Interactive Magic's second in-house sim debut, iF/A-18E CSF, Carrier Strike Fighter, has been released. To help us understand this undertaking, we have an exclusive interview with IMagic's Lead Designer on this project, Jim Harler (USMC Ret.) After the interview, we will take a first hand look, and then focus on multiplayer game play.

The Fighter Attack Hornet ready for launch. The best carrier experience to date.

CSIM: Jim, I understand you come from a Naval aviation background. Would you give us a brief bio so that we can set the context from which you speak with authority?

IMAGIC: I flew the Grumman A6 Intruder for the US Marine Corps for about 20 years. I was qualified as a NATOPS (standardization) Instructor, Weapons and Tactics Instructor, Instrument Instructor and Mission Commander. Most of my time was served in East Coast squadrons out of MCAS Cherry Point, NC with overseas tours to WestPac and a couple of trips to the Mediterranean and accrued a little less than 3000 flight hours. I've been a simmer for years and know what I like in a sim. I've also done the actual flying and so I know what it's like in the cockpit. I think, and hope, that gives me a unique perspective when it comes to designing a flight sim.

CSIM: With that kind of background, can you comment on what the biggest challenges you see with modeling real fighter experiences into a boxed sim?

IMAGIC: Well, the challenge centers around providing players with a sense of the excitement and difficulties faced by military pilots while still making the simulation FUN. People buy sims for the challenges but, at the same time, it needs to be fun too. Combining these two aspects into a single package that most people will enjoy is a real challenge.

CSIM: I find expectations are often the biggest enemy to enjoying a flight sim. Most of us have not flown real military aircraft, and thus are not always ready for the realistic flight modeling like I see in Warbirds, Jane's F15E, Su27 Flanker and now iF18 CSF. Would you go into more detail on what went into this aspect of CSF?

IMAGIC: This is a very difficult issue to say the least. In CSF we have two models, Relaxed and Realistic. The Relaxed model exhibits most aerodynamic characteristics but buffered to make it less 'work'. From the start, my thought for the Realistic model was to get it as accurate as possible not just so it would be a pleasure to fly but to make the Carrier Operations as realistic as possible too.

To do this we went to the company that provides the Hornet simulation software for the US Navy, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in Patuxent River, MD. Working with them, the US Navy and Boeing-McDonnel Douglas we were able to get a flight model that's the closest thing to the real thing you can find.......that doesn't cost a few million dollars. The models responses, data points and characteristics match very closely that of the real aircraft. This was a real challenge since the actual aircraft is still undergoing testing at NAS Patuxent River, MD and NAS China Lake, CA.

The Super Hornet's Integrated Test Team also allowed us to visit Pax River where we were able to fly in the E model simulator, question the Navy's lead test pilots and view the aircraft both on the line, in the hangar and from Flight Test Center while they were doing actual test flights.

CSIM: There will probably never be THE definitive flight sim that satisfies all, so what are the elements that you, the lead designer, focuses on? For example, I look for flight model, AI, avionics and multiplayer above all else (including 3D eye candy).

IMAGIC: I think each designer focuses on what they feel is needed in a sim within the context of their company's goals and technology. At IMagic we have realistic flight simulations as a goal. That gives me the freedom to focus on broad areas that I think are important. Personally, I put realistic flight models pretty high on my list. I sometimes will fly CSF and other sims just for the joy of flying and not the combat. I want variety in missions so the sim doesn't become repetitive in a short time and multiplayer certainly is a plus in that area. Not much more variety than your best buddies trying to get on your six.

In the cockpit, I like to see a fairly high level of realism in the avionics so there's something of a cerebral satisfaction to completing a mission. Of course, with the new hardware coming out now, graphics are gaining more and more importance and rightfully so. A nice looking world and environment adds to the immersion process. Above all I want the sim to be fun. That means finding a balance among all these areas that hopefully will satisfy most simmers out there. Each sim reflects its designer's likes and priorities and I guess that's to be expected. CSF's design pretty accurately reflects mine.

CSIM: The past iF sims have not been strong players over internet, Warbirds being a whole different story of course. Where does multiplayer fit into IMagic's plans?

IMAGIC: We're very much committed to online play of our games. IMagic acquired ICI early on because we're committed, long term, to the idea of online play. This is large part of the future of gaming and we wanted to lead in that regard. Warbirds is the best known of the online sims now and we're working to keep it that way with constant improvements and additions. We just released the initial version of our WWI online sims, Dawn of Aces. I think it will become the 'Warbirds' of WWI fans everywhere.

Our in-house sims will follow this and we're working to bring up the quality of play in that aspect. CSF is our second effort in that regard and while we've made improvements, we still have goals that need to be met. Putting a full-function realistic sim online is quite a bit more difficult than simpler sims. Data transfer and synchronization schemes are dramatically different when you have a dynamic war taking place on the server and being distributed to all players. We continue to work on this everyday and commit the resources to make it work.

CSIM: Can you let us in on what is planned in CSF's update release, and then what the next sims from IMAGIC In-house will be?

IMAGIC: We're in the process of listening to our customers so that we improve CSF with a timely update. I'm on the USENET and several sim site boards daily helping folks out and listening to their comments. My old NOMEX flight suits come in handy some days. When we identify a problem we put team members on it to find the solutions and then test the solutions so we can we can get them to our customers. We're still in the identification stage right now but, hopefully, you'll be seeing something in the very near future.

As for the next sim from here at Magic Labs, I'm afraid my tongue is locked on that one. Marketing would shoot me if I let anything out too soon. I think you'll be hearing something in the not too distant future though.

CSIM: Thank you Jim.

So what is the story with its game play and multiplayer qualities? Is this just another "iF22" or is it different? What's the SIT-REP? I'll try to address these questions that we all have, but keep in mind that the developers that produce WarBirds are a different cast of characters (and have had over 10 years to work on one sim basically).

The IMagic Labs folks are a small development team that is competing with giants like Jane's, SSI, GSC and DiD. CSF is second of their in house projects. From that perspective, I think you can see the leaps in simulation technology that they must deal with.
Functional MFD and avionics almost at par with Jane's F15E.

First we will go into what I think is sub-par in CSF when compared to its contemporaries from the sim vendors aforementioned. CSF has chosen the path of photo realistic satellite stereographic terrain as opposed to repeating computer generated terrain maps. The good news is that the terrain looks good above 10 K feet, but progressively worse as you go down. Also good news is that it does look better and run much faster than what we saw in iF22. What's bad is that the low level flying that a fighter-bomber strike will do a lot of, is not going to be fun in this sim.

GSC's Hornet Korea's repeating mapped world is much better and sharper. Once again its that design trade off of terrain accuracy at high altitude versus low level game play. CSF looks very good at high altitudes, and GSC's HK at low altitudes. Some day in the near future we will probably get both. As far as aircraft graphics are concerned, I think they are very similar with HK's planes slightly better, but CSF's load out looking much sharper. As for cockpit and avionics, CSF's excels here over HK, with its functional avionics suite and active MFDs. The exception of HK having a much better padlocking system with MFD's super imposed onto the padlock view with the HUD information. When it comes to dogfighting, HK is far better equipped.

Lets move away from graphics now and look at the game play aspects. The graphical user interfaces of CSF are very attractive and add to the being immersion of being in a squadron on an aircraft carrier. The other big investment was in the fine tuning of the TALON campaign and mission editors. One big advantage over HK and F15E is that you can virtually never run out of missions to fly as opposed to the others that have a few scripted missions, with their mission editor as the only means to get new sorties to fly.

Another area of strength is CSF's flight model (FM). The only jet sims that are as complex are Jane's F15E and SSI's Su27 Flanker. You can choose the full FM or the relaxed version, personally I only fly the full realistic FM's.

Click for 1024x768

AV8R and BUCKO flying in formation over TCP/IP internet: very stable for 2 players.

Yanking and banking with no regard to energy management is what separates the hard core from the novice flight simmer. In fact, I'll go as far as to say ill take a good FM over eye-candy every time. This either/or situation is also diminishing as technology moves forward and our pocket books grow smaller. FM judgment is a very hard argument to make, which is why I had Jim Harler speak from experience. But my opinion is that CSF lies somewhere between F15E and HK in fidelity.

Finally, let's talk about multiplayer (MP) support. MP head to head scenario provides an arena for dogfighting with your friends. What it doesn't provide is a believable aircraft carrier mission based battle setup. I have had 2 to 4 player MP sessions that connected fine (Noting that using a fast computer - P200 and up, with a 3D accelerator and with a fast internet connection are essentials to MP success).

What was a dramatic improvement over iF22 was the ability to find each other with radar and then form up. Look at the picture with me and a human wingman, we were that close with very little warp. A very stable 2 player session. When I try formation flying this close in HK, there's lots of warping which makes it impossible. On the other hand, I've been involved in TCP/IP and IPX/Kali 4 player HK dogfights that are no problem. In fact I'll say that HK is better suited for MP and squadron dogfighting. CSF does have a good damage modeling and even a spin recovery system like the real Super Hornet.

So how does it all sum up? CSF has made a very strong showing in the areas of: flight model, avionics, high altitude terrain graphics, mission editor and campaign generator, carrier takeoff and landings, and stable MP head to head. If I already owned GSC's HK, buying CSF would be hard to justify. Where CSF is topgun is that it sports the best carrier cat launches and the finals to the carrier with the full FM is a real challenge. If you think you're really a hot stick, try doing it with the time acceleration on. I think this gives you the real heart stopping sensations.

Where does CSF fall short? Low level graphics, wingman and enemy AI. Looking forward, we can expect the official patch very soon and it will address many bugs (like your a/c exploding 4 seconds after a successful carrier landing), addition of COOP MP missions, and other things too. If IMagic Labs continues the trend of improvement we've seen with iF22 to iF18, the future looks bright for them. My overall grading for this sim is split: as a solo sim 85%, as a multiplayer sim 80%.

Till we meet in the skies, Check Six.

Download the v.1.2 patch by clicking HERE

Ed. Note: Thomas Spann was a beta tester for Interactive Magic on if18.