HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: CH Flight stick Throttle
Date: 1 Jan 1993 21:22:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Ian_Staines@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Staines) says:

>I am unable to get the throttle controle on my CH Flightstick to work with
>FS4 or ATP.  I assume that this feature is supposed to work with these
>programs.  I am using the joystick directly into my games port, without any
>"Y" splitter.
>

Some games ports, especially those found on "multi-I/O" cards only implement
a single joystick port.  If you use a dedicated game card (I bought the CH
one and it works find) or the port on a SoundBlaster it will work fine 
(assuming your game supports it).  The CH throttle is actually one axis
of a second joystick, the Maxx pedals are another axis.  The "top hat" 
control on the Thrustmaster is another example of use of the second joystick.
-- 
Bob Rogers            Internet:  at608@cleveland.freenet.edu



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: k34386t@kaira.hut.fi (Petri Suominen)
Subject: FS4 Technical info wanted
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:16:29 GMT

I'm planning to write a piece of software that would connect to the
FS multiplayer mode, but in order to do that I need to know the protocol
that is used in the transmissoin of information.

So I'd like to know

- What excatly is sent over (at least coordinates I presume)
- How is the transmitted information formatted
- What parity etc are used

Hope some of you rec.aviationists could help me with this

Merry Xmas


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Falcon MC
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.184822.29232@PacBell.COM> lestan1@srv.PacBell.COM (Larry E. Stanfel) writes:
>I see that SH has a new Falcon version out for the Mac
>(called Falcon MC, I believe).  Has anyone had a chance
>to use it yet?  Is it just a color version of the old
>Mac Falcon, or is it more like Falcon 3.0 for the Macintosh?
>How well does it run on a IIsi?

It has been discussed exhaustively on comp.sys.mac.games.  It is a 
a colorized version of 2.2, with a couple of new weapons, a new database,
a different interface, and somewhat enhanced graphics.  It is nowhere near 
3.0/PC's capabilities, however.  It runs in a 512x342 window-space.

Some users claim that it's excessively jerky, but it runs fine on a IIcx.  It
isn't as fluid as Hellcats.

Most criticism has centered around the high upgrade cost, considering the
delays in getting it out, and the marginality of the upgrade.  Its main
contribution seems to be that it will, run on the post-SE machines at least
halfway decently.



---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: CH Virtual Pilot (PC Yoke)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:27:37 GMT

From article <16047@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, by tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett):
> In article <1992Dec22.072751.20781@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) 
> writes:
>> Yes, I have MAXX yoke and I seen this CH thing at Comdex and I love this
>> new one.  I called CH in trying to get one but failed, darn it, where did 
>> you get yours?  (We demand to know!!!!!) 
> 
> 
> They have them over at Comp USA in Santa Clara on El Camino Real...

Thanks.  I swang by yesterday and found there, 3 or 4 of 'em.  
Got one for $89.  This one is good, just as I tried at Comdex.

Top portion of the desk about 5" is required, but bottom of the desk
requires only one inch.  This is a major point with yoke because most 
desk have little space bottom before encountering a supporting rail.
Very thoughtful design.

The "lever" spring is also smooth, and the throttle at the correct 
position.  For once I left the FCS Pros and WCS alone for flying.

If you have a love one who flies FS4 or ATP, this would be the perfect
gift for Christmas.

One thing did bother me a bit was that all the boxes are not skrink-wrap.
Guess they were rushing for Christmas.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?  AND F15III
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:10:57 GMT

In article <BzLr4D.56E@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>
>I'll call you obnoxious instead, if you don't mind.  By "fluid", I meant
>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.

Also, there was a less than verbose post telling F3 to move over for F15
Strike Eagle III.

Boys, lets not start a flame war here!  Its been rather civil to date,
can it last?

I must say I agree with Phat in regards to "fluidity".  A big part of
dogfighting is judging which way the ac is headed.  In games like
Wing Commander, SWotL, and Commanche this is very hard as their bitmaps
allow only certain discreet orientations.  So the plane/spaceship/
copter may be headed 30 degrees away from where it is pointed.
What pilots might try to do intentionally (skid the plane to defeat
someones aim), these games do all the time, unintentionally.

As to F15III vs F3, please give us a review, not just a one-liner.  I
don't expect it to surpass F3 in realism, but still may consider
getting it if it is good enough in that regard.  Posts in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games have been less than enthusiastic for the most
part.

Dave Masten
masten@beta.lanl.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: CH Virtual Pilot (PC Yoke)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:27:51 GMT

From article <jmurphy-211292093538@squid2.dcrt.nih.gov>, by jmurphy@pop.nih.gov (Joe Murphy):
> I just bought one of these things and have been playing it with ATP. It is
> really great! Anyone else try it out? 

Yes, I have MAXX yoke and I seen this CH thing at Comdex and I love this
new one.  I called CH in trying to get one but failed, darn it, where did 
you get yours?  (We demand to know!!!!!) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: DOS 5.0 req. for Falcon 3.0
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:33:30 GMT

From article <1993Jan3.010256.27903@serval.net.wsu.edu>, by chubbard@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Charles William Hubbard):
>>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.
> 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: jmurphy@pop.nih.gov (Joe Murphy)
Subject: Re: CH Virtual Pilot (PC Yoke)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.simulators
Organization: National Institutes of Health
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:30:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.072751.20781@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi
Chong) wrote:
> 
> Yes, I have MAXX yoke and I seen this CH thing at Comdex and I love this
> new one.  I called CH in trying to get one but failed, darn it, where did 
> you get yours?  (We demand to know!!!!!) 

I got my Virtual Pilot at Micro Center in Vienna Va. I have seen them at
CompUSA also.

---
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 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: F15 Strike Eagle III
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:33:38 GMT

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

I second. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: lam@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark lam)
Subject: adlib.snd file for ATP needed
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 03:32:35 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

Hello!

I used to have the adlib.snd file for ATP, but unfortunately my hard drive
decided to destroy itself.  SOOOO....I no longer have this file.  The PC
noise is driving me crazy!  If anyone has this file, or knows where I can
get it, please let me know via Email.

On a related note (and I know this has been discussed before, but I wasn't
paying attention back then): is the ~$20 upgrade for the SoundBlaster driver
worth it?  Will it work with a Thunderboard (what I have)?

Thanks!

-- 
Mark R. Lam                       InterNet Address: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu 
Colorado State University                           lam@lamar.colostate.edu 
Fort Collins, Colorado
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:06:15 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Dec21.222559.6615@aosg.gsf.dec.com>, 
verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com writes:
> I agree also - with the exception of power control.  There is no reason
> why a human being should have to muck around with fuel mixtures, propeller 
speeds,
> cowl flaps, waste gates, and the like.  When you're flying in crappy weather
> and your work load is extreme, the last thing you need is to worry whether
> your propeller speed is appropriate for the manifold pressure or not.  It's 
almost 
> 1993 for crying out loud.  It's time to bring power control up to date - and
> yes, I know.... high certification costs, low volume....... sigh.


Aw c'mon guys I fly little slow taildraggers most of the time, maybe
for IFR flight it would be a help, but I like doing it myself...

I think though (after checking out in the C-182 after 10 yrs absence)
that I could live with automatic cowl flaps!  That's something that is
missing from fs4 -- cowl flaps!


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: lestan1@srv.PacBell.COM (Larry E. Stanfel)
Subject: Falcon MC
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:48:22 GMT

I see that SH has a new Falcon version out for the Mac
(called Falcon MC, I believe).  Has anyone had a chance
to use it yet?  Is it just a color version of the old
Mac Falcon, or is it more like Falcon 3.0 for the Macintosh?
How well does it run on a IIsi?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Organization: AOSG
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:25:59 GMT

>From article <15995@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, by tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett):
>> Personally, in my own flying I don't want anymore automation because it
>> takes away from the awareness of what is going on, not to mention 
>> utterly ruining my macho image.:-)
>
>Yes, I used to think that people who drive automatic are sissy, when I 
>was still driving stick-shift.  Now...>
>
>I do fly real planes, and I can appreciate what you said.  Darn, we
>really need a flying-saucer plane.  (no aeliron, flaps, elevator,
>rudder, etc, to worry about) 

I agree also - with the exception of power control.  There is no reason
why a human being should have to muck around with fuel mixtures, propeller speeds,
cowl flaps, waste gates, and the like.  When you're flying in crappy weather
and your work load is extreme, the last thing you need is to worry whether
your propeller speed is appropriate for the manifold pressure or not.  It's almost 
1993 for crying out loud.  It's time to bring power control up to date - and
yes, I know.... high certification costs, low volume....... sigh.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:47:57 GMT

In article <BzLr4D.56E@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>Obviously not.  Comanche definitely has its faults (too easy to finish, for 
>>one thing), but comparing it to a Nintendo game is moronic.  How about 
>>letting those of us who own it describe its strengths and weaknesses?
>
>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.  

Someone demo'd it for me the other night.  While I agree that the graphics are 
very exciting, and look forward to more "conventional" simulators using sim-
ilar technology, I must agree with Phat: it's very arcade-ish.  I have no idea 
as to its "game-playing" longetivity, but it's just another arcade game.  It
doesn't do for helicopter simulators what Falcon does for fighter simulators.


>Arcade games usually lose their novelty rather quickly.  And from the
>many complaints that I've read of Commanche being too easy, the game
>apparently holds true to this axiom.

Yep.  For me, it was about three minutes.  Stop paying attention to the
neat clouds and special effects, and start paying attention to the "realism" 
factors, and any interest the *game* might have--as a helicopter combat 
simulator, that is--quickly diminishes.  If you don't go in with that 
expectation, though, I suspect it could provide many hours of play.


>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.

In terms of rotation and projection, Falcon's a lousy example to hold up as 
a sample: fly an approach to any runway, sometime, standard pattern, and 
observe the characteristics of the runway as it nears the edge of the screen.  
It'll "warp."  They're doing a pretty dumb, single-eye projection, whereas 
games like MS FS use multiple-eye projections, with the screen split into 
two or three "mini-windows," and minimize the effect.  IMHO, this is is a 
major reason for users finding Falcon so difficult to land.  Their brain
expects decent perspective animation, which simply isn't provided.

It seems to be SH policy, though: they've been doing it since the original 
Mac version--and it's present in Falcon 3.0/PC, too.  Falcon's a systems
simulator: always has been. 






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu (David Stack)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Repost of Models for FS4 (request)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 20:16:21 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Dec24.015516.4736@news.unomaha.edu>, by fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu (David L. Britton):
> Would someone be kind enough to repost some of the airplane models for 
> FS4...

I'll email them to you. I have them all (I think) except for part 1 of the
F-16.  I'm not sure if a good copy of part 1 ever came across the net.  If
it did I missed it.  I've requested a repost of it, but no response.
Anyhow, I'll email you the F4U, SR-71, shuttle, snoopy and wright flyer.
If someone sends you the F-16 maybe you can forward it to me.  Thanks.

david@convex.csd.uwm.edu
From: tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp (Tetsuji Rai)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: FS4 and ATI Graphic Ultra Pro
Keywords: FS4 ATI graphic ultra
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:26:55 GMT
Organization: juice


HI, netters.
   I got ATI's graphic Ultra Pro a few days ago, and enjoying it with
X windows on BSD/86, but I cannot get it to work with FS in the fast
mode(or 85 mode should I say ?).
    Does anyone know good drivers for that ?    I found a driver named
"ati85.zip" in fsforum of CompuServe, but it is a bit too large for 
a Japanese to download and it may be old now.

   Any help I can get would be appreciated.

Tetsuji


RRR              Tetsuji Rai    tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp
R  R   aaa   i    522, Toyotamakita, Nerimaku, Tokyo 76, Japan
RRR   a  a   i   voice: +855796   fax: +89902
R  R  aaaaa  i
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: Andrew_Tuline@mindlink.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline)
Subject: FS Scenery decoders?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:29:52 GMT

Any people out there decoding FS4 scenery?

I'm particularly interested in the definition of type 14h records.  Also
0Bh records would be nice too.  Please email.

                                        Andrew Tuline

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: med2p@receptor.pharm.Virginia.EDU (Marc. Durieux)
Subject: FS4 multiplayer through talk?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:12:20 GMT

Hi there:

Has anyone of you flight simulation studs ever looked into the
possibility of using the Unix 'talk' program to hook up two players
with FS4?  I am thinking of PCs in modem contact with Unix machines.
I'd guess you'd need some kind of memory resident program to weed out
the junk that 'talk' sends along, and only pass the simulator info
through to FS4.  Would make for great intercontinental multiplaying!
Any thoughts?

Also, I've heard the Adventure Factory part of A&AF mentioned many
times, but no one has ever given a decent description of it, as far
as I know.  Can someone fill that gap?

Happy holidays.

Marcel
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:16:58 GMT

In article <1go5e1INNmds@eagle.natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne) writes:
>
>In article <BzC4C4.H52@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>[..]  The gameplay is geared toward Nintendo kids.  That's not
>>necessarily a bad thing, but since we're in a "sim" newsgroup, I'd thought
>>that might be an important consideration.  If arcade games bore you, then
>>Commanche may not be a keeper on your HD.  [Note:  I don't have Commanche,
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Obviously not.  Comanche definitely has its faults (too easy to finish, for 
>one thing), but comparing it to a Nintendo game is moronic.  How about 
>letting those of us who own it describe its strengths and weaknesses?
>

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.  

>>so I'm only basing my views on what I've seen of it, and what others
>>who have played the game for some time have said.]
>>
>>Falcon 3.0, though much harder to get into, will offer greater satisfaction
>>in the long run.  It took me a few months before I became comfortable in
>
>How can you possibly discuss 'long term satisfaction' between a product you
>own and one you don't?
>

Arcade games usually lose their novelty rather quickly.  And from the
many complaints that I've read of Commanche being too easy, the game
apparently holds true to this axiom.

Falcon, OTOH, has given me enjoyment longer than any game I own.  I
think it's safe to say that Commanche won't threaten F3's real estate
on my HD.

>>also unequaled.  Though the game's graphics aren't as pretty as Commanche's,
>>they are not bad.  The terrain, though convoluted, is not as realistic-
>>looking as that of Commanche, but Falcon's polygon a/c are much nicer
>>to look at and much more fluid in motion than the sprites in the chopper
>>game.
>
>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
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.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?  AND F15III
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:24:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.161057.18427@newshost.lanl.gov> masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
>In article <BzLr4D.56E@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>
>>I'll call you obnoxious instead, if you don't mind.  By "fluid", I meant
>>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.
>
>Also, there was a less than verbose post telling F3 to move over for F15
>Strike Eagle III.
>
>Boys, lets not start a flame war here!  Its been rather civil to date,
>can it last?
>

Bad habit of mine, Dave.  You should know that by now!  

Best wishes for the holidays,
Phat.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Rudder With SWOTL? ("Pilot's Edge")
Date: 1 Jan 1993 21:24:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The Thurstmaster people distribute a TSR program for use with "Secret Weapons
of the Luftwaffe" that lets you use rudder pedals with the sim. Has anybody
tried this?  It's only about $15, but I'd still like to hear from a user 
before I buy it.

Thanks.
-- 
Bob Rogers            Internet:  at608@cleveland.freenet.edu