Jane's Advanced Strike Fighters announcedMy god, they turned one of the best franchises of Combat Flight Simulation in to HAWX or Ace Combat! Here's to all of us who remember the good old Jane's games, like USAF, F/A-18, and Longbow. Don't let the memories fade, because the old games are the only thing we have left of the old Jane's, as now it's just some HAWX rip off. I personally am going to avoid this one.

Jane's Advanced Strike Fighters announcedMy god, they turned one of the best franchises of Combat Flight Simulation in to HAWX or Ace Combat! Here's to all of us who remember the good old Jane's games, like USAF, F/A-18, and Longbow. Don't let the memories fade, because the old games are the only thing we have left of the old Jane's, as now it's just some HAWX rip off. I personally am going to avoid this one.

Save your pennies for the new A-10 sim coming out by the guys who did Blackshark.The hardcore study sim genre is not totally dead yet :(

Jane's Advanced Strike Fighters announcedMy god, they turned one of the best franchises of Combat Flight Simulation in to HAWX or Ace Combat! Here's to all of us who remember the good old Jane's games, like USAF, F/A-18, and Longbow. Don't let the memories fade, because the old games are the only thing we have left of the old Jane's, as now it's just some HAWX rip off. I personally am going to avoid this one.

Disgrace.Why not instead do an updated F/A-18 or USAF, or generally something realistic at least.What a waste!

If that's what the developer thinks will sell profitably, that's what it will develop.

Their definitely going after the arcade market, not serious simmers. The graphics is not that good either.

Given this developer's history, I'm not surprised in the least bit.

If you listen carefully on that demo video, you can hear Fred T Jane turning in his grave LOL To go from licensing realistic study stuff such as the Israeli Air Force and F/A-18 sims, to a fantasy arcade shooter in and invented country - Azbaristan? erm... okay - is really rather throwing away their credibility as an encyclopedic legend. Nothing wrong with a sim on the lighter side of course, after all, Jane's USAF was a bit that way, but at least if had a stab at historic scenarios and a nod toward realism. I think I'll pass on this one.Al

I liken this to what's happened with Tom Clancy Games. The name used to be something great. And then Ubisoft had their way. :(

If you listen carefully on that demo video, you can hear Fred T Jane turning in his grave LOL To go from licensing realistic study stuff such as the Israeli Air Force and F/A-18 sims, to a fantasy arcade shooter in and invented country - Azbaristan? erm... okay - is really rather throwing away their credibility as an encyclopedic legend. Nothing wrong with a sim on the lighter side of course, after all, Jane's USAF was a bit that way, but at least if had a stab at historic scenarios and a nod toward realism. I think I'll pass on this one.Al

I liken this to what's happened with Tom Clancy Games. The name used to be something great. And then Ubisoft had their way. :(

RIP Rainbow Six, we shall always remember you for Rouge Spear, Rainbow Six 1, and Raven Shield.RIP Ghost Recon, your last true version being Island Thunder.It also reminds me of Operation Flashpoint. Cold War Crisis and Resistance were great and years ahead of their time, however when BIS broke away from Codemasters, Codemasters kept the name and shamed the OFP legacy turning Dragon Rising in to a piece of trash. Thank god that ArmA and ArmA 2 are the spiritual successors developed by Bohemia Interactive and live up pretty well to the legacy.

I'm a former Shack Tactical member, God bless BIS, and Dslyecxi (Who has his hand in the BIS cookie jar, he's pushed for several features not originally intended that made the ArmA games that much better)Dragon Rising basically was a failure, but BIS won, and Shack Tactical sets an extraordinary example of what can be done with a military sim, for the sake of good old fun. It's a niche market though, just like FS which is why you see good names going to trash. Microsoft could be next with the FS franchise, but who knows (It could go either way with them, or not happen at all)

RIP Rainbow Six, we shall always remember you for Rouge Spear, Rainbow Six 1, and Raven Shield.RIP Ghost Recon, your last true version being Island Thunder.It also reminds me of Operation Flashpoint. Cold War Crisis and Resistance were great and years ahead of their time, however when BIS broke away from Codemasters, Codemasters kept the name and shamed the OFP legacy turning Dragon Rising in to a piece of trash. Thank god that ArmA and ArmA 2 are the spiritual successors developed by Bohemia Interactive and live up pretty well to the legacy.

I'm a former Shack Tactical member, God bless BIS, and Dslyecxi (Who has his hand in the BIS cookie jar, he's pushed for several features not originally intended that made the ArmA games that much better)Dragon Rising basically was a failure, but BIS won, and Shack Tactical sets an extraordinary example of what can be done with a military sim, for the sake of good old fun. It's a niche market though, just like FS which is why you see good names going to trash. Microsoft could be next with the FS franchise, but who knows (It could go either way with them, or not happen at all)

I never played at ShackTac myself. I've personally only played at some various PvP tournaments. I never really liked realism units and clans. Too much politics for my tastes. Thank god BIS one this one though, CM seemed to only care about money, and not the actual game.

There's basically 3 rules - Understand and follow the Shack tac TTP, use common sense, and show up for sessions. it's not dissimilar from many Virtual airlines in that respect, other than the goal is based around tactical realism ( Some VA's are just for whoever whenever)Anyway, It really is amazing when you see a platoon of 40-80 guys, Divided into Squads, further divided into fireteams, commanded under one decision making man (No, it's not just dslyecxi who fills this role), with equal opportunity input from squad leaders, totally decimate any opposition.The political aspects of Shack are really very simple, they are as mentioned above.Otherwise, the baggage Politically is nill, which is why Shack is attractive. You don't have to do anything special like hang out with them for months in order to join and then be "Selected". Shack is very equal opportunity. No special selection process, just be there because you enjoy playing as part of a squad/fireteam and making tactical movements as a team to defeat an opposition. If you've never played at shack because of politics, But like "Realism" - you're missing out on way too much fun.Shack vs. No Shack is basically the same as ArmA vs Dragon Rising. (For me anyway). It's a no brainer.

I never played at ShackTac myself. I've personally only played at some various PvP tournaments. I never really liked realism units and clans. Too much politics for my tastes.

I liken this to what's happened with Tom Clancy Games. The name used to be something great. And then Ubisoft had their way. :(

RIP Rainbow Six, we shall always remember you for Rouge Spear, Rainbow Six 1, and Raven Shield.RIP Ghost Recon, your last true version being Island Thunder.It also reminds me of Operation Flashpoint. Cold War Crisis and Resistance were great and years ahead of their time, however when BIS broke away from Codemasters, Codemasters kept the name and shamed the OFP legacy turning Dragon Rising in to a piece of trash. Thank god that ArmA and ArmA 2 are the spiritual successors developed by Bohemia Interactive and live up pretty well to the legacy.

Don't get me started on the demise of the great games made by RSE when Clancy still owned it. Ubi threw the baby out with the bath water.

There's basically 3 rules - Understand and follow the Shack tac TTP, use common sense, and show up for sessions. it's not dissimilar from many Virtual airlines in that respect, other than the goal is based around tactical realism ( Some VA's are just for whoever whenever)Anyway, It really is amazing when you see a platoon of 40-80 guys, Divided into Squads, further divided into fireteams, commanded under one decision making man (No, it's not just dslyecxi who fills this role), with equal opportunity input from squad leaders, totally decimate any opposition.The political aspects of Shack are really very simple, they are as mentioned above.Otherwise, the baggage Politically is nill, which is why Shack is attractive. You don't have to do anything special like hang out with them for months in order to join and then be "Selected". Shack is very equal opportunity. No special selection process, just be there because you enjoy playing as part of a squad/fireteam and making tactical movements as a team to defeat an opposition. If you've never played at shack because of politics, But like "Realism" - you're missing out on way too much fun.Shack vs. No Shack is basically the same as ArmA vs Dragon Rising. (For me anyway). It's a no brainer.

I may look in to it later I guess. Thanks for that heads up.

Don't get me started on the demise of the great games made by RSE when Clancy still owned it. Ubi threw the baby out with the bath water.

The only good Tom Clancy games Ubi made were Splinter Cell 1-4. (I haven't played Conviction yet.)

After trying the demo to Chaos Theory, I had enough of the franchise, it moved farther from the original premise of the game. Conviction even has big hints all over the place about what to do next though they can supposedly be turned off.