Chronocidal

Actually, no, there is absolutely no camera control in limiter off mode. It's stuck like that, and the developers seem to be completely convinced it's the best possible way to play it. All the expert mode does is make it so you can roll the plane, rather than steering left and right automatically. Many people chatting on the developer forums have been questioning whether any of the developers have actually every played an aircraft related game before, and I'd have to agree with them. This game has more in common with something like Freespace or X-wing/Tie Fighter than Ace Combat. All it's missing is lasers, and you'd have purely sci-fi physics. Console players actually may have a big advantage over PC users on this, just for the controls. Unless you're using an Xbox controller, or something similar on your PC, I just don't see a good way to configure the controls to be useful. I was really hopeful that this would be something like Ace Combat on the PC, and finally allow me to use my good HOTAS system, but the control scheme was never meant for a stick and throttle. When you need a thumbstick to control the camera correctly, and some maneuvers require you to press the throttle and brake at the same time (not possible when using an actual throttle), you're just better off using a gamepad. Besides, Saitek sticks like the X52 are causing the game to fail anyway. I'm one of the few who've gotten it to work, and really, it's not worth the effort. I can imagine it might eventually turn out to be a good substitute for Ace Combat on the PC, but if I have to use a gamepad to play it, I might as well go back to Ace Combat, and be rid of the screwy camera system. Right now, Ubi seems dead set on making something to appeal to a different audience than sim fans, and they've definitely succeeded at that, if only by completely pissing off the people who like sims. The arguments on the developer forums have reached absolutely juvenile levels, mostly between people who know something about aircraft (and who realize the problems with the game), and those who don't care a bit about any realism or accuracy, and just want something where they can blow stuff up in something that flies kinda like an airplane (and I use "kinda" in the loosest sense of the word). Basically, comparing any flight sim to HAWX is like comparing something like Gran Turismo to a game like Lego Racers. Same concept (flying/driving), completely different treatment. If you've never played a flight game in your life, yeah, this game might be very fun. But it's a lot to swallow if you have any knowledge of real aircraft. Btw, anyone who wonders what to expect, and whether they did any research on how different planes fly needs to watch this.

To tell the truth, I'm absolutely pissed by their inattention to anything resembling a normal PC control config. They just seem incapable of understanding how PC gamers don't have 3 hands to run the throttle, stick, and MOUSE at the same friggen time. It's like they ported the console version without thinking. Even the game menus just don't make sense on a PC (who the #$%! uses the ESC key to continue??) The camera system is meant to be used as an axis based system, like on a console version with a thumbstick, and assigning it to a hat switch means the camera only snaps to it's maximum range.. meaning, directly above, below, or behind you in exterior view, and above and to the sides in cockpit. And on top of that, you have to "activate" the camera by holding down a button before it'll actually move. Hope you didn't want to fly and look around at the same time. Rudder pedals don't work either, unless you like flying the plane with them entirely (left brake axis controls roll, right brake controls pitch, and the yaw function actually throttles ). I had to unplug my pedals before the plane would stop spinning into the ground from conflicting inputs. The game registers 2 separate joysticks being plugged in, but can't separate the control inputs to do different things. Coupled with all the wonky camera problems and the fact that their flight model is complete crap (no, banking does not put you in a gentle turn, the only way to turn is roll 90 degrees and pull back), I think I'll be passing on this till it hits a bargain bin. Btw, I finally figured out the core of why I hate the assistance off cam, and what made it feel so.. well, just wrong... They claim it's a situational awareness tool.. ok, maybe. But I finally realized what I was doing wrong while using it... I was actually focusing on my target. That situational awareness comes at a price. Yes, you can see your target.. but unless you are also watching YOUR OWN PLANE, you don't know what you're doing. Being inside, and seeing through the pilot's eyes usually gives you a very clear picture of how you're flying (blue is sky, brown is the ground, etc). But with the camera fixed to the world spatial system, you have to keep track of your plane on top of your enemy's. Between that, and an inability to aim, I just hope and pray someone finds a way to either add more cameras to that mode, or disable it entirely. The development team just appears totally inept to me as of now. The game is very pretty, I'll give it that. But under that Ferrari exterior, the engine was salvaged off a broken down moped. Worthless physics, nonsensical dimensions, and nausea inducing disorientation from the camera system. The only thing I see saving this game at this point is the PC modding community.

ok, that alto is gonna give me nightmares... But I agree, the ones above are awesome.

