my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » F/A-18 Don't buy it! Protest....it is not finished by far!!! (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: F/A-18 Don't buy it! Protest....it is not finished by far!!!
DRAGGON
Member
Member # 1853

posted 01-10-2000 12:12 PM     Profile for DRAGGON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I know some of you will pummel me for this but I generally play all the hot sims (I.E. Falcon 4, EAW, Mig Alley). I went through several missions on F/A-18 and tweaked all I could but one thing kept staring me in the face!!! The graphice remind me of the old F-17 Stealth fighter game that I played on my P5 90. Janes/EA should be rely lambasted for putting out a sim today with such poor graphics. It has some potential but I don't think this sim will establish the following like EAW has with all the addons and improvments! My copy of F/A-18 goes back today!!!

DRAGGON


Posts: 3 | From: Weyauwega, WI USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Hurricane
unregistered

posted 01-10-2000 01:29 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
AGREED 100%

Jane F18 SUCKS.

Graphics; lighting is way too dark.

Sound; there practically isn't any in the
cockpit view.

Gameplay; did you ever get the radar
to work in STT mode? Doesn't seem to work
at all.


IP: Logged
JG26_Frost
Member
Member # 1865

posted 01-10-2000 01:39 PM     Profile for JG26_Frost   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well if you stop playing games with that s3 Virge then you can see real graphics. But really what vid card are you using? Cause it looks pretty good on my system, and yes it is dark at times. But I think the smoke, explosions, and models look damn good.
Posts: 75 | From: Portland Maine USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-10-2000 01:56 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The damn sim is way to dark durring the day. Forget about dawn and dusk, the land can get pitch black at times with a little cloud cover.

Wait a month or so before buying this one.

Trust me, you'll save yourself some heart ache.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Shavah
Member
Member # 243

posted 01-10-2000 06:49 PM     Profile for Shavah   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
By hitting ctrl+pgup, or is it shift+pgup?, anyway... you can raise and lower the sun, use pgdn to lower it. Things get real bright on my v2sli setup when I set the daylight position to high noon. It seems like most all of the missions start you either at late dawn or early dusk, which accounts for some of the darkness experienced the first few times you fly this thing.
Posts: 551 | From: Omaha NE | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SuperGroove
Member
Member # 771

posted 01-10-2000 07:17 PM     Profile for SuperGroove   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I was just wondering if you guys who hate F/A-18, have done anything except look at the graphics? If not, I highly recommend you keeping it for the main reason I have it;exhilirating carrier ops. If you guys can make it back to a the ship at night, with zero visibility, as well as the boat rocking, and that still doesn't satisfy you, well than what will? You guys might think landing the plane aboard the carrier is easy(it is...sort of),but how many of you can do it correctly? Have you guys tried refuelling at night? Quite demanding, and I'm sure you gripers can't do it because of the fact you can't even get past the graphics. The graphics should not hinder you from enjoying this sim. Ergh...enjoy the sim for once. I too think the graphics are average in most aspects, but coming home from a demanding mission and landing aboard the carrier just before the sun sets, it's a beautiful thing. Believe me it is. It's even more beautiful with a good framerate, even if you have to sacrifice a few detail settings to get them.

SG


Posts: 800 | From: Colorado | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-10-2000 07:46 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I just bought F/A-18 and may return it within the week. I'm usually the last guy to worry about the graphics and I knew even months back from screenshots that it wouldn't be USAF graphically. I was shocked when I actually played the game however, It looks more like the 5 year old EF2000 than anything else. I actually liked the 3D cockpit and I get good frame-rates with maxed settings. I just don't get the feeling of flight that is so much a part of Flanker 2 but then again, the real Hornet has been said to feel "artificial". The sounds are another sticking point, the external engine noise in paricular, reminds me of a damn mosquito. Nothing like the jet engine sound- fest you get in Flanker 2. It's also too bad this game isn't World War compatible. I'm gonna give this game a week, then I'll go back to EB for MiG Alley and change.
Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Casey
Member
Member # 873

posted 01-10-2000 08:08 PM     Profile for Casey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
NUTS!

I was gonna wait on this one. But today I received a nice little postcard from Jane's/EA telling me I could order online at a discount price since I'm a registered Jane's user, or something.

