(CSIM) What is the closest match for the F16 in the Soviet fleet?

(PB) The Soviet fighter most comparable to the F-16 is the MiG-29. The MiG-29 matches up favorably to the F-16 in maneuverability but is inferior in avionics and weapons. The exception to this is the AA-11 Archer heat seeking missile. This missile provides the MiG-29 an excellent "close in" weapon.

(CSIM)If you had a chance to fly a Soviet fighter, what would it be and why?

(PB) The MiG-29 because that is the fighter that I would most likely face in combat and a chance to fly it would be helpful.

(CSIM) You are obviously most notable in the flight sim community due to your connection with FALCON 3.0 and the Art of the Kill book and video included with that game. How did you get hooked up with Spectrum Holobyte for this project?

(PB) Most people don't realize that Falcon 3.0 started as a low cost F-16 simulator for the Air National Guard. I worked with Gilman Louie, the current Chairman of MicroProse and the creator of the Falcon series, on a proposal to build an F-16 trainer. Spectrum-Holobyte was teamed with General Dynamics and another company called Perceptronics on the project and fortunately we lost the contract.

I say fortunately because after losing the contract, Gilman took our design and some of the User Interface work that was complete and turned it into Falcon 3.0. So my input to Falcon 3.0 was in aiding Gilman Louie in the design of the F-16 trainer that later turned into Falcon 3.0. In the Falcon series there has been very few constants between each development effort. The exception to this of course is the involvement of Gilman Louie who is again providing the key vision for Falcon 4.0.

(CSIM) The Art of the Kill, was this your idea? How close does it follow your actual lessons for real pilots?

(PB) Art of the Kill was an idea pushed through by Gilman. The concept was first proposed to him by a young guy named Pat Gost. Pat helped work on the video while I wrote the content to include the script for the video and the manual. The Art of the Kill courseware is essentially identical to the course content taught in the F-16 training squadrons.

(CSIM) What are the most common maneuvering mistakes beginner fighter pilots make?

(PB) The most common BFM mistake made by new fighter pilots (in Falcon or the jet) is pointing at the target before you are ready to shoot. A pure pursuit path (pointing at the target) will almost always generate an overshoot. It is very hard to get most new fighter pilots to think in terms of driving the aircraft to another point in the sky besides directly at the bandit.

Everybody has a natural tendency to put the bandit in the HUD and in most cases unless you are shooting, this is the wrong thing to do. The other common mistake is trying to turn the jet at too high an airspeed or at other end of the spectrum -- getting too slow. These two mistakes can be lumped into the category of not managing your energy.

(CSIM) What is the toughest air combat maneuver to learn?

(PB) The toughest air combat maneuver to learn is controlling your lift vector when you are slow and tight. These situations occur when you are scissoring or in high low stacks. It is very hard to recreate various situations where mistakes are made so the learning curve for this type of fighting tends to be flat.

Click to continue . . .

(CSIM) You are working with MicroProse on FALCON 4.0, probably the most anticipated flight sim sequel ever. What areas of the sim have you been asked to participate in?

(PB) I have provided fighter pilot input on a number of areas of Falcon 4.0 to include the flight model, avionics, bandit AI, sounds and the campaign. I have worked on most areas of Falcon 4.0 but I'm only a voice and not the hands that are actually building Falcon. The heavy lifting on this project is of course being done by the guys and gals writing code and drawing pictures.

(CSIM) I have read some posts from Leon Rosenshein and yourself on the flight model in FALCON 4.0. As a BETA tester, I have seen great strides in the handling of the aircraft. How close is the flight model to the real F-16C? (Altitude effects, feel, turning etc.)

(PB) The flight model is very accurate. I have talked about this before but in Falcon 4.0 you can pull the power back to idle and fly the altitude and airspeed flameout numbers right out of the F-16 Dash 1 flight manual and land the jet. Leon Rosenshein worked on the F-16 Unit Training Device (UTD) which is the simulator in all F-16 squadrons and Falcon 4.0 flies at least as good as the UTD.

Falcon 4.0. Click for larger.

(CSIM) Is the blackout in FALCON 4 set to a realistic level? Does it have a reasonable on set?

(PB) The black out model we used is based on centrifuge data. Leon Rosenshein used a data set created by the USAF to model this very thing in Air Force simulators. I know there will be plenty of debate over blackout models but I feel that if you are going to have one, ours is as accurate as you can make it. By the way, even though I know its based on accurate data, it still pisses me off too when I'm about to gun someone and my screen starts to go black. I guess its only natural.

(CSIM) The avionics package is very complex. How close to the real thing is it? How close to being able to actually being used for air force training is it? Is this the complete package or are there features that can not be modeled due to security issues?

(PB) Falcon 4.0 Avionics fall in a range that goes from very easy to the real jet. On the very easy side your radar displays all of the targets from a bird's eye perspective and it is easy to engage and shoot down the bandits. On the F-16 side of the scale you have a radar beam sweeping, range bins, radar cross section, probability of detection, in other words a highly detailed simulation of the radar fight.

On the easy levels the bandits are essentially just stoogeing around out there waiting to get poked by your missiles. On the realistic levels the bandits are "spike aware" at BVR ranges and will flat out ruin your day if your shit is not all in one sock. When you gaze into your tube (radar scope) you will have to detect Brackets, Post Holes, Drags, Beams and other standard bad guy intercept tactics.

It can be done but you will definitely not be able to crank Falcon 4.0 up to the limit and wail on the enemy while you simultaneously play grab ass with sweet Marie. If you can, hell I'm fighting some Eagles next week and may need your help.

( CSIM-Have you called BUBBA yet? ;-D )

The radar fight is one thing but don't forget that the Block 50 F-16 lives to kill SAMs. Falcon 4.0 has a very good HTS (Harm Targeting System) simulation to help you duke it out with the SAMs. Keep in mind however that some of them are mobile and at the higher levels of the game, the Integrated Air Defense System will demonstrate connectivity and cooperative tactics to include blinking, ambush and buddy launches to defeat the HTS. Of course I have not even mentioned the Targeting Pod, Maverick and a host of other weapons and avionic modes. Falcon 4.0 is very detailed and provides a lot of accurate information about the F-16 in combat.

As far as security issues are concerned, Falcon 4.0 provides realism by placing the fighter pilot in the most realistic combat simulation ever built. The avionics are realistic because they provide the information needed to survive and win in this environment.

Go to Part III