Why Should Anyone Buy Falcon 3.0/OFT?
Eric A. Meyer
Okay, put away those flamethrowers. Despite the subject header,
this is an actual question with a bit of an observation thrown in.
If you're like me (and I know I am), you're a fan of simulations,
flight sims in particular. Especially those that let you shoot
things. MicroProse sims, or all of their corner-cutting when it
comes to flight models and other things, are your favorites simply
because they're fun, present impressive visuals, and are even (from
time to time) challenging. They may not be fully accurate, but
they do have versatility....and again, they're FUN.
So, you notice that the highly-praised Falcon game has been
upgraded to 3.0. You check the screen shots--they look great.
The text promises the greatest flight combat simulator this side
of the U.S. Air Force. Well, you decide to hold on and find out
what all of your friends on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games have to say
about the game.
After reading a month or two of posts, you get the wierdest
impression: Falcon 3.0 (and add-ons) is the greatest game ever,
despite its nearly infinite number of bugs, flaws, and annoyances.
Nearly everyone complains about this feature or that bug; about
the fact that Spectrum Holobyte makes its customers alpha-testers;
about unrealistic flight models for enemy aircraft; about tracking
and firing and flying and....
Every now and again, you catch a glimmer of the depth to Falcon:
giant water faucets, Nessie (I still don't understand that part,
actually), horseback riders on canyon rims, full-fledged ground
wars raging around your airbase, and so on. However, these dots
of praise are nearly drowned in a flood of criticism.
Well, perhaps you see the problem. If Falcon is so bug-ridden,
why should I bother with buying it? Buying the game and the OFT
supplemental could cost well over $100, and at least more than
$60. Why should I pay that kind of money for a product which, by
all appearances, has all of the beauty and depth of a Hollywood
street set? Sure, it looks good, but if you look you can see that
the buildings are sheets of plywood held up by cables and two-by-
fours.
So, help me out here. I'm interested in flying an F-16 into
combat, dogfighting and hitting ground targets, dodging hills,
and so on. I'm also NOT interested in acquiring a piece of software
which will annoy me incessantly with its bugs/mistakes/etcetera.
From all accounts, buying Falcon 3.0/OFT will give me both the
plane and the pain.
Well? Pick something you really love about the game and tell
me (us) why. What makes it special? How does it add to the game?
(Try to pick something relatively minor. Everyone will no doubt
want to rave about the terrain features and how detailed they are.
Be different, please. If you really want to talk about how great
the terrain is, email me directly.)
Okay, so this turned out to be a way long post. Still, I've heard
a lot about what's wrong with Falcon 3.0/OFT.
Tell me....what's right?
-EMeyer
--
"Unstable condition--a symptom of life | Eric A. Meyer (ea...@po.CWRU.edu)
In mental and environmental change | Alumnus, Beta Nu of Theta Chi
Atmospheric disturbance--the feverish flux |---------------------------------
Of human interface and interchange-" -N.P. | "What do you think, sirs?"
Sadun Anik
[stuff deleted]
Okay, so this turned out to be a way long post. Still, I've heard
a lot about what's wrong with Falcon 3.0/OFT.
Tell me....what's right?
It is a fun game to play. It has many details bult into the game
(not just visual) and this puts you into a quite complex situation
everytime you takeoff. The game doesn't fall into easy patterns. It is
a good flight simulator, and also a good action game. You can choose
to ignore the action part and just fly the plane, do target practices
etc. and really enjoy it. On the other hand, you can use the
auto-pilot do the navigation, takeoff, and landing and you do the
shooting. When you combine two sides, it makes a great game. Having
wingmen also makes flying interesting.
You don't have to shoot everything you see. With limited ammo, most
missions turn into a survival test. I would say a very well thought
and challenging game from which you can get hundreds of hours of use
and still realise that you need to set up Red Flag exercises to check
out new combat tactics. I think it is worth the money because it
delivers what it promises.
As far as bugs are concerned, they haven't really effected my game
(I have seen a few but nothing major). The stuff like choppers doing
1000 knots are important if are in an area with choppers. Most bugs
people report are hard to repeat in the game. By the way all the
choppers I have seen so far were normal.
--
Sadun Anik, U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Center for Reliable and High-performance Computing
e-mail: an...@crhc.uiuc.edu
Phat H Tran
>combat, dogfighting and hitting ground targets, dodging hills,
>and so on. I'm also NOT interested in acquiring a piece of software
>which will annoy me incessantly with its bugs/mistakes/etcetera.
>From all accounts, buying Falcon 3.0/OFT will give me both the
>plane and the pain.
> Well? Pick something you really love about the game and tell
>me (us) why. What makes it special? How does it add to the game?
>(Try to pick something relatively minor. Everyone will no doubt
>want to rave about the terrain features and how detailed they are.
>Be different, please. If you really want to talk about how great
>the terrain is, email me directly.)
What I love most about Falcon 3.0 is Spectrum Holobyte's very large,
very detailed, and very dynamic world model. Even without your F-16,
you can roam around the theatre and be mesmerized at all the little
things that go on around you. With all other sims, the world outside
the cockpit is static and dull.
The campaigns are also extremely well-done. According to the manual,
Falcon uses a strategic engine to figure out what the enemy will do
and what your future missions will be, based on the current status of
the theatre. It's akin to the computer playing a wargame, and you're
one of its pieces. But that doesn't mean you have no free will in the
game. Though you are given a mission objective, you are free to
take out targets of opportunity along your path, or assign a flight or
two to take care of the situation in another part of the theatre. The
landmark features seem to be very functional. Take out a SAM site
and you will put it out of commission for the next several missions
until it is repaired, for example.
In sum, with Falcon 3.0, SH has wrapped an impressive artificial world
around an already outstanding virtual jet.
Phat.
FWR...@psuvm.psu.edu
today. While I have not personally flown the F-16 (or any other A/C for that
matter), from what I have seen/heard/read, the performace of Falcon is very
much like that of the real thing.
Weapon deployment is one of the strong points. For air-air engagements, you
neet to get a good aOCle on your target. For air or ground, it's up to you
to decide whether the target is hostile or friendly. Compare this to F19/F117
where you can shoot and kill from any unrealistic angle, and every target comes
with a convenient little label that lets you know what you're shooting at.
Target identification is one of the most difficult aspects of modern air
combat.
If you are looking to go out and shoot things with an airplane, Falcon isn't
what you're looking for. If you are intersted in a very realistic simulation
of a modern jet fighter, this is IMHO the _only_ way to go.
With all the attention to detail in the game, it makes you wonder about a few
things:
WHY do helicopters fly at 1400KTS?
WHY didn't the threat warning or head-to-head mode work in the original 3.0?
WHY didn't the debriefing work right until OFT?
WHY does OFT now let you pull -9.9 G's (That's right, negative!!!)
(and many more)
The first 3 are examples of the product being rushed to market because of
thousands of people complaining that you're a year late. They've done an
excellent job with responding to requests for bug fixes, as well as enhancing
the game.
As for pulling ridiculous amounts of G's, I've seen many other games that let
you do this, and I just accept it. With Falcon, it's a matter of "well, the
rest of game is very true-to-life, why isn't this???" The quality of the
simulation raises your expectations, and any deviation fom reality becomes very
noticeable. What would be acceptable in another game is not in this one.
In any case, most of the recent bugs are very minor in comparison to the scope
of the game.
Just my $.02,
-Frank
Carl Pettypiece
thankfully, they've been sensible, logical evaluations. But
no-one has really answered your original question, i.e. why
should you buy Falcon 3.0.
Well, perhaps you shouldn't. This is not a flame. $60 or more
is a lot of money to spend on a game. Wisely, you waited to hear
the news on the net before buying. IMHO, you made the right
choice in not buying it. You have obviously read all (or most)
of the opinions, good and bad, about it and still feel that it
would be a waste of money. There's no point in buying a game
with a negative attitude because those bugs that you've heard
about will nag at you and keep asking you "Why did you buy me?"
Don't get me wrong. I love Falcon 3.0 (I've yet to see OFT).
It's a game, yes, but it's a flight simulator, too. Microsft's
got the best sim out there but unfortunately can only handle
small general aviation types properly. F3 is the only flight
simulator for a combat aircraft for the PC that I'm aware of.
I also like F-117A and F-15 II (can't wait to see III!), but they
are NOT flight simulators. I call them combat simulators instead
because although their flight models are poor they do offer good
combat action, especially with F-117A. Thought must be given to
how you approach a target without being detected and that makes
up for a very exciting game. However, I digress.
Unless my comments or comments of others in response to your post
have completely turned you around, I think you would be a very
unhappy camper buying F3, at least at its current price.
Oh, and here's my 2 pennies (clink, clink)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pet...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca) Disclaimer: Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario opinions!
Jim Knutson
> If you are looking to go out and shoot things with an airplane, Falcon isn't
> what you're looking for.
I wouldn't say that at all. The Instant Action mode is nothing BUT
targets. No mission, no campaign, no career tracks, just you against
the world for as long as you can last. At patch level D, this usually
isn't very long, but I have managed ~560,000 points and gone to level 2
a few times.
IA gives you more target types and weapons to use than F15II ever
dreamed about. It's just not as easy to blow them away.
Actually, I use IA as a warm up before flying campaign missions. It
gives me a bit of slack time in which to get the adrenalin pumping
without worrying about getting blown away. I also use it after
campaign missions to blow away as many turkeys as I can find so I can
get rid of those frustrating feelings from a campaign going badly.
