#679298 - 01/27/05 03:00 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679299 - 01/28/05 10:08 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
Mr B
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
|
Originally posted by MGonzales: 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).
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 ). Originally posted by MGonzales: Also, another "feature" of PSF was the inclusion of many user created missions. 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
|
|
#679301 - 01/28/05 10:31 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
Mr B
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
|
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
|
|
#679302 - 01/28/05 10:42 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679303 - 02/01/05 01:39 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679304 - 02/03/05 11:34 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
Mr B
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
|
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
|
|
#679305 - 02/03/05 02:08 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679306 - 02/03/05 09:35 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Scott Elson
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Hunt Valley, MD, USA
|
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
|
|
#679307 - 02/03/05 09:48 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679308 - 02/04/05 08:03 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Scott Elson
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Hunt Valley, MD, USA
|
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: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Aviv Yam-Shahor, the Lead Designer of Jane's USAF, posted a letter in a CombatSim forum where he said that Pixel Multimedia will continue its support of the product and might even consider releasing a tool that will allow users to add their own custom aircraft to the simulation. But since then a lot has changed for the worse: Pixel Multimedia changed its name to ''Pixel BBS'' and shifted its focus from flight simulations to multi-platfrom, multi-player online games; and Aviv went to work for a company called ''SimiGon''. and also: After my initial attempt failed, I tracked down Aviv at ''SimiGon'' and phoned him.
Now you might wish to slow up a bit and take a glance at SimiGon; this company was located a year ago in the same building as Pixel and is concerned with exactly what Pixel used to do, only it's for real military pilots in real air forces: simulation solutions for reference, training, planning and debriefing purposes. Their product is so similar to Pixel's games in its general appearance and feel that the only big difference is in the wrapping. In fact, when I examined the screenshots and the AVI movie clip in their site I thought to myself ''Aren't these objects from the Jane's World War development phase?''
Anyway according to Aviv, since Pixel abandoned entirely the field of flight simulation games (and any further development of Jane's USAF) it's highly unlikely that they'll release the P3D converter now, so I was advised to talk with Sharon Rozenman who was the game's Producer and an all-around nice guy. 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
|
|
#679309 - 02/10/05 08:33 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
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
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
|
|
#679310 - 02/10/05 09:03 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
Mr B
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,306
|
Originally posted by MGonzales:
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. 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
|
|
#679311 - 02/13/05 03:06 AM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Scott Elson
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,123
Hunt Valley, MD, USA
|
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
|
|
#679312 - 02/19/05 09:50 AM
Re: So...
|
**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
OFF TOPIC!! sorry about that. i just wanted to know where in oz mate? i'm in sydney
|
|
#679313 - 02/19/05 09:53 AM
Re: So...
|
**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
that question was intended form Mr. B missed it
|
|
#679314 - 02/19/05 02:17 PM
Re: So...
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
Originally posted by kake: OFF TOPIC!! sorry about that. i just wanted to know where in oz mate? i'm in sydney 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
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
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|