Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Falcon MC Demo (at la
From: glen.kawano@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Glen Kawano) 
Date: 22 Nov 92 11:17:00 GMT
Reply-To: glen.kawano@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Glen Kawano) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The Batchelor Pad PCBoard ~ Long Beach, CA ~ +1 310 494 8084

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.

>>>4-  Controls are still bad.  Unless you have a mouse stick, forget it.
>>
>>   Try adjusting the sensibility. According to certain persons (e.g. H. Bornst
>in)
>>the keyboard is better than the mouse or the joystick. I don't know, I
>>only use the keyboard.
>>   Yes there is still control problems. When banking, you should pull back the
>>stick to turn. The software does it for you...  Weird, because on Falcon 3.0 f
>r
>>the PC, it doesn't.

Someone was complaining in another message that the MouseStick didn't
work right; to use the MouseStick, make a set with vector speed set at
70. Set null zone at 30 or so. Tracking unchanged. Direct zone and
direct output should be zero. Set the buttons any way you want (I have 1
and 3 for throttle, 2 as trigger). Of course, set the game to MouseStick
control. With these settings, Falcon's response is extremely good, in
the same league as Flight Simulator 4. (Actually, I don't know what the
roll rate of the F-16 is, but it seems kind of slow in this game.)

>>  I've tried Hellcat (but just a little, I confess) and didn't like it. I've s
>en

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

Glen Kawano
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . 
             
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games