A long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away, a small computer software company by the name of Spectrum Holobyte released a product. This product shipped in a plain, but elegant, silver box with only the name and simple line art to identify it. This said product's system requirements were as follows:

• IBM AT, IBM PS/2 or compatible
• 12MHz 80286 minimum
• 20MHz 80386 recommended
• (80486 REALLY HOT!)
• 1MB RAM with DOS 5.0
• 2MB RAM with EMS recommended
• VGA graphics required
• Supports Ad Lib, Roland and Sound Blaster cards.

Inside this elegant box was a 342 page manual, and three maps. 1991 saw the birth of a legend, a water mark that has never been surpassed. Falcon 3.0 did not change the hardcore flight simulation market, it created it.

We now stand seven years later at the dawn of a new generation of flight simulations. Falcon 4.0, the only true successor to the throne is a mere months away and several other fantastic products are inbound as well. However, this generation has come at an awful price. Seven years have passed since armchair jet jockeys were introduced to what simulations should look like. In a hobby where months make huge diferences a seven year reign is simply awe inspiring. Words can simply not be used to describe this feat. To make the feat even more inspirational, look at the system requirements. No 3D cards, no 333MHz processors, not even a CD-ROM. A math co-processor, 4MB's of ram and a 486 and you were in heaven.

This simulation gave birth to the "dynamic campaign" and was so succesful at it, the game is still played by the hardest-core PC jet jocks. Not because of cutting edge flight models, not because of graphics, not because 500+ people can play at one time, not because it models an aircraft that no one will truly know the flight data on for a very long time; it is played because it puts you in a war. A complete war.

When you play it, you're in Panama, or Kuwait, or Korea. They play because you have 40+ pilots that need rotation so as not to tire anyone out, because you only have 5 operational jets and a full week untill your scheduled re-supply, because that airfield you destroyed last week is under repair by the enemy because your ground forces failed to capture it after your brilliant air strike failed to open a capture zone. Falcon 3.0 is still played because it was written and constructed they way everything should be. It was done right the "first time." (Of course it took a lot of patches to do it right the "first time")

The point of these ramblings is that not a single simulation that has been released after Falcon 3 has taken everything F3 brought to the table and improved on it, in one package. Microprose (which SH actually bought out but because of internal problems SH went with the MPS name as a show of "good faith") looks to be almost incestuous, as Falcon 4.0 looks to be successor to the holy throne. At the same time F4 looks to be setting a new mark as high as F3 did when it was released.

When simulations come along now-adays claiming this and that, deep down those of us who have been here since the birth of the genre measure them against one sim: Falcon 3. None have ever truly measured up as a complete package, sure we have seen better graphics, but this usually came at the expense of realism, or multiplayer capabilities, or a multitude of other features. Yes we have seen variations on viewing systems (none of which will truly solve the problem. The only true solution is high resolution VR headsets), yes we have seen greater multiplayer capabilities, but at the end of the day no one has them all. F3, did.

It has been written that simulation producers did not want their work to be branded as an F3 "clone" (or the phrase I like, an "SVGA Falcon 3") which is why the flight sim comunity has not seen a simulation beat F3 at it's own game. While an honorable position to take, it is a questionable position since we see clones in all other genre's, and as much as we love to hate them, every so often a few rise above and beyond the original. The saturation of the "same" game usually leads to at least a few bright and burning originals.

However this has not been the case in the flight simulation genre. I dare anyone to show us a simulation that does not take something from F3 and focus on one or two aspects alone. It simply can not be done. I will, however, give a nod of achievement to EF2000. It came close but the lack of a ground war and "useable" multiplayer features kept it from breaking even with, not outdoing, F3.

This position may be biased. It may even be tainted, as over the years the bugs and problems we faced in F3 tend to be forgotten as the memories of missions past and virtual wingmen's funerals parade through my head. Overcast days with shining victories, and beautiful sunsets stained with the blood of my fellow electronic countrymen fill the air with nostalgia.

Yes Falcon 3.0 is finally looking to step down as chairman of the board; it has been a long and distinguished tour of duty but the simulation market is finally poised to fill F3's chair with a successor worthy of the position. As for the rest of the proverbial "board," the chairs, this year, look to be filled with very high quality simulations as well. I however, being a seasoned and nostalgic falcon 3 driver, will stand by Falcon 4.0 as the new chairman.

R. John "Mustang" Klimut
CO - VFS-618th "Skye Raiders"
Back to Baghdad Alpha/Beta test team member
Interstate 76 Beta test team member