Mac air warrior beta flying
David Hartman
I am wondering why I don't see anyone talking about the Air Warrior beta
program. I mean here we have a free internet multi-player game and noone
is posting about it. I spent almost 3 hours getting shot down by real
people and all I find in this group is people who are playing against
computers. Does everyone think that the flight model is terrible or is
it just that noone hyped the game enough?
<http://freeplay.kesmai.com/openbeta/macaw/> is the website to registar
to play.
David
--
Some people need to get a hobby, others just need to get a life.
David Hartman
dav...@ims.com
Systems Administrator
Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Wayne Jaeschke
David Hartman wrote:
>
> I am wondering why I don't see anyone talking about the Air Warrior beta
> program. I mean here we have a free internet multi-player game and noone
> is posting about it. I spent almost 3 hours getting shot down by real
> people and all I find in this group is people who are playing against
> computers. Does everyone think that the flight model is terrible or is
> it just that noone hyped the game enough?
1) AW (Kesmai) has their own newsgroups -- look for links to them on the
AW Mac Beta Pages. 2) It's pretty well an undisputed fact that the AW
flight models are significantly inferior to those found in WB's --
hence, the hardcore WB's addicts like myself don't even bother (AW isn't
worth my time, but WB's is worth my money... so, all things considered,
I prefer to _pay_ for WB's, even though I could play AW for free). I
know alot of other Mac Users who feel the same way.
And... there hasn't been a post about AW in here for months -- I didn't
even know that their free beta is still going on. Doesn't change
anything, though, since alot of people avoided the AW beta because the
only way to access it after the beta period is over is going to be
through AOL -- NOT an option that most people here have expressed
interest in.
Wayne
Trips
David Hartman wrote:
> I spent almost 3 hours getting shot down by real
> people and all I find in this group is people who are playing against
> computers. Does everyone think that the flight model is terrible or is
> it just that noone hyped the game enough?
Doesn't your newsreader show you the WarBirds threads? Not to take
anything away from Air Warrior... they were the first with online air
combat, and on the Mac before the other platforms... but WarBirds pits
you against real live people too.
Trips
Michael Wehner
I think about 50% of the postings here refer to Warbirds, wich is apart
from some strategic features and the ability to fly in the same plane
about 10 orders of magnitude better than Airwarrior, though the latter
is free. They all play with/against living humans.
Michael (abalkin).
P.S. Ok, skip my evaluating. I don't want to provoke again the 'what is
better'- threads
gle...@prairieweb.com
>
> 2) It's pretty well an undisputed fact that the AW
> flight models are significantly inferior to those found in WB's --
> hence, the hardcore WB's addicts like myself don't even bother (AW isn't
> worth my time, but WB's is worth my money... so, all things considered,
> I prefer to _pay_ for WB's, even though I could play AW for free). I
> know alot of other Mac Users who feel the same way.
<groan> It ain't necessarily so. WBs may provide a better illusion.
Maybe. But these statements about WBs flight model being superior remind
me of the crap I hear all the time about how superior PC's are to Macs.
uh huh. Yeh, that's an "undisputed fact", too.
What ICI has done is support the Mac a damned sight better than Kesmai
has. So it's not at all surprising that more Mac folks seem to be flying
WBs.
gs
Wayne Jaeschke
OK.... Go log a few thousand hours in military planes (all props, no
jets). Then go log a thousand, or so, hours flying Warbirds and Air
Warrior. Then come back here and tell us that the flight models in WB
are, or aren't, better than Air Warrior. Ok? take your time -- we'll
be waiting patiently.
Flight modelling is NOT a matter of opinion -- it's cold, hard facts
without subjective interpretation. If you've flown the real thing and
the sims, it's pretty easy to figure out which sim has better flight
models. The only people I ever hear arguing about the "subjective
nature" of how a flight model "feels" are <groaning> dweebs who've never
flown the real thing. Also, what is the "illusion" that ICI creates?
Either the planes they model respond to control input more realistically
than the planes in Air Warrior do, or they don't -- not a whole lot of
room for personal opinion, here, like there is when choosing between the
PC and the Mac platform, where matters of personal opinion and taste
come into play.
iggy
=<XXX>=
Brian P. McCarty
> gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3267C8...@concentric.net>, Jaes...@concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2) It's pretty well an undisputed fact that the AW
> > > flight models are significantly inferior to those found in WB's --
[...]
> >
> > <groan> It ain't necessarily so. WBs may provide a better illusion.
> > Maybe.
[...]
>
> OK.... Go log a few thousand hours in military planes (all props, no
> jets). Then go log a thousand, or so, hours flying Warbirds and Air
> Warrior. Then come back here and tell us that the flight models in WB
> are, or aren't, better than Air Warrior. Ok? take your time -- we'll
> be waiting patiently.
>
> Flight modelling is NOT a matter of opinion -- it's cold, hard facts
> without subjective interpretation. If you've flown the real thing and
> the sims, it's pretty easy to figure out which sim has better flight
> models. The only people I ever hear arguing about the "subjective
> nature" of how a flight model "feels" are <groaning> dweebs who've never
> flown the real thing. Also, what is the "illusion" that ICI creates?
> Either the planes they model respond to control input more realistically
> than the planes in Air Warrior do, or they don't -- not a whole lot of
> room for personal opinion, here, like there is when choosing between the
> PC and the Mac platform, where matters of personal opinion and taste
> come into play.
Warning I have not played either, and have not ever flown a warbird (but
have about 22 hours in a Cessna 150 and have soloed), but it is possible
for 1 model to be better in certain areas and the other in other areas and
one not be the best.
example 1-One may have super realistic modeling but only does 3fps, while
the other is 90% realistic and does 25 fps, I'd say the second is better
example 2. Model 1 may do everything but p-factor and density altitude.
model 2 may do these, but isn't as accurate in other areas (i dunno, MCA
behaviour), and may not take fuel consuption into account (as fuel is
consumed the plane weighs less and flys better)
>
> iggy
> =<XXX>=
Brian
--
Brian P. McCarty, N9IWP
e-mail:bri...@caledonia.polaristel.net
snail-mail:410 S. Ramsey, Apt. 4 Caledonia, MN 55921-1116
ICBM:43deg 38' 05" N 91deg 29' 48" W
Wayne Jaeschke
Brian P. McCarty wrote:
> Warning I have not played either, and have not ever flown a warbird (but
> have about 22 hours in a Cessna 150 and have soloed), but it is possible
> for 1 model to be better in certain areas and the other in other areas and
> one not be the best.
sure -- entirely possible :) Although that's not what's happening here ;)
>
> example 1-One may have super realistic modeling but only does 3fps, while
> the other is 90% realistic and does 25 fps, I'd say the second is better
>
> example 2. Model 1 may do everything but p-factor and density altitude.
> model 2 may do these, but isn't as accurate in other areas (i dunno, MCA
> behaviour), and may not take fuel consuption into account (as fuel is
> consumed the plane weighs less and flys better)
hehe... WB's models planes using a force-vecotr flight model. Air warrior, otoh, uses a
table based model. Simply using a force-model doesn't mean that it's necessarily better --
but in this case it's the case that the planes modelled in WB's respond to control input
MUCH more accurately than do the AW planes. WB's does an excellent job of modelling
pre/post departure regime flying, weight/altitude/barometric effects, speed/roll, torque,
and relative plane performances (in other words, an FW flies best when flown the way the
actual FW was designed to fly, same goes for the other planes). Sure WB's has some room for
improvement (they need to model prop-drag), but anyone with any flight experience will
readily admit that WB's is currently the most realistic online sim, in terms of flight
handling characteristics, that's currently available.
Wayne
Stephen W. Evans
In article <326CE3...@concentric.net>, Jaes...@concentric.net wrote:
>Brian P. McCarty wrote:
>> example 1-One may have super realistic modeling but only does 3fps, while
>> the other is 90% realistic and does 25 fps, I'd say the second is better
>Sure WB's has some room for improvement (they need to model prop-drag),
>but anyone with any flight experience will readily admit that WB's is
>currently the most realistic online sim, in terms of flight
>handling characteristics, that's currently available.
Not only that, but our framerate is way better too :-) So what's the
choice when you have better flight model, better damage/gunnery model,
AND a way higer framerate..... :-)
--- Steve
Stephen W. Evans clgl - Caligula - WarBirds
ICI Host/Mac Programmer 4548 - Caligula - Air Warrior
cali...@cris.com Friends don't let friends do DOS.
PGP public key available by finger ev...@rex.pfc.mit.edu
My opinions are my own... etc ... etc ...
COOPER
Wayne Jaeschke <Jaes...@concentric.net> writes:
>Air warrior, otoh, uses a table based model.
jeez, where do you people get this stuff? :>
Air Warrior has had a force model for years. AW has exactly
*2* lookup tables, engine power at altitude and air density
at altitude - both of which are used BY the force flight
model, not IN it. :>
>but anyone with any flight experience will
I will never contradict your opinions, but you should only
speak for yourself - we've been told by many pilots that AW
'feel's the best. I've also heard many pilots say that WB
feels the best. I've also heard many pilots say that FD
feels the best.
Pilots, like anyone else, each have different qualities
they look for in a simulation.
-moggy
--
gary cooper (not the dead one)
mailto:mo...@kesmai.com
Kesmai Corp. Air Warrior/Harpoon Product Support
http://www.cris.com/~cooper
COOPER
Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) writes:
>Not only that, but our framerate is way better too :-) So what's the
>choice when you have better flight model, better damage/gunnery model,
>AND a way higer framerate..... :-)
We still talking Mac version Cally? :>
If not, then you should tell the whole story. AW4Windows is, currently
limited to WinG implementation - AW2 will be directdraw and, at 1024
X 768 over a MUCH more detailed terrain than WB currently has, we're
seeing frame rates between 30 and 50.
You wanna compare features? I think not, cally. :>
Art Day
In article <Caligula-ya023080...@news.cris.com> Stephen W.
Evans, Cali...@cris.com writes:
>Not only that, but our framerate is way better too :-) So what's the
>choice when you have better flight model, better damage/gunnery model,
>AND a way higer framerate..... :-)
Warping seems worse in WB (from MY ISP, anyway). WB flight model is
porked in elevator control due to trim implementation. Strategic options
are more robust in AW. Radio communications are better implemented.
Other than than, WB is a more advanced simulation both in modeling and
graphics.
I still have more fun in AW.
--Art
pd...@kaiwan.com
Stephen W. Evans
>Warping seems worse in WB (from MY ISP, anyway). WB flight model is
>porked in elevator control due to trim implementation. Strategic options
>are more robust in AW. Radio communications are better implemented.
hmmmm Your connect looks pretty good to me..... (traceroute and ping
stats below)... are you telnetting to icigames.com or icigame2.com?
icigames2.com is the preferred address from outside of Cris.
Hmmmm that's funny.... As far as I can tell you don't have a WarBirds
account at all. There seems to be no Art Day in our userlist, and
only one address from your ISP (which isn't you).
Unless you can tell me your 4 letter game ID and somehow convince me
its you I am forced to conclude you don't know what the hell you are
talking about, and worse you KNOW you don't know what the hell you
are talking about.
Points.... Trim is trim and is required in a true force model since
you can't "predict it away"... Second, Warbirds doesn't even HAVE
strategic options, so saying they are more robust in AirWarrior is like
admiring the face of a Manatee and comparing it favoribly with the
face of a tree. And finally third, WarBirds radios are so much more
flexible than AirWarrior's as to make it laughable. In AW you have
an "intercom" channel (talks to all friendlys when in fighters, talks
to crewmembers in bombers) and one tuneable radio. In WarBirds you
have one radio that can be tuned to 50 public channels, 50 country
only channels, your squad channel, your country channel, or tuned to
a specific person. In addition you have 3 MORE radio channels that
can be tuned to the squad, country, or single person frequencies.
Anyway traceroute statistics below, though god knows why I bothered
in hindsight. Your connect would be excellent.... If you ever create
a WarBirds account and use it let me know.
1 206.124.82.254 (206.124.82.254) 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms
2 206.124.95.69 (206.124.95.69) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms
3 * sl-fw-15-H12/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.135.29) 7 ms 7 ms
4 sl-fw-5-F1/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.30.5) 138 ms 161 ms 19 ms
5 sl-dc-8-H3/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.17) 43 ms 44 ms 43 ms
6 * 198.67.0.1 (198.67.0.1) 44 ms 45 ms
7 sl-mae-e-2-H4/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.94) 52 ms 50 ms 67 ms
8 f8.border1.wdc1.genuity.net (192.41.177.147) 54 ms 54 ms 47 ms
9 a0-1.core1.lax1.genuity.net (204.74.116.10) 97 ms 97 ms 94 ms
10 mla.ln.net (198.32.146.10) 105 ms 110 ms 100 ms
11 198.147.66.7 (198.147.66.7) 186 ms 203 ms 102 ms
12 198.147.82.2 (198.147.82.2) 270 ms 130 ms 123 ms
13 kaiwan.kaiwan.com (198.178.203.2) 111 ms 106 ms 147 ms
----kaiwan.com PING Statistics----
100 packets transmitted, 97 packets received, 3% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 104/114/182
Stephen W. Evans
In article <54j5d3$6...@herald.concentric.net>, Coo...@cris.com (COOPER) wrote:
>Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) writes:
>>Not only that, but our framerate is way better too :-) So what's the
>>choice when you have better flight model, better damage/gunnery model,
>>AND a way higer framerate..... :-)
>
>We still talking Mac version Cally? :>
Yepper, this IS a Macintosh newsgroup you might have noticed....
Hmm does your presence here indicate a possibility that KESMAI might
again decide the Macintosh is a viable platform?
>If not, then you should tell the whole story. AW4Windows is, currently
>limited to WinG implementation - AW2 will be directdraw and, at 1024
>X 768 over a MUCH more detailed terrain than WB currently has, we're
>seeing frame rates between 30 and 50.
Golly, I can't get AW4Windows to install and run on my Mac, maybe
you could give me a few pointers as to how you got it to work ;-)
And as far as I know there are NO plans to make AWII available on
the Macintosh at all. Not that you'd tell me if there were you
tightlipped one you ;-)
BTW what kind of machine are you getting framerates of 30 to 50 on?
We've had WB people report framerates, depending on machine, between
8 fps (DX2-66) and 400 (P6-200) depending on the situation and
detail level. I have NO idea what the higher end Mac's are getting
since I can't afford one.... My wife's 7100/80 gets around 30 fps
in normal flight and drops down to around 10 in major action around
a field. The Mac's suffer slightly lower framerates than the PC
version does on the whole, in part because I haven't made any great
efforts to optimize it yet.
>You wanna compare features? I think not, cally. :>
Well I do admit you have us on the strategic element, factories and
whatnot, assuming they are fixed now and active. We only really have
tactical level action. Of course AW has been around about 8 years
longer than WarBirds has too, we just haven't had time to put in all
the bells and whistles yet.
Besides, I haven't seen AW since the last Mac beta that was in use
during BoG II. <A truely great scenario>.... I have finally decided
to get a WinTel machine though (mostly because it was the cheapest
way to get a Unix host) and will install AW4Windoze on it and take a look,
since you cut the Mac off from the rest of the world. Maybe your terrain
HAS gotten better for AirWarrior II, but since I haven't seen it and it's
about 3 years behind schedule I will reserve my opinion until it's
released and I've had a chance to gander at it.
Comparing games though would probably be pointless as we market to different
communities. Well actually we do have some AOL and Compuserve users
so I guess there is alittle crossover. For the most part though we
target people who have general access to the Internet. There's a bit
more we could MAYBE do if we also required access to a proprietary low
latency network, but we decided to go for the world wide solution
instead of limiting access to subscribers of a few expensive dialin
service providers.
So we really can't compare features you see, until you have a product
out to compare features with.... Unless you would like to compare features
with AW4Windows instead of AWII? <EG>
BTW I went from nothing to having a Mac beta of WarBirds out in 6 weeks,
and that flying in the same arena with the Intel crowd OR my free Mac
beta arena. Of course they made me pull the free arena down alittle
quicker than some of my users might have liked, but oh well, by then
many were flying in the pay arena anyway.
I assume that if you have plans to port AWII to the Mac we will see it
within at least 6 MONTHS of the release of the Windows version??? Hehe
ask Keither if he can pound one out in 2 weeks again this time ;-)
Stephen W. Evans
>Warping seems worse in WB (from MY ISP, anyway). WB flight model is
>porked in elevator control due to trim implementation. Strategic options
>are more robust in AW. Radio communications are better implemented.
Hmmm my previous followup hasn't appeared yet so I can't reply to it...
Or for that matter cancel the damn thing.... AH well maybe I'll see
it later and cancel it.
Anyway Art I owe you a big apology... Here I thought you hadn't played
the game. My mistake was not to look hard enough. I finally "dug deep"
and found you!! Unfortunately you haven't been flying much recently so
you were a tad hard to find, still, I am very sorry. hehe If I managed
to cancel it before you see it, then I apologize anyway, since it's
the thought that counts, or something like that.
Your usage was HIGH during the Mac beta period, then dropped, which
many people did when we went pay. But I am still confused as to why
you have a bad connect when my network stats say the route is clean,
and why you have flown so little in the last few months? Once I found
your 4 letter ID I knew who you were, and can't understand how you
can continue to deal with AW when the Mac FE is so.... well... behind?
Are you flyin it on a Windoze machine? I know alot of Mac AW'ers
bought WinBloze boxes JUST so they could stay "current".
Are you using icigames2.com to connect?
Anyway sorry for raggin you so hard, just been a nasty nasty time
of it today and took it out on a relatively (still think you are
WAY wrong about the radios) innocent target.
I also think you should fly WarBirds a bit more, it might grow on
you, kinda like a fungus or something ;-) hehe besides, what'er
your squaddies gonna think with their fearless leader not being
around much :-)
zeno
Stephen W. Evans wrote:
(snip)
The Mac's suffer slightly lower framerates than the PC
> version does on the whole, in part because I haven't made any great
> efforts to optimize it yet.
>
Cal--
Gosh guy, please do make an effort!
I've been scratching my head recently wondering why the PPC's vaunted
superiority over the Pentium in FPU ops hasn't shown up in WB to better
advantage. (Hehe -- I'd actually been concerned that ICI's resident Mac
"expert" just wasn't capable of extracting all the PPC has to offer for
WB.)
Now I know you've just been coastin' ;-)
Can't be easy haven to put up with all those Wintel guys at ICI though.
(Not to mention doin all that Mac stuff single handed.) Gotta hurt your
creativity.
Bear down big guy. We're all pullin for ya. Lookin forward to great
things in the future!
zeno
"More human than..."
COOPER
Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) writes:
>Yepper, this IS a Macintosh newsgroup you might have noticed....
was making sure you remembered.
>Hmm does your presence here indicate a possibility that KESMAI might
>again decide the Macintosh is a viable platform?
We do have a version going up on AOL soon...
>Golly, I can't get AW4Windows to install and run on my Mac, maybe
>you could give me a few pointers as to how you got it to work ;-)
well, I just couldn't understand the frame rate issue - the FR
on our Mac version is fine.
>since I can't afford one.... My wife's 7100/80 gets around 30 fps
>in normal flight and drops down to around 10 in major action around
>a field.
I get around 35 with a 7100/66 (yeah, I've got a Mac in my office
now :>) with the version thats going up on AOL. But, as you know
anything over 24 don't matter. It's only when it gets 'busy' that
you notice the slowup.
