get my response to your e-mail?
--


Mark

Just sent you a reply . Sorry about the delay, I've been extremely these last few days.

Cheers

Mr B

You know, I think I've been confused about the different Hornet releases until now.

I have the Hornet Korea "Gold" demo which does support OpenGL on the PC. However, looking back at Pretzel's Hornet timeline...

"1997 1997 F/A-18 Korea is released for PC/Mac.

2000 2000 F/A-18 Korea GOLD is released via patch and boxed ver for Mac. PC Gold ver was planned as an upgrade via web site.

2001 2001 GSC gives the rights to Xicat to publish Korea Gold for PC. Xicat changes the name to F/A-18 Precision Strike Fighter and boxes the upgrade and sells it at full price. The ploy by Xicat is not well like by the flightsim community."

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=59;t=000285#000001

...there was never an actual Hornet Korea Gold released for the PC. Apparently, GSC made the Gold demo (for PC), but then turned the game over to Xicat who called it PSF.

So my Hornet Korea Gold for PC demo = PSF minus PSF's increased ground objects (i.e. more trees) and slightly better graphics (i.e. glistening water).

So you are running the PC version of the 1997 Hornet Korea which supports only 3Dfx, while the Mac version supports OpenGL (as you explained). And that's why my Hornet Korea demo has no textures on my PC (I was wrong about that in an above post), yet my Hornet Korea Gold demo (which actually = PSF) does.

I think I got it! Until now, I thought that PSF was the first Hornet game supporting the PC with textures. But so did HK, but only 3Dfx (while the Mac version supported OpenGL). So PSF was the first Hornet game supporting the PC with OpenGL.

It all makes sense now!
--


Mark

Edit: I was still confused when I first posted this. Only after a few edits have I finally gotten it right (I think).

Uh, I have questions (after editing my above post a gazillion times).

What's the difference between the Mac versions of 1997 HK and 2000 HK Gold? I know the biggest feature of PSF (which = HK Gold for PC) was adding OpenGL support for the PC. But didn't the 1997 HK for Mac already support the Mac with OpenGL? So why the Gold version for Mac?

Edit: other questions. Did the Mac version ever get PSF's increased tree count and glistening water effects from sunlight and moonlight? Also, another "feature" of PSF was the inclusion of many user created missions. Did HK Gold for Mac get these same missions? Are missions transferable between the Mac and PC versions?
--


Mark

Ok, one more question (or two).

PC players were charged a premium price for OpenGL support for HK, along with slightly improved graphic effects (i.e. glistening water), and a butt load of user created missions (which were already available from the internet). And that's the beef that people had, right? In essence, the same game as HK, just called PSF.

So as I asked above, what did Mac users get with their Gold version over HK? And more importantly, how much did it cost? Aren't Mac games generally more expensive than PC, thus the new OIF for Mac is $10.00 more than the initial price of the PC version?

Edit: And since I want to get it right, there is no Hornet Korea as I've been saying, it's F/A-18 Korea and F/A-18 Korea Gold.
--


Mark

Hey Mark, where did you get that Korea Gold demo? Because I was just wondering what would happen if I combined the Korea Gold demo (which does support OpenGL) with my copy of F/A-18 Korea which doesn't. Can you see what I'm getting at here?

And yes, I think you have got all the versions right now (it's confusing to me too ).

Not just PSF. My copy of HK came in a set with a few other sims some time after it was released (about 1999 or 2000 I think), and it had some user created missions on there (the "Red Hazard" series).

Cheers

Mr B

From Pretzel's links...

http://www.fa-18hornet.com/links.htm

...I found this excellent site...

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/7540/

Click on Demos. On the Demos page, it's the bottom one.

Oh crap! Only the top link is working. Can I e-mail you a 17MB file?

Edit: Hey, try this one...
http://gr.bolt.com/download/pc/sim/fa18_korea.htm
--


Mark

Thanks Mark, I actually just found some site in the Czech Repulic that has it, I'm downloading it now .

Let the cross-breeding project begin (in 48 minutes) !

Cheers

Mr B

Cool. At the very least, you'll see what you're missing without having textures.

BUT, keep in mind that PSF still looks slightly better than that demo. Not by much, but I could tell a difference in a few areas.

Good luck.
--


Mark

Sooo...Mr. B, did it work? I'm guessing not because the included missions are in the EXE, right?

