Message-ID: <36297FE6.591CF99E@connexus.net.au>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:43:02 +1000
From: Peter Russell <petre@connexus.net.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
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> <3628F1D3.D14C92B4@ibm.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.34.169.4
X-Trace: 18 Oct 1998 15:42:28 -1000, 203.34.169.4
Lines: 33
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!news.internex.net.au!203.34.169.4
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.simulators:25933

Hi Paul

All valid points you raise here, there is no doubt it was seriously lacking at
time of release. It is vastly improved now though with the application of the
latest patches. I personally will be getting the new release of SP99 as I know a
couple of the beta testers well enough to know that if they say this sim is really
something then it is exactly just that.

Regards Pete

Paul Clay wrote:

> 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.
>



