my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Tornado anyone?

   
Author Topic: Tornado anyone?
Flyer88
unregistered

posted 01-21-2000 02:30 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I never got this sim since I was hapily running a 4MB 386 during its heyday and knew the computer couldn't hack it. I fired up the demo lately (works fine in DOS mode under Win98)and other than the lack of eye candy, it seemed pretty realistic and challenging. I still hear accolades about the immersion factor of this game (an overused statement) and am thinking about getting into the full version. Is it worthwhile?

Thanks


IP: Logged
Lud von Pipper
Member
Member # 82

posted 01-21-2000 11:04 PM     Profile for Lud von Pipper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It all depends if DI can recover after the SH failure.
Probably DI should have kept committing to Tornado II (whitch btw it's a plane they know better then anyone else in the Sim market) rather then venturing on a new plane which does not interest many peoples out if the USA (DI is a British company).
Just take a look to what is happened with Flanker 2: Yes, it has a higher than normal rate of returning (which is a politic that I believe is really killing the Sim market), but this should be espected since it is a real "Hard Core" sim, never intended for casual flyers; still, it has a well defined supporter class, which has previously enjoyed the rather spartan Flanker 1.x, and own this to the originality of the fighter simulated.
DI has tried contending with the Allmighty Jane's without having the same sponsoring power.
Face the truth, we've had a forum about Jane's F/A 18 for ages, although seldom happened to see new posts on it till recent times (and noone was showing particular interest on it, as in the case of Flanker 2, which had a forum much later in it's developement) and we've never (nor will ever) seen one about DI's sim (at least, before release the game should have been posed on equal terms); we have been hammered for month by flags and logos from Jane's, and we have seen so many preview on F/A 18 to become sick.
The first review on Superhornet we have seen was a comparison with Jane's "soon to be released" game, after SH been out for a couple of months unnoticed by the press, and it was an accolade about Jane's (still, for an Hard core sim, the fact that SH is the one that models a realistic instrumentation should have counted to some extent).
I don't believe SH to be a Great Sim, it lacks in to many features (mostly graphic and campaign), but it's obvious that not even Jane's F/A 18 it is, for exactly the same reasons (and we could add an unbelievable Crappy framerate).
I can see the difficulties in a project like Falcon 4 has been (the campaign was a miracle of programming effort, as well as cause of most of the problems in this sim), and bring in mind it's 5 year development, but there are no excuses for a plainly ortodox sim like F/A 18, based on a solid sim like F15 and rushed out of the door in less then a Year to be unplayable on high end systems and full of bugs.
More and more problems are getting out about this sim as you can see in other threads, and it's obvious that it is not such a great sim as Viking1 and other on this site have tried to convince us: it has not the graphic nor the campaign of Falcon 4 (one year older sim), and lacks the FM and system implementation of Flanker 2.
Plainly made, money have done the job, and I've grown a bit disgusted by the way this site has acted on this occasion.
SH is passed unnoticed, and has become a failur on market terms although it had a few strongpoints.
This could or could not undermine the Tornado II, it is all in the hands of the DI Publisher, but I can't see clear skies ahead of it.
Anyway I'd be surprised to see a SH gold release in the future: bad press never helps.
and DI said that the releas of TII was stictly tied to the succes of SH Gold.

I'd add that I do not own F/A 18 nor SH, and I do not plan to buy either at full price (and yes, I still fly F15 from Jane's): I will simply wait for better sims (may be Typhoon 3 and Tornado II), something that should not take too much of an effort effort from software houses.

LVP


Posts: 273 | From: Italy | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
suck up
unregistered

posted 01-21-2000 11:38 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I like Combatsim.com because their writers seem more mature then those of other sites, and they have tons of good information.
IP: Logged
Jackal
Member
Member # 1202

posted 01-22-2000 06:22 AM     Profile for Jackal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Lud,

I'm getting a bit tired of reading about sim comparisons. Every sim has to make compromises and each developers decides on his own where to put the focus.
Geez, you can't use F4 for comparison. You won't find any publisher anymore willing to feed a development team for 5 years. In this regard we can be really lucky to have it, IMO it won't happen anymore.
Next Flanker2, clearly focused on FM / systems emulation. No gameplay. Enough for the hardware crowd, but enough to get customers into the market ? It got reviews average 40% in the casual game magazines here for obvious reasons.

Next, DI. Raz said in one of his rare appearances on this board they had difficulties obtaining infos on the Hornet.
Why the heck did they go for it instead of focusing on a European plane with better sources of info for them ?
Then they tried to manage that thin line of making a hardcore sim accessible for novices. And failed, manual and training missions useless for the novice. OTOH, pilot self talk to gain SA for the novice makes the hardcore crowd laugh.
With the same decisions also Tornado II will fail IMO.
I think they have a chance to save their F18 SH, but only by reevaluating A FEW of their design decisions. Maybe just by reading this board and listening !

And now Janes. You will always see critisism if a sim with its max features asks for the hardware maximum. Sure enough it needs fine adjustments and I'm pretty sure we'll see them. Critisizing it for the compromise they chose just by making the terrain more simple than F4 and concentrate on other stuff ? Sure you can, but you'll miss all the rest. This is one the rare sims who manages to give that 'I'm part of something bigger team feeling' instead of 'me vs rest of world'. And they made it in a much shorter time than F4, in fact we got F15 and F/A 18 in the same time. I'd give it a chance, it's really worth it IMO !

Jackal


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Harry Bosch
unregistered

posted 01-22-2000 03:47 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[b]Flyer88,[b]
I liked Tornado so good I bought it twice! (1st the Amiga verion later the PC version). You need to start your PC in DOS mode with lots of free conventional memory (and a CD-Rom driver!) with the full version. You can find the details at this URL.
http://www.digint.co.uk/high/fs_support.html


IP: Logged
Lud von Pipper
Member
Member # 82

posted 01-22-2000 04:52 PM     Profile for Lud von Pipper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jakal:
I agree mostly with you, and if you read in deep my previous posting you will see I do not believe SH to be a better sim than F/A 18, probably itís a worst one: anyway I'm criticizing them both!
What I meant to point out was that, while one has been utterly bashed and crushed, the other has been brought to the altar of holy glory almost without mention to it's MANY let down, and this smell to me like a marketing misguiding, something as manifest as I've never seen on this site (give a look to my previous posting for hints on this)!
F4 was a cumbersome sim, the most requiring in hardware specs of it's time, and this due t it's unique campaign system, which needed a memory amount never before required by a PC program.
It was bugged as hell, but it was the campaign to be bugged: still, it runs smoothly on a 128megs P2 400, given the right amount of virtual memory on the HD.
I'd not say that the AA weapon modelling is simplified (like Viking 1 has pointed out : it's only wrongly implemented, as you can see things done better in IAF, a sim not exactly know for it's hard core target public; F15 was done better too (although it was too easy to hit the baddies).
F4 has a major bug in AA missile range modelling, but other than this is quite competent HC sim, while it should be said that an appropriate weapon modelling doesn't asks for much hardware resources.
On the other side, What I find not acceptable in Jane's F/A 18 is that it is a rather conservative piece of software, with a scripted semi-dynamic campaign (the same of F-15), mid to low graphic, and a FM which doesn't bright when compared i.e. to Flanker 2 (Viking 1 says wonders about the tricky behaviour of the plane at low speeds, but this it's like to say miracles of the F4 difficult landing system or the EAW p-51 accelerate stall modelling: this is exactly what a sim is intended for, try to model the real plane behaviour).
F-15 was a fantastic sim for it's times, good graphic, good weapons and systems modelling and was a good performer on mid to high end system of it's time: in other world it was been well tested and optimised.
Now, here F/A 18 is really a nightmare, with many peoples reporting problems running it (someone can't even start it without a crash!) and complaining slideshow on top-of-the-line hardware.
Since the game has nothing revolutionary in it, and is heavily based on F-15, the only reason for it's behaving is an horrendous code optimisation, caused by the game being rushed out in less than a year.
A complex software like a flight sim HAS to be tested in deep before release to avoid the typical bug avalanche, and this implies AT LEAST six month of beta testing for a well scripted software, which is not the case with F/A 18 (and those guys had even tried releasing the package on Christmas eve!!!!!).
I can only complain that Andy Hollis has left HC sim development, and the way this sim has showed up only support my opinion: if only Jane's had invested in beta testing all the time and resources employed in bashing DI's Superhornet out of the market, itís my opinion that we would have been presented with a far better product than this.

