To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: falcon3 (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V3 : I58 Falcon3 Digest Volume 3 : Issue 58 Mon Jun 28 08:10:42 PDT 1993 Compilation copyright (C) 1993 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] Today's Topics: Falcon 4, as rumored on America On- jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Whoa...! Robear Electronic Battlefield John Asa Price Re: Falcon 3.0 w/DOS 6.0/DBLSPACE cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cis Re: Falcon3 with DOS 6 Paul Bramel DBLSPACE, Falcon4 Korhonen Tommi ------------------------------------------------------------ From: jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Falcon 4, as rumored on America On-Line On AOL, the Spec Holo person claimed to those of us clamoring in the "Suggestions for Falcon 4.0" area that Falcon 4.0 would include major AWACS and FAC support. Detail, of course, not provided. I think that some other things were mentioned by them as well; I got the impression there that F4 would indeed be a major overhaul. I forget where the "no big changes" info came from (Robear sent it in, but I've deleted the messages...) Are we both relying on Spec Holo statements? If so, something is fishy in California. 8) James Sterrett jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca ------------------------------- From: Robear Subject: Whoa...! I've seen a few responses already to the effect that Falcon4 will not live up to people's expectations. This is silly. The game is probably a year away, they are certainly not telling us everything, so we can't know enough to speculate. Right now, Falcon4 is described as primarily an EBS-focussed product, but the fact that I personally didn't hear anything about graphics upgrades or other neat additions does not mean they aren't there. If you are concerned, don't bother trying to fan speculation here based on the tiny tidbits I have. Write SH as they asked to provide your input on the game. Here's your chance to contribute. David Pipes ------------------------------- From: John Asa Price Subject: Electronic Battlefield Perhaps one of my greatest fears (Re: Falcon4) is that SH will decide that the best way to do their electronic battlefield is over some sort of network like AirWarrior. I think it would be to the benefit of all of us if there was a separate standard developed for the Electronic Battlefield which could be run on ANY BBS and would allow connection from many different companies' products. Think of it: Your local BBS with a complete EBS. Included in this would be Electronic Infantry, Tanks, Naval and Aerial components. Some controlled by people, some by computers. The main trick would be to keep the playing field level. But the advantages would be that multiple combatants could meet and the only cost would be for the hardware and software involved. There would be no middle man making wads of money for doing nothing (Apologies to Amway folks!). Anybody interested in developing this standard which would then be proposed to the major simulation companies? -- John Price PC Host Group SAS Institute, Inc. (919) 677-8000x 6976 (919) 266-4138 ------------------------------- From: cisko@d0tokensun.fnal.gov (Greg Cisko) Subject: Re: Falcon 3.0 w/DOS 6.0/DBLSPACE >From: sean.kerns@sdrc.com (sean kerns) >Subject: Re:Falcon 3.0 w/DOS 6.0/DBLSPACE >Someone wrote that he was having trouble getting >Falcon to run in DOS6 with DBLSPACE. I had the same >problem. >I never was able to get it all to work. >I could get the game itself to load, but I had to >give up either the sound card or the mouse to do it. Just exactly what type of info do you need? I have DOS6 & DBLSPACE on my machine. I have the mouse, falcon & sound working as before. If you ran MEMMAKER then you should have your device drivers & TSR's in the UMB's (properly). With the new EMM386 you should also have enough expanded & extended memory available. So, without more info it is difficult to tell exactly what your problem is. Greg Cisko ------------------------------- From: Paul Bramel Subject: Re: Falcon3 with DOS 6 > From: sean.kerns@sdrc.com (sean kerns) > Subject: Re:Falcon 3.0 w/DOS 6.0/DBLSPACE > > Someone wrote that he was having trouble getting > Falcon to run in DOS6 with DBLSPACE. I had the same > problem. > I never was able to get it all to work. > I could get the game itself to load, but I had to > give up either the sound card or the mouse to do it. I been running Falcon 3.0 with DOS6 and DBLSPACE for a while now with no problems, although Falcon is not in my compressed area. It sounds like your DBLSPACE is not being loaded high. DBLSPACE is loaded into conventional memory by default if you don't tell it explicitly to load high. Try adding a line like the following to your config.sys: DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\DBLSPACE.SYS Now, if anybody can help me with a problem I'm having. On my computer at work, I have lost all sound effects (I'm just using the PC speaker). All sound options in the config screens are set to PC-Speaker, and the ALL ON option is selected from the menu bar. Any ideas? Paul Bramel paulbr@comm.mot.com ------------------------------- From: Korhonen Tommi Subject: DBLSPACE, Falcon4 My idea of DOS 6.0's doublespace is not a thing to post here... As the compression is uncompressable without great efforts, and many people just compress all their space without thinking. Microsoft will take huge amounts money for the "suppport program" which will eventually take care of the problem. Stacker 3.0 had very nice features, among the others the possibility to change the size of your compressed space. All while running. So that way you could save normal space for games that need it. After I got myself 250 Megs disk I haven't compressed it yet. And it'll stay uncompressed until the last moment. Just because it is safer that way, and even rare crashes are avoided. And that lets me dig up to 628 kb or something from my machine, using normal himem.sys. ========= In last digest someone hoped for better resolution for graphics in falcon 4. That would really be good, as now a plane looks like a flying brick until it zooming inside your cockpit. And then on greater magnifications there are these HUGE migs flying around. Talk about flying elephants... In many games the extra resolution costs speed, which I do not want to lose any more, even if I have 40 Mhz 386er. But if the graphics stayed polygon (Heaven forbid bitmaps!!) the good routines of falcon could be able to work it out. Right? BTW, does anyone know if the use of math co-prosessor really adds up frame rate? As I told I tried it on my friend's 486 and it felt like it. Really? T.Korhonen *** Women are like Thorny Roses: *** k138836@cc.tut.fi ** Look beautiful, smell fine, ** Physics & Something *** a moment and then they wither away *** ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 3 : Issue 58 ]]