LockOn R.I.P. 2007, Fighter Ops, wir kommen! :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter: :pilothelikopter:
PS: Sorry für die vielen Hubschrauber....
Update zum BlackShark Status
Moderator: JaBoG32 Stab
-
Cobra_su-27
- Intermediate Member
- Beiträge: 118
- Registriert: 1. Jan 2007, 04:29
-
Wad_Cutter
- Gerade reingestolpert
- Beiträge: 10
- Registriert: 8. Jul 2007, 20:50
fighter ops???
The question was "Nur die frage ist wann soll Fight Ops erscheinen oder wie weit ist der stand der Dinge."
15 minutes after hell frezzes over. Don't hold your breath. Just another Black Shark.
15 minutes after hell frezzes over. Don't hold your breath. Just another Black Shark.
“Any one who think that the pen is mightier then the sword never came face to face with a thermal nuclear bomb.” Douglas McArthur
Ausschnitt aus dem Fighter Ops forum
[quoteo00]Dev Diary 18:
Welcome to Diary number 18!...
Well it's the worst kept secret in Fighter Ops history that we are currently on the cusp of the Alpha phase of the Fighter Ops software development cycle. As has been indicated in some of the Area 51 updates since the previous dev diary, we did run into a few roadblocks along the way and as a result the start of the Alpha phase was pushed back. The fantastic news however is that our dedicated and extremely talented development team have been smashing through those road blocks one after the other. You will hear more about some of these aspects further in the diary, however a couple of the major ones were the integration of "Speed Tree" and the flight model. Many of you will be familiar with Speed Tree, which is a code which provides a very elegant way of presenting extremely realistic trees and forests, unfortunately though, nobody has ever utilised Speed Tree over a global terrain. This led to a range of problems in the rotation and display of the trees, fortunately though these issues were recently solved and one of the major stumbling blocks in now well behind us. The second issue was with the flight model, as I'm sure you can imagine, representing all of the intricacies of the physics of flight on a home pc is no easy task, especially if you want to do it with the upmost realism. With literally hundreds of thousands of calculations there are countless opportunities for small errors to creep in and create unexpected results. There were a few delays of this nature in getting the flight model code to a point where it could be integrated into the main engine, however I'm very pleased to report that we are now at that stage.
One area which has been a little, pardon the pun, "quiet" is the sound department. Our sound engineers have been working away on a number of aspects, from the realistic generation of engine sounds, through to music soundtracks. The synthetic T38 engine sound generation code is now completed and soon to be incorporated into the main engine, below is a link to an early demo of what this code is capable of. This is a purely synthetic sound which responds to throttle inputs-
https://www.fighterops.com/downloadstmp/t38c.mp3
The Art Department has been moving along at a steady pace on production of model assets for Fighter Ops phase one. Many aircraft are in progress as well as many which are complete. These include flyables as well as a large assortment of AI aircraft (military and civil). In addition to aircraft, we have been working on various ground vehicles. Our ground vehicles include the AI support vehicles which keep the airbase operating and the aircraft flying. Also, we have a large variety of AI civilian vehicles which will populate the roads in the FighterOps world.
Fighter Ops would certainly not be complete without airbases to fly from. Well fear not, because our airbases are not only underway, but many are finished and look beautiful. As many of you know, members of our team visited Laughlin Air Force Base, and while there, of course took photos of anything and everything they had access to. The result of this opportunity is a meticulously detailed model of Laughlin, with every detail possible included as recently shown in the Area 51 forum. Of course, we have also modeled many other airbases to a similar level of detail, and many more are coming.
In a large undertaking as Fighter Ops is, building models is not the only task Art Department is faced with. To provide all of the detail we have released glimpses of to the community, and much more which has not been seen outside of the team yet, a lot of work has to be done in the area of optimisations. Otherwise, the average computer would be brought to its knees at runtime. Well again, fear not, because we have also devoted a lot of effort into research for the latest tricks and techniques, as well as working closely with our Code Department in brainstorming sessions to develop solutions of our own to issues of performance. We have experiments underway currently, and more to do in the coming months, in order to determine the best ways to approach the problems faced in the development of art assets for such a complex software product. These experiments include everything from different ways to handle LODs on a per circumstance basis, to various types of maps and other techniques to provide the most detail possible while imposing the least amount of overhead possible at runtime. Not only is this important to provide more detail in art, but also consider all of the other complexities which will need to be handled simultaneously, including (but not limited to) flight model, systems model, weapons model, weather model, etc.
Our Beta/Research team have of course continued their very hard work. Knowing that we will base each new releases on the previous release it is really important to make sure that the framework is as ready as it can be for any future expansions.
This includes researching all of the factors that the Artificial Intelligence engine needs to be developed to be able to plan for as new capabilities, items and elements are introduced into the sim as it grows. By doing this we avoid having to go back into the AI code when wanting to add something in a future release because we didn’t take it into account while creating the AI base code. Going back into the code for something like this usually isn’t wise, if you have to do this too often it often results in spaggety code, which is very hard to maintain and prone to bugs.
