I wonder if anyone would be interested in making a comparison to other F/A-18 sims, with respect to the cockpit. Here is one:

What do you reckon?

RJ

You see, all these attempts to be photorealistic is noteworthy, but you just aren't going to be able to pull it off with today's hardware.

The Baltimore Team made a Flight SIM, not a world terrain-SIM, or a photo-realistic cockpit SIM. and I'm MORE than happy with their 3D cockpit, graphics, etc... my imagination can fill in any holes at all.

I like it better than IAF, USAF, etc...

I know you weren't inferring any opinion, Ruben. Most of my angst is just aimed at people on this board who are upset that their own personal expectations weren't met.

Hell, I still enjoy EF2000 immensly. I mean, you could land on ANY road, and just taxi around town!! I remember landing at this train station/town thing, and just driving through the streets in my EF2000. You couldn't do that and have that TYPE of realism/object detail if you had an engine like IAF/USAF... they are different game and sim engines. Apples and Oranges.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tolwyn:
Personally, I like Janes' better.
....Sigh. Ok, ok... I'll drink my coffee and shut up, now.

---

Tolwyn,

Please do not mind me making this comparison. I just feel there is another option for myself when I am tired about riding Jane's.

I like Jane's too and equally DISH as well as Super EF2000.

Ruben

To me, the more sims the better.
I have:

Janes:
F15
F18
WW2
IAF
USAF

DID:
EF2000

Microprose:
Falcon 4

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swampfox:
......and that I would rather have 2D standard graphics and call up 3D when needed.

---

Swampfox,

Talking about 3D and 2D cockpits, maybe you really should try out DISH for this. The screenshot here in fact moves as you move your mouse and the cursor reaches the screen's boundaries. So by definition, it's a 3D cockpit too! It doesn't hit the frame rate either. Next I will post another one with FRAPS counter in place.

Anyway, thanks.

Godards

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seawolf:
....Having a 2D would have made this run a lot smoother ...

---

Agree, wholeheartedly agree. In fact, looking back at F15, isn't its 2D cockpit working excellently well. And the combat results have got nothing much to do with whether it is 2D or 3D. It doesn't really matter that much.

A combo of 2D and padlock is what is needed.

BTW, the 3D cockpit approach in F15 is not bad.

Godards

No it isn't.
It is just an oversized 2D graphic that is being scrolled around (awfully slow btw) with the mouse. Due to its 2D nature, the view shift is also extremely limited, I would guess less than 20 degrees in every direction. If you want more than that you have to use the static snap views (or the, compared to JF-18, ridiculous 3D cockpit).

A combo of 2D and padlock is what is needed.