Falcon 4 - Belief or facts?
Peter Denaux
I think now that Falcon 4 will be in the shops before Christmas '98,
otherwise Microprose won't be able to sell it anymore.
So I have a few questions:
- What makes everybody believe that it will be so good? I played with
the demo, and I saw low framerates, 3DfX graphics that were not very
convincing (on my P200MMX with Voodoo1), and a cockpit that looked not
very special. I've never played with Falcon 3, but most of the very
experienced flight simmers seem to believe that Falcon 3 was the best.
I have the impression that there are several groups of 'believers',
that are convinced that company X makes the most realistic or most
in-depth jeftfighter flight sims. So Jane's, DiD, the Microprose F4
team, SSI, and GraphSim (didn't I forget one?) all have a loyal
following. With regard to myself, I was (and still am) very pleased
with EF2000 V2.0, but I am looking for a newer one now. After some
disappointments (JSF, F22 ADF, FA-18 Hornet Korea), I'm prepared to
wait for something as good as, or better than EF2000.
- What would be good hardware for Falcon 4? P200MMX and Voodoo1 won't
be good enough, I suppose. Something like a Pentium II 400 should be
good enough of course, but which graphics card? Matrox G200 + Voodoo2
or Riva TNT (when those will be available) - maybe I better wait until
the 3D market has stabilized ?(if such a thing ever will happen)
Stocky2
>
>- What makes everybody believe that it will be so good? I played
The people that reported playing the current build at E3 have all praised it
highly.
The demo was an early alpha and people say it has come a long way since then.
>very special. I've never played with Falcon 3, but most of the
Normaly I would say you have missed a great experience, but after you say you
were disappointed with JSF.ADF, and HK and don't think they were good, then I
have my doubts that anything would please you (except for liking EF2000)- I
have no problem with what you may or not like, but you seem hard to please.
>the 3D market has stabilized ?(if such a thing ever will happen)<BR>
It will when 4D is developed (if such a thing ever will happen)
Laurence Lindstrom
Peter Denaux wrote:
>
> I think now that Falcon 4 will be in the shops before Christmas '98,
> otherwise Microprose won't be able to sell it anymore.
Christmas '98 is the current guess. Can I be the first to
call it on Christmas '99? Whenever it comes out, I'll buy it.
And I don't think I'll be the only one. I just can't get
excited about what's promised anymore. I've lied to my friends
for two years about all the cool stuff that's coming "in six
months".
> So I have a few questions:
> - What makes everybody believe that it will be so good?
Falcon 3, and all the Falcon's that proceeded it, were all
very well done. It was the first sim that made me read a
serious manual, and learn things that I didn't know, in order
fly it. Many things were done right. Ground graphics were
revolutionary, tape and replay missions were as good as any
have ever been. This was the first time I ever saw Padlock.
> I played with
> the demo, and I saw low framerates, 3DfX graphics that were not very
> convincing (on my P200MMX with Voodoo1), and a cockpit that looked not
> very special.
I don't bother with demos anymore, unless they are highly
recommended by posts in this group.
> I've never played with Falcon 3, but most of the very
> experienced flight simmers seem to believe that Falcon 3 was the best.
I'd call it the first, in many features we take for granted,
or wish we had, now.
> I have the impression that there are several groups of 'believers',
> that are convinced that company X makes the most realistic or most
> in-depth jeftfighter flight sims. So Jane's, DiD, the Microprose F4
> team, SSI, and GraphSim (didn't I forget one?) all have a loyal
> following. With regard to myself, I was (and still am) very pleased
> with EF2000 V2.0, but I am looking for a newer one now. After some
> disappointments (JSF, F22 ADF, FA-18 Hornet Korea), I'm prepared to
> wait for something as good as, or better than EF2000.
I liked EF2000, after some bug fixes. It did a good job of
pushing the sim world forward. Kind of reminded me of Falcon 3
in that regard.
> - What would be good hardware for Falcon 4? P200MMX and Voodoo1 won't
> be good enough, I suppose. Something like a Pentium II 400 should be
> good enough of course, but which graphics card? Matrox G200 + Voodoo2
> or Riva TNT (when those will be available) - maybe I better wait until
> the 3D market has stabilized ?(if such a thing ever will happen)
Falcon 4 is supposed to use multiprocessors under NT, at least
that's what I heard a while ago. It was also supposed to support
a pair of Voodoo 2s running in SLI.