Our research team was tasked with researching just about any type of civilian and military entity which could possibly require any form of AI to be assigned to it. This was as you could imagine a rather huge task however as with all previous assignments, they did a fantastic job.
The research goes as as submarines deploying special forces in canoes and rubber boats, Amphibious landing vehicles unloading engineering units, civilian mobs, etc etc. Know that when you are looking into the AI in any release, the base was layed by our research team, the AI code can only be as good as the information they provided, and believe me, they did a kick ass job!!
The Flight Model Department is making good progress at a steady pace.
At this stage, we are integrating our T-38C Airframe Test Model into a 3D environment to test this model for aerodynamic and data accuracy. With visual and data output, we can determine if our approach and hard work over the past years finally paid off. As some of you might know, our first Airframe Flight Model versions had some issues which we finally were able to track down and find a solution for, most of them being calculation errors in the equations. For example, we had pitch and rolling problems triggered by inertia values calculating too low, causing the aircraft to escalate into uncontrolled flight behavior. Most, if not all, of these issues should be solved in the current Airframe Test Model, which is being implemented into the 3D environment for testing purposes as we speak. The important thing is that the milestone has been reached whereby the flight model is now stable enough to incorporate into the engine for final testing and should only require minor fixes from here.
So far, our Airframe Test Model includes (aerodynamically modeled) left and right wing and elevators, vertical tail, fuselage, flight controls (ailerons and elevators both left right and rudder) airbrakes and landing gear (left, right and main). All these components allow us to test this airframe model in the air at all/most flight conditions (both controlled and uncontrolled) and will be tested within the upcoming weeks.
At this stage, we focus ourselves on 2 important aspects in regards to our airframe test model; One being a complex (in understanding) calculation method to represent a correct aerodynamic aircraft behavior in a 3D virtual environment and two being extensive testing on validation of the aero data of the T-38C.
Depending on these test results and findings we will be able to implement more features to this model such as airframe reaction on ground and intermediate (ground-air/air-ground) operations etc. Also we will be extensively fine-tuning the aero data to reflect an as accurate as possible T-38C Flight Model behavior. Besides this we will also be able to start fine-tuning and expanding engine operation data and detailing out engine monitoring data for cockpit data usage. At this stage, we only have a simplified engine data model database but yet already an engine model code capable of calculation all required in cockpit data and does have already a correct engine performance calculation method incorporated. So our main goal will be fine-tuning the engine data that will be used for J85-GE5 engine performance calculation installed on the T-38C.
In regards to systems and avionics installed on the T-38C model, our Systems and Avionics coder has completed almost all non-avionics related systems (electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pitot static, canopy etc). Most of these systems have already an extensive list of possible failures as described in the emergency procedure manual. At this stage, our Systems & Avionics coder has designed a test environment where he can plug in all designed systems and avionics, test it and connect all systems with each other and operate it as a whole. He started implementing the electric system into this test environment and it will be tested first, later on he will start adding more systems to it and complete all remaining systems that require additional work or complete missing system failures. Once this is done, he will start working on the avionics related issues such as radio (UHF, VHF etc), INS, GPS etc. After all systems and avionics for the T-38C are completed, he will start implementing other failures to his system and avionics design in order to provide the user more realistic aircraft behavior awareness.
After this T-38C designing stage, the same will be done for the more simple T-6 Texan II. A primary study of this aircraft has already been completed and most of the required information has already been gathered in order to provide the user an as realistic as possible aircraft representation. So as soon as the T-38C model has proven to be reliable and efficient, the T6 model is just a matter of a few months in order to complete both trainers for final release.
In regards to Weapons and Damage modeling, our designer/coder has been making progress at a steady pace. Having already worked out a great deal of the missile guidance and detonation behavior, working out the aerodynamic behavior of these missiles (and bombs) is still in a first stage but shows already that we do our best to think ahead by already working on future aspects of this program (being the combat ready release).
After several years working on this project, the flight model team has transformed into a hard working reliable group. Still after all these time (about 2 years and more), the same people are still working in this team, slowly but certainly getting better and better, and more and more efficient. The progress curve is climbing which means we are able to deliver the same amount of work in a shorter period of time. And that is a good sign for the future!
Last but by no means least, our coding department have made some fantastic advances-
User Interface:
The code infrastructure for the Fighter Ops user interface (UI) has been created. The UI has been implemented using DirectX 9 and supports various common controls (buttons, edit boxes, combo boxes, etc.). Viewing and interaction with in-game entities has been implemented. Viewing the terrain is also allowed without restrictions. This set of core functionality will be used as building blocks to make the UI for Fighter Ops.
We are currently working to create support for the presentation of training material which includes text, images, video and sound.