So, I ordered away.

I only paid $24.95- it will have to be pretty bad to dissappoint at that price!

But seriously, those of you who are familiar with F-15 and have tried F-18: If I loved F-15, will this sim at least strike me as F-15 with updated effects?

Good hunting.

[This message has been edited by Casey (edited 01-10-2000).]


Posts: 636 | From: America | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
ronaldd
Member
Member # 1881

posted 01-10-2000 08:39 PM     Profile for ronaldd   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Is anyone else seeing "see-thru" MFD's?...I have a Voodoo 3 with latest drivers and DX7 and my F18's terrain looks like **** !!!Large blocks of black....
Posts: 2 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-10-2000 08:44 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I didn't perticularly like Janes F-15, I thought Janes F/A-18 would be better, but it really isn't, infact I think I like it less.

The aircraft just feels so damn slugish in a dogfight. If you are picking this sim up hoping for some killer dogfights, go get MiG Alley or European Air War instead.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 01-10-2000 10:13 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I have read that the graphics model was based on Janes WWII fighters. I thought the weather and lighting effects in WWII fighters were the very well done, if not the best of all sims out there. How come F/A-18 does not have the qualities of WWII fighters?

Also, I keep hearing the plane has a sluggish feel to it. The real F-18 can do 2 rolls in a little over a second. Is this possible with the FM in the game? I got a bad feeling about this one. Has anyone noticed that there has been no previews of upcoming sims with Janes? Maybe their about to pull the plug on the company all together. I think I'll get this game If they patch it up.


Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-11-2000 12:28 AM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hows 2 rolls in 3 seconds for you? It's official, Janes botched the flight model. I've been trying like heck to get past mach 2, stall, and or spin the aircraft with no luck. The best I've managed to push this pig to was 800 something mph. And that was going strait down with full burners from 45,000ft. For all that extra fuel that got added to the E model, it sure sucks gas like a bitch does money. The fuel flow problem is much much worse than in F/A-18 Hornet 3.0, I get around 10 minutes of joy out of her with burners. I can get a stall where I pitch up 40 degrees then the nose slowly sinks down ever so slightly till I get controll effectiveness back. All this is in a perfectly strait line, mind you.

I cant spin her, I've tried, oh how I've tried. Guess them new fangled aircraft have magic wings where you can never get one stalled more than the otherone no matter what angle you're at. If the aircraft was going at a decent airspeed loaded with iron bombs, I'd swear this bird was the failed naval version of the F-105. But it doesn't go fast at all, that's the thing. It wont hardly do past 500mph in a clean configuration. I hate to say it, but if this the way the real aircraft performs, the navy should have bought some F-105's. At least they go fast.

Thankfully I reckon the real aircraft handles nothing like this. I rung the flight model inside out. I'm just as stupified as you all are. Not only is this game not a whole lot of fun. It also isn't realistic...at all.

Looks bad
Sounds bad
Flys bad
...Is bad

The only question I'm left with is...


WHY THE **** DID YOU IDIOTS AT JANES CANCEL A-10 FOR THIS PIECE OF ANTIQUATED MICKY MOUSE **** !!!????!!!??!!

In short I wish Janes Combat Simulations many product returns and a quick death. At least Falcon 4.0 tried and died. Janes F/A-18 didn't even try.

One last thing. Why does this sim even bother having a 3D cockpit? No matter how many hits you take, or how much turbulence you have, the damn cockpit doesn't move. I guess I was spoiled on virtual cockpits with JSF. How come the WWII fighters cockpits look so damn good in 3D while the F/A-18 cockpit looks fake, cheesy, blocky, ect?

All I wanted from Janes was a good solid simulation. Not one with a dynamic campaign or any other fancy feature, just a good solid old school simulation. And they couldn't even give me that. This is it, this is the best Janes can do with whats left of it's development staff.

Goodbye Janes. Maybe you can get together with the Falcon 4.0 team and cry about how the simulation fans didn't accept your "wonderfull" work for what it was. On second thought, I dont want the Falcon team associating with you guys. They tried something different and failed, but at least they tried. Something you didn't do.

Normally I dont flame. But this is a special case. A very special simulation, Janes A-10 Thunderbolt was canceled because faith was put on the F/A-18 team to pull through and make a great simulation that everyone would love more than a A-10 sim. The team that put together F/A-18 broke the faith, they made a really bad sim, one of the worst I've seen in years, I think it's worse than Saber Ace, but that's just me. They broke the faith and I'm going to see that they burn bad for it.

You can call me whatever you want to. My eyes are wide open on this matter. I gave the sim a fair shot. Now I'm gonna shoot it's *** down wherever and whenever I can.

If you dont like what I'm saying, try a little bit of flight testing yourselfs.

I'm not dissapointed about this sim, I'm ****ing pissed off at it.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
vpr_drv
unregistered

posted 01-11-2000 01:52 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Janes F18 models F/A-18E.

Longer wingspan, more weight, more momentum more inertia. So 2 rolls in 3 seconds seems OK. About that 2 rolls in 1 sec, is it the super hornet or the hornet (or worse, the blue angels--the planes are stipped off combat essentials and the FCS/FCC/FBW tweaked for airshow).

About inablility to stall. Super hornet (IIRC) is a FBW plane with 50 deg max AOA!!! So it doesn't sound all that wrong with the FM.

<I can get a stall where I pitch up 40 degrees then the nose slowly sinks down ever so slightly till I get controll effectiveness back. All this is in a perfectly strait line, mind you.>

The FBW would ignore any inputs from the pilot in this case and lower the nose.

<I've been trying like heck to get past mach 2, stall, and or spin the aircraft with no luck.>

Even the hornet can't go to Mach 2. Look at F-15E, it's RATED to go to MACH 2.5 but in reality it can't. Stall and spin, that's the job of FBW to stay away from that.

<The fuel flow problem is much much worse than in F/A-18 Hornet 3.0, I get around 10 minutes of joy out of her with burners. >

Problems with the real hornet and super hornet in AB. Seems realistic in AB to have only 10 mins of play time.

Looks like Janes F18 FM isn't so porked as some say.

Hornit if you are reading this, could you please explain this subject a little further?


IP: Logged
anonymous
unregistered

posted 01-11-2000 05:51 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
i haven't bought FA-18 yet, MajorTom...but it would seem that perhaps you would wait at least until after 1 patch before making such comments? After all, you say F4 tried and died...but it had a lot of patches...in that way it is an unfair comparison, you gotta give FA-18 at least 1 patch before you spout that stuff. Although I will say, if it is still like that after the patch, then continue as you were....
IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 01-11-2000 02:28 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I will buy it and I will *LOVE* it, just to piss you loosers off.

Look who's talking about flightmodel - you whimps prolly think driving stick is complicated...

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
507
unregistered

posted 01-11-2000 02:45 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hehehe Major troll you are still complaining. What do you know about a FM are you a pilot ahhh NO!!! you are not. If you want a super plane please go fly a novalogic sim. You incessant whining about F18 is... childish at best. Why dont you present the facts as they are according to 2 actual hornet drivers the FM is spot on and very detailed. Are you a nova weenie because you talk like one. If anyone reading this thread wants to read an ojective and unbiased review please go to the F18 forum there are many for and against reviews there. To base your purchase on something Major troll opinions would be a waste of your time. OK major you can go back to novaworld now.

John


IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-11-2000 06:25 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes, I am a pilot.

...and I still cant get the plane to stall, spin, or go much faster than a super saber. The flight model is totaly fake, phoney, doctored up, ect. It's something along the lines of a novalogic simulation. Interstingly enough, Janes F-15 had a rather good model, not the best out there, Su-27 Flanker had it beat, but still it was good. This flight model just feels so damn cheesy.

My extensive 7 hours worth of flight testing was done in a variety of aircraft configurations. I bought F/A-18 with no pre concieved notions of how it was going to perform. I really had no expectations of it. My opinions come from nearly a weeks worth of putting the sim through it's riggors, graphics problems asside for a large part of the time.

This plane just isn't flying right.

If the graphics where complete crap and the flight model was stunning I could whole heartedly forgive Janes F/A-18. I played Su-27 Flanker for quite a while and had no problems with that sim's graphics. It takes a combination effort to ruin a sim. Graphics, Gameplay, and Flight Model all have to be extremely bad. In this case they are all bad, every single aspect of this simulation is bad.

What a bunch of mickey mouse **** the guys at Janes pulled off. I didn't anyone at Janes could program a sim so bad, even the Israeli's. And those dumb *** Israeli's at pixelogic program some pretty ****ing bad sims.

Man, I cant ****ing believe that they canceled A-10 for this sim. Those assholes are going down big time for this crap.

You know what the final kick in the balls is for all of us? DI's Super Hornet is actually worse than Janes F/A-18!

So much for Janes. You think the quake loving public is going to stomach a sim where it feels like you are driving a mack truck? EA isn't going to put up with this mickey mouse **** from Janes. Fleet Command already bombed big time in the states. Maybe EA will get the old Air Combat Series team back together. Get us a nice remake of Chuck Yeagers Air Combat, hell, maybe even a US Navy Fighters 2.

I already sent off some E-mails to various EA exec's, asking them to get rid off Janes. Nice formal type ones. No harsh language filled ones like I sent to the top people at Janes Combat.

Oh we coulda had a great simulation from Janes. One with a very accurately modeled A-10 thunderbolt, it was a sure thing, the sim was nearly done to! We could have had a A-10 simulation ready and on the shelves for christmas. I saw the damn thing in person, Janes A-10 was destined for greatness.

What a god damn shame.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
RaceDriver
Member
Member # 1158

posted 01-11-2000 07:11 PM     Profile for RaceDriver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
No wonder they say sims are a dying breed.
If I was a game maker and spent alot of my time making a game and only getting $30-$50 per game (as opposed to a dealership who get $50+ PER HOUR to look at your car) just to listen to people complain about graphics,or a button in the wrong friggen place,or the absence of ambulances and fire trucks stopping at your door when you declare an IFE I'd wanna make FPS too.They dont complain as much and usually dont take as much time to make.If there is never another "hardcore" flight sim made we can all thank the people who whine about such petty problems.All the flight sims bashed on these message boards all have something to offer sure they are not perfect but its an imperfect world.I think its time for a reality check for some of you and remeber these are games-entertainment-not life and death.

------------------
RaceDriver

" Gotta finish to win "


Posts: 10 | From: Bel Air, MD USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-11-2000 08:47 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom > Regarding the flight mode, it may actually be accurate. The real aircraft was reported to be stall and spin proof in actual flight testing, and to be "eerie" or "video game like" by test pilots. It's top speed {lightly loaded} is around MACH 1.6 at 36000 feet. At lower altitudes and with higher weights it's barely supersonic. All fighters lose a huge chunk of top speed when carrying ordnance, the F-15 with eight AAM's is only good for MACH 1.7 tops. It used to bug me why I could never get up to the advertised top end in flight sims 'till I did some research on the subject.
Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 01-11-2000 09:15 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
So Jane's F-18 sucks... No big news there, especially from a company that believes that survey sims are 'in'.

My take on all this: I'm quite happy that soon Ka-52 and Gunship III will roll in. That way we can leave the fixed wing bs behind. It'll be good for all of us to start flying something different and with a higher level of attention to detail.

Hardcore flight sims might be a dying breed after all...


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-11-2000 09:38 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
My speed tests where done in a clean aircraft. The top speed I got was 867 mph. The real aircraft can reportadly go nearly mach 2. Well, I digress, no more need to knock this sim, I've said my peace and you all now have my opinion. I dont think I need to keep beating this dead dog.

Spectre

I'm personally looking forward to B-17 II, Flight Combat, and Jet Warrior: Vietnam. They all look like professional jobs from what I've seen.

I dont like survey sims, because they all suck. However I do enjoy a good flight sim that models two or more aircraft. I dont consider games like MiG Alley, US Navy Fighters, European Air War and Chuck Yeagers Air Combat to be survey sims. A survey sim is marked by a bad, un realistic flight model and childish looking graphics for it's time. Sim's like USAF, IAF, and Nations fighter command are survey sims, because they all suck and model more than one aircraft.

