Message-ID: <3688AF7E.C8307A8E@gibralter.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 05:31:26 -0500
From: Richard Dunning <debrich@gibralter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Pro Pilot 99 a GOOD surprise
References: <368877DE.4FEEB6A7@bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.240.115.183
X-Trace: 29 Dec 1998 05:31:45 -0500, 208.240.115.183
Lines: 92
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!btnet-peer!btnet!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.news.uu.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!news.btitelecom.net!medusa.gibralter.net!208.240.115.183
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.simulators:30574

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I also got PP99 as a Christmas gift.&nbsp; After a few days of some serious
flying, I agree with some of the things you say, but by and large my biggest
dissapointment is the fact its only 480X640 resolution.&nbsp; I've been
using 600x800 as my standard for quite a while and to go backwards is ridiculous.&nbsp;
Besides it looks grainy.&nbsp; In short, my opinion is that its not worth
whatever the buyer paid, unless he got it for free when purchasing FS98.
<br>regards
<br>Richard
<br>&nbsp;
<p>GTO wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Okay first of all I'm sure everyone is just about
sick of hearing
<br>someone else's opinion of&nbsp; PP.&nbsp; The only reason I'm bothering
is because
<br>in the past I allowed my buying decisions to be dictated ENTIRELY by
the
<br>user group feedback. That is why I never bought PP last year and frankly
<br>PP 99 this year. I got it as a gift for Christmas and I almost didn't
<br>even bother installing it based solely on the negative feedback from
the
<br>user groups. You see I have a tremendous amount of confidence in the
<br>opinions&nbsp; voiced here. Most of those who post are intelligent
and put
<br>thought into what they say before spewing out anything and 9.9 times
out
<br>of 10 the views expressed here will either save you money or direct
you
<br>wisely toward a better purchase.
<p>BUT, I most respectfully disagree with the masses on PP 99.&nbsp; I
was at
<br>first a little peeved with some of its annoying traits but those
<br>withstanding, if you give the sim a chance, it is really quite good.
The
<br>flight planning is quick and easy but very powerful and thorough.&nbsp;
The
<br>ATC is generally very good and the sound quality is exceptional.&nbsp;
The
<br>engine noises are superb especially with startup and shutdown.&nbsp;
THE
<br>CLOUDS ARE ALMOST A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE!!!&nbsp; The clouds alone are
worth 40
<br>bucks.&nbsp; Scenery is convincing and the elevation factor of mountains
etc.
<br>is very good.&nbsp; Good IFR practice can be had if you don't push
the plane
<br>to extreme limits. For whatever reason, the programmers didn't feel
it
<br>important to model unusual flight attitudes so loops and true spins
are
<br>out of the question. But for normal takeoff cruise and landing
<br>scenarios, the flight models are acceptable albeit far from perfect.
<p>In general I think the program deserves to be looked at and you can
form
<br>your own opinion. Granted mine was a gift but now that I own it and
have
<br>used it quite a bit over the past several days, I can honestly say
I
<br>love this program.&nbsp; I only wish that Sierra would show a sense
of
<br>urgency and release a patch that fixed the following small but annoying
<br>as hell problems
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1) the now infamous 0-120kts
in 3 seconds. These planes take off
<br>like rockets.&nbsp; How the heck did that slip by the programmers,
betas etc.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2 ) why do you turn like
an F-16 past 30 degrees of bank????
<br>It's like the rockets for takeoff are put on again
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3) Make a complete flight
model not just takeoff-climb-land
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4) Fix the autopilot
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5) Differential braking
is horrible. How hard a fix is this???
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6) Buildings need texture
rendered much further out- not when
<br>you're right on top
<p>Well now I'm tired and I know there are some other things I fogot to
<br>suggest to see in a patch but if anyone at Sierra sees this, how bout
<br>any patch for the love of God. It's about time.
<p>Anyhow the moral of the story is that this sim is really good where
it
<br>shines and not that horrible where it doesn't.&nbsp; A good patch will
make
<br>this sim a better sim than MSFS without a doubt.&nbsp; The foundation
is
<br>there. Come on Sierra go for the jugular.
<p>Just my 2 cents.
<br>Gary O.</blockquote>
</html>

