From: BRUNO@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Tony Bruno)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: FALCON3 vs. F15III...?
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:02:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: NDSUVM1.93027.190231BRUNO
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

Oay, I'll bite. :)

The short answer to the question "Does someone who has Falcon NEED
F15 III?" is a definitive NO. But if you have a very fast machine
(486 33 MINIMUM), then owning F15 III wouldn't hurt at all.

Now for the long answer.

F15 III is, by itself, a fairly nice piece of work.  The graphics
are beautiful.  The view selection is nice, and the cockpit interiors
are superb.  The fidelity of the simulator is fairly high.  The
"authentic" flight model is along the lines of Falcon 3.01's, which is
to say better than most, but it still lacks realism.   The modeling
of aircraft systems is outstanding  - you honestly feel after reading
the manual and flying a few quick sorties that you KNOW an F-15E's
systems.  All this, combined with a visual virtual enviornment
unequaled in the PC flight sim world, should have made this sim an instant
classic.

Two things prevent this from being the case.

1.  FRAME RATE -- The beautiful world of F15 III does not come without
    an expensive hardware cost.  I run the sim on a Gateway 486 33
    Local Buswith ATI Graphics Ultra Pro...and I have to reduce world
    and aircraft detail to LOW in order to get the seamless frame rate
    of Falcon 3.01.  (Mind you, even at LOW, the detail is OUTSTANDING.
    Much nicer than anything else out there.  And the virtual sky,

    repleat with scattered and broken layers, has to be seen to be
    appreciated.)For me, the frame rate is fine.  But...

    But I have seen this run on a Gateway 486V66 (Local Bus) and a
    386SX20 with a Diamond Speedstar card.  We still needed to reduce
    detail levels on the 66 to get really seamless performance -- NOT
    a good sign.  And on the 386SX 20, with graphics reduced to LOW,
    the game was unplayable.

    This is a serious flaw in this simulator.  It seems that Microprose
    forgot that they were simulating FLIGHT, not just an aircraft.
    With the abysmal frame rate on a 386SX (and reported on 386DX 33s)
the sensation of FLYING will never occur.  What a shame.


    The second major flaw IS...

  2. UNREALISTIC SIMULATION CHOICES.

    What does THAT mean?  It means no wingmen.  It means being
    awarded "points" after a mission.  It means a campaign that
    is little more than loosly linked together missions.
    And it means having a "death ray" Vulcan cannon.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    I think my regular Falcon 3.01 wingman said it best:  "You
    know, in F-15, they push you getting as many targets and as
    many points as possible.  That way you get medals and promotions
    and crap.  In Falcon, I'm so worried about getting my guys in
    and out alive during a campaign that I just don't CARE about
    that garbage.  I feel like I'm *in* the war."

    Thanks, Tigger, for putting it right.

    It is the ATTITUDE of the programs towards the warfare you
    are involved in that makes the big difference.  As Tigger put
    it, F15 III glories in its destruction, repleat with
    magnificent explosion graphics.  In Falcon 3.01, you are
    a squadron commander doing a mission.   Anything else is
    incidental.  The latter obviously appeals to me; your mileage
    may vary.  But it is this "nintendo" attitude towards the simulation
    that nearly cripples it.  If it appeals to you, great.  If not,
you are forewarned.

Gee, that got me so worked up, I feel like I have to blow something up
now. :):):)

Back to the question, now.  Will having Falcon help you with F15?
Absolutely.  I was using the authentic radar and TEWS on F15 within
minutes.  (Then again, I'm partial to the HFR model in Falcon 3.01,
so it was no strain).  You'll also find that many of the rules any
good Falcon jock has picked up will help keep your buns out of a
burner in an Eagle.  And the padlock view -- bane and savior of many
Falcon jock -- has been incoperated...more or less.

But do you, as a sightseer, NEED F15 III?

Let me answer this way:  When I fly Falcon, my mind is on getting into
target, scanning my radar, and watching my six, all the while thinking
"Gee, I wonder how this looks in a real F-16?"  When I fly F15 III,
I usually look out of the cockpit and pan my head around, watching the
clouds and the cities go by.  I usually find myself thinking of this
or that Cross Country my wife and I have flown in a rented Skyhawk.
I watch the sun set and the lights come up in the cities.
At any moment I expect to hear ATC rasp into my headset, and I get to
thinking about checking my DG and scanning for traffic and...

*sigh*  It gets the juices flowing, thats for sure.

Or, from a much more impartial source, came this observation:
I was turning base on a dusk landing at my home airbase.  The runway
lights were on, and the clouds were still visible in the fading light.
My wife stepped up behind me as I slid the plane down short final and
planted the mains just past the numbers.

"Wow," she said, "that looks really nice."

"Thanks," I replied, easing off onto the taxiway.  "It was a good
landing, wasn't it?"

"Huh?  Oh, yeah, that was nice.  I was talking about the graphics.
That nearly looked real."  She patted my back and smiled.  "So,
when are you getting your BFR again?"

And that, dear readers, says a lot more than I could in twice this space.
:):):)

Tony Bruno
PP-ASEL
Reviewing for his Biannual Flight Review
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games