There is no such thing as a well done survey sim, all survey sims suck. When you have a good survey sim you call it a just plain sim because it ceases to suck.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spiff
Member
Member # 222

posted 01-11-2000 10:52 PM     Profile for Spiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I've been trying like heck to get past mach 2, stall, and or spin the aircraft with no luck. The best I've managed to push this pig to was 800 something mph...

Last time I looked, we had a couple of former Hornet pilots posting on the boards. I don't recall you even asking them any questions about performance characteristics... oops I forgot, you are a "pilot" and therefore LORD of all things aviation. PS, I posted a nice pic of a stalled aircraft on the boards... where were you?

The fuel flow problem is much much worse than in F/A-18 Hornet 3.0

Uhhhhhh, this might be difficult for you to grasp since you already seem to know everything, but just a little clue here: they weren't trying to make a simulation of Hornet 3.0 ! They are modeling the F/A-18E. What makes you think Hornet 3.0's fuel flow was any more realistic?? BTW "I get around 10 minutes of joy out of her with burners." sounds about right in the ballpark for an aircraft in a clean configuration... but then you didn't bother to find that out either did you.

I cant spin her, I've tried, oh how I've tried

Uhhh, have you ever heard of a FLCS? Oh btw, try spinning the aircraft in F-15... and try spinning the F-16 in Falcon 4.0... and those are *less advanced* flight control systems... and then come back here.

But it doesn't go fast at all, that's the thing. It wont hardly do past 500mph in a clean configuration.

And you verified this with whom? Oh, I forgot, you already know everything.

And of course the coup d'gras of ignoratum:

WHY THE **** DID YOU IDIOTS AT JANES CANCEL A-10 FOR THIS PIECE OF ANTIQUATED MICKY MOUSE **** !!!????!!!??!!

Once and for all... The team that was making A-10 and the team that was making F/A-18 ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED!! The A-10 team belonged to ORIGIN, and are not the same people in Baltimore doing F/A-18!!!! "Janes" is just a label which EA can place on hardcore simulations. I know your skull is thick and your mind is dull, and this has been repeated only a bazillion times over the last six months but sooner or later it has got to sink in. A-10's cancellation had NOTHING TO DO WITH F-18!, it was Origin's decision.

Other choice excerpts:
One last thing. Why does this sim even bother having a 3D cockpit? No matter how many hits you take, or how much turbulence you have, the damn cockpit doesn't move.

LOL! You are slamming the developers because they did not model your head bobbing?

They broke the faith and I'm going to see that they burn bad for it.

Not that you could, but once you've burned down everything you happen to not like and are left sitting on a pile of ashes, I suppose you'll call it a victory, because then *everyone* will be miseable.. just like little Tommy.


------------------
"Taint what a man don't know that hurts him, it's what he knows that just ain't so."

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 01-11-2000).]


Posts: 313 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
DaleReeck
Member
Member # 1021

posted 01-11-2000 11:23 PM     Profile for DaleReeck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom, lets see. Jane's F-18 sucks, DI Super Hornet sucks, Falcon 4 was a failure and all survey sims suck. I don't know why you were looking forward to A-10 or B-17 or any of those other sims you mentioned. I'm sure you would find some reason to hate them too. The fact that you consider Falcon 4 a failure pretty much says it all. It isn't perfect, but it has remained on more people's hard drives longer than any other sim in the last five years. It does many, if not most things well. So, if you consider it a failure, its your loss. And as far as Jane's F-18 goes, if you'd stop "flight testing" the game and start playing it, you'd see it has good gameplay, depth and environment. There's no way you can see this after only a week of meaningless flight testing. And since you have no point of reference not having flown a real F-18 (or any jet fighter for that matter), it makes these tests even more measningless. Its like walking out of a movie you know nothing about after just 5 minutes. Its alright to not like a sim, even one that is popular with many people. But your criteria for dismissing Jane's F-18 is ludicrous. Its roll rate and max speed don't match up to the stated numbers. So friggin what? CLose enough is good enough. What about real parameters, like is it boring or buggy or missing features (none of which I have personally found to be true)? Did you have fun with it after a mission? If you find any of these important things to be to your disliking, then you can declare that it sucks. Until then, leave the flght testing to the real test pilots.

Posts: 327 | From: Cheektowaga NY USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
von Krarr
Member
Member # 215

posted 01-11-2000 11:24 PM     Profile for von Krarr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom:

You report the top speed you've achieved as 867mph (knots I presume). I'm going to start looking at some of the points you've made myself but you should know (especially as a supposed pilot) that reporting speed you should use the mach number. You could well be mach 1.6 with that kind of speed, especially at high altitude.

The speed of sound varies with density and hence altitude, something I know alot about, pilot or not. But I'm not here to teach a physics lesson.

Also although you raise some good points worthy of a look at by others, you should really learn to show some restraint. Your immature attitude and language do you no credit. You will find that most people will take your opinions much more seriously. Those that flame you for a well-written and well-meaning post are not worthy of a response.


Posts: 963 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spiff
Member
Member # 222

posted 01-12-2000 12:06 AM     Profile for Spiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just to put this to rest:

Here is a screenshot of me doing Mach 1.572 with a FLIR pod loaded. This is compares almost exactly with the values given on the flight envelope chart on page 4-48. Go figure.

http://homepages.go.com/~spiffster99/f18/fast.jpg


Posts: 313 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
tegwilym
Member
Member # 1899

posted 01-12-2000 12:17 AM     Profile for tegwilym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I bought F-18 yesterday, played it a bit, and realized that it looked like a mix between the old Jet Fighter III and EF2000. Both pretty good back then, but I expected a lot more from Janes. I also have USAF and it is great! I was expecting something like that but with much more detail in the single airplane. Sure, it is detailed, but what happened to the great Jane's graphics that we have come to expect?

I bought Mig Alley today, I have only played with it a little bit so far, but I really like it much better from the little bit I have seen! Sorry, F-18 goes back to EBX tomorrow for a refund.

------------------


Posts: 1 | From: Bellevue, WA USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
von Krarr
Member
Member # 215

posted 01-12-2000 12:27 AM     Profile for von Krarr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes I concur about the speed tests.

Clean I got mach 1.574 at 36000ft which is 496 knots IAS.

For people that complain about the brightness of the sim you should look in your advanced video properties for a gamma slider. My TNT reference drivers have one.

The only hassle is that the textel slider must be at 3 and the gamma set high for F/A-18, and the slider at 1 and normal gamma for Falcon 4.0. Small price to pay.

I'm going to keep on testing. BTW I went to high school with a Canadian CF-18 pilot that I've finally caught up with after losing him for a few years. When he gets around to answering my emails I'll start sending him questions. Should settle some of the the controversy. (yes I know a CF-18 is basically a F/A-18A)


Posts: 963 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spiff
Member
Member # 222

posted 01-12-2000 12:38 AM     Profile for Spiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
von Krarr,

On the F-18 board, Andy Bush and others have made a couple of posts about lightening the textures just a bit with Paintshop Pro, and posted a couple of screenshots. I would imagine these will be available for download sometime soon.

I also noted the following from the manual:

"As a pilot aid, UA (Up-Auto) mode is constantly trimming the aircraft when the flight stick is in the neutral position. This enables you to fly a steady-state, hands-free flight profile without having to constantly rim the aircraft.

The CAS (Control Augmentation System) also closely monitors pitch, roll, and yaw states, applying stabilization or near departure commands to the control surfaces to maintain the current flight profile or quickly respond to your inputs.

Either mode's flight controls are maximized for maneuverability while maintaining predictable handling qualities and departure conditions. This is no place for surprises; predictable responses are the rule, not the exception."

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 01-12-2000).]


Posts: 313 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SGAV8R
Member
Member # 638

posted 01-12-2000 01:10 AM     Profile for SGAV8R   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Spiff, HAHAHAHA, your wit cracks me up

Major Tom, word of advise. U got the sim, do u like it? If not, RETURN IT, and be done with it, basically, I am saying f**k off from F/A-18 if u don't like it. We heard u once, we don't wanna hear u again, good bye

------------------
Take my advise, I don't use it anyway


Posts: 667 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
rowdy2nite
Member
Member # 1907

posted 01-12-2000 12:30 PM     Profile for rowdy2nite   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
for all of you guys that have added a DISPLAY_FPS into your f18keys.ini i was wondering what FPS you are getting in the different resolutions (6x4,8x6 and 10x7) with detail maxed with the forward cockpit view. i haven't been able to get better than 10-12 FPS with a PIII600/TnT2Ult game tweaked puter in 8x6 or 10x7? no flame here but does Mach2 matter when the display can't handle the speed of the Kittyhawk?? BTW, good luck on getting your money back on an opened game, I'm just going to stick mine up on a dusty shelf and wait for the 3rd or 4th patch, I have already reached and surpassed my heartburn threshold.

- rowdy


Posts: 14 | From: Rensselaer, NY | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
von Krarr
Member
Member # 215

posted 01-12-2000 12:37 PM     Profile for von Krarr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the heads-up Spiff.

The altered textures are now available for download.


Posts: 963 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-12-2000 04:58 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Still cant stall or spin the aircraft.

And how bout that shotgun...err, M61 20mm machinegun? How unrealistic can you get? Sorry boys I forgot to bash that little unrealistic piece of the pie in my last artical. Last I saw the M16 wasn't a spread weapon, nor does it look anything like whan Janes makes it out to be. Try Falcon 4.0 for a realistic M61, Janes got it seriously wrong.

And speaking of seriously unrealistic. Why do the aircraft in Janes F/A-18 just catch on fire when you nail em with a weapon of some sort? Damn it was cool when you'd pump an aircraft in Su-27 Flanker with bullets, then it would not only blow up, it would break up. Satisfaction.

Darn it, I'm getting off the main topic of how unrealistic the sim is and I'm starting to nit pick. Not that their isn't a lot to nit pick about mind you.

What I'm looking forward to is a nice review from combatsim where they nit pick the crud out of this things flight model. Just like they rightfully did with Novalogics MiG-29 and F-16.

Till then I think we could all do with a little humor to lighten the current situation until some respectable hard core sims come out.

Here is a classic picture which I'm sure most of us have seen at one point or another while doing some aviation research down at the local library.

And if you cant figure out what the Pilot is doing to the Tanker aircraft crew...you should probably get off your dady's Gateway 2000.

Here's a nice color one

Till next time, try and have some fun while playing your sims. Remember, they aren't realistic anyways. At best I expect sims to mimic the way the real aircraft handle. F/A-18E just doesn't do that and it isn't a whole lot of fun.

I suggest you all grab a copy of MiG Alley, get a nice computer with a Voodoo 3 card, crank the resolution up to 1600x1200 and say to yourself "wow, I forgot sims could be this fun!" MiG Alley does it better than any other sim on the market.

If you have any flames to offer, I suggest you ICQ me. We can flame eachother, or talk about whatever, I'm easy. It makes the forums look a lot cleaner.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
vpr_dvr
unregistered

posted 01-12-2000 05:34 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom, fighting a loosing battle ehh?

Haven't you read about FBW--it's almost spin proof. And since F-15 (Janes that is), janes model bullet dispersion. The further away the distance, the more the bullets are dispersed from the gun-bore-line (GBL).

Seriously, you should shut up. Now you look like a cartoon (ever heard of Bonkers???)


IP: Logged
von Krarr
Member
Member # 215

posted 01-12-2000 06:09 PM     Profile for von Krarr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Real authorities please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the M61 Vulcan cannon is designed to have a reasonably-sized dispersion pattern at 2000ft. This allows you to have some chance to hit a moving target with your 100 rounds per second. I think its on the order of 6 ft at 2000ft but don't quote me.
Posts: 963 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kraigman
Member
Member # 197

posted 01-12-2000 06:45 PM     Profile for Kraigman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm a pilot too, and I can't wait until the release of Jane's F/A-18 Cessna Skyhawk. Until then, I reserve making statements about things I know very little or nothing about - like how it feels to fly a real SH. Can't wait though.

"Cessna Skyhawk, errr...call the ball!"


Posts: 144 | From: Franklin, MA. USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-12-2000 07:27 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The real M16 does have a reasonable spread, but the spread in JF18 is too much. Plus the real vulcan cannon turns planes into swiss cheese, I've seen whole video's dedicated to the subject. One burst litterally blows wings and tails off an aircraft. The flaming, burning, exploding part doesn't happen till the aircraft breaks appart in mid air causing the fuel to turn into vapor which subsequently ignites.

I'd have to say that the Vulcan Cannon in F4 is probably one of the more realistic ones. The spread is a little to thin in F4 IMHO, but it is more realistic than JF18.

and I believe the correct nickname for the Cessna 172N, S, R, whatever... Skyhawk is... "Piece of sh!t Cessna." No it's not the official name, but it suits her well

Why fly Cessna's when you can fly Pipers?


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spiff
Member
Member # 222

posted 01-12-2000 08:02 PM     Profile for Spiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If you have any flames to offer, I suggest you ICQ me.

LOL! The fact that you are acting like a complete jagoff has finally sunk in has it?

BTW:
Here is a stall recovery (note wingtip contrails indicating high AOA):

http://homepages.go.com/~spiffster99/f18/tailslide.jpg

MT is reduced to complaining about the gun dispersion pattern, and when the AI should or should not catch fire?

Please.

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 01-12-2000).]


Posts: 313 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-12-2000 08:34 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bah, you're just pissed off cause you didn't get to watch 2 hours of M61 test footage. And an aditional 30 minutes of combat stuff, no BS narration either, just Israeli's giving a lot of 20mm love'n to the A-rabs.

Sorry man, Janes got the whole M61 weapons system dead wrong. Like everything else in the game, it looks bad, works bad, is bad.

Hey, if you want some ideas on how to flame me in your next post, contact me via ICQ. I'll be more than happy to give you some pointers. No fooling, I'll help you out. It's the least a fellow simmer can do for one of his own.

Speaking of hard to find video's, who here has seen Police Sniper F*ck Ups? I saw it last night, great video, nice editing to. I laughed my *** off.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
DaleReeck
Member
Member # 1021

posted 01-13-2000 08:29 AM     Profile for DaleReeck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom,

News Flash - Major Tom, with 0 hours real-life F-18E time, with 0 hours F-18C time and with 0 hours jet flight time, has declared Jane's F-18 wrong. Well, as long as its coming from an expert. Hey, with all that TV-watching time you have in combat aviation, maybe you should go apply to test pilot school...A trollin' we will go, a trollin' we will go...


Posts: 327 | From: Cheektowaga NY USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Necronysus
unregistered

posted 01-13-2000 11:20 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As a F/A-18c Avionics QAR, I can say for the most part, the cockpit environment is realistically modeled. I was amazed at how in depth Janes went into the different information pages, such as FPAS, and CHKLIST. The HSI page had more detail then I expected, though it doesn't model all options, it models enough.
Having just left the Lincoln from a CQ det, I have memories fresh in mind to compare Janes virtual carrier environment to. The pitch and roll motion on deck is right on. The different controllers, and the marshalling approach is also right on. For me, this sim comes real close to the real deal in this aspect. Minus the deck crew of course. But for me, thats not a big deal. Another minus for me in this part of the sim, is the fact that the other AI aircraft, like the EA-6B, don't fold they're wings when they are parked. On the real deck, every aircraft, unless they are on the CAT, or are in the landing area, have they're wings folded. But this is a small detail. No biggy.
I have read many posts by a particular individual about the FM on this airplane. Let me emphasize that, This is not "Pensacola: Wings Of Gold".
The EFCS system on this aircraft is designed to prevent the pilot from overstressing the airplane by limiting pilot commanded stick inputs. The G-Limiter, along with other features pretty much prevent extreme flight manuvering. Its always fun to remind a hornet driver, that technically, he does not have complete control of his airplane. They like hear that stuff
I often ask the pilots when I get a chance, about different aspects of flight performance. And I can tell you that, this stuff about wanting to fly at mach 2.5 is ludicrous. It takes a slick airplane(meaning no pylons) to gracefully slide across the sound barrier. And the impression I get from the pilots, is that you are pushing it at that point. So, The FM isn't wrong for the most part from what I have seen so far.
Though I have my problems with this sim also. Though my issues are with the framerates. My system is above the recommended system requirements, and I still get serious framerate hits around the carrier environment. Even when I sacrifice details even, improvement is little. Plus after the trap, I like to look around the deck. And every time I move my head towards the island, it disappears all together. Thats a little disconcerning.
But all in all, I still like this sim, and will keep it on my hard drive next to F4.


IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   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