homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums Typhoon (Read Only) I just don't understand it!.....

Further thoughts.

The trick would be using DEM data and satelite photography to establish "macro textures."

So we have an accurate, but not particularly detailed terrain set.

Then, you detail the areas of interest.

Say Typhoon 2 - Total Air War comes out, and comes with -say - five campaigns.

Norway
Iceland
The Baltic States.
Poland.
GIUK.

You texture Norway, and some of Sweden, Finland and Russia with better, indepth, realistic (Falcon 4 - like, maybe) textures.

Do the same for Iceland, Poland, and Scotland. You can still fly over all of those other areas, but the textures are not as involving. But in the campaign areas, the texturing is great. (USAF used a similar trick)

Then, when we all start complaining, you release another package, detailing another facet of the war, perhaps a Russian armoured thrust into Germany. You then texture Germany. The elevation data is already there, and the basic texturing is done...so, you have just to make some hi-res Germany textures.

And so on.

And this would be a DID sim. It would reek atmosphere. It would have it in droves. Even Typhoon with its motherlands and its lack of drag modelling has plenty of atmosphere.

The cut scenes can be optional.

Perhaps a bunch of different ways to play.

TAW style god's eye AWACS view, that allows you to jump into any allied Eurofighter in your area of responsibility.

Single pilot based campaign. You choose a squadron, which is then assigned to a theatre (eg, you choose to be a Luftwaffe Typhoon pilot, and get sent to defend Lithuania) and you fly missions as that pilot, only. Optional cut scenes. You fly missions assigned to your squadron ala Falcon 4.

Typhoon style pilot control. Same thing, writ large.

And finally, an EF2000 style fly any assigned mission in the area of responsbility.

This would be the best of both worlds. The joyriders amongst us could just fly around the theatre and be amused. The campaigns themselves do not have to all go on at once. Rather, the campaigns happen where they happen, and the computer makes decisions as to what might be going on in Iceland, for example.

Of course, an ultimate release could feature, a fully textured, fully realised theatre, with every campaign going on at once, on a massively multiplay pay for play server, with the events of one directly effecting the events of all in real time.

:-)

Gavin

Well the thing that I dont like about those Rage people, is that they somehow found a way to send the giant kung-fu ninja monkeys to my house to try to attack my pet wooden chicken that really thinks he is a titianium, radioactive godzilla! They always attack me on Sunday nights on Friday afternoons....damnedest thing I have ever seen. Then after they attack I usually try to find a way to get up to Burger King.

Man, you have issues Sandman!

LMAO!

------------------
Brian "Raptor" Robinson,CO. CMACG
http://www.cmacg-wings-of-fury.com

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I would be prepared to pay over £60 for a game that let me did this...

The games industry tried this a few years back. Origin started jacking up the prices of its games before Christmas, putting them on multiple CDs, lots of extra features, etc, etc. Sales were not so good! This is not a sustainable business model for games publishers unless they have a monopoly on the market (as in the console market). Microsoft managed it with FS2000 (and FS2002), but that's because they know that the sales will be huge - in the millions of copies - and they have enough people. There are easily 100+ people (probably 200+) developing and testing FS2000/2002.

You must understand the economics of the games industry - remember this is now worth more than Hollywood. Publishers are interested in MAKING MONEY - full stop. Flight simmers are a minority. Sad but ture. The only way flight simulations will continue to be developed is if they become more mass-market, which I believe they can be.

With a group of 10 developers, say, and a budget of $1 million, do you:

(a) Develop a hardcore flight sim that sells maybe 100,000 copies?

(b) Develop a console game that sells 1,000,000 copies?

(c) Develop a flight sim that is easily accesible, and maybe sell 300,000 copies?

Most execs would go for (b) - and they are. Look at Razorworks, the sequel to EECH will be a console game.

(a) will give you zero profit, and that's if you achieve reasonable sales.

