Count me in

Ice · #1 January 17th, 2001, 11:43 PM

I owned a previous Version of this several years ago when Joe was selling it out of his garage.

It was a great game which made really good, creative use of sound. Graphically it was very basic (which made no difference to the high standard of gameplay) but my one question is: What kind of graphical changes might we expect, four years later? Are there more views than the standard controller's radar monitor?

Joe · #2 January 18th, 2001, 12:52 AM

Since that early 1.0 Version a lot has changed. You still only have the radar screen view (after all, this is all that a real air traffic controllers will see!). Version 3.0 has 16 million colors, weather patterns, digitized pilot voices, and airport editor (not in the demo Version) that allows you to create your own air traffic maps.

Lexxmon · #3 January 18th, 2001, 04:36 AM

This will be great! I played a game called Tracon why back in 1989 when I bought my first computer, a IBM PS2 20! I played that game for hours on end. I have often wondered when someone would make a newer game with the Air Traffic Controller as the subject. I have been more then happy with the games that Shrapnel has put out, and I am looking forward to Air Command 3.0 very much! And to think, I have been thinking about a game like this for the Last couple of months!

[This message has been edited by Lexxmon (edited 18 January 2001).]

Brian Rock · #4 January 18th, 2001, 01:52 PM

quote:
You still only have the radar screen view (after all, this is all that a real air traffic controllers will see!). Version 3.0 has 16 million colors, weather patterns...

Seems to me our screens are a damn sight prettier than the real guys get. I guess this is game vs reality.

Personally I'd rather the clouds looked less like clouds and more like radar scans of clouds. It would add to the immersion factor and I think it would be easier to make the weather more dynamic, with cloud formations changing size, for example.

raydude · #5 January 21st, 2001, 03:22 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Rock:
Personally I'd rather the clouds looked less like clouds and more like radar scans of clouds. It would add to the immersion factor and I think it would be easier to make the weather more dynamic, with cloud formations changing size, for example.

[/b]

It would also be cool if the pilots requested an altitude change because of turbulence at or around the cloud formations. I also hope that the severity of the storms clouds forces the controller to deviate planes around them.

As a final question, should the clouds obscure the airfield and VOR markers? It doesn't make sense that the controller will not be able to tell what the VOR is underneath a cloud.

raydude · #6 January 21st, 2001, 05:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Joe:
The clouds obscuring the VORs/airports was a trade off between game play and reality. However, the end result is the same. In reality, an air traffic controller may have to re-vector a landing aircraft due to poor weather conditions. In the game, obsuring your view of the airport will cause you to re-vector the landing aircraft until the weather pattern moves away.

Hi Joe,

Okay, I'll buy that. I was gonna say that it makes it kinda hard to vector aircraft to a VOR that's temporarily obscured by a cloud, but I forgot that real life controllers should know their sector like the back of their hand

.

Joe · #7 January 22nd, 2001, 02:50 AM

The clouds obscuring the VORs/airports was a trade off between game play and reality. However, the end result is the same. In reality, an air traffic controller may have to re-vector a landing aircraft due to poor weather conditions. In the game, obsuring your view of the airport will cause you to re-vector the landing aircraft until the weather pattern moves away.