I'd definitely recommend waiting, or at least sticking with the PC version in the hope that a modding community will rise up to fix the problems it has. As is, this game is so full of "wtf are you thinking?" errors, I'm seriously considering skipping it altogether. The more I play this, the more it seems like the demo is pretty much a beta at best, no matter how polished it looks. Just had an interesting experience trying to make sense of the hud view, and whoever designed it has probably never seen how a real hud even works, and has serious issues with what "level" means.. the horizon line is wrong of all things, if you try to level with it, you climb pretty steadily.. combined with the nonsensical units system they seem to be using, the instruments are entirely useless.

Well, for what it does, the program appears to be pretty useful, laying out models flat and all. The problem is how it chooses to break things up. With a little editing, the YF-19 could be a perfect model. The majority of it is just fine, especially the nose structure, and legs, which worked pretty flawlessly. In reality, I just ignored a lot of the smaller tabs, and cut them off if there was enough support around them from larger tabs. The biggest issues I had were with the wings and tails. They worked okay in the end, but some parts had several folds that just can't be made with a single piece. It's like there were supposed to be bits cut out to reshape the part into a curve, but the cutouts didn't happen. The main body had some problems too, but I think that's my fault for not folding something the right direction. The underside is such a complex mess of folds, it wouldn't surprise me if I skipped some step entirely. I'd actually like to see what kind of interface Pep has, just to see if it's possible to pick where seams are made, and maybe resize the tabs it makes.

I do think the Pepakura models could be done well, with a little revision. The biggest problems are the way it breaks down parts, and the way it makes the tabs. Best example of how Pepakura can foul up is the piece meant to be the head laser on the YF-19. I hope you don't mind, but here's a screenshot of that particular part. First problem is, this is the worst possible way to make a box of those proportions. It'd make much more sense to have the folds on the long edges, instead of the tiny ends of the laser. Second problem, the tabs are over twice as big as the panel they need to glue to. Without massive extra folds, that structure will not work. I had this issue quite frequently, and I lost track of how many tabs I had to cut down to near nothing before they fit where they needed to go. Also, one thing I changed quite a bit was the placement of the tabs. The pieces weren't mirrored across the aircraft, and the tabs would be on the top of one wing, and the bottom of the other. It wound up warping the wings pretty bad on my first try. If it's not a problem I may try and update the YF-19 a bit, or at least come up with a list of possible changes, just to solve some of the structural issues, and make it a little more possible to fold. Some of the smaller panels really need to be relocated to other parts before this thing will become very buildable.

Nope, I made sure to change those, they were labeled as knots. And even in metric, those speeds are ridiculous.

*sigh* ... ubi... really?? Well, that does answer the question of why it won't hover... they replaced the thrust vectoring system with an afterburner. What amazes me, especially for a Tom Clancy game, is how many completely .. well, just plain wrong things I keep seeing. For instance.. in the opening cutscene.. do they even know what illuminating a target means? It usually means you're painting a target with a laser designator for homing purposes... and it's not very effective if you attack from the opposite side the laser is pointing at. Also, I keep hearing someone chattering about "select zone whatever".. apparently, it's been completely lost to the ages what that phrase, "select zone 5," even originally meant in Top Gun. That was a Tomcat specific phrase, indicating the 5th stage of the plane's progressive afterburner. In other words, it means to turn tail and run. EDIT: Actually I think I was partly wrong about this. I still think it's being misused for the aircraft (most engines now have continuously throttleable afterburners without zones), but the phrase "select zone 4 and extend" meant to get some range between planes. Also, on the off chance that you actually bother to read your HUD for airspeed, it's obvious they did no research into the actual performance of these planes. Cruising speed in the F-16 (not braking or accelerating) is a whopping TWO THOUSAND KNOTS. Max braking in normal flight only goes down to 1000 knots. That's over 2300 mph in full afterburner, or over Mach 3. Actually using the afterburner, and accelerating level, I got up easily over 3800 knots, or Mach 5.7. Yeah, that's realistic. I dunno which is funnier.. the cruising speed being on a par with the SR-71, or the slowest you can go still being Mach 1.3. I'm hoping against hope that this is just a math error in the code that's multiplying the numbers, and they'll fix it before the final release.. because for a brand so dedicated to military technology in other games, this is just inexcuseable. I dunno.. the more I look at the nuts and bolts of this game, the more I think they have no clue what they're doing. Edit: Oh this one's killer.. so I smack in the ground on purpose to test something.. and the first thing I hear on the comm traffic is "Lead has hit the ground- notify search and rescue."

Hmm, I'll have to agree with you then, I hadn't read about the other options the limiter-off mode was supposed to include. Yah, implementation is really the error there. Maybe they thought all those options would get too complicated for consoles. *shrugs* I'd still love to see the options all available in the PC version. The HUD thing I just noticed today too. I'd been flying behind the plane for a while, and the HUD sucks arse the way they did it. No instruments, no indicators, nothing. And as useful as that lead-point indicator is, they obviously have given up on any kind of realism in that regard. I get the feeling they actually might be just ignoring the HUD because you're supposed to be wearing one of those new fangled tracking helmets. On top of that though, even in an F-16 with a full bubble cockpit, they apparently can't figure out how to let your head turn far enough to look behind you. You just kinda hit a stopping point, and then the view floats awkwardly if you're trying to follow a target. I don't think you can even turn far enough to see your own wingtip. The external camera does it fine, but unless something like a TrackIR activates some kind of expanded field of view, the cockpit view is really getting the short end of the stick in this game. Frankly, I don't care if I am looking at my own headrest.. I still want to look behind me. As for advantages to the PC version.. well, besides the potential for mods and such, PC peripherals for flight games blow consoles out of the water (or at least have in the past). Not only do you have a large variety of stick/throttle/rudder pedal options if you want them (not to mention the ability to configure your controls however you please), but you've even got stuff like head tracking sensors to look around with. Also, personally, I tend to prefer PC game matching systems for hosting/joining over anything on consoles, but that's just me. About the Harrier though.. do you mean they added it, but gave it no VTOL-type capabilities at all? Does it at least fly really slow if you hit the brakes?

The demo should be coming out sometime this week for PC and PS3, I dunno why the Xbox version came out first. I am looking forward to the PC demo still though, maybe it'll have files I can tweak a bit.

Just finished up the YF-19, the wings/tails/canards were a royal pain. Not only did many of those pieces have tabs too small to fold decently, a couple wanted me to fold the parts into shapes that were physically impossible (especially the canards). I had to modify a lot of tabs to make the assembly possible, and to be honest.. I know the wings are airfoil shaped, but for something the size of the canards, just a double thick layer of paper would've done much better. I squashed em pretty much flat trying to glue those miniscule tabs anyway. But anywho, it's done, and it makes a very nice model. I don't have a 1/60 Yammie to compare to, but it's roughly a foot long, and almost the exact same proportions as the Hasegawa aircraft kit. I'm really only disappointed with a couple of bits on it.. mainly the way the main fuselage attaches to the legs. There's a HUGE gap between the shoulders and the lower legs, and no matter how I tried to warp the body, I couldn't close that gap. I'm guessing it's probably a side effect of the thickness of the paper, but there were some serious issues with the underside, so I don't know. Anyhow, here's some final assembly pics for fun. I'll probably do the VF-11 next, then tackle that monster of a YF-21 he made. The VF-11 should be a walk in the park after this one

I'm gonna have to go with the "stupidest idea ever" party. Yes, the idea of turning the g-limiters off in an aircraft is cool (and actually rather realistic, since most aircraft these days have those systems, and you need overrides to perform certain maneuvers). But the implementation sucks beyond measure. Overall, the game was very AC like, and after reading the aircraft list, I was pretty much convinced that I'm going to buy the PC version (YF-17 and YF-23? I'm there ). Playing the Xbox demo tho, I'm not so sure anymore. It really depends. On the plus side, the graphics look pretty much up to par with AC6, and I do appreciate the aircraft selection (which was an utter disappointment in AC6). They do need to get their aircraft designations right tho, their F-16A is actually a C model. On the other hand tho, I think this game tries way too hard to cater to non-flight sim people. Face it, it's a niche you're not going to attract people to easily, and the more you try, the worse the game is going to get. Now.. ooh, limiter mode, you will kill this game in sooo many ways if left the way you are. After playing the demo, I went to the Ubi forum about this game, and there's already an extremely heated debate brewing over why you can't use the cockpit view (or any other view for that matter) with the limiter off. I registered just to vote in the poll/petition they have going. I could rant and rave all day about this thing. While the mode is a useful concept, they need a boot to the head about how air combat works. The viewpoint in that mode is beyond worthless. Generally, when I'm flying a plane, I like to see what's ahead of me. It's kind of a useful thing, especially when lining up a gun shot, or trying to get a target lock. I got so frustrated with the training mission, I almost chucked my controller thru the screen. There's one thing that view is good for, and it's evading. What worries me the most about this mode is the effect it'll have on multiplayer. It basically reduces air combat to flipping around the sky as fast as you can, and spamming missiles everywhere hoping to hit something. The people who actually care about aiming, and use the cockpit view, will get screwed over because they won't be able to keep up. If the view remains as is, I seriously doubt I'll ever bother with multiplayer, and then, I may as well just go back to AC. Now, I can see the reason that they limited the views the way they did. Lets face it, if you let people use cockpit view with the limiters off, everyone would fly that way, all the time. It's like they're trying to throw some sort of strategic decision in here, making people choose between being able to evade, and being able to attack effectively. Flipping between modes fast may give you an advantage, provided you don't get completely disoriented by the view swapping. It makes a weird demented sort of sense in that way. But by doing all this, they're throwing in an artificial limitation that looks like it's specifically aimed at leveling the playing field, just to give people who don't know how to play air combat games an advantage. Just face it Ubi.. if someone is actually playing this game, it's because he already knows how to play these games, and your artificial limits are going to make him want to slap the developers. I guess my only real hope in all this is that they might implement modes for multiplayer that don't allow the limiters to be turned off, forcing everyone to fly the hard (real) way. Those Su-47 aces at the end of the first mission weren't hard at all with proper throttle control (btw, I'm pretty sure it is still possible to stall the plane with the limiters on), and if the game can be fully played without touching the no-limiter mode, I'll probably get it. My final hope against hope is that the PC version will actually be able to be modded. Perhaps someone will figure out how to allow the views to switch, and let people fly relatively realistically, or even add more aircraft or missions to the game. I'd love to be able to patch in a bunch of VFs, and fly them around. The game already has thrust vectoring, multi-missiles, and VTOL capability implemented. I can easily see that turning into a working VF with gerwalk mode.

ahh, didn't know there was a demo out, will have to check it out. Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled topic

*nods* Agreed.. Although, I still prefer all the previous AC games to 6 (stupid expensive DLC for that game just ruined it for me). The graphics in that are just beautiful though, comes with being a next-gen console game. HAWX does have 2 advantages to me though, mainly aircraft selection (AC6's blew chunks compared with the previous AC games) and the fact that there's a PC version, so I can use my HOTAS/pedals. Also, there's the hope that it'll be hacked to bits by the game community, and modded like crazy (it's got a Harrier, all we gotta do is use that as a base for a VF with gerwalk included ) That model's really turning out nice.. I wish I had a good set of plan views of the VF-25 though, any chance you can render some orthographic top/side/bottom/front/back views when it's done? Btw, I don't think you mentioned it, but which program are you building this in? If it's 3DS Max, I know a few tweaks to get it to run better system-wise. Polygons rarely produce much load, it's the more complex stuff like splines that really bog the system down for me. Well, that, and I tend to draw my base textures in 2048*2048 resolution.

Well, just a warning, 80k is pretty standard for stuff like MS Flight Sim now, but you won't find stuff like that in combat sims. MSFS only has one important plane on screen at a time really, so that one plane can be incredibly detailed. Combat sims aren't so forgiving, usually sticking in the 20k-30k range I think.. maybe even less, depending on whether they're meant for online play. The models in that new HAWX game don't look nearly that detailed.

Awww, but I want another scout craft Far as I remember the Sky Raven didn't come with it, and I don't know if they removed the mount. If they didn't remove it though, I could always use the old scout from my Crusader shuttle on it.

As nice as those would be, I doubt we'll ever see anything that matches the quality/accuracy of the F-22. That plane just has an abnormally ginormous cockpit, which is the only reason a regular figure will fit in there. Pretty much anything else is probably going to get giant bulbous cockpit syndrome to fit a figure. If they can pull off a decent F-14 I'll be waiting to buy a fleet tho. One question about the new raven... the pics a while back had some sort of wire plugged into the back of the plane. Any idea what this is? If they ran out of room for batteries, and had to make it plug into a wall outlet, I'm gonna die laughing.

Ok, I might be in trouble now, that ARC-170 looks good, espcially in that paintscheme. That thing must be huge though.

*nods in agreement* While they look absolutely cool if done right, some people fail to realize the difference between real life objects and computer polygons, and just start churning out paper versions of computer models without checking to see whether they're possible. Just because it looks cool in the computer doesn't mean it'll even be possible to build in real life. The YF-19 I'm working on comes very close to being impossible in some areas, mainly from a few tabs the size of a needle, and a couple of folds that make triangles about a millimeter wide, and 2 inches long. These types of shapes work great in a computer, but they're very hard to fold.

Holy crap, a 1/12 scale VF-1? As cool as that would be, I dunno where I'd put it And yeah, I agree, I want some of those fancy Ace Combat designs done. Really, part of the "beauty" of these designs is that there actually are no curves. Since they're based on computer models, everything is flat. It limits how good the model can be (especially since on the YF-19 there are several incredibly narrow folds that defy the physical properties of paper), but it also means if things are folded right, there's only one way for the surface contours to go. I see what you mean about the VF-11 though, I'm not familiar with it either, and looking at it now, it is tough to know where everything goes. The way he built the intakes is definitely a sticky part, since he didn't make the edges flush with the bottom of the wing. That, combined with the way the fuselage goes together actually makes the YF-19 look simple by comparison. The 19 is all modular, with the legs, arms, etc all being individual assemblies. The 11 looks like it has all those parts integrated into one big tube for the main body. Part of the difference may be the source material, since the YF-19 and YF-21 look like they're based directly off the Hasegawa kits, while the VF-11 is based off of who knows which version. Once I get the YF-19 done, I might try the VF-11 as well, so I may try and photo the assembly process. Btw, if you read the development blog on that site, you'll see he's got a few more Macross projects in the works.

Heh.. I love coincidences like this. My office has just been going through a random papercraft fad, mostly simple box caricatures and the like. Me, being the aircraft nut, built a couple of Ojimak's planes, then stumbled onto the YF-19 and YF-21. After my first iteration on copy paper failed, I went and bought some 65 lb stock, and tried again. So far, this one's been going well, I've got a couple of pics up of the progress on both tries. First off, the diagrams. From what I've tried, I believe the light blue lines are valley folds (crease away from you) and the dark blue are mountain folds (crease toward you). That should help a little. The biggest drawback is that the instructions don't actually show the tabs, or where they go, so that takes some experimentation. Some tabs are actually a bit too big for the areas they're meant to go into, so they may need trimming down. For folds, I generally hold the piece up to a light, and fold it over a metal ruler to get a sharp edge. Most folds I'll only lightly crease, since that's usually all you need, unless you really need a sharp corner. Remember, these models are made out of computer polygon models, and any quad face and be made 2 unique ways, with opposing triangles. Many of the creases are meant only to help the quad faces bend the correct way to make the desired shape. What really takes the most practice here is figuring out the proper order to do things in. Making things in an order that allows you access to the interior of the model until the last possible moment is crucial. The VF-11 seems to have the same sort of nose structure as the YF-19, a set of rings. I actually found the most useful way to build the nose is one piece at a time, alternating top and bottom. Build the very front of the nose first, and then add either the next top or bottom piece alternatively. This way, you can press down on the tabs on the inside of each as you glue, and if you let the previous structure dry well, it will give you a solid construction to glue new pieces onto. It's also easier to fit the pieces together this way, since you don't have to line up the tabs from one whole ring on the inside of the previous piece. The real key is to not glue anything to the outside of a sealed box. If you have to press something down on the outside of a closed form, you'll probably crush it. So, it takes a lot of thinking ahead. Now, if you really want to strengthen things later, you can spread a thin layer of glue over the whole model, or at least key structures. I did this with one of Ojimak's flying models, and coated the entire nose in glue after it was done. For stationary models this isn't such a big deal, but if you plan to fly them, they can crush VERY easily if they crash. One thing about paper I found out from experience: the YF-19 WILL work with standard copy paper, but only just barely. To be honest, with the YF-19, thin paper can be a blessing in some areas, because there are many layers of paper going together, and since these are based off computer polygon models, thickness is NOT taken into account in the design. My first version was actually closer to 1/72 than 1/60, since it was printed using an option to fit to the printable area of the paper. The smaller size may have helped. The rear fuselage on the YF-19 is very complicated, and can be tricky to put together if you don't crease the paper in the right places. I didn't crease the fuselage pieces enough on my first one, and though it's okay, it's a bit warped, because without the creases, the paper decided to bend where it wanted to, in the direction it wanted to. That's why my second version has every crease made very carefully. One last thing that isn't really necessary, but helped me a lot with the more complicated pieces: a hobby knife. I did the first version with scissors at my office, and while it worked, it wasn't great. The new version I've been cutting out entirely with an Exacto knife, and it's helped to keep the pieces very cleanly cut. K, for the pics The one with the nose already attached is the first one I tried. In order to attach it, you have to glue the rear portion of the nose tube to the top of the main body. On my first one, I built the whole nose first, and holding the nose down to it crushed the body. On the new one, I glued that rear portion to the upper body panel before I even built the body. The bottom view shows the difference good creases make. On the first one, I didn't crease the bottom, and when I tried to attach everything, it warped. I wound up having to slit two seams with a knife, and retape them in order to make a shaping crease. The bottom of the new one though is nice and even. Edit: Holy crap, I just realized how much I wrote. Sorry for the length, but I hope it's useful info.

Oh come on... I don't need any more big X-Wings.. and sheesh, does that mean this one comes with a figure and an astromech AND LADDERS?? *sighs* Oh well.. time to make more room on my shelf then. Btw.. anyone happen to have any spare FX-style X-Wing nose cones they'd be willing to sell? I hate the stupid child-proofed "flew into a wall" nosecone they started putting on these. "Oh no, the long stabbity guns are no problem, we've added a little blunt bit to the ends. But that chiseled rubber nosecone is just too dangerous to be left alone."

Well.. to be honest, I can deal with the handle a lot better than I can with the design. Please, someone tell me that they didn't make the fuselage into a pump action missile launcher, because that's what it looks like. And, apparently someone's gotten "cool boxy spaceship" mixed up with "fast aircraft." While I know I would've loved this years ago (seriously, 12 missiles? I would've loved to have that much ammo as a kid), I miss the resemblance the original had to an actual aircraft. Whoever decided that "intake lights" were a cool feature needs to get up close and personal to some real jet intakes in operation. Btw, is it just me, or did someone just.. well, forget the rotor blades on that gunship? I mean, ok, it could be a hovercraft.. but the stub of what could've been a propeller just makes it look like someone decided, "Nah, in the future, helicopters will have invisible propellers."

Holy crap that was epic. Best Macross montage I've ever seen, hands down.

That looks good. I think if I ever get enough kits, I may customize one into a VF-24, just for the heck of it. I love delta designs. As for the dihedral, I'm pretty sure it's just an artifact of the fact that you have to build the kit yourself, and if parts don't fit perfectly, the wings are going to bump against the legs, and not fold entirely flat. I think even the DX version has this to a degree. I've only seen a few shots of kits that the wings were flat on, and they were EXTENSIVELY detailed, meaning the builders probably were perfectionists to an extent, and may have modified parts to get them to fit that way.