LvP


Posts: 273 | From: Italy | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jackal
Member
Member # 1202

posted 01-23-2000 02:20 AM     Profile for Jackal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Lud,

>> anyway I'm criticizing them both!

Hmmm. you don't have both, but critisize both ?

>>and a FM which doesn't bright when compared >>i.e. to Flanker 2

Just as you don't have the sim yet, I assume this statement is based on the flight model validaters of the so-called-hardcore-crowd ?
Sorry to be ironic here, but I'm just tired of reading such statements.

If you look at the more than 9000 messages in the F/A 18 forum and take out maybe 7500 moaning/whining/flaming/simX-is-better-than-Y statements, there are 1500 constructive statements remaining. If you point me to a message of a real world Hornet driver complaining about the FM, I would be very interested reading this.

>>Now, here F/A 18 is really a nightmare, >>with many peoples reporting problems >>running it (someone can't even start it >>without a crash!) and complaining slideshow >>on top-of-the-line hardware.

I wouldn't blame Janes for the myriad of problems with half baked graphics drivers, overclocked PCs, etc. Look to other game fora, there are mostly the same problems showing up.
I can only say, I play the sim for 50 hours now without a single CTD and with acceptable fps.

>>Since the game has nothing revolutionary

No, it hasn't ? All those lighting effects, the refelctions in the cockpit, the volumetric explosions, the extensive comms, the depth of the avionics and weapons modelling, etc. Maybe not a revolution if taken seperately, but all together ??

Jackal


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tracer
Member
Member # 259

posted 01-23-2000 08:24 AM     Profile for Tracer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Flyer88,i got Tornado/Desert Storm for £4.99UK(6yrs ago?)-the mission editor is still a standard that is hard to reach -only the likes of EF2000 TACTCOM,TAW,F4 have achieved the depth of editing etc.
I never forgot the simple joy of using your mouse to laser designate a target-in the MPD(i'm sure the right mouse button controled the zoom?)and catch a glimpse as the GBU impacted on your point.....why this wasn't adopted for future sims????
Certainly Tornado is a collectors game and ranks up with EF2000 as an "all time" classic

go on-get it?

Tracer

------------------
"Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover?"


Posts: 681 | From: Edinburgh,Scotland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lud von Pipper
Member
Member # 82

posted 01-23-2000 10:35 AM     Profile for Lud von Pipper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sorry Jackal, but if I'm going to give awy my money I'll do for something more pushed forward then these two sims: if Jane were really looking for volumetric explosions and lightning effect and reflections, may be a little optimization for T&L engines may have helped the FM?
Still, they were so hurried to throw out the retail product that may be they had no time for that kind of triviality.
As for my statements, yes, you are right, I do not have any of the two, and have to rely on other's opinions, but this is the reason for I'm looking on forums like this (ad for I'm not commenting on specifical features of DI and SH: simply I couldn't find enought reason to invest my money on them) and for I'm only commenting about generic specs.
Furthermore, if, as ytou say 7500 on 9000 opinins have some kind of weight, this should say something about the quality software!

Posts: 273 | From: Italy | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jackal
Member
Member # 1202

posted 01-24-2000 04:51 AM     Profile for Jackal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Lud,

well, there are two approaches to new combat sims. First is go to bug-searching mode immediately. If you want to find something to flame or find what's not prefect, you'll find it. That's the "weight" you are talking about.
There's another possibility though : Accept what you have for 35 bucks and take the best out of it. That's the weight I would choose.

It's that easy !

I didn't want to convince you buying the sim(s) now, although I probably should . The more sales, the better the chance of the developers to continue ...
Jackal


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
kinggeorge
Member
Member # 1408

posted 01-26-2000 07:49 AM     Profile for kinggeorge     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tornado is great for everyone that:
-likes strategic strike missions at low altitude
-does not have to dogfight on every mission
-does not hate a sim that has only few diff. types of aircraft and ground veh.
-does not complain about the graphics
-loves strategy
-wants to have the ultimate mission planner
-wants to play his own little war and have full!!! control over his ^squadron^ and their missions.
-knows how to free up conv. mem.

I^m sorry but Tornado is still the best at the following:

-you can blow up a moving train!
-landings in fog and very difficult
-war planning every single mission from ervery aircraft
-target rich environment
-scud hunting


Thanks
kinggeorge


Posts: 246 | From: Bozen-Bolzano/Italy | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
DaleReeck
Member
Member # 1021

posted 01-26-2000 10:43 AM     Profile for DaleReeck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jackal,

I agree with you about your accessment of Jane's F-18. How many other sims have modelled the multiple launch modes of various weapon systems like Harpoons, HARMs and AIM-7's? None that I could think of. Unfortunately, all these features take up CPU cycles which hurt framerates. But the idea, as some has suggested, that many of us are "marketed" into liking Jane's F-18 is rediculous. If I don't like a sim, I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to play a sim to make myself feel better about buying it. I have both F-18 sims and I just like Jane's better. While DISH does have its strong points, I just feel there is more meat in Jane's effort. I will conceed that I might have been willing to give Jane's a little more time to look into it (because of Jane's past successes) than I would another sim maker. But in Jane's F-18's case, once I did start exploring the sim, I liked what I saw. Maybe if I looked at DISH harder too, my opinion would be higher. But that doesn't negate the fact that Jane's F-18 is a good sim.


Posts: 327 | From: Cheektowaga NY USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 01-26-2000 11:28 AM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I dissagree with you on that...
Multiple launch modes for weapons shouldn't be taking any mroe CPU cycles than simply adding another weapon with a different function...

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 01-26-2000 08:04 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Flyer88,

To get back to your original question...

The graphics will likely be a little disappointing to someone used to 800X600 or better. I think they were fixed to a single value of 640, tops, in the DI game.

The aircraft and objects were very good for their time (no textures or light source of course but this tends to just make things look muddy to me) but would seem a tad 'blocky' today.

If you get it, make sure you get the version with the full manual, at least on PDF.

You need to READ that manual to understand the systems and help you deal with the 'quirks' of the airframe and planner.

One such being bringing the airplane in on autopilot/ILS and transitioning to manual only once over the threshold.

Tornado made a lot of sacrifices in FM to get the various other features up to speed in a 'two 3.5' space limit and these show up in some amazingly squirrely engine response/low-speed behaviours.

The best way to avoid this is to always fly autopilot (even high speed, you will stabilize to military power and use less gas) and to only come out of it on-finals in time to flare or in terminal missile evasion.

Start with Desert Storm. No Hills To Hide Behind may seem crazy but if you plan it right you can loft ALARM and destroy most of the radar defences on the first mission without getting clobbered.

Together with a SINGLE airfield, this will give you air superiority by day 1 (it inevitably starts at night) and you can literally fly above all ground defences using LGB from then on (Fog and Cloud are exceptions but ones which don't bother the ALARM, simply followon with loloing wingies after you've broomed away the defenses).

In 'Orangeland' (4 flavors of Europe) there are a lot more chances to stumble on something not mapped or hidden behind a Big Rise of dirt and get dead before you can react.

The Tornado turns very poorly and it's generally better to fly-by and beat the horizon LOS with jamming and chaff than to try and bring an ALARM into DIR mode nosepoint.

There is also _No Padlock_ or even real (aft quartering) snapviews. You fight completely off the RWR and tones.

Add to this it often takes two or three dead airfields before the enemy fighter threat is no more in Europe (Note, the total theater space is so tiny that you will ALWAYS be within fighter or EWR+fighter radar range and only bare seconds from missile engagement).

Whatever you choose, drop ALL the flight links at ALL the waypoints, _first_.

You can then adjust your waypoint pathings as you like and assign wingmen to very fast JP-233 drop axes.

In turn, this means you will have to clear a long, straight, lane for them, inbound.

This means playing pathfinder with 9 ALARM and placing IND loft locations as waypoints over the center of each of the appropriate EWRthenSA-13thenZSU-23 radar circles in the target area.

Launch at about 12-15nm in IND mode with the nose pointed at the correct waypoint (must be IND-set for wingmen).

Close to about 9-11nm and popup to let them see you, track you, and die as the ALARMs dump their parachutes and relight their motors. Don't pop so high or long or often that you attract fighter attention however.

In DS, you almost always start off on the Eastern Most airfield target closest to the front lines but if you start on the upper-center one, there is a MiG-25 Fighter CAP right overhead so you should 'switch east' anyway (you'll fail the mission but the enemy air will still go away if you crater that single runway).

If you do trigger a threat intercept response, you can only retreat to the nearest (own-side of the lines) friendly CAP and this basically ends the mission with all your wingmen dead (and your squadron TO zapped for more).

Don't come anywheres /near/ a threat-CAP circle as there is no ability to communicate with wingmen inflight and 'call it off'.

Kill EWR sites (big golfball domes, giggle) to drastically reduce the chances of threat interception/intervention.

As I stated earlier, you must drop wingman time over target linkage through EVERY waypoint to avoid massive route planner errors and stage a delayed (couple minutes or you get another error) takeoff with very slow (320-350) knot followon to your pathfinder lead.

This because you will have zero external gas available with all the ALARM you're carrying and an awfully long ways to go with a runaway-reserve.

Wingmen cannot fire DIR(ect) mode ALARM so they are useless as active weasels.

The exception to this rule is the airfield itself which is so densely defense populated (each of the compass points/corners and another group about 2/3rd of the way down the centerline and a final unit on at least one end of the runway itself) that you cannot cover them all.

What I did was put up IND ALARM shooter wingmen and saturate the area with upwards of eight paraloiter weapons.

Then send ONE aircraft in to bomb (a mission required) HAS to trigger the ALARMs. If he dies, too bad but at 700 knots across rather than along the runway, he frequently makes it.

ONLY THEN follow up with another wingie (or two, for insurance) and the JP-233 attack.
You MUST score the correct runway in a more or less straight run down the centerline, (plus 1-2 HAS) to win the mission.

This means keeping the runway shooter absolutely safe (undeflected by evasions) on his 20 mile runin as it takes about three waypoints to get him up straightened out and up to his 600-650knot top speed.

The game speeds are set to pathetically low values to allow the route planner to make the turns, another area where wingmen FMs fall drastically short is in absolute rates attained in turns because they are effectively -always- in 'autopilot mode' of about 3-4G max.

Once you've got your first runway kill and no more threat air, it's simple to zap any further runways assigned by flying over the SAM envelopes, clearing out a 'descent zone' for your team (all radars will eagerly light up so certainty is easy) and then clearing the airfield itself from above the 16-18K response capability of the SA-13 (the highest/longest reaching threat in the game).

If you DON'T continue to actively kill runways (assigned or not), eventually the enemy will regenerate an air ops ability.

But you can basically ditch the EW gear and carry LGB for 'freebie' kills of other fun targets (like bridges and EWR again, making sure all the local threats are down before abandoning your wingmen to the airfield attack).

I like the JP-233 as a fun-to-watch-weapon but I refuse to use it personally until Day-2 at least.

After you've won a DS campaign, you'll be a Squadron Leader or somesuch malarky. This lets you plan your own missions. Do it twice and you're a Group Commander and you can also select the target/assets.

ONLY once your top monkey in the cage do you want to try Orangeland, because you can also select the Tornado F.3 to 'forward sweep' (sacrifice) the airfields you're attacking while you followon behind to hit the AD.

Even so, there are usually 2-3 enemy CAPs up over other bases and they will react very quickly to the threatened area, making the window of opportunity quite narrow.

An option is to go All EWR on you're first mission but the distances are so great that you will all need tanks to survive a couple runaways against the more sophisticated MiG-29/31.

If you fail to hit the enemy airbases with OCA ops, you WILL be pushed back.

Retreat too long and you WILL lose.

No matter how well you do on 'frontal' targets of opportunity like trains and tanks.
Which are actually a bitch to do, low level, in the turns-like-the-Titanic-Tornado (and literally impossible to preplan against all the mobile defenses).


KP


P.S. See if you can find the 'Tornado Staff College' too. An old website where, for a nominal fee of like 5 bucks you got access to supplementary files that reduced your TFR altitude to 100ft and gave you 'night vision goggles' (all round green vision), snow-scape scenery and other goodies.


