HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: TRACON II
Date: 14 Nov 92 15:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 15419@auspex-gw.auspex.com, tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.165528.9893@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) 
>writes:
>> I called up one day and said that I have Tracon for Windows (which I do), 
>> but it would not work properly with my SB Pro. 
>
>So how does everyone feel about Tracon for Windows?  Should I replace
>my Tracon II for the windows version?  What advantage is there over the
>regular dos version?
>
>Do the same sector files work with the windows version?
>
>
>Tom Pickett 
>tpickett@auspex.com
>SHO  GOZE

I thought Tracon for Windows was awful.  I *loved* the original Tracon and 
upgraded to the windows version as soon as it came out.  It wasn't long
before I deleted the new one and went back to the old one.

Of course... since I did get a copy early, the later versions could have
been cleaned up.

Some of my complaints (I've forgotten most of them, since its been so long)

o I could *never* ger VFR flight following to work.
o The audio files from the original TRACON don't seem to be compatible
  "Cessna 4438L, proceed direct to <bzzzzzt>"
o The audio sounds really hokey--every word is "spoken" at a different pitch, 
  making it sound really stupid.
o I didn't care for their GUI.  The old non-windows utilized more of the screen
  and was just as easy to use.

---
Mark Steph              | you can twist perceptions
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se  | reality won't budge 
(yes, .se *is* in Texas)| you can raise objections
PO Box 833875, MS L-05  | I will be the judge -- and the jury
Richardson, TX 75083    |      -Neil Peart, "Show Don't Tell"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: COMDEX - ATP now has real voice controller/pilot for SB 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:36:58 GMT

If you own a SB card, you can now get the new version of SubLogic's ATP
which will talk to you with a pretty realistic voice.  I turned away from
the screen and easily understood what was coming thru from ATIS.  Pretty
good.

I also met Stu Moment, the "owner" of SubLogic, nice guy.  Told him the
problem I have with turning ON the rudder which cause the throttle wheel
to be activated also, which results in my coolie-hat triggering the
throttle when it is not supposed to (my WCS support to do that).  He said
he will fix it in the next patch.
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: AAF, ATP and other ramblings
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:01:39 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Nov20.043150.5485@trl.oz.au>, wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn 
Wallace) writes:
> I'd just use a Cessna with a billion horsepower :-)
> 
> Some interesting AAF things:
> 
> Ground angle: great idea for tail-draggers!!


I think I'll use the .sim file for the T-6 with less HP and less
frontal area...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: TraconII (Pilot Requests)
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.190615.17021@acuson.com> griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths) writes:
>...on the "little" communication screen.  I know that there will be
>a "REQ" flag placed on the plane making the request and usually
>spot those right away...however there is no way of finding out what
>he/she asked for...  

Just hook the track and enter the "say again" command [?,Return].  They will 
repeat their request IF that is the last thing they've said recently.  Of 
course if you gave them a heading change before noticing the REQ, what 
you'll get is "xxx turning right to yyy" instead of their earlier request.

>I guess I'm writing this hoping that someone has an idea how I can
>keep on top of the communication screen...I'm sure most of you using
>TRACONII know that staring at the Comm screen would certainly end up
>in 1) Driving you mad...2) A mid-air...3) Missing possible conflicts..
>Is there any way of finding out what their request was?!?

I use Tracon for Windows and have learned to expand the comm window not to 
maximum size, but to a vertical and horizontal size sufficient to see all 
past messages retained by the program.  I then overlay it on top of the 
Pending list and depend on the comm calls to catch incomings.  I may miss a 
couple, but at least I have a listing of the last several calls to catch up 
on.
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: FS4 ???s
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:45:35 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University



    Hi Everyone,


    Was wondering if I could solicit some opinions of the Aircraft and
    Adventure Factory from Mallard and the shareware SEE program.

    Also, a couple of quick questions...

    1)  Is SEE still shareware, and if so where can I FTP it from to get a
    look?

