🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May21....@demon.co.uk> Philip Coombes <coo...@tcom.stc.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>Regarding the best flight simulator,
>
>In my opinion the mostplayable/addictive has to be Chuck Yeagers Air Combat.

I'll agree it is the most immediately playable.  Just strap on a plane,
and go.  Fortunately, it still takes a while to get *good*.

> Also ground resolution 
>increases when nearer the ground and makes it easier to determine
>height ground visually, which is an area where Falcon3 even at high
>resolution fails to do. 

Yep, I wish F3 did a better job here.  But then again, I've heard many
times that this is a real life problem also.

>Add to this good sounds through PC speaker ( better 
>than through a SB ), good handling of missile trials and clouds and fairly
>intelligent enemies ( try shaking off an ace Mig 17 or two in a Phantom ),
>and scrollable views ( which beat Padlock in F3 ) and it beats F3 or F15 etc 
>for playability, but could do with a better scenario editor.

Again, I agree.  I check six in CYAC more than any other game.  One
because the views work, and two, because you have to!  But as to clouds,
F3 is the best.  They look bogus from a distance, but when you approach
them, first you enter a haze, then a full white-out, then haze.  Really
well done.
The mission designer in CYAC is weak.  If they only added ground
missions, I'd be satisfied.  F3 has an incredible mission designer.
Mostly even works now with the D patch!

>Most flight sims I have seen have a number of faults which really spoil 
>gameplay, these are :-
>	a ) Enemies die at set number of hits, ie 4 in F29 (demo at least) and
>	    1 in F15 or F19 ( in these you just need to be in the same country
>	    when you fire your guns and you will hit )

While you can absorb the equivalent of a nuke!

>        b ) Easy acquisition of targets, ie F15/19 targets more or less wave
>	    their arms around, your camera spots them, they are dead.
>        c ) Poor ground resolution, in most sims it is very difficult to 
>	    figure how high you are from looking at the ground, as detail
>	    does not increase as it should the nearer you get.
>        d ) Poor enemy logic, individual enemies floating around and waiting
>	    to be picked off one-by-one.
>        e ) Unrealistic aero-dynamics, in one flight sim your ceiling was
>	    65000ft, when you got there you could still fly up but it didn't
>	    increase your altitude, but when you came down it registered 
>	    immediately.

(e) sounds like jetfighter and its bogus flight model.
I agree with all points. 

>Having played F3 for a number of weeks now, I conclude that it is better than
>most, but poor/slow screen updates ( even on 25MHz 386 ), bad ground
>resolution, a number of obvious bugs ( would someone care to post a canonical
>list ) even in 3.0D, and only limited implementation of what would be otherwise
>revolutionary features ( ie wingman comms, tho the wingman are so brain dead
>anyway they wouldn't understand polysyllables ) has spoiled it. 

Its easy to concentrate on the negatives with F3 because it tries to do
everything.  It can be frustrating as hell, but it is still the best
IMO.  Throw out the campaign, just the mission designer is worth it!
But a 386-25 may be a little slow for it.

One more thing about CYAC.  The constant turning dogfights are fun, but
is such close quarters combat realistic?  Especially for F4/Mig21's?