> The Mac's suffer slightly lower framerates than the PC
>version does on the whole, in part because I haven't made any great
>efforts to optimize it yet.
>>You wanna compare features? I think not, cally. :>
>Well I do admit you have us on the strategic element, factories and
>whatnot, assuming they are fixed now and active. We only really have
>tactical level action. Of course AW has been around about 8 years
doesn't matter - am not, will never, compare the two. Don't like
that kind of business. Since we go after customers in different
ways, doesn't make much sense to either.
Heck, I'm still proud to consider you guys my friends. (I knew them
"when" :>)
>way to get a Unix host) and will install AW4Windoze on it and take a look,
ack - wait for AW2. WinG blows.
>about 3 years behind schedule I will reserve my opinion until it's
>released and I've had a chance to gander at it.
having been worked on 3 years (and it hasn't) and being 3 years
behind schedule would be 2 different things. First date I heard
on AW2 was summer '96. We're behind schedule, but at least
software companies now have BC3k to point at. ;>
>Comparing games though would probably be pointless as we market to different
>communities.
Wow - I actually wrote that up top BEFORE I read this...
>instead of limiting access to subscribers of a few expensive dialin
>service providers.
<beep> Earthlink is pretty much, as far as I understand, the way
you guys operate - go to the web page, click play and put your
password in and yer golden. (well, as golden as you can be
using the net as a medium...)
besied, both CIS and AOL have 20/20 plans. I never flew much
more than that in a month (though, you were up ever time I
was, so I know some folks do :>)
>So we really can't compare features you see, until you have a product
>out to compare features with....
come to the con next week and you'll see it. Might even be one
under the Xmas tree for ya, if yer nice.
Wayne Jaeschke
COOPER wrote:
> AW4Windows is, currently
> limited to WinG implementation - AW2 will be directdraw and, at 1024
> X 768 over a MUCH more detailed terrain than WB currently has, we're
> seeing frame rates between 30 and 50.
>
>
>
hehe... sure... gor for it! Compare the current Mac version of WB's
with the current Mac version of AW or AW-II. Make sure you do it for
regular people, like guys like me, who aren't AOL subscribers, ok?
Sorry for the cheap-shot, but you asked for it (see the newsgroup
by-laws: "use of the words 'windows' will get your post picked apart
and toasted to a light golden brown") <G>
iggy
p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
what I get on my 8500/150.
Art Day
>Hmmm my previous followup hasn't appeared yet so I can't reply to it...
>
>Or for that matter cancel the damn thing.... AH well maybe I'll see
>it later and cancel it.
Well, I dunno what you're referring to, guess I haven't seen it either.
>Anyway Art I owe you a big apology... Here I thought you hadn't played
>the game. My mistake was not to look hard enough. I finally "dug deep"
>and found you!! Unfortunately you haven't been flying much recently so
>you were a tad hard to find, still, I am very sorry. hehe If I managed
>to cancel it before you see it, then I apologize anyway, since it's
>the thought that counts, or something like that.
>
>Your usage was HIGH during the Mac beta period, then dropped, which
>many people did when we went pay.
Has nothing to do with $, just spend my leisure time where I have either
commitments or the most fun. Have also been pretty occupied with beta
testing a buncha sims since WB went public which cut down on my arena
time considerably.
>But I am still confused as to why
>you have a bad connect when my network stats say the route is clean,
>and why you have flown so little in the last few months? Once I found
>your 4 letter ID I knew who you were, and can't understand how you
>can continue to deal with AW when the Mac FE is so.... well... behind?
>Are you flyin it on a Windoze machine? I know alot of Mac AW'ers
>bought WinBloze boxes JUST so they could stay "current".
>
>Are you using icigames2.com to connect?
Am I flying a Windoze machine? BITE YOUR TONGUE!!! <g> If I knew why I
can't get consistent performance on the net with icigames2.com (or
icigames.com, for that matter) I would take steps to fix it. You can't
tell me I'm the only one with this gripe, I'm sure. What "route" do you
mean, here? There are some times I get pretty good connects, but most
times I don't, even though the traceroutes and pings indicate I should.
Have tried both shell and PPP methods, doesn't seem to matter much--both
equally as rotten. Since the early beta daze, I have grilled, tested,
and bitched (unfairly, it turns out) to my ISP, but it ain't him. Proof
of the pudding is that I can connect to Kesmai for flying the AW Mac Beta
and get no warping at all a helluva lot more than with ICI. Ditto with
other internet game playing like Skyfighters. My ISP is fine--WB is the
problem, IMO.
As for the Mac FE being behind, I take it you mean that PeeCees are now
flying AWII while the Mac guys aren't. Well, what else is new? PC games
usually come out first. If Kesmai makes AWII available for the Mac, I'll
jump at it.
>Anyway sorry for raggin you so hard, just been a nasty nasty time
>of it today and took it out on a relatively (still think you are
>WAY wrong about the radios) innocent target.
Aw, shucks, Cal, we ben flying together for a few years both on AW and
WB, no need to apologize--just let me kill ya.<g>
Why do you think I'm wrong about the radios? Fercrissakes, this has been
a constant complaint for ages both here and on the "other" newsgroup.
Too damn many channels scrolling by too fast with WAY too many system
messages thrown in for extra confusion.
>I also think you should fly WarBirds a bit more, it might grow on
>you, kinda like a fungus or something ;-) hehe besides, what'er
>your squaddies gonna think with their fearless leader not being
>around much :-)
My squadmates do just fine, thank you. However, I'm turning over the
squad to bmbm since I have other things I like to do better and am
committed to. If you fix the flight model so I can get full elevator
control without constantly trimming, maybe it would grow on me faster. I
sent HiTech a pretty comprehensive e-mail about this and never got an
answer. Nobody paid it much attention until I brought it up on the other
newsgroup, then several "regulars" confirmed it, big discussion about
options to make it better ensued, but nothing has been done to fix it.
This is the major reason I don't like the flight model and it has a
direct impact on ACM performance. Except for that one major error, the
WB flight model is excellent.
Keep at it, though--you've done a helluva job for us Mac users in WB, and
all your efforts are muchly appreciated. Say hi to Vix.
Fogy =<SR>=
pd...@kaiwan.com
Stephen W. Evans
>Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) writes:
>>Hmm does your presence here indicate a possibility that KESMAI might
>>again decide the Macintosh is a viable platform?
>
>We do have a version going up on AOL soon...
Yeah but PRETTY PLEASE put it in the same arena with the WinTel
guys PLEASE!!!! :-)
>well, I just couldn't understand the frame rate issue - the FR
>on our Mac version is fine.
Couldn't get the darn thing to run the one time I tried. It gurfed
on me in a major way. Since then I haven't tried again mostly due
to a lack of time. In fact I bought two games, WarCraft and Marathon II
quite awhile ago and haven't even had time to install much less play
the darn things. This business is way too busy!
>Heck, I'm still proud to consider you guys my friends. (I knew them
>"when" :>)
hehe and it was a long time too.... Darn I wish I had even half the
money I put into AW back... I could buy one HELL of a computer :-)
>>way to get a Unix host) and will install AW4Windoze on it and take a look,
>
>ack - wait for AW2. WinG blows.
Yepper read that will be out around Con-time, so not long to wait!! Got
a plenty big HD on the system too! Hmmmm AOL dweebs... yummmm.
>having been worked on 3 years (and it hasn't) and being 3 years
>behind schedule would be 2 different things. First date I heard
>on AW2 was summer '96. We're behind schedule, but at least
>software companies now have BC3k to point at. ;>
ROTFL, show me a software company that isn't behind schedule and I'll show
you one that doesn't HAVE schedules :-) BC3K is kinda an extreme example.
Apple's System8 (Copeland) is more normal "ONLY" being about a year and
a half behind ;-) Now they are saying they are going to release its
features in bits and dribbles.....a dribbly OS, how fun to develop for!
>besied, both CIS and AOL have 20/20 plans. I never flew much
>more than that in a month (though, you were up ever time I
>was, so I know some folks do :>)
I ditched my CIS account awhile ago, but an AOL account is possible
at some time in the future.... I got this 50 free hours CD awhile ago
and I have it sitting around waiting for AW :-) I kinda like the idea
of all those AOL dweebs falling beneath the cannon of my Fw!! Does
Aol allow you to telnet in or do I have to dialup?
>come to the con next week and you'll see it. Might even be one
>under the Xmas tree for ya, if yer nice.
Sheesh I wish I could come to the con!! I'm still bummed that I missed
last years as it was supposed to have been a major blow out. I still
remember not wanting to stop flyin during the '94 con. I was behind
my machine plugging away at 5am Sunday morning..... I only reluctantly
packed the poor thing up :-)
For next years WarBirds con I am gonna put a special crud setting on
my wheelchair. Maximum torque and sensitivity. I will be sure to scrape
some of the Snail Grease off the chair afterwords and mail it to you
in a special sovenier jar :-)
Wayne Jaeschke
COOPER wrote:
>
> Wayne Jaeschke <Jaes...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> >Air warrior, otoh, uses a table based model.
>
> jeez, where do you people get this stuff? :>
>
> Air Warrior has had a force model for years. AW has exactly
> *2* lookup tables, engine power at altitude and air density
> at altitude - both of which are used BY the force flight
> model, not IN it. :>
>
> >but anyone with any flight experience will
>
> I will never contradict your opinions, but you should only
> speak for yourself - we've been told by many pilots that AW
> 'feel's the best
If that's what they said, then I guess AW "feels" the best to them
(whatever "feels" means -- I was talking about response to control
input, so I'll assume that's what you mean. Feel free to correct me if
I'm wrong)
> I've also heard many pilots say that WB
> feels the best.
Group me in that category, then. If it's personal prefence, cool...
call it personal preference. I personally prefer WB's so much that I'll
repeat what I said -- I'd rather pay for WB's than play AW for free.
Why? because after loggin a few thousand hours in the real sky, in
piston-engine aircraft, Warbirds "feels" more like a real plane. Maybe
because when I want my aircraft to snap-roll, it does. Maybe because
when I want to hammerhead, I can. Maybe because when I pull the trigger
and MISS, the other guy doesn't take damage even though I might have hit
an imaginary "bubble" around his plane. Maybe because when I want to
ride on the edge of controlled flight, I can. Maybe when I'm flying a
P38 and cuban-8 a low-E spit, I win. Sure... maybe it's all personal
preference, feel, or whatever... but "feel" sure sounds like a weasel
word when an experienced, objective, pilot could make a substantive list
of a shortcomings and strong points in both flight models and make a
relative comparison of accuracy of flight modelling with respect to how
the simulated aircraft responds to control input.
As far as strategic elements go -- it doesn't matter HOW free anything
is, I don't move mud ;) Wb's and AW can duke it out with factories,
supply lines, and whatever -- won't matter to me :) I am VERY biased by
flight modelling. AW may have WB's beat now and forever when it comes
to providing neat stuff to blow up. But, when I put my quarter in the
slot, I'll be hunting low bogeys. So if my opinion of WB's is unfairly
slanted because of this, then let it be known <G>
>I've also heard many pilots say that FD
> feels the best.
FD? Free drugs? Yeah.. that would probably feel the best ;) er...
Francesca Diorio? Hmm.. she felt alright, but I was really drunk that
night. Newsgroup vertigo? hehehe... sorry... I can be a sarcastic s.o.b
<G>
>
> Pilots, like anyone else, each have different qualities
> they look for in a simulation.
Yup -- and I'll be fair about it. I have friends who prefer games like
hornet and apache to AW and WB's because they aren't so interested in
flight modelling or the "online experience". The best games are the one
that each, individual person finds appealing. My favorite example of
this is a friend of mine who I went to flight school with -- he doesn't
fly any of this stuff, as it just doesn't compare to his career in an
F18. He prefers anything even remotely resembling dungeons and dragons
<G> Although he does, occasionally, complain about the spell model of
his 14th level half-elven sorcerer :)
>
> -moggy
iggy
brad hitz
>
> iggy
>
> p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
> normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
> what I get on my 8500/150.
Man iggy,
I Rarely get rates like what your getting. ( Warbirds )
Mine are more like 20-40 good night and if where talking a crowd its
more like 15-30, sometimes less.
Im on a 9500/120 serial tool / concentric. teleport plat 28.8
???????? Whats the deal????????
brad hitz
>
> iggy
>
> p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
> normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
> what I get on my 8500/150.
Man iggy,
I Rarely get rates like what your getting.
Mine are more like 20-40 good night and if where talking a crowd its
more like 15-30, sometimes less.
Im on a 9500/120 serial tool / concentric. telepot plat 28.8
????????
Wayne Jaeschke
> >by-laws: "use of the words 'windows' will get your post picked apart
> >and toasted to a light golden brown") <G>
>
> to deal with on AOL... :>
>
I know what you're saying... schmucks just pop up out of the woodwork
around here, now and again, too ;)
iggy
John Wolf
In article <326E24...@concentric.net>, fuh...@concentric.net wrote:
#>
#> iggy
#>
#> p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
#> normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
#> what I get on my 8500/150.
#
#Man iggy,
#I Rarely get rates like what your getting. ( Warbirds )
#Mine are more like 20-40 good night and if where talking a crowd its
#more like 15-30, sometimes less.
#
#Im on a 9500/120 serial tool / concentric. teleport plat 28.8
#
#???????? Whats the deal????????
Sheesh, yahs got something running in the background eating FR. 40 should
be the start. Didn't turn off the ATI accellerator extention did you?
/\_/\ | John Wolf - mailto:jrw...@mindspring.com | /\_/\
(o o) | http://www.mindspring.com/~jrwolf/ | (x x)
\T/ | Mac WarBirds Info | \T/
U
COOPER
Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) writes:
>to a lack of time. In fact I bought two games, WarCraft and Marathon II
>quite awhile ago and haven't even had time to install much less play
>the darn things. This business is way too busy!
yeah - I got Close Combat adn Monster Truck Madness, played a little
with them but not a bunch - both great games, btw.
>hehe and it was a long time too.... Darn I wish I had even half the
>money I put into AW back... I could buy one HELL of a computer :-)
hell, we could buy one HELL of a house! :>
>Yepper read that will be out around Con-time, so not long to wait!! Got
>a plenty big HD on the system too! Hmmmm AOL dweebs... yummmm.
you'll need it if you wanna load alla GE's interface artwork :>
>and I have it sitting around waiting for AW :-) I kinda like the idea
>of all those AOL dweebs falling beneath the cannon of my Fw!! Does
>Aol allow you to telnet in or do I have to dialup?
you can connect via tcp/ip. The dweeb level on AOL fulfills all
of the expectations of the original '10,000 dweebs' scare. I think
SB got a 28 kill mission in an A-26...
>For next years WarBirds con I am gonna put a special crud setting on
>my wheelchair. Maximum torque and sensitivity. I will be sure to scrape
>some of the Snail Grease off the chair afterwords and mail it to you
>in a special sovenier jar :-)
ooh, FUBAR goop! Just beware of Shaw - that guy bodychecks with the
best of 'em! :> Gonna have a crud table in the con room next week - can't
wait. "WELCOME! YOU'VE GOT MAIL!" <bodyslam> :>
COOPER
Wayne Jaeschke <Jaes...@concentric.net> writes:
>Sorry for the cheap-shot, but you asked for it (see the newsgroup
>by-laws: "use of the words 'windows' will get your post picked apart
>and toasted to a light golden brown") <G>
hehe, yer nothing iggy. You should see some of the schmucks I have
to deal with on AOL... :>
you don't like HEARING about 'w' - try SUPPORTING it! :>
>p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
>normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
>what I get on my 8500/150.
that's cool - it just means that both AW and WB have more than adequate
frame rates.
Wayne Jaeschke
brad hitz wrote:
>
> >
> > iggy
> >
> > p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
> > normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
> > what I get on my 8500/150.
>
> I Rarely get rates like what your getting.
>
>
> ????????
One thing I did that makes a MAJOR difference is to lock the modem speed
(not the port speed) to 19.2k. On my USR, I put an &n10 into the modem
string and that does it -- I still leave the port speed at 57.6k).
Also, what video card are you using? I use the internal video on my
8500 with 4mb Vram -- more vram has made a huge difference in the video
performance of ALL my sims, with the 8500, as it supposedly enables
64-bit (128-bit??)?? video (not sure of the numbers -- I just read that
increasing the vram dramatically improves the video performance of the
8500).
igg
Stephen W. Evans
>Well, I dunno what you're referring to, guess I haven't seen it either.
That's cause I managed to cancel it in reasonable amount of time :-)
>Am I flying a Windoze machine? BITE YOUR TONGUE!!! <g> If I knew why I
>can't get consistent performance on the net with icigames2.com (or
>icigames.com, for that matter) I would take steps to fix it. You can't
>tell me I'm the only one with this gripe, I'm sure. What "route" do you
>mean, here? There are some times I get pretty good connects, but most
>times I don't, even though the traceroutes and pings indicate I should.
>Have tried both shell and PPP methods, doesn't seem to matter much--both
>equally as rotten. Since the early beta daze, I have grilled, tested,
>and bitched (unfairly, it turns out) to my ISP, but it ain't him. Proof
>of the pudding is that I can connect to Kesmai for flying the AW Mac Beta
>and get no warping at all a helluva lot more than with ICI. Ditto with
>other internet game playing like Skyfighters. My ISP is fine--WB is the
>problem, IMO.
hehe didn't think you would go to the Dark Side :-) Let me know how you
are connecting to icigames2.com. Choice of connect tool and all that
seems to make a difference. I am trying to write an internal telnet
into the game now, that should cut down on some problems.
>As for the Mac FE being behind, I take it you mean that PeeCees are now
>flying AWII while the Mac guys aren't. Well, what else is new? PC games
>usually come out first. If Kesmai makes AWII available for the Mac, I'll
>jump at it.
Yeah, me too. It's just if they had a really good development setup the
lag shouldn't be that big.
>>Anyway sorry for raggin you so hard, just been a nasty nasty time
>>of it today and took it out on a relatively (still think you are
>>WAY wrong about the radios) innocent target.
>
>Aw, shucks, Cal, we ben flying together for a few years both on AW and
>WB, no need to apologize--just let me kill ya.<g>
Naw, not gonna let ya!! Ya gonna have to EARN it!! Not that it should
be too hard considering the minimal flight time I have been getting in.
I am basically a free kill anymore (sigh).
>Why do you think I'm wrong about the radios? Fercrissakes, this has been
>a constant complaint for ages both here and on the "other" newsgroup.
>Too damn many channels scrolling by too fast with WAY too many system
>messages thrown in for extra confusion.
Hmmm we got rid of most all of them in 1.09. With over 120 people in
the arena though the kill messages alone are some pretty serious content.
It will get better for the Mac guys when we can use the second monitor
as a text window though. Will give us a "full view" of text screen and
not obscure the cockpit. I figured a pretty cool way to do it and
hopefully it will be in the next release along with the integrated
networking and some bug stomps.
>My squadmates do just fine, thank you. However, I'm turning over the
>squad to bmbm since I have other things I like to do better and am
>committed to. If you fix the flight model so I can get full elevator
>control without constantly trimming, maybe it would grow on me faster. I
>sent HiTech a pretty comprehensive e-mail about this and never got an
>answer. Nobody paid it much attention until I brought it up on the other
>newsgroup, then several "regulars" confirmed it, big discussion about
>options to make it better ensued, but nothing has been done to fix it.
>This is the major reason I don't like the flight model and it has a
>direct impact on ACM performance. Except for that one major error, the
>WB flight model is excellent.
Yeah I still don't understand the trim thing myself. That's quiz and
Pyro's domain though. I am sure they are looking at it and will be
fixing it if it needs fixed.
>Keep at it, though--you've done a helluva job for us Mac users in WB, and
>all your efforts are muchly appreciated. Say hi to Vix.
Am trying to do a good job. The App still isn't near where I want it but
I am going to work on the sucker until it is. Will say hi to Vix for ya.
She is busy since we closed on a house Monday and she has to get it ready
for remodeling and all that other crap as well as starting to move our
stuff there. We have to be out of our apt by end of November so she has
LOTS to do before then to make the house liveable.
Stephen W. Evans
>>
>> iggy
>>
>> p.s. I get 30-50 fps online on bad nights in WB's -- I get 50-80
>> normally, though. That's _not_ meant to be a dig, either -- it's just
>> what I get on my 8500/150.
>
>Man iggy,
>I Rarely get rates like what your getting. ( Warbirds )
>Mine are more like 20-40 good night and if where talking a crowd its
>more like 15-30, sometimes less.
>
>Im on a 9500/120 serial tool / concentric. teleport plat 28.8
>
>???????? Whats the deal????????
Watch out for extensions ect like color matching and stuff that might
be eating up CPU time. It's not neccessary for WarBirds to be Pantone
correct, so things like Kodaks Color Calibrator and crap like that
really slow you down. Just a standard System7 set plus your networking
crap will speed you up. When I cleaned down Vixen's machine it just
about tripled my framerate on it. Oh, joystick drivers too....
Alot of Mac users have so much CPU intensive stuff in the system heap
that it significantly slows their machines down, but they usually don't
notice because the machines are so fast in the first place.
gle...@prairieweb.com
>
> Flight modelling is NOT a matter of opinion -- it's cold, hard facts
> without subjective interpretation. If you've flown the real thing and
> the sims, it's pretty easy to figure out which sim has better flight
> models. The only people I ever hear arguing about the "subjective
> nature" of how a flight model "feels" are <groaning> dweebs who've never
> flown the real thing. Also, what is the "illusion" that ICI creates?
> Either the planes they model respond to control input more realistically
> than the planes in Air Warrior do, or they don't -- not a whole lot of
> room for personal opinion, here, like there is when choosing between the
> PC and the Mac platform, where matters of personal opinion and taste
> come into play.
>
> iggy
> =<XXX>=
Well, iggy, I think you're wrong. I'm not a pilot (though I have done
some flying--hang gliders and some experience at the controls of a c185),
but I've heard real pilots argue both sides of this, so...?
Simulations are not reality. And it is not as clear as you imply.
GS
Art Day
>hehe didn't think you would go to the Dark Side :-) Let me know how you
>are connecting to icigames2.com. Choice of connect tool and all that
>seems to make a difference. I am trying to write an internal telnet
>into the game now, that should cut down on some problems.
Tried shell and PPP but finally got rid of shell account since it wasn't
any better than PPP and costs $30/month more(what a gyp). Using
Versaterm and TCPack Telnet Tools.
>Hmmm we got rid of most all of them in 1.09. With over 120 people in
>the arena though the kill messages alone are some pretty serious content.
>It will get better for the Mac guys when we can use the second monitor
>as a text window though. Will give us a "full view" of text screen and
>not obscure the cockpit. I figured a pretty cool way to do it and
>hopefully it will be in the next release along with the integrated
>networking and some bug stomps.
Why don't you guys make the radio channels squelchable--especially the
system messages? If I had my druthers, I'd only fly on and want to see
squad channel most of the time and maybe select system messages only if
we were in the process of capturing a field. Don't give a rat's ass who
kills who, etc. If somebody wants to talk to me from outside the squad
they can send me a private message.
>The App still isn't near where I want it but
>I am going to work on the sucker until it is.
I know you will, Cal. You're one of the bright lights in the Mac
flight-sim programming world.
>Will say hi to Vix for ya.
>She is busy since we closed on a house Monday and she has to get it ready
>for remodeling and all that other crap as well as starting to move our
>stuff there. We have to be out of our apt by end of November so she has
>LOTS to do before then to make the house liveable.
Been there, done that. Good luck. Have you checked the connections from
your new phone exchange yet? I know that was a major consideration on
where you bought.<g>
gle...@prairieweb.com
>flight model can accurately simulate the way a plane flies or it
>doesn't. Do you think that we would use simulators in the AF if the
>flight model wasn't accurate? Nope.. wouldn't do a damn thing to have
>guys learning ACM in a box only to find out that their energy loss was
>higher in the real world, or that a certain manuever would stall a
>control surface unexpectedly causing the pilot to crash to his death.
>
>Basically, you have no clue in the world what you're talking about
>Spend a few thousand hours in real planes and you'll understand why I
>can say this without reservation.
>
>enjoy living in your ignorance.
>
>iggy
iggy:
You keep attacking me and making these unsubstantiated statements as if
that means something in an argument like this. You haven't offered one
real "fact" that shows how the WBs flight model is vastly superior to the
AW flight model.
I am not an aeronautical engineer or a pilot, but I've listened to the
arguments by folks who know a lot and who have worked on these sims.
Among them there isn't anything like this solid agreement that the WBs
flight model is superior in all ways to the AW flight model.
Now, I like the WBs flight model just fine and that is the sim I fly these
days (mainly because they have supported the Mac so much better than
Kesmai). But it is far from a perfect imitation of reality. You say
"Either a
flight model can accurately simulate the way a plane flies or it
doesn't." I just don't believe it is that simple and I'll bet anybody who
has worked on this kind of a simulation will tell you the same thing.
So, my original statement that your kind of arguing about flight models
reminds me of the same old crap I hear about which computer platform is
the best still sticks. IT'S JUST NOT SO SIMPLE!<G>
In WBs, just for instance, there really is no such thing as a spin. Hmmm,
now that's not a perfect match with reality, is it. And I can put my nose
down in a vertical dive, build speed up to 500 kts, then drop full flaps
and gear to slow down and get on an enemies tail! Yep, that sure fits
with reality. There are similar oddities in AW, but the point is, while
one may be better overall, I don't think either one has cornered the
market on imitating reality.
Oh, and PC's are vastly superior to Macs. Anybody who had logged
thousands of hours as an MIS specialist would KNOW that. This is not a
matter of subjective judgement, but a simple emperical truth. Anybody
with half a brain knows that. Sheesh, it's the same old crap.<G>
GS
Wayne Jaeschke
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
[something that Glenn produced which never appeared in this newsgroup,
but he seems to have attributed to me SNIPPED]
> So, my original statement that your kind of arguing about flight models
> reminds me of the same old crap I hear about which computer platform is
> the best still sticks. IT'S JUST NOT SO SIMPLE!<G>
which computer is better is a matter of taste... that I agree. Whether
a flight model accurately portrays real-world response to control input
isn't. I'll agree to disagree with you, but that's it.
>
> In WBs, just for instance, there really is no such thing as a spin. Hmmm,
> now that's not a perfect match with reality, is it. And I can put my nose
> down in a vertical dive, build speed up to 500 kts, then drop full flaps
> and gear to slow down and get on an enemies tail! Yep, that sure fits
> with reality. There are similar oddities in AW, but the point is, while
> one may be better overall, I don't think either one has cornered the
> market on imitating reality.
Um... when was the last time you flew WB's? What are you defining as a
spin? What in the world makes you think that an aircraft is incapable
of performing a 500 kias dive, dropping full flaps, and saddling up an
nme? I think your statements speaks volumes about your lack of
knowledge on this subject. About the only thing I agree with is that
you imply that there are oddities in both flight models -- that's
correct. Neither is perfect. WB's flight model is far less imperfect
than Air Warrior. So much so, that I would say that WB's flight model
is far superior to Air Warrior. You claim to have heard "real pilots"
argue this "either way" -- find me a few, unbiased people who have
evaluated the flight models for the currently available Mac versions of
Air Warrior and Warbirds (v1.09) who think agree with you. None of the
ones I know do.
>
> Oh, and PC's are vastly superior to Macs. Anybody who had logged
> thousands of hours as an MIS specialist would KNOW that. This is not a
> matter of subjective judgement, but a simple emperical truth. Anybody
> with half a brain knows that. Sheesh, it's the same old crap.<G>
if you had ANY idea how actual aircraft perform, you would know just how
stupid you sound.
> I am not an aeronautical engineer or a pilot
obviously.
> GS
iggy
drc...@earthlink.net
Don't wanna stomp too many toes here. (Like hell I don't)
Caligula -
Your FW film still floatin around the AW universe. Doubt that you've gotten
so rusty that you're a "free kill". Check your email and let me know why I
can't get WB running on my macheen. Can't comment on the merits/demerits of
something I can't run, can I? But the sucker IS big enuf to sink a HD aint it?
Moggy -
Visit your doctor. Have him take your pulse. Think maybe you ARE the dead one.
Judging by the features of the current version of the beta (3.60), you Kesmoids
need to spend less time up alt.binaries.pictures.nude.cheerleaders spanking the
monkey, and more time working the problem. And the problem is E effing NORMOUS.
How thrilling for you to have a PPC in your office. Have you located the power
switch yet? Once you figger that out, you use the mouse thingie to move the
pointer thingie to the Netscape icon. Double click. Enter Kesmai's open beta
URL. (If you need help finding that surely SOMEONE at Kesmai must have a vague
idea what it is. If not try a search engine.) Register your email address, and
then download the software. Unpack the software and configure Netscape to use
it. Go back into Netscape and activate the 'CLICK HERE TO PLAY' link. Click
on the 'Fly Multi-Player Online' hotspot. At this point you will probably want
to prop your office door open and make sure the hallway is clear. Select
the Full Realism Pacific Theater. Type /go 62. Click on the aircraft selection
screen. Scroll. It is normal to begin to feel queasy at this point. Select
an aircraft...the Mig 15 fer instance. Type /fly. So, okay that doesn't work,
but the configuration guy (whoever he may be) is 'working on that'.
Select a different aircraft. The Spitfire for example. Now if ya just
gotta fly the
Hellcat, you'll have to open the manual and search for the DOS command to
enter in order to select that one. DOS command you ask? Yup, seems to be one
of the more clever, less Mac-like features of AW. Kinda an ecumenical feature
ya might say. Type /fly. Follow the instructions in the manual for starting
the aircraft and taking off. Establish a steady rate of climb toward a known
landmark. Have someone show you a map and pick one if you've never seen the
terrain before. Scan the instrument panel. Think about what your eyes are
telling you. Run, do not walk to the nearest convenience unless you WANT to
throw-up on your desk.
Do let us know the results of your physical.
Dwarf
Bob Connell
In article <Caligula-ya023080...@news.cris.com>,
Cali...@cris.com (Stephen W. Evans) wrote:
> hehe besides, what'er your squaddies gonna think with their fearless
> leader not being around much :-)
We lament it, Cal. He actually xfered the lead to another since he's
seldom in arena anymore.
As a frequent wingman, I can second his connect problems--from both an
arena perspective and from his computer's. A real PITA to fly form when
your lead is warping out o sight. <g>
Mags
------------V F Aã-1 3 S H A D O W R I D E R S------------
CIS:73164,2453 Warbirds:mags
<http://www.aimnet.com/~nicoli/>
----------N O C H A L L E N G E, N O H O N O R----------
gle...@prairieweb.com
In article <3272A8...@concentric.net>, Wayne Jaeschke
<Jaes...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > In WBs, just for instance, there really is no such thing as a spin. Hmmm,
> > now that's not a perfect match with reality, is it. And I can put my nose
> > down in a vertical dive, build speed up to 500 kts, then drop full flaps
> > and gear to slow down and get on an enemies tail! Yep, that sure fits
> > with reality. There are similar oddities in AW, but the point is, while
> > one may be better overall, I don't think either one has cornered the
> > market on imitating reality.
>
> Um... when was the last time you flew WB's? What are you defining as a
> spin? What in the world makes you think that an aircraft is incapable
> of performing a 500 kias dive, dropping full flaps, and saddling up an
> nme? I think your statements speaks volumes about your lack of
> knowledge on this subject. About the only thing I agree with is that
> you imply that there are oddities in both flight models -- that's
> correct. Neither is perfect. WB's flight model is far less imperfect
> than Air Warrior. So much so, that I would say that WB's flight model
> is far superior to Air Warrior. You claim to have heard "real pilots"
> argue this "either way" -- find me a few, unbiased people who have
> evaluated the flight models for the currently available Mac versions of
> Air Warrior and Warbirds (v1.09) who think agree with you. None of the
> ones I know do.
Dropping full flaps and gear at 500 kts? I don't think so, iggy. And
there is no real spin in WBs. I fly it all the time.
>
> if you had ANY idea how actual aircraft perform, you would know just how
> stupid you sound.
>
Just the contrary, iggy. You are showing your ignorance with your pompous
and ill-informed opinions. The more hot air you blow, the worse you
look. You have no credibility.
Don't you get it? You offer nothing to substantiate your claims that WBs
models flight perfectly and is vastly superior to AW. You just attack me
and make all these wild statements with nothing to back them up. hehe,
what a dweeb move. I guarantee you, you are not impressing anybody with
your (lack of) knowledge.
eggy (egging iggy on to ever greater dweebishness)
drc...@earthlink.net
> Moggy -
>
> Judging by the features of the current version of the beta (3.60), you
Kesmoids
> need to spend less time up alt.binaries.pictures.nude.cheerleaders
spanking the
> monkey, and more time working the problem. And the problem is E effing
NORMOUS.
>
>
> Dwarf
Mea Culpa...so sorry...forgot. At Kesmai it's alt.binaries.pictures.nude.sheep.
Dwarf
Wayne Jaeschke
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
> Dropping full flaps and gear at 500 kts? I don't think so, iggy. And
> there is no real spin in WBs. I fly it all the time.
ah.. .because they haven't modelled damage to them at 500kias, right?
Big whoop. I don't see a whole lot of people crying about it.
> I fly it all the time.
HAH! Go to the Warbirds scoring pages -- you're not listed as having
flown. In other words, you DON'T fly it "all the time". In fact, I
don't remember seeing you there since the mac beta days some four months
ago. Even at that, you certainly never played enough to know what
you're talking about. In fact, I suspect you're comparing a version of
warbirds prior to v1.09 to air warrior (actually, you haven't compared
anything -- you've just obtusely stated alot of bullshit).
BTW -- anyone who wants can go to WB's and check -- your account no
longer exists, does it? here's the deal -- log into WB's... type
".score eggy"... then wait while nothing comes up. If there was an
active account for your ID, a BLANK scorepage would come up. Nothing
comes up at all for yours, which indicates that your account no longer
exists. In other words, you're arguing for unknown reasons about a game
you don't play about a subject you know nothing about. [translation:
you're full of shit]
> Just the contrary, iggy. You are showing your ignorance with your pompous
> and ill-informed opinions. The more hot air you blow, the worse you
> look. You have no credibility.
why? because you don't agree? you overestimate yourself.
>
> Don't you get it? You offer nothing to substantiate your claims that WBs
> models flight perfectly and is vastly superior to AW. You just attack me
> and make all these wild statements with nothing to back them up. hehe,
> what a dweeb move. I guarantee you, you are not impressing anybody with
> your (lack of) knowledge.
As far as I can tell, I haven't posted any attacks on you in this
newsgroup. You're the one avoiding any substantive discussion by
claiming that everything is "subjective opinion" without any basis for
comparison, and calling me names in the process.
> eggy (egging iggy on to ever greater dweebishness)
sorry -- I'm not going to dive into that cesspool with you. Live alone
in your dweebishness.
iggy
Wayne Jaeschke
Wayne Jaeschke wrote:
> BTW -- anyone who wants can go to WB's and check -- your account no
> longer exists, does it? here's the deal -- log into WB's... type
> ".score eggy"... then wait while nothing comes up. If there was an
> active account for your ID, a BLANK scorepage would come up. Nothing
> comes up at all for yours, which indicates that your account no longer
> exists. In other words, you're arguing for unknown reasons about a game
> you don't play about a subject you know nothing about. [translation:
> you're full of shit]
Just had another thought -- check out eggy's account on the WB's pages
the easy way:
http://www.icigames.com/cgi-win/wbscore/wbpilot.exe?callsign=eggy
'splain that, Lucy<G> Fly it "all the time", huh?
iggy
gle...@prairieweb.com
In article <3273FB...@concentric.net>, Wayne Jaeschke
<Jaes...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Wayne Jaeschke wrote:
>
> > BTW -- anyone who wants can go to WB's and check -- your account no
> > longer exists, does it? here's the deal -- log into WB's... type
> > ".score eggy"... then wait while nothing comes up. If there was an
> > active account for your ID, a BLANK scorepage would come up. Nothing
> > comes up at all for yours, which indicates that your account no longer
> > exists. In other words, you're arguing for unknown reasons about a game
> > you don't play about a subject you know nothing about. [translation:
> > you're full of shit]
>
> Just had another thought -- check out eggy's account on the WB's pages
> the easy way:
hey he had a thought! Sorry, just couldn't resist<G>. It's actually eggi
and I'm pretty pathetic in WBs. Look forward to flying against you just
the same.
COOPER
drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>Moggy -
>Visit your doctor. Have him take your pulse. Think maybe you ARE the dead one.
Cal - you can have this one. With my blessings.
>How thrilling for you to have a PPC in your office.
If it means I have to deal with you, nope it isn't. Thankfully, you aren't
representative of most Mac users I've run across.
>an aircraft...the Mig 15 fer instance. Type /fly. So, okay that doesn't work,
>but the configuration guy (whoever he may be) is 'working on that'.
actually, the configureation guy (me) IS working on just that with the
programmers.
>Dwarf
this a reference to your mental facilities?
Stephen W. Evans
In article <3273F8...@concentric.net>, Wayne Jaeschke
<Jaes...@concentric.net> wrote:
>BTW -- anyone who wants can go to WB's and check -- your account no
>longer exists, does it? here's the deal -- log into WB's... type
>".score eggy"... then wait while nothing comes up. If there was an
>active account for your ID, a BLANK scorepage would come up.
Not entirely true at all. First, his 4 letter ID isn't eggy, he was just
needling you a bit, second, nothing will come up also if the scores for
the person were erased during a reset (e.g. you don't "have" a score file
until you enter and exit the arena once during a new campaign).
Can't say much else without breaking client confidentiality, but take
my word for it, he DOES fly the game.
Stephen W. Evans
>Been there, done that. Good luck. Have you checked the connections from
>your new phone exchange yet? I know that was a major consideration on
>where you bought.<g>
hehe Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a short range
wireless bridge :-) 3MBps should about do it :-) Home and the office
are REALLY close :-)
Stephen W. Evans
In article <glenns-2710...@dialup-11.prairieweb.com>,
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
>Dropping full flaps and gear at 500 kts? I don't think so, iggy. And
>there is no real spin in WBs. I fly it all the time.
There's spin, it's just "normal" spin, not the ass over teakettles thing
you get with AW's spin model. We get something more akin to AW's sping
when you get a major control surface (your tail or a wing) blown off.
Some of the planes can get into really REALLY nasty inverted flat spins
though.
>Don't you get it? You offer nothing to substantiate your claims that WBs
>models flight perfectly and is vastly superior to AW. You just attack me
>and make all these wild statements with nothing to back them up. hehe,
>what a dweeb move. I guarantee you, you are not impressing anybody with
>your (lack of) knowledge.
hehe "pefectly"... golly THAT would be nice.... Maybe next year when
Exponential's CPU's are available for the PowerMac, but then that would
leave everyone else in the cold. None of the models are "perfect" and if
we ever get them there we will be throwing ourselves a big ole party.
E. Green
> drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Moggy -
> >Visit your doctor. Have him take your pulse. Think maybe you ARE the
dead one.
>
> Cal - you can have this one. With my blessings.
>
> >How thrilling for you to have a PPC in your office.
>
> If it means I have to deal with you, nope it isn't. Thankfully, you aren't
> representative of most Mac users I've run across.
>
> >an aircraft...the Mig 15 fer instance. Type /fly. So, okay that
doesn't work,
> >but the configuration guy (whoever he may be) is 'working on that'.
>
> actually, the configureation guy (me) IS working on just that with the
> programmers.
>
> >Dwarf
>
> this a reference to your mental facilities?
>
> -moggy
>
Moggy,
Don't take dwarf's rants too seriously. He's a good guy - really! He just
gets carried away a bit, particularly when his AW isn't working well!
DOG
Stephen W. Evans
In article <glenns-2610...@dialup-24.prairieweb.com>,
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
>Oh, and PC's are vastly superior to Macs. Anybody who had logged
>thousands of hours as an MIS specialist would KNOW that. This is not a
>matter of subjective judgement, but a simple emperical truth. Anybody
>with half a brain knows that. Sheesh, it's the same old crap.<G>
Anyone who has logged thousands of hours as an MIS specialist would,
of course, believe PC's superior to Mac since, without PC's, they
wouldn't get to log those thousands of hours of support and hence,
wouldn't have a job. This is, I am convinced, the primary reason
for the Dominance of the PC in the business world. Tech weenies looking
out to make themselves irreplaceable :-)
drc...@earthlink.net
In article <ejgreen-2810...@news.concentric.net>,
ejg...@cris.com (E. Green) wrote:
> In article <5532tr$7...@herald.concentric.net>, Coo...@cris.com (COOPER) wrote:
>
> > drc...@earthlink.net writes:
> >
> > >Moggy -
> > >Visit your doctor. Have him take your pulse. Think maybe you ARE the
> dead one.
> >
> > Cal - you can have this one. With my blessings.
> >
> > >How thrilling for you to have a PPC in your office.
> >
> > If it means I have to deal with you, nope it isn't. Thankfully, you aren't
> > representative of most Mac users I've run across.
Unfortunately, you are typical of the attitude that prevails at Kesmai.
> >
> > >an aircraft...the Mig 15 fer instance. Type /fly. So, okay that
> doesn't work,
> > >but the configuration guy (whoever he may be) is 'working on that'.
> >
> > actually, the configureation guy (me) IS working on just that with the
> > programmers.
Really? Doncha hafta pull your thumbs and your head out first? And are the
presence of the Mig 15 and the Spifire and the absence of The F6F programming
issues? Sounds like a configuration screw-up to me. (And yes, I knew who the
'configuration guy' is...that was the point.)
> >
> > >Dwarf
> >
> > this a reference to your mental facilities?
> >
> > -moggy
Think you missed the whole thrust here, Moggy. Before you start posting broad
assertions about the quality and the feature set of your product, it might be
a good idea to actually SPEND SOME TIME USING THE SOFTWARE. Your framerate
assertions, for example, don't hold up: online; in combat. Since I'm only one
of the (many) lowly who has an 040, and not a PPC, I typically see 10-12 FPS.
(Yes that is what the front end reports, but the actual is lower, often 3 when
there are more than 1v1. Try tracking a bogey at 3 FPS sometime. BOGUS)
Even 10-12 is unacceptable. Think maybe you could bring yourself to actually
fly online, 'stead of offline practice (where the framerate and performance are
acceptable), before you start throwing bogus numbers around?
As far as 'working' the problem is concerned. The only thing that has improved
in two and a half months is that the P-38 is no longer unkillable. And, yes
thank you for that. But the field set in Pac is still screwy. Neutral ack is
still porked. The manual claims the George is part of the mix, but nobody has
ever seen one. Your latest beta (3.60a) is actually a step and a half back from
where you were with 3.58. So much stuff is broken its unbelievable, and the
framerate is ~2/3 what it was in 3.58. And, rather than fix any of those
config problems, you're up here blowing smoke.
Do you begin to grasp where I'm coming from? Especially when THE prime person
at Kesmai who has control over many of the problems and their solutions is
spending time in multiple posts to this and other Newsgroups, but can't seem to
make even one to the Mac beta newsgroups? Just a note now and then to let us
know you are alive and aware of the problems. Maybe a little info on which
things you're currently working and the progress you're making would be a really
good PR move, doncha think?
Ya gotcher priorities screwy Moggy. Just tryna pump a lil oxygen to yer brain.
> >
>
> Moggy,
>
> Don't take dwarf's rants too seriously. He's a good guy - really! He just
> gets carried away a bit, particularly when his AW isn't working well!
>
> DOG
Just mildly perturbed, DOG. Ya oughta see me when I get worked up. Check 6
one day I WILL be there. (In my dreams)
Dwarf
COOPER
ejg...@cris.com (E. Green) writes:
>Don't take dwarf's rants too seriously. He's a good guy - really! He just
>gets carried away a bit, particularly when his AW isn't working well!
don't say that - I was almost starting to like him! :>
COOPER
drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>Unfortunately, you are typical of the attitude that prevails at Kesmai.
ya think? Why, because I took offense at your post? Your whole
'cheerleader' bit was very offensive. I don't particularly care
if we keep such a vile and foul-mouthed customer such as you. I am
of the honest opinion that someone who spews forth such filthy
vitriol hurts the community far more than they help it.
>Really? Doncha hafta pull your thumbs and your head out first? And are the
>presence of the Mig 15 and the Spifire and the absence of The F6F programming
>issues?
As a matter of fact, they are. My configuration tools don't work. That
ever occur to you?
>assertions, for example, don't hold up: online; in combat. Since I'm only one
>of the (many) lowly who has an 040, and not a PPC, I typically see 10-12 FPS.
My frame rate assertions were made based on my machine.
>Even 10-12 is unacceptable. Think maybe you could bring yourself to actually
>fly online, 'stead of offline practice (where the framerate and performance are
>acceptable), before you start throwing bogus numbers around?
I never fly offline. 100 Percent of my Mac AW flying has been online.
>in two and a half months is that the P-38 is no longer unkillable. And, yes
>thank you for that.
We're not looking for thanks. This is in BETA. You know what that means,
right? It's free because there ARE problems.
> seen one. Your latest beta (3.60a) is actually a step and a half back from
>where you were with 3.58.
have you reported these problems in the beta newsgroups?
>Do you begin to grasp where I'm coming from? Especially when THE prime person
>at Kesmai who has control over many of the problems and their solutions is
>spending time in multiple posts to this and other Newsgroups, but can't seem to
>make even one to the Mac beta newsgroups?
The beta newsgroups are not part of my job. I handle production products.
Our QA team handles beta newsgroups. Lemme know if they're not. I've
been busy reading here (part of my job), readying the AOL MacAW area (part
of my job) and working with the production staff on fixing the F***** host
configuration problems.
Wayne Jaeschke
COOPER wrote:
> =
> drc...@earthlink.net writes:
> =
> >Unfortunately, you are typical of the attitude that prevails at Kesmai.
> =
> ya think? Why, because I took offense at your post? Your whole
> 'cheerleader' bit was very offensive. I don't particularly care
> if we keep such a vile and foul-mouthed customer such as you. I am
> of the honest opinion that someone who spews forth such filthy
> vitriol hurts the community far more than they help it.
And I suppose you think that venom-spewing support staff from vendors is a =
positive influence on =
the community? Take it for what it's worth, coop, but any of us can ditch =
this newsgroup, sims, =
etc. at any time. YOU on the other hand have to make your living off the g=
ood-will and $$$ of =
those of us who want to spend OUR money in your shop.
I've done my share of bitching at software companies when I've laid down MY=
money to buy YOUR =
products and I don't feel that I got what I thought I bargained for. Howev=
er, I fail to see your =
justification for flaming someone that wasn't happy with your product. Do =
you really think that =
by flaming people who have a negative opinion of your product or company, t=
hese people will become =
more sympathetic to you? Do you think that anyone who is thinking about tr=
ying your product or =
service will want to, after reading how you insult dissatisfied customers? =
(You called the =
customer vile and foul-mouthed -- true or not, it's insulting).
Imho -- you don't have the luxury of coming in here with guns blazing if yo=
u want these people to =
buy your product. When vendors start saying what kinds of customers the do=
n't want, they usually =
ending up losing the customers they DO want -- the ones that read this news=
group in silence, but =
end up with a bad taste in their mouth, and go spend their money elsewhere.=
my 2=A2
iggy
drc...@earthlink.net
> In article <555l4h$m...@herald.concentric.net>, Coo...@cris.com (COOPER) wrote:
>
> > drc...@earthlink.net writes:
> >
>>> And are the presence of the Mig 15 and the Spifire and the absence of The
>>> F6F programming issues?
> >
> > As a matter of fact, they are. My configuration tools don't work. That
> > ever occur to you?
>
There you have it people. Kesmai has 'improved' AW to the point that they can
no longer configure or maintain it.
----------snip---------
>
> >
> > -moggy
> >
> > --
> > gary cooper (not the dead one)
> > mailto:mo...@kesmai.com
> > Kesmai Corp. Air Warrior/Harpoon Product Support
> > http://www.cris.com/~cooper
>
> Dwarf
drc...@earthlink.net
Sent Moggy a fuller reply than this by email, but will hit hi-points here...
In article <555l4h$m...@herald.concentric.net>, Coo...@cris.com (COOPER) wrote:
> drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Unfortunately, you are typical of the attitude that prevails at Kesmai.
>
> ya think? Why, because I took offense at your post? Your whole
> 'cheerleader' bit was very offensive. I don't particularly care
> if we keep such a vile and foul-mouthed customer such as you. I am
> of the honest opinion that someone who spews forth such filthy
> vitriol hurts the community far more than they help it.
Nope. Fully expected it. Wuda called ya a wimp if ya didn't.
Gotcher attention tho ;)
>
> >Really? Doncha hafta pull your thumbs and your head out first? And are the
> >presence of the Mig 15 and the Spifire and the absence of The F6F programming
> >issues?
>
> As a matter of fact, they are. My configuration tools don't work. That
> ever occur to you?
Have to take you at your word on this one. Seems weird tho...
>
> >assertions, for example, don't hold up: online; in combat. Since I'm
only one
> >of the (many) lowly who has an 040, and not a PPC, I typically see 10-12 FPS.
>
> My frame rate assertions were made based on my machine.
And my mileage varies...
>
> >Even 10-12 is unacceptable. Think maybe you could bring yourself to actually
> >fly online, 'stead of offline practice (where the framerate and
performance are
> >acceptable), before you start throwing bogus numbers around?
>
> I never fly offline. 100 Percent of my Mac AW flying has been online.
As do I, long and often, and have never seen you up.
>
> >in two and a half months is that the P-38 is no longer unkillable. And, yes
> >thank you for that.
>
> We're not looking for thanks. This is in BETA. You know what that means,
> right? It's free because there ARE problems.
Expect problems. Also expect solutions with time. Not happening here.
>
> > seen one. Your latest beta (3.60a) is actually a step and a half back from
> >where you were with 3.58.
>
> have you reported these problems in the beta newsgroups?
Yup, and so have lotsa other folks.
>
> >Do you begin to grasp where I'm coming from? Especially when THE prime
person
> >at Kesmai who has control over many of the problems and their solutions is
> >spending time in multiple posts to this and other Newsgroups, but can't
seem to
> >make even one to the Mac beta newsgroups?
>
> The beta newsgroups are not part of my job. I handle production products.
> Our QA team handles beta newsgroups. Lemme know if they're not. I've
> been busy reading here (part of my job), readying the AOL MacAW area (part
> of my job) and working with the production staff on fixing the F***** host
> configuration problems.
Pretty much zip response. Littman acknowledges posts.
gle...@prairieweb.com
> COOPER wrote:
> > =
>
> > drc...@earthlink.net writes:
> > =
>
> > >Unfortunately, you are typical of the attitude that prevails at Kesmai.
> > =
>
> > ya think? Why, because I took offense at your post? Your whole
> > 'cheerleader' bit was very offensive. I don't particularly care
> > if we keep such a vile and foul-mouthed customer such as you. I am
> > of the honest opinion that someone who spews forth such filthy
> > vitriol hurts the community far more than they help it.
>
> And I suppose you think that venom-spewing support staff from vendors is a =
> positive influence on =
>
> the community? Take it for what it's worth, coop, but any of us can ditch =
> this newsgroup, sims, =
[mindless iggy spew snipped]
>
> iggy
Gotta side with moggy, iggy. You're the prime flamer here. Trouble is,
you're not very good at it.
eggi
gle...@prairieweb.com
> In article <glenns-2710...@dialup-11.prairieweb.com>,
> gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
>
>
> >Dropping full flaps and gear at 500 kts? I don't think so, iggy. And
> >there is no real spin in WBs. I fly it all the time.
>
> There's spin, it's just "normal" spin, not the ass over teakettles thing
> you get with AW's spin model. We get something more akin to AW's sping
> when you get a major control surface (your tail or a wing) blown off.
> Some of the planes can get into really REALLY nasty inverted flat spins
> though.
I guess so, Cal, but I can sure yank on the stick and just get this little
bobble of a spin that is totally non-threatening. Seems like they've
dumbed-it-down a little too much. Yes, with a wing blown off I can spin
quite nicely<G>.
>
> >Don't you get it? You offer nothing to substantiate your claims that WBs
> >models flight perfectly and is vastly superior to AW. You just attack me
> >and make all these wild statements with nothing to back them up. hehe,
> >what a dweeb move. I guarantee you, you are not impressing anybody with
> >your (lack of) knowledge.
>
> hehe "pefectly"... golly THAT would be nice.... Maybe next year when
> Exponential's CPU's are available for the PowerMac, but then that would
> leave everyone else in the cold. None of the models are "perfect" and if
> we ever get them there we will be throwing ourselves a big ole party.
Ah, thanks, Steve. Maybe that'll sink in for iggy.
eggi
Maury Markowitz
In article <glenns-3010...@dialup-19.prairieweb.com>,
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
> > There's spin, it's just "normal" spin, not the ass over teakettles thing
> > you get with AW's spin model. We get something more akin to AW's sping
> > when you get a major control surface (your tail or a wing) blown off.
> > Some of the planes can get into really REALLY nasty inverted flat spins
> > though.
I can't even get a normal spin, all I get is a fast roll about the
engine with stalled surfaces. I have yet to see a hint of autorotation.
Maury
Wayne Jaeschke
gle...@prairieweb.com wrote:
Whatever your thinking is (or isn't), there was nothing provacative in
my post -- I didn't say anything that anyone could side with one way or
the other. Whatever your _personal_ problem is with me, keep it to
yourself -- I don't know you, nor do I care to know you. All I see is
that YOU flame me, regardless of what I post.
iggy
COOPER
drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>Nope. Fully expected it. Wuda called ya a wimp if ya didn't.
hehe. Actaully like going head to head every now and then. Been
away at teh AW Con and I'm all relaxed (read: recovering) now.
>Gotcher attention tho ;)
blood flowin' too. :>
>Have to take you at your word on this one. Seems weird tho...
shocked the snot outa me too.
>As do I, long and often, and have never seen you up.
mainly up during the day - when you fly?
>Pretty much zip response. Littman acknowledges posts.
rgr - I know that the way QA has always functioned (here) is
that they see the posts as incoming information for them to
test and enter into bug tracking databases. They might not
be much on responding, but they are reading and using the
information.
COOPER
drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>There you have it people. Kesmai has 'improved' AW to the point that they can
>no longer configure or maintain it.
not at all - the new host software didn't like the configuration files
that are currently working on the old host. We're working on figuring
out exactly why.
COOPER
gle...@prairieweb.com writes:
>Gotta side with moggy, iggy. You're the prime flamer here. Trouble is,
>you're not very good at it.
I was in the wrong too - been wired tight lately. But after teh AW
con and 4 solid days of inebriation, P-51's, B-25s and Crud - I'm
much better now. :>
David Clark
And since I started this...I was also out of line and equally tightly
strung. I get that way when bug reports seem to vanish into a black
hole. Much better now that we got Voss back.
Dwarf
David Clark
>
>mainly up during the day - when you fly?
I'm up anytime from noonish on
>
>----snip---
>-moggy
>
>--
>gary cooper (not the dead one)
> mailto:mo...@kesmai.com
>Kesmai Corp. Air Warrior/Harpoon Product Support
> http://www.cris.com/~cooper
Dwarf
David Clark
>>no longer configure or maintain it.
>
>not at all - the new host software didn't like the configuration files
>that are currently working on the old host. We're working on figuring
>out exactly why.
>
>
>--
>gary cooper (not the dead one)
> mailto:mo...@kesmai.com
>Kesmai Corp. Air Warrior/Harpoon Product Support
> http://www.cris.com/~cooper
Ok Moggy, then what you meant to say was 'the configs are broke', not
'My tools don't work'. And, Yeh, we finally got Voss back so we are
again getting some information again about what is really going on.
Dwarf
John Wolf
In article <55upml$h...@paraguay.earthlink.net>, David Clark
<drc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
#>I was in the wrong too - been wired tight lately. But after teh AW
#>con and 4 solid days of inebriation, P-51's, B-25s and Crud - I'm
#>much better now. :>
#>
#>-moggy
#>
#And since I started this...I was also out of line and equally tightly
#strung. I get that way when bug reports seem to vanish into a black
#hole. Much better now that we got Voss back.
#
#Dwarf
Ohhh the good ole' days of fighting with Moggy <wolfie wipes a tear>
I hope you two goons get as much crap as I did for making up with the Dead One.
/\_/\ | John Wolf - mailto:jrw...@mindspring.com | /\_/\
(o o) | http://www.mindspring.com/~jrwolf/ | (x x)
\T/ | Mac WarBirds Info | \T/
U
drc...@earthlink.net
In article <jrwolf-ya0231800...@news.mindspring.com>,
jrw...@mindspring.com (John Wolf) wrote:
Still haven't seen him up Wolfie. You're still welcome to visit n keel ya know.
Got us a war goin Fri nite 7pm Eastern for anybody that want to show up.
http://freeplay.kesmai.com/openbeta/macaw is the registration page. We doing
the Bombing of Berlin. Would really luv to max out the arena (60).
Dwarf
E. Green
>
> Got us a war goin Fri nite 7pm Eastern for anybody that want to show up.
> http://freeplay.kesmai.com/openbeta/macaw is the registration page. We doing
> the Bombing of Berlin. Would really luv to max out the arena (60).
>
> Dwarf
Dwarf-
Pre-registration for the war starts at 8pm eastern -war to start at 9pm
eastern, unless things have changed.
Can't beieve I'm going to miss it, but, unfortunately, I've got my own con
to attend this weekend.
DOG
COOPER
drc...@earthlink.net writes:
>Still haven't seen him up Wolfie.
haven't been up lately - still trying to catch up from being out
of the office for a week...
drc...@earthlink.net
C'mon Moggy, Voss let the cat outa the bag...you guys aren't getting your
joysticks til next week maybe. Now we know why they guys that should know the
most about the game crash so much. ;)
Dwarf