my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Helos   » TA FM questions...

   
Author Topic: TA FM questions...
JA
unregistered

posted 04-12-2000 06:15 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Having recently read a scathing review of TA focussing on the default FM got me thinking..."hey, it was bad, but it wasn't that bad, was it?" Just for the heck of it, I reinstalled the default over Zero G's replacement and flew a bit. I have read many complaints that flare stops were not possible with the default and that the helicopter would hover at fairly severe angles of bank. I found that with the default I could do flare stops, although they were a bit mushy. Also, the helicopter would indeed start to slip at any angle of bank, in a more or less similar fashion to Zero G's replacement. On the other hand, snaprolls are impossible with the default, and fairly simple (and fun) with the replacement.

Another difference I noted is that Zero G's seems to have a larger deadzone - doing a 5-degree bank from a hover is much harder than with the default.

Now, first let me say that:

1. Zero G's replacement feels much better and is a major improvement.

2. I am not a helo pilot or student of aerodynamics, nor a programmer, so take any questions and comments with a large canister of salt.

My questions are:

1. Have some people overstated the problems with the default FM - like, for example, the hover-while-banked issue - that it will hover in a 5-degree bank, but not a 30-degree one? Or perhaps I am misremembering the complaints...

2. Is it possible that the problems are somewhat hardware-dependent - so that the MSFF stick I use interacts somewhat better with the default FM making it seem less horrible than it did to someone using, say, a Saitek X36 or something?

3. Am I full of it? I swear I am not trolling, and it's quite possible I will keep experimenting and find out my initial observations were completely incorrect!

Anyhow, any comments are welcome!


IP: Logged
Zero G
Member
Member # 311

posted 04-12-2000 06:51 PM     Profile for Zero G   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I read the same review, not that I put much stock in it. When a review rags on TA for all the bugs and at the same time says GS! is better... Well I take the rest with a grain of salt.

On to the FM, The initial one does have some pretty big problems and I can see where people were a bit put off by it. After getting the full version of the sim myself I took a look at the changed FM that Bob and I put out. It needs more work I know I have been saying this for a week or so but I will get to work on another one. Both Bob and I have been busy and I have been sick so I have been a bit behind.

1) complaints are always overstated, people get mad and go off...

2)The deadzone seems to be somewhat dependant on hardware, it is there in some form on all machines but it is worse for some people then others.

3) No I do not think you are full of it/trolling here, to each there own when it comes to enjoying software. I think one good pathch will get many people on board with this sim.

------------------
Z


Posts: 374 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
aszurom
Member
Member # 2119

posted 04-12-2000 08:12 PM     Profile for aszurom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
ZeroG,

Which review do you refer to? Mine (GDR) or Gamecenter?

BTW... I was on gametime tonight and discussed the game with Jim Downs a bit. You'll note that I did mention the removal of you guys from the manual, GT shipping the pre-beta, and that cool ZeroG guy who made a better flight model.

Jim


Posts: 24 | From: waynesburg, ohio, usa | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
JA
unregistered

posted 04-12-2000 08:50 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the reply, Zero G. I really do enjoy TA, flaws or not, and I really appreciate the improved FM and the very helpful info and insights you have posted here. Looking forward to the next version!

JA


IP: Logged
Hatchet
Member
Member # 4103

posted 04-13-2000 03:28 AM     Profile for Hatchet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The GamesDomain UK review was one of the most infantile pieces of literature it has ever been my displeasure to read. This is what occurs when an individual that possesses little or no talent in a particular field is asked to comment upon and critique items within that field. His "critique" was reminiscent of the type often seen for movies where one can but imagine the writer lives a black and horrid little existence. Often critics such as these spend so much time being "critical" that they are in the end, incapable of discovering the enjoyment that lies within any project generated by those more talented than themself. There is no respect accredited to individuals that have spent hours upon hours writing endless strings of mind numbing code. Simple social decency is quite beyond idiots such as this jim hunt. It was nothing less than a vidictive and spiteful review and he should be dragged by the shorthairs out behind the barn and awarded an old fashion lesson in manners. I would rave further on some of his remarks, did time permit. As for his comments on missile trails, he needs to actually go out and witness a few weapons firings first. One or two film clips from the Discovery Channel do not constitute grounds for an individual to claim knowledge of the subject. From the pilot's perspective it is possible to see the engine on a missile burning and even from the side on rockets. But this thing of wishing to see a space shuttle sized smoke trail is certainly past realism. While full of eye candy, is quite out beyond the bounds of actuality. For someone that lambasted the FM with black marks in the realism department, mr hunt does contradict himself as regards smoke trails. All in all, it was a pitiful waste of web space as he has obviously failed to realize the difference between a "review" and a "critique". Quite frankly, I as well as most people feel that if there was a bus going over a cliff and it was half full of lawyers, then the other seats should be occupied by...you get the picture. A proper "review" has been presented by combatsim (part1). The game does have some issues to be resolved. And it is being attended. It is not often that developers take the time to post and respond on a message board to answer questions and gather information. That in itself is a hallmark. Thanks to the guys at SIMIS and thanks for your work on the new FM ZeroG.
Posts: 48 | From: 5th Special Forces Ft Campbell Ky | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zero G
Member
Member # 311

posted 04-13-2000 04:51 AM     Profile for Zero G   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Ouch, that was a bit more brutal then I would have been. I know how hard it is to review a product that has problems that are hard for the reviewer to get past. I turned down doing a preview of SAR2 because of having just such a problem with it.

An ex-tanker posted a very good set of comments in the GS! forum showing about 20 errors in GS! that need work and he stayed very positive through the entire thing, that was some kickass writing. He is the kind of guy who should be doing reviews and beta testing.

I do agree that some respect has to be given to any software maker who puts in the time and effort that it takes to put out a product. This is doubled when you are working for a company that has little interest in sims.

Anyways thanks for the kind words guys, I like to see that I am helping out. Lets also not be to hard on James, doing reviews can be tough and I know more then one guy who would agree with his outlook on the sim. There is much to enjoy in TA if you give it the chance..

------------------
Z


Posts: 374 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Keyser Soze
Member
Member # 3958

posted 04-14-2000 09:41 AM     Profile for Keyser Soze   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zero G:
Ouch, that was a bit more brutal then I would have been. I know how hard it is to review a product that has problems that are hard for the reviewer to get past. I turned down doing a preview of SAR2 because of having just such a problem with it.

An ex-tanker posted a very good set of comments in the GS! forum showing about 20 errors in GS! that need work and he stayed very positive through the entire thing, that was some kickass writing. He is the kind of guy who should be doing reviews and beta testing.

I do agree that some respect has to be given to any software maker who puts in the time and effort that it takes to put out a product. This is doubled when you are working for a company that has little interest in sims.

Anyways thanks for the kind words guys, I like to see that I am helping out. Lets also not be to hard on James, doing reviews can be tough and I know more then one guy who would agree with his outlook on the sim. There is much to enjoy in TA if you give it the chance..


For my part I'm not going to get into what is right or wrong about the review, the reviewers, sites and mags have the right to their opinions.

However I would like to say that certain elements of the review were based on conjecture started in the newsgroups (and we all know how accurate that info can be). We at Simis pride ourselves on the product we release and using this info to 'pad' out his review is not what I would class as professional journalism. All he had to was pick up the phone or email me directly and I would've pointed him in the right direction and given him the correct info he needed.

I often wonder how reviews would read if the writer were to actually talk to the developer and get some inside info, clarify detail and gain that extra insight that would make the review a little more interesting to read for the public. We don't want controlling editorial rights over the content or to 'proof read' what will be used however it would only be advantageous for the journalists to gain that extra, interesting snippet that is always absent.

Anyway, James has his reasons for his input and we will always respect that, he didn't like the game, that's fine. I echo 'Z' comments, thanks for all the support and input, with positive and accurate feedback we can make our games better and give you, the game buying public, the games you want and deserve.

Best regards

Neil

------------------
Neil Soane
Project Director
Kuju Entertainment Ltd
(Simis & GlassGhost studios)


Posts: 13 | From: Godalming, England | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
aszurom
Member
Member # 2119

posted 04-15-2000 11:02 AM     Profile for aszurom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Neil,

I really wanted to like your game. It just didn't turn out that way.

I'd first like to point out that I didn't get a review copy from Gamesdomain. I was looking forward to the wave of helo sims and since it was the first to hit the shelf, I ran right out and bought it. (Yes, there was a review copy offered a few days after I already had it.) So, it's not like I had intent on panning the thing right from the get-go

I think I pretty clearly defined my feelings about the flight model, but let me clarify some points about it since I do have a chance to talk directly to the developer here...

1. Flying straight and level, the chopper happens to be requiring 20% collective. Suddenly, the thing falls like a brick and I have to yank 85% collective to maintain altitude. There was no significant change in my flight profile that "triggered" this, it just seemed to change its mind about the FM at some point.

2. When travelling at speed, I bank 45 degrees right. This should result in a banking turn to the right, as modeled in LB2, AH, CH, Hind, and even GS! However, in your game, the chopper starts sideslipping into the bank and doesn't change the heading of the nose at all.

3. Any time I wish to turn, the lion's share of the turning work must be done by the pedals. This is from hover to top speed. Shouldn't "weather vane" effect prevent a pedal turn, flat and level, at top speed? I would think so.

4. Zero G's new FM tweak was of some improvement, but definitely didn't resolve the issues above. Also, reviewers are NOT going to use any sort of patch unless they specifically state so... I reviewed the game as it was pulled from the box.

As for comments about my unprofessionally padding the review with hearsay from "usenet", that is untrue. Actually, the reference I made was from participating in discussion HERE, on this forum, with Zg and DeJanitor, as well as a few emails that passed between the latter and myself.

How relevant is it to the review? Well, from my perspective and that of my editor, it's pretty darn important when the publisher shipped something contrary to the intent of the developer. Would you care to elaborate on this matter? My comment is intended to take the "heat" off of Simis, and instead say that it could have been a much better game that was intended for release. So, I'm nodding in your direction and saying that it probably isn't Simis' fault and might be correctable.

As for Hatchet's long winded accusation that I don't know my genre... I'm not a pilot. I am, however, a former AH64 crewchief with a respectable amount of flight time in UH60 and OH58 aircraft. I've played gunship, GS2000, LHX, LB, LB: FPK, LB2, AH, CH, TA, GS!, and now KA52. This doesn't make me an expert on helos as I would expect from a pilot... but I do know how they are expected to "feel" in a sim and their basic behavior as felt from the passenger seat.

So far as I'm concerned... LB2 is the pinnacle of the helo flight sim genre at this point. It is the standard to which all other games suffer comparison, and honestly, if they'd re-release it with high rez graphic support, I'd be right there to buy it again. C/H & A/H come in a close second, but lack some of the avionics niceties of LB2. However, it is the first game to my knowlege that successfully seamlessly-integrates two standalone products into a unified whole.


Posts: 24 | From: waynesburg, ohio, 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