|
|
This is our archive forum. It contains posts from 1999 to 2003. If you prefer, you may participate in our current COMBATSIM.COM Forum
|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Review: Strike Fighters: Project 1
|
|
|
|
|
Groucho
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 11-18-2002 11:51 AM
   
Thanks for the review Aaron.Like you, I have been looking for a sim that models this era of aircraft...a time before fly-by-wire and when your primary flight management / avionics computer was the GIB (Guy In Back). However, I am still unclear on a couple of points about Strike Fighters. Are the flight models convincing, or is it a CFS3/Crimson Skies-esque faux-starfighter thing? Are the tech-of-the-era-limited search and targeting radars modeled with a tip towards authenticity or are they Gods-eye view affairs? Are there difficulty sliders to adjust these settings? Thanks. -------------------- Bob "Groucho" Marks
"Si ego certiorem faciam...mihi tu delendus eris"
-Groom Lake (NV) Mission Patch, Project Unknown
Posts: 530 | From: Bakersfield, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged
|
|
Spectre_USA
Member
Member # 9551
|
posted 11-18-2002 01:22 PM
You're Welcome Bob,In answer to your questions, yes, sort of, and yes. Howzat?
 To flesh those out a bit, the FM is definately no CFS3/Crimson Skies affair.
Very real feel, though that is on hard setting. It's the same with the Radar.
On easy mode, it's God's eye view, where hard looks through the usual cone. It's definately not a Falcon 4 style bars and height, but is a nod to realism.
Thirdwire was shooting for the broad appeal with all the settings, I've been told.
Here's a listing, and range from Easy, through Normal to Hard...  -------------------- -=Spectre=-
1800+ posts, prior to Meltdown 20 Oct 02
If at 1st you don't succeed, call in an Air Strike!
Posts: 294 | From: Spokane, WA, US of A! | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Banger
Member
Member # 5631
|
posted 11-18-2002 02:33 PM
Nice one, Speccie!Would you mind sharing your system specs? Wondering if I have the horsepower for this one. Sounds worth having, though. -------------------- February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...
Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spectre_USA
Member
Member # 9551
|
posted 11-18-2002 08:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Banger:
Nice one, Speccie!Would you mind sharing your system specs? Wondering if I have the horsepower for this one. Sounds worth having, though.
D'oh! I knew I forgot something at the end there. System specs for main system... AMD Athlon XP2200+
512 MB DDR RAM
GeForce4 Ti 4400 (128MB) I have run it well on the following system also... AMD Athlon 900
768 MB PC133 RAM
GeForce2 Mx-400 (64MB) The first one, of course, screams, the 2nd is very playable with 17 - 22 fps, except in
crowded skies situations, where 12 or so are rarely encountered. Please excuse the ommission. -------------------- -=Spectre=-
1800+ posts, prior to Meltdown 20 Oct 02
If at 1st you don't succeed, call in an Air Strike!
Posts: 294 | From: Spokane, WA, US of A! | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Dy
Member
Member # 9313
|
posted 11-19-2002 08:59 AM
That's one of the things I do like about Strike Fighters. It has great looking aircraft. But it does not require a hot machine to play it. I'm running very smoothly on:
PIII 850
384MB PC100 RAM
GeForce 4 128MB Ti4200 Of course, you can adjust your detail and resolution settings to fit your frame rate preferences. I suspect the game will still look good even on older video cards. I played the beta on my system but with a RIVA 32MB TNT2 instead of the GeForce, and it still looked decent. But in comparison, while CFS3 looks good on the new Ti4200, on my old TNT2 it looks, um, NOT so good. So it's clear to me Strike Fighters' performance scales better than CFS3.
Posts: 71 | From: Texas | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home
© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b
|
|
Home of the VMF-124 Death's Head Squad
|
