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.