What’s a fair price for the thousands of hours they put into the development?
....well, the best game I've ever played was a free mod by private citizens called Forgotten Hope ..a mod for Battlefield..it had EVERYTHING in it--ALL the vehicles/airplanes/arty AND mortars which were controlled by the player and called in by players with binos/etc....all theaters with vehicles specific for that theater --- whereas Call of Duty and Medal of Honor had nothing like that
I understand. But what they’ve done is released a free version and people develop aircraft modules. So F-14’s just came out, and now the super carriers you can go along with it. Same with campaigns. People are filling a need for profit.
I got my feet wet in Falcon, excellent game. I imagine the graphics would ruin it for me now though...I've got Wings Over Vietnam:
''''The plane list is impressive. Flying for the USAF, you'll have the chance to pilot three varieties of the F-4 Phantom as well as the F-100 D Super Sabre and the F-105 D Superchief. The Navy and Marine Corps have their own versions of the Phantom and can also pilot two kinds of A-7 Corsairs, three versions of the A-4 Skyhawk, and the A-6A Intruder and F-8 E Crusader. Other friendly planes in the sky include the B-52 Stratofortress and B-57 Canberra.''''
Wings Over Vietnam - IGN
Desktop pilots haven't had much chance to mix it up with enemy MiGs…www.ign.com
Fair price is a personal definition. Some think paying for a Picasso for half the $5M valuation is a deal. Personally, I wouldn’t pay $3 for one. If your computer can do great graphics and you’re into simulators, what they ask is a good price.
www.historynet.com
That's one of the things that I learned working in VFA-131. If you want to know if a plane is a Navy and Marine version, or an Air Force version, all you gotta do is look at the landing gear. Navy planes are purposely built with much beefier landing gear because of the stresses of hooking a wire with a tailhook and slamming the plane into the deck.
Matter of fact, back in the 50's the Navy came up with a jet, trying to beat the Air Force at the beginning of the jet age. Unfortunately, the landing gear wasn't up to spec, and it became known as the Ensign Eliminator.
Ensign Eliminator
A quarter of all the Vought F7U Cutlass fighters built ended up crashing. On a fall day in 1955, newly minted Ensign Dick Cavicke was amazed by the number
The “dash-one” failed miserably in carrier suitability tests. Pilots simply couldn’t see over the long nose well enough to land the jet on a flattop, a trait it shared with early versions of its illustrious predecessor, the F4U Corsair. Powered by two reliable but anemic Westinghouse J34 turbojets, the Cutlass also proved dangerously slow to respond to late wave-offs. By the time carrier suitability tests were completed, it was clear there were serious technical bugs inherent in the design. All three prototypes had crashed, along with two production F7U-1s before they could even be delivered to the Navy, killing three Vought test pilots in the process.
The problems were so bad that the F7U-1s were never put into squadron service, and a follow-on order for 88 F7U-2s with uprated engines was scrubbed. Two dash-ones did serve briefly with the Navy’s Blue Angels aerobatic team as solo performers, but were soon parked for lack of parts and waning enthusiasm for the airplane.
That's one of the things that I learned working in VFA-131. If you want to know if a plane is a Navy and Marine version, or an Air Force version, all you gotta do is look at the landing gear. Navy planes are purposely built with much beefier landing gear because of the stresses of hooking a wire with a tailhook and slamming the plane into the deck.
Matter of fact, back in the 50's the Navy came up with a jet, trying to beat the Air Force at the beginning of the jet age. Unfortunately, the landing gear wasn't up to spec, and it became known as the Ensign Eliminator.
Ensign Eliminator
A quarter of all the Vought F7U Cutlass fighters built ended up crashing. On a fall day in 1955, newly minted Ensign Dick Cavicke was amazed by the number
The “dash-one” failed miserably in carrier suitability tests. Pilots simply couldn’t see over the long nose well enough to land the jet on a flattop, a trait it shared with early versions of its illustrious predecessor, the F4U Corsair. Powered by two reliable but anemic Westinghouse J34 turbojets, the Cutlass also proved dangerously slow to respond to late wave-offs. By the time carrier suitability tests were completed, it was clear there were serious technical bugs inherent in the design. All three prototypes had crashed, along with two production F7U-1s before they could even be delivered to the Navy, killing three Vought test pilots in the process.
The problems were so bad that the F7U-1s were never put into squadron service, and a follow-on order for 88 F7U-2s with uprated engines was scrubbed. Two dash-ones did serve briefly with the Navy’s Blue Angels aerobatic team as solo performers, but were soon parked for lack of parts and waning enthusiasm for the airplane.
I can tell just looking at it there’s no way. Nose gear snap, tail smacking the deck. Yikes.
