To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Sender: devnull@onion.rain.com (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Bcc: hitech-sim-out Subject: Hitech Simulation Digest V2 : I9 Hitech Simulation Digest Volume 2 : Issue 9 Sat Mar 12 00:43:22 PST 1994 Compilation copyright (C) 1994 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "hitech-sim@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] Today's Topics: F14FD RIO bass ackwards masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Mast FD RIO option, SVGA Harrier opus@ihlpf.att.com F14 FD Speed Christopher Thompson Now this might just be a matter of symantics (sp?) But I thought the >RIO in real life (Authentic) was an intergral part of the system. That >is he controlled much of the radar, spotted bandits, locked up distant >targets, etc etc etc. Point being, the authentic does not seem to >be authtentic. More, just increases the difficulty. Which is fair >enough, I am not griping. I enjoy hopping in back to control the >radar as much as anyone. But in a close in fur ball, the extra set of >hands would be very useful ;) >So in the end I am whimping out and bumping it down to moderate. Good point, Scott! I imagine they just decided to have all the tri- options conform to a common set of labels (standard, moderate, authentic). While some indeed would better be designated "easy, moderate, tough"! Doesn't one of the F3 add-ons have flight models labeled "realistic" followed by "difficult"? In this progression, the next possilbe flight model ("impossible"?) would be perceived as better! :-) I bet we aren't the only ones who experience some dissonance when "whimping out" and selecting a "lesser" setting. How about the "Backseat Controls" option? Wouldn't you rather set it to standard and be able to fly the damn thing from the back? Sometimes difficult may be less realistic. Dave masten@beta.lanl.gov ------------------------------- From: opus@ihlpf.att.com Subject: FD RIO option, SVGA Harrier MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU (Scott Morgan) writes: >My attention was drawn to the RIO options. You have >three settings, Standard, Moderate, and Authentic. > >Standard: RIO locks up nearest target > >Moderate: RIO is a little more casual > >Authentic: The RIO is just along for the ride > >I thought the >RIO in real life (Authentic) was an integral part of the system. Very true. >Point being, the authentic does not seem to >be authentic. More, just increases the difficulty. You're absolutely right. "Authentic" in this case is just misleading terminology. Just like the Backseat controls option. At "Authentic" level, you can't fly the plane when you're in the back seat. In a real plane you'd have a real pilot who hopefully doesn't fall asleep every time you change the radar mode! :^) So since you're responsible for both jobs, it seems more authentic to be able to operate the controls for both crew members at the same time. >I am not griping. I enjoy hopping in back to control the >radar as much as anyone. But in a close in fur ball, the extra set of >hands would be very useful ;) > >So in the end I am whimping out and bumping it down to moderate. I did the same thing, just to get the RIO to dispense countermeasures for me. The padlock view does not seem to reliably lock onto incoming missiles (the MPS folks confirm that it's supposed to do this), otherwise I'd do it myself. By the way, the documentation for this game contains many holes, uncharacterstic for Microprose. I posted a long list of questions to the MPS BBS and received a prompt reply. If people are having trouble figuring things out for themselves I could post the response I got here. Also, every flight sim nut who is considering buying Fleet Defender should know that it comes with a $10 rebate coupon for 1942: Pacific Air War. You do NOT have to buy the latter game from MPS directly to use the rebate. You just have to send in the coupon with a proof of purchase for 1942 to get your money. Very nice of them, I think, and I will definitely take them up on it. -- Jo Haavar Slangsvold writes: > I'm missing some discussion about the AV8b here... It never really seemed to catch on. My experience has been with the SVGA version only. >Me and a >friend of mine played through this great sim the last week of the >winter olympics (Closed schools, TOO many gold-medals collected by >Norwegians ;). You snow freaks! :^) >When we left Tarawa on our first flight, we >thought "Hey, how is it possible to control this bastard?", but it >took only about 15 minutes to get the feeling right. (We both have CH- >products-equipment (CH Flightstick and a CH Pro)). And this is what I >want to tell you about; The Feeling! Absolutely. It has the best feeling of flight that I have ever experienced on a PC. The fluidity of control is just amazing. This quality is lacking in F15III, Fleet Defender, and Tornado, and is present is lesser measure in the F3 series. The only sims that equal it that I know of are the Fighter Duel series for the Amiga (which came out HOW long ago?!?). As you can tell, I really like SVGA Harrier's flight model. It handles AOA appropriately, models energy bleed, and does a bang up job with low speed hover characteristics (not that I'm any kind of expert), with realistic inertial effects. The only things I haven't really tested are weight and drag effects of ordnance and performance variations with altitude. >I've never >felt something like that before in any other flightsim. This could >mean that we haven't played long enough with the other sims in the >market, or Domark has done something that no other developer has been >able to do. I've played almost everything else out there. This one is special. Of particular note is the way the fluid feel is maintained even when the frame rate drops (I'll get to this later). It's clear that the control inputs and plane position are measured and updated at a very high rate even if the screen is only drawn 4-5 times a second. While the flight model is the highlight of this sim, the rest of it is somewhat of a mixed bag. I'll give my impressions here, but anyone who wants to know the whole story should check out Tom "KC" Basham's review of the game in the January CGW. Tom, that was one of the best reviews I've ever read. You nailed all the important points, and I found myself agreeing with every word you wrote (I read the review AFTER buying the game :^). - Avionics seem accurate enough. The AV-8B has no radar, so there isn't much there in the first place. There are backup analog gauges for most HUD info. True airspeed is displayed on the HUD as opposed to indicated or calibrated or equivalent airspeed (ask Stuart Butts if you don't know what these mean :^). - Cannon shells and rockets arc downwards due to gravity. - There is no lead computing optical gunsight, so deflection shots are done by eyeballing it. This game is actually good practice for playing Air Warrior in this respect. - There is a CCIP bombsight, but I have trouble hitting things reliably with it, especially at shallow angles. There is also an Angle Rate Bombing System similar to Strike Commander's CCRP bombing mode. The Harrier uses lasers and cameras to implement this since it has no A-G radar. - Enemy radar sites turn off when you fire HARMs at them. If they switch off before your missile has acquired the target, it will miss. - The manual is very poor, leaving out lots of important information. - The enemy A.I. is bad. I can toast multiple F-16s all by myself using only guns. Missiles seem to miss a lot. - Visibility in dogfights is a BIG problem because of the limited number of views available. You come to rely on the upfront controller message bar that displays messages from the AWACS telling you where the nearest bandit is (e.g. 3 o'clock high). This is unfortunate, but then the focus of the game is on close air support. - The ground graphics are reminiscent of AOE, though a lot sharper and with more objects and roads thrown in. There is also a very nicely done hazing effect that changes the color of distant objects (as opposed to blanking them totally out like SC does). Mountains do not just pop up out of nowhere. The overall effect is much superior to AOE. - The wargame part of the simulation is fairly simplistic and cumbersome to work, but it's better than nothing and adds a lot to the overall package. - Unlike F3, where missions are strung together in a discrete fashion, everything in SVGA Harrier happens in real time. Ground units move from place to place and fight each other (not nearly as interesting to watch as F3), enemy C-130s try to sneak in to drop vehicles which try to repair bases you've damaged, AV-8Bs and helicopters take off from your task force to fly missions, and enemy aircraft take-off to intercept you if you get too close to an airbase. You can jump into the cockpit of any Harrier at any time or let the computer do the work. - AAA sites fire visible tracers at you, similar to Tornado but not quite as nicely done. > Anyone tried the SVGA-version? Now onto comments about the SVGA version in particular. - Had a heck of time getting it to run. It runs in extended mode, so I eventually had to boot almost clean, though I did manage to sneak in a disk cache (Hyperdisk). It requires a ridiculously SMALL amount of conventional memory to start up. - Supports ATI Mach 8 and Mach 32 and S3 chipsets directly. Can work with any VESA compatible card (most cards come with a TSR to emulate VESA). I have an ATI Graphics Ultra (Mach 8), but I got an extremely annoying screen flicker when I told the program to use access chip directly. I was forced to use a VESA TSR just to run the game without getting a headache. The frame rate on my 486/33 ISA seemed quite good with the built-in ATI support, but is just acceptable with the VESA TSR. It's just dandy for ground attack, but in dogfights it probably drops to 4-5 fps, which doesn't look great but also doesn't affect my performance in the least for reasons I've already mentioned. The good news is that there is a patch for the ATI flicker, and Domark sent it on a disk which I should receive today. - Comes with the VGA version. - The display is 640x480x256 colors. The dashboard is remarkably crisp, as is the HUD symbology. It is easy to recognize distant objects. Very nice! The view area to the front is far larger than the VGA version. The only minus is that the cockpit braces are not visible in the 60 and 120 degree views. Bottom line: An entertaining sim/game (it's a floor wax AND a dessert topping). If you like blowing things up on the ground while getting shot at and making vertical landings, this one's for you. I give it a medium-sized thumb's up. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: Christopher Thompson Subject: F14 FD Speed Just a quick question here concerning MPS's F14 Fleet Defender: How well would it run on a 386DX - 25 Mhz system with 4 megs of RAM? I was quite satisfied with F15 SE III. I realize that it is time to update my hardware, but as a poor university student, it could be a while before that happens. -=Christopher Thompson=- ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: F14FD questions HI all, Rob offers: >By the way, the documentation for this game contains many holes, >uncharacterstic for Microprose. I posted a long list of questions to >the MPS BBS and received a prompt reply. If people are having trouble >figuring things out for themselves I could post the response I got here. Thanks Rob, I would like to see it if it is not too much trouble to transcribe. :) Here are a few short questions: 1. How do we adjust the Gun camera Zoom in and out? Looked through the manual and key card and found no definite references to controling the magnification of the Gun camera. Sitting here at work I wonder if Z and X will do it? Hmm..something to try when I get home. 2. Does anyone have DIP Switch settings and key functions for us lowly WCS Mark I owners? I really like the concept of the Mark II, but money is tight now. I hope us Mark I owners won't be forgotten about in the future generation of flight sims. Note: If these answers are in the gaming manuals, feel free to just send the relevant page numbers. >Also, every flight sim nut who is considering buying Fleet Defender should >know that it comes with a $10 rebate coupon for 1942: Pacific Air War. >You do NOT have to buy the latter game from MPS directly to use the rebate. >You just have to send in the coupon with a proof of purchase for 1942 to >get your money. Very nice of them, I think, and I will definitely take >them up on it. I am already looking to see what can be deleted from my HD to make room for PAW 1942. Lets see, CorelDraw, Excel, Word bah!...... who needs 'em ;^) Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: RE:F14 FD Speed Christopher inquires: >Just a quick question here concerning MPS's F14 Fleet Defender: >How well would it run on a 386DX - 25 Mhz system with 4 megs of RAM? I >was quite satisfied with F15 SE III. I realize that it is time to update >my hardware, but as a poor university student, it could be a while before >that happens. >-=Christopher Thompson=- It has been a while since I have flown F15III. F14 FD "seems" to run better than F15III did. This could be due to the fact that there is less ground detail to draw (overall that is). On my 486/25, 8 mb ram and Diamond SpeedStar 24X F14 FD runs very well at full detail. However, I would imagine on a 386/25 for me to be happy with frame rates I would need to turn the detail levels down. If you were happy with F15III then I would venture to guess you would also be pleased with F14 FD in the speed department. Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: HIETT@caer.uky.edu Subject: what I heard about SVGA Harrier.... Hi pilots..... after reading Jo Haavar Slangsvold's AV8B stories I was reminded of what an ole' F4 Phantom pilot told me. He said his favorite sim was SVGA Harrier and for exactly the reason you described..."feel". I have not tried the sim, but will someday. "Feel" is very important to all FSs..some folks prefer "look" some "sound" some "feel" and some like the "campaign". I personally prefer "sound", 'feel" & "look" in that order. And I ditch the campaigns. lateron -=john "sirpo" hiett=- hiett@caer.uky.edu CI$:72724,204 ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 2 : Issue 9 ]]