From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Falcon MC comments from AOL, Part 1 (LONG)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:24:31 GMT

Someone sent this to me.  There are quite a few items of interest for csmg
readers, including more "official" responses to issues than we've seen here.

Also interesting is the *merciless* bitching of these people... :-)  csmg
has been rather laid back, in comparison.


On the "realism" thread, I note that someone else brings up the weird roll-in-
high-pitch behavior.  This, and other control weirdness, inclines me to
suggest that the Falcon flight model is hinged on the HUD display, much as
MS FS 1.0 was hinged on absolute pitch and bank.  "Euler transormations,"
indeed. :-)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

------------------------------------

Subj:  Mac Falcon vs. PC Falcon              92-11-27 20:56:29 EST
From:  TDeniz1

I just tried the Flacon Demo for the Mac, what a sorry excuse for 
a game. If you guys want to get really pissed, try out Flacon 3.0 
for the PC. It's incredible, especially with Operation Flying 
Tigers.  I think I'll stick with the PC version. 

Tuncer.....waiting for F-18

------------

Subj:  PC Version                            92-11-28 08:06:58 EST
From:  Scott N 57

I don't think that Falcon 3.0 on the PC is necessarily better.  I 
run it on a 486dx 33, and while it's very smooth, the poor 
resolution of the graphics pretty much ruin the feeling of flight.  
Its hard to pick out other planes, etc.  Flying on the deck (even 
through canyons) fails to bring out the feeling of flight.   The 
extensive campaign support and editing is nice, but I'd rather 
have a more realistic flight sim.

Scott

------------

Subj:  Yepp!!                                92-11-28 02:25:24 EST
From:  Victor 777

PC VERSION IS BETTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!

------------

Subj:  Victor!                               92-11-28 13:59:22 EST
From:  SteveAdept

I'll bet F-18 Hornet will make you eat your words, but that's 
okay. Since they were in all caps, you'll probably be full.

:)

------------

Subj:  Why is it?                            92-11-28 14:01:55 EST
From:  Chris M35

That the graphics on PCs, even powerful 486 style PCs are still 
fairly poor?  Why is it that the graphics in Falcon 3.0 are so 
grainy?  And why can't SH make a 256 color sim for the mac so that 
we can have smooth colors, instead of grainy bitmaps?

------------

Subj:  VGA vrs SVGA                          92-11-29 03:51:52 EST
From:  JonB9

Chris,

The reason is that most PC game companies (all the sim companies 
that I know of) use VGA instead of SVGA. VGA sports 256 colors but 
only a resolution or 320X200 which is less than half the 
resolution of a Mac on a comparable 13" monitor. Thats why IBM 
games have been able to do all these great things we havn't seen 
on a Mac yet - they have less than half the pixels to push. The 
bad news is you just dont get that feeling of flight you can get 
with higher resolution Mac games (excluding Red Baron of course:)

In come the 486's and with them eventually will come SVGA modes on 
IBM flight-sim games. They'll be able to do a whole lot less than 
they can do now in terms of fancy texture mapping, ect. But the 
resolution should almost make them playable.

As far as MC being in a tiny window in 16 colors, there really is 
no excuse accept lack of commitment to what SH knows we all 
*really* want. They do have commitments but unfortunately what 
they're commited to is green & white paper - not users.

Jon

------------

Subj:  Falcon MC Fantastic!!                 92-11-29 09:41:53 EST
From:  MichaelA36

As we all know it has been way toooo long in coming (3 years
I believe) since that ugly B&W version. I received mine just
before Thankgiving and it was like Christmas! Just getting into 
all the missions,but so far a very well detailed manual with very 
challenging senarios on all levels of difficulty.Very good 
packaging Sphere with large color map.Will leave info if I find
any problems,but none so far (as is expected).

