What is a consumer military flight simulation? It's an important question.

Many assume that military flight simulations are stripped down civilian versions of the multi-million dollar military rigs. Others think that military flight sims are hi-tech fantasy games.

I think a suitable definition would be this: a military flight simulation is a game which attempts to simulate, to a degree, the experience of a pilot flying in a war. This means that the war is as important as the aircraft and the experience must be believable, and it raises many questions about the subject matter at hand, F-16 Aggressor by Virgin Interactive.

I have had a strange whirlwind affair with F-16 Aggressor and my feelings about it have waxed and waned. I feel I must share them with you because they are closely related to the game's performance.

Friday: 19:30. Test Machine:

• AMD 3dnow, 333Mhz,
• 17 inch monitor,
• No 3d accelerator
• 32 Megs RAM

I wanted to buy a new joystick today, so why, instead of a brand new HOTAS or parts thereof, do I have a new game instead? I mean, I don't need a new game; I cannot afford a new game; I don't have the disk space for a new game. But here, in my sweaty hands, is Virgin Interactive's latest addition to the flight-sim genre: F-16 Aggressor.

As of this moment, 20:21 GMT, I have tried to test it on the following system: AMD 2 333, 32 megs of RAM, a 4 meg SiS (so they claim) D3D card. It crashed, but this system may be garbage. So here I am, in Isaac's Hostel on Gardiner Street in Dublin, contenting myself watching the guys in here chatting up cute chicks. The offending and crashed computer is being formatted.

The CD-jukebox in the corner is playing The Doors, Bob Marley and the Beach boys. The atmosphere in the Interpoint Cyber Cafe here in Isaac's Hostel is relaxed and pleasant and all is right with the world.

Or.. it WAS relaxed and pleasant. Some tosser has put Wham! on the stereo singing, "Last Christmas" So, with a heavy heart, I turn back to this discussion of the game.

Opening the game box, I had the first positive experience of the day. The smells from the box trigger memories, and this smell was from the printed paper of the manual. It reminded me of opening new Star Wars toys when I was a kid.

The manual for Aggressor is thin, and in presentation is like the manual presented to us by Innerloop's Joint Strike Fighter. In many ways it's a slightly plainer version, but in other ways it's very similar.

Oasis is on the stereo now, somewhat of an improvement. But only somewhat. The F-16 Aggressor box has one glaring omission: no key command card. This is a very odd thing NOT to have.

This may actually aggravate discussions on USENET: "I don't have a keycard." "Pirating scumbag," comes the cry from certain self-righteous persons. Well, F-15's first British edition didn't have a keycard either, and some copies of F-22 ADF similarly lacked a manual (hint: look at the help file).

Well, okay, this is the first British edition, and there will obviously be things to work out, but no key card is annoying. Granted, there aren't many keys to learn here, about three pages worth. But the binding on the manual means you cannot keep it open on your lap while you navigate around the training missions, something you can do with a manual like that supplied with Falcon 4.

The offending computer has been re-formatted and is now net-worthy. Let us proceed. It is very cool having any of 8 computers to play with here. Now all they need is a better IPX inter-connection and maybe a Voodoo card each and a decent joystick and.... you get the picture.

Back to the manual. It has a wee story in it. Now wee stories and flight sim manuals are the sort of thing that should be kept apart, I fear, unless written by someone with the abilities of Larry Bond. When such stories do appear in manuals, they should have Jane's understanding of a warzone. In those circumstances, prose stories can be used to put a human face on the conflict.

But something leaps out at even an Irish twerp like me. The first line in one of these prose stories starts thus: "The F-16 took off from the USS Kitty Hawk." F-16? Helllooooo? F16's do NOT sortie from aircraft carriers. Virgin Interactive? Right now, before the US manual goes to the printer, it's an F/A-18E, okay? Use find and replace, sort it out.

The storyline concerns a pilot (your alterego named "Reyas"), a former USAF colonel who bombed a nasty drug-lord's house, on orders from the United Nation's replacement organization, the GUD. GUD stands for the Global Union of Democracies. This is the UN, most likely, purged of such annoyances as China and Russia. We assume the UN had to be replaced by - let's call it the United Something. Short form: U.S.

This business with the Falcon (soon to be F18) taking off from the carrier is to establish continuity. It would also explain why a USAF colonel needs to fly training missions? Think about it.

The game is up and running now, but it's like a slideshow. And I don't mean the USENET definition of a slide show (less than 15 FPS on 1024x768 with all details turned up), but literally less than 1 FPS. Reducing the detail gives you - maybe 2, or 3 FPS. It might have been the Isaac's Hostel generic computer, though.

Time to go home.

Saturday Morning, 3 AM.

Test Machine:

• P350
• 128Megs of RAM
• Guillemot Phoenix Banshee
• 14 inch monitor,
• Sidewinder 3d pro

Home again, jiggety jig. My old 14" monitor is crap, my hard disk space is waaay too low, so F-16 is giving Israeli Air Force the boot for the time being. I install F-16 Aggressor in D3D mode, at 800x600, with all options turned up and details turned on. It only allows D3D mode. My crappy monitor will not go any higher than 800x600, so bear this in mind.

Right, into a single mission. Hmm. This looks... okay. Pull a few loops and fling my aircraft around the place, and it flies smoothly, but uninspiring, and not very convincing. I play the training missions. I try landing. I am now fairly good at landing in Falcon 4, but landing in general is my main weakness in sims. I approach the runway, I do everything right. I land, safe and intact.

Something odd there. As I said, landing is my weakness and this is my first attempt. I try again, put the gear down, aim in the direction of the runway, and I land. It's like that. It's easier to land in F-16 Aggressor than in IAF, and it's a lot easier than in Fighter's Anthology, or Total Air War.

I run all the training missions, then run the intercept mission. The idea is to learn the "complex" radar modes and shoot down a nasty enemy MiG-19.

Complex radar modes? There are only three, compared to the fourteen or so in Falcon 4. First, a JTIDS scope, which is modeled like a 360 degree radar. Forgive me, but doesn't JTIDS need something cool like an AWACS and friendly aircraft and Patriot batteries in the region to complement the picture? Modes two and three are an air-to-air radar and an air-to-ground radar, respectively. When I call up air-to-air I have great difficulty locking on, but that's because I am tired and the bastard MiG-19 won't stay still. And nowhere can I find a padlock mode.

Let's talk about the cockpit. If you are familiar with the 3d cockpit in Falcon 4, this is like that, only brighter, and more pleasing to the eye. Using your coolie hat, (on this test machine, overly responsive, it takes a lot of practice to point your view where you want it) you can look around your cockpit and see the radar working, etc., just like the Falcon 4 cockpit. Oh, and the joystick and throttle move in the cockpit when you move your HOTAS, which I thought was cool. Your feet, however, don't move when you play with the rudder.

The HUD is green by default. I found myself aiming the jet at the ground to provide a contrast to reading the data in the HUD. Then I discovered that you can indeed change the color.

The sounds are interesting. There are two noticeable sounds when you are flying: a weird whistle, and another sound like someone drunkenly whacking a tambourine every so often. No, I don't know why. If I find out, you will be the first to know. Interestingly, there is little external sound transmitted to the cockpit, and from outside the engine makes a noise not unlike Novalogic's F-16 engine. Could this be a realistic feature, I wonder?

Firing weapons is a bit hairy. The weapons only launch in certain constraints: your sidewinder will only fire if there is a welcoming baddie tailpipe nearby, and the bombs only seem to drop if there is something to drop them on. At least the missiles curve nicely when arcing towards a target.

Before going to bed, in a fit of pique, I post the following on USENET:

I wanted to like this game. I really did. I was going to buy a HOTAS, or a part thereof this afternoon with my ill-gotten gains... After traipsing through every stinking computer game shop in Dublin, the best I could find was a CH Products "Janes" Fighter Stick for roughly $90 dollars. But I digress...

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:

• Cyrix 686 200MX
• Guillemot Banshee
• 64 Megs of RAM

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

• Gameplay:80
• Graphics:80
• Sound:70
• Intelligence/AI: 75
• User Interface/Mission Planner: hmmm, have to think about this one
• Fun Factor:90
• Learning Curve (in hours):2-3
• Overall Rating: 70