Game Killer/Game_Killer.bin/1476.F15_IMP.TXT

Text File | 1992-12-19 | 14KB | 318 lines

F-15 STRIKE EAGLE III - FIRST IMPRESSIONS
Matthew T. Smith - CIS: 70661,3235

Just received my F-15 Strike Eagle III upgrade.  Here are some
impressions from the last (sleepless) 36 hours of playtesting...

Since the program represents the first (but not last) significant
challenge to Falcon 3.0, in terms of both realism and depth of
play, I will make direct comparisons between both simulations
wherever possible.


IN A NUTSHELL...
----------------
I like F-15III.  The graphics are very attractive,
particularly the aircraft visual models.  The pixel/bitmapped
sky and scenery is impressive -- but call it evolutionary, not
revolutionary (more on this later).  Particularly well done are
the animation and graphics effects during weapons
release/delivery/impact, which are superior in many ways to
those of Falcon 3.0, or any other recent ACM sim.

The interface itself is well thought-out, and has a streamlined
look and feel.  Compared to the "War Room" interface and menu
system of Falcon 3.0, getting around in F-15III seems much
quicker and easier.

The F-15E flight model, while accurate, seems understandably
sluggish compared to that of Falcon 3.0's F-16 (complex or
hi-fidelity modes).  This is compounded by the demands that
the F-15III graphics place on the host PC's hardware, which
makes the in-flight frame rate seem slow compared to that of
Falcon 3.0.


GENERAL
-------
Strike Eagle III's hardware and operating environment requirements
are effectively identical to those of Falcon 3.0/OFT.

The 3.5" F-15III set comes on 5 1.44MB disks.  Installation
requires MS-DOS 5.0 or higher, 10 MB free hard drive space, 2MB
RAM (at least 588KB bytes free conventional memory and 752KB free
EMS).

For the most part, if you've got what it takes to run Falcon 3.0
in any of its versions or variants you have everything you need
to get F-15III off the ground.

That said, remember that the minimum CPU/Clock Speed
recommendations that flight simulator publishers place on their
packages might not always result in "satisfactory" performance.

I've got a 386-33 with a fast ATI VGA card.  The frame rate with
Falcon 3.0 is acceptable even with nearly all display options at
their highest (most complex) settings.  Similar settings used
with F-15III will bring my system to its knees.  I can't imagine
a 386-16 (the recommended "minimum") providing satisfactory
performance.

Installation is very simple.  There is limited auto-detection of
system setup and installed hardware built into the install program.
Translation:  installation will "crap out" if you don't have the
minimum hard drive space (there is no provision for a partial install
-- see GRIPES later on), and warn you if installed memory or EMS
configuration isn't up to snuff.

There is plenty of documentation telling you how to edit your
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files to accomodate the demands of
F-15III, or to prepare a clean boot disk if needed.

F15III's opening graphics are similar to those in F-117A (when you
grow tired of seeing them -- and you eventually will -- you can
change a default setting that disables them).

The opening interface screen is a slight improvement over F3's War
Room.  From here, you can quickly change the sim settings, roster,
theatre of operations (PANAMA, KUWAIT, KOREA), go to a "Quick Start"
scenario equivalent to Falcon 3.0's Instant Action, or request a
mission assignment.


PLUSES
------
1. No Copy Protection - Finally, a MicroProse air combat simulator
that DOESN'T ask you to identify the F-111 Aardvark from
EGA-resolution line art or insert a "KEY DISK" into drive A.

I'm sick to DEATH of turning silly cardboard "code wheels" to
decipher secret passwords, or having to tell Chuck Yeager the
wingspan of a B-52, or playing "Guess the airframe" with a "Security
Clearance Screen."

MicroProse wins points for selling a sim with no on- or off-disk
copy protection.  Enough said.


2. Flight Model - Really not bad, considering the original
Strike Eagle and Strike Eagle II.  Especially good is the
attention paid to heavy loads, drag, and maneuverability.
You can really "feel" a big, big difference between the
fully-loaded F-15 and a clean one -- and it's a sobering
difference to people used to Falcon 3.0's nimble F-16 model.