------------

Subj:  Dollars                               92-11-29 13:46:02 EST
From:  DennisH49

I don't hsve a problem with copmanies going after the dollar.  I f 
the product makes them money, they will be more enthusiastic about 
creating more products.  Mac users suffer not because of companies 
because of Sierra or SH giving us less than what we want (although 
Falcon MC does seem to be a step in the right direction), but the 
problem lies in the lack of products coming out of other 
companies.  Face it, if you want a combat flight sim for your Mac, 
there are only two companies giving you that ( I don't incude 
Sierra in there). Until we get input from other developers in the 
Mac Market, or GS hires a bunch of programmers, there will not be 
the competition necessary to produce the type of products we want 
to see. 

------------

Subj:  The Dollar                            92-11-30 06:21:26 EST
From:  JonB9

I guess what I'm trying to say is that SH has a long track record 
of non-support of products. I'm not talking about customer 
support. What I'm talking about is commitment to a product and a 
type of customer. They always seem to abandon products (GATO, 
Orbiter, PT-109) after just a few (if any) bug fixes or updates). 
I played Falcon via modem tonight and it was crashing and hanging 
1 out of every three dogfights. The communications are exactly the 
same as they were in 2.2 (unplayable at 2400 baud and quirky) In 
fact the database for MC is exactly the same as the Amiga version 
mission disk from 3 or more years past. There was obviously no 
time spent in that area. It was the fast track to the almightly 
buck with nothing much more than was in 2.2 accept some color and 
a ported database. I admit it, after all these years of nothing 
>From them I expected more.

I dont expect game companies to give us anything for free. I'm 
more than willing to pay for what I recieve (don't laugh Tuncer:)
But I do expect them to earn it. In my opinion SH hasn't.

Jon

------------

Subj:  Dear S Holobyte                       92-11-30 15:34:40 EST
From:  Lovecraft

I think you suck.

I just found out that Falcon MC won't be an upgrade to Falcon 2.2.  
I've been using Falcon for a long time and I love it but that 
policy really stinks.  I have a color monitor and have suffered 
through playing in black and white long enough, I shouldn't have 
to shell out as much as I paid for this version to get a new one.  
If all of the people who loved Falcon 2.2 hadn't kept urging you 
to make a color version there might not even be a market for it.  
I am really disappointed you've turned on your customers this way.  
I have purchased my last Spectrum Holobyte product.  Rather than 
pay to get Falcon MC I'm going to buy Hellcats, perhaps they will 
be more considerate of those that buy their product (I understand 
they already have a mission disk out, is there ever going to be 
one for Falcon?)

------------

Subj:  A Note on 3.0                         92-11-30 21:21:09 EST
From:  AWulf

My understanding was that as of this time last year, SH had not 
yet found anyone to work on the Mac version, so it obviously was a 
fairly quick job ( maybe an outside contract? ). The old 2.2 
source was a disaster which is why they wrote the PC version from 
scratch. I don't know what its written in, but from the comments 
it looks like they took what they could from both versions. I 
wouldn't be surprised if the engine really isn't much better than 
the old 2.2 one, except for color. The Hellcats engine was 
loveingly coded for nearly two years until the physics AND the 
screen display were highly tuned. The F18 engine is even better ( 
a second generation design ). If SH had invested sufficient time 
and $ ( or had any real interest ) it would have taken much longer 
to do it right. Oh well... 16 colors with patterns in a Macplus 
sized screen is really at least 3 years beyond the current art.

------------

Subj:  You're Right To A Point               92-11-30 21:47:06 EST
From:  DennisH49

Jon,

I'm dissappointed to hear that Falcon's communications is not an 
improvement over the earlier version.  SH really needs to develope 
more quality control.  I can understand bugs in the PC, where 
every TDH is producing boards and other add on's, but the Mac is 
pretty standard, most high quality add-ons seem to a few 
comp[atibility problems.

But, my point is, and will continue to be, that relying on one 
company, no matter how good that company may be, is not in the 
best long term interests for Mac development in the area of 
gaming.  I'm sure GS is going to take a long look at FMC, and I 
hope they learn from it in order to make F-18 better.  I hope the 
vice-versa is true.   SH needs to take a look at what GS is doing, 
especially when it comes to the graphics engine.  I do think the 
Mac sim market could stand the competition. 

