From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Falcon MC comments from AOL, part 2/2 (LONG)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:25:14 GMT

-----------

Subj:  Falcon MC vs. Hellcats                92-12-03 15:06:49 EST
From:  S HoloByte

Ok so I'll jump on the bandwagon! What I say here, once again, is 
my opinion and does not reflect the companies views (not that I'll 
say anything too off the wall, but you never know :)

First off, I'd like a chance to defend some of my positions...
Arrogance has nothing to do with not having played Hellcats, and 
my not having played it does not mean that the compnay is not 
paying attention to the competition. In fact, the reason it took 
me so long to get around to checking it out is bacaue the copies 
we did have were being used by the product managers and the Mac 
programming group! I'm just a tech support guy, not a designer or 
programmer for the company, so none of these decisions come from 
me :) But, I finally got my hands on it and have been checking it 
out. Now I should qualify myself as mainly a PC gamer, so my view 
may be a bit different than a Mac users. Also, I'm trying all this 
on a IIsi, which is certainly not the fastest of the macs. When I 
said that the graphic detail on Falcon MC was different, I was 
reffering to the detail of airborne objects and ground targets, 
not the terrain. I guess I'm easily wowed by well done 3d solids, 
and I think that Falcon Mc does a very good job of it. The planes 
in Hellcats appear as solid blue bocks, with little detail on 
them. This is why I said that it was difficult for me to compare 
the two. I think both have their attribuites, and I genrally agree 
with what Chris35 had to say in his message about the good and bad 
sides of both products. As to being shocked by seeing 256 color 
modeling, well I'm sure that was just men to chide me, but I'll 
explain one my avocation, and no I'm not shocked :) Actually, 
other than being in tech support, I'm also persuing a masters 
degree in algorithmic rendering and modeling at Berkeley, so I'm 
pretty confident with my familiarity with 256 colors. 

 I do think that both pieces of software have their attributes and 
disadvantages, and I think they are both good. No, my working for 
the company does not skew my opinion. Does everybody out there 
like their boss just because you work for him? :) Since everybody 
on this forum is honest and open, I try to be more than just a 
corprate robot spewing out propaganda about how great the company 
is and how all of our products are perfect. This would be a pretty 
unreal view of the world, and I really enjoy my position of being 
liason between the company and the customer. Anyway, my point is 
that I do listen you and try and get things done and I do try and 
let you know where the company stands. But, I also like to throw 
in my own opinion on occasion and see how they are received. 
Anyway, the result of this diatribe is that I enjoy Falcon MC. I 
don't claim to be a jet jockey, but working here I do have a 
pretty good idea of what flight sims are available, and as it goes 
I have fun with it. As well, Hellcats is a good sim, but I really 
don't think that you can compare them. As Chris35 stated, the 
dogfighting logic is quite a bit different, and the realism and 
flight code is quite a bit different as well. Now when F-18 comes 
out, maybe it will be a bit easier to compare ;)

Well, I'll get off my soapbox. Once again, I really appreciate how 
active evrybody has been on this topic.

-Chris B.

------------

Subj:  Hmmm...                               92-12-03 22:11:59 EST
From:  Chris M35

...even if SH doesn't produce a decent simulator, at least their 
tech support people are for real.

Chris

------------

Subj:  F-18                                  92-12-04 22:30:51 EST
From:  DennisH49

SohoNYC,

F-18 is, indeed, a future GS release.  They are hoping for a Jan 
93 release, but that is not firm.  Historically, GS runs over on 
their predictions (but so does everyone).  Those who have seen 
some of the graphic engine and the 3D cockpit say it will be a 
winner.

------------

Subj:  F-18 cockpit                          92-12-04 23:42:13 EST
From:  TDeniz1

And speaking of F-18 cockpits. Our good friend Jon (Jonb9) is 
doing the cockpit art and stuff for F-18, which he kindly showed 
me the other day. I'm telling you guys, his stuff is amazing. The 
cockpit looks so real it's UNREAL! 

