NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/aviation/simulato/800

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.4 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!sciborg.uwaterloo.ca!ptran
From: [e-mail] (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Falcon or Commanche?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Falcon Commanche
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:36:56 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Conyne) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>
>>Excuse me, Bob.  Though I don't own the game, I've seen enough of it to
>>categorize it as "arcade".  The gameplay is essentially Nintendo.
>>
>
>What Nintendo game are you comparing Comanche to, specifically?  I want to
>try it.  Maybe I've been selling Nintendo short.
>

The visual splendor in Commanche will surpass any Nintendo game, but I'm
not referring to graphics.  Commanche is still a simple shoot-em-up
underneath all the fireworks.

>[...]
>>>Call me crazy.  I would expect a jet's motion to be more fluid than that of
>>>a helicopter or tank.
>>
>>I'll call you obnoxious instead, if you don't mind.  By "fluid", I meant
>
>I don't mind a bit.
>

I apologize for that uncalled-for remark, Bob.

>>that the a/c can tilt and rotate in fine increments, and be viewable
>>from any aspect.  The bitmaps in Commanche are prerendered to show the
>>choppers in preset profiles only, whereas the polygons in Falcon are
>>rendered on the fly, and thus, can be viewed from infinitely more angles.
>>
>>Phat.
>
>That's some mighty thin skin you've got there, Phat.  You ought to go and try
>some correspondence in one of the political newsgroups.  You'll find out what
>'obnoxious' means in a hurry.  Interesting, too, that you are 'obnoxious'
>enough to insult those of us who like Comanche by comparing it to a game system
>designed for 12 year olds.  Then, when you come across someone who doesn't
>share your opinion, you are considerably less understanding than you apparently
>expect them to be.
>
>I think there's a larger canvas here, and all the people who complain that
>the simulation doesn't have the same X as F3 or isn't as Y as Gunship are
>missing the point.  As a game, Comanche is both fun and addictive (still too
>easy to finish, as I've said).  As a simulation it definitely has its faults.
>It's terrain rendering is unrivalled, however.  Now that a game exists with
>this calibre of graphics, it will be increasingly difficult for the game
>companies to sell games/simulations that don't live up to this standard.
>Guess who benefits?  Yup, us.  And note that Comanche beat Strike Commander to
>market by (at least) 6 months.  F15 III by a solid month.  In this sense, it
>is (and will always be) a truly groundbreaking product.  Sort of like
>Sublogic's Flight Simulator -- you can find a lot to criticize about it now,
>but it was a brand new technology when there were no other games in town.

I agree that Commanche is a major breakthrough in terrain rendering, but
is it any good as a simulator, or as just a game?  From my experience with
it, I would say not on either level.  And I'm not going to spend $80 to
find out if it will last for the long term when I lose interest after
looking at it for just a few minutes.

Phat.