Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!nntp-read!mofo From: mofo@bucsf.bu.edu (jason greene) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games Subject: Re: F29-RELIATOR Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 90 18:57:37 GMT References: <15080001@hpgnd.HP.COM> <1990Jun7.120835.8816@iclswe.uucp> Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: Boston Univ., Computer Science Lines: 29 In-reply-to: gmb@iclswe.uucp's message of 7 Jun 90 12:08:35 GMT In article <1990Jun7.120835.8816@iclswe.uucp> gmb@iclswe.uucp (Grahame Budd) writes: > F29 is one of the best filght GAMES but is nowhere as good as FALCON as a > flight sim. The F29 doesn't feel like any sort of plane, (i.e. bank doesn't > "lean" etc). FALCON is however rather dificult to learn. A few things... first of all, as a "flight sim" the only real game to get is the one and only Flight Simulator II. If you really want an F-16 simulator then Jet is actually much better than Falcon, at least in response and actual control. Playing Falcon, you can bank your plane VERY far over and still not even begin to execute a turn... I think that kinda stinks. Also, if you had read the docs to F29, you might have noticed that the F29 doesn't fly like any current plane... ever movement is complemented by the forward-swept wings, and controlled by an on-board computer... hence, it's not going to "feel" like a plane because there is no plane like it. Besides, why would you want to fly an F-whatever if you weren't going to go around blowing things up? All in all, i think F-29 has much better graphics (cool scenery), sound, animation, speed, challenge, depth, and especially much more interestng missions than Falcon. Jason Greene mofo@bucsf.bu.edu