Unrealistic Expectations?
Tom Launder
Hi all,
I finally have upgraded into the realm of flight-sim computers (at least I
thought) but so far have been plagued by unmet expectations.
1. I thought my machine would run anything smoothly in full detail but it
does not. I have a 200mmx with 32 meg ram and a Mill II with 4 meg of ram.
I tried the iF16 demo and had to scale down so everything would work smooth.
Hmmm. I also bought F.A. and still had to do some scaling down (I returned
this disappointment).
This brings me to my next unmet expectation,
2. The quality of games I have unscientifically sampled is quite inferior to
Falcon 3 of 1991! What gives? From what I have demoed and purchased (and
returned [grin]) I am completely disappointed in realism and playability.
Is the market really this terrible? I think the worst for realism is F. A..
I read some reviews of the E. A. Jane's line and thought that people were
mostly happy. This product is terrible (imho). The whole look and feel is
unrealistic and I had no sensation of flying. Ug.
If16 was another interesting match. It looks like the old apache engine
with an F-16 in it. The ground objects are unrealistic looking and the feel
of the sim is arcadish. The only kinda neato was the rendering of the F-16
and watching the surfaces move.
I also tried the F-18 demo and was slightly impressed with realism and
detail of aircraft and ground objects, but was still disappointed overall.
Kinda hard to put a finger on what it is with F-18, but it is a "close but
no cigar" thing.
All this to say, I can't believe that noone has been able to top Falcon
3??!!!??? For the overall feel and playability it was the best for its
time. If the wave of flight-sim's for the future is like what I have
sampled so far, I am really disappointed and shocked.
Perhaps I had/have unrealistic expectations? If Falcon 4 is anything near
what 3 was, they will have a winner and the rest of these "cheap imitators"
can stay on the shelves where they belong. :)
Tom
rdc...@spamtrap.erols.com
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:47:34 -0800, "Tom Launder" <tom...@jps.net>
wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I finally have upgraded into the realm of flight-sim computers (at least I
>thought) but so far have been plagued by unmet expectations.
>
>1. I thought my machine would run anything smoothly in full detail but it
>does not. I have a 200mmx with 32 meg ram and a Mill II with 4 meg of ram.
>I tried the iF16 demo and had to scale down so everything would work smooth.
>Hmmm. I also bought F.A. and still had to do some scaling down (I returned
>this disappointment).
It's a no-win situation. A P200MMX is pretty nearly an entry-level CPU
these days; that's why there's so much interest in 3D accelerators --
the hope that the escalating cycle of CPU upgrades can be broken.
It's not working out that way much of the time, but with some games
you can get the kind of performance you seek -- if it uses Glide and
you have a Voodoo, anyway.
>
>This brings me to my next unmet expectation,
>
>2. The quality of games I have unscientifically sampled is quite inferior to
>Falcon 3 of 1991! What gives? From what I have demoed and purchased (and
>returned [grin]) I am completely disappointed in realism and playability.
>Is the market really this terrible? I think the worst for realism is F. A..
The USNF/ATF/FA series has always been a "lite sim." It's fun and
well done for what it is, and FA in particular offers a ton of value
for the money if you've never bought the earlier incarnations, but
it's not a hardcore sim.
>
>I read some reviews of the E. A. Jane's line and thought that people were
>mostly happy. This product is terrible (imho). The whole look and feel is
>unrealistic and I had no sensation of flying. Ug.
It's probably Longbow you're thinking of. Whole different development
team, far more authentic and realistic simulation. Longbow 2 is very
Falcon3-like in many ways, except that the initial release will be
much more stable and less bug-ridden.
[snip comments on Viper and Hornet]
>
>All this to say, I can't believe that noone has been able to top Falcon
>3??!!!??? For the overall feel and playability it was the best for its
>time. If the wave of flight-sim's for the future is like what I have
>sampled so far, I am really disappointed and shocked.
EF2000 Version 2 and Su-27 Version 1.5 are the simulations you should
try. And Longbow 2, coming soon.
>
>Perhaps I had/have unrealistic expectations? If Falcon 4 is anything near
>what 3 was, they will have a winner and the rest of these "cheap imitators"
>can stay on the shelves where they belong. :)
Falcon 3 was a great simulation, which grows even greater in our
regard as it disappears into the dim recesses of the past where we
don't have to play it any more. <g>
RichC
*-------------To Reply via E-Mail-------------*
Remove SPAMTRAP from rdc...@SPAMTRAP.erols.com
*---------------------------------------------*