Reviewers Specs:

• Abit BH-6 Motherboard
• Intel PII 400
• 128 Megs of 100 MHz SDRAM
• 2 12 Meg Diamond Monster 3D II's running in SLI
• Diamond Viper V550 16 Meg SDRAM (review coming soon!)
• Western Digital 6.4 UDMA and Western Digital 3.1 GIG HD's.
• ViewSonic 21" G810 .25 mm, refresh rates from 160-75 MHz at max 1600-1200 N.I. res.
• Sound Blaster AWE-64
• Creative 24X CDROM
• Thrustmaster F-22 PRO
• Thrustmaster F-16 TQS

I was asked by the editor to cover this product because of my extensive knowledge of the F16 and its systems. Novalogic has packaged this product with this claim: "To ensure that gamers experience an authentic flight sim, Novalogic has worked closely with Lockheed Martin F-16 Chief Test Pilot John Fergione, who provided vital information on the F-16's flight model and avionics." What is implied is that virtual pilots are experiencing something approximating the real world F16.

Classic modern matchup in Glasnost: Viper and the Fulcrum.

Although I was happy to have a look at this bundle from Novalogic, I have to admit I was not very excited about it. I know Novalogic's reputation for more action oriented games, and since becoming a Beta tester of Microprose' Falcon 4, the thought of flying something "light" was not very appealing to me.

From the perspective of a hardcore sim fan, making the game "light" allows pilots with inferior skill to be able to defeat technically superior pilots. In the real world it's not really the plane that wins fight, but the pilot. However, I think we can agree that this philosophy only counts when the planes are at least close to being equal. If one aircraft is vastly superior in BFM than the other it won't matter who pilots the aircraft. If one plane can't perform anywhere near the capability of the other, the weaker platform is going down.

What is scary about this is that in real life this would not be much of a problem. I have yet to feel tense while dogfighting a MiG-21 in Falcon 4 simply because I know that unless I merge with the MiG at less than 200 knots (assuming I have a proper A2A loadout) I am going to pull around on the inferior MiG and kill him with relative ease. However, in games that sport "light" flight models, this problem becomes a real issue because pilot skill is negated to a large extent and suddenly the field is "evened out".

Similiarly, I felt the same way about the Falcon 4 competition at E3. By not using the most difficult settings on ALL levels in the competition (radar modeling was set to easy to allow everyone to see exactly where their opponent was at all times) and forcing us to wingtip to wingtip before we began BFM, they were in effect "balancing" the field.

What I wanted was to have everything truly accurate. The reason was simple: I had spent a lot of hours flying on the real simulator and by making the options easier, it allowed my opponents more room to make mistakes and lighten their workload. I knew how to fight BFM and BVR with the real settings in the F-16 and I didn't want my opponents to not have to work through those realism settings. In the end, it did not matter, but I still remember pleading with Pete Bonanni to make all the options set to accurate.

Dogfight at 2 o'clock high, note canopy reflections

My feelings from the competition were similar to those I felt when I was playing F-16 MRF and MiG-29 Fulcrum: the game would be too simple, predictable and in the end, penalize the superior pilots for lack of realism. While I still harbor many of those feelings, overall I have been impressed with the value of F-16 MRF and MiG-29 Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum part was appealing due to its great dogfight characteristics and I felt the opportunity to play it was too much to pass over. As it has turned out, Thomas Spann and I (you read his review of MiG-29 Fulcrum last week) decided to team-up and do this jointly. As he stated in his review he chose the Fulcrum while I took my old stable horse, the F-16.

This has been a great experience for me since Thomas "AV8R" is a fantastic guy and a good pilot. It's been great to split our strengths so we can each focus on certain aspects of the game and provide the consumer a better picture of what this game offers.

My part is to review the "realistic" aspects of the game and provide some insight as to how it stacks up to the real thing. Both games are essentially similar barring the aircraft they simulate. Both cockpits lack the click-able modes of Janes F-15 or Interactive Magic's iF/A-18, although like F22 ADF, you can zoom into the MFDs by clicking on them. Both games are essentially identical in features and options.

After receiving my F16/MiG-29 bundle I promptly loaded them both in my computer and fired F16 up first.

First Reaction

After setting my options as I desired, my first impression was an astounding WOW!! Graphics are OUTSTANDING. Especially in SLI at 1024*768 (Novalogic directly supports SLI and are proud of it). On my 21" ViewSonic G810, the picture was very clear and vibrant. I know Novalogic is known for great graphics but they have really out done themselves with this beauty.

As I looked around, I noticed that a few B1-B's were taking off so I decided to just watch them at first, then proceeded down the runway to catch up with them. Frame rates as expected were outstanding. After noticing a few "inaccuracies" in the F16 modeling I flew patterns and decided to fire up MiG-29 to see how she handled. Fulcrum was equally beautiful and after performing some aerobatic maneuvers, I played with the flight model to see where she stood and then landed. The Basics:

Well, lets get one thing straight right away. This game is NOT realistic at all, in spite of the press release that implies otherwise. Initially I hoped that Novalogic had really pulled a fast one on us and gotten a good flight model and accurate radar modes modeled. I took them at their word and was making preparations to test their "authentic flight model".

When I fired up F-16 (and after my initial WOW's) I put their claims to some testing. I had called and spoken to a Novalogic rep and had asked him which F-16 Block they were modeling. He said it was the Block 50 so I knew they were simulating the F110-GE-129 motor, which produces 29,000 pounds of thrust at full afterburner. Both the Block 50 and Block 52 are VERY powerful jets capable of sustained 9G turns as one Block 50 pilot put it to me a few weeks ago, "till she runs out of fuel".

Even before I took off, I noticed that Novalogic has a button to manually control the flaps. Well, in the MiG-29 that's fine and dandy but in the F-16, the FBW computer controls the flaps and thus there is no way for the pilot to lower or extend them "manually" in the plane. So I "manually" raised them and began my takeoff. To my absolute horror, could not take off without them! Hmmmm… not looking too good so far in the "authentic" department.

After I realized that the plane would not take off without the flaps, I lowered them and zoomed off into the sky. By this time my speed (in full afterburner) was near 300 knots and when I took off my speed quickly climbed above the limit set on the real F-16 of 300 knots before sustaining gear damage. Well, I raised the gear around 350 knots with no problem and took note of this discrepancy. In addition, when pushing my throttle from idle thrust to full afterburner, it took 5 seconds just to get the afterburners to spool. Much too long! After doing some basic flight maneuvers, I noticed some real problems here too so I will only cover the major disparities.

First off, the plane pulls to many degrees per second. The real F-16 can pull ~26 degrees per second at its max corner speed. This F-16 looked to be pulling about 50 degrees per second (d/s). In addition, it didn't seem to matter if I was going 350 knots or 700 knots. I was going to pull 50+ d/s until I hit about 250 knots and then I was going to only be pulling about 20-25 d/s.

Second, if I pitch down when I fly the real simulator (20 degrees or so and when carrying 2 AMRAAMS on stations 1 and 9 and 2 AIM-9's on stations 2 and 8 and a centerline fuel tank), I can pulled a sustained 9G turn and easily hold my corner airspeed.

When I pulled the same maneuver in F-16 MRF (with 2 AMRAAMS and 2 Aim-9's and all other stations empty), my airspeed bled like a dying pig. So I fired off all my missiles and again built my airspeed to 500 knots and pitched down 60 degrees this time and pulled back hard on the stick. My G load hit 10 and again my airspeed went from about 500 to 200 in less than 3 seconds.

Next, I tried a simple stall. I pitched up 90 degrees and allowed the speed to bleed off at 12,000 feet while holding a 90-degree pitch. When my plane hit ~100 knots, I was expecting the nose to come roaring over and swing me back down (straight down) and instead the nose became "locked" at 90 degrees high and my plane actually started falling backwards, picking up speed. Shoot, even my speed indicator was displaying how fast my plane was falling backwards.

When I hit 5,000 feet with my plane still locked on it's tail falling backwards, I figured, what the heck and threw my throttle into full afterburner. As most of you know, without air coming into the intake, the engine cannot spool and will stall out. BUT, hehehe.. not here! The engine spooled right up and boom! Instant elevator action!

I am not even going to get started on the radar modeling. I'm not sure what they were doing in this department. Clearly, they have made this modeling extremely easy. Looks like they made the radar display more like the F-22 that the F-16C but since I have not flown the F-22 simulator like I have the F-16C; I don't want to speculate too much.

Many of you may be repeating to yourselves, "DUH, this is a game from Novalogic and they always claim their simulations are authentic but we never believe them." Here's my thinking; after reading the quote from the press release, I feel it's time to start holding companies to their word. If I am a consumer walking into a local computer store, and see five F-16 games on the shelves and all of them claim they are "authentic" how is the consumer supposed to know which game is REALLY accurate and which ones are just CLAIMING to be accurate?

Unless you have some previous experience with a certain game company and "know better", the average consumer is going to pick one and assume the game is accurate as described on the box. As simulations are becoming more complex, my feeling is that the time has come for more accurate (authentic) descriptions to accompany the games that are not accurate (authentic). Consumers have a right to not be misled by labels on games just as labels on clothes or any other product we purchase do not mislead us.

Hardcore Testing

My actual flight-testing (as I described above) had not even begun yet! Even so, I decided to proceed and find out how accurately Novalogic had modeled weight and drag. As all of you know, both of these components are very important to how the aircraft handles while in flight. The more induced or parasitic drag produced, the faster the airframe will bleed speed and drop energy. The more weight an aircraft carries the longer it takes to get in the air and like drag, the faster it loses energy. Both components are enemies to a pilot when performing BFM or when attempting to evade SAMS or AAA.

As you can see, it takes the F-16 quite a while to get to 250 knots loaded with max fuel only. Part of this problem is the fact that it takes the Novalogic Viper 5 seconds to get to afterburner. Performance at all altitudes is roughly the same. However, look what happens when I burned the fuel from the external tanks:

As expected performance increases dramatically. Interestingly, numbers are similar to those below with both tanks still on stations but empty. First indications that drag may not be modeled at all or modeled incorrectly.

Well right away you can see they have modeled weight. Times are lower by roughly 5 seconds in each category from loadout number 1-1. Numbers are identical to those in loadout 1-2.

Times are very consistent at all altitudes. One would expect performance to be little better at high altitude due to air lower air density. Times are very high due to the extreme weight to the loadouts. Max weight for the F-16 according to Novalogic is 37,203. The weight above is just 65 pounds short of that maximum. Lets see what happened when I dropped all munitions:

Again, we see the same numbers when the Viper is fully unloaded. Performance heavily effected by weight. I needed to again distinguish between weight and drag so for my last test I went all out on drag.

All times are even. Those 600 gallon tanks are HUGE and create a massive penalty on weight and drag. Lets see what happened after I burned the fuel out of the drop tanks while leaving them on the stations:

Times are not showing any drag penalty! Drag has apparently not been modeled. Times reflect those of an F-16 in a clean configuration.

Flight Modeling

After having performed maneuvers in the F-16 and finding them either way over-modeled or under-modeled, I decided to find out how the MiG-29 handles and get a benchmark. As many know the Fulcrum enjoys a great thrust-to-weight ratio and is very capable at slow speeds (below 250 knots).

I found that while flying the MiG-29 it also seemed to be over-modeled in tight turns. I estimated it was turning about 60 d/s at high speed and just like the F-16 it bled speeds like crazy. However, unlike the F-16, the MiG-29 didn't seem to lose that many d/s at slow speed. In the high-speed regime and assuming the Viper can hold his energy, he should be able to pull around on the MiG because like the F-15C, the MiG-29's airframe is not capable of sustained 9G turns.

However, it seems that Novalogic has decided to differentiate the two aircraft and make them really specific to different roles. Clearly, the MiG-29 has been made as a supreme dogfighter. In my estimation after dogfighting other planes in IBS, it seems almost impossible (unless the Fulcrum driver is an idiot) to beat the Fulcrum while sitting in the Viper.

While I was besting other F-16s regularly, I was never able to beat a MiG-29. When I left the arena and returned as a MiG-29, I was beating MiG's and Vipers almost without effort in WVR. At one point, I began to chuckle as a hapless Viper with no energy kept trying to out turn me. I could literally do a 360-degree circle and still pull back around on the Viper before he could pull my original 360 degrees. Neither fair nor accurate.

However, I did find that when flying in IBS the ability to evade missiles became a lot more significant as ALAMO's and AMRAAMS were always flying between the two sides. I did try to test Doppler Notching (aka beaming) accurately. When I fly on the real simulator, every time I lockup a plane (95%) I end up getting beamed and trying to give my FCR a good "paint" of the enemy plane.

When I flew on IBS and beamed my opponents, it did not seem to make much difference. Of course, hours and hours of detailed study could provide a more accurate answer but alas, I am not going to invest this much effort into something as complex as beaming when accurate modeling of the aircraft and radar system themselves are not right.

The Viper is hands down a better attack plane than the MiG. When I asked Novalogic which version of the MiG-29 they were modeling they responded with, "Mix between Fulcrum A and Fulcrum C". Hmmm…OK. Well, even the MiG-29S is still not much on ground attack even though some capability has been added (even limited PGM) so without question, the attack regime goes to the F-16. However, the disparity in the air should serve as a caution to all pilots. Don't expect to win much with the Viper versus a competent MiG-29 Fulcrum pilot.

Summary

Overall, both games are a blast to play and sport excellent graphics. I prefer the hard-core regime but want to distinguish that just because a game is not hard-core, it is some how a bad game. Definitely not! What got me a little perturbed was the comment by Novalogic about "authentic" flight models.

Of course, this is nothing new. All game companies seem to claim accurate flight models but very few have delivered (yet). As I flew in IBS, I saw numerous references to how "accurate" the flight models seemed with one guy even claiming he was an F-16 jock and that the flight and radar model was "right on". When I asked him a couple of technical questions he mysteriously disappeared.

As I mentioned, the graphics are outstanding and as long as you are not expecting realism, both games are a ball of fun. It can be difficult to find a good dogfight on IBS though, simply due to the masses of people there. Often I would be fighting someone when I would get fired at by another guy (or two) from 5-10 miles away and before I could finish the good dogfight already started, would die to the guys AMRAAMS or ALAMO's.

Customer support seems to be in superb shape. Since Thomas's review of MiG-29 went up he has already received a letter from Wes Eckhart who is the producer of F-16 MRF and MiG-29 Fulcrum. He was responding to Thomas's concerns with Internet multiplay and wanted Thomas to please work with them to find out if there was a potential flaw in the program or whether the problem was in his setup.

This is an example of outstanding support and communication. It is obvious to me that Novalogic plans to provide excellent service with these games. Direct feedback in this fashion should be the standard and not the exception. Big Kudos to Novalogic for great feedback support!

The biggest plus I see for Novalogic is the bang for the buck. Getting two games for the price of one is unbeatable. With unlimited multiplay to boot, this is one value that even a hard-core junkie like me has to take a second look! Expect a patch to fix small bugs sometime very soon!

SCORES

• Sim Sophistication Level - low to mid range
• Multiplayer Support 85% - Lacked MP mission editor Off-line support / Coop is head to head only
• Mission editor 85%
• Graphics 90% (95% running SLI at 1024*768)
• Cockpit 70% (Lack of clickable cockpit is almost unforgivable in this day)
• AI and FM details 50%
• Pucker/fun factor 90%
• Bang for the buck value 95% (Two games for one price = HARD TO BEAT)

Ed. Note: Only the lack of a clickable cockpit and the claim to authenticity really prevents us from giving Novalogic a Top Pick award. We intend to evaluate simulations according to their target audience. While we assess this sim as light to middle in terms of challenge and realism, we aren't clear that this is indeed the target audience.