In air graphics, how does the skies and other aircrafts look like, is it good or is it like the ground textures??

how about in air refueling, is it good (i belive the you have the intake in front of you unlike the f16)??

okay ground is bad, but do you see trains driving arond like they said it would??

the last one (for now at least)what would you say, if i can live with the "bad" ground textures and just want realism and some great fighting where its not allways the computer that wins, and the missiles have to act like in the real world, should i then buy this game??

Dennis

First of all I just got shot down by an SA 8.
I am using the highest difficulty level without spending time worrying about how to survive.
My targets: Diesl locomotive, Rail Tank transporter and rail wagons. I got 'em but I never saw them. I used cluster bombs to knock em out in CCIP mode. I never saw them move!
I have had a change of mind about low speed flying. The sense of speed is better than I first posted but having said that most other sims compare favourably too however as someone else mentioned the sense of height was missing. At low level on a high difficulty setting a2G activity is quite high but then F4/F2 drivers are used to this. SH wasn't bad but again it's back to the visuals and the yukky terrain spoils the feeling immensely. Even considering the good frame rates (I am using TNT post F4 and everything is ok ie with changing pexel size)the graphics just ruin the battle immersion for me. I just cannot ignore the poor terrain graphics. CCIP mode with cluster bombs is reasonably easy. I also question the damage modelling used. AFAIK the Hornet is built to sustain a lot of damage but I was hit so many times by AAA that I reckon I should have died. While acknowledging that an F16 is built differently, in F4 I would have been killed almost instantly had I adopted the same tactics.

BTW My wingmen took about 3 mins flight time to die at the highest setting. Also as Yorkshire Tea has pointed out you don't see your wingmen after takeoff too frequently. You would, I guess, have to be changing your wingman waypoints closer to your own flight plan to see them.
Visual effects are reasonably good but then TAW has pretty good effects as have F4/F2 and Mig Alley.

It's still early days but now I come directly to your question.
It's a question of expectations. The last sims I bought were Flanker 2, Mig Alley and Falcon 4 before SH. My expectations are high. I look for what seems to be reasonable flight models, reasonable visuals, dynamic campaign and/or mission editor and good playability/re-playability.
F2, MA and F4 fit that. SH does not currently fit everything. 1) Flight model is good to excellent 2) Visuals - IMHO the tradeoff between framerate and realistic visuals is always hard for a sim developer. I think they got it wrong to the point that it may cost sales 3) Canned missions - I want a campaign of any description. I cannot complain on this point as DI have always stated that they would work on the sim. What I don't like is that there are not enough canned missions to ensure a reasonable amount of gameplay before the next release. Yes, you can crank up the difficulty level but at the end of the day it's easy to get bored with that. The planner is too basic to take seriously ie it's like an advert at a cinema ie what's coming next
4) Playability - Good! I like the gameplay. A2A can be challenging. Early reviews of the sim suggest that this aspect has been improved for release. I like the A2A and I actually like the growl used for the AIM. (there's always one bad apple

Having said that, buy or not buy? It's up to you! As an overall package I think there are other sims which offer more. I suspect Janes's F18 will win over SH in the short term as it offers more gameplay and better graphics though it may not offer the same degree of realism (whatever that is . DI must get the mission editor/campaign out quickly to compensate for the graphics otherwise I think the sim won't make money.

Someone posted a comment in the F4 forum that it takes at least a year to come up with a graphics engine. Now, one point I must make is that this sim has only crashed once (Raz: while attempting to re-size a window by dragging the mouse but it's intermittent and I cannot reproduce it).I think the sim is stable enough to build on for campaign but that graphics engine IMHO needs to be re-thought for any new sims that DI produce as I suspect re-developing the graphics for SH simply won't happen.

In terms of realism, I consider SH unfinished and I haven't been able to form a fair conclusion other than that - I just haven't played it enough. I don't feel ripped off but it's not a sim I feel I can shout about either apart from the cockpit which I really like. I personally am prepared to wait for the next release but that next release will have to be really special before I start shouting: it's a must have.

Now, I have rambled on a bit and expressed what I feel right now.
I do feel it very important for those that really like the sim to balance out these points. Right now, I haven't seen too many posts that really express the good features of the sim. I might not agree with some points but I hope that opposite opinions to my own are expressed to give a better review of the sim.
After Hasbro saying goodbye to the F4 team I am acutely aware of the effect negative publicity can have over a period of time.
So, anyone with an alternative view, don't dither - reach for the quiver !

You made a statement about realism that has me puzzled. You said you believe SH has more realism than Jane's F-18. I would like you to elaborate on that....honestly I am curious. I truly believe that it's very much the other way around. I have played with Jane's and know something first hand of the sim. I have not played SH yet so I'm very interested! No malice intended here and this is not a flame, I just want to hear your opinions. All I have to go on right now is what I have read on the newsgroups, and what has been said here and a few other sites.
Thanks for your time and also all the great info you have put out concerning SH.

1) I am not in a position to judge as I don't have the sim nor am I a pilot.
2) From the little reading I have done it sounds as if Janes F18 is graphically excellent but takeoff procedures etc are not modelled.
I stand corrected sir! I should have been more careful with my words and done more homework on Janes F18.
Just for the record, I'll be getting Janes F18 when it comes out in the UK.

One thing I can say is that the SH flight model feels intuitively right. At first I was amazed at how difficult it was to stall and I questioned the spin recovery as too easy. But I gather that the Hornet is quite a forgiving bird in these respects so I am inclined to think that's quite reasonable. Takeoff/Landings speeds seem about right ie the speed values don't seem ridiculous.
As I keep on saying (like a broken record) it's too early to say. The last couple of days have seen patches to F2, Falcon4 and Mig Alley so SH time for me has been limited.
One question I have. Will Janes run happily on a TNT card?

i must say that you do a good jog here, you have a ne sim and you still have time to make posts around here, and hey look at it this way, i have chated with lots of people that claim they have tried janes and they say its really realistic, but all of them says the ground graphics is a little bad and that carrier ops are really good when you get directed around there, is it only me or is this SH they are talking about?? and i must say any sim is a matter of opinion and ill get the sim as soon as it hits there stores around here (they promise me today and no latter than tomorrow) and ill come around and say what i mean about the flight dynamics and so on

bluesy

If you use PGP cryptography, a lot of people will lose their fundings!
Support Echelon! Use weak cryptography!

i can tell you that the old f18 a/b/c/d is not so stable in spins and stall, while the new F18 /e has something new in it, when they build it the made it larger so it would be easier to fit in a upgrade, then they update all avionics computers (flight data computer, FDC)and flight control computers (FCC)this update has made it more stabil because of the larger wings, and allso the FCC works together with FDC to wtach out for stalls and help you recover from it, it was supposed to be made so it would fully recover with out the pilot touching the stick and throttle but i think they looked at airbus and decided only to make it semiautomatic

i want to comment your post

1. janes will be missing some thing in realism like the taxi/takeoff and engine start on the carrier, and somethings will not be as good as in SH

2. janes have pitch and roll on the carrier from the begining but SH will do it with a patch when they have seen janes

3. SH dont have the campaign (will arrive in the gold version), janes have campaign

4. after reading rewievs of both games i think (this is my oppinon) that janes will focus a bit more on graphics and gameplay, while SH will be a bit more realism, both being realy close to each other.

5. looking at screenshoots i like the cockpit in SH much more

i havent tried either sim (damm importer(distributer here in denmark havent send the game out yet), so this my oppinion based on the rewievs and the offical homepages

[snip]
>2. janes have pitch and roll on the carrier
>from the begining but SH will do it with a
>patch when they have seen janes

Adding something as fundamental as a moving
carrier deck is not a trvial matter. Apart
from the graphical and object modeling
issues, it has huge implications for the AI.

[snip]
>4. after reading rewievs of both games i
>think (this is my oppinon) that janes will
>focus a bit more on graphics and gameplay,
>while SH will be a bit more realism, both
>being realy close to each other.

Jane's F/A-18 is being developed by the same
team that developed F-15. It will be a
much higher-fidelity sim (flight model,
avionics, weapons packages, etc) than
SuperHornet.

I have flown DIs sim and Janes FA 18. While I greatly enjoyed the deck opps modeling in DIs sim, I find I am not missing it in Janes sim. The incredible amount of detail in comms makes up for it

"For your info F-18 will run very well on a TNT card."

Certainly loves my TNT2.

As for the comment above that janes focuses more on graphics and gameplay, yes graphics are considerably better and gameplay is excellent, but not at the expense of realism. The comms and control of wingmen is considerably stronger in Janes (I'll have final confirmation of this Monday after a couple more missions in DIs Super Hornet).

I haven't yet seen any compromise in avionics or systems as compared to DIs super hornet. In fact, so far it looks like AT FLIR is more detailed in Janes sim.

Next, the display in DIs sim:

The second display has some extra controls on it (the ALG which controls automatic gain). In fact the ALG doesn't appear on the Janes FLIR, but then it isn't really necessary since it is the default starting mode, and every time you turn on the FLIR you will start out with that setting.

But for the real sticklers for realism, it might appeal to have EVERYTHING the real Hornet has. I notice the manual for DIs sim also notes that you must wait about 5 secs for the gyros to spin up when you go from OFF to STBY or ON in the FLIR. Not sure if this is the case in Janes, didn't notice its mention.

I should have taken the Janes shot from the left MFD for a better compare, will replace it when I get a chance.

1. What is the terrain like ? I don't mind a sim looking like a sim rather than real world - just wanted to get an impression

2. What's the sense of speed like ?

3. Is there a HUD-only view ?

I have a PII 350 with 128Mb RAM, and a 16Mb Createive Blaster Voodoo II - will it run ok ?

1. If that blurry noice means rain there?
2. Where are external lights? Even stealth got them. Why F/A-18E has no gabarit, nav and beacon lights even at night?

If someone can explain this - I'll be happy.
All other in this sim - on a very high(almost great) level. Model is perfect. Very detalized. It's nice.

Merkava,
Yes, I'm afraid that "blurry noise" means rain in Super Hornet. In real jet aircraft it's looks very similiar to this once the aircraft is flying (sort of blurs one's view). Of course on the ground, the drops hitting the windscreen look exactly like they do on your automobile windshield. All transport category aircraft are fitted with windshield wipers (they ALL seem to make more noise than they should), and some of the older jets are still fitted with "rain repellant" dispensers. One squirt and the rain literally is chemically removed from the windshield. It works quite well, but there have been incidents in the aviation industry where these repellant recepticles have leaked in the cockpit...not good, so most have been removed.
As far as your question about the external lights, can't answer this one. If it was an oversight on the part of the programmers, then shame on them...maybe in a patch, ala Falcon 4.

Vapor 131,
Yes the FLIR can be brought up in the DDIs and/or the UFCD. However, when shown in the UFCD, it cannot be manipulated as it can when displayed in one of the DDIs.

Later,
BBall

the reason for the rain repealent system being removed on many aircraft is that in most of the world today its illegal to use, because of some of the chemicals that it contains, and allso that it has been leaking into some cockpits.