I have broken "the cutting edge" into seven key areas. The approach I want to take is to survey what major developers are doing in these areas. As sim fans are fond of point out, most developers do a few things very well, while paying less attention to other areas. The tension here, of course, is development time and resources. But the tension is also vision, because at least one developer is pursuing the elusive goal of putting it all together in one package. More on that later!

The seven areas in which developers are working hard at breaking new ground are: (the envelope please!)

• Flight Models
• Physics and Damage Model
• Dynamic Campaign AI
• Virtual Pilots and Morale/Personality Factors
• Integration of Strategic Control
• Communications and Wingmen Interaction/Control
• Graphics Modeling

Flight Models

There are two cutting edge areas in flight modeling for military simulations. The first is becoming a requirement for state of the art sims: supplying the same 6 DOF model for both the human pilot and for the AI pilot.

Until very recently the AI for computer controlled pilots (CCPs) and the virtual human pilot were different. This wasn't very noticeable under ordinary conditions... but get into a dogfight with a CCP and suddenly you KNOW something is wrong! The CCP may not exceed the max g of his airframe, but he can pull those max gs with little penalty, if any. CCPs have not been modeled to experience redout, blackout, or panic. And most of them have been somewhat limited in their responses.

F15. Click for a larger image...

Furthermore, CPPs often seem able to locate their adversary (me and you!) in spite of our flying into the sun, and generally pulling incredible gymnastics suited to our awesome flight abilities. Well, at least suited to yours!

Happily, this is changing. Simulations like Falcon 4 and MS Combat Flight Sim give CCPs the same flight model as the virtual pilots. Some simulations like Rowan's Flying Corps have already arrived there. Select the advanced flight model for the CCPs in Flying Corps and suddenly the difficulty of an aerial win is dramatically increased. It truly is a great advance in sim design.

MS Combat Flight Sim. Click for 640x480.

Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim takes this even further, by modeling realistic situation awareness into their CPPs. The field of view for CPPs is divided into six sections and each section is modeled according to the pilots current attitude, taking into account the parts of his aircraft as well as sun attitude and cloud layers. As a result, these guys will realistically lose sight of you depending on where you are before and during a dogfight. Too cool.

But there is another cutting edge, and that territory is being covered by the few. Janes Combat Simulations F15 ventured where no pilot had gone before in a military flight simulation for the PC. Rather than compiling data on aircraft performance and creating routines that will model that performance in a variety of situations, Janes obtained the math that the USAF actually employs to model aircraft performance-- DATCOM. These equations were incorporated directly into F15.

That bit of work completed part one of an entirely new approach on the PC. Part two was composed of stability derivatives for the F15. For that subject Janes enlisted Air Force engineers who shared the public domain data with them. Yeah, sounds great, but what makes this so different than simply using the old methods?

Having gone through the work described above Janes has essentially created a virtual reality physics model. In other words, the real aircraft and its performance have now been modelled on the PC. As a result, all the planes actual performance characteristics are in place. There is no longer a need to model particular situations in the flight envelope, with the inevitable result that some situations are not truly modelled.

In F15, every subtle effect is in place, just as it would for the real aircraft and real pilot. Stalls, spins, speed bleed, inertia... none of these will be specifically modelled as in previous attempts at the genre, yet all will be immediately in place. Yes, this is history in the making, and great news for virtual pilots.

Flying Corps came close, and Falcon 4 may come closer still. With their reputation for accuracy in WWI aircraft, look to Rowan's coming MiG Alley to also mirror incredible accuracy in flight modeling. The horsepower being freed by 3d hardware will be put to good use this year and next!

Flying Corps. Click for larger

Physics and Damage Models

Activision's A10 Cuba, and Eidos International Confirmed Kill, Activision's Fighter Squadron: Screamin Demons all aim at being cutting edge in the physics department. Similarly, Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim and Janes WW2 Fighters show an impressive effort.

It wasn't very long ago that physics modeling meant that if a wing was knocked off, it should disappear or fall to earth. If a shell was fired an object should incur damage. It didn't matter if one actually SAW a shell trajectory in action, and it definitely didn't matter if wind or gravity forces acted much on these objects.

A screen from Fighter Squadron..

Furthermore, you really could not target a particular area of an aircraft. A probability model, as well as limited object modeling, interfered with this ability. But no more!

One of the extremely cool features of A10 Cuba (by Parsoft under the direction of Eric "Hellcats" Parker) was its physics modelling. A10 went where no 'hog had gone before, much less any other flight simulation. Here are some comments on that physics modelling from Neil Mouneinme's review:

More than anything else A-10 Cuba deserves mention for the physics and flight modeling. This game has the best physics model ever put into a combat sim, period. The moment you start the engines and pull out of the hangar you'll realize things are different. The landing gear your plane rests on reacts to weight shifting from accelerating, braking, and turning with unbelievably realistic damped suspension.

On the takeoff roll, the main struts will compress and the nose gear will extend to its limit, followed by the main gear themselves, as the plane becomes light and leaves the ground. In flight the plane reacts well, developing lift from the huge wings, realistically modeling the control surface reactions, bobbing around in wind currents, etc.

Turn off the computer flight augmentation and the plane will tip-stall violently in a stall condition if you push the limit too hard. Lose an engine or wing surface and the plane will try to roll to one side. Use the brakes or flaps if one is damaged and the 'hog will yaw in the direction of the working one. Drag a wingtip on the ground and the plane will try to cartwheel or yaw. The realism is simply incomparable, but the beauty is that it isn't difficult to fly, just very satisfying because you know that it's right.

Damage effects are very realistic as befits a game with such a good flight model. Like the real A-10, you can lose one-third of your wing surface, one engine, and a rudder and still have enough control authority to land the damaged plane, but you'll be fighting the controls and skirting the outer edge of a stall almost all the way. Engine damage may result in a fire - complete with polygon flame and black smoke.

Pull the extinguisher and it might put out the fire, or it might not. If it doesn't there is a risk of a catastrophic fuel explosion - backfiring of unburnt fuel in the compressor wake will indicate the risk involved. Land too hard and the landing gear might get twisted out of shape or broken completely. Get forced to belly land and sparks trail behind you as you scrape the runway.

Physics modelling consists in the action and reaction of objects to various real world forces. These forces include gravity, torque, wind, drag and lift, inertia, heat, etc. Physics modeling is closely related to damage models and weapons models, though of course damage modeling is more complicated since it can affect a variety of other factors.

Comanche 3 included a secondary damage model, and was the first simulation for the PC that I have seen where one could shoot a tree and watch it fall. If it happened to fall on you, you too would incur damage. I was even more surprised when I landed on the water and promptly sank!

In iMagics iF18 CSF, Sidewinder missiles leave very real and twisty trails. The trails persist, as they would in the real world. In Janes Longbow or Team Apache, firing the cannon causes the airframe to move. Launch a Hellfire rocket and watch it arc upward to the target. Flak will jar your airframe in Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim, and being too close to an explosion in virtually any recent air combat sim is risky, since blast effects and pieces of aircraft breaking off can damage your own platform.

Equally important, instead of a hit modeled by statistical probability, the projectile must reach a particular kill zone while being acted on by real world forces. Physics modelling is on the upswing and we can expect to see this area increase in realism over the next year.

Shermans in Panzer Elite. Click for larger image.

Object oriented AI means that a tank in Panzer Elite or an aircraft in Fighter Squadron is divided into many separate parts. You can damage a particular engine on a bomber. And once a bullet has approached near enough to the engine to damage it, the AI then calculates which system the bullet impacted. Is the fuel line hit? Is a cylinder impacted? What about the oil system? Even the prop can be damaged in the newest sims.

Physics modeling has become so sophisticated that the guns in Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim or SPGS coming Fighter Duel II are not merely guns. Each weapon has its own characteristics. Each bullet is modeled for trajectory, and each type of gun has its own muzzle velocity which can change with altitude and demand on the weapon (heat affects characteristics). Naturally, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage than a smaller one. When you consider how many different guns are modeled on the B17s in Combat Flight Sim, you begin to see the enormity of the effort!

Physics also extends to the environment, and Novalogic's Comanche 3 was one of the first to give us secondary damage effects. Taking out a tower sometimes had an impact on other structures, or on aircraft parked nearby. In Falcon 4, Apache Havoc or Panzer Elite we'll see this interactive environment extended, since its possible to damage portions of structures and not see the entire structure disappear.

Equally important, repair times are becoming realistic. This is critical to the dynamic and ongoing campaign models in simulations like Falcon 4. Players want to know that if they take out a runway in North Korea, it will not be repaired on their next flight over an hour later. Its good to know that your effort makes a difference, and also good to know that enemy aircraft can't launch when you fly nearby on another mission an hour later!

But realism in the environment is more than merely physics and damage models, it also extends to activity within the environment. iMagic's recent iF18 Carrier Strike Fighter models carrier landings at a level not previously seen, as will DI's coming Super Hornet. With a LSO giving seventeen different hand signals, and other traffic queing to take off and land, the carrier environment is more active and interactive than anything yet seen. Expect to see this extended to other simulation areas like IFR (in flight refueling) as well as ATC communications (see COMMS below). Dynamic Campaign AI

Dynamic campaigns are not really a recent invention, having existed at least since Falcon 3. However, campaign AI is greatly broadening in complexity, including resource and resupply models, persistent damage and realistic repair times, and even integrating ground warfare with air warfare. The cutting edge in dynamic campaign AI is the real time dynamic campaign. (See our Editorial series on Dynamic Campaigns).

Longbow 2. Click for a larger image..

In EF2000 the players performance in one mission affected subsequent missions. In iF22, the same is true. In each simulation the AI generated a "mission set" from which the player would select which missions to fly. At the end of a designated period of time, the AI generated a new set of missions.

However, in coming simulations the AI will calculate tactic factors and assess damage in real time! This is a giant step toward a more dynamic battlefield. Mission assignments can change after each mission, and the importance of individual missions and the accompanying tension will increase. The ebb and flow of the battle will likely be move obvious. Scramble missions are more likely to occur, and at less convenient times!

With resource management integrated into real time campaigns, the failure of a particular mission could mean that you run out of smart weapons! Imagine having to fly your F22 with only cannon shells and AIM 9M missiles! By the same token, imagine having your EWR sites taken out by enemy forces and then having no warning whatsoever of an incoming Strike mission as you prepare to launch your own strike mission! Real time dynamism will definitely add interest and tension to the battlefield.

Microprose coming Falcon 4 will actually feature two fully dynamic campaigns in one package. The air war is completely modeled, as is the ground war. And both of these wars interact dynamically. This means that if you take out a factory making missile motors, enemy resources will eventually be strained. Or if you fail to offer air support at the right time to a friendly armor platoon, enemy armor could overrun your air base and destroy many of your own aircraft.

Everyone knows that F4 has been almost five years in development. Thankfully, Microprose hasn't been twiddling their thumbs during that time, and F4 will be the first simulation on the market that actually allows players to create their own dynamic campaigns!

Virtual Pilots and Morale/Personality Factors

SIMIS took a unique approach to simulation design with Team Apache, essentially integrating role play and personality factors/leadership choices into the tactical and simulation mix. The resulting brew has a unique flavor.

In Team Apache the AI models CCPs with personality. Integrating experience AND human elements into the AI, a computer controlled pilot will have to deal with all the forces real pilots face: g forces, morale forces, fatigue and the possibility of panic. This will add an interesting strategic element. Pop out of the sun on the six of a Russian pilot and open up with your cannon and what will he do? What is his experience level, fatigue level, and morale? Maybe he'll dive and run from home and not even attempt to engage you...

F22 ADF. Click for a larger image...

In DiDs coming Total Air War or Microprose Falcon 4.0, pilots will grow in ability as their flight time increases. Suddenly the loss of a pilot can be a critical factor to ongoing success. Imagine flying with the same pilot for three campaign days after completing training and then losing him: you have lost a friend AND a valuable tactical asset, since a less experienced pilot will have to take his place.

Team Apache takes this the next mile. Even personal compatability is important. Friendship between pilots may mean a higher success rate, but what if the friend of your team mate bites it? Flying with that pilot in the next mission may be a very high risk...Tick off the crew chief or overwork your mechanic, and they might start making mistakes. Bryan Walker commented:

Team Apache. Click for larger.

In Team Apache, each non-player pilot is rated in 21 different categories, most of which can fluctuate depending on fatigue and morale levels. Each non-player pilot also has a distinct personality that dictates how compatible he will be with other non-player pilots in the cockpit.

The Player can view the pilots via a "tent" interface. By clicking on each pilot graphic, the player will see a message saying something along the lines of "Abrams appears alert but worried," "Donaldson is jovial and energetic," etc. As the campaign goes on, the "appearance" of these pilots will change, depending upon a number of events.

The Player can also review individual mission tapes and statistics from aircrew, noting their performance.

Microsoft is also innovating the model of CCPs. Instead of simply modeling manouvers according to pilot skill and aircraft characteristics, they have modeled the actual control input on the stick. In other words, the game simulates the stick position chosen by the CPP and then the aircraft responds accordingly. Theoretically a zealous pilot could lose control the same as you would! In fact it does work this way, and I have seen bandits on my six lose control and go into a spin. The beauty of the model is that the limitations of the bandit are always as realistic as your own.

Integration of Strategic Control

One year ago the players in this department were Digital Image Design and Eidos International. However, Flying Nightmares II was scrapped, and both Janes and SSI/Mindscape have offered surprise entries in this new stract/sim blend.

Digital Image Design developed a two module simulation under the titles F22: Air Dominance Fighter and Total Air War. BOTH of these packages include the ability to oversee the entire battlefield from the strategic vantage point of the AWACS, though only TAW allows this integration in a sweeping and ongoing dynamic campaign. Incredibly, the communication package integrated into these control features is a ten THOUSAND word vocabulary, almost a third of normal human speech. Roger Godfrey of DiD:

With F22 Total Air War the player has a far greater degree of control over the way the war is fought. The mission planner is not just used for you to create missions you want to fly; you can use it for positioning CAP's over your sensitive installations or create a series of missions leading on from one another - you can really do anything you like with your planes. . Also if any of the planes you send up are F22's then you have the option of flying the mission.

Click for 800x600 -260K.

Say you wanted to bomb a strategically important target but it's SAM umbrella is just too hard to penetrate. You could tackle the problem in a number of ways:

Plan several strike missions to the same target with a large contingent of Wild Weasel flights. This may work but you could end up losing a lot of your planes. You could plan a F117, JSF or F22 mission to take out the targets in the night using their stealth capabilities. You could plan a continual series of Wild Weasel flights until every last SAM launcher is destroyed. Then send in your bombers. The choice is yours.

Along with the mission planner you also have the AWACS to play with. This allows you to control the planes in the air in real time. You can re-task and vector planes around to deal with threats as they appear. Also you can jump in to any friendly F22 in the theatre from AWACS. You can engineer dogfights by vectoring flights and then watch the resulting dogfight using smart views.

With 688(I) Hunter/Killer, Janes took a step toward third person/first person strat/sim integration, offering a window on the world through which the player could observe any object in the battlefield environment, from whales to missiles to ships. And 688(I) was designed from the start to connect with another simulation, which was originally conceived as AEGIS.

Unfortunately for those who were hoping to see AEGIS this past summer, Janes and Sonalysts took a step back to see what was possible, and the coming "Fleet Command" is the result. "Fleet Command" will be Janes first entry into this new genre, firmly cementing the integration of strategy and simulation on a grand scale. How will this work?

If you've ever played a third person strategy title, you know that it's relatively easy to actually control objects using your mouse to select and drag. In order to vector an intercept in ADF or Total Air War you simply click on the allied flight and then drag to the enemy flight. This kind of control could be broadly extended by offering a drop down menu system.

Imagine it like this: you drag your flight to command an intercept, but once the red diamond pops up and the flight acknowledges the command, a menu pops up that allows you a finer degree of control. Now you can select INTERCEPT TYPE : -cutoff or stern conversion, and PRIORITY :- all possible speed - all possible stealth - blow through and stealth (this latter so that friendlies bypass intervening targets).

I don't know how much command depth Fleet Command will offer, but the player will be able to select individual ships or task forces, or individual aircraft or flights. We will also be able to call up new flights and command undersea assets. (Remember Microprose "Task Force: 1942?" Imagine this in the modern setting, with high resolution and a far more detailed command and map interface, integrated with first person play for the aircraft also).

Fleet Command will initially give us first-person control over sea assets only, but this initial release will be shortly followed by an inter-operable simulation of the F/A 18, and if we're lucky, the F14 Tomcat! Who knows, after that we may be able to fly some choppers, and an additional allied submarine is likely too.

The 3d perspective will be much like the Smartview perspective pioneered by DiD in EF2000 Tactcom and later in F22:ADF and Total Air War. The camera will offer real time views with all the trimmings: you'll see all the action, all the weather, and all the damage! Its incredibly immersive just watching the dogfights in the TAW beta! However, Fleet Command will likely add support for multiple monitors, which should allow us the gods' eye view on one screen while issuing orders on the other!

Janes plan to model over 1000 different units, all with their actual capabilities. The real time dynamic campaign system will extend to cover 16 different navies including Russia, China, Taiwan and India. Multiplayer support will allow up to eight players via LAN, modem or serial connection.

Meanwhile, Mindscape/SSI are also stepping into the new simulation /strategic blend. First, Silent Hunter II will be released, taking us back to the deep in a simulation of the war in the Altantic, this time from the German side. Unlike its namesake, this one will have a multiplayer component allowing for wolf pack tactics. But the better news is that an interoperable sim will arrive later on, currently titled "Destroyer Command."

And the modern component of SSI's Digital Combat Series may ultimately shine more brightly still, competing head to head with Janes Fleet Command for best of the genre benders. Harpoon IV is destined to allow strategic control of assets at the grand level while allowing players to get into the action in the first person in vehicles like the Soviet Flanker, at least the carrier version!

But of course, it won't stop there. Since Harpoon is classically a naval battle game, we will likely see command of certain Allied and Russia naval assets, and perhaps even submarines. An Allied naval fighter is another likely bet, probably the F-18 and if we're really lucky, maybe the Tomcat or Sea Harrier also.

As with Fleet Command, we can look for click and drag control over assets, and since this is a mid to late 1999 scenario, we will probably also have multiple monitor support. Personally, I can envision my office running this game across three monitors: a real time Theatre Command view where I order a strike of a ground based position, a real time view of the cat launches happening on my carrier, and another view showing me the action (the gods eye cheat view).

It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that LAN meets would take on a whole new dimension in this kind of game! Getting six or eight guys together might mean you only need two or three system units, but six or eight monitors. And I can also imagine some unique multiplayer scenarios and big screen TVs for the Theatre Commander (see our July Editorial for more detail).

Flanker 2 Cat Action

Communications, ATC and Wingmen Interaction/Control

iMagics' F22 broke new ground in July of 997 by offering FOUR distinct communications modes, three of which may be used in single player mode: UHF, IFDL, and Guard. UHF provided options for direct communication on specific frequencies with other allied players. This mode allows for both scripted (voice?) and custom text messages to be sent, though only the scripted messages are understood by computerized units.

IFDL (In Flight Data Link) is a method for passing targeting and detection information between players, so that use of active sensors is minimized. Guard communications is the broadcast of messages to all friendlies, and is primarily an emergency comms channel.

DiD's F22: ADF and Total Air War allow a player to change frequencies to listen in on other flights. The four comms channels are more usable AND support more traffic. For a run down on the comms see the second edition of our preview series. Since comms are so expansive in ADF and Total Air War and integrated with the SmartView system a player can both observe the action of the wild weasel flight out ahead of his strike force AND hear the action also. In real life related flights would be able to monitor these channels for the purpose of better situational awareness.

Janes F15 likewise expanded the area of comms, allowing a level of control of wingmen that surpassed everything to date. In F15 the player can give orders to individual wingmen, communicate with AWACS, ATC and FACs. But even this structure will be surpassed in the winter of 1998-99 by the communications structure of Falcon 4. Falcon 4 is set to offer the most detailed and realistic comms action yet seen on the PC.

Falcon 4.0. Maverick action.
An external view of air to air action.

Communications in Falcon 4 is more diverse and flexible than anything yet seen on the PC. This depth and flexibility are necessary because of the immense amount of variety in missions and the complete spontaneity of interaction between units as determined by the needs of the dynamic battlefield.

Voice itself is an area where there is room for growth. The voice overlays in Hornet 3.0 are outstanding, and personally I was quite happy with USNF in this department. EF2000 was a bit too sterile, and the voices all sounded the same. This actually hampered SA since you really couldn't tell if it was YOURSELF who had just called MAYDAY or the ESCORT flight you were supposed to protect. Different voices for different sources help immersion AND Situational Awareness.

In the Falcon 4 alpha, diversity in both chatter and tone mirrors the real world exactly. Only Janes F15 has come close. The variety of chatter from allied pilots, both in tone and in subject matter, is amazing! And if you happen to unwittingly take a shot at an allied target, you will hear about it! To date Janes F15 has had the most detailed wingmen command routines available. But there is still room for improvement and we will see good things this winter in Falcon 4. What will be the cutting edge? Flexibility is the name of the game. Here is a partial list of the commands we are likely to see:

• Bracket left/right
• Drag left/right
• Break high/low, left/right
• Engage My Target
• Sort left/right
• Form on my wing
• Formation Type
• Report stores
• Report Fuel
• Report Status
• Perform Scan/direction/alt
• Sanitize/direction
• Cover me
• Help
• Return to base/Bug out
• Abandon Mission

While such commands are not so critical for network play, for a satisfying single player experience this kind of tactical control is the meat and potatoes of simulated life.

Without solid wingman control, many basic strategies become impossible. Head-on merges are not the best way to live through an initial contact! For example, standard two on one or two on two doctrine requires the ability to send your wingmen off to bracket on one side (preferably 2 of them while the third remains with you) while you and your wing bracket the other, or to perform a DRAG manouver while you get on the tail of the bandit. This greatly increases the likelihood of a kill. In too many sims ordering wingmen to engage two bandits has meant that three of our wingmen are off and hunting leaving the flight LEAD on his own!

By the same token, to command two of your flight to watch a different sector of the flight path with RADAR gives you better situational awareness. SA is the sister to "lose sight, lose the fight." A sanitize or sector scan command enables this control. If you miss your target, (of course this NEVER happens to the rest of us), the ability to have your wingman take your target out could be crucial in cutting off supply lines or stopping that pesky SAM site from killing any more of your allies.

In F4, as in F15, a player will communicate with other members of his flight at different levels. Level one is a wingman call, level two is a call to the element, level three is a call to the group, and level four is a call to the flight. The diversity of these commands mirrors the real world.

F4 Campaign Map. Click for 800x600

Integration of the Ground War

Integration of the ground war means greater reality and greater immersion; greater immersion means higher replayability... ie. more fun! There are three implications for sim design: platform, AI, and avionics and weapon and defence systems. First, AI.

Microprose' Falcon 4 is the only nearly released simulation that smoothly integrates an air and ground war in a single dynamic campaign structure. Earlier in the life of Total Air War the goal was the same, and Roger Godfrey commented on "Smart Tanks:"

Roger G: ... a fully functioning ground war. The Tanks fight each other on the battlefield, trains travel around the desert (on train lines), trucks travel down the roads, SAMS trundle around taking pot shots at enemy aircraft and AAA snakes into the sky. This is great stuff for Close Air Support missions. Of course the other aircraft will perform CAS using SmartPilots as well so don't be surprised if you see A10's smashing T-80's to bits or EF2000's performing Wild Weasel.

Integration of the ground war means that interdiction of supplies will now become a critical mission goal, and supply routes will be busy with vehicular traffic. Not only does this add to the immersion factor, it adds to the realism since resource management and resupply are the backbone of any military campaign.

The larger question is, as hardware power continues to expand, where does this integration go? Most likely it simply continues to expand. Future dynamic campaigns will model not only the integration of air and ground wars, but do it in larger worlds where more and more factories of a vital economy are connected to the ability to continue to prosecute the war. So, for example, not only will dams and factories and supply convoys be potential targets, but railway lines and roads, hydro lines and oil fields.

Next, avionics. Up to 1997 no one had seriously taken on LANTIRN simulation. However, this changed in 1997 with Janes Longbow, followed by Longbow 2, F15 and then Team Apache. Soon we'll see the HARM targetting system modeled in detail in F4.

LANTIRN shot from iF16. Click for a larger image...

Team Apache. Click the image for a larger shot..

Modeling defence networks and ground strike weapons and systems is another cutting edge. Janes F15 introduced a GCI (ground control intercept) network which was vulnerable at key points, and where information travelled along the network so that one station was connected to another. This meant being detected on ingress to the target would result in a higher state of preparation of defences. Conversely, taking out a key component of the GCI grid meant that you had a higher chance of completing your mission. In future campaigns this level of integration of systems will continue to expand and improve.

But equally important, the modeling of weapons systems themselves continues to improve. Not only are we seeing the ballistics and physics improve, the simulation of targetting systems is becoming more sophisticated, and increasing realism is invested in failure rates, accuracy, damage potential, counter measures etc.

Finally, choice of platform. In order to do justice to an integral ground war the best platform choice is a strike fighter like the F15 or the A10. Those of us who love the mud-moving waited eagerly for Andy Hollis last project, and now are hoping to see a solid A10 simulation. Rumor has it that both Janes and iMagic are working in this area now.

But wait a minute! Why not blur the boundaries again and put together an A10, armor and chopper sim in one neat interoperable package? Thankfully, this seems to be the direction for Microprose for early 1999 when M1 Tank Platoon II, an awesome entry in the armor department this year, meets Gunship III. No, there is no word of an A10 in this picture yet, but who knows what we will see in the summer of 1999?

Conclusions

Three areas which could have been included in this discussion are ACMI, multiplayer features and mission planners. The cutting edge is continually being improved in all of these areas, and Flanker 2 and Falcon 4 look set to achieve a whole new dimension in each, but particularly in ACMI and multiplayer flexibility.

Personally, I think the cutting edge should also support cutting edge hardware, like Forte's VFX1, surround sound and multiple monitor support. Force feedback is a bit less important, though it becomes more significant in the prop sims. And while the complexity of sims these days might lead one to conclude that everyone has to own Thrustmaster gear, the advent of programmable units like Saitek's PC Dash and Quickshot's Masterpilot means that anyone can expand their control abilities with minimum effort.

I haven't discussed the graphical requirements of the cutting edge. I have, however, made it clear in recent previews that the state of the art is advancing as rapidly in graphics as in any other single area of sim design. The near maturity of 3d hardware is enabling developers to reach for their dreams and I don't think there is much point for discussion here.

I do want to note, however, that graphical effects and physics modeling strongly overlap, so that light source shading and shadows, explosions at night that illuminate surrounding terrain (as in F15, Longbow II, Team Apache and others) add to immersion and realism. WW2 Fighters certainly rides the cutting edge in the graphical effects department, but we'll see that bar continually raised in the coming year. Wait until you crash in Fighter Squadron and see your tire bouncing off across the landscape! ;-D

In the past some sim design companies have attempted to push forward faster than hardware could keep pace. Remember Origen's Strike Commander?" On the other hand, USNF when it was released was a strain on my state of the art P90, but when I arrived at a slightly overclocked 150 MHz a few months later it was an incredible simulation. With the pace of hardware advancement these days, kudos to Janes Combat Simulations for releasing a sim like WW2 Fighters which will grow with our hardware while being accessible to most platforms at relatively high levels of detail even today.

But I want to take a poke at advanced flight models that exist in a sterile world without wind effects. Kudos to Rowan Software for giving us the whole enchilada in Flying Corps, with the exception of weather. Team Apache advanced the cause and we will see many more advances in this area in the coming year from Apache-Havoc, MiG Alley, Nations , Panzer Elite and others.

In conclusion, we've surveyed the scene with a view toward the immediate future, and it's a great time for sim fans. With third generation 3d hardware now on the shelves and CPU and memory prices at record lows, I suspect that we will all be spending our holidays protecting our air space, ferreting out enemy subs, or ensuring that our M1s control the battlefield. See you on the field of honor!