my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Archives   » Jane's F/A-18 Archive 1   » Should I buy F18?

   
Author Topic: Should I buy F18?
Reeves Ethan
Member
Member # 2171

posted 01-22-2000 06:37 PM     Profile for Reeves Ethan     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hi, I'm new here.

F-18 looks like a game I'd like, and I'm just wondering if I have the right hardware to run it. There's no F-18 demo (yet), so I have no idea what kind of performance I should expect. I downloaded the Jane's USAF demo, and that ran pretty well on my system. Should I get similar performance in F-18?

Windows 98
Celeron 466 MHz
4 MB ATI 3d Rage Pro


Posts: 323 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wholehawg
Member
Member # 441

posted 01-22-2000 06:46 PM     Profile for Wholehawg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You probably got plenty of CPU but you might be short on vid card. so you won't be able to run with the graphics maxed out. Otherwise I would say go for it especally if you liked F-15.
Posts: 13 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Reeves Ethan
Member
Member # 2171

posted 01-22-2000 07:11 PM     Profile for Reeves Ethan     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Cool!

I have no problem with playing games at lower detail settings...

F-18, here I come!


Posts: 323 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Beat
unregistered

posted 01-22-2000 08:31 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am also interested in buying this game and have heard mixed reports. I really enjoyed Janes F-15 and have no problems with the graphics....i thought they looked great!...
But the thing is, over here ( Australia ) we cant return games if we dont like them...so i tend to be a little cautious when buying new ones...( worth about $80 over here too...)
So if anyone can add to other comments ( compare to F-15 is fine ) than i would be grateful....

Bear!


IP: Logged
Velociraptor
Member
Member # 1941

posted 01-22-2000 08:49 PM     Profile for Velociraptor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
ok, comparing jf/a 18 to jf 15

jf15 had 256 colors, was restricted to resolution of 600X480;
that "melting terrain" effect that sucked
there's no multiplayer coop missions in jf 15, only head to head basically

jf/a 18 has 16k colours, and can go to 1024X768 or 800X600 or 600X480 take your pick
no "melting terrain" effect
much deeper modelling of weapons, radar (e.g. it models radar cross section, so enemies more likely detect at long range if you bounce your radar from thier side, or they can hide from your radar in ground clutter below), avionics, comms
there's multiplayer coop missions in jf/a 18 on janescombat.net
better clouds, real time lighting, weather (e.g. lighting)
AI and comms more sophisticated
Carrier ops


I've only touched the surface of course, there's a lot more other improvements in jf/a 18, I don't have time and I don't know all of them

I think jf/a 18 rocks, it's lots of fun, it's strong in all aspects and it's got easy place to play multiplayer missions anytime you like. The mission editor is powerfull and fun too.

Personally, jf/a 18 is up there with falcon 4.0 as the 2 best hardcore military flight sims available on a PC today.(I fly jf/a 18 much more often than f4 these days)


Posts: 25 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jws
Member
Member # 2044

posted 01-22-2000 08:58 PM     Profile for Jws   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
F/A-18's Good:

Excellent Flight Model
Excellent Avionics
Excellent Detail
Excellent Carrier Ops
Superb lighting, special effects
Wingman AI is capable and doesn't need babysitting
Very powerful Mission/Campaign Builder

Neutral:
Cockpit: It runs slow, but is easy to use, fully clickable
Terrain: I don't think it looks bad, but it's not as good as USAF. Much like F-15.
Campaign:Semi-dynamic/branching. Not fully dynamic, but allows greater depth of story. In addition, you can build your own user-made campaigns.

Bad:
Runs somewhat slow in Campaign, especially in Cockpit view and/or around Murmansk

As you can see, the good outweighs the bad numerically, however, for some, the slowness and terrain graphics ruin the entire experience. For me, the terrain looks just fine, and the slowness can be countered by switching to HUD view with MFDs. I still the cockpit the most however. The lighting is amazing, and helps make up for the average terrain.

In the end, it's a matter of personal choice. Since you can't return it, you might want to wait for a demo.

IMHO, if you like F-15, and don't mind 10-15fps on a 450Mhz Geforce system or much reduced settings, or need the latest and greatest satellite terrain, you'll like F/A-18.

-Jws


Posts: 174 | From: Naples, FL, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
ScottMG
Member
Member # 1813

posted 01-22-2000 09:31 PM     Profile for ScottMG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
F-18 is a great sim, but if you don't already have MPS Falcon4, then you should DEFINATELY get that one first. By the time you've really gotten deep into Falcon4 (everyone has to own a copy of Falcon4), a patch should be out for F-18.

The frame-rates may be improved and (hopefully) the control bug will be resolved with the next patch. By then, you'll have 2 very cool sims that will keep you happy beyond the year2000.


Posts: 245 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Vector
Member
Member # 463

posted 01-22-2000 09:38 PM     Profile for Vector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah man, take these peoples advice, you can tell who cares about this sim and who doesn't by the people who bother to respond to people like you. Those trollers dissing up the sim are just doing it to piss people off, the real simmers here who take the time to adress you should be believed, and as we can all see this sim really is good.