--
Jim Knutson
knu...@mcc.com
cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson
Wk: (512) 338-3362
Jim Knutson
>The campaigns are also extremely well-done. According to the manual,
>Falcon uses a strategic engine to figure out what the enemy will do
>and what your future missions will be, based on the current status of
>the theatre. It's akin to the computer playing a wargame, and you're
>one of its pieces. But that doesn't mean you have no free will in the
>game. Though you are given a mission objective, you are free to
>take out targets of opportunity along your path, or assign a flight or
>two to take care of the situation in another part of the theatre. The
>landmark features seem to be very functional. Take out a SAM site
>and you will put it out of commission for the next several missions
>until it is repaired, for example.
There may be an engine figuring out the strategy of mission selection,
but I don't think I would run my campaign that way if I had a choice.
For instance, what's the rationale behind assigning only 2 F-16s for
an escort. Why not 4, or 6, or 8? Why not let me determine the number
of flights and aircraft in each flight?
Actually, the main reason for me wanting to change this number is the
suicidal selection of missions the engine makes. Who in their right
mind sends a measley 2 F-16s on an escort mission through the middle
of SAM alley on the way to a major enemy air field which has 4 or more
aircraft flying CAP? Shouldn't there be a wild weasel flight tagging
along or at least have had wild weasels make an earlier pass through
the area? Shouldn't you have secured at least some air superiority
before you send in those big slow bombers?
Hopefully, OFT will fix some of these mission selection problems.
Maybe Falcon 3.1 will let you do your own campaign mission selection
as an option so you can play general as well.
Phat H Tran
>In article <Bu31...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> pt...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>The campaigns are also extremely well-done. According to the manual,
>>Falcon uses a strategic engine to figure out what the enemy will do
>>and what your future missions will be, based on the current status of
>>the theatre. It's akin to the computer playing a wargame, and you're
>>one of its pieces. But that doesn't mean you have no free will in the
>>game. Though you are given a mission objective, you are free to
>>take out targets of opportunity along your path, or assign a flight or
>>two to take care of the situation in another part of the theatre. The
>>landmark features seem to be very functional. Take out a SAM site
>>and you will put it out of commission for the next several missions
>>until it is repaired, for example.
>
>There may be an engine figuring out the strategy of mission selection,
>but I don't think I would run my campaign that way if I had a choice.
>
>For instance, what's the rationale behind assigning only 2 F-16s for
>an escort. Why not 4, or 6, or 8? Why not let me determine the number
>of flights and aircraft in each flight?
>
The campaign engine *always* picks the minimum number of aircraft
required to complete a mission, so it is up to you to bring along
your security blankets. I usually add a couple more flights to the
ones the computer assigns. I don't think the minimalist approach
taken by the engine is much of a problem.
Phat.
Charles Fineman
>For instance, what's the rationale behind assigning only 2 F-16s for
>an escort. Why not 4, or 6, or 8? Why not let me determine the number
>of flights and aircraft in each flight?
Huh? Can't you change these values in the "Flight Assignments" screen?
--
David A. Masten
>but I don't think I would run my campaign that way if I had a choice.
>
>For instance, what's the rationale behind assigning only 2 F-16s for
>an escort. Why not 4, or 6, or 8? Why not let me determine the number
>of flights and aircraft in each flight?
Well, don't you? Admittedly, their selections are often poor, but you
can change any of the F16 flights. But...
>Actually, the main reason for me wanting to change this number is the
>suicidal selection of missions the engine makes. Who in their right
>mind sends a measley 2 F-16s on an escort mission through the middle
>of SAM alley on the way to a major enemy air field which has 4 or more
>aircraft flying CAP? Shouldn't there be a wild weasel flight tagging
>along or at least have had wild weasels make an earlier pass through
>the area? Shouldn't you have secured at least some air superiority
>before you send in those big slow bombers?
OFT at least lets you designate a wild weasel (Suppress Enemy Air
Defenses) action now. But I agree with your main point. Some examples:
Before OFT you would fly CAS with A4's as CAP. Definitely
bass-ackwards. OFT always gives you F15's as CAP. Unfortunately, you
cant adjust their flightpath, so they may fly right over SAMs which you
wisely avoid.
If you escort B52's, again they may fly over a bunch of SAM radars which
you would dearly love to avoid.
Sometimes I want to change flightpaths but its a real hassle to do it
for (1) the main flight, (2) a SEAD flight, (3) a CAP flight, and maybe
(4) a second wave. A 'copy waypoints' would be nice.
>Hopefully, OFT will fix some of these mission selection problems.
>Maybe Falcon 3.1 will let you do your own campaign mission selection
>as an option so you can play general as well.
See above. OFT does improve some of these things.
Dave Masten
Jim Knutson
There may be some confusion here. I use extra flights all the time.
For the normal cases, the mission just states the objectives (i.e. area
denial, CAS, etc.). However, on some missions, it states "You have
been assigned 2 F-16s to ...". In this case, I have been assuming that
you were limited to two and only two aircraft to perform the mission.
These are the suicidal escort missions in my opinion. I just can't
carry enough ordanance on two planes to do SAM suppression, escort
duties, and CAP.
Has anyone flown more than two planes on missions where you were
assigned two planes?
Phat H Tran
Yes, many times. Just today, I was ordered to "lead a flight of
2 F-16's" on an intercept mission, but I was still able to add
planes to my flight or add new flights to the mission.
Phat.
Dave Pipes x4552
>For the normal cases, the mission just states the objectives (i.e. area
>denial, CAS, etc.). However, on some missions, it states "You have
>been assigned 2 F-16s to ...". In this case, I have been assuming that
>you were limited to two and only two aircraft to perform the mission.
>These are the suicidal escort missions in my opinion. I just can't
>carry enough ordanance on two planes to do SAM suppression, escort
>duties, and CAP.
>
>Has anyone flown more than two planes on missions where you were
>assigned two planes?
All the time. I just add them as other flights, and leave my flight at
two. Seems to be okay.
David Pipes
Jay L. Davis
>this is an actual question with a bit of an observation thrown in.
> If you're like me (and I know I am), you're a fan of simulations,
>flight sims in particular. Especially those that let you shoot
>things. MicroProse sims, or all of their corner-cutting when it
>comes to flight models and other things, are your favorites simply
>because they're fun, present impressive visuals, and are even (from
>time to time) challenging. They may not be fully accurate, but
>they do have versatility....and again, they're FUN.
<...stuff deleted...>
> So, help me out here. I'm interested in flying an F-16 into
>combat, dogfighting and hitting ground targets, dodging hills,
>and so on. I'm also NOT interested in acquiring a piece of software
>which will annoy me incessantly with its bugs/mistakes/etcetera.
>From all accounts, buying Falcon 3.0/OFT will give me both the
>plane and the pain.
> Well? Pick something you really love about the game and tell
>me (us) why. What makes it special? How does it add to the game?
>(Try to pick something relatively minor. Everyone will no doubt
>want to rave about the terrain features and how detailed they are.
>Be different, please. If you really want to talk about how great
>the terrain is, email me directly.)
> Okay, so this turned out to be a way long post. Still, I've heard
>a lot about what's wrong with Falcon 3.0/OFT.
> Tell me....what's right?
>
> -EMeyer
There have been a lot of bugs with this program. However, if you start with
version 3.01 (which comes with OFT) then it is an awsome simulator. There
are still a few bugs and there will still be a couple of patches, but the
bugs are mostly minor. Just make sure that you have the right hardware to
take advatage of the game. It runs great (at maximum detail) on my 33mhz 386
with an Orchid Pro-Designer II VGA board and a regular soundblaster. I also
have a 387 which lets me use the hi-fidelity flight model and is a big plus.
Having a memory manager like QEMM is a must because this program really
needs memory. Also, having at least 4 meg of expanded memory gives you
a decent amount a recording time for the flight recorder.
---Jay Davis
John Long
>In article <92248.165...@psuvm.psu.edu> FWR...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>> If you are looking to go out and shoot things with an airplane, Falcon isn't
>> what you're looking for.
>
>I wouldn't say that at all. The Instant Action mode is nothing BUT
>targets. No mission, no campaign, no career tracks, just you against
>the world for as long as you can last. At patch level D, this usually
>isn't very long, but I have managed ~560,000 points and gone to level 2
>a few times.
>
True what you say, Jim. I doubt if many people have seen that high a
score, (patch 'd', folks) however.
There are 3 ways you can 'use' Falcon: Instant Action, Red Flag, and
Campaign. IA is nothing but targets, and they are always the same.
It is the most arcade-like mode, with a highscore list to bump.
Red Flag lets you set up 'training' missions. You can set up a mission
where you could have a couple of f-117's going off one way to bomb
something while some A-10's are flying CAS for some of your ground
units, which are engaging enemy ground forces somewhere else, and
have some B-52's flying back and forth... You can set speed, altitude
and waypoints of all flights, and you have control of what weapons
are used by enemy aircraft. You also have control of friendly and
enemy ground forces, and the types of weapons they use. Setting up
a 'donnybrook' type of RF mission can be time-consuming, yes, but
can also be enjoyable, if you have any 'programmer blood' in you.
You don't have to be fancy, however. One of the best is a 1-vs-1
that starts with a bandit just to your side. RF missions can be
saved in very little disk space also.
And yes, you can just fly 'peacetime' too, and dance with the clouds.
-LongJohn