HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:36:56 GMT

In article <1h545eINNcrq@eagle.natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne) writes:
>
>In article <BzLr4D.56E@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>
>>Excuse me, Bob.  Though I don't own the game, I've seen enough of it to
>>categorize it as "arcade".  The gameplay is essentially Nintendo.  
>>
>
>What Nintendo game are you comparing Comanche to, specifically?  I want to
>try it.  Maybe I've been selling Nintendo short.
>

The visual splendor in Commanche will surpass any Nintendo game, but I'm
not referring to graphics.  Commanche is still a simple shoot-em-up
underneath all the fireworks.

>[...]
>>>Call me crazy.  I would expect a jet's motion to be more fluid than that of
>>>a helicopter or tank.
>>
>>I'll call you obnoxious instead, if you don't mind.  By "fluid", I meant
>
>I don't mind a bit.
>

I apologize for that uncalled-for remark, Bob.  

>>that the a/c can tilt and rotate in fine increments, and be viewable
>>from any aspect.  The bitmaps in Commanche are prerendered to show the
>>choppers in preset profiles only, whereas the polygons in Falcon are
>>rendered on the fly, and thus, can be viewed from infinitely more angles.
>>
>>Phat.
>
>That's some mighty thin skin you've got there, Phat.  You ought to go and try 
>some correspondence in one of the political newsgroups.  You'll find out what 
>'obnoxious' means in a hurry.  Interesting, too, that you are 'obnoxious' 
>enough to insult those of us who like Comanche by comparing it to a game system 
>designed for 12 year olds.  Then, when you come across someone who doesn't 
>share your opinion, you are considerably less understanding than you apparently 
>expect them to be.
>
>I think there's a larger canvas here, and all the people who complain that
>the simulation doesn't have the same X as F3 or isn't as Y as Gunship are
>missing the point.  As a game, Comanche is both fun and addictive (still too
>easy to finish, as I've said).  As a simulation it definitely has its faults.  
>It's terrain rendering is unrivalled, however.  Now that a game exists with 
>this calibre of graphics, it will be increasingly difficult for the game 
>companies to sell games/simulations that don't live up to this standard.  
>Guess who benefits?  Yup, us.  And note that Comanche beat Strike Commander to 
>market by (at least) 6 months.  F15 III by a solid month.  In this sense, it 
>is (and will always be) a truly groundbreaking product.  Sort of like 
>Sublogic's Flight Simulator -- you can find a lot to criticize about it now, 
>but it was a brand new technology when there were no other games in town.

I agree that Commanche is a major breakthrough in terrain rendering, but
is it any good as a simulator, or as just a game?  From my experience with
it, I would say not on either level.  And I'm not going to spend $80 to
find out if it will last for the long term when I lose interest after
looking at it for just a few minutes.

Phat.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: Joel_Murray@mindlink.bc.ca (Joel Murray)
Subject: Re: Landing in Shuttle
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:06:37 GMT

: Bob Conyne writes:
:
: Msg-ID: <1hnks2INN1b3@eagle.natinst.com>
: Posted: 28 Dec 1992 13:34:26 -06
:
: Org.  : National Instruments, Austin, TX
:
:
: OK, here's a question for you "Shuttle" players.  When landing the shuttle,
: the manual suggests you use the Spec 50 display on CRT 3.  I can't seem to
: get this display to become active (even by entering SPEC 50 PRO on the
: keypad).  Am I missing something here?  The manuals are pretty difficult to
: follow, so there may well be an intermediate step I'm leaving out.
: Anybody?

I can't remember the exact keypad syntax at the moment, but I think you're
correct.

Have you tried keying in the above and then clicking on CRT 3 with your
mouse?
--

       Joel Murray / Vancouver, British Columbia  /  Canada, Eh?
       Joel_Murray@mindlink.bc.ca               CIS:  73200,3117

Ligneous and petrous projectiles can potentially fracture my osseous
structure, but pejorative appellations will forever remain innocuous.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: jmurphy@pop.nih.gov (Joe Murphy)
Subject: CH Virtual Pilot (PC Yoke)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.simulators
Organization: National Institutes of Health
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:37:12 GMT

I just bought one of these things and have been playing it with ATP. It is
really great! Anyone else try it out? 

This is a new yoke for the IBM by CH Products. Unlike the Maxx yoke, it is
well
designed and very rugged. Has a throttle and two buttons as well a X/Y trim
controls. They really put alot of thought into the design. I got mine for
$80 which seems like a very good price, especially when compared the
thrustmasters at $90. You could probably get one less mail order. It
calibrates really well and overall the feel is excellent. It you have been
considering a yoke for the pc this one is very nice.

Disclaimer: I am still a novice at ATP, and I never owned a Maxx yoke but
have only inspected them in the stores. 

Cheers.

---
Joe Murphy
Computer Specialist and Macintosh Trickster

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD. USA
Division of Computer Research and Technology
Personal Computing Branch, Macintosh Support Group

Internet: jmurphy@pop.nih.gov or jmurphy@alw.nih.gov
          or jmurphy@helix.nih.gov
From: braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com (John Braden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Aviation simulation program
Followup-To: rec.aviation.simulators
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:24:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lincolnshire.diag.stratus.com

In article <braden-231292112536@lincolnshire.diag.stratus.com>,
braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com (John Braden) wrote:
> 
> In article <JON.92Dec18121152@destin.dazixco.ingr.com>,
> jon@destin.dazixco.ingr.com (Jon Stone) wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:09:22 GMT, mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) said:
> > 
> >  John> In article <1992Dec17.202531.17732@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> tsandeson@mta.ca writes:
> > >
> > >  For those that are curious about it, it can be found via anonymous FTP at..
> > >
> > >  128.153.28.12         under pub/aviator
> > >
I hate to follow up my own post, but I received new information about the
aviator program from several sources.  First, pricing for a node-locked
end-user license is now available for a promotional price of $49.95 (not
$150).  Software is available on CD-ROM for $7.95, or via anonymous FTP
from
sun.soe.clarkson.edu under /pub/aviator as noted above.

Hardware requirements:
   *    Any color Sun Microsystems single-processor SPARCstation 
        with a GX graphics accelerator card.  An MP system will not
        work.
   *    16 MBytes of memory 
   *    21 MBytes of contiguous Hard Disk space (anywhere on your network)

Software Requirements:
   *    Need to be running the OpenWindows window system
   *    SunOS version 4.1, 4.1.1 or 4.1.2. (4.1.3 also seems to work)

Features:
   *   Realistic flight dynamics of F/A-18A and a Boeing 727
   *   Actual terrain data from the Defense Mapping Agency
   *   Networked Dogfighting with multiple players
   *   Magnificent pilot's-eye view of terrain
   *   Functions on desktop SPARCsystem (with GX accelerator)
   *   Adjustment of flight conditions and visibility

A user said "for a single user, it isn't all that much fun.  Over
ethernet with 5 other guys shooting at you it is a very good way
to spend $49.  Some drawbacks are that you don't have guns, and
can't land."  For more information email aviator-interest@ahi.com.

Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with Artificial Horizons and
do not have any further interest in their product at this time.

        John Braden
        braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com
*****************************************************************
"Things change fast in the computer business.  A year is a hell
 of a long time.  It's like a year in a dog's life."
 Tracy Kidder, "The Soul of a New Machine"
*****************************************************************
From: petersok@ucs.orst.edu (Ken Peterson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: F15 Strike Eagle III
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:20:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1h3r72INNi4f
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu



Move over F3, E3 is here!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: cs491122@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs491122)
Subject: Question on P51 Mustang Flight Simulator for Mac's.
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:37:23 GMT


'lo there:

I saw an ad for the "P51 Mustang Flight Simulator"
	in MacWAREHOUSE (1-800/255-6227 in case you're also interested).
The ad says--"... unparalleled feeling of flight ... dogfight with
	Germany's formidable Me 109 ... runs in black and white or 16 colors."
Can someone tell me how P51 compares to the
	well respected simulators (like ATP and FS4)
	and games (like F3)?
I would like to know if it flies reasonably well (comparable to ATP and FS4),
	has satisfactory visual feedback,
	and good enemy AI for dogfighting (comparable to F3d).
	After playing F3, I must say I was a bit (well, pretty much)
	disappointed by Falcon MC's performance.
	It reminded me of the original Falcon PC version.
Hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable new year celebration...
From: jnl@fourthwave.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Falcon 3.0d Install Problems
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 22:20:40 EST
Organization: 4th Wave
Reply-To: jnl@fourthwave.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1



