On August 21st Ty Brewer, simulation editor at Gamesdomain, posted an editorial that stated, among other things, that since F22 Lightning in its various iterations has outsold Falcon 4, gamers have reason to worry about the development of serious military simulations. Ty's premise contains elements of truth, but I think he has neglected some vital factors.

The Climate for Serious Sims

The first factor he has neglected is the actual production climate for serious (as opposed to hardcore, just a semantical difference) simulations. I define "serious" simulations as those which realistically represent the weapons, platforms and environment of the actual world. "Realistic" does not entail that every individual system be represented, but that the challenges a player faces will be at a similar level to the challenge faced by an actual person in the real world environment.

Inevitably, this includes workload and so systems must approximate the real thing. It also entails that the reactions of AI are similar in sophistication to the reactions of their real world counterparts.

Actual production of serious simulations is alive and well, thank you very much! While from an economic standpoint this might seem a bit of a mystery, one must not neglect to take into account what I'll call the "amateur factor."

What does "amateur" have to do with "serious" simulations, you ask? The word "amateur" is from the Latin "amati," meaning "lover of." Serious sim designers don't do what they do because it is economically rewarding; they do what they do for the love of the sport.

Love being what it is, a crazed and intoxicated commitment based on factors that transcend reason, there will always be serious sim designers!

Proof? You want proof that serious sims are alive and well? Let's take a gander at what is currently in production. The proof is in the pudding.

• B17 II: The Mighty Eighth (Wayward Design)
• Battle of Britain (Rowan)
• Destroyer Command (Mindscape)
• F15 E (Microprose)
• F/A 18 (Jane's)
• Flanker 2 (Mindscape)
• Flight Combat (Looking Glass)
• Gunship III (Microprose)
• Jane's World War (Jane's)
• IL2 Sturmovik (Maddox Games)
• M1 Tank Platoon III (Microprose)
• Nations: Fighter Command
• Panzer Elite (Wings Simulations)
• Silent Hunter 2 (Mindscape)
• Super Hornet (DI)
• Team Alligator (SIMIS)
• Typhoon: (DiD)
• WW2 Online (Playnet)

MiG Alley Escort

The Frying Pan to the Fire

The next factor he has neglected is the migration to serious sims among sim players. Inevitably, a percentage of novice sim fans make their way to more serious simulations, and this migration seems to be increasing. I think there are at least two reasons.

First, I would argue that the Internet itself is a major factor in the increasing percentage of sim fans who are moving from the shallow end to the deep end. Inevitably, novice sim fans are impressed by the knowledge level and credentials of the more serious crowd. And the arguments made by the serious crowd on the increased return in fun factor for the increased investment in time and energy are convincing. It simply is more fun to fly in a more challenging environment, and level of challenge is directly related to realism.

Super Hornet Cockpit

Second, I would argue that the move to more serious simulations is a function of accessibility in terms of hardware resources and standardization. The cost of a powerful computer system has dropped incredibly in the past year, thanks to improved technology and a small piece of silicon called the Celeron. Equally important, the emergence of WINDOWS as a standardized game platform has made game setup and compatability less an issue than it once was.

Gimme My Action Game

The third factor he has neglected is that game developers don't have to make clear marketing choices between SERIOUS on the one hand, and LIGHT or arcade on the other. In fact, the best serious simulations out there do not require any such choice on the part of the player.

Simplified Radar in Falcon4

Falcon 4, for example, while being an off-the-deep-end simulation much loved by the serious sim crowd, allows a host of options that can be selected by the casual sim pilot to enhance his survival and thus his fun. He can turn on invulnerability, choose a relaxed flight model, and simplified radar. He can turn on LABELS to show the ID of all all air and ground vehicles nearby. Targetting options can likewise be simplified, and enemy AI can be relaxed.

Similarly, the casual pilot in European Air War or WW2 Fighters can choose a variety of parameters along which to ease the learning curve and enhance their victory. The genius of this system is twofold: first, it allows easy entry into a serious simulation for someone who wants to learn the ropes. Second, from the marketing perspective, it allows a product to span a huge range of appeal and thus increases the viability of a serious simulation.

Development Cycle

The fourth factor is Ty's assumption that the development cycle for a serious simulation is similar to that of Falcon 4, which exceeded four years. (I have to assume that he sees F4 as typical since he uses it as his primary example in comparison to Novalogic's F22 Lightning III.)

In fact, F4's four year plus development cycle is NOT typical for a serious simulation. After surveying developers, the average development cycle is between 20 and 28 months.

Super Hornet

Let's look at some examples. The time between M1TP2 and M1TP3 will be roughly two years. EF2000 was followed by TAW in less than two years. MiG Alley followed Flying Corps Gold in less than two years. Lesson? If the Falcon 4 team had not run into the incredible array of problems they encountered, we would now be playing Falcon 5.0 and the expense vs revenue figures for F4 would be more favorable.

Finally, an unforeseen development will ease the transition into serious sims for some players this year. The online world is rapidly becoming an online community.

I have in mind B17 II: The Mighty Eighth, by Wayward Design. This coming simulation is serious or "hard core" in every sense of the term. Yet the ability to populate a virtual B17 Flying Fortress with ten human players suddenly changes everything. It really won't matter if Joe Gunner in the tail turret can fly or navigate, but he can still participate in a hard core simulation! Genius.

Signs of the Times

This year's E3 in Los Angeles quelled my fears that the end of the world was near. Hard core simulation gaming is alive and well, and I think the situation may actually be IMPROVING rather than deteriorating. For example, how many simulations prior to 1998 actually modeled weather? In 1999 virtually every new simulation will do so, greatly increasing the level of challenge, in parallel to the real world of combat operations.

Furthermore, as hardware capabilities increase, we are seeing more sophisticated AI and more powerful physics engines. Inevitably, it is becoming easier and easier for simulation developers to model real world interactions.