cctalk Digest, Vol 15, Issue 15

From: Robert Greenstreet <>
Date: Thu Nov 11 17:08:35 2004

> This is really cool:
> Sellam Ismail
> Vintage Computer Festival
>>What's the point? If you want an Enigma copy, then build a real
>>mechanical one (not at all impossible in a good home workshop). If you
>>want an encryption system, then use one of the many more secure ones that
>>are available now, If for some reason you want to be able to
>>encode/decode enigma messages, it's not hard to write a suitable program
>>for a good handheld computer/calculator.

>>This seems to be as pointless as those fake 'old radios' that look like
>>pre-war sets but which have ICs inside (or the UK 'copies' of 1960's
>>transistor portables with the FM band and ICs inside). If you want a
>>valve radio, then get one...


OK, naysayers. Fine, be that way... But I commend anyone who takes the time
to make such a kit. I think it's incredibly cool--just like the various
emulations from the paper versions to the simulator versions to the real
copies. They all took a great deal of thought and planning. "Dissing"
something like this reminds me of when I still had a shot at flying for my
once great company. One of the chief pilots in charge of (pilot) hiring had
_nothing_ good to say about simulators at all. He especially _hated_ any PC
version of a fltsim. In point of fact, ual had one of the best pilot
training programs on the planet, and guess what(?), like all airlines, they
train in the sim (full motion, awesomely realistic). The final checkride is
in the real thing (to my knowledge, the final checkouts were done on
revenue flights). Sims must not be all that bad, eh? Not everyone has
access to full motion sims--in fact, almost no one does...

I fell in love with the first sim I ever saw. It was a "terrain modeling
board" based T-37 full motion sim. Later, we got to fly the cgi versions
(which were nightime only, due to the limited graphics capabilities
available when they were made). T-38 sims were all cgi based (No mechinal
stuff to break down, and it was the instrumentation that they were
interested in). In 1980, this stuff seemed "spaced-aged" (esp. the cgi
sims, which were crude by today's standards). I've been following PC based
fltsims since the early days (and they really were crude by today's
standards). There are those who still have nothing good to say about
PC-based sims, but I can't say enough good about them. Apparently, a
difference in perception...

(And, yes, I acknowledge that there is no substitute for the real thing,
but they truly are one of the most efficient ways ever devised to turn gold
into thin air, and they take up a lot of space and need lots of care and
attention! It's definitely a trade-off...)

Bob Greenstreet
Received on Thu Nov 11 2004 - 17:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:16 BST