> 
> 
> I thought that something was mentioned on this group before regarding this, but
> I must have missed it. I just purchased Falcon, and when I went to install
> it, the install made it to the point where it copies the files from the 4th disk, 
> and starts decompressing. The program then exits to the dos prompt, and
> falcon3.exe does not exist. I tried calling SH tech support, but they are
> impossible to reach. I tried it with booting from a floppy which contained
> their autoexec.bat and config.sys from disk 1, but still no success.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated, since I really want to play Falcon!!
> 
Yes, apparently a group of serial numbers did get out with bad
disk #4 for 3.5" disks. I recommend you send a fax to them at
(510)522-3587. Be sure to give your serial # and state the problem.
It takes about 7 - 10 days to get the replacement disk.

I fully concur that Spectrum Holobyte sets a new low for technical
support. They make you call long distance and it seems a majority
of the time the support line is locked out and all you get is a message.
You normally cannot even leave a message to get a return call. Calls
to the regular switchboard are also a joke. It
took me two months to get Falcon 3.0 running. Even after writing the
Chairman, Gilman Louie, and demanding a refund or a running program
it still took 3 weeks and many calls to get Falcon 3.0 to work. I
finally isolated the problem and called them to state the results
and the only response I got was that it was a wierd problem they could
not explain.

Good luck - you will need it.

-------------------------------------
John Latta    4th Wave      Alexandria, VA
     (703) 360-4800     FAX (703) 360-2311
jnl@fourthwave.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com (John Braden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Aviation simulation program
Followup-To: rec.aviation.simulators
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:08:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lincolnshire.diag.stratus.com

In article <JON.92Dec18121152@destin.dazixco.ingr.com>,
jon@destin.dazixco.ingr.com (Jon Stone) wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:09:22 GMT, mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) said:
> 
>  John> In article <1992Dec17.202531.17732@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> tsandeson@mta.ca writes:
> >
> >  For those that are curious about it, it can be found via anonymous FTP at..
> >
> >  128.153.28.12         under pub/aviator
> >
> >  This is I believe a full copy and completely functional version of AVIATOR.
> >
> > This is for Sun's only, and only those that have a GX graphics
> accelerator.
> 
> It's well worth loading if you have one.
> 
> Jon

Since I have a color Sun IPX, I downloaded & installed this package,
and have more information.  Although it is a full copy of the software,
it is licensed and you must purchase a license from Artificial Horizons
at $150 per user to have more than a few minutes demo of this program.
It has topographical information for the Bay area of California and
the islands of Hawaii, and provides a simulated cockpit view of fair
quality in 16-color mode.  Screen update performance can be improved
by selecting less terrain detail.  It also apparently provides networked
dogfight capabilities for multiple users, assuming licenses are available.
This program does not appear to be suitable for IFR flight simulation
or landing practice.  A heads-up display is provided, but no navigation
instruments are available, and contact with the ground is considered a
crash.  I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually purchased
a license to this software (I note Sun employees get it at half price).
How does it compare to ACM under XWindows (which is free)?


        John Braden
        braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com
*****************************************************************
"Things change fast in the computer business.  A year is a hell
 of a long time.  It's like a year in a dog's life."
 Tracy Kidder, "The Soul of a New Machine"
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: F15 Strike Eagle III
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:27:44 GMT

In article <1h3r72INNi4f@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> petersok@ucs.orst.edu (Ken Peterson) writes:
>
>Move over F3, E3 is here!

I take it, then, that F15SE3 is on the shelf?  Big question: is it at least
twice the speed/framerate of the demo?  

Phat.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: sbray@advtech.uswest.com (Steven Bray)
Subject: FS4 Scenery Rotated - Help
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:20:22 GMT


Does anyone know why FS4 sometimes has the compass off by any number of
degrees?  Specifically it seems to happen when switching modes.  I created
some scenery which now appears to be rotated at least 10 degrees from what
it should be.  I had been switching modes back and forth to get it correct.
Normally, I would just live with it, but when I cross scenery boundaries
then the next area is rotated.  More importantly is there a way to rotate 
my scenery about the scenery center to correct the problem?  I would not
look forward to manually moving everything with ASD.  Any insight or 
suggestions would be appreciated.

Steve Bray
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: JetFighter2 carrier landings
Organization: sdf full-shell Public Access Unix - Dallas, TX - 214/436-3281
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:37:57 GMT

For those of you who actually are playing, and not FLAMING about, 
Jetfighter 2,  here's an alternate way to approach the carrier (according to Steven Coonts -see below).
 
I was reading Steven Coonts novel, Flight of the Intruder, and in it he describes the process of actually lining-up and landing an A-6 Intruder, (at least during the Vietnam War) So, after being continually frustrated with the ACLS needles in Jetfighter 2, I gave it a wack using the process in the book.  You may want to refer to chapter five of the novel, specifically pages 78 through 90.
 
I must say that it works real good (after some tailoring) and I'm sticking to using this system in the future.  You will need to have the left MFD displaying the Nav/ILS screen (via the F1 key) to see the distance and sink rate (F/S), and I like to have the right MFD displaying the flight statistics (via F3) just in case I can't read the HUD display.

Here's the process:

1. Enter MARSHALL
  a.  9,000', speed 250 kts, at least 24 nm away from carrier.
  b.  at 24 nm, 40% throttle and dive to -100 F/S
  c.  maintain to 20 nm.

you may want to start this manuever a bit early, say at 24.2 nm, for the path through MARSHALL is very quick, around 1 min. and if you're a little late getting started, you'll be too high when you get to the bottom.

2. Leaving MARSHALL
  a. at 20 nm, throttle up to 50%, reduce dive to -24 F/S
  b. maintain to 12 nm

your speed should stay around 250 kts.  The important thing about the throttle is that you get the proper sink/dive rate (in F/S) and then adjust throttle to match desired speed

3. At 12 nm to carrier
  a. drop gear and hook
  b. maintain 50% throttle, -24 F/S dive.

here the airspeed will drop some, I ignore changing the throttle.

4. At 6 nm to carrier (this should be around 1,200')
  a. reduce dive to -16 F/S

this should do all but put you right on top of the arresting wires.  Note that #4 is a little bit of tailoring that I included myself, you may want to tweak that setting to work best for you.  This has been tested with both the Hornet and the F14 and seems to be about the same for either plane.  

Using the Marshall fixes is mainly for night and bad weather.  If it is daylight and clear, you can approach from the 20nm, 5,000' position just as well.

Comments and suggestions are welcome: amn@sdf.Lonestar.ORG
FLAMES to : /dev/null
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu (David L. Britton)
Subject: DOS 5.0 req. for Falcon 3.0
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:31:28 GMT

Does anyone know the reason DOS 5.0 is required for Falcon 3.0?  I am currently
running DR DOS 5.0 (released parallel to MS DOS 4.0) and am curious if the
program would run on my OS.  I am assuming that there are minimum memory 
requirements that MS DOS 5.0 provides.  DR DOS 5.0 provided greater memory
availability than MS DOS 4.0 if I am recalling correctly.  Has anyone been
successful in running Falcon 3.0 on a previous DOS version (excluding DR DOS
6.0)?

Thanx in advance...


-- 
** David L. Britton                ** A fool and his fish are soon parted  **
** University of Nebraska at Omaha **                         -someone     **
** fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu        ** I never thought I'd have to say this:**
** Insanity Bought and Sold        **   Don't blame me, I voted for Bush   **
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu (David L. Britton)
Subject: Repost of Models for FS4 (request)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:55:16 GMT

Would someone be kind enough to repost some of the airplane models for 
FS4.  I was lying down on the job and didn't catch any of them.

Email them if you like, I won't complain...

:-}=

Thanx in advance
-- 
** David L. Britton                ** A fool and his fish are soon parted  **
** University of Nebraska at Omaha **                         -someone     **
** fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu        ** I never thought I'd have to say this:**
** Insanity Bought and Sold        **   Don't blame me, I voted for Bush   **
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Landing in Shuttle
Date: 28 Dec 1992 13:34:26 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com


OK, here's a question for you "Shuttle" players.  When landing the shuttle,
the manual suggests you use the Spec 50 display on CRT 3.  I can't seem to
get this display to become active (even by entering SPEC 50 PRO on the
keypad).  Am I missing something here?  The manuals are pretty difficult to
follow, so there may well be an intermediate step I'm leaving out.  Anybody?

Thanks!
--Bob
bobc@natinst.com
From: chubbard@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Charles William Hubbard)
Subject: Re: DOS 5.0 req. for Falcon 3.0
Organization: Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 01:02:56 GMT

>Does anyone know the reason DOS 5.0 is required for Falcon 3.0?  I am currently
>running DR DOS 5.0 (released parallel to MS DOS 4.0) and am curious if the
>program would run on my OS.  I am assuming that there are minimum memory 
>requirements that MS DOS 5.0 provides.  DR DOS 5.0 provided greater memory
>availability than MS DOS 4.0 if I am recalling correctly.  Has anyone been
>successful in running Falcon 3.0 on a previous DOS version (excluding DR DOS
>6.0)?

I know the reason they "require" DOS 5.0 is for memory reasons.  As I
recall Falcon 3.0 needs 513k of free mem or something like that.  I've
never tried Falcon under any other OS than DOS 5.0 so I can't say if it
would work ok under DRDOS or not.  I do know that even under  DOS 5.0 I've
got to dump most of my drivers to free up enough space for the sim to go!

C.
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 16:10:43 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
Keywords: Falcon Commanche

>>What Nintendo game are you comparing Comanche to, specifically?  I want to
>>try it.  Maybe I've been selling Nintendo short.
>
>The visual splendor in Commanche will surpass any Nintendo game, but I'm
>not referring to graphics.  Commanche is still a simple shoot-em-up
>underneath all the fireworks.
>

Well .... granted it is significantly less complex than other sims, but I
still think you're selling it short.  There is a bit of strategy involved;
for instance, you must conserve your hellfires for the ground targets.  Also,
you must remember to stay locked onto your hellfire targets until they are
destroyed (unlike the stingers, which are 'fire and forget' weapons).
Consequently, it is important to be aware of your location when you fire a
hellfire, or you could be destroyed while waiting for it to hit its
target.  Your fundamental point (that it has nowhere near the degree of 
complexity of sims like Falcon 3.0) is well taken, however.

>>[...]
>>>>Call me crazy.  I would expect a jet's motion to be more fluid than that of
>>>>a helicopter or tank.
>>>
>>>I'll call you obnoxious instead, if you don't mind.  By "fluid", I meant
>>
>>I don't mind a bit.
>>
>
>I apologize for that uncalled-for remark, Bob.  
>

Thank you.  I humbly accept your apology.

>
>I agree that Commanche is a major breakthrough in terrain rendering, but
>is it any good as a simulator, or as just a game?  From my experience with
>it, I would say not on either level.  And I'm not going to spend $80 to
>find out if it will last for the long term when I lose interest after
>looking at it for just a few minutes.
>
>Phat.

This is a difficult question to answer.  Isn't this the same as asking
"what's the difference between a game and a simulator?"  Someone (I think
it was Robert Dorsett) pointed out that just about everything available
on the PC is a significant compromise (from a realism point of view) if you 
start looking closely enough.  I would have to agree that Falcon 3.0 is 
about the closest you can come to a PC jet fighter simulator.  I'm hoping
that Comanche leads to a revolution in the graphics engines that these
games use; then we can really start to compare/critique them based on other
criteria.   I have to say I have enjoyed Comanche, as a game.  Whether or
not it qualifies as a simulation is beyond me. 
BTW, I got Comanche for $50 at Babbages.  I doubt if I'd have paid $80 for
it (or any other game for that matter).
--Bob
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators