HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Andrew_Tuline@mindlink.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline)
Subject: Re: ATP and Scenery Disks
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:06:57 GMT

> John P. Mechalas writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1992Dec11.133517.15907@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
> Posted: Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:35:17 Org.  : Purdue University Engineering
> Computer Network
>
> In article <1992Dec11.070025.2882@ncar.ucar.edu>
> lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre) writes:
> >Hi netters
> >
> >I have two quick questions about the compatibility between ATP
> >and the Scenery disks released by SubLogic:
> >
> >1) I understand that the disk#12 (NY-Montreal-Halifax) and the more
> >   recent California disk are the only ones being totally compatible
> >   with ATP, since their world coordinates are identical to the ATP
> >   original coordinates. Am I mistaken ? Does that mean that no
> >   ATC-controlled flights or flight assignments can be done with the
> >   earlier disks ?
>
> This is correct.  The new coordinate system is much more accurate than
> the old system, and if you use the old disks, the runways will be in the
> wrong places.  :)  ATC vectors you to where ATP says the airports are,
> and not where the scenery disks say they are.  Of course, the new
> work perfectly.
>
> >2) At Los Angeles and San-Francisco, there are more runways with ILS
> >   in the default scenery than in the California disk. As a result, during
> >   a flight assignement from San Diego to LAX, I was assigned by ATC to
> >   the runway 25L, which has no ILS in the Scenery Disk ! Is there a
> >   way to avoid this (beside requesting another runway) ? Should I load
> the
> >   default scenery just before landing ? It would be really too bad ...
>
> You'll have to switch ot the defaul scenery, I guess.  :(  I hadn't noticed
> this problem, but then again, I haven't flown into LAX on the California
> Collection, so it hasn't come up.  Personally, I'd call subLOGIC and
> let them know...
>
> --
> 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


Andrew writes:

Now, what if BAO uses some other coordinate system (close not not the same)
for their upcoming FS5.  That means us Flight Simmies will continue to argue
until eternity about the location of objects.

PS, subLOGIC has no plans of have much at all in the way of scenery from
southern Canada in the forthcoming scenery set.  I've already expressed my
concern with them.  I hope others do as well.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre)
Subject: ATP automatic weather
Organization: NCAR - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:37:56 GMT


 I have a problem with the ATP automatic weather generation. As explained
in the manual, this option is supposed to "generate dynamic weather systems
appropriate  for the time of year in which you are flying". Indeed, when I
turn on this option (as I always did for flying single assignments), the 
external temperature and atmospheric pressure are relatively rapidly calculated
by the model and seem consistent with the location and season. By contrast,
I'm not satisfied with the cloud coverage generated by the automatic weather.
In all the flights I've done so far, it only consists in a large isolated
cloud with a bottom at about 10000' and a top altitude at 20000-30000'.
I've never seen a thunderstorm, or any scattered cumulus or cirrus-type clouds.
Even bigger disappointement: I've never encountered with this option the
full overcast conditions and low ceilings which make these instrument approaches
so beautiful... As a matter of fact, all my take-offs and landings in automatic
weather have been performed in perfect clear conditions...
Since I've been flying with ATP for only a week, I ask the question to more
experienced pilots: is this big inoffensive (and relatively rare) cloud all we
can expect from the ATP automatic weather generation ?
Have you experienced more challenging weather conditions ? If yes, where, when
and how ?

                              Thanks in advance          Franck
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: FS 4.0 PRO? Is there any?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:03:22 GMT

From article <1992Dec19.083137.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>, by lauusitalo@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi:
>         Hi,
> 
>         Is there such thing as FS 4.0 PRO??? If there is then how
>         it differs from normal FS 4.0?
> 
>         Thanks,
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lauri Uusitalo                 I          "Life is hard,          
> lauri.uusitalo@ntc.nokia.com   I                then you die..."
From: rych@festival.ed.ac.uk (R Hawkes)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Your ideal flight simulation/game
Keywords: Simulation Game
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:41:31 GMT

Hi,

I'm currently looking at a scenario for a high
quality flight simulation/game.  Admittedly this
is almost certainly going to be only available in
arcades (at first at least).  I'm currently working
on the basis that the user will have a number of
aircraft to choose from and also a selection of
missions to undertake.  The games system will allow
the player to "save" their status and return to 
undertake another mission at their leisure.  This
game will involve a network of machines, so players
could be pitted against each other or working 
together.  I use the word "game" loosely here, since
all attempts will be made to make the "game" as
realistic as possible whilst maintaining playability.

