| F16 Aggressor by Gavin Bennett |
||||
|
Maybe it's my machine. Maybe it's too fast (at 800x600) to execute the flight model properly. If I had a better monitor, I could run it at 1024x768, and maybe then it would run with a degree of equilibrium, but for now..... Try and land this thing, all you F4 whiners. Aim for the runway, put your gear down, land. And that's it. The cockpit is eccentric, and kind of cool. But the coolie hat zips around it too fast to be of any use. The views are odd. The game reminds me a lot of a weird hybrid of Fighter's Anthology, F-16 MRF and Joint Strike Fighter. The graphics on the ground are REALLY bright. Virgin claims a super realistic flight model. Hmm.... I really don't think so. I have been spoiled by Falcon 4. At least in the case of F4 we have current and experienced F16 pilots who verify that the model is very accurate. I removed IAF from my hard drive for THIS? Calm down, Gavin, calm. Yes.... calm. The box looks great though. I uninstalled F-16, reinstalled IAF, and went to bed. Saturday 1800hrs GMT. Test Machine:
My best friend bought me Falcon 4 for Christmas, and I all I got him was a lousy book. So, I feel an urge to give him F-16 Aggressor… heeheheheh. But really, I want to see it on his machine. After much messing about, such as playing Falcon 4, and certain Rally game simulations, we install F-16 Aggressor, and then I run a mission while we try and make a dead joystick work. And what can I say? Wow. Wow? Yes, wow. You see, my machine at 8x6 was too fast to run F-16 Aggressor's flight model. Play it on a slower machine, with an FPS of roughly 15-25 frames per second, and then you see what the fuss is about. Unlike Falcon 4, this flight model feels very touchy, very hyperactive. It feels convincing, as convincing as the models displayed in such games as Falcon 4 and iF/A-18E CSF, but for a different reason.
 It is hairy to fly, it's super responsive. You need to make very gentle movements on the stick. It reminds me of playing DI's iF-16 Viper/F-16 Fighting Falcon, which had a fairly cool flight model, only more in depth. It becomes a genuine challenge to fly. Despite my earlier reservations, I begin to like F-16 Aggressor. I play it quite a bit, and after a few single missions, I am sweating. The graphics take a bit of getting used to. They are like textured versions of TAW's terrain, only with garnishes of the JSF type terrain modeling. Roads are just strips of texture drawn on the ground, but the whole environment, once you are into some interesting terrain like hills and mountains, becomes rather convincing. Hmm, with some malice aforethought, I manage to down a few MiGs and drop a few bombs on an airbase (probably mine). In the training missions, you have to escort this super fast Lear jet to a waypoint and back. I fail the mission, because I couldn't match my speed to it, so in annoyance, I dump a Durandal on the runway before he landed. The Durandal makes a dirty big 2d crater on the runway, and the MiG lands, drives straight through it and is safe. So damage modeling, in certain circumstances, leaves a lot to be desired.
 I flew a few more missions, and discovered how simple the landing routines were. In one case, I landed and did not apply the wheel brakes and the plane kept going. The runway was on the top of a small hill over a lake, and the plane sped off, into space, and was flying again, rather like a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Nick played it for a while, and he informed me: the wheels opening and closing are very nice. He's easily amused. He also did not like the explosions and damage model on the planes, but we all know he will not be satisfied until Screaming Demons Over Europe comes out. Eventually, we uninstalled F-16 Aggressor and I took the CD home. He didn't want it. |
 Sunday: Conclusion and Discussion. So, how fares F-16 Aggressor? I never thought I would actively dislike a flight-sim, and for a while, as Saturday grew, I did not like this game. I thought that certain sims I would prefer to others, and my favoritism would be based on playability, and how much I loaded it up. But I was proven wrong. Kind of. Like I said, I wanted to like this game. I really did. And now, to some extent, I do. I would have tried Aggressor on the NET, but I don't think too many people have the game yet. Will I be loading F-16 Aggressor much? No, not until I can afford a decent monitor and I can run the game at 1024x768, and at a more mundane frame rate. On my faster computer, it's just a sim lite. On Nick's slower computer, it's a lot more convincing. I still have months of play of Falcon 4 left. I shall find my F-16 kicks there. At the beginning of this article I asked: "What is a consumer variety military flight sim?"
 Well, it's a relevant question, because F-16 Aggressor doesn't really fit into my definition. You are not really fighting a war. There are no dynamic campaigns, just 40 scripted missions. I have accomplished 4, and I remember how one previewer described F-16 Aggressor. "Think Strike Commander 99, with 3dFx." And he's right. F-16 Aggressor doesn't have the same atmosphere as Janes F-15 or Falcon 4. The storyline is silly. But consider this. Strike Commander has had a long run. It still looks okay, and it gave birth to what would become Fighter's Anthology (if only FA had SC's cockpit….). F-16 Aggressor should appeal to a similar market. And it has a future, I think. It is not a hard-core military sim. It's an action game with a flight model, and it's fun. The flight model actually adds to the fun. It's not: "Oh shit, I can't turn that fast." It's, "Oh-shit, oh-shit, oh-shit - phew!" And that is just missile evading. And, remarkably, F-16 Aggressor is EXACTLY what it's designers promised: a realistic F-16 sim set in Africa where you fly as a mercenary pilot in 40 missions. That's what they have been saying all along, and that's what we have. If this team plays their cards right, and makes decent add-ons and sequels, they could make a new ADF: Africa is a wonderful, and original, setting for flight-sims. Drop the storyline silliness, and this game has a lot of potential. Imagine a sequel where you fly an F-16 in the air-arm of a new African democracy, or fly as a South African rapid reaction force pilot (who are due to receive F-16s in the near future). Imagine. The game has it's faults; a lot of faults. But when it works as advertised, it works as advertised. It only crashed on the computer which was prone to crashing. I have played this game for roughly ten hours now, and it has not crashed. It is perfectly stable. I would recommend this game to anyone with a P266 and a V2 card, who is feeling sore at Falcon 4. It would be perfect on such a machine. This game needs a decent graphics accelerator, but make sure your system isn't TOO fast. I have no doubt that the kinks complained of here will be worked out, to an extent, before it sees landfall in the US. And it does grow on you. To the developers, I would say this: change the storyline in the manual, and make sure that a decent keycard is sold alongside it; and have advanced support built in for people's HOTAS systems. This is a game, in the end, and a good one, but it's not a ground breaking military flight sim. If you take it as advertised, and if you aren't spoiled by Falcon 4, it may keep you happy for quite some time. Core Rating: 70
|
|||
|
© 1997 - 2000 COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved. Last Updated February 28th, 1999 |
||||