<sigh> Strike Fighters P-1, half baked, save your money.......
ohhh...@email.com
Crappy view modes
obtuse key mappings
crash to desktops (CTDs) !!!!
useless padlock
No visual target indicator
Ground collision bugs
No enemy air defenses at eney air bases (Hot ready A/C, AAA, SAMs)
No glints of canopy or planaform to aid visual aquistion.
And others I did not bother to make a mental note of.
Every sense tells me this sim is 70% done. And the missing 30% makes
it unplayable IMO. I have read in some forums where you can remap
your IRQs to get around some sound bug CTDs. But screw that. I have
enough to do without reconfiguring my comp down to the remapping of
IRQs everytime a sim comes out.
The flight models feel pretty good and the graphics are passable. If
I did not CTD after every second missions I might even mess with it to
see if it might grow on me.
Screw it. This one is uninstalled and goes in the box in the attic
until a meaningful patch comes out. Ironically, I picked SF P-1 up
because of all the woes I heard about CFS3 bugs. Damned if you do,
damned if you don't.
intheknow
2. 60s jets didnt have visual target indicators. try reading the manual.
3. padlock works fine
<ohhh...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6trrru4s9msvcm0l0...@4ax.com...
Walter Watson
me. I can't even get into the air. I have been trying this a that all night
to get it running. If configuring the IRQ's is what needs to be done the
could someone tell how/what it has to be configured to or point to a post.
Thanks
WW
"intheknow" <aad...@adfdsf.com> wrote in message
news:P9nv9.232142$Fw2.6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Brad Walton
even released it yet. I was told a release of Oct 31st. I think there was a
pre-release in beta form, so is it possible people are picking up the beta
version? I obviously haven't received my game yet, so I'm just
speculating...
<ohhh...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6trrru4s9msvcm0l0...@4ax.com...
Ken Morano
My Newbie observations regarding IRQs
1. In BIOS I set Plug & Play O/S to "No". This keeps Windows from screwing
with IRQs. This fixed the problem where my USB joystick (Cougar) wouldn't
stay registered without me plugging and unplugging.
2. Find a slot for your soundcard where NOTHING is shared. I was getting
lockups in F1 2001, Flight Unlimited III, and FS2002 until I moved the
soundcard to slot 5 on my A7V8X. All lockups are eliminated. Even sharing
IRQs with the 1394 controller caused lockups when the soundcard was in slot
3.
"Walter Watson" <d...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Llnv9.114984$Hj7.61134@rwcrnsc53...
Scharmers
CFS3 is in a lot better shape than SFP:1. There's no argument there.
--scharmers
HockeyTownUSA
> CFS3 is in a lot better shape than SFP:1. There's no argument there.
>
> --scharmers
HUH? I consistently get stalls in CFS3 even at 300 knots! I get stutters and
the terrain is for crap. I still can't get the force feedback to work. I'm
sure the list will go on if I play it more. I'm sure there's more to love
here with time, but there's definitely more to love with SF:P1 immediately.
Martinho
"HockeyTownUSA" <ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k0adnVmnNqz...@comcast.com...
Chuck C.
4ax.com:
> Unless you like strapping on a tool belt to play a sim.
>
> Crappy view modes
Pretty standard fair: Cockpit, no cockpit, right, left, slewable, snap
views (which could use a up combination.)
> obtuse key mappings
Like f for flaps, or g for gear???
> crash to desktops (CTDs) !!!!
Played about 6 hours so far, and had 1. A much better record than some
games.
> useless padlock
> No visual target indicator
Check the manual, and if you dont like it, change some of the settings from
"hard"
> Ground collision bugs
> No enemy air defenses at eney air bases (Hot ready A/C, AAA, SAMs)
> No glints of canopy or planaform to aid visual aquistion.
Agree
> And others I did not bother to make a mental note of.
>
> Every sense tells me this sim is 70% done. And the missing 30% makes
> it unplayable IMO. I have read in some forums where you can remap
> your IRQs to get around some sound bug CTDs. But screw that. I have
> enough to do without reconfiguring my comp down to the remapping of
> IRQs everytime a sim comes out.
>
> The flight models feel pretty good and the graphics are passable. If
> I did not CTD after every second missions I might even mess with it to
> see if it might grow on me.
>
> Screw it. This one is uninstalled and goes in the box in the attic
> until a meaningful patch comes out. Ironically, I picked SF P-1 up
> because of all the woes I heard about CFS3 bugs. Damned if you do,
> damned if you don't.
Needs a little work, but pattern would suggest that will happen. No crash
issues here. Now I just gotta figure out how to dogfight in a Rhino. I
hope someone makes a F-8 Crusader for this.