------------

Subj:  Falcon MC                             92-11-30 21:48:59 EST
From:  S HoloByte

It's official: Falcon MC can be ordered for $39.95 for registered 
Falcon Mac (1 or 2, it doesn't matter which) users. Call 1-800-
695-GAME to place your order. This includes free 2 day air 
shipping. 

Here's the official word as to why Falcon MC supports only the 12" 
screen size: Because the game was targeted at the Performa/LC 
market it was designed to run smoothly on these machines. In order 
to do this, along with the advanced flight model, sams and 
intelligent enemies, it was necessary (sp?) to use a smaller 
screen size to get the speed needed to run the game. I spoke with 
a number of top people here, and also had a chance to look at 
Hellcats of the Pacific myself (having never seen it before) and 
(this is not an official opinion, it's mine :) I could see why 
they were able to get a good frame rate. The graphics are much 
simpler and there is very little detail. I don;t know if Falcon is 
much of a comparison to it.... now I'm not knocking the game, it's 
fun, but I think that at least graphically, Falcon is a bit more 
sophisticated.

One more comment: There was some question about the 320x200 mode 
used on the PC. 256 colors is used because the more colors that 
are percieved by the human eye, the smoother the animation will 
be. Because the VGA standard was in place when Falcon 3.0 was 
coded a year and a half ago, this is what we used.  In future 
products, since the advent of the VESA standards for SVGA we will 
be able to support this format. Currently, we plan on using either 
320x400 or 640x480 (both at 256). The higer res will only be used 
if we see more people getting 486's because the 386 throughput is 
a bit to slow to handle the higher resolution.

-Chris
Spectrum HoloByte Tech Support

------------

Subj:  MC and more...                        92-11-30 22:57:50 EST
From:  Chris M35

...Okay, where do I start?

First, Lovecraft, saying that SH sucks is putting it very bluntly! 
:)

Second, Chris (SH), do you have any idea why they wanted to design 
a game aimed at the Performa/LC market when there are probably 
more Mac IIs and SE/30s running color on monitors other than 12"?  
After all, the 12" monitor wasn't even available a couple years 
ago but the venerable 13" monitor has been around since the 
beginning of time.  Any chance of SH coming out with a *free* 
upgrade and/or fix from Falcon MC 12" to Falcon MC "Big Screen" so 
that those of us who have purchased larger monitors can get the 
benefit of running the game in a large monitor?  Here's a question 
you might pass on to the programmers.  How fast would a machine 
have to be to run Falcon MC at a decent speed and have a 13" 
monitor?  Would you just need a 16 Mhz 68030, a 20 Mhz or ...?

Finally, I have received my copy of MC (I subscribe to the view 
that more competition in the mac flight sim market is a good thing 
and thus have (foolishly?) nuked my credit card for $39.95).  My 
first impressions (from short flights in between classes and 
seminars) is that the game is a definite improvement over Falcon 
2.x.  Some features I really appreciated are the gun that sounds 
like a gun and that doesn't fire in bursts, MiGs that will not 
hesitate to go vertical with you, even at lower ranks and rudder 
controls (which unfortunately only function below 400 kts).  Some 
features I am still wondering about, other than the small screen, 
are the still jerky controls (any suggestions on how to get the 
controls to the point that fine adjustments can be made in a 
hurry), the lack of support for 14400 modems and no wingmen!

I'll have to give the game a thorough testing later on to see what 
else I can turn up.  Has anyone tried going head to head at 9600?  
Any one game?  I am curious to see how it goes, having read Jon's 
report on the Head to Head capabilities at 2400.

------------

Subj:  Hellcats "Simplicity"                 92-12-01 01:25:57 EST
From:  JonB9

Chris(SH),

Just how do you come to the conclution that the Falcon terrain is 
"graphically ... a bit more sophisticated." than Hellcats.

First of all Falcon uses simple monochromatic piramids for 
mountains. Simple 2D patches for ground proximity cues. There are 
no color saturation changes as you get closer (or farther) from 
objects, there are no shadows or real-time shading updates, there 
are only 16 colors. Every time you fly near one of these great 
"piramid" mountains you get poligonal errors.

Hellcats uses multi-colored countoured mountains in many many 
different shapes, trees for low-alt cues, far more complex ground 
targets and bases, a HUGE database (far larger than Falcon's), 
water with whitecaps on it (F-18 will have sparkling water). In 
fact I can't see one single aspect of Falcon's terrain that can 
even come close to Hellcats. If you can name just one I'd love to 
hear(see) it.

I've never made comparisons to Hellcatsand Falcon myself before. 
I've only complained about SHs half attemts to improve their own 
products for the sake of the all mighty b--k. But I couldn't let 
your comments stand without retaliation:) You are flat out wrong 
about Falcon's Terrain being better than Hellcats.

Jon

------------

Subj:  Right on Jon                          92-12-01 02:04:04 EST
From:  Learjet

Chris,
I suggest you take another look at the graphic detail in Hellcats. 
A few thing to look out for in Hellcats and Leyte Gulf:

1) Taxi-in hangars with overhead flourescent lights inside.
2) Buildings with complex shapes, doors and windows. Up to a dozen 
buildings at many airfields - without slowing down the graphics.
3) Highly detailed AAA emplacements complete with ammo cans.
4) Moving vehicles at most ground installations.
5) Moving and maneuvering ships
6) Real-time shading on aircraft surfaces that are out of direct 
sunlight.
7) Ground proximity cues like whitecaps and trees

All in done while pumping more than 6 times as many bits per frame 
(at about twice the number of frames per second, IMHO). It's the 
high speed, high resolution graphics that make Hellcats gripping 
where Falcon MC is merely amusing.

Sure, Falcon outperforms other sims like Red Baron and Microsloth 
Flight Simulator, but Hellcats belongs in the  Mac Programming 
Hall of Fame. It's fine to take pride in your company's efforts, 
but don't let it cloud your perception of reality - simply 
declaring victory won't make it so. 

Andy

------------

Subj:  Wow!                                  92-12-01 04:14:43 EST
From:  SteveAdept

Not having been on for the past few days, I missed most of the 
flurry. On the other hand, after a few double-barrelled shots at 
SH by annoyed users (with about a 95% hit rate), I have little to 
add.

Now, I've made a discovery I'm going to let y'all in on. It's been 
a secret, and to date it's never come out. So, listen up and don't 
tell too many people:

Falcon was NOT designed by someone who loved flying it!

Look at the facts: Only a monkey would leave out an up view, which 
has been inadequately dealt with in MC. Why do you think General 
Dynamics put that wonderful, expensive canopy on the F-16? SO YOU 
COULD LOOK OUT OF IT!

The Black Box is still of almost no value, when a TACTS system 
could be easily implemented on the same data the Black Box is 
currently saving. At least give us some decent Cue/Review 
controls.

And Jon's right on the money (or the lack thereof) about FMC's 
terrain. While it may display a lot, it displays none of it with 
fluidity or with the realism of Hellcats. With terrain, style 
often counts more than substance.

And why doesn't it surprise me that they just yanked the Amiga 
database? Seeing as how the screen decision was made as early as 
when Apple had settled on the 12", we can see the hurry all the 
way through the game.

Now, not to be too harsh on SH, they did give us some decent 
difficulty controls, and a fair degree of terrain complexity 
control. However, in order for SH to have a shot at the market 
after February, a completely new simulation would be in order.

Will I order it? Probably. Like Chris M35, I'm a jet junkie, and I 
need my fix. Besides, Falcon MC is a better developer of 
dogfighting skills than Hellcats, I contend, although Leyte Gulf 
comes close. But while SH will have nothing to sell to us after 
FMC, F-18 mission disks will be just around the corner.

This should be an interesting year! ;)

Steve

------------

Subj:  More input                            92-12-01 11:45:19 EST
From:  Banana6000

I'm shocked to even see the suggestion that the Hellcats detail is 
"simplistic".  I respect your own opinion to the game, but I think 
that it is either (1) highly biased, or (2) you did not spend 
enough time with the product to see the details involved.  There 
is absolutely _no_ comparison between the two.