    2)  Is it just me, or does everybody else have problems when using scenery
    files written by others?  Specifically, when I use some of them the
    wire-frame airport runway models in FS4 don't line up with the solid
    surface models created by others.  My current problem is with LAX.  The
    wireframe is about where it should be (I think), the solid surface model
    is around Santa Barbara, not El Segundo.   I'm just using the default
    scenery from FS, no Scenery Disks.  Any ideas?

    Thanks in Advance,

    
-- 

~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: Re: Birds of Prey(was RE: Yeager's Air Combat
	<Bxxn5s.FzL@ais.org> <d4UW020l2bUE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:20:31
Distribution: usa

"mws20" == Mark Sechrest <mws20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> writes:
>
mws20> The name of the sim is Birds of Prey. It does have about 40
mws20> aircraft.  I bought it almost a month ago, and was sorely
mws20> disappointed. The graphics were so-so at best. Flight control

About the only thing I liked about it was the wide selection of
planes, and the ability to do some "different" combat missions (height
records, recon, etc).  I also liked the campaign style of play.

mws20> was poor. Realism was way down the scale. Choice of planes is

No joke. I landed a Harrier on the top of a skyscraper and my altitude
read 8000 feet or so.  (I was bored, so I decided to explore for magic
cookies.)


--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
               '92 R100R, DoD# 0378, BMWOA, AMA, ACLU, EFF, CPSR
                                "HotHead Rules!"
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Denver scenery
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:06:57 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I am currently working on creating scenery files to cover most of the Denver
VFR sectional area.  These files will contain a scenery-disk level of detail,
and will not require any scenery disk as a basis.  Basically, this means I
am creating the entire region from scratch.
   The first of these files, DENVER.SC1, covers a 30-mile radius area around
Denver/Stapleton, and was just recently completed.  What I would like is
a little feedback on how the scenery looks, and would be willing to E-Mail
the uuencoded file to anyone who is interested in looking it over.  If 
there is enough interest, I can just post the uuencoded file here on the
newsgroup (I don't want to put it up for FTP, as I want to wait until the
whole collection is ready).
   E-Mail me if you are interested.  And thanks.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: seeya@tellabs.com (Michael Ciha)
Subject: ThrustMaster Joystick concerns/questions
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:38:00 GMT


Hello, everyone..

I have recently purchased a ThrustMaster Flight Control System
joystick for my newly acquired 486/33  :-) :-).

My problem is, however, the 'coolie hat' (used to look around) does not
seem to work correctly with 'Aces of the Pacific' and 'Secret Weapons 
of the Luftwaffe'.  I have isolated the problem to be my joystick interface.

I have a joystick port that hangs off my IDE controller which is disabled,
and I was using the joystick port on my SoundBlaster card.  When in 'Aces',
it worked 'almost' correctly-I could look back, forward, left, and right, but
I could not look up+forward.  Is there anyone out there that has the same
problem??

I have a TSR that I obtained for the 'coolie hat' use with SWOTL.  Using 
the SoundBlaster joystick port and the TSR with the stick, I can look 
left, forward, up+forward, and back, but NOT to the right (at least, not with the coolie hat).  

My question is this--Is there any sound card/joystick port combination that 
works correctly with this ThrustMaster?

I *really* don't want to get another sound board, but if I have to to get
the joystick to work, I will.

Any comments/questions/information welcome...

Thanks in advance...


Mike Ciha



--
==========================================================================
Can't catch a turtle 			|  	 Michael T. Ciha
in this rat race			| Tellabs, Inc.  Lisle, IL 60532
Feel like I'm losing time		|
at a breakneck pace			|	seeya@tellabs.com
					|	...!uunet!tellab5!seeya
-Stevie Ray Vaughan, 'Tightrope'	|
==========================================================================
From: 2559johnsonr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Heros of the 357th
Date: 22 Nov 1992 06:35:09 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 2559johnsonr@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

I purchased heroes of the 357th a couple of weeks ago, and I was sorely
disappointed with it.  You can't take off or land (those are graphics
sequences almost like Wing Commander, but not as good)
I was flying around a long time, and it was impossible (almost) to catch
up to enemy planes to shoot at them.
On the plus side, crashes were more realistic: when you touched the ground,
there was smoke and stuff and the plane would skid from side to side as it
dragged along the ground.

This brings up a question I have:  How come in some games (Yeagers Air Combat
and Shuttle) you can only land ON THE RUNWAY (or very close)
Sure, the shuttle or your aircraft would be damaged by landing in a grassy
field, or ditching in a river, but you would finish the mission successfully.
Any Ideas?

Thanks
Rob Johnson
2559johnsonr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price)
Subject: Aces over the Pacific questions
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:01:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University Computer Science, Industrial Technology


  How is Aces Over The Pacific? 
  What are some of its good and bad points?
  Joystick interface any good?
-- 
John Price    email: pricejoh@handel.CS.Colostate.Edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten)
Subject: Re: Amiga simulators?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:52:22 GMT

>I have read a report  in Computer gaming world which stated that Fighter 
>Duel: Corsair Vs. Zero (By Jaeger) was absolutly terrible and they gave 
>it the big 0 rating.
>They stated that the customer support was terrible, it was riddled with 
>bugs and almost impossible to fly.  
>
>I havn't actually played it but the report sounded quite bad indeed...maybe 
>they were wrong?

Disclaimer: I haven't played the game either.

CGW usually does an excellent job reviewing games.  This pathetic review
was an exception.  Apparently the reviewer couldn't get it to work, and
had a poor experience with the technical support, so she wrote a
scathing review.  I thought it was pretty shoddy.  I'm also not going to
listen to a reviewer who claims to be an experienced flight simmer based
on F15II (ughh).

Anyway, I've seen a lot of very positive comments on Fighter Duel in the
Amiga newsgroup, and that review resulted in many letters supporting FD
published in a later CGW.  From what I hear of the game (which
eventually will have a PC version), it has great framerate, great
modelling, minimal scenery.

Dave Masten

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: Yeager's Combat Sim.
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:05 GMT

Hi,
   As a student of air combat, a pilot, and an engineer, I would have to
   say that Chuck Yeager's Air Combat is the overall best ACM simulator
   that I have ever used.  Although its nearest rival Falcon3 is very    
   more accurate in its rendering of the F-16,  Yeager's AC does each of
   its A/C justice.  Furthermore I have found the enemy's tactics to be
   excellent in AC as compared to F3.  There have been many situations that
   I have found myself caught in a drag tactic between two MiG's or in 
   Bracket.  I have also used both authenic energy and angles tactics 
   against opponents to good effect.  There is a real matter of factness
   to the game.  For instance in a fight between a MiG-17 and an F-4 the
   computer will try to get you into a slow turning fight and bleed you
   of energy.  Fall into that trap and you are sure to become MiG meat. 
   However if you take the fight into the vertical (Standard Top Gun tactic)
   and you can beat him.  The only draw back is its unrealistic damage
   tolerances for player A/C.  But this I realize makes it more playable.
   I can't say enough about this ACM simulation tool.
							A. Ng


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: larry@mits.mdata.fi (Lasse Hero)
Subject: Re: TRACON II
Organization: Microdata Oy
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:14:58 GMT

exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph) writes:

>o I could *never* ger VFR flight following to work.

Could you be more specific, what EXACTLY was the problem? I've used
every version of Tracon for Windows from the beginning, and had NO
problems with VFR flights.

>o The audio files from the original TRACON don't seem to be compatible
>  "Cessna 4438L, proceed direct to <bzzzzzt>"

That's right..

>o The audio sounds really hokey--every word is "spoken" at a different pitch, 
>  making it sound really stupid.

It can be corrected somehow, it's just that I don't remember the fix
right now..:(

--
Lasse Hero  -  larry@mits.mdata.fi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,sci.astro,sci.space
From: dfisher@slipknot.eng.pyramid.com (David Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Yeager's Combat Sim.
Date: 18 Nov 1992 15:58:39 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: slipknot.eng.pyramid.com


Has anybody out there tried Chuck Yeager's Combat Simulator(I think that is the
name)?  Any comments, good and/or bad would be appreciated.

Thanks

       -m---------    David Fisher                Pyramid Technology
     ---mmm-------    (408) 428-8265              3860 North 1st St.
   -----mmmmm-----    dfisher@pyramid.com         San Jose, CA. 95134
 -------mmmmmmm---    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn Wallace)
Subject: Re: AAF, ATP and other ramblings
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:31:50 GMT

tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.010709.8551@trl.oz.au>, wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn 
>Wallace) writes:
>> Well, I bought AAF (Aircraft and Adventure Factory).
>> 
>> I've only been working with the Aircraft Factory...
>> 
>> It is quite good. You can do interesting things with it.
>> The structure capability (drawing a plan and side elevation and then
>> dropping bulheads of various predefined shapes onto these templates to
>> create a solid object) is very powerful, once you figure out how it
>> works!!! 

>I'm trying to make a Pitts S-2B.  Anyone have any idea what values to
>put in the .sim file?

I'd just use a Cessna with a billion horsepower :-)

Some interesting AAF things:

Ground angle: great idea for tail-draggers!!

BUT

Here I am putting the X-1 in, which sits nose high on the runway
(4 degrees or so), which has trike gear... so I input the plane aligned
at zero degrees, which is cool (after all I want it to look level when
t flies...) and the flipping thing lifts up on its nose wheel like it
thinks it is really a tail-dragger! 

Argh!

No easy way around this, and the look of the plane on the runway was
very important, so I'm sticking with the 4 degrees and odd behaviour.

Yeager only did one take-off roll on a runway anyway :-)

I also did a version with the nosewheel reatracted sufficiently to allow
me a ground angle of 0 degrees which works fine but looks odd.

Also, the sytsem doesn't allow negative ground angles, so an X-15 would
be tough....

Glenn

Net: g.wallace@trl.oz.au | Well the escape plan is under way... Seattle
RealTime: Glenn Wallace  | is the destination. I have food, maps, clothing,
Work: --- Classified --- | and a compass. The X Committee has approved it,
      (to be announced)  | all I have to do is scale the compound wall.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: Aces of the Pacific
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:18 EST  

I've noticed that when I make a bombing or torpedo run, after striking
the target the game won't let me head for home since there are enemy
fighters in the area.  Duking it out with the zekes while flying
an avenger almost always leads to death.  Mine that is.

Casey Hanlon
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Aces over the Pacific questions
Date: 21 Nov 92 08:04:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov21.080421.9683
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <Nov15.190152.23620@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, by pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price):
> 
>   How is Aces Over The Pacific? 

Fantastic.

>   What are some of its good and bad points?

What bad points?

>   Joystick interface any good?

1st class.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten)
Subject: Re: Aces over the Pacific questions
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:53:35 GMT

In article <Nov15.190152.23620@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price) writes:
>
>  How is Aces Over The Pacific? 
>  What are some of its good and bad points?
>  Joystick interface any good?

Aces took a lot of flak on its initial release.  With the recent Patch B
(don't ask me where to get it right now.  Try wuarchive.wustl.edu or
ftp.ulowell.edu), it is now excellent.  I'd rate it #2 behind, you
guessed it, Falcon3.  Of course, it is a totally different game.
It compares most favorably, IMHO, to its closest competitior Secret
Weapons of the Luftwaffe.

Good points:
You get to fly 25 different aircraft.  Virtually every Pacific theater
fighter and dive/torpedo bomber.  The heavy bombers appear, but you
don't fly them.  Flight models are unique, and for the most part, very
good.