3. Cockpit Graphics - F-15III offers attractive cockpit
graphics which are a closer rendition of a real F15 layout
vis-a-vis Falcon 3.0's F-16 cockpit.  Best of all, the
proportions of the control panels and HUD are correct
without sacrificing the functionality of the CRT and LED
displays.  Like Falcon 3.0, you can toggle between a
head-down instrument panel view, the standard view, and
a head-up "Pilot" view (similar to "Padlock" but not
fixed on a target or threat).


4. External Aircraft Graphics - The detail of the user F-15E
exterior is breathtaking when set to its most complex setting.
The landing gear is nicely articulated, with independent gear
doors.  The A-A and A-G missiles have a realistic
"drop/glide/ignite" animation sequence that was obviously
inspired by the fighter gun-camera and wing-camera footage.

You have the familiar "red-out" and "black-out" effects when
pulling negative and positive Gs.  There is also a very nice
"dark clouding" effect when flying in or around ground fires
and explosions.


5. Enemy/Friendly Logic and A.I. - It's early yet, but I can't
find any glitches in the behavior of friendlies or "bad guys."
You don't have quite the control over the enemy's ACM
capabilities as Falcon 3.0 offers.  On the other hand, if
it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You do have a "virtual" Weapons System Officer (Wizzo) in
the backseat, who will shout if he detects a SAM launch or
other threat.

A Bitchin' Betty is provided as well -- I just can't get
along with a combat sim that doesn't nag me.  She's not quite
the same as the one in Falcon 3.0 ("Pull Up... Pull Up"), but
she'll do in a pinch.


6. Built-In Frame Rate Checker - This is a gutsy move for
MicroProse, since my BIGGEST gripe about F-15III is the
sluggish frame rate vis-a-vis Falcon 3.0.  Regardless, it is
convenient having a way of checking frame rate without
having to download a patch from CompuServe (grin).


7. Modem/Head-to-Head Options - Haven't fully tested these
yet, but here are the specs:

- Both Modem & Direct Link (Null Modem) Supported.
- Supports COM1 or COM2.
- Modem Play Supports Baud Rates: 2400, 4800, 9600, 19200,
    and 38400.  Defaults to 2400.
- Offers Head-to-Head Competition, Cooperative Wingman,
    and Pilot/WSO (Front Seat-Back Seat).


8. Pixel/Bitmapped Landscape Graphics - This is a toss-up
between a plus and a gripe.  Either way, it takes some
getting used to.

I did say that F-15III's pixel/bitmapped scenery graphics
were evolutionary, not revolutionary.  If you've seen the
pixel-drawn sky/ground externals in the Commanche/Maximum
Overkill helicopter simulator, you have some idea of the
potential for this style of scenery graphics.

With adequate processor muscle and fast video, views of
passing landscape can be literally "photo-realistic" -- as
convincing as motion pictures.  To do this, you will need
video resolution a little higher than what F-15III offers
at the moment.  Even what F-15III does offer comes at the
expense of smooth frame rates.

In certain circumstances, you find polygon graphical
elements blended in with pixel/bitmapped terrain.  The
sudden appearance of polygon mountains amid pixel-drawn
plains is jarring, and detracts from the "suspension of
disbelief" that a good sim works hard to create and maintain).

It remains to be seen whether the sort of pixel scenery
graphics in F-15III or the upcoming Strike Commander are the
wave of the future or merely a passing fad.  The fact of the
matter is, you DO get a somewhat more convincing sense of
reality with the pixel landscape than you do with the
vector/polygon graphics used in Flight Simulator, Falcon 3.0,
and AOTP.

Interestingly, the manual mentions that MicroProse was actually
experimenting with ultra-high resolution SuperVGA graphics in
the early development of F-15III, but abandoned it due to
sluggish frame rates.


GRIPES
------
1. Inflexible Installation - There ought to be provisions in this
(and all flight sims) for a PARTIAL installation of features,
scenarios, and/or theaters of operation that the user is likely
to use.

Using Falcon 3.0 as an example:  Suppose you just wanted to install
the basic sim files and the Red Flag (Nellis) theater of operations.
If a partial installation was allowed, you could run flight test or
Red Flag missions to your heart's content without saddling your hard
drive with the excess baggage of Kuwait/Israel/Panama.

AND WHILE I'M ON THE SOAPBOX: The world needs a FALCONER- or
F3MAPS-type utility that would patch out Falcon 3.0's dependence
on ALL threater library/data files being present in the Falcon
directory.  As it is now, you can't delete or compress the ones you
don't want or don't use.

