7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Best of the F-22 games, June 16, 2002
This review is from: Total Air War (CD-ROM)
Ironically, the best of the F-22 games doesn't have the term "F-22" in its title. This entry in the category of F-22 flight simulation games is the one I've been searching for. A sequel to DiD Software's "F-22: ADF", TAW has you flying in a comprehensive and dynamic campaign in any of several scenarios. Now, not only do you fly missions, but you can direct them as well from an AWACS flying control center. the F-22 in this game isn't quite as "arcadey" as the plane in Novalogic's original
"F-22, Lightning 2", and the immersive campaign (in which you're fielding radio calls for air support) seem way more believable than the canned, Hollywood dialog of Novalogic's sequel, "F-22, Raptor. Also, the ground (that is, both the terrain and any structures built on it) seem more believable than anything I saw in "iF-22" (though I've yet to try "iF-22: 5.0" or, for that matter, "F-22, Lightning 3"). Other sims aside, TAW excels with a pretty thorough tour of the F-22's insides. You start with a flight panel with three multi-function displays, each ringed with buttons. Though the flight panel isn't fully clickable as on "iF-22", and many of the buttons are redundant (the "Auto-EMCON" button that allows a computer to choose when to turn on radar or EW countermeasures, can be found on each of the three main MFD's), the interior still has a convincing feel to it, one reminescent of those in DiD's earlier classic, EF2000. While the realism of the F-22 handling is subject to debate, the DiD model captures more of the fluid dynamics of flight than iF-22 (which feels like its glued to rails, and plods on even when the machmeter says you're supersonic), yet manages to remain more of a handful than Novalogic's video-arcade F-22. Best of all, I'm finally flying a jetfighter that has satisfying jet-engine sounds. Like EF2000, the F-22 bounces up and down on the ground, convincing you that you're strapped to a large and heavy aircraft. Compared to the EF2000 of DiD's earlier games, the F-22 feels much more overpowered, though that may reflect actual differences between the two planes, and if you feel things are way to easy, you can always take one for a hop against a angry quartet of Su-27. AI seems questionable at this point. MiG-27 and Su-25 fighter-bombers (which I'd never been told were very agile) seem to handle as if they were being flown by "Blue Angels". On the other hand, a formation of Su-27's seemed pretty unimpressed even after I shredded some of them. I know the F-22 is stealthy, and with AWACS I don't need to reveal myself with radar, but you think the sight of seeing your wingman suddenly burst into flames would motivate you to do something.
In sum, I think this is a great sim in the F-22 class, but I've got a few problems. I would have preferred a more comprehensive cockpit with fewer redundant switches, something a visble step beyond EF2000. I ran this sim on my P4 2GHz and haven't and any problems yet on winXP. My Savage 4 card isn't recognized so my graphics are stuck in Direct3d mode. Strangely, the colors are bright enough to come out even on my flat screen monitor. If you're looking for a modern flight sim, are dissatisfied with rudimentary survey sims (Like Jane's USAF or IAF) or arcade-like games (like "F-22 Raptor" or "MiG-29/F-16 MRF") but are easily intimidated by comprehensive sims like "Su-27" or Jane's F/A-18, F-15 or "Longbow", this is the sim for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
This is special., March 6, 2006
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars
This review is from: Total Air War (CD-ROM)
"This one is in the same class as Janes." Hmm. That's interesting. Janes created the finest WWII prop simulation: World War II fighters...actual vets have said the flight models are better than anything else in a shooter. Janes created the finest F-15 simulator that also happens to have the best non-(or limited)-fly-by-wire jet flight model ever made for the PC. Janes created the most accurate combat helo sim to date: Longbow 2. LB2 was used as a tutorial and training aid by the National Guard at a certain point. Janes also made the best FA-18 simulator ever (though it was never debugged to the level of F-15, see the rudder issue), that incidentally was the first and still only combat flight sim with a unified, fully clickable 3D cockpit. Eight years later, ED's Blackshark will hopefully be the second such interface...but we'll have to wait and see on that. Calling TAW in the same league as Janes is quite a compliment. I know what they meant was IAF and USAF, but one should be more careful.
Total Air War was studied by both the USAF and the Royal Air Force for use as a possible training tool. US military journals reviewed its accuracy of the air combat experience and doctrine. They found the former to be incredibly well done. On the later, they found many of the strategic concepts and doctrine in the manual and narrative to be incorrect, but in a flight sim I consider that to be secondary. DiD just got some things flip flopped. The Air Force was extremely impressed with the AWACs simulation aspect of TAW, and wanted to modify it for further evaluation. Sadly, DiD went out of business soon after. If you've seen the Operation Red Flag Imax film you can see many similarities between the military's training systems and this sim. Though the unclassified depiction is simplified in that film, the basics are there.
Total Air War has been called the most elegant modern flight simulator ever made. It's hard to argue with that, but many simply take this for meaning it is oversimplified. That is not true. There is a great deal more detail and sophistication in the programming than I think people recognize. The refinement is what gives the impression of simplicity. TAW does not attempt to model most of the minutia of avionics, weapons management, and aircraft systems that would be classified in the F-22. In terms of aviation itself, it simplifies many of the duties of flying an aircraft. You do not balance the fuel, type in TACAN data, or conduct a full aircraft startup on the runway. If you think about it, modern air combat is not really concerned with that. That is the minutia the pilot for that particular aircraft has trained years to learn how to master. When he engages in an air combat exercise, these general duties are second nature and unimportant when analyzing that exercise. Total Air War is just that...the air war itself. If you want to learn how to start up an aircraft, navigate, and do everything else, then buy something like X-Plane and eventually take flight lessons.
One thing you'll notice about TAW and EF2000, they do not feel like any other flight sims you have ever used. There's a certain quality to the way they handle. It looks like real HUD camera footage from an F-16. I remember reading a review of EF2000 by a fighter pilot who concluded out of about a half dozen different sims, DiD's had the most accurate feel. Many others like Falcon 4 and Lomac get the detailed specifications correct...painstakingly so. Yet pilots have repeatedly said Falcon doesn't feel digital and snappy enough, there's still to much drift for an advanced FBW design. TAW does not have that problem. Not only that, but the flight modeling is so sophisticated that when DiD added the thrust vectoring they found this computerized control system couldn't keep up. Therefore they made it optional. That's a good thing, believe it or not, because without a real F-22's computers to determine how to use the nozzles when and by how much, you wouldn't be able to fly the F-22 here. Just like experimental thrust vectoring aircraft, you'll find your forward airspeed dropping off immediately when you use it. And just like the real deal, at high altitudes you do need to use it for large changes of pitch.
Speaking of high altitudes, I've done the equivalent of flight testing for this rendition of the Raptor. It comes as close to the best known public information we have, and makes certain assumptions about performance that suggests they did a lot of very educated cross referencing with what the various test pilots had said on it. Optimum cruise efficiency altitude is 44,000ft. Many people see that and think it's being unrealistic and "arcadey". It's not. The F-22 has a lifting body design, engines that are near-turbofan efficiency at mach speeds without reaching either full military power or afterburner, and fixed inlets that are optimized for about 1.5 times the speed of sound. It's a legit attempt to be accurate. The Raptor is unmatched when it comes to cruising speed and range, especially when carrying everything internally. That very low drag can give it a range of over 5000nm with a standard internal weapon loadout...not including refueling. At the opposite extreme, wings level flight is still pre-stall as low as 90-100kts. High AoA rudder effects are properly modeled. You get nice changes in the way your rudder and elevators affect yaw and roll under these conditions.
This is a stealth aircraft. What other consumer simulation has so intricately modeled radar cross sections, low observability, probability of detection, etc? None. The US Air Force's air combat doctrine is in the process of being redefined, restructured, and reimagined. Why? Stealth, and to a lesser extent data-linked sensor fusion...the sort of God's Eye View presentation of threat information the F-22 and F-35 MFD's relay. But this later development has been somewhat gradual in comparison to stealth for air combat, which went from zero to full-on in one generation. With low observability you can flank the enemy at high altitude, use your kinematic (speed and height) advantage to fire at a longer range, and turn away before they ever have a chance. This is fully modeled in TAW, though there are enough advanced adversaries around that you will have constant opportunities to merge into a dogfight if you wish.
Speaking of dogfights... Many people have poked fun of its weapons modeling. Huh? This was the first sim to attempt an accurate modeling of the new AIM-9X off-boresight short range air to air missile. Not only did they do a pretty good job, but it was the first and still only 9X attempt that has a proper Helmet Mounted Sight. The fire control system does not require you to padlock a target. You can move your view around and the fire control/seeker bracket cue will move around attempting to acquire an aircraft in that vicinity. Lomac has a very simple lock and blink system for Russian aircraft, but that's it. Falcon has an awful little padlocking system that doesn't lock (you move your view, you lose it). Janes FA-18 has a slightly better locking padlock system. TAW is the only attempt I'm aware of that uses a proper seeking bracket for the 9X, let alone one that is compatible with both padlocking AND panning. Other people have also poked fun of the AIM-120R's in TAW. Little do they know that a ramjet version of the AMRAAM does in fact exist. It was designed to compete for the BVRAAM competition and is thought to have been used in the Gulf War. Though as far as anyone knows it has not been fielded yet, in 1998 DiD was far ahead of the curve in modeling it here. The "R" was a logical designation for them to give it. You can even see the "boxy" shape it has in the loadout screen. The only serious complaints against the weapons I know of that are justified are rather minor. One retarded munition doesn't have an accompanying parachute. And the JDAMs come preprogrammed. You cannot reallocate a GPS target while in flight.
Total Air War's AWACs system was a first and has never even been attempted since. You do not simply train and fly combat missions. A central part of this sim is the ability to take over AWAC Tac-O duties, allocating flights to protect different assets or to intercept threatening bandets. While the air-to-ground aspect of this is limited, you have full control over the air-to-air orders going out into the battlespace. And the AI will attempt to carry them out to the best of their ability. The dynamic campaign, the first one of its kind, includes a whole war of these guys attempting to make decisions autonomously. You'll be surprised at the unpredictable results this can have. The viewing system is still one of the best ever made. You can see any action from anywhere at anytime, and you can switch it to one of several different cinema-type modes that will switch between events automatically. The ACMI is also full-featured.
So does this mean Total Air War is pretty much perfect? Of course not. A lot of people do not like the "Wall of Migs", or in this case SU-35's. Their biggest concern is that the narrative revolves around small countries that, even in the context of the storyline about them getting rich off oil, could not account for unlimited bandits they keep pumping out. This doesn't bother me. With the capabilities of the F-22, you need unlimited resourses on the other side. Otherwise there is just no competition. Just consider it a nightmare scenario.
Also, the graphics can be a little finicky for some people. Most users get the easiest results using Direct 3D, but on most modern cards and drivers you will get texture splitting lines and corrupted maps on the central MFD. There are older drivers for the ATI 9250 I was using previously that had no problems, but my new...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
