Its got a name...

[+SkateZilla 49]

i'll get because i want something new to do....

[+Julhelm 266]

I agree with Dave. In fact the sim community as a whole seems to suffer from diminished expectations. We just rush out and buy any product because we're starved and get a bone thrown at us. Thats what makes us end up with SH5 and Cliffs of Dover.

[+Sundowner 4,819]

Personally I think that the biggest stalling point is that it is still being called an SF2 title, there lies the clue to what we'll be getting. IF it was SF3 whatever we really should expect all the bells & whistles but in all fairness to TK, trying to make it backwardly compatible with the other titles is what's holding it back.......imagine just how much its going to break anyway.

 

Just my personal opinion btw.

[Hellfish6 5]

So then there is lies the problem.....you'll be happy with that you get. So you don't want the game to progress? My entire point is, that sim needs to progress.....I don't want it hard core but some updated or new features would be nice. If you are going to make a new game with an F-14, put updates to the radar avionics so it can do what it was made for. In the theater he made, it would need that. Lets take this game into the future. I do not think I am wrong for asking that.

 

I'm not suggesting stagnancy is any good. In my opinion, development is usually for the better (though not always true - plenty of sequels/follow-ons have done the opposite... Gunship!, anyone?) but I'm doing expectation management here.

 

I enjoy the SF2 games I have now. Sure, they can be improved upon, but if all I get out of the box is a new terrain, new ships and new aircraft with little to no added functionality, I'll still be happy. It's not like SF2, as it is now, is broken for me. I fly almost every day and I enjoy it almost every time as it is. I've been enjoying the entire series for almost ten years now, and I'll keep enjoying it.

 

This is a game. If you're going to make an F-14 game, you're probably making it to appeal to as many people that like F-14s as possible, and not necessarily to people that want an accurate F-14 sim. A subtle, but very vocal, difference between the two. I fall into the former, you're clearly in the latter. I don't want a sim. I also don't want an arcade game. The beauty of the SF series is that it is comfortably in-between and I fear what a lot of you people are asking - and demanding - puts the needle a lot closer to sim than I'd be comfortable with. I don't have the patience to learn how to slew Mavericks or operate a bajillion different radar modes or button combinations. I get home from work, fly a mission or two, and make dinner or go out or walk the dog. When I was a college student and could get away without putting pants on all day, I loved Falcon 4 because it was so detailed and I had the time to invest in learning it (which was half the fun). Ten years later, I can't do that anymore. I just wanna kill stuff. Most of the time, I don't even land after the mission.

[Hellfish6 5]

I agree with Dave. In fact the sim community as a whole seems to suffer from diminished expectations. We just rush out and buy any product because we're starved and get a bone thrown at us. Thats what makes us end up with SH5 and Cliffs of Dover.

 

I think, in large part, people have given up trying to please hardcore simmers because it's impossible to please them. I used to develop simulations for the DoD and they were far easier to please than the people I see at SimHQ or have been involved with in the wider simulation community. That being said, the DoD was more interested in learning how to fight/operate with their sims instead of pretending to fight/operate in their sims.

[SFP1Ace 33]

Personally I think that the biggest stalling point is that it is still being called an SF2 title, there lies the clue to what we'll be getting. IF it was SF3 whatever we really should expect all the bells & whistles but in all fairness to TK, trying to make it backwardly compatible with the other titles is what's holding it back.......imagine just how much its going to break anyway.

 

Just my personal opinion btw.

 

All the gen 2 titles released so far should be called SF 1.5 , imho. SF2: NA will be a first proper SF2 title, actually a first proper NEW game from TW since 2008. Therefore I expect more new content (not talking fly-ables) than in the rehashes and expansions we've received so far (as enjoyable as they were/are). December or January - I guess we'll find out then.

Edited November 27, 2011 by SFP1Ace

[+Stary 2,427]

I'm all for progress but I know it won't be this time, maybe with SF3 if it comes in the rather distant future

[squid 21]

1. What would he choose then if not Tomcat , if he wouldn't make avionics improvements ?

2. hmmm i heard F/A-18 Korea ... now that i think about it , i realize yes indeed avionics back there were probably more advanced than current SF2 (and it had a nice training system too :P )

3. Me too i more than agree about those basic (even for a not hard core sim) avionics improvements and ofcourse environment improvement

4. i know for sure that upgrading the environment graphics at least is within TK plans and so far TK (sooner or) later is stable regarding plans delivery. It has been mentioned as a priority option in one of his polls. Dont know about avionics

5. I value very much that, SF2 have been running smoothly the past few years whatever my pc specs and also that i don't need to spend my limited free time in studying before i even manage to have a chance to jump in the cockpit. If improving those fields without altering those two traits means he needs more time to achieve this so be it , i can still have fun as it currently is, i just appreciate both TK and modders out there that are managing to do ALL this SF2 world stuff that i can't do

6. I think carriers are indeed ..... unsinkable in RL too ? LOL :P ( i havent tried this for ages but i remember trying to sink carriers in LockOn launching against it EVERYTHING in the game arsenal from EVERYONE and it would just not happen lol i think there was a sparrow factory under the deck :P)

 

 

(*) i also want mission PLAYBACK (with nice random cameras option)

Edited November 27, 2011 by squid

[JediMaster 451]

Everything discussed in this thread so far is irrelevant to me...there's only one thing I care about.

 

GLOVE VANES.

 

Will the F-14's glove vanes work if you fly it in the beginning of its service, before they were locked down? This is a MUST, and I notice all the shots so far feature no glove vanes, so are they just late era (late 70s/early 80s) shots, or did TK TOTALLY SCREW US ON THE GLOVE VANES?!?!?!?!

[+Stary 2,427]

(*) i also want mission PLAYBACK (with nice random cameras option)

it's in there -fly mission, quit, hit refly, turn autopilot and press F12, and yes the camera is random

[Gr.Viper 131]

GLOVE VANES.

These?

[+hgbn 91]

So then there is lies the problem.....you'll be happy with that you get. So you don't want the game to progress? My entire point is, that sim needs to progress.....I don't want it hard core but some updated or new features would be nice. If you are going to make a new game with an F-14, put updates to the radar avionics so it can do what it was made for. In the theater he made, it would need that. Lets take this game into the future. I do not think I am wrong for asking that.

 

I think the sim/game is progressing Dave slow sometimes very slow. Just take a look of the history. Tk have never released a new tittle without putting in some new stuff AFAIK. The question is only what is new this time? Only a few on this planet can tell.

 

But why should he pick the Tomcat for the base of this tittle if he don't want to improve the avionics?? If he didn't want to. He could have chosen the F-4N and S for the main fighters..

[+Julhelm 266]

I think, in large part, people have given up trying to please hardcore simmers because it's impossible to please them. I used to develop simulations for the DoD and they were far easier to please than the people I see at SimHQ or have been involved with in the wider simulation community. That being said, the DoD was more interested in learning how to fight/operate with their sims instead of pretending to fight/operate in their sims.

Of course. The market used to listen to the hardcore sim crowd before and that almost killed off the genre as far as being mainstream entertainment. I also like my games somewhere in between arcade and sim, like they were back in the 90's. However I also expect my games to at least try and match current visual standards. Now the standard retort to that around here is always the tired old "but TW isn't a AAA company with millions of dollars in budget". The reality is that what makes AAA games ridiculously expensive is the amazing amount of content needed to produce Hollywood-grade blockbuster entertainment. A game like BF3 or MW3 has literally thousands of different animations, sound samples and environment props. Needing to have a small army to create all that content is what is expensive, even with outsourcing everything but the key content it costs tens of millions of dollars, and then you add tens of millions of dollars of marketing on top of that. The actual tech is comparatively cheap in comparison. And it's not like a flight sim needs as much environment content as a AAA FPS anyway.

[Murphy'S 15]

I'm all for progress but I know it won't be this time, maybe with SF3 if it comes in the rather distant future

 

But there will be progress!!! i'm pretty sure (i can bet on it) we'll get a multitargeting air to air radar mode for example.

 

But my feeling is some people (and in fact a lot of them i guess) want things like MFD and very modern stuff (kind of lomac with moddability of the Sf séries) but we must not forget that the most advanced year covered do not go beyond 1983 (air-air loadout83 for the f-15 eagle) and we can't ask to go beyond before the 60's and 70's being well covered.

 

And there we can ask for few things

 

1) lockable ground radar mode (but did it exist in the 60's and 70's? and to what extent?)

 

2) slewable maverick/LGB (those missiles/bombes became common in the 70's

 

all the rest must be focused on gameplay/terrain/ai

 

 

and that's it.....and when all this things being accomplished we'll have get the ultimate fly sim of the 60's-70's (and maybe 50's if TK goes korea down the road)

Edited November 27, 2011 by Murphy'S

[SFP1Ace 33]

3) "slewable" radar dish (to improve intercepts of low flying bogeys) would float my boat. And the list goes on, but sure, this game doesn't need clickable full 3d pit to be fun

[Gr.Viper 131]

lockable ground radar mode (but did it exist the 60's and 70's? and to what extent?)

Ze Soviet ASMs on the shots could get a lock on a tanker from just over a hundred km.

 

slewable maverick/LGB (those missiles/bombes became common in the 70's

Wouldn't you rather have a Microprose-style recon camera?

[squid 21]

 

slewable Maverick... ok, I'll spare Tom Cruise joke here,

 

But i won't

[Fubar512 1,350]

 

lockable ground radar mode (but did it exist in the 60's and 70's? and to what extent?)

 

 

A-6As during the 1960s, though there could be some debate as to what is, and what isn't considered "lockable". The BN in the A-6 located and selected a target, placed a cursor on its radar return, and then, the DIANE system provided steering and release point data to the pilot.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Fubar512

[Stratos 3,191]

Maybe TK can release a modern avionics DLC. I for sure will pay happily 20 dollars without even blinking.

[Hellfish6 5]

3) "slewable" radar dish (to improve intercepts of low flying bogeys) would float my boat. And the list goes on, but sure, this game doesn't need clickable full 3d pit to be fun

 

I'm afraid you're setting yourself up to be incredibly disappointed. I, for one, would hate to have a clickable 3d cockpit. It doesn't do anything for me (and would require me to figure out WTF all those buttons are for) and all those man hours, in my opinion, could be used to enhance so much other stuff.

 

Isn't there a FSX or X-Plane F-14 somewhere that has all this fluff you're looking for?

[Gr.Viper 131]

Maybe TK can release a modern avionics DLC. I for sure will pay happily 20 dollars without even blinking.

The road to hell is paved with DLC gunsights.

[+Stary 2,427]

The road to hell is paved with DLC gunsights.

you just made a classic quotation Viper

 

@Hellfish6: reread SFP1Ace's post, especialyy the part about 3D clickable pit...

[squid 21]

The road to hell is paved with DLC gunsights.

 

[SFP1Ace 33]

I'm afraid you're setting yourself up to be incredibly disappointed. I, for one, would hate to have a clickable 3d cockpit. It doesn't do anything for me (and would require me to figure out WTF all those buttons are for) and all those man hours, in my opinion, could be used to enhance so much other stuff.

 

Isn't there a FSX or X-Plane F-14 somewhere that has all this fluff you're looking for?

 

Clickable 3d pit wouldn't fit SF series erm..."nature" well. I have DCS/BMS for that. As in my previous post.

 

I'm not setting myself for an incredible disappointment, nope mate.

 

A "slewable" radar antenna is something I would like in SF games, not something I expect TK to implement anytime soon, if at all. I just find it slightly annoying having to point my nose downward (and loose altitude) to be able to track and/or mantain lock on low flying MiG's (so I can launch those sparrows on'em).

 

What "all this fluff"?

Edited November 27, 2011 by SFP1Ace

[tn_prvteye 36]

A "slewable" radar antenna is something I would like in SF games, not something I expect TK to implement anytime soon, if at all. I just find it slightly annoying having to point my nose downward (and loose altitude) to be able to mantain lock on low flying MiG's (so I can launch those sparrows on'em).

 

I get around this by changing the elevation in the Avionics file. Make it REALLY big like 45 degrees.