Lots of people would probably be happy installing only one favorite
theater and mission-set in order to enjoy the simulation without
tying up the full 10MB of hard disk space required by a complete
installation.


2. Padlock Envy - F-15III's "Pilot" and "Padlock" views are similar
in intent to Falcon 3.0's Padlock view, but do not provide any flight
information.  In Falcon's padlock, you can always check your altitude,
direction, and speed; in F-15III, all you get is the cockpit visual.
As a result, many new users will fly into the ground while tracking
an airborne threat -- and will likely shy away from using the padlock
view.


3. Canned missions - F-15III does not offer any provision for
designing your own missions.  You can't even set up a simple flight
test in a non-hostile environment.  Adding a simple "Nellis",
"Luke", or "Edwards AFB" scenario would've been a nice touch.  And
I don't think any top-of-the line ACM simulator is complete without
some support for setting up your own air-to-air or air-to-ground
exercises.


4. View Commands - F-15III lacks a one-keystroke command for looking
or panning left or right from the standard cockpit (forward) view.
To do this, you actually have to toggle from forward view to "Pilot"
view, then pan left or right with numerical keypad keys.  No one has
quite come up with a method of looking around from the cockpit as
smooth as what the folks at Velocity did with JetFighter -- you'd
think everyone else would've taken the hint.


5. Frame rate - Head to head with Falcon 3.0d or later, F-15III's
frame rate will seem sluggish, even when you cut way back on the
graphics detail.  While I have every intention of eventually
dropping a couple of grand on a 486-66 or better, it's a shame that
you can't get a really smooth frame rate on today's top-of-the line
sims with a little less processing muscle.


6. Wizzo Infatuation - Mind you, this is a CONDITIONAL gripe, but
F-15III pays a lot of attention to providing extensive support for
Weapons System Officer (the backseater in the F-15E).  You can
toggle back and forth from Guy-In-Front to Guy-In-Back during a
mission, or even set the plane on AUTO and ride through the whole
mission as the Wizzo.  Modem play also offers Wizzo/Pilot tandem
cooperation which, while it might be fun via direct link, must be
mighty confusing via modem.

The closes thing I can think of is the A-6 left-seat/right-seat
toggle in Spectrum Holobyte's Flight of the Intruder (which at
least still gave you a clear view out the front of the cockpit,
here it gives you a clear view at the back of an ejection seat.

While I appreciate the value of the Guy-In-Back as much as anyone,
I can't imagine ANYONE saying: "Oh, boy!  I wanna be the Wizzo, I
wanna be the Wizzo!"  The backseat support in F-15III makes for an
interesting diversion once in a while, but loses its novelty pretty
quickly.  Again, it would've been nice to have this as an
installable OPTION.


7. Last and Least - You still can't exit this program without
getting the familiar sales pitch for other MicroProse products.
Enough already.


FINAL WORDS
-----------
If you've got a speedy 486 and a sound card, I strongly recommend
buying F-15III.  If you're using a mid-range 386, I'd still
recommend you give F-15III a try... and hang onto your receipt.

F-15III doesn't offer quite the "depth" of Falcon 3.0, and its
lack of user-configurable missions is a major drawback.  Given
these shortcomings, it's hard to swallow the standard
installation that eats up 10MB of disk space.

On the other hand, MicroProse deserves some credit for the major
improvements it was willing to make to Strike Eagle II, even when
some of those improvements are bound to turn off some of the folks
looking for an arcade "shoot-em-up" sim.

Since most of the missions flown in the Strike Eagle F-15E are
low-level interdiction/strike missions, much attention has been
paid to ground and target visuals (nice bitmapped explosions and
fires, the "dark cloud" effect from flying through smoke, etc.).

Does F-15III define a new "cutting edge" in air combat simulators?
No, it doesn't.  Falcon 3.0's intelligent wingmen, Red Flag
training modes and mission design features, and top-of-the-line
flight models keep it at the head of the pack for now.

What F-15III really does is re-define a new middle ground, where
entertaining, PLAYABLE simulators offer realism that closely
rivals that of the "die-hard" combat sims.  For this reason, it's
easy to criticize F-15III, but it's hard not to LIKE it.