cem@cs.brown.edu (Charles E. Moylan) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr27.191000.12402@engin.umich.edu>, ldoering@caen.engin.umich.edu (Laurence Doering) writes: [In reference to Strike Jets] |> The game simplifies a lot of aspects of air combat (for playability, |> I assume), so if you're looking for an accurate simulation, stick with Falcon. I disagree. However, it is somewhat inappropriate to compare Strike Jets to Falcon as it is a case of apples and oranges. Falcon is a flight simulator that puts the player in the pilot's seat of a single F-16. Strike Jets puts the player in the role of squadron commander. You fly ALL of the jets on your side. In addition, Strike Jets is more of a "board wargame", rather than a fast-action flight simulator. In fact, Falcon and Strike Jets have no similarities whatsoever other than the subject matter (jet combat). To illustrate my point concerning the realism of Strike Jets, here is a list of topics/weapons/etc covered in Strike Jets that you will not find in Falcon: - 94 different types of jet warplanes, from the old MiG-19 up through the new YF-22A Advanced Tactical Fighter just selected for further development by the US Air Force, and even futuristic jets from the next century. Extensive performance and systems data is provided for all aircraft. (I spent two years researching to make Strike Jets!) - Up to 40 aircraft per side at a time (as opposed to one). Thus team tactics can be simulated, as well as multiple-bogey engagements, fighter escort for bombing missions, etc. Remember when the instructors scolded Tom "Maverick" Cruise for leaving his wingman in the movie "Top Gun"? Strike Jets lets you find out why that lesson is so important. - Radar homing air-to-air missiles, including the most advanced active-homing models. Tracking, launch, and guidance are all simulated. - The effects of stealth technology - You can _defend_ against incoming bombers (i.e. the computer will try to bomb one of your ground targets if you want it to) - Dedicated Electronic-Counter-Measures aircraft (i.e. active jamming jets such as the USAF EF-111A) and Air-Early-Warning radar platforms like the E-3 AWACS. Even the SR-71 spy plane is in there just for kicks. - Modern sensor equipment such as Infrared Search and Track (IRST) - first employed on the new Soviet fighters, the MiG-29 and Su-27. - Four different surface-to-air missile types and three types of anti-aircraft guns. For those of you who have downloaded the demo copy of Strike Jets - please read the documentation that's included, as it details all of the items in the list above and much more. The "simplifications" mentioned by the previous poster are included only to sift down the MASSIVE amount of data and interactions between aircraft to a manageable and playable level. For example, altitude is measured in "levels" of 1500 feet each. It simply isn't necessary to worry about whether an aircraft is at 15000 ft. or 15001 ft. In other words, Strike Jets is NOT 'more of the same' as far as Falcon is concerned. Falcon is a flight simulator, and an excellent one at that (I should know - I've played it for hours!). Strike Jets is a completely different _kind_ of game with a different scope. It's not "better" (or "worse") than Falcon, just different. By the way, I am the author of Strike Jets so the above comments may be just a _wee_ bit biased. ;^) -- Charlie Moylan (cem@cs.brown.edu) Blue Cow Software