I think a quad slot 2 P2 400, or faster, each with one or two
meg caches, two Voodoo2s, and a Gig of memory would do OK. This
isn't for sale right now, but will be available in a month or so,
before Falcon 4 gets here.
Wait, strike the P2s, if you're waiting for Falcon 4, you
might want four Merced processors. Those might be available
before Falcon 4 ships, just in time for Christmas '99.
Larry
John Simon
The current beta build of F4 runs at 20fps on my PII233 with no 3d card,
and over 30 fps with a Voodoo1 card. Graphics are vastly improved from
the alpha, and I've seen them at 1024x768 in 3d which was quite
impressive (it is scalable to 1600x1200 I believe). Overall, very, very
nice graphics. Campaign and Tactical engagement sections are starting to
come together nicely, and we've had some luck going H2H via internet
already. Overall, a very impressive feature set so far, and tremendous
progress since the Demo.
I think most people remember F3 and have seen the statements regarding
making F4 in the same mold as F3, with updated everything. This is
exciting because F3 had a tremendous feature set, and completely
engrossing campaign amongst many other niceties. So many sims have come
since, but all have been missing something and many are hoping F4 won't be
(missing something). From what I've seen so far, they will not be
disappointed.
John
Peter Denaux wrote:
> I think now that Falcon 4 will be in the shops before Christmas '98,
> otherwise Microprose won't be able to sell it anymore.
> So I have a few questions:
> - What makes everybody believe that it will be so good? I played with
> the demo, and I saw low framerates, 3DfX graphics that were not very
> convincing (on my P200MMX with Voodoo1), and a cockpit that looked not
> very special. I've never played with Falcon 3, but most of the very
> experienced flight simmers seem to believe that Falcon 3 was the best.
> I have the impression that there are several groups of 'believers',
> that are convinced that company X makes the most realistic or most
> in-depth jeftfighter flight sims. So Jane's, DiD, the Microprose F4
> team, SSI, and GraphSim (didn't I forget one?) all have a loyal
> following. With regard to myself, I was (and still am) very pleased
> with EF2000 V2.0, but I am looking for a newer one now. After some
> disappointments (JSF, F22 ADF, FA-18 Hornet Korea), I'm prepared to
> wait for something as good as, or better than EF2000.
Micheal Smith
On 28 Jun 1998 15:34:50 GMT, sto...@aol.com (Stocky2) wrote:
snip-
>It will when 4D is developed (if such a thing ever will happen)
What will be the fourth D? :)
Mike
Stocky2
>
>What will be the fourth D? :)<BR>
3 +1 more?
time?
whatever might come after 3d?
may not know until and unless it happens?
as in what I said (if such a thing ever will happen)
I wouldn't tell even if I knew- was told not to divulge it until we are all
ready.
In common useage the 4th d is considered to be time, but that may change if
something else is discovered.
Sto...@aol.com
Simon Robbins
The fourth D is simply space, but at 90 degrees to the other 3, (which are
at 90 degrees to each other already.)
Don't think too long about it. It'll give you a headache! :^)
Si.
Micheal Smith wrote in message <35978fa1...@news.ican.net>...
>On 28 Jun 1998 15:34:50 GMT, sto...@aol.com (Stocky2) wrote:
>snip-
>>It will when 4D is developed (if such a thing ever will happen)
>What will be the fourth D? :)
>
>Mike
Sprintz
Yeah, I have a four dimensional hypercube sitting right here on my desk <g>
There's no need for me to visualize it. BTW, don't scientists currently
espouse the notion that there are actually 6 or 7 ( I forget which) spatial
dimensions (the other three or four occurring at insanely microscopic
scales)? I believe this has something to do with Superstring theory, the
integration of the four fundamental forces into a Grand Unified Theory and
all that crap. If you want to know anymore than that you'll have to consult
a true physicist.... :-)
Scott
Simon Robbins wrote in message ...
Brenda Joy
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:47:21 GMT, "Simon Robbins"
<SPAMDEC...@istar.ca> wrote:
>The fourth D is simply space, but at 90 degrees to the other 3, (which are
>at 90 degrees to each other already.)
>
>Don't think too long about it. It'll give you a headache! :^)
in space to be defined...a fourth would define the point in space how?
And no, don't answer time :).
Mike
Micheal Smith
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:26:46 -0400, "Sprintz" <jpr...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Yeah, I have a four dimensional hypercube sitting right here on my desk <g>
>There's no need for me to visualize it. BTW, don't scientists currently
>espouse the notion that there are actually 6 or 7 ( I forget which) spatial
>dimensions (the other three or four occurring at insanely microscopic
>scales)? I believe this has something to do with Superstring theory, the
>integration of the four fundamental forces into a Grand Unified Theory and
>all that crap. If you want to know anymore than that you'll have to consult
>a true physicist.... :-)
fall. Maybe he can shed some light on this...in fact, he better as he
is a theoretical physicist...completely wacked out...and I mean that
with the utmost respect :).
Mike
Simon Robbins
I know it makes no sense in 3 dimensional thinking, it wont. If you've ever
done any programming then imagine plotting the points of a cube in a 3
dimensional array. Using trig you can rotate the cube any way you like
between any two of the dimensions, i.e. rotate x with y, or y with z, etc.
Now create an empty 4th dimension to the array, call it the n or something
and rotate using this one as well. I wrote a program years ago to do this
and it generates some really incredible effects. Depending on the planes you
rotate with the n, it will close in on itself until it becomes invisible in
the standard 3 dimensions (becomes 2 d in them actually) and then it expands
back out into the 3D if you keep going. Very weird!!
Si.
Brenda Joy wrote in message <35982ea4...@news.ican.net>...
Sklomp
I remember a program developed at the university that made 4 dimensional
shapes. One was a simple 4D "cube" (i use quotations marks because it isn't a
cube). It takes 2D box, then squares that box and it becomes a 3D box, a
cube. Then, it takes that cube and squares it, it then becomes a 4D "cube".
The program then transfered what the image is to a 2D screen, ie the monitor.
From what i can remember, the images are almost psychedelic when the 4D object
is rotated. With our 3D minds and a 2D image you can't "realize" a 4D "cube".
You would need a 4D plane and a mind that thinks in 4D to understand what the
4D cube looks like. Really weird stuff...
In article <1d8m1.25$Cr4.2...@NewsRead.Toronto.iSTAR.net>, "Simon Robbins"
Robin G. Kim
Sklomp <skl...@digitalpla.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>I remember a program developed at the university that made 4 dimensional
>shapes. One was a simple 4D "cube" (i use quotations marks because it isn't a
>cube). It takes 2D box, then squares that box and it becomes a 3D box, a
>cube. Then, it takes that cube and squares it, it then becomes a 4D "cube".
>The program then transfered what the image is to a 2D screen, ie the monitor.
>From what i can remember, the images are almost psychedelic when the 4D object
>is rotated. With our 3D minds and a 2D image you can't "realize" a 4D "cube".
>You would need a 4D plane and a mind that thinks in 4D to understand what the
>4D cube looks like. Really weird stuff...
I read some speculation many years ago that someone could be trained to
visualize four spatial dimensions if trained from a very young age.
Anyone read "Sphereland"? If a 4D hypersphere passed through our 3D
world, it would appear as a point, grow into a larger and larger
sphere, then shrink back down to a point before disappearing. I think
a 4D hypercube passing through cube-side-on (just as the boundaries of
a cube are squares, so are cubes the boundaries of a hypercube) would
look like a cube appearing from nowhere, hanging there seemingly
motionless for a while, then vanishing all at once.
--
Rob Falck
>>Yeah, I have a four dimensional hypercube sitting right here on my desk
<g>
>>There's no need for me to visualize it. BTW, don't scientists currently
>>espouse the notion that there are actually 6 or 7 ( I forget which)
spatial
>>dimensions (the other three or four occurring at insanely microscopic
>>scales)? I believe this has something to do with Superstring theory, the
>>integration of the four fundamental forces into a Grand Unified Theory
and
>>all that crap. If you want to know anymore than that you'll have to
consult
>>a true physicist.... :-)
I heard that there are supposedly 10 to 12 dimensions wrapped up on very
small scales because "superstring theory only works with that many
dimensions." But that was coming from a grad student, not a professor, so
it could be wrong.
bco...@engsoc.carleton.ca
In article <3596DD02...@intcomm.net>,
John Simon <JSi...@intcomm.net> wrote:
>
> The current beta build of F4 runs at 20fps on my PII233 with no 3d card,
> and over 30 fps with a Voodoo1 card. Graphics are vastly improved from
> the alpha, and I've seen them at 1024x768 in 3d which was quite
> impressive (it is scalable to 1600x1200 I believe). Overall, very, very
> nice graphics. Campaign and Tactical engagement sections are starting to
> come together nicely, and we've had some luck going H2H via internet
> already. Overall, a very impressive feature set so far, and tremendous
> progress since the Demo.
I'm hoping you can answer a question of mine since you have used the beta. I
got a gaming magazine (can't remember which) awhile ago and they said F4 was
able to run on NT and use Dual Processor systems. As far as I know, the
directx drivers for NT don't include direct input for joysticks. I would
think that you should be able to use a joystick if F4 was to run in NT. No
one would want to control the F16 with the keyboard or mouse. So is it
possible to get direct input for NT? Maybe I should post this in the NT NG.
Thanks a lot.
Brendan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Micheal Smith
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:18:05 GMT, "Simon Robbins"
<SPAMDEC...@istar.ca> wrote:
-snip-
>Depending on the planes you rotate with the n, it will close in
>on itself until it becomes invisible in the standard 3 dimensions
>(becomes 2 d in them actually) and then it expands
>back out into the 3D if you keep going. Very weird!!
interesting, does this require a lot of horsepower to display or is
any old machine capable of this?
Mike
Micheal Smith
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:23:38 GMT, skl...@digitalpla.netNOSPAM (Sklomp)
wrote:
-snip-
>With our 3D minds and a 2D image you can't "realize" a 4D "cube".
>You would need a 4D plane and a mind that thinks in 4D to understand what the
>4D cube looks like. Really weird stuff...
described it...it appears to be an illusion when you see it...very
wierd...I remember thinking it would have been quite the show if it
had a little help from illegal substances :).
Mike
Sprintz
No, but I read "Flatland", the classic, some years ago. Amazing stuff.
My failure to visualize the four dimensional hypercube (also called a
Tesseract) is no longer worrisome. In fact, I think I would worry if I
_could_ visualize it for any length of time.
Scott
Robin G. Kim wrote in message <6nbbiu$4...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>...
Simon Robbins
I did on an old Amiga years ago. It just displayed it in wireframe as it
looked more interesting that way. I may re-write it in C just for the hell
of it.
Si.
Micheal Smith wrote in message <359a2e2...@news.ican.net>...
Simon Robbins
The effect you describe is very much like that observed with my program as
an axis transforms from the N into a visible plane.
Si.
Robin G. Kim wrote in message <6nbbiu$4...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>...
>Sklomp <skl...@digitalpla.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>>I remember a program developed at the university that made 4 dimensional
>>shapes. One was a simple 4D "cube" (i use quotations marks because it
isn't a
>>cube). It takes 2D box, then squares that box and it becomes a 3D box, a
>>cube. Then, it takes that cube and squares it, it then becomes a 4D
"cube".
>>The program then transfered what the image is to a 2D screen, ie the
monitor.
>>From what i can remember, the images are almost psychedelic when the 4D
object
>>is rotated. With our 3D minds and a 2D image you can't "realize" a 4D
"cube".
>>You would need a 4D plane and a mind that thinks in 4D to understand what
the
>>4D cube looks like. Really weird stuff...
>
John Gibbs
Actually, this is correct, but impossible to picture in three dimensions.
Brenda Joy wrote in message <35982ea4...@news.ican.net>...
Brenda Joy
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:59:32 -0400, "John Gibbs"
<jo...@NOSPAM.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Actually, this is correct, but impossible to picture in three dimensions.
Mike
Sanghyun Lee
I believe that in computer games, they do all the transformations (of
shapes, polygon meshes, (the planes are probably polygon meshes), etc.) in 4
space and homonegize to 3 space. 3 space is just affine space and 4 space is
the associated vector space. the 3 space is the standard affine space and
has coords x, y, z, 1. After transformation they have to make (homonegize) 4
space coords to coords of the form x, y, z, 1. They then project these
coords to 2d.
This is fairly complicated, although an easy, cheap, unacceptable way to do
it (projection) is to ignore the 1 and z, and you have x and y! Convert
these x and y coords to actuall screen coords (640X480, 800X600, etc.) I
think this projection is parallel projection(?) or something similar to
it...