Message-ID: <3628F1D3.D14C92B4@ibm.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 15:36:51 -0400
From: Paul Clay <vpclay@ibm.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
To: Adrian Cybriwsky <arc33@pantheon.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: PP99 preview at combatsim.com = load of ****
References: <6vu42p$t00$1@news.ycc.yale.edu> <700lqo$283$1@nnrp1.crl.com> <3624C336.2EE@unl.edu> <702cio$l3h$2@news.ycc.yale.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.41.156
X-Trace: 17 Oct 1998 22:32:04 GMT, 129.37.41.156
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 42
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!news1.radix.net!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!129.37.41.156
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.simulators:25911

Just wanted to weigh in on your side.  I don't think you detractors are
carefully read your post.  I think all you were doing was indicating a little
scepticism and concern about a review of sierra pp99 making inflated claims
similar to those that preceded the sierra pp98.  I'm a private pilot, I have
both pp98 and fs98 and pp98 is, in my experience, significantly more buggy and
less functional that fs98.  I was really disappointed in it, figuring when I
bought pp98, it would run at least as well as fs98 AND have a bunch of visual
enhancement (the"rich Corinthian leather" <g>).  Well, it didn't.  I had to
upgrade from 32 to 64 megs of RAM to get the thing to run acceptably (sort of)
well.  Maybe a faster CDROM would have helped (mines an old 4X).  Anyhow, in
light of the foregoing, I STRONGLY agree with your "wait and see" attitude
about spp99.

Final comment:  I don't give hoot how well the scenery or the planes look if
the basic flight responses/characteristics of the simulatro don't work
smoothly/well.  I think most pilots would agree that getting the basic flight
model working smoothly comes first.

Adrian Cybriwsky wrote:

> Gary Anderson (ganderson1@unl.edu) wrote:
> : Nathan Wong wrote:
>
> : That's a beautiful dream, my friend, but Mr. Cybriwsky and some others
> : on this newsgroup are wired at the genetic level to hate any non-MS sim,
> : especially for some reason ProPilot.  Appeals to reason and logic will
> : not work.
>
> can ONE of you goddam wanks inbetween accusing my "genetic level" explain
> where exactly you get your groundless accusations from?  sure, i like
> fs98--it's a solid product.  and yes, i also think SPP98 was a piece of
> crap--patches or no.  but i also liked FU2, though it wasn't very
> realistic for much besides pilotage.  i look forward to seeing PP99 and
> Fu3 and Fly and whatever--and may the best sim win.
>
> all are encouraged to do a dejanews search to see that my posts have been
> equally supportive of Fu2 and Fs98 when some newbie comes on asking for
> "which sim to buy.."  i can't be totally in love with MS then, can i?
>
> show me your "reason" and "logic"--PUT UP OR SHUT UP. you have deja
> news, you have my words in this thread.  MAKE YOUR CASE or bugger off.

