What happened to the SAAFOPS theater
-
@RAM22:
The only two people that are any where close to what transpired in regards to SAAFOPS are Tom and Polak.;) No one else is even close.
The only part that they have missed and aren’t aware of are the behind the scenes conversations on the Core Development Group forums.
Only three active developers here on the BMS forums were in that group at FF and were a part of those discussions(1 not so much) and until this post, have not said a word about SAAFOPS. As far as I’m concerned what happened and why with SAAFOPS is really no ones business and is no longer relevant to the Falcon community and for good reason.
With that said, speculate at will.
RAM22
There were no “behind the scene’s” conversation’s on your private board’s,other than the Question “should we”???There were some Telephone Convos’ at that time,that you were not privy to.That being said,there is no reason here to retry what Mad Dog had started.
demer
-
There was not some grand issue between FF4 and FF5 that prevented any campaigns from being won or lost per se. The problem lied in the fact that Panama was not brought up to the DB changes and also Panama had many terrain issues that were always present in that theater.
Unless/until all of that is brought to current standards it will always continue to suffer in those regards.
RAM22
-
There were no “behind the scene’s” conversation’s on your private board’s,other than the Question “should we”???There were some Telephone Convos’ at that time,that you were not privy to.That being said,there is no reason here to retry what Mad Dog had started.
demer
LOFL, believe what you wish.:D
RAM22
-
@RAM22:
LOFL, believe what you wish.:D
RAM22
Your abstract response is what I expected……remember though, that when I withdrew from the CDG,I still had right’s to the other Fora and CVS.As well, I still was in contact with “You Know Who” to help solve some of YOUR issue’s…LOL
Believe what you wish……HAHAHAHA!!!demer
-
Stop please, your making me ROTF, don’t know if I can take much more……
So please tell me about the Package then!!!
RAM22
-
@RAM22:
Stop please, your making me ROTF, don’t know if I can take much more……
So please tell me about the Package then!!!
RAM22
You want me to send it to you???
demer
-
I didn’t say send, I said tell.;)
RAM22
-
@RAM22:
I didn’t say send, I said tell.;)
RAM22
Can’t
I’ll see what I can do
demer
-
In going thru old discussions it is probably good to set the record straight from the horses mouth on SAAFOPs from the FF side. Some details might be lacking given the time that has passed but this is what I can recall.
Greg McEwen was offered a seat at the FF table, tools and help. Our offer was really simple - if he was willing to send me the theater I would convert it to DXM and send it back with the necessary editing tools to continue. In return he was to make it available to FF for release and give FF access to his material for editing and application to other development projects.
Honestly, I could have just sent him the tools from the onset but the fact was it took me quite a long time to learn how to use the tools and it was pretty easy to get things messed up. To digress just a bit, some folks may remember Alex “Red” Vallone left the scene/FF/RV after a rather brief tenure. When I joined FF team I was pretty much on my own to figure things out with DX on the existing Korea install and then to convert ITO. Aragorn can attest to that period and the struggle I had of trying to get things sorted in my had with the new DX system. He was Admin then feeding me stuff to work on. It wasn’t so easy or easy to explain but I did develop a systematic process that worked. Also, there really was just a very shortlist of folks who knew of all the tools and how to properly use them. From my perspective, the easiest and quickest way to get SAAFOPs up and running in FF was to do it myself and then turn it back to Greg to take it from the point of being built and running in whatever state he had it in.
After the first Skype meeting, Steve and I sensed there was a lack of trust on Greg’s part. I really don’t blame him. He had invested years on “his” project and wasn’t going to let it slip away from him. Steve and I could respect that and I think we could have worked out a mutually beneficial agreement. However, in that first Skype session we only discussed general terms and were prepared to hear a response/counterproposal. But, Greg didn’t follow up. He simply disappeared, for I can’t recall how long, but it might have been a year or so. Then he resurfaced, as if it were the day after our last Skype. We set up a second Skype and were prepared to make the same offer again. But, at the appointed date/time, he never showed up and Steve and I stayed on chatting for some time thinking he was just late but he never did arrive. I then followed up with numerous e-mails/PMs. He just never surfaced again. I believe that was the last I heard from Greg. I did occasionally Google his name, he hadn’t died. Greg McEwen-Marriot is still kicking around and made a post in 2013 of a video of SAAFOPs. So, SAAFOPs, I hope is still sitting on a hard-drive of Greg’s. It is everyone’s loss that great project never released - but that is a not uncommon theme with Falcon.
I think Greg is one of those free spirit genius types - surfer, rock-band musician, talented in may ways but also a bit unpredictable and marches to his own drummer. Whatever one chooses to believe, I think Steve and I made a genuine effort to reach out to him but really what he seemed to want was to have the all the code/tools/training to convert to DXM system and say bye-bye without anything reciprocal. We were also concerned because Greg had previously seemed to generate some SAAFOPs commercial stuff for sale. This would be an obvious breach of FF EULA which was intended to be a freeware product. So, Steve and I both felt that we wanted to sort that out and ensure we had a mutually beneficial relationship and adhere to the principles at FF. This could explain why Greg never surfaced and also why I don’t think his work ever got any farther. My take was he wanted to maintain total control and with that, exclude folks from possibly stealing his excellent material. That might have been at least one reason why the project died.
I truly wished he had trusted FF, while SAAFOPs did represent a heck of a lot of work to convert to DXM I felt it was really worth it and the diversion from other FF duties at that time.
Whatever you choose to believe, BMS is the only option now and if SAAFOPs ever manages to surface again, I think it would not be a difficult theater to port to BMS - far less so than FF6/DXM based. But, again, if the theater can’t be dedicated to BMS and adhere to their EULA, then I suspect the same unacceptable conditions might apply.
It may be worth a try to contact [Dave Cuthbert] * correction here, this should have read Nigel Kriel aka Kasper, whom I was thinking of, apologies Dave] who did work with Maddog on the project. Maybe someone could approach Greg McEwen who I would guess still lives. It would be pretty neat to actually have a look at their old beta and see what needs to be done to get it ported to BMS. SAAFOPs really embodied what I felt a theatre should be - significantly different terrain and a significantly different look and feel with with a totally different set of primary a/c models and pit. While the avionics and such would still be an F-16, those looking for something different, SAAFOPs really had a lot of potential. If memory serves me the theater was not a standard size - ie not a 64x64 or a 128x128 but rather a 96x96 - not sure how that would work - maybe some of the same issues as any theater greater than 64x64 - perhaps that could be a workable theater size. Not sure since I don’t think anyone else have ever given it a try that I know of and I really haven’t heard of any beta testers giving their personal accounts of the theater either.
Regarding the terrain tiles - the state of the art on tiles was really first set by Maddog and then taken to the next step by Polak where this new terrain was released to the public. The idea of creating photorealistic tiles in set and blending phototiles with transitions to photorealistic transition sets is definitely the way to go. For the future, unless there is a code change I am unsure how well terrain can be improved with our current terrain engine. Newer flight sims like Thunderjet have stunningly realistic photolike terrain - not sure what they do to make it but it has raised the bar quite a bit now and as much as I would love to see a code change in this arena - that would probably just about kill all the on-going theater work that has been done unless terrain can be easily ported and not take months to years to bring up to a new terrain standard. In some ways Falcon is very much beholden to becoming static else the change can defeat the body of work being done. Simple changes like when FF went from LOD to DXM - that seemingly simple change took years to fully realize - then FF went bust - and now all those models and related skin work is locked up in hundreds of DXM models that are useless in BMS. So, we must be careful what we wish for.
-
Did some digging - Greg has been rather busy with a very eclectic career. I found him and sent him a message. I am hoping to hear back from him, maybe put to rest the SAAFOPs saga once and for all.
-
For those dreamers this is the list I had of Angola Theater model work, rather impressive list.
Aircraft List:
AM.3C Bosbok
An-2
An-22
An-24
An-26
An-32
AS350 Ecurecil
BAe Hawk 120
Buccaneer S.Mk50
Beechcraft King Air
BN2 Islander
Boeing 707
Boeing 707-328 Tanker
Boeing 737
Boeing 747SP
C4M Kudu
C-47 Dakota
C-47 Dragon Dak
C-47 Ambu Dak
C-47 TP Dak
C-54 Skymaster
C-130B
Canberra B(1) Mk12
Canberra T.Mk4
CASA C-212
Cessna 185
Cessna 310
CH-2 Rooivalk
Cheetah C
Cheetah D
Cheetah D2
Cheetah DC
Cheetah E
Cheetah R
Do-27
EMB-312
F-27 Friendship
Gazelle
Gripen B
Gripen C
IL-62M
IL-76
MB-326KC Impala Mk II
MiG-15 UTI
MiG-17F
MiG-21MF
MiG-21bis
MiG-23ML
MiG-23UB
Mil Mi-6
Mil Mi-8
Mil Mi-24/25
Mil Mi-17
Mirage F1AZ
Mirage F1CZ
Mirage IIIBZ
Mirage IIICZ
Mirage IIIDZ
Mirage IIIEZ
Mirage IIID2Z
Mirage IIIRZ
Mirage IIIR2Z
Nord Noratlas
Piper Arrow
Piper Cherokee
SA-316 Alouette III
SA-316 Alouette III Gunship
SA-321 Super Frelon
SA-330 Puma
SA-332 Cougar
SA-365 Dauphin
Shackleton MR.3
SU-22M
SU-25
SU-27
Transall
Tu-134A Crusty
Yak-402D pits:
Mirage F1AZ
Impala Mk II
Buccaneer S.50
Gripen B
Gripen C
Hawk 120
Cheetah
MiG-21MF
MiG-23ML
Mirage F1CZ
Mirage IIIR2Z
SU-22
C-130B Hercules
AM3C Bosbok
SU-25
SU-27Mirage IIIEZ
Mirage IIICZ
Canberra B(1)Mk12
Transall C-160
Alouette III
SA-330 Puma3D pits:
Mirage F1AZ
Impala Mk II
Buccaneer S.50
Gripen
Hawk
Cheetah D2
MiG-21MF
MiG-23ML -
nm
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
MiG-21 and MiG-23 are so old AC with so old avionics which cannot be modeled with current code, the only result they would be ridiculously over modeleld. Even the '80s MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13) or Su-27S are on the edge considering the MFD and RWR modeling limitations.
-
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum… -
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum…Not only the avioncs over modeled, the MiG-21 has such flight control which comparing to F-16 FCS means literally do not have at all…
…while you can fly as safe and careless with MiG-21 as with F-16.I rather spend resources upgrade the core DB a much higher level as current. Sadly the DB upgrade always lags way, way behind the code changes. Even after almost 20+ (!!) years of development Falcon still does not have such DB which just barely could model / mimic the structure at least the red side…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
Are we talking about fully 3D cockpits…?
-
Most probably yes but don’t expect 3d switches and buttons I believe.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
Something I have given some thought about was working on a common DB for theaters. I worked on this idea with FF a few years back - the idea was to keep Korea DB somewhat simplified and then put a lot of effort towards maximizing options with a “master DB” which I worked on for ITO2. This DB could then be used for multiple theaters and possessed a lot of models and skins to allow for a lot of possible theaters. If something isn’t there it can be added. I didn’t have the opportunity to fully develop the idea or test it but the test of ITO2 suggested that despite a lot of models and skins things didn’t seem to be adversely affected to the extent that ITO2 was tested.
The obvious limitation is that the BMS database is what is currently available in the Korea DB plus whatever is also available but doesn’t meet KoreaDB requirements. An example would be Jan Has C-130 or Phantoms. There are lots of other examples but for now it is probably safe to say there are a fair number of models, skins, and pits from contributors that could be added.
Having something like this, in effect, places one master DB with all the toys at everyone’s disposal. Given what I read so far - this kind of DB might have some issues for MP as well as not provide the idea environment for the F16 Centric development - but if folks can live without MP ( or with some aggravating crashes until all theaters DBs adhere to a set of universal files so that MP will work as intended then maybe that would be okay. I also sense there might be some reluctance in that some theaters may already have everything they need/want so adoption of a master DB carries not added value to them. However, for others it would be a way to enjoy the benefits of a robust DB without having to manage it themselves, at least not initially. The down side is, of course, being beholden to someone else’s time schedule, for example a DB might not be ready for one theater with all the bells and whistles desired, but ready for another. One upside, I believe, is not being restricted to the rigid requirements of the Korea DB - so things might progress more quickly. If theater developers can accept some risk in stability and frame-rate hits - then a master DB might just be the ticket.
One of the major departures for theaters, will likely be the airbaseses - depending on how sophisticated the theater becomes, a master DB can, at some point perhaps become rather restrictive. So, one permutation of the master DB idea is to have a fairly robust master DB which forms the basic starter set of files form which a theater developer can then move forward with a less intensive workload of DB manipulations to get a DB where its intended end state. If the KoreaDB is already at that point - then further discussion of an improve DB is moot.