Anyway, since getting back to USAF I want to add to my list of things I like about PSF:



7. Load times. After choosing the PSF startup icon on my Desktop, I'm flying in mere seconds!

8. No tweaking necessary. USAF can be a handful, especially if you're trying to run it under XP. Fortunately, I don't have to tweak USAF under ME (I'm tired of tweaking games).

9. AI. I don't have a lot of experience with newer sims for comparison, but PSF's AI seems pretty good to me.

10. Mission editor. Seems very robust to me although I haven't made any complex missions yet.

11. Flight model (at least compared to USAF). This should have been my #1 item! I'm already back to PSF (after only two days of USAF) until I can play the new USAF add-on with updated FMs. If anything, this has taught me that graphics aren't everything!

In summary, there may be sims that do some of these things better than PSF, but PSF does them ALL quite well, IMO. It just needs a facelift, a few more features, and a few old irritating bugs squashed (although none are show stoppers for me).

I'm retiring F-22 L3 now, and for the same reason I'm having trouble really getting into Strike Fighters...no Mission Recorder. SFP1 (SP3) graphics kinda tax my machine anyway, so maybe they'll have added a playback system by the time I get my next rig. Here's hoping, because I enjoy watching my missions as much as playing them.

PSF truly is an old gem.
--


Mark

No, it didn't work, but it was still interesting. Now I know what PSF textures look like (sort of). I don't think I'm missing out on too much .

I definately agree with you about the mission recorder. I love recording my landings and then watching them from the LSO spot on replay. It's also useful for figuring out where that lethal SAM that I never saw came from .

Cheers

Mr B

I suspect Pretzel might have the best looking PSF of anyone judging by one of his screenshots that is now a broken link. His mountainous terrain looked to be a higher resolution to me, but it could have just been the pic. It's hard getting him to talk sometimes.

USAF's playback system is really awesome! You not only have the main screen like PSF, but you can open two more smaller windows and have them view whatever you want. It's great watching different views of your mission simultaneously.

BTW, USAF was developed from a super-realistic professional flight simulator called "Airbook"...
http://www.simigon.com/default.asp

With the sheer number of features and gorgeous graphics that aren't hardware demanding, USAF should have shared Falcon's title of "The King of Sims", but as an accessible survey sim. I've never seen such an ambitious software with such good intentions fail so miserably (developers made poor gaming decisions [i.e. horrible FMs, stupid AI, re-sizing objects 1.8X causing lack of speed sensation]).

I wish I could try that Airbook sim though, if just to compare with USAF.
--


Mark

I don't think so, though I could be wrong. USAF was developed by a group called Pixel in Israel who did IAF before that. IAF came out in 1998 which, as far as I can tell from the copyrights on the site is about the time Simigon came around and IAF would have been in developement a while before that. Also EA had wondered about trying to link the various Jane's games together and I don't remember Simigon or Airbook coming up during at least the conversations I was part of (which, admittedly, weren't many). I would think that if the tech was used there would have been some mention on the Simigon website but with a quick look I couldn't find one. I also tried finding a connection through Google but the only hits I got where discussions like this one. If you do have a link I'd be interested in reading what it has to say.

Maybe some of the guys from Pixel went over to work for Simigon. Some of their management is from Israel so I could see that happening.

Elf

Scott, on a quick glance it looks like USAF (or parts of) became Airbook, not developed from Airbook, so I could be mistaken. You'd think I'd remember after doing much reading on this some time back.

Here's an interesting thread from the USAF Archives...
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=107;t=000021

When I have time I'll look for more discussions. In any case, if you dig through Simigon's website you'll come across some pictures of their sim that look awfully familiar. I understand the video even more so but it's no longer available. You won't mistake their F-16 pit for the one in USAF but the Mission Editor was obviously borrowed from USAF or vise versa. It looks like by the above discussion that USAF became Airbook?

Edit (I'll make time now ):
==========
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=107;t=000058

"It seems that there is a major misunderstanding regarding SimiGon's AirBook.
the AirBook was never marketed as a consumer product under the Janes distribution network. You are referring to Pixel's USAF game. We were using a similar technology for our AirBook application when we first started."
==========

==========
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=107;t=000957

"just so u all know
*usaf technology is being used for real pilot training by a company named Simigon goto:
http://www.simigon.com/default.asp
surf to:
products / airbook / military
2 changes were made to the simigon version FM's have been changed and feel very close to the FM made by this comunity."
==========

==========
Oh yeah, here I asked the USAF man (Slikk) himself...
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=49;t=004575#000001

"USAF was a lighter gaming version of Simigon's AirBook and this is why the code will never be released."
==========

I can't find anything official though so I dunno. What you said based on the timeline makes sense.

But hey, the Pixel team did try to give us a great game...
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/oct99/usaf-up.htm

I'm glad folks are still modding the crap out of it (literally in some cases [i.e. no more mid-air starts!]). Here's a sim / game that just BEGS for the source code to be released.
--


Mark

Thanks for the links. I followed another link in one of the links to this:

http://daab1.tripod.com/p3d.html

Which had in it:

and also:

With the lead designer moving over it would make sense that interfaces could look the same. Also, considering they were in the same building and Pixel got out of military sim I could see a number of other guys following Aviv over. I don't think offically any code could have followed them over since EA probably would have required the IP rights as part of their contract. Airbook probably was just heavily influenced by USAF (just speculating). This would have been similar to when a number of us left MicroProse to work on Jane's F-15. No code went with us but we had a way we were used to doing things.

The Pixel guys I met at E3 years ago seemed like a bunch of good guys. I'm glad their work is still appreciated.

Elf

Scott, after reading a little more on this the past few days, I believe you're correct with everything you've said. Some people believe that at least 3D models were carried over to Airbook, if not actual code. But models not just from USAF, but from something in development that was to be called Jane's World War, some massive online endeavor.

There's another game in the mix named "Aircade" which I understand was totally arcade. The plot thickens...

I'm surprised Mr. B didn't comment on your working on Jane's F-15 as that is one of his all-time favorites, I believe. I would like to have met the developers of USAF in person.

Thanks for clearing all that up.
--


Mark

Indeed it is. However, we on the JF-15 board have already fleeced Scott's brain for most information pertaining to Jane's F-15. We're letting him have a break from interrogation to recover .

Cheers

Mr B

Almost missed this. They reorganized the forum order on the main page and it's thrown off my scanning pattern.

I remember some talks about Jane's World War. If I remember correctly they wanted to have all the future Jane's games to be able to link together. Since we were building F/A-18 off of the F-15 engine, which already had some multiplayer code, we were able to get the OK that we didn't need to worry about getting F/A-18 to work into the system.

This was also a bit after UO came out and EA started up its EA.com venture. EA had massively multiplayer on the brain and I don't think really understood all the issues.

While a noble and interesting concept if you thing about it there are some really big cans of worms being opened up, especially when you're trying to get games with different scales and different engines to work together. The base terrain will probably have difference, not to mention different placement of buildings, trees and such like. Another problem is that if you're doing MP using the same engine there are all sorts of tricks you can use to reduce the bandwidth you need, especially with AIs. For F/A-18 I could duplicate the work load on multiple machines and only pass specific messages and occational updates (this ramped up a fair amount during combat). If the engines are different that isn't going to work. Even the flight models are going to be different and so you'll probably have to pass a lot of updates (though there are still some tricks you can do).

Now you could have all the teams use the same base engine but a fast jet game, helo game, heavy armor game, infantry game,... will have different focuses and needs. Now some games do combine these elements but they wouldn't be classified as hardcore and make a lot of compromises.

Switching to a different topic, for a while Pixel was working on a Jane's civilian flight sim (one of the links mentioned it so I know I'm safe talking about it).

I'll have to seek around for Aircade. Let me know if you find any interesting links.


Mr B,

Thanks for letting the grey matter re-solidify again. ;-)


Elf

OFF TOPIC!! sorry about that. i just wanted to know where in oz mate? i'm in sydney

that question was intended form Mr. B missed it

This board is so dead, we need to make a rule here that there is no such thing as Off Topic. EVERYTHING is On Topic!

I'm sure they haven't been relevant for a long time now, but "Business As Usual" and "Cargo" have always been two of my favorite LPs/CDs from an Aussie band named "Men at Work". One of the few good things that came out of the '80s (and probably from Australia j/k), IMHO.

I also bought their greatest hits, "Contraband"...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...=glance&s=music

...for the songs from their largely unknown third release, "Two Hearts", which unfortunately did not include all of the original band members. Contraband has really good liner notes.
--


Mark