Well, sorta.

The "Falcon" series of flight-simulators have always held a special
place in my heart. Falcon 3.0 was the one of first real 'hard-core'
flight-sims I ever played (well... maybe... it depends on how 'hard
core' you consider MS Flight Sim). In many ways, its strict adherence
to realistic physics and flight (for its time) set the basis for what
I consider a simulator and what I see as just an arcade shooter. I
don't care how awesome the graphics are, if your game can't at least
match the fidelity of Falcon 3.0, you don't get to call your game a
sim.

(which, I suppose, technically means the first two Falcon games
wouldn't qualify... but shut up with your pedantry!!1! ;-)

Anyway, Microprose is announcing that they're bring Falcon back,
although what that means isn't exactly clear. In part, it reflects
that the company has (re)acquired the license to that IP. There are
suggestions that the company might be working on a new Falcon game.

Of course, the older games have been available - on Steam and GOG -
for years already, so in that regard there isn't any difference from
the end-user's point of view. They're STILL available, but are now
available under the new publisher's name. Not much of a difference.
And speculation about a sequel remain just that: speculation.

And it's not as if this new Microprose is the same as the classic game
company, even if "Wild Bill" Stealey - the founder of the original -
is involved with the revival. (And anyway, technically the Falcon
series was developed by Spectrum Holobyte anyway, which was a
competitor to Stealey's company until it purchased his baby out from
under him). So this new company having license to the game doesn't
mean that any of the old magic will be retained. The postulated
"Falcon 5.0" could be a mobile game with pay-to-bypass progress gates,
for all we know.

Regardless, it's good to see the Falcon series make the news again.
It's been too long a time since the series has been in the limelight.

On 05/05/2023 15:05, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The "Falcon" series of flight-simulators have always held a special
> place in my heart. Falcon 3.0 was the one of first real 'hard-core'
> flight-sims I ever played (well... maybe... it depends on how 'hard
> core' you consider MS Flight Sim). In many ways, its strict adherence
> to realistic physics and flight (for its time) set the basis for what
> I consider a simulator and what I see as just an arcade shooter. I
> don't care how awesome the graphics are, if your game can't at least
> match the fidelity of Falcon 3.0, you don't get to call your game a
> sim.

The only one I played was the first one on the Atari ST and it was great
having a nice chunky manual with all that information in it like
dogfighting and how to drop bombs where you want. The problem I found
though, it was just a bit too hard for my liking and it got to the stage
that I just didn't bother even trying to land as I knew what the result
would be.

That's probably why I liked Gunship more. Still enough to get your teeth
into (I still remember learning the how to do an auto-rotate landing
after an engine failure) but playable for me. Possibly I also liked it
as was slower placed so use the terrain to your advantage, pop-up, and
hellfires away!

The reboot, part of me says I should buy it for the nostalgia but the
sane part of me says, why would you do that when you never managed to
get into the first one. Now if the re-booted Gunship. Then I'd be tempted.

>That's probably why I liked Gunship more. Still enough to get your teeth
>into (I still remember learning the how to do an auto-rotate landing
>after an engine failure) but playable for me. Possibly I also liked it
>as was slower placed so use the terrain to your advantage, pop-up, and
>hellfires away!

>The reboot, part of me says I should buy it for the nostalgia but the
>sane part of me says, why would you do that when you never managed to
>get into the first one. Now if the re-booted Gunship. Then I'd be tempted.

Ah, "Gunship" and the heyday of helicopter sims. I broke my teeth on
EA's "LHX Attack Chopper" so that personally stands out as the 'great'
of that era. I missed the original "Gunship" entirely*, and only came
to the series with "Gunship 2000". It didn't quite match "LHX" in my
eyes, but I was impressed by the amount of detail on its maps. I
vaguely recall following trains that disappeared into tunnels in the
side of the mountains; it seemed incredibly realistic at the time.

(My memory insists that I then followed the train into the tunnel, but
- having gone back later - that's obviously incorrect. Tunnels were
Wile E Coyote-style textures drawn on a wall and not actually
traversable. Funny how our memory can trick us)

Of course, none of these games could match up with later greats like
"Hind", "Comanche" or Jane's "Longbow" games. But for all the detail
and realism added to those titles, they lost a lot of the
pick-up-n-fly fun of the older games. "LHX", for all its primitive
sound and visuals, is still a really fun game to jump into; it takes a
lot more effort for me to get engrossed with "Longbow" these days...

* I picked it up later, of course.