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
tony draper
Member
Member # 519

posted 01-26-2000 08:08 PM     Profile for tony draper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
it was a peach of a sim, never been equaled not even by falcon4 IMHO pity someone could not take basic engine and update the graphics no need to change anything else..tony d
Posts: 1280 | From: england | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lance Sharp
Member
Member # 856

posted 01-27-2000 07:42 AM     Profile for Lance Sharp   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tornado has never been equaled to this day. In terms of mission planning and training missions. The manual for the orginal game was the best done that I have seen to date, and the training missions and layout of how you learned the sim is the finest example of how combat flight sims should be setup to let you learn the avionics.

I have logged more time in TDO sim than any other sim to date, and have been disappointed with every other sim to since Tornado.

BTW if you do get the game it is possible to establish air superiority over the battlefied by taking out the enemy ac with the Tornado. Just be prepared to do a lot of running on the deck when things don't go your way.

Also you can still win campaigns by only using 4 ac instad of the full six. It takes a bit longer but makes for some interesting play.

You can also win a campaign by exclusively flying air superiority missions and targeting the other ac to do ground missions.

And....it can be played doing email campaigns. We did a lot of those over the old GENIE network.

Did I mention that I liked TDO....


Posts: 42 | From: Holtville, CA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
cid
Member
Member # 257

posted 01-27-2000 08:54 AM     Profile for cid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'd like to see the combat area and mission planning from tornado made into a modern game, only this version would have 2 aircraft possibilities, the tornado and some air superiority fighter, F-16 or something. Or, who cares what aircraft are included as long as the mission planning and target environment remain the same. In summary, it would be tornado with updated graphics, updated radar, and the capability to have 12 vs 12 human vs human command campaigns in exactly the same combat areas as in the original. In truth, i dont care about FM improvements or even which planes are modeled as long as these things are up and running.
Posts: 87 | From: jellico TN | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 01-27-2000 06:27 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tornado HAD two different A/C.
The Tornado GR.4 and the F3 ADV.
The ADV (Air Defence Variant) is a fighter, rather than bomber.

------------------
Pushing the edge of the envelope...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
JD
unregistered

posted 02-04-2000 06:59 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I have always had luck with choosing great combat sims. My first was Tornado "Desert Storm" and the sim I am currently flying is EF2000 by DID. I love both of them. I still remember vividly coming back from a mission in my Tornado as I limped toward my homebase with one engine left running, wings stuck in mid position and an enemy plane chasing me at my six and firing guns at me. I sweated like there was no tomorrow. I had to eventually shut down the engine and belly land because my gear also suffered damage. My damage MFD was lit with yellow and red lights like a christmas tree I was shockingly immersed into the action and for first time I realized how fighter pilots must feel when put into this situation and it made me glad I wasn't a fighter pilot risking my neck.

The ranking and mission system was awesome in Tornado as was the campaign editor. Graphics were done nicely too(for example the 3d craters). Remeber the flat spins, or the shudder of particles exploding all around you and shocking the plane as the misile exploded near by hitting the hillside behind you. There was only one bug that I didn't liked. When flying and trying to avoid the enemy plane that was behind you by slowing down and let it pass under/above you, the enemy plane would most of the time collide with your plane and send you down smoking. For those times when the enemy plane did't collided with you and actually passed under you(remember the pressure shock?) it was easy to point your guns on his tail and get an easy kill as he was pulling up. Sure this sim brings back memories, I think I'll go install it and replay some of those moments. Great value if you ask me and I am glad I bought it. I also bought EF2000 for $12 U.S. and was pleasantly surprised that it plays almost like the old Tornado but has nicer graphics. Oh, bring back the nostalgia


IP: Logged
flyer88
Member
Member # 2796

posted 02-10-2000 09:48 PM     Profile for flyer88   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Absolutely right. I would highliy recommend this game to anyone who is seriously into a hard core sim. If you understand that this game installs off of 3 floppy disks, you'll be absolutely amazed what was packed into it. It is definitely not for eye candy lovers or critics of high fidelity flight models, but if you are into punishing yourself with sensory overload and want to get a feel of what RAF pilots have to perform to fight with this beast, nothing else comes close.
If you can find the version boxed version with the printed manual, make that your first choice. The manual is worth the price of admission.

Posts: 35 | From: | 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