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.
