Fighter Ops - SimHQ Interview

[phant 0]

 

• Screenshots
  
• HD Video
  
• YouTube Video
  

Bye

Phant

[Silverbolt 104]

this game is beautifull!

[+ST0RM 145]

Looks interesting. I like the route they are taking in that it leads you through training, and into a fighter as your progress. Definately more of the hardcore simmers. Let's hope it does well.

 

Storm

[+Dave 2,322]

I would love to see it becoming reality but they have been making this for years now. I smell another case of vaporware. I will believe it when I see it. However, great job 20mm did.

[+streakeagle 871]

It is interesting to compare the history of Fighter Ops to the SFP1 series:

 

SFP1 was under development for quite a while with an open forum at SimHQ and TK providing info and screenshots every few months.

When SFP1 was finally released, it wasn't even finished... the framework was rough and a lot of key features were not even implemented yet.

The patches for SFP1 drug on for quite some time, mainly providing bug fixes, but also adding some of the missing key features.

WOV patched more bugs, added aircraft carriers, but also introduced some new bugs.

WOE patched more bugs, added clouds, vectored thrust, and 1970s avionics/weapons, but again introduced some new bugs.

WOI patched more bugs, dramatically enchanced the terrain and AI, but brought even more new bugs (some associated with the new AI).

 

In my opinion, the net result is that WOI represents what SFP1 was supposed to be so many years ago.

But TK's 1-man programming show drug it out painfully over many years.

Of course he let us play the game and provide feedback while he finished it... but then we were paying to be beta testers.

The only software I know of with a longer ongoing development process is Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office.

 

Fighter Ops has been under development for awhile, but has not been around nearly as long as "Project 1"'s initial announcements.

There is no public release available.

In fact, based on the info available from the website, it is just now getting to the alpha stage and still may be awhile before a potential release candidate actually goes into beta testing.

In the mean time, you can get development info 3 months after it is released, or pay them to get access to first hand knowledge on the status of this project.

I find it strange that anyone would pay money for access to a forum without actually getting the game.

Of course, if you are really devoted to the idea, the best way to see become a real release is to lob money at them in the hopes that they are able to finish it before they run out of money and time.

Then again, collecting money for a non-existant product is one of the oldest cons and there is actually a fairly substantial history of this happening in flight sims.

Hard core flight simmers have so much passion for their hobby, that they will do anything to increase the odds of them finding the Holy Grail of flight sims: great graphics, ultra-realistic physics, totally immersive/believable, and runs smooth as silk on an average PC with no bugs.

So, it has happened that every now and then, a con artist comes along, shows some in-game development screen shots, collects some money to finish development, then is never heard from again.

 

I thought TargetWare was vaporware, but you can actually play that game now and it has never gone pay for play as intended since it lacks the necessary manpower to finish it right and is forever under development.

In fact, I think its development was so slow, that it was obsolete in many ways before it was even publicly released.

 

I believe Fighter Ops to be a real project, but they have set very high standards for what they want their product to be and have only a small team to try to reach those standards.

Their standards are so high, that they might run out of time and/or money before they ever get a chance to publish their product.

Initially, it will only be a flight training environment with no combat... I can already get a lot of what they intend to provide from Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

In fact, FSX will let you do almost everything their initial release intends to do and a whole lot more!

Will the initial T-38 training release do well enough to fund future addons?

Even if they manage to stay in business to get to the air combat part, how much longer is that going to take to complete?

 

I have been looking forward to Fighter Ops for a long time, but I am not holding my breath.

I wonder what operating system it is going to run on?

Vista may already be replaced by the time this game is available.

[+Julhelm 266]

Maybe we should all stop looking for the holy grail then and instead demand simpler products that are more fun, like the sims of old.

[+streakeagle 871]

The quest for the grail produced Falcon 4.0 and Jane's F/A-18...

If simmers and developers had lowered their sights neither of these excellent sims would ever have come to be.

The key to the future of high-fidelity flight sims is that no one can afford to start from scratch any more.

Existing code-bases need to be modular and re-utilized as much as possible to build towards a better future instead of re-inventing the wheel every 2 or 3 years.

TK get that.

The guys building new sims from the Rowan BoB/MiG Alley code get that.

The Falcon 4.0 AF guys get that.

The Flanker/LOMAC/FC/Black Shark guys get that.

Fighter Ops, if it is ever released, will probably be the last consumer grade high fidelity sim built from the ground up.

I hope it succeeds.

If they reach their goals, Falcon 4.0 will finally be surpassed as the most detailed and realistic hard-core air combat sim available (which is sad since it is nearly 10 years old).

If they reach their goals, it will also be so scalable to be as easy and fun as SFP1 for newbies.

 

While I will take whatever the best is that the market can support, I would never want to send developers the message that I will happily pay out good money for combat flight sims that are not significantly improved over previous releases.

If we are going to settle for whatever they can afford to crank out in a year or two, we will never get anything better than Jane's USAF... we might as well keep playing Jane's USAF.

 

When you aim too high, you may not ever hit your target, but you will still hit much higher than if you aim low!

[JediMaster 451]

I guess I'm most surprised they found X-Plane's code insufficient to the task and that starting from scratch was easier. Of course, I'm no programmer.

[Gr.Viper 131]

The strange thing about modern sims is that there's no well known "fun sims" anymore. If some newbie wants to try some games about air combat you get either completely arcade stuff or things like LockOn boasting they've modeled systems in all their complexity. No Strike Commader, no Jane's sims... Sure people who started simming a long time ago (I think simmers crowd is older than average gamer) know about good old stuff and can play it. Sims were gradually increasing in complexity so many old timers got used to controls, increasingly complex modeling etc. But no such thing for new players who don't know old games, don't want old games (for dated graphics and compatibility issues) and are left with "all or nothing" choice in terms of difficulty...

[+Julhelm 266]

I liked the old sims like Interceptor and Strike Commander that were fun but had some scenario depth to them other than "omfg all 200 F-16 radar modes modeled in infinite detail" switchology. TK's games are halfway there, but are still shallow since there is never any plot or story to speak of.

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know, I think TK's sims are perfect in the area of "serious for beginners". None of the arcadey 36-missiles and mid-air rearming crap but not too demanding on learning buttons and switches.

 

I will concede the lack of compelling story, however other than SFP1 it's all historical campaigns anyway. I guess he could shine it up some with briefings/debriefings having more flash to them, like the old MPS and Jane's sims did. However, it's obvious he spends his time on things that happen in the cockpit and the whole UI/presentation thing takes 2nd place. With his limited resources, that makes sense. I don't give the Russian dev teams the same pass, though, since they DO have more people working on them and could give them a little more soul!

 

My favorite sims from past years were my favorite because they didn't FEEL like sims. From the time you loaded into the main menu I felt more like a pilot prepping to go on a mission, then flying it, then seeing what came of it afterwards. These current ones on the other hand FEEL like simulators! I have immersion in the cockpit (if you're lucky--Il-2 and LOMAC often miss there too) but anytime I'm not in the cockpit it just SCREAMS "this is a simulator."

 

Jane's Longbow 2, for example, made me feel like an Army aviator learning how to fly the Apache and then going out to fight in a real conflict in one. LOMAC, to contrast, makes me feel like a Russian pilot trainee in a simulator at an airbase training for the day I'll get to REALLY fly them. It's a simulator simulator!

[Gr.Viper 131]

Russian devs can write programs but they really haven't got a clue about design and immersion...

 

I don't know, I think TK's sims are perfect in the area of "serious for beginners".

But you have to know they're there to try. I mean, I noticed First Eagles purely by accident and only after that I found out about SFP1, WoV and WoE... No ads, no fancy boxes, no coverage in general gaming press (until recently TK's sims weren't even listed at MobyGames). Here in Russia if we have a dedicaded sim-shelf in PC game store there will be boxes of Il2, bunches of LockOn, probably some helo sim, MSFS, and then there will be a shelf with "the others" which will probably include a TK sim along with loads of arcades and dumb and ugly sim lookalikes.

[+Julhelm 266]

Which is why I'll say again I think the sim crowd itself is at fault for not having anything new coming our way. Every time there's been a new sim in development, this most vocal of realismnuts like stiglr (who are never ever happy with anything) start bitching about how crap and unrealistic the game is because the radar doesn't have the correct raidcluster resolution sinus curve or the radio doesn't simulate proper channelswitching cryptography. So the devs add all this stuff to the game, exponentially multiplying the budget for it, only to find out that almost noone buys the damned game because by now what could've been a good GAME is now a switchology hardcore simulator that caters only to the smallest of fringe interest groups.

