by Eric Larson, LT USN January 12th, 2000

  Yes, even at the higher resolutions if you move the view a little clarity suffers. When looking straight ahead all lines are crisp and clean, but as soon as you move a little bit those lines are at an angle and now are comprised of a "collection" of vertical lines, placed together to make an appearance of an angular line and your eye can see this. But its not too bad.

The virtual cockpit is a good thing in my opinion and anything that makes it easier to slew your view around is a good thing. I think this sim is uniquely suited to the UnionReality-type of head tracker system. Would really like to see a J's F18 and UR setup.

Frame Rate.

As previously noted, the program was running on an experimental 600MHz machine on Win98, v-card unknown, RAM unknown. I didn't know how to activate the frame rate counter (or where to look for it), but just by guesstimation, I would say I was getting about 15-20 fps with all the options maxed out.

Now, there was *never* anything that could be called a slideshow (even when flying through volumetric clouds), but the rendering was "perceptible" - not silky smooth. Hopefully, there is some serious optimization going on behind the scenes at Janes. I'm told that F-18 is frozen, so - no more new code. I hope that means optimization continues... (this article was written in early December. Ed.)

WEAX

Speaking of volumetric clouds, weather is another shining point in this sim - something the GOTS sims don't even touch - you're lucky to even get NIGHT. FlightSafety International does weather, even has T-storm cells. Looks pretty good.

The other military sims I saw at the conference can pretty much model what J's F-15 did in the "heavy weather" option: Pretty much a universal fog effect. I don't know if F-18 does this, but, as per Scott Higgins - Marketing for Janes - it *is* able to show rain and snow (even hitting the canopy and being driven back in the slipstream!) Sounds like good stuff...

Stability.

First off, the good news - for you F4 pilots wary of the infamous CTD: Didn't see a single one! The bad news: Had a few BSODs. Actually, quite a few. Strange ones, too - couldn't even do a normal shutdown - had to hit the big red switch in back (no RESET button on this rig, either). But, keep in mind, the box *was* experimental.

Sounds.

Really didn't have time to experiment fully with this aspect of the sim. As stated before, the speakers weren't even plugged in until the last two days. Once the speakers were connected, there was a BIG difference between internal and external views when it came to sounds. It is very quiet inside the aircraft, but once you switch to an external view things get very loud. Good effects from what limited exposure I had.

HOTAS/Key-mapping.

I'd like to see improvements here. I would like to replicate the functionality found in the real aircraft on my own system at home. What we have now is what I call function-specific keymapping: One key commands one function - always. What I'd like to see develop in the future is mode-specific keymapping: The key changes depending on which mode you are currently in.

Click to continue

Why do I want this? Because that's how it is in real life. Did you know that the various AUTO ACQ modes are *only* available once you enter GUNS mode? (The JS-thumb switch is pulled aft to enter GUNS mode, then the JS-castle commands the various AUTO ACQ modes).

Of course, this kind of functionality could only be made possible if/when the hardware manufacturers designed hardware that emulated real-world joysticks and throttles. Example: The cursor control on the Hornet throttle isn't merely digital (its not ON or OFF - moving the cursor at one speed like the way our current keyboard controls act), but the harder you push on it, the faster the cursor moves.

[I know I've spent a lot of time and energy on some issues that probably aren't on many other people's top-ten list, but, let's face it - LEARNING about how these jets operate, the physics involved, learning the radio comms, tactics, nuances of controlling 20+ tons of metal to a specific point on the stern of an aircraft carrier - all these things hold entertainment value just in the "learning" of them.

I think the same potential for interest exists in a more complicated HOTAS design. I think it would be great if we could duplicate at home what pilots are doing out in the fleet. What do you think?]

SUMMARY.

This sim is a winner. If you don't like it, you're probably not a hard-core flight simmer, or you have unrealistic expectations. And, looking at the size of this article (sorry!), if you've read to this point, you probably *are* a hard-core flight simmer!

The graphics, flight model, sounds, weapons, dynamic lighting, multi-player, avionics, cockpit, framerate/stability, and weather are specific areas that make this sim stand out from past sims and, I'd go so far to say, contemporary sims on the market.

The only area that I can think of where Janes F/A-18E doesn't reign supreme, is that it lacks the fully dynamic campaign that so many of us yearn for. In its place we have the cell-logic semi-scripted campaign that has been debuted in F-15. Whereas with sufficient randomness built into the original campaign there is a good chance that you'll not see the same exact sequence of events every time, but you're *still* fighting the *same* basic campaign. So there's still a heavy sense of "deja vu" associated with that type of campaign structure.

It doesn't have a dynamic campaign, but there *has* been speculation that the same Persistent Environment Mission Builder, the very one that the developers used to make the campaigns released with the sim, may also be released. I sincerely hope Janes decides to release it, otherwise we are limited to the campaigns that shipped with the sim. And, therefore, the enjoyment factor may not persist as long as we would hope.

To the Janes Baltimore team - BZ for a job well-done. To the readers who stuck with it and read all this verbiage - thanks! I look forward to your comments! My take-away from I/ITSEC: You don't have to spend *millions* to have an AWESOME flight sim - developers like Janes are giving us arguably the *best* overall performance for, c'mon - lets admit it, almost *nothing* (compared to what the government is spending)!

Join a discussion forum on this article by clicking HERE.