HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre)
Subject: ATP mail list & Airbus A320
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:52:45 GMT

Again, a couple of quick questions:

1) What is the frequency of the sendings to the ATP mail list ? (I've still
   never received anything, unlike the 5-10 messages (!) sent every day to
   the Falcon3 list) 

2) Anyone has heard of/tried this german simulator called AIRBUS A320 ?
   How is it in terms of flight model, nav-aids, scenery ? Is it worth
   buying ? Any info will be appreciated.

                                    Thanks in advance

                                          Franck
From: jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu (jonathan skean)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Is 'Birds of Prey' any good?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu
Summary: Is 'Birds of Prey' aviation simulator good?
Keywords: aviation, simulators

Has anyone tried "Birds of Prey"?  What do you think of it?
Thanks.
--
Jonathan Skean                     usenet: JSKEAN@UNL.EDU
502 Hamilton Hall                  bitnet: JSKEAN%UNL.EDU@UNLVAX1
University of Nebraska              voice: (402)472-2684
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304   USA          fax: (402)472-9402
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: FS: ATP Blue Box vs. Red Box
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:04:19 GMT

In article <exunmk.44.0@exu.ericsson.se> exunmk@exu.ericsson.se (Noel Kerns) writes:
>I have the old, old very first release of FS: ATP.  When I got it home I was 
>disappointed to see that the flight model simply didn't measure up to the 
>one in MS Flight Simulator 4.  So now that they've released a new version
>(blue box) have they improved the program significantly or is it just a re-
>packaging of the same product?  

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...

-- 
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: graf@macavity.engin.umich.edu 
Subject: Falcon3
Originator: graf@macavity.engin.umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:23:05 GMT


Can anyone tell me where I can get the latest patches for Falcon 3.0?

Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price)
Subject: Commanche Demo
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:45:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University Computer Science, Industrial Technology


   Where can the commanche demo be found? I looked at ftp.uwp.edu
 under pub/msdos/games, and pub/msdos/demos and could not find it.
 
Thanks
 
-- 
John Price    email: pricejoh@handel.CS.Colostate.Edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: pricejoh@CS.ColoState.EDU (john russel price)
Subject: What is Commanche?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:04:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University Computer Science, Industrial Technology

  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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: FS wish list
From: sullivan@kenyon.edu
Date: 17 Dec 92 11:00:34 -0500
Organization: Kenyon College

I don't know if anyone from the relevant companies reads this news group, but
maybe it is a good idea to compile our "wish list" with some indication of
priorities.

The top of my list is a more realistic flying environment. I recently flew from
San Diego to Santa Monica. My path took me close to John Wayne airport and
right through what I know to be airspace typically used for departing traffic
for LAX. I would like to know how it really would be done. So this is my second
to the call for full ATC (though it looks like a hard problem).

Second on my list is better weather generation. Smooth out the huge shears that
occur at arbitrary altitudes. Have the weather at startup based on some random
number generator instead of being fixed from the last time you turned on the
weather generator.

To enhance the visual information available, how about the ability to route one
of the views to another graphics card/display. Or, if you have a second
computer at hand, to another computer (perhaps running another copy of FS).
I could imagine scrounging together additional low end computers or displays, but I
can't imagine putting out the money for special chairs, etc. I started running
FS on an 8Mhz XT and it did OK. Now I have a 486SX-33 and FS is better, but
wish I could hook up the XT  to show me the left front view so I could judge
that base-to-final turn better. Seems like it wouldn't be hard to have a second
copy of FS running on the XT, synchronized to the one running on the 486SX by
passing messages over a serial line, whose only job would be to display an
alternated view.

Just my $0.02....

Tim Sullivan (sullivan@kenyon.edu)

P.S. Thanks to those who posted the airplanes recently. I probably won't spend
much time with them, but they are a real blast for a joyride and may appeal to
some people I would like to get interested in FS. I would really like to get
the F-16 and hope that both parts can be re-posted or maybe someone could mail
it to me.
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:32:13 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Dec15.235451.28651@nmsu.edu>, bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu 
(BOSWELL) writes:
> 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...


This is one of the more popular modes of inadvertant gear retractions
in aviation.  In spite of all the efforts to make the gear switch
different from the flap switch, like putting them on different sides of
the cockpit, making them different shapes and sizes, people still 
manage to do it occaisionally.  

Cessna is better than anyone (IMHO) at differentiating these controls.
Don't forget that Cessna is about the only company using a hydraullic
control valve switch -- most are just an electric switch.

Think of the poor Bonanza pilot flying an F33 who then goes up in a
Bonanza A36 -- the gear switch and the flap switch are on two different
sides of the aircraft.  In the A36 they are placed as are the rest of
the aircraft -- on the F33 the gear switch is where the flap switch is
on most aircraft and the flap switch is on the side that most aircraft
have their gear switch.

Unless you are doing a go-around, or landing on an extremely short
runway, there isn't any big reason to retract the flaps until the
ground roll is done and you are less busy controlling the a/c.

Most instructors (at least in my club) will advise you to wait until 
you are off the runway to retract the flaps.




Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Aviation simulation program
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:09:22 GMT

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 ?

The best way to tell is to unpak/uncompress it and then look at the resulting
files.  If you see a bunch of source code (*.c files) then it's probably a
Unix program.  If you get a bunch of binaries/executables (*.EXE or whatever)
then it's a PC program.  I don't know what Mac binaries would look like...
or other platforms.

-- 
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: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Winds at Santa Catalina Island in FS4
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:38:31 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Dec17.221828.4746@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) 
writes:
> 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). 

When you are flying for real, the thing that gets you is the workload.
During approach and takeoff, the workload on the pilot is extremely
high.  he has to:

	1. Watch for traffic
	2. operate an aircraft in a high drag, low speed configuration
		very close to stall speed.
	3. Watch for other objects to collide with (such as birds).
	4. Communicate with ATC, or other aircraft operating at the 
		airport.
	5. Change the configuration and trim of the aircraft constantly
		as the takeoff or landing continues.
	6. Mentally calculate the position of the aircraft relative to the
		runway, and the horizon.
	7. Scan the engine guages for trends and/or indications that something
		is going wrong.
	8. Deal with whatever weather is present (such as crosswinds).
	9. Deal with the conversation/questions of any passengers he happens
		to have along with him (or her, sorry for the gender problem).

The addition of a "voice" telling him that the gear has been selected is 
just more of the clutter in the background.  subsequently the voice is
of little value.  This is borne out by all the crashes that occur in the
airlines with a voice shouting "pull up!" in the background as the pilots
work on something else, and casually fly into the ground.

The thing with automatic systems is that it may not be desireable for
the gear to extend automatically at 50 feet.  Piper has recently disconnected
their gear extension device because in some cases it has extended the
gear at the wrong time (all the parameters were right though) and actually
has been a contributing factor.

Radio altimeters are expensive, and they weigh a lot, and they are not
always accurate.

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.:-)



Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: FS wish list;
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:08:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <84A7042Dfrank@whare.cavebbs.welly.gen.nz>, by frank@whare.cavebbs.welly.gen.nz (Frank van der Hulst):
> 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!!!

How about aircraft that cannot fly thru another aircraft.  (FS4 broke the
most basic of Physics Laws, even caveman know that one)
From: tony@cns.nyu.edu (Tony Movshon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: FS wish list;
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: tony@cns.nyu.edu
Organization: New York University

In article 4927@netcom.com, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:

> How about aircraft that cannot fly thru another aircraft.  (FS4 broke the
> most basic of Physics Laws, even caveman know that one) 

Never mind other aircraft, how about the goddamn roadway of the Golden Gate
Bridge!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
					Tony Movshon

Internet:  movshon@nyu.edu		Howard Hughes Medical Institute
					Center for Neural Science
					New York University
Phone:	   (212) 998-7880		4 Washington Place, room 809
Fax:	   (212) 995-4183		New York, NY 10003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: tsandeson@mta.ca
Subject: Aviation simulation program
Reply-To: tsandeson@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:25:31 GMT


  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 ?



    TONY

TSANDESON@138.73.1.2
TSANDESON@MACC2.MTA.CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu (David Stack)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: >>F16 for FS4F
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:49:16 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: david@convex.csd.uwm.edu

- From article <gel24.724260896@ragueneau>, by Marc Bernatchez:
- 	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.

I've had similar results.  Both parts one and two uudecode OK, but the zip
file generated from part one doesn't unzip.  Part two unzipped OK and I
got the .sim file and a few others.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What is Commanche?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:51:02 GMT

Commanche is great as a game (though too easy), but not as a
simulator.  I'm eagerly awaiting something a bit more polished using
the same 3D engine.  Impressive!


-- 
Paradox:  An assistant to PhDs.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: christih@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (CHRISTIAAN HENRI K)
Subject: SEE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:13:00 GMT

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 ?

Thanks.

Henri.
University of Colorado at Boulder
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: "Chris Haynes" <chaynes@sunfish.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: New simulator: Instrument Pilot
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:47:17 -0500

I just got literature on "Instrument Pilot", a new simulator with
integrated instrument rating instructional software by Precision Training
Software, Inc. (call 800-452-0465 for a copy).  It has seperate modes that
will demonstrate, prompt you through, let you practice, and examine you on
each of the standard instrument procedures.  Requires 386, joystick, mouse,
hard disk, and color EGA/VGA.  Comes with speach generation hardware to
simulate communications and all necessary instrument training ground school
stuff, for $495.  Pricy, but could pay for itself in reduced training
costs.  (Of course like all PC-based simulators it is not FAA approved, so
you can't log time on it.)

Does anyone have any experience with this or any other simulators as
instrument training aids?  From literature I've collected the Elite
simulator appears better at basic simulation (to pracice approaches at
strange airports before you get there, for example), but you're on your own
trying to integrate it into a training program.  It's also expensive.

-- 
     Chris Haynes -- Computer Science Department -- Indiana University
     Bloomington, IN 47405 -- 812-855-3376 -- FAX 812-855-4829
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: FS: ATP Blue Box vs. Red Box
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.221204.22648@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>but I have failed to notice any appreciable differences.  2)  FS4 does not
>model the "phugoid" (long period) motion of aircraft very well.  If you are
>in level flight, and you drop your airspeed, you end up in a dive as you
>should...but you should also begin to pull up once speed is increased and
>then climb until that energy bleeds off, as you are probably aware.  But the
>period of that motion is too long in FS4.  In ATP, you get a much shorter
>period...and if you compare to the two 747's, you'd see that ATP's responds
>more realistically than FS4's (at least, according to my last Controls
>class...I will admit, however, that it has been a year since then, so my
>memory could be failing me here).

Hmm...I'm not so sure I agree with what I just wrote above anymore...  I
thought about it, then ran some more tests on FS4 real quick to see what
kind of responses I could get, and I have to say that it's response is a
lot better than the above paragraph suggests.  The response is actually
pretty good, although I don't have the time during finals week (!) to actually
sit down and try to do some calculations here.  :)  Besides, I think it would
be a waste of time anyway...this is a little too nit-picky for a flight
simulator on a PC platform.
   But I will say this much about FS4...using power to control decent rate
on final approach is rather sluggish, though that may just be my limited
experience talking.


-- 
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: treptau@parafoil.cray.com (Jeff Treptau )
Subject: Falcon or Commanche?
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Reply-To: treptau@romulus.cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:02:16 CST



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?

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??

Any comments on either of the above mentioned programs would be appreciated.

Jeff
--
treptau@romulus.cray.com                 | The views expressed above are
Jeff Treptau                             | solely those of the writer, and
Cray Research, Development Bldg.         | are not representative of Cray
900 Lowater Rd. Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 | Research, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: ATP mail list & Airbus A320
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:47:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.215245.2524@ncar.ucar.edu> lefevre@brasseur.acd.ucar.edu (Franck Lefevre) writes:
>Again, a couple of quick questions:
>
>1) What is the frequency of the sendings to the ATP mail list ? (I've still
>   never received anything, unlike the 5-10 messages (!) sent every day to
>   the Falcon3 list) 

There was some trouble with the ATP List a while back, and I don't know for
sure what has become of it.  Until I get more info on whether or not it is
still active, I am going to take the mailing list information out of the FAQ.
I *did* get a distribution test a while back, but haven't seen anything since
then....

>2) Anyone has heard of/tried this german simulator called AIRBUS A320 ?
>   How is it in terms of flight model, nav-aids, scenery ? Is it worth
>   buying ? Any info will be appreciated.

I have some info, courtesy of Robert Dorsett, that I can post.  Will do so
later, unless he beats me to it.  :)

-- 
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: wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn Wallace)
Subject: Re: What is Commanche?
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:11:04 GMT

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.

I saw it on Friday. Cost in AUS$ is about 90 (I think). I'd guess it
would be around US$50 or so.

You *HAVE* to see it, incredible!!! 

I didn't get to see a box, they only had a 'evaluation' copy, I wanted
to buy it on the spot. Some of the coolest VGA hacks around.

They said it would be in stock next week, which means it must be
available in the US now, right?

It runs in what looks like 320x200 256 color mode. The terrain as you
fly through it is shaded.... very vaguely, not really wire frame and
filled polys.... looks so realistic. The other craft (helicopters etc)
look a bit chunky, but the terrain is supoib.

From the quick fly I had, the flight dynamics of the helicopter seemed
reasonable. I like a game with a lot of 'hysteresis' like Chuck Yeager's
Air Combat.

I'm not sure about mission scenarios or weapons or anything else. I just
_HAVE_ to buy a copy and I'll post a quick review when I get it.

Glenn

Glenn Wallace (g.wallace@trl.oz.au)  == A Man Without a Country

"Could you please direct me to my own reality? I seem to have misplaced
it...."