or: why Falcon3 Gold with 3D accelerator support, modern networking and a new flight model would sell a million copies, just like that!!

What follows is the return of a piece written a year ago. This is not the result of laziness but rather it reflects the fact that many of the requirements described last year have yet to be eclipsed in any game. In fact thresholds in only a few of the requirements have actually been met by releases during the last 12 months and there is still no sign of a single game that can claim to even meet "most" let alone all of them.

At least one developer said words to the effect that it would be interesting to see an update of this manifesto after the release of his company's next project. Well that time has come and gone. Sadly, many of the requirements here are just as appropriate now as they were last year. One the upside though, several areas have in fact seen great strides and it would be only fair to point those out. So this is an update on what has gone before: a manifesto98 if you like.

In the following, all trademarks used or abused are the property of their respective owners. The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and may or may not relate to any lasting reality or lack thereof.

The original purpose in writing this was to specify requirements for the perfect fast jet combat sim, or at least my view thereof. The result is more likely a plea to the sim development community to provide more of what we enjoy and explain why some sims just leave sim fans frustrated over wasted potential.

It was not my intent to be provocative with the requirements or the transgressions beyond requirements that have crept in here. However, given how much passion there is in the hardcore flight sim community, it's clear everyone will find something to take issue with in what follows. If you have the stamina and can spend the time to read the entire work, I ask only that you consider incorporating an idea or two into your views on flight sim technology. Drop me an email: I'd love to hear what features you yearn for that aren't covered here.

Objective:

• Create a multiplayer simulation that draws the participants in to the pilot's eye view of operational tactical aviation squadron level experience.

• Concentrate on the flying aspects and simulate the training and operational flying that a squadron would perform together. Emphasize two ship operation as the fundamental building block for strike package set up.

• Provide "peacetime" training, simulating single mission style training analogous to the syllabus used in air force training. Provide Red Flag style Mission Employment phase experience as an advanced training tool.

• Provide a "wartime" theatre level back drop for squadron level operations in the context of a broader scenario. Make the start conditions somewhat configurable to give a variety to separate campaigns in the same theatre (or provide more than one!) Provide a competitive edge to the sim experience to encourage pilots to be bold but reward real world tactics over virtual-immortality-born bravado.

Most Important Aspects of the Sim:

Flanker 2

Beyond the broad strokes of the general objective there is potentially a long list of simulated elements that could make up the perfect sim: whenever you get sim pilots talking about their toys, conversations like "if only we had a sim that combined the flight model from A and the graphics from B..." and so it goes on.

Your own list may vary, but the following is one view of the top ten list of features that a sim trying to satisfy the above objectives might provide. If you're still reading this, then some of what follows will probably strike a chord.

In priority order:

1. Airframe selection
2. Flight model
3. Graphics
4. Avionics
5. Documentation
6. Mission planner
7. Artificial Intelligence
8. ACMI/TACTS
9. Campaign engine
10. Multiplayer support
11. References/Bibliography

Click to continue . . .

When you are allowed to say "this is the ideal" of course all of the above are important so "priority list" is a bit of a misnomer. Rather, the above really represents the order in which the elements of a perfect sim must come together. They sort of follow the order of events that would take place if you were coming to a new sim of the tactical aviation environment: you learn the ropes solo and graduate to the main event: multiplayer campaign play!

In each case there is probably a break-even point beyond which greater perfection would not add much to the overall product. For example, modelling the avionics to the point where a pilot must run four or five checklists of things just to get the engine started (as in real life) is interesting but probably overkill for all but the most demanding sim fans.

Finding this balance while providing some of each of the above is the essence of the perfect sim. Every sim nut has their own idea for where this balance should be so the best we can hope for is a developer that hits the mark for many of us in most of the categories.

There is no current product that has all of the above bases covered. In one respect or another, every flight sim out there to date has missed the threshold in at least one category. [Footnote: The closest I know of are the Falcon3 series, EF2000 series, and maybe Longbow FPK; I would dearly love to be proven wrong in this assertion! ;-)

Click on the picture to see a larger image..from EF2000 v.2

In fast jets, EF2000 is still king in terms of the complete package for my own passion, mutliplayer coop campaigns on the LAN. Even though I'm not a "helimacopter" fan though, even I will admit that Jane's Longbow II is the most fun multiplayer coop campaigning sim out there today -- oh for a Jane's F-15 2 with a human back seat driver!

Oh, and it needs to be fun to play with this perfect sim too. There's at least one product that was hailed as a great simulation but rotten game. Most of the "wannabes" in the so-called "hardcore" flight sim community play with these sims because it's a fun thing to do. After all, in the end it's just a game...

Airframe selection:

Strike fighters are the only way to go if a single aircraft is all that is planned. This gives the choice of air to air (A-A) as well as air to ground (A-G) for training and campaign scenarios. Like the DoD, we value flexibility from the airframe to maximise investment [footnote: that investment in this case refers not only to dollar value but also to the extensive quantities of time that simmers invest to learn complicated new sim interfaces].

For preference, consider current generation western equipment in or near service. This gives developers a chance of getting good levels of information which is likely to lead to accurate sims.

[footnote: Thus, F-16C/D, F-18C/D, F-15E are excellent candidates in service while the F-18E/F, EFA or Rafale are probably the best choices from the soon-to-fly category. F-22 advocates: call again when the Air Force starts flying the "E" model; JAST advocates: it's too far out there to think we'd get a good "simulation" at this stage]

More flexibility again is offered if a sim supplies more than one airframe to fly. This is probably in the above threshold category though.

USNF series did this wrong where the Falcon3 series did it right. Here we're talking about detailed simulation of more than one plane that forces pilots to fly to the strengths of each to extract the best performance. Now if the sim also offers multiplayer adversarial campaign and mission planning as well, we're approaching that perfection icon.

[ footnote: Think of the Mig-29 or Su-27 and their derivatives as perfect foils for NATO strike fighters. Su-27, Tornado and EF2000 have all proved that you don't have to start with US equipment to be successful -- if that's what is chosen simply take the list of US planes as the adversary aircraft request list!]

It's amazing to me that we haven't seen more adversary aircraft interoperable sims as yet. A nod is surely due to Novalogic for the release of their F-16/MiG-29 pair recently; barely hardcore in many respects but for DACT light relief (if that's not a contradiction in terms), just the ticket.

Go to Part II