 

No f***ing wonder the big publishers have no interest in publishing sims when the simmers themselves are such an ungrateful and unsatiable crowd and there's no chance in hell they'll turn a profit on those big budgets. All "hardcore" simmers ever do is complain about how this game and this game are not realistic enough.

 

Back in the old days, a game like Strike Commander would be a smash hit because people would enjoy a good game with good production values.

 

Today, they'd complain about how the left MFD has the wrong number of modes and the Mig-29 stalls 25.132458kts too soon while pulling 7.2g's at 17890ft and not buy the game.

[BUFF 8]

Here in Russia if we have a dedicaded sim-shelf in PC game store there will be boxes of Il2, bunches of LockOn, probably some helo sim, MSFS, and then there will be a shelf with "the others" which will probably include a TK sim along with loads of arcades and dumb and ugly sim lookalikes.

here you would be lucky to find a dedicated sim shelf ...

Other than the absolutely huge titles PC games here may soon end up being only available by mail order or download.

[+streakeagle 871]

Which is why I'll say again I think the sim crowd itself is at fault for not having anything new coming our way. Every time there's been a new sim in development, this most vocal of realismnuts like stiglr (who are never ever happy with anything) start bitching about how crap and unrealistic the game is because the radar doesn't have the correct raidcluster resolution sinus curve or the radio doesn't simulate proper channelswitching cryptography. So the devs add all this stuff to the game, exponentially multiplying the budget for it, only to find out that almost noone buys the damned game because by now what could've been a good GAME is now a switchology hardcore simulator that caters only to the smallest of fringe interest groups.

 

No f***ing wonder the big publishers have no interest in publishing sims when the simmers themselves are such an ungrateful and unsatiable crowd and there's no chance in hell they'll turn a profit on those big budgets. All "hardcore" simmers ever do is complain about how this game and this game are not realistic enough.

 

Back in the old days, a game like Strike Commander would be a smash hit because people would enjoy a good game with good production values.

 

Today, they'd complain about how the left MFD has the wrong number of modes and the Mig-29 stalls 25.132458kts too soon while pulling 7.2g's at 17890ft and not buy the game.

 

A handful of Stiglrs isn't the reason the sim market collapsed.

It is all about $.

At its height, the Jane's sims never approached the numbers Madden NFL, Fifa Soccer, etc. have brought in.

At this point, flight simmers are a very small percentage of a multi-billion dollar industry.

In the not so distant past, not everyone had a PC and played games.

Only hard-core geeks had PCs.

In that group, flight simmers made up a signficant % of the market.

The PC market exploded.

The number of people that enjoy playing games did not.

 

As it is, I find myself a Stiglr...

If the game is arcadish, I simply have no interest in it.

I am not going to buy games I don't like.

If it is not a decent sim, no money from me.

Money spent making kiddie arcade games is money not spent making a game I would actually like to play.

 

Ace Combat series has great graphics but plays like the console game it is... it is almost exactly what you claim we need to bring newbies in.

But I don't see people lining up to buy LOMAC and IL-2 after playing Ace Combat.

In fact, compared to other console games, it is in the same small niche category as PC sims.

I don't think you bait people into this hobby with dumbed down games.

I think people in this hobby end up in it because they love airplanes and air combat enough to waste hundreds of dollars and hours simulating it as best they can.

At best, a small percentage in the whole flight sim community didn't know they were flight sim nuts until someone coerced them into trying it.

The rest sought out this hobby on their own... generally, if you like this kind of thing, your already know it and will end up doing this without any marketing ploys.

 

TK's games are the bottom limit of what I will throw money at.

They are on the same level as Jane's USAF in approach, but with mo' better graphics, flight models, cockpit models, etc.

Jet Fighter series, Hornet Korea family, etc. never got $1 from me.

The only reason TK's games aren't as fun as Jane's Fighters Anthology is he refuses to spend any time on some key features that made FA so popular: simple but powerful mission editor and great support for online gameplay.

Jane's USAF had terrible flight models and physics, but it had most of the gameplay features of FA and spectacular graphics for the time with fully customizable skins.

Jane's USAF even supported in-air refueling and had an exceptional mission editor.

The tutorials and free Thunderbirds addon were nice goodies too.

 

Apparently, TK is happy with the sales he already has.

Rather than trying to expand the scope of his games to draw in both newbies and hard-core types, he just keeps on expanding the planeset and maps to get repeat business from the fans he already has.

But as long as he keeps making progress, he will continue to get my $

 

Black Shark and Fighter Ops aren't so conservative.

They are taking a chance on spending so much time and money trying to cater to the very small hard-core combat flight sim crowd.

I really hope their efforts pay off.

I like their goals and really want to see them reach them.

Edited May 23, 2008 by streakeagle

[+Julhelm 266]

Translation:

 

The downfall of sims is always someone else's fault.

 

Either it's the publishers for being greedy bastards, the console crowd for being immature teens with short attentionspans who can only handle simple arcade games, or it is the average joe who is too stupid to understand how much FUN 20 minute startup procedures and military-spec radar lockup and firing solution procedures are, because that is where the fun is and people are generally just too stupid to understand what is really fun and what isn't.

 

It's never the fault of the simmers themselves (of whom Streakeagle here is a prime specimen) with their uncompromising attitude towards sims (Note how it's always sims, never games) and derogatory attitude towards anything that even dares compromise on "realism". Like Streakeagle says above; if it isn't at least F4 then it's arcadey kiddie stuff and he and others won't bother spending a buck on it.

 

So of course noone's going to touch pc sims with a 10ft pole since the target crowd has pretty much ruled out 99% of all possible genre games as "arcadey kiddie stuff".

[MigBuster 2,884]

Dunno what the Fuss is tbh - TKs sims are fun in many different ways and can appeal to both game players playing for fun, sim players, and modders alike. He has released a steady stream of these SFP1, SFG, WOV, WOE, First Eagles and WOI over 6 years with more on the horizon - what more could you want.

 

For the Hard Core bunch well there is Falcon and its variants, LOMAC - and in the future there should be a new version of Falcon from Lead Pursuit - and Fighter Ops possibly.

Considering how long these take to learn - a new one every 10 years aint a bad idea IMO :D

 

The arcade players have a console anyway and there is plenty of jet fighter arcade games to keep them happy too

 

Theres a ton of choice out there so im not really sure there is much of a downfall going on.

 

If you take into consideration the time it takes to fly a mission in WOV, start modding it etc with all the thousands of mods out there - I cant believe there is anybody out there with enough time on there hands to even worry about it - even less if they have the entire TW series!

[toonces 4]

I really enjoyed your first post way up there streakeagle.

 

I really like the 'idea' behind Fighter Ops. However, I have much of the same thoughts as you regarding it (I think).

 

Upon reading what the initial release would be, my gut reaction is, 'this is all great, but how many folks are going to buy it?' I can boot up a T-38 or a Texan in FSX and play fighter pilot trainee. So can everyone else. Having said that, there just aren't that many hardcore flight sims out there, and I make enough money to be able to buy a game like Fighter Ops in the hopes that it is entertaining. But how many other folks will do that? Will it be enough to sustain development?

 

Fighter Ops sounds like a 'holy grail' sim, but I keep feeling that these folks have bit off way more than they can chew. Will there be any money/stamina left after the initial release to go the distance?

 

I hope for the best. It is a shame that Falcon is still the bar by which all combat flight sims are judged. But then again, given the legs that Falcon has shown, perhaps the Fighter Ops guys are right looking at the long goal rather than the short goal. I mean, heck, I just dropped $40 on some payware pits for Falcon last month...I'm spending as much money as the sim originally cost me 10 years later to upgrade it. That says alot about longetivity.

 

Great discussion guys.

[JediMaster 451]

I will admit the idea of a training-only module excites me not at all. If I can't release my frustrations of the day by blowing stuff up, I feel...well, I feel the frustration continue to build!

I'm in the "I'll possibly get it after the first combat part is released" camp, although if they make a demo for the training-only initial release I will try that. However, the amount of time I could spend in a tiny demo is probably all I could bear to spend in non-combat anyway!

[+streakeagle 871]

Translation:

 

The downfall of sims is always someone else's fault.

 

Either it's the publishers for being greedy bastards, the console crowd for being immature teens with short attentionspans who can only handle simple arcade games, or it is the average joe who is too stupid to understand how much FUN 20 minute startup procedures and military-spec radar lockup and firing solution procedures are, because that is where the fun is and people are generally just too stupid to understand what is really fun and what isn't.

 

It's never the fault of the simmers themselves (of whom Streakeagle here is a prime specimen) with their uncompromising attitude towards sims (Note how it's always sims, never games) and derogatory attitude towards anything that even dares compromise on "realism". Like Streakeagle says above; if it isn't at least F4 then it's arcadey kiddie stuff and he and others won't bother spending a buck on it.

 

So of course noone's going to touch pc sims with a 10ft pole since the target crowd has pretty much ruled out 99% of all possible genre games as "arcadey kiddie stuff".

 

If I am so snobbish, why is 99% of my pc time spent playing the lightest sim series available? SFP1 is NOT Falcon 4.0, Jane's F-15, Jane's F/A-18.

The kind of games you are claiming would be our salvation already exist... and they were financial failures in comparison to Super Mario Brothers.

It is not my fault that 99.9% of the market buys games like Madden NFL, the Sims, and Sonic the Hedgehog.

Flight simmers are a minority compared to FPS gamers... and even they are a minority compared to the rest of the game market.

 

When enough people who aren't already in this hobby show that they will plop down as much money for a flight sim series as other people do for the mega games like EA Sports, then we will get more developers delivering more and better products.

You think EA and Microprose stopped selling the big sims because the people who bought them complained they weren't good enough?

As I said above, it is all about the $.

Not enough people bought them in the first place, or they would still be cranking them out like they did in the 1990s... and that is not my fault or anyone else who refuses to buy a game that is incomplete or lacks enough detail and realism to be called a sim.

Producing a modern game takes big bucks just for the 3d modeling and texturing.

But the mega-popular games like the GTA series can afford it... and I would definitely call that series a simulation, but I don't buy, play it, or care about how realistic it is because I have never wanted to be a criminal.

But because a large fraction of the modern kiddies think it is cool to pretend to kill cops and hos, that game sells like no other.

On the other hand, I did want to be a fighter pilot and therefore buy and play almost every game that comes out hoping for one that will fulfill my desires better than the ones before it.

 

I don't understand your argument that the downfall of sims is the simmers themselves.

How is it wrong for people to want sims to be sims instead of arcadish eye candy?

The arcadish fun flight games already exist (and don't sell any better than the hard-core sims).

All of the good sims are fully scalable down to an arcade level anyway: Falcon 4.0, LOMAC, and IL-2 series.

Falcon 4.0 Instant Action doesn't take 20 minute startup procedures and allows unlimited ammo.

An arcade game can't please a simmer, but a sim can easily have options to make it a fun arcade game.

So what is it that the simmers are doing so wrong that makes no one buy the sims that have been released?

Nothing.

 

Falcon 4.0 was a buggy piece of crap when it was released.

Microprose bit off more than they could chew (and spent more money making the game than it was ever going to make in sales).

So Micrprose went the way that all businesses that make bad decisions go... out of business.

Falcon 4.0 AF is where it is at now thanks to a leak of the source code and a long hard road that no profit-seeking company could have ever followed.

I think it is a little unfair that only a handful of the F4 community is now reaping the profits of what was a free and open community project to finish the game right.

Ironically, some of the (now illegal) free community mods continue to provide superior alternatives to the current legal payware version.

 

EA was much smarter than Microprose.

They had several projects in progress under their Jane's label, including the idea of making a single online virtual war that integrated land, air, and sea to try to please everyone at once and provide the most amazing online experience possible.

They suddenly noticed that other games cost far less to produce and had a much larger potential audience than Jane's games.

Jane's was a great brand name... but investing further in it given the market trend made about as much sense as trying to sell dog poop in a grocery store.

EA did what all good businesses do: cut their losses and run from money losing investments and dump as much as they can into the next big thing.

 

That IS what happened to sims and neither of those situations was directly caused by a few hundred people sniveling about rivet counts in forums only read by the other rivet counters.

I am just thankful that a handful of developers think that the void left by the collapse of the big companies might give them enough profits to make it worth their while to give us new sims.

 

TK appears to be doing ok, but he struggled for a long time and with one or two failed releases, could be forced out of the business.

 

The Russians doing LOMAC and IL-2 live under a much different economy.

The labor costs are much lower and the potential sales numbers are much higher... but software piracy is practically legal there (which brings up a problem with PC games in general: a lot of people find ways to get them for free).

 

One thing is for sure, if there is an untapped market just waiting for someone to open the flood gates and take the money, someone will find it and ride the wave.

The question is are there really enough flight simmers to make it worth anybody's time to make new and better sims?

Fighter Ops, Blackshark, and Jet Thunder are going to find out.

But each one of those releases has some limitation that will probably keep it from being a runaway success story.

Fighter Ops initially has no combat, so why are people buying this instead of FSX?

Blackshark is an awesome sim... of a relatively obscure Russian attack helo (as opposed to the infamous Hind). I don't really want to waste my time flying an Apache, much less a Soviet helo.

Jet Thunder may be the best sim ever made of the Falklands War... let me see, how many Falklands sims have their been? If it isn't WW2, it just doesn't exist... or if it does exist it doesn't sell nearly so well.

I will buy all of them (I have paid for every game I play), but I bet they are going to fail to meet the necessary sales figures to continue improving and adding new features.

 

But if there had not been a sizable group of demanding simmers, none of these games would be under development, much less released.

We might still be playing Atari Combat with side views of blocky biplanes and top views of blocky delta-winged jets flying and shooting in 2-dimensions.

So I would argue just the opposite of what you have said... we don't need less Stiglrs, we need about 100 milllion or more so that some big companies will see an untapped market and take software developers away from planning the next GTA game and give us a flight sim that would blow away anything we have ever seen.

Companies don't care if we complain... as long as they get our money.

Edited May 23, 2008 by streakeagle

[+Julhelm 266]

Having said that, there just aren't that many hardcore flight sims out there, and I make enough money to be able to buy a game like Fighter Ops in the hopes that it is entertaining. But how many other folks will do that? Will it be enough to sustain development?

See, here's the crux:

 

What guys like you and Streakeagle really want is a simulator, not a game. Combat flight sims are by definition games first and sims second and thus theoretically cater to a much broader market segment (the majority who is looking for a flight game for their entertainment) than the simulator which only appeals to hardcore enthusiasts who make up perhaps 5% if that much of the possible market for a combat flight sim.

 

Now this wouldn't be a problem if the oh-so-vocal hardcore crowd wouldn't so vehemently decry and bemoan any combat flight sim which is more game than simulator as being arcade kiddie's stuff and scaring away potential new customers from the genre before they part with their cash by making the entire genre into something of a fringe cult thing where you must plow through 600-page technical manuals and 20 minute startup procedures are rites of manhood.

 

The hardcore crowd is always eager to mention Falcon 4 or LOMAC as "sim" and Ace Combat as "game", which is pretty damned dishonest. Streakeagle himself makes the following black/white fallacy:

 

Ace Combat series has great graphics but plays like the console game it is... it is almost exactly what you claim we need to bring newbies in.

Nice strawman attempt - You keep on mentioning Ace Combat as if a shooter is somehow supposed to be a gateway into simulation. I've never claimed we need shooters like Ace Combat to rejuvenate the combat flight sim genre. I have however mentioned Strike Commander, Jetfighter and F-19 as examples of what the genre needs more of.

 

But I don't see people lining up to buy LOMAC and IL-2 after playing Ace Combat.

More dishonesty here: AC is a shooter, not a combat flight sim. It's really just an arcade game that has planes in it. It doesn't even make pretenses at being realistic in any way, unlike a proper "light" sim like Jetfighter series or F-19 which are still simulations, albeit with relaxed accuracy/flightmodelling and a focus on being entertaining. Being entertaining and relaxed realism does not immediately turn those games into arcade shooters like AC or BA - they are still combat flight sims.

 

I'm sure a game like F-19 or Strike Commander would sell just fine today if certain demographics could just plain shut the hell up and not make it sound like a s**t product based only on what it isn't.

[+streakeagle 871]

Why is Falcon 4.0, the most hard core sim ever released not a good game?

It can be a sim with all options turned up...

Or you can make yourself invincible with unlimited ammo and fly circles popping everything you see.

 

How is that a lie?

 

And there have been plenty of games released at the F-19 level of gameplay... and none of them sell well enough to stay on the shelf.

The Jetfighter series hung around for a long time in the budget section, but who bought it? A hand full of flight simmers.

How is the SFP1 series not an F-19 type game? It has modern graphics, but gameplay is little different.

Where are the crowds clamoring for the SFP1 series?

They weren't there when Janes USAF was released and they still aren't there now... which is why TK aims for a very specific niche of people rather than the entire world.

 

The people that liked Stirke Commander want something more now... or they would still be playing Strike Commander.

Ever tried playing Fighters Anthology after playing Jane's USAF for a year or going back to Jane's USAF after playing SFP1 for a year?

There are some subtle and important differnces between those games, but in general they are the same except for better graphics.

None of them are hard-core sims, all of them are fun games... none of them sold well enough to even begin to be compared with mega hit games that companies like EA are churning out.

"Certain demographics" not liking them didn't really impact sales at all.

Even today, all the crap that goes on in forums has little impact on the big markets because as TK so often points out, less than 1% of the market is even aware of and participates online.

The lack of sales occurs when little Bobby or Sue go to the store to spend some money and pick anything but flying games because they just are not interested in them.

Edited May 23, 2008 by streakeagle

[toonces 4]

Julhelm,

I would agree with you in principle that what I want is a simulator, not a 'game'. I think the two don't necessarily have to be different, a great sim can also be a great game, but I don't want to nitpick semantics.

 

In my own nirvana, we would have a sim like Falcon 4, but with more options...more campaigns, more flyable planes....and not just patched up add-ons. My nirvana is a sim with the moddability, and the number of aircraft of SF1 and WOV, but with the fidelity of Falcon 4. That's MY vision for a great, holy grail sim.

 

I'd love, absolutely love, to play a full-on study sim F-4 Phantom set in Vietnam, with a campaign engine like Falcon 4.

 

What is sad is that the technology and know how exists to create my holy-grail sim. But as streakeagle pointed out so eloquently, who's going to pay to make it and will it make money? And, why take the risk on that when you can pump out another Madden game and make a few million?

 

At any rate, variety is great, and I await Fighter Ops with anticipation. I'm skeptical that they can go the distance with their vision, but I remain hopeful. I suppose the one thing I can do to help is buy the game when they release it, enjoy flying my T-38 around, and hopefully do my part to show support for these folks by buying their product so they can continue with the dream.

 

But, back to my original question....how many other folks are willing to do that? How many people are going to pay $50, $70, $100 for a sim that does what FSX does already...with tons more planes?

[+streakeagle 871]

If Fighter Ops ever gets released... I will pay the price even if it is $100 or more.

Games that reach the levels they are aiming for should have a price tag to match.

And people should be willing to pay it since they already clearly spend far more on things that are worth far less.

I truly want them to succeed.

 

However, I won't give them a dollar until they have a worthy product to put in my hands.

Even if they never make another module due to the first one not selling, I will be happy if they reach their goals.

Of course, I would much rather them make the other modules :)

 

Black Shark is different to me.

I am not sure it is going to be anything I want until they have something more than a helo and an A-10.

Even if they release the first few modules they have listed for the future...

the planeset will make it just a higher fidelity version of LOMAC.

I have never enjoyed LOMAC much.

The time frame is too modern with combat too dependent on how missiles and ecm devices interact.

Whereas Fighter Ops with its training syllabus will require far more focus on stick and rudder skills despite the modern planeset.

I will probably buy it, but like LOMAC, it may languish on my hard drive most of the time.

 

If it is ever released, Jet Thunder will definitely get my attention.

The primary aircraft of both sides are of great interest to me.

Harriers are amazing aircraft and trying to take out their carriers with A-4s and Mirages while dodging SAMs, AAA, and Harriers with AIM-9Ls should be as fun as flying the Harriers.

It will be interesting to see how this sim compares with the SFP1 series.

But, like Fighter Ops, I have my doubts about this one ever being finished.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Harriers are amazing aircraft and trying to take out their carriers with A-4s and Mirages while dodging SAMs, AAA, and Harriers with AIM-9Ls should be as fun as flying the Harriers.

You said "fun".

That's what sims in general lack from the point of view of common gamer. It's all about mastering complex controls for them.

In arcade games fun is guaranteed at least on the box. Fight dozens of opponents, use lots of destructive weapons, fun original missons etc.

What does a hardcore sim put on it's box? X detailed cockpits, Y highly detailed aircraft, modern weapon systems, support for gadget-no-one-apart-from-simmers-heard-of and so on...

And then reviews basically follow the same pattern describing how cool and hardcore it all is. Or uncool and primitive. The difficulty can be dumbed down but nobody makes a point of it. Nobody mentions how unique every engagement of a dynamic campaign can be (who apart from simmers understands what a DC is anyway?), no one bothers to make imaginative single missions not referring to some historical incident, no human characters in game - just ATC and boring wingmen (listen to comms in Strike Commander and most space sims) Even menus are mostly ugly and forbid any mentioning of fun...