The player needs to login in order to play the game. User logins can be either local or remote. Local login information is stored locally on the machine where Fighter Ops is installed. Remote login information is stored remotely on a private server (a server belonging to an online squadron for example) and/or an XSI server depending on the type of server you are flying on, in this way, player progress and logbooks can be stored online. One possibility is that a simple squadron website can be put together to access and display the online information, as a result, virtual pilot logbooks and stats, for example, can seamlessly be part of the website of an online squadron. When the player logs in, he/she will be able to choose a specific “role” in the simulation. In the first release only “Student Pilot” role will be available and in further releases and updates, other roles such as “Fighter Pilot”, “Helicopter Pilot”, “ATC Operator”, “AWACS Operator” will be available each with their own unique UI.
All the game settings can be modified using a special “Administrator” login. Player creation, multi-player game setup and management and multi-monitor setup are some of the capabilities of the Administrator. We will explore in more depth this special login in future dev diary entries.
Multi-monitor Support:
I know this issue has been touched upon in a previous mini dev diary entry but I would like to explain briefly when this means and how users will benefit from it.
Multi-monitor gameplay can be achieved by one or both of the following configurations:
a)A video card with two outputs (or a total of four outputs in a CrossFire or SLI scenario)
b)The use of the monitors of computers connected to the main system as part of a LAN
In the first case, more than one monitor can be attached to the computer and Fighter Ops can be configured to use the available displays. In this case the number of outputs available will be two or four.
In the second case, the monitor(s) of any computer on a LAN can be configured to be used by the Fighter Ops installation on the main computer. For example if there are three computers in addition to the main computer available on a LAN, if Fighter Ops is installed on all four computers, the main system can utilize the video card and monitor of the other three systems to display additional views.
In the above cases, the additional monitors can either be used to extend an existing view or to display other views in addition to the view displayed on the main monitor.
Weather Engine:
We have finalized the basic design of the weather engine for Fighter Ops. This design enabled an arbitrary distribution of various weather elements (terrain type, temperature, humidity, clouds, precipitation, pressure and wind) across the globe.
The next step for the weather engine will be to build the dynamics of the atmosphere on top of the functionality mentioned above.
The weather engine is being designed in such a way so that it can be run on a separate processor or processor core or on a computer which is part of a LAN. So for example one computer on the network with Fighter Ops installed can be configured in such a way so that only the weather engine is running on it. Obviously the weather engine module on the main computer will be inactive in order to save CPU cycles. This is the first instance of the “Load Sharing” concept which is one of the major design goals of this simulation.
Avionics:
A virtual computational platform is being designed and developed to contain all of the code necessary to simulate the avionics of Fighter Ops aircraft. This platform virtualises entire avionics suits from the buttons in the cockpit (inputs) to the cockpit displays (outputs) and everything in between. This platform will enable the creation and modification of avionics systems to be done without the need to communicate with Fighter Ops code directly. As a result, avionics coding will be easier for the developer and safer for Fighter Ops. Also simulating the avionics virtual machine can easily be assigned to a spare processor or processor core very easily under this model. In future releases of Fighter Ops we can look forward to utilizing hardware virtualisation technology which has been introduced by AMD and Intel to this end.
Other Developments:
-The Speed Tree library has been integrated into the graphics engine. We are evaluating the package and will be deciding on whether or not to include Speed Tree in Fighter Ops.
-A working version of the T-38 flight model has be handed to the coding department. It will be integrated into the graphics engine very soon.
-The ability to add static to sounds (those that are related to comms) in realtime has been implemented. Static can be added to comms whenever jamming or bad weather conditions are present.[/quoteo00]
Auch wennn es noch ne zeit lang dauert, fighter ops wird die neue genre refenrenz! bin ich mir sicher.
Übrigens ist auch Lead Pursuit dabei an einem Nachfolger von Falcon zu arbeiten. Aber leider gibts da nicht viele Infos.
[quoteo00]Dev Diary 18:
Welcome to Diary number 18!...
Well it's the worst kept secret in Fighter Ops history that we are currently on the cusp of the Alpha phase of the Fighter Ops software development cycle. As has been indicated in some of the Area 51 updates since the previous dev diary, we did run into a few roadblocks along the way and as a result the start of the Alpha phase was pushed back. The fantastic news however is that our dedicated and extremely talented development team have been smashing through those road blocks one after the other. You will hear more about some of these aspects further in the diary, however a couple of the major ones were the integration of "Speed Tree" and the flight model. Many of you will be familiar with Speed Tree, which is a code which provides a very elegant way of presenting extremely realistic trees and forests, unfortunately though, nobody has ever utilised Speed Tree over a global terrain. This led to a range of problems in the rotation and display of the trees, fortunately though these issues were recently solved and one of the major stumbling blocks in now well behind us. The second issue was with the flight model, as I'm sure you can imagine, representing all of the intricacies of the physics of flight on a home pc is no easy task, especially if you want to do it with the upmost realism. With literally hundreds of thousands of calculations there are countless opportunities for small errors to creep in and create unexpected results. There were a few delays of this nature in getting the flight model code to a point where it could be integrated into the main engine, however I'm very pleased to report that we are now at that stage.
One area which has been a little, pardon the pun, "quiet" is the sound department. Our sound engineers have been working away on a number of aspects, from the realistic generation of engine sounds, through to music soundtracks. The synthetic T38 engine sound generation code is now completed and soon to be incorporated into the main engine, below is a link to an early demo of what this code is capable of. This is a purely synthetic sound which responds to throttle inputs-
https://www.fighterops.com/downloadstmp/t38c.mp3
The Art Department has been moving along at a steady pace on production of model assets for Fighter Ops phase one. Many aircraft are in progress as well as many which are complete. These include flyables as well as a large assortment of AI aircraft (military and civil). In addition to aircraft, we have been working on various ground vehicles. Our ground vehicles include the AI support vehicles which keep the airbase operating and the aircraft flying. Also, we have a large variety of AI civilian vehicles which will populate the roads in the FighterOps world.
Fighter Ops would certainly not be complete without airbases to fly from. Well fear not, because our airbases are not only underway, but many are finished and look beautiful. As many of you know, members of our team visited Laughlin Air Force Base, and while there, of course took photos of anything and everything they had access to. The result of this opportunity is a meticulously detailed model of Laughlin, with every detail possible included as recently shown in the Area 51 forum. Of course, we have also modeled many other airbases to a similar level of detail, and many more are coming.
In a large undertaking as Fighter Ops is, building models is not the only task Art Department is faced with. To provide all of the detail we have released glimpses of to the community, and much more which has not been seen outside of the team yet, a lot of work has to be done in the area of optimisations. Otherwise, the average computer would be brought to its knees at runtime. Well again, fear not, because we have also devoted a lot of effort into research for the latest tricks and techniques, as well as working closely with our Code Department in brainstorming sessions to develop solutions of our own to issues of performance. We have experiments underway currently, and more to do in the coming months, in order to determine the best ways to approach the problems faced in the development of art assets for such a complex software product. These experiments include everything from different ways to handle LODs on a per circumstance basis, to various types of maps and other techniques to provide the most detail possible while imposing the least amount of overhead possible at runtime. Not only is this important to provide more detail in art, but also consider all of the other complexities which will need to be handled simultaneously, including (but not limited to) flight model, systems model, weapons model, weather model, etc.
Our Beta/Research team have of course continued their very hard work. Knowing that we will base each new releases on the previous release it is really important to make sure that the framework is as ready as it can be for any future expansions.
This includes researching all of the factors that the Artificial Intelligence engine needs to be developed to be able to plan for as new capabilities, items and elements are introduced into the sim as it grows. By doing this we avoid having to go back into the AI code when wanting to add something in a future release because we didn’t take it into account while creating the AI base code. Going back into the code for something like this usually isn’t wise, if you have to do this too often it often results in spaggety code, which is very hard to maintain and prone to bugs.
Our research team was tasked with researching just about any type of civilian and military entity which could possibly require any form of AI to be assigned to it. This was as you could imagine a rather huge task however as with all previous assignments, they did a fantastic job.
The research goes as as submarines deploying special forces in canoes and rubber boats, Amphibious landing vehicles unloading engineering units, civilian mobs, etc etc. Know that when you are looking into the AI in any release, the base was layed by our research team, the AI code can only be as good as the information they provided, and believe me, they did a kick ass job!!
The Flight Model Department is making good progress at a steady pace.
At this stage, we are integrating our T-38C Airframe Test Model into a 3D environment to test this model for aerodynamic and data accuracy. With visual and data output, we can determine if our approach and hard work over the past years finally paid off. As some of you might know, our first Airframe Flight Model versions had some issues which we finally were able to track down and find a solution for, most of them being calculation errors in the equations. For example, we had pitch and rolling problems triggered by inertia values calculating too low, causing the aircraft to escalate into uncontrolled flight behavior. Most, if not all, of these issues should be solved in the current Airframe Test Model, which is being implemented into the 3D environment for testing purposes as we speak. The important thing is that the milestone has been reached whereby the flight model is now stable enough to incorporate into the engine for final testing and should only require minor fixes from here.
So far, our Airframe Test Model includes (aerodynamically modeled) left and right wing and elevators, vertical tail, fuselage, flight controls (ailerons and elevators both left right and rudder) airbrakes and landing gear (left, right and main). All these components allow us to test this airframe model in the air at all/most flight conditions (both controlled and uncontrolled) and will be tested within the upcoming weeks.
At this stage, we focus ourselves on 2 important aspects in regards to our airframe test model; One being a complex (in understanding) calculation method to represent a correct aerodynamic aircraft behavior in a 3D virtual environment and two being extensive testing on validation of the aero data of the T-38C.
Depending on these test results and findings we will be able to implement more features to this model such as airframe reaction on ground and intermediate (ground-air/air-ground) operations etc. Also we will be extensively fine-tuning the aero data to reflect an as accurate as possible T-38C Flight Model behavior. Besides this we will also be able to start fine-tuning and expanding engine operation data and detailing out engine monitoring data for cockpit data usage. At this stage, we only have a simplified engine data model database but yet already an engine model code capable of calculation all required in cockpit data and does have already a correct engine performance calculation method incorporated. So our main goal will be fine-tuning the engine data that will be used for J85-GE5 engine performance calculation installed on the T-38C.
In regards to systems and avionics installed on the T-38C model, our Systems and Avionics coder has completed almost all non-avionics related systems (electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pitot static, canopy etc). Most of these systems have already an extensive list of possible failures as described in the emergency procedure manual. At this stage, our Systems & Avionics coder has designed a test environment where he can plug in all designed systems and avionics, test it and connect all systems with each other and operate it as a whole. He started implementing the electric system into this test environment and it will be tested first, later on he will start adding more systems to it and complete all remaining systems that require additional work or complete missing system failures. Once this is done, he will start working on the avionics related issues such as radio (UHF, VHF etc), INS, GPS etc. After all systems and avionics for the T-38C are completed, he will start implementing other failures to his system and avionics design in order to provide the user more realistic aircraft behavior awareness.
After this T-38C designing stage, the same will be done for the more simple T-6 Texan II. A primary study of this aircraft has already been completed and most of the required information has already been gathered in order to provide the user an as realistic as possible aircraft representation. So as soon as the T-38C model has proven to be reliable and efficient, the T6 model is just a matter of a few months in order to complete both trainers for final release.
In regards to Weapons and Damage modeling, our designer/coder has been making progress at a steady pace. Having already worked out a great deal of the missile guidance and detonation behavior, working out the aerodynamic behavior of these missiles (and bombs) is still in a first stage but shows already that we do our best to think ahead by already working on future aspects of this program (being the combat ready release).
After several years working on this project, the flight model team has transformed into a hard working reliable group. Still after all these time (about 2 years and more), the same people are still working in this team, slowly but certainly getting better and better, and more and more efficient. The progress curve is climbing which means we are able to deliver the same amount of work in a shorter period of time. And that is a good sign for the future!
Last but by no means least, our coding department have made some fantastic advances-
User Interface:
The code infrastructure for the Fighter Ops user interface (UI) has been created. The UI has been implemented using DirectX 9 and supports various common controls (buttons, edit boxes, combo boxes, etc.). Viewing and interaction with in-game entities has been implemented. Viewing the terrain is also allowed without restrictions. This set of core functionality will be used as building blocks to make the UI for Fighter Ops.
We are currently working to create support for the presentation of training material which includes text, images, video and sound.
The player needs to login in order to play the game. User logins can be either local or remote. Local login information is stored locally on the machine where Fighter Ops is installed. Remote login information is stored remotely on a private server (a server belonging to an online squadron for example) and/or an XSI server depending on the type of server you are flying on, in this way, player progress and logbooks can be stored online. One possibility is that a simple squadron website can be put together to access and display the online information, as a result, virtual pilot logbooks and stats, for example, can seamlessly be part of the website of an online squadron. When the player logs in, he/she will be able to choose a specific “role” in the simulation. In the first release only “Student Pilot” role will be available and in further releases and updates, other roles such as “Fighter Pilot”, “Helicopter Pilot”, “ATC Operator”, “AWACS Operator” will be available each with their own unique UI.
All the game settings can be modified using a special “Administrator” login. Player creation, multi-player game setup and management and multi-monitor setup are some of the capabilities of the Administrator. We will explore in more depth this special login in future dev diary entries.
Multi-monitor Support:
I know this issue has been touched upon in a previous mini dev diary entry but I would like to explain briefly when this means and how users will benefit from it.
Multi-monitor gameplay can be achieved by one or both of the following configurations:
a)A video card with two outputs (or a total of four outputs in a CrossFire or SLI scenario)
b)The use of the monitors of computers connected to the main system as part of a LAN
In the first case, more than one monitor can be attached to the computer and Fighter Ops can be configured to use the available displays. In this case the number of outputs available will be two or four.
In the second case, the monitor(s) of any computer on a LAN can be configured to be used by the Fighter Ops installation on the main computer. For example if there are three computers in addition to the main computer available on a LAN, if Fighter Ops is installed on all four computers, the main system can utilize the video card and monitor of the other three systems to display additional views.
In the above cases, the additional monitors can either be used to extend an existing view or to display other views in addition to the view displayed on the main monitor.
Weather Engine:
We have finalized the basic design of the weather engine for Fighter Ops. This design enabled an arbitrary distribution of various weather elements (terrain type, temperature, humidity, clouds, precipitation, pressure and wind) across the globe.
The next step for the weather engine will be to build the dynamics of the atmosphere on top of the functionality mentioned above.
The weather engine is being designed in such a way so that it can be run on a separate processor or processor core or on a computer which is part of a LAN. So for example one computer on the network with Fighter Ops installed can be configured in such a way so that only the weather engine is running on it. Obviously the weather engine module on the main computer will be inactive in order to save CPU cycles. This is the first instance of the “Load Sharing” concept which is one of the major design goals of this simulation.