(c) is a compromise, EFT, but at least covers costs and makes some profit, and stands the chance of growing the flight sim market so that (a) becomes feasible in the future.

Developing good flight sims takes a long time. Look at B17, that ran into $3-4 million in development I believe. I do not know if it has turned a profit, but I severely doubt it. Doesn't make much of an argument for making a sequel, does it?

EFT on the other hand is achieving excellent sales in the UK, topping the games charts. That gives the developers a great argument for a sequel, in the knowledge that next time they might be able to add more functionality. Once the game engine is done then that allows them to concentrate on 'fancier' features. Good luck to them. Don't knock them too much or else you might see the whole flight sim genre get buried by the boardroom execs who are only interested in their balance sheets!!!

Thanks for listening
Kenji
PC Pilot and Gamespot UK

Fair enough - you've made some excellent points, and I admit that it does make sense from a developer's point of view to make games for the mass market.

But as for the price of games - you're in the industry, so you're in the know, but - why can't games be sold like software - the more features they have, the more options to customise them to your likes, then the more expensive they are.

Therefore, games like F4 / JFA-18 / Flanker would be hardcore, and so could sell for around £40. Okay, it's a lot fewer people interested in them, but I recon they'd buy them for that price.

Then you have the things like Typhoon, available for around £30.

Just pontificating - I've got no answers, just ideas

Cheers,
Manteau

ktakeda makes some good points...glad you see the logic in them.

But you idea makes sense too. But a sim developer would probably have to come out before the project started and see whether or not the idea would sell with the sim crowd. Something like

"..hey we're planning on making a sim with this..this and this feature; would you be willing to pay $75 for it? How bout $100"

Maybe some future sim developer who really want so to write sims, but also wants to make some money in the process (and why not )..will consider going that route.

I remember Kenji's articles on flight simming back in the day. Welcome aboard. Don't mind us bitching.

I definitely think DID/Rage should be considering a post carrier-ops expansion to Typhoon. A full scale sequel. We in the group tend to call it Typhoon 2 - TAW2, but it would need a catchier title.

The trick would be to target the people who bought EF2000. All of them. And target the people who bought Typhoon. All of them. And the people who bought ADF. All of them too. And have something for everyone.

I am thinking two or three gameplay modes.

Typhoon mode. Fly with Typhoon style avionics, flight model and so on. Only with better weapons models :-) Cut scenes and so on. Refuelling is automatic and the AWACS sends displays to your JTIDS.
TAW mode. Fly with EF2000 style avionics, in a better cockpit, with drag modelling, working TIALD and DASS. Refuelling is manual, and although the AWACS sends data to your JTIDS, it also vectors you vocally.

Oh and some sort of pay per play massively multiplayer mode.

:-)


Gavin

Manteau,

You Wrote:

>>
Kurt,

For once, this is one area where I don't care about realism.

I'd far rather something in my own back yard and something that has more relevance to me.

Even if the scenario isn't that realistic - think about it:

* Russia invades the Baltic states (Belarus, Lithuania)
>>

Why? Were extensive reserves of Power PC Chips discovered there?

>>
* Nato move fighters into German airbases
>>

Why? NATO already has fighters in Germany and those fighters are almost a 700nm from the targets that would effect an invasion of the former Baltic States.

>>
* NATO bring troops over to Germany
>>

Why? You invade Russia and you catch a nuke in the teeth. Doesn't have to be a big nuke but a nuke on their soil is completely within their rights.

>>
* You could fly as British, German and Italian Typhoons on CAPS
>>

Okay, but a CAP is a 1,001 circles 'bored' in the sky. They mean nothing to a force you are intending to prevent from invading and if you wait ala Serbia and Desert Storm, it will be fait d'accompli.

>>
* Possibly NATO may fight back rather than just defend
>>

I think so. Russia want's Russia takes. If we intend to provide security for the Baltic States as Clinton 'promised, just short of NATO', there is no way in hell we can do it from within NATO's bounds. Defensively or politically. I wonder what Germans think of whacking that Bear in the nuts with sticks based in their territory? Is Poland ready to take the German's place?

>>
* RAF patrols over the north sea off Scotland - e.g. against bear bombers, Tu-22Ms, etc
>>

Why would Russia attack England over battlefield and transport node concentrations a 1,000nm eastwards? Is France refusing passage of forces? It makes no sense to attack Reforger when all of this is going to be over before we get there and considering how gutted our own CONUS levels are. You've _got the best already_.

OTOH, this LINK-
http://mylima.com/airforce/qr.htm

Seems to state that there are 100 Backfire, 80 Bear and 13 Blackjack still flying.

If I have so few assets (and probably fewer cruise to arm them with) I will NOT be wasting them on multihour blue water transits over a Blue Force dominated battlespace. 1 AEGIS missile trap and my strategic power projection is /gone/.

OTOH, with whatever Kh-55/65/101 I can actually muster, I can still fire missiles from the top of the Kola or the 'far side of Engels' and hit any damn target I want from Germany East.

>>
* Escorting Nimrods over the north sea
>>

For What Reason? Pirating Scandinavian porn again?

>>
* Russia invades Finland (even if they are neutral - possibly Sweden as well)
>>

Hell, if they want that peace of real estate, I've sure got some prime swampland in the South of Florida for them.

From a peak of about 200, the Russians are lucky to put together a single division these days. They suffered a 1,000 deaths and nearly 800 dissertions from causes ranging to bizerk hazing rituals to No Food and No Heat.
Now you want them to replay Barbarossa, backwards, for crap territorial gains?

I isolate their transport gas and they will be /begging me/ for the right to _walk back_ home and starve as opposed to freeze.
Then we can talk about decreasing the wheat dole for all those civillians we feed.

You want revolution? Whupp there it is.

>>
* We're back to Norway again - huge NATO presence there
>>

If you say so. I'd rather backstroke through a swimming pool full of rattlesnakes than freeze my butt off pretending Norway has more than fish to my penguin act.

>>
* US Carrier fleet in North Sea
>>

Why? When I can put Cruise into Kola without crossing the 60th parallel on /either side/ of the globe.

>>
* The Brits bring their two new carriers with Typhoons/JSF into play (they would have already - possibly bring them into Baltic sea - don't know if this is possible sealane wise in Denmark)
>>

'Welcome to my bathtub' said the mine to the moron.

Better your decks than mine I guess.

>>
* Russian fighters/bombers cross to Poland
>>

The Russians have about 450 Su-24 and 180 Su-25. Perhaps '500' MiG-29. Most of these are split across CIS gaps so large that it would indeed take a new revolution to bring them back in.

On an 'any given daily' operations basis, I would guestimate that you can divide that by ten on all airframes (of mixed type/series run) for 'parts and labour' to get running.
say fifty for each tacair and 20 for each strategic type.

And then there's gas.

/Old Hand/ (RHIP) Russian pilots average 50-70hrs a _year_ flying these machines, because they cannot pay for fuel and/or have to trade it on a food:flight hours basis. Fresh-from-training, novices get less than 20.

They have ZERO experience in independent force projection and were /always/ interdiction targeted to fixed force concentrations (the Belgian and French ports, our prepositioned and nuclear depot stores etc.) and in direct support of the frontal forces.

You have all our forces massed in Germany. 600 miles out and an AMRAAM for each one vs.
50-80 planes of each type.

Better them than me brudda.

>>
* Land army invade Poland
>>

Which Mongol Hun are your gonna hire?

>>
* NATO steps in forcefully
>>

Oooooh, Go Ahead daddy, /spank me/. I'll just press the little Red Button and then pull down my trousers shall I?

Russia is a superpower ONLY by virtue of her nuclear might. That is the reason that her nuclear arsenal is the ONLY thing she has continued to modernize.