Tuncer

------------

Subj:  SH Support                            92-12-05 00:47:50 EST
From:  Learjet

Chris B.

Thanks for being honest and responsive. Don't know what we'd do 
without you to complain to. FMC isn't a world beater, but it is an 
improvement over 2.2 - it actually flys almost like a real 
airplane.

One HUGE problem. Why is it when you roll 90 degrees in a vertical 
dive it's impossible to pull out. I used to think this was a 
contol input problem on 2.2, but apparently the FMC flight model 
doesn't track all the Euler angle transformations in 3-D. Could it 
be that a 90 degree role looks the same to the flight model no 
matter what the pitch angle? If so, this makes it really tough to 
do any real ACM. If you're pointed straight down YOUR ROLL ANGLE 
SHOULDN'T MATTER - pull on the stick an up you go.

I think it's a fatal problem for the playability of the game.

Andy Blackburn
BCG

------------

Subj:  PRA                                   92-12-05 01:21:15 EST
From:  SteveAdept

Everything you've learned about a high-tech sim from Falcon 
MC...throw it away. The F-18 cockpit is absolutely stunning, think 
of outdoor scenery as perhaps Hellcats x 3... It's all very nifty, 
and it will be money well spent. I just hope they make their 
target date! :)

Steve

------------

Subj:  MC SUCKS!                             92-12-05 01:53:29 EST
From:  G Gekko1

I'll say it again, this game stinks. I'll take the PC version any 
day, EVEN at 300 X 200, Falcon 3.0 is 10 times better.

------------

Subj:  Re: MC Sucks.                         92-12-05 02:00:56 EST
From:  Chris M35

I have to disagree with G Gekko.  At least you can see in mC, even 
if it only runs in 16 colors.  No matter what type of PC I've seen 
Falcon 3.0 on, the graphics resolution is about as clear a the 
skies over Los Angeles on a smoggy day.  If you can't see your 
enemy, you can't kill him!

Worse yet, who ever heard of an autopilot that would basically fly 
the whole mission for you?  Very, very sad indeed!

The two advantages that Falcon 3.0 has over Falcon MC are multiple 
wingmen and more missions.

Chris M35

------------

Subj:  RE: MC SUCKS!                         92-12-05 03:46:59 EST
From:  TDeniz1

Unlike MC, in Falcon 3.0 you can see everything and all the planes 
around you. Flying is very realistic, the cockpit, expecially 
using the scroll lock key (pans the cockpit view up so you only 
see HUD and sky) is awesome. I agree with Gekko that 3.0 is much 
better than MC, without a doubt, even at 300 X 200. Sorry, Chris, 
you blew it on that one.

As for the F-18 cockpit, ask Jon, he just might show it to you. It 
is truely unreal! Very authentic. I think almost everything you'd 
see on an actual F-18 is there.

Tuncer

------------

Subj:  Re; MC Sucks                          92-12-05 11:49:59 EST
From:  G Gekko1

Just more missions and multiple wingman? That's it? How about 6 
theaters to play campaigns in. All kinds of planes, tanks, AAA, 
everything. 

And probably the best thing about Falcon 3.0 is the big screen. I 
use a 14" screen and it's sooooooo nice to actually see 
everything, unlike MC where you have too put your face up to the 
screen just to see that little 9" screen. YUK!

In modem play you can play head to head or campaigns and missions 
together with other people. Another big advantage over MC.

THE point here is, Spectrum, get back to work and make Falcon MC 
more like 3.0!

------------

Subj:  RE, MC Sucks.                         92-12-05 16:12:23 EST
From:  Chris M35

I still hold my point that the resolution on Falcon 3.0 is still 
not up to par.  I concur with the points that 3.0 has more 
missions, theaters and AAA, as well as a greater variety of 
targets.  To me, the flying seems about the same, except that in 
Falcon 3.0 the lack of clarity makes it harder to tell how close 
you are to the ground (unless there are tanks or something down 
there).

So while 3.0 is definitely more complex, you seem to be 
sacrificing clarity for complexity.  I guess I'm just old school, 
but I like being able to see my targets clearly, as opposed to 
seeing blurs that are supposed to represent targets.

As for F-18, I have to agree that the artwork is awesome.  Should 
the rest of the game be of the same quality as that artwork, then 
F-18 will be beyond truly awesome.  As for Falcon MC, I agree with 
G Gekko 1 that Sh needs to go back and do it right (256 colors, 
dynamic screen sizes, higher frame rate, multiple aircraft types 
and theaters, etc.) but having experienced their turnover rate for 
new programs, I'll probably finish my M.S. before they do.

However, assuming they eventually do get it right, I'd like to 
place a wanted ad right now.
Wanted:  2 good pilots to fly strike CAP for a pair of heavily 
laden F-16s.  Applicants must have own F-16 simulator, and be able 
to defeat "Hard" level MiGs.
               1 good F-16 pilot who specializes in mud moving to 
form second half of mud moving pair to be escorted by the air to 
air specialists mentioned above.

:)

Chris

------------

Subj:  Falcon MC discovery.                  92-12-05 19:26:36 EST
From:  Chris M35

Has anyone else noticed that if you fly really low (mean altitude 
< 300 ft) for the whole mission, very few MiGs show up?  I have a 
pilot (still a measly 1st Lt.) who flies all of his missions down 
in the weeds and only pops up to bomb major targets.  Over the 
course of 14 sorties he has only encountered six MiGs, and of 
those 6, 4 showed up once he'd climbed above 1000 feet.  Oh yeah, 
he also flies under total emcon on "hard" level and does go 
through copious numbers of flares evading SA-7s.    However, he'd 
rather evade a dozen SA-7s than have to deal with a gauntlet of 
SA-2s and MiG-29s.

One more thing.  Having realized that I was wrong in stating that 
Falcon 3.0 was inferior to Falcon MC in most respects, I visited 
my Falcon 3.0 friend to retread my brain and to see what other 
features the next version of Mac Falcon should include.  The most 
notable one I could think of was a greater variety of weapons.  
Especially cluster bombs, Shrikes and Harms.  And how about some 
aerial refueling?  And why not get a mission disk out for MC that 
allows the F-16s to jump bomb laden MiGs or Sukhoi's for a change?  
It woudl be fun trying to take out a MiG-29 escort at long range 
so that you could go in and play merry hell with a bunch of 
Fitters, Blinders or even the odd Badger or Backfire.

Chris "Fish make mistakes too" M35

------------

Subj:  3.0 vs. MC vs. F-18                   92-12-06 00:26:12 EST
From:  Montressor

Well, after having determined not to buy Falcon MC, a friend gave 
it to me as a birthday present because I talked about Hellcats so 
much. OK, so I tried it. I can't begin to comprehend the reason 
for the limited screen size, but even so, it can be entertaining. 
I don't know about other MC/Hellcats owners, but I find that MC 
doesn't pull me in as much as Hellcats does. I occasionally sweat 
and lean sideways in my seat when I play Hellcats-never with MC. 
I've never used 3.0, so I can't make an accurate comparison- how 
about a GIF from someone? I'd like to see for myself. 

As far as Hellcats vs. MC- Hellcats seems to be more of a VR 
experience, regardless how many shaded polygons they use vs. MC or 
whatever other benchmark you want to use. Hellcats makes it easier 
for me to forget that what's happening on my screen isn't real, 
and that seems to me to be the first and most important step in 
creating a simulation. Doesn't matter if MC is more "true-to-life" 
than Hellcats, it's still less believable. I wish Spectrum could 
fix that, because I'd love to believe I'm flying an F-16.

As far as F-18 is concerned, if the software developer's approach 
is the same as for Hellcats, I don't care really if the throttle 
is on the left as opposed to the right. I'm more interested in my 
suspension of disbelief getting a chance to kick in. And BTW: 
Where did you guys get a chance to see stuff on F-18? I'm dying to 
see anything. Am I missing something?

Mont

------------

Subj:  Demo vs. the real $39.95 thing.       92-12-06 01:58:36 EST
From:  Chris M35

The demo is so crippled, it might as well be MS Flight Simulaotr 
with a gun tacked on as an afterthought.  The real thing is 
definitely better than the demo, since you don't run out of gas in 
the blink of an eye, MiGs don't jump you continuously (unless you 
leave your radar and/or ECM gear on) and there aren't any barriers 
to run into.

Is it worth buying? Well, that depends on a variety of variables, 
including:
1). are you a jet junkie?  If so, Falcon MC is the *only* decent 
jet simulator available for the Mac right now, even though F-18 
should soon fix that problem.  Being the sole member of the market 
makes MC the best....and the worst but the choice is poor.
2). Do you have good eyesight?  If so, then you probably won't 
mind MC's small screeen too much.  The sharpness of objects is 
still up to the usual Mac standard but everything is a little 
smaller than its counterparts would be, say in Hellcats.
3). Do you long for a flight sim that has linked missions but 
can't justify blowing a couple of grand for a decent 486 to run 
Falcon 3.0 on?  Try MC.

By the way, on the topic of screen size, has anyone with hardware 
zoom capabilities tried blowing it up to see how it looks?  My 
IIci's internal video is understandably slow but this would be an 
exercise I'd be interested in hearing about, since I have 
accumulated close to enough $$$ to get a video card for the old 
ci.

Chris "DFA" M35

------------

Subj:  upgrade $ reduction                   92-12-06 20:06:33 EST
From:  Zudo

If mail order companies sell MC for $8 more (including delivery) 
than loyal falconeers, are they getting it for less than us? They 
werent waiting for this sim like ive been.

That makes me rather dissapointed. Although i would gladly pay $25 
+ shipping.

Any chance this kind of realistic adjustment will happen?        
jon.

------------

Subj:  Mont...                               92-12-07 02:08:15 EST
From:  SteveAdept

99% + .99% of the information we toss around regarding F-18 are 
educated guesses. Some info has come from GS, but a lot of very 
valid data can be derived based on public knowledge of their 
goals, the lines between what they've posted in the forums, and 
the odd un/intentional treat :) from those closer to the project 
than most of us. Those GraphSim guys are as transparent as an AIM-
9 seeker lens... A nice change from what we're used to, eh? :)

Steve

------------

Subj:  Frustration in 4 easy steps.          92-12-07 03:03:32 EST
From:  Chris M35

1). Start Falcon MC
2). Try flying head to head with someone.
3). Watch in anguish as [2] is not possible.
4). Go to 1.

Yes, gentle reader, the completely rewritten communications module 
in Falcon MC is a gem.  The sort of gem that brings bad luck and 
curses upon those who try to use it!  I tried connecting at speed 
ranging from 14400 -> 4800 with JonB9 this evening and after 
almost an hour of trying, we gave up.  It didn't matter if we 
disabled hardware handshaking, error correction, variable speeds, 
etc.. The bloody communications module just doesn't work.  Our 
modems would connect and then disconnect before the game did 
anything.  Just once did we establish a connection that actually 
resulted in the F-16 screen coming up.  This was at 4800 and 
lasted for about 30 seconds, during which the game was even 
jerkier than Falcon 2.2.1 at 2400 on a Mac Plus!  I guess there is 
such a thing as reverse evolution, 'cause the communications 
module has definitely regressed.

Spectrum Holobyte has been duly notified of the problems in the 
friendliest terms I could think of (and I think Jon was going to 
do the same) and I'll hopefully get some sort of reply from Chris 
before too long.

Being a scientist, I guess I might as well post a list of the 
tricks we tried so that any other interested parties can see if 
they can replicate our inability to go head to head (it shouldn't 
be hard).
- Speed : 9600, 4800 (2400 was slow for Falcon 2.2.1 and is 
probably even worse for Falcon MC).
- All inits/extensions disabled.
- Since Falcon MC doesn't include a dialog box where you can 
initialize the modem with the crippled settings that will 
supposedly make it work, use a working communication program to 
write the settings into your modem's non-volatile memory.
- Place the modem in a bullet proof enclosure and make sure no SH 
effigies are present.
- Proceed until you are blue in the face.

:(

Seriously, if anyone has come up with a series of tricks, 
procedures, rituals and/or sacrifices that will allow you to use a 
modern high-speed modem with the game, please post them so that 
the rest of us can spend our evenings blowng each other away 
instead of pushing pins into SH voodoo dolls!

Anyone considering buying this game might want to evaluate the 
value of a game where the head-to-head feature doesn't work so 
well (I would say it doesn't work at all).  If you are into 
engaging in ACMs with other players, then you are at a loss, 
'cause this game doesn't seem to make it.  Maybe SH will come up 
with a quick fix (and maybe I'll get a PhD before I get my M.S.) 
that will improve this but I would not hold my breath.

Nuff said.  If I type anymore I am liable to get nasty.

Chris M35

------------

Subj:  MC popular with customers!            92-12-07 05:08:40 EST
From:  MacMan UW

I work at a software retailer part time while attending the UW in 
Seattle, WA.  Our customers have been very satisfied with Falcon 
MC as compared to other combat flight simulators.  In fact MC is 
fairing very well as far as customer opinions and feedback are 
concerned when compared to Hellcats.  An informal poll of 
customers who own both MC and Hellcats has made it perfectly clear 
that it is a 50-50 race.  We have about 50% of the customers who 
own both sims tell us that they like Hellcats as opposed to MC.  
The other 50% favor MC over Hellcats.  Granted this isn't a huge 
sample, but over 75 people have offered their opinions.

I applaud SH for producing MC.  As soon as other companies begin 
to see that the Macintosh is selling in larger numbers every day, 
and that other combat flight simulators are selling well we will 
see as many combat flights sims available as on the PC.  Only a 
completely self centered person who isn't taking into 
consideration the business slant of producing MC (or any other 
flight simulator for the Mac for that matter) would fault SH in 
it's effort in producing MC.  I realize that MC isn't perfect, but 
it is definitely a step in the right direction.  We sell more and 
more combat flight sims (Hellcats, MC, Red Baron, etc.) every day 
where I work.  One year ago there wasn't anything except the BW 
version of Falcon that was widely available for our customers.  I 
think that alot of people are way too critical in labelling the 
efforts of software companies as being lazy or indifferent.  I 
believe SH and other companies will build on what has been 
accomplished with Falcon MC, and we will probably be seeing 
several combat flight simulators for the Macintosh in the next 
year.  Due to the success of Red Baron for example, Dynamix will 
be releasing Aces of the Pacific on the Macintosh platform 
sometime in the near future.  And I'm sure that if MC sells well 
and we support SH's effort we will see new versions of Falcon that 
are much improved in the future as well.  

Finally I would like to say that I believe Falcon MC compares 
favorably with Hellcats and any other flight simulator on the 
market for  that matter (IBM or Macintosh).  The manual is well 
put together and entertaining to read.  The graphics are simple, 
crisp, and clear.  The controls are well laid out, and effective 
as a means of controlling the sim very simply.  I also like the 
way the missions are interrelated.  I guess it is largely a matter 
of opinion.  It frustrates me to see so many people automatically 
assume that they have developed without any doubts at all the 
definitive review and assessment of any software title.  I think 
that Mac gamers are far better off with Falcon MC being available 
as opposed to SH not releasing any updated combat sim at all, and 
leave us out in the cold as so many other companies have done to 
Macintosh users in the past.

MacMan (GO DAWGS!)

------------

Subj:  Communications & Surveys              92-12-07 05:58:15 EST
From:  JonB9

I consider myself a fairly adept modem user. God help the masses 
when it comes to playing Falcon at 9600 baud (don't bother with 
2400 baud, the option shouldn't even be there).
Chris pretty much explained it all. Numerous tries yielded only a 
giant zero accept for Pacific Bell's portion. Even when falcon 
managed to hold the carrier it just sat there.......and sat 
there.......and sat there.  The only connection we managed to make 
at 4800 baud was a Joke. every few seconds the game froze, moved, 
froze, moved, ect. The it just decided to stop all together and 
leave the line open with your system frozen - restart time again.

I'm glad the new communication module has been totally re-written. 
It's so user friendly, non-modal and efficient now.
I was just wondering if SH bothered to test it before shipping? I 
know it sounds like a stupid question but when somthing works this 
poorly it makes sense to ask. There is absolutely no reason you 
should have to go in and start screwing around with S-registers 
and flow control to get this game to work at 9600.
You didn't even slap a cancel button or even a command-period 
intercept on the connection dialog. If the game freezes (and it 
will) you have one way out - restart button. No way to enter pre-
dial command strings either. The Manual set-up option is a real 
winner. Too bad it doesn't work properly. Falcon resets your modem 
every time you enter head-to-head, just making it more difficult 
to get your modem set right. You have to fire up a terminal 
program and write your new settings to NVRAM everytime you want to 
test a new set (not that out should have to be testing new sets in 
the first place).

SH - start shipping your products to outside beta testers. 
Obviously you don't have enough staffed to get the job done 
properly. How many different modems did you test this thing on?
If I sound angry - I am. The only reason I bought MC was for modem 
play.

As far as store surveys go I think the opinions of devoted sim 
players such as the ones who read and post here daily probably 
hold more weight than most others. I think we can all see the 
negative MC opinions tend to be prevailing. Hellcats is, as 
Chris(SH) said, a different type of game. None the less, it's a 
far superior programming effort weather you like WWII or not. 

None of this is addressed to you specifically Chris(SH). I admire 
your cool head and forthright answers. But this is just a really 
shameful game and I want people to know. they shouldn't be 
spending their money on this. It's almost 1993 - get with it SH.

Jon

------------

Subj:  MC Decisions                          92-12-07 22:52:59 EST
From:  Sam12

If it was designed to be fluid on a Performa 400 with a 12" screen 
why isn't it "fluid" on a IIci? As long as we're talking screen 
size... Apple now advocates their new 16" standard, with the Power 
PC platform in the wings it seems strange to expend so much effort 
and expense for such a crippled program DON'T HARD WIRE IN 
OBSOLESCENCE. Notice I never used the name "HellCats" as a basis 
for any of these criticizms... and now about the 16 color 
theory...I do not think so <---<<< <---<<< <---<<<

------------

Subj:  Ludicrousness abounds!                92-12-08 02:16:33 EST
From:  SteveAdept

MacMan,

It's interesting to hear the opinions of a retailer in this forum. 
However, I'd like to point out a few vaporous holes in the 
theories put forth. (If I sound contumelious, please forgive 
me...I've got MC on the brain.)

First, in order to draw any valid conclusions from your informal 
survey, demographics must be gathered. Chances are that most of 
your customer base is of the most casual sort, who would never 
notice the compressed ranges in Falcon 2.x, or the Stealth Zeros 
in Leyte Gulf's Texas Tea mission. Anyone who seriously tackles 
tanks in MC, or seriously tries to merge with higher-level MiGs, 
will be quite prescient of the problems inherent in Falcon's 
design. Just for the record, the MiG-29 does not have the ultimate 
infra-red guided heat-seeking cannon that MC gives it. Proper 
perspective on this issue can only be achieved when you've spent 
inappropriate amounts of time tackling various simulations worth 
the effort. I wasn't able to wrestle Colonel-level MiGs from the 
air the first time I played Falcon 2.x.

Now, without a background concerning the histories of air combat 
sims in the Mac market, one might consider it to be a reasonable 
statement that if MC sells well, we'll see new versions soon, and 
others will jump into the market as well. A quick look at your 
MacWorld back issues will tell a far, far different story. Falcon 
has spent 30 MONTHS in the Top 5 Best Entertainment Seller list! 
Contrast this with how long it took Spectrum to put this together. 
After years of us raving in this forum about how a new Falcon was 
needed, we were told something was in the works, no features would 
be listed, just shut up and wait for it. Now it's out, and we can 
see that it is mostly a contrivance of Falcon Amiga. Their Comm 
module simply does not work properly, for one thing, and that 
hasn't changed in five years. And the gear key is still next to 
the flap key. Wonder of wonders when your finger misses at 800 
knots! And SH still hasn't gotten the clue that the Overriding 
Rule of the Good Simulation is to Never, Ever Sacrifice Fluidity 
for Complexity!

In summary, I can see how those with a casual attitude toward 
these simulations can be satisfied by a common denominator 
offering such as Falcon MC. However, those diehards who pick the 
things apart to their smallest details will tell you a far 
different story. To use a pre-coined 'inside' phrase, you're a 
gamer, not a simmer.

Steve

------------

Subj:  Localtalk dogfighting                 92-12-08 02:21:56 EST
From:  Learjet

I tried MC on Localtalk. Sadly the network interaction slows the 
game to the point that it's virtually unplayable. Also Chris' 
warning about who answers the "another game?" dialog first holds 
for network play as well. 

I wasn't planning any modem play as mine is only 2400 baud...looks 
as though it's a moot point anyway.

I tested my pitch vs. roll attitude experiment with the external 
view selected (kids, try this experiment at home). I got up to 
50,000' and pushed over into a 90 degree dive then rolled the 
Falcon 90 degrees. By the outside view, I'm still pointed straight 
down, just 90 degrees off my initial heading. Now I try to pull up 
(straight back on the stick). All that happens is the plane 
changes heading (from the outside it looks like your slinging the 
plane around your head on a string - the pitch attitude never 
changes despite full aft stick). I know why this is happening and 
it's an egregious bug. REAL AIRPLANES DON'T FLY THIS WAY.

Does this problem bother other people as much as it does me? It 
makes it virtually impossible to line up most bombing shots unless 
you just come straight in at the target at a pretty shallow dive 
angle. As for any kind of turning apporach into a target - forget 
it!

How about looking into this Chris?

ANDY

------------

Subj:  Simmer vs. Gamers                     92-12-08 04:59:42 EST
From:  MacMan UW

I agree wholeheartedly with what you posted.  And the fact of the 
matter is that there are alot more gamers out there than there are 
die hard simmers.  The PC platform is used by so many people out 
there as compared to Macs that even if the same small percentage 
were die hard simmers on both platforms, there would be a much 
higher number (in absolute terms) on the PC side.  Thus many 
companies can sell large numbers of games that appeal to simmers 
and other games that appeal more to casual gamers.  Unfortunately 
the Macintosh market hasn't expanded yet to that point.  I do 
agree with you that Falcon MC may be enjoyed much more by casual 
gamers as opposed to dyed in the wool combat fanatics.  All I was 
really saying was that our average Mac customer that has either 
played both Hellcats and Falcon MC or owns both titles is largely 
indifferent between the two.  Granted we have many zealots who do 
not care much for MC, but we have just as many people who do not 
care much for Hellcats.  We have several customers who complain 
about the  realism of Hellcats from both a historical perspective, 
and a technical perspective.  I don't know enough about WWII 
aircraft to go into much detail as to what some of our customers 
have disliked about Hellcats, but nonetheless complaints have 
arisen.  I think that in time we will see more simulations that 
will live up to die hard combat flight simulator fans' 
expectations, as soon as more flight simulators in general are 
selling well.  Granted the original Falcon is a perennial 
bestseller, but combat simulator fans haven't had many 
alternatives up until recently.

Hopefully after the success of Red Baron and Hellcats, and the 
expected success of Falcon MC we will see a large number of new 
titles in this genre of Macintosh games/simulations.  I kind of 
look at it from the perspective that games/sims are very rarely 
perfect or even approaching perfection, but usually the consumer 
is better off and reasonably well served by a product's 
introduction.  And again I don't think many companies are going to 
target the relatively small number of serious simmers when they 
can appeal to the much less demanding expectations of the average 
Macintosh gamer.

------------

Subj:   Falcon MC Modem Connections          92-12-08 21:08:49 EST
From:  S HoloByte

I'm sorry that people have been having trouble with the Falcon MC 
comms mode. Let me give some background on what MC was tested on, 
and a few hints on getting it to run. I'll start out with the 
biggest problem we've encountered so far:

1) If you have modems that handshake upon connection, which covers 
most high speed modems, the modems will not connect unless you 
have a Hardware Handshaking Cable! A normal Apple serial cable 
will not work for these types of modems. These problems will most 
often occur if your are calling someone with the same type of 
modem, but can occur in other instances. If you did not buy your 
modem as part of a special Mac package, and are having connection 
problems, chances are that you do not have a Hardware Handshaking 
Cable. I cannot under-emphasize the importance of this. The pin 
routings are very different on this specialized cable, so please 
check to see if this is the case.

2) While testing the product it was found that you can acieve 
better results when connecting using the "Manual Setup" option, as 
opposed to just selectin a baud rate and phone number.

3) The product was tested with:

Zoom v.32 Turbo
Zoom v.32                                (normaly aspirated? :)
Practical Periphrials 9600SA
Practical Periphrials PM2400SA
Supra 14.4 Modem/Fax             (mine, as a matter of fact :)
Global Village Teleport 2400 ADB
ATI 2400 ETC/e

Unfortunately, we don't own every modem ever made, so we weren't 
able to check them all, but I think we had a pretty good sampling 
and didn't encounter any connection errors (except for the 
aformentioned two)

I have personally connected up a number of times at work and with 
friends, and am pretty confident with the setyup, so if you have 
any questions, please send me E-mail and I'll get you going! As I 
get reports on "great ways to get comms going" I'll post them here 
for all to see.

------------

Subj:  Falcon MC etc                         92-12-08 21:13:59 EST
From:  S HoloByte

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. There were a couple of 
questions about the flight model, and I admit to ignorance on all 
the aspects of flight dynamics so I'll need to check with some of 
the FD engineers here and I'll come back with an answer. I would 
assume that there are some limited 3d vector tranformations 
occuring, as that's the only way to get any kind of dynamic system 
running, but let me check on the specifics on the real time Euler 
curves :)

-Chris
Spectrum HoloByte Tech Support

------------

Subj:  Thanks for nothing!!!                 92-12-10 00:41:11 EST
From:  Bart Jones

If any of you have not upgraded (which I won't) but plan on it, 
spend the extra $2 to get an entirely new version rather than the 
"upgrade at a discount" offered to all of us suckered into buying 
Crash and Bomb I. 
       You see, SH sold it to these mail order houses for less 
than they're selling us the upgrade, so even at a profit they can 
sell it to all new suckers for the same "good deal" that SH has 
given licensed owners.  Yes, I'm mad as h&^* and for a GOOD 
reason!  Thanks for the special consideration to those who kept 
you in business through the first versions of Falcon...thanks  for 
nothing!!!!!!

From: Matthew.Voglewede@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Matthew Voglewede)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP