JediMaster

Were they in Greece? Or had they left?

I still have to test it out and see how that sound fix worked.

For instance, The Avengers was actually filmed in 2D and converted to 3D as it was made and released both ways. They didn't use any 3D cameras.

Yes, imagine an F-22 sim that features the bug with crossing the int'l date line!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111 Anyway, someone does own the MPS name and I just saw it in a game trailer the other day. Here: http://microprose.com/ Jillian Michaels: FITNESS ADVENTURE!!! Is that not what you asked for?

I also like the "How It Should Have Ended" series.

Well, I'll be watching Red Tails this weekend so I'll see what the current "state of the art" in that arena is. My hopes aren't high.

This was supposed to be the lead up to Top Gun 2. Sadly, that won't be happening, but the 3D conversion was already done.

Because some people find that crap funny.

The planes for FC3 like the A-10A, F-15C, and Su-27 are considerably easier to work than the A-10C, but I agree are still higher level than any of TK's stuff. As for Mavericks, those and the gun are the EASY weapons in A-10C...you want hard, you try LGBs.

Ah, that I've never heard of myself.

Well, it's up to the 3rd parties to decide what they want to make. I get the feeling some of these are FS9/FSX ports so they can spend minimal time on research and modeling and spend it all on integrating the systems. But if they waste resources on a plane no one buys, it's ultimately their fault. I agree they could start with older planes that have easier cockpit systems first, but very few seem to be taking that route. Not being in the least involved with it, how is the MSFS market for those planes? Are there a lot of pre-80s combat aircraft available to a good level of detail and quality?

Germany has their own, too. So Dassault has one, EADS has one, BAE has one...

It would be a very violent and gory film if made accurately. I read it in school decades ago and I still remember the horrific injuries suffered by not just men but even the horses.

I don't know, I've got room on my HD for both. There will supposedly be free stuff for DCS World, too, but it's all rather vague how it will work. In short, do not expect DCS World to supplant what you can do in SF2 right now anytime this year or even next. It may eventually get there, but I also doubt it will ever be able to cover all the eras as comprehensively. The modern era will certainly be better than SF (as TK cuts off during Reagan's first term!), but while we'll see 70s, 60s, 40s, and possibly even 50s planes in DCS World I don't know that we'll ever see that MANY of them. I do think everything hinges on EDGE and the availability of new terrain. Build Korea and I'm sure we'll see lots of Koren War stuff enter the pipeline. Without it, we may just see an F-86 and a MiG-15 and that's it.

Lowengrin's DCG let you fly anything I believe. Have you tried that? http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php

Look at Red Tails. That failed, and it was US pilots, Mustangs and B-17s vs 109s. With fiction, anything goes. When you go historical, though, people have a connection to it or they don't.

Maybe if those various ones like Taranis and Neuron got merged they'd actually be able to get one operational instead of being limited to test flights only. Not enough money for duplicating efforts anymore.

We might disagree as far as "before long" (I doubt we'll see more than MiG-21 and UH-1 this year), but I think DCS is indeed striving for that eventually.

Something tells me making an F-5 part of the T-38 package would be nontrivial. There are enough differences to make it a totally different plane. I also think the T-38 will be a mistake as far as how many sales it will get. Other than seeing it on the ramp or in the pattern at Nevada, it really doesn't "fit" anywhere. I suppose you could fly against it in training at Nevada as well, but when you could just put real red air in that situation (unlike in the real world) why bother?

I was going to say "Elvis died less than 40 years ago, what's this??"

Yes, I'm sure a Finnish Front miniseries would garner a significant number of viewers in Finland and Russia. Don't think it would go over big in the west, though.

I do wonder about his estimates. Is he not the sole coder? What is his income off Thirdwire anyway? That says to me "you'd have to pay my salary for a year so I could dedicate one entire year to doing nothing but implementing AAR code." I find that hard to believe (that it would take an entire uninterrupted year of like 2000 man-hrs of development to put something like that in) but of course we can't refute his numbers without inside knowledge. Instead, all one can derive from his statement is, as said above, he doesn't want to bother. I don't know his actual stance on MP. There are a lot of low-budget games out there with MP, and I don't think the ability to mod would prevent it from working as I have played plenty of games and sims with mods in MP over the years, from FPS to tactical shooters to flight sims, racing sims, and RTS. In the case of him wanting to avoid the headache, he could simply make it so in MP all mods were ignored, but at least we'd have stock planes and terrains and whatnot to fly MP. That said, I know putting that in will cost something to make, I just disagree with his assertion that he wouldn't see a sales boost for it. People who've skipped SF2 because it didn't have MP (I personally know a few people) would buy it. If it was a standalone title, well he'd sell a lot of that. If he managed to make a module that enabled it for ALL of SF2, he would sell that plus a lot of his other older titles as well as people bought them to fly online. However, he has what could be conservatively called a "glass half empty" outlook and convincing him it's worth the effort to make MP seems a failing prospect, never mind the fact that a disaster like Il-2: CloD survives and is solely championed for its MP ability. SF2's SP is better than CloD's IMO.

I think flight sims can make it on the 85% rule. If it's 85% of the real thing, that's good enough. Those who demand 100% will always be disappointed. What really bothers me is that after decades of simmers saying "modeling systems/flight/combat/the war is more important than eye candy", we now have CloD lovers bashing 777 and the DN engine that will be used for the sequel because they feel that it will not look as good as CloD. Personally, I think both ROF and CloD look "good enough", and ROF has trees that are solid! I don't find CloD's appearance superior in any substantive way. For every thing I think it did better, ROF does something else better. So their claims of CloD's "clear" superiority are a big joke. However, from even Il-2 we know the answer: the smaller the map, the better the terrain can look for the same performance. As tired as I am of the DCS region, shifted SE from Flanker 1 thru LOMAC to A-10C/DCS World, I will admit it's very expansive and does feature some differing terrain including ports, cities, plains, mountains/valleys, and of course the sea. The maps in Battlefield look a LOT better in return for them being crossed by a plane in less than 30 seconds!

So the team called it quits and some other people are trying to take over their name and continue on with the same line of development without asking? Why not come up with a new name, or better yet try and join BMS?

You can't patch downwards, you'd need to reinstall and only patch up as far as that earlier version. I can't answer if it's worth it or not. I used UP years ago, but gave it up and went to stock 4.11.1 awhile ago as I don't fly it THAT much anymore and that was enough for me.