my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Helos   » Yo check out that Gunship! interview

   
Author Topic: Yo check out that Gunship! interview
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 11-19-1999 12:15 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Very nicely done, and check out those new high-poly models! The sense of height is quite good too it seems from the screenshots.

What do you say, people?

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Richard 'Flexman' Hawley
Member
Member # 55

posted 11-19-1999 05:58 PM     Profile for Richard 'Flexman' Hawley   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Looks like FUN! (in captitals)

Hope they can pull it off. But just to be sarcastic about the item (I can't resist) :-) I wonder what sound API they will use and how it will impact gameplay? [thud thud thud]

I hate all those hardcore sims don't you? It's about time we got back to FUN games.

OK I feel much better now :-)

But Blaze is right, that AH64D does have a pair of Sidewinders fitted. Nice to see someone play about with the weaponeering aspect.

OH, and a GREEN helicopter for a change. I know A-H had a green chopper but it was slightly offset by all the orange, brown and lime green of the fields. It didn't bother me until (for a change) I used a REAL monitor then the colours did start to reminded me of an Andy Warhol production. Consistent mind you.

I'm still in - "I'll believe it when I see it mode". The proof of the pudding is in the multiplayer aspect. Our chopper community is heavily reliant on that. Given past histories M1TP2 was a mixed bag - same with Apache Havoc and the forth comming Comanche Hokum (and further still with Apache Longbow and Hind conectivity).

Do you think the Tiger Eurocopter will have the same forehead height canopy strut mounted EJECT button as seen in the James Bond "Goldeneye" movie?


Posts: 396 | From: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Case
Member
Member # 788

posted 11-20-1999 03:35 AM     Profile for Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thank god microprose have done some work in the graphic area, i mean balancing the graphics is important. Anyone played Falcon 4.0? Its only the main aircraft that is modeled high poly kinda. I still thinks the Apache Havoc graphic engine rocks(with a few tweaks like more single trees and more ground battle, weeh). But it seems "Gunship!" is very close/far ahead on some areas. One thing i noticed maybe in all microprose sims is the low poly and bad texturing. Hopefully "Gunship!" will be a great sim(85%!!! done, beta testing here i come . And at last more choppers than those green americana insect looking thingys

------------------
Sincerely

Jimmy Larsson

[This message has been edited by Case (edited 11-20-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Case (edited 11-20-1999).]


Posts: 44 | From: Östhammar, Uppland, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Blaze
Member
Member # 198

posted 11-20-1999 05:18 AM     Profile for Blaze   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"It didn't bother me until (for a change) I used a REAL monitor then the colours did start to reminded me of an Andy Warhol production."

Ahh yes, so you finally realized what made me complaining about in the early days? ;-)

As for "I hate those hardcore sims", I truly hope that's a joke, right? I just barked about this on the LB list, why does this have to be exclusive. Can't we have a 'hardcore' yet fun sim?

Blaze


Posts: 1556 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
pnguyen
Member
Member # 893

posted 11-20-1999 06:56 AM     Profile for pnguyen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
No dynamic campaign?

Hmm.. that was a design mistake.


Posts: 17 | From: Greenbelt MD USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Richard 'Flexman' Hawley
Member
Member # 55

posted 11-20-1999 07:02 AM     Profile for Richard 'Flexman' Hawley   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

Yes Blaze,

I was still in sarcasm mode so it was a "tounge in cheek" remark using words used in the interview.

Longbow 2 was/is a hardcore (I do *hate* that word - the definition is so wooly) sim that has a lot of fun elements. GUNSHIP! I'm sure will follow the similar game formula of Tank Platoon. Starting close to the action, using cover to reach/destroy a particular objective.

What get's me is the almost apologetic rhetoric that creators of "FUN" sims feel the need to drop in. Not sure if it's for the benefit of publishers or potential customers, probably both.

Some people get off on macho sims like Flanker - "Never mind the game, feel the mission equipment pacakge" (as the actress said to the bishop).

As Blaze writes in the Longbow mailing list, Longbow 2 wasn't difficult when compared to the likes of F15 or F4. It's just intimidating to the wider client base. LB2 was a pretty easy sim once you identified the important features.

And there's the rub, why throw resources on creating routines for complex systems and emulating every little declassified function when no bugger is going to use them? When reasources are tight, they are better spent on polishing more mainstream elements of a sim...and I suppose that warrants an apology to the hardcore customers :-)

I don't mind, if it works it works, just glad to see chopper sim in the works. Hell, I bought all the Novalawsuit Comanche games and thought they were fun too. Never regretted buying those.

I know Microprose will pull it off and deliver a cool game. Those tanker proggy guys are good like that.

Diatribe off now.


