OT: Combat Flight Sim Info Requested

would some of you guys who indulge in combat flight sims please let me know which titles (era doesn't matter) are analagous in the racing sim world to: GPL / N4: GP3 / F1CS2000 / F1RC: NFS: thanks in advance jb

combat flight 1 is very good combat flight 2 is good but wants a powerful machine F18 is probably the best jetfighter game, avoid falcon 4 which sucks... "jb" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: 96ho4s$edn$[email hidden]... > would some of you guys who indulge in combat flight sims please let meknow > which titles (era doesn't matter) are analagous in the racing sim worldto:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > GPL / N4: > GP3 / F1CS2000 / F1RC: > NFS: > > thanks in advance > jb > > >

I like Janes WWII Fighters and from what I hear Combat Flight Sim 2 from MS is very good, and for just a hell of a good time Crimson Skies.

In article <1MZi6.1030$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > avoid falcon 4 which sucks... But happens to be the highest regarded sim to date. ;/ Cheers, Rod.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:19:10 -0500, "jb" <[email hidden]> wrote: Depends on what these games mean for *you*. I would say >GPL / N4: In terms of systems fidelity (and resource demands :-): Jane's F-18 >GP3 / F1CS2000 / F1RC: Not too hardcore but still somewhat convincing: Falcon4 >NFS: Just for fun and good looking: WW2 Fighters, Jetfighter Jan

Depends on what these games mean for *you*. I would say In terms of systems fidelity (and resource demands :-): Jane's F-18 Not too *** but still somewhat convincing: Falcon4 Just for fun and good looking: WW2 Fighters, Jetfighter Jan

I still like Euro Air War. Like GPL, it's very high on the immersion factor. --Steve Smith jb <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:96ho4s$edn$[email hidden]... > would some of you guys who indulge in combat flight sims please let meknow > which titles (era doesn't matter) are analagous in the racing sim worldto:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > GPL / N4: > GP3 / F1CS2000 / F1RC: > NFS: > > thanks in advance > jb > >

European Air War, Combat Flight Sim 2, MiG Alley, and the NEW Battle of Britain all have the best flight model (physics). If that's what you're looking for. -Cheers!

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:51:56 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>NFS: >> >Any Novalogic title. ----------------(don't buy them) > >>thanks in advance >>jb >> >There are more examples, but this will get you started. >

Jane's USAF might be a good choice in this category. -- Jagg

spoke: Jane's USAF might be a good choice in this category. -- Jagg

Anything about the (Ch)Air Farce is in the 'simple mode' vein. :) Can't help but crack on the Zoomies. I really enjoyed going on detachment to wup them. Ex-USN Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:51:56 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > spoke: > > >>NFS: > >> > >Any Novalogic title. ----------------(don't buy them) > > > >>thanks in advance > >>jb > >> > >There are more examples, but this will get you started. > > > > Jane's USAF might be a good choice in this category. > -- > Jagg

F4 yes, but after not getting my Sidewinder to work with Jane's F-15 (another zoomie release...), I'm not going to try anything put out by EA. Besides, the Hornet is a Navy/Marine jet. Therefore flown by superior pilots... :) (Despite the smiley, I really do believe that.) rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:08:14 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Anything about the (Ch)Air Farce is in the 'simple mode' vein. :) > > > >Can't help but crack on the Zoomies. I really enjoyed going on > >detachment to wup them. > > > >Ex-USN > > > > Really? Have you tried Falcon 4.0 or Jane's F/A-18? > Do you find them 'simple'? > > >Jagg wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:51:56 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > >> spoke: > >> > >> >>NFS: > >> >> > >> >Any Novalogic title. ----------------(don't buy them) > >> > > >> >>thanks in advance > >> >>jb > >> >> > >> >There are more examples, but this will get you started. > >> > > >> > >> Jane's USAF might be a good choice in this category. > >> -- > >> Jagg

Commanche when it first came out was Awesome! > Any Novalogic title. ----------------(don't buy them)

Um, no, I didn't say *I* was a good pilot (quite the contrary), just that Navy pilots are superior to (Ch)Air Farce pilots. Although I was able to land the F16 within my first flight-hour. (3 tries) It isn't pretty to watch, but it'll catch a wire. rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (44 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:32:21 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >F4 yes, > > If you find Falcon 4.0 an 'easy' sim, you must be a super-pilot. > Maybe you could go to a LAN meet and show other pilots how > superior you are.. :) > > Check over in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim.There are some > real-life F-16/F-18 /F-15 pilots there that would like to play with you. > > >rrevved wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:08:14 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> >Anything about the (Ch)Air Farce is in the 'simple mode' vein. :) > >> > > >> >Can't help but crack on the Zoomies. I really enjoyed going on > >> >detachment to wup them. > >> > > >> >Ex-USN > >> > > >> > >> Really? Have you tried Falcon 4.0 or Jane's F/A-18? > >> Do you find them 'simple'? > >> > >> >Jagg wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:51:56 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > >> >> spoke: > >> >> > >> >> >>NFS: > >> >> >> > >> >> >Any Novalogic title. ----------------(don't buy them) > >> >> > > >> >> >>thanks in advance > >> >> >>jb > >> >> >> > >> >> >There are more examples, but this will get you started. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Jane's USAF might be a good choice in this category. > >> >> -- > >> >> Jagg

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:29:53 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:17:52 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Um, no, I didn't say *I* was a good pilot (quite the contrary), just that Navy pilots are >>superior to (Ch)Air Farce pilots. Although >> > >You implied that F4 was an 'simple' sim. > >I said: > > "Have you tried Falcon 4.0 or Jane's F/A-18? Do you find them 'simple'?" > >You said:

I think you misunderstand him. Or do I maybe? :-) I thought he was just making fun of the real Air Force. -- Jagg

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:50:14 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >I dunno. When he said '(ch)air farce, I thought he was talking about >the wannabe pilots.. the simmers.. :) > Maybe you're right. What a dickhead! :-) -- Jagg

jb wrote: > > GPL / N4: Thee two titles above are physics kings. In this category, no flight sim apart from perhaps Mig Alley and the new Battle of Britain come close to Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons over Europe. The level of detail in the physics engine of SDOE is simply unbelievable! And the multiplayer aspect is one of the most fun I've come across (the only regular sim I play online apart from GPL), as it allows for any mission to be flown online as well. > GP3 / F1CS2000 / F1RC: These are equivalents of the popular modern jet sims. I would say the war is on between Falcon 4.0, Jane's F/A-18 and Flanker 2.0 (soon to be upgraded to 2.5 - for free!) > NFS: This one is easy, if it's Porche Unleashed you're looking at; Jane's USAF. Very good physics, although somewhat off in terms of performance figures. Multiple planes to choose from, and probably some of the best fun possible in a flight sim. > > thanks in advance > jb And to complete the analogy, just as with the above racing sims, I would recommend all the flight sims listed above. -Gregor

thanks for the reponses gang...

"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:50:14 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > spoke: > > > >I dunno. When he said '(ch)air farce, I thought he was talking about > >the wannabe pilots.. the simmers.. :) > > > > Maybe you're right. What a dickhead! :-)

Well the only thing that would make the navy pilots "better" are their aircraft carrier landing experience. It doesn't mean they can out dogfight someone though ;-) -- [email hidden]

rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:17:52 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Um, no, I didn't say *I* was a good pilot (quite the contrary), just that Navy pilots are > >superior to (Ch)Air Farce pilots. Although > > > > You implied that F4 was an 'simple' sim. > > I said: > > "Have you tried Falcon 4.0 or Jane's F/A-18? Do you find them 'simple'?" > > You said: > > "F4 yes,"

To fly, it's actually easy to fly. To fight, it's difficult just because *to me* it's so responsive. After flying the the Sabre (MiG Alley), I'm just not used to response time. I am disappointed that Korea (which I really have little interest in flying) is the only venue in which to fly. (Give me the Iraqi desert any day, I still owe Saddam for '91.) > As far as your statement '(Ch)Air Farce pilots', I took that to mean > sim-pilots, not real-life Air Force pilots. Naw, a sim pilot is a sim pilot. At least until he starts flying a KC-130 simulator... > > I was able to land the F16 within my first flight-hour. (3 tries) It isn't > >pretty to watch, but it'll catch a wire. > > Sorry, but F-16's don't catch wires. No, but other planes do. I always get in the mindset of landing on a carrier. If you can land on a moving airfield, there isn't much that you really can't do. > Are you drunk? *cough* No, I'm one of the few 'dry' sailors. And no, I am *not* gay. > rrevved - ex-usaf. Ah, that's why you're so defensive. Stick to racing, it gives you something manly to work on... ;)

Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:29:53 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > spoke: > > >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:17:52 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>Um, no, I didn't say *I* was a good pilot (quite the contrary), just that Navy pilots are > >>superior to (Ch)Air Farce pilots. Although > >> > > > >You implied that F4 was an 'simple' sim. > > > >I said: > > > > "Have you tried Falcon 4.0 or Jane's F/A-18? Do you find them 'simple'?" > > > >You said: > > I think you misunderstand him. Or do I maybe? :-) > I thought he was just making fun of the real Air Force.

You got it perfectly.

rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:43:33 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> As far as your statement '(Ch)Air Farce pilots', I took that to mean > >> sim-pilots, not real-life Air Force pilots. > > > >Naw, a sim pilot is a sim pilot. At least until he starts flying a KC-130 simulator... > > > > > > I flew and maintained C-130 mil sims for over 4 years in the USAF. I > have several thousand hours in those sims. Curtis-Wright and Link C-130 > sims to be exact. 54 model, A model, B model, E Model, Ski model. > 1960-1964 - Sewart AFB, TN. .. 4458th. > > So what?

I doubt you did that on your home PC for recreation. I'm just saying flying a KC-130 flight mission has got to be the most boring mission (if all goes well) there is. And if it gets down to a fight, all you are is a target. Not much fun if you ask me. As far as the plonk goes, well, I really do enjoy baiting USAF types. Only one I've met that I haven't baited (once he told me what he did) was my next door neighbor. He was Combat SAR in Viet Nam.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:06:05 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Thee two titles above are physics kings. In this category, no flight sim >apart from perhaps Mig Alley and the new Battle of Britain come close to >Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons over Europe. Still beating that dead horse eh Gregor? :-) -- Jagg

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:06:05 +0100, Gregor Veble Still beating that dead horse eh Gregor? :-) -- Jagg

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> rrevved - ex-usaf. > > > >Ah, that's why you're so defensive. Stick to racing, it gives yousomething manly to work > >on... > > FOAD. hummm. Let me guess... F*ck Off Air Dale? :) > *plonk* >

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:43:33 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >To fly, it's actually easy to fly. To fight, it's difficult just because *to me* it's so >responsive. After flying the the Sabre (MiG Alley), I'm just not used to response time. I am >disappointed that Korea (which I really have little interest in flying) is the only venue in >which to fly. (Give me the Iraqi desert any day, I still owe Saddam for '91.) You'll want Jane's F15E for that. And preferably a Voodoo card to play it on. -- Jagg

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:44:25 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >You got it perfectly. > Ed's retired. :-) -- Jagg

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:44:25 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr Ed's retired. :-) -- Jagg

I have F15E. For some reason it won't play nice with my new sidewinder. :( Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:43:33 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >To fly, it's actually easy to fly. To fight, it's difficult just because *to me* it's so > >responsive. After flying the the Sabre (MiG Alley), I'm just not used to response time. I am > >disappointed that Korea (which I really have little interest in flying) is the only venue in > >which to fly. (Give me the Iraqi desert any day, I still owe Saddam for '91.) > > You'll want Jane's F15E for that. And preferably a Voodoo card to play > it on. > > -- > Jagg

Hi, N... ahem, Jagg! :) Sure, that old horse needs all the beating it can get! Seriously, though, go check this article (and the rest of the site, as I am one of the guts on the team :) ): http://www.world-at-war.com/interviews/sdoepatch/index.shtml what's amazing is that the community got access to the source code in a legal way, not like the F4 grey approach, and knowing the guys involved (even I may get in it at a point, just to hinder progress ;) ), I am sure some great progress will be done. -Gregor Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:06:05 +0100, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >> Thee two titles above are physics kings. In this category, no flight sim >> apart from perhaps Mig Alley and the new Battle of Britain come close to >> Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons over Europe. > > > Still beating that dead horse eh Gregor? :-) > -- > Jagg

-- _______________________________________ remove the caps in the address to reply _______________________________________

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:43:59 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >I have F15E. For some reason it won't play nice with my new sidewinder. :( Sidewinder2? Get directx8.0a. It has some USB controller fixes so it may do the trick. I play F15 with a MS Precision Pro USB stick and have no problems. -- Jagg

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:53:11 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Hi, N... ahem, Jagg! :) > >Sure, that old horse needs all the beating it can get! > >Seriously, though, go check this article (and the rest of the site, as I >am one of the guts on the team :) ): > >http://www.world-at-war.com/interviews/sdoepatch/index.shtml

Interesting. I've bookmarked the url. I did download the WWI plane pack the other day but haven't checked it out yet. The theatre size should lend itself to WWI quite well. But, I'm still waiting for add-on terrain that gives me a more realistic home to target approach in the Lancaster. -- Jagg

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:53:11 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Hi, N... ahem, Jagg! :) BTW, you say SDOE has *the* best physics engine. While it is certainly a lively physics engine it is not all *that* realistic. We've been over this before, but I can call my good buddy scharmers up to join in and give some counterpoint if you like. :-) -- Jagg

Might DX 8.0 fix it? I had 6.0 when I installed F-15. Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:43:59 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >I have F15E. For some reason it won't play nice with my new sidewinder. :( > > Sidewinder2? Get directx8.0a. It has some USB controller fixes so it > may do the trick. I play F15 with a MS Precision Pro USB stick and > have no problems. > -- > Jagg

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:50:13 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Might DX 8.0 fix it? I had 6.0 when I installed F-15. Might. -- Jagg

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:50:13 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr Might. -- Jagg

Hi Jagg, what I think you should separate between is the physics engine, and the implementation of objects within the physics engine (F1 2000/F1 2000 CS as out of the box being a good example of the discrepancy between the two). Now, of course there are some inaccuracies when light bodies such as detached wheels are being processed, as the timestep in calculations is chosen small enough to handle larger objects such as planes, but it is not small enough and goes into instabilities when the masses involved are too light (which anyone who ever dealt with numerics will know what I am talking about), but in the cases where it really matters, which is the plane behaviour, I stand by my statement. And trust me, I do know my Newtonian physics. Let's take it to the other newsgroup, though, I think people here are getting nervous, and besides, I wouldn't want to unleash scharmers in here to wreak havoc amongst ususpecting racers ;)! -Gregor Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:53:11 +0100, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >> Hi, N... ahem, Jagg! :) > > > > BTW, you say SDOE has *the* best physics engine. While it is certainly > a lively physics engine it is not all *that* realistic. We've been > over this before, but I can call my good buddy scharmers up to join in > and give some counterpoint if you like. :-) > -- > Jagg

-- _______________________________________ remove the caps in the address to reply _______________________________________

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:25:38 +0100, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Hi Jagg, > >what I think you should separate between is the physics engine, and the >implementation of objects within the physics engine (F1 2000/F1 2000 CS >as out of the box being a good example of the discrepancy between the two). > >Now, of course there are some inaccuracies when light bodies such as >detached wheels are being processed, as the timestep in calculations is >chosen small enough to handle larger objects such as planes, but it is >not small enough and goes into instabilities when the masses involved >are too light (which anyone who ever dealt with numerics will know what >I am talking about), but in the cases where it really matters, which is >the plane behaviour, I stand by my statement. And trust me, I do know my >Newtonian physics.

OK, I sort of know what you mean. I will install SDOE (again) today and try out that WWI plane pack. Last time I installed it I couldn't get it to run in glide. If I put an older version of glide in the SDOE root it should use that version and work fine, right? >Let's take it to the other newsgroup, though, I think people here are >getting nervous, and besides, I wouldn't want to unleash scharmers in >here to wreak havoc amongst ususpecting racers ;)! No fear. Scharmers doesn't like racing games. -- Jagg

I thought he might have meant the Chinese air force...you know, Bruce Campbell in "Army of Darkness"? "Maybe my boys -can- take them...and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot." J. P. Hovercraft Jagg wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:50:14 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> thus > spoke: > > >I dunno. When he said '(ch)air farce, I thought he was talking about > >the wannabe pilots.. the simmers.. :) > > > > Maybe you're right. What a dickhead! :-) > -- > Jagg