Our entire reason for NATO-being was defensive. You want us to go into former Russian colonial provinces and 'protect ourselves' by kicking the crap out of Russian armed invasion by all of two peasants and a mule (for eating) in their own backyard?

That sure puts the lie to the 'Honorable Defense' now don't it?

And the Russians are bloody minded bastards who would (and have, repeatedly) blown up what they perceive to be 'their own country' rather than hand it over to an 'outside' invasion force.

Very clannish, very close minded, very Razed Earthish. Few other options.

You don't push a desparate killer into a corner with a stick of uranium and a polonium blasting cap and No Other Options.

>>
Come on, that's half of what the scenario of Typhoon is anyway, but in Typhoon YOUR action was centred on Iceland - just expand the theatre so you're involved in the whole war.
>>

I guess one of the reasons the U.S. is a global power is that we realize there is more to the world than Europe. 'Or even Iceland'.

I guess one of the reasons Europe ain't is that she is all too prepared to spread-leg impale herself in pursuit of dulce et decorem est 'glory' on her own soils.

Weird.

I take a dump in the bathroom and I've been known to pop off a few on the range but I don't invite people to cap off a clip in my bathroom nor do I crawl over the gunrest to evacuate my bowels when the range master looks up and down the line and says "Ready, At Will...FIRE!" (though I might do so, involuntarily, if the situation were forced upon me...;-)

European nature seems to be inherently bent to exactly that kind of masochistic exposure trauma.

Because it is 'relevant to them'???

Oh Freud, "Ahm So Cunfoosed!".

>>
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I would be prepared to pay over £60 for a game that let me did this, with different campaigns, a whole theatre like this with multitudes of realistic missions to fly, and a TAW style campaign interface that let you control and tweak things.
>>

Then do it the 'old fashioned way' with WARPAC era weapons systems against an opponent driven insane by listening to a litany of 70-years-a-corpse dogma.

If there is one thing technology warfare should have taught us 'buy now' it is that airpower show-sports are for third world wannabes 'fighting' a game they don't even realize they are blood-stooge players in.

You get serious and it comes down to missiles fired from beyond ANY reasonable expectation of tactical 'airpower' to have any effect whatsoever.

Getting mired in a New Revolution Russia, 2006, is exactly that kind of Hell's Bells and Bifrost's Horn scenario.


Cheers, Manteau


You too sir...KP

I dont have much to say on this.... most people seem to have made some VERY good points..

1. this is just a theory... but if a flightsim came out @ £80 wouldn't the mass market expect it to be atleast twice as good as the leading £30-40 one ?

2. I strongly believe that D.I.D are capable of making an excellent flightsim... they proved that with the help of Ocean... I'm not so sure after Rages efforts if its possible with the current handshaking... I mean how many of rages games haven't been arcadey and for the mass market? *g* we could possibly assume that d.i.d had that wargasm sparkle in their eye before Rage took over? was it a management decision or a developers design decision to churn it out the way it was?

I just feel that D.I.Ds ideas were somewhat different from Rages in the beginning (looking at the engine in general)and that Rage put their foot down as to what the final result was in the end.... take away the graphics and a little of the gameplay and I believe that this game could have sucked c*ck completely... but werent we all in awe of the graphics and smoothness in the beginning?

If I wanted a game like this I would have bought Freespace 2 *G*

motto of the day:
"NEVER judge a book by its cover"

take care



[This message has been edited by Vaider-Raider (edited 07-12-2001).]

Of for gods sake lol...

another post???????

*GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR*

hmmmmm

[This message has been edited by Vaider-Raider (edited 07-12-2001).]

no point reading my crap twice *S*

(double post)



[This message has been edited by Vaider-Raider (edited 07-12-2001).]

I remember Kenji's articles on flight simming back in the day. Welcome aboard. Don't mind us bitching.

Thanks Gavin, nice to chat with some fellow minded folks on here Please don't mind my ranting from time to time, it's what the games industry does to you after too long

Cheers,
Kenji

Kurt, in reply to your post about "NATO still having fighter's in Germany"
I heard that NATO pulled out it's *last* squadron of fighter's a couple of weeks ago and dispersed them around England.

As far as i know there is no NATO presence in Germany now

http://www.raf.mod.uk/stations/os_base.html

Quote:
RAF Bruggen, Germany
RAF Bruggen was named originally after the nearest railhead, in the North Rhein Westphalia village of Bruggen; however, it is actually situated just outside the village of Elmpt some 6km away. RAF Bruggen is home to the Royal Air Force Tornado Wing in Germany and the Station was constructed on drained marshland within a heavily forested area in the remarkably short time of 12 months (July 1952-July 1953). This short construction phase was a direct result of the need to house the rapidly expanding NATO forces in the early fifties. The Station's history can be divided into three periods; 1953-1957 when it operated as a fighter station; 1967 until 1998, operating in the strike/attack role; from April 1998 the Station has operated in the attack role.

During the fighter phase, No 23 Sqn Belgian Air Force and No's 67, 71, 112 and 130 Squadrons Royal Air Force operated from Bruggen. Bruggen became a predominantly Canberra station with the arrival of No's 80 and 213 Squadrons in the summer of 1957. From 1969 to 1975 the Station operated Phantoms in the strike/attack role, before changing their role to the Jaguar in 1975. Royal Air Force Bruggen underwent a complete change of aircraft between 1984 and 1987 with the Jaguar Squadrons being replaced by Tornado Squadrons. The base celebrated its 40th anniversary in 1993, and is currently the largest Tornado base in NATO. 17(F) Sqn disbanded on the 31 Mar 99 as a result of the Strategic Defence Review.

It is at present home to 2 RAF Tornado GR1 attack squadrons (IX(B) and 31 Squadrons), both of which took part in the Gulf War in 1991. The 2 Tornado Squadrons are declared to NATO as Main Defence Forces and Reaction Force (Air) assets. RAF Bruggen was tasked by NATO to mount offensive air operations against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia on the 28 Mar 99. The historic first mission from RAF Bruggen consisted of 6 Tornado GR1s and 3 VC10 tankers and was launched on 4 Apr 99. RAF Bruggen is also home to Rapier surface-to-air missile Sqn, 37 Sqn RAF Regiment and 12 Flt Army Air Corps. 37 Sqn RAF Regiment forms part of the UK contribution to the Immediate Reaction Force (Air).

RAF Bruggen is commanded by an Air Commodore, who holds the title Senior RAF Officer Germany. Bruggen consists of four operational Squadrons (three Tornado and one Rapier) supported by the usual three Wing structure - Operations, Engineering and Supply and Administration. The supporting wings are each commanded by a Wing Commander. Operations Wing is responsible for supporting the airfield's operational capability and includes such services as Air Traffic Control, Intelligence and Meteorological Forecasting. Engineering and Supply Wing is responsible for second-line work on Tomados and also supplies motor transport, ground equipment, general engineering support and all supplies for the Station. Administration Wing provides the wide ranging support services which are required for a station of this kind. It contains Squadrons dealing with personnel management, property management, security, medical, dental, catering and training.

At the end of March 1999, RAF Bruggen's population included 222 RAF officers and 1,881 airmen, 55 members of the other services and 590 civilian employees. When some 3,452 dependant personnel are included, the total population of RAF Bruggen was 6,100.

The last act of Bruggen's illustrious history was acted out in June 2001 when a parade was held to mark the official closure of the station, thus bringing an end to the last remnants of the RAF's cold war past. The Tornado squadrons will return to the UK before the base is handed over to German authorities.


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

RAF Rheindahlen, Germany
Originally the administrative support centre for the 2nd Tactical Air Force and other units based in Germany and the Netherlands, RAF Rheindahlen was disbanded in 1993 and became the Rheindahlen Support Unit when it amalgamated with the Garrison. Today, the Station houses the Joint Support Unit and the Band of the RAF in Germany. With the closure of all RAF bases in Germany, Rheindahlen will shortly be handed across to the German authorities.


Tracer

------------------
"Flying is the second hardest thing known to man.........the first is landing!"

[This message has been edited by Tracer[formerly of CS] (edited 07-13-2001).]

Tracer,

Chuckle.

Though I'm sure they appreciate the 'vote of confidence', RAFG is NOT 'NATO'. But rather a commitment of UK aircraft to the NATO tasking OOB. Leaving Germany does not remand their responsibility to generate sorties for NATO, only perhaps the local operational control and roles/missions under which those tasked aircraft fly.

Indeed, so long as the Luftwaffe doesn't pull another Angland Blitz and in pursuit of British Beer and those fine Welsh Women (bbaaaaaaah-d joke!;-) I keep hearing about there will /always/ be 'NATO fighters in Germany'.

There are also USAFE 'NATO' (commited) fighters at Spang and for that matter there will soon be 'NATO fighters' in Hungary, Poland and perhaps the Czech Republic.

Britain has to pay a 10 billion pound overdraft in her lump summed R&D and new-system purchases. Scaling back excessively restricted operations in an area without any valid contemporary war threat is one of the least difficult of many choices the UK defense ministry is facing.

Deciding on F.3, GR.3 or SHAR-2 type retirements is far more important to UK 'NATO' commited force realignments for instance.


Nice Article though, brings back all sorts of teary mem-o-ries...KP

Kenji,

There are at least three points where your argument just goes to pieces:

1. B-17 was /promised/ to be more than it was. It fell down badly and so that 3-4 million is more a case of bad investment in the development team prowess than good investment for a bad return. We here all kinds of 'They were instructed to chop out this that and the other' from /board level/ management so the question can be 50:50'd for responsibility but to be honest, 8-12hrs in a Bomber-anything is just a little much for my tastes and if you increase the number of times you get taken under fire you end up skewing the effects of the mission to a 'Memphis Belle' level of idiocy. Bad platform choice, bad execution = Just Plain Baaaaad.

2. ALL games are moving towards more detail, more 'feel of being there as a person' realitization.

RPG's are among the most competitive in this because again there are so many out there (and they /do/ sell) that a good, continuing, world-plotline loyalty is essential.

Backing off to an EFT level of snide 'keeps them in the pool hall' immersion is just not going to cut it and you cannot pretend we are oversaturated because we aren't.

Bad quality begets bad sales and where you fail to realize that 'simulation' of combat aircraft means _simulation of war_ at the grande strategic level, you can never have the kind of Faited Decision Making interest that equates to storytelling in the other, humanist, game genres.

3. $$ to Dumbass.

I ain't no sheep. Stop wooling me! If the executive level of decision making is to do a 300,000 copy game then that is what their next decision making choice is going to be too.

You can forget 'addons and expansions' that make the game 'more realistic'. They may use the maths from one games engine but they won't rewrite that engines campaign interactions to reflect 'a deep and abiding desire' for something better than the crap that sells today.

Where you have a limited total-span engine life (and to me, Typhoon is not all that great a shakes, graphically, over it's predecessors) you push out as many 'sequels' as you can before it's eyecandy appears dated.

As long as we bleat up to the credit card bar you don't take the time to 'enrich our experience' you just put in a few new Motherland Boss Levels, shell out for some different packaging and call it 'NEW, IMPROVED, BAAAAAHTTER!'.

Giving companies that are in the sim industry only to make money a free hand to do so on a 'sequel will be better' basis only ensures that we lose. All the time, every time, without remit or remonstrance.

Or a better sequel.

Because they've already proven they can do /better/ five-six years ago.

Reverse Polish 'Bell' Learning Curves don't go Ka-ching-a-ling-a-ling, they go CLUNK CLUNK CLUNKER.

Unless you're IQ is lower than that of the sales effort trying to convince you that it's 'okay' to be commercial sheep.


KP

I'm impressed! Kurt is not only able to talk nonsense about aircombat, it seems he can talk total nonsense about almost anything.

Tig

*lol* for once I have to agree with Kurt Tig,

Microshaft is one of the best examples of making customers say

"hey you have windows 10,001 I need to get it too !!! "

as I said in a past thread $1 BILLION in marketing Windows Xp will almost convince anyone they should buy that O/S

My bet is 60% of the sales of Typhoon were based on the sucess of its predocessors... what happens when they play it for a few weeks and realise that their godly sim is nothing more than a fictional arcade game?

I have to give credit to Rage for this marketing... WinMe was bought by the masses before they realised it was just a slower win98 with newer drivers, what happened ? Microsofty keeps the cash !. I SEROUSLY doubt that Typhoon II will sell nearly as well as the first if it EVER comes out..

Ian.




------------------
Vaider-Raider

"I'm right here,
because I'm not all there"

Manteau, stop it, please stop it. Just stop it! You're starting to sound like Mr. Cadbury's Parrot.

Stephen White

Surprised by Manteau's post myself. I've not been to the boards in a little while..and yup I see him posting the same things he posted when the game was first released

Manteau..I thought all this was said by you ad infinitum and you had gone onto TAW again etc. etc. ?

Why'd you choose to..errrm..revisit the topic yet again?



------------------
-Gel214th
CO 214th Annihilators

http://www.214th.com/flanker2

Actually, allow me to interject.

I think the problem, the main, screaming, in your face problem with Typhoon is...it is a sequel to EF2000.

(And F-22 ADF and TAW)

And we simmers, here on this board are NOT judging it on its merits. We are not judging it on its cool sounds. We are not judging it on its intense gameplay. We are not judging it on its cool sky textures, or its beautiful 3d model of the Typhoon. We are not judging it on the cool smart view dogfights, or how the programmers went to all the trouble of modelling all the AI planes so well. (cough, cough, Falcon, cough, cough, F/A-18, cough)

We don't, because EF2000 (and TAW) have a deep and abiding and emotional respect in our hearts.

EF2000 was the best selling sim ever. And many of us would judge it still the best. It comes neck and neck with F/A-18 and Falcon 4 in my esteem. And EF2000 came out in 1995!!! And time makes us forget the little problems with EF2000 - you could durandal a runway, and the Su-35s could still take off. Hosting a MP game, your plane would explode, on occassion. Your wingmen could be as thick as two bricks, and I rarely brought them home.

I personally harassed the DID staff long and hard with notions for Typhoon when the thing was in development. I even was asked to research pictures of broken airplanes to help the graphic artists. I wasn't that useful, but it was a cool thing to do. I was so excited to get my mitts on the box, finally. I got my father to post the damn thing from ireland.

The parallel I think of, is Falcon V. When Falcon V was released, I expected celebrations, but instead there were a LOT of very negative comments, and even weird theories. This is because someone was going to do something, and perhaps something different, to a game that is dear to our hearts.

And I love Typhoon. But the whines, and the moans and the complaints and the wishlists here reflect our hope for something that would better EF2000. Ironically, Typhoon fixes three of the biggest complaints about EF2000 - resolution, a 24 hour campaign clock, and no more re-spawning of planes. Strafed planes on runway, STAY strafed. :-)

Now if only the plane didn't go so fast, the Meteors actually worked like the RAF might expect them to, and the Brimstones hit things...:-) (And we were flying over Norway :-))

:-)

That is why everyone here has some pet peeve. And its not because we are gullable, or thumb suckers. (well...ehm, anyway :-))

:-)

Gavin

[This message has been edited by Gavin Bennett (edited 07-19-2001).]