Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aries!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Game wanted: EGA/VGA Fighter Game
Message-ID: <1990Jul23.152944.24224@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 23 Jul 90 15:29:44 GMT
References: <1990Jul20.182211.11078@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1990Jul21.035737.5524@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <90203.135400YTHRROUS@MTUS5.BITNET> <5347@plains.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Organization: School of Chemical Sciences, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 38

In article <5347@plains.UUCP> bakke@plains.UUCP (Jeffrey P. Bakke) writes:
>
>Well, as far as a good Fighter Game, I've got F-19, Microsoft Simulator 4.0,
>Jet, Yeagers Flight Simulator 1.0 and 2.0, F-16 Falcon, and JetFighter.
>
>
>MS Simulator 4.0 is exactly that, a Simulator.  Its definitely beyond a
>game in the realism and time that it takes to learn all about it.  As was
>mentioned before, MS was a little chintzy in the fact that you need to 
>mail in a card for the maps in this version.  Kind of ticked me off.
>On the high points its an extremely complex simulator of a Gates Lear Jet,
>Cessna 150, a WW I Sopwith or a Glider.  The glider addition in this
>version is a nice touch; you can locate thermals over a city or hills and
>catch a ride up. 


I have MS V4 and its nice. But I have a complaint: its too hard because
the controls are very non-responsive. I have not flown - or even flown in-
any of the planes it is supposed to simulate. But in all those I have flown
in in the seat next to the pilot - or in the one I have actually flown -
the controls are VERY much more responsive. For example, last week I
was in a 1947 vintage seaplane flying around mountaintops and glaciers.
The time it took this plane to do a 90 degree turn was tiny compared to
any of the ones in MSFS. And, of course, the controls were very smooth
(analog!). The response was fast enough that one did not have to
anticipate the plane's behaviour. For example, if you take off from Meigs
Field in MSFS with the default plane it is very hard to fly back around and land
at the same airport without going miles away and making an approach. The
plane I was in could take off, come back around and land, without passing
the ends of the runway or going more than a couple of hundred yards off
to the side. 


Are there any programs that are better in these regards?



Doug McDonald