Conference 501clb::flight

I LOVE FLIGHT!

I still love Flight (and I also run F22 on my MMX pentium PC at home)! I would
not like to see it lost and if people were thinking of retiring it, how about
making the sources available for people to try the NT port? The database of
aircraft alone is worth keeping the code around for! If it needs a home, I'll
offer an Alpha machine with a Unix web server on it...

Craig.

I don't think it will actually GO AWAY anywhere.  But I don't see much point in
improving it any more.

I STARTED doing some major performance modifications and communications
protocol improvements, that would have allowed many more people to participate
in a single world.  But what's the point?  It's used sporadically and
occasionally by a handful of people.  I'm glad they (we) enjoy it, but there's
not much incentive to put time into improving it any more.

Paul

><<< Note 1428.9 by PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it" >>>

>I don't think it will actually GO AWAY anywhere.  But I don't see much point in
>improving it any more.

>I STARTED doing some major performance modifications and communications
>protocol improvements, that would have allowed many more people to participate
>in a single world.  But what's the point?  It's used sporadically and
>occasionally by a handful of people.  I'm glad they (we) enjoy it, but there's
>not much incentive to put time into improving it any more.

    
    Paul,

    If I had access to a VMS system where I could install it, I would use
    it.  However, my workstation, and nearly every workstation around me,
    is Windows NT.  Perhaps it is time to consider migrating FLIGHT to NT. 
    Of course, having said that, my first thought is "Are there even enough
    qualified programmers left in the company who could do the port?"

    Anyway, perhaps it is time.

    Ron

re: port to NT

I think the biggest problem is not "Who would do the port?" but "Who would use
it?"

When FLIGHT first hit the scene more than 10 years ago, it was at the forefront
of Flight-sim technology.  It was really cool beans.  But Flight-sim technology
has come a LOOONNNNGGG way in those 10 years.  Now, you can go spend $39 on any
of dozens Flight-sim products to run on your NT system that - visually at 
least - leave FLIGHT in the dust.  Heck, most of the $9.99 ones look better. 
Wireframe on a monochrome background just doesn't cut it any more.  And there
are plenty of sims out there that allow systems to connect and dogfight one
another, which was one of FLIGHT's leadership areas.

Not a whole lot has been done to FLIGHT for a long time, and all the other
flight sims have caught up and passed it.  And there CERTAINLY are not the
cycles around here to fix THAT.

Paul

    The big difference is that most of the flight engines available either
    can't handle multiple users in a peer-to-peer network, or they don't
    allow complete customization of everything from the aircraft to the
    worlds.
    
    For example, MSFS is cool, and it has scenery editors, aircraft design
    tools, and a bunch of neat plug-ins.  But even so, all (well, most) of
    the instrument panels are the same, and anything you make will fly
    pretty much like an airplane.  You certainly can't add special devices
    like radar, nuclear bombs, homing missiles, an X-15, etc., etc.
    And tweaking the flight characteristics is flexible for fixed wing, but
    rigid for anything else.  NCC-1701D will never fly the same on MSFS,
    and even if it did, where would it go?
    
    Likewise with the terrain editors.  True, MSFS is drop dead gorgeous
    (to some - others don't find it all that interesting at all), but you
    are limited in what you can design to items that have to do with the
    MSFS concepts of "flight sim".  
    
    There has never been, and probably never will be a system so flexible
    and open-ended (Domark tried it a while back, but it just never got
    popular enough, probably because it lacked extensibility).
    
    To me, Flight embodies the concepts of good solid design,
    extensibility, flexibility and open-endedness that so many other
    Digital products embodied, such as VMS itself.  No commercial product
    designed to meet todays time-to-market requirements will ever do that.
    
    jeb
    

    Also, while I'm at it...
    
    "Who would use it?" 
    
    You didn't REALLY ask that, did you?  You have to be able to see things
    from the PC side of things to know why thats a silly question.
    
    Sure, not many people use *V*M*S* flight anymore.  How come?  Well,
    lets see, you have to have an OpenVMS server, you have to have a
    workstation or terminal that speaks X, you have to have DECnet...
    
    Any hidden messages here?  I don't know about where you are, but here,
    VMS is dead and gone.  For mail, everyone is being transitioned to MS
    Exchange (of you thought Windows was a Virus, wait till you try THIS!)
    and no new VMS accounts are being given out.
    
    Admittedly, I'm in the PCBU, and admittledly there is a whole WORLD out
    there that isn't completely PC-centric.  But we're talking Unix, etc. 
    VAX/VMS/DECnet is history.  You might well ask of a fabulous video game
    designed for the Apple or the Commordore, "Who would use it if it were
    ported to the PC?".  The answer is, ALL EIGHTY MILLION OF THEM! 
    Already, Infocom has ported many of their TEXT-ONLY games to run on the
    PC, and they are selling!
    
    The problem with Flight, as with VMS, is you're thinking about it all
    wrong.  Flight was wildly popular in Digital because EVERYONE had
    access to a workstation (it took me a few years, but eventually I got
    one).  Now, EVERYONE at Digital (proactically - the rest, your days are
    numbered) has access to a PC.  
    
    As Sam Kinison said, "There's no food in the desert!  Move to where the
    food is!".  There are no users on a dead platform.  Go to PCs running
    Winsock!
    
    jeb
    

>              <<< Note 1428.12 by PCBUOA::BAYJ "Jim, Portables" >>>

>    The big difference is that most of the flight engines available either
>    can't handle multiple users in a peer-to-peer network, or they don't
>    allow complete customization of everything from the aircraft to the
>    worlds.

    Bingo!!!

    I fondly remember the days of developing aircraft for FLIGHT.  Tracking
    down documentation (drawings and specs), building my model, testing,
    modifying, testing, and repeating that until you felt you had it right.
    At first it was quite a challenge while you were learning the syntax of
    the FLIGHT language.  But eventually you figured most of it out and it
    became easier with each model you built.  What fun!  I loved it!  To be
    able to do this again on my workstation where I could fly locally or
    networked would be awesome and challenging.  By adding the ability to
    create solid representations of aircraft and worlds would only add to
    the challenge and I, for one, would love to try it.

    Ron

I would suspect that if the sources were available, people would try to do the
port. I would suspect that the reason to do it might just be for the fun of
doing it and learning something, even more than the playing of the game later...

Craig.

	I wonder what it would take to move the sources to 
	Borland Delphi (ie: Visual Pascal)??

							mike

    Well, as I mentioned in another note, I don't have any interest in
    Pascal.  It feels a little like caving in, but everywhere I look, all I
    see are companies looking for C++/MFC.  And much of the C++ will
    translate to Java, etc.
    
    Pascal was never one of my strong languages, so its not like I'd find
    the actual coding in Pascal to be "relaxing" or something like that. 
    Anything I do coding-wise, recreational or business, has to contribute
    to the core-skill set.  That the only job security there is, anymore.
    
    jeb
    

    Hi,
    
    Does someone still have the "special" hangars and worlds?
    I recently got a vaxstation that I can run flight on, and am looking
    for my all time favourites, like the grumman hellcat and the thunderbold.
    (actually all WWII planes that are not in the standard kit)
    Also the infamous midway world, and some european worlds I remember
    from decades ago, sigh...
    
    But a lot of the pointers in this file I tried are years old and those 
    systems no longer exists...
    
    Who still has some flight backup savesets for me to copy?
    
    Regards, Jan
    

Pretty much everything that still exists is in the V3.1 kit.  We did a lot of
trying to dig up all the old worlds and planes.  If it isn't on that kit,
then we don't know where it is.

See note 1406.1 for the release notes.

Paul

    A friend here want to try Flight.  I used to have a VMS workstation
    with a server, but its long gone.  I guess this is not the right note,
    but a pointer to a few active server worlds would be helpful.
    

    
    I have a world I running on node GRANDE (an Alpha with very
    little going on).  Server response should be excellent.
    
    The world is one I put together with Paul Guditz.  It started
    with the Desert world's mountains, and we placed 2 airports, 
    one with precision markings.  For some target practice, there 
    are a few hangars, a group of A10's parked on the tarmac, and 
    a few Stealth Fighters parked in hardenend bunkers.
    
    There are some experimental approach aids (e.g., floating
    rectangles serving as a glide slope indicator) which you'll
    have to ignore.  I could be convinced to rebuild the world
    without these if anyone cares.
    
    Feel free to enjoy it,
    Rich

RE: <<< Note 1428.20 by PCBUOA::BAYJ "Jim, Portables" >>>

I have a VAXstation 4000/90 running the FLIGHT server. It's node AIKAHI (DECnet
address 61.634). Please don't use it too heavily during the day.
						-- Tom