[Publisher's Note - 2005-02-01: Our first article on TAS, run in 1997, resulted in COMBATSIM.COM taking a lot of heat because we were unaware that Paul Hinds (if that was his real name), the producer of the TAS simulation, was already well known in the Air Warrior / WarBirds community as something of a scam artist who never had any of the creditials he claimed.

After we were alerted to Mr. Hinds suspicious past, we managed to get this interview (on this page) out of him where he very weakly denied all the allegations levied against him. Once this interview was published, it only raised the volume of the outrage from those who had past dealings with him and so we tried in earnest to contact Mr. Hinds via telephone. By then, however, he and his sim, had evaporated into the ether.

From that moment forward, we cast a very critical eye upon every new grassroots simulation and took the stance that we'd believe it when we saw working code and not before. This was too bad because there were plenty of grassroots projects, run by people with good and honest intentions (something Mr. Hinds obviously never had), and they would've benefitted had we been able to promote their fledging simulations more enthusiastically from the start. This article is reproduced here as a reminder to all that even in the world of combat simulations, there's always going to be those who would try to take advantage of us. Let's hope this remains an isolated case.]

An Interview with Paul Hinds of Pro Line Software on Tactical Aero Squadron

Click the image for a larger shot..

Some months ago we were all aglow at news that Pro Line Software was about to release Tactical Aero Squadron into beta. Why aglow? The WWII prop sim market need a new injection of realism and energy, and Pro Line and TAS looked set to deliver.

First, the graphics engine that was producing the screen shots kept us awake nights... Second, the level of avionics realism looked to be an entirely new standard, necessitating such niceties as prop pitch settings where appropriate and fuel mixture settings.

Finally, the multi play aspect looked solid, and the aircraft and geography modelled (Battle of Britain) needed revisiting. Flight models were said to be state of the art, and players could even letter their own aircraft. We are all more than ready to start testing!

But then Paul Hinds developed something of a medical condition, and there was confusion regarding his association with the USAF. Recently Paul consented to this interview.

Csim: Paul, maybe you could bring us up to speed with some history. Where has TAS been the past few months and where is it at now?

Paul: When I commited to my hiatus I put the development team onto another aspect of the game (other then flight). We had most of the graphics done, but had an execution error that was driving the team crazy. As it turned out it was pretty easy to track down, but I had the only source code for the suspect module. It had not caused any errors previously, but cropped up as newer modules were added. This kept us from distributing the beta version, until I tracked it down ( July 30 ). About this time I learned about the dissolution of my business partnership. I was disgusted, and nearly scrapped the whole thing, but soon came to my senses.

Csim: How soon will a beta take to the virtual airwaves?

Paul: I have to iron things out with Pro-Line's home office, and get the ground war going. The first thing you will probably see is the ground war package (perhaps before Christmas). I forced a ton of mods to the game, which is slowing things down severely. That shouldn't be a big surprise, though, as we have made no secret that this thing is developed during freetime and by students, etc.

Csim: Can you explain the controversy surrounding your own history and fill us in with the facts?

Paul: The controversy was in response to mis-quotes, hearsay, and such. Facts? No comment. I'll let the sim do my talking for me.

Csim: What are the ongoing challenges in the development of this sim?

Paul: Getting 1000+ users into a single game, without bugs is going to be a big accomplishment. Even that pales in significance to creating several historically correct cities in true 3D. Why I want to do that should be obvious. Research is a big pain too. No one has good information on exactly what fields looked like, what cities were like, etc., so much of what we have is a "best guess" kind of thing.

Csim: What were your design goals for TAS? Do you feel you are meeting those goals?

Paul: MY design goals were to totally immerse a user into a live action war, with a completely accurate aircraft base (including ALL characteristics of specific aircraft). The strategic ideas were tossed into the ring later. The strategy thing though, will be difficult to implement with fliers alone,...thus the ground stuff.

Csim: Will there be training missions in TAS? How are these handled?

Paul: I designed an artificial "Ride Along Instructor" for the AT-6 and Gloster Gladiator. You can go for rides with them until you feel comfortable with the airplanes, and then move into "Fighter Familiarization" which is a big enough leap. Both areas allow you to watch the flight hands off (with a pop-up control input window to watch your instructors inputs). This will teach you the rudimentary motions of flight, which is about all the war trainees received. There are a few other options, like banner targets, etc.

Csim: I understand there are some significant innovations in the graphics engine for TAS, and judging from the screens, I believe it! Can you tell us what they are?

Paul: I went to great lengths to improve upon aspects I, naturally, can't discuss. If you like the screenshots you may want to spend a few bucks on a great graphics card. I can't comment on which cards work best, but I haven't seen any real disasters. The normal S3 cards, SVGA, etc., will dissappoint you, but you can fly the lower resolutions until you're ready for change. The flight model does not suffer from choice of board, but identifying planes, well,... you get the idea.

If you've played games at 320x200x16colors you will like the 320x200x256 version, but it can't touch the Glide version at 640x480x32k colors.

I have to say, too, that without guys like D.J. DeLories, and the creator of Allegro graphics library, none of this would have ever happened. iD's release of previous code really helped to spark my imagination as well.

Csim: What kind of 3d hardware support will be in place? Is TAS a WIN95 product? What resolutions will the engine support?

Paul: So far, OpenGL and Direct3D specifically. I really like the GLide package. It's not difficult to comprehend. I have a 3DFX card myself. I play at 640x480x32k with 8 bit textures and get 30.2 fps with 500 drones in the air. Unfortunately, I expect 60 users to cause a local frame rate slowdown when in visual range of one another. This will improve though.

The largest game I have kicked off had 32users on an ISDN connection (no lag, or at least minimal). On that setup we had a 400 Lancaster AI flight escorted by 32 user Hurricanes engaging 132 german fighters under heavy flak. My frame rate slowed to 19fps in the heat of battle. How often that happens online is up to users. This was a massive engagement that is really unprecedented at this stage. Our code improves everyday too.

Csim: Physics modelling has achieved new dimensions in this past year in A10 Cuba and in Janes Longbow. Tell us about the physics modelling in TAS. What will we see in terms of damage models, weapons models, wind models etc.

Paul: I modelled the complete effect of all forces onto an airframe. I modelled the realistic energy of all projectiles at all ranges. I modelled turbulence around wing tips (vortices). All of this was easier to implement than I originally thought. Much easier. In fact, I plan on going back and tuning the turbulence to consider the entire airframe, versus wingtips. I originally wanted to use this as an anti-V-rocket effect, but close combat would benefit from it as well.

Csim: How integral will the ground war be to TAS? How does the AI pull the air war and ground war together?

Paul: Here's a real surprise for you. I plan on creating a game that may well attract tens-of-thousands of users just in the ground war! We may not need AI here at all, but I have implemented it. I'm keeping most of this under wraps, but you will see this aspect of my game before even the flight sim. Once all of Europe has been modelled (cities too), I will release a flight sim plug-in that will bring it all together.

My first release will be a package code named "Out on Bail." The scenario is that of a pilot who has bailed on the east side of Amsterdam, who must make it to the west of the city to escape (with help). The idea is to fit the part of a downed pilot. This is, in my opinion, becoming one of the best aspects of the game.

Csim: What aircraft are being modelled for TAS? Are there others you would like to add?

Paul: If you can name a plane it will eventually make it into the game. So far, I have Hampton, Halifax, Fairey Battle, Gloster Gladiator, Spit I, Spit II, Hurricane II, Mosquito, Lancaster, Buffalo, Hawk, P-40, C-47, ME109E3, ME109E4, FW-A3, JU-52, JU-87, JU-88, ME-110, HE-111, Do-17, and even the Dewoitine.

Csim: How detailed are the flight models for TAS? I understand there may even have been new information available in developing the models?

Paul: Not the models specifically, the new innovations are in how I did the positional calculations, and how I tested my data. The positional calc's involve the game engine itself, which I won't go into. If, after the game is released, someone has a doubt as to the accuracy of the flight model, I welcome them to fly any like type and prove the dispute. I know that no other sim is using the same approach. Close perhaps, but no cigar.

Csim: Will there be resource management in the BoB?

Paul: The BoB is a dead release. The final flight sim will start on day one of the war and move on from there. This sim will include all of the world (now), but the Asian conflict will be developed later. Is there resource management? You bet! As research bears out my figures, we will have a very realistic environment in which to engage in conflict. I can't wait to see what curves users will throw at us, or how accurately history is borne out.

I have removed the B-29 in Europe, and done away with the A-bomb. It may return someday, but for now it's gone.

Csim: What happens when a player is "killed?"

Paul: Unless, a user bails from his plane before dying (in a virtual sense of course), he will stay with his plane all the way down. If it is trimmed for straight-and-level, well he's free issue a "killme." There is a short period in which the "dead" pilot cannot relaunch, he won't be able to relaunch close to the fight he died in, and he will first get to review his killers' stats.

Csim: Can you tell us about the general layout of the campaign, structure of the squadrons, etc.

Paul: The German forces have got the Allies outnumbered 3:1, or worse. From day one the German forces are free to move as they will, so asset acquisition could change all that.

I have the squadrons set up as reconfigurable by users. I won't be allowing more then 24 members to a squad, though. Each base will have a limit of 32 sorties per hour.

Csim: Will TAS have an off line single player component?

Paul: Absolutely essential.

Csim: How much control will a wing leader have of his flight in single player mode? Will there be radio comms?

Paul: There are a total of 64 issuable commands for drones, or live humans. You can use default commands, or record audible commands/responses of your own. Yes, radio comms can be "live", or macro driven.

Csim: I recall a rumor about voice comms in multiplayer. Is this in place?

Paul: Yes, voice comms have been in the game from the beginning.

Csim: How will views be modelled? Will there be a virtual cockpit?

Paul: You can select the standard keypad views, use smooth scrolling (by coolie hat), or select a target and track via virtual view. You can never exceed a normal pilots view range, though.

Csim: I understand that radar will be modelled as the campaign progresses historically. How will this affect game play?

Paul: This is really a tool to help find a fight, more then a tool of war. I implemented radar as it was used historically, including the jamming tactics available to both sides.

Csim: How will "the fog of war" come into play in TAS? Will recon patrols affect mission planning?

Paul: Recon missions are essential to good planning. This is a very important part of the game, and the boys at "PR" will probably be considered among the elite. Those that can do it well that is (ie survive).

Csim: What specific hardware will be supported? Will there be support for force feedback? The Forte VFX1? Surround sound?

Paul: So far FFX, and Surround Sound. I amusing them a little differently than I have seen them used before.

Csim: What is the coolest feature in TAS?

Paul: I like the accuracy of the visual effects encountered in flight. 3D cards really help to enhance this effect. The effects of G forces on pilots comes across well, as does the visual enhancement of altitude (something EVERY other sim has missed). The completeness of cockpit details adds to it all too. Users will probably like the ability to edit the ENTIRE skin of their plane, but I hope they stick to insignia and squadron markings only. I would hate to lock out undesireable mods.

Csim: What sims do you play regularly yourself, and why?

Paul: Quake. Okay, maybe it's not a sim by your regular definition, but there isn't a better "rush" out there. I have an entire Gig dedicated to Quake.

I have been playing Fighter Duel for over a year now. It is, hands down, the best replication of flight going. Unfortunately, it doesn't have as large a following as I would like. All of my friends are over on WB, which I contend teaches bad habits. WB does have a significant following and is a wise choice for learning (after mastering AW), but...

Csim: Thanks Paul, and best of luck with TAS!