Chuck
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
ohhh...@email.com
wrote:
>1. update your vid drivers
No joy.
>2. 60s jets didnt have visual target indicators. try reading the manual.
No shit. Perhaps I should have been clearer. When translating RL to a
sim, you need to make some accomodations. Such as to enhance the
vision of the sim pilot to account for the lack of detail afforded by
a computer monitor. When I say a "visual target indicator" I mean
something that shows you where your virtual eyes are focus'd. Such
as when you padlock a target. Your view is locked on something, the
other planes are going in for the bandits calling off their shots, yet
I can't see a damn thing on the monitor nor am I directed to the
targets of interest..
Fly Mig Alley to see a very good implementation of visual targeting
and combat in early vintage jets.
(Boy is there a well done sim that fell off the face of the Earth.
The source code is out there, wonder why no one followed up with
something. Or did they?)
>3. padlock works fine
It is god awful. One step away from completely useless. Perhaps
there was a setting I missed (flew with all details maxed out) but the
padlock gives you no frames of reference as to your plane while locked
on a target (that you probably can't see). Even the very old Falcon
3.0 used a wrap around view at the top of the padlock view to show you
where you are looking; other sims used canopy reflections so you could
see the plane roll as you fixated on a target. Sitting in front of a
monitor we are not afforded peripheral vision or tactical feed back
the RL pilot is. So here you are trying to manuever with no frame of
reference as to how your plane is moving.
No fun.
BTW: Just what the hell is the back seater doing while I am doing
everything? Watching the inflight movie? Why can't I hop to the back
seat position ala F-14FD, F15SEIII, F15, Tornado, yadda yadda yadda
Wolfram Kuss
>Fly Mig Alley to see a very good implementation of visual targeting
>and combat in early vintage jets.
>
>(Boy is there a well done sim that fell off the face of the Earth.
>The source code is out there, wonder why no one followed up with
>something. Or did they?)
See
http://www.3d-raumplan.com/FlightSim/
But we can always use additional coders, hex-people, modders etc for
BoB and MA.
I think we will ship the next version in about 2 weeks. It will be a
minor update with a leak in the 2D campaign fixed. This leak lead to
crashes.
Bye bye,
Wolfram "Osram" Kuss,
BDG lead developer.
ohhh...@email.com
I think that was my point. It does need work. I am not as
economically free as I was when I was young, single, and childless. I
picked up a sim hoping it would provide some decent game play for a
while. Not one to take on as a project. If Strat First saw fit to
release a beta copy for pay, hey should have emblazed on the packaging
SF: Unfinished Project -1. That way the rest of us could have avoided
it until it was completed.
I do not look past the fact that they have the starting of a decent
product. But I don't think things should get on the shelves until
patches are nice finishing touches, not requirements.
Confidential
"Wolfram Kuss" <Wolfra...@3D-Raumplan.com> wrote in message
news:u1dvrucdjeejs65s8...@4ax.com...
Vern Pellerin
>ohhh...@email.com wrote in news:6trrru4s9msvcm0l0odqber4fq7surapkb@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Unless you like strapping on a tool belt to play a sim.
>>
>> Crappy view modes
>
>Pretty standard fair: Cockpit, no cockpit, right, left, slewable, snap
>views (which could use a up combination.)
>
>> obtuse key mappings
>
>Like f for flaps, or g for gear???
>
>> crash to desktops (CTDs) !!!!
>
>Played about 6 hours so far, and had 1. A much better record than some
>games.
But just because you only had 1 CTD in 6 hours doesn't mean that other people
aren't having them more frequently.
Wolfram Kuss
>Is the mig alley update a full version or just an update for the boxed game?
You need the boxed game.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
Brandon Vigneron
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:44:04 GMT, "Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote:
>
> I think that was my point. It does need work. I am not as
> economically free as I was when I was young, single, and childless. I
> picked up a sim hoping it would provide some decent game play for a
> while. Not one to take on as a project. If Strat First saw fit to
> release a beta copy for pay, hey should have emblazed on the packaging
> SF: Unfinished Project -1. That way the rest of us could have avoided
> it until it was completed.
>
> I do not look past the fact that they have the starting of a decent
> product. But I don't think things should get on the shelves until
> patches are nice finishing touches, not requirements.
>
It's entirely possible that they needed to release this sim now as-is
to get some cash in so they could continue operating long enough to
even get the fixes made.
When the alternative is no game at all, I think a 95% complete release
with a good bet of some patches in the near future isn't a bad thing.
