To: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Sender: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@falcon3.k9.com Return-Path: devnull@falcon3.k9.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V7 : I64 Falcon3 Digest Volume 7 : Issue 64 Sun May 7 10:28:56 PDT 1995 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@falcon3.k9.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@falcon3.k9.com" Archives are available via ftp from cactus.org Today's Topics: Falcon 4 and WIN95 tro@checksix.allcon.com (Olaf Scher Intercept magazine - do they still white7@server.uwindsor.ca (WHITE BR Re: Falcon4 and Win95 guyer@spock.usc.edu (David Guyer) kklem@netcom.com (Kevin Klemmick) ------------------------------------------------------------ From: tro@checksix.allcon.com (Olaf Scherdin) Subject: Falcon 4 and WIN95 > From: Myron_Johnson-R17869@email.sps.mot.com > S-H really had only two choices for an OS-- Win95 and Extended DOS. > Any other OS would be a mistake for the mass market. I agree. But be sure - since I don't use Windows either, I won't ever buy Winoze just to play Falcon 4 (or any other games). Really, really NEVER. If SH decides to suply all necessary DLLs to make Falcon 4 under plain DOS too, fine, else: NO BUY. > BUT, S-H has to plan for the market from 1996 to 2000. What will be > the dominant operating system? mmh. OS/2 ? :-) I don't think there will be a dominant OS in the near future. A great gig like Win 3.1 won't happen again in the world of GUIs. Honestly, SH could have used a wonderful multithreaded environment with all task forced using their own threads, sharing the same display.... > I only hope that the WinG graphics system is as great as Microsoft claims. I get's the work done fine, no doubts - but don't try to multitask while viewing a video or even play a game. > I would have picked extended DOS if it were my choice. But a > multitasking system like Windows should allow some great utilities. you shouldn't believe the hype MS makes about Win96. Try it first. I have seen it and wasn't impressed at all. > You can have a virtual kneeboard and map book and references all > available during the flight. And Windows networking is pretty > reliable and easily done at home. Among our local group of > Falcoholics, the unreliable networking is the biggest complaint > about Falcon. sounds nice, but that won't happen. Games only use the basic IPX protocol to avoid overhead. I have doubts, that that will be the same in Win96. > Falcon under Win95 -"AWACS: We have an Unidentified Application Error > at Bearing 3F00:0800 Speed 100MHz". great. Consider that stolen :-) ...tschuess Olaf [Team OS/2] ------------------------------- From: white7@server.uwindsor.ca (WHITE BRAD) Subject: Intercept magazine - do they still send it? I noticed someone mentioned that they were reading about F4.0 in the intercept magazine recently. I have purchased f3.0, fighting tiger and mig29. I have sent in all my registration cards. Should I not be receiving the magazine too? Anyone else not receiving it? Should I email anyone? Thanks Regards, Brad White white7@server.uwindsor.ca ------------------------------- From: guyer@spock.usc.edu (David Guyer) Subject: Re: Falcon4 and Win95 On Fri, 5 May 95 06:26 WET DST you wrote:>From: md@littlei.jf.intel.com >Subject: Re: Falcon 4 and Win95:( >I think it would be a *very* retrograde step at this stage for SH to consider >multiple native OS ports. >SH need to aim for the large installed base to make money so I think the Unix >port (or any of the others for that matter) is a non-starter, don't you?? I find these two statements to be contradictory. If you write your code to be cross-platform capable from the start, you have the largest possible market, the whole market, not just a part of it. Also, DOS is supported by NT (though very poorly), OS/2, and since Windows runs on top of DOS, by Windows users (note, not by Windows itself). As a result, a DOS game is very well supported, and few PC users need to buy an operating system to support a game. Choosing Win95 is a risky and limiting choice compared to cross-platform or DOS. ------------------------------- From: kklem@netcom.com (Kevin Klemmick) Subject: On the subject of the choice of Windows '95: It's interesting to see the debate here on the list, as the same arguments were raised during our discussions. Realistically, though- there were only two choices for us, Win'95 or DOS. As some of the arguments here have explained, if Windows delivers half of what they're offering, Falcon will run better under Windows than DOS. Window's multi-threaded environment is ideal for allowing the realtime campaign to run smoothly in the background while in the Sim or UI and running a flight model at a constant frame rate, while the graphics run as fast as possible for the machine. By taking advantage of the decent Window's networking package, we can guarentee a smooth multi-player network, and so on. Supporting multiple systems was also dropped as being viable. The Falcon 4.0 project is already so huge, and we wanted to put all our effort into making this the best game the market has seen, or will see for several years- not trying to port to DOS or OS/2 etc.. (I'm a UNIX fan, myself). I once joked that MicroSoft should be paying us to develop on Win'95. :-) They are however, trying very hard to woo the gaming industry. Fortunately they're doing it with features and not just money. That and the fact that unless they screw up royally, Win'95 will be the #1 operating system for the next 5 years at least. Which for the marketing people at least, is reason enough. Kevin Klemmick Software Engineer, Spectrum HoloByte ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 7 : Issue 64 ]]