Posts: 396 | From: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Blaze
Member
Member # 198

posted 11-20-1999 07:40 AM     Profile for Blaze   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well if they don't throw in those little declassified functions at all, how could one ever learn to use and appreciate them?
Isn't simming for a good part all about learning?
My main example are always the PFZ's in LB2, they're one of the most valuable tools, especially in multiplay. So I'm constantly waiting for improvements in this area, like the implementation of NFZ's! Right now it seems I have to wait for a long time ...

Blaze


Posts: 1556 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Anim8r
unregistered

posted 11-22-1999 08:44 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
To Case,

I really beg to differ with the generalization that Microprose sims have bad texturing. Microprose has traditionally offered lower poly models with superior texture painting so that they can offer a greater number of vehichles in the game. In response to complaints of bad texturing, I only have to point you to Apache Havoc, which although had incredibly high poly models, had some of the worst texturing I have ever seen....please take a close look at their Havoc.

Also, I think that the texturing in both M1TP2 and EAW was some of the finest around, and both games were recognized for excellent texturing. The trade off in both games was lower poly objects than other games for larger battles, one which I would argue is a wise course of action


IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 11-23-1999 02:05 AM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah, sure, Falcon4 is a fine example of texturing. Not.

I agree that the texturing in A-H is not very sopjisticated, but the high polys count makes up for this in big way. I'd rather have high poly counts than "good" texturing.

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Anim8r
unregistered

posted 11-23-1999 02:18 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think I would rather have a combination of large scale battles, decent poly count and good texturing....I think that M1TP2 did this very successfully, and the overall cohesiveness of the objects, the world and complex orders of battle make for a better overall experience.

My personal preference is an intergrated game, not on in which a poorly painted world and extremely hi poly objects with bad texturing seperate me from the game experience.


IP: Logged
Case
Member
Member # 788

posted 11-23-1999 02:48 PM     Profile for Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Uhm well i dont think the texturing in A vs H sucks, sure some colours are extremely strange but it looks like the textures in A vs H and many other sims like Flanker 2.0 and such uses high poly count and high resolution textures that dont look kinda "greasy"(and to avoid tearing) if you understand my point of view. And i dont know how much you guys played A vs H but in fact that the poly count is..normal in fact(Good mip mapping implented and detail reduction zones)..its a big war going on around you. So i dont seem to understand why you say that microprose as your point of view uses "low poly models"(It means they look bad and arent so detailed)so we can have a large war going on. So the thing that microprose uses bad models(As they do I!! think)and maybe you think good texturing. I dont like only textures and no polys, it looks like a oil painting then(Kinda they way A vs H looks, heheeh). If you want to further discuss this please send me an email. By they way i dont think other microprose sims other than Falcon 4.0 looks bad, EAW looks great, but thanks to low poly we dont see moving turrets and such. I can only say im very impressed how the guys(Gals)who programmed the 3d code in A vs H and other games kinda like it, Flanker 1.5, A-10 cuba and so on do to the game. A vs H are most often smooth on my machine . It shows im a high poly fanatic doesnt it(Damned . I must say that it seems we have an Falcon 4.0 fanatic here in the Helo section of combatsim. I could keep on and on and still dont make a point so i stop now.(This was added about 1 minute after i read my the above . Uhm so Anim8r, the thing is that A vs H have a very large dynamic campaign going on with HIGH poly models and still keep getting normal framerates thanks to the superb work of programmers and/or artist of Razorworks(I dont work there). Have you ever used 3d studio max or lightwave yourself? I have alot(i work alot with it also) The thing in A vs H is that they use ONE nice texture all over the heli and use polys to make details, not like in FALCON 4.0(Which this argument is about)where you use bad models and bad(much)texturing to make details on the objects. For some of the finest tank models, look at A vs H tanks or Flanker 2.0. Not some boxes with paint on them.

------------------
Sincerely

Jimmy Larsson

[This message has been edited by Case (edited 11-23-1999).]


Posts: 44 | From: Östhammar, Uppland, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 11-24-1999 02:16 AM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah, it what it all boils down to - personal preference. I really prefer clean artificially-textured look of A-H, A-10, (some Flanker2) e.t.c Besides, if you have actually taken the time to play AH and understand its campaign, you may well see that in high-activity times it has no less active units than Falcon4 (relative to theatre size). Granted, Falcon4 ground units do engage within LOS unlike in A-H. Don't get me wrong, I'm dying to like Falcon4. It has so much to offer, too bad its totally broken, and as the time goes by, its starting to loose whatever graphics appeal it does have.

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Case
Member
Member # 788

posted 11-24-1999 05:12 AM     Profile for Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Excatly my point Scout, the thing is that the graphics in Falcon 4.0 doesnt look so good, the F-16 you use yourself looks very nice but everything else is in my point of view very bad modeled

------------------
Sincerely

Jimmy Larsson


Posts: 44 | From: Östhammar, Uppland, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  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