Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!mordor!styx!twg-ap!amdahl!meccts!meccsd!mecc!zeke!todd
From: todd@zeke.UUCP (Todd Burkey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Flight Simulator II
Message-ID: <124@zeke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 16:17:02 EST
Article-I.D.: zeke.124
Posted: Mon Jan  5 16:17:02 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Jan-87 21:08:58 EST
References: <2280@well.UUCP> <1838@sunybcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: todd@zeke.UUCP (Todd Burkey)
Organization: Zycad Corporation, St. Paul, Mn
Lines: 50
Keywords: Atari Amiga

In article <1838@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@gort.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes:
>In article <2280@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>>   ... I also feel
>>   that emulating the GEM interface was the WRONG choice.
>
>	That's an understatement -- very stupid choice on their part, in
>my opinion.  I can't imagine that using Intuition menus was any more
>difficult than writing their own utilities from near scratch.  On
>second thought, maybe that was the problem:  "Hell, I wrote these here
>neat menu routines so I'm usin' 'em!"
>
Why blame GEM? I have a MAC, Amiga, and an ST at home and while it is true
that Flight Simulator came out on the ST before the AMIGA, it is quite
obvious that they used the MAC style interface as opposed to the ST. It is
true that it feels foreign...even to an ST owner. I think I understand why
they chose it, though. If you note the exact way the buttons are used, it
would be awkward to reserve one button for activating just the menu
selections (aka the amiga right button). Instead, it seems practical to only
let you pull down the menu the few times you actually want it (i.e. the hard
way) and give you more control over flight by using both buttons. I know I
would find it very disconcerting to be accidentally pulling menus down when
I meant to be just moving a window aside for a quick view of the map or
whatever...

Don't flame me for having all three computers...The Mac is a carryover from
the days when I thought monochrome graphics and 5.7MHz compiling speed was
enough and the Amiga is used for some development. Sorry, guys, but I still
prefer the ST for major program development (i.e. my VAX VMS and UNIX code
ports back and forth very easily...both MW C and OSS Pascal) at home, and as
a VAX VT100 terminal with drafting capability (Generic Cadd) at work. You
can flame me for the following statement. I do wish more time would go into
real product development on the AMIGA than in putting together demos and
complex public domain products. I think the AMIGA is an excellent machine,
but it really needs some nice, tightly integrated packages for retailers to
be able to sell (i.e. for a profit) to get it into the business market. I
know, I know. I can say the same about the ST, but at least on the ST, it is
fairly trivial to port IBM PC software over, so we will see things like Open
Access and more accounting packages than we know what to do with (as long
as they are written in C or Basic...). I have a PC clone, too...it makes a
great BBS, but is useful for little else except eating up boards (hmm, I
think I have got everyone incensed now.)

   Todd Burkey
   ..!mecc!zeke!todd


-- 
   -Todd Burkey
    ZYCAD Corporation
    ..!mecc!zeke!todd