What I'm really like are your opinions on what this game
should offer in features e.g. aircraft, missions,
visual quality etc...

Any (serious) suggestions welcome!

Rych
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:00:49 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
Keywords: Falcon Commanche


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?
 
>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?

>the cockpit.  The game is very complex and rich in detail, and you can
>really lose yourself in it.  The avionics and flight modeling are, IMO,
>the best yet in a game.  The campaign engine and tactical elements are
>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.

>
>Phat.

Apples and oranges.  Do you want to fly a helicopter or a jet?  Both products
are immensely enjoyable in their own way, though Falcon will definitely 
require a major time investment to get into.  Comanche, as I said, is too easy
to finish.  But it is as much a Nintendo game as the space shuttle is an
airplane.  In summary:

Most realism possible (except terrain)  --> Falcon
Easiest to learn                        --> Comanche
Best graphics                           --> Comanche
Most detailed missions                  --> Falcon
Most fun                                --> depends on the individual

I consider them equally fun, but for different reasons.  Frankly, I can't 
imagine not having both.
--Bob
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:54:51 GMT

In article <15852@auspex-gw.auspex.com> tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)  
writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.033041.4518@nmsu.edu>, bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu 
> (BOSWELL) writes:
> > Then, go ahead and  
> > brake and get the nosewheel down, also put your flaps up once safely on the  
> 
> > ground.  Also, with auto-coordination off, you SHOULD place your controls 
> in  
> > proper crosswind taxi position (a gust can come along and blow you over if 
> you  
> > don't).
> 
> 
> Now come on!  It isn't a good idea in any real airplane to retract the
> flaps while you are still on the runway! This has resulted in plenty of
> gear up landings in the real world...:-)
> 
> 
> Tom Pickett 
> tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
> SHO  GOZE
Note how I said "once on the ground!"  This is a good practice especially with  
a strong headwind component.  I don't know about you but once I land I like  
staying on the ground...  Flaps have 3 purposes: 1) Increasing safe approach  
angle 2) Creating extra lift/decreasing stall speed 3) Creating extra drag (at  
extreme angles of extension >30degrees in the Cessna 150 I fly is basically  
airbrakes because past 30 degrees they create no more lift)

Sure if you're too quick on the flaps and bounce a landing you can find  
yourself in trouble real quick, but once it's obvious the plane is on the  
ground to stay you should put the flaps up.  Also if you're shooting touch and  
goes in a Cessna 150 it's MANDATORY to put flaps up on the runway because the  
plane won't climb worth a darn with flaps extended!  The only time in a 150  
that you use flaps on takeoff is durring a soft-field takeoff.

BTW if assuming you fly a retract and you did put the gear down at the  
appropriate time, how's putting the flaps up going to result in a gear-up  
landing?  Most retracts I've flown in (all have been Cessnas) Cessna has gone  
to great efforts to distinguish the gear knob from the electric flap switch...
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: TRACON for Windows
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:57:06 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

For all of you who have been looking for TRACON for windows in 
the bay area, I gave up and ordered it direct from Wesson.
They are offering a special upgrade from TRACON II to TRACON Win
roght now -- $19.95, of course you also have to upgrade your sector
disks (All three USA sectors $19.95).

I have not seen it in any software stores I've been into in the past
two months or so...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:18:28 GMT

From article <1992Dec17.172920.2534@aosg.gsf.dec.com>, by verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ():
>>With today's talking-car technology, they can probably put a small device 
>>there that will go "Gear Up, Gear Up", or would the pilot ignore that 
>>too? 
> 
> You bet they would.  The NTSB has several cockpit voice recorder tapes of 
> flights that ended in gear up landings with the gear warning clearly audible.

