Drat on 12/1/2005 at 16:14
I wrote the Flight Unlimited (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited) 1 and (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited_II) 2 pages on (
http://en.wikipedia.org) Wikipedia. Feel free to contribute. I wrote the first one before I registered. I will improve that one, when I get the chance to play the game again.
By the way, anyone know where I can find a download of Flight Unlimited III, that I may write an article on that?
If I deem it necessary, I shall combine the two (and eventually, hopefullly, 3) into one. I want to do that, so no-one else do it. I need the wikipedia practice.
Shadowcat on 13/1/2005 at 03:48
Good stuff!
If you're in the U.S., Amazon lists <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/B00000K3Y2/used/1/102-4052728-0456905">used copies of FU3</a> from $15. Just take good note of whether there's a manual -- even some of the "Like New" entries have none, which leads one to wonder just what those people think "new" actually means...
Drat on 13/1/2005 at 08:36
Actually, I think I know where the terrain images come from. I was tracking down the Terraserver satellite image from 2004 of 3Com Park, to compare to my screenshot, and I noticed that the terrain textures bear an uncanny resemblance to the aerial photos of the area, taken in 1993. There are (what appears to be) boats in a couple similar spots. I took a screenshot of SFO as two jetliners were taxi-ing away from the terminals, and I noticed that the layout of planes in the ground textures is identical to the layout of planes in the aerial photo of SFO. The only thing is, the aerial photos are all black and white. There may be colour versions however. Or perhaps LG artists colourised them? Adding weight to this is the fact that some things were edited out, and the water colour isn't exactly realistic. Plus, some out-of-the-way areas use mirrored textures and terrain.
Next time you play, get a screenshot of the triangular bit of the SFO main terminal, and compare it to (
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/map.aspx?t=1&s=10&lon=-122.381293366667&lat=37.61758032&w=600&h=400&opt=0&f=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial&fs=8&fc=ffffff99) this.
Shadowcat on 14/1/2005 at 12:34
Yes, Looking Glass did use black and white satellite imagery and colourised it themselves (I remember reading an interview that commented on this a long time ago), so I expect you are indeed looking at the same source data.
Drat on 14/1/2005 at 14:32
Cool, you learn something new each day. Now to pull down all the pics and print them off and make a really fucking big photographic reference map! (not really)
Shadowcat on 15/1/2005 at 00:26
heh :)
Not quite the same thing, but you can download a 2495x1909 jpeg map for the FU3 Seattle region from (
http://library.avsim.net/) made by tiling together maximum-zoom screens from the in-game map. Search for "FUIII Hi-Resolution Map". It's about 2MB. There doesn't seem to be a San Francisco equivalent, but it should be reasonably simple to make.
juvat on 24/2/2005 at 08:19
Hi Fellas,
Chris Low recently posts at the Avsim Flt3 forum that he's getting word on a possible Flt3 Sold-Out label.
JimB
Shadowcat on 24/2/2005 at 12:12
Hey, that's awesome news!! It's about time, too. FU2 has been readily available as a budget title for years, but the considerably superior sequel has had the short end of the stick (and from the moment it came out, really).
I suspect a few TTLGers will pick it up just for the nostalgia value :)
Drat on 3/3/2005 at 13:24
Hell yes!
Shadowcat, can you explain to me specifically what improvements FUIII has over FUII? Reviews are somewhat ambiguous on those details.
What I know:
Probably higher detail textures and terrain
More landmarks modelled
More planes
Lots of expandability (I've already downloaded 520+ files from avsim!)
Recording mode.
What else is there?
Shadowcat on 3/3/2005 at 21:31
I'll have to be a bit ambiiguous as well -- it's a while since I've flown, and my memory isn't so great for this kind of thing -- but aside from that list (I'm not sure about the terrain mesh resolution, btw... I think I read that was the same, although the terrain texture resolution is indeed better).
Weather is greatly improved. (Hell, no other sim even *approached* FU3's dynamic weather until MSFS2004 came along many years later). I found a quote on this one: "Our weather system will live and grow based on real world factors like humidity, temperature, sun, frontal movement, seasons, time of day, mountain uplift and phases of the moon." So no fixed weather. You can set some initial conditions, but it will be changing naturally every moment that you're flying.
Thermals for gliding are still the best around in any general aviation sim, I believe. I don't think there's a much better gliding sim than FU3.
Air Traffic Control is improved.
As well as the high-res Seattle area, you get a low-res west coast region to connect Seattle with the FU2 San Francisco scenery, if you install that as well. Having said that, the low-res scenery is NOT pretty (it is not satellite imagery), but it's there if you want it :)
Lots of flight lessons (they got a flight instructor to help make these). But then, the FU series has always featured good tutorials.
I'm probably missing things. I think that most aspects were given a touch-up, though. FU2 also had a seaplane, for example, but the physics for this are said to be better in FU3. It's really just an all-around improvement on its predecessor.
Some of the more recent add-on aircraft look much much better than the originals, btw!
As you've noticed, there's plenty of extras at AVSIM, including (perhaps most impressively) entire new regions to fly in! I haven't downloaded any of these myself, but there are UK and Switzerland projects, and I know that the former at least is under active development.
Glancing at the competition, it's impossible to deny that (the much newer) MSFS2004 is a nice product, and its aircraft (again, especially some of the add-ons) look absolutely stunning, but some people still prefer the feel of flying in FU3. It really is a superb sim (and someone at EA should be shot for the way they abandoned it... with some actual marketing, it could have been a financial success as well).
