Falklands 82 - Sim

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Dit_Dah_Dit, Jan 25, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Still work in progress.

    Sea Harrier take off via Hermes flight deck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_u5vE7JJU&feature=player_embedded#!
     
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4djpJpRUVz8&feature=player_embedded

    Jet Thunder Falklands Sea Harrier Vertical Landing

    A follow-up to our latest video showing Sea Harrier departure to a mission - this time is the return back to the HMS Hermes carrier for a vertical landing - which requires good practice and understanding of the flight envelope at hover. Fully 3D/6DOF/TrackIR virtual cockpit is shown also with the view "looking around the cockpit bars" at about 0:40s of video).

    Things still missing / not developed yet:
    - HUD should be in Pilot Interpreted Approach (PIA mode) providing recovery guidance, which then switches to V/STOL mode at 0.1 miles of the ship

    - no jet wash or any related particle effects caused by vectored thrust jet blast over the carrier's deck

    - no proper landing gear suspension anim displayed by the 3D model aircraft in external view

    - aircraft carrier is still absolutely stable; in final product we plan to simulate it's pitching and rolling deck, specially in rough seas/bad weather (typical in the South Atlantic).

    - no radio communication between Sea Harrier and HMS Hermes control tower.

    Edited: To remove the M word
     
  3. Jet Thunder: Falklands Air-to-Air mission tests

    Sea Harrier FRS.1 intercepting low flying A-4B Skyhawks of the coast of Pebble Island/Falklands islands. The radio comms between Sea Harrier CAP and Royal Navy vessels below aren't ready yet. Argentinean flights are attempting to evade, like they did in the real events, because they didn't had enough spare fuel or air-to-air ordnance to properly fight the Sea Harriers.

    Disclaimer: special effects, such as smoke and explosions, are placeholders. Will be completely re-made for final release. Goal here is to test mission functionality from start to end (A.I., weapons, wingmen). The mission is to provide CAP (Combat Air Patrol) for Royal Navy vessels in the Falklands strait.

    P.S.: The tester is using unlimited weapons and guiding arrow icons in this video, but ended using only 2 missiles and a small amount of 30mm ammo.

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=GB#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=WWokP4ARdfc
     
  4. Looks good any plans for a Mac version or XBOX ?

    Keep up the good work - looks fantastic
     
  5. Hmmm, Thunder Works has found a publisher, and looks like the game will be released this year.

    Only the Crab GR1 will be available with the SHAR arriving later (which I found a bit bizzare)!

    Any-road-up, here is what their new publisher has to say:

    "Thunderworks and Aerosoft are glad to announce they have created a partnership to release Jet Thunder: Falklands late this year.

    While created by a small team, the game and graphics engine behind Jet Thunder is powerful, modern and flexible. Even at high speed and at low level the terrain is beautifully rendered while the skies and the weather are highly realistic. The fully functional virtual cockpits allows you to use the detailed aircraft systems so you are able to perform the tasks the mission system will prepare for you.

    The Falkland conflict between the UK and Argentina is seen in different light by different people. In the UK it is regarded as the last time the UK showed what naval power could do and it saved the Thatcher government. It is also seen as a closed issue. In Argentina it kick-started democracy and is far from a closed issue. It was a relatively clean war, if such a thing exists, where civilians were not a target. It is also the last war were two air forces of roughly equal power (though very different in size and style) battled for air superiority. It is an ideal theatre for a serious combat flight simulator!

    Because Jet Thunder: Falklands Conflict is a large and complex project it will be release in three 'stages' where each stage builds upon the feedback from customers and adds more features. The first two products will be digital download only, while the last (and final) version will be available in download and worldwide in boxed form. Splitting the project in stages also will enable us to gradually increase the complexity of systems and introduce this generation of jets to customers who have never flown combat flight simulators.

    The first release (Jet Thunder: Royal Air Force Harrier) will include the full Falklands islands as a backdrop for the missions flown with the Royal Air Force 1(F) Squadron's Harrier. Starting from the HMS Hermes the user will have battle the Argentinean fighters in support of the Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers, defend the British ships from attack, prepare the landing operations and provide close air support for the Royal Marines and Paratroopers. The Harrier is expertly modeled and fully operational. From a 'cold and dark' start, all the way to shut down the systems are as they are in the real aircraft. As far as we know this will be the first time full VTOL procedures will be realistically possible in a simulator. Release is scheduled for late 2010, download only, at a of price €20 (plus VAT when applicable).

    In 2011 there will be additions that will add many more flyable aircraft, the Argentinean side, and finally the boxed/download version that combines it all."


    Edited: To remove the M word
     
  6. Looks fascinating. Il be interested in how it all turns out. Hope it isnt a big let down as it truly looks promising
     
  7. HiRes GR3 Model

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Someone on the Forum asked:

    So I got to thinking it must be damn tough to try to engineer specific historical scenarios for any game. I mean there were so many bits of chance and human error involved in so many aspects of the Falklands conflict I can't imagine trying to build the single-player missions along the same trajectory they took in real life. For instance if players have better control of Argentine fusing/weapon selection how does the single player work if ships vital to the landings are destroyed? Do you just get the next setup as it actually occurred disregarding the events of the previous mission as flown?


    As far as single-player scripted missions there are a few things that I think could impact the "fun factor", especially when flying as Argentina:

    1) Will Argentine anti-air units attack their own forces?
    2) Will bomb fusing be player controlled?
    3) Can snake-eyes be used any Argentine air group or just the naval air groups?
    4) How will recon and exocet employment work? Or will we just get a canned mission to fly to a specific point and let them fly?
    5) Will distance and fuel consumption be accurately modeled? I mean during the landing at San Carlos basically there was only 20 minutes total Harrier CAP time in every hour(10 minutes each on station by two separate two-ship elements) because the carriers moved so far out to protect from exocet strikes. The Argentine forces were equally limited in the AO even with aerial refueling en route. Not sure how fun it will be making long transits for a few scant minutes in the AO, especially for more casual simmers.

    I think it will be very frustrating to fly as Argentina if we are limited by the problems they had with their weapons and employment.


    As far as mission-building possibilities(not sure if an editor has been announced), I'm wondering if we will have the capability to fight the entire conflict differently. For example keeping the Mirage IIIs in the fight and not restricting them to homeland defense. Keeping the Argentine naval assets in the fight(especially the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo). Utilizing larger strike groups to saturate British ship defenses. Directing the placement of ground units, EWR and air defense systems. I really don't see how it can be done without a dynamic campaign engine. It will be very tedious to build the missions in a linear manner with just a basic editor.

    So what do you think? Can this sim's missions be historically accurate AND fun at the same time? The more I think about it the harder for me it is to imagine there won't have to be some compromises between the two along the way.

    The official answer was:

    1) this is important, it's the reason for the bright yellow stripes you see in Argentine aircraft. It may go like this: at the beginning of the campaign, when there is no yellow stripes yet, you're in danger of being hit by own AAA. Specially at the first two weeks of the campaign. In these days, a Mirage guy was shot down and killed at Port Stanley (Captain Garcia Cuerva), and an A4 pilot killed at Goose Green (Lt Gavazzi). Then the textures will change (yellow stripes) and AA personal briefed about yellow stripes, so it may not happen anymore or not with the same frequency.

    2)This is interesting, I had requests for this, it's technically possible to code it that way indeed. Would we leave the player in the dark regarding it, or give some clues?

    3) Just the naval air groups

    4) recon will be needed in order to get targets marked for a second sortie (this time an attack sortie), in the linear campaign. In the dynamic campaign we foresee, which may run technically like an strategy game in background, recon is a huge issue, it's Fog of War related: only fixed (static/strategic targets ie airbases and cities) appear in the map at start. Mobile enemy units will only be drawn in map if a recon plane was within sensor range of 'em. So, it may affect directly in the Exocet/Super Etendard missions, which I repeat, will not be canned, this is one of the reasons the Super Etendard/Exocet combo and missions will be available only in the full boxed release with the campaign next year.
    It was dependant of Neptune planes, getting intel on the position of any british vessel, which will then have the position ploted to the player in the campaign's room. It will be basically a game of watch and wait, quite different and extremely relying in the 'dynamicness'. Once the Neptune recon plane spots a potential naval target, get its coords radio'ed back to HQ, and a symbol will appear in the campaign map screen. Player will then set it as the mission target, gets a SUE flight, edit its waypoints, loadout, verify weather forecast etc. This is a good example of the JT planned dynamic campaign gameplay.

    5) This is a polemic point indeed. It's one of the reasons we'll be starting with the shorter ground attack missions (specially the ones starting at FOB San Carlos), while the full missions you mention will be left for the full release, specially with dynamic campaign in the background. There's a lot to do in those long transits anyway, and a lot of parallel activity to look at or be informed/reported of.

    Speaking of Argentina equipment, one thing people from argentina asked, is if we're able to simulate the random equipment failures they suffered in nearly any sortie. It's common to read reports of their sorties and it's always something like "Number 4 had to abort because of electrical failure, so the package moved ahead with 3 airplanes." This IMHO should be an option, on/off failures. Want full realism, to experience the frustration of those pilots? Have failures enabled.

    Regarding fun and accuracy, this is another polemic point. When we call JT a "simulation", when talking to veterans, it's viewed with regard and some respect. When we call it "game", it's viewed as a form of inferior media, and even disrespectful for those who fought in the actual war! So, I've learned to always call it a simulation. But the "fun" in a simulation is to represent reality "as is", no matter if it was boring or not. This is a philosophical discussion that we may have for hours. But summing up, when we tried to promote JT as a game and approaching game publishers, it failed, we lost a lot of time by barking up the wrong tree. When we stated "it's a simulation" and looked for a simulation company (Aerosoft), it all went smoothly. So, lesson learned.

    dited: To remove the M word
     
  8. what the flying feck is that word malvinas doing there, its called the fecking Falkland islands FFS
     
  9. The software developers are Argentinian which explains why the M word is in there.

    Must admit that there promotional work is biased towards Argentina.

    When posting the M word did stick in my throat somewhat, but I was trying to be diplomatic and show the world we have moved on.

    Have removed the offending word shippers, however, if you spot it again do let me know and I will try to stop your blood pressure rising.

    Cornwall gets my vote for independence me hearty.
     
  10. Gr3 now has textures added:

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Poignant now that the Harriers have ceased to be operational.

    But it looks like the publisher is releasing the Sim in stages, starting with Ground Attack, in January 2011. It would be cheaper to wait until the boxed release in September 2011 by the look of it.

    Maybe they need the money?

    Jet Thunder: Ground Attack
    includes: BAe Harrier GR.3 and FMA IA-58 Pucara
    Release January 2011, download only
    price €22.63 (€27.95)

    [​IMG]


    Jet Thunder: Air Combat (add-on)
    includes: BAe Sea Harrier and Mirage
    Release June 2011, download only
    Add-on, needs Jet Thunder: Ground Attack
    price €14.53 (€17.95)


    [​IMG]


    Jet Thunder: Falklands

    Includes the A4B Skyhawk and Super Etendar + all the additional features of this simulation.
    Full game, download and boxed
    Release September 2011
    Full price €32.35 (€39.95) same for box and download
    Update price €14.53 (€17.95), update assumes both previous releases installed


    [​IMG]
     
  12. All very nice, But for us computer illiterates is there a board version.
    Mixy Blob in San Carlos Water. throw Double six to get out.
    Instead of the "Go to Prison" patch, you could have a Stenna Repair Station etc.
    This way if you are losing you can like Rum Rat does, upend the board.
    Less expensive than replacing the computer. :wink:
     
  13. Come on Trelawney me hearty invest a couple of bob. You might like it!

    Imagine if you will ...

    Dogfighting against Daggers, Skyhawks and Pucaras even flying the ground attack Harrier.

    It's been discussed on the Thunderworks Forum, and it was agreed to not go 100% historical (just 90%) which means that you're tootling along in your crab-air strike package to drop some CBUs on argentinean arty positions, but suddenly you see a pair of delta-winged shapes.

    What you do?

    You jettison your CBUs and.. you're in a Harrier, don't try to run away from a Mirage or Dagger! ... So you must prepare to dogfight with 30mm Adens.

    It could be another strike package of Daggers which will do exactly the same (jettison the bombs and get into defensive BFM), or... it may be Mirage IIIs with air-to-air ordnance being vectored to intercept your flight!

    Thunderworks even discussed how the AIM-9 Sidewinder should work in the Gr.3 - in IvanK's words: "RAF GR3's had absolutely no Software mods from a display point of view to employ the AIM9. All that was done was to fit a launcher rail. Provide a cooling switch for he pilot to turn on seeker cooling, and make provision for Aim9 tone to be heard in the pilots headphones. No additional HUD symbology was provided. A pickle button would fire the selected AIM9. In the case of the GR3 the AIM9's were only usable in Boresight mode."

    Apparently in the loadout screen, you can simply arm your Gr.3 with Sidewinders and go Helicopter or Pucara hunting instead of obeying mission orders.

    Or you can *create* such missions (even against Daggers and Skyhawks) using the standalone mission editor which will be provided as well.
     
  14. No I'll just stick to uckers.....and piloting my fighter on google earth :wink:
     
  15. whens this game out
     
  16. When you get your next Gold Card :lol:
     
  17. I have to say I am a not a fan of these simulated war games, all this 'Call of Duty' 'Medal of honour' etc.
    Having lost my ship down south, I can't say I'd be a big fan of this one either. War is not pleasant and I find this interest in simulated killing, maiming, and death and destruction a little distasteful. Each to their own, I'm off to play Zelda on the Wii now. :wink:
     
  18. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    I can see your point 42, especially if you've been there and lost mates/ship. But, you can't stop programmers writing what Joe Bloggs wants to play on his PC, Wii or PS3. People want to play war games, whether that be on a board, chess or Risk for example or via their screen.

    I think the younger generation might be becoming brainwashed because of their exposure to first person shoot em up games. Who knows and time will tell. :roll:
     
  19. Yeah Wits, I understand there will be people who will buy/play these games, it's just not me. As I said, each to their own. I do question the programmers morals, have they ever been in the situation to watch shipmates in distress, or to see their ship disappear beneath the waves with shipmates onboard? No, I doubt it, because if they had, they would have more respect than to write a 'game' about it.
    Back to slaying mythical monsters via Zelda for me........ :roll:
     

Share This Page