Looks promising
http://www.mudspike.com/combat-air-patrol-2-preview-interview/ O0
Very sexy.
Harriers. Reminds me of Jet Thunder. Wonder what happened to that?
Was there a Combat Air Patrol #1?
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 11, 2015, 07:00:45 AM
Was there a Combat Air Patrol #1?
Didn't know it existed but here it is.
Very interesting. The founder and lead developer also developed Breed. That was a game that belly flopped, but had tremendous potential. I still go back to it from time to time to check if there have been any fan made patches or mods.
If CAP2 is anything like Super VGA Harrier, the game will kick ass.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 11, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
Very interesting. The founder and lead developer also developed Breed. That was a game that belly flopped, but had tremendous potential. I still go back to it from time to time to check if there have been any fan made patches or mods.
If CAP2 is anything like Super VGA Harrier, the game will kick ass.
Anything with Harriers sounds good to me. I really liked the Falklands mod for Strike fighters 2, for example. Maybe 2 is a good number for jet fighter sims that don't go down the DCS road.
There are better multi-role sim options for flight sims than Harriers IMO, but I'm not going to look a dynamic campaign horse in the mouth.
I'm just wondering if it can be a proper sim while still being made for numerous console systems, as advertised. I don't mind some simplification (as in Strike Fighters 2) in flight sims, and actually find them refreshing at times, but a "sim" made for consoles gives me pause.
Quote from: Nefaro on August 11, 2015, 12:35:29 PM
There are better multi-role sim options for flight sims than Harriers IMO, but I'm not going to look a dynamic campaign horse in the mouth.
I'm just wondering if it can be a proper sim while still being made for numerous console systems, as advertised. I don't mind some simplification (as in Strike Fighters 2) in flight sims, and actually find them refreshing at times, but a "sim" made for consoles gives me pause.
Even in DCS you can simplify things to something that could be workable on a console. Also, this team seems savvy enough to build a program that can work across platforms (with the PC being the sim pinnacle).
Other nice things are -- it will be on steam early on and planes fly from assault ships so you don't have the monster carrier thing going on (which I have always found a bit dull). There were some other odd but promising bits: missile trails that seem to have either been spoofed or gone ballistic or were fired at friendly ships or were decoys and some big rocks.
I considered supporting this but the package that gives you MP in beta (50 squids!) is too rich for me. I'll be watching this one with interest though. Harrier love.
I definitely want a Harrier - love 'em. But I think I will hold off until I see some goodies coming out. I don't necessarily want a DCS - but I definitely don't want a Strike Fighters either.
Hey there, CAP2 dev team here! Thanks for your interest and support! We are filtering all your questions and feedback through to Eds blog, http://devblog.sim155.com/ - keep an eye on it in the coming days/weeks as we ramp up to release. You will also find some inside info on facebook/combatairpatrol2 and @sim155games
^awesome. thanks for checking in!
Quote from: cap2 on August 12, 2015, 03:35:00 PM
Hey there, CAP2 dev team here! Thanks for your interest and support! We are filtering all your questions and feedback through to Eds blog, http://devblog.sim155.com/ - keep an eye on it in the coming days/weeks as we ramp up to release. You will also find some inside info on facebook/combatairpatrol2 and @sim155games
Woowhooooo!!! Glad to see you guys here! Please pop in from time to time to answer questions and provide us with development updates!
Welcome and thanks for stopping in. I'm definitely going to be watching your blog and hopefully some positive reviews will be out.
I genuinely mean - Good Luck. A Harrier sim is definitely worth my money. Hopefully it's good enough to warrant my cash. I know it'll be difficult to please everyone...but good luck. O0
I'm in. You had me at Dynamic Campaign. I'm going to throw my money at any half way decent sim that resurrects this seemingly long dead idea.
I'm cautiously optimistic. Frankly this sounds too good to be true. Expectation management is going to be key.
I do hope for success, though. It would be nice to light a fire under some of these other developers that have gotten lazy being the only (modern) sim alternative out there.
Quote from: cap2 on August 12, 2015, 03:35:00 PM
Hey there, CAP2 dev team here! Thanks for your interest and support! We are filtering all your questions and feedback through to Eds blog, http://devblog.sim155.com/ - keep an eye on it in the coming days/weeks as we ramp up to release. You will also find some inside info on facebook/combatairpatrol2 and @sim155games
Glad to see you - welcome!
Quote from: Toonces on August 12, 2015, 05:35:07 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic. Frankly this sounds too good to be true. Expectation management is going to be key.
I do hope for success, though. It would be nice to light a fire under some of these other developers that have gotten lazy being the only (modern) sim alternative out there.
Who on earth could you be talking about?
I am totally and utterly bemused by DCS. I have absolutely no idea where they are going, why things are going slow and even where they are at. Quite honestly - because things are so slow and because there's so little - all I'm seeing is a DLC cash cow. I certainly wouldn't feel that way if they worked on a few "dynamic" campaigns for their games - but seeing how the releases are going all I'm seeing is additional aircraft - and even then some of them are total and utter BS (from my perspective at least).
So I for one hope this is going to bring something new to the table. Please, please get this right. Make sure it's "a game" first and foremost - and that means enjoyable.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 13, 2015, 12:24:49 AM
Quote from: Toonces on August 12, 2015, 05:35:07 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic. Frankly this sounds too good to be true. Expectation management is going to be key.
I do hope for success, though. It would be nice to light a fire under some of these other developers that have gotten lazy being the only (modern) sim alternative out there.
Who on earth could you be talking about?
I am totally and utterly bemused by DCS. I have absolutely no idea where they are going, why things are going slow and even where they are at. Quite honestly - because things are so slow and because there's so little - all I'm seeing is a DLC cash cow. I certainly wouldn't feel that way if they worked on a few "dynamic" campaigns for their games - but seeing how the releases are going all I'm seeing is additional aircraft - and even then some of them are total and utter BS (from my perspective at least).
So I for one hope this is going to bring something new to the table. Please, please get this right. Make sure it's "a game" first and foremost - and that means enjoyable.
I feel the same way. This is why I own no DCS games or modules.
Modern simulation seems to have forgotten the "game" part of the equation. There's certainly room for being in depth with realism and flight model, but for me, it that matters for nothing but a hill of beans without some context.
That's why this could be an exciting title. Great visuals, realism AND a campaign that isn't canned. I mean, just take my money now. I'm not even really enthused with the Harrier, but heck, right now I'd take just about anything.
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Quote from: cap2 on August 13, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Awesome! Guess who just happens to have a split throttle HOTAS?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 13, 2015, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: cap2 on August 13, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Awesome! Guess who just happens to have a split throttle HOTAS?
Damn, that almost sounds pink nipple-level sexy JH.
Quote from: Nefaro on August 14, 2015, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 13, 2015, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: cap2 on August 13, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Awesome! Guess who just happens to have a split throttle HOTAS?
Damn, that almost sounds pink nipple-level sexy JH.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzAJkG7H.gif&hash=6c26d7c9b2da144f7f00d05a6199bbb883ad461b)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 14, 2015, 08:06:46 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on August 14, 2015, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 13, 2015, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: cap2 on August 13, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Awesome! Guess who just happens to have a split throttle HOTAS?
Damn, that almost sounds pink nipple-level sexy JH.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzAJkG7H.gif&hash=6c26d7c9b2da144f7f00d05a6199bbb883ad461b)
This may sound odd, but that brought a large smile to my doughy white face. With pink nipples underneath.
Not odd at all. Weird and creepy, but not odd.
It looks pretty good. O0 But I SUCK at flight sims! :-[ :(
Quote from: cap2 on August 13, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
'To VIFF or not to VIFF..' - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Great news, looks like my CH Throttle Quadrant can join the flight O0
Sorry we haven't been on in a while (busy working towards release next month)- here's an explanation of the dynamic campaign - http://devblog.sim155.com/2015/09/dynamic-campaign.html - Enjoy!
Wow! Did not realize release is so close. Very exciting news. Thanks for the update!
Agreed - great news ;D
Watching the meltdown that another flight simulator appears to be going through, I find myself looking forward to this more than ever.
I really hope this scratches a flight sim itch I've had a while. The idea behind the operational layer is simply awesome. I'm really trying to manage my expectations, but I can't help but feel a squee building up inside.
Me too! But is it a loin moistening experience yet? :D
Toonces, what's the 'other flight sim' involved in drama that you referred to?
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 27, 2015, 06:59:00 AM
Toonces, what's the 'other flight sim' involved in drama that you referred to?
DCS
^ Yup.
Why is DCS melting down?
Its just taking a heck of a long time to get DCSW v2 out of the door. Literally years of later than told at first.
That has made quite a few people members of the 'I'll believe when I see' cult.
The preliminary update to v2 is due to come out this month in beta 1.5 form.
Again, they 'expect' a Sept release for the public beta. Which year is to be seen. :D
Quote from: mirth on September 27, 2015, 08:41:22 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on September 27, 2015, 08:25:58 AM
Why is DCS melting down?
AGW.
What's that stand for? I haven't been following closely but heard about some issues with advanced flight models and I know DCS 2 has been horribly delayed.
AGW = Advanced Global Warming
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 28, 2015, 06:59:33 AM
AGW = Advanced Global Warming
Pretty sure it's:
"Anthropogenic Global Warming"
As in .. caused by humans.
Not gonna open the debate about how relevant such theories are, in this thread. Just clarifying.
Thanks for the correction. At least he gets the joke now... :))
Oh crap....just saw this enters early access on June 6th, for $29.99.......fully dynamic campaign has me very much interested, even though I struggle at these games....I have a feeling this will be on my hard drive come the 6th, competing with HOI4 :(
http://store.steampowered.com/app/347170/
I've been following this very closely. I'm pretty skeptical. I'm hoping for the best, but...you know.
I am sceptical too
The reason for the scepticism is I've heard very little about this.
In fairness, I haven't gone looking but if I was creating a realistic flight sim which was the only one to have a Harrier and the only one to have a dynamic campaign which included a strategic layer, I think I'd be shouting about it.
Seriously - their website shows an impressive list of items for a sim that has been pretty quiet since I first heard of it. All that for £20?? That just does not sound right.
I can't see me not buying this on Monday though in all honesty. A Harrier? With a dynamic campaign? In a realistic, believable setting? TrackIR? Training? Co-Op Campaign? Strategic fleet control?
What's not to like? Believable is another matter but for £20 I'm going to throw my money at the screen
I am not expecting the game to walk on water so I don't have any illusions it may not turn out as good as advertised...but still looking forward to giving it a chance since personally I would love a "lighter" sim like Strike Fighters as long as not too light and unrealistic.....games like DCS are a little above my ability so hoping this may fill the gap for me. Although I will certainly have the desire to purchase, I won't be able to do it until at night at the earliest so hopefully there is some feedback first to base my decision on. And assuming I can pry myself away from playing HOI4:)
I'm a little bit nervous about this, I checked out their youtube and theres almost no actual gameplay. Red Flags
I'm with jarhead on this one. Where's the gameplay footage? I'll be waiting for reviews.
there is a complete lack of anything showing actual gameplay, I mean, there is a single screenshot of the strategic interface floating around out there somewhere, and nothing showing actual combat, enemy forces, or even allied units working together. The environment, which is supposed to be crowded with civilian traffic is utterly lifeless, as is the flight deck of your LPH. Furthermore, communication with the developer has been a ceaseless struggle and the project has been plagued with inexplicable delays.
Anyway, we'll see soon enough....
Nothing earth shattering, but a few videos showing some of the gameplay...not much and no actual combat or interactions, but something...we'll see, would be nice for it to be another flight sim option..time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F02z7dxwRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I3CpNKOj50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xawkNjIDrd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5v6R6Ne6bY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS1L2CM74WU
Quote
Three hours and counting as we write this email!
Ahead of the 6pm launch (GMT) we wanted to give you a more detailed heads up on what to expect from the launch build.
You can read all about it over at Ed's blog: http://devblog.sim155.com/2016/06/like-phoenix.html
Thanks for all your support!
And that was an hour ago! :D
let's first deliver... ::)
There are a lot of promises for the builds after the release build. :idiot2:
ok - I've got an hour and 30 minutes into this and I think that qualifies me to warn inform you all
It's early access as you all know - so what I post here is taking that into account.
Setting up
Controls
What a freakin' nightmare. It detected and reported by X52 Pro and said so on the screen but the controls were mapped to an Xbox controller. So I went through and changed them. That took some time and they reset when the game crashed (later)
They don't always work either - F1 is tied to the cockpit view and also the weapon view but it never actually went to the weapon view. Also, for some reason, some keys simply could not be used. I had no idea why...the couple I tried that couldn't be mapped didn't seem to be mapped to anything else
Graphics
Again - nightmare. These also reset on restart and also crashed at one point whilst setting up. Options are pretty limited and they started out on the lowest. TBH though, I'm not entirely sure I noticed a huge difference when I switched them all up - but I could be being harsh here.
TrackIR
I gave it a brief try to check out the capability and it was incredibly sensitive to the profile I had setup for DCS so I didn't go back to it. That was the end of looking round the cockpit because I couldn't be bothered to map keys to look about and the mouse wouldn't work as a view panner.
Gameplay
Graphics
Pretty poor tbh. Everything has a god awful dark wash over it. Your aircraft is "acceptable" as are some of the other 3D objects - but overall, very disappointed. Of course, I suppose that was to be expected as the videos showed - but I had hoped they were older
The ground is poor and the cities/populated areas are not great. Very samey
Sound
Almost a case of "what sound". Very little immersion from a sound perspective. I have volume 100% and music off and still I can hardly hear a thing. Speakers aren't all the way up - but they are up more than for other games. What is there is pretty meh.
Flight Feedback
Non existent. No visual sensations. No immersion. The flight model itself is ok...nothing to shout home about. Actually iirc similar to Strike Fighters.
Tutorials
For the Take Off tutorial you are told in the briefing what you are doing but it's essentially set your flaps, nozzles, take off, get to 3000ft. You are able to change the weapon loadout and fuel state...but again, it's all basic stuff and implemented in a basic manner.
The first couple of times I took the Take Off tutorial, I was presented with a list in the top right when I did something right...like Close Canopy...the list displayed top right and Close Canopy went green. Same with Setting flaps. However, it wasn't clear what things you had to do and the list only popped up briefly.
So - they called themselves tutorials, but imo they were lacking instruction and direction.
Also - subsequent times I took the Take Off tutorial, the list at the top right did not show for some reason.
Campaign
The one time I tried it I was looking at the map....about 1 or 2 minutes in, I apparently failed! :))
I got out of the campaign.
Overall
I would liken this (in flight model) to Strike Fighters in that it's pretty simplistic. In fact, I'd say it was at least a step below that...though I haven't played Strike Fighters for some years - but I remember it being too simplistic for me and the graphics reminded me of some late 90's early 2000 game with really bland looking ridiculous hills...I'm trying to think of the Iraq special forces game - a bit like that.
I did manage to take off a couple of times and flew around for a short while. I even managed to drop some bombs on a ship (friendly)...just for a look. Explosions, sound, visual effects were all poor.
I was hoping for something solid here but unfortunately what I saw was a flight sim for youngsters on a console.
As a flight sim fan I was hoping for something else, something more. But I feel I wasted 90 minutes. I won't be rushing back but I will keep my eye on it in the hope something happens to make it at least a bit more of a sim.
It's not that I want "study sim"...I'm all for a simplistic flight experience...but a bit like DCS Flaming Cliffs 3 is as lite as I'd like to go - and this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off that mark.
Also - don't think the fact it's a Harrier will rescue it - it won't. It just really didn't feel like a Harrier...it was just quite a bland plane with VSTOL capability.
This was on an early access game and it was only 90 minutes. Someone may find an option that I missed for graphics or sound or TrackIR sensitivity or whatever - so go easy on your replies if you think this is the best thing since MS Flight Simulator 2.
Also bear in mind I didn't get a huge amount of playtime and didn't try other weapons, avionics or proper combat (the 90 minutes was mainly setting up and crashing on take off)....but what I did get to play did not fire my belly in the slightest to go back.
:(
Yeah, at this point I think they might have just pushed it out now to generate some funds. I will not be surprised if it goes belly up afterall.
Lots of promises for 'what's to come', which makes you wonder why release now instead of releasing a proper feature rich build.
I've heard the avionics are non-existent, with the only options for radar, for instance, being next and previous target.
I would say reviews are "mixed" so far, but your complaints are entirely what I was afraid of and exactly what I was expecting, to be honest. The developer was mostly silent during the development process which was drastically delayed and when tidbits of information were released it was always extremely vague. Like I said before, none of the videos really showed off anything of substance and I guess now we know why. Its going to be a struggle not to be buy this tonight, even with all the negative feedback, and even with HOI IV out there. I just don't think I'm going to have the wherewithal to dig into HOI after a grueling 12 our day.
I actually totally forgot about the option for a refund on Steam - and I will be looking into that option. Honestly, it's that bad - at least for me.
I would/will give the guy double the amount I paid for this if he gets it to anything near what the marketing suggests. But I've bought a few games recently and I'm not willing to waste £22 on this I'm afraid.
Some unsuccessful take offs
Well bugger, ive been looking forward to this and from what ive been reading its a piece of crap.
Yaaaaay
Yeah - sorry. I wanted to give it some good vibes at least, being early access - but I really didn't see anything worth £22.
Purchased CAP2 earlier today as soon as it was available for DL. I only played it for 13 minutes and had enough. IMHO it's terrible. I at least expected the graphics to be up to date since it's a new title and they are subpar as well. I installed SF2 and SF2V about a month ago on my new PC rig and added all the mods I like to enhance the gameplay experience. SF is superior in every way over CAP2 if you want a casual Combat Flight sim. I just submitted a refund request to Steam for my $29.99. I've never asked for a refund before but this time I'm making an exception. Really bummed about this one after all the hype.
JH, after reading JD's thoughts, browsing the SimHQ threads, and reading the Steam reviews, I encourage you to hold off on this. This game is just going to piss you off in its current state.
I can probably deal with a Strike Fighters level of fidelity if the bugs are ironed out with setting up the controllers, and if the dynamic campaign part is decent. Haven't read anything on how the campaign plays out yet, and that's really what's going to push me one way or the other. Probably worth waiting at least until some Let's Plays end up on Youtube.
Anyway, just my thoughts. You know I'm a flight sim fanatic, and I'm firmly in the wait and see camp on this one. I didn't read anything that made me feel like I'm missing anything by not being in on the early access.
I did start the campaign, but 1-2 minutes of watching the map, I failed :uglystupid2: I hadn't even taken off or gone into "3D" - and I put that in quotes for a reason :buck2:
I really, really wish I had put the 90 minutes into HoI IV or TW:Warhammer or Stellaris.
Well, looks like good that others beat me to buying today:) Although I'll eventually pick up I am sure, guess I will wait a bit to see more positive reactions.
Well, maybe I was wrong....there are 15 positive reviews on Steam to 7 negative.
So it's scratching some itches
Good to see...but I typically dont trust the steam reviews, since the majority are created after playing just a short while.
What most concerns me so far is really the lack of communication and involvement of the developers in the community. To me that is critical for an early access game and without it makes me uneasy about its future.
A little write up on it...
https://forums.mudspike.com/t/combat-air-patrol-2-first-few-flights/2168
No offense, JD, while I absolutely value your opinion, I've learned that you get frustrated pretty easily if things don't work the way you expect them to straight away. You get impatient, go from excited to pissed in 2.3 seconds and give up. I keep this in the back of my mind.
I spent a couple of hours researching the state of the game last night and watched some very useful instructional videos on how to actually fly a harrier, both in game and in the real world. I read a lot of the player reviews, both good and bad, and read from the developer that there are going to be several patches released this week, starting today. This put me over the edge. I figured, if I keep it under 2 hours, what do I have to lose? I went into this with the full knowledge that in some ways, it may be a complete crash and burn.
My initial experience was not nearly as frustrating as JDs because I had learned from his mistakes, and from others who had experimented with the game before I played. I learned to save all my control settings, etc. More importantly, I learned how to fly the harrier, so to speak, and was able to get a nice STO on the first try. To me, the flight felt good, and the graphics are nice, overall. My screen wasn't as dark as JDs so I don't know if it has something to do with the settings, our monitors or video cards, etc.
Anyway, that's all I did. I configured my graphics and controls, took off and flew around for 10 minutes. It was far from the worst experience I ever had.
Admittedly, this game has a LONG way to go. There are a lot of things that are placeholder, unfinished textures, features that are not implemented, etc. I'm putting a lot of faith in the developer that he will actually finish this game. I'm going to come straight out and say, I don't trust him either. I don't think he has been honest about the state of the game and why the game was so seriously delayed. Although the game was released in early access, there was no discussion about the state of the game or an explanation that it would really be incomplete and in need of a lot of work and attention.
So, I'm going to remain guarded and see how many patches role out over the next two weeks.
I'll keep you guys posted.
Good to hear some potential possibly...
No problem JH - you're entitled to that opinion and I can't say I haven't done things in the past that don't warrant those comments...glad you have a filter O0
However - it wasn't 2.3 seconds...it was 90 minutes ;) And honestly, that was enough for me to know that I wouldn't be playing it and wouldn't be giving feedback - not at this stage.
I think my initial post about those various aspects were on the money. I did not post anything there that I did not feel or actually see. Some of those (graphics, sound, immersion) are personal assertions and I did repeat it was early access and that I hadn't had a huge amount of playtime.
But I wasn't so much frustrated as disappointed. I was just disappointed with the overall package. Were my expectations too high? I suppose so. Maybe I've been spoiled with some other early access titles. My early access purchase from DCS were considerable (years ahead) of this...so yes, I was expecting more. Was that the developers fault? Nope. And I wouldn't look to blame the developer. But there just wasn't enough there to interest me.
My only real frustration with the setting up of the game (controls and graphics) weren't because I hadn't saved them - it was because the game crashed and I had to reset them.
I had absolutely zero frustration with take off. I was doing it wrong and knew this. I stuck with it and was satisfied that I was able to do so.
I actually thought that guy's write up was ok. Pointed out some things I had noticed and he didn't mind some things that I cared about.
Also I am a huge graphics whore and like I said, I had hoped it had moved on from some of the images. It's way too dark. My brightness/contrast/hue does not need modifying for any other games, so I didn't expect to do so. I certainly could've upped the brightness - but it was just the dark - and overall I thought the whole thing was bland looking.
Also - I was able to take off and I'm pleased to say in exactly the way the guy in GRs report did - brakes on, flaps, 0 nozzle degree, off I go and get to the edge and turn the nozzles to 40-60% - whatever I ended up as and the take off was smooth.
I didn't try to land on the carrier, but I did land on the ground.
Overall, I thought it was bland. Flight model. Graphics. Sound. Immersion. Visual effects. I want to see this succeed.
Like I said - if the game gets to anywhere near what's being marketed I will pick this up and damn the price. I'd pay double what I paid yesterday - but I don't have the inclination to play it in it's current form so there was no need for me to continue with it.
I will keep watching what goes on with this - so keep posting when there's an update and maybe I'll be able to hop on in again at some point.
I'd give it a 50/50 odds at this point. Like I said, if patches are frequent and effective, those odds may improve. I'm in a tough spot because it's hard to really explore and try everything out while also trying to keep it under 2 hours.
You know, I didn't have any CTDs, but that's likely because I only played for 10 minutes and kept it really simple. Likewise, I didn't try any of the avionics that either are non existent or simply not working. Moreover, I certainly didn't try employing any weapons.
One thing that is really bothering me is the head bob. They mapped this stupid head bob to the main flight controls, so every time you work the controls your view changes too in an effort to model head movement. This makes viewing the cockpit and your surroundings extremely difficult. They need to make an option to turn this off immediately.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 07, 2016, 06:36:17 AM
No problem JH - you're entitled to that opinion and I can't say I haven't done things in the past that don't warrant those comments...glad you have a filter O0
However - it wasn't 2.3 seconds...it was 90 minutes ;) And honestly, that was enough for me to know that I wouldn't be playing it and wouldn't be giving feedback - not at this stage.
I think my initial post about those various aspects were on the money. I did not post anything there that I did not feel or actually see. Some of those (graphics, sound, immersion) are personal assertions and I did repeat it was early access and that I hadn't had a huge amount of playtime.
But I wasn't so much frustrated as disappointed. I was just disappointed with the overall package. Were my expectations too high? I suppose so. Maybe I've been spoiled with some other early access titles. My early access purchase from DCS were considerable (years ahead) of this...so yes, I was expecting more. Was that the developers fault? Nope. And I wouldn't look to blame the developer. But there just wasn't enough there to interest me.
My only real frustration with the setting up of the game (controls and graphics) weren't because I hadn't saved them - it was because the game crashed and I had to reset them.
I had absolutely zero frustration with take off. I was doing it wrong and knew this. I stuck with it and was satisfied that I was able to do so.
I actually thought that guy's write up was ok. Pointed out some things I had noticed and he didn't mind some things that I cared about.
Also I am a huge graphics whore and like I said, I had hoped it had moved on from some of the images. It's way too dark. My brightness/contrast/hue does not need modifying for any other games, so I didn't expect to do so. I certainly could've upped the brightness - but it was just the dark - and overall I thought the whole thing was bland looking.
Also - I was able to take off and I'm pleased to say in exactly the way the guy in GRs report did - brakes on, flaps, 0 nozzle degree, off I go and get to the edge and turn the nozzles to 40-60% - whatever I ended up as and the take off was smooth.
I didn't try to land on the carrier, but I did land on the ground.
Overall, I thought it was bland. Flight model. Graphics. Sound. Immersion. Visual effects. I want to see this succeed.
Like I said - if the game gets to anywhere near what's being marketed I will pick this up and damn the price. I'd pay double what I paid yesterday - but I don't have the inclination to play it in it's current form so there was no need for me to continue with it.
I will keep watching what goes on with this - so keep posting when there's an update and maybe I'll be able to hop on in again at some point.
All of your comments are valid and accurate. So please dont think I'm questioning that. I have no doubt that the technical glitches, bugs and crashes are game stopping. I just didn't experience them because I only played for 10 minutes.
It's a fair assessment to state that maybe your expectations were too high. I totally expected this to be bad, that doesn't excuse it, I just was really prepared for the worst. As a lawyer, I'm always managing my client's expectations, I feel the developer here utterly failed to do this through infrequent, poor and vague communications. In all likelihood, this game will be a failure. It will not raise the funds necessary to continue development. I think this will largely be due in part to the developers poor communication and inability to manage information and expectations.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 07, 2016, 06:42:59 AM
All of your comments are valid and accurate. So please dont think I'm questioning that. I have no doubt that the technical glitches, bugs and crashes are game stopping. I just didn't experience them because I only played for 10 minutes.
It's a fair assessment to state that maybe your expectations were too high. I totally expected this to be bad, that doesn't excuse it, I just was really prepared for the worst. As a lawyer, I'm always managing my client's expectations, I feel the developer here utterly failed to do this through infrequent, poor and vague communications. In all likelihood, this game will be a failure. It will not raise the funds necessary to continue development. I think this will largely be due in part to the developers poor communication and inability to manage information and expectations.
I understand. Certainly from a technical perspective, if a game challenges me and I don't "get it", that can and does come out in posts as frustration. So it's a fair comment.
But this was definitely more disappointment than frustration. I was incredibly excited to see a Harrier in development and so yes - expectations were probably high. Also - not once have I been disappointed with any of the DCS early access stuff I've bought...so spoiled?
You did try and put a "guarded" post out there - but I was still seeing a Harrier, with a dynamic campaign. The detail on the website was incredible - and that did add fuel to the fire of my enthusiasm...even Early Access couldn't take that away. I was expecting some issues - I just wasn't expecting a meh experience.
If the game had looked fantastic and the campaign was great or even the tutorials were proper, instructional tutorials but there were some glitches, CTD's etc - I would definitely have forgiven it. I'd even have taken the rather simplistic flight model (take off and landing were challenging mind - as they should be). First and foremost for me is graphics (for eye candy and immersion) and also overall immersion - and it simply wasn't there.
It certainly isn't the worst game I've bought and nor is it the best game.
I wouldn't want it to be a failure and that wasn't my intention for the post. I did say several times that it was early access and that my experience of it was limited. I was also straight back over here to post that reviews were going up on Steam that were positive...just so people could take a tempered approach to my thoughts.
But if he chucks out updates and this gets better quick, I would definitely jump back in. It is a Harrier after all.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 07, 2016, 06:37:08 AM
I'd give it a 50/50 odds at this point. Like I said, if patches are frequent and effective, those odds may improve. I'm in a tough spot because it's hard to really explore and try everything out while also trying to keep it under 2 hours.
You know, I didn't have any CTDs, but that's likely because I only played for 10 minutes and kept it really simple. Likewise, I didn't try any of the avionics that either are non existent or simply not working. Moreover, I certainly didn't try employing any weapons.
One thing that is really bothering me is the head bob. They mapped this stupid head bob to the main flight controls, so every time you work the controls your view changes too in an effort to model head movement. This makes viewing the cockpit and your surroundings extremely difficult. They need to make an option to turn this off immediately.
My CTDs were in the setting up phase I believe. I don't recall having one in game. Also ALT-Tabbing was absolutely fine.
I was wondering what was wrong when flying and the head was moving. I couldn't put my finger on that.
Also - one last thing and then I'll put this to bed - the TrackIR thing - waaaay too sensitive. But I will be honest - I didn't go back and tweak it. TrackIR may help a lot with adding immersion. As it was I was pretty much stuck looking at the front of the cockpit (because I didn't map any keys to the views).
I've decided today I'm going to put this back on my drive and hold onto it in the hope that the dev uses the money to invest in what, on paper, is a dream game.
I don't know if it'll get there, but several things swayed me
- The positive attitude of others (here and Steam) even though some experienced and felt the same things I did
- I have bought worse games and not looked for a refund
- The developers sending an email out to subscribers from their website saying thank you for the feedback, good and bad, and they are working hard on issues and enhancements
I'll be disappointed is it doesn't get there - but I now know the starting line.
It's £22. I've spent more than that on lunch.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 07, 2016, 11:51:22 AM
I've decided today I'm going to put this back on my drive and hold onto it in the hope that the dev uses the money to invest in what, on paper, is a dream game.
Thats the same thing I've said about most of the uninstalled games in my Steam library. ;D
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adweek.com%2Fsocialtimes%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2013%2F04%2Frobot-unicorn.png&hash=3e6428e0fe4571f5276217df45ceeaeb6a9164db)
It's £22. If it gets to where I hoped it was going (or close) it's £22 worth spent. If not...I'll have a smaller lunch :P
Didn't the dev post in here once or twice some time back? It would be nice to have a discussion about the game with him here. Intentions and such.
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 08, 2016, 04:04:02 AM
Didn't the dev post in here once or twice some time back? It would be nice to have a discussion about the game with him here. Intentions and such.
I'd be surprised if he will post here with any frequency or with any detail. His postings in forums, on his own page and blog are very intermittent, infrequent and ambiguous. It's a big problem for the game and I've encouraged him to change this habit.
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 08, 2016, 04:04:02 AM
Didn't the dev post in here once or twice some time back? It would be nice to have a discussion about the game with him here. Intentions and such.
Yes he did. I'd like to see him here for a discussion.
I don't know if the patch that was meant to be out actually is out - but I'll check tonight and have another go.
And just as I posted the above, I received this by email
Quote
In the last few minutes we have enabled V801 - please check out the latest dev blog to see whats changed. and what is planned for the next update.
Please Note this important expert from the post:
'The controls settings file was accidentally included as part of the initial build. This would be an issue as each update would reset your controls to default. It has been removed from build 801. If you want to avoid remapping your controls with this update then take a copy of <YourSteamLibrary>\steamapps\common\Combat Air Patrol 2\StoragePath\Sim155\CAP2\Controls\Default.ctrl and replace it after updating. Sorry for the inconvenience.'
Thanks for your support!
From their website
Quote
v801
Version 801 should be winging (steaming?) it's way to you now. It should have arrived yesterday but we encountered issues with the Steam update sticking/pausing and not completing. Deleting the build and re-uploading it has corrected the issue.
Features/fixes of this update are
•Fix crash on payload option
•Contrast/Brightness values are now used in post processing
•Both values were previously set to 100% so you may need to adjust down
•I'm considering adding a gamma display to help with calibrating game colour levels, it's pretty obvious there's a massive range of screen levels out there.
•Vignette effect is disabled, will add a UI option to toggle it later
•Mapping a control axis is easier
•XBox gamepad buttons are labelled
•TrackIR has angle and position limits
•'Eject Confirm' option removed as 'Eject' must now be held for 1sec instead
Next update (802) should include:
•Result of looking into nVidia Optimus graphics crash on startup. In some cases this is temporarily fixed by selecting nVidia GPU as preferred GPU in global settings in the nVidia control panel
•Adjusting control axes linearity
•Adjusting control axes null zone
•General bug fixes as reported in the forum
After 802 we should be able to transition to gameplay features/bug fixes.
BOOM! On the TrackIR...that will help I think.
So....one of the DCS third-party developers posted this today....
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/4n3u9k/getting_there_from_razbams_facebook/
(https://i.redditmedia.com/CJ9jqAWaGMoiw0o4SXEuuYjF-M01-sXy-KdKIUbzJPA.jpg?w=1024&s=36165627a1bb78fdef2a7035fffe81b7)
Nice! O0
If that Harrier is confirmed I think CAP 2 will be dead in the water when the DCS module is released, if not then certainly when the F/A-18 module hits with Carrier Ops.
Razbam has proven to deliver top notch stuff.
So I guess the clock is now ticking for CAP 2.
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 08, 2016, 05:23:41 PM
If that Harrier is confirmed I think CAP 2 will be dead in the water when the DCS module is released, if not then certainly when the F/A-18 module hits with Carrier Ops.
Razbam has proven to deliver top notch stuff.
So I guess the clock is now ticking for CAP 2.
I don't know, think room for both, especially if the dynamic campaign is really good in CAP 2.
^ This. I'm not a big fan of the harrier, but if the campaign is half decent then I'm all-in with CAP 2.
DCS can kiss my nekkid butt until they start making it actually fun to play. In my opinion, of course.
There's absolutely no chance in hell I won't buy a DCS Harrier.
Quick mission editor and bam...rockets flying in Nevada training range O0
Harrier is an overrated plane. Short range, not much payload.
I don't think anyone would regard the Harrier highly because of the points you mention.
It's an icon of engineering more than anything else and that is why people love it.
Yup people are trying to replicate with the F-35 and it has the same limitations. Too much engineering in the V/STOL engine and compromise on other capabilities. :D
You guys are all underestimating one key factor of the harrier's effectiveness and lethality...there is a Marine in the cockpit.
Seriously people? Short memories.
It was hugely important given NATO imagined their airfields being totalled. This was the only aircraft that could sit in a clearing and take off.
It also performed pretty well against a superior air force in the Falklands conflict.
It's not an Hawg or a Super Hornet - but it had it's place and I think it still has for supporting rapid assault.
It is dated now though and must surely be nearing the end of it's life.
Well, since we're all just BS'ing, I have to say that the harrier in and of itself does nothing for me. It's an ugly jet with limited capabilities. Sure, it has its place in an OOB, but to use it has the cornerstone of a simulation is...to me, questionable. The dynamic campaign is really the only part of this sim (CAP 2) that interests me.
If it were me developing this sim, and nobody asked, but my opinion, I may have gone with something more cold war. Imagine the naval aspect of this dynamic campaign but with a cold war jet like the F-4, which has never been featured alone in a sim to my knowledge. My gut would say to go with something multirole. And, since we're just speculating, why not an F/A-18? Other than Janes, the F/A-18 still hasn't been done properly, and certainly not in a dynamic campaign sim.
Anyway, I guess we'll see how things turn out. Like I've said a couple of times, if the campaign is decent then I'll buy.
Harrier is multi-role - and good at it.
It is certainly limited in quantity of ordinance.
Ugly - how very dare you :'(
The AV-8B has almost the same lifting capability of the F/A-18C and a longer range. It has about 75% of the F/A-18E and about the same range. It doesn't have the raw speed of the Hornet, but could probably out fly the Hornet in WVA engagement. Where it lacks is long-range BVR. The Hornet's radar looks to be a better fighter there.
The short of it is that its a very good multi-role plane that go a lot of places a Hornet, or any other jet, can't go.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 09, 2016, 09:27:27 AM
Ugly - how very dare you :'(
Don't listen to Toonces, JD. He's brain hasn't thawed yet from the harsh New England winter.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 09, 2016, 06:09:41 AM
Seriously people? Short memories.
:) Not at all.
It was just being stated that its range is limited (especially without drop tanks) and its quantity of weapons is limited as well.
Those are simple facts, no?
The Harrier II's radar is similar to that of the F/A-18.
I highly doubt this will have a good dynamic campaign. People have been chasing the unicorn of dynamic campaigns ever since falcon and it took a 30 man team that ran over budget and broke the dev studio for good. Looking at the track record of the cap2 devs, no way they pull off a great dynamic campaign. Just because someone calls something dynamic or open world doesn't mean it will be great. I've seen some aweful dynamic campaigns that were just repetitive and you quickly loose interest. If a dev isn't going make it like a living conflict like falcon4 I'd rather just have really detailed immersive linear missions.
Quote from: Skoop on June 09, 2016, 10:47:40 AM
I highly doubt this will have a good dynamic campaign. People have been chasing the unicorn of dynamic campaigns ever since falcon and it took a 30 man team that ran over budget and broke the dev studio for good. Looking at the track record of the cap2 devs, no way they pull off a great dynamic campaign. Just because someone calls something dynamic or open world doesn't mean it will be great. I've seen some aweful dynamic campaigns that were just repetitive and you quickly loose interest. If a dev isn't going make it like a living conflict like falcon4 I'd rather just have really detailed immersive linear missions.
This post makes me want to slit my wrists.
I agree with Skoop, at least up until the linear mission campaign part. I don't have confidence this dynamic campaign is going to scratch my itch, hence my reluctance to buy in at this point.
I hope it's awesome, but I'm also managing my expectations.
And you guys are friggin' crazy if you think a Harrier is comparable on any level to a Hornet.
Has anyone produced this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, known as a dynamic campaign (other than F4) ? Are flight simmers breaking the industry in pursuit of it.?
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 09, 2016, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 09, 2016, 06:09:41 AM
Seriously people? Short memories.
:) Not at all.
It was just being stated that its range is limited (especially without drop tanks) and its quantity of weapons is limited as well.
Those are simple facts, no?
The Harrier II's radar is similar to that of the F/A-18.
I'll point out again, the AV-8B had a longer range and about the same load capability as the F/A-18C. Its load carrying was only 20-25% less than the F/A-18E. I fail to see the issue with the Harrier (II).
Oh, and the AV-8B has the APG-65, F/A-18C has the APG-73, and the F/A-18E has the APG-79...60, 90, and 120 mile ranges respectively.
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 09, 2016, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 09, 2016, 06:09:41 AM
Seriously people? Short memories.
:) Not at all.
It was just being stated that its range is limited (especially without drop tanks) and its quantity of weapons is limited as well.
Those are simple facts, no?
The Harrier II's radar is similar to that of the F/A-18.
Quote from: Toonces on June 09, 2016, 12:33:05 PM
I agree with Skoop, at least up until the linear mission campaign part. I don't have confidence this dynamic campaign is going to scratch my itch, hence my reluctance to buy in at this point.
I hope it's awesome, but I'm also managing my expectations.
And you guys are friggin' crazy if you think a Harrier is comparable on any level to a Hornet.
I don't know...I haven't looked up the specs and so I wasn't saying that. What I
was saying is that it is still a capable multi-role aircraft given a specific role - and again, I'm thinking from a ship like HMS Bulwark or your very own USS Wasp for example - supporting a quick ground offensive by sea.
We can disagree on that if you wish - and I'll let the ugly comment slide :buck2:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 09, 2016, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: Skoop on June 09, 2016, 10:47:40 AM
I highly doubt this will have a good dynamic campaign. People have been chasing the unicorn of dynamic campaigns ever since falcon and it took a 30 man team that ran over budget and broke the dev studio for good. Looking at the track record of the cap2 devs, no way they pull off a great dynamic campaign. Just because someone calls something dynamic or open world doesn't mean it will be great. I've seen some aweful dynamic campaigns that were just repetitive and you quickly loose interest. If a dev isn't going make it like a living conflict like falcon4 I'd rather just have really detailed immersive linear missions.
This post makes me want to slit my wrists.
It kind of does bring home what has happened to hopes in the past.
But I am not giving up that hope :-X
'The' Harrier and 'the' Hornet isn't getting us anywhere.
There have been several models of each aircraft and the older models of the F/A-18 have been equipped with the APG-65, just like the AV-8B.
But indeed, the latest models of both do not share the same radar. This is because the active development of the Harrier weapons platform has been ceased much earlier than the active development of the F/A-18 weapons platform.
And no, I wasn't suggesting the Harrier is comparable to the Hornet in any way other than both aircraft shared a similar radar at one time. :) In line with the BS'ing that went around. :2funny:
Anyway, I am with Skoop and Toonces with my expectations of the Dynamic Campaign in CAP2.
Il-2 had a dynamic campaign, to name one, but it was utter crap and repetitive.
The only true dynamic campaigns that make you feel part of a living and breathing air operation are found in Falcon 4 and Battle of Brittain 2: Wings of Victory. (And Falcon more so than WoV). IMO at least.
I chuckled at Skoop's statement about the manpower and them getting broke due to the DC. While I am not sure this is the cause, it does provide a nice story.
The last F/A-18 in US service with the APG-65 was I think 2004. There haven't been any active units with the 65 in 6-7 years. There might be a few scattered around overseas, but a lot of them got upgraded.
My point has been that the Harrier is still a very capable aircraft. It does need to be replaced, but not because it couldn't perform its job. The F/A-18, right u until the late C models, were very short-legged and lost a lot of warload to drop tanks.
If anyone wants to end the Harrier/Hornet conversation, then just don't reply.
You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments
Funny...I was thinking of that exact thread when I started this. Its good to have goals.
wow! :D
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 09, 2016, 02:19:12 PM
The only true dynamic campaigns that make you feel part of a living and breathing air operation are found in Falcon 4 and Battle of Brittain 2: Wings of Victory. (And Falcon more so than WoV). IMO at least.
I chuckled at Skoop's statement about the manpower and them getting broke due to the DC. While I am not sure this is the cause, it does provide a nice story.
You missed out the Enemy Engaged series.
Strike Fighters, semi-dynamic campaign is good enough too.
Quote from: mirth on June 09, 2016, 03:22:02 PM
You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments
Well, at least the timestamp on that discussion is as vintage as the Harrier.
Quote from: Yskonyn on June 10, 2016, 01:26:29 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 09, 2016, 03:22:02 PM
You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments
Well, at least the timestamp on that discussion is as vintage as the Harrier.
:2funny:
Lovely aircraft though...look at the Sea Harrier
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270035_zpsphhkh6gf.jpg&hash=c94e63f0cad7150f0c1504a6b163f9de66242e27) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270035_zpsphhkh6gf.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270036_zpsere7fvdr.jpg&hash=7c905a6431a713786275305a29200f2dbb836789) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270036_zpsere7fvdr.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270037_zpstwfsfewu.jpg&hash=6f2909cc48db99da7363d8c8aebf77f06f809c6d) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270037_zpstwfsfewu.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270038_zpseyqsmgeb.jpg&hash=c664677d20e2412ffc5b1e8aa058c14052548cc8) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270038_zpseyqsmgeb.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270039_zpsruq7vo7c.jpg&hash=9cd136de8fb3588da06a606305a982d47d151335) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270039_zpsruq7vo7c.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270040_zpsolk2ztra.jpg&hash=966763781b36ae2eb2f5e823acfb8ff46c6aeee0) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270040_zpsolk2ztra.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270041_zpsrw4n0hb3.jpg&hash=c0dba8bd72a9d60394b47c6e572fbffee6e6ce80) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270041_zpsrw4n0hb3.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270042_zpsjpmydsbw.jpg&hash=8482f674b51de954bbe4595c6daaa2797a365319) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270042_zpsjpmydsbw.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270043_zpsutqo6g0y.jpg&hash=6fc5e401e9a91d6eb18f58d89754086a10ddd2d2) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270043_zpsutqo6g0y.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270044_zpsxiyz2ipa.jpg&hash=0c4bdf514735a9cb3b2f4b88fcc4cc14449bb0c6) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270044_zpsxiyz2ipa.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270045_zpspx1iq7eb.jpg&hash=ff56b3c93f78af0d7373ce469feea39bda5edd05) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270045_zpspx1iq7eb.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270046_zps1mqc6zrp.jpg&hash=28dca63f32e60568f5d7b2fe770453b47ea79a5a) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270046_zps1mqc6zrp.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270047_zpsem0bowql.jpg&hash=eb3ce14235a5eb516b62ca7230083666c893ceb5) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270047_zpsem0bowql.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270048_zpsxywvg7di.jpg&hash=6e7af8edc8058767935cee8fffc7b12c749633ec) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270048_zpsxywvg7di.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270049_zpsecjh1mcn.jpg&hash=556d5c463effee568889179185e183c8c8d70e70) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270049_zpsecjh1mcn.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270050_zpsmjbkxgqx.jpg&hash=3b3c08a8790fd4edbf611d73e957809847d89a7a) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270050_zpsmjbkxgqx.jpg.html)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FModels%2FTamiya%25201-45%2520Sea%2520Harrier%2FP1270051_zpsuudxnfwb.jpg&hash=ae5c5e08ad93744343b1e6a2205cc32da542f4aa) (http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/wmar1967/media/Models/Tamiya%201-45%20Sea%20Harrier/P1270051_zpsuudxnfwb.jpg.html)
Ha! I wasnt paying attention and when I glanced at the first two pictures, I thought to myself, "oh look, JD went to a museum and saw a sea harrier." LoL
My point about the Harrier vs. Hornet is that, all things considered, I think most people would prefer to have a Hornet sim with a dynamic campaign than a Harrier sim with a dynamic campaign. With a Hornet and a modern aircraft carrier the range of scenarios is almost unlimited. With an amphib and Harrier, the range of scenarios you can reasonably simulate is inherently limited. A Hornet can fight its way into a modern threat environment and back, flying as either a strike or escort aircraft. I respectfully submit that while the Harrier can conduct a strike, its not an optimal aircraft to do escort, and in fact, would require a robust support package to fight in a modern environment.
For giggles, because I didn't actually know, I Googled the F/A-18C vs. the AV-8B II.
Hornet: max speed 1.2-1.8 mach
Harrier: max speed 0.9 mach
Hornet: combat radius 400nm (air-air)
Harrier: combat radius 300nm
Hornet: wing loading: 93 lb/ft2
Harrier: wing loading: 94.29 lb/ft2
Armament
Hornet: hardpoints 9 (13,700 lbs payload)
Harrier: hardpoints 6 (9200 lbs payload)
And so on. It's not that the Harrier isn't capable, but it's not going nearly in the same class as a Hornet, Fulcrum, Flanker, Eagle, etc. If you send a Harrier into an environment where it's facing a significant threat it's going to need a true fighter to escort it. Therefore, if I was going to build this sim, I wouldn't choose the Harrier as the staring role. I guess it will depend on what the campaign simulates.
Anyway, maybe for grins I'll fly some Harrier missions in BMS tonight just to see how the plane fares in Korea.
^ Again - I ain't arguing that the Hornet is any worse or any better than the Harrier - just that the Harrier has a place (now) - though I fully accept it's getting long in the tooth.
However - I think given the location of said campaign, isn't the Harrier a reasonable choice? It does mention ageing Migs and F4s. I don't know how the Harrier stacks up against them - but they are around the same era.
So I do think given the campaign, location, task, the Harrier is a reasonable choice. It's certainly not the best - but it's not unreasonable either.
As for most people wanting a Hornet before a Harrier...I'm really not fussed and take what's on offer and I'm not disappointed by the choice. The Hornet probably does have a better strike capability - but the Harrier has V/STOL
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 10, 2016, 05:58:09 AM
Ha! I wasnt paying attention and when I glanced at the first two pictures, I thought to myself, "oh look, JD went to a museum and saw a sea harrier." LoL
I'm banking that as a compliment :-*
I imagine a Harrier can give an F-4 a pretty hard time.
I really need to set up some engagements in BMS and play these out. Might make a fun project for tonight.
Please understand I'm only commenting on the Hornet vs. Harrier for argument's sake. I enjoy discussing airplanes. It's certainly nothing personal!
The thing that appeals to me about this game is that you are part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit operating from and LHD responding to a crisis. The Harrier is the jet that rides with the MEUs, so regardless of whether there is a better jet out there, its not a jet that is stationed aboard an LHD, like the harrier.
No worries - I didn't take it personally. Discussions on pros and cons of military hardware go hand in hand with being interested in wargaming I imagine ;)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 10, 2016, 09:14:11 AM
The thing that appeals to me about this game is that you are part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit operating from and LHD responding to a crisis. The Harrier is the jet that rides with the MEUs, so regardless of whether there is a better jet out there, its not a jet that is stationed aboard an LHD, like the harrier.
Yep - I think that's how it fits the game.
There are plenty of military platforms out there that are superior - but in terms of this game and it's location and expected role and enemy OOB, I think it fits just fine.
Quote
Friday, 10 June 2016
v802
Version 802 should be available now, updates include:
Control axis null zones
Control axis non linear setting
Digital nozzle angle control settings
Xbox gamepad default settings include view controls, unmap analogue throttle and nozzles
nVidia Optimus graphics fix
HUD velocity vector fixed
Low speed handling improvement
Menu option sub titles
Next updates will begin tackling gameplay and campaign issues/bug fixes/missing texture issues. Depending on progress, 803 may arrive Saturday. As noted previously, expect frequent updates to the main build till we're happy with stability. At that point we'll switch to a beta option which anyone can opt into with the usual caveats regarding bugs.
Thanks for the heads up JH
So I dived back in and there have been changes - some noticeable for the good and some for the bad.
It seems this time around I'll need to tweak my controller. Where previously it felt like flying a goat in a shopping trolley, this time some slight input results in wild movement
Head tracking is still very sensitive (I need to change my TrackIR setting), but they have fixed boundries - so you're not doing "an exorcist"
Graphics are much lighter and therefore not depressing - certainly makes it feel more playable
Harrier does look nice from the outside
Managed several take offs (I knew how to last time I tried) and a successful runway landing, vertical take off and vertical landing. I say successful - it landing. I don't think any crash mechanics are in place at the moment in terms of landing
Nice little welcome bounce when landing vertically which one would expect
Sound wise - it's still very bland. I've got music off and the radio calls just seem so quiet - even at 100%. Same with aircraft sound - nothing at all to write home about. It's not my speakers. I could turn them up, but on the setting they are at, I can hear perfectly well with DCS
The Tutorials need to be implemented. They've disappeared from my first couple of outings first time around and I haven't seem them since
Is Radio working? I assigned a key and that key was immediately assigned to all other radio commands too. Also, pressing it didn't activate in the game. I don't know if I need to turn something else on.
I didn't have any crashes and all control settings stayed as assigned.
Overall, there are improvements - but in all honesty, it's still way behind where I had hoped. However, now I had scaled my initial hopes back - I know where I am and where it is and it's still got a ways to go.
But I've paid and I'm in now - no refunds...it's all the way
Hey guys - thanks for all the feedback (good and bad) - we've noted your comments on the dynamic campaign. We are 6 updates in now with many issues already resolved, v807 is due shortly and should have mission planner updates, mission updates together with initial VR support - cockpit model updates are due around the end of the month too. Check out the dev blog or steam community for more details - http://devblog.sim155.com/ :)
Wow. This game is apparently not dead and has been picked up by Microprose.
Still not sure if being picked up by Microprose is a good thing or not.
Either way, I had already written this one off as I don't think the developer has ever successfully completed a game, so any updates are icing on the cake. They also seem to have broadened the scope with a lot more controllable vehicles.
So they're basically claiming they'll do what the original developer claimed he'd do almost a decade ago... I'll believe it when I see it. I hope they do succeed.
I like Tiny Little Battles and Regiments and I've got their B17 game in my wishlist.
They seem to be promising alot and I'm not overly enamoured with their list of flying options, but I think MicroProse are on the up.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 21, 2024, 01:09:25 AMI like Tiny Little Battles and Regiments and I've got their B17 game in my wishlist.
They seem to be promising alot and I'm not overly enamoured with their list of flying options, but I think MicroProse are on the up.
Second Front is fantastic if you enjoy ASL. Carrier Command 2 has also matured into an excellent game.
Oh yes - Carrier Command is excellent - and not just for nostalgic reasons, but also that.