🚀 go-pugleaf

Brad Taplin <bta...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Hello. Been using Gunship 2000 lately. Play is nice,
>but I've a few gripes and wonder if another flight
>simulator might do better in these areas:

>1. Screen updates are only a few per second it seems.
>   Useable but not what I'd call realistic. Too bad.
What are you running on?  Its fine on a 25 386.

>2. When I die I wanna start again quick, not sit
>   idle tolerating the ridiculous debriefing biz!
Hit space bar.  Gets through each menu pretty
quickly

>3. Far too many damned info and idiot screens make
>   starting the game downright monotonous. I almost
>   always use an Apache, with Hellfires or TOWs, and
>   Stingers, and plan as I go. Enough pretty intros!
I agree here.  Should have given you the option to
select a default configuration for each copter type.

>Anyone experienced both? Alternatives? Suggestions?
>							Thanks.
GS2000 with the 06 patch disk is great.  I played LHX
but the single copter experience runs thin after
awhile.  Microprose put in alot of modifications in
their patches as a result of user input on GEnie.

Also, latest word is they are working on some new
scenerios.  One is a South Pole area, another is a
urban setting.  Flying through the streets would be
interesting.

In article <1992May17.2...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Brad Taplin <bta...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>Hello. Been using Gunship 2000 lately. Play is nice,
>but I've a few gripes and wonder if another flight
>simulator might do better in these areas:
>
>1. Screen updates are only a few per second it seems.
>   Useable but not what I'd call realistic. Too bad.

On a 25 MHz 386, the update rate is good unless too many objects are on the
screen at once, such as near the base.

>2. When I die I wanna start again quick, not sit
>   idle tolerating the ridiculous debriefing biz!

Just hit the Enter key a few times.

>3. Far too many damned info and idiot screens make
>   starting the game downright monotonous. I almost
>   always use an Apache, with Hellfires or TOWs, and
>   Stingers, and plan as I go. Enough pretty intros!

Perhaps if you only fly single helicopter missions, this is true, but
when you have to pick helicopters and weapons for five people, this stage
is pretty important.  I've found that the Apache is a poor choice when
commanding a five helicopter unit.  Also, the less capable the helicopter
you fly, the more points you get for accomplishing your mission.

>Anyone experienced both? Alternatives? Suggestions?

Sorry, I've only played GS2000.

Robin
ihlpy!op...@att.att.com

In article <wyman.706204131@opal8> wy...@rtsg.mot.com (Mark S. Wyman) writes:
>Brad Taplin <bta...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>>Hello. Been using Gunship 2000 lately. Play is nice,
>>but I've a few gripes and wonder if another flight
>>simulator might do better in these areas:
>
>>1. Screen updates are only a few per second it seems.
>>   Useable but not what I'd call realistic. Too bad.
>What are you running on?  Its fine on a 25 386.
>
>>2. When I die I wanna start again quick, not sit
>>   idle tolerating the ridiculous debriefing biz!
>Hit space bar.  Gets through each menu pretty
>quickly
>
>>3. Far too many damned info and idiot screens make
>>   starting the game downright monotonous. I almost
>>   always use an Apache, with Hellfires or TOWs, and
>>   Stingers, and plan as I go. Enough pretty intros!

Sounds like you might like LHX more.  It is more orientated to the 
arcade-strategy gamer as opposed to the flightsim-strategy gamer.
As such, you have fewer options to deal with and can jump into the
action more quickly.  Also it was written years ago for older machines.
Therefore, on modern machines the frame rate will run faster than Gunship2000.
 
LHX was my favorite game for years.  Now, I only play Gunship2000 though.
GS2000 is far more sophisticated and complex.  

One thing LHX was SORELY lacking was a radar altimeter.  All it has was
a sea-level altimeter so when fly over mountains you had very few clues
as to how close to the mountain surface you were.  I also love being able
to use a separate throttle control and foot pedals.  LHX didn't have this
option at all.  Also LHX has a fixed set of mission in each geographic
location whereas GS2000 generates them as you play.  Also LHX's guided weapons
did not follow the terrain.  They'd run straight into mountains instead of
climbing over them.  The LHX flight model was not as sophisticated as
GS2000's either.  

I do miss being able to using buildings effectively for cover in GS2000.
I loved hopping from behind one building to another in LHX closing in on the
target.  Also dropping right between two adjacent hangers was great protection
against air threats launching missles.  After they fire and passed, you could
pop up briefly fire and then drop back down between the hangers.  Buildings
in GS2000 are sparser and don't seem to provide any protection against
enemy fire. 

Also your missle ranges are more accurate in GS2000 then in LHX and the
unguided rockets in GS2000 are easier to use than LHX FFAR's.

I am impatient for Spectrum Holobyte to add a helicopter simulator to their
EBS series.  The only other current hope I have for a sim. with helicopters 
and two player modem capability is Psygnosis's _Armour-Geddon_ if they ever 
actually port it to the IBM like so many game magazines have been promising.

-Zach
-- 
WARTELL,ZACHARY JUSTIN
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8477a
Internet: gt8...@prism.gatech.edu