------------------
-\/ector, Flight Sim Enthusiast


Posts: 903 | From: Comox, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Seawolf
Member
Member # 1787

posted 01-22-2000 09:41 PM     Profile for Seawolf   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree with Scott.
I also have Falcon4 and with the new wide angel panel I really love it, everything seems to click right with F4. Graphics,realism,weapons,FM, etc are all excellent. FA18 is a good sim, but as you may have heard there are some things people (including myself) don't like. I don't understand why i need a 800mhz system to run graphics which are average at best. The flight model is good and the missions are good. Janes usually puts out a demo on thier sims, kinda curious why they didn't for FA18. Maybe they were afraid it would hurt sales, who knows.

Posts: 1322 | From: Clearwater, Fl. USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Beat
unregistered

posted 01-23-2000 02:33 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
So i guess that Falcon 4.0 has improved a little since it was patched...( i guess most things do ) I knew a few people who brought the game ( F4 ) and said that it needs a big patch for it to work as it should...this was after 3 or 4 patches....whats it up to now?..1.08 or something...Might be worth a look...
IP: Logged
Shavah
Member
Member # 243

posted 01-23-2000 12:05 PM     Profile for Shavah   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"I don't understand why i need a 800mhz system to run graphics which are average at best."

Seawolf if you consider all of the things that are going on in the background in F-18 it's not hard to understand why it takes a brute of a PC to run it. The avionics alone probably eat up the majority of CPU cycles. F4 had the same problem when it was released, it simply wanted more memory and CPU than any of us had or was even available at the time.

Fortunately the developers gave us the ability to turn off some of the features to speed the sims up. The nice thing about this is that you can learn and play the sim when you get it and then continue to enjoy it even more once your next hardware upgrade is finished.

I recall going through tis very situation on many occaisions. Janes F-15 was slow on my 200mmx but ran great on my K6 350, F4 didn't cut it on my K6 350 but ran good on my celeron 450, WWII Fighters was slowish on my celeron 450 but runs damn fine on my celeron 550, F-18 runs a bit slow on my celeron 550 but will whoop butt on my next CPU.

It's just the way it is, and had always been.

[This message has been edited by Shavah (edited 01-23-2000).]


Posts: 551 | From: Omaha NE | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
eserron
Member
Member # 95

posted 01-23-2000 12:28 PM     Profile for eserron   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good point Shavah. Many seem to forget how our systems always seem to "grow into" our simulations. That's a good thing in my book. Make the detail settings in the sim scalable so that, as computers get more powerful, you can turn on more details. It gives the simulation a longer shelf life.

On the graphics comparison to other Janes sims, I don't have USAF, but I do have F15, FA18 and WWII Fighters. I think the graphics in FA18 are more like WWII Fighters than they are like F15. For one thing, F15 was all desert terrain--not much color or texture. There is a lot more color and texture in FA18 than in F15. I think Viking1 made a similar comparison several months ago--saying something to the effect that for FA18 graphics, we should "think WWII Fighters, only improved." I think that's an accurate statement. And the lighting, sky, and clouds in FA18 are truly good in my opinion.


Posts: 73 | From: Oak Hill, VA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Seawolf
Member
Member # 1787

posted 01-23-2000 12:34 PM     Profile for Seawolf   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
actually it is up to 1.08I now and so far it's great IMHO

quote:
Originally posted by Beat:
So i guess that Falcon 4.0 has improved a little since it was patched...( i guess most things do ) I knew a few people who brought the game ( F4 ) and said that it needs a big patch for it to work as it should...this was after 3 or 4 patches....whats it up to now?..1.08 or something...Might be worth a look...


Posts: 1322 | From: Clearwater, Fl. USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Cruise
Member
Member # 1912

posted 01-23-2000 12:42 PM     Profile for Cruise   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I have a P3500 with 256 PC133 Ram, and a Matrox G400 Max, with 32 Megs of Video Ram. I can run this game at MAX detail with no significant frame rate problems. You do not need a 800 mhz system to run this game. Even when I had a PII266, and 128 mega of RAM, I ran every game at MAX detail, including the first version of F4. If you want a good review of the game, read COMBATSIM's review. It seems accurate. But DO NOT allow the messages here to stop you from buying the game. You have your own evaluation criteria that noone here knows. Evaluate it for yourself. I almost let negative messages on this board keep me from buying the game. I'm glad I did not.
Posts: 88 | From: York, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Seawolf
Member
Member # 1787

posted 01-23-2000 12:47 PM     Profile for Seawolf   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Let me see if i can get this point across.
When it really comes down to it graphics are the biggest part of a sim along with realism (flight model, avionics, etc)
I have seen better graphics run faster on slower machines.
If the sim does not run smooth (even with settings on low) then it is hard to immerse your self into the sim. Isn't this what it is all about? putting us someplace we don't get to go in real life, but wish we could. (except for Hornit ;-)
I hope I live long enough to see virtual reality helmets that we wear instead of looking at a monitor and force feedback chairs, that would get you inot it big time.

Posts: 1322 | From: Clearwater, Fl. USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Aaron
Member
Member # 2158

posted 01-23-2000 01:06 PM     Profile for Aaron   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hmm well it depends on your definition of graphics. Sure the ground is a bit bland and there just aren't enough ground objects, but man the cloud layer with the swirls and shifting, misty look, the sky, the sun, the moon, the snow, the lightning, the water when set to shimmering (get low, it looks nice dark but nice). There is eye candy in this sim, but it is subtle, not quite like USAF but as far as actual terrain, F4 ain't all that great, but the objects make it great.

FA-18 is not perfect, and I sure wish they had done a better "how to" type manual, but it is a good sim that deserves to be played and supported and probably patched.


Posts: 56 | From: Georgetown, Texas, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved