Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About user

  • Rank
    First Lieutenant
  • Birthday 01/31/1985

Profile Information

  • Location
    3rd rock from the thermonuclear hydrogen ball
  • Interests
    *NASSP ProjectApollo and Orbiter Space Flight Simulator
    *PMDG Simulations and Microsoft Flight Simulator FS9/FSX
    *F-22 ADF and TAW by DID
    *Jane's F/A-18
    *GTAIV and Crysis I&II open world sandbox
    *Sonalysts Combat Simulations - Dangerous Waters
    *VSTEP Ship Simulator
    *RailWorks 2 Train Simulator
    *Defcon - everybody dies
  1. I'm using VS2010 full version. Same thing in XP works, copy project over to Win7 32bit works, but on 64bit never works. The game itself is only 32bit, but that shouldn't make a difference I linked to the same dependencies and compiled the same as release win32. What " x86 DirectX libraries " specifically are you referring to? Could it be the MS DirectX SDK installs different stuff depending on host OS? I don't want it to have 64 the whole thing is strictly x86... so do I need to force it to revert to X86 somehow?
  2. Looks like well into 2012 (14 years since ADF?) and TAW source code ain't never gonna be released... but one of my other fav games DEFCON has done so already. Anyone here good with C++? Has anyone else encountered these DirectX sound errors while under Windows 7 64bit in VS2010? I have no problems with this in XP or 32bit of Windows 7. 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXWavesReverb 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_WAVES_REVERB 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXParamEq 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_PARAMEQ 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXI3DL2Reverb 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_I3DL2REVERB 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXGargle 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_GARGLE 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXFlanger 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_FLANGER 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXEcho 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_ECHO 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXDistortion 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_DISTORTION 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXCompressor 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_COMPRESSOR 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSoundFXChorus 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GUID_DSFX_STANDARD_CHORUS 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSound3DBuffer 1>sound_library_3d_dsound.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _IID_IDirectSound3DListener 1>../../Defcon_debug.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 20 unresolved externals I'd rather not have to use VMWare because that brings up its own set of issues especially with VS2010... and its a hassle even when its working... not to mention when it crappy... Is there any way short of stripping out the sound functionality of the game that I can get it to compile?
  3. I forgot the name of the title now (if I recall I'll post it here) but back in highschool I played a version of the F/A-18 that is comparable (if not even more realistic) than the Janes F-18. I do remember there were NPC personnel on the aircraft carrier. Update: I think it was called: F/A-18E Super Hornet It came out one month after JF-18 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/fa18esuperhornet/review.html Besides the cockpit and avionics, the other exceptional aspect of Super Hornet is its simulation of carrier operations. Unlike other sims in which the carrier deck is devoid of activity except for the aircraft taking off and landing, Super Hornet attempts to simulate the crewmen who direct planes on the flight deck. Crewmen are even differentiated by the color of their jackets, which designate them as plane directors, catapult crew, or landing-signal officers. They are not just for show: A careless pilot can easily cause an accident on the flight deck by running over a crewman, and following the crew's hand signals gives you a real feeling of being on a carrier deck.
  4. All good points. However I'd like to touch on two things. Ever since I can remember, Microsoft Flight Simulator had the slogan "As Real As It Gets"... Nothing triumphs the 'real thing', but in the simulation world there are different shades and gradients of 'realism'... F-22 ADF/TAW is faker than F4 and JF-18, and F4 and JF-18 are faker than PMDG 744. And none of these can match the unparalleled realism of the NASSP Apollo OrbiterSim Virtual AGC - which runs on the emulated code of the actual Apollo Guidance Computers. I would say that as far as flying the Boeing 747-400 is concerned, absent a full motion simulator, PMDG 744 on FSX and AeroWinx PS1.3 are about "as close as we will ever get" using off the shelf desktop software. For obvious reasons, combat fighter jet simulators (especially the likes of the F-22 and F-35) due to their secret and classified nature will never be as "open" to being emulated/simulated as say a commercial airliner. Combat sim are from this aspect at an inherent disadvantage to their civilian brethren. Back in 95-98 era no one would have expected them to create an entire world just to simulate it.... But today given the hardware and software improvements, why not? CryENGINE® 3 from Crytek is probably the best graphical looking engine for gaming today. While CryENGINE handles the physics of solid objects in the world very well, it does not address the physics of natural motion of characters in the game. Euphoria does this very well, as evidenced by gameplay in GTAIV. It is certain an improvement over Havok's ragdoll physics. While GTAIV used Euphoria to makes it human interactions very realistic, the rest of the Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) engine falls way short of the graphical bar set by Crytek. Most games/sims still lack realistic water simulations. The closest thing that comes to a full modelling of flowing water and other liquids would probably be HydroEngine. As mikew mentioned, Outerra procedural fractal terrain engine solves the scale-invariance problem for terrain. Until now, simulators like OrbiterSim had planets look very realistic from afar (in space) but when you get to lower attitudes it looks totally like crap. While conversely, flight simulators such as FSX look decent at low to mid altitude, but the gaming engine is not capable of handling or rendering the entire globe from in space.. There has always been this gap and disconnect, this discontinuity that was never bridged. The ultimate game would be a highly scalable, scale-invariant, highly modular and extensible 'universe simulation' platform that allowed anything and everything to be simulated in the same 'existence space' without having to break down each of these simulations into their own respective, independent and isolated component aspects. All the great simulations that we have today are piece-wise and only simulate one very limited domain. Most of the games and simulations these days are all still centered around the Dark Ages, when we thought the earth was flat. As far as I am aware, every game/simulation/etc to date that has ever existed only simulates (at best) classical Newtonian physics. Even in simulators like OrbiterSim that do planetary simulations very well, relativity is not taken into account. I can create a spaceship magically capable of going faster than the speed of light and nothing strange ever happens. Its almost like being able to break the sound barrier in TAW but there is no sonic boom. On the other end, no simulation has ever taken into account quantum mechanics on the micro scales. You even have things like the Blue Brain Project that try to functionally emulate the entire human brain on the cellular/neural level, but the model doesn't take into account the effects of QM! Sure the Blue Brain approach is better than the simplistic "point neurons" that came before it, but without QM being simulated in the simulation they cannot ever hope to accurately simulate the molecular effects and thus the cellular effects that arise and emerge from the lower level domains. There is no A.I. in games. No game or simulator has true 'human' modeled artificial intelligence. Chess doesn't count. Board games are for the most part all considered "solved" and NP complete. As far as most games goes, pathfinding should NOT be considered as "AI"... The deterministic scripts that run the planes in simulators are not "artificially intelligent" even though we refer to them as AI. This is also why no ELIZA bot will ever pass any true "Turing Test"... Human language (written and oral) evolved as a reductive symbolic tool to help assist intrapersonal and interpersonal communication of information in complex systems (the human brain). Its assbackwards to try and create an AI talking bot by somehow cramming in a bunch of cleverly worded phrases in such and such a way as to emulate natural human language and fool the human into believing the verbot is "AI".. To make a genuine emulation of human language a system as complex as the human itself would be required. Language is an emergent property of such a complexity of neurons, it cannot be simulated away with a bunch of if...then...else statements! Graphically, we have come a long way since the days of DOOM. But sadly as far as artificial intelligence goes, NPC's in the latest Crysis are just as dumb and overly simplistic as the zombies back in 95. If this wasn't the case, surely multiplayer and online play would not have retained the lure that it has today. Playing with AI is just not as immersive, dynamic and interactive as opposed to real humans, and it shows.
  5. Thanks for the info about Outerra. Looks really neat I wasn't aware this existed. This is the kind of engine that will be needed to make a scale-invariant game.. like a game where you have OrbiterSim, Flight Simulator, FPS, train simulator, ship and sub simulator, The Sims 3, etc all-in-one...
  6. Oh yes I've seen that one. I guess as far as size goes you can't beat 4kb. The reason I didn't include that one in the above was I thought IMHO the 4kb demo was a bit bland. The 177kb debris demo I included to illustrate the fact that for a mere 177kb TAW could have included a realistic looking train (rather than that trackless STEAM locomotive), buildings with realistic looking windows and textures, parking lots, fences, streets, lampposts, highways, pipes, etc you name it... The 177kb demo looks good on even the best hardware today at highest resolutions, its almost like a virtual city for 177kb. TAW could have been a lot more, but sadly it is not.
  7. These two screenshots are taken from Subversion, a recon fps hybrid strategy game being developed from the makers of DEFCON. This is a prime example of your reference to generation of procedural floors, buildings and cities and worlds in first-person shooters. There is a good paper that talks about terrain erosion and how hard it is to convincingly do that in real-time in games. This paper is dated 2004, and as you mentioned today with the ability to take advantage of the GPU we can already do this.. But I'm using this as an example to support your argument that back in 97/98 the DID TAW team could not have known about the possibilities that we have today. http://f22taw.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/terrain_generation.pdf But who said erosion was/is necessary? Project IGI and the JSF flight sim that came before it did not use erosion (it could have not) and yet the terrain still looks better (at ANY scale) than what we have in TAW. To an extent I would agree with the idiom "No matter what you do, somebody will tell you that you are an idiot"... However in this case its not that correct. Even a procedural terrain engine that did not include erosion effects would still look much better (especially at low altitudes) than the stuff we see in TAW. And I am not aware of IGI, or JSF having any issues with their streets?
  8. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it is always easier to retroactively criticize a game than the other way around... but there are many things the developers of ADF/TAW could have done (even given the technological capabilities of the day) to architecture a gaming simulator that is more extensible, more modular, more scale-invariant and more scalable to future hardware. As HF correctly pointed out, Microsoft Flight Simulator (in all its numerous variants) was never meant to be a "simulator", and it was only with the help of professional aircraft, weather, traffic, ATC, etc addons that the experience was truly brought to "as real as it gets" on MS Flight Sim platform. Firstly, on the graphical side alone the DID guys could have utilized procedure programming to make a version of TAW that would age more gracefully as it adapted to hardware improvements. Theoretically, nothing prevented the TAW dev team (even back then) to create a version of TAW that would on today's hardware look just as good as FSX (textures, materials, meshes, etc) and yet still be able to fit on a single CD-ROM. While many might argue that this procedural stuff is highly CPU intensive, (and it certainty would not be practical to have flown in this mode and scaled the graphics to such extremes back in 97) in its defense I would remark that any advancements in hardware would be commensurate with the additional cycles required to run and take advantage of such an implementation. It is simply the case of the developer not able or willing to think long term. Had they wanted to, they could have created a TAW that would look just as good by today's standards today as it did by last decades standards during the last decade. An extreme example that I would like to give for this kind of procedural programming would be the kkrieger 96kb 3d first-person-shooter game. This game is fully 3D, and it comes load with weapons, sounds, animations, etc... and ironically a single screenshot of the game is usually much larger than the actual game itself! see website: http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger#22 And probably 'debris' would be a better illustration of the powers of procedure graphics. It is hard to imagine that everything you see in this 3d scene can be crammed into a mere 177kb. A decent Fraps recording of this would run into the gigabytes! http://theprodukkt.com/debris Also for terrain, trees, and other natural things the DID dev team should have used fractal programming to make the terrain scalable at both extremes. As it is, we all now how bad TAW terrain looks at low altitude... in my opinion even at high altitude it looks like crap too. Had TAW utilized a fractal approach to terrain, weather, coastline and nature that aspect of the graphics would be orders of magnitude better than it is today. This would have the added effect of allowing the entire world (earth/globe) as our theater. For example, the Mandelbrot set is one of the most simplistic mathematical fractals, defined by a very short and simple equation. And yet it is non-repeating (kind of like PI) and contains within this structure infinitely more complexity than the entire universe itself! Unlike that of most things in the physical world, for fractals of these sort the more one "zooms" in the more detail and complexity there is! (usually it is the other way around) Project I.G.I (a first person shooter by Eidos Interactive) was one of the better known games at the time that used this sort of fractal mathematics to create huge scaled convincing terrain for the maps and levels. It is said that Eidos Interactive used its Joint Strike Fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_%28video_game%29) flight simulator terrain engine (which was also fractal) in Project IGI to give the player a map space that was infinite. Of course there is not a whole lot of fun in walking around trying to find the ends of the world in a fps, but this kind of scalability would have lend itself well for a game like TAW. Eidos JSF btw was published back in 1997. And it had a (which I believe is a simulation first) fly-by-wire system in the JSF that prevented the pilot from accidentally or purposefully crashing the jet into the ground or any other terrain! For those of you without the full version, you can download the demo and test out the fly-by-wire and procedural terrain here: http://tracker.5star-network.com/download.mis?id=16620&siteId=1
  9. So you think your special?

    Sweeper, is the dude in the YouTube video subliminally giving the audience the 'finger'?
  10. YouTube video of a real life head on collision between two BNSF freight trains FRA accident investigation report: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/Accident_Investigation/2006/hq200648v.pdf --- My screenshots of attempted reenactment in RailWorks 2 with Dash 9 addon: Here you can download the route and scenario file that I made: http://railworks.s3.amazonaws.com/PTC.rwp (PTC stands for "Positive Train Control") Video capture:
  11. So you think your special?

    Just don't' abuse the "power"... Swat Team kills family dogs with child watching: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/06/swat-team-kills-dog-with-child-present-arrest-father-in-misdemeanor-marijuana-bust/ Then a couple months later.... Swat team fires 71 rounds in less than 7 seconds into man inside his home doing a search warrant. His wife and little kid was present. Wife called 911 but ambulance was denied access, SWAT let the man bleed to a painful death one hour later. SWAT claimed man was pointing a M-16 rifle at them, and that the man fired first. In reality it was proven that the victim's rifle had its safety on and he couldn't have fired a single round.. What happened was one of the incompetent swat guys tripped and fell on himself at the doorway entrace, he accidentally fired off a round and his teammates thought he was being fired on by the dude in the house so they went all out on him to terminate him with 71 rounds.. and then when they realized it was a mistake they denied him medical care and let him bleed to death so that they can cover up their mistake and lied about who fired first. http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/article_c74d45b2-309f-52cb-a4a6-dd219f43c3fb.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnYV4nrNdjA Then just the other day.... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/mta-officers-detain-man-for-taking-pictures/ MTA officers detained and harassed a man for taking pictures at a light rail station. The officers misapplied the PATRIOT ACT and was incorrect when instructing the man that he had no rights to take pictures of the train because it was government property and trains are part of the national infrastructure and thus covered under the Patriot Act since it was a "national security" issue... Later MTA admitted that the public can indeed take pictures of the trains, but the innocent victim was already harassed and detained by the MTA police. Land of the free and home of the brave. ~Where at least I know I'm we can pretend we're free!~ And you guys thought I was trigger happy in F-22 TAW. A lot of times truth is STRANGER than fiction. The movie TRAINING DAY doesn't seem so far fetched after all! So moderators, please don't abuse your powers! P.S. Hawkx, it's "you're special" not "your special"
  12. I don't expect TAW (1998) to have FSX (2006) graphics. I'm not making such a comparsion. I'm speaking about the modeling of the flight characteristics, not just of the graphical eye candy. PMDG's 747 (2005) logic is in large part based off Aerowinx (1995,1997). The 3d mesh and textures that the PMDG guys created with 3ds max to an extent just cosmetics, it is the flight characteristics and systems logic that makes the 747 a joy to fly. Aerowinx in its original form was a DOS simulator of the Boeing 747-400 that could run on a 486. In fact it had literally NO graphics at all! All it was was the cockpit panels (2D panels, not virtual cockpit) and everything was fly by data (it didn't simulate looking out the window or any external views, etc) It had ZERO graphics but it didn't need graphics. Aerowinx was a DOS simulation of 99% of the systems of the Boeing 747-400. Many people have joked that Aerowinx == PMDG without the Flight Simulator graphical "add on"... http://www.aerowinx.com/html/automatic_flight.html For those of you who might think that Aerowinx 747 would have taken too much disk space, the whole 747 is only just 2MB! You can try it out yourself! Default mission is full LAND3 autoland. So if you have DOS/XP or VMWare you can see just how much fidelity can be packed into such a small size. http://f22taw.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/747_PS1_DOS.7z The 747 in TAW does not take off or land realistically. I recorded its flight plan in ACMI and compared with flight path of PMDG 747 in FS9/FSX and it is worlds apart. TAW's 747 does not fly like a 747, I'm not even talking about the low polygons or whatnot... Aerowinx, even in DOS on a 486, emulated the accurate flight characteristics of the 747... While something like a civilian heavy jumbo might be considered by some as tangential to a fighter jet game/sim, TAW does not even model the flight characteristics of the other fighter jets accurately, either. It seems like the F-15, F-18, MIGs, etc all are one logical plane just with different graphical models attached to them. http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Project_Apollo_for_Orbiter#NASSP_7_.28beta.29 Additionally, even within the confines and context of the F-22 itself, things are very problematic... To give an illustration, the NASSP addon for OrbiterSim emulates the actual Apollo Guidance Computer by utilizing a compiled and emulated version of the actual operating system source codes of the Apollo computers which were released by NASA. As far as AGC simulation goes, this is as 'real as it gets' because it is running on the same underlying software that actual apollo astronaughts used back in the 60s/70s. Not only is much of the F-22 classified, no one, not even DID, really had a clue even how the systems really operate in the F-22... And we can forget about Lockeed Martin releasing any source codes. (heck even Atari isn't releasing any source codes!!!) Basically DID had to "make stuff up"... its more into the fantasy category than the simulation category... In the Apollo NASSP addon for OrbiterSim players are encouraged to use pdf versions of the actual Apollo flight manuals to reenact the missions... The same can not be said for TAW. But even in things that they COULD have done and details that they SHOULD have implemented, they also failed to do so. Why is it that I could sneak up on Eagle flight basically a feet behind his airplane and not be destroyed by the jet wash from his full afterburner? And when I buzz the tower and go supersonic, no sonic boom, no nothing... I could fly indefinitely at exactly Mach 1.00 and no damage will ever happen to the plane... Is it realistic? Can the real F-22 do this? And in the TAW universe the earth is flat. Even Flight Simulator 95 modeled earth's curvature! Sometimes I would go to EMCON 1, land right next to one of the buildings in one of the cities, shutdown my engines and hide behind a building and yet somehow the enemy plane will still get a radar lock on me, still fires, and still hits me on the ground. The F-22 ADF/TAW manual talks the talk about the missiles and how they operate but all of this is not functionally emulated. The game does not walk the walk. There is no true embodiment, missiles have shot me down in situations where there is no "physical" way it could have found me. My criticism is centered on ADF/TAW lack of inherent consistency within its own simulated world. To an extent, we can forgive TAW for not accurately simulating the 'real world' F-22, but we should not overlook inconsistencies and self-contradictions within the context of the simulator game itself. In the TAW universe there doesn't HAVE to be aircraft carriers or buildings on the ground. Yet if DID is going to bake in aircraft carriers why didn't they emulate the purpose of these aircraft carriers? Why can't jets takeoff and land on these aircraft carriers? If DID is going to throw in buildings and trees and power-lines and roads and on top of that if they are going to simulate RCS and stuffs, why can't I hide behind a building? Why can enemy planes still target and lockon to me when I'm behind brick walls in EMCON 1, with no external stores, engines are turned off and shutdown? And I don't know if anyone noticed, but the magical trackless train that they included in the sim, its a steam locomotive. I mean here you have F-22 and all the futuristic or hi-tech weapons on the battlefield and they can't think of anything better to do than include a STEAM locomotive?! Maybe someone is going to tell me that just like the "UFO", the steam locomotive was an easter egg done for kicks.
  13. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's superman! Oh no wait I think it is the Nimitz. I couldn't really tell until I got close enough to land but then again TAW being TAW, it wouldn't let me land! Okay but seriously this aircraft carrier looks like it was etched in by a kid. Again, this is how a real ship simulator does things: And its really funny how trains in TAW can be heard on the ground and they seem to be louder than fighter jet engines. Not only that, they are speeding in the Arabian sand without train tracks! No disrespect to the Middle East, but this ain't no aladdin majic carpet game! If I wanted an X-Mas screensaver with Santa flying across the globe on trackless trains I'd get a screensaver just for that.. DID doesn't need to help out the inner child in me. I guess I won't be trying to reenact "Unstoppable" in TAW anytime soon. Through for that fantasy I might have to turn to RailWorks train simulator... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-OKysUqskE&hd=1 I think it is clear that from a graphical standpoint and functional emulation/simulation standpoint TAW doesn't really model anything very well. Trains defy the laws of physics, airliners have better cornering performance than a compact car, and aircraft carriers can't even serve its single most important function (to facilitate the transport, takeoff and landing of fighter jets). So I mean I don't want to get all philosophical or whatnot, but if an aircraft carrier in TAW doesn't even serve its primary function, then what is it good for but as a cute little proxy filler object for "looks"? Even then, it ain't much to look at. As none of the ships sail realistically or convincingly at all. So these crude objects can't even serve its secondary sea worthy purpose. Defcon, a perfect example of a high-level abstract strategy game that convincingly abstracts away the details and actual underlying mechanics of war: It doesn't have the looks, it doesn't have the physics, it doesn't have the functional modeling nor the fidelity and realism. So when push comes to shove, at the end of the day, just what is TAW? An abstraction? A high level jack of all trades but master of none? But even if one were to enter the realm of strategy games and entertain the notion that TAW is a valid contender in that arena there is dedicated strategy sims that do the job much better than TAW. I view these pertinent explorations into the dichotomy of dualities of the ontology and teleological justification for TAW's existential crisis as a somewhat intractable dilemma.
  14. F-22 TAW (Total Air War) is a great game. All simulation /games are ultimately "smokes and mirrors", but it is the functional level of emulation and the detailed intricacies that lead to dynamic emergence that sets one game/sim apart from another. Alas, we do not currently have a holistic and coherently integrated "world within a world" type of sim, so the best we can hope for is to address these compulsions of subjections to exhilarating and categorically diverse experiential qualia through that of vicarious empathy in a piecewise manner. For example, TAW is a decent (in fact IMHO its still the best) F-22 Simulator. But I don't think it really lives up to the name "TOTAL AIR WAR". Have any of you ever seen "Broken Arrow" or "Air Force One"? Old movies I know, but TAW (and TAWBC for that matter) does not lead itself well to being adapted or modified and customized to reenact plausible air scenarios such as the loss of thermonuclear weapons (even the arcade game F-22 Lighting had tactical nukes!) and the insuring helicopter, train fights in Broken Arrow or the exciting mid air refueling in Air Force One to the exhilarating of "Executive Decision"... etc This is how a Boeing 747-400 civilian jet is as modeled and simulated in TAW. I'm not an airliner pilot, but believe me, I've seen this thing "takeoff" in TAW and it was taxing around the corners like a Toyota Corolla in a parking lot. A there is like a total of ten polygons for that entire 747. (okay maybe 20 polygons, but you get the point) Don't judge a book by its cover, you say? Fair, TAW is a ten year old sim and back then even I was having troubles running it at a decent frame-rate before the purchase of my first voodoo gfx card. But all lack of eye-candy aside, the flight characters is not like that of a 747. It might as well be a Cessna for all the difference that makes. And for an air simulation game, if you don't have the flight characteristics modeled correctly and you don't have the visuals modeled correctly (where are the flaps, spoilers, etc etc etc?????) then what are you left with? An abstraction of a high-level strategy game? The rudimentary AWACS/ACMI/campaigns notwithstanding, TAW was never intended to be a strategy game. Now compare and contrast to PMDG 744 taking off and landing in FS9/FSX:
  15. CPS_Bomber, "Astronaughts".. haha good one! Looks like we have something in common. Here is the list... I forgot to redact the EXIF data so I'm sure you could figure out what photoshop I did this with. 1. Earth has sun shining the wrong side 2. The foreground is too dark compared to the background props 3. On the moon there is no stars visible with the camera they used, but the haze that was present along the mountain ride was removed and the background space was colored in as absolute black. 4. Main US flag missing one star 5. Flag on the LM inverted 6. Flag on the astronaught was his backpack facing us also inverted 7. astronaught giving the salut has one of the red stripes missing on his shoulder patch flag. 8. Since apollo missions required the CM pilot to stay in lunar orbit and since all photos taken on the moon required a chest mounted camera, in any given lunar surface photo only ONE astronaughty can be in the pic at any one time.. therefore it is impossible to have FOUR astronaughts in the same photo. 9. you have to look hard to see it but two of the crosshairs are missing. 10 . If you look closely the astronaught that was facing the camera man should have the camera man reflected in his visor/helmet, but he is not... 11. The whole Apollo moon landings were staged in hollywood like production studios in area 51 12. Just like OBL's sea burial by seals team six. ANd of course that fake CIA rendered pic they released for PR on the War on Terra. 13. Don't forget WTC7. Now there is some real magic there.