HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: k138836@cc.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi)
Subject: Re: What is Commanche?
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:01:09 GMT


In <1gb8ctINNhln@eagle.natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne) writes:

>In article <Dec11.220412.76765@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price) writes:
>>  Can someone tell me about this new commanche helicopter simulator?
>> Is it available and how much does it cost would be nice also.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>-- 
>>John Price    email: pricejoh@handel.CS.Colostate.Edu
>It is AWESOME!  I purchased it for $49.99 from Babbages.  Worth every penny.
>Basically, the game involves destroying various strategic targets from your
>helicopter (tanks, oil tanks, and enemy choppers), in the form of increasingly
>challenging missions.  The graphics are absolutely unrivalled for a PC game.
>--Bob

Agreed that it is graphically _superior_, even 'the best'. But as a game...
Sheehs. You rarely see a game to be played through in three hours.
(I didn'n, one aquintace did) 
And the simulation is POOR! As a great fan of Gunship and all 'realities' it
can give, I say Comanche sucks as a simulation. (IMO) You can NOT affect 
your height by dropping nose!! Unlikely... (As a GS fan I didn't buy the 
game when I saw it's abilites)
Face it: It is a GAME. 

Still... The graphics are wonderful... I'll be wating for Gunship 3000.
:)

-- 
---------------------------------------------
It's TKorho above there, at k138836@cc.tut.fi
"The Black Ghost out of Nowhere"
From: bnk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bob N Keenan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: A.T.P. ATC speech
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:19:04 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Dec10.213657.22993@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>
>Since other people are probably interested in this, I'll post instead:
>
>   As others have poitned out, the new SB drivers for ATP give ATC
>speech capability.  It is very *very* clear, and you can close your
>eyes, listen to ATC, and understand perfectly what they are saying to 
>you,  In addition, the sound of your engines does not cut out when the
>speech is made .
>

   You know...

   I bought the Blue Box version of ATP after hearing and reading
   about  it.  The back of the box describes "...the ROAR of the
   engines..." on your soundblaster.   I have a Soundblaster, and
   the ATC speech is GREAT, but all the "roar" i get is a high
   piched whiney sound for the engine.  Is this supposed to be 
   the sound as it is from inside the cockpit??  It is  far from 
   what a jet engine really sounds like.  Im comparing this to 
   the jet engine sound I got on FS4 with mallards upgrade thingy.

   Is this what it sounds like to everyone else, or what???

   Thanks,

   -bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Bob N. Keenan                     |       ***************
~ University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee |       * I AV84 FUN! *
~ bnk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu              |       ***************          
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Falcon or Commanche?
From: David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Martin)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:16:28 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Falcon 3 works perfectly without a Maths Co-Processor so it should be 
fine and your 40mhz 386 will more than handle the complex terrain.  

I haven't played Comanche but it sound like Falcon 3 is definatly what 
your looking for.  It is relitivly easy to get the hang of in respect 
to the controls but there is quite a large learning curve that goes 
with discovering the best tactics and stuff.

Cul8r...
David Martin
David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: jon@destin.dazixco.ingr.com (Jon Stone)
Subject: Re: Aviation simulation program
Reply-To: jon@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix - An Intergraph Company
	<1992Dec17.220922.3817@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:13:22 GMT

>>>>> 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:
>
>  Hello:
>
>  This is my first post so be gentle. Anyway I found this aviation simulation
>program that was basically on FTP ANONYMOUS, it is 12 MEG compacted and I
>believe 20 meg expanded (approx.). What I would like to know is of this
>program is for IBM's or Unix based systems. If anyone knows about this 
>program could you please tell me.
>
>
>  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.
>
>   As I said I can't really download it until I know if it is UNIX, IMB, or ?

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Stone                                                 jon@ingr.com
Intergraph Corporation, Boulder, CO                     (303) 581-2319
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: SEE
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:34:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.061300.12081@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> christih@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (CHRISTIAAN HENRI K) writes:
>Hi,
>Can somebody tell me what SEE is ? I know that it is some kind of scenery
>editor, but how does it differ from the Aircraft and scenery designer ?
>And, ... do I have to have SEE in order to use the scenery 'enhanced'
>by SEE ?

No, you don't have to have SEE to use "enhanced" scenery files.  SEE stands
for Scenery Enhancement Editor, and it is basically a combination compiler/
editor for scenery files.  It let's you modify the existing properties of
objects in your A&SD files, and also let's you add special effects, such as
day/night coloring and a few customized objects.  You write out a text
file using SEE commands, then run the program, and it opens the A&SD file
you specified, modifies it according to the SEE commands you have programmed,
then creates a new "enhanced" file.
   It's a great package, and if you want to do any complex scenery design,
the I recommend it.  But if you are only concerned with using other people's
scneery files, then you don't need it.  That is SEE's greatest strength...
it is a compiler, so once the scenery file is compiled, the compiler is no
longer needed.

-- 
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
From: exunmk@exu.ericsson.se (Noel Kerns)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: FS: ATP Blue Box vs. Red Box
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:58:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
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 <1992Dec12.010419.14018@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
>Subject: Re: FS: ATP Blue Box vs. Red Box
>Date: 12 Dec 92 01:04:19 GMT

Mr. Mechalas's reply to my assertion that the OLD ATP was unrealistic...

>Are you serious???  ATP's flight model is *much* more realistic than FS4's.
>For one, altitude effects are more accurately modeled...the most notable
>of all the differences.  Not to mention the instrument panel is more realistic
>as well...the most important difference here being IAS instead of TAS...

Actually, I am serious. The feel of flight (such as it can be simulated on a 
PC) in the OLD ATP was nowhere near FS4. (ballooning when flaps are applied, 
realistic rudder response, etc.) I've only got a Private/ASEL license so I'
ve never flown the "big iron", but I'm fairly certain that they don't fly 
like ATP.  The single biggest problem was the tendency for the plane to 
simply stay locked into what ever attitude you put it, no realistic 
aerodynamic reactions whatsoever, such as even the most basic tendency to 
seek wing level! In this sense it felt just the terrible program "F-16 
Combat Pilot", a regrettable Electronic Arts release.  Also, the frame rate 
was considerably slower than FS4.  I was running it on a 386/33 and was 
understandably surprised by this.  I now have a 486/33 so I'd like to see 
what the new product looks like on it.

However, as I said in my original post, I was curious about the NEW atp 
product. You did not state which one you were referring to.  I suspect, 
though, you were talking about the new one, as I can't imagine any serious 
Flight Sim afficianado being that taken with the old version...


						Noel Kerns 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Noel Kerns
                                                Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
                                                       Voice - (214) 907-5954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: Marc Bernatchez
Subject: >>F16 for FS4F
Summary: >>f16 for FS4 (f16_1.zip still not working right)
Organization: Universite Laval
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:34:56 GMT

Hi everyone,
	I still have a hard time trying to unzip de file f16_1.zip. Like you
can gess it, this time I can uudecode it (the newsreader do it automaticaly)
and I download it using Zmodem. Until here, everything is fine. The pkunzip
(ver.: 1.1 I think) tells me that my file f16_1.zip does not contain any files.

If somebody who did make it work fine could send me his version of the files
directly to my mail (because I won't be able to acces my account during 
Christmas...).

I was wondering if FS4 is making use of the EMS/XMS memory. If it is not, why
do I fail to use a cache (PCCACHE from central point software I think) when
using FS4. It just hang when I enter in the prog...

Any ideas ?

 
====================================================================
== Marc Bernatchez          =        gel24@gel.ulaval.ca          ==
== Universite LAVAL         =                                     ==
== Quebec, Canada           = graphics is the future of computers ==
====================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: ATP automatic weather
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:05:56 GMT

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
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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:26:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.130217.23436@walter.cray.com> treptau@romulus.cray.com writes:
>
>
>I've decided that my budget can support one new flight simulator / game.
>I've been reading this newsgroup lately, and it seems that two interesting
>programs are Falcon, and Commanche. Now, I realize that one game you fly a F-16,
>the other a copter, but what I'm wondering is what is the most playable of the
>two?
>

If you're into action and graphical splendor, then consider Commanche.  It's
a dirty little arcade game with stunning terrain visuals, but rather lousy
a/c sprites.  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,
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
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.
 
>I've played MS-Flight Simulator 4.0 on a PC, and the SGI Flight Sim and
>ACM on workstations. What I'll be running Falcon or Commanche on is a 
>386/40 w 4MB Ram. What I want is a combat sim that has good and fast graphics,
>good dogfighting/enemy encounters, and is relatively easy to fly. I am willing
>to invest some time learning how to operate the simulation. I don't have a 
>math co-processor for my 386/40, so is Falcon/Flying Tiger worth it if you
>can't get "Hi Fi" mode??
>

According to some, the Hi-Fi model is less realistic than Complex.  It's
also much harder to control.  I like Hi-Fi in that the plane behaves
like a real-world object of finite mass and a pair of wings should, but
whether it behaves more like an F-16 is debatable.  IMO, Hi-Fi adds a
little to the game, but it is far from essential for the enjoyment of
F3.

Phat.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: A.T.P. ATC speech
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:48:31 GMT

In article <1gapj8INNgde@uwm.edu> bnk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bob N Keenan) writes:
>
>   You know...
>
>   I bought the Blue Box version of ATP after hearing and reading
>   about  it.  The back of the box describes "...the ROAR of the
>   engines..." on your soundblaster.   I have a Soundblaster, and
>   the ATC speech is GREAT, but all the "roar" i get is a high
>   piched whiney sound for the engine.  Is this supposed to be 
>   the sound as it is from inside the cockpit??  It is  far from 
>   what a jet engine really sounds like.  Im comparing this to 
>   the jet engine sound I got on FS4 with mallards upgrade thingy.
>
>   Is this what it sounds like to everyone else, or what???

From outside the plane, or inside the passenger cabin, yes, the engines
do have a much louder roar.  But inside the crew cabin, the whine is
about all you can hear.  In fact, in some jets, you can barely tell if
the engines are running unless you are looking at the gages.  So yes,
the ATP sound is accurate from the pilot's perspective.

-- 
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
From: frank@whare.cavebbs.welly.gen.nz (Frank van der Hulst)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: FS wish list;
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 00:23:29 NZT
Organization: Tech-Soft Systems, Wellington, NZ

rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) wrote the following: 
> 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.  

> >  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

I'd translate this into a user-customisable system... the FS provides an engine for displaying instruments, HUD, other aircraft terrain, etc. Then the user can add other modules:
	- ATC
	- Combat
	- Scenery
	- Aircraft
	- etc.
> >- Improved .SC* & .ADV languages.

Yeah... including the Southern hemisphere!!!

Frank.


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| The end of the world is ni                                  |
| *O(&%^#$%g) }:&(*                                           |
| NO CARRIER                                                  |
|                                                             |
| frank@whare.cavebbs.welly.gen.nz                            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Ham radio forbidden in plane?
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 22:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.213002.8176@pony.Ingres.COM>, kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
> In article <921218105415@AltaHopa.ftp.com> plummer@babyoil.ftp.com writes:
>>In my studies I came across an FAR that seemed to forbid use of
>>amateur radio equipment, not only a transmitter, in a plane.  Is
>>this correct?  If so, is the idea to prevent interference with the
>>plane's radios?  Is this a real possibility with properly aligned
>>equipment?  --Bill
>>
> 
> The FAR you are referring to is up to the pilot's discression.

Up to the pilot discretion in General Aviation. For Commercial it is
the "operator's discretion" which would be the Air Carrier (owner), not 
the Pilot.

> CAP uses the 2M band for communications and we have a unit installed
> in our squadron's aircraft;  on the other hand, when you transmit on
> the 2M band, the needles on the nav heads go left an right, so we
> have the aircraft placarded to prohibit trasmitting during IMC.  It
> is pretty clear to me that the transmitting energy is easily picked
> up by the VOR nav equipment (antennae).

Precisely the reason for the FAR.

> 
> Licensing is another issue that I am not fully briefed on.  We have
> fixed, mobile, and air licenses for our units.  I'm not sure what
> limitations and/or operating conditions the FCC puts on air units
> in the amateur bands.
> 

The operator must be a licensed amateur with a class of license covering
the bands in use.

------

John Rice   __|__    K9IJ  |   "Did I say that?" I must have, but It was
     ________(*)________   |    MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
            o/ \o          |    Not my Employer's....
                           |    ASEL, AMEL, IA         rice@ttd.teradyne.com 
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
From: fks@vaxeline.ftp.com  (Frances K. Selkirk)
Subject: Re: Okay: 3rd time's a charm...
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Reply-To: fks@ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:57:35

In article <1gr0ojINNnq0@gap.caltech.edu> deblev@nimoy.ipac.caltech.edu (Debbie Levine) writes:

> Assuming that there is no saddle fit problem, I wonder if she isn't 
> picking up on tension in her rider?

I'm sure it reinforces by now. I try to stay relaxed at the corner, but
that's much easier said than done! However, it wasn't that originally, as
I was quite nervous the first time I got on her bareback. What a
pleasant surprise! 


--
Frances K. Selkirk		fks@ftp.com		(508) 685-3600
FTP Software, Inc.		2 High Street, North Andover, MA 01845
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"There is nothing in life so complicated that a Microsoft manual can't
make it completely incomprehensible."			-Douglas Adams

Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
From: lbm@avs.com (Linda B. Merims)
Subject: Carlyle Morgans
Organization: Advanced Visual Systems Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:28:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
X-Posted-From: phobos.avs.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Did any of you Morgan folks out on the net read your December
"The Morgan Horse", particularly the yellow sales supplement
article from the AMHA board of directors on what happened to
Maxine Snow?  I'd love to hear your thoughts.

What a dilemna for the breed--in the SAME issue:

1992 World (sic) Champion In Hand Mare:
       Carlyle Cwhateverhernameis  (Fiddler's Trustee x Senora Showbiz Vona)

Maxine Snow of Carlyle Morgans expelled from AMHA membership over
  not cooperating with the AMHA Directors in establishing the identity
  of the Morgan mare Senora Showbiz Vona

So it appears a fair bet that the '92 Champion Morgan In Hand mare
is suspected of being only half Morgan.

Linda B. Merims




Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
From: stebbins@watson.bms.com (GAYE STEBBINS)
Subject: Doug's kicking
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Doug, Kicking, eating
Organization: Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:44:00 GMT

I have a suggestion to try to break Doug's habit of kicking while eating.  I 
read in a book titled 'The Formative Year's' (Cherry Hill) that a 
horses respond inately to situations in response to natural selection in the 
wild.  Doug threatens other horses to stay away from his feed so he can have 
it all.  In the wild if a horse doesn't protect his food, in years of drought 
he will die.  So, Doug is just reacting to the way nature made him.  But, with 
training you can get him to over ride these instincts.  The author (Cherry 
Hill -very well known with 'proven techniques' gives an example of how to cure 
a horse with obnoxious vocal behavior just at feeding time.  The author 
suggests not feeding the animal until he is quiet.  Initially the horses 
behavior worsens, but just if the caretaker is persistent with staying with 
the technique the horse learns to associate feeding with being quiet.  You may 
want to try this technique with Doug (don't feed until he is quiet, and when 
he starts to kick, say 'NO KICKING' and remove his food.  When he is quiet 
again return his food). I don't know if it will work, but it sounds good.  By 
the way, I have read most of the book this information came from but have not 
yet tried any of the techniques.  My mare is in foal and I was planning on 
raising/training the foal myself...thus, my interest in the book.  I would 
like to know if anyone has tried any of Cherry Hill's techniques and what they 
thaught.

-Gaye (Nicholas and Ivana, in foal)