homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums Typhoon (Read Only) Demo comments - Realism

I've just downloaded and run the demo of Typhoon, and initially, I was impressed.

However, running it a few more times, and a few things have come to my attention:

1. The Canards do *NOT* move on the EFA (when the trailing EFA pulls back into the vertical and it goes to side view, you can see the Canards are still just straight along the aircraft plane).

2. On the close-in shots of the MiG29 and the Tornado, the ailerons and elevators do not work. (In fact, I could not actually distinguish them from the wing).

3. The other aircraft do not seem to be that well modelled (MiG29 in particular - it only has about 12 polygons for it's cockpit canopy (although it is transparent admittedly))

4. The explosions seem to be over too quickly, and there’s barely any smoke at all. Okay you may want to save frame rates, but this imo is pushing it.

5. Why did the Gripen pilot have a British accent?

6. The sounds seem to be taken straight from TAW. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I've compared the two, and the F-22 flyby sound in TAW is the same as the EFA flyby sound in the demo.

7. The clouds are no different from TAW. Just flat thin layers you fly through. I hope there are patches of mist, etc in the real game.

Okay, most of these are being picky, but as far as I'm concerned, they will detract from Gaming experience and realism.

On the positive side, I'm glad to see that flares now actually look like flares (with trails, etc) rather than just round balls.

Regards,
Manteau

Yeah..you're being picky. None of those things will matter to you once you're into the game. If they do...remind yourself that it is a game.

But really though, from some of the comments that Andy has made, I do believe that the EFA's control surfaces do work in the game..perhaps they just don't function in the Smart Views. But Andy can test this out for us.

As fhr the other plane's control surfaces not moving; how many sims actually model the control surfaces of ALL the plane's in the game? Does F4 do this? Either way..as cool as this might have been, I don't see this as a big deal. If in the heat of battle you're worried about moving control surfaces, you're not playing the game...you're watching it

As for the clouds, if they are just like those in TAW then there most likely will be patches of mist. Personally I like the clouds; I think they fit the enviroment of the game. I'm not saying there aren't better clouds out there; but more often than not they slwo things down forcing you to turn then off. Typhoon won't have that problem.

Yes, the Typhoon seems to be the most detailed model in the game. As it should be.The canopy problem you mentioned (and I saw this too), I think has more to do with shading than the lack of polygons. It looks like in that canopy they used flat shading as opposed to gourad shading

Manteau

The flight control surfaces all function in the game...including the rudder even tho the pilot has no rudder input. As for whether or not the target flight control surfaces actually move...probably not...but name me one sim in which they do.

As for the layers of clouds...well, that's how some clouds are! I find the effect in Typhoon pretty realistic for a stratus type of cloud layers. Does the game simulate cumulous buildups very well? No...perhaps that type of cloud formation is untypical of Iceland. I don't know.

This demo is just that...a demo of what you can expect to see. It is not the game.

Andy

Maybe, maybe not. In the original, in the main cockpit view, the canards were always moving around. It would be a shame if a similar thing didn't happen in this version.



Okay, fair point - he's said above they do, and he's got the full game, so I believe him.



LOL - that's one problem with the demo - you can only watch it.

Cheers,
Manteau

does F4 does this....ggggeeeeeezzzz...ofcoarse it does.

not on all plames though yet on the f16 it does move all the surfaces

Metalhead

Just to clarify the question of flight control surfaces...in Typhoon, the canard, elevons, and ailerons respond to your stick input. The rudder does not...but it does respond to AI input.

None of the other aircraft have movable control surfaces.

Can anyone think of a sim in which the non-flyable aircraft flight control surfaces move?

Andy

I'm not complaining on the issue, but ... Flanker 2.0.

-Gecko

IL-2. I just watched a maniac in a Bf-109F2 plow into a factory courtyard a couple days ago while frantically trying to pull out of a power dive. I literally harassed the poor Jerry to death-I couldn't shoot jack.

By the way, Andy-how do you control the Typhoon in slow-speed maneuvers, like in landing, if the AI has the Y axis all to itself?

