From: tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Marauder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Falcon MC Demo (at la
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:50:02 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1873.339.uupcb@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us> glen.kawano@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Glen Kawano)  writes:
>I guess I have to respond to some of this major criticism about MC:
>
>>When I mean fast I mean a NICE smooth animation.  Falcon is soooo
>>jerky that you need at least a ci to play it correctly.  Falcon
>>reminds me of the game Jet for the apple IIe.  Slow as a dog.
>>By comparison, hellcats works great on every machine I have played
>>it on (even lowly classic IIs)
>
>Hellcats does have a good frame rate, but the game itself is too simple
>and unrealistic. It's more of a simulator for the masses rather than a
>simulator for die-hard pilots.
>
For me, realism is when a simulation works smoothly like a real plane, not
when you have to wait a second for the screen to redraw.  When you compare 
hellcats to simulators of a couple years ago(used by real pilots) the 
graphics are similar.  Standard polygon graphics and vector shading.  
If its good enough for the airforce, its good enough for me.

>>>>4-  Controls are still bad.  Unless you have a mouse stick, forget it.
>[Contol gripes and explantions deleted]

>>Why didn't you like it.  It is SOOOO accurate and SOOOO realistic with its
>>animation and flight performance that it makes EVERYTHING ELSE look cheap
>>(IMHO)
>
>The problem (I have) with Hellcats is that it uses extremely simple
>renderings to get frame rate up. The plane's flight characteristics are
>okay, but it doesn't really simulate an actual plane well. IMHO, the
>cockpit is too "cartoony." The MouseStick support is horrible (even with
>the settings they offer, and after tweaking them extensively!). The only
>good thing about Hellcats is that it looks *really* good, with its 8 bit
>color and smooth animation. As a simulator, it just isn't real, nor do I
>think it was meant to be. It was designed to be fun.
>

Falcon uses the same type of animations and renderings as hellcats.  The 
only problem is that its in 16 colors so its very difficult to see.  As for
the hellcatsflight characteristics, the authors made the simulation to be
as real as possible.  Next time you play it, fly with bombs and full tanks.
Then try it w/o the ordinance and look at the difference.  Also look 
from the tower view with the plane flying straight at it.  When you pull
up, its flys straight for a sec and then moves, just like the real thing.
As for realism, sure the cockpit is not accurate to the real thing, but 
falcon's realism detracts from the flight characteristics.  In a real 
falcon, you sit on top of the plane, not in it as Spectrum would have 
you believe.  Visibility is much better in hellcats(and don't bring up 
straight down, I think its wrong too.)

>>People must realize that Graphic Simulations made there first product for the
>>Mac less than a year ago, and already its has been said by many on this group
>>(Myself included) as the best flight simulator for any PC platform.  In this
>>time they have made a game/simulator that can be the best it can be.  I am
>>still waiting for multiple monitor support and better outside views from
>>Spectrum.  Graphic Sims did the oustide view in the begging and now with
>>multiple monitors, its absolutely phenonminal.  Well Spectrum, how long
>>have you had to do this?  TWO YEARS for ONE upgrade!!!!!!!!!!!. When i talk
>>about Graphics Sims F-18, I hope it is done the way hellcats was
>>and NOT the same as one for the amiga.
>
>I hope Graphic Sims' F-18 is good too. I'm sure they'll use the same
>graphics engine, but I hope it's more authentic than Hellcats was. I
>agree that Spectrum Holobyte took too long to come out with this game. I
>suppose it was because they had everybody working on 3.0 for so long.

And 3.0 is nothing when compared to the flight characteristics as hellcats.
>

>Anyway, I played the demo on my si; it has a cache, FPU, and video card,
>so it benchmarks at about the speed of a cache-equipped ci. I thought
>the frame rate even at the highest detail settings was only a little
>slow, and still very playable. It did improve significantly when some of
>the stuff was turned off. I bought 2.2.2 just a few weeks ago (and then
>promptly returned it when I found out how close MC was to completion)
>and experienced lots of speed-related problems, even in slow mode.
>
>Thankfully, MC appears to be pretty good about accomodating different
>speeds now. I fully expected SH to use 16 colors for this release; I was
>pleasantly surprised that the renderings are dithered and quite good--a
>distinct improvement over those of Vette!. Before everybody starts
>howling about how bad the renderings are, remember that the artists had
>to work with 16 colors; considering that, I think they did a good job. I
>really wish the designers had put in the landscaping that's in 3.0. :(
>Maybe next release.

But falcon only uses half the view on each screen to display the same
info as hellcats(I'm talking ground not cockpit graphics) and it ouly uses
16 colors in a small screen.  They can make great stand still graphics and
good authenticity to the real thing, but it is NOT a true flight simulator,
it is an aircraft simulator that people think is a flight simulator.
Don't take my word for it, SH even admits it on the opening credits of the
demo.
>
>As for the views, I think there shouldn't be a straight down view; in a
>real F-16, how would you manage that? I do think they ought to add a
>tracking view which is based from within the cockpit.
>
The best thing would be to show the HUD in the forward main screen and
use the arrows to look around the outside and the cockpit.   

>Glen Kawano
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . 
>             


-- 
tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu--------------------------Thomas Blackman
Paint em all, let the judges sort em out.          Go team Tippmann
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games