Now, once and for all, to rebut the 12" decision.  Falcon is a 3D 
flight simulator, right?  I mean, that _is_ what you've been 
developing for the past four years?  Ok, now that we agree on that 
point, what do you think a 3D simulator of any kind does?  It 
projects 3D objects into a 2D viewing space.  There is absolutely 
NO reason you cannot have a dynamic viewing engine in a 3D 
environment.  If the user runs on a 12", fine, fill the 12" 
screen.  If the user runs on a 16", fine, scale to a 16".  This is 
obviously where your engine suffers greatly over the Hellcats 
engine.  I would imagine you have limited yourselves to 12" 
because of frame rates, bitmap images, and maybe even hard-coded 
values for certain 3D objects for faster rotation, shading, etc.  

The glory of a good engine is you can run on a 9", 12", 13", 16", 
19", whatever, and you get to take full advantage of the hardware 
you have.  Why should a Quadra owner with multiple monitors be 
restricted to an LC's specs?  It makes no sense.

I really hope you the best of luck with MC, but I cannot support 
this product given the little that has been delivered, and the 
little that has been supported.  I see little future for it in its 
current form.

Rich

------------

Subj:  12" screen                            92-12-01 23:33:49 EST
From:  BIGMAC20

The decision to write for the 12" screen was stupid. One would 
only have to check in on the hardware forum, monitors division 
once a week to realize that the 12" was not going to be a long 
term market success. Most of us realized that long ago. I am also 
amazed that the people hawking (or defending) Falcon MC (meaning 
Chris from SH) haven't played Hellcats. It must be apparent to 
them by now that Hellcats is a significant competitor. The fact 
that they pay no attention to their competetion indicates at least 
one reason Falcon MC has missed the mark. The arrogance of Chris's 
comments and fact that he has never played Hellcats of the Pacific 
speaks volumes about Spectrum Holobyte's attitude on Mac 
simulations.

HMac

------------

Subj:  Remember.                             92-12-02 00:06:35 EST
From:  Chris M35

Although it isn't my job to defend SH, let us all take note when 
Chris (SH) says something that is his own opinion and when he 
posts company policy.  You cannot blame him for what the company 
does or vice versa.  After all, give the guy some credit, as he 
did hound the "powers that be" to let the rest of the world in on 
why they chose to run a 12" screen.  Many technical support people 
would have not even tried to get an answer!

As far as Falcon MC vs. Hellcats goes, I have the following 
thoughts:
1). They are not the same type of simulator.  Falcon MC has linked 
missions (finally) where your performance in one mission affects 
the enemies order of battle for the next.  Hellcats has set 
missions who's outcomes are independent of previous missions.  
This isn't necessarily bad but having the option of flying a full 
campaign is nice.  What would be even nicer (GS, SH, are you 
listening) would be the option to fly a campaign where the 
missions are dictated to you (i.e. you don't have a choice, as is 
the case in the real world), a campaign where you can decide what 
missions you fly but where the outcomes still affect the remainder 
of the campaign and the option to fly missions by themselves, as 
Hellcats currently does.
2). Falcon MC (and Mac Falcon in general) has supposedly been 
designed to be as close to the real thing as possible (okay, I 
know that in some respects they are pretty far off the mark).  
Thus you get such neat things as maximum loads, maximum takeoff 
speeds, etc..  Hellcats, while fairly realistic (but hey, has 
anyone heard of an F6F carrying one torpedo, let alone two?) 
appears to have been optimized for performance, as shown by the 
unbelievably smooth flight engine.  If we could get a combination 
of Hellcat's flight and graphics engine performance and the 
realism and complexity of Falcon MC, then there will be a lot of 
happy flight sim junkies out there. I hope that F-18 will fill the 
bill!  Incidentally, Falcon should logically be more complex (and 
harder to fly and fight) because the F-16 is probably a little 
more complex than an F6F.  I personally prefer going head to head 
in jets not because of missiles (missiles are for wimps, guns, as 
we all know (and especially Red Hawk) are the way real junkies 
settle their differences) but because of the wider range of 
maneuvers and tactics you have to be proficient in to survive.  I 
admit that the Franks in Hellcats give you a good run for your 
money but I have yet to come up with an adrenaline rush comparable 
to going 1 vee 3 Mig 21s on Colonel level or worse still, head to 
head with a human.
3).  Much as I don't want to, credit must be begrudgingly (is that 
even a word?) given to SH for coming out with Falcon MC.  Not only 
is it a vast improvement over Falcon 2.2.1 (with the exception of 
the comm features), but if those of you who have been reading this 
thread for a long time, it wasn't even being considered a year 
ago!  Spectrum Holobyte was encouraged to finally put out a color 
flight simulator by forces unknown to me and they managed to do so 
in a short amount of time (after all, it took them years just to 
find a programmer).  Much as I like too, credit must also be given 
the Graphic Simulations for having produced such an awesome 
simulator on their first try.  Now that they have cut their teeth, 
we'll have to wait a little to see what F-18 looks like.  All 
current indications point towards F-18 dumping raw fuel on the 
flight simulator market.

If the last few paragraphs of prose can't get some people fired 
up, I don't know what will.  And now I must return to alternating 
between my Fighting Falcon and my Hellcat as I try to save the 
world twice over, 50 years apart.

Chris M35

------------

Subj:  MAC FALCON                            92-12-02 01:37:16 EST
From:  TEMPEST7

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I warned you guys(Sphere) last year that Macs are the market for 
the future..........Apple is practically dumping New Computers on 
the market.....Now their even being sold in department stores 
ETC..... .
...More New Apple Models were released last month than ever before 
in the history of Apple! 
This simply means  More People will be using MACS.......
There are also much cheaper to buy!
YOU have to be Noticing it! ??
THIS MEANS MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER WILL BE USING  MACS!!
Now can we have FALCON 3.0........(we don't care about the color)
                                      X DOS IS DEAD! X

------------

Subj:  Good and bad.                         92-12-02 02:41:04 EST
From:  Chris M35

Here are some new gripes and likes about Falcon MC.

Likes:
1). cannons are no longer always fatal to opposing MiGs.  Just as 
you can take damage and live, so can they.  However, if you do it 
right, all they get is an extra few seconds to realize that they 
made a mistake in flying that day! :)
2). Your cannon fires at true M61 speed.  If you don't let up on 
the trigger, it will empty all 500 rounds faster than you can read 
that last sentence.
3). Stereo sound.

Gripes:
Is the ACES II ejection seat still that deadly?  I am losing 1 out 
of 3 pilots with "risky ejections" checked.  I thought that the 
ACES II seat was the best available.  Chris (SH), how about 
posting the ejection parameters for the seat so that we know when 
our pilots might as well ride their stricken aircraft into the 
ground.

BTW, if you are interested in flying head to head (or at least 
trying to fly head to head) against someone, post your screen name 
and your city/state of residence in the folder "MC Dogfighting".

Chris

------------

Subj:  Chris M35...                          92-12-02 22:32:12 EST
From:  SteveAdept

In regards to the ACES II seat, SH has once again committed an 
error of unbelievable stupidity. (Sorry).

I believe I've stated this before, but it is WELL within the 
latest ACES II's launch parameters to punch out at 600 knots, at 
300 feet, upside down! The seat will punch you out, turn you right 
side up and blast you in the right direction. It'll hurt, but 
you'll get a good swing of your chute.

If =somebody= at SH had just done 10 minutes research on this 
seat, they would've have handled it totally differently.

At least we now have the option to turn it off. However, this is a 
classic example of a band-aid, not a fix.

Steve

------------

Subj:  $Upgrading$ Not                       92-12-03 01:28:59 EST
From:  SohoNYC

Aside from the fact that I'm an avid Hellcats fan, the reason that 
I'm not going to upgrade to Falcon MC is the price.  How can an 
upgrade cost $40 when brand new it costs $45. (Mac's Place)  It's 
an insult to those of us who shelled out money for the original 
versions.
Also, what is this F-18 being mentioned?  Please tell me it's a 
future GraphicsSimulations program! If so, it probably won't cost 
as much new as the Falcon MC "upgrade".
Also, I'll throw my vote in for a GS board here on AO.  It would 
be great to be able to give input to a company that might actually 
implement it. 
-Mark

------------

Subj:  Low Resolution Games                  92-12-03 01:39:30 EST
From:  Granger

I will not be purchasing FalconMC because it does not support 
640x480 or higher resolutions.  To me this one issue alone will 
prevent any consideration of purchase.  I hated the small screen 
view in Vette and hated even more the lame excuses which I got 
>From SH.  While SH is limiting the resolution of all Macintosh 
computers to Mac Plus size, Graphic Simulations now supports 
multiple monitors and windows of any size.  I play on a Quadra 950 
not a LC II.

I checked out the FalconMC box when I was in a local EggHead store 
and discoverd that SH deceptively shows only full screen views of 
their game and does not make any mention of a size limit (I wonder 
why?).

I played the FalconMC demo and totaly disagree with the suggestion 
that the graphics in Hellcats are more simple than in Falcon.  
Perhaps the shock of seeing smoothly animated graphics full screen 
in 256 colors dazed you.

Mark Granger

------------

Subj:  F-18...                               92-12-03 03:15:13 EST
From:  SteveAdept

I believe Graphic Simulations is shooting for a January or 
February release, but my guess is March will probably be the 
golden month. On the other hand, recent reports indicate that it 
is still on schedule!

Here's how to get in on the F-18 discussion: hit keyword "Mac 
Games," hit "Message Boards," enter the first folder in that list, 
then the Arcade Games folder, and four folders of interest are in 
there: Hellcats of the Pacific [sic], Hellcats Tactics and 
Strategy, Modern Air Combat Sim!, and F-18 Hornet.

GS doesn't have a forum on here right now for two reasons: AFL 
McGame, or his boss, is a pinhead, and GS doesn't have sufficient 
staff to support online forums. However, they do read and consider 
all input on the aforementioned subboards. In fact, they 
specifically cited user input as responsible for picking the F-18 
as the aircraft to simulate. They =do= listen. Give it a try!

Steve

------------

Subj:  Falcon MC                             92-12-03 14:21:24 EST
From:  S HoloByte

Wow, alot to respond to in just a few messages. First off you all 
might be interested to know that AOL is the most active Falcon MC 
thread on any online service. Between Prodigy, Compu-Serve and 
Genie, we've received about 10 messages. I'd like to thank you all 
for making this a really interesting forum. Becasue of the great 
activity here, you got the CEO of the company to notice. Gilman 
has asked me to capture the whole message thread for your review. 
So yes, you voice does count! :)

Chris, thanks for your suggestions. I'll check on the "optimium" 
configuration information for you. You had a few issues on the 
controls. First, as to the rudders not being active above 400 kts. 
This same feature is implemented in Falcon 3.0 and is accurate to 
the performance of the F-16. Rudders are for the most part used 
for low speed positioning. At approximately 230 kts, 
aerodynamically, the rudder becomes only a steering suppliment and 
disengages at 450 kts. On the subject of the jerky controls, this 
is due to the frame rate. The jerkiness can be helped by turning 
off detail. 

There also seems to be some concern and confusion on the 
communication modes. I'm just wondering if anybody has tried it 
other than Jon? Some of your assumptions on the comms code are 
wrong. First off, the communictaions package is a totally new 
engine. It was actually developed by the team who developed the 
comms pakage for RoboSport, a Maxis product, and is one of the 
cleaner comm pakages around. We have, howerver found one minor bug 
that we didn't catch, and may be the source of crashing 
complaints. At the end of a head to head game, when you are asked 
if you would like to play another head to head game, if the 
challenger (ie caller) doesn't answer first, the game will crash. 
Make sure that when you are playing head to head, that the 
challenger hits yes first. Other than that, it seems to be pretty 
clean while in flight. Other comms problems may be caused by 
running certian system extensions. Try resarting without any 
extensions and see if you have better luck. 

-Chris 
Spectrum HoloByte Tech Support

------------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games