Miao, Cat

[This message has been edited by Cat (edited 04-08-2001).]

Cat

With typical aileron and pitch inputs...the AI will put in rudder as necessary to coordinate the roll.

Does this mean that maneuvers such as a Hammerhead are not possible? Yes, in the sense that the player will not be able to manually add extra rudder over and above what the AI thinks is needed for coordinated flight. Not my choice of how things should be...but that's life!

The aircraft flys sluggishly in the landing configuration. Care must be taken to not get into high sink conditions...very much like a RL jet. Line up is done with aileron only.

The hardest part of flying the landing pattern is in airspeed control. The Eurofighter is overpowered, and it is easy to overcontrol the throttle on final. With a little practice, things work out OK.

Andy

I presume the no rudder "issue" has something to do with it not being needed that much because you don't have to taxi the aircraft?

I'm confused - Are you saying you can't user rudder controls at all and the rudder isn't even moddeled in the fligh model, or does the autopilot do it for you (if this is the case, how does it know what you want to do?).

I don't know about other people, but I use the rudder quite a bit (I probably overuse it in fact), especially when landing, and when flying NOE and banking.

Regards,
Manteau

I don't understand how we are supposed to keep the aircraft straight when making our takeoff runs or lining up on final approach and landing. Presumably, if we used the stick to move right or left down the runway, we would roll the wingtips into the pavement.

That's precisely what I'm worried about. I think they may have "simplified" the game a bit too much here.

On take off, I have yet to see a game (this includes TAW, F4, Mig Alley) that has you lined up exactly on the centre line. In TAW, it doesn't matter, as it's not that bad, but in F4 I always have to re-align myself.

As for landing, if we have to bank the aircraft to line up accurately, I think I'm going to have to cross the line and say this is sounding more and more like an "arcade" simulation.

Cheers,
Manteau

[This message has been edited by Manteau (edited 04-09-2001).]

Manteau

The game AI handles the rudder. The player has no control over the rudder. For ground steering, the player uses the flight stick (right/left movement).

The AI only uses rudder in slow speed/high AOA situations. The AI looks at the existing aerodynamic position...if it needs to roll, it will add rudder to the aileron input only when needed.

Personally, I'd rather the rudder was manual...but it isn't, and that's that!

Fishbed

Steering is easy using the stick when taking off. Line up straight and you should be OK.

For landing, fly normally. Crosswinds are not significant in the game, and so rudder input in the landing approach is not a factor.

Andy

Hmmmm... this must be a relic of Typhoon's Playstation2 origins. It would definitly be nice if they would fix this before the release, as Typhoon is no longer slated to be released on that platform.

If it doesn't effect gameplay then I guess it's OK. But you are right, it probably is a relic of the fact that they were thinking of porting this game to the Playstation. (limited number of keys available) Not the other way around. I don't think this game was intended first for the Playstation.

Anyhow it would be nice to have the option to control the rudder.

Since it was originally a DID product, I am sure it was first intended for the PC. The Playsation2 notion probably came about when Rage (or Ubisoft or whoever sat on the sim for so long) picked it up.

Just like to point out my opinion on what I've seen in the demo:

The good:
New aircraft (not American!)
Good atmosphere and mood
Like the music
Like the sound
Like the detail on the Eurofighter
Like the weapons available*
Like the sky and clouds

The bad:
The terrain could be better done
Don't like the rivers at all
The mountains could be better
The hangers and HAS look like chocolate sponge cakes, boring!

The ugly:
The flames go out way too soon
Things blow up under the ground!

Well, just hope there's going to be a playable demo, otherwise I can't really judge the game at all.

Andy.....if you wanna know what combatsim that has all it's AI a/c shows moving control surfaces well that is Flanker 2.X from SSI/Eagle Dynamics.

I think it's been said before, but if you really worry about control-movement on AI planes whilst in the sim then you've got too much time on your hands. Personally, I'm hoping I'll be too busy dogfighting to have time to look at the enemies control surfaces.

Out of interest, does anyone believe that they would have time to study the movements of another planes control surface in real life anyway? I think that it's interesting that people don't like this feature when it's only really visible using a far-from-realistic camera system. (Smart View.)

I like smartview myself, but I'm not sure it has a real-life counterpart.

As an afterthought, how much would it increase the CPU requirements of this game if it were to model every control? I have a 1.1GHz athlon, but I know plenty of people with measly K6-2's, and I'm sure some of them wouldn't mind a chance to play what is still a nice looking game.

SanC

Umm, no offense to the K6-2.

SanC

I was really dissapointed with the rolling demo. The graphics were definatly NOT up to par, seemed just re-hash of the old games and not much effort put into doing anything new or better than before. Sure the glass cockpit was "shiny" big deal. The clouds were ugly and not much better than those on a novalogic game. The explosions/missles were very average at best, not what I expect from a new sim. Dissapointed to see the flaps not moving when they should, this is basic stuff guys???

The Terrain was flat ugly, just ugly..no improvements on early games, I preferred the ones in EF2000 even if they were openGL'd it would look better?

If you want to see how at least, it SHOULD look..check out the shots from ACE COMBAT4..bare in mind this is on the PS2...the PS2 for crying out loud..??!

http://ps2.ign.com/previews/15726.html

I wish Typhoon looked as good as this..

Thanks for that multiple post Neo-Racer.

Can I take it that you don't like the look of this game? Copying and pasting comments from your other posts seems a bit excessive.

By now the Typhoon code is a year old (Or around that?) and has been designed to run fine on low end PC systems. Ace Combat 4 looks pretty in the thumbnails, but the larger pics I've seen seem both blurry and excessively jagged. (Going by the pics at the URL you posted elsewhere.)

In Typhoon I hope to have a nice AI, nice campaign and decent high res support, so that's what I'll be spending my money on. I hope you enjoy Ace Combat 4 as much as I expect to enjoy Typhoon.

SanC

Hi Neo_Racer, welcome to the Typhoon forum.

It is not necessary to post multiple copies of the same text, most folk here read everything, so I've removed the duplicates.

If I can help, just ask.

Badboy

>>Out of interest, does anyone believe that they would have time to study the movements of another planes control surface in real life anyway?<<

Well, if they do believe it, they are sadly mistaken.

Andy

OK..OK..we heard you the first time.

That game does look nice, but nice as it may look; a game with just 25 mission isn't doing it for me. Typhoon offers us more than just pretty graphics.

And while Typhoon's graphics are not up there with someother sims; there's just something abut the look of the game I like. There's a crispness and a lack a clutter that works.


[This message has been edited by Uroboros (edited 04-12-2001).]

yea sorry bout the multiple posts..I think I was on something, and did'nt think anyone was paying attention anyway.

Well from the rolling demo and other comments, it just seemed like it was overly simplistic. I want to like it, I've been a fan of DID since F29 Retaliator on the Amiga!
I know DID has changed a lot since then, just seems like the finesse and attention to detail that was in their last few games is gone. Ef2000 and F22 were not complex, I don't see why they needed to dumb it down even further just to be more attractive, I thought Novalogic always had that role? I think if they had gone all out and really made a leap above what Ef2000 was it would still have been very accessible game. Hey cant change that now and I really wish success for Typhoon..after I play the demo I may even buy it myself, but it it is a lot simpler than EF2000 for example its not for me.
As for Ace Combat 4, yea they are dealing with a lot simpler, smaller size game, but looks why theres no reason why any other developers cant try and attain a great visual realism, and I thought AC4 has done a fantastic job. Granted PC developers have to cater for the current lowest denominator and consoles don't..but still..I cant wait for the future..my 1.5 gig is burning for some action

Oops. Repeat post.

[This message has been edited by Cat (edited 04-25-2001).]

this whole thing sounds like a step backwards. It's time for a flight sim to push the envelope. We have PCs more powerful than the Computers on the Space Shuttle, but yet we can't get a simulator on a PC to push technology and detail any more than sims 3 or 4 years old.
When will companies learn that this "Dumbed down" "in between" stuff is useless. It's either all or not. Your not going to get Quake people to play a flight game and your not going to get Hardcore flightsimmers to use a "Dumbed Down" sim/game. Either give us an improvment from sims 2 years old and push this new hardware like it should, create good clean code, and give the Simmers what they want or don't make the damn thing in the first place.
I'm tired of waiting on a new sim to come out and all the hype that comes with it only to be disappointed.
Makers of these sims claim it's lack of interest that kills sims, but honestly there is a lot of interest in a GOOD sim. Simmers dont want crap and they will be the first to pick it a part. If you want to sell flight sims, then make good ones with bells and whistles that simmers want.
I think you guys are getting a little too far ahead and excited, if it's released it will be released, then you can decide. So far i haven't seen or heard anything to make me want to hop a plane to London to pick up a copy.
It's not lack of interest that kills flight sims, it's crappy flight sims that kill interest.
This will piss some people off, but oh well get over it, it's just an opinion and Im intitled to it.

Seawolf,
You are 100% correct. As much as I am looking forward to Typhoon, I realize that it is not a very ambitious sim and I fear that it will sell poorly, mainly because of the reasons you highlighted above (along with very poor marketing). What could have been a new classic will just likely turn out to be slightly better than mediocre. Will people still be raving about Typhoon 3 years from now (like Falcon4 or EAW)? No. Will it still be on anyone's hard drive by that point. Probably not. The main problem is that Rage developed the sim from its earliest days to be ported over to consoles like the Playstation2 (an option which never materialized), and the sim will most likely forever be hampered by this decision.

While short-lived games for the attention-deficit console crowd may make perfect sense, they do not trasfer to the PC platfrom at all. Mario Bros. and Quake fans don't want to play aircraft games. And PC simmers don't want to be fooled into buying mere games (and we have seen plenty of producer/publishers try to do that before). The only sims that are going to make names for themselves today are the ones that go the farthest to satisfy the old-school simmers out there, but still offer solid gameplay and innovation to make the rest of the gaming world stand up and notice. Falcon 4.0 could have very easily done this if it had been completed before it was shipped. Comanche-Hokum could probably have done this if it was better marketed. Il-2 may have a chance at doing this, but probably will not due to the difficulty it is going to have by having to follow in the footsteps of self-destructive companies like Hasbro, Psygnosis, and EA, who opted to take the easy way out by purposely killing off sims in order to focus on the large, but short-term profits to be found with the Pokemon crowd. To Rage's credit I don't belive this is their sin; their fault is a simple lack of ambition.

[This message has been edited by Fishbed77 (edited 04-27-2001).]

Sorry I don't agree with this all or nothing notion of yours. There's always going to be a place for sims that fall between the extremes. Not all simmers are looking sims that match the complexity of Falcon4, nor do we want to get stuck with only Novalogic sims to play with.

i second Umbros on that, as much as i love sims i am NOT a real fighter pilot and i do not (like most people out there) have hours of my life to dedicate to learning a whole host of non-combat related systems every time i get a new sim (like TACAN channels, JFS startups, backup power, fuel transfer, etc etc etc.). Other genres of games dont ask this why should flight sims, do you think counter strike would be as popular as it is if you had tons of buttons, no that game is lean and focused (unlike many sims) like many great but still fairly hardcore games that have been successful such as Gran Turismo, Deus Ex, System Shock II, Baldurs Gate or Nascar 3, these games are not dumbed down, they just dont waste time with extranious features. Maybe more simulations should take a leaf out of their book, they might acually sell some copies.

I don't really care if Typhoon is on my hard drive in 3 years or if it's an instant classic. I just want enjoy the game now. And it it gives me a year of fun I'll be happy. In the end all that will matter is if it's a fun game. And whether it's hard core or not won't detract from that to most people. For the rest there's alway the lastest Falcon4 "patch"



[This message has been edited by Uroboros (edited 04-27-2001).]

Uruboros and Joelhume,
I think you guys may be missing Seawolf's and my own points. While a lot of button pushing may be nice, I think we are both looking for a full-featured sim. Typhoon may be a great start, but where is the instant action mode? Where is the mission builder? Where are the separate training missions? Where is ACMI? Where is the ability to mod aspects of the game? Where is the reference section that made Janes sims reek of authenticity (even the weak ones like Fighters Anthology)? Where is the ability to interect with the items in the cockpit (simplified is OK - the real Typhoon is simplified - just make it believable)?

I know Typhoon will feature an advanced dynamic campaign and a limited multiplayer mode, but the concept of an air war in the future opens up so many possibilities that it appears Typhoon will not, in its current form, take advantage of. Things like JTIDS, J-Stars, AWACS, and in-flight refuelling. Cool things full of techie buzzwords sure to attract a new audience. I know the locale of Iceland was selected so these things could be left out in some justifiable way. But we all know Typhoon would be qualitatively better if they were included.

Am I asking for a heap of switchology? No. The fewer keyboard commands it takes to navigate the Typhoons avionics, the better. Just make sure the avionics are there. I think that will go much futher to impressing those outside of the sim community. If they see simulation that offers all these great features I mentioned above, is bug-free (which, based on earlier experiences with DID products, is almost guaranteed) and does not take a PhD to play, Rage will have a success on their hands. And it has to be fun. Both in the short term and long terms - for intitial sales and so the game will have "legs." Oh yeah - and good marketing too - a field where Rage has definitely stumbled. They will have the old school hardcore simmers on their side (come on, we all loved EF2000) and they stand to snag a good deal of the general gaming market with good reviews and other good press. As is stands now, it looks like Typhoon risks alienating the old school guys while not offering enough features to hook the new guys.

[This message has been edited by Fishbed77 (edited 04-27-2001).]

Listen guys, It really isn't fair to jump the gun, but my only point is based on questions asked here and reviews, screenshots, etc that If you are going to make a flight Sim then make a Flight sim.
My personal wish list for a simulator:

accurate flight model
accurate avionics
accurate environment
coop and head to head multiplayer
good graphics (scenery and environment- would love to see a combat flight sim with accurate weather conditions and the graphics to showcase it)
Good missions ( it doesn't have to be a 4 hour trip to get to the target, but it does have to be believable along with some imagination thrown in.

Im rambling, but I hope Typhoon turns out to be fun. I consider myself to be a hardcore simmer, but i still like to fly the easy ones to, I just hope its fun and believable at the same time.

To Fishbed and Seawolf primarily.
The point seems to have been lost that Typhoon is NOT a flight sim. It's a war/battle game with flight sim elements.
It's about managing a war campaign not an aircraft.
It's also about appealing to a larger game buying public than the TOO FEW gathered here.

Quote: I know the locale of Iceland was selected so these things (JTIDS, J-Stars, AWACS, and in-flight refuelling)could be left out in some justifiable way. But we all know Typhoon would be qualitatively better if they were included.
/Quote

Leaving those things out improves the game immeasurably. Maybe not knowing where every plane and SAM is from the outset makes you a better Typhoon pilot.

I'll tell you in a week's time.

regards

W

Wolfkiller,
I think you may be missing the point. I am well aware of what Typhoon is/is not. I was just offering suggestions as to what could have made it a classic and would have opened up its target audience to include a much larger range of gamers. Heck, if someone has an aversion to realistic things such as AWACS and JSTARS, I suppose Rage could have included an option to play with or without those things, though I don't seem to recall them ever hindering gameplay in any other game.

Of course your arguement (as valid as it might be in regards to sims in general) is pointless as Typhoon is done. Whatever the reason for DIDs chosing to go in the directin they did with Typhoon; I'm sure a large part of it might just have had to do with the state of sim market at the moment.
Unfortunately the perfect sim you describe probably isn't viable these days. The fiancial returns probably wouldn't justify time and resources required for a sim on the same level of Falcon4.

But who knows, maybe if DID/Rage choose to do another sim in the future they'll take the basic Typhoon engine, throw in goodies from EF-2000 and F22-TAW. if not htem someone else will.

Until then I want my Typhoon!!!

Uroborus,
I take offense to your notion that my argument is pointless. I realize that Typhoon is done (and has been for many months now). I am one of the ones who have pre-ordered it (on http://www.softwarefirst.com - a great price too - 22.99 pounds) and I am looking forward to it arriving on my doorstep in the next week or two! However, I believe that, with a little more ambition, it could have achieved far greater sales than I fear it will get. I could be wrong (and I hope that I am). My ideas, however, can not apply to Typhoon, as it has gone gold already, but I hope Rage and other publishers would take them into account in the future.

If the AI handles the rudder, can it cope with cross/wind landings/takeoffs? Or is there any wind?

(from Fishbed77)

>>I know Typhoon will feature an advanced dynamic campaign and a limited multiplayer mode, but the concept of an air war in the future opens up so many possibilities that it appears Typhoon will not, in its current form, take advantage of. Things like JTIDS, J-Stars, AWACS, and in-flight refuelling. Cool things full of techie buzzwords sure to attract a new audience. I know the locale of Iceland was selected so these things could be left out in some justifiable way. But we all know Typhoon would be qualitatively better if they were included.<<

Well written post and some very good points.

Here's my take on the AWACS, JTIDS, and JSTARS items. These systems provide the pilot with increased info on the battle area, often at a range beyond what the pilot's own avionics can survey. Let's focus for a second on how such outside systems would fit into a typical air combat game.

First, there is the interface between the pilot and the outside system. This is either manual (he communicates with them directly) or automatic (the data is transmitted to him without being asked for). In either case, the data eventually arrives at the fighter and is displayed accordingly.

Typhoon essentially assumes the 'automatic' type of interface. The Typhoon player does not have to communicate directly with the outside system(s).

Secondly, we have the follow-on nature of the game once the data is received. At this point, I see no difference in the remaining game play. The pilot has his info display (MFDs, radar scope, HMD, whatever...)and he then begins the engagement. How he got the data is no longer important.

In Typhoon, we basically assume a wide range of data input to you and your avionics. It is as if you had all of those outside systems working for you, even though they are not actually present in the game. So, for those that want to simulate the projected nature of an air combat environment where advanced surveillance and situational awareness systems are in play, they should enjoy Typhoon. The info and data are there...how it gets to you is simplified, no doubt about that.

Some may find this level of simplicity less than what they were hoping for. I understand 'hardcore' simming as much as anyone. To these good folks, I would just ask...just exactly what would you do with an AWACS or JSTARS if one was flying around in the sim? Use your comm suite to 'talk' to it? Ask for an updated position of friendly and enemy forces? Probably so.

Granted, you cannot do that in Typhoon. The end result is the same, however. You get the advanced data input on your MFDs. Then you go off on your mission to kill the target and win the game.

Hopefully, you'll have a great time doing that, and in the meantime, you won't get too caught up in lamenting the simplification of the game.

>>As is stands now, it looks like Typhoon risks alienating the old school guys while not offering enough features to hook the new guys.<<

As it stands right now, none of you know the full scope of this game. And I won't say anymore now other than to say that I think you are going to be very happy campers.


Andy

Seawolf, Fishbed-

Bravo. What you SAID.

Miao, Cat

Ummm really? It's named Typhoon, The primary goal of the GAME is being a Typhoon pilot, and you do nothing else in the game but fly the plane. Am I to understand that you control the whole war from your cockpit?
I think you need to look up the definition of Flight Simulator.
I will say this for the 3RD TIME!!
I am not judging Typhoon, I haven't seen it yet. period! If it's to "Dumbed down" for me then I'll return it, simple as that.

oh, and my feeling on why they (Rage) doesn't want to use the word simulator is because the game would be held to higher standards, this way they can play it safe and say "We never said it was a sim" alla Gunship, remember that one.
just my opinion, so before you start screaming I'm wrong, how can an opinion be wrong? Facts and Opinions are 2 different things.

Andy,

Do you mean that there are plans in the pipeline for an add-on/Typhoon-2 with these realistic features we want to see?

Only hoping... err joking



------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

{quote]Can anyone think of a sim in which the non-flyable aircraft flight control surfaces move?[/quote]

IL-2

Hengist

To quote 'Shultzie'..."I know nussing!!"

Len

Regards the flight control surfaces moving on planes other than the players in Il-2 (or any other sim, for that matter)...why is this important? Do you think pilots in the real world see this? Even in close formation flying, do wingmen see the leader's control surfaces moving? This issue has got to be way up the pissant ladder.

Seawolf

In this hobby, the term 'simulator' is bandied about freely...mostly by folks that have never seen an actual aircraft simulator, let alone a fighter simulator. That's OK...as far as it goes.

For my money, Typhoon is a game, not a sim. And, before everyone goes screaming out into the night, let me say that I think this is good. Why? Because so many more folks can find something in the game to like. Button-pushing is fun for some, but not for others...and right now it seems those 'others' are in the majority. Rage is selling a commercial product that promises to deliver fun to those folks. If we lose some folks in the process, I regret that. If you return Typhoon, that will be a choice for you alone.

For you folks that are not turned off by simplification, I'll say this one more time. This game is fun. Winning is hard. Dogfights are spectacular, but you better have your wits about you if you hope to survive. The threat is massive in numbers and lethality. You will have your hands full keeping ahead of this game.

And best of all...well, I won't go into that...Rage would probably hit me over the head with the NDA I signed!!

Andy

In a magazine interview here in the UK, [PC Format, May edition] Steve Hunt mentions a 'carrier action' expansion to Typhoon. All dependent on sales, naturally.

Don't all rush at once....

------------------
Platinum Rogue's Gallery of EECH Skins



[This message has been edited by Platinum Rogue (edited 04-28-2001).]

I did NOT say your points were not valid at all, but just in the case of Typhoon. And only because the game is done. To argue over what Typhoon might have been seems pointless to me. But yes..I agree that your points are ones that flight sim makers should consider.

But you know; Typhoon will do just well if it's a good game...period. Hardcore or not.

Andy

Bravo. To what YOU said. You having actually PLAYED the game that is.

Andy,

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing that it was particularly important that IL2 models moving control surfaces for all aircraft. I don't believe it's necessary. Hell, if we get picky, the recent appearance in flight sims of clouds isn't really necessary. But who would want to go back?

Ok.. heh.. I am pushing the point. Clouds add more than moving fllight surfaces on enemies.

Then again.. let's take your other point ..



So many folks will find more to love in IL-2 because of attention to detail like moving control surfaces on enemy aircraft. Andy, when you save an encounter to track file in IL2 and go back and watch it later, you will think you are watching color footage from a ww2 encounter. And even if you watch it from the perspective of the bandit, realism is preserved because even the damn control surfaces move!

In the end, some people are gonna buy this one just to watch it.. it's that good.

Len

I think I see where you are going with this.

Here's my take on the issue of realism. Immersion is very important...probably number one in any game. What gets folks there is their perceived notion of realism.

I use the term 'notion' since most here have no experience in real world fighters and so their idea of 'realism' becomes very subjective.

Not to worry! It's this perception of 'reality' that sells games. The process of selling can be helped or hindered by statements in reviews that refer to this perception.

My feeling is that what we see in these games is just that...a perception. Any scenes that approach 'real' reality are pretty rare.

That being the case, and considering the weight that review comments carry, my request would be that reviewers use phrases such as "It feels pretty 'realistic/unrealistic' to me when I do...", rather than make blanket assertions such as "The ___is unrealistic".

Get the drift?

Otherwise folks like me might be quick to point out that the reviewer wouldn't know reality if it hit him in the butt.



Andy

Well sure!

But even reviewers have to try to maintain a sense of immersion. And none of us here have flown the real Eurofighter

But things like a lack of closure indicator I find terribly irksome; and I won't believe it isn't in the real aircraft until the test pilots tell me so.

Went looking for the Typhoon game this afternoon it wasn't in stores around here so I downloaded the rolling demo instead.

Liked the graphics. They might not be to detailed when you look closely at the targets (eerm other aircraft) but at a typical engagement distance they look good. My PIII 500 had no problems with providing a smooth framerate. No hicups at all nice smoke trails and explosions.

Liked the aircraft types that are in the demo. Finally I see Tornado's, Viggens, Grippens instead of the standard US types always present in every sim.

Judging from the comments here I think Rage tried to keep this game focused. I looks like they concentrated on a few key aspects that would make this game fun. Keeping out the advanced hardcore stuff gives you more time to build a stable game and its easier to playbalance the final product.

The 2nd thing they appear to do is go for the largest target audience. Moddest hardware requirments and keeping things simple might get them the avarage gamer crowd. They wil probably lose the ultra hardcore sim junkie but that's not were the money is in this business.

Nostradamus predicts i will buy this game as soon as it is out. And if those dogfights are half as fun as they look I will like it a lot!

Extra, Extra, read all about it.

Sim fan in "wanting to have fun" shocker!

Hey, speak for yourself!! I have friends in British places!!
The Jedi Master

I just can't understand this argument being put forward??? I suspect that it really boils down to shorter, cash saving develoment times, i.e. Shall we? Nah sod it, it'll take to long and cost to much. Lets just stick it on the shelves as it is now, at least we'll get some kind of return.

Even the most Hardcore sims around allow you to turn off the amount of button pushing needed to fly the thing. Power to the people is what I say, i.e. If you don't wanna push buttons, then set it to FUN level. If you want the buttons, then set it to REALISTIC level... Seems a simple enuf equation for me.

At least Hardcore sims give you the option, instead of assuming that this is what people want.



------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Heres a simple counter argument, no other game genre does what you propose. When you play International Superstar soccer or FIFA (or John Madden for you Yanks) do you have a "simple" mode where you only have pass and shoot, no you play the game the way the designers envisioned (but with variable difficultly levels). Options are nice but if the designers are forced to spend huge amounts of time concetrating on tweaking the game to everyiones taste then they will invariably have less time to polish the actual content of the game. Want an example, Falcon 4, tons of options only the game is essentialy broken and only now FIVE years after development started and TWO YEARS after it came out is it approaching some kind of playable state for those who dont like their computers to crash every 2 missions and who cant put up with massive realism issues (like AA-1 Alkalis that behave like AA-11 Archers, as in pre RP4.1).

Double post, sorry.

[This message has been edited by joelhume (edited 05-01-2001).]

Here's a simple counter counter argument. I don't play games (unless they have a picture of a plane on the box), I play Simulations.

------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Exactly, how many people play games LOTS, how many play only simulations NOT MANY (or not enough to justify the development costs).

Hmmm, makes you wonder why the majority of sims have these options that Typhoon hasn't.

------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Ok Ok,

Putting aside the 'button pushing' argument I'd love to know why things such as the TAW AWACS view, mission planner and ACMI were not implemented in Typhoon. After all I doubt DiD/Rage completely started coding Typhoon from scratch. I'll buy the 'we wanted to make a pilot sim and an accessable game' to a point, but surely these omissions would have added to the game AND were already at least partially implemented.

Let's see (all IMHO):

EF2K - great sim, good campaign, lacked ground war (active ground objects), mission planner & ACMI.
EF2K + Tactcom - added mission planner.
ADF - great sim, added ACMI & active ground objects, lost campaign & mission planner.
TAW - excellent sim, added campaign, (fairly static) ground war, mission planner, AWACS.
Typhoon - ?, supposedly adds fully dynamic campaign with ground war & external events, adds pilot management system, adds futuristic aircraft. Supposedly removes AWACS, ACMI, Refuellers, Full Mission Planning etc. WHY?

If Typhoon does very well (hope it does) and introduces loads of new people to the genre (hope it does) could we please have another sim/game/whatever from DiD/Rage combining all of the above. Please? Pretty Please?
Failing that could ACMI etc. be added as an extra? I'd pay