I remember borrowing this game from a guy in high school. I couldn't
have sound card audio due to lack of EMS in my IBM PS/2 model 30 286 10
Mhz PC. :( I thought its videos were neat back then. Haha. I remember
its HUGE heavy manual and so many 3.5" disks!

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, sorta.

> The "Falcon" series of flight-simulators have always held a special
> place in my heart. Falcon 3.0 was the one of first real 'hard-core'
> flight-sims I ever played (well... maybe... it depends on how 'hard
> core' you consider MS Flight Sim). In many ways, its strict adherence
> to realistic physics and flight (for its time) set the basis for what
> I consider a simulator and what I see as just an arcade shooter. I
> don't care how awesome the graphics are, if your game can't at least
> match the fidelity of Falcon 3.0, you don't get to call your game a
> sim.

> (which, I suppose, technically means the first two Falcon games
> wouldn't qualify... but shut up with your pedantry!!1! ;-)

> Anyway, Microprose is announcing that they're bring Falcon back,
> although what that means isn't exactly clear. In part, it reflects
> that the company has (re)acquired the license to that IP. There are
> suggestions that the company might be working on a new Falcon game.

> Of course, the older games have been available - on Steam and GOG -
> for years already, so in that regard there isn't any difference from
> the end-user's point of view. They're STILL available, but are now
> available under the new publisher's name. Not much of a difference.
> And speculation about a sequel remain just that: speculation.

> And it's not as if this new Microprose is the same as the classic game
> company, even if "Wild Bill" Stealey - the founder of the original -
> is involved with the revival. (And anyway, technically the Falcon
> series was developed by Spectrum Holobyte anyway, which was a
> competitor to Stealey's company until it purchased his baby out from
> under him). So this new company having license to the game doesn't
> mean that any of the old magic will be retained. The postulated
> "Falcon 5.0" could be a mobile game with pay-to-bypass progress gates,
> for all we know.

> Regardless, it's good to see the Falcon series make the news again.
> It's been too long a time since the series has been in the limelight.
--
"Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit... Repent and live!" --Ezekiel 18:31-32. May da 5th(also Cinco de Mayo) & 2morrow 6th B with U 4 da dark side. LAL lost their team's force last nite 2 beat GSW. Wolf3D is 31 yrs. old!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Fri, 05 May 2023 23:35:46 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>I remember borrowing this game from a guy in high school. I couldn't
>have sound card audio due to lack of EMS in my IBM PS/2 model 30 286 10
>Mhz PC. :( I thought its videos were neat back then. Haha. I remember
>its HUGE heavy manual and so many 3.5" disks!

Over the years, I've gotten rid of most of my DOS-era floppy disks.
More specifically, I've imaged the disks - first to ZIP disks, then
later moved those images CD-ROMs, then DVDs, and then external HDDs -
and tossed the original medium. It was a matter of storage; floppy
disks take up a lot of space and are just inconvenient to keep around.

But a few games were spared this culling. This included pretty much
everything made by Origin, but also a handful of other titles.

Falcon 3.0 is one of those lucky games. I still have all four of the
original 3.5" disks (3x 1.44mb, 1x 720kb). I don't actually use those
disks, but nostalgia makes me hang onto them. But whenever I want to
play the game, I'll just use the GOG version.*

The manuals I've kept too, of course. I've scanned and uploaded most
of them to archive.org (I still need to scan the rest of the
poster-sized maps, which is such a tedious chore that I've been
putting it off for years, but I'll get to it one of these days), if
you're interested in revisiting those old memories.

But getting the game to run always was a bit of a chore; it required a
minimum of 600K free conventional memory to run (620K to enable all
features), which could be tricky to achieve back when you had to worry
about mouse, sound, network and CD-ROM drivers. A dedicated boot
floppy just to run this game was often a requirement.

* Well, technically, I'll just launch my ultimate dos game collection
where the game is permanently installed... but the Falcon 3.0 files I
used came from the DOS install.

On Fri, 05 May 2023 10:05:03 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well, sorta.
>
>The "Falcon" series of flight-simulators have always held a special
>place in my heart. Falcon 3.0 was the one of first real 'hard-core'
>flight-sims I ever played (well... maybe... it depends on how 'hard
>core' you consider MS Flight Sim). In many ways, its strict adherence
>to realistic physics and flight (for its time) set the basis for what
>I consider a simulator and what I see as just an arcade shooter. I
>don't care how awesome the graphics are, if your game can't at least
>match the fidelity of Falcon 3.0, you don't get to call your game a
>sim.
>
>
>(which, I suppose, technically means the first two Falcon games
>wouldn't qualify... but shut up with your pedantry!!1! ;-)
>
>
>Anyway, Microprose is announcing that they're bring Falcon back,
>although what that means isn't exactly clear. In part, it reflects
>that the company has (re)acquired the license to that IP. There are
>suggestions that the company might be working on a new Falcon game.
>
>Of course, the older games have been available - on Steam and GOG -
>for years already, so in that regard there isn't any difference from
>the end-user's point of view. They're STILL available, but are now
>available under the new publisher's name. Not much of a difference.
>And speculation about a sequel remain just that: speculation.
>
>And it's not as if this new Microprose is the same as the classic game
>company, even if "Wild Bill" Stealey - the founder of the original -
>is involved with the revival. (And anyway, technically the Falcon
>series was developed by Spectrum Holobyte anyway, which was a
>competitor to Stealey's company until it purchased his baby out from
>under him). So this new company having license to the game doesn't
>mean that any of the old magic will be retained. The postulated
>"Falcon 5.0" could be a mobile game with pay-to-bypass progress gates,
>for all we know.
>
>Regardless, it's good to see the Falcon series make the news again.
>It's been too long a time since the series has been in the limelight.
>

*--

I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
so terrible!

-pw

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 23:35:46 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

> >I remember borrowing this game from a guy in high school. I couldn't
> >have sound card audio due to lack of EMS in my IBM PS/2 model 30 286 10
> >Mhz PC. :( I thought its videos were neat back then. Haha. I remember
> >its HUGE heavy manual and so many 3.5" disks!

> Over the years, I've gotten rid of most of my DOS-era floppy disks.
> More specifically, I've imaged the disks - first to ZIP disks, then
> later moved those images CD-ROMs, then DVDs, and then external HDDs -
> and tossed the original medium. It was a matter of storage; floppy
> disks take up a lot of space and are just inconvenient to keep around.

> But a few games were spared this culling. This included pretty much
> everything made by Origin, but also a handful of other titles.

> Falcon 3.0 is one of those lucky games. I still have all four of the
> original 3.5" disks (3x 1.44mb, 1x 720kb). I don't actually use those
> disks, but nostalgia makes me hang onto them. But whenever I want to
> play the game, I'll just use the GOG version.*

> The manuals I've kept too, of course. I've scanned and uploaded most
> of them to archive.org (I still need to scan the rest of the
> poster-sized maps, which is such a tedious chore that I've been
> putting it off for years, but I'll get to it one of these days), if
> you're interested in revisiting those old memories.

> But getting the game to run always was a bit of a chore; it required a
> minimum of 600K free conventional memory to run (620K to enable all
> features), which could be tricky to achieve back when you had to worry
> about mouse, sound, network and CD-ROM drivers. A dedicated boot
> floppy just to run this game was often a requirement.

> * Well, technically, I'll just launch my ultimate dos game collection
> where the game is permanently installed... but the Falcon 3.0 files I
> used came from the DOS install.

But do you still play it? ;) My parents kept my Firehawk game (Thexder
2) from the local Egghead store. Its retail box still has 3.5" and 5.25"
floppy disks. Ha!

--
"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2. May da 6th B with U 4 da dark side & I B coronated.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 10:05:03 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >Well, sorta.
> >
> >The "Falcon" series of flight-simulators have always held a special
> >place in my heart. Falcon 3.0 was the one of first real 'hard-core'
> >flight-sims I ever played (well... maybe... it depends on how 'hard
> >core' you consider MS Flight Sim). In many ways, its strict adherence
> >to realistic physics and flight (for its time) set the basis for what
> >I consider a simulator and what I see as just an arcade shooter. I
> >don't care how awesome the graphics are, if your game can't at least
> >match the fidelity of Falcon 3.0, you don't get to call your game a
> >sim.
> >
> >
> >(which, I suppose, technically means the first two Falcon games
> >wouldn't qualify... but shut up with your pedantry!!1! ;-)
> >
> >
> >Anyway, Microprose is announcing that they're bring Falcon back,
> >although what that means isn't exactly clear. In part, it reflects
> >that the company has (re)acquired the license to that IP. There are
> >suggestions that the company might be working on a new Falcon game.
> >
> >Of course, the older games have been available - on Steam and GOG -
> >for years already, so in that regard there isn't any difference from
> >the end-user's point of view. They're STILL available, but are now
> >available under the new publisher's name. Not much of a difference.
> >And speculation about a sequel remain just that: speculation.
> >
> >And it's not as if this new Microprose is the same as the classic game
> >company, even if "Wild Bill" Stealey - the founder of the original -
> >is involved with the revival. (And anyway, technically the Falcon
> >series was developed by Spectrum Holobyte anyway, which was a
> >competitor to Stealey's company until it purchased his baby out from
> >under him). So this new company having license to the game doesn't
> >mean that any of the old magic will be retained. The postulated
> >"Falcon 5.0" could be a mobile game with pay-to-bypass progress gates,
> >for all we know.
> >
> >Regardless, it's good to see the Falcon series make the news again.
> >It's been too long a time since the series has been in the limelight.
> >

> *--

> I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
> from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
> so terrible!

Why did you buy them then? LOL!
--
"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2. May da 6th B with U 4 da dark side & I B coronated.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Fri, 05 May 2023 14:44:13 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>That's probably why I liked Gunship more. Still enough to get your teeth
>>into (I still remember learning the how to do an auto-rotate landing
>>after an engine failure) but playable for me. Possibly I also liked it
>>as was slower placed so use the terrain to your advantage, pop-up, and
>>hellfires away!
>
>>The reboot, part of me says I should buy it for the nostalgia but the
>>sane part of me says, why would you do that when you never managed to
>>get into the first one. Now if the re-booted Gunship. Then I'd be tempted.
>
>
>Ah, "Gunship" and the heyday of helicopter sims. I broke my teeth on
>EA's "LHX Attack Chopper" so that personally stands out as the 'great'
>of that era. I missed the original "Gunship" entirely*, and only came
>to the series with "Gunship 2000". It didn't quite match "LHX" in my
>eyes, but I was impressed by the amount of detail on its maps. I
>vaguely recall following trains that disappeared into tunnels in the
>side of the mountains; it seemed incredibly realistic at the time.
>
>(My memory insists that I then followed the train into the tunnel, but
>- having gone back later - that's obviously incorrect. Tunnels were
>Wile E Coyote-style textures drawn on a wall and not actually
>traversable. Funny how our memory can trick us)
>
>Of course, none of these games could match up with later greats like
>"Hind", "Comanche" or Jane's "Longbow" games. But for all the detail
>and realism added to those titles, they lost a lot of the
>pick-up-n-fly fun of the older games. "LHX", for all its primitive
>sound and visuals, is still a really fun game to jump into; it takes a
>lot more effort for me to get engrossed with "Longbow" these days...
>
>
>
>
>* I picked it up later, of course.

*---

I agree with both you and JAB.

The Jane's sims were amazing.

-pw

On Fri, 05 May 2023 23:35:46 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>I remember borrowing this game from a guy in high school. I couldn't
>have sound card audio due to lack of EMS in my IBM PS/2 model 30 286 10
>Mhz PC. :( I thought its videos were neat back then. Haha. I remember
>its HUGE heavy manual and so many 3.5" disks!
>
*---
I have the original package and manual right next to me in a desk
drawer.

-pw

On 05/05/2023 19:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Of course, none of these games could match up with later greats like
> "Hind", "Comanche" or Jane's "Longbow" games. But for all the detail
> and realism added to those titles, they lost a lot of the
> pick-up-n-fly fun of the older games. "LHX", for all its primitive
> sound and visuals, is still a really fun game to jump into; it takes a
> lot more effort for me to get engrossed with "Longbow" these days...

I think I have a copy of Longbow 2 somewhere. I was really looking
forward to it as I had enjoyed Gunship so much but I just couldn't get
into it. I think it was at least in part my gaming tastes had changed
from thinking that having a really big manual was a good thing.

On Sun, 07 May 2023 01:57:55 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> * Well, technically, I'll just launch my ultimate dos game collection
>> where the game is permanently installed... but the Falcon 3.0 files I
>> used came from the DOS install.

>But do you still play it? ;)

Define "play". I fire it up, watch the intro, launch a mission,
crash-n-burn, watch the result in ACMI, quit. That's playing. But I
don't really engage with the game long-term; every time it's as if I
am starting anew (especially since I never remember the controls).

> My parents kept my Firehawk game (Thexder
>2) from the local Egghead store. Its retail box still has 3.5" and 5.25"
>floppy disks. Ha!

That wasn't that uncommon, although - as disk counts increased - it
was more common to find a "disk exchange coupon". Floppy disk costs
were actually took up a notable chunk of a game's price*, which is one
of the reasons the industry took up CD-ROMs so readily.

I only picked up Firehawk years after its release. I can't say I was
impressed, although its age definitely worked against it. The original
"Thexder" felt amazing, with its transforming robot/ship mechanic and
awesome soundtrack (I played the game first on an Apple ][gs).
"Firehawk" felt a lot less novel; it's visuals weren't anywhere near
as impressive (it's soundtrack was still great) and its gameplay felt
shallow in comparison to contempary games. The boxart was the best
thing about the game, and that was hardly worth the price of
admission. It was a very disappointing purchase for me.

* not just because of the cost of the medium, although we forget how
expensive floppies were in the early days. But those disks had to be
copied (which was time consuming), labels had to be printed, and the
weight of those floppies added to the bulk of the packaging and how
much it cost to ship them. Dropping a single floppy disk from a game
could result in significant savings for the publisher

On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>
>I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>so terrible!

Well, if you have four Falcons, that includes "Falcon 4.0", and while
that game is dated, I wouldn't call its visuals terrible. Especially
if you use the BMS update for the game*

But even in its vanilla form, "Falcon 4.0" can be quite pretty. Yeah,
its limited resolution (I think it maxed out at 800x600) and lower-res
textures show its age, but everything is easily recognizable.

Then again, I can even see the beauty in "Falcon 3.0" visuals (and
from a purely intellectual POV, that game's blocky 3D polygons are
/really/ rough, but nostalgia smooths out a lot of the rough edges). I
really have to go back to the original game - released way back in
1987 - before I struggle with the graphics, and that largely because
of the color pallette and extremely low resolution. The Tandy version
is a bit more bearable (more colors) but I didn't have access to that
until DOSBox made it a viable option.=

* see some screenshots of the fan-mod in action here:
https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/

>
>> I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>> from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>> so terrible!
>
>Why did you buy them then? LOL!

*--

Something called nostalgia I guess :-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2023 01:57:55 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
> >Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> * Well, technically, I'll just launch my ultimate dos game collection
> >> where the game is permanently installed... but the Falcon 3.0 files I
> >> used came from the DOS install.

> >But do you still play it? ;)

> Define "play". I fire it up, watch the intro, launch a mission,
> crash-n-burn, watch the result in ACMI, quit. That's playing. But I
> don't really engage with the game long-term; every time it's as if I
> am starting anew (especially since I never remember the controls).

Ha, that sounds like me when I tried the game. I'm glad I didn't buy it! Also, back then we didn't have playable demos, sharewares, etc. ;)

> > My parents kept my Firehawk game (Thexder
> >2) from the local Egghead store. Its retail box still has 3.5" and 5.25"
> >floppy disks. Ha!

> That wasn't that uncommon, although - as disk counts increased - it
> was more common to find a "disk exchange coupon". Floppy disk costs
> were actually took up a notable chunk of a game's price*, which is one
> of the reasons the industry took up CD-ROMs so readily.

> I only picked up Firehawk years after its release. I can't say I was
> impressed, although its age definitely worked against it. The original
> "Thexder" felt amazing, with its transforming robot/ship mechanic and
> awesome soundtrack (I played the game first on an Apple ][gs).
> "Firehawk" felt a lot less novel; it's visuals weren't anywhere near
> as impressive (it's soundtrack was still great) and its gameplay felt
> shallow in comparison to contempary games. The boxart was the best
> thing about the game, and that was hardly worth the price of
> admission. It was a very disappointing purchase for me.

I actually enjoyed Firehawk as a Thexder 1 (never finished it -- too
hard) fan. However, its boss ending was SO stupid/lame!

> * not just because of the cost of the medium, although we forget how
> expensive floppies were in the early days. But those disks had to be
> copied (which was time consuming), labels had to be printed, and the
> weight of those floppies added to the bulk of the packaging and how
> much it cost to ship them. Dropping a single floppy disk from a game
> could result in significant savings for the publisher

But we could reuse them. ;)
--
"Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits--who forgives all our sins and heals all our diseases..." --Psalm 103:2-3. Male alates doesn't get coronated 2 B a king. Yay 4 LAL & 76ers!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Sun, 07 May 2023 12:09:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 -0600, PW
><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>>from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>>so terrible!
>
>Well, if you have four Falcons, that includes "Falcon 4.0", and while
>that game is dated, I wouldn't call its visuals terrible. Especially
>if you use the BMS update for the game*
>
>But even in its vanilla form, "Falcon 4.0" can be quite pretty. Yeah,
>its limited resolution (I think it maxed out at 800x600) and lower-res
>textures show its age, but everything is easily recognizable.
>
>Then again, I can even see the beauty in "Falcon 3.0" visuals (and
>from a purely intellectual POV, that game's blocky 3D polygons are
>/really/ rough, but nostalgia smooths out a lot of the rough edges). I
>really have to go back to the original game - released way back in
>1987 - before I struggle with the graphics, and that largely because
>of the color pallette and extremely low resolution. The Tandy version
>is a bit more bearable (more colors) but I didn't have access to that
>until DOSBox made it a viable option.=
>
>
>
>
>* see some screenshots of the fan-mod in action here:
>https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/
>

*--
Falcon, Falcon4.0, Falcon A.T. and Falcon Gold.

Must have been a package deal on Steam!

Just like the "May The Fourth Be With You" deal on Fanatical/Steam :-)

-pw

On Sun, 07 May 2023 12:09:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 -0600, PW
><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>>from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>>so terrible!
>
>Well, if you have four Falcons, that includes "Falcon 4.0", and while
>that game is dated, I wouldn't call its visuals terrible. Especially
>if you use the BMS update for the game*
>
>But even in its vanilla form, "Falcon 4.0" can be quite pretty. Yeah,
>its limited resolution (I think it maxed out at 800x600) and lower-res
>textures show its age, but everything is easily recognizable.
>
>Then again, I can even see the beauty in "Falcon 3.0" visuals (and
>from a purely intellectual POV, that game's blocky 3D polygons are
>/really/ rough, but nostalgia smooths out a lot of the rough edges). I
>really have to go back to the original game - released way back in
>1987 - before I struggle with the graphics, and that largely because
>of the color pallette and extremely low resolution. The Tandy version
>is a bit more bearable (more colors) but I didn't have access to that
>until DOSBox made it a viable option.=
>
>
>
>
>* see some screenshots of the fan-mod in action here:
>https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/
>
*--

I just booted up F4. Selected Direct3D instead of software and upped
all the graphics settings and it is very choppy!! LOL!

I guess I need to turn the settings down on this old game! :-)

-pw

On 5/7/2023 6:57 PM, PW wrote:
>
>>
>>> I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>>> from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>>> so terrible!
>>
>> Why did you buy them then? LOL!
>
> Something called nostalgia I guess :-)

You should ask Nostalgia for your money back with interest.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>On Sun, 07 May 2023 01:57:55 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>* not just because of the cost of the medium, although we forget how
>expensive floppies were in the early days. But those disks had to be
>copied (which was time consuming), labels had to be printed, and the
>weight of those floppies added to the bulk of the packaging and how
>much it cost to ship them. Dropping a single floppy disk from a game
>could result in significant savings for the publisher

I still remember the price of the very first floppy I bought
5 1/4 inch, 160kb, single sided, $10 per disk.

Also remember manually double siding them in high school law class with
a pencil, slip of paper and an exacto knife.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

On Mon, 08 May 2023 01:57:17 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 May 2023 01:57:55 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>> >Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> * Well, technically, I'll just launch my ultimate dos game collection
>> >> where the game is permanently installed... but the Falcon 3.0 files I
>> >> used came from the DOS install.
>
>> >But do you still play it? ;)
>
>> Define "play". I fire it up, watch the intro, launch a mission,
>> crash-n-burn, watch the result in ACMI, quit. That's playing. But I
>> don't really engage with the game long-term; every time it's as if I
>> am starting anew (especially since I never remember the controls).
>
>Ha, that sounds like me when I tried the game. I'm glad I didn't buy it!
>Also, back then we didn't have playable demos, sharewares, etc. ;)

Oh, I've /played/ "Falcon 3.0" in the past. Back in the early 90s, I
was a big fan of flight-simulators, and "Falcon 3.0" was one of the
best of them. Back in the day, I was quite good at the game.

It's only NOWADAYS that I have problems with the program. I've
forgotten all the keypresses, all the tricks, all the techniques to
master the F-16. Partly this is just due to the length of time that's
passed, but mostly it's from a lack of interest. Flight-sims don't
grab me the same way they used to, and even if they did, "Falcon
3.0's" presentation can be a bit rough.

There actually was, IIRC, a demo for "Falcon 3.0", but of course the
limited connectivity of the era meant that most people never got to
play it.

(I vaguely recall seeing it being offered as a 'sample disk' sold for
a buck or two - yes, back in the day you sometimes had to pay for a
demo! - next to the cash register of some game shoppe. but it probably
was available as a download from the Microprose ftp site, or as a
pack-in with some gaming magazine)

On Sun, 07 May 2023 20:28:35 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 May 2023 12:09:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 -0600, PW
>><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>>>from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>>>so terrible!
>>
>>Well, if you have four Falcons, that includes "Falcon 4.0", and while
>>that game is dated, I wouldn't call its visuals terrible. Especially
>>if you use the BMS update for the game*
>>
>>But even in its vanilla form, "Falcon 4.0" can be quite pretty. Yeah,
>>its limited resolution (I think it maxed out at 800x600) and lower-res
>>textures show its age, but everything is easily recognizable.
>>
>>Then again, I can even see the beauty in "Falcon 3.0" visuals (and
>>from a purely intellectual POV, that game's blocky 3D polygons are
>>/really/ rough, but nostalgia smooths out a lot of the rough edges). I
>>really have to go back to the original game - released way back in
>>1987 - before I struggle with the graphics, and that largely because
>>of the color pallette and extremely low resolution. The Tandy version
>>is a bit more bearable (more colors) but I didn't have access to that
>>until DOSBox made it a viable option.=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>* see some screenshots of the fan-mod in action here:
>>https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/
>>
>*--
>
>I just booted up F4. Selected Direct3D instead of software and upped
>all the graphics settings and it is very choppy!! LOL!
>
>I guess I need to turn the settings down on this old game! :-)

Try the native game on original hardware. "Falcon 4.0" was one of
those games that just didn't run well on more advanced hardware; it
was tuned to maximize performance from the accelerators and APIs of
its day, but a lot of those tricks and techniques don't work that well
with modern computers.

(And yes, it's one of the first games I put onto my newly-rebuilt
Windows98 PC, for just that reason).

The BMS fan-patch (linked above) helps by modifying the code to run
better with today's advanced GPUs and operating systems. Of course, it
also ups the game's visual fidelity, which means it needs a lot
beefier hardware than the game originally did. ;-)

But, speaking from experience, "Falcon 4.0" runs fairly well on a
Pentium II 400 MHz with a Voodoo3 (as it should, since it was designed
to run on hardware significantly less powerful than that). In fact,
the graphics and performance of "Falcon 4.0" were quite impressive for
the time. I don't want to say it was an excellently programmed game -
on release, it was incredibly buggy - but it was amazing how much
performance they eked out of the hardware of its day.

TL;DR: don't judge "Falcon 4.0" by how it runs on hardware it wasn't
designed to run on. ;-)

On Mon, 08 May 2023 10:49:11 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 May 2023 20:28:35 -0600, PW
><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 May 2023 12:09:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 May 2023 18:51:35 -0600, PW
>>><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I will buy it regardless of the ratings. I have four Falcons installed
>>>>from Steam, but I haven't spent much time with them. The graphics are
>>>>so terrible!
>>>
>>>Well, if you have four Falcons, that includes "Falcon 4.0", and while
>>>that game is dated, I wouldn't call its visuals terrible. Especially
>>>if you use the BMS update for the game*
>>>
>>>But even in its vanilla form, "Falcon 4.0" can be quite pretty. Yeah,
>>>its limited resolution (I think it maxed out at 800x600) and lower-res
>>>textures show its age, but everything is easily recognizable.
>>>
>>>Then again, I can even see the beauty in "Falcon 3.0" visuals (and
>>>from a purely intellectual POV, that game's blocky 3D polygons are
>>>/really/ rough, but nostalgia smooths out a lot of the rough edges). I
>>>really have to go back to the original game - released way back in
>>>1987 - before I struggle with the graphics, and that largely because
>>>of the color pallette and extremely low resolution. The Tandy version
>>>is a bit more bearable (more colors) but I didn't have access to that
>>>until DOSBox made it a viable option.=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>* see some screenshots of the fan-mod in action here:
>>>https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/
>>>
>>*--
>>
>>I just booted up F4. Selected Direct3D instead of software and upped
>>all the graphics settings and it is very choppy!! LOL!
>>
>>I guess I need to turn the settings down on this old game! :-)
>
>Try the native game on original hardware. "Falcon 4.0" was one of
>those games that just didn't run well on more advanced hardware; it
>was tuned to maximize performance from the accelerators and APIs of
>its day, but a lot of those tricks and techniques don't work that well
>with modern computers.
>
>(And yes, it's one of the first games I put onto my newly-rebuilt
>Windows98 PC, for just that reason).
>
>The BMS fan-patch (linked above) helps by modifying the code to run
>better with today's advanced GPUs and operating systems. Of course, it
>also ups the game's visual fidelity, which means it needs a lot
>beefier hardware than the game originally did. ;-)
>
>But, speaking from experience, "Falcon 4.0" runs fairly well on a
>Pentium II 400 MHz with a Voodoo3 (as it should, since it was designed
>to run on hardware significantly less powerful than that). In fact,
>the graphics and performance of "Falcon 4.0" were quite impressive for
>the time. I don't want to say it was an excellently programmed game -
>on release, it was incredibly buggy - but it was amazing how much
>performance they eked out of the hardware of its day.
>
>
>TL;DR: don't judge "Falcon 4.0" by how it runs on hardware it wasn't
>designed to run on. ;-)

*--

What link Spalls? I went to the photo gallery one and the version I
have doesn't look like that!!

Why doesn't Steam update 4.0? Is there a link I missed?

Thanks!!

-pw

On Mon, 08 May 2023 21:22:34 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>What link Spalls? I went to the photo gallery one and the version I
>have doesn't look like that!!

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The mod is hosted at
https://www.falcon-bms.com/downloads/
(note: you need to download the base v4.37 patch, and the 4.371 and
4.372 updates)

It is a fan-made mod for Falcon 4.0; the default game won't match the
visuals of the gallery until you add the mod.

>Why doesn't Steam update 4.0? Is there a link I missed?

You need to download and install the mod outside of Steam.

To be honest, I haven't used BMS with the Steam version so I can't say
how well the two interact (both the Steam and GOG versions are
officially supported, however). I haven't, in fact, used it in several
years. I played around with it when I first learned about it (in
2020?) but decided that what I really wanted was the vanilla
experience on native hardware.

But if you really want to get into Falcon 4.0 (as opposed to just
dinking about with it to satisfy a nostalgic itch), the BMS mod
is probably the best way to do it. You'll get better performance and
visuals, and numerous added features

(I gotta say, the addition of the F-104 Starfighter is a tempting
addition to me. For all its flaws, it was in many ways the prototype
to the F-16 - an inexpensive, nimble, multi-role dogfighter - that too
few simulations include in their repitoires).

But like a lot of comprehensive fan-mods, getting it to run can be a
bit complicated. And even without it, "Falcon 4.0" was a complicated
game to begin with. It isn't quite up to DCS levels of realism (where,
if you turn on all the realism options, just starting up your plane
can take half an hour), but it's definitely up there...

On Tue, 09 May 2023 10:42:53 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 May 2023 21:22:34 -0600, PW
><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>
>>What link Spalls? I went to the photo gallery one and the version I
>>have doesn't look like that!!
>
>
>Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The mod is hosted at
>https://www.falcon-bms.com/downloads/
>(note: you need to download the base v4.37 patch, and the 4.371 and
>4.372 updates)
>
>It is a fan-made mod for Falcon 4.0; the default game won't match the
>visuals of the gallery until you add the mod.
>
>>Why doesn't Steam update 4.0? Is there a link I missed?
>
>You need to download and install the mod outside of Steam.
>
>To be honest, I haven't used BMS with the Steam version so I can't say
>how well the two interact (both the Steam and GOG versions are
>officially supported, however). I haven't, in fact, used it in several
>years. I played around with it when I first learned about it (in
>2020?) but decided that what I really wanted was the vanilla
>experience on native hardware.
>
>But if you really want to get into Falcon 4.0 (as opposed to just
>dinking about with it to satisfy a nostalgic itch), the BMS mod
>is probably the best way to do it. You'll get better performance and
>visuals, and numerous added features
>
>(I gotta say, the addition of the F-104 Starfighter is a tempting
>addition to me. For all its flaws, it was in many ways the prototype
>to the F-16 - an inexpensive, nimble, multi-role dogfighter - that too
>few simulations include in their repitoires).
>
>But like a lot of comprehensive fan-mods, getting it to run can be a
>bit complicated. And even without it, "Falcon 4.0" was a complicated
>game to begin with. It isn't quite up to DCS levels of realism (where,
>if you turn on all the realism options, just starting up your plane
>can take half an hour), but it's definitely up there...
>
>

*--

Thanks Spalls for your follow through. I am not going to spend the
effort doing this.

You are a good guy!

-pw

On Tue, 09 May 2023 20:13:51 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>
>Thanks Spalls for your follow through. I am not going to spend the
>effort doing this.

Understandable. It's a lot of effort and, frankly, unless you are a
die-hard Falcon fan, probably not worth the effort. As much as I love
the series, I will be the first to admit it's been superseded by more
modern titles, which also have the benefit of simpler installations.

Mostly, I brought up the BMS mod as a defense of the venerable "Falcon
4.0" game, proving that despite its age it is still capable of some
stunning visuals. ;-)