scottf@cai.uucp (Scott Fleming) (01/24/91)
In article <11803@ur-cc.UUCP> jea@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: >I would like the learned opinion of net nacks-- >What is the best flight simulator? Which one is >most realistic? Do any reside on a hard disk and >cooperate (multitask) with AMIGA DOS? Do any have >minimal copyprotection??? I would have to say Falcon. Good flight controls, the HUD is pretty close to real, and the graphics are good. No multitasking, and it supports a hard drive.Copy protection is based on a code that is on a wheel, enter the code and away you go. There is also F-18 by electronic arts( I think anyway, someone else?). I like the HUD on this one a little better, more detail(I worked on weapon systems while I was in the air force...) when you engage the enemy. I'm not sure if it supports a hard drive, a friend of mine has this one and I play his. Off the subject, can anyone send any hints they might have from when they playedshadowgate? I seem to be stuck at the bridge that had fire underneath it, and the monster behind the door. I also have been cursed by that one guy, and I think I will die rather shortly. I tried to ride the broom, no luck, same goes for the carpet; so I cought it on fire. So, mail me all your hints if you don't mind. Thanks in advance...
ko0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin Richard O'Toole) (01/25/91)
Well, I'm a flight simulator nut and here's what I think: 1) Falcon: A little hard to play, but still the most entertaining, challenging, and realistic. The missions are fun, especially since they've actually brought out new mission disks. The MiG pilots are excellent and overall the game will give hours of enjoyment. I don't have a hard disk, but the game won't multitask. I love it and would recommend it to anyone. 2) F-18: Lots of fun, but not too challenging. The mission profiles are original and fun, but they get old too quick. The final mission vs the sub is totally unrealistic (who's gonna use an air to air weapon against a sub? Especially when the F-18 has Air to Ground capability). The missions are also extremely easy. Nice scenery for just flying around. Overall its good, especially for novices, but die hards will find it gets old too quick. 3) F-29: Smooth graphics, good images, and excellent terrain. The game seems a little hard to follow from time to time and the threats can be overpowering. I don't think it's all that realistic, but its still fun to motor around in. I don't own this game, but I've played around on it a little bit at a friend's. I'm not about to buy it if that tells you anything. Those are basically the three that I've played. Personally I still love F-15 Strike Eagle on the old Atari 8-bits. It was totally mindless and the graphics were terrible, but hey you got to bomb Libya! That's enough for me. Later, Kevin R. O'Toole ko0m@andrew.cmu.edu
UD118950@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Bruno) (01/25/91)
Best FS for the AMIGA (IMHO)
1. F-19 Stealth Fighter-- realstic
Very playable, smooth scrolling, interesting missions, and a wonderful
role-playing feel that keeps you coming back. The aircraft flies very
realistically (I'm a private pilot, so I appreciate that,) but the
combat will not leave you scratching your head in frustration.
2. Falcon, WITH MISSION DISKS!
Falcon is very detailed, very exciting, and very difficult. Display
speed is remarkable, and game play is a big plus. On the bad side,
Falcon is, I have it on good authority, *harder* to fly than the real
F-16. The reason I stipulate mission disks is that the flight control
in the original program stinks to high heaven. They fix it with the
Mission disk.
3. Flight Simulator II--serious
For the serious aviation enthusiast, really, who can ask for anything
more. Wonderful display speed and good scenery combine to make a
training aid whos worth knowns no comparison.
4. F-18
Fun. Fair display speed. Nice scenery. After 2 months, though, you've
done it all, and the simulator has some serious flaws. Example: get
the plane to stall pointing straight up. You'll climb.
Now, to avoid
1. F-16 Combat Pilot
At first glance an incredible simulation. The makers sacrifice such
fancy things as outside views to give you weather, bases at variable
readiness levels, GCA approaches, etc. Problem is, though, that the
combat is unbeliveably hard. I mean REALLY HARD. If, however, you
are a natural top-gun, go for it. But be warned: I'm not lying.
By way of proof, I am a 7 mission major (with max settings) on F-19,
a Major in THEIR FINEST HOUR, and I max combat scores on arcard F15
Strike Eagle. My combat exptactancy in F16 Combat pilot? 45 seconds.
Average.
2. Strike Aces
A waste of time and money. If you like mindless repetition at slow
display speeds. It's all yours
Hoped that helped
Tony Bruno ud118950@ndsuvm1 "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the
Communications specialist Lord my soul to keep...If I should die
English/Honors Major Before I wake...then someone gets
University of North Dakota another doughnut for breakfast!"
(701)-772-2599 --Dennis Millercom259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (01/26/91)
In article <11803@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes: > I would like the learned opinion of net nacks-- > What is the best flight simulator? Which one is > most realistic? Do any reside on a hard disk and > cooperate (multitask) with AMIGA DOS? Do any have > minimal copyprotection??? The British magazine Amiga Format did a mini comparison of several flight sims in their November '90 issue. The reviewer was Adrian Streeter, Squadron Leader, Number One Squadron, Royal Air Force (Britain). Here's a brief summary of his comments. Flight Simulator II: realistic flight. "Well done!". Needs analogue yoke for best control. Falcon: "excellant mix of realism and playability". Best manual of all combat sims. F-16 Combat Pilot: "Best combination of realism and playability and no flight sim enthusiast should be without it". F-18 Interceptor: "still one of the best","great fun to fly","bags of 'feel' and handles like a dream". Bomber: "If this had been my first taste of a flight sim I would have reformatted the disks" Wide variety of aircraft to try out. F-29 Retaliator: "Nice graphics", suffers from bugs and a poor manual. In the same issue they had larger reviews of the following. F-19 Stealth Fighter: "state of the art sim." given a 91% rating judged on graphics, sound, intellect and addiction. Wings: WW1 combat. more of an arcade game than a sim. rating of 79% Operation Harrier: "has it's moments but they're generally well spaced" rating of 64% Now for some comments of my own. The origional Falcon had a reputation of being difficult to handle. The release of followup mission disks ( 3 of them I beleive ) has fixed this sore point. You need the origional to use the followup disks. While F-16 Combat Pilot has everything on the one disk and is felt by some to be a bit better than Falcon, the extra mission disks give Falcon the potential for greater variety. F-18 Interceptor was an earlyer flight sim, but continues to entertain, if for no other reason than to see what absurd stunts can be achieved (like landing on a submarine). F-16 Combat Pilot is the only sim mentioned here which I have. I'm quite pleased with it. The format of Bomber, where you have a variety of different aircraft to choose from appeals to me the most, but has the reputation of suffering from bugs. I'm almost tempted to suggest a net-project to develop a flight sim ourselves which has different aircraft and missions on extra disks, distributed through the Fred Fish collection, but my prorgamming abilities aren't up to it, and we'd be arguing for 3 years on the format of the data of the extra disks. ;) Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon All opinions expressed are the result of paranoid delusions!
paulb@cbnewsk.att.com (paul.l.bidwell) (01/30/91)
Does anyone know if the new version of Falcon (1.2) works under 2.0 on a 3000? Or does anyone have the number of the distributor that I could call to find out? Paul Bidwell p.l.bidwell@att.com
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan29.160330.10169@cbnewsk.att.com> paulb@cbnewsk.att.com (paul.l.bidwell) writes: >Does anyone know if the new version of Falcon (1.2) works under 2.0 on >a 3000? Or does anyone have the number of the distributor that I could call >to find out? Yes, it does (I just tested it). Don't try to start it with an A2024 WB setup, and don't run hotkey commodities (it steals the WB bitplanes for gfx storage). Other than that it seems fine. (BTW enforcer kills it due to CP code). The control sensitivity seems ridiculously tough on an A3000, probably they're sampling the input more often on a faster processor (maybe the whole thing is running faster). Good warning voice. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (01/30/91)
>F-18 Interceptor was an earlyer flight sim, but continues to entertain, if
Also because is the ONLY one that is *HD installable AND works correctly
on any Amiga (including the a3000 and 2.0).
To run Wings on the 3000, I had to disable caches. This comes the closest
to F-18 in terms of compatibility with a HD and all Amigas..
I won't even mention any others. (No, Falcon doesn not run correctly
from a HD on my 2500/20).
*(newzap has to be used to accomplish this)
Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute (512) 522-2882
Internet : kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu
UUCP : $ {cs.utexas.edu, gatech!petro, sun!texsun}!swrinde!kentelson@otc.otca.oz (Elson Markwick) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan26.105125.86224@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: >F-18 Interceptor was an earlyer flight sim, but continues to entertain, if >for no other reason than to see what absurd stunts can be achieved (like >landing on a submarine). Absurd is the right word. I pulled off an interesting one the other day (not intentionally of course ;^). I was approaching the carrier for a landing, and was quite low. Anyway, I was further from the deck than I realised when I cut the power. I wound up with the nose of the plane butted up against the side of the carrier, about 2/3s of the way up, with 10% power enough to hold the plane rock solid. I sat there for about 10 minutes wondering how the hell I could ever get the plane back up onto the deck. (Needless to say I couldn't ;^) Cheers, Elson -- Elson Markwick | The only good cat |ACSnet: elson@otc.otca.oz.au OTC R & D Unit |is a stir-fried cat|UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!elson Ph: 02 287 3142| ALF |Internet: elson%otc.otca.oz.au@uunet.uu.net Fax:02 287 3299| |Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australia
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/31/91)
Falcon 1.2 and Falcon Mission #1 do work under 2.0 on the A3000,
but you should set the data cache off and run from the CLI, not
the WB, or you can get munged graphics in some views.
Also the program vbr interferes with it.
You can set the control sensitivity with the Function keys, I have
had no problmes completing all missions on both falcon and mission
disk #1 using an A3000 under 2.0 exclusively.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comsbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (01/31/91)
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: > >F-18 Interceptor was an earlyer flight sim, but continues to entertain, if > > Also because is the ONLY one that is *HD installable AND works correctly > on any Amiga (including the a3000 and 2.0). Hmmm, when I ran F-18 it ran quite a lot faster than before and was therefore much harder to control. > To run Wings on the 3000, I had to disable caches. This comes the closest > to F-18 in terms of compatibility with a HD and all Amigas.. Disable caches? What do you mean, Wings ran on my A3000 as both of them came out of the box. Or was that under 1.3? ObGame: Shanghai is absolutely brilliant. I just found this rather old game in a box and put it on the A3000. Not only is it HDable, it also multitasks properly. Wow! -- ** Official Signature for Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)! ** sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz || Disclaimers are for sick societies ** Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz || with too many lawyers.
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (02/01/91)
In article <c06mw5w163w@kennels.actrix.gen.nz> sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: >kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: > >Hmmm, when I ran F-18 it ran quite a lot faster than before and was >therefore much harder to control. Au contrair. I find it much easier to control, as response time is much better. I think you mean that 'things' are initially harder to accomplish. That made the game much more enjoyable for me. After a short while, missions are easier on a faster machine. BTW, the main things that speedup seem to be: 1) the passing of time 2) response time 3) visual updates >> To run Wings on the 3000, I had to disable caches. This comes the closest >> to F-18 in terms of compatibility with a HD and all Amigas.. > >Disable caches? What do you mean, Wings ran on my A3000 as both of them >came out of the box. Or was that under 1.3? Under 2.0, after finishing a boming or strafing run, the game goes into slow-motion, including HD accesses. The result is that the game becomes unplayable. Both the data & the instruction caches had to be disabled to prevent this behavior. Kent Polk
com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (02/01/91)
In article <91025.003408UD118950@NDSUVM1.BITNET>, UD118950@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Bruno) writes: > Now, to avoid > > 1. F-16 Combat Pilot > At first glance an incredible simulation. The makers sacrifice such > fancy things as outside views to give you weather, bases at variable > readiness levels, GCA approaches, etc. Problem is, though, that the > combat is unbeliveably hard. I mean REALLY HARD. If, however, you > are a natural top-gun, go for it. But be warned: I'm not lying. > By way of proof, I am a 7 mission major (with max settings) on F-19, > a Major in THEIR FINEST HOUR, and I max combat scores on arcard F15 > Strike Eagle. My combat exptactancy in F16 Combat pilot? 45 seconds. > Average. I don't find F-16 C.P. this hard at all. Admittedly the dogfighting is the hardest part, but once I figured out a few tactics, the whole game becomes easier. As for a mission expectancy of 45 seconds, how does 4 tanks *and* 5 Migs in *one* flight sound. The only reason why I stopped there was that I ran out of weapons. Now if only the F-16's gun would work. As it is, I've *never* heard of anyone hitting anything with the gun in F-16 C.P. I've written a list of tips and techniques for F-16 C.P. If anyone want's a copy, just *email* me. It's too big to justify posting for the minority of peoplewho will want it. I have no idea if any of my tips will be any use in FALCON. Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon All opinions expressed are the result of paranoid delusions!
d0nostro@dtek.chalmers.se (Henrik Alteborn) (02/01/91)
I read Tony Brunos reply on the best flight simulator for the Amiga,
and I would like to add a few things :
The best 'flight simulator' ( The ' is there because the only real
flight simulator for the Amiga is "FLIGHT SIMULATOR II" ) I have
seen is, of course, "FIGHTER BOMBER", it's excellent ;
* You can choose to fly any of; F 15, F 111, F 4, AJ-37 Viggen,
Tornado (two versions !) and Mig 27.
* You can choose the enemies aircrafts too.
* There are 16 'real' missions.
* After completing these 16 missions you can select editor mode, and
make your own missions !!
* There is great feeling in this game, even if there seems to be no
differences to fly a F-15 or a Mig-27 except for the amount of ammo.
* Nice graphics, trainingmode, nice manual........
* I give "FIGHTER BOMBER" 9 ( 1=min, 10=max )
* Read something about a mission disk too, no details, sorry.
- HEA -elson@otc.otca.oz (Elson Markwick) (02/04/91)
In article <1991Feb1.094732.17904@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> d0nostro@dtek.chalmers.se (Henrik Alteborn) writes: > >I read Tony Brunos reply on the best flight simulator for the Amiga, >and I would like to add a few things : > >The best 'flight simulator' ( The ' is there because the only real >flight simulator for the Amiga is "FLIGHT SIMULATOR II" ) I have >seen is, of course, "FIGHTER BOMBER", it's excellent ; >* You can choose to fly any of; F 15, F 111, F 4, AJ-37 Viggen, > Tornado (two versions !) and Mig 27. >* You can choose the enemies aircrafts too. >* There are 16 'real' missions. >* After completing these 16 missions you can select editor mode, and > make your own missions !! >* There is great feeling in this game, even if there seems to be no > differences to fly a F-15 or a Mig-27 except for the amount of ammo. >* Nice graphics, trainingmode, nice manual........ >* I give "FIGHTER BOMBER" 9 ( 1=min, 10=max ) >* Read something about a mission disk too, no details, sorry. Naahhh. The graphics on Fighter Bomber sux (IMHO of course). They are too "blocky" ond the refresh rate is just not quick enough. It is a great concept, but like many things, a poor implemantation. Another, thing, I get bored sh*tless during the long flights to a target, and you can't even run on afterburner to speed things up or else you run out of juice. BTW, regarding plane differences, I agree that there's no difference in "feel", but weaponry and top speeds do differ, if nothing else. > > - HEA - Cheers, Elson -- Elson Markwick | The only good cat |ACSnet: elson@otc.otca.oz.au OTC R & D Unit |is a stir-fried cat|UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!elson Ph: 02 287 3142| ALF |Internet: elson%otc.otca.oz.au@uunet.uu.net Fax:02 287 3299| |Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australia
flax@Mizar.DoCS.UU.SE (Jonas Flygare) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.123300.86251@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: > > I don't find F-16 C.P. this hard at all. Admittedly the dogfighting > is the hardest part, but once I figured out a few tactics, the whole game > becomes easier. As for a mission expectancy of 45 seconds, how does 4 tanks > *and* 5 Migs in *one* flight sound. The only reason why I stopped there was > that I ran out of weapons. Now if only the F-16's gun would work. As it is, > I've *never* heard of anyone hitting anything with the gun in F-16 C.P. I've managed to down three MIG's using the gun. The problem is you have to get very close. I often crash into the mig when trying this. :( Regarding flight simulators: I _really_ like F16 Combat Pilot.. (But then again, at my local game store they say that if _I_ like a game it's too difficult.. :-) + flax@mizar.docs.uu.se + "Alcohol is a powerful stimulant. It is never used + ( Jonas Flygare ) + in its pure state in medicine, but when diluted + ( aka Mad Flax ) + forms a useful remedy in many diseases. It is + + generally employed in the form of whisky, gin, rum, + + brandy and wine" (Dr. Pierce's Medical Adviser, 1879)