B2B: more questions...
hounddog
I have read about the fantastic graphics in B2B, and now I would like to
ask a few other questions to any B2B beta-drivers. The first: what type
of planes will we be seeing flown by the Iraqi airforce, and how is their AI?
The second: will the human controlled F-16 be able to fly as wingman as
well as a flight leader?
Again, any comments would help in making a decision to part with $100
big ones!
hounddog
Julian Love
hounddog wrote:
> Again, any comments would help in making a decision to part with $100
> big ones!
> hounddog
100 smackers - you must be bloody joking. Aren't you?
Julian
_____________________________________________________________________
julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk Department of Biological Anthropology
University of Oxford
hounddog
On Tue, 14 May 1996, Julian Love wrote:
> hounddog wrote:
>
> 100 smackers - you must be bloody joking. Aren't you?
>
> Julian
> _____________________________________________________________________
> julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk Department of Biological Anthropology
> University of Oxford
>
>No, that is actually how much it will cost, at least here on long
Island, and probably a little more in England ;')! I am a Phd candidate
in physics with a limited (read 'small') budget, and this will hit where it
hurts; right in my wallet! ouch!
hounddog
Grundman
The Grundman also read $100 srp, I think right on the BTB web page . . .
Ouch!
Grundman
Joe Bellerose
Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
My wallet is right here in my hand...bring it on.
JEB in Vegas
o...@cris.com
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <319986...@cris.com> Joe Bellerose <o...@cris.com> writes:
> Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
> graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
Value for money I say!!. (IF its as good as we think of course)
I know some undesirables who gladly piss that much money up a wall at the weekend. (Non
drinkers can ignore this slight!!!)
Get some perspective people.
(T-Man is that on form??)
--
Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
Brian Johnson
Don't usually respond to posts but I have to here.. COME ON!!!
I don't care how good a game is $100 is way too much. You say divide it
by the hours of enjoyment... well if thats the case most of the
adventure games I play are worth more than some of the flight sims. If
we as a group accept a $100 program and buy it.. then all we do is green
light other companies to keep pushing up their prices. If I am not
mistaken games have already gone up roughly $15 (around there) and ya
know what?? There is a lot less documentation in them! Oh and don't even
get me started on the "network play coming" and then they charge you for
the add-on!! Sometimes I feel screwed on both ends!! I am perfectly
happy with companies like DID I payed my $40 (COSTCO) and now can play a
good game.. They made no promises about modem play and now they have
patched it a couple of times (would like the crash problem after a
seccessful mission fixed, hint, hint). Now that they are going to add a
few major things then fine I'll buy the add-on (for a reasonable price).
As for a $100 program, if I pay that much they better give me the blue
prints to the plane and have graphics good enough to let me see the
expressions on the other planes pilots in the game.
Ok, stepping down off my soap box............
-Brian "no sale" johnson
C. D. Jones
Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
>
> In article: <319986...@cris.com> Joe Bellerose <o...@cris.com> writes:
> > Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
> > graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
>
> This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
> hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
>
> Value for money I say!!. (IF its as good as we think of course)
>
> I know some undesirables who gladly piss that much money up a wall at the weekend. (Non
> drinkers can ignore this slight!!!)
>
> Get some perspective people.
>
> (T-Man is that on form??)
>
> --
> Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
Hate to see you have to sober up Gary.<g>
Agree on the perspective thing. Look at how many time you'd have to pay to get
into the movies to spend the amount of time there that you would flying B2B.
Anyways... MSRP is usually not something to worry about. Why not wait and see what
the street price is when released?
...Chris Jones - B2B Test Team
The Dark Knight
$100 for canned missions w/ no alteration?
I think not.
IMO I don't care how fantastic the graphics are, the weapons modeling,
the sounds, or the flight model if it is merely a set of canned missions
that follow a predetermined course then it's just a waste of money.
For $4.95 I can buy a book that does the same thing.
Don "Ace" Mappin
Grundman
Brian Johnson wrote:
>
> Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
> >
> > In article: <319986...@cris.com> Joe Bellerose <o...@cris.com> writes:
> > > Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
> > > graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
> >
> > This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
> > hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
> >
> > Value for money I say!!. (IF its as good as we think of course)
> >
> > I know some undesirables who gladly piss that much money up a wall at the weekend. (Non
> > drinkers can ignore this slight!!!)
> >
> > Get some perspective people.
> >
> > (T-Man is that on form??)
> >
> > --
> > Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
>
>
> I don't care how good a game is $100 is way too much. You say divide it
> by the hours of enjoyment... well if thats the case most of the
> adventure games I play are worth more than some of the flight sims. If
> we as a group accept a $100 program and buy it.. then all we do is green
> light other companies to keep pushing up their prices. If I am not
> mistaken games have already gone up roughly $15 (around there) and ya
> know what?? There is a lot less documentation in them! Oh and don't even
> get me started on the "network play coming" and then they charge you for
> the add-on!! Sometimes I feel screwed on both ends!! I am perfectly
> happy with companies like DID I payed my $40 (COSTCO) and now can play a
> good game.. They made no promises about modem play and now they have
> patched it a couple of times (would like the crash problem after a
> seccessful mission fixed, hint, hint). Now that they are going to add a
> few major things then fine I'll buy the add-on (for a reasonable price).
> As for a $100 program, if I pay that much they better give me the blue
> prints to the plane and have graphics good enough to let me see the
> expressions on the other planes pilots in the game.
> Ok, stepping down off my soap box............
>
> -Brian "no sale" johnson
I gotta agree whole heartedly with Brian on this. He is 100% correct on
stating that if we welcome a $100 sim with open arms, it makes all
software companys say "Wow, they shelled out the big cash for that
without a hitch, lets follow suite, yippeee!". And the dwindling
documentation thing, another good point (you gotta new fan Brian!). What
is with this new shitty trend (sorry, angry!) of not including a freakin
jewel case with CDs? I ruined the front page of my EF2K manual trying to
'tear' the glued on sleeve out. Jewel cases cost less that 25 cents by
the gross, so what gives with that? And the documentation on CD instead
of on paper. So I have to print it out? NOT!! Damn, I gotta get off the
soapbox, who's next?
Grundman
Ian Huxley
Gary Lloyd Ward <Ga...@nink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
>hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
>--
>Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
Trouble is Gary, that $100 price tag will most likely translate to
£100 over here.... looks like you're going to have stop drinking just
a bit longer than you planned.....
Ian
(waiting for the reviews before I stop drinking)
Julian Love
I think that $100 is waaay too much for any piece of 'entertainment'
software - other posters are right: if we rush out and snap up sims at
$100 a go (which pobably WILL be £100 here) then the next thing we know,
all sims will be that price. As for paying that much for 40 canned
missions - you must be joking. Some of us don't have that kind of money
to spend on software.
Julian (who would never give up drinking for anything)
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <4nft67$d...@news.xmission.com> dma...@xmission.com (The Dark
> $100 for canned missions w/ no alteration?
>
> I think not.
DEAD RIGHT. This would NOT be worth $100.
>
> IMO I don't care how fantastic the graphics are, the weapons modeling,
> the sounds, or the flight model if it is merely a set of canned missions
> that follow a predetermined course then it's just a waste of money.
But what if it had a dynamic campaign, mission generator, ACMI, 2 theatres of operation,
ability to swap misisons/recordings, network/kali play and perfect avionics etc.
Then if it retailed at $100 I can just imagine you all saying "NO WAY!!!!"...oh yeah.
--
Gary Lloyd Ward
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <319C06...@ix.netcom.com> Grundman
> I gotta agree whole heartedly with Brian on this. He is 100% correct on
> stating that if we welcome a $100 sim with open arms, it makes all
> software companys say "Wow, they shelled out the big cash for that
> without a hitch, lets follow suite, yippeee!".
So I buy a Porche for 28,000 ukpounds. This means that the man down the road realising I
paid out such a grand sum for a "Car" then hikes up the cost of all his Fords to 28k????
I think not!!!.
If B2B finalises as a fantastic example of a flight simulation that we all simply HAVE TO
HAVE. Then once again I maintain that a higher retail price will be acceptable. If however
nobody buys the thing then obviously it was overpriced.
My car example leads me to take the opinion that other software houses will realise that
to warrant a price tag of 100dollars they will accordingly HAVE to produce a product of
similar quality. Personally I would rather shell out $100 for a BRILLIANT sim than the
same sum for 3 mediocre ones.
Get real.
--
Gary Lloyd Ward (In the mood for an argument)
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <83231260...@ianhux.demon.co.uk> i...@ianhux.demon.co.uk (Ian
> Trouble is Gary, that $100 price tag will most likely translate to
> a bit longer than you planned.....
No Ian if it does retail at 100 ukpounds I will simply opt not to purchase it. If however it
retails at say 75 ukpounds and I perceive that for me this represents a sound investment
then I will whip out the cash and subsequently 6 months down the road I will realise that for
me this was money well spent.
--
Gary Lloyd Ward
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <319A6F...@wolfenet.com> Brian Johnson
> Don't usually respond to posts but I have to here.. COME ON!!!
>
> I don't care how good a game is $100 is way too much.
Utter and complete RUBBISH!!!. How can you possibly make such a generalised
statement.
>You say divide it
> by the hours of enjoyment... well if thats the case most of the
> adventure games I play are worth more than some of the flight sims.
Then buy adventure games with your money and leave $100 flight sims to people who
will utilise their purchase to a greater degree and thus make their hourly costs
insignificant.
> If we as a group accept a $100 program and buy it.. then all we do is green
> light other companies to keep pushing up their prices.
Wrong.... if a game is not worth $100 nobody will buy it period. This applies throughout
life not just to games.
> If I am not
> mistaken games have already gone up roughly $15 (around there) and ya
> know what?? There is a lot less documentation in them!
Choice again. If you do not feel that it represents value for money do not buy it.
Surely you apply the same criteria with other purchases.
--
Gary Lloyd Ward
Diamond
Luis Caamano wrote:
>
> Grundman wrote:
> >
> > Brian Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't care how good a game is $100 is way too much. You say divide it
> > > by the hours of enjoyment...
> >
>
> good, I'll shell another $100 for it.
>
> If you don't shell money, you won't get anything good. What happens is
> that I realize that the kind of flight simulator that I want requires
> a high learning curve, patience, effort, studying, etc. And it would
> definitely not be a game but a simulator. At the same time, I realize
> that I am in the minority and so, paying big bucks is inevitable.
>
> And if buzz and the people at Thrustmaster come out with a
> force-feedback
> type of joystick and rudders for an extra 100 or 200 bucks, I'll buy it.
> Or perhaps a real fly by wire joystick.
>
> Cars are cheap, relatively speaking, because of the size of the market,
> not because everybody got together and decided that they would not buy
> a car that costs more than $xx,xxx. Sorry.
>
> --
> Luis P. Caamano (LC2385) | l...@sware.com
> Internet and System Security Lab | (404) 315-9703x137
> Hewlett Packard Co. Atlanta, GA, USA | Fax (404) 315-6407
Im with you Luis. Bring it on-and be quick about it. I can't wait.
Diamond
Luis Caamano
David G. Bell
In article <319C06...@ix.netcom.com>
grun...@ix.netcom.com "Grundman" writes:
> I gotta agree whole heartedly with Brian on this. He is 100% correct on
> stating that if we welcome a $100 sim with open arms, it makes all
> software companys say "Wow, they shelled out the big cash for that
> without a hitch, lets follow suite, yippeee!". And the dwindling
> documentation thing, another good point (you gotta new fan Brian!). What
> is with this new shitty trend (sorry, angry!) of not including a freakin
> jewel case with CDs? I ruined the front page of my EF2K manual trying to
> 'tear' the glued on sleeve out. Jewel cases cost less that 25 cents by
> the gross, so what gives with that? And the documentation on CD instead
> of on paper. So I have to print it out? NOT!! Damn, I gotta get off the
> soapbox, who's next?
I just wonder how much of that $100 list price actually gets paid by a
customer, and how much gets back to the manufacturer. I've seen the
same software in different places with a 30% price difference.
I got EF2K for the low price...
On the other hand, I also bought a new v34 modem recently, and I
discovered that I am paying over 50 UKL for the privilege of being able
to shout at the supplier when it goes wrong.
I bought EF2K after seeing all the generally favourable comments in the
newsgroup, and so far I haven't experienced the bad problems some people
report. But a $100 sim? Which probably needs a really fast machine? I
wouldn't spend $300 to $400, plus the software, just to play a game.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Grundman
Heh heh, looking at the number of 'flaming' posts and the frequency,
looks like Gary may have ALREADY given up his drinking to start
saving!<VBG>
GRundman
Brian Johnson
Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
>
> In article: <319A6F...@wolfenet.com> Brian Johnson
> <gjoh...@wolfenet.com> writes:
> > Don't usually respond to posts but I have to here.. COME ON!!!
> >
>
> statement.
>
> > by the hours of enjoyment... well if thats the case most of the
> > adventure games I play are worth more than some of the flight sims.
>
> Then buy adventure games with your money and leave $100 flight sims to people who
> will utilise their purchase to a greater degree and thus make their hourly costs
> insignificant.
>
> > If we as a group accept a $100 program and buy it.. then all we do is green
> > light other companies to keep pushing up their prices.
>
> Wrong.... if a game is not worth $100 nobody will buy it period. This applies throughout
> life not just to games.
>
> > If I am not
> > mistaken games have already gone up roughly $15 (around there) and ya
> > know what?? There is a lot less documentation in them!
>
> Choice again. If you do not feel that it represents value for money do not buy it.
>
> Surely you apply the same criteria with other purchases.
>
> --
> Gary Lloyd Ward
-was going to go into a long dissertation on why you are wrong in
thinking that I am wrong.. but I read a few posts in response to the
price and pretty much everyone said that $100 is too much. As for my
generalized comment at the beginning I can make it because it is my
opinion.. remember you had one to.
If you want to spend $100 on a program be my guest.. whats the saying
" a fool and his money are soon... can't remember the rest :>..."
-Brian
Bill Gillam
On Fri, 17 May 1996 11:25:19 -0700, Julian Love >I think that $100 is
waaay too much for any piece of 'entertainment
'
>software - other posters are right: if we rush out and snap up sims at
>$100 a go (which pobably WILL be £100 here) then the next thing we know,
>all sims will be that price. As for paying that much for 40 canned
>missions - you must be joking. Some of us don't have that kind of money
>to spend on software.
I agree $100 is a lot of money. Is it too much for a sim? Depends on
your attitude. MSI spent a fortune putting together what I think is
the best flight model of any PC-Based fighter sim. The radar and
weapons model is as good as it gets without signing up for 4 years.
They have a right to get a return for their investment, if some people
do not feel that it is worth $100, fine. I bought MS FS 5.0 a couple
years ago, then bought 5.1 when it came out, also bought San Fran &
Wash DC Scenery, as well as Hawaii, and flight shop add on. All of
this brings the cost of the simulator to $150+. It is worth every
penny to me. But I enjoy the commercial flights, and fly for a virtual
airline and have logged hundreds of enjoyment-filled hours on it.
Is back to Baghdad worth $100? To me it is, but I love the high
quality of the flight model, and the weapons/radar system. There is a
new sim out there now, called "X-Plane", its $500. Thats a hell of a
lot of money, no this is not a instrument simulator, it is much like
FS5.
I don't see B2B as a mass market product, it is targeted at the type
of people who want realism in their military sims. It does have a
great novice setting, but it was built for the users who want to get
as close as they can to a military simulator (IMO)
Regards-
Bill
Member, Beta Test Team
Back to Baghdad
Julian Love
Bill Gillam wrote:
> I agree $100 is a lot of money. Is it too much for a sim? Depends on
> your attitude. MSI spent a fortune putting together what I think is
> the best flight model of any PC-Based fighter sim. The radar and
> weapons model is as good as it gets without signing up for 4 years.
>
> They have a right to get a return for their investment, if some people
> do not feel that it is worth $100, fine. I bought MS FS 5.0 a couple
> years ago, then bought 5.1 when it came out, also bought San Fran &
> Wash DC Scenery, as well as Hawaii, and flight shop add on. All of
> this brings the cost of the simulator to $150+. It is worth every
> penny to me. But I enjoy the commercial flights, and fly for a virtual
> airline and have logged hundreds of enjoyment-filled hours on it.
Yes, you may have spent $150 on MS FS5 *products*, but you only spent
probably $50 on FS5 itself. That to me is the world of difference. I
spent over £100 on Falcon 3 *products* but the actual Falcon 3 was only
£30. The point is that I don't mind spending that kind of money on a
series of expansions and upgrades top an originally good product, however
I do object to paying that much on a *single piece of software*, and will
have to pay yet more for any other expansion packs that are released.
IMO, outside this forum there are very few people who would pay that much
cash for a sim. This group is full of people addicted to sims, yet we are
still divided as to whether this is too much to pay, so do you really
think Joe Blow is going to part with his hard earned $100? I don't think
so.
> Regards-
>
> Bill
>
> Member, Beta Test Team
> Back to Baghdad
Julian
Gary Lloyd Ward
In article: <319D28...@wolfenet.com> Brian Johnson <gjoh...@wolfenet.com>
writes:
> If you want to spend $100 on a program be my guest.. whats the saying
> " a fool and his money are soon... can't remember the rest :>..."
As an adendum, from reading some comments from beta-testers in respect of B2B :
Fixed views, floating windows, no audible comms and canned missions this apparently will
not be a sim worth $100. However when a sim of real quality appears priced at $100 if I
perceive it to be value for money I will buy it...foolish or not.
--
Gary Lloyd Ward
Greg Cisko
In article <4nmb01$k...@texas.nwlink.com>, bgi...@nwlink.com (Bill Gillam) writes:
>On Fri, 17 May 1996 11:25:19 -0700, Julian Love >I think that $100 is
>waaay too much for any piece of 'entertainment
>'
>>software - other posters are right: if we rush out and snap up sims at
>>$100 a go (which pobably WILL be £100 here) then the next thing we know,
>>all sims will be that price. As for paying that much for 40 canned
>>missions - you must be joking. Some of us don't have that kind of money
>>to spend on software.
Agreed.
>
>I agree $100 is a lot of money. Is it too much for a sim? Depends on
>your attitude. MSI spent a fortune putting together what I think is
>the best flight model of any PC-Based fighter sim. The radar and
>weapons model is as good as it gets without signing up for 4 years.
True. But I think that the $100 may be list price. To be honest, I have no
idea what MSI will charge for B2B (this post is not about B2B & 100 clams).
But I have an opinion on sims/games that cost 100 clams ($). In general who
cares what the list price is? I have paid $100 for a game before. That was
the "WingCommander3 Permier Edition". The one with the T-shirt, 2 extra CD's
and came next day UPS in a movie cannister.
I was playing WC3 about 1-2 weeks before the public got it. I thought
(and still think) that purchase was worth it. I have no idea what the
list price for WC4 is. But I did see it in COMPUSA for $29.99. It is
now selling for $50+ (I have seen it for $64.99 at one store). A recent
editorial in Computer Gaming World by Johnny Wilson explained some of the
pricing in stores. That is how I got WC4 for $29. Someone somewhere
suplimented the price somehow. He also explains why stores have some
titles but not others. I for one would not pay 100 clams for any
piece of software in a store like COMPUSA. If the average price for games
in such stores climbs well then I would have to pay more. I usually
wait for the price to drop because it always will. Silent Hunter is now
$39. It was $49.99-$54.00 for some time :-)
>They have a right to get a return for their investment, if some people
>do not feel that it is worth $100, fine. I bought MS FS 5.0 a couple
>years ago, then bought 5.1 when it came out, also bought San Fran &
>Wash DC Scenery, as well as Hawaii, and flight shop add on. All of
>this brings the cost of the simulator to $150+. It is worth every
>penny to me. But I enjoy the commercial flights, and fly for a virtual
>airline and have logged hundreds of enjoyment-filled hours on it.
>
>Is back to Baghdad worth $100? To me it is, but I love the high
>quality of the flight model, and the weapons/radar system. There is a
>new sim out there now, called "X-Plane", its $500. Thats a hell of a
>lot of money, no this is not a instrument simulator, it is much like
>FS5.
>
>I don't see B2B as a mass market product, it is targeted at the type
>of people who want realism in their military sims. It does have a
>great novice setting, but it was built for the users who want to get
>as close as they can to a military simulator (IMO)
I see it having the same appeal as F3. While it is REALLY realistic in
systems modeling, I think many flightsimmers will come to want more than
magical 360 degree radar locks. After using F3's radar, the only radar I was 1/2
way happy with was FD & F15-SE3 (both MPS BTW). IMHO being ultra realistic
shouldn't drive people away at all. It is a feature :-)
Diamond
"PRICE vs. VALUE"
" It is unwise to pay too much,
but it is worse to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money-that is all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything because
the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing
it was supposed to do. The common law of business balance
prohibits paying a little ang getting a lot-it cannot be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something
for the risk you run, and if you do that, you will have enough
to pay for something better ! "
JOHN RUSKIN (Philosopher) 1819-1900
Grundman
Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
>
> In article: <319D28...@wolfenet.com> Brian Johnson <gjoh...@wolfenet.com>
> writes:
> > If you want to spend $100 on a program be my guest.. whats the saying
> > " a fool and his money are soon... can't remember the rest :>..."
>
> As an adendum, from reading some comments from beta-testers in respect of B2B :
> Fixed views, floating windows, no audible comms and canned missions this apparently will
> not be a sim worth $100. However when a sim of real quality appears priced at $100 if I
> perceive it to be value for money I will buy it...foolish or not.
> --
> Gary Lloyd Ward
Man, I can't BELEIVE B2B is going to have no 'true' padlock, and no
audible comms? How could a sim of such proported high realism factor get
cheap here? Well if that didn't make the 'wow' factor just go down the
tubes for me. Of course, alot of people will probably bust my balls for
saying this b4 actually seeing the sim, but wouldn't you expect even
some of the minor but highly essential 'suspension of disbeleif' factors
to be there? My expectations for this sim are not falling, there
plummiting . . . Think I'll be waiting for the feedback from the
hardcore boys here b4 I run out and get this. Wonder if the
disappointment factor will be as high as ATF was . . .
Grundman
enzo
I'm used to spending $40 on a game merely from word-of-mouth and other
reccomendations. I've got burned a few times - and gotten really
pissed off. B2B - at $100 - is *not* something I'm going to buy
sight unseen. I hope MSI releases a demo that shows off what B2B
does so I can judge for myself if it's worth shelling out such a
ridiculous sum of money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Mouneimne | "The Apples are coming! The Apples are coming!
en...@outwest.com | No, wait. They're going away again."
|
---CS-Anime-Bab5-SegaAM-Mtn_Bikes-RPGs-Newton-Ducatis-Hk-Glock-Rally--
pap...@ix.netcom.com
ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) wrote:
>I see it having the same appeal as F3. While it is REALLY realistic in
>systems modeling, I think many flightsimmers will come to want more than
>magical 360 degree radar locks. After using F3's radar, the only radar I was 1/2
>way happy with was FD & F15-SE3 (both MPS BTW). IMHO being ultra realistic
>shouldn't drive people away at all. It is a feature :-)
>>
>>
>>Regards-
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>Member, Beta Test Team
>>Back to Baghdad
Agree with everything. Just really wish the padlock sounded more
promising. And really wish they would have made it modem capable
right from the start. Thats the real fun flying someone H2H in a
semi-realistic jet ( as realistic as current tech can do at least).
Oh well
PAPA DOC
Brian Johnson
Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
>
> In article: <319D28...@wolfenet.com> Brian Johnson <gjoh...@wolfenet.com>
> writes:
> > If you want to spend $100 on a program be my guest.. whats the saying
> > " a fool and his money are soon... can't remember the rest :>..."
>
> As an adendum, from reading some comments from beta-testers in respect of B2B :
> Fixed views, floating windows, no audible comms and canned missions this apparently will
> not be a sim worth $100. However when a sim of real quality appears priced at $100 if I
> perceive it to be value for money I will buy it...foolish or not.
> --
> Gary Lloyd Ward
I must aplogize for the fool comment... I was on a role.. Anyways, The
plain fact of the matter is If you have a $100 bucks and you want to
spend it ok, but I just hate the idea of software companies thinking
that they can charge that much on a regular basis. My fear is this price
increase has to start somewhere and if B2B does it then maybe other
companies will also.
I also read in PC Gamer and a few other places that B2B doesn't have
voice (ie. pilots talking) that is a major bummer. The screenshots they
showed in the magazine didn't look exactly spectacular, good but not
spectacular. Anyways, I hope its good, I hope they put voices in it, and
I hope they decide to lower the price. If Origin can blow 10+ million on
a game (wc3) and only charge $45 then why cant they??
-Brian
P.S. and the last important detail.. FOR ALL FLT SIM COMPANIES IF YOU
READ THIS... TRY, TRY, TRY to make the game not crash!! boy if ef2000
could fix this for me and put in modem play I would have my copy bronzed
and praise it all over the place!! (maybe the win95 version.. of course
when I buy that one ef2000 becomes a $100 program.. maybe an upgrade fee
will be in place for us poor dos people??
Julian Love
pap...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Agree with everything. Just really wish the padlock sounded more
> promising. And really wish they would have made it modem capable
> right from the start. Thats the real fun flying someone H2H in a
> semi-realistic jet ( as realistic as current tech can do at least).
>
> Oh well
>
> PAPA DOC
Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
SIG (Brian Bradley)
Grundman <grun...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Man, I can't BELEIVE B2B is going to have no 'true' padlock, and no
>audible comms? How could a sim of such proported high realism factor get
>cheap here? Well if that didn't make the 'wow' factor just go down the
As for padlock... isn't it more "realistic" to be forced to follow the
target with your own eyes thru the views (and often lose sight of the
target in the clouds or against ground clutter or even because it is
too distant for visual) rather than have the computer put a nice box
around the target and do your work for you? Most flight sims allow you
to padlock a target MILES away... unrealistic IMO unless you have
eyesight better than my 20/11. B2B has the most realistic flight
model and instrumentation that I have ever seen in a pc. In this
respect it will probably satisfy the "hardcore" realism users. As for
gameplay and marketshare that has yet to be seen.
Check six,
SIG
-------------
"Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win."
-Motto, USN Fighter Weapons School
Greg Cisko
In article <4nod26$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, pap...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) wrote:
>
>>I see it having the same appeal as F3. While it is REALLY realistic in
>>systems modeling, I think many flightsimmers will come to want more than
>>magical 360 degree radar locks. After using F3's radar, the only radar I was 1/2
>>way happy with was FD & F15-SE3 (both MPS BTW). IMHO being ultra realistic
>>shouldn't drive people away at all. It is a feature :-)
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards-
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>Member, Beta Test Team
>>>Back to Baghdad
>
I stated earlier that the lack of padlock was the one problem I found
with b2b. Well that was before I tried/used the new Hawkeye View. So
far I have found Hawkeye to be an adequet replacement for padlock, and
superior in some cases. As far as I am concerned the lack of padlock
is a mute point in this sim. I admit that at first glance no padlock
is a fault. But that is before everyone understands what Hawkeye is
all about! There was a fairly big discussion about padlock (or lack of)
between the beta testers. I suggested that anyone who feels padlock is
nessissary (rather than using the Hawkeye) needs to beta test more :-)
(i.e. Use Hawkeye and realize that you *can* visualy zero in on your target
as easily as padlock, which is all we want.) With the scrolled up front view
(ala F3's version) the Hawkeye gives that "padlock feeling". Only I find
Hawkeye to be less disorienting, which may be a problem for realism buffs :-)
Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
Greg 'jaguar' Cisko
B2B Beta Team
"I'll turn your desert into glass"
Julian Love
What will the missions be like? Wasn't Desert Storm a bit of a walk over
for the US/Allied forces? Most of the Iraqi air force was destroyed on
the ground or fled to Iran, and the SEAD bsuiness was so successful in
the first 48hrs that A-G missions afetr that were almost unopposed, no?
(apart from the Tornados doing their JP233 stuff, hardly any allied
planes weere lost, no?). If my facts are wrong, please correct me, but it
seems that if the missions are realistic, then the missions will be
rather easy.
Robin Kim
Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
>sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
>little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
Because there are many different dimensions of realism. Flight model,
avionics, ground warefare, pilot management, etc., are all examples of
areas in which a sim can be judged. "Overall realism" is not a very precise
concept because people differ in how they weight all these dimensions.
Digitized speech may be so important to you that it figures heavily into
your "overall realism" evaluation, while for others (such as B2B's designers),
it may pale in importance compared to flight model and systems simulation.
BTW, like you, I think digitized speech is always a big plus.
Greg Cisko
In article <31A0E0...@sjc.ox.ac.uk>, Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>What will the missions be like? Wasn't Desert Storm a bit of a walk over
>for the US/Allied forces? Most of the Iraqi air force was destroyed on
>the ground or fled to Iran, and the SEAD bsuiness was so successful in
>the first 48hrs that A-G missions afetr that were almost unopposed, no?
>(apart from the Tornados doing their JP233 stuff, hardly any allied
>planes weere lost, no?). If my facts are wrong, please correct me, but it
>seems that if the missions are realistic, then the missions will be
>rather easy.
>
B2B is not set in 1991 with desert storm. It is set in the future where
"someone" invades Kuwait again. So it is not the same decimated troops
as in 1991.
At least the beta is like that.
Greg Cisko
In article <4npthu$b...@fnnews.fnal.gov>, ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) writes:
>In article <31A0E0...@sjc.ox.ac.uk>, Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>What will the missions be like? Wasn't Desert Storm a bit of a walk over
>>for the US/Allied forces? Most of the Iraqi air force was destroyed on
>>the ground or fled to Iran, and the SEAD bsuiness was so successful in
>>the first 48hrs that A-G missions afetr that were almost unopposed, no?
>>(apart from the Tornados doing their JP233 stuff, hardly any allied
>>planes weere lost, no?). If my facts are wrong, please correct me, but it
>>seems that if the missions are realistic, then the missions will be
>>rather easy.
>>
>
>B2B is not set in 1991 with desert storm. It is set in the future where
>"someone" invades Kuwait again. So it is not the same decimated troops
>as in 1991.
>
I believe the timeframe is like 1996 or something.
Buzz Hoffman
Funny, but I've always wondered about those who think they should set prices to
suit themselves. I've never bought a Corvette because I think they cost more than
I am willing to pay, I've never bought a Ferrari, etc. for the same reason, but
I wouldn't write to GM, etc and complain that they should sell them to me for
less otherwise other car mfrs will jack up prices.
You indicated you wouldn't pay $100 for F2B - so don't. That's your personal
choice, but I wonder about where the idea that MSI should charge less to keep
other companies from following suit comes from. I think MSI sets their price
based on the amount of money they spent on development. That's sunk cost - it's
all expense and they have to recover it and make a profit or they won't stay
in business.
That's pretty much what a free market system is all about. The mfrs (and MSI
is no exception) charges quite a bit less than $100 - the retailers and
distributors mark them up to make their profits and overhead too. Maybe it's
just that "What America needs is a good 5 cent cigar." thing. It's an old
saying, but it's still true. 8)
Buzz
<In article <319A6F...@wolfenet.com>,
Brian Johnson <gjoh...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>Gary Lloyd Ward wrote:
>>
>> In article: <319986...@cris.com> Joe Bellerose <o...@cris.com> writes:
>> > Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
>> > graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
>>
>> This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
>> hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
>>
>> Value for money I say!!. (IF its as good as we think of course)
>>
>> I know some undesirables who gladly piss that much money up a wall at the weekend. (Non
>> drinkers can ignore this slight!!!)
>>
>> Get some perspective people.
>>
>> (T-Man is that on form??)
>>
>> --
>> Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
>
>Don't usually respond to posts but I have to here.. COME ON!!!
>
>I don't care how good a game is $100 is way too much. You say divide it
>by the hours of enjoyment... well if thats the case most of the
>adventure games I play are worth more than some of the flight sims. If
>we as a group accept a $100 program and buy it.. then all we do is green
>light other companies to keep pushing up their prices. If I am not
>mistaken games have already gone up roughly $15 (around there) and ya
>know what?? There is a lot less documentation in them! Oh and don't even
>get me started on the "network play coming" and then they charge you for
>the add-on!! Sometimes I feel screwed on both ends!! I am perfectly
>happy with companies like DID I payed my $40 (COSTCO) and now can play a
>good game.. They made no promises about modem play and now they have
>patched it a couple of times (would like the crash problem after a
>seccessful mission fixed, hint, hint). Now that they are going to add a
>few major things then fine I'll buy the add-on (for a reasonable price).
>As for a $100 program, if I pay that much they better give me the blue
>prints to the plane and have graphics good enough to let me see the
>expressions on the other planes pilots in the game.
> Ok, stepping down off my soap box............
>
>-Brian "no sale" johnson>
Buzz Hoffman
Julian,
The market just doesn't work that way. The mfr charges based on his cost.
The distributor tends to as well, the retailer tends to charge what he thinks
the market will pay. If they don't, he lowers the price or, if he doesn't get
the kind of markup he requires he stops carrying the product. Stores like
Egghead, for example, pay a lot of money for their retail shelf space because
they tend to be in or near shopping malls. They can ill-afford to stock items
that do not generate a sufficient return to them to pay their overhead, wages,
and make a profit. The mfr tends to set a "Suggested Retail Price", which is
nothing more than an attempt to keep the retailers from charging any more than
that for the price. But what the retailer charges is his decision alone,
especially with respect to US products - our free market economy prevents mfrs
from fixing prices at retail - it's against the law.
Buzz
<In article <319CC4...@sjc.ox.ac.uk>,
Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Ian Huxley wrote:
>>
>> Gary Lloyd Ward <Ga...@nink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
>> >hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
>>
>> >--
>> >Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
>>
>> Trouble is Gary, that $100 price tag will most likely translate to
>> £100 over here.... looks like you're going to have stop drinking just
>> a bit longer than you planned.....
>>
>> Ian
>> (waiting for the reviews before I stop drinking)
>
>I think that $100 is waaay too much for any piece of 'entertainment'
>software - other posters are right: if we rush out and snap up sims at
>$100 a go (which pobably WILL be £100 here) then the next thing we know,
>all sims will be that price. As for paying that much for 40 canned
>missions - you must be joking. Some of us don't have that kind of money
>to spend on software.
>
>Julian (who would never give up drinking for anything)
Diamond
Buzz Hoffman wrote:
>
> Julian,
>
> The market just doesn't work that way. The mfr charges based on his cost.
> The distributor tends to as well, the retailer tends to charge what he thinks
> the market will pay. If they don't, he lowers the price or, if he doesn't get
> the kind of markup he requires he stops carrying the product. Stores like
> Egghead, for example, pay a lot of money for their retail shelf space because
> they tend to be in or near shopping malls. They can ill-afford to stock items
> that do not generate a sufficient return to them to pay their overhead, wages,
> and make a profit. The mfr tends to set a "Suggested Retail Price", which is
> nothing more than an attempt to keep the retailers from charging any more than
> that for the price. But what the retailer charges is his decision alone,
> especially with respect to US products - our free market economy prevents mfrs
> from fixing prices at retail - it's against the law.
>
> Buzz
>
> <In article <319CC4...@sjc.ox.ac.uk>,
> Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Ian Huxley wrote:
> >>
> >> Gary Lloyd Ward <Ga...@nink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This baffles me greatly. If B2B will be 100 dollars big deal. Work that out per
> >> >hour for the subsequent enjoyment you will derive from your purchase.
> >>
> >> >--
> >> >Gary Lloyd Ward (Going without ale and other essentials to secure B2B fund)
> >>
> >> Trouble is Gary, that $100 price tag will most likely translate to
> >> a bit longer than you planned.....
> >>
> >> Ian
> >> (waiting for the reviews before I stop drinking)
> >
> >I think that $100 is waaay too much for any piece of 'entertainment'
> >software - other posters are right: if we rush out and snap up sims at
> >all sims will be that price. As for paying that much for 40 canned
> >missions - you must be joking. Some of us don't have that kind of money
> >to spend on software.
> >
> >Julian (who would never give up drinking for anything)
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk Department of Biological Anthropology
> > University of Oxford>
I can't wait for MSI to release this one. The $100 dollars I put aside
last October(the original release date) is now worth $135 with earned
interest. Lets go, Im ready.
Diamond
C. D. Jones
Robin Kim wrote:
>
> Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
> >sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
> >little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
>
> Because there are many different dimensions of realism. Flight model,
> avionics, ground warefare, pilot management, etc., are all examples of
> areas in which a sim can be judged. "Overall realism" is not a very precise
> concept because people differ in how they weight all these dimensions.
These should all be weighed together, as well as separately. The all
figure into the total experience.
IMO, "overall realism" can be measured precisely enough. It's the sum of
all of these factors that creates the level of realism. Will give you that
some features are not as important to some as they are to others. However,
by not depicting things like digitized speech, etc., a designer will detract
from the over all picture he is trying to paint.
What we term "realism" is subjective, but only to a point. With the knowledge
we have here in this group alone, it is easy enough to measure how accurately
different aspects of these sims are being depicted. Therefore it comes down
to checks and minuses when they are all added up. Not too hard with our
experience to surmise how closely the overall picture has been modeled. I like
to rate on a scale of "coin-op" to "takes you there". Yes, the degree at which
any sim falls would be a matter of opinion. However, we (the designers and
savvy consumers that are here) know very well what lacks. Some things few, if
any, would disagree on.
> Digitized speech may be so important to you that it figures heavily into
> your "overall realism" evaluation, while for others (such as B2B's designers),
> it may pale in importance compared to flight model and systems simulation.
> BTW, like you, I think digitized speech is always a big plus.
Would take this as meaning that leaving it out would be a minus, thereby
degrading your own personal assessment of "overall realism".
Robin Kim
The following has little to do with flight sims. Sorry for the digression.
Buzz Hoffman <bu...@thrustmaster.com> wrote:
>You indicated you wouldn't pay $100 for F2B - so don't. That's your personal
>choice, but I wonder about where the idea that MSI should charge less to keep
>other companies from following suit comes from.
Wishful thinking?
>I think MSI sets their price
>based on the amount of money they spent on development.
If so, they are unlikely to maximize their profit. The price at
which revenues are maximized does not depend on either fixed or
variable cost. The shape of the demand curve (and its
"price-elasticity") is what's important. Cost comes in when deciding
if you should shut down the factory (when marginal cost exceeds
marginal revenue you should close up shop immediately unless there's
cause for long term optimism) or when evaluating whether to invest in
more plant.
>That's sunk cost -
>it's all expense and they have to recover it and make a profit or they
>won't stay in business.
In the long run, yes. But in the short run, "sunk costs are sunk"--they
play NO role in deciding whether to continue producing (that's when
marginal cost and marginal revenue are all you should look at).
>That's pretty much what a free market system is all about.
My statements are based on a simplified model approximating perfect
competition. Other factors do come into play, but the basic ideas are
sound, I think. On the other hand, I took those econ classes over 10
years ago and my memory is not perfect... :^)
Rod White
I just wanted to let all you guys know that B2B will also
be avalable at places like EGGHEAD, and a few other software
specialty stores. See $100.00 is the MSRP, so the price at
EGGHEAD, and other places that will carry it should be much
cheaper. My thoughs is that you may beable to find it for anywhere
between $65-$75. Remember the MSRP is always high. It's just like
ordering a TQS right from Thrustmaster, they will charge you full
MSRP of $189, when you can pick one of somewhere else for
$110.00. Just don't let the price scare you, unless you are ordering
it direct from MSI;)
Rod White
PC Multimdedia & Entertainment Magazine
http://www.mortimer.com/users/pcme/pcme.htm
Voted Top 5% of all WWW sites by Central Point
"Deep= This site. This is what covering the sim market is all
about. No other resource has the depth and the quality that
this site has." Quoted from the Games Masters 3/96
Member, Outside Beta Test Team
JANE'S AH-64D Longbow
Member, Beta Test Team
Military Simulation Inc's Back to Bagdad
pap...@ix.netcom.com
Actually unless they do a dynamic campaign, unlikely. I worry more
about not having modem capability. Seems like this was made for H2H.
Well anyway I will reserve judgement then on padlock. Does it have
voices?
PAPA DOC
pap...@ix.netcom.com
op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim) wrote:
>Julian Love <julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
>>sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
>>little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
>Because there are many different dimensions of realism. Flight model,
>avionics, ground warefare, pilot management, etc., are all examples of
>areas in which a sim can be judged. "Overall realism" is not a very precise
>concept because people differ in how they weight all these dimensions.
>Digitized speech may be so important to you that it figures heavily into
>your "overall realism" evaluation, while for others (such as B2B's designers),
>it may pale in importance compared to flight model and systems simulation.
>BTW, like you, I think digitized speech is always a big plus.
Umm no speech? Well at least I wont have a dumbass mumbling BANDIT
BANDIT. But really do wish that it wasnt true that speech had been
left out. Ive tried flying EF2000 without speech hhhooooeeeeee boring.
Can you say put me to sleep. So $100.00 for FANTASTIC FLIGHT MODEL,
GREAT WEAPONS MODELING, no speech, no campaign, no modem, umm
better be a reeeeeaaaaalllllly great flight model. Better make me
airsick.<VBG>
PAPA DOC
Edward T-Man Kinateder
>Funny, but I've always wondered about those who think they should set prices to
>suit themselves. I've never bought a Corvette because I think they cost more than
>I am willing to pay, I've never bought a Ferrari, etc. for the same reason, but
>I wouldn't write to GM, etc and complain that they should sell them to me for
>less otherwise other car mfrs will jack up prices.
I think people here a sounding off about this not because they expect
the manufacturers to change policy because of this NG but simply to
voice their concerns and see if others feel the same way.
>You indicated you wouldn't pay $100 for F2B - so don't. That's your personal
>choice, but I wonder about where the idea that MSI should charge less to keep
>other companies from following suit comes from.
I agree. Unless MSI is financially motivated, it would be pointless
at this stage of development. Let's see what happens after it is
released and the consumer exercises his choice of purchase.
> I think MSI sets their price based on the amount of money they spent on
>development. That's sunk cost - it's all expense and they have to recover it
>and make a profit or they won't stay in business.
Development cost certainly is a part of the beginning pricing equation
but by far, not the central element. Revenue opportunity is the
biggie. MSI as with any company is in the business of making money,
sets their pricing based on maximizing profit. Anything else is bunk.
(bunk....what a stupid word-heh but I goin' with it) MSI surely
evaluated the sim market (I hope) and projected they could charge at
least $100 before the number of potential consumers began dropping off
drastically and respectively, so would MSI's return on investment. If
they didn't and they have projected wrong than they will either go
belly up or we will see price cuts of this software within 3 months of
its release. Personally I think that producing a $100 combat sim
product is to target the hardcore combat simmers. It would be
revealing to see MSI's actual demographic of their target consumers.
I don't think I will pay that kind of money for a "no dynamic
campaign" environment, no matter how pretty the graphics are.
>That's pretty much what a free market system is all about. The mfrs (and MSI
>is no exception) charges quite a bit less than $100 - the retailers and
>distributors mark them up to make their profits and overhead too. Maybe it's
>just that "What America needs is a good 5 cent cigar." thing. It's an old
>saying, but it's still true. 8)
I agree about the free market. I would encourage those who are
disappointed with the "no dynamic campaign" feature to exercise your
free market rights and don't buy the product unless your really want
it. I can count at least 5 sims I purchased in the past years that I
had previous knowledge of their shortcomings yet I said to myself "Ahh
it can't be that bad....I'll give it a try". Then after a week, you
guys know the feeling, I say to myself "Why did I buy this...I knew
better".
Hell Buzz, when I researched flight controls I got the same feed back.
"This stinks, that sucks, this is stupid, that's great, you really
want this feature". What it boiled down to was that Thrustmaster
designed a product that has ALL the key features (at the time) that a
hard core combat flight simmer wants. You guys charged an arm and a
leg but I paid it for my TQS/FLCS. In my opinion as a TM owner, TM is
the best overall product on the market. It sure isn't the least
expensive. (Shit...here comes the flood of MS, CH hate male <VBG>).
So if someone comes along and offers a combat sim for twice the
contemporary price standard then they better offer ALL the "KEY"
features that a demanding flight combat simhead wants. All you have
to do is read this newsgroup for a week. When I say KEY, of course I
am not talking about the little things that are nice but not
essential. If a company chooses not to offer ALL the KEY features
then I hope the market demonstrates to them the mistake of their ways.
BTW, Buzz thanks for your dedicated NG support of your products. You
have been consistent for a long time. A guy does not have to be a TM
customer to appreciate that!
A final thought to all those who want B2B the way it is. More power
to ya'. I am sure you will get tons of enjoyment from the sim and be
glad you made the purchase and probably log countless hours using it.
Even EF2000 (after many improvement patches) has frustated the hell
out of me but I keep playing it. This is just a matter of personal
expectations.
T-Man
"Inside of twenty miles (20MI warning beeps in cockpit) Master arm on! Master arm on!"
2-MiGs vs 2-F14s
Jaggernaut
Joe Bellerose <o...@cris.com> wrote:
>Personally I'd pay 200 smackers to see a flight sim that used "modern"
>graphics and had "falcon" type campaign and action.
>My wallet is right here in my hand...bring it on.
>JEB in Vegas
>o...@cris.com
Personally I will proably wait 6 months and get it for half the
initial release price as I did with SU27.
Regards/Jagg
Bill Pierpont
>So if someone comes along and offers a combat sim for twice the
>contemporary price standard then they better offer ALL the "KEY"
>features that a demanding flight combat simhead wants. All you have
>to do is read this newsgroup for a week. When I say KEY, of course I
>am not talking about the little things that are nice but not
>essential. If a company chooses not to offer ALL the KEY features
>then I hope the market demonstrates to them the mistake of their ways.
>
>BTW, Buzz thanks for your dedicated NG support of your products. You
>have been consistent for a long time. A guy does not have to be a TM
>customer to appreciate that!
>
Good point. For a MSR price of 100.00 I expect the "standard features"
that are found in must of the top sims on the market.
Lots of veiws
voice comms
modem/net (although I don;t use them personally)
misson planning
wingmen commands
and even the little thing that aren't essential but add that little
extra something to a game.
B2B seems to be missing and lot of what the hardcore flight jocky is
used to.
I'll buy it when it is released but will buy from a place I can return
it from thats for sure.
Bill
John Lewis
rwh...@usaor.net (Rod White) wrote:
Marketing amateurs at MSI..........???
The cost of production & packaging of a CD-game (sorry, sim)
is around $5, maybe a few bucks higher for multiple-CDs.
In the volume retail software market, shelf-space is a
premium and games compete for a given allocation of shelf-
space in any of the large software chains, like Egghead,
CompUSA, etc. A game title with a (discount) cost of $75
and minority interest (try selling ANY game for more than
$50 these days...) will get little or no shelf-space.
Even worse, there is NO hope of it being sold in Costco
or Wal-Mart....
You may argue its merits, but EF2000 is a pretty serious
flight-sim and it has broken into the mass-retail market.
It is currently stocked in all the major software chains
in our local areas and in Price-Costco ( I have not
had the opportunity to check Wal-Mart ). Price: $40.
If BTB is as good as you claim, then MSI should price
it around $59.95 list, ($49.95 Egghead). After all,
there will be all those people accustomed to the
sophistication of EF2000 and Su-27 only too willing to
step up to that next level of realism......at the
right price!!!
It appears that MSI needs a lesson in the laws of
supply and demand and optimising return on investment.
They may get it... the hard way.... if they price BTB
wrongly.....
If they price BTB wrongly, the major chains will stock
it for a while to satisfy initial pent-up demand from
the "fanatics". Once that demand is gone, the game will
disappear << very quickly>>, except in the software
"speciality" stores who normally carry a wide selection
of product selling close to list and catering for a much
wider range of customer interest than the major chains.
Not the best way of maximising return on investment IMHO..
Beware of a list price in excess of $60, no matter how
fantastic all you flight-sim enthusiasts think it is.
MSI - you have been warned.....
John Lewis
Portland,
Oregon,
USA
Greg Cisko
In article <4nts89$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, pap...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Actually unless they do a dynamic campaign, unlikely. I worry more
>about not having modem capability. Seems like this was made for H2H.
>Well anyway I will reserve judgement then on padlock. Does it have
>voices?
Sure. Bitchin Betty :-) The Beta version does not have voices from other
aircraft, (or anywhere else). My personal pref is to have eye & ear candy,
then realism. But that is just me and has nothing to do with how this game
was designed (err... sim. Sorry). I suppose that you could argue that realism
equals radio chatter :-)
Example: I love USNF & StrikeCommander-CD and am not phased at tall that
radar & weapons are somewhat lacking by comparison. Obviously I do not know
what the final version will be like. I am hoping for air-air radio chatter
just like everyone else.
BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
SH is going to it also.
Buzz Hoffman
T-Man,
Thanx, I couldn't agree more and couldn't have said what you said better.
Regarding the NG support I provide. It's not really something I couldn't do.
Since we started ThrustMaster my main goal has been to try and make flight sims
and gaming more enjoyable, fun and realistic. If I didn't do what I'm doing here
and on the other services, etc, then I wouldn't ever have a chance of reaching
that goal (still working on it 8) ).
Buzz
<In article <31a28173...@news.n2.net>,
byth...@n2.net (Edward "T-Man" Kinateder) wrote:
Buzz Hoffman
Greg,
Let's all not forget how big a voice file is. If we want tons of voices, then
get ready to buy a REALLY BIG hard disk because you're gonna' need lots of space.
B2B takes up a lot of space now with what is there.
Also, regarding the Hawkeye, I saw Falcon 4 at E3 and it had a Hawkeye type sight
too. I don't claim to know what Falcon 4 will have in the release version, may
have a padlock, may not. I really don't care (personally) Hawkeye is fine for me.
Buzz
<In article <4nuv1o$q...@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Jeff Robbins
Greg Cisko wrote:
> BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
> Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
> SH is going to it also.
>
>
> >PAPA DOC
> >
> >>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
Well, for me, padlock is not a mute point. One voice, one vote. Hawkeye is the best
pop up window approach that I have seen. Better than USNF. However, Hawkeye does not
make me feel like my eyes are in the cockpit. In comparison, a 3D cockpit does. Even
the padlock that FD has, only showing the canopy braces and view through the canopy, is
OK and much better than a pop up window.
I am surprised that F4 will not have a padlock. Where did you read this? Perhaps they
will have both a padlock AND Hawkeye, so the user can choose which to use. If not, my
guess is, that they do not want to do all the programming required for a 3D cockpit, or
no longer have the expertise. Who in the flight sim community thinks the pop up window
adds to the realism and total sim experience?
I want a dynamic campaign, mission editor, modem, great terrain and object graphics,
accurate procedures, great internal cockpit views including the various padlocks,
accurate flight models, accurate avionics, accurate weapons modeling, great AI, great
wingman interaction, great interaction with other aircraft and ground control, good
weather effects (visually and on the flight model), accurate sound effects, and a good
manual. I will buy one sim that adds these characteristics in stages in a reasonable
time frame, rather than buy 3 sims that each only have combinations of these
characteristics.
IMHO,
Jeff Robbins
Ann Arbor, MI
Jaggernaut
bu...@thrustmaster.com (Buzz Hoffman) wrote:
>Greg,
>Let's all not forget how big a voice file is. If we want tons of voices, then
>get ready to buy a REALLY BIG hard disk because you're gonna' need lots of space.
>B2B takes up a lot of space now with what is there.
Not if the voice files played off the cd-rom.
Regards/Jagg
Rod White
joh...@teleport.com (John Lewis) wrote:
>rwh...@usaor.net (Rod White) wrote:
>Marketing amateurs at MSI..........???
Actually I won't argue one bit about the price. I think it
is a bit to high for ANY simulation personally. Yet keep
in mind this is even more serious than EF2000, in terms
of realism.
>If BTB is as good as you claim, then MSI should price
>it around $59.95 list, ($49.95 Egghead). After all,
>there will be all those people accustomed to the
>sophistication of EF2000 and Su-27 only too willing to
>step up to that next level of realism......at the
>right price!!!
Again I have no ties to MSI at all, aside from volunteering
some of my time to beta test B2B. So my "Claims" are nothing
but my opinion, based on what I have laid eyes on of the beta
version of B2B. MSI will price things how they choose, my opinions
will not change that. You also forget there is a large number of
sim lovers who just may pay any cost for a sim that offers the flight
model alone that B2B offers. And there are also people who would
never think of paying over $50 for any sim. I think MSI knows what
group they are targeting with B2B.
>It appears that MSI needs a lesson in the laws of
>supply and demand and optimising return on investment.
>They may get it... the hard way.... if they price BTB
>wrongly.....
>If they price BTB wrongly, the major chains will stock
>it for a while to satisfy initial pent-up demand from
>the "fanatics". Once that demand is gone, the game will
>disappear << very quickly>>, except in the software
>"speciality" stores who normally carry a wide selection
>of product selling close to list and catering for a much
>wider range of customer interest than the major chains.
>Not the best way of maximising return on investment IMHO..
>Beware of a list price in excess of $60, no matter how
>fantastic all you flight-sim enthusiasts think it is.
>MSI - you have been warned.....
>John Lewis
>Portland,
>Oregon,
>USA
Greg Cisko
In article <4nvlsu$vg_...@news.spry.com>, bu...@thrustmaster.com (Buzz Hoffman) writes:
>Greg,
>
>Let's all not forget how big a voice file is. If we want tons of voices, then
>get ready to buy a REALLY BIG hard disk because you're gonna' need lots of space.
This would be fine except for one small little tiny point. TopGun has a 100+ MB
voice file. It was the subject of much discussion. As it turns out, it runs just
fine from the CD (I have a 4X). If they could do it, so could b2b (MSI), in my
opinion. After all it is only software :-)
>B2B takes up a lot of space now with what is there.
Well since you are talking sizes, the beta CD I have is only 130MB in size
while the installed base is 35 MB. Obviously I have no idea what these numbers
will be like for the released game. Seems to me there is a little extra room
on the CD for voice files though. Just a random observation :-)
>
>Also, regarding the Hawkeye, I saw Falcon 4 at E3 and it had a Hawkeye type sight
>too. I don't claim to know what Falcon 4 will have in the release version, may
>have a padlock, may not. I really don't care (personally) Hawkeye is fine for me.
>
>Buzz
>
><In article <4nuv1o$q...@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
> ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) wrote:
>
>>In article <4nts89$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, pap...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>>>Actually unless they do a dynamic campaign, unlikely. I worry more
>>>about not having modem capability. Seems like this was made for H2H.
>>>Well anyway I will reserve judgement then on padlock. Does it have
>>>voices?
>>
>>Sure. Bitchin Betty :-) The Beta version does not have voices from other
>>aircraft, (or anywhere else). My personal pref is to have eye & ear candy,
>>then realism. But that is just me and has nothing to do with how this game
>>was designed (err... sim. Sorry). I suppose that you could argue that realism
>>equals radio chatter :-)
>>
>>Example: I love USNF & StrikeCommander-CD and am not phased at tall that
>>radar & weapons are somewhat lacking by comparison. Obviously I do not know
>>what the final version will be like. I am hoping for air-air radio chatter
>>just like everyone else.
>>
>>BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
>>Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
>>SH is going to it also.
>>
>>
>>>PAPA DOC
>>>
>>>>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
>>>
>>
>>
Greg Cisko
In article <31A390...@aa.wl.com>, Jeff Robbins <rob...@aa.wl.com> writes:
>Greg Cisko wrote:
>
>> BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
>> Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
>> SH is going to it also.
>>
>>
>> >PAPA DOC
>> >
>> >>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
>
>pop up window approach that I have seen. Better than USNF. However, Hawkeye does not
not aware you are a beta tester (it is a fairly large list of people).
>make me feel like my eyes are in the cockpit. In comparison, a 3D cockpit does. Even
>the padlock that FD has, only showing the canopy braces and view through the canopy, is
>OK and much better than a pop up window.
Then I suggest that you are not using the Hawkeye popup window properly. I even
suggested that any beta tester that actually thought padlock was a nessisity (instead
of hawkeye) needs to beta test more :-) I still believe it.
Like I said, I would worry about canned missions (and now no in flight voices from
anyone other than Bitch'n Betty) more than a lack of padlock.
>
>I am surprised that F4 will not have a padlock. Where did you read this? Perhaps
Someone who flew it at the E3 show mentioned it mentioned it.
they
>will have both a padlock AND Hawkeye, so the user can choose which to use. If not, my
>guess is, that they do not want to do all the programming required for a 3D cockpit, or
>no longer have the expertise. Who in the flight sim community thinks the pop up window
>adds to the realism and total sim experience?
>
>I want a dynamic campaign, mission editor, modem, great terrain and object graphics,
>accurate procedures, great internal cockpit views including the various padlocks,
>accurate flight models, accurate avionics, accurate weapons modeling, great AI, great
>wingman interaction, great interaction with other aircraft and ground control, good
>weather effects (visually and on the flight model), accurate sound effects, and a good
And a partridge in a pear tree :-)
Greg 'jaguar' Cisko
B2B Beta Team
"I'll turn your desert into glass"
>manual. I will buy one sim that adds these characteristics in stages in a reasonable
Edward T-Man Kinateder
pap...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Umm no speech? Well at least I wont have a dumbass mumbling BANDIT
>BANDIT. But really do wish that it wasnt true that speech had been
>left out. Ive tried flying EF2000 without speech hhhooooeeeeee boring.
>Can you say put me to sleep. So $100.00 for FANTASTIC FLIGHT MODEL,
>GREAT WEAPONS MODELING, no speech, no campaign, no modem, umm
>better be a reeeeeaaaaalllllly great flight model. Better make me
>airsick.<VBG>
T-Man turns his head to the right and glances through his canopy to
Papa Doc, floating along side of him at 20,000 feet. Doc suddenly
hears inside his helmet that simple yet all inclusive sound, "Click
Click".
Jeff Robbins
Greg Cisko wrote:
> In article <31A390...@aa.wl.com>, Jeff Robbins <rob...@aa.wl.com> writes:
>
> >Well, for me, padlock is not a mute point. One voice, one vote. Hawkeye is the best
> >pop up window approach that I have seen. Better than USNF. However, Hawkeye does not
> Have you seen Hawkeye? Are you a beta tester? If so, then my apologies. I was just
> not aware you are a beta tester (it is a fairly large list of people).
No I am not a beta tester but yes I have seen the Hawkeye view and tried
it, have tried the sim briefly, and saw many of its features, AND by
permission from MSI. Apology accepted. It was pre-beta at that stage.
Did so at FAAC.
> >make me feel like my eyes are in the cockpit. In comparison, a 3D cockpit does. Even
> >the padlock that FD has, only showing the canopy braces and view through the canopy, is
> >OK and much better than a pop up window.
> Then I suggest that you are not using the Hawkeye popup window properly. I even
> suggested that any beta tester that actually thought padlock was a nessisity (instead
> of hawkeye) needs to beta test more :-) I still believe it.
Well, OK, you got me there, but I doubt it. :) I only tried it for 3
hours and gave comments back to MSI. However, I can't imagine it growing
on me like that but I obviously can't say for sure. I am making a first
impression. I will say that I did like all the other toggle views they
have looking out, from inside the cockpit.
>
> Like I said, I would worry about canned missions (and now no in flight voices from
> anyone other than Bitch'n Betty) more than a lack of padlock.
Definitely. Padlock was not at the top of my list I sent to MSI, either.
Sure, if I have to prioritize from your list, sound would be at the top.
In fact, sound was not at the top of my list but, based on your
comments, they may have added what was at the top of my comment list.
> >
> >I want a dynamic campaign, mission editor, modem, great terrain and object graphics,
> >accurate procedures, great internal cockpit views including the various padlocks,
> >accurate flight models, accurate avionics, accurate weapons modeling, great AI, great
> >wingman interaction, great interaction with other aircraft and ground control, good
> >weather effects (visually and on the flight model), accurate sound effects, and a good
> And a partridge in a pear tree :-)
Absolutely. <..music..> And a padlock in a pear tree.... :)
Jeff Robbins
If it takes a 100M (suppose), why not make it an option to not install
and use as is, install on the HD, or play from CD-ROM? To get great
sound with the accurate avionics that BTB has, would be worth an extra
100M on my HD. Would it really take up that much space, though?
Speaking for myself of course.
Jeff Robbins
Ann Arbor, MI
> >>BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
> >>Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
> >>SH is going to it also.
> >>
> >>
> >>>PAPA DOC
> >>>
> >>>>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
JD
> I want a dynamic campaign, mission editor, modem, great terrain
and object graphics,
> accurate procedures, great internal cockpit views including the
various padlocks,
> accurate flight models, accurate avionics, accurate weapons
modeling, great AI, great
> wingman interaction, great interaction with other aircraft and
ground control, good
> weather effects (visually and on the flight model), accurate
sound effects, and a good
stages in a reasonable
> time frame, rather than buy 3 sims that each only have
combinations of these
> characteristics.
Exactly. Anything less will always disappoint. Maybe not to the
extent that you don't want to play the game, but a disappointment
none-the-less. I mean, it's not as if we're looking for something
that hasn't been done already. Each of these things has been done
in one sim or another, and a few sims have come very close to
putting them all together in one package. The one that eventually
does it will be the game that I'll consider laying out $100
for... or more. As I said, anything less...
Regards, JD
Greg Chamberlain
On 22 May 1996 11:50:16 GMT, ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko)
wrote:
>BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
^^^^
Greg, thats "Moot" point!!!! <ggggggggg>
Greg Chamberlain
On 23 May 1996 10:59:32 GMT, ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko)
wrote:
>Have you seen Hawkeye? Are you a beta tester? If so, then my apologies. I was just
>not aware you are a beta tester (it is a fairly large list of people).
>
Greg, why watse the effort, I think you've all explained what you know
on B2B pretty well. Alot here asked for the inside scoop , and you all
have tried within reason to help there.
The problem!!!... Now you all are getting beatup by some here for
doing so (The reason I ain't commented on B2B here) You just can't be
"NICE"!!!!!!!!
>
>
Kevin vipe Coulson
Brian Johnson <gjoh...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>P.S. and the last important detail.. FOR ALL FLT SIM COMPANIES IF YOU
>READ THIS... TRY, TRY, TRY to make the game not crash!! boy if ef2000
>could fix this for me and put in modem play I would have my copy bronzed
>and praise it all over the place!! (maybe the win95 version.. of course
>when I buy that one ef2000 becomes a $100 program.. maybe an upgrade fee
>will be in place for us poor dos people??
They're not gonna have modem play?!!! I'm sorry but this really bugs
me. Why no modem play from the word go? Really is annoying!
Not interested in escuses, just want modem play in every game.
vipe
Greg Chamberlain
On Mon, 20 May 1996 10:54:12 -0700, Julian Love
<julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
>sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
>little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
>
I post the message below in responds to another arcticle here crying
about B2B not having this VS EF2000, so I might as well post it here
as well....
Julian thus will help you and other understand why there is no canned
speech for B2B imho.
Hope this helps other realize what we really get in terms of speech
with B2B...................REAL DANG HUMAN VOICES!!
Don't know bout you, but I take'em!!!
Read below:
On Thu, 23 May 1996 08:53:05 GMT, joh...@teleport.com (John Lewis)
wrote:
>
>I am not a BTB beta-tester, so I have not seen any aspects of
>the sim. Would welcome a demo release !! However, mention of
>missing features such as voices etc. highly disturb me...
I hear what you've said, but why has noone read this from MSI? Its
been there all along (day 1) in the section about networking.....
Networked Play:
*@ One exciting feature of this network will be the addition of voice
*@ and data at the same time on the same telephone line. You will need
*@ a new modem capable of this feature like the US Robotics modem
*@ currently shipping, but the quality of the experience should be
*@ unlike anything on the market today. Stay tuned for more
*@ information *on this Networked feature.
So as you can see your voices will be those of "HUMAN" pilots, and not
those of pre-coded AI. Now tell me which would you really rather have?
>It has been stated repeatedly that BTB is going to "be the sim
>that ends all sims" and there have been indications that the
>price of the sim will reflect this assertion.
>
>Well, regardless of the accuracy of the flight-model, I am
>sorry to report that the sim buying-public today looks at the
>whole package of features before plonking down their money and
>the "default bar" of essential features has rapidly been raised by
>EF2000, Su-27 and the swath of other jet-fighter sims released
>in the past few months. The market is getting very, very crowded....
Personally, if you find flying an A/C (EF2K) realistic then there
should not be a problem with B2B. After all EuroFighter is still not
in service til the year 2000, so we really don't know how "realistic"
EF2000 is do we?
And we bought it anyway with the "bugs" and all included!!!!!
>I have not heard of a single feature of BTB that makes it stand
>out head and shoulder above the rest. I have heard of several
>missing features that should by now be considered "default" in
>flight-sims that the developer seems unwilling or incapable
>of adding.
I have, since I've seen the radars mode, and tlked with a friend who
works on the APG-68 radar for the USAF. He indicates its as close as
it can be from just what he sees thus far.
We wanted realism I thought, and now that we're getting close, it
seems we really just thought we wanted realism.....No?!?!?
I damaged the FCS onboard the plane, and the thing flew like a pig...I
DO MEAN PIG, tell me whre else you find the attention to the small
details? I personally ain't see any other yet (atleast until B2B)!!!!
>Again, outshine EF2000 in ALL major areas and you have a winner....
>Fall short and BTB will head rapidly to the "discount CD"
>shelves.
Guess we'll all see for sure! Geeeeeeeee, I was going to stay out of
this trivial argument about B2B V EF2K, but its getting so silly!!
If you don't want B2B just don't buy it right?.... After all its been
made for the "BIG BOYS" to play in anyway!!!
And we all know if ya can't bark with the BIG DOGS, then you stay off
the "PORCH"!!!!!! <gggggggggg>
pap...@ix.netcom.com
>If you don't want B2B just don't buy it right?.... After all its been
>made for the "BIG BOYS" to play in anyway!!!
>And we all know if ya can't bark with the BIG DOGS, then you stay off
>the "PORCH"!!!!!! <gggggggggg>
Well I guess Im not a big dog, because I too want to hear some
interaction with my cyber wingmen not much maybe, not drivel
but stuff like "break left, bandit deep in your six, Im high at your
seven" I am not sure about your post as it seems to say networked
play and yet it also says USrobotics. Thought networks were done with
networking cards. Does B2B have modem to modem? If it does then yes
I cant wait. If no and it only has NETWORK well in the two years Ive
been flying Ive never had the opportunity to fly network. Seems like a
rare thing to enjoy. As seen in the dispute long ago about EF2000 most
dont have the opportunity to enjoy networking so what difference does
it make to them if you can talk over the network. Yet these same
people will be flying along in a sim listening to what? I mean heh I
like the sound of a GENERAL ELECTRIC JET ENGINE as much as the next
guy but more than 10 hours of it might be a little too much.<VBG>
PAPA DOC #1 Prodigy Falcon Ladder
DAMAGE, Inc. currently 1st in the INTER TFW comp.
Greg Cisko
In article <4o78qq$d...@news.accessus.net>, gr...@basenet.net (Greg Chamberlain) writes:
>On Mon, 20 May 1996 10:54:12 -0700, Julian Love
><julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Yeah, and not having in-flight speach is a big turn-off IMO. How can a
>>sim claim to be state-of-the-art in realism when you have to read a
>>little message at the top of your screen in the middle of a furball?
>>
>
>I post the message below in responds to another arcticle here crying
>about B2B not having this VS EF2000, so I might as well post it here
>as well....
>
>Julian thus will help you and other understand why there is no canned
>speech for B2B imho.
>
At first I thought you were joking. Oh joy.
>
>Hope this helps other realize what we really get in terms of speech
>with B2B...................REAL DANG HUMAN VOICES!!
>
>Don't know bout you, but I take'em!!!
I sure haven't Officially read or heard this. I did read something about
network play. I did not get the impression that HAVING REAL HUMAN VOICES
in the manner you suggest, is why there is no canned speech. I rather
got the impression that it was cause the SPEECH file would be too big.
This is not a "feature" that blows my skirt up :-)
Greg 'jaguar' Cisko
B2B Beta Team
"I'll turn your desert into glass"
>
George T. Keverian
Hey everyone on this thread, you guys don't understand some of the physical limitations to what we have done.
Let me take a moment and reflect.
1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the same time. We can play
2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game companies can achieve.
2) Sounds take up RAM and RAM is in short supply in this game. When you have over 20MB of Textures you
see that there are some technical problems with that. Secondly some of our sound files last 30
seconds! I.e. the Nuke explosion.
3) To place voice that is clear and understandable along with TWIS (RWR) , Engine, explosions, and the
other 100+ sounds that we created along with a top notch flight model, scoring system, digital adversary, etc,
etc, needed another 6 months of code development. Do you want to wait for some digital advesary to keep
yelling everytime he sees a blip on the radar "gota spike, gota spike" How about "giving me a break"
So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent, then buy someone elses game. If you
want a real simulation system then buy this.
George Keverian
Program Manager - Director
Military Simulations Inc.
Back To Baghdad (tm)
By the way, Jeff, I happend to be reading the thread and this memo was not really meant at anyone personally.
Yours was the one I happend to click on to respond to the General Thread. I don't mean to be picking on anyone
here just stating the facts. I didn't think anyone wanted me to hold up releasing this sim because I needed to
do database paging on a single processor with only 16MB of RAM did they?
> > >>BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
> > >>Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
> > >>SH is going to it also.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>PAPA DOC
> > >>>
> > >>>>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
George T. Keverian
enzo wrote:
>
> I'm used to spending $40 on a game merely from word-of-mouth and other
> reccomendations. I've got burned a few times - and gotten really
> pissed off. B2B - at $100 - is *not* something I'm going to buy
> sight unseen. I hope MSI releases a demo that shows off what B2B
> does so I can judge for myself if it's worth shelling out such a
> ridiculous sum of money.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Neil Mouneimne | "The Apples are coming! The Apples are coming!
> en...@outwest.com | No, wait. They're going away again."
> |
> ---CS-Anime-Bab5-SegaAM-Mtn_Bikes-RPGs-Newton-Ducatis-Hk-Glock-Rally--Hi Enzo, Sorry but to release a demo which is over 60 MB of data is not practical. If you don't believe the
beta testers on their opinion, travel to AFCEA show in Washington DC the week of June 6 - 8 and visit the USAF
booth. This is the Armed forces show. You will find at least 4 copies of B2B in the USAF booth and probably
another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I would think it should be good
enough for most people.
George T. Keverian
Program Manager - Director
Military Simulations Inc.
Back to Baghdad (tm)
RDClark
>1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at
>the same time. We can play
> 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game
>companies can achieve.
Don't tell Origin, or LucasArts, or Apogee, or any of the other companies
that routinely get 4 to 8 channels of digital audio, streamed and mixed on
the fly, from a garden-variety SBPro.
>2) Sounds take up RAM and RAM is in short supply in this game. When
>you have over 20MB of Textures you
> see that there are some technical problems with that. Secondly
some >of our sound files last 30
>seconds! I.e. the Nuke explosion.
That's what extended memory is for. You include the features, then let the
user tailor the gaming environment to suit his hardware. If you must make
some of the texture-maps optional on machines with less than 16Mb, you do
so.
>3) To place voice that is clear and understandable along with TWIS
>(RWR) , Engine, explosions, and the
>other 100+ sounds that we created along with a top notch flight model,
scoring >system, digital adversary, etc,
>etc, needed another 6 months of code development. Do you want to wait for
>some digital advesary to keep
>yelling everytime he sees a blip on the ike" How about >"giving me a
break"
Well, if the in-game environment is so sterile and lifeless that no one
ever has any important information for you, than it can't be much of a
game anyway. If they *do* have important information for you, I want to
hear it, not read it.
>So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent,
then >buy someone elses game. If you
>want a real simulation system then buy this.
I guess what I want is a real simulation system with an engrossing gaming
system wrapped around it. If that's not what B2B is supposed to be, then
excuse me for commenting.
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|--RichC--------------My Rates: $0.50 for Pushing the Button--|
|--rd...@aol.com---$45.50 for Knowing Which Button to Push--|
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
Grundman
You know, has anyone else noticed the truely UNBELIEVABLE turnaround of
the flight-sim newsgroups attitude toward this sim, once they found out
it will ship with no voices? I mean, everybody, EVERYBODY was
talking about this sim, nearly wetting themselves with
anticipation (including myself), and now its bash city, and
deservedly so.
Considering the fact of who started this project, and what there
purpose was for B2B (a sim for the hardcore enthusiast out there, like
me), its truely, truely unfathomable to me they could make such a
marketing blunder. I'm sure they knew they'd recieve some flak about the
non-campaign thing, that goes without saying, but to not include voices
is akin to shipping a product with CGA graphics and 12 3.5" diskettes in
1996. I can understand the non dynamic campaign thing, that is
incredibly hard to program (hats of to DID), but did they think we would
'fall' for a lack of voices?
I couldn't believe the atmosphere that was created when I first heard
wingmen replies in Falcon 3. It makes you feel like your part of a team,
that there is other people out there instead of you against the world.
And I certainly hope they don't plan on showing wingmen comments
onscreen in subtitles, PUUHLEEASE!
Between this and the Spectrum Holobyte thing, I beginning to wonder if
somebody is tainting the water supply somewhere . . .
Grundman
Don Rinker
B2B - at $100 - is *not* something I'm going to buy
>>> sight unseen. I hope MSI releases a demo that shows off what B2B
>>> does so I can judge for myself if it's worth shelling out such a
>>> ridiculous sum of money.
If you don't believe the
>>beta testers on their opinion, travel to AFCEA show in Washington DC the
week of June 6 - 8 and visit the USAF
>>booth. This is the Armed forces show. You will find at least 4 copies of B2B
in the USAF booth and probably
>>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
would think it should be good
>>enough for most people.
>>
>>George T. Keverian
>>Program Manager - Director
>>Military Simulations Inc.
>>Back to Baghdad (tm)
Gee, isn't that the same fine outfit that bought Coffee makers for 25,000.00
and toilet seats for 50,000.00?
You can sell those procurement departments anything, even all the copies
of B2B you won't be selling.............
pap...@ix.netcom.com
"George T. Keverian" <keve...@military-sim.com> wrote:
>, Sorry but to release a demo which is over 60 MB of data is not practical. If you don't believe the
>beta testers on their opinion, travel to AFCEA show in Washington DC the week of June 6 - 8 and visit the USAF
>booth. This is the Armed forces show. You will find at least 4 copies of B2B in the USAF booth and probably
>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I would think it should be good
>enough for most people.
>George T. Keverian
>Program Manager - Director
>Military Simulations Inc.
>Back to Baghdad (tm)
Its about time to hold up on the opinions of what you should have
done. Its too late for that. But in the future sims you put out
consider that many of the people complaining have some legit
concerns. I think its a frustration driven because of the total lack
of understanding on what people want, by the current developers.
I mean US NAVY FIGHTERS real pretty but arcadish, EF2000 real real
pretty but flawed with dumb wingmen ,dumb wargen (though its a
wonderful attempt to produce a dynamic campaign) and heh who knows if
the flight model is realistic. And other problems that to DID's credit
they are trying to fix. Where was I oh yea lets see ATF geez another
US NAVY FIGHTERS. Do developers realise that when we talk about great
sims we hardly ever mention anything done in the last two years?
Strike Eagle III, TORNADO, FALCON3.... what happened did every
developer look at those terrifically fun sims and say nah lets not do
that. Lets give em something they havent been asking for. Lets give
them NETWORK (for the .02 percent that can use it) and other stuff
that really doesnt make sense.
What is a good list to start with on what I want. Here goes.
1. Dynamic Campaign ( gotta say DID is close on this one)
2. Terrific AI (falcon3 pretty damn good in bandit AI)
3. Multiple flight model ie easy, hard, harder, realistic
4. Information on results in current campaign
5. Backround sounds (Currently I like APACHE )and to really impress
me give me wingmen who actually say something intelligent.<VBG>
6. Ability to plan the missions for at least the strike package Im
part of. Im told that Tornado has the best
7. Wingman control. Falcon does that the best so far.
8. MODEM TO MODEM and NETWORK for those who can.
Im really dissapointed to say that I and many others dont have access
to Networks. With modem to modem heh I can fight whenever I want
without shelping my puter all over the place.
9. Great graphics of course this is being done by all so really doesnt
bear mentioning. But consider that even with VGA graphics many still
consider TORNADO, FALCON3 better overall than the current crop.
10. Well tested product..........no need to comment on that.
My perfect sim would be FALCON3 with SVGA , Stingers comms, Strat
Falc, and lead pursuit missiles. Loads of fun and realistic without
being a job.
Anyway sorry to take so much of your time with this but felt it needed
saying.
PAPA DOC
Julian Love
George T. Keverian wrote:
>Enzo, Sorry but to release a demo which is over 60 MB of data is not
>practical.
Erm, the last I heard a cover CD on a games magazine could hold 600MB.
Have a word with PC Review - they've just put a 130MB Top Gun 2
mission playable demo on their cover CD. If you make a 60MB demo, I'm
sure most games mags would be itching to put it on their CDs. Cover CDs
are half of what sells a mag these days.
Julian
_____________________________________________________________________
julia...@sjc.ox.ac.uk Department of Biological Anthropology
University of Oxford
Greg Cisko
In article <31A91A...@ix.netcom.com>, Grundman <grun...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> I couldn't believe the atmosphere that was created when I first heard
>wingmen replies in Falcon 3. It makes you feel like your part of a team,
>that there is other people out there instead of you against the world.
>And I certainly hope they don't plan on showing wingmen comments
>onscreen in subtitles, PUUHLEEASE!
Oh I wouldn't worry about that. hehe. The REAL question to ask, is if there will
be any wingmen :-)
I am getting the idea that just like the voices are going to be a NETWORKed thing,
so will the wingmen. Of course I don't know this for sure. But I think it would
do some good to ask about the wingman thing. I spotted none in the beta.
jaguar
Lemelle, Paul D.
In article <31A91A...@ix.netcom.com>, grun...@ix.netcom.com writes...
>You know, has anyone else noticed the truely UNBELIEVABLE turnaround of
>the flight-sim newsgroups attitude toward this sim, once they found out
>it will ship with no voices? I mean, everybody, EVERYBODY was
>talking about this sim, nearly wetting themselves with
>anticipation (including myself), and now its bash city, and
>deservedly so.
> Considering the fact of who started this project, and what there
>purpose was for B2B (a sim for the hardcore enthusiast out there, like
>me), its truely, truely unfathomable to me they could make such a
>marketing blunder. I'm sure they knew they'd recieve some flak about the
>non-campaign thing, that goes without saying, but to not include voices
>is akin to shipping a product with CGA graphics and 12 3.5" diskettes in
>1996. I can understand the non dynamic campaign thing, that is
>incredibly hard to program (hats of to DID), but did they think we would
>'fall' for a lack of voices?
>wingmen replies in Falcon 3. It makes you feel like your part of a team,
>that there is other people out there instead of you against the world.
>And I certainly hope they don't plan on showing wingmen comments
>onscreen in subtitles, PUUHLEEASE!
>somebody is tainting the water supply somewhere . . .
>
I agree 100% with your satements. When EF2K first came out, I
thought that it had the worse radio messages of any flight-sim.
Now, MSI is saying that we don't get that much!
EF2000 may have its problems, but atleast DID is giving its
customers what they are asking for - at a reasonable price. B2B's
flight model MAY be top-notch, but at a $100 price tag (no modem,
no campagin, no mission planner, no radio communcations) I can
wait for DI's F-16, SH's F4, or just stick with the BEST flight-sim
out now - EF2000.
In memory of Rodeny King, "No modem, no campaign, no purchase!"
-Paul.
Mike Bakke
In article <31A8AF...@military-sim.com>
keve...@military-sim.com "George T. Keverian" writes:
> Sorry but to release a demo which is over 60 MB of data is not practical.
>
> George T. Keverian
>
I agree it's not feasible on the net, but I have a shelf full of
CDs off games mags each holding (pretty much) 650 megs of crap :)
--
Mike Bakke
Mike Bakke
In article <31A8B1...@military-sim.com>
> limitations to what we have done.
Written a game?
> Let me take a moment and reflect.
>
> 1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the
> same time. We can play
> 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game
> companies can achieve.
I'm not technical enough to discuss in detail - all I can say is
that what the "incompetent" coders do manage is to fool my ears
that all those sounds *are* happening. Result = enhanced immersion.
>
> 2) Sounds take up RAM and RAM is in short supply in this game. When you
> have over 20MB of Textures you
> see that there are some technical problems with that. Secondly some of
> our sound files last 30
> seconds! I.e. the Nuke explosion.
RAM would seem to be in short supply in any game these days?
>
> 3) To place voice that is clear and understandable along with TWIS (RWR) ,
> Engine, explosions, and the
> other 100+ sounds that we created along with a top notch flight model, scoring
> system, digital adversary, etc,
> etc, needed another 6 months of code development. Do you want to wait for some
> digital advesary to keep
> yelling everytime he sees a blip on the radar "gota spike, gota spike" How
> about "giving me a break"
Memory could be fooling me (It's in short supply - see above) but
I seem to recall my WSO in F15 SEIII calling "Mud Spike" *once*
just as I want him to. If you can't manage to limit calls then I
guess there is a problem.
>
> So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent, then
> buy someone elses game. If you
> want a real simulation system then buy this.
>
Yee Har George - Dincha just lurve those good ole boys accents in
USNF - Boom Oh Yeah - Have a nice day y'all....
> George Keverian
> Program Manager - Director
> Military Simulations Inc.
> Back To Baghdad (tm)
>
> By the way, Jeff, I happend to be reading the thread and this memo was not
> really meant at anyone personally.
> Yours was the one I happend to click on to respond to the General Thread. I
> don't mean to be picking on anyone
> here just stating the facts. I didn't think anyone wanted me to hold up
> releasing this sim because I needed to
> do database paging on a single processor with only 16MB of RAM did they?
>
Hmmm. If you don't *want* to then don't. What Jeff, others and I are
*querying* was the lack of voice which - rightly or not is sort of
expected these days. My *personal* opinion is that it adds greatly
to the experience when it's done right.
My real concern I guess was the tone of the response - it just sounded
a little too keen to justify decisions and denigrate other products. If
you are proud of what you have achieved then get it out the door at the
right time and if you're right the praise follows. I wish you well because
if you are right we all win - if not, I've spent another ??UKP and
decreased available shelf space (sigh..)
In Hope
--
Mike Bakke
Bill Gillam
On 27 May 1996 01:30:07 GMT, dri...@fast.net (Don Rinker) wrote:
> You will find at least 4 copies of B2B
>in the USAF booth and probably
>>>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
>would think it should be good
>>>enough for most people.
>Gee, isn't that the same fine outfit that bought Coffee makers for 25,000.00
>and toilet seats for 50,000.00?
>You can sell those procurement departments anything, even all the copies
>of B2B you won't be selling.............
I think its also the same outfit that trains the guys that fly the
actual plane. Pilots (esp. Military) would not tolerate a sub standard
"wanna-be" sim.
Dont want to pay $100 for B2B? Cant afford it?
Fine, dont buy it.
Nice try Don.
Regards-
Bill
Member, Beta Test Team
Back to Baghdad
Duke Nukem
On 27 May 1996 01:30:07 GMT, dri...@fast.net (Don Rinker) wrote:
>B2B - at $100 - is *not* something I'm going to buy
>>>> sight unseen. I hope MSI releases a demo that shows off what B2B
>>>> does so I can judge for myself if it's worth shelling out such a
>>>> ridiculous sum of money.
>
>
>
> If you don't believe the
>>>beta testers on their opinion, travel to AFCEA show in Washington DC the
>week of June 6 - 8 and visit the USAF
>>>booth. This is the Armed forces show. You will find at least 4 copies of B2B
>in the USAF booth and probably
>>>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
>would think it should be good
>>>enough for most people.
>>>
>>>George T. Keverian
>>>Program Manager - Director
>>>Military Simulations Inc.
>>>Back to Baghdad (tm)
>
>
>Gee, isn't that the same fine outfit that bought Coffee makers for 25,000.00
>and toilet seats for 50,000.00?
>
They just have it because its over priced. I think thats AF spic.
Brian Johnson
Bill Gillam wrote:
>
> On 27 May 1996 01:30:07 GMT, dri...@fast.net (Don Rinker) wrote:
>
> > You will find at least 4 copies of B2B
> >in the USAF booth and probably
> >>>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
> >would think it should be good
> >>>enough for most people.
>
> >and toilet seats for 50,000.00?
> >of B2B you won't be selling.............
>
> I think its also the same outfit that trains the guys that fly the
> actual plane. Pilots (esp. Military) would not tolerate a sub standard
> "wanna-be" sim.
>
> Dont want to pay $100 for B2B? Cant afford it?
> Fine, dont buy it.
>
> Nice try Don.
>
> Regards-
>
> Bill
>
> Member, Beta Test Team
> Back to Baghdad
You guys are forgetting one thing.. we are not flighter pilots (at
least I'm assuming). The vast majority want realism (sound), but we also
want a GAME!! A campaign, voices, accurate weapons modeling. I read one
of the posts a while back commenting on how the navy or was it air
force uses a $600 dollar piece of software to flight train pilots...
they also said it was the most boring peice of garbage they ever had
seen!!! realism is great.. we all want it. However, if it doesn't have
the other aspects that make flt sims enjoyable, such as sound, graphics,
smart AI then you are shooting yourself in the foot. When the makers of
B2B wrote here (I think they are writing here) then they opened
themselves up for opinions. I personally don't want to slam them I just
think that if they don't put any voices in it then I PROBABLY (note the
probably) wouldn't buy it. My opinion, and others seem to have the same
opinion. I bought flight unlimited.. guess what I returned it 2 days
later!! It had great graphics, great flight modeling.. the thing for me
was it was BORING!! No wingman, no missiles, no one shooting at me... I
need all of those.. anything less and I wouldn't buy. There are other
games/flt sims out there that have all of those (well with a few more
good patches :> I will just stay with those. For me to buy another flt.
sim you have to beat the other old ones (ie. ef2000, janes atf, su27)
(actually I just have ef2000, I've heard the other ones are good also)
-Brian
P.s. if you don't want opinions why would anyone write to a public
newsgroup??
The Dark Knight
George T. Keverian (keve...@military-sim.com) wrote:
: So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent,
: then buy someone elses game.
:
: George Keverian
: Program Manager - Director
: Military Simulations Inc.
: Back To Baghdad (tm)
You know, after reading such a biting and inflamatory responce I think I
just might.
(BTW, sampled sounds don't turn my crank either. I'm more interested in a
dynamic campaign as opposed to canned missions. I can't wait read your
response to those questions.)
"So if you want a campaign that changes based on your actions instead of
a pre-determined order of canned missions then buy someone elses game."
Don "Ace" Mappin
Official Member of the EF2000 V3 Beta Support Group
s-2...@mailbox.swipnet.se
In <31A91A...@ix.netcom.com>, Grundman <grun...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>You know, has anyone else noticed the truely UNBELIEVABLE turnaround of
>the flight-sim newsgroups attitude toward this sim, once they found out
>it will ship with no voices? I mean, everybody, EVERYBODY was
>talking about this sim, nearly wetting themselves with
>anticipation (including myself), and now its bash city, and
>deservedly so.
> Considering the fact of who started this project, and what there
>purpose was for B2B (a sim for the hardcore enthusiast out there, like
>me), its truely, truely unfathomable to me they could make such a
>marketing blunder. I'm sure they knew they'd recieve some flak about the
>non-campaign thing, that goes without saying, but to not include voices
>is akin to shipping a product with CGA graphics and 12 3.5" diskettes in
>1996. I can understand the non dynamic campaign thing, that is
>incredibly hard to program (hats of to DID), but did they think we would
>'fall' for a lack of voices?
> I couldn't believe the atmosphere that was created when I first heard
>wingmen replies in Falcon 3. It makes you feel like your part of a team,
>that there is other people out there instead of you against the world.
>And I certainly hope they don't plan on showing wingmen comments
>onscreen in subtitles, PUUHLEEASE!
>Between this and the Spectrum Holobyte thing, I beginning to wonder if
>somebody is tainting the water supply somewhere . . .
>
>Grundman
Excellent post Grundman, as allways...
I've been talking to a friend of mine the last days or so. (not the whole time, but
now and then). He's 40 years old and picked up Flight Sims a year and a half ago.
(I'm 26 myself, so we're NOT same generation - Talk about generation merging
pass time :-) ).
He's what I call a Graphics Nut. Anything he has should run in SVGA many thousands
of colors etc. Big troubble is - he's got a 486 VLB 66!
Now to the point. He started of with RedBaron and acouple of WWII sims. Soon he
got hold of Falcon 3. He played that one and Tornado alot. He loved em both.
Tornado for it's totally convincing missionplanning etc.
Lately he's picked up EF2k. He loves it...too. BUT...
What he's been telling me over and over again the last week is how well the
presence of wingmen is in F3 as opposed to EF2k. All comes down to things
anybody who's been following the threads about EF2k allready know about.
Secondly, he wimps about a good debreif in EF2k. But this is out of matter. What
isn't out of matter is the fact that he's been playing EF2k in plain untextured VGA.
And he still likes it. Because it does have athomsphere!
You can put anything into a bloody game: Full motion video (AARGHH!!!), VFX-
support ($$$$$), Hi-SVGA GrFx, multiple screens a la Macintosh/B2B, dynamic
campaigns, best 3D-engine _ever_. But if you're lacking the basic "I'm doing
something here"-sensation, then you'll lose out anyway.
The way I see it, B2B is going to lose big time. I'm not saying it's not going to be
a killer, but not including the most common communications between you and
your wingmen is a big drawback. Look at Tornado. Great sim, but the lack of
S/A when it comes to what your wingmen are doing is a bitch.
If I'd had shares in the company behind B2B, I'd say:"keep it in 'till you get some
speech out of the speakers. Even at the cost of the graphics!"
Trak Dah / the best in music
Robert Borjesson
JD
> This is the Armed forces show. You will find at least 4 copies
> another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the
Air Force, I would think it should be good
> enough for most people.
Nobody's questioning the level of accuracy you're putting into
your sim, George. We're just wondering how good of a game you've
built _around_ your sim. I don't think this is something the USAF
would be all that concerned with.
Setting your MSRP at $100 is probably fine so long as you can get
most of the grognards <like me> to buy into it. In effect, you're
relying on us because at that price, the casual/impulse market
isn't going to be there for you. However, most of us grognards,
the ones without network access that is, expect certain things to
be in our sims. We look at our old favorites and expect the
latest and greatest to build upward from there. From what I'm
hearing here, it looks like you've invested all of your resources
into a part of the formula while completely ignoring another,
equally important, part.
I view this as a personal loss, because B2B sounds like a game I
would have otherwise enjoyed. Still I'll wish you success...
and perhaps your next effort will be THE ONE <g>.
Regards, JD
Dale Paulus
A point in time earlier, "George T. Keverian" <keve...@military-sim.com> wrote:
> You will find at least 4 copies of B2B in the USAF booth and probably
>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
> would think it should be good enough for most people.
Aren't these the same guys who paid over $600 for a hammer??
=================================================================
| O oi che siete in piccioletta barcha. |
| One who achieves supreme illumination is like an arrow |
| flying straight to hell. |
| Prisons are built with the stones of law, |
| brothels are built with the bricks of religion. |
| |
| dpa...@conline.com http://www.conline.com/~dpaulus/index.htm |
=================================================================
Dale Paulus
> limitations to what we have done.
>Let me take a moment and reflect.
>
>1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the
> same time. We can play 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game
> companies can achieve.
Maybe that's why I bought a card with 4 voices and stereo sound. (At least a
far as the box says). You don't always have to go for the least common
denominator.
>2) Sounds take up RAM and RAM is in short supply in this game. When you
> have over 20MB of Textures you see that there are some technical problems with that.
Other programmers seem to get around this limitation.
>3) To place voice that is clear and understandable along with TWIS (RWR) ,
> Engine, explosions, and the other 100+ sounds that we created along with a top notch flight
> model, scoring system, digital adversary, etc, etc, needed another 6 months
of code development. Do you want to wait for some digital advesary to keep
>yelling everytime he sees a blip on the radar "gota spike, gota spike" How
> about "giving me a break"
You could've started six months ago doing this and then the point would be
moot. And the answer to your question is "Yes".
>So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent, then
> buy someone elses game. If you want a real simulation system then buy this.
I did. I guess I just expected yours not only match what they had, but to
exceed it. On all fronts.
Julian Love
> : George Keverian
> : Program Manager - Director
> : Military Simulations Inc.
> : Back To Baghdad (tm)
>
> I just might.
on my computer. You have no right to criticise a sim in an area that you
haven't even tried to implement because its "too difficult". You just
can't accept ther fact that people have pointed out that your baby has a
few flaws in it that do not make it the 'killer sim' you wanted us
to think it was.
Paul Campbell
Bill Gillam wrote:
>
> On 27 May 1996 01:30:07 GMT, dri...@fast.net (Don Rinker) wrote:
>
> > You will find at least 4 copies of B2B
> >in the USAF booth and probably
> >>>another 4 copies in the SAIC booth. If it's good enough for the Air Force, I
> >would think it should be good
> >>>enough for most people.
>
> >and toilet seats for 50,000.00?
> >You can sell those procurement departments anything, even all the copies
> >of B2B you won't be selling.............
>
> I think its also the same outfit that trains the guys that fly the
> actual plane. Pilots (esp. Military) would not tolerate a sub standard
> "wanna-be" sim.
>
> Dont want to pay $100 for B2B? Cant afford it?
> Fine, dont buy it.
>
> Nice try Don.
>
> Regards-
>
> Bill
>
> Member, Beta Test Team
> Back to Baghdad
Don't worry we won't :).
Paul C.
UK.
IROC
On May 22, 1996 21:16:46 in article <Re: B2B: 100 smackers?>,
'bu...@thrustmaster.com (Buzz Hoffman)' wrote:
>T-Man,
>
>Thanx, I couldn't agree more and couldn't have said what you said better.
>
>Regarding the NG support I provide. It's not really something I couldn't
do.
>Since we started ThrustMaster my main goal has been to try and make flight
>sims
>and gaming more enjoyable, fun and realistic. If I didn't do what I'm
doing
>here
>and on the other services, etc, then I wouldn't ever have a chance of
reaching
>that goal (still working on it 8) ).
>
>
>Buzz
>
><In article <31a28173...@news.n2.net>,
>byth...@n2.net (Edward "T-Man" Kinateder) wrote:
>
>>>Funny, but I've always wondered about those who think they should set
prices
>to
>>>suit themselves. I've never bought a Corvette because I think they cost
more
>than
>>>I am willing to pay, I've never bought a Ferrari, etc. for the same
reason,
>but
>>>I wouldn't write to GM, etc and complain that they should sell them to
me
>for
>>>less otherwise other car mfrs will jack up prices.
>>
>>I think people here a sounding off about this not because they expect
>>the manufacturers to change policy because of this NG but simply to
>>voice their concerns and see if others feel the same way.
>>
>>>You indicated you wouldn't pay $100 for F2B - so don't. That's your
>personal
>>>choice,
I'll just wait till it ends up in the bargin bin for $15.00
If they need to charge $100 for it it should show up in the bin in about 3
months cause it wont sell.
Just my Humble uninformed opinion
Paul Campbell
> >Hey everyone on this thread, you guys don't understand some of the physical
> > limitations to what we have done.
> >Let me take a moment and reflect.
> >
> >1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the
> > same time. We can play 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game
> > companies can achieve.
Bullshit ! - Plenty of games offer up to 8 simultaneous sounds (Hexen etc) you just have to
do a bit of real-time sample mixing in software.
Paul C.
UK.
Lawrence Severian Susan Brown
Just to comment on the title of this thread. Perhaps those who are
complaining about the price tag are under a misapprehension (or
perhaps I am) but I think that's *suggested* retail price. Does anybody
here actually buy software at MFSRP, I know I don't. Chips and Bits
(haven't bought from em, I usually use Flight Sim Central, but Chips and
Bits are the only ones I've seen with a posted price for B2B) are
quoting $60.80. That's only about $5 more than I've paid for several
of my CDROMs.
FWIW,
Larry
JD
> My real concern I guess was the tone of the response - it just
sounded
> a little too keen to justify decisions and denigrate other
products.
It's called "pre-release damage control", Mike. I hope it flies
too... competition can only be good for us, even if it is a
little behind the curve. And you never know, maybe their next sim
design will be thought out just a little bit better.
Regards, JD
Hemo
In article <4obnbu$b...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, pap...@ix.netcom.com says:
>
>"George T. Keverian" <keve...@military-sim.com> wrote:
>
>>enough for most people.
>
>>Program Manager - Director
>>Military Simulations Inc.
Boy, the more I read this newsgroup, the more I learn. Too bad about the
high price for B2B. Will keep me from buying it. Also to bad about the
lack of features in a computer game. If I wanted the flight trainer the
USAF uses, then I'd call them and see if they'd sell it to me. But I don't,
I want a flight sim that has the features in it that I find enjoyable.
I have to agree with everything papa doc said. I too am a F3 fan and
would be tickled to death if SH would've simply re-released F3 in SVGA
mode with a few minor additions. That would be the perfect flight sim
in my opinion. Maybe SH will get the message and F4 will be what I'm
looking for. From the sounds of things, B2B is off in left field catering
to a minority. Maybe not though. I will continue to follow the posts in
this newsgroup to see if B2B is something that I might want down the road.
s-2...@mailbox.swipnet.se
> limitations to what we have done.
> Let me take a moment and reflect.
>
> 1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the
> most game companies can achieve.
>
I'm really tired of this. WHAT 2 Voices?!!!
Look at what's happening. Here someone says:"you'll have to have Win95 to run
the prog." (not B2B, but...) and almost everyone goes:"OK, let's get Win95... and
the extra 8MB and a new video card etc".
Then comes a game with great potential, and it NEEDS more that the 2 voices
available to the crappy SoundBlaster cards. And I don't hear any companies saying:
"You'll need a Gravis or Turtle Beach for this game".
This is bogus!
If we want speech (us as in private people, not U.S. as in AirFarce!) give it to us.
It is faisible. No, not on a SB, but there are cards capable of this!
Say it again MSI: BOGUS!
And then you want us to pay 100US$ for it. Well, dumb as we are, we just might...
James Wall
>So if you want voices that keep saying the same
>thing in a funny accent, then buy someone elses
>game. If you want a real simulation system then buy this.
I don't buy your excuses.
I won't buy your game.
And although I despise DID, you should bear in mind that the point
you've aimed for with B2B is substancially lower than the one they
aimed for with EF2000. You're knocking them for blundering in areas
you won't even try. I don't buy from McDonalds because they're evil,
and I won't buy from you because you're a git. :P
Please, consider Star Fleets regulations on temporal displacement
before you go any further in your plans to release a 1986 sim in 1996
for a 2006 price tag. You don't want to go around polluting the time
line any further.
It's been great not doing business with you.
a lpha66@h unterlink.n et.a u
bury your head in the sand
bury your face in your hands
.N ewcastle, A ustralia.
Greg Cisko
In article <4ofqir$g...@mn5.swip.net>, s-2...@mailbox.swipnet.se writes:
>>In article <31A8B1...@military-sim.com>
>> keve...@military-sim.com "George T. Keverian" writes:
>> Hey everyone on this thread, you guys don't understand some of the physical
>> limitations to what we have done.
>> Let me take a moment and reflect.
>>
>> 1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the
>> same time. We can play 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than
>> most game companies can achieve.
>>
>
>I'm really tired of this. WHAT 2 Voices?!!!
>Look at what's happening. Here someone says:"you'll have to have Win95 to run
>the prog." (not B2B, but...) and almost everyone goes:"OK, let's get Win95... and
>the extra 8MB and a new video card etc".
>Then comes a game with great potential, and it NEEDS more that the 2 voices
>available to the crappy SoundBlaster cards. And I don't hear any companies saying:
>"You'll need a Gravis or Turtle Beach for this game".
>
>This is bogus!
Well it is no secret that b2b uses 100% SB compatable cards. Just check their
www page for that. In principal games really have to have the SB base for
sound support. That just makes sense. However (you just knew there was this
coming. hehe) many games allow for higher end cards to take advantage of more.
Like more voices/ sounds. To be honest, I don't know whether b2b will have
native support for cards other than the SB (or hope your card can emulate SB
properly). I guess we will all have to wait until it is released & see. I
personaly am hoping for native Ensoniq support. Which btw, is so common these
days it is almost the new card standard. Probably thanks to gateway 2000.
jaguar
Greg Chamberlain
On 26 May 1996 01:02:37 GMT, ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko)
wrote:
>At first I thought you were joking. Oh joy.
Greg does it look like I'm joking? Geeeeeeesh you're a beta and you
didn't know what MSI plans to do with the Internet, and voice modems?
I'm shocked!! <BAG>
>
>I sure haven't Officially read or heard this. I did read something about
>network play. I did not get the impression that HAVING REAL HUMAN VOICES
>in the manner you suggest, is why there is no canned speech. I rather
>got the impression that it was cause the SPEECH file would be too big.
>
Well its "Official" dude, and has been for some time you know.. Oh,
you didn't know!... thats right!!! :)
Go here and be informed dude!!.....
http://www.military-sim.com/btbtext1.htm
>This is not a "feature" that blows my skirt up :-)
So now you're wearin' dresses huh?... You never cease to amaze me
Greg! <ggggg>
Greg Chamberlain
On Sat, 25 May 1996 20:33:51 GMT, pap...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>Well I guess Im not a big dog, because I too want to hear some
>interaction with my cyber wingmen not much maybe, not drivel
>but stuff like "break left, bandit deep in your six, Im high at your
>seven" I am not sure about your post as it seems to say networked
>play and yet it also says USrobotics. Thought networks were done
>with networking cards. Does B2B have modem to modem? If it does
> then yes I cant wait. If no and it only has NETWORK well in the two
> years Ive been flying Ive never had the opportunity to fly network. Seems
>like a rare thing to enjoy.
Your choice as to what you'd rather have I guess, but I much rather
see a human wingman calling the shots on my but, as well as protecting
it.
As for the Networking, well its just as it reads, if you use
imagination just a bit (not being snide here either)
But acutally networking also come in the form of Internet play, which
explains why you can also use a modem to network. After all, I-net is
all connected right?
Just go back to MSI's page and read again!! :)
>As seen in the dispute long ago about EF2000 most
>dont have the opportunity to enjoy networking so what difference does
>it make to them if you can talk over the network.
Still no Vision huh? How about separate rooms, 2 or more squads, and
headset to keep the chatter down to a min volume
>Yet these same people will be flying along in a sim listening to what?
> I mean heh I like the sound of a GENERAL ELECTRIC JET ENGINE
> as much as the next guy but more than 10 hours of it might be a little
> too much.<VBG>
Hehehehe... Good one Papa!!
>PAPA DOC #1 Prodigy Falcon Ladder
Heeeeeeey you're the BIG DOG @ Prodigy huh?. Maybe we ought to fly
sometimes!!
Take care man!!!!
Greg Cisko
In article <4oi1u7$t...@news.accessus.net>, gr...@basenet.net (Greg Chamberlain) writes:
>On 26 May 1996 01:02:37 GMT, ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko)
>wrote:
>
>>At first I thought you were joking. Oh joy.
>
>Greg does it look like I'm joking? Geeeeeeesh you're a beta and you
>didn't know what MSI plans to do with the Internet, and voice modems?
Yes I read that before, but I didn't realize that this is why there was
no canned speech. I stupidly assumed that digital wingman stuff and
great all around sound would be there. And the great all around sound
is there. Minus the digital wingman voice.
>I'm shocked!! <BAG>.
That is nice.
>>I sure haven't Officially read or heard this. I did read something about
>>network play. I did not get the impression that HAVING REAL HUMAN VOICES
>>in the manner you suggest, is why there is no canned speech. I rather
>>got the impression that it was cause the SPEECH file would be too big.
>>
>Well its "Official" dude, and has been for some time you know.. Oh,
>you didn't know!... thats right!!! :)
>
>Go here and be informed dude!!.....
>
>http://www.military-sim.com/btbtext1.htm
I read it. Again. It talks about networking & fancy data/voice modems under the
heading of NETWORKED Play. But that document does not say that the NETWORK option
is why there are no canned voices in the game itself. That is my point. You
obviously read the same info & came to a different conclusion.
>
>
>>This is not a "feature" that blows my skirt up :-)
>
>
>So now you're wearin' dresses huh?... You never cease to amaze me
>Greg! <ggggg>
>
Or myself.
jaguar
Paul Higinbotham
I think you hit a sensitive note here, however I have to agree with
you. Most talking wingmen become annoying in about 20 seconds. I
would much rather have that bandwidth used for other sim features. I
also don't get the "canned vs dynamic" campaign complaint. The only
sim I can think of with a dynamic campaign engine is EF2000 and it
doesn't work very well. After playing a few missions they all start
looking the same ... and the mission planning is pretty poor.
Carefully hand tuned missions can be much more interesting.
Paul Higinbotham
"George T. Keverian" <keve...@military-sim.com> wrote:
>Hey everyone on this thread, you guys don't understand some of the physical limitations to what we have done.
>Let me take a moment and reflect.
>1) The soundblaster card is capable of only playing so many sounds at the same time. We can play
> 2 sounds at the same time. That's about one more than most game companies can achieve.
>2) Sounds take up RAM and RAM is in short supply in this game. When you have over 20MB of Textures you
> see that there are some technical problems with that. Secondly some of our sound files last 30
>seconds! I.e. the Nuke explosion.
>3) To place voice that is clear and understandable along with TWIS (RWR) , Engine, explosions, and the
>other 100+ sounds that we created along with a top notch flight model, scoring system, digital adversary, etc,
>etc, needed another 6 months of code development. Do you want to wait for some digital advesary to keep
>yelling everytime he sees a blip on the radar "gota spike, gota spike" How about "giving me a break"
>So if you want voices that keep saying the same thing in a funny accent, then buy someone elses game. If you
>want a real simulation system then buy this.
>George Keverian
>Program Manager - Director
>Military Simulations Inc.
>Back To Baghdad (tm)
>By the way, Jeff, I happend to be reading the thread and this memo was not really meant at anyone personally.
>Yours was the one I happend to click on to respond to the General Thread. I don't mean to be picking on anyone
>here just stating the facts. I didn't think anyone wanted me to hold up releasing this sim because I needed to
>do database paging on a single processor with only 16MB of RAM did they?
>Jeff Robbins wrote:
>>
>> If it takes a 100M (suppose), why not make it an option to not install
>> and use as is, install on the HD, or play from CD-ROM? To get great
>> sound with the accurate avionics that BTB has, would be worth an extra
>> 100M on my HD. Would it really take up that much space, though?
>> Speaking for myself of course.
>>
>> Jeff Robbins
>> Ann Arbor, MI
>>
>> Greg Cisko wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <4nvlsu$vg_...@news.spry.com>, bu...@thrustmaster.com (Buzz Hoffman) writes:
>> > >Greg,
>> > >
>> > >Let's all not forget how big a voice file is. If we want tons of voices, then
>> > >get ready to buy a REALLY BIG hard disk because you're gonna' need lots of space.
>> >
>> > This would be fine except for one small little tiny point. TopGun has a 100+ MB
>> > voice file. It was the subject of much discussion. As it turns out, it runs just
>> > fine from the CD (I have a 4X). If they could do it, so could b2b (MSI), in my
>> > opinion. After all it is only software :-)
>> >
>> > >B2B takes up a lot of space now with what is there.
>> >
>> > Well since you are talking sizes, the beta CD I have is only 130MB in size
>> > while the installed base is 35 MB. Obviously I have no idea what these numbers
>> > will be like for the released game. Seems to me there is a little extra room
>> > on the CD for voice files though. Just a random observation :-)
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Also, regarding the Hawkeye, I saw Falcon 4 at E3 and it had a Hawkeye type sight
>> > >too. I don't claim to know what Falcon 4 will have in the release version, may
>> > >have a padlock, may not. I really don't care (personally) Hawkeye is fine for me.
>> > >
>> > >Buzz
>> > >
>> > ><In article <4nuv1o$q...@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
>> > > ci...@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>In article <4nts89$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, pap...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>> > >>>Actually unless they do a dynamic campaign, unlikely. I worry more
>> > >>>about not having modem capability. Seems like this was made for H2H.
>> > >>>Well anyway I will reserve judgement then on padlock. Does it have
>> > >>>voices?
>> > >>
>> > >>Sure. Bitchin Betty :-) The Beta version does not have voices from other
>> > >>aircraft, (or anywhere else). My personal pref is to have eye & ear candy,
>> > >>then realism. But that is just me and has nothing to do with how this game
>> > >>was designed (err... sim. Sorry). I suppose that you could argue that realism
>> > >>equals radio chatter :-)
>> > >>
>> > >>Example: I love USNF & StrikeCommander-CD and am not phased at tall that
>> > >>radar & weapons are somewhat lacking by comparison. Obviously I do not know
>> > >>what the final version will be like. I am hoping for air-air radio chatter
>> > >>just like everyone else.
>> > >>
>> > >>BTW, Padlock really is a mute point. Hawkeye is a really good alternative.
>> > >>Plus I read that F4 was going to have Hawkeye too. It cannot be that bad if
>> > >>SH is going to it also.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>PAPA DOC
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>Anyway, I would worry about "canned" missions more than a lack of padlock :-)
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>Greg 'jaguar' Cisko
>> > >>B2B Beta Team
>> > >>"I'll turn your desert into glass"
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >