Xref: utzoo rec.aviation:22226 rec.games.misc:8372 comp.sys.mac:49066
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!stadler
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.games.misc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Review of TRACON for the Macintosh.
Message-ID: <38822@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 21 Feb 90 04:14:51 GMT
References: <24834@ut-emx.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 83

In article <24834@ut-emx.UUCP> rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>TRACON begins with a configuration menu.  In it, the user selects the database
>to play in, weather conditions (from benign to turbulent), and pilot skill 
>(from perfect to lousy).  After entering desired characteristics, the computer 
>builds the simulation, and starts the game.

After you finish one game and start another, about 1/2 of these inputs "stick"
(act as defaults for the next game) and about 1/2 are reset to "standard" 
values.  Frustrating.

>Within the game, a radar display dominates most of the screen.  It can be
>configured to display a variety of static information: landscape (accurate), 
>a compass rose, distance circles, and control-area, and whether to display
>the radar "sweep" hand.  Various menu options exist to get more information 
>about the environment, such as showing all checkpoints, airways, and 
>airport names (and approach information).  I find the white-background display 
>in PATCS to be more readable than TRACON.

>I have not had an opportunity to play TRACON on a Mac II yet, but the documen-
>tation states that only certain advisory boxes appear in color.

I've tried mine on a mac +, mac //, and mac //cx.  Bravo points for actually
scaling well to the different screens.  In addition, the color display is
*very* nice and I found it much easier to play.  However on my //cx there is
a fairly serious bug:  For each airplane, the program generates a "data block".
The program uses a "dim" green for most airplanes, and a "bright" green for
the currently selected airplane.  For some reason, on my Mac //cx, the dim
green went away, so only the "active" data block is visible.

Also, with all that screen real estate, and bigger and bigger windows, I wish
they'd stretched the "communications window."  Past transmissions scroll off
very quickly and it would be nice to have a better history (especially when
you're getting replies like "say again, I had my head in a map".

>Every airplane is represented by an airplane symbol (which rotates to show
>direction of flight), and an associated control box (which shows aircraft
>ID number, altitude, and airspeed).  To control aircraft, the aircraft's 
>symbol (or data box) must be clicked in; it is then hilited.

The "communications scrolling" is made worse by the fact that every time
you click an aircraft, it says "United 1234..." in the comm. window, and if
you then click somewhere else, is adds "Disregard." and starts another one!
That's part of why actual transmissions scroll away so quickly.

Another thing I found VERY frustrating is that USUALLY you click an aircraft
to select it, and future instructions go to that aircraft.  However, if you
click on the aircraft, drag its data block (you can move it to any cardinal
location around the aircraft symbol, so nearby blocks don't always overlap.
Nice.) and then release the button, it DOESN'T select the airplane.  The PREV-
IOUS aircraft remains selected.  I have still not learned my way around this
bug and I find myself constantly sending instructions to the wrong aircraft.

>Aircraft performance in the simulation is well done: the airplanes'
>flight characteristics are considered (a 767, for example, climbs much
>faster than a Piper Cub).  The terrain covered during a turn is a function of 
>speed, fast planes really move faster, etc.  A menu function permits the user
>to find out what climb, cruise, and approach speeds are for a given target,
>as well as aircraft type, airline, and climb rates.

Except for the bugs in the database:  767's flying 60 kt approaches?

> Scoring is a function of how many separation conflicts, missed approaches,
> forgotten hand-offs, etc. occur.  There doesn't seem to be a penalty for
> not landing airplanes on their own schedule.  Crashing an airplane terminates
> the game.  

There's at least one problem with the scoring:  When you succesfully hand off
an aircraft for an approach, you are immediately given the "landing score".
But if bad weather causes a missed approach (not your fault) and you bring
it around for a second approach, also successful, you get the points again!
I'm not one to argue extra points;  However this "feature" makes it possible
to beat the "maximum possible" score which are presented as something to try
for.

>Robert Dorsett                                    
>Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu               
>UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd  

Thanks for the nice review.  I enjoy the game and am frustrated by the
implementation.  I tell people "I'm waiting for 1.1."

--Andy     stadler@apple.com