Avionics:
A virtual computational platform is being designed and developed to contain all of the code necessary to simulate the avionics of Fighter Ops aircraft. This platform virtualises entire avionics suits from the buttons in the cockpit (inputs) to the cockpit displays (outputs) and everything in between. This platform will enable the creation and modification of avionics systems to be done without the need to communicate with Fighter Ops code directly. As a result, avionics coding will be easier for the developer and safer for Fighter Ops. Also simulating the avionics virtual machine can easily be assigned to a spare processor or processor core very easily under this model. In future releases of Fighter Ops we can look forward to utilizing hardware virtualisation technology which has been introduced by AMD and Intel to this end.
Other Developments:
-The Speed Tree library has been integrated into the graphics engine. We are evaluating the package and will be deciding on whether or not to include Speed Tree in Fighter Ops.
-A working version of the T-38 flight model has be handed to the coding department. It will be integrated into the graphics engine very soon.
-The ability to add static to sounds (those that are related to comms) in realtime has been implemented. Static can be added to comms whenever jamming or bad weather conditions are present.[/quoteo00]
Auch wennn es noch ne zeit lang dauert, fighter ops wird die neue genre refenrenz! bin ich mir sicher.
Übrigens ist auch Lead Pursuit dabei an einem Nachfolger von Falcon zu arbeiten. Aber leider gibts da nicht viele Infos.
The Saint 
-
Cobra_su-27
- Intermediate Member
- Beiträge: 118
- Registriert: 1. Jan 2007, 04:29
-
Wad_Cutter
- Gerade reingestolpert
- Beiträge: 10
- Registriert: 8. Jul 2007, 20:50
Fighter Ops Area 51 Report from Saint
Than you Saint, for that very long report from fighter ooops. That is a lot of info to have to go through and try to pick out what is the real world and what is not. All of these reports are in Area 51 which is great if you have access to Area 51. At one time I paid the $25 dollars to support this sim and gain access to this area. But I soon found out that this sim lies in the minds of a few. There has never been any video or screen shot of actual flight sim play and any time to ask when this all mighty sim will be released on member over all the rest comes fly at you with the same old speech. “Go read the developer section.” DO you have any idea how mush reading that is. I have a lot of things I would rather be doing then all that reading. Like flying Lock On. If and when it ever comes out then I might eat my words but until then, it’s just pie in the sky. My one suggestion for F.O. would be ”Get’er Done”. A quoite from Larry the Cable Guy.
“Any one who think that the pen is mightier then the sword never came face to face with a thermal nuclear bomb.” Douglas McArthur
an dieser Stelle gebe ich jetzt auch mal meinen Senf ab:
F.O.: sorry - irgendwann ist auch ein Essen mal verkocht, wenn es zulange auf der Herdplatte steht und nicht auf den Teller kommt
Falcon bzw. LP: Wenn sie mit ED mithalten wollen wird es Zeit sich zu sputen - sollte ich mich total irren und Black Shark bringt nicht das was es verspricht (clickbares Cockpit, Rampstart, glaubwürdiges Hud, usw.) fresse ich einen Besenstiel - ECHT!
Zu ED bzw. DCS: Respekt!!!!
Endlich wieder eine "Softwareschmiede", welche es schafft eine ordentliche Simulation (Study-Sim) auf den Markt zu werfen und gleich die Addons in der Mache zu haben - da werden Erinnerungen an Falcon 3 wach mit all den Zusätzen!
Dieses auf dem Niveau von den Janes - Simulationen!
Ich glaube, dass so langsam die ganze komerzielle ScH***** mit Ego-Shootern ihren Olymp erreicht hat, und die Zeit für gute Programme, sprich auch Flugsimulatoren, wieder gekommen ist. ED (DCS) oder Oleg Madox haben uns in der Vergangenheit viel Freude bereitet und ich bin mir sicher, dass sich ihre Arbeit in Zukunft bezahlt macht! 8) "just 2 weeks"
Gruss Firefox
F.O.: sorry - irgendwann ist auch ein Essen mal verkocht, wenn es zulange auf der Herdplatte steht und nicht auf den Teller kommt
Falcon bzw. LP: Wenn sie mit ED mithalten wollen wird es Zeit sich zu sputen - sollte ich mich total irren und Black Shark bringt nicht das was es verspricht (clickbares Cockpit, Rampstart, glaubwürdiges Hud, usw.) fresse ich einen Besenstiel - ECHT!
Zu ED bzw. DCS: Respekt!!!!
Endlich wieder eine "Softwareschmiede", welche es schafft eine ordentliche Simulation (Study-Sim) auf den Markt zu werfen und gleich die Addons in der Mache zu haben - da werden Erinnerungen an Falcon 3 wach mit all den Zusätzen!
Dieses auf dem Niveau von den Janes - Simulationen!
Ich glaube, dass so langsam die ganze komerzielle ScH***** mit Ego-Shootern ihren Olymp erreicht hat, und die Zeit für gute Programme, sprich auch Flugsimulatoren, wieder gekommen ist. ED (DCS) oder Oleg Madox haben uns in der Vergangenheit viel Freude bereitet und ich bin mir sicher, dass sich ihre Arbeit in Zukunft bezahlt macht! 8) "just 2 weeks"
Gruss Firefox
Falcon 4 AF Hat ein Cockpit in dem 98% aller schalter gedrückt werden können und die auch eine Funktion haben.Ein extrem genauer Rampstart ist genauso vorhanden wie ein glaubwürdiges HUD. Die Vielfalt und Funktionen der Avionik ist auf dem Stand der sowohl Lockon als auch Blackshark wohl nie erreichen wird! Ich kann gerne beispiele nennen wenn du es verlangst.
Bist du schonmal Falcon 4AF oder eines der 3rd party addons wie Openfalcon geflogen? Also auf dem höchsten Standard?
Nicht umsonst haben diese titel ein über 700 seiten großes Handbuch
Allein das Radar Kapitel ist über zwanzig seiten lang!
LP hat im Prinzip eine leichte Aufgabe.Falcon AF mit einer DirectX9 oder sogar DX10 Grafik "aufzurüsten", noch ein paar kleinigkeiten dazu programieren und schon habt ihr die neue Referenz.
Zum Thema verkocht.
Hast du Lockon von Anfang an gespielt? Kein spiel ist perfekt aber allein schon der Multiplayer Code des UR-Lockon war nicht sehr ausgereift. Die Performance war teilweise unter aller Sau! Die entwicklung war schlichtweg nicht fertig . Und bis Lokcon zu dem geworden ist was es heute ist sind auch etliche Jahre vergangen und das auch ohne extrem realistischer Avionik!
Wenn mann nun noch bedenkt das ED vor allem bei Lockon Ubisoft als einen Geldgeber hatte und durch den Erfolg von Lockon wohl noch genügend mittel zur Verfügung haben müsste, sollte das komische BS längst draußen sein und der knaller schlecht hin sein!? Oder wie oft haben sie es verschoben? schon mal drüber nachgedacht wie lang das teil in Entwicklung steht?
Als Gegenüberstellung, was hat XSI? (Entwickler von FO) so gut wie nix!!
Also währ ich mit solchen aussagen sehr vorsichtig.
Bist du schonmal Falcon 4AF oder eines der 3rd party addons wie Openfalcon geflogen? Also auf dem höchsten Standard?
Nicht umsonst haben diese titel ein über 700 seiten großes Handbuch
Allein das Radar Kapitel ist über zwanzig seiten lang!LP hat im Prinzip eine leichte Aufgabe.Falcon AF mit einer DirectX9 oder sogar DX10 Grafik "aufzurüsten", noch ein paar kleinigkeiten dazu programieren und schon habt ihr die neue Referenz.
Zum Thema verkocht.
Hast du Lockon von Anfang an gespielt? Kein spiel ist perfekt aber allein schon der Multiplayer Code des UR-Lockon war nicht sehr ausgereift. Die Performance war teilweise unter aller Sau! Die entwicklung war schlichtweg nicht fertig . Und bis Lokcon zu dem geworden ist was es heute ist sind auch etliche Jahre vergangen und das auch ohne extrem realistischer Avionik!
Wenn mann nun noch bedenkt das ED vor allem bei Lockon Ubisoft als einen Geldgeber hatte und durch den Erfolg von Lockon wohl noch genügend mittel zur Verfügung haben müsste, sollte das komische BS längst draußen sein und der knaller schlecht hin sein!? Oder wie oft haben sie es verschoben? schon mal drüber nachgedacht wie lang das teil in Entwicklung steht?
Als Gegenüberstellung, was hat XSI? (Entwickler von FO) so gut wie nix!!
Also währ ich mit solchen aussagen sehr vorsichtig.
The Saint
Hi Saint,
ich glaube unsere Meinungen gehen gar nicht so weit auseinander - entweder du hast mich falsch verstanden oder ich habe mich falsch ausgedrückt.
Ich kenne und liebe Falcon 4, egal ob AF oder die 3rd party addons! Und du hast auch recht mit der Aussage, dass Lockon und BS nicht mit der Avionik mithalten können, da die simulierten "Vögel" in real nicht mit der Technik ausgestattet sind. Deshalb wurde ja auch bewußt bisher kein Multirole-Kampfflugzeug integriert.
Bezüglich den anfänglichen BUGs in Lockon, steht das Ur-Falcon 4.0 auch nicht besser da. Und meiner Meinung nach wird es für LP doch nicht so einfach ihr neues Konzept eines Naval Fighters auf den sehr hohen Standard des Falcon umzusetzen - zumindest nicht mit einer Grafik die up to date sein wird - aber wie gesagt, ist das nur meine Meinung.
ED (DCS) haben für mich die bessere Strategie, da sie sich erstens an Helikopter ranwagen und dieses scheinbar sehr gut umgesetzt haben, und zweitens nach und nach mit zusätzlichen Fluggeräten die Sim erweitern. (Erinnerungen an Falcon 3 werden wach)
Bezüglich des ständigen Verschiebens des Releasetermins bin ich dieses von Oleg Madox gewöhnt und mir ist es lieber ein ordentliches Produkt in den Händen zu halten, als vorzeitig etwas unfertiges als zahlender "Betatester" auf die Platte zu laden.
So long
Gruss Firefox
ich glaube unsere Meinungen gehen gar nicht so weit auseinander
- entweder du hast mich falsch verstanden oder ich habe mich falsch ausgedrückt.Ich kenne und liebe Falcon 4, egal ob AF oder die 3rd party addons! Und du hast auch recht mit der Aussage, dass Lockon und BS nicht mit der Avionik mithalten können, da die simulierten "Vögel" in real nicht mit der Technik ausgestattet sind. Deshalb wurde ja auch bewußt bisher kein Multirole-Kampfflugzeug integriert.
Bezüglich den anfänglichen BUGs in Lockon, steht das Ur-Falcon 4.0 auch nicht besser da. Und meiner Meinung nach wird es für LP doch nicht so einfach ihr neues Konzept eines Naval Fighters auf den sehr hohen Standard des Falcon umzusetzen - zumindest nicht mit einer Grafik die up to date sein wird - aber wie gesagt, ist das nur meine Meinung.
ED (DCS) haben für mich die bessere Strategie, da sie sich erstens an Helikopter ranwagen und dieses scheinbar sehr gut umgesetzt haben, und zweitens nach und nach mit zusätzlichen Fluggeräten die Sim erweitern. (Erinnerungen an Falcon 3 werden wach)
Bezüglich des ständigen Verschiebens des Releasetermins bin ich dieses von Oleg Madox gewöhnt und mir ist es lieber ein ordentliches Produkt in den Händen zu halten, als vorzeitig etwas unfertiges als zahlender "Betatester" auf die Platte zu laden.
So long
Gruss Firefox
Naja dann passt es ja halbwegs. Nur weitaus Community freundlicher ist wohl die Strategie erstmal gar keinen Release Termin zu nennen als ihn zig mal zu verschieben. Da kommt es mir nicht drauf an ob ich es von einem Entwickler gewöhnt bin oder nicht.
Und ob es so viel unterschied macht erst einen sehr detail getreuen heli zu machen und dann andere projekte flugzeuge nachliefern oder nur Fighter auf den markt zu bringen und sämtliche konzentration auf dieses zu richten wird sich wohl noch zeigen.
Vor allem die Meinungen über einen Heli gehen ja doch schon etwas auseinander das die meisten lieber einen Fighter oder ähnliches wollen.
Kennst du übrigens die Strategie von XSI mit FO? Genau, die unterscheidet sich nicht Allzuweit von ED´s. Im Release werden die T38 und die T6, zwei Ausblidungsflugzeuge, enthalten sein, mit denen mann erstmal auch so eine Art Ausbildung mitmacht. Danach werden in Updates andere Flugzeuge nachgeliefert ähnlich wie in BS. Das erste wird wohl ziemlich sicher die F16 sein. Wobei wohl kaum einer Böse gewesen währe wenn es eine F15E oder so werden würde. Sehr ähnlich das ganze nur ist die Wahl der Flugzeuge meiner Meinung nach eindeutig die bessere.
Zum Thema Naval Fighters, wer eine halbwegs gute haben will mit bessere Grafik als Falcon 4, die aber bei weitem nicht an Lockon ran kommt, dafür aber auch weitaus bessere Avionik hat als Lockon sollte sich mal Janes FA18 anschauen.
Und ob es so viel unterschied macht erst einen sehr detail getreuen heli zu machen und dann andere projekte flugzeuge nachliefern oder nur Fighter auf den markt zu bringen und sämtliche konzentration auf dieses zu richten wird sich wohl noch zeigen.
Vor allem die Meinungen über einen Heli gehen ja doch schon etwas auseinander das die meisten lieber einen Fighter oder ähnliches wollen.
Kennst du übrigens die Strategie von XSI mit FO? Genau, die unterscheidet sich nicht Allzuweit von ED´s. Im Release werden die T38 und die T6, zwei Ausblidungsflugzeuge, enthalten sein, mit denen mann erstmal auch so eine Art Ausbildung mitmacht. Danach werden in Updates andere Flugzeuge nachgeliefert ähnlich wie in BS. Das erste wird wohl ziemlich sicher die F16 sein. Wobei wohl kaum einer Böse gewesen währe wenn es eine F15E oder so werden würde. Sehr ähnlich das ganze nur ist die Wahl der Flugzeuge meiner Meinung nach eindeutig die bessere.
Zum Thema Naval Fighters, wer eine halbwegs gute haben will mit bessere Grafik als Falcon 4, die aber bei weitem nicht an Lockon ran kommt, dafür aber auch weitaus bessere Avionik hat als Lockon sollte sich mal Janes FA18 anschauen.
The Saint