Great filled-polygon graphics.  Till Stunt Island, the nicest plane
graphics available on a PC sim.

Very nice cockpit graphics, you can even see the rudder, ailerons and
flaps move.

Good ship graphics.

Plenty of mission types: fight a sqaudron, fight an ace, torpedo
bombing, dive bombing, ground strike, CAP, scramble, bomber intercept,
and more.

A good career mode where you pick the campaign based on a historical
period, then choose a squadron and plane which corresponds to that
period, then it chooses a series of missions for you.  As you and the
war progress, you eventually lead your flight and get newer planes.

A VCR replay.

Good sound support (flak, guns, gear, flaps, hits...).  MUch improved
with the B patch.

It goes on and on.

Bad Points:

The biggie:  Though framerate is improved, I still wouldnt recommend it
for less than a 386/33.  Well maybe a 386/25.

Still small flight model problems with climb rate and (maybe) simplified
stalls.

It doesn't have a campaign mode where you affect the course of the war
or the choice of subsequent mission.  But realistic as one fighter jock
wasn't going to make a big difference in WWII right?

Joystick support:
Excellent including full support of the Thrustmaster FCS.  The use of
the stick to pan from outside views is awesome.  The only slight problem
is you need to have the stick centered to switch between interior and
exterior views.  Can be a problem if the stick gets out of calibration.

Terrific game.

Dave Masten
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten)
Subject: Re: Yeager's Combat Sim.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:16:22 GMT

In article <ahng.722194142@ee.ualberta.ca> ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng) writes:
>
>  It's called Birds Of Prey.  It is the absolutely worst flying game I have
>  ever bought.  There are over 40 A/C on the game from A-10's to X-15's 
>  and they all suck!  You don't have to be a pilot or engineer to know that
>  the reproduction of flight characteristics is very poor.  And all the 
>  cockpit configurations look the same.  Also the manuel is so full of error
>  s as to be unusable.  
>					Save some cash or better yet
>					buy Yeager's Air Combat

I agree with the general sentiment:  BoP=NO, CYAC=YES, but:

Interesting how people have very different impressions on what is, and
isn't, a good flight model.  Admittedly, I've only flown a plane once,
so take my impressions with the required NaCl.

I've seen one venemous attack on CYAC's flight model.  I think it's OK
except it takes a cookbook approach to the flight model:
X altitude + Y velocity = Z max G's (in integer increments, its worst
feature).  Nevermind that transient limits should be higher.  Also has
the infamous push forward on the stick to recover from a stall EVEN WHEN
INVERTED.  But the main thing is that different planes seem to have
reasonable performance relative to each other.

I've already mentioned some of the things BoP's flight model has in
response to a previous post.  I'll add that things like Angle of Attack
and slip are modelled.  Also, increased velocity increases lift.
Altitude clearly effects thrust, drag, fuel consumption (not sure if it
affects turning capability).  Think altitude also affects stall speed
(lift).  Overall, it seems a much more complex flight model than CYAC's.
But maybe because of that, it screws up in some annoying ways also.
The F117 can go supersonic, some planes are capable of much to hi G's.
I'd bet it incorrectly models induced drag effects.

F3 seems to have the most highly regarded flight model of combat sims,
though I can find plenty of things wrong with the "complex" model.  I
think it falls short on many of the non-F16 models.  Don't get that feel
for the differences between planes that I get in CYAC or Aces.

Aces of the Pacific fairs well.  Climb rates are off, stalls don't seem
to be particularly well handled.  I'd bet energy doesn't blled off as
rapidly as it should.  But you do feel the differences between the
planes.

I'll throw it open for debate.  What to y'all makes a good flight model?
Any text you would recommend to learn more?  (I already have "Shaw's Air
Combat"  for ACM tactics).

Dave Masten
masten@beta.lanl.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators