David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been deleting the combat thread unread, but I got the impression
that there was a lot of heated discussion about military stuff.
If you would have read it, then you would have got the impression that
it was far not that heated as you'd expected it
On Tuesday 11 Nov 2003 10:07 am, Martin Spott wrote:
Although I dislike to see combat features in FlightGear I must admit
that it's quite some fun to fly these birds - there are no civilian
equivalents with that much power and speed
At least, now that the Concorde fleet is retired. Alpha
Jonathan Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 11 Nov 2003 10:07 am, Martin Spott wrote:
Although I dislike to see combat features in FlightGear I must admit
that it's quite some fun to fly these birds - there are no civilian
equivalents with that much power and speed
At least,
Hopefully will not be another shoot'em up, actually doubt anyone would
let that happen right? Realism is the name of the game?
Why cannot both co-exist? Anyone think of any Flight sim on any platform
that is a great Civilian flightsim and also has very accurate warplanes
Yeah, I thought on that
Matevz Jekovec wrote:
However, Project Phoenix (www.phoenix-project.org) is aimed to be an
OpenFalcon style of the game and they are observing our FG work very
closely as they will probably take it for the base. They are planning to
implement a new 3d heart though (OGRE running on SDL is a
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:46:01PM +, Martin Spott wrote:
At least, now that the Concorde fleet is retired.
Oh my god, how could I forget the Concorde - and it's counterpart, the
TU-144 !?! We have both here in static display at Sinsheim,
I can't forget them... I see
Manuel Bessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:46:01PM +, Martin Spott wrote:
Oh my god, how could I forget the Concorde - and it's counterpart, the
TU-144 !?! We have both here in static display at Sinsheim,
I can't forget them... I see them every time I look
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to say that it's the capabilities of military aircraft that I
find interesting, both in terms of aerodynamics and in the weapon
systems. Not the use of them.
Absolutely not. I think I know a bit about modern military aircraft and
their weapons
[Starting a new thread, since the original is getting a little strung
out. :)]
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid
Andy Ross writes:
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid implementing:
I've been deleting the combat thread unread,
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:17, David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, David Megginson wrote:
[...] I
also (personally) think we're a little heavy on the warbirds
(especially U.S.) and would like to see more civilian aircraft, but
I'm too lazy to get off my behind and make them, so I guess I don't
have a right to complain.
Speaking of
On Monday 10 November 2003 23:47, Andy Ross wrote:
[Starting a new thread, since the original is getting a little strung
out. :)]
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are
13 matches
Mail list logo