Especially since the sim market seems to be kind of lean these days...
Gumby
wrote:
Except they already did that several months ago when they released a
barely-alpha stage of the game in Wal Marts.
#1 New York Yankees fan!!!
#1 LSU Tigers fan!!!
Takegami
to get some cash in so they could continue operating long enough to
even get the fixes made"
Coming from the same company that threw WW2OL out a year & a half to early,
& released a "beta" with no warning on the box to Wallyworld, they'll use
any excuse/tactic possible to get that cash to. It burns me to no end that
they'll get more of my money for SFP1.
Chuck C.
news:%dWv9.223005$U7.63...@twister.socal.rr.com:
snip
>>
>>> crash to desktops (CTDs) !!!!
>>
>>Played about 6 hours so far, and had 1. A much better record than
>>some games.
>
> But just because you only had 1 CTD in 6 hours doesn't mean that other
> people aren't having them more frequently.
>
No doubt, Vern. But to be honest this is the easiest installation I've had
in ages. Installed and Ran, no tweaking, no new drivers for vid or sound,
or 4 in 1's, nothing. Aint done that in some time.
Brandon Vigneron
They yanked the Walmart 'beta' almost as quickly as the put it on the
shelves. And you know that had to cost a pretty penny in order to do
that.
How is it that they will get "...more of my money for SFP1"? If you
bought the original release, you send it back to them and they send
you the updated version. Either buy the thing or don't, but don't act
like there's no choice in the matter.
Scharmers
1. STALLS AT 300 KNOTS??!?!? Wow, those wouldn't be ACCELERATED
STALLS, would they? Read up on "angle of attack", man.
2. Stutters are curable with a leetle tweaking.
3. The terrain looks OK to me.
4. The FF problem is inexcusable.
Leaving opinions beside, I think one can successfully argue that CFS3
is more "finished" (hence "in better shape") that SF:P1. Omissions
and oddities abound in P1...like the much-mentioned (and maligned)
lack of SAM/AAA threat, CTDs all over the place (like letting the
teletype on the mission screen finish...WTF, fellas!), missing
mud-moving effects, etc. etc.
CFS3 has some questionable design decisions and oddities; but P1 was
released just plain unfinished.
--scharmers
Vern Pellerin
>It's entirely possible that they needed to release this sim now as-is
>to get some cash in so they could continue operating long enough to
>even get the fixes made.
>
>When the alternative is no game at all, I think a 95% complete release
>with a good bet of some patches in the near future isn't a bad thing.
>Especially since the sim market seems to be kind of lean these days...
Strike Fighters will be a classic. It's designed to be modded by the user
community like CRAZY. But straight out of the box, it doesn't feel to me like
it's 95% complete. Compared to all other sims, be they hardcore or very
light, or middle-of-the road, to me, it seems like Strike Fighters is about
65% complete.
Vern Pellerin
Strike Fighters. HOWEVER . . .
Keep your eyes on this one and consider buying it in 3 to 6 months. The mod
community will easily put a billion cool things into it. Right now, it feels
very empty to me. But the core of the sim, the heart and soul is there and it
feels good.
Strike Fighters WILL be awesome. Definately!!! But right now, I'd go into a
hold pattern. At this point, it's just too incomplete for me to recommend it.
Samsung
What is really scary though is that this is a FULL priced game, not a AA
title price. What is basically going to happen is that the company built a
flight sim engine and the people who buy the game are going to add content.
Something is definately wrong with this IMHO. Kinda like buying a toaster
that has the power cord, the frame and you build the rest of it.
"Vern Pellerin" <vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:r4Tw9.236098$U7.66...@twister.socal.rr.com...
HockeyTownUSA
P51D at 300knots (well maybe mph, at least that's what it says in the
speedo) and its screaming at me (ok, just flashing text, but that's enough)
that I'm going to stall. I've seemed to have figured out a lot of that was
due to the screwed up FF. When I disable it, it seems to work properly. My
own fault, I guess.
Stutters fixed with a little tweaking? I've tried everything and still get
an occasional pause. It's livable, guess I'll just wait for patch or other
suggestions. I've got a top notch system with 128MB Radeon 9700 PRO so it
shouldn't have issues handling the textures as far as I'm concerned.
Terrain is actually alright. Still a little too "pop-up book-ish" but I'll
survive. At least factories and other large buildings look cool and explode
well ;)
"Scharmers" <scha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec399479.02103...@posting.google.com...
L'acrobat
"Brandon Vigneron" <rudd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a18952e3.02103...@posting.google.com...
> When the alternative is no game at all, I think a 95% complete release
> with a good bet of some patches in the near future isn't a bad thing.
> Especially since the sim market seems to be kind of lean these days...
I have to disagree with that, I'd rather get no product than shell out cash
for bad product.
In the minds of the suits, it sets a precedent - 'hey they shelled out full
price for Falcon 4 on release, and look at how bad that was - lets dump this
dog on the suckers then take the money and run!'.
You pay for the product released, you are not guaranteed a single patch and
the creative guys who actually wrote it need to put food on the table,
spending time writing patches (particularly if they are not paid for by the
company shipping it) does not put dinner on the table this week.
Brandon Vigneron
> "Brandon Vigneron" <rudd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a18952e3.02103...@posting.google.com...
>
> > When the alternative is no game at all, I think a 95% complete release
> > with a good bet of some patches in the near future isn't a bad thing.
> > Especially since the sim market seems to be kind of lean these days...
>
>
> I have to disagree with that, I'd rather get no product than shell out cash
> for bad product.
>
Don't worry - I'm sure it won't be too many more years before most
companies will consider it too risky and too costly to make a flight
sim at all.
> In the minds of the suits, it sets a precedent - 'hey they shelled out full
> price for Falcon 4 on release, and look at how bad that was - lets dump this
> dog on the suckers then take the money and run!'.
I hate suits as much as anyone, but I think even they realize that if
you burn a customer by not supporting your product, especially if it
was an incomplete release, they will not give you any return business.
>
> You pay for the product released, you are not guaranteed a single patch and
> the creative guys who actually wrote it need to put food on the table,
> spending time writing patches (particularly if they are not paid for by the
> company shipping it) does not put dinner on the table this week.
Spending time writing patches post-release is something that is done
by almost every gaming software company out there. And writing a patch
does not require nearly as much manpower as programming an entire
game. A few guys can be on the 'patch' team while other members of
the team can begin working on other projects.
Vern Pellerin
>Spending time writing patches post-release is something that is done
>by almost every gaming software company out there. And writing a patch
>does not require nearly as much manpower as programming an entire
>game. A few guys can be on the 'patch' team while other members of
>the team can begin working on other projects.
I met TK at E3 this year. There's only 3 people working on Strike Fighters,
the programmer, an artist, and an object modeler. So I doubt the group could
afford to lose much manpower.
Given TK's love of flight sims and his feedback to the community, I hold
Strategy First entirely responsible for the early release, both times. TK is
not talking, but it's painfully obvious that Strategy First has his mouth duct
taped shut via some type of legalities. Since Strategy First is fronting the
money, they have the power.
I trust TK to patch the game to the best of his ability, even if it means free
work. I just don't trust Strategy First. After all, they released the sim
way too early not once, but twice.
From here on out, Strategy First should be called, "Money First, Quality
LAST".
Vern Pellerin
>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:43:33 GMT, vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern
>Pellerin) wrote:
>
>
>>From here on out, Strategy First should be called, "Money First, Quality
>>LAST".
>
>games like Kohan, Rails Across America and Europa Universalis. They
>were not released in an unfinished state and only required minor
>patches.
Different project managers maybe? Manager A says finish it before release,
and manager B says, put it on the shelf by this date or I'm cancelling the
project. If that's the case, then manager B should be fired, and manager A
should be promoted.
James
and is the manager on DukeNukem Forever :)
"Vern Pellerin" <vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d1zx9.247669$U7.69...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Vern Pellerin
>Not meaning to change the subject but I think Manager A works for 3drealms
>and is the manager on DukeNukem Forever :)
Hahahahhaahahaha.
ROTFL
Well, Duke Nukem does have a reputation to uphold. Duke Nukem 3D was
absolutely incredible. They better not screw up the Duke Nukem image with a
crappy product.
L'acrobat
> I trust TK to patch the game to the best of his ability, even if it means
free
> work. I just don't trust Strategy First. After all, they released the
sim
> way too early not once, but twice.
Depending on the legal agreement he may not be allowed to release even free
patches if Strat First feel they may reduce the value of their product.
L'acrobat
> > I have to disagree with that, I'd rather get no product than shell out
cash
> > for bad product.
> >
>
> Don't worry - I'm sure it won't be too many more years before most
> companies will consider it too risky and too costly to make a flight
> sim at all.
So be it, buying unfinished product that is not up to standard and then
hoping that a fan team will find a way to hack it into stability/useability
is not acceptable and is not better than no product at all.
MS has made consistent profits on their FS line and have developed it over
years, perhaps its time for underfunded developers to look at why MS has
kept making that money and look at incremental development rather than a
constant reinvention of the wheel.