Is the gear warning speech, or is it just a "special" tone?  Maybe what
we need is a combo of radio-altimeter attached to the landing gear.
(1) Once the radio-altimeter reach below say 50 feet, the gear will 
automatically be lowered. (2) If gear is manual control, then the 
plane will go "hey stupid, put your gear down" once it reach 50 feet
and the gear is still not down.  (3) Refuse to go below 50' AGL by
a combo of throttle and elevator control if the gear is not down.
(4) Hack, just let the plane computer do everything, including the
flying and open/close flight plan (need voice synthesizer and recognition
hardware). 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: FS wish list
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:33:41 GMT

In article <18598@mindlink.bc.ca> Andrew_Tuline@mindlink.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline) writes:
>I've heard surprisingly little talk about the rumours of FS upgrades
>for the coming year.  

I really think we're burned out.  Knick-nacks are nice, but what we really
want is a new simulator, especially with so much other neat stuff coming out,
and surpassing MS FS in many ways..


>  Top of the list is:
>
>   Opening up the architecture!!!!!!       (no longer for FS insiders only)
>
>     Now onto the rest:
>
>      - Developers toolkit available (see 'Top' above)
>              - .SC1, .SCN, .ADV, .DEM, .SIM . . . all formats
>              - ASCII metafiles
>              - Full FS language compiler (decomiler?)
>              - debugger
>              - API's
>
>- Improved .SC* & .ADV languages.
>- Loadable drivers & modules.
>- Utilize 386 architecture.
>- Not necessarily backward compatible.
>- Multiplayer network (Novell) compatibility.
>- Full ATC, flight planning and route capabilities.
>- Memory cache for .SC1 file information.
>- Directory structure (see RMMSC1).
>- Multi-media (???).
>- Ability to swap between FS and Air Traffic Controller.
>- Decent menuing system that can be automated with macros & aliases.
>- A&SD II to include an ASCII compiler and most elements of SEE.

Aaaah, so you want to open up the architecture for *PC* users, eh?  I'd
like to see a device-independent architecture, which will allow full in-
terchange of all files among all supported platforms, and this utterly
myopic concentration on the PC platform and, indeed, on specific "packages."

And let's get rid of these ridiculous DOS suffixes, while we're at it,
and describe the files for what they are.






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: FS 4.0 PRO? Is there any?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 15:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.083137.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> lauusitalo@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>        Hi,
>
>        Is there such thing as FS 4.0 PRO??? If there is then how
>        it differs from normal FS 4.0?
>

As far as I know, FS4 Pro is a flight-planner that integrates with FS4.0 ...
Can anyone check me on that?

-- 
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: Andrew_Tuline@mindlink.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline)
Subject: FS wish list
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:52:26 GMT

I've heard surprisingly little talk about the rumours of FS upgrades
for the coming year.  Anyways, here's my list of hopeful features for
the next generation Flight Simulator world.


  Top of the list is:

   Opening up the architecture!!!!!!       (no longer for FS insiders only)


     Now onto the rest:

      - Accurate coordinate system.
      - USA Scenery to work well with new FS & coordinate system.
      - Developers toolkit available (see 'Top' above)
              - .SC1, .SCN, .ADV, .DEM, .SIM . . . all formats
              - ASCII metafiles
              - Full FS language compiler (decomiler?)
              - debugger
              - API's

- Improved .SC* & .ADV languages.
- Loadable drivers & modules.
- Utilize 386 architecture.
- Not necessarily backward compatible.
- Multiplayer network (Novell) compatibility.
- Better startup files.
- Full ATC, flight planning and route capabilities.
- Memory cache for .SC1 file information.
- Directory structure (see RMMSC1).
- Multi-media (???).
- Utilizes Instrument approach plates, procedures, etc.
- Time compression.
- Good documentation that doesn't fizzle out in the technical parts.
- More instrumentation.
- Ability to swap between FS and Air Traffic Controller.
- Decent menuing system that can be automated with macros & aliases.
- A&SD II to include an ASCII compiler and most elements of SEE.
- (USGS ????)
- Scenarios like in Harpoon (a game).
- Flight School from VFR up to 747 (a game).

 - Decent clouds.
 - 256 colours and, or variable palettes.
 - Texturing the ground, mountains.
 - Anti-aliasing, shading.
 - Proper elevations.
 - Ability to put objects, lines, etc. on hills and mountains.
 - Improve graphics rendering engine.

  Anyways, this should be a good year for the FS world.  I'm already whipped
  up to a frenzy in anticipation.  With any luck, most of my wishes will
  come true.

                                           Andrew Tuline

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Organization: AOSG
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:29:20 GMT

>With today's talking-car technology, they can probably put a small device 
>there that will go "Gear Up, Gear Up", or would the pilot ignore that 
>too? 

You bet they would.  The NTSB has several cockpit voice recorder tapes of 
flights that ended in gear up landings with the gear warning clearly audible.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: powell@ug.cs.dal.ca (Joel E Powell)
Subject: FS4 models with Mac?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:33:27 GMT

I was wondering if the FS4 models that are being posted will work with the Mac version
of FS4, and if not does anyone know where I can get some that will?
I really want to play with that NCC-1701 shuttlecraft!!

Thanks everyone,
Joel.


-- 
**************************************
* Joel Powell  (powell@ug.cs.dal.ca) *
**************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:32:11 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) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre)
Subject: Re: ATP automatic weather
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:31:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.150556.4518@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.083756.12384@ncar.ucar.edu> lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre) writes:
>>Since I've been flying with ATP for only a week, I ask the question to more
>>experienced pilots: is this big inoffensive (and relatively rare) cloud all we
>>can expect from the ATP automatic weather generation ?
>>Have you experienced more challenging weather conditions ? If yes, where, when
>>and how ?
>
>Unfortunately, I believe that the Weather Generator in ATP is hardly much of
>an improvement over FS4's.  I, too, have only gotten the big, amorphous cloud
>that you are describing, but my blue-box version hasn't arrived yet, so I 
>don't know if it's something that was improved, and you didn't state whether
>you had the red or blue version (since you've only had it a few days,
>however, I am assuming that you have the blue-box version, which wuold seem
>to indicate taht the weather generator wasn't changed at all).
>
>-- 
>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

 Yes, I have the blue-box version. Now I'll specify the coudiness before
take-off...

                                          Franck
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.033041.4518@nmsu.edu>, bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL) writes:
|> > I suspect, I'm fighting the higher wind levels, do real pilots attempt to  
|> land
|> > Cessna 172s in 20 knot crosswinds?
|> A 20-Knot crosswind is perfectly within the capabilities of most light  
|> aircraft, but the only way to know for sure is to read the POH (pilot's  
|> operating handbook) and see what the maximum demonstrated crosswind component  
|> was when the plane was certified...
Two little items:
1) Max. demonstrated crosswind component is just that - the POH clearly
   says it's not a limit, just the max they tried it at.
2) At the same time, I'd heed that as an upper limit anyway.  I wouldn't
   want to fly a 172 in a 20K crosswind component, not when the max.
   demonstrated crosswind component according to the POH is 13K!  This
   makes sense when you consider that (a) normal landing speed is 50K or
   so and (b) when the wind gets strong it's seldom steady, usually somewhat
   gusty.  I wouldn't want those kinds of gusts that close to the stall.

|> (BTW the FAA says the most common fatal accident among private pilots is  
|> turning from base to final and entering a slip/spin situation!).
Actually the most common fatal accident is from turning base to final and
entering a *skip*/spin situation.  A slip is where you are using more aileron
than rudder, whereas a skid is where you are using more rudder than aileron.
A slip is not normally considered dangerous, whereas a skid is EXTREMELY
dangerous.  Using the controls as you describe (aileron first) works fine.
BTW, the reason you are not supposed to slip with flaps extended in Cessnas
has nothing to do with spinning in - you can get elevator oscillation that I
understand is less dangerous than it is frightening.  (Note the POH says to
"avoid" slipping with FULL flaps, not a real prohibition.)

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators