SF2 Future?

[Wodin 0]

Just wondering if anyone knew what is definately planned for the future? I hear talk of a F14 and revamped terrian...is this in the pipeline?

 

Thanks

[FastCargo 412]

I don't think TK knows at times, because a lot of his business model is dependent on actual sales vs projected sales on previous projects. For instance, apparently the Suez addon was kind of an underperformer in sales, which may have thrown off his future timeline.

 

Most of the information on future projects is from TK himself on his website (which is currently down).

 

FC

[+Soulfreak 6,524]

A expansion pack3 will come & a F-14 Sim....

[+Stary 2,427]

OT: Carlo, any info on Exp 3?

[+Soulfreak 6,524]

No, only the things TK says.

EXP3 will have a flyable Mirage F.1C

[JediMaster 451]

The other thing is usually releases designated "expansion packs" don't have another terrain in them, with the exception of FE1's expansion. Exp 1 was for SF2:I and 2 was for SF2:E, and I think 3 will be for stock SF2 because it's the F1.

As for Tomcat, since it's a full release I WOULD expect to see a new terrain in there. The "terrain engine" thing is more of an internal deal which I suppose is to make things easier for him to make new terrains as opposed to being some dramatic increase in the presentation of terrains we've seen thus far in SF2. Terrain takes a lot more effort to make than a plane (which is why there are 3rd party planes out the kazoo out there while there are only a handful of terrains, and the quality of those varies even more wildly than the planes due to that difficulty).

[Gr.Viper 131]

Didn't TK say that Tomcat will get Iceland?

[Wodin 0]

I reinstalled LOMAC FC yesterday and was shocked at how poor the cockpits looked compared to sims today...SF2 looks so much better....however I would like to fly over LOMACS terrain in SF2 aircraft......it's a dated game LOMAC now so surely to make a terrain to that standard wouldn't cost a fortune.....still really enjoying the sim...I bought SF and SF Gold and WoV a fair while ago and never really got into them...I just bought SF2V and SF2 and SFE from a mate and I have been really enjoying it...especially the Vietnam mod....

[Teras 67]

sf2 really needs some attention on the graphics an update or fix must be happen from TK

if we look into hawx 1 we see that hawx1 has brilliant graphics , effects ... ETC but none real flight model and its impossible to mod hawks

but SF has all good basic or important things but still need a fix on the environment and effects the game really miss those stuff as it miss the targets , i mean we loadout our wings with tons of iron to strike only 1 building or target and the other irons goes to the same ground objects like shilka or fuel truck and the same every flight but we still enjoying the sim , i mean come on we cant targeting what we want just press E button and release GBUs and as u know in real life targeting is well deferent for example in LOMAC when u select mavrick missile on a-10 u need to move the corshair to the target , stuff like these must have in SF2

i hope i could play SF2 some day with very good environments and effects and compared to hawx

[xclusiv8 35]

sf2 really needs some attention on the graphics an update or fix must be happen from TK

if we look into hawx 1 we see that hawx1 has brilliant graphics , effects ... ETC but none real flight model and its impossible to mod hawks

but SF has all good basic or important things but still need a fix on the environment and effects the game really miss those stuff as it miss the targets , i mean we loadout our wings with tons of iron to strike only 1 building or target and the other irons goes to the same ground objects like shilka or fuel truck and the same every flight but we still enjoying the sim , i mean come on we cant targeting what we want just press E button and release GBUs and as u know in real life targeting is well deferent for example in LOMAC when u select mavrick missile on a-10 u need to move the corshair to the target , stuff like these must have in SF2

i hope i could play SF2 some day with very good environments and effects and compared to hawx

 

graphics may change, those other things will never happen since TK is sticking with his filosophy of sim-lite.

[+EricJ 4,245]

A lot of this has been covered before but Thirdwire is three people, so you're not going to see the level of development companies like Eagle Dynamics or other major flight sim developers. So a lot of the future of the game will be known in "two weeks".

[JediMaster 451]

If you get Flaming Cliffs 2 the graphics are improved somewhat over the original LOMAC/FC. The terrain, which is the same one that was updated for DCS: Black Shark, is quite good.

 

I will say IMHO I think the best terrain in any current sim is RoF's, due to the newness of the engine, but the Western Front wasn't the most challenging of terrains so it doesn't really demonstrate how far it might be able to go. No mountains, fjords, deserts, jungles, only small forests and towns, really... It looks better than the ones in First Eagles 2 by a noticeable amount, anyway, especially the bridges which are a blast to fly under, but I've yet to see any tank battles in RoF like I've seen in FE2. Not sure if it can or can't do them, I just have yet to see one.

[+Stary 2,427]

Funny JM as I find ROF terrain a bit "cartoonish". Can't describe this feel better. Surely it had the adventage of being the most advanced engine-wise, but for starters doesn't has that French feel to it (in fact, WW1 aerial photos show more rectangular fields, like the ones you'll find in stock FE/FE2), lacks variety (same repeating tiled textures -more noticeable in mission editor from zoomed out view), especially when it comes to forests (J.Tuma's FE2 one is better in the area of general foliage and tiles variety, hats off Jan!) which while beautiful are boring to fly over, and the noman's land is simply ugly. Looks like Twilight Side of the Moon to me.

And no, I tried setting some tank battle in ME, didn't worked, but that was several updates ago.

 

But ROF cities... oh, these are beautifully recreated! I CRY for custom used-made .TOD shapes for SF series since I started my terrain modding.

 

FC2 terrain engine is slightly improved over LOMAC (don't know abou BS) and while old, still good technically (roads network, working bridges, nice mountains and cities etc) and enjoyable to fly over in a Hog.

 

Heavily modded SF/FE terrains aren't that bad, given the years, years old terrain engine (that goes back to the times of EAW).

 

My opinion, of course. And I'd gladly take both new terrain/environment engine, and updated avionics/carrier ops/"war engine". Even if that's more than two

[Teras 67]

graphics may change, those other things will never happen since TK is sticking with his filosophy of sim-lite. 

man what can be changed in graphics? colors only? i mean TK must really take it serious, to be honest with u am just tired plying the same thing every day

as u know the best thing is a strike mission but when u goes for strike mission u will only drop the bomb and good job rtb!

we need to complain to TK, u know this game become our life we need to improve it as it should be we need to tell our message to TK that the environment must be improved and other stuff like the strategy in strike missions and guiding weapons and controlling the recon cams and targeting or choosing whatever target we want in game ... ETC and other members can explain it better i think there are couple of guys here thy know everything about the sim as it in the real life

i think we must request an update from TK to improve the game , otherwise it doesn't make that deferent with SF1 only some shader and a shiny thing on the cockpit's glasses doesn't mean that we have what we want

[Caesar 305]

Compared to the SF-1 series, I'd say the graphics (at least the planes and cockpits) have seen a major face-lift. Avionics have been updated over time (can't wait to see if the Tomcat expansion results with functional TWS-A/M for multi-target engagement!) and the physics seem to me FAR improved from when the game first hit the shelves. Not sure what to expect in the future, but I'm a fan of where the game has come, and I ain't even an olde-timer!

[+malibu43 142]

graphics may change, those other things will never happen since TK is sticking with his filosophy of sim-lite. 

man what can be changed in graphics? colors only? i mean TK must really take it serious, to be honest with u am just tired plying the same thing every day

as u know the best thing is a strike mission but when u goes for strike mission u will only drop the bomb and good job rtb!

we need to complain to TK, u know this game become our life we need to improve it as it should be we need to tell our message to TK that the environment must be improved and other stuff like the strategy in strike missions and guiding weapons and controlling the recon cams and targeting or choosing whatever target we want in game ... ETC and other members can explain it better i think there are couple of guys here thy know everything about the sim as it in the real life

i think we must request an update from TK to improve the game , otherwise it doesn't make that deferent with SF1 only some shader and a shiny thing on the cockpit's glasses doesn't mean that we have what we want

 

I disagree. I don't think we should "complain" to TK with the long list you just spouted.

 

Your suggestions sound more like completely reinventing the game rather than making improvements, and they make it sound like you really don't like the game as it is. Yeah, those would all be nice, but that is unrealistic to expect. How about we ask TK to fix things like effects not displaying correctly and trees showing through clouds before we demand he completely revamp his game.

 

If you really want all that, then why not just find a game that you like instead of expecting the developer of a game that you don't like to completely reinvent his product to meet your needs?

 

In short what you're saying sounds like this to me: "This girl would be perfect if only she was a different height, different weight, had a different hair color, different eye color, and a different personality. I'm going to date her and try to get her to change all those things instead of just finding a different girl."

[Guest Pfunk]

It is my hope that the new terrain is not Iceland. I'd like something bigger in scope, like the North Cape.

 

And someone said that making airplanes is easier than making terrains and I'd like to vehemently disagree (yeah, Dave, I'm lookin' at you) because I think our 3D modelers have it MUCH rougher.

 

First, they need a program that costs close to three grand for the commercial version. The student version is much cheaper, but cripes, it's still high as a cat's back. Second, the aforementioned program has got a learning curve steeper than the I-30 Mixmaster in downtown Dallas. Take it from a guy who bought a copy and even after formal classes, still couldn't get the hang of it.

 

The aircraft are infinitely harder to make. I've done some skinning work and even that is challenging.

 

The Terrain Editor does quite a bit of work for you. The problem with the Terrain Editor and making a terrain itself is that while it's not difficult, it is TIME CONSUMING and TEDIOUS AS HELL.

 

Now dirt-painting and redoing the foliage adds a dimension of difficulty solved by using GIMP or Photoshop.

 

I'm working on one right now, the Greek Peninsula...and then start looking for a reboot of an old favorite...updated for SF2...

[+Dave 2,322]

 

And someone said that making airplanes is easier than making terrains and I'd like to vehemently disagree (yeah, Dave, I'm lookin' at you)

 

[Teras 67]

I disagree. I don't think we should "complain" to TK with the long list you just spouted.

 

Your suggestions sound more like completely reinventing the game rather than making improvements, and they make it sound like you really don't like the game as it is. Yeah, those would all be nice, but that is unrealistic to expect. How about we ask TK to fix things like effects not displaying correctly and trees showing through clouds before we demand he completely revamp his game.

 

If you really want all that, then why not just find a game that you like instead of expecting the developer of a game that you don't like to completely reinvent his product to meet your needs?

 

In short what you're saying sounds like this to me: "This girl would be perfect if only she was a different height, different weight, had a different hair color, different eye color, and a different personality. I'm going to date her and try to get her to change all those things instead of just finding a different girl."

 

well, its ur opinion

[+Stary 2,427]

I my opinnion TW planes and cockpits are among the best out there. Look at all the sub-variants available of Lightning! You might now know, but on the other forum there's pages long discussion about Oleg's Cliffs of Dover having Spit Mk.V pit put inside Mk.I. One guy made a screen depicting all the wrong dials and gauges, oh it's a lot. Something you wouldn't expect from such known and famous WW2 developer as Maddox.

 

Only DCS A-10c (based on screens) and ROF have better models, everything other is sub-par. And, we have The Modding Gurus they don't

[+Soulfreak 6,524]

Well, i would like to have a better terrain too.

As said above maybe like Lomac

[Wrench 9,847]

I'll go along, a short way, with PFunks post... re: what's harder?

IMO, in descending order of diffuculty ..

 

1) Aircraft Cockpits

2) Aircraft

3) Decent, fairly accurate (ie: 90 percentile range)flight models

4) ACCURATE terrains, with Real World ™ representation. IMHO, the terrian editor is a POS that's a PIA to work with. And don't get me started on transions tiles (or the oftimes lack thereof)

 

So, PFunk, do this mean Black Sea is returning??

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Wodin 0]

Someone mentioned RoF terrain....well I think the terrain and the clouds are sub par...they don't look realistic and do have a cartoon quality...even dated sims like OFF Phase 3 have better terrain than RoF...plus RoF is a system hog beyond belief....the FM and planes are top notch and these on their own shouldn't cause the system hog...so you add in the terrain which is mediocre so why does it require such a powerful system for it to run well with a few planes in the air? Most likely due to poor code that needs to be optimised...though say that to 777 and you get put in place...

[+Stary 2,427]

OFF team did tremendous job on the terrain, and I agree, I find it more believable than ROF one. Clouds? No sim got them right and none will in a decade or more, some just render them bunches of particles in believable way.

[JediMaster 451]

I think people are crossing the amount of work put into something with the technical capabilities of the underlying engine. OFF P3 has tremendously detailed terrain...in DX7. Water in DX7 looks like crap, plain and simple, they can't change that. That's the result of picking CFS3 as the base.

RoF's engine is DX9 (I don't think it supports 10 or 11 directly) so it can look a lot better.

 

Now if you start saying whose textures look better than whom, who put more buildings in town X, color saturation, etc, that's not an engine limitation, that's what was done with it. It's like comparing 2001 and Star Wars. There's no doubt 2001 had that more sophisticated attention to detail, but there's also no doubt that due to the passage of years Star Wars technical capabilities let it do what Kubrick couldn't have even imagined.

 

So, if you like, OFF is 2001 and RoF is Star Wars!

 

As for the difficulty of creating one thing vs another, well, I've never done any of them. All I can do is point at what has been made. In terms of quantity, 3rd party planes are tops. I'm not sure whether there are more 3rd party cockpits or terrains, but the number is pretty close. However, other than some blatantly unfinished cockpits, I'd say on average the 3rd party cockpits that have been done are a better quality than the average 3rd party terrain. That's because there are some lousy looking terrains out there that blow the curve for the good-looking ones. Target placement and all that takes just as much time to create for a poor terrain (although my guess is they simply spent less time doing it, even though it was just as hard), so while I have installed I'd say well over 85% of the 3rd party planes and over 90% of the 3rd party cockpits, I only use maybe just over 50% of the 3rd party terrains. It may simply be the textures are low-res, or there aren't enough of them so you get the repeating tile effect quite glaringly, but it's one of those "instant recognition" things.

 

You might have to spend a couple of hours with a 3rd party plane before you notice all its flaws and lead you to revise downwards your opinion of it vs when you first loaded it up, but a terrain quite often gives you an instant impression of "ugh", that only hours of "putting up with it" to see the work put into target areas or other things might lead you to revise it upwards...hours that I rarely bother to devote.

 

A good looking bunch of planes flying over fugly terrain is an instant immersion killer for me. So, how hard is it to make a really good terrain vs a fugly one with targets and bases sticking half out of the ground? I've no idea, except that the large number of terrains that have those issues by percentage of the whole leads me to believe it's harder than making planes, where only a few have been so fugly that I dumped them. The ones with bad FMs that caused me to dump them is larger (hence why I only use 85% of them when over 95% look good enough), and my tolerance for using an F-4E or A-4 cockpit in the wrong plane just so I can fly it is pretty high, so the lack of a dedicated cockpit or even a flawed one is not usually cause for me to give up a plane.

 

Therefore, from the outside looking in, terrains appear to be the hardest thing to get right for modders. Maybe it's because the flawed cockpits and planes aren't released while the terrains took so much work that they feel they MUST release them because you can at least use most of it?